See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326179760

Less is More or Less is A Bore?

Chapter · July 2018

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-22681-7_10

CITATIONS READS

2 1,420

3 authors:

Kostoula Margariti Christina Boutsouki

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
14 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    87 PUBLICATIONS   811 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hatzithomas Leonidas
University of Macedonia
104 PUBLICATIONS   327 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Journal of Technology Marketing, Call for Papers for Special Issue on: “Marketing Communications Technology Revisited: its Future and Applications”
View project

Humor & Advertising View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kostoula Margariti on 13 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Less is More or Less is A Bore?

Kostoula Margariti, Christina Boutsouki, and Leonidas Hatzithomas

1 Introduction and Purpose of the Study

Minimalism is defined in architecture and arts as an innovative and so-
phisticated design style that aims to activate its recipients to willingly involve
and find the real essence, the unique or multiple meanings of an incomplete
stimulus (Abadi-Nagy, 2001; Courbet et al., 2013). According to the interdisci-
plinary nature of minimalism, a minimal, print advertisement is reported to con-
sist of, at least, a dominant, extended, monochrome white space, mainly in
shades of gray (Margariti et al., 2017) that enhances the independency of unique
interpretations in contemporary eras. However, minimalism is not the only ad-
vertising design that satisfies post-modern demands for heteroglossia and poly-
semy (Firat et al., 1993; Firat et al., 1994; O' Donohoe, 1998). Visual rhetoric,
an evolution of Aristotle's rhetoric, represents another significant approach in
advertising design (Inga, 2012). Visual rhetoric refers to design strategies that
manipulate factual elements, such as images, to create schemes and tropes, and
deliver meanings in a more creative way that captures attention, increases arous-
al and directs recipients to a deeper elaboration process (Mick, 1986, Moth-
ersbaugh et al., 2002; Scott, 1994a,b;Toncar and Munch, 2001).
Even though there is evidence on the influence of visual rhetoric on percep-
tions, attitudes and behaviors (Kim et al., 2012), the moderating effect of mini-
mal advertising layout on the relationship between a metaphoric image and con-
sumers' responses has not been studied to date.
The incongruity-resolution theory (Alden et al., 2000) is used as a theoretical
basis for the hypotheses development. Incongruity in visual rhetoric is defined as
the extent to which there is a structural and semantic divergence between what is
presented and what is generally known and expected (Alden et al., 2000; Mo-
hanty, 2000). Ease of resolution is identified as the recipients' level of effort to
resolve an unexpected, incongruous ad stimulus. A broader interpretation of the
model of optimal stimulation level (Berlyne, 1960) extending the incongruity
theory, would imply that less positive attitude towards the Ad (Aad) and attitude
towards the brand (Abr) are exerted when the ad content is too easy or too com-
plex to resolve (inverted U shape model). In the same vein, the present study,
suggests that a minimal ad with metaphoric imagesleads to higher subjective
message comprehension (Cmes) and enhances positive Aad, Abr.. People seem
to get satisfaction from resolving schemas of moderate complexity, rather than
higher (non-minimal ad with or without metaphoric images) or lower (minimal
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2018
V. Cauberghe et al. (Eds.), Advances in Advertising Research IX, European
Advertising Academy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22681-7_10
132 Margariti, Boutsouki, and Hatzithomas

ad with non metaphoric images). A 2(minimal / non-minimal) x 2(visual meta-

phor / non-visual metaphor) experiment for an unknown coffee brand ("Royal
Cup"), is used to test the proposed interaction effect of minimalism and visual
metaphors on Aad, Abr and Cmes.

2 Literature Review

2.1 Minimal, Visual Rhetoric, Aad and Abr

Minimalism and visual rhetoric in advertising are considered to intermingle
in a sophisticated, innovative communication strategy (Foss, 2004; Kim et al.,
2012). Minimalism is described as a modest visual trope, disengaged from any-
thing superfluous and creatively divergent, eliciting surprise and positive atti-
tudes (Adcock, 1982; Burton and Esingwood, 2006; Chou, 2011; Courbet et al.,
2013; Frank, 1998; Garaszczuk, 2015; Gressel et al., 2013; Hu et al., 2014; Kim
et al., 2012; Lutz and Lutz, 1978; Margariti et al., 2017; Pracejus, et al., 2006;
Pracejus et al., 2013; Razak, 2010; Smith, 2007; Stuhlfaut and Yoo, 2013).
Based on these principles, minimal ads let consumers comprehend the actual
message of the ad or draw their own conclusions, according to their willingness,
ability and context (Abadi-Nagy, 2001;Bouchet, 1991; Firat et al.1993;Firat et
al.1994; O’ Donohoe, 2001;VanEenoo, 2011). Metaphoric images on the other
hand, aim at offering an incomplete, incongruent stimulus, exposed to high risk
of being misunderstood or not understood at all (Phillip and McQuarrie, 2002;
McQuarrie and Mick, 1999; Phillips 1997). Under such circumstances, stimuli
are contextualized according to an assumption about how the recipient is going
to approach the advertisements' meanings (Burke, 1969; Scott, 1994). A visual
metaphor could increase attention, boost arousal to solve the puzzle, and lead to
a positive attitude toward the stimulus and toward the brand (McQuarrie and
Mick, 1992; McQuarrie and Mick, 1996).
The incongruity-resolution theory and the optimal stimulation level model
could shed light on the interaction effect of minimalism and visual metaphor on
advertising responses. Both theories posit that people prefer an incongruent ad
content that exerts moderate complexity. If the ad is too easy (or too complex) to
resolve, less positive attitude might be elicited (Alden et al., 2000; Mohanty,
2000). So, one could assume that a minimal ad with a visual metaphor would
elicit more positive attitude, since it conveys moderate levels of complexity. On
the contrary, a minimal ad without a visual metaphor would elicit less positive
attitude due to over-simplicity of the stimulus. Non-minimal ads (metaphoric or
not) would also lead to less positive responses, as they form high levels of com-
plexity (Pracejus et al., 2006; Pracejus et al., 2013). Hence, it is assumed that:
Less is More or Less is A Bore? 133

H1: The use of minimal (versus non-minimal) layout has a moderating effect
on the relationship between visual metaphors and attitude toward the ad, such
that: A minimal ad with a visual metaphor generates more positive attitude to-
wards the ad compared to the other conditions.

Both minimalism and visual metaphors are execution cues that relate to
source likability (Batra and Ray, 1986; Chaiken, 1980; MacKenzie and Lutz,
1982; Petty and Cacioppo, 1979). Building on the incongruity-resolution theory,
one could assume that even if the depicted visual metaphor is complex and ex-
tended, white (minimal) space could leverage the incongruity and facilitate a
stronger "A-ha" response, which, in return, could result in positive evaluations
of the brand (Krinshnan and Chakravarti, 1998; Pracejus et al., 2006). White
space can either highlight the argument (i.e. the visual metaphor), or become the
argument itself, attributing status, high quality and sophistication to the adver-
tised brand(Inga, 2012). Nevertheless, white space, and in general minimalism's
freedom, may also be perceived as an artistic laziness and a signal of "burning
money" (Pracejus et al., 2013). Minimalism has been accused of including no
message or essence at all, a fact indicating that some consumers fail to see min-
imalism’s abstract and symbolic aspects of utilization (Gressel et al., 2013).
Thus, in the absence of a metaphoric image, it could be assumed that the mini-
mal ad might be plain, undesirably familiar and less attractive and rewarding,
because people feel that they put effort to understand only a very simple mes-
sage (Fang et al., 2007; Meggs, 1998; Mohanty and Ratneshwar, 2015). Addi-
tionaly, non-minimal advertising messages seem to also complicate the elabora-
tion of visual metaphors and do not allow consumers to identify a meaningful
relationship between the brand and the product category (Hitchon, 1997; Kim et
al., 2012; Meyers-Levy et al., 1994). Hence, it is suggested that:
H2: The use of minimal (versus non-minimal) layout has a moderating effect
on the relationship between visual metaphors and attitude toward the brand, such
that: A minimal ad with a visual metaphor generates more positive attitude to-
wards the brand compared to the other three conditions.

