Shared intention & Joint action Flashcards
Joint/social attention: joint intentionality
Tomasello: progress of... individual intentionality -> joint intentionality -> collective intentionality ... is what makes humans unique.
Joint/shared intentionality produces collaborative behaviour to achieve a common goal (Tomasello et al, 05).
People with different perspectives work differently toward the same outcome.
Joint/social attention: social eyes (gazes)
Eyes are the windows to the soul - is intention revealed?
Eye gaze, head and body orientation - tell our social intentions (Nummenmaa & Calder, 2009).
Eyes can tell others what you’re interested in.
Joint/social attention: eye gaze as a social signal
Shows overt attention: indicates info important to an individual.
- also important for others to investigate.
- found in dogs, dolphins, primates etc.
Shows covert attention: not necessarily readable.
- human infants gaze following starts early (Farroni et al, 2000; Tomasello, 2001).
- shift/check attention = 9-12 months.
- follow others attention = 11-14 months.
- ability to direct attention = 13-14 months.
Human interaction important to determine progression.
Gaze leading: gaze following
Sometimes to check whether we are being attended to.
Want to find out if people are following us.
If person doesn’t follow - may not have shared interests.
- impacts future engagements.
Gaze leading: attending the gazing face
Tomasello (2005): joint attention is collaborative.
- not one follows the other.
Don’t just follow eye gaze but also lead.
Edwards et al (2015): do we observe the fazing face?
- gaze followed condition vs. averted.
- look at cross, then gaze initiated by another stimulus in centre.
- one face follows gaze, one averts from stimulus.
- then random letter appears on either face.
Findings:
- quicker RTs when letter on face follow ppts gaze.
- more attention paid - shared interests.
Gaze leading: to be watched or not?
Dual functions of eye gaze - gather info and deliver message.
Primates and humans use direct eye contact to exert superiority (De Waal, 1989).
- gaze can also tell us whose in charge/hierarchy.
- people of different status use different gaze patterns.
- cultural variations - inappropriate looking somewhere or at someone for too long.
Goebel et al, (2015): ppts watched video clips of higher vs. lower ranked targets.
- told filmed video would be stored (non-social) vs. watched by targets (social).
- look less to eyes of higher ranked targets in social condition - avoid challenging superiority?
Joint action: explicit interaction
Don’t just engage in interplays with eye gaze… also in actions.
Need to perform complimentary actions rather than imitating another person - to achieve a common goal (Sebanz et al 2006).
Joint action: compared to social facilitation
Fundamentally different from SF (Zajonc, 1965).
- people behave differently when being observed = audience effect.
- or when carrying out identical tasks = co-action effect.
Typically better performance for simple tasks but worse for complex/new tasks.
Joint action = complimentary (not identical) tasks.
Joint action: simon effect
Two choice (L/R hand) responses according to colours, but the finger image can point to either direction (Simon, 1969).
- stimulus-response conflict can occur: longer RTs for incompatible condition (responding hand differs from pointing direction) - Knoblich & Sebanz, 2006).
Eg. either arm up = respond with left hand // down = right response.
- conflict between visual-spatial info when right hand up (respond left).
- less difficult when one task is removed - no difference in RTs.
Joint action: social simon effect
Two responses taken by two people (Sebanz et al, 2003/2005):
- same compatibility effect found when a pair performed the two parts of the simon task.
Compared to individual cognition (Knoblich, 2006).
- RTs significantly longer for incompatible tasks in the joint condition.
- RTs a only a little slower for incompatible tasks in individual condition.
Joint action: flanker task
Slower responses to target when info is conflicting/incongruent (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974).
Joint action: social flanker task - Atmaca et al (2011)
Joint condition: left person press when middle letter = H or K.
- right person when = C or S.
Individual task: press when = H or K. Do nothing when = C or S.
Stronger flanker effect in joint condition.
Joint action: task co-representation
Whole task processed (represented) by one person - even if only performing part of the task.
Suggested that this person represents the partaking on by the other person as well = task co-representation or shared task representation.
“Basic interpersonal processes put to service by more advanced functions that support the type of intentionality required to engage in joint action, cultural learning and communication”. (Knoblich & Sebanz, 2008).
- not the same as social facilitation (improvement in a task when working with others - better on simple tasks, worse on complex tasks).
Is joint action social?: relationships
This effect is stronger when two persons have a positive relationship (Hommel et al, 2009).
- RTs longer for positive relationship - greater difference between spatial non-correspondence and spatial correspondence.
Is joint action social?: believing is enough
Social Simon effect found when ppt believed there was another co-actor (fake) - Sebanz et al, 2005.
- social flanker effect also - Atmaca et al, 2011.
Co-representation only occurs if believed to be human, not computer - Tsai et al, 2008.
But effect present with wooden hand when person takes perspective of Pinocchio (Muller et al, 2011).
- greater differences in RTs in Pinocchio condition, incompatible task.