Figure 1
Trial timeline and stimuli example for Experiment 1. In the individual task goal condition, participants were instructed to either match or mismatch the card selection of their co-actor (indicated by the red frame) by selecting the higher or the lower of their cards. I.e., in the example above, half of the participants had to select the higher of their cards (clubs nine) while the other half had to select the lower of their cards (clubs seven) after observing their co-actor selecting the higher of their cards (clubs eight). In the joint task goal condition, participants were instead instructed to select one of their cards that complemented an ascending or a descending number sequences together with the card selected by their co-actor. Here, one half of the participants was instructed to complement an ascending sequence when their partner selected the higher of their cards and to complement a descending sequence when their partner selected the lower of their cards (i.e., selecting clubs nine as the successor of clubs eight in the example above), while the other half was instructed to complement an ascending sequence when their partner selected the lower of their cards and to complement a descending sequence when their partner selected the higher of their cards (i.e., selecting clubs seven as the predecessor of clubs eight in the example above). Note that selecting the correct card in each condition could require participants to select the card at the same or the opposite relative spatial position as their co-actor (i.e., selecting the left or the right of their cards after the co-actor selected the left of their cards).
Figure 2
Mean response times in Experiment 1 as a function of Task Goal, Individual Goal Congruency and Response Congruency. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (SEM) corrected for within subjects designs (Morey, 2008). Asterisks denote significant simple-effects contrasts between factor levels, conditional on the remaining factors; numeric labels indicate exact p-values for non-significant contrasts. ***p < .001, **p < .01.
Figure 3
Trial timeline and stimuli example for Experiment 2. Task instructions for the different experimental conditions were analogous to those of Experiment 1.
Figure 4
Response times in Experiment 2 as a function of Task Goal, Individual Goal Congruency and Response Congruency. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (SEM) corrected for within subjects designs (Morey, 2008). Asterisks denote significant simple-effects contrasts between factor levels, conditional on the levels of the other factors. ***p < .001, **p < .01.
Table A1
Bayesian Model Comparison Results for Response Time Analysis in Experiment 1.
| MODELS | P(M) | P(M|DATA) | BFM | BF01 | ERROR % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency | 0.053 | 0.338 | 9.201 | 1.000 | |
| Action Goal Congruency | 0.053 | 0.193 | 4.293 | 1.757 | 3.029 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency | 0.053 | 0.169 | 3.658 | 2.003 | 8.692 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.086 | 1.683 | 3.956 | 10.217 |
| Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.084 | 1.656 | 4.016 | 6.297 |
| Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Action Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.048 | 0.905 | 7.064 | 6.754 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency | 0.053 | 0.026 | 0.481 | 12.991 | 17.356 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency + Movement Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.024 | 0.439 | 14.220 | 11.878 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency + Movement Goal Congruency × Task Goal + Action Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.012 | 0.210 | 29.304 | 10.631 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.009 | 0.170 | 36.113 | 7.868 |
[i] Note. Only the 10 best out of all 19 models are shown. Results were obtained using a default prior specification for model parameters with r scale for fixed effects = .5. Model comparison results using two different prior settings can be found in the supplement.
Table A2
ANOVA Results for Error Rate Analysis in Experiment 1.
| EFFECT | DF | F | P | ηP2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task Goal | 1,188 | 1.105 | .295 | .006 |
| Action Goal Congruency | 1,188 | 6.349 | .013 | .033 |
| Movement Goal Congruency | 1,188 | 3.821 | .052 | .02 |
| Task Goal × Action Goal Congruency | 1,188 | 0.065 | .799 | 3.4 × 10–4 |
| Task Goal × Movement Goal Congruency | 1,188 | 0.898 | .345 | .005 |
| Action Goal Congruency × Movement Goal Congruency | 1,188 | 8.760 | .003 | .045 |
| Task Goal × Action Goal Congruency × Movement Goal Congruency | 1,188 | 1.002 | .318 | .005 |
[i] Note. Based on Type III Sum of Squares.
Figure A1
Mean error rates in Experiment 1 as a function of Task Goal, Action Goal Congruency and Movement Goal Congruency. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (SEM) corrected for within subjects designs (Morey, 2008). Asterisks denote significant simple-effects contrasts between factor levels, conditional on the remaining factors; numeric labels indicate exact p-values for non-significant contrasts. **p < .01, *p < .05.
Table B1
Bayesian Model Comparison Results for Response Time Analysis in Experiment 2.
| MODELS | P(M) | P(M|DATA) | BFM | BF01 | ERROR % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency | 0.053 | 0.397 | 11.841 | 1.000 | |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency | 0.053 | 0.272 | 6.733 | 1.458 | 8.974 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.207 | 4.710 | 1.913 | 6.339 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency + Movement Goal Congruency × Task Goal + Action Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.055 | 1.053 | 7.181 | 11.928 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency + Movement Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.052 | 1.006 | 7.495 | 10.774 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency + Movement Goal Congruency × Task Goal + Action Goal Congruency × Task Goal + Movement Goal Congruency × Action Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 0.015 | 0.281 | 25.787 | 33.670 |
| Movement Goal Congruency | 0.053 | 3.5 × 10–13 | 6.3 × 10–12 | 1.1 × 1012 | 4.041 |
| Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal + Action Goal Congruency × Task Goal | 0.053 | 2.4 × 10–13 | 4.0 × 10–12 | 1.6 × 1012 | 6.261 |
| Action Goal Congruency + Task Goal | 0.053 | 1.9 × 10–13 | 3.3 × 10–12 | 2.1 × 1012 | 6.165 |
| Movement Goal Congruency + Action Goal Congruency | 0.053 | 9.4 × 10–14 | 1.7 × 10–12 | 4.2 × 1012 | 4.011 |
[i] Note. Only the 10 best out of all 19 models are shown. Results were obtained using a default prior specification for model parameters with r scale for fixed effects = .5. Model comparison results using two different prior settings can be found in the supplement.
Table B2
ANOVA Results for Error Rate Analysis in Experiment 2.
| EFFECT | DF | F | P | ηP2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Task Goal | 1,184 | 4.562 | .034 | .024 |
| Action Goal Congruency | 1,184 | 8.505 | .004 | .044 |
| Movement Goal Congruency | 1,184 | 0.044 | .834 | 2.4 × 10–4 |
| Task Goal × Action Goal Congruency | 1,184 | 1.939 | .166 | .010 |
| Task Goal × Movement Goal Congruency | 1,184 | 0.027 | .869 | 1.4 × 10–4 |
| Action Goal Congruency × Movement Goal Congruency | 1,184 | 16.632 | < .001 | .083 |
| Task Goal × Action Goal Congruency × Movement Goal Congruency | 1,184 | 0.206 | .651 | .001 |
[i] Note. Based on Type III Sum of Squares.
Figure B1
Error rates in Experiment 2 as a function of Task Goal, Action Goal Congruency and Movement Goal Congruency. Error bars represent standard errors of the mean (SEM) corrected for within subjects designs (Morey, 2008). Asterisks denote significant simple-effects contrasts between factor levels, conditional on the remaining factors; numeric labels indicate exact p-values for non-significant contrasts. **p < .01, *p < .05.