Top

Gepubliceerd in:

15-02-2020 | Review

Embodied self-other overlap in romantic love: a review and integrative perspective

Auteurs: Virginie Quintard, Stéphane Jouffe, Bernhard Hommel, Cédric A. Bouquet

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2021

Abstract

Romantic love has long intrigued scientists in various disciplines. Social-cognitive research has provided ample evidence for overlapping mental representations of self and romantic partner. This overlap between self and romantic partner would contribute to the experience of love and has been found to be a predictor of relationship quality. Self-partner overlap has been mainly documented at the level of conceptual or narrative self, with studies showing confusion between one’s own and partner’s identity aspects, perspectives, and outcomes. But the self is not restricted to abstract, conceptual representations but also involves body-related representations, which, research has revealed, are linked to social-cognitive processes. In this article, we review the emerging evidence that romantic love involves not only a blurring of conceptual selves but also a reduction of the distinction between self and romantic partner at a bodily level. We discuss the potential function(s) of self-other overlap in romantic relationship at the level of body-related representations and consider possible mechanisms. We conclude with possible future directions to further investigate how romantic love engages embodied self-other representations involved in social interactions.

volgende artikel Human vs. machine: the psychological and behavioral consequences of being compared to an outperforming artificial agent

Such an effect might occur because, as suggested by Hommel and Colzato (2015), a core aspect of interpersonal trust would be the ability to predict the behavior of the trustee.

Note that the JSE involves processes that go beyond the direct action–perception links that trigger automatic imitation, since this phenomenon is still present even when the two actors cannot see each other (Quintard et al., 2018; Vlainic, Liepelt, Colzato, Prinz, & Hommel, 2010).

The original action/task co-representation account proposed by Sebanz et al. (2003) explains the JSE by the social dimension of joint action, such that individuals automatically represent the other’s task. This interpretation however fails to account for the occurrence of similar effects in non-social contexts (Dolk et al., 2013). The referential coding account applies to any event (be it social or not) and thus can explain why JSE occurs in non-social contexts (Dolk et al., 2014).

More precisely, it is assumed that the discrimination problem can be resolved by emphasizing feature codes that discriminate between (relevant) self-related representations and (irrelevant) other-related ones. In the context of the joint Simon task, such a feature is the spatial response location (left or right). Participants would thus give more weight to the spatial dimension, allowing to differentiate the alternative representations of self and other. Giving more weight to the spatial dimension reintroduces effects of spatial correspondence between response and stimuli, hence the JSE (Dolk et al., 2014).

This echoes with Burris and Rempel’s (2008) work, which is built on the idea that the physical body plays a crucial role in psychological boundaries between self and not-self. Accordingly, a reduction of self-partner boundaries in romantic relationships should lead romantically involved individuals to be less focused on themselves as separate entities, and thus to feel less constrained by their physical body. In line with this, Burris and Rempel (2008) found that romantically involved individuals, compared to single individuals, reported to feel less separate and constrained by their physical body. Partnered individuals also demonstrated less sensitivity to bodily threat, suggesting that romantic love decreases the salience of the bodily domain of self-boundary. Thus, being in love affects how people process their own body in a way that is compatible with an embodied self-other overlap.

Acevedo, B. P., Aron, A., Fisher, H. E., & Brown, L. L. (2012). Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq092.CrossRefPubMed

Acitelli, L. K., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of marriage: How important are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407593101001.CrossRef

Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.4.939.CrossRef

Akbari Chermahini, S., & Hommel, B. (2010). The (b)link between creativity and dopamine: Spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking. Cognition, 115, 458–465.CrossRef

Akbari Chermahini, S., & Hommel, B. (2012). More creative through positive mood? Not everyone! Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 319.CrossRef

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction. New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publishers.

Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal Relationships, 3(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1996.tb00103.x.CrossRef

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Norman, C. (2004). Self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships and beyond. In M. B. Brewer & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Self and social identity. (pp. 99–123). Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2004-00232-005&lang=fr&site=ehost-live.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596.CrossRef

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241.CrossRef

Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, motivation, and emotion systems associated with early-stage intense romantic love. Journal of Neurophysiology, 94(1), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00838.2004.CrossRefPubMed

Aron, A., Norman, C. C., Aron, E. N., McKenna, C., & Heyman, R. E. (2000). Couples’ shared participation in novel and arousing activities and experienced relationship quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.273.CrossRefPubMed

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1102–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1102.CrossRef

Aron, A., Steele, J. L., Kashdan, T. B., & Perez, M. (2006). When similars do not attract: Tests of a prediction from the self-expansion model. Personal Relationships, 13(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00125.x.CrossRef

Aron, A. P., Mashek, D. J., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Closeness as including other in the self. Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 27–41). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Avenanti, A., Sirigu, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2010). Racial bias reduces empathic sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain. Current Biology, 20(11), 1018–1022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.03.071.CrossRefPubMed

Baas, M., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of research on mood and creativity: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus? Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.CrossRef

Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(4), 716–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01115.x.CrossRefPubMed

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport, 11(17), 3829–3834.CrossRef

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love. NeuroImage, 21(3), 1155–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2003.11.003.CrossRefPubMed

Bastiaansen, J. A. C. J., Thioux, M., & Keysers, C. (2009). Evidence for mirror systems in emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1528), 2391–2404. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0058.CrossRef

Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 229–237.CrossRef

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. H. (1978). Interpersonal attraction. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bolt, N. K., Poncelet, E. M., Schultz, B. G., & Loehr, J. D. (2016). Mutual coordination strengthens the sense of joint agency in cooperative joint action. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 46, 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2016.10.001.CrossRef

Bonnin, C. A., Gaonac’h, D., & Bouquet, C. A. (2011). Adjustments of task-set control processes: Effect of task switch frequency on task-mixing and task-switching costs. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23(8), 985–997. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.594435.CrossRef

Branand, B., Mashek, D., & Aron, A. (2019). Pair-bonding as inclusion of other in the self: A literature review. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2399. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02399.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Brass, M., & Heyes, C. (2005). Imitation: Is cognitive neuroscience solving the correspondence problem? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.08.007.CrossRefPubMed

Brass, M., Ruby, P., & Spengler, S. (2009). Inhibition of imitative behaviour and social cognition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1528), 2359–2367. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0066.CrossRef

Brown, E. C., & Brüne, M. (2012). The role of prediction in social neuroscience. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00147.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Burris, C. T., & Rempel, J. K. (2008). Me, myself, and us: Salient self-threats and relational connections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 944–961. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012069.CrossRefPubMed

Byrne, D., & Blaylock, B. (1963). Similarity and assumed similarity of attitudes between husbands and wives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(6), 636–640. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045531.CrossRef

Cardini, F., Fatemi-ghomi, N., Gajewska-knapik, K., Gooch, V., & Aspell, J. E. (2019). Enlarged representation of peripersonal space in pregnancy. Scientific Reports, 9, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45224-w.CrossRef

Chartrand, T. L., & Lakin, J. L. (2013). The antecedents and consequences of human behavioral mimicry. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 285–308. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754.CrossRefPubMed

Cheng, Y., Chen, C., Lin, C.-P., Chou, K.-H., & Decety, J. (2010). Love hurts: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 51(2), 923–929. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.02.047.CrossRefPubMed

Colzato, L. S., Waszak, F., Nieuwenhuis, S., Posthuma, D., & Hommel, B. (2010). The flexible mind is associated with the catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) Val158Met polymorphism: Evidence for a role of dopamine in the control of task-switching. Neuropsychologia, 48(9), 2764–2768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2010.04.023.CrossRefPubMed

Colzato, L. S., van den Wildenberg, W., & Hommel, B. (2013). Increasing self-other integration through divergent thinking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 1011–1016.CrossRef

Cook, R., Bird, G., Catmur, C., Press, C., & Heyes, C. (2014). Mirror neurons: From origin to function. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13000903.CrossRef

Cools, R., & D’Esposito, M. (2011). Inverted-U–shaped dopamine actions on human working memory and cognitive control. Biological Psychiatry, 69(12), e113–e125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.03.028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

de Vignemont, F. (2014). Shared body representations and the « Whose » system. Neuropsychologia, 55, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.08.013.CrossRefPubMed

de Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: How, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.008.CrossRefPubMed

de Fockert, J. W., Caparos, S., Linnell, K. J., & Davidoff, J. (2011). Reduced distractibility in a remote culture. PLoS ONE, 6(10), e26337. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0026337.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2006). A social-neuroscience perspective on empathy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(2), 54–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2006.00406.x.CrossRef

Dieguez, S., & Lopez, C. (2017). The bodily self: Insights from clinical and experimental research. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, 60(3), 198–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.2016.04.007.CrossRefPubMed

Doerrfeld, A., Sebanz, N., & Shiffrar, M. (2012). Expecting to lift a box together makes the load look lighter. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(4), 467–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-011-0398-4.CrossRefPubMed

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 974.CrossRef

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon Effect. A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031031.CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G. (2006). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: The costs and benefits of reduced maintenance capability. Brain and Cognition, 60(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2005.08.003.CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates cognitive control: reduced perseveration at the cost of increased distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.343.CrossRefPubMed

Dreisbach, G., Müller, J., Goschke, T., Strobel, A., Schulze, K., Lesch, K.-P., et al. (2005). Dopamine and cognitive control: The influence of spontaneous eyeblink rate and dopamine gene polymorphisms on perseveration and distractibility. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 483–490.CrossRef

Farmer, H., & Tsakiris, M. (2012). The bodily social self: A link between phenomenal and narrative selfhood. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0092-5.CrossRef

Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.263.CrossRefPubMed

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic love: A mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 361(1476), 2173–2186. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1938.CrossRef

Fisher, H., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., Strong, G., & Brown, L. L. (2002). The neural mechanisms of mate choice: A hypothesis. Neuro Endocrinology Letters, 23(Suppl 4), 92–97.PubMed

Fiske, A. P. (2004). Four modes of constituting relationships: Consubstantial assimilation; space, magnitude, time, and force; concrete procedures; abstract symbolism. Relational models theory (pp. 77–162). London: Psychology Press.

Fivecoat, H. C., Tomlinson, J. M., Aron, A., & Caprariello, P. A. (2015). Partner support for individual self-expansion opportunities: Effects on relationship satisfaction in long-term couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32(3), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514533767.CrossRef

Förster, J. (2009). How love and sex can influence recognition of faces and words: A processing model account. European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.656.CrossRef

Förster, J., Özelsel, A., & Epstude, K. (2010). How love and lust change people’s perception of relationship partners. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.009.CrossRef

Gallace, A., & Spence, C. (2010). The science of interpersonal touch: An overview. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(2), 246–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.004.CrossRef

Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: Implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5.CrossRefPubMed

Gallese, V. (2003). The roots of empathy: The shared manifold hypothesis and the neural basis of intersubjectivity. Psychopathology, 36(4), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1159/000072786.CrossRefPubMed

Gallese, V. (2014). Bodily selves in relation: Embodied simulation as second person perspective on intersubjectivity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20130177. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0177.CrossRef

Giesen, C., Löhl, V., Rothermund, K., & Koranyi, N. (2018). Intimacy effects on action regulation: Retrieval of observationally acquired stimulus-response bindings in romantically involved interaction partners versus strangers. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1369. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01369.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Goldman, A., & de Vignemont, F. (2009). Is social cognition embodied? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.01.007.CrossRefPubMed

Goschke, T. (2003). Voluntary action and cognitive control from a cognitive neuroscience perspective. In S. Maasen, W. Prinz, & G. Roth (Eds.), Voluntary action: Brains, minds, and sociality (pp. 49–85). New York: Oxford University Press.

Greenwald, A. G. (1970). Sensory feedback mechanisms in performance control: With special reference to the ideo-motor mechanism. Psychological Review, 77, 73–99.CrossRef

Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114(3), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.008.CrossRefPubMed

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Haggard, P., & Chambon, V. (2012). Sense of agency. Current Biology, 22(10), R390–R392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.040.CrossRefPubMed

Hale, J., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2016). Cognitive mechanisms for responding to mimicry from others. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 63, 106–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.02.006.CrossRefPubMed

Hardwick, R. M., Caspers, S., Eickhoff, S. B., & Swinnen, S. P. (2018). Neural correlates of action: Comparing meta-analyses of imagery, observation, and execution. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 94, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.08.003.CrossRefPubMed

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1987). Passionate love/sexual desire: Can the same paradigm explain both? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16(3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01541613.CrossRefPubMed

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (2005). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Hein, G., & Singer, T. (2008). I feel how you feel but not always: The empathic brain and its modulation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 18(2), 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2008.07.012.CrossRefPubMed

Heyes, C. (2011). Automatic imitation. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 463–483. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022288.CrossRefPubMed

Heyes, C. (2018). Empathy is not in our genes. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 95, 499–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.11.001.CrossRefPubMed

Heyes, C. M., & Ray, E. D. (2000). What is the significance of imitation in animals? Advances in the Study of Behavior, 29, 215–245.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(3), 546–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755643.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2015). Between persistence and flexibility: The Yin and Yang of action control. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (Vol. 2, pp. 33–67). New York: Elsevier.

Hommel, B. (2018). Representing oneself and others: An event-coding approach. Experimental Psychology, 65, 323–331.CrossRef

Hommel, B. (2019). Theory of event coding (TEC) V20: Representing and controlling perception and action. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(7), 2139–2154. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01779-4.CrossRef

Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2015). Interpersonal trust: An event-based account. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1399.PubMedPubMedCentral

Hommel, B., & Colzato, L. S. (2017). The social transmission of metacontrol policies: Mechanisms underlying the interpersonal transfer of persistence and flexibility. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 43–58.CrossRef

Hommel, B., & Wiers, R. W. (2017). Towards a unitary approach to human action control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(12), 940–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.09.009.CrossRefPubMed

Hommel, B., Lippelt, D. P., Gurbuz, E., & Pfister, R. (2017). Contributions of expected sensory and affective action effects to action selection and performance: Evidence from forced- and free-choice tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(3), 821–827. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1139-x.CrossRef

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–937. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103.CrossRef

Iacoboni, M. (2009). Imitation, empathy, and mirror neurons. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 653–670. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163604.CrossRefPubMed

James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: Macmillan.

Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31(2), 149–155. https://doi.org/10.2307/3773618.CrossRef

Karremans, J. C., & Verwijmeren, T. (2008). Mimicking attractive opposite-sex others: The role of romantic relationship status. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 939–950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316693.CrossRef

Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2009). Expanding the mirror: Vicarious activity for actions, emotions, and sensations. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19(6), 666–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2009.10.006.CrossRefPubMed

Keysers, C., & Perrett, D. I. (2004). Demystifying social cognition: A Hebbian perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 501–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.09.005.CrossRefPubMed

Kim, D., & Hommel, B. (2019). Social cognition 2.0: Towards mechanistic theorizing. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2643.CrossRef

Klempova, B., & Liepelt, R. (2016). Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the Joint Simon effect. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 80, 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0664-y.CrossRefPubMed

LaFrance, M. (1979). Nonverbal synchrony and rapport: Analysis by the cross-lag panel technique. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42(1), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033875.CrossRef

LaFrance, M., & Broadbent, M. (1976). Group rapport: Posture sharing as a nonverbal indicator. Group & Organization Studies, 1(3), 328–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117600100307.CrossRef

Lakin, J. L., & Chartrand, T. L. (2003). Using nonconscious behavioral mimicry to create affiliation and rapport. Psychological Science, 14(4), 334–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.14481.CrossRefPubMed

Le, B., Dove, N. L., Agnew, C. R., Korn, M. S., & Mutso, A. A. (2010). Predicting nonmarital romantic relationship dissolution: A meta-analytic synthesis. Personal Relationships, 17(3), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2010.01285.x.CrossRef

Liepelt, R., Klempova, B., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Ragert, P., Nitsche, M., et al. (2016). The medial frontal cortex mediates self-other discrimination in the Joint Simon task: A tDCS study. Journal of Psychophysiology, 30, 87–101.CrossRef

Liepelt, R., von Cramon, D. Y., & Brass, M. (2008). What is matched in direct matching? Intention attribution modulates motor priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34, 578–591.PubMed

Lindner, I., Echterhoff, G., Davidson, P. S. R., & Brand, M. (2010). Observation inflation: Your actions become mine. Psychological Science, 21, 1291–1299.CrossRef

Lockwood, P., Dolderman, D., Sadler, P., & Gerchak, E. (2004). Feeling better about doing worse: Social comparisons within romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.1.80.CrossRefPubMed

Maister, L., Cardini, F., Zamariola, G., Serino, A., & Tsakiris, M. (2015). Your place or mine: Shared sensory experiences elicit a remapping of peripersonal space. Neuropsychologia, 70, 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.10.027.CrossRefPubMed

Maister, L., & Tsakiris, M. (2016). Intimate imitation: Automatic motor imitation in romantic relationships. Cognition, 152, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.018.CrossRefPubMed

Mashek, D. J., Aron, A., & Boncimino, M. (2003). Confusions of self with close others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250220.CrossRefPubMed

Maslow, A. H. (1967). A theory of metamotivation: The biological rooting of the value-life. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 7(2), 93–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/002216786700700201.CrossRef

Mattingly, B. A., Lewandowski, G. W., & McIntyre, K. P. (2014). “You make me a better/worse person”: A two-dimensional model of relationship self-change. Personal Relationships, 21(1), 176–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12025.CrossRef

Mekern, V. N., Sjoerds, Z., & Hommel, B. (2019). How metacontrol biases and adaptivity impact performance in cognitive search tasks. Cognition, 182, 251–259.CrossRef

Milward, S. J., & Sebanz, N. (2016). Mechanisms and development of self-other distinction in dyads and groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 371(1686), 20150076. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0076.CrossRef

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Griffin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 563–581.CrossRef

Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316, 1002–1005. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136930.CrossRefPubMed

O’Leary, K. D., Acevedo, B. P., Aron, A., Huddy, L., & Mashek, D. (2012). Is long-term love more than a rare phenomenon? If so, what are its correlates? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 241–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611417015.CrossRef

Ortigue, S., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., Hamilton, A. F. D. C., & Grafton, S. T. (2007). The neural basis of love as a subliminal prime: An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(7), 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1218.CrossRefPubMed

Ortigue, S., Patel, N., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., & Grafton, S. T. (2010). Implicit priming of embodied cognition on human motor intention understanding in dyads in love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(7), 1001–1015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510378861.CrossRef

Pacherie, E. (2011). The phenomenology of joint action: Self-agency versus joint agency. In A. Seemann (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments in psychology, philosophy of mind, and social neuroscience. (pp. 343–389). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2012-01242-014&lang=fr&site=ehost-live

Pacherie, E. (2014). How does it feel to act together? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 13(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-013-9329-8.CrossRef

Press, C., Heyes, C., Haggard, P., & Eimer, M. (2008). Visuotactile learning and body representation: An ERP study with rubber hands and rubber objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(2), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20022.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Quintard, V., Jouffre, S., Croizet, J.-C., & Bouquet, C. A. (2018). The influence of passionate love on self-other discrimination during joint action. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0981-z.CrossRefPubMed

Reis, H. T., Lemay, E. P., & Finkenauer, C. (2017). Toward understanding understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(3), e12308. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12308.CrossRef

Reissman, C., Aron, A., & Bergen, M. R. (1993). Shared activities and marital satisfaction: Causal direction and self-expansion versus boredom. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(2), 243–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540759301000205.CrossRef

Ritter, S. M., Karremans, J. C., & van Schie, H. T. (2010). The role of self-regulation in derogating attractive alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 631–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.02.010.CrossRef

Ruissen, M. I., & de Bruijn, E. R. A. (2015). Is it me or is it you? Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of oxytocin administration on self-other integration during joint task performance. Cortex, 70, 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.017.CrossRefPubMed

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x.CrossRef

Sahaï, A., Desantis, A., Grynszpan, O., Pacherie, E., & Berberian, B. (2019). Action co-representation and the sense of agency during a joint Simon task: Comparing human and machine co-agents. Consciousness and Cognition: An International Journal, 67, 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.11.008.CrossRef

Schechtman, M. (2011). The narrative self. In S. Gallagher (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the self (pp. 394–416). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Scheele, D., Wille, A., Kendrick, K. M., Stoffel-Wagner, B., Becker, B., Güntürkün, O., Hurlemann, R. (2013). Oxytocin enhances brain reward system responses in men viewing the face of their female partner. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(50), 20308–20313. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1314190110.

Schindler, I., Paech, J., & Löwenbrück, F. (2015). Linking admiration and adoration to self-expansion: Different ways to enhance one’s potential. Cognition & Emotion, 29(2), 292–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2014.903230.CrossRef

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88(3), B11–B21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X.CrossRefPubMed

Sellaro, R., Hommel, B., de Kwaadsteniet, E. W., van de Groep, S., & Colzato, L. S. (2014). Increasing interpersonal trust through divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2014-43174-001&lang=fr&site=ehost-live.

Sened, H., Lavidor, M., Lazarus, G., Bar-Kalifa, E., Rafaeli, E., & Ickes, W. (2017). Empathic accuracy and relationship satisfaction: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Psychology, 31(6), 742–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000320.CrossRefPubMed

Sharon-David, H., Mizrahi, M., Rinott, M., Golland, Y., & Birnbaum, G. E. (2018). Being on the same wavelength: Behavioral synchrony between partners and its influence on the experience of intimacy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 36(10), 2983–3008. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407518809478.CrossRef

Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.CrossRef

Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J., Kaube, H., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2004). Empathy for pain involves the affective but not sensory components of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1157–1162. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1093535.CrossRefPubMed

Singer, T., Seymour, B., O’Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439(7075), 466–469. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04271.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Smith, E. R. (2008). An embodied account of self-other "overlap" and its effects. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 148–159). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805837.007.

Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental representations of self, in-group, and partner: Further response time evidence and a connectionist model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(7), 873–882. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025007009.CrossRef

Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you’re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578.CrossRefPubMed

Smith, P. K., Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.005.CrossRef

Stel, M., & Vonk, R. (2010). Mimicry in social interaction: Benefits for mimickers, mimickees, and their interaction. British Journal of Psychology, 101(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712609X465424.CrossRefPubMed

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119.CrossRef

Tajadura-Jiménez, A., & Tsakiris, M. (2014). Balancing the “inner” and the “outer” self: Interoceptive sensitivity modulates self-other boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 736–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033171.supp.CrossRef

Teneggi, C., Canzoneri, E., di Pellegrino, G., & Serino, A. (2013). Social modulation of peripersonal space boundaries. Current Biology, 23, 406–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.043.CrossRefPubMed

Tennov, D. (1979). Love and limerence: The experience of being in love. New York: Stein and Day.

Vacharkulksemsuk, T., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2012). Strangers in sync: Achieving embodied rapport through shared movements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 399–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.015.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

van der Wel, R. P. R. D., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2012). The sense of agency during skill learning in individuals and dyads. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1267–1279.CrossRef

van Steenbergen, H., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2010). In the mood for adaptation: How affect regulates conflict-driven control. Psychological Science, 21, 1629–1634.CrossRef

van Steenbergen, H., Langeslag, S. J. E., Band, G. P. H., & Hommel, B. (2014). Reduced cognitive control in passionate lovers. Motivation and Emotion, 38(3), 444-450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-013-9380-3.CrossRef

Vlainic, E., Liepelt, R., Colzato, L. S., Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (2010). The virtual co-actor: The social Simon effect does not rely on online feedback from the other. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Walum, H., & Young, L. J. (2018). The neural mechanisms and circuitry of the pair bond. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 19(11), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41583-018-0072-6.CrossRefPubMed

Wang, Y., & Hamilton, A. F. D. C. (2012). Social top-down response modulation (STORM): A model of the control of mimicry in social interaction. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00153.CrossRef

Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131(3), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.3.460.CrossRefPubMed

Zajonc, R. B., Adelmann, P. K., Murphy, S. T., & Niedenthal, P. M. (1987). Convergence in the physical appearance of spouses. Motivation and Emotion, 11(4), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992848.CrossRef

Zeki, S., & Romaya, J. P. (2010). The brain reaction to viewing faces of opposite- and same-sex romantic partners. PLoS ONE, 5(12), e15802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0015802.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Embodied self-other overlap in romantic love: a review and integrative perspective
Auteurs: Virginie Quintard
Stéphane Jouffe
Bernhard Hommel
Cédric A. Bouquet
Publicatiedatum: 15-02-2020
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01301-8

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2021

Power of instructions for task implementation: superiority of explicitly instructed over inferred rules

Attention allocation in pilots based on climbing and circling mission behavior

Affective states influence emotion perception: evidence for emotional egocentricity

Presuppositions of determiners are immediately used to disambiguate utterance meaning: A mouse-tracking study on the German language

Perceptual information supports transfer of learning in coordinated rhythmic movement

Induced affective states do not modulate effort avoidance