Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 5/2019

29-08-2017 | Original Article

No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task

Auteurs: Daniel R. Saunders, David Melcher, Wieske van Zoest

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

People working together on a task must often represent the goals and salient items of their partner. The aim of the present study was to study the influence of joint task representations in an interference task in which the congruency relies on semantic identity. If task representations are shared between partners in a joint Stroop task (co-representation account), we hypothesized that items in the response set of one partner might influence performance of the other. In Experiment 1, pairs of participants sat side by side. Each participant was instructed to press one of two buttons to indicate which of two colors assigned to them was present, ignoring the text and responding only to the pixel color. There were three types of incongruent distractor words: names of colors from their own response set, names of colors from the other partner’s response set, and neutral words for colors not used as font colors. The results of Experiment 1 showed that when people were doing this task together, distractor words from the partner’s response set interfered more than neutral words and just as much as the words from their own response color set. However, in three follow-up experiments (Experiments 2a, 2b, and 2c), we found an elevated interference for the other response-set words even though no co-actor was present. The overall pattern of results across our study suggests that an alternative response set, regardless of whether it belonged to a co-actor or to a non-social no-go condition, evoked equal amounts of interference comparable to those of the own response set. Our findings are in line with a theory of common coding, in which all events—irrespective of their social nature—are represented and can influence behavior.
Literatuur
go back to reference Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2012). The influence of mere social presence on Stroop interference: new evidence from the semantically-based Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1213–1216. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.04.014.CrossRef Augustinova, M., & Ferrand, L. (2012). The influence of mere social presence on Stroop interference: new evidence from the semantically-based Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1213–1216. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jesp.​2012.​04.​014.CrossRef
go back to reference Böckler, A., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2012). Effects of a coactor’s focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1404–1415. doi:10.1037/a0027523.CrossRefPubMed Böckler, A., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2012). Effects of a coactor’s focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1404–1415. doi:10.​1037/​a0027523.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An Analysis of Transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26(2), 211–252. Box, G. E. P., & Cox, D. R. (1964). An Analysis of Transformations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 26(2), 211–252.
go back to reference Dittrich, K., Bossert, M.-L., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2017). The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: on the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1808–1823. doi:10.1080/17470218.2016.1207690.CrossRefPubMed Dittrich, K., Bossert, M.-L., Rothe-Wulf, A., & Klauer, K. C. (2017). The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: on the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(9), 1808–1823. doi:10.​1080/​17470218.​2016.​1207690.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference 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(8), 1725–1736. doi:10.3758/s13414-013-0524-z.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(8), 1725–1736. doi:10.​3758/​s13414-013-0524-z.CrossRef
go back to reference 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(5), 911–929. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0304-1.CrossRef 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(5), 911–929. doi:10.​3758/​s13414-012-0304-1.CrossRef
go back to reference 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(5), 1248–1260. doi:10.1037/a0031031.CrossRefPubMed 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(5), 1248–1260. doi:10.​1037/​a0031031.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 380–390.CrossRef Egner, T. (2007). Congruency sequence effects and cognitive control. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), 380–390.CrossRef
go back to reference Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. (discussion 878-937).CrossRefPubMed Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849–878. (discussion 878-937).CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Huguet, P., Dumas, F., & Monteil, J.-M. (2004). Competing for a desired reward in the stroop task: when attentional control is unconscious but effective versus conscious but ineffective. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 58(3), 153–167. doi:10.1037/h0087441.CrossRefPubMed Huguet, P., Dumas, F., & Monteil, J.-M. (2004). Competing for a desired reward in the stroop task: when attentional control is unconscious but effective versus conscious but ineffective. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie Expérimentale, 58(3), 153–167. doi:10.​1037/​h0087441.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1011.CrossRefPubMed Huguet, P., Galvaing, M. P., Monteil, J. M., & Dumas, F. (1999). Social presence effects in the Stroop task: further evidence for an attentional view of social facilitation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 1011.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270.CrossRefPubMed Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility—a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Lien, M.-C., Pedersen, L., & Proctor, R. W. (2016). Stimulus-response correspondence in go-nogo and choice tasks: are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object? Psychological Research, 80(6), 912–934. doi:10.1007/s00426-015-0699-0.CrossRefPubMed Lien, M.-C., Pedersen, L., & Proctor, R. W. (2016). Stimulus-response correspondence in go-nogo and choice tasks: are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object? Psychological Research, 80(6), 912–934. doi:10.​1007/​s00426-015-0699-0.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Neely, J. H., & Kahan, T. A. (2001). Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re-evaluation. In H. L. Roediger, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). Washington, DC: US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10394-005.CrossRef Neely, J. H., & Kahan, T. A. (2001). Is semantic activation automatic? A critical re-evaluation. In H. L. Roediger, J. S. Nairne, I. Neath, & A. M. Surprenant (Eds.), The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp. 69–93). Washington, DC: US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.​1037/​10394-005.CrossRef
go back to reference Sebanz, N., Voinov, P., & Knoblich, G. (2015). Spatial perspective taking in the context of joint action. Cognitive Processing, 16, S25-S25. Sebanz, N., Voinov, P., & Knoblich, G. (2015). Spatial perspective taking in the context of joint action. Cognitive Processing, 16, S25-S25.
go back to reference Sellaro, R., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Liepelt, R., & Hommel, B. (2015). Referential coding does not rely on location features: evidence for a nonspatial joint Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 186–195. doi:10.1037/a0038548.CrossRefPubMed Sellaro, R., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Liepelt, R., & Hommel, B. (2015). Referential coding does not rely on location features: evidence for a nonspatial joint Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 41(1), 186–195. doi:10.​1037/​a0038548.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., & Huguet, P. (2010). Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 52–58. doi:10.3758/PBR.17.1.52.CrossRef Sharma, D., Booth, R., Brown, R., & Huguet, P. (2010). Exploring the temporal dynamics of social facilitation in the Stroop task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(1), 52–58. doi:10.​3758/​PBR.​17.​1.​52.CrossRef
go back to reference Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado, A., del Pobil, Á. P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1073–1077. doi:10.1037/a0029493.CrossRefPubMed Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado, A., del Pobil, Á. P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1073–1077. doi:10.​1037/​a0029493.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference van Schie, H. T., van Waterschoot, B. M., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Understanding action beyond imitation: reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1493–1500. doi:10.1037/a0011750.CrossRefPubMed van Schie, H. T., van Waterschoot, B. M., & Bekkering, H. (2008). Understanding action beyond imitation: reversed compatibility effects of action observation in imitation and joint action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1493–1500. doi:10.​1037/​a0011750.CrossRefPubMed
go back to reference Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative Learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 649–672.CrossRef Verbruggen, F., & Logan, G. D. (2008). Automatic and controlled response inhibition: associative Learning in the go/no-go and stop-signal paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137(4), 649–672.CrossRef
go back to reference Warren, R. E. (1972). Stimulus encoding and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(1), 90.CrossRef Warren, R. E. (1972). Stimulus encoding and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(1), 90.CrossRef
go back to reference Warren, R. E. (1974). Association, directionality, and stimulus encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102(1), 151.CrossRef Warren, R. E. (1974). Association, directionality, and stimulus encoding. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102(1), 151.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task
Auteurs
Daniel R. Saunders
David Melcher
Wieske van Zoest
Publicatiedatum
29-08-2017
Uitgeverij
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0909-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2019

Psychological Research 5/2019 Naar de uitgave