The omnipresent abstract symbol for time progression and regression is clockwise versus counterclockwise rotation. It was tested whether merely executing and seeing clockwise (vs. counterclockwise) movements would induce psychological states of temporal progression (vs. regression) and according to motivational orientations toward the future and novelty (vs. the past and familiarity). Supporting this hypothesis, participants who turned cranks counterclockwise preferred familiar over novel stimuli, but participants who turned cranks clockwise preferred novel over old stimuli, reversing the classic mere exposure effect (Experiment 1). Also, participants rotating a cylinder clockwise reported higher scores in the personality measure openness to experience than participants rotating counterclockwise (Experiment 2). Merely passively watching a rotating square had similar but weaker effects on exposure and openness (Experiment 3). Finally, participants chose more unconventional candies from a clockwise than from a counterclockwise Lazy Susan, that is, a turntable (Experiment 4).
BächtoldD.BaumüllerM.BruggerP. (1998). Stimulus-response compatibility in representational space. Neuropsychologia, 36, 731–735.
2.
BardoM. T.DonohewR. L.HarringtonN. G. (1996). Psychobiology of novelty seeking and drug seeking behavior. Behavioural Brain Research, 77, 23–43.
3.
BarsalouL. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577–660.
4.
BerlyneD. E. (1950). Novelty and curiosity as determimants of exploratory behavior. British Journal of Psychology, 41, 68–80.
5.
BorkenauP.OstendorfF. (1993). NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und McCrae, Handanweisung [User’s guide to the German Version of the NEO Five Factor Inventory by Costa and McCrae]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
6.
BoroditskyL. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1–28.
7.
BoroditskyL. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43, 1–22.
8.
CacioppoJ. T.PriesterJ. R.BerntsonG. G. (1993). Rudimentary determinants of attitudes II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 5–17.
9.
CasasantoD. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 351–367.
10.
CasasantoD.BoroditskyL. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106, 579–593.
11.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). NEO Personality Iinventory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
12.
CretenetJ. I.DruV. (2004). The influence of unilateral and bilateralarm flexion versus extension on judgments: An explanatory case of motor congruence. Emotion, 4, 282–294.
13.
DehaeneS. (1992). Varieties of numerical abilities. Cognition, 44, 1–42.
14.
De VriesM.HollandR. W.ChenierT.StarrM. J.WinkielmanP. (2010). Happiness cools the glow of familiarity: Psychophysiological evidence that mood modulates the familiarity-affect link. Psychological Science, 21, 321–328.
15.
EderA. B.RothermundK. (2008). When do motor behaviors (mis)match affective stimuli? An evaluative coding view of approach and avoidance reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 137, 262–281.
16.
FreudS. (1965). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
17.
GilbertD. T.WilsonT. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317, 1351–1354.
18.
HansenJ.TopolinskiS. (2011). An exploratory mindset reduces preference for prototypes and increases preference for novel exemplars. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 709–716.
19.
HawkS. T.FischerA. H.Van KleefG. A. (2011). Taking your place or matching your face: Two paths to empathic embarrassment. Emotion, 11, 502–513.
20.
HughesR. N. (1997). Intrinsic exploration in animals: Motives and measurement. Behavioural Processes, 41, 213–226.
21.
KantI. (1929). Critique of pure reason (N. Kemp Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
22.
JamesW. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York, NY: Dover.
23.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
24.
MavisM. B. (1973). Cognitive tuning and receptivity to novel information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 307–319.
25.
McCraeR. R. (1996). Social consequences of experiential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 323–337.
26.
MilesL. K.KarpinskaK.LumsdenJ.MacraeC. N. (2010). The meandering mind: Vection and mental time travel. PLoS ONE, 5, e10825. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010825
27.
MilesL. K.NindL. K.MacraeC. N. (2010). Moving through time. Psychological Science, 21, 222–223.
28.
RobertiJ. W. (2004). A review of behavioral and biological correlates of sensation seeking. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 256–279.
29.
RohrR. R. J. (1996). Sundials: History, theory, and practice (G. Godin, Trans.). New York, NY: Dover.
30.
SchwarzN. (2002). Situated cognition and the wisdom of feelings: Cognitive tuning. In Feldman BarrettL.SaloveyP. (Eds.), The wisdom in feelings (pp. 144–166). New York, NY: Guilford.
31.
SmallwoodJ.SchoolerJ. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 946–958.
32.
TopolinskiS.StrackF. (2009). Motormouth: Mere exposure depends on stimulus-specific motor simulations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35, 423–433.
33.
TopolinskiS. (2010). Moving the eye of the beholder: Motor components in vision determine aesthetic preference. Psychological Science, 21, 1220–1224.
34.
TopolinskiS. (2011). I 5683 you - Dialing phone numbers on cell phones activates key-concordant concepts. Psychological Science, 22(3), 355–360.
35.
TopolinskiS.StrackF. (2010). False fame prevented—avoiding fluency-effects without judgmental correction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 721–733.
36.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 9, 1–27.
37.
ZuckermanM. (1984). Sensation seeking: A comparative approach to a human trait. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 413–471.
38.
ZwaanR. A.TaylorL. J. (2006). Seeing, acting, understanding: Motor resonance in language comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135, 1–11.
39.
ZwaanR. A.TaylorL. J.de BoerM. (2010). Motor resonance as a function of narrative time: further tests of the linguistic focus hypothesis. Brain and Language, 112, 143–149.
