The Locus of Metaphorical Persuasion: An Empirical Test

The use of metaphor has been accepted as an effective persuasive device in many forms of communication since Aristotle first introduced the figure. Yet, the psychological process by which metaphor influences persuasion has received comparatively little attention. Based on a review of the literature regarding the impact of metaphor on attitudes, this study presents pretests and an experiment that test whether the locus of persuasion lies in the valence of B, as widely assumed, or in the valence of the metaphor ground, what A and B share. Findings indicate that global affect toward B does not transfer onto A, and that metaphorical persuasion is a distinct process meriting further investigation.

[1]  Shelley E. Taylor,et al.  The Effect of Metaphor on Political Attitudes , 1981 .

[2]  T. Clevenger,et al.  The effects of schematic and affective processes on metaphorical invention , 1990 .

[3]  Susan T. Fiske,et al.  Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. , 1986 .

[4]  Michael Osborn,et al.  Archetypal metaphor in rhetoric: The light‐dark family , 1967 .

[5]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[6]  W. Jordan.  Toward a psychological theory of metaphor , 1971 .

[7]  Gerald J. Gorn,et al.  The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach: , 1982 .

[8]  S. D. Lima,et al.  Contextual effects on metaphor comprehension in reading , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[9]  J. Hitchon,et al.  Theory of Synesthesia Applied to Persuasion in Print Advertising Headlines , 1995 .

[10]  N. Kroll,et al.  The comprehension and recall of similes as a function of context and cue , 1987 .

[11]  Wayne C. Booth,et al.  Metaphor as Rhetoric: The Problem of Evaluation , 1978, Critical Inquiry.

[12]  J. Bowers,et al.  Attitudinal effects of selected types of concluding metaphors in persuasive speeches , 1966 .

[13]  A. Paivio,et al.  Psychological Processes in the Comprehension of Metaphor , 1986 .

[14]  Alice M. Tybout,et al.  Designing Research for Application , 1981 .

[15]  J. Reinsch,et al.  FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE AND SOURCE CREDIBILITY: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION AND RECONCEPTUALIZATION1 , 1974 .

[16]  P. Gildea,et al.  On understanding metaphor: the role of context , 1983 .

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

[18]  The Effects of the Use of Analogy on Attitude Change and Source Credibility , 1969 .

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

[20]  Dedre Gentner,et al.  Structure-Mapping: A Theoretical Framework for Analogy , 1983, Cogn. Sci..

[21]  J. Paul Peter,et al.  A Behavior Modification Perspective on Marketing , 1980 .

[22]  James W. Fernández,et al.  Persuasions and performances : the play of tropes in culture , 1990 .

[23]  Harrison Hall,et al.  The Rule Of Metaphor , 1977 .

[24]  Brian Sternthal,et al.  Examining the Vividness Controversy: An Availability-Valence Interpretation , 1986 .

[25]  J. Reinsch.  An investigation of the effects of the metaphor and simile in persuasive discourse , 1971 .