Cited by 871Language, Metaphor, and CognitionHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceEmbodied and Extended Cognition

Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers.

Open access
Casasanto, Daniel·2009·Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Abstract

Do people with different kinds of bodies think differently? According to the body-specificity hypothesis, people who interact with their physical environments in systematically different ways should form correspondingly different mental representations. In a test of this hypothesis, 5 experiments investigated links between handedness and the mental representation of abstract concepts with positive or negative valence (e.g., honesty, sadness, intelligence). Mappings from spatial location to emotional valence differed between right- and left-handed participants. Right-handers tended to associate rightward space with positive ideas and leftward space with negative ideas, but left-handers showed the opposite pattern, associating rightward space with negative ideas and leftward with positive ideas. These contrasting mental metaphors for valence cannot be attributed to linguistic experience, because idioms in English associate good with right but not with left. Rather, right- and left-handers implicitly associated positive valence more strongly with the side of space on which they could act more fluently with their dominant hands. These results support the body-specificity hypothesis and provide evidence for the perceptuomotor basis of even the most abstract ideas.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0015854

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The equal distribution of handedness and spatial side corresponding to positive in the current sample makes influences on group differences unlikely.

    “While associations between spatial side and valence have been reported which differ between handedness [37], the equal distribution of handedness and spatial side corresponding to positive in the current sample make influences on group differences unlikely.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Barsalou, L., Niedenthal, P. M., Barbey, A. K., & Ruppert, J. A. (2003). Social embodiment. In B. H. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 43-92). New York: Academic Press.
  2. Carey, S. (2004). Bootstrapping and the origins of concepts. Daedalus, 133(1), 59 -68.
  3. Feldman, J. (2006). From molecules to metaphor: A neural theory of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  4. Gould, G. M. (1908). Righthandedness and lefthandedness. Philadelphia: Lippincott.
  5. Zwaan, R., & Yaxley, R. H. (2003b). Spatial iconicity affects semantic- relatedness judgments. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 954 -958.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Casasanto, D.
Affiliations
The New School (US)
Corresponding author
Casasanto, Daniel
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Published
2009
Volume
138
Issue
3
Pages
351-367
ISSN
  • 0096-3445 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2222
OpenAlex
W2118093655
Cited by
871
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 53 · 2024: 41 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 93 · 2019: 94 · 2018: 50 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 43 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 41 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 34
FWCI
47.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology General (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Research Service Award (F32MH072502)
  • Spanish Ministry of Education and Science (SEJ2006-04732/PSIC)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Language, Metaphor, and Cognition
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
Keywords
handedness, abstract concepts, emotional valence, spatial mapping, right-handers, left-handers, idioms
MeSH terms
Association Learning, Choice Behavior, Concept Formation, Culture, Emotions, Humans, Individuality, Judgment, Functional Laterality, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychological Theory, Psychomotor Performance, Semantics, Set, Psychology, Space Perception, Thinking, Metaphor

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review