Processing visual rhetoric in advertisements: Interpretations determined by verbal anchoring and visual structure

Journal of Pragmatics

Volumn 44, Issue 13, 2012, Pages 1836-1852

  Lagerwerf, Luuk ^a   van Hooijdonk, Charlotte M J ^a   Korenberg, Ayalies ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Attitude toward the Ad; Comprehension; Eye tracking; Fusion; Information processing; Juxtaposition; Metaphor; Openness; Rhetoric; Verbal anchoring; Visual

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867697424     PISSN: 03782166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.009     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Barthes R. Système de la Mode 1967, éditions du Seuil, Paris.
2. Barthes R. Image Music Text (S. Heath, Trans.) 1977, Fontana Press, London.
3. Berlyne D.E. Novelty, complexity and hedonic value. Perception and Psychophysics 1970, 8(5a):279-286.
4. Eco U. A Theory of Semiotics 1976, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
5. Forceville C. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising 1996, Routledge, London.
6. Gkiouzepas L., Hogg M.K. Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising 2011, 40(1):103-120.
7. Graesser A.C., Lu S., Olde B.A., Cooper-Pye E., Whitten S. Question asking and eye tracking during cognitive disequilibrium: comprehending illustrated texts on devices when the devices break down. Memory & Cognition 2005, 33(7):1235-1247.
8. Heckler S., Childers T.L. The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: what is incongruency?. Journal of Consumer Research 1992, 18(March):475-492.
9. Just M.A., Carpenter P.A. Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology 1976, 8(4):441-480.
10. Korenberg, A., 2009. Visuele metaforen in advertenties [Visual metaphors in advertisements]. Unpublished Master's thesis, VU University Amsterdam.
11. Kress G.R., Van Leeuwen T. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design 2006, Routledge, New York.
12. Kutner M.H., Nachtsheim C.J., Neter J., Li W. Applied Linear Statistical Models 2005, McGraw-Hill, Boston. Fifth ed.
13. Lagerwerf L., Meijers A. Openness in metaphorical and straightforward advertisements: appreciation effects. Journal of Advertising 2008, 37(2):19-30.
14. Lang A., Zhou S., Schwartz N., Bolls P.D., Potter R.F. The effects of edits on arousal, attention and memory for television messages: when an edit is an edit can an edit be too much?. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 2000, 44(1):94-109.
15. Lang A., Borse J., Wise K., David P. Captured by the World Wide Web: orienting to structural and content features of computer-presented information. Communication Research 2002, 29(3):215-245.
16. Maes A., Schilperoord J. Classifying visual rhetoric: conceptual and structural heuristics. Go Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric 2008, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY. E.F. McQuarrie, B.J. Phillips (Eds.).
17. McQuarrie E.F. Have laboratory experiments become detached from advertiser goals? A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising Research 1998, 38(6):15-26.
18. McQuarrie E.F., Mick D.G. Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research 1996, 22(March):424-438.
19. McQuarrie E.F., Mick D.G. Visual rhetoric in advertising: text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-response analyses. Journal of Consumer Research 1999, 26(June):37-54.
20. McQuarrie E.F., Phillips B.J. Indirect persuasion in advertising. How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising 2005, 34(2):7-20.
21. Mitchell A.A., Olson J.C. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude?. Journal of Marketing Research 1981, 18(3):318-332.
22. Mothersbaugh D.L., Huhmann B.A., Franke G.R. Combinatory and separative effects of rhetorical figures on consumers' effort and focus in ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research 2002, 28(March):589-602.
23. Paivio A. Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach 1986, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
24. Phillips B.J. Thinking into it: consumer interpretation of complex advertising images. Journal of Advertising 1997, 26(2):77-88.
25. Phillips B.J. The impact of verbal anchoring on consumer response to image ads. Journal of Advertising 2000, 29(1):15-25.
26. Phillips B.J., McQuarrie E.F. Beyond visual metaphor: a new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory 2004, 4(1/2):113-136.
27. Pieters R., Wedel M. Attention capture and transfer in advertising: brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. Journal of Marketing 2004, 68(2):36-50.
28. Radach R., Lemmer S., Vorstius C., Heller D., Radach K. Eye movements in the processing of print advertisements. The Mind's Eye: Cognitive and Applied Aspects of Eye Movement Research 2003, 609-632. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam. J. Hyönä, R. Radach, H. Deubel (Eds.).
29. Rayner K., Castelhano M.S. Eye movements during reading, scene perception, visual search, and while looking at print advertisements. Visual Marketing: From Attention to Action 2008, 9-42. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. M. Wedel, R. Pieters (Eds.).
30. Rayner K., Rotello C., Stewart A., Keir J., Duffey S.A. Integrating text and pictorial information: eye movements when looking at print advertisements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 2001, 7(3):219-226.
31. Rayner K., Miller B., Rotello C.M. Eye movements when looking at print advertisements: the goal of the viewer matters. Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008, 22(5):697-707.
32. Schilperoord J., Maes A., Ferdinandusse H. Perceptual and conceptual visual rhetoric: the case of symmetric object alignment. Metaphor and Symbol 2009, 24(3):155-173.
33. Scott L.M. Images in advertising: the need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research 1994, 21(March):252-273.
34. Smith R.E., MacKenzie S.B., Yang X., Buchholz L.M., Darley W.K. Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing Science 2007, 26(6):819-833.
35. Steen G.J. Finding Metaphor in Grammar and Usage 2007, vol. 10. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
36. Stern B.B. Beauty and joy in metaphorical advertising: the poetic dimension. Advances in Consumer Research 1990, vol. 17:71-77. Association for Consumer Research, Provo, UT.
37. Van Enschot, R., 2006. Retoriek in reclame. Waardering voor schema's en tropen in tekst en beeld [Rhetoric in Advertising. Appreciation of Schemes and Tropes in Text and Image]. Unpublished PhD, Radboud Universiteit, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
38. Van Enschot R., Hoeken H., Van Mulken M. Rhetoric in advertising: attitudes towards verbo-pictorial rhetorical figures. Information Design Journal 2008, 16(1):35-45.
39. Van Mulken M., Le Pair R., Forceville C. The impact of perceived complexity, deviation and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three European countries. Journal of Pragmatics 2010, 42(12):3418-3430.
40. Yus F. Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: a unified account. Multimodal Metaphor 2009, vols. 173-196. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.