The goal of rhetorical theory is always to organize the possibilities for persuasion
within a domain and to relate each possible stratagem to specific desired outcomes.
In this article we develop a visual rhetoric that differentiates the pictorial
strategies available to advertisers and links them to consumer response. We propose
a new typology that distinguishes nine types of visual rhetorical figures according
to their degree of complexity and ambiguity. We then derive empirically testable
predictions concerning how these different types of visual figures may influence
such consumer responses as elaboration and belief change. The article concludes with
a discussion of the importance of marrying textual analysis, as found in literary,
semiotic and rhetorical disciplines, with the experimental methodology
characteristic of social and cognitive psychology.
Abed, F.
(1994)
‘Visual Puns as Interactive Illustrations: Their Effects on
Recognition Memory’
, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity9(1):
45–60
.
2.
Anand, P.
and
Sternthal, B.
(1990)
‘Ease of Message Processing as a Moderator of Repetition Effects
in Advertising’
, Journal of Marketing Research27(3) (August):
345–353
.
3.
Berlyne, D.
(1971) Aesthetics and Psychobiology.
New York: Appleton
.
4.
Cacioppo, J.
,
Petty, R.
and
Kao, C.
(1984)
‘The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition’
, Journal of Personality Assessment48(3):
306–307
.
5.
Childers, T.
,
Houston, M.
and
Heckler, S.
(1985)
‘Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal
Information Processing’
, Journal of Consumer Research12(2) (September):
125–134
.
6.
Colston, H.
and
Gibbs, R.
(1998)
‘Analogy and Irony: Rebuttal to ‘Rebuttal Analogy’
, Metaphor and Symbol13(1):
69–75
.
7.
Colston, H.
and
Gibbs, R.
(2002)
‘Are Irony and Metaphor Understood Differently?Metaphor and Symbol17(1):
57–80
.
8.
Corbett, E.
and
Connors, R.
(1999) Classical Rhetoric for the Modern
Student(4th Ed.).
New York: Oxford University Press
.
9.
Creusere, M.
(2000)
‘A Developmental Test of Theoretical Perspectives on the
Understanding of Verbal Irony: Children’s Recognition of Allusion
and Pragmatic Insincerity’
, Metaphor and Symbol15(1/2):
29–45
.
10.
Durand, J.
(1987) ‘Rhetorical Figures in the Advertising
Image’, in
J. Umiker-Sebeok
(ed.) Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions in the Study of Signs for
Sale, pp. 295– 318.
New York: Mouton De Gruyter
.
11.
Eco, U.
(1979) The Role of the Reader.
Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press
.
12.
Fogelin, R.
(1989) Figuratively Speaking.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
.
13.
Forbus, K.
(2001) ‘Exploring Analogy in the
Large’, in
D. Gentner
,
K. Holyoak
and
B. Kokinov
(eds) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science,
pp. 24–58.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
.
14.
Forceville, C.
(1994)
‘Pictorial Metaphor in Advertisements’
, Metaphor and Symbolic Activity9(1):
1–29
.
15.
Forceville, C.
(1996) Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising.
New York: Routledge
.
16.
Gentner, D.
,
Bowdle, B.
,
Wolff, P.
and
Boronat, C.
(2001) ‘Metaphor is Like
Analogy’, in
D. Gentner
,
K. Holyoak
and
B. Kokinov
(eds) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science,
pp. 199–253.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
.
17.
Gibbs, R.
(1994) The Poetics of Mind.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
.
18.
Hjelmslev, L.
(1961) Prolegomena to a Theory of Language(trans.
Francis J. Whitfield).
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press
.
19.
Holyoak, K.
and
Hummel, J.
(2001) ‘Toward an Understanding of Analogy
within a Biological Symbol System’, in
D. Gentner
,
K. Holyoak
and
B. Kokinov
(eds) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science,
pp. 161–195.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
.
20.
Holyoak, K.
and
Thagard, P.
(1995) Mental Leaps: Analogy in Creative Thought.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
.
21.
Huhmann, B.
,
Mothersbaugh, D.
and
Franke, G.
(2002)
‘Rhetorical Figures in Headings and Their Effect on Text
Processing: The Moderating Role of Information Relevance and Text Length’
, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication45(3):
157–169
.
22.
Jakobson, R.
(1967) ‘Linguistics and
Poetics’, in
S. Chatman
and
S. Levin
(eds) Essays on the Language of Literature, pp.
296–322.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin
.
23.
Kaplan, S.
(1992)
‘A Conceptual Analysis of Form and Content in Visual Metaphors’
, Communication13:
197–209
.
24.
Katz, A.
,
Turner, M.
,
Gibbs, R.
and
Cacciari, C.
(1998) ‘Counterpoint
Commentary’, in Figurative Language and Thought, pp.
158–192.
New York: Oxford University Press
.
25.
Langer, S.
(1951) Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of
Reason, Rite and Art.
New York: Mentor
.
26.
Leiss, W.
,
Kline, S.
and
Jhally, S.
(1986) Social Communication in Advertising: Persons,
Products, and Images of Well-Being.
New York: Methuen
.
27.
MacDonald, A.
(1970)
‘Revised Scale for Ambiguity Tolerance: Reliability and Validity’
, Psychological Reports26:
791–798
.
28.
MacInnis, D.
,
Moorman, C.
and
Jaworski, B.
(1991)
‘Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation,
Opportunity and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads’
, Journal of Marketing55(4) (October):
32–53
.
29.
Malkewitz, K.
,
Wright, P.
and
Friestad, M.
(2003) ‘Persuasion by Design: The State of
Expertise on Visual Influence Tactics’, in
L. Scott
and
R. Batra
(eds) Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective, pp.
3–15.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
.
30.
McQuarrie, E.
(1998)
‘Have Laboratory Experiments Become Detached from Advertiser
Goals? A Meta-Analysis’
, Journal of Advertising Research38(6) (November/ December):
15–26
.
31.
McQuarrie, E.
and
Mick, D.
(1992)
‘On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric’
, Journal of Consumer Research19(2) (September):
180–197
.
32.
McQuarrie, E.
and
Mick, D.
(1996)
‘Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language’
, Journal of Consumer Research22(4) (March):
424–438
.
33.
McQuarrie, E.
and
Mick, D.
(1999)
‘Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text-Interpretive, Experimental,
and Reader-Response Analyses’
, Journal of Consumer Research26(1) (June):
37–54
.
34.
McQuarrie, E.
and
Mick, D.
(2003a)
‘Visual and Verbal Rhetorical Figures under Directed Processing
versus Incidental Exposure to Advertising’
, Journal of Consumer Research29(4) (March):
579–587
.
35.
McQuarrie, E.
and
Mick, D.
(2003b) ‘The Contribution of Semiotic and
Rhetorical Perspectives to the Explanation of Visual Persuasion in
Advertising’, in
L. Scott
and
R. Batra
(eds) Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective, pp.
191–221.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
.
36.
Mothersbaugh, D.
,
Huhmann, B.
and
Franke, G.
(2002)
‘Combinatory and Separative Effects of Rhetorical Figures on
Consumers’ Efforts and Focus in Ad Processing’
, Journal of Consumer Research28(4) (March):
589–602
.
37.
O’Donohoe, S.
(2001)
‘Living With Ambivalence: Attitudes to Advertising in Postmodern Times’
, Marketing Theory1(1):
91–108
.
38.
Peracchio, L.
and
Meyers-Levy, J.
(1994)
‘How Ambiguous Cropped Objects in Ad Photos Affect Product Evaluations’
, Journal of Consumer Research21 (June):
190–204
.
39.
Phillips, B.
(1997)
‘Thinking Into It: Consumer Interpretation of Complex Advertising Images’
, Journal of Advertising26(2):
77–87
.
40.
Phillips, B.
(2000)
‘The Impact of Verbal Anchoring on Consumer Response to Image Ads’
, Journal of Advertising29(1):
15–24
.
41.
Phillips, B.
(2003) ‘Understanding Visual Metaphor in
Advertising’, in
L. Scott
and
R. Batra
(eds) Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective, pp.
297–310.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
.
42.
Phillips, B.
and
McQuarrie, E.
(2003)
‘The Development, Change, and Transformation of Rhetorical Style
in Magazine Advertisements 1954–1999’
, Journal of Advertising31(4):
1–13
.
43.
Plett, H.
(2001) ‘Figures of Speech’,
in
Thomas O. Sloane
(ed.) Encyclopedia of Rhetoric, pp.
309–314.
New York: Oxford University Press
.
44.
Pollay, R.
(1985)
‘The Subsidizing Sizzle: A Descriptive History of Print
Advertising, 1900–1980’
, Journal of Marketing48 (Summer):
24–37
.
45.
Schroeder, J.
(2002) Visual Consumption.
London: Routledge
.
46.
Scott, L.
(1994a)
‘Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric’
, Journal of Consumer Research21(3) (September):
252–273
.
47.
Scott, L.
(1994b)
‘The Bridge From Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-Response Theory to
Consumer Research’
, Journal of Consumer Research21 (December):
461–480
.
48.
Stewart, D.
and
Furse, J.
(1986) Effective Television Advertising: A Study of 1000
Commercials.
Lexington, KY: Lexington Books
.
49.
Swasy, J.
and
Munch, J.
(1985)
‘Examining the Target of Receiver Elaborations: Rhetorical
Question Effects on Source Processing and Persuasion’
, Journal of Consumer Research11(4) (March):
877–886
.
50.
Tanaka, K.
(1994) Advertising Language: A Pragmatic Approach to
Advertisements in Britain and Japan.
London: Routledge
.
51.
Teng, N.
and
Sun, S.
(2002)
‘Grouping, Simile, and Oxymoron in Pictures: A Design-Based
Cognitive Approach’
, Metaphor and Symbol17(4):
295–316
.
52.
Thagard, P.
and
Shelley, C.
(2001) ‘Emotional Analogies and Analogical
Inference’, in
D. Gentner
,
K. Holyoak
and
B. Kokinov
(eds) The Analogical Mind: Perspectives From Cognitive Science,
pp. 335–362.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
.
53.
Toncar, M.
and
Munch, J.
(2001)
‘Consumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertising’
, Journal of Advertising30(1):
55–65
.
54.
Wenzel, P.
(1990) ‘Rhetoric and
Semiotics’, in
W. Koch
(ed.) Semiotics in the Individual Sciences, pp.
558–581.
Bochurn: Brockmeyer Press
.
55.
Wiggin, A.
and
Miller, C.
(2003) ‘Uncle Sam Wants You!: Exploring
Verbal-Visual Juxtapositions in Television Advertising’, in
L. Scott
and
R. Batra
(eds) Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer Response Perspective, pp.
141–152.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
.
56.
Williamson, J.
(1978) Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in
Advertising.
London: Marian Boyars
.
