Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Rhoda

Advertising

Recommended Posts

Rhoda

Is having a mass media advertising phenomenon harmful to a society and the upbringing of children? It's no surprise that advertising had aided large corporations earn massive amounts of money and has seemingly benefited the economy. However, is advertising really aiding society by taking up public space to promote products or services? In my opinion, I feel that advertising is necessary in terms of helping companies sell their produces and assisting consumers when it comes to learning what is on offer. Nevertheless, I also believe that such mass media advertising could be harmful to the development of anyone's mental wellbeing, not just that of children. Children are very manipulative and are highly influenced by what they see and hear, meaning there is a possibility of them feeling inadequate when they do not own the product being advertised. Many adverts are aimed solely at children and feature eye catching imagery and warm, friendly audio elements. In many cases, parents then may feel pressured to bring their children happiness through material goods. I'm not even going to go on to discuss the possible financial strain, but the argument's certainly there.

 

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vercetti21

Advertising is propaganda. Children should learn at an early age not to be influenced by it. Personally I don't like the idea of a billboard telling me what or what not to buy, and the best way around that is to ignore it.

 

As long as that's the case, advertisements help boost the economy, create jobs, etc. and I don't have a problem with it.

 

 

Edited by Vercetti21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eddie280

I don't believe that Advertising can have a severe and lasting affect on the mental wellbeing of Children, because although it is true that children are more impressionable, I think that advertising in general is too passive to cause such a serious effect.

 

But I agree that in the current consumerist society, there is often a feeling of inadequacy if one doesn't keep up to speed with the lateset trends and whims of the masses. Perhaps the role of the parent should be to exhibit the flaw's of this desire for acceptance by not giving in to the pressure piled on them buy both the media and thier children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rhoda

In that case, and not to disregard my previous argument, what do you feel is the limit of advertising when it comes to targeting children? Do you believe there's such a thing as going too far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt. Dan

Kind of off-topic, but you know that McDonalds commercial with the chicken sandwich? Where it makes you think they're talking about America?

 

That commercial makes me disgusted and makes me understand why terrorists hate us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Unvirginiser

The first letter American chirldren learn is usually M, for McDonalds.

Theres a lot of psyhcology behind advertising, but then again it's up to you to even look at it isnt it? It's not like your forced to, even though it will be difficult, it is possible to protect your chirldren from the horrors of advertising devil.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

What was that documentary where they showed that kids recognize Ronald McDonald more than Jesus? I always thought that gave a great example of how well some advertising it is at targeting children.

 

I don't think that there's really that much chance of any harm from commercials. Another poster mentioned that children need to learn how to filter out this propaganda, and I agree with that. If anything, commercials offer a good way for children to exercise skepticism.

 

 

You know what bothers me, though? Advertisements that use children to appeal to adults. For example, what's the most sure-fired way to sell baby food? Have a cuter baby than the competitor. It seems like the number one things to use to advertise to adults are sex, and the products of sex, children.

 

One recent example of this, is an organization that is against bipartisan politics. They casted a bunch of kids to talk how, "If I could vote, I would vote for the candidate that would..." as if anyone is actually supposed to believe these kids really have thought about this and aren't just reiterating their scripts. It's just kind of belittling I think, and there's a certain question I have about using children for propaganda like that anyway. I don't really think that advertising using children has anything wrong with it, though it is annoying. However, to bring children into the political spectrum of things just seems unnecessary and nothing but a play on emotions. I suppose that's the most effective form of advertising there is though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seachmall
What was that documentary where they showed that kids recognize Ronald McDonald more than Jesus? I always thought that gave a great example of how well some advertising it is at targeting children.

Supersize me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronnyboy
What was that documentary where they showed that kids recognize Ronald McDonald more than Jesus?  I always thought that gave a great example of how well some advertising it is at targeting children.

Supersize me.

Didn't that film also show that more kids first song is the McDonalds theme of I'm loving it?

 

But advertising is just flashy propaganda. We mostly don't give a damn about it, until we start to remember it. Like recently I started humming an ad for "Gurnee Mills Dodge". I haven't heard the ad in a long time, yet there it was. Ads mostly just sit in your brain waiting for you to think about the product so, when you buy that product you choose there brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80
I don't believe that Advertising can have a severe and lasting affect on the mental wellbeing of Children, because although it is true that children are more impressionable, I think that advertising in general is too passive to cause such a serious effect.

 

 

I think that is a gross underestimation of the power of advertising campaigns. Images and subliminal

messages can have a profound effect on a persons subconscious. just because you don't realize it's

happening doesn't necessarily mean it's passive. in fact i see the repetitive bombardment of images

and catchy jingles as a highly aggressive form of manipulation. Especially when it comes to children

in those early, formulative years. The implication is that they are being hooked on something while they

are too young to even understand why, and will have a propensity to associate themselves with

powerful brand images that may be unhealthy for them, or in general may not even need. It is a covert

form of manipulation

 

There have been extensive studies which prove the power of brand images and logos as a determining

factor of things people show a preference towards. It has nothing to do with the actual product. It is just

a way for companies to gain life long customers. Like any good Drug-dealer will tell you "Get 'em while t

they're young" of course their commodity will happen to be prohibited and therefore they will be labeled

an 'evil drug pusher' But if Coca Cola do it, it's just a brilliant marketing strategy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

 

As long as that's the case, advertisements help boost the economy, create jobs, etc. and I don't have a problem with it.

