The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm
QMRIJ
14,2
Lexicon Rhetoricae:
the narrative theory of
Kenneth Burke and its
application to marketing
174
Lewis Hershey
Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA, and
John Branch
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this article is to propose Lexicon Rhetoricae, the narrative theory of
Kenneth Burke from the discipline of literary criticism, as a comprehensive model which helps to explain
how symbolism and nonconscious processes influence the consumption experience, and which helps to
reconcile the psychology of the consumption experience with the more observable stimuli of the
marketing environment.
Design/methodology/approach – Lexicon Rhetoricae distinguishes two categories of literary
form – symbolic and formal appeal – which describe inputs to the literary experience. A third term,
eloquence, categorizes the interaction of symbolic and formal appeals, and describes how robust that
experience is.
Findings – Lexicon Rhetoricae provides: a mechanism for describing how unobservable internal
psychological processes (conscious or nonconscious) might work; a method for coding observable
marketer-controlled inputs to the consumption experience; and a means for demonstrating how the
unobservable processes and the observable inputs interact in the consumption experience.
Originality/value – Lexicon Rhetoricae provides a theoretical framework for categorically combining
the “black box” experiences of the consumer and the perceptible marketer-controlled variables in the
marketplace.
Keywords Symbolism, Literary criticism, Marketing, Consumers
Paper type General review
Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal
Vol. 14 No. 2, 2011
pp. 174-187
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-2752
DOI 10.1108/13522751111120684
Introduction
For more than two decades, researchers have been interested in understanding product
symbolism and its effect on consumption (Solomon, 1983; Berger and Heath, 2008). More
recently, researchers have also begun exploring consumers’ nonconscious processes and
their effects. Indeed, a 2011 special issue of the Journal of Consumer Psychology is
dedicated to the subject.
Although symbolism and nonconscious processes are clearly not the same
phenomenon, they might overlap in terms of their shared basis in emotional experience
(Han et al., 2007), and differ dramatically from self-conscious and rational forms of
consumption. Deighton et al. (1989), for example, proposed the application of theories
of drama and argument for use in the study of advertising. Their research indicates
that audiences respond to drama and to argument differently – emotionally versus
logically – and, consequently, require different research designs when testing the
persuasive efficacy of advertisements. Deighton (1992), therefore, conceptualized
all marketing activity as essentially dramatic in character, asserting that consumers
choose products, but they consume or “experience” performances. The dramatic
metaphor is also supported implicitly by Holt’s (1995) view of consuming as “play”,
a perspective mirrored by Escalas and Stern (2003).
This recognition of the internalized nature of consumption reminds researchers that
while many of the inputs to the consumption process might be external and quantifiable,
much of the throughput and output of that process is essentially an internal and largely
unobservable phenomenon of feeling states which defy traditional measurement (Lynch,
2005) or accurate self-reporting (Novemsky and Ratner, 2003; Englis and Solomon,
1995). Extending this line of thought, Hoch and Deighton (1989) suggested that
consumers are “partners” in the learning experience of consumption (also echoed by
Scott (1994b) and Escalas (2004)), and that consumers trust the validity of their personal
experiences [. . .] even though research indicates that the memory of such experience is
often inaccurate, especially in judgment terms (Novemsky and Ratner, 2003).
Much of the research on symbolism and nonconscious processes (Scott, 1994a),
however, proceeds anecdotally, from observation to observation and in isolation. Bargh
(2002), for example, noted that much of the research in consumer behavior has failed
to recognize the ubiquitous influences of nonconscious (often automatic) processes
on persuasion. What is needed, therefore, is a theoretical framework – a comprehensive
model – which helps to explain how symbolism and nonconscious processes influence the
consumption experience. Indeed, Lynch (2005, p. 107) recognized the need for more research
on nonconscious influences on consumer attitudes and decision making, remarking that
“more work is needed to understand the conditions under which one should expect a strong
relation between accessibility and diagnosticity”. More broadly, Chartrand (2005, p. 203)
observed that researchers often make assumptions about nonconscious processes and
that such assumptions must be more explicitly stated and validated in order to build
“a more comprehensive model of nonconscious processes in consumer behavior”.
Complicating the development of such a comprehensive model, however, is the
tension between the conscious and the nonconscious, a dialogue about which has
emerged among researchers in recent years. Perhaps, foremost in this dialogue is the
appraisal-tendency framework (ATF), which was developed to understand and predict
“[. . .] the influence of specific emotions on consumer decision making” (Han et al., 2007,
p. 158). The ATF is useful for incorporating disparate conceptualizations of emotion in
consumer decision making.
It is important to note, however, that emotions might be considered as either conscious
or nonconscious processes. If nonconscious, then emotion becomes part of the
background, often relegated to an almost Pavlovian response to the environment.
Dijksterhuis et al. (2005), for example, believed that consumers are strongly affected by the
external world of which they are mostly unaware. Chartrand (2005) took issue with this
assumption that environmental cues belong to the realm of the consumer nonconsious,
thereby prompting a response by Dijksterhuis and Smith (2005) who “endorsed”
Chartrand’s taxonomy of conscious awareness and called for a broadening of approaches
to incorporate both conscious and nonconscious processes. Cavanaugh et al. (2007)
likewise sought to extend the ATF, in an effort to encompass more influences on consumer
behavior, and, by implication, understand how those influences interact. Simonson (2005,
p. 211), while defending consciousness in choice behaviors, nevertheless advocated future
research which “[. . .] put greater emphasis on the interactions between conscious and
Lexicon
Rhetoricae
175
QMRIJ
14,2
176
unconscious influences on decision making”. Lerner et al. (2007, p. 184) attempted to
incorporate these concerns and called for progress “[. . .] in new, creative ways”.
Any comprehensive model, therefore, must not only help to explain how symbolism
and nonconscious processes influence the consumption experience. It must also attempt
to serve as a boundary spanning mechanism between the conscious and the
nonconscious, helping to reconcile the psychology of the consumption experience and
the observable stimuli of the marketing environment.
The purpose of this article, therefore, is to propose the narrative theory of Kenneth
Burke as such a comprehensive model. Grounded in the discipline of literary criticism,
Lexicon Rhetoricae as it is known, is a theoretical framework which provides:
.
a mechanism for describing how unobservable internal psychological processes
(conscious or nonconscious) might work;
.
a method for coding observable marketer-controlled inputs to the consumption
experience; and
.
a means for demonstrating how the unobservable internal psychological
processes and the observable inputs interact in the consumption experience.
The article begins with an overview of literary criticism and its application to market
research. It then details the narrative theory of Kenneth Burke and identifies its
application to marketing. Finally, it discusses Lexicon Rhetoricae with respect to the
practice of market research.
Application of literary criticism to market research
Literary criticism as a scientific discipline consists of analytical tools and terms which
help researchers understand how information is organized and communicated in a
“text”. The application of literary criticism to market research was pioneered by Stern
(1988a, b, 1989a, b, 1990). Stern (1988b), for example, adopted the concept of allegory to
describe contemporary advertising strategies. In tracing the medieval genesis of the use
of allegory, Stern demonstrated how much of modern marketing is a natural extension of
the mass communication methods which have been known in literary circles for
centuries. Similarly, Stern (1988a) employed terms from literary criticism to help
researchers identify the uses of figurative language in services advertising. And Stern
(1989b) introduced “literary explication” as a market research method, defining and
applying such fundamental terms of poetics as grammar, syntax, diction, and prosody.
Some of Stern’s work also applies the tools and terms of literary criticism specifically
to the study of consumption. Stern (1989a), for example, identified the various and often
competing schools of thought about literature, and linked each to a specific perspective
on consumer research. The New Criticism, she argued, which was invented in the 1930s
and which is often referred to as “formalism”, could be viewed as compatible with the
objective approaches to traditional social science which dominated consumer
research for most of the past century. In contrast, the rise of reader-response theory
(Scott, 1994a, b) and of integrative approaches, she reckoned, parallel the emergence of
interpretive approaches in consumer research and the increasing interest in emotional
responses to advertising (Stern, 1989a).
Hirschman has also been active applying literary criticism to market research. In a 2003
study, for example, she employed the technique of “close reading” to analyze advertising
themes of individualism in selected American magazines. Hirschman (1999) also
drew specifically on reader-response theory when, using the notion of “interpretive
communities” as defined by Fish (1980), she expanded the work of Scott (1994a).
It is this application of literary criticism especially which views the reader as active
agent. Indeed, it encourages the producers of marketing messages to consider that
readers bring their own symbolic meanings to the signs which are present therein
(Cornwell and Smith, 2001; Madrigal, 2003). As suggested by Scott (1994b, p. 475):
[. . .] [t]his reader is able to make social inferential distinctions using a variety of verbal and
nonverbal cues simultaneously. This is an agile reader, who can change frames and strategies
even within the temporal space of a single reading and alter expectations as the textual task
appears to suggest. This is an experienced reader, one with a broad-based interpretive
repertoire, including a capacity for highly metaphorical, imaginative thinking.
Scott, however, could well be describing an active consumer. Indeed, her words conjure
up a vision of a consumer who is engaged fully in the consumption experience, not
simply a passive bystander. As underlined by Scott (1994b, p. 475), however,
traditional approaches to consumer research are dismissive of such a conceptualization
of the consumer (reader), instead relegating “[. . .] many of the textual cues that imply
this kind of [consumer] to the realm of the peripheral, superficial, or irrelevant”.
It represents an important distinction from the view of consumer-as-passive receiver
of so-called “peripheral” messages which predominates positivist approaches
(Petty et al., 1983).
Literary criticism, therefore, seem apropos to the development of a comprehensive
model which helps to explain how symbolism and nonconscious processes influence
the consumption experience, and which helps to reconcile the psychology of the
consumption experience with the more observable stimuli of the marketing environment.
To date, however, the application of literary criticism to marketing has focused more on
the vehicle for communicating with consumers, rather than on the consumption
experience itself. Stern (1988a), for example, was concerned with the meaning of an
advertisement, not its reading. More than any other, Scott alluded to a rich psychological
world of information processing, but fell short of conceptualizing how this world is
manifest in a real-time understanding of the consumption experience. To be sure, some
research concludes that the consumption experience ought to be the focus of future
research (McQuarrie and Mick, 1992), but identifying this need is something of a
by-product of studying observable and/or reported behavior.
Similarly, the application of literary criticism to marketing to date has been just that,
application. That is to say, researchers have employed the tools and terms of specific
approaches (reader-response theory, for example) in order to study specific marketing
phenomena. They have been less eager, however, to attempt to build theory – to apply
literary criticism toward a theoretical understanding of consumption. Indeed, Scott
(1994a) explicitly stated that she was not offering any sort of comprehensive model, but
instead only using the tools of a single approach.
The narrative theory of Kenneth Burke and its application to marketing
The narrative theory of Kenneth Burke (1897-1995), however, might offer such a
comprehensive model. Lexicon Rhetoricae as it is known, is a theoretical framework from
the discipline of literary criticism which first appeared in his collection of essays,
Counter-Statement. First published in 1931, Counter-Statement introduces and develops
a number of perspectives on the nature of art, experience, ritual, and symbolism.
Lexicon
Rhetoricae
177
QMRIJ
14,2
178
The 60 pages contain the seed of Burke’s thoughts on literary art and inquiry which were
developed later in The Philosophy of Literary Form and A Grammar of Motives.
One of the significant figures of twentieth century literary criticism and philosophical
thought, Burke has had wide-ranging influence, and Lexicon Rhetoricae has been
adopted in many academic disciplines, including management. Organizational theorists,
for example, draw on its rich critical language for describing influences on organizational
culture, change, and symbolic dimensions of organizations (Case, 1999; Grint and Case,
1998; Jackson, 1999).
In the discipline of marketing, Lexicon Rhetoricae might indeed provide a
comprehensive model which helps to explain how symbolism and nonconscious
processes influence the consumption experience, and which helps to reconcile the
psychology of the consumption experience with the more observable stimuli of the
marketing environment. Three terms of the narrative theory are especially useful –
symbolic and formal appeal, which describe inputs to the consumption experience,
and eloquence, which describes how robust that experience is (Table I).
Symbolic appeal, formal appeal, and eloquence
Lexicon Rhetoricae distinguishes two categories of literary form, which are termed
symbolic and formal appeals (Burke capitalizes “Symbolic” whether or not it begins a
sentence, while using lower case for formal except where it begins a sentence). The
symbolic appeal of a literary work acknowledges that while the language in a work
might be shared universally by all auditors, meaning is sometimes more particular. For
Burke, “Symbolic intensity arises when the artist uses subject matter ‘charged’ by the
readers’ situation outside the work of art” (p. 163). This aspect of Burke’s discussion of
literary form recognizes that not all auditors share precisely the same perspective toward
any given subject matter. Rather, each auditor brings a variety of personal experience
with him or her when encountering a literary work. From these varied experiences,
different for each person, the symbolic charge as part of the appeal of literature is created
in the interaction of the auditor and the text. Put another way, a gifted writer will
understand well the a priori values and attitudes of the audience targeted by the work.
For the artist, this audience is often hypothetical. For the marketer, however, the
audience is typically well understood. In creating an integrated marketing
communications (IMC) campaign for a target audience, for example, the marketer
seeks to identify any particularly salient issues of consumers of the target segment which
will serve as a short cut to the internal decision processes. Using themes, messages,
Table I.
Lexicon Rhetoricae and its
application to marketing
Term
Definition
Formal
appeal
Arrangements within the text
itself
Application to marketing
Aspects of the offering under the control of the
marketer, such as product design, advertising
content, implementation, and sales force training
Symbolic Subject matter “charged” by the Aspects of the offering under the control/influence
appeal
readers’ situation outside the text of the consumer, such as a priori expectations,
anticipation of benefits in use, and self reflective
thoughts and feelings during- and post- consumption
Eloquence The frequency of symbolic and
Synergies which are created by comprehensive and
formal effects
integrated marketing planning and implementation
spokespersons, or other vehicles which are known to be of special significance, the
marketer increases the possibility of success when using communications whose content
is already “Symbolically charged” in the mind of the target audience.
But if it is the case that the marketer can anticipate and use such charged elements in
constructing messages, it is also the case that individual consumers can likewise impose
their own “Symbolically charged” meanings on the marketers ideas or products. For
Burke, this aspect of the power of symbols in general, and of literary art in particular,
emerges from an interaction of charged symbols, some manipulated by the artist and
some by the audience. In particular, Burke (1931/1968, p. 164) observes that for artist and
audience alike, the meaning is there for the taking:
[. . .] [t]o an extent, all subject-matter is categorically ‘charged’, in that each word relies for its
meaning upon a social context, and thus possesses values independently of the work in which
it appears.
For marketers, this interaction is also true. Indeed, to some extent, the success of the
marketing effort is due to the internal (and often nonconscious) imposition of the
consumer’s charged “intensity” of meanings which are already present in the psyche.
Relative to the call for a way of categorizing a priori nonconscious effects on consumer
behavior, we might operationalize them as symbolic appeals, or the meanings which
consumers impose on marketing messages or products.
On the other hand, the formal appeal of literature refers to the “autonomous” nature of
a text, attributable to “arrangements within the work itself” (p. 164). By arrangements,
Burke means how the literature appears on the page – its structure, syntax, and
grammar. Images and poetic devices, such as metaphors and similes, and the use of
metonymy and synecdoche, are all part of literature’s formal appeal. Additionally,
formal appeal includes the technical manipulation of the words on the page. Any special
spatial relationships such as those found in concrete poetry, the use of italics for
emphasis, and the use of non-standard spellings to reflect dialects all contribute to a
work’s formal appeal.
Similarly, the formal appeal of marketing includes the design and execution of all
marketing elements. In some aspects of message design, for example, the manipulation
of formal elements by the marketer or advertising creative mimics that of the literary
artist. Indeed, marketers must select among competing language choices and determine
how to arrange best on the page or screen the elements of text and pictures. When
multiple media are used, some thought must be given to the strengths and weaknesses of
each medium. But of course, it is not only in marketing communications that marketers
must attend to the formal appeal of message. The nature of the product also has
“arrangements within the work itself”. A product has a package, for example, which
exists in the social context of a retail space. A service has a process which is produced by
a service provider. Marketers must coordinate all such “arrangements” – they must
decide whom to hire, which training to provide, which controls to use, and how to
position the service encounter physically.
If symbolic appeal serves to categorize all internal, unobservable states which
consumers bring to and impose upon a marketing activity, then formal appeal serves to
categorize all the external, self-conscious, and marketer-controlled inputs to the
consumption experience. To provide a method of categorizing the interaction of
symbolic and formal appeals, Burke provides the term eloquence.
Lexicon
Rhetoricae
179
QMRIJ
14,2
180
For Burke (1931/1968, p. 165), “[e]loquence is a frequency of Symbolic and formal
effects. One work is more eloquent than another if it contains Symbolic and formal
charges in greater proportion”. In literature, a so-called “hit” might be termed eloquent if
the technical mastery of the devices of writing are more numerous than another work in
the same genre and if the auditor (a reader of a novel, or the audience at a play, for
example) has, in higher proportion to similar work, more a priori experiences which are
symbolically charged to those same formal appeals.
The concept of eloquence is similar to the phenomenon of advertising resonance as
described by McQuarrie and Mick (1992), though it is more expansive. An advertisement,
they suggested, might “resonate” with a consumer based upon the polysemy or multiple
meanings of the words in the advertisement text and/or upon the interaction with the
visual elements of the advertisement To the extent that such interaction is based upon
double meanings or wordplay, the interpretative act is more elaborate and thus
potentially more memorable. Such resonance is an example of eloquence.
But eloquence might also describe other kinds of marketing/consumer interactions
[. . .] beyond advertising campaigns, as inferred by McQuarrie and Mick (1992), to such
marketing efforts as sponsorships, fundraisers, or new product launches. It might also
describe particularly successful service encounters, such as the experience of the college
fan watching the home football team coming back in the second half to win against its
arch rival, the perfect first dinner date at a much anticipated exclusive restaurant, or the
celebrity meeting, the endorsement of whom supports a price premium which the
enthusiast is only too happy to pay. The concept of eloquence, therefore, invites us to
consider the rich context of how marketer-controlled activities might be used to play
upon the a priori experiences and expectations of the consumer, in order to heighten the
efficacy of the these activities.
In summary, Lexicon Rhetoricae, the narrative theory of Kenneth Burke, provides a
theoretical framework for combining categorically the “black box” experiences of the
consumer and the perceptible marketer-controlled variables in the marketplace. Although
we might not be able to see or measure symbolic appeals, we can predict in advance their
possible, even probable, presence. In so doing, we can view the consumption experience as
a dialogic interaction between the consumer who is co-creating her or his consumption
experience actively, and the formal appeal of marketing activities. Such a perspective has
the additional advantage of allowing market researchers to make hypothetical statements
about which kinds of consumer experiences to expect, and so perhaps expand the reach of
market research into the realm of the symbolic and nonconscious. How Lexicon
Rhetoricae might unfold in the practice of market research, however, remains a question.
Lexicon Rhetoricae and the practice of market research
To begin, there is a need to begin to try and capture some evidence of the outcomes of the
interaction of symbolic and formal appeals which constitute the eloquence of
consumption. Revealing self-conscious knowledge of unconscious influences via
traditional survey methods (Novemsky and Ratner, 2003; Hershey, 1990) is challenging.
Indeed, previous research demonstrates that informants often “get it wrong” when
making attributions about internal states, and that the very act of asking people
questions creates a demand response unlikely to reveal nonconscious processes.
Traditional survey research, therefore, is limited in its potential to reveal new insights
into the consumption experience. Accordingly, the methods of qualitative market
research (depth interviews or focus groups, for example) is warranted, with focus groups
and depth interviews as appropriate methodologies. And, as our understanding of how
eloquence evolves, future research might uncover how to code eloquence outcomes for
more systematic study, thereby pointing to such methods as content analysis.
Second, while symbolic appeals might provide a mechanism for categorizing
nonconscious antecedents of consumer behavior with the symbolism of consumption, it
might be that there are some aspects of nonconscious antecedents which are clearly
consistent with symbolic appeals, and other aspects of nonconscious antecedents are
simply physiological in nature. By definition, symbolic appeals are psychological
processes, conscious or nonconscious. Lexicon Rhetoricae is not expected to account for
strictly physiological causes and/or effects. Further research on the boundaries which
separate psychological processes and physiological aspects, therefore, is needed to help
establish the domain of symbolic and formal appeals.
Symbolic and formal appeals and demand creation
Despite these limitations, the application of Lexicon Rhetoricae provides a number of
new directions for market research. Among these is the potential to provide a theoretical,
rather than merely anecdotal, view of consumers as co-creators of consumption rather
than as more passive recipients. For example, its terminology provides a framework for
understanding how consumers develop and maintain their symbolic appeals over time.
Traditional views of communication have tended to view consumers as a receiver of the
marketer’s communication efforts. More contemporary views of the communication
process have expanded this view somewhat (Scott, 1990, 1994b; Otnes and Scott, 1996)
but the emphasis is still on the delivery and reception of the message as the end result.
So, while consumers might be affected by culture (Sherry, 1987) as embodied in a
celebrity (McCracken, 1989), the symbols which products convey (Solomon, 1983), or the
visual rhetoric of the story/arguments which are embedded in pictures (Scott, 1994a), the
reception by the consumer, passive or active, is still something of the end of the process.
The concept of symbolic appeal helps frame the consumer as the co-creator of the
product/service consumption, not as an ad hoc observer or a hypothetical reader of a text
(Scott, 1994b), but instead as the inevitable result of symbolic action between the a priori
symbolic appeals which are held by the consumer and the formal appeals of the
consumption experience. More subtly, consumers do not simply consume performances
(Deighton, 1992); such performances only exist in the psychology of the consumer, in the
interplay of symbolic and formal appeals which happens in the mind of the individual.
It is this psychological phenomenon that is experiential consumption. In such an
interplay, the extent to which demand creation arises in response to felt needs blurs
when we realize that the symbolic appeals themselves are influenced and affected
developmentally over time, and, at least in part, by previous consumer encounters with
marketer-controlled formal appeals (Escalas, 2004).
On the message level, this possibility has certainly been implicit in the research of
those adapting various schools of literary criticism to marketing (Stern, 1988a, b, 1989a, b;
Hirschman, 1999, 2003; Scott, 1994b). Kenneth Burke’s focus, however, is more sublime
and individual. Indeed, marketers have traditionally considered the mind of the consumer
to be something of a black box, all but exempt from control or influence. Among the basic
tenets in marketing is that marketers cannot create need, only influence the assuagement
of wants with competing choices.
