Do metaphors make opinions?
An empirical study on the effect of metaphorical framing on the opinion on surrogacy
Introduction: A frame makes specific information about a topic more salient. Metaphors can be used as
frames to influence people’s opinions on controversial political topics as well as on health-related topics. This study aims to
determine the influence of metaphorical frames on the opinion towards surrogacy and examines whether specific aspects of surrogacy
are more prone to the influence than others.
Method: 236 participants were assigned to one of three groups with different metaphorical frames for
surrogacy and thereafter completed the Attitude Towards Surrogacy Questionnaire. To investigate if participants’ opinions on
surrogacy were influenced by the frame used for surrogacy, three ANOVAS were conducted.
Result: The main effect of the ANOVAS revealed that opinion towards payment of the surrogate mothers,
but not the attitude towards surrogacy in general, was influenced by the metaphorical frame used for surrogacy.
Discussion: The results support the idea that a metaphorical frame can evoke reactance regarding the
payment of surrogate mothers. Participants might resist the frame of the metaphorical term for surrogacy as an unemotional
business act, by favouring less monetary compensation of the surrogate mother, when the metaphorical frame implies that surrogates
only help intended parents for the monetary compensation.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Metaphors as frames
- 1.2Current research on the effect of metaphorical framing
- 1.3Current study
- 2.Methods
- 2.1Design and procedure
- 2.2Measures
- 2.2.1Informative text and metaphorical frames
- 2.2.2Attitude towards surrogacy questionnaire
- 2.3Participants
- 2.4Statistical analysis
- 2.4.1Exclusion of cases
- 2.4.2Anova
- 3.Results
- 3.1Anova
- 3.1.1Factor “attitude towards surrogacy in general”
- 3.1.2Factor “attitude towards surrogate mothers”
- 3.1.3Factor “attitude towards monetary compensation”
- 4.Discussion
- 4.1General discussion
- 4.2Implications
- 4.3Limitations
- 4.4Strengths
- Notes
-
References
References (54)
References
Ahn, H.-K., Kim, H. J., & Aggarwal, P. (2014). Helping
fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory
guilt. Psychological
Science,
25
(1), 224–229.
Ana, O. S. (1999). Like
an animal I was treated’: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse &
Society,
10
(2), 191–224.
Barker, D. C. (2005). Values,
frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Political
Behavior,
27
(4), 375–394.
Black, M. (1979). More
about metaphor. Metaphor and
Thought,
2
1, 19–41.
Black, M. (1993). More
about metaphor. Metaphor and
Thought,
2
1, 19–41.
Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2017). The
Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature
Review. Metaphor and
Symbol,
32
(2), 118–134.
Bosman, J. (1987). Persuasive
effects of political metaphors. Metaphor and
Symbol,
2
(2), 97–113.
Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und
Jugend (2018, November). Gleichstellungsbericht der
Bundesregierung. [URL]
Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2016). Figurative
framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication
Theory,
26
(4), 410–430.
Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S. (1994). Understanding
figurative language. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook
of
Psycholinguistics (p. 447–477). Academic Press.
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R. (2010). Metaphor
analysis. Equinox.
Charteris-Black, J. (2006). Britain
as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse &
Society,
17
(5), 563–581.
Christmann, U. (2020). Metaphern
Framing. In M. A. Wirtz (Hrsg.), Dorsch –
Lexikon der Psychologie, 19. Aufl, 1156–1157.
Christmann, U., & Göhring, A.-L. (2016). A
German-language replication study analysing the role of figurative speech in
reasoning. Scientific
Data,
3
1, 160098.
Christmann, U., & Scheele, B. (2001). Kognitive
Konstruktivität am Beispiel von Ironie und Metapher. Zur Programmatik einer
Sozialwissenschaftlichen
Psychologie,
2
1, 261–326.
Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best
practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your
analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation,
10
(7), 1–9.
Elmore, K. C., & Luna-Lucero, M. (2017). Light
bulbs or seeds? How metaphors for ideas influence judgments about genius. Social Psychological
Personality
Science,
8
(2), 200–208.
Elson, D. (2017). Recognize,
reduce, and redistribute unpaid care work: How to close the gender gap. Paper presented at
the New Labor Forum.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing:
Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm.
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H. (2017). Metaphors
for the war (or race) against climate change. Environmental
Communication,
11
(6), 769–783.
Friedrich, A. (2013). Spannungen,
Brüche und Nähte im Gewebe der Sprache: Untote Metaphern als philosophisches und methodisches
Problem. Zugänge zu Metaphern-Übergänge durch
Metaphern (pp. 29–42). Wilhelm Fink.
Groeben, N., & Christmann, U. (2003). Psycholinguistics. Verstehen von Sprecherintentionen: Witz, Metapher, Ironie.
Group, P. (2007). MIP:
A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and
Symbol,
22
(1), 1–39.
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2015). The
war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality
and Social Psychology
Bulletin,
41
(1), 66–77.
Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2019). The
war on prevention II: Battle metaphors undermine cancer treatment and prevention and do not increase
vigilance. Health
Communication, 1–7.
Hendricks, R., Demjén, Z., Semino, E., & Boroditsky, L. (2018). Emotional
implications of metaphor: Consequences of metaphor framing for mindset about cancer. Metaphor
and
Symbol,
33
(4), 267–279.
Ismael, T. Y., & Ismael, J. S. (1999). Cowboy
warfare, biological diplomacy: Disarming metaphors as weapons of mass destruction. Politics and
the Life
Sciences,
18
(1), 70–78.
Kühne, R., & Schemer, C. (2015). The
emotional effects of news frames on information processing and opinion formation. Communication
Research,
42
(3), 387–407.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors
we live by. Chicago University.
Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Greenberg, J. (2009). Evidence
that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social
attitudes. Psychological
Science,
20
(11), 1421–1427.
Lederer, J. (2013). ‘Anchor
baby’: A conceptual explanation for pejoration. Journal of
Pragmatics,
57
1, 248–266.
Lee, S. W., & Schwarz, N. (2014). Framing
love: When it hurts to think we were made for each other. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology,
54
1, 61–67.
Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Kashima, Y. (2009). Understanding
the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Processes
& Intergroup
Relations,
12
(6), 747–762.
Mio, J. S. (1997). Metaphor
and politics. Metaphor and
Symbol,
12
(2), 113–133.
Mohnke, M., Thomale, C., Roos, Y., & Christmann, U. (2019). Development
and Validation of an “Attitude toward Surrogacy Questionnaire” in a German Population. Journal
für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie-Journal of Reproductive Medicine and
Endocrinology,
16
(1), 6–14.
Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P. (2005). Introduction
to the Practice of Statistics: Macmillan.
Nerlich, B., Hamilton, C., & Rowe, V. (2002). Conceptualising
foot and mouth disease: The socio-cultural role of metaphors, frames and
narratives. Metaphorik.
de,
2
1(2002), 90–108.
Parrott, R., & Smith, R. A. (2014). Defining
genes using “blueprint” versus “instruction” metaphors: Effects for genetic determinism, response efficacy, and perceived
control. Health
Communication,
29
(2), 137–146.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The
elaboration likelihood model of persuasion Communication and
Persuasion
(pp. 1–24). Springer.
Reisfield, G. M., & Wilson, G. R. (2004). Use
of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. Journal of Clinical
Oncology,
22
(19), 4024–4027.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The
philosophy of rhetoric.
Robins, S. (1996). The
metaphor framing effect: The influence of metaphorical reasoning on everyday decision
making. University of California, Santa Barbara.
Robins, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). The
metaphor framing effect: Metaphorical reasoning about text-based dilemmas. Discourse
Processes,
30
(1), 57–86.
Searle, J. (1979). Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp.92–12 93).
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., & Demmen, J. (2018). An
integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for
cancer. Applied
Linguistics,
39
(5), 625–645.
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The
persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication
Research,
28
(3), 382–419.
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing: Vienna, Austria.
Taverniers, M. (2002). Metaphor
and metaphorology: a selective genealogy of philosophical and linguistic conceptions of metaphor from Aristotle to the 1990s
(Vol. 1). Academia Press.
Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Extended
metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor and
Symbol,
31
(2), 53–72.
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors
we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS
one,
6
(2), e16782.
Thomale, C. (2015). Mietmutterschaft:
eine international-privatrechtliche Kritik: Mohr Siebeck.
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J. (1982). Understanding
and appreciating
metaphors. Cognition,
11
(3), 203–244.
Wheatley, D., Lawton, C., & Hardill, I. (2018). Gender
differences in paid and unpaid work. Hidden inequalities in the
workplace (pp. 181–214). Springer.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Khatin-Zadeh, Omid, Zahra Eskandari, Hassan Banaruee, María José Seckel Santis & Danyal Farsani
2022.
Understanding perceptual change as a movement in literal and metaphorical sentences.
Cogent Arts & Humanities 9:1
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.