Theoretical accounts of irony comprehension assume that when an ironic utterance is unfamiliar and the context does not prime for ironic interpretation, processing should take longer than when reading the same utterance with a literal meaning. This slowdown reflects problems in integrating the utterance into the developing text representation, which results in a reanalysis of the utterance. Similar assumptions are made about other forms of figurative language, such as metaphors, although studies have shown that there are differences in the cognitive demands of different forms of figurative language. Until fairly recently, most of the studies have ignored possible individual differences in irony comprehension among healthy adults. Recent results have suggested that there might be individual differences in irony comprehension related to working memory capacity (WMC) and emotion processing. In the present thesis, I wanted to answer the following questions: 1) How do readers resolve the meaning of irony? 2) How do individual differences in WMC and the ability to process emotional information affect the processing of irony? and 3) Does the processing of irony differ from the processing of other forms of figurative language, namely metaphors? These questions were examined in four studies using eye-tracking to tap into the detailed time-course of resolving the meaning of irony. The results of these studies showed that readers need to reprocess the ironic utterance to achieve the intended meaning, as suggested by the theories on irony comprehension. WMC aids this process by helping readers to keep contextual information in their mind while they integrate the meaning of the utterance with the context and/or inhibit a more salient literal interpretation while making the inference. Emotion processing abilities help to recognize the emotional cues of irony; readers with a poorer ability to process emotional information need to rely more on textual context to resolve the ironic meaning. Finally, resolving the ironic meaning differs from resolving other forms of figurative language, namely metaphors. Metaphors are easier to comprehend, and the processing of the intended meaning of metaphors starts at an earlier stage of reading. Moreover, emotion processing abilities are related to the processing of irony, but not metaphors. Based on the findings of this thesis, I present a new theoretical framework, the Cumulative Evidence Model.