Neural Affective Mechanisms Predict Market-Level Microlending

Abstract

Humans sometimes share with others whom they may never meet or know, in violation of the dictates of pure self-interest. Research has not established which neuropsychological mechanisms support lending decisions, nor whether their influence extends to markets involving significant financial incentives. In two studies, we found that neural affective mechanisms influence the success of requests for microloans. In a large Internet database of microloan requests (N = 13,500), we found that positive affective features of photographs promoted the success of those requests. We then established that neural activity (i.e., in the nucleus accumbens) and self-reported positive arousal in a neuroimaging sample (N = 28) predicted the success of loan requests on the Internet, above and beyond the effects of the neuroimaging sample’s own choices (i.e., to lend or not). These findings suggest that elicitation of positive arousal can promote the success of loan requests, both in the laboratory and on the Internet. They also highlight affective neuroscience’s potential to probe neuropsychological mechanisms that drive microlending, enhance the effectiveness of loan requests, and forecast market-level behavior.

How to Study Consciousness in Consumer Research, A Commentary on Williams and Poehlman

“…Similarly, Genevsky and Knutson (2015) demonstrated that consumers' affective responses to photographs accompanying microloan requests are an important predictor of market-level microlending decisions. Their research showed that neural imaging data of brain areas involved in affective responses improve prediction accuracy over and above participants' self-reported affective responses -interpreted by WP as evidence for an unconscious effect of affective responses.…”

“…It could possibly reflect another consciously accessible feature of the photographs that was not measured (e.g., the extent to which they are considered self-relevant). Importantly, neither Genevsky and Knutson (2015) nor Van den Bergh and colleagues (2008) made claims about the (un)conscious nature of the effects they identified.…”

“…Some references in WP's treatment show evidence of such a mindset. For example, WP refer (among others) to the research by Van den Bergh, Dewitte and Warlop (2008) and by Genevsky and Knutson (2015) as examples of research showing the effect of low-level biological processes and claim that "processes that occur at low-level, neural, or physiological levels (outside of consciousness) can account for unique variance in predictive models of behavior" (WP, p. 7).…”

“…Some references in WP's treatment show evidence of such a mindset. For example, WP refer (among others) to the research by Van den Bergh, Dewitte and Warlop (2008) and by Genevsky and Knutson (2015) as examples of research showing the effect of low-level biological processes and claim that "processes that occur at low-level, neural, or physiological levels (outside of consciousness) can account for unique variance in predictive models of behavior" (WP, p. 7).Whereas we certainly agree that this research is inspiring, effects of low-level biological or To assume all too easily that these effects are unconsciously generated, simply because physiological factors are involved, demonstrates the dangers of taking the "consider consciousness second" adage too far. In their treatment of these articles, WP allowed unconscious causation to take the spot of the 'null hypothesis,' that is, a hypothesis for which no evidence is required.…”

Empathic Care and Distress: Predictive Brain Markers and Dissociable Brain Systems

“…Neuroimaging investigations of altruistic and prosocial behavior, which may be preferentially linked to care rather than to distress, have linked these behaviors to the mesolimbic dopamine system, including the ventral tegmental area (VTA), ventral striatum (VS), and ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) (Harbaugh, Mayr, & Burghart, 2007; Hare, Camerer, Knoepfle, & Rangel, 2010; Moll et al, 2006; Morelli, Sacchet, & Zaki, 2015; Zaki & Mitchell, 2011), especially in the context of positive affect (Genevsky & Knutson, 2015; Genevsky, Västfjäll, Slovic, & Knutson, 2013). In addition, a septal/anterior hypothalamic circuit has been linked to a range of affiliative emotions and behaviors across species, including maternal and juvenile play behavior in rats (Bredewold, Schiavo, van der Hart, Verreij, & Veenema, 2015; Numan, 1988), and in humans, trust (Krueger et al, 2007), charitable donation (Moll et al, 2006), prosocial behavior (Morelli, Rameson, & Lieberman, 2014), support giving (Inagaki & Eisenberger, 2012), and affiliative emotion (Moll et al, 2012, 2014).…”