Advertisement

The Embodied and Metaphorical View of Cognition

  • Claus Springborg
Chapter
  • 273 Downloads
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Business, Arts and Humanities book series (PSBAH)

Abstract

This chapter focuses on newer empirical research and theoretical developments in cognitive science, which suggests that cognition is largely metaphorical and embodied in nature. That cognition is metaphorical and embodied means that managers understand important managerial phenomena, such as “power," “decision-making," and “motivation” in terms of analogue (metaphorical) sensorimotor states (embodied). Managers may, for example, understand “motivation” as analogue to either “pushing” or “removing stones allowing a river to flow more freely”. I call such analogues “sensory templates”. I argue sensory templates are the most basic assumptions guiding managers’ behavior and that using some sensory templates lead to more efficient actions than others. Becoming aware of and evaluating sensory templates offers an approach to double-loop learning, which sidesteps the difficulties described in Chap. 2.

References

  1. Aarts, Henk, and Ap Dijksterhuis. 2002. “Category Activation Effects in Judgment and Behaviour: The Moderating Role of Perceived Comparability”. British Journal of Social Psychology 41 (1): 123–38.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, Joshua M., Christopher C. Nocera, and John A. Bargh. 2010. “Incidental Haptic Sensations Influence Social Judgments and Decisions”. Science 328 (5987): 1712–15.Google Scholar
  3. Bargh, John A., Mark Chen, and Lara Burrows. 1996. “Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype-Activation on Action”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (2): 230–44.Google Scholar
  4. Barsalou, Lawrence W. 2008. “Grounded Cognition”. Annual Review of Psychology 59 (January): 617–45.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 2010. “Grounded Cognition: Past, Present, and Future”. Topics in Cognitive Science 2 (4): 716–24.Google Scholar
  6. Cacioppo, J. T., R. E. Petty, M. E. Losch, and H. S. Kim. 1986. “Electromyographic Activity over Facial Muscle Regions Can Differentiate the Valence and Intensity of Affective Reactions”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50 (2): 260–68.Google Scholar
  7. Cacioppo, J. T., J. R. Priester, and G. G. Bernston. 1993. “Rudimentary Determination of Attitudes: II. Arm Flexion and Extension Have Differential Effects on Attitudes”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (1): 5–17.Google Scholar
  8. Carney, Dana R., Amy J. C. Cuddy, and Andy J. Yap. 2010. “Power Posing”. Psychological Science 21 (10): 1363–68.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, M., and John A. Bargh. 1999. “Consequences of Automatic Evaluation: Immediate Behavioral Predispositions to Approach or Avoid the Stimulus”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25 (2): 215–24.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, Noam. 1959. “A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior”. Language 35 (1): 26–58.Google Scholar
  11. Credé, Marcus, and Leigh A. Phillips. 2017. “Revisiting the Power Pose Effect”. Social Psychological and Personality Science 7, 1–7.Google Scholar
  12. Dewey, John. 1938. Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  13. Duclos, Sandra E., James D. Laird, Eric Schneider, Melissa Sexter, and et al. 1989. “Emotion-Specific Effects of Facial Expressions and Postures on Emotional Experience”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (1): 100–108.Google Scholar
  14. Garrison, Katie E., David Tang, and Brandon J. Schmeichel. 2016. “Embodying Power”. Social Psychological and Personality Science 7 (7): 623–30.Google Scholar
  15. Glenberg, Arthur M., and Michael P. Kaschak. 2002. “Grounding Language in Action”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9 (3): 558–65.Google Scholar
  16. Grady, Joseph E. 1997. “Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes”. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 2005. “Primary Metaphors as Inputs to Conceptual Integration”. Journal of Pragmatics 37 (10): 1595–1614.Google Scholar
  18. Hebb, D. O. 1949. The Organization of Behavior. New York: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, Mark. 2007. The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  20. Johnson, Mark, and Tim Rohrer. 2007. “We Are Live Creatures: Embodiment, American Pragmatism, and the Cognitive Organism”. In Body, Language and Mind Volume 1: Embodiment, edited by Tom Ziemke, J. Zlatev, and R. M. Frank, 17–54. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  21. Lakoff, George. 2012. “Explaining Embodied Cognition Results”. Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (4): 773–85.Google Scholar
  22. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  24. Mayer, Richard E. 2001. Multimedia Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. McCarthy, John. 1959. “Programs with Common Sense”. In Proceedings of the Teddington Conference on the Mechanization of Thought Processes (Dec 1958), 75–91.Google Scholar
  26. Miller, G. A. 1956. “The Magical Number Seven, plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information”. Psychological Review 63 (2): 81–97.Google Scholar
  27. Morgan, Gareth. 2006. Images of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  28. Piaget, Jean, and Bärbel Inhelder. 1969. The Psychology of the Child. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Pulvermüller, F., M. Härle, and F. Hummel. 2001. “Walking or Talking? Behavioral and Neurophysiological Correlates of Action Verb Processing”. Brain and Language 78 (2): 143–68.Google Scholar
  30. Ranehill, Eva, Anna Dreber, Magnus Johannesson, Susanne Leiberg, Sunhae Sul, and Roberto A. Weber. 2015. “Assessing the Robustness of Power Posing”. Psychological Science 26 (5): 653–56.Google Scholar
  31. Rizzolatti, G/, L. Fadiga, V. Gallese, and Leonardo Fogassi. 1996. “Premotor Cortex and the Recognition of Motor Actions”. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 3 (2): 131–41.Google Scholar
  32. Schubert, Thomas W. 2004. “The Power in Your Hand: Gender Differences in Bodily Feedback from Making a Fist”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (6): 757–69.Google Scholar
  33. Skinner, B. F. 1957. Verbal Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Copley Publishing Group.Google Scholar
  34. Stepper, S., and F. Strack. 1993. “Proprioceptive Determinants of Emotional and Nonemotional Feelings”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 64 (2): 211–20.Google Scholar
  35. Svensson, Henrik, J. Lindblom, and Tom Ziemke. 2007. “Making Sense of Embodied Cognition: Simulation Theories of Shared Neural Mechanisms for Sensorimotor and Cognitive Processes”. In Body, Language and Mind Volume 1: Embodiment, edited by Tom Ziemke, J. Zlatev, and R. M. Frank, 241–70. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  36. Tettamanti, Marco, Giovanni Buccino, Maria Cristina Saccuman, Vittorio Gallese, Massimo Danna, Paola Scifo, Ferruccio Fazio, Giacomo Rizzolatti, Stefano F. Cappa, and Daniela Perani. 2005. “Listening to Action-Related Sentences Activates Fronto-Parietal Motor Circuits”. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 17 (2): 273–81.Google Scholar
  37. Tom, Gail, Paul Pettersen, Teresa Lau, Trevor Burton, and Jim Cook. 1991. “The Role of Overt Head Movement in the Formation of Affect”. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 12 (3): 281–89.Google Scholar
  38. Watson, John B. 1913. “Psychology as the Behaviorist Views It”. Psychological Review 20: 158–77.Google Scholar
  39. Wilson, Margaret. 2002. “Six Views of Embodied Cognition”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9 (4): 625–36.Google Scholar
  40. Ziemke, T., J. Zlatev, and R. Frank, eds. 2007. Body, Language and Mind. Vol 1: Embodiment. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claus Springborg
    • 1
  1. 1.CoCreationCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations