No evidence for the influence of head-heart conceptual metaphor on moral decision making and personality.

IF 1.9 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of General Psychology Pub Date : 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1080/00221309.2024.2360405
Yanyun Zhou, Chi-Shing Tse
{"title":"No evidence for the influence of head-heart conceptual metaphor on moral decision making and personality.","authors":"Yanyun Zhou, Chi-Shing Tse","doi":"10.1080/00221309.2024.2360405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In English, head is associated with rationality and logic, whereas heart is related to feeling and emotionality. In Chinese, these head- and heart-related metaphors also exist. Could these head- and heart-related conceptual metaphors influence people's moral decision-making and personality? This seems so based on the previous findings that (a) simply pointing an index finger to heart (versus head) position caused participants to produce more emotional responses in a moral decision task, and (b) participants who believed themselves to be heart locators, relative to those who regarded themselves as head locators, scored higher in affect intensity, femininity, and intimacy related activities. The current study attempted to replicate these findings, following the same design and procedure of previous work, with Chinese participants from Hong Kong and Chinese mainland. In Experiments 1a and 1b, 203 participants performed the moral decision task on dilemmas with their index fingers pointing to head or heart. In Experiments 2a and 2b, 304 participants completed the scales of self-location, affective intensity, femininity, and intimacy related activities. In these high-powered experiments, we failed to replicate the findings of previous work. Bayesian analyses further showed that no head- and heart-related conceptual metaphor effect was likely to occur. Potential reasons for our inconsistent results with those of previous studies and the implications of our current findings were discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47581,"journal":{"name":"Journal of General Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of General Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2024.2360405","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In English, head is associated with rationality and logic, whereas heart is related to feeling and emotionality. In Chinese, these head- and heart-related metaphors also exist. Could these head- and heart-related conceptual metaphors influence people's moral decision-making and personality? This seems so based on the previous findings that (a) simply pointing an index finger to heart (versus head) position caused participants to produce more emotional responses in a moral decision task, and (b) participants who believed themselves to be heart locators, relative to those who regarded themselves as head locators, scored higher in affect intensity, femininity, and intimacy related activities. The current study attempted to replicate these findings, following the same design and procedure of previous work, with Chinese participants from Hong Kong and Chinese mainland. In Experiments 1a and 1b, 203 participants performed the moral decision task on dilemmas with their index fingers pointing to head or heart. In Experiments 2a and 2b, 304 participants completed the scales of self-location, affective intensity, femininity, and intimacy related activities. In these high-powered experiments, we failed to replicate the findings of previous work. Bayesian analyses further showed that no head- and heart-related conceptual metaphor effect was likely to occur. Potential reasons for our inconsistent results with those of previous studies and the implications of our current findings were discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
没有证据表明头心概念隐喻对道德决策和人格有影响。
在英语中,head 与理性和逻辑有关,而 heart 则与感觉和情感有关。在中文中,也存在这些与头和心相关的隐喻。这些与头和心相关的概念隐喻是否会影响人们的道德决策和人格?根据之前的研究结果,似乎是这样的:(a)在道德决策任务中,简单地将食指指向心脏(相对于头部)位置会使参与者产生更多的情绪反应;(b)认为自己是心脏定位者的参与者,相对于认为自己是头部定位者的参与者,在情感强度、女性特质和亲密关系相关活动中得分更高。本研究试图在香港和中国大陆的中国被试身上复制这些发现,实验设计和程序与之前的研究相同。在实验 1a 和 1b 中,203 名参与者在进行道德决策任务时,用食指指向头部或心脏。在实验 2a 和 2b 中,304 名参与者完成了自我定位、情感强度、女性特质和亲密关系相关活动的量表。在这些高功率实验中,我们未能重复之前的研究结果。贝叶斯分析进一步表明,与头部和心脏相关的概念隐喻效应不可能发生。我们讨论了与之前研究结果不一致的潜在原因,以及目前研究结果的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of General Psychology
Journal of General Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Journal of General Psychology publishes human and animal research reflecting various methodological approaches in all areas of experimental psychology. It covers traditional topics such as physiological and comparative psychology, sensation, perception, learning, and motivation, as well as more diverse topics such as cognition, memory, language, aging, and substance abuse, or mathematical, statistical, methodological, and other theoretical investigations. The journal especially features studies that establish functional relationships, involve a series of integrated experiments, or contribute to the development of new theoretical insights or practical applications.
期刊最新文献
Self-focused autonomy, other-focused pro-sociality, and well-being: a cross-national cluster analysis. Age differences in the recruitment of syntactic analysis and semantic plausibility during sentence comprehension. Don't worry, they get the idea: instructions have no impact on dehumanization ratings on the Ascent of Human Scale. Causality orientations and spontaneous mental contrasting. Roles of expressed gratitude and apologies in predicting reciprocal responsiveness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1