The Message is in the Metaphor: Assessing theComprehension of Metaphors in AdvertisementsSusan E. Morgan and Tom Reichert

Although metaphors are used by advertising creators to convey brand meaning and enhance brand informa-tion processing, little is understood with regard to consumers'comprehension of intended meaning. Thisresearch contributes to this body of knowledge by examining the effect of metaphor type (abstract I concrete)and hemispheric processing on respondents'comprehension of metaphors in ads. Overall, the findings suggestthat concrete metaphors are more easily understood than abstract metaphors. This effect is moderated byhemispheric processing such that individuals high in right or integrative processing are more likely to providevalid interpretations of both types of metaphors. These findings are discussed and implications for advertis-ing practitioners are offered.

Susan E. Morgan (Ph.D., Universityof Arizona) is an assistant professorin the Department of Communicationat the University of Kentucl^r.Tom Reichert (Ph.D., University ofArizona) is an assistant professorand member ofthe advertisingfaculty in the Department ofJournalism at the University ofNorth Texas.

Jounial of Advertising,Volume XXVIII, Number 4yfinter 1999

IntroductionMetaphors and analogies can be thought of as the ants of advertising. Just

as the tiny insect can support many times its own weight, a single metaphorcan be worth a hundred words of copy. Typically defined as statements and/or pictures which cause a receiver to experience one thing in terms ofanother (LakofT and Johnson 1980), these literary devices can efficientlycommunicate attribute infonnation and transfer meaning between a refer-ent and a brand. Metaphors can also stimulate deeper levels of processingbecause of their interest value and because they stimulate curiosity aboutthe brand (Maclnnis, Moorman and Jaworski 1991).

Recent research suggests, however, that metaphors in ads are not alwayscomprehended as their creators intended (Phillips 1997). In fact, despiteseveral calls for research into the effects of metaphors in promotional com-munication (Stem 1988; Ward and Gaidis 1990), relatively little is knownabout the impact of consumers' tjT)e of hemispheric processing on the com-prehension of advertisements containing metaphors. This study was de-signed to contribute to the gap of knowledge in this area by (1) testingdifferences in consumer comprehension between two different types of meta-phors (concrete vs. abstract), and (2) determining if individual differences(hemispheric processing) mediate comprehension. As such, this study pro-vides information about consumer comprehension of different styles of meta-phors given important receiver differences.

Literature Review

Metaphor8 in AdvertisingScholars and practitioners in many fields have an interest in metaphor.

Metaphor has long been the domain of rhetoricians, who have asserted thepersuasive power of metaphor, as well as literary scholars, who have reliedon an analysis of metaphor and sjnnbol (among many other elements) toattain a deeper level of understanding of the meaning and significance of atext. Cognitive psychologists and neurolinguists, in an attempt to discoverthe origin of this rather mysterious capacity of metaphor to more effectively

2 The Journal of Advertising

persuade and inform, have looked to the brain and itscognitive functions.

The attention afforded metaphors and analogies inadvertising literature has been primarily conceptual.Stem (1988,1990), for instance, has provided impor-tant groundwork by introducing and defining alle-gory and metaphor in the historical context of Aristo-telian and literary tradition. Ward and Gaidis (1990)reviewed several models of metaphor comprehensionand quality which were grounded in work from psy-chology and linguistics. In addition, Scott (1994) hasfU'gued for a theory of visual rhetoric to help research-ers frame how meaning is constructed via visual ar-guments in ads. These contributions have providedboth a call for, and a fertile ground for research into,the effects of metaphors in the marketing communi-cation context.

Those responding to the call have provided valu-able insight into the effects of these advertising mes-sage strategies. For instance, fmdings suggest thatconsumers spend more time looking at and process-ing ads that contain metaphors (Gray and Snyder1989). Maclnnis, Moorman and Jaworski (1991) ar-gue that as executional cues, metaphors are interest-ing, they stimulate curiosity about the brand, andconsequently, they result in deeper levels of process-ing. Recently, Pawlowski, Badzinski and Mitchell(1998) found that children's cognitive developmentplays a role in the comprehension of metaphors inads, which in tum affects memory. They found thatalthough young readers may have difficulty inter-preting metaphors, there was a slight advantage inrecall and perceptions compared to literal ads.

An important consideration for advertising researchis determining if metaphors are correctly interpretedor even understood by consumers. According to Wardand Gaidis (1990), comprehensibility is an importantvariable in the study of metaphors: "To be effective, apromotional metaphor must be minimally compre-hended by its intended audience" (p. 636). Stem (1988)suggests that a significant proportion ofthe intendedaudience does not always "get" the intended meaningofthe metaphor. Work by Phillips (1997) emphasizesthe importance of metaphor comprehension in adver-tising. Phillips found that while strong pictorialimplicatures (metaphors in which central meaning ismanifest and difficult to misinterpret) were inter-preted as the advertising creator intended, weakimplicatures (those which require "work" by the viewerto interpret) were either misinterpreted, or solicitedmultiple divergent interpretations.

Unfortunately, other than the investigation byPhillips (1997) and Pawlowski, Badzinski and Mitchell

(1998), little is known about the comprehension ofmetaphors that appear in product advertising. Forthis reason, it is important to determine whether thecomprehension of metaphors is necessary for validtransference of meaning to the brand.

Concrete vs. Abstract Metaphors

Although most researchers do not distinguish be-tween type of metaphor, drawing a basic distinctionbetween concrete and abstract metaphors may helpus understand how consumers comprehend messagesthat rely on metaphor. McCabe (1988) distinguishesbetween concrete and abstract metaphors based onthe degree to which a concept or comparison betweenconcepts can be directly experienced.

According to McCabe, concrete metaphors are thosewhich rely on comparisons that can be experienceddirectly, that is, through the five senses. Abstractmetaphors involve comparisons that cannot be expe-rienced directly; they are based on something intan-gible. For example, a recent ad features a Concordwatch, and is titled, "Grace." The accompanying im-age is of two swans. The comparison offered in thiscase equates the watch with a particular trait, that ofgrace. While we can feel "graceful," this is not some-thing which is directly experienced through touch,taste, sight, smell, or hearing. On the other hand, arecent Clinique ad for soothing skin cream providesan example of a concrete comparison. In this ad, theimage of a Clinique cream jar (with the words "excep-tionally soothing cream for upset skin" printed on it)with a Band-Aid stuck to it, offers a compeirison be-tween the experience of "Band-Aid"—as a comforting,protective covering for abrasions and irritations -and our use of the cream. Both the cream and theBand-Aid can be experienced directly. A similar dis-tinction between concrete and abstract copy has beenmade in the advertising literature (MacKenzie 1986;Percy and Rossiter 1992).

Abstract metaphors in advertisements, then, cre-ate a comparison between the advertiser's product orservice and some other quality which is not tangible.This quality may be evoked by an image in an adver-tisement, but the comparison being drawn is betweenthe quality the advertiser wishes to have associatedwith the product and the product or service beingadvertised. Thus, the swans used in the Concord watchadvertisement may evoke a kinesthetic experience ofgrace which may be truly felt or imagined by theviewer. However, this visceral experience of grace (assymbolized or evoked by the swans) is not touched,smelled, heard, tasted or seen (as an object in the

Winter 1999

advertisement itself). A comparison between an ex-perience evoked by an image is distinct from a com-parison being generated by the presence of a realobject which can be experienced directly; however, anabstract metaphor is no less valid and not necessarilyany less powerful.

In a review of relevant studies, Percy (1983) con-cluded that concrete words and sentences are gener-ally more meaningful and better comprehended thantheir abstract counterparts. Similarly, metaphorsbased on concrete rather than abstract experiencesshould also be more meaningful and more easily com-prehended. Because a metaphor is a comparison ofthe p6U*ts of one experience to the parts of anotherexperience, the degree to which the comparison isgrounded in a sensory experience should impact theaccuracy ofthe intended comparison. While it makesintuitive sense that the level of abstractness or con-creteness would affect the comprehensibility of a meta-phor, this principle has yet to be demonstrated.

Hemisphericity

Beyond the metaphor itself, physiological individualdifferences may have an impact on metaphor compre-hension. The functions ofthe hemispheres ofthe brainhave been the subject of considerable interest for de-cades. Although future research with more advancedtechnology (such as functional magnetic resonanceimaging [fMRI]) may be able to offer a more sophisti-cated view of how figurative language is processed,neuropsychologists have been able to identify some ofthe functions of the left and right brain (Akmaijan,Demers and Hamish 1986; Geschwind and Galaburda1987; Springer and Deutch 1989). The lefl hemisphereofthe brain appears to govern the functions of speech,especially those involving S3aitax and phonology. Inaddition, the left hemisphere is responsible for per-ceptions of time, sequential ordering abilities, andmost analytical functions. The right hemisphere ap-pears to be involved with the determination of mean-ing (semantics), nonverbal communication, music, andvisuo-spatial perceptions.

Although each hemisphere seems to "specialize" incertain functions, it is important to note that thesefunctions do not appear to reside exclusively in onehemisphere or the other; that is, each hemispherehas its functional strengths, but crossover of func-tions does occur. For example, language is sometimesprocessed in the right hemisphere in some individu-als, while others process language in both hemispheres(Geschwind and Galaburda 1987; Ioccino 1993;Springer and Deutch 1989). Much ofthe information

we have on the functions of each hemisphere has itsorigins in the research on split brain patients (thosewith the corpus collosum severed in an attempt toreduce severe seizures; see Sperry [1975]) and onstroke and head trauma survivors (Akmagan, Demersand Hamish 1986). When one region or hemisphereof the brain is damaged, the abilities correspondingto that area are likewise impaired (Akmaijan, Demersand Hamish 1986; Ioccino 1993; Springer and Deutch1989). Thus, we know that individuals who sustainright hemisphere damage are unable to comprehendor generate metaphors, even though they otherwiseretain their ability to read and speak (Springer andDeutch 1989).

The work of Doktor (1978) helped to establish theidea that the activation of each hemisphere variesaccording to the demands of the task presented to anindividual. By monitoring brain waves throughelectroencephalograms (EEGs), Doktor was able todocument that logical-verbal tasks and intuitive-spa-tial tasks activated different parts ofthe brain. More-over, he found that there were individual differencesin these general patterns of response: those who wereemployed as operations research analysts (as opposedto business executives) used less right hemisphereprocessing, regardless ofthe task.

Although brain imaging technology is continuallyadvancing, we can only hypothesize how the brainexecutes tasks such as metaphoric processing. It ispossible that the type of "connections" (or synapses)required to process metaphors and analogies wouldentail the involvement of both left and right hemi-spheres. Since the left hemisphere is primarily re-sponsible for the "technical" aspects of language pro-cessing, the processing of metaphors probably beginsthere. When linear processes of meaning creationprove to be insufficient, the right hemisphere may beactivated by neurons seeking the more creative, ho-listic meaning creation processes associated with thathemisphere (Gibbs 1995; Morgan 1997).

Visual Metaphors

What makes an analysis of metaphors in productadvertising more complex is the presence of both ver-bal and visual metaphors. Unfortunately, very littlescholarly research has been done on the relative ad-vantages that one type of metaphor might have overthe other. Kaplan (1992) operationalizes product ad-vertisements containing visual metaphors as "thosewhich depict relationships between a product orservice...and some object or visual element (the meta-phor source) with...qualities that the advertiser wishes

The Journal of Advertising

to impute to the product or service" (p. 202). Still,Kaplan does not ofTer any speculation on whethervisual metaphors might be more effective than verbalmetaphors. There is some indication from currentliterature, however, that visual metaphors might bee£isier to comprehend. For example, studies on memoryindicate that presenting metaphors in visual formfacilitates recall (Kaplan 1992). Whittock (1990) of-fers some explanation as to why visual metaphorsmight be easier to understand. When artists or ad-vertisers construct a metaphor, they choose a specificimage to accompany the comparison created by themetaphor. While verbal metaphors require a receiverto create their own image (which may or may not be"correct" or even make sense to the receiver), a visualmetaphor has done part ofthe "work" of comprehend-ing the comparison being generated.

It is important to point out that the relative advan-tage that visual metaphors may have over verbalmetaphors in product advertisements is probably nota result of any difference in how these metaphorswould be processed neurolinguistically. Although gen-erally speaking, visual infonnation is processed bythe right hemisphere ofthe brain and most elementsof verbal communication are processed by the lefthemisphere, metaphors are considered a "special case"of ltuiguage, where receivers must process the verbalelements of a metaphor in a more holistic or creativeway. Metaphors constitute a violation of the normal,literal use of language (Kaplan 1992; McQuarrie andMick 1996) and thus require somewhat more work onthe part of the receiver to comprehend (although, asMcQuarrie and Mick [1996] point out, this effort isoften pleasurable). This type of comprehension occursas a result of right hemisphere processing. There is noreason to believe, therefore, that verbal metaphorswould be best comprehended by those high in left hemi-sphere processing abilities or that visual metaphorswould be better understood than verbal metaphors bythose who are h i ^ in right hemisphere processing abili-ties. It appears from current research that the compre-hension of all metaphors involves Unctions associatedwith the right hemisphere, or it occurs via some coop-eration between the left and right hemispheres.

Hypotheses and Research Questions

Our first question sought to determine how wellpeople understand metaphors contained in print ad-vertisements. It appears from the ubiquity of meta-phors in advertising that advertisers assume con-sumers understand the intended meaning. Theamount of resources devoted to the production and

distribution of these ads demands that they are effec-tive in persuading consumers to purchase these goodsor services; however, there is a paucity of researchthat clearly demonstrates the level of comprehensionof metaphors in advertising.

RQl: How well are metaphors contained inadvertisements understood?

Given the definition of concrete £uid abstract meta-phors discussed eeirlier, metaphors based on concretecomparisons (i.e., grovmded in sensory experiences) willbe more familiar and more tangible to respondentscompared to those based on abstract comparisons.Therefore, respondents should be able to "translate"concrete metaphors better than abstract metaphors.

HI: Concrete metaphors in advertisementswill be easier to understand than ab-stract metaphors in advertisements.

Ads containing abstract metaphors should be par-ticularly challenging to understand. However, thosepeople who have the greatest degree of "cooperation"between the creative (right) and analytical (left) hemi-spheres should have the advantage in understandingabstract metaphors. High integrative processing in-dividuals are likely to be less reliant on concrete(sense) experience since this category represents anability to be "creatively analytical."

H2a: People scoring high in integrative pro-cessing will understand ads containingabstract metaphors better than those scor-ing h i ^ in left hemisphere processing.

Language, as discussed earlier, is generally pro-cessed by the left hemisphere of the brain. However,metaphors are considered a more creative use of lan-guage, and this type of activity is governed by theright hemisphere. Thus, people high in integrativeprocessing should have the greatest advantage in thecomprehension of metaphors, since integrative pro-cessing theoretically combines the analytical and lan-guage skills of the left hemisphere with the creative,holistic processing of the right hemisphere. Thosewho score high on left hemisphere (and low in righthemisphere) processing should prefer more literal usesof language and exhibit less ability to comprehendmetaphors in advertising.

H2b: People scoring high in right hemisphereprocessing will understand ads contain-ing abstract metaphors better thanthose scoring high in left hemisphereprocessing.

H2c: People scoring h i ^ in integrative process-ingwill understand ads containing abstractmetaphors better than those scoring hi|^in r i^ t hemisphere processing.

Winter 1999

It would be expected that while the differences betweenintegrative or r i ^ t and left hemisphere processing will bemost pronounced in the area of abstract metaphors (themost challenging metaphor condition), these advantageswill also hold true in the concrete metaphor condition.

H3a: People scoring hig^ in integrative process-ing will understand ads containing con-crete metaphors better than those scoringh i ^ in left hemisphere processing.

H3b: People scoring h i ^ in rig^t hemisphereprocessing will understand ads containingconcrete metaphors better than those scor-ing M ^ in left hemisphere processing.

H3c People scoring h i ^ in integrative process-ing will understemd ads containing con-crete metaphors better than those scoringh i ^ in rig^t hemisphere processing.

Finally, we believe that advertisements containingvisual metaphors will be easier to understand thanadvertisements using only verbal metaphors with anaccompanying illustration. Visual metaphors offersome support in the effort at "translating" the compari-son being offered in the advertisement and thus shouldmake the process of metaphor comprehension easier.

H4: Advertisements containing visual meta-phors will have a higher rate of com-prehension than advertisements rely-ing on verbal metaphors.

Method

To examine the research questions and test the hy-potheses set forth, this study was designed as a 3 (left,right, and integrative hemisphere processing) x 2 (con-crete/abstract metaphors for hypotheses 1-3, and vi-suaVverbal metaphors for hypothesis 4) factorial de-sign. Hemisphere processing is a between-subjects fac-tor and metaphor type is a within-subjects factor. Thedependent variable was metaphor comprehension.

Participants

One hundred and three undergraduate students en-rolled in communication courses at a large state universitywere recruited to participate in this stucfy for extra credit(2V=1O3). Females comprised 54% ofthe sample, and 93%reported being white with the remaining participants in-dicating African-American or Asian ethnicity.

Stimulus MaterialsThe materials used in this study were 13 full-page

magazine advertisements that contained either a con-

crete or an abstract metaphor. Nothing in the previ-ously published advertisements was altered in orderto maintain the broad applicability of results to ad-vertising practitioners. Ads containing concrete meta-phors offered comparisons between two tangible ob-jects (one of which was the product) which could beexperienced through touch, taste, sight, smell, or hear-ing. Ads containing abstract metaphors relied on com-parisons between the product and an intangible traitor concept. These classifications were confirmedthrough discussions with former advertising profes-sionals and academics with an interest in figurativelanguage. This expert panel examined a pool of 18ads; only the ads which were consistently placed ineither the abstract or concrete condition were retainedfor the study. Appendix A provides a list ofthe prod-uct advertisements used.

Procedures

All participants completed the 40-item Human In-formation Processing Survey (HIPS) (Torrance,Taggart and Taggart 1984) and offered "translations"for each of the 13 ads. Ads were reordered to reduceorder effects, and the ads were randomly distributedto the participants. Respondents were asked one ques-tion for each ad, the response to which would requirean understanding ofthe metaphor present in the ad.This single question generally took the form of, "Whenthe ad says that , what does it mean?" Al-though this format requires that respondents pay farmore attention to the ad than they would in real life,it does provide a conservative measure of how welipeople understand what they are viewing.

Variables

Metaphor Comprehension. Two independent codersrated the validity of respondents' interpretations ofthe metaphors in each advertisement. Coders weretrained by one ofthe authors and were provided witha "translation sheet" that offered basic informationabout the comparison being made in each ad. Coderswere instructed to record as "valid" all interpreta-tions of the metaphor appearing in the ad that weresupported by the metaphor. Thus, there was no singlecorrect interpretation of the metaphors in the ads.While working through several examples, the codersdiscussed differences until they felt comfortable withthe criteria for "valid" and "invalid." Accuracy scoresranged from 1 to 3 (l=an invalid interpretation, 2=par-tially valid interpretation, 3=valid interpretation). Avalid interpretation was one in which both the topic

6 The Journal of Advertising

(the product or subject ofthe ad) and the vehicle (theobject or concept heing used to create the comparison)were identified in a valid way; that is to say, thattheir interpretation was supported by the metaphor.Partially valid translations of a metaphor appearingin an advertisement were those which correctly iden-tified only one half of the "equation" of the compari-son. Appendix B provides several examples of valid,partially valid, and invalid interpretations ofthe meta-phors appearing the advertisements in this study.These "accuracy" scores were averaged across ads ineach of the metaphor conditions to obtain overallscores as well as scores for the abstract and concretemetaphor conditions. Inter-coder agreement on thelevel of validity of respondents' interpretations wasrelatively high as measured by Cronbach's alpha=.88.

Hemispheridty. This variable was measured withthe 40-item HIPS instrument. An advantage gainedover other measures of hemisphericity is that HIPSallows respondents to score according to their hemi-sphere processing preferences without forcing theminto a single "dominant" hemisphere category (i.e.,"left-brained" vs. "right-brained"). An earlier mea-sure that has been used extensively in hemisphericityresearch, especially with regard to learning stylesand management styles, is SOLAT (Your Style ofLearning and Thinking) which was developed byReynolds, Riegel, and Torrance (1977). AlthoughSOLAT has been used successfully, the instrumentused in this study (Torrance, Taggart and Taggart's[1984] Human Infonnation Processing Survey) waschosen because it can measure more than simple hemi-spheric dominance. We did not want respondents tobe forced into a left/right dichotomy, especially inlight of our beliefs about the way metaphors might beprocessed by the brain (as outlined earlier in thispaper). The Human Infonnation Processing Survey(HIPS) allows these more sophisticated patterns ofprocessing to be reflected in respondents' scores, andfor this reason, contributes to the formation of predic-tions regarding relationships between hemisphericityand metaphor comprehension. In addition, HIPS wasemployed as a measure of hemisphericity because ishas achieved good levels of reliability and validity(Taggart and Valenzi 1990). Alternate forms test-retest reliability coefUcients ranged from .82 for theintegrated hemisphere scale to .86 for the left hemi-sphere scale (Reynolds, Riegel and Torrance 1977).Denny and Wolf (1980) reported a Cronbach reliabil-ity coefncient of .84. Construct validity was assessedby Torrance and Frasier (1991) by correlating the leftand right hemisphere scales with the Creativity scaleof the Biographical Inventory. This study jaelded a

significant positive correlation between right hemi-sphere processing and creativity (r=.54) and a sig-nificant negative correlation between left hemisphereprocessing and creativity (r=-.58). Torrance (1979)tested the predictive validity ofthe HIPS instrumentby testing predictions that those individuals scoringhigh in right hemisphere functions would be betterable to connect sounds and images; the results sup-ported the hypotheses with a significant positive cor-relation of .63 for right hemisphere scores and -.40 forleft hemisphere scores. Taggart and Valenzi (1990)present the results of numerous reliability, constructvalidity, and predictive validity studies which sup-port the use of HIPS.

In this study, a research participant's score on theHIPS consisted of continuous scores (from 0 to 40) forleft hemisphere, right hemisphere, and integrativeprocessing. These scores were split on the median tocreate high and low categories on each ofthe types ofprocessing.

Results

RQl sought to determine the accuracy of partici-pants' interpretations of metaphors in advertising.The mean accuracy score demonstrated that, overall,participants were generally valid in their understand-ing of the metaphors used in the ads in this study(M=2.37).

Hypothesis 1 predicted that concrete metaphors wouldbe easier to understand than abstract metaphors. Theresults of a two-tailed paired samples t test supportedthis hypothesis, (t [102]=:-4.43, p<.001, eta2=.16). Par-ticipants were more valid in their interpretation of con-crete metaphors (Af=2.45) than abstract metaphors(M=2.26). Results are summarized in Table 1.

Hypotheses 2a and 3a posited that people high inintegrative hemisphere processing (IH) would havean advantage in comprehension of abstract and con-crete metaphors in ads compared to people high inhemisphere processing (LH). After selecting only thoseindividuals who were high in either IH or LH (al-though it was possible to score high in both LH andIH, only those who scored high in only one or theother were selected for this analysis), a one-wayANOVA was performed to test the differences in themean comprehension of each tjrpe of metaphor. Theresults support both Hypothesis 2a (F [1,72]=29.41,p<.001, eta2=.29), and Hypothesis 3a (F [1,72]=8.62,p=.004, eta^=.ll). People high in integrative process-ing interpret abstract and concrete metaphors in adsin more valid ways than people high in left hemi-sphere processing.

Winter

H1:

H2a:

H2b:

H2c:

H3a:

H3b:

H3c:

1999

MetaphorType

Both

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Concrete

Concrete

Concrete

Table 1Results of Metaphor Comprehension Analyses

Hypothesized Direction andCell Means*

Concrete>Abstract2.47(.38)

2.43 (.29)

2.12 (.45)

2.43 (.32)

2.55 (.35)

2.33 (.38)

2.54 (.34)

IH<=>LH

RH>LH

IH''>RH

IH<=>LH

RH>LH

IH" >RH

2.26 (.43)

1.96 (.44)

1.96 (.44)

2.12 (.45)

2.29 (.35)

2.29 (.35)

2.42 (.40)

F-value

19.63"

29.41

7.185

19.02

6.33

4.06

2.04

p-value

.001

.001

.009

.002

.02

.06

.16

7

Supported?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Note: At103. Numbers in parentheses represent standard deviations.• 1 -3 pt metaphor comprehension scale (1 ="invalid"; 2="partially valid"; 3="valid").*> t-value (-4.43) squared.0 Integrative Hemisphere Individuals who scored low on Left Hemisphericity." Integrative Hemisphere individuals who scored iow on Right Hemisphericity.

Hypotheses 2b and 3b predicted that people high inright hemisphere processing (RH) would comprehendabstract and concrete metaphors in advertisementsbetter than people who score high in left hemisphereprocessing (LH). Selecting only those individuals scor-ing high in either right or left hemisphere processing,one-way ANOVAs revealed support for Hypothesis2b (F[l,57]=6.33,p=.02, eta2=.10), and marginal sup-port for Hypothesis 3b (F [l,57]=4.06, p=.O56,eta*=.O7). Compared to those high in left hemisphericprocessing, people high in right hemisphere process-ing are more valid in their comprehension of abstractmetaphors in ads and somewhat more valid in theircomprehension of concrete metaphors.

Hypotheses 2c and 3c predicted that people high inintegrative processing have an advantage in compre-hending metaphors over those who are high in righthemisphere processing. The results of one-wayANOVAs support Hypothesis 2c (F [l,74]=7.19,p=.01,eta''=.O9), indicating that such an advantage existsfor abstract metaphors; however, the results did notsupport Hypothesis 3c (F [l,74]=2.04,p=.16, eta2=.O3).Therefore, the advantage of integrative processing isnot as large for concrete metaphors (which are moreeasily comprehended) as it is for abstract metaphors(the more challenging condition).

Hypothesis 4 predicted that visual metaphors wouldbe more easily comprehended than verbal metaphors.

Three advertisements representing the visual meta-phor condition were selected along with three adver-tisements representing the verbal metaphor condi-tion. To control for the possible confounding effectthat the inclusion of (the more difficult to compre-hend) abstract metaphors might exert, only ads usingconcrete metaphors were selected. This hypothesiswas supported, t(75)=4.66, p<.001. The mean com-prehension score for visual metaphors was 2.69, whilethe mean for verbal metaphors was 2.38.

DiscussionThis study is important for several reasons. First,

it directly addresses the issue of comprehension ofadvertising metaphors. As mentioned earlier, severalauthors have called for investigations into determin-ing the degree to which metaphors are comprehendedby consumers (Stern 1988; Ward and Gaidis 1990).Because metaphors depend on meaning transfer be-tween one referent to another, on the appropriateattribute(s) of interest, this is an important line ofinquiry. Another important contribution of this studyis that a meaningful distinction is made between meta-phor type (concrete and abstract). The hypotheses re-garding the differences in comprehension as a result ofmetaphor type were supported. The pattern of findingsis important for theoretical and practical reeisons in

8 The Journal of AdverHsing

advertising, since these results have implications formessage design. In addition, the present research shedslight on the interplay of individual processing prefer-ences and metaphor type and their impact on compre-hension. These three contributions, coupled with a dis-cussion of practicid implications and limitations, is fur-ther outlined in the following discussion.

Metaphor Comprehension andConsumer Response

The first research question sought to determine at afundamental level how well consumers interpretedmetaphors contained in product advertising. It appearsthat at a general level, most respondents were onlysomewhat valid in their interpretations of metaphorsin ads. This finding is congruent with past research inthis area which has found that metaphors are not al-ways interpreted as the advertiser intended (Phillips1997). This finding offers support for the conclusionthat metaphors may not be entirely effective in convey-ing an intended or even an obvious meaning. Althoughas a message strategy, metaphors may increase atten-tion to the ad and ad processing, comprehension maynot be as high as ad creators would hope.

Metaphors which are not comprehended, or are in-terpreted in such a manner as to be nonsensical, couldbe categorized as unexpected and irrelevant on Heck-ler and Childers' (1992) two-dimensional model ofincongruency, at least as these metaphors are experi-enced by receivers. According to McQuarrie and Mick(1996) figurative language (metaphor) is an atypicalor uncommon comparison. This is not dissimilar tothe "unexpected" or novel use of a message element toemphasize the theme in an ad. However, the powerthat usually accompanies a novel appeal may be lostif the appeal is not understood; in this case, it couldbe categorized as irrelevant. According to Hecklerand Childers' (1992) model, advertisements catego-rized as unexpected and irrelevant have negative ef-fects on memory outcomes. Thus, not only are view-ers unable to make sense ofthe appeal, they are alsoless likely to remember it. The conclusions of Hecklerand Childers, combined with the findings of this study,point to the utility of selecting concrete as opposed toabstract metaphors in product advertising.

Concrete vs. Abstract Metaphors: ANew Conceptualization

Another important contribution of this study is thatit introduces a new way to think about and examinethe effects of metaphors in advertising. This research

suggests that not all metaphors are created equal, atleast in terms of comprehension. Metaphors that areprimarily abstract or concrete are comprehended to adifferent degree, with a distinct advantage being foundin the use of concrete metaphors. From a practicalperspective, this study provides guidance to advertis-ing practitioners for metaphor construction. From atheoretical perspective, distinguishing between typesof metaphors should strengthen future studies.

Visual and Verbal MetaphorsPrevious research has identified important effects

with regard to the presence of verbal metaphors (Lei^1994) and interpretation of visual metaphors (Phillips1997), but metaphors in advertising are typically aninterplay of both copy and image. For this reason,several ofthe advertisements used in this study con-tained both verbal and visual metaphors. However,by contrasting ads using either visual or verbal meta-phors, we discovered that the presentation of a meta-phorical comparison supported hy a visual image en-hanced the comprehensibility of the metaphor. Theclear implication is that advertisers, when seeking theadvantages that metaphors provide in obtaining andsustaining attention, should consider using concretemetaphors which are reinforced with a visual image.

Individual Differences in Interpretation

Not only does this study provide important insightinto the effects of different types of metaphors oncomprehension, it goes beyond this to examine howprocessing preferences interact with these types ofmetaphors. Hypotheses 2a through 3b predicted thatpeople high in integrative processing or right hemi-sphere processing would have an advantage over thosehigh in left hemisphere processing when interpretingads containing abstract and concrete metaphors. Theresults support these hypotheses. This indicates thatleft hemisphere processing (the hemisphere that gov-erns most language production and comprehensiontasks) alone may be insufficient for the comprehen-sion of metaphors.

Reviewing the effect sizes, it is clear that peoplewho engage in integrative hemisphere processing arebetter able to comprehend abstract metaphors, al-though this advantage narrows in the comprehensionof concrete metaphors. The data, when considered as awhole, point to the advantage of using concrete over ab-stract metaphors. These data also indicate that it is impor-tant to recognize that not all consumers will fully under-stand messages contfiining metaphors (althou^ this b^s

Winter 1999 9

the question of whether consumers understand all adver-tisements that do not contain metaphors).

In addition, this research addresses a significantgap in the advertising literature by looking at thecomprehension of real ads containing metaphors. Thisstudy also accounts for the effect of individual differ-ences in the ability to understand such ads. It ap-pears that there has been an underlying assumptionthat all people process this type of message the sameway. With the exception of Phillips (1997), there hasbeen little discussion about whether consumers differin their abilities to process metaphors, especially thatof hemisphericity on the comprehension of nonliterallanguage appearing in advertisements.

LimitationsThere are several limitations of this study that war-

rant attention. First, the use of a student samplelimits the generalizability of the findings. Althoughstudents are consumers of advertising, they are notrepresentative of all consumers. It could be argued,however, that students, with their higher-than-aver-age level of education, are better able to interpret andarticulate metaphors and analogies than the popula-tion at large. For this reason, the accuracy of theinterpretations elicited in this study may actually beinflated, pointing to the need to be even more judi-cious when employing abstract metaphors.

Second, this study employed real magazine ads asstimulus materials. It is difficult to control the levelof difficulty (or familiarity) of the metaphors con-tained in each ad, which we recognize may constitutea threat to internal validity. However, the benefits ofusing real ads utilizing high production values—thereby increasing extemai validity—^were deemedto outweigh the potential drawbacks associated withthe presence of uncontrolled differences between ads.

Third, although the method of assessing the depen-dent variable (comprehension) was similar to otherstudies in this area (Phillips 1997), it is possible thatrespondents were unable to accurately describe theirinterpretations even if those interpretations werevalid. Therefore, our results are limited by the degreeto which each of our respondents were able to articu-late the meaning of each of the metaphors. It is cer-tainly possible that consumers respond to a moregeneral impression or feeling when attempting to in-terpret a metaphor, as opposed to a full understand-ing ofthe message. The transference of affect createdby a metaphorical comparison may be an importantelement of persuasive success compared to compre-hension. In addition, the relationship between com-

prehension ofthe metaphor and favorable evaluationof the brand has yet to be established. However, wedo feel confident in advancing the conclusion that themore advertisers rely on a metaphor to convey spe-cific product infonnation, the more careful (and con-crete) advertisers should be.

Conclusions and Practical ImplicationsOverall, the results of this study suggest that meta-

phor type and individual differences in hemisphericprocessing have a significant effect on comprehen-sion of metaphors in advertisements. As such, thesefindings provide several important implications foradvertising creators. Regarding metaphor type, thefindings suggest that advertisers should exercise cau-tion when using abstract metaphors. Respondentsappear to have lost significantly more meaning whenviewing ads with abstract, rather than concrete, meta-phors. However, this is not to say that abstract meta-phors are without merit in product advertising. Ab-stract metaphors may be highly useful in accomplish-ing a transfer of meaning that supports the goals ofan advertiser in spite of being less tangible. For ex-ample, the essence of grace is an abstract trait usedto promote Concord watches, but some consumers mayrespond to this message more favorably than to a moreconcrete (and perhaps less elegant) comparison. Never-theless, viewers are more likely to validly interpretmetaphors that are based on the senses (i.e., sight,sound, touch, etc.) compared to abstract referents.

These findings, however, are moderated by the ef-fect of the strength and tjT)e of cognitive processingskills or preferences of respondents. It appears thatpeople high in integrative hemisphere processingshow the highest comprehension of both concrete andabstract metaphors. While we would not suggest thatthe type of processing is something that advertiserscan control, it does support the notion that there areimportant individual differences in viewers' ability tocomprehend metaphors in advertising.

This finding is important from a practical stand-point as well. Advertisements targeted toward cer-tain populations may experience greater or lesser suc-cess with each type of metaphor. For instance, adstargeted toward a population segment high in inte-grative processing (e.g., engineers [Torrance, Taggart,and Taggart, 1984]) are better able to comprehendabstract as opposed to concrete metaphors. On theother hand, ads targeted toward certain professions(e.g., business-to-business or trade advertising) inwhich the profession is dominated by individuals highin left or right brain processing (e.g., operations ana-

10 The JourncU of Advertising

lysts [Doktor 1978] or computer programmers [Coppus1978] versus general managers [Agor 1983] or musi-cians), concrete metaphors are more likely to he com-prehended validly compared to ahstract metaphors.Another, perhaps more unexpected, metaphor/occu-pation interaction may he occurring within the ad-vertising field itself. If we accept the findings thatcertain occupations may he hiased toward left or righthemisphere processing, there may he a hias in theadvertising profession that has resulted in the heavyuse of metaphors: highly creative advertising profes-sionals may he intuitively constructing advertisementsthat contain metaphors hecause of their own ten-dency toward right hemisphere processing.

These results point to two important conclusions.First, that consumers may not completely understandmany ads that contain metaphors, particularly thosecontaining ahstract metaphors. Second, these resultsindicate that hemisphere processing has a significantimpact on how well metaphors in advertisements areunderstood. We hope that this study provides knowl-edge for future research by advertising scholars andhy advertising professionals interested in having theirmetaphors interpreted as intended.

ReferencesAgor, Weston H. (1983), "Brian Skills Development in Management

Training," Training and Development Joumal, 38(1), 78-82.Akmayan, Adrian, Richard A. Demers and Robert M. Harnish

(1986), Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Com-munication, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

CoppuB, Sally A. (1978), "An Investigation into Computer Pro-gramming as an Academic Discipline Which Provides Educa-tion for Both Sides ofthe Brain," Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national, 39,1395-A.

Denny, David A. and Richard M. Wolf (1980), "Y omparison of TwoPersonality Tests as Measures of Left-Ri^t Brain Cerebral Hemi-q>here Preferenoe and Creativity Correlates," presented to theEastern Educational Research Association, Norfolk, VA

Doktor, Robert H. (1978), "Problem Solving Styles of Executivesand Management Scientists," TIMS Studies in the Manage-ment Sciences, 8(2), 123-134.

Geschwind, Norman and Albert M. Galaburda (1987), CerebralLateralizations: Biological Mechanisms, Associations, andPathology, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. (199S;, The Poetics of Mind: FigurativeThought, Language, and Understanding, New York: Cam-bridge University Presa.

Gray, Stephanie A. and Rita Snyder (1989), "Metaphors in Adver-tising: Efliects on Memory," in Proceedings of'the Society forConsumer Psychology, Meryl P. Gardner, ed., Washington,DC: American Psychological Association, 85-87.

Heckler, Susan E. and Terry L. Childers (1992), "The Role of Ex-pectancy and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and VisualInformation: What is Incongruency?" Joumal of ConsumerReseanh, 18 (March), 475-492.

Ioccino, J. F. (1993), Le/i Brain-Right Brain Differences: Inquiries,Evidence, and New Approaches, Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceEarlbaum Associates.

Kaplan, Stuart Jay (1992), "A Conceptual Analysis of Form andContent in Visual Metaphors," Communication, 13(2), 197-209.

LakofT, George and Mark Johnson (1980), Metaphors We Live By,Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Leigh, James H. (1994), "The Uses of Figures of Speech in Print AdHeadlines," Journal of Advertising, 23(June), 17-34.

Maclnnis, Deborah J., Christine Moorman and Bernard J. Jaworski(1991), "Enhancing and Measuring Consumers' Motivation,Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Infonnation fromAds," Joumal of Marketing, 66(October), 32-63.

MacKenzie, Scott B. (1986), The Role of Attention in Mediatingthe Eflect of Advertising on Attribute Importance,"Jbuma/ ofConsumer Research, 13(September), 174-196.

McCabe, Allyssa (1988), "Effect of DifTerent Contexte on Memoiy forMetaphor," Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 3(2), 105-132.

McQuarrie, Edward F. and David G. Mick (1996), "Figures of Rheto-ric in Advertising Language," Joumal of Consumer Research,22(March), 424-438.

Morgan, Susan E. (1997), "Metaphorical Messages and the LiteralMinded: Accounting for Individual Cognitive Diflerences inthe Design of Persuasive Health Messages," Unpublished Dis-sertation, University of Arizona.

Percy, Larry (1983), "A Review of the Specific Advertising Ele-ments upon Overall Communication Response," Current Is-sues and Research in Advertising, 2(9), 77-118.

and John R. Rossiter (1992), "Advertising StimulusEflects: A Review," Journal of Current Issues and Research inAdvertising, 14(Spring), 76-90.

Phillips, Barbara J. (1997), "Thinking Into It: Consumer Interpre-tation of Complex Advertising Images," Joumal of Advertis-ing, 26(Summer), 77-87.

Pawlowski, Donna R., Diane M. Badzinski and Nancy Mitchell(1998), "Effects of Metaphors on Children's Comprehensionand Perception of Print Advertisements," Joumal of Advertis-ing, 27(Summer), 83-98.

Reynolds, Cecil R., Thomas R. Riegel and E. Paul Torrance (1977),"Bibliography on R/L Hemisphere Function," Gified ChildQuarterly, 21(4), 674-686.

Scott, Linda M. (1994), "Images in Advertising: The Need for aTheory of Visual Rhetoric," Joumal of Consumer Research,21(September), 262-273.

Speny, Roger W. (1976), "Lateral Specialisation in the SurgicallySeparated Hemispheres," In B. Milner ed.. Hemispheric Spe-cialization and Interaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Springer, Sally and Georg Deutch (1989), Left Brain, Right Brain,New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Stem, Barbara B. (1988), "Medieval Allegory: Roots of AdvertisingStrategy for the Mass Market," t/ouma/ of Consumer Research,52(July), 84-94.

(1990), "Beauty and Joy in Metaphorical Advertis-ing: The Poetic Dimension," in Advances in Consumer Re-search, Vol. 17, Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gom, and Rich-ard W. PoUay, eds., Provo, UT: Association for ConsumerResearch, 71-77.

Taggart, William and Enzo Valenzi (1990), "Assessing Rationaland Intuitive Styles: A Human Information Processing Meta-phor," c/ourreaZ of Management Studies, 27(2), 149-172.

Torrance, E. Paul (1979), "Sounds and Images Imageiy as a Poten-tial Indicator of Style of Learning and Thinking," Joumal ofCreative Behavior, 15(3), 279.

Winter 1999 11

Tnranoe, E. Paul and Michael M. FVasier (1991), "Biogr^hical Inven-tngy Carrelatee of Style i^ Tliinking and Leaming Measures,"Cnatiue Child andAduU Quarterly, 16(1), 60-85.

Torrance, E. Paul, Barbara A. Taggart and William M. Taggart(1984), Human Information Processing Survey, Bensenville,IL: Sdiolastic Testing Service.

Ward, James and William Gaidis (1990), "Metaphor in PromotionalCommunication: A Review of Research on Metaphor Compre-hension and Quality," Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.17, Marvin E. Goldberg, Gerald Gom, and Richard W. Pollay,eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 636-642.

Whittock, Thomas (1990), Metaphor and Film, Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press.

Appendix ASummary of Product Advertisements

Product Advertised

Clinique: exceptionally soothingcream for upset skin

Cognac Hennessy

Plymouth automobiles

Noreico Reflex Action Razor

Plymouth Neon Expresso

Concord Versailles watch

Italian winesSector "No Limits" sport watches

Corelle dinnerware

Aetna health plans

Samsung Camcorder

Sonoma trucks

American Express

Metaphor

Cream=Bandaid

Cognac Hennessey=warmth of the winter sunCost of the car relative tovalue=proportion of aniceberg above/below water

Razorblades=snake

Expresso=espresso

Versailles watch=grace

Italian wines=fine art

No Limits=mindset of"pushing further"

Corelle dinnenware=Taj Mahal

Measles=monster

Video camera=gun

Sonoma=adventurousmindset/opening new doors

AMEX card=medal of honor

Concrete/Abstract

Concrete

Concrete

Abstract

Concrete

Concrete

Abstract

Concrete

Abstract

Concrete

Abstract

Concrete

Abstract

Concrete

Visual/Verbal

Visual

Verbal

Visual

Visual

Verbal

Verbal/Visual

Verbal

Verbal

Visual/Verbal

Visual/Verbal

Visual

Verbal

Visual

Appendix BExamples of Valid, Invalid and Partially Vaiid Translations of Abstract

and Concrete Metaphors in Product Advertising

Concrete Ads:Clinique. Why does the jar of this Clinique product have a Band-Aid on it?Valid. "Wienever we got hurt, we use a band-aid to cure it. Clinique's ad shows that it can heal our skin just likethe band-aid." "it heals problem skin."Invalid "it makes you feel that it is medically proven and that it helps cure the accident other creams or you mightinflict upon yourself."Partially valid. "It can fix your imperfections."

Noreico: What does the image of a razor tell you about why you shouldn't shave with a razor?Valid. "A real razor is harmful — it can cut you in an instant like a snake can strike." "Better shave with a Noreicobecause it won't nick or cut you like a razor (snake) will."

12 The Joum€d of Advertising

Appendix BExamples of Valid, Invalid and Partialiy Vaiid Transiations of Abstract

and Concrete Metaphors In Product Advertising (continued)

Invalid "A normal razor doesn't bend and curl like the Noreico does."Partially valid The blades can be very dangerous and require great skiil to use them."

American Express: Why is the American Express card pinned to this man's shirt?Valid T o equate it with a badge of honor and accompiishment. If you have AE, you have made it."Invalid "He Is not leaving home without it."Partially valid "He is proud of it. It is part of his life."

Abstract AdsPlymouth: Why did the ad creators use an iceberg in this ad?Valid "You pay a smail amount in comparison to what you will receive from the car."Invalid "The toughness." "I think the iceberg was used to represent something 'cool,' implying that you are payingfor a cool vehicle." "An iceberg is strong and sturdy like the Plymouth line of cars."Partially valid "Hidden substance belied by a small visible portion; many unseen improvements have beenmade." "You are paying for the quality of an iceberg at a smaller price."

Concord Watch: What do they compare their watch to?Valid "The Idea of gracefulness; because Americans think anything French is elegant and stylish." They arecomparing the watch to the way swans are — very graceful... they believe their watches are graceful like this."Invalid Two swans in love." "Named after Grace Kelly."Partially valid "A swan; to resemble royalty which is full of grace and beauty, hoping you will think if you buy thewatch that you will be graceful and beautiful."

Sector sport watches: The ad creators are comparing the watches to what?Valid "Our world of no limits is much more than a line of watches. It's a mindset that encourages everyone topush a little further."Invalid "Sky diving." "A team of extreme athletes."Partially valid "The world of no limits."