Abstract:Is there a psychological link between physical and social warmth? The Williams and Bargh (2008) coffee study is one data point among many that bear on this question. Since its publication there has been a surge of further research on the association between physical and social warmth, especially in neuroscience and medical science. As a result, there is now an array of evidence relevant to (1) the reality of the physical-social warmth pathway and (2) its possible anatomical location and neurochemical mechanis… Show more
“…Despite its recent controversy in the social psychological literature (Chabris et al, 2019; Lynott et al, 2014; cf. Bargh & Melnikoff, 2019), these results are consistent with previous findings from the animal and human literature that show selective effects of physical warmth on social connection. In addition, they emphasize the importance of physical warmth over other less-warm temperatures for pro-social behavior (e.g., Hofer, 1973).…”
Social connection may stem from afferent pathways that bring bodily information to the brain and mind. In support of this perspective, research from animals and humans shows that physical warmth causally affects experiences of social connection. However, whether physical warmth affects feelings of social connection and the brain's response to close others remains unknown. In the current study, 42 participants completed an fMRI scan as they viewed images of a close other and strangers while holding warm, cold, and room-temperature objects. Following the scan, participants reported on their feelings of social connection and pleasure in response to the three temperature conditions. Results revealed a specific effect of physical warmth on brain activity to close others as compared with cooler temperatures (both cold and room temperature) and strangers (e.g., in the ventral striatum, middle-insula, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, pregenual cingulate cortex). Cooler temperatures had no effect on brain activity to close others (vs. strangers). Further, physical warmth increased feelings of social connection, even when adjusting for feelings of pleasure, but not vice versa, suggesting physical warmth may have specific effects on feelings of social connection. Results add to an emerging literature on the contribution of physical warmth to social connection and furthers understanding of why and how connecting with others is a basic need for humans.
“…Despite its recent controversy in the social psychological literature (Chabris et al, 2019; Lynott et al, 2014; cf. Bargh & Melnikoff, 2019), these results are consistent with previous findings from the animal and human literature that show selective effects of physical warmth on social connection. In addition, they emphasize the importance of physical warmth over other less-warm temperatures for pro-social behavior (e.g., Hofer, 1973).…”
Social connection may stem from afferent pathways that bring bodily information to the brain and mind. In support of this perspective, research from animals and humans shows that physical warmth causally affects experiences of social connection. However, whether physical warmth affects feelings of social connection and the brain's response to close others remains unknown. In the current study, 42 participants completed an fMRI scan as they viewed images of a close other and strangers while holding warm, cold, and room-temperature objects. Following the scan, participants reported on their feelings of social connection and pleasure in response to the three temperature conditions. Results revealed a specific effect of physical warmth on brain activity to close others as compared with cooler temperatures (both cold and room temperature) and strangers (e.g., in the ventral striatum, middle-insula, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, pregenual cingulate cortex). Cooler temperatures had no effect on brain activity to close others (vs. strangers). Further, physical warmth increased feelings of social connection, even when adjusting for feelings of pleasure, but not vice versa, suggesting physical warmth may have specific effects on feelings of social connection. Results add to an emerging literature on the contribution of physical warmth to social connection and furthers understanding of why and how connecting with others is a basic need for humans.
“… Schilder et al (2015) conducted a direct replication study of IJzerman and Semin (2009) and obtained similar results. Bargh and Melninkoff (2019) reanalyzed the data from a study that showed a failed replication ( Chabris et al, 2019 ) and found a trend similar to that of the original study. As such, the question of reproducibility remains wide open.…”
Temperature is one of the major environmental factors that people are exposed to on a daily basis, often in conditions that do not afford control. It is known that heat and cold can influence a person’s productivity and performance in simple tasks. With respect to social cognition, it has also been suggested that temperature impacts on relatively high-level forms of decision-making. For instance, previous research demonstrated that cold temperature promotes utilitarian judgment in a moral dilemma task. This effect could be due to psychological processing, when a cool temperature primes a set of internal representations (associated with “coldness”). Alternatively, the promotion of utilitarian judgment in cold conditions could be due to physiological interference from temperature, impeding on social cognition. Refuting both explanations of psychological or physiological processing, however, it has been suggested that there may be problems of reproducibility in the literature on temperature modulating complex or abstract information processing. To examine the role of temperature in moral decision-making, we conducted a series of experiments using ambient and haptic temperature with careful manipulation checks and modified task methodology. Experiment 1 manipulated room temperature with cool (21°C), control (24°C) and hot (27°C) conditions and found only a cool temperature effect, promoting utilitarian judgment as in the previous study. Experiment 2 manipulated the intensity of haptic temperature but failed to obtain the cool temperature effect. Experiments 3 and 4 examined the generalizability of the cool ambient temperature effect with another moral judgment task and with manipulation of exposure duration. However, again there were no cool temperature effects, suggesting a lack of reproducibility. Despite successful manipulations of temperature in all four experiments, as measured in body temperature and the participants’ self-reported perception, we found no systematic influence of temperature on moral decision-making. A Bayesian meta-analysis of the four experiments showed that the overall data tended to provide strong support in favor of the null hypothesis. We propose that, at least in the range of temperatures from 21 to 27°C, the cool temperature effect in moral decision-making is not a robust phenomenon.
“…Bargh and Melnikoff (2019 )So why did Chabris et al. (2019) not replicate Williams and Bargh (2008)?…”
Section: Replication As a Dramatic Counter‐realitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…OSC used a benchmark that did not take into account the multiple sources of error in their data, used a relatively low-powered design that demonstrably underestimates the true rate of replication, and permitted considerable infidelities that almost certainly biased their replication studies toward failure. As a result, OSC seriously underestimated the reproducibility of psychological science (p. 1037) Bargh and Melnikoff (2019) So why did Chabris et al ( 2019) not replicate Williams and Bargh (2008)? One possible answer has to do with the temperature of the coffee that participants held.…”
Section: Replication As a Dramatic Counter-realitymentioning
In this article, we draw attention to public-private dilemmas among psychologists that make sense of the debates around the replication crisis, citation practices and networking practices. We argue that the values of justice and caring map onto the public sphere and private sphere respectively and create the horns of a dilemma for academics. While bureaucratic justice is a publicly revered value of modernity in psychological research that underpins ethics, validity, reliability and equality of opportunity, 'caring' is a more subtle value of traditionalism that runs in parallel and is detected only by our psychological practices. In particular, we argue that it is detected by practices such as disputes between the replicated and their replicators in replication studies (understood as a dramatic counter reality) as to who is more 'careless' with procedure; citation (including the self-care of self-citation) as thanksgiving and incantation of powerful others in enchantment rituals, and the system of professional indebtedness that accrues in 'kinship' networks -where kinship is understood broadly as adoption into a research group and its network. The clashes between these values can lead to a sense of hypocrisy and irony in academic life, as incom-
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