Lexicon
Rhetoricae
181
QMRIJ
14,2
182
When we consider the wide-ranging and long time-lines by which symbolic appeals
arise, however, it becomes apparent that marketing communications might be much more
effective at influencing ultimate consumption experiences than has been previously
thought. The potential for marketing communications tools to help set an agenda of
expectations for consumption is far-reaching, particularly in the experience of a service
encounter. Recent research has established the use of affect as a means for influencing
attitudes from individual advertisements (Fedorikhin and Cole, 2004). More recently,
Naylor et al. (2006) have confirmed similar subsequent positive evaluations from
exposure effects to promotions. These are two instances of the isolated use of marketing
tools. But in a long range IMC campaign for a complex product, there are multiple
opportunities to develop and/or exploit the various influences which develop symbolic
appeals over time. For example, strategic planners of IMC campaigns might well add how
they intend to shape symbolic appeals into the formal appeal of the campaign, far in
advance of its implementation. In building upon just one such application (Hirschman’s
(1999) use of “interpretative communities”, for example) it might be that IMC planners will
identify how these “communities” function, in order to affect target audiences. And then,
in turn, planners will adjust the design of advertisements (their formal appeal) to leverage
this new understanding, by working to influence a given interpretative community well in
advance of specific campaigns or events, thereby shaping the formation of symbolic
appeals which individual consumers generate based upon their participation in that
interpretative community (Hirschman, 1999; Scott, 1994b). In the very least, anticipation
of how marketers might influence symbolic appeal formation changes the perception of
product complementarity and IMC fit (Solomon and Englis, 1994).
Such an approach likewise sheds new light on the potential to leverage (exploit?) the
normative background of consumption in the social and cultural context which
surrounds all information processing and which leads to the formation of symbolic
appeals, and therefore also demand creation. For example, Thompson et al. (1994)
identification of so-called “Symbolic metaphors” through hermeneutic methods
provides a background on the interaction between pre-existing cultural norms and
values and the personal consumption choices of individual consumers. Future work
might explore how this background evolves into the individual symbolic appeals which
consumers bring to consumption epxeriences. Even more, in recognizing how marketing
communications increasingly function to “prime the pump” of expectations for
consumption experiences, market researchers might find good reasons to break down
the long held assumption that marketers do not create needs. For example, Ford and
Smith (1987) found that prompting subjects about inferences produces significantly
different responses than when subjects are not prompted. Knowledge of which kind of
symbolic appeals will enhance the consumption experience, therefore, might well serve
as the specific objective of formal appeals which are conveyed in advertising.
It is beyond the scope of this article to re-visit the old debate about need creation versus
want satisfaction here. But clearly the intermingling of symbolic and formal appeals
suggests that this issue is more complicated than traditional approaches allow. Moreover,
the ethical obligations of marketers who seek to stimulate specific symbolic appeals
warrants increased attention. Indeed, Lexicon Rhetoricae does not require that all formal
appeals which are generated by marketers be considered unethical. But differing levels of
consumer sophistication across target audiences certainly demands caution. For
example, Belk et al. (1982) investigated how children learn or are taught to decode the
symbolism which is inherent in how people consume products. They found that grade
school is the time when most people acquire so-called decoding skills. If symbolism is part
of formal appeals, and can be equated with the development of symbolic appeals, then the
responsibilities of marketers (and perhaps also regulators, educators, parents, and others)
to select ethically acceptable uses of such appeals might become a moral imperative.
Lexicon
Rhetoricae
Symbolic and formal appeal as organizing perspective
Lexicon Rhetoricae is also useful for providing a theoretical context for placing the rich
influences on consumption which are described by more traditional theories as simply
“peripheral” to the formation of attitudes. For example, the “nuanced” description of
lifestyles which is advocated by Holt (1997) is seemingly in opposition to traditional
theories of such influences, but wholly consistent with how symbolic appeals arise.
As such, Lexicon Rhetoricae affords a more inclusive view of developmental influences
on consumption, and might serve as a point of departure for discussions on how the
observable and the internalized influences on consumption interact.
Additionally, the motivations which are created by symbolic appeals might serve as
possible avenues for market researchers. For example, Allen (2002) has identified that
goal-seeking behavior is instrumental in a family’s search for the “right” college or
university. It might be possible, therefore, to adapt his “fits-like-a-glove” approach to the
study of how symbolic appeals are formed, across consumption in which consumers
seek specific outcomes which feed social-psychological needs (Boorstin, 1973; Driver,
1991; Rook, 1985).
The concept of symbolic appeals focuses on the a priori meanings which consumers
bring to consumption and how these meanings might be conceptualized. While the
literature regarding the transfer of meanings is well established (McCracken, 1986, 1989
and Gwinner, 1997), little theoretical work has been offered which describes the overall
internal psychological processes by which the individual consumers bring a priori
meanings to consumption, or how those meanings interact with the marketer-controlled
activities. We know, however, that self-reports of a priori experiences are often at odds
with objective data (Novemsky and Ratner, 2003). In recognizing the possibility that a
priori influences might affect inference making, for example, Broniarczyk and Alba
(1994, p. 394) noted that such influences might “overshadow” the influence of data-based
information. Lexicon Rhetoricae adapts a functional theory of information processing
which describes and categorizes internal a priori antecedents which consumers bring to
consumption events versus which things might rightfully be called event-meanings in
and of themselves. Further study is needed to determine if the parameters of
event-meanings are more fixed or more fluid than has been previously established.
Finally, the terms of Lexicon Rhetoricae in particular, and of literary theory in general,
provide a functional approach which helps place earlier work on the effects of symbolic
and nonconscious processes into a broader, more unified context (Lynch, 2005; Novemsky
and Ratner, 2003). This functional approach is additionally useful because it helps
distance the researcher from the intimacy of participant observation, while allowing an
on-site researcher to describe observations in terms of the categorical reference of
symbolic and formal appeals. Thompson et al. (1990) find that descriptive methods which
bracket researchers from pre-mature evaluations can be useful for capturing a richer
understanding of the totality of the consumption experience – something often missed
by more restrictive methods which focus more narrowly on consumer behavior per se.
183
QMRIJ
14,2
184
References
Allen, D. (2002), “Toward a theory of consumer choice as sociohistorically shaped practical
experience: the fits-like-a-glove (FLAG) framework”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28
No. 4, pp. 515-32.
Bargh, J. (2002), “Losing consciousness: automatic influences on consumer judgment, behavior,
and motivation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 280-5.
Belk, R., Bahn, K. and Mayer, R. (1982), “Developmental recognition of consumption symbolism”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 4-17.
Berger, J. and Heath, C. (2008), “Who drives divergence? Identity signaling, outgroup
dissimilarity, and the abandonment of cultural tastes”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 593-607.
Boorstin, D. (1973), The American Experience, Random House, New York, NY.
Broniarczyk, S. and Alba, J. (1994), “The role of consumers’ intuitions in inference making”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 393-406.
Burke, K. (1931/1968), Counter-Statement, The University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Case, P. (1999), “Remember re-engineering? The rhetorical appeal of a managerial salvation
device”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 419-41.
Cavanaugh, L., Bettman, J., Luce, M. and Payne, J. (2007), “Appraising the appraisal-tendency
framework”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 169-73.
Chartrand, T. (2005), “The role of conscious awareness in consumer behavior”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 203-10.
Cornwell, T. and Smith, R. (2001), “The communications importance of consumer meaning in
cause-linked events: findings from a US event for benefiting breast cancer research”,
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 213-29.
Deighton, J. (1992), “The consumption of performance”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 362-72.
Deighton, J., Romer, D. and McQueen, J. (1989), “Using drama to persuade”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 335-43.
Dijksterhuis, A. and Smith, P. (2005), “What do we do unconsciously? And how?”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 225-9.
Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P., van Baaren, R. and Wigboldus, D. (2005), “The unconscious
consumer: effects of environment on consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Psychology,
Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 193-202.
Driver, T. (1991), The Magic of Ritual, Harper Collins, New York, NY.
Englis, B. and Solomon, M. (1995), “To be and not to be: lifestyle imagery, reference groups,
and the clustering of America”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 13-28.
Escalas, J. (2004), “Narrative processing: building consumer connections to brands”, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 168-80.
Escalas, J. and Stern, B. (2003), “Sympathy and empathy: emotional responses to advertising
dramas”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 566-78.
Fedorikhin, A. and Cole, C. (2004), “Mood effects on attitudes, perceived risk and choice:
moderators and mediators”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 14 Nos 1/2, pp. 2-12.
Fish, S. (1980), Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretative Communities,
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Ford, G. and Smith, R. (1987), “Inferential beliefs in consumer evaluations: an assessment of
alternative processing strategies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 363-71.
Grint, K. and Case, P. (1998), “The violent rhetoric of re-engineering: management consultancy on
the offensive”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 557-77.
Gwinner, K. (1997), “A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship”,
International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 145-58.
Han, S., Lerner, J. and Keltner, D. (2007), “Feelings and consumer decision making: the
appraisal-tendency framework”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 158-68.
Hershey, L. (1990), “Characteristics favoring peripheral persuasion: a theoretical perspective on
methodological problems in studying low involvement”, Journal of Midwest Marketing,
Vol. 5, pp. 7-13.
Hirschman, E. (1999), “Applying reader-response criticism to a television program”, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 26, pp. 549-54.
Hirschman, E. (2003), “Men, dogs, guns, and cars: the semiotics of rugged individualism”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Hoch, S. and Deighton, J. (1989), “Managing what consumers learn from experience”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 53, April, pp. 1-20.
Holt, D. (1995), “How consumers consume: a typology of consumption practices”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Holt, D. (1997), “Poststructuralist lifestyle analysis: conceptualizing the social patterning of
consumption in postmodernity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 326-50.
Jackson, B. (1999), “The goose that laid the golden egg?: a rhetorical critique of
Stephen Covey and the effectiveness movement”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 353-77.
Lerner, J., Han, S. and Keltner, D. (2007), “Feelings and consumer decision making: extending
the appraisal-tendency framework”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 184-7.
Lynch, J. (2005), “Accessible but nondiagnostic memories about memory and consumer decision
making”, in Griffin, A. and Otnes, C. (Eds), 6th Paul D. Converse Award Symposium,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 88-115.
McCracken, G. (1986), “Culture and consumption: a theoretical account of the structure and
movement of the cultural meaning of consumer goods”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 71-84.
McCracken, G. (1989), “Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement
process”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 310-21.
McQuarrie, E. and Mick, D. (1992), “On resonance: a critical pluralistic inquiry into advertising
rhetoric”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 180-97.
Madrigal, R. (2003), “Investigating an evolving leisure experience: antecedents and consequences
of spectator affect during a live sporting event”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 23-48.
Naylor, R., Raghunathan, R. and Ramanathan, S. (2006), “Promotions spontaneously induce
a positive evaluative response”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 295-305.
Novemsky, N. and Ratner, R. (2003), “The time course and impact of consumers’ erroneous
beliefs about hedonic contrast effects”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 4,
pp. 507-16.
Lexicon
Rhetoricae
185
QMRIJ
14,2
186
Otnes, C. and Scott, L. (1996), “Something old, something new: exploring the interaction between
ritual and advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
Petty, R., Cacioppo, J. and Schumann, D. (1983), “Central and peripheral routes to advertising
effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10
No. 2, pp. 135-46.
Rook, D. (1985), “The ritual dimension of consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 251-64.
Scott, L. (1990), “Understanding jingles and needledrop: a rhetorical approach to music in
advertising”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 223-36.
Scott, L. (1994a), “Images in advertising: the need for a theory of visual rhetoric”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 252-73.
Scott, L. (1994b), “The bridge from text to mind: adapting reader-response theory to consumer
research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 461-80.
Sherry, J. (1987), “Advertising as a cultural system”, in Umiker-Sebeok (Ed.), Marketing and
Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for Sale, Jean Mouton de Gruyter,
New York, NY, pp. 441-61.
Simonson, I. (2005), “In defense of consciousness: the role of conscious and unconscious inputs in
consumer choice”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 211-17.
Solomon, M. (1983), “The role of products as social stimuli: a symbolic interactionism
perspective”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 319-29.
Solomon, M. and Englis, B. (1994), “Observations: the big picture: product complementarity and
integrated communications”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 57-63.
Stern, B. (1988a), “How does an ad mean? Language in services advertising”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 3-14.
Stern, B. (1988b), “Medieval allegory: roots of advertising strategy for the mass market”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 52, July, pp. 84-94.
Stern, B. (1989a), “Literary criticism and consumer research: overview and illustrative analysis”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 322-34.
Stern, B. (1989b), “Literary explication: a methodology for consumer research”,
in Hirschman, E. (Ed.), Interpretative Consumer Research, Association for Consumer
Research, Chicago, IL, pp. 48-59.
Stern, B. (1990), “Literary criticism and the history of marketing thought: a new perspective on
‘reading’ marketing theory”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 18, Fall,
pp. 329-36.
Thompson, C., Locander, W. and Pollio, H. (1990), “The lived meaning of free choice: an
existential-phenomenological description of everyday consumer experiences of
contemporary married women”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 346-61.
Thompson, C., Pollio, H. and Locander, W. (1994), “The spoken and the unspoken: a hermeneutic
approach to understanding the cultural viewpoints that underlie consumers’ expressed
meanings”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 432-52.
Further reading
Caro, L. and Garcia, J. (2007), “Cognitive-affective model of consumer satisfaction: an exploratory
study within the framework of a sporting event”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 60 No. 2,
pp. 108-14.
Hirschman, E. and Holbrook, M. (1982), “Hedonic consumption: emerging concepts, methods, and
propositions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46, Summer, pp. 92-101.
MacInnis, D. and Price, L. (1987), “The role of imagery in information processing: review and
extensions”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 474-91.
About the authors
Lewis Hershey, PhD, is Professor of Marketing at Fayetteville State University. He received his
PhD from Louisiana State University and both his MA and BA from The University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Lewis Hershey is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
lhershey@uncfsu.edu
John Branch currently teaches at the Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of
Michigan. He holds a BSc in Engineering from the University of Western Ontario, an MBA from
the University of New Brunswick, an MA in Education from Washington University in Saint Louis,
and a PhD from the University of Cambridge.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Lexicon
Rhetoricae
187