2018
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02384
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adjusting Sample Sizes for Different Categories of Embodied Cognition Research

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although Meier et al’s (2007) article has been cited 360 times (according to Google Scholar as of March, 2021), the sample sizes in the experiments were small ( N s = 41, 47, 33, 27, 66, & 55) and there have been few conceptual replications reported in this area (although see Chasteen et al, 2010 & Guan et al, 2020, for two examples). Furthermore, valid concerns have been raised concerning the replicability of CMT and embodied cognition research (Skulmowski & Rey, 2018). For example, there have been reported failures to replicate metaphor and embodied cognition effects on social judgments and in studies involving judgments of other’s traits (e.g., Ashton et al, 2014; Chabris et al, 2019; Siev et al, 2018; but see Hauser & Schwarz, 2020, for a discussion of relevant boundary conditions; also see Giessner & Schubert, 2019, for a successful replication).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although Meier et al’s (2007) article has been cited 360 times (according to Google Scholar as of March, 2021), the sample sizes in the experiments were small ( N s = 41, 47, 33, 27, 66, & 55) and there have been few conceptual replications reported in this area (although see Chasteen et al, 2010 & Guan et al, 2020, for two examples). Furthermore, valid concerns have been raised concerning the replicability of CMT and embodied cognition research (Skulmowski & Rey, 2018). For example, there have been reported failures to replicate metaphor and embodied cognition effects on social judgments and in studies involving judgments of other’s traits (e.g., Ashton et al, 2014; Chabris et al, 2019; Siev et al, 2018; but see Hauser & Schwarz, 2020, for a discussion of relevant boundary conditions; also see Giessner & Schubert, 2019, for a successful replication).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Effect sizes for main effects were calculated with partial eta squared (Z 2 p ), ranging from small (> .02) to medium (> .13) to large (> .26) [32]. Given the small effect sizes of motor-language coupling phenomena [1,33] and the adequate power of our sample, post hoc comparisons were performed without correcting for multiple comparisons, thus reducing the likelihood of Type II errors. Effect sizes for pairwise comparisons were calculated through Cohen's d [32], an index that discriminates among small (0-0.20), medium (0.50-0.80), and large (> 0.80) effects [32].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Skulmowski and Rey (2018b) recently suggested a taxonomy for embodiment in educational settings. They distinguish the dimensions “task integration” and “bodily engagement.” The authors argue that if bodily activities are integrated into the learning task and participants perform bodily movements and locomotion (as opposed to a sitting condition), embodiment effects are larger (Skulmowski & Rey, 2018a). Our moving version of the memory tasks definitely required locomotion and bodily movements, but our multimodal stimulus presentation did not maximize the integration of physical activities into the learning strategies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mavilidi et al (2018) also have proposed a conceptual framework combining the exercise and cognition research with the embodied cognition research into a blended approach. They emphasize gross movements with high intensity, high task relevance (which resembles the dimension “task integration” from Skulmowski & Rey, 2018a), and high temporal connection of the movement and the cognitive task.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%