Counterintuitive Religious Ideas and Metaphoric Thinking: An Event-Related Brain Potential Study

It has been shown that counterintuitive ideas from mythological and religious texts are more acceptable than other (non-religious) world knowledge violations. In the present experiment we explored whether this relates to the way they are interpreted (literal vs. metaphorical). Participants were presented with verification questions that referred to either the literal or a metaphorical meaning of the sentence previously read (counterintuitive religious, counterintuitive non-religious and intuitive), in a block-wise design. Both behavioral and electrophysiological results converged. At variance to the literal interpretation of the sentences, the induced metaphorical interpretation specifically facilitated the integration (N400 amplitude decrease) of religious counterintuitions, whereas the semantic processing of non-religious counterintuitions was not affected by the interpretation mode. We suggest that religious ideas tend to operate like other instances of figurative language, such as metaphors, facilitating their acceptability despite their counterintuitive nature.

[1]  Gilles Fauconnier,et al.  Conceptual Integration Networks , 1998, Cogn. Sci..

[2]  V. Lai,et al.  ERP evidence for conceptual mappings and comparison processes during the comprehension of conventional and novel metaphors , 2013, Brain and Language.

[3]  L. Boroditsky,et al.  Metaphors We Think With: The Role of Metaphor in Reasoning , 2011, PloS one.

[4]  S. Molholm,et al.  Novel Metaphors Appear Anomalous at Least Momentarily: Evidence from N400 , 2002, Brain and Language.

[5]  Ellen F. Lau,et al.  A cortical network for semantics: (de)constructing the N400 , 2008, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[6]  Seana Coulson.  The Cambridge Handbook of Psycholinguistics: Cognitive Neuroscience of Figurative Language , 2012 .

[7]  Colin M. Brown,et al.  Semantic Integration in Sentences and Discourse: Evidence from the N400 , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[8]  Justin L. Barrett,et al.  Coding and Quantifying Counterintuitiveness in Religious Concepts: Theoretical and Methodological Reflections , 2008 .

[9]  G. Lakoff,et al.  More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor , 1991 .

[10]  R. C. Oldfield.  The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[11]  Thomas G. Bever,et al.  Processing of metaphoric language: An investigation of the three-stage model of metaphor comprehension , 1985 .

[12]  F. Brisard,et al.  Processing Unfamiliar Metaphors in a Self-Paced Reading Task , 2001 .

[13]  A. Goldstein,et al.  Brainwaves are stethoscopes: ERP correlates of novel metaphor comprehension , 2007, Brain Research.

[14]  Joseph Henrich,et al.  The Zeus Problem: Why Representational Content Biases Cannot Explain Faith in Gods , 2010 .

[15]  Ryan D. Tweney,et al.  Contextualizing Counterintuitiveness: How Context Affects Comprehension and Memorability of Counterintuitive Concepts , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  Michael D. Lee,et al.  A Hierarchical Bayesian Model of Human Decision-Making on an Optimal Stopping Problem , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[17]  M. Kutas,et al.  Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. , 1980, Science.

[18]  Van Berkum,et al.  The neuropragmatics of 'simple' utterance comprehension: An ERP review , 2009 .

[19]  Steve W. Kelly,et al.  Measuring The Mnemonic Advantage of Counter-intuitive and Counter-schematic Concepts , 2010 .

[20]  T. Ditman,et al.  Electrophysiological insights into the processing of nominal metaphors , 2010, Neuropsychologia.

[21]  C. Petten,et al.  A special role for the right hemisphere in metaphor comprehension? ERP evidence from hemifield presentation , 2007, Brain Research.

[22]  Kara D. Federmeier,et al.  Thirty years and counting: finding meaning in the N400 component of the event-related brain potential (ERP). , 2011, Annual review of psychology.

[23]  Seana Coulson,et al.  Semantic Leaps: FRAME-SHIFTING , 2001 .

[24]  Mante S. Nieuwland,et al.  When Peanuts Fall in Love: N400 Evidence for the Power of Discourse , 2005, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[25]  H. Grice.  Logic and conversation , 1975 .

[26]  B. Purzycki,et al.  Cognitive Architecture, Humor and Counterintuitiveness: Retention and Recall of MCIs , 2010 .

[27]  P. Hagoort,et al.  The interaction of discourse context and world knowledge in online sentence comprehension. Evidence from the N400 , 2007, Brain Research.

[28]  Pascal Boyer,et al.  Being human: Religion: Bound to believe? , 2008, Nature.

[29]  Pascal Boyer,et al.  Cognitive templates for religious concepts: cross-cultural evidence for recall of counter-intuitive representations , 2001, Cogn. Sci..

[30]  D. Jason Slone,et al.  The Effect of Integration on Recall of Counterintuitive Stories , 2009 .

[31]  M. Kutas,et al.  Brain potentials during reading reflect word expectancy and semantic association , 1984, Nature.

[32]  J. Searle,et al.  Expression and Meaning. , 1982 .

[33]  Jonathan A. Fugelsang,et al.  Analytic cognitive style predicts religious and paranormal belief , 2012, Cognition.

[34]  P. Boyer.  Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought , 2001 .

[35]  J. Barrett,et al.  Spreading Non-natural Concepts: The Role of Intuitive Conceptual Structures in Memory and Transmission of Cultural Materials ¤ , 2001 .

[36]  Ilkka Pyysiäinen,et al.  Supernatural Agents: Why We Believe in Souls, Gods, and Buddhas , 2009 .

[37]  C. Petten,et al.  Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event-related potential study , 2002, Memory & cognition.

[38]  P. Hagoort,et al.  Integration of Word Meaning and World Knowledge in Language Comprehension , 2004, Science.

[39]  Scott Atran,et al.  Memory and Mystery: The Cultural Selection of Minimally Counterintuitive Narratives , 2006, Cogn. Sci..

[40]  Dimitrios Kapogiannis,et al.  Neuroanatomical Variability of Religiosity , 2009, PloS one.

[41]  Mary Harmon-Vukic,et al.  Understanding the memory advantage of counterintuitive concepts , 2012 .

[42]  Pascal Boyer,et al.  Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[43]  Roslyn Poignant,et al.  Oceanic Mythology: The Myths of Polynesia, Micronesia, Melanesia, Australia. , 1967 .

[44]  G. Lakoff.  The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor , 1993 .

[45]  Brian F. Bowdle,et al.  The career of metaphor. , 2005, Psychological review.

[46]  P. Gildea,et al.  On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? , 1982 .

[47]  J. Barrett.  Exploring the natural foundations of religion , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[48]  E Donchin,et al.  A new method for off-line removal of ocular artifact. , 1983, Electroencephalography and clinical neurophysiology.

[49]  S. Geisser,et al.  On methods in the analysis of profile data , 1959 .

[50]  L. Menn,et al.  Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study , 2009, Brain Research.

[51]  R. Gibbs.  A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated , 2002 .

[52]  Will M. Gervais,et al.  Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief , 2012, Science.

[53]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping in Metaphor Comprehension , 2011, Cogn. Sci..

[54]  G. Lakoff.  The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought: The neural theory of metaphor , 2009 .

[55]  Werner Sommer,et al.  The sacred and the absurd––an electrophysiological study of counterintuitive ideas (at sentence level) , 2012, Social neuroscience.

[56]  Glenn D. Blank,et al.  Metaphors in the Lexicon , 1988 .