Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 218–226 | Cite as

On the ups and downs of emotion: testing between conceptual-metaphor and polarity accounts of emotional valence–spatial location interactions

Brief Report


In the past decade, many studies have focused on the relationship between emotional valence and vertical spatial positions from a processing perspective. Lakoff and Johnson’s (1980) work on conceptual metaphor has traditionally motivated these investigations, but recent work (Lakens in J Exp Psychol: Learn, Mem Cogn, 38: 726–736, 2012) has suggested that polarity-based perspectives offer an alternative account of response time patterns. We contrasted the predictions of these two theories using a new facial emotion recognition task, in which participants made speeded responses to happy or sad faces on a display, with the spatial location of those faces being manipulated. In three experiments (two-alternative forced choice tasks and a go/no-go task), we found a pattern of responses consistent with a polarity-based account, but inconsistent with key predictions of the conceptual-metaphor account. Overall, congruency effects were observed for positively valenced items, but not for negatively valenced items. These findings demonstrate that polarity effects extend to nonlinguistic stimuli and beyond two-alternative forced choice tasks. We discuss the results in terms of common-coding approaches to task–response mappings.


Emotion recognition Conceptual metaphor Spatial congruency Representation Polarity 


Author note

We thank Jeff Zacks and Louise Connell for helpful discussions in preparing this work and Daniel Lakens and Remo Job for very helpful reviews. The order of authorship is arbitrary: both authors contributed equally to the work.


  1. Batty, M., & Taylor, M. J. (2003). Early processing of the six basic facial emotional expressions. Cognitive Brain Research, 17, 613–620.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, H. H. (1969). Linguistic processes in deductive reasoning. Psychological Review, 76, 387–404. doi: 10.1037/h0027578 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark, H. H., & Brownell, H. H. (1975). Judging up and down. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 1, 339–352. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.1.4.339 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawford, L. E., Margolies, S. M., Drake, J. T., & Murphy, M. E. (2006). Affect biases memory of location: Evidence for the spatial representation of affect. Cognition & Emotion, 20, 1153–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ekman, P. (1992). An argument for basic emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 6, 169–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2002). On the universality and cultural specificity of emotion recognition: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 203–235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Estes, Z., & Adelman, J. S. (2008). Automatic vigilance for negative words in lexical decision and naming: Comment on Larsen, Mercer, and Balota (2006). Emotion, 8, 441–444.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frühholz, S., Jellinghaus, A., & Herrmann, M. (2011). Time course of implicit processing and explicit processing of emotional faces and emotional words. Biological Psychology, 87, 265–274.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giessner, S. R., & Schubert, T. W. (2007). High in the hierarchy: How vertical location and judgments of leaders’ power are interrelated. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 30–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gosselin, F., & Schyns, P. G. (2001). Bubbles: A technique to reveal the use of information in recognition tasks. Vision Research, 41, 2261–2271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoffman, J. E., & Subramaniam, B. (1995). The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 787–795. doi: 10.3758/BF03206794 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 6, 65–70.Google Scholar
  13. Hommel, B., Müsseler, J., Aschersleben, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). The Theory of Event Coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–878, disc. 878–937. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X01000103
  14. Kosslyn, S. M., Koenig, O., Barrett, A., Cave, C. B., Tang, J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1989). Evidence for two types of spatial representations: Hemispheric specialization for categorical and coordinate relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 15, 723–735. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.15.4.723 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kövecses, Z. (1991). Happiness: A definitional effort. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 6, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Làdavas, E. (1988). Asymmetries in processing horizontal and vertical dimensions. Memory & Cognition, 16, 377–382. doi: 10.3758/BF03197049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. LaFrance, M., & Mayo, C. (1978). Cultural aspects of nonverbal communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 2, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lakens, D. (2012). Polarity correspondence in metaphor congruency effects: Structural overlap predicts categorization times for bi-polar concepts presented in vertical space. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 726–736.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakens, D., Semin, G. R., & Foroni, F. (2012). But for the bad, there would not be good: Grounding valence in brightness through shared relational structures. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 141, 584–594.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. \Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490. doi: 10.3758/BF03210951 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyons, M. J., Akamatsu, S., Kamachi, M., & Gyoba, J. (1998). Coding facial expressions with Gabor wavelets. In Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition (pp. 200–205). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Meier, B. P., Hauser, D. J., Robinson, M. D., Kelland Friesen, C., & Schjeldahl, K. (2007). What’s “up” with God? Vertical space as a representation of the divine. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 699–710.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Why the sunny side is up: Associations between affect and vertical position. Psychological Science, 15, 243–247.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy, G. L. (1996). On metaphoric representation. Cognition, 60, 173–204. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(96)00711-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 416–442. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Quadflieg, S., Etzel, J. A., Gazzola, V., Keysers, C., Schubert, T. W., Waiter, G. D., & Macrae, C. N. (2011). Puddles, parties, and professors: Linking word categorization to neural patterns of visuospatial coding. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 2636–2649.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Santiago, J., Ouellet, M., Román, A., & Valenzuela, J. (2012). Attentional factors in conceptual congruency. Cognitive Science, 36, 1051–1077.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your highness: Vertical positions as perceptual symbols of power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 1–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seymour, P. H. K. (1974). Asymmetries in judgments of verticality. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 102, 447–455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. van Quaquebeke, N., & Giessner, S. R. (2010). How embodied cognitions affect judgments: Height-related attribution bias in football foul calls. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 3–22.Google Scholar
  32. Young, A. W., Perrett, D. I., Calder, A. J., Sprengelmeyer, R., & Ekman, P. (2002). Facial Expressions of Emotion: Stimuli and Tests (FEEST). Edmunds, UK: Bury St Thames Valley Test Company.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision and Cognitive Sciences Research Centre, Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  3. 3.School of Psychology, EDU Building, Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich Research ParkNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations