Most politics-watchers are now relatively familiar with the idea that by "framing" policies in terms of powerful metaphors or concepts, politicians can influence the way people think about it. Eg, to talk of "tax relief" frames taxation as an affliction. The politician who gets their frame in first wins a headstart (the linguist George Lakoff is most strongly associated with this analysis ). A recent experiment has pushed this theory even further. It's fascinating not so much for its political implications as for what it tells us about the way metaphors unconsciously influence our thought.
69 Arizona undergraduates participated in what they were told was a study of media preferences. First, they were given two articles to read about airborne bacteria, with half the group reading a piece suggesting that that they were exposed to a significant risk of "bodily contamination". Then, they were given one of two articles to read on US domestic political issues, with half the group reading an article that used country=body metaphors in a discussion of innovation (eg "After the Civil War, the United States experienced an unprecedented growth spurt, and is scurrying to create new laws that will give it a chance to digest the millions of innovations"). In the third step, participants were given two questionnaires to fill out, one of which was on immigration.
The study's results showed that the participants who had read about the dangers of bodily contamination from airborne bacteria were significantly more likely to have negative views on immigration – if they had read the second article which used body-metaphoric language in referring to the United States. Those who read the piece about contamination but hadn't read the article that used the body metaphors weren't affected in the same way.
It's an extraordinary example of the power of metaphor - even at a remove - to unconsciously influence the way we think about things.
Go to Language Log for a fuller explanation and discussion.
Comments