Posted: March 18th, 2023

Constraints on Sociocognitive Metaphors 7 pages

Sociocognitive Metaphors

Constraints on Sociocognitive Metaphors

What prompts people to describe aspects of their interpersonal relationships with terms such as “warm” and “close” and others as “cold” and “distant”? Why are individuals inclined to place “more powerful others higher and less powerful others lower in hierarchical structures?” (IJzerman & Koole, 2011). What is meant when individuals engage in a “heavy” discussion? And why do individuals refer to behavior determined to be morally reprehensible as “dirty”? Are these just figures of speech or is there a greater psychological significance to the connectivity between perceptual dimensions, such as temperature, weight, cleanliness, verticality, and abstract constructs?

Inquiries regarding the grounding of social cognition in sensorimotor systems have become the focus of increased theoretical and empirical efforts over the past decades in linguistics, psychology and other scholarly disciplines. Theorists, traditionally, have assumed that social perceivers rely on disembodied, abstract schemas or categories that structure individuals’ interpretation of social information (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000; Wyer & Srull, 1989). Some argue, however, that individuals routinely draw on their concrete bodily experiences in constructing their social reality (Cohen, Leung, & IJzerman, 2009; Niedenthal, Barsalou, Winkielman, Krauth-Gruber, & Ric, 2005; Smith & Semin, 2004). Landau, Meier, and Kiefer (2010), posited a metaphor-enriched approach to social cognition that treats metaphors as a significant component of the conceptual system that individuals use to not just express but also understand abstract concepts like morality, power and love through their experiences. Conceptual metaphors may then allow people to make sense of the complexities of life by allowing the use of knowledge from a relatively concrete domain in understanding a more abstract concept (IJzerman & Koole, 2011).

There is general concurrence with regard to the work Landau et al. (2010) offered, however, the following will examine whether greater theoretical attention to the origin and nature of metaphorical representations in social cognition is warranted, and whether the focus on top down knowledge structures have ignored the importance of bottom up shaping of metaphors (IJzerman & Koole, 2011).

The Functionality of Sociocognitive Metaphors

Traditional literature on schema has devoted a significant amount of attention to the notion that schemas exert a top down influence on the processing of social information by allowing individuals to “go beyond the information given” in understanding the world (Stapel & Koomen, 2000). Although Landau et al.’s approach is different from traditional schema models in some important aspects, their posited metaphor enriched approach, nonetheless, retains a class emphasis on top down effects of knowledge structures. Particularly, conceptual metaphors are assumed “a structured framework for reasoning about, interpreting, and evaluating information related to the target concept: (p. 1046). As such, conceptual metaphors are assumed to operate in the same way and use the same representational format as those of traditional schemas, even if metaphors represent a situation in which properties of the “schema” are rendered from a domain that is semantically unrelated (IJzerman & Koole, 2011).

Indeed if sociocognitive metaphors operate like traditional schemas, then traditional sociocognitive theories regarding knowledge structures may possibly be applied to them which then lead to a host of hypotheses that are testable (Smith, 1998). Conceptual metaphors can vary in chronic vs. temporary accessibility and applicability in a particular situation (Higgins, 1996). Conceptual metaphors, like schemas, may also act as energy conserving devices by allowing individuals to quickly grasp notions that are abstract (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten, 1994). Further, conceptual metaphors may spontaneously influence social cognition in an unintentional, efficient, non-conscious and uncontrollable way (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000). As such, the majority of empirical findings regarding schemas in principle, may be applicable to sociocognitive metaphors and could be generative for nascent research.

However, sociocognitive metaphor theoretical implications may extend further if there is consideration given to metaphors from the perspective of grounded cognition which “reflects the assumption that cognition is typically grounded in multiple ways including simulations, situated action, and on occasion, bodily states” (Barsalou, 1999, p. 619). Grounded cognition theories have the ability to readily accommodate the top down effects of conceptual metaphors on social cognition and not require that these metaphors rely on information that is abstract from the source domain. Barsalou’s (1999) perceptual systems theory posits that perceptual simulation involves partial running of sensorimotor systems in a top down way. From this vantage point, effects of sociocognitive metaphors that are related to sentiments such as “heavy discussions” and “interpersonal warmth” may be due in part to situated actions or perceptual simulation processes (IJzerman & Koole, 2011). If correct, the term conceptual metaphors can be considered a misnomer for sociocognitive metaphors as basic sociocognitive metaphors and extremely pervasive metaphors may be minimally associated with schematic knowledge or abstract concepts.

Conceptual Metaphors and Bottom-Up Constraints

How then do pervasive sociocognitive metaphors like “dirty tricks,” “deep feelings, and “high and mighty” develop? According to Landau et al. (2010), an initial source of sociocognitive metaphors is the individual’s ingenuity; one who makes creative leaps in conveying the distinct meanings of his or her personal experiences. Although there is much scholarly agreement with regard to this concept, as the human mind is capable of very impressive creative feats, there I also doubt as to whether individual creativity is a mainstay of familiar sociocognitive metaphors (IJzerman & Koole, 2011). If in fact, every individual would creatively and uniquely invent his or her own group of metaphors, there would be an expectation for individuals to develop a much higher idiosyncratic group of metaphors. As such, individual creativity as the explanation for such common metaphors that influence social cognition seems implausible.

Another posited source of sociocognitive metaphors lies in the scaffolding theories domain, which suggests that non-metaphoric associations between the bodily and social experiences form the foundation of conceptual metaphors in later life (Mandler, 2004; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969; Williams, Huang, & Bargh, 2009). For example, younger children are likely to experiences states of physical warmth and affection together, and this association may form the foundation for metaphors regarding interpersonal warmth. The idea of scaffolding tends to resonate with Lakoff and Johnson (1999), who maintain that individuals build immediate conceptual mappings unconsciously and inevitably through neural connections. Through processes of conflation (Johnson, 1997), associations between various domains are subsequently mapped onto these conceptual metaphors. Processes of scaffolding are likely to be critical to the analysis of sociocognitive metaphors through the constraints this modality imposes on the formation of metaphors. Nonetheless, Landau et al. (2010) give little credence to scaffolding.

Through the intrinsic relationship with social affection, physical warmth becomes part and parcel to the fibers of individual’s social relationships. In relationship where warmth is most relevant is described as communal sharing relationships by A.P. Fiske (1991, 1992, 2004); an altruistic relationship most often found with close kin. Communal sharing relationships are marked and created through physical actions that generate a perception of a social body that is merged. Moreover, communal sharing relationships rely on an individual’s feeling of oneness that are formed through bonding experiences that connect with the body such as touching, sharing of bodily fluids, nursing, and synchronous movement. Fiske (1992) argues that communal sharing relationships find their foundation in evolved and innate mechanisms, or relational models that offer individuals coordinated social interaction.

Moreover, Fiske (1992) identified three relational models that can be located universally across cultures and are more likely to be grounded in “innate biological mechanisms” (p. 34): (1) relationships that are based on authority ranking focus on differences that are ordered and give individuals a chance to know and recognize relative positioning in linear hierarchy; (2) relationships based on equality matching direct individuals to monitor additive differences in order to achieve and maintain balance. These relationships are considered to be typified by interactions of turn taking and reciprocity. (3) relationships based on market pricing foster the use of abstract ratios to compare commodities that are otherwise incomparable.

As such, relational models are considered significant for social cognition as they allow individuals to achieve a consensus in orchestrating and constructing their conceptual experiences (IJzerman & Koole, 2011). These basic relational structures foster a rich coordinated methodology of interacting with one’s social environment. For example, relationships based on communal sharing are grounded in experiences of physical distance (William & Bargh, 2008) and physical warmth (IJzerman & Semin, 2010) as well as synchrony (Hove & Risen, 2009). Further, relational structures like communal sharing are then mapped onto the body’s basic systems such as physical warmth that are intrinsically meaningful and motivating. Given the aforementioned, relational models may offer a plausible explanation as to why some “social meanings are likely to be culturally wide-spread or universal” (Landau et al., 2010, p. 160).

Relational models may offer an explanation of individual differences in what is meant with sociocognitive metaphors. Attachment theorists have demonstrated that from an individual’s earliest interactions with their caregivers, children develop generalized internal models that are critical in infancy and adulthood on how to behave toward themselves and others. These working models are contingent on the caregiver’s reliability. Therefore, differences in the reliability of these relationships that are so meaningful may posit substantial individual differences in style of attachment and internal working models of attachment Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). Infants that are securely attached, then, expect their figures of attachment to be readily available and are quickly and easily comforted if upset. Conversely, those infants that are not securely attached do not share this level of expectation. Among adults, secure attachments provide a base for caregiving and compassion (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005).

Conclusion

What then causes individuals to describe his or her reality in terms of noncommensurate physical qualities like cleanliness, verticality, weight or temperature? Landau et al. (2010) have provided a convincing argument that these kinds of sociocognitive metaphors are reflective of general basic processes that allow individuals to make the world make sense. However, when looking from the contextual framework of grounded cognition, the psychological importance of sociocognitive metaphors exceeds mental representation and even language. There are some sociocognitive metaphors that seem to provide greater universality that finds its foundation in bodily constraints and schemas that are relational, rooted in historic brain structures. While other sociocognitive metaphors are different across cultures but somehow emerge from very specific “cultural differences in embodiment” (IJzerman & Koole, 2011).

