道德概念具身隐喻及其影响因素：来自元分析的证据

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1042.2019.01540

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

采用元分析技术探讨道德概念具身隐喻及其影响因素。通过文献检索和筛选, 共有65篇文献153个独立样本符合元分析标准( N = 8659)。元分析结果显示, 道德概念具身隐喻的始源域与目标域存在中等程度正相关(r = 0.34); 调节效应检验表明, 道德概念具身隐喻受文化背景和隐喻维度的影响, 但不受隐喻映射方向、研究范式和感觉通道的影响。以上研究结果表明, 道德概念具身隐喻具有心理现实性, 并且受文化背景和隐喻维度的调节, 具体而言, 东方文化背景下个体的道德概念具身隐喻更强, 道德概念与空间维度和大小维度的隐喻联结程度更高。

关键词: 具身隐喻, 道德概念, 元分析, 调节作用

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.

Key words: embodied metaphors, moral concepts, meta-analysis, moderate effect

中图分类号:

B849:C91

丁凤琴, 王冬霞. (2019). 道德概念具身隐喻及其影响因素：来自元分析的证据. 心理科学进展 , 27(9), 1540-1555.

DING Fengqin, WANG Dongxia. (2019). Embodied metaphors of moral concepts and its influential factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Advances in Psychological Science, 27(9), 1540-1555.

图/表 8

参考文献 107

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
52	Boroditsky, L . (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers' conceptions of time. Cognition Psychology, 43(1), 1-22.
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.
55	Chasteen A. L., Burdzy D. C., & Pratt J . ( 2010). Thinking of god moves attention. Neuropsychologia, 48(2), 627-630.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
66	Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (2006). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind and Language, 21( 3), 434-458.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
98	Tobia, K. P . ( 2015). The effects of cleanliness and disgust on moral judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 28( 4), 556-568.
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.
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.
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.
106	Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical cleansing. Science*, 313( 5792), 1451-1452.
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.

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
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
	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