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

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.

Saliency at first sight: instant identity referential advantage toward a newly met partner

“…Joint action context modulation on identity referential information processing has been largely overlooked in past research. It is surprising that the joint-task condition did not enhance the partner-advantage as social context has been shown to influence cognitive processing as in the joint Simon effect (Dolk et al, 2011; Sebanz, Knoblich, & Prinz, 2003), joint flanker effect (Atmaca, Sebanz, & Knoblich, 2011) and the joint implicit attitude task (Stenzel & Liepelt, 2016). The most relevant finding is the face/agent interference effect identifed by Baess and Prinz (2017), who presented a black or white dot superimposed on a face and required participants to respond to the color of the dot.…”

“…Individual d ’ plots by experiment are also available in the Additional files. We used d ’ (the difference between the Z scores of the hit rate and false alarm rate) as an index of performance in previous identity referential advantage research (Stenzel & Liepelt, 2016; Sui et al, 2012) and in the current study, because it takes both hit rate and false alarm rate into consideration and better reflects the sensitivity of response to different identity-shape pairs. We considered there to be an advantage effect if it was observed in either d’ or RT.…”

Work Together or Fight Together: Modeling Adaptive Cooperative and Competitive Metaphors as Mental Models for Joint Decision Making

“…This chapter is based on material from Van Ments and Treur (2021a). The introduced network model is based on mechanisms for joint decision making known from social neuroscience such as (Cacioppo and Berntson 2005;Decety and Cacioppo 2010;Demiral et al 2016;Harmon-Jones and Winkielman 2007;Herrera et al 1997;Hasson et al 2012;Kato et al 2016;Liepelt et al 2016;Ruissen and De Bruijn 2015;Stenzel and Liepelt 2016) and literature on cognitive metaphor theory Leary 1994;Lakoff 1993;Lakoff and Johnson 2003;Refaie 2003;Lee and Schwarz 2014). Different concepts and mechanisms from cognitive and social neuroscience have been adopted, such as mirror neurons (Iacoboni 2008;Pineda 2009;Rizzolatti and Sinigaglia 2008), internal simulation (Damasio 1994(Damasio , 1999Gallese and Goldman 1998;Goldman 2006;Hesslow 2002), and ownership states (Farrer and Frith 2002;Jeannerod et al 2003;Schwabe and Blanke 2007).…”

“…, Ruissen and De Bruijn (2015), Stenzel and Liepelt (2016). Mirror neurons and internal simulation play an important role in these mechanisms; see also Treur (2011a), Duell and Treur (2012).…”

When a Social Experimenter Overwrites Effects of Salient Objects in an Individual Go/No-Go Simon Task – An ERP Study

“…To resolve it, an actor must focus on task features that best distinguishes own from other events in a given task context. Spatial orientation can serve as such a discriminating feature ( Miller et al, 2011 ), but depending on task context other features such as color ( Sellaro et al, 2015 ) or valence ( Stenzel and Liepelt, 2016a ) can be used as well to resolve the discrimination problem.…”