道德概念中的水平空间隐喻效应探究：来自行为和ERP的证据

doi:10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.03.004

心理与行为研究 ›› 2024, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (3): 312-319.DOI: 10.12139/j.1672-0628.2024.03.004

道德概念中的水平空间隐喻效应探究：来自行为和ERP的证据

赵欣璐^1,2, 林俊菲^1,2, 刘拓^1,2,3

1. 教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地天津师范大学心理与行为研究院，天津 300387;
2. 天津师范大学心理学部，天津 300387;
3. 学生心理发展与学习天津市高校社会科学实验室，天津 300387

收稿日期:2023-04-02 出版日期:2024-05-20 发布日期:2024-05-20
通讯作者: 刘拓，E-mail：mikebonita@163.com
基金资助:
天津师范大学研究生科研创新项目(2024KYCX064Y)。

Horizontal Spatial Metaphor Effects in Moral Concepts: Evidence from Behavior and ERP

ZHAO Xinlu^1,2, LIN Junfei^1,2, LIU Tuo^1,2,3

1. Key Research Base of Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
2. Faculty of Psychology, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin 300387;
3. Tianjin Social Science Laboratory of Students’ Mental Development and Learning, Tianjin 300387

Received:2023-04-02 Online:2024-05-20 Published:2024-05-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 道德的水平空间隐喻是以左右空间位置概念为始源域向以抽象道德概念为代表的目标域映射的过程。研究设置两个实验，采用空间Stroop范式分别从行为和认知神经层面对该效应进行探究。结果发现：(1)词汇类型与呈现方位之间的交互作用不显著。(2)一致条件(道德词出现在右侧或不道德词出现在左侧)和不一致条件(道德词出现在左侧或不道德词出现在右侧)下，脑电成分P300、N200和N400的激活程度均无显著差异。结果表明，汉语道德概念词中可能不存在水平空间隐喻效应，个体不会以左右位置为参照表征道德概念。

关键词: 道德概念, 水平空间, 概念隐喻, 事件相关电位

Abstract: The horizontal spatial metaphor of morality is the process of mapping from the concept of horizontal spatial orientation as the source domain to the target domain represented by abstract moral concepts. The study set up two experiments using the spatial Stroop paradigm to explore this effect from both behavioral and cognitive neural perspectives. The results showed that: 1) the interaction between vocabulary type and presentation orientation was not significant; 2) there was no significant difference in the activation levels of EEG components P300, N200, and N400 under consistent conditions (moral words appearing on the right and immoral words appearing on the left) and inconsistent conditions (moral words appearing on the left and immoral words appearing on the right). The results indicate that there may not be a horizontal spatial metaphorical effect in Chinese moral concept words, and individuals may not use left and right positions as a reference to represent moral concepts. To some extent, the study provides new empirical references for the study of moral conceptual metaphors and embodied morality.

Key words: moral concepts, horizontal space, conceptual metaphors, event-related potential

中图分类号:

B842

赵欣璐, 林俊菲, 刘拓. 道德概念中的水平空间隐喻效应探究：来自行为和ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2024, 22(3): 312-319.

ZHAO Xinlu, LIN Junfei, LIU Tuo. Horizontal Spatial Metaphor Effects in Moral Concepts: Evidence from Behavior and ERP[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2024, 22(3): 312-319.

参考文献

丁凤琴, 王冬霞. (2019). 道德概念具身隐喻及其影响因素: 来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展, 27(9), 1540–1555.
何听雨, 丁一, 李昊堃, 程晓荣, 范炤, 定险峰. (2020). 时间的多维度空间表征: 分离的起源与激活机制. 心理科学进展, 28(6), 935–944.
贺晓玲, 刘奕晴, 那琳娜. (2021). 3~5岁幼儿颜色映射道德和权力概念的认知发展. 心理与行为研究, 19(5), 636–641.
刘静怡, 黄希庭, 杨帅. (2013). 社交焦虑障碍中的注意偏差三成分研究述评. 心理科学进展, 21(4), 664–670.
刘文娟, 沈曼琼, 李莹, 王瑞明. (2016). 情绪概念加工与情绪面孔知觉的相互影响. 心理学报, 48(2), 163–173.
沈曼琼, 谢久书, 张昆, 李莹, 曾楚轩, 王瑞明. (2014). 二语情绪概念理解中的空间隐喻. 心理学报, 46(11), 1671–1681.
施海涛. (2008). 中西方“左”“右”语言文化对比分析. 思想战线, 34(增刊3), 135–137.
孙潇, 李梓晗, 梁超月, 南艳丽, 宋耀武, 石常秀. (2023). 利手与内隐左右空间情感效价关系的眼动研究. 心理科学, 46(1), 19–24.
王汉林, 蒋泽亮, 冯晓慧, 鲁忠义. (2020). 道德概念的空间形象性: 语言因素和具身因素的共同作用. 心理学报, 52(2), 128–138.
杨继平, 郭秀梅, 王兴超. (2017). 道德概念的隐喻表征——从红白颜色、左右位置和正斜字体的维度. 心理学报, 49(7), 875–885.
殷融, 曲方炳, 叶浩生. (2012). “右好左坏”和“左好右坏”——利手与左右空间情感效价的关联性. 心理科学进展, 20(12), 1971–1979.
张锋, 皮瑜, 李小保. (2024). 个体与集体时间自我评价: 来自行为和ERP的证据. 心理学报, 56(4), 447–457.
张亚慧, 鲁忠义. (2019). 青少年犯罪者道德概念垂直空间隐喻的心理表征及其原因. 心理发展与教育, 35(6), 648–656.
Casasanto, D. (2009). Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138(3), 351–367.
Casasanto, D. (2011). Different bodies, different minds: The body specificity of language and thought. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 378–383.
Çatak, E. N., Açık, A., & Göksun, T. (2018). The relationship between handedness and valence: A gesture study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(12), 2615–2626.
Chasteen, A. L., Burdzy, D. C., & Pratt, J. (2010). Thinking of God moves attention. Neuropsychologia, 48(2), 627–630.
Chen, R., Sai, J., Zhu, Q., Zhou, R. L., Li, P., & He, S. C. (2018). Horizontal spatial metaphors for morality: A cross-cultural study of Han Chinese students and ethnic minority Hui students in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1145.
De La Vega, I., De Filippis, M., Lachmair, M., Dudschig, C., & Kaup, B. (2012). Emotional valence and physical space: Limits of interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(2), 375–385.
Fernández, S. R., Kastner, L., Cervera-Torres, S., Müller, J., & Gerjets, P. (2019). Moved by emotions: Affective concepts representing personal life events induce freely performed steps in line with combined sagittal and lateral space-valence associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2787.
Folstein, J. R., & van Petten, C. (2008). Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review. Psychophysiology, 45(1), 152–170.
Hill, P. L., & Lapsley, D. K. (2009). The ups and downs of the moral personality: Why it’s not so black and white. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(3), 520–523.
Hubbard, T. M., Magne, C., & Langston, W. (2014). Spatial configuration of vertically related word pairs modulates the N400 component. Neuroreport, 25(18), 1424–1428.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic Books.
Li, Y., Tian, W. J., Liu, B. J., Zhao, S. Y., & Wang, Y. (2023). Higher or lower? The relative morality in Chinese metaphorically associated with vertical space. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 67, 101128.
Lin, Y., & Oyserman, D. (2021). Upright and honorable: People use space to understand honor, affecting choice and perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(1), 3–19.
Liu, Y. J., Li, K., Li, L. N., Zhang, J., Lin, Y. R., DiFabrizio, B., & Wang, H. (2020). Morphological metaphor mapping of moral concepts in Chinese culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 554061.
McCarthy, G., & Donchin, E. (1981). A metric for thought: A comparison of P300 latency and reaction time. Science, 211(4477), 77–80.
Meier, B. P., Sellbom, M., & Wygant, D. B. (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 757–767.
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13(1), 25–42.
Rodway, P., Wright, L., & Hardie, S. (2003). The valence-specific laterality effect in free viewing conditions: The influence of sex, handedness, and response bias. Brain and Cognition, 53(3), 452–463.
Wang, H. L., Lu, Y. Q., & Lu, Z. Y. (2016). Moral-up first, immoral-down last: The time course of moral metaphors on a vertical dimension. NeuroReport, 27(4), 247–256.
Wang, W. C., Lu, M., & Peng, H. (2018). Brain mechanism contrastive study of Chinese and English metaphor based on ERP. NeuroQuantology, 16(5), 664–668.
Xie, J. S., Wang, R. M., & Chang, S. (2014). The mechanism of valence-space metaphors: ERP evidence for affective word processing. PLoS One, 9(6), e99479.
Zhai, D. X., Guo, Y. L., & Lu, Z. Y. (2018). A dual mechanism of cognition and emotion in processing moral-vertical metaphors. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1554.

[1]	纪丽燕, 冀爱爱. 句子理解过程中敬语加工和词类加工的交互作用：来自ERPs的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2023, 21(2): 169-176.
[2]	金花, 严世振, 单金磊, 刘婷. 面孔生命性加工的时间进程：ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(5): 577-584.
[3]	贺晓玲, 刘奕晴, 那琳娜. 3～5岁幼儿颜色映射道德和权力概念的认知发展[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 636-641.
[4]	贾磊, 陆家豪, 王逸, 张常洁. 权力概念隐喻映射中的冲突控制：特征与过程[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(3): 417-423.
[5]	陈衍, 江婷, 李玮, 陈取麟, 潘运, 胡思瑶. 合作中责任比较和分配评价差异的ERPs研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 152-159.
[6]	宋娟, 杜梦, 连涛, 张倩. 积极怀旧情绪对疼痛共情影响的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 466-473.
[7]	李骋诗, 白学军, 王永胜. 映射具体性和语境线索对新颖隐喻加工的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 153-160.
[8]	唐丹丹, 傅瑜, 吴燕京, 朱海. 视觉空间工作记忆组间差异的神经机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(2): 176-184.
[9]	曾庆, 郑希付. 高低厌恶敏感性个体对不同情绪刺激的注意时程: 来自ERP研究的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 743-749.
[10]	张潮, 刘赛芳, 隋玲, 乔园园. 宽容概念的大小隐喻表征：双向性及社会性[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 824-830.
[11]	贾丽萍, 卢国华, 宋玉萍, 李福洪. 负性情绪启动对特质焦虑个体行为抑制的影响机制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(5): 604-612.
[12]	宋娟, 魏艳秋, 杜梦, 解鸿宇, 连涛, 胡亚奇, 马欧. 眼部情绪信息对疼痛共情影响的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(3): 326-332,347.
[13]	赵小淋, 张燕, 王建峰. 情绪对不同外倾水平个体行为抑制的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(4): 449-457.
[14]	侯娟, 侯莹莹, 陈双艺, 方晓义. 网络成瘾者工作记忆能力的ERP研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(3): 384-393.
[15]	刘耀中, 刘敏, 彭滨. 任务框架和社会距离对风险决策的影响：来自ERP的证据[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(1): 13-21.

道德概念中的水平空间隐喻效应探究：来自行为和ERP的证据

Horizontal Spatial Metaphor Effects in Moral Concepts: Evidence from Behavior and ERP

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价