The Role of Conscious Attention in How WeightServes as an Embodiment of Importance
Item Type Article
Authors Zestcott, Colin A.; Stone, Jeff; Landau, Mark J.
Citation The Role of Conscious Attention in How Weight Serves as anEmbodiment of Importance 2017, 43 (12):1712 Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin
DOI 10.1177/0146167217727505
Publisher SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
Journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Rights © 2017 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc
Download date 28/06/2018 17:30:00
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/626122
Runninghead:CONSCIOUSATTENTIONINEMBODIMENT1
TheRoleofConsciousAttentioninHowWeightServesasanEmbodimentofImportance
Wordcount:9,725
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 2
Abstract
Inconsistencyamongfindingsintheembodiedcognitionliteraturesuggestsaneedfor
theoreticalboundaryconditions.Thecurrentresearchproposesthatconsciousattentionof
abodilystatecanmoderateitsinfluenceonsocialjudgment.Threestudiestestedthis
possibilityinthecaseofthedemonstratedeffectofweightsensationsonjudgmentsofan
abstractidea’simportance.Studies1and2showedthatparticipantsratedatopicasmore
importantwhenholdingamoderatelyheavy,comparedtolight,clipboard.However,when
theclipboardwasveryheavy,participantsratedthesurveytopicaslessimportant
comparedtowhentheclipboardwasmoderatelyheavy.Thedifferencesinimportance
ratingswerenotcausedbyderogationofthetopicortheactivationofadifferentmetaphor.
InStudy3,theimportanceratingdifferencebetweenlightandmoderatelyheavy
clipboardswaseliminatedbyexplicitlydrawingperceiver’sattentiontotheclipboard’s
weight.Implicationsandfuturedirectionsarediscussed.
Keywords:embodiedcognition,weight,importance,consciousattention,replication
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 3
TheRoleofConsciousAttentioninHowWeightServesasanEmbodimentofImportance
“Overthinking,overanalyzing,separatesthebodyfromthemind.”
–Tool,“Lateralus”(2001)
Researchsuggeststhatbodilyexperiencescanunconsciouslyinfluencesocial
cognition.Forexample,holdingawarmcupofcoffeeincreasesperceptionsofan
individual’sfriendliness(Williams&Bargh,2008),exposuretofishysmellsincreasessocial
suspicion(Lee&Schwarz,2012),andmovingtheheadupanddownleadstogreater
messageagreementthanshakingtheheadfromside‐to‐side(Wells&Petty,1980).
However,severalrecentfailedreplicationsofembodimenteffects(e.g.,Ebersoleetal.,
2014;Johnsonetal.,2016;Lynottetal.,2014;OpenScienceCollaboration,2015;Wortman,
Donnellan,&Lucas,2014)raisequestionsaboutthewhenandhowthebodyinfluences
thoughtandbehavior.Theinabilityofindependentteststoreplicatecouldsuggestthat
embodimenteffectsare“falsepositives”orthattheyemergefromquestionableresearch
practices(Bohannon,2014).Theinconsistentevidencehasledsomeinvestigatorsto
expressdoubtsaboutthereliabilityandvalidityofembodimentprocesses.
Anotherwaytoviewtheinconsistentfindingsintheembodimentliterature,
however,isthatthevariabilityacrossstudiesreflectstheoreticallyrelevantmoderators
thathaveyettobeidentified.Buildingontheoriesofembodiedcognitionandautomaticity,
weproposethatonesuchvariableisconsciousattention.Specifically,wehypothesizedthat
contextualcuesthatdrawattentiontotheuseofabodilystateasasourceofinformation
willattenuatetheeffectofthatbodilystateonmetaphorically‐relatedsocialjudgments.
Thecurrentstudiesprovideinitialtestsofthishypothesis,focusingonthewell‐
knowneffectofweightsensationsonjudgmentsoftheimportanceofabstractstimuli(e.g.,
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 4
socialissues)thatarenotheavyorlightinaliteralsense.Inthefirstdemonstrationofthis
effect,Jostmann,Lakens,andSchubert(2009)showedthatparticipantsratedabstract
topicsasmoreimportantwhenholdingaheavycomparedtoalightclipboard.Subsequent
studies,reviewedshortly,havemostlyreplicatedthiseffectinotherjudgmentcontexts.
However,asmentionedabove,severalstudieshavefailedtoreplicatethiseffect,settingoff
acontroversyaboutitsvalidity(Ebersoleetal.,2014;Rabelo,Keller,Pilati,&Wicherts,
2015).
Now,asaparticipantinthistypeofstudy,imagineholdingaclipboardthatisso
heavy,youthinktoyourself,"Wow,thisisaheavyclipboard!"Itisplausiblethat
consciouslyprocessingtheclipboard’sheftwouldpreventthatsensationfromservingas
inputintoyourjudgmentofthetargettopic’simportance.Asaresult,yourimportance
ratingwouldreflecttheneutralorlowimportancethattheissuetypicallybringstomind.
Althoughanecdotal,thisscenariopointstoconsciousnessofabodilystateasone
factormoderatingwhenthatstateservesastheinputtometaphorically‐relatedsocial
judgmentsversuswhenabodilystateisjustabodilystate.Evidencethatdrawing
consciousattentiontothebodyreducestheembodimenteffectwouldnotonlyanswerthe
callofmanyscholarstoidentifytheoreticalboundaryconditionsofembodimenteffects
(e.g.,Meier,Schnall,Schwarz,&Bargh,2012),butbydocumentingboundaryconditions,
thepresentresearchmaycontributetoourunderstandingoffailurestoreplicate
embodimentfindings.
Theroleofthephysicalbodyincognition
Theconceptualizationofalinkbetweenthebodyandthemindisnotinitsinfancy.
James(1884)postulatedthatthephysicalbodyisconnectedtoemotionalexperiences.
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 5
However,cognitivepsychologyinthemid‐twentiethcenturyarguedforanamodal
processingsysteminwhichsemanticknowledgeandhigher‐levelcognitionsoperate
sovereignlyofphysicalbodystates(e.g.,Fodor,1983;Newell&Simon,1972).Amodal
modelsassumethatmemorystoresinformationinanabstractformthatislargely
unrepresentativeofthephysicalbodyandperceptualstatesthatproduceit.However,
theseamodalmodelshave,inturn,givenwaytonewtheoriesthatreflectJames'original
notionsaboutthebody‐mindconnection.
Recenttheoriespostulatethatknowledgemaybeembodiedinphysicalstatesandin
thebrain’smodality‐specificsystems(Niedenthaletal.,2005;Smith&Semin,2004).One
accountofthisrelationisBarsalou’sperceptualsymbolssystem(PSS;1999;2003;2008).
Conceptscontainrepresentationsofbodilystates,suchassensations,thatoccurduring
interactionswithrelevantstimuliandcontexts.Theseinputsarenottranslatedinto
abstractsymbols,butretaintheirmodality‐specificcharacter(e.g.,theconceptbowling
containstactilesensationsofabowlingball’ssmoothness).Thinkingaboutthoseconcepts
involvesthesimulation,orreactivation,ofthosebodilystates,evenwhentheindividualis
notcurrentlyinteractingwithrelevantstimuli.Damasio(2001)similarlyproposedthat
reactivatedbodilystates,experiencedasemotions,serveasamarkerorcuethatinforms
theperson’sinterpretationofthecurrentsituation.Inthisway,bodilystatescaninform
representationsofabstractions,withconsequencesforperception,judgment,andbehavior.
WhilethePSSexplainshowanindividualmaygainknowledgefromconcrete
perceptualstates,onepotentiallimitationofthePSSconcernshowknowledgeisaccrued
forabstractdomains,suchastheconceptofimportance,inwhichaphysicalbodyreferent
isabsent(seeBorghietal.,2016).Indeed,whilewecanfeelacupofcoffeeandexperience
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 6
physicalwarmth,howdoesonetouchanabstractconceptlikeimportance?Tobridgethis
gap,scholarshavesuggestedthatmetaphorplaysacentralroleinembodimentprocesses
(Boroditsky&Prinz,2008).Accordingtoconceptualmetaphortheory(Lakoff&Johnson,
1980;1999),theuseofmetaphor(e.g.,“importance=weight”)canfacilitateunderstanding
ofanabstractconcept(perceptionsofimportance)whencouchedinaconcretephysical
experience(holdingheavyweight)duetorepeatedco‐occurrences.Forexample,as
speculatedbyJostmannetal.(2009),wemaylearnthatworkingwithheavyobjects
requiresgreatereffortthanlightobjects,whichinturn,linksconcreteexperienceofweight
toabstractconceptssuchasperceptionsofimportance.Hence,whenanindividualrefersto
animportantissueas“heavy,”heorsheisnotsayingthattheissueisliterallyheavyinthe
hapticsense;theindividualisreferringtothephysicalbodilystateofholdingaheavy
objecttocommunicatethatthetopicpossessesahighdegreeofimportance.Consequently,
metaphormaynotservemerelytoembellishlanguage,butratherfunctionasatoolthat
shapeshowindividualsseeandinterprettheworld.
Weightasanembodimentofimportance
Themetaphoricalexpressionofimportanceasweightpermeatesdailydiscourse.
Forexample,importantissuesareoftenreferredtoas“heavy,”aninfluentialindividual's
opinionsmay“holdmoreweight”thanalessinfluentialperson,someissues“weighmore”
onourmindsthanothers,andpeople“weigh”thevalueofdifferentopinionsbeforemaking
adecision.Consistentwitheverydayvernacular,severalstudiesindicatethatholdinga
heavyweightcantransferovertoincreasetheperceivedimportanceofanabstractsocial
stimulus.AfterJostmannetal.(2009)reportedthatparticipantsratedforeigncurrencyand
acampusissuetobemoreimportantwhentheyratedthetopicswhileholdingaheavy
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 7
clipboardcomparedtoalightclipboard,Ackermanandcolleagues(2010)reportedthat
holdingaheavyclipboardincreasedperceptionsofajobapplicant’sseriousness,and
Kaspar(2013)reportedthatholdingaheavyclipboardincreasedtheperceived
seriousnessofadiseaseanddrugsideeffects.Inthefoodandhospitalitydomain,food
presentedinaheavy(comparedtolight)containerisexpectedtobemoresatiatingand
expensive(Piqueras‐Fiszman,Harrar,Alcaide,&Spence,2011;Piqueras‐Fiszman&Spence,
2012)andperceiverswhoholdheavierrestaurantmenuscomparedtolightermenusrate
restaurantsasbeingmoreupscaleandprovidingbetterservicequality(Magnini&Kim,
2016).Inanacademicsetting,Schneiderandcolleagues(2011)reportedthatindividuals
toldthatatextbookcontainsimportantinformationratedthetextbookasweighingheavier
thanthosewhoarenottoldaboutthetextbook’simportance.Inafollow‐up,Schneiderand
colleagues(2014)reportedthatindividualswhoholdaUSB‐stickpresumablycontaining
importanttaxinformationestimatethestoragedevicetobeheavierthanthosewhoarenot
toldaboutinformationontheUSB‐stickandthosewhoaretoldtheUSB‐stickcontains
expiredtaxinformation.
Previousresearchhasalsodocumentedmoderatorsandboundaryconditionsfor
embodimentprocesses.ResearchbyAckermanandcolleagues(2010)andChandler,
Reinhard,andSchwarz(2012),forexample,reportedthattheweightofaclipboardonly
affectedratingsofimportanceifparticipantshadknowledgeabouttheissueortopicbeing
evaluated;theclipboard'sweightdidnotinfluencejudgmentsforparticipantsunfamiliar
withthetopic.Inaconceptualextension,HauserandSchwarz(2015)reportedthat
perceivershighinneedforcognitionratedabookasmoreimportantthanthoselowin
needforcognitionwhenholdingaheavybookandreadingabriefplotsynopsis,
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 8
presumablybecauseindividualshighlymotivatedtoelaboratesoughtinformationto
confirmtheirmetaphor‐consistenthypothesis.
Despitethelargenumberoffindingssuggestingtheembodiedrelationshipbetween
weightandimportance,aswellasidentifyingmoderatingvariables,severalfailed
replicationsquestiontherobustnessofthebasicweightasanembodimentofimportance
effect(e.g.,Ebersoleetal.,2014;Rabeloetal.,2015).Thesemixedresultsmaybetheresult
ofunexaminedmoderators,oneofwhichmaybethedegreetowhichobserversare
consciouslyawareofthebodilystatestheyareexperiencingincontextsofjudgmentand
decisionmaking.Previousresearchfindsthatindividualswhoarehighinbodilyawareness
showincreasedembodiedeffects(Häfner,2013;Schnall,Haidt,Clore,&Jordan,2008).
However,individualsmaydifferintheirintrospectionwithoutawarenessreaching
consciousness(Craig,2004).Thus,experimentallymanipulatingconsciousawarenessmay
lendfurtherinsightintowhenembodimenteffectsonsocialjudgmentsareattenuated.
Indeed,itispossiblethatconsciousawarenessoftheuseofthebodyasasourceof
informationcontributestonullfindingsintheliterature.Forexample,onelargeproject
examiningthereplicabilityofanumberofsocialpsychologicalfindingsobservednoeffect
ofclipboardweightonratingsofimportance(Ebersoleetal.,2016).However,Ebersoleet
al.randomlyembeddedtheclipboardstudywithinthepresentationofeightdistinct
computerizedtasks.Assuch,isitpossiblethatthenoveltyoftheclipboardinthecomputer
contextdrewparticipants’attentiontotheuseoftheirbodywhencompletingthemeasure
viapaper‐pencil.AnotherrecentsetofstudiesbyRabeloandcolleagues(2015)failedto
findincreasedclipboardweightinfluencingimportancejudgments.However,although
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 9
Study1inRabeloetal.usedsimilarweightstothoseusedinthestudiesbyAckermanetal.,
theheavyclipboardweightsusedbyRabeloetal.inStudies2and3wereslightlyheavier.
Themixedfindingsinthenon‐publishedonlinePsychFileDrawerresearcharchive
mayalsoprovidesomeevidencethatconsciousawarenessplaysaroleinreplicatingthe
weight‐as‐importanceeffect.Forexample,inonenullfinding,themanipulationofthelight
clipboardconditionwasapieceofpaperonaclipboardwhereastheheavyclipboard
conditionwasmanipulatedbyplacinganotebookontheclipboardwiththepieceofpaper
(Hadley,Ring,Gold,&Daubman,2013,butseeStewart,McVeigh,Stojkov,&Daubman,
2012).Itispossiblethatperceiverswereawaretheclipboardwouldbeheavierthananon‐
manipulatedclipboardduetotheadditionofthenotebook.Furthermore,anunsuccessful
replicationbyJostmann(2013)failedtofindweightservedasanembodimentof
importanceunderconditionsinwhichparticipantscouldvisiblyseetheadditionalweight
intheheavyclipboardandinanotherconditionwheretheheftwasheavierthantheheavy
clipboardmanipulationintheoriginalstudiesreportedbyJostmannetal.(2009).
Insum,studiesshowmixedsupportfortheweight‐as‐importanceeffect.Analysisof
theproceduresusedacrossstudiessuggeststhatifsomethinginthecontextdraws
consciousattentiontotheweightofanobject,peoplewillnolongerusetheweight
sensationasasourceofinformationwhenratingtheimportanceofatargetstimulus.This
hypothesiscoincideswiththeoreticalperspectivesproposingthatconsciouslyattendingto
astimuluscanpreventitfromautomaticallyinforminginformationprocessing.
Consciousawarenessinembodiedcognition
Dualprocesstheoriesofsocialcognitionassertthatinformationprocessingfalls
alongacontinuum,fromprocessingthatisrelativelyautomatic,effortless,andexperiential,
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 10
toprocessingthatisrelativelydeliberate,controlled,andrational(Chaiken&Trope,1999;
Stanovich&West,2000).Forexample,itiswellestablishedthat:apersuasivemessagecan
beprocessedinamoreheuristicfashionorinamoreelaborativewaythatrequiresgreater
cognitiveeffort(Chaiken,1980;Petty&Cacioppo,1986);attitudesguidebehavior
automaticallyunlesssufficientmotivationandopportunitytoactdeliberatelyonan
attitudeexists(Fazio,1990);peopleusesalientcategorycuestoformanimpressionofa
targetindividualunlessgoalsdrawattentiontothatindividual'sattributes(Fiske&
Neuberg,1990);andevaluativeresponsesareaproductoftheinterplaybetweenthe
activationofassociationsinmemoryandthevalidationoftheseassociations(Gawronski&
Bodenhausen,2006).
Thecurrentresearchteststheideathatthebodycanautomaticallyprovide
informationinanimplicitmanner,butifsomethinginthesocialcontextdrawsconscious
attentiontowhatthebodyissensing,consciousorexplicitprocessingattenuatesor
eliminatestheuseofthebodyasinformation.Theliteratureappearstoassumethat
embodiedeffectsarenecessarilyimplicit;indeedthePSSsuggeststhatthedefaultofthe
bodywhenprocessingaconceptistosimulatepreviousmulti‐modalexperiences
pertainingtotheconcept(Niedenthaletal.,2005).Thisimpliesthatbodystatesinfluence
metaphoricallyrelatedcognitionandbehavioroutsideofconsciousawareness,andthey
mayoperateprimarilythroughexperientialprocessesthatencapsulatenonverbal
information(Epstein,1994;Epstein&Pacini,1999).Peoplecanliterallythinkwhatthey
feel,smell,orhear.
However,aspeopleconsciouslyattendtothesensoryinformation,andbecome
moreanalyticalanddeliberateintheirthinking,attentionshiftstothecognitiveattributes
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 11
ofthestimulusand/orthejudgmenttask.Drawingdeliberateattentiontothebodilystate
willincreasethesalienceandrelevanceofotherfeaturesintheenvironment,suchasthe
contentofamessagepresentedontheclipboard.Consequently,ratherthanrelyonthe
automaticorexperientialprocessingthatusesthebodyasasourceofinformation,
perceiversswitchtocontrolledprocessingofothercuesintheenvironment.
Thecurrentresearch
Thecurrentsetofthreestudiestestthepredictionthatdrawingaperceiver’s
consciousattentiontotheirbodilystatesreducesembodiedcognitioneffects.Allthree
studiestestthepredictionsmadebythemodelusingtheweight‐as‐importanceparadigm
firstestablishedbyJostmannandcolleagues(2009).Thestudiesweredesignedtoreplicate
theoriginaleffectwhenparticipantsratedtheimportanceofaneutralsurveytopic
(fundingforroadinfrastructureinArizona),andmodulatetheeffectbydrawingconscious
attentiontowardtheheftoftheclipboard.
InStudy1,participantsratetheimportanceoffundingforroadinfrastructure
holdingeitheralight,moderatelyheavy,orveryheavyclipboard.Study2furtherexamines
theimpactofconsciousattentionbyincludingadditionalweightconditionsandtestingfor
theactivationofadifferentmetaphor(i.e.,burden)asanalternateexplanation.Study3
examinesweightasanembodimentofimportancewhenparticipants’consciousattention
isexplicitlydrawntotheheftofamoderatelyheavyclipboard.Thereliabilityofthe
findingsacrossthethreestudies(andastudyincludedintheSupplementalMaterial)is
addressedinafinalcombinedanalysisofallthedata.
Study1
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 12
Thepurposeofthefirststudywastotestthepredictionthatweightwouldoperate
asanembodimentofimportanceunlesssomethinginthecontextdrawsattentiontothe
bodilystateitself,suchasthroughtheweightofaveryheavyclipboard.Thepredictionwas
thatparticipantswouldratethetopicofroadinfrastructureasmoreimportantwhen
holdingamoderatelyheavycomparedtoalightclipboard(replicatingpreviousresearch),
butwhenholdingaveryheavyclipboard,participantswouldratethesurveytopicasless
importantcomparedtothemoderatelyheavyclipboardcondition.AnotheraimofStudy1
wastoshowthatthepredictedlowerimportanceratingintheveryheavyclipboard
conditionwasnotduetoderogationofthetopicitself.Thus,anadditionalpredictionwas
thatparticipants’attitudetowardfundingforroadinfrastructurewouldnotdifferby
clipboardweightcondition.
Method
Participants
96participantscompletedthestudy.Twoparticipantswereeliminatedfromdata
analysisduetoleaningagainstawallwhilecompletingthesurveybecausethismayoffset
theinfluenceoftheweight(seeJostmannetal.,2009).Datafromatotalof94participants
(53female,41male)wereincludedinthefinaldataanalysis.Themeanagewas27.25(SD
=13.91).
Procedure
IndividualpassersbyonandneartheUniversityofArizonacampuswererecruited
tocompleteasurveyonfundingforroadinfrastructure.Afirstexperimenter,blindtothe
weightoftheclipboard,approachedparticipantsandaskedthemiftheywouldliketo
participateinauniversity‐approvedsurvey.Ifparticipantsagreedtoparticipate,asecond
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 13
experimenterhandedparticipantsarandomlyassignedclipboardwithapieceofpaperon
topthatcontainedinformationaboutfundingforroadinfrastructureandabrief
questionnaire1.Thefirstexperimentergaveverbalinstructionstotheparticipantsonhow
tocompletethesurvey2;afterhandingthemtheclipboard,thesecondexperimenter
walkedawayanddidnotinteractwithparticipantsagain.Aftercompletingthe
questionnaire,participantsgavetheclipboardtothefirstexperimenter,whothankedand
debriefedthem.
Materials
Clipboardweights.Theclipboard(9.5”x13.5”x.875”)containedacompartment
thatstoredceramictileweightsandpapertomanipulatetheweightoftheclipboard.Inthe
lightcondition,theclipboardweighed1.45lbs.(657g,n=31);inthemoderatelyheavy
condition,theclipboardweighed2.29lbs.(1,039g,n=31),andintheveryheavycondition,
theclipboardweighed3.65lbs.(1,655g,n=32).Thelightandmoderatelyheavyclipboard
weightswereidenticaltoJostmannetal.(2009).Themoderatelyheavyclipboardin
Jostmannandcolleagueswasabout1.58timesheavierthanthelightclipboard,thusthe
veryheavyclipboardweightwascalculatedtobe1.58timesheavierthanthemoderately
heavyclipboard.
Questionnaire.Participantsansweredtwoquestionsaboutfundingforroad
infrastructure.Thefirstquestionassessedparticipants’attitudetowardfundingforroad
infrastructure(“Howdoyoufeelaboutfundingforroadinfrastructure?”)onascaleof1
(extremelynegative)to7(extremelypositive).Thesecondquestionaskedabout
participants’perceivedimportanceoffundingforroadinfrastructure(“Howimportantis
fundingforroadinfrastructureinArizona?”)onascaleof1(notatall)to7(extremely).
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 14
Participantsalsocompletedabriefdemographicsquestionnaireaskingtheirgenderand
age.
Results
Importanceratings.Aone‐wayANOVArevealedasignificantdifferencebetweenthe
clipboardconditions,F(2,91)=3.16,p=.047,ηp2=.07(seeFigure1).Plannedcontrasts
showedthatparticipantsinthemoderatelyheavyclipboardcondition(M=6.06,SD=.73,
95%CI[5.80,6.32])ratedfundingforroadinfrastructureasmoreimportantthan
participantsinthelightclipboardcondition(M=5.61,SD=1.09,95%CI[5.21,6.01]),F(1,
91)=3.30,p=.073,ηp2=.04,d=.45.Althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,thisfindingisin
predicteddirectionaspreviousresearchbyJostmannandcolleagues(2009).However,
consistentwiththehypothesis,participantsintheveryheavyclipboardconditionrated
fundingforroadinfrastructureassignificantlylessimportant(M=5.47,SD=1.08,95%CI
[5.09,5.86])thanparticipantsinthemoderatelyheavyclipboardcondition,F(1,91)=5.83,
p=.018,ηp2,d=.59.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweenthelightandveryheavy
clipboardcondition,F<.34,p>.56.Therewerenomaineffectsorinteractionswithageor
genderonratingsofimportance(ps>.33).
Attituderatings.Aone‐wayANOVAofclipboardconditiononattituderatings
revealednosignificantdifferencesbetweenthelightclipboardcondition(M=4.90,SD=
1.85),moderatelyheavyclipboardcondition(M=5.23,SD=1.38),andveryheavy
clipboardcondition(M=4.91,SD=1.35),p>.60.Therewerenomaineffectsor
interactionswithageorgenderonattitudes(ps>.40).
Discussion
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 15
Theresultssupportthehypothesisthatweightcaninfluencejudgmentsof
importanceunlesssomethinginthecontextdrawsattentiontothebodilystate.First,Study
1founddirectionallyconsistentresultswiththoseofJostmannetal.(2009)andotherswho
havereportedthatincreasingtheweightofaclipboardfromlighttomoderatelyheavy
couldincreasetheratingsoftheimportanceofasurveytopic.However,whenthe
clipboardwasveryheavy,participantsratedthesurveytopicassignificantlyless
importantcomparedtowhentheclipboardwasmoderatelyheavy.Thus,itispossiblethat
drawingparticipant’sattentiontotheirbodilystateviaaveryheavyclipboardmoderates
weightasanembodimentofimportance.Finally,thedecreaseinratingsofimportancefor
theveryheavyclipboardwasnotduetoamorenegativeevaluationofthetopic.
Ofnote,theresultsreplicatingtheresearchofJostmannandotherswerenot
statisticallysignificant.Yet,establishingdirectionalconsistencycanbeonewaytoprovide
overallsupportforaneffect(e.g.,Fabrigar&Wegener,2016).Inthatlight,theresults
reflectasimilarpatternshowninmuchofthepreviousresearch,albeitwithasmaller
effectsize.
Study2
TheresultsofStudy1areinlinewiththeideathatdrawingconsciousattentionto
thebodilystatecanreducemetaphorically‐relatedsocialjudgments.Nevertheless,another
explanationforthenulleffectoftheveryheavyclipboardonratingsofimportanceinStudy
1isthatveryheavyweightsmayactivateadifferentmetaphorratherthanimportance.
Indeed,peoplecanthinkaboutanissueusingmultiplemetaphors,forexample,loveis
oftendescribedusingmetaphorsofwar,ajourney,oraspassion(GibbsJr.,2015;Lakoff&
Johnson,1999).Similarly,weightcanserveasametaphorofimportance,butitalsoserves
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 16
asametaphorofburden,asintheeffortrequiredtocarryaheavyload.Previousresearch
showsthatexperiencingaburden(e.g.,keepingasecret)makesphysicaltasksappear
moreeffortful(Slepian,Masicampo,Toosi,&Ambady,2012).Thus,ifaveryheavy
clipboardservesastheembodimentofburden,itmaycausepeopletoreducetheirratings
ofimportance.WeexaminethisalternativeexplanationinStudy2.
Inaddition,Study2soughttofurthertestthepredictionthatweightasan
embodimentofimportanceisattenuatedbyveryheavyclipboardweightsthatdraw
consciousattentiontothebody.Indeed,asweightincreases,embodimenteffectsincrease,
butatsomepoint,theincreasedweightbecomesnoticeable,isconsciouslyprocessedand
diminishestheinfluenceofthebodyoncognition.Thus,Study2includedtwoadditional
clipboardweightconditionsinadditiontothoseusedinStudy1inordertotestthe
curvilinearrelationshipbetweenincreasinglyheavyclipboardweightandtheperceived
importanceofthesurveytopic.
Method
Participants
Atotalof187participantscompletedthesurvey.Sixwereeliminatedforsittingona
benchorleaningagainstawallduringthestudy.Thus,datafrom181participants(97
female,84male)wereincludedinthefinaldataanalysis.Themeanagewas22.60(SD=
8.35).
ProcedureandMaterials
TheprocedurewasidenticaltoStudy1.Theclipboardweightswereidenticalto
Study1alongwiththeadditionoftwoclipboardweights.Thus,therewereatotaloffive
clipboardconditions:light(1.45lbs.,n=35),moderatelyheavy(2.29lbs.,n=38),heavy
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 17
(2.97lbs.,n=36),veryheavy(3.65lbs.,n=35),andextremelyheavy(4.08lbs.,n=37).
Participantsalsoreportedtheirperceptionsoftheburdensomenatureoffundingforroad
infrastructure(“Fundingforroadinfrastructureisaburden.”)onascaleof1(strongly
disagree)to7(stronglyagree).Thequestionassessingperceivedimportanceoffundingfor
roadinfrastructureandthedemographicquestionswereidenticaltoStudy1.
Results
Importanceratings.Aone‐wayANOVArevealedsignificantdifferencesbetweenthe
clipboardconditionontheratingsofimportanceoffundingforroadinfrastructure,F(4,
176)=3.67,p=.007,ηp2=.08(seeTable1).Plannedcontrastsreplicatedtheoriginal
findingbyJostmannetal.inthatthemoderatelyheavyclipboard(M=6.13,SD=.84,95%
CI[5.85,6.41])causedsignificantlygreaterratingsinimportancethanthelightclipboard
(M=5.57,SD=1.01,95%CI[5.22,5.92],F(1,176)=5.79,p=.017,ηp2=.03,d=.55.In
addition,consistentwithpredictions,themoderatelyheavyclipboardcausedhigher
ratingsofimportancethantheveryheavyclipboard(M=5.51,SD=1.27,95%CI[5.07,
5.95]),F(1,176)=7.03,p=.009,ηp2=.04,d=.61),andtheextremelyheavyclipboard(M=
5.46,SD=1.02,95%CI[5.12,5.80]),F(1,176)=8.57,p=.004,ηp2=.05,d=.65).Moreover,
aspredicted,theheavyclipboard(M=6.03,SD=.77,95%CI[5.77,6.29])caused
significantlyhigherratingsofimportancecomparedtothelightclipboard;F(1,176)=
3.74,p=.055,ηp2=.02,d=.45,theveryheavyclipboard,F(1,176)=4.74,p=.031,ηp2=
.03,d=.51,andtheextremelyheavyclipboard,F(1,176)=5.96,p=.016,ηp2=.03,d=.56.
Theseresultssupportthepredictionthatsubtlesensationsofphysicalweightinfluence
judgmentsinametaphor‐consistentfashion,whereasweightsensationsthataremore
conspicuousdonot.Therewasnodifferencebetweenthemoderatelyheavyclipboardand
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 18
heavyclipboardandnodifferencesbetweenthelightclipboard,veryheavyclipboard,and
extremelyheavyclipboardcondition(allFs<.23,allps>.63).AsinStudy1,therewereno
maineffectsorinteractionswithgenderandage(ps>.15).
Burdenratings.Therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweentheburdenratings
forthelightclipboard(M=3.11,SD=1.53),moderatelyheavyclipboard(M=3.45,SD=
1.94),heavyclipboard(M=3.17,SD=1.54),veryheavyclipboard(M=3.17,SD=1.79),
andextremelyheavyclipboardcondition(M=3.35,SD=1.67),p>.90.Therewerenomain
effectsorinteractionswithgenderandage3(ps>.43).Theseresultsshowthatthe
curvilinearrelationshipofincreasedweightsandperceptionsofimportancewasnotdueto
theactivationofanotherrelevantmetaphorsuchasburden.
Discussion
TheresultsofStudy2areconsistentwiththepredictionthatembodiedeffects
diminishwhencontextualcuescauseconsciousprocessingofthebodilystate.Asseenin
Study1,theweightoftheclipboardincreasedratingsofimportanceofthesurveytopicup
toapointwhereitwasveryheavyandratingsofimportancesignificantlydecreased.
Accordingtothepresentconceptualframework,participantsreducedtheirratingsof
importancewhentheclipboardwasveryandextremelyheavybecauseastheweightgrew,
theybegantoconsciouslyperceivetheheftoftheobjectintheirhands.Theconscious
attentiontotheweightappearstohavecausedparticipantstojudgetheimportanceofthe
surveytopicontheneutralmeritsoftheissue,ratherthanontheheftoftheclipboard.In
addition,theresultsofStudy2suggestthattheheaviestclipboardsdidnotreducethe
ratingsofimportancebecausethemetaphorswitchedtotheconceptofburden.
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 19
Whereasthecurvilinearrelationshipbetweenweightandimportanceobservedin
Studies1and2isconsistentwiththeconsciousattentionhypothesis,itispossiblethat
increasingtheweightcouldactivateprocessesotherthanconsciousattention.Accordingto
previousresearch,anycuethatdrawsattentiontotheweightoftheclipboardshould
inducetheconsciousprocessingthatdiminishesembodimentprocesses(e.g.,Schwarz&
Clore,1983).Thus,evenwhentheweightismoderateandsubjecttoembodiment
influence,acuethatdirectsattentiontotheweightshouldcircumventtheembodiment
process.Thisleadstothepredictionthatwhenparticipantsaretoldabouttheweightofa
moderatelyheavyclipboard,theymayreportlowerratingsofthesurveytopic's
importance.Totestthisprediction,Study3conceptuallyreplicatedtheprocedurein
SchwarzandClore(1983)byprovidingperceiverswithanexplicitcuetotheuseoftheir
bodyasasourceofinformation.Thehypothesiswasthatperceiversholdingamoderately
heavyclipboard,andgivenanexplicitattentioncuetotheweightoftheclipboard,would
reportsignificantlylowerratingsoftopicimportancethanperceiverswhohelda
moderatelyheavyclipboard,butwerenotgivenanattentioncuetotheweightofthe
clipboard.
Study3
Method
Participants
169passersbyonandneartheUniversityofArizonacampuscompletedthestudy.
Fiveparticipantswereeliminatedfromdataanalysisforsittingdownwhilecompletingthe
measures.Thus,164participants(Male=92,Female=72)wereincludedinthedata
analysis.Themeanagewas27.25(SD=11.95).
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 20
ProcedureandMaterials
TheprocedurewassimilartoStudies1and2withafewexceptions.Participants
completedthesurveyoneitherthelight(1.45lbs.)ormoderatelyheavy(2.29lbs.)
clipboardusedinthefirsttwostudies.However,priortoratingthetopic,participantswere
randomlyassignedtoreceiveornotreceiveacueabouttheweightoftheclipboard.Inthe
weightcuecondition,immediatelyafterthesecondexperimentergavetheparticipantsthe
clipboard,thefirstexperimentertoldparticipants“andonelastthing—justtoletyou
know—somepeoplehavefoundtheweightoftheclipboardtofeelheavy”.Participantsinthe
weightcuecontrolconditiondidnotreceivethisinformationfromthefirstexperimenter.
Tokeeptheexperimentersblindtocondition,neitherknewwhatinformation(cuevs.no
cue;lightvs.moderatelyheavyclipboard)theotherwasgoingtopresentbeforethey
interactedwithparticipants.
Questionnaire.Thequestionsassessingperceivedimportanceoffundingforroad
infrastructureandthedemographicquestionswereidenticaltothefirsttwostudies.
Participantsalsocompletedamanipulationcheckquestionafterthedependentvariable
wascollected.Specifically,onascaleof1(stronglydisagree)to7(stronglyagree)
participantsrespondedtothestatement,“Theexperimentertoldmethatsomepeoplefeel
thattheclipboardisheavy",thatwasembeddedbetweentwootherquestionsaboutthe
experimenter'sbehavior(e.g.,“Theexperimenterwaspolite”).
Results
Manipulationcheckanalysis.Asexpected,participantsintheweightcuecondition
(M=6.48,SD=1.29,95%CI[6.19,6.77])weremorelikelytoagreethattheexperimenter
toldthemtheclipboardwasheavycomparedtothoseinthecuecontrolcondition(M=
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 21
2.74,SD=2.06,95%CI[2.28,3.20]),t(162)=‐13.91,p<.001,d=1.46.Thesedatasuggest
thatthemanipulationofthecuealertingparticipantstotheheftoftheclipboardwas
successful.
Mainanalysis.A2(weightcue:yesvs.no)x2(clipboardweight:lightvs.moderately
heavy)ANOVAwasconductedwithimportanceforfundingforroadinfrastructureasthe
dependentvariable.Resultsrevealedasignificantinteractionbetweentheweightcueand
clipboardweight,F(1,160)=5.74,p=.018,ηp2=.04(seeFigure2).Althoughnot
statisticallysignificant,theresultsrevealedasimilarpatternfoundinStudies1and2
whereparticipantsintheno‐cuecontrolconditionwiththemoderatelyheavyclipboard(M
=5.98,SD=.82,95%CI[5.73,6.23],n=44)ratedfundingforroadinfrastructureasmore
importantcomparedtothoseinthelightclipboardcondition(M=5.59,SD=.90,95%CI
[5.30,5.88],n=37),F(1,160)=3.18,p=.076,ηp2=.02,d=.40.
However,consistentwithpredictions,whentoldabouttheweightoftheclipboard
intheweight‐cuecondition,participantswiththemoderatelyheavyclipboard(M=5.36,
SD=1.17,95%CI[5.00,5.72],n=42)ratedthetopicassignificantlylessimportantthan
participantswhoheldthemoderatelyheavyclipboardintheno‐cuecontrolcondition,F(1,
160)=8.93,p=.003.ηp2=.06,d=.63.Therewasnodifferencebetweentheweightcue(M
=5.67,SD=.96,95%CI[5.36,5.98],n=39)andno‐cuecontrolconditionforthelight
clipboard(p<.60).Themaineffectsofweightcueandclipboardweightwerenot
significantintheANOVAanalysis(ps<.09).
Discussion
TheresultsofStudy3showedthatfocusingparticipants’consciousattentiononthe
weightofamoderatelyheavyclipboardeliminatedtheeffectofweightasanembodiment
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 22
ofimportance.Whilethefirsttwostudiescircumventedtheembodimentprocessby
drawingattentiontothebodilystatethroughincreasingtheweight,Study3reducedthe
embodimentprocessthroughaverbalcuetodrawattentiontotheweightofamoderately
heavyclipboard.Itispossiblethatthosewhoheldthelightclipboardintheweightcue
conditionwouldshowincreasedratingsofimportancebecauseweightissalient,even
thoughtheclipboarddoesnotsupplysuchinformationtotheperceiver.However,the
presentdatasupportthepredictionthatdrawingconsciousattentiontoweightdoesnot
increaseimportancerelatedratings.
Ofnote,althoughthedifferenceintheimportanceratingsbetweenthemoderate
clipboardandlightclipboardintheno‐cuecontrolconditionwasinthepredicteddirection,
asinStudy1,thedifferencedidnotreachstatisticalsignificance.
CombinedAnalysis
Theresultsacrossthepresentsetofstudiesexhibitedsimilarpatternstotheinitial
effectfoundbyJostmannetal.(2009)whereamoderatelyheavyclipboardcausedgreater
ratingsofsurveytopicimportancethanalightclipboard.However,thepatternofdatain
Studies1and3replicatingtheJostmannetal.findingwasnotstatisticallysignificant.While
non‐significantresults,eventhosethataredirectionallysignificant,maybeacausefor
concernregardingtherobustnessofaneffect,itispossiblethatsuchresultsstrengthenthe
meta‐analyticcaseforaneffect(Fabrigar&Wegener,2016).Moreover,ifthelackof
statisticalsignificanceisduetounderpoweredsamplesizesinthepresentstudies,a
combinedanalysisofallthecollecteddatamayprovideamorepowerfultest.Indeed,
scholarsnotethatmeta‐analysismaybeimportanttounderstandthereliabilityand
replicabilityofaneffect(e.g.,Braver,Thoemmes,&Rosenthal,2014;Galak&Meyvis,
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 23
2012).Thus,inordertotesttherobustnessofthebasicweight‐as‐importanceeffectinthe
currentsetofstudies,thedifferenceinimportanceratingsbetweenthemoderatelyheavy
andlightclipboardwassubjectedtoacombinedanalysis.Theanalysisalsoexaminedthe
differenceinratingsofimportancebetweenthemoderatelyheavyandveryheavy
clipboardacrossthecurrentsetofstudies.Theanalysisincludedanothersetofdata
collectedusingasimilardesignthatisdescribedintheSupplementalMaterial.
Method
DataPreparation
Afirstdatafilewascreatedthatincludedclipboardcondition(lightvs.moderately
heavy),ratingsofimportance,andstudynumberinthethreestudiesaswellasthestudy
presentedintheSupplementalMaterial.Thisfileyieldedatotalof283participantsthat
wereeitherassignedtothelightormoderatelyheavyclipboardconditioninStudies1and
2ortheno‐cuecontrolconditionthatvariedalightormoderatelyheavyclipboardinStudy
3andtheSupplementalMaterialstudy.Therewere138participantsinthelightclipboard
conditionand145participantsinthemoderatelyheavyclipboardcondition.
Asimilarseconddatasetwascreatedtoassesstheoveralleffectofdifferencesin
importanceratingsbetweenthemoderatelyheavyandveryheavyclipboard.Thisdataset
containedtheclipboardcondition(moderatevs.veryheavy),ratingsofimportance,and
studynumberinStudies1and2andtheSupplementalMaterialstudy.Thisdataset
containedatotalof204participantswith100participantsinthemoderatelyheavy
clipboardconditionand104intheveryheavyclipboardcondition.
Results
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 24
AnANOVAonthefirstdatasettestedthecombineddifferencebetweenthelightand
moderatelyheavyclipboardconditiononratingsofimportance.Therewasnosignificant
interactionbetweenclipboardconditionandstudynumber,F(3,276)=.18,p>.91,ηp2=
.002,suggestingthatstudysamplesizedidnotmoderatetheeffects.Resultsrevealeda
significanteffectofclipboardweightonratingsofimportance,F(1,276)=17.75,p<.001,
ηp2=.06,suchthatthemoderatelyheavyclipboard(M=5.98,SD=.83,n=146)elicited
greaterratingsofimportancethanthelightclipboard(M=5.53,SD=.93,n=138).
AnANOVAontheseconddatasettestedthedifferencebetweentheveryheavy
clipboardconditionandthemoderatelyheavyclipboardconditiononratingsof
importance.Again,therewasnosignificantinteractionbetweenclipboardconditionand
studynumber,F(2,202)=.09,p>.91,ηp2=.001,suggestingthatstudysamplesizedidnot
moderatetheeffect.Resultsshowedasignificanteffectofclipboardweightonratingsof
importance,F(1,202)=18.08,p<.001,ηp2=.08,suchthatthemoderatelyheavyclipboard
(M=5.97,SD=.85,n=102)elicitedgreaterratingsofimportancethantheveryheavy
clipboard(M=5.39,SD=1.07,n=106).
Theresultsofthelocalcombinedanalysissuggestthat,despitethefailuretofinda
statisticallysignificantreplicationinStudies1and3,theoveralleffectofweightasan
embodimentofimportancewhencomparingthelightandmoderatelyheavyclipboardin
thepresentresearchisstatisticallyreliable.Moreover,wefoundsupportacrossthethree
studiesforthehypothesisthataveryheavyclipboardweightwillfailtoserveasan
embodimentofimportance.
