Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Year of publication
- 2021 (2) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2) (remove)
Keywords
- EEG (1)
- SNARC (1)
- addition (1)
- cognitive bias (1)
- embodied cognition (1)
- fMRI (1)
- fNIRS (1)
- hyperscanning (1)
- motion energy analysis (1)
- neurofeedback (1)
Institute
Mental health problems remain among the main generators of costs within and beyond the health care system. Psychotherapy, the tool of choice in their treatment, is qualified by social interaction, and cooperation within the therapist-patient-dyad. Research into the factors influencing therapy success to date is neither exhaustive nor conclusive. Among many others, the quality of the relationship between therapist and patient stands out regardless of the followed psychotherapy school. Emerging research points to a connection between interpersonal synchronization within the sessions and therapy outcome. Consequently, it can be considered significant for the shaping of this relationship. The framework of Embodied Cognition assumes bodily and neuronal correlates of thinking. Therefore, the present paper reviews investigations on interpersonal, non-verbal synchrony in two domains: firstly, studies on interpersonal synchrony in psychotherapy are reviewed (synchronization of movement). Secondly, findings on neurological correlates of interpersonal synchrony (assessed with EEG, fMRI, fNIRS) are summarized in a narrative manner. In addition, the question is asked whether interpersonal synchrony can be achieved voluntarily on an individual level. It is concluded that there might be mechanisms which could give more insights into therapy success, but as of yet remain uninvestigated. Further, the framework of embodied cognition applies more to the current body of evidence than classical cognitivist views. Nevertheless, deeper research into interpersonal physical and neurological processes utilizing the framework of Embodied Cognition emerges as a possible route of investigation on the road to lower drop-out rates, improved and quality-controlled therapeutic interventions, thereby significantly reducing healthcare costs.
Research on problem solving offers insights into how humans process task-related information and which strategies they use (Newell and Simon, 1972; Öllinger et al., 2014). Problem solving can be defined as the search for possible changes in one's mind (Kahneman, 2003). In a recent study, Adams et al. (2021) assessed whether the predominant problem solving strategy when making changes involves adding or subtracting elements. In order to do this, they used several examples of simple problems, such as editing text or making visual patterns symmetrical, either in naturalistic settings or on-line. The essence of the authors' findings is a strong preference to add rather than subtract elements across a diverse range of problems, including the stabilizing of artifacts, creating symmetrical patterns, or editing texts. More specifically, they succeeded in demonstrating that “participants were less likely to identify advantageous subtractive changes when the task did not (vs. did) cue them to consider subtraction, when they had only one opportunity (vs. several) to recognize the shortcomings of an additive search strategy or when they were under a higher (vs. lower) cognitive load” (Adams et al., 2021, p. 258).
Addition and subtraction are generally defined as de-contextualized mathematical operations using abstract symbols (Russell, 1903/1938). Nevertheless, understanding of both symbols and operations is informed by everyday activities, such as making or breaking objects (Lakoff and Núñez, 2000; Fischer and Shaki, 2018). The universal attribution of “addition bias” or “subtraction neglect” to problem solving activities is perhaps a convenient shorthand but it overlooks influential framing effects beyond those already acknowledged in the report and the accompanying commentary (Meyvis and Yoon, 2021).
Most importantly, while Adams et al.'s study addresses an important issue, their very method of verbally instructing participants, together with lack of control over several known biases, might render their findings less than conclusive. Below, we discuss our concerns that emerged from the identified biases, namely those regarding the instructions and the experimental materials. Moreover, we refer to research from mathematical cognition that provides new insights into Adams et al.'s findings.