Compatibility between approach/avoidance stimulation and valenced information determines residual attention during the process of encoding

Förster, Jens; Stepper, Sabine

doi:10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6<853::aid-ejsp20>3.3.co;2-t

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Motor Compatibilitymentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Participants did worse on the secondary task when their head movements were incompatible with the words to be learned than when they were compatible. Later studies replicated these findings with approach and avoidance body postures (upright position vs. kneeling down; Förster & Stepper, 2000).The model can explain influences of expressions on neutral novel stimuli. Because the expression has been associated with either approach or avoidance, its affective meaning may be elicited automatically and may be misattributed to the novel stimulus (Schwarz & Clore, 1983, 1998.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

“…This could potentially be applied for use in designing office chairs or movie theater seats, for example. It has been shown that information compatible with the body postures is more easily encoded (Förster & Stepper, 2000). Thus, placing desirable products at eye level might therefore be preferred over lower placing because the former could intensify positive judgments.…”

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

How Body Feedback Influences Consumers’ Evaluation of Products

Förster

2004

J Consum Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments explored the effect of unobtrusively induced expressions of approach and avoidance on consumers' evaluation of well-known products. In Study 1, valenced objects were presented moving horizontally or vertically on a screen, thereby inducing either head shaking or head nodding. Objects were also presented without movement. Induced nodding led to more favorable evaluations of positively valenced products but did not affect the evaluation of negatively valenced ones. Similarly, head shaking led to more unfavorable evaluations of negatively valenced products but did not affect the evaluation of positive ones. In Study 2, participants evaluated positively valenced products more favorably when they flexed their arms while making the evaluation and evaluated negatively valenced products more unfavorably when they extended their arms during evaluation. However, arm flexion had no effect on evaluations of negative products, and arm extensions had no effect on evaluations of positive ones. Participants' willingness to buy the products followed a similar pattern. The theoretical implications and the applications of these body feedback effects are discussed.Expressive behaviors are typically viewed as a reaction to stimuli in the external world. People nod when they are in agreement and they embrace when they like each other. However, behavior can influence the way we perceive people and objects. Research on the impact of body feedback (for reviews, see Adelman & Zajonc, 1989;Förster, 1995;Izard, 1990) has repeatedly demonstrated that unobtrusively induced expression patterns can unintentionally influence cognition, emotion, and behavior. These results have provided strong evidence that affective or experiential cues have a direct influence on judgments, including attitudes (see, for example, Bodur, Brinberg, & Coupey, 2000;Breckler, 1984;Haugtvedt, 1997;Herr, 1995;Miniard & Barone, 1997;Reed, Wooten, & Bolton, 2002;Schwarz, 1997;Schwarz & Strack, 1991;Zajonc & Markus, 1982).In the following studies, we investigate if the evaluation of well-known consumer goods can be influenced by unobtrusive expression patterns such as nodding or shaking the head, or by even more rudimentary components of approach and avoidance behavior, specifically, arm flexion and arm extension. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDSeveral experiments have shown that unobtrusively induced expression patterns influence participants' reported feelings (e.g., Larsen, Kasimatis, & Frey, 1992;Stepper & Strack, 1993;Zajonc, Murphy, & Inglehart, 1989). For example, participants feel pride more intensely if they experience positive feedback while maintaining a positive, upright body position than if they receive the same feedback while in a negative, slouched position (Stepper & Strack). Body feedback can also influence judgments of external stimuli (e.g., Strack, Martin, & Stepper, 1988;. In the classic "pen study" by Strack et al. (1988), participants who held a pen with their teeth (which activates the zygomatic muscles used for smiling) rated cartoons to b...

show abstract

Section: Motor Compatibilitymentioning

confidence: 81%

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How Body Feedback Influences Consumers’ Evaluation of Products

Förster

2004

J Consum Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Existing data are more consistent with the second hypothesis. In particular, using a dual-task paradigm at encoding, some studies found that performance on the secondary task (i.e., an auditory discrimination task or a finger-dexterity task) decreased when the valence of the words or pictures participants had to memorize was incompatible with their motor actions (Förster & Stepper, 2000;Förster & Strack, 1996, Experiment 3;Gawronski et al, 2005, Experiment 2). These findings suggest that valence-incompatible stimuli were encoded less easily (and thus required more processing resources) than valence-compatible stimuli.…”

Section: Embodiment In Memory For Facial Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Embodiment effects in memory for facial identity and facial expression

D’Argembeau

Lepper

Linden

2008

Cognition & Emotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Power in Your Hand: Gender Differences in Bodily Feedback From Making a Fist

Schubert

2004

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Men and women differ in the meaning they attribute to physical coercion and bodily force. Men associate bodily force with gaining power, whereas women associate bodily force with expressing loss of power. It is hypothesized that because of these associations, performing bodily forceful behavior feeds back on appraisals of one's power and that bodily feedback effects will mirror the gender differences in associations. Supporting these hypotheses, it was found that unobtrusively inducing behavior related to bodily force (making a fist) activated the concept of power in a Stroop task for both genders but that it increased hope for power and positive judgments of an assertively acting target for men, whereas it decreased hope for power and led to negative judgments of an assertively acting target for women.

show abstract

Compatibility between approach/avoidance stimulation and valenced information determines residual attention during the process of encoding

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

How Body Feedback Influences Consumers’ Evaluation of Products

How Body Feedback Influences Consumers’ Evaluation of Products

Embodiment effects in memory for facial identity and facial expression

The Power in Your Hand: Gender Differences in Bodily Feedback From Making a Fist

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About