The costs of cooperation: Action-specific perception in the context of joint action.

Abstract

A growing empirical literature has demonstrated that perceptions of the physical environment are influenced by the perceiver's behavioral ability. However, prior research has focused only on the perceptual consequences of individual behavior, despite the fact that individuals regularly take part in cooperative social interaction. To test whether similar effects occur as a result of engaging in joint action, we asked participants to estimate anticipated walking distance to a target location when expecting to carry a heavy object either alone or jointly with a confederate. Surprisingly, even though carrying with another person requires less physical effort, on certain carrying tasks participants estimated distances to be farther when expecting help. However, this effect was reversed when participants were asked to focus on the difficulty of the task or told about the alternative experimental condition, thereby making salient for joint carriers the potential, presumably negative, counterfactual of having to work alone. Findings are explained in terms of an ecological approach, which conceptualizes perception as the detection of information specifying affordances. These results highlight the limitations of purely effortful accounts of such phenomena and demonstrate the unique way in which social factors relevant to coordination can alter how people relate to their physical environments.

Validation of a Perception of Objectification in the Workplace Short Scale (POWS)

“…According to “economy of action” (e.g., Proffitt, 2006 ), individuals perceive their environment through its opportunity for action and its associated cost. In this process, individuals integrate each source (i.e., physical or social) reducing the cost of their action depending on the nature of the task (e.g., Meagher and Marsh, 2014 ; Osiurak et al, 2014 ). This is probably why objectification occurs in contexts where control of action is salient (power, relational uncertainty) and where production through activity is based on the coordination of the human and the technical.…”

Task Construal Influences Estimations of the Environment

“…A potential follow-up would be to scale weights and shelf heights for each participant based on their height, reach, and fitness and repeating the experiment with and without a convincing cover story. Secondly, in Experiments 2, 3, participants traversed the judged distances while in previous studies they made estimates while standing in place ( Proffitt et al, 1995 , Proffitt et al, 2003 ; Bhalla and Proffitt, 1999 ; Meagher and Marsh, 2014 ; Josa et al, 2019 ). It might be the case that walking across the distances informed estimates better than effort which was consequentially disregarded.…”

A Socio-Ecological Approach to Perception

“…In a series of studies, participants expected to carry a heavy box a target distance of 10 meters, and were assigned to either carry the box jointly with a confederate or alone. When the researchers made the difficulty of coordinating the task salient, participants in the joint-carrying condition estimated the distance to be farther (Meagher & Marsh, 2014). The nature of the social environment varies, and our perceptual system is sensitive to the fact that social networks can function both as an added benefit or an added cost.…”

“…Indeed, individuals perceive aggressive male students to be standing closer than non-aggressive male students (Cole, Balcetis, & Dunning, 2013), and threatening out-group members are perceived to be closer than non-threatening out group members (Xiao & van Bavel, 2012). Interestingly, recent work in visual perception suggests that highlighting the potential costs of cooperating on a task will negate the benefits of working together (Meagher & Marsh, 2014). In a series of studies, participants expected to carry a heavy box a target distance of 10 meters, and were assigned to either carry the box jointly with a confederate or alone.…”