Consumers’ Preference Construction, Affects, and Neuroscientific Research: Research on Consumer’s Preference and Neuromarketing

  • Kazuhisa TakemuraEmail author


“Why did you choose that option?” When asked to explain their choice, consumers are likely to offer the following explanation: “I made the choice because I prefer it more than the other options.”


Preference construction Mere exposure Gaze cascade Decision making process Affect Mood Emotion Prospect theory Neuromarketing Neuroeconomics 


  1. Arkes, H., Herren, L. T., & Isen, A. M. (1987). The role of potential loss in influence of affect on risk-taking behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 99, 1–13.Google Scholar
  2. Attneave, F., & Arnoult, M. D. (1956). The quantitative study of shape and pattern perception. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 452–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batra, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research. 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornstein, R. F., Leone, D. R., & Galley, D. J. (1987). The generalizability of subliminal mere exposure effects: Influence of stimuli perceived without awareness on social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1070–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward theoretical progress. Academy of Management Review, 17, 39–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bugental, D. B., & Moore, B. S. (1979). Effect of induced moods on voice affect. Developmental Psychology, 15, 664–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chark, R., & Muthukrishnan, A. V. (2013). The effect of physical possession on preference for product warranty. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30, 424–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chaudri, A. (2006). Emotion and reason in consumer behavior. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, M. K., & Risen, J. L. (2010). How choice affects and reflects preferences: Revisiting the free-choice paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 573–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson, R. J. (1984). Affect, cognition, and hemispheric specialization. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognition, and behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Donovan, R., & Rossiter, J. (1982). Store atmosphere: An environmental psychology approach. Journal of Retailing, 58, 34–57.Google Scholar
  14. Endo, T. (2015). Moroha naru jōdō: gōrisei to higōrisei no awai ni aru mono [Multi-edged emotion: Existence between rationality and irrationality]. In M. Watanabe & S. Funahashi (Eds.), Jodo to ishikettei [Emotion and decision making] (pp. 93–131). Toyo, Japan: Asakura Shoten.Google Scholar
  15. Fantz, R. L. (1963). Pattern vision in newborn infants. Science, 140(3564), 296–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Forgas, J. P. (1991). Affective influence on partner choice: Role of mood in social decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 708–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fugate, D. L. (2007). Neuromarketing: A layman’s look at neuroscience and its potential application to marketing practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 385–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fujii, S., & Gärling, T. (2003). Application of attitude theory for improved predictive accuracy of stated preference methods in travel demand analysis. Transport Research A: Policy & Practice, 37, 389–402.Google Scholar
  21. Fujii, S., & Takemura, K. (2001). Risuku taido to chūi: Jōkyō izonteki shōten moderu ni yoru furēmingu kōka no keiryō bunseki [Risk attitude and attention: A psychometric analysis of framing effect by contingent focus model]. Kodo keiryogaku [The Japanese journal of behaviormetrics], 28, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gardner, M. P. (1985). Mood states and consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gerard, H. B., & White, G. L. (1983). Post-decisional reevaluation of choice alternatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 365–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38(1), 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D. & Camerer, C. F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science, 310, 1680–1683.Google Scholar
  26. Hubert, M., & Kenningy, P. (2008). A current overview of consumer neuroscience. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 272–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ideno, T., Hayashi, M., Sakagami, T., Fujii, S., Okubo, S., Tamari, Y., et al. (2011a). Chikaku handan kadai wo mochīta senkō keisei katei no kentō [An experimental study of preference construction using a perceptual judgment task]. In Proceedings of the 75th Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association (p. 88).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ideno, T., Hayashi, M., Sakagami, T., Fujii, S., Okubo, S., Tamari, Y., et al. (2011b). Sentaku kodo ni yoru senko keisei katei no kisoteki kenkyu [A basic study of preference formation process by choice]. In Paper presented at the 15th Conference of Experimental Social Science.Google Scholar
  29. Ideno, T., & Takemura, K. (2018). Senko no keisei katei ni kansuru jikkenteki kento [An experimental study of preference construction process]. In K. Takemura (Ed.), Senkō keisei to ishikettei [Preference construction and decision making] (pp. 99–122). Tokyo, Japan: Keiso Shobo.Google Scholar
  30. Isen, A. M., & Geva, N. (1987). The influence of positive affect on acceptable level of risk: The person with a large canoe has a large worry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(2), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Isen, A. M., & Means, B. (1983). The influence of positive affect on decision making strategy. Social Cognition, 2, 18–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Isen, A. M., Means, B., Patrick, R., & Nowicki, G. P. (1982). Some factors influencing decision-making strategy and risk taking. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th annual carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 243–261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Isen, A. M., Nygren, T. E., & Ashby, F. G. (1988). The influence of positive affect on the subjective utility of gains and losses: It’s not worth the risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 710–717Google Scholar
  34. Isen, A. M., & Patrick, R. (1983). The effect of positive feelings on risk taking: When the chips are down. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 31(2), 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ishibuchi, J. (2003). Kaimono kōdō to kanjō [Buying behavior and affect]. Maketingu janaru [Japan Marketing Journal], 22(4), 109–116.Google Scholar
  36. Izuma, K., Matsumoto, M., Murayama, K., Samejima, K., Sadato, N., & Matsumoto, K. (2010). Neural correlates of cognitive dissonance and choice-induced preference change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 22014–22019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1983). Affect, generalization, and the perception of risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98, 1325–1348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kiesler, C. A. (1971). The psychology of commitment. New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Klinger, E. (1975). Consequences of commitment to and disengagement from incentives. Psychological Review, 82, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron, 53(1), 147–156.Google Scholar
  43. Kunst-Wilson, W. R., & Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. Science, 207(4430), 557–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee, N., Broderick, A. J., & Chamberlain, L. (2007). What is ‘neuromarketing’? A discussion and agenda for future research. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63, 199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (1971). Reversals of preference between bids and choices in gambling decisions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 89, 46–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lichtenstein, S., & Slovic, P. (Eds.). (2006). The construction of preference. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Lieberman, M. D., Ochsner, K. N., Gilbert, D. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2001). Do amnesics exhibit cognitive dissonance reduction? The role of explicit memory and attention in attitude change. Psychological Science, 12, 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Masters, J. C., Barden, R. C., & Ford, M. E. (1979). Affective states, expressive behavior and learning in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholgy, 37, 380–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Montague, P. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44(2), 379–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Monahan, J. L., Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (2000). Subliminal mere exposure: Specific, general, and diffuse effects. Psychological Science, 11, 462–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Murakami, I. (Ed.). (2010). Irasuto rekuchā ninchi shinkei kagaku: Shinrigaku to nō kagaku ga toku kokoro no shikumi [Lecture on cognitive neuroscience using illustrations: Mechanism of mind studied by brain science and psychology]. Tokyo, Japan: Ohmsha Ltd.Google Scholar
  52. Murakami, H., Ideno, T., Tamari, Y., & Takemura, K. (2014). Kakuritsu kajū kansū ni taisuru moderu no teian to sono hikaku kentō [Proposal of probability weighting function model and psychological experiment for the comparisons]. In The Proceedings of the 78th Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association (p. 515).Google Scholar
  53. Murphy, S. T., & Zajonc, R. B. (1993). Affect, cognition, and awareness: Affective priming with optimal and suboptimal stimulus exposures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 723–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nishibe, S. (1975). Soshio economikkusu: Shūdan no keizai kōdō [Socio-economics: Economic behavior of groups]. Tokyo, Japan: Chūōkōronsha.Google Scholar
  55. Norton, M. I., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2011). The ‘IKEA effect’: When labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ogaki, M., & Tanaka, S. (2014). Kōdō keizaigaku: Dentōteki keizaigaku tono tōgō ni yoru atarashī keizaigaku wo mezashite [Behavioral Economics: Aiming for New Economics through Integration with Traditional Economics]. Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku Publishing.Google Scholar
  57. Ohira, H. (Ed.). (2010). Kanjō shinrigaku nyūmon [Introduction to Psychology on Emotions]. Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Ortony, A., Clore, G., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotion. Contemporary Sociology, 18(6), 957–958.Google Scholar
  59. Pachur, T., Hertwig, R., & Wolkewitz, R. (2014). The affect gap in risky choice: Affect-rich outcomes attenuate attention to probability information. Decision, 1(1), 64–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 434–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Prelec, D. (1998). The probability weighting function. Econometrica, 66(3), 497–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rottenstreich, Y., & Hsee, C. K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: On the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science, 12(3), 185–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sanfey, A. G., & Stallen, M. (2015). Neuroscience contribution to judgement and decision making: Opportunities and limitations. In G. Keren & G. Wu (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of judgement and decision making (pp. 268–294). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6, 1317–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Simon, D., Krawczyk, D. C., & Holyoak, K. J. (2004). Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science, 15, 331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stroessner, S. J., Hamilton, D., & Mackie, D. (1992). Affect and stereotyping: The effect of induced mood on distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 564–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Suter, R. S., Pachur, T., & Hertwig, R. (2015). How affect shapes risky choice: Distorted probability weighting versus probability neglect, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Published online in Wiley Online Library Scholar
  68. Takahashi, H. (2013). Shakai shinkei kagaku to seishin igaku [Social Neuroscience and Psychiatry]. Seishin shinkeigaku zasshi [Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences], 115(10), 1027–1041.Google Scholar
  69. Takahashi, H., Fujiie, S., Camerer, C., Arakawa, R., Takano, H., Kodaka, F., et al. (2013). Norepinephrine in the brain is associated with aversion to financial loss. Molecular Psychiatry, 18, 3–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Takahashi, H., Matsui, H., Camerer, C., Takano, H., Kodaka, F., Ideno, T., et al. (2010). Dopamine D1 receptors and nonlinear probability weighting in risky choice. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 16567–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Takemura, K. (1988a). Ishikettei katei no kenkyū (XI) Kanjō oyobi kettei furēmingu ga ishikettei katei ni oyobosu kōka [Study of decision-making process (XI): The influence of affect and framing on decision making process]. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society (pp. 120–121).Google Scholar
  72. Takemura, K. (1988b). Ishikettei Katei No Kenkyū (XII): Kanjō oyobi kanyo ga ishikettei katei ni okeru jōhō kensaku kōdō ni oyobosu kōka [Study of decision-making process (XII): The influence of affect and involvement on the information search behavior in decision-making process]. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Group Dynamics Association (pp. 23–24).Google Scholar
  73. Takemura, K. (1988c). Ishikettei katei no kenkyū (XIII) Kanjō oyobi kanyo ga ishikettei katei ni okeru jōhō no saikentō kōdō ni oyobosu kōka [Study of decision making process (XIII): Influence of affect and involvement on decision making process]. In Proceedings of the 52th Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association (p. 198).Google Scholar
