Citation
(2014), "Executive summary of “Mind reading versus neuromarketing: how does a product make an impact on the consumer?”", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0932
Publisher
:Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Executive summary of “Mind reading versus neuromarketing: how does a product make an impact on the consumer?”
Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Consumer Marketing, Volume 31, Issue 3
This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of the article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefit of the material present.
Some researchers have become frustrated with conventional analyses of consumer behavior. Instead of testing discrete hypotheses, a trend toward physical methods has grown. These include monitoring the eye movements of consumers and the use of brain imaging.
The latter is termed “neuromarketing” and Booth and Freeman point out its weaknesses. They refer to a study involving the need for people with type 2 diabetes to avoid foods high in fat content. Compared to the control group, brain activation among those with the condition was higher. Subjects were then exposed to pictures of foods and asked to rate their desire to eat each one. Although fat impacted most on the appeal of low-fat foods observed in the pictures, most respondents with diabetes were the same as the control group in this respect.
The authors note the limited potential to regard type 2 diabetes as providing a distinct market for low-fat foods, thus questioning the merits of segmentation based on cognitive responses alone. Brain imaging simply confirmed existing knowledge but the method did not reveal how information about fat content such as documented on food labels or visible indications of fat content in food impact on consumer choice. The relationship between these sources was also ignored.
These shortcomings prompt Booth and Freeman to adopt a psychological approach to such issues by exploring the connections between nutrient labels on food and sensory influences. Research in this area to date has not considered differences between individuals in the nature of such interactions. Likewise, evidence shows that sensory appeal of foods is enhanced through slogans and other advertising techniques but ignores the role played by “cognitive mechanisms”.
In the present work, the aim is to examine interactive effects by conducting an experiment involving consumer choice of different butters and spreads. This food is widely discussed in relation to healthy eating, and manufacturers are legally bound to provide detailed information on nutrition. Smaller portion size and options which are lower in fat commonly form part of strategies persuading consumers to eat healthily.
Interest in consumer attitudes toward low-fat foods has grown in recent years. The importance of setting is advocated as influencing whether sensory aspects or healthy-eating motivations will have most impact on consumer decisions about what to eat. However, work pertaining to the mental processes that shape consumer response when choosing between foods varying in fat content levels. It is assumed that processing at the time of deciding what and how much to eat might influence an individual’s daily fat intake.
Young visitors, mainly aged between 16 and 17 years, to a psychology department in a UK university took part in the experiment. Participants were segmented based on having spread brought for them, selecting the product based on sensory factors or choosing a brand for health reasons. Half of each segment could use their own words to conceptualize the amount of spread and fat percentage. All others were given “consensus words” identified in a previous pilot study. The terms “fat content” and “thickness” were provided to respectively describe variation in label content and amount of spread used. These same terms were also used frequently by subjects able to choose their own descriptions, although a diversity of words was evident overall.
Subjects were exposed to samples of bread covered with varying amounts of spreads and labeled as having different levels of fat content. They were asked to visually evaluate each one and indicate the likelihood of them consuming a sample on an “appropriate occasion”. Following this, they were tasked with marking points on vertical and horizontal lines to indicate the probability of them choosing a particular spread, and their ideal levels in terms of fat content and amount or thickness. Individual responses were measured against their most preferred choice of spread.
Competing hypotheses were created based on the distinction between peripheral processing and central processing as dictated by whether an individual mainly uses the stimuli or the concepts related to it when making their evaluations.
The authors performed various calculations from which the personal ideal point (IP) for the labeled fat content or spread amount was identified. Subsequently, IP was then used to form the basis for both one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) description processes.
Among the findings indicated by different analyses were:
sensory information and conceptual attributes and/or their descriptors were integrated by most respondents;
choices made by individual consumers were strongly influenced by sensory-conceptual interactions;
central processing was used more frequently than peripheral processing by subjects using their own words to conceptualize fat levels and spread thickness;
these participants were also likelier to process fat percentage descriptively than through label observation and by using their own concept as opposed to not doing;
whether spread is purchased for taste or health determines the focus of cognitive processing. Spread thickness has most influence when taste is the driver, while a focus on health elicits greater concern about fat content. This was particularly evident among those using their own vocabulary;
differences in decision processes were not significant among all subjects who usually had spread bought for them, regardless of whether they used consensus words of their own; and
respondents concerned about fat were typically motivated by the combination of their own words used for fat percentage and amount of spread. But where taste drives the choice of usual spread, the sight of fat content percentage and visible amounts of spread were more often considered separately.
According to the authors, this study substantiates that consumer decision making is driven by various mental processes assimilating conceptual and sensory factors. The measures used enable differences in each element’s impact to be measured and how the “mental interactions” of the individual consumer relate to their own given standard. What a subject actually does with the conceptual or sensory information represents the value of work that is proposed as more accurately reflecting consumer decision-making processes.
Evidence regarding varying acceptance levels of fat percentage and spread thickness provides marketers with tools to segment their customers and establish different market positions.
Future research might examine the possibility that use of subjects’ own vocabulary could signal some subconscious importance of other spread characteristics. Exploring whether additional conceptual or sensory features could better clarify consumer needs is also suggested. In this context, questioning those purchasing their own spread to ascertain what they like about it could help identify and understand different clusters within this category.
To read the full article enter 10.1108/JCM-08-2013-0674 into your search engine.
(A précis of the article “Mind reading versus neuromarketing: how does a product make an impact on the consumer?”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)