{"title":"Out of sight, but still in the mind: Body-specific associations between space and valence in blind people","authors":"Heng Li , Yu Cao","doi":"10.1016/j.cognition.2025.106262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that individuals tend to associate positive concepts with their dominant side of space in their mental models. However, prior research indicates that the left-is-good bias among left-handed individuals is stronger than the right-is-good bias observed in right-handed individuals. One potential explanation for this asymmetry is that right-handers, during face-to-face interactions with predominantly right-handed communicators, experience a vicarious form of motor fluency that may contradict their own actions, thereby diminishing their bias toward the right-is-good mapping. However, this hypothesis has yet to be empirically tested. Here, we investigated this assertion by examining the role of visual experience in the scalability of the body-specificity effect among early blind (<em>N</em> = 123; 54.5 % females, mean age = 27.02) and sighted right-handers (<em>N</em> = 127; 54.3 % females, mean age = 28.93). Our results reveal that both Chinese blind and sighted individuals exhibited a body-specificity effect in their mental representations. Notably, the strength of the right-is-good pattern in blind right-handers was more pronounced than that observed in sighted controls. Collectively, our findings not only provide empirical evidence for the body-specificity effect within blind populations but also support the role of vicarious experiences in the development of implicit space-valence associations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48455,"journal":{"name":"Cognition","volume":"264 ","pages":"Article 106262"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027725002021","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that individuals tend to associate positive concepts with their dominant side of space in their mental models. However, prior research indicates that the left-is-good bias among left-handed individuals is stronger than the right-is-good bias observed in right-handed individuals. One potential explanation for this asymmetry is that right-handers, during face-to-face interactions with predominantly right-handed communicators, experience a vicarious form of motor fluency that may contradict their own actions, thereby diminishing their bias toward the right-is-good mapping. However, this hypothesis has yet to be empirically tested. Here, we investigated this assertion by examining the role of visual experience in the scalability of the body-specificity effect among early blind (N = 123; 54.5 % females, mean age = 27.02) and sighted right-handers (N = 127; 54.3 % females, mean age = 28.93). Our results reveal that both Chinese blind and sighted individuals exhibited a body-specificity effect in their mental representations. Notably, the strength of the right-is-good pattern in blind right-handers was more pronounced than that observed in sighted controls. Collectively, our findings not only provide empirical evidence for the body-specificity effect within blind populations but also support the role of vicarious experiences in the development of implicit space-valence associations.
期刊介绍:
Cognition is an international journal that publishes theoretical and experimental papers on the study of the mind. It covers a wide variety of subjects concerning all the different aspects of cognition, ranging from biological and experimental studies to formal analysis. Contributions from the fields of psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, computer science, mathematics, ethology and philosophy are welcome in this journal provided that they have some bearing on the functioning of the mind. In addition, the journal serves as a forum for discussion of social and political aspects of cognitive science.