Telling Things Apart

People use spatial distance to talk and think about differences between concepts, and it has been argued that using space to think about different categories provides a scaffold for the categorization process. In the current study, we investigated the possibility that the distance between response keys can influence categorization times in binary classification tasks. In line with the hypothesis that distance between response keys can facilitate response selection in a key-press version of the Stroop task, our results showed that responses on incongruent Stroop trials were significantly facilitated when participants performed the Stroop task with response keys located far apart, compared with when they performed the task with response keys located close together. These results support the idea that the spatial structuring of response options facilitates categorizations that require cognitive effort, and that people can incorporate environmental structures such as spatial distance in their thought processes. Keeping your hands apart might actually help to keep things apart in your mind.

[1]  D. Casasanto,et al.  Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? , 2008, Memory & cognition.

[2]  David Kirsh,et al.  The Intelligent Use of Space , 1995, Artif. Intell..

[3]  G. Lakoff,et al.  Metaphors We Live by , 1982 .

[4]  Arthur M. Glenberg,et al.  Using Concreteness in Education: Real Problems, Potential Solutions , 2009 .

[5]  A. Clark Supersizing the Mind , 2008 .

[6]  G. Aschersleben,et al.  The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): a framework for perception and action planning. , 2001, The Behavioral and brain sciences.

[7]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[8]  Diane Pecher,et al.  Similarity is closeness: Metaphorical mapping in a conceptual task , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  R. Engle,et al.  Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[10]  J. Ridley Studies of Interference in Serial Verbal Reactions , 2001 .

[11]  Michele I. Feist,et al.  The color of similarity , 2008 .

[12]  A. Clark,et al.  The Extended Mind , 1998, Analysis.

[13]  Geneviève Calbris From left to right...: Coverbal gestures and their symbolic use of space , 2008 .

[14]  A. Cienki,et al.  Metaphor and Gesture , 2008 .

[15]  Autumn B. Hostetter,et al.  Visible embodiment: Gestures as simulated action , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[16]  S. Koole,et al.  On the regulation of cognitive control: action orientation moderates the impact of high demands in Stroop interference tasks. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[17]  Susan Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Action’s Influence on Thought: The Case of Gesture , 2010, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[18]  Colin M. Macleod Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[19]  S. Goldin-Meadow,et al.  Hearing Gesture: How Our Hands Help Us Think , 2003 .