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

net/publication/325343567

Measures of aesthetic dimensions and reactions in advertising

Article in International Journal of Advertising · May 2018

DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2018.1442632

CITATIONS READS

19 674

2 authors:

Jennifer Zarzosa Bruce Huhmann

Henderson State University Virginia Commonwealth University
9 PUBLICATIONS 60 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 1,585 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bruce Huhmann on 28 August 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Advertising
The Review of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 0265-0487 (Print) 1759-3948 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rina20

Measures of aesthetic dimensions and reactions in

advertising

Jennifer Zarzosa & Bruce A. Huhmann

To cite this article: Jennifer Zarzosa & Bruce A. Huhmann (2018): Measures of aesthetic
dimensions and reactions in advertising, International Journal of Advertising, DOI:
10.1080/02650487.2018.1442632

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1442632

Published online: 24 May 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 16

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rina20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2018.1442632

Measures of aesthetic dimensions and reactions in advertising

Jennifer Zarzosaa and Bruce A. Huhmannb
a
School of Business, Henderson State University, Arkadelphia, AR, USA; bSchool of Business, Virginia
Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Advertising increasingly uses discrepant imagery featuring Received 7 February 2016
unsettling portrayals rather than traditional imagery featuring Accepted 13 February 2018
aspirational models, products, and settings. Thus, the need for more KEYWORDS
valid and reliable measures has limited much research investigating Aesthetics; advertising
advertising aesthetics to conceptual or qualitative approaches. To imagery; transgression;
meet this need, the current research applies art and aesthetic artistic quality; ideal beauty;
theory in developing scales that measure aesthetic dimensions and antithetical aesthetic; scale
reactions of advertising visuals. First, it develops and validates development
measures for the aesthetic dimensions of ideal beauty and the
antithetical aesthetic as well as aesthetic reactions of transgression
and artistic quality. Then, it demonstrates predictive validity by
testing each dimension’s influence on aesthetic reactions, attention,
and attitudes toward the ad and brand.

Introduction
Aesthetics influence consumers’ response to art, advertising, packaging, product design,
logos, branding, and service environments as well as purchase decisions (Bloch, Brunel,
and Arnold 2003; Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008; Kumar and Garg 2010; Orth and Wirth 2014;
Payne et al. 2013; Pracejus, Olsen and O’Guinn 2006). Quantitative research (e.g., Rama-
chandran and Hirstein 1999), qualitative research (e.g., Joy and Sherry 2003; Phillips and
McQuarrie 2010), and conceptual work (Leder et al. 2004) have explored the nature of the
aesthetic experience. Content analysis has documented instances of specific types of aes-
thetic appeals (e.g., Phillips and McQuarrie 2011). Researchers have studied a variety of
aesthetic stylizations, such as surreal imagery (Homer and Kahle 1986), absurdity (Arias-
Bolzmann, Chakraborty, and Mowen 2000), comedic violence (Yoon 2016; Weinberger
et al. 2017), threat, humour, fantasy, or nostalgia (Main, Argo, and Huhmann 2004). Other
research has examined the effects of stylistic properties of stimuli (e.g., Kumar and Garg
2010; Payne et al. 2013; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998), often from the experimental aes-
thetics tradition (Berlyne 1971). However, without scales to measure specific aesthetic
dimensions and aesthetic reactions, the ability to predict aesthetic reactions associated
with aesthetic dimensions is limited. Scales would be beneficial to both practitioners and
researchers in measuring the type of aesthetic dimensions and their corresponding reac-
tions present in advertising.

CONTACT Jennifer Zarzosa zarzosj@hsu.edu

© 2018 Advertising Association
2 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

The current study addresses this gap in understanding by introducing aesthetic dimen-
sions rooted in advertising aesthetics, art history, and aesthetic theory. Aesthetic theory
contributes discrepant dimensions that do not fit the ‘pretty girl + attractive things +
lovely surroundings formula’ typically researched in advertising (Phillips and McQuarrie
2010, pg. 386). A better understanding of aesthetic dimensions should help advertisers
acquire the necessary visual vocabulary of representation to successfully encode visual
messages (Schroeder 2002) and better execute visual storytelling.
Fashion advertising is a useful context for investigating aesthetic dimensions because it
is often on the forefront of emerging trends in advertising and the aesthetic component is
dominant in fashion (Phillips and McQuarrie 2011). Fashion advertising includes advertise-
ments appearing in fashion magazines (e.g., Vogue or Vanity Fair) for clothing and accesso-
ries, such as handbags, jewellery, or shoes (Phillips and McQuarrie 2010). This operational
definition focuses on luxury fashion adverting and excludes advertisements for beauty
products, such as shampoo and cosmetics, or non-luxury clothing. Thus, the current
study’s purpose is to (1) conceptualize aesthetic dimensions and aesthetic reactions, (2)
develop reliable and valid measures of these measures, and (3) empirically demonstrate
each aesthetic dimension’s impact on aesthetic reactions.

Aesthetic experience
As we live in an increasing aestheticization of the world, there is a growing importance of
understanding aesthetics and its impact on aesthetic experience (Postrel 2003). According
to Leder et al. (2004), aesthetic experience is a cognitive process accompanied by continu-
ously upgrading affective states that vice a versa are appraised, resulting in an aesthetic
emotion and/or judgement. The process begins with perceptual analyses including varia-
bles such as contrast, complexity, symmetry, order, and grouping (Ramachandran and
Hirstein 1999; Berlyne 1971; Tyler 2002; Marr 1982). While perceptual variables impact aes-
thetic judgement, they only influence simple judgements. Moreover, there are other ad
factors to consider such as familiarity, prototypically, and peak shifts effects (Zajonc 1968;
Ramachandran and Hirstein 1999). Yet style and content are posited to determine the
magnitude of aesthetic emotion and judgement. In particular, recognizing and under-
standing the style have become essential for the aesthetic experience. As a result, process-
ing is affected by the viewer’s expertise and knowledge. Experts tend to process using
style for a cognitive response or aesthetic judgment while novices refer to content for an
aesthetic emotion (Winston and Cupchik 1992).
Another perspective on the power of stylization comes from advertising rhetoric. Adver-
tising rhetoric theory views images as part of a convention-based symbolic system (Scott
1994a). Past research indicates both visual rhetoric in images and figurative language in
advertisement text have communicative power (e.g., McQuarrie and Mick 2003). However,
the visual surpasses the verbal in advertising impact, because consumers interact with
advertisements as pictures to be viewed rather than documents to be read (McQuarrie and
Phillips 2008). Reader-response theory states that there is no single correct mode of inter-
pretation. Instead, interpretation is based on learned and shared conventions (Scott 1994b).
Furthermore, Scott and Vargas (2007) argue that interpretation systems for images and writ-
ing are similar. Consumer response varies depending on the stylization of the image. Some
images are more abstract and conceptual, provoking more thought.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 3

Aesthetic dimensions
We explore nuances of image stylization by introducing aesthetic dimensions. After a
thorough literature review and visual analysis of fashion advertising in issues of Vogue,
two aesthetic dimensions were identified: idealized beauty and antithetical aesthetic.

