Consumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertising

Abstract This research investigates the effects of a specific type of figure of speech in print advertising. The figures of speech, tropes, are indirect or irregular statements, such as puns or metaphors, that require viewers to make inferences to understand their intended meaning. The results suggest that using tropes can significantly enhance the effectiveness of a print ad, making the ad more persuasive and more memorable. However, the effectiveness of tropes seems limited to low involvement settings. The authors suggest that advertisers can employ tropes to overcome some of the difficulties associated with advertising to disinterested consumers.

[1]  Jaideep Sengupta,et al.  All Cues Are Not Created Equal: Obtaining Attitude Persistence under Low-Involvement Conditions , 1997 .

[2]  J. Leigh,et al.  The Use of Figures of Speech in Print Ad Headlines , 1994 .

[3]  Johny K. Johansson,et al.  The Sense of "Nonsense": Japanese TV Advertising , 1994 .

[4]  Richard A. Spreng,et al.  How Does Motivation Moderate the Impact of Central and Peripheral Processing on Brand Attitudes and Intentions , 1992 .

[5]  Linda M. Scott,et al.  The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-Response Theory to Consumer Research , 1994 .

[6]  Richard L. Celsi,et al.  The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes , 1988 .

[7]  F. Kardes,et al.  Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising: The Effects of Conclusion Omission and Involvement on Persuasion , 1988 .

[8]  D. Thistlethwaite,et al.  The effects of directive and nondirective communication procedures on attitudes. , 1955, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[9]  C I HOVLAND,et al.  An experimental comparison of conclusion-drawing by the communicator and by the audience. , 1952, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[10]  Stephen Worchel,et al.  Opinion change as a result of effortfully drawing a counterattitudinal conclusion , 1970 .

[11]  A. Greenwald.  6 – Cognitive Learning, Cognitive Response to Persuasion, and Attitude Change1 , 1968 .

[12]  D. Mick,et al.  Levels of Subjective Comprehension in Advertising Processing and Their Relations to Ad Perceptions, Attitudes, and Memory , 1992 .

[13]  Edward F. McQuarrie,et al.  On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric , 1992 .

[14]  Alan G. Sawyer,et al.  Effects of Omitting Conclusions in Advertisements to Involved and Uninvolved Audiences , 1991 .

[15]  H. E. Krugman.  THE IMPACT OF TELEVISION ADVERTISING: LEARNING WITHOUT INVOLVEMENT , 1965 .

[16]  R. C. Goodstein.  Category-based Applications and Extensions in Advertising: Motivating More Extensive Ad Processing , 1993 .

[17]  Edward F. McQuarrie,et al.  Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language , 1996 .

[18]  George Lakoff,et al.  A Cognitive Theory of Metaphor. , 1987 .

[19]  B. J. Fine.  Conclusion-drawing, communicator credibility, and anxiety as factors in opinion change. , 1957, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[20]  Frank R. Kardes,et al.  Spontaneous Inference Processes in Advertising , 1992 .

[21]  Edward F. McQuarrie,et al.  Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text-Interpretive, Experimental, and Reader-Response Analyses , 1999 .