running head: conscious attention in embodiment...

The Role of Conscious Attention in How WeightServes as an Embodiment of Importance

Item Type Article

Authors Zestcott, Colin A.; Stone, Jeff; Landau, Mark J.

Citation The Role of Conscious Attention in How Weight Serves as anEmbodiment of Importance 2017, 43 (12):1712 Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin

DOI 10.1177/0146167217727505

Publisher SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC

Journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Rights © 2017 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc

Download date 28/06/2018 17:30:00

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/626122

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167217727505

http://hdl.handle.net/10150/626122

Runninghead:CONSCIOUSATTENTIONINEMBODIMENT1

TheRoleofConsciousAttentioninHowWeightServesasanEmbodimentofImportance

Wordcount:9,725

CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 2

Abstract

Inconsistencyamongfindingsintheembodiedcognitionliteraturesuggestsaneedfor

theoreticalboundaryconditions.Thecurrentresearchproposesthatconsciousattentionof

abodilystatecanmoderateitsinfluenceonsocialjudgment.Threestudiestestedthis

possibilityinthecaseofthedemonstratedeffectofweightsensationsonjudgmentsofan

abstractidea’simportance.Studies1and2showedthatparticipantsratedatopicasmore

importantwhenholdingamoderatelyheavy,comparedtolight,clipboard.However,when

theclipboardwasveryheavy,participantsratedthesurveytopicaslessimportant

comparedtowhentheclipboardwasmoderatelyheavy.Thedifferencesinimportance

ratingswerenotcausedbyderogationofthetopicortheactivationofadifferentmetaphor.

InStudy3,theimportanceratingdifferencebetweenlightandmoderatelyheavy

clipboardswaseliminatedbyexplicitlydrawingperceiver’sattentiontotheclipboard’s

weight.Implicationsandfuturedirectionsarediscussed.

Keywords:embodiedcognition,weight,importance,consciousattention,replication


TheRoleofConsciousAttentioninHowWeightServesasanEmbodimentofImportance

“Overthinking,overanalyzing,separatesthebodyfromthemind.”

–Tool,“Lateralus”(2001)

Researchsuggeststhatbodilyexperiencescanunconsciouslyinfluencesocial

cognition.Forexample,holdingawarmcupofcoffeeincreasesperceptionsofan

individual’sfriendliness(Williams&Bargh,2008),exposuretofishysmellsincreasessocial

suspicion(Lee&Schwarz,2012),andmovingtheheadupanddownleadstogreater

messageagreementthanshakingtheheadfromside‐to‐side(Wells&Petty,1980).

However,severalrecentfailedreplicationsofembodimenteffects(e.g.,Ebersoleetal.,

2014;Johnsonetal.,2016;Lynottetal.,2014;OpenScienceCollaboration,2015;Wortman,

Donnellan,&Lucas,2014)raisequestionsaboutthewhenandhowthebodyinfluences

thoughtandbehavior.Theinabilityofindependentteststoreplicatecouldsuggestthat

embodimenteffectsare“falsepositives”orthattheyemergefromquestionableresearch

practices(Bohannon,2014).Theinconsistentevidencehasledsomeinvestigatorsto

expressdoubtsaboutthereliabilityandvalidityofembodimentprocesses.

Anotherwaytoviewtheinconsistentfindingsintheembodimentliterature,

however,isthatthevariabilityacrossstudiesreflectstheoreticallyrelevantmoderators

thathaveyettobeidentified.Buildingontheoriesofembodiedcognitionandautomaticity,

weproposethatonesuchvariableisconsciousattention.Specifically,wehypothesizedthat

contextualcuesthatdrawattentiontotheuseofabodilystateasasourceofinformation

willattenuatetheeffectofthatbodilystateonmetaphorically‐relatedsocialjudgments.

Thecurrentstudiesprovideinitialtestsofthishypothesis,focusingonthewell‐

knowneffectofweightsensationsonjudgmentsoftheimportanceofabstractstimuli(e.g.,


socialissues)thatarenotheavyorlightinaliteralsense.Inthefirstdemonstrationofthis

effect,Jostmann,Lakens,andSchubert(2009)showedthatparticipantsratedabstract

topicsasmoreimportantwhenholdingaheavycomparedtoalightclipboard.Subsequent

studies,reviewedshortly,havemostlyreplicatedthiseffectinotherjudgmentcontexts.

However,asmentionedabove,severalstudieshavefailedtoreplicatethiseffect,settingoff

acontroversyaboutitsvalidity(Ebersoleetal.,2014;Rabelo,Keller,Pilati,&Wicherts,

2015).

Now,asaparticipantinthistypeofstudy,imagineholdingaclipboardthatisso

heavy,youthinktoyourself,"Wow,thisisaheavyclipboard!"Itisplausiblethat

consciouslyprocessingtheclipboard’sheftwouldpreventthatsensationfromservingas

inputintoyourjudgmentofthetargettopic’simportance.Asaresult,yourimportance

ratingwouldreflecttheneutralorlowimportancethattheissuetypicallybringstomind.

Althoughanecdotal,thisscenariopointstoconsciousnessofabodilystateasone

factormoderatingwhenthatstateservesastheinputtometaphorically‐relatedsocial

judgmentsversuswhenabodilystateisjustabodilystate.Evidencethatdrawing

consciousattentiontothebodyreducestheembodimenteffectwouldnotonlyanswerthe

callofmanyscholarstoidentifytheoreticalboundaryconditionsofembodimenteffects

(e.g.,Meier,Schnall,Schwarz,&Bargh,2012),butbydocumentingboundaryconditions,

thepresentresearchmaycontributetoourunderstandingoffailurestoreplicate

embodimentfindings.

Theroleofthephysicalbodyincognition

Theconceptualizationofalinkbetweenthebodyandthemindisnotinitsinfancy.

James(1884)postulatedthatthephysicalbodyisconnectedtoemotionalexperiences.


However,cognitivepsychologyinthemid‐twentiethcenturyarguedforanamodal

processingsysteminwhichsemanticknowledgeandhigher‐levelcognitionsoperate

sovereignlyofphysicalbodystates(e.g.,Fodor,1983;Newell&Simon,1972).Amodal

modelsassumethatmemorystoresinformationinanabstractformthatislargely

unrepresentativeofthephysicalbodyandperceptualstatesthatproduceit.However,

theseamodalmodelshave,inturn,givenwaytonewtheoriesthatreflectJames'original

notionsaboutthebody‐mindconnection.

Recenttheoriespostulatethatknowledgemaybeembodiedinphysicalstatesandin

thebrain’smodality‐specificsystems(Niedenthaletal.,2005;Smith&Semin,2004).One

accountofthisrelationisBarsalou’sperceptualsymbolssystem(PSS;1999;2003;2008).

Conceptscontainrepresentationsofbodilystates,suchassensations,thatoccurduring

interactionswithrelevantstimuliandcontexts.Theseinputsarenottranslatedinto

abstractsymbols,butretaintheirmodality‐specificcharacter(e.g.,theconceptbowling

containstactilesensationsofabowlingball’ssmoothness).Thinkingaboutthoseconcepts

involvesthesimulation,orreactivation,ofthosebodilystates,evenwhentheindividualis

notcurrentlyinteractingwithrelevantstimuli.Damasio(2001)similarlyproposedthat

reactivatedbodilystates,experiencedasemotions,serveasamarkerorcuethatinforms

theperson’sinterpretationofthecurrentsituation.Inthisway,bodilystatescaninform

representationsofabstractions,withconsequencesforperception,judgment,andbehavior.

WhilethePSSexplainshowanindividualmaygainknowledgefromconcrete

perceptualstates,onepotentiallimitationofthePSSconcernshowknowledgeisaccrued

forabstractdomains,suchastheconceptofimportance,inwhichaphysicalbodyreferent

isabsent(seeBorghietal.,2016).Indeed,whilewecanfeelacupofcoffeeandexperience


physicalwarmth,howdoesonetouchanabstractconceptlikeimportance?Tobridgethis

gap,scholarshavesuggestedthatmetaphorplaysacentralroleinembodimentprocesses

(Boroditsky&Prinz,2008).Accordingtoconceptualmetaphortheory(Lakoff&Johnson,

1980;1999),theuseofmetaphor(e.g.,“importance=weight”)canfacilitateunderstanding

ofanabstractconcept(perceptionsofimportance)whencouchedinaconcretephysical

experience(holdingheavyweight)duetorepeatedco‐occurrences.Forexample,as

speculatedbyJostmannetal.(2009),wemaylearnthatworkingwithheavyobjects

requiresgreatereffortthanlightobjects,whichinturn,linksconcreteexperienceofweight

toabstractconceptssuchasperceptionsofimportance.Hence,whenanindividualrefersto

animportantissueas“heavy,”heorsheisnotsayingthattheissueisliterallyheavyinthe

hapticsense;theindividualisreferringtothephysicalbodilystateofholdingaheavy

objecttocommunicatethatthetopicpossessesahighdegreeofimportance.Consequently,

metaphormaynotservemerelytoembellishlanguage,butratherfunctionasatoolthat

shapeshowindividualsseeandinterprettheworld.

Weightasanembodimentofimportance

Themetaphoricalexpressionofimportanceasweightpermeatesdailydiscourse.

Forexample,importantissuesareoftenreferredtoas“heavy,”aninfluentialindividual's

opinionsmay“holdmoreweight”thanalessinfluentialperson,someissues“weighmore”

onourmindsthanothers,andpeople“weigh”thevalueofdifferentopinionsbeforemaking

adecision.Consistentwitheverydayvernacular,severalstudiesindicatethatholdinga

heavyweightcantransferovertoincreasetheperceivedimportanceofanabstractsocial

stimulus.AfterJostmannetal.(2009)reportedthatparticipantsratedforeigncurrencyand

acampusissuetobemoreimportantwhentheyratedthetopicswhileholdingaheavy


clipboardcomparedtoalightclipboard,Ackermanandcolleagues(2010)reportedthat

holdingaheavyclipboardincreasedperceptionsofajobapplicant’sseriousness,and

Kaspar(2013)reportedthatholdingaheavyclipboardincreasedtheperceived

seriousnessofadiseaseanddrugsideeffects.Inthefoodandhospitalitydomain,food

presentedinaheavy(comparedtolight)containerisexpectedtobemoresatiatingand

expensive(Piqueras‐Fiszman,Harrar,Alcaide,&Spence,2011;Piqueras‐Fiszman&Spence,

2012)andperceiverswhoholdheavierrestaurantmenuscomparedtolightermenusrate

restaurantsasbeingmoreupscaleandprovidingbetterservicequality(Magnini&Kim,

2016).Inanacademicsetting,Schneiderandcolleagues(2011)reportedthatindividuals

toldthatatextbookcontainsimportantinformationratedthetextbookasweighingheavier

thanthosewhoarenottoldaboutthetextbook’simportance.Inafollow‐up,Schneiderand

colleagues(2014)reportedthatindividualswhoholdaUSB‐stickpresumablycontaining

importanttaxinformationestimatethestoragedevicetobeheavierthanthosewhoarenot

toldaboutinformationontheUSB‐stickandthosewhoaretoldtheUSB‐stickcontains

expiredtaxinformation.

Previousresearchhasalsodocumentedmoderatorsandboundaryconditionsfor

embodimentprocesses.ResearchbyAckermanandcolleagues(2010)andChandler,

Reinhard,andSchwarz(2012),forexample,reportedthattheweightofaclipboardonly

affectedratingsofimportanceifparticipantshadknowledgeabouttheissueortopicbeing

evaluated;theclipboard'sweightdidnotinfluencejudgmentsforparticipantsunfamiliar

withthetopic.Inaconceptualextension,HauserandSchwarz(2015)reportedthat

perceivershighinneedforcognitionratedabookasmoreimportantthanthoselowin

needforcognitionwhenholdingaheavybookandreadingabriefplotsynopsis,


presumablybecauseindividualshighlymotivatedtoelaboratesoughtinformationto

confirmtheirmetaphor‐consistenthypothesis.

Despitethelargenumberoffindingssuggestingtheembodiedrelationshipbetween

weightandimportance,aswellasidentifyingmoderatingvariables,severalfailed

replicationsquestiontherobustnessofthebasicweightasanembodimentofimportance

effect(e.g.,Ebersoleetal.,2014;Rabeloetal.,2015).Thesemixedresultsmaybetheresult

ofunexaminedmoderators,oneofwhichmaybethedegreetowhichobserversare

consciouslyawareofthebodilystatestheyareexperiencingincontextsofjudgmentand

decisionmaking.Previousresearchfindsthatindividualswhoarehighinbodilyawareness

showincreasedembodiedeffects(Häfner,2013;Schnall,Haidt,Clore,&Jordan,2008).

However,individualsmaydifferintheirintrospectionwithoutawarenessreaching

consciousness(Craig,2004).Thus,experimentallymanipulatingconsciousawarenessmay

lendfurtherinsightintowhenembodimenteffectsonsocialjudgmentsareattenuated.

Indeed,itispossiblethatconsciousawarenessoftheuseofthebodyasasourceof

informationcontributestonullfindingsintheliterature.Forexample,onelargeproject

examiningthereplicabilityofanumberofsocialpsychologicalfindingsobservednoeffect

ofclipboardweightonratingsofimportance(Ebersoleetal.,2016).However,Ebersoleet

al.randomlyembeddedtheclipboardstudywithinthepresentationofeightdistinct

computerizedtasks.Assuch,isitpossiblethatthenoveltyoftheclipboardinthecomputer

contextdrewparticipants’attentiontotheuseoftheirbodywhencompletingthemeasure

viapaper‐pencil.AnotherrecentsetofstudiesbyRabeloandcolleagues(2015)failedto

findincreasedclipboardweightinfluencingimportancejudgments.However,although


Study1inRabeloetal.usedsimilarweightstothoseusedinthestudiesbyAckermanetal.,

theheavyclipboardweightsusedbyRabeloetal.inStudies2and3wereslightlyheavier.

Themixedfindingsinthenon‐publishedonlinePsychFileDrawerresearcharchive

mayalsoprovidesomeevidencethatconsciousawarenessplaysaroleinreplicatingthe

weight‐as‐importanceeffect.Forexample,inonenullfinding,themanipulationofthelight

clipboardconditionwasapieceofpaperonaclipboardwhereastheheavyclipboard

conditionwasmanipulatedbyplacinganotebookontheclipboardwiththepieceofpaper

(Hadley,Ring,Gold,&Daubman,2013,butseeStewart,McVeigh,Stojkov,&Daubman,

2012).Itispossiblethatperceiverswereawaretheclipboardwouldbeheavierthananon‐

manipulatedclipboardduetotheadditionofthenotebook.Furthermore,anunsuccessful

replicationbyJostmann(2013)failedtofindweightservedasanembodimentof

importanceunderconditionsinwhichparticipantscouldvisiblyseetheadditionalweight

intheheavyclipboardandinanotherconditionwheretheheftwasheavierthantheheavy

clipboardmanipulationintheoriginalstudiesreportedbyJostmannetal.(2009).

Insum,studiesshowmixedsupportfortheweight‐as‐importanceeffect.Analysisof

theproceduresusedacrossstudiessuggeststhatifsomethinginthecontextdraws

consciousattentiontotheweightofanobject,peoplewillnolongerusetheweight

sensationasasourceofinformationwhenratingtheimportanceofatargetstimulus.This

hypothesiscoincideswiththeoreticalperspectivesproposingthatconsciouslyattendingto

astimuluscanpreventitfromautomaticallyinforminginformationprocessing.

Consciousawarenessinembodiedcognition

Dualprocesstheoriesofsocialcognitionassertthatinformationprocessingfalls

alongacontinuum,fromprocessingthatisrelativelyautomatic,effortless,andexperiential,


toprocessingthatisrelativelydeliberate,controlled,andrational(Chaiken&Trope,1999;

Stanovich&West,2000).Forexample,itiswellestablishedthat:apersuasivemessagecan

beprocessedinamoreheuristicfashionorinamoreelaborativewaythatrequiresgreater

cognitiveeffort(Chaiken,1980;Petty&Cacioppo,1986);attitudesguidebehavior

automaticallyunlesssufficientmotivationandopportunitytoactdeliberatelyonan

attitudeexists(Fazio,1990);peopleusesalientcategorycuestoformanimpressionofa

targetindividualunlessgoalsdrawattentiontothatindividual'sattributes(Fiske&

Neuberg,1990);andevaluativeresponsesareaproductoftheinterplaybetweenthe

activationofassociationsinmemoryandthevalidationoftheseassociations(Gawronski&

Bodenhausen,2006).

Thecurrentresearchteststheideathatthebodycanautomaticallyprovide

informationinanimplicitmanner,butifsomethinginthesocialcontextdrawsconscious

attentiontowhatthebodyissensing,consciousorexplicitprocessingattenuatesor

eliminatestheuseofthebodyasinformation.Theliteratureappearstoassumethat

embodiedeffectsarenecessarilyimplicit;indeedthePSSsuggeststhatthedefaultofthe

bodywhenprocessingaconceptistosimulatepreviousmulti‐modalexperiences

pertainingtotheconcept(Niedenthaletal.,2005).Thisimpliesthatbodystatesinfluence

metaphoricallyrelatedcognitionandbehavioroutsideofconsciousawareness,andthey

mayoperateprimarilythroughexperientialprocessesthatencapsulatenonverbal

information(Epstein,1994;Epstein&Pacini,1999).Peoplecanliterallythinkwhatthey

feel,smell,orhear.

However,aspeopleconsciouslyattendtothesensoryinformation,andbecome

moreanalyticalanddeliberateintheirthinking,attentionshiftstothecognitiveattributes


ofthestimulusand/orthejudgmenttask.Drawingdeliberateattentiontothebodilystate

willincreasethesalienceandrelevanceofotherfeaturesintheenvironment,suchasthe

contentofamessagepresentedontheclipboard.Consequently,ratherthanrelyonthe

automaticorexperientialprocessingthatusesthebodyasasourceofinformation,

perceiversswitchtocontrolledprocessingofothercuesintheenvironment.

Thecurrentresearch

Thecurrentsetofthreestudiestestthepredictionthatdrawingaperceiver’s

consciousattentiontotheirbodilystatesreducesembodiedcognitioneffects.Allthree

studiestestthepredictionsmadebythemodelusingtheweight‐as‐importanceparadigm

firstestablishedbyJostmannandcolleagues(2009).Thestudiesweredesignedtoreplicate

theoriginaleffectwhenparticipantsratedtheimportanceofaneutralsurveytopic

(fundingforroadinfrastructureinArizona),andmodulatetheeffectbydrawingconscious

attentiontowardtheheftoftheclipboard.

InStudy1,participantsratetheimportanceoffundingforroadinfrastructure

holdingeitheralight,moderatelyheavy,orveryheavyclipboard.Study2furtherexamines

theimpactofconsciousattentionbyincludingadditionalweightconditionsandtestingfor

theactivationofadifferentmetaphor(i.e.,burden)asanalternateexplanation.Study3

examinesweightasanembodimentofimportancewhenparticipants’consciousattention

isexplicitlydrawntotheheftofamoderatelyheavyclipboard.Thereliabilityofthe

findingsacrossthethreestudies(andastudyincludedintheSupplementalMaterial)is

addressedinafinalcombinedanalysisofallthedata.

Study1


Thepurposeofthefirststudywastotestthepredictionthatweightwouldoperate

asanembodimentofimportanceunlesssomethinginthecontextdrawsattentiontothe

bodilystateitself,suchasthroughtheweightofaveryheavyclipboard.Thepredictionwas

thatparticipantswouldratethetopicofroadinfrastructureasmoreimportantwhen

holdingamoderatelyheavycomparedtoalightclipboard(replicatingpreviousresearch),

butwhenholdingaveryheavyclipboard,participantswouldratethesurveytopicasless

importantcomparedtothemoderatelyheavyclipboardcondition.AnotheraimofStudy1

wastoshowthatthepredictedlowerimportanceratingintheveryheavyclipboard

conditionwasnotduetoderogationofthetopicitself.Thus,anadditionalpredictionwas

thatparticipants’attitudetowardfundingforroadinfrastructurewouldnotdifferby

clipboardweightcondition.

Method

Participants

96participantscompletedthestudy.Twoparticipantswereeliminatedfromdata

analysisduetoleaningagainstawallwhilecompletingthesurveybecausethismayoffset

theinfluenceoftheweight(seeJostmannetal.,2009).Datafromatotalof94participants

(53female,41male)wereincludedinthefinaldataanalysis.Themeanagewas27.25(SD

=13.91).

Procedure

IndividualpassersbyonandneartheUniversityofArizonacampuswererecruited

tocompleteasurveyonfundingforroadinfrastructure.Afirstexperimenter,blindtothe

weightoftheclipboard,approachedparticipantsandaskedthemiftheywouldliketo

participateinauniversity‐approvedsurvey.Ifparticipantsagreedtoparticipate,asecond


experimenterhandedparticipantsarandomlyassignedclipboardwithapieceofpaperon

topthatcontainedinformationaboutfundingforroadinfrastructureandabrief

questionnaire1.Thefirstexperimentergaveverbalinstructionstotheparticipantsonhow

tocompletethesurvey2;afterhandingthemtheclipboard,thesecondexperimenter

walkedawayanddidnotinteractwithparticipantsagain.Aftercompletingthe

questionnaire,participantsgavetheclipboardtothefirstexperimenter,whothankedand

debriefedthem.

Materials

Clipboardweights.Theclipboard(9.5”x13.5”x.875”)containedacompartment

thatstoredceramictileweightsandpapertomanipulatetheweightoftheclipboard.Inthe

lightcondition,theclipboardweighed1.45lbs.(657g,n=31);inthemoderatelyheavy

condition,theclipboardweighed2.29lbs.(1,039g,n=31),andintheveryheavycondition,

theclipboardweighed3.65lbs.(1,655g,n=32).Thelightandmoderatelyheavyclipboard

weightswereidenticaltoJostmannetal.(2009).Themoderatelyheavyclipboardin

Jostmannandcolleagueswasabout1.58timesheavierthanthelightclipboard,thusthe

veryheavyclipboardweightwascalculatedtobe1.58timesheavierthanthemoderately

heavyclipboard.

Questionnaire.Participantsansweredtwoquestionsaboutfundingforroad

infrastructure.Thefirstquestionassessedparticipants’attitudetowardfundingforroad

infrastructure(“Howdoyoufeelaboutfundingforroadinfrastructure?”)onascaleof1

(extremelynegative)to7(extremelypositive).Thesecondquestionaskedabout

participants’perceivedimportanceoffundingforroadinfrastructure(“Howimportantis

fundingforroadinfrastructureinArizona?”)onascaleof1(notatall)to7(extremely).


Participantsalsocompletedabriefdemographicsquestionnaireaskingtheirgenderand

age.

Results

Importanceratings.Aone‐wayANOVArevealedasignificantdifferencebetweenthe

clipboardconditions,F(2,91)=3.16,p=.047,ηp2=.07(seeFigure1).Plannedcontrasts

showedthatparticipantsinthemoderatelyheavyclipboardcondition(M=6.06,SD=.73,

95%CI[5.80,6.32])ratedfundingforroadinfrastructureasmoreimportantthan

participantsinthelightclipboardcondition(M=5.61,SD=1.09,95%CI[5.21,6.01]),F(1,

91)=3.30,p=.073,ηp2=.04,d=.45.Althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,thisfindingisin

predicteddirectionaspreviousresearchbyJostmannandcolleagues(2009).However,

consistentwiththehypothesis,participantsintheveryheavyclipboardconditionrated

fundingforroadinfrastructureassignificantlylessimportant(M=5.47,SD=1.08,95%CI

[5.09,5.86])thanparticipantsinthemoderatelyheavyclipboardcondition,F(1,91)=5.83,

p=.018,ηp2,d=.59.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthelightandveryheavy

clipboardcondition,F<.34,p>.56.Therewerenomaineffectsorinteractionswithageor

genderonratingsofimportance(ps>.33).

Attituderatings.Aone‐wayANOVAofclipboardconditiononattituderatings

revealednosignificantdifferencesbetweenthelightclipboardcondition(M=4.90,SD=

1.85),moderatelyheavyclipboardcondition(M=5.23,SD=1.38),andveryheavy

clipboardcondition(M=4.91,SD=1.35),p>.60.Therewerenomaineffectsor

interactionswithageorgenderonattitudes(ps>.40).

Discussion


Theresultssupportthehypothesisthatweightcaninfluencejudgmentsof

importanceunlesssomethinginthecontextdrawsattentiontothebodilystate.First,Study

1founddirectionallyconsistentresultswiththoseofJostmannetal.(2009)andotherswho

havereportedthatincreasingtheweightofaclipboardfromlighttomoderatelyheavy

couldincreasetheratingsoftheimportanceofasurveytopic.However,whenthe

clipboardwasveryheavy,participantsratedthesurveytopicassignificantlyless

importantcomparedtowhentheclipboardwasmoderatelyheavy.Thus,itispossiblethat

drawingparticipant’sattentiontotheirbodilystateviaaveryheavyclipboardmoderates

weightasanembodimentofimportance.Finally,thedecreaseinratingsofimportancefor

theveryheavyclipboardwasnotduetoamorenegativeevaluationofthetopic.

Ofnote,theresultsreplicatingtheresearchofJostmannandotherswerenot

statisticallysignificant.Yet,establishingdirectionalconsistencycanbeonewaytoprovide

overallsupportforaneffect(e.g.,Fabrigar&Wegener,2016).Inthatlight,theresults

reflectasimilarpatternshowninmuchofthepreviousresearch,albeitwithasmaller

effectsize.

Study2

TheresultsofStudy1areinlinewiththeideathatdrawingconsciousattentionto

thebodilystatecanreducemetaphorically‐relatedsocialjudgments.Nevertheless,another

explanationforthenulleffectoftheveryheavyclipboardonratingsofimportanceinStudy

1isthatveryheavyweightsmayactivateadifferentmetaphorratherthanimportance.

Indeed,peoplecanthinkaboutanissueusingmultiplemetaphors,forexample,loveis

oftendescribedusingmetaphorsofwar,ajourney,oraspassion(GibbsJr.,2015;Lakoff&

Johnson,1999).Similarly,weightcanserveasametaphorofimportance,butitalsoserves


asametaphorofburden,asintheeffortrequiredtocarryaheavyload.Previousresearch

showsthatexperiencingaburden(e.g.,keepingasecret)makesphysicaltasksappear

moreeffortful(Slepian,Masicampo,Toosi,&Ambady,2012).Thus,ifaveryheavy

clipboardservesastheembodimentofburden,itmaycausepeopletoreducetheirratings

ofimportance.WeexaminethisalternativeexplanationinStudy2.

Inaddition,Study2soughttofurthertestthepredictionthatweightasan

embodimentofimportanceisattenuatedbyveryheavyclipboardweightsthatdraw

consciousattentiontothebody.Indeed,asweightincreases,embodimenteffectsincrease,

butatsomepoint,theincreasedweightbecomesnoticeable,isconsciouslyprocessedand

diminishestheinfluenceofthebodyoncognition.Thus,Study2includedtwoadditional

clipboardweightconditionsinadditiontothoseusedinStudy1inordertotestthe

curvilinearrelationshipbetweenincreasinglyheavyclipboardweightandtheperceived

importanceofthesurveytopic.

Method

Participants

Atotalof187participantscompletedthesurvey.Sixwereeliminatedforsittingona

benchorleaningagainstawallduringthestudy.Thus,datafrom181participants(97

female,84male)wereincludedinthefinaldataanalysis.Themeanagewas22.60(SD=

8.35).

ProcedureandMaterials

TheprocedurewasidenticaltoStudy1.Theclipboardweightswereidenticalto

Study1alongwiththeadditionoftwoclipboardweights.Thus,therewereatotaloffive

clipboardconditions:light(1.45lbs.,n=35),moderatelyheavy(2.29lbs.,n=38),heavy


(2.97lbs.,n=36),veryheavy(3.65lbs.,n=35),andextremelyheavy(4.08lbs.,n=37).

Participantsalsoreportedtheirperceptionsoftheburdensomenatureoffundingforroad

infrastructure(“Fundingforroadinfrastructureisaburden.”)onascaleof1(strongly

disagree)to7(stronglyagree).Thequestionassessingperceivedimportanceoffundingfor

roadinfrastructureandthedemographicquestionswereidenticaltoStudy1.

Results

Importanceratings.Aone‐wayANOVArevealedsignificantdifferencesbetweenthe

clipboardconditionontheratingsofimportanceoffundingforroadinfrastructure,F(4,

176)=3.67,p=.007,ηp2=.08(seeTable1).Plannedcontrastsreplicatedtheoriginal

findingbyJostmannetal.inthatthemoderatelyheavyclipboard(M=6.13,SD=.84,95%

CI[5.85,6.41])causedsignificantlygreaterratingsinimportancethanthelightclipboard

(M=5.57,SD=1.01,95%CI[5.22,5.92],F(1,176)=5.79,p=.017,ηp2=.03,d=.55.In

addition,consistentwithpredictions,themoderatelyheavyclipboardcausedhigher

ratingsofimportancethantheveryheavyclipboard(M=5.51,SD=1.27,95%CI[5.07,

5.95]),F(1,176)=7.03,p=.009,ηp2=.04,d=.61),andtheextremelyheavyclipboard(M=

5.46,SD=1.02,95%CI[5.12,5.80]),F(1,176)=8.57,p=.004,ηp2=.05,d=.65).Moreover,

aspredicted,theheavyclipboard(M=6.03,SD=.77,95%CI[5.77,6.29])caused

significantlyhigherratingsofimportancecomparedtothelightclipboard;F(1,176)=

3.74,p=.055,ηp2=.02,d=.45,theveryheavyclipboard,F(1,176)=4.74,p=.031,ηp2=

.03,d=.51,andtheextremelyheavyclipboard,F(1,176)=5.96,p=.016,ηp2=.03,d=.56.

Theseresultssupportthepredictionthatsubtlesensationsofphysicalweightinfluence

judgmentsinametaphor‐consistentfashion,whereasweightsensationsthataremore

conspicuousdonot.Therewasnodifferencebetweenthemoderatelyheavyclipboardand


heavyclipboardandnodifferencesbetweenthelightclipboard,veryheavyclipboard,and

extremelyheavyclipboardcondition(allFs<.23,allps>.63).AsinStudy1,therewereno

maineffectsorinteractionswithgenderandage(ps>.15).

Burdenratings.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweentheburdenratings

forthelightclipboard(M=3.11,SD=1.53),moderatelyheavyclipboard(M=3.45,SD=

1.94),heavyclipboard(M=3.17,SD=1.54),veryheavyclipboard(M=3.17,SD=1.79),

andextremelyheavyclipboardcondition(M=3.35,SD=1.67),p>.90.Therewerenomain

effectsorinteractionswithgenderandage3(ps>.43).Theseresultsshowthatthe

curvilinearrelationshipofincreasedweightsandperceptionsofimportancewasnotdueto

theactivationofanotherrelevantmetaphorsuchasburden.

Discussion

TheresultsofStudy2areconsistentwiththepredictionthatembodiedeffects

diminishwhencontextualcuescauseconsciousprocessingofthebodilystate.Asseenin

Study1,theweightoftheclipboardincreasedratingsofimportanceofthesurveytopicup

toapointwhereitwasveryheavyandratingsofimportancesignificantlydecreased.

Accordingtothepresentconceptualframework,participantsreducedtheirratingsof

importancewhentheclipboardwasveryandextremelyheavybecauseastheweightgrew,

theybegantoconsciouslyperceivetheheftoftheobjectintheirhands.Theconscious

attentiontotheweightappearstohavecausedparticipantstojudgetheimportanceofthe

surveytopicontheneutralmeritsoftheissue,ratherthanontheheftoftheclipboard.In

addition,theresultsofStudy2suggestthattheheaviestclipboardsdidnotreducethe

ratingsofimportancebecausethemetaphorswitchedtotheconceptofburden.


Whereasthecurvilinearrelationshipbetweenweightandimportanceobservedin

Studies1and2isconsistentwiththeconsciousattentionhypothesis,itispossiblethat

increasingtheweightcouldactivateprocessesotherthanconsciousattention.Accordingto

previousresearch,anycuethatdrawsattentiontotheweightoftheclipboardshould

inducetheconsciousprocessingthatdiminishesembodimentprocesses(e.g.,Schwarz&

Clore,1983).Thus,evenwhentheweightismoderateandsubjecttoembodiment

influence,acuethatdirectsattentiontotheweightshouldcircumventtheembodiment

process.Thisleadstothepredictionthatwhenparticipantsaretoldabouttheweightofa

moderatelyheavyclipboard,theymayreportlowerratingsofthesurveytopic's

importance.Totestthisprediction,Study3conceptuallyreplicatedtheprocedurein

SchwarzandClore(1983)byprovidingperceiverswithanexplicitcuetotheuseoftheir

bodyasasourceofinformation.Thehypothesiswasthatperceiversholdingamoderately

heavyclipboard,andgivenanexplicitattentioncuetotheweightoftheclipboard,would

reportsignificantlylowerratingsoftopicimportancethanperceiverswhohelda

moderatelyheavyclipboard,butwerenotgivenanattentioncuetotheweightofthe

clipboard.

Study3

Method

Participants

169passersbyonandneartheUniversityofArizonacampuscompletedthestudy.

Fiveparticipantswereeliminatedfromdataanalysisforsittingdownwhilecompletingthe

measures.Thus,164participants(Male=92,Female=72)wereincludedinthedata

analysis.Themeanagewas27.25(SD=11.95).


ProcedureandMaterials

TheprocedurewassimilartoStudies1and2withafewexceptions.Participants

completedthesurveyoneitherthelight(1.45lbs.)ormoderatelyheavy(2.29lbs.)

clipboardusedinthefirsttwostudies.However,priortoratingthetopic,participantswere

randomlyassignedtoreceiveornotreceiveacueabouttheweightoftheclipboard.Inthe

weightcuecondition,immediatelyafterthesecondexperimentergavetheparticipantsthe

clipboard,thefirstexperimentertoldparticipants“andonelastthing—justtoletyou

know—somepeoplehavefoundtheweightoftheclipboardtofeelheavy”.Participantsinthe

weightcuecontrolconditiondidnotreceivethisinformationfromthefirstexperimenter.

Tokeeptheexperimentersblindtocondition,neitherknewwhatinformation(cuevs.no

cue;lightvs.moderatelyheavyclipboard)theotherwasgoingtopresentbeforethey

interactedwithparticipants.

Questionnaire.Thequestionsassessingperceivedimportanceoffundingforroad

infrastructureandthedemographicquestionswereidenticaltothefirsttwostudies.

Participantsalsocompletedamanipulationcheckquestionafterthedependentvariable

wascollected.Specifically,onascaleof1(stronglydisagree)to7(stronglyagree)

participantsrespondedtothestatement,“Theexperimentertoldmethatsomepeoplefeel

thattheclipboardisheavy",thatwasembeddedbetweentwootherquestionsaboutthe

experimenter'sbehavior(e.g.,“Theexperimenterwaspolite”).

Results

Manipulationcheckanalysis.Asexpected,participantsintheweightcuecondition

(M=6.48,SD=1.29,95%CI[6.19,6.77])weremorelikelytoagreethattheexperimenter

toldthemtheclipboardwasheavycomparedtothoseinthecuecontrolcondition(M=


2.74,SD=2.06,95%CI[2.28,3.20]),t(162)=‐13.91,p<.001,d=1.46.Thesedatasuggest

thatthemanipulationofthecuealertingparticipantstotheheftoftheclipboardwas

successful.

Mainanalysis.A2(weightcue:yesvs.no)x2(clipboardweight:lightvs.moderately

heavy)ANOVAwasconductedwithimportanceforfundingforroadinfrastructureasthe

dependentvariable.Resultsrevealedasignificantinteractionbetweentheweightcueand

clipboardweight,F(1,160)=5.74,p=.018,ηp2=.04(seeFigure2).Althoughnot

statisticallysignificant,theresultsrevealedasimilarpatternfoundinStudies1and2

whereparticipantsintheno‐cuecontrolconditionwiththemoderatelyheavyclipboard(M

=5.98,SD=.82,95%CI[5.73,6.23],n=44)ratedfundingforroadinfrastructureasmore

importantcomparedtothoseinthelightclipboardcondition(M=5.59,SD=.90,95%CI

[5.30,5.88],n=37),F(1,160)=3.18,p=.076,ηp2=.02,d=.40.

However,consistentwithpredictions,whentoldabouttheweightoftheclipboard

intheweight‐cuecondition,participantswiththemoderatelyheavyclipboard(M=5.36,

SD=1.17,95%CI[5.00,5.72],n=42)ratedthetopicassignificantlylessimportantthan

participantswhoheldthemoderatelyheavyclipboardintheno‐cuecontrolcondition,F(1,

160)=8.93,p=.003.ηp2=.06,d=.63.Therewasnodifferencebetweentheweightcue(M

=5.67,SD=.96,95%CI[5.36,5.98],n=39)andno‐cuecontrolconditionforthelight

clipboard(p<.60).Themaineffectsofweightcueandclipboardweightwerenot

significantintheANOVAanalysis(ps<.09).

Discussion

TheresultsofStudy3showedthatfocusingparticipants’consciousattentiononthe

weightofamoderatelyheavyclipboardeliminatedtheeffectofweightasanembodiment


ofimportance.Whilethefirsttwostudiescircumventedtheembodimentprocessby

drawingattentiontothebodilystatethroughincreasingtheweight,Study3reducedthe

embodimentprocessthroughaverbalcuetodrawattentiontotheweightofamoderately

heavyclipboard.Itispossiblethatthosewhoheldthelightclipboardintheweightcue

conditionwouldshowincreasedratingsofimportancebecauseweightissalient,even

thoughtheclipboarddoesnotsupplysuchinformationtotheperceiver.However,the

presentdatasupportthepredictionthatdrawingconsciousattentiontoweightdoesnot

increaseimportancerelatedratings.

Ofnote,althoughthedifferenceintheimportanceratingsbetweenthemoderate

clipboardandlightclipboardintheno‐cuecontrolconditionwasinthepredicteddirection,

asinStudy1,thedifferencedidnotreachstatisticalsignificance.

CombinedAnalysis

Theresultsacrossthepresentsetofstudiesexhibitedsimilarpatternstotheinitial

effectfoundbyJostmannetal.(2009)whereamoderatelyheavyclipboardcausedgreater

ratingsofsurveytopicimportancethanalightclipboard.However,thepatternofdatain

Studies1and3replicatingtheJostmannetal.findingwasnotstatisticallysignificant.While

non‐significantresults,eventhosethataredirectionallysignificant,maybeacausefor

concernregardingtherobustnessofaneffect,itispossiblethatsuchresultsstrengthenthe

meta‐analyticcaseforaneffect(Fabrigar&Wegener,2016).Moreover,ifthelackof

statisticalsignificanceisduetounderpoweredsamplesizesinthepresentstudies,a

combinedanalysisofallthecollecteddatamayprovideamorepowerfultest.Indeed,

scholarsnotethatmeta‐analysismaybeimportanttounderstandthereliabilityand

replicabilityofaneffect(e.g.,Braver,Thoemmes,&Rosenthal,2014;Galak&Meyvis,


2012).Thus,inordertotesttherobustnessofthebasicweight‐as‐importanceeffectinthe

currentsetofstudies,thedifferenceinimportanceratingsbetweenthemoderatelyheavy

andlightclipboardwassubjectedtoacombinedanalysis.Theanalysisalsoexaminedthe

differenceinratingsofimportancebetweenthemoderatelyheavyandveryheavy

clipboardacrossthecurrentsetofstudies.Theanalysisincludedanothersetofdata

collectedusingasimilardesignthatisdescribedintheSupplementalMaterial.

Method

DataPreparation

Afirstdatafilewascreatedthatincludedclipboardcondition(lightvs.moderately

heavy),ratingsofimportance,andstudynumberinthethreestudiesaswellasthestudy

presentedintheSupplementalMaterial.Thisfileyieldedatotalof283participantsthat

wereeitherassignedtothelightormoderatelyheavyclipboardconditioninStudies1and

2ortheno‐cuecontrolconditionthatvariedalightormoderatelyheavyclipboardinStudy

3andtheSupplementalMaterialstudy.Therewere138participantsinthelightclipboard

conditionand145participantsinthemoderatelyheavyclipboardcondition.

Asimilarseconddatasetwascreatedtoassesstheoveralleffectofdifferencesin

importanceratingsbetweenthemoderatelyheavyandveryheavyclipboard.Thisdataset

containedtheclipboardcondition(moderatevs.veryheavy),ratingsofimportance,and

studynumberinStudies1and2andtheSupplementalMaterialstudy.Thisdataset

containedatotalof204participantswith100participantsinthemoderatelyheavy

clipboardconditionand104intheveryheavyclipboardcondition.

Results


AnANOVAonthefirstdatasettestedthecombineddifferencebetweenthelightand

moderatelyheavyclipboardconditiononratingsofimportance.Therewasnosignificant

interactionbetweenclipboardconditionandstudynumber,F(3,276)=.18,p>.91,ηp2=

.002,suggestingthatstudysamplesizedidnotmoderatetheeffects.Resultsrevealeda

significanteffectofclipboardweightonratingsofimportance,F(1,276)=17.75,p<.001,

ηp2=.06,suchthatthemoderatelyheavyclipboard(M=5.98,SD=.83,n=146)elicited

greaterratingsofimportancethanthelightclipboard(M=5.53,SD=.93,n=138).

AnANOVAontheseconddatasettestedthedifferencebetweentheveryheavy

clipboardconditionandthemoderatelyheavyclipboardconditiononratingsof

importance.Again,therewasnosignificantinteractionbetweenclipboardconditionand

studynumber,F(2,202)=.09,p>.91,ηp2=.001,suggestingthatstudysamplesizedidnot

moderatetheeffect.Resultsshowedasignificanteffectofclipboardweightonratingsof

importance,F(1,202)=18.08,p<.001,ηp2=.08,suchthatthemoderatelyheavyclipboard

(M=5.97,SD=.85,n=102)elicitedgreaterratingsofimportancethantheveryheavy

clipboard(M=5.39,SD=1.07,n=106).

Theresultsofthelocalcombinedanalysissuggestthat,despitethefailuretofinda

statisticallysignificantreplicationinStudies1and3,theoveralleffectofweightasan

embodimentofimportancewhencomparingthelightandmoderatelyheavyclipboardin

thepresentresearchisstatisticallyreliable.Moreover,wefoundsupportacrossthethree

studiesforthehypothesisthataveryheavyclipboardweightwillfailtoserveasan

embodimentofimportance.

GeneralDiscussion


Thepresentresearchprovidesinitialsupportforthemoderatingroleofconscious

attentioninembodiedcognition.Specifically,usingtheeffectofweightasanembodiment

ofimportance(e.g.,Ackermanetal.,2010;Jostmannetal.,2009),Studies1and2showed

thatweightincreasedperceptionsoftheimportanceofasurveytopicuptothepointwhere

theweightoftheclipboardbecamenoticeable,uponwhichimportanceratingsdecreased.

Thesefindingsareconsistentwiththeassumptionthatwhenparticipantsconsciously

recognizedtheweight,theyignoredwhattheywere"feeling"andinsteadfocusedtheir

attentionontheattributesofthejudgmenttask,inthiscase,thetopicofroad

infrastructure.Thedataalsoshowedthatthecurvilinearrelationshipbetweenweightand

importancewasnotduetochangesinattitudetowardthesurveytopicoractivationofthe

alternativemetaphorofburden.

Study3examinedifanexplicitcuedrawingattentiontotheweightwouldattenuate

embodiedprocessesunderconditionsdemonstratedtofacilitatetheeffects.Theresults

showedthat,whenperceiversweregivenanexplicitcuealertingthemtotheheftofa

moderatelyheavyclipboard,theyreportedsimilarratingsofimportancetothoseholdinga

lightclipboard,suggestingthatparticipantswerenolongerusingtheirbodyasasourceof

information.Whereasthecurrentevidenceisinlinewithpreviousscholarswhopropose

thatembodimentmaybeanimplicitresponsewhenaconceptissimulatedbasedon

previousmulti‐modalexperiences(Niedenthaletal.,2005),thepresentstudiessuggest

thatdrawingconsciousattentiontothebodyasasourceofinformationcanactivate

explicitprocessing,which,inturn,canresultinbodystatesnolongerinfluencing

metaphorically‐relatedsocialjudgments.


Therearetwopossibleprocessesbywhichperceiversmayswitchtomore

controlledprocessingwhenconsciousattentionisdrawntoabodilystate:discounting

effectandbiascorrectionprocesses.

Discountingeffects.Severallinesofresearchsuggestthatdrawingaperceiver’s

attentiontotheirbodilystatewilleliminateembodiedeffectsthroughdiscounting.For

example,researchoncognitivedissonanceshowsthatmisattributingarousaltoaplacebo

pilloranoverheatedroom,shiftstheattributionforthearousalfromaninternaltoan

externalsource,whicheliminatestheneedtoreducedissonanceviaattitudechange(e.g.,

Zanna&Cooper,1974;Fazio,Zanna,&Cooper,1977;Fried&Aronson,1995).Similarly,

researchinexcitationtransfershowsthatincidentalaffectfromonestimuluswillonly

influencesubsequentjudgmentswhenthesourceoftheinitialaffectisunknown(Zillman,

1978).Ineachcase,drawingconsciousattentiontothesourceofarousalcausespeopleto

discountotherpotentialsourcesofthearousal,suchastheirownbehavior.

Moredirectlyrelatedtothetopicofembodiedcognitioneffects,SchwarzandClore’s

mood‐as‐informationtheory(seeSchwarz,2011)postulatesthatattributingmoodto

externalsourcescandiminishdownstreamcognitions.Studiesshowthatindividualswill

reportgreaterlifesatisfactiononsunnycomparedtorainydays,butwhenattentionis

drawntotheweather,thedifferenceinratingsoflifesatisfactiondisappear,presumably

becauseparticipants"discount"thecauseoftheweatherontheirmood(Schwarz&Clore,

1983).Thus,itispossiblethatinthepresentsetofstudies,providingperceiverswith

salientenvironmentalcues,suchasanoverlyheavyclipboard,orexplicitpromptthat

drawsattentiontotheirbodilystate,causedperceiverstodiscounttheuseoftheirbody

whenjudgingtheimportanceofasurveytopic.


Correctionforbias.Drawingaperceiver’sconsciousattentiontotheirbodilystate

mayalsoactivatecorrectionprocesses.AccordingtoWegenerandPetty’sflexible

correctionmodel(FCM;1995,1997),perceiversmayremoveoravoidbiasifitisassociated

withaninfluentialfactorinthecontext.Forexample,whenexplicitinstructionsaboutthe

potentialforbiasarepresent,perceiversthengeneratenaïvetheoriesaboutthebiasand,

withabilityandmotivationtocorrect,judgmentsaboutatargetobjectmaybeadjustedin

theoppositedirectionofthebias(Petty,Wegener,&White,1998).Forexample,Wegener

andPetty(1995)showedthatperceiverswhofirstthoughtaboutthepositiveaspectsof

desirablevacationlocationssubsequentlyjudgedtargetvacationlocationsasless

desirable.However,whenperceiverswerepromptednottolettheratingsbyothers

influencetheirjudgments,theyovercorrectedandratedaveragevacationlocationsas

significantlymoredesirable.Thus,theFCMshowsthatindividualsaremotivatedtocorrect

forbiaswhentheirattentionisdrawntoinformationregardingthepresenceofbiasinthe

context.

Embodimenteffectsmayalsobesubjecttocorrectionwhensomethinginthe

contextmakesperceiversacutelyawareoftheirbodilystate.Takeninthecontextofthe

currentresearch,ifperceiversaremotivatedtocorrectfortheinfluenceofaheavyobject,

theymayshowareversaleffect,wherebytheyratetheimportanceofaneutralsurveytopic

aslessimportantthanalowembodimentcontrolcondition.Simplyincreasingtheweight

oftheclipboarditselftomakeitnoticeablyheaviermaybesufficienttoactivatecorrection

processesthatreverseweightasanembodimentofimportance.

Consciousattentionandreplicationinembodiment.Finally,thepresentresults

mayofferatheoreticalexplanationforthedifficultythatsomeresearchershavereplicating


embodiedcognitionfindings:Replicationsseemlikelytofailwhensomethinginthecontext

drawsconsciousattentiontotheperceiver’sbodilystate.Atleastwithrespecttothe

embodimentofweightasimportance,itappearsthatevenverysubtleenvironmentalcues,

liketheweightoftheclipboarditself,cancircumventtheprocess.Fromthisperspective,

attenuationofembodimentshouldoccurifasubtlecuedrewconsciousattentiontothe

temperatureofacupofcoffee(e.g.,Williams&Bargh,2008),ortothecleansmellofaroom

(e.g.,Liljenquist,Zhong,&Galinsky,2010).Clearlymoreresearchisneededtoestablishthe

replicabilityofthepresentfindings,bothwithinthepresentparadigmandwhenexamining

otherembodimentprocesses.Butatthiswriting,consciousattentionappearstofunctionas

anunderstudiedmoderatorinhowweightservesasanembodimentofimportance.

Limitationsandfuturedirections

Whereasthepresentresearchexaminedtheroleofconsciousattentionasa

moderatorofembodiment,theremayalsobesituationsinwhichawarenessofinformation

fromthebodywillincreaseembodiedprocesses.Indeed,pastresearchsuggeststhat

awarenessofinformationfromthebodycanpromotepsychologicalprocesses(e.g.,Zanna

&Cooper,1974).Futureresearchshouldexaminetheconditionsunderwhichconscious

attentionfacilitatesembodiment.Inaddition,whileveryheavyclipboardsengagemore

explicitprocessingandsubsequentlyreduceembodiment,itisunknownifveryheavy

clipboardselicitgreateranalyticalthinkingorareexperiencedasobjectivelyheavy.Future

researchshouldexaminetheseassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentresearch.

Itisalsoimportanttoconsidertheroleofmotivationalstatesinembodiment

processes.HauserandSchwarz(2015)foundthatindividualshighincognitivemotivation

showincreasedratingsofimportancewhenholdingabookaboutwhichtheypossess


knowledge.However,itisunclearhowcognitivemotivationstatesimpactembodied

processesforcontextualcuesthatpromoteexplicitprocessing,suchasaveryheavy

clipboard.Itispossiblethatindividualshighincognitivemotivationshowanevenmore

robustdecreaseinratingsofimportancewhenholdingaveryheavyclipboardcomparedto

thosewhoholdalightclipboard.Moreover,itispossiblethatindividualswhoarelowin

cognitivemotivationaremorelikelytouseaveryheavyclipboardasacuethatheftequals

importance,andratetopicswhileholdingamuchheavierclipboardassignificantlymore

importantthanwhenholdingalightclipboardbecausetheirattentionisnotdrawntotheir

bodilystateunderveryheavyclipboardconditions.Additionally,weightmayserveasa

simplecueofimportanceforthosewhoheuristicallyprocessinformation,yetmoderately

heavyweightmayalsoasastrongsourceofinfluenceforthosewhoaremotivatedand

havetheabilitytoelaborate.Thus,theroleofabilityandmotivationtoengageinhigh

levelsofinformationprocessingmayserveasanotherkeymoderatorofembodied

cognition.Moreresearchisneededtoexaminethesepossibilities.

Conclusions

Scholarshavenotedtheimportanceofuncoveringtheoreticalboundaryconditions

toembodiedeffects(e.g.,Meieretal.,2012).Inresponsetothiscall,thecurrentresearch

suggeststhataswithmanyothereffectsinsocialcognition,theroleofconsciousattention

mayserveasimportantfunctioninembodiedcognition.Thisinformationnotonlybetter

informstheconditionsunderwhichthebodycaninfluencethemind,butitalsoprovides

perceiverswiththeabilitytocounteractseeminglyautomaticresponsestoenvironmental

cuesthatmanipulatetheirbodilystates.


Figure1.RatingsofimportancebyclipboardconditioninStudy1.

Note.Theerrorbarsrepresentstandarderrorsofthemean.

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Light ModeratelyHeavy VeryHeavy

RatingsofImportance

Clipboard Weight


Figure2.RatingsofimportancebyattributioncueandclipboardconditioninStudy3.

Note.Theerrorbarsrepresentstandarderrorsofthemean.

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5

7

Light Moderately Heavy

Rat

ings

of

Impo

rtan

ce

ClipboardWeight

WeightCue

Control


Table1.RatingsofimportanceandburdenbyclipboardconditioninStudy2. Clipboard Weight

Light Moderately Heavy

Heavy Very Heavy

Extremely Heavy

Importance Mean (SD)

5.57 (1.01)

6.13 (.84)

6.03 (.77)

5.51 (1.27)

5.46 (1.02)

Burden Mean (SD)

3.11 (1.53)

3.45 (1.94)

3.17 (1.54)

3.17 (1.79)

3.35 (1.67)


References

Ackerman,J.M.,Nocera,C.C.,&Bargh,J.A.(2010).Incidentalhapticsensationsinfluence

socialjudgmentsanddecisions.Science,328,1712‐1715.doi:

10.1126/science.1189993

Barsalou,L.W.(1999).Perceptualsymbolsystems.BehavioralandBrainSciences,22,577‐

609.doi:10.1017/S0140525X99532147

Barsalou,L.W.(2003).Situatedsimulationinthehumanconceptualsystem.Languageand

CognitiveProcesses,18,513‐562.doi:10.1080/01690960344000026

Barsalou,L.W.(2008).Groundedcognition.AnnualReviewofPsychology,59,617‐645.doi:

10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639

Bohannon,J.(2014).Replicationeffortprovokespraise—and‘bullying’charges.Science,

344,788‐789.doi:10.1126/science.344.6186.788

Borghi,A.M.,Binkofski,F.,Castelfranchi,C.,Cimatti,F.,Scorolli,C.,&Tummolini,L.(2016).

Thechallengeofabstractconcepts.PsychologicalBulletin,143,263‐292.doi:

10.1037/bul0000089

Boroditsky,L.,&Prinz,J.(2008).Whatthoughtsaremadeof.InG.R.Semin&E.R.Smith

(Eds.),Embodiedgrounding:Social,cognitive,affective,andneuroscientific

approaches(pp.98‐118).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Braver,S.L.,Thoemmes,F.J.,&Rosenthal,R.(2014).Continuouslycumulatingmeta‐

analysisandreplicability.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,9,333‐342.doi:

10.1177/1745691614529796


Chaiken,S.(1980).Heuristicversussystematicinformationprocessingandtheuseof

sourceversusmessagecuesinpersuasion.JournalofPersonalityandSocial

Psychology,39,752‐766.doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.39.5.752

Chaiken,S.,&Trope,Y.(Eds.).(1999).Dual‐processtheoriesinsocialpsychology.NewYork,

NY:GuilfordPress.

Chandler,J.J.,Reinhard,D.,&Schwarz,N.(2012).Tojudgeabookbyitsweightyouneedto

knowitscontent:Knowledgemoderatestheuseofembodiedcues.Journalof

ExperimentalSocialPsychology,48,948‐952.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.003

Craig,A.D.(2004).Humanfeelings:Whyaresomemoreawarethanothers?TRENDSin

CognitiveSciences,8,239‐241.doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.04.004

Damasio,A.(2001).Fundamentalfeelings.Nature,413,781‐782.doi:10.1038/35101669

Ebersole,C.R.,Atherton,O.E.,Belanger,A.L.,Skulborstad,H.M.,Allen,J.M.,Banks,J.B…&

Nosek,B.A.(2016).ManyLabs3:Evaluatingparticipantpoolqualityacrossthe

academicsemesterviareplication.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,67,68‐

82.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012

Epstein,S.&Pacini,R.(1999).Somebasicissuesregardingdual‐processtheoriesfromthe

perspectiveofthecognitive‐experientialself‐theory.InS.Chaiken,&Y.Trope(Eds.),

Dual‐processtheoriesinsocialpsychology(pp.462‐482).NewYork,NY:Guilford

Press.

Fabrigar,L.R.,&Wegener,D.T.(2016).Conceptualizingandevaluatingthereplicationof

researchresults.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,66,68‐80.doi:

10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009


Fazio,R.H.(1990).Multipleprocessesbywhichattitudesguidebehavior:TheMODEmodel

asanintegrativeframework.InM.P.Zanna(Ed.),Advancesinexperimentalsocial

psychology,(Vol.23,pp.75‐109).SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.

Fazio,R.H.,Zanna,M.P.,&Cooper,J.(1977).Dissonanceandself‐perception:An

integrativeviewofeachtheory’sproperdomainofapplication.Journalof

ExperimentalSocialPsychology,13,464‐479.doi:10.1016/0022‐1031(77)90031‐2

Fiske,S.T.,&Neuberg,S.L.(1990).Acontinuumofimpressionformation,fromcategory‐

basedtoindividuatingprocesses:Influencesofinformationandmotivationon

attentionandinterpretation.AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,23,1‐74.

doi:10.1016/s0065‐2601(08)60317‐2

Fodor,J.A.(1983).Themodularityofmind.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Fried,C.B.,&Aronson,E.(1995).Hypocrisy,misattribution,anddissonancereduction.

PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,21,925‐933.doi:

10.1177/0146167295219007

Galak,J.,&Meyvis,T.(2012).Youcouldhavejustasked:ReplytoFrancis(2012).

PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,7,595‐596.doi:10.1177/1745691612463079

Gawronski,B.,&Bodenhausen,G.V.(2006).Associativeandpropositionalprocessesin

evaluation:Anintegrativereviewofimplicitandexplicitattitudeschange.

PsychologicalBulletin,132,692‐731.doi:10.1037/0033‐2909.132.5.692

GibbsJr.,R.W.(2014).Conceptualmetaphorinthoughtandsocialaction.InM.J.Landau,

M.D.Robinson,&B.P.Meier(Eds).Thepowerofmetaphor:Examiningitsinfluence

onsociallife(pp.17‐40).Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.


Hadley,R.,Ring,C.,Gold,M.,&Daubman,K.(2013,February23).Clipboardweightdidnot

effectissueseriousness.Retrievedfrom

http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTUx

Häfner,M.(2013).Whenthebodyandmindaretalking:Interoceptionmoderates

embodiedcognition.ExperimentalPsychology,60,255‐259.doi:10.1027/1618‐

3169/a000194

Hauser,D.J.,&Schwarz,N.(2015).Elaborativethinkingincreasestheimpactofphysical

weightonimportancejudgments.SocialCognition,33,120‐132.doi:

10.1521/soco.2015.33.2.120

James,W.(1884).Whatisanemotion?Mind,9,188‐205.doi:10.1093/mind/os‐ix.34.188

Johnson,D.J.,Wortman,J.,Cheung,F.,Hein,M.,Lucas,R.E.,Donnellan,M.B...Narr,R.K.

(2016).Theeffectsofdisgustonmoraljudgments:Testingmoderators.Social

PsychologicalandPersonalityScience,7,640‐647.doi:10.1177/1948550616654211

Jostmann,N.(2013,March22).Clipboardweightdidnotaffectcogn.elaboration.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU0

Jostmann,N.B.,Lakens,D.,&Schubert,T.W.(2009).Weightasanembodimentof

importance.PsychologicalScience,20,1169‐1174.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐

9280.2009.02426.x

Kaspar,K.(2013).Aweightymatter:Heavinessinfluencestheevaluationofdisease

severity,drugeffectiveness,andsideeffects.PLoSOne,8,e78307.doi:

10.1371/journal.pone.0078307

Lackoff,G.,&Johnson,M.(1980).Metaphorsweliveby.Chicago,IL:TheUniversityof

ChicagoPress.


Lackoff,G.,&Johnson,M.(1999).Philosophyintheflesh:Theembodiedmindandits

challengetowesternthought.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.

Landau,M.J.,Meier,B.P.,&Keefer,L.A.(2010).Ametaphor‐enrichedsocialcognition.

PsychologicalBulletin,136,1045‐1067.doi:10.1037/a0020970

Lee,S.W.,&Schwarz,N.(2012).Bidirectionality,mediation,andmoderationof

metaphoricaleffects:Theembodimentofsocialsuspicionandfishysmells.Journal

ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,103,737‐749.doi:10.1037/a0029708

Liljenquist,K.,Zhong,C.,&Galinsky,A.D.(2010).Thesmellofvirtue:Cleanscentspromote

reciprocityandcharity.PsychologicalScience,21,381‐383.doi:

10.1177/0956797610361426

Lynott,D.,Corker,K.S.,Wortman,J.,Connell,L.,Donnellan,M.B.,Lucas,R.E.,&O’Brien,K.

(2014).Replicationof“Experiencingphysicalwarmthpromotesinterpersonal

warmth”byWilliamsandBargh(2008).SocialPsychology,45,216‐222.doi:

10.1027/1864‐9335/a000187

Magnini,V.P.,&Kim,S.(2016).Theinfluencesofrestaurantmenufontstyle,background

color,andphysicalweightonconsumers’perceptions.InternationalJournalof

HospitalityManagement,53,42‐48.doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.001

Meier,B.P.,Schnall,S.,Schwarz,N.,&Bargh,J.A.(2012).Embodimentinsocialpsychology.

TopicsinCognitiveScience,4,705‐716.doi:10.1111/j.1756‐8765.2012.01212.x

Newell,A.&Simon,H.A.(1972).Humanproblemsolving.Oxford,England:PrenticeHall.

Niedenthal,P.M.,Barsalou,L.W.,Winkielman,P.,Krauth‐Gruber,S.,&Ric,F.(2005).

Embodimentinattitudes,socialperception,andemotion.PersonalityandSocial

PsychologyReview,9,184‐211.doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1


OpenScienceCollaboration(2015).Estimatingthereproducibilityofpsychologicalscience.

Science,349(6251).DOI:10.1126/science.aac4716

Petty,R.E.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(1986).Theelaborationlikelihoodmodelofpersuasion.New

York:Springer.

Petty,R.E.,Wegener,D.T.,&White,P.H.(1998).Flexiblecorrectionprocessesinsocial

judgment:Implicationsforpersuasion.SocialCognition,16,93‐113.doi:

10.1521/soco.1998.16.1.93

Piqueras‐Fiszman,B.,Harrar,V.,Alcaide,J.,&Spence,C.(2011).Doestheweightofthedish

influenceourperceptionoffood?FoodQualityandPreference,22,753‐756.doi:

10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.009

Piqueras‐Fiszman,B.,&Spence,C.(2012).Theweightofthecontainerinfluencesexpected

satiety,perceiveddensity,andsubsequentexpectedfullness.Appetite,58,559‐562.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.12.021

Rabelo,A.L.A.,Keller,V.N.,Pilati,R.,&Wicherts,J.M.(2015).Noeffectofweighton

judgmentsofimportanceinthemoraldomainandevidenceofpublicationbiasfrom

ameta‐analysis.PLoSONE,10,e0134808.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134808

Schnall,S.,Haidt,J.,Clore,G.L.,&Jordan,A.(2008).Disgustasembodiedmoraljudgment.

PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,34,1096‐1109.doi:

10.1177/0146167208317771

Schneider,I.K.,Parzuchowski,M.,Wojciszke,B.,Schwarz,N.,&Koole,S.L.(2014).Weighty

data:Importanceinformationinfluencesestimatedweightofdigitalinformation

storagedevices.FrontiersinPsychology,5,1536.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01536


Schneider,I.R.,Rutjens,B.T.,Jostmann,N.B.,&Lakens,D.(2011).Weightymatters

importanceliterallyfeelsheavy.SocialPsychologicalandPersonalityScience,2,474‐

478.doi:10.1177/1948550610397895

Schwarz,N.(2011).Feelings‐as‐informationtheory.InP.VanLange,A.Kruglanski,&E.T.

Higgins(Eds.)Handbookoftheoriesofsocialpsychology(VolI.,pp.289‐308.Sage.

Schwarz,N.,&Clore,G.L.(1983).Mood,misattribution,andjudgmentsofwell‐being:

Informativeanddirectivefunctionsofaffectivestates.JournalofPersonalityand

SocialPsychology,45,513‐523.doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.45.3.513

Slepian,M.L.,Masicampo,E.J.,Tobsi,N.R.,&Ambady,N.(2012).Thephysicalburdensof

secrecy.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,141,619‐624.doi:

10.1037/a0027598

Smith,E.R.,&Semin,G.R.(2004).Sociallysituatedcognition:Cognitioninitssocial

context.AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,36,53‐117.doi:

10.1016/s0065‐2601(04)36002‐8

Stanovich,K.E.,&West,R.F.(2000).Individualdifferencesinreasoning:Implicationsfor

therationalitydebate.BehavioralandBrainSciences,23,645‐665.doi:

10.1017/s0140525x00003435

Stewart,K.,McVeigh,M.,Stojkov,I.,&Daubman,K.(2012,September24).Heavyissuesare

moreimportant.Retrievedfrom

http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTMy

Wegener,D.T.,&Petty,R.E.(1995).Flexiblecorrectionprocessesinsocialjudgment:The

roleofnaïvetheoriesincorrectionsforperceivedbias.JournalofPersonalityand

SocialPsychology,68,36‐51.doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.68.1.36


Wegener,D.T.,&Petty,R.E.(1997).Theflexiblecorrectionmodel:Theroleofnaive

theoriesofbiasinbiascorrection.AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,29,

141‐208.doi:10.1016/s0065‐2601(08)60017‐9

Wegener,D.T.,&Petty,R.E.(2001).Ontheuseofnaïvetheoriesofbiastoremoveoravoid

bias:Theflexiblecorrectionmodel.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,28,378‐383.

Wells,G.L.,&Petty,R.E.(1980).Theeffectsofoverheadmovementsonpersuasion:

Compatibilityandincompatibilityofresponses.BasicandAppliedSocialPsychology,

1,219‐230.doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0103_2

Williams,L.E.,&Bargh,J.A.(2008).Experiencingphysicalwarmthpromotesinterpersonal

warmth.Science,322,606‐607.doi:10.1126/science.1162548

Wortman,J.,Donnellan,M.B.,&Lucas,R.E.(2014).Canphysicalwarmth(orcoldness)

predicttraitloneliness?AreplicationofBarghandShalev(2012).Archivesof

ScientificPsychology,2,13‐19.doi:10.1037/arc0000007

Zanna,M.P.,&Cooper,J.(1974).Dissonanceandthepill:Anattributionapproachto

studyingthearousalpropertiesofdissonance.JournalofPersonalityandSocial

Psychology,29,703‐709.doi:10.1037/h0036651

Zillman,D.(1978).Attributionandmisattributionofexcitatoryreactions.InJ.H.Harvey,W.

I.Ickes,&R.F.Kidd(Eds.),Newdirectionsinattributionresearch(Vol.2,pp.335‐

368).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.


Footnotes

1Ackermanetal.(2010)andChandleretal.(2012)foundthatweightservesasan

embodimentofimportancefortopicsindividualspossessknowledgeabout.Thus,wechose

atopicthatwebelievedthemajorityofparticipantswouldbefamiliarwith.

2FollowingJostmannetal.(2009),participantsheldontotheclipboardwiththeirnon‐

dominanthand.

3Genderandagewillnolongerbediscussedintheresultsbecausetherewerenoobserved

effectsofthesevariablesinthefirsttwostudies.

running head: conscious attention in embodiment...

Documents