Search

A renowned classification of visual metaphor (depicting e.g. TOOTHPASTE IS DIAMOND) is the one by Phillips and McQuarrie differentiating between juxtaposition, fusion and replacement. Replacements are oftentimes treated as one unambiguous construct. We reason that there are three disparate replacement types varying in audience responses because of differences in presence and type of visual context: 1) source without target context (e.g. diamond on neutral background), 2) source in target context (e.g. diamond on toothbrush) and 3) target in source context (e.g. tubeof toothpaste on ring). We validated our refinement in an experiment with replacement type as within-subjects factor and perceived processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure as dependent variables. Metaphor comprehension was also taken into account. Participants saw 6 ads (2 per replacement type) for fictitious brands. Overall, perceived processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure were highest for source in target context ads. Source without target context ads and target in source context ads were perceived as equally fluent to process and aesthetically pleasing. For comprehendedmetaphors, perceived processing fluency was higher for target in source context ads than for source without target context ads. This study shows that Phillips and McQuarrie’s replacement category needs to be refined. Studies comparing replacements with juxtapositions and fusions need to be wary of the crucial role of visual context. Replacements showing the source object in the context of the target (e.g. diamond on toothbrush) outperform the other replacement types.