Thus, grounding sociocognitive metaphors may be increasingly assistive in elucidating motivational significance. The majority of the most frequently used sociocognitive metaphors that people are passionate and care deeply about such as morality, self, power and love. From a grounded cognition perspective, this is not coincidental. Sociocognitive metaphors, therefore, do not exist simply for the sake of mental representation alone. They exist for action as well. What makes metaphors meaningful may be directly correlated and linked to what motivates an individual. Being psychological and physically close to other individuals may be especially important in times when individuals think about the self as powerful and may be especially important as individuals prepare to use physical force (Schubert & Koole, 2009). As such, a grounded cognition perspective may offer a plausible explanation for the enduring psychological appeal of sociocognitive metaphors (IJzerman & Koole, 2011).

References

Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

Barsalou, L. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 577-609.

Cohen, D., Leung, A., & IJzerman, H. (2009). Culture, psyche, and body make each other up. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1298-1299.

Fiske, S., & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: Random House.

Fiske, A. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations.

New York: Free Press.

Fiske, A. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-823.

Fiske, A. (2004). Relational models theory 2.0. In N. Hamslam (ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview (pp. 3-25), London, United Kingdom: Erlbaum.

Higgins, E. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability and salience. In E.T. Higgins & A.W. Kruglanski (eds), Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133-168). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Hove, M., & Risen, J. (2009). It’s all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Social Cognition, 27, 949-960.

IJzerman, H., & Koole, S. (2011). From perceptual rags to metaphoric riches — Bodily, social and cultural constraints on Sociocognitive metaphors: comment on Landau, Meier, and Keefer. Psychological Bulletin, 137(2), 355-361.

IJzerman, H., & Semin, G. (2010). Temperature as a ground for social proximity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 867-873.

Johnson, C. (1997). Learnability in the acquisition of multiple senses: Sources reconsidered. In J. Moxley, J. Juge, & M. Juge (eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 469-480). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: HarperCollins.

Macrae, C., & Bodenhausen, G. (2000). Social cognition: thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93-120.

Macrae, C., Bodenhausen, G., Milne, A., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808-817.

Mandler, J. (2004). The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thoughts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. (2005). Attachment security, compassion, and altruism.

Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 34-38.

Niedenthal, P., Barsalou, L., Winkielman, P., Krauth-Gruber, S., & Ric, F. (2005). Embodiment in attitudes, social perception, and emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 184-211.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schubert, T., & Koole, S. (2009). The embodied self: Making a fist enhances men’s power-related self-conceptions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 828-834.

Smith, E. (1998). Mental representations and memory. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 4th ed., pp. 391-445). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Smith, E., & Semin, G. (2004). Socially situated cognition: Cognition in its social context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 53-117.

Stapel, D., & Koomen, W. (2000). How far do we go beyond information given? The impact of knowledge activation on interpretation and inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 19-37.

Williams, L., & Bargh, J. (2008). Keeping one’s distance: The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychological Science, 19, 302-308.

Williams, L., Huang, J., & Bargh, J. (2009). The scaffolded mind: higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1257-1267.

Wyers, R., & Srull, T. (1986). Human cognition and its social context. Psychological Review, 93, 322-359.

---

Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply

Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?

Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.

Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?

• Plagiarism free papers
• Timely delivery
• Any deadline
• Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
• Subject-relevant academic writer
• Adherence to paper instructions
• Ability to tackle bulk assignments
• Reasonable prices
• 24/7 Customer Support
• Get superb grades consistently

 

Online Academic Help With Different Subjects

Literature

Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.

Finance

Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.

Computer science

Computer science is a tough subject. Fortunately, our computer science experts are up to the match. No need to stress and have sleepless nights. Our academic writers will tackle all your computer science assignments and deliver them on time. Let us handle all your python, java, ruby, JavaScript, php , C+ assignments!

Psychology

While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.

Engineering

Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.

Nursing

In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.

Sociology

Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.

Business

We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!

Statistics

We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.

Law

Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.

What discipline/subjects do you deal in?

We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.

Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?

Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.

What if I don’t like the paper?

There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.

Reasons being:

• When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
• We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.

In the event that you don’t like your paper:

• The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
• We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
• Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.

Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?

Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.

What if the paper is plagiarized?

We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.

When will I get my paper?

You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.

Will anyone find out that I used your services?

We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.

How our Assignment  Help Service Works

1.      Place an order

You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.

2.      Pay for the order

Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.

3.      Track the progress

You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.

4.      Download the paper

The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!

---