Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising

ISSN: 1064-1734 (Print) 2164-7313 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujci20

Assessing the Usefulness of Taxonomies of Visual

Rhetorical Figures

Bruce A. Huhmann & Pia A. Albinsson

To cite this article: Bruce A. Huhmann & Pia A. Albinsson (2018): Assessing the Usefulness of
Taxonomies of Visual Rhetorical Figures, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, DOI:
10.1080/10641734.2018.1503106

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1503106

Published online: 01 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujci20
JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1503106

Assessing the Usefulness of Taxonomies of Visual

Rhetorical Figures
Bruce A. Huhmanna and Pia A. Albinssonb
a
Department of Marketing, School of Business, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA;
b
Department of Marketing, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA

ABSTRACT
We compare six taxonomies (including some not previously tested) that
systematically categorize visual rhetorical figures (RFs) on their domain
coverage, reliability, parsimony, and predictive validity to determine which
is best for advertisers and researchers. All taxonomies showed increased
effectiveness with RFs than without RFs in a sample of 952 copy-tested
advertisements. However, one taxonomy—that of McQuarrie and Mick
—demonstrated the best balance of the criteria for a useful taxonomy
including predictive validity. Ads containing RFs from each of their visual
RF categories improved ad effectiveness measures related to Starch Noted,
Associated, and Read Most scores as predicted by theory.

The first step of science is to know one thing from another.

—Carl Linnaeus (1750)

Over the past two decades, researchers have been increasingly interested in how advertising rhet-
oric influences consumer processing of ad information (for reviews, see Huhmann 2007; Messaris
1997; Mohanty and Ratneshwar 2016; van Mulken, van Hooft, and Nederstigt 2014). This has
mostly focused on one aspect of rhetoric—rhetorical figures (RFs). Although some (e.g., Maes
and Schilperoord 2008) critique this definition, RFs have commonly been defined in the advertis-
ing literature as artful deviations from audience expectations with the goal of communicating
more than is literally expressed (e.g., McQuarrie and Mick 1996, 1999; Mothersbaugh, Huhmann,
and Franke 2002; Phillips and McQuarrie 2002; Theodorakis, Koritos and Stathakopoulos 2015).
The deviations are from expectations established by conventions in advertising, popular culture,
or personal experience and can include surface-level deviation in structure or arrangement of for-
mal image characteristics or semantic-level deviation in initially ambiguous or multiple meanings
(Callister and Stern 2007; Huhmann 2007).
Verbal RFs appear in about 70% of print ads (Leigh 1994; McQuarrie and Mick 1996). Visual
RFs are also common, but prevalence varies widely depending on the visual RF taxonomy
applied. For example, van Mulken’s (2003) content analysis of magazine ads found 86% contained
visual RFs when applying McQuarrie and Mick’s (1996) taxonomy versus 32% with Groupe Mu’s
(1980; 1992) taxonomy. These vast differences highlight one need for determining the best tax-
onomy for categorizing visual RFs.
While theoretical work from classical rhetoric can and has been applied to verbal RFs in
advertising (e.g., Leigh 1994; McGuire 2000; McQuarrie and Mick 1996), classical rhetoric

CONTACT Bruce A. Huhmann bahuhmann@vcu.edu Department of Marketing, School of Business, Virginia

Commonwealth University, Box 844000, Richmond, VA 23284-4000, USA.
This article was accepted under the previous editor, Eric Haley.
ß 2018 American Academy of Advertising
2 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

developed for verbal communication is not always suitable or applicable to visual communication
(Hill 2004). Scott (1994) called for developing visual rhetoric theories. She posited that ad images
could be seen as a form of discourse capable of nuance, subtlety, and the ability to abstract an
object’s essential characteristics. Although theoretical work on visual RFs was previously sparse,
researchers from advertising, consumer research, and other disciplines have begun developing
theories of visual RFs’ forms and effects. Advertising is a rich source for developing visual rhet-
oric theories due to its image-based arguments that stand alone, mirror, extend, or subvert verbal
communication (Messaris 2009). In developing theories of visual RFs, researchers have proposed
several taxonomies. Some adapted verbal RF taxonomies to the visual modality (e.g., McQuarrie
and Mick 1999). Others developed taxonomies specific to visual communication’s distinct charac-
teristics (e.g., Durand 1970; 1987: Forceville 1996; 2007; Gkiouzepas and Hogg 2011; Groupe Mu
1980; 1992; Phillips and McQuarrie 2004). Some of these taxonomies focus solely on semantic-
level deviations in which visual RFs imply meanings that must be inferred by substitution, discov-
ering connections, or appreciating multiple interpretations. Other taxonomies include visual RFs
with both semantic-level and surface-level deviation in which arrangements or patterns of image
elements or characteristics reinforce a particular meaning or attract attention to the message.
This study’s purpose is to compare six competing visual RF taxonomies to determine
which offers the best combination of Hunt’s (1991) characteristics of a useful taxonomy and to
recommend which taxonomy best serves the needs of advertising researchers and practitioners.
A taxonomy is most useful when it has (1) parsimony to avoid needlessly complex structure or
overabundant categories, (2) collectively exhaustive categories that cover a domain, (3) reliability
in application due to clear definitions and mutually exclusive categories, and (4) predictive valid-
ity in explaining differences consistent with theory (Hunt 1991). Theory and prior research hold
that advertising rhetoric should be associated with enhanced attention and processing (e.g.,
Huhmann 2007; McQuarrie and Mick 1996, 1999; Mothersbaugh et al. 2002). Thus, predictive
validity will first be assessed as the degree to which ads categorized as possessing visual RFs
within each taxonomy outperform those considered as not possessing visual RFs on advertising
effectiveness measures. A second aspect of predictive validity will be to determine whether differ-
ences in advertising effectiveness associated with a taxonomy’s categories confirm theoretical dif-
ferences proposed for that taxonomy. A taxonomy’s ability to classify visual RFs that benefit ad
attention and processing will make that taxonomy more useful to (1) practitioners or students of
advertising who wish to create new visual RFs for advertisements and (2) researchers who wish
to identify impactful visual RFs for further study or code instances of visual RFs within a sample
of ads or other images. Finally, this study will determine whether taxonomies covering both sur-
face-level and semantic-level deviation or only semantic-level deviation best account for observed
differences in effectiveness due to visual RFs in advertising. The study contributes to the advertis-
ing rhetoric literature as it offers a comparison of visual RF taxonomies’ effect on consumer proc-
essing of actual ads under natural rather than laboratory exposure conditions via Starch
Readership scores for a large number of ads.

The role of visual rhetorical figures

Advertising images have long been known to increase ad effectiveness (e.g., Calkins 1928), but
only recently have researchers begun to investigate how visual RFs in ad images influence an ad’s
ability to (1) attract attention, (2) increase processing, or (3) create meaning through inferences
or implicatures. For example, McQuarrie and Mick (2003) found that visual RFs increase ad
attention under low-involvement magazine reading conditions. Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011)
found that ads with visual RFs increase elaborative processing over those that do not. Consumers
devote greater elaborative processing to visual RFs as they attempt to make sense of an image’s
meaning (Phillips 2003).
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 3

Although researchers agree that RFs increase attention and processing (e.g., McQuarrie and
Mick 1999, 2009; Mothersbaugh et al. 2002), they disagree about what types of images should be
considered as visual RFs. For example, Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) limit visual RFs to images
with semantic-level deviation, which some researchers refer to as visual tropes (e.g., McQuarrie
and Mick 1999; Maes and Schilperoord 2009). These visual tropes have greater meaning openness
and can create one or more inferences or implicatures as consumers decode the exaggeration,
replacement, juxtaposition, exchange, or opposition of image elements that creates ambiguous or
multiple meanings (Huhmann 2007; Maes and Schilperoord 2009; Mothersbaugh et al. 2002). For
example, a study of one type of visual tropes in advertising found that consumers interpreted an
ad’s message by deciding among the various strong and weak implicatures (Phillips 1997).
Initially the meaning of a visual trope is ambiguous or polysemous and significant cognitive effort
must be applied to fill in a gap for successful interpretation. In other words, visual tropes’ seman-
tic-level deviation from realistic portrayals or pictorial conventions can trigger “thinking into” an
ad, whereby consumers use advertising literacy and prior brand or product-category knowledge
to winnow competing implicatures down to one or more interpretations that they believe the
advertiser intended (Phillips 1997). An example of visual tropes’ semantic-level deviation from
realistic portrayals or pictorial conventions is a detergent cup filled with a cloudy sky (McQuarrie
and Phillips 2005). Consumers must devote greater cognitive processing to decode this image
than they would with a more realistic or conventional one.
Alternatively, other researchers do not limit visual RFs to images with semantic-level deviation,
because advertisers can also create surface-level deviation in images’ formal characteristics (e.g.,
McQuarrie and Mick 1999; Maes and Schilperoord 2009). Visual RFs with surface-level deviations
focus attention on, reinforce, or emphasize a particular meaning or relationship through patterns
or arrangements of objects, shapes, angles, colors, textures, positions, gestures, spatial orientation,
or other formal image characteristics. For example, an Air France ad repeats the image of an air-
plane more than 50 times to attract attention to the ad and to emphasize the meaning that Air
France has a large number of flights. Although the same meaning is evident in the headline
“Serves More Cities in More Countries Than Any Other Airline,” the repetition of an identical
visual element heightens the focus on and reinforces this message. Some researchers refer to
images with surface-level deviation as visual schemes (e.g., Huhmann 2007; McQuarrie and Mick
1999, Maes and Schilperoord 2009). Visual schemes’ surface-level deviation creates excessive regu-
larity in which more than enough information from formal characteristics is available to decipher
the intended meaning, which in semiotics is termed “overcoding” (for more information, see
Huhmann 2007; McQuarrie and Mick 1996, 1999).
To investigate whether visual RF taxonomies that focus solely on visual tropes or ones that
include both visual schemes and visual tropes better account for differences in consumer process-
ing of advertisements with or without visual RFs, this study compares and analyzes six visual RF
taxonomies. Two taxonomies include both visual schemes and visual tropes—ones developed by
Durand (1987) and McQuarrie and Mick (1999, 2003). Four other taxonomies identified in the
advertising literature focus solely on visual tropes—ones developed by Forceville (1996, 2007),
Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011), Groupe Mu (1992), and Phillips and McQuarrie (2004). The first
research question asks:
RQ1: Do ads containing visual schemes improve consumer processing outcomes over ads with no RF?

The next section briefly presents each taxonomy.

Durand’s taxonomy of rhetoric in advertising images

The earliest visual RF taxonomy was developed by Jacques Durand, a theorist in the French struc-
turalist semiotic tradition of Roland Barthes and a former researcher at the Publicis advertising
4 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

Addition Suppression. Substitution Exchange

ADD-ID -- Repetition of an SPR-ID -- A visual element is not shown – SUB-ID -- A visual element is “substituted” for EXC-ID -- Inversion (i.e., visual
identical visual, part of a visual, or a not even once. For example, the product itself for emphasis or effect: (1) An enlarged elements reversed/upside-down) or
Identity

visual element.
ADD-SIM -- More than one similar
(not identical) visual or visual
Similarity
user may be suppressed to give greater
importance to the product or the product
may be suppressed; so, readers must fill it
in.
SPR-SIM -- Something similar in form
takes the place of the suppressed object.
object covers most of the ad (exaggeration), (2)
a reduced object or, in extreme, a totally white
page (understatement), (3) color object replaces
the same object in a monochrome image, etc.
SUB-SIM -- An implicit comparison (A is like
B) is made through substitutions based on form
relative sizes of elements modified
(e.g., a small person next to a giant
bottle) unlike SUB-ID in which the
size of the whole visual is modified.
EXC-SIM -- Similarity of form
between an abstract and a concrete

element: stages of making/using a
product; different uses of a product;
or different people with the same
product or attitude/expression in the
same position.
ADD-DIF -- The aim is to give the
Difference
For example, a dotted line draws the form
of the missing element or part of an object
is missing, but the missing part can be
filled in because the first object is linked
with or similar to another object, such as a
mirror showing the missing part.
SPR-DIF -- Suspense or digression by
(i.e., one element replaces another that is
similar in shape or color, such as a banana
replacing the receiver of a yellow telephone) or
content/meaning (e.g., a visual figuration of an
abstract propriety, such as a parachute attached
to a car to illustrate safety).
SUB-DIF -- An element replaces another that is
element (e.g., police officers ticketing
a woman for using a speedy cleaning
solution) or content/meaning in
successive images (e.g., raw steak
with an instant potato packet, then
cooked steak with mashed potatoes.)
EXC-DIF -- An image fragmented

impression of a great number,
density, disparity, or diversity:
different people using different
products in different forms (unlike
ADD-SIM) or an accumulation of
different products.
ADD-OPP -- Comparing opposing
elements or products is a visual
Opposition
delaying the presentation of one element
by instead presenting some other elements
unrelated to it. This technique is more
common in multiple page ads.
SPR-OPP -- Two elements (e.g.,
competing products) are placed in
physically connected or related to it. For
example, a shoe can be replaced by its print, a
person by a hand, the law by a judge, a car by a
wheel, wool by a sheep, or a product by its
feature.
SUB-OPP -- An element replaces another to
create a roundabout way of indicating
into parts (e.g., cutting or tearing a
picture or a fragmented face with
lipstick being applied to lips and eye
shadow to eyes, but the rest of the
face missing).
EXC-OPP -- (1) Impossible or
unlikely images made by a photo-

antithesis (e.g., “smiling” versus
“frowning” croissants). Separate
similar pictures compare two
products (e.g., a before and after
situation, two types of users, or two
extreme product varieties).
ADD-FH -- The same visual
False Homology
opposition but, one element of this
opposition is not shown.
SPR-FH -- an element seems hidden, but is
something that may be too blunt, harsh,
sensitive, or private to actually show (e.g.,
flower petals may replace a tampon to indicate
comfort and freshness). Or instead of showing
both a before and an after picture, an ad may
more suggestively show just the before.
SUB-FH -- Substituting something that initially
montage or computer alteration (e.g.,
someone bathing in a field of
flowers) or (2) an unlikely exchange
of elements (e.g., father and son
exchanged magazines or English fox
hunters wearing motorcycle jackets).
EXC-FH -- Two apparently opposite

element is shown twice, with
different meanings or interpretations,
or two different visuals elicit the
same meaning.
really visible: (1) part of an element is
covered, but it is still obvious what it is,
(2) false modesty (e.g., a nude crosses her
arms in front of her breasts or her hands
cover her eyes), or (3) a product is only
half seen, in a silhouette, or an outline.
seems unrelated or conveys the contrary to
what is shown (e.g., a tin can impossibly
broken like a bottle to show metal’s solidity).
elements or elements with contrasting
meaning are exchanged (e.g., a girl
with a swimsuit in the snow, not the
sand. Persons or products shown
both right way up and upside-down).

Figure 1. Durand’s (1970; 1987) taxonomy of visual rhetorical in advertising images.

agency. Durand (1970, 1978, 1987) classified visual RFs based on two criteria, rhetorical operation
(i.e., addition, suppression, substitution, and exchange) and relation between the variable elements
(i.e., identity, similarity, difference, opposition, and false homology). Rhetorical operations create
families of visual RFs that differ by element relation. One family is derived from the first
operation—addition. Addition presents multiple visual elements. The second operation—suppres-
sion—involves missing or suppressed elements that consumers must identify to understand the
intended message. Advertisers swap one visual for another when using the third operation, substi-
tution, or they modify element relationships with the fourth operation, exchange (see Figure 1).
Durand’s taxonomy categorized visual RFs based on thousands of ads that he had gathered and
his experience working in the French advertising industry. Later, Dyer (1982) applied Durand’s
taxonomy to her analysis of visual RFs in British advertisements.

McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy

McQuarrie and Mick (1996) initially developed their taxonomy to categorize verbal RFs such
as rhyme, alliteration, hyperbole, puns, and metaphor. They later adapted their taxonomy to
visual RFs, which is why their taxonomy is one of two taxonomies that include multimodal
(verbal plus visual) RFs, which they termed “resonance.” They tested their taxonomy by experi-
mentally manipulating visuals in ads for mascara, yogurt, motion-sickness pills, and almonds
(McQuarrie and Mick 1999). McQuarrie and Mick’s (1999, 2003) taxonomy of visual RFs first
distinguishes between visual schemes and visual tropes. Next, their visual RF taxonomy catego-
rizes visual RFs at the level of the rhetorical operations of repetition schemes, reversal schemes,
substitution tropes, and destabilization tropes (see Figure 2). Visual schemes alter typical arrange-
ment of lines, shapes, colors, objects, symbols, or other formal image characteristics to create
repeating (i.e., repetition schemes) or reversed patterns (i.e., reversal schemes). With visual tropes,
consumers must interpret intended meaning by replacing what is meant for what is shown (i.e.,
substitution tropes) or by deciphering it through greater cognitive effort (i.e., destabilization
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 5

All rhetorical figures

Scheme Trope
(overcoding) (undercoding)

Repetition Reversal Substitution Destabilization

Repetition Reversal schemes create Substitution tropes Destabilization tropes initially

schemes create more complex mirror
reoccurring image elements providing
patterns of visual richer meanings by
elements (lines, emphasizing contrasts or
shapes, colors, comparisons.
images, symbols,
or textures). Visual antithesis –
Example: A yogurt ad
Visual rhyme – shows a shapely woman in
Example: A a bathing suit with a beach
mascara ad shows a ball beside her waist.
woman in a fur hat Visual antithesis results
and coat. The from the convex contour of
visual rhyme the beach ball juxtaposed
results from the with the concave figure of
manner in which woman. Alternatively, a
the contours of eye ketchup ad could show the
lashes and fur echo bottle both upright and
another. upside-down. The visual
antithesis results from the
reversal or opposition.
replace one item with
another, ambiguous
crop images, or provide
more or less
information than needed
for immediate
interpretation. Viewers
must correct initial
interpretations or infer
omitted items or
information. No
examples of visual
substitution available
from McQuarrie and
Mick. van Mulken
(2003) used the
example of visual
hyperbole with an
exaggerated swimming
pool stretching ocean-
like to the horizon.
have indeterminate meanings,
motivating viewers to infer implicit
intended meanings by deciphering
ambiguity, appreciating multiple
meanings, or seeing connections
between objects.
Visual metaphor –
Example: A motion sickness
remedy ad shows a package of the
remedy as a seat belt buckle.
Visual pun -
Example: A comparison ad shows
two plates each holding a croissant
covered by almonds, along with
some strawberries. The pun is
created by the “accidental”
resemblance between the
arrangement of items on the right
plate and a smiling face.

Figure 2. McQuarrie and Mick’s (1996, 1999, 2003) taxonomy of visual rhetorical figures in advertising.

tropes). A visual destabilization trope in a toothpaste ad shows a string of pearls in the shape
of a smile (Phillips 2000). Consumers are expected to interpret this as meaning that the tooth-
paste will make one’s teeth pearly white.
Two content analyses have applied McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy to code visual RFs in
advertising (Phillips and McQuarrie 2002; van Mulken 2003). Also, visual RFs according to their
taxonomy increased ad liking and elaboration over ads that were classified as not containing
visual RFs (McQuarrie and Mick 1999). Mothersbaugh et al. (2002) confirmed the theorized ad
processing effects in a series of studies with verbal RFs categories from McQuarrie and Mick’s
taxonomy. Specifically, they confirmed that tropes > schemes > no RF on extent of ad processing
in (1) experiments and (2) an archival study. The Mothersbaugh et al. (2002) experiments found
that RFs, especially tropes, elicited higher ratings of interest in processing ad copy than no RFs.
Also, they found larger differences in responses to weak versus strong argument copy for ads
headlines containing tropes than schemes than no RFs. They measured these responses in terms
of differences in brand attitudes as well as difference in the number of positive versus negative
message thoughts. Their archival study of copy-testing scores for actual ads found higher Starch
Read Most scores for ads containing tropes than for schemes than for no RFs.

Groupe Mu’s visual rhetoric

Groupe Mu is the pseudonym of a group of mostly Belgian semioticians who sought to reinvigor-
ate rhetoric by developing a classification based in semiotic theory. They began with a classifica-
tion of verbal RFs (Groupe Mu 1970) and later developed a visual RF taxonomy based on
6 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

Construed Conjunction (Elements can be in one or the same place) Disjunction (Elements are next to each other)
(intended) level

Construed In Praesentia Conjoint (IPC) In Praesentia Disjoint (IPD)

level Original description: “All visual rhetorical devices Original description: “Figures showing both entities in
represented showing the two entities in one and the same figure, different places.”
(Elements of the where there is a question of partial substitution.”
comparant and Clarification: A similar, but not identical, element is
the ‘compare’ Clarification: United presentation in which two entities repeated in different parts of the visual.
are both overlap or are unified through a partial substitution.
represented.) Example: A hole in a woman’s stocking is similar to the
Example: The spectacles of a man coincide with the whole in the cap of a new water bottle.
wheels of a bicycle to illustrate what he is thinking.

Construed In Absentia Conjoint (IAC) In Absentia Disjoint (IAD)

level absent Original description: “All representations combining the Original description: “Operations showing only one entity
entities in one and same representation, where substitution where the other entity is not in the message but projected
is complete.” on the first entity.”

Clarification: A substitution in which one entity replaces Clarification: Only one entity in a comparison is shown,
another. but the other may be inferred from the entity shown.

Example: Cotton cosmetic removal pads have been Example: An automobile ad that visualizes how a car
replaced by scourers, to illustrate the cleaning properties may give you the impression that you are in three places
of the latter. at once, as is illustrated by a city map with three dots
indicating “you are here” without showing the car.

Note: The original descriptions derive from Groupe Mu (1992); these descriptions and examples appear in van Mulken (2003). The
clarification was developed by the authors to help coders in the current study better understand the categories.
Figure 3. Groupe Mu’s (1992) visual rhetoric taxonomy.

cognitive effort (Groupe Mu 1980, 1992). They contend that every image contains both a “plastic”
and an “iconic” level. The “plastic” level involves the colors, textures, shapes, and compositional
conventions used in the specific image. The “iconic” level contains the relationships and referen-
ces that allow meaning to be created. Their visual RF taxonomy operates at the iconic level,
wherein visual RFs involve a deviation that the sender creates but that is not beyond the target
audiences’ ability to decipher or interpret (Groupe Mu 1970, 1992; van Mulken 2003). Groupe
Mu’s (1992) taxonomy can be represented as a grid consisting of four cells with two columns
related to possible placements—either in one place if the RF images are fused or merged (i.e.,
conjunction) or adjacent/nearby if the RF images appear side by side (i.e., disjunction). The rows
represent visual RF in which all images in the RF are present (In Praesentia) or those in which
one is absent (In Absentia). Figure 3 shows the four cells: In Praesentia Conjoint (IPC),
In Praesentia Disjoint (IPD), In Absentia Conjoint (IAC), and In Absentia Disjoint (IAD). Similar
to McQuarrie and Mick’s (1999) taxonomy, Groupe Mu’s grid is categorized based on increasing
amount of cognitive effort from “degre zero” in which there is no RF, increasing to IPC to IPD
to IAC to IAD (Groupe Mu 1992; van Mulken 2003). Originally developed for semiotic analysis
of visual rhetoric in general, Maes and Schilperoord (2008) and van Mulken (2003) have applied
Groupe Mu’s taxonomy to visual RFs in advertising contexts.

Forceville’s taxonomy of pictorial metaphors in advertising

Forceville’s (1996) taxonomy aims to classify visual tropes, and more specifically metaphors,
based on their visual structure. His categorization, according to Phillips (2003), is one of the
most complete. Forceville’s taxonomy has four categories:
Contextual metaphors (MP1) compare a pictorially present object to an absent secondary object (i.e., the
visually represented object stands for the visually suggested object).
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 7

Hybrid metaphors (MP2) compare two objects that are both (at least partially) pictured. The objects are
often combined or fused together into a hybrid object.

Pictorial similes, like hybrid metaphors, show two objects; however, the objects are not fused or combined
with pictorial similes but presented separately.

Verbo-pictorial metaphors rely on comparisons between a visual object and a verbal object (a word or
several words). The visual object is often an image of the advertised product. The verbal object must
be present to elicit the metaphorical meaning.

In later works, Forceville (2007) referred to verbo-pictorial metaphors as multimodal

metaphors. However, because the two modalities in most print advertising are the verbal and the
visual, the original term, verbo-pictorial metaphor, is retained here.
Although Forceville stated that his taxonomy was meant to categorize visual metaphors, it actually
applies to many types of visual tropes. Also, visual metaphors are a common form of visual tropes.
For example, in a study of 464 print ads for cars and alcoholic beverages, Kaplan (1992) found that
31% of these ads contained visual tropes. He classified 29% of visual tropes in these ads as “identity”
metaphors and 71% as “juxtaposition” metaphors, which are similar to hybrid metaphors and
pictorial similes respectively in Forceville’s taxonomy. In addition, Forceville’s taxonomy includes
contextual metaphors, which are similar to some of Durand’s substitution and exchange RFs. It also
includes verbo-pictorial metaphors, similar to McQuarrie and Mick’s resonance trope. Thus,
Forceville’s taxonomy is one of only two to include multimodal RFs.

Phillips and McQuarrie’s typology of visual rhetoric

Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) developed a visual RF taxonomy to demonstrate different pictorial
strategies available to advertisers and categorize them by theorized consumer processing and
response differences. Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) taxonomy consists of a matrix of nine
different visual RFs. The cells in the matrix are created by crossing two dimensions that they
drew from Durand (1987), Forceville (1996), Kaplan (1992), McQuarrie and Mick (1996), and
their own experience of viewing advertising images as researchers: visual structure (i.e., juxtapos-
ition, fusion, and replacement) and meaning operation (i.e., connection, comparison for similar-
ity, and comparison for opposition). They theorized that the complexity of the visual structure
and, hence, the degree of processing required from the consumer should increase from top to
bottom of the grid just as the richness of the meaning operations and the extent of processing
required to decode the meaning increase from connection to the two comparison dimensions—
similarity and opposition (see Figure 4). Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) claim that all visual RFs
(which they limit to visual tropes) can be categorized using their taxonomy.

Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s metaphorical visual structures

Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011) also developed their visual RF taxonomy based on Forceville (1996),
Kaplan (1992), and McQuarrie and Mick (1996). However, they did not wish to categorize visual
images in a manner derived from verbal RF categories (Gkiouzepas and Hogg 2011). Their
taxonomy categorizes visual RFs on two dimensions: the mode of representation (juxtaposition
vs. synthesis) and visual scenarios (realistic symbiosis, replacement, and artificial symbiosis),
as shown in Figure 5. Juxtaposition occurs in images when entire objects appear separately,
whereas synthesis occurs in images showing objects in which parts are joined. The visual scenario
dimension involves how pictured objects relate to one another or how advertisers justify their
co-appearance within the ad image. In two experiments, Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011) demon-
strated elaboration differences between juxtaposition and synthesis.
8 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON
Meaning operation
Connection Comparison (Similarity)
Visual structure (‘A is associated with B’) (‘A is like B’)
Juxtaposition CON-JUX -- Two side- SIM-JUX -- Two images of two
(Two side-by- by-side images. different products are pictured
side images) side-by side in order for the
consumer to find similarities
between them.
Fusion CON-FUS -- Two SIM-FUS -- Two images are
(Two combined combined images or fused together in order to bring
images) products. out general attributes of the
images to one product.
Replacement CON-REP -- Image SIM-REP -- Only one of two
(Image present present points to an images that are to be compared
points to an absent image. is shown in the ad. Some context
absent image) is given to assist consumers to
construct the missing image.
Figure 4. Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2004) typology of visual rhetoric.
Objects’ Mode of Representation
Visual Scenario Juxtaposition (whole entities)
Realistic symbiosis (no intruder) RS-JUX -- Unexpected similarities in color,
position, or angle of view shared by two
separate objects in an otherwise realistic
scenario points to metaphorical implications
(e.g., a red glass Heinz ketchup bottle is
positioned adjacent to a tomato).
Replacement (intruder) REP-JUX -- An object shown with something
replacing it that would otherwise be foreign to
the context (e.g., a Chrysler convertible has
replaced one of a row of poolside chaise
lounges or a marmalade jar has replaced one
orange in a crate of oranges).
Artificial symbiosis (not applicable) AS-JUX -- Objects that would realistically
not be pictured in the same scene are boldly
placed together. The artificiality may arise
from a lack of a realistic background,
perspective, positions, or proper size
differences, or (e.g., a Saab automobile is
shown with the reflection of a jet fighter or a
Toshiba flat screen television is shown next to
a razor blade that is the same size).
Figure 5. Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s (2011) taxonomy of metaphorical visual structures.
Comparison (Opposition)
(‘A is not like B’)
OPP-JUX -- Two pictures shown side-by-
side but that clearly illustrate the opposite
qualities or attributes of the product.
OPP-FUS -- A picture showing two sides of
a person or object fused together in order for
consumer to identify with one of the sides,
the better one, if using the product.
OPP-REP -- A present image is shown that is
not like an absent image. A negative
inference is evoked by opposition but in the
context of the positive emotions that attend
the successful resolution of an artful
deviation. A rebuttal analogy is commonly
used (e.g., irony is useful in communicating
ridicule, condemnation, criticism,
impoliteness.)
Synthesis (part of the entities)
RS-SYNTH -- Elements (e.g., color, texture,
position, angle of view) of an unpictured
object are incorporated into another object
(e.g., a Heinz ketchup bottle is sliced like a
tomato).
REP-SYNTH -- An object that is otherwise
foreign to the context has replaced an
unpictured object that is suggested by other
contextual elements (e.g., a stylish air-
conditioning unit has replaced a painting on
an easel or an orange with a marmalade label
has replaced a jar of marmalade).
AS-SYNTH -- A combination object is
created by unrealistically fusing two objects
without regard to proper size, material,
texture, or contextual differences (e.g., a
tablet computer is shown with the handle of a
razor attached to its back or an object is
presented that is half marmalade jar and half
orange).
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 9

Characteristics for evaluating taxonomies

Taxonomies have been part of research at least since Aristotle wrote “The Categories” in the 4th
century BC. Taxonomical investigations achieved scientific rigor in the 18th century with the
work of Carl Linnaeus. In marketing, Hunt (1991) discussed criteria for developing useful classifi-
cations. Over the centuries, certain characteristics have been identified that make a taxonomy
more useful for research: (1) parsimony, (2) domain coverage, (3) reliability, and (4) predictive
validity or ability to account for observed differences in a phenomenon.
In terms of parsimony, Durand’s taxonomy has 20 categories; Phillips and McQuarrie’s
taxonomy has nine categories; Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s taxonomy has six categories; and
McQuarrie and Mick’s, Groupe Mu’s, and Forceville’s taxonomies each have four categories.
However, exhaustiveness and reliability must be balanced against parsimony. A taxonomy that is
parsimonious while still being exhaustive in its domain coverage is better, ceteris paribus, than
a more complex taxonomy that is exhaustive but lacks parsimony. Thus, a taxonomy should have
as few categories as possible while still being exhaustive and reliable. Another aspect of parsimony
is the ability to collapse categories in meaningful ways, such as levels of specification or
dimensions. Finally, parsimony must be balanced against predictive validity. If categories within
a taxonomy have similar associations, antecedents, or outcomes, then separate categories may not
be needed. If a taxonomy has more categories than required to account for true differences
associated with the phenomenon it is classifying, then it is too complex and should be simplified.
Proper domain coverage allows a taxonomy to adequately identify the phenomenon being
classified (Hunt 1991). A good taxonomy should have categories that are collectively exhaustive;
that is, each item should fit into some category. A good taxonomy should not exclude an item
that belongs in a domain because a category has not been developed for it. Thus, the second
research question compares domain coverage of the various visual RF taxonomies.
RQ2: Which visual RF taxonomy has the most exhaustive domain coverage?

Other characteristics of good taxonomies impact the ability of researchers to reliably place
an item into the same category. First, a good taxonomy should clearly define each category.
Clear definitions increase the ability of different researchers to independently assign an item to
the same category. Second, a good taxonomy should have categories that are mutually exclusive;
otherwise an item could be classified into two or more categories. An item should not fit
into multiple categories at the same level. However, a taxonomy may have different levels, such
as McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy with both the figurative mode and rhetorical operation levels.
Unfortunately, many taxonomies in marketing fail to meet the mutually exclusive characteristic
(Hunt 1991). A lack of mutual exclusive categories makes that taxonomy’s application more
ambiguous. Because greater reliability implies better definitions and clearer divisions between cat-
egories, this study investigates the degree to which independent coders concur in their ability to
recognize and classify the visual RFs in a wide variety of actual advertisements.
RQ3: Do the visual RF taxonomies exhibit adequate reliability?

Hunt (1991) states that a taxonomy should be useful in its ability to account for observed dif-
ferences in a phenomenon. That is, it should solve some kind of problem better than alternatives
or account for differences in associations, antecedents, or outcomes better than alternatives.
Thus, not only should a taxonomy help identify different instances of a phenomenon, but its
categorization should have predictive power (Funk 1983; Weber 2012). Thus, the final characteris-
tic of a good taxonomy relates to its predictive validity. If the categories are based on theoretical
differences that should influence outcomes or if prior research documents different outcomes,
then category membership should predict such outcomes.
Prior research has found verbal RFs boost copy-testing measures of ad effectiveness
(McQuarrie and Phillips 2008; Mothersbaugh et al. 2002; Tom and Eves 1999). Also, experimental
10 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

research has found that ads with rather than without verbal or visual RFs improved ad effective-
ness outcomes similar to those measured via copy-testing, including attention (Huhmann and
Albinsson 2012), brand awareness (Gray and Snyder 1989; Huhmann and Albinsson 2012), extent
of processing (Mothersbaugh et al. 2002), and aided and unaided recall (Halkias and Kokkinaki
2014; McQuarrie and Mick 2003, 2009; Toncar and Munch 2001). Thus, to test predictive
validity, ads that a taxonomy classifies as possessing visual RFs should increase copy-testing
scores in comparison to those classified as possessing no visual RFs.
RQ4: Which taxonomy has the highest proportion of visual RF categories with ads that increase processing
over ads without visual RFs?

Developers of some visual RF taxonomies held that different dimensions or categories would
yield differences in cognitive effort or advertising effectiveness (e.g., Groupe Mu 1992; McQuarrie
and Mick 1996). Both Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) and Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011) also
included dimensions theorized to specifically relate to consumer advertising processing. In fact,
Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) recognize categorization unrelated to differences in outcomes
as a taxonomy’s most vulnerable potential weakness. Although developers of each taxonomy or
those who have previously applied them may have predicted category differences based on
a variety of theories, the final research question addresses this second aspect of predictive validity—do
category differences support theoretically predicted differences?
RQ5: Does each visual RF taxonomy exhibit ad processing differences between categories that fit theoretical
predictions?

Method
Sample
Research questions were examined using a sample of 952 ads from a wide variety of magazines:
Barron’s (two issues), Bon Appetit, Business Week, Country Living, Ebony, Glamour (two issues),
GQ, Home, House Beautiful, Industry Week, Men’s Journal, Newsweek, Parents, Real Simple, Sports
Illustrated, and Sunset. This convenience sample consisted of all magazine ads with copy-testing
scores provided by a subsidiary of the GfK Group, MRI Starch. Begun in 1923 as Daniel Starch
and Staff, MRI Starch is a leading professional research service measuring print ad readership.
Its “Starch scores” have been used in many previous studies in the marketing literature (e.g.,
Finn 1988; Franke et al. 2004; Huhmann et al. 2012; McQuarrie and Phillips 2008; Mothersbaugh
et al. 2002). Starch scores for ads in a particular issue are based on personal interviews with
a representative sample of 100 to 200 of a magazine’s readers. Using a rotating starting position,
interviewers go through the issue and ask whether the reader “noted” the ad, “associated” it with
the advertised brand, and “read most” (at least half) of the ad copy. An ad’s Starch scores are the
proportions of magazine readers that respond positively to each of these questions.
Starch scores are a recognition-based method for assessing print ad readership. Prior research
has determined that Starch Noted scores are a good proxy for attention to an advertisement,
Associated scores are a good proxy for brand processing, and Read Most scores (i.e., the percent
of respondents who report having read 50% or more of the ad’s copy) are a reasonable proxy for
extent of ad message processing (e.g., Finn 1988).

Visual rhetoric coding procedure

Coders classified ads using six visual RF taxonomies—Durand (1987), Forceville (1996),
Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011), Groupe Mu (1992), McQuarrie and Mick (1999, 2003), and Phillips
and McQuarrie (2004). Articles introducing each taxonomy provided carefully selected ad exam-
ples to illustrate its visual RFs categories. These ads along with additional ad exemplars and
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 11

definitions were included in the coder training materials. The authors independently analyzed
and pretested the coder training materials and procedures before training three graduate students
to code the ads.
Identifying and classifying rhetorical figures can be difficult for those who lack experience and
familiarity with advertising rhetoric. For example, in her content analysis, van Mulken (2003)
observed relatively low levels of intercoder reliability due to coder insecurity about how to classify
particular visual rhetorical works. Similarly, in his content analysis of verbal rhetorical figures,
Leigh (1994) also initially experienced low intercoder reliability. To educate and familiarize the
three graduate student coders before coding the data for the current study, a three-step process
was used. First, the coders read through the definitions with the authors, who then provided a
number of illustrative examples for each category in each taxonomy. Then, the coders practiced
identifying and classifying visual RFs in all full-page or larger ads from a recent issue of Elle
magazine. Then, the authors discussed the disagreements in how a coder and authors coded the
presence or absence of each category in each ad. Fourth, coders again practiced identifying and
classifying visual RFs in all full-page or larger ads from a recent issue of Fitness magazine and
again discussed any disagreements with the authors. By the end of this process, coders were more
confident in applying the visual RF taxonomies to advertising and showed greater agreement in
coding how each taxonomy would classify an advertisement in terms of visual RFs.
Once training was complete, each coder worked independently to indicate the presence or
absence of every visual RF category from all taxonomies for each ad in the full sample.
Awareness of the presence of visual RFs was heightened through coding categories from all
taxonomies simultaneously as opposed to sequentially. More specifically, coders looked at one ad
at a time and recorded categorization data in Microsoft Excel for all six taxonomies before
moving on to the next ad. The scrutiny each ad image received during this simultaneous
application of taxonomies helped ensure a more complete identification of the visual RFs present
in the sample. After all coding was completed, disagreements were resolved by referring to visual
RF ad examples and definitions until agreement was reached for each ad. Intercoder reliability
levels for each taxonomy are compared in the “Analysis and Results” section.

Other variables
Variables found to account for much of the variance in Starch scores due to executional elements are
included as covariates in all the multivariate and univariate analyses—ad size, cover positions, front
versus back of book ad placement, color, visual size, copy length, and magazine vehicle in which the
ad appeared (Finn 1988, Franke et al. 2004, Huhmann et al. 2012; Mothersbaugh et al., 2002). These
executional characteristics were coded separately by two additional coders. Ad size was a three-
category variable (“less than one page”, “a full page,” or “more than one page”). Copy length was
a four-category variable ranging from “25 words or less” to “100 words or more.” Visual size was
a five-category variable ranging from “less than quarter of the ad” to “entire ad.” Magazine vehicle
was included to account for unique variance due to the ad processing effort that is devoted by
a particular magazine audience. Intercoder agreement on executional elements ranged from 78% for
visual size to 99% for cover position, with visual size being the only variable dropping below 89%
agreement. Disagreements were resolved by a third coder. All covariates had significant effects on
Starch scores (p’s
.05) except front versus back of the book on Read Most scores and color on any
Starch scores, which was likely due to the low proportion (6.4%) of black-and-white ads in the sample.

Analysis and results

The authors conducted analyses using SPSS Statistics 24. The first research question asked
whether or not including visual schemes is useful for a visual RF taxonomy by investigating
12 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

whether ads containing visual schemes improve consumer processing outcomes over ads
with no RF.
Ads categorized as containing visual schemes in two McQuarrie and Mick categories—repeti-
tion schemes and reversal schemes—had higher scores on all three Starch scores than ads without
visual RFs (see Table 1). Also, ads classified as containing visual schemes appearing in four
Addition categories of Durand’s taxonomy have higher Noted scores than ads without RFs. Those
in Durand’s Rhyme/Comparision (ADD-SIM) and Accumulation (ADD-DIF) categories also have
higher Associated and Read Most scores than ads without RFs. Ads in Durand’s Anachronism/
Antithesis (ADD-OPP) category, but not in his Repetition (ADD-ID) category, also have higher
Associated scores than ads without RFs (see Table 2).

Table 1. Prevalence of ads and starch score means by visual rhetorical figure (RF) taxonomy.
Starch score means (standard errors)
Taxonomy
Category n PRL Noted Associated Read Most
Groupe Mu
No visual RFs 618 75 49.56a (0.43) 43.13a (0.48) 17.68a (0.35)
In Praesentia Conjoint (IPC) 88 93 53.55b (1.14) 46.80bd (1.26) 19.60bcd (0.99)
In Praesentia Disjoint (IPD) 171 63 55.39b (0.83) 49.46b (0.91) 20.57c (0.71)
In Absentia Conjoint (IAC) 33 100 60.23c (1.86) 56.17c (2.05) 21.57c (1.50)
In Absentia Disjoint (IAD) 42 99 50.61d (1.63) 43.80d (1.80) 17.00d (1.38)
Multivariate Wilks’s lambda ¼ .915; eta ¼ .029; F ¼ 6.560, p
.001
2

Univariate F values 16.494 17.609 4.999

Forceville
a a
No visual RFs 625 79 48.02 (0.48) 41.49 (0.53) 16.68a (0.36)
Contextual metaphor (MP1) 33 100 59.27b (1.95) 55.25b (2.14) 21.07b (1.45)
Hybrid metaphor (MP2) 89 93 52.62c (1.38) 45.50c (1.52) 17.72c (1.03)
Pictorial simile 171 82 54.82cd (0.99) 49.18d (1.08) 19.77bc (0.73)
Verbo-pictorial metaphor 34 87 57.69bd (1.96) 52.19bd (2.16) 20.66b (1.45)
Multivariate Wilks’s lambda ¼ .893; eta ¼ .037; F ¼ 8.433, p
.001
2

Univariate F values 21.292 22.786 5.867

Gkiouzepas and Hogg
a a
No visual RFs 406 74 47.93 (0.60) 41.22 (0.66) 16.78a (0.45)
RS-JUX 140 54 51.86b (1.00) 45.16b (1.11) 17.59a (0.74)
RS-SYNTH 51 92 52.38bc (1.76) 47.15bc (1.95) 18.03ab (1.30)
REP-JUX 42 98 49.95ab (1.89) 43.76ab (2.08) 15.94a (1.43)
REP-SYNTH 57 91 54.71c (1.58) 49.08c (1.74) 19.97bc (1.16)
AS-JUX 161 68 54.67c (1.01) 49.21c (1.10) 19.87b (0.76)
AS-SYNTH 95 97 52.01bc (1.26) 45.36ab (1.39) 17.58ac (0.98)
Multivariate Wilks’s lambda ¼ .927 eta2 ¼ .025; F ¼ 3.688, p
.001
Univariate F values 9.317 9.778 3.526
Phillips and McQuarrie
No visual RFs 548 71 48.82a (0.47) 42.33a (0.52) 17.54a (0.38)
1 CON-JUX 136 79 55.88b (0.98) 50.13b (1.08) 21.45b (0.78)
2 CON-FUS 46 88 55.42b (1.65) 49.41b (1.81) 20.45bc (1.31)
3 CON-REP 41 91 48.71a (1.75) 42.26ac (1.92) 16.62a (1.39)
4 SIM-JUX 32 91 53.25bc (2.07) 47.14bcd (2.27) 16.63a (1.64)
5 SIM-FUS 43 89 51.51ac (1.80) 43.43ad (1.98) 18.10acd (1.43)
6 SIM-REP 33 96 59.88d (1.87) 55.80e (2.06) 21.50bde (1.49)
7 OPP-JUX 55 88 51.13ac (1.48) 44.57ad (1.63) 18.18ac (1.77)
8 OPP-FUS 4 98 50.46ab (5.32) 43.53ab (5.84) 17.81ace (4.23)
9 OPP-REP 14 97 51.61abd (2.85) 44.95ab (3.12) 17.29abce (2.26)
Multivariate Wilks’s lambda ¼ .896 eta ¼ .036; F ¼ 3.585, p
.001
2

Univariate F values 8.288 9.048 3.351

McQuarrie and Mick
No visual RFs 202 88 41.09a (0.76) 35.10a (0.84) 13.38a (0.58)
Repetition schemes 174 97 52.72b (0.78) 45.86b (0.87) 18.24b (0.66)
Reversal schemes 43 99 49.77b (1.39) 43.22b (1.38) 16.73b (1.04)
Substitution tropes 225 94 54.65c (0.63) 48.53c (0.78) 19.94c (0.61)
Destabilization tropes 308 97 55.46c (0.59) 49.22c (0.66) 21.79d (0.50)
Multivariate Wilks’s lambda ¼ .873 eta ¼ .044; F ¼ 10.102, p
.001
2

Univariate F values (p’s
.001) 29.097 23.918 7.016

Note. Different superscripts indicate significant planned contrast between categories’ cell means.
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 13

Table 2. Prevalence of ads and starch score means for Durand’s visual RF taxonomy.
Starch score means (standard errors)
Rhetorical operation
relation category N PRL Noted Associated Read Most
No visual RFs 166 79 43.83a (0.85) 37.57a (0.94) 15.22a (0.71)
Additive
Repetition (ADD-ID) 18 85 50.70bc (2.46) 42.31bc (2.73) 16.89ab (1.99)
Rhyme/COmparision (ADD-SIM) 157 86 51.66bde (0.84) 45.55bde (0.93) 18.46bc (0.69)
Accumulation (ADD-DIF) 48 94 54.80cfgh (1.52) 48.52dfgh (1.68) 18.40bc (1.23)
Anachronism/antithesis (ADD-OPP) 45 96 51.11bfg (1.56) 44.06be (1.73) 17.94bc (1.28)
Antanaclasis/paradox (ADD-FH) 19 98 52.17cdef (2.39) 46.40bef (2.65) 18.62bcd (1.99)
Suppression
Ellipsis (SPR-ID) 13 96 52.48cdfi (2.89) 44.90bcf (3.20) 18.41acd (2.66)
Circumlocution (SPR-SIM) 6 99 53.40bcfh (4.26) 47.53befg (4.72) 18.24acde (3.45)
Suspense (SPR-DIF) 16 98 51.77abei (2.61) 41.29ac (2.98) 15.38ac (2.44)
Dubitation/reticence (SPR-OPP) 10 98 57.75cdfh (3.29) 47.65befg (3.65) 22.54bde (2.81)
Tautology/preterition (SPR-FH) 28 97 53.17bc (1.97) 46.13bef (2.19) 16.81acf (1.63)
Substitution
Homeophore (SUB-ID) 78 88 53.09bc (1.18) 47.20bf (1.32) 21.52de (1.00)
Allusion/metaphor (SUB-SIM) 49 92 52.87bc (1.49) 45.32bde (1.65) 18.87bcd (1.26)
Metonymy (SUB-DIF) 49 93 55.24ch (1.50) 49.95fg (1.66) 21.58de (1.24)
Periphrasis/euphemism (SUB-OPP) 10 98 49.77abe (3.30) 42.88ace (3.66) 18.47acd (2.99)
Pun/antiphrasis (SUB-FH) 16 98 55.06cdfhi (2.60) 48.70bfg (2.89) 24.54e (2.11)
Exchange
Inversion (EXC-ID) 75 89 54.00cdfi (1.22) 48.62fg (1.35) 20.21bd (1.06)
Hendiadys (EXC-SIM) 32 96 58.29h (1.85) 52.77g (2.05) 19.96bdf (1.50)
Asyndeton (EXC-DIF) 33 97 51.85bc (1.82) 46.47bef (2.02) 18.67bcd (1.52)
Anacoluthon/chiasmus (EXC-OPP) 73 96 51.81bf (1.23) 45.79eh (1.36) 18.03bc (1.06)
Antimetabole/antilogy (EXC-FH) 11 100 52.65bcfh (3.14) 46.55befg (3.48) 16.91acd (2.67)
Multivariate Wilks’s lambda ¼ .818 eta2 ¼ .065; F ¼ 2.959, p
.001
Univariate F values 5.80c 5.14c 2.65c
Note. Different superscripts indicate significant planned contrast between categories cell means.

Thus, it appears that including visual schemes in a visual RF taxonomy does capture
differences in Noted scores (attention) and sometimes Associated (brand processing) and Read
Most (message processing) scores between ads classified as incorporating visual schemes versus
those classified as not incorporating visual RFs.

Domain coverage
Guidelines for a good taxonomy require that categories be collectively exhaustive of the domain.
The second research question asked which visual RF taxonomy had the most exhaustive coverage.
Table 3 shows the domain coverage of the six taxonomies. Column 1 shows the number of ads that
fit that taxonomy’s categories for visual RFs. Column 2 lists the number of ads that do not fit into
the visual RF categories for each taxonomy and, therefore, would be considered as not containing
visual RFs according to that taxonomy. To assess domain coverage, the last three columns show the
number of ads that coders considered as having some sort of visual RF using the broad definition
of artful deviance from conventional visual presentations but did not fit into a particular
taxonomy’s visual RF categories. Column 3 shows the number of ads considered to contain visual
schemes that coders were unable to categorize using a particular taxonomy. Column 4 shows the
number of ads considered to contain unclassifiable visual tropes. Column 5 shows the total number
of ads in the visual RF domain that were unclassifiable using each taxonomy.
Visual RFs may involve artful deviation at the surface level through arrangements, designs, or
patterns of formal image characteristics (e.g., objects, colors, shapes, gestures, positions) to create
emphasis or focus message processing via visual schemes. Then again, they may involve artful
deviation at the semantic level to create multiple inferences, interpretations, or implicatures
14 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

Table 3. Domain coverage of visual rhetorical figures (RF) taxonomies.

Domain coverage
Ads coded as no visual RF considered to possess
Ads coded Ads coded as unclassifiable visual RFs
as visual RFs no visual RF
Taxonomy in taxonomy in taxonomy Visual schemes Visual tropes Total
Groupe Mu 366 618 223 203 426
Forceville 250 625 223 319 542
Gkiouzepas and Hogg 437 406 223 132 355
Phillips and McQuarrie 318 548 223 251 474
Durand 786 166 0 6 6
McQuarrie and Mick 750 202 19 23 42

through ambiguous or multiple meanings via visual tropes (Huhmann 2007; Mothersbaugh et al.
2002). As mentioned before, the taxonomies by Groupe Mu (1992), Forceville (1996), Phillips
and McQuarrie (2004), and Gkiouzepas and Hogg (2011) more narrowly focus on visual tropes.
Naturally, none of these four taxonomies accounted for the 223 ads that coders considered to
contain visual schemes. However, coders believed that each of these four taxonomies is also
unable to account for many instances of visual tropes. Of course, Forceville’s taxonomy has the
least domain coverage as it only concerns visual metaphors. Durand’s taxonomy is the most
exhaustive, because it accounts for the most instances of visual RFs overall, even when the
analysis is limited solely to visual tropes, closely followed by McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy.

Reliability
The third research question asked whether or not each visual RF taxonomy would exhibit
adequate reliability. Reliability is computed using Rust and Cooil’s (1994) Proportional Reduction
in Loss (PRL) technique. PRL involves the expected loss from erroneous coding decisions
and extends techniques of Cronbach’s alpha and Perreault and Leigh’s (1989) index of reliability
to coding decisions with three or more coders. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, all visual RF
taxonomies achieved adequate intercoder reliabilities for most categories.
However, some categories had intercoder reliability dropping below Nunnally’s (1978, 245)
recommendation of .70 or better for the reliability of instruments used in basic research. These
were Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s realistic symbiosis juxtaposition (PRL ¼ 54) and artificial symbiosis
juxtaposition (PRL ¼ 68) and Groupe Mu’s In Praesentia Disjoint (PRL ¼ 63). In Phillips and
McQuarrie’s taxonomy, no category dropped below a PRL of 71. In Forceville’s taxonomy,
no category dropped below a PRL of 79. In Durand’s taxonomy, no category dropped below
a PRL of 79. In McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy, no category dropped below a PRL of 88.
The taxonomy with the highest overall reliability average across all categories was McQuarrie and
Mick’s taxonomy (average PRL ¼ 95).

Predictive validity
Research question 4 asked about the degree to which each visual RF taxonomy exhibits predictive
validity in terms of ads coded as possessing visual RFs having higher Noted, Associated, and
Read Most scores than ads coded as not possessingt visual RFs. The three Starch scores were
significantly correlated (all r’s < 0.578, p’s < .001). Grand means for the 952 total ads were Noted
score (51.39), Associated score (45.10), and Read Most (18.45).
Multivariate analyses of covariance (MANCOVAs) with univariate analysis of covariance
follow-ups were performed to determine how ads classified via each taxonomy affected Starch
scores. Executional and mechanical variables—ad size, cover positions, front versus back of book
ad placement, color, visual size, copy length, and magazine vehicle in which the ad appeared—
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 15

were included as covariates in all the multivariate and univariate analyses because prior research
has found these variables to account for considerable variance in Starch scores (Finn 1988;
Franke et al. 2004; Huhmann et al. 2012; Mothersbaugh et al. 2002).
The category n’s (i.e., the number of ads), Starch score marginal means adjusted for the
covariates, and the standard error for each taxonomy are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Standard
error (SE) is reported because it takes into account both the standard deviation (sd) and the
sample size (N), such that SE ¼ sd/冑N.
First, results are presented for those taxonomies without coverage of visual schemes. For the
Groupe Mu taxonomy, MANCOVA revealed differences across the combined dependent variables
between ads coded as without visual RFs (i.e., no category in Groupe Mu’s taxonomy), IPC, IPD,
IAC, and IAD (see Table 1). Univariate follow-ups indicated effects for each of the three individual
Starch scores as well (p’s
.001). Planned comparisons show that ads in two of Groupe Mu’s cate-
gories (i.e., IPD and IAC) exhibit higher Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores than ads without
visual RFs. Ads in another category, IPC, exhibit higher Noted and Associated scores, but not Read
Most scores, than ads without visual RFs. However, ads with RFs categorized as IAD do not differ
in Noted, Associated, or Read Most score from ads without visual RFs (p’s  .189).
For Forceville’s taxonomy, MANCOVA also revealed differences across the combined
dependent variables between ads categorized as without visual RFs, contextual metaphors, hybrid
metaphors, pictorial similes, and verbo-pictorial metaphors (see Table 1). Univariate follow-ups
indicated effects for each of the three individual Starch scores as well (p’s
.001). Planned
comparisons show that ads in three of Forceville’s categories (i.e., contextual metaphor, pictorial
simile, and verbo-pictorial metaphor) exhibit higher Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores
than ads without visual RFs. Ads in another category, hybrid metaphor, exhibit higher Noted and
Associated scores, but not Read Most scores, than ads without visual RFs.
For Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s taxonomy, MANCOVA also revealed differences across the com-
bined dependent variables between the categories (see Table 1). Univariate follow-ups indicated
effects for each of the three individual Starch scores as well (p’s
.001). Planned comparisons
show that ads in three of Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s categories (i.e., realistic symbiosis synthesis,
replacement synthesis, and artificial symbiosis juxtaposition) exhibit higher Noted, Associated,
and Read Most scores than ads without visual RFs (see Table 1). Ads in two of Gkiouzepas and
Hogg’s other categories (i.e., realistic symbiosis juxtaposition and artificial symbiosis synthesis)
exhibit higher Noted and Associated scores, but not Read Most scores, than ads without visual
RFs. Finally, no difference in Starch scores is observed between ads in Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s
replacement juxtaposition category and ads without visual RFs.
For Phillip and McQuarrie’s taxonomy, MANCOVA revealed differences across the combined
dependent variables between the categories. Univariate follow-ups indicated overall effects for
each of the three individual Starch scores as well (p’s
.001). Planned comparisons show that ads
in three Phillip and McQuarrie categories (i.e., CON-JUX, CON-FUS, and SIM-REP) exhibit
higher Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores than ads without visual RFs (see Table 1).
Ads in another category, SIM-JUX, exhibit higher Noted and Associated scores, but not Read
Most scores, than ads without visual RFs. Ads in five of their categories show no Starch score
increases over ads without visual RFs (p’s  .099).
Part of the difficulty may be the small number of ads within some Phillips and McQuarrie
categories, because their taxonomy has nine categories compared to four categories for Groupe
Mu or Forceville or six for Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s taxonomy. Therefore, further MANCOVAs
with univariate follow-ups were conducted looking at ads classified by each Phillips and
McQuarrie dimension separately. First, examining differences between ads without visual RFs and
those classified within the three visual structures (i.e., juxtaposition, fusion, and replacement)
reveals an overall multivariate effect (Wilks’s lambda ¼ .947, eta2 ¼ .018, F ¼ 4.636, p
.001)
and univariate effects on two Starch scores (Noted: F ¼ 10.908, p
.001; Associated: F ¼ 11.746,
16 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

p
.001; Read Most: F ¼ 2.477, ns). Planned comparisons of ads within each visual structure
dimension against ads without visual RF found that ads classified as juxtaposition exhibit higher
Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores (p’s
.007), whereas ads classified as fusion and
replacement exhibit higher Noted and Associated (p
.02), but not Read Most scores (p  .408).
Second, examining differences between ads without visual RFs and Phillips and McQuarrie’s
three meaning operation dimensions (i.e., connection, comparison for similarity, and comparison
for opposition) reveals an overall multivariate effect (Wilks’s lambda ¼ .945, eta2 ¼ .019,
F ¼ 4.858, p
.001) and univariate effects on each Starch score (Noted: F ¼ 12.542, p
.001;
Associated: F ¼ 13.251, p
.001; Read Most: F ¼ 2.621, p
.05). Planned comparisons of ads
within each meaning operation dimension against ads without visual RFs reveal that ads classified
as connection exhibit higher Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores (p’s
.007) and ads classi-
fied as similarity exhibit higher Noted and Associated (p’s
.001), but not Read Most scores
(p ¼ .187); however, Starch scores for ads classified as opposition do not differ from those for ads
without visual RFs (p’s  .144). One caveat is that relatively few instances (N ¼ 65) of opposition
were observed.
Next, results are presented for the two taxonomies that include both visual schemes and visual
tropes. For McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy, MANCOVA revealed differences across the com-
bined dependent variables. Also, univariate follow-ups indicated effects for all three individual
Starch scores (p’s
.001). Planned comparisons show that ads within three of McQuarrie and
Mick’s categories (i.e., repetition schemes, substitution tropes, and destabilization tropes) exhibit
higher Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores than ads without visual RFs (see Table 1). Ads
within the other category, reversal schemes, exhibit higher Noted and Associated scores, but not
Read Most scores, than ads without visual RFs. As in van Mulken’s (2003) content analysis of vis-
ual RFs in a sample of French and Dutch ads, destabilization tropes were the most commonly
identified category in the current sample, followed by substitution tropes, then repetition schemes
with reversal schemes as the least commonly identified category (N ¼ 39).
For Durand’s taxonomy, MANCOVA revealed differences across the combined dependent
variables. Univariate follow-ups indicated effects for each of the three individual Starch scores
(p’s
.001). Planned comparisons show that ads within nine of Durand’s categories (i.e., ADD-SIM,
ADD-DIF, SUB-ID, SUB-DIF, SUB-FH, EXC-ID, EXC-SIM, EXC-DIF, and EXC-OPP) exhibit
higher Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores than ads without visual RFs (see Table 2). Ads
within another seven categories (ADD-OPP, ADD-FH, SPR-SIM, SPR-OPP, SPR-FH, SUB-SIM,
and EXC-FH) exhibit higher Noted and Associated scores, but not Read Most scores, than ads
without visual RFs. Ads within two visual rhetoric categories (ADD-ID and SPR-ID) increased
Noted scores only compared to ads without visual RFs. Finally, ads within two other categories
(SPR-DIF and SUB-OPP) show no Starch score increases over ads without visual RFs (p’s  .113).
Due to the large number of RF categories in Durand’s taxonomy, it was difficult to identify
sufficient numbers of ads for each category even within our large sample. Therefore, further
MANCOVAs with univariate follow-ups were conducted looking at ads with RFs categorized by
each of Durand’s dimension separately. First, examining differences between ads without visual
RFs and ads classified within each of the four rhetorical operations (i.e., addition, suppression,
substitution and exchange) reveals an overall multivariate effect (Wilks’s lambda ¼ .862,
eta2 ¼ .048, F ¼ 9.729, p
.001) and univariate effects on each Starch score (Noted: F ¼ 23.368,
p
.001; Associated: F ¼ 19.534, p
.001; Read Most: F ¼ 9.611, p
.001). Planned comparisons
reveal that ads within each rhetorical operation exhibit higher Noted, Associated, and Read Most
scores than ads without visual RFs (p’s
.009).
Second, examining differences between ads without visual RFs and ads classified by Durand’s
five element relations (i.e., identity, similarity, difference, opposition, and false homology) reveals
an overall multivariate effect (Wilks’s lambda ¼ .881, eta2 ¼ .041, F ¼ 6.581, p
.001) and univari-
ate effects on each Starch score (Noted: F ¼ 19.281, p
.001; Associated: F ¼ 15.409, p
.001;
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 17

Read Most: F ¼ 5.707, p
.001). Planned comparisons reveal that ads within each element relation
exhibit higher Noted, Associated, and Read Most scores than ads without visual RFs (p’s
.01).
To address RQ5, ads within each category of a taxonomy were compared. Then we observed
whether or not actual differences fit theoretical explanations.
Once again, investigation into RQ5 start with the taxonomies focused solely on visual tropes.
For Groupe Mu’s taxonomy, cognitive effort is predicted to increase from ads classified
as containing no visual RF to IPC to IPD to IAC to IAD (Groupe Mu 1992; van Mulken 2003).
As shown in Table 1, this prediction is partially supported as Starch scores increase from ads
without RFs to ads containing IPC or IPD, which have similar Starch scores, contrary to predic-
tion, to ads classified as containing IAC. However, ads classified as containing IAD have much
lower Starch scores, which are almost as low as ads without visual RFs. Actually, rather than
exhibiting increasing cognitive effort, ads containing RFs included in Groupe Mu’s taxonomy
appear to exhibit increasing cognitive load resulting in a nonmonotonic upside-down U-shaped
function between cognitive load and processing as predicted by some researchers for RFs
(e.g., Huhmann 2007; Mohanty and Ratneshwar 2016).
Forceville (1996, 2007) does not offer a prediction of processing-related differences between
his categories. In fact, ads classified using his categories show a great deal of overlap in their
levels of Starch scores. However, across Starch scores, ads classified as contextual metaphors
outperform ads classified as hybrid metaphors, with ads classified as pictorial similes and
verbo-pictorial metaphors bridging the gap between them.
Gkiouzepas and Hogg predicted and found that visual RFs in their synthesis mode of
representations would provoke greater elaboration than those in their juxtaposition mode of
representation with their six experimental ad stimuli. They also found that some visual RFs
within their synthesis mode of representation appeared to have a negative impact on the compre-
hension compared to those within their juxtaposition mode of representation. In the current
study, ads classified into their synthesis mode of representation outperformed their juxtaposition
counterparts for their replacement visual scenario RF categories (REP-SYNTH vs. REP-JUX).
Results were in the right direction but did not achieve the level of significance for their realistic
symbiosis visual scenario categories (RS-SYNTH vs. RS-JUX). With their artificial symbiosis
visual scenario categories, ads classified as AS-JUX achieved higher Associated and Read Most
scores than ads classified as AS-SYNTH, although Noted scores were similar.
Phillips and McQuarrie (2004) predict increasing cognitive elaboration from the top left to
the bottom right categories of their taxonomy (see Figure 4). However, this is not evident in
the current study’s Starch score results. Again, increasing cognitive load may be overwhelming
consumers’ limited resources devoted to ad processing under natural exposure conditions, but the
nonmonotonic relationship is not as clear as it was with Groupe Mu’s taxonomy.
Among taxonomies that include both visual schemes and visual tropes, Durand did not offer
predictions of specific category differences in processing. However, McQuarrie and Mick (1996)
predicted increased processing from ads without RF to schemes to tropes. This was confirmed
in laboratory experiments with verbal RFs (Mothersbaugh et al. 2002) and visual RFs (McQuarrie
and Mick 1999). It is also evident with actual ads processed under natural exposure conditions
in the current study, as Starch scores also increase along this continuum.

Additional analyses
One reviewer suggested presenting a comparative table that would show how the different
categories identified among the different taxonomies actually relate to each other. Table 4 takes
Durand’s taxonomy, because it has the greatest domain coverage, and shows the relationships
between his categories and visual RF categories from the other taxonomies. For simplicity
of presentation, only categories in which there is both some sort of conceptual overlap between
 18

Table 4. Conceptual overlap and correlation of Durand categories with categories from other taxonomies.
Addition r Suppression r Substitution r Exchange r
Identity McQuarrie and Mick— McQuarrie and Mick— Group Mu—IAD .160b Gkiouzepas and Hogg—
Repetition Scheme .622b Substitution Trope .391b McQuarrie and Mick— AS-JUX .273b
Phillips and McQuarrie— Substitution Trope .610b McQuarrie and Mick—
CON-REP .175b Substitution Trope .395b
Phillips and McQuarrie—
SIM-JUX .080a
Similarity McQuarrie and Mick— Gkiouzepas and Hogg— Forceville—MP1 .232b Forceville—MP1 .069a
Repetition Scheme .792b REP-SYNTH .613b Forceville— Forceville—MP2 .206b
Gkiouzepas and Hogg- McQuarrie and Mick— Pictorial similes .125b Forceville—
b b
RS-JUX .713 Substitution Trope .149 Group Mu—IAD .064a Pictorial similes .096b
B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

Group Mu—IPD .105b Phillips and McQuarrie— McQuarrie and Mick— Gkiouzepas and Hogg—
Phillips and McQuarrie— SIM-REP .065a Destabilization trope .516b AS-SYNTH .093b
CON-JUX .120b Phillips and McQuarrie— Group Mu—IPC .206b
SIM-JUX .268b McQuarrie and Mick—
Phillips and McQuarrie— Destabilization Tope .354b
SIM-REP .232b Phillips and McQuarrie—
SIM-FUS .196b
Difference Gkiouzepas and Hogg—
RS-SYNTH .803b
Group Mu—IAD .141b
McQuarrie and Mick—
Substitution Trope .449b
Opposition McQuarrie and Mick— Phillips and McQuarrie— Group Mu—IAD .096b Forceville—MP1 .070a
Reversal scheme .941b OPP-REP .265b Forceville—MP2 .378b
Phillips and McQuarrie— McQuarrie and Mick—
OPP-JUX .620b Destabilization trope .589b
Phillips and McQuarrie—
OPP-FUS .159b
False Phillips and McQuarrie— McQuarrie and Mick— McQuarrie and Mick— Forceville—MP2 .167b
Homology OPP-JUX .110b Substitution Trope .412b Destabilization trope .289b McQuarrie and Mick—
Destabilization trope .094b
Phillips and McQuarrie
—OPP-REP .071a
Note. Significance of correlation between visual RF categories: ap
.05, bp
.01, cp
.001.
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 19

the category definitions and a significant correlation coefficient appear in Table 4. Although
a few instances in which the definitions seemed to have some conceptual overlap did not exhibit
significant correlations, significant correlations were not observed without conceptual overlap.
Of course, given the different bases for developing the six taxonomies (e.g., classical rhetoric,
pictorial rhetoric, visual structures), visual RF categories do not directly map from one taxonomy
to another. For example, McQuarrie and Mick’s repetition schemes relate to two Durand
categories (ADD-ID and ADD-SIM).

Discussion
Advertising is in the unique position of a multimodal communication with both images and
language commonly available for rhetorical use, unlike media limited to the language mode, such
as speech or writing. Thus, in addition to verbal RF taxonomies (e.g., McGuire 2000; McQuarrie
and Mick 1996) that have arisen from classical rhetoric, advertising researchers have also sought
to develop taxonomies that encompass the persuasive possibilities of visual RFs in advertising
images (e.g., Durand 1970, 1987; Forceville 1996, 2007; Gkiouzepas and Hogg 2011; Groupe Mu
1992; McQuarrie and Mick 1999, 2003; Phillips and McQuarrie 2004). The current study sought to
compare these six visual RF taxonomies in terms of criteria for a useful taxonomy by examining
their parsimony, domain coverage, reliability, and predictive validity (Hunt 1991; Weber 2012).
To aid comparison across the six visual RF taxonomies, Table 5 summarizes the results of the
five research questions. This section next discusses the trade-offs for the various visual RF taxono-
mies in reference to these criteria of parsimony, domain coverage, reliability, and predictive validity.
Because they were designed to include only visual tropes, not visual schemes, the taxonomies
of Groupe Mu, Forceville, Gkiouzepas and Hogg, and Phillips and McQuarrie by design offer less
domain coverage than Durand’s or McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomies. As a reminder, visual
schemes arrange formal image characteristics (e.g., lines, shapes, colors, objects, or symbols) to

Table 5. Summary of results across each taxonomy.

Predictive validity
Proportion of Proportion of category
Visual Domain RF categories differences that
Taxonomy schemes > No RF Parsimony coverage Reliability > No RF support theory
Durand All Noted, Some #6 #1 #2 Noted: 90% N/A
Associated Associated: 80%
and Read Most: 45%
Read Most
McQuarrie All Noted, #1 (tie) #2 #1 Noted: 100% Noted: 100%
and Mick Associated, Associated: Associated: 100%
and 100% Read Most: 100%
Read Most Read Most: 75%
Forceville N/A #1 (tie) #6 #3 Noted: 100% N/A
Associated:
100%
Read Most: 75%
Groupe Mu N/A #1 (tie) #4 #5 Noted: 75% Noted: 60%
Associated: 75% Associated: 60%
Read Most: 50% Read Most: 60%
Gkiouzepas N/A #4 #3 #6 Noted: 83% Noted: 33%
and Hogg Associated: 83% Associated: 33%
Read Most: 50% Read Most: 33%
Phillips N/A #5 #5 #4 Noted: 44% Noted: 11%
and Associated: 44% Associated: 11%
McQuarrie Read Most: 33% Read Most: 11%
Note. Rankings from 1 (best) to 6 (worst) on Hunt’s (1991) criteria for useful taxonomies. Proportions equal categories exhibit-
ing expected difference divided by all categories in that taxonomy.
20 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

create arrangements or patterns to draw attention to certain parts of the ad or to emphasize

a particular meaning or idea. Visual tropes motivate consumers to infer advertisers’ implicit
intended meanings by deciphering ambiguity, appreciating multiple meanings, or seeing connec-
tions between objects (Huhmann and Albinsson 2012). However, even when the scope of the
comparison is limited to the ability to classify visual tropes, Durand’s and McQuarrie and Mick’s
taxonomies still exhibit the best domain coverage.
In some ways domain coverage is opposed to parsimony. However, parsimony plays an
important role in a taxonomy’s usefulness. As the number of categories rises, the taxonomy might
be able to help users identify more unique instances. However, at some point, users may find the
taxonomy to be too complex. Parsimony limits a taxonomy to the simplest or most economical
set of categories and may also include the ability to combine categories in meaningful ways by
collapsing across dimensions or levels (Hunt 1991).
Another goal for a useful taxonomy is to have a high level of predictability with as parsimonious
a number of categories as possible. In addition, good definitions set strong category boundaries
(Weber 2012), which improves the ability of different individuals to reliably assign instances
of the same phenomenon to the same category. As parsimony increases, the less complex task
of categorizing is one of many factors that can improve reliability.
Thus, trade-offs are evident across taxonomies in terms of the criteria for a useful taxonomy.
Groupe Mu’s taxonomy is parsimonious with four categories and has adequate predictive validity,
but has only the fourth best domain coverage and lacks adequate reliability in all its categories.
Forceville’s taxonomy was also parsimonious with four categories and exhibited good reliability,
but had the least domain coverage. Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s taxonomy had the third best domain
coverage, but it is the third least parsimonious with six categories and, more critically, coders had
difficulty reliably applying Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s taxonomy, and observed category differences
in ad processing failed to support Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s predictions. Phillips and McQuarrie’s
taxonomy has acceptable reliability, but relatively poor domain coverage, parsimony, and predict-
ive validity.
Among the two taxonomies designed with domain coverage of both visual schemes and visual
tropes, Durand’s taxonomy has the best overall domain coverage and exhibits good reliability, but
lacks parsimony with 20 categories. On the other hand, McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy was
parsimonious with four categories and achieved almost as much domain coverage as Durand’s
taxonomy even though Durand’s taxonomy has five times as many categories as McQuarrie and
Mick’s taxonomy. Also, McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy showed exceptional reliability and pre-
dictive validity.
Thus, McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy is the best taxonomy overall and the most useful for
advertising researchers due to its strong reliability for use in content analysis when coding the
presence of visual RFs in any number of media (e.g., outdoor, television, cinema, print, video-
game, or Internet advertising; social media posts; television or film content; fine art; government
or advocacy group propaganda; children’s books; etc.). Further, its strong predictive validity in
accounting for consumer processing differences among advertisements should be of great benefit
in empirical research.
The current study demonstrates that ads with both visual schemes and visual tropes increase
processing over ads without visual RFs. Thus, the best taxonomy for advancing theory should
include both visual schemes and visual tropes. If one looks at Hunt’s criteria of exhaustive cover-
age of the domain, this seems to be essential. McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy also offers the
advantage of incorporating both visual schemes and visual tropes.
Further, McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy offers an advantage not found with any of the other
visual RF taxonomies—it can also be applied to verbal RFs. It has previously been effective in
content analyses of verbal RFs (e.g., McQuarrie and Mick 1996; Mothersbaugh et al. 2002) and
visual RFs (van Mulken 2003). Because its dimensions can clearly be linked to theoretical drivers
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 21

of consumer ad processing, such as incongruity, complexity, or meaning openness (Callister and

Stern 2007; Huhmann 2007; McQuarrie and Mick 1996; Mothersbaugh et al. 2002), its dimen-
sions are robust for theory testing as well as classifying advertisements via content analysis.
However, McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy is less useful to advertising practitioners wanting
to design visual RFs for use in marketing communication. Its categories and definitions are too
theoretical and broad to give much prescriptive advice in creating ad images. Instead, the less
parsimonious but more descriptive taxonomies of Phillips and McQuarrie and Durand should be
of more use in designing advertising images because they explicitly list a variety of specific tech-
niques to generate visual RFs.
In a similar vein, these less parsimonious taxonomies may be best for researchers creating
experimental materials. Looking at the results of the current study for these more fine-grained
descriptive taxonomies may help researchers develop experimental materials that will achieve the
type of advertising outcome they want.
Advertising educators should probably have knowledge of all the taxonomies. However, adver-
tising educators could certainly find value in the current study to teach students which categories
of visual RFs are most effective.

Relationship with results of prior studies

The current study also adds value by extending knowledge of RFs beyond that established in ear-
lier studies. Maes and Schilperoord (2008) compared three visual RF taxonomies (Groupe Mu
1992; Forceville 1996; Phillips and McQuarrie 2004) originating in the visual rather than the ver-
bal modality. They applied these taxonomies to a handful of specially chosen ad exemplars to
develop heuristics for identifying visual RFs. Identification of RFs had been a problem in some
earlier research, but the current study finds that good reliability in identifying RFs can be
achieved with thorough coder training.
Coders in other earlier studies had difficulties in identifying RFs in advertising and classifying
them into particular categories (Leigh 1994; van Mulken 2003). Thus, the current study used two
pretests to educate coders. Despite this extensive training, coders still reported that the definitions
for Groupe Mu categories were complex and difficult to understand. Earlier studies had also
criticized Groupe Mu’s categories as difficult to apply in practice (Maes and Schilperoord 2008).
It took a greater length of time for our coders to be comfortable applying Groupe Mu’s taxonomy
than the other taxonomies; however, after clarifying the definitions (see added clarifications in
Figure 3) and providing additional examples of each category, coder reliability was more than
adequate. In fact, all the visual RF taxonomies achieved adequate overall intercoder reliability.
McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy had the best average intercoder reliability. Particularly high reli-
ability within this taxonomy was observed for McQuarrie and Mick’s reversal scheme category, in
which visual elements are reversed, opposed, or antithetical in meaning. The lowest reliability
among McQuarrie and Mick’s categories was observed with substitution tropes. McQuarrie and
Mick (1996, 1999, 2003) state that, compared to destabilization tropes, substitution tropes’ inter-
pretations are simpler to resolve because substitution tropes have a single resolution or meaning.
However, they did not present any examples of how substitution tropes could be operationalized
as visual RFs, as they had done with the other categories of their typology. Further, substitution
tropes may take a variety of visual forms: (1) exaggeration, in which an exaggeratedly large or
small form of a visual element replaces a typical form, (2) synecdoche, in which a part is substi-
tuted for the whole (e.g., a bottle cap represents a bottle of Pepsi), (3) metonymy, in which a
related element stands for the intended object (e.g., pajamas in a Nyquil ad represent sleep), or
(4) ellipsis, in which some or all of a visual element is withheld, concealed, obstructed, veiled, or
disguised. For example, visual ellipsis may imply, but not show, part or all of a person who is
obstructed by or concealed behind something else; shown as an outline or silhouette; or covered
22 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

by cloth, paint, or another substance that reveals enough of the form to indicate a person’s pres-
ence. Despite the variety of forms, reliability for this category was still exceptional,
although lower.
Also, van Mulken (2003) compared two visual RF taxonomies—those of Groupe Mu and of
McQuarrie and Mick—in a content analysis with a similar sized sample of ads. However, the cur-
rent study examines the performance of a wider set of visual RF taxonomies from the advertising
literature on more criteria, including their ability to account for differences in ad processing,
which was not addressed in van Mulken’s content analysis. Beyond the ability to reliably identify
and classify visual rhetoric, what if any effect do visual RFs have on consumer processing of ad
information? Designing effective advertisements is of paramount importance to practitioners, and
the study of techniques to improve ad effectiveness continues to interest advertising researchers.
Thus, the comparison across taxonomies of visual RFs’ ability to affect advertising readership
scores should appeal to both practitioners and researchers. This is an important contribution
because it verifies the power of visual RFs in actual ads under natural exposure conditions to
enhance ad processing. Previously, research had only observed this improvement in ad processing
outcomes in laboratory experiments. The current study measured ad processing via Starch ad
readership scores, which indicate the degree of attention, brand processing, and copy readership
that an ad receives.
All six visual RF taxonomies showed higher Starch scores overall for ads classified by that tax-
onomy as containing visual RFs than those for ads without visual RFs. However, not all visual RF
taxonomies improved Starch scores at the level of the individual categories. Upon examining ad
processing effects of each taxonomy’s individual categories, only with Forceville’s and McQuarrie
and Mick’s taxonomies did ads within every category improve at least one of the three Starch
scores over ads without visual RFs. Also, only McQuarrie and Mick’s and Groupe Mu’s taxono-
mies showed predictive validity in at least half their categories supporting theorized processing
differences.
Regardless of the taxonomy, visual RFs had the greatest effect on attention to advertising, a
moderate effect on brand association, and a weaker, though often still significant, effect on extent
of ad processing or copy readership. Visual RFs, therefore, generally encourage greater noting,
attention, and brand associations, but can also sometimes pique consumers’ curiosity in ways that
promote greater investigation of the ad message, which fits the theoretical perspective on incon-
gruity and meaning openness advanced in Huhmann (2007) and Mothersbaugh et al. (2002).

Limitations and future research

The current study used archival data, Starch ad readership scores available from copy-tested
magazine advertisements. The wide variety of actual advertisements prevented the control of
many sources of extraneous variance. Future research may want to verify the overall positive
effects of visual rhetoric on ad processing indicated by our analysis of this archival data using
controlled laboratory experiments.
Although this study used a convenience sample of all advertisements for which Starch scores
were available, the incidence of visual RFs was similar to that found with more representative
samples. Both the current study and van Mulken’s (2003) content analysis of French and Dutch
magazine ads found about 1 in 6 ads do not contain any visual RFs. Of ads with visual RFs, the
current and other studies (Phillips and McQuarrie 2002; van Mulken 2003) observed more visual
tropes than visual schemes.
Another limitation may partially explain the failure to find the expected effect on ad reader-
ship scores with some categories of Groupe Mu’s, Gkiouzepas and Hogg’s, Phillips and
McQuarrie’s, and Durand’s taxonomies. This failure may be due to a low number of instances of
these categories observed in the current sample. Future research should try to overcome this by
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 23

obtaining a larger sample size of copy-tested ads or a stratified sampling procedure to ensure
adequate numbers of observations within every category.
Finally, beyond the development of visual RF taxonomies, much of the extant research on vis-
ual RFs in advertising has focused on the effects of different visual metaphors (e.g., McQuarrie
and Phillips 2005; Mohanty and Ratneshwar 2016; Phillips 1997, 2000; Phillips and McQuarrie
2002). More research is needed to better understand ad processing effects of other types of visual
RFs and, in particular, visual schemes.

Conclusion
In conclusion, work on rhetoric, including that on visual RFs, has provided fruitful insights and
useful distinctions for advertising research. The current assessment further advances the state of
the visual rhetoric literature by comparing six competing visual RF taxonomies to determine
which one exhibits the best combination of domain coverage, adequate reliability, parsimony, and
predictive validity. McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy exhibits the best balance of Hunt’s (1991)
criteria for a useful taxonomy. It has the added advantage of applicability with both verbal and
visual modalities. In fact, Phillips and McQuarrie (2002) used it to content analyze both visual
and verbal rhetoric. This is not to say that the other taxonomies lack usefulness. For practitioners
interested in designing ad images, both Durand’s and Phillips and McQuarrie’s taxonomies have
benefits because they more precisely identify specific types of visual RFs. Unlike Hill’s (2004)
assertion that tools developed for verbal rhetoric cannot effectively be applied in a visual rhetoric
context, this study concurs with previous studies (Phillips and McQuarrie 2002; van Mulken
2003) that, at least with regard to RFs, tools such as McQuarrie and Mick’s taxonomy based on
millennia of study of classical rhetoric can be effectively applied to the visual modality. Finally,
the current study also helps answer Groupe Mu’s (1970, 27) call for a “transrhetoric” that would
go beyond classification to seek the explanation, effect, and value of different rhetorical figures
because the current study documents strong effects of visual RFs on ad attention and smaller, but
often still significant, effects on ad copy readership.

References
Calkins, Earnest. 1928. Business the Civiliser. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
Callister, Mark A., and Lesa A. Stern. 2007. “Inspecting the Unexpected: Schema and the Processing of Visual
Deviations.” In Go Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric, edited by Edward F. McQuarrie and
Barbara J. Phillips, 137–156. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Durand, Jacques. 1987. “Rhetorical Figures in the Advertising Image.” In Marketing and Semiotics: New Directions
in the Study of Signs for Sale, edited by Donna Jean Umiker-Sebeok, 295–318. New York, NY: Mouton de
Gruyte.
Durand, Jacques. 1978. “Figures de rhetorique et image publicitaire: Compte rendu d’une recherche.” Humanisme
et entreprise 110:25–34.
Durand, Jacques. 1970. “Rhetoric and Advertising Image.” Communications 15 (1):70–95.
Dyer, Gillian. 1982. Advertising as Communication. London, UK: Routledge.
Finn, Adam. 1988. “Print Ad Recognition Readership Scores: An Information Processing Perspective.” Journal of
Marketing Research 25 (2):168–77.
Forceville, Charles. 2007. “Pictorial and Multimodal Metaphors in Commercials.” In Go Figure! New Directions in
Advertising Rhetoric, edited by Edward F. McQuarrie and Barbara J. Phillips, 178–204. Armonk, NY: M.E.
Sharpe.
Forceville, Charles. 1996. Pictorial Metaphor in Advertising. London, UK: Routledge
Franke, George R., Bruce A. Huhmann, and David L. Mothersbaugh. 2004. “Information Content and Consumer
Readership of Print Ads: A Comparison of Search and Experience Products.” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science 32 (1):20–31.
Funk, V. A. 1983. “The Value of Natural Classification.” In Numerical Taxonomy, edited by Joseph Felsenstein,
18–21. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
24 B. A. HUHMANN AND P. A. ALBINSSON

Gkiouzepas, Lampros, and Margaret K. Hogg. 2011. “Articulating a New Framework for Visual Metaphors in
Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 40 (1):103–20.
Gray, Stephanie A., and Rita Snyder. 1989. “Metaphor in Advertising: Effects on Memory.” In Proceedings of the
Society for Consumer Psychology, edited by Meryl P. Gardner, 85–87. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Groupe Mu. 1992. Traite du Signe Visual. Pour une Rhetorique de L’image. Paris, France: Seuil.
Groupe Mu. 1980. “Plan D’une Rhetorique De L’image.” Kodikas Code 2:249–68.
Groupe Mu. 1970. Rhetorique Generale. Paris, France: Larousse.
Halkias, Georgios, and Flora Kokkinaki. 2014. “The Degree of Ad-Brand Incongruity and the Distinction between
Schema-driven and Stimulus-driven Attitudes.” Journal of Advertising 43 (4):397–409.
Hill, Charles A. 2004. “The Psychology of Rhetorical Images” in Defining Visual Rhetorics, edited by Charles A.
Hill and Marguerite Helmers, 25–40. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Huhmann, Bruce A. 2007. “A Model of the Cognitive and Emotional Processing of Rhetorical Works in
Advertising.” In Go Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric, edited by Edward F. McQuarrie and
Barbara J. Phillips, 133–175. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Huhmann, Bruce A., and Pia A. Albinsson. 2012. “Does Rhetoric Impact Advertising Effectiveness with Liking
Controlled?” European Journal of Marketing 46 (11/12):1476–500.
Huhmann, Bruce A., George R. Franke, and David L. Mothersbaugh. 2012. “Print Advertising: Executional Factors
and the RPB Grid.” Journal of Business Research 65 (6):849–954.
Hunt, Shelby D. 1991. Modern Marketing Theory: Critical Issues in the Philosophy of Marketing Science. Cincinnati,
OH: South-Western.
Kaplan, Stuart J. 1992. “A Conceptual Analysis of Form and Content in Visual Metaphors.” Communication
13:197–209.
Leigh, James H. 1994. “The Use of Figures of Speech in Print Ad Headlines.” Journal of Advertising 23 (2):17–33.
Linnaeus, Carl. 1750, published 1820. “Letter to the Marquis of Grimaldi.” In A Selection of the Correspondence of
Linnaeus, and Other Naturalistists, from the Original Manuscripts, Vol. 2, edited by James Edward Smith,
459–463. London, UK: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown.
Maes, Alfons, and Joost Schilperoord. 2008. “Classifying Visual Rhetoric: Conceptual And Structural Heuristics,” in
Go Figure! New Directions in Advertising Rhetoric, edited by Edward F. McQuarrie and Barbara J. Phillips,
227–253. New York, NY: M.E. Sharpe.kaplan.
Maes, Alfons, and Joost Schilperoord. 2009. “Schemes and Tropes in Visual Communication:The Case of Object
Grouping in Advertisements.” In Discourse of Course: An Overview of Research in Discourse Studies, edited by
Jan Renkema, 67–79. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamin Publishing.
McGuire, William J. 2000. “Standing on the Shoulders of the Ancients: Consumer Research, Persuasion, and
Figurative Language.” Journal of Consumer Research 27 (1):109–14.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and David G. Mick. 2009. “A Laboratory Study of the Effect of Verbal Rhetoric versus
Repetition When Consumers Are Not Directed to Process Advertising.” International Journal of Advertising 28
(2):287–312.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and David G. Mick. 2003. “Visual and Verbal Rhetorical Figures under Directed Processing
versus Incidental Exposure to Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4):579–87.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and David G. Mick. 1999. “Visual Rhetoric in Advertising: Text-Interpretive, Experimental,
and Reader-Response Analyses.” Journal of Consumer Research 26 (1):37–54.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and David G. Mick. 1996. “Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language.” Journal of
Consumer Research 22 (4):424–37.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and Barbara J. Phillips. 2008. “It’s Not Your Father’s Magazine Ad: Magnitude and
Direction of Recent Changes in Advertising Style.” Journal of Advertising 37 (3):95–106.
McQuarrie, Edward F., and Barbara J. Phillips. 2005. “Indirect Persuasion in Advertising—How Consumers
Process Metaphors Presented in Pictures and Words.” Journal of Advertising 34 (2):7–20.
Messaris, Paul. 1997. Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Messaris, Paul. 2009. “What’s Visual about ‘Visual Rhetoric’?” Quarterly Journal of Speech 95 (2):210–23.
Mohanty, Praggyan (Pam), 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 (3):443–60.
Mothersbaugh, David L., Bruce A. Huhmann, and George R. Franke. 2002. “Combinatory and Separative Effects of
Rhetorical Figures on Consumers’ Effort and Focus in Ad Processing.” Journal of Consumer Research 28
(4):589–602.
Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Perreault, William D., Jr., and Laurence E. Leigh. 1989. “Reliability of Nominal Data Based on Qualitative
Judgments.” Journal of Marketing Research 26 (2):135–48.
Phillips, Barbara J. 2003. “Understanding Visual Metaphor in Advertising.” In Persuasive Imagery: A Consumer
Perspective, edited by Linda M. Scott and Rajeev Batra, 297–310. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 JOURNAL OF CURRENT ISSUES & RESEARCH IN ADVERTISING 25

Phillips, Barbara J. 2000. “The Impact of Verbal Anchoring on Consumer Response to Image Ads.” Journal of
Advertising 29 (1):15–24.
Phillips, Barbara J. 1997. “Thinking into It: Consumer Interpretation of Complex Advertising Images.” Journal of
Advertising 26 (2):77–87.
Phillips, Barbara J., and Edward F. McQuarrie. 2004. “Beyond Visual Metaphor: A New Typology of Visual
Rhetoric in Advertising.” Marketing Theory 4 (1–2):113–36.
Phillips, Barbara J., and Edward F. McQuarrie. 2002. “The Development, Change, and Transformation of
Rhetorical Style in Magazine Advertisements, 1954–1999.” Journal of Advertising 31 (4):1–13.
Rust, Roland T., and Bruce Cooil. 1994. “Reliability Measures for Qualitative Data: Theory and Implications.”
Journal of Marketing Research 31 (1):1–14.
Scott, Linda M. 1994. “Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric.” Journal of Consumer
Research 21 (2):252–73.
Theodorakis, Ioannis G., Christos Koritos, and Vlasis Stathakopoulos. 2015. “Rhetorical Maneuvers in a
Controversial Tide: Assessing the Boundaries of Advertising Rhetoric.” Journal of Advertising 44 (1):14–24.
Tom, Gail, and Anmarie Eves. 1999. “The Use of Rhetorical Devices in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising
Research 39:39–43.
Toncar, Mark, and James Munch. 2001. “Consumer Responses to Tropes in Print Advertising.” Journal of
Advertising 30 (1):55–65.
van Mulken, Margot. 2003. “Analyzing Rhetorical Devices in Print Advertisements.” Document Design 4
(2):114–28.
van Mulken, Margot, Andreu van Hooft, and Ulrike Nederstigt. 2014. “Finding the Tipping Point: Visual
Metaphor and Conceptual Complexity in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 43 (4):333–43.
Weber, Rob. 2012. “Evaluating and Developing Theories in the Information Systems Discipline.” Journal of the
Association for Information Systems 13 (1):1–30.