» Articles » PMID: 34746618

Computing Joint Action Costs: Co-Actors Minimize the Aggregate Individual Costs in an Action Sequence

Overview
Publisher MIT Press
Date 2021 Nov 8
PMID 34746618
Citations 7
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Successful performance in cooperative activities relies on efficient task distribution between co-actors. Previous research found that people often forgo individual efficiency in favor of co-efficiency (i.e., joint-cost minimization) when planning a joint action. The present study investigated the cost computations underlying co-efficient decisions. We report a series of experiments that tested the hypothesis that people compute the joint costs of a cooperative action sequence by summing the individual action costs of their co-actor and themselves. We independently manipulated the parameters quantifying individual and joint action costs and tested their effects on decision making by fitting and comparing Bayesian logistic regression models. Our hypothesis was confirmed: people weighed their own and their partner's costs similarly to estimate the joint action costs as the sum of the two individual parameters. Participants minimized the aggregate cost to ensure co-efficiency. The results provide empirical support for behavioral economics and computational approaches that formalize cooperation as joint utility maximization based on a weighted sum of individual action costs.

Citing Articles

Effects of Joint Action Observation on Children's Imitation.

Rizvanovic N, Kiraly I, Sebanz N Behav Sci (Basel). 2025; 15(2).

PMID: 40001839 PMC: 11851644. DOI: 10.3390/bs15020208.


Optimizing competence in the service of collaboration.

Xiang Y, Velez N, Gershman S Cogn Psychol. 2024; 150:101653.

PMID: 38503178 PMC: 11023779. DOI: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2024.101653.


Better Together: 14-Month-Old Infants Expect Agents to Cooperate.

Vizmathy L, Begus K, Knoblich G, Gergely G, Curioni A Open Mind (Camb). 2024; 8:1-16.

PMID: 38419792 PMC: 10898613. DOI: 10.1162/opmi_a_00115.


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.


Collaborative decision making is grounded in representations of other people's competence and effort.

Xiang Y, Velez N, Gershman S J Exp Psychol Gen. 2023; 152(6):1565-1579.

PMID: 36877460 PMC: 10271953. DOI: 10.1037/xge0001336.


References
1.
Schmitz L, Vesper C, Sebanz N, Knoblich G . Co-representation of others' task constraints in joint action. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2017; 43(8):1480-1493. DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000403. View

2.
Dawes C, Fowler J, Johnson T, McElreath R, Smirnov O . Egalitarian motives in humans. Nature. 2007; 446(7137):794-6. DOI: 10.1038/nature05651. View

3.
Wolpert D, Landy M . Motor control is decision-making. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2012; 22(6):996-1003. PMC: 3434279. DOI: 10.1016/j.conb.2012.05.003. View

4.
Pelli D . The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis. 1997; 10(4):437-42. View

5.
Colman A, Pulford B, Rose J . Collective rationality in interactive decisions: evidence for team reasoning. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2007; 128(2):387-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2007.08.003. View