), 李洋洋2, 杨倩1, 游旭群1() 1 陕西师范大学心理学院; 陕西省行为与认知神经科学重点实验室, 西安 710062
2 河南警察学院; 郑州 450046
收稿日期:2017-06-19出版日期:2018-09-15发布日期:2018-07-27基金资助:国家自然科学基金面上项目(31671147);陕西师范大学理工科中央高校课题研究项目(GK201703087)The influence of different status of the observer’s responding hands on observational learning in the joint task
SONG Xiaolei1(), LI Yangyang2, YANG Qian1, YOU Xuqun1() 1 School of Psychology, Shaanxi Normal University; Shaanxi Key Laboratory of Behavior and Cognitive Neuroscience, Xi’an 710062, China;
2 Henan Police College, Zhengzhou 450046, China
Received:2017-06-19Online:2018-09-15Published:2018-07-27摘要/Abstract
摘要： 采用社会学习迁移范式, 通过三个实验来揭示联合任务中反应手的不同状态对观察学习的影响。实验1首先考察自然状态下联合Simon任务中观察学习的存在; 实验2探讨视野范围之内的反应手状态改变(双手运动能力受限)对观察学习的影响; 实验3则进一步探讨视野范围之外的反应手状态改变对观察学习的影响。结果发现, 在联合任务中, 观察者仅观察行动者的动作及其结果, 即可获得与实际练习相类似的学习效果; 观察者反应手不同状态改变因导致身体的潜在运动能力受限而影响观察学习的产生, 说明个体身体形式的改变会对其认知过程产生影响, 上述结果为具身认知理论在动作模仿领域的研究提供了进一步的实证支持。
图/表 3
图1实验1中社会学习迁移范式的实验设置 注：彩图见电子版
图1实验1中社会学习迁移范式的实验设置 注：彩图见电子版表1三个实验的反应时(ms)和正确率(%)的描述性统计[M (SD)]
| 实验 | 实验条件 | 观察者 | 行动者 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 一致 | 不一致 | JSE | 一致 | 不一致 | JSE | ||||
| 1 | 非转换组 | 反应时 | 388.68 (52.11) | 399.44 (52.74) | 10.77 | 383.48 (54.93) | 387.10 (54.57) | 3.62 | |
| 正确率 | 98.50 (2.71) | 98.67 (2.18) | -0.17 | 99.50 (1.20) | 98.17 (2.00) | 1.33* | |||
| 转换组 | 反应时 | 388.39 (21.55) | 416.63 (25.87) | 28.24 *** | 393.87 (39.70) | 438.30 (47.98) | 44.44*** | ||
| 正确率 | 99.50 (1.27) | 96.75 (3.04) | 2.75* | 98.58 (1.82) | 98.58 (1.80) | 0.09 | |||
| 2 | 双手缚于身前 | 反应时 | 366.51 (29.25) | 395.04 (31.28) | 28.53 *** | 387.02 (40.41) | 398.58 (39.75) | 11.56 | |
| 正确率 | 99.08 (1.66) | 98.83 (1.72) | 0.25 | 99.42 (1.66) | 98.67 (1.60) | 0.75 | |||
| 3 | 双手缚于身后 | 反应时 | 374.30 (48.80) | 400.89 (54.56) | 26.60*** | 395.35 (48.04) | 396.18 (55.37) | 0.83 | |
| 正确率 | 98.67 (1.97) | 96.75 (2.35) | 1.92* | 99.25 (1.30) | 98.00 (2.12) | 1.25 | |||
表1三个实验的反应时(ms)和正确率(%)的描述性统计[M (SD)]
| 实验 | 实验条件 | 观察者 | 行动者 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 一致 | 不一致 | JSE | 一致 | 不一致 | JSE | ||||
| 1 | 非转换组 | 反应时 | 388.68 (52.11) | 399.44 (52.74) | 10.77 | 383.48 (54.93) | 387.10 (54.57) | 3.62 | |
| 正确率 | 98.50 (2.71) | 98.67 (2.18) | -0.17 | 99.50 (1.20) | 98.17 (2.00) | 1.33* | |||
| 转换组 | 反应时 | 388.39 (21.55) | 416.63 (25.87) | 28.24 *** | 393.87 (39.70) | 438.30 (47.98) | 44.44*** | ||
| 正确率 | 99.50 (1.27) | 96.75 (3.04) | 2.75* | 98.58 (1.82) | 98.58 (1.80) | 0.09 | |||
| 2 | 双手缚于身前 | 反应时 | 366.51 (29.25) | 395.04 (31.28) | 28.53 *** | 387.02 (40.41) | 398.58 (39.75) | 11.56 | |
| 正确率 | 99.08 (1.66) | 98.83 (1.72) | 0.25 | 99.42 (1.66) | 98.67 (1.60) | 0.75 | |||
| 3 | 双手缚于身后 | 反应时 | 374.30 (48.80) | 400.89 (54.56) | 26.60*** | 395.35 (48.04) | 396.18 (55.37) | 0.83 | |
| 正确率 | 98.67 (1.97) | 96.75 (2.35) | 1.92* | 99.25 (1.30) | 98.00 (2.12) | 1.25 | |||
图2三个实验的联合分析平均反应时结果, 误差棒代表了平均数上下一个标准误(Cousineau, 2005)
图2三个实验的联合分析平均反应时结果, 误差棒代表了平均数上下一个标准误(Cousineau, 2005)参考文献 31
| 1 | Ambrosini E., Sinigaglia C., & Costantini M . ( 2012). Tie my hands, tie my eyes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38( 2), 263-266. doi: 10.1037/a0026570URLpmid: 22201461 |
| 2 | Baess, P., &Prinz, W. ( 2015). My partner is also on my mind: Social context modulates the N1 response. Experimental Brain Research, 233( 1), 105-113. doi: 10.1007/s00221-014-4092-9URL |
| 3 | Bandura, A. ( 1976). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. |
| 4 | Brass M., Bekkering H., Wohlschl?ger A., & Prinz W . ( 2000). Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: Comparing symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain and Cognition, 44( 2), 124-143. doi: 10.1006/brcg.2000.1225URL |
| 5 | Chen Y. M., Guo T. Y., He L. G., & Yan L. S . ( 2014). A Review on the Research on Embodied Cognitive. Psychological Exploration, 34 ( 6), 483-487. |
| 6 | [ 陈玉明, 郭田友, 何立国, 燕良轼 . ( 2014). 具身认知研究述评. 心理学探新, 34( 6), 483-487.] |
| 7 | Cousineau, D. ( 2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1( 1), 42-45. doi: 10.20982/tqmp.08.3.p182URL |
| 8 | Cross E. S., Kraemer D. J. M., de C Hamilton, A. F., Kelley W. M., & Grafton S. T . ( 2009). Sensitivity of the action observation network to physical and observational learning. Cerebral Cortex, 19( 2), 315-326. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhn083URLpmid: 2638791 |
| 9 | Dolk T., Hommel B., Colzato L. S., Schütz-bosbach S., Prinz W., & Liepelt R . ( 2014). The joint simon effect: a review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5( 974), 1-10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974URLpmid: 4155780 |
| 10 | Ferraro L., Iani C., Mariani M., Nicoletti R., Gallese V., & Rubichi S . ( 2012). Look what I am doing: does observational learning take place in evocative task-sharing situations? PlosOne, 7( 8), e43311. |
| 11 | Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P . ( 2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9( 3), 558-565. |
| 12 | Hommel B., Müsseler J., Aschersleben G., & Prinz W . ( 2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24( 5), 849-937. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X01000103URL |
| 13 | Iani C., Rubichi S., Ferraro L., Nicoletti R., & Gallese V . ( 2013). Observational learning without a model is influenced by the observer’s possibility to act: Evidence from the Simon task. Cognition, 128(1), 26-34. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.03.004URL |
| 14 | Liepelt, R. ( 2014). Interacting hands: The role of attention for the joint Simon effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1462. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01462URLpmid: 4269294 |
| 15 | Lugli L., Iani C., Milanese N., Sebanz N., & Rubichi S . ( 2015). Spatial parameters at the basis of social transfer of learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 41( 3), 840-849. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000047URLpmid: 25867503 |
| 16 | Milanese N., Iani C., & Rubichi S . ( 2010). Shared learning shapes human performance: transfer effects in task sharing. Cognition, 116( 1), 15-22. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2010.03.010URLpmid: 20381024 |
| 17 | Milanese N., Iani C., Sebanz N., & Rubichi S . ( 2011). Contextual determinants of the social-transfer- of-learning- effect. Experimental Brain Research, 211( 3-4), 415-422. doi: 10.1007/s00221-011-2679-yURLpmid: 21512798 |
| 18 | Neumann, R., &Strack, F. ( 2000). Approach and avoidance: The influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79( 1), 39-48. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.1.39URL |
| 19 | Paulus M., van Dam W., Hunnius S., Lindemann O., & Bekkering H . ( 2011). Action-effect binding by observational learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 18( 5), 1022-1028. doi: 10.3758/s13423-011-0136-3URLpmid: 21779944 |
| 20 | Prinz, W. ( 1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9( 2), 129-154. |
| 21 | Sartori L., Cavallo A., Bucchioni G., & Castiello U . ( 2012). From simulation to reciprocity: The case of complementary actions. Social Neuroscience, 7( 2), 146-158. doi: 10.1080/17470919.2011.586579URLpmid: 21777110 |
| 22 | 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-XURLpmid: 12804818 |
| 23 | Sellaro R., Treccani B., Rubichi S., & Cubelli R . ( 2013). When co-action eliminates the Simon effect: Disentangling the impact of co-actor's presence and task sharing on joint-task performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 844. |
| 24 | Stenzel A., Dolk T., Colzato L. S., Sellaro R., Hommel B., & Liepelt R . ( 2014). The joint simon effect depends on perceived agency, but not intentionality, of the alternative action. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 595. |
| 25 | Thura D., Hadj-Bouziane F., Meunier M., & Boussaoud D . ( 2008). Hand position modulates saccadic activity in the frontal-eye field. Behavioural Brain Research, 186( 1), 148-153. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2007.07.035URLpmid: 17881066 |
| 26 | Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E . ( 1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: compatibility and incompatibility of Responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1( 3), 219-230. doi: 10.1207/s15324834basp0103_2URL |
| 27 | Wen, T., &Hsieh, S. ( 2015). Neuroimaging of the joint Simon effect with believed biological and non-biological co-actors. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 483. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2015.00483URLpmid: 4555067 |
| 28 | Witt J. K., Kemmerer D., Linkenauger S. A., & Culham J . ( 2010). A functional role for motor simulation in identifying tools. Psychological Science, 21( 9), 1215-1219. doi: 10.1177/0956797610378307URLpmid: 20639402 |
| 29 | Yamaguchi M., Wall H. J., & Hommel B . ( 2016). Sharing tasks or sharing actions? Evidence from the joint Simon task. Psychological Research, 82( 2), 385-3. doi: 10.1007/s00426-016-0821-yURLpmid: 27826655 |
| 30 | Ye, H. S . ( 2010). Embodied cognition: A new approach in cognitive psychology. Advances in Psychological Science, 18( 5), 705-710. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1142.2010.40521URL |
| 31 | [ 叶浩生 . ( 2010). 具身认知:认知心理学的新取向. 心理科学进展, 18( 5), 705-710.] |
相关文章 15
| [1] | 苏佳佳,叶浩生. 中国神话中的具身心理学思想探索[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(3): 386-398. |
| [2] | 王汉林,蒋泽亮,冯晓慧,鲁忠义. 道德概念的空间形象性：语言因素和具身因素的共同作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(2): 128-138. |
| [3] | 叶浩生,曾红,杨文登. 生成认知：理论基础与实践走向[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(11): 1270-1280. |
| [4] | 黎晓丹,丁道群,叶浩生. 身体姿势启动的内隐权力感对公平决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(1): 106-116. |
| [5] | 易仲怡, 杨文登, 叶浩生. 具身认知视角下软硬触觉经验对性别角色认知的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(7): 793-802. |
| [6] | 叶浩生, 麻彦坤, 杨文登. 身体与认知表征：见解与分歧[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(4): 462-472. |
| [7] | 黎晓丹; 杜建政; 叶浩生. 中国礼文化的具身隐喻效应：蜷缩的身体使人更卑微[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(6): 746-756. |
| [8] | 刘文娟;沈曼琼;李莹;王瑞明. 情绪概念加工与情绪面孔知觉的相互影响[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(2): 163-173. |
| [9] | 苏得权;曾红;陈骐; 叶浩生. 用药动作线索诱发海洛因戒断者的镜像神经活动：一项fMRI研究[J]. 心理学报, 2016, 48(12): 1499-1506. |
| [10] | 刘思耘;周宗奎;李娜. 网络使用经验对动作动词加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(8): 992-1003. |
| [11] | 杨惠兰;何先友;赵雪汝;张维. 权力的概念隐喻表征：来自大小与颜色隐喻的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(7): 939-949. |
| [12] | 黎晓丹;叶浩生. 中国古代儒道思想中的具身认知观[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(5): 702-710. |
| [13] | 唐佩佩;叶浩生;杜建政. 权力概念与空间大小：具身隐喻的视角[J]. 心理学报, 2015, 47(4): 514-521. |
| [14] | 叶浩生. “具身”涵义的理论辨析[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(7): 1032-1042. |
| [15] | 李惠娟;张积家;张瑞芯. 上下意象图式对羌族亲属词认知的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(4): 481-491. |
PDF全文下载地址:
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4254
