All posts by : Cultural Relevance Team

The Metaphor Effect describes the way in which our brains react to metaphors, meaning language formulas that describe something through likening it to something similar, often something that arouses an associated image. “To have a heart of stone” is one such metaphor in which the stone represents a hard and cold element, qualities that translate as lacking feeling or empathy when applied to the heart. The Metaphor Effect is the way in which we tend to understand and remember more easily such metaphorical language as it activates our imagination.

Metaphors engage the right hemisphere of the brain, which controls our mental imagery (the same function that allows us to dream). The images created are more easily understood and more memorable than simple literal language. Literal language appeals to only a small fraction of the way in which our brain makes sense of the world around us. The other senses and emotions it makes use of are activated by metaphorical language, going beyond the literal sense of a phrase in to the realm of imagery and more abstract concepts. Like all analogies, metaphors help us to understand more complex ideas and enrich the meaning of language used.

Metaphorical language is therefore a compelling form of communication that allows you, in certain cases, to better convey your message. If a metaphor can help transmit imagery and emotion, your reader is likely to have their attention drawn more quickly and to retain the information much better and, in fact, people are much more likely to connect and engage with something that touches them emotionally (the Attentional Bias).

In web marketing, the use of metaphors can greatly help to improve the quality of content on your site in order that it may attract the attention of your visitors as well as stay in their memories for longer. When we’re on the internet, our senses are more limited than they are in real life so using metaphorical language can help to stimulate a wider range of senses and emotions – especially important when attempting to convey more abstract ideas. It can also upset the rational balance of your customers, placing emphasis instead on their imagination and emotions, which are much more receptive to new ideas and persuasion.

First explored by Gustav Fechner in the 19th Century, the Mere-exposure Effect was then further developed between 1960-1990 by renowned psychologist Robert Zajonc, who discovered that people would react more favourably to certain stimuli the more they were exposed to it.

Humans are naturally more comfortable with and positive towards things that they are familiar with and so it is both possible to elicit a positive reaction from someone by presenting them with something familiar or indeed by making something familiar to them through repeated exposure. One of Zajonc’s experiments consisted of showing people nonsense characters that looked like Chinese symbols and asking them to guess the meaning. After they had been shown the same symbols several times, the meanings offered become more and more positive as, even subconsciously, people had become more familiar with those symbols.

In marketing, the Mere-exposure Effect can be used in many ways. Of course, you want to stand out to a certain extent but being too different from other brands that people are already familiar with could result in distrust. You can make your own brand appear instantly more familiar by basing your logo, design or features on other similar brands that already have a loyal following. This similarity, even if it is slight and will only tap in to the customer’s subconscious, will instantly make people feel more trustful of your brand. Another way is to utilise a familiar figure to help make this connection more instantaneous; for example, when brands use a celebrity endorsement it is so successful, not because that celebrity is an expert on the product or industry or because we even trust their judgment, but because they are a familiar face to us and therefore we are immediately drawn towards them and the product they are representing.

If you want people to perceive a price as being small, then it can be very effective to associate all of its features with a small magnitude, including the way it is visually presented. Numerical stimuli (prices included) are represented and encoded in our memories as magnitude representations (i. e., judgments of relative “size”). Therefore if you want a number or price to be perceived as smaller it is possible to influence this through the way it is physically represented.

Research has shown that judgements are made based on, often irrelevant, anchors (the Anchoring Effect principle) but Oppenheimer, LeBoeuf and Brewer (2007) found that this also extends to physical and visual anchors. In other words, people will be biased in making judgements depending on any associated visual stimulus. In the following case, the unrelated small visual stimulus presented resulted in people having smaller numerical values in mind. They conducted an experiment whereby students were given three drawn lines (1 straight, 1 wavy and 1 an inverted “u” shape) and asked to copy these without use of a ruler. Group A were given short lines in length and Group B longer lines. The second section of the experiment consisted of a questionnaire where the first question was “How many miles long is the Mississippi River?” followed by 5 more random questions to avoid anyone catching on to the reasoning behind the test. It found that Group A, who had drawn shorter lines, gave an average response of 72 miles in comparison to the 1224 miles given as an average response by Group B, a huge difference that was entirely due to the length of the lines they were first asked to draw. They later repeated the experiment exchanging the question with “What is the average temperature in Fahrenheit in Honolulu, Hawaii?” and once again Group A with the shorter lines gave a much lower average temperature that Group B, showing that the physical anchor doesn’t have to be visually similar.

