Search

How does thinking differ across cultures? Previously, we reported that Chinese people tend to think more abstractly than Caucasian Americans, as indexed by their propensity to construe actions either abstractly or concretely (Singh et al., 2019). Here we provide further evidence for the cultural diversity of abstract thought: We report action construal data from Japan and South Korea, and compare them to our previous Chinese and American data. Chinese, Japanese, and South Korean patterns of action construal all differed significantly from one another. Whereas Chinese participants construed actions more abstractly than American participants, South Koreans did not differ from Americans, and Japanese participants construed actions less abstractly than Americans. The diversity of these East Asian data challenges the assumption that people from China, Japan, and South Korea have a unified “Eastern” cognitive style. Furthermore, these results challenge the longstanding generalization that Westerners think more abstractly than non-Westerners.

According to a large body of research, the left and right cerebral hemispheres are specialized for different frequencies, in vision and audition, but the cause of this specialization is unknown. Here, we tested whether hemispheric asymmetries in visual perception can be explained by asymmetries in people’s tendency to perform high- and low-frequency actions with their dominant and nondominant hands, respectively (the Action Asymmetry Hypothesis [AAH]). In a large, preregistered, online study, participants (N = 1008) judged low- and high-frequency shapes presented in the left and right visual hemifields. Overall, the typical hemispheric asymmetry for high vs. low visual frequencies, which we found in right handers, was significantly reduced in left handers. Hemispheric asymmetries for high-spatial-frequency stimuli were completely reversed between right and left handers. These results provide initial support for the AAH: Frequency asymmetries in perception may be explained by frequency asymmetries in action.

People are more likely to gesture when their speech is disfluent. Why? According to an influential answer to this question, people gesture when they are disfluent because gestures facilitate speech production (Krauss & Hadar, 1999). Here, we propose an alternative explanation: People may gesture when their speech is less fluent because gestures serve as a pragmatic signal by commenting on problems with speaking. If so, when the listener cannot see the speaker, the speaker’s pragmatic motivation to gesture more during disfluencies should disappear. As predicted, we showed that people were more likely to gesture when their speech is disfluent only when the listener can see their gestures, but not when the listener cannot see their gestures. These results suggest that people gesture more when speaking is difficult, not because gestures facilitate speech, but rather because gestures comment on speakers’ difficulty with presenting an utterance for the listener.

We investigated the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on young people’s value temporal focus, religiosity, and time spatialization. Samples of young participants from eight cultures (Americans, Spaniards, Serbs, Bosniaks, Croats, Moroccans, Turks, and Chinese) collected before the pandemic (N = 497, mean age = 21.09) were matched with samples collected during the first confinement period (N = 497, mean age = 20.96). Our results in study 1 showed that during the pandemic, young adults were less religious, more future-focused, and placed the future in front to of them in a greater extent. In study 2, using the whole sample collected during the pandemic (N = 893, mean age = 21.94), we observed that the more affected the participants were by the pandemic, the greater their future focus, the lower their religiosity, and the greater their tendency to locate the future in front. These pattern of results held in most cultures.

Using space to think about time appears to be a human universal, but the specifics of people’s space-time mappings vary across individuals and groups. What determines how people spatialize time in their minds? Here we hypothesized that motor experience contributes to individuals’ space-time mappings, independent of linguistic and cultural factors. Many everyday motor actions require using the hands in a particular sequence (e.g., positioning a nail with the nondominant hand before swinging the hammer with the dominant hand), establishing a correlation between space (left hand, right hand) and time (earlier action, later action) that reverses with handedness. These action sequences reinforce Westerners’ typical left-to-right mental timeline for right-handers, but contradict this timeline for left-handers. Accordingly, we find that right-handers associate leftward space with earlier times and rightward space with later times more strongly than left-handers, for whom cultural and bodily experiences present contrasting relationships between space and time.

Are left handers more creative than right handers? In both popular belief and scientific literature, left-handedness is linked with higher creativity. Here, we evaluate whether left handers are better at divergent thinking, and whether left handers are overrepresented in creative professions, in a qualitative review supported by meta-analysis. We argue that plausible mechanisms for a creativity-handedness link can be found within influential theories of the neural basis of creativity. However, our meta-analysis does not find evidence that left or mixed handers are better at divergent thinking; in fact, right handers score slightly higher on the Alternate Uses Test. Additionally, we conclude that while left and mixed handers may be overrepresented in Art and Music, they are underrepresented in creative professions in general. We find that although both right and left handers tend to believe that left handers are more creative, this belief is not supported by the available empirical evidence.

People implicitly associate positive ideas with their dominant side of space and negative ideas with their non-dominant side. Right-handers tend to associate 'good' with 'right' and 'bad' with 'left,' but left-handers associate 'bad' with 'right' and 'good' with 'left.' Whereas right-handers' implicit associations align with idioms in language and culture that link 'good' with 'right,' left-handers' implicit associations go against them. Can cultural conventions modulate the body-specific association between valence and left-right space? Here, we compared people from Spanish and Moroccan cultures, which differ in the strength of taboos against the use of the left hand, and therefore in their preference for the right. Results showed stronger explicit associations between space and valence in Moroccan participants than in Spaniards, but they did not show any increased tendency for right-handed Moroccans to associate 'good' with 'right' implicitly. Despite differences in cultural conventions between Spaniards and Moroccans, we find no evidence for a cross-cultural difference in the implicit association between space and valence, which appears to depend on patterns of bodily experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Right- and left-handers implicitly associate positive ideas like “goodness” and “honesty” more strongly with their dominant side of space, the side on which they can act more fluently, and negative ideas more strongly with their nondominant side. Here we show that right-handers’ tendency to associate “good” with “right” and “bad” with “left” can be reversed as a result of both long- and short-term changes in motor fluency. Among patients who were right-handed prior to unilateral stroke, those with disabled left hands associated “good” with “right,” but those with disabled right hands associated “good” with “left,” as natural left-handers do. A similar pattern was found in healthy right-handers whose right or left hand was temporarily handicapped in the laboratory. Even a few minutes of acting more fluently with the left hand can change right-handers’ implicit associations between space and emotional valence, causing a reversal of their usual judgments. Motor experience plays a causal role in shaping abstract thought. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: According to the body-specificity hypothesis, people with different bodily characteristics should form correspondingly different mental representations, even in highly abstract conceptual domains. In a previous test of this proposal, right- and left-handers were found to associate positive ideas like intelligence, attractiveness, and honesty with their dominant side and negative ideas with their non-dominant side. The goal of the present study was to determine whether 'body-specific' associations of space and valence can be observed beyond the laboratory in spontaneous behavior, and whether these implicit associations have visible consequences. Methodology and Principal Findings: We analyzed speech and gesture (3012 spoken clauses, 1747 gestures) from the final debates of the 2004 and 2008 US presidential elections, which involved two right-handers (Kerry, Bush) and two left-handers (Obama, McCain). Blind, independent coding of speech and gesture allowed objective hypothesis testing. Right- and lefthanded candidates showed contrasting associations between gesture and speech. In both of the left-handed candidates, left-hand gestures were associated more strongly with positive-valence clauses and right-hand gestures with negativevalence clauses; the opposite pattern was found in both right-handed candidates. Conclusions: Speakers associate positive messages more strongly with dominant hand gestures and negative messages with non-dominant hand gestures, revealing a hidden link between action and emotion. This pattern cannot be explained by conventions in language or culture, which associate 'good' with 'right' but not with 'left'; rather, results support and extend the body-specificity hypothesis. Furthermore, results suggest that the hand speakers use to gesture may have unexpected (and probably unintended) communicative value, providing the listener with a subtle index of how the speaker feels about the content of the co-occurring speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]