Search

Contains fulltext : M_318087.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 10 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 43 p.

Contains fulltext : 42948.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 12 p.

Contains fulltext : 43176.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 17 p.

Contains fulltext : 61736.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 4 p.

Item does not contain fulltext Reliable coding of stimuli is a daunting task that often yields unsatisfactory results. This paper discusses a case study in which tropes (e.g., metaphors, puns) in TV commercials were analyzed as well the extent and location of verbal and visual anchoring (i.e., explanation) of these tropes. After a first coding round, low interrater agreement scores were found. Examples are presented which demonstrate the reliability issues. The paper concludes with an overview of options to deal with reliability problems as described here. Low interrater agreement scores may reflect the richness of the data and their inherent ambiguity and need not necessarily be disapproved of. Twenty-third Biennial Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, 22 augustus 2014

Contains fulltext : 452212.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) According to the processing fluency theory (Reber et al., 2004), fluently processed stimuli are preferred to more challenging stimuli. This contradicts Giora et al.’s (2004) Optimal Innovation Hypothesis, that predicts a preference for more challenging, optimally innovative stimuli. Hekkert et al.’s dual process model would explain both theories: Familiar stimuli would be preferred after short exposure, whereas optimally innovative stimuli would be preferred after longer exposure. An experiment was done to examine the effect of exposure time (20ms vs. 1000ms) on the aesthetic response to either familiar or optimally innovative advertising images. The results showed a higher aesthetic response to optimally innovative images regardless of exposure time. This study therefore did not support Reber et al.’s fluency theory nor Hekkert et al.’s assumption that two opposing mechanisms are at work at different exposure times. Twenty-third Biennial Congress of the International Association of Empirical Aesthetics, 22 augustus 2014

Contains fulltext : 42566.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 3 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 256 p.

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 287482.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Item does not contain fulltext 2 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 2 p.

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 27425.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) The present study investigated the effect of rhetorical figures on the attitude towards print ads. It was thought that rhetorical figures would yield a favourable attitude towards the ad, which in turn would influence attitude towards the product or brand, buying intention and buying behaviour. A rhetorical figure can be defined as an artfully divergent way of presenting an advertising message. Two types of rhetorical figures were distinguished, namely schemes and tropes. Schemes are superficial deviations (e.g., rhyme, alliteration). Tropes are meaningful deviations (e.g., metaphors, puns). Tropes are assumed to be perceived as more complex than schemes. Schemes (and non-rhetorical figures) are explicit and perceptible for everyone. Tropes are implicit and offer a cognitive challenge. The receiver needs specific prior knowledge to understand tropes. Receivers may find it more satisfying to retrieve the message themselves than to be told what the message is. From the results it can be concluded that two conditions have to be met if rhetorical figures are to yield a favourable attitude towards the ad: 1) receivers have to understand the ad, and 2) receivers have to perceive the rhetorical figure as an artful deviation from their expectations. Both conditions play a role with respect to tropes. Only the second condition plays a role with respect to schemes, because of the fact that schemes cannot be not understood. The use of tropes is more risky than the use of schemes because the condition of perceived understanding applies only to tropes, and because attitude towards ads that were not understood is less favourable than towards ads that were understood. Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 27 april 2006 Promotores : Hoeken, H., Jansen, C.J.M. Co-promotor : Mulken, M.J.P. van 200 p.

Contains fulltext : 41518.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 14 p.

Contains fulltext : 43179.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Item does not contain fulltext Amsterdam Sixth International Conference on Argumentation

Contains fulltext : 42378.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) 10 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 8 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 5 p.

Item does not contain fulltext [n.n.] Etmaal van de Communicatiewetenschap, 18 november 2004 n.n. : [s.n.]

Contains fulltext : 61694.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 18 p.

Item does not contain fulltext 6 p.

Contains fulltext : 194485.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) 6 p.

Petty and Cacioppo’s Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM: see, e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) has been the most influential model of the persuasion process for almost two decades. Its basic postulate is that when people are confronted with a persuasive message, they want to assess the validity of the message’s claim. To do so, people may systematically and critically evaluate the arguments supporting this claim. Although this systematic evaluation is the safest way to assess a claim’s validity, people are not always motivated and/or able to do so. In that case, they can use rules of thumb to assess the validity of the message’s claim. They may reason, for instance, “Experts are usually right, and this claim is put forward by an expert, therefore this claim is correct.” Other factors that can influence their assessment under those conditions are the number of arguments (instead of the content of these arguments), or even more superficial message characteristics such as the layout or the use of attractive colors. Depending on the way in which people process the message, arguments will or will not determine the outcome of the persuasion process. Only when people are motivated and able to systematically evaluate the arguments does the quality of these arguments influence their assessment of the claim’s validity.

Item does not contain fulltext