Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T14:46:21.924Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - The Embodiment of Power and Communalism in Space and Bodily Contact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Gün R. Semin  and
Eliot R. Smith
By
Thomas W. Schubert ,
Sven Waldzus  and
Beate Seibt
Gün R. Semin
Affiliation:
Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Amsterdam
Eliot R. Smith
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Thomas W. Schubert
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Sven Waldzus
Affiliation:
ISCTE, Lisbon
Beate Seibt
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Get access

Summary

Imagine you visit a village on some remote island, with a culture with which you are not familiar. On this island, you discover a number of strange behaviors of which you try to make sense. For instance, some of the islanders rub their noses with each other as a greeting. You also learn that others eat potions “using combinations of ingredients such as rocks from the tallest mountain-peaks and epiphytes growing atop the highest trees” (Fiske, 2004, p. 95). How would you interpret these behaviors? Perhaps you would guess those with nose-to-nose contact are generally close to each other, and those eating the potions made of high things enjoy or attain high status. What you have figured out then are perhaps the two most basic and important dimensions of social relations: community relations and power relations (Mead, 1934).

What is the basis of such a judgment that relates unknown behaviors to social relations? In this chapter, we will approach this question from the standpoint of Relational Models Theory (RMT) developed by Fiske (1992; Fiske & Haslam, 2005). This theory identifies community and power as two of the basic relational models humans use to structure and coordinate their social interactions. In a nutshell, when people have a community relation or communal sharing (CS), they focus on what they have in common. Thus, resources are seen as common in a CS relation and shared according to needs.

Type
Chapter
Information
Embodied Grounding
Social, Cognitive, Affective, and Neuroscientific Approaches
 , pp. 160 - 183
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. R., & Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1978). Signature size, sex, and status in Iran. The Journal of Social Psychology, 106, 273–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashton-James, C., Van Baaren, R. V., Chartrand, I. L., Decety, J. & Karremans, J. (2007). Mimicry and me: The impact of mimicry on self-construal. Social Cognition, 25, 518–535.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–609.Google ScholarPubMed
Boyson, A. R., Pryor, B., & Butler, J. (1999). Height as power in women. North American Journal of Psychology, 1, 109–114.Google Scholar
Brockner, J., Pressman, B., Cabitt, J., & Moran, P. (1982). Nonverbal intimacy, sex, and compliance: A field study. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 6, 253–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castelli, L., Zogmaister, C., Smith, E. R., & Arcuri, L. (2004). On the automatic evaluation of social exemplars. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 373–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception-behavior link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 893–910.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P., Luce, C., & et al. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481–494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, A. (1996). Being there. Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cruscoe, A. H., & Wetzel, C. G. (1984). The Midas Touch: The effects of interpersonal touch on restaurant tipping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 512–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dannemaier, W. D., & Thumin, F. J. (1964). Authority status as a factor in perceptual distortion of size. Journal of Social Psychology, 63, 361–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 33 (pp. 1–40). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., & Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of Trivial Pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 865–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, E. (1893). De la division du travail social. Paris: Félix Alcan.Google Scholar
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1971). Constants across cultures in the face and emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 17, 124–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiske, A. P. (2004). Four modes of constituting relationships: Consubstantial assimilation; space, magnitude, time, and force; concrete procedures; abstract symbolism. In Haslam, N. (Ed.), Relational models theory. A contemporary overview (pp. 61–146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Fiske, A. P., & Haslam, N. (2005). The four basic social bonds: Structures for coordinating interaction. In Baldwin, M. W. (Ed.), Interpersonal cognition (pp. 267–298). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garvin, P. L., & Riesenberg, S. H. (1952). Respect behavior on Panape: An ethnolinguistic study. American Anthropologist, 54, 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giessner, S., & Schubert, T. W. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders' power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.Google ScholarPubMed
Guéguen, N. (2002). Touch, awareness of touch, and compliance with a request. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 355–360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, J. A., Coats, E. J., & LeBeau, Smith L. (2005). Nonverbal behavior and the vertical dimension of social relations: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 898–924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 573–685.Google Scholar
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice?British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heckhausen, H. (1989). Motivation und Handeln. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewes, G. W. (1955). World distribution of certain postural habits. American Anthropologist, 57, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornik, J. (1987). The effect of touch and gaze upon compliance and interest of interviewees. Journal of Social Psychology, 127, 681–683.Google Scholar
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 89, 428–441.Google ScholarPubMed
Keating, E. (2000). Moments of hierarchy: Constituting social stratification by means of language, food, space and the body in Pohnpei, Micronesia. American Anthropologist, 102, 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D., & Anderson, C. P. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinke, C. (1977). Compliance to requests made by gazing and touching experimenters in field settings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 218–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In Vosniadou, S. & Ortony, A. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, L., Rozin, P., & Fiske, A. P. (1998). Food sharing and feeding another person suggest intimacy; two studies of American college students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 423–436.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montepare, J. M. (1995). The impact of variations in height on young children's impressions of men and women. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 19, 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niedenthal, P., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Kraut-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 184–211.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Niedenthal, P., Brauer, M., Halberstadt, J. B., & Innes-Ker, A. H. (2001). When did her smile drop? Contrast effects in the influence of emotional state on the detection of change in emotional expression. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 853–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice: Recent meta-analytic findings. In Oskamp, S. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Pleban, R., & Tesser, A. (1981). The effects of relevance and quality of another's performance on interpersonal closeness. Social Psychology Quarterly, 44, 278–285.⁁CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, B. H., & French, J. R. (1959). Group support, legitimate power, and social influence. Journal of Personality, 26, 400–409.Google Scholar
Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In Fiedler, K. (Ed.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 11–36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies on the sources of gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your Highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1–21.Google Scholar
Schubert, T. W., & Häfner, M. (2003). Contrast from social stereotypes in automatic behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 577–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schubert, T. W., & Otten, S. (2002). Overlap of self, ingroup, and outgroup. Pictorial measures of self-categorization. Self and Identity, 1, 535–576.Google Scholar
Schubert, T. W., Seibt, B., Waldzus, S., & Schmidt, S. (in prep). Shaking hands: Ingroup members afford bodily contact. Manuscript in preparation.
Schubert, T. W., & Waldzus, S. (2005). Font size influences comparative power judgments. Unpublished dataset.
Schubert, T. W., Waldzus, S., & Giessner, S. R. (in press). Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition.
Schwartz, B. (1981). Vertical classification: A study in structuralism and the sociology of knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B., Tesser, A., & Powell, E. (1982). Dominance cues in nonverbal behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seibt, B., Schubert, T. W., Strack, F., Hall, E. P., Seger, C. R., & Smith, E. R. (in prep). Embodied contact: Being touched affects social identification and prejudice.
Shah, J., Brazy, P. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Promoting us or preventing them: Regulatory focus and manifestations of intergroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 433–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, E. R., & Semin, G. R. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 36 (pp. 53–117). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sobal, J. (2000). Sociability and meals: Facilitation, commensality, and interaction. In Leiselman, H. L. (Ed.), Dimensions of the meal: The science, culture, business and art of eating (pp. 119–133). Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.Google Scholar
Spears, R., Gordijn, E., Dijksterhuis, A., & Stapel, D. A. (2004). Reaction in action: Intergroup contrast in automatic behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 606–616.Google ScholarPubMed
Spiegel, J., & Machotka, P. (1974). Messages of the body. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Stephen, R., & Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1986). The effect on tipping of a waitress touching male and female customers. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 141–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tice, D. M. (1992). Self-concept change and self-presentation: The looking-glass self is also a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 435–451.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tiedens, L. Z., & Fragale, A. R. (2003). Power moves: Complementarity in dominant and submissive nonverbal behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 558–568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1145–1158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tropp, L. R., & Wright, S. C. (2001). Ingroup identification as the inclusion of ingroup in the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 1–22.Google Scholar
Vaes, J., Paladino, M. P., Castelli, L., Leyens, J. P., & Giovanazzi, A. (2003). On the behavioral consequences of infrahumanization: The implicit role of uniquely human emotions in intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1016–1034.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Kawakami, K., & Knippenberg, A. (2004). Mimicry and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science, 15, 71–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baaren, R. B., Holland, R. W., Steenaert, B., & Knippenberg, A. (2003). Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 393–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baaren, R. B., Maddux, W. W., Chartrand, T. L., Bouter, C., & Knippenberg, A. (2003). It takes two to mimic: Behavioral consequences of self-construals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1093–1102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Willis, F., & Hamm, H. (1980). The use of interpersonal touch in securing compliance. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 5, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 460–473.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wisman, A., & Koole, S. (2003). Hiding in the crowd: Can mortality salience promote affiliation with others who oppose one's worldview?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 511–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zweigenhaft, R. L. (1970). Signature size: A key to status awareness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 81, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×