Subliminal Messages and Censorship

DEFINITION: Visual or aural stimuli presented below the conscious-awareness threshold of audiences

SIGNIFICANCE: Although the effectiveness of subliminal messages has been questioned, their use has been censored as being manipulative

Subliminal messages are words or images that are flashed on screens or played on recordings so quickly that audiences are unaware of receiving the messages. Subliminally transmitted images are generally embedded within other images, using an airbrush technique, so that the stimulus message is not recognized consciously. They have reportedly been used in advertisements, films, and records. They are also said to have been used in music played to customers in department and grocery stores to discourage shoplifting. The theory is that potential lawbreakers, subconsciously hearing a message such as “do not steal,” are supposedly less likely to shoplift. Cigarette and liquor advertisements in magazines have reportedly used subliminal messages to induce people to use their products. Some films, such as The Exorcist (1973), have used subliminal images of ghosts and skeletons to increase the fright of their viewers. No federal law specifically bans subliminal techniques. The  Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers its broadcast use contrary to the public interest, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) may treat subliminal advertising as deceptive.

In 1957, James Vicary claimed that he used a tachistoscope to flash the phrases “Drink Coca-Cola” and “Hungry? Eat Popcorn” on a cinema screen being watched by an audience. Every five seconds, these phrases appeared on the screen for three-thousandths of a second throughout the film. Vicary claimed that Coke sales increased 18 percent and popcorn sales increased 57 percent. Despite the lack of documentation (widely treated by scholars as a publicity hoax), public uproar over these claims led the National Association of Broadcasters to adopt a rule in the television code stating that transmission of messages below the threshold of normal awareness is not permitted. Fifteen years later, the FCC reviewed a complaint that a toy manufacturer had run a commercial with the phrase “Get it” presented subliminally. In 1974, the FCC ruled that broadcasters presenting subliminal messages are not acting in the public interest and that such messages are deceptive and therefore not allowed.

In 1986, the families of two young people who attempted suicide sued the heavy metal band Judas Priest and CBS Records, leading to a landmark trial in 1990 regarding the alleged use of subliminal messages. The two young men were listening to one of the albums of the British rock group when they shot themselves in 1985. A Nevada court eventually ruled that the families had failed to prove that subliminal suicide messages in the album were responsible. In 1991, Louisiana passed a law requiring warning labels on albums with themes of rape, murder, suicide, illegal drug use, child abuse, or satanic worship.

Controversy concerning the number of subliminal messages used and the effectiveness of such use has continued. Advertisers do not cite any research involving such messages and, in fact, generally deny that such messages are used. Nevertheless, a growing body of evidence collected by academic research has found that people can, in fact, be affected by messages that they are not consciously aware of receiving. Neuroscience research has shown that subliminal stimuli can influence decision-making and memory under controlled conditions. Researchers emphasize, however, that these effects are limited and do not support claims that hidden media messages can reliably compel complex behavior.

In the twenty-first century, subliminal messaging became more technology-focused and was rooted in neuroscience and behavioral design. The rise of such concepts as neuromarketing, targeted political advertising, and algorithmically curated content caused debates over digital ethics rather than traditional media censorship. These tactics are considered deceptive under FCC guidelines, but technology has found myriad ways to circumvent this. Conspiracy theories about subliminal messages in pop culture also continued to be prevalent. This indicated the public had unease about unconscious manipulation through the media.

Bibliography

“Advertising FAQ’s: A Guide for Small Business.” FTC, www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/advertising-faqs-guide-small-business. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Auslander, Jamie . “Revisiting The Ad Industry’s Favorite Ghost Story: Subliminal Messaging.” Infillion, 16 Oct. 2024, infillion.com/blog/revisiting-the-ad-industrys-favorite-ghost-story-subliminal-messaging/. Accessed 6 May 2026.

“47 C.F.R. § 73.4250—Subliminal Perception.” Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/47/73.4250. Accessed 6 May 2026.

“Judas Priest v. Second Judicial District Court of State of Nevada. 760 P.2d 137.” Supreme Court of Nevada, 25 Aug. 1988, vLex, case-law.vlex.com/vid/judas-priest-v-second-895094369. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Karremans, Johan C., et al. “Beyond Vicary’s Fantasies: The Impact of Subliminal Priming and Brand Choice.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 42, no. 6, Nov. 2006, pp. 792–98. Elsevier, doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.002. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Mohler, C., et al. “How Embedded Subliminal Messaging Affects Consumer Behavior in Advertising.” Department of Marketing, Boise State University, 26 Apr. 2024, www.boisestate.edu/cobe-marketing/2024/04/26/how-embedded-subliminal-messaging-affects-consumer-behavior-in-advertising. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Ruch, Simon, et al. “Subliminal Messages Exert Long-Term Effects on Decision-Making.” Neuroscience of Consciousness, vol. 2016, no. 1, 2016, niw013. Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/nc/niw013. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Zehan, Lina. “How Subliminal Advertising Can Help You Connect With Audiences.” Ignite Visibility, 19 Jan. 2026, ignitevisibility.com/7-examples-effective-subliminal-advertising/. Accessed 6 May 2026.