Time plays a decisive role in shaping consumer behaviour, particularly among socially vulnerable groups targeted by offensive or discriminatory advertising. New research led by Dr Enav Friedmann of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev has examined how such groups respond over time to marketing that demeans or excludes them. The study sheds light on a paradoxical effect in which some individuals, over time, become more likely to favour the very brands that insulted them.
Published in Psychology & Marketing, the research addresses a largely unexplored intersection of social identity and consumer decision-making. Offensive advertising—whether in the form of sexist jokes or racial stereotypes—can normalise prejudice, reinforce harmful norms, and undermine equality. “We wanted to explore how conflicts between social identity and consumer choices evolve over time,” says Dr Friedmann, who heads the LBM research lab in the Department of Business Administration.
The study involved three experiments testing reactions to advertisements targeting women and people of colour. Participants were assessed immediately after exposure and again either 10 days or a month later. The offensive ads were based on real-world campaigns, with discriminatory messages adapted to fit fictional or real brands. Across all studies, 640 participants of varying gender and skin tone shared their reactions to the brands and the content.
In one experiment, participants viewed a fictional body soap advert depicting a dark-skinned family in the “before” image and a light-skinned family in the “after” image. Ten days later, dark-skinned participants who perceived high discrimination against their ethnic group, but identified less strongly with it, expressed greater purchase intentions toward the brand.
Another experiment presented women with either neutral or sexist versions of a real chocolate brand advert. The offensive version read: “Women, I’m sick of you! I get tired of all of you so quickly,” followed by the brand’s familiar tagline. A month later, women who felt their gender was highly discriminated against, yet distanced themselves from that identity, were more likely to choose the offending brand over alternatives.
A third study used EEG measurements to record brain activity while participants viewed adverts for a construction company. Women who reported high discrimination but lower gender identification showed greater activation in brain areas linked to approach motivation when exposed to the offensive ad—an effect observed 10 days after the initial exposure.
These results reveal a paradox: among specific individuals from marginalised groups, perceived discrimination combined with reduced group identification can increase attraction to brands that demean them. This behaviour aligns with “disidentification” theory, where distancing from a stigmatised identity serves as a coping strategy to protect self-esteem, sometimes leading to unexpected brand loyalty.
Dr Friedmann stresses that these findings should not be seen as endorsing offensive advertising. Most participants did not respond positively, and the psychological harm to targeted groups can be significant. The research highlights the need for ethical marketing practices and stronger regulatory measures, including clear criteria for banning discriminatory adverts and imposing substantial penalties on violators. “Enforcement is essential to protect well-being and build a more equal society,” she concludes.
More information: Enav Friedmann et al, Disidentification: The Long-Term Effects of Offensive-Discriminatory Advertising, Psychology and Marketing. DOI: 10.1002/mar.70010
Journal information: Psychology and Marketing Provided by Ben-Gurion University of the Negev