The Illusion of Predictability: Behavioural Predictions Favour Collaboration? Zsófia Esperger1*, Melinda Friesenhahn2, Luca Kozma2, Ferenc Kocsor2, Tamás Tényi1, Róbert Herold1 1Department
of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary, of Psychology, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary ﹡
[email protected]
Tamás Tényi and Róbert Herold were supported by the National Brain Research Programme (Grant No.KTIA-13-NAPII/12) and Ferenc Kocsor was supported by the ÚNKP-17-4 -I.-PTE-298 New National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities during the implementation of this study.
2Institute
INTRODUCTION We predict other agents’ actions to adequately respond to their behaviour. Accurate action predictions (AAP) allow us to navigate in complex human societies (Sebanz et al. 2008). AP requires that participants track both other agents’ goals (e.g. she desires a ball) and their positive beliefs (e.g. the ball is present behind a screen). However, humans may also create possibility action predictions (PAP) based on limited sources of information: solely on beliefs. Contionously anticipating others’ more or less probable actions may develop the sense of social comfort. We contrasted four conditions after Kovács et al. (2010) which induced shared or diverse beliefs in the participants and another agent. According to the four conditions: • • • •
the participant (P+A-) the other agent (P-A+) both of them (P+A+) or neither of them (P-A-)
RESULTS
METHODS AND MATERIALS Four videos with different scenarios correspond to the four conditions after Deschrijver etal. (2016). At the end of each video, the agent (Buzz) could be seen while the screen still covered the presence or the absence of the ball. Here we froze the videos and asked our participants to create PAPs during two different contexts.
When participants had time for consciously preparing PAPs (Study 1):
IN STUDY 1: PREPARED CONTEXT
•
•
IN STUDY 2: INTUITIVE CONTEXT
We presented one video to one group of participants. •
•
Before the video stimulus we asked our participants:
•
Before the video stimullus we gave to our participants a distractor task (to count how many times the ball disappeares behind the green screen). At the end a of the video stimulus we asked them:
How probable is it that Buzz would reach towards the green screen? 40 participants (24 female; MA=20,8; SD=1,8) Between subject design: 10 part./condition
“P” - participant “A” - Agent (Buzz) “+” - positive belief about the ball presence “-” negative beliefe about the ball presence
77 participants (43 female; MA=19,8; SD=2,9) Between subject design: min. 19 part./condition
*
Sebanz et al. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. TiCS, 10(2), 70-76. Kovács et al. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults. Sci, 330(6012), 1830-1834. Deschrijver et al. (2016). Behavioral measures of implicit theory of mind in adults with high functioning autism. Cogn Neurosci, 7(1-4), 192-202.
Above chance
• •
ONE WAY ANOVA - F(3,428); p
