Commentaries on “Reconsidering the path for neural and physiological methods in consumer psychology”

IF 4 2区 管理学 Q2 BUSINESS
J. Wesley Hutchinson, Martin Reimann, Brian Knutson, Joel Huber
{"title":"Commentaries on “Reconsidering the path for neural and physiological methods in consumer psychology”","authors":"J. Wesley Hutchinson,&nbsp;Martin Reimann,&nbsp;Brian Knutson,&nbsp;Joel Huber","doi":"10.1002/jcpy.1398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The initial version of the article by Clithero, Karmarkar, Nave, and Plassmann (Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2024) was critiqued by open comments from a small group of scholars. Their suggestions encouraged the authors to clarify challenging relationships between brain processes and emotions, beliefs, and actions. The revision expanded fMRI and EEG to include measures of vision, facial expression, breathing, heart rhythms, and blood chemistry. The paper provides multiple avenues of joint work between neurological and psychological scholars. The comments below reflect different reactions to the final article. Wes Hutchinson acknowledges that neuroscience insights complement cognitive measures that generate explicit measures of thought, emotion, or preferences, but he warns that repeated measures over time are problematic for both types of measurement, and the inherent complexity of brain–behavior relationships is often underestimated. With both orientations, understanding the functioning of human behavior is akin to making sense of an orchestra, where the interactive blending of different instruments and musicians reflects a complex activity that generates sounds, emotions, and stories. Both consumer neuroscientists and psychologists need to broaden their paradigmatic approaches with bodily measures and advanced psychological procedures to overcome challenges to joint progress. Martin Reiman asserts that despite difficulties with measures that have different levels of abstraction or velocity, research has provided remarkable associations between brain activity and consumer behavior. Effective studies merging brain and behavior can effectively proceed with studies that differ in two dimensions: first, by altering the number of variables, and second, by shifting whether the scientific paradigm is inductive or deductive. In its simple form, the Excavation path explores brain activity when a person is exposed to specific statements or emotions. In its most challenging form, Integrative Studies generate predictions from theories that test the convergent validity of divergent measures and leverage skills from different researchers. Studies reflecting high levels on one dimension but low levels on the other can also provide fruitful research opportunities. Brian Knutson, like Reimann, counters the idea that consumer psychology has not lived up to its promises. He references studies showing that activity from very specific areas of the brain reliably predicts choices better than explicit ratings or choices. Such research generates deductions from increasingly precise neural maps that enable confirmation of theory. That said, he acknowledges that consumer neuroscience is not able to identify a brain button that would alter choice through manipulated neurostimulation. However, since human brains are similar across people, the depth of neural insights that are consistent across a small sample of 40 respondents may generate greater insights than conventional marketing research with 2000 respondents. The cost of neuroscience will further decrease with gains in reliability, validity, and generalizability, particularly if augmented with bodily measures. He acknowledges that the theoretical side has developed more slowly than applications, particularly applications that are supported by sponsoring organizations more satisfied with local insights than general models.</p>","PeriodicalId":48365,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jcpy.1398","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The initial version of the article by Clithero, Karmarkar, Nave, and Plassmann (Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2024) was critiqued by open comments from a small group of scholars. Their suggestions encouraged the authors to clarify challenging relationships between brain processes and emotions, beliefs, and actions. The revision expanded fMRI and EEG to include measures of vision, facial expression, breathing, heart rhythms, and blood chemistry. The paper provides multiple avenues of joint work between neurological and psychological scholars. The comments below reflect different reactions to the final article. Wes Hutchinson acknowledges that neuroscience insights complement cognitive measures that generate explicit measures of thought, emotion, or preferences, but he warns that repeated measures over time are problematic for both types of measurement, and the inherent complexity of brain–behavior relationships is often underestimated. With both orientations, understanding the functioning of human behavior is akin to making sense of an orchestra, where the interactive blending of different instruments and musicians reflects a complex activity that generates sounds, emotions, and stories. Both consumer neuroscientists and psychologists need to broaden their paradigmatic approaches with bodily measures and advanced psychological procedures to overcome challenges to joint progress. Martin Reiman asserts that despite difficulties with measures that have different levels of abstraction or velocity, research has provided remarkable associations between brain activity and consumer behavior. Effective studies merging brain and behavior can effectively proceed with studies that differ in two dimensions: first, by altering the number of variables, and second, by shifting whether the scientific paradigm is inductive or deductive. In its simple form, the Excavation path explores brain activity when a person is exposed to specific statements or emotions. In its most challenging form, Integrative Studies generate predictions from theories that test the convergent validity of divergent measures and leverage skills from different researchers. Studies reflecting high levels on one dimension but low levels on the other can also provide fruitful research opportunities. Brian Knutson, like Reimann, counters the idea that consumer psychology has not lived up to its promises. He references studies showing that activity from very specific areas of the brain reliably predicts choices better than explicit ratings or choices. Such research generates deductions from increasingly precise neural maps that enable confirmation of theory. That said, he acknowledges that consumer neuroscience is not able to identify a brain button that would alter choice through manipulated neurostimulation. However, since human brains are similar across people, the depth of neural insights that are consistent across a small sample of 40 respondents may generate greater insights than conventional marketing research with 2000 respondents. The cost of neuroscience will further decrease with gains in reliability, validity, and generalizability, particularly if augmented with bodily measures. He acknowledges that the theoretical side has developed more slowly than applications, particularly applications that are supported by sponsoring organizations more satisfied with local insights than general models.

关于 "重新考虑神经和生理方法在消费者心理学中的应用路径 "的评论
Clithero、Karmarkar、Nave 和 Plassmann 的文章(《消费者心理学杂志》,2024 年)的最初版本受到了一小部分学者的公开评论。他们的建议鼓励作者澄清大脑过程与情感、信念和行动之间的挑战性关系。修订后,fMRI 和 EEG 的范围扩大到了视觉、面部表情、呼吸、心律和血液化学测量。该论文为神经学和心理学学者之间的合作提供了多种途径。以下评论反映了对最终文章的不同反应。韦斯-哈钦森(Wes Hutchinson)承认神经科学的见解是对认知测量的补充,认知测量可以明确测量思想、情感或偏好,但他警告说,长期重复测量对这两种测量都有问题,而且大脑与行为关系的内在复杂性往往被低估。从这两个方向来看,理解人类行为的功能就好比理解一个交响乐团,不同乐器和乐手的互动融合反映了产生声音、情感和故事的复杂活动。消费者神经科学家和心理学家都需要通过身体测量和先进的心理程序来拓宽他们的范式方法,以克服共同进步所面临的挑战。马丁-雷曼(Martin Reiman)断言,尽管抽象程度或速度不同的测量方法存在困难,但研究已经提供了大脑活动与消费者行为之间的显著关联。将大脑和行为结合起来的有效研究可以在两个方面有效地进行:第一,改变变量的数量;第二,改变科学范式是归纳法还是演绎法。就其简单形式而言,"挖掘"(Excavation)路径探索的是人在接触特定语句或情绪时的大脑活动。在最具挑战性的形式中,"整合研究 "从理论中得出预测,测试不同测量方法的趋同有效性,并利用不同研究人员的技能。在一个维度上反映出高水平而在另一个维度上反映出低水平的研究也能提供富有成效的研究机会。布赖恩-克努特森(Brian Knutson)和莱曼一样,也反驳了消费者心理学没有实现其承诺的观点。他提到有研究表明,大脑特定区域的活动比明确的评级或选择更能可靠地预测选择。这些研究从越来越精确的神经图谱中得出推论,从而证实了理论。尽管如此,他承认消费神经科学还无法确定一个大脑按钮,通过操纵神经刺激来改变选择。不过,由于人的大脑在不同人群中是相似的,因此,在 40 个受访者的小样本中,神经洞察的深度是一致的,这可能会比拥有 2000 个受访者的传统营销研究产生更大的洞察力。随着可靠性、有效性和可推广性的提高,神经科学的成本将进一步降低,尤其是在采用身体测量方法的情况下。他承认,理论方面的发展要慢于应用,尤其是得到赞助机构支持的应用,这些赞助机构更满足于局部洞察而非一般模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
14.60%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: The Journal of Consumer Psychology is devoted to psychological perspectives on the study of the consumer. It publishes articles that contribute both theoretically and empirically to an understanding of psychological processes underlying consumers thoughts, feelings, decisions, and behaviors. Areas of emphasis include, but are not limited to, consumer judgment and decision processes, attitude formation and change, reactions to persuasive communications, affective experiences, consumer information processing, consumer-brand relationships, affective, cognitive, and motivational determinants of consumer behavior, family and group decision processes, and cultural and individual differences in consumer behavior.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信