Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-76mfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-18T01:24:52.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Leveraging individual differences to understand grounded procedures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2021

Adam K. Fetterman Open the ORCID record for Adam K. Fetterman [Opens in a new window] ,
Michael D. Robinson  and
Brian P. Meier
Adam K. Fetterman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-5022 akfetterman@uh.edu;  https://fettermanlab.weebly.com/
Michael D. Robinson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, North Dakota State University, Psychology, NDSU Dept. 2765, Fargo, ND 58108-6050 Michael.D.Robinson@ndsu.edu; https://www.ndsu.edu/centers/cvcn/labs/robinson/MRobinson/index.html
Brian P. Meier
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Gettysburg College, Gettysburg, PA 17325-1400. bmeier@gettysburg.edu; https://sites.google.com/view/brianpmeier
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We applaud the goals and execution of the target article, but note that individual differences do not receive much attention. This is a shortcoming because individual differences can play a vital role in theory testing. In our commentary, we describe programs of research of this type and also apply similar thinking to the mechanisms proposed in the target article.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 44 , 2021 , e6
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetterman, A. K. (2016). On god-belief and feeling clean: Feelings of cleanliness are associated with feelings and behavior in daily life, particularly for those high in god belief. Social Psychology and Personality Science, 7, 552–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetterman, A. K., Bair, J. L., & Robinson, M. D. (2015). Submissive, inhibited, avoidant, and prone to escape: The correlates and consequences of crossing one's arms. Motivation Science, 1, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetterman, A. K., Bair, J. L., Werth, M., Landkammer, F., & Robinson, M. D. (2016). The scope and consequences of metaphoric thinking: Using individual differences in metaphor usage to understand the utility of conceptual metaphors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 458–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Häfner, M. (2013). When body and mind are talking: Interoception moderates embodied cognition. Experimental Psychology, 60, 255–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Herbert, B. M., & Pollatos, O. (2012). The body in the mind: On the relationship between interoception and embodiment. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 692–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2004). Why good guys wear white: Automatic inferences about stimulus valence based on brightness. Psychological Science, 15, 82–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, B. P., Schnall, S., Schwarz, N., & Bargh, J. A. (2012). Embodiment in social psychology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 4, 705–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Underwood, B. J. (1975). Individual differences as a crucible in theory construction. American Psychologist, 30, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar