Neurophysiology uncovers secrets of TV commercials

The way of thinking about the human nature has recently changed quite substantially. The last two decades of the 20^th century started an alternative understanding of how people think, feel and act. “We have received our name Homo sapiens a little bit in advance”, Johann Huizinga, a famous Dutch historian, once said. A number of empirical discoveries revealed that we are not as rational as it was perceived to be, our decisions are frequently based on intuition and are heavily influenced by holistic feelings rather than analytic reasoning. Since 1974, Kahneman and Tversky have been proving and showed that humans often act irrationally even if financial and health issues are at stake (in 2002 Daniel Kahneman was awarded with the Noble Prize in economics for his accomplishments in this field). If it that were not enough, since the 1980 s it has been systematically proven that a great amount of mental processes occur below the surface of the consciousness (Zajonc 1968, 1980, 1998; Dixon 1971, 1981; Kihlstrom 1999; Uleman and Bargh 1989; Bornstein and Pittman 1992; Greenwald and Banaji 1995; Bargh 1997; Wegner 2002; Wilson 2002; Murphy and Zajonc 1993; Dijksterhuijs 2004; Hassin et al. 2005, Jarymowicz 2001; Ohme 2003, 2007). No matter what the common sense tells us, we are driven by emotions, think in an automatic manner, and a great number of our motivations and behaviors are controlled below the conscious awareness. These are conclusions coming from methodologically rigorous psychological experiments.

Parallel findings are uncovered by neuroscience and scholars such as Ingram (1996); Crick (1994); Adolphs et al. (1995); Dolan et al. (1996); Damasio (1994, 1999, 2003); LeDoux (1996); Gazzaniga et al. (1998); Morris et al. (1998, 1999); Panksepp and Bekkedal (1997); Öhman (1999); Dimberg et al. (2000). In neurobiology and neurophysiology it is posited that our brain is for the most part emotional, and very few structures are driven consciously and voluntarily. Similar observations can be found in the field of consumer behavior (Hazzlet and Hazzlet 1999; LaBarbera and Tucciarone 1995). Researchers like Cialdini (1984); Heath (2001); Kenning et al. (2007); Plassmann et al. (2007); Zaltman (2003); Ravaja (2004); Tellis and Ambler (2007); Ohme (2001, 2009); Ohme et al. (2009a, b; 2010) have claimed that Homo aeconomicus is wishful thinking, regardless of how difficult it is to accept this news (for example, major economic theories are still based on the assumption of rationality as the exclusive and sufficient basis for making consumer choices).

In the light of these and many other findings, it is important for the marketing industry to better understand the role of unconscious and automatic emotions in advertising communication and shopping behavior. Yet traditional marketing research is not enough for such a purpose. Conventional paper-and-pencil or verbal declarations favor pragmatism and functionality, as principles underlying consumer decisions and motives. Fortunately, a new discipline emerges—consumer neuroscience—to examine the brain and its functioning in the context of consumer choices (e.g. Kenning et al. 2007; Plassmann et al. 2007). It has been widely acknowledged that patterns of brain activity are closely related to consumers’ cognition and behavior (Alwitt 1985). Thus analysis of consumers’ neurophysiology may increase the understanding of psychology, i.e. how consumers process incoming information, how they use their memory and react emotionally. Moreover, as the great majority of consumer mental processes occur below the level of conscious awareness, observations of the brain reactions enable to reach the very core—i.e. consciously inaccessible—foundations of consumer decisions, emotions, motivations and preferences (Damasio 1994, 1999, 2003; Zaltman 2003).

Nunez and Srinivasan (2006) posit that electroencephalography (EEG) is a “window of the mind”, for it registers variations in brain waves produced by the cortex. Now, 80 years after its first public demonstration by Hans Berger, EEG is a very popular method used by cognitive neuroscientists, neurologists, psychophysiologists as a noninvasive and relatively inexpensive method for measuring brain activity. EEG has limited anatomical specificity, and can only gather information from the brain surface, not its deeper structures. Nevertheless, a great advantage of this method lies in a very high temporal resolution. Other techniques (e.g. functional magnetic resonance imaging) have time resolution down to a few seconds, whereas the EEG has a submillisecond one (Huettel et al. 2004). This enables researchers to precisely detect changes in the brain activity that are connected with rapidly changing stimuli. This feature is crucial for a TV advertisement’s analysis.

Interest in using EEG for market research goes back to the early 1970 s, but the first regular studies started to appear during the 1980s. In 1985 Alwitt published a study on advertisement content using EEG. She concluded that “the results of this analysis are an encouraging first look at the relationship between ongoing events and EEG-recorded brain reactions. The topic certainly warrants future research” (p. 216). Consequently, EEG has been applied to assess marketing stimuli such as media involvement (Swartz 1998), the processing of TV commercials (Rothschild et al. 1986), and the prediction of memory for components of TV commercials (Rothschild and Hyun 1990). However, the last decade has brought EEG research in consumer behavior to yet another level. The difference between old and current studies lies in the greater ease and precision with which information can be nowadays obtained and analyzed. Today’s computers are much more advanced, and equipped with considerably more sophisticated statistical programs, one of which is MATLAB, a high-level technical computing language and interactive environment for data visualization, analysis, and numeric computation. Metaphorically speaking, we have moved from MS-DOS to WINDOWS applications. The latter are user friendly, handy and accessible to a wider public.

A large body of research on the relation between emotion and motivation has postulated the existence of two overarching motivational systems that organize the human behavior. One system involves behavior prompted by a possible desirable outcome, whereas the other involves behavior prompted by a possible aversive outcome (Lang et al. 1990; Carver and White 1994; Avila 2001). Davidson et al. (1979) proposed a similar model linked to research on frontal EEG asymmetry during emotional states. He proposed that the left pre-frontal cortex (PFC) is involved in a system facilitating approach behavior, whereas the right PFC is involved in a system facilitating withdrawal behavior from aversive stimuli. Using EEG measures to index ongoing frontal brain activity during the processing of different affects, Davidson and Fox found substantial empirical support for the model in adults and infants (for review, see: Fox 1991; Davidson 1993; Davidson and Rickman 1999). In Davidson’s model greater relative left frontal EEG activity has been routinely associated with the processing of positive affects (e.g., while viewing film clips containing pleasant scenes), whereas greater relative right frontal EEG activity with the processing of negative affects (e.g., while viewing film clips containing unpleasant scenes) (Jones and Fox 1992). In this paper we will refer to the approach related tendencies (or the left hemispheric dominance) in short as “positive reactions” and to withdrawal related tendencies (or right hemisphere dominance) as “negative reactions”. Of course some negative emotional states may still evoke approach tendencies, for example anger (see: Harmon-Jones 2003), but we assume that mainstream TV commercials, in general, consist of positive stimuli (excluding social ads) and it is not very likely that their goal would be to make consumers angry.

To date, numerous independent studies have examined the relationship between emotion or emotion-related constructs and asymmetry in EEG activity over the frontal cortex. A review of these studies clearly suggests the existence of asymmetry in the frontal EEG activity, including resting levels of activity and state-related activation (Coan and Allen 2003). This asymmetry is ubiquitous and involved, both in trait predispositions to respond to emotional stimuli related to the moderating function of the prefrontal cortex, and changes in the emotional state, which can be treated as a marker of emotional intensity (Coan and Allen 2003).

The brain asymmetry either frontal or related to other brain regions is still a rather empirical and conceptual construct with obvious limitations and some competing explanations than a versatile tool to understand brain reactions to any stimuli in terms of ongoing cognitive and affective processes. Still, the quantity and quality of empirical evidence that supports Davidson’s account of frontal asymmetry is compelling and we consciously opted for a theory-driven research than purely data-driven research (to be followed by model-oriented and theoretical work). Therefore, results of our study should be viewed in the context of this choice and its interpretative consequences, especially.

The main goal of our study was to reveal how one scene may efficiently prime other scenes on a neurophysiological level. We found that the primed informational part evokes strong positive reactions, whereas reactions to it when no priming is available are neutral. After dividing the informational part into three segments we found positive reactions to the product benefits exposure but again only in the primed version. Reactions toward the remaining two segments (product and brand exposures) did not differ significantly between the primed and not primed versions. It may indicate that the duration of the priming effect is limited. However, at this early stage this finding has to be considered an observation rather than an established fact.

The results support Zajonc and Murphy’s (1993) findings that positive iconic priming results in the increase in positivity toward the primed target. Moreover, this study conceptually extends their notion of the diffusion of unconscious affect (i.e. a transfer of positivity or negativity from an affective prime onto neutral or ambiguous target). We have discovered that such diffusion is possible for optimal (consciously accessible) primes, whereas Zajonc and Murphy posited that it is restricted to suboptimal (consciously inaccessible) activation only. Our results do not contradict Murphy and Zajonc’s findings as we analyzed neurophysiological reactions whereas they had focused on conscious responses. To better address this issue in the next research, we will not only use EEG measures but also introduce conscious evaluations, both on interval and continuous scales (see: Ohme et al. 2009b).

The research reveals that a prime stimulus—the frog scene—turned out to be instrumental in spite of the fact how irrelevant to the flat TV product category it seemed to be. It is hard to imagine indeed—particularly prior to learning the outcomes of this research—how to associate, on a rational level, a frog jumping out of a gutter with a high technology product such as a plasma TV. Moreover, the duration of the frog scene was approximately 5% of the whole ad, and it still managed to produce a significant impact. It is yet another example of how a small, peripheral element turned out to be a key-moment in advertising persuasion. In one of our studies (Ohme et al. 2009a) we showed that a subtle gesture, verbally neglected by respondents on the conscious level, altered not only their neurophysiological (EEG, EMG, GSR) reactions, but also made a positive impact on the perception of a pharmaceutical product (reflected by the increase in the product benefits conscious evaluations) as well as on their purchase oriented behaviors (reflected by the increase in the number of shelf-test choices of the product). In the future, as we come into possession of more of such cases we would be able to theoretically advance the concept of a three-dimensional advertising in which such subtle, peripheral, unconscious, often utterly irrelevant cues (rationally speaking of course) turn out to be instrumental in driving purchase oriented behavior of consumers (Ohme 2009).

Interestingly, it is said that the frog scene—the crucial moment of the ad as revealed by the brain-waves analysis—was not strategically pre-planned by the advertiser nor by the agency. A frog just happened to be there while shooting the commercial, and only thanks to the creators’ gut feelings was kept in the final cut. It is quite an example of how hard work and talent should be married to intuition and luck to produce a good ad. Unless the brain-waves based test is at hand, of course. It is now self-evident that neurophysiological research may offer much greater control over the creative advertising process, and eventually may help utilize both expected and accidental findings. To illustrate this, considering the Sony Bravia 2005 campaign one may recommend to use “a frog insight” as an inspiration to retail communication (e.g. at store displays, points of purchase, leaflets, brochures, etc.) and to have frog-like visuals replace immortal Hawaiian sunsets.

We strongly support an argument of the significance of emotions in advertising. Not only with respect to making ads a more likeable and pleasant but most importantly to making them a more persuasive product-wise and brand-wise. The Sony Bravia study shows that a seemingly irrational, emotional stimulus has an ability to create positive associations between the commercial and the product benefit. Although this notion is not quite new to many marketing experts (who can intuitively sense the role of emotional peripheral stimuli) they frequently face difficulties to prove this phenomenon exists. It is because they use verbally-based traditional methods. At the same time, arguments provided by a brain-waves based, non-verbal method are clear, univocal and practical. The brain wave method we presented here equips researchers with an additional instrument to verify and upgrade existing methods and to explore the area of unconsciousness and emotions.