Explanations of an Unfamiliar Phenomenon Based on Categorical Names and Metaphors
A study by Giffin and colleagues (2017) found the effect of a verbal label on the explanation of an unfamiliar phenomenon: when a name is used, people's judgments are more likely to express the belief that the phenomenon has an objective cause. This effect was demonstrated in behavior descriptions of a mental disorder that was either labeled with the fictional name “depataphy” or left unlabeled. In the present study, we replicated this effect (N = 110) and added new conditions in order to assess whether another linguistic form, a metaphor, could cause the same effect. A separate group (N = 119) evaluated two conditions wherein, instead of a verbal label, we informed participants that the internal state of the person behaving abnormally can be compared to some other event (e.g., a fire). One condition (the so-called nonconventional metaphor) emphasized that this comparison is made by the character of the story himself, and the second condition emphasized other people with a similar behavioral disorder (the so-called conventional metaphor). According to our hypothesis, only the conventional metaphor could affect the formation of explanations, because the conventionality would give the metaphor the status of a category name. The hypothesis was partially confirmed: in the condition with a nonconventional metaphor no significant effect was found, and in the condition with a conventional metaphor it was found in the answers to only one question. The results of the study are generally consistent with the interpretation by Giffin and colleagues that judgments are primarily influenced by a category label rather than other linguistic forms.