Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery

1. Abstract

The Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery scale is a four-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to quantify the intensity and vividness with which an individual generates dynamic, self-referential mental representations and narrative-like simulations while exposed to visual advertisements. Methodologically adapted by Grigsby, Jewell, and Zamudio (2023) from the foundational elaboration-of-consumption-vision scale developed by Walters, Sparks, and Herington (2007), this instrument captures the cognitive and sensory processes through which consumers envision themselves interacting with, visiting, or experiencing depicted environments. Operating on a unidimensional continuum, the instrument utilizes a 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), generating an aggregate mean index of imagery elaboration. Psychometric evaluations across experimental consumer psychology contexts demonstrate outstanding internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α typically exceeding .92; composite reliability > .90) and robust construct validity. Confirmatory factor analyses corroborate a parsimonious single-factor structure characterized by high item factor loadings (λ ≥ .85) and superior goodness-of-fit indices. The scale exhibits strong convergent validity with constructs such as narrative transportation, emotional arousal, and brand immersion, while maintaining distinct discriminant validity from generic cognitive elaboration, need for cognition, and superficial aesthetic appreciation. Functioning as a critical methodological tool in communication science, marketing psychology, and behavioral economics, the scale provides profound insights into how specific visual ad features—such as depicted movement, sensory cues, and spatial perspective—catalyze consumer mental simulations, facilitate narrative immersion, and drive favorable attitudes and downstream behavioral intentions.

2. Keywords

Ad-evoked mental imagery, mental simulation, consumption vision, narrative transportation, visual advertising, sensory elaboration, picture-based advertising, consumer psychology, dual-coding theory, self-referent imagery, cognitive processing, advertising effectiveness.

3. Authors

The contemporary operationalization of the Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery scale was refined and implemented by:

• Jamie L. Grigsby, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, College of Business, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA. Specialist in consumer behavior, digital marketing, visual information processing, and social media dynamics.
• Robert D. Jewell, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Ambassador Crawford College of Business and Entrepreneurship, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA. Expertise in brand positioning, consumer cognitive architecture, and message framing.
• César Zamudio, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Stetson-Hatcher School of Business, Mercer University, Atlanta, GA, USA (formerly at University of Texas at Arlington). Specializes in quantitative marketing models, consumer decision-making, and advertising analytics.

The theoretical and measurement foundation of the instrument was originally established by:

• Gabrielle Walters, Ph.D. — School of Business, Tourism Cluster, The University of Queensland (formerly Griffith University), Australia.
• Beverley Sparks, Ph.D. — Emeritus Professor, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia.
• Curt Herington, Ph.D. — Adjunct Research Fellow, Griffith Business School, Griffith University, Nathan, Australia.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery scale is to assess the degree to which static visual stimuli stimulate an internal, vivid, and temporally extended mental simulation in the consumer’s consciousness. In modern advertising environments, visual media are seldom processed merely as passive configurations of shapes, colors, and spatial arrangements. Rather, visual compositions serve as cognitive catalysts that prompt individuals to construct experiential representations of the advertised setting or product. The scale specifically captures whether viewers mentally place themselves within the depicted environment, project self-relevant activities into that space, and generate a clear, multisensory internal representation of the experience.

In consumer psychology and communications research, measuring mental imagery is vital because of the profound behavioral consequences associated with self-generated mental simulations. When consumers visually imagine experiencing a destination or using a product, the generated mental representations evoke affective responses similar to those experienced during genuine, physical interactions. Consequently, the scale serves as an indispensable diagnostic and experimental instrument for evaluating how creative execution variables—such as camera angles, depicted physical movement, blur lines, focal depth, and human presence—influence the consumer’s cognitive processing pathway. For instance, in Grigsby et al. (2023), the scale was instrumental in demonstrating that depicting movement in static imagery enhances narrative transportation precisely by activating rich, dynamic imagery that bridges the gap between passive perception and immersive story-like transportation.

Beyond theoretical empirical investigations, the scale has valuable applied utility in commercial copy-testing, destination marketing, and user-experience evaluation. Marketing practitioners and advertising strategists utilize the instrument to pre-test print, billboard, and social media imagery (e.g., Instagram, Pinterest) to verify whether specific creative executions possess sufficient evocative power to induce consumption visions. In destination and hospitality marketing, where experiential intangibility poses a fundamental promotional hurdle, verifying whether visual assets elicit vivid self-location and simulated behavioral involvement is paramount for optimizing marketing expenditures and predicting traveler conversion rates.

5. Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct measured by this instrument is ad-evoked mental imagery, conceptualized as an experiential, cognitive, and sensory simulation process wherein an individual generates internal visual and sensorimotor representations of a depicted setting, object, or event. Rooted in the broader psychological construct of mental imagery, this scale specifically captures consumption visions—defined as self-constructed, hypothetical scenarios depicting the consumption or experience of a product, service, or destination prior to actual behavioral engagement.

Ad-evoked mental imagery operates along several interconnected cognitive dimensions captured within a parsimonious unidimensional structure:

• Self-Referent Mental Projection (Ego-Centric Simulation): The construct evaluates the extent to which the perceiver transitions from an observer perspective to an actor perspective. Rather than objectively evaluating the aesthetic qualities of an image, the viewer mentally transports their self-concept into the frame. Items 1 and 2 directly evaluate this self-projection (“I imagined myself visiting this place”; “I imagined myself doing activities in this place”). This dimension captures the cognitive enactment of personal agency within the depicted landscape.
• Anticipatory Experiential Simulation: The construct taps into the consumer’s capacity to forecast what an experience would feel like across affective, visceral, and sensory dimensions (Item 3: “I imagined what it would be like to experience this place”). This simulation involves the cognitive assembly of prospective feelings, sensory feedback (e.g., warmth of sunlight, ambient sounds), and somatic markers associated with navigating the environment.
• Perceptual Vividness and Clarity: Mental imagery varies widely in subjective vividness, clarity, and structural definition. Item 4 (“a clear mental image of this place came to my mind”) explicitly measures the visual resolution and stability of the evoked internal representation. High clarity reflects an internal image that closely approximates actual optical perception in its structural richness and lack of ambiguity.

Importantly, ad-evoked mental imagery differs fundamentally from generic cognitive elaboration. While cognitive elaboration within traditional dual-process models (such as the Elaboration Likelihood Model) encompasses abstract, analytical, and propositional thoughts (e.g., comparing price-to-quality ratios, analyzing technical specifications), ad-evoked mental imagery is fundamentally sensory, analogical, and experiential. It is an intuitive, visual-spatial form of processing where meaning is encoded through quasi-perceptual representations rather than verbal argumentation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery scale is anchored in several foundational cognitive and communication theories:

Dual-Coding Theory

Originally formulated by Allan Paivio (1986, 1991), Dual-Coding Theory postulates that the human mind processes information through two separate, functionally independent yet interacting cognitive subsystems: a nonverbal structural system specialized for representing and processing perceptual images (imagens), and a verbal linguistic system specialized for processing language (logogens). When an advertisement provides evocative visual stimuli—particularly those depicting dynamic physical action or immersive spatial vistas—it directly stimulates the nonverbal subsystem. This activation prompts associative perceptual networks to generate vivid mental imagery without necessarily relying on intervening verbal propositions. The scale measures the strength and activation of this nonverbal representational system.

Mental Simulation and Grounded Cognition

The scale draws heavily on theories of mental simulation (Taylor & Schneider, 1989) and grounded/embodied cognition (Barsalou, 2008). According to embodied cognition paradigms, cognitive simulations are constructed through the partial reactivation of neural states originally established during direct sensorimotor perception and motor execution. When individuals view a picture featuring open spaces or depicted physical movement, the brain simulates the motor programs and somatic sensations associated with interacting with that space. In the context of Grigsby et al. (2023), depicting movement activates dynamic mental simulations that mirror the kinematic experience of navigating physical environments, which the scale quantitatively captures.

Narrative Transportation Theory

Within the theoretical architecture advanced by Green and Brock (2000), as well as van Laer et al. (2014), narrative transportation represents a state of complete cognitive, emotional, and imagery immersion within a story world. Grigsby, Jewell, and Zamudio (2023) established that ad-evoked mental imagery serves as a critical, proximal cognitive mediator leading to narrative transportation in picture-based advertising. When exposed to a static image, a viewer cannot achieve full narrative transportation without first constructing an internal mental model of the scene. The Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery scale measures the exact cognitive bridge through which static visual elements are transformed into dynamic mental narratives.

7. Validity

The Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery scale has demonstrated strong psychometric validity across multiple independent experimental studies in consumer research, advertising, and tourism marketing.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by significant, positive correlations with theoretically related constructs. In Grigsby et al. (2023, Study 3), the scale exhibited substantial convergent validity with narrative transportation measures adapted from Green and Brock (2000) and Escalas (2004), demonstrating correlation coefficients typically ranging between r = .68 and r = .79 (p < .001). Furthermore, research utilizing the foundational Walters et al. (2007) elaboration-of-consumption-vision scale confirmed robust convergence with emotional pleasure (r = .54, p < .01) and emotional arousal (r = .51, p < .01).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been rigorously demonstrated via average variance extracted (AVE) comparisons. The AVE for the Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery scale regularly exceeds .75, well above the recommended .50 threshold, and consistently surpasses the squared correlation coefficients between mental imagery and distinct constructs, such as:

• Need for Cognition (NFC): Mental imagery represents sensory-experiential elaboration, operating independently of an individual’s intrinsic motivation to engage in effortful rational-analytical thought (shared variance typically < 5%).
• Objective Ad Aesthetic Evaluation: The scale distinguishes between passive aesthetic appreciation (e.g., evaluating photographic lighting or balance) and personal, self-referential experiential projection into the scene.
• Visual Fluency / Processing Ease: While perceptual fluency measures the speed and ease of optical identification, ad-evoked mental imagery captures downstream scenario generation and narrative building.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity is affirmed through mediation modeling. In structural equation modeling (SEM) and regression-based mediation analyses (e.g., PROCESS Model 4 and Model 6), ad-evoked mental imagery reliably mediates the causal impact of advertising visual design (e.g., depicted movement vs. static composition) on key outcome measures: attitude toward the advertisement (A_ad), brand attitudes (A_b), destination visit intentions, and willingness to pay. Across experimental conditions, participants exposed to movement-depicting visual cues exhibited significantly higher scores on the scale, which directly predicted heightened narrative immersion and downstream behavioral compliance.

8. Reliability

The scale consistently exhibits exceptional internal consistency reliability across varied sample demographics, including national consumer panels (e.g., Prolific, Amazon Mechanical Turk) and undergraduate student pools.

• Internal Consistency: In Grigsby, Jewell, and Zamudio (2023, Study 3), the four-item scale demonstrated high internal consistency, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .94. In the foundational work of Walters, Sparks, and Herington (2007), the original elaboration-of-consumption-vision battery consistently produced alpha coefficients of α ≥ .91.
• Composite Reliability: Confirmatory factor analytic investigations report composite reliability (CR) indices ranging between .92 and .96, comfortably exceeding the standard psychometric benchmark of .70.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlations across all four items remain uniformly high, consistently exceeding .80, indicating that each item contributes substantial common variance to the aggregate latent imagery score without introducing idiosyncratic noise.
• Standard Error of Measurement: Given the high reliability coefficients and homogeneous factor structure, the standard error of measurement (SEM) remains low (typically < 0.35 on a 7-point scale), providing precise score estimation across both low-imagery and high-imagery experimental conditions.

9. Factor Analysis

Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirm a robust, clean, unidimensional factor structure.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

When subjected to maximum likelihood or principal axis factoring with promax or varimax rotation, the four items consistently converge into a single dominant factor accounting for over 78% to 85% of the total variance across experimental datasets. Initial eigenvalues for the primary factor uniformly exceed 3.10, whereas secondary factors display eigenvalues well below 0.35, firmly establishing the absence of secondary dimensions or item cross-loadings.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

CFA specifications modeling the four indicators onto a single latent “Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery” factor demonstrate outstanding goodness-of-fit metrics across independent samples:

• Standardized Factor Loadings (λ):
  • Item 1 (“I imagined myself visiting this place”): λ = .88 – .93
  • Item 2 (“I imagined myself doing activities in this place”): λ = .87 – .92
  • Item 3 (“I imagined what it would be like to experience this place”): λ = .89 – .94
  • Item 4 (“a clear mental image of this place came to my mind”): λ = .84 – .89
• Model Fit Indices:
  • χ² / df < 2.50 (frequently statistically non-significant in samples with N ≤ 250)
  • Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .99
  • Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .98
  • Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .045 (90% CI: [.000, .082])
  • Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .018

Because the single-factor model exhibits such exemplary fit, postulating multidimensional visual-versus-behavioral subcomponents is empirically unwarranted. The four items operate cooperatively as a coherent, highly synchronized unidimensional measurement model.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Ad-Evoked Mental Imagery Scale (adapted elaboration-of-consumption-vision measure)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI), or online web survey (e.g., Qualtrics, Gorilla Experiment Builder).
• Target Population: Adult consumers, experimental study participants, and research subjects exposed to pictorial or visual marketing stimuli.
• Item Count: 4 items
• Scale Structure: Unidimensional (single-factor)
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Somewhat disagree, 4 = Neither agree nor disagree, 5 = Somewhat agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly agree)
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes
• Scoring and Indexing Procedures: All 4 items are positively keyed (no reverse-scored items). An overall index of ad-evoked mental imagery is computed by calculating the arithmetic mean across all four items for each participant. Higher scores reflect greater vividness, clarity, and self-referent behavioral immersion in the advertised setting.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Publication / Adaptation Year: 2023 (as adapted by Grigsby, Jewell, and Zamudio); originally developed in 2007 by Walters, Sparks, and Herington.
• Accessibility: The four scale items are published in full within peer-reviewed academic literature. Researchers may utilize the instrument for academic, educational, and non-commercial research purposes without direct user fees under standard scholarly fair-use principles, provided appropriate citation is given to Grigsby et al. (2023) and Walters et al. (2007).
• Commercial Licensing & Copyright: The specific empirical adaptation appears in the Journal of Advertising, published by Taylor & Francis on behalf of the American Academy of Advertising (AAA). Commercial applications, broad proprietary syndication, or inclusion in monetized commercial copy-testing software suites may require formal licensing permission from Taylor & Francis.

12. References

• Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
• Escalas, J. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasiveness. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639163
• Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701
• Grigsby, J. L., Jewell, R. D., & Zamudio, C. (2023). A picture’s worth a thousand words: Using depicted movement in picture-based ads to increase narrative transportation. Journal of Advertising, 52(4), 594–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2022.2140455
• Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press.
• Paivio, A. (1991). Dual coding theory: Retrospect and current status. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 45(3), 255–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084295
• Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2010). Narrative and persuasion in fashion advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1086/653001
• Taylor, S. E., & Schneider, S. K. (1989). Coping and the simulation of events. Social Cognition, 7(2), 174–194. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.174
• van Laer, N., de Ruyter, K., Visconti, L. M., & Wetzels, M. (2014). The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers’ narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1086/673383
• Walters, G., Sparks, B., & Herington, C. (2007). The effectiveness of print advertising stimuli in evoking elaborate consumption visions for potential travelers. Journal of Travel Research, 46(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287507302376

13. Items of the Scale