Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2011 Feb 23;6(2):e16782. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782.
The way we talk about complex and abstract ideas is suffused with metaphor. In five experiments, we explore how these metaphors influence the way that we reason about complex issues and forage for further information about them. We find that even the subtlest instantiation of a metaphor (via a single word) can have a powerful influence over how people attempt to solve social problems like crime and how they gather information to make "well-informed" decisions. Interestingly, we find that the influence of the metaphorical framing effect is covert: people do not recognize metaphors as influential in their decisions; instead they point to more "substantive" (often numerical) information as the motivation for their problem-solving decision. Metaphors in language appear to instantiate frame-consistent knowledge structures and invite structurally consistent inferences. Far from being mere rhetorical flourishes, metaphors have profound influences on how we conceptualize and act with respect to important societal issues. We find that exposure to even a single metaphor can induce substantial differences in opinion about how to solve social problems: differences that are larger, for example, than pre-existing differences in opinion between Democrats and Republicans.
我们谈论复杂和抽象概念的方式充满了隐喻。在五个实验中,我们探讨了这些隐喻如何影响我们推理复杂问题的方式,以及我们如何寻找有关这些问题的进一步信息。我们发现,即使是隐喻的最细微体现(通过一个单词)也会对人们试图解决犯罪等社会问题的方式以及他们收集信息以做出“明智”决策的方式产生强大影响。有趣的是,我们发现隐喻的框架效应的影响是隐蔽的:人们并不认为隐喻会对他们的决策产生影响;相反,他们会指出更“实质性”(通常是数字)的信息作为他们解决问题决策的动机。语言中的隐喻体现了一致的框架知识结构,并邀请进行结构一致的推理。隐喻远非仅仅是修辞上的华丽辞藻,它们对我们如何概念化和处理重要的社会问题有着深远的影响。我们发现,即使只接触到一个隐喻,也会导致人们对如何解决社会问题的看法产生实质性的差异:例如,这种差异比民主党和共和党之间已经存在的意见差异还要大。