Macroeconomics

45
Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 13(4), 2018
pp. 45–50, ISSN 1842-3191, eISSN 1938-212X doi:10.22381/EMFM13420183
EMOTIONAL AND COGNITIVE REACTIONS TO
MARKETING STIMULI: MECHANISMS UNDERLYING
JUDGMENTS AND DECISION MAKING IN
BEHAVIORAL AND CONSUMER NEUROSCIENCE
ANDREEA DRUGĂU-CONSTANTIN
[email protected]
The Bucharest University of Economic Studies
ABSTRACT. Following recent research on emotional and cognitive reactions to
marketing stimuli, I have identified and provided empirical evidence concerning
mechanisms underlying judgments and decision making in behavioral and consumer
neuroscience. Using data from Content Marketing Institute, Invodo/e-tailing group,
MarketingCharts, MarketingSherpa, Neustar, Pew Research Center, and SmartBrief,
I performed analyses and made estimates regarding the influence of content on purchasing decisions, product videos as online shopping aids, expected online behaviors
of smartphone users (by age), and the percentage of online shoppers who say they
would typically buy in store without looking at prices online/buy online without
looking at prices in a store/compare prices if they needed to make a purchase.
JEL codes: D11; D12; D91; N3; P46
Keywords: emotion; cognition; marketing stimuli; behavior; consumer neuroscience
How to cite: Drugău-Constantin, Andreea (2018). “Emotional and Cognitive Reactions to
Marketing Stimuli: Mechanisms Underlying Judgments and Decision Making in Behavioral and
Consumer Neuroscience,” Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 13(4): 45–50.
Received 4 February 2018 • Received in revised form 13 April 2018
Accepted 14 April 2018 • Available online 25 April 2018
1. Introduction
Neuroscientific methods can be instrumental in accurately assessing implicit
responses to marketing stimuli. Neuroscience data may straighten out general processes triggering decision making. Analysis of neural mechanisms may
clarify why behavior is dysfunctional in a wider biological sense, for differentiating between rival psychological accounts and for thinking up more
46
thoroughly targeted interventions to impact and alter behavior. Encapsulating neurocognitive processes entailed in naturalistic decision frameworks
(Giroux, 2017; Machan, 2017; Popescu, 2014) is essential to comprehending
behavioral disorders, e.g. obesity, addiction, and compulsive conducts. The
increase of neuroimaging tools with improved spatial and temporal resolution
has stimulated investigations that shed light on neural elements of choice and
neural predictors of selection. (Smidts et al. 2014; Hsu and Yoon, 2015)
2. Literature Review
A development of established marketing practices, neuromarketing attempts
to envisage and influence consumer purchasing intention (Andrei et al., 2016;
Lăzăroiu, 2017; Panova and Buber-Ennser, 2016; Stewart and Mika, 2017)
by figuring out how instinctive impulses and affect may be set off to establish
routine buying reactions. The kinds of consumer persuasion deriving from
the practice conflict with rhetorical demands of standard advertising and
market investigations. Neuromarketing employs brain-imaging knowledge to
clarify how consumers react to advertising stimulus. Marketers utilize such
information to construe the subtleties (Argenton, 2017; Machan, 2016; Peters,
2016; Stroe, 2018) that seemingly differentiate between fruitless and noteworthy advertising campaigns. Personalized advertising may advance much
further than established focus groups and be more cost-effective by deriving
marketing information from the targeted individuals’ un/subconscious.
(Nemorin, 2017)
3. Methodology
Using data from Content Marketing Institute, Invodo/e-tailing group, MarketingCharts, MarketingSherpa, Neustar, Pew Research Center, and SmartBrief,
I performed analyses and made estimates regarding the influence of content
on purchasing decisions, product videos as online shopping aids, expected
online behaviors of smartphone users (by age), and the percentage of online
shoppers who say they would typically buy in store without looking at prices
online/ buy online without looking at prices in a store/compare prices if they
needed to make a purchase.
4. Results and Discussion
Current cutting edge in scanner effectiveness, swiftness, and soundness
supplies robust enhancements in spatial and temporal resolution. Essential
elements of behavior patterns should be associated with intrinsic neural
47
function to clear up processes that bring about choice. A substantial component of concrete consumer choices is articulated in circumstances where
the consumer depends in significant manners on memory or examination.
(Smidts et al. 2014; Hsu and Yoon, 2015) The cluster of techniques that are
achievable to explore cortical activity may assist marketers in understanding
the purchasing grounds better. (Agarwal and Xavier, 2015) (Figures 1–4)
Figure 1 Influence of content on purchasing decisions
Sources: SmartBrief; Content Marketing Institute; my survey among 2,800 individuals
conducted November 2017.
