概念是人类思维的基本单位，概念隐喻理论认为，隐喻在形成和理解概念的过程中发挥着重要作用。已有研究表明，抽象概念的加工与隐喻过程中个体的身体经验有联系，空间方位作为人类最直接的身体经验，深度参与着抽象概念的理解。然而，作为一种特殊的抽象概念，价值观概念(如“文明”、“富强”)的隐喻机制还不清楚。同时，符号共存假设在命题符号理论和知觉符号理论的基础上提出人类的概念认知过程会受到具身因素和语言因素的共同影响，而在这一过程中，作为认知主体的人与人之间也存在差异。

因此，本研究从空间隐喻的角度，通过四个实验依次探讨价值观这一类抽象概念的隐喻机制，考察不同情绪效价价值观词汇的垂直空间隐喻特点，同时，在此基础上探究价值观概念垂直空间隐喻是否受语言因素（语义关系）、具身因素（空间位置）以及个体差异（不同加工风格）的影响。

实验1采用愉悦度判断任务，要求被试对呈现在屏幕上方或下方的正、负价值观词语进行判断。结果发现，价值观概念存在空间隐喻特点，表现为正性词呈现在空间上方时，被试对词汇愉悦度判断的反应更快，类似的加工优势也出现在位于空间下方的负性词中；

实验2通过垂直stroop范式，要求对词汇的颜色做出手部向上或向下的判断，探讨具身经验如何影响价值观词汇的语义理解。结果表明，在被试手部向上运动的反应中，正性词的速度显著快于负性词；手部向下运动的反应中，负性词的速度则更快；

实验3采用空间位置判断任务，判断价值观词的意义与其出现的位置是否一致，探讨语义关系如何影响价值观词汇的空间隐喻特点。结果发现，在语义无关词对的条件下，被试对词对进行空间位置判断的反应时间更长。

实验4通过对加工风格量表的中文版进行修订，将实验2和实验3的被试分别分为视觉组和语言组，相关数据结果发现具身实验中两组被试无显著差别，而语言实验中语言组受到语义关系的影响显著大于视觉组。

总的来说，本研究证明了价值观概念与道德概念、情绪概念等类似，都具有明显的空间隐喻心理现实性，同时受到具身因素和语言因素的影响，并在一定程度上受到个体差异的影响。这一结论支持了概念的隐喻理论，进一步拓宽了空间隐喻的研究范围，同时有利于促进人们对不同类型抽象概念隐喻机制的理解。

Concept is the basic unit of human thinking. Conceptual metaphor theory believes that metaphor plays an important role in the process of forming and understanding concepts. Previous studies have shown that the processing of abstract concepts is related to the physical experience of individuals in the metaphorical process. Spatial orientation, as the most direct physical experience of human beings, is deeply involved in the understanding of abstract concepts. However, as a special kind of abstract concept, the metaphorical mechanism of values concepts (such as "civilization", "prosperity") is not clear. At the same time, based on propositional sign theory and perceptual sign theory, the hypothesis of symbol coexistence proposes that the process of human conceptual cognition will be affected by embodied factors and linguistic factors, and in this process, there are differences between human beings as cognitive subjects.

 

Therefore, from the perspective of spatial metaphor, this study explores the metaphorical mechanism of abstract concepts such as values through four experiments, and examines the vertical spatial metaphorical characteristics of different emotional valence value words. Meanwhile, On this basis, it explores whether the vertical spatial metaphor of values concept is affected by linguistic factors (semantic relation), embodied factors (spatial location) and individual differences (different processing styles).

 

In experiment 1, participants were asked to judge positive and negative value words displayed above or below the screen. The results showed that the concept of values had the characteristics of spatial metaphor, which showed that when positive words were presented in the upper part of the space, the participants' response to word pleasure was faster, and similar processing advantages also appeared in the negative words located in the lower part of the space.

 

Experiment 2 explores how embodied experience affects the semantic understanding of value words by using the vertical stroop paradigm, which requires the judgment of hand up or down on the color of words. The results showed that the speed of positive words was significantly faster than that of negative words. Negative words were faster in the downward motion of the hand;

In experiment 3, the spatial location judgment task was used to judge whether the meaning of value words is consistent with the position in which they appear, and to explore how semantic relations affect the spatial metaphor characteristics of value words. The results showed that in the semantically independent word pairs, the participants had a longer response time to the spatial position judgment of the word pairs.

 

In experiment 4, the Chinese version of the processing style scale was revised, and the subjects in Experiment 2 and experiment 3 were divided into the visual group and the language group respectively. The results of relevant data showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups in the embodied experiment, while the language group was significantly more influenced by semantic relations than the visual group in the language experiment.

 

In general, this study proves that the concept of values is similar to the concept of morality and emotion, which have obvious psychological realism of spatial metaphor. At the same time, it is affected by embodied factors and linguistic factors, and to some extent, it is affected by individual differences. This conclusion supports the conceptual metaphor theory, expands the research scope of spatial metaphor, and promotes people's understanding of the metaphorical mechanism of different abstract concepts.

著作类：
[1] [古希腊]亚里士多德著, 罗念生译. 修辞学[M]. 上海：上海人民出版社, 2006.
[2] 张觉撰. 荀子译注[M]. 上海古籍出版社, 1995.
[3] [汉]王符撰, 马世年译注. 潜夫论[M]. 中华书局, 2018.
[4] 中国社会科学院社会学所“当代中国青年价值观念演变”课题组编. 中国青年大透视 关于一代人的价值观演变研究[M]. 北京：北京出版社, 1993.
[5] 蓝纯. 认知语言学与隐喻研究[M]. 外语教学与研究出版社, 2005.
[6] 黄希庭. 当代中国青年价值观研究[M]. 当代中国青年价值观研究, 2005.
[7] [美]乔治·莱考夫, [美]马克·约翰逊, 何文忠译. 我们赖以生存的隐喻[M]. 浙江大学出版社, 2015.
[8] 叶浩生. 具身认知的原理与应用[M]. 商务印书馆, 2017.
[9] [美]乔治·莱考夫, [美]马克·约翰逊, 李葆嘉, 邱雪玫审订. 肉身哲学[M]. 世界图书出版公司, 2018.
[10] RALPH BARTON PERRY. General Theory Of Value[M]. Longmans,Green and Company, 1926.
[11] RICHARDS I A. The Philosophy of Rhetoric[M]. OUP USA, 1965.
[12] GIBSON E. Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development[M]. Appleton Century Crofts, 1969.
[13] ALLEN NEWELL. Human Problem Solving[M]. Prentice Hall, 1972.
[14] RICOEUR P. The Rule of Metaphor[M]. Routledge, 1986.
[15] GEORGE LAKOFF, MARK JOHNSON. Philosophy in the Flesh[M]. Basic Books, 1999.
[16] GEORGE LAKOFF, MARK JOHNSON. Metaphors We Live By[M]. University Of Chicago Press, 2003.

期刊类：
[1] 殷融, 苏得权, 叶浩生. 具身认知视角下的概念隐喻理论[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(2): 220.
[2] 吴念阳, 郝静. 以道德为本体的概念隐喻[J]. 上海师范大学学报:基础教育版, 2006, 035(003): 51-55.
[3] 殷融, 叶浩生. 道德概念的黑白隐喻表征及其对道德认知的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(9): 16.
[4] 李其维. “认知革命”与"第二代认知科学"刍议[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(12): 1306-1327.
[5] 蓝纯. 从认知角度看汉语的空间隐喻[J]. 外语教学与研究, 1999(4): 7-15.
[6] 杨继平, 郭秀梅, 王兴超. 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[J]. 心理学报, 2017, 49(7): 11.
[7] 王锃, 鲁忠义. 道德概念的垂直空间隐喻及其对认知的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2013, 45(5): 538-545.
[8] 张亚慧, 鲁忠义. 青少年犯罪者道德概念垂直空间隐喻的心理表征及其原因[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 6(35): 648-656.
[9] 陈思思, 克燕南, 蒋奖, 等. 权力概念的垂直方位空间隐喻对权力判断的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2014, 37(02): 388-393.
[10] 王汉林, 蒋泽亮, 冯晓慧, 等. 道德概念的空间形象性：语言因素和具身因素的共同作用[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(2): 128.
[11] 翟冬雪, 鲁雅乔, 鲁忠义. 儿童道德概念垂直空间隐喻的认知发展[J]. 心理科学, 2016, 5(39): 1171.
[12] 贾宁, 冯新明, 鲁忠义. 道德概念垂直空间隐喻对空间关系判断的影响[J]. 心理发展与教育, 2019, 35(03): 267-273.
[13] 王从兴, 马建平, 邓珏, 等. 概念加工深度影响道德概念水平方位隐喻联结[J]. 心理学报, 2020, 52(4): 426.
[14] 辛志勇, 金盛华. 大学生的价值观概念与价值观结构[J]. 高等教育研究, 2006(2): 85-92.
[15] 李林, 黄希庭. 价值观的神经机制：另一种研究视角[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013, 21(8): 1400-1407.
[16] 李红, 孙曙. 论道德价值观及其测评方法[J]. 心理学探新, 1992(4): 28-31.
[17] 金盛华, 郑建君, 辛志勇. 当代中国人价值观的结构与特点[J]. 心理学报, 2009(10): 15.
[18] 王瑞明, 莫雷. 知觉符号理论刍议[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2010, 28(01): 36-41.
[19] 梁立夫, 白学军, 沈德立. 大学生情绪STROOP效应实验研究[J]. 天津医科大学学报, 2009, 15(3): 512-514.
[20] 殷融, 曲方炳, 叶浩生. 具身概念表征的研究及理论述评[J]. 心理科学进展, 2012, 20(09): 1372-1381.
[21] 宋宜琪, 张积家. 空间隐喻和形状变化对物体内隐时间概念加工的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(2): 216.
[22] 汪新筱, 江珊, 张积家. 空间语言标记影响亲属关系的容器隐喻[J]. 心理学报, 50(9): 953-964.
[23] SCHWARTZ S. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries[J]. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: vol 25. 1992: 1-65.
[24] SCHUBERT T W. Your Highness: Vertical Positions as Perceptual Symbols of Power.[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005, 89(1): 1-21.
[25] WILLIAMS L E, BARGH J A. Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth[J]. Science, 2008, 322(5901): 606-607.
[26] ZENG W, ZHONG YI L. A study on the metaphor of social exclusion from embodied cognition[J]. Scientific Research and Essays, 2011, 6(10): 2225-2227.
[27] ZHONG C B, LILJENQUIST K. Washing Away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing[J]. Science (New York, N.Y.), 2006, 313: 1451-1452.
[28] SLEPIAN M, WEISBUCH M, RULE N, et al. Tough and Tender: Embodied Categorization of Gender[J]. Psychological science, 2011, 22: 26-28.
[29] CHANDLER J, REINHARD D, SCHWARZ N. To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content: Knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues[J]. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2012, 48: 948-952.
[30] MEIER B P, ROBINSON M D. Why the Sunny Side Is Up: Associations Between Affect and Vertical Position[J]. Psychological Science, 2004, 15(4): 243-247.
[31] CASASANTO D. Embodiment of abstract concepts: Good and bad in right- and left-handers.[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2009, 138(3): 351-367.
[32] MILES L K, NIND L K, MACRAE C N. Moving Through Time[J]. Psychological Science, 2010, 21(2): 222-223.
[33] MEIER B P, HAUSER D J, ROBINSON M D, et al. What’s “up” with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine.[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2007, 93(5): 699-710.
[34] CASASANTO D, BORODITSKY L. Time in the mind: Using space to think about time[J]. Cognition, 2008, 106(2): 579-593.
[35] PYLYSHYN Z W. The imagery debate: Analogue media versus tacit knowledge.[J]. Psychological Review, 1981, 88(1): 16-45.
[36] LOUWERSE M M. Embodied relations are encoded in language[J]. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2008, 15: 838-844.
[37] BARSALOU L W. Perceptions of perceptual symbols[J]. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1999, 22(4): 637-660.
[38] ZWAAN R A, YAXLEY R H. Spatial iconicity affects semantic relatedness judgments[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2003, 10(4): 954-958.
[39] LACHMAIR M, DUDSCHIG C, DE FILIPPIS M, et al. Root versus roof: automatic activation of location information during word processing[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2011, 18(6): 1180-1188.
[40] DUDSCHIG C, SOUMAN J, LACHMAIR M, et al. Reading “Sun” and Looking Up: The Influence of Language on Saccadic Eye Movements in the Vertical Dimension[J]. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8(2): e56872.
[41] DUDSCHIG C, LACHMAIR M, DE LA VEGA I, et al. Do task-irrelevant direction-associated motion verbs affect action planning? Evidence from a Stroop paradigm[J]. Memory & Cognition, 2012, 40(7): 1081-1094.
[42] DUDSCHIG C, DE LA VEGA I, KAUP B. What’s up? Emotion-specific activation of vertical space during language processing[J]. Acta Psychologica, 2015, 156: 143-155.
[43] BARSALOU L W. Flexibility, structure, and linguistic vagary in concepts: manifestations of a compositional system of perceptual symbols[J]. Theories of memory, 1993: 29-101.
[44] ROBINSON M D, ZABELINA D L, ODE S, et al. The vertical nature of dominance-submission: Individual differences in vertical attention[J]. Journal of Research in Personality, 2008, 42(4): 933-948.
[45] ISHIKAWA K, SUZUKI H, OKUBO M. Effects of social anxiety on metaphorical associations between emotional valence and clothing brightness[J]. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2018, 61: 32-37.
[46] WINTER B, DUFFY S E, LITTLEMORE J. Power, Gender, and Individual Differences in Spatial Metaphor: The Role of Perceptual Stereotypes and Language Statistics[J]. Metaphor and Symbol, 2020, 35(3): 188-205.
[47] KLUCKHOHN C. Values and Value-Orientations in the Theory of Action[J]. T.parsons E.shills .toward A General Theory of Action, 1962.
[48] HILL P L, LAPSLEY D K. The ups and downs of the moral personality: Why it’s not so black and white[J]. Journal of Research in Personality, 2009, 43(3): 520-523.
[49] VILLANI C, LUGLI L, LIUZZA M T, et al. Varieties of abstract concepts and their multiple dimensions[J]. Language and Cognition, 2019, 11: 1-28.
[50] LOUWERSE M M. Symbol Interdependency in Symbolic and Embodied Cognition: Topics in Cognitive Science(2010)[J]. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2011, 3(2): 273-302.
[51] LOUWERSE M M, JEUNIAUX P. The linguistic and embodied nature of conceptual processing[J]. Cognition, 2010, 114(1): 96-104.
[52] LOUWERSE M M, HUTCHINSON S. Neurological Evidence Linguistic Processes Precede Perceptual Simulation in Conceptual Processing[J]. Frontiers in Psychology, 2012, 3(385).
[53] MENDELSON A L, THORSON E. How Verbalizers and Visualizers Process the Newspaper Environment[J]. Journal of Communication, 2004, 54(3): 474-491.
[54] FAZIO R H. On the automatic activation of associated evaluations: An overview[J]. Cognition & Emotion, 2001, 15(2): 115-141.
[55] SCHÜTT E, MACKENZIE I G, KAUP B, et al. Replacing vertical actions by mouse movements: a web-suited paradigm for investigating vertical spatial associations[J]. Psychological Research, 2022.
[56] CHILDERS T L, HOUSTON M J, HECKLER S E. Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual versus Verbal Information Processing[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1985, 12(2): 125.
[57] ONG Y W, MILECH D. The Style of Processing Scale: Normative and Reliability Data[J]. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 2001, 93(3): 595-598.
[58] CHEN C M, SUN Y C. Assessing the effects of different multimedia materials on emotions and learning performance for visual and verbal style learners[J]. Computers & Education, 2012, 59(4): 1273-1285.
[59] ŠETIĆ M, DOMIJAN D. The influence of vertical spatial orientation on property verification[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 2007, 22(2): 297-312.
[60] FOX E, RUSSO R, DUTTON K. Attentional bias for threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from emotional faces[J]. Cognition & Emotion, 2002, 16(3): 355-379.
[61] FETTERMAN A K, BAIR J L, WERTH M, et al. The scope and consequences of metaphoric thinking: Using individual differences in metaphor usage to understand how metaphor functions.[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2016, 110(3): 458-476.
[62] MEIER B P, ROBINSON M D, WILKOWSKI B M. Turning the Other Cheek: Agreeableness and the Regulation of Aggression-Related Primes[J]. Psychological Science, 2006, 17(2): 136-142.
[63] PERSICH M, FETTERMAN A, ROBINSON M. Drawn to the Light: Predicting Religiosity Using “God Is Light” Metaphor[J]. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2018, 13.