1. Running head: THE BURDEN OF GUILT 1
The Burden of Guilt: Does a Heavier Conscience Cause Heavier
Perceptions of Physical Weight?
Nechama O’Brien, Kelsi Rarick, Claudia Russell and Marianna Zhang
The University of Chicago

2. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
Abstract
Metaphors such as guilt being a “weight on one’s conscience” and “feeling weighed down
by guilt” connect an abstract concept, in this case guilt, with a concrete perceptual idea, in this
case heaviness. According to the theory of conceptual metaphors (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980),
this link is not merely linguistic, but is an embodied psychological experience that can actively
shape cognition. Previous research has shown that being physically weighed down by a heavy
backpack primes feelings of and behaviors associated with guilt (Kouchaki, 2013). However, it
has yet to be investigated whether this metaphor is bidirectional in nature such that an experience
of the abstract conceptual domain could affect the experience of the physical perceptual domain,
and vice versa. We hypothesize that this metaphor will indeed work in the reverse such that
participants primed with feelings of guilt by recalling a regretful experience will perceive weight
more heavily than those primed with recalling a neutral experience. Although the data analysis
did not quite prove to be significant, it trended strongly in the right direction. We postulate that
the data would have reached significance were we to have had a larger sample size such that the
seemingly outlying large weight estimates in the guilty condition would prove to not actually
have been outliers at all.
2

3. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
Metaphors, like the theory of embodied cognition, are thought to map sensory information to
abstract concepts. For example, the metaphor that guilt is a heavy burden or that cleanliness is
moral purity associates the perceptual experiences of carrying a physical load or of personal
cleanliness with the abstract concepts of guilt or moral purity (Zhong & Lilenquist, 2006). The
theory of embodied cognition proposes that cognition involves the imprint and replay of
perceptual experience in the sensorimotor regions of the brain, where perceptual information is
encoded by neurons and in turn used in various cognitive processes such as “perception,
categorization, and judgement” (Zhong, 2008). Parallely, metaphors are linguistic associations of
perceptual experiences that have been imprinted on abstract concepts. For example, the metaphor
that social rejection is cold is thought to arise from experiences with social interaction
established in infancy in which being held close by one’s caregiver produces warmth and the
lack of this interaction feels cold (Zhong, 2008). Although metaphors of being given the cold
shoulder or an icy stare are not meant to be taken as a literal reference to the actual ambient
temperature, previous research has shown that these perceptual and psychological experiences
can affect one another (Zhong, 2008).
Due to the understanding that metaphors originate one-directionally from an association of
perceptual experiences such as coldness to abstract experiences such as social rejection, it was
previously thought that the influence of metaphors were similarly unidirectional (Zhong 2008).
Hence it was thought that while priming a perceptual experience could elicit an associated
abstract experience, that the reverse of priming an abstract experience would not elicit a
perceptual experience (Zhong, 2008). While some metaphors may be only unidirectional such as
spacial relations and time (Boroditsky, 2000), there is still the possibility that other metaphors
are bidirectional in nature. For example, various research has supported the bidirectionality of
3

4. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
the social rejection is cold metaphor. One study showed that holding cold versus warm objects
manipulated participant’s interpersonal judgements (Williams & Bargh, 2008). Another study
showed that participants made to feel socially excluded on average estimated lower room
temperatures and preferred warmer food (Zhong, 2008). The bidirectional component of
metaphors is thought to be facilitated by repeated covariance of the perceptual and psychological
experiences such that they become an integrated experience (Zhong, 2008).
However it is left to be investigated which metaphors are representations of actual embodied
cognition, whether these representative metaphors are unidirectional or bidirectional, and to what
extent. Our study focuses on the bidirectionality of guilt as a burden metaphor. Guilt as a burden
metaphor is common in the English language with phrases such as a heavy conscience or being
weighed down by guilt. Although it is unclear to the extent through which this metaphor has
cross-cultural applicability, it has also been found to be embedded in other languages such as
Hebrew and Arabic. In Psalms 38:4 translated from Hebrew, David says “my guilt has
overwhelmed me like a burden too heavy to bear” and the Quran, written in Arabic, also employs
the guilt as a burden metaphor (Al-Ankabut 29:13, An-Nahl 16:25, Al-Isra 17:15) (Kouchaki,
2013). Previous research has shown that participants wearing a heavy backpack, as compared to
those wearing a light backpack, will experience increasing feelings of guilt and exhibit guilt-
motivated “restitutional” behavior such as more frequently conforming to social norms of
choosing healthier snacks and cheating less (Kouchaki, 2013). In this study we hypothesized that
the guilt as a burden metaphor is bidirectional in nature such that participants primed with guilt
through writing about an experience they regret would estimate objects to weigh more than a
control group primed with writing about a neutral experience.
4

5. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
Method
Participants
A convenient sample of 38 Native English or Bilingual English speakers were recruited on
campus by face-to-face requests or through online university forums such as posting on a closed
dormitory Facebook group. All participants signed a written and informed consent. Genders were
not controlled for, but recorded to analyze later: 23 Female, 14 Male, 1 They. A total of 5
participants were removed from the experiment, all in the guilt condition: 2 were removed for
guessing the purpose of the experiment, and 3 for making outlier weight estimates (30lbs, 30lbs,
35lbs). Of the remaining 33 participants there were 14 in the guilt condition and 19 in the neutral
condition.
Design
The study was double blind. Guilt was the independent variable for which there were two
conditions: the guilt condition and the neutral condition. The independent variable was a between
subjects design in which each participant was randomly assigned to either the guilt or neutral
condition. Perception of weight was the dependent variable and was measured by obtaining
weight estimates of the same object (5.2lb backpack) from each participant.
Materials
All participants received lined paper and pens to respond to a printed prompt (Fig. 1)
that either asked participants to write about a recent experience that they regret (guilt condition)
or to write about the previous day as objectively as possible (neutral condition).
5
A. In a paragraph, describe a recent experience (in the last month or so) that you
regret. It could be a time you did something wrong or let someone down, or an
experience that made you feel bad about yourself. Be as detailed as possible about
your feelings regarding this experience.
B. In a paragraph, describe what you did yesterday, as objectively as possible. You
might describe your schedule, where you went, what you ate, etc. Be as detailed as
possible in your description.
Fig. 1: Writing Prompts
Prompt A: Guilt condition; Prompt B: Neutral condition Fig. 2
5.2lbs backpack

6. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
All participants received the same backpack (Fig. 2) weighing 5.12lbs and responded to the same
printed backpack questionnaire. Afterwards, on a separate piece of lined paper all participants
responded to a writing prompt asking them to recall a moment that they felt proud of. Finally,
before debriefing, all participants received a piece of paper asking them to write about what they
suspected was the purpose of the study.
Procedure
Each participant was either approached personally by an experimenter on a public campus
space such as a coffee shop, library, or walking around the quad or saw the experiment
advertised on a campus page as a “10min study break” opportunity. All potential participants
were asked whether they speak English fluently as either their native or bilingual language
anyone who said that it was not their first or one of their first languages was thanked and not
asked for further participation. Of the potential participants who were native or bilingual English
speakers were then asked if they would like to participate in a ten minute psychology study being
run for a class project. Those who agreed were given consent forms and explained verbally that
to respect their privacy, the writing they would be asked to do would be kept completely
confidential – the written responses would be neither read nor collected and that they were theirs
to keep and or throw away afterwards.
Each of the participants received the following three tasks in the same order. The first task
was to manipulate the independent variable. Each participant received a folded up writing
prompt at random from a pile of 20 of the guilt and 20 of the neutral priming prompts mixed
together at random. The experimenters were thus kept blind to the condition of the participant.
The participant was handed the prompt, a piece of lined paper, and a pen and told that although
6

7. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
participants took on average 3-5minutes to respond to the prompt, they could have as much time
as they needed as every individual needs a different amount of time to reflect on their
experience. Next they were told that the experimenter would wait at another table to give them
space and privacy and that they should call the experimenter over when they are ready. They
were again reminded that their response would not be read or collected and that they were free to
keep it afterwards, but that the writing prompt itself would be collected, and that when they call
over the experimenter they should have the response and prompt folded up so that the
experimenter would not be able to see them.
Upon the participant’s notification of completion, the experimenters returned and collected
the prompt and gave the participants the second task that was meant to measure the dependent
variable. All participants received the 5.2lb backback and the 10 question survey ostensibly
about the backpack’s fashionability and practicality. The participants were told that they should
explore the backpack freely as they fill out the questionnaire and that the questionnaire would be
kept anonymous, but collected for the experiment. If the participants asked whether they could
try on or open the backpack they were told that they could. The key question embedded in the
survey was to give an estimate of the weight of the backpack. The question was left open ended
so that the participant could use the unit of weight they felt most comfortable with.
After the questionnaire was completed, each participant was given the third task that was
meant to counteract the potential harm of causing one to remember guilt-inducing experiences
and to evaluate whether or not the participant had grasped the purpose of the experiment. Each
participant was given a prompt asking them to write about a moment that made them feel proud
in which they did something altruistic or reached a goal. Participants were told that like last time
the responses to the prompts would not be read or collected and they would be free to keep them
7

8. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
afterwards but that the prompt itself would be recollected. Once the participants had finished and
called over the experimenter, they were given a piece of paper on which they were to write what
they thought was the purpose of the study. Finally all participants were given a debriefing form,
time to read the form, and asked whether they had any questions.
Although the design of the study was meant for the experimenters to be kept blind to the
condition of the subject, 4 of the subjects, all in the neutral condition, told the experimenters
what they were writing about. Although all the same points were addressed by each
experimenter, the exact wording may have differed between experimenters and within
experimenters addressing different participants. No manipulation check was conducted. The
prompts were not read out of respect for the participants and thus we could not be sure that the
participants actually understood and or addressed the prompts. Nor was a question given to ask
the participants to rate how guilty they felt and thus it was impossible to assess the various
extents of engagement with the prompt. Finally, the participants were all given the experiment at
different times throughout the day and on different days in different rooms. However all
participants were indoors and had a private table and chair at which they could write.
Results
Of the 38 participants, 5, all from the guilt condition were excluded from the data analysis: 2
for having grasped the purpose of the experiment and 3 for making outlier weight estimates
(30lbs, 30lbs, 35lbs). 3 of the participants gave non-lb unit estimates (two estimates of 2kg =
4.4lbs, and 64oz = 4lbs), which were converted into pounds and rounded to the nearest tenth. 2
participants gave an estimate range rather than a single weight answer, the median of these 2
answers were taken to be their response (2-3lb in the neutral condition was analyzed as 2.5lb,
and 30-40lbs in the guilty condition was analyzed as 35lbs). The outlier weights were calculated
8

9. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
by taken the median of the 1st
quartile and 3rd
quartile which was an overall median of 5.75lb.
The IQR is the interquartile difference (Q3-Q1=IQR). The ouliers are found by adding or
subtracting 1.5*IQR from the overall median, which was 14.3lbs and -2.8lbs respectively. The
14.3lbs was rounded to the nearest integer as most estimates were written in integers. Thus the
overall outliers on the heavier side were the 3 weight estimates above 15lbs and there of course
were no weight estimates below zero.
Fig. 3
Guilt-prime writing prompts caused higher estimations of weight than neutral-prime prompts
Of the remaining 33 participants, 14 were in the guilt condition (8 Female, 5 Male, 1 They)
and 19 in the neutral condition (10 Female, 9 Male). Overall averages of the neutral and of the
guilt conditions were taken. These averages were then analyzed through a one-tailed t-test where
the weights were compared to the true weight of 5.2lbs. The mean guilty weight estimate was
7.6lbs with a standard deviation of 4.4lbs and trended heavier than the guilty condition whose
mean weight estimate was 5.8lbs with a standard deviation of 2.9lbs. Although it was a between
True weight
5.2lbs
*
P = 0.08
9

10. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
subject design, a one-tailed t-test was used because the hypothesis was one-directional. As
depicted in figure 3, the guilty condition’s weight estimate was P=0.03, meaning that the weight
estimates in the guilty condition were significantly above the true weight. The difference of
weight estimates between the two conditions with P=0.08 is trending towards, but does not reach
significance.
We also wanted to look at whether one condition had more variance in weight estimates than
the other condition. Condition-specific histograms of the weight estimates (Fig. 4) without the
heavier outlying weight estimates of the guilty condition in the 30+ lbs range. The guilt condition
showed greater variability (SD=4.4lbs in guilt condition; SD=2.9lbs in neutral condition) and a
more uneven distribution of the weight estimates than the neutral condition.
Discussion
The data analysis supports the hypothesis that guilt induces heavier perceptions of weight. As
predicted, the average weight estimates in the guilty condition were significantly higher than the
true weight value and the average weight estimates in the neutral condition did not significantly
differ from the true weight value. However the difference between the average weight estimates
10
Fig. 4
Histogram graphs per writing condition.

11. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
of the guilt condition and those of the neutral condition trended towards, but did not reach
significance. We believe that the most likely reason that this part of the data did not reach
significance is because of the limited sample size. Due to the small sample size, three
participants were removed for making 30lbs and above weight estimates, all whom were in the
guilty condition. It is very likely that were we to have a larger sample size these seemingly
outlying values would no longer be statistic outliers. On the other hand, due to respect for
privacy, the prompt responses were neither read nor collected. Thus there leaves the possibility
that the extreme variance in the guilt condition was due, not only to sample size, but to different
extents of engagement with the prompt.
Improvements could be made to the study in the future by adding a manipulation check. The
manipulation check could be included by having a self-report measure directly on the prompts, in
order to maintain the double blind design. For example below the guilt prompt there could be a
1-7 scale of how guilty the memory recalled was whereas the neutral prompt could have a 1-7
scale on how objectively the experience was recalled. In addition, the extent to which guilt
increases weight perception due to the guilt-prime could be analyzed in further studies by adding
a pre-tests to take into account individuals’ initial weight perceptions.
Finally, although our study looked at the bidirectionality of guilt and weight perception,
further investigations could be made to test whether alleviating weight actually decreases
feelings of guilt. This research could potentially lead to clinical applications to reduce feelings of
guilt associated with various mental illness by alleviating weight through techniques such as
water baths.
11

12. THE BURDEN OF GUILT
References
Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors.
Cognition. 75 (2000), 1-28.
Kouchaki, M., Gino, F. & Jami, Ata. (2013). The Burden of Guilt: Heavy Backpacks, Light Snacks, and
Enhanced Morality. American Psychological Association. 143 (1), 414-424.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leary, M. R. (2012). Introduction to behavioral research methods (6th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Williams L., & Bargh J., (2008). Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth.
Science. 322 (5901), 606-607.
Zhong, C.B., & Leonardeli, G., (2008). Cold and Lonely. Psychological Science. 19 (9), 838-842.
Zhong, C.B., & Lilenquist K.A., (2006). Washing away your sins: Threatened morality and physical
cleansing. Science. 313 (5792), 1451-1452.
12