GeneralDiscussion
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 25
Thepresentresearchprovidesinitialsupportforthemoderatingroleofconscious
attentioninembodiedcognition.Specifically,usingtheeffectofweightasanembodiment
ofimportance(e.g.,Ackermanetal.,2010;Jostmannetal.,2009),Studies1and2showed
thatweightincreasedperceptionsoftheimportanceofasurveytopicuptothepointwhere
theweightoftheclipboardbecamenoticeable,uponwhichimportanceratingsdecreased.
Thesefindingsareconsistentwiththeassumptionthatwhenparticipantsconsciously
recognizedtheweight,theyignoredwhattheywere"feeling"andinsteadfocusedtheir
attentionontheattributesofthejudgmenttask,inthiscase,thetopicofroad
infrastructure.Thedataalsoshowedthatthecurvilinearrelationshipbetweenweightand
importancewasnotduetochangesinattitudetowardthesurveytopicoractivationofthe
alternativemetaphorofburden.
Study3examinedifanexplicitcuedrawingattentiontotheweightwouldattenuate
embodiedprocessesunderconditionsdemonstratedtofacilitatetheeffects.Theresults
showedthat,whenperceiversweregivenanexplicitcuealertingthemtotheheftofa
moderatelyheavyclipboard,theyreportedsimilarratingsofimportancetothoseholdinga
lightclipboard,suggestingthatparticipantswerenolongerusingtheirbodyasasourceof
information.Whereasthecurrentevidenceisinlinewithpreviousscholarswhopropose
thatembodimentmaybeanimplicitresponsewhenaconceptissimulatedbasedon
previousmulti‐modalexperiences(Niedenthaletal.,2005),thepresentstudiessuggest
thatdrawingconsciousattentiontothebodyasasourceofinformationcanactivate
explicitprocessing,which,inturn,canresultinbodystatesnolongerinfluencing
metaphorically‐relatedsocialjudgments.
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 26
Therearetwopossibleprocessesbywhichperceiversmayswitchtomore
controlledprocessingwhenconsciousattentionisdrawntoabodilystate:discounting
effectandbiascorrectionprocesses.
Discountingeffects.Severallinesofresearchsuggestthatdrawingaperceiver’s
attentiontotheirbodilystatewilleliminateembodiedeffectsthroughdiscounting.For
example,researchoncognitivedissonanceshowsthatmisattributingarousaltoaplacebo
pilloranoverheatedroom,shiftstheattributionforthearousalfromaninternaltoan
externalsource,whicheliminatestheneedtoreducedissonanceviaattitudechange(e.g.,
Zanna&Cooper,1974;Fazio,Zanna,&Cooper,1977;Fried&Aronson,1995).Similarly,
researchinexcitationtransfershowsthatincidentalaffectfromonestimuluswillonly
influencesubsequentjudgmentswhenthesourceoftheinitialaffectisunknown(Zillman,
1978).Ineachcase,drawingconsciousattentiontothesourceofarousalcausespeopleto
discountotherpotentialsourcesofthearousal,suchastheirownbehavior.
Moredirectlyrelatedtothetopicofembodiedcognitioneffects,SchwarzandClore’s
mood‐as‐informationtheory(seeSchwarz,2011)postulatesthatattributingmoodto
externalsourcescandiminishdownstreamcognitions.Studiesshowthatindividualswill
reportgreaterlifesatisfactiononsunnycomparedtorainydays,butwhenattentionis
drawntotheweather,thedifferenceinratingsoflifesatisfactiondisappear,presumably
becauseparticipants"discount"thecauseoftheweatherontheirmood(Schwarz&Clore,
1983).Thus,itispossiblethatinthepresentsetofstudies,providingperceiverswith
salientenvironmentalcues,suchasanoverlyheavyclipboard,orexplicitpromptthat
drawsattentiontotheirbodilystate,causedperceiverstodiscounttheuseoftheirbody
whenjudgingtheimportanceofasurveytopic.
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 27
Correctionforbias.Drawingaperceiver’sconsciousattentiontotheirbodilystate
mayalsoactivatecorrectionprocesses.AccordingtoWegenerandPetty’sflexible
correctionmodel(FCM;1995,1997),perceiversmayremoveoravoidbiasifitisassociated
withaninfluentialfactorinthecontext.Forexample,whenexplicitinstructionsaboutthe
potentialforbiasarepresent,perceiversthengeneratenaïvetheoriesaboutthebiasand,
withabilityandmotivationtocorrect,judgmentsaboutatargetobjectmaybeadjustedin
theoppositedirectionofthebias(Petty,Wegener,&White,1998).Forexample,Wegener
andPetty(1995)showedthatperceiverswhofirstthoughtaboutthepositiveaspectsof
desirablevacationlocationssubsequentlyjudgedtargetvacationlocationsasless
desirable.However,whenperceiverswerepromptednottolettheratingsbyothers
influencetheirjudgments,theyovercorrectedandratedaveragevacationlocationsas
significantlymoredesirable.Thus,theFCMshowsthatindividualsaremotivatedtocorrect
forbiaswhentheirattentionisdrawntoinformationregardingthepresenceofbiasinthe
context.
Embodimenteffectsmayalsobesubjecttocorrectionwhensomethinginthe
contextmakesperceiversacutelyawareoftheirbodilystate.Takeninthecontextofthe
currentresearch,ifperceiversaremotivatedtocorrectfortheinfluenceofaheavyobject,
theymayshowareversaleffect,wherebytheyratetheimportanceofaneutralsurveytopic
aslessimportantthanalowembodimentcontrolcondition.Simplyincreasingtheweight
oftheclipboarditselftomakeitnoticeablyheaviermaybesufficienttoactivatecorrection
processesthatreverseweightasanembodimentofimportance.
Consciousattentionandreplicationinembodiment.Finally,thepresentresults
mayofferatheoreticalexplanationforthedifficultythatsomeresearchershavereplicating
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 28
embodiedcognitionfindings:Replicationsseemlikelytofailwhensomethinginthecontext
drawsconsciousattentiontotheperceiver’sbodilystate.Atleastwithrespecttothe
embodimentofweightasimportance,itappearsthatevenverysubtleenvironmentalcues,
liketheweightoftheclipboarditself,cancircumventtheprocess.Fromthisperspective,
attenuationofembodimentshouldoccurifasubtlecuedrewconsciousattentiontothe
temperatureofacupofcoffee(e.g.,Williams&Bargh,2008),ortothecleansmellofaroom
(e.g.,Liljenquist,Zhong,&Galinsky,2010).Clearlymoreresearchisneededtoestablishthe
replicabilityofthepresentfindings,bothwithinthepresentparadigmandwhenexamining
otherembodimentprocesses.Butatthiswriting,consciousattentionappearstofunctionas
anunderstudiedmoderatorinhowweightservesasanembodimentofimportance.
Limitationsandfuturedirections
Whereasthepresentresearchexaminedtheroleofconsciousattentionasa
moderatorofembodiment,theremayalsobesituationsinwhichawarenessofinformation
fromthebodywillincreaseembodiedprocesses.Indeed,pastresearchsuggeststhat
awarenessofinformationfromthebodycanpromotepsychologicalprocesses(e.g.,Zanna
&Cooper,1974).Futureresearchshouldexaminetheconditionsunderwhichconscious
attentionfacilitatesembodiment.Inaddition,whileveryheavyclipboardsengagemore
explicitprocessingandsubsequentlyreduceembodiment,itisunknownifveryheavy
clipboardselicitgreateranalyticalthinkingorareexperiencedasobjectivelyheavy.Future
researchshouldexaminetheseassumptionsunderlyingthecurrentresearch.
Itisalsoimportanttoconsidertheroleofmotivationalstatesinembodiment
processes.HauserandSchwarz(2015)foundthatindividualshighincognitivemotivation
showincreasedratingsofimportancewhenholdingabookaboutwhichtheypossess
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 29
knowledge.However,itisunclearhowcognitivemotivationstatesimpactembodied
processesforcontextualcuesthatpromoteexplicitprocessing,suchasaveryheavy
clipboard.Itispossiblethatindividualshighincognitivemotivationshowanevenmore
robustdecreaseinratingsofimportancewhenholdingaveryheavyclipboardcomparedto
thosewhoholdalightclipboard.Moreover,itispossiblethatindividualswhoarelowin
cognitivemotivationaremorelikelytouseaveryheavyclipboardasacuethatheftequals
importance,andratetopicswhileholdingamuchheavierclipboardassignificantlymore
importantthanwhenholdingalightclipboardbecausetheirattentionisnotdrawntotheir
bodilystateunderveryheavyclipboardconditions.Additionally,weightmayserveasa
simplecueofimportanceforthosewhoheuristicallyprocessinformation,yetmoderately
heavyweightmayalsoasastrongsourceofinfluenceforthosewhoaremotivatedand
havetheabilitytoelaborate.Thus,theroleofabilityandmotivationtoengageinhigh
levelsofinformationprocessingmayserveasanotherkeymoderatorofembodied
cognition.Moreresearchisneededtoexaminethesepossibilities.
