↓ Skip to main content

The joint flanker effect: Less social than previously thought

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
The joint flanker effect: Less social than previously thought
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, February 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0583-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas Dolk, Bernhard Hommel, Wolfgang Prinz, Roman Liepelt

Abstract

Research on joint action has been taken to suggest that actors automatically co-represent the tasks and/or actions of co-actors. However, recent findings on the joint Simon effect have provided evidence for a nonsocial account, which renders automatic co-representation unlikely. In the present study, we aimed to test whether a nonsocial account is also feasible for the joint version of the flanker task. In particular, we manipulated the social nature of the "co-actor" who could be another human or a Japanese waving cat. Contrary to the social interpretation of the joint flanker effect, the results demonstrated a "joint" flanker effect, irrespective of whether participants shared the task with another person or with the Japanese waving cat.

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 4%
Germany 1 2%
India 1 2%
Hong Kong 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 47 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 20%
Researcher 9 17%
Student > Master 6 11%
Professor 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 11 20%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 56%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Neuroscience 2 4%
Chemistry 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 20%