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

net/publication/251510684

Print advertising: Vivid content

Article in Journal of Business Research · June 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.008

CITATIONS READS

47 2,708

3 authors:

Bob Fennis Enny Das

University of Groningen Radboud University
123 PUBLICATIONS 3,832 CITATIONS 120 PUBLICATIONS 3,238 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Marieke Fransen
University of Amsterdam
48 PUBLICATIONS 1,648 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Enny Das on 03 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 861–864

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Print advertising: Vivid content

Bob M. Fennis a,⁎, Enny Das b, Marieke L. Fransen c
a
Dept. of Marketing, University of Groningen, Nettelbosje 2, 9747 AE, Groningen, The Netherlands
b
Dept. of Communication, VU University Amsterdam, Buitenveldertselaan 3, 1082 VA, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
c
Dept. of Communication, University of Amsterdam, Kloverniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present research examines the effects of vivid ad content in two types of appeal in print ads as a function
Received 1 January 2010 of individual differences in chronically experienced vividness of visual imagery. For informational ads for a
Received in revised form 1 March 2010 functional product, vivid ad content strongly affected individuals high in reported vividness of visual imagery,
Accepted 1 April 2010
in that the vivid ad produced a significantly more favorable brand attitude than did the pallid ad. In contrast,
Available online 26 January 2011
vivid content did not affect individuals low in VVI. However, for transformational ads for an experiential
Keywords:
product, vivid content increased brand attitude regardless of individual differences in vividness of visual
Individual differences in imagery vividness imagery, probably because vivid transformational ads tend to elicit strong visual images for everyone. The
Vivid vs. pallid ad executions findings from the two experiments indicate that advertisers should use vivid, concrete worded copy in
Brand attitude informational print ads and a vivid, experiential illustration in transformational print ads.
© 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 1.2. Vividness of visual imagery as an individual-difference variable

1.1. Vivid content in ads
Vividness as an executional element in advertisements has long
captured the interest of advertising researchers. Pioneering research-
ers Nisbett and Ross (1980, p. 45) conceptualized vividness as
applying to stimuli that are “emotionally interesting, concrete,
image-provoking and proximate in a sensory, temporal or spatial
way.” Vividness in advertisements is achievable executionally by
using concrete product- or user-focused rather than abstract illustra-
tions in print ads and video sequences in TV ads, and concrete rather
than abstract wording in the copy or audio (see Rossiter and Percy,
1980, 1983, 1987, 1997). Intuition suggests that vivid ads should be
more persuasive than pallid ones. However, previous research on the
impact of vivid content elements in ads finds conflicting results
(Taylor and Thompson, 1982). Vivid contents in ads produce a
positive persuasive effect (Bone and Ellen, 1992; Fortin and Dholakia,
2005; Mitchell and Olson, 1981; Rossiter and Percy, 1980); but
sometimes no effect (Sullivan and Macklin, 1988); and sometimes a
negative effect (Kisielius and Sternthal, 1986).
The present study seeks to resolve the conflicting findings by
postulating that effects of vividness in advertising are the product of
the interplay between the type of advertising (informational versus
transformational) and individuals' habitual, possibly innate, tendency
to experience vivid visual imagery.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 50 363 7065; fax: +31 50 363 3720.
E-mail addresses: b.m.fennis@rug.nl (B.M. Fennis), ehhj.das@fsw.vu.nl (E. Das),
M.L.Fransen@uva.nl (M.L. Fransen).
In 1973, Marks argued for the existence of stable individual
differences in the propensity to experience visual imagery and
developed a self-report instrument to tap these differences which
he calls the “Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire” (VVIQ, see
also Marks, 1989). Research employing the VVIQ appears in such
diverse areas as facial recognition (McKelvie, 1994), gender differ-
ences in the tendency to engage in visualization (Richardson, 1995),
visual memories of one's parents (McKelvie, 1998), and grief reactions
in response to personal loss of a loved one (Johnson, 1998). The VVIQ
distinguishes between individuals who are high visualizers and those
who are low visualizers (McKelvie, 1994). High visualizers experience
extensive and quite clear visual imagery in response to imagery-
evoking stimuli, whereas low visualizers are less prone to experience
visual imagery. Vivid content in ads may therefore prove to be
persuasive for high visualizers but have no effect on low visualizers.
In two experiments, the present research explores whether the
type of advertising appeal places a boundary condition on the effect of
vivid ad content among individuals who differ in their visualizing
tendency. In particular, we expect that the moderating role of
individual differences in the tendency to experience vivid visual
imagery from ads may occur only for informational ads that typically
focus on product attributes. In contrast, transformational ads focus on
the experience of using the product rather than on the attributes of the
product (see Puto and Wells, 1984, but note that we use Rossiter and
Percy's, 1987, 1997, definition of informational and transformational
advertising in our research) and these ads typically employ vivid,
highly concrete visual content to convey the experience, which
automatically triggers visual imagery. Hence, for transformational ads,

