Verbalizing or Visualizing Metaphors?
The Moderating Effects of Processing Mode and Temporal Orientation
Yi He
Assistant Professor of Marketing
College of Business and Economics, California State University, East Bay
25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, CA 94542
Phone: 510-885-3534
Fax: 510-885-4796
Email: yi.he@csueastbay.edu
Qimei Chen
Shidler Distinguished Professor
Associate Professor of Marketing
Shidler College of Business, University of Hawai‘i
2404 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822
Phone: (808) 956-8921
Fax: 808-956-9886
Email: qimei@hawaii.edu
Dana L. Alden
William R. Johnson Distinguished Professor of Marketing
Shidler College of Business, University of Hawai‘i
2404 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822
Phone: (808) 956-8565
Fax: 808-956-9886
Email: dalden@hawaii.edu
1
ABSTRACT
Metaphors are used extensively in healthcare communications and their
persuasive superiority relative to literal messages is well-established. However,
understanding of the processing mechanisms (e.g., mental visualization) that may
mediate the enhanced effectiveness of metaphor in healthcare communications
remains limited. Four experiments reported here address this limitation by examining
whether metaphor type (abstract versus concrete) affects processing of a persuasive
anti-smoking website. In Experiment 1, the authors reveal that concrete (versus
abstract) metaphors activate higher levels of imagery processing leading to increased
message effectiveness. In Experiments 2-3, the authors demonstrate that congruency
between metaphor format and processing goals as well as between metaphor format
and temporal orientation enhances message effectiveness.
2
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
The Internet, with its “seemingly endless opportunities to inform, teach, and
connect” (Silberg et al. 1997, p. 1244), has become one of the most important
channels for pro-healthful persuasive communications. Central to many of these
communications is the use of metaphor. Despite this, understanding of metaphor
processing mechanisms remains limited. For example, theory has yet to incorporate
mental imaging as mediator of metaphor's enhanced persuasiveness. This is the case
despite the centrality of imagery processes to metaphor comprehension (Marschark,
Katz, and Paivio 1983; Gibbs and Bogdonovich 1999). The extent to which
processing mechanisms differ by type of metaphor also remains unknown. To address
these gaps, the first objective is to identify underlying processing mechanisms for
alternative metaphor formats (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphors).
A second objective is to extend current theory regarding relationships between
metaphor message strategies and "processing fluency." Processing fluency refers to
the ease with which message content is evaluated and understood (Petrova and
Cialdini 2005; Thompson and Hamilton 2006; Lee and Aaker 2004). Enhanced
processing fluency has been associated with the use of imagery appeals (Petrova and
Cialdini 2005), comparative advertising (Thompson and Hamilton 2006), and certain
message frames (Lee and Aaker 2004). However, researchers have yet to test the
impact of metaphor (e.g., abstract versus concrete metaphors) in conjunction with
other communication tactics (e.g., processing goals or temporal orientation priming)
on processing fluency as a mediator of message effectiveness. Closing these
theoretical gaps, this research further examines ways that congruency between
metaphor format (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphors) and processing instructions
(i.e., low- versus high-imagery instructions) impacts persuasion by enhancing
processing fluency. Similar congruency effects between metaphor format (i.e.,
abstract versus concrete metaphors) and temporal orientation priming (i.e., long-term
versus short-term priming) are also investigated.
Experiment 1 examines the processing mechanism of abstract versus concrete
metaphor. Although imagery has yet to be incorporated into the metaphor processing
mechanism, prior research has consistently underscored the role of imagery in
comprehending metaphoric messages (Bottini et al. 1994; Burgess and Chiarello
1996). In addition, the level of mental imagery may vary by type of metaphor. For
example, Gibbs and Bogdonovich (1999) demonstrated that concrete metaphors were
usually processed through higher imagery mode than abstract metaphors. In addition,
as imagery processing is believed to have superiority over discursive processing,
concrete metaphors may be expected to be more persuasive than abstract metaphors.
Experiment 1 tested the information processing mode of abstract versus concrete
metaphors and the effect of metaphor format on message persuasion. Experiment 1
features a 2 metaphor format (abstract metaphor versus concrete metaphor) one-factor
between-subject experimental design. Experiment 1 reveals that concrete (versus
3
abstract) metaphors activate higher levels of imagery processing, and increase
message effectiveness.
