2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Expansive and Contractive Postures and Movement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Motor Displays on Affective and Behavioral Responses

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This review and meta-analysis explores the experimental effects of expansive and contractive motor displays on affective, hormonal, and behavioral responses. Experimental studies were located through systematic literature searches. Studies had to manipulate motor displays to either expansive or contractive displays and investigate the effect of the displays on affect, hormones, or overt behavior. Meta-analyses were conducted to determine the pooled, standardized mean differences between the effects of motor displays on affective, hormonal, and behavioral responses. From 5,819 unique records, 73 relevant studies were identified. Robust differences between expansive and contractive displays emerged for affective responses and overt behavioral responses across contexts, type of manipulation, and methods of measurement. The results suggest that the effects are driven by the absence of contractive motor displays (contractive vs. neutral displays: Hedges’s g = 0.45) rather than the presence of expansive displays (expansive vs. neutral displays: g = 0.06). The findings stand as a corrective to previous research, as they indicate that it is the absence of contractive displays rather than the presence of expansive displays that alters affective and behavioral responding. Future research should include neutral control groups, use different methods to assess hormonal change, and investigate these effects in the context of ideographic goals.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Are Emotions Natural Kinds?

          Laypeople and scientists alike believe that they know anger, or sadness, or fear, when they see it. These emotions and a few others are presumed to have specific causal mechanisms in the brain and properties that are observable (on the face, in the voice, in the body, or in experience)-that is, they are assumed to be natural kinds. If a given emotion is a natural kind and can be identified objectively, then it is possible to make discoveries about that emotion. Indeed, the scientific study of emotion is founded on this assumption. In this article, I review the accumulating empirical evidence that is inconsistent with the view that there are kinds of emotion with boundaries that are carved in nature. I then consider what moving beyond a natural-kind view might mean for the scientific understanding of emotion.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Embodied Cognition is Not What you Think it is

              The most exciting hypothesis in cognitive science right now is the theory that cognition is embodied. Like all good ideas in cognitive science, however, embodiment immediately came to mean six different things. The most common definitions involve the straight-forward claim that “states of the body modify states of the mind.” However, the implications of embodiment are actually much more radical than this. If cognition can span the brain, body, and the environment, then the “states of mind” of disembodied cognitive science won’t exist to be modified. Cognition will instead be an extended system assembled from a broad array of resources. Taking embodiment seriously therefore requires both new methods and theory. Here we outline four key steps that research programs should follow in order to fully engage with the implications of embodiment. The first step is to conduct a task analysis, which characterizes from a first person perspective the specific task that a perceiving-acting cognitive agent is faced with. The second step is to identify the task-relevant resources the agent has access to in order to solve the task. These resources can span brain, body, and environment. The third step is to identify how the agent can assemble these resources into a system capable of solving the problem at hand. The last step is to test the agent’s performance to confirm that agent is actually using the solution identified in step 3. We explore these steps in more detail with reference to two useful examples (the outfielder problem and the A-not-B error), and introduce how to apply this analysis to the thorny question of language use. Embodied cognition is more than we think it is, and we have the tools we need to realize its full potential.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Perspectives on Psychological Science
                Perspect Psychol Sci
                SAGE Publications
                1745-6916
                1745-6924
                June 22 2020
                : 174569162091935
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department for Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus University
                [2 ]Department of Psychology and Psychotherapy, Witten/Herdecke University
                [3 ]Department of Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University
                Article
                10.1177/1745691620919358
                9c006454-335e-4c08-8192-2c332eb544fa
                © 2020

                http://journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article