Ambient Rubbish: Examining the attitudinal impact of incidental exposure to brand litter (conceptualisation and method)

Ambient rubbish: Examining the attitudinal impact of incidental exposure to branded litter Dr. Anthony Grimes, University of Manchester, UK. Professor Stuart Roper, University of Bradford, UK Dr. Tom Stafford, University of Sheffield, UK Purpose Roper and Parker (2013) found that when consumers encountered a brand in a litter context (i.e. surrounded by, or associated with, litter) formed a less positive attitude towards that brand than consumers who encountered it in a non-litter context (i.e. in the absence of accompanying litter). Those seeing the brand in a litter context also emphasised negative brand personality items, indicated that they were less likely to try the brand and were prepared to pay less for it than those who saw it in a non-litter context. In sum, these findings support the conclusion that being consciously seen in a litter context is bad for the brand. This work is interesting in that the overwhelming majority of the literature on brand exposure is uniformly positive and there is insufficient consideration of the potential negative impact of uncontrollable factors on brands (Roper and Parker, 2006). However, the question arises as to whether similar results might be expected when respondents are incidentally exposed to brands as litter, and focal attention to the littered brand pack is neither extensive nor emphasised. This situation is perhaps reflective of the way many individuals process brand litter in natural environments. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine the impact of repeated, mere exposure to brand litter on attitudes towards the brand it depicts. Theoretical background There is evidence from both psychology and marketing research that incidental exposure to a brand stimulus can improve attitudes to the brand. In particular, the mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968) is a robust psychological phenomenon that indicates unreinforced, repeated exposure to a stimulus leads to positive affective response when that stimulus is subsequently encountered. As such, it has been proposed as a useful framework within which to understand, explain and shape the effects of marketing communication at extremely low levels of attention (see Bornstein & Craver-Lemley, 2004; Grimes, 2008). Within the psychology literature, the mere exposure effect (hereafter, MEE) has been the subject of over 300 experimental demonstrations, usually with respect to unfamiliar and neutral stimuli (e.g. kimura figures and irregular polygons) that are presented fleetingly and in isolation (for reviews see Bornstein, 1989; Bornstein & Craver-Lemley, 2004). In the marketing literature, such demonstrations have been extended to products, brand names and brand logos, which are encountered in isolation or incidentally as part of a wider scene (e.g. Janiszewski, 1993; Shapiro, 1999; Vanhuele, 1995). Furthermore, marketing studies of the MEE have demonstrated that the enhancement of attitude extends beyond mere liking of the stimulus to factors such as brand liking, brand choice, and inclusion in a consideration set (e.g. Janiszewski, 1993; Lee, 2002; Shapiro, 1999). There is thus little dispute that mere exposure to unfamiliar and affectively neutral stimuli leads to more positive evaluations of these stimuli when they are subsequently encountered. What is less clear, however, is whether, and to what extent, mere exposure might influence attitudes towards stimuli that are already perceived to be negative (as might be the case when discarded packaging is categorised as litter by the observer; see Roper, Parker & Bosnjak 2008). In a recent study of emotionally-valenced stimuli, Robinson and Elias (2005) found enhanced affective response to positive and neutral faces, but not to negative ones. However, this is at odds with previous research that indicates the MEE can improve affective reactions to negative stimuli (e.g. Hamm et al., 1975; Grush, 1976; Bornstein, 1993). More specifically, there is growing evidence that the extremity of both positive and negative evaluations will be diminished by repeated exposure to a valenced stimulus (Claypool et al., 2007; Dijksterhuis & Smith, 2002; Rosenblood & Ostrom, 1971; Young & Claypool, 2010). The mechanism by which this is proposed to occur has been variously described as ‘adaptation’ (Rosenblood & Ostrom, 1971), ‘desensitisation’ and ‘affective habituation’ (Dijksterhuis & Smith, 2002). However, Dijksterhuis & Smith (2002) ultimately propose that the extent to which repeated exposure to a negative stimulus diminishes negative evaluations may be a function of the extremity with which the stimulus was initially judged to be negative. Reflecting on this, the authors rationalise that the processing of mildly negative stimuli is unlikely to disrupt other psychological responses that are required to deal with it (e.g. ’fight or flight’), and so there is less need for habituation. Furthermore, there is less room for mildly negative evaluations to be improved before the valence of the response is altered (to neutral). In summary, therefore, repeated mere exposure to brand packaging might be expected to improve attitudes towards both the brand pack and the depicted brand, regardless of whether it is encountered as an affectively neutral (e.g. in use) or negatively valenced (i.e. as litter) stimulus. On this theoretical basis, the current study sets out to the test the following propositions: P1. Repeated mere exposure to a novel, unfamiliar brand pack “in use” will improve attitudes towards the brand pack stimulus and the depicted brand (by way of a classic mere exposure effect) P2. Repeated mere exposure to a novel, unfamiliar brand pack “as litter” will improve attitudes towards the brand pack stimulus and the depicted brand (by way of a classic mere exposure effect or a mere exposure effect for negatively valenced stimuli) Methodology/approach: Participants: 400 adult participants, characterised by a broad demographic spread, containing only active consumers of the study-relevant product categories. Study design: Participants are exposed to brand packs during a paced categorisation task. The task allows exposures to be repeated, brief and incidental - outside of the participant’s focal purpose, whilst still requiring that they attend to the brand pack. We then test attitudes to previously exposed vs. non-exposed brand packs (allowing a demonstration of any effect of exposure) and packs exposed “as litter” vs. “in use” (allowing a demonstration of any effect of exposure context). Brand stimuli: The brands in question are drawn from familiar product categories (chocolate bars, soft drinks, fast food, and snack bars), but are selected on the basis that they are not familiar to participants (this removes any influence of prior brand experience on our measures). Each photograph presents the brand pack either “as litter” or “in use”, and is placed within a series of photographs that also contains filler items (natural street scenes in which none of the brand packs are included). Each photograph is presented three times within a randomized sequence of images. Exposure task: Participants are given a simple categorisation task to complete during a short, automatically-timed exposure to each photograph. For example, they may be asked to identify the quadrant of the photograph in which particular element has been placed during a three second exposure. This element may also be placed next to the target brand pack. Each participant only sees half the available brand pack stimuli. Attitude tests: Following the exposure phase, participants rate all brands for how well they are liked, whether they have seen them before and in particular whether they have seen them earlier in the experiment (following Stafford & Grimes, 2012), whether they perceive the brand packs to be litter, how likely they would be to try each of the brands, and how much they would be willing to pay for them (following Roper et al., 2008; Roper & Parker, 2013). This allows us to gauge the mere exposure effect (by comparing exposed vs. non-exposed brands) as well as measure the effect of exposure being “as litter” or “in use”. Questions to establish the sample profile and facilitate measurement and analysis of potential moderators (such as general attitudes to litter, packaging, and the product categories employed) are also included. Findings As the work is currently in progress findings are not yet apparent. However, we expect to find that repeated mere exposure to a brand pack stimulus that is encountered both ‘in use’ and ‘as litter’ improves attitudes to the pack and the brand it depicts. This may take the form of a classic mere exposure effect for both types of stimulus (i.e. ‘in use’ and ‘as litter’), should they be categorised as affectively neutral or mildly negative during exposure. Alternatively, it may occur as a result adaptation and habituation to a negatively categorised stimulus (i.e. brand pack ‘as litter’) leading to less negative - but not necessarily positive – attitudes towards the pack and the brand it depicts. Theoretical implications The main theoretical implications of the study are likely to be in the area of consumer psychology, and in particular that which relates to the communication effects of brand packaging. Specifically, the study endeavours to extend the theory of mere exposure to include complex, real world stimuli (e.g.. brand packaging) that may be categorised in different ways, and with differing valence, depending on the state and situation in which they are encountered. In so doing, it serves to test the validity of the mere exposure effect in a dynamic, real-world context that is of direct relevance to marketers and society. Practical implications Support for the propositions distilled may have implications for both brand managers and public policy. Such findings would paradoxically suggest that it might be beneficial for the brand to produce a lot of litter, rather than a little. This may be explained by way