CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 144Social and Intergroup PsychologyEmbodied and Extended CognitionPsychology of Social Influence

The influence of motor processes on attitudes toward novel versus familiar semantic stimuli

Priester, Joseph R., Cacioppo, John T., Petty, Richard E.·1996·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI 10.1177/0146167296225002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent research has suggested that the motor processes elicited by upper arm isometric flexion and extension can subtly influence attitudes. Specifically, ideographs evaluatively categorized while performing isometric upper arm flexion were subsequently preferred to ideographs evaluatively categorized while performing isometric upper arm extension. The present research sought to replicate this attitudinal effect with semantic stimuli and to examine a theoretical boundary condition posited by the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). Subjects categorized either neutral words or pronounceable nonwords while adopting the isometric positions. Results indicated that motor processes influenced subsequent attitudes toward stimuli with few associations (i.e., nonwords) more than toward stimuli with many associations in memory (i.e., familiar words). These results are consistent with a growing literature on the possible influence of nondeclarative (e.g., procedural) knowledge on attitudes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167296225002

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Changes in anticipated liking may follow this approach behaviour in both trial arms.

    “Changes in anticipated liking may follow this approach behaviour in both trial arms (Dazeley & Houston-Price, 2015; Priester et al., 1996).”

    From Children overcoming picky eating (COPE) - A cluster randomised controlled trial. (2020) · cites this paper as Priester et al., 1996

  • Behavioural change and changes in subjective evaluation are independent processes, and changes in subjective attitudes may follow overt behaviour change.

    “The change in observable behaviour in the absence of consistent changes in anticipated liking is in line with research, showing that behavioural change and changes in subjective evaluation are independent processes and that changes in subjective attitudes may follow overt behaviour change (Festinger, 1957; Priester, Cacioppo, & Petty, 1996; Smith & Mack”

    From Children overcoming picky eating (COPE) - A cluster randomised controlled trial. (2020) · cites this paper as Priester, Cacioppo, & Petty, 1996

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Priester, J. R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E.
Affiliations
  • Fordham University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1996-05
Volume
22
Issue
5
Pages
442-447
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/0146167296225002
OpenAlex
W2108714233
Cited by
144
References
39
Citations by year
2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Embodied and Extended Cognition
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
motor processes, attitudes, isometric extensions, elaboration likelihood model, procedural knowledge, ideograms, semantic association

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