Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Intercultural Advertising, appreciation of visual metaphors

5,523 views

Published on

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

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

Intercultural Advertising, appreciation of visual metaphors

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. Visual rhetoric and consumer response 2 Friday, March 13, 2009
  3. 3. Visual rhetoric and consumer response  Rhetorical framework for both verbal and visual rhetoric (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996) 2 Friday, March 13, 2009
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. Visual metaphors 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  6. 6. Visual metaphors source || target Juxtaposition 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  7. 7. Visual metaphors source || target Juxtaposition 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  8. 8. Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  9. 9. Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  10. 10. Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  11. 11. Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  12. 12. Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  13. 13. Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  14. 14. Visual metaphors source || target fusion of source-target source replaces target Replacement Juxtaposition Fusion increasing complexity (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004) 3 Friday, March 13, 2009
  15. 15. Research questions 4 Friday, March 13, 2009
  16. 16. 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
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. 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
  19. 19. 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
  20. 20. 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
  21. 21. 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
  22. 22. Method 5 Friday, March 13, 2009
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. Method: design, instrument 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  25. 25. Method: design, instrument  Independent variables 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  26. 26. Method: design, instrument  Independent variables  type of visual metaphor no metaphor • juxtaposition • fusion • replacement • 6 Friday, March 13, 2009
  27. 27. 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
  28. 28. 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
  29. 29. 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. Results: perceived complexity (all three countries) 7 Friday, March 13, 2009
  34. 34. Results: perceived complexity (all three countries)  Ads with visual metaphors are found more complex than ads with no metaphor 7 Friday, March 13, 2009
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. 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
  39. 39. Dutch, French and Spanish perceived complexity 8 Friday, March 13, 2009
  40. 40. Dutch, French and Spanish perceived complexity  Dutch and Spanish: same main effect of metaphor type 8 Friday, March 13, 2009
  41. 41. Dutch, French and Spanish perceived complexity  Dutch and Spanish: same main effect of metaphor type  French: no effect 8 Friday, March 13, 2009
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. Appreciation (all three countries) 9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  44. 44. Appreciation (all three countries) 9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  45. 45. Appreciation (all three countries) Ads with metaphors are  appreciated more 9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  46. 46. Appreciation (all three countries) Ads with metaphors are  appreciated more Fusion is appreciated most  9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  47. 47. Appreciation (all three countries) expectation from Phillips & McQuarrie (2004) Ads with metaphors are  appreciated more Fusion is appreciated most  9 Friday, March 13, 2009
  48. 48. 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
  49. 49. Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  50. 50. Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation  Same pattern in the three groups:  fusion, not replacement, is appreciated most 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  51. 51. Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation  Same pattern in the three groups:  fusion, not replacement, is appreciated most 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  52. 52. Dutch, French and Spanish appreciation  Same pattern in the three groups:  fusion, not replacement, is appreciated most 10 Friday, March 13, 2009
  53. 53. 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
  54. 54. Conclusion and discussion (1) 11 Friday, March 13, 2009
  55. 55. 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
  56. 56. Conclusion and discussion (2) 12 Friday, March 13, 2009
  57. 57. 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
  58. 58. Conclusion and discussion (3) 13 Friday, March 13, 2009
  59. 59. 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
  60. 60. 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
  61. 61. 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
  62. 62. 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
  63. 63. 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
  64. 64. 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
  65. 65. Conclusion and discussion (4) 14 Friday, March 13, 2009
  66. 66. 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
  67. 67. Follow-up study 1: Juxtaposition and Fusion 15 Friday, March 13, 2009
  68. 68. 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
  69. 69. 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
  70. 70. 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
  71. 71. Follow-up study 1: complexity of Juxtaposition and Fusion: Method 16 Friday, March 13, 2009
  72. 72. 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
  73. 73. 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
  74. 74. Follow-up study 1: complexity of Juxtaposition and Fusion: Results 17 Friday, March 13, 2009
  75. 75. 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
  76. 76. Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? 18 Friday, March 13, 2009
  77. 77. 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
  78. 78. Follow-up study 2: Is lack of comprehension the reason for the inverted U-curve? Results 19 Friday, March 13, 2009
  79. 79. 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
  80. 80. 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
  81. 81. 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
  82. 82. 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
  83. 83. 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
  84. 84. 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
  85. 85. 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
  86. 86. 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
  87. 87. 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
  88. 88. Material: no metaphor Dove Ford Nescafe Renault Sony Passoa 21 Friday, March 13, 2009
  89. 89. Material: Juxtaposition Dove Chenet Nissan Contrex Citroën Picasso Seiko 22 Friday, March 13, 2009
  90. 90. Material: Fusion Burgerking Nivea Coca-Cola Real Butter Toyota Peugeot 23 Friday, March 13, 2009
  91. 91. Material: Replacement Ford Milk Audi Wonderbra Zendium Pampers 24 Friday, March 13, 2009
  92. 92. 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
  93. 93. Complexity: cross-cultural differences  Spanish respondents perceived all three metaphor types as less complex than Dutch: 26 Friday, March 13, 2009
  94. 94. 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
  95. 95. 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

×