Verbalizing or Visualizing Metaphors?
The Moderating Effects of Processing Mode and Temporal Orientation
Yi He
Assistant Professor of Marketing
College of Business and Economics, CaliforniaStateUniversity, EastBay
25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard, Hayward, CA94542
Phone: 510-885-3534
Fax: 510-885-4796
Email:
Qimei Chen
Shidler Distinguished Professor
Associate Professor of Marketing
ShidlerCollege of Business, University of Hawai‘i
2404 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI96822
Phone: (808) 956-8921
Fax: 808-956-9886
Email:
Dana L. Alden
William R. Johnson Distinguished Professor of Marketing
ShidlerCollege of Business, University of Hawai‘i
2404 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI96822
Phone: (808) 956-8565
Fax: 808-956-9886
Email:
ABSTRACT
Metaphors are used extensively in healthcare communications and their persuasive superiority relative to literal messagesiswell-established. However,understanding of the processing mechanisms (e.g., mental visualization) that may mediate the enhanced effectiveness of metaphor in healthcare communications remains limited. Four experiments reported hereaddress this limitation by examining whether metaphor type (abstract versus concrete) affects processing of a persuasive anti-smoking website. In Experiment 1, the authorsreveal that concrete (versus abstract) metaphors activate higher levels of imagery processing leading to increased message effectiveness. In Experiments 2-3, the authors demonstrate that congruency between metaphor format and processing goals as well as between metaphor format and temporalorientation enhances message effectiveness.
ExtendedABSTRACT
The Internet, with its “seemingly endless opportunities to inform, teach, and connect” (Silberg et al. 1997, p. 1244), has become one of the most important channels for pro-healthful persuasive communications. Central to many of these communications is the use of metaphor. Despitethis, understanding of metaphor processing mechanisms remains limited. For example, theory has yet to incorporate mental imaging as mediator of metaphor's enhanced persuasiveness. This is the case despite the centrality of imagery processes to metaphor comprehension (Marschark, Katz, and Paivio 1983; Gibbs and Bogdonovich 1999). The extent to which processing mechanisms differ by type of metaphor also remains unknown. To address these gaps, thefirst objective is to identify underlying processing mechanisms for alternative metaphor formats (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphors).
A second objective is to extend current theory regarding relationships between metaphor message strategies and "processing fluency." Processing fluency refers to the ease with which message content is evaluated and understood (Petrova and Cialdini 2005; Thompson and Hamilton 2006; Lee and Aaker 2004). Enhanced processing fluency has been associated with the use of imagery appeals (Petrova and Cialdini 2005), comparative advertising (Thompson and Hamilton 2006), and certain message frames (Lee and Aaker 2004). However, researchers have yet to test the impact of metaphor (e.g., abstract versus concrete metaphors) in conjunction with other communication tactics (e.g., processing goals or temporal orientation priming) on processing fluency as a mediator of message effectiveness. Closing these theoretical gaps, this research further examines ways that congruency between metaphor format (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphors) and processing instructions (i.e.,low- versus high-imagery instructions) impacts persuasion by enhancing processing fluency. Similar congruency effects between metaphor format (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphors) and temporal orientation priming (i.e.,long-term versus short-term priming) are also investigated.
Experiment 1 examines the processing mechanism of abstract versus concrete metaphor. Although imagery has yet to be incorporated into the metaphor processing mechanism, prior research has consistently underscored the role of imagery in comprehending metaphoric messages (Bottini etal. 1994; Burgess and Chiarello 1996).In addition, the level of mental imagery may vary bytype of metaphor. For example, Gibbs and Bogdonovich (1999) demonstrated that concrete metaphors were usually processed through higher imagery mode than abstract metaphors. In addition, as imagery processing is believed to have superiority over discursive processing, concrete metaphors may be expected to be more persuasive than abstract metaphors. Experiment1 tested the information processing mode of abstract versus concrete metaphors and the effect of metaphor format on message persuasion. Experiment1 features a 2 metaphor format (abstract metaphor versus concrete metaphor) one-factorbetween-subject experimental design.Experiment 1 reveals that concrete (versus abstract) metaphors activate higher levels of imagery processing, and increase message effectiveness.
Experiment2 investigates the effect of congruency between metaphor format and processing mode on persuasion. Congruency between message format and processing mode is believed to positively affect persuasion. Such effect is expected based on processing fluency theory (Winkielman and Cacioppo 2001). Processing fluencyis defined as the experienced ease or fluency of ongoing processing (Unkelbach 2007). Processing fluency may also result from congruency between 1) the information and organization of information, and 2) the type of processing being done (Bettman et al. 1986). As found in Experiment 1, abstract (concrete) metaphors are more compatible with lower (higher) imagery processing. Then it can be predicted that compared with concrete (abstract) metaphors, abstract (concrete) metaphors lead to greater persuasion when low-imagery(high-imagery) processing was made salient. To test these hypotheses, Experiment 2 features a 2metaphor format (abstract metaphor and concrete metaphor) X2 processing instructions (low- versus high-imagery instructions) factorial design. Experiment 2 shows that congruency between metaphor format and processing goals facilitates processing fluency, and thereafter enhances message effectiveness.
Experiment 3 extends the same analogy and tested similar congruency effects between metaphor format (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphor) and temporal orientation priming (i.e.,long- versus short-term priming). Temporal orientation priming was selected due to its close associations with health related behaviors (Orbell and Hagger 2006). Prior research revealed that an individual can be primed to either focused on the long-term, the pursuit of distant rewards and achievement, or alternatively focused on the short-term, the pursuit of immediate gains and returns (Liu and Aaker 2007).According to the Temporal Construal Theory (Trope and Liberman 2003), abstract (concrete) metaphors are congruent with long-term (short-term) temporal orientation. Following the regulatory fit hypothesis(e.g., Lee and Aaker 2004; Aaker and Lee 2006), one may expect that when there is congruencybetween an individual’s regulatory orientation (e.g., long- versus shot-term) and communication message (e.g., abstract versus concrete metaphor), the ideas conveyed in the message are conceptually more fluent, and hence are more effective. To test these hypotheses, Experiment3 features a 2metaphor format (abstract metaphor and concrete metaphor) X 2 temporal orientation priming (long- versus short-term priming) factorial design.Experiment3 reveals the positive effects of congruency between metaphor format (i.e., abstract versus concrete metaphors) and temporal orientation priming (i.e., long-term versus short-term priming) on message effectiveness due to increased processing fluency.
This research contributes to the collective knowledge of marketing in the following aspects. First, by developing a more precise model of the processing mechanism related to metaphors, this research advances the collective knowledge concerning how to effectively deliver metaphoric marketing appeals. Second, by examining the match or mismatch of different kinds of metaphors to other communication tactics (e.g., processing goals or temporal orientation priming), the present research may help identify ways to optimize the blending of linguistic and non-linguistic advertising elements. These analyses should assist marketers in answering important strategic questions in today’s highly competitive global marketplace.
REFERENCES
Aaker, Jennifer L. and Angela Y. Lee (2006), "Understanding Regulatory Fit," Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (1), 15-19.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), "The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations," Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-82.
Bergadaa, Michelle M. (1990), "The Role of Time in the Action of the Consumer," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (4), 289-302.
Bettman, James R., John W. Payne, and Richard Staelin (1986), "Cognitive Considerations in Designing Effective Labels for Presenting Risk Information," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 5 (1), 1-28.
Bone, Paula F. and Pam S. Ellen (1992), "The Generation and Consequences of Communication-Evoked Images," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (2), 93-104.
Burgess, Curt and Christine Chiarello (1996), "Neurocognitive Mechanisms underlying Metaphor Comprehension and Other Figurative Language," Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11 (1), 67-84.
Escalas, Jennifer E. (2004), "Imagine Yourself in the Product," Journal of Advertising, 33 (2), 37-48.
Gibbs, Raymond W. and Jody Bogdonovich (1999), "Mental Imagery in Interpreting Poetic Metaphor," Metaphor and Symbol, 14 (1), 37-44.
Grossman, Randi Priluck and Brian D. Till (1998), "The Persistence of Classically Conditioned Brand Attitudes," Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 23-31.
Hoffman, Donna L. and Thomas P. Novak (1996), "Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations," Journal of Marketing, 60 (3), 50-68.
Hunt, Shelby D. and Anil Menon (1995), "Metaphors and Competitive Advantage: Evaluating the Use of Metaphors in Theories of Competitive Strategy," Journal of Business Research, 33 (2), 81-90.
Janiszewski, Chris and Elise Chandon (2007), "Transfer-Appropriate Processing, Response Fluency, and the Mere Measurement Effect," Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), 309-23.
Keller, Punam Anand and Lauren Goldberg Block (1996), "Increasing the Persuasiveness of Fear Appeals: The Effect of Arousal and Elaboration," Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (4), 448-59.
Lee, Angela Y. and Jennifer L. Aaker (2004), "Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing fluency and Persuasion," Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 86 (2), 205-18.
Liu, Wendy and Jennifer Aaker (2007), "Do You Look to the Future or Focus on Today? The Impact of Life Experience on Intertemporal Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (2), 212-25.
MacInnis, Deborah J. and Linda L. Price (1987), "The Role of Imagery in Information Processing: Review and Extensions," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 473-91.
Marschark, Marc, Albert N. Karz, and Allan Paivio (1983), "Dimensions of Metaphor," Journal of Psychological Research, 12 (1), 17-39.
McCabe, Allyssa (1988), "Effect of Different Contexts on Memory for Metaphor," Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3 (2), 105-32.
McQuarrie, Edward F. and Barbara J. Phillips (2005), "Indirect Persuasion in Advertising," Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 7-20.
Menon, Geeta, Lauren G. Block, and Suresh Ramanathan (2002), "We're at as Much Risk as We Are Led to Believe: Effects of Message Cues on Judgments of Health Risk," Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (4), 533-49.
Morgan, Susan E. and Tom Reichert (1999), "The Message is in the Metaphor: Assessing the Comprehension of Metaphors in Advertisements," Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 1-12.
Orbell, Sheina and Martin Hagger (2006), "Temporal Framing and the Decision to Take Part in Type 2 Diabetes Screening: Effects of Individual Differences in Consideration of Future Consequences on Persuasion," Health Psychology, 25 (4), 537-48.
Petrova, Petia K. and Robert B. Cialdini (2005), "Fluency of Consumption Imagery and the Backfire Effects of Imagery Appeals," Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 442-52.
Schlosser, Ann E., David Glen Mick, and John Deighton (2003), "Experiencing Products in the Virtual World: The Role of Goal and Imagery in Influencing Attitudes versus Purchase Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (2), 184-98.
Shen, Fuyuan and Qimei Chen (2007), "Contextual Priming and Applicability," Journal of Advertising, 36 (1), 69-80.
Sherman, Steven J., Robert B. Cialdini, Donna F. Schwartzman, and Kim D. Reynolds (1985), "Imagining can Heighten or Lower the Perceived Likelihood of Contracting a Disease: The Mediating Effect of Ease of Imagery," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11 (1), 118-27.
Silberg, W. M., G. D. Lundberg, and R. A. Musaccio (1997), "Assessing, Controlling, and Assuring the Quality of Medical Information on the Internet: Caveat Lector et Viewor - Let the Reader and Viewer Beware," Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 1244-45.
Thompson, Debora Viana and Rebecca W. Hamilton (2006), "The Effects of Information Processing Mode on Consumers' Responses to Comparative Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (4), 530-40.
Trope, Yaacov and Nira Liberman (2003), "Temporal Construal," Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403-21.
Unkelbach, Christian (2007), "Reversing the Truth Effect: Learning the Interpretation of Processing Fluency in Judgments of Truth," Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33 (1), 219-30.
1