Neuromarketing as a scale validation tool: Understanding individual differences based on the style of processing scale in affective judgements

This paper revisits a well-cited and widely applied consumer scale, Style of Processing (SOP) (Childers et al., Journal of Consumer Research, 1985, 12, 125), that has been used to investigate individual differences in processing visual versus verbal information in marketing. The scale has advanced knowledge in fields related to marketing communications, product development, psychology, advertising, education and learning theories, shedding light on our understanding of consumer psychology related to persuasion, comprehension, memory, and other consumer cognitive processes involving information. In a research dialog that took place in 2008, a need for further SOP validation was suggested using a neuromarketing approach. We took this call forward and conducted an event-related-potential (ERP) experimental research study using electroencephalogram (EEG) to validate the SOP scale, focusing on differential affective processing between verbalizers and visualizers. We not only demonstrate how neuromarketing tools can be utilized to provide evidence for scale validity, providing advantages over self-reported measures; but more importantly, address issues related to understanding differential fluency effects that exist between visualizers and verbalizers. Behavioral data revealed varying reaction times to emotional stimuli of a pictorial nature. We further identify two ERP components in our data, early left anterior negativity (ELAN) and late negative slow wave (LNSW), that differentiate individual processing fluency in affective versus evaluative-based judgements. Findings confirmed the construct validity of the SOP scale and enhance our understanding of individual differences in emotional processing of pictorial information

An examination of the categorization process for pictures and words / Madhubalan Viswanathan ; Terry L. Childers 1992:124

Bibliography: p. [29-32]

The encoding and utilization of magnitudes of product attributes : an investigation using numerical and verbal information / 1992:105

Includes bibliographical references (p.33-34)

Expanding opportunities for online shoppers with disabilities

The Internet promises many opportunities for consumers who shop online. While prior studies identify problems with online access for persons with disabilities, research has not examined whether consumers with disabilities shop online similarly to persons who are not disabled. The study attempts to fill this gap in two unique ways. First, this paper specifically considers the frequency of online shopping, the amount spent, and reasons for shopping online among both disabled and non-disabled persons. In addition, the study groups persons with disabilities into six major categories according to disability type rather than aggregating into one general category. Telephone surveys of 1053 persons reveal both differences and similarities that suggest opportunities for improving online access and developing a richer understanding of the online shopping motivations and needs of persons with disabilities.Internet Online retailing Disability

Consumer Emotional Intelligence: Conceptualization, Measurement, and the Prediction of Consumer Decision Making

This research details the development of the Consumer Emotional Intelligence Scale (CEIS), which was designed to measure individual differences in consumers' ability to use emotional information. Scale development procedures confirmed the theoretical structure of the 18-item scale. Results supported the scale's reliability and its discriminant and nomological validity. Our consumer domain-specific measure predicted food choices better than a more domain-general alternative. Furthermore, consumer emotional intelligence (EI) predicted food choices beyond cognitive knowledge. Finally, consumer EI was found to generalize to product-based decision making. Theoretical implications of consumer EI are discussed along with areas of future research. (c) 2007 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc..