本研究旨在探討不同類型的具身隱喻操作如何影響設計流程中的發散思維能力與創造力成果。根據具身認知理論，研究將隱喻類型依據人與物的互動特徵分為四類：姿勢本體隱喻、觸覺感知隱喻、空間互動隱喻與事件動作隱喻，並設計五組對照實驗（含一組自然坐姿控制組）。實驗以標準化的替代用途測驗（AUT）與真實設計任務（流浪動物小屋）為評估載體，分別測量受測者的發散思維能力（流暢性與獨特性）與兩階段發散成果的創造力（新穎性、可行性、相關性、全面性）。
結果顯示：「跳出框框組」在流暢性與新穎性上皆表現最為顯著，能有效激發正向情緒與突破性聯想，為具實務應用潛力之操作；「打破牆壁組」則在設計任務中展現延遲顯效，尤適用於需要結構重構與視角轉換的創意情境；「站姿組」雖在AUT任務中有效，但於複雜設計中效果受限；「抱枕組」則於新穎性層面展現柔性創意風格，能促進感官與人文導向的構想生成。本研究進一步指出，具身隱喻的效果並非線性增強，而需在刺激強度與認知負荷之間取得動態平衡，未來設計教育與創意干預應依任務性質精準匹配隱喻形式，以發揮其最大認知激勵潛能。

This study aims to investigate how the operationalization of different types of embodied metaphors influences divergent thinking performance and creative outcomes within the design process. Grounded in the theory of embodied cognition, this research categorizes metaphor types into four distinct groups based on the interactional characteristics between humans and objects: postural-proprioceptive metaphors, tactile-perceptual metaphors, spatial-interactional metaphors, and event-action metaphors. Five experimental conditions were established, including four metaphor intervention groups and one neutral sitting control group. Standardized Alternative Uses Tasks (AUT) and a real-world design assignment ("Stray Animal Shelter") were employed as evaluation vehicles to measure participants' basic divergent thinking capabilities (fluency and originality) and the creativity of their outcomes across two divergent design phases (novelty, feasibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness).
The results indicate that the "Outside-the-Box" (spatial-interactional) group achieved the most significant performance in both fluency and novelty, effectively triggering positive emotions and breakthrough associations, thereby demonstrating strong potential for practical application. The "Wall-Breaking" (event-action) group exhibited a delayed effect in the design task, making it particularly suitable for creative contexts requiring structural restructuring and perspective shifts. Although the "Standing" (postural-proprioceptive) posture proved effective during the AUT, its efficacy was constrained when applied to complex design tasks. Meanwhile, the "Pillow" (tactile-perceptual) group manifested a soft creative style regarding novelty, facilitating the generation of sensory and human-oriented concepts. This study further demonstrates that the facilitation of embodied metaphors does not scale linearly; instead, it requires a dynamic equilibrium between stimulus intensity and cognitive load. Consequently, future pedagogical strategies in design education and creative interventions should precisely match metaphor modalities with specific task requirements to maximize their cognitive stimulation potential.

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of personality and social psychology, 43(5), 997.
Barsalou, L. W. (1999). Perceptual symbol systems. Behavioral and brain sciences, 22(4), 577-660.
Crilly, N., & Cardoso, C. (2017). Where next for research on fixation, inspiration and creativity in design? Design studies, 50, 1-38.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design studies, 22(5), 425-437.
Dugosh, K. L., & Paulus, P. B. (2005). Cognitive and social comparison processes in brainstorming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3), 313-320.
Duncker, K., & Lees, L. S. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological monographs, 58(5), i.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1996). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. MIT press.
Friedman, R. S., & Förster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(4), 477.
Gabora, L. (2010). Revenge of the “neurds”: Characterizing creative thought in terms of the structure and dynamics of memory. Creativity Research Journal, 22(1), 1-13.
Gibbs Jr, R. W. (2005). Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive science, 16(3), 395-429.
Goldschmidt, G. (1994). On visual design thinking: the vis kids of architecture. Design studies, 15(2), 158-174.
Grady, J. E. (1997). Foundations of meaning: Primary metaphors and primary scenes. University of California, Berkeley.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence.
Hocevar, D. (1979). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 191.
Horn, D., & Salvendy, G. (2006). Product creativity: conceptual model, measurement and characteristics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7(4), 395-412.
Hutton, E., & Sundar, S. S. (2010). Can video games enhance creativity? Effects of emotion generated by Dance Dance Revolution. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 294-303.
Johnson, M. (2013). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. University of Chicago press.
Keefer, L. A., Landau, M. J., Sullivan, D., & Rothschild, Z. K. (2014). Embodied metaphor and abstract problem solving: Testing a metaphoric fit hypothesis in the health domain. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 12-20.
Kim, J. (2015). Physical activity benefits creativity: squeezing a ball for enhancing creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(4), 328-333.
Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognitive science, 4(2), 195-208.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago press.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., & Sowa, J. F. (1999). Review of Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 631-634.
Leung, A. K.-y., Kim, S., Polman, E., Ong, L. S., Qiu, L., Goncalo, J. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2012). Embodied metaphors and creative “acts”. Psychological science, 23(5), 502-509.
Levav, J., & Zhu, R. (2009). Seeking freedom through variety. Journal of Consumer research, 36(4), 600-610.
Lu, C.-C., & Luh, D.-B. (2012). A comparison of assessment methods and raters in product creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(4), 331-337.
Michael, W. B., & Wright, C. R. (1989). Psychometric issues in the assessment of creativity. In Handbook of creativity (pp. 33-52). Springer.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving (Vol. 104). Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
O'Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (1989). The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale. Creativity Research Journal, 2(4), 267-278.
Osborn, A. F. (1953). Applied imagination.
Plucker, J. A., Makel, M. C., & Qian, M. (2010). Assessment of creativity. The Cambridge handbook of creativity, 48-73.
Restrepo, J., & Christiaans, H. (2004). Problem structuring and information access in design. Journal of Design Research, 4(2), 218-236.
Riskind, J. H., & Gotay, C. C. (1982). Physical posture: Could it have regulatory or feedback effects on motivation and emotion? Motivation and emotion, 6, 273-298.
Runco, M. A. (1992). Children's divergent thinking and creative ideation. Developmental Review, 12(3), 233-264.
Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66-75.
Schon, D. A., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design studies, 13(2), 135-156.
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds. Personality and Individual differences, 44(4), 1012-1021.
Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 309-328.
Simonton, D. K. (2011). Creativity and discovery as blind variation: Campbell's (1960) BVSR model after the half-century mark. Review of general psychology, 15(2), 158-174.
Slepian, M. L., & Ambady, N. (2012). Fluid movement and creativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(4), 625.
Song, L., Zhang, Q., Zhao, B., & Bai, X. (2024). The more open, the more creative? The metaphorical effects of postural openness on divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 54, 101675.
Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C., & Block, C. H. (1958). Does group participation when using brainstorming facilitate or inhibit creative thinking? Administrative science quarterly, 23-47.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Predictive validity of the torrance tests of creative thinking. The Journal of creative behavior.
Vincent, A. S., Decker, B. P., & Mumford, M. D. (2002). Divergent thinking, intelligence, and expertise: A test of alternative models. Creativity Research Journal, 14(2), 163-178.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children.
Wang, X., He, Y., Lu, K., Deng, C., Qiao, X., & Hao, N. (2019). How does the embodied metaphor affect creative thinking? NeuroImage, 202, 116114.
Wang, X., Lu, K., Runco, M. A., & Hao, N. (2018). Break the “wall” and become creative: Enacting embodied metaphors in virtual reality. Consciousness and cognition, 62, 102-109.
Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 9, 625-636.
Xie, J., Lu, Z., Wang, R., & Cai, Z. G. (2016). Remember hard but think softly: Metaphorical effects of hardness/softness on cognitive functions. Frontiers in psychology, 7, 1343.
Xu, J., Shen, H., & Wyer Jr, R. S. (2012). Does the distance between us matter? Influences of physical proximity to others on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 418-423.
陈思维. (2024). 具身认知研究进展综述. Advances in Psychology, 14, 387.