Next Article in Journal
Attention Network in Interpreters: The Role of Training and Experience
Previous Article in Journal
Relationship between Language Dominance and Stimulus-Stimulus or Stimulus-Response Inhibition in Uyghur-Chinese Bilinguals with an Investigation of Speed-Accuracy Trade-Offs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Perception and Deception: Human Beauty and the Brain
Article Menu
Issue 4 (April) cover image

Export Article

Behav. Sci. 2019, 9(4), 42; https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9040042

Article
Consumer Neuroscience and Digital/Social Media Health/Social Cause Advertisement Effectiveness
Centre for Mental Health, Faculty of Health, Art and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn 3122, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 26 February 2019 / Accepted: 14 April 2019 / Published: 18 April 2019

Abstract

:
This research investigated the use of consumer neuroscience to improve and determine the effectiveness of action/emotion-based public health and social cause (HSC) advertisements. Action-based advertisements ask individuals to ‘do something’ such as ‘act’, ‘share’, make a ‘pledge’ or complete a ‘challenge’ on behalf of a brand, such as doing ‘something good, somewhere, for someone else’. Public health messages as noncommercial advertisements attempt to positively change behavioural intent or increase awareness. Australian health expenditure was $180.7 billion AUD (Australian dollars) in 2016/17 with $17 million AUD spent on government health campaigns. However, evaluation of health advertisement effectiveness has been difficult to determine. Few studies use neuroscience techniques with traditional market research methods. A 2-part study with an exploratory design was conducted using (1) electroencephalography (EEG) using a 64 channel EEG wet cap (n = 47); and (2) a Qualtrics online psychometric survey (n = 256). Participants were asked to make a donation before and after viewing 7 HSC digital/social media advertisements and logos (6 action/emotion-based; 1 control) to measure changes in behavioural intent. Attention is considered a key factor in determining advertising effectiveness. EEG results showed theta synchronisation (increase)/alpha desynchronisation (decrease) indicating attention with episodic memory encoding. sLORETA results displayed approach responses to action/emotion-based advertisements with left prefrontal and right parietal cortex activation. EEG and survey results showed the greatest liking for the ManUp action/emotion-based advertisement which used male facial expressions of raw emotion and vulnerability. ManUp also had the highest increased amount donated after viewing. Lower theta amplitude results for the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) action/emotion-based advertisement indicated that novel (possessing distinct features) rather than attractive/conventional faces were more appealing, while the rapid presentation of faces was less effective. None of the highest peak amplitudes for each ad occurred when viewing brand logos within the advertisement. This research contributes to the academic consumer neuroscience, advertising effectiveness, and social media literature with the use of action/challenge/emotion-based marketing strategies, which remains limited, while demonstrating the value in combining EEG and neuroscientific techniques with traditional market research methods. The research provides a greater understanding of advertising effectiveness and changes in behavioural intent with managerial implications regarding the effective use of action/challenge/emotion-based HSC communications to potentially help save a life and reduce expenditure on ineffectual HSC marketing campaigns.
Keywords:
consumer neuroscience; neuromarketing; EEG; public health digital/social media advertisements; social marketing; advertising effectiveness; action/challenge/emotion-based marketing; behavioural change

1. Introduction

This research investigated how consumer neuroscience can improve the effectiveness of action/emotion-based health and social cause (HSC) digital/social media advertisements. ‘Action-based’ advertisements ask individuals to ‘do something’ such as ‘act, ‘share’, make a ‘pledge’ or complete a ‘challenge’ [1,2,3]. These include a request for something, such as uploading a photograph of oneself doing a particular activity [4]; or doing ‘something good, somewhere, for someone else’ [5]. A distinction is made between the recent development (since 2008) of this type of action/emotion-based HSC advertisements that differ from earlier ‘call to action’ advertisements that primarily asked individuals to make a donation. This study examined whether successful action/emotion-based HSC digital/social media advertisements were more effective than predominantly rational-based appeals.
A current marketing challenge is how to provide an idea that consumers will decide to interact or become involved with, in part addressed by the recent increase in action-based [6] or what can also be referred to as challenge marketing. With recent developments in marketing as a result of the influence of major technological developments and evolution of new media and digital formats [7] the long established AIDA (attention, interest, desire, action) model outlining the four stages consumption process [8] has been questioned by marketing industry professionals [1,2,6]. Ferrier suggests that the consumption process begins with action, from which an emotional connection with the brand will follow [6]. This coincides with the increasing development of action-based and in particular challenge marketing strategies such as ‘Dry July’ (2008) [9], ‘FebFast’ (2017) [10], or the 100 Day Challenge (2018) [11]. These action/challenge-based marketing campaigns ask people to give up certain substances such as alcohol (Dry July and FebFast), gambling (100 Day Challenge), and sugar, or pause doing/change any other activity, such as eating meat or reducing inactivity, in order to improve wellbeing (FebFast). Such action/challenge-based campaigns usually have an emotion rather than rational-based strategy focusing on benefits. Emotion-based strategies which attempt to build an emotional connection with consumers have largely dominated marketing in preference to prior rational-based approaches that provide consumers with numerous facts and figures [6]. Despite these marketing developments there are very few studies addressing action-based marketing strategies (see [1,6]).
Neuroscientific methods measure changes in neural electrical or metabolic activity [12] to study cognitive processes [13]. Neurological tools such as EEG can identify the driving forces behind an individual’s decision to become involved in HSC marketing campaigns that cannot be identified with traditional qualitative research methods such as self-report and focus groups [14,15]. Further, few consumer neuroscience studies and research designs use neuroscience techniques in combination with traditional marketing research methods such as those used in this research. The consumer neuroscience literature suggests there is a need for such an approach [16] with neuroscience techniques to be considered an additional market research technique rather than a replacement of traditional market research methods. As consumer neuroscience is an emerging discipline [17,18], there is a growing need and interest in the application of neurological quantitative research tools [12,19,20,21,22,23] for the development and analysis of digital/social media HSC advertisements [24,25].
Public health messages are noncommercial advertisements which attempt to change public behaviour [25], although commercial marketing practices are now commonly used in HSC communications [26]. Health campaigns aim to educate the public using health messages about risky behaviour while promoting healthier choices and encouraging ‘positive’ social conduct [25]. HSC communications or public service announcements [25] are also referred to as social marketing which uses marketing concepts to influence voluntary change in behaviour of target audiences in an attempt to improve societal health and well-being [26].
In 2013, $7.2 trillion USD (US dollars) was spent on global health [27]. Healthcare expenditure in European countries in 2016 was €233.9 billion euro in the UK, with Germany €350.2 billion, France €257.2 billion, Italy €150.2 billion, Spain €100.3 billion, Switzerland €74 billion, the Netherlands €72.8 billion, Sweden €50.9 billion, Belgium €42.4 billion, Austria €36.9, Norway €35.2 billion, Denmark €28.7, Poland €27.8 billion, Finland €20.5 billion, and Ireland €20.3 (figures include all health care providers) [28].
Australian government health expenditure was $180.7 billion AUD (Australian dollars) in 2016/2017 [29], while UK health expenditure was £143.7 billion in 2015–2016 [30]. UK government healthcare expenditure was £152.2 billion in 2016, while total UK healthcare expenditure was £191.7 billion (government and nongovernment), marking a 3.6% increase from £185.0 billion in 2015 [31].
Australia spent $17 million AUD on government health campaigns [32], not including advertising campaign expenditure below $250,000 AUD [32]. This marks an $8 billion AUD increase in expenditure from $172 billion AUD in 2013 [27]. The United States healthcare industry advertising expenditure in 2015 was $9.7 billion (increased by 11.3%) [33].
Despite the substantial global expenditure on health, healthcare, and health advertising, the evaluation and measure of effectiveness of health communications has been difficult to determine [34]. As a result, knowledge of key factors for the success of HSC marketing campaigns varies, and debate in the literature about advertising effectiveness and success factors remains divided.
Effectiveness of health communications has been defined as “the effect on knowledge, behavior or health outcomes” [35] measured by an intervention’s positive impact on health resulting in behavioural change [35]. Effectiveness has been identified as one of social marketing’s four Es: effectiveness, exaggeration, ethicality, and expensiveness [36]. Measures of advertising effectiveness include intrusiveness, as a gauge of attention and memory; persuasion, resulting in purchase intent [37]; attitudes (towards the ad) [37]; and engagement [38]. Research has found social marketing campaigns to have positive short-term effects, but these tend to decline mid to long term [26]. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed to address advertising effectiveness and changes in behavioural intent:

Hypotheses

Aim: Action/emotion-based marketing communications that ask individuals to ‘act’, ‘share’, ‘pledge’ or challenge’ are more effective than predominantly rational-based appeals.
Hypothesis 1.
Viewing action/emotion-based rather than rational-based advertisements increase donation amounts.
Kong’s [39] ‘impression index’ uses memory and attention to determine the effectiveness of video commercials. The standard marketing decision-making process model involves four stages: (1) attention, (2) interpretation, (3) evaluation, and (4) memory [40]. The model includes working and long-term memory, with a distinction made between high and low involvement decision making [40]. However, research has shown that learning can occur with low levels of or no attention, suggesting that attention may not necessarily be the first stage of some decision-making processes [41]. Hence, in the increasingly fragmented digital media environment, such linear models of decision making may be considered obsolete in some instances.
Attention is considered an essential factor in achieving advertising effectiveness [42]. Attention is processed in the occipital, parietal, and right frontal regions [43]. Left hemispherical activation has been associated with memory [44] and long-term memory (LTM) processing [45]. Prefrontal cortex (PFC) processing has been associated with executive cognitive functions and processing such as planning, multitasking, social behaviour, personality display [46], and decision making [47,48,49,50].
EEG’s high temporal resolution allows it to accurately measure neural responses [22] and emotional valence [51,52,53]. Theta synchronisation/alpha desynchronisation has been shown to indicate attention and long-term episodic memory encoding [39,54]. Research has shown that asymmetrical theta increase/alpha decrease with hemispherical lateralisation indicates processing of pleasant (left)/unpleasant (right) emotions [55]. In particular, the left/right frontal cortex is associated with the like/dislike dichotomy of advertisements [56]. Left/right hemispherical lateralisation of approach (left)/withdraw (right) indicates positive/negative valence of emotions [52,53,57,58]. Further, psychophysiological measures of arousal (high and low) [15] operate as antecedents of advertising effectiveness [59]. A major limitation of EEG is the inability to identify spatial localisation [12]. However, sLORETA (low resolution brain electromagnetic tomography) [60] is able to identify cortical activation and corresponding Brodmann areas from EEG data using 3D head modelling [13]. Therefore, the following hypothesis was proposed to address attention and memory:
Hypothesis 2.
Theta synchronisation (increase)/alpha desynchronisation (decrease) while watching action/emotion-based advertisements indicates participants are paying attention and an increase in episodic memory encoding.
High interactivity increases attention and cognitive processing [61]. Interactive digital marketing has grown considerably due to the interactive and interconnected capabilities of Web 2.0 [62,63]. As a result, interactivity has become an intrinsic communication tool used on the internet [64]. Online digital/social media advertising enables viewers to choose to consume or interact in response to marketing communications [59]. Thus, consumers have become heavily involved and influential in terms of exchange in the marketing communications environment [62] and regularly engage with business and other consumers [65]. Interpersonal social interactions are considered fundamental in terms of encouraging individuals to adopt beneficial health behaviour changes, whereas mass media approaches are more suitable for generating awareness about health issues [66]. Thus, the internet as a hybrid channel has the potential to enable the implementation of behavioural change health interventions on a large scale [66]. Further, research has shown that voluntary rather than forced interactivity is an important factor to consider when considering the effect of interactivity [2,67,68].
Despite the growth of social media advertising [69] and increase of public health communications using social media, there remain a limited number of studies of public health campaigns using these channels [70,71]. Further, there is a shortage of publications regarding the use of social media [72] for the delivery of public health communications and interventions [71]. Consequently, social media user engagement, participation, and patterns of dissemination are not widely understood [72]. Therefore, social media health communication effectiveness and their use of social media vehicles and networks has been difficult to evaluate [71]. However, the effectiveness and level of engagement of digital/social media marketing campaigns is usually determined by quantitative measurement of likes, shares, comments, views and followers etc. [72]. Engagement is a field of investigation in itself; for further discussion see [73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80].

2. Materials and Methods

This study aimed to compare, inform, and triangulate results from EEG data and self-report measures (online survey data) to provide greater understanding of cognitive and decision-making processes involved in changes in behavioural intent in response to action/emotion-based HSC marketing communications. The combined use of consumer neuroscience (EEG) and traditional quantitative research methods (online survey) was the result of a recent review of the literature suggesting that neuroscience techniques are an additional tool, not a replacement research method, and should be used in combination, but that this rarely occurs in consumer neuroscience research [81].
Derived from four measures of advertising effectiveness discussed earlier, measures used for this research were (1) attention/memory (intrusiveness/engagement), (2) changes in donation amounts (influence/purchase intent), and (3) like/dislike of ads (attitudes). The changes in donation amounts were used to measure changes in behavioural intent, so that donation amounts themselves were not the primary measure.
As consumer neuroscience is a nascent field, the exploratory research design replicates approaches taken by established consumer neuroscience researchers (see [22,25,68,82,83]). The methodology used was based on gold standard studies [24,39,84] that investigated advertising effectiveness and included the use of an unrelated video as the control. Consumer neuroscience methodologies use neuroimaging techniques such as EEG, fMRI, eye-tracking, and biometric markers to evaluate advertising effectiveness. Often, consumer neuroscience research designs involve participants viewing different types of advertisements, depending on the research topic, while neuroscience techniques are used to record brain activity.

2.1. Method

Data were collected using two research methods, which involved (1) EEG recordings and (2) a Qualtrics online psychometric survey. The experiment used an exploratory design which involved 4 tasks, with 3 used to monitor changes in behavioural intent, followed by a post-task survey as the fourth. Ethics approval was obtained by the University Human Research Ethics Committee, SUHREC Project No: SHR Project 2016/234.
The experiment comprised 7 digital/social media advertisements (6 action/emotion-based, HSC advertisements and an unrelated rational-based advertisement that operated as a control). All advertisements were selected based on their degree of success, determined by marketing campaigns’ quantitative evaluation for consumer reach effectiveness, industry awards received, number of social media likes/shares generated, popularity, increase in sales, spin-offs (TV documentaries, case studies, and their adoption by leading business schools), celebrity endorsement and support, media attention, and coverage (see [3]).
The 7 advertisements selected for inclusion in the experiment were ManUp Campaign (2016); Unicef Tap Project: Put down your phone to help give clean water to kids (2016); DKMS, Help, I want to save a life (2012); Agilis Accounting (2014); United Nations World Humanitarian Day, Beyoncé – I was here (2012); Clinton Foundation, We’re not there yet (2015); and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), Tails for whales (2009). ManUp, Tap Project, and IFAW were categorised as having an action/emotion-based strategy in addition to being considered very successful advertisements. Agilis was categorised as a less successful, neutral/mediocre advertisement utilising a rational-based strategy and was therefore used as control variable. Clinton Foundation, DKMS, and United Nations used an emotion-based strategy and ranged from very successful (DKMS and United Nations) to less successful (Clinton).

2.2. Part 1: EEG study

EEG recruitment methods, exclusion criteria, sample size, experiment process details below.
Participant recruitment: Voluntary participation via posters, letterbox drops, Facebook, word of mouth, online platforms, university research experience program (REP) (academic credits granted).
Exclusion criteria: Participants were required to be 18 years of age and over and were excluded if they suffered from epilepsy, had a neurological or psychiatric condition, had had convulsions or head trauma and were taking medication for their condition.
Informed consent: All participants read and signed an informed consent form outlining the nature of the study, participant rights in terms of consent, withdrawal from the study, confidentiality, and ethics approval.
Sample size: A total of n = 47 adults from general population were recruited but reduced to n = 40 as 1 male and 6 female participants were subsequently excluded due to previous exposure to experiment research design and content, test subjects, and equipment issues. Final sample size comprised 13 (30%) males and 27 (70%) females. Participants’ ages ranged from 18–57 years (M = 27.2 years, SD = 10.003). Males were slightly older with a mean age of 28.77 years, with that of females being 26.74 years.
Experiment process: All participants completed informed consent and demographic details forms before participating in the EEG experiments. Every participant was seated in a dedicated darkened laboratory room with a 28-inch ViewSonic LED 1080p Full HD monitor (screen 25.5 inch, 118.5cm from floor to base of screen, standing 1 metre in front of participant). Participants viewed 7 digital/social media advertisements (6 action/emotion-based, 1 control) which included viewing the ad brands’ logos shown before and after the advertisements were screened, while EEG recorded (tasks 1–3). Presentation of logos and request for donations (tasks 1 and 3) were used to monitor changes in behavioural intent and donations made after viewing the advertisements. At the end of viewing, all advertising communications participants completed a short 7-question paper-based survey (task 4, EEG not recorded).
Participants wore a 64 channel EEG wet cap with electrodes placed according to the international 10/20 system [68,82]. EEG reference and ground electrodes used as references [68,82]. Impedance of electrodes was held below 5kΩ [68,82] on Compumedics Neuroscan SynAmpsRT. EEG recorded on Compumedics Neuroscan Scan4.0 during baseline conditions (eyes open, closed, open left, right, up, and down), and while digital/social media communications were viewed (tasks 1–3 activation) [82].
Presentation of stimuli was randomised for each participant, varying the order for each task recorded automatically on a stim computer. Short breaks in viewing occurred prior to each task while eye tracking calibration and validation was reset.
Task 1: Participants were seated in front of a computer screen and keyboard and asked to place their left hand’s fingers on the Z, X, and C keys (to reduce muscle artefact in EEG recordings). Participants were then informed that after viewing a logo, they would be asked on screen to make a donation of $30, $15 or $0 dollars by pressing the Z (30 dollars), X (15 dollars) or C (0 dollars) keys. Participants then viewed 7 logos, after which they were asked on a grey screen with white text to donate $30 (Z), $15 (X) or $0 (C) dollars. The next stimuli appeared on screen once participants had pressed one of the three designated keys.
Task 2: Participants viewed 7 digital/social media advertisements but were not required to respond to the target stimulus nor do any typing/action on the keyboard.
Task 3: Repeated first task.
Task 4: Post-task survey (7 questions). EEG not recorded.
This experiment was created using PsychoPy2 Experiment Builder (v1.84.2) [85,86]. A graphic representation of the experiment flow chart tasks 1–3 is shown in Figure 1 below.
Brain Products’ Brain Vision Analyzer 2.1 software was used to clean data and analyse EEG recordings. Brain Vision Analyzer (BVA) uses the term segmentation when different sections of data are identified. The term epoch is used in neuroscience for the same process. As segmentation is a common term used in marketing in reference to the identification of a target market, the term epoch is used in this paper in preference to segmentation in order to reduce potential confusion.
Data cleaning was conducted in Excel, imported into IBM SPSS Statistics version 24. Statistical analysis of BVA data was conducted in SPSS and Excel. SPSS was used to conduct t-tests and ANOVA. Statistical power for EEG and online study was calculated using G*Power 3.1.9.2. All data files were processed to remove artefact and analysed according to the following protocol:
Brain Vision Analyzer: All files processed to have the same sampling rate. Bad channels were removed and replaced. Baseline correction was conducted (used in BVA to remove preset stimulus of each epoch). Eye blink artefact was not removed as data were very clean, and preference to include all data recorded due to the relative short length of each ad. An IIR Filter (zero phase shift Butterworth) was applied. Ad markers were identified in the EEG recording. The ad order was recorded on a stim computer used with stimulus markers located in EEG recordings to identify the beginning and end times of ads. Ads were identified individually in recordings and epoched for each ad separately. Fast Fourier transform and grand average were conducted.
Fast Fourier Transform: Fast Fourier transform (FFT) was conducted. FFT band was exported for all electrodes for theta, alpha, and beta bands. Band averages for each electrode were generated from FFT. Theta and alpha bands were extracted for each epoch. Band average data for each participant and each electrode were cleaned and sorted in Excel. Data was imported into IBM SPSS Statistics version 24. SPSS was used to conduct t-tests and ANOVA.
Grand Average: Epochs for the first, middle, and final 10 s created. Grand average was conducted for each epoch. Theta, alpha, and beta bands were extracted from the grand average. Amplitude peaks for each epoch were identified. The amplitude and time of highest peaks for theta and alpha were recorded in Excel. sLORETA maps for highest peaks were generated in BVA. Brain regions and Brodmann areas were identified in BVA. EEG times for each epoch were converted to ad times. MPC-HC X 64 was used to identify frames using the highest peak time in each epoch. Frames were recorded. Grand average graphs using 10 s EEG traces and corresponding frames were created (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).
SPSS: A paired sample t-test (two-tailed) of the frontal and parietal electrodes from the FFT export averages of alpha and theta means was conducted for ManUp, IFAW and Agilis. The electrodes used were: FpZ, Fz, FcZ, left Fp1, AF3, F7, F5, F3, F1, FC3, FC1, FC5, P7, P5, P3, P1, PO7, PO5, PO3, and right Fp2, AF4, F2, F4, F6, F8, FC2, FC4, FC6, P2, P4, P6, P8, PO4, PO6, PO8, n = 40 (Table 1). Participants’ demographic data (age, gender, and education) were recorded in Excel. Descriptive statistics of demographic data were generated using the data analysis tool in Excel. The t-test results were exported to Excel, where they were cleaned and formatted. Theta mean average for each ad was used to calculate paired differences between ManUp (independent variable) and Agilis (dependent variable), and IFAW and Agilis.
G*Power [87,88,89]: Test family: t-test. Statistical test: Means: Difference between two dependent means (matched pairs). Type of power analysis: Post hoc: Compute achieved power—given α, sample size, and effect size. Input parameters: two-tailed. Effect size dz: dz = 0.5. α error probability: α = 0.5/0.8. Total sample size: (EEG n = 40). Output Parameters: α = 0.5, noncentrality parameter δ = 3.162, critical t = 2.023, df = 39, power (1-β error probability) = 0.869 (87%); α = 0.8, noncentrality parameter δ = 5.06, critical t = 2.023, df = 39, power (1-β error probability) = 0.999 (100%). Statistical power <0.80 was considered robust for behavioural science data [89,90,91].

2.3. Part 2: Qualtrics Psychometric Online Survey

The Qualtrics online psychometric survey replicated the EEG research design, except that presentation of the logos and digital/social media clips were not randomised, survey was anonymous, and due to time constraints, no additional demographic information was collected other than gender. The online survey comprised 23 parts (16 survey parts followed by a 7 question post-task survey) in addition to viewing 7 advertisements, which took in total approximately 15–30 min maximum to complete. The survey questions replicated the EEG research design in that participants were shown a brand logo and then asked to donate $30, $15 or $0 dollars (task 1), then this task was repeated (task 3) after participants had viewed the advertisements (task 2), in order to measure changes in behavioural intentions and decision making. The brief 7 question post-task survey questions (task 4) consisted of nominal, Likert scale, and multiple-choice questions to determine brand awareness, familiarity, prior knowledge/interaction, future intentions, and brand like/dislike (attitudes).
A total of n = 256 adults (70 males, 146 females, 40 unknown) participated in the online survey. A report was generated in Qualtrics using the finished surveys’ filter, n = 216 (70 males, 146 females). Data from the Qualtrics survey were then exported to IBM SPSS Statistics Version 24 and all incomplete survey responses excluded, n = 152 (53 males, 99 females). Survey sample size, exclusion criteria, recruitment methods and informed consent details are below.
Sample size: n = 256 (70 males, 146 females, 40 unknown); n = 152 (53 males, 99 females), 34.87% males, 65.13% females.
Exclusion criteria: Survey incomplete. Participation in related survey or EEG project.
Recruitment: Voluntary participation, word of mouth, Facebook posts, online platforms, university research experience program (REP) (academic credits granted).
Informed consent: All participants read and signed an informed consent form outlining the nature of study, participant rights in terms of consent, withdrawal from study, confidentiality, ethics approval, and given option to agree/disagree to participate.

3. Results

3.1. EEG Study

ManUp, IFAW, and Agilis ads were selected for EEG analysis based on online survey results, which showed ManUp to have the greatest increased change in total donation amount. Agilis had the lowest amount, with a decrease in total donations, and IFAW a neutral response with no change in the total donation amount before and after viewing the advertisements.
Results for ManUp, IFAW, and Agilis extracted grand average theta band from the first, middle, final 10 s epochs of EEG recordings show theta synchronisation (increase) with alpha desynchronisation (decrease) (Table 2). The corresponding video images for peak EEG theta averages are shown in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4. sLORETA (low resolution brain electromagnetic tomography) [60] maps generated in BVA show lateralised brain region activation of grand average synchronised theta/desynchronised alpha peaks for the ManUp, IFAW, and Agilis advertisements (Figure 5). The Brodmann areas from the sLORETA maps are shown in Table 3 (Appendix A).
Results from the paired t-test in SPSS of theta and alpha frontal and parietal electrode means from Brain Vision Analyzer 2.1 and grand average results for ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW showed theta synchronisation/alpha desynchronisation for frontal electrodes (Table 4; Table 5). EEG post hoc power analysis: n = 40, 2 tailed t-test, 87% power (>0.80) (α = 0.5, δ = 3.162, critical t = 2.023, df = 39); n = 40, 2 tailed t-test, 100% power (>0.80) (α = 0.8, δ = 5.06, critical t = 2.023, df = 39).

3.2. Online Survey

Using Qualtrics online survey results for donations made before and after viewing all 7 digital/social media advertisements (task 2) for the same brands as the logos viewed in task 1 and 3, the sum total of overall donations was calculated in Excel comparing changes in donation amounts.
Results indicated that total donations increased after viewing all 7 digital/social media advertisements (Figure 6a). A breakdown of changes in donations for each advertisement shows an increase in donations for ManUp ($585 to $2850 AUD), Unicef Tap Project ($3045 to $3270 AUD), United Nations ($1665 to $2430 AUD), and Clinton ($420 to $870 AUD), with no change in donation amount for IFAW ($2265 AUD before and after), and a decrease in donation amount for DKMS ($2370 to $2235 AUD) and Agilis (control) ($255 to $225 AUD) (see Figure 6b).
The largest change and combined increase in total donations after viewing ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW advertisements show an increase of $2235 ($3105 to $5340 AUD) (Figure 7a). The highest amount of donations before and after (but not highest increase) was for the Unicef Tap Project ($3270) (Figure 7b). The highest amount showing the largest increase in total donations was shown for ManUp ($2280 increase) (Figure 7b and Figure 8a); the lowest donation amount and decrease of $30 was for Agilis (Figure 7b and Figure 8b), while IFAW total donations showed no change ($0) (Figure 7b and Figure 8c).
Two-tailed t-tests were conducted in SPSS for each advertisement comparing changes in donations made. The largest decrease in mean was for ManUp (0.987), with the smallest increase in mean for DKMS (−0.059), followed by Agilis (control) (−0.015), while IFAW showed no change (0.000) (Table 6).
Survey results showed the ManUp and Unicef Tap Project as the most equally liked ads. However, comparison of results on the like/dislike ordinal Likert scale showed ManUp to have the highest total liked, and the least disliked results. Unicef Tap Project as an action/emotion-based advertisement had the highest total donation amount and was liked as much as ManUp on the far point of the ‘like’ scale. However, while experiment tasks 1 and 3 asked participants to make a donation, the purpose of the research was to measure a change in participants’ behavioural intent as a result of viewing the advertisement, which was measured in terms of a change in donation amount. The research was not about whether participants decided to make a donation as a result of viewing the advertisement. Finally, although the difference between a greater preference for ManUp rather than Unicef Tap Project was minimal, the summed total of all like/dislike results showed ManUp to have the highest like and smallest dislike response and was therefore chosen for analysis rather than the Unicef Tap Project. However, the Unicef Tap Project warrants future analysis of results given that it is a more predominantly action rather than emotion-based advertisement in comparison to ManUp.

4. Discussion

There were significant changes in behavioural intent after viewing the advertisements shown in both the EEG and online studies. EEG study showed theta synchronisation/alpha desynchronisation in frontal electrodes for ManUp, IFAW, and Agilis. Only IFAW showed alpha desynchronisation in the parietal and parietal occipital electrodes (Table 4 and Table 5). The online survey showed an increase in donation amounts (change in decision-making/behavioural intent) for the most effective/liked action/emotion-based advertisement (ManUp), with a reduction in donation amounts for rational-based control (Agilis).
Hypothesis 1 supported: Viewing action/emotion-based rather than rational-based advertisements increased donation amounts. Based on online survey results, hypothesis 1 indicated that ManUp, the highest-ranking action/emotion-based advertisement, showed the greatest change in decision-making/behavioural intent (resulting in an increase in donation amounts). The EEG results showed that the use of raw emotion in an action/emotion-based ad (ManUp) that asked viewers to do something for the brand, i.e., SpeakUp in this instance, was the most effective approach, resulting in ad liking. EEG results indicated attention was an important factor as a measure of advertising effectiveness. EEG results identified the use of faces, in particular those showing raw emotion and vulnerability, as the most effective. While the use of novel rather than attractive or conventional faces was appealing, the use of faces being flashed in rapid succession (6 frames each at 29.97 frame rate) resulted in a neutral (neither like/dislike) response. Attractive is based on the perception of Western attractiveness stereotypes of beautiful faces being bilaterally symmetrical and average [92,93,94,95], with an approximate facial configuration that corresponds with the population, and are more easily processed [96], in addition to youthfulness and health [94,95]. Those considered novel faces in the IFAW advertisement are those with somewhat distinct features, such as a handlebar moustache or very large black sunglasses, rather than more conventional facial images without distinct features.
This research also showed that consumer neuroscience results differ from traditional market research techniques such as self-report in that EEG results showed a liking for the rational-based control ad (Agilis), whereas online self-report showed a strong dislike, resulting in a negative decision making/change in behavioural intent response with a reduction in donation amounts for this brand.
ManUp, as an action/emotion-based advertisement, used ‘raw emotion’ [97] with close-ups of male faces showing tears and vulnerability. Mulligan and Scherer suggest that no agreed definition of emotion exists across disciplines, but a distinction can be made between emotion (singular), classified as a group of affective processes, and emotions (plural) as specific types within that group [98]. Between disciplines, categorisation of basic emotions also varies [99]. Therefore, it would appear there is no agreed definition of ‘raw emotion’. Therefore, for this paper, ‘raw emotion’ refers to unmitigated expression of emotion without reservation or restraint and thus potentially exhibiting a degree of vulnerability or exposure.
ManUp aimed to encourage men to express their emotions in order to raise awareness about depression and male suicide. As a result of its success, a number of spin-offs occurred, including a documentary series featuring an acclaimed radio personality discussing his own experience with a male relative who died as a result of depression and suicide. Interestingly, facial images showing the highest EEG theta increase/alpha decrease responses have an averted, downward gaze (Figure 2). An averted rather than direct gaze has been associated with ‘avoidance-oriented emotions’ such as sadness [100]. Agilis (control) as a rational-based advertisement was a neutral, informative ad about accounting services offered. IFAW’s ‘Make a whale tail’ ad as an action/emotion-based advertisement asked viewers to send in a photo of themselves making a whale tail with their hands in support of anti-whaling. ‘Make a whale tail’ is the first social cause photo petition and one of the earliest highly successful action-based advertisements [3]. IFAW’s ad used a number of faces in rapid succession (only 6 frames each at frame rate of 29.97). Of note was that the most unusual (novel) rather than attractive (like) [101] faces in the IFAW ad showed the highest synchronised theta amplitudes. Further, despite the use of a large number of faces shown in rapid succession, this resulted in a relatively flat or indifferent overall EEG response, devoid of polarised high/lows (Figure 3). This was also reflected in IFAW online survey results, which showed $0.00 change in donations. These results suggest that while the use of faces has been shown to be appealing, the presentation method of facial imagery impacts viewers’ like/dislike/neutral response.
Hypothesis 2 supported: Theta synchronisation (increase)/alpha desynchronisation (decrease) in frontal electrodes while watching action/emotion-based advertisements indicated that participants were paying attention with an increase in episodic memory encoding.
Based on EEG results, hypothesis 2 indicated that participants were paying attention with increased episodic memory in varying degrees during particular sections of each advertisement. EEG results achieved 87% power post hoc (>0.80, n = 40, 2 tailed t-test, α = 0.5,) with 100% power post hoc (>0.80, α = 0.8). EEG t-test results indicated an increase in theta and decrease in alpha in the left and right hemisphere electrodes for ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW advertisements. Frontal electrodes showing theta synchronisation/alpha desynchronisation for all 3 advertisements were FpZ and Fz; left hemisphere Fp1, AF3, F7, F5, F3, and F1; and right hemisphere Fp2, AF4, F2, F4, F6, and F8. Only IFAW showed increases in theta and decreases with alpha in the parietal lobe left P7, P5, P3, P1, PO7, PO5, and PO3 and right electrodes P2, P4, P6, P8, PO4, PO6, and PO8 (Table 5).
ManUp’s highest theta amplitude for theta synchronisation/alpha desynchronisation occurred predominantly in the left hemisphere, whereas Agilis and IFAW’s highest peak occurred in the medial brain region (Figure 5, Table 3). Davidson’s circumplex model of affect divides basic emotions into pleasant/unpleasant and high/low states of arousal [102]. Only ManUp’s highest amplitude for theta synchronisation/alpha desynchronisation occurred in the left hemisphere, indicating a positive approach (like) response. Further, the highest amplitude image for ManUp as an action-emotion based approach was the call to ‘SpeakUp’ (Figure 2). Of note, none of the highest peak amplitudes for each ad occurred on viewing the brand logo at all, or in the final 10-s epoch. While placement of the brand logo at the end of an advertisement remains a popular marketing communications strategy, some research has shown that digital advertising is more effective if shown at the beginning [103] or for the duration of an advertisement, in preference to pulsing, which involves briefly presenting a brand logo a number of times throughout [42]. Recent academic and industry conference presentations also indicated that presenting the brand logo consistently throughout [104] and at the beginning of a digital advertisement [105] is more effective that showing the brand logo at the end.
sLORETA tomographic maps for the three highest peaks occurring in the first, middle or final 10-s epochs (Figure 5) showed activation in Brodmann areas 10 (BA10) and 11 (BA11). Located in the ventromedial PFC (vmPFC), Brodmann area 10 (BA10) [47] has been associated with personal relevance and engagement [106]. Attention and facial recognition have been shown to activate BA10 and 11 [82], shown in highest theta amplitudes for ManUp (BA10), IFAW, and Agilis (BA11) (Table 2; Table 3). Processing of faces occurs in the middle lateral fusiform gyrus [107] (fusiform face area, BA37) with unfamiliar faces processed in the right hemisphere [108]. Activation of the left middle temporal gyrus has been associated with empathy and processing of faces of well-known/famous identities [109]. During the first 10 s, BA10 was activated in the left hemisphere in the medial frontal gyrus for ManUp and the right hemisphere in the middle frontal gyrus for Agilis. ManUp’s synchronised theta amplitude peaks showed left hemisphere activation and attention to faces, while IFAW showed attention to faces and a well-known Australian identity (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 5). BA11 in the middle frontal gyrus was activated with neither substantial left nor high hemisphere dominance for the IFAW advertisement (Figure 5). BA40 situated in the right supramarginal gyrus is actuated during decision making [47] which occurred for all three ads (Appendix A).

5. Conclusions

There are significant theoretical implications for the synthesis of concepts from the neuroscience and marketing disciplines. This research showed that action/emotion-based marketing communications that ask individuals to ‘act’, ‘share’, ‘pledge’ or challenge’ are more effective than predominantly rational-based appeals. Viewing action/emotion-based rather than rational-based advertisements resulted in a positive change in decision making with increased donation amounts and greater liking. ManUp as the highest ranking/most liked action/emotion-based advertisement had the greatest increase in donation amounts based on survey results. EEG results showed it was also the most liked advertisement.
Theta synchronisation (increase)/alpha desynchronisation (decrease) while watching action/emotion-based advertisements indicated that participants were paying attention with an increase in episodic memory encoding. The highest theta peak amplitude occurred for rational-based advertisement Agilis (Table 2, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The greatest liking occurred for the action/emotion-based approach using male facial expressions showing raw emotion and vulnerability with ManUp’s highest theta peak amplitude occurring in the final 10-s epoch when viewers were asked to act (‘SpeakUp’, Figure 2). Of note, none of the highest theta peak amplitudes for each ad occurred when viewing brand logos during the advertisement.
Limitations of the study were that despite a general population being used, this included participants from a student population. This was due to the recruitment methods, which included the use of university poster drops, Facebook, and word of mouth, in addition to a university research experience program (REP) where students received some academic course credit for participating. Both EEG and online survey studies had a female gender bias partly due to the researchers predominantly responsible for recruitment being female and that the REP program used for recruitment is available for participation by psychology students. Given that, in total, there are 28,667 female registered psychologists in Australia compared to 7236 males and 3 intersex/indeterminate [110], it is reasonable to conclude that university psychology courses tend to attract a much higher number of female than male students. Of note was a male bias amongst participants whose data were excluded from the online survey due to incompletion.
Additional limitations included that the funds donated were hypothetical rather than participants’ actual funds, so that individuals may behave differently if using their own funds. However, use of the REP program precluded financial payment for student participants. Further, ad lengths varied and, in some instances, could be considered too long (ranging from approximately 30 s to 2 min), which may have caused boredom amongst some participants. This was due to the nature of the study and selection of action/emotion-based ads, which are a relatively recent phenomenon (since 2008) and therefore limited in number. Further, the data collection occurred in a lab setting rather than a natural viewing environment, although advertisements were presented as closely as possible to a normal viewing situation.
Consumer neuroscience is considered an emerging discipline. Consumer neuroscience literature suggests there is a need for neuroscience techniques to be used in combination with traditional marketing research methods. As a relatively recent marketing communications’ strategy, action/emotion-based and social media advertising research remains limited.
This research contributes to the academic consumer neuroscience literature and evaluation of social media, advertising effectiveness, and action/emotion/challenge-based marketing strategies literature. Further, this research demonstrates how EEG and neuroscientific techniques can be combined with traditional market research methods and therefore has significant managerial implications regarding the analysis and future design of effective HSC marketing communications.
In summary, EEG highest theta peak amplitude occurred in the final 10-s epoch when viewing a tag line asking viewers to act. None of the EEG highest theta peak amplitudes for each ad occurred when viewing brand logos during the advertisement. Online survey results showed a positive change in decision-making/behavioural intent for the most effective/liked action/emotion-based advertisement, with a strong dislike and negative change in decision-making/behavioural intent for the rational-based control. However, EEG results showed liking for the rational-based advertisement, but self-report showed a strong dislike, resulting in a negative decision-making/behavioural intent response. The highest survey ad liking and greatest change in decision-making/behavioural intent occurred with action/emotion-based advertisement that asked viewers to do something for the brand, and used ‘raw emotion’. EEG results also showed that the use of raw emotion in an action/emotion-based ad was the most effective strategy resulting in ad liking. EEG results identified the use of faces, in particular those showing raw emotion and vulnerability, as the most effective. Further, novel (possessing distinct features) rather than attractive/conventional faces were more appealing, but the use of faces being flashed in rapid succession resulted in a neutral (neither like/dislike) response. These results suggest that while the use of faces has been shown to be appealing, the presentation method of facial imagery impacts viewers’ like/dislike/neutral response.
This study provides a greater understanding of advertising effectiveness of action/emotion-based HSC communications and contributes to marketing theory and consumer neuroscience development to potentially help to save a life and reduce expenditure on ineffectual HSC marketing campaigns.

Note

This research was part of a three-part study where personality, eye-blink, and eye-tracking data were also collected. The second and third studies replicate the research design of the first study. These data will be used for comparative analysis and future research into the use of consumer neuroscience to evaluate the effectiveness of HSC marketing communications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, methodology, and analysis, J.M.H. and J.C.; original draft preparation, J.M.H.; writing, review, and editing, J.M.H., J.C. and J.G.; supervision, J.C.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

Sincere thanks to all participants who generously gave their time and without whom this research would not have been possible; Peter Goodin for experiments’ PsychoPy coding and technical support; Lee Lawrence for EEG lab and Neuroscan technical support and assistance; Laila Hugrass for EEG lab assistance; Vikki Nousias for assistance with EEG data collection and pilot study analysis. Thanks also to the reviewers of this paper for their useful suggestions and recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

ACAnterior Cingulate
BABrodmann Areas
IPLInferior Parietal Lobule
LHLeft Hemisphere
M(C)Medial (central)
MFGMedial Frontal Gyrus
MidFGMiddle Frontal Gyrus
OGOrbital Gyrus
RHRight Hemisphere

Appendix A

Table A1. IFAW, Agilis three highest theta amplitudes from the first, middle, and final 10-s epochs (includes BVA times, ad times, and Brodmann areas (BA)) used for ad images of peak theta averages shown in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 and Table 2; Table 3.
Table A1. IFAW, Agilis three highest theta amplitudes from the first, middle, and final 10-s epochs (includes BVA times, ad times, and Brodmann areas (BA)) used for ad images of peak theta averages shown in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5 and Table 2; Table 3.
ADAD TIME
MANUP60 s AMPBVA TIMEAD TIME 10 s (10,000 ms)MPC-HC sLORETA MAPBAHEMI-SPHERELOBEBRAIN REGIONPEAK
EPOCHTHETA BANDLORuVPosn secAD S1: 0:00–10:00FRAMEuAmm2TALAIRACH COORDINATES
S1 0–10 s 0.73212.850.7320.732180.174X = −3, Y = −60, Z = 57BA7 ParietalPrecuneus
3.349.453.3523.352840.0218(X = −3, Y = −52, Z = −6)BA10 FrontalMFG
9.28912.859.3019.3012330.0271(X = −3, Y = −52, Z = −6)BA10LHFrontalMFGhighest
S2 25–35 s 2.2029.782.20527.2056800.0191(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalMFG
7.67715.537.67732.6778170.0393(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11M(C)FrontalMFGhighest
S3 50–60 s 1.7216.361.72751.72712930.0461(X = −38, Y = 52, Z = −6)BA10LHFrontalMidFGhighest
5.12511.975.12555.12513780.0231(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalMFG
IFAW54 s AMPBVA TIMEAD TIMEMPC-HC sLORETA MAPBAHEMI-SPHERELOBEBRAIN REGIONPEAK
EPOCHTHETA BANDLORuVPosn secAD 0:00–10:00FRAMEuAmm2TALAIRACH COORDINATES
S1 0–10 s 0.6528.220.6330.633190.0233(X = −3, Y = 52, Z = −6)BA10 FrontalMFG
3.7076.753.7063.7061110.0195(X = −3, Y = 45, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalOG
4.8016.414.8014.8011440.0156(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalMFG
9.7466.99.7469.7462920.0132(X = -3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11M(C)FrontalMFGhighest
S2 22–32 s 2.51972.53224.5327350.0169(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11M(C)FrontalMFGhighest
8.0546.078.06530.0659010.0147(X = −3, Y = 52, Z = 1)BA10 LimbicAC
9.2325.749.23231.2329360.0208(X = 60, Y = −39, Z = 29)BA40 ParietalIPL
S3 44–54 s 0.4935.060.49144.49113330.0455(X = 60, Y = −39, Z = 29)BA40 ParietalIPL
2.27510.432.27646.27613870.0183(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11M(C)FrontalMFGhighest
4.9995.554.99948.99914690.0473(X = 60, Y = −39, Z = 29)BA40 ParietalIPL
7.6085.767.61951.61915470.0171(X = −3, Y = 45, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalOG
AGILIS89 s/1:29 m AMPBVA TIMEAD TIMEMPC-HC SLORETA MAPBAHEMI-SPHERELOBEBRAIN REGIONPEAK
EPOCHTHETA BANDLORuVPosn secAD S1 0:00–10:00FRAMEuAmm2TALAIRACH COORDINATES
S1 0–10 s 1.02212.621.0181.018310.0297(X = −3, Y = 45, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalOG
7.64712.317.6477.6472290.039(X = 32, Y = 59, Z = −6)BA10RHFrontalMidFGhighest
8.8189.558.8168.8162640.0191(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalMFG
S2 40–50 s 2.4147.482.41442.41412710.0139(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalMFG
4.1888.914.17544.17513240.0237(X = −3, Y = 45, Z = −20)BA11 FrontalOG
6.11219.196.11246.11213820.0497(X = −3, Y = 38, Z = −20)BA11M(C)FrontalMFGhighest
9.06812.459.06849.06814710.0341(X = −38, Y = 52, Z = −6)BA10 FrontalMidFG
S3 79–89 s1:295.2997.425.30784.307 = 1:24:30725270.016(X = −3, Y = 52, Z = −6)BA10M(C)LH/RHFrontalMFGhighest
Table A2. Two tailed t-test theta average results for ManUp, IFAW, and Agilis showing Alpha ↓ Theta ↑.
Table A2. Two tailed t-test theta average results for ManUp, IFAW, and Agilis showing Alpha ↓ Theta ↑.
MANUP THETA ALPHAPaired Samples T-TestPaired Differences (2-tailed)
THETA-ALPHAMeanAlpha ↓ Theta ↑Std. DeviationStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of Difference tdfSig.
Frontal Electrodes LowerUpper (2-tailed)
Pair 1FzmuTH* - FzmuALPH†1.239Alpha ↓ Theta ↑11.5501.826−2.4554.9330.679390.501
Pair 3FpzmuTH - FpzmuALPH8.578Alpha ↓ Theta ↑5.9420.9396.67810.4799.131390.000
Pair 4Fp1muTH - Fp1muALPH8.603Alpha ↓ Theta ↑6.0360.9546.67310.5349.015390.000
Pair 5AF3muTH - AF3muALPH6.123Alpha ↓ Theta ↑8.1011.2813.5328.7144.780390.000
Pair 6F7muTH - F7muALPH2.175Alpha ↓ Theta ↑9.3691.481−0.8225.1711.468390.150
Pair 7F5muTH - F5muALPH2.153Alpha ↓ Theta ↑9.7381.540−0.9625.2671.398390.170
Pair 8F3muTH - F3muALPH2.200Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.4941.659−1.1565.5561.326390.193
Pair 9F1muTH - F1muALPH2.196Alpha ↓ Theta ↑11.2901.785−1.4155.8071.230390.226
Pair 13Fp2muTH - Fp2muALPH8.211Alpha ↓ Theta ↑6.0090.9506.29010.1338.643390.000
Pair 14AF4muTH - AF4muALPH5.316Alpha ↓ Theta ↑8.2531.3052.6767.9554.074390.000
Pair 15F2muTH - F2muALPH0.590Alpha ↓ Theta ↑11.5351.824−3.0994.2790.324390.748
Pair 16F4muTH - F4muALPH0.742Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.7491.700−2.6964.1800.437390.665
Pair 17F6muTH - F6muALPH0.671Alpha ↓ Theta ↑9.1051.440−2.2413.5830.466390.644
Pair 18F8muTH - F8muALPH1.243Alpha ↓ Theta ↑8.2181.299−1.3853.8720.957390.345
IFAW THETA ALPHAPaired Samples T-TestPaired Differences (2-tailed)
THETA-ALPHAMeanAlpha ↓ Theta ↑Std. DeviationStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of Difference tdfSig.
Frontal electrodes LowerUpper (2-tailed)
Pair 1FpzifTH - FpzifALPH7.666Alpha ↓ Theta ↑8.7811.3884.85810.4755.522390.000
Pair 3FzifTH - FzifALPH0.921Alpha ↓ Theta ↑12.8582.033−3.1915.0330.453390.653
Pair 4Fp1ifTH - Fp1ifALPH7.584Alpha ↓ Theta ↑8.2941.3114.93110.2365.783390.000
Pair 5AF3ifTH - AF3ifALPH5.067Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.1431.6041.8248.3113.160390.003
Pair 6F7ifTH - F7ifALPH1.574Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.4611.654−1.7724.9190.951390.347
Pair 7F5ifTH - F5ifALPH1.591Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.8291.712−1.8735.0540.929390.359
Pair 8F3ifTH - F3ifALPH1.376Alpha ↓ Theta ↑11.7091.851−2.3685.1210.743390.462
Pair 9F1ifTH - F1ifALPH1.319Alpha ↓ Theta ↑12.4551.969−2.6645.3020.670390.507
Pair 13Fp2ifTH - Fp2ifALPH7.237Alpha ↓ Theta ↑8.8331.3974.41210.0625.182390.000
Pair 14AF4ifTH - AF4ifALPH4.460Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.3811.6411.1407.7802.717390.010
Pair 15F2ifTH - F2ifALPH0.315Alpha ↓ Theta ↑12.2831.942−3.6134.2440.162390.872
Pair 16F4ifTH - F4ifALPH0.579Alpha ↓ Theta ↑11.2561.780−3.0214.1790.325390.747
Pair 17F6ifTH - F6ifALPH0.652Alpha ↓ Theta ↑9.6161.520−2.4233.7270.429390.670
Pair 18F8ifTH - F8ifALPH2.016Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.8301.712−1.4485.4791.177390.246
Pair 22P7ifTH - P7ifALPH0.816Alpha ↓ Theta ↑13.0422.062−3.3554.9870.396390.694
Pair 23P5if - P5ifALPH0.884Alpha ↓ Theta ↑14.5532.301−3.7715.5380.384390.703
Pair 26PO7if - PO7ifALPH1.684Alpha ↓ Theta ↑13.5012.135−2.6346.0020.789390.435
Pair 27PO5if - PO5ifALPH1.645Alpha ↓ Theta ↑13.6342.156−2.7156.0060.763390.450
Pair 28PO3ifTH - PO3ifALPH1.859Alpha ↓ Theta ↑13.1712.082−2.3536.0710.893390.378
Pair 29P2ifTH - P2ifALPH0.109Alpha ↓ Theta ↑15.6142.469−4.8855.1030.044390.965
Pair 30P4ifTH - P4ifALPH1.394Alpha ↓ Theta ↑14.8532.349−3.3566.1440.594390.556
Pair 31P6ifTH - P6ifALPH2.557Alpha ↓ Theta ↑13.7112.168−1.8286.9421.179390.245
Pair 32P8ifTH - P8ifALPH3.392Alpha ↓ Theta ↑14.6292.313−1.2868.0711.466390.151
Pair 33PO4ifTH - PO4ifALPH3.418Alpha ↓ Theta ↑13.8152.184−1.0017.8361.565390.126
Pair 34PO6ifTH - PO6ifALPH3.586Alpha ↓ Theta ↑13.6692.161−0.7857.9581.659390.105
Pair 35PO8ifTH - PO8ifALPH3.301Alpha ↓ Theta ↑13.2602.097−0.9407.5411.574390.123
AGILIS THETA ALPHAPaired Samples T-TestPaired Differences (2-tailed)
THETA-ALPHAMeanAlpha ↓ Theta ↑Std. DeviationStd. Error Mean95% Confidence Interval of Difference tdfSig.
Frontal electrodes LowerUpper (2-tailed)
Pair 1FpzagTH - FpzagALPH8.023Alpha ↓ Theta ↑6.2050.9816.03810.0078.177390.000
Pair 3FzagTH - FzagALPH1.474Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.5901.674−1.9134.8600.880390.384
Pair 4Fp1AagTH - Fp1agALPH7.921Alpha ↓ Theta ↑6.1800.9775.9459.8978.106390.000
Pair 5AF3agTH - AF3agALPH5.551Alpha ↓ Theta ↑7.9251.2533.0168.0854.429390.000
Pair 6F7agTH - F7agALPH2.773Alpha ↓ Theta ↑6.6581.0530.6444.9032.635390.012
Pair 7F5agTH - F5agALPH2.453Alpha ↓ Theta ↑7.7471.225−0.0254.9302.003390.052
Pair 8F3agTH - F3agALPH1.945Alpha ↓ Theta ↑9.3531.479−1.0464.9371.315390.196
Pair 9F1agTH - F1agALPH1.916Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.1931.612−1.3435.1761.189390.242
Pair 13Fp2agTH - Fp2agALPH7.707Alpha ↓ Theta ↑6.0850.9625.7619.6538.011390.000
Pair 14AF4agTH - AF4agALPH5.294Alpha ↓ Theta ↑7.6821.2152.8377.7514.359390.000
Pair 15F2agTH - F2agALPH1.134Alpha ↓ Theta ↑10.1521.605−2.1134.3800.706390.484
Pair 16F4agTH - F4agALPH1.353Alpha ↓ Theta ↑8.8791.404−1.4864.1930.964390.341
Pair 17F6agTH - F6agALPH1.833Alpha ↓ Theta ↑6.9581.100−0.3924.0581.666390.104
Pair 18F8agTH - F8agALPH2.982Alpha ↓ Theta ↑7.1801.1350.6865.2782.627390.012

References

  1. Ferrier, A.; Ward, B.; Palermo, J. Behavior Change: Why action advertising works harder than passive advertising. In Proceedings of the Society for Consumer Psychology: Proceedings of the 2012 Annual Conference, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 16–18 February 2012. [Google Scholar]
  2. Sigurdarson, J. Action-based advertising: The effectos of behaviour change on attitudes. Master’s Thesis, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Harris, J.M.; Ciorciari, J.; Gountas, J. Public health social media communications and consumer neuroscience. Cogent Psychol. 2018, 5, 1434058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Republic of Everyone. Tails for Whales. Available online: http://republicofeveryone.com (accessed on 1 September 2015).
  5. Droga5. World Humanitarian Day. 19 August 2012. Available online: http://www.whd-iwashere.org/ (accessed on 12 April 2019).
  6. Ferrier, A. The Advertising Effect; Oxford University Press: South Melbourne, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  7. Grönroos, C. On defining marketing: Finding a new roadmap for marketing. Mark. Theory 2006, 6, 395–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Strong, E.K., Jr. Theories of selling. J. Appl. Psychol. 1925, 9, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dry July Foundation. Dry July. Available online: https://www.dryjuly.com/ (accessed on 12 April 2019).
  10. FebFast. Pause for a Cause. Available online: https://www.febfast.org.au/ (accessed on 12 April 2019).
  11. 100 Day Challenge. Available online: https://www.100dc.com.au/ (accessed on 12 April 2019).
  12. Ahlert, D.; Kenning, P.; Plassmann, H. A Window to the Consumer’s Mind: Application of Functional Brain Imaging Techniques to Advertising Research. In International Advertising and Communication; Diehl, S., Terlutter, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 163–178. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ciorciari, J. Bioelectrical Signals: The Electroencephalogram. In Physiology, Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering; Wood, A., Ed.; Taylor & Francis Inc.: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  14. Micu, A.; Plummer, J.T. Measurable Emotions: How Television Ads Really Work—Patterns of Reactions to Commercials Can Demonstrate Advertising Effectiveness. J. Advert. Res. 2010, 50, 137–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shapiro, S.; MacInnis, D.J. Understanding program-induced mood effects: Decoupling arousal from valence. J. Advert. 2002, 31, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lim, W.M. Demystifying neuromarketing. J. Bus. Res. 2018, 91, 205–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Eser, Z.; Isin, F.B.; Tolon, M. Perceptions of marketing academics, neurologists, and marketing professionals about neuromarketing. J. Mark. Manag. 2011, 27, 854–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kenning, P. What advertisers can do and cannot do with neuroscience. Int. J. Advert. 2008, 27, 472–473. [Google Scholar]
  19. Javor, A.; Koller, M.; Lee, N.; Chamberlain, L.; Ransmayr, G. Neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience: Contributions to neurology. BMC Neurol. 2013, 13, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Kenning, P.; Linzmajer, M. Consumer neuroscience: An overview of an emerging discipline with implications for consumer policy. J. Für Verbrauch. Und Lebensm. 2011, 6, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Venkatraman, V.; Dimoka, A.; Pavlou, P.A.; Vo, K.; Hampton, W.; Bollinger, B.; Hershfield, H.E.; Ishihara, M.; Winer, R.S. Predicting advertising success beyond traditional measures: New insights from neurophysiological methods and market response modeling. J. Mark. Res. 2015, 52, 436–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ohme, R.; Reykowska, D.; Wiener, D.; Choromanska, A. Application of frontal EEG asymmetry to advertising research. J. Econ. Psychol. 2010, 31, 785–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Plassmann, H.; Ambler, T.; Braeutigam, S.; Kenning, P. What can advertisers learn from neuroscience? Int. J. Advert. 2007, 26, 151–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Vecchiato, G.; Astolfi, L.; De Vico Fallani, F.; Toppi, J.; Aloise, F.; Bez, F.; Wei, D.; Kong, W.; Dai, J.; Cincotti, F. On the use of EEG or MEG brain imaging tools in neuromarketing research. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2011, 2011, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Vecchiato, G.; Cherubino, P.; Trettel, A.; Babiloni, F. Neuroelectrical Brain Imaging Tools for the Study of the Efficacy of TV Advertising Stimuli and Their Application to Neuromarketing; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stead, M.; Gordon, R.; Angus, K.; McDermott, L. A systematic review of social marketing effectiveness. Health Educ. 2007, 107, 126–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. The Economist Intelligence Unit. Industry Report, Healthcare: Australia; The Economist Intelligence Unit: London, UK, March 2014. [Google Scholar]
  28. Eurostat. Health care expenditure by provider [hlth_sha11_hp]; Eurostat, Ed.; Eurostat: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  29. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Health expenditure Australia 2016-17; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Ed.; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra, Australia, 2018; Volume Cat. no. HWE 74.
  30. Stoye, G. UK Health Spending; Institute for Fiscal Studies, Nuffield Foundation: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ford, G.; Lewis, J.; Cooper, J. UK Health Accounts: 2016; Office for National Statistics: Newport, UK, 2018.
  32. Department of Finance. Campaign Advertising by Australian Government Departments and Agencies Annual Report 2016-17; Department of Finance, Ed.; Department of Finance: Canberra, Australia, 2017; p. 40.
  33. Kantar Media. Healthcare Marketing; Kantar Media: Chicago, IL, USA, 17 October 2016. [Google Scholar]
  34. Hornik, R. Public Health Communication: EVIDENCE for Behavior Change; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lim, M.S.; Wright, C.J.; Carrotte, E.R.; Pedrana, A.E. Reach, engagement, and effectiveness: A systematic review of evaluation methodologies used in health promotion via social networking sites. Health Promot. J. Aust. 2016, 27, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Pang, B.; Kubacki, K. The four Es of social marketing: Ethicality, expensiveness, exaggeration and effectiveness. J. Soc. Mark. 2015, 5, 83–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mehta, A. Advertising attitudes and advertising effectiveness. J. Advert. Res. 2000, 40, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Strecher, V.J.; McClure, J.; Alexander, G.; Chakraborty, B.; Nair, V.; Konkel, J.; Greene, S.; Couper, M.; Carlier, C.; Wiese, C. The role of engagement in a tailored web-based smoking cessation program: Randomized controlled trial. J. Med Internet Res. 2008, 10, e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kong, W.; Zhao, X.; Hu, S.; Vecchiato, G.; Babiloni, F. Electronic evaluation for video commercials by impression index. Cogn. Neurodyn. 2013, 7, 531–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Quester, P.; Neal, C.; Pettigrew, S. Consumer Behaviour: Implications for Marketing Strategy, 5th ed.; McGraw-Hill Irwin: New York City, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  41. Heath, R. Seducing the Subconscious: The Psychology of Emotional Influence in Advertising; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  42. Teixeira, T.S.; Wedel, M.; Pieters, R. Moment-to-moment optimal branding in TV commercials: Preventing avoidance by pulsing. Mark. Sci. 2010, 29, 783–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Silberstein, R.; Schier, M.; Pipingas, A.; Ciorciari, J.; Wood, S.; Simpson, D. Steady-state visually evoked potential topography associated with a visual vigilance task. Brain Topogr. 1990, 3, 337–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Silberstein, R.; Nield, G. Brain activity correlates of consumer brand choice shift associated with television advertising. Int. J. Advert. 2008, 27, 359–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rossiter, J.R.; Silberstein, R.S.; Harris, P.G.; Nield, G. Brain-imaging detection of visual scene encoding in long-term memory for TV commercials. J. Advert. Res. 2001, 41, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Roca, M.; Torralva, T.; Gleichgerrcht, E.; Woolgar, A.; Thompson, R.; Duncan, J.; Manes, F. The role of Area 10 (BA10) in human multitasking and in social cognition: A lesion study. Neuropsychologia 2011, 49, 3525–3531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Deppe, M.; Schwindt, W.; Kugel, H.; Plassmann, H.; Kenning, P. Nonlinear responses within the medial prefrontal cortex reveal when specific implicit information influences economic decision making. J. Neuroimaging 2005, 15, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Rogers, R.D.; Owen, A.M.; Middleton, H.C.; Williams, E.J.; Pickard, J.D.; Sahakian, B.J.; Robbins, T.W. Choosing between small, likely rewards and large, unlikely rewards activates inferior and orbital prefrontal cortex. J. Neurosci. 1999, 19, 9029–9038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ioannides, A.A.; Liu, L.; Theofilou, D.; Dammers, J.; Burne, T.; Ambler, T.; Rose, S. Real time processing of affective and cognitive stimuli in the human brain extracted from MEG signals. Brain Topogr. 2000, 13, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Silberstein, R.; Ciorciari, J.; Pipingas, A. Steady-state visually evoked potential topography during the Wisconsin card sorting test. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1995, 96, 24–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Davidson, R.J.; Jackson, D.C.; Kalin, N.H. Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: Perspectives from affective neuroscience. Psychol. Bull. 2000, 126, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Davidson, R.J.; Tomarken, A.J. Laterality and emotion: An electrophysiological approach. Handb. Neuropsychol. 1989, 3, 419–441. [Google Scholar]
  53. Davidson, R.J.; Ekman, P.; Saron, C.D.; Senulis, J.A.; Friesen, W.V. Approach-withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: Emotional expression and brain physiology: I. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1990, 58, 330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Klimesch, W. EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: A review and analysis. Brain Res. Rev. 1999, 29, 169–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Vecchiato, G.; Toppi, J.; Astolfi, L.; Fallani, F.D.V.; Cincotti, F.; Mattia, D.; Bez, F.; Babiloni, F. Spectral EEG frontal asymmetries correlate with the experienced pleasantness of TV commercial advertisements. Med Biol. Eng. Comput. 2011, 49, 579–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Vecchiato, G.; Kong, W.; Giulio Maglione, A.; Wei, D. Understanding the impact of TV commercials. IEEE Pulse 2012, 3, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Davidson, R.J.; Irwin, W. The functional neuroanatomy of emotion and affective style. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1999, 3, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ohme, R.; Matukin, M. A small frog that makes a big difference: Brain wave testing of TV advertisements. IEEE Pulse 2012, 3, 28–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Belanche, D.; Flavián, C.; Pérez-Rueda, A. Understanding interactive online advertising: Congruence and product involvement in highly and lowly arousing, skippable video ads. J. Interact. Mark. 2017, 37, 75–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pascual-Marqui, R.D.; Esslen, M.; Kochi, K.; Lehmann, D. Functional imaging with low-resolution brain electromagnetic tomography (LORETA): A review. Methods Find. Exp. Clin. Pharmacol. 2002, 24, 91–95. [Google Scholar]
  61. Liu, Y.; Shrum, L. What is interactivity and is it always such a good thing? Implications of definition, person, and situation for the influence of interactivity on advertising effectiveness. J. Advert. 2002, 31, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hanna, R.; Rohm, A.; Crittenden, V.L. We’re all connected: The power of the social media ecosystem. Bus. Horiz. 2011, 54, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. O’Reilly, T.; Battelle, J. Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years on; Web 2.0 summit; O’Reilly Media, Inc.: Newton, MA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lustria, M.L.A. Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2007, 58, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Garretson, R. Future tense: The global CMO. A Report from the Economist Intelligence Unit; Sponsored by Google; Economist Intelligence Unit: London, UK, 2008; p. 2010. [Google Scholar]
  66. Cassell, M.; Jackson, C.; Cheuvront, B. Health communication on the Internet: An effective channel for health behavior change? J. Health Commun. 1998, 3, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
  67. Reading, N.; Bellman, S.; Varan, D.; Winzar, H. Effectiveness of telescopic advertisements delivered via personal video recorders. J. Advert. Res. 2006, 46, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Treleaven-Hassard, S.; Gold, J.; Bellman, S.; Schweda, A.; Ciorciari, J.; Critchley, C.; Varan, D. Using the P3a to gauge automatic attention to interactive television advertising. J. Econ. Psychol. 2010, 31, 777–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Belanche, D.; Flavián, C.; Pérez-Rueda, A. User adaptation to interactive advertising formats: The effect of previous exposure, habit and time urgency on ad skipping behaviors. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 961–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dumbrell, D.; Steele, R. #worldhealthday 2014: The anatomy of a global public health twitter campaign. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences HICSS 2015, Kauai, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
  71. Gold, J.; Pedrana, A.E.; Stoove, M.A.; Chang, S.; Howard, S.; Asselin, J.; Ilic, O.; Batrouney, C.; Hellard, M.E. Developing health promotion interventions on social networking sites: Recommendations from The FaceSpace Project. J. Med Internet Res. 2012, 14, e30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Voorveld, H.A.; van Noort, G.; Muntinga, D.G.; Bronner, F. Engagement with social media and social media advertising: The differentiating role of platform type. J. Advert. 2018, 47, 38–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dolan, R.; Conduit, J.; Fahy, J.; Goodman, S. Social media engagement behaviour: A uses and gratifications perspective. J. Strateg. Mark. 2016, 24, 261–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Hollebeek, L.D.; Glynn, M.S.; Brodie, R.J. Consumer brand engagement in social media: Conceptualization, scale development and validation. J. Interact. Mark. 2014, 28, 149–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Brodie, R.J.; Ilic, A.; Juric, B.; Hollebeek, L. Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hollebeek, L. Exploring customer brand engagement: Definition and themes. J. Strateg. Mark. 2011, 19, 555–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. D. Hollebeek, L.; Chen, T. Exploring positively-versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: A conceptual model. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2014, 23, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Davis Mersey, R.; Malthouse, E.C.; Calder, B.J. Engagement with online media. J. Media Bus. Stud. 2010, 7, 39–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Calder, B.J.; Malthouse, E.C.; Schaedel, U. An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. J. Interact. Mark. 2009, 23, 321–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Calder, B.J.; Isaac, M.S.; Malthouse, E.C. How to capture consumer experiences: A context-specific approach to measuring engagement: Predicting consumer behavior across qualitatively different experiences. J. Advert. Res. 2016, 56, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Plassmann, H.; Venkatraman, V.; Huettel, S.; Yoon, C. Consumer neuroscience: Applications, challenges, and possible solutions. J. Mark. Res. 2015, 52, 427–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gountas, S.; Ciorciari, J.; Gountas, G.; Huddle, S. An investigation of the EEG correlates associated with viewing alcohol and drug-related behaviours on social media. In Proceedings of the 17th World Congress of Psychophysiology, Hiroshima, Japan, 23–27 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  83. Knutson, B.; Bossaerts, P. Neural antecedents of financial decisions. J. Neurosci. 2007, 27, 8174–8177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Couwenberg, L.E.; Boksem, M.A.; Dietvorst, R.C.; Worm, L.; Verbeke, W.J.; Smidts, A. Neural responses to functional and experiential ad appeals: Explaining ad effectiveness. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2016, 34, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Peirce, J. PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. J. Neurosci. Methods 2007, 162, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Peirce, J. Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy. Front. Neuroinform. 2009, 2, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Mayr, S.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Faul, F. A short tutorial of GPower. Tutor. Quant. Methods Psychol. 2007, 3, 51–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Buchner, A.; Lang, A.-G. Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav. Res. Methods 2009, 41, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Faul, F.; Erdfelder, E.; Lang, A.-G.; Buchner, A. G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav. Res. Methods 2007, 39, 175–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mostafa, M.M. The persistence of memory: An fMRI investigation of the brain processing of Surrealistic imagery in advertising. J. Mark. Commun. 2013, 19, 341–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rhodes, G. The evolutionary psychology of facial beauty. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2006, 57, 199–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Thornhill, R.; Gangestad, S.W. Human facial beauty. Hum. Nat. 1993, 4, 237–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zubcevic, N.; Mavondo, F.; Luxton, S. Achieving at university and beyond: Does it help to be good looking? Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2012, 24, 785–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Winkielman, P.; Halberstadt, J.; Fazendeiro, T.; Catty, S. Prototypes are attractive because they are easy on the mind. Psychol. Sci. 2006, 17, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Trujillo, L.T.; Jankowitsch, J.M.; Langlois, J.H. Beauty is in the ease of the beholding: A neurophysiological test of the averageness theory of facial attractiveness. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 2014, 14, 1061–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. ManUp.org.au. Making of the Man Up Campaign Ad. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze1FeFO8wqo (accessed on 12 April 2019).
  98. Mulligan, K.; Scherer, K.R. Toward a working definition of emotion. Emot. Rev. 2012, 4, 345–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. LeDoux, J. A neuroscientist’s perspective on debates about the nature of emotion. Emot. Rev. 2012, 4, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Adams, R.B., Jr.; Kleck, R.E. Perceived gaze direction and the processing of facial displays of emotion. Psychol. Sci. 2003, 14, 644–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Deppe, M.; Schwindt, W.; Pieper, A.; Kugel, H.; Plassmann, H.; Kenning, P.; Deppe, K.; Ringelstein, E.B. Anterior cingulate reflects susceptibility to framing during attractiveness evaluation. Neuroreport 2007, 18, 1119–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Posner, J.; Russell, J.A.; Peterson, B.S. The circumplex model of affect: An integrative approach to affective neuroscience, cognitive development, and psychopathology. Dev. Psychopathol. 2005, 17, 715–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Baker, W.E.; Honea, H.; Russell, C.A. Do not wait to reveal the brand name: The effect of brand-name placement on television advertising effectiveness. J. Advert. 2004, 33, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Nelson-Field, K. The Client was Right: Make the Logo Bigger. In Proceedings of the Mumbrella MSIX 2018, Powerhouse Museum, Sydney, Australia, 9 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  105. Horton, T. 10 Ted Minutes: What Science has Taught Me. In Proceedings of the Mumbrell MSIX 2018, Powerhouse Musuem, Sydney, Australia, 9 November 2018. [Google Scholar]
  106. Pynta, P.; Seixas, S.A.; Nield, G.E.; Hier, J.; Millward, E.; Silberstein, R.B. The Power of Social Television: Can Social Media Build Viewer Engagement?: A New Approach to Brain Imaging of Viewer Immersion. J. Advert. Res. 2014, 54, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kanwisher, N.; McDermott, J.; Chun, M.M. The fusiform face area: A module in human extrastriate cortex specialized for face perception. J. Neurosci. 1997, 17, 4302–4311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Rossion, B.; Schiltz, C.; Crommelinck, M. The functionally defined right occipital and fusiform “face areas” discriminate novel from visually familiar faces. Neuroimage 2003, 19, 877–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Farrow, T.F.; Zheng, Y.; Wilkinson, I.D.; Spence, S.A.; Deakin, J.W.; Tarrier, N.; Griffiths, P.D.; Woodruff, P.W. Investigating the functional anatomy of empathy and forgiveness. Neuroreport 2001, 12, 2433–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Psychology Board of Australia. Registrant Data—Psychology Board Australia; Psychology Board of Australia: Sydney, Australia, 19 April 2018; p. 11.
Figure 1. Experiment flow chart, tasks 1–3.
Figure 1. Experiment flow chart, tasks 1–3.
Behavsci 09 00042 g001
Figure 2. ManUp grand average theta from first, middle, and final 10 s epochs.
Figure 2. ManUp grand average theta from first, middle, and final 10 s epochs.
Behavsci 09 00042 g002
Figure 3. IFAW grand average theta from first, middle, and final 10 s epochs.
Figure 3. IFAW grand average theta from first, middle, and final 10 s epochs.
Behavsci 09 00042 g003
Figure 4. Agilis grand average theta from first, middle, and final 10-s epochs.
Figure 4. Agilis grand average theta from first, middle, and final 10-s epochs.
Behavsci 09 00042 g004
Figure 5. ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW sLORETA tomographic maps of three highest theta amplitudes from the first, middle, and final 10-s epochs (includes BVA sec times (not ad times) for 10-s epochs). *Agilis shows two sLORETA tomographic maps from the middle 10-s epoch, not final 10-s epoch, as three highest theta amplitudes occurred in the first and middle epochs, not the final epoch.
Figure 5. ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW sLORETA tomographic maps of three highest theta amplitudes from the first, middle, and final 10-s epochs (includes BVA sec times (not ad times) for 10-s epochs). *Agilis shows two sLORETA tomographic maps from the middle 10-s epoch, not final 10-s epoch, as three highest theta amplitudes occurred in the first and middle epochs, not the final epoch.
Behavsci 09 00042 g005
Figure 6. (a) Before and after changes in total donation amounts for all 7 digital/social media advertisements: ManUp, Agilis, IFAW, Unicef Tap Project, Clinton, DKMS, United Nations; (b) Breakdown of before and after changes in total donation amounts for each of 7 digital/social media advertisements.
Figure 6. (a) Before and after changes in total donation amounts for all 7 digital/social media advertisements: ManUp, Agilis, IFAW, Unicef Tap Project, Clinton, DKMS, United Nations; (b) Breakdown of before and after changes in total donation amounts for each of 7 digital/social media advertisements.
Behavsci 09 00042 g006
Figure 7. (a) Sum total amounts of changes in before and after donations for ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW; (b) Individual breakdown of changes in before and after donations amounts for ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW.
Figure 7. (a) Sum total amounts of changes in before and after donations for ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW; (b) Individual breakdown of changes in before and after donations amounts for ManUp, Agilis, and IFAW.
Behavsci 09 00042 g007
Figure 8. Before and after changes in donation amounts for (a) ManUp; (b) Agilis; and (c) IFAW.
Figure 8. Before and after changes in donation amounts for (a) ManUp; (b) Agilis; and (c) IFAW.
Behavsci 09 00042 g008
Table 1. Electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes used for the paired sample t-test.
Table 1. Electroencephalography (EEG) electrodes used for the paired sample t-test.
Brain Region/LobeCentral ElectrodesLeft Hemisphere ElectrodesRight Hemisphere Electrodes
anterior frontalFpZFp1, AF3Fp2, AF4
frontalFzF7, F5, F3, F1F2, F4, F6, F8
fronto-centralFCZFC3, FC1FC2, FC4
left frontal temporal FC5FC6
parietal P7, P5, P3, P1P2, P4, P6, P8
parieto-occipital PO7, PO5, PO3PO4, PO6, PO8
Table 2. ManUp, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and Agilis grand average theta and alpha amplitudes µV (from brand vision analyser (BVA)) for first, middle, and final 10-s epochs.
Table 2. ManUp, International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), and Agilis grand average theta and alpha amplitudes µV (from brand vision analyser (BVA)) for first, middle, and final 10-s epochs.
AdGrand Average Amplitudes µV0–2 sFIRST 10 sMIDDLE 10 sFINAL 10 s
ManUptheta average ↑ µV12.859.4512.85X9.7815.53X16.36 * BA10, LH11.97
alpha average ↓ µV0.5351.870.728X0.1800.0139X0.8371.19
IFAWtheta average ↑ µV8.226.756.416.97.06.07X10.43 * BA11, M5.55
alpha average ↓ µV0.6180.2610.1500.1020.5600.152X1.240.833
Agilistheta average ↑ µV12.6212.319.55X7.488.9119.19 * BA11, M7.42X
alpha average ↓ µV0.2722.650.793X0.2621.191.240.572X
* highest theta peaks, Brodmann area (BA), left/right hemisphere (LH/RH), medial (M)).
Table 3. Brodmann areas from sLORETA tomographic maps for three highest amplitudes occurring in the first, middle or final 10-s epochs (Appendix A).
Table 3. Brodmann areas from sLORETA tomographic maps for three highest amplitudes occurring in the first, middle or final 10-s epochs (Appendix A).
Advertisement 10 s EpochhsBrodmann Area (BA)LobeGreater Left or Right Hemisphere (LH/RH) Activation/DominanceBrain Region: Frontal Gyrus
FIRST 10 s (S1)
ManUpBA10FrontalLHMedial
IFAWBA11Frontalneither substantial L/RH dominanceMedial
AgilisBA10FrontalRHMiddle
MIDDLE 10 s (S2)
ManUpBA11Frontalneither substantial L/RH dominanceMedial
IFAWBA11Frontalneither substantial L/RH dominance Medial
AgilisBA11FrontalLHMedial
FINAL 10 s (S3)/MIDDLE 10 s (S2) for Agilis *
ManUpBA10FrontalLHMiddle
IFAWBA11Frontalneither substantial L/RH dominanceMedial
AgilisBA11FrontalLHMedial
* Third highest amplitude occurred in the middle, not the final 10-s epoch for Agilis.
Table 4. Summary of 2-tailed t-test results of paired differences for frontal, parietal, and parietal–occipital regions showing theta/alpha synchronisation/desynchronisation (Alpha ↓ Theta ↑) (Appendix A).
Table 4. Summary of 2-tailed t-test results of paired differences for frontal, parietal, and parietal–occipital regions showing theta/alpha synchronisation/desynchronisation (Alpha ↓ Theta ↑) (Appendix A).
2 TAILED T-TESTELECTRODESN = 40MEAN ALPHA ↓ THETA ↑
PAIRSPaired Differences (theta-alpha average)Paired MeanPaired MeanPaired MeanPaired Mean DifferencesPaired Mean Differences
ManUpIFAWAgilisManUp - AgilisIFAW - Agilis
LEFT
Pair 1FpzTH * - FpzAPH 1.2397.6668.0230.556−0.356
Pair 3FzTH - FzAPH8.5780.9211.474−0.234−0.552
Pair 4Fp1TH - Fp1APH8.6037.5847.9210.682−0.337
Pair 5AF3TH – AF3APH6.1235.0675.551−5.075−0.483
Pair 6F7TH - F7APH2.1751.5742.773−0.599−1.200
Pair 7F5TH - F5APH2.1531.5912.453−0.300−0.862
Pair 8F3TH - F3APH2.2001.3761.9450.254−0.569
Pair 9F1TH - F1APH2.1961.3191.9160.279−0.598
RIGHT
Pair 13Fp2TH - Fp2APH8.2117.2377.7070.504−0.470
Pair 14AF4TH - AF4APH5.3164.4605.2940.022−0.835
Pair 15F2TH - F2APH0.5900.3151.134−0.543−0.818
Pair 16F4TH - F4APH0.7420.5791.353−0.611−0.774
Pair 17F6TH - F6APH0.6710.6521.833−1.162−1.181
Pair 18F8TH - F8APH1.2432.0162.982−1.739−0.966
* TH: Theta band; APH: Alpha band.
Table 5. EEG electrodes showing increase in theta and decrease in alpha averages.
Table 5. EEG electrodes showing increase in theta and decrease in alpha averages.
AdvertisementBrain Region/LobeCentral ElectrodesLeft Hemisphere ElectrodesRight Hemisphere Electrodes
ManUp, IFAW & Agilisanterior frontalFpZ,Fp1, AF3Fp2, AF4
ManUp, IFAW & AgilisfrontalFzF7, F5, F3, F1F2, F4, F6, F8
IFAW onlyparietal P7, P5, P3, P1P2, P4, P6, P8
IFAW onlyparieto-occipital PO7, PO5, PO3PO4, PO6, PO8
Table 6. Before and after mean, standard deviation, variance, and significance from the online survey for all 7 digital/social media advertisements.
Table 6. Before and after mean, standard deviation, variance, and significance from the online survey for all 7 digital/social media advertisements.
AdvertisementBeforeAfterVarianceSig.
N = 153 *MeanSDMeanSDMeanSD
Unicef Tap Project1.670.7421.580.7230.980.7230.096
United Nations2.270.781.940.7710.333−0.0090.000
Agilis2.890.3732.900.358−0.013−0.0150.707
DKMS1.970.8232.030.778−0.059−0.0450.358
ManUp2.750.5321.760.6980.9870.1660.000
IFAW2.010.7522.010.7610.0000.0091.000
Clinton2.820.4362.620.6180.1960.5630.000
* n = 153 not 152 as online survey data exported into Excel for all completed surveys used for analysis was 153, but an additional participant was excluded in SPSS due to rapid survey completion and repeat response indicating participant had not viewed digital advertisements and had responded to each question by pressing the same key.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Behav. Sci. EISSN 2076-328X Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top