Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40335594›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Dyads use heuristics to minimise time costs during joint action.

Shaheed Azaad, Natalie Sebanz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Shaheed AzaadDepartment of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Vienna, Austria. sazaad@uni-muenster.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1242-4284
Natalie SebanzDepartment of Cognitive Science, Central European University, Vienna, Austria.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1280-8974

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on joint action planning has demonstrated that, when acting with others, individuals will choose more effortful actions if it improves co-efficiency by reducing the overall effort exerted by the group. However, because these studies use actions for which time and effort costs are confounded, it is unclear which costs participants sought to minimise and what processes underlie decision-making about individual contributions to joint actions. Across three experiments, we tested (1) whether dyads aim to minimise effort vs. time costs (Experiments 1-2) and (2) whether individuals choose actions based on a rational, deliberative process or a heuristic (Experiment 3). Data from a joint object-dragging computer task revealed that participants chose to drag objects to the closer of two goals even when it required more effort from the dyad (Experiments 1-2). Participants preferred closer goals when time and effort costs were equal (Experiment 3a), but only when the objects' locations were salient (Experiment 3b). Together, these results suggest that: (1) individuals minimise time, rather than effort, when sharing object-moving tasks, and (2) they do so - at least in part - by using distance as a heuristic. Our findings also replicate and extend earlier work showing that people prefer acting together versus alone, even when this is less efficient.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorDecision MakingHeuristicsAdultFemaleHumansMaleTime FactorsYoung AdultAction planningCoordinationEfficiencyJoint action

Identifiers

PMID40335594
PMCPMC12059056

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.