In regards to the economy what advertising sometimes does is distract people from wether the product they're buying is good or not.

 

 

Images and subliminal messages can have a profound effect on a persons subconscious.

Just as information, there really is no proof that subliminal messages have any effect at all, and there hasn't been any evidence that there is even something we could call subconscious, not to brag around, but popular culture tends to twist around many findings.

Edited by Ph3L1z14n0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge
In regards to the economy what advertising sometimes does is distract people from wether the product they're buying is good or not.

 

Surely that's the whole point of advertising? The decision whether or not a product is good or not has always been in the hands of the consumer. It's the job of the advertiser to persuade the public that his or her product is worth their time and money. You're saying it like it's some horrible trick, but it's exactly what advertisements have tried to achieve since their conception; to present their product in the most favourable light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80

 

 

Images and subliminal messages can have a profound effect on a persons subconscious.

Just as information, there really is no proof that subliminal messages have any effect at all, and there hasn't been any evidence that there is even something we could call subconscious, not to brag around, but popular culture tends to twist around many findings.

Well even if you don't like to call it a subconscious or not is irrelevant. The fact is that there

is an area of our psyche which is affected by images that we are not conscious of. So i can't

think of a better term.

 

Take for example, the tests undertaken, to determine the popularity of Coca Cola Vs Pepsi Cola.

in every case, the subject had a predetermined idea, about which one they prefered, but when

tested, were almost all unable to distinguish between the two. When the brand images and pretty

jingles are taken out of the loop, the effects of advertising are no longer able to affect your

subconscious and so are completely ineffective. Then the product becomes meaningless. When

you think you are really enjoying your can of Coca Cola, as opposed to your can of Pepsi, what is

actually determining it is your subconscious having been manipulated through years and years of

agressive advertising

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

 

what is actually determining it is your subconscious having been manipulated through years and years of agressive advertising

Look, i already studied perception in my psychology class, trust me, i'm pulling out my old dusty Schiffman book to prove this, i will explain it to you:

 

The perception of human beings is determined by the threshold, the threshold is the point were you actually perceive something and react to this depeding on the characteristics of what you're seeing, the problem with the "subliminal theory" (which there is none), is that it argues that the subliminal image enters below the threshold directly into your mind and modifies your beahvior, this is false, because it hasn't been proven that a person sees or reacts to something below the threshold, the part of the psyche (which there is also no prove that exists either, it's just pop culture) that is affected by images it's the occipital lobe, specially the Brodmann areas 17, 18 and 19, but not by images which enter below the threshold, there is no proof that subliminal stimulation can change behavior.

 

 

Surely that's the whole point of advertising? The decision whether or not a product is good or not has always been in the hands of the consumer. It's the job of the advertiser to persuade the public that his or her product is worth their time and money. You're saying it like it's some horrible trick, but it's exactly what advertisements have tried to achieve since their conception; to present their product in the most favourable light.

Yes, but this is wrong because there should be more focus and responsibility in making a GOOD product, and then trying to advertise it, that would make sense, but what if you buy many products throughout your life that have turned out to be sh*t? you would've wasted a lot of money, and they would've sold like hell, for example, McDonalds, completely unhealthy food with questionable work and farming ethics, or what about Ginsu Knives? they were advertised as being capable to cut through shoes, yet they barely could cut fish as it was shown on the commercial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80
what is actually determining it is your subconscious having been manipulated through years and years of agressive advertising

Look, i already studied perception in my psychology class, trust me, i'm pulling out my old dusty Schiffman book to prove this, i will explain it to you:

 

The perception of human beings is determined by the threshold, the threshold is the point were you actually perceive something and react to this depeding on the characteristics of what you're seeing, the problem with the "subliminal theory" (which there is none), is that it argues that the subliminal image enters below the threshold directly into your mind and modifies your beahvior, this is false, because it hasn't been proven that a person sees or reacts to something below the threshold, the part of the psyche (which there is also no prove that exists either, it's just pop culture) that is affected by images it's the occipital lobe, specially the Brodmann areas 17, 18 and 19, but not by images which enter below the threshold, there is no proof that subliminal stimulation can change behavior.

 

 

Look, Schiffman's explanation is not exactly adequate proof is it. What if i was to quote Pierre Janet?

would that prove anything?

 

Anyhow the point i was making was that even if you don't believe in a particular part of the psyche.

whatever you want to call it, subconcious, preconscious it doesn't matter, the very fact that extensive

studies have been made, the pepsi one being just one, but extensive studies about body language, and

various other studies all point to your behaviour being influenced by something in your mind (regardless

of which actual part of the psyche) which is not at the tiime acknowledges by you, if you are not aware

of the effects something has on you, then it is what i would term subconscious, Freud actually coined

the term, but then changed his idea to preconscious, as in memory stored in your conscious mind that

you are at present unaware of. There's very little difference. But no it can't be proven that your psyche is

in different sections, you're totally right there. but regardless, all the evidence points to behaviour being

influenced on a level that you are not immediately aware of, whether Schiffman believes it or not is a

different matter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

 

subconcious, preconscious it doesn't matter, the very fact that extensive studies have been made, the pepsi one being just one, but extensive studies about body language, and various other studies all point to your behaviour being influenced by something in your mind (regardless of which actual part of the psyche) which is not at the tiime acknowledges by you, if you are not aware of the effects something has on you, then it is what i would term subconscious

First of all, you could say the threshold explanation could override the fact that you are not aware of the effects, doesn't really mean that there is something of a subconscious, the term isn't even used in modern psychology, what's used it's COGNITION, which englobes a lot of mental processiongs.

 

 

all the evidence points to behaviour being influenced on a level that you are not immediately aware of, whether Schiffman believes it or not is a different matter

Wrong, all the evidence, (and i can quote many authors if you ask me) points out that the semantic properties of the stimuli can enter the cognition and thus be stored somewhere in the brain, but there is no evidence that it can modify behavior in any way.

Edited by Ph3L1z14n0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80
subconcious, preconscious it doesn't matter, the very fact that extensive studies have been made, the pepsi one being just one, but extensive studies about body language, and various other studies all point to your behaviour being influenced by something in your mind (regardless of which actual part of the psyche) which is not at the tiime acknowledges by you, if you are not aware of the effects something has on you, then it is what i would term subconscious

First of all, you could say the threshold explanation could override the fact that you are not aware of the effects, doesn't really mean that there is something of a subconscious, the term isn't even used in modern psychology, what's used it's COGNITION, which englobes a lot of mental processiongs.

 

 

all the evidence points to behaviour being influenced on a level that you are not immediately aware of, whether Schiffman believes it or not is a different matter

Wrong, all the evidence, (and i can quote many authors if you ask me) points out that the semantic properties of the stimuli can enter the cognition and thus be stored somewhere in the brain, but there is no evidence that it can modify behavior in any way.

Firstly as i said, it makes little difference whether you want to use the term Subconcious or Cognition or whatever

you care to use. My point is that it does modify your behaviour, or else why when asked, would people tell you

they prefer Coke to Pepsi, when in fact they can't tell the difference without the aid of the visual stimuli such as

the logo. When people were tested along with visual stimuli, sometimes they would be shown images similar to that

of the Coke logo, sometimes it would be more in common with the Pepsi logo. and in almost all cases, people prefered

the taste that was associated with their favourite brand. Now you can't argue that people are aware when they go to

buy a bottle, that they prefer this particular one because it is red. Therefore, something they are not conciously, or

cognitively aware of, must be influencing their behaviour on a level they are not Cognitively aware of. So i say that

any psychologist, modern or otherwise, who is arguing that it doesn't modify people's behaviour, are ignoring certain

pieces of evidence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

 

Firstly as i said, it makes little difference whether you want to use the term Subconcious or Cognition or whatever

you care to use.

It doesn't really, because subconscious usually refers to "mind pool" if you could say it that way, which there is no proof of it's existance, while cognition is processing, no serious psychologist will tell you that there IS a subconscious, not until it's proved at least, Freud actually never proved that there was such thing, he theorized about it, but he never made any research or experiments about it, it was just an assumption of his theory.

 

 

My point is that it does modify your behaviour, or else why when asked, would people tell you they prefer Coke to Pepsi, when in fact they can't tell the difference without the aid of the visual stimuli such as the logo.

What does subliminal stimuli have to do with it? i think you don't know what subliminal stimuli is, asociating a brand with a logo has nothing to do with it, it's nothing more than mere asociation, basic visual perception, as human beings, we are beings of vision, everything we do is associated with something we see, blue colors usually have to do with sadness or something like the sea, green colors usually have to do with nature and maternal feelings, there's nothing subliminal about that, it's just atributing characteristics, like what McDonald's does, they show you Ronald McDonald beside the happy meal, it doesn't mean it's subliminal stimulation confused.gif

 

 

Now you can't argue that people are aware when they go to buy a bottle, that they prefer this particular one because it is red. Therefore, something they are not conciously, or cognitively aware of, must be influencing their behaviour on a level they are not Cognitively aware of

Same as before man, it's not that they are not aware, it's a fast response to the stimuli, people tend to do associations with brands and foods, it's not subliminal stimulation, it's nothing than mere visual processing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80

Again you are focusing on the semantics of the matter in question which are irrelevant to the topic

we are discussing. As i keep saying it doesn't matter whether you call subliminal or whether it affects

the same part of the brain or not. There is significant evidence that people's behaviour is manipulated

in such a way as they are unable to 'consciously' acknowledge. Be it visual processing or not, it makes

no difference to the matter we're discussing. And as for your assertion that no serious psychologist think

that there is a subconscious, well you're wrong about that, and again you are focusing on the assumption

that for something to affect you on an unconcious level that it must be a seperate part of the brain. Which

i will say again is irrelevant.

 

Allow me to quote a piece from the New York Times regarding the matter

 

 

 

 

By BENEDICT CAREY

Published: July 31, 2007

In a recent experiment, psychologists at Yale altered people’s judgments of a stranger by handing them a cup of coffee.

 

Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image

 

Jason Mecier

The study participants, college students, had no idea that their social instincts were being deliberately manipulated. On the way to the laboratory, they had bumped into a laboratory assistant, who was holding textbooks, a clipboard, papers and a cup of hot or iced coffee — and asked for a hand with the cup.

 

That was all it took: The students who held a cup of iced coffee rated a hypothetical person they later read about as being much colder, less social and more selfish than did their fellow students, who had momentarily held a cup of hot java.

 

Findings like this one, as improbable as they seem, have poured forth in psychological research over the last few years. New studies have found that people tidy up more thoroughly when there’s a faint tang of cleaning liquid in the air; they become more competitive if there’s a briefcase in sight, or more cooperative if they glimpse words like “dependable” and “support” — all without being aware of the change, or what prompted it.

 

Psychologists say that “priming” people in this way is not some form of hypnotism, or even subliminal seduction; rather, it’s a demonstration of how everyday sights, smells and sounds can selectively activate goals or motives that people already have.

 

More fundamentally, the new studies reveal a subconscious brain that is far more active, purposeful and independent than previously known. Goals, whether to eat, mate or devour an iced latte, are like neural software programs that can only be run one at a time, and the unconscious is perfectly capable of running the program it chooses.

 

The give and take between these unconscious choices and our rational, conscious aims can help explain some of the more mystifying realities of behavior, like how we can be generous one moment and petty the next, or act rudely at a dinner party when convinced we are emanating charm.

 

“When it comes to our behavior from moment to moment, the big question is, ‘What to do next?’ ” said John A. Bargh, a professor of psychology at Yale and a co-author, with Lawrence Williams, of the coffee study, which was presented at a recent psychology conference. “Well, we’re finding that we have these unconscious behavioral guidance systems that are continually furnishing suggestions through the day about what to do next, and the brain is considering and often acting on those, all before conscious awareness.”

 

Dr. Bargh added: “Sometimes those goals are in line with our conscious intentions and purposes, and sometimes they’re not.”

 

Priming the Unconscious

 

The idea of subliminal influence has a mixed reputation among scientists because of a history of advertising hype and apparent fraud. In 1957, an ad man named James Vicary claimed to have increased sales of Coca-Cola and popcorn at a movie theater in Fort Lee, N.J., by secretly flashing the words “Eat popcorn” and “Drink Coke” during the film, too quickly to be consciously noticed. But advertisers and regulators doubted his story from the beginning, and in a 1962 interview, Mr. Vicary acknowledged that he had trumped up the findings to gain attention for his business.

 

Later studies of products promising subliminal improvement, for things like memory and self-esteem, found no effect.

 

Some scientists also caution against overstating the implications of the latest research on priming unconscious goals. The new research “doesn’t prove that consciousness never does anything,” wrote Roy Baumeister, a professor of psychology at Florida State University, in an e-mail message. “It’s rather like showing you can hot-wire a car to start the ignition without keys. That’s important and potentially useful information, but it doesn’t prove that keys don’t exist or that keys are useless.”

 

Yet he and most in the field now agree that the evidence for psychological hot-wiring has become overwhelming. In one 2004 experiment, psychologists led by Aaron Kay, then at Stanford University and now at the University of Waterloo, had students take part in a one-on-one investment game with another, unseen player.

 

Half the students played while sitting at a large table, at the other end of which was a briefcase and a black leather portfolio. These students were far stingier with their money than the others, who played in an identical room, but with a backpack on the table instead.

 

The mere presence of the briefcase, noticed but not consciously registered, generated business-related associations and expectations, the authors argue, leading the brain to run the most appropriate goal program: compete. The students had no sense of whether they had acted selfishly or generously.

 

In another experiment, published in 2005, Dutch psychologists had undergraduates sit in a cubicle and fill out a questionnaire. Hidden in the room was a bucket of water with a splash of citrus-scented cleaning fluid, giving off a faint odor. After completing the questionnaire, the young men and women had a snack, a crumbly biscuit provided by laboratory staff members.

 

The researchers covertly filmed the snack time and found that these students cleared away crumbs three times more often than a comparison group, who had taken the same questionnaire in a room with no cleaning scent. “That is a very big effect, and they really had no idea they were doing it,” said Henk Aarts, a psychologist at Utrecht University and the senior author of the study.

 

The Same Brain Circuits

 

The real-world evidence for these unconscious effects is clear to anyone who has ever run out to the car to avoid the rain and ended up driving too fast, or rushed off to pick up dry cleaning and returned with wine and cigarettes — but no pressed slacks.

 

The brain appears to use the very same neural circuits to execute an unconscious act as it does a conscious one. In a study that appeared in the journal Science in May, a team of English and French neuroscientists performed brain imaging on 18 men and women who were playing a computer game for money. The players held a handgrip and were told that the tighter they squeezed when an image of money flashed on the screen, the more of the loot they could keep.

 

As expected, the players squeezed harder when the image of a British pound flashed by than when the image of a penny did — regardless of whether they consciously perceived the pictures, many of which flew by subliminally. But the circuits activated in their brains were similar as well: an area called the ventral pallidum was particularly active whenever the participants responded.

 

“This area is located in what used to be called the reptilian brain, well below the conscious areas of the brain,” said the study’s senior author, Chris Frith, a professor in neuropsychology at University College London who wrote the book “Making Up The Mind: How the Brain Creates our Mental World.”

 

The results suggest a “bottom-up” decision-making process, in which the ventral pallidum is part of a circuit that first weighs the reward and decides, then interacts with the higher-level, conscious regions later, if at all, Dr. Frith said.

 

Scientists have spent years trying to pinpoint the exact neural regions that support conscious awareness, so far in vain. But there’s little doubt it involves the prefrontal cortex, the thin outer layer of brain tissue behind the forehead, and experiments like this one show that it can be one of the last neural areas to know when a decision is made.

 

This bottom-up order makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. The subcortical areas of the brain evolved first and would have had to help individuals fight, flee and scavenge well before conscious, distinctly human layers were added later in evolutionary history. In this sense, Dr. Bargh argues, unconscious goals can be seen as open-ended, adaptive agents acting on behalf of the broad, genetically encoded aims — automatic survival systems.

 

In several studies, researchers have also shown that, once covertly activated, an unconscious goal persists with the same determination that is evident in our conscious pursuits. Study participants primed to be cooperative are assiduous in their teamwork, for instance, helping others and sharing resources in games that last 20 minutes or longer. Ditto for those set up to be aggressive.

 

This may help explain how someone can show up at a party in good spirits and then for some unknown reason — the host’s loafers? the family portrait on the wall? some political comment? — turn a little sour, without realizing the change until later, when a friend remarks on it. “I was rude? Really? When?”

 

Mark Schaller, a psychologist at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, has done research showing that when self-protective instincts are primed — simply by turning down the lights in a room, for instance — white people who are normally tolerant become unconsciously more likely to detect hostility in the faces of black men with neutral expressions.

 

“Sometimes nonconscious effects can be bigger in sheer magnitude than conscious ones,” Dr. Schaller said, “because we can’t moderate stuff we don’t have conscious access to, and the goal stays active.”

 

Until it is satisfied, that is, when the program is subsequently suppressed, research suggests. In one 2006 study, for instance, researchers had Northwestern University undergraduates recall an unethical deed from their past, like betraying a friend, or a virtuous one, like returning lost property. Afterward, the students had their choice of a gift, an antiseptic wipe or a pencil; and those who had recalled bad behavior were twice as likely as the others to take the wipe. They had been primed to psychologically “cleanse” their consciences.

 

Once their hands were wiped, the students became less likely to agree to volunteer their time to help with a graduate school project. Their hands were clean: the unconscious goal had been satisfied and now was being suppressed, the findings suggest.

 

What You Don’t Know

 

Using subtle cues for self-improvement is something like trying to tickle yourself, Dr. Bargh said: priming doesn’t work if you’re aware of it. Manipulating others, while possible, is dicey. “We know that as soon as people feel they’re being manipulated, they do the opposite; it backfires,” he said.

 

And researchers do not yet know how or when, exactly, unconscious drives may suddenly become conscious; or under which circumstances people are able to override hidden urges by force of will. Millions have quit smoking, for instance, and uncounted numbers have resisted darker urges to misbehave that they don’t even fully understand.

 

Yet the new research on priming makes it clear that we are not alone in our own consciousness. We have company, an invisible partner who has strong reactions about the world that don’t always agree with our own, but whose instincts, these studies clearly show, are at least as likely to be helpful, and attentive to others, as they are to be disruptive.

 

 

/end quote

 

 

 

 

So this would appear to support your argument that the 'subconscious' or whatever terminology you

prefer to use, is in fact governed by the same part of the brain. But this also shows, you that there is

strong and plentiful evidence to suggest that ones behaviour can be modified by appealing to ones

'unconscious' mind (again don't focus on the terminology but the relevance to the discussion) In such

a way as to send messages to the brain, without requiring one to acknowledge it. So it indeed appears

that Schiffman's theory is outdated, and that in fact there is considerable evidence to suggest that

advertisements can appeal to your 'subconcious' (or whatever term you prefer)

Your assertion that no serious psychologist would argue that it does exist without evdence, is in fact

true. But i say that no serious psychologist will ignore evidence which would appear to inconvenience

their argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

 

In a recent experiment, psychologists at Yale altered people’s judgments of a stranger by handing them a cup of coffee.

This already proves that the article is not about subliminal stimulation man, it's about judgements, it could fit very well in the atribution theory made by cognitive theorists, this is not an article about subliminal stimulation, please read my explanation about the threshold.

 

 

they become more competitive if there’s a briefcase in sight, or more cooperative if they glimpse words like “dependable” and “support” — all without being aware of the change, or what prompted it. All without being aware of the change, or what prompted it.

Alright, i don't mean to disregard your source, but this statement is completely erratic, the author states first about the subject's awareness, this statement can't be made in experimental psychology, we do not assume what the subject thinks because we simply can't know, and therefore we do not make statements about it, besides the fact that people behave like that merely because they see the briefcase and the words, there's absolutely nothing subliminal about this.

 

 

The mere presence of the briefcase, noticed but not consciously registered, generated business-related associations and expectations, the authors argue, leading the brain to run the most appropriate goal program: compete. The students had no sense of whether they had acted selfishly or generously.

Same as before man, they are making assumptions, even in this kind of experiments it is not always the best option to ask the subjects because of how unreliable they are man, they can lie, as many subjects do in many experiments, and once and again, this is not subliminal stimulation, this is clear visual perception, there is nothing subliminal about this, read threshold.

 

 

The idea of subliminal influence has a mixed reputation among scientists because of a history of advertising hype and apparent fraud. In 1957, an ad man named James Vicary claimed to have increased sales of Coca-Cola and popcorn at a movie theater in Fort Lee, N.J., by secretly flashing the words “Eat popcorn” and “Drink Coke” during the film, too quickly to be consciously noticed. But advertisers and regulators doubted his story from the beginning, and in a 1962 interview, Mr. Vicary acknowledged that he had trumped up the findings to gain attention for his business.

Now for the first time we find something that has to do with subliminal stimulation, problem is that it was a fraud.

 

 

In another experiment, published in 2005, Dutch psychologists had undergraduates sit in a cubicle and fill out a questionnaire. Hidden in the room was a bucket of water with a splash of citrus-scented cleaning fluid, giving off a faint odor. After completing the questionnaire, the young men and women had a snack, a crumbly biscuit provided by laboratory staff members.

Back on track with things that have nothing to do with subliminal stimulation, the conscious stimuli (odor) activates a response (eat).

 

 

The brain appears to use the very same neural circuits to execute an unconscious act as it does a conscious one.

I'm only gonna quote this phrase because it appears throughout the whole article, and the problem with it is that it has a theoretical basis which assumes that there are unconscious acts and conscious acts, this is not actually talked like that in experimental psychology, because there is no way to mark the line which divides unconscious and conscious, an automated response can be considered by an unprofessional researcher as unconscious, behaviorism for example, argues that there is no such thing as unconsciousness, while psychoanalisis says the contrary, regardless of what both say, it's not talked about in experimental psychology, which you are quoting.

 

 

But this also shows, you that there is strong and plentiful evidence to suggest that ones behaviour can be modified by appealing to ones 'unconscious' mind
Same as before man.

 

 

So it indeed appears that Schiffman's theory is outdated, and that in fact there is considerable evidence to suggest that advertisements can appeal to your 'subconcious'

It's not Schiffman's theory, when i say Schiffman i am mentioning the fifth edition of an academic book from 2004 which quotes a lot of experiments and arguments saying that subliminal stimulation does not modify behavior.

 

Look man, i do not mean any kind of offense, but you need to look out long and wide what is subliminal stimulation and try to present something that has to with it, either the article is not about subliminal stimulation, or it is an experimental disaster, so no, this article is not evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Mcreary
Is having a mass media advertising phenomenon harmful to a society and the upbringing of children? It's no surprise that advertising had aided large corporations earn massive amounts of money and has seemingly benefited the economy. However, is advertising really aiding society by taking up public space to promote products or services? In my opinion, I feel that advertising is necessary in terms of helping companies sell their produces and assisting consumers when it comes to learning what is on offer. Nevertheless, I also believe that such mass media advertising could be harmful to the development of anyone's mental wellbeing, not just that of children. Children are very manipulative and are highly influenced by what they see and hear, meaning there is a possibility of them feeling inadequate when they do not own the product being advertised. Many adverts are aimed solely at children and feature eye catching imagery and warm, friendly audio elements. In many cases, parents then may feel pressured to bring their children happiness through material goods. I'm not even going to go on to discuss the possible financial strain, but the argument's certainly there.

 

What are your thoughts?

I donno, but o'l Wako jacky boy does lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80

@ Feliciano. You see the problem is that you're doing it again. You're focusing on this term subliminal,

and arguing against it when i have already acknowledged that the stimuli is not necessarily perceived

below this 'threshold' but you're sidestepping the relevance of the issue. So ok, i will avoid all these

terms that you appear to be taking issue with. Ok so images and odours and feeling of certain temperatures

enter your 'Cognition' am i right? and they do so on different levels? so how is this any different? Ok so the

images are entering your cognition but it doesn't increase your awareness in any real sense does it. Your

cognition is still being bombarded with these images from the moment you are able to cognitively perceive

anything. and so your mind is still associating 'images' and different sounds with a certain feeling or 'goal

recognition' from very early childhood, before you're even 'aware' of it. So ok the term 'subconcious' may

imply a perception of stimuli below a threshold, but it doesn't make a difference. Your behaviour is still being

modified, even if it happens through your cognitive mind. When you go into a shop and choose a can of Coke

you are not immediately aware that you're attracted to that brand because of the aggressive bombardment

of images into your mind (on whatever level) since longer than you can even remember. So your behaviour

is clearly being modified in such a way, whether one chooses to call it subconcious or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Struff Bunstridge
Surely that's the whole point of advertising? The decision whether or not a product is good or not has always been in the hands of the consumer. It's the job of the advertiser to persuade the public that his or her product is worth their time and money. You're saying it like it's some horrible trick, but it's exactly what advertisements have tried to achieve since their conception; to present their product in the most favourable light.

