The Embodied Simulation of Verticality

The existing literature proposes that metaphorical effects are mediated by semantic priming (Zhang and Li 2012): Sensory-motor experiences prime metaphorically associated knowledge that, in turn, affects judgments and behaviors (e.g., weight primes importance). Accordingly, embodied simulation- which entails the re-enactment of sensory-motor experiences-serves only as a means to prime metaphorical concepts and it is thus not necessary for metaphorical effects to occur. We qualify this metaphor-as-priming explanation by showing that semantic priming and embodied simulation are separate and independent underlying processes of the metaphorical transfer effects of verticality, each leading to opposite effects on preference for status products. We distinguish between metaphors based on dynamic (i.e., moving down) and static (i.e., being down) sensory experiences of verticality. In line with the metaphor-as-priming explanation (Mei- er and Robinson 2004), we suggest that metaphors based on static experiences of verticality (e.g., imagining being in a lower vertical position) are mediated by the priming of associated concepts (e.g., "low" primes "bad"). Since these associations generally result in as- similative responses (Sela and Shiv 2009), static downward vertical- ity reduces preferences for status products. By contrast, because dynamic sensory experiences are processed through the re-enactment of the sensory-motor system (Glenberg and Kaschak 2002; Tettamanti et al. 2005), we suggest that metaphors based on dynamic verticality are mediated by embodied simulation. That is, without embodied simulation there will not be dynamic metaphorical transfer effects on consumer behavior. Furthermore, because the re-enactment of motor experiences (i.e., embodied simu- lation), has been shown to activate regulatory goals (for a review see Pezzulo et al. 2013), we predict that metaphors based on downward movement activate a compensatory goal that increases preferences for high-status products (Sivanathan and Pettit 2010). Moving up, on the other hand, is unlikely to have any effect on consumption prefer- ence because self-worth boosts might have limited effects on prefer- ences for high-status products (Sivanathan and Pettit 2010). There- fore, moving down, not up, is the central focus of our investigation. Study 1 tested our prediction. Participants imagined one scenario of a 2 (direction: up vs. down) x 2 (movement: dynamic vs. static) de- sign, before reporting the per