Influence of Message Framing and Product Type of Metaphorical Ads on Advertising Preference
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences
Volume 4, Issue 2, April 2015, Pages: 79-89
Received: Mar. 19, 2015; Accepted: Mar. 31, 2015; Published: Apr. 9, 2015
Views 5480      Downloads 182
Chao-Ming Yang, Department of Visual Communication Design, Ming Chi University of Technology, New Taipei City, Taiwan
Tzu-Fan Hsu , Department of Commercial Design, Chung Yuan Christian University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
Article Tools
Follow on us
Although previous studies have indicated that metaphorical advertisements have high persuasiveness, consumers are frequently affected by message framing and product type that lead to varying value preferences and decisions. This study adopted a 2 × 2 between-subjects experimental design to operate the two independent variables of metaphorical message framing (positive metaphor vs. negative metaphor) and advertised product type (symbolic product vs. utilitarian product) to verify the research hypotheses and test the influence of the two variables on advertising preference. Four significant results were obtained: (a) message framing affected advertising preference, and the advertising preference for positive metaphors surpassed that for negative metaphors; (b) product type affected advertising preference, and the advertising preference for symbolic products exceeded that for utilitarian products; (c) symbolic products using a negative metaphor obtained a relatively higher level of advertising preference; and (d) utilitarian products using a positive metaphor acquired a relatively higher level of advertising preference. Metaphorical advertisements are a persuasive tool for breaking consumer psychological defense. Nevertheless, optimizing the persuasiveness of metaphorical advertisements still relies on metaphorical message framing and product type. The results of this study can provide compelling and clear references for advertising practitioners to formulate message strategies and realize creativity in the future.
Metaphorical Advertisement, Message Framing, Product Type, Decision Frame, Prospect Theory
To cite this article
Chao-Ming Yang, Tzu-Fan Hsu , Influence of Message Framing and Product Type of Metaphorical Ads on Advertising Preference, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences. Vol. 4, No. 2, 2015, pp. 79-89. doi: 10.11648/j.pbs.20150402.17
Ang, S. H., & Lim, E. A. C. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 39-53.
Black, M. (1962). Models and metaphors: Studies in language and philosophy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Boozer, R. W., Wyld, D. C., & Grant, J. (1992). Using metaphor to create more effective sales messages. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 7(1), 19-27.
Buda, R., & Zhang, Y. (2000). Consumer product evaluation: The interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9(4), 229-242.
Cotte, J., Coulter, R. A., & Moore, M. (2005). Enhancing or disrupting guilt: The role of ad credibility and perceived manipulative intent. Journal of Business Research, 58(3), 361-368.
Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research, 32(1), 11-17.
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45-56.
Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., & Marmorstein. H. (1994). The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research. 21 (6), 145-153.
Haley, R. I., & Baldinger, A. L. (1991). The ARF copy research validity project. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(2), 11-32.
Hirschman, E. C. (1980). Attributes and layers of meaning. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 101-118.
Holbrook, M. B. (1986). Emotion in the consumption experience: Toward a new model of the human consumer, In The Role of Affect in Consumer Behavior: Emerging Theories and Applications, Robert A. Peterson, Wayne D. Hoyer, and William R. Wilson (eds.), Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Isen, A. M. (2000). Some perspectives on positive affect and self-regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 11(3), 184-187.
Jeong, Se-Hoon (2008). Visual metaphor in advertising: Is the persuasive effect attributable to visual argumentation or metaphorical rhetoric?. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(1), 59-73.
Kaplan, S. J. (1992). A conceptual analysis of form and content in visual metaphors. Communication, 13(33), 197-209.
Kardes, F. R. (1988). Spontaneous inference processes in advertising: The effects of conclusion omission and involvement on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 225-233.
Khalil, E. L. (2000). Symbolic products: Prestige, pride, and identity goods. Theory and Decision. 49 (1), 53-77.
Kövecses, Zoltán (2002). Metaphor: A practical introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphor we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lavidge, R., & Steiner, G. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising. Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59-62.
Leigh, J. H. (1994). The use of figures of speech in print ad headlines, Journal of Advertising, 23(2), 17-23.
Levin, I., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374-378.
Lutz, R. J. (1980). Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 1(4), 49-59.
Lutz, R. J., Mackenzie, S. B., & Blech, G. E. (1986). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of ad effectiveness: determinates and consequences. Advance in Consumer Research, 10, 532-539.
MacInnis, D. J., Moorman, C., & Jaworski, B. J. (1991). Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 32-53.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367.
Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research. 20(4), 451-466.
McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G. (2003). Visual and verbal rhetorical figures under directed processing versus incidental exposure to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 579-587.
McQuarrie, E. F. & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424-437.
McQuarrie, E. F. & Phillips, B. J. (2005). Indirect persuasion in advertising: how consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 7-20.
Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 500-510.
Morgan, S. E., & Reichert, T. (1999). The message is in the metaphor: Assessing the comprehension of metaphors in advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 1-12.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D., Reynolds, R., & Antos, S. (1978). Interpreting metaphors and idioms: Some Effects of context on comprehension. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17(4), 465-477.
Pawlowski, D. R., Badzinski, D. M., & Mitchell, N. (1998). Effects of metaphors on children’s comprehension and perception of print advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 7(2), 88-98.
Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 380-391.
Smith, S. M., & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257-268.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 689-699.
Soliha, E., & Dharmmesta, B. S. (2012). The Effect of source credibility and message framing on consumer risk perceptions with consumer product knowledge as a moderating variable: A literature review. Educational Research, 3(2), 108-117.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(30), 453-458.
Wong, C. O., & McMurray, N. E. (2002). Framing communication: Communicating the antismoking message effectively to all smokers. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(4), 433-447.
Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: a planning model. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(5), 27-33.
Woods, W. (1960). Psychological dimensions of consumer decision. Journal of Marketing, 24 (1), 15-19.
Zaltman, G. (1995). Amidword: anthropology, metaphors, and cognitive peripheral vision, In Contemporary Marketing and Consumer Behavior: An Anthropological Source Book, John E. Sherry, Jr., (ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 282-304.
Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1-15.
Science Publishing Group
1 Rockefeller Plaza,
10th and 11th Floors,
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (001)347-983-5186