Surveying views of metaphor vs. literal language in psychotherapy
A factor analysis
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21227418 |
|---|---|
| Authors | D Tay (0000-0001-9484-6266, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 10 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 273-291 |
| Publication date | 2020-11-13 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Metaphor and the Social World (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2210-4070 • E-ISSN: 2210-4097 |
| Publisher | John Benjamins Publishing Company (PUBLISHER • NL) |
| DOI | 10.1075/msw.00007.tay |
| OpenAlex | W3100826220 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 23 |
Five key therapeutic functions of metaphors are often discussed by psychotherapists. They (i) help clients express emotions and experiences, (ii) help therapists and clients explain difficult concepts, (iii) introduce new frames of reference, (iv) help work through client resistance, and (v) build a collaborative relationship between therapists and clients. Research on how these functions are enacted in psychotherapy talk tends to assume that they are indeed perceived as such by clients, and that metaphorical language is preferred to comparable literal language in performing them. This paper reports a survey study ( N = 84) to critically interrogate these assumptions. Participants read two constructed therapy dialogues, controlled and counterbalanced for presentation sequence, where therapist and client discuss an issue using metaphorical and literal language respectively. Each dialogue is followed by a 15-item questionnaire to rate how well the presumed functions were performed (e.g. the therapist and client can work effectively together, the therapist is able to explain difficult concepts ). A combined Confirmatory (CFA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) suggests that, instead of the five distinct functions proposed in the literature, participants discerned three functions which reflect a more holistic view of what metaphors can do. A second EFA conducted on literal responses yielded only two factors. This contrast in factor structure further suggests that (i) literal language is less functionally nuanced, and (ii) metaphors are not simply perceived as an ‘add-on’ to literal language, but are evaluated across an extended narrative in fundamentally different ways. Within-subjects metaphor vs. literal ratings of the items under the emergent three-factor structure were then compared. Metaphor ratings were significantly higher in all factors ( p
Cognitive psychology · Comprehension · Linguistics · Literal and figurative language · Metaphor · Narrative · Action Observation and Synchronization · Humor Studies and Applications · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Psychology · Social Psychology
What Are the Odds? A Practical Guide to Computing and Reporting Bayes Factors
The contemporary theory of metaphor
At the heart of cognition, communication, and language
Studying the Use of Figurative Language in Psychotherapy
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of the PROMIS pain quality item bank
Patient-centredness
Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
| Citations per year | 1.5 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2024 - 2026 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |