V. Conclusion

The notion of subliminal perception has generated substantial controversy for several decades, both within and outside psychology. Even though it has not yet been impossible to describe reliable conditions under which subliminal effects are likely to occur for at least three reasons: inconsistent use of the term subliminal, lack of adequately precise and standardized processes, and lack of an adequate conception of unconscious processes <20>, there seems to be little doubt that observers’ responses can be shown to be affected by stimuli they claim not to have seen <16>. In addition, the results of the studies that demonstrated different characteristics that distinguish conscious from unconscious perception provide rather compelling evidence for the importance of unconscious perceptual processes in influencing our reactions to stimuli <12>.  

However, with a paucity of exceptions, the empirical studies directed toward investigating subliminal effects have failed to show conclusive results in an advertising context <24>. And, with these results, marketing scholars have discounted subliminal advertising on the grounds the approach will not work in the real world <24>.

 Their first reason to discount the effectiveness of subliminal advertising is a clear difference between subliminal effects found in a laboratory study and the possible real word effects of subliminal advertising. In the lab experiment, subjects are in a controlled environment with their full attention devoted to the messages. However, at home in an actual television viewing situation, by contrast, viewers pay much less attention to, and are much less involved in, the processing of advertisements. Further, there are many sources of distraction surrounding the viewer, which would minimize the likelihood of subliminal processing should a subliminal ad be presented <2>.  Another is that influence from weak, subliminal stimuli is likely to pale in comparison to the highly salient and powerful stimuli already competing for the consumers’ attention <4>. In addition, despite the fact that there is no convincing empirical evidence showing that subliminal messages affect behavior, which is, of course, the ultimate goal of advertising, practitioners would be unwise to test ethical boundaries of advertising when consciously processed elements of ads can easily be used to accomplish the same goals more effectively <1>.

 However, despite the overall lack of empirical evidence showing that subliminal advertising may be effective, a large percentage of consumers believe firms use subliminal advertising to enhance sales, and various surveys have demonstrated fairly widespread public acceptance of the notion of subliminal advertising<15>.  Several decades have already passed after Vicary and Key claimed the power of subliminal advertising. It is not just to accuse them of giving the advertising industry a bad name till now. We’d better figure out what keeps public’s fear of subliminal manipulation alive. It could be the scientific community that does a poor job of communication its findings, or it could be media that popularize pseudoscience, or it could be a few unethical practitioners to rely on subliminal tactics. Whatever the reason is, advertisers should pay attention to consumer opinions about subliminal advertising because these perceptions, whether true or not, influence their views on advertisements and the industry as a whole.