WHAT IS SO RHETORIC ABOUT VISUALS? A study on visual rhetorical figures in magazine advertisements

Transcription

1 WHAT IS SO RHETORIC ABOUT VISUALS? A study on visual rhetorical figures in magazine advertisements A Master thesis written by Nataša Ivković July, 2011

2 WHAT IS SO RHETORIC ABOUT VISUALS? A study on visual rhetorical figures in magazine advertisements Department of Communication, University of Amsterdam Master thesis, Persuasive Communication Nataša Ivković, Supervisor, dr. Aart S. Velthuijsen

3 PREFACE Since I m not a person of many words (although you re about to read a 30-ish paged thesis), I ll keep my preface short. First of all I want to thank my supervisor dr. Aart Velthuijsen. It was a privilege to be one of your students and I learned a lot from you. You always managed to give hope in times when needed, and I appreciate the fact that you treated me as a colleague rather than just a student. And then of course I want to thank my family and friends for coping with my moods during these months, and being the best support as you always are. May you all enjoy reading my thesis!

4 The secret of all effective originality in advertising is not the creation of new and tricky words and pictures, but one of putting familiar words and pictures into new relationships Leo Burnett

5 ABSTRACT The central concern of rhetoric has always been the question of how to ascertain the most effective way to express a thought in a certain situation, and how to adjust its expression to suit different situations. The central question in this study is to what extent do different levels of using visual rhetorical figures in print advertisements lead to better recall of the brand, more positive attitude toward the advertisement and brand, and higher purchase intention. Conducting two experiments and using three different advertisements, the following results came off. Namely, using visual rhetorical figures will lead to more positive attitudes, but will not lead to higher elaboration. Also using multiple figures did not lead to even better attitudes, but using a difficult figure will result in negative attitudes. It can be concluded that using one clear rhetorical figure is most influential.

6 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION THEORY Theories of visual effect Rhetorical theory Elaboration Likelihood Model Need for Cognition Rhetorical devices Experiment Experiment METHOD Design Design Participants & Procedure Measures Manipulation checks Dependent variables Control variables Background variables RESULTS Manipulation checks Control variables Experiment Elaboration Attitude toward advertisement & brand Recall & Purchase intention Experiment Elaboration Attitude toward advertisement & brand Recall & Purchase intention Mediating effect of elaboration DISCUSSION Summary & Limitations Experiment Experiment Elaboration & Need for cognition Limitations Implications & Recommendations REFERENCES APPENDIX A... 40

7 1. INTRODUCTION Rhetoric is the art of ruling the minds of men Plato Images surround us everywhere; at home, work, on the subway, on television, and in magazines. Historically, images have played an important role in developing consciousness and the relationship of the self to its surroundings (Hill & Helmers, 2004). We learn who we are as private individuals and public citizens by seeing ourselves reflected in images, and we learn who we can become by transporting ourselves into images (Hill & Helmers, 2004). Yet, images are treated with distrust in Western scholar culture; images have often been seen as inferior to written and verbal texts (Mitchell, 1995). Mitchell (1995) therefore, advocates for a pictorial turn a growing recognition of the presence of images and of their importance in the dissemination of information, ideas, and opinions. Rhetoric has been used as a primary tool for persuasion in Western society decades ago, from Plato and then Aristotle through modern social psychology. The central concern of rhetoric has always been the question of how to establish the most effective way to express a thought in a certain situation, and how to adjust its expression to suit different situations (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996). Over the past years a growing number of scholars have contributed to new insights on rhetorical figures as an aspect of advertising styles (McQuarrie, 1989; McQuarrie & Mick, 1992, 1996, 1999; Scott, 1994; Phillips, 1997; McGuire, 2000; Mothersbaugh, Huhmann & Franke 2002; Toncar & Munch, 2001). Findings have shown that rhetorical figures can enhance advertisement recall and produce more positive attitudes toward the advertisement and brand endorsed in the advertisement. Many scholars begin to see the important role pictures often play in persuasive messages. In many situations, pictures can lead to greater message processing because pictures gain more attention than words (MacKenzie, 1986). Visuals play a strategic key role in the success of many brands, therefore more advertisers rely on pictures to persuade (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004), and yet there is still little theory available of the variety of pictorial tactics and figures in advertising (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004; Bulmer & Buchanan-Oliver, 2006). Therefore, this study tries to contribute to fill the theoretical gap of how, and what kind of pictorial tactics and rhetorical figures in advertisements influence people s minds. Since more advertisers make use of rhetorical tactics, it is also important for them to know how and which tactics are best to maximize their goals. 1

8 Since most researchers (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996; Van Mulken, Van Enschot & Hoeken, 2005; Bulmer & Buchanan-Oliver, 2006) have studied the effect of just one visual rhetorical figure in an advertisement, and did not explore the difference in levels of using visual rhetorical figures in such way that an advertisement can contain more than just one visual rhetorical figure or a more difficult to interpret figure, the main goal of this study will therefore be to explore whether the use of more than just one visual rhetorical figure, and a more difficult to interpret visual rhetorical figure will have other outcomes than would be when using just one visual rhetorical figure. Levels in this study refer to whether an advertisement uses just one visual rhetorical figure, multiple rhetorical figures or difficult to interpret rhetorical figure. What is it that people see, feel, and think when seeing visual rhetorical advertisements is a central theme in this study, and leads us to the following research question: To what extent do different levels of using visual rhetorical figures in print advertisements lead to better recall of the brand, more positive attitude toward the advertisement and brand, and higher purchase intention? The next section is divided into several subsections, which begins by describing the needed theories in general. Since this study tries to explore differences in using different visual rhetorical figures, two studies were conducted. Therefore, hypotheses for the first study and the second study will be separately explained per subsection. 2

