What's "up" with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine.

Abstract

"God" and "Devil" are abstract concepts often linked to vertical metaphors (e.g., "glory to God in the highest," "the Devil lives down in hell"). It is unknown, however, whether these metaphors simply aid communication or implicate a deeper mode of concept representation. In 6 experiments, the authors examined the extent to which the vertical dimension is used in noncommunication contexts involving God and the Devil. Experiment 1 established that people have implicit associations between God-Devil and up-down. Experiment 2 revealed that people encode God-related concepts faster if presented in a high (vs. low) vertical position. Experiment 3 found that people's memory for the vertical location of God- and Devil-like images showed a metaphor-consistent bias (up for God; down for Devil). Experiments 4, 5a, and 5b revealed that people rated strangers as more likely to believe in God when their images appeared in a high versus low vertical position, and this effect was independent of inferences related to power and likability. These robust results reveal that vertical perceptions are invoked when people access divinity-related cognitions.

Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bipolar concepts presented in vertical space.

“…However, previous studies do not typically reveal the predicted cross-over interactions between vertical position and word meaning (Meier, Hauser et al, 2007;Meier, Sellbom, et al, 2007;Schubert, 2005). In the current article, an alternative explanation for previously observed metaphor congruency effects is proposed, based on basic asymmetries in the way people process dimensions, which are Polarity Correspondence Confounds Metaphor Congruency Effects 4 known in the literature as polarity differences (Batistella, 1990;Clark, 1973;Greenberg, 1963;Lakoff, 1987) 1 .…”

“…It seems difficult to explain this reaction time pattern by a Stroop-like response interference explanation. Although researchers have provided post-hoc explanations for asymmetries in the reaction time pattern in their data (e.g., Meier, Hauser, et al, 2007;Schubert, 2005), the polarity correspondence principle predicts such asymmetries a-priori, thus providing a more parsimonious explanation for previously observed metaphor congruency effects.…”

“…First, whereas an interference explanation has no reason to predict a reliable difference between the two metaphor congruent conditions (+polar UP vs. -polar DOWN), a polarity account predicts that + polar words Polarity Correspondence Confounds Metaphor Congruency Effects 9 presented UP will be categorized faster than -polar words presented DOWN. Second, whereas an interference explanation predicts that -polar targets (e.g., negative words) will be categorized faster when they are presented on the bottom compared to the top of the screen (see Meier, Hauser et al, 2007;Schubert, 2005), a polarity explanation does not predict a significant reaction time difference when comparing the categorization times for -polar targets presented UP with -polar targets presented DOWN (see Figure 1f). …”

“…Other studies have revealed that categorizations of concepts such as powerful and powerless (Schubert, 2005), moral and immoral (Meier, Sellbom, & Wygant, 2007), and God and Devil (Meier, Hauser, Robinson, Kelland Friesen, & Schjeldahl, 2007) are similarly influenced by their vertical position on the screen.…”

“…For powerful creatures, their spatial position influenced ratings of respect, with higher respect ratings when these animals were presented on the top of the screen, than on the bottom. Similarly, Meier, Hauser, et al (2007) showed that pictures of faces presented on the top of the screen were judged to have a stronger belief in God than people presented on the bottom of the screen. A paradigm which has investigated the perceptual representation of abstract concepts more implicitly has looked at how memory is Polarity Correspondence Confounds Metaphor Congruency Effects 24 affected when people have to remember the location of valenced or divinity related pictures (Crawford, et al, 2006), and such studies for example show that errors are influenced in the direction of the metaphor under investigation (e.g., remembering God related images as being presented higher than they were actually displayed, Meier, Hauser, et al, 2007).…”