Coding valence in touchscreen interactions: hand dominance and lateral movement influence valence appraisals of emotional pictures

  • Sergio Cervera TorresEmail author
  • Susana Ruiz Fernández
  • Martin Lachmair
  • Peter Gerjets
Original Article


The Body-Specificity Hypothesis postulates that the space surrounding the dominant hand is perceived as positive due to the motor fluency of this hand, whereas the space surrounding the non-dominant hand is perceived as negative. Experimental studies based on this theoretical framework also revealed associations between affective valence and hand dominance (i.e., dominant hand—positive; non-dominant hand—negative), or lateral movements of the hands (i.e., right hand toward the right space—positive; left hand toward the left space—positive). Interestingly, these associations have not been examined with regard to how lateral actions of the hands may influence affective experiences as, for example, in valence appraisals of affective objects that have been manipulated. The study presented here has considered this question in light of the emerging interest of embodied cognition approaches to interactive technologies, particularly in affective experiences with touchscreen interfaces. Accordingly, right-handed participants evaluated the valence of positive and negative emotional pictures after interacting with them either with the dominant right or with the non-dominant left hand. Specifically, they moved the pictures either from left to right or from right to left sides of a touchscreen monitor. The results indicated that a valence matching between the hand used for the interactions, the picture’s valence category, and the movement’s starting side reinforced the valence appraisals of the pictures (i.e., positive/negative pictures were more positively/negatively evaluated). The findings are discussed against the background of the Theory of Event Coding, which accounts for both the affective properties of the stimuli and the affective connotation of the related action.


Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Helsinki declaration 1964 and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data, and informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Data availability

The dataset generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the Figshare repository,,


  1. Abrams, R. A., Davoli, C. C., Du, F., Knapp, W. H., & Paull, D. (2008). Altered vision near the hands. Cognition, 107(3), 1035–1047.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modelling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59(4), 390–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bamford, S., & Ward, R. (2008). Predispositions to approach and avoid are contextually sensitive and goal dependent. Emotion, 8(2), 174–183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Beilock, S. L., & Holt, L. E. (2007). Embodied preference judgments: Can likeability be driven by the motor system? Psychological Science, 18(1), 51–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brouillet, D., Milhau, A., & Brouillet, T. (2015). When “good” is not always right: Effect of the consequences of motor action on valence-space associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 237. Scholar
  8. Cannon, P. R., Hayes, A. E., & Tipper, S. P. (2010). Sensorimotor fluency influences affect: Evidence from electromyography. Cognition and Emotion, 24(4), 681–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carey, D. P., Hargreaves, E. L., & Goodale, M. A. (1996). Reaching to ipsilateral or contralateral targets: Within-hemisphere visuomotor processing cannot explain hemispatial differences in motor control. Experimental Brain Research, 112(3), 496–504.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Carr, E. W., Rotteveel, M., & Winkielman, P. (2016). Easy moves: Perceptual fluency facilitates approach-related action. Emotion, 16(4), 540–552.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right-and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casasanto, D., & Chrysikou, E. G. (2011). When left is “right”: Motor fluency shapes abstract concepts. Psychological Science, 22(4), 419–422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Casasanto, D., & Henetz, T. (2012). Handedness shapes children’s abstract concepts. Cognitive Science, 36(2), 359–372.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Clore, G. L., & Schnall, S. (2008). Affective coherence: Affect as embodied evidence in attitude, advertising, and art. In G. R. Semin & E. Smith (Eds.), Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific approaches (pp. 211–236). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de la Vega, I., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., & Kaup, B. (2012). Emotional valence and physical space: Limits of interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 375–385.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. de la Vega, I., Dudschig, C., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., & Kaup, B. (2013). Keep your hands crossed: The valence-by-left/right interaction is related to hand, not side, in an incongruent hand-response key assignment. Acta psychologica, 142(2), 273–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Eder, A. B., Müsseler, J., & Hommel, B. (2012). The structure of affective action representations: Temporal binding of affective response codes. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 76(1), 111–118.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Farr, W., Price, S., & Jewitt, C. (2012, February). An introduction to embodiment and digital technology research: Interdisciplinary themes and perspectives (NCRM Working Paper). National Centre for Research Methods. Retrieved on 2 September 2017 from
  20. Freddi, S., Brouillet, T., Cretenet, J., Heurley, L. P., & Dru, V. (2016). A continuous mapping between space and valence with left-and right-handers. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 23(3), 865–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Gao, Y., Bianchi-Berthouze, N., & Meng, H. (2012). What does touch tell us about emotions in touchscreen-based gameplay? ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction (TOCHI), 19, 4. Scholar
  22. Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., & Rinck, M. (2007). Emotion simulation during language comprehension. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14(3), 436–441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hayes, A. E., Paul, M. A., Beuger, B., & Tipper, S. P. (2008). Self produced and observed actions influence emotion: The roles of action fluency and eye gaze. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 72(4), 461–472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Hommel, B. (2015). The theory of event coding (TEC) as embodied-cognition framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1318. Scholar
  25. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jacob, R. J., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L. M., Horn, M. S., Shaer, O., Solovey, E. T., & Zigelbaum, J. (2008). Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy (pp. 201–210). New York, NY: ACM publisher.Google Scholar
  27. Kong, F. (2013). Space–valence associations depend on handedness: Evidence from a bimanual output task. Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 77(6), 773–779.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraus, A. A., & Hofmann, W. (2013). Getting in touch with motivation: The swipe approach-avoidance procedure (SwAAP). Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  29. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2005). International affective picture system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical Report A-6. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida.Google Scholar
  30. 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 and Emotion, 6(5), 321–338.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Milhau, A., Brouillet, T., & Brouillet, D. (2013). Biases in evaluation of neutral words due to motor compatibility effect. Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 243–249.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Milhau, A., Brouillet, T., & Brouillet, D. (2015). Valence–space compatibility effects depend on situated motor fluency in both right- and left-handers. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(5), 887–899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Milhau, A., Brouillet, T., Dru, V., Coello, Y., & Brouillet, D. (2017). Valence activates motor fluency simulation and biases perceptual judgment. Psychological Research, 81(4), 795–805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Niedenthal, P. M. (2007). Embodying emotion. Science, 316(5827), 1002–1005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Niedenthal, P. M., Winkielman, P., Mondillon, L., & Vermeulen, N. (2009). Embodiment of emotion concepts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1120–1136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 97–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Picard, R. W. (2003). Affective computing: Challenges. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59(1), 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ping, R. M., Dhillon, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2009). Reach for what you like: The body’s role in shaping preferences. Emotion Review, 1(2), 140–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salmaso, D., & Longoni, A. M. (1985). Problems in the assessment of hand preference. Cortex, 21(4), 533–549.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Schwarz, N. (2001). Feelings as information: Implications for affective influences on information processing. In L. L. Martin & G. L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood and cognition: A users handbook (pp. 159–176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Shah, S., Teja, J. N., & Bhattacharya, S. (2015). Towards affective touch interaction: Predicting mobile user emotion from finger strokes. Journal of Interaction Science, 3, 6. Scholar
  42. Söderkvist, S., Ohlén, K., & Dimberg, U. (2017). How the experience of emotion is modulated by facial feedback. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior. Scholar
  43. Strack, F., Martin, L. 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(5), 768–777.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Wagenmakers, E. J., Beek, T., Dijkhoff, L., Gronau, Q. F., Acosta, A., Adams, R. B. Jr., et al. (2016). Registered replication report: Strack, Martin, & Stepper (1988). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(6), 917–928.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. West, B. T., Welch, K. B., & Galecki, A. T. (2014). Linear mixed models: A practical guide using statistical software. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wigdor, D., & Wixon, D. (2011). Brave NUI world: Designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture. Burlington, MA: Elsevier & Morgan Kaufman.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Winkielman, P., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2001). Mind at ease puts a smile on the face: Psychophysiological evidence that processing facilitation elicits positive affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 989–1000.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 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: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leibniz-Institut für WissensmedienTübingenGermany
  2. 2.LEAD Graduate School and Research NetworkEberhard Karls University of TübingenTübingenGermany

Personalised recommendations