Combinatory and Separative Effects of Rhetorical Figures on Consumers' Effort and Focus in Ad Processing

Previous research demonstrates that rhetorical figures differentially affect the extent of ad processing. Specifically, tropes (a type of figure) deviate more from expected language use than schemes, with the greater deviation yielding more extensive ad processing. We extend previous research in two ways by focusing on the incongruity differences that exist between schemes and tropes. Study 1 uses syndicated data (Starch readership scores) to test how figures combine to affect the extent of processing. Results show that when figures leverage unique mechanisms (i.e., schemes and tropes), their combination yields incremental processing gains. Alternatively, when figures leverage redundant mechanisms (e.g., multiple tropes), their combination yields no incremental processing. Study 2 is an experiment that tests how figures separate in affecting the focus of ad processing. Results show that schemes generate a generalized focus on the entire ad, including both ad-stylistic and message-related aspects, while tropes generate a more selective focus on message-related aspects.

[1]  James M. Munch,et al.  Examining the Target of Receiver Elaborations: Rhetorical Question Effects on Source Processing and Persuasion , 1985 .

[2]  Bob D. Cutler,et al.  Analysis of print ad features: services versus products , 1993 .

[3]  Preferences Scientific.  Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. , 1982 .

[4]  Michel Tuan Pham.  Cue Representation and Selection Effects of Arousal on Persuasion , 1996 .

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

[6]  M. Kaplan.  The determination of trait redundancy in personality impression formation , 1971 .

[7]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal Information Processing , 1985 .

[8]  Debbie Treise,et al.  Ethics in Advertising: Ideological Correlates of Consumer Perceptions , 1994 .

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

[10]  Rik Pieters,et al.  Visual Attention to Advertising: the Impact of Motivation and Repetition , 1995 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[12]  J. Zaichkowsky.  The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising , 1994 .

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

[14]  M. Heesacker,et al.  Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. , 1981 .

[15]  G. Tom.  The Use of Rhetorical Devices in Advertising , 1999 .

[16]  D. Over,et al.  Studies in the Way of Words. , 1989 .

[17]  Bernd H. Schmitt,et al.  Memory for Print Ads , 1993 .

[18]  Barbara B. Stern,et al.  “Crafty Advertisers”: Literary versus Literal Deceptiveness , 1992 .

[19]  W. D. Perreault,et al.  Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative Judgments , 1989 .

[20]  J. Aaker,et al.  Dimensions of Brand Personality , 1997 .

[21]  B. Sternthal,et al.  The Effects of Knowledge, Motivation, and Type of Message on Ad Processing and Product Judgments , 1990 .

[22]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[23]  Bernd H. Schmitt,et al.  Memory for print ads: Understanding relations among brand name, copy, and picture , 1993 .

[24]  R. Lutz.  Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad : A conceptual framework , 1985 .

[25]  R. Kreuz,et al.  Why Do People Use Figurative Language? , 1994 .

[26]  Cornelia Dröge,et al.  Shaping the Route to Attitude Change: Central versus Peripheral Processing through Comparative versus Noncomparative Advertising , 1989 .

[27]  D. Berlyne,et al.  Aesthetics and Psychobiology , 1975 .

[28]  Adam Finn,et al.  Print Ad Recognition Readership Scores: An Information Processing Perspective , 1988 .

[29]  James M. Munch,et al.  Consumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertising , 2001 .

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

[31]  Linda M. Scott,et al.  Understanding Jingles and Needledrop: A Rhetorical Approach to Music in Advertising , 1990 .

[32]  D. Stewart.  Advertising Wearout: What and How You Measure Matters , 1999 .

[33]  Charlotte H. Mason,et al.  Responses to Information Incongruency in Advertising: The Role of Expectancy, Relevancy, and Humor , 1999 .

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

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

[36]  Terry L. Childers,et al.  The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What Is Incongruency? , 1992 .

[37]  D. Dustin,et al.  Redundancy in impression formation. , 1966, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[38]  Daniel J. Howard.  Rhetorical question effects on message processing and persuasion: The role of information availability and the elicitation of judgment , 1990 .

[39]  U. Eco,et al.  The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts , 1980 .

[40]  S. Chaiken,et al.  The psychology of attitudes. , 1993 .

[41]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[42]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Advertising Repetition and Variation Strategies: Implications for Understanding Attitude Strength , 1994 .

[43]  Gilbert A. Churchill,et al.  Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Research , 1993 .