More a nicotine trigger
than a deterrent

There is such a thing as too much fear and disgust, even when it comes to anti-smoking ads, according to findings from a University of Missouri study.

Anti-smoking PSAs traditionally featured disturbing images — like cholesterol being squeezed from human arteries, a diseased lung, or a cancer-riddled tongue — as well-intentioned attempts to scare people into shaking the habit.

The ad at left, for example, was part of a campaign called "Hooked," released by the British Government's Department of Health early last year. Shots of people with fish hooks through their lips were colored with text that read, "The average smoker needs over five thousand cigarettes a year. Get unhooked."

And while the government argued the ads could not be offensive, given the cause, the UK's Advertising Standards Authority received a near-record number of complaints, mostly by concerned parents, reports Reuters.

Ads that invoke fear and disgust in viewers are less likely to engage their cognitive processes, the University of Missouri study found.

When fear and disgust are combined in a single television ad, it "[becomes] too noxious for the viewer," said Glenn Leshner, lead author of the study and co-director of MU's Psychological Research on Information and Media Effects (PRIME) Lab. In other words, too much gore could nullify the effectiveness of a message.

Researchers asked 58 viewers to watch a series of 30-second anti-tobacco ads that communicated health threats resulting from tobacco use. The content brought forth emotions like "fear," "disgust" or both. Physiological responses were measured, via facial electrodes and heart rates, to gauge the "attention" of the viewer; that is, the mental effort involved in interpretation.

Viewers had less of a reaction to the combination of fearful and disgusting images than to the ads that focused on either fear or disgust. Their attention and memory increased when the campaign used just one tactic or the other.

In another neuromarketing study by ad industry pundit Martin Lindstrom, researchers found that what people say and what they really think can be completely contradictory — particularly when it comes to smoking.

Asked whether the warning labels on cigarette packs "worked," test subjects resoundingly said "yes," but their subconscious answers — determined by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) — suggested otherwise.

Images of the labels activated "craving spots" in the brain, making smokers want to smoke more, not less. The results confirmed Lindstrom's hypothesis that the mind or body may react in ways even their owners don't consciously expect, writes Ad Age.

Lindstrom's 3-year neuromarketing study also explored effects of product placement and subliminal messaging. Results can be found in "Buyology: The Truth and Lies About What We Buy," published by Doubleday.