language, sentence,ngrant/cjt780/readings/day 2...layout variation nonblock block nonblock block...

WILLIAM H. MOTESCHADWICK B. HILTONANDJOHN S. FIELDEN

LANGUAGE, SENTENCE,AND STRUCTURALVARIATIONS INPRINT ADVERTISING

1, WILLIAM H. MOTES is protessor of marketing atThe University of Alabama He received his Ph DIrom The University ot South Carolina 2. CHADWICKB. HILTON is assooiate protessor of managemenlcommunication at The University of Alabama Hereceived his Ph.D trom The University of Tennessee.3. JOHN S. FIELDEN is University Protessor ot Man-agement Communications at The University of Ala-bama He reoeived his Ph D. trom Boston University

Throughout the twentiethcentury, the question ofwhat makes a successful

print ad has occupied research-ers and practitioners alike (Aakerand Myers, 1982; Hanssens andWeitz, 1980; Hendon, 1973). Re-searchers have examined virtu-ally every aspect of an ad from anumber of angles, and the diver-sity of all this effort is apparentin the very titles of the journalspublishing the results. Nonethe-less, despite all this effort, thereis still no definitive answer towhat makes an ad successful,and there are, in fact, still manyaspects of print advertisingwhich warrant much closer con-sideration. One such aspect waspinpointed by Larry Percy in arecent article. In discussing thewords chosen when creating adcopy, Percy (1988) notes that:

No one doubts the importanceof the words chosen in verbalcommunication in determiningjust how effective that com-munication is likely to be.And while attention may bepaid to insuring that descrip-tions or attributes within atarget message reflect thosethings most likely to be mean-ingful to the target receiver,very little consideration seemsto go into possible interactionsamong those descriptions orattributes, and even less togrammatical considerations.

Study Objectivesand Contribution

Even though the lexical, syn-

tactical, and layout elements ofads have been researched, it isapparent, as Percy's commentindicates, that more study isneeded. Particularly, there existsa need to better understand thepotential synergistic effects ofeach element in a print ad con-text. Consequently, we deter-mined to study how significantchanges in copy language, sen-tence structure, textual layout,and illustration (our indepen-dent variables)—independentlyand interactively—affect an adreader's perceptual assessmentsof a print ad. With regard to ourdependent variables, we wereparticularly concerned with how(a) interesting, (b) appealing, (c)believable, (d) clear, and (e) in-formative each ad was perceivedto be. Also, we attempted to as-sess each subject's (f) overall re-action to the ad itself and his orher (g) likelihood of using theadvertised service.

Background

First, it must be recognizedthat in the last 50 years virtuallyevery aspect of print advertisinghas been probed by researchers.They have focused on the role of

The authors gratefully acknowledge thesupport and cooperation of Mr. DonReichardt, director, and Mr. NoelSpicer, marketing analyst, of Bell SouthServices Advertising and Ms. BeverlyBarze, marketing analyst for TuckerWayne/Luckie & Company. We alsothank Bill Cook and anonymous JARreviewers for their helpful commentsand suggestions.

Journal ol ADVERTISING RESEARCH—SEPTEMBEa'OCTOBER 1992 63

P R I N T A D V E R T I S I N G

mechanical factors (see Hanssensand Weitz, 1980; Hendon, 1973;Holbrook and Lehmann, 1980;Percy, 1988; Rossiter, 1981a; So-ley and Reid, 1983b; Valiente,1973 for a few examples) alongwith such broad topics as copytesting {Furse and Stewart, 1982;Keon, 1984; Soley and Reid,1983a), sex-role stereotypes(Baker and Churchill, 1977;Courtney and Lockeretz, 1971),general content analysis (Har-mon, Razzouk, and Stern, 1983;Madden, Caballero, and Mat-sukubo, 1986; Stern, Krugman,and Resnik, 1981), and the imag-ery effects of verbal and pictorialcontent (Edell and Staelin, 1983;Hirschman, 1986; Holbrook andMoore, 1981; Lutz and Lutz,1977; Percy and Rossiter, 1982;Rossiter, 1981b; Rossiter andPercy, 1978). The language ofprint advertising, per se, hasalso received considerable atten-tion, and excellent overviews ofthe research on the effects ofadvertising language may befound in Percy (1983); Gelb,Hong, and Zinkhan (1985); andHarris, Sturm, Klassen, andBechtold (1986).

It is the recent research onlanguage in print ads which hasthe most direct relevance to ourstudy, particularly that con-cerned with the psycholinguisticaspects of ad language. Thework of Rossiter and Falsetta(1979) and of Percy and Rossiter(1980) essentially set the stagefor the consideration of the psy-cholinguistic effects of advertis-ing language. Their various re-search is particularly significantfor establishing a model bywhich to evaluate the effects ofad language on readers (Percyand Rossiter, 1980) and withwhich to guide the actual writ-ing of ads, particularly in termsof such elements as word choice,semantics, negation, and syntax(Percy, 1981, 1988). Their workhas further been important in

generating subsequent researchsuch as that of Soley and Reid(1983a, 1983b). These authorsessentially replicate, with similarresults, Rossiter's (1981a) study,which found that the number ofwords, nouns, verbs, and simpledeterminers—along with the useof the product name as subjector object of the sentence, the useof personal references, and inter-rogative and imperative sentencestructures—significantly affectlower-order advertising responsemeasures but not higher-ordermeasures. Also prompted by thework of Rossiter and Percy(1978), Holbrook (1982) considerspsycholinguistic-visual linkagesand suggests that tactile andemotional responses are toomuch neglected when consider-ing the effect of an ad. In a moreconceptual vein, Harris et al.(1986) argue that psycholinguis-tic theory and methodology(from cognitive psychology), asapplied to advertising, could bea very effective tool for research-ing information processing.

Ad language, then, as well asmechanical factors such as lay-out and illustration, has receivedsubstantial attention. However,it must be noted that while psy-cholinguistic studies have con-centrated substantially on adheadlines, too little attention hasbeen directed to ad text. Second,as Percy (1988) notes, very littleattention has been accorded ei-ther the interactive effects of thelinguistic elements of ad copy orthe interactive effects of ad copyand mechanical elements. Thisstudy, therefore, will addressboth of these issues by concen-trating on ad copy and by as-sessing how that copy interactswith both the pictorial and lay-out elements of an ad.

Method

Ad Creation. For added real-ism and practical relevance, the

source for our ad variations wasan original print ad developedby Tucker Wayne/Luckie &Company for South Central Bell,a Bell South company. The adwas to be part of a subsequentBell South ad campaign directedspecifically at college studentsfor the purpose of introducing anew campus service called the"RightTouch." Since this ad hadnot been seen by anyone outsideSouth Central Bell or its adver-tising agency, respondent reac-tions could not have been pre-conditioned or biased by anyprevious exposure to it.

From this original ad, we cre-ated 24 different variations (cop-ies of all ads are available uponrequest). These ads, subdividedacross two separate and distinctstudies, exhibited the combina-tions shown in Table 1.

The topic of language diversity(i.e., word choice) has been re-searched both extensively andfrom a variety of perspectives.One of the most significant areasof this research has centered onwhat is called the "vividness"effect. The common assumptionis that vivid language—languagethat is relatively colorful andconcrete—will prove more inter-esting, memorable, appealing,etc., to readers than nonvividlanguage. Most interesting, how-ever, is the fact that the bulk ofthis research contradicts such anassumption. In eight studies(most in a nonadvertising con-text) which tested the effects ofconcrete versus abstract lan-guage, only one study revealeda significant effect for concrete,colorful language over its oppo-site (Taylor and Thompson,1982). The finding that vivid lan-guage may be no more effectivethan less vivid language in pro-ducing desired perceptual andbehavioral reactions among read-ers is not only interesting but isquite important because it runscontradictory to the assumptions

64 Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992


on which many print ads arebased. Thus, it provides the im-petus not only to extend thestudy of lexical diversity to anadvertising context but in partic-ular to examine its manipulationin terms of vivid or so-called col-orful language.

The language makeup of ourads was varied in terms of thepresence or absence of colorfulwords and phrases and personalpronouns such as you and your.Consistent with both the vivid-ness and the communication lit-erature (see, e.g., Fielden, 1982;Fielden, Fielden, and Dulek,1984; Kisielius and Sternthal,1979; Taylor and Thompson,1982), the ads we labeled color-ful included vivid words andphrases and modifiers and figu-rative language, which were ex-cluded from the ads we labeledcolorless. The personal pronounyou and its possessive counter-part your were heavily embed-ded in our personal ads, yetclearly absent in our impersonalads.

Sentence type became our sec-ond independent variable. Frompersuasion and linguistics stud-ies (see Crystal and Davey,1969), we would argue thatcopywriters may influencereader reactions through theircontrol of the syntactical or sen-tence structure elements of atext. In other words, messagescan be "engineered" to producedesired reader effects throughthe use of active or passive sen-tences and by the use or avoid-ance of imperatives. To extendthis to an advertising context,we created ads which used ei-ther an active or passive sen-tence structure. The ads whichwe labeled active made extensiveuse of imperatives and the activevoice. The passive ads, in con-trast, avoided the imperativeand made extensive use of pas-sive sentence structure.

Textual layout and the pres-

Table 1Variations of "Right Touch" Ad

study 1: Illustration context

Ad

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

#10

#11

#12

#13

#14

#15

#16

Language variation

personal-colorful

personal-colorful

personal-colorless

personal-colorless

personal-colorful

personal-colorful

personal-colorless

personal-colorless

impersonal-colorful

impersonal-colorful

impersonal-colorless


impersonal-colorful

impersonal-colorful



Sentence variation

active

active

active

active

passive

passive

passive

passive

active

active

active

active

passive

passive

passive

passive

Layout variation

nonblock

block

nonblock

block

nonblock

block

nonblock

block

nonbiock

block

nonbiock

block

nonblock

block

nonblock

block

Study 2: No illustration context

Ad Language variation Sentence variation

#24 personal-colorless passive

Layout variation

#17

#18

#19

#20

#21

#22

#23

personal-colorful

personal-colorful

personal-colorless

personal-colorless

personal-colorful

personal -colorful

personal-colorless

active

active

active

active

passive

passive

passive

nonblock

block

nonblock

block

nonblock

block

nonblock

block

ence or absence of an illustrationserved as our third and fourthindependent variables, respec-tively. The contention thatchanges in the physical structureof a message may affect howone perceptually responds tothat message is supported by thecommunication and persuasionliterature (Almaney, 1972; DeVil-lier, 1972; Roloff and Miller,

1980; Thompson, 1960). For ex-ample, Fielden, Fielden, andDulek (1984) argue that "highimpact" messages (i.e., thosethat use brief paragraphs, inden-tation, and itemization) are morelikely than "low impact" mes-sages (i.e., those that use longerparagraphs, avoid indentation,and itemization) to demand at-tention and, thereby, influence

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992 65


. . . copywriters mayinfluence reader reactions

through their control of thesyntactical or sentence

structure elements of a text.

how a reader reacts to what isbeing said. We tested this asser-tion by varying textual layoutthrough the use of, or avoidanceof, longer paragraphs and byindentation and itemization.Specifically, we refer to thoselayouts as block (one long para-graph, no indentation, and noitemization) or nonblock (severalshorter paragraphs, indentation,and itemization).

Sample, Experimental Design,and Procedure. With their al-most $10 billion in annual discre-tionary income (Reilly, 1989),college students are indeed per-ceived, and rightfully so, by adagencies and other businessesalike as legitimate consumersabout whom added insight andan increased understanding areneeded. In fact, as a legitimatefocus for advertising research,there are obvious instanceswhere student samples are notonly appropriate but should infact be used instead of nonstu-dent samples (e.g., ". . . stu-dents would be adjudged appro-priate when there is a prioritheoretical or empirical justifica-tion for their use, or when theyare the population to whichthe findings are intended toapply . . ." [Gordon, Slade, andSchmitt, 1986]. Such is the casehere.

As noted by Schiffman andKanuk (1991) and further illus-trated by Bell South's Right-Touch campaign, "college stu-dents are an important familysubgroup." They unquestionablyprovide substantial markets forsuch products and services as

clothes, fast food, recreationalequipment, computer hardwareand software, educational sup-plies, cosmetics, etc. (Reilly,1989; Schiffman and Kanuk,1991). In fact, "many consumergoods firms are eager to obtainshelf space in college bookstores,and even to establish networksof students to represent themand their products on campus—e.g., AT&T has on-campus rep-resentatives to offer their long-distance services" (Schiffmanand Kanuk, 1991).

Hence, it is for added realismand appropriate generalizability,and not simply for purposes ofconvenience and expediency,that our sample was comprisedof a representative cross sectionof students {n — 720) of a majorstate university whose profilematched that of students at anumber of other regional univer-sities where Bell South plannedto promote the advertised newservice. The sample then is avery appropriate one in that thestudy's advertised service is onethat is specifically directed atstudents. Therefore, as part ofthis study, students are not be-ing used as a surrogate groupfor other consumers; they arebeing looked upon by Bell Southas a viable, consumer market.

A 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 between-sub-jects, factorial design was usedfor both study 1 (factors: per-sonal-impersonal, colorful-color-less, passive-active, block-non-block in an illustration context)and study 2 (factors: colorful-colorless, passive-active, block-nonblock, illustration-no illustra-tion). For enhanced efficiency ofoperation owing to a limitedbudget, study 2 constituted onlya partial extension of study 1 inthat personalization of presenta-tion was not manipulated instudy 2 as it was in study 1 (i.e.,all ads in study 2 were per-sonal—there were no impersonalpresentations).

For analysis purposes, theeight conditions in study 2 werethen compared and contrastedwith their identical counterpartsin study 1 with the only differ-ence being the presence or ab-sence of the illustration. Thisapproach allowed us to view thepresence or absence of the illus-tration as a manipulated fourthvariable in study 2 and to assessits interactive role with the otherlanguage, sentence structure,and text layout components.

Except for this slight designdifference, the procedure foreach study was identical. Sub-jects, after having been ran-domly assigned to conditions,were given a packet of materialcontaining 1 of the 24 test ads, a35-item questionnaire (8 of the35 items were measures of ourdependent variables while otheritems were simply filler ques-tions or items aimed at deter-mining how well we disguisedour study), and the followinginstructions:^

The contents of this packet arefor your eyes only and are notto be shown to or discussedwith any other individual.With this in mind, please fol-low these steps in sequence:(1) Turn to the ad on the nextpage. After you have read it,please turn the ad over andplace it face down. Do not re-fer back to the ad as you go tostep 2. (2) Complete the ques-tionnaire. Please be sure torespond to all questions. Toinsure confidentiality, do notsign your name. (3) After youhave completed the question-naire, "paper clip" all itemsand return them.

^Subsequent chi-square analysis showedno significant relationship between sub-ject profile characteristics and the condi-tion to which subjects were randomlyassigned.



For our eight dependent vari-ables, subjects were asked torespond to questions that werestructured around a 5-point,Likert-type scale. For each of thelower-order dependent variabies(e.g., interesting, appealing, believ-able, clear, and informative), ourresponse categories ranged fromstrongly agree to strongly dis-agree while very favorable tovery unfavorable (applied tooverall reaction to ad) and verylikely to very unlikely (appliedto likelihood of reading ad and like-lihood of using service) were usedfor the three remaining higher-order variables.

Manipuiation and ContentChecks. The illustration-no illus-tration manipulation was so ob-vious and straightforward thatsubjects in the pretest had littleor no difficulty in identifyingthis particular difference whenexposed to a no-illustration ver-sus illustration ad. The remain-ing three manipulations, how-ever, were somewhat moresubtle.

The basis upon which we de-cided whether or not our lan-guage, sentence structure, andtextual layout changes were sig-nificant and, therefore, workedas intended centered on thequestion whether such changescreate stylistically (i.e., how orthe way a message is expressedas opposed to what is beingsaid) and visually different pre-sentations. Simply altering atext's format or simply adding ordeleting a few vivid words orphrases, or employing a few ac-tive and passive sentences, arein and of themselves of limitedinformational value—unless theads embodying those changesare seen as different.

To test whether or not ourchanges were significant, we setup ad pairs of different lan-guage, sentence structure, andtextual layout profiles (e.g., per-sonal, colorful, active, block, ver-

sus personal, colorless, active,nonblock). A 7-point Likert-typescale (ranging from stronglyagree to strongly disagree) wasthen used to ask more than 80pretest subjects to address thefollowing statements about eachmatched pair:

1. What is being said to you (thebasic message or significantinformation contained in thetext) in both ads A and B isessentially the same.

2. The writing in both ads Aand B is essentially the samein terms of how or the waythe message is expressed.

3. The information contained inthe body of ad A is displayedin such a way that its ideasstand out more than the ideasexpressed in ad B.

Statements 1 and 2 were basedupon the idea that language andsentence structure changes arearguably components of messagestyle and can be manipulated insuch a way to alter a reader'sperception of how or the way amessage is being expressedwhile maintaining a consistentperception of what is being said ormessage content (see Milic,1965). Text layout, on the otherhand, is a function of text for-matting and is, consequently, astructural and presentational fac-tor. Significant layout variationsshould, therefore, affect the de-gree to which one feels that theideas of a presentation standout.

Our manipulations, accordingto the results of our variouschecks, worked as intended. Wefound, for example, that 93 per-cent of our subjects perceivedthe content of the ads to be es-sentially the same regardless oflanguage, sentence structure, orlayout variation. Furthermore,the proportion of subjects view-ing the colorful-colorless, active-passive, personal-impersonal.

and block-nonblock ads as beingdifferent in terms of "how" themessage was presented and lay-out, respectively, was signifi-cantly higher than what wouldhave been expected to occur bychance.

Results

Our study focuses on severalcritically important issues facingad copywriters. Specifically,

1. How valid is the common as-sumption of many copywrit-ers that certain styles of writ-ing are far more appropriateor effective than other styles?Many copywriters (as well aseducators) feel strongly that apersonal-colortul, active styleof writing is not only highlyappropriate for most print adsituations but is very effectivein generating positive percep-tions among readers; hence,impersonal-passive styles areto be avoided.

2. What role do structural varia-tions (e.g., changes in textlayout and/or the presence/absence of illustrations) playin this process? Are the ef-fects of stylistic variations at-tenuated by structuralchanges in text layout or theinclusion of an illustration orboth?

To shed some light on answersto these questions, two separatestudies were undertaken.

Study 1: Language, Sentence,and Structural Variations in aniiiustration Context. Table 2 pre-sents a general overview ofmean responses to each experi-mental ad across each of oureight assessment dimensions.Two findings are particularlynotable:

1. There is a noticeable absenceof extreme response scoresfor any of the 16 ads regard-

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—SEPTEMBER/'OCTOBER 1992 67

Table 2General Overview of 1

Assessmentdimension

Appeaiing

Believable

Clear

Informative

Attractive

Overallreaction

Likelihoodof reading

Likelihoodof using

Personal,

Active

B

3.67(0.66)

3.53(0.78)

3.87(0.68)

4.17(0.65)

3.43(0.57)

3.57(0.57)

3.53(1.01)

3.70(0.95)

NB

3.93(0.58)

3.43(1.01)

3.53(0.82)

4.00(0.74)

3,43(0.77)

3.83(0.38)

3.37(1.19)

3.77(1-14)

Uiean 1Responses

. Colorful

Passive

B

3.60(0.77)

3.53(0.97)

3.20(1.06)

4.00(1.05)

3.30(0.88)

3.47(0.82)

3.30(1.24)

3.07(1.34)

NB

3.70(0.75)

3.80(0,81)

3.60(1.00)

3.97(0.89)

3.37(0.76)

3.57(0.82)

3.47(0.90)

3.43(1.07)

P R I !SJT A D V E R T I S I N G

to Each Experimental Ad in Study 'Print ad variations^

Personal,

Active

B

3.67(0,76)

3.70(0.95)

3.63(0.89)

3.83(1.09)

3.67(0.84)

3.73(0.74)

3.67(0.96)

3.10(1.37)

NB

3.97(0.62)

3.63(0.93)

3.33(0.96)

3.97(0.76)

3.80(0.76)

3.90(0.55)

4.10(0,55)

3.67(1.29)

Colorless

Passive

B

3.13(1.11)

3.90(0.71)

3.07(1.17)

4.03(0.67)

2.93(1.11)

3.30(0.88)

2.83(1-26)

3,03(1-30)

NB

3.70(0.99)

3.90(1.06)

3.33(1.21)

3.87(0.86)

3.60(1.00)

3.57(0.90)

3.63(1.24)

3.77(1.27)

/ Impersonal, Colorful

Active

B

3.77(0.57)

3.67(0.92)

3.47(0.94)

4.03(0.81)

3.47(0.78)

3.43(0.82)

3.77(1.04)

3.73

(1.11)

NB

3.50(0.86)

3.50(1-01)

3.40(1.00)

3.90(0.84)

3.63(0.81)

3.47(0.78)

3.07(1.17)

3.17(1.29)

Passive

B

3.67(0,88)

3.57(1.10)

3.37(0,99)

3.90(0.76)

3.40(0.97)

3.50(0.73)

3.27(1.11)

3.20(1.27)

NB

3,53(1.07)

3.50(1,14)

3.27(1-36)

3.77(1.04)

3,40(1.19)

3.37(1.03)

3.20(1.45)

3.30(1.18)

Impersonal,

Active

B

3,43(0.86)

3,67(0,96)

3.67(0.96)

3.83(0.91)

3,03(1.13)

3.37(0.93)

3.20(1.09)

3.37(1.19)

NB

3.70(0.88)

3.53(1,07)

3.73(101)

3.90(1-09)

3.43(0.77)

3.73(0.64)

3.80(0.85)

3.63(1.37)

Colorless

Passive

B

3.57(0.82)

3.60(0.77)

3.57(1.14)

3.97(0.81)

3.40(0.97)

3.60(0-67)

3.63(0.99)

3.43(1.07)

NB

3.80(0.76)

3.83(0.75)

3.70(0.95)

4.03(0.67)

3.80(0.76)

3.73(0.69)

3.70(1.09)

3.80(1.09)

'' Responses range from 1 to 5 inclusive. For "Appealing," 'Believable," "Clear," "Informative," and "Attractive." 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 =Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree, For "Overall Reaction to the Ad," 1 = Very Unfavorable, 2 =Unfavorable, 3 = Neither Favorable nor Unfavorable, 4 = Favorable, and 5 = Very Favorable. For "Likelihood of Reading the Ad" and"Likelihood of Using the Service," 1 = Very Unlikely, 2 = Unlikely, 3 = Neither Likely nor Unlikely, 4 = Likely, and 5 = Very Likely-^ B = Block Text Layout; NB = Nonblock Text Layout. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. N = 30 for each ad variation.

less of which assessment di-mension is being viewed. Forexample, responses for themost part fall within the 3.00-4.00 range signaling slightrather than strong agreement-disagreement on ad appeal,believability, clarity, etc.Even with this massing ofscores in the middle range,there still seem to be, forsome of the ads, noticeableperceptual differences acrossat least seven of the eight as-sessment dimensions. Theonly exception appears to bein terms of perceived informa-tiveness. Here the responsesare tightly bunched (rangingfrom a high of 4.17 to a lowof only 3.77), thus signalingthat each ad (regardless of itscopy language, sentencestructure, and layout compo-

sition) is viewed as being justas informative as any other.

Whether or not these findings aswell as other preliminary assess-ments from Table 2 are affordedstatistical support is our nextfocus.

MANOVA was first applied,then followed by univariateANOVA.^ Our MANOVA find-

^As pointed to by Marks and Totten(1990) and, in large part, supported inthe advertising literature, readers' per-ceptions of ad interest, appeal, clarity,believability, informativeness, and at-tractiveness are arguably linked to over-all attitudes toward the ad as well as tointentions to act. Since evidence oftreatnnent group effects may be over-looked for such situations when usingunivariafe ANOVA alone (ANOVA fo-cuses on each lower-order as well ashigher-order dependent variable in iso-lation rather than as a composite set),

ings suggest rather clearly forstudy 1 that respondent percep-tions as a composite set were in-deed influenced by alterations inlanguage, sentence structure,and text layout. This influencewas the result of a significantfour-way personal-impersonal,colorful-colorless, passive-active,block-nonblock interaction(f = 4.26, df - 9/456, p < .001).

As seen in Table 3, the use of

MANOVA (which is an extension of theunivariate ANOVA case) is often firstperformed followed by univariateANOVA (Hair, ]r., Anderson, andTatham, 1987). Here univariate ANOVA(or in some cases multiple or canonicaldiscriminant analysis) is used as ameans of identifying more clearly theeffects of each independent variable oneach dependent variable in situationswhere the MANOVA results suggestsignificant vector mean differencesacross groups, as was the case here.



univariate ANOVA helped usidentify several interesting andpotentially valuable patterns.Specifically,

1. No significant four-way inter-actions (and only a few three-way interactions) were foundfor any of our individual as-sessment dimensions; two-way interactions dominated.

2. Lower-order as well ashigher-order assessment di-mensions were not signifi-cantly influenced by a single,standardized language, sen-tence structure, text layoutcomposition. Personalizationby sentence structure, for ex-ample, significantly influ-

enced perceived ad appeal(f - 4.442, df = 1/464,p = .036) as well as readers'overall reaction to the ad(f = 5.733, df = 1/464,p = .017) yet had very littleeffect on perceived believabil-ity, clarity, informativeness, etc.Furthermore, perceived infor-mativeness was neither af-fected by language, sentencestructure, or layout individu-ally or in combination, whilelanguage alone marginallyaffected perceived believability(f - 3.210, df = 1/464,p = .074).

What these findings suggest isthat copywriters must draw up a

clearer tactical focus on whichassessment dimensions are to beinfluenced and determine howbest this is to be done. A moreprecise view of such tactics ispresented in Figure 1.

As Figure 1 shows, the syner-gistic effects of language, sen-tence structure, and text layoutreadily influence both lower-or-der and higher-order responses.Perceived appeal, for example, isinfluenced by such language-textlayout combinations as colorless-nonblock (3.79), colorful-block(3.69), and colorful-nonblock(3.67), with colorless-nonblockperhaps being the best combina-tion. Ads containing colorlesslanguage are made more appeal-

Table 3Summary of Major Findings: Study 1

Assessment dimension

Appealing

Main-interaction effects found for each dimension

Text Layout

Text Layout x Language

Sum ofsquares

3.333

3.675

DF

1

1

F

4.922

5.426

Significance

.027

.020

Personalization x Sentence Structure 3,008 4,442 .036

Believable Language 2.852 3,210 .074

Clarity Sentence Structure

Sentence Structure x Text Layout

Personalization x Language

Text Layout

Text Layout x Language

Personalization x Sentence Structure

4.408

3.333

7.500

6.302

3.502

4,602

1

1

1

1

1

1

4.219

3.190

7,178

7.867

4.372

5.745

.041

.075

,008

.005

.037

.017

Attractive

Likeiihood of reading ad

Informative

Overall reaction to the ad

Personalization x

None

Text Layout

Personalization x

Sentence Structure x

Sentence Structure

Language 5,852

—

2.700

3,333

1

—

1

1

7,305

—

4,643

5,733

.007

—

.032

.017

Language 4.800

Language x Text Layout 13.333

4.039

11.219

.045

.001

Likelihood of using service

Language x

Text Layout

Text Layout

Personahzation x Sentence Structure

X Language

6.533

6.769

7.252

1

1

1

5.497

4,593

4.921

,019

,033

.027


Figure 1

Select Two-wayAppealing

<'o

0)O-Q-

<

•D

>

CJ

a>

Unappeaiing

Ciear

rcei

ved

Cia

r

Q.

Unclear

Inte

5 -]

4 -

3 -

2 -

1 -

5 ^

4 -

^ •—

2 -

1 -

ractions: Study

3,69

3.45

1

Block

P R I N T

1ColorlessLanguage3,79

3.67CoiorfuiLanguage

1

'Nonbiock

Text Layout

3,73

• - = *3,38

1

Impersonal

ColorfulLanguage3.55

3,34ColorlessLanguage

1

Personal

Personalization

A D V E R T I S I N G

Favorable

o

.9o

soc15>O

Unfavorable

g Likely

1DIC

hood

of

Us

a_, Unlikely

5 -

4 -

3 -

2 -

1 -

5 -

4 -

3 -

2 -

1 -

3,55

3.48

rPassive

Sentence

3,42

3,23

1

Block

Text

Personal3,75

3.50Impersonal

1

Active

Structure

ColorlessLanguage3,72

3.42ColorfulLanguage

1

Nonblock

Layout

ing simply by moving from ablock to a nonblock text layout.On the other hand, in a colorlesslanguage ad, reversing this pro-cess, i.e., moving from a non-block (3.79) to a block layout(3.45) detracts substantively fromperceived appeal. A similar pat-tern emerges for likelihood of us-ing the service. Yet, as reflectedby mean responses, one mightargue that in terms of desirabil-ity colorless language-nonblocklayout (3.72) is the only accept-able combination.

In terms of perceived clarity,language again comes to theforefront, yet now in combina-tion with personalization ratherthan text layout. As seen in Fig-ure 1, some rather interestingpatterns emerge pointing furtherto the underlying complexities oftrying to combine language com-ponents to influence lower-ordercognitive responses among read-

ers. For example, when colorlesslanguage is used, moving froman impersonal to a personal pre-sentation detracts from per-ceived clarity. This is not sowhen colorful language is used.It would thus appear that addedclarity may best be achievedthrough both impersonal-color-less and personal-colorful pre-sentations, with impersonal-col-orless being a bit more effective.

As for readers' overall reactionsto the ad, sentence structure andpersonalization combined to pro-vide the most significant influ-ence. Interestingly, overallreactions were not significantlyinfluenced for impersonal pre-sentations simply as a result ofchanging from passive to activesentence structure. The samewas not true, however, for per-sonal presentations. Here overallfavorable impressions were dra-matically enhanced by the use

of active rather than passivesentences.

In addition to these two-wayinteractions just discussed,somewhat more complex three-way interactions also emerged.For both perceived attractivenessand likelihood of reading the ad,personalization, colorfulness oflanguage, and sentence structurecombined to play a significantrole. This finding, particularly asit relates to perceived attractive-ness, is in and of itself quite in-teresting and beyond what wemay have generally predicted.As an influencer of ad attractive-ness, prose-related factors suchas language and syntax mightordinarily be thought of as tak-ing a backseat to the more pro-nounced and visually identifiablestructural variations; yet suchwas not the case here.

When our ad copy took on apersonal rather than impersonal



Table 4General Overview of Mean Responses to Each Experimental Ad in Study 2

Assessmentdimension

Appealing

Believable

Clear

Informative

Attractive

Overallreaction

Personal,

Ad

B

3.23(0.97)

3.60(0.89)

3.40(1.13)

3.73(0.94)

2,83(1.08)

3.10(0.99)

live

NB

3,30(0.91)

3,30(1,05)

3,20(1,06)

3.73(0.83)

3,00(0.87)

3.20(0,76)

No Illustration''

Colorful

Passive :

B

3,37(0.99)

3.70(0,84)

3.07(1.23)

3.87(0.94)

2,73(1.17)

3.13(1.04)

NB

3,63(0,85)

3,83(0,95)

3.63(1.07)

4.23(0.50)

3,33(0,92)

3.60(0.72)

Personal

Active

B

3.47(1.07)

3.87(0.94)

3.30(1.18)

4.03(0.96)

2.96(1.00)

3.43(1.01)

NB

3.13(1.17)

3.73(0.69)

3.40(1.00)

3.87(0.97)

3.20(1.03)

3.53(0.77)

, Colorless

Passive

B

2.93(1.17)

3.73(0,69)

2.90(1.15)

3.80(0.80)

2.87(0.82)

2.87(0.78)

NB

3.13(1.04)

3.80(0.89)

3.00(1.23)

3.96(1.00)

3.10(1-06)

3.20(1.03)

Personal,

Active

B

3.67(0.66)

3.53(0.78)

3.87(0.68)

4.17(0.65)

3.43(0.57)

3.57(0.57)

NB

3.93(0.58)

3.43(1.01)

3.53(0.82)

4.00(0.74)

3.43(0.77)

3.83(0.38)

Illustration^

Colorful

Passive

B

3.60(0.77)

3.53(0.97)

3.20(1.06)

4.00(1.05)

3.30(0.88)

3.47(0.82)

NB

3.70(0.75)

3.80(0.81)

3.60(1.00)

3.97(0.89)

3.37(0.76)

3.57(0.82)

Personal,

Active

B

3.67(0.76)

3.70(0.95)

3.63(0.89)

3.83(1.09)

3.67(0.84)

3.73(0.74)

NB

3.97(0.62)

3.63(0.93)

3.33(0.96)

3.97(0.76)

3.80(0.76)

3.90(0.55)

Colorless

Passive

B

3.13(1.11)

3.90(0.71)

3.07(1.17)

4.03(0.67)

2.93(1.11)

3.30(0.88)

NB

3.70(0.99)

3.90(1.06)

3.33(1-21)

3.87(0.86)

3.60(1.00)

3.57(0.90)

Likelihoodof reading

3.07(1.17)

3.07(1.26)

2.80(1.27)

3.53(1.19)

3.43(1.45)

3.36(1.16)

2.67(0.99)

3.00(1.20)

3.53(1.01)

3.37(1.19)

3-30(1.24)

3.47(0.90)

3.67(0.96)

4,10(0.55)

2,83(1,26)

3,63(1.24)

Likelihoodof using

3.57(1,22)

3.17(1,20)

2,97(1,19)

3.26(1.34)

3.60(1,19)

3.36(1.24)

3.30(1.29)

3.17(1.17)

3.70(0.95)

3.77(1.14)

3.07(1.34)

3.43(1.07)

3.10(1.37)

3.67(1.29)

3.03(1.30)

3.77(1.27)

•" Responses range from 1 to 5 inclusive. For Appealing," "Believable," 'Clear." "Informative," and "Attractive," 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 =Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, and 5 = Strongly Agree. For "Overall Reaction to the Ad," 1 = Very Unfavorable, 2 =Unfavorable, 3 = Neither Favorable nor Unfavorable, 4 =-- Favorable, and 5 = Very Favorable. For "Likelihood ot Reading the Ad" and"Likelihood of Using the Service," 1 = Very Unlikely. 2 = Unlikely, 3 = Neither Likely nor Unlikely, 4 = Likely, 5 = Very Likely.^B = Block Text Layout; NB = Nonblock Text Layout. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. W = 30 for each ad variation. The eight"Illustration" ads were taken from Study 1 (see Table 2). They form the basis against v 'hich the "No Illustration" ads of Study 2 are comparedand/or contrasted.

characterization, the patterns ofinfluence were remarkably simi-lar. Here perceived attractivenessand likelihood of reading the adwere both enhanced by combin-ing coioriess language with ac-tive sentences. On the otherhand, for impersonal ads, color-less language seems bettermatched with passive sentences.This particular flnding is notonly interesting but quite atypi-cal in that it does not supportthe general feeling that passivesentence structure should alwaysbe avoided.

Study 2: Language, Sentence,and Structurai Variations in aNo-liiustration Context. Unlikestudy 1, which focused primarilyon the interactive workings ofboth prose style and text layout.

we introduced in study 2 a sec-ond structural factor: the pres-ence or absence of an illustra-tion. Here, two key questionsare addressed. First, along eachassessment dimension, willprose and text layout factors op-erate in a similar fashion to whatwas observed in the illustration-only context of study 1? Second,what specific role does the pres-ence or absence of an illustrationplay in this process?

Table 4 presents a generaloverview of mean responses toeach of our no-illustration adsused in study 2, along with theiridentical illustration ad counter-parts of study 1. Quite notice-ably, for many of the ads, differ-ences in mean responses do ap-pear to emerge along each and

every dimension with perhapsthe exception of perceived infor-mativeness. This finding is partic-ularly interesting simply becauseit is a seemingly generalizableconsistency found also in study1. Furthermore, generally ob-served are lower mean scores forthe no-illustration ads versushigher scores for ads with illus-tration. Not surprisingly, then,the presence or absence of anillustration does appear, at leastat first glance, to play a substan-tive role in influencing readerreactions. How then does thisfactor (i.e., the presence or ab-sence of an illustration) operatein conjunction with stylisticprose and text layout?

As a two-step sequence to-ward addressing this question.



Table 5Summary of Major Findings: Study 2

Assessment dimensionMain-interaction effects found

for each dimensionSum ofsquares DF Significance

Appealing

Clarity

Illustration 18.802

Language 3.169

Text Layout 3.852

Illustration 5.208

Language 4.408

Sentence Structure 6.533

Sentence Structure x Text Layout 8.008

22.182

3.738

4.545

4.593

3.888

5.762

7063

.000

.054

.034

Believable

Language x Sentence Structure

Language

Sentence Structure

4.219

4.408

3.675

1

1

1

4.977

5.532

4.612

.026

.019

.032

.033

.049

.017

.008

Attractive Illustration 22.969

Text Layout 8.269

Language x Sentence Structure 2.522

26.566

9.564

2.952

.000

.002

.086

Informative None

Overall reaction to the ad Illustration 15.408

Text Layout 6.075


Sentence Structure x Language 5.633

23.073

9.097

7.188

8.435

.000

.003

.008

.004

Likelihood of reading ad Illustration 16.502

Text Layout 9.352


Sentence Structure x Language 11.719

Sentence Structure x Text Layout 6.302

12.599

7.117

7.992

8.918

4.796

.000

.008

.005

.003

.029

Likelihood of using service

Illustration x Text Layout

Sentence Structure

Illustration x Text Layout

X Language 5.419

7.008

9.075

1

1

1

4.124

4.635

6.002

.043

.032

.015

MANOVA was again applied,followed by univariate ANOVA.The results of the MANOVAanalysis point to a marginallysignificant four-way interaction(f = 1.780, df - 9/456, p = .07)between language, syntax, andthe two structural factors of textlayout and illustration. Again,this is generally consistent withwhat we found in study 1, yet

for a slightly different composi-tion of independent variables(see experimental design).

Motivated by this finding ofsignificance for the composite setof dependent variables, we thentook a further look at how eachassessment dimension was indi-vidually affected. These resultsare summarized in Table 5.Again, our use of univariate

ANOVA made several findingsstand out:

1. Similar to study 1, four-wayinteractions were nonexistent.Isolated main effects and two-way interactions seemed toprevail.

2. Perceived believability was notinfluenced by the presence orabsence of the RightTouch


P R I N T A D V E R T I S I N C ;

Table 6Summary of Recommended Tactics Based on Study 1

Individual and/or combined factorsthat should be emphasized in order

to achieve stated goalCommunication goal:To enhance/increase

Recommended tactics tor ads in which the givenconstant is an iiiustration'

Ad appeal (a) Text Layout + Language (a) For nonblock layouts, use colorless language; for biocKlayouts, use colorful language.

(b) Personalization + Sentence Structure (b) For both active and passive sentence structures, usepersonal presentations.

Ad beiievabiiity (a) Language (a) Use colorless language.

Ad clarity (a) Text Layout + Sentence Structure (a) For block layouts, use active sentence structure; fornonblock layouts, use active or passive sentence structure.

(b) Personalization + Language (b) For impersonal presentations, use colorless language; forpersonal presentations, use colorfu! language.

Ad attractiveness (a) Text Layout + Language (a) For nonblock layouts, use colorless language; for blocklayouts, use colorful language.

(b) Personalization + Sentence Structure+ Language

(b) For personal presentations, use active sentence structurewith colorless language; for impersonal presentations, usepassive sentence structure v 'ith colorless language or activesentence structure with colorful language.

Ad informativeness (a) None found (a) Use any layout, language, personalization, and sentencecombination.

Overall reaction to ad (a) Text Layout (a) Use nonblock layout.

(b) Personalization + Sentence Structure (b) For personal presentations, use active sentence structure;for impersonal presentations, use active or passivesentence structure.

Likelihood of reading ad (a) Text Layout + Language (a) For nonblock layouts, use colorless language; for blocklayouts, use colorful language.

(b) Personalization + Sentence Structure+ Language

(b) For personal presentations, use active sentence structurewith colorless language; for impersonal presentations, usepassive sentence structure with colorless language.

Likelihood of using service (a) Text Layout + Language (a) For nonblock layouts, use colorless language; for blocklayouts, use colorful language.

^ These recommended tactics should be viewed as independent options. As suggested by the absence of significant 4-way interactions, thecombining of these tactics will not necessarily enhance the probability of achieving the stated goal. For example, combining colorful language-block layout with a personal presentation-active sentence structure will not necessarily enhance the perceived "appeal" of the ad.

illustration. We might havelogically reasoned that theinclusion of a visual wouldenhance believability (i.e.,"what they say must be true;I can certainly see that themachine exists") while its ab-sence might serve as a detrac-tion. Yet, this simply was notthe case.And perhaps most surpris-ingly, the illustration factorappeared to operate indepen-dently of language, sentencestructure, and text layout for

the lower-order assessmentdimensions. However, thiswas not so for several of thehigher-order categories.Pointed to then is a clear andrecognizable dichotomy be-tween lower- and higher-or-der reader reactions that adcopywriters and researchersalike may not have previouslytaken note of.

For at least one higher-order as-sessment dimension, languageand text layout operated differ-

ently depending on whether ornot an illustration was present.With an illustration present, forexample, subjects reported thatthey were much more likely toread a colorless language ad aswe moved from a block to anonblock layout. But for colorfullanguage, a change in textuallayout had no noticeable effect.Furthermore, a somewhat differ-ent pattern emerged for ads withno illustration. Here a colorfullanguage-nonblock layout ap-peared to be the most effective



Table 7Summary of Recommended Tactics Based on Study 2

Communication goal:To enhance/Increase

Individual and/or combined factorsthat should be emphasized in order

to achieve stated goalRecommended tactics for ads in which the given

constant is a personal presentation'

Ad appeal (a) Text Layout (a) Use a nonblock layout.

(b) Illustration (b) Include an illustration.

(c) Language + Sentence Structure (c) With colorful language, use active or passive sentencestructure; vt/ith colorless language, use active sentencestructure only.

Ad believability (a) Language (a) Use colorless language.

(b) Sentence Structure (b) Use passive sentence structure.

Ad clarity (a) Language (a) Use colorful language.


(c) Text Layout + Sentence Structure (c) For nonblock and block layouts, use active sentencestructure.

Ad attractiveness (a) Text Layout (a) Use nonblock layout.


(c) Language + Sentence Structure (c) Use colorless language with active sentence structureonly.

Ad informativeness (a) None found (a) Use any layout, language, sentence structure, andillustration combination.

Overall reaction to ad (a) Text Layout (a) Use nonblock layout.


(c) Language + Sentence Structure (c) With colorful language, use active or passive sentencestructure; vi/ith colorless language, use active sentencestructure only.

Likelihood of reading ad (a) Text Layout + Sentence Structure (a) For nonblock layouts, use active or passive sentencestructure; for block layouts, use active sentencestructure only.

(b) Language + Sentence Structure (b) With colorless language, use active sentence structureonly; v ith colorful language, use active or passivesentence structure.

(c) Text Layout + Language + Illustration (c) For iiiustration ads, use a nonblock layout vi/ith colorlesslanguage; for ads without an illustration, use a nonblocklayout with colorful language.

Likelihood of using service (a) Sentence Structure (a) Use active sentence structure.

(b) Text Layout + Illustration (b) Use a nonblock layout and include an illustration.

' These recommended tactics should be viewed as independent options. As suggested by the absence of significant 4-way interactions, thecombining of these tactics will not necessarily enhance the probability of achieving the stated goal. For example, combining a nonblock layoutwith colorful language-active sentence structure will not necessarily enhance the perceived appeal" of the ad.

combination with colorful-blockbeing the least effective.

Discussion

Advertisers and copywritersshould find our results interest-

ing for a number of reasons.First, they substantiate thelargely intuitive assertion ofmost advertising textbooks thatlanguage, sentence structure,text layout, and illustrationchanges do not generally operate

independently of each other.Thus, it is dear that tactical deci-sions aimed at influencing theperceptions of readers must in-corporate synergistic rather thannonsynergistic approaches.However, the literature, as Percy



(1988) so astutely points out, isunfortunately less than clear onjust how this can be done. Thisis where this particular study(and those that will follow)makes a substantive contributionby providing more detailed insightinto just how these particular factorsinteract and how such interactionscan be more effectively used to shapereader perceptions.

Managerial impiications. Stud-ies of the complexity and magni-tude of these require rather de-tailed analyses to help unraveljust what has been found. Hope-fully, we have successfully donethis in our discussion. Now it iscritically important that weclearly and concisely communi-cate these findings in terms oftheir potential value as an aid tostrategy and tactical planning.Tables 6 and 7 offer some sug-gested guidelines.

When a copywriter sits downto plan an ad strategy, muchdepends not only upon whichlower- and higher-order goalsare targeted but also upon thecontext of the ad. As seen acrossstudies 1 and 2, the actual com-ponents (sentence structure,word choice, and layout) whichinfluence reader reactions alongthese various assessment dimen-sions may be identical yet mayrequire different tactics toachieve desired goals. For exam-ple, ad clarity may be improvedfor personal ads regardless ofthe presence or absence of anillustration by combining activesentences with block or non-block layouts. For illustrationads—regardless of whether ornot the presentation is personalor impersonal—an alternativechoice between the use of activeor passive sentences is equallyacceptable, particularly for non-block layouts. Admittedly then,the task of appropriately andeffectively combining these vari-ous ad components to achievegreater ad appeal, believability, or

whatever it is that one wishes toachieve, is far from simple.

As shown by Tables 6 and 7,we can point to no one stan-dardized language-sentencestructure combination of writingor textual/illustration format thatwill favorably influence each andevery assessment dimension.Yet, many advertising agenciescontinue to use words, sen-tences, and textual formats thatover the years have been estab-lished as "standardized fare,"regardless of the very real possi-bility that other less-used andgenerally shunned combinations(e.g., impersonal-colorless-pas-sive presentations) may interac-tively improve lower-order adassessments among many read-ers. In fact, as evidenced by thevast preponderance of ads, ad-vertising copywriters, in general,clearly appear to operate undercertain assumptions:

1. Certain language/sentencestructure combinations ofwriting are more acceptablethan are other combinations.

2. Desired reader perceptions ofthe ad and the product or ser-vice it is designed to promoteand sell are really very muchdependent on the prose us-age or text/illustration formatthat an advertiser chooses touse.

3. It is generally safer to use col-orful language and active sen-tence structure in an in-dented, itemized, illustratedformat than other possiblevariations."*

^ o support these points, all one has todo is compare advertisements in thegeneral press and in popular magazineswith those one finds in specialized jour-nals aimed at narrow audiences. In gen-eral, you will see that ads selling "hy-drofoil mixers, inverted steam traps, orliquid/solid filtration systems" are lexi-cally and syntactically the same as adsdesigned to sell automobiles or financialservices, not so much in terms of whatis said but how things are said. Further-

. . . advertising agenciescontinue to use words,sentences, and textual

formats that over the yearshave been established as"standardized fare/' . . .

Quite interestingly, our findingssuggest that these assumptionsare not necessarily true.

Future Research. We haveelsewhere laid the groundworknot only for this study—which isthe fourth in a sequence of suchstudies—but also for future ef-forts (1) by showing that copy-writers, through their control ofword usage, can engineer spe-cific reader perceptions of an adtext (see journal of Business Com-munication, 1989), (2) by chal-lenging the common assump-tions about the importance ofword choice and its effect onreader reactions to an ad (seejournal of Direct Marketing, 1989)and, finally, (3) by extendingthese previous efforts to abroader range of conditions (seejournal of Business and TechnicalCommunication, forthcoming).Interestingly, and perhaps quiteimportantly from a validationstandpoint, some consistent re-sponse patterns among readersare beginning to emerge fromone study to the next. Yet, thereis still much more to accomplishand, not unlike the authors ofmost other studies, we mustpursue this and related topics ina deliberate and well thought-out fashion. Only by doing thiscan we adequately report andbuild upon what we have previ-ously done.

Obviously, then, to better un-derstand the interactive work-more, these presentations are generally

presented in an indented, itemized for-

mat (i.e., nonblock).

Journal of ADVERTISING RESEARCH—SEPTEMBEaOCTOBER 1992 75


ings of the language, sentencestructure, text layout, and illus-tration components of print ads,we must expand beyond thepresent context to include addi-tional product/service scenariosas well as additional targetgroups. Since the RightTouchCenter is a service intended spe-cifically for college students, stu-dent reactions to our test adsprovide valuable information forthose marketing to this group.Nevertheless, we would not tryto argue that students are thegeneral public. Rather they are avery specific market segmentwhose reactions may well differfrom those of readers who eithernever attended college or whoattended many years ago. Con-sequently, we see these twostudies as part of a program-matic sequence designed to ulti-mately provide a comprehensiveunderstanding of the functioningof language in print ads acrossthe entire spectrum of possiblereaders. The RightTouch studieshave paved the way for subse-quent work which will give us abetter feel for the expansive ap-plicability of much of what wehave found. Given the vast dif-ferences in characterization thatexist for many of our productsand services (e.g., technical ver-sus nontechnical, durable versusnondurable, high involvementversus low involvement, etc.),the research possibilities for ex-tended, systematic replicationsare quite numerous, but poten-tially well worth the effort. Withcareful planning and a clearlydefined focus, the payoff for ad-vertisers, advertising copywrit-ers, and educators alike can besizable to say the least. •

References

Aaker, D. A., and G. Myers.Advertising Management. Engie-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,Inc., 1982.

Almaney, A. "The Effect of Mes-sage Treatment on Feedback inBusiness Communication." jour-nal of Business Communication 9, 3(1972): 19-23.

Baker, M. J., and G. A. Chur-chill, Jr. "The Impact of Physi-cally Attractive Models on Ad-vertising Evaluations." journal ofMarketing Research 14, 4 (1977):538-55.

Courtney, A. E., and S. W.Lockeretz. "A Woman's Place:An Analysis of the Roles Por-trayed by Women in MagazineAdvertisements." journal of Mar-keting Research 8 (1971): 92-95.

Crystal, D., and D. Davy. Inves-tigating English Style. Blooming-ton, IN: Indiana UniversityPress, 1969.

Devillier, J. L. "CommunicationEffects of Variations in Organiza-tion and Format." journal of Busi-ness Communication 9, 3 (1972):5-17.

Edell, ]. A., and R. Staelin. "TheInformation Processing of Pic-tures in Print Advertisements."journal of Consumer Research 10, 1(1983): 45-61.

Fielden, J. S. "What Do YouMean You Don't Like MyStyle?" Harvard Business Review60, 3 (1982); 128-40.

; J. D. Fielden; and R. E.Dulek. The Business Writing StyleBook. Engiewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984.

Furse, D. H., and D. W. Stew-art. "Standards of AdvertisingCopytesting: A PsychometricInterpretation." journal of Adver-tising 11, 4 (1982): 30-38.

Gelb, B. D.;J. W. Hong; andG. M. Zinkhan. "Communica-tions Effects of Specific Advertis-

ing Elements: An Update." Cur-rent Issues and Research in Adver-tising 2 (1985): 75-99.

Gordon, M. E.; L. A. Slade; andN. Schmitt. "The 'Science of theSophomore' Revisited: fromConjecture to Empiricism." Acad-emy of Management Review 11, 1(1986): 191-207.

Hair, Jr., J. F.; R. E. Anderson;and R. L. Tatham. MultivariateData Analysis. New York: Mac-millan Publishing Company,1987.

Hanssens, D. M., and B. Weitz."The Effectiveness of IndustrialPrint Advertisements AcrossProduct Categories." journal ofMarketing Research 17, 3 (1980):294-306.

Harmon, R. R.; N. Y. Razzouk;and B. L. Stern. "The Informa-tion Content of ComparativeMagazine Advertisements." jour-nal of Advertising 12, 4 (1983):10-19.

Harris, R. J.; R. E. Sturm; M. L.Klassen; and J. I. Bechtold."Language in Advertising: APsycholinguistic Approach."Current Issues and Research in Ad-vertising 1, 1 (1986): 1-26.

Hendon, D. W. "How Mechani-cal Factors Affect Ad Percep-tion." journal of Advertising Re-search 13, 4 (1973): 39-46.

Hirschman, E. C. "The Effect ofVerbal and Pictorial AdvertisingStimuli on Aesthetic, Utilitarian,and Familiarity Perceptions."journal of Advertising 15, 2 (1986):27-34.

Holbrook, M. B. "Some FurtherDimensions of Psycholinguistics,Imagery, and Consumer Re-sponse." In Advances in ConsumerResearch 9, A. A. Mitchell, ed.

76 Journal ot ADVERTISING RESEARCH—SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1992

P R I N ' T A D V E R T I S I N G

Pittsburgh, PA: Association forConsumer Research, 1981.

, and D. R. Lehmann."Form versus Content in Pre-dicting Starch Scores." journal ofAdvertising Research 20, 4 (1980):53-59.

, and W. L. Moore. "Fea-ture Interactions in ConsumerJudgments of Verbal Versus Pic-torial Presentations." journal ofConsumer Research 8, 1 (1981):103-13.

Keon, J. W. "Copy Testing Adsfor Imagery Products." journal ofAdvertising Research 23, 6 (1983):

Kisielius, J., and B. Sternthal."Detecting and Explaining Vivid-ness Effects in Attitudinal Judg-ments." journal of Marketing Re-search 21, 1 (1984): 56-64.

Lutz, K. A., and R. J. Lutz. "Ef-fects of Interactive Imagery onLearning: Application to Adver-tising." journal of Applied Psychol-ogy 62, 4 (1977): 493-98.

Madden, C. S.; M. J. Caballero;and S. Matsukubo. "Analysis ofInformation Content in U.S. andJapanese Magazine Advertis-ing." journal of Advertising 15, 3(1986): 38-45.

Marks, R. B., and J. W. Totten."The Effects of Mortality Cueson Consumers' Ratings of Hos-pital Attributes." journal of HealthCare Marketing 10, 3 (1990): 4-12.

Milic, L. T. "Theories of Styleand Their Implications for theTeaching of Composition." InContemporary Essays on Style,G. A. Love and M. Payne, eds.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman &Co., 1965.

Percy, L. "PsycholinguisticGuidelines for AdvertisingCopy." In Advances in ConsumerResearch 9, A. A. Mitchell, ed.Pittsburgh, PA: Association forConsumer Research, 1981.

. "A Review of the Effectof Specific Advertising ElementsUpon Overall CommunicationResponse." Current Issues andResearch in Advertising, 2 (1983):77-118.

. "The Often Subtle Lin-guistic Cues in Advertising." InAdvances in Consumer Research 15,M. Houston, ed. Provo, VT: As-sociation for Consumer Re-search, 1988.

, and J. R. Rossiter. Adver-tising Strategy: A CommunicationTheory Approach. New York:Praeger Publishing Co., 1980.

and "Effects ofPicture Size and Color on BrandAttitude: Responses in Print Ad-vertising." In Advances in Con-sumer Research 10, R. P. Bagozziand A. M. Tybout, eds. Ann Ar-bor, MI: Association for Con-sumer Research, 1982.

Reilly, P. "College Magazines—The Next Generation." Advertis-ing Age, February 1989.

Roloff, M. E., and G. Miller. Per-suasion: New Directions in Theoryand Research. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage Publications, 1980.

Rossiter, J. R. "Predicting StarchScores." journal of AdvertisingResearch 21, 5 (1981a): 63-68.

. "Visual Imagery; Appli-cations to Advertising." In Ad-vances in Consumer Research 9,A. A. Mitchell, ed. Pittsburgh,PA: Association for ConsumerResearch, 1981b.

, and K. I. Falsetta. "Reli-ability of Psycholinguistic Analy-sis of Advertising." Working pa-per no. 182-A, Columbia Gradu-ate School of Business, 1979.

, and L. Percy. "VisualImaging Ability As A Mediatorof Advertising Response." InAdvances in Consumer Research 5,H. Keith Hunt, ed. Ann Arbor,

MI: Association for ConsumerResearch, 1978.

Schiffman, L. G., and L. L.Kanuk. Consumer Behavior. En-giewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1991.

Soley, L. C , and L. N. Reid."Predicting Industrial Ad Read-ership." industrial MarketingManagement 12, 1 (1983a): 201-206.

and "IndustrialAd Readership as a Function ofHeadline Type." journal of Adver-tising 12, 1 (1983b): 34-38.

Stern, B. L.; D. M. Krugman;and A. Resnik. "Magazine Ad-vertising: An Analysis of Its In-formation Content." journal ofAdvertising Research 21, 2 (1981):39-44.

Taylor, S. E., and S. C. Thomp-son. "Stalking the Elusive Vivid-ness Effect." Psychological Review89, 2(1982): 155-181.

Thompson, E. "An ExperimentalInvestigation of the Relative Ef-fectiveness of OrganizationalStructure in Oral Communica-tion. Southern Speech journal 26, 1(1960): 59-69.

Valiente, R. "Mechanical Corre-lates of Ad Recognition." journalof Advertising Research 13, 3(1973): 13-18.

ARF


language, sentence,ngrant/cjt780/readings/day 2...layout variation nonblock block nonblock block...

Documents