Commentary
Negative Words Prove To Be Catchy
- by Jack Loechner , Staff Writer @mp_research, October 8, 2009
According to a study led by Professor Nilli Lavie, UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, published in the journal Emotion, people are able to process emotional information from subliminal images, and demonstrates conclusively that even under such conditions, information of negative value is better detected than information of positive value.
In the study, Professor Lavie and colleagues showed fifty participants a series of words on a computer screen. Each word appeared on screen for only a fraction of second, at times only a fiftieth of a second, much too fast for the participants to consciously read the word.
The words were either positive (e.g. cheerful, flower and peace), negative (e.g. agony, despair and murder) or neutral (e.g. box, ear or kettle). After each word, participants were asked to choose whether the word was neutral or ‘emotional' (i.e. positive or negative), and how confident they were of their decision.
The researchers found that the participants answered most accurately when responding to negative words, even when they believed they were merely guessing the answer.
Professor Lavie said: "There has been much speculation about whether people can process emotional information unconsciously... (the study shows) that people can perceive the emotional value of subliminal messages and... (demonstrates) conclusively that people are much more attuned to negative words.
The professor says that there are evolutionary advantages to responding rapidly to emotional information. She says "We can't wait for our consciousness to kick in if we see someone running towards us with a knife or if we drive under (inclement weather conditions) and see a sign warning ‘danger'."
Since "Negative words may have more of a rapid impact," she explained, the research might have implications in the use of subliminal marketing to convey messages for advertising as well as public service announcements for safety campaigns.
ProfessorLavie opines that "‘Kill your speed' should be more noticeable than ‘Slow down'. More controversially, highlighting a competitor's negative qualities may work on a subliminal level much more effectively than shouting about your own selling points."
For additional information about the UCL study, please go here.
Jack Loechner is the Editor of The Center for Media Research's daily Research Brief. You can reach him at jack@mediapost.com.
Very interesting subject and one that has been researched for years. When I consider this subject, it makes my mind wander to another topic that interests me: search engine marketing and the use of negative keywords in these campaigns. Has my stream of consciousness made me wander off the beaten path or is there some relevancy between these two topics?
Very interesting indeed.
This is just sad. These findings are the kind you'd rather not know about as a marketer. Maybe we'll get to the point where the negative words get so overused that the occasional positive words will get all the attention? Call me Pollyanna.
In other words, we'll never see the end of negative political campaigning.
May I simply ask what the difference is between "consciously" reading a word and unconsciously reading it? How do we know that the participants weren't simply reading the word? How do we know how much time it takes to read a word? Might it not simply be that we don't know how much time is required to read a word? Concluding that 1/50th of a second is too little time to "consciously" read something (whatever THAT means) appears to be an assumption. How would you even test such a thing? And how do we square the findings with the fact that some research indicates that when we tell people "Don't do [something]," some find that what they actually remember is "Do [something]." I am told this has been tested and shown to be true regarding instructions on how to perform tasks.
This provides another explanation for why negative political campaigns work and why in the current health reform debate the rhetoric of the angry mobs is getting more attention then the President's facts.
I found this article to be worthy of a blog post - couldn't fit all my thoughts into a short comment. If you're interest it's here: http://tinyurl.com/yh5w6g3. The main thrust is from more of a brand point-of-view.
My questions really revolve around the wider ramifications if "going negative" became more SOP in marketing. We see it from time to time but not nearly as often as we might. Certainly there is both upside and downside for a brand. But what if, as has been alluded to above, political advertising became an accepted effective model for all marketing?
Not a pretty picture to be sure.