Postural Sway Dynamics and Complexity Matching during the

Disclosure of a Concealable Stigmatized Identity

Rachel W. Kallen

, Hannah M. Douglas

, Stephanie R. Chaudoir

and Michael J. Richardson

Center for Cognition Action and Perception, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.

Department of Psychology, The College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Keywords: Postural Sway, Concealable Stigmatized Identity, Complexity Matching, Fractal Scaling.

Abstract: This positional paper is the first of its kind to provide a framework to bridge the gap between disclosure

research and embodied cognition via postural sway behavior. Despite the potential for experiencing

discrimination or stigmatization, research suggests that revealing a concealable stigmatized identity (CSI),

or any identity that can be hidden but when revealed has the potential for social devaluation, often leads to

positive psychological and interpersonal outcomes. However, this typically only happens when a disclosure

confidant provides support in response to disclosure. Therefore, this work aims to uncover how someone’s

antecedent goals (either approach or avoidance oriented) can impact the disclosure event using an embodied

perspective whereby goal orientation has the propensity to affect unconscious behaviors such as postural

sway. Healthy adults typically exhibit complex, fractal sway behaviors; therefore, any loss of complexity

could be associated with maladaptive disclosure motivations. Finally, we suggest a future plan of research

aimed at capturing the disclosure confidant’s perception of the disclosure event and if they are more likely

to exhibit complexity matching in their postural sway behaviors as a function of disclosure motivation.

1 INTRODUCTION

This paper presents an embodied cognition

perspective to the process of disclosing a

concealable stigmatized identity (CSI) A CSI is any

identity that can be hidden and that socially devalues

individuals in possession of such an identity (e.g.,

substance abuse disorder, sexual identity, mental

illness, etc.). Stigmatized identities may differ in the

degree of social stigmatization, interpersonal and life

outcomes, and those living with a CSI continually

face opportunities to disclose their identity across

multiple domains (e.g., family life/work life). While

there is the potential for negative outcomes such as

rejection by friends and family (Corrigan and

Matthews, 2003), discrimination (Kaufman and

Johnson, 2004), and less upward mobility in the

workplace (Clair et al., 2005), disclosure is also

associated with positive outcomes including

increased social support (Chaudoir and Quinn,

2010), better adherence to medication regimens

(Mellins et al., 2002), and overall higher quality of

life (Chaudoir and Fisher, 2010). However, these

beneficial effects typically only arise when a

confidant responds positively to the discloser and

provides emotional support and understanding. In

addition to intra- and interpersonal benefits, research

suggests sharing information about typically hidden

identities also facilitates greater understanding and

acceptance of traditionally marginalized identities,

and the characteristics associated with them. As

such, research must continue to determine important

factors that can lead to positive disclosure outcomes.

Given that decisions to disclose a CSI can be

complicated, it is widely understood that disclosure

events are almost always goal oriented (Omarzu,

2000). Thus, people share stigmatizing identities

with a specific goal or expected outcomes in mind

(e.g., strengthening a relationship, seeking treatment,

simply relief in ‘getting it off one’s chest’). As such,

this paper provides results of research suggesting

antecedent goals influence embodied experiences of

disclosure events whereby antecedent goals

demonstrate differential effects on the fractal scaling

of postural sway during those disclosure events. We

argue that this complex social phenomenon is an

embodied process, embedded in a social

environment such that disclosure goals have the

ability to affect this process at multiple levels,

including unconscious communication through

physical or social behavior. We also present research

Kallen, R., Douglas, H., Chaudoir, S. and Richardson, M.

Postural Sway Dynamics and Complexity Matching during the Disclosure of a Concealable Stigmatized Identity.

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Complex Information Systems (COMPLEXIS 2016), pages 89-94

ISBN: 978-989-758-181-6

aimed at uncovering how unconscious behaviors

(i.e. postural sway—minute movement variability

during quiet stance) may impact a confidant’s

reaction to a disclosure event. We propose that a

confidant may attune to subtle changes in postural

sway and that this nonverbal information may in

turn influence the interaction itself, such that a loss

of complexity in postural sway may decrease the

degree to which movements of the confidant become

globally entrained (complexity matched) to those of

the discloser. Consequently, it is likely that the

participants in the disclosure event will therefore be

less likely to consider the disclosure event a positive

one. Finally, we will examine complexity matching

of postural sway behavior between the discloser and

confidant. Not only does this offer a novel data

analysis tool to further the CSI literature, but to date,

no research has examined complexity matching

between two individuals specific to postural sway

during such higher order social interaction.

1.1 Approach-Avoidance Motivation

Chaudoir and Fisher (2010) proposed that goals for

disclosure events are motivated by approach or

avoidance oriented systems, whereby approach goals

are associated with achieving positive outcomes and

avoidance goals are associated with avoiding

negative outcomes. Initial research on approach and

avoidance motivational systems suggests they are

characterized by their valence (positive/negative)

toward potential outcomes or environmental stimuli

(Elliot, 1999). Furthermore, research suggests those

with strong approach goals exhibit more attention

toward incentive cues, while those with strong

avoidance goals exhibit bias toward negative cues

(Derryberry and Reed, 1994). For instance, Gable

and Impett (2012) found individuals typically

motivated by approach goals, such as the desire to

increase intimacy, experience greater long-term

relationship satisfaction and relationship outcomes.

Conversely, if just one partner is avoidance oriented,

both partners experience less relationship

satisfaction and poorer relationship outcomes. Thus,

when extended to the disclosure process, it follows

that individuals who disclose with approach goals in

mind are more likely to experience more positive

intra- and inter-personal outcomes when compared

with individuals with avoidant orientations

(Chaudoir and Fisher, 2010). Related research

suggests that motivational goals also result in

differential exploration of the environment. Those

with approach orientations are interested in

“reducing the discrepancy between themselves and

their goal” (e.g., closing the gap between discloser

and confidant; Chaudoir and Fisher, 2010) and thus

may be more likely to attend to positive stimuli in

the environment. Conversely, avoidant individuals

are interested in increasing the distance between

themselves and potential negative outcomes (e.g.,

increasing distance between discloser and confidant;

Carver and Scheier, 1998) and, as such may produce

negative nonverbal behaviors. In line with this,

research (e.g., Riccio and Stoffregen, 2008;

Balasubramaniam, et al., 2000) on movement

dynamics demonstrates that postural sway can

elucidate how we explore the environment using

multiple sensory systems (visual, auditory, haptic

processes, etc.). Contrary to traditional beliefs that

postural sway results from a brain body lag,

Carpenter et al., (2010) argue that stochastic patterns

of postural movement is useful in exploring the

environment. Thus, we postulate that motivational

systems will lead to differential exploration of the

environment, as well as awareness of bodily states

(e.g., heart rate). This investigation aims to provide

evidence that will afford a better understanding of

how antecedent goals may affect change across

multiple levels of a system, whereby approach or

avoidance motivation influences not only disclosure

goals, but also manifests in unconscious behaviors,

and interpersonal and psychological outcomes.

1.2 Postural Sway Dynamics

Although theoretically linked, these studies are the

first to examine how motivational systems affect

postural sway behavior beyond traditional nonverbal

communication. In the current study we employ

nonlinear data analytic tools to capture such postural

movement variability. One way to quantify postural

sway variability is to determine the fractal scaling of

a postural sway time series using detrended

fluctuation analysis (DFA). DFA is a robust

technique to determine the scaling exponent of

behavioral time series. Essentially, DFA breaks the

time series into different window sizes to examine

long-range correlations (for review, see Coey, 2015).

Previous research has shown that healthy adults

exhibit mono-fractal scaling (pink noise) in postural

sway variability during anterior/posterior movement

(e.g., Kuznetsov et al., 2013). Individuals with a

movement disorder such as Parkinson’s disease

exhibit a loss of complexity such that their postural

sway is more deterministic, or exhibits Brownian

noise (Schmit et al., 2005). Further, this movement

complexity not only serves a role in maintaining

stable balance, but also reveals how the dynamics of

COMPLEXIS 2016 - 1st International Conference on Complex Information Systems

human perceptual, motor and cognitive processes are

interaction-dominant, as opposed to the more

traditional position of component-dominant

dynamics where changes are linear input-output

relations.(van Orden et al., 2012; Eiler, et al., 2014).

Because our perceptual, cognitive, and movement

processes are necessarily linked, changes at one

level may affect changes at other levels of the

system. Therefore, we expected that either approach

or avoidance goal motivation at the cognitive level

will lead to differences in postural sway complexity

at the movement level (Riley, et al., 2012)—

avoidance priming would lead to a loss in

complexity of postural sway behavior compared to

avoidance goal priming during the disclosure of a

CSI.

Where researchers have thoroughly examined the

complex behavior of a dynamical system using

monofractal statistical analysis, little research has

examined the multifractality of postural sway in

humans. While theoretically linked to monofractals,

multifractal scaling suggests a more reciprocal

interaction between the actions of an intentional

agent and the micro and macro events (time-scales)

of the environmental context in which those actions

take place, (Kelty-Stephen et al.,, 2013). Rather than

assuming one scaling exponent, multifractal

detrended fluctuation analysis (e.g., MFDFA) allows

one to determine if there are different scaling

exponents at short and long time scales. This could

reveal how antecedent goals can affect movement

behaviors at different time scales. The present study

would be the first to examine the relationship

between approach and avoidance motivation during

a disclosure event via postural sway complexity.

1.3 Complexity Matching

Finally, the present study will allow us to assess the

valence of the disclosure event via subjective ratings

by an outside confidant, as well as to examine the

complexity matching of the movement dynamics

between discloser and confidant. Complexity

matching is the phenomenon whereby two systems

not only coordinate gross body movements over

time, but they also have a tendency to exhibit similar

complexity in their behavior (e.g., Abney et al.,

2014; Marmelat and Delignières, 2012; Washburn et

al., 2015). While ideally we would be able to

examine this interaction in real time (two people in

the experimental room, one sharing a CSI to

another), that is limited both practically and

ethically. Therefore, participants with a CSI were

instructed to disclose their identity while no one is in

the room. This was audio and video recorded which

allows a second group of participants to listen and

view the disclosure at a later time. To ensure

anonymity, the video recording produced was a

depth array, grey scaled image providing

information about depth only, therefore the videos

were devoid of facial features and other potentially

identifying information (e.g., clothing patterns, etc).

Because of these limitations, we are investigating

complexity matching of the disclosure confidant

only, not an interaction. With this limitation in mind,

the current study will still provide powerful insight

into the disclosure event. We expected that

participants would exhibit more complexity

matching when listening to an approach goal

directed disclosure compared to an avoidance goal

directed disclosure.

Finally, while a large body of research

demonstrates that people tend to coordinate their

gross body movements during an interaction, more

recently, it has been suggested that humans have the

capacity to coordinate fractal scaling in the minute

patterns of movement behaviors (Abney, et al.,

2014; Coey, 2015). This could provide crucial

implications for this type of interaction. Because

postural sway is an uncontrolled behavior,

complexity matching of postural sway goes above

and beyond that of coordinating gross body

movements. This is an important route to explore,

as it will be the first to determine how complexity

matching of unconscious behavior can impact

rapport between two individuals.

1.4 Study Overview

In sum, the current research provides novel

exploration across many areas of social psychology

and complexity science. First, by manipulating

approach and avoidance goal motivation, we may

examine the disclosure utilizing a traditional

approach of exploring the linguistic and

psychological content that may be observed during

disclosure events. Additionally we also incorporate a

dynamical systems approach to how such content

affects the overall experience for both the discloser

and the perceiver. Further, differences in postural

sway complexity will provide a deeper

understanding into the underlying dynamics of the

disclosure process by elucidating nonverbal

behaviors exhibited during a disclosure event. A loss

in complexity, or more deterministic sway during an

avoidance primed disclosure would suggest that

when the avoidance motivational system is

activated, people are exploring the environment

Postural Sway Dynamics and Complexity Matching during the Disclosure of a Concealable Stigmatized Identity

differently (e.g., attuned to more negative stimuli)

which could negatively impact the disclosure

interaction. Finally, recent research by Coey (2015)

has addressed the potential utility in examining

complexity matching between two complex systems

embodying the others’ dynamics. Differences in

complexity matching during an approach oriented

and avoidance oriented disclosures would therefore

not only provide powerful evidence for interaction

dominant dynamics, but it can also better our

understanding of the disclosure process as a whole.

2 PRELIMINARY RESEARCH

2.1 Method

This study employed a 2 (goal motivation: approach,

avoidance) x 2 (target: close other, professional

other) mixed design with postural sway pattern

complexity (via mono-fractal scaling), and self-

report responses on the behavioral approach system

and behavioral avoidance system scales (BIS/BAS;

Carver and White, 1994) and the positive affect

negative affect schedule (PANAS; Watson et al.,

1988) as the dependent measures.

2.2 Participants and Procedure

Participants (N = 19) were recruited through the UC

Psychology participant pool. 14 participants were

female and 18 were white. Their ages ranged from

18-23 years. Participants were informed that the

study is about how people share secrets. Participants

were recruited if they selected any of the following

from a list of CSI’s in the prescreening survey:

mental illness, sexual minority, alcohol or substance

abuse disorder, history of sexual abuse or

victimization, serious illness, abortion, teen

pregnancy, or conviction or incarceration.

Qualifying participants were then invited to

participate in the experimental portion of the study.

Following informed consent, participants sat at a

computer equipped with Media Lab software (Jarvis,

2014). They were first asked to write down a secret

that they often keep hidden and answer some

questions about their secret (e.g., “How often do you

think about your secret”). Each participant then

wrote 2 disclosure letters, one to a close

friend/family member and the other to someone with

whom they have a professional relationship (written

in a randomized order between participants). Prior to

writing both letters, participants were randomly

assigned to either approach or avoidance goal

priming in which they were prompted to think about

“achieving positive outcomes” or “avoiding negative

outcomes” respectively and were instructed to write

3-5 goals for their disclosure letter.

After writing both letters, the experimenter

entered the room and instructed participants to act

out their disclosure as if the person they wrote to is

standing in the room with them. During the

disclosure event 2 motion tracking sensors

(FASTRAK, Polhemus, VT, USA), one attached to a

headband on the back of the head, the other attached

to a belt just bellow the belly button recorded

postural sway data at 60 Hz. An Xbox Kinect also

recorded postural sway and gross body movements

at approximately 24 Hz, as well as produced a depth

array video. Audacity was used to record verbal

disclosures. First, we recorded participant’s baseline

postural sway while standing still for 20 seconds.

Next, the letter was projected on a screen and

participants were instructed to should act as though

they were disclosing to the confidant, using their

letter as a guide. During the verbal disclosures, the

experimenter was not in the room. After completing

the verbal disclosure for both letters, participants

completed self-report dependent measures.

2.3 Preliminary Results and Discussion

We utilized DFA to examine the fractal scaling of

individuals’ postural sway during the disclosure of a

CSI. As expected, our participants exhibited pink

noise with alpha values around 1. However, pilot

data suggest that avoidance primed disclosures may

lead to a loss of complexity in postural sway

behavior towards Brownian noise. Where approach

primed disclosures exhibited more fractal scaling (M

= .94, SD = .25), avoidance primed disclosures

displayed a loss of complexity towards Brownian

noise (M = 1.09, SD = .17). Results of an

independent samples t-test did not reveal a

significant difference between the two groups (t(18)

= 1.55, p > .05, d = .7), however the strong effect

size suggests more participants should be analysed

to examine this trend further.

Results suggest that goal motivation does lead to

meaningful differences in postural sway when

revealing a CSI. It has been well documented that

most human systems are stochastic in nature and,

when examined further, live within areas of pink

noise (Van Orden, et al.,, 2011). Further a loss of

complexity either towards white noise or brown

noise is associated with a disruption or degradation

of the system including aging, disease, or a few

servings of alcohol. Because we are seeing these

COMPLEXIS 2016 - 1st International Conference on Complex Information Systems

patterns in the pilot data whereby avoidance

motivation is associated with a subtle loss in

complexity, it may be that avoidance motivation

systems are maladaptive to the disclosure process.

However, disclosures can exist across all life

domains, therefore, it is crucial that we achieve a

greater understanding of how approach or avoidance

goals will lead to more positive outcomes.

3 FUTURE RESEARCH

3.1 Method

Similar to study 1, this experiment will employ a 2

(goal motivation: approach, avoidance) x 2 (target:

professional other, close other) within subjects

design with the primary dependent variables the

same as Study 1, as well as the inclusion of the

complexity matching coefficient via MDFA (as well

as other nonlinear time-series measures such as

detrended cross-correlation analysis and cross

recurrence quantification analysis; (see Coey, 2015).

