Successful joint action requires negotiation, especially in the event of goal incongruence. This article addresses goal incongruence in joint musical performance by manipulating the congruence of score instructions (congruent/incongruent) regarding tempo (speed) and dynamics (sound intensity) given to piano duos. The aim is to investigate how co-performers negotiate incongruent instructions for tempo and dynamics by balancing the prioritisation of individual goals versus the joint outcome and how this negotiation is modulated by musical expertise and personality (locus of control). In total, 14 pairs of pianists, who were not informed of the congruence manipulation, were placed back-to-back and were directed to achieve a successful performance over four repeated performances without verbal communication. Interpersonal coordination generally improved from the first to final performance in the congruent and incongruent conditions for both the tempo and dynamics tasks. Furthermore, in incongruent conditions, results suggest that performers prioritise the joint performance in the tempo task, but prioritise their own performance in the dynamics task. Although individual performance appears to be modulated by musical expertise, the balance of individual/joint performance across the duo is not influenced by musical part (melody vs accompaniment), expressive instruction, musical expertise or locus of control.
BlankM.DavidsonJ. (2007). An exploration of the effects of musical and social factors in piano duo collaborations. Psychology of Music, 35, 231–248.
4.
BregmanA. S. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.SalasE.ConverseS. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In Castellan, Jr.J. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CroninM. A.WeingartL. R. (2007). Representational gaps, information processing, and conflict in functionally diverse teams. The Academy of Management Review, 32, 761–773.
7.
D’AusilioA.NovembreG.FadigaL.KellerP. E. (2015). What can music tell us about social interaction?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19, 111–114.
8.
DavidsonJ.KingE. (2004). Strategies for ensemble practice. In WilliamonA. (Ed.), Musical excellence: Strategies and techniques to enhance performance (pp. 105–122). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
De DreuC. K.WeingartL. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction : A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741–749.
10.
FairhurstM. T.JanataP.KellerP. E. (2014). Leading the follower: An fMRI investigation of dynamic cooperativity and leader-follower strategies in synchronization with an adaptive virtual partner. NeuroImage, 84, 688–697.
11.
GinsborgJ. (2006). Shared performance cues in singing and conducting: A content analysis of talk during practice. Psychology of Music, 34, 167–194.
12.
GoeblW. (2001). Melody lead in piano performance: Expressive device or artifact?The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 110, 563–572.
13.
GoodmanE. (2002). Ensemble performance. In RinkJ. (Ed.), Musical performance: A guide to understanding (pp. 153–167). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
GratierM. (2008). Grounding in musical interaction: Evidence from jazz performances. Musicae Scientiae, 12, 71–110.
15.
GreenhalghL.ChapmanD. (1998). Negotiator relationships: Construct measurement, and demonstration of their impact on the process and outcomes of negotiation. Group Decision & Negotiation, 7, 465–489.
16.
KassR. E.RafteryA. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795.
17.
KellerP. E. (2001). Attentional resource allocation in musical ensemble performance. Psychology of Music, 29, 20–38.
18.
KellerP. E. (2014). Ensemble performance: Interpersonal alignment of musical expression. In FabianD.TimmersR.SchubertE. (Eds.), Expressiveness in music performance: Empirical approaches across styles and cultures (pp. 260–282). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
KellerP. E.NovembreG.HoveM. J. (2014). Rhythm in joint action: Psychological and neurophysiological mechanisms for real-time interpersonal coordination. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 369, 20130394.
20.
KellerP. E.NovembreG.LoehrJ. D. (2016). Musical ensemble performance: Representing self, other, and joint action outcomes. In CrossE. S.ObhiS. (Eds.), Shared representations: Sensorimotor foundations of social life (pp. 280–310). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
KenwardM. G.RogerJ. H. (1997). Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics, 53, 983–997.
22.
KenwardM. G.RogerJ. H. (2009). An improved approximation to the precision of fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 53, 2583–2595.
23.
KilnerJ. M.VargasC.DuvalS.BlakemoreS.-J.SiriguA. (2004). Motor activation prior to observation of a predicted movement. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 1299–1301.
24.
KnoblichG.SebanzN. (2008). Evolving intentions for social interaction: From entrainment to joint action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 363, 2021–2031.
25.
LevensonH. (1981). Differentiating among internality, powerful others, and chance. In LefcourtH. M. (Ed.), Research with the locus of control construct (Vol 1, pp. 15–63). New York, NY: Academic Press.
26.
LoehrJ. D.VesperC. (2016). The sound of you and me: Novices represent shared goals in joint action. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 535–547.
27.
Mesmer-MagnusJ. R.DeChurchL. (2009). Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 535–546.
28.
MilwardS. J.SebanzN. (2016). Mechanisms and development of self: Other distinction in dyads and groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 371, 20150076.
29.
MurnighanJ. K.ConlonD. E. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British String Quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165–186.
30.
Newman-NorlundR. D.BosgaJ.MeulenbroekR. G. J.BekkeringH. (2008). Anatomical substrates of cooperative joint-action in a continuous motor task: Virtual lifting and balancing. NeuroImage, 41, 169–177.
31.
Newman-NorlundR. D.van SchieH. T.van ZuijlenA. M. J.BekkeringH. (2007). The mirror neuron system is more active during complementary compared with imitative action. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 817–818.
32.
NovembreG.SammlerD.KellerP. E. (2016). Neural alpha oscillations index the balance between self-other integration and segregation in real-time joint action. Neuropsychologia, 89, 414–425.
33.
NowickiL.PrinzW.GrosjeanM.ReppB. H.KellerP. E. (2013). Mutual adaptive timing in interpersonal action coordination. Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 23(1), 6–20.
34.
OllenJ. E. (2006). A criterion-related validity test of selected indicators of musical sophistication using expert ratings. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
35.
PacherieE. (2011). The phenomenology of joint action: Self-agency vs. joint-agency. In SeemanA. (Ed.), Joint attention: New developments (pp. 343–389). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
PalmerC. (1997). Music performance. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 115–138.
37.
PecenkaN.KellerP. E. (2011). The role of temporal prediction abilities in interpersonal sensorimotor synchronization. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 505–515.
38.
PriceH. E.ByoJ. L. (2002). Rehearsing and conducting. In ParncuttR.McPhersonG. E. (Eds.), The science and psychology of musical performance: Creative strategies for teaching and learning (pp. 335–351). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
39.
PrinzW. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129–154.
40.
PrinzW. (2015). Task representation in individual and joint settings. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 268.
41.
RagertM.SchroederT.KellerP. E. (2013). Knowing too little or too much: The effects of familiarity with a co-performer’s part on interpersonal coordination in musical ensembles. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 368.
42.
RoepstorffA.FrithC. (2004). What’s at the top in the top-down control of action? Script-sharing and ‘top-top’ control of action in cognitive experiments. Psychological Research, 68, 189–198.
43.
SamsonD.ApperlyI. A.BraithwaiteJ. J.AndrewsB. J.Bodley ScottS. E. (2010). Seeing it their way: Evidence for rapid and involuntary computation of what other people see. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1255–1266.
44.
SchiavioA.HøffdingS. (2015). Playing together without communicating? A pre-reflective and enactive account of joint musical performance. Musicae Scientiae, 19, 366–388.
45.
SchubertE.DunsmuirW. (1999). Regression modelling continuous data in music psychology. In YiS. W. (Ed.), Music, mind, and science (pp. 298–352). Seoul, Korea: Seoul National University Press.
46.
SchwarzG. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.
47.
SebanzN.BekkeringH.KnoblichG. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70–76.
48.
SebanzN.KnoblichG. (2009). Prediction in joint action: What, when, and where. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 353–367.
49.
SebanzN.KnoblichG.PrinzW. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own?Cognition, 88, 11–21.
50.
SeddonF. A.BiasuttiM. (2009a). A comparison of modes of communication between members of a string quartet and a jazz sextet. Psychology of Music, 37, 395–415.
51.
SeddonF. A.BiasuttiM. (2009b). Modes of communication between members of a String Quartet. Small Group Research, 40, 115–137.
52.
SinigagliaC.ButterfillS. (2015). Motor representation in goal ascription. In FischerM. H.CoelloY. (Eds.), Conceptual and interactive embodiment: Foundations of embodied cognition (Vol. II, pp. 149–164). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
53.
SkewesJ. C.SkewesL.MichaelJ.KonvalinkaI. (2015). Synchronised and complementary coordination mechanisms in an asymmetric joint aiming task. Experimental Brain Research, 233, 551–565.
54.
TernströmS. (2003). Choir acoustics : An overview of scientific research published to date. International Journal of Research in Choral Singing, 1(1), 3–12.
55.
van SchieH. T.MarsR. B.ColesM. G. H.BekkeringH. (2004). Modulation of activity in medial frontal and motor cortices during error observation. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 549–554.
56.
VesperC.ButterfillS.KnoblichG.SebanzN. (2010). A minimal architecture for joint action. Neural Networks, 23, 998–1003.
57.
VesperC.RichardsonM. J. (2014). Strategic communication and behavioral coupling in asymmetric joint action. Experimental Brain Research, 232, 2945–2956.
58.
VesperC.van der WelR. P. R.KnoblichG.SebanzN. (2011). Making oneself predictable: Reduced temporal variability facilitates joint action coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 517–530.
59.
WeingartL. R.TodorovaG.CroninM. A. (2010). Task conflict, problem-solving, and yielding: Effects on cognition and performance in functionally diverse innovation teams. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 3, 312–337.
60.
WilliamonA.DavidsonJ. W. (2002). Exploring co-performer communication. Musicae Scientiae, 6, 53–72.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
