Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions - PubMed (original) (raw)
Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions
Joshua M Ackerman et al. Science. 2010.
Abstract
Touch is both the first sense to develop and a critical means of information acquisition and environmental manipulation. Physical touch experiences may create an ontological scaffold for the development of intrapersonal and interpersonal conceptual and metaphorical knowledge, as well as a springboard for the application of this knowledge. In six experiments, holding heavy or light clipboards, solving rough or smooth puzzles, and touching hard or soft objects nonconsciously influenced impressions and decisions formed about unrelated people and situations. Among other effects, heavy objects made job candidates appear more important, rough objects made social interactions appear more difficult, and hard objects increased rigidity in negotiations. Basic tactile sensations are thus shown to influence higher social cognitive processing in dimension-specific and metaphor-specific ways.
Similar articles
- Rough primes and rough conversations: evidence for a modality-specific basis to mental metaphors.
Schaefer M, Denke C, Heinze HJ, Rotte M. Schaefer M, et al. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014 Nov;9(11):1653-9. doi: 10.1093/scan/nst163. Epub 2013 Oct 4. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2014. PMID: 24097375 Free PMC article. - Incidental haptic sensations influence judgment of crimes.
Schaefer M, Cherkasskiy L, Denke C, Spies C, Song H, Malahy S, Heinz A, Ströhle A, Bargh JA. Schaefer M, et al. Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 16;8(1):6039. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-23586-x. Sci Rep. 2018. PMID: 29662068 Free PMC article. - Final Sampling Bias in Haptic Judgments: How Final Touch Affects Decision-Making.
Mitsuda T, Yoshioka Y. Mitsuda T, et al. Perception. 2018 Jan;47(1):90-104. doi: 10.1177/0301006617735003. Epub 2017 Sep 28. Perception. 2018. PMID: 28956682 - Social Touch Technology: A Survey of Haptic Technology for Social Touch.
Huisman G. Huisman G. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2017 Jul-Sep;10(3):391-408. doi: 10.1109/TOH.2017.2650221. Epub 2017 Jan 9. IEEE Trans Haptics. 2017. PMID: 28092577 Review.
Cited by
- Japanese Sound-Symbolic Words for Representing the Hardness of an Object Are Judged Similarly by Japanese and English Speakers.
Wong LS, Kwon J, Zheng Z, Styles SJ, Sakamoto M, Kitada R. Wong LS, et al. Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 15;13:830306. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.830306. eCollection 2022. Front Psychol. 2022. PMID: 35369145 Free PMC article. - The Understanding of Visual Metaphors by the Congenitally Blind.
Minervino RA, Martín A, Tavernini LM, Trench M. Minervino RA, et al. Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 23;9:1242. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01242. eCollection 2018. Front Psychol. 2018. PMID: 30083120 Free PMC article. - Perceptions of intragroup rejection and coping strategies: malleable factors affecting Hispanic adolescents’ emotional and academic outcomes.
Basáñez T, Warren MT, Crano WD, Unger JB. Basáñez T, et al. J Youth Adolesc. 2014 Aug;43(8):1266-80. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-0062-y. J Youth Adolesc. 2014. PMID: 24234042 Free PMC article. - A connectionist approach to embodied conceptual metaphor.
Flusberg SJ, Thibodeau PH, Sternberg DA, Glick JJ. Flusberg SJ, et al. Front Psychol. 2010 Oct 22;1:197. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00197. eCollection 2010. Front Psychol. 2010. PMID: 21833256 Free PMC article. - Virtues, ecological momentary assessment/intervention and smartphone technology.
Runyan JD, Steinke EG. Runyan JD, et al. Front Psychol. 2015 May 6;6:481. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00481. eCollection 2015. Front Psychol. 2015. PMID: 25999869 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Gallace A, Spence C. Neurosci. Neurobehav. Rev. 2010;34:246. - PubMed
- Gibson JJ. Psychol. Rev. 1962;69:477. - PubMed
- Lederman SJ, Klatzky RL. Cogn. Psychol. 1987;19:342. - PubMed
- Peck J, Childers TL. J. Consum. Res. 2003;30:430.
- Krishna A, Morrin M. J. Consum. Res. 2008;34:807.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources