Please wait a minute...
Advances in Psychological Science    2019, Vol. 27 Issue (9) : 1540-1555     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01540
Meta-Analysis |
Embodied metaphors of moral concepts and its influential factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Fengqin DING(),Dongxia WANG
School of Education, Ningxia University, Yinchuan 750021, China
Download: PDF(863 KB)   HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info
Guide   
Abstract  

The meta-analysis was designed to explore the embodied metaphors of moral concepts and its influential factors. Through literature retrieval, 65 cases and 153 independent effect sizes which met the inclusion criteria of meta-analysis were selected ( N = 8659). Overall, the results showed that there existed a moderate positive correlation between source domain of embodied metaphors of moral concepts with the target domain (r = 0.34). Embodied metaphors of moral concepts were moderated by cultural background and metaphorical dimension, but not by metaphorical mapping direction, research paradigm and sensory channel. The above results indicate that the embodied metaphors of moral concepts reflect psychological reality, and the following studies should focus on the different roles of cultural background and metaphorical dimension, specifically, the individual moral concept metaphor is stronger under the background of oriental culture, and the metaphorical connection between moral concepts and spatial dimension and dimension is higher.

Keywords embodied metaphors      moral concepts      meta-analysis      moderate effect     
ZTFLH:  B849:C91  
Corresponding Authors: Fengqin DING     E-mail: dingfqin@nxu.edu.cn
Issue Date: 24 July 2019
Service
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
RSS
Articles by authors
Fengqin DING
Dongxia WANG
Cite this article:   
Fengqin DING,Dongxia WANG. Embodied metaphors of moral concepts and its influential factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(9): 1540-1555.
URL:  
http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01540     OR     http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/EN/Y2019/V27/I9/1540
  
文献 样本量 文化背景 隐喻映射方向 隐喻维度 感觉通道 研究范式 效应值Zr
杨继平 等, 2017 31 E S-T C V Str 0.18
24 E S-T S V Str 0.46
28 E S-T S V Str 0.43
方溦, 2016 30 E S-T C V Str 0.41
63 E S-T C V Sit 0.04
27 E S-T C V Str 0.38
易兰新, 2017 34 E S-T S V Sit 0.36
74 E S-T S V Sit 0.36
62 E S-T S V Sit 0.27
顾倩, 2015 20 E T-S S V Sit 0.02
20 E T-S S V Sit 0.20
鲁忠义, 郭少鹏 等, 2017 31 E T-S Si V Str 0.71
28 E T-S Si V Str 0.79
36 E T-S Si V M 0.55
28 E S-T Si V M 0.02
丁凤琴 等, 2017 36 E S-T Cl V Str 0.80
58 E S-T Cl V Sit 0.27
62 E S-T Cl Sk M 0.28
鲁忠义, 贾利宁 等, 2017 26 E S-T S V Str 0.23
32
24
E
E
S-T
S-T
S
S
V
V
Str
Str
0.59
1.49
孙浩雄, 2016
28
17
E
E
T-S
T-S
S
S
V
V
IAT
IAT
0.76
1.67
贾宁, 蒋高芳, 2016 37 E T-S S V Sit 0.48
31 E T-S S V Sit 0.83
23 E S-T S V Sit 0.47
王锃, 鲁忠义, 2013 19 E S-T S V Str 0.89
33 E S-T S V Str 0.38
杨继宇, 2014 30 E T-S S V M 0.63
35 E T-S S V M 0.56
34 E T-S S V M 0.56
殷融, 叶浩生, 2014 30 E T-S C V M 0.68
30 E T-S C V M 0.57
52 E S-T C V Sit 0.29
64 E S-T C V Sit 0.30
肖玉珠, 2015 19 E T-S S V M 0.42
22 E S-T S V M 0.50
郭少鹏, 2015 31 E S-T Si V Str 0.71
28 E S-T Si V Sit 0.79
36 E T-S Si V M 0.55
28 E T-S Si V M 0.02
丁慧萍, 2016 39 E S-T C V Sit -0.53
41 E S-T C V Str -0.35
37 E T-S C V Str -0.36
吴保忠, 2013 90 E S-T F O M 0.33
冯新明, 2013 30 E S-T S V Sit 1.01
  
文献 样本量 文化背景 隐喻映射方向 隐喻维度 感觉通道 研究范式 效应值Zr
32 E S-T S V Sit 0.43
36 E S-T S V Sit 0.53
牛怡然, 2014 41 E S-T L V Str 0.36
42 E T-S L V Str 0.49
37 E T-S L V Str -0.64
李文静, 2016 18 E S-T C V Sit 0.04
18 E T-S C V M 0.06
18 E S-T C V Str 0.34
陈换娟, 2015 40 E S-T S V Sit 0.33
30 E S-T S V Sit 0.40
45 E S-T S V Sit 0.33
35 E S-T S V Sit 0.40
李顺雨, 2014 78 E T-S L V M 0.38
82 E T-S L V Sit 0.29
62 E T-S L V Sit -0.15
蒋高芳, 2014 37 E S-T S V Sit 0.48
31 E S-T S V Sit 0.35
23 E S-T S V Sit 0.57
李楠, 2014 99
73
E
E
S-T
S-T
S
S
V
V
M
M
1.62
1.35
霍志兵, 2017 37 E T-S S V M 0.48
40 E S-T S V Sit 0.34
李海伦, 2016 37 E S-T Cl Sk M 0.17
37 E S-T Cl Sk Sit 0.21
赵伯妮, 2012 70 E S-T Sw T M 0.08
66 E S-T Sw T M 0.06
62 E S-T Sw T M 0.11
刘钊, 丁凤琴, 2016 126 E S-T We Sk M 0.17
130 E S-T We Sk M 0.23
叶红燕, 2016 38 E S-T Cl Sk M 0.16
唐芳贵, 2017 69 E S-T S Sk M 0.43
51 E S-T S Sk M 0.48
48 E S-T S Sk M 0.36
丁汝楠, 2018 86 E S-T We V Sit 1.65
34 E S-T We V Sit -0.46
177 E S-T We V M 0.16
104 E T-S We V M 0.16
135 E T-S We V M 0.21
冯晓慧, 2018 30 E S-T S V Str 0.05
30 E S-T S V Str 0.59
栾子烟, 2013 105 E T-S Te Sk M 0.30
184 E S-T Te Sk M 0.16
贾宁等, 2018 40 E S-T S V M 0.33
30 E S-T S V M 0.40
45 E S-T S V M 0.34
  
文献 样本量 文化背景 隐喻映射方向 隐喻维度 感觉通道 研究范式 效应值Zr
35 E S-T S V M 0.40
Lee & Schwarz, 2010 82 W T-S Cl Sk M 0.36
Nakamura et al., 2014 47 W S-T Te Sk M 0.36
41 W S-T Te Sk M 0.30
Fayard et al., 2009 210 W T-S Cl Sk M -0.03
Li & Cao, 2017 182 E S-T S V Sit 0.67
162 E S-T S V Sit 0.75
Schnall et al., 2008 40 W S-T Cl V M 0.30
44 W S-T Cl V M 0.41
Leung, 2013 75 E S-T Cl V M 0.27
Iachini et al., 2015 36 W T-S S V M 0.31
Zhong, Strejcek et al., 2010 58 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.28
323 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.15
136 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.18
Zhong, Bohns et al., 2010 84 W S-T L V Sit 0.51
50 W S-T L V Sit 0.28
83 W S-T L V M 0.30
Zhong & Leonardelli, 2008 65 W S-T Te Sk M 0.25
52 W S-T Te Sk M 0.30
Wang et al., 2016 24 E T-S S V IAT -0.86
21 E T-S S V IAT 0.51
Sekulak & Maciuszek, 2017 60 W T-S Cl Sk Sit 0.07
60 W T-S Cl Sk Sit 0.38
90 W T-S Cl Sk Sit 0.21
Denke et al., 2016 37 W T-S Cl Sk M 0.42
Webster et al., 2012 30 W S-T L V Sit 0.50
30 W S-T L V Sit 0.37
Lobel et al., 2015 30 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.42
147 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.19
Chiou & Cheng, 2013 54 E S-T L V Sit 0.28
58 E S-T L V Sit 0.31
48 E S-T L V Sit 0.35
Lee et al., 2015 105 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.16
90 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.63
70 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.24
Xu et al., 2014 65 W T-S Cl Sk M 0.48
Helzer & Pizarro, 2011 60 W S-T Cl Sk M 0.38
Kaufmann & Allen, 2014 40 W S-T We Sk M 0.31
Eskine et al., 2012 60 W T-S Sw T M 0.30
Williams & Bargh, 2008 53 W T-S Te Sk M 0.57
Steidle et al., 2013 80 W S-T L V Sit -0.25
58 W S-T L V Sit -0.34
48 W S-T L V Sit -0.31
62 W S-T L V Sit -0.31
  
文献 样本量 文化背景 隐喻映射方向 隐喻维度 感觉通道 研究范式 效应值Zr
Eskine et al., 2011 53 W S-T Sw V M 0.56
Liljenquist et al., 2010 28 W S-T F O M 0.50
99 W S-T F O M 0.23
Michael et al., 2015 35 W T-S Cl Sk M 0.37
Zhong & Liljenquist, 2006 60 W T-S Cl Sk M 0.15
45 W T-S Cl Sk M 0.38
32 W T-S Cl Sk M 0.51
Gámez et al., 2011 47 W T-S Cl Sk M -0.04
36 W T-S Cl Sk M -0.04
45 W T-S Cl Sk M 0.15
Skarlicki et al., 2013 76 W T-S Sw T M 0.27
136 W T-S Sw T M 0.24
119 W T-S F O M 0.20
Lee & Schwarz, 2012 34 W S-T F O M 0.41
46 W S-T F O M 0.45
Banerjee et al., 2012 40 W T-S L V M 0.32
74 W T-S L V Sit 0.31
Ackerman et al., 2010 43 W S-T W Sk M 0.46
  
  
调节变量 类别 k r 95%CI Qw Qb p
隐喻映射方向 0.67 0.41
S-T 101 0.36 0.29~0.43 10.22***
T-S 52 0.31 0.21~0.40 6.26***
文化背景 4.47 0.03
E 100 0.39 0.32~0.45 10.98***
W 53 0.26 0.17~0.35 5.66***
隐喻维度 31.66 0.00
C 14 0.14 -0.04~0.32 1.53
S 50 0.52 0.43~0.62 11.00***
Si 8 0.52 0.28~0.76 4.31***
Cl 32 0.27 0.16~0.38 4.90***
F 5 0.37 0.09~0.65 2.61**
L
We
20
9
0.15
0.33
0.01~0.29
0.13~0.53
2.17*
3.24**
Sw 8 0.23 0.01~0.44 2.07*
Te 7 0.32 0.09~0.55 2.69**
研究范式 1.43 0.70
Str 21 0.40 0.24~0.56 4.93***
IAT 4 0.48 0.10~0.87 2.50*
Sit 46 0.31 0.21~0.41 5.87***
M 82 0.34 0.26~0.41 8.80***
感觉通道 3.15 0.37
V 99 0.38 0.31~0.45 10.54***
Sk 43 0.28 0.18~0.38 5.41***
O 4 0.34 0.01~0.67 1.99*
T 7 0.23 -0.01~0.48 1.81
  
结果变量 调节变量 Beta SE Z p
道德概念具身隐喻 文化背景 -0.16*** 0.02 -7.12 0.00
隐喻维度 -0.03*** 0.00 -7.06 0.00
  
1 * 陈换娟 . (2015). 隐含动态垂直空间信息句子的加工对道德词汇分类任务的影响(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
2 陈潇, 江琦, 侯敏, 朱梦音 . ( 2014). 具身道德: 道德心理学研究的新取向. 心理发展与教育, 30(6), 664-672.
3 陈玉明, 郭田友, 何立国, 燕良轼 . ( 2014). 具身认知研究述评. 心理学探新, 34(6), 483-487.
4 * 丁凤琴, 王喜梅, 刘钊 . ( 2017). 道德概念净脏隐喻及其对道德判断的影响. 心理发展与教育, 33(6), 666-674.
url: 研究点分析
5 * 丁慧萍 . ( 2016). 道德概念与颜色概念的隐喻关联及其可控性(硕士学位论文). 鲁东大学, 烟台.
6 * 丁汝楠 . (2018). 道德概念的重量隐喻研究(硕士学位论文). 浙江大学, 杭州.
7 范琪, 叶浩生 . ( 2014). 具身认知与具身隐喻——认知的具身转向及隐喻认知功能探析. 西北师大学报(社会科学版), 51(3), 117-122.
8 *方溦 . ( 2016). 彩色对道德判断的影响及其神经机制的研究(硕士学位论文). 浙江理工大学, 杭州.
9 *冯晓慧 . (2018). 隐喻的一致性效应是基于概念隐喻理论还是极性理论(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
10 *冯新明 . ( 2013). 视觉空间关系加工中道德概念的垂直空间隐喻(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
11 *顾倩 . ( 2015). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻的心理现实性——来自ERP的证据(硕士学位论文). 河北大学, 石家庄.
12 *郭少鹏 . ( 2015). 道德概念大小隐喻的心理现实性及其映射关系(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
13 *霍志兵 . ( 2017). 注意指向对道德概念垂直空间隐喻一致性效应的影响(硕士学位论文). 河北大学, 石家庄.
14 * 贾宁, 陈换娟, 鲁忠义 . ( 2018). 句子启动范式下的道德概念空间隐喻: 匹配抑制还是匹配易化? 心理发展与教育, 34(5), 541-547.
url: 研究点分析
15 * 贾宁, 蒋高芳 . ( 2016). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻的心理现实性及双向映射. 心理发展与教育, 32(2), 158-165.
16 *蒋高芳 . ( 2014). 传统道德概念垂直空间隐喻的实验研究(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
17 *李海伦 . ( 2016). 身体洁净和文化启动对大学生情境性道德敏感的影响研究(硕士学位论文). 云南师范大学, 昆明.
18 * 李楠 . ( 2014). 马基雅维利主义与道德概念垂直空间隐喻的关系研究(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
19 *李顺雨 . ( 2014). 道德/不道德行为回忆对明度知觉的影响及其心理机制(硕士学位论文). 广西师范大学, 桂林.
20 *李文静 . ( 2016). 颜色对道德概念加工的影响:来自ERP的证据(硕士学位论文). 河南师范大学, 新乡.
21 黎晓丹, 杜建政, 叶浩生 . ( 2016). 中国礼文化的具身隐喻效应: 蜷缩的身体使人更卑微. 心理学报, 48(6), 746-756.
22 * 刘钊, 丁凤琴 . ( 2016). 大学生道德概念的重量与洁净隐喻. 中国健康心理学杂志, 24(4), 533-536.
23 * 鲁忠义, 郭少鹏, 蒋泽亮 . ( 2017). 道德概念大小隐喻的心理现实性及映射关系. 华南师范大学学报(社会科学版), ( 2), 70-78.
24 * 鲁忠义, 贾利宁, 翟冬雪 . ( 2017). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻理解中的映射:双向性及不平衡性. 心理学报, 49(2), 186-196.
25 *栾子烟 . ( 2013). 道德温度:身体冷暖与青少年道德决策(硕士学位论文). 华东师范大学, 上海.
26 *牛怡然 . ( 2014). 汉语道德概念亮度隐喻表征及其对亮度知觉的影响(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
27 苏彦捷, 孙芳芳 . ( 2014). 道德具身性的元分析研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 32(2), 88-96.
28 *孙浩雄 . ( 2016). 道德概念垂直空间隐喻的神经基础——一项fMRI的IAT研究(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
29 *唐芳贵 . ( 2017). 高上会使人更高尚吗?—垂直空间的道德隐喻. 苏州大学学报(教育科学版), ( 4), 106-111.
30 王继瑛, 叶浩生, 苏得权 . ( 2018). 身体动作与语义加工: 具身隐喻的视角. 心理学探新, 38(1), 15-19.
31 汪新筱, 严秀英, 张积家, 董方虹 . ( 2017). 平辈亲属词语义加工中长幼概念的空间隐喻和重量隐喻——来自中国朝鲜族和汉族的证据. 心理学报, 49(2), 174-185.
32 * 王锃, 鲁忠义 . ( 2013). 道德概念的垂直空间隐喻及其对认知的影响. 心理学报, 45(5), 538-545.
33 *吴保忠 . ( 2013). 气味对个体道德判断的影响(硕士学位论文). 湖北大学, 武汉.
34 *肖玉珠 . ( 2015). 道德概念的水平人际距离隐喻表征的双向性(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
35 许闯 . ( 2012). 道德人格的隐喻表征维度研究(硕士学位论文). 广西师范大学, 桂林.
36 * 杨继平, 郭秀梅, 王兴超 . ( 2017). 道德概念的隐喻表征——从红白颜色、左右位置和正斜字体的维度. 心理学报, 49(7), 875-885.
37 *杨继宇 . ( 2014). 道德概念的垂直空间隐喻对空间记忆的影响(硕士学位论文). 河北师范大学, 石家庄.
38 *叶红燕 . ( 2016). “洗”出来的效应:清洁启动对道德判断的影响(硕士学位论文). 江西师范大学, 南昌.
39 *易兰新 . ( 2017). 道德“髙上”:位置髙低对道德判断和道德行为的影响(硕士学位论文). 广西师范大学, 桂林.
40 殷宏淼 . ( 2014). 道德概念的隐喻表征研究(硕士学位论文). 上海师范大学, 上海.
41 殷融, 曲方炳, 叶浩生 . ( 2012). 具身概念表征的研究及理论述评. 心理科学进展, 20(9), 1372-1381.
url: http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/article2699.shtml
42 殷融, 苏得权, 叶浩生 . ( 2013). 具身认知视角下的概念隐喻理论. 心理科学进展, 21(2), 220-234.
url: http://journal.psych.ac.cn/xlkxjz/CN/article/article2795.shtml
43 * 殷融, 叶浩生 . ( 2014). 道德概念的黑白隐喻表征及其对道德认知的影响. 心理学报, 46(9), 1331-1346.
44 尹新雅, 鲁忠义 . ( 2015). 隐喻的具身性与文化性. 心理科学, 38(5), 1081-1086.
45 张凤华, 叶红燕 . ( 2016). “洗”出来的效应:清洁启动对道德判断作用方向不同的影响因素探析. 心理科学 39(5), 1236-1241.
46 赵伯妮 . ( 2012). 味觉和道德判断:情绪与自我概念的作用(硕士学位论文). 广西师范大学, 桂林.
47 * Ackerman J. M., Nocera C. C., & Bargh J. A . ( 2010). Incidental haptic sensations influence social judgments and decisions. Science, 328(5986), 1712-1715.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1189993
48 * Banerjee P., Chatterjee P., & Sinha J . ( 2012). Is it light or dark? Recalling moral behavior changes perception of brightness. Psychological Science, 23(4), 407-409.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611432497
49 Black, M . (1993). More about metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp.19-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50 Borenstein M., Hedges L. V., Higgins J. P. T., & Rothstein H. R . ( 2009). Effect sizes based on means. In M. Borenstein, L. V. Hedges, J. P. T. Higgins, & H. R. Rothstein (Eds.), Introduction to meta-analysis (pp. 21-32). United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
url: http://dx.doi.org/d Kingdom: John Wiley
51 Borg J. S., Lieberman D., & Kiehl K. A . ( 2008). Infection, incest, and iniquity: Investigating the neural correlates of disgust and morality. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(9), 1529-1546.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20109
52 Boroditsky, L . (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognition Psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0748
53 Card N. A. (2012). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. New York, America: Guilford Press.
54 Casasanto D., Fotakopoulou O., & Boroditsky L . ( 2010). Space and time in the child's mind: Evidence for a cross- dimensional asymmetry. Cognitive Science, 34(3), 387-405.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01094.x
55 Chasteen A. L., Burdzy D. C., & Pratt J . ( 2010). Thinking of god moves attention. Neuropsychologia, 48(2), 627-630.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.029
56 * Chiou, W. B., & Cheng,Y. Y . ( 2013). In broad daylight, we trust in God! Brightness, the salience of morality, and ethical behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 37-42.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.07.005
57 *Denke C., Rotte M., Heinze H. J., & Schaefer M . ( 2016). Lying and the subsequent desire for toothpaste: Activity in the somatosensory cortex predicts embodiment of the moral-purity metaphor. Cerebral Cortex, 26(2), 477-484.
58 *Eskine K. J., Kacinik N. A., & Prinz J. J . ( 2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22(3), 295-299.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797611398497
59 *Eskine K. J., Kacinik N. A., & Webster G. D . ( 2012). The bitter truth about morality: Virtue, not vice, makes a bland beverage taste nice . PloS One, 7( 7), e41159.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041159
60 Faueonnier, G. (1998). Mental Space, language modalities, and conceptual integration. In M.Tomasello (Ed.), The New Psychology of Language(pp. 251-279). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
61 *Fayard J. V., Bassi A. K., Bernstein D. M., & Roberts B. W . ( 2009). Is cleanliness next to godliness? Dispelling old wives’tales: Failure to replicate Zhong and Liljenquist (2006). Journal of Articles in Support of the Null Hypothesis, 6, 21-29.
62 Fernández-Castilla B., Aloe A.M., Declercq L., Jamshidi L., Onghena P., Beretvas S.N., & van den Noortgate W . ( 2018). Concealed correlations meta-analysis: a new method for synthesizing standardized regression coefficients. Behavior Research Methods, 51( 1), 316-331.
63 Fiske, A. P . ( 2004). Relational models theory.In N. Haslam (Ed.), Relational models theory: A contemporary overview( pp. 3-25). London, United Kingdom: Erlbaum.
64 *Gámez E., Díaz J. M., & Marrero H . ( 2011). The uncertain universality of the Macbeth effect with a Spanish sample. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 14 (1), 156-162.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/rev_SJOP.2011.v14.n1.13
65 Garcia-Argibay M., Santed M.A., & Reales J. M . ( 2019). Efficacy of binaural auditory beats in cognition, anxiety, and pain perception: A meta-analysis. Psychological Research, 83( 2), 357-372.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00426-018-1066-8
66 Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21( 3), 434-458.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x
67 Gibbs, R. W., & Berg, E. A . ( 1999). Embodied metaphor in perceptual symbols. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(4), 617-618.
68 Gibson, E. J . ( 1969). Principles of Perceptual learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
69 Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133( 4), 55-66.
70 He X. L., Chen J., Zhang E. T., & Li J. N . ( 2015). Bidirectional associations of power and size in a priming task. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 27( 3), 290-300.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.996155
71 *Helzer, E. G., & Pizarro, D. A . ( 2011). Dirty liberals! Reminders of physical cleanliness influence moral and political attitudes. Psychologicalscience, 22( 4), 517-522.
72 Higgins J. P. T., Thompson S. G., Deeks J. J., & Altman D. G . ( 2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327( 7414), 557-560.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
73 Hill, P. L., & Lapsley,D. K . ( 2009). The ups and downs of the moral personality: Why it’s not so black and white. Journal of Research in Personality, 43( 3), 520-523.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.01.014
74 *Iachini T., Pagliaro S., & Ruggiero G . ( 2015). Near or far? It depends on my impression: Moral information and spatial behavior in virtual interactions. Acta Psychologica, 161, 131-136.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2015.09.003
75 Johnson D. J., Cheung F., & Donnellan M. B . ( 2014). Does cleanliness influence moral judgments? A direct replication of schnall, benton, and Harvey. (2008). Social Psychology, 45( 3), 209-215.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000186
76 *Kaufmann, L. M., & Allen, S. (2014). Adding weight to judgments: The role of stimulus focality on weight-related embodied cognition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 10(1), 41-48.
77 Lakoff, G. (2014). Mapping the brain's metaphor circuitry: Metaphorical thought in everyday reason. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 958.
78 Lakoff G., & Johnson, M. (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought Chicago: University of Chicago Press The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
79 Lakoff G., & Johnson, M. (2003). “Afterword”. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
80 Lakoff G. ,& Turner, M.(1989) More than cool reason: Afield guide to poetic metaphor Chicago: University of Chicago Press Afield guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
81 *Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2010). Dirty hands and dirty mouths: Embodiment of the moral-purity metaphor is specific to the motor modality involved in moral transgression. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1423-1425.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797610382788
82 *Lee, S. W. S., & Schwarz, N. (2012). Bidirectionality, mediation, and moderation of metaphorical effects: The embodiment of social suspicion and fishy smells. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 737-749.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029708
83 *Lee S. W. S., Tang H. H., Wan J, Mai, X. Q, & Liu, C. (2015). A cultural look at moral purity: Wiping the face clean. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 577-582.
84 *Leung, M. S . (2013). Effect of physical cleanliness and cognitive cleanliness on moral judgment (Unpublished master’s thesis). Retrieved from City University of Hong Kong, City University of Institutional Repository.
85 *Li, H., & Cao, Y. (2017). Who's holding the moral higher ground: Religiosity and the vertical conception of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 178-182.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.11.016
86 *Liljenquist K., Zhong C. B., & Galinsky A. D . ( 2010). The smell of virtue: Clean scents promote reciprocity and charity. Psychological Science, 21(3), 381-383.
87 *Lobel T. E., Cohen A., Kalay Shahin L., Malov S., Golan Y., & Busnach S . (2015). Being clean and acting dirty: The paradoxical effect of self-cleansing. Ethics & Behavior, 25(4), 307-313.
url: http://dx.doi.org/hics
88 Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D . (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243-247.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00659.x
89 Meier B. P., Robinson M. D., & Clore G. L . (2004). Why good guys wear white austomatic inferencesabout stimulus valence based on brightness. Psychological Science, 15(2), 82-87.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502002.x
90 Meier B. P., Sellbom M., & Wygant D. B . (2007). Failing to take the moral high ground: Psychopathy and the vertical representation of morality. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(4), 757-767.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.001
91 *Michael S., Michael R., Hans-Jochen H., & Claudia D . (2015). Dirty deeds and dirty bodies: Embodiment of the macbeth effect is mapped topographically onto the somatosensory cortex. Scientific Reports, 5, 18051.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep18051
92 *Nakamura H., Ito Y., Honma Y., Mori T., & Kawaguchi J . (2014). Cold-hearted or cool-headed: Physical coldness promotes utilitarian moral judgment. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(5), 1086.
93 *Schnall S., Benton J., & Harvey S . (2008). With a clean conscience: Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science, 19(12), 1219-1222.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02227.x
94 *Sekulak, M., & Maciuszek, J. (2017). Metaphorical association between physical and moral purity in the context of one’s own transgressions and immoral behavior of others. Psychology of Language and Communication, 21(1), 152-170.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/plc-2017-0008
95 Sherman, G. D., & Clore,G. L . (2009). The color of sin: White and black are perceptual symbols of moral purity and pollution. Psychological Science, 20(8), 1019-1025.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02403.x
96 *Skarlicki D. P., Hoegg J., Aquino K., & Nadisic T . (2013). Does injustice affect your sense of taste and smell? The mediating role of moral disgust. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 852-859.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.011
97 *Steidle A., Hanke E. V., & Werth L . ( 2013). In the dark we cooperate: The situated nature of procedural embodiment. Social Cognition, 31( 2), 275-300.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/soco.2013.31.2.275
98 Tobia, K. P . ( 2015). The effects of cleanliness and disgust on moral judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 28( 4), 556-568.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2013.877386
99 *Wang H. L., Lu Y. Q., & Lu Z. Y . (2016). Moral-up first, immoral-down last: The time course of moral metaphors on a vertical dimension. Neuroreport, 27(4), 247-256.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0000000000000528
100 *Webster G. D., Urland G. R., & Correll J . (2012). Can uniform color color aggression? Quasi-experimental evidence from professional ice hockey. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(3), 274-281.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550611418535
101 *Williams, L. E., & Bargh, J. A . ( 2008). Experiencing physical warmth promotes interpersonal warmth. Science, 322(5901), 606-607.
103 *Xu H. Y., Bègue L., & Bushman B. J . (2014). Washing the guilt away: Effects of personal versus vicarious cleansing on guilty feelings and prosocial behavior. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8(3), 97.
104 *Zhong C. B., Bohns V. K., & Gino F . ( 2010). Good lamps are the best police: Darkness increases dishonesty and self-interested behavior. Psychological Science, 21( 3), 311-314.
105 *Zhong, C. B., & Leonardelli,G. J . ( 2008). Cold and lonely: Does social exclusion literally feel cold? Psychological Science, 19( 9), 838-842.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02165.x
106 *Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science, 313( 5792), 1451-1452.
url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1130726
107 *Zhong C. B., Strejcek B., & Sivanathan N . ( 2010). A clean self can render harsh moral judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 859-862.
[1] XU Yan,LI Chaoping. The relationship between leadership styles and engagement: A meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(8): 1363-1383.
[2] XIN Sufei,JIANG Wenyuan,XIN Ziqiang. A cross-temporal meta-analysis of changes in medical college students’ mental health: 1993-2016[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(7): 1183-1193.
[3] ZHANG Yali,LI Sen,YU Guoliang. The relationship between self-esteem and social anxiety: A meta-analysis with Chinese students[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(6): 1005-1018.
[4] TANG Ming,LI Weiqiang,LIU Fuhui,YUAN Bo. The association between guilt and prosocial behavior: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(5): 773-788.
[5] SHAO Rong,TENG Zhaojun,LIU Yanling. How violent video games affect prosocial outcomes: A meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2019, 27(3): 453-464.
[6] Jun LIU,Chuanyan QIN. Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: A meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(7): 1152-1164.
[7] WANG Haiwen, ZHANG Shuhua.  The relationship between emotional labor and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(4): 599-613.
[8] LV Hongjiang, HAN Chengxuan, WANG Daojin.  The relationship between emotional intelligence and leadership effectiveness: A meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(2): 204-220.
[9] Lingbo ZHAO,Lizu LAI,Yuzhong LIN,Chunxiao ZHAO,Zhihong REN. The effect and moderators of school-based anti-bullying programs: Meta-analysis and GRADE evidence[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(12): 2113-2128.
[10] DING Fengqin, ZHAO Huying. Is the individual subjective well-being of gratitude stronger?A meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(10): 1749-1763.
[11] LAI Lizu, REN Zhihong, TAO Rong.  A meta-analysis on Co-Rumination[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2018, 26(1): 42-55.
[12] SHI Guochun, ZHANG Lihua, FAN Huiyong.  The relationship between aggression and self-esteem: A Meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(8): 1274-1288.
[13] YUAN Bo, DONG Yue, LI Weiqiang.  The trust repair effect of apology: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(7): 1103-1113.
[14] XIANG Mingqiang; ZHANG Liwei; ZHANG Apei; YANG Hongying. The influence of ego depletion on sporting performance: A meta-analysis[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(4): 570-585.
[15] CHEN Lijun; JIANG Jie; REN Zhihong; YUAN Hong. A meta-analysis of preference for sexual dimorphism of male’s face[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2017, 25(4): 553-569.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech