Figure 1
Schematic illustration of (a) the experimental setup and (b) and a sample trial sequence from the perspective of each co-actor.
Note. Stimuli are not drawn to scale. For illustrative purposes, foreground and background colors are inverted.
Table 1
Probe performance M (SD) in the observational SR binding paradigm.
| VICARIOUS PRIME FEEDBACK | % ERRORS | RT (ms) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RR | RC | RR | RC | ||
| Positive | Stimulus repetition (SR) | 5.5 (8.6) | 5.0 (6.6) | 426 (61) | 438 (65) |
| Stimulus change (SC) | 4.3 (5.6) | 3.8 (6.2) | 434 (65) | 437 (64) | |
| Δ SC – SR | –1.2 [1.1] | –1.2 [1.0] | 8* [2.7] | –1 [2.7] | |
| S × R interaction score | 0.0 [1.6] | 9* [3.8] | |||
| Negative | SR | 6.0 (6.3) | 6.1 (7.5) | 442 (65) | 440 (67) |
| SC | 5.5 (6.7) | 3.9 (6.4) | 443 (68) | 442 (67) | |
| Δ SC – SR | –0.5 [0.8] | –2.2* [0.9] | 1 [2.9] | 2 [2.7] | |
| S × R interaction score | 1.7 [1.3] | –1 [4.1] | |||
[i] Note. RR = response repetition, RC = response change. S × R interaction score = (Δ SC – SR)RR – (Δ SC – SR)RC. Standard error of the mean in brackets. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. Asterisks denote that effects significantly differ from zero.
Table 2
ANOVA results on probe actors’ mean error rates, and mean RTs.
| VARIABLES | df1 | df2 | F | p | ηP2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Errors | ||||||
| Stimulus relation (S) | 1 | 67 | 11.76** | .001 | .15 | |
| Response relation (R) | 1 | 67 | 1.26 | .266 | .02 | |
| Prime Feedback (F) | 1 | 67 | 2.12 | .150 | .03 | |
| S × R | 1 | 67 | 0.60 | .441 | .01 | |
| S × F | 1 | 67 | 0.02 | .889 | <.01 | |
| R × F | 1 | 67 | 0.14 | .714 | <.01 | |
| S × R × F | 1 | 67 | 0.77 | .382 | .01 | |
| RT | ||||||
| S | 1 | 67 | 2.69 | .106 | .04 | |
| R | 1 | 67 | 1.71 | .196 | .02 | |
| F | 1 | 67 | 20.00*** | <.001 | .23 | |
| S × R | 1 | 67 | 2.13 | .149 | .03 | |
| S × F | 1 | 67 | 1.13 | .291 | .02 | |
| R × F | 1 | 67 | 10.80** | .002 | .14 | |
| S × R × F | 1 | 67 | 3.32 | .073 | .05 |
[i] Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Figure 2
Probe performance (RT) as a function of stimulus relation, response relation, and vicarious prime feedback.
Figure 3
Forest plots for the RT meta-analyses on (a) the modulating effect of vicarious feedback on oSRBR effects and (b) the occurrence of oSRBR effects after positive and (c) negative feedback respectively.
Figure 4
Forest plots for the error rates meta-analyses on (a) the modulating effect of vicarious feedback on oSRBR effects and (b) the occurrence of oSRBR effects after positive and (c) negative feedback respectively.