Advertisement

Embodiment: Reflective and Impulsive Processes

  • Anita Körner
  • Fritz Strack
Chapter

Abstract

The human mind is not a fleshless computer. Rather, sensing and acting are integral parts of human cognition. In particular, the body influences abstract cognition, judgments, and action. How far the body’s influence goes, whether or not there are any amodal (i.e., non-embodied) cognitive processes, is a matter of debate. We adopt a dualistic view, with both embodied and amodal processes influencing judgment and behavior. However, while amodal processes are well examined in psychology and are being applied to diverse problems in people’s lives, embodied processes are less well understood and less widely applied. Yet, the body’s influence on the mind can be harnessed for trainings and interventions. In the present chapter, we discuss how behavior might be modified from a dualprocess perspective, emphasizing different embodiment mechanisms. Additionally, we mention some ways in which knowledge about these psychological processes might be used for trainings and interventions.

Embodiment is the notion that body and mind are closely related and influence each other in various non-trivial ways. Thus, current bodily states and action capacities can influence, for example, the thoughts and feelings of a person.

References

  1. Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577–660.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X99002149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, A. T. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York, NY: Guilford press.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 6, 1–62.Google Scholar
  4. Bless, H., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Mental construal and the emergence of assimilation and contrast effects: The inclusion/exclusion model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 319–373.Google Scholar
  5. Deutsch, R., Gawronski, B., & Hofmann, W. (Eds.). (2016). Reflective and impulsive determinants of human behavior. New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  6. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 212–228.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.55CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Havas, D. A., Glenberg, A. M., Gutowski, K., Lucarelli, M., & Davidson, R. (2010). Cosmetic use of botulinum toxin-A affects processing of emotional language. Psychological Science, 21(7), 895–900.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610374742CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. James, W. (1884). What is an emotion? Mind, 9, 188–205.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/os-IX.34.188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kontra, C., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). Embodied learning across the life span. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4(4), 731–739.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01221.xCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Körner, A., Topolinski, S., & Strack, F. (2015). Routes to embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 940.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00940CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Landau, M., Robinson, M. D., & Meier, B. P. (Eds.). (2014). The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.  https://doi.org/10.1037/14278-000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Magid, M., Finzi, E., Kruger, T. H. C., Robertson, H. T., Keeling, B. H., Jung, S., et al. (2015). Treating depression with botulinum toxin: A pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials. Pharmacopsychiatry, 25(6), 205–210.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1559621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meier, B. P., Moeller, S., Riemer-Peltz, M., & Robinson, M. (2012). Sweet taste preferences and experiences predict prosocial inferences, personalities, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 163–174.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Donohue, W. T., Fisher, J. E., & Hayes, S. C. (Eds.). (2004). Cognitive behavior therapy: Applying empirically supported techniques in your practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Papies, E. K., Best, M., Gelibter, E., & Barsalou, L. W. (2017). The role of simulations in consumer experiences and behavior: Insights from the grounded cognition theory of desire. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(4), 402–418.  https://doi.org/10.1086/693110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwartz, G. E., Fair, P. L., Salt, P., Mandel, M. R., & Klerman, G. L. (1976). Facial muscle patterning to affective imagery in depressed and nondepressed subjects. Science, 192(4238), 489–491.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1257786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Seibt, B., Neumann, R., Nussinson, R., & Strack, F. (2008). Movement direction or change in distance? Self-and object-related approach–avoidance motions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 713–720.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Shen, H., & Sengupta, J. (2012). If you can’t grab it, it won’t grab you: The effect of restricting the dominant hand on target evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 525–529.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 108–131.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Soussignan, R. (2002). Duchenne smile, emotional experience, and autonomic reactivity: A test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Emotion, 2(1), 52–74.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.2.1.52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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(5), 768–777.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Tucker, M., & Ellis, R. (2001). The potentiation of grasp types during visual object categorization. Visual Cognition, 8(6), 769–800.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13506280042000144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wiers, R. W., & Gladwin, T. E. (2016). Reflective and impulsive processes in addiction and the role of motivation. In R. Deutsch, B. Gawronski, & W. Hofmann (Eds.), Reflective and impulsive determinants of human behavior (pp. 173–188). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations