Communications in Humanities Research ISSN: 2753-7072
Home> Volumes> Volume CHR Vol.88> Article
Research Article

Embodied Rigidity: How Physical Flexibility Shapes Memory for Metaphorically Aligned Behaviors

Haonan ZhangThe High School Affiliated to Renmin University of China* Ziyang HuaShanghai American School Anlan WangKeele University

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

Embodiment research suggests that bodily traits shape abstract thought, yet existing studies mainly focused on lateral asymmetries like handedness. This study investigates whether physical flexibility influences memory for metaphorically aligned behaviors, as suggested by linguistic metaphors (e.g., "flexible thinking"). Drawing on the Body Specificity Hypothesis and Conceptual Metaphor Theory, we hypothesize that memory performance will be enhanced when a participant’s bodily state (high or low flexibility) aligns with the metaphorical content of a behavior (flexible or rigid). Sixty adults, pre-screened for high or low physical flexibility, will complete a cognitive flexibility task. We predict a significant interaction: high-flexibility participants will recall more from flexible-behavior patterns, while low-flexibility participants will recall more from rigid-behavior patterns. This would extend embodiment theory beyond lateral asymmetries and link it to schema-congruence in memory.

Keywords: Physical Flexibility; Memory; Body Specificity Hypothesis.
Published: October 14, 2025
DOI: 10.54254/2753-7064/2025.HT28102
Volume: CHR Vol.88
pp. 113-117
Download PDF

References

  1. Niedenthal, P. M., Barsalou, L. W., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9(3), 184–211.
  2. Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367.
  3. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
  4. Casasanto, D. (2014). Bodily relativity: The body-specificity of language and thought. In L. Shapiro (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of embodied cognition (pp. 108-117). Routledge.
  5. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 717–726.
  6. Ghosh, V. E., & Gilboa, A. (2014). What is a memory schema? A historical perspective on current neuroscience literature. Neuropsychologia, 53, 104–114.
  7. Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual: Revised and expanded. Psychological Assessment Resources.