In press at Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

This is the pre-print unedited version of the manuscript

Emotion Expression in Context: Full Body Postures of Christian Prayer Orientations Compared

to Specific Emotions

Patty Van Cappellen and Megan Edwards

Social Science Research Institute, Duke University, Durham NC, USA

Author Note

Corresponding Author: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Patty

Van Cappellen, Duke University, Social Science Research Institute, Box 90420, Durham NC

27708-0420. Orcid number: 0000-0001-5880-6232. E-mail: [email protected]

We would like to thank Lani Shiota for her guidance and help with data coding. We also thank

Stephanie Cassidy, Daniel DeVault, Jordan Hepburn, and Camden Nelson for their help with data collection and coding, and Kerry O’Brien for editing. Data collection was facilitated by the

Duke Interdisciplinary Behavioral Research Center and Duke Behavioral Participant Pool.

Funding: Preparation of this manuscript and data collection were funded by a John Templeton

Foundation grant awarded to the first author (grant #60836).

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

Availability of data and material: The data presented are freely accessible through the Open

Science Framework: https://osf.io/awzs5/ Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 2

Abstract

For many people, emotions are frequently expressed in the context of communication with their god. The practice of prayer is clearly embodied and affords the study of full body expressions of emotions in a relevant context. Surprisingly uncharacterized in empirical scientific research, we document full body postures representing prayers in different emotional registers (i.e., prayer, worship, praise, thanksgiving, repentance, confession, anger toward God) and compare them to postures representing specific emotions varying on two basic affective dimensions (valence and dominance), and to specific relevant emotions (gratitude for thanksgiving, guilt for confession and repentance). U.S. community participants with knowledge of Christianity (n = 93) were asked to show how they would express these feelings in the full body by positioning a small mannequin. Postures were analyzed to derive objective measurements of the body’s vertical, horizontal, and total space, and subjective perceptions of the same dimensions from a separate sample. An observational coding system was also developed to code for components of the body, such as head and arm positions. Results show distinct differences between postures representing the overarching categories of prayer vs. worship. Further, postures representing praise and to a lesser extent those of thanksgiving were found to be expansive and oriented upward, slightly smaller than postures of positive valence but bigger than dominance. Postures representing repentance and confession were found to be constrictive and oriented downward, even smaller than postures of negative valence and similar to submission. These results add to our limited knowledge of postural expressions of emotions and particularly that of positive emotions.

Implications for the psychology of religion are also discussed.

Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 3

Emotion Expression in Context: Full Body Postures of Christian Prayer Orientations Compared

to Specific Emotions

We stand tall in confidence; we jump with joy; we curl up when we cry. These examples demonstrate that emotions are visibly expressed in the full body. As Darwin (1872) was perhaps the first to document, humans have unique ways of expressing emotions that serve as signals to others. Indeed, plenty of research thereafter has documented nonverbal communication of an ever broadening range of emotions through facial, vocal, and bodily expressions (See for a review, Keltner et al., 2019). The bulk of this work has focused on the distinct facial expressions that characterize emotions (Campos et al., 2013; Cowen & Keltner, 2020). Only a subset, which we will expand upon below, has examined how emotions are expressed in the full body (

Witkower & Tracy, 2019), hence the need for the present Special Issue (although note that much work has been conducted on people’s recognition of full-body expressions, for a review see De

Gelder, 2016). In addition, positive emotions have been even less the target of such research compared to negative emotions, with the exception of joy and pride (Sauter, 2017). Importantly, such nonverbal expression of emotions does not take place in a vacuum but varies by historical, cultural, and socio-ecological contexts (Niedenthal et al., 2017). Because nonverbal expressions serve communication purposes, they are situated in a communication context (Mehrabian, 1972).

How does this context affect emotion full body expressions? Here, we study such emotion expression in a general/secular context as well as in a particular context relevant to millions of people worldwide: the context of communication with a God.

Polls show that a vast majority of the population is religious: worldwide, 84% affiliate with a religion, and 31% identify as Christian, which is the world’s largest religious group. Many Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 4 also regularly practice their religion, with high percentages in the U.S.: at least 55% pray daily and 36% attend worship weekly (Pew Research Center, 2014). These numbers vary around the world: about 75% pray daily and attend worship weekly in sub-Saharan Africa but only around

25% in many European countries to cite some extreme examples (Pew Research Center, 2018).

Because of this, emotions are often and by many people expressed in a religious context.

Embodied religious activities such as prayer represent communicative acts through which people constitute their relationship with the divine (Spilka & Ladd, 2013). While engaging in prayer and worship, people can express their emotions to the divine, and in doing so, experience these emotions themselves. Indeed, although each are of different forms and fulfilling various goals, prayer and worship are always entangled with emotion (Corwin & Brown, 2020). Importantly, these practices are embodied: from standing, sitting, kneeling, prostrating, clasping or raising the hands, or bowing. Researchers in the psychology of religion have recently called for more attention to the corporeal nature of prayer and worship (see also Hammond, 2015 for a historical survey of the use of posture in prayer and liturgy ; Jones, 2019; Van Cappellen & Edwards,

2021). However, there is still very little empirical work on exactly how the full body is used to express, represent, and create the religious experience (but see review of such work in Van

Cappellen & Edwards, 2021).

In Christianity, prayer and worship represent two broad categories of practice. While prayer and worship can’t be sharply distinguished, researchers understand prayer as personal and private devotional activity and worship as more public and formal religious activities (Spilka &

Ladd, 2013). In everyday language, prayer appears to be more associated with requests and worship with adoration. Our preliminary research has found that Christians tend to distinguish between these two concepts with implications for the bodily postures associated with them. In a Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 5 study asking Christians to report the postures they adopted while attending a Sunday religious service, participants most frequently attributed the overarching meaning of prayer to postures that are downward and constrictive, and the overarching meaning of worship to postures that are upward and expansive (Van Cappellen et al., in press). However, it is still unclear whether people would show different full-body postures when asked to express prayer vs. worship.

Beyond these two broad categories of prayer and worship, prayers involve different communicative genres and functions and are performed in various emotional registers (Corwin &

Brown, 2020). Below, we discuss in depth four common prayer orientations in the context of

Christianity (which is the religious majority of the U.S.) and their closely related emotions: praise, thanksgiving, confession and repentance. We also explore a less common orientation, anger toward God. To our knowledge, no research exists on whether full body expressions of prayers involving different emotional registers are similar or different from each other and what they look like. Below, we turn to basic emotion research to make predictions about how different prayer orientations are represented in the body. However, we also acknowledge that the context of communicating with a supernatural being like a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and represented as being “up” (Meier et al., 2007) may impact the expressive postures used during such communication, hence the need for the present research. We focus first on situating the prayer orientations within two basic affective dimensions: valence (positive or negative) and dominance (dominance or submission). The prayer orientations were are investigating can be clearly distinguished based on valence as described below. Dominance is our second affective dimension of interest because, although less frequently studied than arousal, we reasoned that postural features of dominance may be downplayed when emotions are expressed in a religious context where dominance is unlikely to be expressed toward God. Dominance therefore Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 6 represents a potentially discriminant affective dimension between prayer orientations and emotions expressed in a non-religious context. Next, we identify the specific emotions that each prayer orientations convey and discuss their relations (e.g., thanksgiving involving the specific emotion gratitude).

Two common positively valenced prayer orientations are that of praise – arising from the desire to give praise and adoration to an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent higher power - and thanksgiving - expressing thankfulness for gifts received from such higher power. Here are two examples from the Christian literature: “My heart leaps for joy, and with my song I praise him” (Psalm 28:7); “Give thanks to the LORD, for he is good” (1 Chronicles 16:34). As two positively valenced orientations, we would expect their full body expressions to resemble that of positive affect. Research has shown that positive affect (research based mostly on pride and joy, see for a review, Wallbott, 1998; Witkower & Tracy, 2019) is commonly represented by expanding the body with upward orientation (e.g., head directed upward). Specifically, joy (or happiness) is expressed by standing tall, leaning back or chest out, orienting the head upwards, lifting the shoulders, and arms reaching out and/or upwards (Coulson, 2004; Wallbott, 1998;

Witkower & Tracy, 2019). Additionally, joy is associated with more movement, greater dynamics, and higher energy and power in movements compared to some negative or more passive emotions (Wallbott, 1998). Observationally, expressions of praise and thanksgiving in

Christian church services are often associated with singing or worshiping with music and involve greater movement, all of which support the amplification of positive affect (Chaves & Anderson,

2014). Beyond valence, we will also compare postures of praise and thanksgiving to high and low dominance postures. On the one hand, we may expect the context of religion to discourage from any visible display resembling that of dominance. On the other hand, comparatively to Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 7 repentance and confession, postures of praise and thanksgiving may be the closest to dominance postures because positive valence (especially positive emotions of joy and pride) and dominance share a common feature: an expansive posture that make the body look bigger (Burgoon &

Dunbar, 2006; Tracy et al., 2013). Regarding specific emotions, praise’s central emotions are joy and admiration expressed toward God whereas thanksgiving is gratitude expressed toward God.

As reviewed above, there is a large quantity of research conducted on the full body expression of joy, whereas admiration has not been the focus of much research and does not appear to be reliably associated with a nonverbal expression (Bänziger et al., 2012). Regarding the nonverbal expression of gratitude, some research suggests there is no distinct facial expression for gratitude

(Campos et al., 2013), and to our knowledge, postural expressions of gratitude are virtually uncharacterized. Therefore, the present study will not only document postures of thanksgiving, but also add needed data on postures of gratitude.

Two contrasting prayer orientations are that of confession - admitting that one has sinned

- and repentance – expressing regret and remorse with the intention to not repeat the sin.

Evidence from the Christian literature explicitly instructs religious members to “confess your sins to one another” (James 5:16) and "repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" (Matthew

3:2). Distinctive from the previous prayer themes, these two prayer orientations involve to some extent the concurrent experience of negative affect (affect that feels unpleasant but that can still be beneficial) and, more specifically, they align with the negative emotions of guilt and shame

(Tsakiridis, 2013). As Tsakiridis (2013) reviews, prayer (specifically, confession and repentance) is a way through which one seeks to resolve feelings of guilt and, importantly, is a visible show of remorse. Broadly, negative emotions are represented by constricting the body with downward orientations. For example, negative emotions (including sadness, shame, and guilt but not anger; Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 8 see below) are expressed with the head down, upper body collapsed or bent forward, shoulders slumped, as well as less erect and expansive compared to positive emotions or the negative emotion of anger (Keltner, 1995; Tracy & Matsumoto, 2008; Wallbott, 1998). This nonverbal expression is similar to that of low dominance postures/opposite to that of high dominance postures. Indeed, regarding the dimension of dominance, Mehrabian (1995) categorizes emotions of sadness and despair as being submissive in nature (see also for a review, Witkower et al.,

2020). Facial expressions of sadness and shame are also perceived as less dominant (Hareli et al.,

2009). Notably, as confession and repentance are related to guilt, we expect them to also look similar to postures of low dominance: in confession and repentance, one approaches God with submission because a transgression against the greater moral system was made. Overall, when confessing and repenting one’s sins, we would expect the associated full body expressions to be similar to that of emotions of negative valence, submission, and guilt.

Finally, we explored the prayer orientation of anger toward God. Although much less common than the previous prayer orientations, feelings of anger toward God can be expressed in prayers and represent a non-negligible aspect of religious and spiritual experience. Anger toward

God is frequently reported in response to negative events in one’s personal life or in the world and is associated with poorer psychological adjustment (Exline et al., 2011). Anger is an approach-oriented emotion (Adams Jr et al., 2006) that signals a threat of aggression (Reed et al.,

2014), in stark contrast with the other prayer orientations discussed above. Although it is a negatively valenced emotion, anger is different from the other negative emotions cited above

(sadness, shame, guilt). Indeed, anger shares postural features with joy and dominance, all are expansive (Wallbott, 1998). However, it is also expressed with a head tilted down and forward Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 9 lean (see review by Witkower & Tracy, 2019). In addition, expressions of anger are associated with perceptions of dominance and high status (Hareli et al., 2009; Tiedens et al., 2000).

The Present Study

Overall, we aim to test how different prayer orientations are represented in the full body and to compare such representation with that of valence (i.e., joy vs. sadness), dominance (i.e., dominance vs. submission), and specific emotions (i.e., gratitude and guilt). We study body postures on dimensions of space (vertical, horizontal, and total space) using both objective, exact measurements and subjective perceptions from human observers. We also developed an observational coding system to code for the following elements: head position, arm position, stability, lean, and position on the floor. All hypotheses, research questions, and complete analyses plans were pre-registered on OSF (https://osf.io/qj8dw/). Below, we copy our hypotheses and research questions.

In the present research, we first start by comparing postures for worship and prayer, which we consider as overarching categories among Christians. H1a: We hypothesize that postures for Worship will have greater expansiveness and upward orientation (greater objective width, height and area and subjective expansiveness, vertical space and overall space, arms extended to the side and extended high, head tilted up) compared to postures for Prayer. H1b:

We hypothesize that postures for Prayer will have greater constrictiveness and downward orientation (lower objective width, height and area, and subjective expansiveness, vertical space and overall space, greater prayer hands, head tilted down, forward lean or deep bow, and on the floor) compared to postures for Worship.

Secondly, we compare postures of more specific prayer orientations, including praise, thanksgiving, confession, and repentance. H2a: We hypothesize that postures for Praise and Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 10

Thanksgiving will have greater expansiveness and upward orientation (greater objective width, height and area and subjective expansiveness, vertical space and overall space, arms extended to the side and extended high, head tilted up) compared to postures for Confession and Repentance.

H2b: We hypothesize that postures for Confession and Repentance will have greater constrictiveness and downward orientation (lower objective width, height, area, subjective expansiveness, vertical space, and overall space, and head tilted down, forward lean or deep bow, and on the floor) compared to postures for Praise and Thanksgiving.

We further aim to compare how prayer orientations’ full body representations are similar or different to postures of emotions that vary on two basic affective dimensions: valence and dominance. Therefore, we compare the prayer orientations to joy (positive valence), sadness

(negative valence), dominance (high dominance), and submission (low dominance). Data on joy and dominance are fully presented in Van Cappellen, Edwards and Shiota (2020) but leveraged here as comparison points for our selected sample. H3a: We hypothesize that postures for Praise and Thanksgiving will look similar to postures representing positive valence and high dominance

(postures for Joy and Dominance) and H3b: that postures for Confession and Repentance will look similar to postures representing negative valence and low dominance (postures for Sadness and Submission) on the dimensions of space. However, we do not have strong expectations regarding similarities or differences regarding the other coded elements of the body (e.g., arm position).

Lastly, we aim to explore how similar emotions/attitudes in religious and general contexts are represented in the full body (e.g., thanksgiving and gratitude). We did not formulate specific hypotheses. Research Question 1: Are the postural dimensions and elements of the Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 11 body similar or different between religiously vs. secularly represented attitudes: Thanksgiving vs. Gratitude and Repentance; Confession vs. Guilt?

Other exploratory analyses: Some coded elements of postures (e.g., stability, certain arm positions) do not appear in our hypotheses and will be included in our analyses on an exploratory basis. Finally, we will explore postures representing Anger towards God. Although a negative emotion, anger is an approach-oriented emotion and could therefore be similarly looking to positive valence (Joy) and to more positive prayer orientations (Praise and

Thanksgiving).

Research on full body expressions has typically used actors to pose how they would express various emotions; this design, however, limits the number of informers to professional actors only (Wallbott, 1998). We therefore recruited lay people from the community instead and ask them to represent the full body postures they would assume to express various emotions by positioning accordingly a small, adjustable figurine (see Figure1). This design has the benefits of

1) being standardized (no difference in body height and weight to control for when analyzing the postures’ size on various dimensions), 2) removing concerns over physical limitations or discomfort, and 3) dampening self-presentation concerns.

Method

Participants. Participants (N = 146) were community members from the Durham, North

Carolina, area, recruited through a University participant pool. Given the topic of the present research, the analyses focus on a subsample (n = 93; 74.2% female, MAge = 27.88, SDAge = 11.15) with knowledge of Christianity (who are either currently Christian or who are not religious anymore but grew up Christian), although we note that results based on the entire sample are Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 12 virtually the same. The majority identified as White (55.9%; 25.8% African American, 10.8%

Asian, 7.5% other and 7.5% Hispanic/Latino).

Procedure. Participants were brought into the lab one at a time, were given a small mannequin, and received the following instructions: “For this study, I will name various feelings.

Please imagine the posture you would assume to represent that feeling and then adjust the mannequin into that same posture. Really think about the placement of your head, hands, back, torso, legs, feet, and toes and try to be as exact as possible when adjusting the mannequin.” A researcher asked the participant what posture they would adopt to represent [emotion name]. The researcher named a series of emotions (i.e., dominance, submission, joy, sadness, gratitude, and guilt; order of presentation randomized through Qualtrics), one at a time. The participant would then adjust the mannequin into a position similar to how they would express the emotion themselves. They were asked to think carefully about the placement of the head, back, torso, arms, hands, legs, feet, and toes and reminded that the mannequin could be standing, sitting, kneeling, or lying down (some participants also posed it as if in motion). Following, the instructions were repeated, however this time the researcher asked the participant to imagine that the mannequin was religious and asked to show the posture the mannequin would adopt to represent [prayer orientation name]. The researcher then named seven prayer orientations, one at a time (i.e., confession, praise, prayer, repentance, thanksgiving, worshiping God, a higher power or whatever you feel comfortable saying, and anger toward God, a higher power or whatever you feel comfortable saying; order of presentation randomized through Qualtrics). Once the participant indicated that they were done positioning the mannequin, the researcher would then take two standardized photographs of the mannequin: a front-facing photo (such that the hips were placed on a line perpendicular to the camera’s lens) and a side-facing photo (such that the Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 13 hips were placed on a line parallel to the camera’s lens). This was to ensure the mannequin was the same size and in the same location in every photograph. A stand was used if the mannequin could not balance on its own. The study lasted approximately 30 minutes and participants were compensated $6 USD for their participation. Other emotions were also presented and will continue to support other and related investigations (see full list here: https://osf.io/xnkv7/).

Measures.

Coding for elements of the body. Five distinct elements of the posture were coded: head position, arm position, lean and stability of the posture, and whether the posture was on the floor.

Only the front images were used to code the arm position, head position, stability, and on the floor. Only the side images were used to code for lean. See codebook for more detailed instructions: https://osf.io/643c2/.

Head Position. Three distinct head positions were coded for: straight (default), strong angle up, or angle down.

Arm Position. Twelve distinct arm positions were coded for: relaxed/down and close to the sides, forward reaching-with arms closed, forward reaching-with arms open, extended to the side in the three to nine o’clock range, extended to the side in the one to three and nine to eleven o’clock range, extended high in the eleven to one o’clock range, raised elbows bent at a 90 degree angle, arms akimbo (one or both hands on hips), hand(s) to head (touching or covering the head or face), arms folded, prayer hands, hand(s) to heart (one or both hands placed over the heart), or were coded as other/mixed.

Lean. The lean (or degree of bow) of the posture was coded into four categories: no strong lean (default), forward lean (by less than or equal to 45 degrees), deep bow (forward lean by greater than 45 degrees), and backwards lean. Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 14

Stability. The posture was coded as being stable or unstable. Postures were coded as unstable if the posture could not be held without falling over simply by using muscles, or if the posture looked like it was in motion.

On the Floor. Postures were coded as on the floor or not on the floor. On the floor meant that they were kneeling, sitting, or lying on the flooring. Sitting in a (imaginary) chair or a standing posture were not considered as on the floor.

Subsets of images were used to establish reliability between three coders who then independently coded the remaining images. Between each rounds to establish reliability, the coders discussed their disagreements and came to a common decision. For emotions of joy and dominance, which are presented in a separate manuscript focusing on full body expressions of specific positive emotions (Van Cappellen, Edwards, & Shiota, 2020), a first round of reliability was established on 30 images, and showing 100% agreement for on the floor, 72% for arm positions, 84% for head positions, and 94% for stability, which was deemed reliable and coders proceeded with the rest of the images. Another team of coders coded lean on an initial subset of

60 images and showed 68% agreement, which jumped to 85% after coding another round of 120 images. This team also coded all prayer orientations and other emotions and reached 97.1% agreement for on the floor, 52.4% for arm positions, 80.5% for head positions, 91.4% for stability, and 54.8% for lean after coding an initial subset of 210 postures. These numbers improved after coding a second set of 50 images (on the floor 96.30% agreement, arm position

62.96%, head position 94.44%, stability 96.30, lean 88.89%) and a final set of 50 images for arm positions (70%) and lean (74%).

Because some coded categories may not be represented frequently among the selected emotions/attitudes presented here, we used the following (pre-registered) formal criteria to Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 15 decide whether to consolidate these rarely used codes into an “other” category: a Chi-Square test with all the selected emotions/attitudes on each coded category with more than two levels (e.g., arm position) was run and for any coded element within that category showing an expected count of less than 5, the element was recoded as “other.” Therefore, within the category of arm positions, “extended to the side in the three to nine o’clock range”, “raise elbows bent at a 90- degree angle”, “arms folded” and “hand to heart” were recoded as “other.” “Arms akimbo” and

“arms extended high” showed an expected count of less than 5 in this sample but were maintained because they represent distinct arm positions characterizing dominance and joy postures. No other categories contained an expected count less than 5.

Exact measurements of space. Each posture was analyzed using an image processing program, ImageJ (Schneider et al., 2012), in order to derive the posture’s height, width, and total area (in units of cm) the mannequin takes up. Only front facing images of the mannequin were used.

Subjective perceptions of space. Lastly, we collected subjective evaluations of these same spatial dimensions. Coders (N = 352) were recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk and paid $3.50 USD. The MTurkers needed to be U.S. citizens and have a 97% approval rate in order to complete the task. During the task, they were presented with the front and side facing images of the mannequin at the same time, but were not given the emotion label the posture was supposedly representing. The coders were asked to rate how much overall space the mannequin is taking up (0 = as little as possible to 100 = as much as possible), how much vertical space the mannequin is taking up (0 = as little as possible to 100 = as much as possible), and how expansive the mannequin is (-50 = very constrictive to 50 = very expansive). The coders only rated 35 postures each to reduce any burn out effects. Approximately two to nine MTurkers rated Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 16 each posture (we were targeting five coders per posture, however with the nature of the programming and MTurk data collection, this led to receiving an approximate range). The multiple coders’ rating were averaged to create one mean score for each dimension of space.

Mturkers were also asked to code other aspects of the posture such as head position that are not used here because we used trained coders to get more reliable coding. They also responded to questions related to their perceptions of the personality and emotions of the mannequin, which will serve other and related investigations. See full codebook and data collection preregistration here: https://osf.io/fujc2/.

Results

Analysis Strategy

First, to compare how frequently each coded elements of the body is represented for each emotion and prayer orientation posture, we used Cochran’s Q analyses, followed by pairwise comparisons with Bonferonni corrections. A Cochran’s Q test is similar to a Chi-square test but for a within-subject design. For these analyses, the data were set up such that each code (e.g., up) for a specific component of the body (e.g., head orientation) is coded as present (e.g., head up) vs. not present (e.g., all other options). Second, the dimensions of space (exact measurements and subjective perceptions of space) were analyzed using multiple one-way repeated measure

ANOVAs, followed by pairwise comparisons with Sidak corrections. Because the results for subjective perceptions of space mirrored those of the exact measurements, we only report descriptives and results in the Online Supplemental Material (OSM), see Figure S1 and Tables

S1-4.

Representing Prayer vs. Worship in the Full Body

To test Hypothesis 1, we compared full body postures representing prayer and worship. Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 17

See Table 1 for the frequency count of the coded variables (components of the body) and Figure

2 for means and standard error of exact measurement of space. Supporting H1a and H1b, we found that prayer and worship are expressed using clearly distinct postures: prayer is expressed with postures that are constrictive (objectively and subjectively perceived as taking less vertical, horizontal, and overall space; arms in prayer hands or reaching forward closed) and oriented downward (head down, leaning forward, and positioned on the floor; for instance, a kneeling position). Meanwhile, worship is expressed with postures that are expansive (occupying more horizontal, vertical, and overall space; arms extending to the side, reaching forward in an open manner) and oriented upward (head up, leaning backward, arms extended high).

Representing Different Prayer Orientations in the Full Body Compared to Valence and

Dominance

We compared the five prayer orientations (praise, thanksgiving, repentance, confession, and anger towards God) between each other and to emotions varying on valence (i.e., joy and sadness) and dominance (i.e., dominance and submission) in order to test Hypotheses 2 and 3.

See Table 2 for the frequency count and tests related to the coded variables (components of the body) as well as descriptives and tests on exact measurement of space.

Supporting H2a and H2b, postures of praise (joy and admiration to God) and thanksgiving (gratitude to God) tended to be expressed through postures that are more expansive

(objectively and subjectively perceived taking less vertical, horizontal, and overall space) and oriented upward (head up) than postures of confession and repentance (guilt and shame toward

God), which were more constrictive and oriented downward (head down, forward lean, represented on the floor). In addition, we found that praise appeared to be a more fervent version of thanksgiving (occupying even more vertical, horizontal, and overall space; arms are extended Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 18 to the side and extended high with even greater frequency for praise than thanksgiving), while repentance was a more intense form of confession (deep bow is a feature of repentance more so than confession).

H3a was only partially supported. Postures of joy (positive valence) took up more vertical, horizontal, and overall space than any other postures, but were directly followed by postures of praise and thanksgiving. Postures of dominance (high dominance) occupied less horizontal and overall space as postures of praise but similar space as postures of thanksgiving.

In short, praise postures corresponded to a smaller version of joy postures but to a bigger version of dominance postures. Thanksgiving was a smaller version of both joy and praise but similar to dominance. Postures of confession and repentance occupied even less vertical, horizontal and overall space than postures of sadness (negative valence). Meanwhile, H3b was largely supported. Postures of submission (low dominance) were taking the same space on all dimensions as postures of confession and repentance. In short, confession and repentance postures resemble those of submission on most dimensions of space (both objective and subjective), while postures of praise were between postures of joy (positive valence) and postures of dominance.

Beyond these findings on the dimensions of space, we explored specific body features associated with each feeling and found some interesting patterns. The arm positions showed some clear distinctions between each feeling with joy expressed with arms extended to side, sadness with hands to the head, dominance with arms akimbo, and all prayer orientations shared a greater use of prayer hands. Postures of submission, sadness, repentance, and confession were all represented on the floor at a relatively high frequency compared to the other feelings, further suggesting their shared downward orientation. In the same line, forward lean is a feature of Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 19 repentance, sadness, and submission postures while a deep bow is also a feature of repentance and submission, further suggesting that repentance is a more intense form of confession.

Finally, anger toward God was included in our analyses on an exploratory basis. We found that it was expressed with big postures (among the highest for vertical, horizontal, and overall space), similar to those of dominance and praise. It was also represented with the head up the most often and with a backward lean (same frequency as for postures of praise), clearly showing in the body the target of the anger. We also note that anger toward God was sometimes represented with arms akimbo (6% of the time), a feature of dominance postures (40% of the time), whereas the other prayer orientations were virtually never represented as such. In addition, anger toward God was the only prayer orientation to effectively never be represented with prayer hands.

Representing Thanksgiving vs. Gratitude in the Full Body

In relation to Research Question 1, we were interested in differences between the prayer orientation of thanksgiving (gratitude to God) and its specific emotion gratitude. See Table 3 for all descriptives and significance testing. Overall, we found very little differences. Gratitude postures are more often represented with a forward lean and less with the head oriented upward than Thanksgiving postures.

Representing Confession and Repentance vs. Guilt in the Full Body

Finally, we were interested in how postures for the prayer orientations of confession and repentance differ from postures representing a related specific emotion, guilt. As we saw before, confession and repentance did not vary much in how they were represented with the body, thus below we will focus on discussing how guilt is related to the two prayer orientations (although including guilt in these analyses resulted in slightly different post-hoc tests and a few differences Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 20 between confession and repentance became significant, these will not be the focus of our description). See Table 4 for all descriptives and significance testing.

Confession and repentance were represented more often on the floor, with prayer hands, and with the head oriented up (although not frequently) than guilt. Instead of using prayer hands, guilt was more often expressed with hands to head (28% percent of the time).

Discussion

For millions of people worldwide, emotions are expressed daily in the context of prayer to their God. These prayers both communicate one’s emotions and trigger the re-experience of these emotions (Corwin & Brown, 2020). With many prayers being silent (i.e., nonverbal), communication through the body is clearly evident. Despite the prevalence of this phenomenon, no empirical research (to our knowledge) has documented the nonverbal expressions associated with even the most common prayer orientations such as praise or repentance. The present study aimed to provide preliminary information about full body postures used to express common prayer orientations in a Christian context, as well as how they compare with postural representations of emotions presented in a non-religious context and varying on valence and dominance.

In sum, we found that postures representing prayers of different emotional registers do vary in meaningful and predictable ways. We documented their use of space (vertical, horizontal, and total) and coded specific body components (head and arm positions, lean, stability, and position on the floor or not) with the intention of capturing two broad postural dimensions: expansiveness/constrictiveness of the body and upward/downward body orientation. Overall, we find that positively valenced prayer orientations of praise and to a lesser extent of thanksgiving were represented with more expansive and oriented upward postures. For praise, these postures Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 21 were smaller than postures of joy (positive valence) but bigger than those of dominance. As we had anticipated, we did not find that these more positively valenced prayer orientations were expressed through smaller postures because they might resemble those of dominance. Despite being even bigger versions of the postures of dominance, it is unlikely that they are meant to convey dominance in this particular context, but may explain some discussions in religious communities about the appropriateness of using these more expansive postures. In addition, negatively valenced prayer orientations of repentance and confession were represented with more constrictive and oriented downward postures, even smaller to those of sadness (negative valence) and similar to those of submission (low dominance). We also explored and documented the postural expression of anger toward God, which corresponded to very large postures, head up, backward lean, and the only prayer orientation never represented with prayer hands. In addition, these analyses provide novel descriptive information regarding nonverbal expressions of gratitude, that has not, to our knowledge, been the target of such research (research on positive emotion generally targets joy and pride). We found that the emotion of gratitude is expressed most frequently with a stable position (100% of the time), with head straight (49% of the time) or up (44% of the time), with arms in a forward reach position or using prayer hands (together, 62% of the time), no lean, and sometimes on the floor (only 20% of the time).

These results on how people express in the full body various prayer orientations complement our work on how the adoption of certain full body postures while attending a

Sunday worship service relates to the overall engagement with various prayer orientations during that same service. In that work we had found that more frequent report of adopting upward and expansive postures during worship service is related to more engagement with praise (but not thanksgiving) and feeling more positive and high arousal affect, while adopting intense Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 22 downward and constrictive postures (such as kneeling) is related to more engagement with confession (but not repentance), and negative affect (Van Cappellen et al., in press). We explain elsewhere the many implications that positive emotions have when they are experienced during religious practices (Van Cappellen, Edwards, & Fredrickson, 2020).

This research is limited in multiple ways, which we will now address. We conducted this research in the U.S. and among a sample with knowledge of Christianity (who are either currently Christian or who are not religious anymore but grew up Christian). We believe this to be a good place to start this investigation (knowing that no research exists on this topic yet) considering that within Christianity there is relatively more freedom in how people pray compared to other religions that are much more regulated, such as Islam. However, the present results are limited to the specific cultural and religious context of this study. We also find that the method deployed here – asking participants to position a mannequin – was helpful in gathering a wide variety of postures from lay people using a standardized method while also sidestepping potential problems related to discomfort and self-presentation concerns. However, similar to other methods requiring people to pose expressions rather than observing naturally occurring ones, this method is limited by the fact that the postures generated may represent the schemas of how these emotions are supposed to be expressed instead of how they are naturally expressed

(which can also be influenced by people around and tacit display rules). Another limitation of our research is the lack of engagement and comparison with emotions varying on the arousal dimension as well as with other common prayer orientations such as supplication or intercession

(Ladd & Spilka, 2002). Finally, our results are restricted to the features of the static body we could analyze with our mannequin. Ironically, a criticism of the research on facial expression is to not take into account the rest of the body, yet the present research focuses on the full body Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 23 while ignoring facial expressions. Indeed, as the mannequin’s face can’t be modified from its neutral expression, participants had to represent the emotions with the body only and we could not investigate any interactions between body and face (Witkower & Tracy, 2019b). Future research may also want to use more comprehensive observational coding systems to document components of the body and movement missing in this research (Dael, Mortillaro, et al., 2012).

Our results have implications for our understanding of embodied processes in religious practice (Barsalou et al., 2005; Soliman et al., 2015; Van Cappellen & Edwards, 2021).

Importantly, psychologists’ explanation for the benefits of religiosity (e.g., well-being and happiness, Newman & Graham, 2018) and for the negative influence of religiosity (e.g., antisocial behavior due to compliance, Saroglou et al., 2009) typically focuses on the cognitive aspects of religious beliefs and meaning system but omits the role of embodiment. However, a large body of research in embodied cognition highlights the role of bodily input/construction of our feelings, attitudes, and thoughts (Barsalou, 2010). Documenting the postures associated with religious practice is a first step in better understanding how these postures may support or even promote particular religious experiences. These results also have implications for the literature on full-body expressions of emotions, providing needed data from lay people, and considering the role of context in how emotions are expressed in the body. The present research investigates emotions expressed toward a non-human target, a supernatural being who is not visible like human targets, omniscient and omnipotent. This research further speaks to previous work showing that adopting certain postures elicit different effects depending on the context in which they are assumed and/or their attributed symbolic meaning (Cesario & McDonald, 2013; Cohen

& Leung, 2009; Park et al., 2013). Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 24

In closing, we highlight that the present results add to our limited knowledge of postural expressions of emotions, particularly that of positive emotions, and that of emotions experience in a common context: the communication with a god.

Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 25

Table 1

Percentage of all Prayer and Worship Postures Falling Under Each Coded Components of the

Body and Means (Standard Deviation) for Postures Representing the Prayer and Worship with

Tests of Significance from a One-way Repeated Measure ANOVA (N = 93)

Prayer Worship Test of Sig. Head Position % % Straight 22.58 23.66 Cochran’s Q (1) = .03, p = .857 Up 6.45 51.61 Cochran’s Q (1) = 36.75, p < .001 Down 70.97 24.73 Cochran’s Q (1) = 36.26, p < .001

Arm Position Relaxed 4.30 3.23 Cochran’s Q (1) = .2, p = .655 Forward reach, closed 8.60 2.15 Cochran’s Q (1) = 4.5, p = .034 Forward reach, open 0 13.98 Cochran’s Q (1) = 13, p < .001 Extended to Side, 1-3/9-11 0 17.20 Cochran’s Q (1) = 16, p < .001 Extended High 0 5.38 Cochran’s Q (1) = 5, p = .025 Akimbo 1.08 0 Cochran’s Q (1) = 1, p = .317 Hands to head 1.08 0 Cochran’s Q (1) = 1, p = .317 Prayer Hands 73.12 23.66 Cochran’s Q (1) = 42.32, p < .001 Other 9.68 33.33 Cochran’s Q (1) = 15.13, p < .001 Lean No lean 52.69 43.01 Cochran’s Q (1) = 1.88, p = .170 Forwards lean 30.11 12.90 Cochran’s Q (1) = 8.53, p = .003 Deep bow 4.30 7.53 Cochran’s Q (1) = 1.29, p = .257 Backwards lean 11.83 36.56 Cochran’s Q (1) = 15.11, p < .001 Stability Unstable 0 1.08 Cochran’s Q (1) = 1.00, p = .317 On the Floor Yes 86.02 43.01 Cochran’s Q (1) = 27.59, p < .001 Exact Measurements M (SD) M (SD) 2 Area 45.66 (8.50) 96.41 (48.82) F (1, 92) = 100.36, p < .001, ηp =.522 2 Width 4.60 (0.66) 7.09 (2.68) F (1, 92) = 74.39, p < .001, ηp =.447 2 Height 10.01 (1.69) 13.12 (3.40) F (1, 92) = 65.36, p < .001, ηp =.415 Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 26

Table 2

Percentage of all Postures Falling Under Each Coded Components of the Body with Cochran’s Q tests and Means (Standard

Deviation) for all Postures’ Space Measurements with Tests of Significance from a One-way Repeated Measure ANOVA and Sidak

Post-Hoc Tests (n = 93)

Praise Thanks- Repentance Confession Anger Joy Sadness Dominance Submission Test of Sig. giving toward God Head Position % % % % % % % % % Straight 31.18ab 48.39bc 26.88a 35.48abc 27.96a 56.99cd 20.43a 70.97d 21.51a Cochran’s Q (8) = 98.21, p < .001 Up 63.44bc 44.09b 7.53a 12.90a 65.59c 43.01b 2.15a 19.35a 4.30a Cochran’s Q (8) = 224.93, p < .001 Down 5.38a 7.53a 64.52bc 50.54b 6.45a 0a 77.42c 9.68a 73.12bc Cochran’s Q (8) = 344.60, p < .001 Arm Position Relaxed 1.08a 1.08a 8.60a 32.26b 3.23a 3.23a 27.96b 7.53a 32.26b Cochran’s Q (8) = 122.43, p < .001 Forward reach, 5.38ab 16.13b 10.75ab 11.83ab 2.15a 1.08a 6.45ab 2.15a 11.83ab Cochran’s Q (8) = closed 30.68, p < .001 Forward reach, 11.83bc 19.35c 0a 2.15ab 9.68abc 6.45ab 2.15ab 4.30ab 5.38ab Cochran’s Q (8) = open 42.86, p < .001 Extended to 25.81b 8.60a 1.08a 0a 12.90ab 50.54c 0a 1.08a 0a Cochran’s Q (8) = Side, 218.58, p < .001 1-3/9-11 Extended High 20.43b 1.08a 3.23a 0a 3.23a 18.28b 0a 1.08a 0a Cochran’s Q (8) = 96.90, p < .001 Akimbo 0a 0a 0a 0a 6.45a 0a 0a 39.78b 0a Cochran’s Q (8) = 254.02, p < .001 Hands to head 0a 2.15a 9.68a 3.23a 8.60a 1.08a 41.94b 2.15a 3.23a Cochran’s Q (8) = 171.97, p < .001 Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 27

Prayer Hands 7.53ab 22.58c 29.03c 20.43bc 0a 0a 0a 0a 3.23a Cochran’s Q (8) = 122.67, p < .001 Other 27.96ab 29.03ab 36.56ab 29.03ab 53.76c 19.35a 21.51ab 41.94bc 43.01bc Cochran’s Q (8) = 41.97, p < .001 Lean No lean 51.61abc 68.82cd 37.63ab 55.91abc 58.06bc 74.19cd 44.09ab 79.57d 30.11a Cochran’s Q (8) = 83.36, p < .001 Forwards lean 3.23ab 4.30ab 33.33cd 20.43bc 5.38ab 2.15a 41.94d 8.60ab 32.26cd Cochran’s Q (8) = 125.73, p < .001 Deep bow 0a 0a 15.05b 4.30a 2.15a 0a 3.23a 0a 20.43b Cochran’s Q (8) = 90.00, p < .001 Backwards lean 45.16d 24.73bc 12.90a 18.28bc 34.41cd 23.66bc 10.75a 10.75a 16.13ab Cochran’s Q (8) = 60.09, p < .001 Stability Unstable 2.15a 0a 1.08a 0a 2.15a 18.28b 3.23a 1.08a 2.15a Cochran’s Q (8) = 77.85, p < .001 On the Floor Yes 19.35ab 19.35ab 67.74e 58.06de 26.88bc 2.15a 45.16cd 0a 75.27e Cochran’s Q (8) = 261.79, p < .001 Exact M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Measurements

Area 115.23 90.31 54.35 51.57 107.42 140.49 56.72 95.77 50.33 F (4.42, 397.78) = (41.21)c (40.49)b (22.08)a (10.37)a (53.94)bc (35.39)d (16.88)a (21.99)b (18.56)a 97.80, p < .001, 2 ηp = .521 Width 7.59 6.64 5.05 (1.17)ab 4.83 (.51)a 7.11 8.82 5.77 6.45 (1.37)c 5.32 (1.46)ab F (5.70, 513.02) = (2.43)e (2.67)cd (1.91)cde (2.29)f (1.95)b 46.21, p < .001, 2 ηp = .339 Height 15.06 13.57 10.68 (2.99)c 10.66 15.38 16.01 10.46 14.81 (.61)c 9.71 (3.18)a F (2.05, 184.10) = (2.11)c (2.05)b (1.81)a (9.36)bcd (1.31)d (3.71)a 40.44, p < .001, 2 ηp = .310 Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 28

Table 3

Percentage of all Thanksgiving and Gratitude Postures Falling Under Each Coded Components of the Body

Thanksgiving Gratitude Cochran’s Q Test Head Position Straight 48.39 56.99 Cochran’s Q (1) = 1.28, p = .258 Up 44.09 29.03 Cochran’s Q (1) = 4.67, p = .031 Down 7.53 13.98 Cochran’s Q (1) = 2.25, p = .134 Arm Position Relaxed 1.08 1.08 Cochran’s Q (1) = 0, p = 1 Forward reach, Cochran’s Q (1) = .93, p = .336 closed 16.13 21.51 Forward reach, Cochran’s Q (1) = .04, p = .835 open 19.35 18.28 Extended to Side, Cochran’s Q (1) = 3.6, p = .058 1-3/9-11 8.60 2.15 Extended High 1.08 2.15 Cochran’s Q (1) = 1, p = .317 Akimbo 0 0 N/A Hands to head 2.15 1.08 Cochran’s Q (1) = .33, p = .564 Prayer Hands 22.58 22.58 Cochran’s Q (1) = 0, p = 1 Other 29.03 31.18 Cochran’s Q (1) = .10, p = .752 Lean No lean 68.82 67.74 Cochran’s Q (1) = .03, p = .873 Forwards lean 4.30 13.98 Cochran’s Q (1) = 6.23, p = .013 Deep bow 0 3.23 Cochran’s Q (1) = 3.00, p = .083 Backwards lean 24.73 15.05 Cochran’s Q (1) = 2.61, p = .106 Stability Unstable 0 0 N/A On the Floor Yes 19.35 20.43 Cochran’s Q (1) = .037, p = .847 Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 29

Table 4

Percentage of all Repentance, Confession, and Guilt Postures Falling Under Each Coded

Components of the Body

Repentance Confession Guilt Cochran’s Q Test Head Position Straight 26.88 35.48 29.03 Cochran’s Q (2) = 1.96, p = .375 Up 7.53ab 12.90b 2.15a Cochran’s Q (2) = 7.14, p = .028 Down 64.52ab 50.54a 68.82b Cochran’s Q (2) = 7.52, p = .023 Arm Position Relaxed 8.60a 32.26b 35.48b Cochran’s Q (2) = 21.50, p < .001 Forward reach, Cochran’s Q (2) = 3.10, p = .212 closed 10.75 11.83 5.38 Forward reach, Cochran’s Q (2) = 4.00, p = .135 open 0 2.15 0 Extended to Side, Cochran’s Q (2) = 2.00, p = .368 1-3/9-11 1.08 0 0 Extended High 3.23 0 0 Cochran’s Q (2) = 6.00, p = .050 Akimbo 0 0 0 N/A Hands to head 9.68a 3.23a 27.96b Cochran’s Q (2) = 25.88, p < .001 Prayer Hands 29.03b 20.43b 0a Cochran’s Q (2) = 28.85, p < .001 Other 36.56 29.03 31.18 Cochran’s Q (2) = 1.35, p = .510 Lean No lean 37.63a 55.91b 52.69ab Cochran’s Q (2) = 7.49, p = .024 Forwards lean 33.33ab 20.43a 39.78b Cochran’s Q (2) = 8.26, p = .016 Deep bow 15.05b 4.30a 2.15a Cochran’s Q (2) = 12.40, p = .002 Backwards lean 12.90ab 18.28b 5.38a Cochran’s Q (2) = 7.52, p = .023 Stability Unstable 1.08 0 0 Cochran’s Q (2) = 2.00, p = .368 On the Floor Yes 67.74b 58.06b 15.05a Cochran’s Q (2) = 56.69, p < .001

Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 30

Figure 1

Examples of Postures Using the Mannequin (from left to right): Worship, Praise, Thanksgiving,

Prayer, Repentance, and Confession

Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 31

Figure 2

Exact Measurements of Area, Height, and Width for All Attitudes.

160 140 120 100 80 60

Area (cm) Area 40 20 0

Joy Guilt Praise Prayer Sadness Worship Gratitude Confession DominanceAngertoGod Repentance Submission Thanksgiving

18 16 14 12 10 8 6

Height (cm) Height 4 2 0

Joy Guilt Praise Prayer Sadness Worship Gratitude Dominance RepentanceConfession Submission Thanksgiving AngertoGod

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Width (cm) Width 2 1 0

Joy Guilt Praise Prayer Sadness Worship Gratitude Dominance RepentanceConfession Submission Thanksgiving AngertoGod Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 32

References

Adams Jr, R. B., Ambady, N., Macrae, C. N., & Kleck, R. E. (2006). Emotional expressions

forecast approach-avoidance behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 179-188.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9020-2

Bänziger, T., Mortillaro, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Introducing the Geneva multimodal

expression corpus for experimental research on emotion perception. Emotion, 12(5),

1161.

Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive

Science, 2(4), 716-724.

Barsalou, L. W., Barbey, A. K., Simmons, W. K., & Santos, A. (2005). Embodiment in religious

knowledge. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 5(1), 14-57.

Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2006). Nonverbal expressions of dominance and power in

human relationships. In V. Manusov & M. Patterson (Eds.), The Sage handbook of

nonverbal communication (pp. 279-297). Sage.

Campos, B., Shiota, M. N., Keltner, D., Gonzaga, G. C., & Goetz, J. L. (2013). What is shared,

what is different? Core relational themes and expressive displays of eight positive

emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 27(1), 37-52.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.683852

Cesario, J., & McDonald, M. M. (2013). Bodies in context: Power poses as a computation of

action possibility. Social Cognition, 31(2), 260-274.

Chaves, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2014). Changing American congregations: Findings from the

third wave of the National Congregations Study. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 53(4), 676-686. Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 33

Cohen, D., & Leung, A. K.-Y. (2009). The hard embodiment of culture. European Journal of

Social Psychology, 39(7), 1278-1289. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.671

Corwin, A. I., & Brown, T. W. (2020). Emotion in the language of prayer. In S. E. Pritzker, J.

Fenigsen, & J. M. Wilce (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Emotion (pp.

325-343). Routledge.

Coulson, M. (2004). Attributing emotion to static body postures: Recognition accuracy,

confusions, and viewpoint dependence. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 28(2), 117-139.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JONB.0000023655.25550.be

Cowen, A. S., & Keltner, D. (2020). What the face displays: Mapping 28 emotions conveyed by

naturalistic expression. American Psychologist, 75(3), 349.

Darwin, C. (1872). The expression of emotions in animals and man. Murray.

De Gelder, B. (2016). Emotions and the Body. Oxford University Press.

Exline, J. J., Park, C. L., Smyth, J. M., & Carey, M. P. (2011). Anger toward God: Social-

cognitive predictors, prevalence, and links with adjustment to bereavement and cancer.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(1), 129-148.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021716

Hammond, C. (2015). The Sound of the Liturgy: How Words Work in Worship. SPCK.

Hareli, S., Shomrat, N., & Hess, U. (2009). Emotional versus neutral expressions and perceptions

of social dominance and submissiveness. Emotion, 9(3), 378-384.

Jones, J. (2019). Living religion: Embodiment, theology, and the possibility of a spiritual sense.

Oxford University Press.

Keltner, D. (1995). Signs of appeasement: Evidence for the distinct displays of embarrassment,

amusement, and shame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 441. Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 34

Keltner, D., Sauter, D., Tracy, J., & Cowen, A. (2019). Emotional expression: Advances in basic

emotion theory [journal article]. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 43(2), 133-160.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10919-019-00293-3

Ladd, K. L., & Spilka, B. (2002). Inward, outward, and upward: Cognitive aspects of prayer.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(3), 475-484.

Mehrabian, A. (1972). Nonverbal communication. Aldine Transaction.

Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Friesen, C. K., & Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What's 'up'

with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 93(5), 699-710. A6 http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2007-15390-

001&site=ehost-live

Newman, D. B., & Graham, J. (2018). Religion and Well-being. In E. Diener, S. Oishi, & L. Tay

(Eds.), Handbook of well-being. DEF Publishers. https://doi.org/nobascholar.com

Niedenthal, P. M., Rychlowska, M., & Wood, A. (2017). Feelings and contexts: Socioecological

influences on the nonverbal expression of emotion. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17,

170-175. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.07.025

Park, L. E., Streamer, L., Huang, L., & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). Stand tall, but don't put your feet

up: Universal and culturally-specific effects of expansive postures on power. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 965-971.

Pew Research Center. (2014). Global religious landscape. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-

landscape-study/ Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 35

Pew Research Center. (2018). The age gap in religion around the world.

https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/how-religious-commitment-varies-by-country-

among-people-of-all-ages/

Reed, L. I., DeScioli, P., & Pinker, S. A. (2014). The commitment function of angry facial

expressions. Psychological Science, 25(8), 1511-1517.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614531027

Saroglou, V., Corneille, O., & Van Cappellen, P. (2009). Speak, Lord, Your servant is listening :

Religious priming activates submissive thoughts and behaviors. International Journal for

the Psychology of Religion, 19, 143-154. C1

Sauter, D. A. (2017). The nonverbal communication of positive emotions: An emotion family

approach. Emotion Review, 9(3), 222-234.

Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S., & Eliceiri, K. W. (2012). NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of

image analysis. Nature Methods, 9(7), 671-675.

Soliman, T. M., Johnson, K. A., & Song, H. (2015). It’s not “all in your head” Understanding

religion from an embodied cognition perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science,

10(6), 852-864.

Spilka, B., & Ladd, K. L. (2013). The psychology of prayer: A scientific approach. Guilford

Press.

Tiedens, L. Z., Ellsworth, P. C., & Mesquita, B. (2000). Sentimental stereotypes: Emotional

expectations for high-and low-status group members. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 26(5), 560-575. Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 36

Tracy, J. L., & Matsumoto, D. (2008). The spontaneous expression of pride and shame: Evidence

for biologically innate nonverbal displays. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 105(33), 11655-11660.

Tracy, J. L., Shariff, A. F., Zhao, W., & Henrich, J. (2013). Cross-cultural evidence that the

nonverbal expression of pride is an automatic status signal. Journal of Experimental

Psychology: General, 142, 163-180.

Tsakiridis, G. (2013). Guilt and the science of emotion: How does prayer fit? Zygon, 48(4), 890-

907. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-9744 (Subscriber

access); https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a6h&AN=ATLA0001960715&site=eh

ost-live&scope=site

Van Cappellen, P., Cassidy, S., & Zhang, R. (in press). Religion as an embodied practice:

Organizing the various forms and documenting the meanings of Christian prayer

postures. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality.

Van Cappellen, P., & Edwards, M. E. (2021). The embodiment of worship: Relations among

postural, psychological, and physiological aspects of religious practice. Journal for the

Cognitive Science of Religion, 6(1-2), 56-79.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1558/jcsr.38683

Van Cappellen, P., Edwards, M. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2020). Upward spirals of positive

emotions and religious behaviors. Current Opinion in Psychological Science, Online

ahead of print. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.09.004 Running Head: PRAYERS, EMOTIONS, AND THE BODY 37

Van Cappellen, P., Edwards, M. E., & Shiota, M. N. (2020). Shades of expansiveness: How are

positive emotions and dominance expressed and perceived in the full body? [Manuscript

in preparation]. Duke University.

Wallbott, H. G. (1998). Bodily expression of emotion. European Journal of Social Psychology,

28, 879–896.

Witkower, Z., Mercadante, E. J., & Tracy, J. L. (2020). How affect shapes status: Distinct

emotional experiences and expressions facilitate social hierarchy navigation. Current

Opinion in Psychology, 33, 18-22.

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.006

Witkower, Z., & Tracy, J. L. (2019). Bodily communication of emotion: Evidence for extrafacial

behavioral expressions and available coding systems. Emotion Review, 11(2), 184-193.

Witkower, Z., & Tracy, J. L. (2019b). A facial-action imposter: How head tilt influences

perceptions of dominance from a neutral face. Psychological Science, 30(6), 893-906.