Shock Me?

I almost lost my dinner tonight. I originally joined Facebook to catch up with people I knew in high school but my friends grew and grew to include organizations, mostly animal rescues. I particularly have been eager to join rescues that help pit bulls. Tonight in my newsfeed one such organization posted a photo of a dog that had a rocket placed in its mouth and lost most of the front part of its face and was still alive. I won't be sharing that photo here or on Facebook.

I don't want to see those kind of photos. I hear, read and imagine bad enough things all the time. It isn't going to compel me to send more money or any money. As a volunteer and a dog lover I have heard bad enough things like the local news where a jerk used a chainsaw to cut off a dog's head and throw it at the owners'. I've seen a poor little 10 lb dog whose mouth was fastened shut with a hairband left in place until it worked its way under the dog's skin, leaving permanent disfiguration. I have read even worse news and such about places far away. The shootings of pets in St. Bernard Parish during the Hurricane Katrina aftermath left me without any ability to withstand those kinds of shocks anymore.

I'm sure there are some people who respond well to shock photos as attention-getters. Advertising, or "shockvertising" finds that the way to grab people's attention is through graphic and disturbing images. Wikipedia says, "Advertisers, psychiatrists, and social scientists have long debated the effectiveness of shock advertising. Some scientists argue that shocking ads of course evokes stronger feelings among the consumers. One finding suggests “shocking content in an advertisement significantly increases attention, benefits memory, and positively influences behavior.” Dahl 2003, p.265 is the citation.
The average person undergoes inundation by about 3000 ads a day. Nonprofits' PSA's rely quite a bit on shock to get attention. Here in Montana the campaign against meth is a well-known and controversial example. So I assume there must be something productive about this type of "shockvertising".

But what about the refusal by many organizations to use shocking pictures of child abuse or animal abuse? Lewis and Clark Humane Society doesn't use horrible images that you can't forget. Best Friends Animal Sanctuary doesn't either and they have millions of dollars donated to them. PETA however relies on shock, it seems to me, every time they put up a photo. I wonder what the breakdown of perception is across the age groups. In other words, do younger people perceive it to be a valid way for organization to get attention? If organizations go too far I think they will lose customer support and goodwill.

I hope I never see another terrible photo like the one of the poor dog whose owner put a rocket in its mouth. I am happy that Lewis and Clark Humane Society relies on positive advertising rather than horrible photos that can shock people right out of looking at anything sent by the organization. By the way, I "unliked" the organization that posted the photo since it turns out to be one of those endless shares that went around the work starting in Sarajevo. My feeling is that the people here in the USA from the rescue were sending the photo with shock on their agenda and no other reason.