|
|
|
|
LEADER |
02684nam a2200481Ia 4500 |
001 |
10.1016-j.cognition.2021.104829 |
008 |
220427s2021 CNT 000 0 und d |
020 |
|
|
|a 00100277 (ISSN)
|
245 |
1 |
0 |
|a Action co-representation under threat: A Social Simon study
|
260 |
|
0 |
|b Elsevier B.V.
|c 2021
|
856 |
|
|
|z View Fulltext in Publisher
|u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104829
|
520 |
3 |
|
|a Several studies have shown that individuals automatically integrate the actions of other individuals into their own action plans, thus facilitating action coordination. What happens to this mechanism in situations of danger? This capacity could either be reduced, in order to allocate more cognitive resources for individualistic actions, or be maintained or enhanced to enable cooperation under threat. In order to determine the impact of the perception of danger on this capacity, two groups of participants carried out, in pairs, the Social Simon task, which provides a measure of co-representation. The task was performed during so-called ‘threat blocks’ (during which participants could be exposed at any time to an aversive stimulus) and so-called ‘safety blocks’ (during which no aversive stimulation could occur). In a first group of participants, both individuals were exposed at the same time to threat blocks. In a second group, only one of the two participants was exposed to them at a time. Our results indicate that co-representation, an important cognitive mechanism for cooperation, (i) is preserved in situations of danger; and (ii) may even be increased in participants who are confronted alone to threat but in the presence of a safe partner. Contrarily to popular belief, danger does not shut down our capacities for social interaction. © 2021 The Authors
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a adult
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a anxiety
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Anxiety
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a article
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a case report
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a clinical article
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a cooperation
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Cooperative Behavior
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Co-representation
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a drug safety
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a female
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a human
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a human experiment
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Humans
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a individuality
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Individuality
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Joint Simon effect
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a male
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a perception
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a psychomotor performance
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Psychomotor Performance
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a reaction time
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Reaction Time
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Simon task
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Social buffering
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a social interaction
|
650 |
0 |
4 |
|a Threat
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Beaurenaut, M.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Dezecache, G.
|e author
|
700 |
1 |
|
|a Grèzes, J.
|e author
|
773 |
|
|
|t Cognition
|