Gets a Second Chance
Subliminal Seduction Gets a Second Chance
Sold on Language
respectability of subliminal persuasion research
Published on January 26, 2011 by Julie Sedivy, Ph.D. in Sold on Language
Recently, I holed up indoors with my family watching old sci fi movies, including
The Puppet Masters, a story about alien blobs that sit on people's backs and wire themselves into human nervous
systems, controlling their hosts' thoughts and actions. Not a great movie, but it was its lack of originality that
got me thinking. The science fiction genre is busting at the seams with horror scenarios in which individuals
become absorbed in some collective mind that wipes out their capacity for free will: You have your invading body
snatchers, your Borg (resistance is futile) and your Cylons (with their many copies). Even my childhood favorite A
Wrinkle in Time has the heroic Meg tesseracting to save her little brother from having his brilliant and unusual
mind vacuumed up by the throbbing, pulsing centralized brain of IT. If sci fi serves as a window into the anxieties
of an age, then it would appear that mind control and its ensuing loss of individuality is our great cultural
Of course, our political and economic systems rest on the narrative of freedom of
individual choice, so it's not surprising that as a culture, we should experience spasms of angst just thinking
about assaults on these freedoms. And so it is with any persuasion tactics that hint of mind control.
Historically, fears about mind control in the hands of marketers peaked several
decades ago. In 1957, Vance Packard published his best-seller The Hidden Persuaders, in which he described how a
New Jersey movie theater had flashed subliminal messages to "Eat popcorn" and "Drink Coca-Cola", thereby causing
sales at the snack bar to spike. James Vicary, a self-promoting market researcher, jumped in to take credit for the
"experiment". And a number of years later, an overwrought Wilson Bryan Key wrote Subliminal Seduction, in which he
claimed that advertisers embedded images of sex, death, and bestiality in their ads to manipulate people into
buying their products. Claims like these quickly gave birth to cottage industries of consumer education programs,
marketing consultancies and subliminal self-help tapes.
Turns out, though, that much of the hype was a sham. Vicary's "experiment" appears
to have been an outright hoax, and the subliminal self-help industry was exposed as junk science. The idea of
subliminal advertising for the most part joined the garbage heap upon which are piled fears about satanic messages
being played backwards in Led Zeppelin songs, and sightings of the Virgin Mary on cheese sandwiches (both of which
got a pretty debunking in a 2006 TED talk by Michael Shermer). The dust settled, public paranoia about advertising
practices abated, and in scientific circles, a professed interest in subliminal advertising came to be about as
respectable as wearing scarlet lipstick and fishnet stockings to an academic conference—or conducting research
about ESP, for that matter.
And so it was that no great scandal erupted during the 2000 Bush/Gore presidential
election campaign, when the Republican Party placed an ad that attacked Al Gore's proposed health care policies by
arguing that under Gore's plan, bureaucrats rather than individual patients and their doctors would have control
over prescriptions. As the voice-over uttered the damning words "The Gore Prescription Plan: Bureaucrats Decide,"
the word RATS was very briefly superimposed on the screen in large letters just before being replaced by the text
Bureaucrats Decide. The word appears right around the threshold of perception—if you watch the ad, paying very
close attention, you just may be able to see it.
Bush claimed that this was an accidental result, and brushed aside accusations of
subliminal advertising as "weird and bizarre" conspiracy theories. When pressed, Alex Castellanos, the ad's
creator, said he flashed part of the word bureaucrats as a "visual drumbeat" to create visual interest, and
insisted it was coincidental that the letters happened to spell rats. Though the media reported on the ad, and the
Federal Communications Commission launched a somewhat limp investigation, the event was shrugged off by many on the
grounds that "everyone knows subliminal advertising doesn't work."
But as a researcher of language, I couldn't quite get why it was obvious that the
subliminal message wouldn't work. On the face of it, subliminally associating the word RATS with Democrats might
seem no more plausible as a strategy than recruiting followers for Satan by means of backwards song lyrics. But if
you know something about how linguistic messages are actually processed by human minds, it becomes harder to spread
your skepticism around evenly between the two. Human beings are highly unlikely to extract the meanings of
sentences spoken or sung backwards, let alone do so automatically and unconsciously. One of the most basic facts
about human language processing is that we're firmly bound by the linearity of language in time, meaning that we
process it forwards with supreme efficiency, but find it mind-bendingly hard to do so backwards. On the other hand,
it's been known for decades that people do register the meanings of words flashed so briefly that they're unaware
of them, and that these meanings affect their cognitive responses. In fact, subliminal presentation of words is a
standard, run-of-the-mill tool pulled out by language scientists to test arcane theories of language that have
nothing to do with mind control.
All of which made me think that the received wisdom about subliminal messaging was
being tarred by too broad a scientific brush; some techniques had no hope of fitting in with facts about human
cognition, but others were much more reasonable candidates.
Apparently, I'm not the only one who wondered. In 2008, psychologists Joel Weinberger and Drew Westen carried out
their own experimental RATS campaign, and found that subliminally flashing RATS (as opposed to a word like STAR, or
symbols like XXXX) before showing study volunteers a photo of a fictional political candidate caused them to report
a more negative impression of that candidate.
A lot has happened in psychological science in the decade since the Bush/Gore
election. Weinberger and Westen's study is now only one among many that have found that people's attitudes and
behavior can be swayed by cues that they have no awareness of, or that they don't believe to be relevant to their
behavior. Here's a fistful of exotic findings from the last few years of research:
John Bargh and colleagues have run dozens of studies in which they've shown that
human behavior can be "primed" in various ways—people became more polite after doing puzzles with words that relate
to courteousness than with words that are associated with rudeness; they behaved more aggressively after the
subliminal flashing of images that evoke stereotypes of aggression (such as the image of a black man); they behaved
more altruistically when sitting in a room with a backpack on the table, than in a room with a
As discussed in a recent post by Art Markman, in a study by Ran Hassin and
colleagues, Israeli citizens moderated their polarized political opinions after the subliminal presentation of the
Israeli flag, which presumably evoked feelings of national unity.
A study led by Grainne Fitzsimons revealed how a computer company can condition
you to "Think Different": The subliminal presentation of the Apple logo resulted in better performance on a
creativity test than subliminal presentation of the IBM logo.
And can the brief flashing of a brand name induce a craving for the product? In a
study by Johan Karremans, study volunteers who "saw" brief flashes of the words "Lipton Ice" reported that they
would prefer this drink to a competitor's, but only if they were already thirsty at the time they were exposed to
the subliminal message.
What's emerging from this fascinating scientific literature is that subliminal
messages often can affect thoughts and behavior, at least for a short period of time, and at least if the message
aligns with the audience's state of mind at that time. But there's no unique and magical power to messages that are
too brief to be seen; their effect is just one part of our human tendency to suck up, process, and act on as many
cues in our environment as we possibly can, responding to them without necessarily running them through our filter
of conscious awareness.
In truth, most of human cognition hums efficiently along below the level of our
awareness without any special direction or interference from our conscious wills. Acting on fleeting messages we
don't know we've seen is really no different from any one of the countless things we do automatically and without
deciding to do: pulling up the meanings and emotions linked with words in memory, intuiting that someone is
trustworthy because his regional accent signals that he's a member of our social tribe, or feeling reassured by a
doctor's confident body language and style of speech.
In the end, it's not so much that persuaders need to violently fuse their wills
into our spinal columns; it's more that our own minds—unknown to our conscious selves—invite them in.
Copyright and Other Protection. The Site and much of the
text, images, graphics, information and other content of the Site (collectively, the “Content”) are protected by
copyright, trademark and other laws. We or others own the copyright and other rights in the Site and the
Content. Much of the Research Content consists of articles and other
scholarly writings posted by authors and
researchers according to their understanding of their rights in that
Some of the Posted Material consists of scholarly articles
deposited under a Harvard Open Access Policy (the “Open Access Policy Articles” or “OAP Articles”). Subject to the
other provisions of these Terms and Conditions, you may use,
reproduce, distribute, and display the OAP Articles for:
a. personal study;
b. teaching (including distribution of copies to students and
use in coursepacks and courseware programs);
c. research and scholarship (including computational research
uses such as data-mining and text-mining); and
d. provision of value-added services (including full-text
searching, cross-referencing, and citation extraction);
provided in each case that:
i. you will not sell or charge for any OAP Article (whether
or not any profit is involved) and will not sell advertising on the same page as any OAP Article;
ii. if you make an OAP Article available to others, you will
notice included on the original;
iii. if you make an OAP Article available on-line, you will
use reasonable efforts both to cite to the publisher’s definitive version of the article if it has been published,
and to provide a link to the publisher’s version if it is available on-line;
iv. you may not use a facsimile of the published version of
an article under these open access terms, unless the publisher so permits and that version has been made available
as an OAP Article on the Site;
v. you will not make any translation, adaptation or other
derivative work of an OAP Article, except that, as reasonably necessary in order to carry out a permitted use, you
may include the article in a collection or database, may change the technical format of the article, and may use
excerpts of the article for teaching or other permitted purposes, so long as, in each case, (A) your use of the
OAP Articles, (B) you do not misrepresent the substance of the article, and (C) your derivative of the article
includes a citation, hyperlink, or similar reference to the original article and appropriately identifies the
nature of the derivative work (e.g., “abridged from_____”); and
vi. you may not sublicense or otherwise transfer your rights
in effect from time to time.
If you have an article, report or research paper that you
understand or believe to be in violation of copyright please
contact us and we will remove it immediately while we investigate the circumstance.
This research is provided to interested parties who wish to broaden their understanding of subliminal priming
and all copyrights remain with the original authors. This page is provided in good faith with the
intention of promoting the studies and authors involved. If any author or copyright details are wrong or
need updating please contact us.