Content uploaded by Jeffrey Miller
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jeffrey Miller on Apr 29, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Walking Facilitates Positive Affect (Even When Expecting the Opposite)
Jeffrey Conrath Miller and Zlatan Krizan
Iowa State University
Across 3 experiments, we rely on theoretical advancements that connect movement, embodiment, and
reward-seeking behavior to test the proposal that walking incidental to routine activity (heretofore
referred to as “incidental ambulation”)—not specifically “exercise”—is a robust facilitator of positive
affect. Experiment 1 reveals that ambulation facilitates positive affect even when participants are blind
to the purpose of this activity. Experiment 2 further demonstrates the robustness of this effect of
incidental ambulation by documenting its operation under conditions of low interest, as well as its power
to override expectations of mood worsening. Experiment 3 replicates the main finding while eliminating
the possibility that posture, ambient events, or experimenter bias account for the results. Taken together,
the experiments demonstrate that incidental ambulation systematically promotes positive affect regard-
less of the focus on such movement, and that it can override the effects of other emotionally relevant
events such as boredom and dread. The findings hold key implications for understanding the role of
movement in shaping affect as well as for clarifying the embodied nature of emotion.
Keywords: approach, positive affect, physical activity, movement, embodiment
Now with animals of all kinds, the acquirement of almost all their
pleasures, with the exception of those of warmth and rest, are asso-
ciated with active movements.
—Charles Darwin (1872/1965)
Since Darwin wrote these words, researchers have empirically
examined biobehavioral systems that regulate our resource-
seeking behaviors and resulting reward responses, suggesting that
movement is critical to these systems. Building on these insights
and the notion of embodiment, we propose that routine, incidental
ambulation (i.e., walking) is a robust and systematic facilitator of
positive affect (PA), regardless of people’s awareness about the
purpose of their movement or their affective expectations. To this
end, three experiments reveal the power of walking to facilitate
PA, even when individuals anticipate negative emotional changes
or initially feel disengaged.
PA and the Behavioral Approach System
PA and negative affect (NA) can be conceptualized as distinct
variables reflecting activation of PA and NA states (Watson,
Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; cf. Russell, 1980). High PA is the
experience of feelings that reflect positive engagement with the
environment and involves emotions such as excitement, joy, and
enthusiasm. In this vein, neurological and behavioral evidence
regarding organisms’ responses to reward opportunities suggests
existence of a behavioral approach system (BAS; Depue & Col-
lins, 1999; Fowles, 1987; Gray, 1990; Harmon-Jones, Price, Ga-
ble, & Peterson, 2014), whose function is to orient individuals to
rewards and to motivate their acquisition via approach behaviors.
Put simply, it ensures that organisms notice opportunities to ac-
quire or achieve something that is rewarding and direct their
behavior accordingly.
Critically, the experience of PA is considered central to the
operation of the approach system. For example, individual differ-
ences in reward sensitivity seem to underlie the trait of extraver-
sion (Fowles, 1987; Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000), and
extraversion is closely associated with chronic PA (Watson, 2002),
desire for rewards (Lucas et al., 2000), and more dopamine activity
in the nervous system (Depue & Collins, 1999). Dopamine is a
neurotransmitter associated with reward mechanisms and feelings
of desire (Beaulieu & Gainetdinov, 2011; Berridge & Kringelbach,
2008). Because dopamine is associated with extraversion, extra-
verted people are more sensitive to reward opportunities and thus
are more driven and likely to experience positive emotions, con-
sistent with the hypothesized function of the BAS. Although some
forms of NA are also approach-oriented in function (e.g., anger,
Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009), we focus on PA, given it has been
consistently linked to individual differences in reward sensitivity,
behavioral approach, feelings of desire, and approach-exploratory
behaviors (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2008; Carver & White, 1994;
Derryberry & Reed, 1994; Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004;
Brose, Lövdén, & Schmiedek, 2014). Moreover, most of the peo-
ple, most of the time, engage in approach to acquire resources
rather than to face threats, as suggested by research on daily affect
and behavior (Watson, 2002; Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen,
1999; Brief & Weiss, 2002; S. L. Gable, 2006).
Critically, evidence indicates that operation of the approach
system is closely linked to movement. First, extraverted individ-
Jeffrey Conrath Miller and Zlatan Krizan, Department of Psychology,
Iowa State University.
We thank Colin G. DeYoung for his helpful comments on the manu-
script.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jeffrey Conrath
Miller, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Saint Xavier University,
3700 West 103rd Street, Chicago, IL 60655, or Zlatan Krizan, Department of
Psychology, W112 Lagomarcino Hall-901, Stange Road, Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011-1041. E-mail: jcmiller@sxu.edu or zkrizan@iastate.edu
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Emotion © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 16, No. 4, 000 1528-3542/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040270
1
uals are more prone to movement and physical activity, and are
quicker to initiate movement in response to rewards (Costa &
McCrae, 1995; Doucet & Stelmack, 1997). Second, dopaminergic
systems play a central role in regulation of motor behavior (Beau-
lieu & Gainetdinov, 2011). For example, the ventral-tegmental
area of the brain, a primary producer of dopamine, is found to be
more active in animals who are more motivated, as measured by
their level of movement, to obtain a reward (Puryear, Kim, &
Mizumori, 2010). Third, evidence increasingly suggests a close
link between movement and experiences of PA. People undergoing
treatment for depressed mood are found to have decreased gait
during movement, including reduced walking speed and slower
body-part movement in general (Michalak et al., 2009). In addi-
tion, recent nonexperimental diary evidence suggests that PA is
followed by more bodily movement (Schwerdtfeger, Eberhardt,
Chmitorz, & Schaller, 2010), while moving is followed by higher
PA (Wichers et al., 2012). Taken together, these findings suggest
a key physical connection between one’s level of PA and the
tendency to move.
Routine Movement as Embodied PA
Building on the personality, behavioral, and neurobiological
evidence just described, we propose that incidental, ongoing am-
bulation is likely to increase PA, even if this movement does not
involve obvious rewards, is not the focus of awareness, or occurs
under somewhat unpleasant conditions. We base this proposal on
the principle of embodiment. The notion of embodiment assumes
that psychological experiences involve parallel activations (“sim-
ulations”) in modality-specific bodily systems (Niedenthal, Ric, &
Krauth-Gruber, 2002). Put differently, psychological experiences
are not amodal cognitive abstractions, but events grounded in
actual bodily states and sensory-motor modalities (M. Wilson,
2002). There is substantial evidence that perception, cognition,
emotion, and social judgment all involve corresponding activation
of bodily states and modality-specific neural architecture, be it
during actual encounters with stimuli (Wallbott, 1991) or during
“off-line” processing (see Niedenthal et al., 2002, for review).
Of key importance to our proposal are the findings that adopting
a particular physical posture influences psychological states. For
example, adopting an erect, confident posture speeds up retrieval
of pleasant autobiographical memories and facilitates positive re-
sponses to emotionally relevant events (Stepper & Strack, 1993;
Riskind, 1984). Similarly, simulation of approach (e.g., pulling)
versus avoidance (e.g., pushing) behavior facilitates development
of positive versus negative reactions toward social objects, respec-
tively (Cacioppo, Priester, & Berntson, 1993). In short, simulating
behaviors that embody more abstract psychological processes can
result in consequences associated with such processes.
In this vein, we propose that global PA is embodied by gross,
relatively unspecific motor activity. As noted by Darwin, almost
all searches for pleasures are associated with active movements,
and the literature reviewed confirms that biobehavioral processes
involved in movement are also critical to the experience of positive
(but less so negative) affect. Barring a clear threat or extreme
circumstances, most organisms’ movements are marshaled toward
acquiring rewards and seeking resources, being only periodically
interrupted by the necessity to avoid predators or face environ-
mental dangers (Darwin, 1872/1965). For example, animals for-
aging for food (an essential reward) frequently rely on extensive
and random movement patterns, which tend to maximize resource
acquisition and occupy most of their active time (Bell, 1991;
Pitcher, Lang, & Turner, 1988; Pyke, 1978). Similarly, survey
research among humans reveals that most people report their
activities are centered on acquiring something, rather than pre-
venting, curing, or keeping (Ogilvie, Rose, & Heppen, 2001).
Finally, both movement and PA follow a circadian pattern in
which organisms’ engagement is highest during times when ac-
quiring resources is most likely (e.g., during daylight, Clark,
Watson, & Leeka, 1989). As a result, routine movement (i.e.,
walking) should reflect embodiment of an approach orientation
and should facilitate feelings of energy, self-assurance, and jovi-
ality at the core of PA. The extremely close connection between
locomotor motion and PA in daily experience supports this prop-
osition (Schwerdtfeger et al., 2010; Wichers et al., 2012).
For clarity, we should note that the type of routine movement
under examination has three key components. Such movement (a)
engages large-scale skeletal systems, to (b) move a person from
one place to a different place in their environment, for (c) any
purpose other than fleeing real or suspected danger. The most
common type of such movement is ambulation (i.e., walking).
Almost all people are required to walk from one place to another
in order to secure necessary resources. In fact, walking is so
routine that people generally fail to consider the impact of a bout
of this type of movement on their affect or subsequent behavior.
Accordingly, we focus on walking as the basic manifestation of
incidental ambulation. Note that small-scale movements such as
wiggling one’s fingers, pacing, blinking, or shaking one’s foot do
not fall under this category.
Finally, we should also note that studies have examined the
influence of exercise on affective response. Although these studies
frequently find that mild to moderate exercise increases PA (Reed
& Ones, 2006), they do not serve as appropriate tests of our
proposal for two reasons. First, exercise studies utilizing intense
physical activity have found it to actually worsen mood or to boost
it mainly by providing relief from physical exertion (Ekkekakis,
Hall, & Petruzzello, 2005). Second, the studies that have actually
documented increases in PA suffer from numerous confounds that
play a documented role in facilitating positive mood, including
demand characteristics associated with the concept of “exercise,”
potential placebo effects of exercise on mood, effort justification,
and pride over goal accomplishment (e.g., Frederick, Morrison, &
Manning, 1996; Lutz et al., 2008). In short, these studies do not
isolate ambulation (rather than other factors) as a key driver of
affect changes.
In order to test our proposal that incidental ambulation is a
broad-based facilitator of PA and to avoid the described con-
founds, our approach involved keeping study participants blind to
any connection between their movement and study purpose. Spe-
cifically, we made their walking entirely incidental to another
experimental task, keeping participants unaware that it played any
role in the study goals (Experiments 1, 2, and 3). Also, to dem-
onstrate the robust nature of its impact, we created conditions that
should undermine PA increases. Specifically, we lead participants
to expect undesirable mood changes while also making the exper-
imental task itself disengaging (Experiment 2). Finally, by em-
ploying a treadmill-based procedure, we isolated participants from
environmental factors, arguably shaping their affect, including
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2MILLER AND KRIZAN
ambient environmental events (e.g., sunlight or social encounters)
and experimenter bias (Experiment 3). Together, these experi-
ments build upon one another to provide a conservative test of the
hypothesis that movement facilitates PA, doing so even counter to
the effects of other mundane emotionally relevant events.
Experiment 1
Method
Two hundred thirty-two undergraduate students at a large Mid-
western university participated in an experiment to partially fulfill
their research-participation course requirement. The large number
of participants reflected our desire to ensure sufficient power amid
uncertainty about the magnitude of the effect the walking manip-
ulation may have on PA in this context.
Participants arrived to experimental sessions in small groups (of
1 to 4), with each group randomly assigned to either the sitting
condition or the walking condition without any awareness that
movement was of interest to researchers. They were then informed
that the researchers were interested in how immersion in unfamil-
iar and familiar environments made people feel and were told they
would first focus on an unfamiliar environment (Chinese land-
scapes) followed by a familiar environment (the local campus),
after which they would answer questions about how they experi-
enced those environments. Accordingly, participants viewed a
10-min, slow-paced video about ancient Chinese architecture (“the
unfamiliar environment”). Its purpose was both to maintain the
cover story and to eliminate any residual arousal at the beginning
of the session. After viewing the video, people responded to filler
items regarding inconsequential aspects of the tour meant to main-
tain the cover story and to the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS; Watson et al., 1988), which yielded initial
scores for momentary PA and NA prior to the manipulation.
Next, participants were oriented toward a more “familiar” en-
vironment, namely, the local campus. Groups assigned to the
sitting condition were told they would go on a virtual tour of
campus in the computer lab. This tour consisted of 10 photographs
of various familiar buildings located along the central campus
route, each shown on a participant’s individual computer screen
for about 70 s, accompanied by relevant factual information read
by the experimenter (the total sequence lasted about 12 min).
Groups assigned to the walking condition were told they would go
on a walking tour around campus. The walking tour was a mod-
erately paced walk of similar length in which participants were
directed to view the same 10 buildings shown to participants in the
sitting condition while hearing the same statements.
The sitting and walking conditions were meant to parallel each
other in critical respects. First, the length of time spent either
watching the sitting condition slide-show tour or experiencing the
walking condition campus tour was roughly 12 min. Second,
participants were also instructed to remain silent during both tours.
Accordingly, communication and noise directed at the participants
was limited to the same statements being read to them by the
experimenters in both conditions at key points. Finally, partici-
pants in both conditions were directed to attend to 10 specific
campus features. In the walking condition, these items consisted of
buildings and sculptures on campus. In the sitting condition, these
items consisted of computer-presented pictures of the same build-
ings and sculptures on campus.
Finally, participants answered filler questions about various
aspects of their tour experience, and then completed the PANAS
again (to capture affect change). Before being debriefed, partici-
pants answered open-ended questions concerning suspicion.
Results
Suspicion and statistical independence. Examination of re-
sponses to the questions regarding suspicion and knowledge of the
research question indicated that all participants believed the cover
story and were not suspicious, that is, were not aware that we were
interested in movement. There was no effect of session group in
either the walking (p⫽.59) or sitting (p⫽.65) conditions, and no
effect of session group size on affect change, F(3, 231) ⫽1.63,
p⫽.18. Given the lack of session effects and to ease exposition,
we analyzed the data on the level of the individual.
Affect facilitation. In order to assess the effect of ambulatory
movement on affect, we performed a mixed-design ANOVA with
condition (i.e., walking or sitting) as a between-subjects factor, and
PA measured before and after the manipulation as a within-
subjects factor. As anticipated, individuals generally showed in-
creases in PA F(1, 230) ⫽37.80, p⬍.001, d⫽.81, with a
significant difference in the overall PA between conditions, F(1,
230) ⫽6.98, p⫽.009, d⫽.35. Critically, there was a significant
interaction between our manipulation and time of affect measure-
ment, F(1, 230) ⫽18.53, p⬍.001. As predicted, whereas the level
of PA stayed the same for participants in the sitting condition,
t(123) ⫽1.29, p⫽.20, d⫽.13, it significantly increased for
participants in the walking condition, t(107) ⫽7.54, p⬍.001, d⫽
.71. Descriptive statistics for the pre- and postmanipulation PA
scores by condition are included in Table 1.
We also conducted analyses directly examining affect difference
scores within the conditions. As expected, PA increased signifi-
cantly for participants in the walking condition (M⫽.54, SD ⫽
.75), t(107) ⫽7.54, p⬍.0001, but it did not increase for partic-
ipants in the sitting condition (M⫽.096, SD ⫽.83), t(123) ⫽
1.29, p⫽.20. A direct comparison of change scores confirmed
that PA increased substantially more for participants in the walk-
ing condition, t(230) ⫽4.31, p⬍.001, d⫽.57 (see Figure 1). NA
also slightly increased across time, F(1, 230) ⫽12.17, p⫽.001,
d⫽.46. However, this was expected given the exceptionally
calming nature of the pretreatment video used to calm the partic-
ipants in both conditions. Critically, NA did not vary as a function
of either condition or the interaction between time and condition,
F(1, 230) ⫽.93, p⫽.34, and F(1, 230) ⫽1.51, p⫽.22.
Table 1
Positive Affect Scores Pre- and Postmanipulation in Experiment 1
Time of positive affect measurement Condition Mean SD n
Premanipulation Sitting 2.14 .77 124
Walking 2.14 .79 108
Postmanipulation Sitting 2.23 .76 124
Walking 2.69 .75 108
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3
WALKING AND POSITIVE AFFECT
Discussion
The results of Experiment 1 lend support to our central hypoth-
esis that ambulatory movement does indeed facilitate PA. To our
knowledge, this is the first experimental study to document that
movement increases PA without participants’ awareness that their
movement had any direct significance for their ongoing behavior
or is the subject of study. However, there were several limitations
important to address.
First, the walking-condition participant groups toured the cam-
pus outdoors. Immersion in nature has been found to positively
impact affect (Berman et al., 2012), so it was important to elimi-
nate this difference between the conditions. Additionally, the
sitting-condition slide-show stimulus was not visually equivalent
to actually viewing the tour points as one actually moved from
building to building during the walking tour. Accordingly, other
features during intermediary points on the tour that were not
viewed during the slide show may have created additional visual
interest and engagement for the walking participants. Finally, we
had concerns about the group nature of the experimental sessions.
To address these issues, Experiment 2 was a partial replication of
Experiment 1 in which participants were run individually and
indoors. Additionally, we used a control-stimulus video that was
virtually identical to the experience of a walking tour.
Experiment 2
A key goal of Experiment 2 was to test the robustness of the
effect across settings that may ordinarily suppress the arousal of
PA. To the extent that movement embodies the experience of PA,
the affect-facilitation effect observed in Experiment 1 should be
present even when the activity is disengaging (i.e., does not pro-
mote PA). To this end, we designed Experiment 2’s tour to be
relatively boring. Whereas in Experiment 1, participants in the
walking condition moved through a bustling outdoor campus, in
Experiment 2, they instead toured the interior of a drab campus
building, promoting disengagement and overall low levels of PA.
Moreover, to further examine the robustness of the effect, we
added an additional walking condition in which participants were
intentionally led to believe they would feel worse after the tour
than when they arrived at the laboratory. We refer to this third
condition as the walking dread condition. Given the use of a
disengaging tour as well as the introduction of a condition in which
participants had negative affective expectations, we were able to
test the hypothesis that relevant emotional events that should
logically mute PA (i.e., boredom and dread) would not eliminate
the effect of ambulation (although they may reduce the overall
level of PA). We also used an expanded assessment of affect
(PANAS-X; Watson & Clark, 1994) to provide more information
about changes in specific components of PA (i.e., joviality, self-
assurance, and attentiveness).
Method
Ninety-three undergraduate students at a large Midwestern uni-
versity participated in order to fulfill course requirements. Partic-
ipants registered online to participate individually in the study.
Each arrived individually and was randomly assigned to a sitting,
walking, or walking dread condition. Assuming that the “true”
effect reflects the observed value in Experiment 1 (d⫽.57), 30
participants per condition was sufficient to achieve 80% statistical
power (Cohen, 1988).
