Guilt that results from an individu

Guilt that results from an individual contemplating a potential violation of one’s own standards is referred to as anticipatory guilt (Rawlings, 1970). Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) document that companies that manufacture and promote consumer nondurable goods and health care products, health care services, and charities often use this type of guilt appeal. The ad scenario below describes an appeal that attempts to create anticipatory guilt; the ad offers consumers the ability to avoid disappointing their children by purchasing a cell phone.
Ad Scenario 1: It’s Saturday morning. The long-awaited (and many times postponed) trip to the beach is finally here. You and the kids are excited about the day’s activities. Then the phone rings. . .It’s your boss. He wants you to contact a potential multimillion dollar client today. Your youngest daughter, mortified by what might be another ‘‘Well, we can go to the beach next week’’ bleats ‘‘Daddy, when can I become one of your clients?’’. . .If only you had a cellular phone. You could avoid disappointing your kids and talk to the potential client en route to the beach.
The second type of guilt is reactive guilt, i.e., a guilt response to having violated one’s standards of acceptable behavior (Rawlings, 1970). Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) found that manufacturers and advertisers of consumer goods (both durable and nondurable) and health care products and services focus on reactive guilt. The second scenario illustrates an ad attempting to remind readers of their own past transgressions in an attempt to sell a phone reminder service.
Ad Scenario 2: It is 6:00 p.m., and you’re swamped with work, but you promise your wife. . .‘‘I’ll be packing up soon. I just have to read one or two more reports.’’ Predictably, you become engulfed in your work and the next thing you know it’s 9:00 p.m.! Well, she’ll understand. . .As you walk through the dining room, you stumble upon what once was a magnificent dinner for two. But the food is cold and the candles have burned down. Staring you in the face is a card saying, ‘‘Happy Anniversary, Darling.’’ You can’t believe it. How could you let such an important date slip by? If only you had signed up for that ‘‘Special Event’’ phone calling service that would have reminded you of important dates.
Finally, existential guilt is experienced as a consequence of a discrepancy between one’s well-being and of others (Izard, 1977), and Huhmann and Brotherton (1997) find that charity ads very often use this type of appeal. The final ad scenario depicts an ad attempting to evoke existential guilt by contrasting the condition of a starving child with the (presumably healthier) condition of the ad’s reader to solicit charitable donations.
Ad Scenario 3: An emaciated child is perched on a log in the barren waste of the desert. He can barely move, as he has no muscle, to support his frail body. His eyes tell a tale of a boy who, if only someone had helped to provide him nutrition, could have blossomed into a bright young man. In the background, a vulture looks on. With just a small contribution, you can help stop such famine and the tragedy faced by these innocent youths. You can make a lifesaving difference.
Common to these three forms of guilt appeals is the expectation that seeing ads that employ these tactics will cause viewers to feel guilt and take some action (for example, become volunteers or purchase a product or service).