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 pur- chasing 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 gen- eral processes triggering decision making. Analysis of neural mechanisms may clarify why behavior is dysfunctional in a wider biological sense, for differ- entiating between rival psychological accounts and for thinking up mor e

46

thoroughly targeted interventions to impact and alter behavior. Encapsu- lating 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 note- worthy advertising campaigns. Personalized advertising may advance much further than established focus groups and be more cost-effective by deriving marketing infor mation from the targeted individuals’ un/subconscious. (Nemorin, 2017)

3. Methodology Using data from Content Marketing Institute, Invodo/e-tailing group, Market- ingCharts, 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 com- ponent 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 compre- hension 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: Applica-

tions 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 Neo- liberal 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 Manage- ment 6(1): 160–165.

Lăzăroiu, G. (2017). “Is There an Absence of Capability in Sustainable Develop- ment 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 Dis- courses,” 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.