Download Subliminal Messaging.rtf - Papers World

Subliminal Messaging
Subliminal Messages in Advertising: The Case For and Against Lisa Caswell
Syracuse University Running Head: Subliminal Messages Subliminal messaging
and subliminal perception are controversial topics in the field of psychology.
Many studies have been conducted to determine if subliminal messaging does in
fact work. Many people think that subliminal messages in the field of
advertising are much more successful than subliminal messages for selfimprovement, such as tapes sold to help the consumer lose weight, gain
intelligence, or do something else to improve themselves simply by listening to
a tape. Subliminal advertising can be defined as "embedding material in print,
audio, or video messages so faintly that they are not consciously perceived."
Rogers and Smith (1993) surveyed 400 households. When asked if they believed
advertisers deliberately included subliminal messages, 61.5% responded 'yes'. A
72.2% 'yes' answer was obtained when asked if subliminal advertisements were
effective. Based on these results, it can be concluded that consumers are aware
of subliminal advertising, and believe it is effectively used by advertisers to
influence their decisions. The term "sub-threshold effects," first popularized by
Packard in 1957, preceded the popular notion of "subliminal advertising," whose
originator is James Vicary. Subliminal advertising first came to the public's
attention in 1957 when Jim Vicary conducted a subliminal advertising strategy
of interspersing "drink Coca-Cola" and "eat popcorn" messages on a movie
screen so quickly that they could not be seen consciously by the audience. His
research initially reported increases in the sales of both Coca-Cola and popcorn
as a result of the subliminal messages. Later, however, when he was challenged
and could not replicate or even produce the results, Vicary admitted that the
results of the initial study had been fabricated (Weir, 1984). Key (1989) has
more recently claimed that hidden or embedded messages are widespread and
effective. Key's theories have been widely discredited by scholars who have
examined marketing applications scientifically (Moore, 1982). Although a few
scholarly studies have reported certain limited effects of exposure to subliminal
stimuli in laboratory settings (Greenwald, Klinger, and Liu, 1989), most
academic researchers on the subject have reported findings which indicate no
practical or predictable effect in an advertising setting (Dixon, 1971). The 1957
Vicary study has been largely disregarded in the scholarly community due to
lack of scientific documentation of methodology and failure to replicate.
However, scholarly findings and industry assertions may have had little or no
effect on the average American, who has been exposed to popular articles and
books promoting the notion that subliminal advertising is used and is effective.
In addition, Americans have been exposed to advertisements claiming that selfhelp audio-tapes and videotapes containing subliminal materials can help the
purchaser with weight loss, better relationships, an improved golf game, quitting
smoking, and even birth control. Awareness of Subliminal Messaging by the
Public Many in the public are aware of the term "subliminal advertising,"
understand the basics of the concept, and believe it not only is used by
advertisers but is also successful in influencing brand and purchase choice.
Shortly after the Vicary study was brought to the public's attention (Brean,
1958), Haber (1959) sought to discern "exactly what the public believes about
subliminal advertising when so little factual information is available." Results of
this study determined that 41 percent of 324 respondents had heard of subliminal
advertising, and although half believed it to be "unethical," 67 percent stated that
they would still watch a television program even if they believed subliminal
messages were embedded in the commercials. Two decades later, a survey of
209 adults conducted by Zanot, Pincus, and Lamp (1983) reported double the
awareness levels of the Haber study. The Zanot survey concluded that 81
percent had heard of subliminal advertising and that "respondents believe that
subliminal advertising is widely and frequently used and that it is successful in
selling products." The same survey determined that educational level is the
demographic variable most highly correlated with awareness of subliminal
advertising; the more educated the respondent, the more likely he or she is to be
aware of the phenomenon. A study by Rogers and Smith (1993) found that the
more education a person has (and therefore the more opportunity to learn of the
limitations of the subliminal persuasion phenomenon), the more likely one is to
believe that subliminal advertising "works." A 1985 study by Block and Vanden
Bergh surveying consumers' attitudes toward use of subliminal techniques for
self-improvement found some consumer skepticism and reported more favorable
attitudes among those who were less educated and younger. Three surveys
conducted in the past decade have demonstrated that a majority of American
adults are aware of "subliminal advertising" and believe advertisers sometimes
use it to sell products. The three surveys spanned a broad geographic spectrum
(Washington, D.C.; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Toledo, Ohio). All three surveys
opened with questions that determined whether the respondent was aware of
subliminal advertising and determined whether or not basic knowledge was
present and sufficient for continued discussion. Remaining questions in all three
surveys assessed beliefs about the phenomenon, as distinguished from
knowledge. Each study covered slightly different ground. Each was subject to
different limitations, yet all three produced similar findings. All three surveys
found similar proportions who were aware of subliminal advertising, who
believed that it is used by advertisers, and who thought that it "works" to help
marketers sell products. Awareness of Subliminal Messaging by the Advertising
Industry A survey of advertising agency members, their clients and media
production professionals was conducted by Rogers and Seiler (1994) as to
whether or not they have ever used, or been connected with a firm that used,
subliminal advertising. Based on a response rate of 36 percent, the reaction was
nearly unanimously negative, and evidence suggests that the few positive
responses were due to a misunderstanding of the term "subliminal advertising."
The results revealed that the majority denied ever using this advertising strategy,
despite the public's fears of this method of 'brainwashing.' In addition, a
significant part of the minority that answered in the affirmative is shown to have
misinterpreted 'subliminal' as 'subtle.' The advertising industry trade press has
for decades ridiculed the notion of using hidden or embedded messages in
advertisements. A significant percentage (75 to 80 percent) of the U. S.
population believes that advertising agencies and the companies they represent
purposely use subliminal advertising. These consumers also believe that
subliminal advertising actually "works" even though research studies have
shown that no significant effects can be identified as a result of using subliminal
imagery in advertisements (Rosen and Singh, 1992). Consumers spend about 50
million dollars a year on subliminal self-help products (Krajick, 1990). Scholars
have researched advertisements with subliminal messages embedded in them
and their effects (Beatty and Hawkins, 1989). These studies have generally
refuted the possibility of eliciting predictable responses that could be useful to
marketers. No one has tried to determine whether the advertising community has
deliberately utilized subliminal messages (Kelly, 1979; Dudley, 1987). The
advertising industry has repeatedly denied the use of subliminal embeds, and
spokespersons within the industry have used such common-sense arguments
against its probable use as: "If subliminals worked, wouldn't there be textbooks
on how to practice it?" and "How can showing someone a penis get him or her
to switch, say, from Kent (cigarettes) to Marlboro?" (Kanner, 1989). Wilson
Bryan Key's (1972, 1976, 1980, 1989) writings, and frequent public-speaking
presentations, may have served to promote the concept and purported use of
subliminal persuasion by advertisers. While his theories have been widely
discredited by scholars (Moore, 1982), his writings still appeal to consumers and
keep the question current: do advertisers use subliminal advertising purposely in
order to elicit a predictable response by consumers? Kelly (1979) asserts that
this question is extremely important but unanswered by existing research, which
focuses on whether subliminal advertising might be effective if it were used, and
not on whether it is used deliberately. One way of identifying whether in
agencies and the client companies they represent consciously use subliminal
advertising to help sell their products is to survey them. It was not until 1984
that a formal research study was undertaken to determine if advertisers
purposely used subliminal embeds as an advertising strategy. In his survey of
100 advertising agency art directors, Haberstroh (1984) inquired whether any of
these art directors had ever deliberately embedded, supervised an embedding, or
had knowledge of an embedding of a subliminal message in advertising artwork
for a client. His findings indicated that, of the 47 usable responses, only 2
answered "yes" to any of the questions. When he checked open-ended
explanations by these two respondents, he determined there was confusion on
the part of the respondents to the implied definition of "subliminal embeds" and
that, apparently, none of the 47 participants had ever used subliminal messages
(Haberstroh, 1984). The Affects of Subliminal Messaging Vokey and Read
(1985) were unable to find any evidence to support the claim that subliminal
messages affect behavior in their study. Key is a major figure in the argument
that subliminal messaging not only occurs, but is also effective. Key claims that
a variety of subliminal techniques are used to capitalize upon the public's
obsession with sex. These include the obvious use of sexual imagery within the
verbal and pictorial content of advertisements. Examples of Key's research
include both the Playboy ads and the rum pictorial ads. Key asserts that the
subliminal sexual imagery included in a Playboy magazine advertisement
depicting a naked woman effectively renders the ad more memorable. He stated
that about 95% of college males remembered viewing this ad an entire month
later. It is also possible that the college students would have remembered the ad
equally well without the embedded imagery. There is ample data to demonstrate
that college students can likely recognize 95% of even relatively extensive sets
of pictures shown to them. In the case of the rum ads, Key felt that the
explanation for an overwhelming preference for a particular brand of rum is the
embedded presence of the phrase "u buy" in a pictorial ad depicting four types
of rum. No researcher since has been able to find the message in the ad. Key
claims that 80% of the subjects in his studies unconsciously perceived the
backward message, resulting in a marked preference for the rum with the
message. Key refuses to believe that the fact that the preferred rum is the only
one with the words "extra special" written on the bottle, or that it is much darker
than the others and presented in a high-status brandy-snifter in a larger bottle has
anything to do with the preference. A study by Vokey and Read (1985) was
conducted to test Key's hypothesis on the embedding of sexual messages on
images. Participants in the study recognized the images imbedded with sexual
imagery, random imagery, and no imagery at the same rate. Key suggested that
it often takes at least a day to see the effect of the subliminal material. Vokey
and Read waited two days and found that the participants who waited the two
days to indicate what slides they had previously seen remembered less than
those who indicated what slides they had seen immediately. Every result in the
study disagreed with Key and his ideas regarding subliminal messages. It is
difficult to believe that while there has been so much research completed
proving that not only are subliminal messages not used, but that subliminal
messages are completely ineffective in changing or influencing behavior, the
public so strongly believes in the influence. After all the research, the public still
fears subliminal messages and the effects they could have. Psychologists must
work to educate the public in the matter of subliminal messages. It is as if
subliminal messages are like superstitions. Everyone knows that it is just a
superstition that if one breaks a mirror it will bring on seven years of bad luck,
yet most people will become quite upset if they do break a mirror. Most people
realize that subliminal messages do not have a strong effect, yet they are still
superstitious about them. The paranoia brought on by the idea that the brain can
be influenced by subliminal messages is great. No one likes the idea that their
thoughts and beliefs are being altered without their knowledge or consent.
Education regarding advertising practices and the non-existent effects of
subliminal messages would help to bridge the gap between the knowledge and
beliefs of the industry, and the knowledge and beliefs of the public.
References
Townsend, J. M., Levy, G. D. (1990). Effects of Potential Partners' Costume and
Physical Attractiveness on Sexuality and Partner Selection. Journal of
Psychology. 371-379. Block, M. P., and Vanden Bergh, B. G. (1985). Can You
Sell Subliminal Messages to Consumers? Journal of Advertising. 59-62. Dixon,
N. F. Subliminal Advertising: The Nature of a Controversy. London: McGraw-
Hill, 1971. Greenwald, A. G., Klinger, M. R., and Liu, T. J. (1989).
Unconscious Processing of Dichoptically Masked Words. Memory and
Cognition. 35-47 Haber, R. N. (1959). Public Attitudes Regarding Subliminal
Advertising. Public Opinion Quarterly. 291-93. Key, W. B. (1972). Subliminal
Seduction: Ad Media's Manipulation of a Not-So-Innocent America. New York:
Signet. Moore, T. E. (1982). Subliminal Advertising: What You See Is What
You Get. Journal of Marketing. 38-47. Packard, V. The Hidden Persuaders. New
York: Pocket Books, 1957. Rogers, M., and. Seiler, C. A. (1994). The answer is
no: a national survey of advertising industry practitioners and their clients about
whether they use subliminal advertising. Journal of Advertising Research. 36-46
Rogers, M., Smith, K. H. (1993). Public perceptions of subliminal advertising:
why practitioners shouldn't ignore this issue. Journal of Advertising Research.
10-19. Vokey, j. R., and Read, J. D., Subliminal Messages: Between the Devil
and the Media. American Psychologist. 1231-1239. Zanot, E. J., Pincus, J. D.,
and Lamp, E. J. (1983). Public Perceptions of Subliminal Advertising. Journal of
Advertising. 39-45. subliminal messaging