BEER-SHEVA, Israel — August 11, 2025 — In an era where advertising continuously shapes societal attitudes and consumer behavior, the subtle yet profound impact of offensive-discriminatory marketing practices remains insufficiently explored. Dr. Enav Friedmann, a distinguished researcher at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, has recently shed light on the nuanced psychological and social responses elicited by advertisements that demean vulnerable groups. Her groundbreaking study, published in Psychology & Marketing, dissects the long-term consumer reactions to derogatory ads targeting women and people of color, blending experimental rigor with neuropsychological insights to unravel a paradox that challenges conventional wisdom in marketing science.
Advertising campaigns that leverage offensive stereotypes or socially unacceptable content pose complex ethical dilemmas. Dr. Friedmann’s research illuminates how such advertisements do not merely elicit immediate negative reactions but engage with consumers’ social identities over extended periods. She emphasizes that the normalization of prejudice through such messaging not only entrenches discrimination but also activates intricate psychological defense mechanisms within the targeted populations. This interplay between social identity threat and consumer behavior has thus far been understudied, leaving a critical gap in understanding the resilience and adaptation strategies of marginalized groups in the marketplace.
The methodology underpinning this investigation is robust, employing a triad of independent experimental studies encompassing 640 diverse participants stratified by gender and skin tone. Participants were exposed to authentic-looking offensive advertisements crafted to replicate real-world marketing initiatives with discriminatory undertones. These exposures were measured at multiple time intervals ranging from immediate reaction to up to a month later, allowing for temporal analysis of evolving consumer attitudes. The inclusion of actual neurophysiological data via EEG further distinguishes this research, as it grounds behavioral observations in measurable brain activity, offering a holistic view of the consumer experience.
In the first experiment, the focus was on ethnic discrimination embedded within a fictitious body soap commercial. Here, the ad depicted a racially charged “before and after” scenario contrasting dark-skinned and light-skinned families, implicitly valorizing lighter skin. Interestingly, dark-skinned participants who internally acknowledged the gravity of ethnic discrimination and exhibited diminished group identification paradoxically manifested an increased intention to purchase the offending brand after ten days. This finding challenges straightforward assumptions about consumer boycott behavior and suggests a more complex engagement with identity and self-esteem.
The subsequent study expanded this paradox by scrutinizing sexist representations through the lens of real candy bar advertisements. Women participants encountered either benign or blatantly offensive sexist versions, the latter punctuated by aggressive text belittling women under the guise of humor. Over roughly one month, women perceiving significant gender discrimination and gradually dissociating from their female group identity demonstrated a stronger inclination to select the disparaging chocolate brand, even accounting for baseline preferences. This phenomenon complicates simplistic readings of consumer behavior as mere rejection or acceptance, revealing subtle forms of identity negotiation and emotional regulation in response to sustained social threats.
Delving into the neurological substrates of these phenomena, the third experiment employed electroencephalography to monitor frontal brain activation in female subjects exposed to offensive versus non-offensive sexist advertisements for a construction company. Notably, greater left frontal cortical activity—a neural marker associated with approach motivation—was recorded in women who perceived intense gender discrimination and exhibited declining group identification. These neural findings corroborate behavioral trends, reinforcing the thesis that disidentification involves an unexpected approach orientation toward stimuli perceived as threatening to one’s social group, rather than outright avoidance or rejection.
This paradoxical inclination toward offensive brands by members of marginalized groups aligns with established theories of disidentification. Disidentification refers to a psychological process where individuals distance themselves from a stigmatized group to safeguard self-esteem and emotional well-being. Paradoxically, this distancing is accompanied by a surprising approach tendency toward the very objects symbolizing group harm—a coping mechanism that may serve to reclaim agency or mitigate cognitive dissonance. Dr. Friedmann’s research pioneers this conceptual terrain by empirically demonstrating how identity regulation unfolds over time in marketing contexts fraught with social conflict.
From a societal perspective, these findings are sobering. Although the research does not endorse the use of offensive advertising as an effective marketing strategy—indeed, most consumers did not exhibit positive shifts—there exists a nuanced subgroup whose psychological responses defy expectations. This underlines the substantial ethical responsibilities confronting marketers and regulators alike. Offensive-discriminatory ads inflict real psychological damage, reinforcing systemic inequalities and perpetuating social stigmas, even as they provoke unexpected consumer behaviors.
Consequently, Dr. Friedmann advocates for stringent regulatory frameworks to curtail such damaging practices. Drawing parallels with existing models in jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, she calls for enforceable guidelines that clearly delineate unacceptable content in advertising. The imposition of significant financial penalties on violators is proposed as a deterrent, aimed at protecting vulnerable populations and fortifying collective efforts toward social equality. Beyond regulation, this research urges marketers to embrace ethical approaches that respect consumer dignity and promote inclusivity, thereby fostering trust and long-term brand integrity.
Furthermore, the interdisciplinary nature of this investigation—merging marketing science, psychology, and neuroscience—sets a precedent for future research into consumer identity dynamics. By incorporating neurological data alongside behavioral experiments, the study transcends descriptive analysis, offering mechanistic insights into how consumers internally process and adapt to identity threats embodied in commercial messaging. This integration enriches the scholarly discourse on identity regulation and challenges marketers to reconsider the psychological impacts of their campaigns.
In practical terms, the research suggests several avenues for brands to recalibrate their marketing strategies. Emphasizing positive representation, fostering inclusivity, and engaging conscientiously with consumers’ social identities can preempt adverse outcomes. Brands must recognize that identity threats embedded in advertising not only alienate specific groups but may inadvertently generate complex consumer reactions that defy easy categorization. Sensitivity and awareness in campaign design can enhance both ethical standards and market success in increasingly diverse societies.
Ultimately, Dr. Friedmann’s study contributes a vital perspective to contemporary debates about the intersections of marketing, social justice, and consumer psychology. It cautions against the perils of commodifying social vulnerabilities and advocates for a deepened understanding of identity as a dynamic, multifaceted construct. Through meticulous experimentation and thoughtful interpretation, this research chart a path toward more ethical and psychologically informed advertising practices, underscoring the societal imperative to uphold respect and equity in all realms of commercial influence.
As societies continue to grapple with persistent inequalities, the importance of such research cannot be overstated. The paradox uncovered—whereby discrimination-induced disidentification catalyzes an unexpected affinity to harmful brands—compels marketers, policymakers, and scholars to revisit assumptions about consumer behavior. This deeper insight into the psychological mechanics of offense and identity offers meaningful guidance as the advertising landscape evolves alongside shifting social norms and heightened calls for inclusivity.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Disidentification: The Long-Term Effects of Offensive-Discriminatory Advertising
News Publication Date: August 11, 2025
Web References:
https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.70010
Image Credits: Doron Latzer
Keywords: Marketing, Advertising, Social Identity, Discrimination, Consumer Behavior, Psychology, Neuroscience, Ethical Marketing
