Emotional valence and physical space: Limits of interaction

Irmgard de la Vega, Mónica De Filippis, Martin Lachmair, Carolin Dudschig, Barbara Kaup

Full Text: PDF   Paper Package: de la VegaDe FilippisLachmairDudschigKaup2012_1.0 tar.gz PID: 11022/0000-0000-205E-3

Abstract


According to the body-specificity hypothesis, people associate positive things with the side of space that corresponds to their dominant hand, and negative things with the side corresponding to their non-dominant hand. Our aim was to find out whether this association holds also true for a response time study employing linguistic stimuli, and whether such an association is activated automatically. Four experiments explored this association using positive and negative words. In Exp. 1, right-handers made a lexical judgment by pressing a left or right key. Attention was not explicitly drawn to the valence of the stimuli. No valence-by-side interaction emerged. In Exp. 2 and 3, right-handers and left-handers made a valence judgment by pressing a left or a right key. A valence-by-side interaction emerged: For positive words, responses were faster when participants responded with their dominant hand, whereas for negative words, responses were faster for the non-dominant hand. Exp. 4 required a valence judgment without stating an explicit mapping of valence and side. No valence-by-side interaction emerged. The experiments provide evidence for an association between response side and valence, which, however, does not seem to be activated automatically but rather requires a task with an explicit response mapping to occur.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 375-385


References


Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645.

Bub, D. N., Masson, M. E. J., & Cree, G. S. (2008). Evocation of functional and volumetric gestural knowledge by objects and words. Cognition, 106, 27-58.

Casasanto, D. (2009a). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351-367.

Casasanto, D. (2009b). When is a linguistic metaphor a conceptual metaphor? In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics (127-145). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2011). When left is “right”: Motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science, 22(4), 419-422.

Casasanto, D. & Jasmin, K. (2010). Good and bad in the hands of politicians: Spontaneous gestures during positive and negative speech. PLoS ONE 5(7): e11805. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011805

Estes, Z., & Adelman, J. S. (2008). Automatic vigilance for negative words in lexical decision and naming: Comment on Larsen, Mercer, and Balota (2006). Emotion, 8(4), 441-444.

Estes, Z., & Verges, M. (2008). Freeze or flee? Negative stimuli elicit selective responding. Cognition, 108, 557-565.

Glenberg, A. M., & Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565.

Hodes, R. L., Cook, E. W., III, & Lang, P. J. (1985). Individual differences in autonomic response: Conditiones association or conditiones fear? Psychophysiology, 22(5), 545-560.

Hommel, B., & Prinz, W. (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus-response compatibility. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Kuchinke, L., Jacobs, A. M., Grubich, C., Võ, M. L. H., Conrad, M., & Herrmann, M. (2005). Incidental effects of emotional valence in single word processing: An fMRI study. NeuroImage, 28, 1022–1032.

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

Lang, P. J. (1980). Behavioral treatment and bio-behavioral assessment: Computer applications. In J. B. Sidowski, J. H. Johnson, & T. A. Williams (Eds.), Technology in mental health care delivery systems (pp. 129-139). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Masson, E. J., & Loftus, G. R. (2003). Using confidence intervals for graphically based data interpretation. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57(3), 203-220.

Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243-247.

Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97-113.

Torralbo, A., Santiago, J., & Lupiáñez, J. (2006). Flexible conceptual projection of time onto spatial frames of reference. Cognitive Science, 30(4), 745-757.

Ulrich, R., & Maienborn, C. (2010). Left-right coding of past and future in language: The mental timeline during sentence processing. Cognition, 117, 126-138.

Umiltà, C., & Nicoletti, R. (1990). Spatial stimulus-response compatibility. In R. W. Proctor & T. G. Reeve (Eds.), Stimulus-response compatibility (pp. 89–116). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Unkelbach, C., von Hippel, W., Forgas, J. P., Robinson, M. D., Shakarchi, R. J., & Hawkins, C. (2010). Good things come easy: Subjective exposure frequency and the faster processing of positive information. Social Cognition, 28(4), 538-555.

Valenzuela, J., & Soriano, C. (2009). Are conceptual metaphors accessible on-line? Is control really up? A psycholinguistic exploration of the CONTROL IS UP metaphor. In J. Valenzuela, A. Rojo & C. Soriano (Eds.), Trends in cognitive linguistics: Theoretical and applied models (pp- 31-50). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Vallesi, A., Binns, M. A., & Shallice, T. (2008). An effect of spatial-temporal association of response codes: Understanding the cognitive representations of time. Cognition, 107, 501–527.

Welford, A. T. (1980). Relationships between reaction time and fatigue, stress, age and sex. In A. T. Welford (Ed.), Reaction times (pp. 321-354). New York: Academic Press.

Wentura, D., Rothermund, K., & Bak, P. (2000). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of approach- and avoidance-related social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1024-1037.

Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 120(1), 3-24.

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, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zwaan, R. A. (2004). The immersed experiencer: Toward an embodied theory of language comprehension. In: B.H. Ross (Ed.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 44, pp. 35-62). New York: Academic Press.

Zwaan, R. A., & Taylor, L. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1-11.