Psychological Research on Joint Action

Knoblich, Günther; Butterfill, Stephen A.; Sebanz, Natalie

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-385527-5.00003-6

Cited by 423 publications

(406 citation statements)

References 135 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

386

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…If this account is correct, predicting that another is about to speak should have the same effect as preparing to speak, because speaker A would automatically activate all the production processes leading to the formulation of the target picture name even though B has to name this picture. An analogous suggestion has been made in the joint action literature to explain why in joint tasks people appear to represent their partner's responses as if they were their own (Knoblich et al, 2011).…”

Section: A Joint Language Production Taskmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…In joint task paradigms (Knoblich, Butterfill, & Sebanz, 2011;Sebanz, Bekkering, & Knoblich, 2006;Sebanz & Knoblich, 2009), participants are tested in pairs and are assigned complementary tasks (i.e., they each perform half of the task that would be performed by a single participant in solo task paradigms; see below). For example, in one study (Knoblich & Jordan, 2003), pairs of participants attempted to keep a circle aligned with a moving dot on a computer screen.…”

Section: Joint Tasks In the Action Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do speakers coordinate? Evidence for prediction in a joint word-replacement task

Gambi

Cop

Pickering

2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether speakers represent their partners' task in a joint naming paradigm. Two participants took turns in naming pictures; occasionally the (initial) picture was replaced by a different picture (target), signalling that they had to stop naming the initial picture. When the same participant had to name the target picture, he or she completed the name of the initial picture more often than when neither participant had to name the target picture. Crucially, when the other participant had to name the target picture, the first participant also completed the name of the initial picture more often than when neither participant named the target picture. However, the tendency to complete the initial name was weaker when the other participant had to name the target than when the same participant went on to name the target. We argue that speakers predict that their partner is about to respond using some, but not all, of the mechanisms they use when they prepare to speak.

show abstract

Section: A Joint Language Production Taskmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Joint Tasks In the Action Domainmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do speakers coordinate? Evidence for prediction in a joint word-replacement task

Gambi

Cop

Pickering

2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…People walk, play games and draw together. Joint actions such as these are thought to involve a variety of mechanisms (Knoblich, Butterfill, & Sebanz, 2011). For instance, walking together, as well as joint actions involving music or dance, may be achieved in part thanks to entrainment, the process of synchronizing two or more rhythmic behaviours with respect to phase (Nessler & Gilliland, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drawn together: When motor representations ground joint actions

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWhat enables individuals to act together? Recent discoveries suggest that a variety of mechanisms are involved. But something fundamental is yet to be investigated. In joint action, agents represent a collective goal, or so it is often assumed. But how, if at all, are collective goals represented in joint action and how do such representations impact performance? To investigate this question we adapted a bimanual paradigm, the circle-line drawing paradigm, to contrast two agents acting in parallel with two agents performing a joint action. Participants were required to draw lines or circles while observing circles or lines being drawn. The findings indicate that interpersonal motor coupling may occur in joint but not parallel action. This suggests that participants in joint actions can represent collective goals motorically.

show abstract

“…Joint action has been defined as any form of social interaction where two or more individuals coordinate their actions in space and time to bring about a change in the environment (Sebanz et al 2006). Within this broad definition of joint action, there are many sub-areas of investigation that relate to different aspects of joint performance, and that involve different levels of analysis (Knoblich et al 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%