For example, if the liquor store patrons hearing the Italian music were told beforehand that the music would lead them to buy Italian wine many of them probably would have chosen wine of a different origin (if any). Second, psychologists are now aware that when it comes to stimuli we’re aware of but which influence us outside awareness we must not be aware the stimuli are exerting an influence on us. For example, subliminally presenting thirst related words led people to drink more, when they were already thirsty. At this point, I’d like to address a question that may have occurred to the reader: What’s the difference between the previously mentioned older research that showed no real evidence people could be influenced by subliminal advertising and more recent research that showed we can be influenced outside awareness? There are two differences, the first of which is that psychologists are now aware that to be effective subliminal stimuli must appeal to current needs and goals. So clearly then, our consumption can be influenced without our awareness, be it due to exposure to stimuli we don’t detect or stimuli we do detect but which influence us outside awareness. Other research showed that people who watched someone eating ice cream before being given the chance to eat ice cream themselves would unknowingly eat the same amount of ice cream as that other person (the only time this didn’t happen was when that other person was obese, but that’s a story for another post). When asked what led them to choose the wine they chose very few patrons mentioned the music, implying that despite the fact they could hear the music most of them were unaware it was influencing their behavior. For example, research showed that liquor store patrons bought more German wine when German music was playing in the store and more Italian wine when Italian music was playing in the store. Other research showed stimuli people were aware of could exert an influence on their behavior they were not aware of. This, despite the fact that these people did not report being thirstier! This implies these people were not only unaware of seeing the thirst related words, but were also unaware of the words’ influence on their behavior. Research showed that when words relating to thirst were subliminally presented to thirsty people they later drank more. If the fear of subliminal advertising is largely unfounded, this begs the question: Can we ever be influenced outside awareness? The answer, actually, is yes. Despite this though, the myth that subliminal advertising has a powerful influence endures: Recent survey data showed over ¾ of respondents knew of subliminal advertising and almost half felt susceptible to it. That’s right, they just made it all up for no other reason than to promote Vicary’s own marketing company! Additionally, legitimate research (i.e., research that did not make use of fabricated data) conducted after the publication of Vicary and Thayer’s study found very little evidence that subliminal advertising exerted any influence on people. The fear of subliminal advertising was largely unfounded though, as Packard heavily exaggerated advertisers’ power over consumers, and Vicary and Thayer fabricated their data. People also feared skepticism and suspicion would be useless against this form of influence because after all, we can’t be suspicious of something we’re not even aware we’ve seen. After learning about Vicary and Thayer’s study and reading Packard’s book, people feared advertisers could use subliminal advertising to force them to buy products and politicians could even use subliminal advertising to force them to vote a certain way. Indeed, Packard’s claims of advertisers’ ability to influence consumers were analogous to a puppet master pulling a puppet’s strings. The following year, a man named Vance Packard published a book called The Hidden Persuaders, in which he discussed how advertisers could control consumers by appealing to their unconscious desires. Those are obviously huge sales increases considering all Vicary and Thayer claimed to have done was present a few words on a screen. Distaste for subliminal advertising began in 1957, after James Vicary and Frances Thayer published a study in which they claimed that subliminally presenting the words “Eat popcorn” and “Drink Coca-Cola” in a film increased popcorn sales by 58% and Coca-Cola sales by 18%.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |