Can reading habits affect metaphor evaluation? Exploring key relations

1 Introduction

This study aims to explore the relationship between participants’ reading habits and their ratings of metaphors on four key features: aptness, quality, familiarity, and comprehensibility. Metaphors are central to human cognition and communication, functioning not just as linguistic expressions but also as tools for understanding abstract and complex ideas. Through metaphor, people can make sense of concepts that might otherwise be difficult to grasp, by drawing comparisons with more familiar domains (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, Holyoak 2019). Using a set of metaphors drawn from Serbian poetry, our study has two main research questions:

1. Can reading habits be linked to how participants rate features of metaphors/Are there differences in how reading habits affect ratings on different metaphor features?

2. Do the types of texts participants read (e.g., general literature vs poetry) influence their sensitivity to specific metaphor features?

The motivation for this research arises from the growing interest in understanding how metaphor processing is influenced by various cognitive and behavioural factors. These factors include individual differences such as creative potential (e.g., Kenett et al. 2018), fluid and crystallized intelligence (Beaty and Silvia 2013, Stamenković et al. 2019, 2020, 2023), measures of inhibitory control (Pierce and Chiappe 2008, Sana et al. 2021), working memory (Chiappe and Chiappe 2007), simulation and abstraction (Al-Azary and Katz 2021), as well as variations in personality traits, openness to experience, preference for imagery, and emotional understanding (Fetterman et al. 2016, Silvia and Beaty 2021). Reading habits can vary, ranging from the frequency of reading to the types of texts individuals choose, and the relations between one’s reading habits and cognition have been a subject of studies in neuroscience, psychology, and linguistics (e.g., Whyte 1983, Kidd and Castano 2013). To our knowledge, no prior study has directly examined the correlation between participants’ reading habits and their ratings of metaphors. This research seeks to address this by exploring how individual reading behaviours may influence the perception and evaluation of key metaphor features.

The structure of this article is as follows: We begin by outlining the theoretical background, focusing on the role of reading habits in metaphor comprehension and use. This is followed by a discussion of metaphor features and norming studies. The methodology section details our approach, including participant selection, materials, and procedures. We then present and analyse the results, followed by a discussion that considers the implications of our findings. The final section provides concluding remarks, summarizes the main outcomes, and suggests directions for future research.

2 Theoretical background

As part of the theoretical background, we are first going to introduce studies that explored the relationship between metaphor and reading habits, and given the nature of our research, we are also going to present the notion of metaphor features and several norming studies in which these features were evaluated.

3 Methodology

The study was conducted using online questionnaires. A total of 140 students from the University of Niš participated, divided into four groups of 35. Each group rated a set of metaphors on one of these four features: quality, aptness, familiarity, or comprehensibility. Participants were evenly distributed across study programs (Serbian Language and Literature [36], English Language and Literature [34], Psychology [32], and Mechanical Engineering [38]). The even distribution implied that every empirical group (quality, aptness, familiarity, or comprehensibility) had a proportionally similar number of students from these four study programs. In that way, the internal composition of each group was similar. All were native speakers of Serbian, consisting of 101 females and 39 males, with an average age of 21.79 years.

The metaphors were taken from the poetry of Branko Miljković, Branko Radičević, Đura Jakšić, Jovan Dučić, Milan Rakić, Milutin Bojić, and Vladislav Petković Dis. We searched for them in 204 poems, all included in the Anthology of Serbian Literature. The poets were selected based on two main criteria: (a) their canonical status in Serbian literary tradition, and (b) the frequent use of metaphor in their work, as noted in previous research and supported by our own initial readings. Most of these authors are associated with Romanticism and Modernism/Symbolism, movements often marked by the use of figurative language. Metaphors were manually identified by the first two authors, both of whom have academic backgrounds in Serbian literature and linguistics, including formal training that covered different approaches to metaphor. The selection followed a commonly used definition of metaphor as understanding and experiencing one concept in terms of another (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). Metaphors were identified first by looking for explicit expressions that were not literally true, that combined words in unexpected ways, and by examining verb usage, which included elements of the MIPVU method for metaphor identification (Steen et al. 2010). All selected metaphors were later reviewed and discussed by all three authors to reach agreement and ensure consistency.

We opted for authentic metaphorical expressions from poetry, as these are typically more complex, cognitively demanding, and characterized by intricate grammar and high lexical diversity (Jacobs and Kinder 2018, Rasse 2022, Reid et al. 2023, Stamenković et al. 2019). For decades, research has mainly focused on isolated nominal metaphors (see Holyoak and Stamenković 2018), with predicate metaphors occasionally explored as an alternative (e.g., Cardillo et al. 2010, 2017). However, nominal metaphors may not be as prevalent as expected (for evidence, see Deignan et al. 2013, Steen 2014), which is why we included a broader syntactic range of metaphorical expressions (the Appendix in the Online supplementary material; for an overview of these structures, refer to Mitić et al. 2025).

We compiled a list of 76 metaphorical expressions, which were presented in a fully randomized order. The questionnaire was administered in Serbian to students whose native language was Serbian. During the selection process, examples containing archaic lexemes were excluded, and care was taken to avoid repeating the same lexemes in identical syntactic positions. Each survey consisted of 76 items, along with general questions about participants’ background, such as gender, age, and study program, as well as questions on how often they (a) read literature and (b) read specifically poetry. Questions about reading habits were rated on a four-point scale, from ‘never’ to ‘very frequently’, and we used the first two points on the scale to form the group of infrequent readers and the second two points to generate the one we called frequent readers. The participants’ primary task was to rate the aptness, quality, familiarity, and comprehensibility of the metaphorical examples on a 7-point Likert scale. We recognize that participants may have varying interpretations of these dimensions. Each questionnaire included a main question phrased as follows:

Quality: How would you rate the quality of the metaphorical expressions in the following list? (For each metaphor, seven possible answers were given ranging from 1 – ‘of poor quality’ to 7 – ‘of extraordinary quality’).

Aptness: How would you rate the aptness of the metaphorical expressions in the following list? In the sentence Dan raste ‘The day is growing’, i.e., how appropriate is concept B (in this case, raste ‘grow’) to describe concept A (in this case, dan ‘day’)? (For each metaphor, seven possible answers were given, ranging from 1 – ‘not apt’ to 7 – ‘very apt’).

Familiarity: How familiar are the metaphors in the following list? (For each metaphor, seven possible answers were given, ranging from 1 – ‘not familiar’ to 7 – ‘very familiar’).

Comprehensibility: How would you rate the comprehensibility of the metaphorical expressions in the following list? (For each metaphor, seven possible answers were given ranging from 1 – ‘not comprehensible’ to 7 – ‘very comprehensible’).

4 Results

First, we wanted to test whether the frequency of reading literature and poetry affects the overall rating levels of participants based on all four characteristics they have rated (quality, aptness, familiarity, and comprehensibility), and the results of this comparison are presented in Table 1 and Graph 1.

Graph 1

Mean ratings by reading frequency for both literature in general and poetry.

An independent samples t-test was conducted to compare the overall metaphor rating between infrequent and frequent readers. Infrequent readers (n = 49) had a mean rating (M) of 4.21 (SD = 1.38), while frequent readers (n = 91) had a mean rating of 4.97 (SD = 1.11). The results revealed a significant difference between the groups, t(138) = −3.57, p < 0.001, with a 95% confidence interval for the mean difference ranging from −1.19 to −0.34. A similar analysis was conducted for poetry reading frequency. Infrequent readers (n = 93) had a mean rating of 4.44 (SD = 1.30), and frequent readers (n = 47) had a mean rating of 5.22 (SD = 1.02). This difference was also statistically significant, t(138) = −3.60, p < 0.001, with a 95% confidence interval for the mean difference between −1.21 and −0.35.

Using the original 4-point scale for literature/poetry reading frequency, we have also conducted a Pearson correlation analysis to assess the relationships between literature reading frequency, poetry reading frequency, and the overall metaphor rating scores. The results indicated a significant positive correlation between literature reading frequency and overall metaphor rating, r(138) = 0.307, p < 0.001p, a significant positive correlation between poetry reading frequency and overall metaphor rating, r(138) = 0.410, p < 0.001p, as well as a significant positive correlation between literature reading frequency and poetry reading frequency, r(138) = 0.511, p < 0.001.

In the second step, we wanted to examine whether these differences affect all ratings or only some of them. A summary of the results based on literature reading frequency for all four ratings (now separate) is given in Table 2 and Graph 2. Similar overviews of these ratings based on the frequency of reading poetry specifically are given in Table 3 and Graph 3.

Graph 2

A summary of differences between infrequent and frequent literature readers per rating.

Graph 3

A summary of differences between infrequent and frequent poetry readers per rating.

Given that the representation of frequency varied across groups (as the data were collected within the same procedure), the statistical power in these smaller groups could not be as high as when all ratings are joined. However, it was enough for us to explore some tendencies in all four characteristics, which will now be presented one by one:

5 Discussion

Regarding the research question on how reading habits influence participants’ ratings of metaphor features, our findings reveal statistically significant differences between frequent and infrequent readers, particularly evident among those who read poetry. Notably, different reading habits have distinct impacts on ratings for various metaphor features: there are statistically significant differences in familiarity (for both literature and poetry readers) and comprehensibility (for literature readers). These results align with Boers’ (2000, 137) conclusion that enhanced metaphor awareness facilitates recognition of inferential patterns associated with certain figurative expressions, aiding in the retention of unfamiliar expressions. Conversely, no statistically significant differences were found in quality (for both literature and poetry readers), aptness (for both groups), and comprehensibility (specifically for poetry readers).

Furthermore, the type of text participants engaged with (general literature vs poetry) did not appear to influence their sensitivity to specific metaphor features, such as aptness, familiarity, and quality. More precisely, the results were similar in those cases, and the only important difference between the readers of general literature and the readers of poetry was noted in their rating of the comprehensibility feature of metaphors. Higher mean values for frequent readers in familiarity and comprehensibility ratings further support Steen’s (1989) assumption that metaphor identification and comprehension rates are connected to text type (literary vs non-literary). These findings suggest that while general literature reading does not significantly affect aptness ratings, poetry reading does. Additionally, our results confirm that metaphor comprehension may be influenced by reading experience, becoming relatively more dependent on crystallized than fluid intelligence, as Stamenković et al. (2019, 115) observed. There are statistically significant differences between infrequent and frequent readers regarding rating metaphor familiarity, which can be explained by the number and frequency of metaphors they were exposed to during the reading process in the past. This makes our experience closer to overall metaphor familiarity if we imagine familiarity as a sort of continuum (Cersosimo et al. 2025, 133–4). This is in line with Boers’ (2000, 145–6) statement that there is a correlation between metaphorical awareness and remembering unfamiliar figurative expressions, as well as with the account that repeated exposure to metaphors that are initially perceived as novel can make those metaphors familiar (Kittay 1987/1990, Utsumi 2007). Additionally, these people could simply be better prepared or ‘tuned’ when it comes to encountering metaphors. Moreover, there are statistically significant differences between infrequent and frequent readers of literature in general regarding rating metaphor comprehensibility, which can be explained by the fact that rating just comprehensibility depends on reading literature in general, and it is not influenced by the type of literary text (poetry/prose). This is also relatable to the general positive correlation between metaphoric competence in L2 (Zhao et al. 2014, 177), which seems to be similar to what happens in L1, too. Reading more can prepare one better to comprehend different linguistic constructions, including those that are metaphorical.

The lack of statistical significance in rating metaphor quality and aptness between infrequent and frequent readers could imply that evaluating these two metaphor features does not depend that much on reading habits, and this can be related to some previous findings. Aptness, in particular, was shown to be more relatable to fluid intelligence (Stamenković et al. 2023) than other metaphor features, which might be the reason why it behaves differently in this context where the focus is on an activity significant for crystallized intelligence. There could be further reasons for this, of course, especially bearing in mind the conclusion that “mastery of metaphors goes beyond proficiency because they are closely associated with other cognitive skills, such as evaluative perception and logical reasoning” (Al-Mashhadani et al. 2024, 317).

Finally, when it comes to the results related to the standard deviation scores, infrequent readers tended to disagree more with one another when rating metaphors, while frequent readers showed more consistent and aligned responses. This could suggest that frequent exposure to literature or poetry may lead to more stable or shared interpretations of metaphorical language, possibly because of a more developed or similar frame of reference for processing such expressions.

6 Conclusions

In this study, we investigated how the frequency of literature and poetry reading influenced participants’ ratings of metaphors across four features: quality, aptness, familiarity, and comprehensibility. The study centered on two primary research questions, using a corpus of selected Serbian poetic metaphors: (1) What is the nature of the correlation between reading habits and metaphor feature ratings? and (2) What effect does the type of reading material (i.e., literature vs poetry) have on sensitivity to these features? Our analysis revealed that, in general, frequent readers provided higher overall metaphor ratings than infrequent readers, with significant differences notably in familiarity (especially for poetry readers) and comprehensibility. These findings have implications for understanding how reading experience shapes metaphor processing. Specifically, the significant effects of reading frequency on familiarity and comprehensibility suggest that regular exposure to literary language may improve recognition and ease of interpretation, whereas the lack of differences in ratings of quality and aptness implies that these dimensions may be less sensitive to reading habits. Furthermore, regarding the influence of reading literature in general and the influence of reading poetry in particular, general tendencies toward the perceived recognition and understanding of metaphors are mostly the same, with a difference in evaluating the feature of comprehensibility.

This research has certain limitations: all participants were from the same university, and there was an uneven distribution of participants with varying reading habits, particularly in cases of literature vs poetry reading (which we could not know before we composed the groups, but we tried to control for it by evenly distributing students coming from different departments). Besides this, one should generally remain cautious when assessing and interpreting the results related to metaphor features. Namely, while metaphor ratings can be reliable, their validity might be compromised by confusion between processing fluency and the feature being rated (Jacoby et al. 1988, Jacoby and Whitehouse 1989, Alter and Oppenheimer 2009, Kahneman 2011, Thibodeau and Durgin 2011). Another limitation of the study was presenting poetic metaphors outside of their context, and context can surely influence the evaluation of metaphor features, especially aptness and quality. The determinants of aptness depend on how the metaphor is used (Tourangeau and Sternberg 1982, 242), and this can include its contextual framing. Future research could consider the study program (philology-oriented vs non-philology students) as a factor, which would require a larger sample size to allow for meaningful comparisons. It could also involve a more detailed exploration of the participants’ reading habits and involve reading different genres. Besides this, it could combine reading habits with individual differences or personality traits and thus remove potential confounds. Lastly, a similar method could be to assess if reading habits influence evaluating metaphors which do not come from literary works (non-literary metaphors) and assessing poetic metaphors by reading whole poems (having stimuli which would include the context).