{"title":"在新颖的联合目标设定范式中,共同行为者的(非)可靠性如何调节目标选择。","authors":"Felix J Götz, Gesine Dreisbach","doi":"10.1007/s00426-024-02056-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sociomotor theory - an extension of ideomotor theory - suggests that actions can also be represented in terms of the effects they elicit from others. But what if those others violate one's action effect anticipations? Here, we introduce a novel joint goal-setting paradigm to investigate effects of co-actors' occasional and overall unreliability on an individual's goal selection. In a first step, the participant moved a target halfway from the bottom center to the top left or right corner of the computer screen. In the second step, the co-actor moved the target to its final left or right position. In a learning block, the co-actor always continued the participant's target movements. In the test block(s), the co-actor produced congruent action effects in 50% (unreliable) vs. 80% (reliable co-actor) of the trials. Experiment 1 consisted of one (between-participants), Experiment 2 and 3 of two (within-participants) test blocks; in Experiment 3, the co-actor changed between blocks. Results of Experiments 1 and 3 reveal that participants repeated their corner choice more often after incongruent trials, but only when the co-actor was generally reliable. Implications in terms of sociomotor action control and joint action are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48184,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","volume":"89 1","pages":"18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11567990/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How a co-actor's (Un-) reliability modulates goal selection in a novel joint goal-setting paradigm.\",\"authors\":\"Felix J Götz, Gesine Dreisbach\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00426-024-02056-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Sociomotor theory - an extension of ideomotor theory - suggests that actions can also be represented in terms of the effects they elicit from others. But what if those others violate one's action effect anticipations? Here, we introduce a novel joint goal-setting paradigm to investigate effects of co-actors' occasional and overall unreliability on an individual's goal selection. In a first step, the participant moved a target halfway from the bottom center to the top left or right corner of the computer screen. In the second step, the co-actor moved the target to its final left or right position. In a learning block, the co-actor always continued the participant's target movements. In the test block(s), the co-actor produced congruent action effects in 50% (unreliable) vs. 80% (reliable co-actor) of the trials. Experiment 1 consisted of one (between-participants), Experiment 2 and 3 of two (within-participants) test blocks; in Experiment 3, the co-actor changed between blocks. Results of Experiments 1 and 3 reveal that participants repeated their corner choice more often after incongruent trials, but only when the co-actor was generally reliable. Implications in terms of sociomotor action control and joint action are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48184,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"volume\":\"89 1\",\"pages\":\"18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11567990/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-02056-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Research-Psychologische Forschung","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-024-02056-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
How a co-actor's (Un-) reliability modulates goal selection in a novel joint goal-setting paradigm.
Sociomotor theory - an extension of ideomotor theory - suggests that actions can also be represented in terms of the effects they elicit from others. But what if those others violate one's action effect anticipations? Here, we introduce a novel joint goal-setting paradigm to investigate effects of co-actors' occasional and overall unreliability on an individual's goal selection. In a first step, the participant moved a target halfway from the bottom center to the top left or right corner of the computer screen. In the second step, the co-actor moved the target to its final left or right position. In a learning block, the co-actor always continued the participant's target movements. In the test block(s), the co-actor produced congruent action effects in 50% (unreliable) vs. 80% (reliable co-actor) of the trials. Experiment 1 consisted of one (between-participants), Experiment 2 and 3 of two (within-participants) test blocks; in Experiment 3, the co-actor changed between blocks. Results of Experiments 1 and 3 reveal that participants repeated their corner choice more often after incongruent trials, but only when the co-actor was generally reliable. Implications in terms of sociomotor action control and joint action are discussed.
期刊介绍:
Psychological Research/Psychologische Forschung publishes articles that contribute to a basic understanding of human perception, attention, memory, and action. The Journal is devoted to the dissemination of knowledge based on firm experimental ground, but not to particular approaches or schools of thought. Theoretical and historical papers are welcome to the extent that they serve this general purpose; papers of an applied nature are acceptable if they contribute to basic understanding or serve to bridge the often felt gap between basic and applied research in the field covered by the Journal.