The overall design of Experiment 2 was similar to Experiment
1. However, The sitting condition in Experiment 2 was critically
different in that we showed participants a first-person-perspective
video of the tour rather than a slide show of key features as in
Experiment 1. The Experiment 2 building tour was filmed using an
iPod nano and processed on YouTube to eliminate unwanted
effects, including bouncing and border irregularities. The route
used in the video was the same route participants were taken on
through the campus building in two walking tour conditions. The
video included footage of members of the campus community
going about their business, similar to what one would see if
walking the same route during the study. There were no unusual
events in the video, such as prolonged eye contact with the camera
by random passers-by or other emotionally relevant events.
Another critical change from Experiment 1 was the reduction of
participant and experimenter interaction. In Experiment 1, the
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Sing Walking
Condion
Posive Affect Change
Negave Affect Change
Figure 1. Positive and negative affect change for the sitting and walking conditions in Experiment 1.
Participants either sat and viewed slides of buildings in the local area or walked and viewed the buildings on a
tour. Bars represent standard errors.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4MILLER AND KRIZAN
participants received scripted facts (while silent) read by the ex-
perimenters about the buildings on their tour, whereas in Experi-
ment 2, the participants were only instructed to remain silent and
attend to what they were seeing while on the indoor building tour.
Both the participant and the experimenter remained silent during
the tour. Along with the other critical changes (i.e., indoor tour in
a bland building, no engagement with the experimenter), partici-
pants in Experiment 2 participated individually rather than in
groups, as in Experiment 1, which further prevented any unwanted
influence on their affective experience.
In addition to the critical changes to the presentation shown to
participants in the sitting condition, Experiment 2 had two impor-
tant additions. The first was the inclusion of instructions given to
participants in the dread condition to create negative expectations
of how their feelings would change after the tour (while avoiding
impacting the tour itself). After viewing Experiment 2’s introduc-
tory video—a silent, slow-paced video tour through London’s
Saatchi Gallery lasting just over 5 min—all participants were told
that they would be going on a tour of a familiar building on
campus. Participants in the dread condition were also told,
To gauge your experiences of the tour in more depth, after the tour
you will have 10 minutes to write an essay that is 2 full pages in length
about the structural elements of the building and how these compare
with what you saw in the (first) video...Youwill also have to discuss
and analyze your essay.
This essay manipulation was pretested to ensure it would pro-
duce an anticipation of an undesirable experience that participants
expected to lower PA.
The second addition was the measurement of how participants
expected the tour would change their affect (which served as a
manipulation check). After the initial instructions about their re-
spective tours, participants read, “Before proceeding, we would
like to record your expectations regarding how your feelings may
change immediately before providing your final reactions.” Those
in the dread condition also read an additional fragment (“and
describing your experiences in the 2-page essay that will be
discussed”). Participants then responded to the expectation ques-
tions “How intense do you expect your positive feelings to be after
the tour?” and “How intense do you expect your negative feelings
to be after the tour?”—answering each question on a scale of ⫺5
(much less intense),0(no change), to ⫹5(much more intense)to
capture anticipated change. They were also asked a general ques-
tion: “How do you expect to feel after the tour?”—responding on
a scale from ⫺5(much worse)to⫹5(much better). The three
questions’ presentation was randomized for each participant. Fol-
lowing their tours, the participants responded to same measures
from Experiment 1.
Results
Manipulation checks. The inducement of negative expecta-
tions in the dread condition was successful (see Figure 2). As
expected, there were no significant differences in expectations of
affect change between the sitting and walking conditions (with
most participants expecting to feel better afterward). However,
participants in the walking dread condition, in which negative
expectations were induced, expected they would feel worse overall
(M⫽⫺.16. SD ⫽1.86) than participants in the walk condition, in
which no expectations were induced (M⫽.75, SD ⫽1.24),
t(61) ⫽2.29, p⫽.026. Accordingly, participants in the dread
condition expected to feel less intense positive feelings
(M⫽⫺.84, SD ⫽2.19) than participants in the walk condition
(M⫽1.09, SD ⫽1.55), t(61) ⫽4.05, p⬍.001. Likewise,
participants in the dread condition (M⫽.87, SD ⫽2.00) expected
to feel more intense negative feelings after their tour than partic-
ipants in the walk condition (M⫽⫺.78, SD ⫽1.68),
t(61) ⫽⫺3.56, p⫽.001.
Affect facilitation. In order to assess the effect of ambula-
tory movement through a drab environment on affect, we per-
formed a mixed-design ANOVA with condition (i.e., sitting,
walking and walking dread) as a between-subjects factor and
PA measured before and after the walking manipulation as a
within-subjects factor. Individuals generally showed no change
in PA, F(1, 91) ⫽20.51, p⫽.47, d⫽.16. However, there was
a significant difference in overall PA among conditions, F(2,
91) ⫽5.33, p⫽.006, d⫽.69. Critically, there was a significant
interaction between our manipulation and time of affect mea-
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Sing Walking Dread Walking
Condion
Feel Aer (Global)
Posive Feelings Change
Negave Feelings Change
Figure 2. Expectations of how participants’ feelings would be changed postmanipulation for the sitting,
walking, and dread walking conditions in Experiment 2. Bars represent standard errors.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5
WALKING AND POSITIVE AFFECT
surement, F(2, 91) ⫽5.91, p⫽.004. As predicted, whereas the
level of PA decreased for participants in the sitting condition,
t(30) ⫽⫺4.08, p⬍.001, d⫽⫺.73, it did not decrease for
participants either in the walking condition, t(31) ⫽.42, p⫽
.68, d⫽.07, or in the dread condition, t(30) ⫽1.32, p⫽.20,
d⫽.24. Descriptive statistics for the pre- and postmanipulation
PA scores by condition are included in Table 2.
We also conducted analyses directly examining affect
difference-scores across the conditions. As expected, given the
disengaging nature of the tour used in this experiment, the PA
decreased significantly for participants in the sitting condition
(M⫽⫺.40, SD ⫽.55), t(30) ⫽⫺4.08, p⬍.001, including the
components of joviality (M⫽⫺.29, SD ⫽.59), t(30) ⫽⫺2.80,
p⫽.009, self-assurance (M⫽⫺.42, SD ⫽.51), t(30) ⫽⫺4.62,
p⬍.001, and, unsurprisingly, attentiveness (M⫽⫺.58, SD ⫽
.77), t(30) ⫽⫺4.18, p⬍.001. Critically, PA and all of its
component subscales remained stable (i.e., did not decrease) for
both the walking and walking dread conditions, without any sig-
nificant differences between either of the two walking conditions
in PA or its components (all ps⬎.50). This occurred despite
participants in the walking dread condition expecting to feel sig-
nificantly worse posttour than those in the walking condition (see
Figure 3). In short, the context of the tour generally suppressed PA,
but not for those who engaged in locomotion. Note that attentive-
ness was maintained in the dread walking condition relative to the
sitting condition (p⫽.013), in which it decreased. This makes
sense given that participants in that condition anticipated writing
an essay about what they saw and should have thus remained more
attentive. Critically, a direct comparison between conditions con-
firmed that PA was maintained in the dread walking condition
relative to the sitting condition, in which it decreased, t(55) ⫽
3.21, p⫽.002, d⫽.85. Thus, movement facilitated, or in this
case, maintained, PA despite the disengaging nature of the task and
the expectations that one’s affect will deteriorate while awaiting an
unpleasant task. NA did not vary as a function of time, F(1, 91) ⫽
.45, p⫽.50, condition F(2, 91) ⫽.79, p⫽.46, nor the interaction
between time and condition, F(2, 91) ⫽.79, p⫽.48.
Discussion
With regard to the PA difference by condition, Experiment 2
replicated the results of Experiment 1. PA posttreatment was
significantly higher in locomotion conditions. The replication is
even more impressive given the anesthetizing nature of the sitting
condition in Experiment 2, in which participants sat in small room
and watched a relatively lengthy first-person video simulation of a
tour through a bland building. Participants who engaged in the
same tour activity—saw the same things, heard the same sounds,
and walked the same route, though on-foot and in-person—were
not bored by it (see Figure 3). Rather, those participants in exper-
imental conditions felt much the same as they did prior to starting.
Further, participants who reported they expected to feel “worse”
(i.e., globally, decreased positive feelings, increased negative feel-
ings; see Figure 2) as a result of believing they would have to write
a lengthy essay about the tour felt much the same as participants
who were not manipulated to develop such expectations. Ambu-
lation appears to make activities that measure as significantly
boring or dreadful seem decent at worst, or even mildly engaging.
Although we replicated the effect of movement on PA in Ex-
periment 2, doing so even under conditions that should undermine
PA, there were some limitations to note. First, the experimenters
may have had preconceived notions about the impact of walking
on the participants during the experimental session. Therefore, it is
possible that experimenter bias caused the differences in PA.
Second, although participants walked at a “brisk pace” in the
walking conditions, the rate of movement was self-selected by
each participant, which one might argue could have impacted
affect or engagement of the behavioral approach system. Third,
despite using the same route, it is highly likely that participants did
not have an equivalent visual experience across walking tours
because of differences in ambient light across sessions, as well as
random encounters with other people moving through the same
building. Finally, there is a question of whether merely standing
upright, and therefore engaging the same muscular systems as one
would while walking in order to maintain posture (though isomet-
rically), could have a similar effect. To address these limitations,
we designed a third experiment to further bolster our claim that it
is the ambulation itself that is critical to the facilitation of PA.
Experiment 3
The primary goal of Experiment 3 was not only to address the
methodological limitations just raised but also to provide further
evidence that incidental ambulation embodies PA across a broad
variety of settings. To the extent that such movement embodies the
experience of PA, the affect facilitation observed in Experiments 1
and 2 should be present even if the movement is divorced from
ongoing changes in perceptual experience (e.g., a changing visual
environment), and even if the participants are isolated from other
emotional influences inherent in holding experimental sessions
outside the confines of the lab (e.g., social encounters, seeing
others moving, ambient noise, and ambient light differences).
To this end, we designed an experiment involving the same
basic procedure used in Experiments 1 and 2, but with a double-
blind design. Participants came to the lab, watched a calming
video, reported their momentary affect, took a “tour” during which
they either walked briskly or remained motionless, and then re-
ported their momentary affect once again. In Experiment 3, how-
ever, participants walked, stood, or sat on a treadmill in a closed
room rather than walking through a less controlled, real-world
environment. Participants also received all critical experimental
instructions on a computer rather than receiving instruction from
experimenters who may have had expectations about the results.
Participants again remained blind to the purpose of the study,
believing the researchers were interested in the impact of proxim-
ity to exercise equipment on their feelings. As previously men-
tioned, an additional no-movement control condition was intro-
Table 2
Positive Affect Scores Pre- and Postmanipulation in Experiment 2
Time of positive affect measurement Condition Mean SD n
Premanipulation Sitting 2.09 .67 31
Walking 2.34 .70 32
Dread walking 2.12 .71 31
Postmanipulation Sitting 1.69 .61 31
Walking 2.40 .61 32
Dread walking 2.31 .81 31
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6MILLER AND KRIZAN
duced. Rather than having only one control condition, in which
participants remained seated, as in past experiments, an additional
control condition in which participants stood on the treadmill was
introduced. This allowed us to decouple the potential impact of
upright posture from the impact of actual movement. If PA was to
increase for the condition in which participants walked on the
treadmill, but not increase (or do so to a lesser extent) in the
control (standing and seated) conditions, this would provide strong
evidence for our claim that ambulation itself is critical for facili-
tating PA.
Method
One hundred twenty eight undergraduate students at a large
Midwestern university participated in order to fulfill course re-
quirements. Given the possibility that our enhanced controls would
reduce the size of the experimental effect, we recruited more
participants than in Experiment 2 to boost power. Participants
registered online to participate individually in the study. Each first
provided their written consent to participate and was then told that
their participation would occur in a closed room, with all instruc-
tions provided on a computer with the experimenter on-call in
another room. Each participant was randomly assigned by the
computer program to ether a walking, standing, or sitting condi-
tion.
Experiment 3 was similar to Experiments 1 and 2, with a few
critical differences. First, no expectations were induced (as in
Experiment 1). Second, the Chinese architecture video used in
Experiment 1 was again used to calm participants, whereas the
Saatchi Gallery video was shown to participants during the ma-
nipulation phase of the study (rather than prior to this phase, as in
Experiment 2). Thus, Experiment 3 proceeded as follows: Partic-
ipants (a) watched the Chinese architecture video for 10 min; (b)
rated their momentary affect using the PANAS; (c) either sat next
to, stood upon, or walked on a level-incline, gymnasium-quality
treadmill at 3.0 mph for 10 min while watching the silent Saatchi
Gallery video, projected at high-resolution on a white wall approx-
imately 6 ft. in front of them, with the video’s visual dimensions
approximating a 4 ft. (width) ⫻3 ft. (height) standard aspect ratio
with the room’s standard fluorescent lights remaining illuminated;
and then (d) rated their momentary affect again. Participants were
told during the computer instructions that the researchers were
interested in how being near exercise equipment affected how they
experienced familiar and unfamiliar environments. Participant
comments did not indicate suspicion of the cover story or that they
were rating their state affect in relation to the randomly assigned
form of engagement with the treadmill.
Results
In order to assess the effect of ambulation on affect through a
controlled environment, a mixed-design ANOVA with condition
(i.e., sitting, standing, and walking) as a between-subjects factor
and PA measured before and after the manipulation as a within-
subjects factor. Individuals generally showed no change in PA F(1,
123) ⫽.26, p⫽.61, d⫽.09. However, there was a significant
difference in overall PA among conditions, F(2, 123) ⫽4.71, p⫽
.011, d⫽.55. Critically, there was a significant interaction be-
tween our manipulation and the time of affect measurement, F(2,
123) ⫽7.18, p⫽.001, d⫽.68. As predicted, whereas the level
of PA increased for participants in the walking condition, t(41) ⫽
2.54, p⫽.015, d⫽.38, it decreased for participants in both the
sitting condition, t(40) ⫽⫺2.06, p⫽.046, d⫽⫺.34, and
somewhat for those in the standing condition, t(42) ⫽⫺1.70, p⫽
.096, d⫽⫺.18. Descriptive statistics for the pre- and postmanipu-
lation PA scores by condition are included in Table 3.
As with Experiment 2, we also conducted analyses directly
examining affect difference scores across the conditions. As shown
in Figure 4, in the walking condition, PA increased significantly
(M⫽.28, SD ⫽.72), t(41) ⫽2.54, p⫽.015, d⫽.39, including
the components of joviality (M⫽.48, SD ⫽.69), t(41) ⫽4.55,
p⬍.001, d⫽.70, and attentiveness (M⫽.98, SD ⫽.83), t(41) ⫽
7.64, p⬍.001, d⫽1.18. The self-assurance component of PA did
not change significantly (M⫽⫺.18, SD ⫽.64), t(41) ⫽⫺1.84,
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
Sing Walking Dread Walking
Condion
Posive Affect (Overall)
Posive Affect (Joviality
Facet)
Posive Affect (Self-
Assurance Facet)
Posive Affect
(Aenveness Facet)
Figure 3. Positive Affect and Positive Affect facets change by condition in Experiment 2. Participants either
sat and watched a video of the architecture tour, walked the architecture tour, or walked the architecture tour
dreading (see Figure 2, “Dread Walking” expectations) that they would have to write a lengthy essay about what
they viewed during the tour and then discuss their essay with the experimenter after the tour. Bars represent
standard errors.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7
WALKING AND POSITIVE AFFECT
p⫽.07, d⫽⫺.28, in the walking condition. NA varied as a
function of time, F(1, 123) ⫽40.72, p⬍.001, generally decreas-
ing in all subjects. Critically, NA did not did vary as a function of
either condition or the interaction between time and condition, F(2,
123) ⫽.80, p⫽.45, and F(2, 123) ⫽1.00, p⫽.37.
Discussion
Building on the results of two previous experiments, Experiment
3 offered the most clear demonstration yet of the impact of
locomotion on PA. Using a highly controlled double-blind exper-
imental paradigm in which the only difference in the participant
experience across conditions was posture or locomotion, move-
ment led to increases in PA.
In Experiment 3, we limited the participants’ contact with extrane-
ous influences on their affective experience as much as possible.
Participants did not engage with experimenters during critical phases
of the experiment, the experiment was effectively double-blind, and
Table 3
Positive Affect Scores Pre- and Postmanipulation in Experiment 3
Time of positive affect measurement Condition Mean SD n
Premanipulation Sitting 1.92 .47 41
Standing 2.12 .64 43
Walking 2.07 .55 42
Postmanipulation Sitting 1.68 .84 41
Standing 1.99 .78 43
Walking 2.35 .84 42
2.07
2.35
2.12
1.99
1.93
1.68
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
Premanipulaon Postmanipulaon
Overall Posive Affect Change by
Condion (Experiment 3)
Walking Condion
Standing Condion
Sing Condion
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
Walking Standing Sing
Condion
Posive Affect and Facets Change by
Condion (Experiment 3)
Posive Affect (Overall)
Posive Affect (Joviality
Facet)
Posive Affect (Self-
Assurance Facet)
Posive Affect
(Aenveness Facet)
Figure 4. Positive Affect change in Experiment 3 displayed first as overall Positive Affect change across the
manipulation and then as Positive Affect and Positive Affect facets change by condition. Participants either
walked on the treadmill, stood on the treadmill, or sat beside the treadmill. Bars represent standard errors.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8MILLER AND KRIZAN
all participants remained in one place at all times with no outside
influence (contrast with Experiment 1). The video stimulus all par-
ticipants viewed was mildly disengaging, but not dreadfully dull
(contrast with Experiment 2). Further, we controlled the potential
effects of differences in posture between control and incidental am-
bulation conditions by having participants sit, stand, or walk directly
on a the treadmill used in the experiment.
In light of the efforts to control the participant experience in the
Experiment 3, we believe we were able to isolate a critical influence
of movement on PA. Ambulatory movement in the presence of a
mildly engaging stimulus— one that generally does not cause signif-
icant changes in people’s affect levels on its own—reliably increased
PA. The effect was not related to interacting with others during an
activity, being outdoors on a bright day, feeling good about doing
something good for your health (i.e., exercise), or viewing stimulating
or desirable objects. Together with Experiments 1 and 2, the results
from Experiment 3 further confirm the robust and reliable nature of
the impact that walking has on facilitating PA.
General Discussion
As a whole, the current data demonstrate a robust effect of
incidental ambulation on facilitation of PA, consistent with our
hypothesizing regarding the embodiment of PA, the form of move-
ment associated with the behavioral approach system, and ap-
proach behaviors. Our experiments are the first to document a
causal effect of routine ambulation on PA (but not NA; Experi-
ments 1 and 2). Furthermore, our results suggest this influence to
be pervasive and stable, as it occurred even under conditions that
are somewhat unpleasant and disengaging (Experiment 2). Notice
that the ambulation in our studies is truly routine; all our partici-
pants surely completed similar walks many times that same day
(e.g., to make their classes on time).
Our findings suggest that movement is critical to the experience
of PA. Clearly, moving will not always involve an absolute in-
crease in PA; rather, it may improve (Experiments 1 and 3) or
maintain (Experiment 2) it, depending on other emotionally rele-
vant factors. Regardless, such a robust influence suggests a deep
link between moving and feeling enthusiastically positive, sup-
ported by work using momentary assessments of everyday motion
and PA (Schwerdtfeger et al., 2010; Wichers et al., 2012). Note
that we relied on the conceptualization of PA as a unipolar dimen-
sion of positive activation (Watson et al., 1999); although the
overall valence of our participants’ emotional experiences im-
proved as a function of movement, this was driven by changes in
intensity of PA, with little or no changes in intensity of NA. This
finding is consistent with prior findings from the literature on the
affective impact of mild exercise (Ekkekakis et al., 2005). This
influence thus suggests the involvement of appetitive PA associ-
ated with anticipation, rather than consummatory PA associated
with sensory pleasure and hedonic experience (Berridge & Krin-
gelbach, 2008; see Burgdorf & Panksepp, 2006, for review).
Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones, and Price (2013) have defined
approach motivation as “the impulse to go toward” (p. 291),
stripping down the stimulus dependent traditional definition of
approach motivation into something even more parsimonious.
Given the relationship of positive affectivity with approach moti-
vation, along with the clear findings of the present work, future
work in this domain should investigate the impact of movement
that is incidental to activity on said activity, especially activities in
which increased approach motivation is beneficial.
Limitations
Our procedures did not monitor participants’ physiological
states, which are clearly relevant for the impact of physical activity
on emotions (Ekkekakis et al., 2005). However, such monitoring
was precluded by a key feature of our design: to keep participants
blind to the relevance of their movement for the study purpose. In
fact, to our knowledge this is first research ever to document a
robust influence of movement on PA while eliminating other
confounds typical in research on affective responses to exercise
(e.g., placebo effects, effort justification).
Implications
Taken together, our findings suggest that incidental ambulation
has a more robust and pervasive influence on affect than previ-
ously thought. Movement embedded in daily routines seems to be
a strong facilitator of PA and will impact feelings of vigor and
joviality unbeknownst to the individual, even counteracting con-
scious expectations. These findings have several important impli-
cations for research on emotion and social behavior.
First, the findings imply that routine movement may have other
important effects on psychological functioning associated with PA.
Given reports of self-assurance and attentiveness were also influ-
enced by movement, it is likely that relevant psychological pro-
cesses associated with these constructs (generally relevant to be-
havioral activation and reward seeking) will be impacted. For
example, it is important to examine whether incidental ambulation
movement emboldens individuals to become more assertive or to
take more social risks in order to require rewarding experiences.
Prior research suggests that experiences of power and dominance
involve PA and facilitate bold and risk-taking behavior, all of
which involve approach processes (Anderson & Galinsky, 2006;
Johnson, Leedom, & Muhtadie, 2012; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & An-
derson, 2003). If incidental ambulation also involves activation of
these components of the behavioral approach system, then such
movement is likely to have important consequences on social
behavior that thus far went unrecognized. Similarly, PA facilitated
by movement could have important concomitants in improved
attentional processes and particular types of cognitive performance
(P. A. Gable & Harmon-Jones, 2008). These possibilities demand
research attention.
Second, the seemingly unrecognized influence of movement on
PA could be an important contributor to affective forecasting
errors, as people neglect to realize their future affective states will
be partially shaped by their own routine movement. People fre-
quently misperceive their future affective states, given that they
overweigh the impact of current events and neglect to consider
other (often unexpected) influences likely to impinge on their
future affect (Buehler & McFarland, 2001; Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson,
Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998; see T. D. Wilson & Gilbert, 2003
for review). Our findings suggest that incidental ambulation may
be an important contributor to these errors; in fact, results of
Experiment 2 directly implicate movement as an underappreciated
influence on future mood. In certain contexts, this particular over-
sight may play a significant role: people may underestimate the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9
WALKING AND POSITIVE AFFECT
extent to which just getting of their couch and going for a walk will
benefit their mood as they focus on momentarily perceived barriers
rather than eventual mood benefits.
Third and final, our results suggest that warm-up routines within
sports may have important cognitive and affective (in addition to
physiological) consequences on athletes’ behavior that shape their
interactions on the field. To the extent movement involved in these
routines increases feelings of vigor and leads to the potential
consequences described in the present research, athletes’ experi-
ence and behavior may be significantly altered (and improved) by
these routines. For example, appropriate warm-ups could increase
focus, intensify dominance, and create a positive anticipation of
performance, factors thus far neglected in research on conse-
quences of warm-up routines (see Bishop, 2003). These are im-
portant possibilities that demand research attention. In sum, walk-
ing has powerful and ongoing consequences on our mental states,
and these should be harnessed to improve well-being and perfor-
mance.
Conclusion
Across three experiments that varied in their levels of experi-
mental and mundane realism, we found evidence that incidental
ambulation is a robust facilitator of PA. Affect was facilitated by
walking whether people were cognizant of the affective influences
of such movement (Experiment 1), faced with the prospect of
having to undertake a dreaded activity after the movement is over
(Experiment 2), or had their movement stripped down to “one foot
before the other” (Experiment 3). Together, these experiments
demonstrate that ambulatory movement systematically promotes
PA regardless of the focus on such movement, even overriding
other emotionally relevant events such as boredom and dread. This
work demonstrates that movement not only causes increased PA,
but suggests that movement partially embodies, or in a sense
reflects, PA. We hope this work is generative in the sense that it
encourages other researchers to employ locomotion manipulations
in investigations of PA and emotion more broadly.
References
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/ejsp.324
Beaulieu, J.-M., & Gainetdinov, R. R. (2011). The physiology, signaling,
and pharmacology of dopamine receptors. Pharmacological Reviews,
63, 182–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1124/pr.110.002642
Bell, W. J. (1991). Searching behavior: The behavioural ecology of finding
resources. London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A.,
Deldin, P. J.,...Jonides, J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves
cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 140, 300 –305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2008). Affective neuroscience of
pleasure: Reward in humans and animals. Psychopharmacology, 199,
457– 480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-008-1099-6
Bishop, D. (2003). Warm up I: Potential mechanisms and the effects of
passive warm up on exercise performance. Sports Medicine (Auckland,
N. Z.), 33, 439 – 454. http://dx.doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200333060-
00005
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the
workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279 –307. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135156
Brose, A., Lövdén, M., & Schmiedek, F. (2014). Daily fluctuations in
positive affect positively co-vary with working memory performance.
Emotion, 14, 1– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035210
Buehler, R., & McFarland, C. (2001). Intensity bias in affective forecast-
ing: The role of temporal focus. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27, 1480 –1493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167201
2711009
Burgdorf, J., & Panksepp, J. (2006). The neurobiology of positive emo-
tions. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 30, 173–187. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.06.001
Cacioppo, J. T., Priester, J. R., & Berntson, G. G. (1993). Rudimentary
determinants of attitudes. II: Arm flexion and extension have differential
effects on attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
5–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.5
Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related
affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 183–
204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013965
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral
activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment:
The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67,
319 –333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Leeka, J. (1989). Diurnal variation in the
positive affects. Motivation and Emotion, 13, 205–234. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/BF00995536
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical
personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 21–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15327752jpa6401_2
Darwin, C. (1965). The expression of the emotions in man and animals.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published
1872)
Depue, R. A., & Collins, P. F. (1999). Neurobiology of the structure of
personality: Dopamine, facilitation of incentive motivation, and extra-
version. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 491–517. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1017/S0140525X99002046
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Temperament and attention: Ori-
enting toward and away from positive and negative signals. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1128 –1139. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.66.6.1128
Doucet, C., & Stelmack, R. M. (1997). Movement time differentiates
extraverts from introverts. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,
775–786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00104-9
Ekkekakis, P., Hall, E. E., & Petruzzello, S. J. (2005). Variation and
homogeneity in affective responses to physical activity of varying in-
tensities: An alternative perspective on dose-response based on evolu-
tionary considerations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23, 477–500. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/02640410400021492
Fowles, D. C. (1987). Application of a behavioral theory of motivation to
the concepts of anxiety and impulsivity. Journal of Research in Person-
ality, 21, 417– 435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(87)90030-4
Frederick, C. M., Morrison, C., & Manning, T. (1996). Motivation to
participate, exercise affect, and outcome behaviors toward physical
activity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 691–701. http://dx.doi.org/10
.2466/pms.1996.82.2.691
Gable, P. A., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2008). Approach-motivated positive
affect reduces breadth of attention. Psychological Science, 19, 476 – 482.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02112.x
Gable, S. L. (2006). Approach and avoidance social motives and goals.
Journal of Personality, 74, 175–222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6494.2005.00373.x
Gilbert, D. T., Pinel, E. C., Wilson, T. D., Blumberg, S. J., & Wheatley,
T. P. (1998). Immune neglect: A source of durability bias in affective
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 MILLER AND KRIZAN
forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 617– 638.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.617
Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition.
Cognition and Emotion, 4, 269 –288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
02699939008410799
Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Price, T. F. (2013). What is
approach motivation? Emotion Review, 5, 291–295. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/1754073913477509
Harmon-Jones, E., Price, T. F., Gable, P. A., & Peterson, C. K. (2014).
Approach motivation and its relationship to positive and negative emo-
tions. In M. Tugade, M. L. Shiota, & L. D. Kirby (Eds.), Handbook of
positive emotions (pp. 103–118). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Johnson, S. L., Leedom, L. J., & Muhtadie, L. (2012). The dominance
behavioral system and psychopathology: Evidence from self-report,
observational, and biological studies. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 692–
743. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027503
Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and explo-
ration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth
opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 291–305. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8203_05
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach,
and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., Grob, A., Suh, E. M., & Shao, L. (2000).
Cross-cultural evidence for the fundamental features of extraversion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 452– 468. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.452
Lutz, R., Lochbaum, M. R., Carson, T., Jackson, S., Greenwood, M., &
Byars, A. (2008). Are we underestimating the affective benefits of
exercise? An experience sampling study of university aerobics partici-
pants. Journal of Sport Behavior, 31, 166 –186.
Michalak, J., Troje, N. F., Fischer, J., Vollmar, P., Heidenreich, T., &
Schulte, D. (2009). Embodiment of sadness and depression—Gait pat-
terns associated with dysphoric mood. Psychosomatic Medicine, 71,
580 –587. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181a2515c
Niedenthal, P. M., Ric, F., & Krauth-Gruber, S. (2002). Explaining emo-
tion congruence and its absence in terms of perceptual simulation.
Psychological Inquiry, 13, 80 – 83.
Ogilvie, D. M., Rose, K. M., & Heppen, J. B. (2001). A comparison of
personal project motives in three age groups. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 207–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15324834
BASP2303_7
Pitcher, T. J., Lang, S. H., & Turner, J. A. (1988). A risk-balancing trade
off between foraging rewards and predation hazard in a shoaling fish.
Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 22, 225–228. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/BF00300573
Puryear, C. B., Kim, M. J., & Mizumori, S. J. Y. (2010). Conjunctive
encoding of movement and reward by ventral tegmental area neurons in
the freely navigating rodent. Behavioral Neuroscience, 124, 234 –247.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018865
Pyke, G. H. (1978). Optimal foraging: Movement patterns of bumblebees
between inflorescences. Theoretical Population Biology, 13, 72–98.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0040-5809(78)90036-9
Reed, J., & Ones, D. S. (2006). The effect of acute aerobic exercise on
positive activated affect: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 7, 477–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2005.11
.003
Riskind, J. H. (1984). They stoop to conquer: Guiding and self-regulatory
functions of physical posture after success and failure. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 47, 479 – 493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.47.3.479
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0077714
Schwerdtfeger, A., Eberhardt, R., Chmitorz, A., & Schaller, E. (2010).
Momentary affect predicts bodily movement in daily life: An ambula-
tory monitoring study. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32,
674 – 693.
Stepper, S., & Strack, F. (1993). Proprioceptive determinants of emotional
and nonemotional feelings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 64, 211–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.2.211
Wallbott, H. G. (1991). Recognition of emotion from facial expression via
imitation? Some indirect evidence for an old theory. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 30, 207–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309
.1991.tb00939.x
Watson, D. (2002). Positive affectivity: The disposition to experience
pleasurable emotional states. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), The
handbook of positive psychology (pp. 106 –119). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive
and negative affect schedule–Expanded form. Iowa City, IA: University
of Iowa.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and vali-
dation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS
scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063
Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general
activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary consider-
ations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 820 – 838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.5
.820
Wichers, M., Peeters, F., Rutten, B. P., Jacobs, N., Derom, C., Thiery, E.,
. . . van Os, J. (2012). A time-lagged momentary assessment study on
daily life physical activity and affect. Health Psychology, 31, 135–144.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025688
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bul-
letin & Review, 9, 625– 636. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35,
pp. 345– 411). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Received February 8, 2013
Revision received February 22, 2016
Accepted March 2, 2016 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11
WALKING AND POSITIVE AFFECT
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Emotion
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
