Emotion and Cognition: A New Map of the Terrain

Lancey, Craig De

doi:10.1007/1-4020-5444-0_7

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Argumentation has been defined as a critical use of reason in judgment, often in contrast to emotions (Oaksford et al, 1996;Blanchette et al, 2018): rational justification seems to be the unique relevant source of knowledge at a normative level, while emotions are subjective feelings conveying only perspectives. Emotions safeguard compelling and fleeting interests, and can be "recalcitrant" to reason and arguments (Greenspan, 1988(Greenspan, , 1992(Greenspan, , 2004Stocker and Hegeman, 1996;DeLancey, 2002DeLancey, , 2007D'Arms and Jacobson, 2003). Emotions are often processed in an automatic, unconscious, and obliged way, while the critical use of reason is supposed to be conscious and controlled.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Double Framing Effect of Emotive Metaphors in Argumentation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In argumentation, metaphors are often considered as ambiguous or deceptive uses of language leading to fallacies of reasoning. However, they can also provide useful insights into creative argumentation, leading to genuinely new knowledge. Metaphors entail a framing effect that implicitly provides a specific perspective to interpret the world, guiding reasoning and evaluation of arguments. In the same vein, emotions could be in sharp contrast with proper reasoning, but they can also be cognitive processes of affective framing, influencing our reasoning and behavior in different meaningful ways. Thus, a double (metaphorical and affective) framing effect might influence argumentation in the case of emotive metaphors, such as “Poverty is a disease” or “Your boss is a dictator,” where specific “emotive words” (disease, dictator) are used as vehicles. We present and discuss the results of two experimental studies designed to explore the role of emotive metaphors in argumentation. The studies investigated whether and to what extent the detection of a fallacious argument is influenced by the presence of a conventional vs. novel emotive metaphor. Participants evaluated a series of verbal arguments containing either “non-emotive” or “emotive” (positive or negative) metaphors as middle terms that “bridge” the premises of the argument. The results show that the affective coherence of the metaphor's vehicle and topic plays a crucial role in participants' reasoning style, leading to global heuristic vs. local analytical interpretive processes in the interplay of the metaphorical and the affective framing effects.

show abstract