The role of predictability in cooperative and competitive joint action.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictability may be an important component of cooperative action, or it may arise as a by-product of involuntary entrainment with another's behavior. Further, differences previously observed in cooperative versus competitive actions may represent a fundamental distinction between behaviors with opposite goals, or they may simply reflect the output of different physical actions. The role of predictability in cooperative versus competitive behavior was directly tested using a joint sequential button-pressing task in which Participant 1 (P1) pressed a key followed by P2 pressing a key. In the cooperative condition, both actors shared the goal of minimizing P2's response times (RTs). In the competitive condition, P1 tried to maximize P2's RTs, whereas P2 continued to try to minimize them. It was found that P1 was much more predictable in the timing of his or her presses in the cooperative condition than in the competitive condition, and this coincided with faster P2 responses when cooperating than when competing. A 2nd experiment showed the effects of the predictability of P1's responses on the speed of P2 responses were similar when P1 was replaced by a schematic hand, showing the responses could not have been due to the transmission of subtle nonverbal cues by P1. These results demonstrate that being predictable is an important strategy in the timing of cooperative joint action, whereas being unpredictable is an important strategy in competition, and that they have opposite effects on a coactor's ability to respond quickly. (PsycINFO Database Record
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".