Over the past two days in my Social Psychology class, we have been talking about how we communicate emotions to others in unassuming ways. One such way is through our body language, also referred to as "Nonverbal Basic Channels." Such channels include body language and physical appearance, but they can also include such subtleties as eye contact (or lack thereof... for example, police officers wearing mirrored sunglasses) or facial expressions. For this post, I will be focusing on facial expressions, as that is what struck me as truly interesting for that specific class period.
There are two areas of facial expressions that strike me as interesting. The first area is a study, which proved that there are six facial expressions that are universal across cultures. These facial expressions (happy, sad, afraid, surprised, angry, disgusted/sick) can be understood by anyone regardless of what culture you come from. Other emotions such as guilt, pride, and the sort are socially-dependent and as such vary based on what culture you come from. But that is only the beginning.
The second area sheds light on why we have empathy towards other humans, regardless of our situation. There is a curious reaction that goes on in our brain when we see someone in one of those six moods: our brain sends the same signals from the same areas. So if you see someone who is sad, your brain will work to make you sad too, although not always to the same degree. The parts of your brain that work to make this possible are referred to as Mirror Neurons, and they are what allows us to easily be sympathetic towards others. So when people say they're on the same wavelength, their statement may be truer than they know.
In this way, it is true that a smile can make all the difference.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
The Danger Of Assumptions
The validity of IQ/aptitude tests has been questioned for a long time, and as one might expect they have garnered many forms of criticism. However, it was not until yesterday that I learned the true extent of that criticism. While I thought it was only limited to studies saying that they might not work, there are actually many more studies that go much deeper than just saying they might not be valid.
The first thing that was mentioned was the so-called "Bloomer" study, by Rosenthal and Jacobson. This study took classes of students, assigned IQ test scores to the students at random, and presented those scores to the teachers. They pointed out which of the randomly-selected students were "bloomers" and were supposed to do very well that year, and which ones were not. At the end of the year, they found that the "bloomers" had in fact done well, even though they were randomly selected, hinting that teacher bias has some influence on how much a student learns.
The other point that was brought up was the argument that such IQ tests are culturally biased. To counter this, some mock IQ tests were made to demonstrate to us how uncomfortable not being familiar with the culture could make the testtaking process. Two examples of this are the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity and the Cultural/Regional Uppercrust Savvy Test, which if nothing else do an excellent job of proving their point.
This sort of thing really makes me question the existence of IQ tests and gifted programs.
The first thing that was mentioned was the so-called "Bloomer" study, by Rosenthal and Jacobson. This study took classes of students, assigned IQ test scores to the students at random, and presented those scores to the teachers. They pointed out which of the randomly-selected students were "bloomers" and were supposed to do very well that year, and which ones were not. At the end of the year, they found that the "bloomers" had in fact done well, even though they were randomly selected, hinting that teacher bias has some influence on how much a student learns.
The other point that was brought up was the argument that such IQ tests are culturally biased. To counter this, some mock IQ tests were made to demonstrate to us how uncomfortable not being familiar with the culture could make the testtaking process. Two examples of this are the Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity and the Cultural/Regional Uppercrust Savvy Test, which if nothing else do an excellent job of proving their point.
This sort of thing really makes me question the existence of IQ tests and gifted programs.
The Difference One Word Makes
In one of my psychology courses last week, we were talking about the difference one word can make in the interpreter's perception. The example used in class was if we were presented with a "warm, determined, intense, etc." person or a "cold, determined, intense, etc." person. However, I found a different use for such an idea.
In that same class period, we also covered the idea of schema, generalized mental scripts that we create in order to be able to commit our brainpower to less-redundant things. There are three types of schema: those that define a person (for example, the Hippie schema), those that define a role (the schema defining what a student does), and those that define events (schema that tell you what to do when eating at a restaurant, for a common example). As such, these schema can apply to just about anything.
This ties in with the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, which I have talked about before. The example I have in mind is how our teacher told us that the test that is coming up in a week is going to be HARD. I think this is a bad idea, despite our teacher's intentions. The teacher said that the test was going to be hard thinking that it would motivate us to study and generally be prepared for a hard test. However, I think this may have had the opposite effect. For some students, when they hear that the test is going to be HARD, they panic. This is because their prototype (or an exemplar) of a hard test comes up in their mind. Their prototypical hard test may be a test that they studied for but didn't do well on anyway. This leads them to look at their test-preparation schema and decide that regardless of whether they study or not they won't do very well, and so they don't study and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (their thinking they wouldn't do well led them to not study, and so they didn't do well). This is why I think teachers should say tests are CHALLENGING rather than HARD. Saying a test is HARD implies that some or all of the students will have a tough time with it and some of them just won't be able to handle it at all. CHALLENGING implies that while it will be tough, it can be handled with sufficient preparation. In this way, one word can make all the difference.
In that same class period, we also covered the idea of schema, generalized mental scripts that we create in order to be able to commit our brainpower to less-redundant things. There are three types of schema: those that define a person (for example, the Hippie schema), those that define a role (the schema defining what a student does), and those that define events (schema that tell you what to do when eating at a restaurant, for a common example). As such, these schema can apply to just about anything.
This ties in with the idea of the self-fulfilling prophecy, which I have talked about before. The example I have in mind is how our teacher told us that the test that is coming up in a week is going to be HARD. I think this is a bad idea, despite our teacher's intentions. The teacher said that the test was going to be hard thinking that it would motivate us to study and generally be prepared for a hard test. However, I think this may have had the opposite effect. For some students, when they hear that the test is going to be HARD, they panic. This is because their prototype (or an exemplar) of a hard test comes up in their mind. Their prototypical hard test may be a test that they studied for but didn't do well on anyway. This leads them to look at their test-preparation schema and decide that regardless of whether they study or not they won't do very well, and so they don't study and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (their thinking they wouldn't do well led them to not study, and so they didn't do well). This is why I think teachers should say tests are CHALLENGING rather than HARD. Saying a test is HARD implies that some or all of the students will have a tough time with it and some of them just won't be able to handle it at all. CHALLENGING implies that while it will be tough, it can be handled with sufficient preparation. In this way, one word can make all the difference.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Thoughts From Week One
Since I haven't posted in a while, I will post a number of thoughts that I've had from the first week of classes, Peter King style.
1. It has always surprised me how everything can be spun in at least two different ways given the proper viewpoint. This is especially apparent in statistics and law, when you'll see the same data used on both sides of an argument (An astounding 50% did [thing A]! Yes, well only 50% did [Thing A]). However, when you enter the realm of psychology, it becomes a lot harder to look at such arguments. I will use a personal example of a meeting with a friend from a while ago, in which the feeling I had was largely that of neutral emotion, although there were several highlights. Does this mean that the meeting was a failure because there was only one good moment? Or was it a success because that single good moment happened when otherwise there would have been only neutrality with a different person? Do you look at it from a personal standpoint (it was bad) or a comparative one (it was good)? And that doesn't even begin to touch on how the other person felt during the meeting. Had I known how they felt during this exchange, I wouldn't have worried about this at all because I wouldn't have to determine for myself if I made a good impression.
2. My sociology course this semester has an interesting project for us this semester, called the Breaking Social Norms paper. For the paper, we have to choose a social norm to break (by staring at people while in the elevator, for instance) and write a paper detailing the reception we get. This also serves to show us firsthand how taken for granted social norms are, and how people often take offense when someone decides not to follow them. I have seen this myself long before this paper, as I am one of those people who likes to wear shorts all winter, so I've been heckled on the street a number of times. It really makes you wonder if people are trying to get you to change or feel the need to speak up because they're afraid of why you're deviating from their sacred norms.
