Embodied Information in Cognitive Tasks: Haptic Weight Sensations Affect Task Performance and Processing Style
Identifieur interne : 000138 ( Pmc/Curation ); précédent : 000137; suivant : 000139Embodied Information in Cognitive Tasks: Haptic Weight Sensations Affect Task Performance and Processing Style
Auteurs : Kai Kaspar ; Alina Vennekötter [Allemagne]Source :
- Advances in Cognitive Psychology [ 1895-1171 ] ; 2015.
Abstract
Research in the field of embodied cognition showed that incidental weight sensations influence peoples’ judgments about a variety of issues and objects. Most studies found that heaviness compared to lightness increases the perception of importance, seriousness, and potency. In two experiments, we broadened this scope by investigating the impact of weight sensations on cognitive performance. In Experiment 1, we found that the performance in an anagram task was reduced when participants held a heavy versus a light clipboard in their hands. Reduced performance was accompanied by an increase in the perceived effort. In Experiment 2, a heavy clipboard elicited a specific response heuristic in a two-alternative forced-choice task. Participants showed a significant right side bias when holding a heavy clipboard in their hands. After the task, participants in the heavy clipboard condition reported to be more frustrated than participants in the light clipboard condition. In both experiments, we did not find evidence for mediated effects that had been proposed by previous literature. Overall, the results indicate that weight effects go beyond judgment formation and highlight new avenues for future research.
Url:
DOI: 10.5709/acp-0172-0
PubMed: 26421084
PubMed Central: 4584213
Links toward previous steps (curation, corpus...)
- to stream Pmc, to step Corpus: Pour aller vers cette notice dans l'étape Curation :000138
Links to Exploration step
PMC:4584213Le document en format XML
<record><TEI><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Embodied Information in Cognitive Tasks: Haptic Weight Sensations
Affect Task Performance and Processing Style</title><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, Kai" sort="Kaspar, Kai" uniqKey="Kaspar K" first="Kai" last="Kaspar">Kai Kaspar</name><affiliation><nlm:aff>NONE</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Vennekotter, Alina" sort="Vennekotter, Alina" uniqKey="Vennekotter A" first="Alina" last="Vennekötter">Alina Vennekötter</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:aff id="AU2"><addr-line>Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Germany</addr-line></nlm:aff><country xml:lang="fr">Allemagne</country><wicri:regionArea>Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück</wicri:regionArea></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">PMC</idno><idno type="pmid">26421084</idno><idno type="pmc">4584213</idno><idno type="url">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4584213</idno><idno type="RBID">PMC:4584213</idno><idno type="doi">10.5709/acp-0172-0</idno><date when="2015">2015</date><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Corpus">000138</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Pmc/Curation">000138</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title xml:lang="en" level="a" type="main">Embodied Information in Cognitive Tasks: Haptic Weight Sensations
Affect Task Performance and Processing Style</title><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, Kai" sort="Kaspar, Kai" uniqKey="Kaspar K" first="Kai" last="Kaspar">Kai Kaspar</name><affiliation><nlm:aff>NONE</nlm:aff></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Vennekotter, Alina" sort="Vennekotter, Alina" uniqKey="Vennekotter A" first="Alina" last="Vennekötter">Alina Vennekötter</name><affiliation wicri:level="1"><nlm:aff id="AU2"><addr-line>Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Germany</addr-line></nlm:aff><country xml:lang="fr">Allemagne</country><wicri:regionArea>Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück</wicri:regionArea></affiliation></author></analytic><series><title level="j">Advances in Cognitive Psychology</title><idno type="eISSN">1895-1171</idno><imprint><date when="2015">2015</date></imprint></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en"><p>Research in the field of embodied cognition showed that incidental weight
sensations influence peoples’ judgments about a variety of issues and objects.
Most studies found that heaviness compared to lightness increases the perception
of importance, seriousness, and potency. In two experiments, we broadened this
scope by investigating the impact of weight sensations on cognitive performance.
In Experiment 1, we found that the performance in an anagram task was reduced
when participants held a heavy versus a light clipboard in their hands. Reduced
performance was accompanied by an increase in the perceived effort. In
Experiment 2, a heavy clipboard elicited a specific response heuristic in a
two-alternative forced-choice task. Participants showed a significant right side
bias when holding a heavy clipboard in their hands. After the task, participants
in the heavy clipboard condition reported to be more frustrated than
participants in the light clipboard condition. In both experiments, we did not
find evidence for mediated effects that had been proposed by previous
literature. Overall, the results indicate that weight effects go beyond judgment
formation and highlight new avenues for future research.</p></div></front><back><div1 type="bibliography"><listBibl><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ackerman, J M" uniqKey="Ackerman J">J. M. Ackerman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Nocera, C C" uniqKey="Nocera C">C. C. Nocera</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bargh, J A" uniqKey="Bargh J">J. A. Bargh</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Ansburg, P I" uniqKey="Ansburg P">P. I. Ansburg</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hill, K" uniqKey="Hill K">K. Hill</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Asch, S E" uniqKey="Asch S">S. E. Asch</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Baron, R M" uniqKey="Baron R">R. M. Baron</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kenny, D A" uniqKey="Kenny D">D. A. Kenny</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Barsalou, L W" uniqKey="Barsalou L">L. W. Barsalou</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Beversdorf, D Q" uniqKey="Beversdorf D">D. Q. Beversdorf</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hughes, J D" uniqKey="Hughes J">J. D. Hughes</name></author><author><name sortKey="Steinberg, B A" uniqKey="Steinberg B">B. A. Steinberg</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lewis, L D" uniqKey="Lewis L">L. D. Lewis</name></author><author><name sortKey="Heilman, K M" uniqKey="Heilman K">K. M. Heilman</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Binder, J R" uniqKey="Binder J">J. R. Binder</name></author><author><name sortKey="Desai, R H" uniqKey="Desai R">R. H. Desai</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Boggiano, A K" uniqKey="Boggiano A">A. K. Boggiano</name></author><author><name sortKey="Flink, C" uniqKey="Flink C">C. Flink</name></author><author><name sortKey="Shields, A" uniqKey="Shields A">A. Shields</name></author><author><name sortKey="Seelbach, A" uniqKey="Seelbach A">A. Seelbach</name></author><author><name sortKey="Barrett, M" uniqKey="Barrett M">M. Barrett</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Brehm, J W" uniqKey="Brehm J">J. W. Brehm</name></author><author><name sortKey="Self, E A" uniqKey="Self E">E. A. Self</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Bri Ol, P" uniqKey="Bri Ol P">P. Brińol</name></author><author><name sortKey="Petty, R E" uniqKey="Petty R">R. E. Petty</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Brownlow, S" uniqKey="Brownlow S">S. Brownlow</name></author><author><name sortKey="Reasinger, R D" uniqKey="Reasinger R">R. D. Reasinger</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Casasanto, D" uniqKey="Casasanto D">D. Casasanto</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Casasanto, D" uniqKey="Casasanto D">D. Casasanto</name></author><author><name sortKey="Chrysikou, E G" uniqKey="Chrysikou E">E. G. Chrysikou</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Chandler, J J" uniqKey="Chandler J">J. J. Chandler</name></author><author><name sortKey="Reinhard, D" uniqKey="Reinhard D">D. Reinhard</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schwarz, N" uniqKey="Schwarz N">N. Schwarz</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Eisenberger, R" uniqKey="Eisenberger R">R. Eisenberger</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kuhlman, D M" uniqKey="Kuhlman D">D. M. Kuhlman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Cotterell, N" uniqKey="Cotterell N">N. Cotterell</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Faul, F" uniqKey="Faul F">F. Faul</name></author><author><name sortKey="Erdfelder, E" uniqKey="Erdfelder E">E. Erdfelder</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lang, A G" uniqKey="Lang A">A. G. Lang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Buchner, A" uniqKey="Buchner A">A. Buchner</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Gendolla, G H" uniqKey="Gendolla G">G. H. Gendolla</name></author><author><name sortKey="Krusken, J" uniqKey="Krusken J">J. Krüsken</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hamborg, K C" uniqKey="Hamborg K">K. C. Hamborg</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hulsmann, J" uniqKey="Hulsmann J">J. Hülsmann</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, K" uniqKey="Kaspar K">K. Kaspar</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hart, S" uniqKey="Hart S">S. Hart</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Hart, S G" uniqKey="Hart S">S. G. Hart</name></author><author><name sortKey="Staveland, L E" uniqKey="Staveland L">L. E. Staveland</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Heeren, T" uniqKey="Heeren T">T. Heeren</name></author><author><name sortKey="D Gostino, R" uniqKey="D Gostino R">R. D’Agostino</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Higgins, E T" uniqKey="Higgins E">E. T. Higgins</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Jostmann, N B" uniqKey="Jostmann N">N. B. Jostmann</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lakens, D" uniqKey="Lakens D">D. Lakens</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schubert, T W" uniqKey="Schubert T">T. W. Schubert</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, K" uniqKey="Kaspar K">K. Kaspar</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, K" uniqKey="Kaspar K">K. Kaspar</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, K" uniqKey="Kaspar K">K. Kaspar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hamborg, K C" uniqKey="Hamborg K">K.-C. Hamborg</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sackmann, T" uniqKey="Sackmann T">T. Sackmann</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hesselmann, J" uniqKey="Hesselmann J">J. Hesselmann</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, K" uniqKey="Kaspar K">K. Kaspar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Jurisch, A" uniqKey="Jurisch A">A. Jurisch</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schneider, M" uniqKey="Schneider M">M. Schneider</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, K" uniqKey="Kaspar K">K. Kaspar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Konig, S" uniqKey="Konig S">S. König</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schwandt, J" uniqKey="Schwandt J">J. Schwandt</name></author><author><name sortKey="Konig, P" uniqKey="Konig P">P. König</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaspar, K" uniqKey="Kaspar K">K. Kaspar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Krull, J" uniqKey="Krull J">J. Krull</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kaufmann, L M" uniqKey="Kaufmann L">L. M. Kaufmann</name></author><author><name sortKey="Allen, S" uniqKey="Allen S">S. Allen</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Kumar, D" uniqKey="Kumar D">D. Kumar</name></author><author><name sortKey="Kumari, S" uniqKey="Kumari S">S. Kumari</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lakoff, G" uniqKey="Lakoff G">G. Lakoff</name></author><author><name sortKey="Johnson, M" uniqKey="Johnson M">M. Johnson</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Landau, M J" uniqKey="Landau M">M. J. Landau</name></author><author><name sortKey="Meier, B" uniqKey="Meier B">B. Meier</name></author><author><name sortKey="Keefer, L" uniqKey="Keefer L">L. Keefer</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Lee, W S" uniqKey="Lee W">W. S. Lee</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schwarz, N" uniqKey="Schwarz N">N. Schwarz</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Mehta, R" uniqKey="Mehta R">R. Mehta</name></author><author><name sortKey="Zhu, R J" uniqKey="Zhu R">R. J. Zhu</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Meier, B P" uniqKey="Meier B">B. P. Meier</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schnall, S" uniqKey="Schnall S">S. Schnall</name></author><author><name sortKey="Schwarz, N" uniqKey="Schwarz N">N. Schwarz</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bargh, J A" uniqKey="Bargh J">J. A. Bargh</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Miles, J" uniqKey="Miles J">J. Miles</name></author><author><name sortKey="Shevlin, M" uniqKey="Shevlin M">M. Shevlin</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Moroney, W F" uniqKey="Moroney W">W. F. Moroney</name></author><author><name sortKey="Biers, D W" uniqKey="Biers D">D. W. Biers</name></author><author><name sortKey="Eggemeier, F T" uniqKey="Eggemeier F">F. T. Eggemeier</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Nie, Y" uniqKey="Nie Y">Y. Nie</name></author><author><name sortKey="Lau, S" uniqKey="Lau S">S. Lau</name></author><author><name sortKey="Liau, A K" uniqKey="Liau A">A. K. Liau</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Paisley, C M" uniqKey="Paisley C">C. M. Paisley</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sparks, P" uniqKey="Sparks P">P. Sparks</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Pfendler, C" uniqKey="Pfendler C">C. Pfendler</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Preacher, K J" uniqKey="Preacher K">K. J. Preacher</name></author><author><name sortKey="Hayes, A F" uniqKey="Hayes A">A. F. Hayes</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Rheinberg, F" uniqKey="Rheinberg F">F. Rheinberg</name></author><author><name sortKey="Vollmeyer, R" uniqKey="Vollmeyer R">R. Vollmeyer</name></author><author><name sortKey="Burns, B D" uniqKey="Burns B">B. D. Burns</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Sawilowsky, S S" uniqKey="Sawilowsky S">S. S. Sawilowsky</name></author><author><name sortKey="Blair, R C" uniqKey="Blair R">R. C. Blair</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Scharine, A A" uniqKey="Scharine A">A. A. Scharine</name></author><author><name sortKey="Mcbeath, M K" uniqKey="Mcbeath M">M. K. McBeath</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Schiffman, N" uniqKey="Schiffman N">N. Schiffman</name></author><author><name sortKey="Greist Bousquet, S" uniqKey="Greist Bousquet S">S. Greist-Bousquet</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Williams, L E" uniqKey="Williams L">L. E. Williams</name></author><author><name sortKey="Huang, J Y" uniqKey="Huang J">J. Y. Huang</name></author><author><name sortKey="Bargh, J A" uniqKey="Bargh J">J. A. Bargh</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Wilson, A D" uniqKey="Wilson A">A. D. Wilson</name></author><author><name sortKey="Golonka, S" uniqKey="Golonka S">S. Golonka</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Wilson, M" uniqKey="Wilson M">M. Wilson</name></author></analytic></biblStruct><biblStruct><analytic><author><name sortKey="Zhong, C B" uniqKey="Zhong C">C. B. Zhong</name></author><author><name sortKey="Strejcek, B" uniqKey="Strejcek B">B. Strejcek</name></author><author><name sortKey="Sivanathan, N" uniqKey="Sivanathan N">N. Sivanathan</name></author></analytic></biblStruct></listBibl></div1></back></TEI><pmc article-type="research-article"><pmc-dir>properties open_access</pmc-dir>
<front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">Adv Cogn Psychol</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="iso-abbrev">Adv Cogn Psychol</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">acp</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Advances in Cognitive Psychology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1895-1171</issn><publisher><publisher-name>University of Finance and Management in Warsaw</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">26421084</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmc">4584213</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5709/acp-0172-0</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Embodied Information in Cognitive Tasks: Haptic Weight Sensations
Affect Task Performance and Processing Style</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Kaspar</surname><given-names>Kai</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AU1">1,2</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Vennekötter</surname><given-names>Alina</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="AU2">2</xref></contrib><aff id="AU1"><label>1</label><addr-line>Department of Psychology, University of Cologne, Germany</addr-line></aff><aff id="AU2"><label>2</label><addr-line>Institute of Psychology, University of Osnabrück, Germany</addr-line></aff></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp id="Cor1">Corresponding author: Jun.-Prof. Dr. Kai Kaspar, Department of
Psychology, University of Cologne, Richard-Strauss-Str. 2, 50931 Cologne.Phone:
+49-(0)221/470-6828. Email: <email>kkaspar@uni-koeln.de</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>30</day><month>9</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>11</volume><issue>3</issue><fpage>64</fpage><lpage>76</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>14</day><month>1</month><year>2015</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>29</day><month>6</month><year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2015 University of Finance and Management
in Warsaw</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2015</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/"><license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>Research in the field of embodied cognition showed that incidental weight
sensations influence peoples’ judgments about a variety of issues and objects.
Most studies found that heaviness compared to lightness increases the perception
of importance, seriousness, and potency. In two experiments, we broadened this
scope by investigating the impact of weight sensations on cognitive performance.
In Experiment 1, we found that the performance in an anagram task was reduced
when participants held a heavy versus a light clipboard in their hands. Reduced
performance was accompanied by an increase in the perceived effort. In
Experiment 2, a heavy clipboard elicited a specific response heuristic in a
two-alternative forced-choice task. Participants showed a significant right side
bias when holding a heavy clipboard in their hands. After the task, participants
in the heavy clipboard condition reported to be more frustrated than
participants in the light clipboard condition. In both experiments, we did not
find evidence for mediated effects that had been proposed by previous
literature. Overall, the results indicate that weight effects go beyond judgment
formation and highlight new avenues for future research.</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>embodied cognition</kwd><kwd>weight sensations</kwd><kwd>cognitive task</kwd><kwd>task performance</kwd><kwd>response heuristic</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec sec-type="intro" id="S1"><title>Introduction</title><p>Currently, one of the most exciting ideas in cognitive science is that parts of our
cognition are embodied (<xref rid="R48" ref-type="bibr">Wilson & Golonka,
2013</xref>). In this sense, cognition is not an exclusive assignment of the
brain but also deeply rooted in the body’s interaction with the physical
world (e.g., <xref rid="R5" ref-type="bibr">Barsalou, 2008</xref>; <xref rid="R28" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, König, Schwandt, & König,
2014</xref>; <xref rid="R49" ref-type="bibr">Wilson, 2002</xref>). Current
research in this field is dominated by the prevailing focus on how bodily sensations
affect higher cognitive functions. Indeed, a bulk of empirical evidence supports the
idea of a link between bodily experiences and higher cognitive processes (for
current reviews see <xref rid="R34" ref-type="bibr">Lee & Schwarz, 2014</xref>;
<xref rid="R47" ref-type="bibr">Williams, Huang, & Bargh, 2009</xref>). In
this context, a substantial research line addresses the interplay between incidental
weight sensations and higher cognitions, particularly judgment formation, in various
settings. Weight is an influential concept we get in touch with early in life.
Especially with the limited physical strength of a child it takes more effort to
move heavy things compared to light ones, and to be hit by something heavy hurts
more than to be hit by something light (<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann,
Lakens, & Schubert, 2009</xref>). Weight is also a common motive in
metaphors; that is, metaphors such as <italic>the gravity of the situation</italic>,
<italic>to have weight on your shoulders</italic>, or a <italic>weighty
matter</italic> address the concepts of seriousness, potency, and importance.
Such metaphors sometimes indicate established functional relationships between
certain bodily sensations and higher abstract cognitive processes (<xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>). Meier, Schnall, Schwarz, and
Bargh (<xref rid="R36" ref-type="bibr">2012</xref>) pointed out that
“embodied processes have often been identified by the examination of common
metaphors in which abstract target concepts are described using concrete source
concepts derived from perceptual experience” (p. 706). According to a
developmental perspective on cognition, Williams et al. (<xref rid="R47" ref-type="bibr">2009</xref>) suggested that abstract concepts, such as importance or
seriousness, are difficult to process and understand for the developing brain of a
child. But more concrete concepts such as weight are easy to conceptualize because
the child physically experiences them while interacting with the environment.
Therefore, such concrete concepts provide a basis or “scaffold” in
which features of new abstract concepts are integrated. As a consequence, the early
sensorimotor childhood experience of physical weight might influence our adult
higher cognitive processes like thinking about an issue’s importance without
us noticing. Due to this developmental process, we associate physical weight with
more abstract but conceptually related cognitions (see also <xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman, Nocera, & Bargh, 2010</xref>; <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>). This established connection is expressed, for
example, in the German language as the German word for <italic>heavy</italic>(<italic>schwer</italic>) is often used synonymously for the word
<italic>difficult</italic> (<italic>schwierig</italic>), and the word for
<italic>easy</italic> (<italic>leicht</italic>) is the same as for
<italic>light</italic>. The mediating role of linguistic correspondences in the
context of embodiment phenomena has been emphasized several times (e.g., <xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman et al., 2010</xref>; <xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>; <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar,
2013a</xref>). Also, it is the core aspect of the conceptual metaphor theory
(<xref rid="R32" ref-type="bibr">Lakoff & Johnson, 1980</xref>), according
to which abstract concepts are represented by bodily metaphors in a conceptual
system. Empirical evidence reliably supports this notion. Altogether, study results
suggest that weight not just makes people invest more physical effort in dealing
with concrete objects but that weight also significantly affects abstract
cognitions—mainly the evaluation of issues and objects on dimensions that are
conceptually related to weight (e.g., <xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman et
al., 2010</xref>; <xref rid="R14" ref-type="bibr">Chandler, Reinhard, &
Schwarz, 2012</xref>; <xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al.,
2009</xref>; <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>).</p><p>With the present work, we broaden the scope to potential weight effects on cognitive
performance. We assumed that the impact of basal sensorimotor influences on higher
cognitive processes goes beyond the formation of judgments that have been primarily
addressed so far. Instead, bodily experiences were expected to influence cognitive
performance as well. As Brińol and Petty (<xref rid="R10" ref-type="bibr">2008</xref>) stated, “One of the most fundamental things that the body
can do” is to affect “the amount of thinking in which people engage
when making a social judgment” (p. 188). Thereby, most researchers seem to
agree that this effect is most likely to occur when the amount of thinking is not
completely constrained by other non-bodily (i.e., disembodied) variables—that
is, when the situation is characterized by considerable unfamiliarity or uncertainty
(cf. <xref rid="R7" ref-type="bibr">Binder & Desai, 2011</xref>; <xref rid="R14" ref-type="bibr">Chandler et al., 2012</xref>). In two experiments, we
made a first attempt to test whether incidental haptic weight sensations modulate
one’s performance in cognitive tasks which were unfamiliar to participants
and characterized by some situational uncertainty. In Experiment 1, participants
performed an anagram task that provided several degrees of freedom on how to process
the test items. We tested whether weight sensations are considered in this context
and influence creative thinking. In Experiment 2, participants performed a
two-alternative forced-choice task that required an analytic processing style to
achieve a fair result. The task was characterized by a high uncertainty regarding
the right choice. The two experiments were intended to check whether weight
sensations have a differential impact on task processing, depending on the context.
Therefore, and in accordance with previous studies (e.g., <xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman et al., 2010</xref>; <xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann
et al., 2009</xref>; <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>; <xref rid="R29" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar & Krull, 2013</xref>), physical weight was
manipulated by means of a light or heavy clipboard, respectively, held by
participants during task processing. Hence, the present two experiments address what
Meier at al. (<xref rid="R36" ref-type="bibr">2012</xref>) formulated as a research
agenda for future studies in the field of embodied cognition: “Future
researchers should engage in a phenomenon-based approach, highlight the theoretical
boundary conditions and mediators involved, explore novel action-relevant outcome
measures, and address the role of individual differences broadly defined” (p.
705).</p></sec><sec id="S2"><title>Experiment 1</title><p>In Experiment 1, we focused on creative thinking and selected an anagram task that is
usually considered as an indicator for creativity (e.g., <xref rid="R31" ref-type="bibr">Kumar & Kumari, 1988</xref>), cognitive flexibility (e.g., <xref rid="R6" ref-type="bibr">Beversdorf, Hughes, Steinberg, Lewis, & Heilman,
1999</xref>), and persistence (e.g., <xref rid="R15" ref-type="bibr">Eisenberger, Kuhlman, & Cotterell, 1992</xref>). Anagrams provide some
degrees of freedom on how to process such items; that is, they cannot be solved by
simply performing an established and stable cognitive routine. Hence, we expected
that participants who process an anagram task are (partially) susceptible to
embodied information that may interfere with task processing and cognitive effort.
Brińol and Petty (<xref rid="R10" ref-type="bibr">2008</xref>) stated that
influences of embodied informational cues are more likely to occur when thinking is
free to vary in different directions. This assumption is supported by a recent study
showing that performance in an anagram task is sensitive to prior hand washing
(<xref rid="R25" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013b</xref>). Moreover,
neurophysiological findings suggest that bodily sensations are more influential when
a task requires deeper processing or when the context is less familiar (<xref rid="R7" ref-type="bibr">Binder & Desai, 2011</xref>). To meet this
precondition, we tested only subjects who were unfamiliar with anagram tasks.</p><p>Jostmann et al. (<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">2009</xref>) showed that heaviness
sensations are associated with greater investment of cognitive effort triggering
higher cognitive elaboration of social issues. According to the authors, in early
childhood we learn that dealing with heavy versus light objects generally requires
more effort in terms of physical strength or cognitive planning. Thus, we may also
associate the experience of weight with the increased expenditure of bodily or
mental effort later in life. Consequently, we asked whether the sensation of weight
actually increases perceived effort when solving an anagram task. However, while
Jostmann et al. (<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">2009</xref>) outlined a direct link
between weight sensations and mental effort, a mediated model was also conceivable
(see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Figure 1</xref>). As stated above, people
conceptually associate physical weight with the more abstract concepts of importance
and difficulty (cf. <xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman et al., 2010</xref>;
<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>; <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>). Hence, it is conceivable that
the sensation of weight increases the perceived difficulty of the task and/or its
perceived importance. According to the motivational intensity theory (<xref rid="R9" ref-type="bibr">Brehm & Self, 1989</xref>), perceived task
difficulty improves effort up to the point at which people decide that the potential
outcome is not worth the required effort or that a successful performance becomes
unlikely. In this sense, the perception of task difficulty should increase effort as
anagrams are usually considered as moderately difficult (<xref rid="R8" ref-type="bibr">Boggiano, Flink, Shields, Seelbach, & Barrett, 1993</xref>).
Similarly, task importance is a motivator of engaged behaviors and it is positively
related to effort expenditure (cf. <xref rid="R39" ref-type="bibr">Nie, Lau, &
Liau, 2011</xref>). Hence, the expected impact of weight on effort may be
mediated by perceived difficulty/importance of the task (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Figure 1</xref>).</p><fig id="F1" position="float"><label>Figure 1.</label><caption><p>The mediation model of weight effects on task performance that was tested in
Experiment 1. Dotted lines indicate the mediated pathways, solid lines the
direct pathways.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="acp-11-064-g001"></graphic></fig><p>In addition to a weight effect on effort, we also expected an effect on task
performance, where previous literature is mixed regarding what could be expected. On
the one hand, the sensation of heaviness, compared to lightness, may elicit a higher
cognitive elaboration of the test items (cf. <xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>). This may lead to a more accurate task processing
in terms of a more explorative and creative thinking (e.g., <xref rid="R6" ref-type="bibr">Beversdorf et al., 1999</xref>; <xref rid="R31" ref-type="bibr">Kumar
& Kumari, 1988</xref>) as well as persistence (e.g., <xref rid="R15" ref-type="bibr">Eisenberger et al., 1992</xref>), reflected by more correctly solved
anagrams. However, higher accuracy may be negatively related to task processing
speed so that the speed-accuracy tradeoff comes in the focus of interest. Thus, on
the other hand, the task performance might be reduced in the heaviness condition due
to a slower processing speed in favor of higher accuracy. In this sense, a reduced
number of solved anagrams may be a by-product of a changed speed-accuracy
tradeoff.</p><p>Additionally, two more mechanisms are conceivable that may reduce the task
performance. First, heaviness may trigger the impression of a cognitive barrier.
Participants may try to bypass this barrier by means of different thinking styles,
for example, by a more analytic thinking about task items or, alternatively, by an
aimless rumination about the task content. However, rumination as well as analytic
thinking (cf. <xref rid="R2" ref-type="bibr">Ansburg & Hill, 2003</xref>)
counteract creative thinking and, hence, the performance in an anagram task that
requires a more playful approach. Second, an increase in perceived task difficulty
in the case of a heavy (versus light) weight may increase effort, as depicted in
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Figure 1</xref>, but perceived difficulty
sometimes evokes a negative affective state as well (e.g., <xref rid="R40" ref-type="bibr">Paisley & Sparks, 1998</xref>), and it is linked to the fear of
failure (e.g., <xref rid="R11" ref-type="bibr">Brownlow & Reasinger,
2000</xref>). This can lead to avoidance motivation that (again) increases vigilance
and analytic thinking but counteracts creative and explorative thinking (<xref rid="R35" ref-type="bibr">Mehta & Zhu, 2009</xref>), as also outlined in the
regulatory focus theory (<xref rid="R22" ref-type="bibr">Higgins, 1997</xref>).
Hence, an adverse effect of physical heaviness on task performance could also be
motivationally grounded.</p><p>In order to capture these different mechanisms (if present), we measured several
variables in addition to effort and task performance. Moreover, we intended to
scrutinize in which respect task performance may be affected by weight sensations.
For this purpose, we investigated if the associative closeness of both the anagrams
and the corresponding solutions (i.e., words) to weight (i.e., lightness or
heaviness) has an impact on the likelihood of solving anagrams.</p><sec id="S1a"><title>Methods</title><sec id="S1a1"><title>Participants</title><p>We tested 45 participants (21 male) with a mean age of 23.23 years
(<italic>SD</italic> = 4.91) and no prior experience with anagram tasks.
Sample size was selected according to Jostmann et al. (<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">2009</xref>) who reported an average sample size of 45
participants across four studies applying a single factor (light vs. heavy)
between-subject design. The two groups did not differ in their mean age,
<italic>t</italic>(42) = 0.26, <italic>p</italic> = .798, and gender was
counterbalanced across conditions (12 females per condition) due to
potential gender differences in physical power (cf. <xref rid="R27" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, Jurisch, & Schneider, 2015</xref>). The sample was
homogenous regarding their educational background (university students). We
recruited all participants at the university campus and then guided them to
the laboratory in order to keep the surrounding conditions (i.e., noise,
light, and visual input) constant. All participants voluntarily participated
in this experiment (as well as in Experiment 2). They were explicitly
informed that they will participate in an experiment whose data will only be
used for research purposes and that all data will be digitalized and
processed anonymously. The two experiments conformed to the Code of Ethics
of the German Psychological Association (DGPs).</p></sec><sec id="S1a2"><title>Materials</title><p>Participants of the two genders were randomly assigned to either a light or
to a heavy clipboard. The weights of the clipboards were 216.5 g for the
light one and 813 g for the heavy counterpart. In order to avoid substantial
bodily fatigue (the anagram task plus the questionnaires took about 10 min
to complete), we selected a weight for the heavy clipboard that was
significantly lower than heavy clipboards used in previous studies (e.g.,
<xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman et al., 2010</xref>: 2014.2 g
and 1559.2 g; <xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>:
1039 g; <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>: 1690.5 g and
1667.5 g; <xref rid="R29" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar & Krull, 2013</xref>:
2026 g). In contrast, the light clipboard was selected following Kaspar
(<xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">2013a</xref>) who used a light
clipboard of 216.5 g. This was the minimum weight (tare weight of the
clipboard plus questionnaire and task sheets). Other researchers used
heavier clipboards for the light condition (<xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman et al., 2010</xref>: 340.2 g and 453.6 g; <xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>: 657 g; <xref rid="R29" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar & Krull, 2013</xref>: 576 g), but
then the difference between the two weight conditions would have been too
small.</p><p>All participants filled out the Questionnaire on Current Motivation (QCM,
<xref rid="R43" ref-type="bibr">Rheinberg, Vollmeyer, & Burns,
2001</xref>) before the anagram task. This questionnaire measures
motivational factors in learning and achievement situations (i.e., fear of
failure, probability of success, interest in the task, and challenging
potential). These variables enable us to check whether potential group
differences in task performance are afflicted by differences in pre-task
motivation. Additionally, participants had to predict their performance in
the following anagram task on a scale from <italic>very bad
performance</italic> to <italic>very good performance</italic> (0-10) as
an indicator for optimism.</p><p>The anagram task was taken from Kaspar (<xref rid="R25" ref-type="bibr">2013b</xref>) and consisted of 25 German nouns with 5-7 letters in
mixed order that had to be rearranged (e.g.,
‘‘CCTIAT’’ =
‘‘TACTIC’’). Based on the baseline from Kaspar
(<xref rid="R25" ref-type="bibr">2013b</xref>), we set the time limit to
5 min in order to prevent a ceiling effect. Following Schiffman and
Greist-Bousquet (<xref rid="R46" ref-type="bibr">1992</xref>), all items
were presented on one page so that participants could observe the whole
list.</p><p>After the anagram task, participants rated the subjective workload in the
German version of the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX; <xref rid="R20" ref-type="bibr">Hart & Staveland, 1988</xref>) assessing
participants’ mental (“How mentally demanding was the
task?”), physical (“How physically demanding was the
task?”), and temporal demands (“How hurried or rushed was the
pace of the task?”). Additionally, it comprises an assessment of
one´s performance (“How successful were you in accomplishing
what you were asked to do?”), effort (“How hard did you have
to work to accomplish your level of performance?”), and current
frustration derived from performing the task (“How insecure,
discouraged, irritated, stressed, and annoyed were you?”). Each scale
ranged from 1 to 20. Following Hamborg, Hülsmann, and Kaspar (<xref rid="R18" ref-type="bibr">2014</xref>), we did not apply an individual
weighting of the scales (<xref rid="R19" ref-type="bibr">Hart, 2006</xref>)
because non-weighted scales are highly correlated with the weighted
counterparts (<xref rid="R38" ref-type="bibr">Moroney, Biers, &
Eggemeier, 1995</xref>) and they show a high reliability in the German
version of the questionnaire (<xref rid="R41" ref-type="bibr">Pfendler,
1990</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="S1a3"><title>Procedure</title><p>The whole procedure was completely standardized. Following Jostmann et al.
(<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">2009</xref>), the experimenter
explained at the beginning of the experiment that its purpose was to
investigate how the performance in the anagram task is influenced by
different body postures. In order to keep body posture constant,
participants had to stand and hold the clipboard during the whole procedure.
The experimenter handed over the clipboard and told the participants to
clasp the clipboard with their nondominant forearm (always left) and hold it
in a comfortable position such that its lower part rested on the waist (cf.
<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>). All
participants stood at the same position and looked in the same direction
without eye contact with the experimenter who sat 3 m behind them. A
coversheet on the clipboard informed the participants about the course of
the experiment and the nature of anagrams. After they provided demographic
data (i.e., age and sex) and reported on their former experience with
anagram tasks, they were asked to fill out the OCM questionnaire and to
predict their performance in the following anagram task (optimism rating).
Afterwards, subjects had to solve as many anagrams as possible within 5 min.
Right after the anagram task, participants rated their subjective workload
on the NASA-TLX questionnaire.</p></sec><sec id="S1a4"><title>Data analysis</title><p>We report parametrical tests where appropriate, otherwise we report results
of corresponding non-parametric tests. Particularly, in the case of
inhomogeneous variances, the Welch-test was preferred over the
<italic>t</italic>-test for independent samples. Although the
<italic>t</italic>-test is considered robust against violations of the
normality assumption (e.g., <xref rid="R21" ref-type="bibr">Heeren &
D’Agostino, 1987</xref>; <xref rid="R44" ref-type="bibr">Sawilowsky & Blair, 1992</xref>), we will instead report the result
of the Mann-Whitney U-test if tests for normal distribution suggested the
rejection of the null hypothesis (Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk) and
if skew and kurtosis values additionally revealed a substantial deviation
from the normal distribution according to the criteria defined by Miles and
Shevlin (<xref rid="R37" ref-type="bibr">2001</xref>, p. 74). Appropriate
correlation statistics were selected accordingly (Pearson product-moment
correlation <italic>r</italic>, Spearman rank correlation
<italic>r</italic><sub>S</sub>, rank-biserial correlation
<italic>r</italic><sub>RB</sub>, or bootstrapping in the context of
mediator analyses). Importantly, we generally validated all results of
parametric tests by computing the non-parametric counterparts. All results
of Experiment 1 (and Experiment 2) remained unchanged—that is,
significant results remained significant and non-significant results
remained non-significant. We always refer to an uncorrected significance
level of .05.</p></sec></sec><sec id="S3b"><title>Results</title><p>As expected, the number of correctly solved anagrams was influenced by the
clipboard’s weight, <italic>t</italic>(40.35) = 2.65, <italic>p</italic>= .009, <italic>d</italic> = 0.81. As shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F2">Figure 2</xref>, participants performed better in the light clipboard
condition (<italic>M</italic> = 9.74, <italic>SD</italic> = 3.40) compared to
the heavy condition (<italic>M</italic> = 7.32, <italic>SD</italic> = 2.50).
Moreover, participants in the light clipboard condition (<italic>M</italic> =
12.37, <italic>SD</italic> = 3.25) reported less effort than participants in the
heavy clipboard condition (<italic>M</italic> = 14.59, <italic>SD</italic> =
2.49), <italic>t</italic>(43) = -2.57, <italic>p</italic> = .014,
<italic>d</italic> = 0.77.</p><fig id="F2" position="float"><label>Figure 2.</label><caption><p>The reported effort after task completion (left side) and task
performance in terms of the number of correctly solved anagrams (right
side). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="acp-11-064-g002"></graphic></fig><p>In the next step, we tested the mediation hypothesis according to which the
effect of weight on effort is mediated by the perceived task difficulty and/or
by task importance. First of all, we computed the mediator values. The reported
<italic>fear of failure</italic> and <italic>probability of success</italic>(QCM questionnaire) were averaged and served as an indicator of perceived task
difficulty. We also used the mental demands scale of the NASA-TLX as an
indicator of perceived task difficulty. The mean across <italic>interest in the
task</italic> and <italic>challenging potential</italic> indicated the
perceived importance of the task. According to Baron and Kenny (<xref rid="R4" ref-type="bibr">1986</xref>) the predictor variable (i.e.,
dummy-coded clipboard condition; 0 = <italic>light</italic>, 1 =
<italic>heavy</italic>) must correlate with the outcome variable (i.e.,
effort) as well as with the potential mediator (i.e, task difficulty and
importance). While the first precondition was fulfilled as already shown by the
effect of the clipboard weight on effort, <italic>r</italic> = 0.36,
<italic>p</italic> = .014, neither a correlation between the
clipboard’s weight and the two measures of task difficulty was found
(difficulty according to the QCM scales: <italic>r</italic> = 0.08,
<italic>p</italic> = .613; difficulty in terms of the mental demands scale
of the NASA-TLX: <italic>r</italic><sub>RB</sub> = -0.19, <italic>p</italic> =
.790), nor a correlation between the clipboard’s weight and task
importance occurred, <italic>r</italic> = -0.21, <italic>p</italic> = .176.
Furthermore, we used a more elaborate method by Preacher and Hayes (<xref rid="R42" ref-type="bibr">2008</xref>) which directly investigates the
mediation hypothesis by testing the difference between the total effect of the
predictor variable (i.e., clipboard weight) on the outcome variable (i.e.,
effort) and the direct effect of the predictor variable on the outcome variable,
controlling for several mediators (i.e., task difficulty and importance). This
analysis did also not support the mediation model independently of the measure
of task difficulty that was included as a mediator, both
<italic>effects</italic> ≤ -0.40, <italic>z</italic> ≤ -1.21,
<italic>p</italic> ≥ .228. An additional bootstrap analysis for the
95% confidence interval showed that zero was included, indicating no mediation
effect. Hence, the effect of weight on perceived effort required by the task was
neither mediated by the perceived task difficulty nor by the perceived
importance of the task. Instead, the results support the notion of either a
direct effect of weight on effort (cf. <xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann
et al., 2009</xref>) or, alternatively, that other variables may mediate
this effect.</p><p>In the next step, we analyzed whether effort mediated the effect of the
clipboard’s weight on the task performance, <italic>r</italic> = -0.38,
<italic>p</italic> = .010. Because the clipboard’s weight also
correlated with the potential mediator effort, <italic>r</italic> = 0.36,
<italic>p</italic> = .014, a multiple regression was computed that included
the clipboard’s weight and effort as predictor variables (<xref rid="R4" ref-type="bibr">Baron & Kenny, 1986</xref>). The two variables
jointly explained a significant amount of variance in performance,
<italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.40, <italic>p</italic> = .027, while the
clipboard’s weight showed a significant contribution, <italic>t</italic>= -2.23, <italic>p</italic> = .031, in contrast to effort, <italic>t</italic> =
-0.79, <italic>p</italic> = .437. Hence, no support for the mediation model was
found. This conclusion was also supported by the procedure of Preacher and Hayes
(<xref rid="R42" ref-type="bibr">2008</xref>) analyzing the indirect effect
of weight on performance through effort, effec<italic>t</italic> = -0.28,
<italic>z</italic> = -0.77, <italic>p</italic> = .443, 95% CI = -1.12 to
0.22.</p><p>To conclude, the sizes of the effect of the clipboard’s weight on effort
as well as performance were middle to large (effort: <italic>d</italic> = 0.77;
performance: <italic>d</italic> = 0.81), while the two mediation hypotheses (see
<xref ref-type="fig" rid="F1">Figure 1</xref>) were not supported by the
data.</p><p>Importantly, besides the weight effect on perceived effort and the null effect on
mental demands (see above) none of the other NASA-TLX scales showed an effect of
the clipboard’s weight, all |<italic>t</italic>| ≤ 0.40,
<italic>p</italic> ≥ .689, <italic>d</italic> ≤ 0.12. Thus,
the sensation of heaviness, in contrast to lightness, did not elicit the
impression of higher physical and temporal demands. Also, it did not influence
the reported level of frustration as well as the assessed success in
accomplishing the task requirements. In addition to these post-task ratings, no
significant group differences existed in the reported pre-task optimism,
<italic>z</italic> = -0.90, <italic>p</italic> = .369, <italic>d</italic> =
0.31. Consequently, group differences in pre-task optimism did not account for
the difference in perceived effort during task completion as well as in the
actual performance. Also, there was no weight effect on the four scales of the
Questionnaire on Current Motivation (QCM) which were aggregated to assess task
importance and difficulty: fear of failure, interest in the task, and
challenging potential, all |<italic>t</italic>| ≤ 1.31,
<italic>p</italic> ≥ .198, <italic>d</italic> ≤ 0.39,
probability of success, <italic>z</italic> = -1.38, <italic>p</italic> = .167,
<italic>d</italic> = 0.29.</p><p>In the next step, we analyzed whether the effect of the clipboard’s weight
on performance derived from a better cognitive access to lightness-related words
in the light clipboard condition or, alternatively, a worse access to this
cognitive content in the heavy clipboard condition. Thereby, we differentiated
between the anagrams as they visually appear, on the one hand, and the
corresponding solutions (i.e., words), on the other hand. While heaviness could
have hampered the first contact with anagrams that are associated with
lightness, heaviness also could have reduced the retrieval of lightness-related
words on the level of anagram solutions. For this purpose, a new sample of 47
subjects (39 female) with a mean age of 24.62 years (<italic>SD</italic> =5.97)
participated in an online experiment and was randomly assigned either to the
list of the anagrams or to the list of the corresponding solutions (i.e. words).
They had to judge how much they associate each item with lightness on a 7-point
scale ranging from 1 (<italic>not at all</italic>) to 7 (<italic>very</italic>).
The items were presented in a random order. We calculated the mean of each item
across the respective subjects. Afterwards, these means were used to calculate
the mean lightness association score across all items solved by a subject of the
main experiment. The resulting score indicated the mean lightness that was
associated with the solved anagrams per subject. Two final
<italic>t</italic>-tests comparing the light and heavy clipboard condition
showed no difference in the lightness association score regarding the anagrams,
<italic>t</italic>(43) = -1.05, <italic>p</italic> = .299,
<italic>d</italic> = 0.31, as well as regarding the corresponding solution
(i.e. words), <italic>t</italic>(43) = 0.12, <italic>p</italic> = .905,
<italic>d</italic> = 0.04. Consequently, the effect of the weight sensation
on performance did not derive from a hampered cognitive accessibility of certain
anagrams in the heavy clipboard condition. That is, the results contradict the
possibility that the embodied cue of weight works in terms of semantic priming
within specific semantic networks, making the access to specific lexical content
more facile.</p><p>Finally, we tested whether the negative effect of a heavy clipboard on task
performance derived from a more accurate responding. It is conceivable that the
heavy clipboard triggered a more elaborate thinking about each anagram (cf.
<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>), so that
participants in the heavy clipboard condition were not as fast as the
participants in the light clipboard condition. If so, this should be reflected
in a higher accuracy (i.e. less mistakes). Overall, the participants made only
few mistakes. We found a marginal trend in the other direction,
<italic>z</italic> = -1.80, <italic>p</italic> = .072; that is, participants
made slightly more mistakes when they held a heavy clipboard in their hands.
Consequently, the effect of perceived heaviness on task performance is not a
signature of a detrimental speed-accuracy tradeoff.</p></sec><sec id="S3c"><title>Discussion</title><p>In Experiment 1, we found an effect of incidental haptic weight sensations on the
number of correctly solved anagrams. Task performance was reduced when
participants held a heavy (versus light) clipboard in their hands during task
processing. This heaviness effect was accompanied by higher post-task reported
effort, but effort did not mediate the weight effect on performance. Moreover,
pre-task optimism and motivation (QCM scales) did not differ between the two
clipboard groups and thus did not account for the group differences in perceived
effort and performance. Also, we did not find evidence that the effect of weight
on effort was mediated by the perceived importance and difficulty of the task.
Thereby, it was irrelevant whether perceived difficulty was assessed before the
task or after the task. There was also no weight effect on reported physical,
mental, and temporal demands, as well as on post-task reported frustration. This
is important to note as some literature suggested increased negative affect and
fear of failure when the perceived difficulty of the task increases (e.g., <xref rid="R11" ref-type="bibr">Brownlow & Reasinger, 2000</xref>; <xref rid="R40" ref-type="bibr">Paisley & Sparks, 1998</xref>). According to
Gendolla and Krüsken (<xref rid="R17" ref-type="bibr">2001</xref>),
subjective demands should be higher in a negative mood compared to a positive
mood. However, we neither found a weight effect on task difficulty, nor on fear
of failure, perceived demands, and reported frustration. Thus, the result
pattern contradicts the notion that the weight effect on task performance was
motivationally grounded.</p><p>Furthermore, a more fine-grained analysis of participants’ anagram
solutions provided two insights. First, we did not find evidence for a reduced
cognitive access to lightness-related items in the heavy clipboard condition.
According to the conceptual metaphor theory (<xref rid="R32" ref-type="bibr">Lakoff & Johnsson, 1980</xref>), the sensation of heaviness should
activate semantically related knowledge. Given this idea, we asked whether
activating the concept of heaviness may have reduced the likelihood of solving
anagrams which were closely associated with the concept of lightness. The
present results did not support this option. Second, the analysis of false
anagram solutions (i.e., mistakes) revealed that the reduced performance in the
heavy clipboard group is not a signature of a detrimental speed-accuracy
tradeoff. As outlined above, one might assume that the sensation of heaviness
triggers a more explorative and persistent thinking about each anagram (cf.
<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>). This may lead
to reduced processing speed in favor of a higher accuracy. However, participants
made slightly more mistakes when they held a heavy versus a light clipboard in
their hands. Thus, the present results do also not support the notion of a
reduced processing speed elicited by heaviness sensations. Consequently, the
data seem to be more compatible with the view that the sensation of heaviness
elicited a cognitive barrier. This perceived barrier could have counteracted
fluent creative thinking by stimulating, for example, a more analytic thinking
or aimless rumination which participants applied to handle the problem at hand.
Although we are not able to specify the nature of this cognitive barrier, it is
conceivable that heaviness literally increased the perceived “gravity of
the situation” in some form (cf. <xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman
et al., 2010</xref>), making fluent task processing more difficult. In fact,
some researchers assume that such conceptual metaphors are the basis of
embodiment phenomena as they shape the way we think (cf. <xref rid="R32" ref-type="bibr">Lakoff & Johnson, 1980</xref>). However, the present data
cannot resolve the debate about the role of linguistic metaphors in the context
of embodied cognition phenomena. At least we can conclude that the present
effect is not a signature of a better cognitive access to lightness-related
words in the light clipboard condition. Future studies are necessary to answer
whether bodily sensations may work as a semantic prime that, in turn, affects
higher cognitive processes.</p><p>Finally, we once more want to point out that the perceived physical and mental
demands were not affected by the weight sensation. Both measures did also not
correlate with effort, both <italic>r</italic> 0.21, <italic>p</italic> 0.17.
However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the effort scale also captures
some unspecific aspects of mental or physical fatigue, although we tried to
avoid physical exhaustion by using a heavy clipboard that was lighter than those
used in previous studies. Hence, it is possible that the impression of a
cognitive barrier elicited by a heavy clipboard may be (at least partially)
determined by some kind of fatigue. However, the fact that we did not find a
weight effect on the reported physical demands means that we may conclude that
the weight treatment did not elicit physical exhaustion substantial enough to
completely explain the lowered task performance in the heavy clipboard
condition. All in all, the present experiment shed first light on weight effects
on cognitive performance, but it also left some open questions. Consequently, we
conducted a second experiment to further investigate the mechanism behind such
weight effects.</p></sec></sec><sec id="S4"><title>Experiment 2</title><p>In Experiment 2, we scrutinized whether the weight sensation has actually no
influence on participants’ speed-accuracy tradeoff that could account for the
effects on performance. Heaviness might trigger a more elaborate thinking about an
issue (<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>). Thus,
heaviness might slow down the processing speed in favor of higher accuracy.
Experiment 1 was limited in this respect so that no final conclusion could be drawn.
On the one hand, the task processing time was set constant for all participants,
reducing the degrees of freedom for a self-imposed processing speed. On the other
hand, only few mistakes had been made overall so that the accuracy analysis could be
biased by some few random events. Hence, a task was required that allows both a
self-imposed speed-accuracy tradeoff as well as a simple response heuristic. The
latter option was necessary to test the alternative hypothesis that heaviness
elicits the impression of a cognitive barrier participants try to bypass by applying
a specific processing style. With respect to Experiment 1, we assumed that the heavy
clipboard may have triggered a more analytic thinking style or aimless rumination
that counteracted what was required by the anagram task: creative thinking. However,
we were not able to make this processing style visible so that further alternative
explanations (in addition to those excluded by the data of Experiment 1) are
possible. Consequently, we needed a task that could make a specific processing style
or response heuristic visible.</p><p>To meet these requirements, we constructed a two-alternative forced-choice task (left
versus right) with a new kind of visual stimulus (see methods section). Thereby, the
task was characterized by considerable uncertainty due to the absence of substantial
diagnostic information regarding the right choice so that embodied information
should be significantly incorporated in the task processing style (cf. <xref rid="R7" ref-type="bibr">Binder & Desai, 2011</xref>; <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>; <xref rid="R33" ref-type="bibr">Landau, Meier,
& Keefer, 2010</xref>). If heaviness actually triggers a more elaborate
thinking about task items, longer task completion times in the heavy clipboard
condition should coincide with higher hit rates. Alternatively, if heaviness elicits
the impression of a cognitive barrier, participants should apply a simple response
heuristic to bypass this barrier: in accordance with the body-specific hypothesis
(<xref rid="R12" ref-type="bibr">Casasanto, 2009</xref>), right handers usually
allocate positive affect to the rightward body space, while this association seems
to be an effect of repeated successful motor actions. In fact, when the right hand
of right-handers is temporally handicapped, they show preferences for the left side
(<xref rid="R13" ref-type="bibr">Casasanto & Chrysikou, 2011</xref>). Thus,
we assumed that the sensation of heaviness, if it actually triggers the impression
of a cognitive barrier, should lead to a simple “right is the better
choice” heuristic in order to maintain a fluent task processing. In this
case, we also expected no weight effect on effort as the primary purpose of this
response heuristic should be the avoidance of increased effort.</p><sec id="S4a"><title>Methods</title><sec id="S4a1"><title>Participants</title><p>We assessed the required sample size by means of GPower (<xref rid="R16" ref-type="bibr">Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner,
2007</xref>) on the basis of the effect sizes found in Experiment 1
(effort: <italic>d</italic> = 0.77; performance: <italic>d</italic> = 0.81).
Given the smaller effect size of 0.77, a power of .90, a significance level
of .05, and a two-tailed hypothesis testing, we got a target sample size of
n = 37 for each of the two groups (heavy vs. light). Correspondingly, we
analyzed the data of 77 participants (38 vs. 39) while one participant has
been excluded prior to the analysis due to several missing data. The two
groups of university students did not differ in their mean age,
<italic>t</italic>(42) = 0.50, <italic>p</italic> = .617, and gender was
again counterbalanced across conditions (19 males per condition). Following
Casasanto (<xref rid="R12" ref-type="bibr">2009</xref>), we only tested
participants who reported to be right-handers and verified this report by
the observed writing hand.</p></sec><sec id="S4a2"><title>Materials</title><p>As in Experiment 1, we applied the QCM questionnaire before the task and the
NASA-TLX after the task. However, in contrast to the anagrams of Experiment
1, we created a new set of stimuli being suitable for a two-alternative
forced-choice task. Because the stimuli had to be unfamiliar to all
participants and because they should nevertheless be easy to grasp, we
created visual stimuli that were inspired by the old-fashioned video game
“Snake” (see <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F3">Figure 3</xref>).
For each pair of snakes, participants had to decide which one is longer by
marking A or B with a cross. Hence, a higher accuracy can be achieved by a
more accurate visual inspection of the snakes. Overall, participants had to
process 24 pairs of snakes, whereby in half of the trials the longer snake
was depicted on the right side. All pairs were depicted on one page that was
divided into four columns and six rows. The order of snake pairs was
identical for all participants.</p><fig id="F3" position="float"><label>Figure 3.</label><caption><p>Three examples of the two-alternative forced-choice task used in
Experiment 2. Participants had to indicate for each pair which of
the snakes is longer by marking A or B.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="acp-11-064-g003"></graphic></fig></sec><sec id="S4a3"><title>Procedure</title><p>The procedure was identical to that in Experiment 1, with the exceptions
noted. After the experimenter had reached a passer-by in the main hall of
the university, she asked her/him to participate in an experiment on the
effect of body posture on cognitive performance (same cover story as in
Experiment 1). She highlighted that the three best participants will win 12,
10, or 8 Euros, respectively. The monetary incentive was used to elicit high
motivation in all participants. After a passer-by had agreed to participate,
the experimenter led him or her to the laboratory. The participant was
randomly assigned to the light or the heavy clipboard. The experimenter
explained the procedure and handed over the corresponding clipboard. The
cover page described the snake task in detail and, once more, highlighted
the monetary gain for the best three performers, for which completion time
and accuracy were considered. Afterwards, participants filled out the QCM
questionnaire. Then, on the next page, the snake task was presented.
Participants performed the task without a time limit, but completion time
was recorded by the experimenter. In the end, they filled out the NASA-TLX
questionnaire. After all participants had been tested, the best three of
them were identified by means of the hit rate/completion time ratio. They
were contacted via e-mail and were paid the promised monetary gain.</p></sec></sec><sec id="S4b"><title>Results</title><p>Task completion time and the number of correctly identified snakes correlated
slightly positively, <italic>p</italic><sub>S</sub> = 0.20, <italic>p</italic> =
.083. However, and contrary to the assumption that a heavy clipboard triggers a
more elaborate item exploration and, thus, slows down task processing in favor
of more accurate responses, we neither found an effect of the clipboard’s
weight on task completion time, <italic>z</italic> = -0.72, <italic>p</italic> =
.473, <italic>d</italic> = 0.09, nor on the number of correctly identified
snakes, <italic>t</italic>(75) = 0.23, <italic>p</italic> = .818,
<italic>d</italic> = 0.05. The mean hit rate (<italic>M</italic> =15.86,
<italic>SD</italic> = 2.38) was significantly above the chance level of 50%,
<italic>t</italic>(76) = 14.24, <italic>p</italic> < .001,
<italic>d</italic> = 1.62. But, in accordance with the notion of a simple
response heuristic in the case of a sensed heaviness, participants in the heavy
clipboard condition selected the right snake of a pair more often than
participants in the light clipboard condition, <italic>t</italic>(75) = -3.30,
<italic>p</italic> = .001, <italic>d</italic> = 0.75. As shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="F4">Figure 4</xref>, in the light clipboard condition
the number of selected left and right snakes did not differ from 12 (i.e., 50%
of trials), both |t| = 1.18, <italic>p</italic> = .246, <italic>d</italic> =
0.19. In contrast, in the heavy clipboard condition the number of selected right
snakes (54.81%) was above 50% (<italic>M</italic> =13.15, <italic>SD</italic>=1.98) and the number of left snakes (45.19%) below 50% (<italic>M</italic>=10.85, <italic>SD</italic> =1.98), both |t| = 3.64, <italic>p</italic> = .001,
<italic>d</italic> = 0.58. Hence, the two groups differed significantly from
each other, <italic>t</italic>(75) = 3.30, <italic>p</italic> = .001,
<italic>d</italic> = 0.75. This contrast is also reflected in an
interaction, <italic>F</italic>(2, 75) = 10.90, <italic>p</italic> = .001,
η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .13, when computing a 2 × 2
(clipboard condition × side of selected snakes) mixed-measures ANOVA. We
did not find an effect of the side, <italic>F</italic>(2, 75) = 2.36,
<italic>p</italic> = .129, η<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .03. No effect
for the clipboard condition was computed because it is a constant instead of a
variable (i.e., a value of 24 for all participants). Moreover, the right side
bias in the heavy clipboard condition coincided with an increased post-task
reported frustration in the heavy clipboard condition (<italic>M</italic> =8.55,
<italic>SD</italic> =4.74) compared to the light condition
(<italic>M</italic> =6.33, <italic>SD</italic> =4.12), <italic>z</italic> =
-2.06, <italic>p</italic> = .039, <italic>d</italic> = 0.50. Consequently,
although the clipboard’s weight did not affect task processing speed and
accuracy, it elicited a right side bias in the two-alternative forced-choice
task. Hence, this response tendency did not thwart an accurate item processing.
Apparently, the correctly solved items substantially varied across participants
so that the right side bias did not affect task performance.</p><fig id="F4" position="float"><label>Figure 4.</label><caption><p>The number of selected right snakes (left side) and post-task reported
frustration (right side). The dotted line in the left diagram indicates
50% of trials. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="acp-11-064-g004"></graphic></fig><p>In contrast to Experiment 1, we found no effect of weight on post-task reported
effort, <italic>t</italic>(75) = -0.88, <italic>p</italic> = .382,
<italic>d</italic> = 0.20. In accordance with Experiment 1, we found neither
a weight effect on the other scales of the NASA-TLX questionnaire, all
|<italic>z</italic>| ≤ 1.19, <italic>p</italic> ≥ .236,
<italic>d</italic> ≤ 0.27, nor on the pre-task optimism rating,
<italic>t</italic>(75) = 0.19, <italic>p</italic> = .848, <italic>d</italic>= 0.04. Also, we found no weight effect on the assessed task difficulty and task
importance operationalized by aggregating the scales of the QCM questionnaire
(see Experiment 1), both |<italic>t</italic>| ≤ 0.66, <italic>p</italic>≥ .509, <italic>d</italic> ≤ 0.15. As we did not find an effect of
the clipboard’s weight on task performance, completion time, and effort,
we abstain from reporting the results of corresponding mediation analyses due to
insignificant results in all cases. However, we exploratorily tested whether the
effect of weight on the number of selected right snakes was mediated by
frustration. Both measures significantly correlated with weight as reflected by
the above mentioned main effects. We computed a multiple regression analysis
that included the clipboard’s weight and frustration as predictor
variables, and the number of selected right snakes as criterion (<xref rid="R4" ref-type="bibr">Baron & Kenny, 1986</xref>). However, we found
no mediation effect. The two predictor variables jointly explained a significant
amount of variance, <italic>R</italic><sup>2</sup> = 0.36, <italic>p</italic> =
.006, where the clipboard’s weight showed a significant contribution,
<italic>t</italic> = 3.30, <italic>p</italic> = .001, in contrast to
frustration, <italic>t</italic> = -0.46, <italic>p</italic> = .644. This
conclusion was also reached by the procedure of Preacher and Hayes (<xref rid="R42" ref-type="bibr">2008</xref>) analyzing the indirect effect of
weight through frustration, <italic>effect</italic> = -0.06, <italic>z</italic>= -0.46, <italic>p</italic> = .646, 95% CI = -0.47 to 0.16.</p></sec><sec id="S4c"><title>Discussion</title><p>In contrast to Experiment 1, we found no effect of haptic weight sensations on
task performance, but we were able to uncover a specific task processing style.
The sensation of heaviness, compared to lightness, did not affect
participants’ speed-accuracy tradeoff, contradicting the assumption that
heaviness may elicit a more elaborate thinking about an issue and, hence, slow
down task processing speed in favor of higher accuracy. This assumption was
proposed by Jostmann et al. (<xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">2009</xref>) who
found a higher consistency between related judgments as an indicator for a more
in-depth elaboration of test items. In contrast, the present data suggest that a
heavy clipboard triggered a specific response heuristic in terms of a simple
“right is the better choice” rule. In several studies, right
handers were found to associate the right side of their body space with higher
positive valence (e.g., <xref rid="R12" ref-type="bibr">Casasanto, 2009</xref>)
and to search for a target on the right side in a T-maze task (<xref rid="R45" ref-type="bibr">Scharine & McBeath, 2002</xref>). Importantly,
this right side bias seems to be grounded on the experience of a more fluent and
successful interaction with the environment when using the dominant hand,
because the right side bias can be flipped into a left side bias by handicapping
the right hand in a motor coordination task (<xref rid="R13" ref-type="bibr">Casasanto & Chrysikou, 2011</xref>). Accordingly, and suggested by the
findings of Experiment 1, we considered the possibility that the sensation of
heaviness may elicit the impression of a cognitive barrier which participants
would try to bypass by choosing the right response option more often in order to
maintain fluent task processing and to avoid additionally increased effort. The
present data supported this second option instead of a modulation of the
speed-accuracy tradeoff. It has to be stressed that this response heuristic did
not lead to a shorter task completion time, indicating that participants in the
heavy clipboard condition were trying to solve the items, but that they were
influenced by the clipboard’s weight along the way rather than giving up
and, therefore, simply choosing the right response option more often. In fact,
the results of Experiment 1 also did not support the notion of a change in
participants’ speed-accuracy tradeoff. However, the anagram task of
Experiment 1 did not allow applying a similarly simple response heuristic to
cope with the influence of weight. Instead, the sensation of heaviness may have
reduced performance by eliciting a more analytic thinking style or aimless
rumination about the task content (which was not observable, however).</p><p>However, we want to emphasize that, at the present moment, we can only speculate
about the functional nature or mechanism of what we called a “cognitive
barrier”. Future research is necessary to further scrutinize this crucial
point. Nonetheless, the present data provide some additional hints. First, in
Experiment 2, we found no effect of weight on post-task reported effort. Given
that the weight manipulation did not affect task performance (i.e., the number
of correctly identified snakes) and task completion time, there was no need to
feel more exhausted when holding a heavy versus a light clipboard. Instead, the
weight-related change in participants’ response pattern (i.e., more right
than left snakes in the heavy clipboard condition) apparently counteracted the
potential increase in effort. This is the important difference between
Experiments 1 and 2, highlighting that weight effects seem to depend on the type
of the cognitive task. Also, weight did not affect the post-task reported mental
demands. However, and in contrast to Experiment 1, we found that the right side
bias introduced by a heavy clipboard was accompanied by a higher post-task
frustration. This may reflect that the participants actually experienced some
cognitive barriers during task processing. Perhaps participants in the heavy
clipboard condition were less satisfied with the simple response heuristic they
applied to handle the cognitive barrier.</p><p>Finally, it has to be mentioned that, as in Experiment 1, weight did not affect
the pre-task motivation and optimism. Also, weight again had neither an effect
on the post-task assessed success in accomplishing what the task required, nor
did weight influence the assessed temporal demands of the task. Indeed, the
number of correctly identified snakes and the task completion time were
identical in both groups. Again, we found no effect of physical weight on the
reported physical demands of the task.</p></sec></sec><sec id="S5"><title>General discussion</title><p>Previous studies provided strong evidence that the incidental sensation of physical
weight affects the evaluation of issues and objects on dimensions that are
conceptually related to weight. The research question of the present work was
whether the sensation of weight also affects one’s performance in cognitive
tasks. Our results support this assumption, showing an effect that is not unspecific
but task-dependent. In Experiment 1, the performance in an anagram task was reduced
when participants sensed heaviness compared to lightness. In Experiment 2, a heavy
weight affected the task processing style in a two-alternative force-choice task.
Participants tended towards a simple response heuristic in terms of a right side
bias while their self-imposed speed-accuracy tradeoff and the overall task
performance did not change.</p><p>Future studies are necessary to scrutinize which variables could mediate such
embodiment effects as mediation models have been widely neglected so far in embodied
cognition research. The present experiments aimed at providing insights into
potential mediation mechanisms, but we found no evidence for that. Perhaps weight
indeed affected task performance (Experiment 1) and task processing style
(Experiment 2) in a direct manner. We measured several variables that were assumed
to mediate these effects as well as several control variables. However, only effort
(Experiment 1) and frustration (Experiment 2) were sensitive to the weight
treatment, but both variables did not mediate the effect of weight. It might be that
this result is due to the fact that these variables were measured after task
processing and, hence, perhaps did not reflect states of effort and frustration
experienced during task processing. Perhaps a continuous measure of effort during
task processing, such as the pupil diameter or the skin conductance level, would be
more suitable to capture mediation effects. In this context, we also want to point
out that the phenomenology of weight sensations has been widely neglected so far in
the embodiment literature (cf. <xref rid="R36" ref-type="bibr">Meier et al.,
2012</xref>). A bulk of studies reported effects of weight on diverse
psychological dimensions. However, at this moment we only can speculate about how
the weight itself is perceived. Recently, Kaspar et al. (<xref rid="R27" ref-type="bibr">2015</xref>) speculated whether different weight sensations may
trigger specific affective responses. This might be a fruitful starting point for
future research because it is a crucial point to uncover what kind of mechanism
(e.g., a cognitive barrier, shifting one’s attention to specific information,
or a kind of cognitive or physical fatigue) mediates weight-related embodiment
phenomena.</p><p>Nonetheless, a direct link between weight sensations and cognitive performance is
actually conceivable. Wilson (<xref rid="R49" ref-type="bibr">2002</xref>) outlined
that some parts of cognition are externalized and body-based. Thus, it is possible
that embodied information directly influences cognitive processing such as problem
solving without the necessity to be translated into more abstract cognitive concepts
(e.g., difficulty, importance, or perceived effort) to be cognitively effective. In
fact, this direct pathway is completely compatible with the core understanding of
how embodied cognition may work.</p><p>The effect sizes found were middle to large (Cohen’s <italic>d</italic>between 0.50 and 0.81) and are in line with previous studies comparing the effect of
light versus heavy clipboards (e.g., <xref rid="R1" ref-type="bibr">Ackerman et al.,
2010</xref>; <xref rid="R23" ref-type="bibr">Jostmann et al., 2009</xref>; <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>; <xref rid="R27" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar et al., 2015</xref>; <xref rid="R29" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar & Krull,
2013</xref>). However, Kaufmann and Allen (<xref rid="R30" ref-type="bibr">2014</xref>) found only null effects when investigating the impact of backpacks
differing in weight on several judgments that were unrelated to the weight
manipulation. Apparently, bodily sensations have no effect when they are irrelevant.
To the best of our knowledge, in all previous cases of significant effects the
weight of an object (e.g., a book, a clipboard, or a backpack) was somehow related
to the task. In studies with clipboards, for example, subjects always judged things
(e.g., social issues or persons) that were presented on top of the clipboard.
Consequently, there was a direct link between the clipboard and the task—at
least a spatial and temporal link. This spatiotemporal relationship between the task
and the weight manipulation appears to be crucial. If the sensation of physical
weight is completely unrelated to the task, the weight sensation may not carry over
to the task. Hence, weight-related embodiment effects seem to be context-sensitive
and do not generalize to all situations.</p><p>Moreover, it is conceivable that physical weight can have a contrast effect on a
cognitive dimension. In fact, Kaspar (<xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">2013a</xref>, Study 5) found that pharmaceutical
drugs presented via written vignettes and images on a heavy or a light clipboard
were rated as more effective in the light clipboard condition. The author discussed
this unexpected result in terms of a negative priming effect. Similarly, it might be
that participants who are primed for weight-related concepts (e.g., seriousness)
show contrast effects if the task content does not fit to the participants’
expectations. For example, the sensation of heaviness might trigger the concept of
seriousness that, however, may lead to reduced ratings of the seriousness of
diseases when the diseases to be judged are very mild in general (cf. <xref rid="R24" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, 2013a</xref>).</p><p>Furthermore, one might consider the possibility that afferent signals are not needed
to produce weight-related effects. It may be sufficient to activate corresponding
motor commands or to prime the concept of heaviness in order to induce such effects.
In fact, studies on the relationship between physical cleansing and moral judgments
showed that actual cleansing is not necessary to change moral judgments (<xref rid="R50" ref-type="bibr">Zhong, Strejcek, & Sivanathan, 2010</xref>).
According to the moral-purity metaphor, the concept of physical purity serves as a
scaffold for the abstract concept of moral purity (cf. <xref rid="R32" ref-type="bibr">Lakoff & Johnson, 1980</xref>; <xref rid="R47" ref-type="bibr">Williams et al., 2009</xref>). Accordingly, Zhong et al. (<xref rid="R50" ref-type="bibr">2010</xref>) found that activating the concept of physical purity by a
visualization task led to harsher moral judgments. However, this priming effect was
smaller compared to real hand cleansing perhaps because the actual sensorimotor
activity is a more powerful prime or, alternatively, because real hand cleansing
makes it easier to ascribe the state of physical purity to oneself and, hence,
renders the embodied information more influential. It is conceivable that a
similarly attenuated but still significant effect of priming could be observed with
respect to physical weight. This is an important aspect that would help to better
assess the extent to which embodied cognition depends on one’s physical
interaction with the environment. However, it has to be noted that such a priming
effect is not necessarily of an abstract semantic origin. It might be that a
specific prime stimulates the cognitive simulation of interacting with weighty
objects. Barsalou (<xref rid="R5" ref-type="bibr">2008</xref>) stated that such
“simulation is the reenactment of perceptual, motor, and introspective states
acquired during experience with the world, body, and mind” (p. 618). In this
sense, a prime might activate the sensorimotor experiences related to the bodily
interaction with physical objects instead of activating abstract semantic knowledge
related to weight. Hence, conceptual metaphors (cf. <xref rid="R32" ref-type="bibr">Lakoff & Johnson, 1980</xref>; <xref rid="R34" ref-type="bibr">Lee &
Schwarz, 2014</xref>) may not be the central mechanism. Studies that would
decidedly focus on such priming effects in the absence of actual bodily sensations
would be desirable for a more complete picture of the mechanisms.</p><p>Also, it might be possible that the weight difference between a light and a heavy
condition directly determines the effect size that can be found on the level of the
dependent variable. However, although the heavy clipboard in the present studies was
lighter than in previous studies, it produced remarkable effects. Indeed, across all
previous studies no consistency existed regarding the selected weights. It might be
a useful contribution to the literature if the impact of varying weight differences
on specific psychological dimensions would be systematically investigated.</p><p>The present results also have practical implications. Given that the performance in
cognitive tasks can be linked to bodily states, it might be useful in work settings
to uncover potential barriers for cognitive performance that derive from specific
bodily actions. This could be the case, for example, when tasks require both
physical effort as well as cognitive flexibility. This aspect is also of interest
regarding human-computer interfaces when mobile devices such as tablets and
smartphones provide specific weight sensations. In this sense, considering the
impact of weight on product evaluations might increase the effectiveness of
classical usability tests (cf. <xref rid="R26" ref-type="bibr">Kaspar, Hamborg,
Sackmann, & Hesselmann, 2010</xref>). Additionally, specific body-related
experiences may be a new avenue for training and intervention aiming at an
improvement of cognitive abilities. However, future research is necessary to examine
the generalizability of the present results to other cognitive tasks. Perhaps some
kind of task also benefits from the sensation of heaviness.</p><p>Additionally, we want to emphasize that the two present experiments were associated
with very different task requirements. While the anagram task of Experiment 1
required creative thinking and persistence, in Experiment 2 a two-alternative
forced-choice task related to other S-R mapping tasks was performed that required an
accurate visual analysis of the stimulus being similar to the classical visual
discrimination task by Solomon E. Asch (<xref rid="R3" ref-type="bibr">1956</xref>)
who used lines of different length. Although we assumed that a cognitive barrier was
the driving force behind the effects in both experiments, it is also possible that
this barrier differed between tasks.</p><p>Finally, we want to make a methodological remark: all previous studies as well as the
present work on weight effects used between-subjects designs. Although a randomized
assignment of participants to weight conditions is common and aims towards an equal
distribution of all potential confounds, sometimes sampling errors might occur
nonetheless. Thus, replication studies are necessary in this research area. One
should maybe also consider using within-subject designs, but the difference in
weight between conditions can be striking when measurement time points are very
close to each other. This might raise suspicion. Additionally, repeated measures
suffer from potential carry-over effects or varying reliabilities of instruments.
However, a clever research design using repeated measures and avoiding common
problems of within-subject designs might contribute significantly to the field.</p><p>To conclude, the present experiments provided first evidence that the incidental
sensation of heaviness can affect task performance, task processing style, but also
effort and frustration reported post task. These results complement previous
research showing that weight sensations affect different kinds of social judgments
and object evaluations. Hence, the present results call for more attention to
cognitive processes beyond judgment formation in the field of embodied cognition.
Based on the novelty of present results many new research questions arise. Overall,
the present findings are a promising starting point for future research that should
further expand the scope to outcome measures beyond judgments. Moreover, in order to
develop elaborate models of embodied cognitive processes, it is important to
scrutinize boundary conditions of corresponding phenomena and the role of potential
mediators. This will help to deepen our understanding of the mechanisms behind the
fascinating interplay between basal bodily sensations and higher cognitive
processes.</p></sec></body><back><ack><p>We would like to thank Daniel Zimmermann for his help in data acquisition and
Anne-Kathrin Wilbers for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.</p></ack><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="R1"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ackerman</surname><given-names>J. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Nocera</surname><given-names>C. C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bargh</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Incidental haptic sensations of social judgements and
decisions.</article-title><source>Science</source><year>2010</year><volume>328</volume><fpage>1712</fpage><lpage>1715</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20576894</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R2"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Ansburg</surname><given-names>P. I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hill</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional
resources.</article-title><source>Personality and Individual Differences</source><year>2003</year><volume>34</volume><fpage>1141</fpage><lpage>1152</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R3"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Asch</surname><given-names>S. E.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one
against a unanimous majority.</article-title><source>Psychological Monographs: General and Applied</source><year>1956</year><volume>70</volume><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>70</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R4"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Baron</surname><given-names>R. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kenny</surname><given-names>D. A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations.</article-title><source>Journal of Personality and Social Psychology</source><year>1986</year><volume>51</volume><fpage>1173</fpage><lpage>1182</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">3806354</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R5"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Barsalou</surname><given-names>L. W.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Grounded cognition.</article-title><source>Annual Review of Psychology</source><year>2008</year><volume>59</volume><fpage>617</fpage><lpage>645</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R6"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Beversdorf</surname><given-names>D. Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hughes</surname><given-names>J. D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Steinberg</surname><given-names>B. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lewis</surname><given-names>L. D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Heilman</surname><given-names>K. M.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Noradrenergic modulation of cognitive flexibility in problem
solving.</article-title><source>Neuroreport</source><year>1999</year><volume>10</volume><fpage>2763</fpage><lpage>2767</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">10511436</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R7"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Binder</surname><given-names>J. R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Desai</surname><given-names>R. H.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The neurobiology of semantic memory.</article-title><source>Trends in Cognitive Sciences</source><year>2011</year><volume>15</volume><fpage>527</fpage><lpage>536</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22001867</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R8"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Boggiano</surname><given-names>A. K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Flink</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shields</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Seelbach</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Barrett</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Use of techniques promoting students’ self-determination:
Effects on students’ analytic problem-solving skills.</article-title><source>Motivation and Emotion</source><year>1993</year><volume>17</volume><fpage>319</fpage><lpage>336</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R9"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brehm</surname><given-names>J. W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Self</surname><given-names>E. A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The intensity of motivation.</article-title><source>Annual Review of Psychology</source><year>1989</year><volume>40</volume><fpage>109</fpage><lpage>131</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R10"><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brińol</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Petty</surname><given-names>R. E.</given-names></name></person-group><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Semin</surname><given-names>G. R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Smith</surname><given-names>E. R.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Embodied persuasion: Fundamental processes by which bodily
responses can impact attitudes.</article-title><source>Embodied grounding: Social, cognitive, affective, and neuroscientific
approaches</source><year>2008</year><publisher-loc> Cambridge, England </publisher-loc><publisher-name> Cambridge University Press </publisher-name><fpage>184</fpage><lpage>207</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R11"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Brownlow</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Reasinger</surname><given-names>R. D.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Putting off until tomorrow what is better done today: Academic
procrastination as a function of motivation toward college
work.</article-title><source>Journal of Social Behavior and Personality</source><year>2000</year><volume>15</volume><fpage>15</fpage><lpage>34</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R12"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Casasanto</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right-and
left-handers.</article-title><source>Journal of Experimental Psychology: General</source><year>2009</year><volume>138</volume><fpage>351</fpage><lpage>367</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19653795</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R13"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Casasanto</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chrysikou</surname><given-names>E. G.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>When left is “right” motor fluency shapes abstract
concepts.</article-title><source>Psychological Science</source><year>2011</year><volume>22</volume><fpage>419</fpage><lpage>422</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">21389336</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R14"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Chandler</surname><given-names>J. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Reinhard</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schwarz</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content:
Knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues.</article-title><source>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</source><year>2012</year><volume>48</volume><fpage>948</fpage><lpage>952</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R15"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Eisenberger</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kuhlman</surname><given-names>D. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cotterell</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Effects of social values, effort training, and goal structure on
task persistence.</article-title><source>Journal of Research in Personality</source><year>1992</year><volume>26</volume><fpage>258</fpage><lpage>272</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R16"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Faul</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Erdfelder</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lang</surname><given-names>A. G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Buchner</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the
social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.</article-title><source>Behavior Research Methods</source><year>2007</year><volume>39</volume><fpage>175</fpage><lpage>191</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">17695343</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R17"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Gendolla</surname><given-names>G. H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Krüsken</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Mood state and cardiovascular response in active coping with an
affect-regulative challenge.</article-title><source>International Journal of Psychophysiology</source><year>2001</year><volume>41</volume><fpage>169</fpage><lpage>180</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">11325461</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R18"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hamborg</surname><given-names>K. C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hülsmann</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kaspar</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The interplay between usability and aesthetics: More evidence for
the “What is usable is beautiful” notion.</article-title><source>Advances in Human-Computer Interaction</source><year>2014</year><volume>946239</volume><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>13</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R19"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hart</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later.</article-title><source>Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual
Meeting</source><year>2006</year><volume>50</volume><fpage>904</fpage><lpage>908</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R20"><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Hart</surname><given-names>S. G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Staveland</surname><given-names>L. E.</given-names></name></person-group><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Hancock</surname><given-names>P. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Meshkati</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical
and theoretical research.</article-title><source>Human mental workload</source><year>1988</year><publisher-loc> Amsterdam, The Netherlands </publisher-loc><publisher-name> North Holland Press </publisher-name><fpage>139</fpage><lpage>183</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R21"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Heeren</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>D’Agostino</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Robustness of the two independent samples
<italic>t</italic>-tests when applied to ordinal scaled
data.</article-title><source>Statistics in Medicine</source><year>1987</year><volume>6</volume><fpage>79</fpage><lpage>90</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">3576020</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R22"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Higgins</surname><given-names>E. T.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Beyond pleasure and pain.</article-title><source>The American Psychologist</source><year>1997</year><volume>52</volume><fpage>1280</fpage><lpage>1300</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">9414606</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R23"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Jostmann</surname><given-names>N. B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lakens</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schubert</surname><given-names>T. W.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Weight as an embodiment of importance.</article-title><source>Psychological Science</source><year>2009</year><volume>20</volume><fpage>1169</fpage><lpage>1174</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19686292</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R24"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaspar</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Embodied cognition is a weighty matter: Heaviness influences the
perception of disease severity, drug effectiveness, and side
effects.</article-title><source>PLoS ONE</source><year>2013a</year><volume>8</volume><fpage>e78307</fpage><lpage>e78307</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">24244302</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R25"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaspar</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Washing one’s hands after failure enhances optimism but
hampers future performance.</article-title><source>Social Psychological and Personality Science</source><year>2013b</year><volume>4</volume><fpage>69</fpage><lpage>73</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R26"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaspar</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hamborg</surname><given-names>K.-C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sackmann</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hesselmann</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The effectiveness of formative evaluation in the development of
usable software: A case study.</article-title><source>Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie</source><year>2010</year><volume>54</volume><fpage>29</fpage><lpage>38</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R27"><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaspar</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jurisch</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneider</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Embodied cognition and humor: The impact of weight sensations on humor
experience and the moderating role of gender. Current Psychology, (online
first), 1-15.</source><year>2015</year><publisher-loc> doi </publisher-loc><publisher-name> 10.1007/s12144-015-9304- </publisher-name></element-citation></ref><ref id="R28"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaspar</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>König</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schwandt</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>König</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The experience of new sensorimotor contingencies by sensory
augmentation.</article-title><source>Consciousness and Cognition</source><year>2014</year><volume>28</volume><fpage>47</fpage><lpage>63</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">25038534</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R29"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaspar</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Krull</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Incidental haptic stimulation in the context of flirt
behavior.</article-title><source>Journal of Nonverbal Behavior</source><year>2013</year><volume>37</volume><fpage>165</fpage><lpage>173</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R30"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kaufmann</surname><given-names>L. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Allen</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Adding weight to judgments: The role of stimulus focality on
weight-related embodied cognition.</article-title><source>Sensoria: A Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture</source><year>2014</year><volume>10</volume><fpage>41</fpage><lpage>48</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R31"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Kumar</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kumari</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Problem solving as a function of creativity and
personality.</article-title><source>Psychological Studies</source><year>1988</year><volume>33</volume><fpage>157</fpage><lpage>161</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R32"><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lakoff</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Johnson</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Metaphors we live by.</source><year>1980</year><publisher-loc> Chicago, IL </publisher-loc><publisher-name> University of Chicago Press </publisher-name></element-citation></ref><ref id="R33"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Landau</surname><given-names>M. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Meier</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Keefer</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A metaphor-enriched social cognition.</article-title><source>Psychological Bulletin</source><year>2010</year><volume>136</volume><fpage>1045</fpage><lpage>1067</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20822208</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R34"><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>W. S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schwarz</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name></person-group><person-group person-group-type="editor"><name><surname>Landau</surname><given-names>M. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Robinson</surname><given-names>M. D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Meier</surname><given-names>B. P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Metaphor in judgment and decision making.</article-title><source>The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life</source><year>2014</year><publisher-loc> Washington, DC </publisher-loc><publisher-name> American Psychological Association </publisher-name><fpage>225</fpage><lpage>247</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R35"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Mehta</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhu</surname><given-names>R. J.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Blue or red? Exploring the effect of color on cognitive task
performances.</article-title><source>Science</source><year>2009</year><volume>323</volume><fpage>1226</fpage><lpage>1229</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">19197022</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R36"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Meier</surname><given-names>B. P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schnall</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schwarz</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bargh</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Embodiment in social psychology.</article-title><source>Topics in Cognitive Science</source><year>2012</year><volume>4</volume><fpage>705</fpage><lpage>716</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">22777820</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R37"><element-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Miles</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shevlin</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><source>Applying regression & correlation - A guide for students and
researchers.</source><year>2001</year><publisher-loc> London, UK </publisher-loc><publisher-name> SAGE Publications </publisher-name></element-citation></ref><ref id="R38"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Moroney</surname><given-names>W. F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Biers</surname><given-names>D. W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Eggemeier</surname><given-names>F. T.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Some measurement and methodological considerations in the
application of subjective workload measurement techniques.</article-title><source>The International Journal of Aviation Psychology</source><year>1995</year><volume>5</volume><fpage>87</fpage><lpage>106</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R39"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Nie</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lau</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liau</surname><given-names>A. K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Role of academic self-efficacy in moderating the relation between
task importance and test anxiety.</article-title><source>Learning and Individual Differences</source><year>2011</year><volume>21</volume><fpage>736</fpage><lpage>741</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R40"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Paisley</surname><given-names>C. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sparks</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Expectations of reducing fat intake: The role of perceived need
within the theory of planned behaviour.</article-title><source>Psychology and Health</source><year>1998</year><volume>13</volume><fpage>341</fpage><lpage>353</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R41"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Pfendler</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Zur Messung der mentalen Beanspruchung mit dem NASA-Task Load
Index [Measuring mental workload with the NASA Task Load
Index].</article-title><source>Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft</source><year>1990</year><volume>44</volume><fpage>158</fpage><lpage>163</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R42"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Preacher</surname><given-names>K. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hayes</surname><given-names>A. F.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing
indirect effects in multiple mediator models.</article-title><source>Behavior Research Methods</source><year>2008</year><volume>40</volume><fpage>879</fpage><lpage>891</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18697684</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R43"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Rheinberg</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Vollmeyer</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Burns</surname><given-names>B. D.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>QCM: A questionnaire to assess current motivation in learning
situations.</article-title><source>Diagnostica</source><year>2001</year><volume>47</volume><fpage>57</fpage><lpage>66</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R44"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Sawilowsky</surname><given-names>S. S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Blair</surname><given-names>R. C.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A more realistic look at the robustness and type II error
properties of the <italic>t</italic>-tests to departures from population
normality.</article-title><source>Psychological Bulletin</source><year>1992</year><volume>111</volume><fpage>352</fpage><lpage>360</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R45"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Scharine</surname><given-names>A. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>McBeath</surname><given-names>M. K.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Right-handers and Americans favor turning to the
right.</article-title><source>Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics
Society</source><year>2002</year><volume>44</volume><fpage>248</fpage><lpage>256</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R46"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Schiffman</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Greist-Bousquet</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The effect of task interruption and closure on perceived
duration.</article-title><source>Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society</source><year>1992</year><volume>30</volume><fpage>9</fpage><lpage>11</lpage></element-citation></ref><ref id="R47"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Williams</surname><given-names>L. E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>J. Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bargh</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in
early experience of the physical world.</article-title><source>European Journal of Social Psychology</source><year>2009</year><volume>39</volume><fpage>1257</fpage><lpage>1267</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">20046813</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R48"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wilson</surname><given-names>A. D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Golonka</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Embodied cognition is not what you think it is.</article-title><source>Frontiers in Psychology</source><year>2013</year><volume>4</volume><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>13</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23382719</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R49"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Wilson</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>Six views of embodied cognition.</article-title><source>Psychonomic Bulletin & Review</source><year>2002</year><volume>9</volume><fpage>625</fpage><lpage>636</lpage><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">12613670</pub-id></element-citation></ref><ref id="R50"><element-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><name><surname>Zhong</surname><given-names>C. B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Strejcek</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sivanathan</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name></person-group><article-title>A clean self can render harsh moral judgment.</article-title><source>Journal of Experimental Social Psychology</source><year>2010</year><volume>46</volume><fpage>859</fpage><lpage>862</lpage></element-citation></ref></ref-list></back></pmc></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Ticri/CIDE/explor/HapticV1/Data/Pmc/Curation
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000138 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Curation/biblio.hfd -nk 000138 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Ticri/CIDE
|area= HapticV1
|flux= Pmc
|étape= Curation
|type= RBID
|clé= PMC:4584213
|texte= Embodied Information in Cognitive Tasks: Haptic Weight Sensations
Affect Task Performance and Processing Style
}}
Pour générer des pages wiki
HfdIndexSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Curation/RBID.i -Sk "pubmed:26421084" \
| HfdSelect -Kh $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Pmc/Curation/biblio.hfd \
| NlmPubMed2Wicri -a HapticV1
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.23. |  |