Experiment 2 investigates the effect of congruency between metaphor format
and processing mode on persuasion. Congruency between message format and
processing mode is believed to positively affect persuasion. Such effect is expected
based on processing fluency theory (Winkielman and Cacioppo 2001). Processing
fluency is defined as the experienced ease or fluency of ongoing processing
(Unkelbach 2007). Processing fluency may also result from congruency between 1)
the information and organization of information, and 2) the type of processing being
done (Bettman et al. 1986). As found in Experiment 1, abstract (concrete) metaphors
are more compatible with lower (higher) imagery processing. Then it can be predicted
that compared with concrete (abstract) metaphors, abstract (concrete) metaphors lead
to greater persuasion when low-imagery (high-imagery) processing was made salient.
To test these hypotheses, Experiment 2 features a 2 metaphor format (abstract
metaphor and concrete metaphor) X 2 processing instructions (low- versus
high-imagery instructions) factorial design. Experiment 2 shows that congruency
between metaphor format and processing goals facilitates processing fluency, and
thereafter enhances message effectiveness.
Experiment 3 extends the same analogy and tested similar congruency effects
between metaphor format (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphor) and temporal
orientation priming (i.e., long- versus short-term priming). Temporal orientation
priming was selected due to its close associations with health related behaviors
(Orbell and Hagger 2006). Prior research revealed that an individual can be primed to
either focused on the long-term, the pursuit of distant rewards and achievement, or
alternatively focused on the short-term, the pursuit of immediate gains and returns
(Liu and Aaker 2007). According to the Temporal Construal Theory (Trope and
Liberman 2003), abstract (concrete) metaphors are congruent with long-term
(short-term) temporal orientation. Following the regulatory fit hypothesis (e.g., Lee
and Aaker 2004; Aaker and Lee 2006), one may expect that when there is congruency
between an individual’s regulatory orientation (e.g., long- versus shot-term) and
communication message (e.g., abstract versus concrete metaphor), the ideas conveyed
in the message are conceptually more fluent, and hence are more effective. To test
these hypotheses, Experiment 3 features a 2 metaphor format (abstract metaphor and
concrete metaphor) X 2 temporal orientation priming (long- versus short-term
priming) factorial design. Experiment 3 reveals the positive effects of congruency
between metaphor format (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphors) and temporal
orientation priming (i.e., long-term versus short-term priming) on message
effectiveness due to increased processing fluency.
This research contributes to the collective knowledge of marketing in the
following aspects. First, by developing a more precise model of the processing
mechanism related to metaphors, this research advances the collective knowledge
concerning how to effectively deliver metaphoric marketing appeals. Second, by
4
examining the match or mismatch of different kinds of metaphors to other
communication tactics (e.g., processing goals or temporal orientation priming), the
present research may help identify ways to optimize the blending of linguistic and
non-linguistic advertising elements. These analyses should assist marketers in
answering important strategic questions in today’s highly competitive global
marketplace.
5
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. and Angela Y. Lee (2006), "Understanding Regulatory Fit,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (1), 15-19.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator-Mediator Variable
Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and
Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51
(6), 1173-82.
Bergadaa, Michelle M. (1990), "The Role of Time in the Action of the Consumer,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 289-302.
Bettman, James R., John W. Payne, and Richard Staelin (1986), "Cognitive
Considerations in Designing Effective Labels for Presenting Risk
Information," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 5 (1), 1-28.
Bone, Paula F. and Pam S. Ellen (1992), "The Generation and Consequences of
Communication-Evoked Images," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2),
93-104.
Burgess, Curt and Christine Chiarello (1996), "Neurocognitive Mechanisms
underlying Metaphor Comprehension and Other Figurative Language,"
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11 (1), 67-84.
Escalas, Jennifer E. (2004), "Imagine Yourself in the Product," Journal of
Advertising, 33 (2), 37-48.
6
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Jody Bogdonovich (1999), "Mental Imagery in Interpreting
Poetic Metaphor," Metaphor and Symbol, 14 (1), 37-44.
Grossman, Randi Priluck and Brian D. Till (1998), "The Persistence of Classically
Conditioned Brand Attitudes," Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 23-31.
Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), "Marketing in Hypermedia
Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations," Journal of
Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68.
Hunt, Shelby D. and Anil Menon (1995), "Metaphors and Competitive Advantage:
Evaluating the Use of Metaphors in Theories of Competitive Strategy,"
Journal of Business Research, 33 (2), 81-90.
Janiszewski, Chris and Elise Chandon (2007), "Transfer-Appropriate Processing,
Response Fluency, and the Mere Measurement Effect," Journal of
Marketing Research, 44 (2), 309-23.
Keller, Punam Anand and Lauren Goldberg Block (1996), "Increasing the
Persuasiveness of Fear Appeals: The Effect of Arousal and Elaboration,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (4), 448-59.
Lee, Angela Y. and Jennifer L. Aaker (2004), "Bringing the Frame into Focus: The
Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing fluency and Persuasion," Journal
of Personality & Social Psychology, 86 (2), 205-18.
7
Liu, Wendy and Jennifer Aaker (2007), "Do You Look to the Future or Focus on
Today? The Impact of Life Experience on Intertemporal Decisions,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (2), 212-25.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Linda L. Price (1987), "The Role of Imagery in Information
Processing: Review and Extensions," Journal of Consumer Research, 13
(4), 473-91.
Marschark, Marc, Albert N. Karz, and Allan Paivio (1983), "Dimensions of
Metaphor," Journal of Psychological Research, 12 (1), 17-39.
McCabe, Allyssa (1988), "Effect of Different Contexts on Memory for Metaphor,"
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3 (2), 105-32.
McQuarrie, Edward F. and Barbara J. Phillips (2005), "Indirect Persuasion in
Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 7-20.
Menon, Geeta, Lauren G. Block, and Suresh Ramanathan (2002), "We're at as Much
Risk as We Are Led to Believe: Effects of Message Cues on Judgments of
Health Risk," Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 533-49.
Morgan, Susan E. and Tom Reichert (1999), "The Message is in the Metaphor:
Assessing the Comprehension of Metaphors in Advertisements," Journal of
Advertising, 28 (4), 1-12.
8
Orbell, Sheina and Martin Hagger (2006), "Temporal Framing and the Decision to
Take Part in Type 2 Diabetes Screening: Effects of Individual Differences
in Consideration of Future Consequences on Persuasion," Health
Psychology, 25 (4), 537-48.
Petrova, Petia K. and Robert B. Cialdini (2005), "Fluency of Consumption Imagery
and the Backfire Effects of Imagery Appeals," Journal of Consumer
Research, 32 (3), 442-52.
Schlosser, Ann E., David Glen Mick, and John Deighton (2003), "Experiencing
Products in the Virtual World: The Role of Goal and Imagery in
Influencing Attitudes versus Purchase Intentions," Journal of Consumer
Research, 30 (2), 184-98.
Shen, Fuyuan and Qimei Chen (2007), "Contextual Priming and Applicability,"
Journal of Advertising, 36 (1), 69-80.
Sherman, Steven J., Robert B. Cialdini, Donna F. Schwartzman, and Kim D.
Reynolds (1985), "Imagining can Heighten or Lower the Perceived
Likelihood of Contracting a Disease: The Mediating Effect of Ease of
Imagery," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11 (1), 118-27.
Silberg, W. M., G. D. Lundberg, and R. A. Musaccio (1997), "Assessing, Controlling,
and Assuring the Quality of Medical Information on the Internet: Caveat
Lector et Viewor - Let the Reader and Viewer Beware," Journal of the
American Medical Association, 277, 1244-45.
9
Thompson, Debora Viana and Rebecca W. Hamilton (2006), "The Effects of
Information Processing Mode on Consumers' Responses to Comparative
Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 530-40.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003), "Temporal Construal," Psychological
Review, 110 (3), 403-21.
Unkelbach, Christian (2007), "Reversing the Truth Effect: Learning the Interpretation
of Processing Fluency in Judgments of Truth," Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (1), 219-30.
10