Partner reactions and task set selection: Compatibility is more beneficial in the stronger task

Müller, Romy; Jung, M.L.

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.02.012

Cited by 7 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Even though the time course of response activation due to irrelevant effect primes is not known, it seems possible that activation had already decayed by the time the participants began to plan their response to the target (for positive results with an interval of less than 100 ms between prime and target onset, see Kunde, 2004). Increasing the discriminability of the prime stimuli and presenting primes in closer temporal proximity to the target might thus be a promising way to adjust the proposed within-subjects design (Eder, Rothermund, De Houwer, & Hommel, 2015;Elsner & Hommel, 2004;Müller, 2016;Müller & Jung, 2018;Wolfensteller & Ruge, 2011). But note that the abovementioned limitations are not due to the use of social face stimuli as primes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding: No evidence for social moderators

Riechelmann

Weller

Huestegge

et al. 2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect-based accounts of human action control have recently highlighted the possibility of representing one's own actions in terms of anticipated changes in the behavior of social interaction partners. In contrast to action effects that pertain to the agent's body or the agent's physical environment, social action effects have been proposed to come with peculiarities inherent to their social nature. Here, we revisit the currently most prominent demonstration of such a peculiarity: the role of eye contact for actioneffect learning in social contexts (Sato & Itakura, 2013, Cognition, 127, 383-390). In contrast to the previous demonstration of action-effect learning, a conceptual and a direct replication both yielded evidence for the absence of action-effect learning in the proposed design, irrespective of eye contact. Bayesian statistics supported this claim by demonstrating evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no effect. These results suggest a limited generalizability of the original findings-for example, due to limitations that are inherent in the proposed study design or due to cultural differences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Horstmann, 2011; Kunde et al, 2011;Müller, 2016;Müller & Jung, 2018;Pfister, Weller, Dignath, & Kunde, 2017;Sato & Itakura, 2013).…”

unclassified

Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding: No evidence for social moderators

Riechelmann

Weller

Huestegge

et al. 2019

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The first experiment served as a replication of Experiment 3 by Müller and Jung (2018) with the stimulus material used in the present study. In compatible blocks, following the subject’s response the partner performed the same task, reacting to the same attribute of the same stimulus (e.g., after the subject had read the word, the partner read the same word).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Initial evidence suggests that anticipated partner reactions can play a role in task set selection (Müller & Jung, 2018). In a series of experiments, subjects performed conflicting tasks of asymmetric strength.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do partner reactions affect task set selection: Specific imitation or abstract tasks?

Müller

2020

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Task set selection is facilitated when people expect a partner to perform the same task, suggesting that the features of the partner’s performance are represented. However, it is unclear how similar the partner’s reactions must be to promote compatibility effects: does a partner have to imitate subjects’ specific actions or is it enough to perform the same task while responding to different stimuli with different actions? This present study investigated this question in a joint picture–word interference paradigm. Subjects either named pictures or read words, and a partner responded by performing the same or the competing task. In Experiment 1, the partner used the same picture–word combinations as the subject and thus compatible trials implied a complete imitation. Compatibility benefits were observed. In Experiment 2, the partner performed the same or the competing task on different stimuli, producing different actions. Compatibility effects were absent. To test whether this indicates that an overlap in abstract task features is insufficient or resulted from excessive task difficulty, Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 with a smaller stimulus set. Compatibility benefits were found. Taken together, the results suggest that a partner’s abstract task can be represented and affect task set selection processes even without an overlap in stimulus-response mappings.

show abstract

Anticipated Imitation

Pfister,

Neszmélyi,

Kunde

2024

Automatic Imitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Common knowledge holds that it takes two to tango. The same goes for imitation, which involves (at least) a model and an imitator. Many empirical studies on imitation have focused on assessing the imitator’s behavior as a function of model characteristics, thus construing the models’ behavior as stimulus, and the imitators’ behavior as response. This is particularly true for research on automatic imitation or motor priming. Yet, the same imitation scenario can also be assessed as an action–effect scenario from the perspective of the model. This perspective asks how the models’ actions are shaped by the foreseeable behavior of imitators, which from the perspective of the model can be construed as predictable action effects. This chapter approaches anticipated imitation through the theoretical lens of ideomotor action control, which offers a mechanistic framework to accommodate bidirectional influences from model to imitator and vice versa. We further discuss how embracing an ideomotor view on imitation highlights close connections of imitation to other aspects of human action control. This includes actions that aim at affecting the inanimate environment as well as actions that aim at evoking non-imitative responses of social interaction partners. Evidence from experimental studies supports these theoretical ideas by adapting classical response-effect compatibility paradigms to imitative scenarios and other social interactions, suggesting that the social consequences of one’s own behavior are readily integrated into human action representations.

show abstract

Partner reactions and task set selection: Compatibility is more beneficial in the stronger task

Cited by 7 publications

References 61 publications

Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding: No evidence for social moderators

Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding: No evidence for social moderators

How do partner reactions affect task set selection: Specific imitation or abstract tasks?

Anticipated Imitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About