(1)行动观察中的意向性偏倚

IF 2.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Emmanuele Tidoni , Avena Merritt , Elizabeth Adeyemi , Michele Scandola , Jeremy Tree , Kevin Riggs , David George
{"title":"(1)行动观察中的意向性偏倚","authors":"Emmanuele Tidoni ,&nbsp;Avena Merritt ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Adeyemi ,&nbsp;Michele Scandola ,&nbsp;Jeremy Tree ,&nbsp;Kevin Riggs ,&nbsp;David George","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>When observing individuals in action, we often infer their goals and intentions. Yet, in situations where actions are ambiguous and could be either intentionally generated or not, there is a tendency to perceive these actions as internally driven. This intentionality bias is influenced by individual differences in schizotypal cognitive style.</div><div>In this study, we examined how healthy individuals distinguish between intentional and unintentional actions when perceiving actions of a finger attached to a pulling device. Participants reported to use different strategies to infer intentionality (e.g., action onset, perceived movement speed, hand and finger posture) and tended to attribute more intentionality to actions where the posture of the finger aligned with the final goal of the action (i.e., a bent finger pushing a button was perceived more intentional than a straight finger doing the same action). Moreover, the perceived action intentionality varied depending on the individual schizotypal cognitive style. The tendency to perceive the action as intentional when it was done with a bent finger rather than a straight finger decreased as the participants' schizotypal scores increased.</div><div>These findings suggest that intentionality attribution is not based on processes that automatically infer intentions as the primary cause of human actions. Rather than being an intentional bias, we believe that attributing and denying intentions requires the coherent integration of high- and low-level cognitive processes modulated by individual differences.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"262 ","pages":"Article 106191"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"(Un)intentionality bias in action observation revisited\",\"authors\":\"Emmanuele Tidoni ,&nbsp;Avena Merritt ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Adeyemi ,&nbsp;Michele Scandola ,&nbsp;Jeremy Tree ,&nbsp;Kevin Riggs ,&nbsp;David George\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>When observing individuals in action, we often infer their goals and intentions. Yet, in situations where actions are ambiguous and could be either intentionally generated or not, there is a tendency to perceive these actions as internally driven. This intentionality bias is influenced by individual differences in schizotypal cognitive style.</div><div>In this study, we examined how healthy individuals distinguish between intentional and unintentional actions when perceiving actions of a finger attached to a pulling device. Participants reported to use different strategies to infer intentionality (e.g., action onset, perceived movement speed, hand and finger posture) and tended to attribute more intentionality to actions where the posture of the finger aligned with the final goal of the action (i.e., a bent finger pushing a button was perceived more intentional than a straight finger doing the same action). Moreover, the perceived action intentionality varied depending on the individual schizotypal cognitive style. The tendency to perceive the action as intentional when it was done with a bent finger rather than a straight finger decreased as the participants' schizotypal scores increased.</div><div>These findings suggest that intentionality attribution is not based on processes that automatically infer intentions as the primary cause of human actions. Rather than being an intentional bias, we believe that attributing and denying intentions requires the coherent integration of high- and low-level cognitive processes modulated by individual differences.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognition\",\"volume\":\"262 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106191\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725001313\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725001313","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当观察一个人的行为时,我们经常推断他们的目标和意图。然而,在行动模棱两可且可能有意或无意产生的情况下,人们倾向于将这些行动视为内部驱动。这种意向性偏差受到分裂型认知风格个体差异的影响。在这项研究中,我们研究了健康个体在感知附着在牵引装置上的手指的动作时如何区分有意和无意的行为。参与者报告说,他们使用不同的策略来推断意向性(例如,动作开始,感知到的运动速度,手和手指的姿势),并且倾向于将更多的意向性归因于手指的姿势与动作的最终目标一致的动作(例如,弯曲的手指按按钮比笔直的手指做同样的动作被认为更有目的性)。此外,感知到的行为意向性因个体分裂型认知风格而异。当用弯曲的手指而不是伸直的手指做这个动作时,随着参与者的分裂型得分的增加,他们认为这个动作是故意的倾向减少了。这些发现表明,意向性归因不是基于自动推断意图作为人类行为的主要原因的过程。我们认为,归因和否认意图不是一种有意的偏见,而是需要由个体差异调节的高、低认知过程的连贯整合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
(Un)intentionality bias in action observation revisited
When observing individuals in action, we often infer their goals and intentions. Yet, in situations where actions are ambiguous and could be either intentionally generated or not, there is a tendency to perceive these actions as internally driven. This intentionality bias is influenced by individual differences in schizotypal cognitive style.
In this study, we examined how healthy individuals distinguish between intentional and unintentional actions when perceiving actions of a finger attached to a pulling device. Participants reported to use different strategies to infer intentionality (e.g., action onset, perceived movement speed, hand and finger posture) and tended to attribute more intentionality to actions where the posture of the finger aligned with the final goal of the action (i.e., a bent finger pushing a button was perceived more intentional than a straight finger doing the same action). Moreover, the perceived action intentionality varied depending on the individual schizotypal cognitive style. The tendency to perceive the action as intentional when it was done with a bent finger rather than a straight finger decreased as the participants' schizotypal scores increased.
These findings suggest that intentionality attribution is not based on processes that automatically infer intentions as the primary cause of human actions. Rather than being an intentional bias, we believe that attributing and denying intentions requires the coherent integration of high- and low-level cognitive processes modulated by individual differences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition
Cognition PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
283
期刊介绍: Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信