Science of Emotion and Sensibility (감성과학)

Korean Society for Emotion and Sensibility (한국감성과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of Cognitive Load on the Division of Labor: Working Memory and the Joint Simon Effect

인지 부하가 분업에 미치는 영향: 작업기억과 결합 사이먼 효과

  • Received : 2022.03.10
  • Accepted : 2022.04.18
  • Published : 2022.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

As social beings, we need to understand others' actions as quickly and accurately as possible. Action understanding can occur at many levels. We sometimes grasp others' intentions unintentionally. Other times, however, we have to expend effort to draw inferences about their goals. In the context of joint action, the joint Simon effect demonstrates that actors are influenced by the unintended representation of a co-actor's actions. This effect has been described as quasi-automatic, but it is unclear if the effect is automatic enough to be immune to cognitive load. Thus, we asked participants to complete a joint Simon task with or without a concurrent working memory task. One group of participants maintained a single digit in their mind during working memory load blocks (low-load group), while the other group maintained five digits (high-load group). As a result, the low-load group showed a joint Simon effect both during no-load and low-load blocks. In contrast, the high-load group had no joint Simon effect during either no-load or high-load blocks. These results suggest that the joint Simon effect is not an automatic phenomenon given that it requires cognitive resources. Actors in a joint task may represent a co-actor's actions in their task set, but only when cognitive resources are available.

사회적인 존재로서 우리는 다른 사람의 행위를 빠르고 정확히 이해할 필요가 있다. 행위 이해는 여러 수준에서 일어난다. 무심코 타인의 의도를 알아챌 때가 있는가 하면, 그들의 목적을 추론하기 위해 노력해야만 하는 경우도 있다. 결합 사이먼 효과는 과제를 분업하는 한 쌍의 참가자가 의도치 않게 동료의 행위를 표상할 수 있음을 실험적으로 증명한다. 이 효과는 거의 자동적으로 발생한다고 알려졌지만, 인지부하의 영향을 받지 않을 만큼 자동적인지는 확인되지 않았다. 이에 본 연구는 참가자에게 작업기억 부하가 있거나 없는 상태에서 결합 사이먼 과제를 수행하게 하였다. 이중과제 구획에서 저부하 집단의 참가자들은 한 개의 숫자를 작업기억에 유지한 채로 사이먼 과제를 분업하였고, 고부하 집단의 참가자들은 다섯 개의 숫자를 유지한 채로 사이먼 과제를 분업하였다. 작업기억 부하의 효과를 분석하기 위해 이중과제 구획과 단일과제 구획의 집단별 사이먼 효과를 비교하였다. 반응시간을 분석한 결과, 저부하 집단은 이중과제와 단일과제 구획에서 모두 사이먼 효과를 보였지만, 고부하 집단은 어느 과제 구획에서도 사이먼 효과를 보이지 않았다. 이 결과는 결합 사이먼 효과가 인지 자원에 의존한다는 면에서 자동적인 현상을 아님을 의미한다. 즉, 분업 참여자는 인지적 자원이 가용한 경우에만 동료의 행위를 과제 표상에 반영하는 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

이 논문은 2017년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2017S1A5A2A01024313).

References

  1. Andersen, S. M., Spielman, L. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1992). Future-event schemas and certainty about the future: Automaticity in depressives' future-event predictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(5), 711-723. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.711
  2. Anderson, B. A. (2018). Controlled information processing, automaticity, and the burden of proof. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(5), 1814-1823. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-017-1412-7
  3. Ansorge, U., & Wuhr, P. (2004). A response-discrimination account of the Simon effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(2), 365-377. DOI: 10.1037/0096- 1523.30.2.365
  4. Aquino, A., Paolini, D., Pagliaro, S., Migliorati, D., Wolff, A., Alparone, F. R., & Costantini, M. (2015). Group membership and social status modulate joint actions. Experimental Brain Research, 233(8), 2461-2466. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-015-4316-7
  5. Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 8, pp. 47-89). Academic Press. DOI: 10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1
  6. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Intention, awareness, efficiency, and control as separate issues. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of Social Cognition: Vol. 1, Basic Processes (2nd edn) (pp. 1-40). Erlbaum. DOI: 10.4324/9781315807102
  7. Belletier, C., Davranche, K., Tellier, I. S., Dumas, F., Vidal, F., Hasbroucq, T., & Huguet, P. (2015). Choking under monitoring pressure: Being watched by the experimenter reduces executive attention. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22(5), 1410-1416. DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0804-9
  8. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289-300. DOI: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
  9. Borgmann, K. W. U., Risko, E. E., Stolz, J. A., & Besner, D. (2007). Simon says: Reliability and the role of working memory and attentional control in the Simon task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(2), 313-319. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194070
  10. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 433-436. DOI: 10.1163/156856897x00357
  11. Brass, M., Bekkering, H., & Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychologica, 106(1-2), 3-22. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-6918(00)00024-x
  12. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893-910. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893
  13. Colzato, L. S., De Bruijn, E., & Hommel, B. (2012). Up to "me" or up to "us"? The impact of self-construal priming on cognitive self-other integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00341
  14. Costantini, M., & Ferri, F. (2013). Action co-representation and social exclusion. Experimental Brain Research, 227(1), 85-92. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-013-3487-3
  15. De Jong, R., Liang, C. C., & Lauber, E. (1994). Conditional and unconditional automaticity: A dual-process model of effects of spatial stimulus-response correspondence. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 731-750. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.20.4.731
  16. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schutz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 974. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974
  17. Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1248-1260. DOI: 10.1037/a0031031
  18. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1994). An Introduction to the bootstrap. CRC Press. DOI: 10.1201/9780429246593
  19. Frossard, J., & Renaud, O. (2021). Permutation tests for regression, ANOVA, and comparison of signals: The permuco package. Journal of Statistical Software, 99, 1-32. DOI: 10.18637/jss.v099.i15
  20. Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umilta, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114(3), 348-355. DOI: 10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.008
  21. Hermans, D., Crombez, G., & Eelen, P. (2000). Automatic attitude activation and efficiency: The fourth horseman of automaticity. Psychologica Belgica, 40(1), 3-22. DOI: 10.5334/pb.954
  22. Hommel, B. (1993). Inverting the Simon effect by intention: Determinants of direction and extent of effects of irrelevant spatial information. Psychological Research, 55(4), 270-279. DOI: 10.1007/bf00419687
  23. Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations? Psychological Science, 20(7), 794-798. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02367.x
  24. Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davis (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 29-61). Academic Press.
  25. Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 132(1), 47-70. DOI: 10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47
  26. Karlinsky, A., Lohse, K., & Lam, M. (2017). A meta-analysis of the joint Simon effect. Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 1, 2377-2382. https://cogsci.mindmodeling.org/2017/papers/0452/paper0452.pdf
  27. Kim, G., Cho, S., & Hyun, J.-S. (2015). A study of individual differences across numerosity sensitivity, visual working memory and visual attention. Science of Emotion and Sensibility, 18(2), 3-18. DOI: 10.14695/KJSOS.2015.18.2.3
  28. Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(3), 99-104. DOI: 10.1111/ j.0963-7214.2006.00415.x
  29. Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility-a model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253-270. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.97.2.253
  30. Lakens, D., & Caldwell, A. R. (2021). Simulation-based power analysis for factorial analysis of variance designs. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 2515245920951503. DOI: 10.1177/2515245920951503
  31. Lee, H., & Kim, J. (2018). Effects of emotional information on visual perception and working memory in biological motion. Science of Emotion and Sensibility, 21(3), 151-164. DOI: 10.14695/KJSOS.2018.21.3.151
  32. Logan, G. D., & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91(3), 295. DOI:10.1037/ 0033-295X.91.3.295
  33. Lu, C. H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(2), 174-207. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210959
  34. Lupfer, M. B., Clark, L. F., & Hutcherson, H. W. (1990). Impact of context on spontaneous trait and situational attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 239-249. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.239
  35. McClung, J. S., Jentzsch, I., & Reicher, S. D. (2013). Group membership affects spontaneous mental representation: failure to represent the out-group in a joint action task. PloS One, 8(11), e79178. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079178
  36. Michel, R., Bolte, J., & Liepelt, R. (2018). When a social experimenter overwrites effects of salient objects in an individual go/no-go Simon task - An ERP study. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00674
  37. Muller, B. C. N., Kuhn, S., van Baaren, R. B., Dotsch, R., Brass, M., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011). Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members' actions. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3-4), 423-428. DOI: 10.1007/s00221-011-2654-7
  38. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10(4), 437-442. DOI: 10.1163/156856897x00366
  39. R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/
  40. Ryu, J.-H. (2009). The impact of cognitive load factors and arousal levels of galvanic skin response on task performance in computer based learning. Science of Emotion and Sensibility, 12(3), 279-288. https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO200935535844977.page
  41. Ryu, J.-H. (2010). Impact of picture and reading mode on cognitive load and galvanic skin response. Science of Emotion and Sensibility, 13(1), 21-32. https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO201023557658745.page 1023557658745.page
  42. Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70-76. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
  43. Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others' actions: Just like one's own? Cognition, 88(3), B11-B21. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00043-x
  44. Siegel, S., & Castellan, J. N. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill. DOI: 10.4135/9781412961288.n273
  45. Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory SR compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300. DOI: 10.1037/h0020586
  46. Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18(6), 643. DOI: 10.1037/h0054651
  47. Welsh, T. N., Kiernan, D., Neyedli, H. F., Ray, M., Pratt, J., Potruff, A., & Weeks, D. J. (2013). Joint Simon effects in extrapersonal space. Journal of Motor Behavior, 45(1), 1-5. DOI: 10.1080/00222895.2012.746635
  48. Wigboldus, D. H. J., Sherman, J. W., Franzese, H. L., & van Knippenberg, A. (2004). Capacity and comprehension: Spontaneous stereotyping under cognitive load. Social Cognition, 22(3), 292-309. DOI: 10.1521/soco.22.3.292.35967
  49. Wuhr, P., & Ansorge, U. (2007). A Simon ef f ect in memory retrieval: Evidence for the response-discrimination account. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 984-988. DOI: 10.3758/bf03194132
  50. Wuhr, P., & Biebl, R. (2011). The role of working memory in spatial S-R correspondence effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 37(2), 442-454. DOI: 10.1037/a0020563
  51. Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(1), 121-134. DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.16.1.121
  52. Zhao, X., Chen, A., & West, R. (2010). The influence of working memory load on the Simon effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 687-692. DOI: 10.3758/PBR.17.5.687