Yes, but this is wrong because there should be more focus and responsibility in making a GOOD product, and then trying to advertise it, that would make sense,

...but it wouldn't make money. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's the way companies work.

 

 

but what if you buy many products throughout your life that have turned out to be sh*t?

 

I probably wouldn't keep buying something sh*t, to be honest. It's the reason I haven't bought McD's for years, for example. I might buy something once, but if I don't like it, or it doesn't do what I wanted it to, I wouldn't buy it again, no matter how much money the manufacturer spent trying to convince me I need it.

 

Oh, and Tony, I keep meaning to ask you, man: What's up with the formatting of your posts? It looks all weird and disjointed, or is it just my computer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80
Surely that's the whole point of advertising? The decision whether or not a product is good or not has always been in the hands of the consumer. It's the job of the advertiser to persuade the public that his or her product is worth their time and money. You're saying it like it's some horrible trick, but it's exactly what advertisements have tried to achieve since their conception; to present their product in the most favourable light.

Yes, but this is wrong because there should be more focus and responsibility in making a GOOD product, and then trying to advertise it, that would make sense,

...but it wouldn't make money. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's the way companies work.

 

 

but what if you buy many products throughout your life that have turned out to be sh*t?

 

I probably wouldn't keep buying something sh*t, to be honest. It's the reason I haven't bought McD's for years, for example. I might buy something once, but if I don't like it, or it doesn't do what I wanted it to, I wouldn't buy it again, no matter how much money the manufacturer spent trying to convince me I need it.

 

Oh, and Tony, I keep meaning to ask you, man: What's up with the formatting of your posts? It looks all weird and disjointed, or is it just my computer?

Haha it's not your computer, its because of where i sit the very right edge of my monitor is always

somewhat obscured, that's why i dont tend to finish the line when i'm typing. Haha simple as that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

 

Ok so images and odours and feeling of certain temperatures enter your 'Cognition' am i right? and they do so on different levels? so how is this any different? Ok so the images are entering your cognition but it doesn't increase your awareness in any real sense does it.

Not extraordinarily, but it is increased enough so that you can perceive it, as soon as you see the briefcase or smell the odor, then you are aware, you are not ecstaticly alert, but you are aware of the smell, there's a right quantity necessary for the threshold, and when it meets the threshold's requirements, then you are aware of the stimuli.

 

 

Your cognition is still being bombarded with these images from the moment you are able to cognitively perceive anything. and so your mind is still associating 'images' and different sounds with a certain feeling or 'goal recognition' from very early childhood, before you're even 'aware' of it.

Look man, the whole point of the threshold is this, if you were not aware of it, then it didn't enter the threshold and didn't change behavior, it's as simple as that, even if they did enter, no association of image or sound can make you go automatically go to a store and buy a coke, without knowing why, everyone single person who buys a coke knows why, the problem is that they're reasons are not good enough, people could say, as they have "i like the color blue of the pepsi" and this is an association, but this is completely conscious and in relation to choice, if your argument was true, then no individual who lives in a city where there's more advertisement would drink juice, wine or cocktails.

 

 

So ok the term 'subconcious' may imply a perception of stimuli below a threshold, but it doesn't make a difference.

Yes it does, below the threshold=enters memory storage, does not change behavior, over the threshold=elaborates response, does not change behavior.

 

 

When you go into a shop and choose a can of Coke you are not immediately aware that you're attracted to that brand because of the aggressive bombardment of images into your mind(on whatever level) since longer than you can even remember. So your behaviour

is clearly being modified in such a way, whether one chooses to call it subconcious or not.

Maybe we're on the same page about the sins of advertisement, but the problem is that people are also educated and raised to consume anything without any regards for their self or even about choice, but there is nothing subliminal about this, now this is a whole different manner, you think that people's behaviors are being modified, but is a human being naturally atracted to juice? or some other beverage? no, this is called conditioning, you see a product with your favorite color and most likely you'll buy it, but there's choice in that matter, there is no behavior modification of any kind in there, people are consciously and effectively choosing to buy the product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80

Ok agreed the term subliminal was an incorrect term, but i really have to take issue with the

awareness of someone buying a pepsi. Nobody will claim to prefer Pepsi, because they like

blue better than red. When asked they will all claim to prefer the taste of pepsi. However when

tested, they are unable to distinguish between them. So does that not lead you to believe that

there is something, they are not aware of? that for some reason they think that they are tasting

something better when they are subjected to a blue image. this i would call an 'unconscious'

decision, i am aware that the same part of the brain will govern this choice, but this would seem

to bring this current explanation of the threshold into question wouldn't you agree? Or else how

can this be explained? it might be above the threshold, but for all intents and purposes, they are

still unaware that they are making their choice based on the colour as opposed to the taste of the

product, which they will all claim to be superior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

I'll recommend you "Mindless Eating" by Brian Wansink, PhD., the guy answers many concers we're adressing here, i'll try to quote as faithfully as i can what i recall of his studies.

 

 

But i really have to take issue with the awareness of someone buying a pepsi. Nobody will claim to prefer Pepsi, because they like blue better than red.

It's not precisely like that, as human beings we like stimulation, therefore, if you can relate the product with a color, a sound, a theme song, a character, a likeness, then the product will become more empathic to people, of course it's not that because my favorite color is red, i'll like coke better, not at all, it's more like where you "eat" first, as simian visual beings we "eat" first through our eyes, and acknowledge most of the things we do through our sight, therefore what defines a coke or a pepsi, will be the logo and the color, but even in those cases it's not enough, Wansink made a research with students from his university and filled coke bottles with pepsi and viceversa, when he asked the students, they said "this coke tastes different" when they drank pepsi.

 

 

When asked they will all claim to prefer the taste of pepsi. However when tested, they are unable to distinguish between them. So does that not lead you to believe that there is something, they are not aware of? that for some reason they think that they are tasting something better when they are subjected to a blue image.

Visual component is indeed a key factor associated with the taste, we are not beings of taste, touch or smell,we're auditive but even more visual

 

 

but this would seem to bring this current explanation of the threshold into question wouldn't you agree? Or else how can this be explained? it might be above the threshold, but for all intents and purposes, they are still unaware that they are making their choice based on the colour as opposed to the taste of the product, which they will all claim to be superior

You tend to confuse a lot what's "unconscious" with what's a response or a reaction, for something to be unconscious the subject needs to have no recolection of what happened, or even the reason why they know it happened, in this case it's different, people acknowledge that they like it because of the color blue, now why because of blue? they can't give you an answer, but it doesn't mean it's unconscious, biologically it's because there's more stimulation and gratification to the senses, and because it is associated with something, if they respond to the color blue, then that's just a response, there's nothing unconscious about it.

Edited by Ph3L1z14n0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tony Mozzarelli 80

But in this case, people didn't acknowledge that they like it because of colour. In fact they

seemed to be completely unaware that the brand was even a factor and appeared to believe

that they preferred the taste.

 

I was however just considering the fact, that many people base their preferences on popular

opinion, be that going with the majority, as would be the case with Coke, or going against

what they may perceive to be the more mainstream choice, and going for Pepsi. I dunno

but that's something to think about. but i still think that they would not be fully aware of it.

 

Where does one draw the line between being aware and not being aware? can someone really

be aware without being aware of it? this would seem to be impossible to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ph3L1z14n0

 

But in this case, people didn't acknowledge that they like it because of colour. In fact they seemed to be completely unaware that the brand was even a factor and appeared to believe that they preferred the taste.

Are you sure? just because the researchers didn't asked them doesn't mean at all that they weren't aware.

 

 

i still think that they would not be fully aware of it.
Not being able to give the right answer doesn't mean they're not aware or even brainwashed.

 

 

Where does one draw the line between being aware and not being aware? can someone really be aware without being aware of it? this would seem to be impossible to me

Now you're just twisting yourself, if a subject is asked why do they believe Pepsi tastes better than coke, he may tell you because it does, to you this seems like they're not aware and that advertising is somehow getting into people's brains, it's not, this is nothing more than exploiting an adaptative quality of human beings, which is their visual perception, now i don't agree with modern advertising at all because of the exploitation of this quality, but the subjects are very aware and the reason why they keep buying lame products is not only because of the ads, it's of because lack of education and consumerism behavior conditioned into them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimmy.

I respect advertising if it respects the consumer and if it appeals to the audience’s logic. Naturally, businesses should have a way to tell people about the goods and services they provide. I don’t like it if it views the audience as “the masses” and tries to manipulatively appeal to the viewer’s sense of fear, sex, and especially, sense of inferiority, with no sense of ethics anywhere in the process. Too many ads make people feel inferior in every possible way and contribute to rampant low self-esteem, for example. This can be seen in beauty ads, weight-loss ads, skin care ads, and a lot of others.

 

On another note, I feel that if we are to be so hyper-saturated with advertising, to the point of it being inescapable even if we do not willingly seek it out (It is everywhere, on the street, in schools, in bathrooms, etc), then the public should also get a non-commercial way to voice its opinion conspicuously, as well. If there are to be billboards everywhere, there should be freely and legally manipulatable surfaces that stand side by side with corporate advertising. It is only fair and even if it means less profits for corporations, not every imaginable surface should bear a commercial advertisement (which is really what we seem to be heading towards).

Edited by jimmy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.