廣告圖像不僅是消費者觀看廣告的視覺焦點，更是行銷人員傳遞品牌形象的主要溝通方式。近期的研究發現，廣告圖像在畫面空間的安排如同一種隱形的力量，會在無形中影響消費者的感覺與認知。例如，人們會受到「畫面位置高低代表權力高低」的隱喻影響，認為畫面中位置擺放較高的人像具有較高的權力。然而，除了畫面位置高低象徵權力大小之外，廣告圖像在畫面空間的呈現方式可能隱含更多不同的隱喻概念，因此本研究以廣告中產品與模特兒圖像大小比例為主題，探討廣告中產品與模特兒大小圖像比例與品牌–消費者關係如何影響廣告效果。
本研究以實驗設計法進行，實驗一使用巧克力作為受測產品，探討產品與模特兒圖像大小比例(物大人小vs. 物小人大)與品牌–消費者關係類型(領導者關係vs.朋友關係)兩個自變數對廣告效果的影響，為2 x 2二因子設計實驗，一共建立四種不同實驗情境；實驗二進一步確認產品與模特兒圖像大小比例和品牌–消費者關係類型的交互作用不會受到產品類型影響，因此以同一個虛擬品牌的享樂性產品(香水)及實用性產品(洗面乳)作為受測產品，為2 x 2x 2 三因子設計實驗，共八種不同實驗情境。為了考量實驗產品有特定的消費族群，此實驗只針對女性消費者進行訪問。兩個實驗皆透過廣告態度和購買意願兩個不同的依變數，探討不同情境對廣告效果的影響。
研究結果指出，當消費者認為品牌與自己之間的關係屬於領導者關係類型時，廣告使用產品與模特兒圖像比例大的圖片有較有佳的廣告效果；當消費者認為品牌與自己之間的關係屬於朋友關係類型時，廣告使用產品與模特兒圖像比例小的圖片有較有佳的廣告效果。本研究進一步證實處理流暢性是上述交互作用的中介機制。

In advertising, visuals play an important role in catching consumer attention to promoted brands or products. Recent research suggests the importance of spatial arrangements of visuals. Conceptual metaphors are heavily used to create appropriate visuals in advertising. This research examines how the product-model ratio influence advertising effectiveness and proposes brand-consumer relationship as a moderator.
Two experiments differ in brands and products. One uses real brands and the other uses fictitious brands. In the first experiment a 2 (product-model ratio: large vs. small) x 2 (consumer relationship: leader vs. friendship) full-factorial design is employed. Chocolate is the tested product. Four experimental ads are thus developed. In the second experiment a 2 (product-model ratio: large vs. small) x 2 (consumer relationship: leader vs. friendship) x 2 (product type: hedonic vs. utilitarian) full-factorial design is employed. To rule out the effects of product type, female perfume and facial cleanser are selected. Only female participants are recruited. Eight experimental ads are thus developed. Two experiments’ dependent measures include attitudes toward the ad and purchase intention.
The results indicate that an ad with a large product-model ratio works better when consumers consider the brand as a leader. On the other hand, and ad with a small product-model ratio is advantageous when the brand is viewed as the consumer’s friend. Processing fluency is found as the underlying mechanism to explain the aforementioned phenomenon.

[第壹章 緒論+1]
[第一節 前言+1]
[第二節 研究背景+1]
[第三節 研究動機+4]
[第四節 研究目的與問題+5]
[第五節 研究流程+5]
[第貳章 文獻探討+8]
[第一節 前言+8]
[第二節 概念隱喻+8]
[一、概念隱喻理論 (conceptual metaphor theory)+8]
[二、概念隱喻在廣告上的應用+11]
[三、大小隱喻+16]
[第三節 品牌–消費者關係+17]
[一、品牌–消費者關係理論+17]
[二、品牌–消費者關係類型+18]
[三、領導者 vs. 朋友類型+19]
[第四節 處理流暢性+21]
[第五節 小結+21]
[第参章 研究假設發展與前測+23]
[第一節 前言+23]
[第二節 研究假設與架構+23]
[第三節 兩個實驗的建立+27]
[第四節 前測一+28]
[一、前測一目的+28]
[二、模特兒圖像選擇+28]
[三、前測問卷設計及執行過程+30]
[四、前測問卷分析+31]
[第五節 前測二+33]
[一、前測二目的+33]
[二、實驗品牌的選擇+33]
[三、前測問卷設計與執行過程+33]
[四、前測二問卷分析+34]
[第六節 小結+37]
[第肆章 實驗一設計與分析+38]
[第一節 前言+38]
[第二節 研究變數操作型定義與衡量+38]
[一、自變數操弄與操弄檢定+38]
[二、依變數+40]
[三、中介變數+41]
[四、個人差異變數+42]
[第三節 研究設計+44]
[一、問卷題項設計+44]
[第四節 實驗一結果分析+45]
[一、樣本背景資料敘述統計+45]
[二、信度分析+46]
[三、研究設計操弄確認+47]
[四、潛在共變數檢定+48]
[五、研究假設之檢驗+50]
[第五節 小結+58]
[第伍章 實驗二設計與分析+60]
[第一節 前言+60]
[第二節 研究變數操作型定義與衡量+60]
[一、自變數+60]
[二、個人差異變數：產品喜好度+62]
[第三節 研究設計+62]
[一、設計概述+62]
[第四節 實驗二結果分析+64]
[一、樣本背景資料敘述統計+64]
[二、信度分析+65]
[三、研究設計操弄確認+66]
[四、潛在共變數檢定+68]
[五、研究假設之檢驗+69]
[第五節 小結+79]
[第陸章 結論與建議+80]
[第一節 前言+80]
[第二節 研究結果討論+80]
[第三節 研究貢獻+82]
[一、理論貢獻+82]
[二、實務貢獻+83]
[第四節 研究限制+83]
[第五節 未來研究建議+84]
[第六節、小結+86]
[參考文獻+87]
[附錄+92]

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of Brand Personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The Effects of Brand Relationship Norms on Consumer Attitudes and Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 87-101.
Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2012). When Brands Seem Human, Do Humans Act Like Brands? Automatic Behavioral Priming Effects of Brand Anthropomorphism. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 307-323.
Alter, A. L., & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2009). Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219-235.
Aydınoğlu, N. Z., & Cian, L. (2014). Show Me the Product, Show Me the Model: Effect of Picture Type on Attitudes Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 506-519.
Baker, M. J. & Churchill, A.G. (1977), The Impact of Physically Attractive Models on Advertising Evaluation, Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 538-555.
Banerjee, P., Chatterjee, P., & Sinha, J. (2012). Is It Light or Dark? Recalling Moral Behavior Changes Perception of Brightness. Psychological Science, 23(4), 407-409.
Campbell, M. C., Keller, K. L., Mick, D. G., & Hoyer, W. D. (2003). Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292-304.
Chae, B., & Hoegg, J. (2013). The Future Looks "Right": Effects of the Horizontal Location of Advertising Images on Product Attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 223-238.
Chae, B., Li, X., & Zhu, R. U. I. (2013). Judging Product Effectiveness from Perceived Spatial Proximity. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 317-335.
Chang, C.-T., & Yen, C.-T. (2013). Missing Ingredients in Metaphor Advertising: The Right Formula of Metaphor Type, Product Type, and Need for Cognition. Journal of Advertising, 42(1), 80-94.
Chiou, W.-B., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2013). In Broad Daylight, We Trust in God! Brightness, the Salience of Morality, and Ethical Behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 37-42.
Clark, M. S. & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal Attraction in Exchange and Communal Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(1), p.2–24.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1993). The Difference between Communal and Exchange Relationships: What It is and Is not. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 684-691.
Crawford, L., Margolies, S. M., Drake, J. T., & Murphy, M. E. (2006). Affect Biases Memory of Location: Evidence for the Spatial Representation of Affect. Cognition & Emotion, 20(8), 1153-1169.
Debevec, K., & Romeo, J. B. (1992). Self-Referent Processing in Perceptions of Verbal and Visual Commercial Information. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(1), 83-102.
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). The Accentuation Bias Money Literally Looms Larger (and Sometimes Smaller) to the Powerless. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(3), 199-205.
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Super Size Me: Product Size as a Signal of Status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1047-1062.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373.
Hong, J., & Sun, Y. (2012). Warm It Up with Love: The Effect of Physical Coldness on Liking of Romance Movies. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(2), 293-306.
Huang, X., Li, X., & Zhang, M. (2013). “Seeing” the Social Roles of Brands: How Physical Positioning Influences Brand Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 509-514.
Janiszewski, C., & Meyvis, T. (2001). Effects of Brand Logo Complexity, Repetition, and Spacing on Processing Fluency and Judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 18-32.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landau, M. J., Meier, B. P., & Keefer, L. A. (2010). A Metaphor-Enriched Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1045-1067.
Lovelock, C. L., Patterson, P. G. & Walker, R. H. (2001). Services marketing: an Asia-Pacific perspective. Sydney : Prentice Hall Europe.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-143.
Meier, B. P., & Robinson, M. D. (2004). Research Article Why the Sunny Side Is Up Associations Between Affect and Vertical Position. Psychological Science, 15(4), 243-247.
Moeller, S. K., Robinson, M. D., & Zabelina, D. L. (2008). Personality Dominance and Preferential Use of the Vertical Dimension of Space: Evidence From Spatial Attention Paradigms. Psychological Science, 19(4), 355-361.
Nordhielm, C. L. (2002). The Influence of Level of Processing on Advertising Repetition Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 371-382.
Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Schwarz, N., & Simonson, I. (2007). Preference Fluency in Choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 347-356.
Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing Fluency and Aesthetic Pleasure: Is Beauty in the Perceiver's Processing Experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364-382.
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., & Schwarz, N. (1998). Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments. Psychological Science, 9(1), 45-48.
Rucker, D. D. (2009), Compensatory Consumption: How Threat Directs Consumers’ Product Preferences, In Gao, L., Wheeler, C. & Shiv, B. (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 36, 131–34. Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research.
Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2000). Consumer Behavior, 7th. NY: Prentice Hall.
Schubert, T. W. (2005). Your Highness: Vertical Positions as Perceptual Symbols of Power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 1-21.
Schubert, T. W., Waldzus, S., & Giessner, S. R. (2009). Control over the Association of Power and Size. Social cognition, 27(1), 1-19.
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348.
Scott, M. L., Mende, M., & Bolton, L. E. (2013). Judging the Book by Its Cover? How Consumers Decode Conspicuous Consumption Cues in Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(3), 334-347.
Sundar, A., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2014). Place the Logo High or Low? Using Conceptual Metaphors of Power in Packaging Design. Journal of Marketing, 78(5), 138-151.
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). Added “ My ” Brand or“Our ” Brand: The Effects of Brand Relationship Dimensions and Self-Construal on Brand Evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 248 – 259.
Sweeney, J., & Chew, M. (2000). Consumer-Brand Relationships: an Exploratory Study in the Services Context. In O. A. (Ed.), Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy2000. Brisbane: ANZMAC.
Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. (2002). Measuring Consumers' Willingness to Pay at the Point of Purchase. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 228-241.
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T. A., & Reber, A. (2003). The Hedonic Marking of Processing Fluency: Implications for Evaluative Judgment. In Musch, J. & Klauer, K. C. (Eds.), The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Processes in Cognition and Emotion (pp. 189-217). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zhong, C. B., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2008). Cold and Lonely: Does Social Exclusion Literally Feel Cold? Psychological Science, 19(9), 838-842.
Zhong, C. B., & Liljenquist, K. (2006). Washing away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing. Science, 313(5792), 1451-1452.