FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2626022409> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2626022409 abstract "Communicators use analogies in strategic discourse to invite inferences about ambiguous situations that reinforce their own construals of these situations. For example, in the short-lived political debate preceding the U.S.’s entry into the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict, supporters of our involvement likened it to WW II (a war most Americans believe we “won”), whereas opponents called attention to its similarities with the Vietnam War (which many consider a “defeat”). Several years earlier, Gilovich (1981) found that political science students were far more likely to recommend intervention in a hypothetical foreign policy crisis when irrelevant features of the scenario (e.g., the location used for press briefings) called to mind WW II (Winston Churchill Hall) rather than Vietnam (e.g., Dean Rusk Hall). The presence of analogical cues did not, however, lead students to judge the scenario as being more similar to one of the previous conflicts than the other. Subsequent reasoning research has also found that seemingly trivial cues can compel people to unwittingly employ historical analogies in their judgments and decisions. The reported research explores idioms’ potential as an unobtrusive means of introducing analogies into decision scenarios. Many of the conventional figurative expressions we use to describe abstract concepts have a common analogical derivation (e.g., Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). For example, the idioms we use to describe corporate organizations reflect analogies to families (e.g., parent company), sports (sales team), ecological systems (e.g., business climate), and other source domains. In business correspondence, corporate executives tend to favor organizational idioms derived from analogies that cohere with their own beliefs about management (Morgan, 1997). How might this preference influence their correspondents’ perceptions of the firm? Although there is no evidence that derivational analogies are automatically activated during idiom comprehension (McGlone, 2001), people are able to recognize analogical consistency among idioms (Nayak & Gibbs, 1990). This recognition indicates that the underlying analogy is available in memory and can be accessed to participate in post-comprehension mental processes. Analogical access of this sort does not, however, guarantee that people have introspective access to its impact on their judgments (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Thus the analogical consistency between idioms in a problem and response option may lead people to favor the option, but nevertheless overlook the unremarkable presence of cliche expressions in the scenario as a factor influencing their choice. To investigate this possibility, we asked 126 undergraduates at The College of New Jersey to read a brief description of an organizational decision scenario, choose one of two response options provided, and explain the reasons for their choice. Participants read one of 3 versions of the scenario: one containing family-derived idioms for organization, a second containing sports-derived idioms, or a neutral control. Scenario versions were crossed with family, sports, and control versions of each response option in a factorial design. The results indicated that participants reliably preferred response options that were analogically consistent with the scenario, relative to neutral or inconsistent alternatives. However, fewer than 8% of participants who made consistent choices referred to the idioms or their derivational analogy when explaining their choices, instead referring to scenario attributes that did not differ across scenario or response option versions. These results suggest that idioms can exert an implicit influence on decision-making, compelling people to apply analogical knowledge without subjective awareness." @default.
• W2626022409 created "2017-06-23" @default.
• W2626022409 creator A5031529602 @default.
• W2626022409 creator A5061747577 @default.
• W2626022409 date "2003-01-01" @default.
• W2626022409 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2626022409 title "The Implicit Influence of Idioms" @default.
• W2626022409 cites W1574236237 @default.
• W2626022409 cites W1574388417 @default.
• W2626022409 cites W1993700418 @default.
• W2626022409 cites W2052417512 @default.
• W2626022409 cites W2164558494 @default.
• W2626022409 cites W2503908065 @default.
• W2626022409 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W2626022409 type Work @default.
• W2626022409 sameAs 2626022409 @default.
• W2626022409 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2626022409 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2626022409 hasAuthorship W2626022409A5031529602 @default.
• W2626022409 hasAuthorship W2626022409A5061747577 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C26326936 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C2776224158 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C2780110242 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C46182478 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C93377909 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C111472728 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C138885662 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C144024400 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C15744967 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C17744445 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C180747234 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C199539241 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C26326936 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C2776224158 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C2780110242 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C41895202 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C46182478 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C77805123 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C93377909 @default.
• W2626022409 hasConceptScore W2626022409C94625758 @default.
• W2626022409 hasIssue "25" @default.
• W2626022409 hasLocation W26260224091 @default.
• W2626022409 hasOpenAccess W2626022409 @default.
• W2626022409 hasPrimaryLocation W26260224091 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W136072735 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W1487005386 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W1556110913 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W1967148626 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2018628741 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2019678793 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2099291982 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2103284757 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2139803528 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2141314704 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2149867945 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2232117761 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2316878081 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2502643655 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2577246409 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2747206247 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2767232432 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W2950823335 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W3008081572 @default.
• W2626022409 hasRelatedWork W3125399936 @default.
• W2626022409 hasVolume "25" @default.
• W2626022409 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2626022409 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2626022409 magId "2626022409" @default.
• W2626022409 workType "article" @default.