Additionally, participants will be asked about their

perception of the disclosure (e.g., “Overall, how

much do you like this person?”).

3.2 Participants and Procedure

40 Participants will be recruited through the UC

SONA system’s Psychology participant pool and

will receive course credit. There is no inclusion

criteria, however, participation in study 1 will

disqualify them for participation in study 2.

Following informed consent, participants will be

asked to listen to 8 disclosures while viewing the

depth array video. During each video, 2 polhemus

sensors will be attached to the back of their head and

just below their belly button similar to study 1. After

each disclosure, participants will be asked to rate it

on a number of dimensions (e.g., overall tone, depth,

quality, etc.). This process will be repeated until

each participant has listened to and rated 4

disclosures (2 approach primed, 2 avoidance

primed). They will be presented in a random order.

Finally, participants will complete the BIS/BAS,

PANAS, and mood scales and thoroughly debriefed.

3.3 Discussion

Results of the pilot study have led to a deeper

investigation into the role that our motivational

systems play in the disclosure process. The next step

is to capture how others perceive these disclosures.

We are currently in the process of recruiting and

running more participants to reveal their CSI while

Polhemus sensors record movement in the anterior-

posterior direction. To further probe this trend, we

will not only examine the mono-fractal scaling using

DFA, we will also look at the multi-fractal scaling

using MFDFA. As noted above, MFDFA allows us

to look at the complexity of movement at multiple

levels and can provide a greater understanding of

how goals can affect change across different levels.

We will also recruit participants to listen to and

watch a depth array video of these disclosures while

we record their postural sway. With this, we will be

able to investigate how this unidirectional coupling

by the confidant to the discloser in the video affects

someone’s postural behavior. We anticipate that

those disclosures that are approach primed will not

only exhibit fractal scaling in the postural sway, but

they will be more highly rated by an observer, and

there will be more complexity matching between the

discloser and the confidant. Thus, these results

would provide important insight into the disclosure

experience itself. Although we know the

interpersonal interaction and outcomes during a

disclosure experience are important, we do not yet

know exactly what the confidant picks up on when

someone reveals stigmatizing information. It is

potentially the case that when participants do not

match postural sway complexity, they will view the

individual less favorably. Results from this study

would thus support the idea that disclosure

experiences are embedded in a social environment

whereby revealing information about oneself is an

on-going complex, dynamical multiagent process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by National Institutes

of Health, R01GM105045.

REFERENCES

Abney, D. H., Paxton, A., Dale, R., & Kello, C. T. (2014).

Complexity matching in dyadic conversation. Journal

of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(6), 2304.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000021.

Balasubramaniam, R., Riley, M. A., & Turvey, M. T.

(2000). Specificity of postural sway to the demands of

a precision task. Gait and Posture, 11(1), 12-24.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0966-6362(99)00051-X.

Carpenter, M. G., Murnaghan, C. D., & Inglis, J. T.

Postural Sway Dynamics and Complexity Matching during the Disclosure of a Concealable Stigmatized Identity

(2010). Shifting the balance: evidence of an exploratory

role for postural sway. Neuroscience, 171(1), 196-204.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.08. 030.

Carver, C. S. (1998). Resilience and thriving: Issues,

models, and linkages. Journal of Social Issues, 54(2),

245-266. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01217.x.

Carver, C., & White, T. (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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319.

Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure

processes model: understanding disclosure decision

making and postdisclosure outcomes among people

living with a concealable stigmatized identity.

Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236. http://dx.doi.org/1

0.1037/a0018193.

Chaudoir, S. R., Fisher, J. D., & Simoni, J. M. (2011).

Understanding HIV disclosure: A review and

application of the Disclosure Processes Model. Social

Science & Medicine, 72(10), 1618-1629. doi:10.1016/j

.socscimed.2011.03.028.

Chaudoir, S. R., & Quinn, D. M. (2010). Revealing

concealable stigmatized identities: The impact of

disclosure motivations and positive first-disclosure

experiences on fear of disclosure and well-being.

Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 570-584. doi:

10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01663.x.

Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of

sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social

identities in the workplace. Academy of Management

Review, 30(1), 78-95. doi: 10.5465/AMR.2005.152814

31.

Coey, C. (2015). Complexity and Coordination: Power-

Law Scaling in the Temporal Coordination of

Complex Systems. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved

from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/

Corrigan, P., & Matthews, A. (2003). Stigma and

disclosure: Implications for coming out of the closet.

Journal of Mental Health, 12(3), 235-248. doi:

10.1080/0963823031000118221.

Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Temperament and

the self-organization of personality. Development and

Psychopathology, 6(04), 653-676. http://dx.doi.org/10.

1017/S0954579400004727.

Eiler, B. A., Kallen, R. W., Harrison, S. J., & Richardson,

M. J. (2013). Origins of order in joint activity and

social behavior. Ecological Psychology, 25(3), 316-

326. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2013.810107.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation

and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,

34(3), 169-189. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3.

Gable, S. L., & Impett, E. A. (2012). Approach and

avoidance motives and close relationships. Social And

Personality Psychology Compass, 6(1), 95-108.

doi10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00405.x.

Jarvis, B. G. (2014). MediaLab (Version 2014) [Computer

Software]. New York, NY: Empirisoft Corporation.

Kaufman, J. M., & Johnson, C. (2004). Stigmatized

individuals and the process of identity. The

Sociological Quarterly, 45(4), 807-833. doi:

10.1111/j.1533-8525.2004.tb02315.x.

Kelty-Stephen, D. G., Palatinus, K., Saltzman, E., &

Dixon, J. A. (2013). A tutorial on multifractality,

cascades, and interactivity for empirical time series in

ecological science. Ecological Psychology, 25(1), 1-

62. doi: 10.1080/10407413.2013.753804.

Kuznetsov, N., Bonnette, S., Gao, J., & Riley, M. A.

(2013). Adaptive fractal analysis reveals limits to

fractal scaling in center of pressure trajectories. Annals

of Niomedical Engineering, 41(8), 1646-1660. doi:

10.1007/s10439-012-0646-9.

Marmelat, V., & Delignières, D. (2012). Strong

anticipation: complexity matching in interpersonal

coordination. Experimental Brain Research, 222(1-2),

137-148.

Mellins, C. A., Havens, J. F., McCaskill, E. O., Leu, C. S.,

Brudney, K., & Chesney, M. A. (2002). Mental health,

substance use and disclosure are significantly

associated with the medical treatment adherence of

HIV-infected mothers. Psychology, Health &

Medicine, 7(4), 451-460. doi: 10.1080/135485002100

0015267.

Omarzu, J. (2000). A disclosure decision model:

Determining how and when individuals will self-

disclose. Personality and Social Psychology Review,

4(2), 174-185. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_05.

Quinn, D. M., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2009). Living with a

concealable stigmatized identity: the impact of

anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural

stigma on psychological distress and health. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 634.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015815.

Riccio, G. E., & Stoffregen, T. A. (1988). Affordances as

constraints on the control of stance. Human Movement

Science, 7(2), 265-300. doi: 10.1016/0167-9457(88)90

014-0.

Riley, M. A., Shockley, K., & Van Orden, G. (2012).

Learning from the body about the mind. Topics in

Cognitive Science, 4(1), 21-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-

8765.2011.01163.x.

Schmit, J. M., Riley, M. A., Dalvi, A., Sahay, A., Shear, P.

K., Shockley, K. D., & Pun, R. Y. (2006).

Deterministic center of pressure patterns characterize

postural instability in Parkinson’s disease.

Experimental Brain Research, 168(3), 357-367. doi:

10.1007/s00221-005-0094-y.

Van Orden, G., Hollis, G., & Wallot, S. (2012). The blue-

collar brain. Frontiers in Physiology, 3. doi:

10.3389/fphys.2012.00207.

Van Orden, G. C., Kloos, H., & Wallot, S. (2011). Living

in the pink: Intentionality, wellbeing, and complexity.

Philosophy of complex systems. Handbook of the

Philosophy of Science, 10.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).

Development and validation of brief measures of

positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6),

1063. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

COMPLEXIS 2016 - 1st International Conference on Complex Information Systems