Controlled or automatic? Influence of congruency proportion and stimulus-onset asynchrony on the brightness-valence and spatial-valence metaphoric congruency effects

Abstract

Whether a cognitive process is operated automatically or in a controlled manner has been a long-standing question in cognitive psychology. However, this issue has not been investigated in the activation of metaphoric association. A primed word valence judgement task is often used to test the activation of metaphoric association, in which participants first see a prime (bright/dark square or fixation point moving up or down from the centre of the screen) and then make a valence judgement to a target word. Metaphoric congruency effect occurs when participants make faster judgements to the target with valence being matched with the prime (good followed bright/top prime) than being mismatched with the prime (good followed dark/bottom prime). In the present two experiments, we manipulated prime-target stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA) and proportion of metaphorically congruent trials (congruency proportion) to tease apart the effects of automatic and controlled activation of brightness-valence and spatial-valence metaphoric associations on word valence judgements. Results showed an overall effect of congruency proportion on brightness-valence and spatial-valence metaphoric congruency effect, which was independent of prime-target SOA. The effect was enhanced or reversed when congruency proportion was higher or lower than 0.5, respectively, suggesting that the activation of metaphoric association could be modulated by strategic control. The implications of these findings on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory and semantic priming theories are discussed.

Keywords

Automaticity conceptual metaphor congruency proportion priming stimulus-onset asynchrony

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bates

Kliegl

Vasishth

Baayen

(2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.04967.

Bodner

G. E.

Masson

M. E. J.

(2001). Prime validity affects masked repetition priming: Evidence for an episodic resource account of priming. Journal of Memory and Language, 45(4), 616–647. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2791

Bodner

G. E.

Masson

M. E. J.

(2003). Beyond spreading activation: An influence of relatedness proportion on masked semantic priming. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(3), 645–652. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196527

Boot

Pecher

(2010). Similarity is closeness: Metaphorical mapping in a conceptual task. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(5), 942–954. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210903134351

Botvinick

M. M.

Carter

C. S.

Braver

T. S.

Barch

D. M.

Cohen

J. D.

(2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review, 108(3), 624–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.3.624

Bugg

J. M.

Jacoby

L. L.

Toth

J. P.

(2008). Multiple levels of control in the Stroop task. Memory & Cognition, 36(8), 1484–1494. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.36.8.1484

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cohen

J. D.

Dunbar

McClelland

J. L.

(1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97(3), 332–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332

Collins

A. M.

Loftus

E. F.

(1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407

10.

de la Vega

de Filippis

Lachmair

Dudschig

Kaup

(2012). Emotional valence and physical space: Limits of interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 375–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024979

11.

De Wit

Kinoshita

(2014). Relatedness proportion effects in semantic categorization: Reconsidering the automatic spreading activation process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(6), 1733–1744. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000004

12.

Faust

M. E.

Balota

D. A.

Spieler

D. H.

Ferraro

F. R.

(1999). Individual differences in information-processing rate and amount: Implications for group differences in response latency. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 777–799. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.777

13.

Fetterman

A. K.

Bair

J. L.

Werth

Landkammer

Robinson

M. D.

(2016). The scope and consequences of metaphoric thinking: Using individual differences in metaphor usage to understand how metaphor functions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110(3), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000067

14.

Flumini

Santiago

(2013). Time (also) flies from left to right . . . if it is needed! In Knauff

Pauen

Sebanz

Wachmuz

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2315–2320). Cognitive Science Society.

15.

Giessner

S. R.

Ryan

M. K.

Schubert

T. W.

van Quaquebeke

(2012). The power of pictures: Vertical picture angles in power pictures. Media Psychology, 14(4), 442–464. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2011.620541

16.

Huang

Tse

C.-S.

(2015). Re-examining the automaticity and directionality of the activation of the spatial-valence “good is up” metaphoric association. PLOS ONE, 10(4), Article e0123371. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123371

17.

Huang

Tse

C.-S.

Xie

(2018). The bidirectional congruency effect of brightness-valence metaphoric association in the Stroop-like and priming paradigms. Acta Psychologica, 189, 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2017.10.006

18.

Hutchison

K. A.

(2007). Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(4), 645–662. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.4.645

19.

Hutchison

K. A.

Neely

J. H.

Johnson

J. D.

(2001). With great expectations, can two “wrongs” prime a “right”? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27(6), 1451–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.27.6.1451

20.

James

(1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. 2). Holt.

21.

Lakens

Fockenberg

D. A.

Lemmens

K. P.

Ham

Midden

C. J.

(2013). Brightness differences influence the evaluation of affective pictures. Cognition & Emotion, 27(7), 1225–1246. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.781501

22.

Lakoff

(1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In Ortony

(Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 202–251). Cambridge University Press.

23.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1980). Metaphors we live by (Vol. 111). University of Chicago Press.

24.

Lakoff

Johnson

(1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. University of Chicago Press.

25.

Lindsay

D. S.

Jacoby

L. L.

(1994). Stroop process dissociations: The relationship between facilitation and interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20(2), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.20.2.219

26.

MacLeod

C. M.

(1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.163

27.

MacLeod

C. M.

Dunbar

(1988). Training and Stroop-like interference: Evidence for a continuum of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 126–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.1.126

28.

Matuschek

Kliegl

Vasishth

Baayen

Bates

(2017). Balancing Type I error and power in linear mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 94, 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2017.01.001

29.

McNamara

T. P.

(2005). Semantic priming: Perspectives from memory and word recognition. Psychology Press.

30.

Meier

B. P.

Fetterman

A. K.

Robinson

M. D.

(2015). Black and white as valence cues: A large scale replication effort of Meier, Robinson, and Clore (2004). Social Psychology, 46, 174–178. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000236

31.

Meier

B. P.

Robinson

M. D.

(2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00659.x

32.

Meier

B. P.

Robinson

M. D.

(2005). The metaphorical representation of affect. Metaphor and Symbol, 20(4), 239–257. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms2004_1

33.

Meier

B. P.

Robinson

M. D.

Clore

G. L.

(2004). Why good guys wear white: Automatic inferences about stimulus valence based on brightness. Psychological Science, 15(2), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502002.x

34.

Meier

B. P.

Robinson

M. D.

Crawford

L. E.

Ahlvers

W. J.

(2007). When “light” and “dark” thoughts become light and dark responses: Affect biases brightness judgments. Emotion, 7(2), 366–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.366

35.

Neely

J. H.

(1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106(3), 226–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.106.3.226

36.

Neely

J. H.

(1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recognition: A selective review of current findings and theories. In Besner

Humphreys

(Eds.), Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (Vol. 11, pp. 264–336). Lawrence Erlbaum.

37.

Neely

J. H.

Keefe

D. E.

(1989). Semantic context effects on visual word processing: A hybrid prospective/retrospective processing theory. In Bower

G. H.

(Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 24, pp. 207–248). Academic Press.

38.

Neely

J. H.

Keefe

D. E.

Ross

K. L.

(1989). Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retrospective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(6), 1003–1019. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.15.6.1003

39.

Posner

M. I.

Snyder

C. R. R.

(1975). Attention and cognitive control. Lawrence Erlbaum.

40.

Santiago

Ouellet

Román

Valenzuela

(2012). Attentional factors in conceptual congruency. Cognitive Science, 36(6), 1051–1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01240.x

41.

Schad

D. J.

Vasishth

Hohenstein

Kliegl

(2020). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed) models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110, Article 104038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038

42.

Schmidt

J. R.

(2016). Proportion congruency and practice: A contingency learning account of asymmetric list shifting effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 42(9), 1496–1505. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000254

43.

Schmidt

J. R.

Besner

(2008). The Stroop effect: Why proportion congruent has nothing to do with congruency and everything to do with contingency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34(3), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.514

44.

Schneider

Chein

J. M.

(2003). Controlled & automatic processing: Behavior, theory, and biological mechanisms. Cognitive Science, 27(3), 525–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0364-0213(03)00011-9

45.

Schneider

Shiffrin

R. M.

(1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.1.1

46.

Shanks

D. R.

(2007). Associationism and cognition: Human contingency learning at 25. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60(3), 291–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210601000581

47.

Shiffrin

R. M.

Schneider

(1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84(2), 127–190. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.84.2.127

48.

Song

Vonasch

A. J.

Meier

B. P.

Bargh

J. A.

(2012). Brighten up: Smiles facilitate perceptual judgment of facial lightness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.003

49.

Spruyt

Hermans

De Houwer

Vandromme

Eelen

(2007). On the nature of the affective priming effect: Effects of stimulus onset asynchrony and congruency proportion in naming and evaluative categorization. Memory & Cognition, 35(1), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195946

50.

Sutton

Altarriba

(2016). Color associations to emotion and emotion-laden words: A collection of norms for stimulus construction and selection. Behavior Research Methods, 48(2), 686–728. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0598-8

51.

Tang

Zhu

(2020). The cognitive mechanisms of the power-space associations: An individual differences approach. The Journal of General Psychology, 147(3), 244–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.2019.1690972

52.

Tse

C.-S.

Huang

Zeng

Zhou

Chan

Y.-L.

(2021). The influence of congruency proportion, target eccentricity, and valence strength on the spatial-valence metaphoric congruency effect in a word valence judgment task. Psychological Research, 85(7), 2610–2635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01422-0

53.

Tse

C.-S.

Neely

J. H.

(2007). Semantic priming from letter-searched primes occurs for low- but not high-frequency targets: Automatic semantic access may not be a myth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(6), 1143–1161. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.1143

54.

Wang

Zhou

Luo

(2008). The pilot establishment and evaluation of Chinese affective words system. Chinese Mental Health Journal, 22(8), 608–612.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB