Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33225385›Full record

ArticlePsychological research2021

Metacontrol and joint action: how shared goals transfer from one task to another?

Roman Liepelt, Markus Raab

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Roman LiepeltDepartment of General Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, FernUniversität in Hagen, Hagen, Germany. roman.liepelt@fernuni-hagen.de.
Markus RaabInstitute of Psychology, German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG LI 2115/1-3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In most of our daily activities and in team sports, we interact with other individuals and do not act in isolation. Using a social variant of the standard two-choice Simon task, this study aims to test if competitive/cooperative processing modes (i.e., metacontrol states) change the degree of bodily self-other integration between two persons in joint action. In addition, and more exploratory the study tested if this effect depends on a shared group experience with the partner. Two participants shared a visual Simon task, so that each person basically performed complementary parts of the task, which transfers the paradigm into a go/no-go Simon task for each person. Before running this joint Simon task, we set both participants either in a competitive or a cooperative control state by means of a dyadic game, a manipulation aimed at testing possible goal transfer across tasks. We found significant joint Simon effects for participants who were in a competitive state and for participants who were in a cooperative state. The joint Simon effect for participants being in a competitive state was significantly smaller than for participants being in a cooperative state. When experiencing the goal induction together with the partner, the joint Simon effect was significantly decreased as when the induction was performed alone. Both effects (metacontrol state induction and shared experience) seem to be statistically independent of each other. In line with predictions of metacontrol state theory, our study indicated that abstract cognitive goal states can be transferred from one task to another task, able to affect the degree of bodily self-other integration across different task situations.

Indexed as

GoalsPsychomotor PerformanceCooperative BehaviorHumansReaction TimeTeam Sports

Identifiers

PMID33225385
PMCPMC8440260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.