Insightology

Researchers at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business and the University of Waterloo have conducted some experiments with very interesting results about the impact of brands on people. They started with prior research that has shown that people modify their behavior in response to environmental cues. For example, exposure to rude words leads to people behaving rudely; exposure to elderly people made others walk more slowly. Even exposure (or priming) with a parent made people achieve more if they believed that the parent would be interested in their achievement, or if they were hoping to please the parent. The question asked by the researchers in this study was whether brands could have similar effects on people and the results turn out to be quite interesting.

After first establishing that Apple, in keeping with its positioning, is indeed seen as a more "creative" brand, the researchers conducted the first experiment. Here 341 people were subliminally exposed to either the Apple logo or the IBM logo and then asked to do a standard creativity test (in this case generating many unusual uses for a brick). Measured on both number and quality of uses, those exposed to the Apple logo were clearly more creative. When a third group (a control) that wasn't shown any brand logo was included, the Apple logo still came out on top. The researchers checked to see if the people participating in the experiments were aware of being exposed to the brands by offering a $100 prize and not one of them guessed correctly. So this experiment showed that even when a person is unaware of being exposed to a fleeting image of a brand, it can have a clear impact on their behavior.

Is there something special about Apple? In a following experiment they used the Disney Channel logo and the E! Channel logo based on the former generally being considered as a more "honest" and "sincere" brand. In this case the brands were not flashed subliminally, but were presented in passing. That is, people could clearly see the brand but did not know that the experimenters were trying to expose them to the brands. Turns out that people exposed to the Disney Channel scored higher on tests designed to elicit honesty than those exposed to the E! Channel.

In the last experiment the researchers tested whether brands have a stronger effect on people who want to exhibit certain behaviors. That is, if a person aspires to be creative in their life, does exposure to Apple have a stronger impact on them than on someone who is not particularly interested in being creative? Again, study participants were exposed to Apple or IBM logos (or neither) in passing and their interest in being creative in their lives was measured using standard measuring scales. Those who are motivated to be creative in their lives clearly showed more creativity when exposed to the Apple logo but not the IBM logo. Those not motivated to be creative were unaffected by either logo.

This research raises several questions. If subliminal exposure to a brand can have a measurable impact on people, and if we are indeed exposed to thousands of brands every day, how much is our life unknowingly affected by what surrounds us? If someone aspires to be, say more creative, should they surround themselves with creativity cues including brands?

This research was conducted by Grainne Fitzsimons at the University of Waterloo and Tanya Chartrand and Gavan Fitzsimons at Duke University and is published in the June 2008 issue of the Journal of Consumer Research. Click here to listen to an interview about this study with Gavan Fitzsimons.