Top

Gepubliceerd in:

16-01-2018 | Original Article

The influence of passionate love on self–other discrimination during joint action

Auteurs: Virginie Quintard, Stéphane Jouffre, Jean-Claude Croizet, Cedric A. Bouquet

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 1/2020

Abstract

Prior research on romantic relationships suggests that being in love involves a blurring of self–other cognitive boundaries. However, this research has focused so far on conceptual self-representation, related to the individual’s traits or interests. The present study tested the hypothesis that passionate love involves a reduced discrimination between the self and the romantic partner at a bodily level, as indexed by an increased Joint Simon effect (JSE), and we further examined whether this self–other discrimination correlated with the passion felt for the partner. As predicted, we found an increased JSE when participants performed the Joint Simon Task with their romantic partner compared with a friend of the opposite sex. Providing support for the self-expansion model of love (Aron and Aron in Pers Relatsh 3(1):45–58, 1996), this result indicates that romantic relationships blur the boundaries between the self and the romantic partner at a bodily level. Furthermore, the strength of romantic feelings was positively correlated with the magnitude of the JSE when sharing the task with the romantic partner.

vorige artikel Intertwining personal and reward relevance: evidence from the drift-diffusion model

volgende artikel Your move or mine? Music training and kinematic compatibility modulate synchronization with self- versus other-generated dance movement

A power analysis based on the effect size of previous research (Müller et al., 2011a; Hommel et al., 2009) indicates that a sample size of 56 participants allowed us to detect social modulations of the Joint Simon Effect with a power greater than 0.85.

The grouping factor Participants accounted for a significant part of the variability (ICC = 32.37%, χ²(1) = 3178, p < .0.001). Not taking this factor into account in the analysis would increase the risk of type-I error (Musca et al., 2011).

As suggested by a reviewer, we conducted a complementary analysis to further explore the effect of Partner in terms of interference or facilitation. The neutral–compatible difference (facilitation) in the Romantic partner condition did not differ significantly from that in the Friend condition (3.01 ms vs. 1.87 ms, respectively, t(53) = 0.30, p = .0.764), nor did the neutral–incompatible difference (interference) (− 5.17 ms vs. − 0.72 ms, respectively, t(53) = 1.14, p = 0.256). In fact, the effect of Partner was distributed among compatible and incompatible trials, explaining why a significant modulation of the JSE occurred while no significant effects were detected in terms of facilitation or interference. However, given the limited number of neutral trials, this finding is only informative and needs to be interpreted with caution.

The mean PLS score of the participants being in love for less than 24 months [117.50, 95% CI (112.48; 122.52)] and that of the participants involved in longer relationships [114.32, 95% CI (108.68; 119.96)], did not differ significantly, t(52) = 0.86, p = 0.39. However, given that participants all scored very high on this self-reported measure; it is prudent to not draw any firm conclusion from this result.

Acevedo, B. P., Aron, A., Fisher, H. E., & Brown, L. L. (2012). Neural correlates of long-term intense romantic love. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(2), 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq092.CrossRefPubMed

Agnew, C. R., Van Lange, P. A. M., Rusbult, C. E., & Langston, C. A. (1998). Cognitive interdependence: Commitment and the mental representation of close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 939–954. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.939.CrossRef

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. : Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (Reading).

Amodio, D. M., & Showers, C. J. (2005). ‘Similarity breeds liking’ revisited: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 817–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505058701.CrossRef

Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002). The relational self: An interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychological Review, 109(4), 619–645. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.109.4.619.CrossRefPubMed

Aron, A., & Aron, E. N. (1986). Love and the expansion of self: Understanding attraction and satisfaction (Vol. x). New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing Corp/Harper & Row Publishers.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596.CrossRef

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241.CrossRef

Aron, A., Lewandowski, G. W. Jr., Mashek, D., & Aron, E. N. (2013). The self-expansion model of motivation and cognition in close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & L. Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 90–115). New York: Oxford University Press.

Aron, A., Paris, M., & Aron, E. N. (1995). Falling in love: Prospective studies of self-concept change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1102–1112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1102.CrossRef

Aron, A., Steele, J. L., Kashdan, T. B., & Perez, M. (2006). When similars do not attract: Tests of a prediction from the self-expansion model. Personal Relationships, 13(4), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00125.x.CrossRef

Aron, A. P., Mashek, D. J., & Aron, E. N. (2004). Closeness as including other in the self. In D. J. Masjek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 27–41). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1996). Love and expansion of the self: The state of the model. Personal Relationships, 3(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14756811.1996.tb00103.x.CrossRef

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.461.CrossRef

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. Neuroreport, 11(17), 3829–3834. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200011270-00046.CrossRefPubMed

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.CrossRefPubMed

Colzato, L. S., de Bruijn, E. R. A., & Hommel, B. (2012a). Up to « Me » or Up to « Us »? The impact of self-construal priming on cognitive self-other integration. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00341.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Colzato, L. S., Zech, H., Hommel, B., Verdonschot, R., van den Wildenberg, W. P. M., & Hsieh, S. (2012b). Loving-kindness brings loving-kindness: The impact of Buddhism on cognitive self–other integration. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(3), 541–545. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0241-y.CrossRef

Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.

de Vignemont, F. (2014). Shared body representations and the ‘Whose’ system. Neuropsychologia, 55, 128–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.08.013.CrossRefPubMed

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., Schütz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2011). How “social” is the social Simon effect? Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00084.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00974.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dolk, T., Hommel, B., Prinz, W., & Liepelt, R. (2013). The (not so) social Simon Effect. A referential coding account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39, 1248–1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031031.CrossRefPubMed

Fisher, H. (2004). Why We Love: The Nature and Chemistry of Romantic Love. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Fisher, H., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., Strong, G., & Brown, L. L. (2002). The neural mechanisms of mate choice: a hypothesis. Neuro Endocrinology Letters, 23(Suppl 4), 92–97.PubMed

Fisher, H. E. (2006). The drive to love. In R. Sternberg & K. Weiss (Eds.), The New Psychology of Love (pp. 87–115). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., & Brown, L. L. (2006). Romantic love: a mammalian brain system for mate choice. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 361(1476), 2173–2186. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1938.CrossRef

Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you: nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 148–164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Gallagher, S. (2000). Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01417-5.CrossRefPubMed

Guagnano, D., Rusconi, E., & Umiltà, C. A. (2010). Sharing a task or sharing space? On the effect of the confederate in action coding in a detection task. Cognition, 114(3), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.10.008.CrossRefPubMed

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Historical and cross-cultural perspectives on passionate love and sexual desire. Annual Review of Sex Research, 4(1), 67–97.

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9(4), 383–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-1971(86)80043-4.CrossRefPubMed

Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (2009). The passionate love scale. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yaber & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures: A compendium (3rd edn., pp. 469–472). Thousand Oaks, CA: Taylor & Francis.

Hommel, B. (1996). S-R compatibility effects without response uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 49(3), 546–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/713755643.CrossRef

Hommel, B., Colzato, L. S., & van den Wildenberg, W. P. M. (2009). How social are task representations?. Psychological Science, 20(7), 794–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02367.x.CrossRefPubMed

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(05), 849–878. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X01000103.CrossRef

Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31(2), 149. https://doi.org/10.2307/3773618.CrossRef

Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (2002). Applied multivariate statistical analysis (5th edn.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Karson, C. N. (1983). Spontaneous eye-blink rates and dopaminergic systems. Brain, 106(3), 643–653.CrossRefPubMed

Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2007). Integrating simulation and theory of mind: from self to social cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(5), 194–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.02.002.CrossRefPubMed

Keysers, C., & Gazzola, V. (2009). Expanding the mirror: vicarious activity for actions, emotions, and sensations. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 19(6), 666–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2009.10.006.CrossRefPubMed

Kornblum, S., Hasbroucq, T., & Osman, A. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility–A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.2.253.CrossRefPubMed

Lien, M. C., Pedersen, L., & Proctor, R. W. (2016). Stimulus-response correspondence in go-nogo and choice tasks: Are reactions altered by the presence of an irrelevant salient object? Psychological Research, 80, 912–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-015-0699-0.CrossRefPubMed

Liepelt, R., Klempova, B., Dolk, T., Colzato, L. S., Ragert, P., Nitsche, M. A., & Hommel, B. (2016). The medial frontal cortex mediates self-other discrimination in the joint Simon task: A tDCS study. Journal of Psychophysiology, 30(3), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1027/0269-8803/a000158.CrossRef

Liepelt, R., Schneider, J. C., Aichert, D. S., Wöstmann, N., Dehning, S., Möller, H.-J., Riedel, M., Dolk, T., & Ettinger, U. (2012). Action blind: Disturbed self-other integration in schizophrenia. Neuropsychologia, 50(14), 3775–3780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2012.10.027.CrossRefPubMed

Maister, L., & Tsakiris, M. (2015). The plasticity of self-other boundaries. In M. H. Fischer & Y. Coello (Eds.), Conceptual and interactive embodiment: Foundations of embodied cognition (pp. 182–198). NY: Routledge.

