@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} } @article{KuertenRaettigHuestegge2024, author = {K{\"u}rten, Jens and Raettig, Tim and Huestegge, Lynn}, title = {Erroneous saccade co-execution during manual action control is independent of oculomotor stimulus-response translation ease}, series = {Psychological Research}, volume = {88}, journal = {Psychological Research}, doi = {10.1007/s00426-024-01989-y}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-392600}, pages = {2376-2388}, year = {2024}, abstract = {Recent multiple action control studies have demonstrated difficulties with single-action (vs. dual-action) execution when accompanied by the requirement to inhibit a prepotent additional response (e.g., a highly automatic eye movement). Such a dual-action performance benefit is typically characterized by frequent false-positive executions of the currently unwarranted response. Here, we investigated whether the frequency of false-positive saccades is affected by the ease of translating a stimulus into a spatial oculomotor response (S-R translation ease): Is it harder to inhibit a saccade that is more automatically triggered via the stimulus? Participants switched on a trial-by-trial basis between executing a single saccade, a single manual button press, and a saccadic-manual dual action in response to a single visual stimulus. Importantly, we employed three different stimulus modes that varied in oculomotor S-R translation ease (peripheral square > central arrow > central shape). The hierarchy of S-R translation ease was reflected by increasing saccade and manual reaction times. Critically, however, the frequency of false-positive saccades in single manual trials was not substantially affected by the stimulus mode. Our results rule out explanations related to limited capacity sharing (between inhibitory control and S-R translation demands) as well as accounts related to the time available for the completion of saccade inhibition. Instead, the findings suggest that the erroneous co-activation of the oculomotor system was elicited by the mere execution of a (frequently associated) manual response (action-based co-activation).}, language = {en} } @article{RaettigHuestegge2024, author = {Raettig, Tim and Huestegge, Lynn}, title = {Flipping the script: action-plan modification during single- and multiple-action control}, series = {Acta Psychologica}, volume = {248}, journal = {Acta Psychologica}, doi = {10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104423}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-410654}, year = {2024}, abstract = {In this paper, we tested the idea that local changes in action demands (e.g., due to an invalid cue or trial-by-trial) result in frugal modifications of existing action plans via action-plan-modification operations. We implemented an experimental procedure making use of a cue that indicates the action requirements for an upcoming signal with a certain degree of reliability. Crucially, incongruent cue-stimulus pairs either require action-plan modification or "resetting" the prepared action plan and reselecting a new response from scratch. We systematically varied the proportion of valid cues over four experiments. There were four most basic response conditions: left button press, right button press, dual button presses, no action. Results support the concept of action-plan modification rather than reset-reselect: switching between a left and a right response was faster and less error-prone than any other type of switch, both between trials and between cue and signal. Thus, it appears that given two responses that can be conceived of as polar opposites (within the same single-action category), there is an action-plan-modification operation ("invert") that transforms one into the other at a comparatively low cost. Furthermore, we observed a mixed pattern of dual-action costs and benefits. This indicates that participants represented dual actions holistically, that is, not based on a conjunction of single-action plans as building blocks. In addition, switching from null actions to overt actions appeared to require very similar action-plan-modification operations as other types of switches - thus, null actions are apparently not coded as empty sets, but rather represent actions in their own right. Finally, we observed strikingly similar patterns of results for trial-by-trial changes in action demands and intra-trial cue-signal incongruency. This implies that the mere cue-based formulation of an action plan - which is not actually executed - is sufficient to produce action-switching-like effects.}, language = {en} } @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} }