王丛兴¹, 杨玉琴¹, 熊猛^2,3, 叶一舵¹()

¹福建师范大学心理学院, 福州 350000
²长江大学教育与体育学院心理学系, 荆州 434023
³Department of Psychology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH89JZ, UK

收稿日期:2020-05-21出版日期:2021-02-25发布日期:2020-12-29
通讯作者:叶一舵E-mail:yeyiduo@163.com

The influence of feature integration and processing depth on metaphorical association between moral concepts and container space

WANG Congxing¹, YANG Yuqing¹, XIONG Meng^2,3, YE Yiduo¹()

¹School of Psychology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou 350000, China
²Department of Psychology, School of Education and Sport Sciences, Yangtze University, Jingzhou 434023, China
³Department of Psychology, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH89JZ, UK

Received:2020-05-21Online:2021-02-25Published:2020-12-29
Contact:YE Yiduo E-mail:yeyiduo@163.com

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 提出了隐喻提取假说将隐喻联结的形成和提取进行分离, 并通过3个实验探究了道德概念与容器空间的隐喻联结及其受知觉加工深度和特征整合程度的影响。实验1采用空间Stroop范式, 实验2a和实验2b均采用启动范式, 实验3a和实验3b均采用加入任务要求的Stroop范式。结果发现：(1)在经典Stroop范式中未发现道德概念与容器空间的隐喻联结; (2)在启动范式中发现, 较深知觉加工深度下道德概念与容器空间存在较弱的隐喻联结; (3)在较高特征整合程度的Stroop任务中, 道德概念与容器空间存在较强的隐喻联结。结果表明：道德概念与容器空间存在道德为内、不道德为外的隐喻联结, 这种隐喻联结在映射上表现为双向性, 并且受到特征整合程度和知觉加工深度的影响, 同时也为隐喻提取假说提供了证据支持。

图/表 16

图1道德概念容器空间隐喻研究框架图
图1道德概念容器空间隐喻研究框架图



图2实验1流程图
图2实验1流程图


表1被试分析中道德词性判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	629.42 ± 74.04	656.88 ± 80.22
外部	632.65 ± 68.71	656.59 ± 83.46

表1被试分析中道德词性判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	629.42 ± 74.04	656.88 ± 80.22
外部	632.65 ± 68.71	656.59 ± 83.46

表2被试分析中道德词性判断的正确率和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.963 ± 0.040	0.941 ± 0.036
外部	0.959 ± 0.035	0.950 ± 0.035

表2被试分析中道德词性判断的正确率和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.963 ± 0.040	0.941 ± 0.036
外部	0.959 ± 0.035	0.950 ± 0.035

图3实验2a流程图
图3实验2a流程图


表3被试分析中道德词性判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	较深加工		较浅加工
	道德词	不道德词	道德词	不道德词
内部	656.87 ± 116.66	708.85 ± 103.84	711.77 ± 134.39	729.15 ± 140.91
外部	692.37 ± 89.07	719.07 ± 106.62	707.01 ± 126.32	732.66 ± 138.11

表3被试分析中道德词性判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	较深加工		较浅加工
	道德词	不道德词	道德词	不道德词
内部	656.87 ± 116.66	708.85 ± 103.84	711.77 ± 134.39	729.15 ± 140.91
外部	692.37 ± 89.07	719.07 ± 106.62	707.01 ± 126.32	732.66 ± 138.11

表4被试分析中道德词性判断的正确率和标准差

容器空间	较深加工		较浅加工
	道德词	不道德词	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.973 ± 0.031	0.962 ± 0.035	0.961 ± 0.054	0.960 ± 0.047
外部	0.972 ± 0.037	0.959 ± 0.048	0.970 ± 0.039	0.952 ± 0.050

表4被试分析中道德词性判断的正确率和标准差

容器空间	较深加工		较浅加工
	道德词	不道德词	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.973 ± 0.031	0.962 ± 0.035	0.961 ± 0.054	0.960 ± 0.047
外部	0.972 ± 0.037	0.959 ± 0.048	0.970 ± 0.039	0.952 ± 0.050

图4实验2b流程图
图4实验2b流程图


表5被试分析中字母判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	较深加工		较浅加工
	道德词	不道德词	道德词	不道德词
内部	609.61 ± 146.76	648.89 ± 148.33	610.06 ± 143.87	610.00 ± 157.97
外部	625.65 ± 138.77	630.38 ± 117.37	649.27 ± 157.14	648.95 ± 152.28

表5被试分析中字母判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	较深加工		较浅加工
	道德词	不道德词	道德词	不道德词
内部	609.61 ± 146.76	648.89 ± 148.33	610.06 ± 143.87	610.00 ± 157.97
外部	625.65 ± 138.77	630.38 ± 117.37	649.27 ± 157.14	648.95 ± 152.28

表6被试分析中字母判断的正确率和标准差

容器空间	较深加工		较浅加工
	道德词	不道德词	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.953 ± 0.054	0.943 ± 0.057	0.974 ± 0.032	0.973 ± 0.023
外部	0.968 ± 0.041	0.925 ± 0.077	0.969 ± 0.035	0.956 ± 0.040

表6被试分析中字母判断的正确率和标准差

容器空间	较深加工		较浅加工
	道德词	不道德词	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.953 ± 0.054	0.943 ± 0.057	0.974 ± 0.032	0.973 ± 0.023
外部	0.968 ± 0.041	0.925 ± 0.077	0.969 ± 0.035	0.956 ± 0.040

图5实验3a流程图
图5实验3a流程图


表7被试分析中词性判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	902.36 ± 173.14	1009.14 ± 204.53
外部	1007.98 ± 226.86	984.90 ± 207.61

表7被试分析中词性判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	902.36 ± 173.14	1009.14 ± 204.53
外部	1007.98 ± 226.86	984.90 ± 207.61

表8被试分析中词性判断的正确率和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.948 ± 0.042	0.881 ± 0.070
外部	0.879 ± 0.096	0.931 ± 0.045

表8被试分析中词性判断的正确率和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.948 ± 0.042	0.881 ± 0.070
外部	0.879 ± 0.096	0.931 ± 0.045

图6实验3b流程图
图6实验3b流程图


表9被试分析中容器空间判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	981.94 ± 151.04	1142.86 ± 176.78
外部	1142.55 ± 179.44	1080.46 ± 175.93

表9被试分析中容器空间判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	981.94 ± 151.04	1142.86 ± 176.78
外部	1142.55 ± 179.44	1080.46 ± 175.93

表10被试分析中容器空间判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.965 ± 0.032	0.888 ± 0.055
外部	0.907 ± 0.057	0.929 ± 0.056

表10被试分析中容器空间判断的反应时和标准差

容器空间	词汇类型
	道德词	不道德词
内部	0.965 ± 0.032	0.888 ± 0.055
外部	0.907 ± 0.057	0.929 ± 0.056

参考文献 53

[1]	Amer, T., Gozli, D. G., & Pratt, J. (2017). Biasing spatial attention with semantic information: An event coding approach. Psychological Research, 82(3), 1-19.
[2]	Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
[3]	Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617-645. URLpmid: 17705682
[4]	Bobro, M. E. (1999). Leibniz on embodiment and the moral order. The Southern journal of philosophy, 37(3), 377-396.
[5]	Boot, I., & Pecher, D. (2011). Representation of categories: Metaphorical use of the container schema. Experimental Psychology, 58(2), 162-170. doi: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000082URLpmid: 20705546
[6]	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. doi: 10.1037/bul0000089URLpmid: 28095000
[7]	Buss, M. D. (2015). Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind (Y. Zhang, & K. Jiang, Trans.). ( New York and London: Taylor & Francis Group. (Original work published 1999)
	[ 巴斯, M. D. (2015). 进化心理学——心理的新科学 (张勇, 蒋柯译). 北京:商务印书馆.]
[8]	Casasanto, D. (2008). The hierarchical structure of mental metaphors. In B. Hampe (Ed.), Metaphor: Embodied cognition and discourse (pp. 46-61). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[9]	Casasanto, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition, 106(2), 579-593. URLpmid: 17509553
[10]	Casasanto, D., & Bottini, R. (2014). Mirror reading can reverse the flow of time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 473-479.
[11]	Chen, X., Jiang, Q., Hou, M., & Zhu, M. Y. (2014). Embodied morality: A new approach in moral psychology. Psychological Development and Education, 30(6), 664-672.
	[ 陈潇, 江琦, 侯敏, 朱梦音. (2014). 具身道德: 道德心理学研究的新取向. 心理发展与教育, 30(6), 664-672.]
[12]	Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-XURL
[13]	Fischer, E. (2017). Two analogy strategies: The cases of mind metaphors and introspection. Connection Science. 30(2), 211-243 doi: 10.1080/09540091.2017.1350937URL
[14]	Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2006). Embodiment and cognitive science. UK: Cambridge University Press.
[15]	He, X. L., & Chen, J. (2020). Cognitive development of multiple metaphors of power concepts in 3~5 year-old children. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(2), 149-161.
	[ 贺晓玲, 陈俊. (2020). 3~5岁幼儿权力概念多重隐喻的认知发展. 心理学报, 52(2), 149-161.]
[16]	Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenkovi?, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 144(6), 641-671. doi: 10.1037/bul0000145URLpmid: 29517263
[17]	Hommel, B. (1998). Automatic stimulus-response translation in dual-task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1368-1384. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.5.1368URLpmid: 9988597
[18]	Hommel, B. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(11), 494-500. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.007URLpmid: 15491903
[19]	Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(5), 849-878.
[20]	Huang, Y., Tse, C.-S., & Xie, J. (2018). The bidirectional congruency effect of brightness-valence metaphoric association in the Stroop-like and priming paradigms. Acta Psychologica, 189(10), 76-92.
[21]	Jia, L, & Jiang, G. F. (2016). The vertical spatial metaphor of moral concepts: Psychological reality and bidirectional mapping. Psychological Development and Education, 32(2), 158-165.
	[ 贾宁, 蒋高芳. (2016). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻的心理现实性及双向映射. 心理发展与教育, 32(2), 158-165.]
[22]	Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24(2), 175-219. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-oURLpmid: 1582172
[23]	Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M., (Eds). (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[24]	Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (Eds). (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
[25]	Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Bidirectionality, mediation, and moderation of metaphorical effects: The embodiment of social suspicion and fishy smells. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 737-749. doi: 10.1037/a0029708URLpmid: 22905770
[26]	Li, Y., Zhang, C., & Wang, Y. (2019). The effect of moral emotions on the metaphorical mapping of morality and its neural mechanism. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(7), 1224-1231.
	[ 李莹, 张灿, 王悦. (2019). 道德情绪在道德隐喻映射中的作用及其神经机制. 心理科学进展, 27(7), 1224-1231.]
[27]	Liu, W. J., Shen, M. Q., Li, Y., & Wang, R. M. (2016). The interaction between emotional concept processing and emotional face perception. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48(2), 163-173.
	[ 刘文娟, 沈曼琼, 李莹, 王瑞明. (2016). 情绪概念加工与情绪面孔知觉的相互影响. 心理学报, 48(2), 163-173.]
[28]	Louwerse, M. M. (2008). Embodied relations are encoded in language. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15, 838-844. doi: 10.3758/pbr.15.4.838URLpmid: 18792513
[29]	Louwerse, M. M., & Jeuniaux, P. (2010). The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing. Cognition, 114(1), 96-104. URLpmid: 19818435
[30]	Lu, Z. Y., Guo, S. P., & Jiang, Z. L. (2017). The size metaphor of moral concepts: Psychological reality and mapping relationship. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), 49(2), 70-78.
	[ 鲁忠义, 郭少鹏, 蒋泽亮. (2017). 道德概念大小隐喻的心理现实性及映射关系. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), 49(2), 70-78.]
[31]	Lu, Z. Y., Jia, L. L., & Zhai, D. X. (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.]
[32]	Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2004). Why good guys wear white: Automatic inferences about stimulus valence based on brightness. Psychological Science, 15(2), 82-87. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502002.xURLpmid: 14738513
[33]	Meier, B. P., Sellbom, M., & Wygant, D. B. (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 757-767.
[34]	Pitt, B., & Casasanto, D. (2020). The correlations in experience principle: How culture shapes concepts of time and number. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(6), 1048-1070.
[35]	Riello, M., & Rusconi, E. (2011). Unimanual SNARC effect: Hand matters. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 372. URLpmid: 22207856
[36]	Treisman, A. M. (1998). Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 353(1373), 1295-1306.
[37]	Wang, B., Fu, Y., & Zhang, J. J. (2019). Influence of language and culture on retrieval-induced forgetting under the self-referential condition: Evidence from the Han and the Mosuo. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(4), 450-461.
	[ 王斌, 付雅, 张积家. (2019). 语言和文化对自我参照条件下提取诱发遗忘的影响——来自汉族人和摩梭人的证据. 心理学报, 51(4), 450-461.]
[38]	Wang, C. X., Ma, J. P., Deng, J., Yang, Z. W., & Ye, Y. D. (2020). The depth of conceptual processing affects the metaphorical connection between moral concepts and horizontal orientation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(4), 426-439.
	[ 王丛兴, 马建平, 邓珏, 杨众望, 叶一舵. (2020). 概念加工深度影响道德概念水平方位隐喻联结. 心理学报, 52(4), 426-439.]
[39]	Wang, X. X., Jiang, S., & Zhang, J. J. (2018). Effect of the spatial linguistic symbol on the container metaphor of seniority rules. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(9), 953-964.
	[ 汪新筱, 江珊, 张积家. (2018). 空间语言标记影响亲属关系的容器隐喻. 心理学报, 50(9), 953-964.]
[40]	Wang, Z, & Lu, Z. Y. (2013). The vertical spatial metaphor of moral concepts and its influence on cognition. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(5), 538-545.
	[ 王锃, 鲁忠义. (2013). 道德概念的垂直空间隐喻及其对认知的影响. 心理学报, 45(5), 538-545.]
[41]	Wang, Z. H., & Yao, Z. (2012). Concreteness effects of emotional noun words: Evidences from ERP. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 44(2), 154-165.
	[ 王振宏, 姚昭. (2012). 情绪名词的具体性效应:来自ERP的证据. 心理学报, 44(2), 154-165.]
[42]	Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901), 606-607. doi: 10.1126/science.1162548URLpmid: 18948544
[43]	Williams, L. E., Huang, J. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2009). The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(7), 1257-1267. URLpmid: 20046813
[44]	Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 625-636. doi: 10.3758/bf03196322URLpmid: 12613670
[45]	Yan, S. C. (2011). Physical cleanliness and morality. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(8), 1242-1248.
	[ 阎书昌. (2011). 身体洁净与道德. 心理科学进展, 19(8), 1242-1248.]
[46]	Yang, J. P., Guo, X. M., & Wang, X. C. (2017). Metaphorical representation of moral concepts: Evidence from red/white color, left/right position and upright/skew font. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 49(7), 875-885.
	[ 杨继平, 郭秀梅, 王兴超. (2017). 道德概念的隐喻表征——从红白颜色、左右位置和正斜字体的维度. 心理学报, 49(7), 875-885.]
[47]	Ye, H. S.(Ed). (2017). Principles and applications of embodied cognition. Beijing, China: The Commercial Press.
	[ 叶浩生(编). (2017). 具身认知的原理与应用. 北京: 商务印书馆.]
[48]	Yin, R., & Ye, H. S. (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.]
[49]	Yin, R., Su, D. Q., & Ye, H. S. (2013). Conceptual Metaphor Theory: Basing on Theories of Embodied Cognition. Advances in Psychological Science, 21(2), 220-234. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.00220URL
	[ 殷融, 苏得权, 叶浩生. (2013). 具身认知视角下的概念隐喻理论. 心理科学进展, 21(2), 220-234.]
[50]	Yu, N., Wang, T. F., & He, Y. L. (2016). Spatial subsystem of moral metaphors: A cognitive semantic Study. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(4), 195-211.
[51]	Zhao, Y., & Wu, L. (2019). The representation of moral metaphor in the vision of embodied cognition. Psychological Exploration, 39(4), 308-313.
	[ 赵岩, 伍麟. (2019). 具身认知视角下的道德隐喻表征. 心理学探新, 39(4), 308-313.]
[52]	Zhong, C. B., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2008). Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold? Psychological Science, 19(9), 838-842. URLpmid: 18947346
[53]	Zhu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2001). Experimental research on the self-reference effect. Science in China, 31(6), 537-543.
	[ 朱滢, 张力. (2001). 自我记忆效应的实验研究. 中国科学, 31(6), 537-543.

相关文章 15

[1]	崔芳, 杨佳苗, 古若雷, 刘洁. 右侧颞顶联合区及道德加工脑网络的功能连接预测社会性框架效应：来自静息态功能磁共振的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2021, 53(1): 55-66.
[2]	王丛兴,马建平,邓珏,杨众望,叶一舵. 概念加工深度影响道德概念水平方位隐喻联结[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(4): 426-439.
[3]	张积家,付雅,王斌. 文化影响亲属词性别概念加工中的空间隐喻与重量隐喻——来自彝族、白族和摩梭人的证据[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(4): 440-455.
[4]	王汉林,蒋泽亮,冯晓慧,鲁忠义. 道德概念的空间形象性：语言因素和具身因素的共同作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(2): 128-138.
[5]	贺晓玲,陈俊. 3~5岁幼儿权力概念多重隐喻的认知发展[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(2): 149-161.
[6]	樊亚凤,蒋晶,崔稳权. 网络公益平台默认选项设置对个人捐赠意愿的影响及作用机制[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 415-427.
[7]	耿晓伟,房津如,韩彦芳,李中权,赵蜜,杨烨. 道德相对主义和厌恶情绪对道德直觉判断的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(4): 517-526.
[8]	马利军,马云霄,何晓清,刘海涛,张静宇. 相对熟悉度和同音线索在谐音型歇后语理解中的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(12): 1306-1317.
[9]	陈斯允,卫海英,孟陆. 社会知觉视角下道德诉求方式如何提升劝捐效果[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(12): 1351-1362.
[10]	吕小康, 付春野, 汪新建. 反驳文本对患方信任和道德判断的影响与机制[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(10): 1171-1186.
[11]	黎晓丹,丁道群,叶浩生. 身体姿势启动的内隐权力感对公平决策的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2019, 51(1): 106-116.
[12]	汪新筱, 江珊, 张积家. 空间语言标记影响亲属关系的容器隐喻[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(9): 953-964.
[13]	金童林, 陆桂芝, 张璐, 乌云特娜, 金祥忠. 暴力环境接触对大学生网络攻击行为的影响：反刍思维与网络道德的作用[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(9): 1051-1060.
[14]	易仲怡,杨文登,叶浩生. 具身认知视角下软硬触觉经验对性别角色认知的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(7): 793-802.
[15]	王静, 薛成波, 刘强. 客体同维度特征的视觉工作记忆存储机制[J]. 心理学报, 2018, 50(2): 176-185.

PDF全文下载地址:

http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlxb/CN/article/downloadArticleFile.do?attachType=PDF&id=4874