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.01.008
862 B.M. Fennis et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 861–864
we expect that vivid ad content may increase brand attitude
regardless of individuals' tendencies to experience visual imagery.
2. Two experiments
The present study includes two experiments using print (maga-
zine) ads to test the hypothesis that the individual-difference trait of
vivid visualization tendency would moderate the effect of vivid ad
content on persuasion for informational ads rather than transforma-
tional ads. Experiment 1 assesses the role of the VVIQ in moderating
the effect of variations in vividness of the verbal copy content (i.e.,
vivid wording vs. pallid wording) on brand attitude for informational
ads for a fictitious new brand and model of frying pan. Experiment 2
tests the hypothesized boundary condition on the influence of
individuals' visualization tendencies by using a transformational ad
for an expensive brand of imported champagne.
2.1. Experiment 1
Experiment 1 provides a test of the hypothesis that individual
differences in the vividness of visual imagery would moderate the
impact of vivid ad content on persuasion for informational ads. This
study tests the notion that vivid informational ads result in a more
favorable brand attitude than pallid ads for high visualizers but not
low visualizers.
2.1.1. Method
2.1.1.1. Participants and design. The participant sample consisted of
114 individuals (47 males) living in a large town in the Netherlands,
partly undergraduate students from a large university, partly students
from a polytechnic institute, and the remainder passersby in the
town's central shopping street. The mean age of the participants was
24 years (standard deviation = 9 years). The experiment employed
one between-subjects factor at two levels (type of ad copy: vivid vs.
pallid) and the participants' VVIQ scores as the continuous moderat-
ing variable. The dependent variable was attitude toward the brand
(Ab). Participants agreed voluntarily to participate and the experi-
menter randomly assigned them to the two experimental ad
conditions.
2.1.1.2. Procedure. The experimenter approached the individuals and
asked them to participate in a study on the perception of commercial
messages. Participants learned that the study was the result of a
collaboration with the (fictitious) Research Centre for Consumer
Affairs. Before exposing them to the ad, participants completed a
questionnaire which included the VVIQ and some demographic
questions. Participants then received the ad to look at and read.
After ad lib exposure (usually about 60 seconds), the experimenter
took back the ad and handed participants a questionnaire containing
the dependent measure and the manipulation checks. After they
completed the questionnaire, the experimenter debriefed, thanked,
and dismissed the participants.
2.1.1.3. Type of ad copy. To arrive at a satisfactory manipulation of
vividness of ad content, we conducted a pilot study in which two
separate samples of 10 individuals each rated one of the two
experimental ads. The ads were for a fictitious brand, Svensson, of a
new model of frying pan. In the pallid ad, abstract terms described the
product, focusing on a simple listing of product attributes (not their
benefits). In the vivid ad, colorful, concrete language suggesting
benefits described the same product attributes (cf. Frey and Eagly,
1993; Taylor and Thompson, 1982). Pilot study participants rated each
ad on two unipolar 1–5 scales assessing the extent to which the ad
evoked a mental picture of the frying pan and the extent to which they
judged the product description in the ad to be lively and vivid. Results
of one-way ANOVAs on these items indicated that the manipulation
was successful. Participants exposed to the vivid ad rated it as evoking
more mental imagery, on average, compared to participants exposed
to the pallid ad (Mvivid = 4.1, Mpallid = 2.2; F (1, 18) = 36.1, p b 0.001).
Participants exposed to the vivid ad also rated it as descriptively more
lively and vivid than those exposed to the pallid ad (Mvivid = 3.6,
Mpallid = 2.3; F (1, 18 ) = 19.9, p b 0.001). Accordingly, the actual
experiment featured the pilot test ads.
2.1.1.4. Vividness of visual imagery. The experiment employed Marks'
(1973) eyes-open version of the Vividness of Visual Imagery
Questionnaire (VVIQ) to measure individuals' self-reported vividness
of visual imagery (VVI; there is also a less often used eyes-closed
instruction thought to aid in visual imagery generation but this
instruction makes no difference to scores; Marks, 1989). The VVIQ
consists of 16 items asking participants to variously imagine four
perspectives on four situations and to rate the vividness of the visual
image generated in each case on a unipolar 1–5 scale ranging from
1 = no image at all, to 5 = a very clear image in mind. The four
situations pertain to a friend or family member that one is familiar
with (but who is not around at present); the rising sun; a store that
one visits regularly; and a landscape with trees, mountains, and a lake.
Sample perspective items include “Imagine the sun rising above the
horizon in the morning haze” and “Imagine the store from across the
street” (see Marks, 1973, for a complete list of items). In the present
study, scores on the 16 items had very high internal consistency
(Cronbach's alpha = 0.89) and, in line with the findings of LeBoutillier
and Marks (2001), a factor analysis yielded one major factor
(eigenvalue of 6.05), suggesting that VVI is a unidimensional
construct and a genuine individual-difference internal disposition.
We averaged item scores to arrive at the individual's score, which
could range from 1.0 to 5.0.
2.1.1.5. Attitude toward the brand. Participants rated the extent to
which they perceived the brand as bad (1) or good (9) on a single-
item, neutral (4) midpoint, and thus bipolar, semantic differential
scale (see Bergkvist and Rossiter, 2007, and Rossiter and Bergkvist,
2009, for justification of this bipolar single-item measure of Ab).
2.1.1.6. Manipulation check. Three items with unipolar 1–5 answer
scales served as a manipulation check for vivid versus pallid ad
content. Participants indicated the extent to which the ad “evoked a
clear image in your mind,” “evoked a realistic image of the product,”
and “yielded a clear visualization of the product attributes.”
2.1.2. Results
2.1.2.1. Demand characteristics. At the end, the questionnaire
requested participants to describe in their own words the true goal
of the research. None of the participants guessed the real purpose of
the experiment.
2.1.2.2. Manipulation check. Results showed that the ad copy
manipulation was successful. Participants exposed to the vivid ad
rated the extent to which the ad evoked a clear image in their minds
as significantly greater as those exposed to the pallid ad (Mvivid = 3.2,
Mpallid = 2.6, t(110) = 2.83, p b .01). The vivid ad also resulted in a
more realistic image of the product compared to the pallid ad
(Mvivid = 3.8, Mpallid = 2.9, t(110) = 4.06, p b .001). Finally, the vivid ad
yielded a significantly clearer visualization of the product attributes
than the pallid ad (Mvivid = 3.6, Mpallid = 2.7, t(110) = 4.12, p b .001).
2.1.2.3. Brand attitude results. To test the hypothesis that vividness of
visual imagery moderates the effect of vividness of ad copy on brand
attitude for informational ads, we performed a multiple regression
analysis with Ab as the criterion and, as predictors, copy type (vivid vs.
 B.M. Fennis et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 861–864
pallid, dummy coded), VVI (centered), and their interaction (cf. Aiken
and West, 1991). Neither the main effect of ad copy (t b 1) nor the
main effect of VVI (t(110) = − 1.21, n.s.) was significant. However, the
analysis yielded the predicted interaction between copy type and VVI
on Ab (β = .29, t(110) = 2.24, p b .05). Simple slopes analyses (Aiken
and West, 1991) revealed, as expected, that for high visualizers
(evaluated at one standard deviation above the mean in VVI) vivid ads
significantly increased brand attitude (Mvivid = 5.8) compared to
pallid ads (Mpallid = 5.0; β = 0.28, t(110) = 2.12, p b 0.05) and that
for low visualizers (evaluated at one standard deviation below the
mean in VVI) no significant difference in brand attitude was produced
by vivid ads (Mvivid = 5.0) and pallid ads (Mpallid = 5.4; β = −0.14,
t(110) = − 1.06, n.s.).
2.1.3. Discussion
The results of experiment 1 provide a first empirical demonstra-
tion that individual differences in experienced vividness of visual
imagery moderate the effects of vivid ad content on persuasion. At
first glance, our findings replicate earlier findings of no main effect of
vivid content in ads, suggesting that vividness effects are elusive, at
least for informational ads for functional products (cf. Taylor and
Thompson, 1982). Upon closer inspection, however, as predicted, the
results reveal that vivid ad content increases attitudes toward the
advertised brand among high visualizers.
2.2. Experiment 2
The first experiment demonstrates the visualization ability
moderator effect with informational ads for a functional product
(the new model frying pan). To examine the hypothesized boundary
effect of the type of appeal in the ad, experiment 2 tests the
interaction hypothesis with a transformational ad for an experiential
product (champagne).
2.2.1. Method
2.2.1.1. Participants and design. A new sample of 78 undergraduate
students (27 males) from another Dutch university (mean age = 22 -
years, standard deviation = 2.6 years) participated in the experiment,
in return for 8 Euros payment (approximately $10 U.S.). Like the
previous experiment, this experiment consisted of one between-
subjects variable (type of illustration: vivid vs. pallid), and as the
second (continuous) independent variable individual differences in
vividness of visual imagery measured by the VVIQ.
2.2.1.2. Procedure. On arrival at the lab, and after answering some
demographic questions, we randomly assigned participants to either
the vivid or the pallid ad condition. The experimenter took back the ad
after ad lib exposure. Participants then completed several measures
including the attitude measure, manipulation checks, and the VVIQ
measure. Afterwards, the experimenter thanked and paid participants
for their attendance.
2.2.1.3. Type of illustration. This experiment employed a transforma-
tional ad (see Rossiter and Percy, 1987, 1997) for an experiential
product: a Web ad for a prestigious brand of imported champagne
(Moët & Chandon). We only manipulated the visual content of the
ads. The pallid version showed a picture of the bottle of champagne.
The vivid version added a full-screen transparent background photo
of lively people enjoying champagne. The minimal copy (the brand
name only) was the same in the two versions of the ad.
2.2.1.4. Vividness of visual imagery. As in the previous experiment, the
present study measured individual differences in visual imagery using
the Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ; Marks, 1973).
Internal consistency was again high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83).
863
2.2.1.5. Attitude toward the brand. As in the first experiment, we
assessed attitude toward the brand (Ab) with the single 9-point
bipolar semantic differential item with anchors bad versus good.
Higher scores (above 4 on the answer scale) indicate a more favorable
attitude.
2.2.1.6. Manipulation check. Participants exposed to each illustration
type rated the extent to which they thought the ad portrayed “a lively
and concrete situation,” and produced “an image-provoking repre-
sentation of the product” on two 1–5 unipolar answer scales.
Averaging the scores on these items resulted in an index with higher
scores indicating more vivid visual imagery.
2.2.2. Results
2.2.2.1. Manipulation check. On the index checking the manipulation of
illustration type, we performed an independent samples t-test.
Participants exposed to the vivid ad rated the visual content as
more lively, concrete, and imagery-provoking (Mvivid = 3.7) than
those exposed to the pallid ad (Mpallid = 2.9; t(76) = 4.38, p b 0.001).
This result indicates a successful manipulation of illustration type.
2.2.2.2. Brand attitude. As before, we performed a multiple regression
analysis with type of illustration (vivid vs. pallid, dummy coded), the
VVI (centered) and the interaction between type of illustration and
VVI as predictors, and brand attitude as the criterion variable. This
time, there was a statistically significant main effect for vivid vs. pallid
ad content (β = 0.25, t(74) = 2.23, p b 0.05). The ad with the vivid
illustration of the champagne being enjoyed by users resulted in a
more positive brand attitude (Mvivid = 6.8) than the ad with the pallid
illustration of the product alone (Mpallid = 6.2). However, in contrast
to the result of experiment 1, but as predicted, there was no
interaction between illustration type and VVI (β = 0.14, t(74) =
1.01, ns) for the transformational ads.
2.2.3. Discussion
The results of experiment 2 show that the moderating effect of
individual differences in vividness of visual imagery on responsive-
ness to vivid content in print ads does not apply to transformational
ads. More specifically, the results suggest that experiential content in
the illustration in ads for experiential products automatically triggers
consumer imagery, regardless of the individual tendency for
visualization.
The type of ad – informational versus transformational – that
consumers perceive thus constitutes an important qualifying or
boundary condition to the moderating role of individual differences
in vividness of visual imagery. For informational ads, taking such
individual differences into account is essential for observing an effect
of vivid content in ads. For transformational ads, however, individual
differences in their tendency to experience vivid visual imagery seem
to be inconsequential.
3. Conclusions and practical implications
The present experiments offer an explanation of why the use of
vivid content in ads – concretely worded copy and concrete,
experiential visuals, both of which should produce visual imagery –
is effective with some but not all consumers and for some but not all
types of advertising. For informational print ads, vivid descriptions of
the product's attributes (versus pallid descriptions) increase attitudes
toward the advertised brand (Ab) only among high visualizers and
have no effect among low visualizers. For transformational ads,
however, vivid visual ad content increases brand attitudes regardless
of individual differences in visualization tendency.
Rossiter and Percy (1978, 1980) propose that visual imaging
ability moderates the effectiveness of vivid ad content. Their theory
864 B.M. Fennis et al. / Journal of Business Research 65 (2012) 861–864
was that high visualizers, but not low visualizers, would experience
visual reinforcement of product performance beliefs by imagining
themselves consuming the product (drinking a Bavarian beer in their
experiment) and that this visual positive reinforcement would
increase their attitude toward the advertised brand. They found that
it was the larger and thus presumably more vivid illustration of the
product (a branded glass of beer) that apparently triggered visual
reinforcement among high visualizers. The most effective beer ad
tested in their experiment features a large picture of the product
rather than a small picture as in our second experiment and this
nonexperiential picture in their experiment may have triggered
imagery, when large, only among high visualizers. Thus, a truly
experiential illustration showing the user actually consuming the
product, as used in the present research, may be necessary to override
the interaction effect.
The practical implications of our study for advertisers are several.
The vividness main effect, as found in the second experiment, appears to
occur only for transformational ads promoting positively motivated
experiential products (see Rossiter and Percy, 1987, 1997). This finding
suggests that advertisers should continue to use imagery-eliciting,
experiential visuals in transformational advertising. For informational
ads promoting functional products, the wording of product claims in the
ad, either vividly or pallidly, makes no difference across the board (no
main effect) in that it does not increase brand attitude.
However, the visualizer interaction effect, found for informational
ads, is important. Usually this type of interaction is not very helpful for
advertising practice. In the first place, it is not feasible for advertisers
to segment on individual differences in visualization ability—nor on
the academically popular “Need for Cognition” trait or on the “Big
Five” personality traits—because although advertisers could conceiv-
ably measure these traits they cannot easily target high and low
scorers differentially via media vehicles (see Rossiter and Percy, 1987,
1997). In the second place, even if these trait-like individual
differences could be targeted, some of these differences cut both
ways. For example, while low-anxiety individuals respond favorably
to strong fear appeals, high-anxiety individuals tend to find them
aversive and tune out such ads (see Rossiter and Bellman, 2005).
However, visualizing ability seems to be a one-way individual-
difference variable in that vivid content does not turn-off low
visualizers. Advertisers therefore should use vivid copy in informa-
tional ads even if this yields a persuasive advantage over pallid copy
confined to approximately half of the total consumer audience.
View publication stats
References
Aiken LS, West SG. Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage; 1991.
Bergkvist L, Rossiter JR. The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item
measures of the same constructs. J Mark Res 2007;44:175–84.
Bone PF, Ellen PS. The generation and consequences of communication-evoked
imagery. J Consum Res 1992;19:93-104.
Fortin DR, Dholakia RR. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and
involvement with a web-based advertisement. J Bus Res 2005;58(3):387–96.
Frey KP, Eagly AH. Vividness can undermine the persuasiveness of messages. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1993;65(1):32–44.
Johnson MP. Miscarriage: Is vividness of visual imagery a factor in the grief reaction of
the partner? Br J Health Psychol 1998;3(2):137–46.
Kisielius J, Sternthal B. Examining the vividness controversy: An availability-valence
perspective. J Consum Res 1986;12(4):418–31.
LeBoutillier N, Marks DF. The factorial validity and reliability of the eyes-open version of
the vividness of visual imagery questionnaire. J Ment Imagery 2001;25(3–4):
107–14.
Marks DF. Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. Br J Psychol 1973;64(1):
17–24.
Marks DF. Bibliography of research utilizing the vividness of visual imagery
questionnaire. Percept Mot Skills 1989;69(3, Pt 1):707–18.
McKelvie SJ. The vividness of visual imagery questionnaire as a predictor of facial
recognition memory performance. Br J Psychol 1994;85(1):93-104.
McKelvie SJ. Effects of gender on reported vividness of visual imagery for parents. J
Ment Imagery 1998;22(3–4):99-112.
Mitchell AA, Olson JC. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising
effects on brand attitude? J Mark Res 1981;18:318–32.
Nisbett RE, Ross L. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980.
Puto CP, Wells WD. Informational and transformational advertising: The differential
effects of time. Adv Consum Res 1984;11:572–6.
Richardson JTE. Gender differences in the vividness of visual imagery questionnaire: A
meta-analysis. J Ment Imagery 1995;19(3–4):177–87.
Rossiter JR, Bellman S. Marketing Communications: Theory and Applications. Frenchs
Forest, Australia: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2005.
Rossiter JR, Bergkvist L. The importance of choosing one good item for single-item
measures of attitude towards the ad and attitude towards the brand and its
generalization to all measures. Transf Werbeforschung Prax 2009;55(2):8-18.
Rossiter JR, Percy L. Visual imaging ability as a mediator of advertising response. Adv
Consum Res 1978;5:621–9.
Rossiter JR, Percy L. Attitude change through visual imagery in advertising. J Advert
1980;9:10–6.
Rossiter JR, Percy L. Visual communication in advertising. In: Harris RJ, editor.
Information Processing Research in Advertising. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983.
Rossiter JR, Percy L. Advertising and Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill;
1987.
Rossiter JR, Percy L. Advertising Communications and Promotion Management. 2nd
edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1997.
Sullivan GL, Macklin CM. Vividness and unvividness effects in print advertising: An
experimental investigation. J Ment Imagery 1988;12(3-4):133–44.
Taylor SE, Thompson SC. Stalking the elusive “vividness” effect. Psychol Rev
1982;89(2):155–81.