Embracing the Correlation Between Attention and Emotions in Marketing

I read a stimulating debate between two people I appreciate for their expertise. So, I try to add value to the discussion by giving a few insights we found.

In a recent article by Mike Follett (https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/opinion/the-theory-of-affordances-a-new-perspective-on-the-attention-debate/6322), he delved into Eaon Pritchard's perspective on the theory of attention in marketing (https://www.warc.com/newsandopinion/opinion/sense-checking-the-half-truth-of-attention-metrics/6294), proposing a different viewpoint regarding the relationship between attention and emotions. While Follett acknowledged Pritchard's contributions and insights, he raised questions about the role of emotions in determining what captures our attention.

Wow, I love these kind of questions! We can't consider human beings as emotionally detached machines, even when we talk about attention.

Pritchard's Evolutionary Approach to Attention

Eaon Pritchard's argument revolves around the evolutionary purpose of attention, viewing it as a tool that assists us in skillfully navigating the world to achieve our goals and purpose. He contends that attention is not merely a filter for selecting stimuli but a spotlight directed toward what is significant for our survival and success. Pritchard's perspective aligns with an ecological theory of attention, emphasizing the adaptive nature of our attentional processes, and both agree with this view.

The Role of Emotions in Attention

Pritchard takes a step further by highlighting the role of emotions in directing our attention. He argues that emotions are efficient shortcuts to identifying what is meaningful and noteworthy. Emotions, he argues, are "principally functional states that regulate attention and behaviors." This perspective suggests that our emotional state is vital in determining what captures our attention.

Addressing Concerns About Emotions

Mike Follett raises two significant concerns about Pritchard's emphasis on emotions in the attention debate. Firstly, he questions the definition of emotions, suggesting that they may not be as fundamental and immutable as Pritchard implies. There is a significant body of research supporting the role of emotions in shaping attention and decision-making, although we can debate the concept of emotions.

Whether universal or context-dependent, they shape our perception and interaction with the world. Although Lisa Feldman Barrett's concept is the reverse, i.e., we are who predictively construct emotions about the context, and it does not affect the fact that emotions impact in a significant manner our behaviors and lives.

Secondly, Follett raises the issue of the priority of emotions in the attentional process. He inquires about how we enter emotional states in the first place and how we respond to environmental stimuli without prior emotional awareness. It is where the Theory of Affordances, as discussed by Gibson, comes into play. Affordances suggest that the environment provides cues that prompt emotional responses and shape our attention. In this view, emotions and environmental cues work hand in hand to direct our attention effectively.

Embracing the Correlation

The most important thing is that attention measurement and metrics are game changers in a world of vanity metrics.

But we need to consider that attention and emotions are closely related.

We conducted a study not yet published on more than 12,000 participants considering different types of stimuli, contexts, and Countries, and it emerges that the two are correlated.

The research wants to understand how emotions could influence a person's attentiveness.

But let's start at the beginning with what attention is.

Attention is a cognitive state that provides meaningful information about people's mental availability. It is a descending monotonous signal. Generally, when we begin watching media content, our initial attention is high but gradually decreases over time.

We understood that attention becomes active attention the moment there is emotional activation. What is called passive attention is, in short, behavior that has no emotional activation. Gaze into the void or a passing glance.

The biggest shortcoming of current attention metrics is the lack of knowing what generates the measured attention.

Is it beneficial for a brand to know that its advertising generates hundreds of seconds of attention if it arouses negative emotions?

I believe it does, as it significantly alters how the brands interpret the data and subsequently influences their actions.

The most exciting discovery is that emotions can slow down attention fall signal if not even reverse it.

Cool, what does this mean?

The stronger the emotional response, the higher the probability that attention is stable. Significant emotional peaks can reverse and increase attention levels. It means the audience generally loses attention over time, but an emotionally powerful image or storytelling can keep eyes locked on the screen.

So, let's leave the hard work of keeping people's emotions active to creativity and storytelling.

We will have happy brands and attentive customers!