2.2 Minimal, Visual Rhetoric and Comprehension

O' Donohoe and Tynan (1998) suggest that consumers seem to be compe-
tent. They strive to prove a sophisticated understanding of advertising designs
and complex, innovative imagery. Comprehension in advertising is subject to
one's background and mental asset (Bamford, 2003; Dijkstra et al., 2005; Mick,
1992; Pant et al., 2014). Metaphoric images represent an artful divergence from
what is expected (Mohanty and Ratneshwar, 2015), whereas minimalism consti-
tutes a more transparent communication strategy. Minimalism enhances the
qualitative silence that allows its recipients to engage with the metaphoric stimu-
134 Margariti, Boutsouki, and Hatzithomas

li (Abadi-Nagy, 2001; Burton and Easingwood, 2006; Chave, 2008). White

space can become a visual canvas (Phillips and McQuarrie, 2002) that might
increase the comprehension of a visual metaphor (Phillips, 2000). On the contra-
ry, a metaphor enclosed by a non-minimal space could prompt a less exploratory
behavior, as information abundance in an ad might undermine the pleasure to
solve the puzzle (Mohanty and Ratneshwar, 2015). Based on the above, it is
assumed that:
H3: The use of minimal (versus non-minimal) layout has a moderating effect
on the relationship between visual metaphors and message comprehension, such
that:
(a): a minimal ad with a visual metaphor generates higher comprehension
compared to the other three conditions.
(b): a non-minimal ad with a visual metaphor generates less comprehension
compared to the other three conditions.

3 Methodology
A 2 (minimal / non-minimal) x 2 (visual metaphor / non-visual metaphor)
experiment was employed in order to explore the interaction effect of minimal-
ism and visual rhetoric on consumers’ attitude and message comprehension. The
experimental design (Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4), was based on the definitions and
settings of previous studies in text, image and space of minimal print advertising
(Margariti et al., 2017) and visual metaphors (Gkiouzepas and Hogg, 2011). All
ads contained the brand name of a fictitious coffee product "Royal Cup" and the
same slogan, "time for coffee...". The minimal version of the ad involved an
extended, monochrome white space, while the non-minimal layout contained
coffee beans. All versions were restricted to a single image of limited colors and
simple geometry. The version of the ad that incorporated a visual metaphor
depicted a cup of coffee converted into an alarm clock, while the one, with no
visual metaphor, depicted a plain cup of coffee.
Overall, 756 participants in fourtreatment groups (one for each condition)
were provided an internet questionnaire (snowball sampling). Participants’ re-
sponses on their familiarity with the ad and brand, as well as their Aad, Abr,
Cmes were logged on seven-point scales ranging from (1) "strongly disagree" to
(7) "strongly agree". A6-item scale was used to measure attitude toward the
ad(Baker and Kennedy, 1994), a 4-item scale for attitude toward the brand
(Geuens and De Pelsmacker, 1998) and a 2-item scale for message comprehen-
sion (Alba, 1983). Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients were estimated for all multi-
item scales; attitude toward the ad (.884), attitude toward the brand (.917) and
message comprehension (.943). Women constituted the majority of participants
in the study (66.4%), aged mostly between 20 and 30 years old (55%) and with a
higher education background (48.7%) (Table 1).
Less is More or Less is A Bore? 135

Figure 1: Minimal x Visual Metaphor Figure 2:Minimal x Non-Visual Metaphor

Figure 3: Non-Minimal x Visual Figure 4: Non-Minimal x Non-Visual Metaphor

136 Margariti, Boutsouki, and Hatzithomas

Table 1: Demographics of the sample

% (Frequencies)
Gender
Male 33.6 (254)
Female 66.4 (502)
Education Level
Secondary Education 9.5 (72)
Higher Education 48.7 (368)
Master 32.5 (246)
PhD 6.0 (45)
Other 3.3 (25)

Age
14-19 6.5 (48)
20-30 55,0 (416)
31-40 23.9 (181)

41-50 10.7 (80)

51-60 2.8 (22)
60- 1.1 (9)

