Movement is critical to surviving and thriving, to expression, to thought. It is a
foundational capability, enabling many other human activities, and sometimes the vehicle
for extraordinary human achievement. Movement is a product of the events and processes
of the mind, brain, and body, as well as a reflection of diverse influences, from
the physical, social, and cultural environment to the body's structure and function.
Movement has often been a subject of philosophical discourse, part of the triumvirate
of mind, brain, and body. Despite this history, in many ways, movement may never have
been so integral in psychological thought as it is today, as reflected in the burgeoning
research related to the concept of embodiment, as well as the revelations regarding
the mirror neuron system. In embodiment, motor actions precede and sometimes influence
thought, language, and emotions (see Glenberg, 2010, for a review). Embodiment highlights
the shared architecture and interconnectedness of motor, emotional, cognitive, and
social aspects of behavior – a principal theme in this essay.
The Social-Cognitive–Affective–Motor Nature of “Motor” Behavior
A major challenge for movement scientists is to recognize that the “motor” behavior
they examine in their studies is actually some amalgam of social-cognitive–affective–motor
behavior. The intertwined nature of movement, cognition, emotion, and the influence
of the social and cultural context in which performance takes place, has become increasingly
obvious in recent years. Numerous studies point to various linkages between the motor,
social-cognitive, and affective components of behavior. Certainly, the idea that movements
affect emotions goes back to Darwin (1872/1998) and James (1890). Darwin argued that
facial expressions are not just a sign of emotions, but that they contribute to those
emotions: “The free expression by outward signs of an emotion intensifies it. On the
other hand, the repression, as far as this is possible, of all outward signs softens
our emotions” (pp. 360–361). Likewise, the facilitation of movement performance (e.g.,
Triplett, 1898) and the modulation of motor learning by motivation has been recognized
(Mogenson et al., 1980; Brooks, 1986).
Research findings support the idea that facial expressions can induce the mood they
portray (e.g., Duclos et al., 1989). Reading verbs connoting emotions (e.g., laugh,
smile, cry, frown) has been shown to elicit activation of the muscles used in smiling
or frowning (Foroni and Semin, 2009). Moreover, the bodily reactions to emotional
content affect people's judgment (i.e., cognition). For example, when body (i.e.,
lip) movements were inhibited by asking participants to hold a pen with their lips,
thus preventing them from smiling, cartoons were rated as being less funny, compared
to when facial expression was not inhibited, or facilitated by having them hold a
pen between their teeth (Strack et al., 1988). These findings suggest that emotional
experiences are mediated by the activation of muscles that are typically used for
the expressing those emotions. Furthermore, the inhibition of body movements can impact
comprehension. In a recent study (Havas et al., 2010), after Botox injections into
muscles used in frowning, the reading of sentences with emotional content (i.e., anger)
was slowed.
Relevant to our focus on human movement, studies have also demonstrated the obverse
relationships: the influences of thoughts and emotions on movements. For instance,
thoughts about the future or past have observable movement correlates; imagining future
events leads to forward sway, while thinking of the past has the opposite effect (Miles
et al., 2010). Furthermore, invoking stereotypes about older people can cause people
to walk more slowly (Bargh et al., 1996). Many of us can imagine motivational effects
on movement, resulting in such concepts as hesitant gait, nervous talk, and short-armed
release of basketballs in high-stakes situations. Consistent with the embodiment idea
– and highlighting some possible practice implications – engaging the motor system
(e.g., touching dental floss) while watching health-related videos (e.g., on the importance
of flossing) can change individuals’ intentions and even health behavior (Sherman
et al., 2010).
The basis for many psychological processes – including the imitation of movements
performed by others, action simulation to understand others, and the experience of
empathy – can be seen in the mirror neuron system (e.g., Grafton, 2009; Iacoboni,
2009). Distributed mirror neurons in the premotor and posterior parietal cortex are
activated not only during the execution of actions but also when observing somebody
else performing the same or similar actions. Moreover, links between the mirror neuron
system, insula, and limbic system constitute larger neural networks that allow people
to experience empathy, and thus play a role in facilitating social behavior (Carr
et al., 2003). Though excitement about the action-observation aspects of the mirror
neuron system has been most prominent within movement science circles to date, evidence
that the mirror neuron system is modulated by the motivational context or social significance
of observed action (Kilner et al., 2006; Cheng et al., 2007) should also be of relevance
to those interested in the foundations of movement.
Thus, “motor” behavior cannot be seen anymore as being simply a function of a pure
“motor system.” This is an important insight for both traditional (information processing)
motor learning and social-cognitive researchers alike, not to mention scientists who
don't study movement per se. For those who study motor control and learning, the interconnectedness
of social-cognitive, affective, and motor influences on performance (and learning)
makes it necessary to consider and address those influences in their investigations.
While motor learning researchers have long considered cognitive influences on learning,
most have largely ignored – or not yet realized – the motivational (e.g., social-cognitive
and affective) impact of the practice variables under investigation. Some recent studies
have shown, for instance, that feedback not only provides the learner with (neutral)
information about the task to be learned, but that its influence on the learner's
motivation appears to have a direct and powerful impact on the learning and control
of movements as well (e.g., Lewthwaite and Wulf, 2010). Similarly, the effects of
other variables, such as contextual interference, observational practice, or self-controlled-practice,
have been examined and interpreted mainly from an information-processing perspective.
Yet, it is very likely that their functioning has motivational underpinnings as well.
In fact, several variables that impact motor learning have recently been identified
whose effects on performance and learning are clearly motivational, not informational,
in nature. This includes social-comparative information, fear, performance pressure,
learners’ conceptions of ability, and self-efficacy, among others. All of these variables
appear to have ties to the self, that is, they affect the extent to which individuals
become self-evaluative or self-conscious (see Wulf and Lewthwaite, 2010). The result
of a focus on the self is often the use of more conscious control processes, widespread,
inefficient, activation of the muscular system, and disruption of automaticity. In
addition, a self-evaluative focus presumably increases learners’ need to control self-related
thoughts and affective responses. Worries about task performance, for example, could
direct attention to attempts at negative thought and emotion suppression. Efforts
to manage self-related thoughts and emotions, in turn, can tax the available self-control
or attentional capacity to a degree that performance suffers. Thus, motor learning
is not merely the acquisition of specific movement patterns, but it encompasses the
self-regulation of cognitive processes and affective reactions. Therefore, in addition
to measuring performance, scientists need to assess the affective and motivational
correlates of the variables under investigation – using methods that have traditionally
been utilized by (sport) psychologists such as questionnaire ratings or introspective
self-reports – to assess the impact of those variables on learning. Further, scholars
must better account for the implicit as well as explicit, and non-conscious as well
as conscious processes that affect behavior, and presumably movement behavior.
Recognition of the sociocultural influences on movement will perhaps be more difficult
than that of the sociocultural influences on cognition. Partly, this will be due to
the more obvious biological and physical contributors among the multiple determinants
of movement. Likely, this kind of insight will also be influenced by the current “culture”
or state of sub-specialization within the larger field of human movement. The fragmentation
of movement science into its physiological, biomechanical, psychological, and sociological
aspects has led to limited integration of perspectives and levels of analysis in recent
years. It certainly provides a challenge to further insights into the social-cognitive–affective–motor
nature of “motor” behavior. It might even be argued that some researchers of human
movement would not want or hope to see such a broad-ranging notion as social-cognitive–affective
influences become pertinent to the machine-like processes they purport to study.
Our mental frameworks determine what is recognized from all the events that are present,
so we must “know” to look in order to see. In the case of movement, we must know to
look for the influence of culture, of other social factors, of various cognitions,
of affect, and of biological and physical constraints. In some sense, the study of
movement is mired in the metaphor of the computer and its neutral, machine-like, processing
operations – a metaphor with little room for “hot” (non-neutral) social-cognitive
and affective influences. Likewise, research paradigm shifts from experimental to
quasi-experimental to qualitative methods, consistent both with a concern for ecological
validity and a focus on the pathways linking thoughts and feelings have led social-cognitive
movement scientists in directions away from the study of movement behavior, even as
they have enriched other insights.
Re-Centering Movement Science and Sport Psychology in Movement Behavior
Movement scientists collectively are charged with understanding the manner in which
skilled movement emerges, is acquired and produced at will, and can be maintained
in the face of challenges. What are the fundamental mechanisms and underpinnings of
skilled human movement? And how can insights regarding these mechanisms be used to
optimize the development of fundamental motor capabilities, as well as specialized
movement skill learning, and motor control in the many realms in which the application
of movement expertise is important?
Baumeister et al. (2007) have argued that psychology as a whole has lost its calling
in recent decades as the science of behavior, substituting self-reports of behavior
or limited finger movements for the richness of behavioral expression itself. Recent
work in the social psychology of human movement has likewise tended to investigate
interrelations among inner thoughts and feelings surrounding the movement experience,
often without the more difficult measurement of movement quality or quantity per se.
Like Baumeister and colleagues, as the previous discussion exemplifies, we would not
argue against the value of studying the influence of cognitions and affective experiences,
but suggest that their relation to dimensions of movement control and performance
deserves particular attention.
It can be suggested that motor behavior provides a particularly rich opportunity to
study behavior as a dependent variable. Episodes of motor behavior are often public,
extend over considerable time (e.g., a cricket match), involve ballistic displays
coupled with fine motor control within the same game (e.g., golf), constitute tests
of physical endurance (e.g., marathon racing), demand exquisite motor control (e.g.,
musical performance, biathlon shooting), and generate speed-accuracy tradeoffs galore.
This behavior can be captured in multiple ways, from energy expenditure, accelerometry,
electromyography, and many metrics of time, distance, accuracy, and control, as well
as competitive outcome.
Psychological movement science, as it moves to take fuller advantage of insights into
the neural underpinnings of human movement, including those on motor learning and
control, as well as the contributions of social-cognitive–affective neuroscience,
must not lose sight of its primary dependent variable, overt movement behavior. Current
neural imaging methods often constrain the types of movements that can be studied
to those which can be performed in the small space of scanners or that involve limited
extraneous movements. As brain imaging technologies continue to evolve, the kinds
of movement behavior that can be observed from the neural perspective will be expanded
as well. In the meantime, scientists must be circumspect in basing assumptions about
the neural processing subsuming available movements into those pertaining to other
forms.
The use of relatively simple laboratory tasks has already been predominant in motor
learning research, sans neuroscience, for some time. There are presumably different
reasons for the utilization of simple skills, both theoretical and pragmatic. Fundamental
research using simple skills has without doubt contributed to our understanding of
the learning process and the discovery of learning principles. However, there are
also reasons to believe that the inclusion of more complex and ecologically valid
skills in motor learning research would be more effective in determining meaningful
principles that have application to more complex and real-life skills. For instance,
principles developed on the basis of simple skills do not always generalize to more
complex skills, and vice versa. Finally, tasks of increased difficulty and complexity
– that pose a true challenge to the performer – may reveal changes in coordination
as a function of different self-regulation strategies.
Conclusions
Conceptualizations regarding the integrative cultural, social, cognitive, and motor
nature of human movement promise to broaden and advance movement science, providing
new opportunities to explain and influence movement behavior. The ability to develop
and take advantage of an integrative perspective will demand collaboration across
sub-fields of movement science, not to mention full-brain neuroscience.