↓ Skip to main content

The joint Simon effect depends on perceived agency, but not intentionality, of the alternative action

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
49 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The joint Simon effect depends on perceived agency, but not intentionality, of the alternative action
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00595
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Stenzel, Thomas Dolk, Lorenza S. Colzato, Roberta Sellaro, Bernhard Hommel, Roman Liepelt

Abstract

A co-actor's intentionality has been suggested to be a key modulating factor for joint action effects like the joint Simon effect (JSE). However, in previous studies intentionality has often been confounded with agency defined as perceiving the initiator of an action as being the causal source of the action. The aim of the present study was to disentangle the role of agency and intentionality as modulating factors of the JSE. In Experiment 1, participants performed a joint go/nogo Simon task next to a co-actor who either intentionally controlled a response button with own finger movements (agency+/intentionality+) or who passively placed the hand on a response button that moved up and down on its own as triggered by computer signals (agency-/intentionality-). In Experiment 2, we included a condition in which participants believed that the co-actor intentionally controlled the response button with a Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) while placing the response finger clearly besides the response button, so that the causal relationship between agent and action effect was perceptually disrupted (agency-/intentionality+). As a control condition, the response button was computer controlled while the co-actor placed the response finger besides the response button (agency-/intentionality-). Experiment 1 showed that the JSE is present with an intentional co-actor and causality between co-actor and action effect, but absent with an unintentional co-actor and a lack of causality between co-actor and action effect. Experiment 2 showed that the JSE is absent with an intentional co-actor, but no causality between co-actor and action effect. Our findings indicate an important role of the co-actor's agency for the JSE. They also suggest that the attribution of agency has a strong perceptual basis.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Hong Kong 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 88 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 22%
Researcher 17 18%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Professor 5 5%
Other 15 16%
Unknown 19 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 54 58%
Neuroscience 7 8%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 24 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 August 2014.
All research outputs
#12,707,572
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,495
of 7,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,758
of 230,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#137
of 248 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 230,115 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 248 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.