ArticleOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science2021
Computing Joint Action Costs: Co-Actors Minimize the Aggregate Individual Costs in an Action Sequence.
Article in Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Training Collaborators for Effective Division of Labor.Cognitive science · 2026Article
- Article
- The perception of prosocial agents by chimpanzees and humans.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Dyads use heuristics to minimise time costs during joint action.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effects of Joint Action Observation on Children's Imitation.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Optimizing competence in the service of collaboration.Cognitive psychology · 2024Article
- Spatial Response Discrimination May Elicit a Simon Effect on a Non-Complementary Task.Perceptual and motor skills · 2024Article
- Better Together: 14-Month-Old Infants Expect Agents to Cooperate.Open mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2024Article
- Collaborative decision making is grounded in representations of other people's competence and effort.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2023Article
- The multimodal nature of communicative efficiency in social interaction.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Infants expect agents to minimize the collective cost of collaborative actions.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- What makes us act together? On the cognitive models supporting humans' decisions for joint action.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Successful performance in cooperative activities relies on efficient task distribution between co-actors. Previous research found that people often forgo individual efficiency in favor of co-efficiency (i.e., joint-cost minimization) when planning a joint action. The present study investigated the cost computations underlying co-efficient decisions. We report a series of experiments that tested the hypothesis that people compute the joint costs of a cooperative action sequence by summing the individual action costs of their co-actor and themselves. We independently manipulated the parameters quantifying individual and joint action costs and tested their effects on decision making by fitting and comparing Bayesian logistic regression models. Our hypothesis was confirmed: people weighed their own and their partner's costs similarly to estimate the joint action costs as the sum of the two individual parameters. Participants minimized the aggregate cost to ensure co-efficiency. The results provide empirical support for behavioral economics and computational approaches that formalize cooperation as joint utility maximization based on a weighted sum of individual action costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.