Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sensory experiences influence consumers’ feelings, intuitions, and reasoned judgments about products. However, can different sensory experiences also influence higher-order cognitions, that is, complex cognitive operations such as abstract thinking, beliefs, and metacognition (thinking about one’s own thoughts)? In two essays, I investigate how motor-sensory experiences impact consumers’ higher-order cognition.In Essay 1 (Chapter 2), I show that (i) there is a robust association in consumers’ daily auditory experiences between higher-pitched sounds and faster tempo, as seen from real-world data from consumer conversations and music data from the Free Music Archive and Spotify. Building on this association, (ii) I show that consumers routinely infer faster speeds from higher-pitched product noises or music associated with a product, extending beyond physical movement to include processing and operational speed perceptions. Across preregistered experimental evidence and real-world data (N = 137,613), this research demonstrates that consumers associate high-pitched sounds with higher perceived speed. In Essay 2 (Chapter 3), I examine whether bodily experiences can shape the structure of beliefs, even when belief content remains unchanged. I propose that physical firmness—induced through simple motor acts like clenching one’s fist or jaw—increases structural alignment between beliefs: that is, the degree to which related but conceptually distinct beliefs correlate with each other. Across three preregistered experiments (N = 1,059), participants who experienced muscle firmness showed stronger correlations between lay beliefs about intelligence and personality, and between individualizing and binding moral foundations, even in the absence of changes in belief extremity or content. This effect, I argue, reflects a metacognitive shift in how people organize beliefs. Together, these essays provide converging evidence that sensorimotor experiences can shape not only what consumers believe, but also how their beliefs are structured.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".