Factors affecting athletes’ motor behavior after the observation of scenes of cooperation and competition in competitive sport: the effect of sport attitude

Abstract

Aim: This study delineated how observing sports scenes of cooperation or competition modulated an action of interaction, in expert athletes, depending on their specific sport attitude.
Method: In a kinematic study, athletes were divided into two groups depending on their attitude toward teammates (cooperative or competitive). Participants observed sport scenes of cooperation and competition (basketball, soccer, water polo, volleyball, and rugby) and then they reached for, picked up, and placed an object on the hand of a conspecific (giving action). Mixed-design ANOVAs were carried out on the mean values of grasping-reaching parameters.
Results: Data showed that the type of scene observed as well as the athletes’ attitude affected reach-to-grasp actions to give. In particular, the cooperative athletes were speeded when they observed scenes of cooperation compared to when they observed scenes of competition.
Discussion: Participants were speeded when executing a giving action after observing actions of cooperation. This occurred only when they had a cooperative attitude. A match between attitude and intended action seems to be a necessary prerequisite for observing an effect of the observed type of scene on the performed action. It is possible that the observation of scenes of competition activated motor strategies which interfered with the strategies adopted by the cooperative participants to execute a cooperative (giving) sequence.

Full text

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 28 October 2015
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01648
Edited by:
Andreas B. Eder,
University of Wuerzburg, Germany
Reviewed by:
Yves Paulignan,
Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, France
Thorsten Michael Erle,
University of Würzburg, Germany
*Correspondence:
Elisa De Stefani
elidestefani@gmail.com
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Cognition,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 10 March 2015
Accepted: 13 October 2015
Published: 28 October 2015
Citation:
De Stefani E, De Marco D
and Gentilucci M (2015) Factors
affecting athletes’ motor behavior
after the observation of scenes
of cooperation and competition
in competitive sport: the effect
of sport attitude.
Front. Psychol. 6:1648.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01648
Factors affecting athletes’ motor
behavior after the observation of
scenes of cooperation and
competition in competitive sport: the
effect of sport attitude
ElisaDeStefani
*, Doriana De Marco and Maurizio Gentilucci
Department of Neuroscience, University of Parm a, Parma, Italy
Aim: This study delineated how observing sports scenes of cooperation or competition
modulated an action of interaction, in expert athletes, depending on their specific sport
attitude.
Method: In a kinematic study, athletes were divided into two groups depending on their
attitude toward teammates (cooperative or competitive). Participants observed sport
scenes of cooperation and competition (basketball, soccer, water polo, volleyball, and
rugby) and then they reached for, picked up, and placed an object on the hand of a
conspecific (giving action). Mixed-design ANOVAs were carried out on the mean values
of grasping-reaching parameters.
Results: Data showed that the type of scene observed as well as the athletes’ attitude
affected reach-to-grasp actions to give. In particular, the cooperative athletes were
speeded when they observed scenes of cooperation compared to when they observed
scenes of competition.
Discussion: Participants were speeded when executing a giving action after observing
actions of cooperation. This occurred only when they had a cooperative attitude.
A match between attitude and intended action seems to be a necessary prerequisite for
observing an effect of the observed type of scene on the performed action. It is possible
that the observation of scenes of competition activated motor strategies which interfered
with the strategies adopted by the cooperative participants to execute a cooperative
(giving) sequence.
Keywords: scenes of cooperation and competition,expert athletes, cooperative/competitive attitude, kinematics,
social interaction
INTRODUCTION
A growing number of behavioral and neurophysiological studies have demonstrated that
perception and action have a common coding (Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004;Rizzolatti et al.,
2014). The concept of affordances, as originally postulated by Gibson (1978), refers to the
possibilities for action that emerge from the interactions of an organism with its environment.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648

De Stefani et al. Social interactions and sport attitudes
Further evidence has demonstrated that activation of affordances
is modulated not just by the physical properties of objects, but
also by the social context in which an action is performed (Mason
and Mackenzie, 2005;Georgiou et al., 2007;Meulenbroek et al.,
2007;Becchio et al., 2008;Sartori et al., 2009;Ferri et al., 2010,
2011, 2014;Innocenti et al., 2012). Indeed, social behavior during
interaction with conspecifics (i.e., different intentions of the agent
or the observer) can interact with affordance instantiation and
modify the kinematics of the actions. The ability to read others’
intentions plays an important role in sports, as athletes need
to perceive the action capabilities of their opponents and their
teammates in order to be aware of ever-changing opportunities
for action afforded by a sport situation (Passos et al., 2009;Correia
et al., 2012;Vilar et al., 2012).
Throughout the course of a game, players can implement
both defensive and offensive behaviors. It is possible that these
behaviors lead to the development of certain skills to either
cooperate or compete with teammates. Moreover, with the
development of expertise in a sport, athletes improve specific
patterns of interaction, that is, a personal predisposition to be
more cooperative or competitive toward their teammates. We
refer to these specific strategies using the term “attitude”: a
predisposition toward a specific motor behavior in response to
an actual sport setting.
It is well known that the observation of an action activates
a process of simulation (Buccino et al., 2004b). For transitive
actions (directed upon an object), the same act done by
another agent corresponds to the activation of an internal motor
representation of that act. This simulation is used to understand
the goal of the movement (Buccino et al., 2001, 2004a;Iacoboni
et al., 2005). In the case of intransitive actions, the simulation
is mainly used to understand the intention of the agent (Fadiga
et al., 1995;Buccino et al., 2001;Rizzolatti and Craighero, 2004).
In summary, the simulation of an observed action allows one to
recognize the goal of the observed movement, to infer others’
intentions, and to predict the agent’s next act. Moreover, this
mechanism of intention understanding can modulate a further
self-generated action. In other words, the observation of an action
can influence the motor response of a subsequent action. This
happens often in a sport context: actions are frequently executed
in the presence of another acting individual whose intentions can
be cooperative or competitive. Consequently, the observation of
sport scenes of cooperation and competition can differently affect
the subsequent action of the observer. We hypothesized that this
effect would enhance the cooperative and competitive attitude
of an athlete. Athletes that are attuned to simulating sportive
actions can be greatly affected, compared to non-athletes, in the
execution of a subsequent action after observing sportive scenes
of cooperation and competition.
We extended our research to sport expertise by considering
athletes’ attitudes (cooperative versus competitive). Two main
issues were examined in this study: firstly, we were interested
in ascertaining whether the sole observation of well-known
sport actions in a context of cooperation or competition could
influence the kinematics of a cooperative social interaction
with a conspecific (giving action). Specifically, we expected
that the observation of an action of cooperation could
facilitate a successive executed action of cooperation, making
the participant’s movement faster. On the other hand, the
observation of an action of competition could interfere with the
participant’s action of cooperation, probably slowing down the
movement. Secondly, we were interested in investigating how the
kinematics of athletes’ actions can be modulated not only by the
observation of a specific cooperative/competitive sport action,
but also by the attitude of the participants. We hypothesized that
the interaction between the participant’s attitude (cooperative or
competitive) and the type of sport actions observed (an action
of cooperation or an action of competition) could modulate a
successive motor response, affecting the kinematics of reach–
grasp movements performed by participants. Specifically, we
expected that the congruence between the participant’s attitude
(e.g., cooperative attitude) and an observed action (e.g., action
of cooperation) could facilitate the execution of a successive
movement toward a conspecific, making the participant’s action
faster. On the other hand, we expected that the incongruence
matching (e.g., cooperative attitude versus the observation of
an action of competition) could interfere with a successive
interaction with a conspecific, presumably slowing down the
movement. In other words, we expected facilitation only when
the attitude of the participant was congruent with the type of
observed action.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Participants
Twenty right-handed undergraduate students (9 male, 11 female)
between the ages of 20 and 28 years (mean =21.6, SD =2.5)
took part in the present experiment. They all practiced a sport
more than three times per week (SD =1.7) and they all had
experience in one or more of the team sports selected in this
study (Tab l e 1 ). Handedness was assessed through the Edinburgh
Inventory (Oldfield, 1971).Theparticipantswerestudentsofthe
degree course of Motor Sciences, Sport and Health (University
of Parma) and practiced team sports at the competitive level.
Before being included in our study, the participants completed
a questionnaire to collect information about what sport they
practiced; which position they played; and whether they felt
more cooperative with their peers than competitive toward their
opponents during a game (see Data Sheet 1). The participants
were divided into two groups (cooperative and competitive
group) according to their answers. In the competitive group, we
included only participants that had clearly exhibited competitive
behavior during matches (13 competitive athletes). We used the
same criteria for athletes included in the cooperative group (seven
cooperative athletes). We excluded the uncertain participants. All
participants provided a written informed consent to participate in
the study, which has been approved by the local ethical committee
(Comitato Etico per Parma) and has been conducted according to
the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.
Apparatus, Stimuli, and Procedure
The participants sat comfortably in front of a table on which
they placed their right hand with the thumb and index finger
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648

De Stefani et al. Social interactions and sport attitudes
TABLE 1 | Participants’ characteristics.
Participants Age Attitude Sport Frequency Sex Expertise
1 20 cooperative basket >3 days, a week M more than 1 years
2 20 competitive volleyball >4 days a week F more than 1 years
3 20 competitive volleyball >4 days, a week F more than 1 years
4 28 competitive water polo >4 days a week F more than 1 years
5 20 competitive water polo >4 days a week F more than 1 years
6 20 cooperative soccer >3 days a week M more than 1 years
7 21 competitive volleyball >3 days a week F more than 1 years
8 20 competitive volleyball >4 days a week F more than 1 years
9 20 cooperative volleyball >4 days, a week F more than 1 years
10 21 competitive soccer >4 days a week M more than 1 years
11 20 competitive soccer >4 days, a week M more than 1 years
12 21 cooperative rugby >4 days a week M more than 1 years
13 21 cooperative volleyball >3 days a week F more than 1 years
14 20 competitive volleyball >4 days a week F more than 1 years
15 20 competitive basket >3 days a week F more than 1 years
16 21 cooperative soccer >4 days a week M more than 1 years
17 21 competitive soccer >4 days, a week M more than 1 years
18 26 cooperative soccer >4 days a week M more than 1 years
19 26 competitive basket >4 days, a week F more than 1 years
20 25 competitive soccer >4 days a week M more than 1 years
in pinch position starting position (SP). SP was located along
the participants’ mid-sagittal plane and was 27 cm away from
their chest. An experimenter was seated next to the participant,
and she held the palm of her right hand in the supine position
(request position). A computer display was placed on a table
plane at a distance of 60 cm from the body of the participant
sitting in front of it. A wooden cube (∼2cm×2cm×2cm)was
placed at the center of the table 20 cm in front of participant’s SP.
Stimuli were presented on the computer display using software
developed via MATLAB version 7.7 (R2008b). The stimuli were
short videos downloaded from the Internet replicating real
matches. Each video lasted five seconds. We selected videos
based on the following criterion: (a) the action would involve
coordinated sports action among athletes of the same team,
or (b) two or more athletes from two different teams would
come into contact with each other. Consequently, the actions
defined “actions of cooperation”-reproduced situations in which
athletes of the same team cooperated in an action of the game
(e.g., in volleyball, a pass ball between setter and hitter, see
Figure 1). In the “actions of competition”-reproduced situations,
two athletes from two different teams were opposed (e.g., in
a soccer match, the attacker tries to score a goal and the
defender marks him). Selected scenes reproduced sports actions
in which the participants were experts—that is, five cooperation
and five competition scenes from the following sports: basketball,
soccer, water polo, volleyball, and rugby (Figure 1). In total, 50
scenes were presented. After the presentation of a fixation cross
(500 ms), participants viewed one of the 10 videos that lasted
5,000 ms. As soon as they understood whether the action was
one of cooperation or competition, they were required to reach
for, pick up, and place the wooden cube on the experimenter’s
hand (giving action). The participants grasped the cube with
their fingers (right hand, precision grip). When a question mark
(2,500 ms) appeared on the computer display, the participants
were instructed to state out loud whether the just seen action
was an action of cooperation or competition (10% catch trials).
Subsequently, a black screen was presented (3,000 ms). The
participants had to place their hands in SP and then wait for
the next trial. In total, the participants responded correctly to the
cooperation condition in 99% of the cases and in the competition
condition in 99.7% of the cases.
Data Recording
The movements of the participants’ right arms were
recorded using the 3D-optoelectronic SMART system (BTS
Bioengineering, Milan, Italy). This system consists of six video
cameras that detect infrared reflecting markers (spheres that are
5 mm in diameter) at a sampling rate of 120 Hz. The spatial
resolution of the system is 0.3 mm. The infrared reflective
markers were attached to the nail of the participants’ right
thumbs and index fingers, and another marker was attached to
the participants’ right wrists. The markers attached to the thumb
and index finger were used to analyze the grasp kinematics,
whereas the marker attached to the wrist was used to analyze the
kinematics of reaching and lifting. Manual prehension consists
of two components: the proximal component (also known as
“the reach”), which is the action of carrying the hand toward
an object, and “the grasp” component, during which the fingers
are opened and shaped before the contact of the hand with the
target (Jeannerod, 1984;Jakobson and Goodale, 1991;Gentilucci
et al., 2001). The reach transports the hand toward the object
(the reaching action makes the hand move toward an object),
and its kinematics depend on the target’s extrinsic properties
(i.e., location and orientation). The grasp component provides
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648

De Stefani et al. Social interactions and sport attitudes
FIGURE 1 | Procedure and stimuli presented in the experiment.
information on how to open, preshape, and close the hand
during the reach in relation to the target’s intrinsic properties
(i.e., size and shape). The data of the recorded movements was
analyzed using software developed via MATLAB version 7.7
(R2008b). Recorded data were filtered using a Gaussian low-pass
smoothing filter (=0.93). The time course of the reach, grasp,
and lift was visually inspected: the beginning of the grasp was
considered to be the first frame in which the distance between the
two markers placed on the right finger tips increased more than
0.3 mm (spatial resolution of the recording system) with respect
to the previous frame. The end of the grasp was the first frame
after the beginning of the finger closing, in which the distance
between the two right fingers decreased less than 0.3 mm with
respect to the previous frame. The beginning of the reach was
considered to be the first frame during which the displacement of
the reach marker along any Cartesian body axis increased more
than 0.3 mm with respect to the previous frame. To determine
the end of the reach, we calculated the first frame following
movement onset separately for the X, Y, and Z axes, in which
the X, Y, and Z displacements of the reach marker decreased less
than 0.3 mm compared to the previous frame. Then, the frame
endpoint temporally closer to the grasp end frame was chosen
as the end of the reach. The frame immediately succeeding the
reach end was considered as the lift beginning, while the lift end
corresponded to the frame in which the highest point of the
hand trajectory was reached during lifting. The grasp was studied
by analyzing the time course of the distance between the index
finger and thumb markers. From a pinch position, the grasp
component was constituted of an initial phase of finger opening
up to a maximum (maximal finger aperture) followed by a phase
of finger closing on the object (Jeannerod, 1988).
We measured the following parameters: reach time, time to
peak velocity of reach, peak elevation (trajectory maximal height),
grasp time, time to maximal finger aperture, peak velocity of
finger opening, time to peak velocity of finger opening, and
maximal finger aperture.
Data Analysis
Participants were divided into two groups (cooperative attitude
versus competitive attitude) according to the questionnaire
responses. They resulted in 7 cooperative participants and 13
competitive participants (Table 1 ). Because of the difference in
sample size between groups, the homogeneity of variance was
primarily verified with Levene’s test. Mixed-design ANOVAs
were carried out on the mean values of the reaching–grasping
parameters (Table 2). The within-subject factor was the type
of scene (cooperation versus competition) and the between-
subject factor was the participants’ attitudes (cooperative versus
competitive). In all of the analyses, post hoc comparisons were
performed using the Newman–Keuls procedure. The significance
level was fixed at p=0.05. When a factor was significant, we also
calculated the effect size (η2
p). We also carried another mixed-
design ANOVA, using gender (male versus female) and type of
practiced sport (basketball versus soccer versus water polo versus
volleyball versus rugby) as the between-subject factors. All of
TABLE 2 | Mean values and SE of kinematic parameters of reach and grasp action.
Scene of cooperation Scene of competition
Kinematic parameters Cooperative attitude Competitive attitude Cooperative attitude Competitive attitude
Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE Mean SE
Reach time (ms) 637 47 513 35 686 50 523 37
Time to peak velocity of reach (ms) 287 21 256 15 313 22 258 16
Peak elevation (mm) 94 5 91 4 96 5 93 4
Grasp time (ms) 607 44 512 32 645 44 504 32
Time to maximal finger aperture (ms) 420 36 316 27 455 37 311 27
Peak velocity of finger opening (mm/s) 233 43 305 31 217 14 309 30
Time to peak velocity of finger opening (ms) 208 28 160 21 238 31 152 23
Maximal finger aperture (mm) 78 3 84 2 77 3 83 2
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648

De Stefani et al. Social interactions and sport attitudes
these final analyses were not significant, and the corresponding
p-values are reported as Supplementary Table S1.
RESULTS
Reach
The main factor of the participants’ attitudes was significant.
There was a significant difference in reach time between
cooperative participants and competitive participants
[F(1,18) =5.74, p<0.028; cooperative =662 ms versus
competitive =518 ms].
Factor scene affected reach time and time to peak velocity
of reach. Scenes of cooperation induced a decrease in both
parameters in comparison with scenes of competition [reach
time: F(1,18) =15, η2
p=0.45, p<0.00, 575 ms versus 604 ms;
time to peak velocity of reach: F(1,18) =6.5, η2
p=0.27, p<0.02,
271 ms versus 285 ms]. It is possible that the scenes of cooperation
facilitated, and/or the scenes of competition interfered with, the
reach (and grasp, see below) because the participants executed
a giving (cooperative) action. The interaction between the type
of scene and the participants’ attitudes also affected reach time
[F(1,18) =6.8, η2
p=0.274, p<0.018] and time to peak velocity
of reach [F(1,18) =5.01, η2
p=0.218, p<0.038, Figure 2 and
Tab l e 2 ]. Post hoc comparison showed a significance between
types of scene only when the participants were cooperative (reach
time: p=0.00037; time to peak velocity of reach: p=0.003).
No difference was found between scenes of cooperation and
competition when participants were competitive (reach time:
p=0.384; time to peak velocity of reach: p=0.827). Finally,
scenes of cooperation and competition affected peak elevation
differentially [F(1,18) =4.7, η2
p=0.208, p<0.043, 93 mm versus
95 mm].
Grasp
Competitive participants showed a significant decrease in
grasp time and time to maximal finger aperture compared to
cooperative participants (grasp time: F(1,18) =4.8, p<0.042,
508 ms versus 626 ms; time to maximal finger aperture:
F(1,18) =7.5, p<0.013, 314 ms versus 437 ms).
A significant interaction between the factor type of the
scene and the participants’ attitudes was found for grasp time
[F(1,18) =7.24, η2
p=0.287, p<0.015] and time to maximal
finger aperture [F(1,18) =6.35, η2
p=0.261, p<0.021, Tab l e 2
and Figure 3]. Post hoc comparison showed a significant decrease
in the parameters for scenes of cooperation only when the
participants were cooperative (grasp time: p=0.005; time to
maximal finger aperture: p=0.006). No difference was found
between the scenes of cooperation and competition presented to
competitive participants (grasp time: p=0.533; time to maximal
finger aperture: p=0.639). The interaction between the type
of scene and the participants’ attitudes showed a trend toward
significance for peak velocity of finger opening [F(1,18) =3.88,
η2
p=0.177, p<0.064] and significance for time to peak velocity
of finger opening [F(1,18) =8.69, η2
p=0.325, p<0.009]. Post hoc
comparisons showed a significant decrease in the two parameters
FIGURE 2 | Parameters of reach (reach time, time to peak velocity of
reach, peak elevation (trajectory maximal height) which were
significant on Mixed-design ANOVAs. The within-subjects factor was type
of scene (cooperation vs. competition) and the between-subjects factor was
participants’ attitude (cooperative vs. competitive). Vertical bars are standard
errors (SE).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648

De Stefani et al. Social interactions and sport attitudes
FIGURE 3 | Parameters of grasp (grasp time, time to maximal finger aperture, peak velocity of finger opening, time to peak velocity of finger
opening, maximal finger aperture which were significant on Mixed-design ANOVAs. The within-subjects factor was type of scene (cooperation vs.
competition) and the between-subjects factor was participants’ attitude (cooperative vs. competitive). Vertical bars are SE.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648

De Stefani et al. Social interactions and sport attitudes
in the presence of scenes of cooperation only when they were
presented to cooperative participants (peak velocity of finger
opening: p=0.037; time to peak velocity of finger opening:
p=0.0039). Scenes of cooperation and competition differentially
affected maximal finger aperture. Participants opened their
fingers to a larger degree when grasping the target after seeing
scenes of cooperation compared to competition [F(1,18) =5.2,
η2
p=0.225, p<0.035; 81 mm versus 80 mm].
In sum, the participants were facilitated (i.e., faster) when
executing actions of cooperation after observing actions of
cooperation. This occurred only when they had cooperative
attitudes. In general, the competitive participants were faster than
thecooperativeones.
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to determine whether and how
the matching between the athletes’ attitudes (cooperative and
competitive attitude) and the observation of sport scenes (actions
of cooperation and competition) could influence the kinematics
of a successive social interaction. The participants were all expert
athletes in at least one of the team sports selected for this study
(basketball, soccer, water polo, volleyball, and rugby; Figure 1).
Before starting the experiment, the athletes were divided into two
groups according to their attitude during a game (cooperative
versus competitive attitude; see Materials and Methods). The
participants had to observe a sport scene of cooperation or
competition before performing a motor sequence. They executed
a reach–grasp of an object and placed it in the hand of an
experimenter who was sitting close to them (a cooperative giving
action). Our expectation was that both the participants’ attitudes
and the type of scene would influence the sequence kinematics.
Firstly, we observed an effect of attitude. The competitive
participants were faster than the cooperative ones during the
action execution regardless of the observed scene. A possible
explanation for this finding is that competitive athletes are
generally faster in performing an action than cooperative
athletes are. Alternatively, the cooperative athletes could be less
competitive, and for this reason, they are slower in performing
an action with respect to competitive athletes. A further possible
explanation is that the lack of any effect when the scenes of
cooperation and competition were presented to the competitive
athletes might depend on the inability of these athletes to adopt
strategies that are suitable to successfully execute the giving
sequence toward a conspecific.
Secondly, we observed an interaction effect between the
athletes’ attitudes and the type of scene on the reach–grasp
temporal parameters. The cooperative participants were faster
in their movement when they observed scenes of cooperation,
subsequently executing the giving action. On the contrary, these
athletes were slower when they observed scenes of competition.
It is possible that the observed action could have been
automatically mapped onto participants’ motor system, resulting
in a facilitation of functionally similar actions. In other words,
the observed scene probably acted as a prime stimulus for
the subsequent executed action. This facilitation effect would
have been present when the participants observed a scene of
cooperation and then had to perform a cooperative motor
sequence toward a conspecific. On the other hand, there would
have been an interference effect when the participants observed
a scene of competition and had to perform a cooperative motor
sequence (Chartrand and Bargh, 1999;Brass et al., 2000, 2001;
Flanagan and Johansson, 2003;Kilner et al., 2003;Sebanz et al.,
2003, 2006;Newman-Norlund et al., 2007;Liepelt et al., 2008;
Bekkering et al., 2009). However, the competitive participants
did not show any effect. The fact that only the cooperative
participants were affected by the type of scene they observed
suggests that the effect was more complex than a simple priming.
Only when there was congruence between the attitude and
the observed action was it possible to observe changes in
the kinematics of a giving action. Specifically, in the case of
congruence (i.e., cooperative attitude and observation of a scene
of cooperation), the kinematics of the cooperative participants
sped up, whereas in the case of incongruence, they slowed
down. On the contrary, the competitive athletes seemed to not
be directly affected by the experimental conditions. A possible
explanation of this result is that they were already faster and,
for this reason, the difference between actions of cooperation
and competition did not emerge. What would happen if the
competitive athletes had to perform a competitive action (e.g.,
grasp the target and move it away from the conspecific)? Might
we expect that the competitive athletes would be faster if they
have just observed a scene of competition and slowed down in the
case of cooperation? We cannot exclude this possibility. However,
we suppose that an action of competition would be performed
quickly in order to take away the object as quickly as possible
(Georgiou et al., 2007). Consequently, it is possible that the speed
of this action may prevent us from observing any effect. However,
we believe that deepening these aspects could have interesting
implications. For this reason, in future experiments, it would
be useful to include a control action, for example, asking the
participant to move an object away from the conspecific in order
to measure how observing scenes of cooperation and competition
affects a competitive action.
Deepening and extending the present results with future
studies could have interesting implications for training athletes
through the observation of specific sport scenes. For an example,
it is possible to speculate that competitive athletes, who were
found to be faster in their responses, could be trained to be even
faster in their movements through the vision of competitive sport
actions.
Finally, we are aware of some limitations in this study.
First, we chose to measure the participants’ attitudes using a
dichotomous item instead of a continuous variable. The reason
for our choice was that we wanted to compare the effects
of the cooperative and competitive attitude to the videos that
were dichotomous (scenes of cooperation and competition).
To solve this problem, we included only the athletes who
clearly expressed a well-defined position with respect to their
attitude, excluding those who were uncertain. Future studies
might include sport scenes classified with various degrees of
cooperativeness and competitiveness. In this way, it would
be possible to compare the participants’ attitudes to the
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648

De Stefani et al. Social interactions and sport attitudes
observed scenes in a continuous dimension. Another severe
limitation in this study is the very small sample used and the
different numbers of males and females and of cooperative and
competitive participants (see Ta b l e 1 ). For this reason, these
findings cannot be generalized to the broader community based
on this study alone. In future studies, a larger sample should be
used to successfully replicate the present results.
Another important limitation of this study is that we did not
use a control group. Future studies might include, for example, a
non-athlete group. However, athletes have become more attuned
to cooperative and competitive sport situations than non-athletes
throughout the course of their sports training. A non-athlete
participant group does not have this expertise, so it could be
difficult to control the reason why they defined themselves
as cooperative or competitive. Another possibility could be to
use athletes that play an individual sport, such as dancing or
skiing, as a control group. Nevertheless, attention should be paid
to their inclusion in the group of cooperative or competitive
participants. Finally, another limitation of this study is the lack
of a baseline condition against which we could have compared
the participants’ kinematics after watching the cooperative and
competitive scenes. This aspect is very important, as by including
a baseline condition, we could have verified whether watching
the different scenes facilitated or interfered with the cooperative
participants. Future studies should include a neutral observed
scene, for example, a sportive action with just one athlete (e.g.,
just one soccer player dribbling the ball) as a baseline.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all students of the degree course of Motor Sciences,
Sport and Health (University of Parma) who participated in
our study. We thank Prof. Francesca Rodighiero for helpful
comments on this manuscript.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
online at: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.
2015.01648
REFERENCES
Becchio, C., Sartori, L., Bulgheroni, M., and Castiello, U. (2008). Both your
intention and mine are reflected in the kinematics of my reach-to-grasp
movement. Cognition 106, 894–912. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.05.004
Bekkering, H., de Bruijn, E. R. A., Cuijpe rs,R. H., Newman-Norl und, R., Van Schie ,
H. T., and Meulenbroek, R. (2009). Joint action: neurocognitive mechanisms
supporting human interaction. Top. Cogn. Sci. 1, 340–352. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-
8765.2009.01023.x
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., and Prinz, W. (2001). Movement observation affects
movement execution in a simple response task. Acta Psychol. (Amst.) 106, 3–22.
doi: 10.1016/S0001-6918(00)00024-X
Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Wohlschläger, A., and Prinz, W. (2000).
Compatibility between observed and executed finger movements: comparing
symbolic, spatial, and imitative cues. Brain Cogn. 44, 124–143. doi:
10.1006/brcg.2000.1225
Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., Fink, G. R., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V.,
et al. (2001). Action observation activates premotor and parietal areas in
a somatotopic manner: an fMRI study. Eur. J. Neurosci. 13, 400–404. doi:
10.1046/j.1460-9568.2001.01385.x
Buccino, G., Binkofski, F., and Riggio, L. (2004a). The mirror neuron system
and action recognition. Brain Lang. 89, 370–376. doi: 10.1016/S0093-
934X(03)00356-0
Buccino, G., Lui, F., Canessa, N., Patteri, I., Lagravinese, G., Benuzzi, F., et al.
(2004b). Neural circuits involved in the recognition of actions performed
by nonconspecifics: an fMRI study. J Cogn. Neurosci. 16, 114–126. doi:
10.1162/089892904322755601
Chartrand, T. L., and Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: the perception-
behavior link and social interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76, 893–910. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893
Correia, V., Araújo, D., Duarte, R., Travassos, B., Passos, P., and Davids, K. (2012).
Changes in practice task constraints shape decision-making behaviours of team
games players. J. Sci. Med. Sport 15, 244–249. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2011.10.004
Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., Pavesi, G., and Rizzolatti, G. (1995). Motor facilitation
during action observation: a magnetic stimulation study. J. Neurophysiol. 73,
2608–2611.
Ferri, F., Busiello, M., Campi one, G.C ., De Stefani, E., Innocenti, A., Romani, G. L.,
et al. (2014). The eye contact effect in request and emblematic hand gestures.
Eur. J. Neurosci. 39, 841–851. doi: 10.1111/ejn.12428
Ferri, F., Campione, G. C., Dalla Volta, R., Gianelli, C., and Gentilucci, M. (2010).
To me or to you? When the self is advantaged. Exp. Brain Res. 203, 637–646.
doi: 10.1007/s00221-010-2271-x
Ferri, F., Campione, G. C., Dalla Volta, R., Gianelli, C., and Gentilucci, M. (2011).
Social requests and social affordances: how they affect the kinematics of motor
sequences during interactions between conspecifics. PLoS ONE 6:e15855. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0015855
Flanagan, J. R., and Johansson, R. S. (2003). Action plans used in action
observation. Natur e 424, 769–771. doi: 10.1038/nature01861
Gentilucci, M., Benuzzi, F., Gangitano, M., and Grimaldi, S. (2001). Grasp with
hand and mouth: a kinematic study on healthy subjects. J. Neurophysiol. 86,
1685–1699.
Georgiou, I., Becchio, C., Glover, S., and Castiello, U. (2007). Different action
patterns for cooperative and competitive behaviour. Cognition. 102, 415–433.
doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2006.01.008
Gibson, J. J. (1978). The ecological approach to the visual perception of pictures.
Leonardo 11, 227–235.
Iacoboni, M., Molnar-Szakacs, I., Gallese, V., Buccino, G., Mazziotta, J. C., and
Rizzolatti, G. (2005). Grasping the intentions of others with one’s own mirror
neuron system. PLoS Biol. 3:e79. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030079
Innocenti, A., De Stefani, E., Bernardi, N. F., Campione, G. C., and Gentilucci, M.
(2012). Gaze Direction and Request Gesture in Social Interactions. PLoS ONE
7:e36390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036390
Jakobson, J. S., and Goodale, M. A. (1991). Factors affecting higher-order
movement planning: a kine matic analysis of human prehension. Exp. BrainRes.
86, 199–208. doi: 10.1007/BF00231054
Jeannerod, M. (1984). The timing of natural prehension movements. J. Mot. Behav.
16, 235–254. doi: 10.1080/00222895.1984.10735333
Jeannerod, M. (1988). The Neural and Behavioural Organization of Goal-Directed
Movements. New York, NY, US: Clarendon Press.
Kilner, J. M., Paulignan, Y., and Blakemore, S. J. (2003). An interference effect
of observed biological movement on action. Curr. Biol. 13, 522–525. doi:
10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00165-9
Liepelt, R., Von Cramon, D. Y., and Brass, M. (2008). Howdo we infer others’ goals
from non-stereotypic actions? The outcome of context-sensitive inferential
processing in right inferior parietal and posterior temporal cortex. Neuroimage.
43, 784–792. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.08.007
Mason, A. H., and Mackenzie, C. L. (2005). Grip forces when passing an object to
apartner.Exp. Brain Res. 163, 173–187. doi: 10.1007/s00221-004-2157-x
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648

De Stefani et al. Social interactions and sport attitudes
Meulenbroek, R. G. J., Bosga, J., Hulstijn, M., and Miedl, S. (2007). Joint-
action coordination in transferring objects. Exp. Brain Res. 180, 333–343. doi:
10.1007/s00221-007-0861-z
Newman-Norlund, R. D., Noordzij, M. L., Meulenbroe k,R. G. J., and Be kkering, H.
(2007). Exploring the brain basis of joint action: co-ordination of actions, goals
and intentions. Soc. Neurosci. 2, 48–65. doi: 10.1080/17470910701224623
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh
inventory. Neuropsychologia 9, 97–113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
Passos, P., Araújo, D., Davids, K., Gouveia, L., Serpa, S., Milho, J., et al.
(2009). Interpersonal pattern dynamics and adaptive behavior in multiagent
neurobiological systems: conceptual model and data. J. Mot. Behav. 41,
445–459. doi: 10.3200/35-08-061
Rizzolatti, G., Cattaneo, L., Fabbri-Destro, M., and Rozzi, S. (2014). Cortical
mechanisms underlying the organization of goal-directed actions and
mirror neuron-based action understanding. Physiol. Rev. 94, 655–706. doi:
10.1152/physrev.00009.2013
Rizzolatti, G., and Craighero, L. (2004). The mirror-neuron system. Annu.
Rev. Neurosci. 27, 169–192. doi: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.1
44230
Sartori, L., Becchio, C., Bulgheroni, M., and Castiello, U. (2009). Modulation of the
action control system by social intention: unexpected social requests override
preplanned action. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 35, 1490–1500. doi:
10.1037/a0015777
Sebanz, N., Bekkering, H., and Knoblich, G. (2006). Joint action: bodies and minds
moving together. Trends Cogn. Sci. 10, 70–76. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2005.12.009
Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., and Prinz, W. (2003). Representing others’ actions:
just like one’s own? Cognition 88, B11–B21. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)0
0043-X
Vilar, L., Araújo, D., Davids, K., and Travassos, B. J. (2012). Constraints on
competitive performance of attacker-defender dyads in team sports. Sports Sci.
30, 459–469. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.627942
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2015 De Stefani, De Marco and Gentilucci. Thisis an open-access article
distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the
original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this
journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution
or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1648