In marketing, this principle can be used in a wide number of ways to help prices seem smaller. The visual representation itself of the price has a direct influence on how low or high people will perceive that price to be. Most obviously, use of a smaller visual magnitude (such as using a smaller font) can make the price seem smaller but equally, playing with the placement, the colours used or another visual element can also help to reduce their perception of its magnitude.

Loss aversion was first demonstrated by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in 1984. This principle refers to the fact that the negative emotions experienced from the pain of losing are psychologically about twice as powerful as the positive ones experienced from the pleasure of gaining. In other words, the idea of losing or giving something up provokes a stronger reaction in us than the possibility of gaining something. The avoidance of loss is therefore a strong motivation for us and can lead us to act in certain, sometimes irrational, ways in order to avoid losing out on something.

This desire to avoid the negative feelings associated with loss explains other cognitive biases that also influence our behaviour, such as the Sunk Cost Fallacy, which describes the way in which we prefer to continue on with something as a result of previously invested resources of time, money or effort, even if we are no longer satisfied with it. The Endowment Effect is also closely linked, explaining the way in which we place higher value on something we already own than something that isn’t in our possession, even if they’re identical, simply because we don’t like the idea of giving up or losing something we consider to be ours.

One example of Loss Aversion we can all relate to is when you sit through the most terrible movie you’ve ever seen in the cinema simply because you’ve already paid for the ticket and invested your time and effort in going there so you feel as though you would be losing out if you left half-way through. In reality, that money is already gone and you won’t be getting it back either way so the rational decision would be to leave and cut your losses, pursuing instead another more pleasurable activity, but the pain of losing makes us act irrationally as we choose not “losing” our money over the possibility of gaining more pleasurable time. We make this biased decision because the brain is telling us that not losing out on something is better than gaining something.

Loss Aversion is utilised in sales and marketing to influence and motivate consumers’ buying decisions. If you are able to make your customers feel as though they are going to “lose out” on an offer, this is likely to motivate them to complete their purchase. This strategy is often seen in online marketing through the use of motivational phrasing such as “offer not to be missed” or “only 2 rooms still left”, etc.

Intention and Self-regulation, notably studied by Gollwitzer first in 1993, proves that setting an intention about how you will reach a certain goal can double or even triple your chances of reaching it. In order to this, the “Implementation Intention” is utilised and follows this set wording: “If (such and such occurs) then (I will take the following steps)…”. Putting your intention in to this set “if – then” formula leads to an objective more likely being achieved than when motivation and desire alone are relied upon. For example, we may be highly motivated to get rid of our bad habits or alter a certain behavioural pattern but it is still difficult to initiate these changes or indeed to maintain them.

Setting a precise intention – or “plan” – greatly increases the likelihood that you will act upon your motivations because then they are connected to something precise such as a future date, situation, happening, etc., which makes them more solid and supplies future triggers. The intention you have set is registered in your brain and can therefore be carried out with the least amount of conscious reflection. You already have the mental representation of your future actions available to you which makes it much easier to actually carry them out. This type of Implementation Intention is particularly effective when used for long-term goals that can be difficult to get started on (such as losing weight, eating healthier, passing exams, doing regular exercise, keeping the house tidier, etc.).

Several scientific experiments have proven the success of this Intention and Self-regulation strategy. One of these, published in the British Journal of Health Psychology, studied the frequency with which three groups of participants (chosen at random with no criteria for initial physical health) exercised over a period of two weeks. Each group was given different instructions before starting: group 1 (witness group) was given a random text to read (not to do with sporting activity at all) and then told to keep track of any exercise they did over the 2 week period; group 2 (motivation group) was given a text on the benefits of sport and the dangers of not exercising regularly and then also asked to keep track of their exercise levels the same as group 1; group 3 (intention group) was not only given the same text as group 2 to read but was also asked to say out loud how often they intended to exercise over the following 2 weeks. The results showed that 91% of group 3 (the intention group) exercised at least once each week, in contrast to 35% of group 2 and 38% of group 1. This clearly shows that being motivated is no greater help than having no motivation at all in fact, and only setting a solid intention will give you an advantage for successfully carrying out an objective.

This principle has numerous professional applications, whether to help your business reach certain goals or indeed to encourage customers to act (or react) in a certain way. For example, to encourage people to use and continue to sign up for a gym membership, it would be more effective to provide them with clear goals and intentions – for example, a list of monthly weight-loss goals or exercise regimes for them to follow each week. This will keep a clear intention in mind and be more likely to turn motivation in to action and achievement.

Information bias, studied by Baron, Beattie and Hershey (1988), is the tendency we have to believe that the more information that can be acquired in order to make a decision, the better that decision will be, even if that extra information might be irrelevant. Indeed, we seek out information even when it cannot directly affect our actions or decisions as we simply feel as though we need all information available in order to make a good decision.

For example, Baron, Beattie and Hershey demonstrated this principle with an experiment in which they gave subjects a diagnostic problem involving fictitious symptoms, tests and diseases. The majority of test subjects decided they needed to continue gathering more information and carrying out extra tests in order to make a diagnosis when in fact they had already been given sufficient data to do so.

Information bias can be applied to web marketing to help encourage customers to pay specific attention to something or to make a certain choice. For example, the more information that you provide for a product, even if some of it seems irrelevant, the more likely that people will feel assured enough to make a purchase.

In 1906, sociologist William Sumner posited that humans are intrinsically more comfortable existing within social groups and that we are also inclined to believe our own group superior to any others. We tend to favour and place more merit on the opinions and actions of people from our own in-group. We build up our social identity and self-esteem through belonging and people who are from within our group remind us of this belonging and are automatically given preferential treatment.

Tajfel conducted an experiment by splitting a class of 14 year old boys in to arbitrary groups and then assigning them random tasks. These tasks started out quite inanely and eventually turned in to slightly more competitive ones where monetary value was assigned. Despite the fact that they all knew each other and potentially had alternative friendship groups outside of this experiment, Tajfel observed how quickly the boys not only formed strong alliances to their own assigned groups but also began to make choices that would be to the detriment of the other groups. For example, one of their last tasks was a hypothetical situation concerning the profit that could be made through selling art and the boys were given choices about which actions they could take. Some actions led to them making a profit, some led to all groups making a profit and the final actions would lead towards them making a profit whilst other groups suffered a loss. Overwhelmingly the boys chose the latter option, not only wanting their group to succeed but other groups to fail.

In the commercial world, this In-group Bias is obvious in extreme brand loyalty. Take Apple for example: people are proud of being part of the Apple ‘gang’ and feel like they have more in common with the other people who also use Apple products, producing at once an instant bond and loyalty towards them and also a disconnection from those who are “outside” this group because they use alternate brand technology. On a smaller scale, the In-group Bias is an effective way of gaining loyalty and trust for your product or service by building up membership schemes or showing customer testimonials on your site from other people who would be considered part of the same “in-group” using your brand.

Immediacy Effect (also called “Hyperbolic Discounting” or “Present Focus Bias”) is the brain’s built-in mechanism that makes people prefer an instant reward over attaining something of potentially more value in the future. This devaluing of something that is delayed can be explained by our modern desire for immediate gratification: our brains are wired to prefer the instant and immediate over the future possible so that present rewards are valued more highly than future ones. Scientists who have explored this subject have found that the Immediacy Effect is hyperbolic, meaning that it isn’t time-consistent, with the value placed on something falling rapidly and inconsistently depending on the time delay.

If you were offered the choice of £50 right now or £100 tomorrow, you would probably choose the latter but “hyperbolic discounting” describes how the importance of this extra £50 quickly diminishes for most people as the delay gap widens. For instance, if someone instead asked you to choose between £50 today or £100 in one year, you’re statistically more likely to take the £50 right now, even though the difference in financial gain hasn’t altered. This principle also helps to explain why we have so much trouble quitting unhealthy habits that procure us pleasure now but problems in the future.

The Immediacy Effect is important within the commercial world as this desire to have something immediately can affect sales of a product. For example, delivery delays are likely to have an effect on the decision of a customer to purchase with you. Offering express delivery on the other hand will often motivate people to make a purchase, and often be willing to pay more for it or extra for the special delivery time, as they are motivated by their desire to have something immediately.

The Illusion of Control, named thus by the Psychologist Ellen Langer in 1975, shows that humans have the tendency to believe that we can control or influence anything, even those things that are totally random. We believe ourselves to be capable of creating positive outcomes or avoiding negative ones. This Illusion of Control allows us to avoid the anxiety that can be induced by situations and happenings that are actually out of our control. For example, in a casino, you will often see a player blowing on the dice or throwing them with a certain force in an attempt to obtain the results they want from their roll. The throw of the dice cannot be influenced, it is completely random, but these actions give the player the necessary illusion of control to feel comfortable in their situation. In 1975, psychologist Ellen Langer conducted an experiment where participants were given the opportunity to buy a lottery ticket for one dollar. The first group were given the option to choose their own lottery ticket whereas the second group were simply given one at random. Participants were then asked whether they would consider selling on their lottery ticket and, if so, what price they would ask for it. The results showed that the first group who had chosen their own tickets were less willing to sell it on and, if they were, they asked for a price that was at least four times more expensive than those from the second group were stating. This shows that the participants from the first group were affected by the Illusion of Control, believing their tickets to be of more value and more likely to be winning tickets than those from the group who were given their tickets at random. The Illusion of Control has numerous applications in business and web marketing. Giving your customers the impression that they are in control of any transactions will help to avoid the negative sentiments attached to incertitude and lack of control. For example, it will generate positive sentiments if you allow customers to select filters or options to enable them to take control of their searches and, during the purchase process, make it clear that they are able to make all decisions according to their own desires and wishes (by offering different payment methods, delivery options, etc.). The more you can give your customers control over certain elements of your site, the more you will incite their positive feeling of control and encourage conversions.

To understand the Hobson’s +1 Choice Effect, you first need to know what a Hobson’s choice is. A Hobson’s choice is one that only has one option and you can either choose that or nothing. In other words, it’s a “take it or leave it” choice. The expression comes from Thomas Hobson who was a wealthy landowner and stable owner in the 17th Century who would only allow people who came to ride his horses the option of taking the horse nearest the stable door. Although he had over 40 horses, he didn’t want the best horses to get overworked by allowing people to choose for themselves so he told them they could take the horse nearest the stable door or not go riding at all, the choice was theirs. Hobson’s Choice has therefore become a widely used expression for offering people only one choice between something in particular or nothing at all. Leading on from this, a Hobson’s +1 Choice is when you offer somebody two options to choose from instead.

Psychologist Barry Schwartz developed the concept of Paradox of Choice in 2004, which shows how people become overwhelmed when they have too many options, but noticed that this only comes in to play after 3 or more choices. In fact, to the contrary, it is actually better to offer people two options rather than one or none at all. Research has shown that when confronted with a true Hobson’s choice, we are more prone to go for the “leave it” than the “take it” option. Whereas, if a second alternative is added, this makes us feel more inclined to opt for one of the choices offered to us. This cognitive bias can be explained as follows: when we are faced with a “take it or leave it” choice, we use all our mental energy deciding whether to buy a product or not to buy it. Contrary to this, studies have shown that when we’re given two options we use the same mental energy to compare these offers instead of considering the “leave it” option. This makes it much more likely that at least one of the “active” choices will be made.

Hobson’s +1 Choice Effect has many applications in business and marketing in terms of the sales strategy used when proposing offers and products to your customers. For example, in online sales, it can be very effective to give your customers the opportunity to choose between two products or between two options on your Call-to-Action rather than putting them in the position of “taking or leaving” just one option (but also making sure not to start bombarding them with options that will instead lead them down the path of indecision through inadvertently placing them in a Paradox of Choice situation).