Metacognition of agency: proximal action and distal outcome

被引:0
作者
Janet Metcalfe
Teal S. Eich
David B. Miele
机构
[1] Columbia University,Department of Psychology
[2] University of Maryland,undefined
来源
Experimental Brain Research | 2013年 / 229卷
关键词
Metacognition; Agency; Contingency; Outcome; Motor control;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The cues contributing to people’s metacognitions of agency were investigated in two experiments in which people played a computer game that involved trying to “touch”, via a mouse moving a cursor, downward scrolling X’s (Experiment 1), or trying to “explode” the downward scrolling X’s (Experiment 2). Both experiments varied (a) proximal action-related information by either introducing or not introducing Turbulence into the mouse controls and (b) distal outcome-related information such that touched X’s “exploded” either 100 or 75 % of the time. Both variables affected people’s judgments of agency (JOAs), but the effect was different. First, the decrement in feelings of agency was greater with the proximal variable than with distal variable. Second, while the proximal variable always had a large direct effect on JOAs, even taking judgments of performance (JOPs) into account, JOPs completely accounted for the effect of the distal variable in Experiment 1, where the instructions were just to touch the X’s. And even in Experiment 2, in which the instructions were to explode the X’s, the direct effect of the distal variable on JOAs was small. These data indicate that these two cues exhibit different psychological profiles. The proximal action-related information is a diagnostic cue to agency indicating the match between one’s own intentions and actions. Internal monitoring of intentions is necessary and so the self is implicated. However, distal outcome can be largely monitored using information external to the agent, and so—while it is used by people to make agency judgments—it is a non-diagnostic cue.
引用
收藏
页码:485 / 496
页数:11
相关论文
共 111 条
[1]  
Alloy LB(1979)Judgment of contingency in depressed and nondepressed students: sadder but wiser? J Exp Psychol Gen 108 441-485
[2]  
Abramson LY(2006)Similar brain networks for detecting visuo-motor and visuo-proprioceptive synchrony Neuroimage 31 308-312
[3]  
Balslev D(1989)Human agency in social cognitive theory Am Psychol 44 1175-1184
[4]  
Nielsen FA(2001)Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective Annu Rev Psychol 52 1-26
[5]  
Lund TE(2001)From the perception of action to the understanding of intention Nat Rev Neurosci 2 561-567
[6]  
Law I(1999)Spatiotemporal prediction modulates the perception of self-produced stimuli J Cogn Neurosci 11 551-559
[7]  
Paulson OB(2000)Why can’t you tickle yourself? NeuroReport 11 R11-R16
[8]  
Bandura A(2002)Leader or follower? Involvement of the inferior parietal lobule in agency NeuroReport 13 1975-1978
[9]  
Bandura A(1965)Basic actions Am Philos Q 2 141-148
[10]  
Blakemore S-J(2008)The “sense of agency” and its underlying cognitive and neural mechanisms Conscious Cogn 17 523-534