The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence.
Abstract
We review psychological research bearing on major theories of metaphor comprehension. A broad survey of behavioral studies is coupled with findings from recent meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies of metaphor processing. We identify three broad theoretical positions that have been the foci of research efforts: analogy, categorization, and conceptual mapping. The first two of these emphasize relatively well-specified information-processing models; the third links metaphor comprehension to embodied cognition. Our review evaluates the evidence that has been taken as support for each view, and then critically examines studies that bear on competing hypotheses derived from opposing theories. Finally, we discuss issues that future research on metaphor should address. In particular, we call for greater consideration of the pragmatic functions of metaphor in context, of its emotional impact, and of its links to literary interpretation. We suggest ways in which mechanisms based on analogy and conceptual combination might be integrated to create a richer conception of metaphor understanding. (PsycINFO Database Record
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Schema induction and analogical transfer
Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6 · Cited by 3,010 · cited 1×
“Early work on analogical problem solving (Gick & Holyoak, 1983) had shown that comparison of disparate analogs can generate a more abstract schema that functions much like an abstract category, facilitating transfer to additional new domains.”
Self-citationGick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90013-4 · Cited by 2,552 · cited 1×
“These terms are commonly used in psychological work on analogy (e.g., Gick & Holyoak, 1980) as well as in discussions of metaphor in cognitive linguistics (e.g., Lakoff & Turner, 1989).”
Self-citationOatley, K. (1995) · Poetics · doi:10.1016/0304-422x(94)p4296-s · Cited by 555
Cited by
Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture
(2013) · Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture · doi:10.1075/dapsac · Cited by 294
Metadata
- Authors
- Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D.
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 144
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 641-671
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2790490252
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 24.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/bul0000145
- The paper
- Holyoak, K. J., & Stamenković, D. (2018). Metaphor comprehension: A critical review of theories and evidence. Psychological Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000145
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.