Book contents
- Shared Representations
- Cambridge Social Neuroscience
- Shared Representations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Imitation and Mimicry
- Part III Thinking, Perceiving and Acting with Others
- 10 Levels of Complexity and the Duality of Gaze
- 11 Acting Together
- 12 Joint Perception
- 13 Social Antecedents and Consequences of Behavioral Synchrony
- 14 Musical Ensemble Performance
- Part IV Understanding Others
- Part V Learning and Development
- Part VI Shared Representations in Applied Contexts
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
12 - Joint Perception
from Part III - Thinking, Perceiving and Acting with Others
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2016
Book contents
- Shared Representations
- Cambridge Social Neuroscience
- Shared Representations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Foundations
- Part II Imitation and Mimicry
- Part III Thinking, Perceiving and Acting with Others
- 10 Levels of Complexity and the Duality of Gaze
- 11 Acting Together
- 12 Joint Perception
- 13 Social Antecedents and Consequences of Behavioral Synchrony
- 14 Musical Ensemble Performance
- Part IV Understanding Others
- Part V Learning and Development
- Part VI Shared Representations in Applied Contexts
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
Abstract
Perception is solitary. After all, it is the individual alone who feels, hears, tastes, smells and sees. Yet, while the phenomenology of engaging with the world through our senses is restricted to subjective sensations, those sensations are often experienced in a social context. Do social forces change how an individual interacts with the environment and responds to incoming information? We present and discuss a recently discovered phenomenon: people’s eye movements and focus of attention change with their belief that they are looking at objects alone or together with somebody else. Research on ‘joint perception’ provides evidence for the pervasive effect of social context, influencing psychological processes from cognition to low-level perception.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shared RepresentationsSensorimotor Foundations of Social Life, pp. 236 - 253Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Asch, S. E. (1951). Effects of group pressure on the modification and distortion of judgments. In Guetzkow, H. (Ed.), Groups, leadership and men. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press, 177–190.Google Scholar
Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: Sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 371–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, D. A. (1995). Understanding the link between joint attention and language. In Moore, C. & Dunham, P. J. (Eds.), Joint attention: Its origins and role in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 131–158.Google Scholar
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., Bratlavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berdahl, A., Torney, C. J., Ioannou, C. C., Faria, J. J., & Couzin, I. D. (2013). Emergent sensing of complex environments by mobile animal groups. Science, 339, 574–576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Böckler, A., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2012). Effects of a co-actor’s focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(6), 1404–1415.Google Scholar
Burum, B., Karbowicz, D., & Gilbert, D. (2013). A good experience is better co-experienced. Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, New Orleans, LA, 17–19 January.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, J. T., Berntson, G. G., & Decety, J. (2010). Social neuroscience and its relationship to social psychology. Social Cognition, 28(6), 675–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2013). Social neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(6), 667–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, H. H. (1996). Being there: Putting brain, body, and the world together again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalmaso, M., Pavan, G., Castelli, L., & Galfano, G. (2012). Social status gates social attention in humans. Biology Letters, 8, 450–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doerrfeld, A., Sebanz, N., & Shiffrar, M. (2012). Expecting to lift a box together makes the box look lighter. Psychological Research, 76, 467–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dovidio, J. F., & Ellyson, S. L. (1982). Decoding visual dominance: Attributions of power based on relative percentages of looking while speaking and looking while listening. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 496–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foulsham, T., Cheng, J. T., Tracy, J. L., Henrich, J., & Kingstone, A. (2010). Gaze allocation in a dynamic situation: Effects of social status and speaking. Cognition, 117, 319–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridlund, A. J. (1991). Sociality of solitary smiling: Potentiation by an implicit audience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 229–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frischen, A., Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2007). Gaze cueing of attention: Visual attention, social cognition, and individual differences. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 694–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galantucci, B., & Sebanz, N. (2009). Joint action: Current perspectives. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 255–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup, A. C., Chong, A., & Couzin, I. D. (2012a). The directional flow of visual information transfer between pedestrians. Biology Letters, 8(4), 520–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallup, A. C., Hale, J. J., Sumpter, D. J. T., Garnier, S., Kacelnik, A., et al. (2012b). Visual attention and the acquisition of information in human crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7245–72506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2004). Why is conversation so easy? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 8–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstone, R. L., & Gureckis, T. M. (2009). Collective behaviour. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 412–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gureckis, T. M., & Goldstone, R. L. (2006). Thinking in groups. Pragmatics & Cognition, 14(2), 293–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In Sorrentino, R. M. & Higgins, E. T. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition. New York: Guilford Press, 28–84.Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 2, 96–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T., & Pittman, T. S. (2008). Motives of the human animal: Comprehending, managing, and sharing inner states. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 361–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(3), 99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kobayashi, H., & Kohshima, S. (1997). Unique morphology of the human eye. Nature, 387, 767–768.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuhn, G., Tatler, B. W., & Cole, G. G. (2009). You look where I look! Effect of gaze cues on overt and covert attention in misdirection. Visual Cognition, 17, 925–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). International affective picture system (IAPS): Digitized photographs, instruction manual, and affective ratings (Tech. Rep. A-6). Gainesville: University of Florida, Center for Research in Psychophysiology.Google Scholar
Levi, D. M., Klein, S. A., & Aitsebaomo, A. P. (1985). Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification. Vision Research, 25(7), 963–977.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, K. L., Richardson, M. J., & Schmidt, R. C. (2009). Social connection through joint action and interpersonal coordination. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 320–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason, M. F., Tatkow, E. P., & Macrae, C. N. (2005). The look of love: Gaze shifts and person perception. Psychological Science, 16, 236–239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miles, L. K., Nind, L. K., & Macrae, C. N. (2009). The rhythm of rapport: Interpersonal synchrony and social perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 585–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(2), 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as polarizer of attitudes. Journals of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(2), 125–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, T. (1974). What is it like to be a bat? Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and preparedness: Toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychological Review, 108(3), 483–522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Passer, M. W., & Smith, R. E. (2008). Psychology: The science of mind and behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Raafat, R. M., Chater, N., & Frith, C. (2009). Herding in humans. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(10), 420–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, D. C., & Dale, R. (2005). Looking to understand: The coupling between speakers’ and listeners’ eye movements and its relationship to discourse comprehension. Cognitive Science, 29, 1045–1060.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Kirkham, N. Z. (2007a). The art of conversation is coordination: Common ground and the coupling of eye movements during dialogue. Psychological Science, 18(5), 407–413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, D. C., Dale, R., & Tomlinson, J. M. (2009). Conversation, gaze coordination, and beliefs about visual context. Cognitive Science, 33, 1468–1482.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, D. C., & Gobel, M. S. (2015). Social Attention. In J. M. Fawcett, E. F. Risko, & A. Kingstone (Eds.), The Handbook of Attention (pp. 349–367). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, D. C., Street, C. N., Tan, J. Y. M., Kirkham, N. Z., Hoover, M. A., & Cavanaugh, A. G. (2012). Joint perception: Gaze and social context. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., Isenhower, R. W., Goodman, J. R. L., & Schmidt, R. C. (2007b). Rocking together: Dynamics of intentional and unintentional interpersonal coordination. Human Movement Science, 26, 867–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richardson, M. J., Marsh, K. L., & Schmidt, R. C. (2005). Effects of visual and verbal interaction on unintentional interpersonal coordination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31(1), 62–79.Google ScholarPubMed
Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartre, J. P. (1958). Being and nothingness: An essay on phenomenological ontology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schnall, S., Harber, K. D., Stefanucci, J. K., & Proffitt, D. R. (2008). Social support and the perception of geographical slant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1246–1255.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Senju, A., & Johnson, M. H. (2009). Atypical eye contact in autism: Models, mechanisms and development. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 33, 1204–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepherd, S. V. (2010). Following gaze: Gaze-following behavior as a window into social cognition. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 4, 1–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Sherif, M. (1937). An experimental approach to the study of attitudes. Sociometry, 1, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shockley, K., Santana, M. V., & Fowler, C. A. (2003). Mutual interpersonal postural constraints are involved in cooperative conversation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 326–332.Google ScholarPubMed
Shteynberg, G. (2010). A silent emergence of culture: The social tuning effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 683–689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2007). Situated social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(3), 132–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Striano, T., & Reid, V. M. (2006). Social cognition in the first year. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(10), 471–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, L., & Fine, G. A. (1999). Socially shared cognition, affect, and behavior: A review and integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 278–302.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675–735.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valdesolo, P., Ouyang, J., & DeSteno, D. (2010). The rhythm of joint action: Synchrony promotes cooperative ability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 693–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D. M. (1986). Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Mullen, B. & Goethals, G. R. (Eds.), Theories of group behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag, 185–208.Google Scholar
Wiltermuth, S. S. (2012a). Synchronous activity boosts compliance with requests to aggress. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 453–456.Google Scholar
Wiltermuth, S. S. (2012b). Synchrony and destructive obedience. Social Influence, 7(2), 78–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiltermuth, S. S., & Heath, C. (2009). Synchrony and cooperation. Psychological Science, 20(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
- 1
- Cited by