1887
Volume 12, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4070
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4097
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

A frame makes specific information about a topic more salient. Metaphors can be used as frames to influence people’s opinions on controversial political topics as well as on health-related topics. This study aims to determine the influence of metaphorical frames on the opinion towards surrogacy and examines whether specific aspects of surrogacy are more prone to the influence than others.

236 participants were assigned to one of three groups with different metaphorical frames for surrogacy and thereafter completed the Attitude Towards Surrogacy Questionnaire. To investigate if participants’ opinions on surrogacy were influenced by the frame used for surrogacy, three ANOVAS were conducted.

The main effect of the ANOVAS revealed that opinion towards payment of the surrogate mothers, but not the attitude towards surrogacy in general, was influenced by the metaphorical frame used for surrogacy.

The results support the idea that a metaphorical frame can evoke reactance regarding the payment of surrogate mothers. Participants might resist the frame of the metaphorical term for surrogacy as an unemotional business act, by favouring less monetary compensation of the surrogate mother, when the metaphorical frame implies that surrogates only help intended parents for the monetary compensation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20028.moh
2022-01-20
2022-05-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahn, H.-K., Kim, H. J., & Aggarwal, P.
    (2014) Helping fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychological Science, 25(1), 224–229. 10.1177/0956797613496823
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613496823 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ana, O. S.
    (1999) Like an animal I was treated’: Anti-immigrant metaphor in US public discourse. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 191–224. 10.1177/0957926599010002004
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926599010002004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Barker, D. C.
    (2005) Values, frames, and persuasion in presidential nomination campaigns. Political Behavior, 27(4), 375–394. 10.1007/s11109‑005‑8145‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-005-8145-4 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartolucci, V.
    (2012) Terrorism rhetoric under the Bush Administration: Discourses and effects. Journal of Language and Politics, 11(4), 562–582. 10.1075/jlp.11.4.05bar
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.11.4.05bar [Google Scholar]
  5. Black, M.
    (1979) More about metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 2, 19–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1993) More about metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 2, 19–41. 10.1017/CBO9781139173865.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173865.004 [Google Scholar]
  7. Boeynaems, A., Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J.
    (2017) 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]
  8. Bosman, J.
    (1987) Persuasive effects of political metaphors. Metaphor and Symbol, 2(2), 97–113. 10.1207/s15327868ms0202_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms0202_2 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend
    Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2018, November). Gleichstellungsbericht der Bundesregierung. https://www.bmfsfj.de/blob/122398/87c1b52c4e84d5e2e5c3bdfd6c16291a/zweiter-gleichstellungsbericht-der-bundesregierung-eine-zusammenfassung-data.pdf
  10. Burgers, C., Konijn, E. A., & Steen, G. J.
    (2016) Figurative framing: Shaping public discourse through metaphor, hyperbole, and irony. Communication Theory, 26(4), 410–430. 10.1111/comt.12096
    https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12096 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cacciari, C., & Glucksberg, S.
    (1994) Understanding figurative language. InM. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics (p.447–477). Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cameron, L., & Maslen, R.
    (2010) Metaphor analysis. Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Charteris-Black, J.
    (2006) Britain as a container: Immigration metaphors in the 2005 election campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563–581. 10.1177/0957926506066345
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506066345 [Google Scholar]
  14. Christmann, U.
    (2020) Metaphern Framing. InM. A. Wirtz (Hrsg.), Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie, 19. Aufl, 1156–1157.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Christmann, U., & Göhring, A.-L.
    (2016) A German-language replication study analysing the role of figurative speech in reasoning. Scientific Data, 3, 160098. 10.1038/sdata.2016.98
    https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2016.98 [Google Scholar]
  16. Christmann, U., & Scheele, B.
    (2001) Kognitive Konstruktivität am Beispiel von Ironie und Metapher. Zur Programmatik einer Sozialwissenschaftlichen Psychologie, 2, 261–326.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W.
    (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Elmore, K. C., & Luna-Lucero, M.
    (2017) Light bulbs or seeds? How metaphors for ideas influence judgments about genius. Social Psychological Personality Science, 8(2), 200–208. 10.1177/1948550616667611
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616667611 [Google Scholar]
  19. Elson, D.
    (2017) Recognize, reduce, and redistribute unpaid care work: How to close the gender gap. Paper presented at theNew Labor Forum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Entman, R. M.
    (1993) Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1993.tb01304.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Flusberg, S. J., Matlock, T., & Thibodeau, P. H.
    (2017) Metaphors for the war (or race) against climate change. Environmental Communication, 11(6), 769–783. 10.1080/17524032.2017.1289111
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1289111 [Google Scholar]
  22. Friedrich, A.
    (2013) Spannungen, Brüche und Nähte im Gewebe der Sprache: Untote Metaphern als philosophisches und methodisches Problem. Zugänge zu Metaphern-Übergänge durch Metaphern (pp.29–42). Wilhelm Fink.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Groeben, N., & Christmann, U.
    (2003) Psycholinguistics. Verstehen von Sprecherintentionen: Witz, Metapher, Ironie.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Group, P.
    (2007) MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol, 22(1), 1–39. 10.1080/10926480709336752
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N.
    (2015) The war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1), 66–77. 10.1177/0146167214557006
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214557006 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2019) The war on prevention II: Battle metaphors undermine cancer treatment and prevention and do not increase vigilance. Health Communication, 1–7.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hendricks, R., Demjén, Z., Semino, E., & Boroditsky, L.
    (2018) Emotional implications of metaphor: Consequences of metaphor framing for mindset about cancer. Metaphor and Symbol, 33(4), 267–279. 10.1080/10926488.2018.1549835
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2018.1549835 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ismael, T. Y., & Ismael, J. S.
    (1999) Cowboy warfare, biological diplomacy: Disarming metaphors as weapons of mass destruction. Politics and the Life Sciences, 18(1), 70–78. 10.1017/S0730938400023571
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0730938400023571 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kühne, R., & Schemer, C.
    (2015) The emotional effects of news frames on information processing and opinion formation. Communication Research, 42(3), 387–407. 10.1177/0093650213514599
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213514599 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago University.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Greenberg, J.
    (2009) Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1421–1427. 10.1111/j.1467‑9280.2009.02462.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02462.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Lederer, J.
    (2013) ‘Anchor baby’: A conceptual explanation for pejoration. Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 248–266. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.08.007 [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee, S. W., & Schwarz, N.
    (2014) Framing love: When it hurts to think we were made for each other. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 61–67. 10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.04.007 [Google Scholar]
  34. Loughnan, S., Haslam, N., & Kashima, Y.
    (2009) Understanding the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(6), 747–762. 10.1177/1368430209347726
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430209347726 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mio, J. S.
    (1997) Metaphor and politics. Metaphor and Symbol, 12(2), 113–133. 10.1207/s15327868ms1202_2
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1202_2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Mohnke, M., Thomale, C., Roos, Y., & Christmann, U.
    (2019) Development and Validation of an “Attitude toward Surrogacy Questionnaire” in a German Population. Journal für Reproduktionsmedizin und Endokrinologie-Journal of Reproductive Medicine and Endocrinology, 16(1), 6–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Moore, D. S., & McCabe, G. P.
    (2005) Introduction to the Practice of Statistics: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Nerlich, B., Hamilton, C., & Rowe, V.
    (2002) Conceptualising foot and mouth disease: The socio-cultural role of metaphors, frames and narratives. Metaphorik. de, 2(2002), 90–108.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Parrott, R., & Smith, R. A.
    (2014) Defining genes using “blueprint” versus “instruction” metaphors: Effects for genetic determinism, response efficacy, and perceived control. Health Communication, 29(2), 137–146. 10.1080/10410236.2012.729181
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.729181 [Google Scholar]
  40. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.
    (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion Communication and Persuasion (pp.1–24). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Reisfield, G. M., & Wilson, G. R.
    (2004) Use of metaphor in the discourse on cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(19), 4024–4027. 10.1200/JCO.2004.03.136
    https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.03.136 [Google Scholar]
  42. Richards, I. A.
    (1936) The philosophy of rhetoric.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Robins, S.
    (1996) The metaphor framing effect: The influence of metaphorical reasoning on everyday decision making. University of California, Santa Barbara.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Robins, S., & Mayer, R. E.
    (2000) The metaphor framing effect: Metaphorical reasoning about text-based dilemmas. Discourse Processes, 30(1), 57–86. 10.1207/S15326950dp3001_03
    https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326950dp3001_03 [Google Scholar]
  45. Searle, J.
    (1979) Metaphor. InA. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press, (pp.92–12 93).
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 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), 625–645.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing: Vienna, Austria.
  49. Taverniers, M.
    (2002) Metaphor and metaphorology: a selective genealogy of philosophical and linguistic conceptions of metaphor from Aristotle to the 1990s (Vol. 1). Academia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Thibodeau, P. H.
    (2016) Extended metaphors are the home runs of persuasion: Don’t fumble the phrase. Metaphor and Symbol, 31(2), 53–72. 10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2016.1150756 [Google Scholar]
  51. 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]
  52. Thomale, C.
    (2015) Mietmutterschaft: eine international-privatrechtliche Kritik: Mohr Siebeck.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Tourangeau, R., & Sternberg, R. J.
    (1982) Understanding and appreciating metaphors. Cognition, 11(3), 203–244. 10.1016/0010‑0277(82)90016‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90016-6 [Google Scholar]
  54. Wheatley, D., Lawton, C., & Hardill, I.
    (2018) Gender differences in paid and unpaid work. Hidden inequalities in the workplace (pp.181–214). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑59686‑0_8
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59686-0_8 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20028.moh
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/msw.20028.moh
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): language; Metaphorical framing; opinion; politics; surrogacy
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