VISUAL METAPHOR AND CONSUMER RESPONSE

Margot van Mulken, Rob Le Pair

ICORIA 2006BATH

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Metaphor

Lakoff & Johnson (1980): Understandig one kind of thing in terms of another kind of thing

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Rhetoric in advertising

• Rhetorical figures: artful deviation in form that adheres to an identifiable template. Number of templates is limited, consumers learn to respond to a figure– The nature of the link between the two domains determines the

type of rhetorical figure

• Metaphor (Trope) : Many definitions– Understanding one thing in terms of another (Lakoff & Johnson 1980)

– Source domain, target domain

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Advantages of rhetoric in advertising

• Attracts attention; getting noticed• Complex rhetoric: involves comprehension and cognitive

processing, generates inferences, involves interpretation

• Provides pleasure, arousal, self-contentment: pleasant feelings (Tanaka 1996)

• Provides longer retention (Tom & Eves 1999)

• McQuarrie & Mick (2003) : it works for verbal rhetoric (‘Put a tiger in your tank’) claim: it also works for visual rhetoric

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Phillips & McQuarrie 2004

• Visual rhetoric ≠ verbal rhetoric• Visual processing presupposes another kind of processing.

Iconical representation vs. Verbal code (‘double articulation’)

• Therefore: New Framework– 1 axe: Richness of meaning

– 2 axe: Visual structure

• Visual structure – Juxtaposition,

– Fusion and

– Replacement are an exhaustive list of the possible ways two image elements can be combined within a two-dimensional representation

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Visual structure

• No metaphor

• Juxtaposition– Source and target domain are

both present, presented separately, side-by-side

• Fusion– Target and source domain are

combined together

• Replacement– Source domain replaces target

domain, the present image calls to mind the absent image

| C o

m p

l e x i t y +

Consumer response

• more complex processing?

• more appreciation?

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Culture differences / Gender differences

• Culture differences– Culture may override the universal mapping in metaphors

(Kövecses 2005)

– Latin cultures are more apt to derive implicit meaning from visual images than anglosaxon cultures (Callow & Schiffman 2002)

• Gender differences in processing strategies– ‘selectivity model’: females are comprehensive information

processors (Meyers-Levy & Maheswaran 1991)

– women are more likely than men to make inferences from advertisements (Edens & McCormick 2000)

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Hypotheses• Experienced complexity

– Juxtaposition is perceived as less complex than fusion, which is perceived as less complex than replacement

• Appreciation – Juxtaposition is less appreciated than fusion, which is less

appreciated than replacement (no moderation)

• Culture– French and Spanish respondents perceive all types of metaphor

as less complex than Dutch respondents; French and Spanish appreciate all types of metaphor better than Dutch respondents

• Gender– Female respondents appreciate all types of metaphor better than

male respondents

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Method

• Material– 16 authentic ads, 4 groups (no rhetorical figure, 3 types of

metaphor)

– All verbal information (except brand name) had been removed

– All ads were identical in all countries

• Participants– 60 French participants, 275 Dutch, 88 Spanish (Total 423)

– 263 Female, 160 Male

• Design– Within-participants design for type of metaphor

– Between-participants for culture and gender

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Method (2)

• Instrumentation– Online experiment (2 versions)

– Experienced complexity: 7-point Likert scale

This ad is easy to understand; the meaning is clear to me

– Appreciation

This ad is well-chosen; original; pleasing

• Procedure– Participants invited by e-mail. Questionnaire lasted 15 minutes

approx.

• Treatment– Analyses for repeated measures, pair wise comparisons (LSD)

and univariate analysis

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

1 2 3 4

metaphor

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

Est

imat

ed M

arg

inal

Mea

ns

NationalityFrench

Dutch

Spanish

Results

Mean experienced complexity per advertisement

(1 = very difficult to understand 7 = very easy to understand) per Nationality (French, Dutch and Spanish) as a function of type of metaphor

(1 = no metaphor, 2 = juxtaposition, 3 = fusion, 4 = replacement)

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

1 2 3 4

metaphor

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

Est

imat

ed M

arg

inal

Mea

ns

NationalityFrench

Dutch

Spanish

Results (2) Mean appreciation per advertisement

(1 = very low appreciation 7 = very high appreciation) per Nationality (French, Dutch and Spanish) as a function of type of metaphor

(1 = no metaphor, 2 = juxtaposition, 3 = fusion, 4 = replacement)

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

No Metaphor Juxtaposition Fusion Replacement

Metaphor

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

Exp

eri

en

ced

Co

mp

lex

ity

GenderMale

Female

No Metaphor Juxtaposition Fusion Replacement

Metaphor

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

Ap

pre

ciat

ion

GenderMale

Female

Results (3)

Mean experienced complexity per advertisement (1 = very difficult to understand 7 = very easy to understand)

Mean appreciation per advertisement (1 = very low appreciation 7 = very high appreciation)

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Conclusions• Experienced complexity hypothesis: confirmed

– Juxtaposition is perceived as less complex than fusion, which is perceived as less complex than replacement

• Appreciation partially confirmed : inverted U-pattern– Juxtaposition is less appreciated than fusion, which, on turn, is more

appreciated than replacement

• Culture: partially confirmed– French participants respond similarly to the Dutch respondents, although

they have an average better liking of all types of metaphor (including No Metaphor) than the Dutch

– Spanish participants prefer Replacement ads (conform the hypothesis) to Juxtaposition, Fusion and No Metaphor.

• Gender: not confirmed– The appreciation pattern of the female respondents has the shape of an

inverted U-form. – The appreciation pattern of the male respondents shows a linear

increment

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Implications

• Visual structure works for metaphor• Visual complexity is appreciated up to a certain degree

– More research necessary: measuring actual comprehension in stead of self reported comprehension or perceived complexity

• Culture matters– Is appreciation * comprehension the reason for the preference for

Replacement by the Spanish?

• Gender matters, although not in the expected direction– Practical implication: the type of visual metaphor should be

adapted to the product category (targeted towards male/female audiences)

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Limitations

• We did not control for product or brand liking, product category

• We did not verify the actual understanding of the advertisement

• We did not adapt the choice of the stimuli to gender preferences (e.g. cars vs deodorant).

Thank you

m.v.mulken@let.ru.nl

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Claims– Fusion involves a more complex processing task than

juxtapostion (and replacement than fusion) and this difference in complexity can be systematically related to differences in consumer response

– “Because complexity, within limits, is pleasurably arousing, it will also be associated with greater ad liking. However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad, so the outcome of ad liking associated with more complex visual figures is particularly likely to be subject to moderating factors” (Phillips & McQuarrie 2004)dus replacement: less ad liking?

geen dia, maar is uitleg bij vorige dia

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Results Culture

• Experienced complexity– Interaction effect of Nationality and Type of metaphor (F (838, 6)

= 11.36, p < .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .86, 2 = .08)

– Strong main effect for Type of metaphor (F (3, 418) = 123.09 , p < .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .53, 2 = .47)

• Appreciation– Interaction effect of Nationality and Type of metaphor (F (838, 6)

= 6.99, p < .001, 2 = .05

– Strong main effect of Type of metaphor (F (418, 3) = 134.42, p< .001, 2 = .49)

ICORIA 2006 Bath

Visual Metaphor

Results Gender

• Experienced complexity– Interaction effect of Gender and Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) =

4.01, p < .05, Wilks’ Lambda = .98, 2 = .03)

– Strong main effect for Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) = 199.17 , p < .001, Wilks’ Lambda = .41, 2 = .59)

• Appreciation– Interaction effect of Gender and Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) =

13.72, p < .001, Wilks’Lambda = .91, 2 = .09

– Strong main effect of Type of metaphor (F (419, 3) = 186.16, p< .001, 2 = .57) on appreciation.