Hearts, Minds, Will, Body, World, TribeA Framework for Considering Consumer Behaviour

Huw HepworthAccount DirectorPainted Dog Research

Background To The FrameworkWhat’s being added to an already big pile of existing models?

A Simple Question…

Political

Economic

Social

Technology

Strengths Weaknesses

Opportunities Threats?

PEST SWOT

Input Information Processing

Decision Process

Other Variables

The Traditional Consumer Behaviour Model

• Marketer dominated

• OtherStimuli

External Search

Exposure

Attention

Comprehension

Acceptance

Retention

Need Recognition

Search

Alternatives Evaluation

Purchase

Post-Purchase Evaluation

Environmental Influences

Individual Influences

Engel-Kollat-Blackwell, 1973, Abridged

A Very Short History of Consumer Behaviour Frameworks

1940s

Homo Economicus

1950s / 60s

Freud Comes To Advertising

A Very Short History of Consumer Behaviour Frameworks

1970s / 80s / 90s

Complex Interactions

2000s +

Neuroscience, Behavioural Economics,

Big Data

Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural

The PEACCC (or CACPEC) Framework

The Components & Their InteractionsA synthesis of internal and external consumer behaviour aspects

Cognitive

Knowledge & facts Not rational!Perceived

control

Affective

Emotions and feelings

‘Unconscious’ control

Lots of emotions /

models

Conative

Drive / willpowerConation often missed in

examination between cognitive and affective

Physical

Can’t separate the body from the mind

Physical state (e.g. hunger, pain, fatigue)

Environmental

World around us Powerful stimuli

Cultural

Shared behaviour, beliefs – what other people do

Social behaviours – that which doesn’t fit in,

stands out

Physical

EnvironmentalCultural

Conative

Physical

EnvironmentalCultural

Conative

But that’s not all…

Decision-making requires mental load

Lots of things take away from mental

load

Not having enough mental load available means shortcuts are made

Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural

The PEACCC (or CACPEC) Framework

Component InteractionsEverything influences everything else

Lots of interactions

Complex direct and indirect influences

Just going to look at a sample…

Physical

Conative

Internal processes have physiological

impacts

Internal To The Interactive

Physical state (e.g. hunger, fatigue) effects

mental components

Environmental

Cultural

Interactive To The External

Physical

Physical state influences how environment / culture

impacts on decision

External conditions / cultural norms dictate physiological

expectations / reactions

Conative

Internal To The External

Environmental

Cultural

Internal processes influences how external

info is assessed

Situational factors and expected ‘normal’

knowledge / feelings

Using the PEACCC FrameworkSome examples

Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural

The PEACCC (or CACPEC) Framework

A Useable Framework

Intent that this framework is simple to use, but allows

complex approaches

Can be used to help set-up a project, for analysis or for presentation of findings

Example: Setting Up A Project

Cognitive:What does the target audience

know?

Affective:What does the target audience

feel?

Conative:How difficult is

it to make / stick to a decision?

Physical:What physical effort / state is required (or

do we want)?

Environmental:What are the

situational aspects to consider?

Cultural:What do other

people / society think

about the decision?

Example: Classifying Market Research Techniques

Cognitive:Behavioural economics

Neuro measurement

Affective:Projective techniques

Biometrics / neuro measurement

Conative:Data mining / ‘big

data’Behavioural economics

Choice modelling

Physical:Biometric / neuro

measurementObservational

Usability testing

Environmental:Literature reviewEnvironmental

analysisSemiotics

Cultural:Literature review

EthnographySemiotics

Traditional qualitative / quantitative techniques

Example: Choosing a Chocolate Bar

Cognitive:Know they

don’t need the empty

calories

Affective:Will provide a

short-term positive boost

Conative:Willpower required to resist the purchase

Physical:Tired / hungry status, current

chocolate habit

Environmental:Layout of

store, location of chocolate

bar brands on shelf

Cultural:Role of

chocolate, role of brand

Example: Choosing a Mortgage

Cognitive:Facts around mortgages,

interest rates, etc.

Affective:Anxiety about

a wrong choice, love of

the house

Conative:Complex decision –

ideally requires high mental load

Physical:Stressed,

tired – mental load depleted

Environmental:Economic

situation, bank branch

condition, etc.

Cultural:Distrust of banks vs.

importance of owning a

home

Example: Giving Up Smoking

Cognitive:Know that

smoking has health

impacts

Affective:Concern

about health impacts,

social ostracism

Conative:Requires a lot of willpower to

quit

Physical:Habitual

behaviour with

physiological reactions

Environmental:Financial

costs, where cigarettes are

purchased from

Cultural:Peer group

view of smoking, poor

view of tobacco co.’s

Next Steps / LimitationsImpact of time

‘Conscious / active’ versus ‘unconscious / passive’ component interactions

Relative influence within specific decisions

Feel free to use PEACCC!

Offered for wider use Feedback appreciated if you use it

Images

Taken from Microsoft Office Imagery (http://office.microsoft.com/en-au/images/)

Except for Action Comics #176 – reproduced without permission

All rights for that image remain with DC Comics / Warner Brothers

Page 1 of 1

HEART, MIND, WILL, BODY, ENVIRONMENT,

TRIBE: A FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERING

CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR

Huw Hepworth – Account Director, Painted Dog Research

About the Author:

Huw Hepworth is an Account Director at Painted Dog Research and has worked on a

wide range of local, national and international projects during his 8 years in market

research. He has worked on research projects across a wide range of industry

sectors, including fashion, property, financial services, government, FMCGs and

retailing / shopping and for clients in all life stages, from start-ups to blue chips. In

2006, he was awarded the Mike Larbalestier Scholarship for WA by the AMSRS and

in 2009 he was awarded the George Camakaris Best Paper by a Young Researcher

at the AMSRS National Conference.

Painted Dog Research

Suite 1, Level 2

658 Newcastle Street

Leederville WA 6007

t/f 08 9227 6464

m 0488 343 497

www.painteddog.com.au

Page 1 of 21

HEART, MIND, WILL, BODY, WORLD, TRIBE: A FRAMEWORK FOR

CONSIDERING CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR

Background to the Development of This Paper

There is no shortage to the number of models available to organisations looking to understand how

their customers think and act. Since the start of formal study into consumer behaviour in the 1940s

based on the theoretical “economically rational man”, through the 1950s and 1960s consideration of

psychoanalysis and cultural meaning, across the 1970s and 1980s and their increased focus on

consumer decision making, and into the 1990s and the formation of a collective consumer culture, a

great deal of investigation has occurred into this area (see Zaichkowsky, 1991; Ryynänen, 2010;

Belch & Belch, 1985 for a broader consideration of the history of consumer behaviour research).

With the start of a new century has come an even more certified push to understand consumer

motivations, especially the aspects hidden to even the consumer themselves. Neuroscience has

started looking straight into the brain of consumers to understand which regions fire at key times

and what that means; behavioural economics has helped bring to light the decision-making short

cuts used by consumers every day; the rise and reach of “Big Data” (Poynter, 2012) means that

organisations are increasingly able to predict consumer needs before the consumer is aware of

them, such as identifying pregnant woman purely on the products they buy (Duhigg, 2012a).

Over time new techniques and technologies have been engaged to grapple with understanding how

various populations go about buying / using products and services. A vast array of new insights has

been generated, but it always seems that the consumer has more secrets still left to be uncovered.

Indeed, there is a wealth of existing information about consumer behaviour and new discoveries are

still being made. But how do we fit them together in a way that is simple to understand and also

usable?

The aim of this paper is to propose a framework for considering and arranging the complicated web

of aspects around consumer behaviour. This proposed framework has been developed to be as

straightforward to use as the Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (SWOT) or Political

Economic Social Technological (PEST) models often used to assist in organisational decision

making, while being backed up as robust and reliable by existing research.

The framework has been developed by synthesising a range of different sources of information –

using sources outlined in this paper – and will be usable across a wide range of applications, from

the consideration of individuals, assisting in the assessment of qualitative findings and to provide a

backbone for planning quantitative tools.

The Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural (PEACCC)

Framework

Let’s start with a view of the framework in its entirety before breaking it down and showing the

importance of each individual component and how they fit together.

The full framework is shown in Figure 1.

Page 2 of 21

Figure 1: The PEACCC Framework

In short, the framework proposes that consumer behaviour is driven by the sometimes

complementary, sometimes conflicting forces that occur within (i.e. cognition, affection, conation), to

(i.e. physical) and around (i.e. environmental, cultural) the consumer.

The name of the framework – PEACCC – has been selected in order that is serves as an acronym

that is as simple to remember as possible. If named in a way that better reflects the arrangement of

the internal, interactive and external factors, the acronym is CACPEC, which is much harder to say

and thus much harder to remember.

Framework Hypothesis

Key to this framework is the concept that all these aspects work holistically within each decision

making process. Depending on the type of decision being made and the individual involved, various

factors may have a greater or lesser impact, but each of these factors need to be considered both

in isolation and in conjunction.

Although the framework above separates each of these factors, real consumer decision making

isn’t necessarily as clear cut. As Demasio (1995) indicates, there is no rational decision making

without the influence of emotional factors. People who have suffered damage to the emotional

centres of their brains end up being terrible rational decision makers because they are unable to

determine something as simple as which outcome they might prefer to achieve, or how their

decisions will impact on other people.

Other examples showing the difficulty in tying consumer behaviour to only one of the above

components will be shown in further sections of this paper.

Page 3 of 21

Summary of Model Components

As an overview of the model and a brief description of each component:

1. Cognitive (Mind) – the reasoning, fact-based aspect of decision making that can (with

effort) override certain other components of consumer decision making; linked to conscious

behaviour.

2. Affective (Heart) – the feeling, emotional component that has a huge role in influencing

behaviour; linked to more unconscious behaviour and works faster than the cognitive

component.

3. Conative (Will) – the component responsible for seeing a decision acted upon; the drive

that turns cognitive and / or affective processes into actions.

4. Physical (Body) – the physical state that the consumer is in; existing physical states (e.g.

pain, hunger) have a major impact on how people perceive the world and made decisions

about it.

5. Environmental (World) – the stimuli that is occurring outside of the consumer; the presence

of absence of stimuli (e.g. the smell of baking bread) influence consumer decisions.

6. Cultural (Tribe) – shared beliefs and social behaviours across a broad or narrow (i.e.

subculture) consumer group that will influence how stimuli is interpreted and what is the

“acceptable” response to that stimuli.

Framework Rules and Assumptions

1. Consumer behaviour is governed by a combination of cognitive, affective, conative, physical, environmental and cultural factors.

2. Making choices around behaviour requires consumers to spend mental effort or bear a level of mental load; the amount of effort / load required depends on the nature of the behaviour and the level of consumer investment in that behaviour.

3. Consumers have a limited amount of mental load to spend on a daily basis. 4. Consumers are naturally disposed to use as little mental effort / keep mental load low when

making decisions (i.e. are “cognitive misers”) about their behaviour. 5. Expending more mental load on their consumer behaviour requires a conscious choice.

Consumers can minimise the impact of other components on their behaviour through strong active cognitive and conative focus, but this generates a heavy mental load.

6. Affective, cognitive and conative components form the ‘internal’ factors of consumer behaviour. All three are important components, but their relative influence will change depending on the nature of the decision and how much mental load is spent on that behaviour.

7. Environmental and cultural factors form the ‘external’ factors of consumer behaviour. Their

relative influence will also change depending on the nature of the decision and how much

mental load is spent on that behaviour.

8. The physical component forms the link between the ‘internal’ factors and ‘external’ factors of consumer behaviour and decision making.

9. Emotional states, physical states, environmental cues and cultural norms can provide decision-making short-cuts that help reduce mental load.

10. Familiar behavioural patterns (e.g. habits) also reduce mental load. Consumers experience physical and mental discomfort if these patterns are disrupted.

11. Conscious and active decision-making can over-ride the contributions of the other components, but this requires mental load capacity to be available to do so.

Page 4 of 21

We will now explore each of the above components in more detail and justify their place in the

framework.

Cognition – I Think, Therefore I Am

The roots of cognition in consumer behaviour research can be tied back to the inherently rational

consumer brought to us thanks to the field of Economics. The history of Homo Economicus (the

“Economic Human”) goes back a long way, with Mill (1844) attributed as being the first to fully coin

the idea as understood in the modern context. The Homo Economicus model of behaviour posits

that people behave:

To maximise their individual self-interest; and

To minimise the effort taken to achieve that self-interest.

Behaving in this fashion is perceived to be ‘economically rational behaviour’, often shortened to

‘rational behaviour’. Homo Economicus is generally treated as knowing and understanding

everything they need to know to make a decision, and then choosing the option that maximises

their rewards while minimising the costs required to achieve those rewards.

This approach eschewed any requirement for understanding other facets of human behaviour while

still being able to predict decision outcomes. Framing rationality in this way made it easy to

understand – we perceive that we have a high degree of cognitive control over our behaviour – and

relatively easy to model mathematically (and gave Economics a strong lock the term ‘rational

behaviour’ within a social science context – a hold it still has to this day1). Consumer models that

focused on maximising utility – a cognitive process of weighing rewards versus the resources

required to obtain those rewards – became popular. Cognitive was king.

This approach also fit with other thinking on consumer decision making of the time. Behaviourists

were only interested in the outcomes resulting from the presentation of certain stimuli (LeDoux,

1996). Models such as those proposed by Nicosia (1966), Engel Kollat Blackwell (1973) and

Howard Sheth (1969) showed lists of steps that consumers would go through in making a decision

– identifying the need, looking for information, evaluating the alternatives, and so on. Consumer

decision making was seen to be a deliberate and carefully evaluated process.

1 It should always be checked when you see the term ‘rational’ in relation to consumer behaviour if the author

is really referring to ‘economic rationality’. Economic rationality is a long way from real world rationality that includes factors such as social contracts and the emotional reactions of others (although some will argue that mathematical utilities can be applied to such concepts) – a person who is self-interested and energy-minimising wouldn’t make decisions most would see as rational; the perception of such behaviour would be that it was selfish. This distinction is important because by placing ‘rational’ squarely in the grounds of economic rationality, all other factors are pushed towards the ‘irrational’ side of the ledger. Given that ‘irrationality’ is generally a negative space to be in, this gives rational (read: economically rational) behaviour even more weight when discussing consumer behaviour and what should be considered ‘correct’ (read: rational). There is evidence of this effect in how behavioural economics currently has almost cornered the market as the arbiter of what is rational and what isn’t, despite other factors such as emotions arguably also having a place behind a more holistic consideration of rational behaviour (e.g. not accepting a high-paying job if it would lead to excessively loneliness, or perhaps helping someone push their stalled car off the road – and not asking money for such an act! – to experience the simple joy of their thanks). It is for this reason that this paper avoids the term ‘rational’ and uses terms such as ‘cognitive’ or ‘mental’ instead.

Page 5 of 21

The appeal of a cognitively-based consumer decision approach is obvious. It appears widely

applicable, mostly clear in terms of the nature of inputs required to obtain the desired outputs and

makes general logical sense. However, it has been recognised that these kind of models have a

number of deficiencies – Homo economicus is a fictional creature, while the decision models might

be wonderfully descriptive, they lack specificity in application (Rau & Samiee, 1981).

It has also been recognised that rather than fully considering information within a cognitive

evaluation, consumers often take mental shortcuts on the way to making a decision. Biases and

heuristics play a large part in how people consider information. Behavioural economics has helped

in developing a much greater understanding of those information processing shortcuts through the

work of authors such as Kahneman (2011) and how to use that understanding to enhance decision

making through the work of authors such as Thaler & Sunstein (2009).

This theory of biases and shortcuts fits with another cognitive decision theory – that most

consumers are cognitive misers when processing new information (Fiske & Tailor, 1984). Rather

than taking all information on board, people are most easily able to process information that fits with

what they already know or believe. New or contradictory information requires a lot more effort to

process, so is more likely to be ignored… which is certainly not the behaviour of a Homo

economicus!

The important role of emotion in decision making has also been receiving increasing attention over

the past decade. As previously mentioned, Damasio (1995) showed that rational decisions can’t be

made without the influence of emotion. Where Descartes is famous for the quote, “I think, therefore

I am”, it is much more accurate to say, “I think and feel, therefore I am” because there is no true

separation between the areas of cognition and emotion.

Kahneman (2011) discusses the roles in decision making of System 1 and System 2 thinking –

where System 2 is the slower, energy-hungry, information processing cognitive arbiter, System 1 is

the impulsive, intuitive, instinctive and more emotive decision force. Both Systems come into play

during decision making, with Kahneman arguing that although System 2 has the final say, it can

easily be led astray by the fast moving and convincing System 1.

Although cognitive-driven decision models have fallen from grace in recent times, it is important to

recognise that the cognitive mind has a strong influence over the decision being made. Gibson

(2008) showed while a distracted consumer can be swayed into their selection through prior

exposure to stimuli, a consumer that is paying attention (and spending the mental energy) is still in

charge of their own decisions. What matters is the amount of mental load being spent in processing

a choice – a high mental load would correspond to spending a lot mental energy on evaluating

options on informational terms and potentially downplaying emotional aspects (similar to ensuring

System 2 is behind the wheel in a decision) while a low mental load would reflect a situation of

limited resources or cognitive miserliness which could see a more impulsive decision made.

Affective – I Am, I Feel

The recent interest in emotions as part of the decision making process can be tied to Damasio

(1995) and neuroscience’s increasing understanding of how the brain works, but it should not be

forgotten that for several decades research into emotions was dismissed as a waste of resources.

Since the 1960s psychological models have focused on the cognitive and behaviourist aspects of

human nature, leaving emotion as a “ghost in the machine” (Ryle, 1949). Cognitive science kept the

Page 6 of 21

focus on passionless thinking, reasoning and intellect while behaviourists (led by industry pioneer

B.F. Skinner) were known to ridicule those who considered anything outside of that which was

directly observable (LeDoux, 1996). Emotion in consumer behaviour might have been noted, but it

was relegated to minor status (if recognised at all) –

“[A] reading of much of the literature in this field in the period ranging from the 1960s to the early

1980s could have led you to the conclusion that consumers act in a semiautomatic, non-emotional

manner, weighing purely cognitive factors such as price and performance in arriving at a decision.”

(Engel, Blackwell, Miniard, 1995, p406).

But this view of consumer behaviour has changed over recent times. Neuroscience has however

been clear in showing that emotional systems are a key part of decision-making and that the ‘purely

rational’ person makes incredibly poor decisions, if they can decide at all (Damasio, 1994). It has

also been uncovered that there is a long-term emotional memory function in the brain, separate

from the long-term cognitive memory function. Whilst the cognitive memory remembers the details

of what happened, the emotional memory remembers the emotions felt during that situation

(LeDoux, 1996).

The importance of emotion likely comes from its ability to bypass other parts of the brain and work

at an unconscious level. For much of the human timeline emotions promoted the survival of the

species – it was important for emotional reactions to occur without much conscious processing

time, such as recoiling from danger or recognising friend versus foe (LeDoux, 1996).

Emotional reactions function as the gatekeeper to further cognitive and behavioural reactions

(Poels & Dewitte, 2006) so although it may feel as if the cognitive mind is in control, the fact is that

emotion is working behind (and sometimes in front of) the scenes, influencing the consumer.

Studies have shown this influence – for example, angry people see the world as more threatening

(Markman, 2010) while happy people make decisions more quickly and spend less time reviewing

potentially relevant information (Isen & Means, 1983).

One of the complexities around emotion is that there are many that may have an influence on

people. There are no shortage of emotional models using indicators such as facial expressions,

physiological symptoms, neurochemical arrangement or linguistic arrangement that attempt to

classify emotion into categories such as “basic / universal”, “complex” and “social”. To show this

complexity in emotional classification, Table 1 shows the Parrot (2001) arrangement of primary,

secondary and tertiary emotions – although highly detailed, it is still to be determined if it is

complete or even fully accurate. Unfortunately, this is true of almost any emotional model.

At this point in time there is little disagreement about the importance of emotions in consumer

decision making, but there is still a long way to go in terms of understanding and classifying the

effects of emotion and in gaining a consensus around how emotions fit together. (For example,

within the Parrot (2001) categorisation arousal has been included as a tertiary emotion to lust. The

author disagrees that arousal is more accurately characterised as a physical state that is caused by

the emotion lust and not an emotion itself.)

Page 7 of 21

Table 1: Categorisation of Emotion – Parrot (2001)

Primary emotion Secondary emotion Tertiary emotions

Love

Affection Adoration, affection, love, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality

Lust Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation

Longing Longing

Joy

Cheerfulness Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, joviality, joy, delight, enjoyment, gladness, happiness, jubilation, elation, satisfaction, ecstasy, euphoria

Zest Enthusiasm, zeal, zest, excitement, thrill, exhilaration

Contentment Contentment, pleasure

Pride Pride, triumph

Optimism Eagerness, hope, optimism

Enthrallment Enthrallment, rapture

Relief Relief

Surprise Surprise Amazement, surprise, astonishment

Anger

Irritation Aggravation, irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness

Exasperation Exasperation, frustration

Rage Anger, rage, outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, ferocity, bitterness, hate, loathing, scorn, spite, vengefulness, dislike, resentment

Disgust Disgust, revulsion, contempt

Envy Envy, jealousy

Torment Torment

Sadness

Suffering Agony, suffering, hurt, anguish

Sadness Depression, despair, hopelessness, gloom, glumness, sadness, unhappiness, grief, sorrow, woe, misery, melancholy

Disappointment Dismay, disappointment, displeasure

Shame Guilt, shame, regret, remorse

Neglect Alienation, isolation, neglect, loneliness, rejection, homesickness, defeat, dejection, insecurity, embarrassment, humiliation, insult

Sympathy Pity, sympathy

Fear

Horror Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic, hysteria, mortification

Nervousness Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry, distress, dread

Page 8 of 21

Conative – The Power or Ability to Prefer or Choose

Despite the power of cognition and affect in influencing how a consumer places values on various

factors within a decision, there still comes a point where the decision has to be made. Without that

point, the options and factors being considered circle in a continuous loop, leading to either

frustration at an inability to decide or an eventual move away from considering the decision at all.

Early consumer decision making models (such as Engel Kollat Blackwell (1973)) proposed a formal

approach to choice, particularly as the importance / involvement in the choice increased. Under

such models, once a need had been recognised, a detailed information search would occur,

followed by careful evaluation of alternatives until a choice was made. However, it has been

recognised that such models don’t reflect reality – consumers make shortcuts when making

decisions as discussed above. A consumer may purchase a house – a high-involvement decision if

ever there was one – after seeing it for the first time because they “fell in love” with the place.

Conation is the process by which the cognitive and affective components are combined to form and

drive action on the decision itself. It is the use of will to self-direct and self-regulate (Huitt, 1999), but

it should recognised (and be obvious) that not all self-directed decisions are beneficial to the

consumer. Indeed, willpower is often a matter of effortful self-control, ideally to resist natural

impulses (Gots, 2011) that have short-term benefits but longer-term negatives e.g. eating an extra-

large piece of delicious cheesecake. It might taste good now, but later on it may be a decision that

is regretted!

Conation requires mental load, which is something that can be both built up and depleted. People

can be trained to increase their self-discipline (and thus be able to spend more time in making a

decision) (Gots, 2011), but having to use conative ability to do something unpleasant depletes that

ability in future. For example, people who are made to complete a task that requires will power

(such as eating radishes instead of chocolates or to supress emotions) are more likely to give up at

a task quicker than those who haven’t required as much conative effort (Baumeister, et al, 1998).

Active, energy-intensive conation is potentially something that some organisations want consumers

to avoid. Referring to Gibson (2008) and Shiv & Fedorikhan (1999), it has been shown that

distractions or increased mental load leave consumers more vulnerable to making less considered,

more impulsive decisions.

There is also evidence that human nature is designed against requiring large amounts of mental

energy for every decision, hence the power of habit on behaviour. If conative effort can be spent

over enough a long enough period on a behaviour and with a suitable reward from that behaviour is

received, then that behaviour will become a habit – something that occurs almost automatically and

requiring a lot less conative effort over time. It has been shown that people with habitual behaviours

experience the joy of the reward just anticipating that behaviour, and feel distinctly at loss if they

aren’t able to indulge in the habit (Duhrigg, 2012b). This helps to explain why habits are easy to

follow, but hard to break.

Conation – the actual moment of decision-making – is something that is receiving increasing

attention within neuroscientific circles in order to understand how the brain works (an in-depth view

of this can be seen at PsychWiki, 2012). There is physical evidence of conation occurring – pupils

dilate in response to mental load being applied, so when that processing stops, pupil dilation stops

Page 9 of 21

as well (Kahneman, 2011). However, our exact understanding of conation is still in its infancy and

no doubt this area that will uncover some interesting developments over the next decade.

Physical – A Wave Is Continuous With the Ocean

The three previous components are internal to a consumer, and thus relatively invisible to those

looking to understand consumer behaviour (at least without close, direct observation and / or

expensive monitoring equipment). But the physical aspects of a consumer are much easier to

observe, and in some cases have been perceived to be the only factor that really matters.

Behaviourists weren’t interested in what was going on inside a consumer unless it led to action

happening on the outside.

However, it isn’t reasonable to divorce the internal decision processes (i.e. cognitive, affective,

conative) from the body that enacts the outcome. Both influence each other – it is impossible to

separate the wave from the ocean, although the physical element of consumer decision-making has

generally been excluded from consideration.

This is a very big oversight given the weight of evidence that a consumers’ physical condition has a

dramatic influence on their behaviour. People who are hungry will spend more effort and resources

going for food items and less attracted by non-food items (ScienceDaily, 2011). Sleep-deprived

consumers are also more likely to have increased appetite due to changes in hormonal balance

(Taheri et al, 2004). The old adage of “never go shopping when you are hungry” should be updated

to say, “never go shopping when you are hungry or tired”!

Being tired doesn’t just change behaviour in relation to appetite – it changes the ability of people to

apply mental load to tasks. One study of judges found that they would grant parole to 65% of cases

they saw immediately after a meal, but this parole rate gradually decreased to nearly zero as the

judges approached their next meal time, suggesting that “tired and hungry judges tend to fall back

on the easier default position of denying requests for parole” (Danziger, Levav & Avnaim-Pesso,

2011).

In a similar vein, recent discoveries also indicate it is impossible to untie emotional states to

physical conditions. Cosmetic Botox injections are used to reduce lines and wrinkles in the human

face, but have found to have the side effect of reducing the ability of a person to both feel emotion

(Davis et al., 2010) and to recognise it in others (Neal and Chartrand, 2011). Without the physical

ability of the body to provide mirrored facial feedback, people lose the ability to empathise with

others and feel it within themselves.

Consumer aspects such as gender or physiological capabilities should also be considered as part

of the physical component, given how important such things are to the consumer decision-making

process.

The link between the physical and other aspects of consumer behaviour are also shown through the

power of habit. After a consumer has built up a habit, the brain reward system starts to anticipate

the sensation that comes with that habit in front of actually receiving it, while also objecting to not

experiencing that sensation. This relationship can be both positive and negative – a positive habit

such as brushing teeth is continued when a consumer desires the tingly feel of a clean mouth (and

misses it when they can’t do it) is a net benefit to a consumer, while problem gambling (and the

gambler growing to anticipate the sensation of gambling rather than focus on winning / losing) is

clearly a net negative. (Duhrigg, 2012b) Not engaging in a habit has a physical impact.

Page 10 of 21

There are also other physical conditions such as pain, arousal, relaxation and pleasure that

influence consumer behaviour. Sometimes these and the above aspects are treated as cognitive

and / or affective states, but this isn’t broadly correct – they are physical states. Consumer decision-

making is not purely driven by the nebulous world of the mind; the physical interface between the

mind and the broader world has a great deal of say in determining what a consumer does.

Environmental – The Experience of Our World

What is occurring in the world around a consumer has a large impact on consumer behaviour. In

this case, the term “environment” refers to the tangible and intangible elements around the

consumer, from macro-elements such as the weather to more variable factors such as store fronts

and product / service packaging.

It is important to recognise (although obvious) that consumers act differently if the weather is hot

versus if the weather is cold, or if they are in an environment where they are resource- and option-

rich (such as if they have a full bank account and heading into a retail shopping district) to one

where they are resource- and option-poor.

Weather is an obvious external factor that influences behaviour. Impulse purchases of ice cream

are higher in summer than winter, and higher still on bright, sunny summer days than on overcast

summer days (ConvenienceStore.co.uk, 2010). Seasonal factors influence the types of clothes and

accessories worn, as well as the types and cost of food that may be available.

Seasons also influence emotions, which in turn directs behaviour. Seasonal Affective Disorder is a

depressive illness with a seasonal pattern. People sleep more, eat more and usually crave

carbohydrates (which leads to weight gain), have a lot less energy and don't want to spend time

with others. It is believed that reduced exposure to sunlight is at least partly responsible for this

condition. (BeyondBlue.org.au, 2007) There have also been links between hotter weather,

increased violent behaviour (Keim, 2011) and higher suicide rates (BBC, 2007).

The senses of smell, sight, taste, hearing and touch are all touch points where the environment and

consumer’s physical being interact, with each having its own impact on behaviour. Sight is

recognised as a very important sense, given how critical it is to our interpretation of the world

around us, but it can also have subtle effects on the other senses. Sensation transference means

that consumers transfer what they perceive on a product’s packaging means they also experience

when they consume the product (i.e. taste, touch, smell). An example of this transference is that

adding more yellow to a drink’s packaging sees consumers believing it tastes more lemony, even

though the underlying recipe is unchanged (Gladwell, 2005).

A similar association effect means that the environment has a big impact on how stimuli are treated.

There is the famous example that showed that a world-class violinist busking in a busy subway

station barely attracted any attention, but that same violinist attracts $1000 a minute in international

concert halls (Weingarten, 2007). Although a number of factors are at play in that experiment, a key

one is environment – no-one expects to see a famous violinist playing for money in a subway so the

location had a negative effect on his perceived skill levels and audience interest. In a similar

fashion, it would be expected that a restaurant with high-class, fashionable décor would be

perceived to provide a better quality meal than a café with a lower-class interior, even if the actual

food they served was exactly the same.

Page 11 of 21

Sounds and scents in the surrounding environment also can impact consumer behaviour. Music

can influence the quantity and nationality of wine purchased in a liquor store (North, Hargreaves &

McKendrick, 1997) or change perceptions of how a wine tastes through priming effects (North,

2011), while numerous studies indicate that music tempo change physical heart rates (Bernardi,

Porta & Sleight, 2005) and emotional states (Mok & Wong, 2003).

It seems obvious to say that where a consumer is has a dramatic influence on the kinds of

decisions they will make, but environmental factors are conspicuously absent from numerous

consumer behaviour models.

Culture – Everybody Knows

Circling around all these other factors influencing consumer behaviour – even more so than if it

something that effects everyone, such as if the temperature is hot or cold – is culture. It may be

perceived that environment has a greater impact, but human history dictates that where

environment clashes with culture, it often comes off second best. Humankind has been responsible

for an awesome (in many senses of the word) change in the environment due to cultural

requirements. When the English arrived in Australia, they continued to wear the same kind of

clothes they would have worn in their much more temperate motherland. Culture dictated they

ignore the environment. Even today we do our best to modify the world around us (e.g. through air

conditioners, transport options, changes to natural landforms) so that we can live a lifestyle that we

want to, not one forced onto us by the environment.

Culture is crucial to understanding how consumers behave because people are heavily influenced

by others around them. Through both explicit and implicit observation along with individual and

group interaction, people learn the kinds of behaviours that are acceptable and those that aren’t.

Different consumer groups will have different collective cultures under a much larger societal

culture, with each determining a wide range of factors around behaviour.

Culture dictates how consumers cognitively process information. People brought up in a Western-

individualist culture are much more likely to focus on only the main parts of images they see and

are more likely to focus on individual personal characteristics when processing information, while

those raised in an Eastern-collectivist culture are more likely to describe the whole image presented

to them and to focus on situational factors contained within presented information (Winerman,

2006).

Emotions are also heavily influenced by cultural factors. Ekman (1972) indicates that recognition of

core emotional types are universal between cultures – a smile is seen as linked to joy in all cultures,

a frown is tied to anger, etc. – but that expressions of emotions are culturally driven. There are a

deep set of cultural norms that indicate what is “acceptable” when it comes to the time and place for

emotion, such as displays of grief at a funeral (e.g. quiet sobbing versus loud wailing and open

anguish) or public displays of affection (e.g. hugs and kisses versus respectful bowing). There are

also emotional states that are unique to certain cultures, such as ‘amok’ (violent frenzy) in Malaysia

and ‘amae’ (indulgent feeling of dependency, akin to what a child feels towards a mother, between

adults) in Japan (Prinz, 2004).

Culture also dictates reactions to physical states. How people react to the signs of age – such as

seeking to minimise them through Botox injections versus proudly displaying characteristics that will

be greeted with respect – or what they are willing to put up with in order to ‘fit’ with a particular

cultural image – such as wearing uncomfortable shoes or clothes that are expected within a

Page 12 of 21

particular social setting and putting fashion before comfort – are examples of culture driving

physically-oriented consumer behaviours. Culture also strongly influences behaviour towards

environmental conditions, such as reactions to different colour schemes (Mills, 2009) or what kinds

of traditions accompany different times of the year.

When it comes to consumer behaviour, it should be recognised that culture often helps consumers

in their decision-making by reducing the amount of mental load required. It provides a short-cut –

when provided with common cultural experiences, everybody knows what their reactions should be.

Little energy needs to be spent in weighing up choices, unless the consumer is considering options

that may go against cultural norms or be considered taboo.

Combining the Components

As indicated in the discussion on each component above, there is a lot of interplay within this

framework. Although the framework shown in Figure 1 shows clear delineations between the

components, hopefully it is clear that it is harder in the real world to cleanly separate things. For

example, if emotions strongly influence conation, and environment and cultural factors influence

emotion, it can be hard to draw a straight line between only emotional factors and consumer

behaviour. There are a lot of inter-relationships going on that blur the line.

A summary of some of these interactions / component influences is included in Table 2 below.

Page 13 of 21

Table 2: Partial Summary of Component Interactions

Cognitive

Influence

Affective

Influence

Conative

Influence

Physical

Influence

Environmental

Influence

Cultural

Influence

Cognitive

Component

Emotional

associations

influences

how

information

is processed

Creates

history of

decision-

making for

consideration

in similar

situation

Physical

state

changes

how much

mental

load can

be applied

Provides

external stimuli

to be

considered

Changes

perspective

given to

focus on

decision

factors

Affective

Component

Can provide

information

to (weakly)

overcome

emotional

biases

Can override

emotional

reactions

Physical

state can

enhance /

restrict

emotions

Influences

emotional

status e.g.

Seasonal

Affective

Disorder

Dictates

acceptable

emotional

displays

Conative

Component

Contributes

facts /

knowledge

for

consideration

Strong

emotional

reactions

can short-cut

decision-

making

Physical

state

changes

how much

mental

load can

be applied

Sensation

transference

dictates how

stimuli is

perceived

Influences

decisions

by

evaluating

what

others

would do

Physical

Component

Dictates the

desired level

of mental

load to apply

to the

decision

Emotions

cause

physiological

reactions

Physical

component

required to

apply / enact

decision

Environmental

stimuli changes

physical

experience

around the

decision

Determines

physical

norms for

decision-

making

Environmental

Component

Conscious

processing of

external

stimuli

Emotional

weights on

stimuli

dictate how

they are

valued

Bounded

decision-

making

based on

what is

available

around the

consumer

Physical

state (e.g.

hot, cold)

influences

perception

of external

stimuli

Norms

dictate

acceptable

patterns of

behaviour

Cultural

Component

Base level of

culturally-

related info /

knowledge

(i.e. the

‘facts’ that

everyone

knows)

Feelings /

emotions

that are

shared

across a

homogenous

cultural

group

Importance

of the

decision

within the

cultural

setting

Determines

what

cultural

role applies

(e.g. male

versus

female)

Provides

external stimuli

that interacts

with cultural

values / norms

However, such uncertainty doesn’t help make the framework easy to use, so it makes sense to treat

the components as separate when using it for analysis purposes. It may not be easy to always

cleanly place a decision factor into one component, but this is for the reason that sometimes factors

will stretch across two (or more) components.

Page 14 of 21

Using the PEACCC Framework in a Market Research Context

Following the concept that this framework should be easy to use, the simplest approach for its use

is to classify key decision elements to their appropriate component. Figure 3 provides an example

of a silo-based approach to the PEACCC framework.

Figure 3: A Silo-Based Approach to the PEACCC Framework

This approach works well when classifying qualitative information. As an example, let’s use the

PEACCC silos to briefly cover the kind of consumer behaviour factors that may be in play when a

person is deciding which financial institution to take a mortgage from.

Page 15 of 21

Figure 4: PEACCC Framework Silos – Example of a Consumer Selecting a Mortgage

The PEACCC model can also be used from a project-planning or informational perspective to

ensure that all facets of consumer behaviour are being covered. As a brief overview, market

research techniques can be classified under the PEACCC framework:

Figure 5: Classifying Selected Market Research Techniques / Approaches Using the

PEACCC Framework

Page 16 of 21

Framework Limitations

Three recognised limitations of this framework are:

1. Omission of a time-related component

2. Possibility of further splitting of the components into ‘conscious’ versus ‘unconscious’

aspects

3. The relative influence of each component within specific decision-making situations

Time As Part of Consumer Behaviour

Without doubt time is an important part of consumer behaviour. It takes time to consider a decision,

to execute it and to evaluate the outcomes. Sometimes it is only possible to determine if the

‘correct’ consumer behaviour path was taken after time has elapsed, while time can also see short-

term benefits turn into longer-term detriments. Also, all components change over time – as a

consumer learns, achieves and experiences more, their cognitive, affective, conative and even

physical components will change. Such changes can occur over minutes or span years.

