Tue, May 21, 2024
| فارسی
Volume 25, Issue 2 (summer 2023)
Advances in Cognitive Sciences 2023, 25(2): 158-175 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.UT.IRICSS.REC.1401.028
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Shamsa R, Purmohammad M, Mashhadi A, Salimi Z. Validation of the Cardillo metaphorical package for testing neural hypotheses about metaphor and its comparison in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder and normal individuals. Advances in Cognitive Sciences 2023; 25 (2) :158-175
URL: http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-1531-en.html
URL: http://icssjournal.ir/article-1-1531-en.html
1- PhD Student in Cognitive Linguistics, Institute for Cognitive Studies, Tehran, Iran
2- Assistant Professor of Psycholinguistics, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Institute for Cognitive & Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3- Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
4- Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Mashhad Ibn-Sina Psychiatric Hospital, Mashhad Medical University, Mashhad, Iran
2- Assistant Professor of Psycholinguistics, Department of Cognitive Psychology, Institute for Cognitive & Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3- Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
4- Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Mashhad Ibn-Sina Psychiatric Hospital, Mashhad Medical University, Mashhad, Iran
Abstract: (694 Views)
Introduction
Metaphor is a figurative language, and modern metaphor theorists consider it a conceptual tool. Metaphors are divided into two categories by researchers: Novel and conventional. They believe that conventional metaphors are understood as literal language processed automatically by semantic memory, whereas novel metaphors are processed in a controlled way, requiring more cognitive ability. In addition to structuring our conceptual systems, metaphors play a crucial role in shaping our understanding of the world (28). However, researchers have found that people with psychological disorders understand metaphors differently.
In order to measure metaphors, several packages and tools have been developed. An example of such a tool is the metaphor package introduced and standardized by Cardillo et al. (2010) (8), containing 280 metaphorical and 280 literal expressions. Cardillo et al.'s (2010) metaphor package was used to carry out this research, along with novel metaphors that were added to it and then standardized (8). This study examined and compared the evaluation of metaphors by evaluators across two groups of normal people and individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder. In light of this, the current research seeks to investigate the psychometric properties of the metaphorical package and compares it between normal individuals and those suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Methods
The study was conducted in two phases. During the first phase, experts discussed the validation of the metaphor package. First, adapted from the study of Cardillo et al. (2010) (8), 208 basic words were selected and translated into Farsi, and then 21 additional basic words were added to them, resulting in a set of 229 basic words provided to 40 evaluators. An analysis of the significance of the mean difference was performed with a one-sample t-test, and the agreement between the evaluators was analyzed using Fleiss' kappa, as well as intraclass correlation (ICC).
Next, on the basis of the basic words selected in the previous step, sentences were divided into three categories: Literal sentences, conventional metaphorical sentences, and novel metaphorical sentences. A total of 455 sentences were prepared and evaluated by 12 experts based on four criteria: Familiarity, naturalness, imageability, and figurativeness. The significance of the mean differences was determined using a one-sample t-test, and Felice's Kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation were used to determine the agreement among the evaluators.
The second phase examined familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness of sentences in people with and without obsessive-compulsive disorder. A comparative causal approach was used in the research. The main group consisted of all the patients referred to Saba Clinic and Ibn Sina Hospital in Mashhad during the winter of 2022 and diagnosed as having obsessive-compulsive disorder according to the diagnostic and statistical guidelines for mental disorders. Twenty individuals were selected from this group using convenience sampling.
Research Tools: Yale-Brown obsessive-compulsive scale: This scale was developed by Goodman and Rasmusssen (1989). The scale consists of two parts: the sign and the intensity. Self-reporting is used to respond to 19 items on a five-degree Likert scale. The questionnaire has been verified to have a reliable level of accuracy.
Data analysis was conducted with SPSS-27 software using the multi-synthetic variance analysis test and the Repeated measures ANOVA.
Results
The basic vocabulary was investigated by four groups of evaluators separately by examining 229 words in four vocabulary groups: predicate-auditory, predicate-motion, nominal-motion, and nominal-auditory, based on four criteria: Auditory imagery, visual imagery, motion imagery, and concreteness. Finally, 20 words with a higher mean in auditory imagery and concreteness were selected in each of the four groups: predicate-auditory, nominal-auditory, predicate-motion, and nominal-motion. The results of a one-sample t-test revealed a significant difference in the means of auditory imagery, visual imagery, and movement imagery (P<0.001). Felice's Kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficients also indicated statistically significant agreement between evaluators (P<0.001).
For the selection of the expressions, 80 sentences were chosen with a high mean of familiarity, a low mean of figurativeness, and a moderate mean in naturalness and imageability. An analysis of the mean difference between familiarity and figurativeness of these sentences using a one-sample t-test revealed that the difference was significant in both (P=0.001) and non-significant in naturalness and imageability (P=0.05). From each group of conventional metaphorical sentences and novel metaphorical sentences, 80 sentences were selected, indicating a low mean in familiarity, a high mean in virtuality, and a moderate mean in naturalness and imageability. Using the one-sample t-test, the current study found that the mean difference between these sentences was significant for familiarity and figurativeness (P=0.001) but not significant for naturalness or imageability (P=0.05). In addition, Felice's Kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient showed a statistically significant agreement between evaluators (P=0.001).
In the following, familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness levels of sentences were compared between people with obsessive-compulsive disorder and normal individuals. When comparing the average scores of literal, conventional metaphoric, and novel metaphoric sentences among both obsessive-compulsive disorder groups and normal individuals, the researchers found that the scores were typically near or above 4 in relation to familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness. After checking the assumptions, the variance test showed no significant difference between people who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder and those who do not when it comes to evaluating familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness of sentences (P<0.05). In the repeated measures ANOVA, the difference between literal, conventional metaphorical, and novel metaphorical sentences was statistically significant in all three dimensions of familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness (P<0.001).
Conclusion
Considering the findings of the research, it can be concluded that this metaphor package has sufficient validity and reliability to serve as a metaphor package for understanding metaphors in both normal people and those with psychological disorders.
The present study examined the validity of the metaphorical package. In the first phase, eighty basic words were selected in four lexical groups: Predicate-auditory, predicate-motion, nominal-motion, and nominal-auditory, based on the four criteria of auditory imagery, visual imagery, motion imagery, and concreteness. Based on the criteria with the theoretical mean, the results indicated a statistically significant difference. In terms of auditory imagery, visual imagery, motion imagery, and concreteness, there was significant agreement among the evaluators. Then, three literal, conventional, and novel metaphorical sentences were selected for each base word, all of which were at a favorable level with regard to familiarity, figurativeness, naturalness, and imageability, and there was an agreement between evaluators and a satisfactory intra category correlation. Additionally, the dimensions of familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness in literal, conventional metaphorical, and novel metaphorical sentences did not differ significantly between obsessive-compulsive disorder sufferers and normal people.
Ethical considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
The implementation of the present article was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles. Written consent was obtained from the participants, who participated willingly and voluntarily and were provided with all the necessary information regarding the study. The names of participants were removed, and they were allowed to withdraw from the study at any time. A license for this research has been granted by the Ethics Committee of the Higher Education Institute of Cognitive Sciences with the ID IR.UT.IRICSS.REC.1401.028.
Authors’ contributions
The first and second authors designed the study, collected the data, and analyzed the data; the first, second, third, and fourth authors wrote and reviewed the article.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their gratitude to all the evaluators and participants in the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this article report no conflicts of interest.
Metaphor is a figurative language, and modern metaphor theorists consider it a conceptual tool. Metaphors are divided into two categories by researchers: Novel and conventional. They believe that conventional metaphors are understood as literal language processed automatically by semantic memory, whereas novel metaphors are processed in a controlled way, requiring more cognitive ability. In addition to structuring our conceptual systems, metaphors play a crucial role in shaping our understanding of the world (28). However, researchers have found that people with psychological disorders understand metaphors differently.
In order to measure metaphors, several packages and tools have been developed. An example of such a tool is the metaphor package introduced and standardized by Cardillo et al. (2010) (8), containing 280 metaphorical and 280 literal expressions. Cardillo et al.'s (2010) metaphor package was used to carry out this research, along with novel metaphors that were added to it and then standardized (8). This study examined and compared the evaluation of metaphors by evaluators across two groups of normal people and individuals with obsessive-compulsive disorder. In light of this, the current research seeks to investigate the psychometric properties of the metaphorical package and compares it between normal individuals and those suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder.
Methods
The study was conducted in two phases. During the first phase, experts discussed the validation of the metaphor package. First, adapted from the study of Cardillo et al. (2010) (8), 208 basic words were selected and translated into Farsi, and then 21 additional basic words were added to them, resulting in a set of 229 basic words provided to 40 evaluators. An analysis of the significance of the mean difference was performed with a one-sample t-test, and the agreement between the evaluators was analyzed using Fleiss' kappa, as well as intraclass correlation (ICC).
Next, on the basis of the basic words selected in the previous step, sentences were divided into three categories: Literal sentences, conventional metaphorical sentences, and novel metaphorical sentences. A total of 455 sentences were prepared and evaluated by 12 experts based on four criteria: Familiarity, naturalness, imageability, and figurativeness. The significance of the mean differences was determined using a one-sample t-test, and Felice's Kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation were used to determine the agreement among the evaluators.
The second phase examined familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness of sentences in people with and without obsessive-compulsive disorder. A comparative causal approach was used in the research. The main group consisted of all the patients referred to Saba Clinic and Ibn Sina Hospital in Mashhad during the winter of 2022 and diagnosed as having obsessive-compulsive disorder according to the diagnostic and statistical guidelines for mental disorders. Twenty individuals were selected from this group using convenience sampling.
Research Tools: Yale-Brown obsessive-compulsive scale: This scale was developed by Goodman and Rasmusssen (1989). The scale consists of two parts: the sign and the intensity. Self-reporting is used to respond to 19 items on a five-degree Likert scale. The questionnaire has been verified to have a reliable level of accuracy.
Data analysis was conducted with SPSS-27 software using the multi-synthetic variance analysis test and the Repeated measures ANOVA.
Results
The basic vocabulary was investigated by four groups of evaluators separately by examining 229 words in four vocabulary groups: predicate-auditory, predicate-motion, nominal-motion, and nominal-auditory, based on four criteria: Auditory imagery, visual imagery, motion imagery, and concreteness. Finally, 20 words with a higher mean in auditory imagery and concreteness were selected in each of the four groups: predicate-auditory, nominal-auditory, predicate-motion, and nominal-motion. The results of a one-sample t-test revealed a significant difference in the means of auditory imagery, visual imagery, and movement imagery (P<0.001). Felice's Kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficients also indicated statistically significant agreement between evaluators (P<0.001).
For the selection of the expressions, 80 sentences were chosen with a high mean of familiarity, a low mean of figurativeness, and a moderate mean in naturalness and imageability. An analysis of the mean difference between familiarity and figurativeness of these sentences using a one-sample t-test revealed that the difference was significant in both (P=0.001) and non-significant in naturalness and imageability (P=0.05). From each group of conventional metaphorical sentences and novel metaphorical sentences, 80 sentences were selected, indicating a low mean in familiarity, a high mean in virtuality, and a moderate mean in naturalness and imageability. Using the one-sample t-test, the current study found that the mean difference between these sentences was significant for familiarity and figurativeness (P=0.001) but not significant for naturalness or imageability (P=0.05). In addition, Felice's Kappa coefficient and intraclass correlation coefficient showed a statistically significant agreement between evaluators (P=0.001).
In the following, familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness levels of sentences were compared between people with obsessive-compulsive disorder and normal individuals. When comparing the average scores of literal, conventional metaphoric, and novel metaphoric sentences among both obsessive-compulsive disorder groups and normal individuals, the researchers found that the scores were typically near or above 4 in relation to familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness. After checking the assumptions, the variance test showed no significant difference between people who suffer from obsessive-compulsive disorder and those who do not when it comes to evaluating familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness of sentences (P<0.05). In the repeated measures ANOVA, the difference between literal, conventional metaphorical, and novel metaphorical sentences was statistically significant in all three dimensions of familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness (P<0.001).
Conclusion
Considering the findings of the research, it can be concluded that this metaphor package has sufficient validity and reliability to serve as a metaphor package for understanding metaphors in both normal people and those with psychological disorders.
The present study examined the validity of the metaphorical package. In the first phase, eighty basic words were selected in four lexical groups: Predicate-auditory, predicate-motion, nominal-motion, and nominal-auditory, based on the four criteria of auditory imagery, visual imagery, motion imagery, and concreteness. Based on the criteria with the theoretical mean, the results indicated a statistically significant difference. In terms of auditory imagery, visual imagery, motion imagery, and concreteness, there was significant agreement among the evaluators. Then, three literal, conventional, and novel metaphorical sentences were selected for each base word, all of which were at a favorable level with regard to familiarity, figurativeness, naturalness, and imageability, and there was an agreement between evaluators and a satisfactory intra category correlation. Additionally, the dimensions of familiarity, imageability, and figurativeness in literal, conventional metaphorical, and novel metaphorical sentences did not differ significantly between obsessive-compulsive disorder sufferers and normal people.
Ethical considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
The implementation of the present article was carried out in accordance with the ethical principles. Written consent was obtained from the participants, who participated willingly and voluntarily and were provided with all the necessary information regarding the study. The names of participants were removed, and they were allowed to withdraw from the study at any time. A license for this research has been granted by the Ethics Committee of the Higher Education Institute of Cognitive Sciences with the ID IR.UT.IRICSS.REC.1401.028.
Authors’ contributions
The first and second authors designed the study, collected the data, and analyzed the data; the first, second, third, and fourth authors wrote and reviewed the article.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgments
The authors extend their gratitude to all the evaluators and participants in the study.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this article report no conflicts of interest.
Type of Study: Research |
Received: 2023/03/8 | Accepted: 2023/06/8 | Published: 2023/09/20
Received: 2023/03/8 | Accepted: 2023/06/8 | Published: 2023/09/20
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
