TY - JOUR

T1 - Revisiting intersubjective action-effect binding

T2 - No evidence for social moderators

AU - Riechelmann, Eva

AU - Weller, Lisa

AU - Huestegge, Lynn

AU - Böckler, Anne

AU - Pfister, Roland

N1 - Funding Information: This research was funded by grants of the German Research Foundation to A.B. (GZ: BO4962/1-1), L.H. (HU 1847/7-1), and R.P. (PF 853, 2-1). Funding Information: We thank Atsushi Sato for providing us with the stimulus material of Sato and Itakura (2013), and for stimulating discussions regarding the present findings. We would like to thank Charlotte Erlinghagen and Andr? Michael Interthal for data collection.

PY - 2019/8/15

Y1 - 2019/8/15

N2 - Effect-based accounts of human action control have recently highlighted the possibility of representing one’s own actions in terms of anticipated changes in the behavior of social interaction partners. In contrast to action effects that pertain to the agent’s body or the agent’s physical environment, social action effects have been proposed to come with peculiarities inherent to their social nature. Here, we revisit the currently most prominent demonstration of such a peculiarity: the role of eye contact for action-effect learning in social contexts (Sato & Itakura, 2013, Cognition, 127, 383–390). In contrast to the previous demonstration of action-effect learning, a conceptual and a direct replication both yielded evidence for the absence of action-effect learning in the proposed design, irrespective of eye contact. Bayesian statistics supported this claim by demonstrating evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no effect. These results suggest a limited generalizability of the original findings—for example, due to limitations that are inherent in the proposed study design or due to cultural differences.

AB - Effect-based accounts of human action control have recently highlighted the possibility of representing one’s own actions in terms of anticipated changes in the behavior of social interaction partners. In contrast to action effects that pertain to the agent’s body or the agent’s physical environment, social action effects have been proposed to come with peculiarities inherent to their social nature. Here, we revisit the currently most prominent demonstration of such a peculiarity: the role of eye contact for action-effect learning in social contexts (Sato & Itakura, 2013, Cognition, 127, 383–390). In contrast to the previous demonstration of action-effect learning, a conceptual and a direct replication both yielded evidence for the absence of action-effect learning in the proposed design, irrespective of eye contact. Bayesian statistics supported this claim by demonstrating evidence in favor of the null hypothesis of no effect. These results suggest a limited generalizability of the original findings—for example, due to limitations that are inherent in the proposed study design or due to cultural differences.

KW - Action control

KW - Effect anticipations

KW - Social actions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069992257&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3758/s13414-019-01715-6

DO - 10.3758/s13414-019-01715-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 30903522

AN - SCOPUS:85069992257

VL - 81

SP - 1991

EP - 2002

JO - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

JF - Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

SN - 1943-3921

IS - 6

ER -