A Field Test of Subliminal Self-Help Audiotapes: The Power of Expectancies
Author(s): Eric R. Spangenberg, Carl Obermiller and Anthony G. Greenwald
Source: Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Fall, 1992), pp. 26-36
Published by: American Marketing Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30000271
Accessed: 18-12-2015 13:37 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Marketing Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Field
Test
The
Power

of

of

Subliminal

Self-Help
Expectancies

Audiotapes:

Eric R. Spangenberg,CarlObermiller,and
AnthonyG. Greenwald
In theface of evidence to the contrary,consumerscontinue to believe in the efficacy of
subliminalmessage self-help (SMSH)audiotapes. The authors contend that the value
consumersattributeto these tapes stemsfrom the illusion of efficacy, the result of an
expectancyeffect. Two double-blindstudies tested subliminal message self-help audiotapes
claimed to improvememory,increase self-esteem, or induce weight loss. Actual content and
labeled content were independentlyvaried; some subjects believed they were using memory
tapes but were actually using weight loss or self-esteem tapes, and so on. After a monthof
use (per manufacturers'recommendations)by volunteersubjects, there were no effects of
subliminalcontent in the claimed direction on any of the three dimensions.In contrast, there
were changes or the perception of changes correspondingto the tape labels. Theseplacebolike effects are hypothesizedto resultfrom consumerexpectancies.If consumerswhoforsake
more conventionaltreatmentsfor SMSHaudiotapes are misled, they suffer both the loss of
the price of the tapes and, more importantly,opportunitycosts. Thus, the potentially
damaging consequencesare a major concernfrom a public policy perspective.

Subliminal
messageself-help(SMSH)audiotapesostensibly use subliminalmessages to treat a wide
rangeof listeners'problems.Theyrepresenta large
andgrowingmarket,annualsalesfiguresfor SMSHaudiobut estimatesrangefrom$50 miltapesareunobtainable,
lion to morethan$1 billiona year[Lofflin1988;TheSun
studieshavedemonstrated
1990].Thougha few laboratory
subliminal
effects
replicable
[e.g., CheesmanandMerikle
1985, 1986; Greenwald,Klinger, and Liu 1989; Janiszewski 1988; and Kunst-Wilsonand Zajonc 1980], virtu-

ally all testsof subliminalprocesseshavefailedto findany
significanteffectson complexbehaviors(fora review,see
Pratkanis
andGreenwald[1988]).Thelackof scientificevidence notwithstanding,there is widespreadacceptance
amongconsumersthatsubliminalprocessingis aneffective
aid.
Severalpointscanbe madeaboutthe substantial
demand
for SMSHtapesandthe needfor additionalresearch.First,
manyconsumersbuynotone,butmultipleSMSHtapes,so
we presumethey experiencesomebenefit.Second,the belief in thevalueof SMSHtapesis notlimitedto specificsegments;it is widespread[Block and VandenBergh 1985;
Zanot,Pincus,andLamp1983].Furthermore,
thoughadmitis Assistant Professorof Marketing,College
ERICR. SPANGENBERG

of BusinessandEconomics,WashingtonStateUniversity.CARL
is Associate Professorof Marketing,Albers School of
OBERMILLER
G. GREENWALD
is Professor
Business, Seattle University. ANTHONY

of Psychology,Department
of Psychology,Universityof Washington. The researchwas supportedin part by ResearchGrant
MH41328fromthe NationalInstituteof MentalHealthandthe
EdnaG. BensonFellowshipFundat theUniversityof Washington
Graduate
Schoolof Business.

26

tingthelackof evidenceof subliminalmessageeffects,one
frompastremightraisequestionsaboutthegeneralizability
search(mostlylaboratorystudiesin unnatural
usage situations)to SMSHaudiotapeuse. Ourresearchintentionwas
to give the producta fairtest in the field. Further,we propose an alternativeexplanationof the apparenteffects of
the tapesthatis basedon consumerexpectancies.Though
ourresearchis specificallya test of one product,we argue
thattheeffectof expectanciesmayinfluenceconsumerevaluationsof manyproducts.SMSHaudiotapes
arerepresentative of productswith ambiguousor subjectivebenefits,for
which consumerexpectanciesmay bias evaluationprocesses.
SMSH audiotapesrepresenta class of productswhose
principalor distinguishingattributesare illusory.The notionof a productwhosecentralattribute(anddistinguishing
feature)is actuallynonexistentmayraiseskepticism,butit
is consistentwith marketing'sconceptof the "totalproduct" [Kotler1980].Productsconsistof morethanthephysical object;in particular,
theyareenlargedby an imagecreatedby promotionandsupportedby consumerbeliefs.Exstudiesprovide
resultsin sensorydiscrimination
perimental
have
evidencethatconsumers'beliefsin productattributes
Alon
of
effects
powerful
perceptions productperformance.
thatbrand
lison andUhl [1964],forexample,demonstrated
was thebasisfordisimageratherthanobjectiveingredients
have
criminatingamongbrandsof beer.Otherresearchers
foundsimilartastediscrimination
biases due to labels for
soft drinksand cigarettes[Husbandand Godfrey 1934;
PronkoandBowles 1949].Hence,thereis ampleprecedent
in marketing
researchto supthoughtandproductperception
we defineas
of
which
the
port concept illusoryattributes,
thatareclaimedto exist butdo not haveany
characteristics

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.11 (1)
Fall 1992, 26-36

Journalof PublicPolicy& Marketing
objectivebasis andwhosenaturecan be neitherconfirmed
nordisconfirmed
by the typicalconsumer.
We proposethatconsumers'evaluationof SMSHaudiotapesis subjectto the samebiasesthatresultin preference
discrimination
differamongbrandsthathaveimperceptible
ences withouttheirbrandlabels. Promotionalclaims and
wordof mouthcreateexpectanciesaboutproductperformancejust as theydo for branddifferences.The expectancies, in turn,influenceevaluationsof the productsin use.
Thus,the beliefthatsubliminalprocessingcanassistlearning maycreatean expectationfor learningto occur.
Boththe specificclaimsof SMSHtapesandthe general
role of expectanciesin productevaluationsarerelevantissues for publicpolicy consideration.Regulatoryagencies
and state attorneysgeneralhave indicatedsome concern
aboutthe advertisingof SMSHtapes,butwhatactionwill
be takenis unknown.If consumersaremisledandexperience nothingor only an illusoryeffect,theysufferboththe
loss of the priceof the tapesand,moreimportantly,
opportunitycosts. Therearemorethan400 SMSHaudiotapetitles, includingtapesdesignedto treathigh bloodpressure,
cancer,substanceabuse,andlearningproblems.Toforsake
moreconventional
treatments
forSMSHaudiotapes
mayresult in damagingconsequences,andone canhopethatcurrentclaimswouldbe disallowed.The purposesof ourrefieldtestsof theefsearchwere(1) to conductdouble-blind
fectivenessof SMSHaudiotapesand(2) to assessthe role
evaluations.Next
of consumerexpectanciesin performance
we reviewliterature
relevantto ourtestsof subliminalmessage effectsandexpectancies.

Literature

27

ing the propositionthatsubliminalmessagesinfluencemotivationor complexbehavior.
SMSHaudiotapesarethe majorformin whichsubliminal techniqueshave appearedin the marketplace;they
makeclaimsfordozensof therapeutic
effects,includingimprovedself-esteem,cessationof smokingor druguse, and
weightloss. SMSHaudiotapes
typicallyhaveblandaudible
contentsuchas classicalmusicor soundsof the oceanand
are marketedfor self administration;
usersare awarethat
are
a
subliminal
they receiving
message.Thelayperson,of
course,has no meansof evaluatingthe subliminalcontent
of SMSHaudiotapes;
consumershavefaiththatthe imperexists andthatit will be effective.
ceptiblecentralattribute
In fact,consumers'faithin subliminalmessagesraisesa
of muchlaboratory
eviquestionaboutthe generalizability
dence againstsubliminaleffects. In the typicallaboratory
study,subjectsare unawarethatsubliminalprocessesare
being studied;thereforetheyhaveno expectationthatsubliminalcues will operateeffectively.Purchasers
of SMSH
audiotapes,in contrast,arguablyexpectthe tapesto work
for them.If consumerfaithin the existenceandefficacyof
subliminalmessagesis a necessarycondition,the question
of SMSHaudiotapeeffectivenessrequiresa field test with
subjectswho arefully awareof the tapes'subliminalmessages.This knowledge,of course,suggeststhe hypothesis
thatit is nota subliminalmessagebutthebeliefin a subliminalmessagethatcausesanyobservedeffects.If SMSHaudiotapeshavebenefits,theymaybe dueto a responseto expectanciesratherthanany link betweensubliminalmessagesandcomplexbehaviors.

Expectancies:Self-FulfillingProphecies,Placebo
Effects,and Self-Deception

SubliminalPersuasion
Studiesdoneunderthe rubricof "subliminaltechniques"
are diverse in methodand topics studied.Pratkanisand
Greenwald
[1988]describea sequenceof eventscharacterizing the progressionof researchon subliminalpersuasion
fromtheearlieststudy[Dunlap1900]to thepresent:"A researcher
reportsa subliminaleffect;theeffectcannotbe replicated;nevertheless,the moresensationalaspectsof the
in textbooksandthemass
findingreceivepopulartreatment
media."Themediaoftenprovideprominent
(andusuallyuncritical)coverageof subliminalpersuasion[e.g., Lofflin
1988] andseveralsurveyshavedemonstrated
fairlywidespreadpublicacceptanceof the concept[e.g., Block and
VandenBergh1985;Zanot,Pincus,andLamp1983].
Thesize of theSMSHaudiotape
marketandpublicinterest in the producthavemotivatedseveralteststhatpurportedly supportthe effectivenessof theproduct.Oftenserving
moreas advertisingclaimsthanscientificevidence,many
of the tests supportingthe effectivenessof SMSHaudiotapes have been producedby researcherson payrollsof
SMSHaudiotapemanufacturers
[e.g.,Taylor1988;Vandennone of the reportedstudies
Boogert1984].Furthermore,
has useda double-blind
designor beenpublishedin a credible scientificjournal.In separatereviewsof the literature
on unconsciousprocessing,VokeyandRead[1985],Moore
andGreenwald[1988]all draw
[1982;1988],andPratkanis
the conclusionthatthereis no scientificevidencesupport-

In this section,we establishthatexpectancyeffectsprovide
a useful paradigmfor explainingthe illusionsof efficacy
for SMSHaudiotapesandrelatedproducts;ourdiscussion
is not intendedto be an exhaustivereviewof the hundreds
of studiesrelatedto theconceptsof interest[seeDarleyand
Fazio 1980;Ross andOlson1981].Threeconceptsmaybe
relevantto the effect of expectancieson productperformance:self-fulfillingprophecies,placeboeffects,andselfdeception.
The notionthata person'sexpectanciesaboutanother
often serveas self-fulfillingprophecieswas introducedby
sociologist RobertMerton[1948, 1957], who observed
[1957, p. 423]: "The self-fulfillingprophecyis, in the beginning, afalse definitionof the situationevoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come true.
The specious validity of the self-fulfilling prophecyperpetuates a reign of error. For the prophet will cite the actual
course of events as proof thathe was rightfrom the very beginning." Probablythe best-knownexample of self-fulfilling prophecy was demonstratedin the work of Rosenthal
and Jacobson [1968]. This effect, labeled the Pygmalion effect, is manifestedwhen a personchanges in responseto another person's expectations (as students respond to teachers' expectations). Thus, a self-fulfilling prophecy occurs
when expectationresultsin a changein the situationthatcreates objective expectancy confirmation.

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

28

Field 'Ist of SubliminalAudiotapes

A relatedprocessis the placeboeffect. Whena person
has expectationsaboutan object,the objectcannotchange,
but the person'sresponseto the objectcan be affectedby
on placeboeffectsin
his or herexpectancies.Theliterature
is
extensive(for a retreatment
and
medicine
psychiatric
and
Schwartz
see
White,Thrsky,
view,
[1985]);the power
in hundredsof studies.For
of expectanciesis demonstrated
example,Jospe [1978] reportedKissel and Barrucand's
[1964] presentationof instancesin whichplaceboswere
andrheuusedto treatcardiovascular,
endocrine,
pulmonary,
maticdiseases,amongotherproblems,as well as in surgical recovery.Theseauthorscite results(adaptedfromHaas,
Fink,andHartfelder
[1959])summarizing
placeboeffectiveness (versuscontrolsubjectswhobelievedtheyreceivedno
treatment)
rangingfrom28 to 58%.A placeboeffectoccurs
whenexpectationchangesthe actor'sresponseto a situation,resultingin objectiveexpectancyconfirmation.
in contrast,is alsoevidencedin situations
Self-deception,
of stiminterpretation
involvingperceptionandsubsequent
to depend
uli. Evaluationof stimulihas beendemonstrated
stronglyon priorexpectationsheld by the perceiver[e.g.,
Brunerand Minturn1955; Sujan, Bettman,and Sujan
involvesno changein thesituationor
1986].Self-deception
the actor'sbehavior,merelychangesin the actor'sperceptionof the situation,resultingin subjectiveexpectancyconfirmation.
Consumerresearchershave investigatedthe biasingeffects of expectancies createdby advertising.Deighton
is effectiveif it canarouse
[1984]proposedthatadvertising
confirmwith
thatconsumerscan subsequently
expectations
on thepofocused
productexperience.HochandHa [1986]
in
this
tential for bias
process;they conceptualizedadas
inducedexpectancies "hypotheses"thatconsumerstest
whenprodwith productexperience.In theirexperiments,
uct performanceevidence was unambiguous,ad effects
werereplacedby experienceeffects;however,whenprodevidencewas ambiguous,advertisinghad
uct performance
significanteffects on productevaluations.Subjectsdisplayeda bias in theirprocessingof informationfromthe
use of the product,confirmingthe expectationscreatedby
the advertising.
HochandHa [1986] identifiedone factorthatmediates
the role of expectancies-the ambiguityof performance
data.Whenanoutcomeis clearlyunsatisfactory,
priorexpectationsof success cannothold, but if resultsare unclear
bias
as positive.Thisconfirmation
theymaybe interpreted
was identifiedand demonstratedby Snyderand Cantor
[1979] andSnyderandSwann[1978] in social exchanges
andhasbeenshownto affectbothencodingof information
andretrievalfrommemory.A secondmediatingfactormay
be the extentto whichconsumerperformanceinfluences
If the consumer'sbehaviorcan indeproductperformance.
determine
thesuccessof a product,
priorexpectanpendently
cies can be confirmedregardlessof productperformance.
Such a self-fulfillingprophecyis illustratedby consumers
whobuy "mileage-enhancing
gasolineadditives,"thenconfoundtheiractionsby takingothermeasuresto improve
in mileageto
mileagebut attributeresultingimprovement
the effectivenessof the product.

Hypotheses
Thoughthe thrustof ourresearchis the investigationof an
alternativeexplanation,a necessaryconditionis the test of
theclaimedsubliminalmessageeffects.Ouraimwas to designtheresearchto makethetestas strongas possible.Dedesign,the field setting,self-selected
spitethe double-blind
subjects,andthenaturaluse situation,thedearthof anysupportingscientificevidencein favorof subliminalpersuasion andthe lack of anycompellingtheoreticalframework
led us to expectno effectsof subliminalmessagecontent.
hasnomain
subliminal
H1: SMSHaudiotape
messagecontent
measures.
effectonanydependent
A failureto rejectH1 wouldlead to the conclusionthat
subliminalmessagesare not responsiblefor any actualor
perceivedchangesin dependentmeasuresthatmightbe exto
periencedby subjects.Specialdesignissues appropriate
the test of the nullhypothesisarediscussedsubsequently.
The alternativeexplanationfor SMSHaudiotapeeffects
of expectancyeffects.
framework
is basedon thetheoretical
Productclaimsandgeneralpublicacceptanceof producteffectivenessstimulateexpectanciesheldby consumersabout
productefficacy; these beliefs influenceproductperforForboth
manceor the perceptionof productperformance.
sublimeffect
of
of
the
absence
assume
H2 andH3, we
any
inalmessagecontent.H2 positsthestrongereffectof expectancies;labelsarehypothesizedto createexpectanciesthat
bias subsequentconsumerbehaviorsin ways thatresultin
benefits.H3 positsthe weakereffect
objectiveperformance
to createexpectanlabelsarehypothesized
of expectancies;
cies thatbias subsequentencodingor retrievalof information in bias-confirming
ways.H2 is rootedin the concepts
of self-fulfillingprophecyandplaceboeffects;if H2 holds,
peoplereallyget whatthey expectto get. H3 is basedon
if H3 holds,peopleonly thinktheyget what
self-deception;
theyexpectto get.
H2: Perceived
tapecontent(i.e.,tapelabels)causesobjective
on relevantdimensions.
(actual)improvement
H3: Perceivedtapecontent(i.e., tapelabels)causessubjective
on relevantdimensions.
(perceived)improvement

We areawareof no workthathasbeendoneon the disof prodtinctionbetweenobjectiveandsubjectiveappraisals
uct performancethat might suggest whetherSMSH auconformsmoreto H2 or H3. Thenecdiotapeperformance
both hypotheseshold: data about
for
conditions
essary
weightloss (not the scale reading,but perceptionsof personal appearanceand attitudestowardweight loss), selfesteem, and memory are likely to be complex and ambiguous. For all three issues, many consumer behaviors in ad-

ditionto use of SMSHaudiotapesmayhaveeffects.

Study 1
Design
exIn study1, we testedH1 andH2 andmadea preliminary
plorationof H3, usinga threeactualproduct(weightloss,
self-esteemimprovement,memoryenhancement)by threela-

membeledproduct(weightloss, self-esteemimprovement,
were
commerProducts
factorial
design.
ory enhancement)
cially preparedsubliminaltapes claimed to provide the re-

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journalof PublicPolicy& Marketing
spective treatments.We preparedthe labels, which containedinformationleadingsubjectsto believethe sublimito the identification
andmatched
nal contentcorresponded
other(mis)identifyinginformationgiven to subjects.Subjects receivedeithercorrectlylabeledor mislabeledtapes.

Subjectsand Procedure
Subjectswererecruitedfor a month-longstudyas unpaid
volunteersat studentcentersignuppointsandthroughcomThe study
munityandcampusnewspaperadvertisements.
was describedas one in whichparticipation
couldimprove
problemareascommonto adults(weight,self-esteem,memory) throughthe use of SMSH audiotapes.Personswere
qualifiedto participatein the studyif they wereinterested
in tryingto achievetwo or moreof thethreeself-helpgoals.
Becausepeopleto whomgeneralization
wouldbe appropriate(i.e.,purchasing
users)areself-selected,paymentof subjects would have been inappropriate;participantswere
resultsof the studyanda freetapeupon
given preliminary
studycompletion.Subjectswereblindto thestudy'shypothwereblindto the respective
eses just as the experimenters
conditionassignmentsof individualsubjects.Of 112 subjects who completedthe pretest,83%fulfilledall studyrequirements.No differencesbetweensubjectscompleting
the studyandthosedroppingout wereevidenton the basis
of a comparisonof demographiccharacteristics
including
age, sex, andmaritalstatus.
Subjectswere scheduledby telephoneor personalcontactfor pretestsessionsconductedin groupsof fromone to
eightsubjects.Uponarrival,subjectsreadandsignedan informedconsentform,rankingon the formtheirpreference
amongthe self-improvementareas(weight, self-esteem,
one of two
memory).All subjectswerethenadministered
parallelformsof a batteryof pretestmeasures(counterbalancedbetweenpretestand posttest).Commerciallyproducedtapeswith subliminalcontentwereusedfor all conconditions.Whetherthe
ditions;only labelingdifferentiated
was
or
labeled
wasdetermined
rantape
correctly incorrectly
domly by choosingfromtapeslabeledby a personother
thanthe experimenter.
Criticalto bothstudieswas separation of the labelinganddistributiontasks,thusensuringa
double-blindassignmentprocedurein whichboththe subadministrator
wereblindto the subject andtheexperiment
conditions.
jects' assigned
Rarelyimplementedin behavioralresearch,the double-blind
ensuredagainsta
procedure
demandeffect(i.e., subjects'responding
to consciousorunconsciousexperimenter
aboutthehypotheses).
expectations
Eachsubjectwasgivena tapelabeledwithhis orherfirst
choiceof treatment
domain.Thispartialnonrandom
assignmentprocedureservedto assign subjectsto conditionsin
whichtheirdesireto experiencepurported
tapebenefitswas
relativelygreater,thus theirexpectanciesof tape efficacy
werelikelyto be strongerthantheywouldbe withrandom
assignments.Subjectswerethengivena packetof information including(1) tape scriptcorrespondingto subject's
thelabelmanipulation
andproviding
tapelabel(reinforcing
furtherbasis for subjectexpectancies),(2) listening frequencylog in whichsubjectsrecordeddetailsof eachlistening session, (3) tape manufacturer
publicationespousing
the virtuesof SMSHtapeuse, (4) copyof studydescription

29

andconsentform,and(5) directionsfor reportingtheirlisto reporttheirlisteningfrequency(subjectswereinstructed
a
to
tening frequency
telephone answering machine).
Ninetypercentof the subjectsreturneda completedlistening frequencylog. Participantsreportedlistening to the
tapesan averageof 42 timesoveran averageparticipation
periodof 37 days.Afterlisteningto the tapesfor at least
fourweeks,subjectsreturned
to thelabto completeposttest
procedures.

Materialsand Measures
Audiotapes
CorrectlylabeledSMSHaudiotapesweredonatedby three
establishedmail-ordersuppliers.Audibleverbalcontent
andtapecontentwas carefully
identifyingthe manufacturer
erasedfromtapeintroductions
audiolab.
by anindependent
labelsand affixingstudycondiRemovingmanufacturers'
tion labelswas done conditionby condition,one tapeat a
of tapes.
time,to preventconfusionor misidentification

MemoryAbility
To measurepre-andposttestmemoryability,two counterbalancedparallelversionsof subtasksof theWechslerMemory Scale [Stone,Gardner,and Albrecht1946;Wechsler
in a grouplabora1945]weremodifiedfor administration
tory setting.Wechslermemorysubtaskswere (1) immediaterecallof briefstories,(2) digitrecall(forwardandbackward),(3) visual reproductionof drawings,and (4) word
pairassociatelearningexercises.

Self-esteem
The threeself-administered
scalesusedto test for an effect
on subjects' self-esteem were previouslyvalidatedand
widely acceptedindicatorsof self-esteem.The scales used
were the 10-itemRosenberg[1965] self-esteemmeasure,
the 16-itemTexasSocial BehaviorInventory:VersionsA
andB (TSBI)[Helmreich
andStapp1974],andtheBeckDepressionInventory(BDI)[Becket al. 1961],whichwas reversescoredto makeit consistentwiththe others.Correlationsamongall pairsof measureswerehigh(r> .4 forboth
studies1 and2).

WeightLoss
An averageof readingsof threescaleswas the measureof
bodyweight.Also, a specificmeasureof expectanciesfor
personalweight (weight locus of controlscale; WLOC)
was administered
[Saltzer1982].WLOCprovideda measureof changein subjects'attitudestowardweightloss that
has beenused as a predictorof futurebehaviorsrelatedto
weightreduction[Weiss1977]. WLOCwas includedbecause the 30-day periodof the studymay have not been
enoughtimefor a personto lose weight.
Perceived Efficacy
Priorto learningtheiractualtapecontentat the conclusion
of the study,subjectswere askedwhethertheirlong-term
memoryhadimproved(yes or no) duringthe tapelistening
subperiod.Thisquestion,designedto exploreH3,measured

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

30

Field Testof SubliminalAudiotapes

jects' perceptionsof changein memoryabilityas opposed
to objectivechangesmeasuredby the Wechslersubtasks.
Results
arepresentedin a consistent
Resultsof tapemanipulations
form for all treatments.An a priori combinationof the
Wechslerscale componentswas summedandstandardized
(mean=O,S.D.=1) to test for effects of manipulationson
memory.Thethreeself-esteemmeasureswerestandardized
separatelyand then averagedto form one overall selfesteem score. All dependentmeasurepre- and posttests
werestandardized
by usingtheirrespectivecomponentpredeviations.Thismethodof posttest
testmeansandstandard
scorestandardization
preservedscaleunitsandthedirection
of posttestchangesrelativeto pretestscores.Thougha single measure(averageof threescale readings)was used to
test for pre- and posttestweight differences,we use the
formatto presenttheseresultsandthose
samestandardized
for the single-scoreWLOCscale.Perceivedefficacymeasas pertheseresultsarepresented
ureswerenotstandardized;
centages.Measureswereanalyzedby meansof a 3 X 3 factorialANCOVAprocedurewith posttestscoreas criterion
andcorresponding
pretestscoreas covariate.In general,the
controlgroupfor comparisonsconsistedof the two groups
not specificallytargetedfor the dependentmeasurein each
Forexample,the statisticaltestforthe
specificcomparison.
effect of actualself-esteemsubliminalcontentcontrasted
theaverageself-esteemdataforthesubjectswhoreceivedactual self-esteemtapeswith those for the subjectswho receivedactualmemoryandweighttapes.

Self-esteem
Figure1 presentsthe self-esteemdata.ConsistentwithHI,
thereis no maineffectof actualsubliminalcontenton subjects' self-esteem.Immediatelyapparentis the maineffect
of time; posttestlevels of self-esteem(andmemory)are
higherthanpretestlevels in all conditions.This effect,
whichmay be due to practiceprovidedby the pretests,is
not relevantto any of the hypotheses.Usingthe ANCOVA
procedure,we found that adjustedposttest self-esteem
scoreswerenot significantlyhigherwhensubjectsreceived
a trueself-esteemtape thanwhen they receiveda mislabeled self-esteem(truememoryor weightloss) tape.The
of actualmemoryandactualweightcondition
combination
selfsubjectsservingas a controlgrouphada standardized
esteemscoreat pretestof .06, whichincreasedto a posttest
scoreof .47; the actualself-esteemconditiongroup'sscore
at pretest was -.11, which increased at posttest to .19
(F(1,82)=2.8,p=.098,MSE=.23).In thetestof H2, subjects
listeningto tapesidentifiedas self-esteemdidexperiencean
increasein self-esteemin comparisonwith subjectslistening to tapesidentifiedas memoryor weight;theeffect,however,is not statisticallysignificant(combinedlabeledmemory& weightpretest/.18to posttest/.44versuslabeledselfesteempretest/-.35to posttest/.25,F(1,82)=1.46,p=.231,
MSE=.23).
Memory Ability
WechslerscalesubFindingsforthe averaged,standardized
tasks are also shown in Figure 1. Again,consistentwith

Figure 1.

DependentMeasuresby Actualand Labeled
Conditions(Study 1)

0.6
0.5
S
T
D
Z
D
S
E
S
C
A
L
E

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

ACTUAL ACTUALMEMORY LABELED LABELEDMEMORY
SELF-ESTEEM & WEIGHT SELF-ESTEEM & WEIGHT

MEMORY
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

S
T
D
Z
D
M
E
M
0
S
C -0.1
A
L -0.2
E
-0.3
-0.4

WEIGHT LABELED LABELED
WEIGHT
ACTUAL ACTUAL
MEMORY & SELF-ESTEEM MEMORY & SELF-ESTEEM

WEIGHT
0.6
0.5

S
T
D
Z
D
W
G
H
T

0.4

0.3
0.2
0.1

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

ACTUAL
WEIGHT

ACTUAL MEMORY
& SELF-ESTEEM
PRETEST

LABELED
WEIGHT

LABELED MEMORY
& SELF-ESTEEM

POSTTEST

H1, no main effect of actual subliminaltape content is
foundfor subjects'memoryability.Adjustedposttestmemorymeasurescoreswereno betterwhensubjectsreceiveda
truememoryimprovement
tapethanwhenthey receiveda
mislabeled memory (true self-esteem improvementor

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journalof PublicPolicy& Marketing
weightloss) tape(combinedactualself-esteemandweight,
pretest/.05to posttest/.40versusactualmemory,pretest/.10 to posttest/.36,
F(1,83)=.25,p=.621,MSE=.47).A statiseffect
observedon the memorymeasure
tically significant
as a resultof thetapelabelmanipulation,
however,supports
H2. Subjectslisteningto tapesidentifiedas memoryima significantincreasein memory
provementdemonstrated
withsubjectslisteningto tapesidentiabilityin comparison
fied as self-esteemimprovement
or weightloss (combined
labeledself-esteemand weight,pretest/.00to posttest/.20
versus labeled memory, pretest/-.05 to posttest/.53,
F(1,83)=4.07,p=.047,MSE=.47).

WeightLoss
Also shownin Figure1 areresultsof actualandlabeledeffects on the averageweightmeasure.ANCOVAresultsfail
to supportH2, but areconsistentwithH1. In general,subjects lost no weightas a resultof truetapecontent(combinedactualself-esteemandmemory,pretest/-.07to posttest/-.08 versusactualweight, pretest/.14to posttest/.16,
F(1,82)=.07,p=.790,MSE=.01).Nor did they lose weight
as a resultof tapelabel(combinedlabeledself-esteemand
13 versuslabeledweight,
memory,pretest/-.14to posttest/-.
to
pretest/.35
posttest/.34, F(1,82)=1.32, p=.254,
MSE=.01).
WLOC(the measureof attitudetowardweightloss) resultsmirrorthoseof averagedweight.Thereis no effectof
actualtapes(combinedactualself-esteemandmemory,pretest/-.12to posttest/-.01versusactualweight,pretest/.23to
posttest/.23, F(1,82)=.06, p=.812, MSE=1.04)or labels
(combinedlabeledself-esteemandmemory,pretest/.02to
posttest/.12versuslabeledweight,pretest/.-.05to posttest/
-.08, F(1,82)=.7,p=.406,MSE=1.04)on WLOC.

Cell by Cell Contrasts
Onemightarguethatthe strongesttestof Hi-the situation
in whichsubliminalmessagesaremostlikelyto operatewouldbe whensubjectsreceivethe SMSHaudiotapesthey
expect (i.e., the actualtape correspondsto the label).We
testedthis notionby contrastingeach of the threegroups
thatreceivedactualtapescorresponding
to theirlabelsto apcontrolgroups.Two contrastswereconductedfor
propriate
each of the threeconditions:(1) corresponding
actualand
label versuscorresponding
actualand "other"label, and
actualand label versus "other"actual
(2) corresponding
andcorresponding
label.Noneof the six comparisons
were
statistically significant. Thus, not even conditions with the
most potential producedevidence of a subliminal message
effect.

31

mentin long-termmemoryabilitywhereasfewerthan30%
of subjectsin the combinedlabeledself-esteemandweight
conditionindicatedincreasedlong-termmemoryability
(F(1,83)=4.36,p=.04,MSE=.29).

Discussion
Resultsof study1 provideevidencethatsubliminalcontent
of tapesdoesnot conferbenefitsto consumersas manufacturersclaim.TheevidencesupportsH1;no effectof actual
subliminal
tapesis foundon eitherobjectiveorperceivedefficacymeasures.Thereis, however,aneffectof labelon the
H2; and,though
objectivemeasureof memory,supporting
the differenceis non-significant,
the self-esteemmeasures
differin the samedirection.Resultsof the perceivedeffiof H3;
cacy(yes orno) measurejustifyfurtherinvestigation
nearlytwiceas manysubjectsin thelabeledmemorycondition perceivedtheirtapesto be effective.
If, as it appears,listenerbeliefsgeneratedan expectancy
andaretherebyresponsiblefor tapeefficacyor theperception of efficacy,they werenot strongenoughto convince
subjectsthatthey hadlost any weightor wereon the road
to losingweight.The simplestexplanationis thatthe data
werenot unambiguous
as to weightloss. Verylittleis left
to doubtwhenone stepson a scale.Indeed,manysubjects
indicateduponarrivalat posttest(priorto beingweighedby
the experimenter)
thatthey hadlost no weight.No matter
how strongthe expectancies,the objective,inescapable
measureof actualweightwas evidentto subjects.Thetiming of the studymay also haveworkedto suppresseffects
of the weight loss tape labels; pretestsessions began in
early Octoberand posttestsessionswere completednear
Thanksgiving.It is arguablethat,in general,in the weeks
precedingthe holidayseasonpeopledo not lose, andperhaps tend to gain, weight. However,no effect of SMSH
tapesor labelswas foundby usingtheWLOCmeasurethat
was includedto detect changesin attitudethat may not
havebeenmanifestedas actualweightloss butwouldpredict futureweightloss.
Study1 providesconvincingevidenceaboutH1;subliminalcontentplayedno rolein theobjectivelymeasurable
or
subjectivelyperceivedefficacyof SMSHtapes.The effect
of tapelabelon objectivecriteriaandon the perceptionof
efficacyis evidenton somebutnot all measures.To replicate the findingsof H1, furtherinvestigateH2, and more
fully test H3, we conducteda secondstudy.

Study 2
Design

PerceivedEfficacy

Study2, a simplifiedreplicationof study1, implemented
a

Perceived efficacy measures were assessed only for memory in study 1. There is no effect of tape content on perceived increase(yes or no) in long-termmemoryability;subjects in both the actual memory and combined actual selfesteem and weight conditions reportedlong-term memory
improvementof approximately38% (F<1). There is, however, a cleareffect of the label manipulationon subjects'perceptionsof memorytape efficacy. Fifty-threepercentof subjects in the labeled memorycondition reportedan improve-

two actual product(self-esteem improvement,memory enhancement)by two labeled product (self-esteem improvement, memory enhancement) factorial design. Tapes and
test equipment/stimuliused in the second study were identical to those used in the first study with the exception that
the weight tapes were excluded.
Subjects and Procedure
Subjects were recruitedby the same procedureas was used

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

32

Field Test of Subliminal Audiotapes

Figure2.

DependentMeasuresby Actualand Labeled
Conditions(Study2)

Materialsand Measures

SELF-ESTEEM

Memoryandself-esteemtapesandmeasuresusedin thesecond studywereidenticalto thoseof study1. A changefrom
study1 was theinclusionof a set of perceivedefficacy(yes
or no) questionsaskingwhethersubjectsfelt thatthe tape
had increasedthe levels of severaldimensions(see Table
1); thesequestionsprovideda test of H3.

0.7
0.6
S
T
D
Z
D

to theirtapesan averageof 47 timesoveran averageparticipationperiodof 35 days.

0.5
0.4

0.3

S
E

Results

0.2

S
C
A
L
E

0.1

Resultsof bothself-esteemandmemorytapemanipulations
arepresentedin a formsimilarto thatusedfor study1; the
same methodof standardization
was used. Standardized
measureswereanalyzedby meansof an ANCOVA(2 X 2
factorial)procedurewithposttestscoreas the criterionand
corresponding
pretestscoreas covariate.As for study1, resultsarepresentedfor actualandlabeledconditions.

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

ACTUAL
SELF-ESTEEM

ACTUAL
MEMORY

LABELED
SELF-ESTEEM

LABELED
MEMORY

Self-esteem
self-esteem
Figure2 includesresultsfor the standardized
scoresby actualandlabeledconditions.As in study 1, a
maineffectof timeis evidentforbothself-esteemandmemory.Resultsof an ANCOVAprocedureareagainconsistent
withH1; adjustedposttestself-esteemscoresarenot found
to be higherwhensubjectsreceiveda self-esteemimprovementtapethanwhentheyreceiveda mislabeledself-esteem
result,in fact,is thattheac(truememory)tape.A surprising
tualmemoryconditionproduceda significantlyhigherselfesteemscorethanthe actualself-esteemcondition(actual
self-esteem,pretest/.00to posttest/.27versusactualmem-

MEMORY

S
T
D
Z
D
M
E
M
S
C
A
L
E

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

ory, pretest/.00to posttest/.60,F(1,62)=5.79,p=.019,

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

ACTUAL
MEMORY

ACTUAL
SELF-ESTEEM
PRETEST

LABELED
MEMORY

LABELED
SELF-ESTEEM

MSE=.28).Inthetestof H2,thedirectionof theresultssugbutthe
gestsaneffectof theself-esteemlabelmanipulation,
observeddifferenceis not statisticallysignificant(labeled
15 to posttest/.40versuslabeledmemself-esteem,pretest/-.
to
ory, pretest/.16 posttest/.46, F(1,62)=1.24, p=.27,
MSE=.28).

POSTTEST

MemoryAbility
in the first study.Of the 88 subjectspretested,76%comdifferencebeNo demographic
pletedposttestprocedures.
those
and
tween subjectscompleting
droppingout of the
studywas evident,norwas therea differencebetweensubdifferencein experijects in the two studies.Oneimportant
betweenthetwo studieswasthatsubjects
mentalprocedure
in study2 wereassignedrandomlyto the fourconditions,
as opposedto beingassigneda tapelabeledwiththeirfirst
choiceas in study1. Becausesubjectsin randomlyassigned
conditionswouldhave weakerexpectanciesthansubjects
whohadchosenthe typeof tapeto whichtheythoughtthey
wouldbe listening,randomassignmentprovideda stronger
astestof label-initiated
expectancyeffects.A double-blind
of
exclusion
the
With
was
used
again.
signmentprocedure
for
sevthe
left
who
one subject
taperunningcontinuously
eralhoursa day (576 sessions),subjectsreportedlistening

Findingsfor memoryby labeledandactualconditionsare
also shownin Figure2. The resultsagainsupportHI; no
maineffect of actualsubliminaltape contentis foundfor
Table1.

PerceivedEfficacy:PercentMeansof "Yes"
Responsesto TapeImprovingRelatedand
UnrelatedDimensions(Study2)
Actual

Labeled

Did tapeimprove...?

M

S

M

S

Memory
Self-esteem
Concentration
Self-confidence
stamina
Physical
Tranquility
Relaxation

16
38
32
44
13
66
67

34
30
45
36
15
79
65

41
12
42
18
12
73
61

10
56
35
63
16
72
71

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journalof PublicPolicy& Marketing
subjects'memoryability.Adjustedposttestmemorymeasure scores were not betterwhen subjectsreceiveda true
tapethanwhentheyreceiveda mismemoryimprovement
labeledmemory(trueself-esteem)improvement
tape.In a
to
who
listened
reverse
effect, subjects
nearlysignificant
trueself-esteemtapesimprovedslightlymoreon the memoryteststhanthosewho listenedto truememorytapes(actualmemory,pretest/-.21to posttest/-.04versusactualselfesteem, pretest/.21to posttest/.48,F(1,62)=2.97,p=.09,
MSE=.38).Contraryto the predictionof H2, no effect on
memoryas a resultof label is observed(labeledmemory,
pretest/.01to posttest/.25versuslabeledself-esteem,pretest/
-.01 to posttest/.20,F(1,62)=.01,p=.935,MSE=.38).

Discussion

PerceivedEfficacy

Conclusions

Table 1 gives results of posttest "yes or no" questions
dimensions
abouttapes'effectson perceivedimprovement
by actualand labeledconditions.Some of the secondary
measuresarecorrelatedwith the primarydependentmeasures(self-esteemandmemory).Onemightarguethatabilshouldcorrelatewithmemoryability(obity to concentrate
served correlationof improvedconcentrationwith improvedmemory:r=-.38,p=.01).Self-esteemandself-confidencearealso highlycorrelated(r=.80,p=.001).
Thepatternof the datain the "actual"columnsof Table
arenot
1 supportHI: perceptionsof memoryimprovement
for
actual
self-esteem
than
for
actual
(16%
memory
higher
of improvedconvs. 34%);the sameis trueforperceptions
centration(32%for actualmemoryvs. 45%for actualselfesteem).Likewise,perceptionsof self-esteemimprovement
are not higherfor actualself-esteem(30%)thanfor actual
memory (38%);nor are perceptionsof self-confidence
higherfor actualself-esteem(36%)thanfor actualmemory
(44%).In all fourinstances,theeffectivenesswasperceived
to be no betterfor the trueproductthanfor the mislabeled
product(all differencesn.s.).
The datain the "labeled" columnof Table1, support
H3.Forty-onepercentof subjectsin thelabeledmemoryconditionreportedan improvementin memorywhereas10%
of subjectsin thelabeledself-esteemconditionindicatedincreasedmemoryability(F(1,59)=8.48,p=.005,MSE=.17).
on
Thoughnot significant,resultsof thelabelmanipulation
areconsistentwithmemoryresults;42%of laconcentration
beled memorysubjectsperceivedimprovedconcentration
versus35%of labeledself-esteemsubjects(F<1,n.s.).Similarly,56%of subjectsin the labeledself-esteemcondition
reported a perceived improvement in self-esteem versus
12% of subjects in the labeled memory condition
(F(1,59)=18.78, p=.000, MSE=.17), and 63% of subjectsin
the labeled self-esteem condition reported improved selfconfidence versus only 18%of subjectsin the labeled memory condition F(1,61)=15.88, p=.000, MSE=.24). Results of
the perceived improvement(yes or no) questions therefore
supportH3.
The remainingscales in Table 1 show no statisticallysignificant differences. As expected, only a small percentage
(16% or less) of subjectsreportedan improvementin physical staminaas a result of the SMSH audiotape.In contrast,
the soothing audibleportionresultedin high reportsof tranquility and relaxationfor all subjects.

33

Study2 resultsprovidefurtherevidencein favor of H1;
SMSHaudiotapeusersdidnotdemonstrate
tapeefficacyas
a resultof subliminalcontent.Unlikethe firstexperiment,
study 2 reveals no effects of labels on objectiveperformancemeasures,andthusno supportforH2. However,the
resultsstronglysupportH3. The labeleffect on perceived
in study
tapeefficacyfoundin the firststudywas apparent
2 forboththe labeledmemoryandlabeledself-esteemconditions.Subjectsconsistentlyreportedperceivedimprovementon dimensionslogicallyrelatedto theirlabels.Furthermore,dimensionsunrelatedto subjects'assignedlabels
werenot reportedas areasof perceivedimprovement.

The resultsof ourtwo studiessupportthe hypothesisof no
effectof the claimedsubliminalmessagesin SMSHaudiounderrealisticlisteningcontapes.Whenusedby volunteers
ditionsovera lengthof timeguaranteedby manufacturers
to providepositive results, SMSH audiotapesproduced
associatedwith subliminalconnoneof the improvements
tentin eitherstudy.Therewas,however,someevidenceof
change,or theperceptionof change,on thedimensionsthat
to treat.Thesechanges,realor illuthe tapesarepurported
sory,werecausedby the tapelabels,not the tapecontent,
and we believe they resultedfromexpectanciesthatsubjects broughtto the use of the product.
Combined,the resultsof studies1 and2 (identicalin instrumentsused andexperimentaladministration)
provide
evenstrongerevidenceagainstanyeffectof subliminalcontent.' For memorytapes,the combinedresultsare simply
nonsignificant(standardizedadjustedposttest memory
scores:actualmemory/.22versusactualself-esteem/.34,
F(1,155)=1.13,p=.289,MSE=.45),butfor self-esteemthe
dataaresignificantin the directionoppositethe claimedeffect (standardized
adjustedposttestself-esteemscores:actual self-esteem/.25 versus actual memory/.48,
F(1,154)=7.94,p=.005,MSE=.27);we haveno explanation
for thisunexpectedresult.
Thecombinedresultsshowa nearlysignificanteffectof
label on subjects'self-esteem(standardized
adjustedposttest self-esteemscores:labeledself-esteem/.44versuslabeled memory/.29,F(1,154)=3.04,p=.083,MSE=.27),but
effectof memorylabelon subjects'memoa nonsignificant
ries (standardized
adjustedposttestmemoryscores:labeled
memory/.34 versus labeled self-esteem/.23, F(1,155)=1.0,
p=.32, MSE=.45).
The strengthof the combined evidence favoring the null
hypothesis (H1) requiresconsiderationof the combined statistical power of the test(s) performed.Power of the design
to detect an effect size of .35 (between Cohen's [1987]
"small" and "medium" effect sizes) was calculated (1tailed, alpha=.05). The two-study combined sample size of
160 provided power of .95 for this effect size for selfesteem and power of .94 for the same effect size for memory. This level of power is higher than that in most studies
in which power issues are addressedacross the disciplines
of marketing,psychology, education,and speech [Peterson,
Albaum, and Beltramini 1985; Sawyer and Ball 1981].
Given the high level of power, the "real world" aspect, and

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

34

Field Testof SubliminalAudiotapes

the strengthof ourdouble-blinddesign,we feel confident
confirmingH1, the null hypothesis,for subliminalcontent
effects.
In both studies,subjectsheld the subjectiveillusionof
tapeefficacy.Specifically,of the five tests of H3, fourare
statisticallysignificant,showinga bias in the processingof
informationresultingin subjectiveappraisalsthatconfirm
expectancies.Furtherworkshouldbe doneto identifythe
sourceof such self-deception,whetherin encoding(selecevidenceor rejective attentionto expectancy-confirming
tion/distortion
of disconfirming
evidence)or retrievalof information.
The supportfor H2 is weak.Of the five testsof H2, two
butnotstatistically
(forself-esteem)areas hypothesized
significant,one (memory,study1) is statisticallysignificant,
and the othertwo show no appreciabledifferences.The
SMSHaudiotapesmay not be
expectanciesaccompanying
to
true
placeboeffects-objective
strongenough produce
changesin targeteddimensions.
It is importantin the contextof ourstudyto distinguish
betweenexpectancyeffects and "demand"effects. One
mightarguethatwhatwe have labeled"expectancy"effects aremerelydemandeffects-increases(or the perception thereof)in self-esteemor memoryas a resultof subjects' knowingthey werebeingmeasuredon thesedimensions.The distinctionbetweenthe demandeffectsexplanation andthe hypothesisof expectancyeffectsis subtle.Accordingto a demandeffectsexplanation,subjectsshowed
improvementbecausethey were being measuredandbeof them.
lievedthe researchto demandsomeimprovement
Thus, the observedresults could not be ascribedto the
SMSHaudiotapelabels alone,nor could they be generalized beyondthe researchsetting.The expectancyhypothesis explainsthe improvementin termsof subjects'beliefs
aboutthe SMSHaudiotapes,a relationshipbetweensubjects andproductsthatexistsbothwithinandoutsidetheresearchsetting.Thus,demandis a threatto boththe internal
validityof the hypothesizedrelationshipandthe external
of the observedeffects.
generalizability
The studiesincludedseveralchecksandcontrolsfor demand.Becausesubjectswere all volunteers,participation
was likely motivatedby a true desire to experiencethe
claimed-effective
powerof SMSHaudiotapes,not a desire
to confirmresearchhypotheses.The studies were conductedin the field over a periodof at least one month,
which de-emphasizedthe sense of involvementin a redistinctpretestand
searchstudy.Also, thecounterbalanced,
posttestversionsof the dependentmeasuresshouldhavereduceddemandeffects.Furthermore,
multipleobjectivemeasureswereused,diminishingsubjects'abilityto fakeeffects.
To minimizethe unlikelypossibilitythatsubjectsmaypurposefullysuppresstheirmemoryabilityor self-esteematpreatposttest,doubletestto produceanapparent
improvement
blindassignmentto a specificlabeledconditionwas made
afterpretestingin both studies.Finally,the patternof results on the perceivedefficacy scales in Table 1 argues
againsta simpledemandeffectsuchas a responseset bias;
only the scalesrelatedto tapelabelsshowimprovement.
In general,the relationship
betweenthe truthof advertising claimsandconsumers'perceptionof benefitsmightbe

consideredas a two-by-twomatrix.Whenattributeclaims
are trueand benefitsare perceived,thereis obviouslyno
claimsarefalseandno benefitsreproblem.Whenattribute
sult,the deceptionis obviousandsuch advertisingshould
be disallowed.Whenattributeclaimsaretruebutno benefits resultfromtheproduct,we shouldexpectmarketforces
to work;such a productshould fail. It is when attribute
claimsarefalsebutbenefitsare,nonetheless,perceivedthat
properpublic policy responseis unclear.In additionto
SMSHtapes,severalproductsfit thiscase-baldness cures,
diet plans, and wrinklecreams,for example.Regulatory
agenciesareconsideringsomeof thesemarketsas well. In
additionto specificregulatoryactivity,we mightapplythe
samelogic to the moregeneralpracticeof marketingnearcommodityproductson the strengthof brandimagesthat
imply an illusory advantageor superiorityover other
brands.We urgemarketers
to considerthe ethicsof strateconsumer
that
on
capitalize
gies
perceptionsthatarebased
on nothingmorethanthe expectationsformedby advertising claims.Wealso encourageeducationthatcautionsconsumersagainstdamagingself-deception.

Limitationsand Suggestionsfor Future
Research
A significantstep in progressingfromourresearchwould
be to clarifythe role of advertisingin creatingthe illusion
of productefficacy. One mightreplicateour studieswith
the inclusionof an advertisingmanipulationto determine
whetherpromotionincreasesexpectancyeffects.
Wealso suggestfurtherresearchwithotherproductcatefor other
gories.Expectancyeffectscouldbe demonstrated
of
that
are
valued
because
objectivelyillusoryatproducts
tributes.Onemighthypothesizedifferencesin the natureof
advertisingfor those products-more image related,less
One mightfurtherhypothesizethat
functionalinformation.
consumerswouldbe moreskepticalof such information;
of consumerswho areproneto accepting
the identification
wouldbe bothinterestaboutillusoryattributes
information
ing and valuable.Is gullibilitya generalizableconsumer
Is therea gulliblesegment?
characteristic?
studiesprovidestrongevidenceagainst
Ourdouble-blind
any objectiveeffect of subliminalmessagescontainedin
self-helpaudiotapes.However,subjectivebenefitsappear
to be associatedwith the use of SMSHtapes;consumers
thinktheyareimprovingin relevantareasof self-helpwhen
in actualitytheyarenot. Ourcontentionis thatthese "perceived"benefitsaretheresultof consumer-generated
expectancies-consumerself-deception.

Notes
1. Becauseweightlosswasomittedfromthesecondstudy,subjectswhoreceivedactualweightlosstapesorlabelswereincludedin controlgroupswiththosewhoreceivedmemory
reinanalyses
of theself-esteem
tapesorlabels,asappropriate,
sults,andwiththosewho receivedself-esteemtapesor labels,

in analysesof thememoryresults(combined
as appropriate,
n=160).

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journalof PublicPolicy & Marketing

References

207, 557-558.

Allison,RalphI. andKennethP. Uhl (1964), "Influenceof Beer
on TastePerception,"Journalof MarketBrandIdentification
ing Research, 1 (August), 36-39.

Beck, A.T.,C.H.Ward,M. Mendelson,J. Mock,andJ. Erbaugh
forMeasuring
Archivesof
(1961),"AnInventory
Depression,"
General Psychiatry,4 (June), 53-63.

Block,MartinP. andBruceG. VandenBergh(1985), "CanYou
Sell Subliminal
Journalof AdvertisMessagesto Consumers?"
ing, 14 (3), 59-62.

IdenBruner,JeromeS. andA. LeighMinturn(1955),"Perceptual
Journalof GeneralPsytificationandPerceptual
Organization,"
chology,53 (July),21-28.
Cheesman,Jim andPhilipM. Merikle(1985), "WordRecognition and Consciousness," in Reading Research: Advances in

Theoryand Practice,Vol. 5, D. Besner,T.G.Waller,andG.E.
eds. New York:AcademicPressInc.,311-352.
MacKinnon,

-

and-

35

(1986), "DistinguishingConsciousFromUncon-

scious PerceptualProcesses," CanadianJournal of Psychology,

New
Lofflin,John(1988),"HelpFromthe 'HiddenPersuaders."'
YorkTimes(March20), F17.

Merton,RobertK. (1948), "TheSelf-FulfillingProphecy,"Antioch Review,8 (Summer),193-210.
-

Moore,TimothyE. (1982), "SubliminalAdvertising:WhatYou
See Is WhatYouGet,"Journalof Marketing,
46 (Spring),3847.
-

ioral Sciences.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,
Inc.
ConDarley,JohnM. andRussellH. Fazio(1980), "Expectancy
firmationProcesses Arising in the Social InteractionSequence," AmericanPsychologist, 35 (October),867-881.

of Advertising
andEviDeighton,John(1984), "TheInteraction
dence," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 11 (December), 763-

770.

Shadowson
Dunlap,Knight(1900),"TheEffectof Imperceptible
the Judgmentof Distance," Psychological Review, 7 (5), 435453.

Greenwald,AnthonyG., MarkR. Klinger,andT.J.Liu (1989),
"UnconsciousProcessingof DichopticallyMaskedWords,"
Memoryand Cognition, 17 (January),35-47.

Haas,H., H. Fink,andG. Hartfelder
(1959), "DasPlaceboProblem," Fortschritteder Arzneimittelforschung,1, 279-454.

Helmreich,RobertandJoy Stapp(1974), "ShortFormsof the
TexasSocialBehaviorInventory(TSBI),An ObjectiveMeasure of Self-esteem," Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 4
(5a), 473-475.

Ha (1986), "Consumer
LearnHoch,StephenJ. andYoung-Won
ing: Advertisingandthe Ambiguityof ProductExperience,"
Journal of ConsumerResearch, 13 (September),221-233.

Husband,RichardW. andJaneGodfrey(1934), "An Experimental Studyof CigaretteIdentification,"
Journalof AppliedPsychology,18 (2), 220-251.
Janiszewski,Chris(1988),"Preconscious
ProcessingEffects:The
of AttitudeFormation
andConsciousThought,"
Independence
Journal of ConsumerResearch, 15 (September),199-209.
Jospe, Michael (1978), The Placebo Effect in Healing. Lexington,

MA:LexingtonBooks.

(1988),"TheCaseAgainstSubliminalManipulation,"
Psychology and Marketing,5 (4), 297-316.

Peterson,RobertA., GeraldS. Albaum,andRichardF. Beltramini
of EffectSizes in Consumer
Behav(1985), "A Meta-Analysis
ior Experiments," Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12 (June),

97-103.

Pratkanis,AnthonyR. andAnthonyG. Greenwald(1988), "RecentPerspectives
on UnconsciousProcessing:Still No Marketing Applications," Psychology and Marketing,5 (4), 337-353.

40 (December),343-367.

Cohen, Jacob (1987), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behav-

(1957), Social Theoryand Social Structure.New York:Free

Pressof Glencoe.

of ColaBevPronko,N.H.andJ.W.Bowles(1949),"Identification
erages," Journal of Applied Psychology, 33 (6), 605-608.
Rosenberg,Morris(1965), Society and the AdolescentSelf-Image.

Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Rosenthal,RobertandLenoreJacobson(1968),Pygmalionin the
Classroom.New York:HoltRinehartandWinston,Inc.
Ross, M. andJ.M. Olson (1981), "An Expectancy-Attribution
Modelof the Effectsof Placebos,"PsychologicalReview,88,
408-437.
Saltzer, Eleanor B. (1982), "The Weight Locus of Control
(WLOC)Scale: A Specific Measurefor ObesityResearch,"
Journal of PersonalityAssessment,46 (6), 620-628.

Sawyer,AlanG. andA. DwayneBall (1981), "StatisticalPower
andEffectSize in Marketing
Research,"Journalof Marketing
Research,18 (August),275-290.
Snyder,Markand NancyCantor(1979), "TestingHypotheses
AboutOtherPeople:TheUse of HistoricalPeople,"Journalof
ExperimentalSocial Psychology, 15, 330-342.

-

andWilliamB. Swann,Jr.(1978), "Hypothesis
TestingPro-

cesses in Social Interaction,"Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,36 (11), 1202-1212.
andRuthAlbrecht.(1946), "An
Stone,CalvinP., JohnGardner,
AlternateFormof the WechslerMemoryScale," TheJournal
of Psychology, 22 (2), 199-206.

Sujan,Mita,JamesR. Bettman,andHarishSujan(1986),"Effects
of Consumer
on Information
Expectations
Processing
SellingEncounters,"Journalof MarketingResearch,23 (November),346353.

TheSun (1990), "SubliminalTapes:Help or Fraud?"(January
29) Bremerton,
WA,D1.
Taylor, Eldon (1988), Subliminal Learning: An Eclectic Ap-

proach.SaltLakeCity,UT:JustAnotherRealityPublishing.

Kissel, P. and D. Barrucand(1964), Placebos et effet placebo en
medecine. Paris:Masson.

Kotler,Philip(1980),Principlesof Marketing.
EnglewoodCliffs,
NJ:Prentice-Hall,
Inc.
W.R. andRobertB. Zajonc(1980),"AffectiveDisKunst-Wilson,
crimination
of StimuliThatCannotBe Recognized,"Science,

VandenBoogert,Carol(1984), A Studyof Potentials UnlimitedSubliminal Persuasion/Self-HypnosisTapes.GrandRapids,MI: Po-

tentialsUnlimited,Inc.

Vokey,JohnR. andJ. Don Read(1980), "SubliminalMessages:
Betweenthe Devil andthe Media,"AmericanPsychologist40
(November),1231-1239.

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

36

Field Testof SubliminalAudiotapes

David(1945),"A Standardized
Wechsler,
MemoryScaleforClinical Use," The Journal of Psychology, 19, 87-95.

of SuccessfulWeight
Weiss,ArnoldR. (1977), "Characteristics
BeA BriefReviewof Predictor
Reducers:
Addictive
Variables,"
haviors,2 (4), 193-201.

White,Leonard,BernardTursky,andGaryE. Schwartz(1985),
Placebo: Theory,Research, and Mechanisms.New York:
GuilfordPress.
Zanot,EricJ.,J. DavidPincus,andE. JosephLamp,(1983),"Public Perceptions
of SubliminalAdvertising,"
JournalofAdvertising, 12 (1), 37-45.

This content downloaded from 130.15.241.167 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:37:02 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions