Similarity is closeness: Metaphorical mapping in a conceptual task

Abstract

The conceptual metaphor theory states that abstract concepts are represented by image schemas from concrete domains. In the present study we investigated the mapping for SIMILARITY IS CLOSENESS using tasks with nonlinguistic materials. In Experiments 1 and 2 participants decided whether two squares were similar or dissimilar in colour. The spatial distance between the squares was varied. Performance to similar colours was better at shorter distances, whereas performance to dissimilar colours was better at longer distances. In Experiments 3 and 4 participants made distance decisions to similar and dissimilar colours squares. Performance was not affected by similarity. These results show that metaphorical mappings can be found even beyond the context of linguistic metaphors and that the mapping between SIMILARITY and CLOSENESS is asymmetrical.

Keywords

Metaphor Abstract concept Image schema Asymmetry

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barsalou

L. W.

(1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22, 577–660.

Barsalou

L. W.

Hale

C. R.

(1993). Components of conceptual representation: From feature lists to recursive frames. Categories and concepts: Theoretical views and inductive data analysis. Van Mechelen

Hampton

Michalski

Theuns

San Diego, CA: Academic Press 97–144.

Barwise

Perry

(1983). Situations and attitudes Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books/MIT Press.

Boroditsky

(2000). Metaphorical structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75, 1–28.

Boroditsky

Ramscar

(2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13, 185–189.

Breaux

B. O.

Feist

M. I.

(2008). The color of similarity. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Love

B. C.

McRae

Sloutsky

V. M.

Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Conference 253–258.

Casasanto

(2007a). Space for thinking. Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions. Evans

Chilton

London: Equinox Publishing.

Casasanto

(2007b). When is a linguistic metaphor a conceptual metaphor?. New directions in cognitive linguistics. Evans

Pourcel

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Casasanto

(2008). Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind?. Memory and Cognition 36, 1047–1056.

10.

Casasanto

Boroditsky

(2008). Time in the mind: Using space to think about time. Cognition 106, 579–593.

11.

Chiao

J. Y.

Bordeaux

A. R.

Ambady

(2004). Mental representation of social status. Cognition 93, 49–57.

12.

Crawford

L. E.

Margolies

S. M.

Drake

J. T.

Murphy

M. E.

(2006). Affect biases memory of location: Evidence for the spatial representation of affect. Cognition Emotion 20, 1153–1163.

13.

Fauconnier

Turner

(1998). Conceptual integration networks. Cognitive Science 22, 133–187.

14.

Gentner

(1983). Stucture-mapping: A theoretical framework for analogy. Cognitive Science 7, 155–170.

15.

Gibbs

R. W.

(1994). The poetics of mind: Figurative thought, language, and understanding New York: Cambridge University Press.

16.

Gibbs

R. W.

(1996). Why many concepts are metaphorical. Cognition 61, 309–319.

17.

Giessner

S. R.

Schubert

T. W.

(2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders’ power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 104, 30–44.

18.

Glenberg

A. M.

(1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 20, 1–55.

19.

Glucksberg

Keysar

(1990). Understanding metaphorical comparisons: Beyond similarity. Psychological Review 97, 3–18.

20.

Goldstone

(1994). Influences of categorization on perceptual discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 123, 178–200.

21.

Grady

(1997). A topology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: Correlation vs. resemblance. Metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Gibbs

R. W.

Steen

G. J.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

22.

Grady

(2005). Primary metaphors as input to conceptual integration. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 1595–1614.

23.

Johnson

(1997). Metaphors vs conflation in the acquisition of polysemy: The case of SEE. Current issues in linguistic theory: Vol. 152. Cultural, psychological and typological issues in cognitive linguistics. Hiraga

M. K.

Sinha

Wilcox

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

24.

Johnson

(1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of reason and imagination Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

25.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980). Metaphors we live by Chicago: Chicago University Press.

26.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1999). The philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to the western thought New York: Basic Books.

27.

Langacker

R.W.

(1986). An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10, 1–40.

28.

Loftus

G. R.

Masson

M. E. J.

(1994). Using confidence intervals in within subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1, 476–490.

29.

Mandler

J. M.

(1992). How to build a baby: II. Conceptual primitives. Psychological Review 99, 587–604.

30.

Meier

B. P.

Hauser

D. J.

Robinson

M. D.

Friesen

C. K.

Schjeldahl

(2007). What's “up” with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 93, 599–710.

31.

Meier

B. P.

Robinson

M. D.

(2004). Why the sunny side is up: Association between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science 15, 243–247.

32.

Meier

B. P.

Robinson

M. D.

(2006). Does “feeling down” mean seeing down? Depressive symptoms and vertical selective attention. Journal of Research in Personality 40, 451–461.

33.

Meier

B. P.

Robinson

M. D.

Clore

G. L.

(2004). Why good guys wear white. Automatic inferences about stimulus valence based on brightness. American Psychological Science 15, 82–87.

34.

Murphy

G. L.

(1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition 60, 173–204.

35.

Rosnow

R. L.

Rosenthal

(1989). Definition and interpretation of interaction effects. Psychological Bulletin 105, 143–146.

36.

Schnall

Clore

G. L.

Emergent meaning in affective space: Conceptual and spatial congruence produces positive evaluations. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society. Forbus

Gentner

Regier

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Mahwah, NJ

2004.

37.

Schubert

T. W.

(2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89, 1–21.

38.

The Quotations Page. (2007, August 9). Retrieved August 3, 2009, from http://www.quotationpage.com/quotes/Albert_Einstein/.

39.

Van Dantzig

Boot

Giessner

Schubert

Pecher

(2008). Mighty metaphors: The role of spatial schemas in representing the concept of power Manuscript submitted for publication.

40.

Van den Bos

(2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85, 482–498.

41.

Van den Bos

Lind

E. A.

Vermunt

Wilke

H. A. M.

(1997). How do I judge my outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, 1034–1046.