Say NO to processed sugar!

 

The main aim of this advertisement is to persuade people to significantly reduce or cut down their intake on processed sugar, due to the adverse consequences of a diet high in processed sugar. A number of persuasive techniques are used here. 

Firstly, the use of an image of a person wearing a lab coat gesturing with their finger, and associated with the speech bubble ‘Say NO to processed sugar!’, infers an authority figure. The use of perceived authority figures can lead to higher level of  agreement; this effect was famously demonstrated by Milgram (1963), where it was found that participants complied with orders to give another person electric shocks because the person giving the orders was wearing a white lab coat, therefore perceived to have authority.  This advertisement in the same way aims to achieve compliance to a perceived authority figure, to reducing processed sugar. 

The information about health concerns listed on the advertisement can be considered negative information. Negative information tends to receive more attention than does positive information when judgments are being made. Cacioppo, Gardner, and Berntson (1997) suggested the bias towards negative information arises because the negative evaluation system responds with a larger output, therefore will play a larger role in decisions and judgments. The idea behind this information is that people will pay attention to the negative information and consider it in their decision to reduce their consumption of processed sugar. 

 

The listed information provided regarding the health risks associated with a highly processed sugar diet is below a title reading: ‘according to experts’. This is an example of inferring a credible source for the information. This form of message promotion has been found effective by Dean, Austin, and Watts (1971), who reported that their highly credible source induced greater persuasion when message recipients were adamantly opposed to the communicator's position. The current target audience for this advertisement is people who consume a lot of processed sugar, therefore oppose the view that processed sugar is a bad thing.  The perception of a credible source in this advertisement has purpose in challenging these opposing attitudes towards processed sugar. 

 

Rhetorical questions are a powerful tool of persuasion; such a technique is not used in weak arguments, as the overt response to this would sometimes end in disagreement (Cacioppo & Petty, 1981). In this advertisement, the rhetorical question ‘Sound scary?’ is used in association with the list of negative health impacts of processed sugar. This is a strong argument, as the overt answer to this question would in the majority of cases be ‘yes’, and disagreement to the question would be low. 

Lastly the persuasive technique of message repetition is used with the repeated text: ‘say NO to processed sugar!’ at both the top and bottom of the page. Such repetition of the same message leads to more exposure of it, and offers more opportunities to think about the message (Cacioppo & Petty, 1979). The idea behind this advertisement is to repeat exposure to the idea of cutting processed sugar out, so that the audience considers the message more.

References:

Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3–25.

 

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1979). Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response, recall, and persausion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 97-109.

 

Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1981). Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 432-440.

Dean, R., Austin, J., & Watts, W. (1971). Forewarning effects in persuasion: Field and classroom experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 210-221.

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of abnormal and social psychology, 67, 371.