This research investigates the effectiveness of nonverbal symbolic signs and rhetorical metaphors in advertisements. Hypotheses are made based on appeals to both interpretive and psychological theoretical perspectives. In contrast to previous research that has assumed nonverbal ad elements are effortlessly and automatically processed, it is proposed here that consumers must devote a nontrivial level of cognitive effort if they are to comprehend nonverbal symbolic signs and metaphors. The hypotheses suggest boundary conditions for the effectiveness of nonverbal elements in advertising. An experiment is conducted as a test of the hypotheses, and the observations support the hypotheses.

One of the traditional tenets of marketing is that managers considering whether to develop and launch a new product should adopt a customer orientation and consider whether the product would satisfy the needs of customers. This research discovers that adopting a customer orientation causes managers to experience undesirable cognitive effects. The authors find that when considering customers’ needs during the screening phase of the new product development process, managers often voluntarily engage in mental imagery (i.e., cognitive simulation) that biases their evaluation of a new product idea toward unrealistic optimism—even for a flawed product that would not satisfy customer needs. Furthermore, the authors find that managers who exert greater vigilance to achieve more accurate evaluations of the new product idea are especially vulnerable to the biasing effect, leading to less accurate evaluations. The authors test an analytical technique (i.e., a theory-based approach to analyzing the new product) that successfully allows a manager to adopt a customer orientation without an attendant bias toward optimism.

Visual processing style, defined as the relative propensity to engage in visual processing rather than verbal processing, is an individual difference variable that has been frequently investigated in the consumer psychology literature. Surprisingly, numerous studies have reported no relationship between visual processing style and viewer responses to visual elements of persuasion. We argue that this accumulation of null results is due to untenable historical theoretical assumptions that underlie the construct, along with methodological problems that are inevitably brought about by those theoretical assumptions. We reconceptualize visual processing style and test an alternative empirical operationalization of it. Using both new data and a reanalysis of data published in the Journal of Consumer Research, we find the old approach yields null results, but we find the new approach yields the expected results. The new approach reinstates the utility of incorporating propensity to engage in visual processing as an individual difference variable into consumer psychology models of visual persuasion, and it reinstates a powerful individual difference variable that can help push forward the investigation of the unique aspects of visual persuasion.

Legal and consumer psychology scholars have focused recent attention on source confusion, which is the likelihood that consumers will be confused regarding the company that is a product's source or sponsor. The authors evaluate two potential antecedents of source confusion: (1) consumer motivation and (2) a brand extension that has been undertaken by a competitor. There have been disagreements in the courts, the scholarly legal literature, and the consumer psychology literature concerning the nature and extent of the impact of these two variables on the likelihood of consumer confusion. Based on schema theory, the authors hypothesize that consumer motivation and brand extension will influence the likelihood of source confusion. An interaction between the two variables is proposed, with consumer motivation having an effect that is opposite to the effect typically identified in the literature and case law. The results of a controlled laboratory experiment support the theoretical predictions.

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.