Intercultural Advertising, appreciation of visual metaphors
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Intercultural Advertising, appreciation of visual metaphors

on

  • 5,917 views

Rob le Pair & Margot van Mulken: Perceived Complexity and Appreciation of Visual Metaphors by Consumers with Different Cultural Backgrounds.

Rob le Pair & Margot van Mulken: Perceived Complexity and Appreciation of Visual Metaphors by Consumers with Different Cultural Backgrounds.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
5,917
Views on SlideShare
5,242
Embed Views
675

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
129
Comments
0

8 Embeds 675

http://roblepair.nl 546
http://roblepair.ruhosting.nl 101
http://roblepair.wordpress.com 15
http://www.slideshare.net 7
http://static.slidesharecdn.com 3
file:// 1
http://209.85.129.132 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1
More...

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Apple Keynote

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • <br />
  • Images are complex figurative arguments and need to be described in a visual rhetorical framework. <br /> McQuarrie and Mick (1996) were the first to combine semiotic analysis and consumer response theories: their attempt to develop a rhetorical framework for both verbal and visual rhetoric in advertising is a good starting point. <br /> verbal advertising communication far more often contains schematic devices, such as rhyme and alliteration, whereas visual advertising communication contains relatively more tropical figures, especially metaphors (Van Mulken, 2003). <br /> Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) also point to the necessity to develop a refined framework for visual rhetoric, and metaphors in particular. There is still little consumer theory available for differentiating and organizing the variety of pictorial stratagems on display in advertising. <br /> The idea is that \"specific pictorial elements can be linked to particular consumer responses and the palette of available pictorial elements has an internal structure such that the location of a pictorial element within this structure indicates the kind of impact that the pictorial element can be expected to have\" (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p. 114). <br />
  • Images are complex figurative arguments and need to be described in a visual rhetorical framework. <br /> McQuarrie and Mick (1996) were the first to combine semiotic analysis and consumer response theories: their attempt to develop a rhetorical framework for both verbal and visual rhetoric in advertising is a good starting point. <br /> verbal advertising communication far more often contains schematic devices, such as rhyme and alliteration, whereas visual advertising communication contains relatively more tropical figures, especially metaphors (Van Mulken, 2003). <br /> Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) also point to the necessity to develop a refined framework for visual rhetoric, and metaphors in particular. There is still little consumer theory available for differentiating and organizing the variety of pictorial stratagems on display in advertising. <br /> The idea is that \"specific pictorial elements can be linked to particular consumer responses and the palette of available pictorial elements has an internal structure such that the location of a pictorial element within this structure indicates the kind of impact that the pictorial element can be expected to have\" (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p. 114). <br />
  • Images are complex figurative arguments and need to be described in a visual rhetorical framework. <br /> McQuarrie and Mick (1996) were the first to combine semiotic analysis and consumer response theories: their attempt to develop a rhetorical framework for both verbal and visual rhetoric in advertising is a good starting point. <br /> verbal advertising communication far more often contains schematic devices, such as rhyme and alliteration, whereas visual advertising communication contains relatively more tropical figures, especially metaphors (Van Mulken, 2003). <br /> Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) also point to the necessity to develop a refined framework for visual rhetoric, and metaphors in particular. There is still little consumer theory available for differentiating and organizing the variety of pictorial stratagems on display in advertising. <br /> The idea is that \"specific pictorial elements can be linked to particular consumer responses and the palette of available pictorial elements has an internal structure such that the location of a pictorial element within this structure indicates the kind of impact that the pictorial element can be expected to have\" (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p. 114). <br />
  • Images are complex figurative arguments and need to be described in a visual rhetorical framework. <br /> McQuarrie and Mick (1996) were the first to combine semiotic analysis and consumer response theories: their attempt to develop a rhetorical framework for both verbal and visual rhetoric in advertising is a good starting point. <br /> verbal advertising communication far more often contains schematic devices, such as rhyme and alliteration, whereas visual advertising communication contains relatively more tropical figures, especially metaphors (Van Mulken, 2003). <br /> Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) also point to the necessity to develop a refined framework for visual rhetoric, and metaphors in particular. There is still little consumer theory available for differentiating and organizing the variety of pictorial stratagems on display in advertising. <br /> The idea is that \"specific pictorial elements can be linked to particular consumer responses and the palette of available pictorial elements has an internal structure such that the location of a pictorial element within this structure indicates the kind of impact that the pictorial element can be expected to have\" (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p. 114). <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • To what extent are theoretically more complex metaphors effectively perceived as more complex? <br /> To what extent are advertisements with more complex metaphors appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors or less complex metaphors? <br /> <br /> Globalization / standardization versus localization / adaptatation to local markets / local target groups <br /> Does one standard image fit? Or do consumers with different cultural backgrounds differ with respect to perceived complexity and appreciation of visual metaphors? <br /> According to Kövecses (2005), the universality of metaphors can be questioned. He notices that the broader cultural context may override the universal mapping in metaphors. The Spanish, French and Dutch cultures differ with regard to the manner in which information is processed. <br />
  • In a pre-testing phase, randomly chosen samples of advertisements that were published in Dutch ('Elsevier'), Spanish ('Cambio16') and French ('Le Point') magazines were presented to groups of postgraduate students of the Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. These advertisements had been developed for a broad audience by professional copywriters. The students were familiar with theories on metaphors in advertisements and coded the samples according to Phillips & McQuarrie's (2004) typology of visual metaphors. The results of this preliminary study showed that there were considerable proportions of all three metaphor types, as well as of the category 'no metaphor'. On the basis of this preliminary study, a total of 24 advertisements were selected. Only advertisements that could unanimously be attributed to one of the four groups remained in our corpus; we also took care that within each category the same product types were represented: cars, food & drinks, and care products. <br /> <br /> Care was taken that all verbal information, except the brand name, was removed from the original advertisements. To control for order effects, two versions were developed in which the order of advertisements was reversed. A questionnaire was developed to measure respondents' comprehension and appreciation of the ads. Two bilingual colleagues specialised in cross-cultural research checked and approved the translation of the Dutch questionnaire into French and Spanish. <br />
  • In a pre-testing phase, randomly chosen samples of advertisements that were published in Dutch ('Elsevier'), Spanish ('Cambio16') and French ('Le Point') magazines were presented to groups of postgraduate students of the Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. These advertisements had been developed for a broad audience by professional copywriters. The students were familiar with theories on metaphors in advertisements and coded the samples according to Phillips & McQuarrie's (2004) typology of visual metaphors. The results of this preliminary study showed that there were considerable proportions of all three metaphor types, as well as of the category 'no metaphor'. On the basis of this preliminary study, a total of 24 advertisements were selected. Only advertisements that could unanimously be attributed to one of the four groups remained in our corpus; we also took care that within each category the same product types were represented: cars, food & drinks, and care products. <br /> <br /> Care was taken that all verbal information, except the brand name, was removed from the original advertisements. To control for order effects, two versions were developed in which the order of advertisements was reversed. A questionnaire was developed to measure respondents' comprehension and appreciation of the ads. Two bilingual colleagues specialised in cross-cultural research checked and approved the translation of the Dutch questionnaire into French and Spanish. <br />
  • In a pre-testing phase, randomly chosen samples of advertisements that were published in Dutch ('Elsevier'), Spanish ('Cambio16') and French ('Le Point') magazines were presented to groups of postgraduate students of the Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands. These advertisements had been developed for a broad audience by professional copywriters. The students were familiar with theories on metaphors in advertisements and coded the samples according to Phillips & McQuarrie's (2004) typology of visual metaphors. The results of this preliminary study showed that there were considerable proportions of all three metaphor types, as well as of the category 'no metaphor'. On the basis of this preliminary study, a total of 24 advertisements were selected. Only advertisements that could unanimously be attributed to one of the four groups remained in our corpus; we also took care that within each category the same product types were represented: cars, food & drinks, and care products. <br /> <br /> Care was taken that all verbal information, except the brand name, was removed from the original advertisements. To control for order effects, two versions were developed in which the order of advertisements was reversed. A questionnaire was developed to measure respondents' comprehension and appreciation of the ads. Two bilingual colleagues specialised in cross-cultural research checked and approved the translation of the Dutch questionnaire into French and Spanish. <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • Complexity was operationalized in two questions. The reliability of these scales was high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .86 to .98, and an n-weighted average of .93. <br /> <br /> Appreciation was operationalized as follows: participants were invited to evaluate each advertisement in terms of being 'well-chosen', 'appealing', and of a 'positive judgement. The reliability of these scales was also high in all three groups, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .88 to .96, and an n-weighted average of .90. <br /> <br /> evaluations on a 7-point Likert scale <br />
  • We had expected an increasing complexity represented by the blue dotted line; <br /> But 'Fusion' appeared to be less complex than Juxtaposition <br /> <br /> We found significant differences in perceived complexity for all four types of visual structures (F1 (3,369) = 51.01, p &lt; .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .78, η2 = .29; F2 (3,20) = 2.54, p = .085, η2 = .28). Pairwise comparisons of perceived complexity showed that all four types of visual structure differed significantly from each other, and that all three types of metaphor were perceived as more complex than 'no metaphor'. The most complex visual metaphor was Replacement, and contrary to Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) model, Fusion was experienced as less complex than Juxtaposition. <br />
  • We had expected an increasing complexity represented by the blue dotted line; <br /> But 'Fusion' appeared to be less complex than Juxtaposition <br /> <br /> We found significant differences in perceived complexity for all four types of visual structures (F1 (3,369) = 51.01, p &lt; .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .78, η2 = .29; F2 (3,20) = 2.54, p = .085, η2 = .28). Pairwise comparisons of perceived complexity showed that all four types of visual structure differed significantly from each other, and that all three types of metaphor were perceived as more complex than 'no metaphor'. The most complex visual metaphor was Replacement, and contrary to Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) model, Fusion was experienced as less complex than Juxtaposition. <br />
  • We had expected an increasing complexity represented by the blue dotted line; <br /> But 'Fusion' appeared to be less complex than Juxtaposition <br /> <br /> We found significant differences in perceived complexity for all four types of visual structures (F1 (3,369) = 51.01, p &lt; .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .78, η2 = .29; F2 (3,20) = 2.54, p = .085, η2 = .28). Pairwise comparisons of perceived complexity showed that all four types of visual structure differed significantly from each other, and that all three types of metaphor were perceived as more complex than 'no metaphor'. The most complex visual metaphor was Replacement, and contrary to Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) model, Fusion was experienced as less complex than Juxtaposition. <br />
  • We had expected an increasing complexity represented by the blue dotted line; <br /> But 'Fusion' appeared to be less complex than Juxtaposition <br /> <br /> We found significant differences in perceived complexity for all four types of visual structures (F1 (3,369) = 51.01, p &lt; .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .78, η2 = .29; F2 (3,20) = 2.54, p = .085, η2 = .28). Pairwise comparisons of perceived complexity showed that all four types of visual structure differed significantly from each other, and that all three types of metaphor were perceived as more complex than 'no metaphor'. The most complex visual metaphor was Replacement, and contrary to Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) model, Fusion was experienced as less complex than Juxtaposition. <br />
  • We had expected an increasing complexity represented by the blue dotted line; <br /> But 'Fusion' appeared to be less complex than Juxtaposition <br /> <br /> We found significant differences in perceived complexity for all four types of visual structures (F1 (3,369) = 51.01, p &lt; .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .78, η2 = .29; F2 (3,20) = 2.54, p = .085, η2 = .28). Pairwise comparisons of perceived complexity showed that all four types of visual structure differed significantly from each other, and that all three types of metaphor were perceived as more complex than 'no metaphor'. The most complex visual metaphor was Replacement, and contrary to Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) model, Fusion was experienced as less complex than Juxtaposition. <br />
  • We had expected an increasing complexity represented by the blue dotted line; <br /> But 'Fusion' appeared to be less complex than Juxtaposition <br /> <br /> We found significant differences in perceived complexity for all four types of visual structures (F1 (3,369) = 51.01, p &lt; .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .78, η2 = .29; F2 (3,20) = 2.54, p = .085, η2 = .28). Pairwise comparisons of perceived complexity showed that all four types of visual structure differed significantly from each other, and that all three types of metaphor were perceived as more complex than 'no metaphor'. The most complex visual metaphor was Replacement, and contrary to Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) model, Fusion was experienced as less complex than Juxtaposition. <br />
  • We had expected an increasing complexity represented by the blue dotted line; <br /> But 'Fusion' appeared to be less complex than Juxtaposition <br /> <br /> We found significant differences in perceived complexity for all four types of visual structures (F1 (3,369) = 51.01, p &lt; .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .78, η2 = .29; F2 (3,20) = 2.54, p = .085, η2 = .28). Pairwise comparisons of perceived complexity showed that all four types of visual structure differed significantly from each other, and that all three types of metaphor were perceived as more complex than 'no metaphor'. The most complex visual metaphor was Replacement, and contrary to Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) model, Fusion was experienced as less complex than Juxtaposition. <br />
  • For the French respondents metaphor type had no significant effect at all on perceived complexity. <br /> The Spanish respondents showed an increasing perceived complexity, which was in line with the increasing complexity predicted by Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), with the exception that Juxtaposition and Fusion were perceived as equally complex. The Dutch respondents showed a pattern of perceived complexity which at first sight is similar to that of the Spanish respondents. The pattern differed, however, at the level of Juxtaposition, which was perceived as equally complex as Replacement by the Dutch respondents. Both types of metaphor, Juxtaposition and Replacement were perceived as significanty more complex than Fusion. <br /> We have no indications of what could be the reason for the surprising result in the French group. There might have been a tendency in this group to opt for 'safe answers' in the middle of the two complexity scales. <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) were reluctant in expressing that visually complex ads were difficult to understand; <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) are more used to complex, implicit (visual) communication high-context culture. <br /> T-tests revealed that for the Spanish respondents all three types of metaphor were significantly less complex than for the Dutch respondents. <br /> Since for the Dutch and the Spanish respondents 'no metaphor' was equally complex, this seems to indicate a difference in processing visual metaphors,which seems to be easier for the Spanish respondents than for the Dutch respondents. <br />
  • For the French respondents metaphor type had no significant effect at all on perceived complexity. <br /> The Spanish respondents showed an increasing perceived complexity, which was in line with the increasing complexity predicted by Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), with the exception that Juxtaposition and Fusion were perceived as equally complex. The Dutch respondents showed a pattern of perceived complexity which at first sight is similar to that of the Spanish respondents. The pattern differed, however, at the level of Juxtaposition, which was perceived as equally complex as Replacement by the Dutch respondents. Both types of metaphor, Juxtaposition and Replacement were perceived as significanty more complex than Fusion. <br /> We have no indications of what could be the reason for the surprising result in the French group. There might have been a tendency in this group to opt for 'safe answers' in the middle of the two complexity scales. <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) were reluctant in expressing that visually complex ads were difficult to understand; <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) are more used to complex, implicit (visual) communication high-context culture. <br /> T-tests revealed that for the Spanish respondents all three types of metaphor were significantly less complex than for the Dutch respondents. <br /> Since for the Dutch and the Spanish respondents 'no metaphor' was equally complex, this seems to indicate a difference in processing visual metaphors,which seems to be easier for the Spanish respondents than for the Dutch respondents. <br />
  • For the French respondents metaphor type had no significant effect at all on perceived complexity. <br /> The Spanish respondents showed an increasing perceived complexity, which was in line with the increasing complexity predicted by Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), with the exception that Juxtaposition and Fusion were perceived as equally complex. The Dutch respondents showed a pattern of perceived complexity which at first sight is similar to that of the Spanish respondents. The pattern differed, however, at the level of Juxtaposition, which was perceived as equally complex as Replacement by the Dutch respondents. Both types of metaphor, Juxtaposition and Replacement were perceived as significanty more complex than Fusion. <br /> We have no indications of what could be the reason for the surprising result in the French group. There might have been a tendency in this group to opt for 'safe answers' in the middle of the two complexity scales. <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) were reluctant in expressing that visually complex ads were difficult to understand; <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) are more used to complex, implicit (visual) communication high-context culture. <br /> T-tests revealed that for the Spanish respondents all three types of metaphor were significantly less complex than for the Dutch respondents. <br /> Since for the Dutch and the Spanish respondents 'no metaphor' was equally complex, this seems to indicate a difference in processing visual metaphors,which seems to be easier for the Spanish respondents than for the Dutch respondents. <br />
  • For the French respondents metaphor type had no significant effect at all on perceived complexity. <br /> The Spanish respondents showed an increasing perceived complexity, which was in line with the increasing complexity predicted by Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), with the exception that Juxtaposition and Fusion were perceived as equally complex. The Dutch respondents showed a pattern of perceived complexity which at first sight is similar to that of the Spanish respondents. The pattern differed, however, at the level of Juxtaposition, which was perceived as equally complex as Replacement by the Dutch respondents. Both types of metaphor, Juxtaposition and Replacement were perceived as significanty more complex than Fusion. <br /> We have no indications of what could be the reason for the surprising result in the French group. There might have been a tendency in this group to opt for 'safe answers' in the middle of the two complexity scales. <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) were reluctant in expressing that visually complex ads were difficult to understand; <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) are more used to complex, implicit (visual) communication high-context culture. <br /> T-tests revealed that for the Spanish respondents all three types of metaphor were significantly less complex than for the Dutch respondents. <br /> Since for the Dutch and the Spanish respondents 'no metaphor' was equally complex, this seems to indicate a difference in processing visual metaphors,which seems to be easier for the Spanish respondents than for the Dutch respondents. <br />
  • For the French respondents metaphor type had no significant effect at all on perceived complexity. <br /> The Spanish respondents showed an increasing perceived complexity, which was in line with the increasing complexity predicted by Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), with the exception that Juxtaposition and Fusion were perceived as equally complex. The Dutch respondents showed a pattern of perceived complexity which at first sight is similar to that of the Spanish respondents. The pattern differed, however, at the level of Juxtaposition, which was perceived as equally complex as Replacement by the Dutch respondents. Both types of metaphor, Juxtaposition and Replacement were perceived as significanty more complex than Fusion. <br /> We have no indications of what could be the reason for the surprising result in the French group. There might have been a tendency in this group to opt for 'safe answers' in the middle of the two complexity scales. <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) were reluctant in expressing that visually complex ads were difficult to understand; <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) are more used to complex, implicit (visual) communication high-context culture. <br /> T-tests revealed that for the Spanish respondents all three types of metaphor were significantly less complex than for the Dutch respondents. <br /> Since for the Dutch and the Spanish respondents 'no metaphor' was equally complex, this seems to indicate a difference in processing visual metaphors,which seems to be easier for the Spanish respondents than for the Dutch respondents. <br />
  • For the French respondents metaphor type had no significant effect at all on perceived complexity. <br /> The Spanish respondents showed an increasing perceived complexity, which was in line with the increasing complexity predicted by Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), with the exception that Juxtaposition and Fusion were perceived as equally complex. The Dutch respondents showed a pattern of perceived complexity which at first sight is similar to that of the Spanish respondents. The pattern differed, however, at the level of Juxtaposition, which was perceived as equally complex as Replacement by the Dutch respondents. Both types of metaphor, Juxtaposition and Replacement were perceived as significanty more complex than Fusion. <br /> We have no indications of what could be the reason for the surprising result in the French group. There might have been a tendency in this group to opt for 'safe answers' in the middle of the two complexity scales. <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) were reluctant in expressing that visually complex ads were difficult to understand; <br /> The Spanish respondents (and maybe the French as well) are more used to complex, implicit (visual) communication high-context culture. <br /> T-tests revealed that for the Spanish respondents all three types of metaphor were significantly less complex than for the Dutch respondents. <br /> Since for the Dutch and the Spanish respondents 'no metaphor' was equally complex, this seems to indicate a difference in processing visual metaphors,which seems to be easier for the Spanish respondents than for the Dutch respondents. <br />
  • We found a strong effect of Type of metaphor on appreciation of the advertisements <br /> Pairwise comparisons of the appreciation of the different types of metaphor showed that advertisements with metaphors were appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors. <br /> What might be surprising is the finding that the respondents showed a decreasing appreciation of the most complex metaphor, Replacement. It might be the case that too complex metaphors are judged to be too difficult to understand, and that this is the reason for the diminishing appreciation. This is also suggested by Philips and McQuarry (2004): \"complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, [...] will also be associated with greater ad liking. [...]. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad\" (p. 129). In other words, Sperber and Wilson's (1986) second condition of 'optimal relevance' might not be fulfilled: the message is optimally relevant if and only if it puts the addressee to no unjustifiable effort in achieving the intended effects. <br />
  • We found a strong effect of Type of metaphor on appreciation of the advertisements <br /> Pairwise comparisons of the appreciation of the different types of metaphor showed that advertisements with metaphors were appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors. <br /> What might be surprising is the finding that the respondents showed a decreasing appreciation of the most complex metaphor, Replacement. It might be the case that too complex metaphors are judged to be too difficult to understand, and that this is the reason for the diminishing appreciation. This is also suggested by Philips and McQuarry (2004): \"complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, [...] will also be associated with greater ad liking. [...]. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad\" (p. 129). In other words, Sperber and Wilson's (1986) second condition of 'optimal relevance' might not be fulfilled: the message is optimally relevant if and only if it puts the addressee to no unjustifiable effort in achieving the intended effects. <br />
  • We found a strong effect of Type of metaphor on appreciation of the advertisements <br /> Pairwise comparisons of the appreciation of the different types of metaphor showed that advertisements with metaphors were appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors. <br /> What might be surprising is the finding that the respondents showed a decreasing appreciation of the most complex metaphor, Replacement. It might be the case that too complex metaphors are judged to be too difficult to understand, and that this is the reason for the diminishing appreciation. This is also suggested by Philips and McQuarry (2004): \"complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, [...] will also be associated with greater ad liking. [...]. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad\" (p. 129). In other words, Sperber and Wilson's (1986) second condition of 'optimal relevance' might not be fulfilled: the message is optimally relevant if and only if it puts the addressee to no unjustifiable effort in achieving the intended effects. <br />
  • We found a strong effect of Type of metaphor on appreciation of the advertisements <br /> Pairwise comparisons of the appreciation of the different types of metaphor showed that advertisements with metaphors were appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors. <br /> What might be surprising is the finding that the respondents showed a decreasing appreciation of the most complex metaphor, Replacement. It might be the case that too complex metaphors are judged to be too difficult to understand, and that this is the reason for the diminishing appreciation. This is also suggested by Philips and McQuarry (2004): \"complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, [...] will also be associated with greater ad liking. [...]. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad\" (p. 129). In other words, Sperber and Wilson's (1986) second condition of 'optimal relevance' might not be fulfilled: the message is optimally relevant if and only if it puts the addressee to no unjustifiable effort in achieving the intended effects. <br />
  • We found a strong effect of Type of metaphor on appreciation of the advertisements <br /> Pairwise comparisons of the appreciation of the different types of metaphor showed that advertisements with metaphors were appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors. <br /> What might be surprising is the finding that the respondents showed a decreasing appreciation of the most complex metaphor, Replacement. It might be the case that too complex metaphors are judged to be too difficult to understand, and that this is the reason for the diminishing appreciation. This is also suggested by Philips and McQuarry (2004): \"complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, [...] will also be associated with greater ad liking. [...]. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad\" (p. 129). In other words, Sperber and Wilson's (1986) second condition of 'optimal relevance' might not be fulfilled: the message is optimally relevant if and only if it puts the addressee to no unjustifiable effort in achieving the intended effects. <br />
  • We found a strong effect of Type of metaphor on appreciation of the advertisements <br /> Pairwise comparisons of the appreciation of the different types of metaphor showed that advertisements with metaphors were appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors. <br /> What might be surprising is the finding that the respondents showed a decreasing appreciation of the most complex metaphor, Replacement. It might be the case that too complex metaphors are judged to be too difficult to understand, and that this is the reason for the diminishing appreciation. This is also suggested by Philips and McQuarry (2004): \"complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, [...] will also be associated with greater ad liking. [...]. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad\" (p. 129). In other words, Sperber and Wilson's (1986) second condition of 'optimal relevance' might not be fulfilled: the message is optimally relevant if and only if it puts the addressee to no unjustifiable effort in achieving the intended effects. <br />
  • We found a strong effect of Type of metaphor on appreciation of the advertisements <br /> Pairwise comparisons of the appreciation of the different types of metaphor showed that advertisements with metaphors were appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors. <br /> What might be surprising is the finding that the respondents showed a decreasing appreciation of the most complex metaphor, Replacement. It might be the case that too complex metaphors are judged to be too difficult to understand, and that this is the reason for the diminishing appreciation. This is also suggested by Philips and McQuarry (2004): \"complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, [...] will also be associated with greater ad liking. [...]. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad\" (p. 129). In other words, Sperber and Wilson's (1986) second condition of 'optimal relevance' might not be fulfilled: the message is optimally relevant if and only if it puts the addressee to no unjustifiable effort in achieving the intended effects. <br />
  • We found a strong effect of Type of metaphor on appreciation of the advertisements <br /> Pairwise comparisons of the appreciation of the different types of metaphor showed that advertisements with metaphors were appreciated more than advertisements without metaphors. <br /> What might be surprising is the finding that the respondents showed a decreasing appreciation of the most complex metaphor, Replacement. It might be the case that too complex metaphors are judged to be too difficult to understand, and that this is the reason for the diminishing appreciation. This is also suggested by Philips and McQuarry (2004): \"complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, [...] will also be associated with greater ad liking. [...]. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad\" (p. 129). In other words, Sperber and Wilson's (1986) second condition of 'optimal relevance' might not be fulfilled: the message is optimally relevant if and only if it puts the addressee to no unjustifiable effort in achieving the intended effects. <br />
  • Phillips and McQuarrie chose the vague term ‘impact’ precisely to allow for both positive and negative effects of moving down (and to the right) in the typology. Thus, figures that are <br /> excessively deviant may fail to be comprehended (McQuarrie & Mick, 1992, in Phillips & McQuarry, 2004, p. 128). <br /> When incomprehensible, figures typically cease to have a positive impact or, at least, will fail with some populations of consumers. <br />
  • Phillips and McQuarrie chose the vague term ‘impact’ precisely to allow for both positive and negative effects of moving down (and to the right) in the typology. Thus, figures that are <br /> excessively deviant may fail to be comprehended (McQuarrie & Mick, 1992, in Phillips & McQuarry, 2004, p. 128). <br /> When incomprehensible, figures typically cease to have a positive impact or, at least, will fail with some populations of consumers. <br />
  • Phillips and McQuarrie chose the vague term ‘impact’ precisely to allow for both positive and negative effects of moving down (and to the right) in the typology. Thus, figures that are <br /> excessively deviant may fail to be comprehended (McQuarrie & Mick, 1992, in Phillips & McQuarry, 2004, p. 128). <br /> When incomprehensible, figures typically cease to have a positive impact or, at least, will fail with some populations of consumers. <br />
  • Phillips and McQuarrie chose the vague term ‘impact’ precisely to allow for both positive and negative effects of moving down (and to the right) in the typology. Thus, figures that are <br /> excessively deviant may fail to be comprehended (McQuarrie & Mick, 1992, in Phillips & McQuarry, 2004, p. 128). <br /> When incomprehensible, figures typically cease to have a positive impact or, at least, will fail with some populations of consumers. <br />
  • Phillips and McQuarrie chose the vague term ‘impact’ precisely to allow for both positive and negative effects of moving down (and to the right) in the typology. Thus, figures that are <br /> excessively deviant may fail to be comprehended (McQuarrie & Mick, 1992, in Phillips & McQuarry, 2004, p. 128). <br /> When incomprehensible, figures typically cease to have a positive impact or, at least, will fail with some populations of consumers. <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • Complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, and will also be related to greater ad liking. <br /> However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad so the outcome of ad liking associated with <br /> more complex visual figures is likely to be subject to moderating factors. <br /> <br /> A possible explanation is in line with the obeservations of Hall & Hall (1990), Callow and Schiffman (2002) and De Mooij (2004). It might be the case that for the Dutch consumers, being members of a low context culture, the lack of explicit information causes more difficulties in processing the (lack of) information when interpreting a complex visual message. Spanish and French consumers might be more used to processing implicit complex messages. Although this is a tentative explanation, it could be in line with the higher appreciation for the advertisements found in the French and Spanish (both high context) groups. <br />
  • Complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, and will also be related to greater ad liking. <br /> However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad so the outcome of ad liking associated with <br /> more complex visual figures is likely to be subject to moderating factors. <br /> <br /> Different preferences in expressing judgements:cultural response bias: 'acquiescence bias' (tendency to agree) or 'extreme response bias' <br />
  • Complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, and will also be related to greater ad liking. <br /> However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad so the outcome of ad liking associated with <br /> more complex visual figures is likely to be subject to moderating factors. <br /> <br /> Different preferences in expressing judgements:cultural response bias: 'acquiescence bias' (tendency to agree) or 'extreme response bias' <br />
  • Complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, and will also be related to greater ad liking. <br /> However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad so the outcome of ad liking associated with <br /> more complex visual figures is likely to be subject to moderating factors. <br /> <br /> Different preferences in expressing judgements:cultural response bias: 'acquiescence bias' (tendency to agree) or 'extreme response bias' <br />
  • Complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, and will also be related to greater ad liking. <br /> However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad so the outcome of ad liking associated with <br /> more complex visual figures is likely to be subject to moderating factors. <br /> <br /> Different preferences in expressing judgements:cultural response bias: 'acquiescence bias' (tendency to agree) or 'extreme response bias' <br />
  • Complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, and will also be related to greater ad liking. <br /> However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad so the outcome of ad liking associated with <br /> more complex visual figures is likely to be subject to moderating factors. <br /> <br /> Different preferences in expressing judgements:cultural response bias: 'acquiescence bias' (tendency to agree) or 'extreme response bias' <br />
  • Complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, and will also be related to greater ad liking. <br /> However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad so the outcome of ad liking associated with <br /> more complex visual figures is likely to be subject to moderating factors. <br /> <br /> Different preferences in expressing judgements:cultural response bias: 'acquiescence bias' (tendency to agree) or 'extreme response bias' <br />
  • Complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, and will also be related to greater ad liking. <br /> However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad so the outcome of ad liking associated with <br /> more complex visual figures is likely to be subject to moderating factors. <br /> <br /> Different preferences in expressing judgements:cultural response bias: 'acquiescence bias' (tendency to agree) or 'extreme response bias' <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • <br />
  • After the explanation of the visual metaphor, the advertisements with Juxtaposition were appreciated less, while Fusion and Replacement were appreciated more. These differences were significant (F (2,371) = 14.76, p &lt; .001, Wilks’Lambda = .93, η2 = .07). Pairwise comparisons showed that the decreased appreciation of Juxtaposition differed significantly from the increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement (and the increased appreciation of Fusion did not differ from that of Replacement). Apparently, explanation of the intended meaning of the more complex metaphors Fusion and Replacement led to a higher appreciation, while the explanation of the metaphor Juxtaposition decreased slightly. <br />
  • After the explanation of the visual metaphor, the advertisements with Juxtaposition were appreciated less, while Fusion and Replacement were appreciated more. These differences were significant (F (2,371) = 14.76, p &lt; .001, Wilks’Lambda = .93, η2 = .07). Pairwise comparisons showed that the decreased appreciation of Juxtaposition differed significantly from the increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement (and the increased appreciation of Fusion did not differ from that of Replacement). Apparently, explanation of the intended meaning of the more complex metaphors Fusion and Replacement led to a higher appreciation, while the explanation of the metaphor Juxtaposition decreased slightly. <br />
  • After the explanation of the visual metaphor, the advertisements with Juxtaposition were appreciated less, while Fusion and Replacement were appreciated more. These differences were significant (F (2,371) = 14.76, p &lt; .001, Wilks’Lambda = .93, η2 = .07). Pairwise comparisons showed that the decreased appreciation of Juxtaposition differed significantly from the increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement (and the increased appreciation of Fusion did not differ from that of Replacement). Apparently, explanation of the intended meaning of the more complex metaphors Fusion and Replacement led to a higher appreciation, while the explanation of the metaphor Juxtaposition decreased slightly. <br />

Intercultural Advertising, appreciation of visual metaphors Intercultural Advertising, appreciation of visual metaphors Presentation Transcript

  • Communication and Information Studies Cross-Cultural Differences in the Evaluation of Visual Metaphors in Advertising: Spain, France and the Netherlands RaAM7 Rob le Pair Margot van Mulken Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual rhetoric and consumer response 2 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual rhetoric and consumer response  Rhetorical framework for both verbal and visual rhetoric (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996) 2 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual rhetoric and consumer response  Rhetorical framework for both verbal and visual rhetoric (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996)  Verbal vs. visual advertising  verbal advertising: more schematic devices (rhyme, alliteration, ...)  visual advertising: more tropical figures: metaphors (Van Mulken, 2003)  Visual rhetoric  refined framework • pictorial elements have an internal structure • location of pictorial element within a specific structure indicates the kind of impact that the pictorial element can be expected to have (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004) 2 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target Juxtaposition 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target Juxtaposition 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion increasing complexity (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004) 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Research questions 4 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Research questions  Theoretical complexity Replacement  Fusion  Juxtaposition  No metaphor   quot;More complex visual figures […] will result in more cognitive elaboration.quot; (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.128) 4 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Research questions  Effectively perceived complexity  Theoretical complexity  Replacement Replacement   Fusion ? Fusion   Juxtaposition Juxtaposition   No metaphor No metaphor   quot;More complex visual figures […] will result in more cognitive elaboration.quot; (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.128) 4 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Research questions  Effectively perceived complexity  Theoretical complexity  Replacement Replacement   Fusion ? Fusion   Juxtaposition Juxtaposition   No metaphor No metaphor   quot;More complex visual figures […] will result in more cognitive elaboration.quot; (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.128)  quot;More complex visual figures [...] will be better liked.quot; (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.129) 4 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Research questions  Effectively perceived complexity  Theoretical complexity  Replacement Replacement   Fusion ? Fusion   Juxtaposition Juxtaposition   No metaphor No metaphor   quot;More complex visual figures […] will result in more cognitive  Appreciation elaboration.quot;  Replacement (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.128)  Fusion ?  Juxtaposition  No metaphor  quot;More complex visual figures [...] will be better liked.quot; (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.129) 4 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Research questions  Effectively perceived complexity  Theoretical complexity  Replacement Replacement   Fusion ? Fusion   Juxtaposition Juxtaposition   No metaphor No metaphor   quot;More complex visual figures […] will result in more cognitive  Appreciation elaboration.quot;  Replacement (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.128)  Fusion ?  Juxtaposition  No metaphor  quot;More complex visual figures [...] will be better liked.quot; (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.129)  Different cultural background Kövecses (2005); France, Netherlands, Spain 4 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Research questions  Effectively perceived complexity  Theoretical complexity  Replacement Replacement   Fusion ? Fusion   Juxtaposition Juxtaposition  ?  No metaphor No metaphor   quot;More complex visual figures […] ? will result in more cognitive  Appreciation elaboration.quot;  Replacement (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.128)  Fusion ?  Juxtaposition  No metaphor  quot;More complex visual figures [...] will be better liked.quot; (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004, p.129)  Different cultural background Kövecses (2005); France, Netherlands, Spain 4 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method 5 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method Material: 24 advertisements  6 x no metaphor   6 x juxtaposition   6 x fusion   6 x replacement   374 participants  age: mean = 26.9 years (SD=9.48; range: 13-68)  male: 35.6 %, female: 64.2 %  Dutch: 202  French: 83  Spanish: 89  Design   within-subjects: all participants saw all 24 ads 2 versions, reversed order, to control for order effects  between subjects: nationality 5 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument  Independent variables 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument  Independent variables  type of visual metaphor no metaphor • juxtaposition • fusion • replacement • 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument  Independent variables  type of visual metaphor no metaphor • juxtaposition • fusion • replacement •  Nationality / cultural background • Dutch • French • Spanish 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument  Dependent variables  Independent variables  type of visual metaphor no metaphor • juxtaposition • fusion • replacement •  Nationality / cultural background • Dutch • French • Spanish 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument  Dependent variables  Independent variables  Experienced complexity  type of visual metaphor • the meaning of the advertisement is no metaphor • clear to me juxtaposition • • this ad is easy to understand fusion • (Cronbach's alfa ranging from replacement • .86 - .98)  Nationality / cultural background • Dutch • French • Spanish 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument  Dependent variables  Independent variables  Experienced complexity  type of visual metaphor • the meaning of the advertisement is no metaphor • clear to me juxtaposition • • this ad is easy to understand fusion • (Cronbach's alfa ranging from replacement • .86 - .98)  Nationality / cultural background  Appreciation • Dutch • this advertisement is • French well-chosen • Spanish • this advertisement is appealing 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument  Dependent variables  Independent variables  Experienced complexity  type of visual metaphor • the meaning of the advertisement is no metaphor • clear to me juxtaposition • • this ad is easy to understand fusion • (Cronbach's alfa ranging from replacement • .86 - .98)  Nationality / cultural background  Appreciation • Dutch • this advertisement is • French well-chosen • Spanish • this advertisement is appealing • my overall judgement of the advertisement is positive (Cronbach's alfa ranging from .88 - .96) 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Method: design, instrument  Dependent variables  Independent variables  Experienced complexity  type of visual metaphor • the meaning of the advertisement is no metaphor • clear to me juxtaposition • • this ad is easy to understand fusion • (Cronbach's alfa ranging from replacement • .86 - .98)  Nationality / cultural background  Appreciation • Dutch • this advertisement is • French well-chosen • Spanish • this advertisement is appealing • my overall judgement of the advertisement is positive (Cronbach's alfa ranging from .88 - .96)        not agree totally at all agree 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Results: perceived complexity (all three countries) 7 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Results: perceived complexity (all three countries)  Ads with visual metaphors are found more complex than ads with no metaphor 7 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Results: perceived complexity (all three countries)  Ads with visual metaphors are found more complex than ads with no metaphor  Fusion was found less complex than Juxtaposition 7 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Results: perceived complexity (all three countries)  Ads with visual metaphors are found more complex than ads with no metaphor  Fusion was found less complex than Juxtaposition 7 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Results: perceived complexity (all three countries)  Ads with visual metaphors are found more complex than ads with no metaphor  Fusion was found less complex than Juxtaposition  Replacement is the most complex visual metaphor 7 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Results: perceived complexity (all three countries) predicted by Phillips & McQuarrie's model (2004)  Ads with visual metaphors are found more complex than ads with no metaphor  Fusion was found less complex than Juxtaposition  Replacement is the most complex visual metaphor 7 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish perceived complexity 8 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish perceived complexity  Dutch and Spanish: same main effect of metaphor type 8 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish perceived complexity  Dutch and Spanish: same main effect of metaphor type  French: no effect 8 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish perceived complexity  Dutch and Spanish: same main effect of metaphor type  French: no effect  main effect of nationality  Spanish find all metaphor types less complex than Dutch  interaction effect of metaphor * nationality  effect of metaphor type differs by nationality (T-test) 8 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Appreciation (all three countries) 9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Appreciation (all three countries) 9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Appreciation (all three countries) Ads with metaphors are  appreciated more 9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Appreciation (all three countries) Ads with metaphors are  appreciated more Fusion is appreciated most  9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Appreciation (all three countries) expectation from Phillips & McQuarrie (2004) Ads with metaphors are  appreciated more Fusion is appreciated most  9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Appreciation (all three countries) expectation from Phillips & McQuarrie (2004) Ads with metaphors are  appreciated more Fusion is appreciated most  Juxtaposition and  Replacement are equally appreciated 9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation  Same pattern in the three groups:  fusion, not replacement, is appreciated most 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation  Same pattern in the three groups:  fusion, not replacement, is appreciated most 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation  Same pattern in the three groups:  fusion, not replacement, is appreciated most 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation  Same pattern in the three groups:  fusion, not replacement, is appreciated most  Both French and Spanish appreciate all three metaphor types more than Dutch (T-Test) 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (1) 11 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (1)  Complexity  ads with metaphors are more complex than ads which contain no metaphor  complexity increases in line with Phillips and McQuarrie's framework, except for Fusion (perceived as less complex than Juxtaposition)  Future research questions  are relatively complex Juxtapositions more complex than relatively simple fusions? or  are Fusions per se less complex than Juxtapositions?  Follow-up study 1  11 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (2) 12 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (2)  Appreciation  use of visual metaphors is appreciated, to a certain extent: if cognitive elaboration requires too much effort (Replacement-metaphors), appreciation decreases, which leads to a  Inverted U-curve (McQuarrie & Mick, 2003)  Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve?  Follow-up study 2  12 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (3) 13 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (3)  Culture  variance depending on cultural background: both Spanish and French respondents liked all three metaphor types more than the Dutch respondents. 13 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (3)  Culture  variance depending on cultural background: both Spanish and French respondents liked all three metaphor types more than the Dutch respondents. 13 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (3)  Culture  variance depending on cultural background: both Spanish and French respondents liked all three metaphor types more than the Dutch respondents.  Possible explanations 13 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (3)  Culture  variance depending on cultural background: both Spanish and French respondents liked all three metaphor types more than the Dutch respondents.  Possible explanations • Spanish and French cultures are more tolerant for implicit, indirect communication (Hall & Hall, 1990; Callow and Schiffman, 2002; De Mooij, 2004) 13 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (3)  Culture  variance depending on cultural background: both Spanish and French respondents liked all three metaphor types more than the Dutch respondents.  Possible explanations • Spanish and French cultures are more tolerant for implicit, indirect communication (Hall & Hall, 1990; Callow and Schiffman, 2002; De Mooij, 2004) 13 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (3)  Culture  variance depending on cultural background: both Spanish and French respondents liked all three metaphor types more than the Dutch respondents.  Possible explanations • Spanish and French cultures are more tolerant for implicit, indirect communication (Hall & Hall, 1990; Callow and Schiffman, 2002; De Mooij, 2004) • Different preferences in expressing judgements: cultural response bias 'acquiescence bias' (tendency to agree) or 'extreme response bias' 13 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (4) 14 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Conclusion and discussion (4)  Moderating factors  competence (being able to cope with complex visual structures)  familiarity with the particular genre of advertising  product involvement 14 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: Juxtaposition and Fusion 15 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: Juxtaposition and Fusion  are Fusions per se less complex than Juxtapositions?   example: anti-dandruff shampoo (source = vacuum cleaner) 15 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: Juxtaposition and Fusion  are Fusions per se less complex than Juxtapositions?   example: anti-dandruff shampoo (source = vacuum cleaner) Juxtaposition 15 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: Juxtaposition and Fusion  are Fusions per se less complex than Juxtapositions?   example: anti-dandruff shampoo (source = vacuum cleaner) Juxtaposition Fusion 15 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: complexity of Juxtaposition and Fusion: Method 16 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: complexity of Juxtaposition and Fusion: Method 82 participants   male: 56 %; female: 44 %  age: mean = 41, (SD=16,4); range: 16 – 64  experiment: 10 ads, each ad in two versions: Juxtaposition and Fusion (between subjects); 16 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: complexity of Juxtaposition and Fusion: Method 82 participants   male: 56 %; female: 44 %  age: mean = 41, (SD=16,4); range: 16 – 64  experiment: 10 ads, each ad in two versions: Juxtaposition and Fusion (between subjects); Design: each participant saw all ten ads,  either the Juxtaposition version or the Fusion version of each ad 16 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: complexity of Juxtaposition and Fusion: Results 17 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 1: complexity of Juxtaposition and Fusion: Results Fusion is perceived as less complex than Juxtaposition (F(1,81) = 7.34, p < .01)  17 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? 18 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve?  same ads, same questionaire  first exposure  explanation of metaphor; example: “In this ad, the designer wants to express that Coca Cola gives you new energy, just like petrol gives energy to a car engine.” 18 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results  Explanation of the intended meaning of metaphors leads to 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results  Explanation of the intended meaning of metaphors leads to  increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement; 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results  Explanation of the intended meaning of metaphors leads to  increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement; 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results  Explanation of the intended meaning of metaphors leads to  increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement; 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results  Explanation of the intended meaning of metaphors leads to  increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement; 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results  Explanation of the intended meaning of metaphors leads to  increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement;  decreased appreciation of Juxtaposition. 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results  Explanation of the intended meaning of metaphors leads to  increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement;  decreased appreciation of Juxtaposition. 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results  Explanation of the intended meaning of metaphors leads to  increased appreciation of Fusion and Replacement;  decreased appreciation of Juxtaposition.  linear relation between complexity and ad liking, under the condition of full comprehension 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Communication and Information Studies Cross-Cultural Differences in the Evaluation of Visual Metaphors in Advertising: Spain, France and the Netherlands RaAM7 Thank you Rob le Pair Margot van Mulken Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Material: no metaphor Dove Ford Nescafe Renault Sony Passoa 21 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Material: Juxtaposition Dove Chenet Nissan Contrex Citroën Picasso Seiko 22 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Material: Fusion Burgerking Nivea Coca-Cola Real Butter Toyota Peugeot 23 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Material: Replacement Ford Milk Audi Wonderbra Zendium Pampers 24 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Perceived complexity Dutch French Spanish No metaphor 5.51 (1.05) 4.61 (1.29) 5.38 (1.20) Juxtaposition 4.19 (0.86) 4.48 (0.89) 4.92 (0.95) Fusion 4.50 (0.81) 4.46 (0.93) 5.07 (0.96) Replacement 4.08 (0.90) 4.40 (0.99) 4.48 (1.00) Appreciation Dutch French Spanish No metaphor 3.49 (0.82) 3.15 (0.96) 3.94 (1.10) Juxtaposition 4.00 (0.78) 4.40 (0.94) 4.59 (0.93) Fusion 4.39 (0.82) 4.63 (0.96) 4.83 (1.04) Replacement 4.01 (0.84) 4.36 (0.92) 4.44 (1.07) 25 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Complexity: cross-cultural differences  Spanish respondents perceived all three metaphor types as less complex than Dutch: 26 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Complexity: cross-cultural differences  Spanish respondents perceived all three metaphor types as less complex than Dutch: Dutch vs. Spanish T-Test Significance No metaphor D=S - - Juxtaposition D<S t(289) = -6.50 p < .001 Fusion D<S t(289) = -5.18 p < .001 Replacement D<S t(289) = -3.36 p < .01 26 Friday, March 13, 2009
  • Appreciation: cross-cultural differences All four ad types were appreciated more by the Spanish than by the Dutch  Dutch vs. Spanish T-Test No metaphor D<S t(133.18) = -3.47 p < .001 Juxtaposition D<S t(289) = -5.65 p < .001 Fusion D<S t(289) = -3.87 p < .001 Replacement D<S t(137.83) = -3.41 p < .001 All three metaphor types were appreciated more by the French  than by the Dutch: Dutch vs. French T-Test No metaphor D>F t(283) = 3.05 p < .01 Juxtaposition D<F t(283) = -3.73 p < .001 Fusion D<F t(283) = -2.07 p < .05 Replacement D<F t(283) = -3.10 p < .01 27 Friday, March 13, 2009