![]() However, as psychology has moved on to include neurobiology in its understanding of the human mind, recent efforts have also sought to include this part of psychology into economics and consumer science, leading to disciplines such as neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2005 Glimcher, Camerer, Fehr, & Poldrack, 2009 Glimcher & Rustichini, 2004 Hsu & yoon, 2015 Kenning & Linzmajer, 2011 Loewenstein, Rick, & Cohen, 2008 Plassmann, Ramsøy, & Milosavljevic, 2012 Plassmann, Yoon, Feinberg, & Shiv, 2011 Smidts et al., 2014). In understanding consumer behaviour and communication effects, scholars have constructed models that consider the decision-making mechanisms at stake, by combining traditional economics with psychology, often referring to “behavioural economics” basically applying psychological insights to advance our understanding of human behaviour, including consumer behaviour (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Rabin, 2004). It is timely to employ this approach to provide a novel and more scientifically updated perspective of one of the classic models of consumer choice, the AIDA model, to see whether the model can stand these updated views, or need either a complete redesign or even must be rejected. Recently, “Neuromarketing” has gained importance amongst major companies, revolutionized the advertising sectors and is now emerging as a discipline that not only rivals the impact of traditional research methods, but outperforms these approaches in terms of causal theories, measures of consumers’ responses and in providing novel means to affect consumers. Traditionally, advertisers, consciously or unconsciously have been applying four steps of so-called AIDA model of marketing communication such as Attention, Interest, Desire and Action to persuade customers to buy. The reframed model suggested in this study can be the interest of both scholars and practitioners.Īlthough the world of advertising has become aggressively competitive, the principles behind consumers’ responses to advertising arguably remain intact and relevant. The conscious system must only occur for certain level of unconscious process, whereas unconscious processes can occur without the necessity of consciousness. Consequently, the model shall consider massively parallel systems, where A, I, D and A have two parallel systems, a conscious and an unconscious. Therefore, it can be asserted that a reframing of the model needs to encompass both conscious and unconscious streams of action. Based on our overall understanding and an in-depth analysis of the modern neurobiological basis of decision-making in humans, it can be concluded that AIDA model is not applicable and substantially problematic. By using examples of these models, we will demonstrate that even the basic assumptions in these models need to be reconsidered, and that the overall tenants of the models are equally problematic. This study aims at providing an update of exactly these updates, and to use this novel understanding to challenge a dominating category of consumer choice and communication effects, going under the headings such as “response hierarchy models”. In doing so, models of consumer choice and communication effects that were originally conceived during a non-neuroscience psychology era should now be challenged with the recent and plentiful advances that neurobiology has made in reshaping our understanding of the human mind and decision-making processes. Application and significance of neuroscience and its related techniques to comprehend and analyse consumer behaviour and psychology have recently attracted the interest of researchers and practitioners.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |