Firebreak, circuit break, or water break? The impact of metaphor on people’s perception and attitudes towards lockdown measures

IF 4.2 1区 文学 Q1 LINGUISTICS Applied Linguistics Pub Date : 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1093/applin/amaf012
Paula Pérez-Sobrino, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano
{"title":"Firebreak, circuit break, or water break? The impact of metaphor on people’s perception and attitudes towards lockdown measures","authors":"Paula Pérez-Sobrino, Iraide Ibarretxe-Antuñano","doi":"10.1093/applin/amaf012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Metaphors can influence people’s reasoning because of their ability to highlight or hide features of the target domain. In this article, we investigate the extent to which different metaphorical frames lead to different policy recommendations that best fit with the structure of the frame, as well as the role of age and gender to account for variation in the responses. We rely on four naturalistic metaphorical frames used during the media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: fight, fire, machine, and water. A total of 203 Spanish participants were randomly shown one of the five experimental conditions and were asked to (1) rate their perception of control over the health emergency and (2) recommend policy measures to stop the spread of the pandemic. To assess the extent to which participants had noticed the metaphorical frames, a third question was added where they had to indicate the words that had been most decisive in their answers. Results indicate that the fight frame increases the perception of control over the situation, but mostly for men and older participants; they were also more likely to prefer restrictive measures, whereas women and younger participants favoured a balance between restrictive and preventive policies. Finally, fire keywords were the most likely to be remembered by everyone, unlike the keywords from other frames. These findings shed light on the role of age and gender in moderating the effect of metaphorical framing.","PeriodicalId":48234,"journal":{"name":"Applied Linguistics","volume":"102 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaf012","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Metaphors can influence people’s reasoning because of their ability to highlight or hide features of the target domain. In this article, we investigate the extent to which different metaphorical frames lead to different policy recommendations that best fit with the structure of the frame, as well as the role of age and gender to account for variation in the responses. We rely on four naturalistic metaphorical frames used during the media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic: fight, fire, machine, and water. A total of 203 Spanish participants were randomly shown one of the five experimental conditions and were asked to (1) rate their perception of control over the health emergency and (2) recommend policy measures to stop the spread of the pandemic. To assess the extent to which participants had noticed the metaphorical frames, a third question was added where they had to indicate the words that had been most decisive in their answers. Results indicate that the fight frame increases the perception of control over the situation, but mostly for men and older participants; they were also more likely to prefer restrictive measures, whereas women and younger participants favoured a balance between restrictive and preventive policies. Finally, fire keywords were the most likely to be remembered by everyone, unlike the keywords from other frames. These findings shed light on the role of age and gender in moderating the effect of metaphorical framing.
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
防火断路、电路断路还是水断路?隐喻对人们对封锁措施的看法和态度的影响
隐喻可以影响人们的推理,因为它们能够突出或隐藏目标领域的特征。在本文中,我们研究了不同的隐喻框架在多大程度上导致最适合框架结构的不同政策建议,以及年龄和性别在解释反应变化中的作用。我们依靠媒体在报道COVID-19大流行时使用的四种自然主义隐喻框架:战斗、火、机器和水。共有203名西班牙参与者被随机分配到五种实验条件中的一种,并被要求(1)评价他们对突发卫生事件控制的看法,(2)建议阻止大流行传播的政策措施。为了评估参与者注意到隐喻框架的程度,增加了第三个问题,他们必须指出在他们的答案中最具决定性的单词。结果表明,打斗框架增加了对情境的控制感,但主要针对男性和老年参与者;他们也更倾向于采取限制性措施,而妇女和较年轻的参与者则倾向于在限制性政策和预防性政策之间取得平衡。最后,5个关键词最容易被所有人记住,这与其他框架中的关键词不同。这些发现揭示了年龄和性别在调节隐喻框架效应中的作用。
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
Applied Linguistics
Applied Linguistics LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Applied Linguistics publishes research into language with relevance to real-world problems. The journal is keen to help make connections between fields, theories, research methods, and scholarly discourses, and welcomes contributions which critically reflect on current practices in applied linguistic research. It promotes scholarly and scientific discussion of issues that unite or divide scholars in applied linguistics. It is less interested in the ad hoc solution of particular problems and more interested in the handling of problems in a principled way by reference to theoretical studies.
期刊最新文献
Considering extramural English in class: Exploring teachers’ activity ideas in secondary school classrooms in four countries What makes listening comprehension difficult?: A feature-based machine learning approach to understanding item difficulty The development and trends of complex dynamic systems theory in applied linguistics: A bibliometric analysis from 1997 to 2023 Acoustic analysis and perception ratings of first and second language speakers’ Italian lexical stress Examining English language learners’ longitudinal development of syntactic complexity across five CEFR levels with a robust measurement design: A mixed-methods approach
×
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:604180095
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