Review of General Psychology Using Metaphor to Find Meaning in Life

ness Challenges Meaning in Life A long-standing assumption in psychology and philosophy is that, for most individuals, a confident sense of meaning in life does not present itself in any direct, self-evident way. Rather, it is something that one must actively find or create, and is under continual assault from intimations of life’s meaninglessness (Flanagan, 2009; Schlegel, Vess, & Arndt, 2012; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2012). Approaching meaning in life as an epistemic motive fleshes out this assumption. It portrays people as motivated to reach conclusions about life’s continuity, purpose, and value that feel certain, or certain enough, as opposed to being uncertain or lost in equivocation. In the well-known terms of lay epistemology theory, they seek closure on these dimensions (Kruglanski, 2004). The current framework is premised on the idea that achieving this closure is difficult in part because these dimensions are abstract. Such abstractness results when thinking about entities, forces, and relations that cannot be directly observed and seem removed from the practical realities of daily life (Trope & Liberman, 2010). Take continuity, for example. Claire stands to achieve a confident sense of continuity by appreciating how events from her afternoon (e.g., grocery shopping) were shaped by the person she used to be, and how they set the stage for becoming a future self. But this entails perceiving causal links between temporally remote events and identities—links that are not clearly determined and may seem arbitrary. It could also entail viewing individual experiences as all related to a self-defining trait or a recurring theme, but because the mental images thus formed are not present to the senses, Claire may be unsure whether they are based in reality or mere fantasies. In either case, abstract connections may feel inadequate to fully describe the whole of her life. This premise—that abstractness is an impediment to finding meaning in life—is consistent with evidence that people often struggle to comprehend abstractions. They have lower confidence in abstract causal relations compared to relatively more concrete relations in which causes have directly observable and immediate consequences (Buehner & May, 2003; Cheng, 1993; Michotte, 1946/1963). They also strain to understand and remember messages expressed in abstract language that prevents them from forming vivid mental images (Kosslyn et al., 2006). What’s more, a reminder of personal mortality—a demonstrable spur to meaning-seeking— decreases liking for abstract stimuli, and exposure to stimuli that seem abstract or out of place makes people more eager to restore a global sense of meaning (e.g., by shoring up their ideological convictions; Greenberg et al., 2013; Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006). The question becomes: How do people gain a firm(er) grasp on these abstract dimensions of meaning in life? One answer is provided by conceptual metaphor theory, summarized next. Conceptual Metaphor Theory and Research Conceptual metaphor theory posits that a metaphor, traditionally dismissed as a quirk of language, is a cognitive tool for understanding one concept in terms of another (Kövecses, 2010; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). The concept one seeks to understand—called the target—is typically abstract and difficult to represent in its own terms, whereas the concept used for this purpose—the source—is concrete and easier to grasp. Many sources derive from sensorimotor states and well-learned interactions with the physical environment (e.g., walking, grasping). Others refer to commonplace, stereotyped knowledge of cultural products (e.g., computer operation, building construction) and activities (e.g., baseball rules, courtroom proceedings). At a process level, metaphor operates as a conceptual mapping, defined as a systematic set of associations between the target’s elements (features, properties, relational information) and analogous source elements. A mapping is partial and selective, drawing attention to target elements that share a source analog and downplaying or inhibiting those that do not. By means of a mapping, metaphor use enables people to apply source knowledge as a template for interpreting and evaluating the target, even though the two concepts are superficially unrelated. To illustrate, a person using metaphor to understand substance addiction (the target) in terms of a war (the source) transfers schematic knowledge of military combat to structure how she thinks and feels about select elements of addiction: She conceives herself as a warrior, therapy as a weapon, cravings as enemy combatants, and so forth. Conceptual metaphor theory is supported by over 40 years of research across the cognitive sciences and humanities demonstrating metaphor’s far-reaching significance in thought and behavior (Gibbs, 2008). These discoveries have recently inspired social psychologists to test metaphoric influences on social cognition using experimental methods (Landau, 2017). One method is to expose some people to a metaphoric framing—a message that uses metaphoric language or imagery to liken a target to a source—and compare their responses with those exposed to a parallel message using a different metaphor or no metaphor. Activating metaphors in this manner has been repeatedly shown to change target interpretations in ways that correspond to source knowledge. In one illustrative study (Thibodeau & Boroditsky, 2011), participants who read an article comparing a city’s crime problem to an aggressive beast generated more punitive crime-reduction strategies, whereas those who read an article framing the same facts in T hi s do cu m en t is co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an Ps yc ho lo gi ca l A ss oc ia tio n or on e of its al lie d pu bl is he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. 2 LANDAU