Examines how embodied experience influences emotion regulation via body posture, suggesting implications for interventions.
Embodied experience is the subjective awareness and connection with one's body. This study examined how individual differences in embodied experience moderate the effects of body posture on emotion regulation and spontaneous thought generation. A total of 269 university students were classified into high- and low-embodiment groups based on their Experience of Embodiment Scale (EES) scores. After a standardized negative mood induction, participants completed five-minute regulation tasks in experimentally manipulated postures-upright or slouched. Emotional recovery was measured with the Profile of Mood States (POMS), and cognitive outcomes were assessed via a thought-listing task capturing the number and valence (positive vs. negative) of spontaneous thoughts. Results showed a significant EES × posture interaction for mood recovery: among high EES participants, those in an upright posture reported greater reductions in negative mood than those in a slouched posture, whereas posture had no effect in the low EES group. A similar interaction emerged for thought count, with high EES individuals generating more thoughts when upright than when slouched, while low EES participants showed no posture-related differences. For individuals with high EES scores, posture modulated thought valence, with upright posture favoring positive over negative thoughts and slouched posture showing the reverse pattern. Among low EES participants, slouched posture was associated with a predominance of negative thoughts, whereas upright posture did not significantly alter thought valence. These findings indicate that embodied experience moderates the regulatory effects of posture. For individuals with strong bodily awareness, adopting an expansive posture enhances emotional recovery and fosters positive, flexible thinking. This person-centered perspective provides a robust foundation for developing targeted, body-oriented interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: