How Relevant are Incidental Power Poses for HCI?

Yvonne Jansen
Yvonne Jansen

CHI, 2018.

Cited by: 4|Bibtex|Views47|Links
EI
Keywords:
wall sizedEuropean Research Councilincidental postureincidental power posebody postureMore(9+)
Weibo:
We investigated whether incidental postures, in particular constrictive and expansive postures, influence how users behave in human-computer interaction

Abstract:

The concept of power pose originates from a Psychology study from 2010 which suggested that holding an expansive pose can change hormone levels and increase risk-taking behavior. Follow-up experiments suggested that expansive poses incidentally imposed by the design of an environment lead to more dishonest behaviors. While multiple replic...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • Yap et al later identified a set of behaviors such as increased risk-taking or cheating which they showed could be induced through incidental power poses, that is, expansive postures imposed by the design of the environment [65].
  • The authors clarify the terminology the authors use in this article, motivate the work through two scenarios, summarize work on body posture in HCI and previous work in Psychology including the recent controversies around power poses.
  • This article is mainly concerned with body postures as the authors are interested in features of postures “averaged” over the course of interaction, for example, the overall expansiveness of someone’s posture during the use of a system
Highlights
  • In 2010 Carney et al asserted that “a person can, by assuming two simple 1-min poses, embody power and instantly become more powerful [which] has real-world, actionable implications” [14] thereby coining the concept of power poses.

    DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173588

    Yap et al later identified a set of behaviors such as increased risk-taking or cheating which they showed could be induced through incidental power poses, that is, expansive postures imposed by the design of the environment [65]
  • Not all values within an highest density interval are credible which is indicated through the density plot around the highest density interval: values in areas with higher density have a higher credibility than values in less dense areas
  • We investigated whether incidental postures, in particular constrictive and expansive postures, influence how users behave in human-computer interaction
  • We reported findings from two experiments which conceptually replicated experiments on incidental power poses in an HCI context
  • Overall we conclude that incidental power poses are unlikely to be relevant for the design of human-computer interfaces and that factors such as comfort play a much more important role
Methods
  • Participants The authors recruited a total of

    80 participants (42 women, 38 men, mean age 26) in two batches.
  • Participants The authors recruited a total of.
  • Similar to experiment 1, the authors initially recruited 40 participants.
  • A Bayes factor analysis [24] at that point indicated that the data was not sensitive enough to draw any conclusions, and the authors decided to increase the total number of participants to 80.
  • As is common in this type of experiment and as suggested by Carney et al [15], the authors used a cover story to keep the research question hidden from participants.
  • Participants were unaware of the different interface layouts since posture was manipulated between subjects, making it more difficult for them to guess the real purpose of the study
Results
  • The authors find an interaction between posture and impulsiveness: it appears that body posture affected low risk-takers as predicted by Yap et al whereas it seems to have reversed the effect for high risktakers.
  • This part of the analysis was exploratory and a confirmatory study would be needed to verify this finding.
  • The two experimental groups were slightly unbalanced, that is, the BIS scores in the expansive group had a slightly lower mean than in the constrictive group
Conclusion
  • While inconclusive on their own, the results on felt power are consistent with a small effect size d ≈ 0.2 for expansive versus constrictive postures when using a touch interaction on a wall-sized display.
  • Given the small expected effect size, the authors find the large increase in discomfort more important and do not recommend to attempt to affect users’ sense of power through the use of expansive postures on touch-operated wall-sized displays.
  • These considerations played into the design of a second experiment.
  • Overall the authors conclude that incidental power poses are unlikely to be relevant for the design of human-computer interfaces and that factors such as comfort play a much more important role
Summary
  • Introduction:

    Yap et al later identified a set of behaviors such as increased risk-taking or cheating which they showed could be induced through incidental power poses, that is, expansive postures imposed by the design of the environment [65].
  • The authors clarify the terminology the authors use in this article, motivate the work through two scenarios, summarize work on body posture in HCI and previous work in Psychology including the recent controversies around power poses.
  • This article is mainly concerned with body postures as the authors are interested in features of postures “averaged” over the course of interaction, for example, the overall expansiveness of someone’s posture during the use of a system
  • Objectives:

    OF THIS ARTICLE At this point it seems credible that at least some of the initially reported effects of power poses are nonexistent.

    Claims related to hormone changes have been definitively refuted [53, 55], and none of the recent replications was able to detect a reliable effect on the tested behavioral measures [41].
  • A small effect on felt power seems credible [34]
  • It is still unclear whether “this effect is a methodological artifact or meaningful” [17]: demand characteristics are an alternative explanation for the effect, that is, participants’ responses could be due to the context of the experiment during which they are explicitly instructed to take on certain postures, which may suggest to participants that these postures must be a meaningful experimental manipulation.
  • Participants are instructed to perform a task within an environment, as for a typical HCI experiment, without being aware that different types of environments are part of the experiment, thereby reducing demand characteristics
  • Methods:

    Participants The authors recruited a total of

    80 participants (42 women, 38 men, mean age 26) in two batches.
  • Participants The authors recruited a total of.
  • Similar to experiment 1, the authors initially recruited 40 participants.
  • A Bayes factor analysis [24] at that point indicated that the data was not sensitive enough to draw any conclusions, and the authors decided to increase the total number of participants to 80.
  • As is common in this type of experiment and as suggested by Carney et al [15], the authors used a cover story to keep the research question hidden from participants.
  • Participants were unaware of the different interface layouts since posture was manipulated between subjects, making it more difficult for them to guess the real purpose of the study
  • Results:

    The authors find an interaction between posture and impulsiveness: it appears that body posture affected low risk-takers as predicted by Yap et al whereas it seems to have reversed the effect for high risktakers.
  • This part of the analysis was exploratory and a confirmatory study would be needed to verify this finding.
  • The two experimental groups were slightly unbalanced, that is, the BIS scores in the expansive group had a slightly lower mean than in the constrictive group
  • Conclusion:

