Download Fear and Loving in Las Vegas

Fear and Loving in Las Vegas: Evolution, Emotion, and Persuasion
Vladas Griskevicius, Noah J. Goldstein, Chad R. Mortensen, Jill M. Sundie, Robert B. Cialdini, and Douglas T. Kenrick
Topic
Influence of arousal-inducing contexts (fear/love) in television programs/advertisements (ads) on the effectiveness
of 2 basic persuasion heuristics (PH) => effect will be tested in 3 experiments
Former Research


arousal-based models: arousal increases effectiveness of diagnostic heuristics
affective valence-based models: differentiation: effectiveness depends on whether the context elicits a + or feeling
o + feelings => shallower processing => increased effectiveness of heuristics
o - feelings => deeper processing => decreased effectiveness of heuristics
This Research
Evolutionary approach: affectively arousing stimuli can activate specific emotions
 different emotions => some types of heuristic cues (HCs) = effective + can be interpreted differently
depending on which emotion is activated
 certain emotions can cause some well-established persuasive tactics to be countereffective
 3 experiments (cf. infra)
PHs
While shopping: mostly mental shortcuts instead of deep processing of information
=> ads with simple, time-tested persuasive appeals (= especially effective when customers ≠ motivated/capable to
think deeply about the message/product)
 social proof: tactic based on the general heuristic rule that if many other are doing it/want it, it must be
good; e.g. lists of movies with the number of people who have already seen it
 scarcity: tactic based on the general heuristic rule that if the product is rare, it must be good; e.g. “limitededition” products
These HCs increase the effectiveness of advertisements etc. BUT the content itself of the ads can influence the
effectiveness of these appeals
=> several sets of theoretical models that predict how arousal and affect might influence the use of mental shortcuts
(and therefore, the PHs)
Arousal (here: fear/romantic desire), Affect, and Persuasion
arousal-based explanations: effects of autonomic nervous system activation on thought/behavior
 if arousal ↗ => more shallow information processing => evaluation through mental shortcuts
valence-based explanations: distinction between the effects of + vs. - feelings
 + affect => simplistic thinking => shortcuts/easier persuaded by a HC, e.g. source expertise
 - affect => complex thinking => deeper processing (shortcuts) => HCs: persuasion ≠ certain
A Modern Evolutionary Approach
Limitations in the former research: e.g. different - feelings: not necessarily similar effects on cognition/behavior.
2 key features of the modern research:
 functionality: how a certain pattern of behavior/affect/cognition might have served to solve an adaptive
problem (AP) that all ancestral humans confronted
o e.g. protecting themselves from predators, finding/attracting mates
o => “What APs might e.g. fear have helped solve for our ancestors and how? “

domain specificity: mental mechanisms for solving one AP are ill-suited to solving another => multiple
domain-specific mechanisms, each for solving a specific AP
o e.g. learning aversion for poisonous food works differently than learning aversion for physical threat
o e.g. responses are more readily conditioned to specific types of stimuli: easier afraid of snakes than
cars, even though cars cause more deaths in current-day environments
evolutionary perspective: emotions = activators of executive motivational subsystems that deal with specific APs
 each subsystem promotes a certain behavior/affect/cognition that is best for solving the AP successfully
 the activation of one subsystem can inhibit/suppress the activation of potentially competing subsystems
o e.g. the self-protection system can suppress attention to an attractive person of the opposite sex
 => effect of arousing contexts depends on 2 major factors
o the type of affective state in question
o the way in which the particular HC facilitates or inhibits solving recurring APs
Fear, Self-Protection, and Persuasion
self-protection system = activated by fear-eliciting cues that suggest physical threat
 threats include photos, messages, movies depicting dangerous others etc.
 basic strategies that helped avoid harm in ancestral environments
o e.g. increased safety in numbers (cf. prey vs. predator => hunt becomes easier when an individual
prey is separated from its herd => herd: group cohesive processes)
o ~ group cohesive processes also appear when people feel afraid (e.g. conform their opinion to the
rest of the group)
current investigation: “how could fear influence the (counter)effectiveness of widely used advertising PHs?”
 traditional research: differences among various HCs : blind spot
 evolutionary approach: specific content of HC may be especially relevant, particularly when a person is in a
state of fear => considering [fear => group cohesive processes]:
o “social proof” ads are likely to be particularly effective when people are in state of fear
o ↔ “scarcity” ads are likely to backfire because a person in fear will not likely be willing to stand out
from the crowd
H1: Fear should lead social proof appeals to be more persuasive than when such appeals are not used
H2: Fear should lead scarcity appeals to be less persuasive than when such appeals are not used
Romantic Desire, Mate Attraction, and Persuasion
mate-attraction system = activated by cues that elicit romantic desire
 desire includes photos, stories, movies that depict attractive people of the opposite sex etc.
 basic strategies that contributed to greater mating success
o core strategy: salient positive differentiation
o e.g. animals: certain features/behavior to attract the opposite sex + to differentiate from there
“competitors”, like a the peacock’s tail
o ~ romantic desire in humans also appears to lead people to engage in salient public display (e.g.
