Prosocial effects of coordination – What, how and why?

Michael, John; McEllin, Luke; Felber, Annalena

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103083

Cited by 26 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in highly compartmentalized processes of industrial production, each agent is receiving her own sub-task to do, without any interference with the sub-tasks of the others. Some joint actions can also rely on a mere asymmetrical coupling of agents, with one agent "acting or deciding as she does at least in part because of the observed or expected actions or decisions of the other agent" (Michael et al, 2020), while the other remains impervious to what her co-agent is doing -think of a capricious singer expecting from her accompanist to follow her every move but making no effort in adjusting to her. In those cases, agents are not really interacting, yet, they still cooperate, in the sense that their individual actions are organized towards the achievement of some shared goal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

With, against, or without? Familiarity and copresence increase interactional dissensus and relational plasticity in freely improvising duos.

Golvet¹,

Goupil²,

Saint‐Germier³

et al. 2024

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agents engaged in creative joint actions might need to find a balance between the demands of doing something collectively, by adopting congruent and interacting behaviors, and the goal of delivering a creative output, which can eventually benefit from disagreements and autonomous behaviors. Here, we investigate this idea in the context of collective free improvisation -a paradigmatic example of group creativity in which musicians aim at creating music that is as complex and unprecedented as possible without relying on predefined plans or individual roles.Controlling for both the familiarity between the musicians and their physical co-presence, duos of improvisers were asked to freely improvise together and to individually annotate their performances with a digital interface, indicating at each time whether they were playing "with", "against", or "without" their partner. At an individual level, we found that musicians largely intended to converge with their co-improviser, making only occasional use of non-cooperative or non-interactive modes such as "playing against" or "playing without". By contrast, at the group level, musicians tended to combine their relational intents in such a way as to create interactional dissensus. We also demonstrate that co-presence and familiarity act as interactional smoothers: they increase the agents' overall level of relational plasticity and allow for the exploration of less cooperative behaviors. Overall, our findings suggest that relational intents might function as a primary resource for creative joint actions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

With, against, or without? Familiarity and copresence increase interactional dissensus and relational plasticity in freely improvising duos.

Golvet¹,

Goupil²,

Saint‐Germier³

et al. 2024

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further studies are needed to clarify whether the Dyadic Motor Plan account still holds for interactions occurring at different time-scales, the neurophysiological processes underlying "dyadic" action monitoring, and the prosocial effects thereof (see Ref. 14,[82][83][84] ). However, the minimally prosocial tendency to scaffold our partner's behavior and sacrifice efficiency for dyadic success may represent a building block for broader forms of collaboration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms for mutual support in motor interactions

Sacheli

Musco

Zazzera

et al. 2021

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the key to successful interaction? Is it sufficient to represent a common goal, or does the way our partner achieves that goal count as well? How do we react when our partner misbehaves? We used a turn-taking music-like task requiring participants to play sequences of notes together with a partner, and we investigated how people adapt to a partner’s error that violates their expectations. Errors consisted of either playing a wrong note of a sequence that the agents were playing together (thus preventing the achievement of the joint goal) or playing the expected note with an unexpected action. In both cases, we found post-error slowing and inaccuracy suggesting the participants’ implicit tendency to correct the partner’s error and produce the action that the partner should have done. We argue that these “joint” monitoring processes depend on the motor predictions made within a (dyadic) motor plan and may represent a basic mechanism for mutual support in motor interactions.

show abstract

“…By ensuring coordination and achievement of joint goals, sensorimotor signaling indirectly impacts prosocial attitudes (Michael et al, 2020). For instance, it has been shown that subsequent to coordination tasks, individuals show higher cooperation and helping behaviour towards their partners (Kokal et al, 2011).…”

Section: Sensorimotor Signaling As the Basis For Social Inclusion Of ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been proposed that successful joint action increases social bonding and group membership by increasing the perceived similarity between co-agents. Thus, the increased trustworthiness and pro-sociality reported following interactive tasks that rely on coordination may be the result of the group-membership effect (Michael et al, 2020;Tajfel, 1970) which raises the expectation that in a future interaction in-group members will act toward in-group interest (Michael et al, 2016). Taken together, sensorimotor signaling seems to be a key mechanism of social cognition ensuring effective social interactions both directly and indirectly.…”

Section: Sensorimotor Signaling As the Basis For Social Inclusion Of ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint action with artificial agents: Human-likeness in behaviour and morphology affects sensorimotor signaling and social inclusion

Ciardo

Tommaso

Wykowska

2022

Computers in Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prosocial effects of coordination – What, how and why?

Cited by 26 publications

References 68 publications

With, against, or without? Familiarity and copresence increase interactional dissensus and relational plasticity in freely improvising duos.

With, against, or without? Familiarity and copresence increase interactional dissensus and relational plasticity in freely improvising duos.

Mechanisms for mutual support in motor interactions

Joint action with artificial agents: Human-likeness in behaviour and morphology affects sensorimotor signaling and social inclusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About