4 Analysis of Results
A total of three between groups factorial ANOVAs was conducted with
minimalism and visual metaphor as the independent variables, attitude toward
the ad and the brand, and comprehension as dependent variables. The results
indicate that there is a statistically significant interaction effect of minimalism
and visual rhetoric on Aad (F=11.557, p=.001), Abr (F=8.825, p=.003) and Cmes
(F=26.305, p=.001) (Table 2). A minimal ad with a visual metaphor collects the
most positive responses on Aad (meanmax=5.29), Abr (meanmax=4.60) and Cmes
(meanmax=6.22), signifying that hypotheses H1, H2 and H3a are supported (Ta-
ble 2). The minimal ad with no visual metaphor, activates the least positive re-
sponses on Aad (meanmin=3.85) and Abr (meanmin=3.76).Moreover, the most sim-
plified version of the advertisement, the minimal layout with no visual metaphor,
seems to be the least comprehensive (meanmin=4.93). Hence, H3b is not support-
ed (Table 2).
Less is More or Less is A Bore? 137

Table 2: Means and standard deviations of ANOVAs

Group Membership
Minimal Non-Minimal Layout Interaction (Min-
Layout imalism x Visual
Dependent Visual Non- Visual Non-Visual Rhetoric)
Variables Rhetoric Visual Rhetoric Rhetoric
Rhetoric F Sig.

Attitude to- 5.28 3.85 4.90 4.06 11.557 0.001

ward the ad (1,15) (1,21) (1,26) (1,21)

Attitude to- 4.59 3.76 4.27 4.01 8.825 0.003

ward the (1,32) (1,39) (1,31) (1,30)
brand

Compre- 6.22 4.93 6.15 6.00 26.305 0.000

hension (1,19) (2,04) (1,21) (1,44)

* All scales range from 1 to 7

5 Conclusions
To date. the relationship and interaction of minimalism and visual rhetoric,
and its effect on Aad, Abr and Cmes has not been the focus of systematic research.
Prior studies support the significance of either minimalism (Garaszczuk, 2015;
Chave, 2008; Gressel et al., 2013;Pracejus et al., 2013) or visual rhetoric
(McQuarrie and Mick, 1996; Phillips, 2000) on Aad, Abr and Cmes but do not
examine their coexistence. With an increasing number of ads combining the two
diverse creative elements, the analysis of their interaction effects on consumers’
responses becomes of great value.An experiment with 756 participants, supports
the hypotheses that minimalism's and metaphoric images' concomitance has a
positive influence on Aad, Abr and Cmes. Our findings extend previous studies that
have focused either on abstract advertising environment (Abadi-Nagy,
2001;Garaszczuk, 2015;Gressel et al., 2013;Pracejus et al., 2006; Pracejus et al.,
2013) or on visual metaphors (McQuarrie and Mick, 1999; Phillip and McQuar-
rie, 2002; Phillips, 1997). We suggest that minimalism's transparency and visual
rhetoric's design complexity could interrelate and construct a highly creative and
sophisticated advertising message.The incongruity-resolution theory and the
optimal stimulation level model (Alden et al., 2000; Berlyne, 2000) provide the
theoretical basis for testing the assumption that an incongruent, metaphoric im-
age in a minimal ad, leads to more positive Aad and Abr. Moderate levels of met-
aphoric incongruity (minimal ad with a visual metaphor) are the most preferred
relative to low (minimal ad without visual metaphor) or high levels (non-
138 Margariti, Boutsouki, and Hatzithomas

minimal ads). A minimal format facilitates the audience to solve the metaphoric
incongruity, leading to higher perceived satisfaction, since the experience of
resolving the incongruity isin itself gratifying. A minimal advertisement with
visual rhetoric also enhances, the brand's credible and aesthetic profile, as recip-
ients identify a meaningful relationship between the brand and the product cate-
gory (Hitchon, 1997; Kim et al., 2012; Meyers-Levy et al., 1994). Interestingly,
the minimal non-metaphoric scenario examined in our study, led to a less posi-
tive evaluation of the advertisement and the brand. This could be attributed to
the fact that in the case of minimal, plain images, consumers may evaluate the
process as too transparent, and less appealing and arousal-intriguing (Pracejus et
al., 2013), leading to less positive Aad. If the ad is too plain, it may be judged as
"burning money" or "artistic laziness" (Pracejus et al., 2013), resulting in a less
positive evaluation. Such an easy ad content might harm the perceived status and
sophistication of the brand (Meggs, 1998).
Moreover, the visual metaphor’s puzzle becomes easier when surrounded
by a reductive space that enhances freedom, highlights the argument and helps
recipients to think and feel at their own pace (Bouchet, 1991; Firat et al.,
1994;O’ Donohoe, 2001). Based on the above, Cmes is achieved mainly after a
meaningful, pleasurable “communication” with the message (Pracejus et al.,
2006). White space may operate as an alternative anchor, facilitating message
comprehension (Mohanty and Ratneshwar, 2015). On a final note, it should be
noted that a non-minimal ad with a visual metaphor is the second most compre-
hensive type of ad, whereas the minimal advertisement without any trace of
visual metaphor is the least comprehensive. This could be attributed to the fact
that such a message becomes too plain and simple. Recipients strive to find a
hidden message, and in the absence of one, either lose interest or persuade them-
selves that they are incompetent of understanding the message. In both cases, the
message is lost.

6 Limitations and Further Research

The present study is place and context specific.A more demographically
diverse study (other than Greek respondents) would enhance the generalizability
of our findings. Future research endeavors could expand this study on different
product categorieswith respect to different consumers motives and other types of
involvement. Moreover, it would be of interest to analyze the potential moderat-
ing effect of other personal characteristics, such as need for cognition or arousal
intensity. On a different approach, it would also be useful to expand the study of
the moderating effects of minimalism and visual rhetoric on other ad dependent
variables, such as recall and recognition. For instance, does the apparent sim-
plicity of the design content, and the divergence from post-modernity's ornamen-
tation, reinforce purchase intentions, recall and recognition?
Less is More or Less is A Bore? 139

7 References
Abadi-Nagy, Z.(2001),Minimalism vs Postmodernism in Contemporary Ameri-
can Fiction, AkademiaiKiado, XXVIII/1 129-143.
Adcock, C. (1990), James Turrell: The Art of Light and Space, Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 36-59.
Alba, J.W. (1983),"The Effects of Product Knowledge on the Comprehension,
Retention, and Evaluation of Product Information", in: Advances in Con-
sumer Research, Vol. 10, 577-580.
Alden, D. L., Mukherjee, A., Hoyer, W. D. (2000),"The effects of incongruity,
surprise, and positive moderators of perceived humor in television advertis-
ing",in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29(Summer), 1-15.
Baker S.M., Kennedy, P.F.(1994),"Death by Nostalgia: A diagnosis of context
specific cases", in: Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 21(1), 169–174.
Bamford, A.(2003), The Visual Literacy White Paper,Uxbridge, England: Ado-
be Sytems,2003,http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/
dam/AdObe/en/education/ pdfs/visual-literacy-wp.pdf (Berlyne, D. (1971).
Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York: Appleton.
Batra, R., Ray, M.L. (1986),''Affective Responses Mediating Acceptance of
Advertising'', in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.13(2), 234-249.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960),Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity, McGraw-Hill, New
York
Bouchet, D. (1991), Marketing as a Specific Form of Communication, Market-
ing and Semiotics, ed. H. H. Larsen et al., Copenhagen: Handelsho-
jskolens, 31- 51.
Burke, K.(1969),A Rhetoric of Motives, University of California Press, Berkeley
and Los Angeles, California Edition.
Burton, J.,Easingwood, C. (2006),"A positioning typology of consumers’ per-
ceptions of the benefits offered by successful service brands", in: Journal
of Retailing and consumer services, Vol. 13 (5), 301-316.
Chaiken, S. (1980),"Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the
use of source versus message cues in persuasion", in: Journal of Personali-
ty and Social Psycholog, Vol. 39, 752–766.
Chave, A.N. (2008),"Revaluing Minimalism: Patronage, Aura and Place'', in:
The Art Bulletin, Vol. 90(3), 466-486.
Chou, J.R. (2011),"A Gestalt-Minimalism -based decision- making model for
evaluating product form design", in: International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics, Vol. 41, 607-61.
Courbet, D., Fourquet-Courbet M.P., Kazan, R., Intartaglia, J. (2013),"The
Long-term Effects of E-advertising The Influence of Internet Pop-ups
Viewed at a Low Level of Attention in Implicit Memory", in: Journal of
Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 19(1), 274-293.
140 Margariti, Boutsouki, and Hatzithomas

Dijkstra, M., Buijtels, H. E. J. J. M., van Raaij, W. F. (2005),"Separate and joint

effects of medium type on consumers’ responses: a comparison of televi-
sion, print, and the Internet", in: Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58(3),
377–386.
Fang, X., Singh, S., Ahluwalia, R. (2007),"An Examination of Different Expla-
nations for the Mere Exposure Effect", in: Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 34 (1), 97-103.
Firat, A.F., Dholakia, N., Venkatesh, A. (1994),"Marketing in a postmodern
world", in: European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 29(1), 40-56.
Firat, A. F., Venkatesh, A. (1993), "Postmodernity: The Age of Marketing",in:
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 10, 227-249.
Foss, S. K. (2004), Theory of Visual Rhetoric, in: K. L. Smith, S. Moriarty, G.
Barbatsis, & K. Kenney (Eds.), Handbook of Visual Communication :
Theory, Methods, and Media (1st ed., pp. 141–152). Routledge.
Frank, T. (1998),The Conquest of Cool: Business Culture, Counterculture, and
the Rise of Hip Consumerism, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Garaszczuk, M. (2015), Attentional-Capture Efficacy and Brand Qualities of
Minimalist Packaging Design, Undergraduate Honors Theses, Paper 21.
Geuens, M., De Pelsmacker, P. (1998),"Feelings evoked by warm, erotic, hu-
morous or non-emotional print advertisements for alcoholic beverages",in:
Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 19(1), 1-32.
Gkiouzepas, L. and Hogg, M.K. (2011),"Articulating a new framework for visu-
al metaphors in advertising'', in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 40 (1), 103-
120.
Gressel, J.W., Carlston, D.F., Oakley, J. (2013), ''In Advertising, a Double Neg-
ative Does Not Equal a Positive'', in: Journal of Promotion Management,
Vol. 19(4), 470-487.
Hitchon, J. C. (1997),"The locus of metaphorical persuasion: An empirical test",
in: Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 74, 55–68.
Hu, Y., Yin, H., Han, D., Yu, F. (2014),"The Application of Similar Image Re-
trieval in Electronic Commerce", in: The Scientific World Journal, Vol.
2014, 7 pages.
Inga, D. (2012). Dark Arts: Designed Communications and a New Rhetoric of
Authenticity, in: Design and Culture, Vol.4(1), 5-26.
Kim, J., Baek, Y., Choi, Y.H. (2012),"The Structural Effects of Metaphor-
Elicited Cognitive and Affective Elaboration Levels on Attitude toward the
Ad", in: Journal of Advertising, Vol.41(2), 77-96.
Krishnan, H., Chakravarti, D. (1998), Processes Underlying the Effects of Hu-
morous Ad Executions on Brand Claims Memory, Indiana University
Working Paper.
Less is More or Less is A Bore? 141

Lutz, K.A., Lutz, R.J. (1978), "Imagery-Eliciting Strategies: Review and Impli-
cations of Research", in: NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume
05, eds. Kent Hunt, Ann Abor, MI : Association for Consumer Research,
611-620.
MacKenzie, S.R., Lutz, R.J. (1982), "Monitoring Advertising Effectiveness: A
structural Equation Analysis of the Mediating Role of Attitude Toward the
Ad", Working Paper No. 117, Center for Marketing Studies, UCLA.
Margariti, K., Boutsouki, C., Hatzithomas, L., Zotos, Y. (2017), "A typology of
minimalism in advertising", in: Advances in Advertising Research: Chal-
lenges in an Age of Dis-Engagement, Vol. VIII, 1-15.
McQuarrie, E.F, Mick, D.G. (1999), "Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text-
Interpretive, Experimental, and Reader-Response Analyses", in: Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 26(1), 37-54.
McQuarrie, E. F. Mick, D.G. (1992), "On Resonance: A Critical Pluralistic
Inquiry into Advertising Rhetoric", in: Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 19 (2), 180-197.
McQuarrie, E.F., Mick. D.G. (1996), "Figures of rhetoric in advertising lan-
guage", in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22(4), 424-438.
Meggs, P.B. (1998),A History of Graphic Design, New York, Wiley.
Meyers-Levy, J., Louie, T.A. and Curren, M.T. (1994), "How does the congrui-
ty of brand names affect evaluations of brand name extensions?",
in: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 79(1), p.46.
Mick, D.G. (1992), "Levels of Subjective Comprehension in Advertising Pro-
cessing and Their Relations to Ad Perceptions, Attitudes, and Memory", in:
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 18(4), 411-424.
Mick, D.G. (1986), "Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring Morphology
of Signs, Symbols, and Significance", in: Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 13, 196-213.
Mohanty, P. (2008), "Role of Incongruity and ‘Aha’ Effect in Positive Affect
Experienced From Visual Metaphors", in: NA - Advances in Consumer Re-
search Volume 35, eds. Angela Y. Lee and DilipSoman, Duluth, MN : As-
sociation for Consumer Research, Pages: 1032-1032.
Mohanty, P., Ratneshwar, S. (2015), "Did You Get It? Factors Influencing Sub-
jective Comprehension of Visual Metaphors in Advertising", in: Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 44 (3), 232- 242.
Mothersbaugh, D.L., Huhmann, B.A., Franke, G.A. (2002), "Combinatory and
Separative Effects of Rhetorical Figures on Consumers' Effort and Focus in
Ad Processing", in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 28(4), 589-602.
O’Donohoe, S. (2001), "Living With Ambivalence: Attitudes to Advertising in
Postmodern Times", in: Marketing Theory, Vol. 1(1), 91–108.
142 Margariti, Boutsouki, and Hatzithomas

O'Donohoe, S., Tynan, C. (1998). "Beyond sophistication: dimensions of adver-

tising literacy", in: International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 17, 467-482.
Pant, A., Hsieh, Y.-C., Lee, M., Shen, C.-H. (2014), "Pointing Out Differences:
Consumer Evaluations of Comparative Information Across Product
Types", in: Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 20, 390-409.
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. (1979), "Issue-involvement Can Increase or De-
crease Persuasion by Enhancing Message-Relevant Cognitive Responses",
in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, 1915-1926.
Phillips, B. (1997), "Thinking Into It: Consumer Interpretation of Complex
Advertising Images", in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26(2), 77–87.
Phillips, B. (2000), "The Impact of Verbal Anchoring on Consumer Response to
Image Ads", in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29(1), 15–24.
Phillips, B., McQuarrie, E.F. (2002), "The Development, Change, and Trans-
formation of Rhetorical Style in Magazine Advertisements 1954-1999", in:
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31(4), 1-13.
Pracejus, J.W, O' Guinn, T.C, Olsen, G.D. (2013), "When white space is more
than "burning money": Economic signaling meets visual commercial rheto-
ric", in: International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 30, 211-218.
Pracejus, J.W., Olsen, G.D, O'Guinn, T.C. (2006), "How Nothing Became
Something: White Space, Rhetoric, History, and Meaning", in: Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 33, 82-90.
Razak, R.A. (2010), "Shared knowledge among instructional multimedia design
experts", in: Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 9, 353-357.
Scott, L. M. (1994a), "The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-
Response Theory to Consumer Research", in: Journal of Consumer Re-
search, Vol.21, 461-480
Scott, L.M. (1994b), "Images in advertising: The need for a theory of visual
rhetoric",in: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21(2), 252.
Smith, V.J. (2007), "Aristotle’s classical enthymeme and the visual argumenta-
tion of the twenty-first century", in: Argumentation & Advocacy, Vol. 43(3
& 4), 114–123.
Stuhlfaut, M.W., Yoo, C.Y. (2013), "A tool for evaluating advertising concepts:
Desirable characteristics as viewed by creative practitioners", in: Journal
of Marketing Communications, Vol.19(2), 81-97.
Toncar, M., Munch, J. (2001), "Consumers’ responses to Tropes in Print Adver-
tising",in: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30(1), 55-65.
VanEenoo, C. (2011), "Minimalism in Art and Design:Concept, influences,
implications and perspectives", in: Journal of Fine and Studio Art, Vol.
2(1), 7-12.

View publication stats