Idealized beauty aesthetic

Although the cultural definition of beauty is multidimensional and fluid (Solomon, Ashmore
and Longo 1992), the predominant mode of visual representation is idealized beauty (Con-
nelly 2003). Idealized beauty refers to the normative ideal of what a person, place, or object
should look like as opposed to what they actually look like. The normative ideal is shaped
by consumer socialization, popular culture, and societal norms and expectations.
While many ads feature attractive models, the idealized beauty aesthetic showcases
imagery that supports the archetypes of ‘normative beauty’ featuring the ‘pretty girl +
attractive things + lovely surroundings formula’ (Phillips and McQuarrie 2010, 386). As
such, these ads represent the romanticized stylizations and aspirational behaviours within
glamorous settings. The idealized beauty aesthetic supports aspirational advertising, an
intentional communication strategy that features products associated with social out-
groups that the consumer seeks membership into (Dimofte, Goodstein, Brumbaugh
2015). The goal is to persuade viewers to emulate portrayed behaviours and lifestyles
through purchase of advertised brands. Prior research has criticized idealized beauty in
advertising as presenting unrealistic imagery, harming viewers’ self-esteem, and creating
‘haunting images of perfection and wealth’ (Richins 1991, 71).
Consider two advertisements that Phillips and McQuarrie (2010) identified as exemplars
of idealized beauty. The Bottega Veneta ad (Table 1, Ad 1) shows a stylishly dressed, classi-
cally beautiful model against an elegant sepia-toned background. The stylization is akin to
minimalism with high negative space. The model is posed with a reserved expression sim-
ilar to classical Greco-Roman statues. The Michael Kors ad (Table 1, Ad 3) shows a fashion-
ably dressed, classically beautiful woman posed beside a luxury automobile in an
impressive outdoor setting. The imagery promotes the glamourous jet-setting lifestyle of
a socialite who might be embarking on a weekend trip to a nearby get-a-way. Lastly, the
second Bottega Veneta ad (Table 1, Ad 2) shows a chicly dressed woman in a power pose
looking upward with high negative space in the background in an upward camera angle.
In all examples, the idealized beauty style reinforces the normative views of what feminine
luxury should be – elegant, glamourous, and powerful.
Consistent with reader-response theory (Scott 1994b), viewers can engage with ads dif-
ferently (Phillips and McQuarrie 2010). For example, viewers can engage with this type of
aspirational luxury advertising for identity making purposes. At the same time, viewers
who possess art expertise (e.g., historical importance, knowledge about artist, etc.) are
able to interpret the stylization (Leder et al. 2004), as if the ad were a work of art through
ad immersion (Phillips and McQuarrie 2010). As a result, it is hypothesized that:
H1: The idealized beauty aesthetic dimension positively affects perceived artistic quality.
Advertisements possessing artistic quality are perceived as creative, skilful, and expressive
(Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008) by viewers. As such, artistic quality is conceptualized as an
4 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

Table 1. Examples of advertising aesthetic dimensions.

Go to http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/
viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.879.7712&
rep=rep1&type=pdf. See page 379.

The image is reproduced with the

permission of Marc Jacobs.

Go to https://www.fashiongonerogue.com/ The image is reproduced with the

bottega-veneta-spring-2011-campaign- permission of Marc Jacobs.
karolina-kurkova-alex-prager/. See third ad.

The image is reproduced with the The image is reproduced with the
permission of Michael Kors. permission of Yves Saint Laurent.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 5

aesthetic reaction to an aesthetic dimension. The construct will be explained in the ‘aes-
thetic reactions’ section.

Antithetical aesthetic
The antithetical aesthetic is defined as an anti-glamour aesthetic that celebrates the ugly
through the model stylization, behaviour, and setting. The antithetical aesthetic depicts
odd characters with a strange appearance, performing abject activities or bizarre behav-
iours within peculiar surroundings. The antithetical aesthetic can be brutally realistic with
images of despair, melancholy and anxiety. One fashion advertising example is ‘heroin
chic’, which features androgynous models with emaciated bodies, pale skin, and dark
circles under their eyes (Bruzzi and Gibson 2000). The antithetical aesthetic is an ugly por-
trayal of idealized beauty (Eco 2007). It is a reaction to the perfection inherent in the ideal-
ized beauty aesthetic dimension. It disrupts Kantian notion of aesthetics as pure pleasure
(Connelly 2003).
Despite the tendency to generalize fashion luxury advertising as solely consisting of
idealized beauty images, Phillips and McQuarrie’s (2011) content analysis found that about
one-third of women’s fashion advertisements contain imagery that radically departs from
idealized beauty aesthetic. Why would advertisers use antithetical aesthetic imagery? Art
history sheds some light. According to Umberto Eco (2007), ugliness has been defined
through the ages solely as beauty’s opposite. During that time, beauty acquired a conno-
tation of ‘good’ while ugliness was associated with ‘bad.’
Although art has historically emphasized idealized images, movements in conceptual
art beginning in 1917 with Marcel Duchamp’s work, such as the avant-garde movement
of the early twentieth century, helped ugliness find acceptance through an antithetical
aesthetic, because ‘what will be appreciated tomorrow as great art could seem distasteful
today’ (Eco 2007, 365). According to Sol (1967), conceptual art is made to engage the
mind of the viewer rather than the eye or emotions. Since Duchamp’s use of everyday
objects, art has been difficult to recognize. Ironically, the conceptual photography move-
ment in the 1960s and 1970s introduced an antithetical aesthetic relying on ‘non-art’ – a
deskilled, un-authored, pedestrian mode for creating art (Cotton 2004) with images fre-
quently resembling snapshots (Bruzzi and Gibson 2000). Because of these art history
movements, ads that use an anti-glamour stylization can be perceived to some viewers as
creative, skilful, and expressive. Hence, it is hypothesized that:
H2: The antithetical aesthetic positively affects perceived artistic quality.
The artistic quality construct is conceptualized as an aesthetic reaction to an aesthetic
dimension. Therefore, it will be explained in ‘aesthetic reactions’ section.
Phillips and McQuarrie (2010) exemplified the grotesque through an Yves St. Laurent
ad (Table 1, Ad 6) with a deliberate antithetical aesthetic. An androgynous model with a
crew cut and bizarre make-up is prowling like a cat across a guano-stained roofline. There
seems to be no good reason as to why she would be there, especially not in high heels.
This ugly portrayal of an attractive model circumvents ideal beauty through the antitheti-
cal aesthetic. The Yves St. Laurent ad violates the norms of idealized beauty and the social
codes of fashion as an institution by conveying an evocative artistic quality similar to
avant-garde art.
6 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

H3: The antithetical aesthetic positively affects perceived transgression.

Similar to artistic quality, the transgression construct is conceptualized as an aesthetic
reaction to an aesthetic dimension and will be explained in the next section.

Aesthetic reactions
In line with the aesthetic experience model (Leder et al. 2004), we investigate responses to
aesthetic stimuli. Two aesthetic reactions were identified: transgression and artistic
quality.

Transgression
We propose a broad definition for transgression whereby it flouts established conven-
tions, challenges standards, and pushes or expands boundaries (Jenks 2003). According to
Jervis (1999, 4), transgression ‘involves hybridization, the mixing of categories and the
questioning of the boundaries that separate categories.’ Transgression prevents stagna-
tion by breaking rules but ensures stability by reaffirming that rules exist. Thus, transgres-
sion iteratively denies and affirms conventions and norms; it’s needed for the norm to
function. As perceptions change, images that once appeared transgressive become com-
monplace (Harpham 1976). Thus, transgression is dynamic and evolves as established con-
ventions change.
The concept of transgression has been studied through provocation, taboo, and shock.
Provocation advertising has been characterized as a deliberate attempt to gain attention
through shock via three components: distinctiveness, ambiguity, and transgression of
taboos (De Pelsmacker and Van Den Bergh 1996; Vezina and Paul 1997). Distinctiveness
refers to the extent the ad is viewed as original. Intentional ambiguity intrigues, making it
harder for the viewer to interpret. It allows the viewer to draw his or her own conclusion,
which reinforces the message. A taboo is a behavioural or verbal act that societal norms
prohibit and deem publicly unmentionable (Sabri and Obermiller 2012). Provocation or
shock advertising is a deliberate strategy to shock or offend the audience through many
different types of appeals including disgusting images, sexual references, profanity/
obscenity, vulgarity, impropriety, moral offensiveness, and religious taboos (Dahl, Franken-
berger, and Manchandia 2003).
Taken together provocation, shock, and taboo are conceptually connected. Provocation
and shock advertising are part of a deliberate communication strategy to intentionally
shock the viewer. Taboo is a stimulus that can be used to support provocation and shock
advertising. However, it differs from the latter because it is not always deliberate; thus, it
covers a broader range of situations (Sabri, Manceau, and Pras 2010).
As a broad aesthetic reaction, transgression can be enacted in many ways such as prov-
ocation and shock advertising that intentionally shocks the viewer through taboos as well
as through stylizations such as the antithetical aesthetic. Previous research suggests prov-
ocation and shock advertising, increases attention (Dahl, Frankenberger, and Manchanda
2003) while negatively impacting attitude towards the ad (De Pelsmacker and Van Den
Bergh 1996) and brand attitude (Sabri and Obermiller 2012; Vezina and Paul 1997). By
extension, we posit the antithetical aesthetic, via transgression, influences attention, Aad,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 7

and Ab, as the nature of transgression is to challenges norms. In the same vein, we pro-
pose the antithetical aesthetic, via transgression, will elicit word-of-mouth, as it will trigger
high arousal and affect (Phelps et al. 2004). The amount of discrepant ads using the anti-
thetical aesthetic has increased (Phillips and McQuarrie 2011), suggesting fashion con-
sumers respond favourably (i.e., Aad) to this stylization. Consistent with prior advertising
research, Aad positively influences Ab and WOM.
H4: Transgression mediates the antithetical aesthetic’s effects on consumer responses of
attention, attitude toward the ad, brand attitude, and word-of-mouth.

Artistic quality
Advertisements with artistic quality are similar to artworks that are perceived as skilful and
creative expressions of the human experience (Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008), therefore, they
look more like works in an art gallery than a magazine. The stylization orientation can
range from the antithetical aesthetic that celebrates the ugly to the idealized beauty aes-
thetic that conforms to aspirational norms. Perceptual variables such as contrast, complex-
ity, colour, symmetry, order, and grouping (Ramachandran and Hirstein 1999; Zeki 1980;
Berlyne 1971; Tyler 2002; Marr 1982), implicit memory variables such as familiarity, proto-
typically, and peak shifts effects (Zajonc 1968; Ramachandran and Hirstein 1999), and style
and content (Leder et al. 2004) determine the aesthetic reaction. Despite stylization orien-
tation, artists who create an ad with artistic quality deploy these aesthetic principles.
The Marc Jacobs ad (Table 1, Ad 4) features a ghost-like model with strange make-up
tossing her hair in despair. Her facial expression conveys the feeling of fear and pain and
an overall sense of macabre. Similarly, Ad 5 depicts the same ghost-like model holding
her right hand in a nonsensical expression. The background is non-descript and appears
to be an abandoned building with crumbling paint in the background. In line with the
antithetical aesthetic, the setting is bizarre, the model has a strange appearance and is act-
ing peculiar. Akin to the avant-garde, ugly is being celebrated in a ‘non-art’ style of con-
ceptual art.
The Bottega Veneta ad (Table 1, Ad 2) shows a model with similar facial features, yet
with a contrasting style. Her hair and make-up aligns with the normative idealized beauty
standards. She is stylishly dressed in a power pose stance, looking upwards, expressing
confident elegance against the light blue sky background. The colour contrast of black
and light blue along with the asymmetrical orientation (e.g., all visual elements are in the
right) draws the viewer.
Regardless of the stylization orientation, the viewer must perceive the ad as creative,
skilful, and expressive (Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008). Overall, viewers possess a general
schema for art (Joy and Sherry 2003) and acknowledge its power to arouse. Similar to
transgression, high arousal and affect (Phelps et al. 2004) can result in WOM. Since during
an aesthetic experience, viewers engage in extensive processing of stylistic concepts (Per-
achhio and Meyers-Levy 2005; Leder et al. 2004), we would expect artistic quality to influ-
ence attention. Moreover, art has a long connotation of exclusivity, luxury, and
sophistication evidenced by the ‘art infusion’ effect, whereby art has a favourable influ-
ence on consumer response (Hagtvedt and Patrick 2008). Therefore, we suggest the ideal
beauty and antithetical aesthetic, via artistic quality, will influence attention, Aad, and Ab.
8 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

H5: Artistic quality mediates the effects of ideal beauty and the antithetical aesthetic on
consumer responses of attention, attitude toward the ad, brand attitude, and word-
of-mouth.
The artistic quality construct is an important contribution to the advertising literature. It
supports previous research that posits consumers engage with advertisements possessing
high levels of artistic quality as if they were works of art (Phillips and McQuarrie 2010). This
has led some to conceptualize advertising as another art form (Scott 1994a; Scott and Var-
gas 2007). The artistic quality of the ad helps evoke an aesthetic experience similar to that
of an artwork. Artistic quality, whether antithetical or idealized beauty, refer to the styliza-
tion of the ad as if it were a work of art.

Scale development
Prior scales do not exist for the aesthetic reactions of transgression or artistic quality. An
established scale already exists for taboo (Sabri 2007). However, not much information is
provided about the development, reliability, and validation of these scales Thus, the next
section will detail the development of new measures for the aesthetic reactions of trans-
gression and artistic quality as well as the aesthetic dimensions of ideal beauty, the anti-
thetical aesthetic, taboo, and absurdity. To develop psychometrically and theoretically
valid measures, scale development followed recommended procedures (Churchill 1979;
Gerbing and Anderson 1988; Hair et al. 2010).

Item generation and reduction

A comprehensive literature review in marketing and other relevant domains helped iden-
tify 50 Likert-scale items with endpoints of strongly disagree (1) and strongly agree (7) for
the scales without existing measures: 15 transgression items, 15 antithetical aesthetic
items, 10 artistic quality items, and 10 ideal beauty items. Thirty-six items remained after
review by subject matter experts to ensure that measures evinced content validity by fully
representing the definition of each aesthetic dimension.

Study 1: Item refinement and purification

Students at a southwestern U.S. university rated fashion advertisements on the 36 remain-
ing items (n = 117). These ads were carefully selected based on an exploratory content
analysis of 954 fashion ads (Zarzosa and Luna-Nevarez 2011) representing 40 fashion lux-
ury brands from the luxury fashion brands index (Okonkwo 2016). The sample captured
ads from Vogue magazine for 1995 to 2000 and 2005 to 2010 from September and Febru-
ary issues to represent fall and spring collections.
The appropriateness in describing the aesthetic reaction and dimension constructs of
the remaining items was tested via exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using maximum likeli-
hood extraction method with Promax rotation. Maximum likelihood is generally consid-
ered best for exploring underlying factors for theoretical purposes. Promax, a type of
oblique rotation, generates correlations among factors and provides a more accurate and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 9

practical illustration of correlations among constructs. Oblique rotation was appropriate

because the dimensions were thought to be correlated.
Cross-loading items and items with factor loadings below 0.4 were deleted. Of the 14
transgression items, three remained after EFA (coefficient alpha = .780). The factor on
which these items loaded explained 50.6% of the variance among transgression items.
Four of the six artistic quality items remained after EFA (coefficient alpha = .692; total vari-
ance explained = 49.2%). Further, ‘This image lacks artistic appeal’ was reworded as ‘This
image has artistic appeal.’ Its original wording confused participants. Four of the 10 anti-
thetical aesthetic items (coefficient alpha = .814; total variance explained = 54.6%) and
four of the six ideal beauty items remained after EFA (coefficient alpha = .798; total vari-
ance explained = 52.8%).

Study 2: Measurement model

Structural equation modelling (SEM) tested the measurement model’s proposed structure
using the purified measures from the EFA plus the items taken from the prior measure of
taboo. Data were collected via a second questionnaire in which each participant rated
one of six fashion advertisements from issues of Vogue (Table 1, Ads 1 to 6). Participants
were 195 students at a southwestern U.S. university.
A series of models were examined and estimated via the maximum likelihood estima-
tion in AMOS. The initial measurement model fit poorly (x2 = 1719.56, df = 179, CMIN/
DF = 9.61; CFI = .89, NFI = .85, AGFI = .62, and RMSEA = .111). After the initial model fit, the
modification indices and standardized residuals were examined. Three taboo items loaded
poorly and were deleted. Model fit improved (x2 = 460.59, df = 236, CMIN/DF = 2.01; CFI =
.97, NFI = 0.94, AGFI = .77, and RMSEA = .075). Overall, model statistics imply good fit.
Table 2 lists final scale items, factor loadings, and critical ratio values.

Competing measurement models

To mitigate concerns regarding correlations among aesthetic dimensions, alternative fac-
tor structures were also examined. A series of competing models were tested against a
null or independence model baseline with no factors underlying the remaining observed
indicators, correlations between observed indicators equal to zero and unrestrained error
variances (Hair et al. 2010).
Competing models examined were (1) all items forced to load on a single factor; (2) a
two-factor model in which transgression, antithetical aesthetic, and taboo represent one
factor, whereas artistic quality and ideal beauty represent a second factor; (3) a three-
factor model in which transgression, and the antithetical aesthetic represent one factor,
artistic quality and ideal beauty represent another factor, and taboo represents a third fac-
tor; (4) the four-factor model in which transgression, and antithetical aesthetic represent
one factor, whereas artistic quality, ideal beauty, and taboo represent separate factors;
and (5) the five-factor model in which each construct except antithetical aesthetic are sep-
arate factors.
As Table 3 indicates, the five-factor model provided the best fit. It represented an
improvement over competing models with the lowest chi-square and the best fit statistics.
10 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis of measures with correlations and alpha reliabilities on the diagonal.
Factor correlation matrix
Factor Critical Artistic Anti- Ideal
Aesthetic dimension items loadings ratio Transgression quality thetical beauty Taboo
Transgression CR = .95; AVE = .86; MSV = .61; ASV = .37 0.927
This image expands boundaries. 0.86 38.06
… pushes the limits. 0.97 57.86
… challenges standards. 0.95
Artistic quality CR = .94; AVE = .79; MSV = .25; ASV = .10 ¡0.102 0.886
… could be art. 0.91 32.29
This is the type of image that might be found in an art 0.88 30.24
gallery.
… has artistic appeal. 0.91 32.67
… has been created by an artist. 0.85
Antithetical CR = .91; AVE = .72; MSV = .66; ASV = .44 0.717 ¡0.188 0.846
… has a strange setting. 0.81 21.12
… features models that have a strange appearance. 0.87 25.04
… features models that are engaged in strange behaviour. 0.92 26.53
The image celebrates the ugly. 0.77
Ideal beauty CR = .93; AVE = .77; MSV = .54; ASV = .41 ¡0.591 0.497 ¡0.734 0.874
… depicts the conventional ideal of beauty. 0.86 28.25
… is classically beautiful. 0.92 32.56
… is idealized. 0.83 32.85
… is glamorous. 0.88
Taboo CR = .88; AVE = .70; MSV = .66; ASV = .47 0.778 ¡ 0.327 0.811 ¡0.699 0.837
The behaviour suggested in this advertisement disturbs 0.86
me.
In my opinion, this advertisement suggests a deviant 0.87 28.48
behaviour.
Showing to everyone the behaviour suggested in this ad 0.77 31.06
offends me.
Note: p  .001. Composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared squared variance (MSV),
and average shared squared variance (ASV). Items begin “This image…” except as noted.

Reliability and validity

As shown in Table 2, high levels of reliability were achieved. Individual composite scale
reliabilities ranged from 0.801 to 0.948 and coefficient alphas ranged from .837 to .927.
Convergent validity was attained as composite reliability was greater than average vari-
ance extracted (AVE). Also supporting convergent validity, AVEs exceeded 0.5. This indi-
cates that the variance explained by the construct is greater than the variance due to
error (Hair et al. 2010). Lastly, discriminant validity was attained as AVE exceeded the max-
imum shared squared variance (MSV) and average shared squared variance (ASV; Hair
et al. 2010). Discriminant validity is also exhibited because correlations between dimen-
sions are less than those along the diagonal in the correlation matrix.

Table 3. Comparative analysis of competing models.

Chi-squared Degrees of
Model ratio (x2) freedom (df) CMIN/ DF AGFI CFI NFI RMSEA
Null 9735.15 378 124.81 – – – –
One factor 2657.75 252 10.55 0.33 0.81 0.79 .240
Two factor 1795.08 251 7.15 0.44 0.86 0.83 .190
Three factor 1627.79 249 6.54 0.47 0.87 0.84 .180
Four factor 1001.25 246 4.07 0.60 0.92 0.89 .130
Five factor 616.54 242 2.55 0.71 0.95 0.93 .095
Note: CMIN/DF, the ratio of x2 to df, indicates the relative efficiency of competing models in accounting for the data.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 11

Study 3: Predictive validity

Study 3 uses the measures to determine if the aesthetic dimensions and reactions influ-
ence advertising effectiveness as expected. Thus, Study 3 assesses the measures predic-
tive validity by testing hypotheses presented earlier that were based on the literature
regarding antithetical aesthetic, ideal beauty, artistic quality, and transgression.
Method. For Study 3, 172 business, fashion, and art students at a southwestern U.S. uni-
versity rated a fashion handbag ad on the aesthetic dimension and reaction measures
developed in Study 1and common advertising effectiveness outcomes to test direct and
indirect effects on attention (Duncan and Nelson 1985), Aad (McQuarrie and Mick 2003),
Ab (Zarantonello and Schmitt 2010) and WOM (Brown et al. 2005). Actual fashion ad
images were used (Table 4) for external validity, but were altered to feature an identical
handbag and the fictional Sofia Wells brand to avoid the contaminating effects of prior
brand exposure.
Results. Data analysis proceeded in two steps (Gerbing and Anderson 1988). First, the
data confirmed that the measurement model specified in Study 2 (x2(247) = 480.02; CFI =
.98, NFI = .95, AGFI = .76, and RMSEA = .074). Internal and external consistency of each
scale was checked. Scale items are internally consistent and exhibit sufficient convergent
validity. Construct reliabilities are superior. Coefficient alpha ranges from .822 for attention
to .968 for Aad. Composite reliability ranges from .810 for attention to .970 for Aad (see
Table 5). Also, factor loadings for all scales exceed .70. Within-average variances extracted
exceed the squared correlation between pairs of constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) sug-
gesting sufficient discriminate validity.
To test hypothesized inter-variable relationships and their direct and indirect effects, a
structural model was estimated. Aesthetic reactions (e.g., transgression or artistic quality)
are hypothesized to mediate the influence of aesthetic dimensions (e.g., use of antithetical
aesthetic and ideal beauty) on advertising outcomes (e.g., attention, Aad, Ab, or WOM).

Table 4. Predictive validity stimuli.

Idealized Antithetical
12 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

Table 5. Descriptive statistics and correlations.

Constructs (no. of Anti-thetical Artistic
scale items) Mean SD CR AVE aesthetic Idealized Transgression quality Attention Aad Ab WOM
Antithetical 3.781 1.590 .855 .671 .834
aesthetic (4)
Idealized (4) 3.916 1.735 .846 .733 ¡.496 .900
Transgression (3) 3.930 1.758 .888 .729 .432 ¡.100 .864
Artistic quality (4) 3.862 1.787 .939 .794 ¡.105 .561 .117 .930
Attention (2) 4.547 1.696 .810 .890 .022 .112 .455 .240 .822
Aad (3) 3.962 1.929 .970 .915 ¡.518 .765 ¡.175 .557 .202 .968
Ab (3) 3.727 1.833 .954 .874 ¡.534 .767 ¡.201 .567 .165 .931 .946
WOM (2) 2.682 1.608 .963 .928 ¡.424 .649 ¡.008 .435 .204 .764 .793 .962
Note: Alpha reliabilities reported on the diagonal. Correlations between constructs reported below the diagonal. N =
172. SD = standard deviation; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted. p < .05 and p < .01.

Results suggest that the hypothesized model exhibits adequate fit. The structural path
coefficients appear as the direct effects in Table 6. Aesthetic dimensions influence aes-
thetic reactions as predicted. In support of H1, ideal beauty direct influences artistic qual-
ity. Moreover, the antithetical aesthetic exerts direct effects on both artistic quality and
transgression, in support of H2 and H3.
H4 and H5 are supported partially, as the aesthetic reactions of artistic quality and
transgression mediate only some aesthetic dimensions’ effects on advertising response
variables. Full mediation is indicated in Table 6 when a mediator has a significant direct
effect on an outcome variable and the mediated variable has a significant indirect, but an
insignificant direct effect on the outcome. Partial mediation is present when a mediator

Table 6. Structural model estimates – direct and indirect effects.

Direct effect Indirect effects Total effects
Path (standardized b) (standardized b) (standardized b)
Idealized beauty ! artistic 0.84 – 0.84
quality
Antithetical aesthetic ! artistic 0.36 – 0.36
quality
Antithetical aesthetic ! 0.55 – 0.55
transgression
Artistic quality ! attention 0.24 – 0.24
Transgression ! attention 0.67 – 0.67
Idealized beauty ! attention ¡0.01 0.20 0.20
Antithetical aesthetic ! ¡0.24 0.45 0.21
attention
Artistic quality ! Aad 0.16 – 0.16
Transgression ! Aad ¡0.04 – ¡0.04
Idealized beauty ! Aad 0.65 0.13 0.79
Antithetical aesthetic ! Aad ¡0.16 ¡0.04 ¡0.13
Artistic quality ! Ab 0.06 0.14 0.20
Transgression ! Ab ¡0.06 0.04 ¡0.10
Idealized beauty ! Ab – 0.77 0.77
Antithetical aesthetic ! Ab – ¡0.13 ¡0.13
Aad ! Ab 0.92 – 0.92
Artistic quality ! WOM ¡0.11 0.19 0.09
Transgression ! WOM 0.22 ¡0.09 0.12
Idealized beauty ! WOM – 0.65 0.65
Antithetical aesthetic ! WOM – ¡0.04 ¡0.04
Aad ! WOM – 0.88 0.88
Ab ! WOM 0.96 – 0.96
Note: Structural model fit is adequate: chi2(257) = 506.57; CMIN/DF = 1.97, CFI = .97, NFI = .95, AGFI = .76, and
RMSEA = .075. N = 172. p < .05 and p < .01.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 13

has a significant direct effect and the mediated variable has both significant direct and
indirect effects on an outcome.
Artistic quality fully mediates ideal beauty’s effect on attention and partially mediates
ideal beauty’s effect on Aad. Artistic quality and transgression partially mediate the anti-
thetical aesthetic’s effect on attention.
Further, the antithetical aesthetic has an unmediated direct effect on Aad and an indi-
rect effect on Ab, such that increasingly antithetical images decreases these variables. Ideal
beauty also has indirect effects on Ab and WOM, such that increasing use of idealized
images enhances these outcome variables.
In terms of aesthetic responses, artistic quality positively affects attention, Aad, and
Ab. Transgression affects attention but not ad or brand attitudes. Also, transgression
has an unmediated direct effect on WOM. Finally, consistent with prior advertising
research, Aad positively influences Ab and WOM, whereas Ab has a positive direct
effect on WOM.
Discussion. Study 3 showed that the aesthetic dimensions and reactions influence
advertising responses. Both aesthetic dimensions positively influence attention. Study 3 is
also consistent with prior research on the attitudinal effects of positive versus negative ad
imagery (e.g., Chowdhury, Olsen, and Pracejus 2008). Ideal beauty has a positive influence
on advertising outcomes; whereas the antithetical aesthetic negatively influences ad and
brand attitudes. The antithetical aesthetic’s negative impacts on Aad and Ab is similar to
prior research on violent and taboo images, which should also elicit an aesthetic reaction
of transgression (Andersson et al. 2004; Dahl, Frankenberger, and Manchanda 2003; Sabri
and Obermiller 2012). Although Study 3 investigated aesthetic dimensions’ and reactions’
effects on advertising outcomes, future research should explore their impact on viewers’
aesthetic experience (e.g., narrative transportation and immersion as described in Phillips
and McQuarrie 2010).

General discussion
Previous studies have examined stylistic properties of advertising images (Kumar and Garg
2010; Veryzer and Hutchinson 1998; Meyers-Levy and Peracchio 1992; Peracchio and
Meyers-Levy 2005). The current research furthers the conversation by examining aesthetic
dimensions rooted in the rich literature of aesthetic theory and art history. A major contri-
bution is the careful development of measures for aesthetic dimensions of ideal beauty
and the antithetical aesthetic and aesthetic reactions of transgression and artistic quality.
In particular, the aesthetic reactions measures can serve as a conceptual foundation for
new constructs due to their broad nature. For instance, many methods may be used to
elicit transgression and artistic quality, despite stylizations. The latter construct of artistic
quality is particularly important in the aesthetic economy as visual consumption increases
(Schroeder 2002). Artistic quality should influence consumer attitudes toward the adver-
tised brand and perceptions brand quality as well as advertising acclaim ranging from
winning advertising industry awards to consumers reposting and sharing the advertise-
ment on social media. Future research should substantiate these potential outcomes for
advertisements rated high in artistic quality.
After generating a set of items based on the literature, Study 1 purified the measures.
Study 2 confirmed the measurement model and demonstrated the measures’ reliability
14 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

and validity. Study 3 demonstrated their usefulness in research on advertising visuals.

These measures should help advertisers enhance the effectiveness of their advertising vis-
uals and better communicate specific advertising appeals.
The development of reliable and valid measures directly addresses the call for further
inquiry into the ‘aesthetic differentiation continuum’ (Philips McQuarrie 2010). Such meas-
ures can contribute greatly by helping researchers more easily distinguish aesthetic
appeals and aiding further study of advertising visuals. For example, Study 3 illustrates
challenges for the antithetical aesthetic in isolation for enhancing attitudes. Instead, it
might be integrated with other advertising elements or appeals to affect attitudes favour-
ably. For example, comedic violence in advertising generates humour through violence,
which is generally perceived as a violation of social norms (Yoon 2016). Similarly, pairing a
positive aesthetic dimension with a negatively valenced aesthetic dimension, such as anti-
thetical aesthetic, could elicit positive consumer responses.
Future research should address the boundary conditions that determine the effective-
ness of idealized beauty and antithetical aesthetic and their effect on artistic quality and
consumer response. One consideration is the level of expertise of the viewer as processing
is affected by art knowledge and expertise (Leder et al. 2004). Experts are more likely to
cognitively process ads stylistically as opposed to novices who refer to external referents
(Parsons 1987; Winston & Cupchik 1992). In the same vein, taste and knowledge or ‘cul-
tural competence’ (Maciel and Wallendorf 2017) affect the viewer’s aesthetic experience.
Therefore, cultural competence or the level of expertise may moderate whether or not
artistic quality is elicited, because prior art knowledge (e.g., knowledge about artist, histor-
ical importance, etc.) is required to interpret the ad in the engage to immerse mode.
Another contribution to the literature is the current research’s recognition of the broad-
ened scope of aesthetic dimensions used in advertising. While much appearance-related
product advertising uses ideal beauty as a dominant aesthetic dimension, the antithetical
aesthetic under certain circumstances (e.g., product categories, target market traits, or
advertising media) may attract more attention. For instance, luxury brand managers who
target educated consumers possessing cultural competence may benefit more from using
the antithetical aesthetic compared to idealized beauty, especially using rich media such
as photography or video. Future research should investigate these circumstances or con-
textual influences.
Discrepant imagery increasingly appears in advertising. It appears in approximately
30% of women’s fashion advertisements in 2006–2007 versus 16% in 1986–1995 (Phillips
and McQuarrie 2010, 2011). The measures should also aid further research on discrepant
imagery that can augment the aesthetic continuum. Because the aesthetic dimension
measures generally demonstrated a good reliability and validity; future research should
attempt to apply them, perhaps in combination with measures of other imagery variables,
such as surreal imagery (Homer and Kahle 1986), absurdity (Arias-Bolzmann, Chakraborty,
and Mowen 2000), comedic violence (Yoon 2016; Weinberger et al. 2017), threat, humour,
fantasy, or nostalgia (Main, Argo, and Huhmann 2004).
The current research develops reliable and valid measures of the aesthetic dimensions
of ideal beauty and the antithetical aesthetic and aesthetic reactions of transgression and
artistic quality. It also demonstrates these aesthetic dimensions’ influence on the aesthetic
reactions and explicates their direct and indirect effects on consumer responses of atten-
tion and attitudes toward the ad and brand.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 15

Limitations
The current studies utilized a fashion advertising context, which can limit the generaliz-
ability of the studies. Future research should explore the generalizability of results to non-
fashion advertising contexts. To increase external validity, existing real-world ads were
used in the study. Although the ads were checked for confounding variables, future stud-
ies can replicate the results with fictitious ads for greater experimental control.
Previous research (e.g., Phillips and McQuarrie 2010) suggests that consumers engage
with advertisements using different modes depending on the aesthetic appeal. Future
research should determine how aesthetic dimensions and aesthetic reactions affect differ-
ent modes of advertising engagement (i.e., engage to act, engage to identity, engage to
feel, engage to transport, and engage to immerse). The measures developed herein
should benefit such research. Moreover, future research should address boundary condi-
tions for each advertising engagement mode. For instance, past research indicates high
levels of transportation and immersion weakened negatively valenced appeals (i.e., vio-
lence) and produced favourable consumer responses (Yang, Bergh, and Lee 2017).
Since other advertising elements or images could also elicit aesthetic reactions of trans-
gression or artistic quality, the aesthetic dimensions’ effects on advertising outcomes may
be complemented or reinforced. For example, the antithetical aesthetic might be inte-
grated with humour or fantasy to produce positive attitudes. Future research should
investigate such possibilities further.
Future research should also investigate the process linking advertisement viewing to
consumer response (Scott 1994b; Scott and Vargas 2007). The measures developed in the
current research should allow marketers to evaluate relationships between aesthetic
dimensions, aesthetic reactions, and consumer’ responses. This would enable advertisers
to examine whether a given aesthetic dimension is more appropriate for a particular prod-
uct category or advertising medium. Also, it could assist advertisers in determining if a
particular audience is more prone to a particular aesthetic reaction. These measures
should also provide insights into how imagery, with the absence of text, can communicate
with consumers whether as sensory data, visual rhetoric, or a symbolic system.

Acknowledgements
The authors thank the marketing faculty members who served as subject matter experts in Study 1:
Elise Sautter (New Mexico State University), Collin Payne (New Mexico State University), Barbara Phil-
lips (University of Saskatchewan), and Edward McQuarrie (Santa Clara University).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Jennifer Zarzosa (PhD New Mexico State University) is assistant professor of marketing at Henderson
State University. She focuses her research on advertising, fashion, and luxury consumption. Her
research appears in several conference proceedings and academic journals, such as Evolutionary Psy-
chology and Marketing Education Review.
16 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

Bruce A. Huhmann (PhD, University of Alabama) is Professor of Marketing and Department Chair at
Virginia Commonwealth University. His research focuses primarily on advertising information, execu-
tions and appeals. His work has appeared in a number of academic journals including the Journal of
Consumer Research, Journal of Advertising, International Journal of Advertising, Psychology & Market-
ing, European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Management, Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, and Journal of Business Research.

References
Andersson, S., A. Hedelin, A. Nilsson, and C. Welander. 2004. “Violent Advertising in Fashion Market-
ing.” Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management 8 (1): 96–112.
Arias-Bolzmann, L., G. Chakraborty, and J. C. Mowen. 2000. “Effects of Absurdity in Advertising: The
Moderating Role of Product Category Attitude and the Mediating Role of Cognitive Responses.”
Journal of Advertising 29 (1): 35–49.
Berlyne, D. E. 1971. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Bloch, P. H., F. F. Brunel, and T. J. Arnold. 2003. “Individual Differences in the Centrality of Visual Prod-
uct Aesthetics: Concept and Measurement.” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 551–565.
Brown, T. J., T. E. Barry, P. A. Dacin, and R. F. Gunst. 2005. “Spreading the Word: Investigating Antece-
dents of Consumers’ Positive Word-of-Mouth Intentions and Behaviors in a Retailing Context.”
Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science 33 (2): 123–138.
Bruzzi, S. and P. Gibson. 2000. Fashion Cultures: Theories, Explanations and Analysis. London:
Routledge.
Chowdhury, R. M. M. I., G. D. Olsen, and J. W. Pracejus. 2008. “Affective Responses to Images in Print
Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 37 (3): 7–18.
Churchill, G. A. 1979. “A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs.” Journal
of Marketing Research 16 (1): 64–73.
Connelly, F. S. 2003. Modern Art and the Grotesque. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Cotton, C. 2004. Photography as Contemporary Art. New York, NY: Thames & Hudson.
De Pelsmacker, P. and Van Den Bergh, J. 1996. “The Communication Effects of Provocation in Print
Advertising.” International Journal of Advertising 15 (3): 203–221.
Dahl, D. W., K. D. Frankenberger, and R. V. Manchanda. 2003. “Does it Pay to Shock? Reactions to
Shocking and Non-Shocking Advertising Content among University Students.” Journal of Advertis-
ing Research 43 (3): 268–280.
Dimofte, C. V., R. C. Goodstein, and A. M. Brumbaugh. 2015. “A Social Identity Perspective on Aspira-
tional Advertising: Implicit Threats to Collective Self–Esteem and Strategies to Overcome Them.”
Journal of Consumer Psychology 25 (3): 416–430.
Duncan, C. P., and J. E. Nelson. 1985. “Effects of Humor in Radio Advertising Experiment.” Journal of
Advertising 14 (2): 33–64.
Eco, U. 2007. On Ugliness. Trans. Alastair McEwen. New York, NY: Rizzoli.
Fornell, C. and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3): 382–388.
Gerbing, D. W., and J. C. Anderson. 1988. “An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporat-
ing Unidimensionality and its Assessment.” Journal of Marketing Research 25 (2): 186–192.
Hagtvedt, H., and V. Patrick. 2008. “Art infusion: The influence of Visual Art on the Perception and
Evaluation of Consumer Products.” Journal of Marketing Research 45 (3): 379–389.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson and R. L. Tatham. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harpham, G. 1976. “The Grotesque: First Principles.” The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 34 (4):
461–468.
Homer, P. M., and L. R. Kahle. 1986. “A Social Adaptation Explanation of the Effects of Surrealism on
Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 15 (2): 50–60.
Jenks, C. 2003. Transgression. New York, NY: Routledge.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING 17

Jervis, J. 1999. Transgressing the Modern: Explorations of the Western Experience of Otherness. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Joy, A., and J. Sherry. 2003. “Speaking of Art as Embodied Imaginations: A Multisensory Approach to
Understanding Aesthetic Experience.” Journal of Consumer Research 30 (2): 259–282.
Kumar, M. and N. Garg. 2010. “Aesthetic Principles and Cognitive Emotion Appraisals: How Much of
the Beauty Lies in the Eye of the Beholder?” Journal of Consumer Psychology 20 (4): 485–494.
Leder, H., B. Belke, A. Oeberst, and D. Augustin. 2004. “A Model of Aesthetic Appreciation and Aes-
thetic Judgments.” British Journal of Psychology 95 (4): 489–508.
Maciel, A. F., and M. Wallendorf. 2017. “Taste Engineering: An Extended Consumer Model of Cultural
Competence Constitution.” Journal of Consumer Research 43 (5): 726–746.
Main, K. J., J. J. Argo, and B. A. Huhmann. 2004. “Pharmaceutical Advertising in the USA: Information
or Influence?” International Journal of Advertising 23 (1): 119–141.
Marr, K. 1982. Vision. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
McQuarrie, E. F., and D. G. Mick. 2003. “Visual and Verbal Rhetorical Figures Under Directed Process-
ing versus Incidental Exposure to Advertising.” Journal of Consumer Research 29 (4): 579–587.
McQuarrie, E. F., and B. 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.
Meyers-Levy, J., and L. A. Peracchio. 1992. “Getting an Angle in Advertising: The Effect of Camera
Angle on Product Evaluations.” Journal of Marketing Research 29 (4): 454–461.
Okonkwo, U. 2016. Luxury Fashion Branding: Trends, Tactics, Techniques. New York, NY: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Orth, U. R. and J. Wirtz. 2014. “Consumer Processing of Interior Service Environments: The Interplay
among Visual Complexity, Processing Fluency, and Attractiveness.” Journal of Service Research
17 (3): 296–309.
Parsons, M. J. 1987. How We Understand Art: A Cognitive Developmental Account of Aesthetic Experi-
ence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Payne, C. R., M. R. Hyman, M. Niculescu, and B. A. Huhmann. 2013. “Anthropomorphic Responses to
New-to-Market Logos.” Journal of Marketing Management 29 (1–2): 122–140.
Peracchio, L. A., and J. Meyers-Levy. 2005. “Using Stylistic Properties of ad Pictures to Communicate
with Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Research 32 (1): 29–40.
Phelps, J. E., R. Lewis, L. Mobilio, D. Perry, and N. Raman. 2004. “Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-of-
Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass along Email.” Jour-
nal of Advertising Research 44 (4): 333–348.
Phillips, B. J., and E. F. McQuarrie. 2010. “Narrative and Persuasion in Fashion Advertising.” Journal of
Consumer Research 37 (3): 368–392.
Phillips, B. J, and E. F. McQuarrie. 2011. “Contesting the Social Impact of Marketing: A Re-Characteri-
zation of Women’s Fashion Advertising.” Marketing Theory 11 (2): 99–126.
Postrel, V. 2003. The Substance of Style. New York, NY. HarperCollins.
Pracejus, J. W., G. D. Olsen, and T. C. O’Guinn. 2006. “How Nothing Became Something: White Space,
Rhetoric, History, and Meaning.” Journal of Consumer Research 33 (1): 82–90.
Ramachandran, V. S. and W. Hirstein. 1999. “The Science of Art: A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic
Experience.” Journal of Consciousness Studies, 6 (6–7): 15–51.
Richins, M. L. 1991. “Social Comparison and the Idealized Images of Advertising.” Journal of Consumer
Research 18 (1): 71–83.
Sabri, O. 2007. “Taboos in Advertising: Conceptualization, Scale Development, and Analysis of its
Communication Effects.” American Marketing Association Summer Educators’ Conference Proceed-
ings 18: 343–344.
Sabri, O., D. Manceau, and B. Pras. 2010. “Taboo: An Underexplored Concept in Marketing.” Recherche
et Applications en Marketing (English Edition). 25 (1): 59–85.
Sabri, O. and C. Obermiller. 2012. “Consumer Perception of Taboo in ads.” Journal of Business
Research 65 (6): 869–873.
Schroeder, J. E. 2002. Visual Consumption. London: Routledge.
Scott, L. M. 1994a. “Images in Advertising: The Need for a Theory of Visual Rhetoric.” Journal of Con-
sumer Research 21 (2): 252–273.
 18 J. ZARZOSA AND B.A. HUHMANN

Scott, L. M. 1994b. “The bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-Response Theory to Consumer
Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 21 (3): 461–480.
Scott, L. M. and P. Vargas. 2007. “Writing with Pictures: Toward a Unifying Theory of Consumer
Response to Images.” Journal of Consumer Research 34 (3): 341–356.
Sol, L. S. 1967. “Paragraphs on Conceptual Art.” Artforum 5 (10): 79–83.
Solomon, M. R., R. D. Ashmore, and L. C. Longo. 1992. “The Beauty Match-Up Hypothesis: Congruence
between Types of Beauty and Product Images in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising 21 (4): 23–34.
Tyler, C. W. 2002. Human Symmetry Perception and its Computational Analysis. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associations Publishers.
Veryzer, R. W., and J. W. Hutchinson. 1998. “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic
Responses to New Product Designs.” Journal of Consumer Research 24 (4): 374–385.
Vezina, R. and O. Paul. 1997. “Provocation in Advertising: A Conceptualization and an Empirical
Assessment.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 14 (2): 177–192.
Weinberger, M. G., K. Swani, H. J. Yoon, and C. J. Gulas. 2017. “Understanding Responses to Comedic
Advertising Aggression: The Role of Vividness and Gender Identity.” International Journal of
Advertising 36 (4): 562–587.
Winston, A. S., and G. C. Cupchik. 1992. “The Evaluation of High Art and Popular Art by Naive and
Experienced Viewers.” Visual Arts Research 18 (1): 1–14.
Yang, F, B. Vanden Bergh, and J. Lee. 2017. “Do Violent Movies Scare away Potential Visitors?” Inter-
national Journal of Advertising 36 (2): 314–335.
Yoon, H. J. 2016. “Comedic Violence in Advertising: The Role of Normative Beliefs and Intensity of
Violence.” International Journal of Advertising 35 (3): 519–539.
Zajonc, R. B. 1968. “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
9 (2) pt 2: 1–27.
Zarantonello, L., and B. H. Schmitt. 2010. “Using the Brand Experience Scale to Profile Consumers and
Predict Consumer Behaviour.” Journal of Brand Management 17 (7): 532–540.
Zarzosa, J., and C. Luna-Nevarez. 2011. “Artistic Stylistic Properties of Fashion Luxury Advertise-
ments.” Advances in Consumer Research 39: 810–811.
Zeki, R. B. 1980. “The Representation of Colours in the Cerebral Cortex.” Nature 284: 413–418.

View publication stats