Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
It has been suggested that actors co-represent a shared task context when they perform a task in a joint fashion. The present study examined the possibility of co-representation in joint task switching, in which two actors shared two tasks that switched randomly across trials. Experiment 1 showed that when an actor performed the tasks individually, switch costs were obtained if the actors responded on the previous trial (go trial), but not if they did not respond (no-go trial). When two actors performed the tasks jointly, switch costs were obtained if the actor responded on the previous trial (actor-repeat trials) but not if the co-actor responded (actor-switch trials). In Experiment 2, a single actor performed both tasks of the joint condition to test whether the findings of Experiment 1 were due to the use of different response sets by the two actors. Switch costs were obtained for both repetitions and alternations of the response set, which rules out this possibility. Taken together, our findings provided little support for the idea that actors co-represent the task sets of their co-actors.
Allport, A., Styles, E. A., & Hsieh, S. (1994). Shifting attentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In C. Umiltà & M. Moscovitch (Eds.), Attention and Performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing (pp. 421–452). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Dolk, T., Hommal, B., Colzato, L. S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260.
Dolk, T., Hommal, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 974.
Ford, R. M., & Aberdein, B. (2015). Exploring social influences on the joint Simon task: Empathy and friendship. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 962.
Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571. CrossRef
Janczyk, M., Welsh, T. N., & Dolk, T. (2016). A role of goals for social inhibition of return? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, in press.,. doi: 10.1080/17470218.2015.1112417.
Jersild A.T. (1927). Mental set and shift. Archives of Psychology (Whole No. 89, pp. 5–82).
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.
Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 15, 99104. CrossRef
Liefooghe, B. (2016). Joint task switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28, 60–78. CrossRef
Logan, G. D., & Bundesen, C. (2003). Clever homunculus: Is there an endogenous act of control in the explicit task-cuing procedure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 575–599. PubMed
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207. CrossRef
Mayr, U., & Keele, S. W. (2000). Changing internal constraints on action: The role of backward inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 4–26. CrossRef
Meiran, N. (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423–1442.
Meuter, R. F. I., & Allport, A. (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25–40. CrossRef
Philipp, A. M., Jolicoeur, P., Falkenstein, M., & Koch, I. (2007). Response selection and response execution in task switching: Evidence from a go-signal paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 1062–1075. PubMed
Rogers, R. D., & Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 207–231. CrossRef
Ruys, K. I., & Aarts, H. (2010). When competition merges people’s behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations. Journal of Experimental Brain Psychology, 46, 1130–1133.
Schuch, S., & Koch, I. (2003). The role of response selection for inhibition of task sets in task shifting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 92–105. PubMed
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, 11–21. CrossRef
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246. PubMed
Swainson, R., Martin, D., & Prosser, L. (2016). Task-switch costs subsequent to cue-only trials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology ( in press).
Wenke, D., Atmaca, S., Hollaender, 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, 147–172. CrossRef
- No evidence for shared representations of task sets in joint task switching
Helen J. Wall
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg