OBSERUHTIOnS
Ad Strategy and the Stone Age Brain
MARK S. CARY
Evolutionary psychology suggests we have a "Stone Age" brain inside our modem
Chavda & Cary
Research and
skulls—a brain composed of mental organs designed for the specific adaptive tasks
Consulting
of our ancestors. Our Stone Age brain is not a general purpose rational computer; it
thinks with logic suited to the Pleistocene, a logic to which advertising must cater in
order to be effective. The best advertising speaks in "Stone Age brain" metaphors
promising solutions to universal concerns.
WHILE THE THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS for modem
' evolutionary psychology were laid over 20 years
• ago, the theories are only now reaching the general
press (Wright, 1994; Pinker, 1997; Nicholson,
1998). Meanwhile, the academic literature is burgeoning (see, for example, Crawford and Krebs,
1997; Buss, 1999).
EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY
\.
j
The central thesis of e\'olutionary psychology is
that "the mind is a system of organs of computa-
MarlcCan/@u'orldnet.att. net
' tion, designed by natural selection to solve the
kinds of problems our ancestors faced in their for^ aging way of life, in particular, understanding and
outmaneuvering animals, plants, and other
people" (Pinker, 1997). Evolution solves only
"adaptive" problems, that is, problems concerned
with success in passing on our genes. These include what we should eat, with whom we should
mate, and how we communicate. Evolution solved
problems that were common in the "environment
of evolutionary adaptedness" of the Stone Age
hunter-gatherer situation, not of the modern high
technology situation (Cosmides and Tooby," 1997).
In the Stone Age, people lived in small bands of a
few dozen people that gathered plants and hunted
animals. The Stone Age lasted for millions of
years—a "camping trip that lasted an entire lifetime." The modem world is fleeting in compari-
-^
- •
•_
;.
^.; . ; . :-
.•
son. Agriculture itself is only about 10/X)0 years
old, and the industrial revolution started a mere
200 years ago. Little time has elapsed for our
minds to adapt to the new conditions. As one evolutionary psychologist noted, "Our modem skulls,
house a Stone Age mind,"
Thus, our "mental organs" are designed for
Stone Age problems. For example, our reasoning,
works better whoi solving ancient and common
problems such as detecting a social cheater than
when solving the same problem phrased in terms
of neutral logic (Cosmides, 1989). Suppose we
ha\'e a logical rule that "if Podunkers go to New
York, they take the train." The researcher lays out
four cards with information about four Podunkers,
the card tops reading "New York," "Train,"
"Princeton," and "Cab." Each card represents one
person and the other side has the information on
either their destination or fomi of transport. Which
cards would need to be turned o\'er to detem\ifw
if the logical rule holds true for these cards? The
task is harder than it seems, and fewer than 25
percent of college students choose the correct
The task becomes easier when rephrased as a
problem in detecting cheating. "We have a rule
here at Podunk University. If you go to New York,
you must take the train; you are not allowed to
take any other form of transportation." However,
• April 2 0 0 0 JOUROHL OF RRUeHTISIRfi RESERRCII 1 0 3
THE STONE AGE BRAIN
some students cheat. Which one of the
cards would have to be turned over in order to determine if a student cheated on
the rule—"New York," "Train," 'Prince
ton," and "Cab"? With the new phrasing,
between 65 and 80 percent guess the correct answer.
.
•\ . V. . "
Cosmides believes that when a logical
task is presented to us as a social contract,
our minds have specific social contract algorithms that allow us to make correct inferences. However, when logical problems are not presented this way, we must
rely on less sophisticated genera! reasoning powers. Thus, how a problem or decisioh is presented will make a difference
in what consumers decide.
., Even fear has an evolutionary basis.
Evolution predisposes us to learn ancient
fears, not modem ones. As Marks and
Nesse (1994) note, "stimuli that come to be
feared are mostly ancient threats: snakes,
spiders, heights, storms, thunder, lightning, darkness, blood, strangers, social
scrutiny, separation, and leaving the
home range." We rarely develop fears that
were harmless in our evolutionary past,
such as fears of flowers, leaves, or shallow
water. Even recent potential dangers like
electrical outlets and sport utility vehicles
are not feared by people, even though
these kill far more people than snakes or
spiders. Thus, when choosing a fear for an
advertising campaign, select one that
touches our evolutionary past and evokes
a deeper gut reaction.
. -- '
In simple animals a single stimuli can
trigger an innate releasing mechanism.
The male three-spined stickleback fish
tries to mate with a ridiculously crude
model of any female fish as long as the
belly is swollen (Tinbergen, 1951)—the
crude model is kind of an "erotic fish
sculpture." Like these animals, we also
have biological blind spots that can be exploited by advertisers. For example, we
overestimate the chance of rare events and
104
underestimate the chance of frequent
ones. We also believe that chance events
are not random, and that the "law of averages" means occurrences should even
out. As Pinker (1997) has pointed out, this
belief may be rational in the Stone Age but
not today when faced with things such as
gambling machines. That is, casino gambling can create a situation that fools our
evolutionary mental processes into playing a losing game. Because we focus on
the size of the prize rather than the actual
probability of winning, advertising a large
prize can be effective even when the probability of winning it is infinitesimal. Likewise, a large head size relative to the body
seems to create a feeling of sentimental
cuteness (Tinbergen, 1951). Disney, Hallmark, and Precious Moments have become rich by catering to this "supernormal" cuteness reaction. •
• " •
THE PROMISE: WHAT PEOPLE WANT
Biologically speaking, sexual intercourse
occurs only to produce offspring. Success
comes with the most grandchildren, not
with the most money. Thus evolution selected people with sex appeal, power, and
money: factors that led to successfully
raising babies. In advertising research we
often use the laddering method (Reynolds
and Gutman, 1984) to find the higher order benefits that consumers seek. Evolutionary psychology argues that the most
mofivating higher-order benefits will almost always have a close relationship to
the factors that lead to reproductive success. Consumers themselves are not necessarily aware of the links. Evolution does
not appear to have selected people for a
knowledge of its own working.
Men and women have different reproductive strategies and thus require different ad strategies. Men demonstrate a
higher risk-reproductive strategy and
more aggression, have a higher metabolic
rate, and die at a younger age. Females, on
DF nDUERTISlOG RESCHHCH January • April 2 0 0 0
the other hand, show lower reproductive
variability, less risk taking, and live longer.
(see Buss, 1994; Symons, 1995 for're-,
views). The differences in humans are not
as great as in some species but are sufficient to produce substantial sex differ-,
enees in attitudes and behavior,
i
Men want women of high reproductive
value and use resources—power, status, ;
food, possessions—to attract these
women. From a biological point of view,
sex with a woman taking birth control
pills should be quite unsaHsfying, since
there is no possibility of offspring. However, men's minds are not wired to under- •
stand such recent developments; instead, '
their minds respond to the traditional
markers of fertility—youth, good health,.
and physical attractiveness.
Women seek men who have resources
and will invest them in their offspring.
They seek healthy mates with the energy
and cleverness to succeed in contests with ^
other men. Women are less concerned
than men with physical attractiveness and
more concerned with resources and emotional support.
Women's sexual value to men in the
Stone Age depended greatly on their reproductive value. As women's lifetime reproductive value declined with age, men
lost interest. Prior to the use of calendars,.
how did men judge a woman's reproductive value? They relied on the physical
features that marie youth—full lips, clear,
smooth skin, clear eyes, lustrous, healthy
hair, good muscle tone, and high energy
levels. Today's women's magazines are.
full of advertising claims to produce these
effects, "reduce the signs of aging with
smoother, more supple skin," "put the
visible signs of age under cover," or "in- •
fuse new life into every strand of your
hair." The ultimate promise of these ad- "
vertisements is to gain reproductive
v a l u e .
-'•
" ....•
- •
••
:'.••'.••
.
•'.''•""
Advertising to men should be most ef- '
THE STONE AGE BRAIN
fective when it promises success in resource acquisition. Men value success in
tbe small hunter or warrior group, whetber in business or in sports. Tbey tend to
desire tbe ability to make extravagant displays of resources such as expensive cars,
bomes, or precious trinkets. Despite tbe
changing nature of work to be more cognitive, men still greatly value the handeye motor coordination activities in most
sports. Advertising to women, however,
will be more effective when promising
lasting reproductive value, networking
witbin the extended kin group, and success in raising tbe offspring.
In this view, advertising does not create
these sex roles in society but mirrors the
underlying reality of human life. Recently
Nancy.Etcoff (1999) argued tbat while
Madison Avenue cleverly uses universal
preferences for beauty, it does not create
them. Etcoff argues tbat physical beauty is
a biological adaptation: an extreme sensitivity to it is hard-wired into our brains.
THE BRAND RELATIONSHIP
'
People's mental organs are designed to
understand other people and animals,
who bave minds and personalities. Thus,
we tend to attribute personality to any
complex "living entity." For example, the
Gestalt psychologists Heider and Simmel
(1944) noted tbat people would attribute
personality traits even to moving triangles
and squares in a simple animated movie.
Tbe Stone Age brain seems predisposed
to attribute personality even to products
and brands- Recent work (Aaker, 1997)
suggested that we attribute personality to
some brands. Otber work suggests tbat
we believe tbe brand has an attitude toward us, just as we bave an attitude toward it (Blackston, 1993). Researcb on tbe
biological basis of personality bas found
tbe Big Five: five general and universal
personality dimensions for bumans {Buss,
1991). These include extroversion.
^
We use metapiiors in advertising to create tiie iinic to the
a n c i e n t .
,
;•. - . . o . . -
- • \ ' ^ ,•:
warmtb, conscientiousness, intelligencestupidity, and excitement-seeking. Working from tbis model, Aaker,(1997) developed scales of brand personality, wbicb
classify brands along similar dimensions.
Because we attribute personality to
brands, we can bave a relationship witb ''
that personality. Our tendency is to develop emotional relationships with
brands, acting as though tbey were living
entities. For example, Foumier (1998) de\'eloped a theory in which our relationships to brands closely parallel our other
primar)' relationships, such as marriages,
friendships, and kinsbip. Chavda and
Car)' (1999) propose segmenting customers based on tbeir emotional relationships
to tbe brand.
Our traditional approach to product
choice has been quite rational: to codify
product attributes and tben comteie them
using a utility model to generate a total
summed \'alue. The evolutionary psychology model suggests we pay less attention
to tbe specific brand attributes and more
to tbe emotional qualities oí the relationship between people and their brands.
STONE AGE LANGUAGE
A key way to reach the Stone Age mind in
advertising is by using language and
metaphors the Stone Age mind understands. For example, people avoid new
technology unless presented in a form
their Stone Age mind can comprehend.
Technology must be given a Stone Age
face. For example, tbe command line interface of DOS was too abstract for most
people; they needed the point and click
interface. The next step will probably be
even closer to our Stone Age brains—
point the finger and give the command
verbally.
r . - • , - ••. ••: '-'.::
":.•-••:-:.
•--•:.-•••..
We use metaphors in advertising to
create tbe link to the ancient. Telephones
become "reach out and toucb someone" ratber tban a disembodied voice
carried in digital packets. In the Star War
movies, the Jedi Knight's weapon is really
just a fancy stick, mucb like any ape
would swing at an enemy. High technology bas been assimilated to Stone Age
warfare.
The early advertisements for automobiles stressed mechanical features and engineering design. These advertisements
bad a limited appeal. Later, advertisements moved toward stressing tbe "lower
tecb" benefits of the machines, such as
comfort and status \ alue, as well as a kinship to wild animals like the mustang, impala, or jaguar.
]. P. Jones (1995) argued tbat successful
advertisements are intrinsically likable,
x'isual, and communicable in their promise to consumers. From the e\'olutionary
poinl of view, being likable means creating an interesting and engaging personal
relationship witb consumers. Being visual
involves engaging tbem with powerful
images requiring little complex cognitive
processing and touching basic emotions.
Communicating promise in consumers'
tenns means finding benefits that belp fulfill tbeir ultimate dreams of reproductive
success.
Evolutionary psycbology \ iews us aS
products of thousands of years of evolution in tbe Stone Age, recently modified
by a few centuries of "civilization." Advertising that appeals to both tbe ci\ iUzed
needs and tbe underlying "Stone Age"
motivations sbould be more effective.
While tbis \'iew may be contro\'ersial, it
promises some new insigbts into traditional advertising problems.
<^
January • April 2 0 0 0 JOtlRIIRL OF IIOtlERTISinGflESEflRCH1 0 5
THE STONE AGE BRAIN
tomer Relationships through Targeting, Posi-
Advertising Triggers Sales. New York: Lexing-
M H W S . C M H IS partner in Cttavda & Cary Research
tioning, and Advertising." In Brand Eifuity and
ton Books, 1995.
and Consulting and has worked for various research
Advertising Research, ARf Week of Workshops,
companies. He holds a Pti.D. in psychology trom the
X-Reports. NY: Advertising Research Founda-
UniversFiy of Penrtsylvania and has served on the'
tion, 1999.
An Evolutionary Analysis of Anxiety Disor- •
ders." Ethology and Sociobiology. 5, 6 (1994):
faculty of Indiana University (Bloomington) a n d t h e
T h e W h a r t o n School,
. .
:
_•:
..
MARKS, L, and R, M. NESSE, "Fear and Fitness:
247-61.
COSMIDES, L. "The Logic of Social Exchange:
. • _
' • ' i
Has Natural Selection Shaped How Humans
j
i;
•
:
,':;•-;
AAKER, J. L. "Dimensions of Brand Personality." Journal of Marketing Research 34, 3 (1997):
,
-
-
;
•
•
.
•
.
- • • . . " . .
.
'
-
•
-•
(1998): 134-47.
, and J. TcxTBY. Evolutionary Psychology:
A Primer. Santa Barbara, CA: Center for Evo.•
'
Behavior? Harvard Business Review 76, 4
Task." Cognition 31, 3 (1989): 187-276.
lutionary Psychology, 1997.
, • . . „ •
•
NICHCH.SON, N. "How Hardwired Is Human
Reason? Studies with the Wason Selection
REFERENCES
• '
;
PINKER, S. Hmv the Mind Works. NY: W. W. •
Norton & Company, 1997.
;
•
REYNOLDS, T.J,, and J. GLTMAN, "Laddering:
CRAWFORD, C , and D. L. KREBS (Eds.). Hand-
Extending the Repertory Grid Methodology to
Building Brand Relationships." In Brand Eq-
book of Evolutionary Psychology: Ideas, ¡ssHes,
Construct Attribute-Consequence-Va lue Hier- •
uity and Advertising, D. A, Aaker and A, Biet,
and Applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
archies." In Personal Values and Consumer Psy-
Erlbaum Associates, 1997.
chology, R. E. Pitts and A. G, Woodside, eds.
J, M. "Beyond Brand Pereonality:
eds. NJ: LawreiKe Earlbaum Associates, 1993.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1984.
Buss, D. M. "Evolutionary Personality Psy-
ETCOFF, N . Survival of the Prettiest: The Science
chology." Annual Review of Psychology 42
cf Beauty. New York: Doubleday, 1999.
(1991); 459-91.
R, S. "Consumers and Their Brands:
. The Evolution (f Desire: Strategies of
tiuimn Mating. NY; Basic Books, 1994.
Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer
Research." Journal ofCotisumer Behavior 24, 4
(1998): 343-73. '
. Evolutionary Psychology: The Neiv SciHEIDER, F,, and M, SIMMEI., "An Experimental
con, 1999.
Studysof Apparent Beha\ior." American journal of Psychology 57, 3 (1944): 243-59.
Human Female Sexual Attractiveness," In Sexual Nature, Sexual Culture, P. R. Abramson and
S, D. Pinkerton, Eds. NY: Cambridge University Piess, 1995.
.
.:•
'..:•
ford University Press, 1951.
• ,
WRIGHT, R. The Moral Animal: Evolutionary
Psychology and Everyday Life. NY: Pantheon
"CHAVDA, R , and M. S. CARY. "Building Your
106
the Beholder: The Evolutionary Psychology of.
' TiNBERGEM, N. The Study of Instinct. NY: Ox-
ence of the Mind. Boston, MA: Allyn and Ba-
Brand through Brand Equity and Brand-Cus-
SYMONS, D. "Beauty Is in the Adaptations of
Jc»4ES, J. P. When Ads Work: New Proof That ,
OF RDUCRTISIRG RCSERRCR January • April 2 0 0 0
Books, 1994.
,•