Time for a quick ethical-bypass? From Minority Report ‘pre-cogs’ to recovered memories, the BPS (British Psychological Society) has just published a wondrous list of the ten most controversial psychology experiments ever published. Many took place before the Internet, and today many could never be replicated – at least officially and published – since they contravene changing standards in research ethics. Others are simply controversial. But all have implications for digital marketers…
- The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971, Philip Zimbardo) Give people power, and they won’t just abuse it, they’ll abuse you: Is digital abuse the dark side and consequence of digital empowerment?
- The Milgram “Shock Experiments” (1961 Stanley Milgram) Give people an authority figure, and they will blindly follow, even kill: Could digital tech be creating a generation of digital sheep?
- The “Elderly-related Words Provoke Slow Walking” Experiment (1996 John Bargh) Hear, read or notice elderly people, and you behave elderly: Could using the power of suggestion through digital priming be the future of digital marketing?
- The Conditioning of Little Albert Experiment (1920 John Watson) Condition a baby to fear all things white and fluffy by scaring them every time they see a white rat: How could we use conditioned responses to sensory stimuli to make digital more effective?
- The “Lost in The Mall” Experiment (Elizabeth Loftus 1995) Implant fictitious memories such as being lost in a mall as a child by simply recounting them alongside true memories: Could digital marketing implant false memories about brands by presenting them alongside actual memories?
- The Bem Pre-cognition Experiments (Daryl Bem 2010) Minority Report ‘precognition’ – scientifically demonstrated (but rarely replicated) by a highly respected researcher; you can know the future and be retroactively influenced by your future actions (revise for an exam just after you’ve taken the exam improves exam results): If we are ‘precogs’ (and it’s not a freak spurious data artefact), could post-purchase marketing influence prior purchasing???
- The Voodoo Correlations in Neuroscience Study (Ed Vul 2009)- A meta-analysis of neuroscience experiments linking behaviour and emotions to specific brain areas found results to be at best questionable (or like voodoo, spurious, non-existent): Should digital marketers adopt a healthy skepticism when it comes to neuromarketing?
- The Anti-Depressant Placebo Effect Study (Irving Kirsch 2008) – Suffering from mid to moderate depression? Then the benefit of taking a anti-depressants versus placebo may not be clinically meaningful: Could digital marketers use the placebo effect to shift perceptions? (For example would brand experience improve simply by telling people they have been enrolled in a VIP scheme)?
- The “Nurture Assumption” Study (Judith Harris 1995) Parenting has less influence on children than many parents want to believe – what matters most are peers and personality – not parents: Every consumer is unique, but if we are going to target ‘types’ or ‘clusters’ shouldn’t we focus on personality types (and peer groups)?
- Libet’s Free Will Challenge Experiments (Benjamin Libet 1983) You body moves just before you choose for it to move, so is free will and consciousness an effect rather than a cause: Behaviour before belief; should digital marketers focus on nudging behaviour rather than influencing intentions?
