Cover not available
Article published In:
Metaphor and the Social World
Vol. 12:1 (2022) ► pp.92–114

Do metaphors make opinions?

An empirical study on the effect of metaphorical framing on the opinion on surrogacy

| Psychological Institute of Heidelberg University
| Psychological Institute of Heidelberg University
| Psychological Institute of Heidelberg University
| University of Vienna | Roma Tre University

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.

Keywords: Metaphorical framing, opinion, language, surrogacy, politics
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
Published online: 20 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.20028.moh
References (54)
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ana, O. S.
(1999) Like an animal I was treated’: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse & Society, 10 (2), 191–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barker, D. C.
(2005) Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Political Behavior, 27 (4), 375–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartolucci, V.
(2012) Terrorism rhetoric under the Bush Administration: Discourses and effects. Journal of Language and Politics, 11 (4), 562–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Black, M.
(1979) More about metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 2 1, 19–41.Google Scholar
(1993) More about metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 2 1, 19–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosman, J.
(1987) Persuasive effects of political metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 2 (2), 97–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S.
(1994) Understanding figurative language. In M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (p. 447–477). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, L., & Maslen, R.
(2010) Metaphor analysis. Equinox.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J.
(2006) Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17 (5), 563–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christmann, U.
(2020) Metaphern Framing. In M. A. Wirtz (Hrsg.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie, 19. Aufl, 1156–1157.Google Scholar
Christmann, U., & Göhring, A.-L.
(2016) A German-language replication study analysing the role of figurative speech in reasoning. Scientific Data, 3 1, 160098. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christmann, U., & Scheele, B.
(2001) Kognitive Konstruktivität am Beispiel von Ironie und Metapher. Zur Programmatik einer Sozialwissenschaftlichen Psychologie, 2 1, 261–326.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H.
(2017) Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. Environmental Communication, 11 (6), 769–783. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Groeben, N., & Christmann, U.
(2003) Psycholinguistics. Verstehen von Sprecherintentionen: Witz, Metapher, Ironie.Google Scholar
Group, P.
(2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22 (1), 1–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019) The war on prevention II: Battle metaphors undermine cancer treatment and prevention and do not increase vigilance. Health Communication, 1–7.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kühne, R., & Schemer, C.
(2015) The emotional effects of news frames on information processing and opinion formation. Communication Research, 42 (3), 387–407. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
(1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lederer, J.
(2013) ‘Anchor baby’: A conceptual explanation for pejoration. Journal of Pragmatics, 57 1, 248–266. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mio, J. S.
(1997) Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol, 12 (2), 113–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P.
(2005) Introduction to the Practice of Statistics: Macmillan.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.
(1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer.Google Scholar
Reisfield, G. M., & Wilson, G. R.
(2004) Use of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22 (19), 4024–4027. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richards, I. A.
(1936) The philosophy of rhetoric.Google Scholar
Robins, S.
(1996) The metaphor framing effect: The influence of metaphorical reasoning on everyday decision making. University of California, Santa Barbara.Google Scholar
Robins, S., & Mayer, R. E.
(2000) The metaphor framing effect: Metaphorical reasoning about text-based dilemmas. Discourse Processes, 30 (1), 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, J.
(1979) Metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp.92–12 93).Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P.
(2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28 (3), 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team
(2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing: Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H.
(2016) Extended metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor and Symbol, 31 (2), 53–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L.
(2011) Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PloS one, 6 (2), e16782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thomale, C.
(2015) Mietmutterschaft: eine international-privatrechtliche Kritik: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J.
(1982) Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11 (3), 203–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, D., Lawton, C., & Hardill, I.
(2018) Gender differences in paid and unpaid work. Hidden inequalities in the workplace (pp. 181–214). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by 1 other publications

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 DOI logo

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.