Jeffrey Kaplan dismantles a pervasive myth about human behavior, arguing that we are not the irrational, subconsciously manipulated puppets that pop psychology suggests. Instead, he posits that advertising works because we are hyper-rational actors using products as a complex language to signal our identity to others. This reframing is essential for anyone trying to understand modern consumer culture, moving the conversation from "how brands trick us" to "how we use brands to talk to each other."
The Myth of Emotional Inception
Kaplan begins by identifying the dominant narrative in our collective consciousness: the idea that modern advertising bypasses logic to hack our emotions. He labels this the "emotional Inception" theory, a term coined by Kevin Simler and inspired by the 2010 film Inception. In the movie, Leonardo DiCaprio's character uses technology to implant ideas directly into a target's subconscious. Kaplan writes, "The commonly accepted theory of advertising... has been given the name emotional Inception... the name was coined by Kevin Simler and was inspired by the 2010 movie Inception."
He illustrates this theory's popularity through the television show Mad Men, where the protagonist Don Draper sells a Kodak projector not on its technical merits, but by evoking nostalgia. Kaplan notes that Draper argues, "Technology is a glittering lure but there's the rare occasion when the public can be engaged on a level beyond flash if they have a sentimental bond with the product." The prevailing view is that advertisers, like Draper, are planting seeds in our minds that we cannot control.
"The emotional Inception theory says that advertisers do basically the same thing [as Pavlov]: just as Pavlov trained his dogs to associate the bell ringing with food, so advertisers train us to associate, say, energy drinks with very unsafe behavior and a sense of adventure."
Kaplan argues that this theory is fundamentally flawed because it treats humans as incredibly irrational. If advertising worked like Pavlovian conditioning, we would salivate at a picture of a motorcycle without ever experiencing the thrill of riding one. He points out the absurdity: "According to the emotional Inception theory, advertisers are able to train us without giving us anything... someone we don't know or trust, without our permission, can basically hypnotize us into salivating over energy drinks just by showing us some pictures."
Critics might argue that decades of behavioral economics prove humans are indeed irrational and easily swayed by emotional cues. However, Kaplan suggests that while we are not perfectly rational, we are not that irrational. We are capable of distinguishing between a picture and a reality, and we are not easily hypnotized by strangers.
The Social Connotation Theory
Kaplan proposes a superior alternative: the "social connotation" theory. This framework suggests that we buy products not because we are emotionally manipulated, but because we are strategically communicating. He draws an analogy to a satirical headline from The Onion: "Beer scanned for something a-hole friend won't mock." The joke works because we understand that our choices are public signals.
To illustrate, Kaplan recounts his time as a graduate student in England, where a friend named Lindsay arrived with a 24-pack of Strongbow, a hard cider known for being cheap and easy to overconsume. "She didn't have to say anything," Kaplan writes. "Just the fact that she showed up with this product that she had purchased let us know like, 'Oh, this girl's here to party.'" The purchase was a deliberate signal of intent.
"According to this theory, we rationally choose to buy the product in order to associate ourselves with the idea."
This shifts the power dynamic entirely. The advertiser's job is not to be a mind-controller like DiCaprio, but to be a dictionary maker. They define the meaning of a product, and then consumers decide whether to use that word in their own vocabulary. Kaplan explains that the advertiser's role is easy: "All the advertiser has to do is like throw out there that, 'Hey, this signals that,' and then we choose to use those signals like language however we see fit."
The argument relies on the concept of "conspicuous consumption," a term coined by economist Thorstein Veblen in 1899. Veblen observed that the Industrial Revolution created a new class of people who had enough money to buy things not for utility, but to display status. Kaplan emphasizes that this is a public act: "Buying things is a public act... the idea that masses, millions of people had enough money to buy stuff just to communicate things about themselves was genuinely new."
The Requirement of Common Knowledge
For this signaling to work, a complex social agreement must exist. It is not enough for Lindsay to know that Strongbow means "party time." The rest of the group must also know that Strongbow means "party time." Furthermore, Lindsay must know that the group knows, and the group must know that she knows. Kaplan identifies this as "common knowledge," a concept from philosophy that is crucial to his thesis.
He writes, "In order for her to use Strongbow to communicate something about herself, she has to know that we know that Strongbow means that stuff... she has to know something about what we know about Strongbow." This recursive layer of knowledge is what makes the social connotation theory robust. It explains why advertising campaigns that fail to establish a shared cultural meaning often flop, regardless of how "emotional" they are.
"The job of the advertiser is easy... with emotional Inception the advertiser had to be like Leonardo DiCaprio, speaking into our minds and manipulating our emotions, but according to this theory, all the advertiser has to do is like throw out there that, 'Hey, this signals that,' and then we choose to use those signals like language however we see fit."
Kaplan uses the example of Einstein's general theory of relativity to show how to test competing theories. Just as scientists looked for evidence that light curves around the sun to distinguish between Newton and Einstein, we can look for evidence of rational signaling to distinguish between emotional manipulation and social connotation. The fact that we can predict consumer behavior based on social signaling, rather than just emotional triggers, suggests the latter is the more accurate model.
Bottom Line
Kaplan's strongest contribution is reframing the consumer not as a victim of psychological warfare, but as an active participant in a social signaling game. The argument's biggest vulnerability is that it may underestimate the power of subconscious bias in low-stakes or high-volume purchases where rational signaling is less likely. However, for understanding the mechanics of modern brand identity, this shift from "manipulation" to "communication" offers a far more powerful lens for analysis.
"The emotional Inception theory is a myth. Emotional Inception does not occur."