See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4733661

Does It Pay to Shock? Reactions to Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising

Content among University Students

Article  in  Journal of Advertising Research · September 2003

DOI: 10.1017/S0021849903030332 · Source: RePEc

CITATIONS READS

170 10,574

3 authors, including:

Darren Dahl Rajesh Manchanda

University of British Columbia - Vancouver University of Manitoba
109 PUBLICATIONS   5,576 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   1,142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

“Our” Brand's Failure Leads to “Their” Product Derogation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Darren Dahl on 10 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Does It Pay to Shock? Reactions to
Shocking and Nonshocking Advertising
Content among University Students

DARREN W. DAHL Although the use of shocking content in advertising appeals has been widely adopted,
University of British
the effectiveness of such communication strategies has not been empirically
Columbia
darren.dahl@sauder. investigated. In two laboratory studies, conducted in the context of HIV/AIDS
ubc.ca prevention, we examine the effectiveness of shock advertising in comparison to the

KRISTINA D. commonly used appeals of fear and information. Our findings suggest that shocking
FRANKENBERGER content in an advertisement significantly increases attention, benefits memory, and
Western Oregon
positively influences behavior among a group of university students.
University
frankek@wou.edu.

RAJESH V. MANCHANDA
University of Manitoba
raj_manchanda
@umanitoba.ca.
The authors would like to thank
Jennifer Argo for her assistance
in running the studies and
McKim Communications for
their assistance in creating the
advertising stimuli. The financial
support from the Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Coun-
cil of Canada is gratefully
acknowledged.
IN AN AGE when consumers are exposed to an
estimated 3,000 advertisements per day (Lasn,
1999), what does it take to get an advertisement
noticed? For many advertisers, the answer is shock.
Although opinions vary on whether shock is a
legitimate creative technique (Shannon, 1995; Van
Munching, 1998) or a gratuitous attention-grabbing
gimmick (Horovitz, 1992; Van Munching, 1998),
press accounts make it clear that shock is a widely
used advertising appeal (Cosper, 1997; Schloss-
berg, 1991; Shannon, 1995; Vagnoni, 1999; Van
Munching, 1998; Wald, 1999). The trend is so
prolific in the United Kingdom that it even has its
own name, yobbo advertising, which is “roughly
translated as the desire to shock the audience
into taking notice by whatever means possible”
(Cooper, 1996).
The purpose of this article is to investigate the
effectiveness of shocking advertisement content in
the context of a public service message. Presum-
ably, shocking messages are used in a bid to draw
attention to an advertisement with the expecta-
tion that further processing will take place if the
advertisement is noticed. Further, companies and
organizations employing these techniques often
do so thinking that a shock appeal will influence
behavior. Particularly in public service announce-
ments, it is hoped that shock appeals will gain
attention, encourage cognitive processing, and have
an immediate impact on behavior, e.g., drinking
and driving, condom usage. Whether shock ap-
peals actually produce these effects, and produce
them better than other appeals, is the main re-
search question addressed in this article.
DEFINING SHOCK ADVERTISING
A shock advertising appeal is generally regarded
as one that deliberately, rather than inadvertently,
startles and offends its audience (Gustafson and
Yssel, 1994; Venkat and Abi-Hanna, 1995). Offense
is elicited through the process of norm violation,
encompassing transgressions of law or custom
(e.g., indecent sexual references, obscenity), breaches
of a moral or social code (e.g., profanity, vulgar-
ity), or things that outrage the moral or physical
senses (e.g., gratuitous violence, disgusting images).
There is little doubt that some advertising pur-
posely breaches social norms with the intent to
shock. Probably the most widely publicized cases
include the advertising campaigns produced by
clothing makers Benetton and Calvin Klein. Over
the years Benetton’s advertisements have featured
photographs of a slain soldier’s bloodied uni-
form, a dying AIDS patient, and a white infant
nursing at a black woman’s breast. The advertise-
ments have won awards for heightening public
awareness of social issues but have also provoked
public outrage and consumer complaints (Graham,
1989; Kalish, 1990; Tinic, 1997). Calvin Klein’s
advertisements, whose “deliberately shocking

268 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003 DOI: 10.1017/S0021849903030332


graphics” (Goodrum and Dalrymple, 1990)
are typically of a sexual nature, were tar-
geted by government and political groups
for their use of “pornographic” images
(Sloan and DeCoursey, 1995).
Public health campaigns have also been
the object of public scrutiny (Eisner, 2001).
An organization called The Breast Cancer
Fund recently employed a poster cam-
paign that mimics sexy lingerie advertise-
ments, featuring attractive models in bras
and panties, but with one difference—
these women reveal mastectomy scars in-
stead of breasts (Associated Press, 2000).
The advertisements were criticized by the
media for their shocking nature, to the
extent that one media company refused
to place them. The Fund’s founder, how-
ever, defended the advertisements, argu-
ing that without the shock element, people
would “lapse into acceptance” of breast
cancer. In a public health context, shock
appeals have also been used to discour-
age alcohol abuse, encourage seat belt
safety, and promote AIDS awareness, do-
mestic violence awareness, colorectal
cancer screening, and STD prevention
(Bainbridge, 1996; Campaign, 1995; Mar-
keting Week, 1995; Schlossberg, 1991; Tylee,
1998).
LITERATURE REVIEW
The role of norms
Shocking advertising content is that which
attempts to surprise an audience by delib-
erately violating norms for societal values
and personal ideals. It is the norm viola-
tion aspect of the shock appeal that is
assumed to underlie its ability to break
through advertising clutter and capture
the attention of a target audience who
then listens and acts on the related mes-
sage. Norm violation derives from the
violation of shared expectations that peo-
ple develop through the process of social
learning. As people interact with social
groups, they come to learn the rules that
those groups define for acceptable, and
unacceptable, behavior (Baron and Byrne,
1977). The range of acceptable behaviors
defined by norms is then used to evaluate
objects, persons, actions, and ideas (Sherif
and Sherif, 1969).
Advertising, as a social object, is eval-
uated by norms and is considered offen-
sive when its content breaches norms for
decency, good taste, aesthetic propriety,
and/or personal moral standards (Day,
1991). Sony Entertainment violated norms
for decency and good taste by using dis-
gusting and violent images in a poster
depicting a dismembered body on a mor-
tuary slab (Marketing Week, 1999). Sexual
references that violate norms of morality
are consistently used by the clothing com-
pany F.C.U.K. in billboard advertisements
that have urged consumers to F.C.U.K.
“all night all long” and F.C.U.K. “think
my clothes off” (Lippert, 1999). Similarly,
Bad Frog Brewery breached norms by
using profanity in an advertisement that
featured an obscene gesture made by a
frog that has its middle finger extended
(Advertising Age, 1996). Other examples of
shocking advertisements that have been
criticized for breaking societal norms are
provided in Table 1.
We note that previous research has iden-
tified the usage of sexual, irritating, and
offensive advertising content but has not
fully investigated the role of inherent norm
violation in these approaches on con-
sumer response. Research on sex in ad-
vertising, for example, often only assumes
that the content is offensive or obscene; it
rarely tests the full implications of how a
“sexy” advertisement impacts the con-
sumer (cf. Belch, Belch, and Villarreal, 1987;
Courtney and Whipple, 1983). Research
on offensive advertising more often fo-
cuses on potentially offensive products (e.g.,
advertising for feminine hygiene, alcohol,
and underwear) than on offensive adver-
September 2003
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
tising messages (e.g., Waller, 1999). Fur-
thermore, because much of this research
is descriptive rather than causal, we know
only that individuals consider broad types
of content offensive (e.g., racist, sexist,
indecent language; Waller, 1999) but not
how they respond to a given advertise-
ment. Similarly, conclusions from re-
search on irritating advertising indicate
that some product categories (e.g., hem-
orrhoid preparations) are intrinsically
irritating and that some advertising execu-
tion characteristics (e.g., contrived situa-
tions and personal put-downs) increase
irritation (Aaker, 1985), but there is
nothing that suggests whether irritating
advertising is offensive or what kind
of impact it might have on consumer
behavior.
Shocking advertising content and
cognitive processing
Advertisers typically justify shock ap-
peals in advertising for their ability to
“[break] through the clutter,” “get no-
ticed,” and “get people’s attention” (Vagno-
ni, 1999). Although there is no academic
literature that covers responses to shock-
ing advertising per se, the notion that
shocking stimuli attract attention and fa-
cilitate other elements of cognition is out-
lined by models of advertising information
processing (e.g., McGuire, 1978). Indeed,
after attention, according to information-
processing models, shocking stimuli should
facilitate message comprehension and elab-
oration, enhance message retention, and
influence behavior. Figure 1 illustrates this
process. In the figure, exposure to the
advertisement serves as the starting point.
Initial processing of advertising informa-
tion involves a cognitive appraisal that
determines whether the advertisement vi-
olates a social and/or personal norm. Any
object or event (such as an advertisement)
that contradicts an established expecta-
tion or schema (such as a social or per-
JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 269
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS

TABLE 1
Types of Shock Appeals
Offense Elicitor Description Advertising Exemplars Published Reactions
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Disgusting images References to blood, body parts Playstation, United States, 2000 Bob Garfield, Advertising Age adver-
or secretions, orifices, especially Television commercial wherein chef tising critic, coins new term for such
urinary/fecal, gases, odors, wipes steak around toilet bowl rim advertising: “advertrocities”
disease, parasites, bodily harm and adds rolled up nose pickings as (Garfield, 2000)
(e.g., dismemberment), death garnish in preparation for serving.
and decay
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Sexual references References to masturbation, Reebok, United States, 2000 CBS rejected the advertisement, which
implied sexual acts, sexually A guy sucks snake venom out of “struck some adults as repulsive”
suggestive nudity or partial his friend’s leg in a position that is (Vranica, 2000).
nudity mistaken for felatio by an onlooker.
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Profanity/obscenity Swear words, obscene gestures, Holsten Pils, United Kingdom, 1996 Advertisement deemed part of
racial epitaphs Print advertisement depicts smashed “yobbo advertising” trend—the
bottles of the product accompanied desire to shock an audience to
by the word “shit.” attention by whatever means possible
(Cooper, 1996).
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Vulgarity References to crude or distasteful Smartbeep, United States, 1999 Pushes the limits of bad taste
acts by humans or animals, such Woman “lets rip a frat-house blast” (Vagnoni, 1999).
as nose picking, farting, licking, of gas while waiting for date to join
humping, or drinking from the toilet her in car.
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Impropriety Violations of social conventions Adidas, Canada, 1993 Sports Illustrated rejected the adver-
for dress, manners, etc. Magazine advertisement depicts tisement because the male nudity was
all-nude male soccer team. considered offensive by the magazine
(Advertising Age International, 1993).
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Moral offensiveness Harming innocent people/animals, Diesel Jeans, Italy, 1998 Written complaints to British
gratuitous violence or sex, alluding Television commercial features a Advertising Standards Authority;
to people or objects that provoke soldier who is shot in the back by the press tags the campaign
violence (e.g., Hitler), violating a German sniper while protecting “controversial” (Financial Post, 1998).
standards for fair behavior (e.g., a friend wearing Diesel jeans.
shooting a person in the back),
putting children in provocative Acurist, United Kingdom, 1997 Press calls campaign “startling” and
situations (e.g., sexual, violent), Depicts “skeletal” model wearing “controversial” (Hall, 1997).
victim exploitation watch on upper arm with tagline
“Watch your weight”
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Religious taboos Inappropriate use of spiritual or Benetton, 1994 Campaign designed to shock and
religious symbols and/or rituals Depicts a priest and nun kissing provoke (Marketing Week, 1994)

British Safety Council, 1994 The British Advertising Standards

Leaflet campaign for national condom Authority received 1,192 complaints
week depicts the Pope wearing a (Marketing, 1996).
safety helmet with the line, “The
11 th commandment—thou shalt
wear a condom.”
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

270 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003


Figure 1 A Preliminary Model of Consumer Reactions to
Shock Appeals
sonal norm) causes surprise (Stiensmeier-
Pelster, Martini, and Reisenzein, 1995).
Surprise is a significant part of the pro-
cess because it initializes the processing
of advertising information; it attracts at-
tention to the novel stimulus or event
(Meyer, Niepel, Rudolph, and Schötz-
wohl, 1991). By focusing attention on the
stimulus, surprise encourages additional
processing of advertising content, an idea
supported by research on expectancy-
disconfirmation theory. Empirical find-
ings in this area demonstrate that
individuals engage in higher levels of
attributional thought for unexpected (sur-
prising) compared to expected events
(Pyszczynski and Greenberg, 1981). Sur-
prise, therefore, encourages further cog-
nitive activity as individuals seek to
understand the source of their surprise.
The additional processing of advertising
information takes the form of comprehen-
sion, a literal understanding of the mes-
sage, and elaboration, the production of
product/message-related thoughts (Green-
wald and Leavitt, 1984). Indeed, empiri-
cal research investigating unexpectedness,
incongruity, and other dimensions of stim-
ulus novelty indicates that these charac-
teristics encourage cognitive processes that
produce robust effects on memory (Heck-
ler and Childers, 1992; Lynch and Srull,
1982; MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski,
1991). The effects of cognitive processing
on behavior are generally weaker and not
as well documented (Vakratsas and Am-
bler, 1999), but the presumption is that
shocking advertising content, because it
attracts attention and elicits cognitive pro-
cessing, stands a better chance of eliciting
appropriate behavior compared to ad-
vertisements that have less success at
moving people through the stages of in-
formation processing.
Our first study tests the process just
described by comparing three print adver-
tisements, one of which is deliberately
designed to provoke offense—the shock
appeal.
STUDY 1
Method
Subjects and setting. A between-subjects
experimental design employing three dif-
ferent advertising appeals (shock, fear, and
information) was used to test for effects
on advertising attention, recall, and rec-
ognition in an HIV/AIDS prevention con-
text. We chose a HIV/AIDS context, as
prevention communications employed by
public health organizations have a history
of using “shock value” messages to com-
bat ambivalence toward this particular dis-
ease (Schlossberg, 1991).
In defining our experimental sample, it
was important to center the communica-
tion in a population in which an AIDS-
prevention message had relevance and
September 2003
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
application. We chose to use student sub-
jects in this context because they repre-
sent a realistic target market for HIV/
AIDS prevention initiatives. Indeed, among
the cases of positive HIV infection re-
ported in North America through 2001
approximately one-third occurred among
people age 29 and younger (Centers for
Disease Control [CDC], 2001; Health Can-
ada, 2002). Risk factors are generally higher
among this group because of their in-
creased incidence of sexual activity and
drug-related behaviors (CDC, 2002), and
both the CDC and Health Canada have
identified their nations’ youth as repre-
senting the key to preventing the spread
of HIV/AIDS in their countries.
One-hundred-and-five undergraduate
students participated in the study for
course credit. Subjects were randomly as-
signed to one of the three experimental
conditions and run individually. Subjects
ranged in age from 18 to 27.
Stimuli. To prepare stimulus materials,
we first examined a convenience sample
of HIV/AIDS prevention advertisements
targeted toward our subject population
that had appeared in print in the United
States or Canada during the preceding
three years. Three print advertisements,
one for each type of appeal (i.e., informa-
tion, fear, and shock), were selected from
the sample to serve as frames for stimu-
lus development. None of these advertise-
ments ran in the geographical region in
which the study was conducted. Each ad-
vertisement promoted condom usage as
an aspect of a healthy sexual lifestyle.
Borrowing headlines and graphical themes
from the selected advertisements, three
otherwise original print advertisements
were developed by an advertising agency.
The shock advertisement’s headline read
“Don’t be a F—ing Idiot” and featured a
hazy but recognizable visual of a nude
couple in an intimate embrace (see Fig-
JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 271
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
ure 2). The fear advertisement showed a
driver’s license with the expiry date cir-
cled in red and the headline “If you get
the AIDS virus now, you and your license
could expire at the same time” (see Fig-
ure 3). The information advertisement fea-
tured a graphic of the AIDS acronym with
the words “Acquired Immunodeficiency
Syndrome” appearing in brackets imme-
diately below. The subhead read “First
Identified May 11, 1982 in New York City”
(see Figure 4). At the bottom of each ad-
Figure 2 Shock Appeal
272 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
vertisement was the tagline “Use a Con-
dom!” in large letters, with smaller text
below that read “Latex condoms, when
used correctly and consistently, signifi-
cantly reduce the chance of acquiring
HIV/AIDS.”
Pretesting was conducted to ensure that
the advertisements were perceived as con-
veying shock, fear, or information, and
that they were equally understandable and
likable. A sample of undergraduate stu-
dents (n 5 77) viewed one of three 9 _12 by
11 inch mockups of the test advertise-
ments (shock n 5 23, fear n 5 28, in-
formation n 5 26). Subjects rated the
advertisement on 7-point scales (Disagree/
Agree) indicating the extent to which ad-
vertisements were considered shocking,
scary/frightening (r 5 .815), educational/
factual (r 5 .713), understandable, and
likable.
As expected, the shock advertisement
(mean 5 4.41) was shown to be more
shocking than the fear advertisement
(mean 5 3.55) and the information adver-
tisement (mean 5 2.98). Further, the fear
advertisement was deemed more fright-
ening (mean 5 4.20) than the shock
advertisement (mean 5 3.20) or the infor-
mational advertisement (mean 5 3.17).
Finally, the information advertisement
(mean 5 4.63) was rated more educational/
factual than either the shock (mean 5
3.85) or fear advertisement (mean 5 3.77).
The three advertisements were rated to be
equally likable and understandable. Table 2
provides the relevant test statistics for these
comparisons.
Procedure. Upon arriving at the lab re-
ception area, subjects were told they would
undertake the study in an alternate room,
as the experimental lab was being reno-
vated. The alternate room was described
as a “student clubroom” that had been
temporarily vacated and loaned to the
experimenters for the week. The club-
room was in fact a controlled experimen-
tal environment consisting of a table, chair,
the stimulus poster, and four decoy post-
ers (scenery poster, Safewalk poster, Pepsi
poster, and student crossing poster). The
table and chair were situated such that
subjects had an equal opportunity to view
each poster. Subjects were asked to sit at
the table and complete a pricing survey (a
decoy). At this point the experimenter
indicated that they had forgotten to bring
the first part of the survey and asked the

Figure 3 Fear Appeal
subject to wait while the missing section
was retrieved. This delay provided the
subject an opportunity to be exposed to
the posters in the room. The experimenter
returned after 1.5 minutes, provided the
decoy survey, and instructed the subject
to return to the reception area for debrief-
ing after completing the survey.
After arriving at the reception area, the
subject was debriefed about the purpose
of the decoy study. As part of this debrief-
ing, a verbal suspicion probe was admin-
istered to determine if subjects suspected
that the posters were the experimental
stimuli. This probe involved asking the
subject what they thought the purpose of
the study was. Subjects were deemed sus-
picious if they mentioned the posters or
indicated that the experimenters had ul-
terior motives beyond the completion of
the pricing survey. Subjects who were not
identified to be suspicious (n 5 96; 32 per
experimental cell) were asked to com-
plete an instrument containing the depen-
September 2003
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
dent variables detailed below. Subjects
who completed the instrument were then
fully debriefed and thanked for their
participation.
Measures. The survey instrument first
measured unaided recall of the posters by
asking the subjects to write down the
names or themes of the posters they re-
membered seeing in the student club-
room. Subjects were then asked to indicate
which of these posters attracted their at-
tention the most. They were then asked to
explain why the posters attracted their
attention. Responses to this question were
coded by two independent research assis-
tants, blind to the purpose of the experi-
ment, who identified if subjects mentioned
a specific norm violation as a cause of
their attention toward the advertisement.
Initial agreement between the coders was
96.4 percent, and disputes were resolved
through discussion with one of the au-
thors. Following the cognitive response
question, a list of the eight posters (the
five that were in the room and an addi-
tional three that were not) was provided
and subjects were asked to indicate which
posters they recognized. A second recog-
nition measure provided five statements
from which subjects were to select the
statement they remembered seeing in the
copy of the target poster.
Only those subjects that remembered
the “Use a Condom” poster were in-
structed to complete the manipulation
check measures. These consisted of a se-
ries of 7-point scales (Disagree/Agree) that
asked subjects how they felt after viewing
the target advertisement (shocked, scared,
educated). Additional measures asked sub-
jects to indicate whether the advertise-
ment was obscene, startling, likable, and
understandable. All subjects then com-
pleted an open-ended question that asked
them what they thought the study was
about (a second suspicion probe). They
JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 273
SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
Figure 4 Information Appeal
were then asked to indicate their age,
gender, relationship status, and usage of
condoms. Responses to these items had
no effect on the results reported below
and therefore are not discussed further.
Findings
Preliminary analyses. Planned contrasts
were used to test for the effectiveness of
our manipulations across the three exper-
274 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
imental conditions. Paralleling the pre-
test, the shock advertisement was perceived
to be more shocking (shock mean 5 4.00,
fear mean 5 2.77, inform mean 5 2.27),
the fear advertisement more frightening
(fear mean 5 3.81, shock mean 5 2.28,
inform mean 5 2.92), and the information
advertisement more educational (inform
mean 5 5.69, shock mean 5 4.72, fear
mean 5 4.58). No differences were found
across the three advertisements for the
likable and understandable manipulation
check measures. Table 2 provides the rel-
evant test statistics for these comparisons.
To test our shock definition, we also com-
pared ratings of the obscene and startling
nature of the three advertisements. As ex-
pected, the shock advertisement (mean 5
3.25) was perceived to be more obscene than
the fear advertisement (mean 5 1.73) and
the information advertisement (mean 5
2.23). The shock advertisement (mean 5
3.91) was also shown to be more startling
than the fear advertisement (mean 5 3.00)
and the information advertisement (mean 5
2.62). These results validate our concep-
tualization that shocking advertising both
startles audiences and violates societal
norms in its execution.
Responses to the question related to the
perceived purpose of the study indicated
that none of the subjects was aware of the
experimental hypotheses.
Main analyses. The primary dependent
measures in this study focused on the
attention, recall, recognition, and process-
ing of the three experimental advertise-
ments (see Table 2). When asked to indicate
which poster drew their attention the most,
a greater percentage of subjects in the
shock advertisement condition chose the
experimental advertisement (84.4 percent)
compared to the fear (40.6 percent) and
information conditions (46.9 percent). Anal-
ysis using logistic regression, with atten-
tion as the criterion variable and the three
advertising appeals as dummy-predictor
variables reinforces the previous results
by indicating a higher probability for sub-
jects in the shock condition to identify the
experimental advertisement as being able
to capture their attention most.
The coded cognitive responses indi-
cated that among subjects naming the
shock advertisement as that which at-
tracted their attention the most, 77.8 per-
cent mentioned a specific norm violation
 SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS

TABLE 2
Stimulus Means, Sample Sizes, and Test Statistics
Advertising Type Statistical Comparisons
................................................................................. ........................................................
Shock Fear Information Test Statistic p<
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Pretest means n = 23 n = 28 n = 26
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Shocking 4.41 3.55 2.98 a. t(75) = 2.02 .05
c. t(75) = 3.31 .01
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Frightening 3.20 4.20 3.17 a. t(75) = 2.25 .05
b. t(75) = 2.38 .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Educational/factual 3.85 3.77 4.63 b. t(75) = 2.29 .05
c. t(75) = 1.98 .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Study 1—Preliminary Analysis Means n = 32 n = 32 n = 32
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Shocking 4.00 2.77 2.27 a. t(94) = 2.37 .05
c. t(94) = 3.78 .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Frightening 2.28 3.81 2.92 a. t(94) = 3.08 .01
b. t(94) = 1.70 .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Educational/factual 4.72 4.58 5.69 b. t(94) = 2.20 .05
c. t(94) = 2.02 .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Obscene 3.25 1.73 2.23 a. t(94) = 3.82 .001
c. t(94) = 2.56 .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Startling 3.91 3.00 2.62 a. t(94) = 1.78 .05
c. t(94) = 2.54 .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Study 1—Main Analysis Percentages
Percent who claim test advertisement drew most attention 84.4 40.6 46.9 x 2 (2) = 14.65 .01
Wald t (1) = 9.05 .01
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Percent who mention norm violation as attention draw 77.8 7.7 6.7 x 2 (2) = 28.14 .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Percent who recalled test advertisement 96.9 78.1 78.1 x 2 (2) = 5.69 .10
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Percent who recognized test advertisement 100.0 81.3 81.3 x 2 (2) = 6.86 .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Percent who correctly recognized test advertising copy 90.6 59.4 46.9 x 2 (2) = 14.41 .01
Wald t (1) = 7.18 .01
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Note: a 5 Shock versus Fear, b 5 Fear versus Information, c 5 Shock versus Information

as a factor in drawing their attention. The . . . norm violation is the key to heightened awareness of
percentages of people identifying norm
violations in the other conditions were shocking advertising content.
much lower (information, 6.7 percent; fear,
7.7 percent). This result validates our con-
ceptualization that norm violation is the On recall, individuals in the shock con- percent) than those in either the informa-
key to heightened awareness of shocking dition recalled the experimental advertise- tion or fear conditions (78.1 percent each).
advertising content. ment at a significantly higher level (96.9 Analysis on the recognition measure indi-

September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 275

SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
cated that all subjects in the shock condi-
tion were able to identify the advertisement
when cued, whereas those in the fear and
information conditions realized only an
81.3 percent recognition rate. Further, a
greater proportion of subjects in the shock
condition were able to identify the correct
advertising copy (90.6 percent) compared
to the fear (59.4 percent) and information
conditions (46.9 percent). Logistic regres-
sion, with recognition of the advertising
copy serving as the criterion variable
and the advertising appeals acting as
dummy-variable predictors, indicates a
higher probability for subjects in the shock
condition to identify the correct advertis-
ing copy.
Summary
As expected, the shock appeal outper-
formed the fear and information appeals
on measures of attention, recall, and rec-
ognition. Importantly, our results showed
that subjects felt the shock advertisement
violated social norms, and this finding is
interpreted as the cause of heightened
awareness for the shock appeal. The evi-
dence from this initial study supports our
contention that shocking advertising con-
tent is superior to nonshocking content in
its ability to attract attention and facilitate
memory for the advertisement.
STUDY 2
Method
Subjects and setting. The first study
showed positive outcomes for shocking
advertising content with respect to mea-
sures of attention and memory. However,
it remains unclear about how shocking
advertising content will impact subsequent
behavior. On one hand, given the strong
positive effects of shock advertising on
memory, it is likely that these positive
effects will in turn translate into actual
276 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
intended behavior. In contrast, it is also
possible that due to the norm violation
inherent in shock appeals, the resulting
outcome effect of shocking advertising con-
tent may be unintended negative behav-
ior. To investigate these differing positions,
a second study was conducted in which
the subsequent behavior of subjects ex-
posed to shocking advertising content was
measured.
Study 2 employed the same stimuli and
between-subjects experimental design that
was used in study 1 but added a control
condition in which the “Use a Condom”
poster was absent. One-hundred-and-
forty undergraduate students partici-
pated in the study for course credit.
Subjects were randomly assigned to one
of the four experimental conditions and
run individually.
Procedure. The same cover story and pro-
cedure that were used in study 1 were
followed with the exception that quali-
fied (i.e., nonsuspicious) subjects (n 5
136; 34 per cell) did not respond to a
paper and pencil measure. Instead, sub-
jects were directed to a table in the re-
ception area. Subjects were told that on
this table were some items left over from
cleaning out the clubroom and that the
club no longer wanted to keep these items.
Subjects were informed they could look
at the items and keep any that they
wanted. The experimenter left the recep-
tion area at this point on the pretext of
getting the extra credit roster from an-
other room so that the subject could sign
it. This allowed subjects to be alone to
select and take any of the items. The
experimenter returned to the reception
area after two minutes, obtained the sub-
ject’s signature, and thanked the subject
for participating. Once the subject left
the reception area, the experimenter
counted the items and made a note of
which items had been picked up.
Measures. On the table were eight items
in sets of five each: (1) pamphlets by a
public mental health organization on sui-
cide prevention; (2) pamphlets on alcohol
and drug consumption; (3) information
on United Way charities; (4) personal bor-
rowing information from a local bank;
(5) sunscreen advice from the Cancer
Society; (6) Condom Knowledge from
Durex; (7) AIDS ribbons; and (8) a busi-
ness card with the HIV/AIDS hotline from
a local medical clinic. Of the eight items,
the last three were used to measure the
dependent variable.
Findings
The dependent variable was measured by
observing which of the HIV/AIDS-related
materials the subject picked up when the
experimenter was absent from the room.
Table 3 gives the percentages of item
pickup for each experimental condition.
Differences across conditions were shown
to be statistically significant, with subjects
in the shock (47.1 percent) and fear (52.9
percent) conditions more likely to pick up
materials than in the information (23.5
percent) and control (20.6 percent) condi-
tions. Analysis using logistic regression,
with the observation variable serving as
the criterion and the three advertising and
control conditions acting as dummy-
variable predictors, indicates a higher prob-
ability for subjects in both the shock
condition and the fear condition to pickup
HIV/AIDS-related materials.
Summary
Approximately one-half of the subjects in
the shock and fear conditions picked up
an AIDS-related item, compared to ap-
proximately 20 percent in the information
and control conditions. Beyond benefits
for attention and memory, shocking ad-
vertising content was able to motivate
subjects to acknowledge the risk of AIDS
 SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS

TABLE 3 tisements, need not be considered to be

necessarily negative and ineffective. In a
Percentages of People Who Picked up HIV/AIDS Items
public-policy context we have shown that,
Experimental Condition % Who Select an Item although a shock advertisement generates
.............................................................................................................................................................
an acknowledgement of norm violation
Control 20.6
............................................................................................................................................................. among viewers, it also ensures that sub-
Fear 52.9
............................................................................................................................................................. jects remember the message and engage
Information 23.5
............................................................................................................................................................. in message-relevant behavior. In a clut-
Shock 47.1 tered advertising environment, shocking
.............................................................................................................................................................
advertising content ensures that the mes-
n = 34 subjects per cell x 2 (3) = 11.836, p < .01
sage will be heard.
Shock—Wald t (1) = 5.10, p < .05
We temper our endorsement for shock
Fear—Wald t (1) = 7.23, p < .01
............................................................................................................................................................. tactics by noting critical characteristics of

acquisition and obtain information regard- The shock appeal . . . was effective at encouraging sub-
ing safe sex behavior.
Interestingly, we noted similar positive jects to remember advertising information and to engage
effects for the fear advertisement appeal.
Given the findings from our two studies, in message-relevant behaviors.
it seems that although shock and fear are
equally effective in producing message
consistent behaviors, these appeals may this than other types of appeals (e.g., fear the research context we employed. First,
be operating in different ways. Shock seems and information). Furthermore, the two the subject population (university stu-
to be effective because its norm violation studies demonstrate that it is possible for dents) we chose to expose to the shock
surprises the subject and produces addi- a shock appeal to have positive effects appeal is a specific at-risk population for
tional cognitive processing. The effective- beyond initial attention. The shock appeal AIDS transmission. It has been recom-
ness of the fear appeal may be due to the investigated in this study was effective mended that shock appeals should be tar-
fact that it solicits and taps into a more at encouraging subjects to remember ad- geted to specific populations that will be
affective response from the subject. Fu- vertising information and to engage in open to the message conveyed (Schloss-
ture research that explores the potential message-relevant behaviors. This article berg, 1991; Tylee, 1998), and this seems
differences in the processes resulting from also makes an important contribution by probable for the audience we selected.
these two forms of appeal would be help- conceptualizing shock as a combination Subject populations drawn from different
ful in further understanding their similar- of norm violation and surprise. This as- age cohorts, who are less educated or
ities and differences. sists in the development of future re- who reside in different countries, may
search on shocking communications by have responded differently to our shock
CONCLUSIONS providing a meaningful conceptual defi- message. Second, our research was con-
This research tested the effectiveness of a nition from which to work. ducted in a public health context through
shock appeal against two other com- Our research would suggest that con- a specific public service message. It re-
monly used appeals in the context of HIV/ trary to recent skepticism and concern mains to be seen whether the shock ap-
AIDS prevention and, in doing so, makes regarding the negative effects of using peal effects shown in this research translate
the following contributions. First, study 1 shocking advertising content (e.g., Eads, into success in other types of advertising
confirmed what has until now been only 1999), this type of communications strat- situations. It is possible that there is a
an intuition that shock is very good at egy can be effective. The publicity that is greater toleration for norm violation in a
attracting attention. Second, it was dem- often generated, as a consequence of the public-policy context because viewers may
onstrated that a shock appeal is better at norm-violating nature of shocking adver- agree that “the ends justify the means”

September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 277

SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
(Thacker, 1993). Finally, the shock tactic
we employed is relevant to the subject
matter of the communicated message. In
the shock appeal tested, we matched the
subject matter of the communication (i.e.,
safe sex) to relevant shock graphics (i.e.,
naked couple embracing) and language
(i.e., f--k) execution. The importance of
the fit between the message topic and
shock tactic employed has been previ-
ously recognized (Gustafson and Yssel,
1994), and studies show that communica-
tions can be rendered less effective when
their executions involve a mismatch be-
tween either the product message (Court-
ney and Whipple, 1983) or execution
message (Venkat and Abi-Hanna, 1995).
Limitations and future research
There are a number of limitations of this
research that provide direction for future
investigation. While this study makes a
significant contribution in reporting ac-
tual rather than intended behaviors, the
behaviors we tested are product-use re-
lated (e.g., awareness/concern through
picking up an HIV/AIDS ribbon or bro-
chure) rather than actual product (e.g.,
condom) use. The current study also mea-
sured memory after only a short delay,
leaving future research to discover any
long-term effects on memory and behav-
ior for shocking stimuli. Further, it re-
mains to be seen whether the positive
benefits in attention we attribute to shock
appeals are mitigated by a faster rate of
advertising wearout for shock appeals.
The blunt execution of norm violation
and surprise inherent in shock advertise-
ments may quickly lose its “edginess” as
the audience becomes familiarized with
the appeal. Future research should probe
for discrepancies in wearout rates for shock
advertisements vis-à-vis other advertising
appeals and test for relevant implications.
Future research should also be di-
rected toward identifying the appropri-
278 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
ate advertising situations, brand and
products offerings, and advertising medi-
ums suited for shock tactics. As noted
previously, in our research we chose a
public policy context as it seemed that
shock tactics can be judged to be appro-
priate in these types of advertising situ-
ations (Schlossberg, 1991; Thacker, 1993).
Shock tactics also seem commonplace in
advertising situations that involve a new-
product or brand introduction (Lauro,
1999; Sellar, 1999). For example, internet
companies like Outpost.com, Ecampus.
com, and Beyond.com utilized shock tac-
tics when first entering the ecommerce
marketplace. In these instances, the
attention-grabbing ability of a shock ap-
peal was used to gain top-of-mind aware-
ness (Lauro, 1999). We also note that a
large number of the shock advertise-
ments we encountered advertised prod-
ucts and brands targeted to younger age
cohorts. Shock tactics map well onto the
stereotypical youth need for rebellion and
societal norm challenging behavior. A
shock appeal targeted to a youth audi-
ence has the potential to be deemed “cool”
and relevant to this audience’s specific
needs. Indeed, some research suggests
that this particular audience is prone to
like and accept potentially offensive ma-
terial (Oppliger and Zillman, 1997). While
somewhat intuitive, these ideas regard-
ing the application of shock are derived
from anecdotal and cursory evidence. Fu-
ture research is needed to better define
the specific advertising characteristics
that are appropriate for an effective shock
appeal.
Our research used a shock advertise-
ment that was rated as likable by the
subject population participating in our
study. Our findings that showed the ef-
fectiveness of the tested shock appeal thus
fit well with previous research linking
advertising effectiveness with advertising
liking (Haley and Baldinger, 1991). Is it
possible, however, for a shocking adver-
tisement that is potentially disliked to be
effective? The negative repercussions re-
alized by Benetton for using death row
inmates in a recent advertising campaign
provide some anecdotal evidence that a
strongly disliked shock appeal may not
provide tangible benefits (de Chenecey,
2000; Lippert, 2000). However, other dis-
liked shock advertisements (e.g., Calvin
Klein’s 1995 child exploitive advertise-
ments) have been cited as casual factors
in an organization’s subsequent profitabil-
ity (Rees, 1995). Future research should
investigate the boundaries and strength
of the shocking aspect of an appeal to
better define what leads to shock adver-
tising effectiveness.
Our findings suggest that advertising
practitioners as well as public policy mak-
ers should consider the use of shocking
content in their advertising campaigns.
Skeptics have criticized the effectiveness
of shocking advertising, but our research
indicates that shocking communications
can have positive effects on attention,
memory, and behavior. Still, we believe
that direct norm violation in advertising
should be used responsibly. This would
entail careful target audience selection and
savvy creative execution. Just as some
people can enjoy a vulgar or tasteless
joke, certain advertising audiences can like
and respond to a shocking advertisement
even while judging it obscene or vulgar.
Furthermore, shocking advertisements
should reveal some benefit to using the
product, rather than using shocking con-
tent as an unrelated attention-getting
gimmick. Despite these caveats and the
limitations described above, our research
suggests that skepticism regarding the ef-
fectiveness of shocking advertising might
be put aside until additional investiga-
tions are made into the appropriate use of
norm violations in different advertising
contexts.
 SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS

................................................................................................ Centers for Disease Control and Preven- Greenwald, Anthony G., and Clark Lea-
DARREN W. DAHL is associate professor of marketing tion (CDC). HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 13, 1 vitt. “Audience Involvement in Advertising:
at the Sauder School of Business at the University of (2001). Four Levels.” Journal of Consumer Research 11, 1
British Columbia in Vancouver, British Columbia. (1984): 581–92.

................................................................................................ –——. Fact Sheet —Young People at Risk: HIV/

KRISTINA D. FRANKENBERGER is associate professor of AIDS Among America’s Youth. [URL: http:// Gustafson, Bob, and Johan Yssel. “Are Ad-

marketing in the Division of Business and Economics www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/youth.htm] , vertisers Practicing Safe Sex?” Marketing News,

at Western Oregon University in Monmouth, Oregon. 2002. March 14, 1994.

................................................................................................
Cooper, Ann. “The Shock of the Crude.” Ad- Haley, Russell I., and Allan L. Baldinger.
RAJESH V. MANCHANDA is associate professor of mar-
week, February 5, 1996. “The ARF Copy Research Validity Project.” Jour-
keting at the I.H. Asper School of Business at the
nal of Advertising Research 31, 2 (1991): 11–32.
University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
Cosper, Darcy. “Shock Value.” Print 51, 6 (1997):
38–40. Hall, Emma. “TBWA Simons Uses a Skeletal
Model in Shock Accurist Ads.” Campaign-
REFERENCES
London, November 7, 1997.
Courtney, Alice E., and Thomas W. Whipple.
Aaker, David A. “Causes of Irritation in Ad- Sex Stereotyping in Advertising. Lexington, MA:
D.C. Health and Company, 1983. Health Canada. HIV and AIDS in Canada.
vertising.” Journal of Marketing 49, 2 (1985):
Surveillance Report to December 31, 2001. Divi-
47–57.
sion of HIV/AIDS Epidemiology and Surveil-
Day, Louis A. Ethics in Media Communications.
lance, Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention
Advertising Age. “Bad Frog Beer Triggers an Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1991.
and Control, Health Canada, 2002.
Amphibious Assault.” April 1, 1996.

de Chenecey, Sean Pillot. “When is it Right

Heckler, Susan E., and Terry L. Childers.
Advertising Age International. “Adidas to Use Shock Ad Strategies?” Marketing, March
“The Role of Expectancy and Relevancy in
Finds ‘SI’ Ad Cancellation Difficult to Bare.” 30, 2000.
Memory for Verbal and Visual Information:
July 5, 1993.
What is Incongruity?” Journal of Consumer Re-
Eads, Stefani. “Eighty-Six the Flying Gerbils.”
search 18, 4 (1992): 475–92.
Associated Press. “Breast Cancer Ads Cause
Business Week, December 6, 1999.
Stir.” The New York Times on the Web, January
27, 2000. Horovitz, Bruce. “Shock Ads: New Rage that
Eisner, Jane. “Nonprofit ‘Shock’ Ads Overdo Spawns Rage.” Los Angeles Times, March 22,
It.” The Philadelphia Inquirer, February 12, 2001. 1992.
Bainbridge A. “’Offensive Ads at All-Time High
Warns the ASA.” Marketing, April 4, 1996.
Financial Post. “Diesel Defends War Ads.” Kalish, David. “Doing Well by Doing Good.”
November 9, 1998. Marketing and Media Decisions 25, 1 (1990): 22–23.
Baron, Robert A., and Donn Byrne. Social
Psychology: Understanding Human Interaction. Bos-
ton, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1977. Garfield, Bob. Advertrocities. [video]. New York: Lasn, Kalle. Culture Jam: The Uncooling of Amer-
London International Advertising Awards, ica. New York: Eagle Brook, 1999.
2000.
Belch, George E., Michael A. Belch, and
Angelina Villarreal. “Effects of Advertising Lauro, Patricia Winters. “Dot-com Compa-
Communications: Review of Research.” In Re- Goodrum, Charles, and Helen Dalrymple. nies Have Built Their Brands by Using More
search in Marketing, Jagdish Sheth, ed. New Advertising in America: The First 200 Years. New Ads, in Good Taste or Not. Often Not.” The
York: JAI Press, 1987. York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990. New York Times, September 30, 1999.

Campaign. “LTA Bans Anti-Drink Poster.” Feb- Graham, Judith. “Benetton ‘Colors’ the Race Lippert, Barbara. “All FCUKed Up.” Adweek,
ruary 10, 1995. Issue.” Advertising Age, September 11, 1989. October 11, 1999.

September 2003 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 279

SHOCKING ADVERTISEMENTS
–——. “Capital Offense.” Adweek, February 28,
2000.
Lynch, John G., Jr., and Thomas K. Srull.
“Memory and Attentional Factors in Consumer
Choice: Concepts and Research Methods.” Jour-
nal of Consumer Research 9, 1 (1982): 18–37.
MacInnis, Deborah J., Christine Moorman,
and Bernard J. Jaworski. “Enhancing and Mea-
suring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and
Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads.”
Journal of Marketing 55, 4 (1991): 32–53.
Marketing. “‘Offensive’ Ads at All-Time High
Warns the ASA.” April 4, 1996.
Marketing Week. “Blood Sweaters and Tears.”
June 3, 1994.
–——. “NSPCC to Hit Cinemas with ‘Shock’
Ad.” 1995.
–——. “ASA Blasts Sony for ‘Offensive’ Mor-
tuary Ad.” February 11, 1999.
McGuire, William J. “An Information Process-
ing Model of Advertising Effectiveness.” In
Behavioral and Management Science in Marketing,
Harry J. Davis and Alvin J. Silk, eds. New
York: Ronald Press, 1978.
Meyer, Wulf-Uwe, Michael Niepel, Udo Ru-
dolph, and Achim Schötzwohl. “An Experi-
mental Analysis of Surprise.” Cognition and
Emotion 5, 4 (1991): 295–311.
Oppliger, Patrice A., and Dolf Zillman. “Dis-
gust in Humor: Its Appeal to Adolescents.”
Humor 10, 4 (1997): 421–37.
280 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH September 2003
View publication stats
Pyszczynski, Thomas A., and Jeff Greenberg.
“Role of Disconfirmed Expectancies in the In-
stigation of Attributional Processing.” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 40, 1 (1981):
31–38.
Rees, Jon. “Calvin Klein Makes ‘Offensive’ Ads
Pay.” Marketing Week, September 8, 1995.
Schlossberg, Howard. “AIDS-Prevention Ads
Spark Battle Over What’s Proper.” Marketing
News, April 29, 1991.
Sellar, Sara. “Pop Goes the Gerbil.” Sales and
Marketing Management 151, 5 (1999): 15.
Shannon, John. “Why Shock Ads Have Their
Place.” Marketing Week, November 10, 1995.
Sherif, Muzafer, and Carolyn W. Sherif.
Social Psychology. New York: Harper & Row,
1969.
Sloan, Pat, and DeCoursey, Jennifer. “Klein’s
Risque Jeans Ads Dodge Kiddie Porn Rap
from the Feds.” Advertising Age, November 20,
1995.
Stiensmeier-Pelster, Joachim, Alice Mar-
tini, and Rainer Reisenzein. “The Role of
Surprise in the Attribution Process.” Cognition
and Emotion 9, 1 (1995): 5–31.
Thacker, Kathy. “Brassy vs. Classy Creative:
Defining Taste in Advertising.” Adweek, March
22, 1993.
Tinic, Serra A. “United Colors and Untied
Meanings: Benetton and the Commodification
of Social Issues.” Journal of Communication 47, 3
(1997): 3–25.
Tylee, John. “AMV Ad Aims to Shock Viewers
into Belting Up.” Campaign, July 10, 1998.
Vagnoni, Anthony. “’Something About’ This
Advertising.” Advertising Age, February 8,
1999.
Vakratsas, Demetrios, and Tim Ambler. “How
Advertising Really Works: What Do We
Really Know?” Journal of Marketing 63, 1 (1999):
26–43.
Van Munching, Philip. “The Devil’s Ad-
man.” Brandweek, August 24, 1998.
Venkat, Ramesh, and Noba Abi-Hanna. “Ef-
fectiveness of Visually Shocking Advertise-
ments: Is It Context Dependent?” In
Administrative Science Association of Canada Pro-
ceedings, 1995.
Vranica, Suzanne. “Hard Sell: In 2000, Taste
was Optional.” Wall Street Journal, December 5,
2000.
Wald, Matthew L. “Shock to Replace Dum-
mies in TV Ads on Seat Belt Use.” The New
York Times, January 27, 1999.
Waller, David S. “Attitudes Towards Offen-
sive Advertising: An Australian Study.” Journal
of Consumer Marketing 16, 3 (1999): 288–94.