The Role of Group Membership on the Modulation of Joint Action

Overview

Journal Exp Brain Res

Specialty Neurology

Date 2011 Apr 8

PMID 21472442

Citations 43

Authors

Cristina Iani

Filomena Anelli

Roberto Nicoletti

Luciano Arcuri

Sandro Rubichi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Two experiments were conducted to assess whether the emergence of shared representations, as indexed by the joint Simon effect, is modulated by perceived group membership. In both experiments, participants were required to perform a Simon task along another person who was perceived as belonging either to the same group or to a different group. In Experiment 1, ingroup-outgroup discrimination was obtained by dividing participants into two groups based on a superficial criterion; in Experiment 2, it was obtained by manipulating the interdependence experienced by the two acting individuals. The mere social categorization of co-acting participants into groups did not modulate the joint Simon effect which was observed even when participants believed to perform the task along with an individual belonging to a different social group (Experiment 1). On the contrary, the effect was modulated by perceived interdependence, with a null effect when participants experienced negative interdependence (Experiment 2). These results suggest that when acting in a social context, by default, individuals may perceive positive interdependence with co-acting individuals, even when cooperation is not explicitly requested.

Citing Articles

Individual differences in music-induced interpersonal synchronization and self-other integration: the role of creativity and empathy.

Kempf A, Maes P, Gener C, Schiavio A R Soc Open Sci. 2024; 11(11):240654.

PMID: 39555390 PMC: 11569829. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.240654.

Influence of competition on motor inhibitory control: Evidence from a go/no-go task.

Li Y, Liu C, Elliot A Psychon Bull Rev. 2024; .

PMID: 39495472 DOI: 10.3758/s13423-024-02606-0.

Spatial Response Discrimination May Elicit a Simon Effect on a Non-Complementary Task.

Lam M, Chua R Percept Mot Skills. 2023; 131(1):59-73.

PMID: 38009872 PMC: 10863365. DOI: 10.1177/00315125231215854.

Brain-to-brain synchrony during dyadic action co-representation under acute stress: evidence from fNIRS-based hyperscanning.

Lin S, Zhao H, Duan H Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1251533.

PMID: 37744595 PMC: 10511757. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1251533.

Gender composition of pairs influences joint action effect.

Fabbri M, Martoni M, Beracci A, Tonetti L, Natale V Front Psychol. 2023; 14:1122427.

PMID: 36910794 PMC: 9996039. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1122427.

References

Hommel B, Colzato L, van den Wildenberg W . How social are task representations?. Psychol Sci. 2009; 20(7):794-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02367.x. View

Simon J, Rudell A . Auditory S-R compatibility: the effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. J Appl Psychol. 1967; 51(3):300-4. DOI: 10.1037/h0020586. View

Atmaca S, Sebanz N, Prinz W, Knoblich G . Action co-representation: the joint SNARC effect. Soc Neurosci. 2008; 3(3-4):410-20. DOI: 10.1080/17470910801900908. View

Welsh T, Higgins L, Ray M, Weeks D . Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation?. Hum Mov Sci. 2007; 26(6):853-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.humov.2007.06.003. View

Cadinu M, Rothbart M . Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996; 70(4):661-77. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.70.4.661. View

Taijfel H . Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Sci Am. 1970; 223(5):96-102. View

Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W . How two share a task: corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2005; 31(6):1234-46. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1234. View

Tsai C, Kuo W, Hung D, Tzeng O . Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. J Cogn Neurosci. 2008; 20(11):2015-24. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20144. View

Tsai C, Kuo W, Jing J, Hung D, Tzeng O . A common coding framework in self-other interaction: evidence from joint action task. Exp Brain Res. 2006; 175(2):353-62. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-006-0557-9. View

10.

de Jong R, Liang C, Lauber E . Conditional and unconditional automaticity: a dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1994; 20(4):731-50. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.4.731. View

11.

Sebanz N, Rebbechi D, Knoblich G, Prinz W, Frith C . Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing. Soc Neurosci. 2008; 2(2):81-95. DOI: 10.1080/17470910701237989. View

12.

Tomasello M, Carpenter M, Call J, Behne T, Moll H . Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition. Behav Brain Sci. 2005; 28(5):675-91. DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X05000129. View

13.

Milanese N, Iani C, Rubichi S . Shared learning shapes human performance: Transfer effects in task sharing. Cognition. 2010; 116(1):15-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.010. View

14.

Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W . Representing others' actions: just like one's own?. Cognition. 2003; 88(3):B11-21. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00043-x. View

15.

Sebanz N, Bekkering H, Knoblich G . Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends Cogn Sci. 2006; 10(2):70-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009. View

16.

RABBIE J, Horwitz M . Arousal of ingroup-outgroup bias by a chance win or loss. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1969; 13(3):269-77. DOI: 10.1037/h0028284. View

17.

Sebanz N, Knoblich G, Prinz W, Wascher E . Twin peaks: an ERP study of action planning and control in co-acting individuals. J Cogn Neurosci. 2006; 18(5):859-70. DOI: 10.1162/jocn.2006.18.5.859. View

18.

Rubichi S, Nicoletti R, Umilta C, Zorzi M . Response strategies and the Simon effect. Psychol Res. 2000; 63(2):129-36. DOI: 10.1007/pl00008171. View