conspicuous consumption and public charity)
current investigation: “how could romantic desire influence the (counter)effectiveness of widely used PHs?”
 evolutionary approach: desire to differentiate positively => “scarcity” ads = more likely to be persuasive
 ↔ “social proof” ads = likely to backfire because doing what many others do ≠ positive differentiation
H3: Romantic desire should lead scarcity appeals to be more persuasive than when such appeals are not used
H4: Romantic desire should lead social proof appeals to be less persuasive than when such appeals are not used
Experiments 1A and 1B
test how eliciting fear/romantic desire influences the effectiveness of 2 basis PHs (social proof/scarcity) compared to
a control condition that uses neither heuristic
 concept of 1A and 1B = identical
 3 differences:
o the rated product (1A: ad for a museum vs. 1B: product review for a restaurant)
o the method of emotion elicitation (1A: movie clips vs. 1B: reading short stories)
o de wording of the PHs (1A: 1 of the 2 heuristics or control group vs. 1B: different persuasion appeals)
Method
Participants
 1A: 154 students (74m, 80v)
 1B: 157 students (63m, 94v)
Design and procedure
 1A: emotion induced by short video clip, ad
 1B: emotion induced by short story, product review
 both exp.: a between subjects design of 2x3
o 2 = emotion: fear/romantic desire
o 3 = PH: social proof/scarcity/control
 to minimize potential demand characteristics => use of cover stories
o 1A: “ ‘marketing and personality’ study” + “everyone  same video clip + same ad”
o 1B: “‘reading and memory’ task” + “wait 5 minutes after reading to let your memory decay”
Emotion manipulation
 1A: fear: fragment of a thriller movie; romantic desire: scenes from a romantic comedy
 1B: 600-word story; fear: alone in bed at night + hearing someone coming; romantic desire: spending an
enjoyable afternoon with a highly desirable person of the opposite sex
 test of effectiveness of the 2 manipulation strategies on a separate group of 96 people
o result: no difference regarding the types of method used to elicit the states
o ! higher level of general arousal when romantic desire is elicited, but this cannot explain the
predicted interaction of emotion with PH
PHs
 1A: magazine-like ad for a museum + “you are one of an immense group of participants” to not motivate the
participants too much to scrutinize the ad (shown for 15 sec for each group)
o control ad = photo + logo of the museum + the line “San Francisco Museum of Art”
o social proof condition: line “Visited by over a Million People Each Year” added
o scarcity condition: line “Stand out from the Crowd” added
 1B: brief positive product review for a restaurant (+ same message to avoid scrutinizing)
o control group: no heuristic pieces
o social proof: + 3 heuristic pieces
 title included the phrase “most popular restaurant”
 review mentioned “many people gather there”
 review mentioned “if you want to know why …, come join …”
o scarcity: + 3 heuristic pieces
 title included “a unique place off the beaten path”
 review mentioned “one-of-a-kind place yet to be discovered by others”
 review mentioned “if you’re looking for… different from any other…”
Dependent measures
 respond to 6 questions, indicating attitudes toward the museum/restaurant + intention to find out more/go
there => expectation = similar pattern of results to both types of questions
o
o
3 nine-point questions regarding the attitudes
3 nine-point questions regarding the intentions (from “not at all” till “very much”)
Results
Results ~ expectation for the 6 attitudinal/intentional questions, both in exp 1A and exp 1B
Also: test if emotion and PH had similar effects in both exp => yes => results of both exp combined
 Predictions for fear
o in line with H1: social proof appeals = more persuasive than the control
o in line with H2: scarcity appeals = counterpersuasive in comparison to the control
 Predictions for romantic desire
o in line with H3: scarcity = more persuasive than the control
o in line with H4: social proof = counterpersuasive in comparison to the control
Discussion
 influence of fear/love on the effectiveness of social proof/scarcity heuristics ≈ evolutionary model
 Findings ≠ mere demonstrations of simple persuasion-matching effects (= much more shallow)
↔ evolutionary model: more subtle interplay between emotion and HCs (evolutionarily determined)
Experiment 2
Examination of theoretically derived contexts in which potentially detrimental persuasion effects might be avoided +
illumination of the process by which fear/romantic desire can lead HCs to be countereffective
Basis: again the evolutionary model
Two Types of Social Proof Heuristics
Functional perspective: romantic desire makes social proof heuristics backfire
BUT: closer examination => important distinction:
 what many others have/are doing
 what many others desire/are talking about
=> key difference: mass behavior vs. positive attitude toward that behavior without explicitly conveying that many
people are already doing it => behavioral information vs. attitudinal information
 e.g. a hotel that book most rooms vs. a hotel that is “in place” to be (~boutiques)
 behavioral social proof appeals imply that you would be “following the herd”
 attitudinal social proof appeals imply that “many others desire it/talk about it”
o not necessarily a backfire effect when the romantic desire emotion is active
H5: Although [H1] and [H4], the persuasiveness of attitudinal social proof appeals should not differ as a function of emotion.
Two Types of Scarcity Heuristics
Functional perspective: fear makes scarcity heuristics backfire
BUT: closer examination => important distinction:
 distinctiveness of a product
 note that an opportunity to purchase a product is limited (e.g. “only 3 days left!”)
! Often: combination of “distinctiveness” and “limited opportunity”: less available + more likely that other don’t have
the same product
prediction: fear and romantic desire have a different effect on these two types of scarcity appeals:
 distinctiveness-based scarcity => having that product = “unique”
 limited-opportunity scarcity => “unique”
=> fear should cause “distinctiveness” to backfire and “limited opportunity” to be effective
H6: Although [H3] and [H2], the persuasiveness of limited-opportunity scarcity appeals should not differ as a function of
emotion.
Method
Participants
 468 students BUT non-proficient English speakers => 454 left for analysis
 slightly modified cover story compared to exp. 1A and 1B
Design and procedure
 3x4x2 mixed factorial design
o 3 = emotion (fear / love / neutral)
o 4 = PH (behavioral vs. attitudinal social proof + distinctiveness vs. limited-opportunity scarcity)
o 2 = product (museum / Las Vegas)
 emotion + product = between-subject factors: participants saw an ad about the museum OR about Las Vegas
 PH = within-subject factors: each participant saw ads with all four types of PH
 initially rate a no-heuristic version of the [museum/Vegas]-ad
 then: emotion elicited through video clip (~1A)
 then: the 4 PH-versions of the [museum/Vegas]-ad, each for 15 sec in random order
 dependent measures ≈ 1A and 1B
Persuasion heuristic
 ½ evaluated the museum-ad
o the 3 versions of exp. 1A (neutral / behavioral social proof / distinctiveness scarcity) + 2 new versions
 attitudinal social proof (“the museum that millions are talking about)
 limited-opportunity scarcity (“last chance to visit”)
 ½ evaluated the Vegas-ad
o neutral: large photo + name of the city
o distinctiveness scarcity: phrase “do something different” added
o limited-opportunity scarcity: phrase “limited-time offer ends this week” added
o behavioral social proof: phrase “visited more than any other city” added
o attitudinal social proof: phrase “see what everyone is talking about” added
Ad pretesting
 separate group of 23 people rated all the ads + indicated 2 things
o how strongly the provided information was related to the specific PHs
o which appeal informed the participants of how few/many people actually visit
 no interaction between PH and ad => results of both ads were combined for the analyses
 each PH conveyed the intended information
Results
No interaction between the two ads => results of both ads were combined for the analyses
As predicted: interaction between emotion and PH
 in line with H5: persuasiveness of attitudinal social proof appeal did not differ across the 3 emotion
conditions (fear and romantic desire have opposite effects on behavioral vs. attitudinal social proof appeals)
o BUT: the persuasiveness of behavioral social appeal proof did differ significantly
 in line with H1: behavioral social proof appeals = more persuasive in the fear than in the control condition
 in line with H4: behavioral social proof appeals = less persuasive in the romantic desire vs. the control
condition
 in line with H6: persuasiveness of limited-opportunity scarcity appeal did not differ across the 3 emotion
conditions (fear and romantic desire have opposite effects on distinctiveness vs. limited-opportunity scarcity
appeals)
o BUT: the persuasiveness of distinctiveness scarcity appeal did differ significantly


in line with H3: distinctiveness scarcity appeals = more persuasive in the romantic desire than the control
condition
in line with H2: distinctiveness scarcity appeals = less persuasive in the fear vs. the control condition
Discussion
This study = the first to highlight to conceptual differences between behavioral vs. attitudinal social proof appeals
and between distinctiveness-based vs. limited-opportunity scarcity appeals.
General Discussion
This research:
 How might different affect-arousing contexts influence responses to widely used PHs?
o examination of the influence of one + (romantic desire) and one - (fear) affective state on 2 HCs
(social proof and scarcity) => exp 1A and 1B
o results ≈ predictions (derived from an evolutionary model)
 Why do these HCs backfire sometimes?
o examination of conceptual differences within “social proof” (attitudinal/behavioral) and “scarcity”
(distinctiveness-based/limited-opportunity) => exp. 2
o results ≈ predictions
Evolutionary Approaches
 This research is the first to demonstrate the utility of an evolutionary approach in marketing + other
scientific fields (e.g. biology/anthropology/economics/…).
 A theoretical model, not to replace, but to complement existing theories. HOWEVER: more extensive testing
by marketing researchers is needed to enable broader theoretical integration.
 Regarding emotions: there are discrete + and - feelings and both can influence cognition in a specific way
BUT there are explicit key differences (cf. exp. 2):
o each emotion is defined in an explicitly distinct manner and each one solves a different adaptive
problem
o ↔ former research defined emotions according to a high or low level of certainty/control/appraisal
dimensions
Implications and Future Research Directions
 commercials/ads should be adapted to the program during which they air (cf. exp 2)
 also possible: elicit a specific emotion during the first 15 sec of a television spot
 consumption-relevant processes differ qualitatively depending on which adaptive mental system is active
o mental system engagement ≠ limited to marketing, but exist in a variety of contexts
o e.g. when you see a particular emotional expression on someone’s face
o => this is only the top of the data-rich iceberg that can serve as an impetus for novel research