From the article, the study compared 48 people given free popcorn throughout the session to 48 people given one sugar cube at the beginning of the session. Those given the sugar cube demonstrated more positive responses to the advertised products.
The variables seem to be: (1) the substance of popcorn vs the substance of sugar cubes; (2) the quantity of stuff administered; (3) the duration over which someone got free stuff; (4) the overall caloric intake; (5) chewing vs non-chewing; (6) the degree to which the absorption times vary between sugar and popcorn.
Let me offer an alternative explanation: if you have nothing to do because your sugar cube dissolved and you're bored, you might pay more attention to the ads. If you're getting an unlimited supply of popcorn, that might be more entertaining to focus on than the ads.
At any rate, this study probably isn't testing what they think it's testing. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the act of chewing has any causal relationship with their findings.
Not to mention, the surge of glucose from eating the sugar cubes could've very well affected sentiment and responses. Daniel Kahneman talks about this in his book, specifically how groups given a chocolate bar in between tasks performed better than control groups, presumably due to the brain's dependence on glucose, and its fatigue in the lack thereof.
Recent evidence suggests that glucose depletion doesn't seem to affect the brain. For example, [1]. Moreover, the calorie consumption of the brain is basically constant regardless of what it is doing. I would hazard an untrained guess based off of these that the difference is in changes due to the body knowing of consumption of glucose versus any direct effect of the glucose itself. See also the study that athletes performed better after swishing a sweet drink in their mouth and spitting it out just as they did when actually drinking it.
Yes, thanks for the correction! And for the sake of posterity, it's "Does the Brain Consume Additional Glucose During Self-Control Tasks?" by Robert Kurzban
My (main) point is that with so many uncontrolled variables, there are many alternative explanations that might have equal justification.
Of less importance (to me) is that my alternative explanation relies not on some physical act (chewing) somehow blocking brand awareness, but rather on the experience-seeking brain being idle or already-engaged when shown ads.
Again, with at least 6 uncontrolled variables, we could come up with dozens of things, from blood sugar trajectories to brain activity to chewing to smelling etc., all of which could be the actual trigger blocking brand awareness. I'm not partial to any one explanation given the paucity of data.
Not close enough for them to make the argument that the result is because "chewing disrupts the subconscious mouth movement that cements the brand name in your mind".
I'd add that playing with pop corn in the hand, feeling its texture, the smell and the small noise tend to steal the brain's focus from the ads. Indeed once the sugar is melted there is less to experience with the body.
The taste of sugar is perceived as positive. This puts you in a better mood. This makes you likelier to associate the ads with positive feelings. This in turn makes it likelier for you to react to ads because you associate those products with positive emotion.
Brains are really good at association. Really bad at cause and effect.
If you want to prove this to yourself, take a date out on a roller coaster or bungee jumping. When your hearts are racing and you feel alive, look at each other. The association you form pretty much guarantees a positive date, even though the person you were with had nothing to do with the adrenaline rush.
Its easy to poke holes in any applied methodology. I could suggest the time of day wasn't consistent across groups, the seating position might introduce bias etc. But you have to start an investigation somewhere, and I think their methodology was a reasonable balance of practicality.
The work is tantalising evidence for something else going on. Which certainly warrents follow up work. Even if it was just the people were bored and not paying attention to ads, it still has consequences for the cinema business model.
I understand the implications here, but pre-chewed popcorn might not be that bad, especially considering how it won't leave kernels stuck in your teeth.
Mechanical popcorn that forces your lips and tongue to simulate the names of the products being advertised, thus annulling the negative effect of chewing. Win-win.
Thanks for submitting this news through a link to a professionally edited newspaper rather than through a press-release-recycling website. This preliminary study needs more replication, of course, just like most preliminary studies, but it has interested implications. I wonder what a study of the effectiveness of televised public service messages about not snacking while watching television would show.
Actually, The Guardian is recycling news. The Guardian gets his news probably from the Journal of Consumer Psychology, where it was press-released first.
If the theaters stop selling popcorn and candy they will not be able to stay in business as almost all their revenue comes from concessions --most of the ticket sale proceeds goes back to the movie makers.
Not to mention the fact that concessions are almost the only unique reason to go to a theater anymore.
You go to the theater for the "unique" concessions? I guess stale nachos and overpriced M&Ms are "unique", but I'd debate if they're a reason to go to the movies. :)
Not THEE reason, but definitely those overpriced snacks are a huge income for them. Just like nightclubs and their $4 water bottles and $9 drinks.
Can't really go to a nightclub without drinking, can't really go to the movies without eating. I know some people do, but that's the very few minority.
I remember when a nightclub I sometimes go to, http://1015.com/, was closed because their alcohol license expired by accident. I was shocked that they closed the whole place down, but after talking to co-workers they said "Yeah, the drinks are the cash. No overpriced drinks, no point in even doing business..."
I don't drink alcohol myself, I actually go to dance! ...by myself even!
But the price of drinks in nightclubs are so high precisely because they know you want/have to be there for other, social means (unless you're in one of the few places that actually serves brilliant and justifiably-priced beverages).
And, I would argue, that, analogously, that is the reason why cinemas have ridiculously priced concessions — because you go to the cinema on a date, or with friends, for a social occasion that causes you (or some people) to be willing to pay higher prices for their drinks and candy. Take, for example, going on a date, many partners may feel pressured under the social norm of not wanting to appear 'stingy' and will shell-out the $15 for a bag of popcorn and a Coke.
If you wanted concessions independently of a cinema, then you likely have a fetish for over-priced junk food!
> Can't really go to a nightclub without drinking, can't really go to the movies without eating.
I just want to point out here that this seems to be an American thing. Having experienced movie theaters in the US and in France, I'm still shocked at the number of people who eat in theaters here (in the US). When I pay my ticket $20+, I don't really feel like adding $10 for a Coke and some popcorn. In France, you may have something like 5 to 10% of the audience eating or drinking (the seats don't even have cup holders).
I might be seeing this backwards though, and maybe France is the exception here.
The variables seem to be: (1) the substance of popcorn vs the substance of sugar cubes; (2) the quantity of stuff administered; (3) the duration over which someone got free stuff; (4) the overall caloric intake; (5) chewing vs non-chewing; (6) the degree to which the absorption times vary between sugar and popcorn.
Let me offer an alternative explanation: if you have nothing to do because your sugar cube dissolved and you're bored, you might pay more attention to the ads. If you're getting an unlimited supply of popcorn, that might be more entertaining to focus on than the ads.
At any rate, this study probably isn't testing what they think it's testing. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the act of chewing has any causal relationship with their findings.