Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

September 4, 2009 -

New research indicates that in-game advertisement which feature violent elements may be more memorable to players than nonviolent ads.

MIT's Technology Review reports on the study conducted in part at the University of Luxemburg

[Researchers] developed a simple racing game called AdRacer... A player drives around a virtual course and scores points by hitting targets along the way--as she drives, unobtrusive graphical ads are displayed as billboard graphics... while a camera records her eye movements. After playing, each player's ability to recall of brands shown on the side of the road was tested.

 

Those who played a violent version of the game, where the goal was to run down pedestrians, resulting in a blood-splattered screen, demonstrated significantly better recall of advertised brands than those who played the regular version...

Of course, while violent ads may increase the player's memory of the product, they could also be a public relations disaster in the making. Technology Review notes that University of Luxemburg researchers have also found that ad violence can lessen a gamer's opinion of a brand.

GP: The screenshot at left is from the University of Luxemburg's AdRacer.


Comments

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

So is to "hit along the way" the same as to "run down"? It's unclear. There is room for doubt. From the linked reports I couldn't tell if the targets are moving, or if the player just drives through them "along the way."

If the targets are moving in exactly the same patterns as the pedestrians, it would be hard to claim bias, but this is not necessarily what the article describes. If the targets are stationary, or in any way more predictable or easier to run down than the pedestrians, I think Kabyk and MechaTama31 might have a point about possible bias.

 

(If the targets move in exactly the same ways as the pedestrians, why wouldn't they say so in the article?)

 

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

It doesn't appear that the study accounted for the possibility that having a goal like aiming for targets, not necessarily the violence, may make people pay more attention to their surroundings. The violence is not, as some above have said, the only difference introduced. I'd be interested to see the results if they had players aim for objects in a non-violent way, like going through rings or sets of flags.

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

They did.

"A player drives around a virtual course and scores points by hitting targets along the way..."

It doesn't make clear whether there are differences between the targets and the pedestrians, but it sounds like they built them to be very similar with just graphical effects differentiating the two.

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

My understanding of the article is that is what they.

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

Seems pretty obvious to me. Violence (or at least some action) is interesting and can make things more memorable.

For example say you went to a resturant. You had a good meal, paid the bill and left, no big deal. Just another average meal. Now what if in the middle of your meal some stranger walked up, threw your food on the floor, punched you in the face, and ran out. I can guarentee you'll remember that forever!

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

Yet another bias study...How about the fact that players are more FOCUSED during a TIME TRIAL than when the goal is just to run over people?

I know personally I do, and CAN, pay more attention to the environment (includes billboards) when I'm just strolling around, rather than fervently trying to get to the end of the course before time runs out.

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

Agreed with the above; the only bias here is your own against any study which even mentions media violence. (They aren't even saying that violent media is bad!)

This is basically how you do science. Take two copies of a scenario, change one element between them, and see if you get a difference in the results. They did. People remembered more about the ads when the game involved running people over. The two games were the same design ("follow the course and hit targets") but for some reason, violence made a difference.

What does this mean? God knows. Maybe violence => more interesting => more memorable, and the ads benefited from the proximity to violent scenes. Maybe it was the grounding in reality, where hitting something with your car probably will make a mess, which made the players more susceptible to the ads.

Or maybe the sample size was 5 people and 2 control and the whole thing is meaningless. That seems to come up often in violent media studies.

 

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

As I ranted above, my guess is that the effect ties into survivability.  When threats are high we are more aware of our surroundings (at least at a subconcious level) since if bad stuff is already happening, more bad stuff increases the chances of a nasty case of death.

While if non threatening situations are happening, we tend to relax and start to zone out a bit.  Combat patrols run into this problem a lot.  We just are not as aware of our surroundings.

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

True, true. Blood splatter is not a normal sight for most people, so seeing it is immediately disconcerting and puts you on edge. Witness any of the numerous scenes in the Silent Hill series for a gaming example of that. Early on in the games you'll find a blood trail, and *foom* you're focused and on edge even though you're still just slogging through fog for the next few minutes. On the other hand, give someone a scene that looks like any boring old street and it will be just that: boring.

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

OK genius, what's the bias?

--------------------------------------------------

I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

-------------------------------------------------- I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

How was this 'bais'?

They took a controlled test where the only differing factor was violence.  They then used an easily measured (and narrowly focused) metric.

Though it should be pointed out that they also found that when playing the violent version, the players spend LESS time looking at the ads but recall/imprint was greater.

Re: Study: Violent In-game Ads More Memorable to Players

This actually makes some sense.

I can imagine humans being tuned to be more aware of their enviroment when violent (and thus potentially dangerous) things are going on.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknameor me thats demanding accountability on this, it's the ones who undertook the actiosn against these sites and went after the advertisers07/29/2015 - 11:13pm
MattsworknameJust cause you or I disagree with there response, they still feel they have a right to hold Groups like kotaku, gamasutra, Gawker, ET all, to account for what they felt was a vile and inappropriate action. Regardless of your or my view on it, it's nto you07/29/2015 - 11:13pm
Mattsworknamebetrayed or insulted by the articles in question, then they will feel a need to hold those media groups, regardless of intent, to account for that action, be it right or wrong.07/29/2015 - 11:12pm
MattsworknameAndrew: :target audience or not, if a large enough portion of our audience has a given view point Andrew, then you risk aggrivating that audience at your own peril. your question has been answer. if a large enough part of a media groups audience felt07/29/2015 - 11:11pm
Andrew EisenMy original question (which I've posed to you four or five times now) still stands.07/29/2015 - 11:04pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Yes, non-industry folk are welcome to and do read Gamasutra. That doesn't change the fact that they're not the site's target audience. Which wasn't my point anyway, merely an offered clarification as you keep referring to it like it's IGN.07/29/2015 - 11:04pm
MattsworknameNo different then GG ttrying to get Vox, Kotaku, gawker, and other such sties to fold cause they disagree, it's not right, but it's also the most common and most widely used of methods now adays.07/29/2015 - 10:21pm
MattsworknameTechnogeek: No, there isn't, you or I have no right to say someone cant say something, no matter how much we may dislike it. Even if you hate what they said, they have a right to say it. trying to shut someone down cause you don[t like what they say, is07/29/2015 - 10:20pm
Mattsworknameexamples of movments like what happend with those articles that occured with other, much bigger incidents.07/29/2015 - 10:18pm
Mattsworknameto the articles posted on gamsutra and elsewhere with such intensity. As i've pointed out, we have plenty of examples of this same exact actions taken by other groups. As I pointed out, this kinda thing happens alot now, and I can share some big07/29/2015 - 10:18pm
MattsworknameAndrew, sorry for taking so long to reply, been busy all day. To answer you queston, you keep pointing out gamasutra was popular with industry folks. Yes thats true, but it had a BIG following among game enthusists and they were among those that responded07/29/2015 - 10:16pm
PHX CorpWhile I Wait for Freedom planet for the Wii U, I'm fighting my way through Mario Tennis 64 as practice for Mario Tennis Ultra Smash(Mario tennis HD) and Prep SSBWiiU/3DS for More DLC07/29/2015 - 10:04pm
Goth_SkunkTake this with a grain of salt, but I'm hearing that in order to play Solitaire in Windows 10, you have to pay a monthly fee of $1.50.07/29/2015 - 9:28pm
Andrew EisenPHX - Yep, we linked that interview last week. http://gamepolitics.com/2015/07/24/gearbox-founder-has-nothing-praise-aliens-colonial-marines-duke-nukem-forever07/29/2015 - 8:42pm
Matthew WilsonI did a clean install, and have had no issues, it seems they got this right07/29/2015 - 7:43pm
PHX Corphttp://www.gamnesia.com/news/randy-pitchford-on-aliens-criticism-it-depends-on-what-criteria-youre-using oh look, More Randy pitchford Shooting himself in the foot again07/29/2015 - 7:43pm
Craig R.And even then, I'd say upgrade, make your backup media, and then do a clean install07/29/2015 - 7:29pm
Craig R.Personally, I'm recommending people wait 2-3 months at least before upgrading07/29/2015 - 7:29pm
Matthew Wilsonthat being said I am not normal, I took the upgrade and made a recovery drive, than did a clean install. most issues in os upgrades come from doing the upgrade. doing a fresh install fixes that.07/29/2015 - 6:58pm
Matthew Wilson@james so far hone, no major issues encountered yet. the only issue ?I have is my second wifi adaptor does not work, but I have my built in one. that issue is on netgear to fix though with new drivers07/29/2015 - 6:46pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician