Statement: As cognitive psychology suggests that warnings and side effects increases the sales of a product, adding warnings in advertisements will play an effective role in promoting harmful attitudes.
Warnings and side effects should not be made clear in advertisement of products that are harmful for individuals. The argument states that advertisement of harmful products such as drugs of cigarettes that comes with side effects are ineffective in scaring consumers. It suggests that these products must avoid warnings. The argument states that the harmful products must not include warnings for the consumers as they fail to inform viewers about the perceived health risks. Selling of harmful products with advertisements is not appropriate as it convinces viewers to buy products. Through warnings the states play a responsible role by educating audience about the harmful effects but in reality it fails to discourage people form its consumption. The argument also states that warnings are insignificant as the purchase made by customers with complete knowledge of the risks, make them responsible for their action. Though the purpose of adding warnings in advertisements is to discourage consumers, but it does not eliminate the urge of purchasing harmful products.
Warnings and side effects works to improve consumers opinions about the product. The psychologist, Ziv Carmon identifies the negative impacts of the warnings displayed in advertisements. The weaknesses of the warnings is apparent in the contradicting opinions of the consumers. Carmon states, “messages that warn consumers about potentially harmful side effects, presumably with the intent to nudge them to act more cautiously, can ironically backfire” (APS). Carmon recognize backfire as the confirmed outcome of these advertisements. The warning of potential side effects does not discourage viewers due to their inability in perceiving the information rightly. The concept of backfire reflects how warnings plays an adverse role in promoting the buying attitudes of the consumers. Though harmful effects informs the audience about the potential health risks that could deteriorate consumers health on consumption of alcohol but they act in opposite manner. The claim also states that the scary images of the diseased such as liver cancer associated with excessive consumption of alcohol does not prevent the consumers attitudes of purchasing it.
Advertisements containing warnings informs about the risks to the consumers thus leading to informed decisions. Warnings are insufficient to keep the consumers away from the use of harmful products. Stautz and Marteau identifies, “tobacco counter-advertising is effective at promoting smoking cessation. Few studies have evaluated the impact of alcohol warning advertising on alcohol consumption and possible mechanisms of effect” (Stautz and Marteau). To support the argument the research suggests that no significant literature confirms the role of warnings on discouraging people to give up their consumption of drugs. If the advertisement shows the potential harms of using drugs the viewers will be inclined to act in alternative manner and purchase the commodity.
The supportive claim provided by the researchers reflects the role of mechanism effect is minimal that fails to develop the sense of recognizing the harms of the product thus convincing audiences towards its consumption. Warnings in advertisement of alcohol and drugs increases the urges of using harmful products in people. The potential effect modifier develops from the advertisement risks that motivates viewers to purchase the product. The argument also reflects though warnings educates the viewers about the harms associated with the use of alcohol or drugs but it leads to informed decisions. alcohol and drug warnings are insufficient to keep the audiences away from the purchase of harmful products. The decision of purchasing a product irrespective of the knowledge of risks makes the consumer more responsible for the purchase.
Warnings in advertisement allow viewers to overcome short-term fears created. The claim identifies the practical implications of the advertisements with side effects. Viewers when see harmful effects such as the impact of excessive drug or alcohol use on human health will develop strength to overcome fears. The empirical evidence supports the main argument, “while increased graphicness of a single threat (increasingly graphic depictions of oral disease) may exhibit a linear fear response, it is conceivable that both moderate and highly graphic types of threat at times may engender a more similar pattern of responses” (Davis and Burton). Intimidating response is timely that does not threaten individuals about the risks associated with the use of alcohol or drugs thus increasing their desire to purchase the product.
The argument states that the graphical message does not necessarily evokes the emotions of fear and intimidation that could eliminates the persuasion. The response mechanism explains how warnings provoke viewers to buy a product due to the displayed harms. The academic literature also supports the relationship between threatening stimuli and persuasion. The concept states that the threatening stimuli generate persuasive impacts that are sufficient in purchase of the commodity including alcohol and drugs. Making warnings part of advertisements is an ineffective tool to prevent its consumption. People are able to overcome the fear developed by warnings thus limiting their ability to make a rational choice. The individual after viewing the content on televisions develops a timely response that does not quit their decision of purchasing alcohol (Davis and Burton).
The warnings boosts the viewers rather than detracting them from purchasing the product. The claim states that the audience is more likely to test the actual implications of products displayed on television with harmful impacts. Carmon presents his concerns as, “this effect may fly under the radar since people who try to protect the public – regulatory agencies, for example – tend to test the impact of a warning shortly after consumers are exposed to it. By doing so, they miss out on this worrisome delayed outcome” (APS). The role of advertisements is not effective in controlling the desires or behaviors of the consumers. The psychologist further suggests that there is a distance between consumer perceptions and the advertisement. The power of ad is limited and may not be sufficient to control the actions of consumers. Adding potential warnings remains uninfluencial when viewers are previous consumers of the product. The claim further states that the ad becomes insignificant in controlling the decisions. warnings act more negatively for the people who dare to take challenges and test the product. Very few people rely on the information disclosed in ads.
Prior behaviors have vital role in controlling the emotions of the viewers. The claim supports that main argument that adding warnings does not produce any valid outcomes. Past behavior plays a dominant role in defining the future actions of the consumers. Dossou et al., (2017) recognizes the ineffectiveness of warnings, “warnings were considered to be informationally vague, lacking in credibility and ineffective in terms of making participants feel concerned and influencing consumption habits” (Dossou, Gallopel-Morvan and Diouf).
The results obtained from the study reveals the negative implications of warnings. Warnings are often vague that lacks credibility and becomes ineffective in convincing the audience about product’s harmful effects. The claim stresses on the fact that irrespective of the health implications displayed on the television audience is unable to change their attitudes. Prior behaviors are more strong and capable of controlling the actions of individuals. The past attitudes of viewers makes the role of warnings less significant. Viewers doubts the credibility of the information and are more likely to use their prior information regarding the product. Warnings are less efficient in making audiences thoughtful about their actions. Changing previous attitudes of individuals is not possible according to the claim.
When advertisements present information that are contradictory to the beliefs of viewers they will reject the warnings. People are unable to change their attitudes when the advertisements include warnings for the use of products because viewers doubt the reliability of information. Empirical findings reflects, “when people are exposed to information that challenges their beliefs or behavior, instead of changing they often react defensively by strengthening their current beliefs. Moreover, contrary to intuition but consistent with evidence from cognitive dissonance studies, when people believe that disconfirming evidence is valid they tend to reinforce their prior beliefs more fervently” (Green and Armstrong).
The claim supports the central argument as consumers having strong preferences towards the product are unwilling to change their perceptions. The findings reveals that viewers will stick to their old beliefs and habits rather than relying on the disclosed content. The argument states that viewers in making decision relies on their prior attitudes and beliefs. In such cases the role of warnings highlighting side effects becomes insignificant. Changing attitudes of viewers through informed warnings in ads is not possible. The claim also confers the idea that beliefs are more influential compared to the advertisements. Displaying opposing warnings threatens the beliefs of the viewers regarding the purchase of products, that promotes attitudes of buying products (Green and Armstrong).
Warnings in advertisements encourage people to pay double attention on the content that makes the product more attractive. The argument promotes the belief that warnings are inadequate for removing risky attitudes of buying harmful products. People who are not concerned about alcohol or drugs will watch the ad with keen interest that often develops a desire for its consumption. The fact claims that including warnings in advertisements give more selling power to the companies. Firms involved in selling of alcohol and cigarettes will use warnings as a tool to convince audience about the ethics. The claim states, “the design of e-cigarette warnings, it also shows the optimal combination of design features to ensure consumers view e-cigarette warnings, cognitively process their content, and are informed about potential product risks remains to be developed” (Mays, Villanti and Niaura). The cognitive information allow viewers to stick to their prior perceptions when the advertisements challenges their beliefs through warnings. Warnings act more negatively for the young people as when they challenge their habits of consumption they will act in alternative manner. It is not possible for all viewers to assess the reality of the harmful impacts identified in the ad.
The overall analysis of the argumentative synthesis depicts the adverse impacts of warnings in advertisements. The ads that include warnings regarding harmful effects fails to prevent risky behaviors in audiences as it develops backfire. The response stimuli does not always acts in favor of the ad. Warnings promote risky attitudes in audiences as it encourage them to challenge the credibility of information. The argument also states that showing warnings in advertisement is ineffective for controlling risky behaviors because such ads create more attractions for the young people. Prior knowledge and beliefs of individuals have dominant impact on their decision-making. The previous habits of consumption remains more powerful compared to the message of warning displayed in advertisements of alcohol or cigarettes.
Work cited
APS. “Warning of Potential Side Effects of a Product Can Increase Its Sales.”, 2017, <https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/releases/warning-of-potential-side-effects-of-a-product-can-increase-its-sales.html>. Accessed 17 Apr. 2018.
Davis, Cassandra and Scot Burton. ” Understanding Graphic Pictorial Warnings in Advertising: A Replication and Extension.” Journal of Advertising, Vol. 45, no. 1, 2016, pp. 33-42.
Dossou, Gloria, Karine Gallopel-Morvan and Jacques-François Diouf. “The effectiveness of current French health warnings displayed on alcohol advertisements and alcoholic beverages.” European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 27, no. 4, 2017, pp. 699-704.
Green, Kesten C. and J. Scott Armstrong. “Evidence on the Effects of Mandatory Disclaimersin Advertising.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 31, 2012, pp. 293-304.
Mays, Darren, et al. “The Effects of Varying Electronic Cigarette Warning Label Design Features On Attention, Recall, and Product Perceptions Among Young Adults .” Journal Health Communication, 2017, pp. 1-8.
Stautz, Kaidy and Theresa M Marteau. “Viewing alcohol warning advertising reduces urges to drink in young adults: an online experiment.” BMC Public Health, Vol. 16, no. 350, 2016.
