Processing visual rhetoric in advertisements: Interpretations determined by verbal anchoring and visual structure
- VU University Amsterdam, Department of Language and Communication, Faculty of Arts, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- http://dx.doi.org.proxybz.lib.montana.edu/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.08.009, How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Abstract
This research investigated meaning operation in relation to verbal anchoring and visual structure of visual rhetoric in advertisements. Meaning operation refers to the relation between meaningful visual elements, and determines the number of interpretations of an image. Meaning operation ‘connection’ associates two visual elements, whereas ‘similarity’ states that one element is (like) the other. The former is supposed to elicit less alternative responses than the latter. In a first study, comprehension improved for connection but not for similarity when explanatory text was added (verbal anchoring). In a second study eye tracking measures were used to study meaning operation expressed in juxtaposition or fusion (visual structure). Similarity led to more text-image saccades and longer fixation durations on the image than connection. Interactions on saccades and perceived number of ideas suggest that fusion promotes alternative responses in connection, but not in similarity. Apparently, connections leave interpretations more ‘open’, whereas similarities are more ambiguous (or ‘rich’).
Highlights
► Visual rhetoric can be decomposed in meaning operation and visual structure. ► Similarities (A is (like) B) need more cognitive elaboration than connections (A is associated with B). ► Similarities are richer in meaning, connections are more open in associations. ► Eye tracking data show that visual structure does not affect ambiguity, but rather openness. ► Visual structure and meaning operation provide different sources of incongruity.
Keywords
- Visual;
- Metaphor;
- Rhetoric;
- Comprehension;
- Attitude toward the Ad;
- Eye tracking;
- Fusion;
- Juxtaposition;
- Information processing;
- Openness;
- Verbal anchoring
1. Introduction
Visual rhetoric in print advertisements provides a fruitful topic of investigation for scholars interested in information processing (Van Mulken et al., 2010). Intriguing aspects of visual rhetoric include the role of cognitive processing as a prerequisite for experiencing pleasant feelings toward the advertisement (McQuarrie and Mick, 1999), and the moderating role of an advertisement's complexity and meaningfulness ([Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011] and [Phillips, 2000]). In short, to enjoy a visual metaphor one needs to understand it first.
An important framework for the analysis of visual rhetoric originates from Roland Barthes, whose essayRhétorique de l’image concerned imagery and meaning in advertisements (translated in Barthes, 1977). Semiologists have developed several systems of conveying meanings from images ( [Eco, 1976] and [Kress and Van Leeuwen, 2006]). Cognitive psychology addressed the perception of artful imagery (Berlyne, 1970). In pragmatics, models for multimodal interpretation were developed (Yus, 2009). For the purposes of the current research, the literature review is limited to research of advertising imagery that specifically addresses information processing in viewers.
In advertising research, visual rhetoric was studied the past twenty years, with substantial progress in theoretical development and empirical investigation ( [Forceville, 1996], [Maes and Schilperoord, 2008],[McQuarrie and Mick, 1999], [McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005], [Phillips, 2000] and [Scott, 1994]). In particular, frameworks have been developed to classify visual rhetorical figures ( [Forceville, 1996], [Maes and Schilperoord, 2008] and [Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004]), and hypotheses of processing visual rhetoric have been tested ( [Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011], [McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005], [Phillips, 2000] and [Van Enschot et al., 2008]).
Creative executives use visual rhetoric to enhance an advertisement's indirect persuasion (McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005). In the design process, verbal copy and visual structure are probed to balance optimal comprehension and appreciation. Visual metaphors may be more or less explicitly explained by captions (variation in verbal anchoring, Phillips, 2000). Pictorial elements may be more or less pronounced in revealing a visual metaphor's meaning (variation in visual structure, Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004). These variations affect visual rhetoric's complexity and meaningfulness. The ways in which verbal anchoring and visual structure convey complexity and meaningfulness are not entirely clear, and different models have been proposed ( [Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011], [Maes and Schilperoord, 2008], [Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004] and [Van Mulken et al., 2010]). The aim of this paper is to assess the mechanisms of visual structure and verbal anchoring, in relation to the metaphor's meaning operation (i.e., the conceptual relation between the metaphorical objects).
According to Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), two design dimensions of visual rhetoric affect an individual's interpretation in different ways, illustrated in Table 1 (containing just a subset of the original typology). The columns represent how visual structure can be more (fusion) or less (juxtaposition) complex. The rows represent how meaning operation can be more (similarity) or less (connection) conceptually rich. Combinations of these dimensions define four image categories, two of which are exemplified in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 (see the next section for more explanation). The more complex and rich an advertisement is, the more cognitive elaboration is needed to process it (according to Phillips and McQuarrie, 2004).One of the main challenges in visual rhetoric research is to determine the mechanism that elicits individual thoughts. Some visual metaphors may convey widely diverging thoughts between individuals, while other images elicit much more uniform thoughts in individuals (McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005). Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) claim that meaning operation determines the richness of a visual rhetorical figure, and define it as the ambiguity in the relation between pictorial elements, determining the number of thoughts elicited in individuals.
McQuarrie and Phillips (2005), however, use the term ‘openness’ to explain how visual metaphors may elicit individually diverging thoughts. Openness refers to the observation that images are more open to interpretation than text (Eco, 1976). Barthes (1967) defines openness as an infinite number of referents (or signifieds) referred to by means of connotation, whereas the number of signifieds referred to by denotation is closed. Because language has a specified denotational system, as opposed to imagery, openness is typical for visuals. Barthes apparently uses the term richness to refer to a similar phenomenon, when he claims that ‘signification cannot exhaust the image's ineffable richness’ (Barthes, 1977, p. 32).
The main difference between richness and openness seems to be that openness refers to text-image combinations, whereas richness refers to differences between meaning operations in images. Another difference is that openness is not specifically associated with ambiguity or polysemy, but rather with the absence of interpretation-limiting information (such as verbal anchoring, Phillips, 2000). Visual metaphors have more alternative interpretations when verbal contextual explanations are reduced (McQuarrie and Phillips, 2005). Although the definitions of richness and openness are different, it is very difficult to discern the phenomena that are supposed to be caused by richness or openness.
In the current research visual rhetoric is varied along design dimensions defined in Phillips and McQuarrie (2004). Our main question is: What are the effects of different types of visual rhetoric on attention, comprehension, and appreciation? Although visual structure has been empirically investigated in several studies, there has not been much research of the interactions between structural and conceptual aspects of visual rhetoric in advertisements (Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011). A secondary goal of the research is to decide whether richness or openness is the better explanatory concept.
In a first experiment meaning operation is varied in combination with verbal anchoring (Study 1), and in a second one with visual complexity (Study 2). Eye tracking is used in Study 2 to verify whether visual structure and meaning operation affect cognitive elaboration differently. The results may give rise to alternative interpretations of Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) framework ( [Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011] and [Maes and Schilperoord, 2008]).
2. Meaning operation and visual structure
In the most general sense, visual metaphor may be defined as similar to verbal metaphor in that it compares two images through analogy by suggesting that one object is like another even though they are quite different ( [Phillips, 2000] and [Stern, 1990]). This definition differs from other definitions in two respects. First, it categorizes metaphor primarily as a case of rhetoric, namely an artful deviation from expectation (McQuarrie and Mick, 1996). Other metaphor researchers focus more on the mapping between a metaphor's source and target domain ( [Steen, 2007] and [Yus, 2009]). Second, the phrasing that one object ‘is like’ another includes both simile and metaphor. Other researchers distinguish visual simile and metaphor as different categories ( [Forceville, 1996] and [Schilperoord et al., 2009]).
Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) define a framework that defines visual rhetoric building on, among others,[Barthes, 1967] and [Barthes, 1977] and previous experimental research ( [McQuarrie and Mick, 1996],[McQuarrie and Mick, 1999] and [Phillips, 2000]). Visual rhetorical images can be categorized along two dimensions: meaning operation and visual structure. Both dimensions have three values, defining nine categories of visual rhetoric in a cross-classification. In this research the two lower values of each dimension are schematized in Table 1, predicting processing differences between proposed categories.
Meaning operation refers to the nature of the relation between the two objects in comparison. In increasing levels of ambiguity, Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) differentiate between connection (A is associated with B) and similarity (A is like B). The third value is a contrastive comparison or opposition (A is not like B). Fig. 1exemplifies a connection: the chocolate cookies are associated with the taste of a cherry. Fig. 2 exemplifies a similarity: we interpret the flash drive and the CDs as similar (so that the memory capacity of one flash drive is the same as many CDs). The third kind of meaning operation involves the most ambiguity because it combines contrast with metaphor. This opposition is not examined in the current research.
Visual structure refers to the way the relevant pictorial elements (constituting the meaning operation) are presented visually. With an increasing level of complexity, Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) distinguish between juxtaposition, fusion, and replacement. Besides similarity, Fig. 2 also exemplifies juxtaposition: the two objects are placed next to each other. In Fig. 1, the connection is visually presented as a fusion: the two objects are merged. Replacement represents the highest level of complexity. One of the pictorial elements is left out of the image, so that a metaphorical interpretation only succeeds after the inference of a missing element. Replacement is not examined in this research.
Table 1 defines four kinds of visual rhetoric, numbered one to four. Following Phillips and McQuarrie (2004), cell number 1 would require less cognitive elaboration than would cell number 4, because the meaning operation defining cell 1 invites less thoughts, and the corresponding visual structure is less complex. Cells 2 and 3 would require moderate cognitive elaboration (between the levels of cells 1 and 4), but no precise prediction is made for these combinations. Study 1 focuses on outcome differences between cells 3 and 4 inTable 1, where verbal anchoring is applied to fusion advertisements expressing different meaning operations. In Study 2, results for combinations of visual structure and meaning operation are relevant to all cells inTable 1.
The difference between fusion and juxtaposition may be explained in terms of incongruity: more unrealistic structures like fusion are more incongruent (Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011). Likewise, connections tend to relate more congruent meaning objects than do similarities. Visual rhetoric employs incongruity to enhance cognitive elaboration, but incongruity might also disturb interpretation ( [Heckler and Childers, 1992] and [Van Mulken et al., 2010]). In this research, incongruity is not a central concept because it does not distinguish between meaning operation and visual structure, but rather conflates them.
The different ways in which meaning operation and visual structure convey cognitive elaboration need to be interpreted carefully. Specifically, whether meaning operation is driving openness rather than richness is an important question. Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) predict that similarity is richer than connection. FollowingBarthes (1977), connection might be more open than similarity. Openness refers to a lack of conventional denotations (we would normally find in language), not to more complicated layers of meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment