Missing the Mark

Currently, most work in advertising assumes neutral or positive effects of exposed ads that are physically present, but not actively attended to by consumers. The primary justification for this assumption is the mere exposure effect. Recent work suggests that when people avoid distracting stimuli while engaged in a search or focused activity, however, negative affect for the distractor can occur. This distractor devaluation hypothesis was applied to banner ads. Results show that participants developed more negative attitudes toward avoided brands that appeared as distractor ads on a Web page, particularly when the ads were visually similar and near the target content.

[1]  S. Tipper,et al.  Retrieval of implicit inhibitory processes: The impact of visual field, object-identity, and memory dynamics , 2004 .

[2]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulle- Tin Chen, Bargh / Consequences of Automatic Evaluation Immediate Behavioral Predispositions to Approach or Avoid the Stimulus , 2022 .

[3]  Jane E. Raymond,et al.  Affective Influences of Selective Attention , 2006 .

[4]  Chris Janiszewski,et al.  The Influence of Print Advertisement Organization on Affect Toward a Brand Name , 1990 .

[5]  Chang-Hoan Cho,et al.  WHY DO PEOPLE AVOID ADVERTISING ON THE INTERNET? , 2004 .

[6]  J D Gabrieli,et al.  On the relationship between recognition familiarity and perceptual fluency: evidence for distinct mnemonic processes. , 1998, Acta psychologica.

[7]  S. Tipper,et al.  Long-Term Inhibition of Return of Attention , 2003, Psychological science.

[8]  Carol A. Seger,et al.  Implicit learning. , 1994, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  Anthony J. Hornof,et al.  High-cost banner blindness: Ads increase perceived workload, hinder visual search, and are forgotten , 2005, TCHI.

[10]  John G. Taylor,et al.  Efficient Attentional Selection Predicts Distractor Devaluation: Event-related Potential Evidence for a Direct Link between Attention and Emotion , 2007, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[11]  Annie Lang,et al.  The limited capacity model of mediated message processing , 2000 .

[12]  G. Gigerenzer.  Mindless statistics , 2004 .

[13]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Implicit Learning and Generalization of the "Mere Exposure" Effect , 1983 .

[14]  B. W. Whittlesea.  Illusions of familiarity. , 1993 .

[15]  Claire Allison Stammerjohan,et al.  BANNER ADVERTISER-WEB SITE CONTEXT CONGRUITY AND COLOR EFFECTS ON ATTENTION AND ATTITUDES , 2005 .

[16]  G. Humphreys,et al.  When visual marking meets the attentional blink: More evidence for top-down, limited capacity inhibition , 2002 .

[17]  Chris Janiszewski,et al.  The Influence of Display Characteristics on Visual Exploratory Search Behavior , 1998 .

[18]  J. Gill.  The Insignificance of Null Hypothesis Significance Testing , 1999 .

[19]  X. Drèze,et al.  Internet advertising: Is anybody watching? , 2003 .

[20]  R. Zajonc.  Mere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal , 2001 .

[21]  R. Bornstein.  Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. , 1989 .

[22]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Motivational effects in the mere-exposure paradigm , 1996 .

[23]  D. MacInnis,et al.  The Effects of Incidental Ad Exposure on the Formation of Consideration Sets , 1997 .

[24]  Hairong Li,et al.  Measuring the Intrusiveness of Advertisements: Scale Development and Validation , 2002 .

[25]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[26]  Jane E Raymond,et al.  Selective Attention Determines Emotional Responses to Novel Visual Stimuli , 2003, Psychological science.

[27]  N. Lavie,et al.  The Role of Perceptual Load in Processing Distractor Faces , 2003, Psychological science.

[28]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[29]  N Lavie,et al.  The role of perceptual load in negative priming. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[30]  Chris Janiszewski.  Preattentive Mere Exposure Effects , 1993 .

[31]  Jane E Raymond,et al.  Emotional devaluation of distracting patterns and faces: a consequence of attentional inhibition during visual search? , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[32]  S. Tipper,et al.  Inhibitory Mechanisms of Neural and Cognitive Control: Applications to Selective Attention and Sequential Action , 1996, Brain and Cognition.

[33]  Melina A. Kunar,et al.  The affective consequences of visual attention in preview search , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[34]  John K. Tsotsos,et al.  The selective tuning model of attention: psychophysical evidence for a suppressive annulus around an attended item , 2003, Vision Research.

[35]  N. Lavie.  Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load , 2005, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  W. Wirth,et al.  More than meets the eye , 2007 .

[37]  Klaus Kessler,et al.  Attentional Inhibition Has Social-Emotional Consequences for Unfamiliar Faces , 2005, Psychological science.

[38]  Hairong Li,et al.  Forced Exposure and Psychological Reactance: Antecedents and Consequences of the Perceived Intrusiveness of Pop-Up Ads , 2002 .

[39]  R. Lutz,et al.  THE FUNCTION OF FORMAT: Consumer Responses to Six On-line Advertising Formats , 2006 .

[40]  Raymond Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[41]  Michael T. Elliott,et al.  Predictors of Advertising Avoidance in Print and Broadcast Media , 1997 .