Boundary extension (BE) is a cognitive phenomenon in which people seem to misperceive visual scenes. Increasedattention and emotion have been shown to reduce or reverse the effects of BE (e.g., Mathews & Mackintosh, 2004). Wouldpeople for whom food is highly appetitive (vs. not) have similar responses when shown photographs containing food (vs.no food)? Our hypothesis was not supported: All participants experienced BE. More BE was observed in response to food(vs. nonfood) photographs, but this difference was more pronounced for those who served as controls and less pronouncedfor those who think of food as highly appetitive. We suggest that having similar perceptual experiences in response to food(vs. nonfood) photographs might be related to difficulties involving the inhibition of automatic behaviors (e.g., Mobbs etal., 2010) but argue that more research is needed to determine whether BE could be used for clinical purposes.

Using the prepositions in and on, Jamrozik and Gentner (2015; 2014; 2011) explored a particular factor of meaning that was hypothesized to serve as a metaphorical link between spatial and abstract concepts. Across several studies, these researchers have provided evidence for the idea that there is a “continuum of control” that exists for both spatial and abstract uses of in and on. Our research explores other potential meaning factors that might play a role in non-spatial uses of in and on. Our results replicate and extend Jamrozik and Gentner’s (2011) findings. We advocate using a multi-componential approach as research involving indirect metaphors continues moving forward.