People frequently offload cognitive tasks onto the environment by,for example, digitally storing information they want to rememberlater. This frees up cognitive resources, leading to an increasedability to learn new information (the “Saving-Enhanced MemoryEffect”). We tested whether this effect would generalize beyondthe digital realm. On every trial, participants studied two printedlists of words before being tested on their memory for both lists.For half the trials, participants shredded the first list beforeattempting to learn the second one. For the remaining trials, theysaved the first word list in a folder before learning the second list.Results revealed a robust Saving-Enhanced Memory Effect, aspeople remembered more words on average from the second listwhen they had saved the initial word list. These findings suggestthat the effects of offloading memories onto the external world aresimilar for information stored in digital and physical formats.

People frequently use metaphors to communicate and reasonabout complex topics. However, many studies of metaphoricalreasoning exclusively rely on researcher intuitions aboutdifferent metaphors and their associated entailments. Here wedescribe a more principled method for mapping the structureof metaphorical lay theories, focusing on metaphors forteaching. Across two studies, we identified four common, aptmetaphors for the teacher-student relationship and used factoranalysis to explore whether these metaphors reflectsystematically different intuitions about the qualities of collegeteachers. Our findings demonstrate that (1) people endorse avariety of different teaching metaphors, and (2) thesemetaphors bring to mind distinct, coherent clusters of teacherattributes. This work demonstrates a novel method forsystematically mapping the structure of metaphorical laytheories and sets the stage for future research on metaphoricalreasoning as well as innovative educational interventionscentered on shifting lay theories of teaching.

Metaphors have been shown to be effective explanatory andcommunicative tools, shaping how people think and reasonabout complex domains. To date, however, most studies haveaddressed only coarse-grained effects of metaphor framing,leaving many questions unanswered about the relative powerof metaphor compared to more literal linguistic framingdevices. We addressed this issue in a large, pre-registeredframing study, comparing the effects of describing the role ofpolice officers as (a) metaphorical guardians of a community(b) literal protectors of a community, and (c) a no-labelcontrol. We found no main effect of framing condition,suggesting that positively valenced metaphors may exert littleinfluence on their own in this domain. However, we didobserve an interaction between condition and politicalideology, such that the guardian metaphor was especiallyeffective at improving attitudes towards police officers forliberals, whose initial approval ratings were relatively low.

Metaphors can shape how people reason about complex issues,but most studies of metaphor framing rely exclusively onwritten materials. This is a significant limitation, as peopleregularly encounter linguistic metaphors in a variety ofdifferent communicative settings (e.g., read in the newspaper,heard on the radio, or viewed on television). Because researchfinds that variations in communication modality can influencemessage comprehension, retention, and persuasiveness, weexplored the relative power of metaphor framing in differentcommunication modalities. Across two experiments,participants read, heard, or watched a person describe fourdifferent metaphorically framed issues. They had to answer atarget question about each issue by selecting from two responseoptions, one of which was congruent with the metaphor frame.Results revealed a significant, similarly-sized effect ofmetaphor framing in every communication modality,suggesting that communication modality does not moderate theefficacy of metaphor framing.

Folk theories guide behavior and shape how people make sense oftheir environment. We investigated whether folk economic beliefswould moderate the widely publicized finding that people show aconservative shift in their politics when their majority status insociety is threatened. Across three experiments, participants readabout either projected demographic changes (threat) or changes inonline dating (control), indicated whether they viewed the economyas a zero- or non-zero-sum system, and responded to measures ofsociopolitical attitudes. Compared to controls, participants in thethreat condition who conceptualized the economy in zero-sum termssupported more conservative policies. However, those whoconceptualized the economy in non-zero-sum terms actuallyendorsed more liberal positions in this condition. These effectsobtained only when participants expressed their economic viewsbefore their political attitudes. This suggests folk economic beliefsshape how people respond to threats to their majority status,provided those beliefs are first made explicit.

The statement “Girls are as good as boys at math” appears toexpress gender equality, but research has shown that peopleinfer a gender difference from such statements: the group inthe complement position (boys) is judged to be superior. Arepeople aware that the syntax of these statements influencestheir judgments and do these framing effects generalize toother groups and inferences? We addressed these questions byreplicating and extending previous work, showing that (1)syntactic framing effects extend to politically chargedinferences about religious groups and terrorism, and (2) themajority of people recognize subject-complement statementsas influential in their judgments, but framing effects are foundonly in those who fail to recognize this influence. Those whodo cite this syntax as influential tend to show a reverseframing effect, suggesting they may be sensitive to the biasimplicit in such statements and consciously act to resist it.

Skepticism towards science has risen sharply in recent years.Cognitive scientists can help address this issue byilluminating how people conceptualize the scientific process,paving the way for improved communication with the public.We recruited a large sample of lay Americans, as well asacademics in the sciences and humanities, to answer a seriesof questions assessing their views about science. Becausemetaphors have been identified as useful tools forcommunicating about complex domains, we askedparticipants to choose which of two metaphors––working on apuzzle or scaling a mountain––best captured their beliefsabout the scientific process. Results revealed substantialvariation in perceptions of science across groups, and wehighlight the ways in which scientists seem to conceptualizescience differently from non-scientists. Importantly, metaphorpreference was associated with particular patterns of thinking,though not always in our originally hypothesized direction.We discuss the implications of these findings.

Popular approaches to modeling analogical reasoning havecaptured a wide range of developmental and cognitivephenomena, but the use of structured symbolicrepresentations makes it difficult to account for the dynamicand context sensitive nature of similarity judgments. Here, theresults of a novel behavioral task are offered as an additionalchallenge for these approaches. Participants were presentedwith a familiar analogy problem (A:B::C:?), but with a twist.Each of the possible completions (D1, D2, D3), could beconsidered valid: There was no unambiguously “correct”answer, but an array of equally good candidates. We find thatparticipants’ recent experience categorizing objects (i.e.,manipulating the salience of the features), systematicallyaffected performance in the ambiguous analogy task. Theresults are consistent with a dynamic, context sensitiveapproach to modeling analogy that continuously updatesfeature weights over the course of experience

Clinical disorders are multidimensional phenomena that are important to both clinicians and the lay public, as well as to cognitive scientists interested in understanding how people think and reason about complex domains. To date, however, little work has examined the factors that influence the folk psychiatry of addiction. Participants in the present study read a brief paragraph about addiction pitched at either an abstract or personal level, followed by a series of questions about the causes and treatment of drug addiction. We further manipulated whether addiction was described using a medical or psychological label. Results revealed that liberals and conservatives varied dramatically with respect to their folk psychiatric reasoning, with liberals preferring a more biological/medical view, which is associated increased support for medical interventions, reduced feelings of personal responsibility, and elevated feelings of stigma. Framing addiction using medical labels and at an abstract level pushed people towards this biological view, suggesting that media reports and messaging campaigns may influence how people conceptualize addiction.

People often use spatial language to talk about time, and thisis known to both reflect and shape how they think about it.Despite much research on the spatial grounding of temporallanguage and thought, little attention has been given to howspatial metaphors influence reasoning about real events,especially those in the future. In a large online study(N=2362), we framed a discussion of climate change usingspatial metaphors that varied on reference-frame (ego- vs.time-moving), speed of movement (fast vs. slow), and timehorizon (near, medium, or far future). We found thatdescribing climate change as approaching (time-movingframe) – versus something we approach – made the issueseem more serious, but also more tractable, at least when therate of motion was fast (e.g., “it’s rapidly approaching”).These findings offer novel insights into the relationshipbetween spatial metaphors and temporal reasoning and howwe communicate about uncertain future events.