Home The Effect of Verbal Anchoring on the Processing of Advertising Pictorial Metaphors
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The Effect of Verbal Anchoring on the Processing of Advertising Pictorial Metaphors

  • Shuo Cao

    Shuo Cao is a professor of applied linguistics in School of Foreign Languages at Dalian University of Technology, China. Her research efforts have focused on cognitive linguistics and psychological linguistics.

    , Xuanyi Zhao

    Xuanyi Zhao is a teaching assistant in English Department at Shanxi Agricultural University. Her research efforts have focused on cognitive linguistics and psychological linguistics.

    and Ziya Xu

    Ziya Xu is pursuing her MA in School of Foreign Languages at Dalian University of Technology, China. Her research efforts have focused on cognitive linguistics.

Published/Copyright: April 20, 2021
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

Although investigating metaphors in advertising is gaining in popularity, there are still certain unresolved arguments, such as the interaction between elements of different modalities. This study, composed of three behavioral experiments, aims to identify how verbal anchoring (literal anchoring, metaphor anchoring and unrelated anchoring) influences the processing of pictorial metaphors in advertising, by observing the cognitive and affective indicators, advertising comprehension and advertising likeability. The results showed 1) that metaphors in pictorial modality were recognized more quickly than those in verbal modality, 2) that verbal anchoring facilitated participants ’ comprehending and appreciating of pictorial metaphors and 3) that literally-anchored metaphors with a moderate level of novelty yielded the most favorable cognitive responses. The study not only enriches the existing theoretical framework of multimodal metaphors in advertising, but also proposes an optimal match between pictorial metaphors and verbal elements, for advertisers and manufacturers to design effective multimodal advertisements.

About the authors

Shuo Cao

Shuo Cao is a professor of applied linguistics in School of Foreign Languages at Dalian University of Technology, China. Her research efforts have focused on cognitive linguistics and psychological linguistics.

Xuanyi Zhao

Xuanyi Zhao is a teaching assistant in English Department at Shanxi Agricultural University. Her research efforts have focused on cognitive linguistics and psychological linguistics.

Ziya Xu

Ziya Xu is pursuing her MA in School of Foreign Languages at Dalian University of Technology, China. Her research efforts have focused on cognitive linguistics.

References

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-454. 10.1086/209080Search in Google Scholar

Alousque, I. N. (2014). Verbo-pictorial metaphor in French advertising. Journal of French Language Studies, 24(2), 155-180. 10.1017/S0959269513000045Search in Google Scholar

Ang, S. H. (2002). Effects of metaphoric advertising among Chinese consumers. Journal of Marketing Communications, 8(3), 179-188. 10.1080/13527260210148639Search in Google Scholar

Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. C. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39-53. 10.1080/00913367.2006.10639226Search in Google Scholar

Barthes, R. (1985). Rhetoric of the image. In R. Barthes, The responsibility of forms: Critical essays on music, art and representation (R. Howard, Trans., pp. 21-40). Hill and Wang.Search in Google Scholar

Bergkvist, L., Eiderbäck, D., & Palombo, M. (2012). The brand communication effects of using a headline to prompt the key benefit in ads with pictorial metaphors. Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 6776. 10.2753/JOA0091-3367410205Search in Google Scholar

Blasko, Dawn G, & Connine, Cynthia M. (1993). Effects of familiarity and aptness on metaphor processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory & Cognition, 19(2), 295. 10.1037//0278-7393.19.2.295Search in Google Scholar

Bolognesi, M. (2016). Modeling semantic similarity between metaphor terms of visual vs. linguistic metaphors through Flickr tag distributions. Frontiers in Communication, 1(9), 1-13. 10.3389/fcomm.2016.00009Search in Google Scholar

Burgoon, M. (1995). Language expectancy theory: Elaboration, explication, and extension. In C. R. Berger & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication and social influence processes (pp. 29-52). Michigan State University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Callow, M., & Schiffman, L. (2002). Implicit meaning in visual print advertisements: A cross-cultural examination of the contextual communication effect. International Journal of Advertising, 21(2), 259-277. 10.1080/02650487.2002.11104929Search in Google Scholar

Cao, S., Wang, Y., Wang, H., Chen, H., & Kritikos, A. (2019). A facilitatory effect of perceptual incongruity on target-source matching in pictorial metaphors of Chinese advertising: EEG evidence. Advances in Cognitive Psychology, 16(1), 1-12. 10.5709/acp-0279-zSearch in Google Scholar

Defeyter, M. A., Russo, R., & McPartlin, P. L. (2009). The picture superiority effect in recognition memory: A developmental study using the response signal procedure. Cognitive Development, 24 (3), 265-273. 10.1016/j.cogdev.2009.05.002Search in Google Scholar

Forceville, C. (1996). Pictorial metaphor in advertising. Routledge.10.4324/9780203272305Search in Google Scholar

Gkiouzepas, L., & Hogg, M. K. (2011). Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 103-120. 10.2753/JOA0091-3367400107Search in Google Scholar

Hill, R. J. (1977). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research (book). Philosophy & Rhetoric, 41(4), 842-844. 10.2307/2065853Search in Google Scholar

Hoeken, H., Swanepoel, P., Saal, E., & Jansen, C. (2009). Using message form to stimulate conversations: The case of tropes. Communication Theory, 19(1), 49-65. 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01332.xSearch in Google Scholar

Hu, X., Sun, J., Cao, R., Yao, W., & Wang, M. (2014). The impact of the perceptual similarity of concrete objects' shape in visual metaphor processing (in Chinese). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(5), 607-620. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00607Search in Google Scholar

Indurkhya, B., & Ojha, A. (2013). An empirical study on the role of perceptual similarity in visual metaphors and creativity. Metaphor & Symbol, 28(4), 233-253. 10.1080/10926488.2013.826554Search in Google Scholar

Jeong, S. H. (2008). Visual metaphor in advertising: Is the persuasive effect attributable to visual argumentation or metaphorical rhetoric? Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 59-73. 10.1080/14697010701717488Search in Google Scholar

Katz, A. N., Paivio, A., & Marschark, M. (1985). Poetic comparisons: Psychological dimensions of metaphoric processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 14(4), 365-383. 10.1007/BF01067881Search in Google Scholar

Kim, J., Baek, Y., & Choi, Y. H. (2012). The structural effects of metaphor-elicited cognitive and affective elaboration levels on attitude toward the ad. Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 77-96. 10.2753/JOA0091-3367410206Search in Google Scholar

Krishna, A., & Ahluwalia, R. (2008). Language choice in advertising to bilinguals: Asymmetric effects for multinationals versus local firms. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 692-705. 10.1086/592130Search in Google Scholar

Kronrod, A., & Danziger, S. (2013). “Wii will rock you!” The use and effect of figurative language in consumer reviews of hedonic and utilitarian consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 726739. 10.1086/671998Search in Google Scholar

Lagerwerf, L., Van Hooijdonk, C. M. J., & Korenberg, A. (2012). Processing visual rhetoric in advertisements: Interpretations determined by verbal anchoring and visual structure. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(13), 1836-1852. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.009Search in Google Scholar

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-143. 10.1177/002224378602300205Search in Google Scholar

Marin, A., Reimann, M., & Castaño, R. (2014). Metaphors and creativity: Direct, moderating, and mediating effects. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(2), 290-297. 10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.001Search in Google Scholar

McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1992). On resonance: A critical pluralistic inquiry into advertising rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(2), 180-197. 10.1086/209295Search in Google Scholar

McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1993). Reflections on classical rhetoric and the incidence of figures of speech in contemporary magazine advertisements. Advances in Consumer Research, 20, 309-313. Retrieved from http://5361invention.pbworks.com/f/Evans_6.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424-438. 10.1086/209459Search in Google Scholar

McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1999). Visual rhetoric in advertising: Text-interpretive, experimental, and reader-response analyses. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 37-54. 10.1086/209549Search in Google Scholar

McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2005). Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 7-20. 10.1080/00913367.2005.10639188Search in Google Scholar

McQuire, M., Mccollum, L., & Chatterjee, A. (2017). Aptness and beauty in metaphor. Language and Cognition, 9(2), 316-331. 10.1017/langcog.2016.13Search in Google Scholar

Morgan, S. E., & Reichert, T. (1999). The message is in the metaphor: Assessing the comprehension of metaphors in advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 1-12. 10.1080/00913367.1999.10673592Search in Google Scholar

Mothersbaugh, D. L., Huhmann, B. A., & Franke, G. R. (2002). Combinatory and separative effects of rhetorical figures on consumers’ effort and focus in ad processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 589-602. 10.1086/338211Search in Google Scholar

Nelson, M. R., & Hitchon, J. C. (1995). Theory of synesthesia applied to persuasion in print advertising headlines. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 346-360. 10.1177/107769909507200208Search in Google Scholar

Ojha, A., Indurkhya, B., & Lee, M. (2017). Intelligence level and the allocation of resources for creative tasks: A pupillometry study. Creativity Research Journal, 29(1), 78-85. 10.1080/10400419.2017.1263502Search in Google Scholar

Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45 (3), 255-287. 10.1037/h0084295Search in Google Scholar

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146. 10.1086/208954Search in Google Scholar

Phillips, B. J. (2000). The impact of verbal anchoring on consumer response to image ads. Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 15-24. 10.1080/00913367.2000.10673600Search in Google Scholar

Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2004). Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), 113-136. 10.1177/1470593104044089Search in Google Scholar

Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2009). Impact of advertising metaphor on consumer belief: Delineating the contribution of comparison versus deviation factors. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 49-62. 10.2753/JOA0091-3367380104Search in Google Scholar

Pieters, R. G., Rosbergen, E., & Hartog, M. (1996). Visual attention to advertising: The impact of motivation and repetition, Advances in Consumer Research, 23, 242-48. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/22861961.pdfSearch in Google Scholar

Schmidt, G. L., & Seger, C. A. (2009). Neural correlates of metaphor processing: The roles of figurativeness, familiarity and difficulty. Brain and Cognition, 71(3), 375-386. 10.1016/j.bandc.2009.06.001Search in Google Scholar

Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348. 10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2Search in Google Scholar

Scott, L. M. (1994). Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 252-273. 10.1086/209396Search in Google Scholar

Searle, J. R. (1993) “Metaphor,” in A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, (2nd ed., pp. 83-111). Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139173865.008Search in Google Scholar

Shan, C., Yu, M., & Xue, K. (2017). Effects of metaphor advertising on brand extension evaluation: Construal level as mediator. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(6), 967-985. 10.2224/sbp.5962Search in Google Scholar

Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stern, B. B. (1990). Pleasure and persuasion in advertising: Rhetorical irony as a humor technique. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 12(1-2), 25-42. 10.1080/01633392.1990.10504942Search in Google Scholar

Tom, G., & Eves, A. (1999). The use of rhetorical devices in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 39(4), 39-43.Search in Google Scholar

Toncar, M., & Munch, J. (2001). Consumer responses to tropes in print advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30(1), 55-65. 10.1080/00913367.2001.10673631Search in Google Scholar

van Mulken, M., Enschot, R. V., & Hoeken, H. (2005). Levels of implicitness in magazine advertisements: An experimental study into the relationship between complexity and appreciation in magazine advertisements. Information Design Journal, 13(2), 155-164. 10.1075/idjdd.13.2.09mulSearch in Google Scholar

van Mulken, M., van Hooft, A., & Nederstigt, U. (2014). Finding the tipping point: Visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 333-343. 10.1080/00913367.2014.920283Search in Google Scholar

Ward, J., & Gaidis, W. (1990). Metaphor in promotional communication: A review of research on metaphor comprehension and quality. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 636-642. 10.1016/0361-3682(90)90035-SSearch in Google Scholar

Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, R. (2003). The hedonic marking of processing fluency: Implications for evaluative judgment. In J. Musch, & K. C. Klauer (Eds.), The psychology of evaluation: Affective processes in cognition and emotion (pp. 189-217). Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, L., Shen, H., Fan, A., & Mattila, A. S. (2017). The impact of language style on consumers ’ reactions to online reviews. Tourism Management, 59(APR), 590-596. 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.09.006Search in Google Scholar

Wyer Jr, R. S. (2002). Language and advertising effectiveness: Mediating influences of comprehension and cognitive elaboration. Psychology & Marketing, 19(7-8), 693-712. 10.1002/mar.10031Search in Google Scholar

Wyer Jr, R. S., Hung, I. W., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Visual and verbal processing strategies in comprehension and judgment. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(4), 244-257. 10.1016/j.jcps.2008.09.002Search in Google Scholar

Yus, F. (2009). Visual metaphor versus verbal metaphor: A unified account. In C. J. Forceville, & E. Urios-Aparisi (Eds.), Multimodal Metaphor (pp. 147-172). De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110215366.3.147Search in Google Scholar

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 19BYY088).

Published Online: 2021-04-20
Published in Print: 2021-03-26

© 2021 FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy

Downloaded on 20.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/CJAL-2021-0005/html
Scroll to top button