Hyperboles in advertising: a serial mediation of incongruity and humour

References

• Alden, D.L., and W.D. Hoyer. 1993. An examination of cognitive factors related to humorousness in television advertising. Journal of Advertising 22: 29–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alden, D.L., A. Mukherjee, and W.D. Hoyer. 2000. The effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators on perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of Advertising 29: 1–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang, S.H., Y.H. Lee, and S.M. Leong. 2007. The ad creativity cube: Conceptualization and initial validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 35: 220–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang, S.H., and E.A.C. Lim. 2006. The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising 35: 39–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baskin, J.S. 2013. Hyperbole in an ad makes an impression, but does it work? Adage.com. http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/hyperbole-work-advertising/240658/#author_bio_box (Accessed September 2, 2017).
   Google Scholar
• Berlyne, D.E. 1972. Humor and its kin. In The psychology of humor, ed. J.H. Goldstein and P.E. McGhee, 43–60. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burgers, C., K.Y. Renardel de Lavalette, and G.J. Steen. 2018. Metaphor, hyperbole, and irony: Uses in isolation and in combination in written discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 127: 71–83.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callister, M.A., and L.A. Stern. 2007. The role of visual hyperbole in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 29: 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Catanescu, C., and G. Tom. 2001. Types of humor in television and magazine advertising. Review of Business 22: 92–5.
   Google Scholar
• Chang, C. 2013. Seeing is believing: The direct and contingent influence of pictures in health promotion advertising. Health Communication 28: 822–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, C.-T., and C.-T. Yen. 2013. Missing ingredients in metaphor advertising: The right formula of metaphor type, product type, and need for cognition. Journal of Advertising 42: 80–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corbett, E.P.J., and R.J. Connors. 1999. Classical rhetoric for the modern student. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delbaere, M., E.F. McQuarrie, and B.J. Phillips. 2011. Personification in advertising: Using a visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising 41: 121–30.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisend, M. 2009. A Meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 37: 191–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• El-Murad, J., and D.C. West. 2004. The definition and measurement of creativity: What do we know?. Journal of Advertising Research 44: 188–201.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gkiouzepas, L., and M.K. Hogg. 2011. Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising 40: 103–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulas, C.S., and M.G. Weinberger. 2006. Humor in advertising: A comprehensive analysis. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Hayes, A.F., and K.J. Preacher. 2014. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 67: 451–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heckler, S.E., and T.L. Childers. 1992. The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency?. Journal of Consumer Research 18: 475–92.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howell, D.C. 2008. Statistical methods for psychology. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Jeong, S.H. 2008. Visual metaphor in advertising: Is the persuasive effect attributable to visual argumentation or metaphorical rhetoric?. Journal of Marketing Communications 14: 59–73.
   Google Scholar
• Leech, G.N. 1969. A linguistic guide to English poetry. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Leigh, J.H. 1994. The use of figures of speech in print ad headlines. Journal of Advertising 23: 17–33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz, R.J., S.B. MacKenzie, and G.E. Belch. 1983. Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. In Advances in consumer research, ed. R.P. Bagozzi and A.M. Tybout, 532–9. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
   Google Scholar
• Lutz, R.J. 1985. Affective and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework. In Psychological processes and advertising effects: Theory, research and application, ed. L. F. Alwitt and A. A. Mitchell, 45–63. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.
   Google Scholar
• Lutz, K.A., and R.J. Lutz. 1978. Imagery-eliciting strategies: Review and implications of research. Advances in Consumer Research 5: 611–20.
   Google Scholar
• MacInnis, D.J., and L.L. Price. 1987. The role of imagery in information processing: Review and extensions. Journal of Consumer Research 13: 473–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandler, G.P. 1982. The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In Affect and cognition: The 17th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition, ed. M.S. Clark and S.T. Fiske, 3–36. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, S.B., R.J. Lutz, and G.E. Belch. 1986. The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research 23: 130–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQuarrie, E.F., and D.G. Mick. 1992. On resonance: A critical pluralistic inquiry into advertising rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research 19: 180–97.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQuarrie, E.F., and D.G. Mick. 1996. Figures of rhetoric in advertising language. Journal of Consumer Research 22: 424–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McQuarrie, E.F., and B.J. Phillips. 2005. Indirect persuasion in advertising: How consumers process metaphors presented in pictures and words. Journal of Advertising 34: 7–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messaris, P. 1997. Visual persuasion: The role of images in advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy, J., and A. Tybout. 1989. Schema congruity as a basis for product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 16: 39–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, W.J.T. 1994. Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mohanty, P., and S. Ratneshwar. 2015. Did you get it? factors influencing subjective comprehension of visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising 44: 232–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohanty, P., and S. Ratneshwar. 2016. Visual metaphors in ads: The inverted-u effects of incongruity on processing pleasure and ad effectiveness. Journal of Promotion Management 22: 443–60.
   Google Scholar
• Morreall, J. 1983. Taking laughter seriously. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Obermiller, C., and E.R. Spangenberg. 1998. Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7: 159–86.
   Google Scholar
• Paivio, A., M. Walsh, and T. Bons. 1994. Concreteness effects on memory: When and why?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20: 1196–204.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, B.J. 2000. The impact of verbal anchoring on consumer response to image ads. Journal of Advertising 29: 15–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, B.J., and E.F. McQuarrie. 2002. The development, change, and transformation of rhetorical style in magazine advertisements 1954-1999. Journal of Advertising 31: 1–13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, B.J., and E.F. McQuarrie. 2004. Beyond visual metaphor: A new typology of visual rhetoric in advertising. Marketing Theory 4: 113–36.
   Google Scholar
• Pollay, R.W. 1985. The subsiding sizzle: A descriptive history of print advertising, 1900-1980. Journal of Marketing 49: 24–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pracejus, J.W., G.D. Olsen, and T.C. O’Guinn. 2006. How nothing became something: White space, rhetoric, history, and meaning. Journal of Consumer Research 33: 82–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ratchford, B.T. 1987. New insights about the PCB grid. Journal of Advertising Research 27: 24–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, R., and R.J. Kreuz. 1994. Why do people use figurative language?. Psychological Science 5: 159–63.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothbart, M.K. 1976. Incongruity, problem solving and laughter. In Humor and laughter: Theory, research and applications, ed. A.J. Chapman and H.C. Foot, 37–54. London: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Rubio-Fernández, P., C. Wearing, and R. Carston. 2015. Metaphor and hyperbole: Testing the continuity hypothesis. Metaphor and Symbol 30: 24–40. no.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, G.E., D.A. Weinberger, and J.A. Singer. 1981. Cardiovascular differentiation of happiness, sadness, anger, and fear following imagery and exercise. Psychosomatic Medicine 43: 343–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, L.M. 1994a. Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual rhetoric. Journal of Consumer Research 21: 252–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, L.M. 1994b. The bridge from text to mind: Adapting reader-response theory to consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 21: 461–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, L.M. 2008. Expanding rhetoric. In Go figure! new directions in advertising rhetoric, ed. B.J. Phillips and E.F. McQuarrie, 288–40. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe.
   Google Scholar
• Speck, P.S. 1991. The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Current Issues and Research in Advertising 13: 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 2008. A deflationary account of metaphors. In The cambridge handbook of metaphor and thought, ed. R. Gibbs, 84–105. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spotts, H.E., M.G. Weinberger, and A.L. Parsons. 1997. Assessing the use and impact of humor on advertising effectiveness: A contingency approach. Journal of Advertising 26: 17–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tevi, A., and S. Koslow. 2018. How rhetoric theory informs the creative advertising development process: Reconciling differences between advertising scholarship and practice. Journal of Advertising Research 58: 111–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toncar, M., and J. Munch. 2001. Consumer responses to tropes in print advertising. Journal of Advertising 30: 55–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tom, G., and A. Eves. 1999. The use of rhetorical devices in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 39: 39–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Enschot, R., and H. Hoeken. 2015. The occurrence and effects of verbal and visual anchoring of tropes on the perceived comprehensibility and liking of TV commercials. Journal of Advertising 44: 25–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar