The Effect of Haptic and Ambient Temperature Experience on Prosocial Behavior

Abstract

Research in social embodied cognition has found numerous positive associations between higher temperatures and prosocial behavior, with “warmer is better” effects demonstrating greater altruism, social proximity, and affective attributions. However, recent failures to replicate experimental findings in this area have called some effects into question. By contrast, epidemiological research has frequently observed that higher ambient temperatures are correlated with increases in societal volatility and antisocial behaviors, with “warmer is worse” effects demonstrated by increases in warfare, city-center rioting, and sporting aggression. Using a sample size (N = 611) larger than many previous studies in the social priming domain, we examined whether higher ambient temperature and/or higher prop temperature (i.e., holding a hot/cold therapeutic pack) lead to more prosocial behavior. Results showed that warmer ambient temperatures were weakly associated with more prosocial than selfish choices. However, calculation of Bayes Factors suggests that the evidence is better characterized as inconclusive. As previously published analyses of the same data set used in this study show (Lynott et al., 2014), prop temperature did not lead to increased prosocial responding, which fails to support predictions from particular accounts of social embodiment. We discuss possible reasons for the inconclusive findings and for the broad range of effect sizes observed more generally in the literature.

Social touch technologies : how they feel and how they make you feel

“…The study was also designed to gain insights in the possible relation between the ambient temperature and direct physical stimulation to the participant. These types of stimulation differ substantially from each other, but are nevertheless applied interchangeably in work on the association between physical and social warmth (see also Lynott et al (2017)). Considering the practical implications for the use of warmth in mediated social touch, it would have been valuable to understand whether both types of thermal stimulation add up, or attenuate each other, with regard to eliciting social responses.…”

“…Even though both types of thermal stimulation have been interpreted as if they are interchangeable with regard to their supposed effects, they are very different; both in terms of perception and the extent to which the warmth may affect the thermoregulation (IJzerman et al, 2012), and in terms of the effects they can elicit. A high ambient temperature for example increased pro-social behavior, whereas direct physical contact with warmth did not sort effects (Lynott et al, 2017). It is however not entirely clear whether the effects of physical warmth that is presented directly to the user through objects, and the effects of a relatively high ambient temperature are interchangeable, work additively, or perhaps inhibit each other.…”

“…Moreover, lower ambient temperatures supposedly enhance one's need for social contact (Hong & Sun, 2012;Lee et al, 2014;van Acker et al, 2016). Both types of thermal manipulations -direct physical contact with an object, or prolonged exposure to environmental warmth -are very different experiences that are nevertheless often used interchangeably to support the premise that "physical warmth is good" (Lynott et al, 2017). Whereas brief physical contact with an object provides information about the physical qualities of this object and may prime feelings of social warmth, prolonged exposure to warmth can have strong impact on our thermoregulatory systems (IJzerman et al, 2012;Lynott et al, 2017).…”

“…Both types of thermal manipulations -direct physical contact with an object, or prolonged exposure to environmental warmth -are very different experiences that are nevertheless often used interchangeably to support the premise that "physical warmth is good" (Lynott et al, 2017). Whereas brief physical contact with an object provides information about the physical qualities of this object and may prime feelings of social warmth, prolonged exposure to warmth can have strong impact on our thermoregulatory systems (IJzerman et al, 2012;Lynott et al, 2017). A direct comparison between the two types of stimulation demonstrated a small effect of ambient temperature on pro-social behavior, whereas direct physical contact did not elicit such effects (Lynott et al, 2017).…”

“…Whereas brief physical contact with an object provides information about the physical qualities of this object and may prime feelings of social warmth, prolonged exposure to warmth can have strong impact on our thermoregulatory systems (IJzerman et al, 2012;Lynott et al, 2017). A direct comparison between the two types of stimulation demonstrated a small effect of ambient temperature on pro-social behavior, whereas direct physical contact did not elicit such effects (Lynott et al, 2017). This finding does not only suggest that different types of thermal manipulations are not necessarily interchangeable; it may also have implications for the use of physical warmth in mediated touch.…”