Making the Unseen Seen: The Role of Signaling and Novelty in Rating Metaphors.

Comprehension of metaphorical expressions differs with their degree of novelty. Conventional metaphors are typically comprehended as easily as literal sentences, while novel metaphors are responded to less quickly than their conventional counterparts. However, the influence of metaphor signals on the interpretability and acceptability of sentences with metaphors, especially their potential interaction with novelty, remains an open question. We conducted six online experiments among 1,694 native speakers of American English to examine how interpretability and acceptability ratings of individually presented sentences were affected by metaphor novelty and different types of metaphor signals. Across all six experiments, we consistently found that novel metaphors decreased the interpretability and acceptability of sentences compared to both conventional metaphors and literal controls. Signals, on the contrary, did not impact the interpretability or acceptability of the sentences. Moreover, only in experiment 3b did we find an interaction between metaphor type and signals. Specifically, when a metaphor was marked by double signals (i.e., both lexical signals and a typographical signal were added around the metaphorical keywords) vs. no signals, acceptability of novel metaphors increased, but acceptability of conventional metaphors decreased. We hypothesize that the double signaling of novel metaphors marks their novelty, making them more acceptable. By contrast, the double signaling of conventional metaphors may have been perceived as redundant, leading to a lower acceptability.

Stereotypical Questions: How Stereotypes About Conversation Partners Are Reflected in Question Formulations.

In conversations, activated stereotypes about conversation partners can influence communicative behaviors. We investigate whether and how stereotypes about categorized conversation partners shape topic choice and the types of questions asked. In three experiments, participants imagined having a conversation. Gender or age stereotypes of the conversation partner were manipulated by means of a picture. Results show a higher likelihood of addressing conversation and question topics consistent with stereotypic expectancies about conversation partners. Moreover, stereotypes were reflected in subtle variations in question formulations. When questions address stereotype-consistent topics, they are likelier formulated with high-frequency adverbs and positive valence, while questions addressing stereotype-inconsistent topics more likely contain low-frequency adverbs and negative valence. In addition, Experiment 4 suggests that recipients are sensitive to detect that questions reflect stereotypes about themselves, which can influence the evaluation of the conversation and partner. We discuss the consequences of biased question asking for interpersonal conversation and stereotype maintenance.

Metaphorical Humor in Satirical News Shows: A Content Analysis.

Satirical news is often characterized as a hybrid genre that consists of three important communicative functions: it is (1) humoristic, (2) informative, and (3) evaluative. The Humoristic Metaphors in Satirical News (HMSN) typology demonstrates that metaphors can be utilized by satirists to express this hybridity by consisting of a combination of one or more of satire's core communicative functions. Nevertheless, the underlying principles through which metaphors are capable of humorously explaining and/or criticizing current affairs are less clear. To broaden our understanding of how metaphorical humor is used in satirical news to fulfill these functions, we integrate the HMSN typology with the General Theory of Verbal Humor (GTVH). The GTVH assumes that all verbal humor must draw from six interdependent Knowledge Resources (KRs). Through a content analysis of metaphorical humor used across various American satirical news shows, we investigated how these KRs are used to fulfill satire's core communicative functions across the various metaphorical sub-types of the HSMN typology. We found that: (1) some KRs can help fulfill the communicative function(s) of metaphorical jokes, while (2) some KRs constrain the options available for the expression of certain communicative function(s) or other KRs.

Sounds like a funny joke: Effects of vocal pitch and speech rate on satire liking.

Katz (1996, 2005, 2009) has often emphasized the importance of testing effects of irony in its social context. One social context that has not yet received much attention in the literature is the inherently ironic genre of satirical news. To alert their audiences to irony, satirists can use markers, one of which being prosody. However, little is known about whether variations in prosodic features actually promote satire liking. This study focused on two prosodic features that previous research associated with irony marking: (a) low vocal pitch, and (b) slow speech rate. We conducted two experiments to determine whether a low (vs. high) vocal pitch (Experiment 1; N = 244) and a slow (vs. fast) speech rate (Experiment 2; N = 234) moderated potential effects of satirical (vs. regular) news exposure on perceived humor, enjoyment, and appreciation. Results showed that participants rated satirical news recordings as more humorous than regular news recordings. In both experiments, enjoyment and appreciation of satirical news were mediated by perceived humor, such that there was a suppression effect: while the indirect effect of satirical news exposure on enjoyment and appreciation was positive, the direct effect was negative. Vocal pitch and speech rate did not influence humor ratings. This finding suggests that contextual cues may already sufficiently be at play in signaling the irony in satirical news, therefore supporting Katz's claim (1996, 2005, 2009) that taking social context into account when conducting irony experiments is essential. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

How journalists and experts metaphorically frame emerging information technologies: The case of cyberinfrastructure for big data.

