删除或更新信息，请邮件至freekaoyan#163.com(#换成@)

3~5岁幼儿权力概念多重隐喻的认知发展

本站小编 Free考研考试/2022-01-01
贺晓玲1,2, 陈俊2()
1 南昌大学公共管理学院, 南昌 330031
2 华南师范大学心理学院, 广东省心理健康与认知科学重点实验室, 华南师范大学心理应用研究中心, 广州 510665
收稿日期:2018-06-27出版日期:2020-02-25发布日期:2019-12-24
通讯作者:陈俊E-mail:chenjunyrh@163.com

基金资助:* 2016 年度江西省社会科学规划青年博士基金项目(16BJ23);2017 年度江西省高校人文社会科学研究项目(YY12221);2016 年度教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目“学生核心价值观形成的心理机制及培养研究”(16JJD190002)

Cognitive development of multiple metaphors of power concepts in 3~5 year-old children

HE Xiaoling1,2, CHEN Jun2()
1 School of Public Administration, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330031, China
2 School of Psychology, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Mental Health and Cognitive Science, Center for Studies of Psychological Application, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China
Received:2018-06-27Online:2020-02-25Published:2019-12-24
Contact:CHEN Jun E-mail:chenjunyrh@163.com






摘要/Abstract


摘要： 为考察3~5岁幼儿“权力”概念的大小、垂直空间和重量多重隐喻的认知发展进程, 研究采用了将权力人物和无权力人物图片放置大圆形或小圆形、垂直空间的上方框或下方框和不平衡跷跷板重端或轻端的图片迫选任务。通过3个实验及综合分析发现：3岁幼儿尚不具备权力隐喻理解能力; 4岁是幼儿权力隐喻理解能力的重要发展时期, 具备正极权力概念的隐喻理解能力, 建立起有权力为“大、高、重”的多重隐喻联结; 5岁幼儿的权力隐喻理解能力进一步增强, 已具备较完整的多重隐喻理解能力, 建立起有权力为“大、高、重”、无权力为“小、下、轻”的多重隐喻联结。3~5岁幼儿“权力”概念的大小、垂直空间和重量多重隐喻理解能力同步发展, 不受隐喻靶域习得时间早晚的影响。系列研究表明, 学龄前幼儿的权力隐喻理解能力发展趋势符合隐喻一致性理论, 隐喻表征的产生并非“有或无”的模式, 而是“渐进”呈现发展。



图1实验1采用的大小隐喻操作示意图(举例)
图1实验1采用的大小隐喻操作示意图(举例)


表1被试将权力词和无权力词人物图片放到大或小图形的频数和比率(%)
年龄组 权力词 无权力词
大 小 大 小
3岁组 137 (54.17) 103 (45.83) 150 (62.5) 90 (37.5)
4岁组 175 (72.92) 65 (27.08) 122 (50.83) 118 (49.17)
5岁组 206 (85.83) 34 (14.17) 95 (39.58) 145 (60.42)

表1被试将权力词和无权力词人物图片放到大或小图形的频数和比率(%)
年龄组 权力词 无权力词
大 小 大 小
3岁组 137 (54.17) 103 (45.83) 150 (62.5) 90 (37.5)
4岁组 175 (72.92) 65 (27.08) 122 (50.83) 118 (49.17)
5岁组 206 (85.83) 34 (14.17) 95 (39.58) 145 (60.42)



图2实验2采用的上下空间隐喻操作示意图
图2实验2采用的上下空间隐喻操作示意图


表2被试将权力词和无权力词人物图片放到上方或下方的频数和比率(%)
年龄组 权力词 无权力词
上 下 上 下
3岁组 124 (51.67) 116 (48.33) 124 (51.67) 116 (48.33)
4岁组 147 (61.25) 93 (38.75) 106 (44.17) 134 (55.83)
5岁组 162 (67.50) 78 (32.50) 76 (31.67) 164 (68.33)

表2被试将权力词和无权力词人物图片放到上方或下方的频数和比率(%)
年龄组 权力词 无权力词
上 下 上 下
3岁组 124 (51.67) 116 (48.33) 124 (51.67) 116 (48.33)
4岁组 147 (61.25) 93 (38.75) 106 (44.17) 134 (55.83)
5岁组 162 (67.50) 78 (32.50) 76 (31.67) 164 (68.33)



图3实验3采用的重量隐喻操作示意图(举例)
图3实验3采用的重量隐喻操作示意图(举例)


表3被试将权力词和无权力词人物图片放到跷跷板重端或轻端的频数和比率(%)
年龄组 权力词 无权力词
重 轻 重 轻
3岁组 141 (58.75) 99 (41.25) 139 (57.92) 101 (42.08)
4岁组 152 (63.30) 88 (36.67) 110 (45.83) 130 (55.17)
5岁组 199 (82.92) 41 (17.08) 89 (37.08) 151 (62.92)

表3被试将权力词和无权力词人物图片放到跷跷板重端或轻端的频数和比率(%)
年龄组 权力词 无权力词
重 轻 重 轻
3岁组 141 (58.75) 99 (41.25) 139 (57.92) 101 (42.08)
4岁组 152 (63.30) 88 (36.67) 110 (45.83) 130 (55.17)
5岁组 199 (82.92) 41 (17.08) 89 (37.08) 151 (62.92)


表4分层饱和模型筛选结果
年龄组 分层饱和模型筛选结果 拟合优度
似然比卡方 df p
3岁组 隐喻类型×反应类型 7.32 2 0.026*
4岁组 权力词类别×反应类型 52.92 1 0.001***
隐喻类型×反应类型 9.56 2 0.008**
5岁组 权力词类别×反应类型 282.07 1 0.001***
隐喻类型×反应类型 23.20 2 0.001***
权力词类别×反应类型×隐喻类型 7.11 2 0.029*

表4分层饱和模型筛选结果
年龄组 分层饱和模型筛选结果 拟合优度
似然比卡方 df p
3岁组 隐喻类型×反应类型 7.32 2 0.026*
4岁组 权力词类别×反应类型 52.92 1 0.001***
隐喻类型×反应类型 9.56 2 0.008**
5岁组 权力词类别×反应类型 282.07 1 0.001***
隐喻类型×反应类型 23.20 2 0.001***
权力词类别×反应类型×隐喻类型 7.11 2 0.029*


表5各年龄段的简约模型的参数估计部分结果
年龄 变量 参数估计值 标准误差 Z值 p
3岁 大小隐喻 -0.04 0.10 -0.35 0.724
垂直空间隐喻 0.15 0.10 1.54 0.124
反应类型 0.34 0.09 3.64 0.001***
权力词类型 -1.29 0.05 0.00 0.999
4岁 大小隐喻 -0.18 0.10 -1.75 0.081
垂直空间隐喻 0.04 0.01 0.43 0.670
反应类型 -0.20 0.11 -1.85 0.064
权力词类型 -0.44 0.08 -5.38 0.001***
5岁 大小隐喻 -0.04 0.12 -0.35 0.727
垂直空间隐喻 0.08 0.11 0.73 0.464
反应类型 -0.53 0.13 -3.96 0.001***
权力词类型 -1.30 0.18 -7.40 0.001***

表5各年龄段的简约模型的参数估计部分结果
年龄 变量 参数估计值 标准误差 Z值 p
3岁 大小隐喻 -0.04 0.10 -0.35 0.724
垂直空间隐喻 0.15 0.10 1.54 0.124
反应类型 0.34 0.09 3.64 0.001***
权力词类型 -1.29 0.05 0.00 0.999
4岁 大小隐喻 -0.18 0.10 -1.75 0.081
垂直空间隐喻 0.04 0.01 0.43 0.670
反应类型 -0.20 0.11 -1.85 0.064
权力词类型 -0.44 0.08 -5.38 0.001***
5岁 大小隐喻 -0.04 0.12 -0.35 0.727
垂直空间隐喻 0.08 0.11 0.73 0.464
反应类型 -0.53 0.13 -3.96 0.001***
权力词类型 -1.30 0.18 -7.40 0.001***







[1] Aboud F. E . (2003). The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology, 39(1), 48-60.
[2] Blaker N., & van Vugt M . (2014). he status-size hypothesis: How cues of physical size and social status influence each other. In: Cheng J., Tracy J., Anderson C. (Eds). The psychology of social status. New York, NY: Springer.
[3] Borghi A. M., Binkofski F., Castelfranchi C., Cimatti F., Scorolli C., & Tummolini L . (2017). The challenge of abstract concepts. Psychological Bulletin, 143(3), 263-292.
[4] Boroditsky L . (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75(1), 1-28.
[5] Brey E., & Shutts K . (2015). Children use nonverbal cues to make inferences about social power. Child Development, 86(1), 276-286.
[6] Casasanto D . (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351-367.
[7] Cheng N., Li Z., & Zhu L . (2018). Children’s understanding of social power and its relationship with social behavior. Advances in Psychological Science, 26(2), 283-293.
[ 程南华, 李占星, 朱莉琪 . (2018). 儿童的社会权力认知及其与社会行为的关系. 心理科学进展, 26(2), 283-293.]
[8] Clark E. V . (1972). On the child's acquisition of antonyms in two semantic fields. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 750-758.
[9] Fiske A. P. (2004). Four modes of constituting relationships: Consubstantial assimilation; space, magnitude, time, and force; concrete procedures; abstract symbolism. In: N. Haslam (Eds), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp.61-146). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[10] Giessner S. R., & Schubert T. W . (2007). High in the hierarchy: how vertical location and judgments of leaders' power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 104(1), 30-44.
[11] Hast M . (2018). It’s all relative: The role of object weight in toddlers’ gravity bias. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 166, 696-704.
[12] Hawley P. H. (2016). Eight myths of child social development: An evolutionary approach to power, aggression, and social competence. In: D. C. Geary & D. B. Berch (Eds.), Evolutionary perspectives on child development and education. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
[13] He X., Chen J., & Li J . (2018). Bidirectional semantic associations between social power and weight. International Journal of Psychology, 53(1), 40-48.
[14] He X., Chen J., Zhang E., & Li J . (2015). Bidirectional associations of power and size in a priming task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27(3), 290-300.
[15] Horwitz S. R., Shutts K., & Olson K. R . (2014). Social class differences produce social group preferences. Developmental Science, 17(6), 991-1002.
[16] Hu D . (2003). The theoretical explanation of the developmental order of children's spatial adjectives. Chinese Teaching in the World, 65(3), 61-66.
[ 胡德明 . (2003). 儿童空问维度形容词发展顺序的理论解释. 世界汉语教学, 65(3), 61-66.]
[17] Keil F. C . (1986). Conceptual domains and the acquisition of metaphor. Cognitive Development, 1(1), 73-96.
[18] Kiefer M . (2001). Perceptual and semantic sources of category- specific effects: Event-related potentials during picture and word categorization. Memory & Cognition, 29(1), 100-116.
[19] Lakoff G., & Johnson M . (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[20] Li V., Spitzer B., & Olson K. R . (2014). Preschoolers reduce inequality while favoring individuals with more. Child Development, 85(3), 1123-1133.
[21] Lin C . (2002). Developmental psychology. Zhejiang: Zhejiang Education Press.
[ 林崇德 . (2002). 发展心理学. 浙江: 浙江教育出版社.]
[22] Liu Y., Xie Y., Peng B., & Ni Y . (2018). Embodied effects of power: Influential factors and the mechanism. Psychological Exploration, 38(1), 25-30.
[ 刘耀中, 谢宜均, 彭滨, 倪亚琨 . (2018). 权力具身效应的影响因素及机制. 心理学探新, 38(1), 25-30.]
[23] Lourenco S. F., Bonny J. W., & Schwartz B. L . (2016). Children and adults use physical size and numerical alliances in third-party judgments of dominance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-10.
( ID: 2050).
[24] Lu L., Schubert T. W., & Zhu L . (2017). The spatial representation of power in children. Cognitive Processing, 18(4), 375-385.
[25] Lu Z., Jia L., & Zhai D . (2017). The mapping for vertical spatial metaphor of the moral concepts: Bidirectional and unbalanced. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(2), 186-196.
[ 鲁忠义, 贾利宁, 翟冬雪 . (2017). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻理解中的映射: 双向性及不平衡性. 心理学报, 49(2), 186-196.]
[26] Mahon B. Z., & Caramazza A . (2008). A critical look at the embodied cognition hypothesis and a new proposal for grounding conceptual content. Journal of Physiology Paris, 102(1-3), 59-70.
[27] Mcgonigle B., & Chalmers M . (1984). The selective impact of question form and input mode on the symbolic distance effect in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37(3), 525-554.
[28] McRae K., de Sa V. R., & Seidenberg M. S . (1997). On the nature and scope of featural representations of word meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126(2), 99-130.
[29] Meier B. P., Hauser D. J., Robinson M. D., Friesen C. K., & Schjeldahl K . (2007). What's" up" with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 699-710.
[30] Miles L. K., Nind L. K., Henderson Z., & Macrae C. N . (2010). Moving memories: behavioral synchrony and memory for self and others. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 457-460.
[31] Proctor R. W., & Cho Y. S . (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 416-442.
[32] Russell B . (1938). Power: A new social analysis. New York: Norton.
[33] Santiago J., Lupiáñez J., Pérez E., & Funes M. J . (2007). Time (also) flies from left to right. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(3), 512-516.
[34] Santiago J., Ouellet M., Antonio R., & Valenzuela J . (2012). Attentional factors in conceptual congruency. Cognitive Science, 36(6), 1051-1077.
[35] Schecter B., & Broughton J . (1991). Developmental relationships between psychological metaphors and concepts of life and consciousness. Metaphor & Symbol Activity, 6(2), 119-143.
[36] Schubert T. W . (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 1-21.
[37] Schubert T. W., Waldzus S., & Giessner S. R . (2009). Control over the association of power and size. Social Cognition, 27(1), 1-19.
[38] Sherman G. D., & Clore G. L . (2009). The color of sin: white and black are perceptual symbols of moral purity and pollution. Psychological Science, 20(8), 1019-1025.
[39] Shutts K., Brey E. L., Dornbusch L. A., Slywotzky N., & Olson K. R . (2016). Children use wealth cues to evaluate others. PLoS ONE, 11(3), e0149360.
[40] Shutts K., Roben C. K. P., & Spelke E. S . (2013). Children’s use of social categories in thinking about people and social relationships. Journal of Cognition and Development, 14(1), 35-62.
[41] Smith C., Carey S., & Wiser M . (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21(3), 177-237.
[42] Song X., Zhang J., Li X., & You X . (2017). The mechanism underlying the associations between emotional valance and horizontal space. Journal of Psychological Science, 40(5), 1033-1039.
[ 宋晓蕾, 张俊婷, 李小芳, 游旭群 . (2017). 水平空间与情绪效价联结效应的产生机制. 心理科学, 40(5), 1033-1039.]
[43] Tang F., Zhou H., Zhang H., & Zhu L . (2018). Development of spatial representation of power in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 173, 239-249.
[44] Thomsen L., Frankenhuis W. E., Ingoldsmith M. C., & Carey S . (2011). Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science, 331(6016), 477-480.
[45] Vosniadou S., Ortony A., Reynolds R. E., & Wilson P. T . (1984). Sources of difficulty in the young children's understanding of metaphorical language. Child Development, 55(4), 1588-1606.
[46] Wang N., Qian F . (2005). Preschool psychology. Shanghai: Fudan University Press.
[ 汪乃铭, 钱峰 . (2005). 学前心理学. 上海: 复旦大学出版社.]
[47] Weger U. W., & Pratt J . (2008). Time flies like an arrow: Space-time compatibility effects suggest the use of a mental timeline. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 426-430.
[48] Wu N., Chen Q., Wu Y., & Qian H . (2016). The spatial metaphoric representation of social status in 5-7 years old children’s drawings. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 14(1), 50-56.
[ 吴念阳, 陈纤纤, 吴燕, 钱海燕 . (2016). 5-7岁儿童绘画中社会地位的“大／小”隐喻表征. 心理与行为研究, 14(1), 50-56.]
[49] Wu Y., Wang A., Jiang J., & Guliza B . (2013). Relation between power and weight in priming task. Psychological Exploration, 33(2), 168-174.
[ 武悦, 王爱平, 蒋奖, 古丽扎·伯克力 . (2013). 启动任务中重量与权力的关系. 心理学探新, 33(2), 168-174.]
[50] Yang H., He X., Zhao X., & Zhang W . (2015). Multiple metaphorical representations of power: Evidence from size and color. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(7), 939-949.
[ 杨蕙兰, 何先友, 赵雪汝, 张维 . (2015). 权力的概念隐喻表征: 来自大小与颜色隐喻的证据. 心理学报, 47(7), 939-949.]
[51] Ye H., Ma Y., & Yang W . (2018). Body and cognitive representation: Understandings and divergences. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(4), 462-472.
[ 叶浩生, 麻彦坤, 杨文登 . (2018). 身体与认知表征: 见解与分歧. 心理学报, 50(4), 462-472.]
[52] Yin R., Ye H . (2014). The black and white metaphor representation of moral concepts and its influence on moral cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(9), 1331-1346.
[ 殷融, 叶浩生 . (2014). 道德概念的黑白隐喻表征及其对道德认知的影响. 心理学报, 46(9), 1331-1346.]
[53] Zanolie K., Dantzig S. V., Boot I., Wijnen J., Schubert T. W., Giessner S. R., & Pecher D . (2012). Mighty metaphors: Behavioral and ERP evidence that power shifts attention on a vertical dimension. Brain and Cognition, 78(1), 50-58.
[54] Zhong C. B., & Liljenquist K . (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313(5792), 1451-1452.




[1]张丽锦,陈亮,方富熹. “儿童认知发展水平诊断工具”动态测验的初步编制与应用[J]. 心理学报, 2011, 43(09): 1075-1086.
[2]许晓晖,庞丽娟,张华,周新林,陶沙. 母亲评价与幼儿数学认知发展的关系[J]. 心理学报, 2007, 39(05): 837-844.
[3]杨丽珠,王江洋,刘文,Monica Cuskelly,Airong Zhang. 3~5岁幼儿自我延迟满足的发展特点及其中澳跨文化比较[J]. 心理学报, 2005, 37(02): 224-232.
[4]李红，郑持军，高雪梅. 推理方向与规则维度对儿童因果推理的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2004, 36(05): 550-557.
[5]方富熹,盖笑松，龚少英，刘国雄. 对儿童认知发展水平诊断工具IPDT的信度效度检验[J]. 心理学报, 2004, 36(01): 96-102.
[6]莫雷,邹艳春,Chen ,Zhen,王穗苹,温忠麟. 3~5岁幼儿一位数大小比较的信息加工模式[J]. 心理学报, 2003, 35(04): 520-526.
[7]邓赐平,桑标,缪小春. 程式知识与幼儿心理理论的发展关系[J]. 心理学报, 2002, 34(06): 44-51.
[8]朱莉琪,方富熹. 学前儿童“朴素生物学理论”发展的实验研究──对“生长”现象的认知发展[J]. 心理学报, 2000, 32(2): 177-182.
[9]俞国良,张登印,林崇德. 学习不良儿童的家庭资源对其认知发展、学习动机的影响[J]. 心理学报, 1998, 30(2): 174-181.
[10]陈会昌,李淑湘,王莉. 训练对6岁儿童友谊特性认知发展的影响[J]. 心理学报, 1997, 29(2): 137-143.
[11]李淑湘,陈会昌,陈英和. 615岁儿童对友谊特性的认知发展[J]. 心理学报, 1997, 29(1): 52-60.
[12]方富熹,方格,王文忠. 7－15岁儿童对友谊关系的认知及其发展[J]. 心理学报, 1996, 28(1): 1-8.
[13]王文忠,方富熹,方格. 儿童逻辑关系认知发展的实验研究[J]. 心理学报, 1995, 27(1): 46-53.
[14]方富熹,王文忠. 小学儿童奖赏公平性的认知发展[J]. 心理学报, 1994, 26(4): 354-361.
[15]查子秀,周林. 对中学超常儿童的教育实验——北京八中首届超常实验班追踪研究[J]. 心理学报, 1993, 25(4): 3-11.





PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4628
相关话题/心理 空间 图片 实验 心理学

Free考研考试FreeKaoYan.Com
欢迎来到Free考研考试，"为实现人生的Free而奋斗"

© 2020 FreeKaoYan! . All rights reserved.