Speakers
Description
The Body-Specificity Hypothesis suggests that the area around the dominant hand is perceived positively, contrasting with a negative perception around the non-dominant hand. Given the increasing interest in embodied cognition for interactive technologies, our study aimed to investigate body-specific associations in real-world settings, examining whether these extend to mainstream digital gestures like swiping. Experiments 1 and 2 involved presenting 28 valence-laden images to N=30 right-handed participants (Experiment 1) and N=30 left-handed participants (Experiment 2) on a tablet. Participants made valence judgments with each hand in separate sessions, engaging in a congruent task (swipe toward the dominant side - positive, swipe toward the non-dominant side - negative) and an incongruent task (the opposite response pattern). Following the valence judgment task, participants assessed the intensity of their responses using a 9-point Likert scale. Results indicated that right-handers (Experiment 1) were faster in the congruent condition (p < .001) than in the incongruent condition and showed faster responses when swiping for negative images with the non-dominant hand (p < .001). Left-handed participants (Experiment 2), on the other hand, did not show differences in response times but evaluated images as more positive/negative in the congruent condition (p = .01) compared to the incongruent. Overall, these findings support the Body-Specificity Hypothesis but also suggest it manifests with a distinctive pattern between right-handers and left-handers.
Keywords: Body Specificity; Affective valence; Embodied Cognition, Swipe, Digital devices, Response time paradigm
| If you're submitting a poster, would you be interested in giving a blitz talk? | No |
|---|---|
| If you're submitting a symposium talk, what's the symposium title? | "Processi sensomotori e cognizione: recenti evidenze ed applicazioni” |
| If you're submitting a symposium, or a talk that is part of a symposium, is this a junior symposium? | No |