  74. Takemura, K. (1994). Furemingu Koka no Rironteki Setsumei: Risukuka Deno Ishikettei no Jokyo Izonteki Shoten Moderu [Theoretical explanation of the framing effect: Contingent focus model for decision-making under risk]. Japanese Psychological Review, 37, 270–293.Google Scholar
  75. Takemura, K. (1996). Ishikettei to sono shien [Decision-making and support for decision-making]. In S. Ichikawa (Ed.), Ninchi shinrigaku 4kan Shikou [Cognitive psychology thoughts] (Vol. 4, pp. 81–105). Tokyo, Japan: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
  76. Takemura, K. (1997). Shōhisha no jōhō tansaku to sentakushi hyōka [Alternative evaluation and consumer buying decision]. In T. Sugimoto (Ed.), Shōhisha rikai no tame no shinrigaku [Psychology for understanding consumer] (pp. 56–72). Tokyo, Japan: Fukumura Shuppan.Google Scholar
  77. Takemura, K. (2009a). Kōdō ishiketteiron: Keizai kōdō no shinrigaku [Behavioral decision theory: Psychology of economic behavior]. Tokyo, Japan: Nippon Hyoron Sha Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  78. Takemura, K. (2009b). Ishikettei to shinkei keizaigaku [Decision making and neuroeconomics]. Rinshō seishin igaku [Japanese journal of clinical psychiatry], 38, 35–42.Google Scholar
  79. Takemura, K. (2014). Behavioral decision theory: Psychological and mathematical representations of human choice behavior. Tokyo, Japan: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Takemura, K., & Fujii, S. (2015). Ishikettei no shohō [Prescription for decision making]. Tokyo, Japan: Asakura Shoten.Google Scholar
  81. Takemura, K., Haraguchi, R., & Tamari, Y. (2015). Tazokusei ishikettei katei ni okeru ketteihōryaku no ninchiteki doryoku to seikakukusa: Keisanki simyurēhshon ni yoru kōdō ishiketteiron teki kentō (Effort and accuracy in multi-attribute decision making process: A behavioral decision theoretic approach using computer simulation technique). Ninchi kagaku [Cognitive Studies], 22, 368–388.Google Scholar
  82. Takemura, K., Ideno, T., Hayashi, M., Sakagami, T., Fujii, S., Okubo, S., et al. (2012). Hannō ga senkō oyobi hisenkō no keisei katei ni oyobosu kōka [Effect of response on preference and non-preference construction process]. In Paper presented at the Joint Conference of the Association of Bevioral Econmics and Finance (the 6th Conference), and the Experimental Social Science (the 16th Conference).Google Scholar
  83. Takemura, K., Ideno, T., Okubo, S., Kodaka, F., & Takahashi, H. (2009c). Shōhisha no senkō ni kansuru shinkei keizaigaku teki kenkyū: Ninchi hannō to nōgazō kaiseki [A neuroscientific study of consumer preference]. In Paper presented at the 39th Conference of Japan Association of Consumer Studies.Google Scholar
  84. Takemura, K., Ideno, T., Okubo, S., & Matsui, H. (2008). Shinkei keizaigaku to zentōyō [Neuroeconimics and frontal lobe]. Bunshi seishin igaku [Japanese journal of molecular psychiatry], 8(2), 35–40.Google Scholar
  85. Takemura, K., Murakami, H., Tamari, Y., & Ideno, T. (2014). Probability weighting function models and psychological experiment for the comparisons. In Paper presented at Soft Science Workshop of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Intelligent Infomatics.Google Scholar
  86. Tucker, D. M. (1981). Lateral brain function, emotion and conceptualization. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 19–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Tucker, D. M., Vannatta, K., & Rothlind, J. (1990). Arousal and activation systems and primitive adaptive controls on cognitive priming. In N. Stein, B. Leventhal, & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Psychological and biological approaches to emotion (pp. 145–166). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  88. Turley, L. W., & Miliman, R. E. (2000). Atmospheric effects on shopping behavior: A review of the experimental evidence. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tversky, A., Sattath, S., & Slovic, P. (1988). Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychological Review, 95, 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Vanderplas, J. M., & Garvin, E. A. (1959). The association value of random shapes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57, 147–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Wolf, J. R., Arkes, H. R., & Muhanna, W. A. (2008). The power of touch: An examination of the effect of duration of physical contact on the valuation of objects. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 476–482.Google Scholar
  94. Wu, G., & Gonzalez, R. (1996). Curvature of the probability weighting function. Management Science, 42(12), 1676–1690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 224–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyWaseda UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations