Avatar
Valuetree4

0 Following 0 Followers
2
Emphasized "patrols", 2(1) = 37.085, p < .001 ( = 1.269, SE = .217, p < .001), and "prison" sentences, 2(1) = 48.529, p < .001 ( = 1.562, SE = .241, pEmphasized "patrols", 2(1) = 37.085, p < .001 ( = 1.269, SE = .217, p < .001), and "prison" sentences, 2(1) = 48.529, p < .001 ( = 1.562, SE = .241, p < .001) to the beast frame.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0133939 July 28,8 /Metaphorica
2
Participants in each of the two metaphor framing conditions. We estimatedParticipants in each of the two metaphor framing conditions. We estimated that as many as 25 of the participants that we sampled would have to be excluded because they had previously participated in a related study or because they would submit an incorrect completion code. As a result we collected data from 650 partici
1
Ments 2? were conducted in English. In every case there were sixMents 2? were conducted in English. In every case there were six framing conditions in a 2 (metaphor support: present or absent) by 3 (frame: virus, beast, or problem) between-subjects design. As the authors acknowledge, the sample sizes in Experiments 1, 2, and 3 were underpowered (with as few as 36 participants in a cell). Thi
1
Ments 2? were conducted in English. In every case there were sixMents 2? were conducted in English. In every case there were six framing conditions in a 2 (metaphor support: present or absent) by 3 (frame: virus, beast, or problem) between-subjects design. As the authors acknowledge, the sample sizes in Experiments 1, 2, and 3 were underpowered (with as few as 36 participants in a cell). Thi
1
Ments 2? were conducted in English. In every case there were sixMents 2? were conducted in English. In every case there were six framing conditions in a 2 (metaphor support: present or absent) by 3 (frame: virus, beast, or problem) between-subjects design. As the authors acknowledge, the sample sizes in Experiments 1, 2, and 3 were underpowered (with as few as 36 participants in a cell). Thi
1
G study 1 (norming tasks 1 and 2). In the first norming study, participantsG study 1 (norming tasks 1 and 2). In the first norming study, participants were asked to complete two tasks. First, they were asked to match policy approaches to metaphors. After reading a non-metaphorically framed version of the original crime report, they were asked to match one of the five response options to the
1
Published DataIn addition to the new data collected in Experiment 1, wePublished DataIn addition to the new data collected in Experiment 1, we also analyze data from a very similar study conducted by another laboratory in 2014 [7]. Here we focus on the results of Experiment 4, which was the only study with a sufficiently large sample to be able to detect an effect of a metaphorical frame. Al
1
N they rated the severity, metaphoricity, and conventionality of the fourN they rated the severity, metaphoricity, and conventionality of the four frames (on 101-point scales): "Please rate these descriptions of crime in terms of how severe they make the issue seem, metaphorical the language is, common or conventional the language is." Finally, participants were asked to select "which of the