What’s Yours Is Mine: Spontaneous Representation and Memorization of Co-Actor’s Goals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled “What’s Yours Is Mine: Spontaneous Representation and Memorization of Co-actor’s Goals” investigates whether people automatically attend to and remember partner goals in Joint action. Findings from this study indicates superior recognition for partner-goal items across the three experiments and demonstrates that human cognition supports joint actions over time by organizing attention and memory around what “we” are doing together. The article demonstrates excellent writing quality and provides detailed methods. The included figures enhance procedure comprehension and interpretation. After careful examination, no major deficiencies were identified, I just have two suggestions which could be improved so that the paper is enhanced before it gets published.

1. In the introduction section, the authors mention that collaboration leads to a joint memory effect, butsome studies have also indicated that collaboration can produce an inhibition effect, which impairs memory performance. I would suggest that the authors provide an in-depth discussion of this issue. The present study eventually demonstrates the collaborative advantage effect, so What contributions could this finding provide to help resolve the research discrepancies in this field? I would like the authors to focus on discussing this issue in both the introduction and discussion sections.
2. Experiment 1 used animate stimuli, while Experiment 2 adopted inanimate stimuli. Will these two different types of materials exert differential effects on the attention and memory advantages generated by collaboration?Why were different experimental materials used for Experiment 1 and Experiment 2? This is not explained in the paper, and it is hoped that this part of the content can be added.

Author Response

Comments 1:

In the introduction section, the authors mention that collaboration leads to a joint memory effect, but some studies have also indicated that collaboration can produce an inhibition effect, which impairs memory performance. I would suggest that the authors provide an in-depth discussion of this issue. The present study eventually demonstrates the collaborative advantage effect, so What contributions could this finding provide to help resolve the research discrepancies in this field? I would like the authors to focus on discussing this issue in both the introduction and discussion sections.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that the literature on collaboration and memory presents seemingly mixed findings, with both collaborative facilitation (e.g., joint memory effect) and collaborative inhibition being reported. In the revised manuscript, we have substantially expanded both the Introduction and Discussion sections to address this issue in greater depth.

Specifically, in the Introduction, we now explicitly contrast the joint memory effect with collaborative inhibition, highlighting that these two phenomena may arise from different task demands and cognitive mechanisms. We emphasize that collaborative inhibition is typically observed in explicit group recall paradigms, where individuals interfere with each other’s retrieval strategies, whereas the joint memory effect emerges in contexts where attention and encoding are socially guided by a partner’s task. (Pg. 3, line 115-133 in the revised manuscript)

In the Discussion, we further elaborate on how the present findings contribute to resolving this apparent discrepancy. We propose that collaboration can lead to either facilitation or impairment depending on the stage of processing (encoding vs. retrieval) and the functional role of social information. Our results suggest that, during encoding in cooperative contexts with shared goals, partner-related information is prioritized and enhances memory. This provides evidence that collaboration can produce a memory advantage when it supports goal-relevant attention and shared intentionality, rather than disrupting individual retrieval processes. (Pg. 16, line 704-721 in the revised manuscript)

These additions clarify the theoretical contribution of the present study in reconciling conflicting findings in the literature.

 

Comments 2:

Experiment 1 used animate stimuli, while Experiment 2 adopted inanimate stimuli. Will these two different types of materials exert differential effects on the attention and memory advantages generated by collaboration?Why were different experimental materials used for Experiment 1 and Experiment 2? This is not explained in the paper, and it is hoped that this part of the content can be added.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The animal and plant images used in Experiment 1 possess salient characteristics of living things; such stimuli are more likely to capture attention, making participants more sensitive to them. Therefore, in Expt. 2, stimulus including animals and plants with animate properties were excluded. The main purpose was to generalize the joint memory effect to other types of materials. (Pg. 10, line 384-387 in the revised manuscript)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The introduction could benefit from breaking into subsections with separate headers. Examples include 'Integrated-We Model', 'Literature Review', 'Current Study', etc.
• Make sure to have a clear definition of 'joint action.' Sebanz et al., 2006, (p. 70) has a good option if you'd like to use it. 
• This paper focuses on representing goals, but you briefly mention representing actions. It could be useful to have a short connection to other forms of corepresentation such as representing partner's actions in the joint Simon task (Sebanz et al., 2003, 2005). The comparison could strengthen the argument that joint goals are important and connect to a similar field of research. 
• Pg. 3 Line 98: should say 'recent studies have', saying 'current' makes it seem like these are onging. 
• Pg. 3 line 102: "motivated to represent the mental states of others" perhaps include a reference to Theory of Mind (Premack & Woodruff, 1978) [update: this is mentioned in the discussion. I would recommend moving it to the introduction]
• Pg. 4 line 146: use past tense when describing experiments that are completed ("Experiment 1 aimed to..."). Also, spell out Experiment 1 at least once before abbreviating it. And ensure abbreviations are consistent (you use Exp1 in the introduction but Expt. 1 here).
• I'd recommend moving Figure 1 a little lower in the document (after the Stimuli and Task are described). I'm also still a little unclear about what the right half of the figure is saying. 
• Pg. 4 line 166: either subscript 'age' or state as "average age 20.07 years (SD=1.82)"
• Pg. 4 Line 167: "Credits or monetary payment" how many credits? how much money? Gift card or cash? 
• Pg. 4 line 168: italicize 'N'
• "Relationship between participants could influence cognitive processes" does this mean that none of the participants knew each other before the study? How did you control that? Also, if gender did not have an impact on the results, why did you match for gender in later studies? 
• In Figure 2, capitalize 'n' as it refers to the overall sample size of each experiment. 
• pg. 6 line 215: Did participants use the same keyboard? Did they use left or right hands? 
• Pg. 6 Line 247: Did you have a cutoff for accuracy? Were errors evenly distributed across participants or were there a few that were responsible for most errors (and should perhaps be removed)? 
• Pg. 7 line 258: (citation) placeholder needs replacing. 
• Pg. 7 line 265: What type of analysis is this, an ANOVA? Ensure you clearly state your analysis and groups, and ensure that all assumptions of an ANOVA are met (sphericity, equality of variance, normality, etc.) 
• Figure 3A needs a legend (what do the lines/colors refer to?)
• pg. 8 Line 307: Can you clarify what you mean by 'High School'? For example, in the United States, high school typically ends around age 18 and in the United Kingdom around age 16, making almost all students minors. From your average age it seems that students were older than this. If any participants were under age 18, this would require special considerations from the Institutional Review Board. 
• Pg. 9 Line 326: Was the difference in Exp1 to Exp2 significant? 
• Pg. 10 Line 380: What is the reasoning behind doing the swapped task without including a retest of the original mapping? What are the implications of not testing this? 
• Pg. 10 Line 393: You don't state that the main effect of item type was significant although the p-value is <.05 (p=.044). Then later (line 401), you state that both main effects were significant but report the effect of item type as p=.185. Make sure to double check your numbers. 
• A lot of new information (theories & studies) are brought up in the Discussion. I'd recommend moving this to the introduction. The Discussion can connect the current findings to previously mentioned work, but it shouldn't be bringing up many important topics for the first time. 
• There is extensive detail in the Discussion about evolutionary and developmental aspects of joint memory. While interesting, it seems a little off-topic for the present work. A brief mention would be good, but this thorough discussion seems unnecessary. As an example, the paragraph on Pg. 15 Line 614-622 would be sufficient to get this point across. 

Author Response

Comments 1:

The introduction could benefit from breaking into subsections with separate headers. Examples include 'Integrated-We Model', 'Literature Review', 'Current Study', etc.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The introduction has been broken into subsections include ‘1.1 Imagined-We Model’, ‘1.2 Literature Review’ and ‘1.3 Current Study’.

 

Comments 2:

Make sure to have a clear definition of 'joint action.' Sebanz et al., 2006, (p. 70) has a good option if you'd like to use it.

Response 2:

Agree. A sentence that gives a clear definition of ‘joint action’ according to Sebanz et al., 2006, (p. 70) has been added to the introduction (Pg. 1 line 33–34).

 

Comments 3:

This paper focuses on representing goals, but you briefly mention representing actions. It could be useful to have a short connection to other forms of corepresentation such as representing partner's actions in the joint Simon task (Sebanz et al., 2003, 2005). The comparison could strengthen the argument that joint goals are important and connect to a similar field of research.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We agree that situating the present work within the broader literature on action corepresentation can help clarify its theoretical contribution.

In the revised manuscript, we have added a paragraph in the Introduction (Pg. 3-4 line 137-150) explicitly linking our work to studies on action corepresentation, particularly those using the joint Simon task (Sebanz et al., 2003, 2005). These studies demonstrate that individuals spontaneously represent their partner’s actions at the level of stimulus–response mappings, even when those actions are not directly relevant to their own task.

Building on this line of research, we emphasize that the present study extends the concept of corepresentation from the action level to the goal level. While action corepresentation concerns low-level response mappings, goal representation involves a more abstract understanding of a partner’s task within a shared structure of cooperation.

 

Comments 4:

Pg. 3 Line 98: should say 'recent studies have', saying 'current' makes it seem like these are onging.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The manuscript has been revised in accordance with the comment.

 

Comments 5:

Pg. 3 line 102: "motivated to represent the mental states of others" perhaps include a reference to Theory of Mind (Premack & Woodruff, 1978) [update: this is mentioned in the discussion. I would recommend moving it to the introduction]

Response 5:

Agree. A sentence that links to Theory of Mind has been added to the introduction (Pg. 3 line 112–114).

 

Comments 6:

Pg. 4 line 146: use past tense when describing experiments that are completed ("Experiment 1 aimed to..."). Also, spell out Experiment 1 at least once before abbreviating it. And ensure abbreviations are consistent (you use Exp1 in the introduction but Expt. 1 here).

Response 6:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have changed the tense in all experiments and used Expt. X throughout the text. The manuscript has been revised in accordance with the comment.

 

Comments 7:

I'd recommend moving Figure 1 a little lower in the document (after the Stimuli and Task are described). I'm also still a little unclear about what the right half of the figure is saying.

Response 7:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. The Figure has been moved lower. The right half of the figure basically displays the number of stimulus used in each test.

In Experiment 1, The distractor category was fixed, we used 20 items of it in the visual search task and the surprise recall task (20 old items and 20 new items). So the right half is simply 20 (for visual search) /20(for old surprise recall) + 20 (for new surprise recall); and 60/20 + 20 for two target categories.

In Experiment 2 and 3, among 3 categories, 2 of them were targets, one of them was distractor. If the category was chosen as the distractor, we used 20 items of it for visual search task, otherwise we used 60. So the number is 60(20)/20 + 20. I hope this clarifies the meaning of the figure.

 

Comments 8:

Pg. 4 line 166: either subscript 'age' or state as "average age 20.07 years (SD=1.82)"

Response 8:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable correction. We have subscript ‘age’.

 

Comments 9:

Pg. 4 Line 167: "Credits or monetary payment" how many credits? how much money? Gift card or cash?

Response 9:

The credits was 1 point / 60 minutes; The monetary payment was 30 yuan / 60 minutes of cash.

 

Comments 10:

Pg. 4 line 168: italicize 'N'

Response 10:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable correction. The manuscript has been revised in accordance with the comment.

 

Comments 11:

"Relationship between participants could influence cognitive processes" does this mean that none of the participants knew each other before the study? How did you control that? Also, if gender did not have an impact on the results, why did you match for gender in later studies?

Response 11:

Yes, we controlled this by asking participants whether they knew each other before the experiment. If they knew each other, they would not be allowed to participate the experiment. Later we matched the gender according to the convention of our lab. A sentence has been added (Pg. 5 line 234).

 

Comments 12:

In Figure 2, capitalize 'n' as it refers to the overall sample size of each experiment.

Response 12:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable correction. The figure has been revised in accordance with the comment.

 

Comments 13:

1. 6 line 215: Did participants use the same keyboard? Did they use left or right hands? 

Response 13:

All participants used the same keyboard. All participants were right-handed (using right hands). A sentence has been added (Pg. 5 line 230-231).

 

Comments 14:

Pg. 6 Line 247: Did you have a cutoff for accuracy? Were errors evenly distributed across participants or were there a few that were responsible for most errors (and should perhaps be removed)?  

Response 14:

Throughout three experiments, none of participants’ accuracy beyond three standard deviations from the mean, and errors were evenly distributed across participants. Therefore, we did not have a cutoff for accuracy. We did have a cutoff for response times.

 

Comments 15:

Pg. 7 line 258: (citation) placeholder needs replacing.

Response 15:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable correction. The placeholder has been replaced by the correct citation.

 

Comments 16:

Pg. 7 line 265: What type of analysis is this, an ANOVA? Ensure you clearly state your analysis and groups, and ensure that all assumptions of an ANOVA are met (sphericity, equality of variance, normality, etc.)

Response 16:

We used two-way ANOVA. Assumptions of normality (Shapir-Wilk test) and homogeneity of variance (Brown-Forsythe test) were assessed and met.

 

Comments 17:

Figure 3A needs a legend (what do the lines/colors refer to?)

Response 17:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable correction. The legend has been added.

 

Comments 18:

1. 8 Line 307: Can you clarify what you mean by 'High School'? For example, in the United States, high school typically ends around age 18 and in the United Kingdom around age 16, making almost all students minors. From your average age it seems that students were older than this. If any participants were under age 18, this would require special considerations from the Institutional Review Board. 

Response 18:

We would like to sincerely apologize for the confusion caused by an error in the wording. In the manuscript, we mistakenly referred to the participants as being from a ‘high school,’ whereas they were in fact university students. This was a typographical error and does not reflect the actual study population. To clarify, all participants in this study were enrolled at a university, and the research procedures were conducted in accordance with the appropriate ethical standards and institutional guidelines for research involving undergraduate participants.

 

Comments 19:

Pg. 9 Line 326: Was the difference in Exp1 to Exp2 significant?

Response 19:

For partner targets, the recognition accuracy was higher in Expt. 2 (t(58) = 3.919, p < .001) For distractor targets, the recognition accuracy was higher in Expt. 1 (t(58) = 2.767, p = .007). Recognition accuracy for self target had no significant difference (t(58) = 1.497, p = .140). We believed that this was because the categories of inanimate items in Expt. 2 (clothes, vehicles and home utensils) were less distinguishable than those in Expt. 1(plant and animal), so it was easier for participants in Expt. 1 to distinguish self targets and paid less attention to partner items. And the distractor items in Expt. 1 was also more distinguishable than those in Expt. 2.

 

Comments 20:

Pg. 10 Line 380: What is the reasoning behind doing the swapped task without including a retest of the original mapping? What are the implications of not testing this?

Response 20:

We thought that doing the surprise recognition test after three days would re-activate participants’ memory of items. We used the valuable first-time surprise test for swapped task to test participants memory performance for task-irrelevant partner goals. After that, retesting original mapping would be confounded by factors such as the practice effect.

 

Comments 21:

Pg. 10 Line 393: You don't state that the main effect of item type was significant although the p-value is <.05 (p=.044). Then later (line 401), you state that both main effects were significant but report the effect of item type as p=.185. Make sure to double check your numbers.

Response 21:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable correction. The main effect of item type was not significant and the number was correct. We have revised the text.

 

Comments 22:

A lot of new information (theories & studies) are brought up in the Discussion. I'd recommend moving this to the introduction. The Discussion can connect the current findings to previously mentioned work, but it shouldn't be bringing up many important topics for the first time.

Response 22:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We moved part of the content in ‘5.2. Trade-off between Cognitive Resources and Cooperation Efficiency Implicates Automatic Representing of Co-actors Goals’ to introduction ‘1.2. Literature Review’.

 

Comments 23:

There is extensive detail in the Discussion about evolutionary and developmental aspects of joint memory. While interesting, it seems a little off-topic for the present work. A brief mention would be good, but this thorough discussion seems unnecessary. As an example, the paragraph on Pg. 15 Line 614-622 would be sufficient to get this point across.

Response 23:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have simplified the contents in both ‘5.2. Trade-off between Cognitive Resources and Cooperation Efficiency Implicates Automatic Representing of Co-actors Goals’ and ‘5.3. Evolutionary Advantages of Representing Co-actors’ Goals’ as advised.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper focuses on the spontaneous representation and long-term memory effects of a cooperative partner’s goals in joint action. Through three progressive behavioral experiments, it systematically investigates the attentional bias toward a partner’s goals, memory advantages, and the facilitative effect on the role-switching cooperation in individuals within the framework of shared intentionality. The research topic closely addresses the core scientific questions in the fields of social cognition and joint action, filling the gap in existing studies that insufficiently examine the long-term retention effects and functional value of partner-goal representation in joint action. However, the paper still has the following issues that require further supplementation, revision and improvement:

1. Theoretical Framework

The paper is centrally anchored in the we-mode/shared intentionality theory, yet it fails to clearly demonstrate why the spontaneous representation of a partner’s goals stems from shared intentionality rather than other competing mechanisms (e.g., mere categorical semantic priming, social cue salience, or passive task-set activation). Meanwhile, the experimental indicators corresponding to spontaneous representation and partner-goal representation are not specified in the introduction, leading to a disconnect between theoretical concepts and experimental indicators.

2. Experimental Design and Control of Confounding Variables

The design of Experiment 3 confounds the long-term memory effect with the priming effect of the recognition test. On the third day, participants completed the recognition test first, followed by the role-switching joint search task. The recognition test reactivates the partner-goal stimuli, making it impossible to determine whether the subsequent improvement in search efficiency stems from long-term memory encoded three days prior or the priming effect of the recent recognition test. The confounding between categorical semantic priming and partner-goal representation is not disentangled. Target categories were explicitly informed to participants before the experiment, meaning the memory advantage for partner goals may result from semantic priming of specific categories rather than the representation of a partner’s goals. The paper does not set up control conditions or supplementary analyses to rule out this confounding factor.

3. Data Analysis in Statistical Methods and Result Reporting

Statistical tests are incomplete due to missing post-hoc comparisons. For the core interaction effects, only the significance of main and interaction effects, as well as paired t-tests between the partner and distractor conditions, are reported. Complete post-hoc multiple comparisons between self and partner, and self and distractor are absent.

There are numerous errors in the reporting of statistical values. For example, in Experiment 1, the report states F(2,87)=0.369, p<.001, where the degrees of freedom for the repeated-measures ANOVA are clearly incorrect. Bayesian factors (BF₁₀) are only partially reported without specifying the prior settings, resulting in insufficient reproducibility of the analyses.

4. Interpretation of Results

Over generalization is present in the interpretation of results, with inadequate delimitation and rigor in the conclusions. The 3-day memory advantage induced by a 30-minute cooperation task is directly extrapolated to the evolutionary advantages of human cooperation and the formation of group culture. Furthermore, the results are cited as evidence for the unique cognitive mechanisms of human cooperation without cross-species experimental data, leading to a broken logical chain and extrapolations that are completely unsupported by the experimental data.

 

Minor Comments

1. Supplementary Details in the Method Section

Participants: Clarify whether participants in Experiments 2 and 3 overlap with those in Experiment 1; and add the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants.

Stimuli: Elaborate on the stimulus quantity allocation rules in Figure 1; supplement the matching criteria for visual complexity and familiarity between old and new stimuli to ensure control of irrelevant stimulus variables.

Procedure: Add the counterbalancing design for key assignments and the method of eye-tracking for participants; specify whether verbal/non-verbal communication between participants was restricted during the experiment and the corresponding control measures.

2. Standardization of Figures, Tables and Result Reporting

Standardize abbreviation usage: The full names of all abbreviations (e.g., RT, VS, SR) must be indicated at their first occurrence in the paper to ensure consistent usage throughout.

Revise abstract statements: The difference in RT intercepts in Experiment 1 was only marginally significant (p=0.097), so the statement enhanced attention to partner-goal items in the abstract is inconsistent with the results and needs revision.

3.Standardization of Writing and References

Conduct a comprehensive check for grammatical and spelling errors throughout the paper. Revise the references in accordance with the journal format of Behavioral Sciences: correct author citation errors (e.g., James et al., 1890); supplement the publication status of unpublished manuscripts (Qi & Li, 2026).

Author Response

Comments 1:

The paper is centrally anchored in the we-mode/shared intentionality theory, yet it fails to clearly demonstrate why the spontaneous representation of a partner’s goals stems from shared intentionality rather than other competing mechanisms (e.g., mere categorical semantic priming, social cue salience, or passive task-set activation). Meanwhile, the experimental indicators corresponding to spontaneous representation and partner-goal representation are not specified in the introduction, leading to a disconnect between theoretical concepts and experimental indicators.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this important and insightful comment. We agree that the theoretical link between shared intentionality and the observed behavioral effects, as well as the operationalization of key constructs, should be made more explicit.

In the revised manuscript, we have made two major improvements.

First, we clarified the theoretical contribution by explicitly distinguishing shared intentionality from alternative mechanisms such as semantic priming, social salience, and passive task-set activation. We now emphasize that a key feature of shared intentionality is the representation of a partner’s goal as part of a jointly structured task (i.e., a “we-representation”), rather than as an externally observed or perceptually salient feature. Importantly, our paradigm requires interdependent success (i.e., the joint task is successful only when both participants respond correctly), which encourages participants to represent their partner’s task as functionally relevant to their own goal. We have added a dedicated paragraph in the Introduction and elaborated on this distinction in the Discussion.

Second, we have clarified the operational definitions of our core constructs in the Introduction. Specifically, we now explicitly define (a) spontaneous representation of a partner’s goal as reflected in increased processing cost (i.e., longer intercepts) when partner-relevant targets are present but task-irrelevant, and (b) partner-goal representation in memory as reflected in enhanced recognition accuracy for partner-relevant items compared to distractors in a surprise recognition test. By making these links explicit, we aim to better align the theoretical framework with the experimental measures.

These revisions strengthen the connection between shared intentionality theory and our empirical findings, and clarify how the present study goes beyond alternative low-level explanations.

Clarifications have been added to the Introduction (Pg. 4 line 184–203) and further elaborated in the Discussion (Pg. 15 line 642-658).

 

Comments 2:

The design of Experiment 3 confounds the long-term memory effect with the priming effect of the recognition test. On the third day, participants completed the recognition test first, followed by the role-switching joint search task. The recognition test reactivates the partner-goal stimuli, making it impossible to determine whether the subsequent improvement in search efficiency stems from long-term memory encoded three days prior or the priming effect of the recent recognition test. The confounding between categorical semantic priming and partner-goal representation is not disentangled. Target categories were explicitly informed to participants before the experiment, meaning the memory advantage for partner goals may result from semantic priming of specific categories rather than the representation of a partner’s goals. The paper does not set up control conditions or supplementary analyses to rule out this confounding factor.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this careful and constructive critique. We agree that, in Experiment 3, the recognition test conducted prior to the second joint search task may have reactivated previously encountered stimuli, thereby introducing a potential priming effect. As the reviewer correctly points out, this design makes it difficult to fully disentangle long-term memory effects from short-term reactivation.

In the revised manuscript, we have addressed this concern in three ways.

First, we have acknowledged this limitation explicitly in the Discussion, clarifying that the improved search efficiency observed in Phase 2 may reflect a combination of long-term memory retention and short-term reactivation induced by the recognition test. Accordingly, we have revised our claims to avoid attributing the effect solely to long-term memory.

Second, we emphasize that the critical evidence for long-term retention comes from the recognition performance itself, which was measured before any re-exposure to the joint search task on Day 3. Participants continued to show enhanced recognition for partner-related items after a three-day interval, suggesting that partner-goal information was retained over time independently of the subsequent task.

Third, we have clarified the theoretical scope of our findings. Rather than claiming that Experiment 3 provides a pure test of long-term transfer, we now frame it as evidence that previously encoded partner-related information—whether maintained over time or reactivated—can facilitate subsequent cooperation. We also explicitly discuss the possibility of semantic priming and note that, while category-level activation may contribute, it cannot fully account for the consistent advantage for partner-relevant items across experiments, particularly given that both self and partner categories were equally task-relevant at the categorical level.

Finally, we have added a paragraph outlining potential future designs (e.g., counterbalancing task order or omitting the recognition test before the second search task) to more cleanly separate long-term memory from priming effects.

These revisions clarify the interpretation of Experiment 3 and more precisely position its contribution.

Revision:

Limitations and alternative explanations have been added to the Discussion (Pg. 13 line 522-551), and the interpretation of Experiment 3 has been revised accordingly.

 

Comments 3:

Statistical tests are incomplete due to missing post-hoc comparisons. For the core interaction effects, only the significance of main and interaction effects, as well as paired t-tests between the partner and distractor conditions, are reported. Complete post-hoc multiple comparisons between self and partner, and self and distractor are absent.

There are numerous errors in the reporting of statistical values. For example, in Experiment 1, the report states F(2,87)=0.369, p<.001, where the degrees of freedom for the repeated-measures ANOVA are clearly incorrect. Bayesian factors (BF₁₀) are only partially reported without specifying the prior settings, resulting in insufficient reproducibility of the analyses.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this important comment. All post-hoc comparisons have been added. All Bayesian factors for ANOVA have been added. The degree of freedom of the mentioned ANOVA was correct but the F value was mistakenly copied, it has been corrected: F(2, 87) = 34.922, p < .001.

 

Comments 4:

Over generalization is present in the interpretation of results, with inadequate delimitation and rigor in the conclusions. The 3-day memory advantage induced by a 30-minute cooperation task is directly extrapolated to the evolutionary advantages of human cooperation and the formation of group culture. Furthermore, the results are cited as evidence for the unique cognitive mechanisms of human cooperation without cross-species experimental data, leading to a broken logical chain and extrapolations that are completely unsupported by the experimental data.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We agree that some parts of the Discussion overstated the scope of the findings and extended beyond what can be directly supported by the present data.

In the revised manuscript, we have substantially toned down these claims and clarified the scope of our conclusions. Specifically, we have removed or revised statements that directly link our findings to evolutionary-level explanations or the formation of group culture. Instead, we now frame our results more conservatively as evidence for cognitive mechanisms that may support cooperation, without making strong claims about their evolutionary origins.

In addition, we have revised the relevant sections to clearly distinguish between empirical findings and broader theoretical speculation. Where broader implications are discussed, they are now explicitly framed as tentative interpretations or future directions, rather than direct conclusions drawn from the data.

Finally, we have removed statements suggesting that the present findings provide direct evidence for uniquely human cognitive mechanisms, as such claims would require comparative or cross-species data. Instead, we now position our contribution as identifying a cognitive pattern in human participants that is consistent with theoretical accounts of shared intentionality.

These revisions improve the precision and rigor of the manuscript and ensure that the conclusions are appropriately aligned with the empirical evidence. Overgeneralized claims in the Discussion (Section 5.1–5.3) have been revised or removed, and the scope of the conclusions has been narrowed accordingly (Pg. 15 line 620-624 and Pg. 18 line 783-791).

 

Comments 5:

Participants: Clarify whether participants in Experiments 2 and 3 overlap with those in Experiment 1; and add the inclusion and exclusion criteria for participants.

Stimuli: Elaborate on the stimulus quantity allocation rules in Figure 1; supplement the matching criteria for visual complexity and familiarity between old and new stimuli to ensure control of irrelevant stimulus variables.

Procedure: Add the counterbalancing design for key assignments and the method of eye-tracking for participants; specify whether verbal/non-verbal communication between participants was restricted during the experiment and the corresponding control measures.

 

Response 5:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion.

Participants: participants in Experiments 2 and 3 did not overlap with those in Experiment 1. Before data analysis, we excluded participants who did not treat the experiment seriously (i.e., using cellphone during the experiment procedure) or violate the experiment instruction (i.e., communicate with partner during the experiment procedure). In this study, all participants participated into the experiment earnestly and no participants were excluded before data analysis.

Stimuli: We agree that a clearer description of stimulus allocation and control of stimulus properties would improve the methodological rigor of the manuscript.

In the revised manuscript, we have made two main improvements.

First, we have clarified the stimulus quantity allocation rules presented in Figure 1. We now explicitly describe how stimuli were distributed across conditions, including how many items were used as targets and distractors, how often each item appeared in the search task, and how subsets of stimuli were selected for the subsequent recognition test.

Second, we have added a detailed description of how stimulus properties were controlled. Specifically, we clarify that old and new stimuli were drawn from the same categories and were matched in terms of visual complexity and familiarity. All stimuli were monochrome icon-style images with comparable size, level of detail, and semantic typicality within their respective categories. In addition, we note that stimuli were randomly sampled within each category to minimize systematic biases.

These additions ensure that the observed effects are unlikely to be driven by low-level perceptual differences or familiarity biases.

Clarifications have been added to the Methods section (Stimuli & Apparatus and Recognition Task) and to the caption of Figure 1 (Pg. 5 line 254–263).

Procedure: The assignment of target categories was random. We did not use eye-tracking for participants; We directly informed participants that verbal/non-verbal communication was forbidden before the experiment.

 

Comments 6:

Standardize abbreviation usage: The full names of all abbreviations (e.g., RT, VS, SR) must be indicated at their first occurrence in the paper to ensure consistent usage throughout.

Revise abstract statements: The difference in RT intercepts in Experiment 1 was only marginally significant (p=0.097), so the statement enhanced attention to partner-goal items in the abstract is inconsistent with the results and needs revision.

Response 6:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion.

Standardize abbreviation usage: All abbreviations have been indicated at their first occurrence in the paper.

Revise abstract statements: The abstract has been revised: ‘Across Experiments 1 (animate stimuli) and 2 (inanimate stimuli), participants showed better recognition of partner-goal items compared to distractors. Participants also showed enhanced attention to partner-goal items in Experiment 2.’

 

Comments 7:

Conduct a comprehensive check for grammatical and spelling errors throughout the paper. Revise the references in accordance with the journal format of Behavioral Sciences: correct author citation errors (e.g., James et al., 1890); supplement the publication status of unpublished manuscripts (Qi & Li, 2026).

Response 7:

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have conducted a comprehensive check for grammatical and spelling errors throughout the paper. The references have been revised and incorrect references have been removed.