The position of individuals' bodies (e.g., holding a pencil in the mouth in a way that either facilitates or inhibits smiling musculature) can influence their emotional reactions to the stimuli they encounter, and can even impact their explicit preferences for one item over another. In this article we begin by reviewing the literature demonstrating these effects, explore mechanisms to explain this body-preference link, and introduce new work from our lab that asks whether one's bodily or motor experiences might also shape preferences in situations where the body is not contorted in a particular position, or when there is no intention to act. Such work suggests that one consequence of perceiving an object is the automatic and covert motor simulation of acting on this object. This, in turn, provides individuals with information about how easy or hard this action would be. It transpires that we like to do what is easy, and we also prefer objects that are easier to act on. The notion that judgments of object likeability are driven by motoric information furthers embodied cognition theories by demonstrating that even our preferences are grounded in action.
Beilock, S.L. (2008). Beyond the playing field: Sport psychology meets embodied cognition. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 1(1), 19-30.
3.
Beilock, S.L., & Holt, L.E. (2007). Embodied preference judgments: Can likeability be driven by the motor system? Psychological Science, 18, 51-57.
4.
Beilock, S.L., Lyons, I.M., Mattarella-Micke, A., Nusbaum, H.C., & Small, S.L. (2008). Sports experience changes the neural processing of action language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 13269-13273.
5.
Borghi, A.M. (2004). Objects, concepts, and action: Extracting affordances from objects' parts. Acta Psychologica, 115(1), 69-96.
6.
Cacioppo, J.T., Priester, J.R., & Berntson, G.G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes. II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5-17.
7.
Centerbar, D., & Clore, G.L. (2006). Do approach-avoidance actions create attitudes ? Psychological Science, 17, 22-29.
8.
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.
9.
Clore, G.L., & Schnall, S. (2008). Affective coherence: Affect as embodied evidence in attitude, advertising, and art. In G. R. Semin & E. R. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 211-236). New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
Cohen, R.G., & Rosenbaum, D.A. (2004). Where objects are grasped reveals how grasps are planned: Generation and recall of grasps. Experimental Brain Research, 157, 486-495.
Creem, S.H., & Proffitt, D.R. (2001). Grasping objects by their handles: A necessary interaction between cognition and action. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27, 218-228.
13.
Flach, R., Knoblich, G., & Prinz, W. (2004). Recognizing one's own clapping: The role of temporal cues in self-recognition. Psychological Research, 11, 147-156.
14.
Gerlach, C., Law, I., & Paulson, O.B. (2002). When action turns into words: Activation of motor-based knowledge during categorization of manipulable objects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1230-1239.
15.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. London: Erlbaum.
16.
Glenberg, A.M., & Kaschak, M.P. (2002). Grounding language in action. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 558-565.
17.
Glenberg, A.M., Webster, B., Mouilso, E., Havas, D., & Lindeman, L. (2009). Gender, emotion, and the embodiment of language comprehension. Emotion Review, 1(2), 151-161.
18.
Grafton, S., Fadiga, L., Arbib, M., & Rizzolatti, G. (1997). Premotor cortex activation during observation and naming of familiar tools. Neuroimage , 6, 231-236.
19.
Grafton, S.T., & Hamilton, A.F. (2007). Evidence for a distributed hierarchy of action representation in the brain. Human Movement Science, 26, 590-616.
20.
Hamilton, A., Wolpert, D.M., & Frith, U. (2004). Your own action influences how you perceive another person's action. Current Biology, 14, 493-498.
21.
Hauk, O., Johnsrude, I., & Pulvermüller, F. (2004). Somatotopic representation of action words in the motor and premotor cortex. Neuron, 41, 301-307.
22.
Havas, D.A., Glenberg, A.M., & Rinck, M. (2007). Emotion simulation during language comprehension . Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 436-441.
23.
Jacobs, A., & Shiffrar, M. (2005). Walking perception by walking observers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 157-169.
24.
Klatzky, R., Pellegrino, J., Mccloskey, B., & Doherty, S. (1989). Can you squeeze a tomato? The role of motor representations in semantic sensibility judgments. Journal of Memory and Language , 28(1), 56-77.
25.
Knoblich, G., & Flach, R. (2001). Predicting the effects of actions: Interactions of perception and action. Psychological Science, 12, 467-472.
26.
Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2006). The social nature of perception and action. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(3), 99-104.
27.
Larsen, R.J., Kasimatis, M., & Frey, K. (1992). Facilitating the furrowed brow: An unobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis applied to unpleasant affect. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 321-338.
28.
Loula, F., Prasad, S., Harber, K., & Shiffrar, M. (2005). Recognizing people from their movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 210-220.
29.
Niedenthal, P.M., Barsalou, L.W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 184-211.
30.
Niedenthal, P.M., Brauer, M., Halberstadt, J.B., & Innes-Ker, A.H. (2001). When did her smile drop? Facial mimicry and the influence of emotional state on the detection of change in emotional expression. Cognition & Emotion, 15, 853-864.
31.
Priester, J.R., Cacioppo, J.T., & Petty, R.E. (1996). The influence of motor processes on attitudes toward novel versus familiar semantic stimuli. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 442-447.
32.
Prinz, W. (1997). Perception and action planning. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 9, 129-154.
33.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 364-382.
34.
Reed, C.L., & Farah, M.J. (1995). The psychological reality of the body schema: A test with normal participants. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 334-343.
35.
Reed, C.L., Grubb, J.D., & Steele, C. (2006). Hands up: Attentional prioritization of space near the hand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(1), 166-177.
36.
Reed, C.L., & McGoldrick, J.E. (2007). Action during body perception: Processing time affects self-other correspondences. Social Neuroscience, 2(2), 134-149.
37.
Repp, B.H., & Knoblich, G. (2004). Perceiving action identity: How pianists recognize their own performances. Psychological Science, 15, 604-609.
38.
Rieger, M. (2004). Automatic keypress activation in skilled typing . Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 555-565.
39.
Rieger, M. (2007). Letters as visual action-effects in skilled typing . Acta Psychologica, 126(2), 138-153.
40.
Rumelhart, D.E., & Norman, D.A. (1982). Simulating a skilled typist: A study of skilled cognitive-motor performance. Cognitive Science, 6, 1-36.
41.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G.L. (1996). Feelings and phenomenal experiences. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 433-465). New York: Guilford .
42.
Strack, F., & Förster, J. (1997). Motor actions in retrieval of valenced information: A motor congruence effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 85, 1419-1427.
43.
Strack, F., & Förster, J. (1998). Motor actions in retrieval of valenced information: II. Boundary conditions for motor congruence effects. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 86, 1423-1426.
44.
Strack, F., Martin, L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 768-777.
45.
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.
46.
Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (1998). On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(3), 830-846.
47.
Van den Bergh, O., Vrana, S., & Eelen, P. (1990). Letters from the heart: Affective categorization of letter combinations in typists and nontypists. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, Cognition, 16, 1153-1161.
48.
Wells, G.L., & Petty, R.E. (1980). The effects of overt head movements on persuasion: Compatibility and incompatibility of responses. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 219-230.
49.
Wexler, M., Kosslyn, S.M., & Berthoz, A. (1998). Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition, 68(1), 77-94.
50.
Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on your face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81, 989-1000.
51.
Yang, S., Gallo, D.A., & Beilock, S.L. (under review). Embodied memory judgments: A case of motor fluency .
52.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences . American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
53.
Zwaan, R.A., & Taylor, L.J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(1), 1-11.
