Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: a meta-analysis

  • BRITTA C. BRUGMAN (a1), CHRISTIAN BURGERS (a1) and BARBARA VIS (a2)
Abstract

Conceptual metaphor theory and other important theories in metaphor research are often experimentally tested by studying the effects of metaphorical frames on individuals’ reasoning. Metaphorical frames can be identified by at least two levels of analysis: words vs. concepts. Previous overviews of metaphorical-framing effects have mostly focused on metaphorical framing through words (metaphorical-words frames) rather than through concepts (metaphorical-concepts frames). This means that these overviews included only experimental studies that looked at variations in individual words instead of at the broader logic of messages. For this reason, we conducted a meta-analysis (k = 91, N = 34,783) to compare the persuasive impact of both types of metaphorical frames. Given that patterns of metaphor usage differ across discourse domains, and that effects may differ across modalities and discourse domains, we focused on one mode of presentation and one discourse domain only: verbal metaphorical framing in political discourse. Results showed that, compared to non-metaphorical frames, both metaphorical-words and metaphorical-concepts frames positively influenced beliefs and attitudes. Yet, these effects were larger for metaphorical-concepts frames. We therefore argue that future research should more explicitly describe and justify which level of analysis is chosen to examine the nature and effects of metaphorical framing.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: a meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: a meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: a meta-analysis
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Britta C. Brugman, Department of Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1081, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: b.c.brugman@vu.nl.
Footnotes
Hide All

The research in this paper was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, grant 276-45-005. We would like to thank Ellen Droog for serving as the second coder in this study; Brad Bushman for assistance with the meta-analysis procedures; Aaron Ashley, Mark Brunson, Michael Cobb, Chao-yo Cheng, Dennis Chong, Adam Corner, Claes de Vreese, Stephen Flusberg, Timothy Fung, Gang (Kevin) Han, Todd Hartman, Willem Joris, Nathan Kalmoe, Luuk Lagerwerf, Oliver Lauenstein, Neil Malhotra, Julien Perrez, Ray Pingree, Penny Sheets Thibaut, Craig Stewart, and Sander van der Linden for kindly answering our questions about their papers and/or providing us with detailed statistics.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
References included in the meta-analysis are preceded by an asterisk (*).
Aalberg, T., Strömbäck, J., & de Vreese, C. H. (2012). The framing of politics as strategy and game: a review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism, 13(2), 162178.
*Abbarno, A. J., & Zapryanova, G. M. (2013). Indirect effects of Eurosceptic messages on citizen attitudes toward domestic politics. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(4), 581597.
Ahrens, K. (2011). Examining conceptual worldviews though lexical frequency patterns: a case study of U.S. presidential speeches. In Handl, S. & Schmid, H. (Eds.), Windows to the mind: metaphor, metonymy and conceptual blending (pp. 167184). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665683.
Bechtel, M. M., Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D., & Helbling, M. (2015). Reality bites: the limits of framing effects for salient and contested policy issues. Political Science Research and Methods, 3(3), 683695.
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, 50(4), 10881101.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley.
Brugman, B. C., & Burgers, C. (2018). Political framing across disciplines: evidence from 21st century framing experiments. Research & Politics, 5(2), 17.
Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., & Steen, G. J. (2017). Recategorizing political frames: a systematic review of metaphorical framing in experiments on political communication. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 181197.
Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J. (2016). Figurative framing: shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole and irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410430.
Chandler, J. J., Reinhard, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content: knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 948952.
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor (2nd ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
*Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637655.
Cienki, A. (2005). Metaphor in the ‘strict father’ and ‘nurturant parent’ cognitive models: theoretical issues raised in an empirical study. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(2), 279312.
Clifford, S., Jewell, R. M., & Waggoner, P. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Research & Politics, 2(4), 19.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Corner, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2015). Like artificial trees? The effect of framing by natural analogy on public perceptions of geoengineering. Climatic Change, 130(3), 425438.
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: why and how. Psychological Science, 25(1), 729.
*D’Angelo, P., & Lombard, M. (2008). The power of the press: the effects of press frames in political campaign news on media perceptions. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 16(1), 132.
Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2010). Students as experimental participants: a defense of the ‘narrow data base’. In Druckman, J. N., Green, D. P., Kuklinski, J. H., & Lupia, A. (Eds.), Handbook of experimental political science (pp. 4157). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455463.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315(7109), 629634.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 5158.
Geise, S., & Baden, C. (2014). Putting the image back into the frame: modeling the linkage between visual communication and frame-processing theory. Communication Theory, 25(1), 4669.
Holman, M. R. (2016). Gender, political rhetoric, and moral metaphors in state of the city addresses. Urban Affairs Review, 52(4), 501530.
*Joris, W. (2016). De Eurocrisis in het nieuws: Een frameanalyse van de verslaggeving in Europese kranten en een effectenstudie van metaforische frames [The Eurocrisis in the news: a frame analysis of the news coverage in European newspapers and an effect study of metaphorical frames]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.
*Kalmoe, N. P. (2014). Fueling the fire: violent metaphors, trait aggression, and support for political violence. Political Communication, 31(4), 545563.
Krennmayr, T. (2013). Top-down versus bottom-up approaches to the identification of metaphor in discourse. Metaphorik.de, 24, 736.
Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral politics: how liberals and conservatives think (2nd ed.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by . Chicago: Chicago University Press.
*Landau, M. J., Keefer, L. A., & Rothschild, Z. K. (2014). Epistemic motives moderate the effect of metaphoric framing on attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 125138.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159174.
Lee, S. W., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Dirty hands and dirty mouths: embodiment of the moral-purity metaphor is specific to the motor modality involved in moral transgression. Psychological Science, 21(10), 14231425.
Levine, T. R., Asada, K. J., & Carpenter, C. (2009). Sample sizes and effect sizes are negatively correlated in meta-analyses: evidence and implications of a publication bias against nonsignificant findings. Communication Monographs, 76(3), 286302.
Machery, E. (2010). Explaining why experimental behavior varies across cultures: a missing step in ‘The weirdest people in the world?Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2/3), 101102.
Moses, J. F., & Gonzales, M. H. (2015). Strong candidate, nurturant candidate: moral language in presidential television advertisements. Political Psychology, 36(4), 379397.
Ohl, J. J., Pfister, D. S., Nader, M., & Griffin, D. (2013). Lakoff’s theory of moral reasoning in presidential campaign advertisements, 1952–2012. Communication Studies, 64(5), 488507.
*Pingree, R. J., Hill, M., & McLeod, D. M. (2013). Distinguishing effects of game framing and journalistic adjudication on cynicism and epistemic political efficacy. Communication Research, 40(2), 193214.
Polanin, J. R., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Hennessy, E. A. (2016). Estimating the difference between published and unpublished effect sizes: a meta-review. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 207236.
Renardel de Lavalette, K. Y. R., Steen, G. J., & Burgers, C. (in press). How to identify moral language in presidential speeches: a comparison between a social-psychological and a metaphorical-words framing to corpus analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. doi:10.1515/cllt-2016-0007
Robins, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). The metaphor framing effect: metaphorical reasoning about text-based dilemmas. Discourse Processes, 30(1), 5786.
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: prevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester: Wiley.
Semino, E., Demjén, Z., & Demmen, J. (2018). An integrated approach to metaphor and framing in cognition, discourse, and practice, with an application to metaphors for cancer. Applied Linguistics, 39(5), 625645.
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014). P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(2), 534547.
Sopory, P., & Dillard, J. P. (2002). The persuasive effects of metaphor: a meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382419.
Steen, G. J. (2017). Deliberate metaphor theory: basic assumptions, main tenets, urgent issues. Intercultural Pragmatics, 14(1), 124.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., & Krennmayr, T. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 765796.
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010). A method for linguistic metaphor identification: from MIP to MIPVU. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Steen, G. J., Reijnierse, W. G., & Burgers, C. (2014). When do natural language metaphors influence reasoning? A follow-up study to Thibodeau and Boroditsky (2013). PLoS One, 9(12), e113536.
Thibodeau, P. H. (2016). Extended metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(2), 5372.
Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Metaphors we think with: the role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS One, 6(2), e16782. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory data analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Van Stee, S. K. (2018). Meta-analysis of the persuasive effects of metaphorical vs. literal messages. Communication Studies, 69(5), 545566.
Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A. (2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901), 606607.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Language and Cognition
  • ISSN: 1866-9808
  • EISSN: 1866-9859
  • URL: /core/journals/language-and-cognition
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed