The present study explored the role of the responding agent in a social context. To do so, we developed a compatibility task with socially relevant but task-irrelevant stimuli (own face, neutral face, and a friend's face). Participants were required to perform naming responses to coloured diamonds, while the faces were presented as irrelevant stimuli. We observed faster responses in face–name compatible than in incompatible conditions. When the task was distributed among two friends, we observed a compatibility effect in a joint go/no-go condition, in which both participants performed their go/no-go tasks together. In contrast, no compatibility effect was obtained in an individual go/no-go condition. Further, the experiment showed that this joint compatibility effect was based on the compatibility between the irrelevant face and the responding agent. This result demonstrates that features of the responding agent play a crucial role in the joint compatibility effect.
AnsorgeU.WührP. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance30, 365–377.
2.
AtmacaS.SebanzN.KnoblichG. (2010). Sharing tasks with real, imagined, and unintentional co-actors Manuscript submitted for publication.
3.
AtmacaS.SebanzN.PrinzW.KnoblichG. (2008). Action co-representation: The joint SNARC effect.Social Neuroscience3, 410–420.
4.
BrédartS.DelchambreM.LaureysS. (2006). One's own face is hard to ignore.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology59, 46–52.
5.
BruceV.YoungA. (1986). Understanding face recognition.British Journal of Psychology77, 305–327.
6.
DehaeneS. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities.Cognition44, 1–42.
7.
De HouwerJ. (1998). The semantic Simon effect.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology51, 683–688.
8.
De HouwerJ.CrombezG.BaeyensF.HermansD. (2001). On the generality of the affective Simon effect.Cognition and Emotion15, 189–206.
9.
De HouwerJ.EelenP. (1998). An affective variant of the Simon paradigm.Cognition and Emotion12, 45–61.
10.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics16, 143–149.
11.
GeversW.LammertynJ.NotebaertW.VergutsT.FiasW. (2006). Automatic response activation of implicit spatial information: Evidence from the SNARC effect.Acta Psychologica122, 221–233.
12.
GhyselinckM.CustersR.BrysbaertM. (2004). The effect of age of acquisition in visual word processing: Further evidence for the semantic hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition30, 550–554.
13.
Gorno-TempiniM. L.PriceC. J.JosephsO.VandenbergheR.CappaS. F.KapurN. (1998). The neural systems sustaining face and proper-name processing.Brain121, 2103–2118.
14.
IzauteM.BoninP. (2006). Retrieval of names in face and object naming in an interference study.Memory14, 400–414.
15.
JenkinsR.LavieN.DriverJ. (2003). Ignoring famous faces: Category-specific dilution of distractor interference.Perception & Psychophysics65, 298–309.
16.
KornblumS.HasbroucqT.OsmanA. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus–response compatibility: A model and taxonomy.Psychological Review97, 253–270.
17.
KundeW.StockerC. (2002). A Simon effect for stimulus–response duration.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology55, 581–592.
18.
NeunerF.SchweinbergerS. R. (2000). Neuropsychological impairments in the recognition of faces, voices, and personal names.Brain & Cognition44, 342–366.
19.
PrinzW. (1990). A common coding approach to perception and action.Relationships between perception and action: Current approaches. NeumannO.PrinzW.Berlin: Springer167–201.
20.
PrinzW. (1997). Perception and action planning.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology9, 129–154.
21.
SebanzN.KnoblichG.PrinzW. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one's own?.Cognition88, 11–21.
22.
SebanzN.KnoblichG.PrinzW. (2005). How two share a task: Corepresenting stimulus–response mappings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance31, 1234–1246.
23.
SebanzN.RebbechiD.KnoblichG.PrinzW.FrithC. (2007). Is it really my turn? An event-related fMRI study of task sharing.Social Neuroscience2, 81–95.
24.
SimonJ. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation.Journal of Experimental Psychology81, 174–176.
25.
SimonJ. R. (1990). The effects of an irrelevant directional cue on human information processing.Stimulus–response compatibility: An integrated perspective. ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G.Amsterdam: North-Holland31–86.
26.
TsaiC. -C.BrassM. (2007). Does the human motor system simulate Pinocchio's actions? Coacting with a human hand versus a wooden hand in a dyadic interaction.Psychological Science18, 1058–1062.
27.
TsaiC. -C.KuoW. -J.JingJ. -T.HungD. L.TzengO. J.-L. (2006). A common coding framework in self-other interaction: Evidence from joint action task.Experimental Brain Research175, 353–362.
28.
WührP.AnsorgeU. (2007). A Simon effect in memory retrieval: Evidence for the response-discrimination account.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review14, 984–988.
29.
YoungA. W.EllisA. W.FludeB. M.McWeenyK. H.HayD. C. (1986). Face–name interference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance12, 466–475.
