Reconsidering the path for neural and physiological methods in consumer psychology

Abstract

Recent decades have witnessed a burst of neuroscience research investigating mental and physiological processes central to consumer behavior, including sensory perception, memory, and decision making. Nonetheless, few publications that include neural and physiological measures, or develop conceptual frameworks around neuroscience principles, have been published in consumer psychology. It is clear that “consumer neuroscience” has thus far not lived up to its promises in the marketing literature. We suggest three main reasons for this. First, neural and other biological markers are often mistaken to be identical to the overlaying psychological constructs in traditional consumer psychology work. Second, somewhat surprisingly, there has been an overly narrow utilization of neural data. Most previous work focused on linking existing behavioral phenomena or psychological constructs central to consumer research to neural correlates using brain imaging techniques while ignoring other methods. We argue that much can be gained from improved integration of physiological measures and through them, different levels of analysis. Third, there remain significant structural hurdles to the broad adoption of neural and physiological measures for consumer researchers. We outline how addressing these three components can translate to a more holistic understanding of the consumer via both broader and deeper consumer insights.

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

“…Are the theories and methods used to investigate neural and psychological processes merely "ships passing in the night," or is there a larger framework that integrates the two and predicts when they should converge and when they should diverge? Clithero et al (2024) use Marr et al (1982; also classic) levels of abstraction framework (function, algorithm, implementation) as a good place to start, and I agree. However, the devil is in the details, and I will return to this issue later.…”

“…In both areas, the methods of neuroscience (broadly defined) have proven to be a very useful toolkit for "implicit" (non-conscious) measures that complement the traditional "explicit" research methods (e.g., survey, click-stream, and purchase data). Clithero et al (2024) have provided a useful overview of neuroscience methods and how they could contribute to consumer psychology, and an insightful assessment of the "slow" adoption of neuroscience methods by consumer researchers (which contrasts with the growth in other academic areas; e.g., neuroeconomics). The latter contribution is the focus of my commentary.…”

“…There are five parts. The first three are reflections on the three factors Clithero et al (2024) identify as causing slow adoption. They also propose some promising solutions to these problems.…”

“…Most of what I say is based on the Consumer Neuroscience course I taught from 2015 to 2017 and, to a lesser degree, on my own early training in cognitive psychology and my more recent research activities. Clithero et al (2024) note that there is not a one-to-one mapping between neural and psychological processes, so their measurement methods may diverge in both the questions they address and the conclusions they afford. The classic work of Campbell and Fiske (1959) on the multitrait-multimethod approach to establishing convergent and discriminant validity immediately comes to mind in this context.…”

“…The point here is that even within the same level of analysis, measuring a psychological process can be rather complicated. I would also note that sequential sampling models have been extensively used in cognitive neuroscience, but used by only a few consumer researchers -another example illustrating the primary claim of Clithero et al (2024).…”