of a classic mere exposure effect (i.e. repeated exposure to a brand stimulus leads people to evaluate it more positively). Alternatively, where brand litter is negatively categorised, repeated mere exposure may serve to desensitise consumers to the extent that they feel less negatively towards littered packs and the brands they depict (see also Roper and Parker, 2008). Ultimately, the implications of this study could therefore be that, left unchecked, the propagation of brand litter may result in positive outcomes for the brands in question and/or greater consumer apathy and less resistance to an even greater proliferation of brand litter. Either way, the onus may be on public policy to prevent an exposure-induced drift towards a littered society. Limitations In order to isolate the influence of mere exposure in this study, unfamiliar brands were utilised as target stimuli. The question of whether, and to what extent, the results hold for well-known and mature brands remains an issue for future research. Originality/value: This original, experimental study provides new insights into the impact of mere exposure on attitudes to brand stimuli that may be categorised in different ways, and with differing valence (i.e. affectively neutral or negative), in an applied consumption context. It also provides a novel perspective on the potential impact of attitudes towards litter and brands when discarded packaging is repeatedly encountered as brand litter. Keywords: Brand, Attitudes, Litter, Exposure, Mere Exposure References: Bornstein, R.F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987, Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-288. Bornstein, R. F. (1993). Mere exposure effects with outgroup stimuli. Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception, 195-211. Bornstein, R.F. & Craver-Lemley, C. (2004). Mere exposure effect. In Cognitive Illusions: A handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory, Edited by R.F. Pohl, pp. 215-233, Hove , UK: Psychology Press Claypool, H. M., Hugenberg, K., Housley, M. K., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Familiar eyes are smiling: On the role of familiarity in the perception of facial affect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(5), 856-866. Dijksterhuis, A., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Affective habituation: subliminal exposure to extreme stimuli decreases their extremity. Emotion, 2(3), 203. Grimes, A. (2008). Towards an integrated model of low attention advertising effects: A perceptual-conceptual framework. European Journal of Marketing, 42(1/2), 69-86. Grush, J. E. (1976). Attitude formation and mere exposure phenomena: A nonartifactual explanation of empirical findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33(3), 281. Hamm, N. H., Baum, M. R., & Nikels, K. W. (1975). Effects of race and exposure on judgments of interpersonal favorability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 11(1), 14-24. Janiszewski, C. (1993). Preattentive mere exposure effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (3), 376-392. Robinson, B. M., & Elias, L. J. (2005). Novel stimuli are negative stimuli: evidence that negative affect is reduced in the mere exposure effect. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100 (2), 365-372. Roper, S. & Parker, C. (2006). ‘How (and Where) the Mighty Have Fallen: Branded Litter,’ Journal of Marketing Management, 22 (5), 473-487. Lee, A.Y. (2002). Effects of implicit memory on memory-based versus stimulus-based brand choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (4), 440-454.Shapiro, 1999 Roper, S, Parker C & Michael Bosnjak, (2008). ‘Negative influences upon brand evaluations: The litter effect’, Australian-New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC), Sydney, December 2008. Roper, S. & Parker, C. (2008), 'The Rubbish of Marketing', Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (9-10), 881-892. Roper, S. & Parker, C. (2013). ‘Doing Well by Doing Good; A Quantitative Investigation of the Litter Effect,’ Journal of Business Research, 66 (11), 2262-2268. Rosenblood, L., & Ostrom, T. M. (1971). Is “mere exposure” merely adaptation?. In Paper presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association. Shapiro, S. (1999). When an ad's influence is beyond our conscious control: Perceptual and conceptual fluency effects caused by incidental exposure. Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 16-36 Stafford, T. & Grimes, A. (2012). Memory enhances the mere exposure effect. Psychology & Marketing, 29(12), 995-1003. Vanhuele, M. (1995). Why familiar stimuli are better liked: A study on the cognitive dynamics linking recognition and the mere exposure effect. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 1, pp. 171-175 Young, S. G., & Claypool, H. M. (2010). Mere exposure has differential effects on attention allocation to threatening and neutral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 424-427. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2p2), 1.