1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Metaphor and the Social World
  4. Volume 13, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 13, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The framing impact of political discourses has long been attested for. Metaphors in particular are known to ease the understanding of complex concepts and processes. Yet, the question remains to what extent metaphors do work the same on different recipients? Based on an experimental design, we test a potentially key moderating variable in the study of political metaphors: political knowledge. Our experiment aims at determining the extent to which the confrontation of individuals to arguments and metaphors impacts their preferences regarding the implementation of a basic income in Belgium. In particular, we hypothesize that the marginal effect of metaphors as cognitive shortcuts decreases when political knowledge increases. Our findings suggest that some metaphorical frames are more successful than others, hereby supporting the idea that the aptness of the metaphorical frame is a key factor when conducting experiments. We conclude that political knowledge is an important variable when analyzing the framing effect of metaphors, especially when it goes about very low or very high levels of political knowledge. The insertion of metaphors in political discourses may easily succeed in rallying individuals behind a given cause, but this would only work if participants have a lower knowledge of politics.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20015.van
2022-09-27
2025-01-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/msw.20015.van
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. André, A., & Depauw, S.
    (2017) Too much choice, too little impact: a multilevel analysis of the contextual determinants of preference voting. West European Politics, 40(3), 598–620. 10.1080/01402382.2016.1271596
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2016.1271596 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D.
    (1984) A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. InP. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp.255–291). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Belorgey, J.-M.
    (ed.) (2000) Minima sociaux, revenus d’activité, précarité. Commissariat général du Plan/La Documentation française.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Boeynaems, A.
    (2019) Figurative Framing in Political Discourse, PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Available athttps://research.vu.nl/en/publications/figurative-framing-in-political-discourse
  5. Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J.
    (2017a) The Effects of Metaphorical Framing on Political Persuasion: A Systematic Literature Review. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(2), 118–134. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297623 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2017b) The Impact of Conventional and Novel Metaphors in News on Issue Viewpoint. International Journal of Communication, 111, 2861–2879.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Boonen, J., Pedersen, E., & Hooghe, M.
    (2017) The Effect of Political Sophistication and Party Identification on Voter – Party Congruence. A Comparative Analysis of 30 Countries. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 27(3), 311–29. 10.1080/17457289.2016.1273226
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2016.1273226 [Google Scholar]
  8. Bougher, L.
    (2012) The case for metaphor in political reasoning and cognition, Political Psychology, 331, 145–163. 10.1111/j.1467‑9221.2011.00865.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00865.x [Google Scholar]
  9. Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M.
    (2006) Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82. 10.1093/pan/mpi014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., & Steen, C. F.
    (2017) Recategorizing political fames: A systematic review of metaphorical framing in experiments on political communication, Annuals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 1–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Brugman, B. C., Burgers, C., & Vis, B.
    (2019) Metaphorical framing through words vs. concepts: A meta-analysis. Language and Cognition, 11(1), 41–65. 10.1017/langcog.2019.5
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2019.5 [Google Scholar]
  12. Burgers, C., Konijn, E., & Steen, G.
    (2016) Figurative Framing: Shaping Public Discourse Through Metaphor, Hyperbole, and Irony. Communication Theory, 261, 410–430. 10.1111/comt.12096
     https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096 [Google Scholar]
  13. Caillies, S., Denhière, G. & Kintsch, W.
    (2002) The effect of prior knowledge on understanding from text: Evidence from primed recognition. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 267–286. 10.1080/09541440143000069
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440143000069 [Google Scholar]
  14. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2011) Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230319899
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230319899 [Google Scholar]
  15. (2013) Analysing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor. Palgrave MacMillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Claes, E. & Hooghe, M.
    (2017) The Effect of Political Science Education on Political Trust and Interest: Results from a 5-year Panel Study, Journal of Political Science Education, 13(1), 33–45. 10.1080/15512169.2016.1171153
     https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2016.1171153 [Google Scholar]
  17. Coffé, H.
    (2013) Women Stay Local, Men Go National and Global? Gender Differences in Political Interest. Sex Roles, 69(5–6), 323–338. 10.1007/s11199‑013‑0308‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0308-x [Google Scholar]
  18. Coleman, R.
    (2019) Designing experiments for the social sciences: How to plan, Create and Execute Research Using experiments, SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9781071878958
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781071878958 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dassonneville, R.
    (2012) Electoral volatility, political sophistication, trust and efficacy: A study on changes in voter preferences during the Belgian regional elections of 2009, Acta Politica, 47(1), 18–41. 10.1057/ap.2011.19
     https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2011.19 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dassonneville, R., Nugent, M., Hooghe, M., & Lau, R. R.
    (2020) Do Women Vote Less Correctly? The Effect of Gender on Ideological Proximity Voting and Correct Voting. The Journal of Politics, 82(3), 1156–1160. 10.1086/707525
     https://doi.org/10.1086/707525 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Winter, L., Ackaert, J., Meulewaeter, C. & Dumont, P.
    (2014) « La participation électorale réelle et potentielle. » inP. Baudewyns (Ed.) Être électeur en Wallonie  : le comportement électoral des Wallons lors des élections législatives de 2007 et de 2010 (pp.59–82). Presses universitaires de Louvain.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Debras, C., & L’Hôte, E.
    (2015) Framing, metaphor and dialogue. A multimodal approach to party conference speeches, Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 177–204. 10.1075/msw.5.2.01deb
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.01deb [Google Scholar]
  23. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S.
    (1996) What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Entman, R. M.
    (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01304.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [Google Scholar]
  25. Goatly, A.
    (2007) Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.23
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.23 [Google Scholar]
  26. Johnson, M.
    (2010) Metaphor and cognition. InD. Schmicking and S. Gallagher (Eds.), Handbook of Phenomenology and Cognitive Science (pp.401–414). Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑2646‑0_22
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2646-0_22 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P.
    (2007) The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 351, 1567–1577. 10.3758/BF03193491
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491 [Google Scholar]
  28. Koller, V.
    (2009) Missions and Empires: Religious and Political Metaphors in Corporate Discourse. InA. Musolff and J. Zinken (Eds.), Metaphor and Discourse (pp.116–134). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230594647_8
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594647_8 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kövecses, Z.
    (2010) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction [2nd edition]. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Krennmayr, T., Bowdle, B. F., Mulder, G., & Steen, G. J.
    (2014) Economic competition is like auto racing. Building metaphorical schemas when reading text. Metaphor and the Social World, 4(1), 65–89. 10.1075/msw.4.1.04kre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.4.1.04kre [Google Scholar]
  31. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by, University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Lakoff, G.
    (1996) Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservative Think, University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Larcinese, V.
    (2007) Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election. Public Choice, 131(3), 387–411. 10.1007/s11127‑006‑9122‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9122-0 [Google Scholar]
  34. Landau, M. J., Keefer, L. A., Swanson, T. J.
    (2017) ‘Undoing’ a rhetorical metaphor: Testing the metaphor extension strategy. Metaphor and Symbol, 32(2), 63–83. 10.1080/10926488.2017.1297619
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2017.1297619 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lecheler, S., de Vreese, C. H.
    (2012) News Framing and Public Opinion: A Mediation Analysis of Framing Effects on Political Attitudes. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(2), 185–204. 10.1177/1077699011430064
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699011430064 [Google Scholar]
  36. Legein, T., Vandeleene, A., Randour, F., Heyvaert, P., Perrez, J., & Reuchamps, M.
    (2018) Framing the Basic Income: An Experimental Study of How Arguments and Metaphors Influence Individuals’ Opinion Formation. Basic Income Studies, 13(2), 1–16. 10.1515/bis‑2018‑0010
     https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-2018-0010 [Google Scholar]
  37. Luskin, R.
    (1987) Measuring Political Sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31(4), 856–899. 10.2307/2111227
     https://doi.org/10.2307/2111227 [Google Scholar]
  38. L’Hôte, E.
    (2012) ‘Breaking up Britain’? Métaphores et discours sur la dévolution au Royaume-Uni. InJ. Perrez, & M. Reuchamps (Eds.), Les relations communautaires en Belgique. Approches politiques et linguistiques (pp.161–189), Academia-L’Harmattan.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Maniquet, F., & Neumann, D.
    (2016) L’all ocation universelle: quelques éléments pour y voir plus clair. Regards économiques, 1261, 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W.
    (1996) Learning from texts: Effect of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 221, 247–288. 10.1080/01638539609544975
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539609544975 [Google Scholar]
  41. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N. B., & Kintsch, W.
