The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Conventional wisdom has long held that sex sells in advertising. Advertisers often use sexual ads under the assumption that they attract attention and, therefore, are an effective way to promote products and services.
Likewise, conventional wisdom has long held that violence sells on television. In these two contexts, conventional wisdom is partially correct. Sexual ads do attract attention. Violent programs do attract viewers. However, there is an important caveat: at what cost do these ads and programs attract attention and viewers? In other words, could it be that sexual ads attract attention to the sex itself, but not the product, and that violent programs attract attention to the violence itself, but not the product?
To find out, my PhD advisor Brad Bushman and I conducted a meta-analysis , or quantitative review, of existing studies in these areas. There were 53 studies that qualified for inclusion, involving a total of 8, participants. We looked at the effects of those two media contexts on three outcomes that are often used to quantify successful advertising :.
We hypothesized that advertising and programs using sex or violence would actually decrease brand memory, brand attitudes and buying intentions. Because people pay more attention to violence and sex, both in programs and in the ads themselves, we thought the actual products being advertised would become less salient. Ultimately we found almost no evidence that violent and sexual programs and ads increased their effectiveness.
