Motivational Appeal,Aesthetic Appreciation,and Attributed Efficacy of Advertising Illustrations

Abstract

The influence of incongruity intolerance levels on people's aesthetic evaluation of two categories of visual images was examined. This study used advertising illustrations that prominently activated one of two opposing perceptual processes: amodal completion, which involves the application and confirmation of already consolidated mental schemata, or perceptual contradiction, which highlights their conspicuous non-confirmation, thus generating incongruity experience. Forty young adults were divided into two subgroups: 20 very incongruity intolerant subjects and 20 very incongruity tolerant ones; both genders were equally represented. Incongruity intolerance levels were assessed with a specific quick visual procedure, the Building Inclination Test (Bonaiuto, Giannini, & Bonaiuto, 1989). Thirty-two advertising illustrations were selected from current magazines,16 clearly based on amodal completion of objects, characters and environments and 16 on contradiction processes. In a double blind design, participants evaluated each illustration on aesthetic, structural, and physiognomic aspects, using 11-point scales. Scale orientation, scale order, and illustration order were counterbalanced. An interaction between image category and level of incongruity intolerance was obtained on aesthetic appreciation. Incongruity very intolerant persons deeply disliked the contradiction images, and appreciated the completion ones. On the other hand, incongruity very tolerant persons showed the exact opposite aesthetic tastes. Positive relationships were found between aesthetic scores and scores of attributed efficacy or convincing power for each category of advertising illustrations. Because advertising experts consider users' aesthetic appraisal as a component of the objective efficacy of messages, we speculate that individual differences contribute to the contrasting effects of messages when the illustration diffusion is large and it is viewed by a heterogeneous population.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berlyne

D. E.

(1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bonaiuto

(1983). Processi cognitivi e significati nelle arti visive. Paper presented at the Meeting “Linguaggi visivi, Storia dell'Arte, Psicologia della percezione”, Rome. Also publ. in Cassanelli

(Ed.), Linguaggi visivi, Storia dell'Arte, Psicologia della percezione. Rome: Multigrafica, 1988 (pp. 47–79); and in Bonaiuto

Bartoli

, & Giannini

A. M.

(Eds.), Contributi di Psicologia dell'arte e dell'esperienza estetica (pp. 39–84). Rome: Psicologia, 1994.

Bonaiuto

Giannini

A. M.

, & Bonaiuto

(1987). Piloting mental schemata on building images. Paper presented at the 3rd Italian-Polish Conference of Psychology, Cassino. Also publ. in Fusco

Battisti

, & Tomassoni

(Eds.), Recent experiences in general and social psychology in Italy and Poland (pp. 85–129). Milan: Angeli, 1990.

Bonaiuto

Giannini

A. M.

, & Bonaiuto

(1989). Maximizers, minimizers, acceptors, removers and normals: Diagnostic tools and procedures. Rassegna di Psicologia, 6 (3), 80–87.

Bonaiuto

Massironi

, & Bartoli

(1975). Atteggiamenti verso schemi di riferimento, utilizzazione di modelli, esigenze di libertà della persona. Quadrangolo. Rivista di psicoanalisi e scienze sociali, 2, 100–110.

Cupchik

G. C.

Leonard

, & Irvine-Kopetski

(1998). Advertisements: Multileveled in word and image and in the mind of the beholder. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 16, 115–135.

Giannini

A. M.

, & Bonaiuto

(1999). Contrasting aesthetic evaluations of “Graffiti” images as a function of incongruity intolerance levels. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 17, 131–154.

Kanizsa

(1979). Organization of vision. New York: Praeger.

Mantica

(1996). Misurare l'efficacia in pubblicità. Explorer per la pubblicità. Media Key, 155, 58–59.

10.

Michotte

Thinés

, & Crabbé

(1967). Les complements amodaux des structures perceptives. Louvain: Publ. Univ. Louvain; Paris: Béatrice-Nauwelaerts.

11.

Poffenberger

A. T.

(1928). Psychology in advertising. Chicago: Shaw.

12.

Schuman

D. W.

, & Thorson

, (Eds.) (1999). Advertising and consumer psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Spotts

H. E.

Weinberger

, & Parsons

A. L.

(1997). Assessing the use and impact of humour on advertising effectiveness: A contingency approach. Journal of Advertising, 26 (3), 17–32.