The reliability and validity of a measure of reported affinity for figurative language

Figurative language, as the linguistic expression of metaphoric thought, occupies a central place in the study of human cognition and creativity. This article describes four initial investigations of the reliability and validity of a measure of affinity for figurative language. In Study 1, a factor analysis of the Language Preference Report (LPR) yielded three orthogonally rotated components of affinity for figurative language: Liking to Produce Figurative Language, General Dislike of Figurative Language, and Liking to Study Texts Which Include Figurative Language. The factors, based on 540 responses, accounted for 73% of the total variance and were correlated with each other (absolute values between .55 and .36). Study 2, based on repeated administrations to 103 students at 2‐week intervals, investigated the reliability of the LPR Internal consistency estimates ranged from .92 to .84, and test‐retest reliability estimates ranged from .86 to .69. In Study 3, 39 students responded to both the LPR and the Similes Test. Participants’ Similes Test scores were significantly correlated with the LPR Production factor (r = .53, p < .001) and the Study factor (V = .36, p < .05). In Study 4, 79 students completed the LPR and later read 3000 words of text in which they were presented with 20 opportunities to choose figurative or literal sentence completions. The number of figurative completions chosen was significantly correlated with the LPR Dislike factor (r = ‐.65, p < .0001), the Study factor (r = .63, p <. 0001), and the Production factor (r = .50, p < .001). These findings support the conclusion that this measure of affinity for figurative language is sufficiently reliable and valid for researching individual differences in creativity, problem solving, language production, and learning from text.