Philosophers and writers subsequent to Plato have elaborated on the purported significance of the head versus the heart in understanding rational thinking, emotional responding, and decision making, but in a way that preserves Plato’s presumed functions for these two body organs. 1987) was among the first to suggest that the head is the source of rational wisdom, whereas the heart is the source of the passions. Two body parts – the head and the heart – have been ascribed particular psychological significance throughout the history of Western civilization. The self is not just a psychological entity, but also a multi-faceted body structure – it has hands, feet, genitals, a head, etc. We introduce a novel assessment device and, in doing so, capitalize on the fact that people ascribe very different metaphoric functions to the head versus the heart.Head versus Heart Metaphors If people think and behave in metaphoric terms ( Lakoff & Johnson, 1999 Landau et al., 2010), then such processes should be as relevant in understanding individual differences as in understanding manipulation effects. Considerable creativity, therefore, is necessary for translating the metaphor representation theory to the individual differences realm ( Robinson & Fetterman, in press).ĭespite these obstacles, we believe that metaphor representation theory may have profound implications for personality psychology. Second, manipulations (e.g., of dirt, warmth, or higher vertical position) are potentially irrelevant in understanding individual differences, which are not commensurate with manipulation effects ( Kenrick & Funder, 1988). First, conceptual metaphors (e.g., “good is up”, “friendly is warm”, “immoral is dirty”) are consensually shared by members of a culture ( Lakoff, 1986), are largely universal across cultures ( Kövecses, 2000), and therefore may constrain thinking and behavior in a similar manner across individuals ( Landau et al., 2010). There are at least two potential reasons for this largely missing interface. Metaphor representation theory ( Lakoff & Johnson, 1999) might have profound implications for personality psychology, but there is surprisingly little research of this type ( Robinson & Fetterman, in press). For example, manipulations of physical warmth lead to “warmer” interpersonal judgments ( Williams & Bargh, 2008a) and moral judgments are more severe when individuals are placed in dirty rooms, consistent with “dirt” metaphors for moral depravity ( Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008). Social judgments, too, are influenced by metaphor-consistent manipulations. For example, positive evaluations are faster when perceptual manipulations are consistent with prominent metaphors (e.g., “good is up”: Meier & Robinson, 2004a). Since then, significant progress has been made in documenting the importance of conceptual metaphors in the social psychology literature ( Landau, Meier, & Keefer, 2010). Lakoff and Johnson (1999) suggested that conceptual metaphors guide thought, emotion, and behavior in a hitherto unappreciated manner. The findings converge on the importance of head-heart metaphors for understanding individual differences in cognition, emotion, and performance. Study 8 replicated Study 3’s findings with a nearly year-long delay between the self-location and outcome measures. Study 7 manipulated attention to the head versus the heart and found that head-pointing facilitated intellectual performance, whereas heart-pointing led to emotional decision-making. Study 6 linked self-locations to reactivity phenomena in daily life –e.g., heart-locators experienced greater negative emotion on high stressor days. Study 4 found that head-locators were more accurate in answering general knowledge questions and had higher GPAs and Study 5 found that heart-locators were more likely to favor emotional over rational considerations in moral decision-making. Irrespective of sex differences, head-locators characterized themselves as rational, logical, and interpersonally cold, whereas heart-locators characterized themselves as emotional, feminine, and interpersonally warm (Studies 1–3). Study 1 introduced a novel individual difference variable, one asking people to locate the self in the head or the heart. Eight studies (total N = 725) pursued the idea that such body metaphors are widely consequential. The head is thought to be rational and cold, whereas the heart is thought to be emotional and warm.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |