What can metaphors tell us about personality?

Theorists propose that metaphors are not mere figures of speech, but can actively shape one’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Social psychologists have supported this claim over the past 10 years. Personality psychologists, though, have only recently begun investigating how metaphors can inform our understanding of what makes us different from each other. This review focuses on projects demonstrating links between metaphor and personality. As an example, people have been asked whether they locate the self in the head or the heart. Head people are (more) rational and cold, whereas heart people are emotional and warm. In addition, an individual differences approach can reveal what it is that metaphoric thinking does to and for people. Overall, individual difference approaches to common metaphors are shown to be informative not only in understanding how people differ from each other but also in extending the metaphor literature

Do you use your head or follow your heart? Self-location predicts personality, emotion, decision making, and performance.

The head is thought to be rational and cold, whereas the heart is thought to be emotional and warm. In 8 studies (total N = 725), we pursued the idea that such body metaphors are widely consequential. Study 1 introduced a novel individual difference variable, one asking people to locate the self in the head or the heart. Irrespective of sex differences, head-locators characterized themselves as rational, logical, and interpersonally cold, whereas heart-locators characterized themselves as emotional, feminine, and interpersonally warm (Studies 1–3). Study 4 showed that head-locators were more accurate in answering general knowledge questions and had higher grade point averages, and Study 5 showed that heart-locators were more likely to favor emotional over rational considerations in moral decision making. Study 6 linked self-locations to reactivity phenomena in daily life—for example, heart-locators experienced greater negative emotion on high stressor days. In Study 7, we manipulated attention to the head versus the heart and found that head-pointing facilitated intellectual performance, whereas heart-pointing led to emotional decision making. Study 8 replicated Study 3’s findings with a nearly year-long delay between the self-location and outcome measures. The findings converge on the importance of head–heart metaphors for understanding individual differences in cognition, emotion, and performance

Toward a metaphor-enriched personality psychology.

Conventional wisdom on metaphor suggests that it is the province of poets, metaphor is an optional way of thinking, or that metaphor merely serves communication purposes. In this chapter, we show that such wisdom is at variance with how human beings actually think and function. We first provide a brief overview of the metaphor representation perspective. We then make a case for the utility of this perspective in understanding how people differ from each other and do so within a broader context of how personality has traditionally been assessed. We then present four lines of personality research inspired by the metaphor representation perspective. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges and unanswered questions involved in translating the metaphor representation perspective to personality psychology

Interpersonal cognitive self-focus as a function of neuroticism: Basal tendencies and priming effects

Self-focus is one mechanism that may account for the social-evaluative anxiety of individuals high in neuroticism. The present two studies (total N = 183) sought to cognitively model interpersonal self-focus. The cognitive task was a simple one in which participants simply categorized dyadic interpersonal pronouns, with reaction times as the dependent measure. When others engage us, the pronoun “me” refers to the other and the pronoun “you” refers to the self. Study 1 found a neuroticism by pronoun interaction on categorization time consistent with implicit interpersonal self-focus at high (but not low) levels of neuroticism establishing a basal tendency. Study 2 examined boundary conditions. Individuals high in neuroticism exhibited implicit self-focus particularly to the extent that they had been primed to think of themselves as submissive rather than dominant in their interpersonal interactions. Implications for understanding neuroticism, self-focus, and relationship functioning are discussed

Motor control accuracy: A consequential probe of individual differences in emotion regulation.

Two studies (total N = 147) sought to model emotion-regulation processes in cognitive-motoric terms. Hostile or nonhostile thoughts were primed and, immediately following, individuals held a joystick as accurately as possible on a presented visual target. Study 1 revealed that the activation of hostile thoughts impaired motor control at low levels of agreeableness but facilitated motor control at high levels of agreeableness, consistent with emotion-regulation views of this trait. Study 2 did not assess the trait of agreeableness but rather sought to determine whether better motor control following activated hostile thoughts would predict lesser reactivity to stressors in an experience-sampling protocol. It did, and relevant results are reported for daily anger, negative affect, and positive affect. In addition, and consistent with the agreeableness findings of Study 1, better motor control that follows hostile thoughts predicted greater empathy on high-stress days. Motor control probes of the present type thus appear consequential in understanding emotion-regulation processes and successes in emotion regulation

Implicit Self-Importance in an Interpersonal Pronoun Categorization Task

Object relations theories emphasize the manner in which the salience/importance of implicit representations of self and other guide interpersonal functioning. Two studies and a pilot test (total N = 304) sought to model such representations. In dyadic contexts, the self is a “you” and the other is a “me”, as verified in a pilot test. Study 1 then used a simple categorization task and found evidence for implicit self-importance: The pronoun “you” was categorized more quickly and accurately when presented in a larger font size, whereas the pronoun “me” was categorized more quickly and accurately when presented in a smaller font size. Study 2 showed that this pattern possesses value in understanding individual differences in interpersonal functioning. As predicted, arrogant people scored higher in implicit self-importance in the paradigm. Findings are discussed from the perspective of dyadic interpersonal dynamics

Submissive, inhibited, avoidant, and escape motivated: The correlates and consequences of arm-crossing.

Some scholars of nonverbal behavior contend that arm-crossing indicates a defensive orientation to the social environment, but relevant evidence is sparse. Three studies (N = 242) sought to investigate whether there is truth to this idea. Consistent with it, Study 1 found that people reporting higher arm-crossing frequencies scored higher in interpersonal submissiveness and were more inhibited in their social decision-making. To investigate causal processes, Studies 2 and 3 manipulated arm-crossing using a hypothesis-disguising cover story. Study 2 found that arm-crossing activated thoughts of the self’s submissiveness and social vulnerability. Study 3 focused on activated strategies for handling potential interpersonal violence. Participants in an arm-crossing condition, relative to a control condition, indicated that they would be more inclined to escape and less likely to attack. The studies converge on the idea that arm-crossing can signify and cause a defensive social orientation

Lexical Derivation of the PINT Taxonomy of Goals: Prominence, Inclusiveness, Negativity Prevention, and Tradition

What do people want? Few questions are more fundamental to psychological science than this. Yet, existing taxonomies disagree on both the number and content of goals. We thus adopted a lexical approach and investigated the structure of goal-relevant words from the natural English lexicon. Through an intensive rating process, 1,060 goal-relevant English words were first located. In Studies 1-2, two relatively large and diverse samples (total n = 1,026) rated their commitment to approaching or avoiding these goals. Principal component analyses yielded 4 replicable components: Prominence, Inclusiveness, Negativity prevention, and Tradition (the PINT Taxonomy). Study 3-7 (total n = 1,396) supported the 4-factor structure of an abbreviated scale and found systematic differences in their relationships with past goal-content measures, the Big 5 traits, affect, and need satisfaction. This investigation thus provides a data-driven taxonomy of higher-order goal-content and opens up a wide variety of fascinating lines for future research

What Shall We Call God? An Exploration of Metaphors Coded From Descriptions of God From A Large U.S. Undergraduate Sample

People use numerous metaphors to describe God. God is seen as a bearded man, light, and love. Based on metaphor theories, the metaphors people use to refer to God reflect how people think about God and could, in turn, reflect their worldview. However, little work has explored the common metaphors for God. This was the purpose of the current investigation. Four trained raters coded open-ended responses from predominantly Christian U.S. undergraduates (N = 2,923) describing God for the presence or absence of numerous metaphoric categories. We then assessed the frequency of each of the metaphor categories. We identified 16 metaphor categories that were present in more than 1% of the responses. The top categories were “GOD IS POWER,” “GOD IS HUMAN,” and “GOD IS MALE.” These findings were similar across religious affiliations. We attempted to support our coding analysis using top-down and bottom-up automated language analysis. Results from these analyses provided added confidence to our conclusions. We discuss the implications of our findings and the potential for future studies investigating important psychological and behavioral outcomes of using different metaphors for God

The scope and consequences of metaphoric thinking: Using individual differences in metaphor usage to understand how metaphor functions.

People often think, feel, and behave metaphorically according to conceptual metaphor theory. There are normative sources of support for this theory, but individual differences have received scant attention. This is surprising because people are likely to differ in the frequency with which they use metaphors and therefore the frequency with which they experience the costs and benefits of metaphoric thinking. To investigate these ideas, a five study program of research (total N = 532) was conducted. Study 1 developed and validated a metaphor usage measure, finding that people were fairly consistent in their tendencies toward literal thought and language on the one hand versus metaphoric thought and language on the other. These differences were, in turn, consequential. Although metaphor usage predicted susceptibility to metaphor transfer effects (Studies 2-3), it was also linked to higher levels of emotional understanding (Studies 4-5). The findings provide support for several key premises of conceptual metaphor theory in the context of a new measure that can be used to track the consequences of metaphoric thinking