Date (This field will be auto-populated in WordPress)

Paper Title: The differential effects of metaphor on comprehensibility and comprehension of environmental concepts

Author(s) and Year: Reijnierse, W. G., Brugman, B. and Droog, E. (2025).

pJournal: Journal of Science Communication (open access [link])

TL;DR: The authors assessed the impact of metaphors both on how well people believed they understood and how well they actually understood environmental science concepts like the greenhouse effect. Results suggested that across three different environmental science concepts, using a single type of metaphor increased how easily readers thought they understood a text, but did not impact their actual understanding. This suggests metaphor can help increase the accessibility of science texts, but further research is needed to assess the upper limits of its utility. 

Why I chose this paper: I have always thought that the best science communication is done through metaphor. Calling mitochondria the “powerhouse of the cell” provides a more powerful image of what the organelle does than an explanation that involves jargon. However, in previous research, I have found mixed results on the efficacy of metaphors for communicating technical information. When I saw this paper, I thought it was a great opportunity to explore the idea further and catch up on the latest research on the topic. 

The eye of the hurricane. The water cycle. The powerhouse of the cell. 

Many of the most widely known scientific concepts rely on metaphors, or non-literal figures of speech, to communicate their ideas. As researchers continue to study ways to improve science literacy, however, studies are taking a step back to assess how well metaphors actually help the public make sense of technical concepts. A new study suggests that the relationship between metaphor and understanding might not be as straightforward as it seems.

The Background

Previous findings about the efficacy of metaphors in science communication have been mixed. In the literature review section of their paper, authors Reijnierse et al. found evidence that metaphors can increase the persuasiveness of environmental communication, such as describing the climate crisis as a “war” to get audiences to care about the issue. However, studies that have looked into how metaphors increase understanding have been less conclusive, with some showing usefulness and others showing no effect or even a negative impact on understanding. 

In the current study, Reijnierse et al. sought to address these research gaps, hoping to more conclusively identify how actual comprehension is impacted by metaphor. Their first research question asked how different types of metaphors influence a piece of information’s (1) perceived comprehensibility (how easy participants thought a text was to understand), (2) perceived comprehension (how well participants thought they understood the text), and (3) actual comprehension (how well they actually understood the text). Second, the researchers looked at whether a person’s perceived understanding could affect their actual understanding within the context of the different metaphor types.

The Methods

The study was conducted online with a sample of 510 participants. Participants were shown an image of a Wikipedia-like page explaining one of three environmental science concepts: the greenhouse effect, carbon footprint, or greenwashing. Each concept was explained using one of three metaphor types: non-metaphor, single-source domain metaphor, or multiple-source domain metaphor. Non-metaphor explanations did not use metaphor, while single-source metaphors used just one type (i.e., the greenhouse effect is like a greenhouse), and multiple-source metaphors used multiple types (i.e., the greenhouse effect is like a blanket and an imbalanced symphony).

Participants then completed a questionnaire that assessed their perceived and actual comprehension of the information, as well as how much they relied on prior knowledge of the subject to answer questions. Demographic information was also collected, including a degree of preexisting science literacy.

The Results

The authors found that the use of single-source metaphor produced a slight, but statistically significant, increase in both the perceived comprehensibility and perceived comprehension of environmental science concepts. However, for actual comprehension, no significant differences were found between non-metaphor, and single-source and multiple-source metaphor texts. For their second research question, the authors found no correlation between perceived understanding and actual understanding. In other words, they found no evidence that participants’ perceived understanding of a science concept had an impact on their actual understanding of it.

The Impact 

The results suggested that metaphors affect the perceived comprehensibility and perceived comprehension of scientific concepts rather than actual comprehension. While this might not sound like an ideal outcome, it shows that metaphors can help to make science more accessible. When people view a science text as easier to comprehend, they are more likely to engage with it. Since metaphor did not negatively affect comprehension, this further suggests that metaphor can provide an added benefit to science texts without confusing readers.

The authors emphasized that more research about the impacts of metaphor on science communication is still needed. One major limitation of the study they highlighted was that the concepts used (greenhouse effect, carbon footprint, greenwashing) are widely known in society. As a result, participants likely came into the experiment with some knowledge of how each worked, which could have discouraged them from actively using the metaphors to learn. Additionally, the participants had a relatively high knowledge of science before beginning the study. Previous research has suggested that metaphors are most helpful to people with less prior science knowledge. In general, the authors added, the sample group was fairly homogenous in demographics, which could cause issues with applying the results to a wider population.

My takeaway: Science communicators should consider using single-source metaphors to make information more accessible to audiences. But they should also be aware that the use of these metaphors may not increase actual understanding.

Written by Alex Music

Edited by Clark Hickman and Madeline Fisher

Featured image credit: Photo by Josh Hild on Pexels