Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online September 1, 2017

The Joint Flanker Effect and the Joint Simon Effect: On the Comparability of Processes Underlying Joint Compatibility Effects

Abstract

Previous studies observed compatibility effects in different interference paradigms such as the Simon and flanker task even when the task was distributed across two co-actors. In both Simon and flanker tasks, performance is improved in compatible trials relative to incompatible trials if one actor works on the task alone as well as if two co-actors share the task. These findings have been taken to indicate that actors automatically co-represent their co-actor's task. However, recent research on the joint Simon and joint flanker effect suggests alternative non-social interpretations. To which degree both joint effects are driven by the same underlying processes is the question of the present study, and it was scrutinized by manipulating the visibility of the co-actor. While the joint Simon effect was not affected by the visibility of the co-actor, the joint flanker effect was reduced when participants did not see their co-actors but knew where the co-actors were seated. These findings provide further evidence for a spatial interpretation of the joint Simon effect. In contrast to recent claims, however, we propose a new explanation of the joint flanker effect that attributes the effect to an impairment in the focusing of spatial attention contingent on the visibility of the co-actor.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Ansorge U., & Wühr P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377.
Atkinson M. A., Simpson A., Skarratt P. A., & Cole G. G. (2014). Is social inhibition of return due to action co-representation? Acta Psychologica, 150, 85–93.
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.
Atmaca S., Sebanz N., Prinz W., & Knoblich G. (2008). Action co-representation: The joint SNARC effect. Social Neuroscience, 3, 410–420.
Baus C., Sebanz N., de la Fuente V., Branzi F. M., Martin C., & Costa A. (2014). On predicting others’ words: electrophysiological evidence of prediction in speech production. Cognition, 133, 395–407.
Böckler A., Knoblich G., & Sebanz N. (2012). Effects of a coactor's focus of attention on task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1404–1415.
Brown P., & Fera P. (1994). Turning selective attention failure into selective attention success. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale, 48, 25–57.
Clark-Carter D. (2004). Quantitative psychological research: A student's handbook. New York: Psychology Press.
Cohen A., & Shoup R. (1997). Perceptual dimensional constraints in response selection processes. Cognitive Psychology, 32, 128–181.
Cole G., Skarratt P., & Billing R. (2012). Do action goals mediate social inhibition of return? Psychological Research, 76, 736–746.
De Houwer J. (2003). On the role of stimulus–response and stimulus–stimulus compatibility in the stroop effect. Memory & Cognition, 31, 353–359.
De Jong R., Liang C.-C., & Lauber E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 731–750.
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.
Dittrich K., & Klauer K. C. (2012). Does ignoring lead to worse evaluations? A new explanation of the stimulus devaluation effect. Cognition & Emotion, 26, 193–208.
Dittrich K., Rothe A., & Klauer K. C. (2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: A response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 911–929.
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, 1–9.
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.
Dolk T., Hommel B., Prinz W., & Liepelt R. (2014). The joint flanker effect: Less social than previously thought. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 1224–1230.
Dreisbach G., & Böttcher S. (2011). How the social-evaluative context modulates processes of cognitive control. Psychological Research, 75, 143–151.
Dutta A., & Proctor R. W. (1992). Persistence of stimulus-response compatibility effects with extended practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory, and Cognition, 18, 801–809.
Eder A. B., & Rothermund K. (2008). When do motor behaviors (mis)match affective stimuli? An evaluative coding view of approach and avoidance reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 262–281.
Eimer M., Hommel B., & Prinz W. (1995). S-R compatibility and response selection. Acta Psychologica, 90, 301–313.
Eriksen B. A., & Eriksen C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
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.
Guerin B. (1983). Social facilitation and social monitoring: A test of three models. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 203–214.
Hommel B. (1996). S–R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49A, 546–571.
Hommel B., Colzato L. S., & van den Wildenberg W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.
Hübner R., Steinhauser M., & Lehle C. (2010). A dual-stage two-phase model of selective attention. Psychological Review, 117, 759–784.
Iani C., Anelli F., Nicoletti R., Arcuri L., & Rubichi S. (2011). The role of group membership on the modulation of joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 439–445.
Judd C. M., Westfall J., & Kenny D. A. (2012). Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: A new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 54–69.
Kornblum S., Hasbroucq T., & Osman A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility – A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
Kornblum S., & Lee J.-W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855–875.
LaBerge D. (1983). Spatial extent of attention to letters and words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 371–379.
Lavie N., Hirst A., De Fockert J. W., & Viding E. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339–354.
Lu C.-H., & Proctor R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.
Mattler U. (2006). Distance and ratio effects in the flanker task are due to different mechanisms. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1745–1763.
Memelink J., & Hommel B. (2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259.
Müller B. C. N., Brass M., Kühn S., Tsai C.-C., Nieuwboer W., Dijksterhuis A., & van Baaren R. B.(2011). When Pinocchio acts like a human, a wooden hand becomes embodied. Action co-representation for non-biological agents. Neuropsychologia, 49, 1373–1377.
Prinz W. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action. In Neumann O. & Prinz W. (Eds.), Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches (pp. 167–201). Berlin: Springer.
Prinz W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
Rubichi S., & Pellicano A. (2004). Does the Simon effect affect movement execution? European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 825–840.
Ruys K. I., & Aarts H. (2010). When competition merges people's behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1130–1133.
Sebanz N., Bekkering H., & Knoblich G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70–76.
Sebanz N., Knoblich G., & Prinz W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one's own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21.
Sellaro R., Treccani B., Rubichi S., & Cubelli R. (2013). When co-action eliminates the Simon effect: Disentangling the impact of co-actor's presence and task sharing on joint-task performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 844.
Simon J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 174–176.
Stenzel A., Chinellato E., Tirado Bou M. A., del Pobil À. P., Lappe M., & Liepelt R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1073–1077.
Treccani B., Cubelli R., Della Sala S., & Umiltà C. (2009). Flanker and Simon effects interact at the response selection stage. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1784–1804.
Tsai C.-C., Kuo W.-J., Hung D. L., & Tzeng O. J.-L. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024.
Tsai C.-C., Kuo W.-J., Jing J.-T., Hung D. L., & Tzeng O. J.-L. (2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353–362.
Umiltà C., Rubichi S., & Nicoletti R. (1999). Facilitation and interference components in the Simon effect. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 137, 139–149.
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.
Voss A., Leonhart R., & Stahl C. (2007). How to make your own response boxes: A step-by-step guide for the construction of reliable and inexpensive parallel-port response pads from computer mice. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 797–801.
Weeks D. J., Proctor R. W., & Beyak B. (1995). Stimulus–response compatibility for vertically oriented stimuli and horizontally oriented responses: Evidence for spatial coding. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 48(A), 367–383.
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.
Welsh T. N., Elliott D., Anson J. G., Dhillon V., Weeks D. J., Lyons J. L., & Chua R. (2005). Does Joe influence Fred's action? Inhibition of return across different nervous systems. Neuroscience Letters, 385, 99–104.
Welsh T. N., Higgins L., Ray M., & Weeks D. J. (2007). Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? Human Movement Science, 26, 853–866.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: September 1, 2017
Issue published: September 2017

Keywords

  1. Flanker effect
  2. Joint compatibility effect
  3. Social Simon effect
  4. Spatial compatibility effect

Rights and permissions

© 2017 Experimental Pscyhology Society.
Request permissions for this article.
PubMed: 27357224

Authors

Affiliations

Kerstin Dittrich
Institut für Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Marie-Luise Bossert
Institut für Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Annelie Rothe-Wulf
Institut für Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
Karl Christoph Klauer
Institut für Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

Notes

[email protected] Institut für Psychologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, D-79085 Freiburg, Germany
†Kerstin Dittrich and Marie-Luise Bossert contributed equally to the present work.

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 482

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 18 view articles Opens in new tab

Crossref: 19

  1. Beyond peripersonal boundaries: insights from crossmodal interactions
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. Joint action with human and robotic co-actors: Self-other integration ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google ScholarPub Med
  3. Gender composition of pairs influences joint action effect
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. The role of the co-actor’s response reachability in the joint Simon ef...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. An Experimenter's Influence on Motor Enhancements: The Effects of Lett...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Crossmodal Attention Applied
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. When task sharing reduces interference: evidence for division-of-labou...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. The sociality of social inhibition of return
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. The social Simon effect in the tactile sensory modality: a negative fi...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Whose turn is it anyway? The moderating role of response-execution cer...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. No evidence of task co-representation in a joint Stroop task
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Joint action with a virtual robotic vs. human agent
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  13. Theory of mind and joint action in Parkinson’s disease
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  14. Barriers to success: physical separation optimizes event-file retrieva...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  15. Response Coordination Emerges in Cooperative but Not Competitive Joint...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  16. Are You Keeping an Eye on Me? The Influence of Competition and Coopera...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  17. When a Social Experimenter Overwrites Effects of Salient Objects in an...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  18. You Are Right!
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  19. Drawn together: When motor representations ground joint actions
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

EPS members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.

EPS members can access this journal content using society membership credentials.


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text