Busy doing nothing: Evidence for nonaction-effect binding by ProQuest

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 9

More Info
									Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
2009, 16 (3), 542-549
doi:10.3758/PBR.16.3.542




                                Busy doing nothing: Evidence for
                                   nonaction–effect binding
                                                              Simone Kühn
                            Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
                                                 and Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

                                                             Birgit elSner
                                                 University of Potsdam, Golm, Germany

                                                           Wolfgang Prinz
                            Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany
                                                                    and

                                                             marcel BraSS
                                                    Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

               Research on voluntary action has focused on the question of how we represent our behavior on a motor and
             cognitive level. However, the question of how we represent voluntary not acting has been completely neglected.
             The aim of the present study was to investigate the cognitive and motor representation of intentionally not acting.
             By using an action–effect binding approach, we demonstrate similarities of action and nonaction. In particular,
             our results reveal that voluntary nonactions can be bound to an effect tone. This finding suggests that effect
             binding is not restricted to an association between a motor representation and a successive effect (action–effect
             binding) but can also occur for an intended nonaction and its effect (nonaction–effect binding). Moreover, we
             demonstrate that nonactions have to be initiated voluntarily in order to elicit nonaction–effect binding.



   Daily life involves various incidents of intentional                    An influential theory of motor control, ideomotor theory,
nonaction. Imagine a wife demanding to talk with her                    states that actions are represented in the form of sensory
spouse about their relationship and him ignoring her re-                feedback they produce (Greenwald, 1970; Prinz, 1997).
quest. Presumably this not-acting is a voluntary act. And               In other words, we control our actions by anticipating the
very often intentional nonactions1 have foreseeable con-                sensory consequences of these actions. In accordance
sequences. If, for instance, you decide not to catch a ball             with the ideomotor principle, Elsner and Hommel (2001)
flying straight at your face, you can anticipate what will              demonstrated that participants indeed form action–effect
happen. Along the same lines, the Taoist concept of wei                 associations. In their experiments, participants freely
wu wei, meaning “acting by not acting” (Loy, 1985), con-                chose between two actions (pressing a right or left key)
siders nonaction to be dynamic and clearly separate from                that were followed by specific but irrelevant effect tones
inaction. In the legal domain, human societies acknowl-                 (high- and low-pitched tones). In a test phase, participants
edge nonaction (namely negligence) as an intentional act                were required to respond to the effect tones by choosing
by considering it to be punishable under the precondition               spontaneously which button to press. In accordance with
of purposefulness.                                                      ideomotor theory, participants preferred to choose actions
   Surprisingly, psychological research on human per-                   that had previously been associated with the tone (con-
formance focuses entirely on the investigation of action,               sistent mapping), rather than actions that were associated
while neglecting intentional nonaction almost completely.               with the other tone (inconsistent responses).
This is presumably due to the fact that in experiments on                  In the present study, we use action–effect binding to
intentional nonaction, one loses the typical dependent                  investigate whether intentional nonaction shares essen-
measures of experimental psychology—namely, reaction                    tial coding properties with intentional action. At the same
times (RTs) and error rates. In order to fill this gap, we              time, we want to test whether action–effect binding con-
aim to investig
								
To top