| Literature DB >> 27445893 |
Xueru Zhao1, Xianyou He1, Wei Zhang1.
Abstract
People often express emotion in language using weight (e.g., a heavy heart, light-hearted, light humor, or heavy-handed), but the question remains whether these expressions of emotion are rooted in the body. Six experiments used a priming paradigm to explore the metaphoric relation between weight perception and emotional words. Experiments 1 and 2 investigated the influence of weight perception on judgments of emotional words and the influence of emotional words on judgments of weight, respectively. A significant difference between the consistent condition (e.g., lightness corresponds to positive words and heaviness corresponds to negative words) and the inconsistent condition (e.g., lightness corresponds to negative words and heaviness corresponds to positive words) was found in Experiment 1 but not in Experiment 2. Experiments 3, 4, and 5 were conducted to exclude potential confounds. Experiment 6 was a repeated-measures study that was conducted to verify the weight-emotion effect. The study confirmed that weight perception affected judgments of emotional words. The results contribute to the growing literature on conceptual metaphor theory and embodied cognition theory.Entities:
Keywords: abstract concepts; conceptual metaphor theory; embodied cognition; emotional words; weight perception
Year: 2016 PMID: 27445893 PMCID: PMC4914497 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00920
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Example of experimental stimuli (weight).
Figure 2Examples of experimental stimuli (emotional words). The Chinese word “ (huan1 yue4)” on the left balance pan means “happy,” whereas “ (nan2 guo4)” on the right balance pan means “sad.”
Figure 3Example of experimental paradigm.
Mean response times and accuracy in the consistent and inconsistent conditions in Experiment 1.
| Consistent | 641.15± 99.04 | 97.31 ± 3.27 |
| Inconsistent | 653.10± 101.00 | 98.09 ± 2.77 |
Mean response times and accuracy in the consistent and inconsistent conditions in Experiment 2.
| Consistent | 425.01 ± 52.42 | 99.57 ± 1.24 |
| Inconsistent | 427.66 ± 54.93 | 99.74 ± 0.82 |
Figure 4Example of experimental stimuli (weight) in Experiment 3.
Mean response times and accuracy in the consistent and inconsistent conditions in Experiment 3.
| Consistent | 633.09 ± 117.73 | 96.76 ± 3.87 |
| Inconsistent | 646.52 ± 123.11 | 97.41 ± 3.09 |
Figure 5Example of experimental stimuli (weight) in Experiment 4.
Mean response times and accuracy in the consistent and inconsistent conditions in Experiment 4.
| Consistent | 610.82 ± 119.68 | 97.50 ± 2.86 |
| Inconsistent | 623.54 ± 112.20 | 98.05 ± 2.54 |
Mean response times and accuracy in the consistent and inconsistent conditions in Experiment 5.
| Consistent | 423.25 ± 70.29 | 99.72 ± 0.85 |
| Inconsistent | 426.13 ± 73.70 | 99.81 ± 0.70 |
Mean response times and accuracy in the consistent and inconsistent conditions in Experiment 6.
| Consistent | 577.28 ± 88.05 | 96.70 ± 2.94 |
| Inconsistent | 588.75 ± 87.98 | 96.18 ± 4.10 |