We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

I know the title of the discussion seems a bit of mystifying, since a few of us could think our brains are us. Well, not really, our brains and minds do a lot of stuff we are absolutely not aware of. It turns out that brain activity in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) is a better predictor of how effective an ad will be, than the opinions of the brain's owners. Social neuroscientists at UCLA carried out a very interesting experiment. They measured fMRI activity in 30 heavy smokers who had expressed a desire to quit, while they watched 3 different ads campaigns that aimed at getting smokers to call the National Cancer Institute's quit hotline. They asked these 30 people to rate the ads in terms of effectiveness. They picked an ad featuring a woman so desperate for a nicotine fix, that she imagines jumping out of a window to get a lit cigarette a passerby threw away, as the most most effective at getting people to call the hotline. Then they favored a funny ad about a man learning to drink coffee without a cigarette, and third, or least effective, a humorous ad with finger puppets.  Interestingly, experts in marketing for health care came up with the same rankings. But the the neural responses of participants told a different story. The finger puppet ad provoked the most MPFC activity, followed by the jumping woman, and then the coffee drinker. Call volumes to the NCI hotline agreed with the order predicted by the MPFC activity in the smokers brain, and not by their opinions as to which ad would be most effective: there was a 32 fold increase after the finger puppets, a ~12 fold increase after the jumping woman ad campaign was aired, and only 2.3-fold increased after the coffee drinker ad. A sample of 30 people is a bit small to draw huge conclusions, but if this holds in larger groups, it's absolutely fascinating. And the marketers will really have us for breakfast. 

Effective Ad? Ask Your Brain

on 27 April 2012, 6:12 PM | 
sn-smokers.jpg
Hidden wisdom. Researchers used antismoking campaigns to assess how well brain activity predicts behavior.
Credit: Digital Vision/Thinkstock

Companies and health organizations spend millions of dollars on surveys, polls, and focus groups trying to suss out what people will like, buy, or do. But research shows that these techniques aren't all that accurate. Can brain scans do any better? It's possible, according to a new study that finds that a neural activity predicts people's responses to a public service ad about cigarette smoking better than simply asking a focus group.

Researchers led by neuroscientist Emily Falk at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and Matthew Lieberman, a social neuroscientist at the University of California, Los Angeles, focused on the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC), located at the front of the brain. Of the many roles its neurons play, scientists were most interested in the ones related to self-reflection, thinking of what you value, and identity. Activity in this region increases when people identify with what they see or try to determine the value of something as it relates to them. A previous study by Falk found that MPFC activity that was recorded while people viewed slides with messages urging regular sunscreen use predicted which individuals were most likely to comply. But Lieberman and Falk wanted to go a step further and see if activity in the MPFC in one group of people could predict the behavior of a much bigger population.

They looked at the effectiveness of three ad campaigns aimed at getting smokers to call the National Cancer Institute's quit hotline. The researchers took functional magnetic resonance imaging scans of brain activity in 30 heavy smokers who intended to quit, evenly split between men and women and ranging from 28 to 69 years old, as they watched three ad campaigns. Then scientists asked participants to rank the campaigns according to how effective they thought they'd be for the public.

Read the rest here

Tags: ad, brain, marketing, neuroscience

Views: 21

Replies to This Discussion

The abstract of the original publication:

From Neural Responses to Population Behavior

Neural Focus Group Predicts Population-Level Media Effects

  1. Emily B. Falk1,
  2. Elliot T. Berkman2 and
  3. Matthew D. Lieberman3

+Author Affiliations

  1. 1University of Michigan
  2. 2University of Oregon
  3. 3University of California, Los Angeles
  1. Matthew D. Lieberman, University of California, Franz Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 E-mail: lieber@ucla.edu
  2. Emily B. Falk, University of Michigan, 426 Thompson St., Ann Arbor, MI 48104 E-mail: ebfalk@umich.edu

Abstract

Can neural responses of a small group of individuals predict the behavior of large-scale populations? In this investigation, brain activations were recorded while smokers viewed three different television campaigns promoting the National Cancer Institute’s telephone hotline to help smokers quit (1-800-QUIT-NOW). The smokers also provided self-report predictions of the campaigns’ relative effectiveness. Population measures of the success of each campaign were computed by comparing call volume to 1-800-QUIT-NOW in the month before and the month after the launch of each campaign. This approach allowed us to directly compare the predictive value of self-reports with neural predictors of message effectiveness. Neural activity in a medial prefrontal region of interest, previously associated with individual behavior change, predicted the population response, whereas self-report judgments did not. This finding suggests a novel way of connecting neural signals to population responses that has not been previously demonstrated and provides information that may be difficult to obtain otherwise.

The only add I've seen is the coffee drinker. I wonder why the finger's elicited more self-reflection, thinking of what you value, and identity.

In the article I linked to, in the main body, there are links to all 3 ads. Perhaps the finger one (which seems pretty innocuous to me) is the least threatening and most direct, so instead of "scaring" people, or simply making them laugh, it goes straight to the point. Watch it and tell me what you think. 

I watched all three of them. I meant to write "The only one I've seen on TV is the coffee drinker." My connection must have been slow while I typed that - slow connection causes me a lot of problems with the link to A/U especially. Sometimes scrolling doesn't work well.

Maybe the finger video, looking like a puppet show caused viewers to relate to it as a child's story with a moral which unlocked reflective thought more than the other two which looked more like movie segments.

RSS

© 2013   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service