    (1996) Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, prior knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 141, 1–43. 10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1401_1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C.
    (2008) Experimentation in Political Science. InJ. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.003.0014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199286546.003.0014 [Google Scholar]
  43. Musolff, A.
    (2004) Metaphor and Political Discourse. Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230504516
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230504516 [Google Scholar]
  44. Noguera, J. A., & De Wispelaere, J.
    (2006) A plea for the use of laboratory experiments in basic income research. Basic Income Studies, 1(2), 1–8. 10.2202/1932‑0183.1044
     https://doi.org/10.2202/1932-0183.1044 [Google Scholar]
  45. Panzeri, F., Di Paola, S., & Domaneschi, F.
    (2021) Does the COVID-19 war metaphor influence reasoning?PLoS ONE, 16(4): e0250651. 10.1371/journal.pone.0250651
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250651 [Google Scholar]
  46. Perrez, J., & Reuchamps, M.
    (2015a) Special Issue on the Political Impact of Metaphors. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 165–76. 10.1075/msw.5.2.00int
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.00int [Google Scholar]
  47. (2015b) The ‘Belgian Tetris’. Assessing the Political Impact of Metaphors on Citizens’ Representations of Belgian Federalism. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 223–44. 10.1075/msw.5.2.03per
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.03per [Google Scholar]
  48. Reijnierse, W. G., Burgers, C., Krennmayr, T. & Steen, G. J.
    (2015) How viruses and beasts affect our opinions (or not): the role of extendedness in metaphorical framing. Metaphor and the Social World, 5(2), 245–263. 10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.5.2.04rei [Google Scholar]
  49. Reuchamps, M., Dodeigne, J. & Perrez, J.
    (2018) Changing your political mind: the impact of a metaphor on citizens’ representations and preferences for federalism, Regional & Federal Studies, 28(2), 151–175. 10.1080/13597566.2018.1433663
     https://doi.org/10.1080/13597566.2018.1433663 [Google Scholar]
  50. Semino, E.
    (2008) Metaphor in Discourse. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Sopory, P., Dillard, J. P.
    (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 28(3), 382–419. 10.1111/j.1468‑2958.2002.tb00813.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00813.x [Google Scholar]
  52. Steen, G. J.
    (2011) The contemporary theory of metaphor – Now new and improved!Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 9(1), 26–64. 10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.9.1.03ste [Google Scholar]
  53. 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. 10.1371/journal.pone.0113536
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113536 [Google Scholar]
  54. Thibodeau, P. H., & Boroditsky, L.
    (2011) Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning. PLoS ONE, 6(2), e16782. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016782 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2013) Natural Language Metaphors Covertly Influence Reasoning. PLoS ONE, 8(1), e52961. 10.1371/journal.pone.0052961
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052961 [Google Scholar]
  56. Thibodeau, P. H., & Durgin, F. H.
    (2011) Metaphor aptness and conventionality: A processing fluency account. Metaphor and Symbol, 26(3), 206–226. 10.1080/10926488.2011.583196
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2011.583196 [Google Scholar]
  57. Thibodeau, P. H., Fleming, J., Lannen, M.
    (2019) Variation in methods for studying metaphor: comparing experiments and discourse analysis. InPerrez, J., Reuchamps, M., Thibodeau, P. H. (Eds.), Variation in Political Metaphor (pp.177–194). John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.85.08thi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.85.08thi [Google Scholar]
  58. Tobin, J.
    (1965) On the Economic Status of the Negro, Daedalus, 941, 878–898.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Vanderborght, Y., & Van Parijs, Ph.
    (2005) L’allocation universelle, La Découverte. 10.3917/dec.vande.2005.01
     https://doi.org/10.3917/dec.vande.2005.01 [Google Scholar]
  60. Van Stee, S. K.
    (2018) Meta-Analysis of the Persuasive Effects of Metaphorical vs. Literal Messages, Communication Studies, 69(5), 545–566. 10.1080/10510974.2018.1457553
     https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2018.1457553 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20015.van
Loading
Metaphors, political knowledge and the basic income debate in Belgium
Metaphor and the Social World 13, 269 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.20015.van
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20015.van
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20015.van
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): basic income; experiment; metaphorical reasoning; political knowledge; political metaphor

Most Cited

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