Search

People often use spatial language to talk about time, and thisis known to both reflect and shape how they think about it.Despite much research on the spatial grounding of temporallanguage and thought, little attention has been given to howspatial metaphors influence reasoning about real events,especially those in the future. In a large online study(N=2362), we framed a discussion of climate change usingspatial metaphors that varied on reference-frame (ego- vs.time-moving), speed of movement (fast vs. slow), and timehorizon (near, medium, or far future). We found thatdescribing climate change as approaching (time-movingframe) – versus something we approach – made the issueseem more serious, but also more tractable, at least when therate of motion was fast (e.g., “it’s rapidly approaching”).These findings offer novel insights into the relationshipbetween spatial metaphors and temporal reasoning and howwe communicate about uncertain future events.

Metaphors have been shown to be effective explanatory andcommunicative tools, shaping how people think and reasonabout complex domains. To date, however, most studies haveaddressed only coarse-grained effects of metaphor framing,leaving many questions unanswered about the relative powerof metaphor compared to more literal linguistic framingdevices. We addressed this issue in a large, pre-registeredframing study, comparing the effects of describing the role ofpolice officers as (a) metaphorical guardians of a community(b) literal protectors of a community, and (c) a no-labelcontrol. We found no main effect of framing condition,suggesting that positively valenced metaphors may exert littleinfluence on their own in this domain. However, we didobserve an interaction between condition and politicalideology, such that the guardian metaphor was especiallyeffective at improving attitudes towards police officers forliberals, whose initial approval ratings were relatively low.

Metaphors pervade discussions of critical issues and influ-ence how people reason about these domains. For instance,when crime is a beast, people suggest enforcement-orientedapproaches to crime-reduction (e.g., by augmenting the po-lice force); when crime is a virus, on the other hand, peoplesuggest systemic reforms for the affected community. In thecurrent study, we find that extending metaphoric language intothe descriptions of policy interventions bolsters the persuasiveinfluence of metaphoric frames for an array of important is-sues. When crime is a beast, people are even more likely toendorse “attacking” the problem with harsh enforcement tac-tics; when crime is a virus people are even more likely to toendorse “treating” the problem through social reform.

Metaphors suffuse language and affect how people think. Ameta-analysis of metaphor framing studies conducted between1983 and 2000 concluded that metaphors are about 6% morepersuasive than literal language (Sopory & Dillard, 2002).However, each of these studies was conducted in English withsamples drawn from populations of native English speakers.Here, we test whether and how language proficiency moderatesthe influence of metaphor frames. Sampling from a populationof non-native, but generally proficient English speakers fromIndia, we found that metaphor frames systematically affectedpeople who reported using English primarily in informal con-texts (i.e., among friends and family and through the media)but not those who reported using English primarily in formalcontexts (i.e., for school or work). We discuss the implica-tions of this finding for countries like the US, where Englishis increasingly a non-native language for its residents, and fortheories of language processing more generally.

Clinical disorders are multidimensional phenomena that areimportant to both clinicians and the lay public, as well as tocognitive scientists interested in understanding how peoplethink and reason about complex domains. To date, however,little work has examined the factors that influence the folkpsychiatry of addiction. Participants in the present study reada brief paragraph about addiction pitched at either an abstractor personal level, followed by a series of questions about thecauses and treatment of drug addiction. We furthermanipulated whether addiction was described using a medicalor psychological label. Results revealed that liberals andconservatives varied dramatically with respect to their folkpsychiatric reasoning, with liberals preferring a morebiological/medical view, which is associated increasedsupport for medical interventions, reduced feelings ofpersonal responsibility, and elevated feelings of stigma.Framing addiction using medical labels and at an abstractlevel pushed people towards this biological view, suggestingthat media reports and messaging campaigns may influencehow people conceptualize addiction.

Metaphors pervade discussions of sociopolitical issues andinfluence the way we think. One challenge facing researchers,however, is that it can be difficult to make principledpredictions about exactly how metaphors will influencethought. Here, we use an explicit comparison task to quantifythe persuasive capacity of metaphors. In Experiment 1, peoplewere given two metaphors and two policy responses. Theywere asked to match one policy to each metaphor. InExperiment 2, people read metaphorically framed issues andchose between policy responses. We found that data from theexplicit comparison task predicted behavior from anothergroup of participants on the metaphor framing task; a measureof linguistic association from LSA did not predict behavior onthe framing task. These results suggest a relationship betweenexplicit analogical comparison and more implicit naturallanguage metaphor processing. It also provides a method formeasuring the conceptual entailments of metaphors

Metaphors pervade discussions of critical issues, making upas much as 10-20% of natural discourse. Recent work hassuggested that these conventional and systematic metaphorsinfluence the way people reason about the issues theydescribe. For instance, Thibodeau & Boroditsky (2011, 2013)found that people were more likely to want to fight backagainst a crime beast by increasing the police force but morelikely to want to diagnose and treat a crime virus throughsocial reform. Here, we report two norming studies and twoexperiments that reveal a shift in the overall landscape ofopinion on the topic of crime. Importantly, we find that themetaphors continue to have an influence on people’sreasoning about crime. Our results and analyses highlight theimportance of up-to-date opinion norms and carefullycontrolled materials in metaphor research.

Is income inequality more of a blemish or a failing organ inour economy? Both metaphors capture something aboutwealth disparities, but only failing organ seems to emphasizethe fact that our economy is a complex system where activityin one region may lead to a cascade of problems in other partsof the system. In the present study, we introduce a novelmethod for classifying such “systemic” metaphors, whichreveals that people can reliably identify the extent to which ametaphor highlights the complex causal structure of a targetdomain. In a second experiment, we asked whether exposingpeople to more systemic metaphors would induce a systemsthinking mindset and influence reasoning on a seeminglyunrelated task. We found that participants who were primedwith systemic metaphors scored higher on subsequent tasksthat measured relational and holistic thinking, supporting theview that these metaphors can promote systems thinking.

Introduction: Lay theories of mental disorders impact social attitudes, stigma, and treatment seeking. We investigated whether common metaphors in mental health discourse shape lay beliefs about clinical disorders. Methods: Participants (N = 685) read a paragraph describing drug addiction (Experiment 1) or depression (Experiment 2) as either a demon or brain disease. They then reported their beliefs about and attitudes toward the condition. Results: Participants exposed to the brain disease frame expressed more support for a "medicalized" lay theory associated with a belief in underlying biological causes. We also found that participants with conservative political views held a more "moralized" view of both addiction and depression. This view is associated with a belief in personal causes, support for informal—as opposed to medical or psychological—treatments, and greater attributions of personal responsibility. Discussion: These findings help illuminate the factors that shape lay theories of mental disorders and have important implications for health communications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

From mother nature and carbon footprints to greenhouse gasses and the race against global warming, popular discourse on environmental issues is saturated with metaphor. Some people view these metaphors as obfuscating or ineffective, while others believe they are crucial for improving climate communications and environmental attitudes. In this paper, we provide a systematic overview and evaluation of the use of English metaphors in Anglo environmental discourse, drawing on a range of empirical and popular media sources. We begin by discussing the role of metaphor in language in thought. Next, we introduce a range of metaphors used to frame discussions of (1) our relationship to nature (e.g., the earth is our common home), (2) our impact on the environment (e.g., we are knocking the climate off balance), and (3) how we should address this impact (e.g., reduce our ecological footprint). We classify these metaphors along several dimensions, including how conventional they are, how systemic they are, how emotionally impactful they are, and how aptly they capture the topics they are used to describe. From this analysis, we derive several promising candidate metaphors that may help increase public understanding and engagement with environmental issues. However, we note that such claims must be tested empirically in future research; currently, there are few large, systematic, replicable experiments in the literature assessing the impact of environmental metaphors. We conclude by offering general recommendations for using metaphors in communications about climate change and sustainability. This paper provides a systematic overview and evaluation of the use of metaphors in environmental discourse. Our analysis illuminates how certain metaphors could help increase public understanding of and engagement with issues like climate change and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When we use language to communicate, we must choose what to say, what not to say, and how to say it. That is, we must decide how to frame the message. These linguistic choices matter: Framing a discussion one way or another can influence how people think, feel, and act in many important domains, including politics, health, business, journalism, law, and even conversations with loved ones. The ubiquity of framing effects raises several important questions relevant to the public interest: What makes certain messages so potent and others so ineffectual? Do framing effects pose a threat to our autonomy, or are they a rational response to variation in linguistic content? Can we learn to use language more effectively to promote policy reforms or other causes we believe in, or is this an overly idealistic goal? In this article, we address these questions by providing an integrative review of the psychology of framing. We begin with a brief history of the concept of framing and a survey of common framing effects. We then outline the cognitive, social-pragmatic, and emotional mechanisms underlying such effects. This discussion centers on the view that framing is a natural—and unavoidable—feature of human communication. From this perspective, framing effects reflect a sensible response to messages that communicate different information. In the second half of the article, we provide a taxonomy of linguistic framing techniques, describing various ways that the structure or content of a message can be altered to shape people's mental models of what is being described. Some framing manipulations are subtle, involving a slight shift in grammar or wording. Others are more overt, involving wholesale changes to a message. Finally, we consider factors that moderate the impact of framing, gaps in the current empirical literature, and opportunities for future research. We conclude by offering general recommendations for effective framing and reflecting on the place of framing in society. Linguistic framing is powerful, but its effects are not inevitable—we can always reframe an issue to ourselves or other people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, millions of Americans fail to view climate change as a pressing threat. How can we address this disconnect between science and public opinion? In the present study, we investigated the role of metaphorical framing in shaping attitudes toward climate change. Participants read a brief article that metaphorically described US efforts to reduce carbon emissions as a war or race against climate change, or non-metaphorically described it as the issue of climate change. We further manipulated whether these emission-reduction goals emphasized the relatively near or distant future. We found that, compared to the race frame, the war metaphor made people perceive more urgency and risk surrounding climate change and express a greater willingness to increase conservation behavior, irrespective of the time horizon. Those who read the non-metaphorical report tended to respond in between these two extremes. We discuss the implications of these findings for climate communications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Language helps people communicate and think. Precise and accurate language would seem best suited to achieve these goals. But a close look at the way people actually talk reveals an abundance of apparent imprecision in the form of metaphor: ideas are ‘light bulbs’, crime is a ‘virus’, and cancer is an ‘enemy’ in a ‘war’. In this article, we review recent evidence that metaphoric language can facilitate communication and shape thinking even though it is literally false. We first discuss recent experiments showing that linguistic metaphor can guide thought and behavior. Then we explore the conditions under which metaphors are most influential. Throughout, we highlight theoretical and practical implications, as well as key challenges and opportunities for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Metaphor frames highlight certain aspects of a target domain and deemphasize others, thereby encouraging specific patterns of inference. A recent series of studies (Reijnierse, Burgers, Krennmayr, & Steen, 2015; Steen, Reijnierse, & Burgers, 2014), however, raises questions about the role of metaphor in communication and reasoning by (a) failing to find metaphor framing effects on a series of policy judgments, (b) critiquing the methods that have been used to test for metaphor framing effects, and (c) arguing that current theories of metaphor processing fail to consider the social-pragmatic dimension of metaphor in communication. Here, I reflect on these concerns and present novel analyses of data collected by Steen and colleagues, which reveal metaphor framing effects in these studies but fail to support a prediction of Deliberate Metaphor Theory (DMT): that extended metaphors are more likely to be remembered. DMT attempts to situate metaphor framing effects more intentionally along a social-pragmatic dimension; developing and testing the theory was a primary motivation of the studies conducted by Steen and colleagues. I discuss the implications of these findings and offer a perspective on how DMT can help grow our knowledge of the function of metaphor in a social world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Political discourse is saturated with metaphor, but evidence for the persuasive power of this language has been hard to come by. We addressed this issue by investigating whether voting intentions were affected by implicit mappings suggested by a metaphorically framed message, drawing on a real-world example of political rhetoric about the federal budget. In the first experiment, the federal budget was framed as similar to or different from a household budget, though the information participants received was identical in both conditions. When the federal budget was described as similar to a household's, people considered the personal finances of a presidential candidate more relevant--a finding we replicated in a larger, pre-registered study. In a follow-up experiment, we presented participants with a more explicit rhetorical argument and found a similar effect, moderated by political affiliation. These studies illuminate how metaphorical comparison affects cognition for important real-world issues, sometimes in unintended ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Is income inequality more of a blemish or a failing organ in our economy? Both metaphors capture something about wealth disparities, but only failing organ seems to emphasize the fact that our economy is a complex system, where activity in one region may lead to a cascade of problems in other parts of the system. In the present study, we introduce a novel method for classifying such 'systemic' metaphors, which reveals that people can reliably identify the extent to which a metaphor highlights the complex causal structure of a target domain. In a second experiment, we asked whether exposing people to more systemic metaphors would induce a systems-thinking mindset and influence reasoning on a seemingly unrelated task that measured the degree to which people reasoned about a domain in terms of complex causal relations. We found that participants who were primed with systemic metaphors scored higher on subsequent tasks that measured relational and holistic thinking, supporting the view that these metaphors can promote systems thinking. Our discussion highlights the potential role of systemic metaphors in facilitating reasoning and decision-making in complex domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Depression is a common clinical disorder characterized by a complex web of psychological, behavioral, and neurological causes and symptoms. Here we investigate everyday beliefs and attitudes about depression, as well as the factors that shape the depression schemas people hold. In each of three studies, participants read about a person experiencing several symptoms of depression and answered questions about their conception of the disorder. In some cases the symptoms were presented in isolation while in other cases the symptoms were presented with a diagnostic label and/or descriptions of its possible causes (e.g., genes versus personal experience). Results indicated that beliefs and attitudes toward depression were largely shaped by individual difference factors (e.g., personal experience, political ideology) and that the experimental manipulations primarily impacted attributions of responsibility and suggestions for a course of treatment. These findings represent an important advance in our understanding of the factors that influence the folk psychiatry of depression and help inform theories of schema formation for abstract and complex domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]