48
Figure 2 Percentage of online shoppers who say they would
typically … if they needed to make a purchase
Sources: Pew Research Center; my survey among 2,600 individuals
conducted September 2017.
Figure 3 Product videos as online shopping aids
Sources: Invodo/e-tailing group; MarketingCharts; my survey among 2,200 individuals
conducted May 2017.
49
Figure 4 Expected online behaviors of smartphone users (by age)
Sources: Neustar; MarketingSherpa; my survey among 3,100 individuals
conducted December 2017.
5. Conclusions
Consumer neuroscience is the investigation of the neural circumstances and
mechanisms that trigger consumption, their psychological significance, and
their detectable effects. Individuals cannot thoroughly express their choices
when requested to convey them unambiguously (Hyers and Kovacova, 2018;
Mihăilă, 2016; Popescu Ljungholm, 2017), and their definite predilections
concealed in some areas of their brains. Cognitive neuroscientific techniques
provide a relevant chance to sharpen up the marketing investigation methods
and likely reevaluate the sphere of marketing via more deep-seated comprehension of consumer behavior. (Agarwal and Xavier, 2015)
Acknowledgements
This paper was supported by Grant GE-1367612 from the American Association for
Economic Research. I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their
constructive comments which have strengthened this article.
Author Contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for
publication.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any
commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict
of interest.
50
REFERENCES
Agarwal, S., and M. J. Xavier (2015). “Innovations in Consumer Science: Applications of Neuro-Scientific Research Tools,” in A. Brem and É. Viardot (eds.),
Adoption of Innovation. Dordrecht: Springer, 25–42.
Andrei, J.-V., M. Mieilă, G. H. Popescu, E. Nica, and C. Manole (2016). “The Impact
and Determinants of Environmental Taxation on Economic Growth Communities
in Romania,” Energies 9(11): 902.
Argenton, G. (2017). “Update Yourself: Learning to Forget in the Knowledge
Society,” Knowledge Cultures 5(2): 18–31.
Giroux, H. A. (2017). “Authoritarianism, Class Warfare, and the Advance of Neoliberal Austerity Policies,” Knowledge Cultures 5(1): 13–20.
Hsu, M., and C. Yoon (2015). “The Neuroscience of Consumer Choice,” Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 5: 116–121.
Hyers, D., and M. Kovacova (2018). “The Economics of the Online Gig Economy:
Algorithmic Hiring Practices, Digital Labor-Market Intermediation, and Rights
for Platform Workers,” Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management 6(1): 160–165.
Lăzăroiu, G. (2017). “Is There an Absence of Capability in Sustainable Development in Universities?,” Educational Philosophy and Theory 49(14): 1305–1308.
Machan, T. R. (2016). “Individualism in the Right Key,” Contemporary Readings in
Law and Social Justice 8(1): 11–19.
Machan, T. R. (2017). “Stakeholder vs. Shareholder Debate: Some Skeptical
Reflections,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 9(1): 7–13.
Mihăilă, R. (2016). “Is the Decrease in the Gender Wage Gap the Principal Driver of
the Sustained Rise in Female Labor Market Participation?,” Journal of Research
in Gender Studies 6(2): 146–152.
Nemorin, S. (2017). “Neuromarketing and the ‘Poor in World’ Consumer: How the
Animalization of Thinking Underpins Contemporary Market Research Discourses,” Consumption Markets & Culture 20(1): 59–80.
Panova, R., and I. Buber-Ennser (2016). “Attitudes towards Parental Employment:
A Ranking across Europe, Australia, and Japan,” Journal of Research in Gender
Studies 6(2): 11–37.
Peters, M. A. (2016). “Dissident Thought: Systems of Repression, Networks of
Hope,” Contemporary Readings in Law and Social Justice 8(1): 20–36.
Popescu, G. H. (2014). “FDI and Economic Growth in Central and Eastern Europe,”
Sustainability 6(11): 8149–8163.
Popescu Ljungholm, D. (2017). “Feminist Institutionalism Revisited: The Gendered
Features of the Norms, Rules, and Routines Operating within Institutions,”
Journal of Research in Gender Studies 7(1): 248–254.
Smidts, A., M. Hsu, A. G. Sanfey, M. A. S. Boksem, R. B. Ebstein, S. A. Huettel, et
al. (2014). “Advancing Consumer Neuroscience,” Marketing Letters 25(3): 257–
267.
Stewart, G., and C. Mika (2017). “Economy, Innovation, Education,” Knowledge
Cultures 5(1): 11–12.
Stroe, M. A. (2018). “Harold Bloom and the Brain-Wave Theory of Creativity,”
Creativity 1(2): 3–111.