Top

Gepubliceerd in:

06-11-2017 | Original Article

Joint cognition and the role of human agency in random number choices

Auteurs: Yukio Maehara, Satoru Saito, John Nicholas Towse

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2019

Abstract

Joint cognition refers to the mental systems that support group performance when carrying out a shared, or jointly owned task. We focused here on understanding the social configurations that underpin key phenomena in joint cognition, in particular, whether individual cognition in task-sharing environments is mostly shaped by social factors or not. To this end, we investigated, first and mainly, whether human presence is necessary for the creation of joint performance; second and separately, whether prior experience of task sharing has an adaptive influence on subsequent individual choices; and third and additionally, whether individual differences in a social trait mediate joint performance. We describe an experiment in which participants combined with another human or a computer as they attempted to generate a paired sequence that was as random as possible. First, we found little difference in joint performance with regard to whether a human or a computer was the co-participant, except for immediate repetitive response. Second, we found evidence for choice adaptation, but only under the lower time pressure. Third, we replicated previous research in which no systematic link was established between social desirability and joint performance. We conclude that joint cognition phenomena may be rooted primarily in turn-taking configurations rather than in social dynamics per se.

vorige artikel Humans show a higher preference for stimuli that are predictive relative to those that are predictable

volgende artikel Set size influences the relationship between ANS acuity and math performance: a result of different strategies?

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

A two-way mixed ANOVA for individual immediate repetition with task order (before and after joint conditions; between-participants) and response pace (slow and fast; within-participants) as factors indicated that an interaction between the two factors was not significant, F(1, 36) = 0.07, p = 0.787, η² = 0.002. We suggest this is because variance of immediate repetition is commonly too large. However, we suggested the necessity of closer inspection of choice adaptation and then set up a specific hypothesis that slow response pace, but not fast response pace, in individual task helped participants intentionally apply repetitive responses that they had experienced in joint task. Therefore, we administered separate analyses for the slow and fast response pace.

Mann–Whitney’s U test: U = 124.0, z = 1.81, p = 0.070.

Mann–Whitney’s U test: U = 143.5, z = 1.09, p = 0.278.

We thank a reviewer for identifying this possibility.

Mann–Whitney’s U test: U = 142.5, z = 1.08, p = 0.280.

Mann–Whitney’s U test: U = 158.5, z = 0.68, p = 0.495.

Mann–Whitney’s U test: U = 138.5, z = 1.24, p = 0.215.

Mann–Whitney’s U test: U = 159.5, z = 0.65, p = 0.516.

Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umilta & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and performance (Vol. XV, pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (1966). The capacity for generating information by randomization. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(2), 119–129.CrossRefPubMed

Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31(1), 5–17.CrossRefPubMed

Brugger, P. (1997). Variables that influence the generation of random sequences: An update. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84(2), 627–661.CrossRefPubMed

Cooper, R. P. (2016). Executive functions and the generation of “random” sequential responses: A computational account. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 73(1), 153–168.CrossRef

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.CrossRefPubMed

Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126.CrossRef

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

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014b). The joint flanker effect: Less social than previously thought. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 21(5), 1224–1230.CrossRefPubMed

Dudarev, V., & Hassin, R. R. (2016). Social task switching: On the automatic social engagement of executive functions. Cognition, 146, 223–228.CrossRefPubMed

Evans, F. J. (1978). Monitoring attention deployment by random number generation: An index to measure subjective randomness. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 12(1), 35–38.CrossRef

Hoppitt, W., & Laland, K. N. (2013). Social learning: An introduction to mechanism, methods, and models. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef

Jahanshahi, M., Dirnberger, G., Fuller, R., & Frith, C. D. (2000). The role of dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in random number generation: A study with positron emission tomography. Neuroimage, 12(6), 713–725.CrossRefPubMed

Jersild, A. T. (1927). Mental set and shift (p. 89). No: Archives of Psychology.

Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A. M., & Koch, I. (2010). Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 849–874.CrossRefPubMed

Knoblich, G., Butterfill, S., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 54, pp. 59–101). Burlington: Academic Press.

Krach, S., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., Sagerer, G., Binkofski, F., & Kircher, T. (2008). Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS One, 3(7), e2597.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Liefooghe, B. (2016). Joint task switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(1), 60–78.CrossRef

Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 455–470.CrossRefPubMed

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100.CrossRef

Müller, B. C. N., Kühn, S., van Baaren, R. B., Dotsch, R., Brass, M., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011). Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members’ actions. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 423–428.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Neuringer, A. (1986). Can people behave “randomly”?: The role of feedback. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(1), 62–75.CrossRef

Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). How the group affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation in groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 186–213.CrossRefPubMed

Obhi, S. S., & Hall, P. (2011). Sense of agency and intentional binding in joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 655–662.CrossRefPubMed

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.CrossRefPubMed

Press, C. (2011). Action observation and robotic agents: Learning and anthropomorphism. Neuroscience and Behavioral Reviews, 35, 1410–1418.CrossRef

Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124(2), 207–231.CrossRef

Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.CrossRefPubMed

Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 word solution. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2160588. Accessed 15 May 2017.

Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado Bou, M. A., del Pobil, Á. P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Co-representation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1073–1077.PubMed

Towse, J. N. (1998). On random generation and the central executive of working memory. British Journal of Psychology, 89(1), 77–101.CrossRefPubMed

Towse, J. N., & Mclachlan, A. (1999). An exploration of random generation among children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 363–380.CrossRef

Towse, J. N., & Neil, D. (1998). Analyzing human random generation behavior: A review of methods used and a computer program for describing performance. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers, 30(4), 583–591.CrossRef

Towse, J. N., Towse, A. S., Saito, S., Maehara, Y., & Miyake, A. (2016). Joint cognition: Thought contagion and the consequences of cooperation when sharing the task of random sequence generation. PLoS One, 11(3), e0151306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Vesper, C., Abramova, E., Bütepage, J., Ciardo, F., Crossey, B., Effenberg, A., & Wahn, B. (2017). Joint action: Mental representations, shared information and general mechanisms for coordinating with others. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 2039.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2(2), 147–172.CrossRef

Yamaguchi, M., Wall, H. J., & Hommel, B. (2017a). Action-effect sharing induces task-set sharing in joint task switching. Cognition, 165, 113–120.CrossRefPubMed

Yamaguchi, M., Wall, H. J., & Hommel, B. (2017b). No evidence for shared representations of task sets in joint task switching. Psychological Research, 81(6), 1166–1177.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Joint cognition and the role of human agency in random number choices
Auteurs: Yukio Maehara
Satoru Saito
John Nicholas Towse
Publicatiedatum: 06-11-2017
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0944-9

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2019

Higher levels of motor competence are associated with reduced interference in action perception across the lifespan

Original Article

Humans show a higher preference for stimuli that are predictive relative to those that are predictable

Original Article

Are allocentric spatial reference frames compatible with theories of Enactivism?

Original Article

Implicit sequence learning despite multitasking: the role of across-task predictability

Original Article

On the relation between reading difficulty and mind-wandering: a section-length account

Original Article

Set size influences the relationship between ANS acuity and math performance: a result of different strategies?

Original Article