Margot van Mulken, Rob Le Pair
VISUAL METAPHOR AND
CONSUMER RESPONSE
ICORIA 2006
BATH
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
C o m p l e x i t y
•
Juxtaposition
– Source and target domain are
both present, presented
separately, side-by-side
•
•
more complex processing?
•
more appreciation?
Fusion
– Target and source domain are
combined together
•
Consumer response
Replacement
+
– Source domain replaces target
domain, the present image calls
to mind the absent image
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
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
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
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.