Volume 3, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Metaphor production is a creative process of thinking out of the box, which can be of great communicative value to language users. In this study, we explored how metaphor production can be stimulated by different types of cues in an internet environment. Participants ( = 318) were invited to co-create a metaphorical campaign slogan in a social media setting with randomly selected sets of real campaign slogans. We measured how linguistic (metaphor markers) and social media cues (likes) prompt direct metaphor. Results show that the metaphor marker ‘so’ stimulated metaphor production. Likes for previously posted metaphorical slogans did not affect the creation of a metaphor. We found a correlation between the actual and self-perceived creativity of the co-created slogans. Besides, the co-created metaphors both echoed and deviated from previously posted campaign slogans, leading to different degrees of creativity. Co-creation in a social media setting seems a fruitful environment for metaphor production.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Alhabash, Saleem, and Mengyan Ma
    2017 “A tale of four platforms: Motivations and uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat among college students?’ Social Media + Society3(1): 1–13. 10.1177/2056305117691544
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117691544 [Google Scholar]
  2. Beger, Anke
    2011 “Deliberate metaphors? An exploration of the choice and functions of metaphors in US-American college lectures.” Metaphorik.de20: 39–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Benedek, Mathias, Roger Beaty, Emanuel Jauk, Karl Koschutnig, Andreas Fink, Paul J. Silvia, Beate Dunst, and Aljoscha C. Neubauer
    2014 “Creating metaphors: The neural basis of figurative language production.” Neuroimage90(100): 99–106. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.046
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.12.046 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boeynaems, Amber, Christian Burgers, Elly A. Konijn, and Gerard J. Steen
    2017 “The effects of metaphorical framing on political persuasion: A systematic literature review.” Metaphor & Symbol32(2): 118–134. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623 [Google Scholar]
  5. Boozer, Robert W., David C. Wyld, and James Grant
    1991 “Using metaphor to create more effective sales messages.” The Journal of Consumer Marketing8(2): 59–67. 10.1108/EUM0000000002520
    https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002520 [Google Scholar]
  6. Brugman, Britta C., Christian Burgers, and Barbara Vis
    2019 “Metaphorical framing in political discourse through words vs. concepts: A meta-analysis.” Language and Cognition11(1): 41–65. 10.1017/langcog.2019.5
    https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.5 [Google Scholar]
  7. Burgers, Christian, Melanie Jong Tjien Fa, and Anneke de Graaf
    2019 “A tale of two swamps: Transformations of a metaphorical frame in online partisan media.” Journal of Pragmatics141: 57–66. 10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.12.018 [Google Scholar]
  8. Burroughs, James E., C. Page Moreau, and David Glen Mick
    2008 “Toward a psychology of consumer creativity.” InHandbook of Consumer Psychology, ed. byCurtis P. Haugtvedt, Paul M. Herr, and Frank R. Kardes, 1011–1038. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Carter, Ronald
    2004Language and Creativity: The Art of Common Talk. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chaiken, Shelly
    1987 “The heuristic model of persuasion.” InSocial Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol.5, ed. byMark P. Zanna, James M. Olsen, and C. Peter Herman, 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Deignan, Alice
    2005Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/celcr.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/celcr.6 [Google Scholar]
  12. Delfino, Manuela, and Stefania Manca
    2006 “The expression of social presence through the use of figurative language in a web-based learning environment.” Computers in Human Behavior23(5): 2190–2211. 10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2006.03.001 [Google Scholar]
  13. Dogruel, Leyla, Sven Joeckel, and Nicholas D. Bowman
    2015 “Choosing the right app: An exploratory perspective on heuristic decision processes for smartphone app selection.” Mobile Media & Communication3(1): 125–144. 10.1177/2050157914557509
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2050157914557509 [Google Scholar]
  14. Du Bois, John W.
    2014 “Towards a dialogic syntax.” Cognitive Linguistics25(3): 359–410. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0024 [Google Scholar]
  15. Escalas, Jennifer Edson
    2007 “Self-referencing and persuasion: Narrative transportation versus analytical elaboration.” Journal of Consumer Research33(4): 421–429. 10.1086/510216
    https://doi.org/10.1086/510216 [Google Scholar]
  16. Flor, Michael, and Uri Hadar
    2005 “The production of metaphoric expressions in spontaneous speech: A controlled-setting experiment.” Metaphor and Symbol20(1): 1–34. 10.1207/s15327868ms2001_1
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2001_1 [Google Scholar]
  17. Forceville, Charles
    2017 “Visual and multimodal metaphor in advertising: Cultural perspectives.” Styles of Communication9(2): 26–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.
    1994The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 2018 “Words making love together: Dynamics of metaphoric creativity.” InCultures and Traditions of Wordplay and Wordplay Research, ed. byEsme Winter-Froemel, and Verana Thaler, 23–46. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110586374‑002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110586374-002 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., and Lynne Cameron
    2008 “The social-cognitive dynamics of metaphor performance.” Cognitive Systems Research9(1–2): 64–75. 10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2007.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goncalo, Jack A., Francis J. Flynn, and Sharon H. Kim
    2010 “Are two narcissist better than one? The link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin36(11): 1148–1495. doi:https://doi.org/0.1177/0146167210385109
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hussey, Karen A., and Albert N. Katz
    2006 “Metaphor production in online conversation: Gender and friendship status.” Discourse Processes42(1): 75–98. 10.1207/s15326950dp4201_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp4201_3 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jones, Rodney H.
    2012Discourse and Creativity. Harlow: Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Koroleva, Ksenia, Vid Stimac, Hanna Krasnova, and Dominik Kunze
    2011 “I like it because I (‘m) like you – Measuring user attitudes towards information on Facebook.” ICIS 2011 Proceedings26. 10.7892/boris.47122
    https://doi.org/10.7892/boris.47122 [Google Scholar]
  25. Krennmayr, Tina
    2015 “What corpus linguistics can tell us about metaphor use in newspaper texts.” Journalism studies16(4): 530–546. 10.1080/1461670X.2014.937155
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2014.937155 [Google Scholar]
  26. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Landis, J. Richard, and Gary G. Koch
    1977 “The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.” Biometrics33: 159–174. 10.2307/2529310
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310 [Google Scholar]
  28. Littlemore, Jeannette
    2001 “The use of metaphor in university lectures and the problems that it causes for overseas students.” Teaching in Higher Education6(3): 333–349. 10.1080/13562510120061205
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510120061205 [Google Scholar]
  29. Lubinga, Elizabeth, Margrit Schulze, Carel Jansen, and Alfons Maes
    2010 “HIV/ AIDS messages as a spur for conversation among young South Africans?” African Journal of AIDS Research9(2): 175–185. 10.2989/16085906.2010.517487
    https://doi.org/10.2989/16085906.2010.517487 [Google Scholar]
  30. Mascheroni, Giovanna, and Maria Francesca Murru
    2017 “‘I can share politics but I don’t discuss it’: Everyday practices of political talk on Facebook.” Social Media + Society4(4): 1–11. 10.1177/2056305117747849
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117747849 [Google Scholar]
  31. Metzger, Miriam J., Andrew J. Flanagin, and Ryn B. Medders
    2010 “Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online.” Journal of Communication60(3): 413–439. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2010.01488.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01488.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Möller, A. Marthe, Susanne E. Baumgartner, Rinaldo Kühne, and Jochen Peter
    2019 “The effects of social information on the enjoyment of online videos: An eye tracking study on the role of attention.” Media Psychology. 10.1080/15213269.2019.1679647
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2019.1679647 [Google Scholar]
  33. Musolff, Andreas
    2017 “Metaphor, irony and sarcasm in public discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics109: 95–104. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.010 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nemeth, Charlan Jeanne, and Margaret Ormiston
    2007 “Creative idea generation: Harmony versus stimulation.” European Journal of Social Psychology37(3): 524–535. 10.1002/ejsp.373
    https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.373 [Google Scholar]
  35. North, Sarah
    2007 “‘The voices, the voices’: Creativity in online conversation.” Applied Linguistics28(4): 538–555. 10.1093/applin/amm042
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm042 [Google Scholar]
  36. Noyes, Andrew
    2006 “Using metaphor in mathematics teacher preparation.” Teaching and Teacher Education22(7): 898–909. 10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2006.04.009 [Google Scholar]
  37. Ozanne, Marie, Ana Cueva Navas, Anna S. Mattila, and Hubert B. Van Hoof
    2017 “An investigation into Facebook ‘liking’ behavior: An exploratory study.” Social Media + Society3(2): 1–12. 10.1177/2056305117706785
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117706785 [Google Scholar]
  38. Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo
    1986 “The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology19: 123–205. 10.1016/S0065‑2601(08)60214‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2 [Google Scholar]
  39. Pretz, Jean, & Victoria A. McCollum
    2014 “Self-perceptions of creativity do not always reflect actual creative performance.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts8(2): 227–236. 10.1037/a0035597
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035597 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ritchie, L. David, and Valrie Dyhouse
    2008 “Hair of the frog and other empty metaphors: The play element in figurative language.” Metaphor and Symbol23(2): 85–107. 10.1080/10926480801944251
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480801944251 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rosengren, Sara, Micael Dahlén, and Erik Modig
    2013 “Think outside the ad: Can advertising creativity benefit more than the advertiser?” Journal of Advertising42(4): 320–330. 10.1080/00913367.2013.795122
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.795122 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rossiter, John R., Larry Percy, and Lars Bergkvist
    2018Marketing Communications: Objectives, Strategy, Tactics. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Slater, Michael D.
    2016 “Combining content analysis and assessment of exposure through self-report, spatial, or temporal variation in media effects research.” Communication Methods and Measures10(2–3): 173–175. 10.1080/19312458.2016.1150969
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150969 [Google Scholar]
  44. Slater, Michael D., Catherine E. Goodall, and Andrew F. Hayes
    2009 “Self-reported news attention does assess differential processing of media content: An experiment on risk perceptions utilizing a random sample of U.S. local crime and accident news.” Journal of Communication59(1): 117–134. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2008.01407.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01407.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Sloan, Luke, Jeffrey Morgan, Pete Burnap, and Matthew Williams
    2015 “Who tweets? Deriving the demographic characteristics of age, occupation and social class from Twitter user meta-data.” PloSONE10(3). doi:  10.1371/journal.pone.0115545
    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0115545 [Google Scholar]
  46. Sopory, Pradeep, and James Price Dillard
    2002 “The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis.” Human Communication Research28(3): 382–419. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2002.tb00813.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00813.x [Google Scholar]
  47. Statista
    Statista 2019 “Number of social media users worldwide from 2010 to 2021 (in billions).” https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/ (accessed5 April 2019).
  48. Steen, Gerard J.
    2008 “The paradox of metaphor: Why we need a three-dimensional model of metaphor.” Metaphor & Symbol23(4): 213–241. 10.1080/10926480802426753
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480802426753 [Google Scholar]
  49. Steen, Gerard J., Aletta G. Dorst, J. Berenike Herrmann, Anna A. Kaal, and Tina Krennmayr
    2010 “Metaphor in usage.” Cognitive Linguistics21(4): 765–796. doi:https://doi.org/.1515/COGL.2010.024
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Sundar, S. Shyam
    2008 “The MAIN Model: A heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility.” InDigital Media, Youth, and Credibility, ed. byMiriam J. Metzger, and Andrew J. Flanagin, 73–100. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.073
    https://doi.org/10.1162/dmal.9780262562324.073 [Google Scholar]
  51. Suomi, Kati, Mervi Luonila, and Jaana Tähtinen
    2020 “Ironic festival brand co-creation.” Journal of Business Research106: 211–220. 10.1016/j.busres.2018.08.039
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.busres.2018.08.039 [Google Scholar]
  52. Thackeray, Rosemary, Brad L. Neiger, Carl Hanson, and James F. McKenzie
    2008 “Enhancing promotional strategies within social marketing programs: Use of Web 2.0 social media.” Health Promotion Practice9(4): 338–343. 10.1177/1524839908325335
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839908325335 [Google Scholar]
  53. Thomas, Lynn, and Catherine Beauchamp
    2011 “Understanding teachers’ professional identities through metaphor.” Teaching and Teacher Education27(4): 762–769. 10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.12.007 [Google Scholar]
  54. Tom, Gail, and Anmarie Eves
    1999 “The use of rhetorical devices in advertising.” Journal of Advertising Research39: 39–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Trepte, Sabine, and Leonard Reinecke
    2013 “The reciprocal effects of social network site use and the disposition for self-disclosure: A longitudinal study.” Computers in Human Behavior29(3): 1102–1112. 10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  56. Van den Heerik, Romy A. M., Charlotte M. J. van Hooijdonk, Christian Burgers, and Gerard J. Steen
    2017 “Smoking is sóóó … sandals and white socks. Co-creation of a Dutch anti-smoking campaign to change social norms.” Health Communication32(5): 621–628. 10.1080/10410236.2016.1168000
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1168000 [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Deursen, Alexander J. A. M., Colin L. Bolle, Sabrina M. Hegner, and Piet A. M. Kommers
    2015 “Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior: The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence, social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender.” Computers in Human Behavior45: 411–420. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039 [Google Scholar]
  58. Van Enschot, Renske, and Hans Hoeken
    2015 “The occurrence and effects of verbal and visual anchoring of tropes on the perceived comprehensibility and liking of TV commercials.” Journal of Advertising44(1): 25–36. 10.1080/00913367.2014.933688
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2014.933688 [Google Scholar]
  59. Van Mulken, Margot, Andreu van Hooft, and Ulrike Nederstigt
    2014 “Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising.” Journal of Advertising43(4): 333–343. 10.1080/00913367.2014.920283
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2014.920283 [Google Scholar]
  60. Veale, Tony, Kurt Feyaerts, and Charles Forceville
    (eds.) 2013Creativity and the Agile Mind: A Multi-Disciplinary Study of a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110295290
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110295290 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wan, Wan, and Graham Low
    2015Elicited Metaphor Analysis in Educational Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/milcc.3
    https://doi.org/10.1075/milcc.3 [Google Scholar]
  62. Williams-Whitney, Diana, Jeffery Scott Mio, and Paul Whitney
    1992 “Metaphor production in creative writing.” Journal of Psycholinguistic Research21: 497–509. 10.1007/BF01067527
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067527 [Google Scholar]
  63. Zwass, Vladimir
    2010 “Co-creation: Toward a taxonomy and an integrated research perspective.” International Journal of Electronic Commerce15(1): 11–48. 10.2753/JEC1086‑44151501
    https://doi.org/10.2753/JEC1086-44151501 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): campaign slogan; co-creation; creativity; Facebook; metaphor; social media; Twitter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error