Comment by disgruntledphd2
Comment by disgruntledphd2 3 days ago
How does the belief that advertising drives major behaviour change square with 50+ years of psychological research showing that behaviour change is really difficult?
Comment by disgruntledphd2 3 days ago
How does the belief that advertising drives major behaviour change square with 50+ years of psychological research showing that behaviour change is really difficult?
Long term behaviour change is difficult. Short term behaviour change; not so much.
To take a classic example from the "sociopathic" mind of Bernays himself:
> The targeting of women in tobacco advertising led to higher rates of smoking among women. In 1923 women only purchased 5% of cigarettes sold; in 1929 that percentage increased to 12%, in 1935 to 18.1%, peaking in 1965 at 33.3%, and remained at this level until 1977
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
And there's far, far more to it all. Sometimes you don't need people to change their behaviour, you just need them to be confused (say, about climate change, or who to vote for), and sometimes you just need media corporations to go soft on you because they like your money.
Sometimes you're advertising to kids, because childrens brains are more malleable. They form habits early.
Advertising made smoking cool; it made diamonds valuable; it greenwashed fossil fuel companies that sold our species future for short term profit. If you don't call that behaviour change, what do you call it?
> Advertising made smoking cool Nicotine is incredibly addictive, so one would suspect that that addiction made the change stick better.
> it made diamonds valuable
This one is interesting, in that diamonds are valuable for a one off high value purchase (i.e. wedding rings). I'd need to think about this a bit more, but on the face of it is a good counter-argument.
> Long term behaviour change is difficult. Short term behaviour change; not so much.
Can you provide some evidence for this?
Context: I have a PhD in psychology, and have read so many behaviour change meta-analyses that show really, really small effects so my prior is pretty strongly against this.
Additionally, I worked at a big tech on ads, and while one could definitely see changes in conversion rates due to ads, the incremental changes (i.e. measured by experiments) were much, much lower such that a good model of Google/Facebook etc is that they show ads preferentially to people who were probably going to convert anyway (it seems to work well in situations where there is no awareness of the business, but for larger businesses it's all about taking your competitors customers).
So my thesis is more that advertising re-allocates the dollars spend between (mostly) interchangeable products, which is consistent with the psychological research.
I think you might be too focused on advertising’s role in nudging individual purchasing decisions, while underestimating how advertising shapes cultural norms and values over time.
The diamond industry’s marketing campaign didn’t just convince people to buy a diamond - it redefined what engagement meant in the Western world. That’s a fundamental shift in social behavior.
Yes, nicotine is addictive - but 'clever' marketing redefined who could smoke, and why, for decades. This lead to billions in profits - and millions of deaths.
The tobacco industries playbook is still being used; by climate companies, by big tech, by polluters, sugary drink co's etc. These aren't areas where things are "mostly interchangeable" - I want a climate, and clean soil, and drinkable water; not a choice in who destroys every common good.
And think on this - of the ads you saw in your days working for big tech, how many of those ads were based on making someone feel insufficient in some way? How many exploited insecurity or fear? How many manufactured fake urgency? ... How many were straight up deceptive? Etc.
Tbph, I don't get how someone with a PhD in psychology doesn't just defend this industry, but actively works for it. You must know some of the damage being done, after all those years in school.
> Tbph, I don't get how someone with a PhD in psychology doesn't just defend this industry, but actively works for it. You must know some of the damage being done, after all those years in school.
Honestly man, I went and got my PhD because of the GFC (no jobs), and aimed to be able to provide myself (and potential family) a stable income.
My options were 1. pharma (my PhD was on the placebo effect so this would have been easiest). Super evil though
2. Finance (also super evil, and responsible for the GFC)
3. Tech (which back then wasn't perceived as evil).
So I picked tech, and honestly given the options above, I'd do the same today (although I now work for a fintech so fml).
And like, I (with a PhD in psychology and many years in advertising) don't understand why so many tech people hate advertising. Like, our society is messed up for a bunch of reasons, of which advertising is one of the least dodgy.
I think that people find it easy to blame societal problems on external influences, and advertising is a good scapegoat for why people behave in ways that one finds inexplicable.
Like, if you work for a fossil fuel company, are you equally unethical? What about finance? I'm sure that basically everyone in those industries can tell you a story about how their company or industry makes the world better, and most of those stories have some truth.
Honestly, if I could give us all (including myself) one piece of advice is to stop looking for single explanations. Basically everything interesting is caused and driven by lots of complicated stuff, and nothing is purely good or purely bad. We all just make different tradeoffs, and out of those tradeoffs we build a culture and a society.
(Note: back when I was an undergrad I would probably have agreed with everything you say about advertising, but it just doesn't rate as that impactful to me anymore, given the weak evidence that it does much).
I agree with most of what you've said. The MO of the entire advertising industry is _based_ on influencing people's thoughts and behavior.
Two nitpicks:
> Long term behaviour change is difficult. Short term behaviour change; not so much.
As you've clearly pointed out, both short _and_ long-term behavior change is possible. The only difference is that long-term change, by definition, requires more time and resources. That's the only thing making it more "difficult".
> I don't get how someone with a PhD in psychology doesn't just defend this industry, but actively works for it. You must know some of the damage being done, after all those years in school.
Advertising is deeply rooted in psychology, and psych PhDs are highly valued in the industry. The person you're arguing with is perfectly aware of how the industry works, so any counterarguments are defense mechanisms. If they have any morals left, this is what helps them sleep at night.
What on the face of those two statements is a conflict?