Abstract
Abstract. In the social Simon task, two participants perform a spatial compatibility task together, each of them responding to only one stimulus (e.g., one participant reacts to red, the other to green stimuli). Participants show joint spatial compatibility effects (SCEs), that is, they respond faster when their go-stimulus appears on their half of the screen. Effects are absent when the same go/no-go task is performed without a coactor. Joint SCEs were originally explained in terms of shared task representations, but recent research suggests that effects result from spatial response coding: in joint go/no-go tasks, participants perceive themselves as the right/left participant operating a right/left response key. While previous research showed that the spatial alignment of keys and seats influences the effect, the present research demonstrates that merely instructing participants to be the right/left participant operating a right/left response key instead of labeling participants and keys with arbitrary numbers substantially increases joint SCEs.
References
(2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.30.2.365
(2016). Emotions predictably modify response times in the initiation of human motor actions: A meta-analytic review. Emotion, 16, 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000115
(2004). Quantitative psychological research: A student’s handbook. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
(2008). Self-regulatory strategy and executive control: Implementation intentions modulate task switching and Simon task performance. Psychological Research, 72, 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-006-0074-2
(2009). The representation of instructions operates like a prepared reflex: Flanker compatibility effects found in first trial following S-R instructions. Experimental Psychology, 56, 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169.56.2.128
(1993). The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 371–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.122.3.371
(2017). The joint flanker effect and the joint Simon effect: On the comparability of processes underlying joint compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 1808–1823. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1207690
(2013). Keys and seats: Spatial response coding underlying the joint spatial compatibility effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 1725–1736. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0524-z
(2012). Does ignoring lead to worse evaluations? A new explanation of the stimulus devaluation effect. Cognition & Emotion, 26, 193–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2011.570313
(2012). Increased spatial salience in the social Simon task: a response-coding account of spatial compatibility effects. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 911–929. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-012-0304-1
(2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: a referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031031
(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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.262
(2014). Proportion congruency effects: instructions may be enough. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01108
(2014). Automatic motor activation by mere instruction. Cognitive, Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 14, 1300–1309. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0294-7
(1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777
(2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114, 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.008
(1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention. Psychological Research, 55, 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419687
(2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103
(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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028347
(2012). Inverting the joint Simon effect by intention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 914–920. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0283-1
(1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility – A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253
(2012). Instruction-based task-rule congruency effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 1325–1335. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028148
(2015). Stimulus-response correspondence in go-nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object? Psychological Research, 80, 912–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0699-0
(1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210959
(2015). The power of instructions: Proactive configuration of stimulus-response translation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41, 768–786. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000063
(2013). Intentional weighting: A basic principle in cognitive control. Psychological Research, 77, 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0435-y
(2008). Improving performance through implementation intentions: Are preexisting response biases replaced? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 1105–1110. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.6.1105
(2003). The role of instructions, practice, and stimulus-hand correspondence on the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 67, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-002-0107-4
(2002). Interpreting reaction time measures in between-group comparisons. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 858–872. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.24.7.858.8392
(2012). Learning, awareness, and instruction: Subjective contingency awareness does matter in the colour-word contingency learning paradigm. Consciousness and Cognition, 21, 1754–1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2012.10.006
(2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own? Cognition, 88, B11–B21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X
(2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus-response mappings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 1234–1246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1234
(1990).
The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing . In R. W. ProctorC. H. LuEds., Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective (pp. 31–86). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.(2016). Joint Simon effects for non-human co-actors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0994-2
(2014). Eliminating the Simon effect by instruction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1470–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036913
(2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task. Experimental Brain Research, 175, 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-006-0557-9
(2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20144
(1999). Facilitation and interference components in the Simon effect. Archives Italiennes de Biologie, 137, 139–149.
(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. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192971
(2007). Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation? Human Movement Science, 26, 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.06.003
(2005). The influence of task instruction on action coding: Constraint setting or direct coding? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 803–819. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.31.4.803
