The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Influence of Motor Processes on Attitudes Toward Novel Versus Familiar Semantic Stimuli
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1 · Cited by 5,219
Self-citationSchwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.3.513 · Cited by 4,952
Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/208954 · Cited by 4,610
Self-citationClassical conditioning II: Current research and theory.
Black, A. H., & Prokasy, W. F. (1972) · Appleton-Century-Crofts eBooks · Cited by 4,449
Review of personality and social psychology
Davies, M. (1983) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/0191-8869(83)90072-7 · Cited by 3,394
Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary Approaches
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 3,368
Self-citationCorfman, K. P., & Lynch, J. G. (1983) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 2,944
Personal involvement as a determinant of argument based persuasion
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., & Goldman, R. (1981) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.5.847 · Cited by 2,061
Self-citationStrack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.768 · Cited by 1,898
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69 · Cited by 1,727
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.545 · DOI
- Kucera, H., 1967, Computational anatysis of present-day American English
- Srull, T. K., 1983, Advances in Consumer Re-search, 10, 520
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate?
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (2000) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00003435 · Cited by 4,481
Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment
Bottom, W. P., Gilovich, T. D., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. J. (2004) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/20159081 · Cited by 3,583
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
(2002) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098 · Cited by 2,293
Metadata
- Authors
- Priester, J. R., Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E.
- Affiliations
- Fordham University (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- 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
- 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
- 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 › Psychology › Social Psychology › 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