Conclusions
Scholarshavenotedtheimportanceofuncoveringtheoreticalboundaryconditions
toembodiedeffects(e.g.,Meieretal.,2012).Inresponsetothiscall,thecurrentresearch
suggeststhataswithmanyothereffectsinsocialcognition,theroleofconsciousattention
mayserveasimportantfunctioninembodiedcognition.Thisinformationnotonlybetter
informstheconditionsunderwhichthebodycaninfluencethemind,butitalsoprovides
perceiverswiththeabilitytocounteractseeminglyautomaticresponsestoenvironmental
cuesthatmanipulatetheirbodilystates.
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 30
Figure1.RatingsofimportancebyclipboardconditioninStudy1.
Note.Theerrorbarsrepresentstandarderrorsofthemean.
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Light ModeratelyHeavy VeryHeavy
RatingsofImportance
Clipboard Weight
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 31
Figure2.RatingsofimportancebyattributioncueandclipboardconditioninStudy3.
Note.Theerrorbarsrepresentstandarderrorsofthemean.
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Light Moderately Heavy
Rat
ings
of
Impo
rtan
ce
ClipboardWeight
WeightCue
Control
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 32
Table1.RatingsofimportanceandburdenbyclipboardconditioninStudy2. Clipboard Weight
Light Moderately Heavy
Heavy Very Heavy
Extremely Heavy
Importance Mean (SD)
5.57 (1.01)
6.13 (.84)
6.03 (.77)
5.51 (1.27)
5.46 (1.02)
Burden Mean (SD)
3.11 (1.53)
3.45 (1.94)
3.17 (1.54)
3.17 (1.79)
3.35 (1.67)
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 33
References
Ackerman,J.M.,Nocera,C.C.,&Bargh,J.A.(2010).Incidentalhapticsensationsinfluence
socialjudgmentsanddecisions.Science,328,1712‐1715.doi:
10.1126/science.1189993
Barsalou,L.W.(1999).Perceptualsymbolsystems.BehavioralandBrainSciences,22,577‐
609.doi:10.1017/S0140525X99532147
Barsalou,L.W.(2003).Situatedsimulationinthehumanconceptualsystem.Languageand
CognitiveProcesses,18,513‐562.doi:10.1080/01690960344000026
Barsalou,L.W.(2008).Groundedcognition.AnnualReviewofPsychology,59,617‐645.doi:
10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
Bohannon,J.(2014).Replicationeffortprovokespraise—and‘bullying’charges.Science,
344,788‐789.doi:10.1126/science.344.6186.788
Borghi,A.M.,Binkofski,F.,Castelfranchi,C.,Cimatti,F.,Scorolli,C.,&Tummolini,L.(2016).
Thechallengeofabstractconcepts.PsychologicalBulletin,143,263‐292.doi:
10.1037/bul0000089
Boroditsky,L.,&Prinz,J.(2008).Whatthoughtsaremadeof.InG.R.Semin&E.R.Smith
(Eds.),Embodiedgrounding:Social,cognitive,affective,andneuroscientific
approaches(pp.98‐118).Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Braver,S.L.,Thoemmes,F.J.,&Rosenthal,R.(2014).Continuouslycumulatingmeta‐
analysisandreplicability.PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,9,333‐342.doi:
10.1177/1745691614529796
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 34
Chaiken,S.(1980).Heuristicversussystematicinformationprocessingandtheuseof
sourceversusmessagecuesinpersuasion.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,39,752‐766.doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.39.5.752
Chaiken,S.,&Trope,Y.(Eds.).(1999).Dual‐processtheoriesinsocialpsychology.NewYork,
NY:GuilfordPress.
Chandler,J.J.,Reinhard,D.,&Schwarz,N.(2012).Tojudgeabookbyitsweightyouneedto
knowitscontent:Knowledgemoderatestheuseofembodiedcues.Journalof
ExperimentalSocialPsychology,48,948‐952.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.003
Craig,A.D.(2004).Humanfeelings:Whyaresomemoreawarethanothers?TRENDSin
CognitiveSciences,8,239‐241.doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.04.004
Damasio,A.(2001).Fundamentalfeelings.Nature,413,781‐782.doi:10.1038/35101669
Ebersole,C.R.,Atherton,O.E.,Belanger,A.L.,Skulborstad,H.M.,Allen,J.M.,Banks,J.B…&
Nosek,B.A.(2016).ManyLabs3:Evaluatingparticipantpoolqualityacrossthe
academicsemesterviareplication.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,67,68‐
82.doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.012
Epstein,S.&Pacini,R.(1999).Somebasicissuesregardingdual‐processtheoriesfromthe
perspectiveofthecognitive‐experientialself‐theory.InS.Chaiken,&Y.Trope(Eds.),
Dual‐processtheoriesinsocialpsychology(pp.462‐482).NewYork,NY:Guilford
Press.
Fabrigar,L.R.,&Wegener,D.T.(2016).Conceptualizingandevaluatingthereplicationof
researchresults.JournalofExperimentalSocialPsychology,66,68‐80.doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2015.07.009
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 35
Fazio,R.H.(1990).Multipleprocessesbywhichattitudesguidebehavior:TheMODEmodel
asanintegrativeframework.InM.P.Zanna(Ed.),Advancesinexperimentalsocial
psychology,(Vol.23,pp.75‐109).SanDiego,CA:AcademicPress.
Fazio,R.H.,Zanna,M.P.,&Cooper,J.(1977).Dissonanceandself‐perception:An
integrativeviewofeachtheory’sproperdomainofapplication.Journalof
ExperimentalSocialPsychology,13,464‐479.doi:10.1016/0022‐1031(77)90031‐2
Fiske,S.T.,&Neuberg,S.L.(1990).Acontinuumofimpressionformation,fromcategory‐
basedtoindividuatingprocesses:Influencesofinformationandmotivationon
attentionandinterpretation.AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,23,1‐74.
doi:10.1016/s0065‐2601(08)60317‐2
Fodor,J.A.(1983).Themodularityofmind.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Fried,C.B.,&Aronson,E.(1995).Hypocrisy,misattribution,anddissonancereduction.
PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,21,925‐933.doi:
10.1177/0146167295219007
Galak,J.,&Meyvis,T.(2012).Youcouldhavejustasked:ReplytoFrancis(2012).
PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience,7,595‐596.doi:10.1177/1745691612463079
Gawronski,B.,&Bodenhausen,G.V.(2006).Associativeandpropositionalprocessesin
evaluation:Anintegrativereviewofimplicitandexplicitattitudeschange.
PsychologicalBulletin,132,692‐731.doi:10.1037/0033‐2909.132.5.692
GibbsJr.,R.W.(2014).Conceptualmetaphorinthoughtandsocialaction.InM.J.Landau,
M.D.Robinson,&B.P.Meier(Eds).Thepowerofmetaphor:Examiningitsinfluence
onsociallife(pp.17‐40).Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 36
Hadley,R.,Ring,C.,Gold,M.,&Daubman,K.(2013,February23).Clipboardweightdidnot
effectissueseriousness.Retrievedfrom
http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTUx
Häfner,M.(2013).Whenthebodyandmindaretalking:Interoceptionmoderates
embodiedcognition.ExperimentalPsychology,60,255‐259.doi:10.1027/1618‐
3169/a000194
Hauser,D.J.,&Schwarz,N.(2015).Elaborativethinkingincreasestheimpactofphysical
weightonimportancejudgments.SocialCognition,33,120‐132.doi:
10.1521/soco.2015.33.2.120
James,W.(1884).Whatisanemotion?Mind,9,188‐205.doi:10.1093/mind/os‐ix.34.188
Johnson,D.J.,Wortman,J.,Cheung,F.,Hein,M.,Lucas,R.E.,Donnellan,M.B...Narr,R.K.
(2016).Theeffectsofdisgustonmoraljudgments:Testingmoderators.Social
PsychologicalandPersonalityScience,7,640‐647.doi:10.1177/1948550616654211
Jostmann,N.(2013,March22).Clipboardweightdidnotaffectcogn.elaboration.Retrieved
fromhttp://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTU0
Jostmann,N.B.,Lakens,D.,&Schubert,T.W.(2009).Weightasanembodimentof
importance.PsychologicalScience,20,1169‐1174.doi:10.1111/j.1467‐
9280.2009.02426.x
Kaspar,K.(2013).Aweightymatter:Heavinessinfluencestheevaluationofdisease
severity,drugeffectiveness,andsideeffects.PLoSOne,8,e78307.doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0078307
Lackoff,G.,&Johnson,M.(1980).Metaphorsweliveby.Chicago,IL:TheUniversityof
ChicagoPress.
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 37
Lackoff,G.,&Johnson,M.(1999).Philosophyintheflesh:Theembodiedmindandits
challengetowesternthought.NewYork,NY:BasicBooks.
Landau,M.J.,Meier,B.P.,&Keefer,L.A.(2010).Ametaphor‐enrichedsocialcognition.
PsychologicalBulletin,136,1045‐1067.doi:10.1037/a0020970
Lee,S.W.,&Schwarz,N.(2012).Bidirectionality,mediation,andmoderationof
metaphoricaleffects:Theembodimentofsocialsuspicionandfishysmells.Journal
ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,103,737‐749.doi:10.1037/a0029708
Liljenquist,K.,Zhong,C.,&Galinsky,A.D.(2010).Thesmellofvirtue:Cleanscentspromote
reciprocityandcharity.PsychologicalScience,21,381‐383.doi:
10.1177/0956797610361426
Lynott,D.,Corker,K.S.,Wortman,J.,Connell,L.,Donnellan,M.B.,Lucas,R.E.,&O’Brien,K.
(2014).Replicationof“Experiencingphysicalwarmthpromotesinterpersonal
warmth”byWilliamsandBargh(2008).SocialPsychology,45,216‐222.doi:
10.1027/1864‐9335/a000187
Magnini,V.P.,&Kim,S.(2016).Theinfluencesofrestaurantmenufontstyle,background
color,andphysicalweightonconsumers’perceptions.InternationalJournalof
HospitalityManagement,53,42‐48.doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.11.001
Meier,B.P.,Schnall,S.,Schwarz,N.,&Bargh,J.A.(2012).Embodimentinsocialpsychology.
TopicsinCognitiveScience,4,705‐716.doi:10.1111/j.1756‐8765.2012.01212.x
Newell,A.&Simon,H.A.(1972).Humanproblemsolving.Oxford,England:PrenticeHall.
Niedenthal,P.M.,Barsalou,L.W.,Winkielman,P.,Krauth‐Gruber,S.,&Ric,F.(2005).
Embodimentinattitudes,socialperception,andemotion.PersonalityandSocial
PsychologyReview,9,184‐211.doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_1
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 38
OpenScienceCollaboration(2015).Estimatingthereproducibilityofpsychologicalscience.
Science,349(6251).DOI:10.1126/science.aac4716
Petty,R.E.,&Cacioppo,J.T.(1986).Theelaborationlikelihoodmodelofpersuasion.New
York:Springer.
Petty,R.E.,Wegener,D.T.,&White,P.H.(1998).Flexiblecorrectionprocessesinsocial
judgment:Implicationsforpersuasion.SocialCognition,16,93‐113.doi:
10.1521/soco.1998.16.1.93
Piqueras‐Fiszman,B.,Harrar,V.,Alcaide,J.,&Spence,C.(2011).Doestheweightofthedish
influenceourperceptionoffood?FoodQualityandPreference,22,753‐756.doi:
10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.009
Piqueras‐Fiszman,B.,&Spence,C.(2012).Theweightofthecontainerinfluencesexpected
satiety,perceiveddensity,andsubsequentexpectedfullness.Appetite,58,559‐562.
doi:10.1016/j.appet.2011.12.021
Rabelo,A.L.A.,Keller,V.N.,Pilati,R.,&Wicherts,J.M.(2015).Noeffectofweighton
judgmentsofimportanceinthemoraldomainandevidenceofpublicationbiasfrom
ameta‐analysis.PLoSONE,10,e0134808.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0134808
Schnall,S.,Haidt,J.,Clore,G.L.,&Jordan,A.(2008).Disgustasembodiedmoraljudgment.
PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin,34,1096‐1109.doi:
10.1177/0146167208317771
Schneider,I.K.,Parzuchowski,M.,Wojciszke,B.,Schwarz,N.,&Koole,S.L.(2014).Weighty
data:Importanceinformationinfluencesestimatedweightofdigitalinformation
storagedevices.FrontiersinPsychology,5,1536.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01536
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 39
Schneider,I.R.,Rutjens,B.T.,Jostmann,N.B.,&Lakens,D.(2011).Weightymatters
importanceliterallyfeelsheavy.SocialPsychologicalandPersonalityScience,2,474‐
478.doi:10.1177/1948550610397895
Schwarz,N.(2011).Feelings‐as‐informationtheory.InP.VanLange,A.Kruglanski,&E.T.
Higgins(Eds.)Handbookoftheoriesofsocialpsychology(VolI.,pp.289‐308.Sage.
Schwarz,N.,&Clore,G.L.(1983).Mood,misattribution,andjudgmentsofwell‐being:
Informativeanddirectivefunctionsofaffectivestates.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,45,513‐523.doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.45.3.513
Slepian,M.L.,Masicampo,E.J.,Tobsi,N.R.,&Ambady,N.(2012).Thephysicalburdensof
secrecy.JournalofExperimentalPsychology:General,141,619‐624.doi:
10.1037/a0027598
Smith,E.R.,&Semin,G.R.(2004).Sociallysituatedcognition:Cognitioninitssocial
context.AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,36,53‐117.doi:
10.1016/s0065‐2601(04)36002‐8
Stanovich,K.E.,&West,R.F.(2000).Individualdifferencesinreasoning:Implicationsfor
therationalitydebate.BehavioralandBrainSciences,23,645‐665.doi:
10.1017/s0140525x00003435
Stewart,K.,McVeigh,M.,Stojkov,I.,&Daubman,K.(2012,September24).Heavyissuesare
moreimportant.Retrievedfrom
http://www.PsychFileDrawer.org/replication.php?attempt=MTMy
Wegener,D.T.,&Petty,R.E.(1995).Flexiblecorrectionprocessesinsocialjudgment:The
roleofnaïvetheoriesincorrectionsforperceivedbias.JournalofPersonalityand
SocialPsychology,68,36‐51.doi:10.1037/0022‐3514.68.1.36
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 40
Wegener,D.T.,&Petty,R.E.(1997).Theflexiblecorrectionmodel:Theroleofnaive
theoriesofbiasinbiascorrection.AdvancesinExperimentalSocialPsychology,29,
141‐208.doi:10.1016/s0065‐2601(08)60017‐9
Wegener,D.T.,&Petty,R.E.(2001).Ontheuseofnaïvetheoriesofbiastoremoveoravoid
bias:Theflexiblecorrectionmodel.AdvancesinConsumerResearch,28,378‐383.
Wells,G.L.,&Petty,R.E.(1980).Theeffectsofoverheadmovementsonpersuasion:
Compatibilityandincompatibilityofresponses.BasicandAppliedSocialPsychology,
1,219‐230.doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0103_2
Williams,L.E.,&Bargh,J.A.(2008).Experiencingphysicalwarmthpromotesinterpersonal
warmth.Science,322,606‐607.doi:10.1126/science.1162548
Wortman,J.,Donnellan,M.B.,&Lucas,R.E.(2014).Canphysicalwarmth(orcoldness)
predicttraitloneliness?AreplicationofBarghandShalev(2012).Archivesof
ScientificPsychology,2,13‐19.doi:10.1037/arc0000007
Zanna,M.P.,&Cooper,J.(1974).Dissonanceandthepill:Anattributionapproachto
studyingthearousalpropertiesofdissonance.JournalofPersonalityandSocial
Psychology,29,703‐709.doi:10.1037/h0036651
Zillman,D.(1978).Attributionandmisattributionofexcitatoryreactions.InJ.H.Harvey,W.
I.Ickes,&R.F.Kidd(Eds.),Newdirectionsinattributionresearch(Vol.2,pp.335‐
368).Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
CONSCIOUSATTENTIONANDEMBODIMENT 41
Footnotes
1Ackermanetal.(2010)andChandleretal.(2012)foundthatweightservesasan
embodimentofimportancefortopicsindividualspossessknowledgeabout.Thus,wechose
atopicthatwebelievedthemajorityofparticipantswouldbefamiliarwith.
2FollowingJostmannetal.(2009),participantsheldontotheclipboardwiththeirnon‐
dominanthand.
3Genderandagewillnolongerbediscussedintheresultsbecausetherewerenoobserved
effectsofthesevariablesinthefirsttwostudies.