The influence of television content on advertisement: a neurophysiological study.

Debora Bettiga, Giuliano Noci
Author Information
  1. Debora Bettiga: Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
  2. Giuliano Noci: Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.

Abstract

Emotional and cognitive reactions to the media context prove impactful on advertising effectiveness. However, research on the topic remains lacking and with a profusion of mixed results regarding the role of the context in enhancing or detracting communication effectiveness. This study explores the media context-advertising relationship, by investigating the influence of television content on advertisement in light of media psychophysiology and grounding on the Halo effect theory. Consumers' responses to different television content and advertisements are assessed. Specifically, consumers' arousal, pleasure, attention, and memorization are measured through brain analysis, heart rate, and skin conductance detection. Self-reported methods complement such analysis, by exploring the values associated with the television content and the advertised brands. Results show that television content influences consumer responses to the advertisement and the values associated with the brands, confirming the existence of a halo effect. Responses differ among television content typologies.

Keywords

References

  1. Psychol Mark. 2022 Jan;39(1):76-89 [PMID: 34539052]
  2. Brain Res Bull. 2005 Nov 15;67(5):428-37 [PMID: 16216690]
  3. Brain Topogr. 2010 Jun;23(2):165-79 [PMID: 20033272]
  4. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2009 Feb;33(2):71-80 [PMID: 18706440]
  5. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2011 May;49(5):579-83 [PMID: 21327841]
  6. Neuroimage. 2009 May 15;46(1):219-25 [PMID: 19457412]
  7. Front Neurosci. 2020 Jul 15;14:736 [PMID: 32765214]
  8. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 1985 Mar;32(3):230-6 [PMID: 3997178]
  9. Psychol Sci. 2012 May 1;23(5):439-45 [PMID: 22510393]
  10. Psychol Rev. 1989 Jan;96(1):58-83 [PMID: 2648446]
  11. Front Psychol. 2020 Oct 06;11:559779 [PMID: 33123043]
  12. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2015 Jan;117:1-3 [PMID: 25192867]
  13. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2005 Dec;11(4):245-55 [PMID: 16393034]
  14. Health Psychol. 2010 Jul;29(4):355-7 [PMID: 20658821]
  15. Appetite. 2021 Mar 1;158:105014 [PMID: 33132112]
  16. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:799-823 [PMID: 25251484]
  17. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Mar 20;15(3): [PMID: 29558457]
  18. J Abnorm Psychol. 1946 Jul;41:258-90 [PMID: 20995551]
  19. Neuroimage. 2006 Jun;31(2):861-5 [PMID: 16487728]
  20. Front Psychol. 2022 Aug 02;13:872468 [PMID: 35983212]
  21. Psychol Sci. 2006 Jul;17(7):592-8 [PMID: 16866745]
  22. Front Psychol. 2019 Mar 21;10:626 [PMID: 30984069]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0televisioncontentmediacontexteffectadvertisingeffectivenessstudyinfluenceadvertisementpsychophysiologyresponsesanalysisvaluesassociatedbrandshaloneurophysiologicalEmotionalcognitivereactionsproveimpactfulHoweverresearchtopicremainslackingprofusionmixedresultsregardingroleenhancingdetractingcommunicationexplorescontext-advertisingrelationshipinvestigatinglightgroundingHalotheoryConsumers'differentadvertisementsassessedSpecificallyconsumers'arousalpleasureattentionmemorizationmeasuredbrainheartrateskinconductancedetectionSelf-reportedmethodscomplementexploringadvertisedResultsshowinfluencesconsumerconfirmingexistenceResponsesdifferamongtypologiesadvertisement:measures

Similar Articles

Cited By