Skip to main content

Should Car Ads Be Banned?

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Never happen.

But maybe they should be.

A look at the ubiquitous aggressive driver inPsychology & Marketing, shows that he (more than she) tends to view a vehicle as an extension of The Self. "Perceiving cars as an extension to oneself might lead pe0ple to interpret any threat to their cars as a direct threat to themselves," the authors wrote.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The studies didn't address the obvious question of which part of selves were extended. And maybe this all seems pretty obvious for personal property that is sometimes christened by owners with names like "Exploder," "Bucky," "Koo Koo," "John Claude Grand Slam" and "Desdemona."

Some of this clearly restates what we already know. Men and cars (ah, you know), teenagers as lethal weapons and when you're late for work, you step on it. The nominal reason for looking at the question anew was to assess car ownership as a "consumption experience." Studies on aggressive driving have been around for awhile, but few have looked at the aggro driver from the perspective of consumer marketing behavior.

The two new studies—lumped into "Aggressive Driving: A Consumption Experience" by Ayalla A. Ruvio of Temple University and Aviv Shoham of the University of Haifa, comprising several hundred questionnaires in total—found that people who identify with their car (remember the worst TV show ever, My Mother the Car?) tend to be the ones who weave around slowpokes, zoom ahead to beat you out of a parking space, the same drivers who curse and wave their fists and eventually end up with a pending court date.

In a section called "practical implications," the authors suggest an advertising campaign that cautions about the risks of aggressive driving, ads that perhaps stress, in the authors' words, the merits of thinking of the car as "a functional tool [sic] for getting from one place to another." Ruvio and Shoham scrupulously ignore the biggest question that hangs over the issue of the Porsche, Lamborghini or Mercedes as extension of self.

From the time Madison Avenue stopped becoming a horse and buggy route, it has co-opted the best minds of generation after generation of creative executive to help make consumers believe that the automobile is a form of exoskeleton that is as much a part of each one of us as a right thumb or left femur. So if correlation equals causation, maybe we should pull car ads.

Like I said though, it'll never happen. Defensive driving spots aren't going to edge out off-road, light truck, hormone-tickling ad spots during the Super Bowl.

Image source: Wikimedia Commons

 

 

Gary Stix, the neuroscience and psychology editor for Scientific American, edits and reports on emerging advances that have propelled brain science to the forefront of the biological sciences. Stix has edited or written cover stories, feature articles and news on diverse topics, ranging from what happens in the brain when a person is immersed in thought to the impact of brain implant technology that alleviates mood disorders like depression. Before taking over the neuroscience beat, Stix, as Scientific American's special projects editor, oversaw the magazine's annual single-topic special issues, conceiving of and producing issues on Einstein, Darwin, climate change and nanotechnology. One special issue he edited on the topic of time in all of its manifestations won a National Magazine Award. Stix is the author with his wife Miriam Lacob of a technology primer called Who Gives a Gigabyte: A Survival Guide to the Technologically Perplexed.

More by Gary Stix