Video advertisements often show actors and influence agents consuming and enjoying products in slow motion. By prolonging depictions of influence agents’ consumption utility, slow motion cinematographic effects ostensibly enhance social proof and signal product qualities that are otherwise difficult to infer visually (e.g., pleasant tastes, smells, haptic sensations). In this research, seven studies, including an eye tracking study, a Facebook Ads field experiment, and lab and online experiments—all using real ads across diverse contexts—demonstrate that slow motion (vs. natural speed) can backfire and undercut product appeal by making the influence agent’s behavior seem more intentional and extrinsically motivated. The authors rule out several alternative explanations by showing that the effect attenuates for individuals with lower intentionality bias, is mitigated under cognitive load, and reverses when ads use nonhuman influence agents. The authors conclude by highlighting the potential for cross-pollination between visual information processing and social cognition research, particularly in contexts such as persuasion and trust, and they discuss managerial implications for visual marketing, especially on digital and social platforms.
AllanDavid (2006), “Effects of Popular Music in Advertising on Attention and Memory,” Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (4), 434–44.
2.
AreniCharles S.BlackIain (2015), “Consumers’ Responses to Small Portions: Signaling Increases Savoring and Satiation,” Psychology & Marketing, 32 (5), 532–43.
3.
ArgoJennifer J.DahlDarren W. (2017), “Standards of Beauty: The Impact of Mannequins in the Retail Context,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (5), 974–90.
4.
ArstilaValtteri (2012), “Time Slows Down During Accidents,” Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 196.
5.
AuyeungBonnieLombardoMichael V.HeinrichsMarkusChakrabartiBhismadevSuleAkeemDeakinJulia B., et al. (2015), “Oxytocin Increases Eye Contact During a Real-Time, Naturalistic Social Interaction in Males with and Without Autism,” Translational Psychiatry, 5 (2), e507.
6.
BaldwinDare A.BairdJodie A. (2001), “Discerning Intentions in Dynamic Human Action,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5 (4), 171–78.
7.
BarnettBrookeGrabeMaria Elizabeth (2000), “The Impact of Slow Motion Video on Viewer Evaluations of Television News Stories,” Visual Communication Quarterly, 7 (3), 4–7.
8.
Baron-CohenSimonCampbellRuthKarmiloff-SmithAnnetteGrantJuliaWalkerJane (1995), “Are Children with Autism Blind to the Mentalistic Significance of the Eyes?” British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 13 (4), 379–98.
9.
BatesDouglasMaechlerMartinBolkerBenWalkerSteven (2014), “lme4: Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using Eigen and S4,” R Package Version, 1 (7), 1–23.
10.
BirminghamElinaBischofWalter F.KingstoneAlan (2008), “Social Attention and Real-World Scenes: The Roles of Action, Competition, and Social Content,” Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61 (7), 986–98.
BryantFred B.VeroffJoseph (2007), Savoring: A New Model of Positive Experience. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
15.
BuechelEva C.TownsendClaudia (2018), “Buying Beauty for the Long Run: (Mis)predicting Liking of Product Aesthetics,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (2), 275–97.
16.
CampbellMargaret C.KirmaniAmna (2000), “Consumers’ Use of Persuasion Knowledge: The Effects of Accessibility and Cognitive Capacity on Perceptions of an Influence Agent,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (1), 69–83.
17.
CarusoEugene M.BurnsZachary C.ConverseBenjamin A. (2016), “Slow Motion Increases Perceived Intent,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113 (33), 9250–55.
18.
CialdiniRobert B. (2007), Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Collins New York.
19.
CianLucaKrishnaAradhnaElderRyan S. (2014), “This Logo Moves Me: Dynamic Imagery from Static Images,” Journal of Marketing Research, 51 (2), 184–97.
20.
CianLucaLongoniChiaraKrishnaAradhna (2020), “Advertising a Desired Change: When Process Simulation Fosters (vs. Hinders) Credibility and Persuasion,” Journal of Marketing Research, 57 (3), 489–508.
ColombattoClaraChenYi-ChiaSchollBrian J. (2020), “Gaze Deflection Reveals How Gaze Cueing is Tuned to Extract the Mind Behind the Eyes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117 (33), 19825–29.
EmeryNathan J. (2000), “The Eyes Have It: The Neuroethology, Function, and Evolution Of Social Gaze,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 24 (6), 581–604.
25.
EpleyNicholasWaytzAdamCacioppoJohn (2007), “On Seeing Human: A Three-Factor Theory of Anthropomorphism,” Psychological Review, 114 (4), 864–86.
26.
EvansNathanielParkDooyeon (2015), “Rethinking the Persuasion Knowledge Model: Schematic Antecedents and Associative Outcomes of Persuasion Knowledge Activation for Covert Advertising,” Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 36 (2), 157–76.
27.
FisherMatthewNewmanGeorge E.DharRavi (2018), “Seeing Stars: How the Binary Bias Distorts the Interpretation of Customer Ratings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (3), 471–89.
28.
FriestadMarianWrightPeter (1994), “The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (1), 1–31.
29.
GilbertDaniel T.MalonePatrick S. (1995), “The Correspondence Bias,” Psychological Bulletin, 117 (1), 21–38.
30.
GornGerald J. (1982), “The Effects of Music in Advertising on Choice Behavior: A Classical Conditioning Approach,” Journal of Marketing, 46 (1), 94–101.
31.
GrewalDhruvPuccinelliNancyMonroeKent B. (2018), “Meta-Analysis: Integrating Accumulated Knowledge,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (1), 9–30.
32.
GrossmannTobias (2017), “The Eyes as Windows into Other Minds: An Integrative Perspective,” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12 (1), 107–21.
33.
GuillonQuentinHadjikhaniNouchineBaduelSophieRogéBernadette (2014), “Visual Social Attention in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Insights from Eye Tracking Studies,” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 42, 279–97.
34.
HagtvedtHenrikPatrickVanessa M. (2008), “Art Infusion: The Influence of Visual Art on the Perception and Evaluation of Consumer Products,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (3), 379–89.
35.
HamiltonAntonia F. de C. (2016), “Gazing at Me: The Importance of Social Meaning in Understanding Direct-Gaze Cues,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 371 (1686), 20150080.
36.
HammerschmidtDavidWöllnerClemens (2018), “The Impact of Music and Stretched Time on Pupillary Responses and Eye Movements in Slow-Motion Film Scenes,” Journal of Eye Movement Research, 11 (2).
37.
HartwigMariaBondCharles (2011), “Why Do Lie-Catchers Fail? A Lens Model Meta-Analysis of Human Lie Judgments,” Psychological Bulletin, 137 (4), 643–59.
38.
HarveyJohn H.WearyGifford (1984), “Current Issues in Attribution Theory and Research,” Annual Review of Psychology, 35 (1), 427–59.
39.
HayesAndrew F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
40.
HeiderFritz (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
41.
HorvathJanosBurgyanAnnamaria (2011), “Distraction and the Auditory Attentional Blink,” Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 73 (3), 695–701.
JohnsonPalmer O.FayLeo C. (1950), “The Johnson–Neyman Technique, its Theory and Application,” Psychometrika, 15 (4), 349–67.
44.
KellarisJames J.CoxAnthony D.CoxDena (1993), “The Effect of Background Music on Ad Processing: A Contingency Explanation,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (4), 114–25.
45.
KelleyHarold H.MichelaJohn L. (1980), “Attribution Theory and Research,” Annual Review of Psychology, 31 (1), 457–501.
46.
KhalidSaaraDeskaJason C.HugenbergKurt (2016), “The Eyes Are the Windows to the Mind: Direct Eye Gaze Triggers the Ascription of Others’ Minds,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42 (12), 1666–77.
47.
KimSaraChenRocky PengZhangKe (2016), “Anthropomorphized Helpers Undermine Autonomy and Enjoyment in Computer Games,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (2), 282–302.
48.
KuhnGustavTatlerBenjamin W.ColeGeoff G. (2009), “You Look Where I Look! Effect of Gaze Cues on Overt and Covert Attention in Misdirection,” Visual Cognition, 17 (6/7), 925–44.
49.
KuznetsovaAlexandraBrockhoffPer B.ChristensenRune H. B. (2017), “lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models,” Journal of Statistical Software, 82 (13), 1–26.
50.
KwanCanice M. C.DaiXianchiWyerRobert S.Jr. (2017), “Contextual Influences on Message Persuasion: The Effect of Empty Space,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (2), 448–64.
51.
MacInnisDeborah J.RaoAmbar G.WeissAllen M. (2002), “Assessing When Increased Media Weight of Real-World Advertisements Helps Sales,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (4), 391–407.
52.
Mercer MossFelixBaddeleyRolandCanagarajahNishan (2012), “Eye Movements to Natural Images as a Function of Sex and Personality,” PloS One, 7 (11), e47870.
53.
NewmanGeorge E.GorlinMargaritaDharRavi (2014), “When Going Green Backfires: How Firm Intentions Shape the Evaluation of Socially Beneficial Product Enhancements,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (3), 823–39.
ObermillerCarlSpangenbergEric R. (1998), “Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (2), 159–86.
56.
PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T. (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, PettyRichard E.CacioppoJohn T., eds. New York: Springer New York.
57.
ReesGeraintFrithChrisLavieNilli (2001), “Processing of Irrelevant Visual Motion During Performance of an Auditory Attention Task,” Neuropsychologia, 39 (9), 937–49.
58.
ReichTalyKuporDaniella M.SmithRosanna K. (2017), “Made by Mistake: When Mistakes Increase Product Preference,” Journal of Consumer Research, 44 (5), 1085–103.
59.
RossetEvelyn (2008), “It’s No Accident: Our Bias for Intentional Explanations,” Cognition, 108 (3), 771–80.
60.
RuddMelanieCatapanoRhiaAakerJennifer (2018), “Making Time Matter: A Review of Research on Time and Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 29 (4), 680–702.
61.
SaxeRebeccaKanwisherNancy (2003). “People Thinking About Thinking People: The Role of the Temporo-Parietal Junction in ‘Theory of Mind,’” Neuroimage, 19 (4), 1835–42.
62.
SenjuAtsushiJohnsonMark H. (2009), “The Eye Contact Effect: Mechanisms and Development,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13 (3), 127–34.
63.
SettleRobert B.GoldenLinda L. (1974), “Attribution Theory and Advertiser Credibility,” Journal of Marketing Research, 11 (2), 181–85.
SlavnyRachel J. M.MooreJames W. (2018), “Individual Differences in the Intentionality Bias and its Association with Cognitive Empathy,” Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 104–08.
66.
SparkmanRichard M.Jr.LocanderWilliam B. (1980), “Attribution Theory and Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Consumer Research, 7 (3), 219–24.
67.
SpillerStephen A.BelogolovaLena (2016), “On Consumer Beliefs About Quality and Taste,” Journal of Consumer Research, 43 (6), 970–91.
68.
SpillerStephen A.FitzsimonsGavan J.LynchJohn G.McClellandGary H. (2013), “Spotlights, Floodlights, and the Magic Number Zero: Simple Effects Tests in Moderated Regression,” Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (2), 277–88.
69.
SpitzJochimKoenPutWagemansJohanWilliamsMark A.NelsenWerner F. (2017), “Does Slow Motion Impact on the Perception of Foul Play in Football?” European Journal of Sport Science, 17 (6), 748–56.
70.
SpitzJochimMoorsPieterWagemansJohanNelsenWerner F. (2018), “The Impact of Video Speed on the Decision-Making Process of Sports Officials,” Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 3, 1–10.
71.
ToniettoGabriela N.MalkocSelin A.NowlisStephen M. (2019), “When an Hour Feels Shorter: Future Boundary Tasks Alter Consumption by Contracting Time,” Journal of Consumer Research, 45 (5), 1085–102.
72.
TrendelOlivierMazodierMarcVohsKathleen D. (2018), “Making Warnings About Misleading Advertising and Product Recalls More Effective: An Implicit Attitude Perspective,” Journal of Marketing Research, 55 (2), 265–76.
73.
VassalloSuzaneCooperSian L.DouglasJacinta M. (2009), “Visual Scanning in the Recognition of Facial Affect: Is There an Observer Sex Difference?” Journal of Vision, 9 (3), 11.
74.
WaytzAdamGrayKurtEpleyNicholasWegnerDaniel M. (2010), “Causes and Consequences of Mind Perception,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14 (8), 383–88.
75.
WilliamsPattiFitzsimonsGavan J.BlockLauren G. (2004), “When Consumers Do Not Recognize ‘Benign’ Intention Questions as Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3), 540–50.
76.
WöllnerClemensHammerschmidtDavidAlbrechtHenning (2018), “Slow Motion in Films and Video Clips: Music Influences Perceived Duration and Emotion, Autonomic Physiological Activation, and Pupillary Responses,” PLOS ONE, 13 (6), e0199161.
77.
YuHongboDuanYunyanZhouXiaolin (2017), “Guilt in the Eyes: Eye Movement and Physiological Evidence for Guilt-Induced Social Avoidance,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 71, 128–37.
78.
YukiMasakiMadduxWilliam W.MasudaTakahiko (2007), “Are the Windows to the Soul the Same in the East and West? Cultural Differences in Using the Eyes and Mouth as Cues to Recognize Emotions in Japan and the United States,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (2), 303–11.
79.
ZettlHerbert (2011), Television Production Handbook. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
