United agency in joint action: A survey study of its prevalence, facilitating factors, and social and emotional effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
United agency refers to a sense of 'acting as one' that sometimes occurs when people engage in joint actions such as group music-making, dancing, and team sports. First-hand accounts of united agency have been reported in a variety of settings, but there exists little systematic evidence regarding when and why the sense of united agency arises. The current study addressed this gap using an online survey in which participants reported general information about their experiences of united agency as well as detailed descriptions of a single memorable experience. Most participants reported experiencing united agency at least occasionally, and those scoring higher on extraversion, agreeableness, and cognitive empathy experienced it more frequently. Memorable experiences of united agency were reported more often in joint actions characterized by synchronous or highly rhythmic coordination, salient shared goals, close or long-term relationships among co-performers, and small to medium group sizes. United agency was often accompanied by positive affect, feelings of alignment and social connection with co-performers, a sense of empowerment, and heightened attention. Together, these findings elucidate the individual characteristics and joint action features that facilitate united agency, shed light on its positive social and emotional consequences, and suggest important avenues for further work investigating its underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".