Top

Gepubliceerd in:

28-07-2015 | Original Article

Joint action changes valence-based action coding in an implicit attitude task

Auteurs: Anna Stenzel, Roman Liepelt

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2016

Abstract

Recent studies suggest that co-acting with another person induces a problem to discriminate between one’s own and the other’s actions which can be resolved by emphasizing action features that discriminate best between both persons’ actions in a given task context. Mostly, overt action features like the spatial position of responses have been suggested as discriminating action features. In the present study, we tested whether non-externally perceivable, covert action features can be used for resolving the action discrimination problem during joint action. Therefore, we compared task performance between a joint and an individual version of the Go/Nogo Association Task, a task requiring the association of a valence to the response. We found a larger implicit attitude effect in the joint than in the individual setting for person-related (self and other, Experiment 1) as well as for non-person-related attitude objects (fruit and insect, Experiment 2) suggesting that the weight of valence information is increased in the internal coding of responses when valence discriminates between both responses. In contrast, we found a smaller implicit attitude effect in a person present setting than an individual setting (Experiment 3) indicating that the enhanced implicit attitude effect observed in the joint settings of Experiments 1 and 2 is not due to social facilitation. Our results suggest that action discrimination during joint action can rely on covert action features. The results are in line with the referential coding account, and specify the kind of action features that are represented when sharing a task with another person.

vorige artikel Investigating the effectiveness of working memory training in the context of Personality Systems Interaction theory

Aiello, J. R., & Douthitt, E. A. (2001). Social facilitation theory from Triplett to electronic performance monitoring. Group Dynamics, 5, 163–180.CrossRef

Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 371–385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., Prinz, W., & Knoblich, G. (2008). Action co-representation: the joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience, 3, 410–420.CrossRefPubMed

Beckers, T., De Houwer, J., & Eelen, P. (2002). Automatic integration of non-perceptual action effect features: the case of the associative affective Simon effect. Psychological Research, 66, 166–173.CrossRefPubMed

Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242–261.CrossRef

Bluemke, M., & Friese, M. (2011). On the validity of idiographic and generic self-concept implicit association tests: a core-concept model. European Journal of Personality, 26, 515–528.CrossRef

De Houwer, J. (2001). A structural and process analysis of the implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 443–451.CrossRef

De Houwer, J. (2003). A structural analysis of indirect measures of attitudes. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 219–244). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dittrich, K., Rothe, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2012) Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 911–929.CrossRef

Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K. C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736.CrossRef

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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.

Eder, A. B., Rothermund, K., & De Houwer, J. (2013). Affective compatibility between stimuli and response goals: a primer for a new implicit measure of attitudes. PLoS ONE, 8, e79210.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Eder, A. B., Rothermund, K., De Houwer, J., & Hommel, B. (2014). Directive and incentive functions of affective action consequences: an ideomotor approach. Psychological Research, 1–20.

Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75–109). New York: Academic Press.

Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603–637.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022–1038.CrossRefPubMed

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefPubMed

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, 348–355.CrossRefPubMed

Guerin, B. (1986). Mere presence effects in humans: a review. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 38–77.CrossRef

Han, H. A., Czellar, S., Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2010). Malleability of attitudes or malleability of the IAT? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 286–298.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189–202.CrossRefPubMed

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, 849–878.CrossRefPubMed

Kleiner, M., Brainard, D., & Pelli, D. (2007). What’s new in Psychtoolbox-3? Perception, 36, ECVP Abstract Supplement.

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefPubMed

Liepelt, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). How two share two tasks: evidence of a social psychological refractory period effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 387–396.CrossRefPubMed

Liepelt, R., Stenzel, A., & Lappe, M. (2012). Specifying social cognitive processes with a social dual-task paradigm. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., & Fischer, R. (2013). Effects of feature integration in a hands-crossed version of the social Simon paradigm. Psychological Research, 77, 240–248.CrossRefPubMed

Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research, 75, 366–375.CrossRefPubMed

Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D., & Sinclair, S. (2001). Social influence effects on automatic racial prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 842–855.CrossRefPubMed

Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: a basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.CrossRefPubMed

Mitchell, J. P., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Contextual variations in implicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 455–469.CrossRef

Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition, 19, 625–666.CrossRef

Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2009). Implicit and explicit measures of attitudes: the perspective of the MODE model. In R. E. Petty, R. H. Fazio, & P. Briñol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 19–63). New York: Psychology Press.

Philipp, A. M., & Prinz, W. (2010). Evidence for a role of the responding agent in the joint compatibility effect. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2159–2171.CrossRefPubMed

Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 139–165.CrossRef

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one‘s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.CrossRefPubMed

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: co-representing stimulus–response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1234–1246.

Sellaro, R., Dolk, T., Colzato, L., Liepelt, R., & Hommel, B. (2015). Referential coding does not rely on location features: evidence for a non-spatial joint Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 186–195.PubMed

Simon, J. R., Hinrichs, J. V., & Craft, J. L. (1970). Auditory SR compatibility: reaction time as a function of ear-hand correspondence and ear-response-location correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 86, 97–102.CrossRefPubMed

Valiente, C., Cantero, D., Vázquez, C., Sanchez, Á., Provencio, M., & Espinosa, R. (2011). Implicit and explicit self-esteem discrepancies in paranoia and depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 120, 691–699.CrossRefPubMed

Vesper, C., van der Wel, R. P., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Making oneself predictable: reduced temporal variability facilitates joint action coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 517–530.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Welsh, T. N., Higgins, L., Ray, M., & Weeks, D. J. (2007). Seeing vs. believing: is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? Human Movement Science, 26, 853–866.CrossRefPubMed

Wenke, D., Atmaca, S., Holländer, A., Liepelt, R., Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2011). What is shared in joint action? Issues of co-representation, response conflict, and agent identification. The Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 147–172.CrossRef

Zajonc, R. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Joint action changes valence-based action coding in an implicit attitude task
Auteurs: Anna Stenzel
Roman Liepelt
Publicatiedatum: 28-07-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2016
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0684-7

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2016

The differential effects of fluency due to repetition and fluency due to color contrast on judgments of truth

Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching

The time-course of distractor processing in auditory spatial negative priming

Investigating the effectiveness of working memory training in the context of Personality Systems Interaction theory

Reading during the composition of multi-sentence texts: an eye-movement study

The processing of visual and auditory information for reaching movements