Pavlov’s Pizza: How Domino’s Uses Classical Conditioning in Advertising — and Why It Matters
In an increasingly competitive advertising landscape, brands are tasked with finding ever more creative ways to influence consumer behaviour. While traditional advertising relies on persuasion through rational appeals, emotional resonance, and narrative storytelling, there exists a more subtle — and often more powerful — psychological mechanism at play: classical conditioning. First described by Ivan Pavlov in the early 20th century, classical conditioning has become a mainstay of modern marketing tactics, where brands seek to form automatic associations between stimuli and desired consumer responses.
A prominent contemporary example of this can be found in Domino’s advertising (Q1 2025), where commercials depict scenes of hunger and indulgence — from people eagerly awaiting pizza to close-up imagery of melting cheese and sizzling toppings — immediately followed by branding and the simple sound of a doorbell chime. This sequence appears to be deliberately designed to condition consumers to associate the bell sound with hunger and the Domino’s brand, closely mirroring Pavlov’s classic experiments with dogs.
In this article, we will explore the principles of classical conditioning in advertising, conduct a case study analysis of Domino’s use of auditory stimuli, and consider the ethical implications of such psychological tactics in consumer marketing.
Classical Conditioning: The Psychological Foundation
Classical conditioning, first demonstrated by Ivan Pavlov (1927), is a process in which a neutral stimulus becomes repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus, eventually triggering a conditioned response. In Pavlov’s landmark experiment, the sound of a bell (initially a neutral stimulus) was paired with the presentation of food (an unconditioned stimulus) that naturally caused dogs to salivate (the unconditioned response). After repeated pairings, the bell alone became a conditioned stimulus, capable of eliciting salivation without the presence of food.
This process reveals a powerful mechanism: the formation of automatic, involuntary associations between stimuli. In consumer behavior, brands deliberately replicate this dynamic. Products or brand cues (initially neutral stimuli) are systematically paired with pleasurable or emotionally charged stimuli — such as appetizing images, upbeat music, or comforting sounds — in order to condition consumers to feel desire or anticipation automatically in response to the brand itself.
What makes this mechanism so powerful in marketing is that it bypasses rational deliberation. Conditioning operates beneath conscious awareness, building emotional and behavioral triggers that influence purchasing decisions without consumers necessarily realizing why they feel drawn to a product or brand. In essence, classical conditioning transforms advertising into a tool not of persuasion, but of automatic behavioral shaping.
Classical Conditioning in Advertising
Advertisers have long understood and exploited the principles of classical conditioning, deliberately engineering sensory triggers to forge automatic, emotional associations between their brands and desired consumer responses. Instead of relying solely on persuasion, marketers use repeated pairings of carefully selected stimuli to create conditioned responses that can shape behavior beneath conscious awareness.
Common conditioning techniques in advertising include:
Sound cues: Jingles, catchphrases, and specific audio signatures that — through repetition — become directly linked to pleasure, anticipation, or comfort.
Visual imagery: Repeatedly associating products with aspirational lifestyles, emotional experiences, or symbols of reward to elicit positive emotional responses on sight.
Colour schemes and logos: Conditioning emotional reactions through continuous exposure, turning simple shapes and colors into emotional triggers.
The effect is cumulative and potent. Research by Stuart et al. (1987) demonstrated that classical conditioning can successfully alter consumer attitudes toward brands, even without rational arguments or direct product trials. Their experiments confirmed that repeated pairings of brands with pleasant, emotionally charged stimuli can lead to deeply ingrained, automatic positive associations — associations that consumers carry into decision-making moments, often without conscious reflection.
The Domino’s Case Study: Conditioning Through Sound
Domino’s advertising offers a clear, deliberate demonstration of classical conditioning in action. In recent campaigns (Q1 2025), their commercials follow a carefully crafted sequence: scenes depicting hunger and desire for indulgence, followed by close-up shots of melting cheese and sizzling toppings, culminating in the sound of a doorbell chime paired with the Domino’s brand name. This sequence is not incidental — it is designed to create a conditioned link between the auditory cue and the emotional states of craving, anticipation, and reward.
The psychology behind this is powerful. The sound of a doorbell is already associated, through years of lived experience, with arrival, reward, and satisfaction — whether from visitors, gifts, or food delivery. Domino’s advertising strategically piggybacks on this pre-existing association and strengthens it by embedding the doorbell sound into moments of intense sensory stimulation (hunger cues, indulgent imagery). Repeated exposure to this pattern conditions consumers to respond automatically to the chime itself: feelings of craving and anticipation are triggered not by food, but by the sound.
The conditioning effect operates on several interconnected levels:
Emotional conditioning: The doorbell sound becomes an emotional trigger for excitement and reward anticipation.
Behavioral conditioning: Hearing the chime outside the ad context (in real life or other media) can prompt a desire to order pizza or seek out indulgence.
Reinforcement and memory encoding: Repeated pairings strengthen neural pathways, making the response faster, more automatic, and more deeply ingrained.
This technique is supported by neuroscientific findings. Zaltman (2003) highlights that sensory cues associated with pleasure activate the brain’s reward circuitry, particularly areas linked to desire and decision-making. Domino’s has, in essence, replicated Pavlovian conditioning on a mass scale — substituting dogs and bells with hungry consumers and door chimes — creating conditioned responses that drive purchasing behavior with minimal conscious deliberation.
Here is how the adverts play out using the classical conditioning principles:
Unconditioned stimulus (US): Hunger cues + delicious imagery
Unconditioned response (UR): Feeling hungry / desire for food
Neutral stimulus (NS): The doorbell sound
Conditioned stimulus (CS): The doorbell sound (after repeated pairing)
Conditioned response (CR): Feelings of hunger or craving triggered by the bell
Other Examples of Classical Conditioning in Advertising
Domino’s is far from alone in using classical conditioning. Some other well-documented examples include:
McDonald’s "I’m Lovin’ It" jingle: The jingle, paired with images of social enjoyment and tasty food, triggers feelings of comfort and belonging.
Netflix’s "ta-dum" sound: A brief auditory cue that signals entertainment, comfort, and relaxation.
Coca-Cola advertisements: The sound of a bottle cap opening and fizzing reinforces thirst and satisfaction.
Ethical Considerations: Where Is the Line?
While classical conditioning is undeniably effective, its use in marketing — particularly by fast food brands — raises urgent ethical questions. These techniques are not simply creative tools; they are psychological instruments designed to bypass rational thought and trigger automatic behaviors, often at the expense of consumer well-being.
Erosion of Autonomy
Conditioning works beneath conscious awareness, reducing consumers’ ability to make fully informed, deliberate choices. When repeated stimuli subtly shape desires and cravings, consumers are no longer choosing based on rational preferences but responding to engineered triggers. This manipulation of instinct raises uncomfortable questions: How free are our choices when brands actively train our responses?
Exploiting Vulnerability
The ethical concerns deepen when these tactics target children or individuals prone to overconsumption. Children, in particular, lack the cognitive defenses to resist conditioned messaging. Associating happiness, comfort, and reward with calorie-dense foods can foster lifelong unhealthy eating patterns. Conditioning in this context is not harmless influence — it’s behavioral engineering aimed at shaping habits during the most impressionable stages of life.
Public Health Consequences
The stakes are not theoretical. Obesity rates continue to rise globally, with fast food consumption recognized as a significant contributor. According to the World Health Organization (2024), childhood obesity has more than doubled in the last two decades. Marketing strategies that create automatic cravings for high-fat, high-sugar foods only exacerbate this crisis. Conditioning consumers to associate something as common as a doorbell chime with indulgence and immediate reward encourages impulsive eating, undermining public health initiatives and contributing to a culture of overconsumption.
Avoiding Regulation While Driving Harm
Despite the potency of these tactics, most fall outside the reach of current regulatory frameworks. Bodies like the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the European Commission set guidelines on marketing to children and prohibitions on overt subliminal messaging. Yet conditioning techniques — precisely because they are subtle and embedded in repetition — skirt these rules. Domino’s doorbell chime strategy is perfectly legal, but legality does not equate to ethical responsibility. When psychological conditioning is used to encourage consumption of unhealthy products, brands must ask themselves whether effectiveness alone justifies the consequences.
The Neurological Mechanism: Why Sound Cues Are So Powerful
The success of conditioning techniques like Domino’s doorbell chime is not accidental; it is rooted in deeply ingrained neurological pathways that brands exploit with precision. Research in neuromarketing (Stanton et al., 2017) shows that auditory stimuli — even more so than visual cues — have a direct line to the brain’s limbic system, the area responsible for processing emotion, memory, and reward.
The amygdala, a key structure within this system, reacts almost instantaneously to certain sounds, particularly those associated with reward or alert. This ancient neurological shortcut evolved to help humans respond to critical environmental signals, but in modern marketing, it becomes a tool for manipulation. Domino’s doorbell chime is designed to hijack this response: a simple sound cue triggering complex feelings of anticipation, pleasure, and desire without the need for conscious thought.
Even more powerfully, sounds that replicate real-life cues — like doorbells or ringtones — are nearly impossible for the brain to filter out. They immediately capture attention, forcing the consumer to engage. In an advertising context, this transforms the doorbell sound into a psychological anchor: a stimulus that not only commands attention but also becomes permanently associated with moments of indulgence and reward. Over time, this association is reinforced, transforming a simple sound into a trigger that drives craving and impulsive consumption behavior.
The use of these cues is not merely clever branding; it is the deliberate activation of hardwired neural responses, designed to bypass rationality and influence behaviour at a biological level.
Is It Effective in the Long Term?
Classical conditioning can produce powerful, long-lasting behavioral effects — but only if the conditioned stimulus is consistently reinforced by positive outcomes. For brands like Domino’s, the doorbell chime becomes a psychological trigger for craving and anticipation only as long as that sound reliably precedes a rewarding experience: fast delivery, hot food, and indulgent satisfaction. When this sequence holds, the conditioning strengthens over time, deepening brand loyalty and making the response increasingly automatic.
However, classical conditioning is not invincible. If consumers begin to associate the cue with disappointment — slow delivery, cold food, or poor service — the conditioned response can weaken or even extinguish. This process, known as extinction, occurs when the conditioned stimulus is no longer paired with the anticipated reward. Over time, the sound that once evoked excitement can become meaningless or, worse, a reminder of failed expectations.
Moreover, overexposure to the stimulus without meaningful reinforcement can dull its psychological potency. Brands that lean too heavily on conditioning cues without delivering on the emotional promise risk eroding trust and sabotaging the very behavioural patterns they sought to build. In other words, conditioning is not a one-time investment; it is a delicate, ongoing relationship between stimulus, expectation, and reward. Break that chain, and the entire conditioning effect can unravel.
For Domino’s and brands employing similar tactics, the challenge is not just to condition desire — but to consistently trigger it to their desired effect.
Simply Put
Our Domino’s case study exposes how classical conditioning is not just a theoretical concept from psychology textbooks, but a powerful, deliberate force shaping modern consumer behaviour. By pairing its brand identity with a sound as familiar and emotionally charged as a doorbell chime — layered with vivid sensory cues of hunger and indulgence — Domino’s has engineered a trigger that bypasses rational thought and taps directly into conditioned craving.
Yet brilliance and manipulation often sit side by side. The same techniques that build brand loyalty can erode consumer autonomy, conditioning people to respond to environmental cues with automatic desire rather than conscious choice. When these strategies are used to promote calorie-dense, nutritionally poor products, they contribute to a broader public health crisis. Rising obesity rates, particularly among children, are not merely the result of individual choices, but of carefully constructed environmental conditioning that nudges those choices in predictable — and often unhealthy — directions.
Brands like Domino’s are not breaking the rules; they are operating within them. But legality does not absolve responsibility. As neuromarketing and behavioral science continue to advance, marketers face a critical question: Does the power to condition behavior justify its use, especially when the societal costs are so tangible?
The Domino’s case is both a masterclass in psychological precision and a sobering reminder of the ethical tightrope modern advertising walks. In the coming years, consumers, regulators, and brands will all need to confront this reality: influence is easy; accountability is hard. The real challenge lies in deciding where influence ends — and manipulation begins.
References
Lusensky, J. (2010). Sounds Like Branding: Use of Music and Sound in Marketing. Norstedts.
World Health Organization (2024). Obesity and overweight fact sheet.
Disclaimer
This article is written to provoke critical discussion around the use of psychological conditioning in advertising, with a particular focus on public health and consumer autonomy. While the techniques described are legal and undeniably effective, their long-term impact on consumer well-being and societal health warrants deeper reflection. The author has no affiliation with Domino’s or competing brands and invites readers to consider not only how these tactics influence their choices — but whether such influence should remain unexamined.