    While inconclusive on their own, the results on felt power are consistent with a small effect size d ≈ 0.2 for expansive versus constrictive postures when using a touch interaction on a wall-sized display.
  • Given the small expected effect size, the authors find the large increase in discomfort more important and do not recommend to attempt to affect users’ sense of power through the use of expansive postures on touch-operated wall-sized displays.
  • These considerations played into the design of a second experiment.
  • Overall the authors conclude that incidental power poses are unlikely to be relevant for the design of human-computer interfaces and that factors such as comfort play a much more important role
Funding
  • This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement 648785)
Reference
  • April H Bailey, Marianne LaFrance, and John F Dovidio. 2017. Could a woman be superman? Gender and the embodiment of power postures. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2 Jan. 2017), 6–27. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2016.1248079
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Anastasia Bezerianos and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2005. The Vacuum: Facilitating the Manipulation of Distant Objects. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’05). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 361–370. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055023
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Mukul Bhalla and Dennis R Proffitt. 1999. Visual–motor recalibration in geographical slant perception. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance 25, 4 (1999), 1076. http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xhp/25/4/1076/
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2013. Understanding the Role of Body Movement in Player Engagement. Human–Computer Interaction 28, 1 (2013), 40–75.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze. 2016. The Affective Body Argument in Technology Design. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3–6. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2909132.2933286
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, Paul Cairns, Anna Cox, Charlene Jennett, and Whan Woong Kim. 2006. On posture as a modality for expressing and recognizing emotions. In Emotion and HCI workshop at BCS HCI London. http://web4.cs.ucl.ac.uk/uclic/people/
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, Whan Woong Kim, and Darshak Patel. 2007. Does Body Movement Engage You More in Digital Game Play? and Why?. In Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Ana C R Paiva, Rui Prada, and Rosalind W Picard (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 102–113. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74889-2_10
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Dario Bombari, Marianne Schmid Mast, and Caroline Pulfrey. 2017. Real and imagined power poses: is the physical experience necessary after all? Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2 Jan. 2017), 44–54. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2017.1341183
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Maarten W Bos and Amy J C Cuddy. 2013. iPosture: The size of electronic consumer devices affects our behavior. Technical Report Working Paper, No 13-097. Havard Business School. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/10646419
    Findings
  • Melissa T Buelow and Amber L Blaine. 2015. The assessment of risky decision making: A factor analysis of performance on the Iowa Gambling Task, Balloon Analogue Risk Task, and Columbia Card Task. Psychological assessment 27, 3 (Sept. 2015), 777–785. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038622
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • J T Cacioppo, J R Priester, and G G Berntson. 1993. Rudimentary determinants of attitudes. II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes. Journal of personality and social psychology 65, 1 (July 1993), 5–17.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Kelly Caine. 2016. Local Standards for Sample Size at CHI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 981–992. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858498
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Dana Carney. 2016. My position on "Power Poses", Regarding: Carney, Cuddy & Yap (2010) [online]. http://tinyurl.com/carney2016. (26 Sept.2016).
    Findings
  • Dana R Carney, Amy J C Cuddy, and Andy J Yap. 2010. Power posing: brief nonverbal displays affect neuroendocrine levels and risk tolerance. Psychological science 21, 10 (Oct. 2010), 1363–1368. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610383437
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Dana R Carney, Amy J C Cuddy, and Andy J Yap. 2015. Review and Summary of Research on the Embodied Effects of Expansive (vs. Contractive) Nonverbal Displays. Psychological science 26, 5 (May 2015), 657–663. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614566855
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Joseph Cesario and David J. Johnson. 2017. Power Poseur: Bodily Expansiveness Does Not Matter in Dyadic Interactions. Social psychological and personality science (Aug. 2017), 1948550617725153. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550617725153
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Joseph Cesario, Kai J Jonas, and Dana R Carney. 2017. CRSP special issue on power poses: what was the point and what did we learn? Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2 Jan. 2017), 1–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2017.1309876
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Joseph Cesario and Melissa M McDonald. 2013. Bodies in Context: Power Poses As a Computation of Action Possibility. Social cognition 31, 2 (2013), 260–274. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2013.31.2.260
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Cockburn, Andy and Gutwin, Carl and Dix, Alan. 2018. HARK No More: On the Preregistration of CHI Experiments. In Proceedings of CHI 2018. ACM, in press.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, 6251 (2015). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Amy J C Cuddy, Caroline A Wilmuth, Andy J Yap, and Dana R Carney. 2015. Preparatory power posing affects nonverbal presence and job interview performance. The Journal of applied psychology 100, 4 (July 2015), 1286–1295. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038543
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Alwin de Rooij and Sara Jones. 2015. (E)Motion and Creativity: Hacking the Function of Motor Expressions in Emotion Regulation to Augment Creativity. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 145–152. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2677199.2680552
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Thomas J DiCiccio and Bradley Efron. 1996. Bootstrap Confidence Intervals. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics 11, 3 (1996), 189–212. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2246110
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Zoltan Dienes. 2014. Using Bayes to get the most out of non-significant results. Frontiers in psychology 5 (29 July 2014), 781. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00781
    Findings
  • Sarah A Douglas, Arthur E Kirkpatrick, and I Scott MacKenzie. 1999. Testing Pointing Device Performance and User Assessment with the ISO 9241, Part 9 Standard. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’99). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 215–222. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/302979.303042
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • P Dourish. 2004. Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Frank H Durgin, Brennan Klein, Ariana Spiegel, Cassandra J Strawser, and Morgan Williams. 2012. The social psychology of perception experiments: hills, backpacks, glucose, and the problem of generalizability. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance 38, 6 (Dec. 2012), 1582–1595. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027805
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Franz Faul, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang, and Axel Buchner. 2007. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior research methods 39, 2 (May 2007), 175–191. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17695343
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Shirley Fecteau, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, David H Zald, Paola Liguori, Hugo Théoret, Paulo S Boggio, and Felipe Fregni. 2007. Activation of prefrontal cortex by transcranial direct current stimulation reduces appetite for risk during ambiguous decision making. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience 27, 23 (6 June 2007), 6212–6218. DOI: http:
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Katie E Garrison, David Tang, and Brandon J Schmeichel. 2016. Embodying power: a preregistered replication and extension of the power pose effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science 7, 7 (2016), 623–630.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Andrew Gelman and Kaiser Fung. 2016. The Power of the “Power Pose”.. (19 jan 2016). http://www.slate. latest_example_of_scientific_overreach.html Last accessed: 2016-9-14.
    Findings
  • Andrew Gelman and Donald B Rubin. 1992. Inference from Iterative Simulation Using Multiple Sequences. Statistical science: a review journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics 7, 4 (1992), 457–472. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2246093
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Lewis R Goldberg. 1990. An alternative" description of personality": the big-five factor structure. Journal of personality and social psychology 59, 6 (1990), 1216. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-09869-001
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Quentin Frederik Gronau, Sara van Erp, Daniel W Heck, Joseph Cesario, Kai Jonas, and Eric-Jan Wagenmakers. 2017. A Bayesian Model-Averaged Meta-Analysis of the Power Pose Effect with Informed and Default Priors: The Case of Felt Power. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2017), 123–138. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2017.1326760
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Kasper Hornbæk, Søren S Sander, Javier Andrés Bargas-Avila, and Jakob Grue Simonsen. 2014. Is Once Enough?: On the Extent and Content of Replications in Human-Computer Interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3523–3532. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557004
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Hurtienne, J., Löffler, D., & Schmidt, J. 2014. Zur Ergonomie prosozialen Verhaltens: Kontextabhängige Einflüsse von Körperhaltungen auf die Ergebnisse in einem Diktatorspiel [On the ergonomics of prosocial behaviour: context-dependent influences of body posture on the results in a dictator game]. In TeaP 2014 – Abstracts of the 56th Conference of Experimental Psychologists, A. C. Schütz, K. Drewing, & K. R. Gegenfurtner (Ed.). 117.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Katherine Isbister, Michael Karlesky, and Jonathan Frye. 2012. Scoop!: using movement to reduce math anxiety and affect confidence. In Proceedings of the International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 228–230. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2282338.2282382
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Benita Jackson, Kelly Nault, Laura Smart Richman, Onawa LaBelle, and Nicolas Rohleder. 2017. Does that pose become you? Testing the effect of body postures on self-concept. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2 Jan. 2017), 81–105. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2017.1341178
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Kyle Jasmin and Daniel Casasanto. 2012. The QWERTY effect: how typing shapes the meanings of words. Psychonomic bulletin & review 19, 3 (June 2012), 499–504.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Kai J Jonas and Joseph Cesario. 2016. How can preregistration contribute to research in our field? Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 1, 1-3 (1 Sept. 2016), 1–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2015.1070611
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Kai J Jonas, Joseph Cesario, Madeliene Alger, April H Bailey, Dario Bombari, Dana Carney, John F Dovidio, Sean Duffy, Jenna A Harder, Dian van Huistee, and Others. 2017. Power poses–where do we stand? Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2017), 139–141. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Matthew Kay, Gregory L Nelson, and Eric B Hekler. 2016. Researcher-Centered Design of Statistics: Why Bayesian Statistics Better Fit the Culture and Incentives of HCI. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 4521–4532. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858465
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Victor N Keller, David J Johnson, and Jenna A Harder. 2017. Meeting your inner super (wo) man: are power poses effective when taught? Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2017), 106–122. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Lukas Klaschinski, Konrad Schnabel, and Michela Schröder-Abé. 2017. Benefits of power posing: effects on dominance and social sensitivity. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2 Jan. 2017), 55–67. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2016.1248080
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Scott R Klemmer, Björn Hartmann, and Leila Takayama. 2006. How Bodies Matter: Five Themes for Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 140–149. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1142405.1142429
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • J Kruschke. 2014. Doing Bayesian Data Analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan. Elsevier Science. https://books.google.dk/books?id=FzvLAwAAQBAJ
    Findings
  • Ioana M Latu, Sean Duffy, Vaani Pardal, and Madeliene Alger. 2017. Power vs. persuasion: can open body postures embody openness to persuasion? Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2 Jan. 2017), 68–80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2017.1327178
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Marco Lauriola, Angelo Panno, Irwin P Levin, and Carl W Lejuez. 2014. Individual differences in risky decision making: A meta-analysis of sensation seeking and impulsivity with the balloon analogue risk task. Journal of behavioral decision making 27, 1 (2014), 20–36. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.1784/pdf
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • C W Lejuez, Jennifer P Read, Christopher W Kahler, Jerry B Richards, Susan E Ramsey, Gregory L Stuart, David R Strong, and Richard A Brown. 2002. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of experimental psychology. Applied 8, 2 (June 2002), 75–84. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12075692
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Marco Pasch, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze, Betsy van Dijk, and Anton Nijholt. 2009. Immersion in Movement-Based Interaction. In Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment. INTETAIN 2009, Anton Nijholt, Dennis Reidsma, and Hendri Hondorp (Eds.). Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, Vol. 9. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 169–180. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02315-6_16
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • J H Patton, M S Stanford, and E S Barratt. 1995. Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale. Journal of clinical psychology 51, 6 (Nov. 1995), 768–774. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8778124
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Raedy M Ping, Sonica Dhillon, and Sian L Beilock. 2009. Reach For What You Like: The Body’s Role in Shaping Preferences. Emotion review: journal of the International Society for Research on Emotion 1, 2 (2009), 140–150.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Eva Ranehill, Anna Dreber, Magnus Johannesson, Susanne Leiberg, Sunhae Sul, and Roberto A Weber. 2015. Assessing the robustness of power posing: no effect on hormones and risk tolerance in a large sample of men and women. Psychological science 26, 5 (May 2015), 653–656. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797614553946
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • John H Riskind and Carolyn C Gotay. 1982. Physical posture: Could it have regulatory or feedback effects on motivation and emotion? Motivation and emotion 6, 3 (Sept. 1982), 273–298. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992249
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Richard Ronay, Joshua M Tybur, Dian van Huijstee, and Margot Morssinkhof. 2017. Embodied power, testosterone, and overconfidence as a causal pathway to risk-taking. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology 2, 1 (2 Jan. 2017), 28–43. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2016.1248081
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • N Savva, A Scarinzi, and N Bianchi-Berthouze. 2012. Continuous Recognition of Player’s Affective Body Expression as Dynamic Quality of Aesthetic Experience. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence in AI and Games 4, 3 (2012), 199–212. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TCIAIG.2012.2202663
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Joe Simmons and Uri Simonsohn. 2015. Power Posing: Reassessing The Evidence Behind The Most Popular TED Talk. http://datacolada.org/37. (5 Aug.2015).
    Findings
  • Joseph P Simmons and Uri Simonsohn. 2017. Power Posing: P-Curving the Evidence. Psychological science 28, 5 (May 2017), 687–693. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797616658563
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Uri Simonsohn, Leif D Nelson, and Joseph P Simmons. 2014. p-Curve and Effect Size: Correcting for Publication Bias Using Only Significant Results. Perspectives on psychological science: a journal of the Association for Psychological Science 9, 6 (Nov. 2014), 666–681. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691614553988
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Scott S Snibbe and Hayes S Raffle. 2009. Social immersive media: pursuing best practices for multi-user interactive camera/projector exhibits. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’09). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1447–1456. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1518701.1518920
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Matthew S Stanford, Charles W Mathias, Donald M Dougherty, Sarah L Lake, Nathaniel E Anderson, and Jim H Patton. 2009. Fifty years of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale: An update and review. Personality and individual differences 47, 5 (Oct. 2009), 385–395. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.008
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Gail Tom, Paul Pettersen, Teresa Lau, Trevor Burton, and Jim Cook. 1991. The Role of Overt Head Movement in the Formation of Affect. Basic and applied social psychology 12, 3 (1991), 281–289.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • A Tversky and D Kahneman. 1985. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Assessment, Technology Assessment, and Risk... (1985). http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Shu-Ju Yang, David A Gallo, and Sian L Beilock. 2009. Embodied memory judgments: a case of motor fluency. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition 35, 5 (Sept. 2009), 1359–1365.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Andy J Yap, Abbie S Wazlawek, Brian J Lucas, Amy J C Cuddy, and Dana R Carney. 2013. The ergonomics of dishonesty: the effect of incidental posture on stealing, cheating, and traffic violations. Psychological science 24, 11 (1 Nov. 2013), 2281–2289. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797613492425
    Locate open access versionFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Best Paper
Best Paper of CHI, 2018
Tags
Comments