Keeping your mouth busy while watching a brand commercial can make you less susceptible to advertising effects. Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Popcorn_ (2609202064).jpg
Eating popcorn and chewing gum diminish advertising effects from commercials, as found by Topolinkski and his research team from the University of Wuerzburg in Germany (1).
Participants who consumed gum or popcorn during commercials were less affected by the advertisements; in contrast, those in the control group were more likely to spend money on the advertised products and showed higher psychological responses when tested a week later.
Advertising is usually effective in producing positive attitudes to brands because it takes advantage of the exposure effect, a psychological mechanism in which a stimulus is preferred after it is repeatedly presented. This preference is caused by higher processing fluency, and advertising is a method used to increase the ease to mentally process a brand name.
Research by Stroop shows that every time a word is encountered, a covert simulation of pronouncing the word takes place. Therefore the more this convert simulation occurs, the more one gains the oral-motor fluency that is associated with the positive feelings brought about via exposure. However, when this oral-motor system is interrupted through chewing or another mouth movement, there is no gain in pronunciation simulation fluency and thus no exposure effect.
Topolinski et al. tested their hypothesis that snacking would provide the oral interference that would hamper the impact of exposure on brand attitudes and choice with two related experiments. In the first, they gave subjects, female psychology freshmen at a university, either popcorn, gum, or a sugar cube (the control), to consume while watching six various commercials for body lotion. A week later, the subjects were brought back in and given money to spend on a bottle of lotion. Most importantly, half of the bottles for sale had been previously presented in the commercials.
The results showed that, as predicted, those in the control condition were subject to advertising effects, while those who were eating popcorn or chewing gum showed reduced advertising effects and even a reduced likelihood to choose the advertised lotions due to oral interference.
In a second related experiment, Topolinksy et al. measured electrodermal activity (EDA) since research has shown the EDA increases to previously encountered stimuli. The results were very similar to the previous experiment. The control group experienced higher EDA to advertised products whereas this effect was absent in the group that consumed popcorn.
Oral interference through either eating popcorn or chewing gum obstructed exposure effects on brand attitudes. The results show that motor components have key role in fluency effects and disruption of pronunciation simulations can cancel out exposure effects. These findings suggest that advertising may be ineffective for snacking audiences, which goes against common marketing strategies.
Reference:
- Topolinski, Sascha, Sandy Lindner, and Anna Freudenberg. “Popcorn in the Cinema: Oral Interference Sabotages Advertising Effects.” Journal of Consumer Psychology (2013).