Metaphors as symbolic environment of the self: How self-knowledge is expressed verbally

Abstract

In current social psychology, the self is conceptualized as a "set of beliefs" (Baumeister, 1998). As there is no direct way to observe the self, a large part of self-knowledge remains tacit. Researchers mostly analyze "traces of the self" represented in language, for example as metaphors. It is argued that language can be conceptualized as symbolic environment individuals are socialized into much like the physical and social environment. In two studies (N 1 =12, N 2 =63), patterns of metaphors of the self were analyzed and related to self-concept aspects and the big five dimensions of personality. Theoretical and methodological implications for self-concept research are discussed.

https://crisp.org.uiowa.edu/sites/crisp.org.uiowa.edu/files/2020-04/12.11.pdf

Full text

151
CURRENT RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
http://www.uiowa.edu/~grpproc/crisp/crisp.html
Volume 12, Number 11
Submitted: December 22, 2006
First Revision: June 18, 2007
Accepted: July 1, 2007
Published: July 2, 2007
METAPHORS AS SYMBOLIC ENVIRONMENT OF THE SELF:
HOW SELF-KNOWLEDGE IS EXPRESSED VERBALLY
Karin S. Moser
University of Zurich
Switzerland
ABSTRACT
In current social psychology, the self is conceptualized as a “set of beliefs” (Baumeister, 1998).
As there is no direct way to observe the self, a large part of self-knowledge remains tacit.
Researchers mostly analyze “traces of the self” represented in language, for example as
metaphors. It is argued that language can be conceptualized as symbolic environment
individuals are socialized into much like the physical and social environment. In two studies
(N
1
=12, N
2
=63), patterns of metaphors of the self were analyzed and related to self-concept
aspects and the big five dimensions of personality. Theoretical and methodological implications
for self-concept research are discussed.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
152
INTRODUCTION
Social psychological research on the self in the past twenty-five years can be characterized by an
increasing awareness of social, cultural, and environmental factors important in the development
and maintenance of the self (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1981; Proshansky, 1978;
Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982; Hormuth, 1990). While behaviorists treated the self merely as a
black box that merited no further consideration, the “cognitive turn” of the 1960s brought the self
back into the focus of main-stream research. The realization that information processing and
cognitive representations play an important role in understanding human behavior called to
attention that the self is a construct that can be described as a set of beliefs about the self
(Baumeister, 1998; Markus & Zajonc, 1985; Markus & Sentis, 1982; Markus & Wurf, 1987;
Rosenberg & Kaplan, 1982; Snygg & Combs, 1949). This paradigm shift not only changed the
topics of research in social psychology; the new research on the self-concept was in a sense also
a movement back to the roots of social psychology at the end of the nineteenth century and the
first half of the twentieth century (Cooley, 1902; James, 1890; Mead, 1934, Kuhn & McPartland,
1954).
It lies in the very characteristic of the self that it has to be assessed indirectly, either by observing
interactions with others and with the physical environment or by studying beliefs about the self
as a result of self-reflection. As there is no direct way to observe the self, a large part of self-
knowledge remains tacit (Baumeister, 1998). This is true regardless of whether the self is studied
in a “realistic” environment or experimentally, whether the self is assessed by standardized self-
concept scales, by self-descriptive statements such as the twenty statements test (Kuhn &
McPartland, 1954), or by open-ended questions in interviews. In all cases, knowledge about the
self is at least to some extent mediated by language. Self-knowledge is expressed – not
exclusively but mostly – in language. What researchers obtain and analyze as data are mostly
“traces of the self” represented in language. Because of the great importance of language for self-
knowledge, it is argued in this paper that language should be conceptualized as a symbolic
environment of the self and studied accordingly (Moser, 2003). Analogous to the physical and
social environment, language is a symbolic environment individuals are socialized into, with
rules and artifacts representing social and cultural beliefs about the world. So-called
conventional metaphors for instance, as one example of linguistic artifacts, are typical for a
specific culture and time period and are influenced by cultural, social, political and technological
changes. It seems therefore very likely that language is not merely a “neutral” instrument of self-
expression, but that the cultural and social belief system inherent in language is likely to
influence individual language use and beliefs about the self. In this paper, it will therefore be
argued that the relation between language and self-knowledge should be of great interest to
social psychologists as it will help to understand the interaction of private self-knowledge and
socially and culturally constructed self-knowledge. It will also be argued that to study language
as a symbolic environment of the self, metaphors are an adequate methodology in self-concept
research.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
153
Language and the Self in Social Psychology
The relation of language and self has been studied extensively in psychology, mainly in
developmental studies of self and identity, where language acquisition is seen as one of the main
socialization agents and as indispensable for the development of a sense of self (Stern, 1985).
Only by learning to name things – physical self-attributes as well as inner states and feelings – a
sense of self can evolve, and the experience of privacy of self-experiences leads to the
development of the private self (Singer & Kolligian, 1987). In social psychology, studies on
social identity formation (Deaux, 1996), and group identity investigated the role of language
(Giles, 1978; Giles, Bourhis, & Taylor, 1977), which was also the subject of controversial
discussions (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Liebkind, 1992). A number of ecological studies based on
Mead’s theory of symbolic interactionism (1934) studied the meaning of things and places for
the self (Csikszentmihalyi & Rochberg-Halton, 1989; Dittmar, 1992). In the process of
symbolization, physical objects and the physical environment were assumed to take on
importance for the self through processes of communication and the attribution of personal
meaning to things and places. Representation and communication of self-knowledge were indeed
recognized as central link between environment and self. Empirical evidence of the importance
of self-related language for self-knowledge was also shown in a study on attribution processes
(Fiedler, Semin, Finkenauer, & Berkel, 1995). Constructivist research in social psychology used
narrative approaches to the self to study how story structure, self-actualization, and self-
presentation interact, and how they related to life stories in therapeutic settings and clinical case
studies (Gergen & Gergen, 1988; Kerby, 1991; McAdams, 2001; White & Epston, 1990).
Although the importance of language has gained wider recognition in social psychological self-
concept research (Franzoi, 1996; Kihlstrom & Klein, 1994; Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman,
1996), it is still a rather neglected subject.
Organization of Self-Knowledge
Current self research in social psychology sees the self as a construct best described as a set of
beliefs about the self (Baumeister, 1998). Instead of conceptualizing the self-concept as an entity,
today’s view of the self sees it as an aggregate of self-schemata rather than a single conception of
self (Markus, 1982). Current literature in social psychology uses the terms self-concept and self-
knowledge synonymously and includes in self-knowledge all beliefs about the self, whether they
might be true or false. It is believed that only part of the full self-knowledge is present in self-
awareness at any given time. Different terms have been proposed for the present part of self-
knowledge, such as the phenomenal self (Jones & Gerard, 1967), the spontaneous self-concept
(McGuire et al., 1978), and more recently, the working self-concept (Markus & Kunda, 1986) or
the actual self (Higgins, 1987). The difference between a working self-concept and the full self-
knowledge also means that different and even inconsistent beliefs about the self can coexist.
Only the working self-concept is thought to have to be internally consistent, otherwise views
about the self could be widely discrepant or even contradictory. The organization of self-
knowledge into different self-schemata is thought to be quite loose, as theorized in self-
discrepancy theory and evidenced in several studies (Higgins, 1987; Higgins, van Hook &
Dorfman, 1988) and to differ in complexity (Linville, 1987). In his self-discrepancy theory,
Higgins (1987) postulates that the self-concept contains two more self-representations or self-
schemata besides the actual self: the ideal self and the ought self. While the actual self refers to
the currently activated and salient aspects of self, the ideal self represents the hopes, wishes and
goals of a person from the perspective of how this person would ideally see him- or herself. In

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
154
contrast, the ought self represents all the responsibilities, tasks and norms a person feels
obligated to fulfill. Earlier conceptions of self have distinguished between material, social and
spiritual self (James, 1892), the diffuse, private, public and collective self (Greenwald &
Pratkanis, 1984) and the different types of self-presentations postulated by Goffman (1959),
Tedeschi (1986) and Schlenker (1980). Markus & Nurius (1986) have also proposed possible
selves as central motivational structures of the self-concept. The different aspects of the self-
concept have been shown to have a strong motivational impact on people’s behavior and
attitudes, as people try to avoid negative self-perceptions and strive for a positive self-concept.
Metaphorical Representation of Self-Knowledge
Metaphors are powerful cognitive tools to relate abstract and complex self-knowledge to
concrete experiences, thereby enabling self-reflection and communication of the inner self.
Metaphors are assumed not only to have representational functions, but to provide also the basis
for understanding, decision-making, and action (Dutke, 1994; Vosniadou & Ortony, 1989,
Ortony, 1993). As shown in the experiments of Gentner and Gentner (1983), for example, if
people understand the functioning of an electric light switch in terms of an analogy to the water
cycle, they see electrical current as functionally equivalent to water pressure, the battery as a
water tank, and the light switch as a kind of valve that is used to interrupt the flow of water. This
metaphorical model of electricity enables them to understand the abstract phenomenon of
“electric current”. It also provides a useful basis for problem solving, such as for repairing a non-
functioning light switch. Although the water metaphor is not correct in technical terms, the
functional analogy of electric current and water cycle is sufficient for a “naïve” understanding of
the abstract concept of electricity and for everyday problem-solving skills.
The same basic mechanisms of analogy work in the case of other abstract concepts such as the
self. If for example, self-knowledge is expressed as being “on a path”, the metaphor model of
the path provides strategies as well as insights into how the self works and how important self-
relevant goals, such as professional success or satisfactory personal relationships, might be
achieved. Using the path analogy, success can be conceptualized as a matter of “choosing the
right path”, and of “taking a stepwise approach to the goal”, and so on (Moser, 2003) [1].
Certain forms of psychotherapy make use of these properties of metaphors, analyzing habitual
metaphors and helping their clients to develop alternative metaphorical models to help them
understand important experiences and map their life stories (Buchholz, 1996; Combs &
Freedman, 1990; Lankton & Lankton, 1991). Metaphors are also central in capturing and
conveying emotions, thus helping to reflect and communicate affective dimensions of the self-
concept (Ortony & Fainsilber, 1989).
In social psychology, metaphors have been used to study group interaction and processes, such
as knowledge transfer and the building of joint mental models and transactive memory systems
in teams (Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Hill & Levenhagen, 1995; Moser, 2004). In an
experimental study by Ottati et al. (1999), it was shown that metaphors influence information
processing of self-relevant information: If the metaphors used to convey a message were seen as
self-descriptive, people considered these messages as more important and payed more attention
even if the content of the message itself was negative. For instance, persons who perceived
sports as being an important part of their self-concept were paying more attention to messages
formulated in sport metaphors. The experiments not only showed the persuasive power of
metaphors, but also the important link between metaphors and self-knowledge. The findings are

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
155
also consistent with further studies showing that the use of metaphors facilitates negotiation
(Loewenstein et al., 1999; Thompson et al., 2000). Metaphors have also been applied to study
inter-group relations in social and organisational psychology, especially in the case of
organisational change, where metaphors can be used to explicate different perspectives and help
to manage processes of social categorization of in- and out-group relationships (Tsoukas, 1991;
Bouwen, 1998; Palmer & Dunford, 1996; Putnam, Phillips & Chapman, 1996).
One famous approach in social psychology using metaphors is Goffman’s theory of the
presentation of self in everyday life (Goffman, 1959). In his dramaturgical approach, Goffman
actually uses one of the central functions of metaphors described above to explain how people
interact and present their identities to others. He uses the metaphor source domain “THEATRE”
to reduce complexity and make processes of identity presentation and interaction understandable.
In the theatrical metaphor, the self becomes an actor on stage, with a public and the goal to
convey a certain image and role to that public. In this dramaturgical perspective, all aspects of
the metaphor source domain “THEATRE” can now be used to further differentiate individual
self-presentation and interactions between people by referring to both the structural aspects and
processes related to theatre, such as front stage, back stage, role playing, setting, personal front
with appearance and manners, and so on to understand the mechanisms and motivations of
impression management. In fact, not only Goffman’s theory of impression management uses a
central metaphor to convey its content to the reader. Scientific theory generally uses
metaphorical representations to make abstract ideas feasible, and scientific debates can be
described in terms of competing metaphors about how to best capture the meaning of a theory
(Ricoeur, 1986). This process can be best observed in the case of paradigm shifts, as described
by Thomas Kuhn (1962) in his work on the structure of scientific revolutions, which usually
involve a shift in central metaphors and in the specific language considered adequate (Gentner &
Grudin, 1985; Gigerenzer, 1991).
In cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology, a metaphor is defined as an analogy
(Anderson, 1996; Lakoff, 1987, 1993; Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Langacker, 1987). A metaphor
consists of the projection of one schema (the source domain of the metaphor) onto another
schema (the target domain of the metaphor). The schema of the metaphor source domain always
includes structural and procedural aspects. For example, “PATH” has a typical topology
consisting of a limited number of slots, such as a starting point, a final point, and a direction. In
addition to these structural properties, the process associated with the path schema is that of time
passing as one moves along the path. This topology of the path schema is then used to structure a
target domain, for example “SUCCESS”. Self-knowledge about being successful (the target
domain) is now metaphorically mapped in terms of the path schema. This may involve the path
schema becoming further differentiated into career steps, parallel paths, obstacles, and detours,
with matching metaphorical expressions such as “achieving distant goals”, “heading in the right
direction”, “moving on”, “getting back on track”, and the like. Differentiation of the
metaphorical mapping process depends on the complexity of the self-knowledge in one specific
domain, such as “SUCCESS”. The more complex and the richer the experience with a certain
topic is, the higher the differentiation and complexity of metaphors will be. Complexity of
metaphorical mapping is directly related to expertise and thus to the underling self-concept
domain as has been shown in the case of medical expertise (Liebert, 1995).

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
156
Complex and abstract topics such as the self have to be expressed metaphorically in order to
make sense and to be communicated to others. But metaphors are much more than just being
instrumental in reducing complexity and communicating inner states and abstract ideas.
Conventional metaphors are the linguistic expression of culturally and socially accepted concepts
in society, and implicitly convey what is thought to be appropriate and how to go about things,
for instance when one wants to be successful. Metaphors are acquired by the individual as part of
general language acquisition, thereby learning implicitly important social and cultural rules
(Smith, 1991; Traugott, 1985). The underlying implicit cultural concepts are the reason why,
when learning a foreign language, understanding and using the right metaphors is one of the
most difficult steps in foreign language mastery. The use of conventional metaphors, such as
those in the examples above, is thus inevitable in both everyday and professional language and
the reason why metaphors are such interesting linguistic artifacts to study the symbolic
environment of the self. Conventional metaphors are also indicative of processes of social
change in a society, as new metaphors emerge and older metaphors are considered old-fashioned
and forgotten (Liebert, 1993). New metaphors are often triggered by new technologies, such as
the introduction of cars (“step on the break”) or personal computers (“reformat my
relationship”) to large parts of the public and are then conventionalized. Conventional
metaphors may also be typical for certain generations, as studies on teenager talk have shown, or
social groups, such as immigrants (Ballarini, 1988; Coupland & Coupland, 1995). Several
studies suggested that conventional metaphors are used automatically and subconsciously, unless
special training brings them to the attention of the speaker (Allbritton, 1995; Debatin, Jackson, &
Steuer, 1997; Gentner, 1989; Gentner & Wolff, 2000; Gibbs, 1992; Glucksberg, 1989). In
contrast, new metaphors are created specifically and consciously to emphasize or clarify a
message and catch the attention of the receiver of a message. While new metaphors are widely
and effectively used in advertising, politics and literature, and are an important aspect of creative
writing, new metaphors are rarely found in everyday language. Everyday language is generally
dominated by conventional metaphors, which are often not recognized as metaphors anymore
and thus give us access to unconscious and automated processes and implicit self and world
knowledge.
The research presented here aims to look at conventional metaphors of the self as a symbolic
environment. It is hypothized that talking about oneself and the different aspects of self-schemata
will a) require the use of metaphors, and b) follow conventional metaphor use by drawing
metaphors from a limited pool of widely spread conventional metaphor source domains. This is
of great interest to social psychologists researching the self, because if the hypotheses above find
empirical support, looking at metaphors of the self is one way of looking at the interaction
between social and cultural concepts and self-knowledge at a micro-level. It would also mean
that the notion of “authenticity” of self-knowledge would have to be discussed critically from
both a methodological and theoretical point of view. This is of special importance for research on
the self as it relies to a large extent on verbal data.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
157
METHOD - STUDY 1
It was the aim of study 1 to determine whether metaphors were used when talking about the self,
and if so, to describe the metaphor source domains that were identified and to arrive at an
empirically sound categorical system of metaphor source domains.
Sample
12 graduate students of different Swiss universities were selected for an explorative interview
study with an in-depth inductive analysis of metaphors and metaphor source domains. The
participants averaged 25 years of age, had different study majors and were at the point of
graduating from university within the next months. Five students were female, seven male.
Procedure and Materials
The interview questions referred to the upcoming transition from university to work, and asked
students to talk about their current self-perception, their hopes and fears, in the past and for the
future, with regard to success and personal relationships, in both their professional and private
lives (see appendix for interview schedule). Success and personal relationships were both highly
self-relevant topics for the students interviewed; both topics invited self-reflection and evoked
self-relevant talk. The semi-structured form of the interviews allowed to cover different self-
concept aspects systematically, evoking narrations about the actual, ideal, ought, negative, and
social self, and self-change by asking for positive and negative experiences, the current situation,
wishes for the future and anticipated changes at the up-coming transition from university. The
use of any metaphors in the standardized interview questions by the interviewer was carefully
avoided and the interviewer was instructed to ask clarifying questions only in the participants
own wording to avoid the induction of metaphors by the interviewer. Interviewer metaphor use
was checked as part of the metaphor analysis described below.
Data Analysis - Study 1
All interviews were transcribed, and the entire text corpus was analyzed in a 3-step procedure,
identifying metaphors, self-concept aspects and patterns of co-occurrences of metaphors and
self-concept aspects.
Metaphor Analysis
All metaphorical expressions were identified in the entire text corpus. A first tentative list of
possible metaphor source domains was provided by extensive linguistic research of conventional
metaphors in German in the one hand (Jäkel, 1997), but also by metaphor research in English
cognitive linguistics. As Lakoff (1987) argues, certain metaphor source domains, so-called
kinesthetic image schemata, are based on fundamental human experiences, such as movement
(PATH), bodily functions such as eating and digesting (BODY) or a vertical and front-back
orientation in space (FRONT-BACK, TOP-DOWN) and can be found in every language. For a
critical review of the concept of ‘image schemata’ and its assumed universality, see Gibbs &
Colston, (1995) and Goodman & Elgin (1989). Thus equipped with a basic idea of possible
metaphor source domains, coders first identified all metaphorical expressions, that is non-literal
expressions, in the interviews. For instance, for the expression “take one step at the time” to be

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
158
identified as metaphor, it had to be clear from the immediate context of the expression that the
interviewee was not talking about climbing stairs, but was for instance talking about self-related
goals for the future after graduation from university. The criterion for the identification of a
metaphorical expression was that the mapping process of projecting a source domain (e.g.,
PATH) onto a target domain (e.g., SUCCESS) had to be recognizable (Moser, 2000). In a further
step, the metaphor source domain behind the analogy (= metaphor model) used in each
metaphorical expression was identified, e.g. if the metaphorical expression “take one step at the
time” was used in combination with talk about success, the metaphorical expression was
identified as part of the metaphor model “SUCCESS IS A PATH”, and ascribed to the source
domain “PATH”. Coders were instructed to assign all metaphorical expressions to the most
prominent metaphor source domain, and thus to avoid multiple coding. For example, the
metaphorical expression “stepping on the gas” was assigned to the source domain
“TECHNOLOGY”, because driving a car and using the gas pedal means handling a
technological device in the broader sense, and was seen as the dominant metaphor in this case,
rather than assigning the metaphorical expression to the source domain “PATH”, which is
implied in the action of “stepping” but was seen as secondary. Using this same procedure, all
metaphorical expressions were then coded into categories of source domains such as “PATH,”
“SPORTS,” “NATURE,” and so on. To insure independence and salience of metaphor
categories, inter-rater reliability was measured among three independent raters. Using this
procedure, 22 metaphor source domain categories resulted from the analysis and are presented in
table 1, with inter-rater agreement ranging between R=0.58 and 0.98 for each of the 22
categories and with an overall reliability of Cohen’s Kappa= 0.83 across all metaphor categories.
Very rare metaphor source domains for which there were less than 20 occurrences (out of a total
of 3899 metaphors in the entire data set), such as religious or gender metaphors were coded into
the residual category of “other metaphors”. To further illustrate metaphor source domains, an
example of a metaphorical expression is provided for each metaphor source domain in table 1.
Identification of Self-Concept Aspects
All direct and indirect self-relevant statements in the entire text corpus were identified and then
coded into categories of self-concept aspects. As basis for the identification of self-concept
aspects, current conceptualizations of the self in social psychology were used as proposed in self-
discrepancy theory by Higgins (1987, 1989) and the self-schemata approach by Markus et al.
(1986, 1987) described above. In their studies, they propose to distinguish between the actual
self, ideal self, social self, ought self, negative self and self-change. A domain-specific self-
conception theory was chosen for this study not only for its actuality, but also because using a
domain-specific self-concept will allow to analyze whether there are specific metaphors used for
a specific self-concept domain, such as the ideal self or not. For the analysis, all direct and
indirect self-relevant statements in the interviews were identified in a first step. For example, the
statement “Deep down I consider myself to be a pessimistic person” was identified as a direct
self-relevant statement, while “I don’t remember anything as important and intense as this
experience” was identified as an indirect self-relevant statement. All six self-concept aspects
could be reliably identified in the text corpus: actual self, ideal self, ought self, negative self, self
change, and social self (see table 2 in the results section below) and no residual category was
needed. Inter-rater reliability for each of the six self-concept categories ranged between R=0.63
and 0.90, with an overall reliability across all self-concept categories of Cohen’s Kappa=0.79. To
further illustrate self-concept aspects, an example of self-relevant statements is provided for each
self category in table 2.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
159
Identification of Patterns
Metaphor analysis and the analysis of self-concept aspects were carried out with the support of
ATLAS/ti 4.2, a software package supporting Boolean, semantic, and distance queries for
complex analysis of textual data. In the first two steps, each level of analysis (metaphors and
self-concept aspects) was analyzed separately as described above. In a third step, co-occurrences
between metaphors and self-concept aspects were analyzed by using the co-occurrence operator
in ATLAS/ti (Galliker, Herman, Imminger, & Weimer, 1998; Moser, 2000). This operator
identifies all overlapping or intersecting codes for any coded text segment and for any pair of
codes entered into the analysis as operands, which are metaphors and self-concept aspects in this
study. Thus, all coded statements in the interviews that referred to specific self-concept aspects
and co-occurred with specific metaphors, e.g. co-occurrences of statements about the ideal self
with path metaphors and so on, could be identified. These frequencies of co-occurrences between
self-concept aspects and metaphors helped identify patterns of associations between self-concept
aspects and metaphors in the text, and were then further analyzed statistically by exporting the
results of the co-occurrence analysis into SPSS and by testing them for significant differences in
the data set, using Chi-square-statistics and configuration-frequency-analysis. Configuration
frequency analysis (CFA) is a statistical procedure based on Chi-square, which allows for the
analysis of large numbers of cross-tabs simultaneously and thus enables pattern recognition of
significant combinations of metaphors and self-concept aspects in the present study.
This newly developed two-step procedure of co-occurrence analysis in ATLAS/ti, and further
multivariate statistical analysis with SPSS, allowed testing for three-way interactions when
working with double-coded textual data, one coding level being metaphor categories, and the
other coding level being self-concept categories (Moser, 2003). It is important to note that the
results of co-occurrence analyses are a special type of aggregated data referring to the total
number of metaphors and self-concept aspects as data base, and not to the number of participants
as data base.
RESULTS STUDY 1
Metaphor Analysis
When talking about themselves, participants used a total of only 22 metaphor source domains.
This number of metaphor models is surprisingly low, considering that a total of 3899
metaphorical expressions could be identified in study 1 in only 12 interviews (table 1, row 1).
Moreover, only eight source domains represented 68% of all metaphorical expressions
participants used when talking about self-relevant experiences. Scientific and technological
metaphors clearly dominated, with metaphorical expressions such as “step on the gas” when
explaining the attitude towards the future, and “being on the same wavelength” when talking
about relationship quality etc. These were followed by container, path, visual, balance, fighting,
and economic metaphors. Inter-rater reliability measures were satisfactory for all metaphor
categories with an overall Kappa coefficient of .83 across all metaphor categories (table 1, data
represented in first rows).

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
160
Table 1. Metaphor Source Domain Frequencies, Reliabilities (Study 1 - Row 1, Study 2 - Row 2)
Rank
Category
N
%
Reliability R
Example of metaphorical expression
1.
4.
Science/Technology
656
135
17
8
.84
.78
Being on the same wave length
2.
3.
Container
498
177
13
11
.88
.89
Being an open/closed person
3.
1.
Path
333
252
9
15
.86
.96
Taking one step at a time
4.
7.
Visual
318
107
8
6
.99
.87
Seeing the problem
5.
2.
Balance / Weight
260
178
7
11
.94
.89
To shoulder reponsibility
6.
11.
Fighting
218
63
6
4
.78
.85
To take a stand
7.
8.
Economy
161
88
4
5
.81
.68
Emotional costs
8.
10.
Law
16
67
4
4
.80
.86
Allowing for something
9.
12.
Bonding
138
47
4
3
.93
.80
Having strong family ties
10.
15.
Verticality
136
31
3
2
.88
1.00
Being beyond someone
11.
13.
Nature
133
47
3
3
.74
1.00
To steal someone’s thunder
12.
5.
Body
119
127
3
8
.75
.88
Feeling queasy about something
13.
14.
Play / Sports
101
43
3
3
.75
.88
Making a poker face
14.
17.
Illness
91
22
2
1
.95
.60
Delirious with joy
15.
21.
Acoustic
87
14
2
1
.98
.67
To strike the right note
16.
6.
Near-far
86
108
2
7
.88
1.00
Being close to someone
17.
9.
Part-whole
83
79
2
5
.58
.71
To be part and parcel of something
18.
20.
Art
77
15
2
1
.86
1.00
Provide a framework for something
19.
22.
Cycle
74
11
2
1
.89
.50
Being subject to fluctuations
20.
18.
Front-back
53
22
1
1
.88
.75
Doing something behind one’s back
21.
16.
Tactile
44
24
1
1
1.00
1.00
Being touched by something
22.
22.
Other metaphors
72
17
2
1
-
-
Totals All categories
Study 1
Study 2
N
3899
1692
%
100
100
Cohen’s Kappa
.83
.85
‘Other metaphors’ are source domains with an occurrence of 20 or less metaphorical expressions in study 1
(RELIGION, GEDNER, TASTING, SMELLING) and 10 or less in study 2 (WORK, TASTING, SMELLING).

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
161
Identification of Self-Concept Aspects
Direct and indirect self-relevant statements were identified and coded into six different
categories of self-concept aspects as described above. No residual category was needed and
inter-rater reliabilities were satisfactory for all self-concept categories (table 2, data of study 1
represented in the first rows). Inter-correlations between self-concept aspects showed significant
correlations (p<.05) between actual self and self change (r=.62), ideal and social self (r=.65),
ought and ideal self (r=.78) and ought and social self (r=.60).
Table 2. Self-Concept Categories Frequencies, Reliabilities (Study 1 - Row 1, Study 2 - Row 2)
Rank
N
%
Reliability R
Examples of self-relevant statements
1.
2.
Ideal self
317
224
27
26
.90
.94
I know exactly what my dream job has to look
like
2.
3.
Actual self
278
165
24
19
.74
.85
I believe being conscientious is just me
3.
1.
Social self
268
307
23
36
.78
.76
I myself am not coming from an academic
background
4.
4.
Negative
self
132
71
11
8
.63
.93
The others are excellent students, I am sure I
cannot do this
5.
6.
Ought self
91
38
8
4
.65
1.00
I set the same standards for my partner as for
myself
6.
5.
Self-change
78
45
7
5
.68
.78
Earlier, I never thought I could be on the same
level as them
Totals
Study 1
Study 2
N
1164
850
%
100
100
Cohen’s Kappa
.79
.80
Identification of Patterns
In study 1, configuration-frequency-analysis of co-occurrences between metaphors and self-
concept aspects showed only a few statistically significant associations, such as a significant
over-representation of weight and balance metaphors for the actual self (+6% of the general
distribution, p<.05), and a significant under-representation of fighting metaphors for the ideal
self (-4% of the general distribution, p<.05). Further patterns were found between ought self and
law metaphors (+5%), ideal self and path metaphors (+4%), negative self and balance metaphors
(-5%), self change and visual and economic metaphors (both -4%), or social self and visual
metaphors (-4%), but were not statistically significant.
There were significant differences between men and women for overall metaphor use (p=0.000),
but not for the three-way interaction between gender, metaphor source domains, and self-concept
aspects. However, analysis of effect size showed that the effect was not very strong with
Cramer’s V = .113, and the high significance probably due to the large number of almost 4000
metaphors. This was confirmed by a comparison of relative frequencies of co-occurrences for all
metaphor source domains, which showed that relative differences between men and women
ranged only between ± 1%.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
162
Differences were also found in metaphor use at the individual level. Configuration-frequency
analysis showed significant differences among the participants in overall metaphor use
(p=0.000), but also significant differences for single metaphor source domains for 9 out of 12
participants. Otherwise rather rare metaphor source domains, such as metaphors of the domains
of art, near-far, body, and play/sports were significantly over-represented at the individual level
in study 1. These individual differences were also consistent across the different self-concept
aspects of actual self, ought self, negative self, social self, and self change, as well as across the
content categories of relationship quality and success.
Controls
All results were controlled for the number of words in each interview, as lengths of interviews
varied considerably and word count and number of metaphors correlated significantly (r = .88, p
< .01). However, the relative number of metaphors was constantly between 2% and 3% for all
interviews in relation to the total word count in each interview.
DISCUSSION - STUDY 1
It was the first aim of study 1 to determine whether metaphors were used when talking about the
self. It can be safely said that talking about the self was highly metaphorical, the textual data
from 12 interviews yielding a total of a 3899 metaphorical expressions, which could be reliably
identified across three independent raters. The second aim was to arrive at a reliable
classification of metaphor source domains for all metaphorical expressions. This second aim was
achieved by identifying 22 categories of metaphor source domains with satisfactory inter-rater
reliabilities (see table 1). It was also hypothized that the metaphors found would mostly come
from conventional metaphor source domains. This can indeed be confirmed, because the results
of study 1 are consistent with findings of linguistic empirical studies of conventional metaphor
use in German (Baldauf, 1997; Debatin et al., 1997; Jäkel, 1997; Traugott, 1985). Moreover, the
fact that only eight source domains represented 68% of all metaphors identified gives further
support to the notion that the self is expressed and communicated in conventional terms. Further
evidence of conventional metaphor use was also found in the identification of the so-called
“kinesthetic image schemata” as metaphor source domains. Lakoff and Johnson (1980) postulate
image schemata to be universally valid metaphor source domains and expect to find them in all
languages. So-called image schemata represent fundamental human experiences such as being
able to move, e.g., “move on with my life”, basic bodily experiences, e.g., “having to digest the
bad news first”, and their physical limitations, orientation in space, and so on. Image schemata
include the metaphor source domains of CONTAINER, PATH, BALANCE, BONDING,
CYCLE, NEAR-FAR, VERTICALITY, PART-WHOLE, and FRONT-BACK, which indeed
could all be identified in the empirical data of study 1. Three further metaphor source domains
(VISION, ACOUSTICS, and TOUCH) also refer to basic sensory activities and are therefore
assumed to be related to the basic bodily experiences represented by image schemata. All other
metaphor source domains are not only found in other empirical studies on conventional metaphor
use, but also represent metaphorical expressions of central domains of experience in
industrialized countries, such as SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY, ECONOMICS, LAW, and
SPORTS, as well as the omnipresent domains of HEALTH and ILLNESS, BODY, and
NATURE.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
163
It was also possible to reliably identify six different self-concept aspects (see table 2). This is
important as a basis for the more complex analysis of pattern identification, but also because up
to date, the different aspects of the self-concept postulated in self-discrepancy and self-schemata
theory have rarely been identified in statements made in natural speech.
When looking at corresponding patterns of self-concept aspects and metaphor source domains,
there was a preference for representing the actual self in terms of balance metaphors. Students
described their current situation as being in or off balance with respect to their self-perception.
The metaphor source domain of balance for the actual self makes sense, because it lies in the
very nature of the concept of actual self that it is a relational concept, which is always contrasted
to either the negative or the ideal self or both. Balance metaphors allow expressing
metaphorically how much somebody feels weighted down or lifted up by (un-)satisfactory
circumstances, and which aspects of the self are in or off balance when putting them on the scale
of desirable and non-desirable self-aspects.
Not surprisingly, there was also a significant under-representation of fight and war metaphors for
the ideal self. Since war metaphors are generally negatively co-notated, this metaphor source
domain is rarely chosen to describe the ideal self. On the other hand, there was an
overrepresentation of path metaphors for the ideal self, thus symbolizing the ideal self as the goal
to attain at the end of the path, as the direction to take for self development and so on. There was
also a correspondence between ought self and law metaphors, confirming that norms and rules
important for the self are expressed in corresponding metaphors referring to social and legal
conventions.
Gender differences were also found, which is not surprising considering that metaphors convey
social conventions and are known to differ along age and social differences. However, the effect
size was small, so that interpretation of these gender differences would need further confirmation
in larger samples. Individual differences in metaphor use were another interesting pattern, which
might indicate habitual metaphor use and an individual affinity for certain domains of activity or
interest, such as sports, art and so on. As an experimental study has shown (Ottati et al., 1999),
individual interests and experiences in certain fields such as sports will influence the attention
paid to information provided in sports metaphors, even if the information itself is negative.
Individual metaphor preferences thus have important implications for persuasion, negotiation
and decision-making research.
To confirm the metaphors identified in study 1, a second study was conducted with a larger
sample of different university students, using a more standardized procedure and additional
personality measures. An important aspect was also to see whether the inductively identified
self-concept aspects could be validated internally by additional well-established personality
measures as they were central to the identification of self-metaphor-patterns.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
164
METHOD STUDY 2
Study 2 was designed as a replication study with the same sampling frame as in study 1, only
with a larger sample of students and a more standardized written procedure with the identical
interview schedule. Thus, the same metaphor source domains were expected to be found in the
second study to confirm the reliability of results of the first study. Additionally, participants
completed the German version of the NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, Borkenau &
Ostendorf, 1993). Since content-analysis of self-concept aspects is not an established
methodology in self-concept research, it was important to have an established measure of
personality in addition to the content-analysis of written statements. The following significant
correlations between self-concept aspects and big five dimensions were expected: It was
expected that the negative self would correlate positively with neuroticism and negatively with
extraversion, the ought self positively with consciousness and negatively with extraversion, and
that the social self should correlate positively with openness to experience and agreeableness.
Sample
63 graduate students from the University of Zurich participated in study 2. Participants were in
average 24 years old, psychology majors and mostly female (N=50 or 79% female students,
N=13 or 21% male students).
Procedure and Materials
Study 2 was conducted in the lab and students were asked to write about their current self-
perception, about at least two incidents of success and failure in both professional and private life
in the past, and about their feelings, hopes, and fears for the future, both privately and
professionally. The written questions were identical to the interview questions in study 1 (see
interview schedule in appendix). Afterwards, participants completed the German version of the
NEO-Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, Borkenau & Ostendorf, 1993).
Data Analysis - Study 2
For the written reports of the 63 students, data analysis was identical to the 3-step procedure
described for study 1, with two separate levels of analysis for self-concept aspects and
metaphors. Again, inter-rater reliability was measured for all categories, and is reported in tables
1 and 2, where all results for study 2 are reported in the second rows. In a third step, co-
occurrences between metaphors and self-concept aspects were calculated with the Atlas/ti
software, and the resulting frequencies were tested for statistical significance, using crosstabs,
and configure frequency analysis like in study 1. In addition, correlations between the big five
factors, self-concept aspects and metaphors were analyzed in study 2.
RESULTS - STUDY 2
Metaphor Analysis
First of all, replication of the 22 metaphor source domains found in study 1 was successful in
study 2 (table 1). Reliability measures were similar or above the ones for study 1, with an overall
Cohen’s Kappa of .85. Ranking of the metaphor categories changed somewhat, but again 71% of

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
165
all metaphors are represented by only 8 metaphor source domains, which were identical to the
ones found in study 1.
Several gender differences could be found in metaphor use in study 2, with a stronger effect than
in study 1 (Cramer’s V = .164, p < .01). Men in the sample of study 2 showed a significantly
greater preference for CONTAINER metaphors, and a significantly lower preference for
ECONOMIC metaphors than women, while the overall frequency of metaphor use shows no
gender difference.
Identification of Self-Concept Aspects
The same procedure as in study 1 was applied to identify all direct and indirect self-relevant
statements. Again, it was possible to code all self-relevant statements into the same six categories
of self-concept aspects as in study 1. No residual category was needed and inter-rater reliabilities
were satisfactory for all self-concept categories, with an overall Cohen’s Kappa of .80 (table 2,
data of study 2 represented in the second rows). No gender differences were found for self-
relevant statements.
Inter-correlations between self-concept aspects showed significant correlations (p<.05) between
actual and ought self (r = .27), ideal and social self (r = .27), and ought and social self (r = .28).
There were also significant correlations between self-concept aspects and the Big Five
dimensions, thus confirming that the self-concept aspects analyzed in studies 1 and 2 did actually
capture relevant personality dimensions. As expected, statements about the negative self
correlated positively with neuroticism (r = .33, p<.01), and negatively with extraversion (r = -.29,
p<.05). Statements about the ought-self also correlated negatively with extraversion (r = -.26,
p<.05) as expected, but did not with consciousness, and statements about the social self
correlated positively with openness to experience (r = .27, p<.05) as expected, but not with
agreeableness.
Identification of Patterns
The configuration-frequency-analysis of co-occurrences in study 2 showed several significant
associations between metaphors and self-concept aspects (p<.05 for all results reported below):
For example between actual self and path metaphors (+4% above the expected distribution) and
near-far metaphors (-3%), between statements about the ideal self and path metaphors (+5%) and
visual metaphors (-6%), the negative self and visual and verticality metaphors (both +5%) and
near-far metaphors (-6%), ought self and play and sports (+20%) and law metaphors (+6%) and
path metaphors (-5%), self change and path (+6%) and visual (+5%) and balance metaphors (-
5%), and social self and path metaphors (-4%).
The analysis on the textual level was in part confirmed by further correlational analysis at the
subject level, where associations between self-concept aspects and metaphors as well as NEO-
FFI dimensions and metaphors were analyzed and are represented in table 3.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
166
Table 3. Correlations between Metaphors, Self-Concept Aspects, & Big 5 Dimensions
Actual
Self
Ideal
Self
Negative
Self
Ought
Self
Self
Change
Social
Self
Agree-
ableness
Open-
ness
Extra
version
Neuro-
ticism
Con-
sciousness
Science&technology
.32*
.18
.02
.19
.09
.19
.26*
.21
-.03
-.01
.08
Container
.26*
-.13
.18
.11
.53**
.24
.14
.30*
.07
.08
.02
Path
.43**
.15
.17
.24
.32*
.30*
.03
.28*
-.05
-.16
.04
Visual
.50**
.05
.10
.33*
.45**
.29*
.12
-.06
-.01
-.03
-.13
Balance & weight
.31*
.18
.17
.24
.18
.42**
.15
.05
.04
.01
.12
Fighting
.23
.12
.27
.35
.04
.27*
. 04
.00
.04
-.16
.04
Law
.16
.20
-.03
.32*
.14
.33*
.05
.09
-.10
-.04
.12
Economy
.09
-.01
.12
.30*
.13
.20
-.18
-.05
.03
-.17
.23
Bonding
.17
.14
.22
.19
.39**
.14
-.14
.14
-.14
.36**
-.06
Verticality
-.05
-.18
.05
.20
.09
-.12
-.01
-.12
-.21
.07
-.18
Nature
.29*
.05
.29*
.10
.33**
-.04
.05
-.02
-.01
.00
-.23
Body
.17
.14
.18
.29*
.24
.33**
.25*
-.11
.02
.07
-.01
Play & sports
.33**
.12
-.04
.33**
-.03
.33**
.05
.24
-.06
-.10
-.08
Illness
-.05
.24
.01
-.16
.13
.24
-.11
.07
.09
-.03
.07
Acoustic
.16
.01
.01
-.09
.10
.09
.05
-.17
-.10
-.01
-.17
Near & far
.13
.10
-.21
.03
.23
.27*
.07
.03
.21
.01
.08
Part & whole
.19
.02
-.10
.20
.25
.25**
.18
.18
.22
-.11
.15
Art
.07
-.19
.05
-.04
-.02
-.12
-.13
-.21
-.08
.17
.05
Cycle
-.18
.02
-.13
-.20
.09
.07
.22
-.03
.21
-.10
.20
Front & back
.38**
.09
-.14
.21
.17
.12
.18
.13
.01
-.15
.01
Tactile
.23
.05
.16
.11
-.00
.17
.04
.04
-.03
-.09
-.19
Residual metaphors
.07
.00
.11
.00
.16
.13
.13
.16
-.01
-.13
-.23
** = p < .01, * = p < .05
DISCUSSION - STUDY 2
Both levels of analysis, metaphor source domains and self-concept aspects could be reliably
confirmed in study 2 for a larger sample under more standardized conditions, which was the
central aim of study 2. Again a very small number of only eight metaphor source domains
sufficed to describe 71% of all metaphorical expressions found in the written texts (68% in study
1). Content analysis of self-concept aspects was further confirmed by the additional assessment
with the NEO-FFI dimensions and showed significant correlations between self-concept aspects
and the dimensions of the five factor model of personality as expected. Exceptions were found
for the ought self, which correlated negatively with extraversion as expected, but not with
consciousness, and for the social self, which correlated positively with openness to experience as
expected, but not with agreeableness.
The correlations between metaphors, self-concept aspects and big five dimensions at the
individual subject level in study 2 gave further insight into the metaphorical representation of

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
167
self-knowledge. As shown in table 3, SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY metaphors correlated
significantly with statements about the actual self and agreeableness. This most likely reflects the
typical language use and social norms of the student sample, where technical terms and scientific
expressions are widely accepted and representative of the actual self and the relevant peer group
of fellow students. Container metaphors correlated with statements about self change and the
NEO-FFI dimension “openness to experience”. This is not surprising either, because in western
industrial countries the self is often metaphorically conceptualized as CONTAINER, which
needs to be “opened up to changes and new experiences”(Lakoff & Johnson, 1980; Wolf, 1994).
Similarly, PATH metaphors also correlated with actual self, self change, social self, and
openness to experience, which can exemplified by examples of metaphorical speech such as
“finding one’s path”, “being on the right path”, “being at a crossroad”, “heading in the same
direction” etc. and thus suitable to expressing companionship, processes of self-search, self-
assurance and self-orientation in times of change. VISUAL metaphors correlated with actual,
ought, and social self and self change statements, thus reflecting the cultural prominence of
“seeing” as synonymous to “knowing” about one self (D'Andrade, 1995). BALANCE and
WEIGHT metaphors correlated with statements about the actual and social self, metaphorically
mapping the experience of being “balanced” or “unbalanced” within oneself as well as in social
relations. FIGHTING metaphors only correlated with the social self, indicating that “fighting,
losing, winning and fleeing” always needs an ally or an enemy. LAW metaphors are the
metaphorical representation of norms, rituals and social conventions, and are consequently
correlated with statements about the ought-self and social self. ECONOMIC metaphors
correlated only with the ought self, possibly reflecting individual levels of reciprocity in social
relationships and levels of achievement participants set themselves, representing their respective
costs and rewards in economic metaphors. BONDING metaphors correlated with statements
about self change, but also with neuroticism, possibly reflecting the need to change social ties or
the desire for more social ties. NATURE metaphors were correlated with actual and negative self
and self change, reflecting the perception of personal “growth one lacked, possessed or aimed to
achieve”. Metaphors referring to BODILY FUNCTIONS were correlated with ought self, social
self and agreeableness, and thus reflecting what is culturally and socially acceptable in terms of
basic needs such as “hunger, thirst, digestion” etc. Similar to LAW metaphors, PLAY and
SPORTS metaphors are often used to represent social norms and cultural conventions, and were
consequently correlated with the actual self, ought and social self. PART-WHOLE metaphors
were correlated with the social self, thus mapping metaphorically the extent to which one “felt
part or not of a larger social network” and “embedded” in a whole. Last, FRONT-BACK
metaphors were correlated with the actual self, thus showing the participants’ current orientation
in a metaphorical space, representing norms, goals and significant others in that personal space
and in relation to the self.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
It was the aim of the research presented here to look at conventional metaphors of the self as a
symbolic environment. It was hypothized that talking about oneself and the different aspects of
self-schemata would a) require the use of metaphors, and b) follow conventional metaphor use
by drawing metaphors from a limited pool of widely spread conventional metaphor source
domains. This is of great interest to social psychologists, because looking at metaphors of the
self will reveal the interaction between social and cultural concepts and self-knowledge at a
micro-level. It would also mean that the notion of “authenticity” of self-knowledge would have

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
168
to be discussed critically from both a methodological and theoretical point of view. This is of
special importance for research on the self as it relies to a large extent on verbal data.
As the results show, the complex topic of the self is largely expressed in terms of conventional
metaphors. In both studies, the same limited number of conventional metaphor source domains
was found when people talked about the self. These conventional metaphor source domains
consist either of concrete experiences, which are often originally of a physical nature, such as
“walking along a path”, “being ill”, or else refer to central cultural skills, such as the use of
technical devices, like “driving a car”, “using a computer”, and so forth. These concrete
experiences are used as metaphor models to express and communicate the individual experiences
of the abstract concept of “self”.
In study 2, it was possible to confirm the metaphor source domains found in study 1 for the
chosen sampling frame of university students and to relate the results of the content analysis of
self-concept aspects in study 1 to the NEO-FFI dimensions as expected. Study 2 also provided
further insight into the metaphorical mapping of the self-concept. The dominance of SCIENCE
and TECHNOLOGY metaphors revealed a metaphor use typical for the student samples in both
studies. The self was often metaphorically represented as a CONTAINER, thereby following
cultural norms of representation in western societies (D'Andrade & Strauss, 1992; Lakoff, 1987).
The importance of self change at the point of graduation from university was represented by
using PATH and NATURE metaphors. VISUAL metaphors were often used synonymous for
knowledge. Equally important was the metaphorical representation of social ties by using
BALANCE and BONDING metaphors, but also FIGHTING metaphors to indicate boundaries
and conflict, and the importance of following rules by using PLAY and SPORTS metaphors.
Despite individual differences, speaking and writing about the self seems to be primarily
governed by social and cultural conventions, which are represented in the conventional
metaphors used in both samples. At the same time, it is also important to note that the use of
conventional metaphors will also ensure communication, whereas new and unconventional
metaphors always pose the risk of misunderstanding.
It is important to note that at this point the results are limited to the students samples used in both
studies and cannot be generalized beyond that particular sampling frame. Further research should
therefore aim to expand the knowledge about metaphorical representations of self-knowledge to
other (sub-)cultures. It will be important to study whether the same few metaphor source
domains and conventional metaphors are used to describe the self and whether metaphor
preferences and/or rank of preferred metaphor source domains differ. Whereas metaphors based
on physical abilities such as movement, taste, sight, and so forth, should not differ very much,
metaphors based on cultural and technical skills should differ according to educational
background, age group, and subculture to name only a few.
Still, the presented research puts forward several questions at the theoretical and methodological
level. First it is important to note that metaphor analysis alone will not be able to solve the
fundamental question of the relation between language and cognition, which of course is implied
in this research. Yet at the same time, the proposed method of metaphor analysis highlights the
question of how the self relates to language as one of the main agents of socialization and
enculturation. From the point of view of metaphor analysis and the results of the presented
studies, the individual “metaphorical self” seems not to be defined by unique or innovative
metaphors for private and inner experiences, but rather by a specific individual combination of

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
169
conventional, everyday metaphors. The conventional metaphors are themselves part of a limited
pool of culturally and socially acceptable representations of knowledge about the self and self-
related processes and experiences.
Methodological Implications
This puts forward many questions of what is actually measured when the self is assessed through
standardized scales or open questions. Is it the explicit content of self-statements, the self-
knowledge revealed in statements such as “I am ambitious”? Or is it rather implicit in the way
the self is expressed metaphorically as a fighter, as a wanderer on a path, an actor on a stage?
And how do the two aspects of self-expression, self-knowledge and metaphorical structure relate
to each other? Is one an explicit and the other an implicit measure of self? And what does an
implicit metaphorical measure reveal about the self if the metaphors used are conventional and
not idiosyncratic? These are central questions for a field of research concerned with a construct
described as a set of believes about the self (Baumeister, 1998). How are these beliefs shaped by
cultural and social conventions inherent in the language used to express them? What is it social
psychologists measure and describe in statements, scales, and interviews and to what extent
might methods in self-concept research be advanced by measuring the culturally shared
knowledge about the self as represented in metaphors – carefully and reliably? If we agree that
metaphor models might play an important role when assessing the self, this suggests further
underlying questions about research practices in studying the self: What are the defining features
of the self? Is the self expressed authentically when participants talk about themselves in
interviews, give statements such as in the TST by Kuhn or respond to standardized
questionnaires? Can the personal information given by participants be interpreted directly as “the
self,” on an item-by-item basis, where values on the self-concept scale or the structure of the
self-narration reveal directly the internal workings of the unique, authentic, and highly
individualistic self? Or might the uniqueness, authenticity, and individuality of the self be
considered instead as the specific individual choice and combination of culturally and socially
defined schemata of possible self-conceptions, for example as being typical of a student sample
where technical metaphors might result in higher agreement because they fit the socially
accepted language use for students? A cursory perusal of often used self-concept scales such as
the Frankfurt self-concept scales (Deusinger, 1986) shows that many items contain metaphors,
which is not surprising, since the self has to be expressed in concrete terms. A systematic
analysis of metaphors in standardized self-concept scales, and secondary analyses of responses to
these items, might reveal whether there are systematic differences in answers in relation to the
metaphors used, and whether the metaphorical structure of items should be given more
consideration.
Practical Implications of Individual Metaphor Preferences
The individual metaphor preferences in study 1 raise the question of how to understand these
differences and their possible consequences for self perception and action. So far, there exist a
few empirical studies indicating that metaphors might have functions similar to those of implicit
theories (Dweck, 1996), mind-sets (Gollwitzer, 1990), habits (Aarts & Dijksterhuis, 2000) and
automatic behavior (Bargh & Barndollar, 1996). One of these is the experimental study by
Gentner and Gentner (1983) on metaphor models of electricity that was mentioned above.
Equally, the study by Ottati et al. (1999) has shown that metaphors influence information
processing of self-relevant information: If the metaphors used to convey a message were seen as

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
170
self-descriptive, people considered these messages as more important and payed more attention
even if the content of the message itself was negative. The experiments not only showed the
persuasive power of metaphors, but also the important link between metaphors and self-
knowledge. The findings are also consistent with further studies showing that the use of
metaphors facilitates negotiation (Loewenstein et al., 1999; Thompson et al., 2000). Metaphors
have also been applied to study inter-group relations in social and organisational psychology,
especially in the case of organisational change, where metaphors can be used to explicate
different perspectives and help to manage processes of social categorization of in- and out-group
relationships (Tsoukas, 1991; Bouwen, 1998; Palmer & Dunford, 1996; Putnam, Phillips &
Chapman, 1996; Klimoski & Mohammed, 1994; Hill & Levenhagen, 1995; Moser, 2004). Up to
date, the practical implications of metaphors for knowledge management processes and
negotiations have not been fully explored yet. In addition, the analysis of individual differences
in metaphor use would be of clinical interest and support approaches in psychotherapy, which
use metaphors to alter individual self perception and problem-solving skills (Combs &
Freedman, 1990; Efran, Lukens, & Lukens, 1990; Roderburg, 1998; Schachtner, 1999;
Siegelman, 1990).
Theoretical Implications for the Study of the Self in Social Psychology
An ecological conception of self may provide additional help in understanding the relation of
language and self and the role of metaphors. Hormuth (1990) studied the influence of the
physical environment on relocation and self-change processes and, in his “ecology of self”,
postulated that things have the following functions for the self: Things enable the performance of
self-relevant actions, either by being instrumental (the guitar to play music) or by providing the
necessary physical setting (mountains for skiing); things can activate self-relevant cognitions,
such as memories or important goals (looking at pictures, visiting the old school); things enable
self-presentation strategies (clothes, music collection); and things can afford certain behaviors
and provide the setting for certain behaviors (sitting on a chair, being quiet in church).
When applying this to language from an individual point of view, language is first of all a
symbolic environment for the individual that offers certain patterns of interpretation, such as
metaphor models. People have to acquire an adequate mastery of language before they are able
to make selective use of the symbolic environment of language and possibly even add to it.
Based on such an understanding of language, metaphors can be defined as part of the symbolic
environment, and postulated to have functions similar to those of the physical environment
(Moser, 2003): Metaphors help to express and communicate inner needs and feelings (feelings of
joy, anger, fear), metaphors might activate self-relevant cognitions if they conform to individual
attitudes (sport lovers react strongly to messages using sports metaphors), and metaphors can be
used as self-presentation strategies by conveying a desired image of the future self to others in
the sense of Goffman, e.g. the desire to appear young(er) by using metaphors popular with
teenagers. Metaphors may thus be defined as mind settings in the symbolic environment (Moser,
2003), in analogy to the concept of behavior settings in the physical environment (Barker, 1968).
As mind settings, metaphors are relevant for self-perception and behavior. At the same time,
metaphors do not determine the self or behavior. They are, as the term mind setting suggests, a
frame of reference for thought, emotions and actions that should be considered when studying
the self.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
171
REFERENCES
Aarts, H., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2000). Habits as knowledge structures: Automaticity in goal-
directed behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 53-63.
Allbritton, D. W. (1995). When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of
conceptual metaphors. Methaphor and Symbolic Activity, 10(1), 33-46.
Anderson, J. R. (1996). Kognitive Psychologie (2
nd
ed.). Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer
Verlag.
Baldauf, C. (1997). Metapher und Kognition. Grundlagen einer Theorie der Alltagsmetapher.
Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.
Ballarini, L. (1988). Metaphor and teen-ager talk. Metaphor, Communication & Cognition(2),
95-99.
Bargh, J. A., & Barndollar, K. (1996). Automaticity in action: The unconscious as repository of
chronic goals and motives. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action.
Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. New York: Guildford.
Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680-740). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology (4th ed., pp. 680-740). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1993). Neo-Fünf-Faktoren-Inventar (NEO-FFI) nach Costa und
McCrae. Handanweisung. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Bouwen, R. (1998). Relational construction of meaning in emerging organization contexts.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(3), 299-319.
Someren, H. P. A. Boshuizen, T. de Jong & P. Reimann (Eds.), Learning with multiple
representations (pp. 175-196). Oxford: Elsevier.
Buchholz, M. B. (1996). Metaphern der 'Kur'. Eine qualitative Studie zum
psychotherapeutischen Prozess. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Combs, G., & Freedman, J. (1990). Symbol, story, ceremony. Using metaphor in individual and
family therapy. London: Norton.
Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order (Neuauflage 1964: New York: Schoken
ed.). New York: Scribner's Sons.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
172
Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1995). Discourse, identity, and aging. In J. F. Nussbaum & J.
Coupland (Eds.), Handbook of communication and aging research (pp. 79-103). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rochberg-Halton, E. (1981). The meaning of things: Domestic symbols
and the self. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
D'Andrade, R. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
D'Andrade, R., & Strauss, C. (Eds.). (1992). Human motives and cultural models. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology. Handbook of basic principles (pp. 777-798). New York: Guilford.
Debatin, B., Jackson, T. R., & Steuer, D. (Eds.). (1997). Metaphor and rational discourse.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Deusinger, I. M. (1986). Die Frankfurter Selbstkonzeptskalen (FSKN). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Dittmar, H. (1992). The social psychology of material possessions. To have is to be.
Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Dutke, S. (1994). Mentale Modelle: Konstrukte des Wissens und Verstehens.
Kognitionspsychologische Grundlagen für die Software-Ergonomie. Göttingen: Verlag für
Angewandte Psychologie.
Dweck, C. S. (1996). Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In P. M. Gollwitzer
& J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action. Linking cognition and motivation to behavior
(pp. 69-90). New York: Guildford Press.
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.
Efran, J. S., Lukens, M. D., & Lukens, R. J. (1990). Language, structure, and change.
Frameworks of meaning in psychotherapy. London: Norton.
Fiedler, K., Semin, G. R., Finkenauer, C., & Berkel, I. (1995). Actor-observer bias in close
relationships: The role of self-knowledge and self-related language. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(5), 525-538.
Franzoi, S. L. (1996). Social psychology. Dubuque, IA: Brown & Benchmark.
Galliker, M., Herman, J., Imminger, K., & Weimer, D. (1998). The investigation of contiguity.
Co-occurrence analysis of print media using CD-ROMs as a new date source, illustrated by a
discussion on migrant delinquency in a daily newspaper. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 17(2), 200-219.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
173
Gentner, D. (1989). The mechanisms of analogical learning. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony
(Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 199-241). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Gentner, D., & Grudin, J. (1985). The evolution of mental metaphors in psychology: A 90-year
retrospective. American Psychologist(40), 181-192.
Gentner, D., & Gentner, D. R. (1983). Flowing waters and teeming crowds: Mental models of
electricity. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Eds.), Mental models (pp. 99-129). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gentner, D., & Wolff, P. (2000). Metaphor and knowledge change. In E. Dietrich & A.
Marksman (Eds.), Cognitive dynamics: Conceptual change in humans and machines (pp. 295-
342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. M. (1988). Narrative and self as relationship. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr. (1992). Categorization and metaphor understandig. Psychological Review,
99(3), 572-577.
Gibbs, R. W., Jr., & Colston, H. L. (1995). The cognitive psychological reality of image schemas
and their transformations. Cognitive Linguistics, 6-4, 347-378.
Gigerenzer, G. (1991). From tools to theories: A heuristic of discovery in cognitive psychology.
Psychological Review, 98(2), 254-267.
Giles, H. (1978). Linguistic differentiation in ethnic groups. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation
between social groups (pp. 361-393). London: Academic Press.
Giles, H., Bourhis, R. Y., & Taylor, D. M. (1977). Towards a theory of language in ethnic group
relations. In H. Giles (Ed.), Language, ethnicity, and intergroup relations (pp. 307-348). London:
Academic Press.
Glucksberg, S. (1989). Metaphors in conversation: How are they understood? Why are they
used? Metaphor and Symbolic Activity(4), 125-143.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of the self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition. Foundations of social behavior (pp. 53-92). New
York: Guilford.
Goodman, N., & Elgin, C. Z. (1989). Revisionen, Philosophie und andere Künste und
Wissenschaften. Frankfurt a.M.
Greenwald, A. G., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1984). The self. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.),
Handbook of social cognition (Vol. III, pp. 129-178). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
174
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,
94, 319-340.
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Self-discrepancy theory: What patterns of self-beliefs cause people to
suffer? In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 96-
136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Higgins, E. T., van Hook, E., & Dorfman, D. (1988). Do self-attributes form a cognitive
structure? Social Cognition, 6(3), 177-207.
Hill, R. C., & Levenhagen, M. (1995). Metaphors and mental models: Sensemaking and
sensegiving in innovative and entrepreneurial activities. Journal of Management, 21(6), 1057-
1074.
Hormuth, S. E. (1990). The ecology of the self. Relocation and self-concept change. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jäkel, O. (1997). Metaphern in abstrakten Diskurs-Domänen. Eine kognitiv-linguistische
Untersuchung anhand der Bereiche Geistestätigkeit, Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft. Frankfurt
a.M.: Peter Lang.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Neuauflage 1975: Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press ed.). New York: Holt.
Jones, E. E., & Gerard, H. B. (1967). Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
Kerby, A. P. (1991). Narrative and the self. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Kihlstrom, J. F., & Klein, S. B. (1994). The self as a knowledge structure. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. & T.
K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. I: Basic processes, pp. 153-208).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of
Management, 20(2), 403-437.
Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation of self attitudes. American
Sociological Review, 19, 68-76.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind.
Chigago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor
and thought (2nd ed., pp. 202-251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
175
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites).
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lankton, C. H., & Lankton, S. R. (1991). Geschichten mit Zauberkraft. Die Arbeit mit
Metaphern in der Psychotherapie. München: Pfeiffer.
Liebert, W.-A. (1993). Zur soziohistorischen Dynamik von Sprache und Kognition. Die
Emergenz des Metaphernmodells 'Geld ist Wasser' im 19. Jahrhundert. Papiere zur Linguistik,
49(2), 151-157.
Liebert, W.-A. (1995). The lexicon of metaphor models as a mental tool for analogical problem-
solving in science. Paper presented at the Current Approaches to the Lexicon. A Selection of
Papers Presented at the 18th LAUDSymposion, Duisburg.
Liebkind, K. (1992). Ethnic identity - challenging the boundaries of social psychology. In G.
Breakwell (Ed.), Social psychology of identity and self-concept (pp. 147-185). London: Surrey
University Press/Academic Press.
Linville, P. W. (1987). Self-complexity as a cognitive buffer against stress-related illness and
depression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 663-676.
Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Gentner, D. (1999). Analogical encoding facilitates
knowledge transfer in negotiation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6(4), 586-597.
Markus, H. (1982). Self-schemata and processing information about the self. In M. Rosenberg &
H. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Social psychology of the self-concept (pp. 50-66). Arlington Heights, IL:
Davidson.
Markus, H., & Kunda, Z. (1986). Stability and malleability of the self-concept. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 858-866.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41(9), 954-969.
Markus, H., & Sentis, K. (1982). The self in social information processing. In J. Suls (Ed.),
Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 41-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Markus, H., & Zajonc, R. B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. I: Theory and
method, pp. 137-230). New York: Random House.
Markus, H. R., Kitayama, S., & Heiman, R. J. (1996). Culture and "basic" psychological
principles. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology. Handbook of basic
principles (pp. 857-913). New York: Guilford.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
176
McAdams, D. P. (2001). The psychology of life stories. Review of General Psychology, 5(2),
100-122.
McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Salience of ethnicity in the
spontaneous self-concept as a function of one's ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 511-520.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Geist, Identität und Gesellschaft (10. ed.). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp TB
Wissenschaft.
Moser, K. S. (2000). Metaphor analysis in psychology - method, theory, and fields of
application. Forum: Qualitative Social Research (on-line journal), 1(2), 22 paragraphs, available
at: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/22-00/22-00moser-e.htm.
Moser, K. S. (2003). Metaphern des Selbst. Wie Sprache, Umwelt und Selbstkognition
zusammenhängen (2nd ed.). Lengerich: Pabst Science Publishers, available as e-book at
www.ciando.com.
Moser, K. S. (2004). The role of metaphors in acquiring and transmitting knowledge. In M.
Fischer, N. Boreham & B. Nyhan (Eds.), European perspectives on learning at work. The
acquisition of work process knowledge (pp. 148-163). Luxembourg: Cedefop Reference Series
56.
Ortony, A. (1993). Metaphor, language, and thought. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought
(2nd ed., pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ortony, A., & Fainsilber, L. (1989). The role of metaphors in descriptions of emotions. In Y.
Wilks (Ed.), Theoretical issues in natural language processing (pp. 178-182). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ottati, V., Rhoads, S., & Graesser, A. C. (1999). The effect of metaphor on processing style in a
persuasion task: A motivational resonance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77(4), 688-697.
Palmer, I., & Dunford, R. (1996). Conflicting uses of metaphors: Reconceptualizing their use in
the field of organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 21(3), 691-717.
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior, 10, 147-169.
Roderburg, S. (1998). Sprachliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit. Metaphern in
Therapiegesprächen. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts Verlag.
Putnam, L. L., Phillips, N., & Chapman, P. (1996). Metaphors of communication and
organization. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies
(pp. 375-408). London: Sage.
Ricoeur, P. (1986). The rule of metaphor: Multi-disciplinary studies of the creation of meaning
in language. London: Routledge.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
177
Rosenberg, M., & Kaplan, H. B. (Eds.). (1982). Social psychology of the self-concept. Arlington
Heights, IL: Davidson.
Schachtner, C. (1999). Ärztliche Praxis. Die gestaltende Kraft der Metapher. Frankfurt a.M.:
Suhrkamp TB Wissenschaft.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and
interpersonal relations. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Siegelman, E. Y. (1990). Metaphor and meaning in psychotherapy. New York: Guilford.
Singer, J. L., & Kolligian, J., Jr. (1987). Personality: Developments in the study of private
experience. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 533-574.
Singer, J. L., & Kolligian, J., Jr. (1987). Personality: Developments in the study of private
experience. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 533-574.
Smith, M. B. (1991). The metaphorical basis of selfhood. In M. B. Smith (Ed.), Values, self, and
society: Toward a humanist social psychology (pp. 73-93). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Snygg, D., & Combs, A. W. (1949). Individual behavior: A new frame of reference for
psychology. New York: Harper.
Tedeschi, J. T. (1986). Private and public experiences and the self. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.),
Public self and private self (pp. 1-20). New York: Springer.
Thompson, L., Gentner, D., & Loewenstein, J. (2000). Avoiding missed opportunities in
managerial life: Analogical training more powerful than individual case training. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 60-75.
Traugott, E. C. (1985). 'Conventional' and 'dead' metaphors revisited. In W. Paprotté & R.
Dirven (Eds.), The ubiquity of metaphor: Metaphor in language and thought. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Tsoukas, H. (1991). The missing link: A transformational view of metaphors in organzational
science. Academy of Management Review, 566-585.
Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (Eds.). (1989). Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York: W.W. Norton.
Wicklund, R. A., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wolf, H.-G. (1994). A folk model of the "internal self" in light of the contemporary view of
metaphor. The self as subject and object. Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang.

Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 12, No. 11) (Moser)
178
APPENDIX: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE
Open interview questions:
Please describe your current situation, both privately and professionally, in terms of well-being
and satisfaction.
Please describe at least two experiences of success in the past and describe what exactly made
the described experiences a success.
Have you ever experienced failure in the past? If so, please describe the experience of failure in
detail.
What successes do you wish for in the future? Why do you want to attain those goals?
Please describe at least two experiences of good relationships in the past and describe what
qualified them as good relationships.
Have you ever experienced bad relationships in the past? If so, please describe the experience of
bad relationships in detail.
What types of good relationships do you wish for in the future? Why do you want to have those
relationships?
ENDNOTES
[1] All examples of metaphorical expressions are taken form interviews in study 1. The
participants were native speakers of Swiss-German; all quotes from the interviews have been
translated into English. Notations follow conventions established in metaphor research with
metaphorical expressions in italics and metaphor source domains in capital letters.
AUTHOR NOTE
The presented research was supported by research fellowships from the Swiss National Science
Foundation and the Janggen-Poehn-Foundation, Switzerland.
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY
Karin S. Moser, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at the
University of Zurich, Switzerland, and a Visiting Associate Professor of Social and Business
Psychology at the University of Goettingen, Germany. Her research interests focus on
cooperative behavior and information sharing in groups and organizations, verbal representation
of knowledge and the role of the self-concept in social perception. E-mail:
kmoser@sozpsy.uzh.ch