Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]