Maister, L., & Tsakiris, M. (2016). Intimate imitation: Automatic motor imitation in romantic relationships. Cognition, 152, 108–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.03.018.CrossRefPubMed

Marazziti, D., Baroni, S., Giannaccini, G., Piccinni, A., Mucci, F., Catena-Dell’Osso, M., Rutigliano, G., Massimetti, G., & Dell’Osso, L. (2016). Decreased lymphocyte dopamine transporter in romantic lovers. CNS Spectr, 29, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1017/S109285291600050X.CrossRef

Marazziti, D., & Canale, D. (2004). Hormonal changes when falling in love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 29, 931–936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2003.08.006.CrossRefPubMed

Mashek, D. J., Aron, A., & Boncimino, M. (2003). Confusions of self with close others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250220.CrossRefPubMed

Milward, S. J., & Sebanz, N. (2016). Mechanisms and development of self–other distinction in dyads and groups. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1686), 20150076. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0076.CrossRef

Müller, B. C. N., Brass, M., Kühn, S., Tsai, C.-C., Nieuwboer, W., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Baaren, R. B. (2011a). When Pinocchio acts like a human, a wooden hand becomes embodied. Action co-representation for non-biological agents. Neuropsychologia, 49(5), 1373–1377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2011.01.022.CrossRefPubMed

Müller, B. C. N., Kühn, S., van Baaren, R. B., Dotsch, R., Brass, M., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011b). Perspective taking eliminates differences in co-representation of out-group members’ actions. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 423–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-011-2654-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Griffin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 563–581. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.563.CrossRefPubMed

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (2000). Self-esteem and the quest for felt security: how perceived regard regulates attachment processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(3), 478–498.CrossRefPubMed

Musca, S. C., Kamiejski, R., Nugier, A., Méot, A., Er-Rafiy, A., & Brauer, M. (2011). Data with hierarchical structure: impact of intraclass correlation and sample size on Type-I Error. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00074.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mussi, D. R., Marino, B. F. M., & Riggio, L. (2015). The influence of social and nonsocial variables on the Simon effect. Experimental Psychology, 62(4), 215–231. https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000292.CrossRefPubMed

Myers, M. W., & Hodges, S. D. (2012). The structure of self-other overlap and its relationship to perspective taking. Personal Relationships, 19(4), 663–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2011.01382.x.CrossRef

Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science (New York, N.Y.), 316(5827), 1002–1005. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136930.CrossRef

Ortigue, S., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., de Hamilton, A. F. C., & Grafton, S. T. (2007). The neural basis of love as a subliminal prime: an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(7), 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2007.19.7.1218.CrossRefPubMed

Paladino, M.-P., Mazzurega, M., Pavani, F., & Schubert, T. W. (2010). Synchronous multisensory stimulation blurs self-other boundaries. Psychological Science, 21(9), 1202–1207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610379234.CrossRefPubMed

Puffe, L., Dittrich, K., & Klauer, K. C. (2017). The Influence of the Japanese Waving Cat on the joint spatial compatibility effect: A replication and extension of Dolk, Hommel, Prinz, and Liepelt (2013). PLoS One 12(9): e0184844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Reis, H. T., & Aron, A. (2008). Love: What is it, why does it matter, and how does it operate?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(1), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00065.x.CrossRefPubMed

Ruissen, M. I., & de Bruijn, E. R. A. (2016). Competitive game play attenuates self-other integration during joint task performance. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00274.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x.CrossRef

Ruys, K. I., & Aarts, H. (2010). When competition merges people’s behavior: Interdependency activates shared action representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 1130–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.05.016.CrossRef

Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds moving together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009.CrossRefPubMed

Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions: just like one’s own?. Cognition, 88(3), B11–B21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00043-X.CrossRefPubMed

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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00844.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Senécal, C. B., Vallerand, R. J., & Vallières, ÉF. (1992). Construction et validation de l’Échelle de la Qualité des Relations Interpersonnelles (EQRI). [Construction and validation of a French scale « Qualité des Relations interpersonnelles » (EQRI).]. European Review of Applied Psychology / Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 42(4), 315–324.

Simon, J. R. (1969). Reactions toward the source of stimulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81(1), 174–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027448.CrossRefPubMed

Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2016). Representation and incorporation of close others’ responses: The RICOR model of social influence. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(4), 311–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315598256.CrossRefPubMed

Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Bou, M. A. T., del Pobil, ÁP., Lappe, M., & Liepelt, R. (2012). When humanoid robots become human-like interaction partners: Corepresentation of robotic actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 1073–1077. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029493.CrossRefPubMed

Stenzel, A., Chinellato, E., Pobil, D., Lappe, A. P. M., & Liepelt, R. (2013). How deeply do we include robotic agents in the self? International Journal of Humanoid Robotics, 10(01), 1350015. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219843613500151.CrossRef

Stenzel, A., & Liepelt, R. (2016). Joint Simon effects for non-human co-actors. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78, 143–158. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-0994-2.CrossRef

Tsai, C. C., Kuo, W. J., Hung, D. L., & Tzeng, O. J. (2008). Action co-representation is tuned to other humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 2015–2024. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20144.CrossRefPubMed

Tsai, C., & Brass, M. (2007). Does the human motor system simulate pinocchio's actions? coacting with a human hand versus a wooden hand in a dyadic interaction. Psychological Science, 18(12), 1058–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02025.x.CrossRefPubMed

Tsakiris, M. (2017). The multisensory basis of the self: From body to identity to others. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(4), 597–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1181768.CrossRefPubMed

van der Weiden, A., Aarts, H., Prikken, M., & van Haren, N. E. M. (2016). Individual differences in action co-representation: not personal distress or subclinical psychotic experiences but sex composition modulates joint action performance. Experimental Brain Research, 234(2), 499‑510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4475-6.CrossRef

Vlainic, E., Liepelt, R., Colzato, L. S., Prinz, W., & Hommel, B. (2010). The virtual co-actor: The social Simon effect does not rely on online feedback from the other. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00208.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Weinstein, N., Rodriguez, L. M., Knee, C. R., & Kumashiro, M. (2016). Self-determined self-other overlap: Interacting effects on partners’ perceptions of support and well-being in close relationships. Journal of Research in Personality, 65, 130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.10.011.CrossRef

Welsh, T. N., Higgins, L., Ray, M., & Weeks, D. J. (2007). Seeing vs. believing: Is believing sufficient to activate the processes of response co-representation?. Human Movement Science, 26(6), 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2007.06.003.CrossRefPubMed

Welsh, T. N., Kiernan, D., Neyedli, H. F., Ray, M., Pratt, J., Potruff, A., & Weeks, D. J. (2013). Joint Simon effects in extrapersonal space. Journal of motor behavior, 45(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222895.2012.746635.CrossRefPubMed

Wen, T., & Hsieh, S. (2015). Neuroimaging of the joint Simon effect with believed biological and non-biological co-actors. Frontiers in human neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2015.00483.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Xu, X., Lewandowski, G. W., & Aron, A. (2016). The self-expansion model and optimal relationship development. In C. R. Knee & H. T. Reis (Eds.), Positive approaches to optimal relationship development (pp. 79–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316212653.005.CrossRef

Zahavi, D. (2010). Empathy, embodiment and interpersonal understanding: From Lipps to Schutz. Inquiry, 53(3), 285–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201741003784663.CrossRef

Titel: The influence of passionate love on self–other discrimination during joint action
Auteurs: Virginie Quintard
Stéphane Jouffre
Jean-Claude Croizet
Cedric A. Bouquet
Publicatiedatum: 16-01-2018
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-0981-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2020

Action compatibility in spatial knowledge developed through virtual navigation

Original Article

Metacontrol and body ownership: divergent thinking increases the virtual hand illusion

Open Access
Original Article

Coding valence in touchscreen interactions: hand dominance and lateral movement influence valence appraisals of emotional pictures

Original Article

Intertwining personal and reward relevance: evidence from the drift-diffusion model

Original Article

Object discrepancy modulates feature prediction across eye movements

Original Article

Count on arousal: introducing a new method for investigating the effects of emotional valence and arousal on visual search performance

Original Article

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

The influence of passionate love on self–other discrimination during joint action

Abstract

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2020

Action compatibility in spatial knowledge developed through virtual navigation

Metacontrol and body ownership: divergent thinking increases the virtual hand illusion

Coding valence in touchscreen interactions: hand dominance and lateral movement influence valence appraisals of emotional pictures

Intertwining personal and reward relevance: evidence from the drift-diffusion model

Object discrepancy modulates feature prediction across eye movements

Count on arousal: introducing a new method for investigating the effects of emotional valence and arousal on visual search performance

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Registreer

Login

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Action compatibility in spatial knowledge developed through virtual navigation

Metacontrol and body ownership: divergent thinking increases the virtual hand illusion

Coding valence in touchscreen interactions: hand dominance and lateral movement influence valence appraisals of emotional pictures

Intertwining personal and reward relevance: evidence from the drift-diffusion model

Object discrepancy modulates feature prediction across eye movements

Count on arousal: introducing a new method for investigating the effects of emotional valence and arousal on visual search performance