3. On that note, It seems that sociology and psychology have similar views on the matter. Sociology views breaking social norms as a fun experiment and one of the ways they can test out social theories, and psychology refers to such behavior as “Deviance,” a sign of potential problems or disorders (one of six signs, in fact). This begs the question of whether this deviance is truly encouraged. From the standpoint of society, it seems that such deviation is not welcome (unless you're a sociologist). And in the realm of psychology, deviating from the social norm in certain ways will earn you a swift diagnosis. So in school, I could see how students would receive mixed messages. They are encouraged to develop their creativity and overcome Functional Fixedness (only using something in the way that it is normally used. One example of overcoming functional fixedness would be using a frying pan to hammer in a nail when an actual hammer is not available), but not to deviate from social norms. This can be a very fine line in some situations.
4. There is a concept that exists somewhere in between psychology, sociology, and linguistics referred to as Grice's Conversational Maxims (named after Paul Grice, who came up with them). These maxims are part of our social norms, and dictate how all people have to talk in order to make a conversation run smoothly. In fact, Grice didn't just come up with these under the premise that we follow them to help a conversation along; rather, he said that we follow these maxims in order to keep a conversation going at any cost. His four maxims are as follows:
Quality: Always tell the truth (or what you believe to be true) or what you have evidence supporting.
Quantity: Don't say too much or too little. Say as much as is needed, but only as much as is needed.
Relation: Only say what is relevant, or note that it is unrelated beforehand.
Manner: Keep what you say clear. Don't be ambiguous.
You may be wondering why some people you know blatantly disregard these maxims in order to make a point or just get some hidden meaning across. This is referred to as flouting the maxims. This allows for two ways to communicate: through following or flouting the maxims. This is why you notice when someone attempts to change the subject, and consequently wonder if they're trying to avoid something or just weren't paying attention. What I find interesting, however, is that these maxims seem to apply to emotions as well. While we can really only express our emotions verbally and physically, I still feel that people have the same expectations for emotions that we do for conversations.
5. In my classes so far, I've begun to notice a curious trend: the front three rows are almost always dominated by girls (I would estimate 75-90% are taken by girls on any given day in any given class, with the rest being filled by boys or left open). I can't really come up with a good explanation for this, but it certainly is strange.
As far as I can remember, that's everything from week one.
1. It has always surprised me how everything can be spun in at least two different ways given the proper viewpoint. This is especially apparent in statistics and law, when you'll see the same data used on both sides of an argument (An astounding 50% did [thing A]! Yes, well only 50% did [Thing A]). However, when you enter the realm of psychology, it becomes a lot harder to look at such arguments. I will use a personal example of a meeting with a friend from a while ago, in which the feeling I had was largely that of neutral emotion, although there were several highlights. Does this mean that the meeting was a failure because there was only one good moment? Or was it a success because that single good moment happened when otherwise there would have been only neutrality with a different person? Do you look at it from a personal standpoint (it was bad) or a comparative one (it was good)? And that doesn't even begin to touch on how the other person felt during the meeting. Had I known how they felt during this exchange, I wouldn't have worried about this at all because I wouldn't have to determine for myself if I made a good impression.
2. My sociology course this semester has an interesting project for us this semester, called the Breaking Social Norms paper. For the paper, we have to choose a social norm to break (by staring at people while in the elevator, for instance) and write a paper detailing the reception we get. This also serves to show us firsthand how taken for granted social norms are, and how people often take offense when someone decides not to follow them. I have seen this myself long before this paper, as I am one of those people who likes to wear shorts all winter, so I've been heckled on the street a number of times. It really makes you wonder if people are trying to get you to change or feel the need to speak up because they're afraid of why you're deviating from their sacred norms.
3. On that note, It seems that sociology and psychology have similar views on the matter. Sociology views breaking social norms as a fun experiment and one of the ways they can test out social theories, and psychology refers to such behavior as “Deviance,” a sign of potential problems or disorders (one of six signs, in fact). This begs the question of whether this deviance is truly encouraged. From the standpoint of society, it seems that such deviation is not welcome (unless you're a sociologist). And in the realm of psychology, deviating from the social norm in certain ways will earn you a swift diagnosis. So in school, I could see how students would receive mixed messages. They are encouraged to develop their creativity and overcome Functional Fixedness (only using something in the way that it is normally used. One example of overcoming functional fixedness would be using a frying pan to hammer in a nail when an actual hammer is not available), but not to deviate from social norms. This can be a very fine line in some situations.
4. There is a concept that exists somewhere in between psychology, sociology, and linguistics referred to as Grice's Conversational Maxims (named after Paul Grice, who came up with them). These maxims are part of our social norms, and dictate how all people have to talk in order to make a conversation run smoothly. In fact, Grice didn't just come up with these under the premise that we follow them to help a conversation along; rather, he said that we follow these maxims in order to keep a conversation going at any cost. His four maxims are as follows:
Quality: Always tell the truth (or what you believe to be true) or what you have evidence supporting.
Quantity: Don't say too much or too little. Say as much as is needed, but only as much as is needed.
Relation: Only say what is relevant, or note that it is unrelated beforehand.
Manner: Keep what you say clear. Don't be ambiguous.
You may be wondering why some people you know blatantly disregard these maxims in order to make a point or just get some hidden meaning across. This is referred to as flouting the maxims. This allows for two ways to communicate: through following or flouting the maxims. This is why you notice when someone attempts to change the subject, and consequently wonder if they're trying to avoid something or just weren't paying attention. What I find interesting, however, is that these maxims seem to apply to emotions as well. While we can really only express our emotions verbally and physically, I still feel that people have the same expectations for emotions that we do for conversations.
5. In my classes so far, I've begun to notice a curious trend: the front three rows are almost always dominated by girls (I would estimate 75-90% are taken by girls on any given day in any given class, with the rest being filled by boys or left open). I can't really come up with a good explanation for this, but it certainly is strange.
As far as I can remember, that's everything from week one.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
The "New" Threat
Back in 1993, a show began airing on television that was to become one of my favorites to this day: Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers (which was a chopped-up, Americanized version of a Super Sentai show that gets a new version every year in Japan). To a kid who couldn't wait to hit a double-digit age, this show had everything: Cool crime-fighting heroes, giant transforming robots, and a somewhat-loud hard-rock intro. Since then they have gone on to make over a dozen others, all taken from Japan and with American actors inserted. However, all of these have been new. There was no corporate reselling involved to make a few extra bucks off of something they'd already used.
That is, until now. Last Saturday, I was watching some 4Kids-licensed Saturday morning cartoons on The CW (CBS and WB's co-owned network) because, as most people in an Anime Club will tell you, it's fun to laugh at the atrocious English voice-overs. That was when it happened: The CW announced that they were going to re-air the original Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, starting that week. However, there was a catch. These episodes were advertised as being all-new, despite their being released in 1993.
The CW 4Kids, as this union is called, took the original Power Rangers, threw in some flashy transitions, some Batman sound effects (they actually inserted those POW! OOF! bubbles), and a still somewhat-loud kind-of-new intro and called it a totally new thing. They tried to play it off as something legitimately new by saying that the villain from the show, Rita Repulsa, sent the entire network back in time in order to destroy the original Power Rangers and make it so that none of the other versions would ever exist. While it's a nice thought, it would have been nice if it wasn't a blatant repackaging of a show from seventeen years ago.
However, this seems to have worked. Through clever manipulation, 4Kids and The CW were able to tweak the original show just enough to get a 2010 copyright slapped on it, just like one might with a new edition of a textbook. If I had to call out the network on one thing, it would be taking advantage of their target audience (who are too young to have seen the original show) and playing it off as a new thing. I support their re-airing the show, but playing it off as new just doesn't sit well with me.
I'll end this post with a quote from Wikipedia: "On January 2, 2010 a re-version of the series with a new logo, comic book-referenced graphics, and alternative special effects began airing... and Bandai produced brand new toys to coincide with the series."
That is, until now. Last Saturday, I was watching some 4Kids-licensed Saturday morning cartoons on The CW (CBS and WB's co-owned network) because, as most people in an Anime Club will tell you, it's fun to laugh at the atrocious English voice-overs. That was when it happened: The CW announced that they were going to re-air the original Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, starting that week. However, there was a catch. These episodes were advertised as being all-new, despite their being released in 1993.
The CW 4Kids, as this union is called, took the original Power Rangers, threw in some flashy transitions, some Batman sound effects (they actually inserted those POW! OOF! bubbles), and a still somewhat-loud kind-of-new intro and called it a totally new thing. They tried to play it off as something legitimately new by saying that the villain from the show, Rita Repulsa, sent the entire network back in time in order to destroy the original Power Rangers and make it so that none of the other versions would ever exist. While it's a nice thought, it would have been nice if it wasn't a blatant repackaging of a show from seventeen years ago.
However, this seems to have worked. Through clever manipulation, 4Kids and The CW were able to tweak the original show just enough to get a 2010 copyright slapped on it, just like one might with a new edition of a textbook. If I had to call out the network on one thing, it would be taking advantage of their target audience (who are too young to have seen the original show) and playing it off as a new thing. I support their re-airing the show, but playing it off as new just doesn't sit well with me.
I'll end this post with a quote from Wikipedia: "On January 2, 2010 a re-version of the series with a new logo, comic book-referenced graphics, and alternative special effects began airing... and Bandai produced brand new toys to coincide with the series."
Monday, December 28, 2009
What's In A Name?
In my sociology class last semester, one of the first things the teacher explained was how society influences us and we influence society back. He drew a diagram to simplify this concept that I think worked beautifully: It was two triangles in an hourglass shape, with "society" in one triangle and "you" in the other. The majority of the two never touch each other, but where they meet at the point (which he called "daily interaction"), the two are able to mix and change each other. In this way, psychology influences sociology and sociology influences psychology.
When I was thinking about this a week or two ago, I wondered if that didn't mean that our names (and thus, our parents) affect who we become. In my example (Aaron), my name meant that in elementary school where we would line up alphabetically by first name for anything, I always came first. While that might not sound like a great quality for a child to have (and I don't think I ever picked up on it that much at the time), it might have contributed to my love of vehicle-racing video games and general competitiveness. In other cases, it might define factors such as how tolerant you are (if you have a very difficult name) and how sensitive you are to your name (if you have a very common name). However, since this idea comes down to the ever-elusive Nature Vs. Nurture debate and since I lack the funding and support to do a proper longitudinal study, I can't go any further than this. However, there is one more thing I'd like to touch on.
One other relevant thing that I remember learning from sociology is the idea of Symbolic Interactionism (presented by George Herbert Mead), which among other things defines the difference between "Symbols" and "Gestures," both forms of communication. According to Mead, a Gesture is an uncontrollable response to something. For example, if you touch something hot, you reflexively pull your hand back (you don't think about it or get to decide). With Symbols (which Mead defined as something that both communicating parties interpret in the same way), you can decide how to react. The example given for this was that if the teacher said "the building is on fire" in our classroom context (and he did, though not in an urgent way), we could decide to run screaming out of the building, or sit there knowing that he was making it up. Mead used this to say that animals don't have society because they can't use symbols. When dogs growl at each other, Mead said this was because they are programmed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. And while there are those who take the exact opposite view (that we are the only ones that still have society because every other species on the planet was smart enough to know they didn't need it), that isn't why I brought up Mead. I brought up Social Interactionism for one of Mead's other points: "The I and the Me."
The concept of "The I and the Me" is basically this: our mind/inner self ("The I.") and our body/social self ("The Me.") obviously interact. However, in order for us to be upstanding members of society, our mind has to view our body as a separate person. Otherwise we won't know when we're doing something socially unacceptable. To continue from two paragraphs ago with how our name affects us, I couldn't help but wonder if our names only applied to our outer bodies and not our minds. Obviously, everyone else we know only knows us by our outer appearance (inconveniently and thankfully, we can't read each others' minds yet), so is it that much of a stretch to say that we only know ourselves by that name as well? Are people who "talk to themselves" actually having a conversation from their I to their Me?
If you ask someone what their name is, I'm sure they will tell you. But if you responded with "Not your Me's name. I asked what your I's name is," they will probably look at you funny. Besides wondering why you're curious as to what they've named their eyes, they probably wouldn't have a ready answer. It seems to me that most people see their mind and body as one, and allow their name to convey that in how it applies to their entirety. Perhaps people that we put in mental institutions for the "voices in their heads" (possibly with names attached) are just those who have given a separate name to the I controlling their Me. However, it seems like promoting the existence of your I is socially discouraged, almost like people don't want to have your I brought to the foreground unless it's through the medium of your Me. It's a very strange thought.
When I was thinking about this a week or two ago, I wondered if that didn't mean that our names (and thus, our parents) affect who we become. In my example (Aaron), my name meant that in elementary school where we would line up alphabetically by first name for anything, I always came first. While that might not sound like a great quality for a child to have (and I don't think I ever picked up on it that much at the time), it might have contributed to my love of vehicle-racing video games and general competitiveness. In other cases, it might define factors such as how tolerant you are (if you have a very difficult name) and how sensitive you are to your name (if you have a very common name). However, since this idea comes down to the ever-elusive Nature Vs. Nurture debate and since I lack the funding and support to do a proper longitudinal study, I can't go any further than this. However, there is one more thing I'd like to touch on.
One other relevant thing that I remember learning from sociology is the idea of Symbolic Interactionism (presented by George Herbert Mead), which among other things defines the difference between "Symbols" and "Gestures," both forms of communication. According to Mead, a Gesture is an uncontrollable response to something. For example, if you touch something hot, you reflexively pull your hand back (you don't think about it or get to decide). With Symbols (which Mead defined as something that both communicating parties interpret in the same way), you can decide how to react. The example given for this was that if the teacher said "the building is on fire" in our classroom context (and he did, though not in an urgent way), we could decide to run screaming out of the building, or sit there knowing that he was making it up. Mead used this to say that animals don't have society because they can't use symbols. When dogs growl at each other, Mead said this was because they are programmed to respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. And while there are those who take the exact opposite view (that we are the only ones that still have society because every other species on the planet was smart enough to know they didn't need it), that isn't why I brought up Mead. I brought up Social Interactionism for one of Mead's other points: "The I and the Me."
The concept of "The I and the Me" is basically this: our mind/inner self ("The I.") and our body/social self ("The Me.") obviously interact. However, in order for us to be upstanding members of society, our mind has to view our body as a separate person. Otherwise we won't know when we're doing something socially unacceptable. To continue from two paragraphs ago with how our name affects us, I couldn't help but wonder if our names only applied to our outer bodies and not our minds. Obviously, everyone else we know only knows us by our outer appearance (inconveniently and thankfully, we can't read each others' minds yet), so is it that much of a stretch to say that we only know ourselves by that name as well? Are people who "talk to themselves" actually having a conversation from their I to their Me?
If you ask someone what their name is, I'm sure they will tell you. But if you responded with "Not your Me's name. I asked what your I's name is," they will probably look at you funny. Besides wondering why you're curious as to what they've named their eyes, they probably wouldn't have a ready answer. It seems to me that most people see their mind and body as one, and allow their name to convey that in how it applies to their entirety. Perhaps people that we put in mental institutions for the "voices in their heads" (possibly with names attached) are just those who have given a separate name to the I controlling their Me. However, it seems like promoting the existence of your I is socially discouraged, almost like people don't want to have your I brought to the foreground unless it's through the medium of your Me. It's a very strange thought.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Ingenuity Of Television Advertisements
With the popularity of television today, more companies than ever are paying more money than ever to get their commercials put on TV. I'd like to think that at this point I can tune out such commercials and that they only really work on small children and others who are easily swayed by such marketing, but last week I think I finally began to understand the true genius behind the commercial.
First off, we have the most basic of commercial tactics: making it memorable. The best examples for this are the world-famous Super Bowl Commercials, in which companies shell out millions of dollars per minute to get their zaniest stuff on the screen in the hope that even one percent of the viewers will find it funny. It has worked too, as some who are uninterested or don't even like football will tune in just to see the commercials. This along with repetition ensures that you are at least familiar with the product.
The second tactic is more of an assumption: we assume that television-viewing is a family event. If you watch TV as a family, you are more likely to remember a product as a family. Also, if you see a commercial that you find amusing, you may just mention it to your family members. While you may not mention the product, it creates interest and causes them to want to see the commercial for themselves, thus creating interest and eventually another view for the commercial.
Finally, we have the combination of the above: association. In my opinion, the biggest thing commercials try to exploit is how we tend to remember things when we are surrounded by similar stimuli to when we first saw them, which could also be called "retracing our steps," although it isn't a perfect analogy. Basically, the commercial-makers want us to associate as many stimuli as they possibly can with their product so that we remember it, want it, and ultimately buy it. Assuming you watch television at home with your family, it means that subconsciously you are making very subtle connections between that commercial/product and your television, the room you saw it in, whoever you watched it with, whatever song they set the commercial to, whoever was in the commercial, how you were feeling, what you were wearing, and hundreds of other situational aspects.
The irony here is that the only way I figured this out was to experience it myself. I will forever have a commercial stuck in my head featuring beer glasses clinking together to the tune of "Let it snow." It has succeeded in creating an examplar in my mind. While I don't remember what beer it was for (and I doubt I will ever drink beer, or any alcohol for that matter), the commercial was a resounding success.
First off, we have the most basic of commercial tactics: making it memorable. The best examples for this are the world-famous Super Bowl Commercials, in which companies shell out millions of dollars per minute to get their zaniest stuff on the screen in the hope that even one percent of the viewers will find it funny. It has worked too, as some who are uninterested or don't even like football will tune in just to see the commercials. This along with repetition ensures that you are at least familiar with the product.
The second tactic is more of an assumption: we assume that television-viewing is a family event. If you watch TV as a family, you are more likely to remember a product as a family. Also, if you see a commercial that you find amusing, you may just mention it to your family members. While you may not mention the product, it creates interest and causes them to want to see the commercial for themselves, thus creating interest and eventually another view for the commercial.
Finally, we have the combination of the above: association. In my opinion, the biggest thing commercials try to exploit is how we tend to remember things when we are surrounded by similar stimuli to when we first saw them, which could also be called "retracing our steps," although it isn't a perfect analogy. Basically, the commercial-makers want us to associate as many stimuli as they possibly can with their product so that we remember it, want it, and ultimately buy it. Assuming you watch television at home with your family, it means that subconsciously you are making very subtle connections between that commercial/product and your television, the room you saw it in, whoever you watched it with, whatever song they set the commercial to, whoever was in the commercial, how you were feeling, what you were wearing, and hundreds of other situational aspects.
The irony here is that the only way I figured this out was to experience it myself. I will forever have a commercial stuck in my head featuring beer glasses clinking together to the tune of "Let it snow." It has succeeded in creating an examplar in my mind. While I don't remember what beer it was for (and I doubt I will ever drink beer, or any alcohol for that matter), the commercial was a resounding success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)