Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e52961. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052961. Epub 2013 Jan 2.
Metaphors pervade discussions of social issues like climate change, the economy, and crime. We ask how natural language metaphors shape the way people reason about such social issues. In previous work, we showed that describing crime metaphorically as a beast or a virus, led people to generate different solutions to a city's crime problem. In the current series of studies, instead of asking people to generate a solution on their own, we provided them with a selection of possible solutions and asked them to choose the best ones. We found that metaphors influenced people's reasoning even when they had a set of options available to compare and select among. These findings suggest that metaphors can influence not just what solution comes to mind first, but also which solution people think is best, even when given the opportunity to explicitly compare alternatives. Further, we tested whether participants were aware of the metaphor. We found that very few participants thought the metaphor played an important part in their decision. Further, participants who had no explicit memory of the metaphor were just as much affected by the metaphor as participants who were able to remember the metaphorical frame. These findings suggest that metaphors can act covertly in reasoning. Finally, we examined the role of political affiliation on reasoning about crime. The results confirm our previous findings that Republicans are more likely to generate enforcement and punishment solutions for dealing with crime, and are less swayed by metaphor than are Democrats or Independents.
隐喻广泛存在于对社会问题的讨论中,如气候变化、经济和犯罪。我们探讨自然语言隐喻如何影响人们对这些社会问题的推理方式。在之前的工作中,我们表明,将犯罪隐喻为野兽或病毒,会促使人们针对城市犯罪问题生成不同的解决方案。在当前的一系列研究中,我们没有让人们自行生成解决方案,而是为他们提供了一系列可能的解决方案,并要求他们从中选择最佳方案。我们发现,即使人们有一组可供比较和选择的选项,隐喻也会影响他们的推理。这些发现表明,隐喻不仅可以影响最先出现在脑海中的解决方案,还可以影响人们认为最佳的解决方案,即使有机会明确比较替代方案。此外,我们测试了参与者是否意识到隐喻的存在。我们发现,很少有参与者认为隐喻在他们的决策中起了重要作用。此外,那些没有明确记忆隐喻的参与者,和那些能够记住隐喻框架的参与者一样,同样受到隐喻的影响。这些发现表明,隐喻可以在推理中发挥隐蔽作用。最后,我们研究了政治立场对犯罪推理的影响。结果证实了我们之前的发现,即共和党人更倾向于提出执法和惩罚措施来应对犯罪,并且比民主党人或独立派更不容易受到隐喻的影响。