Humans do not live in isolation but coordinate their actions with other people in their environment, known as “joint action.” Today, in part due to the COVID-19 pandemic, much joint action and collaborative work takes place online, and this trend is predicted to remain prevalent. Therefore, it is important for researchers and employers to understand how this shift to technologically mediated collaboration will influence team performance. One cognitive reaction-time task that has been used to study underlying mechanisms of joint action for in-person teams is the joint Simon task. Although this task has been extensively studied, it has never been used in fully remote contexts. Using a novel, online version of the joint Simon task, the current study sought to determine if a joint Simon compatibility effect would occur in remote collaboration. From these findings, there is preliminary evidence that the joint Simon task was partially successful in transitioning to an online setup. Overall, this study sheds light on (1) the sensitivity of the joint Simon task as a measure of self-other integration in partners and (2) how task performance can be influenced by working in-person versus remotely.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
2.
CostantiniM.FerriF. (2013). Action co-representation and social exclusion. Experimental Brain Research, 227(1), 85–92.
3.
DolkT.HommelB.ColzatoL. S.Schütz-BosbachS.PrinzW.LiepeltR. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect?Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 84.
4.
DolkT.HommelB.ColzatoL. S.Schütz-BosbachS.PrinzW.LiepeltR. (2014). The joint Simon effect: A review and theoretical integration. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 974.
5.
DolkT.HommelB.PrinzW.LiepeltR. (2013). The (not so) social Simon effect: A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception and Performance, 39(5), 1248–1260.
6.
FoxJ.McEwanB. (2017). Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: The perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs, 84(3), 298–318.
MussiD. R.MarinoB. F. M.RiggioL. (2015). The influence of social and nonsocial variables on the Simon effect. Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 215–231.
12.
OliffeJ. L.KellyM. T.Gonzalez MontanerG.Yu KoW. F. (2021). Zoom interviews: Benefits and concessions. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, Article 16094069211053522.
13.
PeperE.WilsonV.MartinM.RosegardE.HarveyR. (2021). Avoid zoom fatigue, be present and learn. NeuroRegulation, 8(1), 47–56.
14.
QuintardV.JouffreS.CroizetJ.-C.BouquetC. A. (2020). The influence of passionate love on self–other discrimination during joint action. Psychological Research, 84(1), 51–61.
15.
RoghanizadM. M.BohnsV. K. (2021). Should I ask over zoom, phone, email, or in-person? Communication channel and predicted versus actual compliance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(7), 1163–1172.
16.
RuysK. I.AartsH. (2010). When competition merges people’s behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1130–1133.
17.
SebanzN.BekkeringH.KnoblichG. (2006). Joint action: Bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76.
18.
SebanzN.KnoblichG.PrinzW. (2003). Representing other’s actions: Just like one’s own?Cognition, 88(3), 11–23.
19.
SellaroR.TreccaniB.RubichiS.CubelliR. (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.
20.
ShafaeiR.BahmaniZ.BahramiB.Vaziri-PashkamM. (2020). Effect of perceived interpersonal closeness on the joint Simon effect in adolescents and adults. Scientific Reports, 10(1), Article 18107.
21.
SimonJ. R.RudellA. P. (1967). Auditory S-R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51(3), 300–304.
22.
SongX.JiaX.ZhaoY.GuoJ. (2020). The underlying mechanism of emotions on co-representation in joint actions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(3), 269–282.
23.
StoetG. (2010). PsyToolkit: A software package for programming psychological experiments using Linux. Behavior Research Methods, 42(4), 1096–1104.
24.
StoetG. (2017). PsyToolkit: A novel web-based method for running online questionnaires and reaction-time experiments. Teaching of Psychology, 44(1), 24–31.
25.
TsaiC.-C.KuoW.-J.HungD. L.TzengO. J. L. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(11), 2015–2024.
26.
van der WeidenA.PorcuE.LiepeltR. (2022). Action prediction modulates self–other integration in joint action. Psychological Research, 87, 537–552.
27.
WelshT. N.HigginsL.RayM.WeeksD. J. (2007). Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation?Human Movement Science, 26(6), 853–866.
28.
WenT.HsiehS. (2015). Neuroimaging of the joint Simon effect with believed biological and non-biological co-actors. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 483.
29.
ZhaoN.ZhangX.NoahJ. A.TiedeM.HirschJ. (2023). Separable processes for live “in-person” and live “zoom-like” faces. Imaging Neuroscience, 1, 1–17.
