Consumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertising

By Mark F. Toncar, James M. Munch. 2001

182 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Marketing, Museology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c67ad4e36d2fac3b1c336b39ee672ad19a26cda7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Marketing

1. Edward F. McQuarrie
2. Barbara J. Phillips
3. Marjorie Delbaere
4. Chun-Tuan Chang
5. Ching-Ting Yen
6. Margot van Mulken
7. Se‐Hoon Jeong
8. Andreu van Hooft

In Museology

1. Barbara J. Phillips
2. Chun-Tuan Chang
3. Edward F. McQuarrie

Citations in the corpus

• Personification in Advertising (2011, background): “A lengthy stream of research has established that rhetorical figurers do induce higher levels of elaboration, relative to equivalent ads that lack a rhetorical figure (e.g., McQuarrie and Mick 1996; Mothersbaugh, Huhmann, and Franke 2002; Toncar and Munch 2001).”
• Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhetoric in Advertising (2004, background): “Motivation to process may vary with consumer trait variables such as involvement (Toncar and Munch, 2001), state variables such as imminence of purchase, or message variables such as argument strength (Swasy and Munch, 1985) and message relevance (Huhmann et al.”
• Missing Ingredients in Metaphor Advertising: The Right Formula of Metaphor Type, Product Type, and Need for Cognition (2013, background): “Compared with direct claims, metaphors have the advantage because they evoke more cognitive elaboration than do literal messages (Toncar and Munch 2001) and make consumers more receptive to multiple, distinct, positive inferences about the advertised product or brand (McQuarrie and Mick 1999;…”