Picture–Text Incongruency in Print Advertisements among Low- and High-Literacy Consumers

While low-literacy consumers rely heavily on pictorial information when making market-based decisions, they also do attempt to read relevant information. When the advertisement picture and text are aligned, so too should be the conclusions low-literacy consumers draw. We ask what happens when the pictures and accompanying text are incongruent. Results of an experiment indicate that low-literacy consumers misinterpreted an advertisement with text-picture incongruity more regularly than did high-literacy consumers. Furthermore, low-literacy consumers demonstrated errors in comprehension that reflect picture-based processing. However, despite comprehension differences between low- and high-literacy consumers, attitudes toward the advertisement did not differ. ********** Research on marketing communications in general, and advertising in particular, is abundant. The interest in marketing communications is well deserved given that they play a vital role in consumers' decision-making processes (Heckler and Childers 1992). While theoretical understanding of the marketing communication process is critical, our understanding stems almost exclusively from research on highly literate consumers such as college students (Adkins and Ozanne 2005). While certainly with merit, the focus on highly literate consumers does not offer direct insight into the manner in which the thirty million low-literacy adults in the United States (U.S. Department of Education 2006) process marketing communications. As a result, there have been increased calls for research on the unique challenges faced by low-literacy consumers (Adkins and Ozanne 2005; Alba 2000; Wallendorf 2001). Consistent with extant research in marketing, we consider low-literacy consumers to have reading skills at or below a sixth-grade level (Adkins and Ozanne 2005; Jae and DelVecchio 2004). (1) Better understanding of low-literate consumers is valuable from the perspective of marketing organizations and public policy makers. For marketers, low-literacy consumers represent a sizable part of the U.S. economy with an estimated annual purchasing power of up to $380 billion (Viswanathan, Rosa, and Harris 2005). Understanding how this consumer segment processes information can allow marketers to better tailor communications. From a public policy perspective, the lack of research raises the issue of whether low-literacy consumers receive proper protection. The Federal Trade Commission's guideline for deceptive or misleading advertising suggests that advertising must be considered from the perspective of the "reasonable consumer" (FTC 1983). Given that low-literacy consumers read below sixth-grade level, it is questionable whether they are considered "reasonable" consumers who have the capability to screen out deceptive advertising. Thus, this population may be excluded from protection from deceptive advertising practices. We therefore endeavor to (1) identify if the writing in advertising largely excludes comprehension by low-literacy consumers and, if so, (2) track the outcomes of lower levels of comprehension. The few studies that appear in the marketing literature regarding low-literacy consumers conclude that low-literacy adults display unique coping strategies to compensate for their lack of literacy. One coping strategy low-literacy adults use to make purchase decisions is to rely heavily on pictorial information (Jae and DelVecchio 2004). Such a coping strategy may be practical or necessary but may not always be beneficial, particularly if advertisements are not designed for consumers with limited reading abilities. This research combines disparate findings in consumer behavior, advertising, and reading literatures to suggest that common approaches to advertising or communicating in the marketplace are potentially harmful to low-literacy consumers. Specifically, the current research considers the effect of a picture that is incongruent with accompanying text in a printed advertisement (Houston, Childers, and Heckler 1987). …