Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cultural Differences? Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Comprehension and Tolerance of Ambiguity in Four European Countries.

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. IV)

Part of the book series: EAA Series ((EAA))

Abstract

Not all types of visual metaphors are equally easy to understand. As can be seen in Figures 1 to 3, all ads make use of the same visual metaphor, which suggests that the exclusivity of a pearl is similar to the exclusive taste of the depicted chocolate. However, whereas Figure 1 visually juxtaposes the source (pearl) to the target (chocolate), and Figure 2 combines the target and the source in one pictorial element, Figure 3 only visualizes the source (and leaves the representation of the target to the imagination of the receiver).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Adobe (2010), “Adobe Photoshop Version 7.0.1. [Computer software].

    Google Scholar 

  • Arquero, J. L. and D. McLain (2010), “Preliminary Validation of the Spanish Version of the Multi-ple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale (MSTAT-II),” in: The Spanish Journal of Psy-chology,Vol. 13/1, 476–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Booth, W. C. (1961), “The rhetoric of fiction,” The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, S. R and J.M. Cheek (1986), “The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales,” in: Journal of Personality, Vol. 54, No. 1, 106–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A. and T. Ribchester (1995), “Tolerance of Ambiguity: A Review of the Concept, Its Measurement and Applications,” in: Current Psychology, Vol. 14(3),179–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gkiouzepas, L. and M. Hogg (2011), “Articulating a New Framework for Visual Metaphors in Advertising,” in: Journal of Advertising,Vol. 40(1),103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, M.G. (1993), “Point of View: a Model to Determine Standardization of the Advertising process in International Markets,” in: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 33, No. 4, 57–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1984), “Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-related Values,” Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. L. and J. S. Hill (1991), “International Advertising Messages: to Adapt or not to Adapt,” in: Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 31, No. 3, 65–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kealey, D. J. (1996), “The challenge of international personnel selection,” in: Landis, R.; Bhagat, R. S. (1996) (eds.): Handbook of intercultural training, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X. and S. Malhotra (2012), “To adapt or not adapt: the moderating effect of perceived similari-ty in cross-cultural business partnerships,” in: International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 36, 118–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madzar, S. (2005), “Subordinates’ information inquiry in uncertain times: A cross cultural consid-eration of leadership style effect,” in: International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, Vol. 5, No. 3, 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain, D. (2009), “Evidence of the properties of an ambiguity tolerance measure: the multiple stimulus types ambiguity tolerance scale-II (MSTAT-II),” in: Psychological Reports, Vol. 105, 975–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuarrie, E. F. and D. G. Mick, (1992), “On resonance: a critical pluralistic inquiry into advertis-ing rhetoric,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19, 180–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McQuarrie, E. F. and B. Phillips (2005), “Indirect Persuasion on Advertising,” in: Journal of Ad-vertising, vol. 34, no. 2, 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mothersbaugh, D. L.; A. B. Huhmann and G. R. Franke (2002), “Combinatory and separative effects of rhetorical figures on consumers’ effort and focus in ad processing,” in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28, 589–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishida, M. (1985), “Japanese intercultural communication competence and cross-cultural adjust-ment,” in: International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 9, 247–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okazaki, S. (2007), “Cross-cultural advertising research: where we have been and where we need to go,” in: International Marketing Review, Vol. 24, No. 5, 499–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M.; P.B. Smith; A. Akande; A. Ayestaran,: S. Bochner ;V. Callan: N. G. Cho: J. C. Jesuino; M. D’Amorim; P.H. Francois; K, Hofmann; P. L. Koopman; K. Leung; T. K. Lim; S. Mortazavi; J. Munene; M. Radford; A. Ropo.; G. Savage; B. Setiadi; T. N. Sinha; R. Sorenson and C. Viedge (1995), “Role conflict, ambiguity, and overload: a 21-Nation study,” in: Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 2, 429–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E. and J. T. Cacioppo (1986), “From Communication and Persuasion: Central and Periph-eral Routes to Attitude Change,” Springer-Verlag, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, B. and E. McQuarrie (2004), “Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhet-oric in Advertising,” in: Marketing Theory, Vol. 4, Ns. 1/2, 111–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralston, D. A.; D. J. Gustafson; F. M. Cheung and R. H. Terpstra (1993), “Differences in Manage-rial Values: A Study of U.S., Hong Kong and PRC Managers,” in: Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 249–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, J. R. and S. Bellman (2005), “Marketing Communications: Theory and Applications,” Pearson Education, Frenchs Forest, NSW, Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruben, B. D. and D. J. Kealey (1979), “Behavioral assessment of communication competency and the prediction of cross-cultural adaptation: in: International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 15, 15–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shao, A. T.; L. P. Shai. and D. H. Shao (1992), “Are Global Markets with Standardized Advertising Campaigns Feasible?” in: Journal of International Consumer Marketing, Vol. 4, No. 3, 5–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, D. and D. Wilson (1995) [1986], “Relevance: Communication and Cognition”, 2on ed., Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka, K. (1992), “The pun in advertising: a pragmatic approach,” in: Lingua, Vol. 87, 91–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2005), “Moving international advertising research forward,” in: Journal of Advertising,Vol. 34, No. 1, 7–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2012), “Towards stronger theory development in international advertising research,” in: Journal of Advertising,Vol. 29, No.1, 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tom, G. and A. Eves (1999), “The use of rhetorical devices in advertising,” in: Journal of Advertis-ing Research, Vol. 39, No. 4, 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Hooft, A.; M. Van Mulken and U. Nederstigt (2011), “Visual metaphor in advertising: Do complexity and culture matter?” in: Eisend, M. and Langner, T. (eds.): 10th International Con-ference on Research in Advertising (ICORIA) (CD-rom). European Advertising Academy, Eu-ropa-Universität Viadrina, Bergische Universität Wuppertal, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Mulken, M.; R. Le Pair and C. Forceville (2010), “The impact of perceived complexity, devia-tion and comprehension on the appreciation of visual metaphor in advertising across three Euro-pean countries,” in: Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 3418–3430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yerkes, R. M. and J. D. Dodson (1908), “The relation of strength of stimuli to rapidity of habit-formation,” in: Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology,Vol. l8 No. 5, 459–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Of Communication and Information Studies, Radboud University Nijmegen, Erasmusplein 1, Nijmegen, 6500 HT, Netherlands

    Dr. Andreu van Hooft, Prof.Dr. Margot van Mulken & Dr. Ulrike Nedertigt

Authors
  1. Dr. Andreu van Hooft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Prof.Dr. Margot van Mulken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dr. Ulrike Nedertigt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreu van Hooft .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    Sara Rosengren

  2. School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden

    Micael Dahlén

  3. Depto. Financiacione, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid Fac. Ciencias Econ. y Empresariales, Madrid, Spain

    Shintaro Okazaki

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

van Hooft, A., van Mulken, M., Nedertigt, U. (2013). Cultural Differences? Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Comprehension and Tolerance of Ambiguity in Four European Countries.. In: Rosengren, S., Dahlén, M., Okazaki, S. (eds) Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. IV). EAA Series. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-02365-2_27

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation