Book contents
- Shared Representations
- Cambridge Social Neuroscience
- Shared Representations
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Boxes
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Foundations
- 1 What It Takes to Share a Task
- 2 Merged Minds
- 3 A New View of the Motor Cortex and Its Relation to Social Behavior
- 4 Beyond Action
- 5 Cognizance of the Neuroimaging Methods for Studying the Social Brain
- Part II Imitation and Mimicry
- Part III Thinking, Perceiving and Acting with Others
- Part IV Understanding Others
- Part V Learning and Development
- Part VI Shared Representations in Applied Contexts
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
1 - What It Takes to Share a Task
Sharing versus Shaping Task Representations
from Part I - Foundations
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
- 1 What It Takes to Share a Task
- 2 Merged Minds
- 3 A New View of the Motor Cortex and Its Relation to Social Behavior
- 4 Beyond Action
- 5 Cognizance of the Neuroimaging Methods for Studying the Social Brain
- Part II Imitation and Mimicry
- Part III Thinking, Perceiving and Acting with Others
- Part IV Understanding Others
- Part V Learning and Development
- Part VI Shared Representations in Applied Contexts
- Index
- Plate Section (PDF Only)
- References
Summary
In this chapter we examine task representations in shared task settings like the joint (“social”) Simon task. Over the past decade, ideas pertaining to shared representations and co-representation have been advanced to account for performance in such settings (Knoblich & Sebanz, 2006; Knoblich, Butterfill, & Sebanz, 2011; Wenke et al., 2011). Here we argue that we can do without these notions. On the one hand, we show that shared representations cannot account for typical findings in shared task settings. This is the negative part. On the other hand, we show that task performance can be explained by the claim that individuals shape their individual task representations according to the needs of the shared task. This is the positive part. Consequentially, we claim that performance in shared task settings relies on shaping individual representations, not sharing common representations (Dolk et al., 2011; Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, & Liepelt, 2013).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shared RepresentationsSensorimotor Foundations of Social Life, pp. 3 - 21Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
References
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 241–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avenanti, A., Sirigu, A., & Aglioti, S. M. (2010). Racial bias reduces empathic sensorimotor resonance with other-race pain. Current Biology, 20, 1018–1022.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colzato, L. S., de Bruijn, E. R. A., & Hommel, B. (2012a). Up to ‘me’ or to ‘us’? The impact of self-construal priming on cognitive self–other integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 341. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colzato, L. S., Zech, H., Hommel, B., Verdonschot, R., van den Wildenberg, W., & Hsieh, S. (2012b). Loving-kindness brings loving-kindness: The impact of Buddhism on cognitive self–other integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 541–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effects of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Maeght, S., & Prinz, W. (2004). Action induction through action observation. Psychological Research, 68, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dittrich, K., Dolk, T., Rothe-Wulf, A., Klauer, K. C., & Prinz, W. (2013). Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How ‘social’ is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 84. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00084.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260.Google ScholarPubMed
Dolk, T., Liepelt, R., Villringer, A., Prinz, W., & Ragert, P. (2012). Morphometric gray matter differences of the medial frontal cortex influence the social Simon effect. NeuroImage, 61, 1249–1254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Echterhoff, G., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). How communication shapes memory: Shared reality and implications for culture. In Semin, G. R. & Echterhoff, G. (Eds.), Grounding sociality: Neurons, mind, and culture. New York: Psychology Press, 115–148.Google Scholar
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a non-search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Perspective-taking and self–other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallese, V., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (1996). Action recognition in the premotor cortex. Brain, 119, 593–609.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harleß, E. (1861). Der Apparat des Willens [The apparatus of will]. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 38, 50–73.Google Scholar
Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 252–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbart, J. F. (1825). Psychologie als Wissenschaft neu gegründet auf Erfahrung, Metaphysik und Mathematik [Psychology as a science newly based on experience, metaphysics, and mathematics]. Königsberg: August Wilhelm Unzer.Google Scholar
Heyes, C. (2014). Submentalizing: I am not really reading your mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1981). The ‘communication game’: Implications for social cognition and persuasion. In Higgins, E. T., Herman, C. P. & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. I). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 343–392.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1992). Achieving ‘shared reality’ in the communication game: A social action that creates meaning. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 11, 107–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B. (1996). S–R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B. (1997). Toward an action-concept model of stimulus–response compatibility. In Hommel, B. & Prinz, W. (Eds.), Theoretical issues in stimulus–response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 281–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B. (2009). Action control according to TEC (theory of event coding). Psychological Research, 73, 512–526.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B. (2010). Grounding attention in action control: The intentional control of selection. In Bruya, B. J. (Ed.), Effortless attention: A new perspective in the cognitive science of attention and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B. (2011). The Simon effect as tool and heuristic. Acta Psychologica, 136, 189–202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B. (2013). Ideomotor action control: On the perceptual grounding of voluntary actions and agents. In Prinz, W., Beisert, M. & Herwig, A. (Eds.), Action science: Foundations of an emerging discipline. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 113–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphrey, G. W., & Bedford, J. (2011). The relations between joint action and theory of mind: A neuropsychological analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 357–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17, 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoblich, G., Butterfill, S., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. LIV). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 59–101.Google Scholar
Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 99–104.Google Scholar
Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility – a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhbandner, C., Pekrun, R., & Maier, M. A. (2010). The role of positive and negative affect in the ‘mirroring’ of other persons’ actions. Cognition & Emotion, 24, 1182–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lam, M. Y., & Chua, R. (2009). Influence of stimulus–response assignment on the joint-action correspondence effect. Psychological Research, 74, 476–480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liepelt, R., Schneider, J., Aichert, D. S., Wöstmann, N., Dehning, S., et al. (2012). Action blind: Disturbed self–other integration in schizophrenia. Neuropsychologia, 50, 3775–3780.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liepelt, R., Wenke, D., Fischer, R., & Prinz, W. (2011). Trial-to-trial sequential dependencies in a social and non-social Simon task. Psychological Research, 75, 366–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lotze, R. H. (1852). Medicinische Psychologie oder die Physiologie der Seele [Medical psychology or the physiology of the soul]. Leipzig: Weidmann’sche Buchhandlung.Google Scholar
Memelink, J., & Hommel, B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mikulincer, M., Orbach, I., & Iavnieli, D. (1998). Adult attachment style and affect regulation: Strategic variations in subjective self–other similarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 436–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milanese, N., Iani, C., Sebanz, N., & Rubichi, S. (2011). Contextual determinants of the socialtransfer-of-learning effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 415–422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. (1991). The flanker compatibility effect as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 270–288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müller, B. C. N., Brass, M., Kühn, S., Tsai, C. C., Nieuwboer, W., et al. (2011a). When Pinocchio acts like a human, a wooden hand becomes embodied: Action co-representation for non-biological agents. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1373–1377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, B. C. N., Kühn, S., van Baaren, R. B., Dotsch, R., Brass, M., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011b). Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members’ actions. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 423–428.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (1997). Blindness to response-compatible stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 861–872.Google ScholarPubMed
Pellegrino, G. di, Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G. (1992). Understanding motor events: A neurophysiological study. Experimental Brain Research, 91, 176–180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philipp, A. M., & Prinz, W. (2010). Evidence for a role of the responding agent in the joint compatibility effect. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 2159–2171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prinz, W. (1987). Ideo-motor action. In Heuer, H. & Sanders, A. F. (Eds.), Perspectives on perception and action. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 47–76.Google Scholar
Prinz, W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In Neumann, O. & Prinz, W. (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action. Berlin: Springer, 167–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, W. (2012). Open minds: The social making of agency and intentionality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzolatti, G., & Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 169–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schütz-Bosbach, S., & Prinz, W. (2007). Perceptual resonance: Action-induced modulation of perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 349–355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 353–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88(3), B11–B21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prinz, W. (2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus–response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 1234–1246.Google Scholar
Sellaro, R., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Liepelt, R., & Hommel, B. (2015). Referential coding does not rely on location features: Evidence for a non-spatial joint Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 41, 186–195.Google Scholar
Sommerville, J. A., & Decety, J. (2006). Weaving the fabric of social interaction: Articulating developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience in the domain of motor cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 179–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Tirado Bou, M. A., del Pobil, Á. P., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Co-representation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1073–1077.Google Scholar
Stock, A., & Stock, C. (2004). A short history of ideo-motor action. Psychological Research, 68, 176–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundstrom, E., & Altman, I. (1976). Interpersonal relationships and personal space: Research review and theoretical model. Human Ecology, 4, 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Tsai, C. C., & Brass, M. (2007). Does the human motor system simulate Pinocchio’s actions? Coacting with a human hand versus a wooden hand in a dyadic interaction. Psychological Science, 18, 1058–1062.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vlainic, E., Liepelt, R., Colzato, L. S., Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (2010). The virtual co-actor: The social Simon effect does not rely on online feedback from the other. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 208. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, T. N. (2009). When 1+1=1: The unification of independent actors revealed through joint Simon effects in crossed and uncrossed effector conditions. Human Movement Science, 28, 726–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh, T. N., Kiernan, D., Neyedli, H. F., Ray, M., Pratt, J., et al. (2013). Joint Simon effects in extrapersonal space. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45, 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wenke, D., Atmaca, S., Holländer, A., Liepelt, R., Baess, P., & Prinz, W. (2011). What is shared in joint action? Issues of co-representation, response conflict, and agent identification. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 147–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9
- Cited by