Abstract
Participants took longer to judge that metaphors (e.g., an insult is a razor, memory is a warehouse) were literally false than to judge that scrambled sentences (e.g., an insult is a warehouse) were false. This result is the metaphor interference effect (MIE). It demonstrates that metaphor processing is automatic. In this experiment, we found that the magnitude of the MIE is predicted by working memory (WM) capacity, with higher WM yielding a smaller MIE. This suggests that although metaphor comprehension is automatic, the early processing of metaphors is controllable by executive mechanisms. We relate our results to Kintsch’s (2000, 2001) predication model. Specifically, we suggest that mechanisms of WM influence metaphor processing by affecting the effectiveness of the construction-integration process that identifies common properties between topics and vehicles. WM also influences the speed with which meanings are identified as literal or figurative.
Article PDF
References
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects. Journal of Memory & Language, 59, 413–425. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
Bates, R. H. (2007). Lmer4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R package version 0.99875-7). Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/src/contrib/Archive/lme4/lme4_0.99875-7.tar.gz
Chiappe, D. L., & Chiappe, P. (2007). The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. Journal of Memory & Language, 56, 172–188. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2006.11.006
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.97.3.332
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331–335.
Dunn, L., & Dunn, M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services.
Engle, R. W., Tuholski, S. W., Laughlin, J. E., & Conway, A. R. A. (1999). Working memory, short-term memory, and general fluid intelligence: A latent-variable approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 128, 309–331. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.128.3.309
Gildea, P., & Glucksberg, S. (1983). On understanding metaphor: The role of context. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 22, 577–590. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(83)90355-9
Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 21, 85–98. ba]doi:10.1016/S0022 -5371(82)90467-4
Kane, M. J., Bleckley, M. K., Conway, A. R. A., & Engle, R. W. (2001). A controlled-attention view of working-memory capacity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 169–183. doi:10.1037/0096 -3445.130.2.169
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: The contributions of goal neglect, response competition, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 47–70. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47
Kazmerski, V. A., Blasko, D. G., & Dessalegn, B. G. (2003). ERP and behavioral evidence of individual differences in metaphor comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 31, 673–689.
Kintsch, W. (2000). Metaphor comprehension: A computational theory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 257–266.
Kintsch, W. (2001). Predication. Cognitive Science, 25, 173–202. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(01)00034-9
Kliegl, R., Risse, S., & Laubrock, J. (2007). Preview benefit and parafoveal-on-foveal effects from word n +2. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 1250–1255. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.5.1250
Lai, V. T., Curran, T., & Menn, L. (2009). Comprehending conventional and novel metaphors: An ERP study. Brain Research, 1284, 145–155. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2009.05.088
Logan, G. D. (2002). An instance theory of attention and memory. Psychological Review, 109, 376–400. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.2.376
Logan, G. D., & Gordon, R. D. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychological Review, 108, 393–434. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.393
Lustig, C., May, C. P., & Hasher, L. (2001). Working memory span and the role of proactive interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 199–207. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.2.199
Norman, D. A., & Shallice, T. (1986). Attention to action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In R. T. Davidson, G. E. Schwartz, & D. Shapiro (Eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation: Advances in research and theory (pp. 1–18). New York: Plenum.
Pierce, R. S., & Chiappe, D. L. (2009). The roles of aptness, conventionality and working memory in the production of metaphors and similes. Metaphor & Symbol, 24, 1–19. doi:10.1080/10926480802568422
R Development Core Team (2008). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
Verwoerd, J., Wessel, I., & de Jong, P. J. (2009). Individual differences in experiencing intrusive memories: The role of the ability to resist proactive interference. Journal of Behavior Therapy & Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 189–201. doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2008.08.002
Wolff, P., & Gentner, D. (2000). Evidence for role-neutral initial processing of metaphors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 26, 529–541. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.26.2.529
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We appreciate the work and time of all of our research assistants, especially our lead research assistants, Wadad Itani and Henry Cuevas.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pierce, R.S., MacLaren, R. & Chiappe, D.L. The role of working memory in the metaphor interference effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17, 400–404 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.3.400
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.3.400