@article{KuertenRaettigGutzeitetal.2023,
  author    = {K{\"u}rten, Jens and Raettig, Tim and Gutzeit, Julian and Huestegge, Lynn},
  title     = {Dual-action benefits: global (action-inherent) and local (transient) sources of action prepotency underlying inhibition failures in multiple action control},
  series = {Psychological Research},
  volume    = {87},
  journal   = {Psychological Research},
  number    = {2},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00426-022-01672-0},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-324893},
  pages     = {410-424},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Previous research has shown that the simultaneous execution of two actions (instead of only one) is not necessarily more difficult but can actually be easier (less error-prone), in particular when executing one action requires the simultaneous inhibition of another action. Corresponding inhibitory demands are particularly challenging when the to-be-inhibited action is highly prepotent (i.e., characterized by a strong urge to be executed). Here, we study a range of important potential sources of such prepotency. Building on a previously established paradigm to elicit dual-action benefits, participants responded to stimuli with single actions (either manual button press or saccade) or dual actions (button press and saccade). Crucially, we compared blocks in which these response demands were randomly intermixed (mixed blocks) with pure blocks involving only one type of response demand. The results highlight the impact of global (action-inherent) sources of action prepotency, as reflected in more pronounced inhibitory failures in saccade vs. manual control, but also more local (transient) sources of influence, as reflected in a greater probability of inhibition failures following trials that required the to-be-inhibited type of action. In addition, sequential analyses revealed that inhibitory control (including its failure) is exerted at the level of response modality representations, not at the level of fully specified response representations. In sum, the study highlights important preconditions and mechanisms underlying the observation of dual-action benefits.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{BoecklerRennertRaettig2021,
  author    = {B{\"o}ckler, Anne and Rennert, Annika and Raettig, Tim},
  title     = {Stranger, Lover, Friend?},
  series = {Social Psychology},
  volume    = {52},
  journal   = {Social Psychology},
  number    = {3},
  issn      = {1864-9335},
  doi       = {10.1027/1864-9335/a000446},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-238721},
  pages     = {173-184},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Social exclusion, even from minimal game-based interactions, induces negative consequences. We investigated whether the nature of the relationship with the excluder modulates the effects of ostracism. Participants played a virtual ball-tossing game with a stranger and a friend (friend condition) or a stranger and their romantic partner (partner condition) while being fully included, fully excluded, excluded only by the stranger, or excluded only by their close other. Replicating previous findings, full exclusion impaired participants' basic-need satisfaction and relationship evaluation most severely. While the degree of exclusion mattered, the relationship to the excluder did not: Classic null hypothesis testing and Bayesian statistics showed no modulation of ostracism effects depending on whether participants were excluded by a stranger, a friend, or their partner.},
  language  = {en}
}