Behavioral coordination is a fundamental element of human cooperation. It is facilitated when individuals represent not only their own actions but also those of their partner. Identifying whether action corepresentation is unique to humans or also present in other species is therefore necessary to fully understand the evolution of human cooperation. We used the auditory joint Simon task to assess whether action corepresentation occurs in common marmosets, a monkey species that engages extensively in coordinated action during cooperative infant care. We found that marmosets indeed show a joint Simon effect. Furthermore, when coordinating their behavior in the joint task, they were more likely to look at their partner than in a joint control condition. Corepresentation is thus not unique to humans but also present in the cooperatively breeding marmosets. Since marmosets are small-brained monkeys, our results suggest that routine coordination in space and time, rather than complex cognitive abilities, plays a role in the evolution of corepresentation.
AtmacaS.SebanzN.KnoblichG. (2011). The joint flanker effect: Sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 371–385.
2.
BullingerA. F.WymanE.MelisA. P.TomaselloM. (2011). Coordination of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in a stag hunt game. International Journal of Primatology, 32, 1296–1310.
3.
BurkartJ. M.HeschlA. (2006). Geometrical gaze following in common marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 120, 120–130.
4.
BurkartJ. M.HeschlA. (2007). Understanding visual access in common marmosets, Callithrix jacchus: Perspective taking or behaviour reading?Animal Behaviour, 73, 457–469.
5.
BurkartJ. M.HrdyS. B.van SchaikC. P. (2009). Cooperative breeding and human cognitive evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology, 18, 175–186.
6.
BurkartJ. M.KupferbergA.GlasauerS.van SchaikC. P. (2012). Even simple forms of social learning rely on intention attribution in marmoset monkeys (Callithrix jacchus). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 126, 129–138.
7.
BurkartJ. M.van SchaikC. P. (2016). Revisiting the consequences of cooperative breeding. Journal of Zoology, 299, 77–83.
8.
ButterfillS. (2012). Joint action and development. Philosophical Quarterly, 62, 23–47.
9.
CossR. G.MarksS.RamakrishnanU. (2002). Early environment shapes the development of gaze aversion by wild bonnet macaques (Macaca radiata). Primates, 43, 217–222.
10.
DolkT.HommelB.ColzatoL. S.Schütz-BosbachS.PrinzW.LiepeltR. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 974. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974
11.
DuguidS.WymanE.BullingerA. F.Herfurth-MajstorovicK.TomaselloM. (2014). Coordination strategies of chimpanzees and human children in a stag hunt game. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 281. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1973
12.
FordR. M.AberdeinB. (2015). Exploring social influences on the joint Simon task: Empathy and friendship. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 962. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00962
13.
HommelB.ColzatoL. S.Van Den WildenbergW. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations?Psychological Science, 20, 794–798.
14.
HumphreysG. W.BedfordJ. (2011). The relations between joint action and theory of mind: A neuropsychological analysis. Experimental Brain Research, 211, 357–369.
15.
KlempovaB.LiepeltR. (2016). Do you really represent my task? Sequential adaptation effects to unexpected events support referential coding for the joint Simon effect. Psychological Research, 80, 449–463.
16.
KrupenyeC.KanoF.HirataS.CallJ.TomaselloM. (2016). Great apes anticipate that other individuals will act according to false beliefs. Science, 354, 110–114.
17.
LienM.-C.PedersenL.ProctorR. W. (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.
18.
Mangold International. (2017). INTERACT user guide. Arnstorf, Germany: Author.
19.
MathôtS.SchreijD.TheeuwesJ. (2012). OpenSesame: An open-source, graphical experiment builder for the social sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 314–324.
20.
McClungJ. S.JentzschI.ReicherS. D. (2013). Group membership affects spontaneous mental representation: Failure to represent the out-group in a joint action task. PLOS ONE, 8(11), Article e79178. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079178
21.
MilwardS. J.KitaS.ApperlyI. A. (2014). The development of co-representation effects in a joint task: Do children represent a co-actor?Cognition, 132, 269–279.
22.
MilwardS. J.KitaS.ApperlyI. A. (2016). Individual differences in children’s corepresentation of self and other in joint action. Child Development, 88, 964–978.
23.
OsmanskiM. S.SongX.WangX. (2013). The role of harmonic resolvability in pitch perception in a vocal nonhuman primate, the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 9161–9168.
24.
OsmanskiM. S.WangX. (2011). Measurement of absolute auditory thresholds in the common marmoset (Callithrix jacchus). Hearing Research, 277, 127–133.
25.
RichersonP.BaldiniR.BellA.DempsK.FrostK.HillisV.. . . ZeffermanM. (2016). Cultural group selection plays an essential role in explaining human cooperation: A sketch of the evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, 1–68.
26.
RuissenM. I.de BruijnE. R. A. (2015). Is it me or is it you? Behavioral and electrophysiological effects of oxytocin administration on self–other integration during joint task performance. Cortex, 70, 146–154.
27.
RuissenM. I.de BruijnE. R. A. (2016). Competitive game play attenuates self-other integration during joint task performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 274. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00274
28.
RuysK. I.AartsH. (2010). When competition merges people’s behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 1130–1133.
29.
SabyJ. N.BouquetC. A.MarshallP. J. (2014). Young children co-represent a partner’s task: Evidence for a joint Simon effect in five-year-olds. Cognitive Development, 32, 38–45.
30.
SebanzN.BekkeringH.KnoblichG. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 70–76.
31.
SebanzN.KnoblichG.PrinzW. (2003). Representing others’ actions: Just like one’s own?Cognition, 88, B11–B21.
32.
SimonJ. R.RudellA. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.
33.
SnowdonC. T. (2001). Social processes in communication and cognition in callitrichid monkeys: A review. Animal Cognition, 4, 247–257.
34.
StenzelA.ChinellatoE.BouM. A.del PobilÁ. P.LappeM.LiepeltR. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1073–1077.
35.
StenzelA.DolkT.ColzatoL. S.SellaroR.HommelB.LiepeltR. (2014). The joint Simon effect depends on perceived agency, but not intentionality, of the alternative action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 595. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00595
36.
TakahashiD. Y.NarayananD. Z.GhazanfarA. A. (2013). Coupled oscillator dynamics of vocal turn-taking in monkeys. Current Biology, 23, 2162–2168.
37.
TomaselloM.Gonzalez-CabreraI. (2017). The role of ontogeny in the evolution of human cooperation. Human Nature, 28, 274–288. doi:10.1007/s12110-017-9291-1
38.
TomaselloM.HareB.LehmannH.CallJ. (2007). Reliance on head versus eyes in the gaze following of great apes and human infants: The cooperative eye hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution, 52, 314–320.
39.
TsaiC.-C.KuoW.-J.HungD. L.TzengO. J. L. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024.
40.
VesperC.ButterfillS.KnoblichG.SebanzN. (2010). A minimal architecture for joint action. Neural Networks, 23, 998–1003.
41.
VoelklB.HuberL. (2007). Imitation as faithful copying of a novel technique in marmoset monkeys. PLOS ONE, 2(7), Article e611. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000611
42.
WymanE.RakoczyH.TomaselloM. (2013). Non-verbal communication enables children’s coordination in a “stag hunt” game. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 597–610.
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.
