Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The spatial representation of power in children

  • Research Report
  • Published:
Cognitive Processing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous evidence demonstrates that power is mentally represented as vertical space by adults. However, little is known about how power is mentally represented in children. The current research examines such representations. The influence of vertical information (motor cues) was tested in both an explicit power evaluation task (judge whether labels refer to powerless or powerful groups) and an incidental task (judge whether labels refer to people or animals). The results showed that when power was explicitly evaluated, vertical motor responses interfered with responding in children and adults, i.e., they responded to words representing powerful groups faster with the up than the down cursor key (and vice versa for powerless groups). However, this interference effect disappeared in the incidental task in children. The findings suggest that children have developed a spatial representation of power before they have been taught power–space associations formally, but that they do not judge power spontaneously.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. As a note of caution, we want to point out that Dahl and Adachi, 2013 did not control for the bodily height of the individual chimpanzees. In the animal world, an animal’s power is often determined by its body size. Therefore, it is possible that high-ranked individuals were taller than the low-ranked individuals and subjects were accustomed to looking up at them in their daily lives. Thus, even if identity discrimination did not activate up–down image schema, responses would also be facilitated when the participants looked up at the high-ranked individuals displayed in the higher locations of the test.

  2. We chose to present the analysis of only the children data first because only the children’s data are original; the adult data have been reported before by Jiang et al. (2015). Also note that we do not include the method factor animal versus human target in the analysis in order to not complicate Results section. Effects were always in the same direction for both, but in general somewhat stronger for human targets than animal targets. Further details can be obtained from the corresponding author.

  3. The analysis revealed a number of additional significant effects. The main effect of group was significant, F(1, 46) = 64.12, p < .001, η 2p  = .58, indicating that children gave slower responses than adults. We also found that participants responded faster to words representing powerful groups than words representing powerless groups, F(1, 46) = 6.52, p = .014, η 2p  = .12, and pressing the down key was slower than pressing the up key, F(1, 46) = 5.86, p = .019, η 2p  = .11.

  4. The main effect of group was significant, F(1, 46) = 12.92, p = .001, η 2p  = .22, indicating that children made more errors than adults.

  5. The analysis revealed several additional significant effects. The main effect of group was significant, F(1, 46) = 77.47, p < .001, η 2p  = .63, indicating that children gave slower responses than adults. We also found that judgments of words representing powerless groups were slower than judgments of words representing powerful groups, F(1, 46) = 6.31, p = .016, η 2p  = .12.

  6. Children made fewer errors for words representing powerful groups than words representing powerless groups, F(1, 23) = 5.69, p = .026, η 2p  = .20.

  7. The analysis revealed a number of significant effects. The main effect of group was significant, F(1, 46) = 8.16, p = .006, η 2p  = .15, indicating that children made more errors than adults. Participants made more errors on judgments of words representing powerless groups than words representing powerful groups, F(1, 46) = 10.38, p = .002, η 2p  = .18.

References

  • Barsalou LW (1999) Perceptual symbol systems. Behav Brain Sci 22:577–609

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou LW (2008) Cognitive and neural contributions to understanding the conceptual system. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 17:91–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berch DB, Foley EJ, Hill RJ, Ryan PMD (1999) Extracting parity and magnitude from Arabic numerals: developmental changes in number processing and mental representation. J Exp Child Psychol 74:286–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brey E, Shutts K (2015) Children use nonverbal cues to make inferences about social power. Child Dev 86:276–286

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Casasanto D (2014) Experiential origins of mental metaphors: Language, culture, and the body. In: Landau M, Robinson MD, Meier BP (eds) The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life. American Psychological Association, Washington, pp 249–268

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Charafeddine R, Mercier H, Clément F, Kaufmann L, Berchtold A, Reboul A, Van der Henst J-B (2015) How preschoolers use cues of dominance to make sense of their social environment. J Cognit Dev 16:587–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiao JY (2010) Neural basis of social status hierarchy across species. Curr Opin Neurobiol 20:803–809

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chiao JY, Harada T, Oby ER, Li Z, Parrish T, Bridge DJ (2009) Neural representations of social status hierarchy in human inferior parietal cortex. Neuropsychologia 47:354–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl CD, Adachi I (2013) Conceptual metaphorical mapping in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). eLife 2013:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene S, Dupoux E, Mehler J (1990) Is numerical comparison digital? Analogical and symbolic effects in two-digit number comparison. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16:626–641

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dehaene S, Bossini S, Giraux P (1993) The mental representation of parity and number magnitude. J Exp Psychol Gen 122:371–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dienes Z, Perner J (1999) A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behav Brain Sci 22:735–808

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer MH (2003) Spatial representations in number processing: evidence from a pointing task. Vis Cognit 10:493–508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer MH, Castel AD, Dodd MD, Pratt J (2003) Perceiving numbers causes spatial shifts of attention. Nat Neurosci 6:555–556

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galfano G, Rusconi E, Umilta C (2006) Number magnitude orients attention, but not against ones will. Psychon Bull Rev 13:869–874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galinsky AD, Gruenfeld D, Magee JC (2003) From power to action. J Pers Soc Psychol 85:453–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs RW (1994) The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Giessner SR, Schubert TW (2007) High in the hierarchy: how vertical location and judgments of leaders’ power are interrelated. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 104:30–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glenberg AM (1997) What memory is for. Behav Brain Sci 20:1–55

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hommel B, Musseler J, Aschersleben G, Prinz W (2001) The theory of event coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. Behav Brain Sci 24:849–937

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard EM, Piazza M, Pinel P, Dehaene S (2005) Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex. Nat Rev Neurosci 6:435–448

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ijzerman H, Semin GR (2009) The thermometer of social relations. Mapping social proximity on temperature. Psychol Sci 20:1214–1220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang T, Zhu L (2015) Is power–space a continuum? Distance effect during power judgments. Conscious Cogn 37:8–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang T, Sun L, Zhu L (2015) The influence of vertical motor responses on explicit and incidental processing of power words. Conscious Cogn 34:33–42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keltner D, Gruenfeld D, Anderson CP (2003) Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychol Rev 110:265–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh D (1991) When is information explicitly represented? In: Hanson P (ed) Information, thought, and content. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC

  • Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff G, Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin A (2007) The representation of object concepts in the brain. Annu Rev Psychol 58:25–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mascaro O, Csibra G (2012) Representation of stable social dominance relations by human infants. PNAS 109:6862–6867

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mason M, Magee JC, Fiske ST (2014) Neural substrates of social status inference: roles of medial prefrontal cortex and superior temporal sulcus. J Cogn Neurosci 26:1131–1140

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Meier BP, Dionne SG (2009) Downright sexy: verticality, implicit power, and perceived physical attractiveness. Social Cognition 27:883–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier BP, Robinson MD (2004) Why the sunny side is up: associations between affect and vertical position. Psychol Sci 15:243–247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neumann R, Strack F (2000) Approach and avoidance: the influence of proprioceptive and exteroceptive cues on encoding of affective information. J Pers Soc Psychol 79:39–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson C, Wheatley T (2013) Old cortex, new contexts: re-purposing spatial perception for social cognition. Front Hum Neurosci 7:645

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pulvermuller F (2001) Brain reflections of words and their meaning. Trends Cognit Sci 5:517–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert TW (2004) The power in your hand: gender differences in bodily feedback from making a fist. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30:757–769

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert TW (2005) Your highness: vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. J Pers Soc Psychol 89:1–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schubert TW, Waldzus S, Giessner SR (2009) Control over the association of power and size. Soc Cognit 27:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz B, Tesser A, Powell E (1982) Dominance cues in nonverbal behavior. Soc Psychol Q 45(2):114–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Šetic M, Domijan D (2007) The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification. Lang Cognit Process 22:297–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith ER (1984) Model of social inference processes. Psychol Rev 91:392–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squire LR (1992) Memory and the hippocampus: a synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychol Rev 99:195–231

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Suitner C, Schubert TW (in press) Grounding social cognition in space. In Hubbard T (ed) Spatial biases in perception and cognition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Thomsen L, Carey S (2013) Core cognition of social relations. In: Banaji MR, Gelman S (eds) Navigating the social world. What infants, children, and other species can teach us. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 17–22

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Thomsen L, Frankenhuis WE, Ingold-Smith M, Carey S (2011) Big and mighty: preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science 331:477–480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • van Galen MS, Reitsma P (2008) Developing access to number magnitude: a study of the SNARC effect in 7- to 9-year-olds. J Exp Child Psychol 101:99–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberghe R, Price C, Wise R, Josephs O, Frackowiak RSJ (1996) Functional anatomy of a common semantic system for words and pictures. Nature 383:254–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Hecker U, Klauer KC, Sankaran S (2013) Embodiment of social status: verticality effects in multilevel rank-orders. Soc Cognit 31(3):374–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu N, Yang Y, Liu J (2007) Cognitive analysis of metaphor domains of spatial dimensionality words ‘high/low’ in children’s literary language. J Jimei Univ 8:11–15 (Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanolie K, Dantzig S, Boot I, Wijnen J, Schubert TW, Giessner SR, Pecher D (2012) Mighty metaphors: behavioral and ERP evidence that power shifts attention on a vertical dimension. Brain Cogn 78:50–58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zwaan RA, Yaxley RH (2003) Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments. Psychon Bull Rev 10:954–958

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Projects Planning in Shanghai Philosophy and Social Sciences Research (2012JJY001) and the research fund of the School of Social Development and Public Policy at Fudan University. We thank Nora Grace Uhrich for proofreading the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Fudan University, Handan Road 220, Shanghai, SH, 200433, People’s Republic of China

    Lifeng Lu & Lei Zhu

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, P.O Box 1094, Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway

    Thomas W. Schubert

Authors
  1. Lifeng Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas W. Schubert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lei Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lei Zhu.

Additional information

Handling editor: Martin H. Fischer (University of Potsdam).

Reviewer: Seyda Özçalışkan (Georgia State University).

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 5, 6.

Table 5 Words represent people used in the experiments
Full size table
Table 6 Words represent animals used in the experiments
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, L., Schubert, T.W. & Zhu, L. The spatial representation of power in children. Cogn Process 18, 375–385 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0814-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-017-0814-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation