Ideomotor Action: Evidence for Automaticity in Learning, but Not Execution.

Dan Sun,Ruud Custers,Henk Aarts,Hans Marien

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00185

Abstract

Human habits are widely assumed to result from stimulus-response (S-R) associations that are formed if one frequently and consistently does the same thing in the same situation. According to Ideomotor Theory, a distinct but similar process could lead to response-outcome (R-O) associations if responses frequently and consistently produce the same outcomes. This process is assumed to occur spontaneously, and because these associations can operate in a bidirectional manner, merely perceiving or thinking of an outcome should automatically activate the associated action. In the current paper we test this automaticity feature of ideomotor learning. In four experiments, participants completed the same learning phase in which they could acquire associations, and were either explicitly informed about the contingency between actions and outcomes, or not. Automatic action selection and initiation were investigated using a free-choice task in Experiment 1 and forced-choice tasks in Experiment 2, 3a, and 3b. An ideomotor effect was only obtained in the free-choice, but not convincingly in the forced-choice tasks. Together, this suggests that action-outcome relations can be learned spontaneously, but that there may be limits to the automaticity of the ideomotor effect.

Highlights

Habits are often regarded to be the result of stimulus-response (S-R) associations that are assumed to be formed if people repeatedly and consistently perform the same behavior in the same situation, often because there is an incentive to do so (Wood and Rünger, 2016)
The mean left/right response proportions were equal in each condition – NoInstructions condition: 49.9% vs. 50.1%; Instructions condition: 49.6% vs. 50.4%
The mean left/right response proportions were equal in each condition (NoInstructions condition, 50.2% vs. 49.8%; Instruction condition: 49.6% vs. 50.4%)

Summary

Introduction

Habits are often regarded to be the result of stimulus-response (S-R) associations that are assumed to be formed if people repeatedly and consistently perform the same behavior in the same situation, often because there is an incentive to do so (Wood and Rünger, 2016). A relevant but distinct line of research proposes a similar mechanism in which behaviors can become associated with the situations or events that follow actions: Ideomotor theory proposes that if a behavioral response is repeatedly and consistently followed by the same perceptual outcome, thinking about or activating the mental representation of that outcome can to a certain extent prepare or trigger the behavior through bi-directional response-outcome (R-O) associations This mechanism of ideomotor action has been used to explain various instances in which the environment triggers behaviors in an automatic fashion, such as mimicry, or behavior from affordances (Iacoboni, 2008; Custers and Aarts, 2010). It may help to understand how the environment could trigger behaviors that look like habits, but may not be the result of classic habit formation processes

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion