1 / 9

Why the Sunny Side Is Up: Associations between Affect and Vertical Position

Meier and Robinson, Psychological Science 2004. Why the Sunny Side Is Up: Associations between Affect and Vertical Position.

camden
Télécharger la présentation

Why the Sunny Side Is Up: Associations between Affect and Vertical Position

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Meier and Robinson, Psychological Science 2004 Why the Sunny Side Is Up: Associations between Affect and Vertical Position ABSTRACT – Metaphors linking spatial location and affect (e.g. feeling up or down) may have subtle, but pervasive, effects on evaluation. In three studies, participants evaluated words presented on a computer. In Study 1, evaluations of positive words were faster when words were in the up rather than the down position, whereas evaluations of negative words were faster when words were in the down rather than the up position. In Study 2, positive evaluations activated higher areas of visual space, whereas negative evaluations activated lower areas of visual space. Study 3 revealed that, although evaluations activate areas of visual space, spatial positions do not activate evaluations. The studies suggest that affect has a surprisingly physical basis.

  2. Why the Sunny Side Is Up (cont’d) High/Low Word Position Evaluate Word Valence Study 1 Position-valence fit leads to faster evaluation of current stimulus. Evaluate Word Valence Identify q or p in High/Low Position Study 2 Position-valence fit leads to faster processing of subsequent stimulus. Identify Position (High/Low) of +++ Evaluate Valenced Word in Neutral Position Study 3 Visual field activation does not affect evaluation of subsequent stimulus.

  3. Incidental Haptic Sensations Influence Social Judgments and DecisionsJoshua M. Ackerman, Christopher C. Nocera, & John A. Bargh Touch is both the first sense to develop and a critical means of information acquisition and environmental manipulation. Physical touch experiences may create an ontological scaffold for the development of intrapersonal and interpersonal conceptual and metaphorical knowledge, as well as a springboard for the application of this knowledge. In six experiments, holding heavy or light clipboards, solving rough or smooth puzzles, and touching hard or soft objects nonconsciously influenced impressions and decisions formed about unrelated people and situations. Among other effects, heavy objects made job candidates appear more important, rough objects made social interactions appear more difficult, and hard objects increased rigidity in negotiations. Basic tactile sensations are thus shown to influence higher social cognitive processing in dimension-specific and metaphor-specific ways.

  4. WEIGHT (heavy/light) -seriousness & importance -“thinking about weighty matters” “gravity of the situation” TEXTURE (rough/smooth) -difficulty & harshness -“having a rough day” “coarse language” HARDNESS (hard/soft) -stability, rigidity, & strictness -“she is my rock” “hard-hearted” Tested how three dimensions of haptic experience can nonconsciously influence judgments and decisions about unrelated events, situations, and objects Study 3 -Solved puzzle rough vs. smooth pieces -Impression of interaction (rated social coordination quality) Rough– less coordinated (but not less impersonal) Study 5 -Watch magic act using hard vs. soft objects -Impression formation (ambiguous interaction) -characteristics, including rigid/strictness (unyielding) Hard– more rigid/strict Study 1 -heavy vs. light clipboard -Impression formation (Evaluated job candidates) heavy- better overall  more serious interest in position • Study 2 • -heavy vs. light clipboard • -Decisions • -Funding public issues • (varied on importance) • Men, heavy  more funds • allocated to important issues • Women, max funds for both Study 4 -Solved puzzle rough vs. smooth pieces -Social decisions (Ultimatum game) Rough– increased donations (as compensatory response) • Study 6 • -Sit in hard vs. soft chair • -Impression formation • -Negotiation • Hard - more rigid/strict • - less emotional • less flexible in negotiation

  5. Metaphorical Cleansing – Myles Leighton, September 2012 • “Washing Away Postdecisional Dissonance” by Lee & Schwarz (2010). • Physically washing or cleaning our hands reduces decisional dissonance effect (need to justify past behavior and decisions) specifically on: • Past Immoral Behavior • Past Decisions Fig. 1. Postdecisional dissonance after hand washing or no hand washing (study 1). Each bar represents the rank difference between the chosen and rejected alternatives, with higher values indicating higher preferences for the chosen alternative. Error bars represent standard error. Two studies are exemplified in the article: the CD’s and the fruit jam. Both studies show that hand cleansing reduces the need to justify one’s choice. The authors believe that these studies do not reflect the purity-morality metaphor, so more cognitive process related research should be done about mitigating justification. However, it is my belief that hand cleansing will only go so far because the researchers were getting effects from minor transgressions, not big ticket items. Furthermore, mitigation of justification here seems to happen two ways. When pts. changed their answers, they were consciously mitigating, but the other pts. who cleansed their hands were mitigating subconsciously (unconscious means out-like-a-light / hit on the head – stop trying to confuse me).

  6. Payne, J., Samper, A., Bettman, J., & Luce, M. (2008). Boundary Conditions on Unconscious Thought in Complex Decision Making. Psychological Science, 19, 1118-1123.

  7. Prior work: • Dijksterhuis et al.: Immediate, unconscious, fixed-time conscious thought • This work: • Moderator #1: Self-paced conscious thought • Moderator #2: Choice task where performance depends more on magnitude information UCT and SP-CT perform equally well SP-CT performs better Magnitude matters more to performance in Game B

  8. Dijksterhuis, A., Bos, M., van derLeij, A., & van Baaren, R. (2009). Predicting Soccer Matches After Unconscious and Conscious Thought as a Function of Expertise. Psychological Science, 20, 1381-1387.

  9. Prior work: • UTT work by Dijksterhuis and colleagues: Non-objective criterion for success; not complex numerical stimuli; experimenter-provided information • Payne et al.: Objective criterion for success; complex numerical stimuli; experimenter-provided information • This work: • Objective criterion for success (who actually wins soccer games) • Not complex numerical stimuli • Participant self-generated information • Expertise as a moderator

More Related