La cooperación en el rastreo visual de objetos: estudio piloto
PDF
XML

Palabras clave

cooperación
díadas
rastreo visual de objetos
personalidad
evaluación multi-método

Cómo citar

Bravo-Chávez, R. I., Ferrari-Diaz, M., Silva-Pereyra, J. F., & Fernández-Harmony, T. (2023). La cooperación en el rastreo visual de objetos: estudio piloto. Psicumex, 13(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.36793/psicumex.v13i1.454

Métrica

Resumen

La cooperación tiene sus costos, pero también sus beneficios. En una tarea de rastreo visual de objetos con tres niveles de dificultad (4, 5 y 6 objetivos a rastrear respectivamente) se comparó el rendimiento de cada individuo en dos condiciones: rendimiento individual vs. rendimiento del individuo como parte de una díada. El propósito del estudio fue explorar si la diferencia en rendimiento entre estas dos condiciones se puede atribuir a la cooperación. Diez estudiantes universitarios respondieron un cuestionario de personalidad de auto informe (Big Five) y realizaron la tarea de rastreo visual de manera individual y como parte de una díada. Las díadas se grabaron en video para identificar las estrategias de comunicación, resolución de problemas y acuerdos en la selección de objetivos. Las díadas mostraron puntajes más altos y tiempos de reacción más lentos en comparación con el rendimiento individual. Los tiempos de reacción más lentos se asociaron positivamente con los intercambios verbales y las estrategias de división del trabajo en la díada. La amabilidad y la extraversión, medidas por el cuestionario de autoinforme, se asociaron positivamente con el acuerdo en la selección de objetivos. La interacción entre los miembros de una díada y sus rasgos de personalidad podrían ser relevantes para comprender la cooperación exitosa y sus costos asociados.

https://doi.org/10.36793/psicumex.v13i1.454
PDF
XML

Citas

Arrighi, R., Lunardi, R., & Burr, D. (2011). Vision and Audition do not Share Attentional Resources in Sustained Tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, art. 56. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2011.00056

Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Latham, P. E., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. D. (2010). Optimally Interacting Minds. Science, 329(5995), 1081-1085. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185718

Bahrami, B., Olsen, K., Bang, D., Roepstorff, A., Rees, G., & Frith, C. (2012). Together, Slowly but Surely: The Role of Social Interaction and Feedback on the Build-Up of Benefit in Collective Decision-Making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(1), 3-8. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2011-23156-001.html

Brennan, S. E., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Neider, M. B., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2008). 'Coordinating Cognition: The Costs and Benefits of Shared Gaze During Collaborative Search'. Cognition, 106(3), 1465-1477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.012

Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015a). When Two Heads are Better than One: Interactive Versus Independent Benefits of Collaborative Cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 22(4), 1076-1082. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0765-4

Brennan, A. A., & Enns, J. T. (2015b). What's in a Friendship? Partner Visibility Supports Cognitive Collaboration between Friends. PloS One, 10(11), e0143469. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143469

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Moreno, J. B. (2001). BFQ: Cuestionario" Big Five". Tea.

Cleveland, A., Schug, M., & Striano, T. (2007). Joint Attention and Object Learning in 5-and 7-Month-Old Infants. Infant and Child Development: An International Journal of Research and Practice, 16(3), 295-306. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.508

Davis, M. H. (1980). A Multidimensional Approach to Individual Differences in Empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85, 1-19. https://www.uv.es/~friasnav/Davis_1980.pdf

Drew, T., Horowitz, T. S., & Vogel, E. K. (2013). Swapping or Dropping? Electrophysiological Measures of Difficulty During Multiple Object Tracking. Cognition, 126(2), 213-223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.10.003

Dunfield, K.; Kuhlmeier, V. A.; O’Connell, L., & Kelley, E. (2011), 'Examining the diversity of prosocial behavior: Helping, sharing, and comforting in infancy', Infancy, 16(3), 227--247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7078.2010.00041.x

Gondan, M., & Minakata, K. (2016). A Tutorial on Testing the Race Model Inequality. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 78(3), 723-735. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-015-1018-y

Harris, D., Wilson, R., Smith, S., Meder, N., & Vine, S. (2020). Testing the Effects of 3D Multiple Object Tracking Training On Near, Mid and Far Transfer. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, art. 196. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00196

Heyman, R. E., Lorber, M. F., Eddy, J. M., & West, T. V. (2014). Behavioral Observation and Coding. Cambridge University Press.

de Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., & Gallagher, S. (2010). Can Social Interaction Constitute Social Cognition? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(10), 441-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.06.009

Koriat, A. (2012). When are Two Heads Better than One and Why? Science, 336(6079), 360-362. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1216549

Laughlin, P. R., Bonner, B. L., & Miner, A. G. (2002). Groups Perform Better than the Best Individuals on Letters-to-Numbers Problems. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(2), 605-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00003-1

Laughlin, P. R., Hatch, E. C., Silver, J. S., & Boh, L. (2006). Groups Perform Better than the Best Individuals on Letters-to-Numbers Problems: Effects of Group Size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 644-651. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644

Laughlin, P. R., Carey, H. R., & Kerr, N. L. (2008). Group-to-Individual Problem-Solving Transfer. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11(3), 319--330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208090645

Meudell, P. R., Hitch, G. J., & Boyle, M. M. (1995). Collaboration in Recall: Do Pairs of People Cross-Cue Each Other to Produce New Memories? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48(1), 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640749508401381

Meyerhoff, H., Papenmeier, F., & Huff, M. (2017). Studying Visual Attention Using the Multiple Object Tracking Paradigm: A Tutorial Review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(5), 1255-1274. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1338-1

Neider, M. B., Chen, X., Dickinson, C. A., Brennan, S. E., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2010). Coordinating Spatial Referencing Using Shared Gaze. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17(5), 718-724. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.718

Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking Multiple Independent Targets: Evidence for a Parallel Tracking Mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3(3), 179-197. https://doi.org/10.1163/156856888x00122

R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate Friendship Scale: Conceptual Underpinnings, Psychometric Properties and Construct Validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11(3), 449-469. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0265407594113010

Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., & Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint Action: Bodies and Minds Moving Together. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 70-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009

Szymanski, C., Pesquita, A., Brennan, A. A., Perdikis, D., Enns, J. T., Brick, T. R., Müller, V., & Lindenberger. U. (2017). Teams on the Same Wavelength Perform Better: Inter-Brain Phase Synchronization Constitutes a Neural Substrate for Social Facilitation. NeuroImage, 152, 425–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.03.013

Van-Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. (2009). Python 2.6 Reference Manual. Phyton.

Van-Zandt, T. (2002). Analysis of Response Time Distributions. In H. Pashler y J. Wixted (Eds.), Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology, 4, 461-516. John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471214426.pas0412

Wahn, B., Kingstone, A., & König, P. (2017). Two Trackers Are Better Than One: Information About the Co-Actor’s Actions and Performance Scores Contribute to the Collective Benefit in a Joint Visuospatial Task. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, art. 669. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00669

Wahn, B., & König, P. (2017). Can Limitations of Visuospatial Attention Be Circumvented? A Review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, art. 1896. https://doi.org/10.3389%2Ffpsyg.2017.01896

Wahn, B., Czeszumski, A., & König, P. (2018). Performance Similarities Predict Collective Benefits in Dyadic and Triadic Joint Visual Search. PloS One, 13(1), artículo e0191179. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191179

Wahn, B., Karlinsky, A., Schmitz, L., & König, P. (2018). Let's Move It Together: A Review of Group Benefits in Joint Object Control. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, art. 918. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00918

Wahn, B., Kingstone, A., & König, P. (2018). Group Benefits in Joint Perceptual Tasks—A Review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1426(1), 166-178. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13843

Wahn, B., Czeszumski, A., Labusch, M., Kingstone, A., & König, P. (2020). Dyadic and Triadic Search: Benefits, Costs, and Predictors of Group Performance. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82, 2415–2433. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01915-0

Wahn, B., König, P., & Kingston, A. (2020). Predicting Group Benefits in Joint Multiple Object Tracking. PsyArXiv Prepints. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fzwgs

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.

Derechos de autor 2022

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.