Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/89367
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Englishen_US
dc.creatorTay, Den_US
dc.creatorHuang, Jen_US
dc.creatorZeng, Hen_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-18T03:04:44Z-
dc.date.available2021-03-18T03:04:44Z-
dc.identifier.issn1092-6488en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/89367-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPsychology Pressen_US
dc.rights© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCen_US
dc.rightsThis is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Metaphor and Symbol on 15 May 2019 (online), available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/10926488.2019.1611724.en_US
dc.titleAffective and discursive outcomes of symbolic interpretations in picture-based counseling : a skin conductance and discourse analytic studyen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage96en_US
dc.identifier.epage110en_US
dc.identifier.volume34en_US
dc.identifier.issue2en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/10926488.2019.1611724en_US
dcterms.abstractThe relationship between symbolic expression and affect tends to be investigated from the perspective of recipients in contexts like media, politics, and advertising. A more producer-centric context is picture-based counseling (PBC) where clients are prompted by counselors to interpret pictures creatively as part of the treatment process. Nevertheless, the affective and discursive outcomes of these interpretations remain poorly understood. This paper reports a combined experimental and discourse analytic study which compares prompting strategies in terms of affective engagement, contrasts the discourse characteristics of interpretations following “topic-present” and “topic-absent” prompting strategies, and offers potential implications for PBC practice. Analysis of skin conductance levels suggests that the two prompting strategies which invite symbolic interpretation are more affectively engaging than the literal control (F(2,32) = 6.356, p =.005), but not significantly different from each other. A follow-up discourse analysis revealed the prominence of metaphors in symbolic interpretations, as well as nuanced differences between the discourse outcomes of prompting strategies. Topic-present interpretations tended to produce more systematic ensembles of metaphorical expressions, while topic-absent interpretations were less systematic. The combined findings suggest that orienting clients towards symbolic interpretation is affectively engaging, but the ideal prompting strategy is best determined by context-specific circumstances to be judged by counselors.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMetaphor and symbol, 2019, v. 34, no. 2, p. 96-110en_US
dcterms.isPartOfMetaphor and symbolen_US
dcterms.issued2019-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85065876533-
dc.identifier.eissn1532-7868en_US
dc.description.validate202103 bcvcen_US
dc.description.oaAccepted Manuscripten_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumbera0611-n06-
dc.identifier.SubFormID590-
dc.description.fundingSourceRGCen_US
dc.description.fundingText156033/18Hen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
a0611-n06_Manuscript_revised.pdfPre-Published version861.44 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Final Accepted Manuscript
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

66
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Apr 14, 2024

Downloads

36
Citations as of Apr 14, 2024

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

9
Citations as of Apr 19, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

9
Citations as of Apr 18, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.