Ideas are commonly described using metaphors; a bright idea appears like a “light bulb” or the “seed” of an idea takes root. However, little is known about how these metaphors may shape beliefs about ideas or the role of effort versus genius in their creation, an important omission given the known motivational consequences of such beliefs. We explore whether the light bulb metaphor, although widespread and intuitively appealing, may foster the belief that innovative ideas are exceptional occurrences that appear suddenly and effortlessly—inferences that may be particularly compatible with gendered stereotypes of genius as male. Across three experiments, we find evidence that these metaphors influence judgments of idea quality and perceptions of an inventor’s genius. Moreover, these effects varied by the inventor’s gender and reflected prevailing gender stereotypes: Whereas the seed (vs. light bulb) metaphor increased the perceived genius of female inventors, the opposite pattern emerged for male inventors.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
AronsonJ.FriedC. B.GoodC. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 113–125. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1491
3.
BarghJ. A.BondR. N.LombardiW. J.TotaM. E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 869–878. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.5.869
4.
BergenR. (1991). Beliefs about intelligence and achievement-related behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana–Champaign.
5.
BetzD. E.RamseyL. R.SekaquaptewaD. (2013). Gender stereotype threat among women and girls. In RyanM. K.BranscombeN. R. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of gender and psychology (pp. 428–449). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BlackwellL. S.TrzesniewskiK. H.DweckC. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development, 78, 246–263. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.00995.x
7.
BowersK. S.RegehrG.BalthazardC.ParkerK. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 72–110. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(90)90004-N
8.
BurnetteJ. L.O’BoyleE. H.VanEppsE. M.PollackJ. M.FinkelE. J. (2013). Mind-sets matter: A meta-analytic review of implicit theories and self-regulation. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 655–701. doi:10.1037/a0029531
9.
ChambersD. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255–265. doi:10.1002/sce.3730670213
10.
ChandlerJ.ReinhardD.SchwarzN. (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, 948–952. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.003
11.
CheryanS.PlautV. C.DaviesP. G.SteeleC. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060. doi:10.1037/a0016239
12.
CimpianA.ArceH. M. C.MarkmanE. M.DweckC. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314–316. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01896.x
13.
DweckC. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
14.
DweckC. S. (2008). Can personality be changed? The role of beliefs in personality and change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 391–394. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00612.x
15.
DweckC. S.ChiuC.HongY. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1
16.
DweckC. S.LeggettE. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
17.
DweckC. S.MoldenD. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In ElliotA. J.DweckC. S. (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122–140). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
EaglyA. H.SteffenV. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
19.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
20.
FayA. J.ManerJ. K. (2012). Warmth, spatial proximity, and social attachment: The embodied perception of a social metaphor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1369–1372. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.017
21.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
22.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
23.
FurnhamA.CrawshawJ.RawlesR. (2006). Sex differences in self-estimates on two validated IQ test subscale scores. Journal of Applied Psychology, 36, 417–440. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00013.x
24.
GoodC.AronsonJ.InzlichtM. (2003). Improving adolescents’ standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 24, 645–662. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.09.002
25.
GoodC.RattanA.DweckC. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700–717. doi:10.1037/a0026659
26.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. doi:10.1002/bdm.1753
27.
HäfnerM. (2013). When body and mind are talking: Interoception moderates embodied cognition. Experimental Psychology, 60, 255–259. doi:10.1027/1618-3169/a000194
28.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2015). The war on prevention: Bellicose cancer metaphors hurt (some) prevention intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 66–77. doi:10.1177/0146167214557006
29.
HigginsE. T.BarghJ. A. (1987). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369–425. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.38.020187.002101
30.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980a). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
31.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980b). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive Science, 4, 195–208. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4
32.
LandauM. J.MeierB. P.KeeferL. A. (2010). A metaphor-enriched social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1045–1067. doi:10.1037/a0020970
33.
LandauM. J.SullivanD.GreenbergJ. (2009). Evidence that self-relevant motives and metaphoric framing interact to influence political and social attitudes. Psychological Science, 20, 1421–1427. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02462.x
34.
LeslieS. J.CimpianA.MeyerM.FreelandE. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347, 262–265. doi:10.1126/science.1261375
35.
MarinA.ReimannM.CastañoR. (2014). Metaphors and creativity: Direct, moderating, and mediating effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24, 290–297. doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.001
36.
MeierB. P.HauserD. J.RobinsonM. D.FriesenC. K.SchjeldahlK. (2007). What’s “up” with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 699–710. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.699
37.
MeierB. P.RobinsonM. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243–247. Retrieved fromhttp://pss.sagepub.com/content/15/4/243.short
38.
MetcalfeJ.WiebeD. (1987). Intuition in insight and noninsight problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 15, 238–246. doi:10.3758/BF03197722
MoldenD. C.DweckC. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self regulation, social perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61, 192–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192
41.
MorewedgeC. K.GiblinC. E.NortonM. I. (2014). The (perceived) meaning of spontaneous thoughts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1742–1754. doi:10.1037/a0036775
42.
MuellerC. M.DweckC. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33–52. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33
43.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
44.
NosekB. A.BanajiM. R.GreenwaldA. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.1.44
45.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ.IpeirotisP. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 411–419.
46.
PauneskuD.WaltonG. M.RomeroC.SmithE. N.YeagerD. S.DweckC. S. (2015). Mind-set interventions are a scalable treatment for academic underachievement. Psychological Science, 26, 784–793. doi:10.1177/0956797615571017
47.
SchoolerJ. W.OhlssonS.BrooksK. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 166–183. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.122.2.166
48.
SchubertT. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1–21. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.1
49.
SlepianM. L.WeisbuchM.RutchickA. M.NewmanL. S.AmbadyN. (2010). Shedding light on insight: Priming bright ideas. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 696–700. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.009
50.
SmithJ. L.LewisK. L.HawthorneL.HodgesS. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated stem fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 131–143. doi:10.1177/0146167212468332
51.
SpencerS. J.SteeleC. M.QuinnD. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28. doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1373
52.
SteeleJ. (2003). Children’s gender stereotypes about math: The role of stereotype stratification. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 2587–2606. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb02782.x
53.
UpsonS.FriedmanL. F. (2012). Where are all the female geniuses?Scientific American Mind, 23, 63–65. doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1112-63
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.
