Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1991-2002 |
| Number of pages | 12 |
| Journal | Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics |
| Volume | 81 |
| Issue number | 6 |
| Early online date | 22 Mar 2019 |
| Publication status | Published - 15 Aug 2019 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Abstract
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.
Keywords
- Action control, Effect anticipations, Social actions
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities(all)
- Language and Linguistics
- Psychology(all)
- Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Neuroscience(all)
- Sensory Systems
- Social Sciences(all)
- Linguistics and Language
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, Vol. 81, No. 6, 15.08.2019, p. 1991-2002.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
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 -