9 2. THEORY All our knowledge has its origins in our perceptions Leonardo da Vinci 2.1 Theories of visual effect The role that visuals play in advertising has been explained in a number of ways. In general, researchers have used association models and information processing models for explaining the role of visual images (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996). According to the models, appealing visual images may be used for improving attitudes toward a brand (Pieters & Wedel, 2004). The elaboration likelihood model (ELM) suggests that pictures are often a peripheral feature that influences attitudes when people are not motivated to process other information within an advertisement (Petty, Unnava & Strathman, 1991). Belch and Belch (2001) referred to the role of visuals as a cue, suggesting that the use of an unexpected visual will get viewer s attention and get them to engage in more effortful and elaborative processing. Messaris (1997) adds that visual cues not only draw attention, but also bring out a certain emotion. In a broader approach of the role of pictures in advertising, Scott (1994) suggested that visuals are not an addition to a verbal message but are essential persuasive devices on their own. She proposed that pictures in advertising can be used to create arguments, fictions, present metaphors, and raise questions (Scott, 1994). Visual communication has been assumed to be less ambiguous than verbal messages, and images are perceived to be more or less universal (Bulmer & Buchanan-Oliver, 2006). However, visuals alone may be very complex, since pictures are capable of representing concepts, abstractions, actions, metaphors and modifiers (Scott, 1994, p. 253). A picture may contain highly interconnected signs and multiple different levels of meaning for many viewers. Another difficulty for advertisers is how to catch the viewer s eye with an image. Dahl (1993) argues that one of the characteristics of advertisements is the fact that it is typically unwanted communication, and that one way to draw attention in print advertisement is to violate reality. Shepard (1990) states that the human perceptual system is used to pay special attention to unfamiliar objects or when objects are somewhat different from the expectations. Therefore, many advertisers create complex messages making use of visuals that refer to prior knowledge about products and social practices, existing commercial campaigns and historical precedents in advertising, cultural myths and works (Hirschman & Thompson, 3

10 1997). Complexity arises when incongruous devices such as complex irregularities are used in advertising (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996). To interpret these complex devices which are created with symbolic meanings of words and rituals, people must understand and examine those symbolic meanings in regard to their association with the cultural stack of stories and myths (Belch & Belch, 2001, p. 134). In general, studies of visual persuasion (Scott, 1994; Messaris, 1997; McQuarrie & Mick, 1999; Bulmer & Buchanan-Oliver, 2006) suggest that visual images can be more persuasive than verbal arguments, because persuasive arguments can be proposed more implicitly with visuals compared to verbal texts (Mick & Buhl, 1992; Scott, 1994; McQuarrie & Mick, 1996). The implicitness and complexity of visual arguments can make viewers to spend more time thinking about the argument and process the message actively (Bulmer & Buchanan-Oliver, 2004). Ultimately, when solving the complexity themselves, people are more willing to adopt the arguments made by the advertisement (Procter, Proctor & Papasolomou, 2005). 2.2 Rhetorical theory Aristotle s rhetoric was the most influential rhetorical text for many years. He explained that although every field of thought has its own ways of persuasion, rhetoric is the term for all ways of persuasion useful in all fields. Aristotle writes (McKeon, 1941, p. 1329): Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is not a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter, but rhetoric we look upon as the power of observing the means of persuasion on almost any subject presented to us; and that is why we say that, in its technical character, it is not concerned with any special or definite class of subjects. Aristotle adds that there are three modes of persuasion speakers can use: first, ethos, based on the personal character of the speaker, that is, his or her credibility; second, pathos, based on putting the members of the audience into a certain frame of mind; moving their emotions, and third, logos, based on the proof accomplished by the words in the speech itself, that is, the arguments made in the speech or text (Berger, 2000). Whereas Aristotle talked about rhetoric mostly in the way of formal speakers, nowadays rhetoric is subject to different work fields, as also is for advertising. Advertisers using rhetorical figures make most use of pathos, i.e. stimulate people s emotions. 4

11 Medhurst and Benson (1984) point out that the study of how people choose what to say in a given situation, how to arrange or order their thoughts, select the specific terminology to employ, and decide precisely how they are going to deliver their message is the central focus of rhetorical studies (p. 7). In essence, rhetoric is the study of effective expression and of figure in language. Rhetoric is also used to study the ways by which people are persuaded and through what media. What is important to recognize, according to Medhurst and Benson (1984), is that the delivery of formal speeches is no longer the most important way in exchanging communication as was in Aristotle s working period. In an age of mass media, rhetoric can also be used to analyze mass-mediated communication. Thus, whereas rhetorical analysis used to be restricted to speech and written materials in early years, nowadays with the explosive development of the mass media, rhetorical theory is also being used to interpret works found on radio, television, magazine, and film (Berger, 2000). The focus in this study lies on the question as how advertising agencies convince buyers to buy the products they advertise. Rhetorical figures in magazine advertisements can be effective devices in the persuasion process. Thus, advertising can be conceptualized as a form of rhetoric where the advertiser tries to use the most effective devices for informing, reminding and persuading the target group (Bulmer & Buchanan-Oliver, 2006). The audience uses these visual elements to judge the aesthetic value of the advertised product and to gain pleasure from hidden meanings and messages (Bulmer & Buchanan-Oliver, 2006). According to Meyers-Levy and Malaviya (1999), an individual s attitude toward a product or brand can be determined by the feelings experienced while processing an advertisement. When it is nice, pleasant, or fun to process the advertisement, the positive feelings can lead to a positive attitude toward the advertisement and subsequently to a positive attitude toward the brand or product. Rhetorical figures can evoke these pleasurable feelings during processing. Rhetoricians maintain that any argument can be expressed in a variety of ways and that in any given situation one of these ways will be the most effective in convincing an audience (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996). Hence, when persuasion is the main goal, the rhetorical perspective suggests that the manner in which a statement is expressed may be more important than its content. 5

12 2.3 Elaboration Likelihood Model After having defined what rhetorical theories are about, a theory is needed to explain how rhetorical figures influence viewers. A theory that is frequently used among researchers is the elaboration likelihood model. Petty and Cacioppo's (1986) elaboration likelihood model (ELM) provides a useful theory for predicting how pictures influence viewers. According to the ELM, persuasion follows a central and/or peripheral route. Within the central route, a person engages in thoughtful consideration of the relevant information within a message (i.e. arguments). These cognitive responses are measured as central route thoughts, that is, internal reactions of an individual on a unit of information (Verplanken, 1989, pp ). Attitudes therefore depend on the quality of the message arguments. If, however, the person lacks the motivation or ability to undertake relevant thinking, persuasion follows a peripheral route whereby attitudes are based on message elements that are not based on information (i.e. cues). Thus, all thoughts that do not refer to the argument are peripheral thoughts. As a message factor, visual rhetoric can be considered as a characteristic of a message that may lead to greater involvement, cognitive elaboration, and subsequent persuasion. This may lead to stronger and persistent belief change since viewers of advertisements containing visual rhetoric elaborate more on the message (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Although pictures are often considered as heuristic cues that lead to peripheral route of processing (Petty, Unnava & Strathman, 1991), visual rhetoric that deliver arguments that are central to the message content can lead to central routes of processing as well. Thus, which route of processing viewers will engage in may not be determined by the use of visual images itself but by the characteristics of the visual argument, that is, the extent to which it is central to the argument of the persuasive message (Petty, Unnava & Strathman, 1991). Some studies (Messaris, 1997, Jeong, 2008) conclude that viewers may be more persuaded by implicit rhetorical visual arguments because those arguments require more cognitive processing and elaboration, and people are more likely to adopt arguments that they have constructed rather than explicitly ones. Researchers have found that visual rhetorical figures increase pleasure of processing an advertisement and will therefore lead to a more positive attitude toward the advertisement (Tanaka, 1992, Van Enschot, Hoeken & Van Mulken, 2008). Processing a visual rhetorical figure and solving the puzzle can be pleasurable to experience (Van Enschot, Hoeken & Van Mulken, 2008). Thus, when advertisements contain visual rhetorical figures, viewers must think about the meaning of such rhetoric, and will therefore elaborate 6

13 more about the meaning of the whole advertisement, which will lead to satisfaction when completing the task. 2.4 Need for Cognition One of the personal characters people may have to resist persuasion is need for cognition (Petty & Cacioppo, 1982, 1986; Verplanken, 1989). In the ELM, people s need for cognition was used more as a predictor of how well people wanted to elaborate on certain messages (Verplanken, 1989). Petty and Cacioppo (1982) defined need for cognition as the tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy thinking (p. 116). Thus, need for cognition refers to the variation between people in how motivated they are to engage in thinking (Verplanken, 1989). When people are more willing to think about a message or are more willing to solve difficult tasks, they will elaborate more on the message, in this case, the visual rhetorical figure. H1. The higher need for cognition, the more elaboration will occur. 2.5 Rhetorical devices McQuarrie and Mick (1996) classify several rhetorical devices in a framework. They first make distinction between schemes and tropes. Schemes, when used in a rhetorical context, are inconsistencies which are explicit and noticeable to everyone (e.g. rhyme, alliteration and antithesis). Tropes, when used in a rhetorical context, are also inconsistencies but, can only be noticed and interpreted on the basis of already existing knowledge or other elements in the advertisement (e.g. metaphors, metonyms and puns). Interpreting tropes leads to better understanding of the meaning of the advertising message. Attitudes toward advertisements with tropes may be more favourable than toward advertisements with schemes because of the difference in complexity (McQuarrie & Mick, 1999, 2003). Tropes are assumed to be more complex than schemes, and this complexity may result in a more favourable attitude toward advertisements with tropes than toward advertisements with schemes and advertisements without rhetorical figures. The more effort it costs to interpret a rhetorical figure, the more pleasurable the processing of the rhetorical figure is (McQuarrie & Mick, 1999, 2003; Van Driel, 2002). The positive outcome of processing the rhetorical figure occurs only when the 7

14 advertisement with tropes is processed successfully, that is, the figure needs to be understood. Active participation and knowledge is required to process tropes, whereas schemes and nonrhetorical figures are processed automatically (McQuarrie & Mick, 1999, 2003). Thus, the higher level of complexity of an advertisement may result in a more favourable attitude toward the advertisement only if the rhetorical figure is understood. But it could also be that attitudes toward advertisements with non-rhetorical figures, schemes and tropes form an inverted U-curve (Phillips, 2000; McQuarrie & Mick, 2003; Van Mulken, Van Enschot & Hoeken, 2005). The attitudes toward advertisements with tropes and advertisements without rhetorical figure may be lower than toward advertisements with schemes because advertisements with tropes are understood less often than advertisements with schemes and non-rhetorical figures. With tropes, people might feel frustrated because they have not succeeded in interpreting the advertisement (Meyers-Levy & Malaviya, 1999). This frustration may lead to unfavourable attitude toward the advertisement (Van Mulken, Van Enschot & Hoeken, 2005). Thus, rhetoric first provokes an error, but when the meaning is understood, the negative tension is relieved. The result of finally getting the message increases pleasure (McQuarrie & Mick, 1992; Peracchio & Meyers-Levy, 1994), and contributes to positive attitudes toward the advertisement (Mick, 1992). Brown and Stayman (1994) explain that positive attitude toward the advertisement will lead to positive brand attitude, and positive brand attitudes will, subsequently, affect purchase intentions. For advertisers it is therefore important that people have a positive attitude toward the advertisement. The rhetorical devices used in this study are antithesis, puns, and metaphors. 1 A visual antithesis is the juxtaposing of two or more contradicting objects (Hein, 2005, p. 4), and an antithesis combines elements that are mirror images of one another in an expression (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996, p. 432).. That is, two opposite objects which, however, do match one with each other when considered more carefully, but are not related on first sight. Because the relationship between the two contradicting objects is vague, more elaboration is needed to understand the message (Phillips & McQuarrie, 2004). Visual puns refer to the usually humorous use of a word in such a way as to suggest two or more of its meanings or the meaning of another word similar in sound (Van Mulken, Van Enschot-Van Dijk & Hoeken, 2005, p. 708). Puns are a form of figurative speech in which the message has at least two different meanings. McQuarrie and Mick (1996) qualify 1 Which rhetorical devices are used for what advertisement is explained in the method section, and the advertisements used are shown in the hypotheses section. 8

15 puns as one of the more complex forms of rhetoric: puns generally require more processing effort than messages where simple forms of rhetoric are used (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996, 1999). Hein (2005) uses the following definition of puns: a visual pun is a seemingly accidental reference to an object other than the main object of the picture. This accidental reference is often a subtle joke. (p. 3). Thus, a pun is a humorous device, and humorous messages can give the audience a pleasant experience. Also, a pun can be considered as a riddle. Solving a riddle is a pleasant experience because it praises the audience s intellectual capabilities by showing them that they have the relevant knowledge to solve the problem (Van Mulken, Van Enschot-Van Dijk & Hoeken, 2005). A visual metaphor is a figure of speech that uses comparison to generate meaning (Berger, 2000) and is a reference to a notion or an object other than the main object of the picture to describe an attribute of the main object (Hein, 2005, p. 4). It is important to realize that metaphors are not restricted to poetry and literary works but, according to some linguists, are the essential way in which people make sense of things and create their world (Berger, 2000). Thus, metaphor is a rhetorical figure of comparing two dissimilar objects, and because of the comparison, the characteristic of one object is transferred to the other (Sopory & Dillard, 2002). Visual metaphors tend to be more implicit and complex than verbal metaphors and allow for several possible interpretations (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996; Phillips, 2000; Jeong, 2008). Therefore, metaphors are likely to increase audiences cognitive elaboration when they process the message, which may lead to greater persuasion. Sopory and Dillard s (2002) meta-analytic summary of the effects of metaphor suggests that metaphorical rhetoric, enhances attitude change due to cognitive and affective processes. For instance, Phillips (2000) showed that participants appreciated the riddle of a visual metaphor more when they succeeded in accomplishing a relevant interpretation themselves, compared to participants who received the visual metaphor where the interpretation was spelled out. This feeling may increase the positive attitude toward the product which is endorsed, because people may feel understood by the advertiser (Van Mulken, Van Enschot-Van Dijk & Hoeken, 2005). 2.6 Experiment 1 The first experiment will be conducted to check whether the use of one visual rhetorical figure leads to more favourable attitudes toward the advertisement and brand. The rhetorical device used in this experiment is a pun. A visual pun is an accidental reference to an object other 9

16 than the main object of the picture (Hein, 2005). The used advertisement endorses a WMF knife, and shows a cutting board and a carrot. Both the carrot and the cutting board are cut in pieces, and the text says Sharper than you think. The cutting board which is cut in pieces refers to the sharpness of the knife: it says that the knife is practically so sharp that it can cut anything. The advertisement is shown below. As mentioned earlier, researchers (Tanaka, 1992; Peracchio & Meyers-Levy, 1994; McQuarrie & Mick, 1996, 1999; Phillips, 2000; Hein, 2005; Van Mulken, Van Enschot-Van Dijk & Hoeken, 2005) did found that using rhetorical figures lead to positive attitudes and higher elaboration. And according to Brown and Stayman (1994) positive attitude toward the advertisement will reflect to positive brand attitude, and subsequently, higher purchase intention will occur: H2. a: Participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure will elaborate more than participants who will see the advertisement with no rhetorical figure. b: Participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure will have more positive attitudes toward the advertisement and brand than participants who will see the advertisement with no rhetorical figure. 10

17 c: Participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure will have a better recall of the brand shown in the advertisement than participants who will see the advertisement with no rhetorical figure. d: Participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure will have a higher purchase intention than participants who will see the advertisement with no rhetorical figure. 2.7 Experiment 2 The second experiment will be conducted to check whether the use of multiple visual rhetorical figures lead to more favourable attitudes toward the advertisement and brand, than when using just one visual rhetorical figure and a more difficult to interpret figure. For this experiment three advertisements are used, namely the advertisement from the first experiment (i.e. WMF knife), an advertisement for Ariel and one for Colgate. The rhetorical devices used in the advertisement for Ariel are a pun and a metaphor, and for the advertisement for Colgate a metaphor and a antithesis are used. The advertisement for Ariel shows two arms writing something in ink. The ink bottle is spilled and left a stain on the paper, but not on the white blouse the arms are wearing. The text says Stay stain-free, and refers to the white blouse which stayed stain-free, because it was washed with Ariel. The subtle joke is that when you use Ariel, stains will avoid you. 11

18 The advertisement for Colgate shows a kiwi without the black seeds; the seeds are fallen on the ground. In the corner there is a picture of Colgate with no text. The Colgate tooth paste takes care of caries, that is, the seeds out of the kiwi refer to no caries. But because no text is shown, it is a difficult figure to interpret. The antithesis in this advertisement is that a kiwi on its own does not relate to tooth paste on first sight. Thus, a kiwi and tooth paste are two contradicting objects (Hein, 2005). When multiple visual rhetorical figures are used in advertisements, people must elaborate more to solve the rhetorical figures (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Even more elaboration is needed to solve the difficult to interpret figure. Because more elaboration is needed to solve the riddle, it will praise people s intellectuality when solved, and therefore lead to better attitudes (Van Mulken, Van Enschot-Van Dijk & Hoeken, 2005), but since the difficult to interpret figure may not be understandable for everybody, some people will not be able to solve the complexity and will therefore lead to negative attitudes. H3. a: Participants who will see the advertisement with difficult to interpret rhetorical figure will elaborate more than participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure and more than the participants who will see the advertisement with multiple rhetorical figures. The participants who will see the advertisement with multiple rhetorical figures will elaborate more than participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure. 12

19 b: Participants who will see the advertisement with multiple rhetorical figures will have more positive attitudes toward the advertisement and brand than participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure and participants who will see the advertisement with difficult to interpret rhetorical figure. Participants who will see the advertisement with difficult to interpret rhetorical figure will have the least positive attitudes toward the advertisement. c: Participants who will see the advertisement with multiple rhetorical figures will have a better recall of the brand shown in the advertisement than participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure and participants who will see the advertisement with difficult to interpret rhetorical figure. Participants who will see the advertisement with difficult to interpret rhetorical figure will have the lowest recall of the brand shown in the advertisement. d: Participants who will see the advertisement with multiple rhetorical figures will have a higher purchase intention than participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure and participants who will see the advertisement with difficult to interpret rhetorical figure. Participants who will see the advertisement with difficult to interpret rhetorical figure will have the lowest purchase intention. The next hypothesis can be explained by the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). When a visual rhetorical figure is used in advertisements, people need to solve the rhetorical figure. That is, to understand the rhetoric one must elaborate more on the advertisement, and will lead to positive attitudes (Mick, 1992). According to McQuarrie and Mick (1999, 2003) the higher level of complexity of an advertisement may result in a more favourable attitude toward the advertisement only if the figure is understood. Therefore, the advertisement with multiple rhetorical figures will be more enjoyable, and lead to more positive attitudes than the advertisement with just one rhetorical figure because higher elaboration will occur for multiple figures. But, the difficult to interpret figure will not be understood by many, and will therefore lead to negative attitudes: H4. Participants who will see the advertisement with multiple rhetorical figures will have more positive attitudes toward the advertisement than participants who will see the advertisement with one rhetorical figure because of higher elaboration, but the participants who will see the advertisement with difficult to interpret rhetorical figure will have most negative attitudes toward the advertisement because of high elaboration but no understanding of the figure. 13

20 3. METHOD Of all mass communications, pictures still speak the most universally understood language Walt Disney In this section two studies will be described. The procedure and measures will be described after the studies and their stimuli are outlined, since the procedures and measures are the same for both studies. 3.1 Design 1 The first study attempts to establish whether the use of one visual rhetorical figure influences advertisement recall, attitude toward the advertisement and brand, and purchase intention. For this, a one between-subject factorial design has been employed, with the visual rhetorical figure as independent variable. The experiment resulted in a total of two groups; one group where the rhetorical figure was present, and one control group where the rhetorical figure was absent. Stimulus materials are presented in the form of a magazine advertisement. One advertisement was used with a visual rhetorical figure; a pun. This advertisement was manipulated by using Photoshop to leave out the visual rhetorical figure, resulting in two advertisements: the original advertisement (with visual rhetorical figure) and the same advertisement but without the visual rhetorical figure. The advertisement was collected from an Internet site (adsoftheworld.com) and was never published in The Netherlands to reduce the chance of prior exposure. The advertisements shown in the two conditions are represented in Figure 1. 14

21 Figure 1. Advertisements shown in the two conditions. 3.2 Design 2 This study attempts to establish whether different levels of visual rhetorical figures have different outcomes on advertisement recall, attitude toward the advertisement and brand, and purchase intention. For this, a one between-subject factorial design has been employed, with the visual rhetorical figure as independent variable. The experiment resulted in a total of three experimental groups; one group who saw one visual rhetorical figure, one group who saw multiple visual rhetorical figures, and one group who saw a difficult to interpret visual rhetorical figure. Also in this experiment the stimulus materials are presented in the form of a magazine advertisement collected from the same Internet site (adsoftheworld.com) and none of the advertisements were ever published in The Netherlands. Three different advertisements were used: the same original advertisement used in the first study with one visual rhetorical figure. The second advertisement contained more visual rhetorical figures; a pun and a metaphor, and the third advertisement contained a difficult to interpret visual rhetorical figure; an antithesis and a metaphor. The advertisements shown in the three conditions are represented in Figure 2. 15

22 Figure 2. Advertisements shown in the three conditions. 3.3 Participants & procedure Participants were mainly students Communication Science from the University of Amsterdam, but also non-students participated with a minimum of HBO education degree. The participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditional groups. Hundred-seven participants participated, of which 64% woman. The mean age of the participants was twentyfour (M = 23.7; SD = 2.88) ranging from eighteen to thirty-four years old. The participants from the four groups did not differ significantly in their age, gender or prior exposure to the advertisement. Table 1 shows how many participants per group were recruited. Table 1. Amount of participants per condition. Group Advertisement N Group Advertisement N With one 28 Multiple 25 figure figures WMF Grand Gourmet Knife Ariel Without figure 26 Difficult figure 28 WMF Grand Gourmet Knife Colgate 16

23 To test the hypotheses, an online survey was constructed using Qualtrics survey tool. This is an online application tool where one can create electronic surveys. Four versions of the questionnaire were made, that is, each version had the same questions but a different advertisement was shown. Before exposing participants to the questionnaire a pilot study was done by several people to make sure the questions were comprehendible and clear, and to make sure the advertisements were more difficult and/or had multiple figures. After the pilot study, the questionnaire was sent randomly to participants. Each participant received a link in their box which lead them to one of the online version of the questionnaire. The experiment starts off by explaining the purpose of the study, by ensuring participants that their anonymity is guaranteed and by ensuring them that their responses will not be seen by anyone other than the researcher. Also, participants are told that there is no time limit for completing the test, that there are no wrong -or right answers and that they should therefore fill in the answers that most apply to them. Then, respondents were instructed to carefully look at the advertisement they were about to see. During the questionnaire, the advertisement was shown occasionally in a smaller size. This was done to remind the participants how the advertisement looked like. Throughout the completion of the questionnaire, the participants were coached to finish the questionnaire and updated on how many questions remained. In a box below the page, participants could also see how far they have progressed (in percentages) with filling out the questionnaire. The questionnaire concludes by thanking participants for their participation in the study. 3.4 Measures Manipulation checks To ensure that the advertisements that are shown are indeed perceived differently in their figurativeness, a manipulation check was done. The manipulation check was measured with a sevenpoint scale, defining to what extent the participants found the advertisement as artful, clever / plain, matter-of-fact (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996). Also, comprehensibility of the advertisements was asked to check whether the advertisements differ from each other on the level of understandability, since three conditions of rhetorical figures were used. It was asked how understandable the participants found the advertisement on a sevenpoint scale with three items: hard to understand/easy to understand, confusing/clear and ambiguous/unambiguous (α =.93). 17

24 3.4.2 Dependent variables The dependent variables of this study are advertisement recall, attitude toward the advertisement and brand, elaboration and purchase intention. Advertisement recall was measured as free recall. To measure free recall, participants were asked to write down the brand name of the advertisement they saw. Recall was scored as the number of correctly indicated brand names. The second dependent variable, attitude toward the advertisement and toward the brand, was measured with six items on a seven-point scale. The six adjectives on which the advertisements are rated, are good/bad, enjoyable/not enjoyable, pleasant/unpleasant, interesting/uninteresting, appealing/unappealing and entertaining/not entertaining (Ajzen, n.i.; Connor & Sparks, 2005). Higher scores reflected more favourable attitudes. The six-item sum appears to have a high degree of internal consistency for both attitude toward the advertisement (α =.94) and attitude toward the brand (α =.90). To measure elaboration participants were instructed to write down everything they thought about when watching and after watching the advertisement (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). After formulating all their thoughts, they were told to rate each thought they wrote as being positive (+) or negative (-). Purchase intention was measured with an item that asked the likelihood that they would buy the advertised product (very likely/very unlikely) on a seven-point scale Control variable Need for cognition refers to an individual s tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities. Research on need for cognition suggests that this characteristic is predictive of the manner in which people deal with tasks and social information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Following Cacioppo, Petty and Kao (1984), 18-items were used to measure participants need for cognition (α =.88). On a seven-point scale, participants could indicate per item whether the statement was very characteristic of me or very uncharacteristic of me. Examples of the statements are I would prefer complex to simple problems, I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of thinking and Thinking is not my idea of fun. 2 2 For the complete 18 statements, see Appendix A. 18

25 3.4.4 Background variables In addition, several background variables that might explain the effects of visual rhetoric are included in the research as well. First, participants are asked about their age and gender. Then they are asked about prior exposure to the advertisement and prior usage of the product, as prior exposure to an advertisement and prior usage of product may influence attitude toward and recall of the advertisement. To measure prior exposure to the advertisement and prior usage, participants were asked to indicate on a dichotomous scale ( yes or no ) whether they have seen the advertisement before and whether they have used the product before. Also, involvement with the product was asked, as high involvement with the product could lead to a more positive attitude, better recall and higher elaboration. Involvement with the product was measured with two items: frequency of usage (I do not use, rarely, sometimes or often) and importance of usage on a seven-point scale ranging from very important to not important at all. The items show a high degree of internal consistency (α =.83). 19

26 4. RESULTS Advertising is only another form of statistics Hartman Jule Since the four versions of the questionnaire had the same questions, and only a different advertisement, the data could be merged together as one data file. Therefore, the manipulation check and control variables are outlined first for both experiments. After that, the experiments are described apart. 4.1 Manipulation checks One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to explore whether the figurativeness of the advertisements differed between the four groups. There was a statistically significant difference among the mean scores on the dependent variable (figurativeness) for the four groups (F (3, 103) = 3.06, p < 0.05). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the group who saw one figure (M = 5.21, SD = 1.66) was significantly different from the group who saw the same advertisement without the figure (M = 3.77, SD = 1.73). The group who saw multiple figures (M = 4.40, SD = 1.89) and the group who saw a difficult to interpret figure (M = 4.29, SD = 1.84) did not differ significantly from each other and from the group who saw one figure on figurativeness. Thus, manipulation only worked for the first experiment (t(52) = 3.13, p < 0.05). Figure 3 shows the bar chart of the four conditions on figurativeness from 1 (plain, matter-of-fact) to 7 (artful, clever) Figurativeness With figure Without figure Multiple figures Difficult figure figurativeness 5,21 3,77 4,4 4,29 Figure 3. Figurativeness of the advertisements. 20

27 The second manipulation check was to ensure whether the advertisements with different rhetorical figures were found differently understandable. There was a statistically significant difference among the mean scores on the dependent variable (comprehensibility) for the four groups (F (3, 103) = 13.82, p < 0.001). Post-hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test indicated that the mean score for the group who saw one figure (M = 6.26, SD = 0.75) was significantly (p < 0.05) different from the group who did not see the figure (M = 5.22, SD = 1.33) and from the group who saw a difficult figure (M = 3.83, SD = 2.01). The group who saw multiple figures (M = 5.28; SD = 1.29) did not differ significantly from the other groups on comprehensibility. Figure 4 shows the bar chart of the four conditions on comprehensibility from 1 (not understandable at all) to 7 (very understandable) Comprehensibility of ad With figure Without figure Multiple figures Difficult figure comprehensibility 6,26 5,22 3,83 5,28 Figure 4. Comprehensibility of the advertisements. 4.2 Control variables To check whether the level of need for cognition (NFC) can predict participants elaboration, a bivariate correlation was conducted. The relationship between NFC and total elaboration was explored using Pearson s correlation coefficient. There was no significant correlation between the two variables (r = 0.04, n = 107, p = n.s.). Also, no significant correlation between NFC and central (r = -0.04, n = 107, p = n.s.) and peripheral (r = 0.08, n = 107, p = n.s.) elaboration routes were found. Therefore, the first hypothesis can be rejected. The relationship between the variable prior usage of the product shown in the advertisement and variable recall did correlate positive (r = 0.54, n = 107, p < 0.01), also involvement with the product and recall correlate positive (r = 0.27, n = 107, p < 0.01). This means that higher recall can be explained by the frequency of using the product and the level of involvement with the product. Other background variables did not show any correlation. 21

28 4.3 Experiment Elaboration The second hypothesis states that the group who saw the advertisement with one visual rhetorical figure elaborates more than the group who did not saw the visual rhetorical figure. Table 1 shows for both conditions the mean scores of the amount of thoughts participants wrote down when seeing the advertisement. The group who saw the figure scored higher in total amount of thoughts (M = 4.93, SD = 2.24) than the control group who did not saw the figure (M = 4.42, SD = 2.44), but the groups did not significantly differ from each other (t (52) = 0.79, p = n.s.). Therefore, the first hypothesis cannot be adopted. But, the group who saw the figure did score more on peripheral thoughts (M = 3.46, SD = 1.99) than the group who did not see the figure (M = 2.81, SD = 2.21), and also the group who saw the figure had more positive thoughts (M = 3.60, SD = 1.67) than the group who did not see the figure (M = 3.00, SD = 2.18). Therefore, the inclusion of the rhetorical figure did have some effect on which route was taken, and what kind of thoughts came up. Table 2. Mean scores for elaboration. Group Elaboration Condition 1: ad with figure Condition 2: ad without figure Central route M = 1.46 SD = 1.17 Peripheral route M = 3.46 SD = 1.99 Positive thoughts M = 3.60 SD = 1.67 Negative thoughts M = 0.80 SD = 0.83 M = 1.62 SD = 0.85 M = 2.81 SD = 2.21 M = 3.00 SD = 2.18 M = 0.78 SD = 0.97 Total thoughts M = 4.93 SD = 2.24 M = 4.42 SD =

29 4.3.2 Attitude toward advertisement & brand Hypothesis 2b predicts that the group who saw the advertisement with visual rhetorical figure will have a more positive attitude toward the advertisement than the group who did not see the figure. According to the results of the independent sample t-test, the hypothesis can be adopted (t (52) = 3.19, p < 0.01). The group who saw the figure (M = 5.49, SD = 1.02) had a more positive attitude toward the advertisement than the group who did not see the figure (M = 4.47, SD = 1.33). Hypothesis 2b also predicts that the group who saw the visual rhetorical figure will have a more positive attitude toward the brand than the group who did not see the figure. Therefore another independent sample t-test has been conducted and shows that the group who saw the figure (M = 4.91, SD = 0.98) did had a slightly more positive attitude toward the brand than the group who did not see the figure (M = 4.44, SD= 1.02), though not significantly (t(52) = 1.72, p = n.s.). Thus, for attitude toward the advertisement there has been found a significant linear effect, but for attitude toward the brand no significant linear effect has been found. Attitudes With figure Without figure attitude ad 5,49 4,47 attitude brand 4,91 4,44 Figure 4. Attitude toward advertisement and brand per condition Recall & purchase intention Hypotheses 2c&d predict that the group who saw visual rhetorical figure will recall the brand better (H.2d) and have a higher purchase intention (H.2e) than the group who did not see the figure. Also here, an independent sample t-test was conducted. Both hypotheses need to be rejected, since no significance was found for recall (t (52) = -1.66, p = n.s.) nor for purchase intention (t (52) = 0.15, p = n.s.). The group who did not see the rhetorical figure (M = 1.88, SD = 0.42) scored slightly higher 23

30 on recall than the group who did see the figure (M = SD = 0.42). Note, that the scores were either 1(wrong answer) or 2(right answer). For purchase intention the group who saw the rhetorical figure (M = 4.75, SD = 1.58) scored slightly higher than the group who did not see the figure (M = SD = 1.19). 4.4 Experiment Elaboration The third hypothesis states that the group who saw the advertisement with a difficult visual rhetorical figure will elaborate more than the group who saw the advertisement with multiple visual rhetorical figures and more than the group who saw the advertisement with one visual rhetorical figure. Table 2 shows for all three conditions the mean scores of the amount of thoughts participants wrote down when seeing the advertisement. The group who saw the advertisement with figure scored the highest on the total amount of thoughts (M = 4.93, SD = 2.24), whereas the group who saw the advertisement with difficult figure had the lowest amount of total thoughts (M = 4.50, SD = 2.08). The results show a counter effect, and therefore the hypothesis should be rejected, also due to no significance of the ANOVA analysis (F (3, 103) = 0.26, p = n.s.). However, the mean scores do indicate that the group who saw multiple figures had the most central thoughts (M = 3.08, SD = 2.43), and the most negative thoughts (M = 1.63, SD = 1.09). The group who saw the difficult figure had more peripheral thoughts (M = 2.89, SD = 1.47) than central thoughts (M = 1.61, SD = 1.34), but the group who saw one figure had the most peripheral thoughts (M = 3.46, SD = 1.99). The group who saw one figure had also the most positive thoughts (M = 3.60, SD = 1.67). 24

31 Table 3. Mean scores for elaboration. Group Condition 1: Condition 2: Condition 3: Elaboration ad with one figure ad with multiple figures ad with difficult figure Central route M = 1.46 SD = 1.17 M = 3.08 SD = 2.43 M = 1.61 SD = 1.34 Peripheral route M = 3.46 SD = 1.99 M = 1.52 SD = 1.26 M = 2.89 SD = 1.47 Positive thoughts M = 3.60 SD = 1.67 M = 3.50 SD = 2.42 M = 3.32 SD = 1.86 Negative thoughts M = 0.8 SD = 0.83 M = 1.63 SD = 1.09 M = 1.11 SD = 1.33 Total thoughts M = 4.93 SD = 2.24 M = 4.60 SD = 2.43 M = 4.50 SD = Attitude toward advertisement & brand Hypothesis 3b predicts that the group who saw multiple figures will have a more positive attitude toward the advertisement than the group who saw only one figure. The group who saw the difficult figure will have the most negative attitude toward the advertisement. According to the results of the one-way ANOVA, there is a significant difference between the groups (F (3, 103) = 4.31, p < 0.05). A post-hoc comparison using the Tukey HSD was used to check the differences between each pair of groups. The post-hoc test indicated that the mean score on attitude toward the advertisement for the group who saw one figure (M = 5.49, SD = 1.02) was significantly different from the group who saw a difficult figure (M = 4.48, SD = 1.25). The group who saw multiple figures (M = 4.72, SD = 1.30) did not significantly differ from either the group who saw one figure or the group who saw the difficult figure. According to these analyses, the hypothesis can partly be adopted. Namely, the group who saw the difficult figure did score the most negative on attitude toward the advertisement, but the advertisement with one figure scored better on attitude toward the advertisement than the advertisement with multiple figures did. Hypothesis 3b also predicts the same for attitude toward the 25

32 brand. That is, the group who saw multiple figures will score highest on attitude toward brand, followed by the group who saw one figure, and the group who saw a difficult figure will score lowest on attitude toward brand. Also here, the one-way ANOVA, found a significant difference between the groups (F (3, 103) = 4.10, p < 0.05). The post-hoc comparison test indicated that the mean score on attitude toward the brand for the group who saw one figure (M = 4.91, SD = 0.98) was significantly different from the group who saw a difficult figure (M = 3.95, SD = 1.14). The group who saw multiple figures (M = 4.41, SD = 0.96) did not significantly differ from either the group who saw one figure or the group who saw the difficult figure. According to these analyses, also this hypothesis can partly be adopted. Namely, the group who saw the difficult figure did score the most negative on attitude toward the brand, but the advertisement with one figure scored better on attitude toward the advertisement than the advertisement with multiple figures did. Thus, attitude toward the advertisement and brand both showed to be a significant linear effect Attitudes One figure Multiple figures Difficult figure attitude ad 5,49 4,72 4,48 attitude brand 4,91 4,41 3,95 Figure 5. Attitude toward advertisement and brand per condition Recall & purchase intention It was hypothesized that the group who saw the advertisement with multiple figures will recall the brand better, whereas the group who saw the advertisement with difficult figure will score worst on recall. One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference for the groups (F (3, 103) = 21.97, p < 0.001), but not as expected. The group who saw one figure (M = 1.21, SD = 0.42) scored worst on recall, the group who saw multiple figures (M =1.88, SD = 0.33) scored better, and the group who saw the difficult figure scored best (M = 1.93, SD = 0.26). After completing the post-hoc test, all groups showed a significant difference between each other. But, considering the correlation check for control variables prior usage and involvement, there might be a spurious effect of the group 26

33 condition on recall. Therefore, mediation effect of prior usage and involvement needs to be conducted. To test whether the relationship between the independent variable group and the dependent variable recall is mediated by the degree of involvement and prior usage, several steps were conducted. According to Baron & Kenny (1986) there are three steps needed to measure mediating effects. First, one must explore whether the independent variable correlates significantly with the dependent variable. If so, step two can be conducted. That is, one must test whether the independent variable correlates significantly with the mediating variable. If this is the case, one can proceed to step three, where one must explore whether there is regression between the dependent variable on both the independent variable and on the mediator. Only if all these conditions are met, and the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is less in the third case than in the first, there is a mediation effect. Therefore, a correlation analysis has been conducted for both mediating variables. Analyses show that the group condition (i.e. advertisement group) correlates highly significant with recall (r = 0.60, n = 107, p < 0.01). The group condition correlates also significantly with involvement (r = 0.45, n = 107, p < 0.01), and involvement correlates significantly with recall (r = 0.27, n = 107, p < 0.01). A regression analysis must be conducted to see whether the variable involvement is a mediating factor between group condition and recall. Analyses show that involvement and the condition group together explain 36,2% of the total variance in recall (F(2, 104) = 29.52, p < 0.001). The group condition and recall variable were statistically significant with a same beta value as in the correlations (β = 0.60, t = 6.87, p < 0.001), but involvement and recall are not significant (β = -0.01, t = -0.01, p = n.s.). Because the correlation in the first test and the beta in the regression analysis are the same (r = 0.60, β = 0.60), and there are no significant correlations (beta's) between involvement and recall, and because the condition group and involvement are correlating weakly, it can be concluded that there was no mediating effect. Figure 6. Mediating effect of involvement between condition and recall. 27

34 The same procedure has been conducted for prior usage. Analyses show that the group condition correlates highly significant with recall (r = 0.60, n = 107, p < 0.01). The group condition correlates also significantly with prior usage (r = 0.67, n = 107, p < 0.01), and prior usage correlates significantly with recall (r = 0.54, n = 107, p < 0.01). Also here a regression analysis was conducted to see whether the variable prior usage is a mediating factor between group condition and recall. Analyses show that the condition group and prior usage together explain 39,8% the total variance in recall (F(2, 104) = 34.40, p < 0.001). The group condition and recall variable were statistically significant with a lower beta value as in the correlations (β = 0.43, t = 4.25, p < 0.001), and prior usage and recall are also significant (β = 0.25, t = 2.50, p < 0.05). Because the beta (β = 0.43) in this case is lower than the correlation value (r = 0.60), there is a mediation effect of prior usage. Recall can be explained both by the condition group (.43) participants were in, and prior usage (.54) with the product advertised in the advertisement. Figure 7. Mediating effect of prior usage between condition and recall. 28

35 Purchase intention was expected to be the highest for the group who saw multiple figures, and lowest for the group who saw a difficult figure. One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference for the groups (F (3, 103) = 2.91, p < 0.05), and therefore the hypothesis can be adopted. Namely, the group who saw multiple figures (M = 4.88, SD = 1.36) scored highest on purchase intention, a little lower scored the group who saw one figure (M = 4.75, SD = 1.58), and the group who saw the difficult figure scored lowest (M = 3.75, SD = 2.05) Purchase intention One figure: WMF Multiple figures: Ariel Difficult figure: Colgate purchase intention 4,75 4,88 3,75 Figure 8. Purchase intention of the endorsed brand in advertisement Mediating effect of elaboration It was assumed that the relationship between the independent variable condition group and the dependent variables attitude toward the advertisement and recall should be mediated by the degree of elaboration. From the correlation test, no significant outcome was shown between the group condition and total elaboration (r = -0.06, p = n.s.), thus no further tests were needed to conduct. Also central route elaboration (r = 0.12, p = n.s.) or peripheral route elaboration (r = -0.18, p = n.s.) apart did not correlate with the condition group. Therefore, the assumption that the relationship between group and attitude toward advertisement and recall is mediated by the degree of elaboration in any kind should be rejected. 29