Journalists and experts contribute to the creation of frames (frame-building) of innovations. However, little is known about the specific contribution of these different societal actors to the frame-building of emerging information technologies. This article focuses on a specific emerging information technology - cyberinfrastructure for big data. In particular, we investigated the role of metaphors in the frame-building of cyberinfrastructure during its early development, and contrast the metaphorical framing of cyberinfrastructure by journalists in a corpus of US news texts (Study 1) with the metaphorical framing of experts in a corpus of interviews (Study 2). Results show considerable differences between the frames by journalists and experts in the frame-building process. Journalists, to a great extent, employ their own frames in conceptualizing cyberinfrastructure rather than drawing on the frames used by experts. Future research should investigate the impact of these different metaphorical frames on audience members.

On abstraction: decoupling conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity.

Conceptual concreteness and categorical specificity are two continuous variables that allow distinguishing, for example, justice (low concreteness) from banana (high concreteness) and furniture (low specificity) from rocking chair (high specificity). The relation between these two variables is unclear, with some scholars suggesting that they might be highly correlated. In this study, we operationalize both variables and conduct a series of analyses on a sample of > 13,000 nouns, to investigate the relationship between them. Concreteness is operationalized by means of concreteness ratings, and specificity is operationalized as the relative position of the words in the WordNet taxonomy, which proxies this variable in the hypernym semantic relation. Findings from our studies show only a moderate correlation between concreteness and specificity. Moreover, the intersection of the two variables generates four groups of words that seem to denote qualitatively different types of concepts, which are, respectively, highly specific and highly concrete (typical concrete concepts denoting individual nouns), highly specific and highly abstract (among them many words denoting human-born creation and concepts within the social reality domains), highly generic and highly concrete (among which many mass nouns, or uncountable nouns), and highly generic and highly abstract (typical abstract concepts which are likely to be loaded with affective information, as suggested by previous literature). These results suggest that future studies should consider concreteness and specificity as two distinct dimensions of the general phenomenon called abstraction.

How Polysemy Affects Concreteness Ratings: The Case of Metaphor.

Concreteness ratings are frequently used in a variety of disciplines to operationalize differences between concrete and abstract words and concepts. However, most ratings studies present items in isolation, thereby overlooking the potential polysemy of words. Consequently, ratings for polysemous words may be conflated, causing a threat to the validity of concreteness-ratings studies. This is particularly relevant to metaphorical words, which typically describe something abstract in terms of something more concrete. To investigate whether perceived concreteness ratings differ for metaphorical versus non-metaphorical word meanings, we obtained concreteness ratings for 96 English nouns from 230 participants. Results show that nouns are perceived as less concrete when a metaphorical (versus non-metaphorical) meaning is triggered. We thus recommend taking metaphoricity into account in future concreteness-ratings studies to further improve the quality and reliability of such studies, as well as the consistency of the empirical studies that rely on these ratings.

Identifying Sustainable Population Segments Using a Multi-Domain Questionnaire: A Five Factor Sustainability Scale.

This study presents the creation of a measurement device to determine and define sustainability attitudes into identifiable sustainability segments. These segments were profiled with behavioral and sociodemographic data. Based on previous literature, key sustainability topics were identified from which a 31-item questionnaire was developed, the Five Factor Sustainability Scale (FFSS). With the FFSS, multiple domains of environmental sustainability can be assessed. We present results validating this measure using a factor-cluster segmentation approach in a nationally representative sample (N = 508). Five sustainability factors emerged: (1) sustainable spending, (2) sustainable skepticism, (3) sustainable responsibility, (4) sustainable support, and (5) sustainable mobility. A cluster analysis on this sample yielded four segments in which people were grouped according to their sustainable attitudes: (1) Convinced Sustainers, (2) Sustainable Wannabes, (3) Sustainable Non-Believers, and (4) Non-Sustainers. Results linking these segments to behavioral and demographic data show discernable differences between the segments, making the FFSS a valuable tool for future intervention studies aiming at sustainable behavior change.

"Smoking Is Sóóó ... Sandals and White Socks": Co-Creation of a Dutch Anti-Smoking Campaign to Change Social Norms.

This article considers co-creation as a new persuasive strategy in health campaigns. Co-creation enables target audience members to become active campaign producers. A recent Dutch anti-smoking campaign applied co-creation, inviting the target audience to complete the slogan "smoking is sóóó . . . " with something outdated on social networking sites (SNSs) like Facebook and Twitter to stress non-smoking as the new social norm. From a corpus-linguistic perspective, we investigated how the slogans from the target audience resonated with or deviated from the campaign's original message. In general, the target audience slogans followed the campaign's approach, but on the SNSs, differences were found regarding the valence, type of utterance, and domain to which smoking was compared. The target audience frequently compared smoking with other (inter)personal social norms. Co-creation thus provides the target audience with an opportunity to disseminate campaign messages from their own perspective, but at the same time a co-creation strategy risks diluting the intended campaign message.

How (not) to inform patients about drug use: use and effects of negations in Dutch patient information leaflets.

PURPOSE: Under EU regulations, patient information leaflets (PILs) are required to be clear and understandable. Negations (e.g., not, no) are a linguistic aspect that may impact PIL comprehension, yet go unmentioned in these regulations. We conducted two studies to determine (1) how negations are used in Dutch PILs (study 1) and (2) the effects of negations on readers (study 2). METHODS: Study 1 was a content analysis of 30 PILs of different brands of pollinosis drugs, half of which were freely available in drugstores and half only by physician prescription. We mapped negation use in PIL sections on 'proper usage' and 'potential side effects'. Study 2 was an experiment in which participants (N = 80, Mage = 33.19 years, SDage = 13.66; 76.3% female) were presented with one of two PIL texts on proper drug usage. Texts were identical except for the use of negations. After reading, participants answered questions about comprehension, PIL appreciation and medical adherence intentions. RESULTS: Study 1 demonstrates that negations are often used in PILs as 21.0% of clauses contain at least one negation. This number is higher in sections related to potential side effects than proper usage. Study 2 demonstrates that negations decrease both actual and subjective comprehension. Negations also decrease PIL appreciation and medical adherence intentions. The reduction in medical adherence intentions is driven by the decrease of subjective and not actual comprehension. CONCLUSIONS: In general, participants prefer PILs that contain clear and comprehensible language. To increase comprehensibility, PIL designers should refrain from using negations as much as possible.

When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013).

In this article, we offer a critical view of Thibodeau and Boroditsky who report an effect of metaphorical framing on readers' preference for political measures after exposure to a short text on the increase of crime in a fictitious town: when crime was metaphorically presented as a beast, readers became more enforcement-oriented than when crime was metaphorically framed as a virus. We argue that the design of the study has left room for alternative explanations. We report four experiments comprising a follow-up study, remedying several shortcomings in the original design while collecting more encompassing sets of data. Our experiments include three additions to the original studies: (1) a non-metaphorical control condition, which is contrasted to the two metaphorical framing conditions used by Thibodeau and Boroditsky, (2) text versions that do not have the other, potentially supporting metaphors of the original stimulus texts, (3) a pre-exposure measure of political preference (Experiments 1-2). We do not find a metaphorical framing effect but instead show that there is another process at play across the board which presumably has to do with simple exposure to textual information. Reading about crime increases people's preference for enforcement irrespective of metaphorical frame or metaphorical support of the frame. These findings suggest the existence of boundary conditions under which metaphors can have differential effects on reasoning. Thus, our four experiments provide converging evidence raising questions about when metaphors do and do not influence reasoning.

How the doc should (not) talk: when breaking bad news with negations influences patients' immediate responses and medical adherence intentions.

OBJECTIVE: We investigate the role of specific formulations in a doctor's bad news delivery. We focus on the effects of negations and message framing on patients' immediate responses to the message and the doctor, and long-term consequences including quality of life and medical adherence intentions. METHODS: Two lab experiments with 2 (language use: negations vs. affirmations)×2 (framing: positive vs. negative) between-subjects designs. After reading a transcription (experiment 1) or seeing a film clip (experiment 2), participants rated their evaluation of the message and the doctor, expected quality of life, and medical adherence intentions. RESULTS: Positively framed bad news with negations score more negative on these dependent variables than positively framed affirmations (both experiments). For negatively framed negations, these results are reversed (experiment 2). Furthermore, the evaluations of the message (experiment 1) and the doctor (both experiments) mediate the interaction of framing and language use on medical adherence intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Small linguistic variations (i.e., negations vs. affirmations) in breaking bad news can have a significant impact on the health message, doctor evaluation and medical adherence intentions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Doctors should refrain from using negations to break positively framed news, and employ negations when breaking negatively framed news.