The Impact of Verbal Anchoring on Consumer Response to Image Ads
By Barbara J. Phillips. 2000
234 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Gender Studies, Marketing
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f10afaaaadd9d48622b6275a505757541e17c8d8
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
- Margot van Mulken
- Se‐Hoon Jeong
- Edward F. McQuarrie
- Barbara J. Phillips
- Andreu van Hooft
- Ulrike Nederstigt
- Niclas Öhman
- Magnus Söderlund
In Gender Studies
- Edward F. McQuarrie
- Niclas Öhman
- Magnus Söderlund
- Hye Jin Yoon
- Se‐Hoon Jeong
- E. Tan
- Marieke L. Fransen
- P. Lewinski
In Marketing
- Margot van Mulken
- Edward F. McQuarrie
- Se‐Hoon Jeong
- Andreu van Hooft
- Ulrike Nederstigt
- Barbara J. Phillips
- Niclas Öhman
- Magnus Söderlund
Citations in the corpus
- Assessing behavior before it becomes behavior (2005, methodology): “We used a 5-item scale with 10 points and with adjective pairs common in marketing research (Homer, 1990; Phillips, 2000).”
- Predicting advertising effectiveness by facial expressions in response to amusing persuasive stimuli. (2014, methodology): “AAD captures people’s liking, enjoyment and the valence of their feelings toward the commercial whereas AB captures those toward the brand advertised in the commercial (Chattopadhyay & Basu, 1990; Phillips, 2000).”
- Finding the Tipping Point: Visual Metaphor and Conceptual Complexity in Advertising (2014, background): “Phillips (2000) maintained that there is a risk in putting cognitive challenges to the readers/viewers because appreciation depends on whether they are able to solve the riddle.”
- Understanding schema incongruity as a process in advertising: Review and future recommendations (2013, background): “The stimulation and the pleasurable sensation generated from having solved the puzzle (Phillips 2000) will transfer to the ad/brand evaluations, creating positive attitudes and purchase intentions (Peracchio and Meyers-Levy 1994; Phillips and McQuarrie 2002; Reece, Vanden Bergh, and Li 1994).”
- Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual Rhetoric in Advertising (2004, background): “However, too much complexity reduces comprehension of the ad (Phillips, 2000), so the outcome of ad liking associated with more complex visual figures is particularly likely to be subject to moderating factors (see below).”
- INDIRECT PERSUASION IN ADVERTISING: How Consumers Process Metaphors Presented in Pictures and Words (2005, background): “Hence, inclusion of a headline making a direct claim may act to reduce the openness of the accompanying visual metaphor (Phillips 2000) and cause fewer weak implicatures to be generated.”
- Puns, relevance and appreciation in advertisements (2005, background): “For instance, Phillips (2000) showed that participants appreciated the riddle of a visual metaphor more when they succeeded in generating a relevant interpretation themselves, compared to participants who received the visual metaphor along with a headline in which the intended interpretation was…”
- Emotion and advertising effectiveness: A novel facial expression analysis approach (2017, background): “…toward the advertisement describes the likings, enjoyment, and valence of feelings of individuals toward the advertisement while attitude toward the brand measures the likings, enjoyment, and valence of feelings toward the brand in the advertisement (Chattopadhyay and Basu, 1990; Phillips, 2000).”
- Visual Metaphor in Advertising: Is the Persuasive Effect Attributable to Visual Argumentation or Metaphorical Rhetoric? (2008, background): “Visual metaphors, thus, tend to be more implicit and complex than verbal metaphors and allow for several possible interpretations (McQuarrie and Mick, 1996; Phillips, 2000).”