Top

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2014 | Original Article

Vertical metaphor with motion and judgment: a valenced congruency effect with fluency

Auteurs: Sébastien Freddi, Joël Cretenet, Vincent Dru

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 5/2014

Abstract

Following metaphorical theories of affect, several research studies have shown that the spatial cues along a vertical dimension are useful in qualifying emotional experience (HAPPINESS is UP, SADNESS is DOWN). Three experiments were conducted to examine the role of vertical motion in affective judgment. They showed that positive stimuli moving UPWARD were evaluated more positively than those moving DOWNWARD, whereas negative stimuli moving DOWNWARD were evaluated as less negative than those moving UPWARD. They showed a valenced congruency effect, but an alternative hypothesis in terms of MORE is UP and LESS is DOWN was also examined. Finally, fluency mechanisms were investigated to confirm that relationships between affect and verticality were in accordance with a valenced congruency effect.

vorige artikel Evidence for multiple strategies in off-beat tapping with anisochronous stimuli

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 219–235.PubMedCrossRef

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.PubMedCrossRef

Beilock, S. L., & Holt, L. E. (2007). Embodied preference judgments: Can likeability be driven by the motor system? Psychological Science, 18, 51–57.PubMedCrossRef

Bradley, M. M., & Lang, P. J. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Stimuli, instruction manual and affective ratings. Technical report C-1, Gainesville: University of Florida.

Cannon, P. R., Hayes, A. E., & Tipper, S. P. (2010). Sensorimotor fluency influences affect: Evidence from electromyography. Cognition and Emotion, 24, 681–691.CrossRef

Casasanto, D., & Dijkstra, K. (2010). Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition, 115, 179–185.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Centerbar, D. B., & Clore, G. L. (2006). Do approach-avoidance actions create attitudes? Psychological Science, 17, 22–29.PubMedCrossRef

Centerbar, D. B., Schnall, S., Clore, G. L., & Garvin, E. D. (2008). Affective incoherence: When affective concepts and embodied reactions clash. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 560–578.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.CrossRef

Chui, K. (2011). Conceptual metaphors in gesture. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 437–458.CrossRef

Eder, A. B., & Rothermund, K. (2008). When do motor behaviors (mis)match affective stimuli? An evaluative coding view of approach and avoidance reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 262–281.CrossRef

Fischer, M. H. (2012). A hierarchical view of grounded, embodied, and situated numerical cognition. Cognitive Processing, 13, 161–164.CrossRef

Förster, J. (2004). How body feedback influences consumer’s evaluation of products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 415–425.CrossRef

Forster, M., Leder, H., & Ansorge, U. (2013). It felt fluent, and I liked it: Subjective feeling of fluency rather than objective fluency determines liking. Emotion, 13, 280–289.PubMedCrossRef

Förster, J., & Strack, F. (1996). Influence of overt head movements on memory for valenced words: A case of conceptual-motor compatibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 421–430.PubMedCrossRef

Freddi, S., Tessier, M., Lacrampe, R., & Dru, V. (2013). Affective judgment about information relating to competence and warmth: An embodied perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1111/bjso.12033.PubMed

Freina, L., Baroni, G., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2009). Emotive concept-nouns and motor responses: Attraction or repulsion? Memory & Cognition, 37, 493–499.CrossRef

Hayes, A. E., Paul, M. A., Beuger, B., & Tipper, S. P. (2008). Self produced and observed actions influence emotion: The roles of action fluency and eye gaze. Psychological Research, 72, 461–472.PubMedCrossRef

Holmes, K. J., & Lourenco, S. F. (2012). Orienting numbers in mental space: Horizontal organization trumps vertical. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1044–1051.PubMedCrossRef

Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878.PubMedCrossRef

Ito, Y., & Hatta, T. (2004). Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: Evidence from the SNARC effect. Memory & Cognition, 32, 662–673.CrossRef

Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Knops, A., Viarouge, A., & Dehaene, S. (2009). Dynamic representations underlying symbolic and nonsymbolic calculation: Evidence from the operational momentum effect. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 803–821.CrossRef

Koch, S. C., Glawe, S., & Holt, D. (2011). Up and down, front and back. Movement and meaning in the vertical and sagittal axis. Social Psychology, 42, 159–164.CrossRef

Kövecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. NY: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. NY: Basic Books.

Lugli, L., Baroni, G., Gianelli, C., Borghi, A. M., & Nicoletti, R. (2012). Self, others, objects: How this triadic interaction modulates our behaviour. Memory & Cognition, 40, 1373–1386.CrossRef

Markman, A. B., & Brendl, C. M. (2005). Constraining theories of embodied cognition. Psychological Science, 16, 6–10.PubMedCrossRef

Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Friesen, C. K., & Schjeldahl, K. (2007a). What’s ‘up’ with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 699–710.PubMedCrossRef

Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243–247.PubMedCrossRef

Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2005). The metaphorical representation of affect. Metaphor and Symbol, 20, 239–257.CrossRef

Meier, B. P., Sellbom, M., & Wygant, D. B. (2007b). Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 757–767.CrossRef

Moeller, S. K., Robinson, M. D., & Zabelina, D. L. (2008). Personality dominance and preferential use of the vertical dimension of space: Evidence from spatial attention paradigms. Psychological Science, 19, 355–361.PubMedCrossRef

Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). Approach and avoidance: The influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 39–48.PubMedCrossRef

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717–731.CrossRef

Quadflieg, S., Etzel, J. A., Gazzola, V., Keysers, C., Schubert, T. W., Waiter, G. D., et al. (2011). Puddles, parties and professors: Linking word categorization to neural patterns of visuospatial coding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2636–2649.PubMedCrossRef

Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45–48.CrossRef

Regenberg, N. F. E., Häfner, M., & Semin, G. R. (2012). The groove move: Action affordances produce fluency and positive affect. Experimental Psychology, 59, 30–37.PubMedCrossRef

Robinson, M. D., Zabelina, D. L., Ode, S., & Moeller, S. K. (2008). The vertical nature of dominance-submission: Individual differences in vertical attention. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 933–948.CrossRef

Schnall, S., & Clore, G. L. (2004). Emergent meaning in affective space: Conceptual and spatial congruence produces positive evaluations. In K. Forbus, D. Gentner, & T. Regier (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Six Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1209–1214). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Seamon, J. G., McKenna, P. A., & Binder, N. (1998). The mere exposure effect is differentially sensitive to different judgment tasks. Consciousness and Cognition, 7, 85–102.PubMedCrossRef

Seibt, B., Neumann, R., Nussinson, R., & Strack, F. (2008). Movement direction or change in distance? Self and object related approach-avoidance movements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 713–720.CrossRef

Semin, G. R., & Fiedler, K. (1988). The cognitive functions of linguistic categories in describing persons: Social cognition and language. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 558–568.CrossRef

Simons, R. F., Detenber, B. H., Cuthbert, B. N., Schwartz, D. D., & Reiss, J. E. (2003). Attention to television: Alpha power and its relationship to image motion and emotional content. Media Psychology, 5, 283–301.CrossRef

Simons, R. F., Detenber, B. H., Reiss, J. E., & Shults, C. W. (2000). Image motion and context: A between- and within-subject comparison. Psychophysiology, 37, 706–710.PubMedCrossRef

Simons, R. F., Detenber, B. H., Roedema, T. M., & Reiss, J. E. (1999). Emotion processing in three systems: The medium and the message. Psychophysiology, 36, 619–627.PubMedCrossRef

Tom, G., Pettersen, P., Lau, T., Burton, T., & Cook, J. (1991). The role of overt head movement in the formation of affect. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 281–289.CrossRef

Van Dantzig, S., Pecher, D., & Zwaan, R. A. (2008). Approach and avoidance as action effects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 1298–1306.CrossRef

Wells, G. L., & Petty, R. E. (1980). The effects of head movement on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 219–230.CrossRef

Wilson, N. L., & Gibbs, R. W. (2007). Real and imagined body movement primes metaphor comprehension. Cognitive Science, 31, 721–731.PubMedCrossRef

Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation increases positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 989–1000.PubMedCrossRef

Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189–217). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Titel: Vertical metaphor with motion and judgment: a valenced congruency effect with fluency
Auteurs: Sébastien Freddi
Joël Cretenet
Vincent Dru
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2014
Uitgeverij: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research / Uitgave 5/2014
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-013-0516-6

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2014

Cognitive control and the COMT Val158Met polymorphism: genetic modulation of videogame training and transfer to task-switching efficiency

Worrying and rumination are both associated with reduced cognitive control

Practice with anxiety improves performance, but only when anxious: evidence for the specificity of practice hypothesis

What do infants understand of others’ action? A theoretical account of early social cognition

Impact of planned movement direction on judgments of visual locations

Evidence for multiple strategies in off-beat tapping with anisochronous stimuli