As it stands, the PEACCC framework isn’t able to include a time component on the grounds that

time provides a different dimension for consumer behaviour. This framework works best as a

‘snapshot’ model of consumer behaviour, but it certainly can be used to analyse ‘current’ consumer

behaviour and then also be used to develop a list of ideal or future behaviours that it is intended /

desired for the consumer to move to. It could also be used to map previous consumer behaviours –

what they knew, their moods, values, etc. – alongside current consumers and evaluate how various

components have changed.

‘Conscious’ Versus ‘Unconscious’ Impact of Components

There is also the potential for the existing PEACCC components to be split into ‘conscious’ versus

‘unconscious’ (or ‘active’ versus ‘passive’, or ‘recognised’ versus ‘unrecognised’) sub-components.

A number of long-established consumer behaviour models appear to treat the factors that surround

decision-making as being recognised and acknowledged, but more recent findings indicate this isn’t

true – a lot can be going on below the surface that isn’t consciously processed by consumers.

As examples:

Cognitive processes can be focused on a problem at hand (active) or passively absorbing

facts or processing other problems in the background (passive)

Consumers can be aware (conscious) or unaware (unconscious) of their own emotional

state (e.g. not recognising that you are angry or in a good mood until someone else points it

out to you)

Although conation requires a degree of active involvement, it is also possible for decisions to

be made where the consumer wonders after why they chose what they chose

Consumers can be unaware of their physical state until attention is drawn to it by external

stimuli (e.g. recognising you are hungry after smelling baking bread)

Environmental factors have both a conscious (e.g. the consumer sees the high quality décor

of a restaurant) and unconscious (e.g. French music playing in the background causes the

consumer to buy French wine) impacts

Page 17 of 21

Cultural values and their influence on consumer behaviour may be recognised (e.g. moral

values dictating acceptable advertising content guidelines) or unrecognised (e.g. gender or

racial biases)

In order to keep the PEACCC framework straightforward to use, the separation of active / passive

or conscious / unconscious components hasn’t been formally included. With that in mind, anyone

looking to use the PEACCC framework for in-depth analysis of consumer behaviour should

recognise that such above- and below-the-surface influences do exist and should be considered.

Relative Influence of Components Within Specific Decision-Making Contexts

This issue is discussed in the section below.

Next Steps

This paper is a justification for the relevance and applicability of the PEACCC framework. As

described, this framework can be easily used for qualitative analysis using the suggested ‘silo’

analysis approach.

Moving forward, the challenge will be in understanding the relative importance of each component

within different industry sectors and consumer decision contexts. Different consumer decisions will

have different internal (i.e. cognitive, affective, conative), physical and external (environmental,

cultural) requirements. For instance, a common and familiar consumer behaviour such as going to

the beach in Australia is probably a relatively easy behaviour to consider. The consumer has likely

been to the beach many times before, knows what to expect, knows what they require to enact this

behaviour and Australia has a long history of a beach culture that provides a lot of baseline

knowledge to that consumer.

However, an unfamiliar and unestablished behaviour is going to see the relative importance of the

different components change. For instance, buying a high-tech gadget in an entirely new category

where there is a high degree of uncertainty about the future and capability of the device, less

tangible elements because it is providing online services, no established culture to consider or

influence the decision – this kind of decision will likely fall more heavily on internal and physical

factors (i.e. the look and feel of the device) than the unestablished external components.

Another ‘next step’ for this framework will be seeing its (hopeful) adoption and use among a wider

audience. The author would appreciate any feedback on the framework from those who have used

it, or be happy to answer any questions about its theoretical underpinnings. Indeed, just knowing

that it has been used by people other than the author would be a reward, so please contact the

author even just to say that the framework was useful in a project!

Page 18 of 21

References

Baumeister, Roy. Bratslavsky, Ellen. Muraven, Mark. Tice, Dianne. 1998. “Ego depletion: Is the

active self a limited resource?”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74(5). 1252-1265.

Accessed 6 June 2012 from:

http://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/345/345%20Articles/Baumeister%20et%20al.%20%281998%29.p

df

BBC. 2007. “Suicide rate rises in hot weather”. BBC News. Accessed 11 July 2012 from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6925882.stm

Belch, Michael A. & Belch, George E. 1985. “The Historical Evolution Of Advertising Consumer

Behavior Research”. Historical Perspective in Consumer Research: National and International

Perspectives. Pages 72-75. Accessed 31 May 2012 from:

http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=12118

Bernardi, L.. Porta, C. Sleight, P. 2005. “Cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory changes

induced by different types of music in musicians and non-musicians: the importance of silence”.

Heart. 2006. 92: 445-452. First Published Online 30 September 2005. Accessed 15 June 2012

from: http://heart.bmj.com/content/92/4/445.full

BeyondBlue.org.au. 2007. “Seasonal Affective Disorder - More than the Winter Blues”. BeyondBlue

News. Winter 2007. Accessed 25 June 2012 from:

http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=59.855

ConvenienceStore.co.uk. 2010. “Ice cream: the short but sweet seasonal winner”. 19 March 2010.

Accessed 14 June 2012 from: http://www.conveniencestore.co.uk/product-news/ice-cream-the-

short-but-sweet-seasonal-winner/208021.article

Damasio, Antonio. 1995. Descarte’s Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. Penguin. 2005

paperback reprint.

Danziger, Shai. Levav, Johnathan. Avnaim-Lesso, Liora. 2011. “Extraneous factors in judicial

decisions”. PNAS. April 26, 2011. Vol. 108 no. 17 6889-6892. Accessed 12 June 2012 from:

http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889

Davis Joshua, Senghas Ann, Brandt Fredric, Ochsner Kevin. 2010. “The Effects of BOTOX

Injections on Emotional Experience”. Emotion. 2010 June ; 10(3): 433–440. Accessed 2 June 2012

from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2880828/pdf/nihms-200692.pdf

Duhigg, Charles. 2012a. “How Companies Learn Your Secrets”. The New York Times. Accessed 31

May 2012 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-

habits.html?pagewanted=all

Duhigg, Charles. 2012b. The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business.

Random House.

Ekman, Paul. 1972. “Universals and Cultural Differences in Facial Expressions of Emotion”. In J.

Cole (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971. Vol. 19. Lincoln, University of Nebraska

Page 19 of 21

Press. Accessed 15 June 2012 from: http://www.paulekman.com/wp-

content/uploads/2009/02/Universals-And-Cultural-Differences-In-Facial-Expressions-Of.pdf

Ekman, Paul. 1999. “Basic Emotions”. In T. Dalgleish and T. Power (Eds.) The Handbook of

Cognition and Emotion Pp. 45–60. Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accessed 15 June 2012

from: http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Basic-Emotions.pdf

Engel, James. Kollat, David. Blackwell, Roger. 1973. Consumer Behaviour. Second Edition. New

York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Engel, James. Blackwell, Roger. Miniard, Paul. 1995. Consumer Behavior. International Edition.

Eighth Edition. The Dryden Press.

Fiske, Susan & Taylor, Shelley. 1984. Social Cognition. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.

Gibson, Bryan. 2008. “Can Evaluative Conditioning Change Attitudes toward Mature Brands? New

Evidence from the Implicit Association Test”. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 35, No. 1 (June

2008), pp. 178-188.

Gladwell, Malcolm. 2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. USA. Little, Brown and

Company.

Gots, Jason. 2011. “The Neuroscience of Success”. BigThink.com. August 7, 2011. Accessed 6

June 2012 from: http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-neuroscience-of-success

Howard, John & Sheth, Jagdish. 1969. Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York. John Wiley & Sons.

Huitt, W. 1999. “Conation as an important factor of mind”. Educational Psychology Interactive.

Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Accessed 6 June 2012 from:

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/conation.html

Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London. Penguin Books.

Keim, Brandon. 2011. “The Hazy Science of Hot Weather and Violence.” Wired Science.

Accessed 11 July 2012 from: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/hot-weather-

violence/

LeDoux, Joseph. 1996. The Emotional Brain. Simon & Schuster.

Markman, Art. 2010. “Anger makes the world seem more threatening”. Psychology Today.

Published October 12, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2012 from:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201010/anger-makes-the-world-seem-more-

threatening

Mill, John Stuart. 1844. “Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy - Essay V: On

the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper To It”. London:

Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. 2nd Edition. 1874. Accessed 4 June 2012 from:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlUQP5.html

Page 20 of 21

Mills, Rob. 2009. “How Colour Communicates Meaning”. ThinkVitamin.com. 10 September 2009.

Accessed 15 June 2012 from: http://thinkvitamin.com/design/how-colour-communicates-meaning/

Mok, Esther. Wong, Kwai-Yiu. “Effects of music on patient anxiety”. AORN J. Feb 2003. 77(2): 396-

7, 401-6, 409-10. Accessed 15 June 2012 from:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_2_77/ai_98134863/?tag=content;col1

Neal, David & Chartrand, Tanya. 2011. “Embodied Emotion Perception - Amplifying and

Dampening Facial Feedback Modulates Emotion Perception Accuracy”. Social Psychological and

Personality Science. November. Vol. 2 no. 6 pp. 673-678. Accessed 2 June 2012 from:

http://spp.sagepub.com/content/2/6/673

Nicosia, Frank. 1966. Consumer Decision Processes. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs.

North, Adrian. 2011. “Wine & Song: The Effect of Background Music on the Taste of Wine”.

WinePsych.com. November 2011. Accessed 15 June 2012 from: http://www.winepsych.com/wp-

content/uploads/2011/11/adrian-north-music-and-wine.pdf

North, Adrian., Hargreaves, D. J., and McKendrick, J. 1997. “In-store music affects product choice”.

Nature. 390, 132.

Ortony, Andrew. Turner, Terence. 1990. “What’s Basic About Basic Emotions?”. Psychological

Review. Volume 97, Number 3, pp 315 – 331.

Parrott, W. Gerrod. 2001. Emotions in Social Psychology. Psychology Press. Philadelphia.

Poels, Karolien. Dewitte, Siegfried. 2006. “How to capture the heart? Reviewing 20 years of

emotion measurement in advertising”. KUL Working Paper No. MO 0605. April 2006. Accessed 5

June 2012 from: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/228488/1/MO_0605.pdf

Poynter, Ray. 2012. “Is Market Research Ready for Big Data?”. 13 March. Accessed 31 May 2012

from: http://vcu.visioncritical.com/2012/03/is-market-research-ready-for-big-data/

Prinz, Jesse. 2004. “Which Emotions are Basic?”. In D. Evans and P. Cruse (Eds.),

Emotion, Evolution, and Rationality. Oxford University Press.

PsychWiki. 2012. “Neuroscience and Decision Making”. Webpage. Accessed 25 June 2012 from:

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Neuroscience_and_Decision_Making

Rau, Pradeep & Samiee, Saeed. “Models of Consumer Behavior: The State of the Art”. Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science. June 1981. Vol. 9: 300-316.

Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. University of Chicago Press.

Ryynänen, Toni. 2010. “A Search for Interpretation and Understanding: Consumer Studies in

Design Research”. University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management. Discussion

Paper n:o 49. Accessed 31 May 2012 from: http://www.helsinki.fi/taloustiede/Abs/DP49.pdf

ScienceDaily. 2012. “Ghrelin Increases Willingness to Pay for Food”. July 12, 2012. Accessed 12

June 2012 from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110712094044.htm

Page 21 of 21

Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhan, Alexander. 1999. “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and

Cognition in Consumer Decision Making”. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 26, No. 3

(December 1999), pp. 278-292.

Taheri, S. Lin, L. Austin, D. Young, T. Mignot, E. 2004. “Short sleep duration is associated with

reduced leptin, elevated ghrelin, and increased body mass index.” PLoS Med. 2004. Dec;1(3):e62.

Epub 2004 Dec 7. Accessed 12 June 2012 from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602591

Thaler, Richard & Sunstein, Cass. 2009. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and

Happiness. Revised and Expanded Edition. USA. Penguin Books.

Weingarten, Gene. 2007. “Pearls Before Breakfast”. Washington Post. Sunday, April 8, 2007.

Accessed 15 June 2012 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-

dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html

Winerman, Lea. 2006. “The culture-cognition connection”. Monitor on Psychology. February 2006.

Vol. 37. No. 2, p64 (print version). Accessed 15 June 2012 from:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/connection.aspx

Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne. 1991. “Consumer Behavior: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”.

Business Horizons. May – June. Accessed 31 May 2012 from:

http://itu.dk/~petermeldgaard/B12/lektion%203/Consumer%20Behavior_Yesterday%20Today%20a

nd%20Tomorrow.pdf