5 THE CREATIVE WORK OF FOOD STYLISTS

BOX 4.5 THE CREATIVE WORK OF FOOD STYLISTS

People called food stylists prepare food for photography and try to make it look as good as possible. Sometimes the realities of the studio conventions call for surrogate munchies, and what you see in the ad may not be the real thing. For instance, ice cream may be mashed potatoes covered with chocolate sauce, because ice cream melts too fast under hot studio lights. The head on beer is often shampoo or soap suds, because real beer bubbles do not last long enough for photography. White glue is added to milk to make it look whiter and creamier, and roasted chickens are spray-painted golden brown to look like they’ve been in the oven for hours—but aren’t wrinkled (J.R.Wilson & Wilson, 1998). Pancakes are sprayed with Scotch-Card to keep the syrup from soaking in so you can see it run appetizingly down the sides of the pancake. Pieces of cereal may be glued into white cardboard in a bowl so they won’t ever get soggy

These conventions have been justified on the grounds that the literal falseness actually presents the product less deceptively and more honestly than literal truth (e.g., real ice cream would look like creamed soup, not ice cream, whereas mashed potatoes look like ice cream). Some cases, however, have been more questionable and sometimes have been disallowed by the FTC or the courts. For example, how many marbles should be allowed in the bottom of a soup bowl to buoy up the solid ingredients before it should be considered deceptively suggesting more solid ingredients than are really there? How about the shaving cream commercial where the sandpaper being shaved was actually loose sand grains on clear plastic? The razor would in fact shave sandpaper, but only fine sandpaper, not coarse. Because fine sandpaper looked like regular paper on TV, the advertiser used the sand grains on plastic. This particular case was argued in the courts for years (I.L.Preston, 1975).

Advertising and Marketing 114

True-But-Deceptive Ads (Induced Miscomprehension) The type of advertising claim that is potentially the most damaging is the

statement that is literally true, but miscomprehended, thus deceiving consumers by inducing them to construct a meaning of the ad that is inconsistent with reality. Such statements may be either evaluative or factual statements that imply something beyond themselves. We have long recognized the inferential nature of information processing, and studies on inference strongly suggest that, in order to derive the meaning of a statement, people typically interpret beyond what is explicitly stated. When applied to advertising, the consumer may be led to believe things about a product that were never explicitly stated (e.g., an ad states that a mouth-wash fights germs and the reader infers that it destroys germs).

There are several different types of linguistic constructions that may deceive the consumer without actually lying. Such claims may invite the consumer to infer beyond the information stated and thus construct a stronger interpretation. This inference-drawing tendency draws on our knowledge in the form of mental schemas discussed earlier and is a natural component of our information-processing system.

One common class of true-but-potentially-deceptive claims are hedge words or expressions (e.g., may, could help), which considerably weaken the force of a claim without totally denying it, e.g., “Scrubble Shampoo may help get rid of dandruff symptoms,” “Rainbow Toothpaste fights plaque,” or “Although I can’t promise to make you a millionaire by tomorrow, order my kit and you too may become rich.”

Another common type of linguistic construction that may imply false information is the elliptical comparative, e.g., “The Neptune Hatchback gives you more,” “Fibermunchies have more vitamin C,” or “Powderpower laundry detergent cleans better.” Comparative adjectives or adverbs necessarily involve some sort of standard to which something is being compared. When a product merely says it gives more, the statement is largely vacuous without knowing the basis of comparison (more than what?). As long as anything true could be used to complete the comparative, the statement cannot clearly be considered false. However, our minds tend to construct the most plausible basis of comparison, not necessarily the most accurate.

Often a causal relationship may be implied when no more than a correlational one in fact exists. Making further inferences beyond what is stated directly increases the active cognitive processing by the consumer, which in turn typically improves memory. One particular technique is the juxta-position of two imperatives, as in “Help your child excel in school. Buy an Apricot home computer” or “Shed those extra pounds. Buy the Blubberbuster massage belt.” In neither of these cases does the ad state that

115 A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication

buying the product will have the stated effect, but the causal inference is very easy to draw.

Such a cause-and-effect relationship may also be implied in a more general sense. For example, consider a radio commercial for diet pop where

a young woman talks about using and liking the product. Then, at the end of the ad, we hear a male voice saying, “And I like the way it looks on her too” Listeners may infer that drinking that product will cause female listeners to

be more attractive to men, although the ad never states that directly. Something unfavorable may be implied about a competitor’s products or services, without stating it directly Although direct false statements about the competition are usually not tolerated, false implications are less clearly proscribed. For example, consumers may infer from some statements like “If we do your taxes and you are audited by the IRS, we will accompany you to the audit” or “Our company gives refunds quickly if your traveler’s checks are lost or stolen” that competing companies do not provide the same service, whereas most in fact do so.

Reporting of scientific evidence in incomplete fashion may also imply considerably more than what is stated. In reporting results of surveys, “Three out of four doctors recommended Zayer Aspirin” would not be false if only four people were questioned. Claiming that “2,000 dentists recommended brushing with Laser Fluoride,” without reporting the sample size or “In a survey of 10,000 car owners, most preferred Zip” without reporting the number responding is seriously incomplete and potentially misleading. Our minds fill in the missing information in ways favorable to the advertiser.

Comparative advertising may employ very selective attribute comparisons to imply a much more global impression. For example, “The Egret Pistol has more front-seat leg room than a Ford Taurus, more rear-seat headroom than

a Nissan Maxima, and a larger trunk than a Toyota Camry” may imply that the car has a more spacious interior on most or all dimensions than any of the competitors, which is not necessarily a warranted inference from the given statements.

Studying Deception Scientifically

In experimental studies, people do in fact make the invited inferences described and remember the inferred information as having been stated in the ad (e.g., remembering that a toothpaste prevents cavities when the ad only said it fights cavities). This is a stable finding that occurs with a variety of dependent measures (Burke, DeSarbo, Oliver, & Robertson, 1988; D.M.Gardner & Leonard, 1990; Harris, Pounds, Maiorelle, & Mermis, 1993; Harris, Trusty, Bechtold, & Wasinger, 1989; Richards, 1990; J.E. Russo et al., 1981). Burke et al. (1988) even developed a computer-based measurement technique for assessing the deceptive effects of advertising

Advertising and Marketing 116

Training people not to make such inferences is very difficult, because the tendency to infer beyond the given information is so strong. However, a training session that has participants individually analyze ads, identify unwarranted inferences that maybe drawn, and rewrite ads to imply something more or less strongly, does have some significant effect in teaching them to put a brake on this natural inference-drawing activity (Bruno & Harris, 1980). Such research has direct application to the preparation of consumer-education materials, including some media literacy programs (see chapter 5).

Sometimes changing the wording of an ad may induce highly different interpretations, although it may not neatly fit the deception model. For example, consider a meat advertised as “75% lean” versus one that is “25% fat.” Consumers evaluate the former more favorably than the semantically identical latter wording (Levin & Gaeth, 1988). The positive frame leads us to construct a more positive image of the product. One type of currently popular advertising, where one must carefully watch the wording, is ads that appeal to environmental consciousness (see Box 4.6).

Now we turn to some noncognitive aspects of advertising, focusing on the use of sex to sell and more generally on the question of whether we can be persuaded by messages we are not even aware of, so-called subliminal advertising.