EmoBlog

Are there such people as professional “analogists?”  These would be experts at coming up with powerful analogies to help people understand complex or misunderstood notions.  If there are such people, I could certainly use one.  I’m trying to come up with the perfect analogy to communicate how cognitive processing and emotional processing are not separate paths to decision making and behavior.  They necessarily work together.

The best that comes to mind is a Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup (RPBC).  Its optimum “effect” (i.e., taste) needs both chocolate and peanut butter.  Yes, some effect would be produced with just the chocolate.  And some effect would be produced with just the peanut butter.  But the intended effect — its unique taste — needs both.

Just like chocolate and peanut butter necessarily combine to produce RPBC’s optimum effect, cognitions and emotions necessarily combine to produce humans’ optimum decisions and behavior — decisions and behavior intended to optimize one’s well-being.  And they do so automatically as the result of how we’re neuro-biologically constructed.  (There are many terms for “neuro-biologically.”  By this I simply mean how our bodies, including our brains, are physiologically, chemically, and neurologically constructed and programmed to operate.)

At least in one sense, the RPBC analogy is not perfect.  In the cognition/emotion synergy, it appears that there is some linearity.  Emotions appear to have the final say in driving our decisions and behavior.  They provide the value that informs our decision/behavior mechanisms what to do.  Yes, behavior occurs if emotional processing is dysfunctional.  But that behavior has a strong likelihood to be dysfunctional, too.  It’s not correlated with optimum well-being.  Many neuroscientists and psychologists have shown this, chief among them probably Antonio Damasio.

But I digress.  I’m getting away from the main point of this article.  Let’s assume you accept the necessary synergy of cognitive and emotional processing.  In this article, I’d like to share a little of what many researchers are finding about how emotions affect cognitive processing and what this might mean for marketing toward desired consumer behavior.

Although many articles support the information to follow, I draw heavily upon two:

• Affective Influences on Cognition: Mood Congruence, Mood Dependence, and Mood Effects on Processing Strategies.  Joseph P. Forgas and Eric Eich in A.F. Healy & R.W. Proctor (Eds.), Experimental Psychology.  Volume 4 in I.B. Weiner (Editor-in-Chief), Handbook of Psychology. New York: Wiley.  January  2011 (in press).

• Affective Arousal as Information: How Affective Arousal Influences Judgments, Learning, and Memory.  Justin Storbeck and Gerald L. Clore.  Social and Personality Psychology Compass 2/5 (2008).

Each article provides dozens of others supporting these points.

The first point to be made from these articles is that in fact emotions (AKA affect and feelings) do impact our cognitive processing — i.e., how we “think” about things.  And cognitive processing includes what we attend to, what we learn and remember, and the judgments and evaluations we make about things in our worlds.

The second point is that emotions’ impact on cognitive processing can be conscious or unconscious.  We don’t have to be aware of how we’re feeling about things for emotions to impact cognitive processing.  (This is a point I’ve made many times in my articles, but it bears repeating here.)

The third point is that emotions impact cognitive processing from two of their defining characteristics – valence (whether the emotion is positive or negative) and arousal (in the vernacular, the strength of the emotion).  (Note: Storbeck and Clore define arousal in more specific terms, but strength serves our purposes here.)

The points just made are higher-order.  Getting more specific, here are the main points these articles make.  (Please note that I’ve taken the liberty to substitute “affect” for emotion because some of these effects refer to moods instead of, or as well as, more acute emotional reactions.  For the purposes of this article, I think affect is a reasonable surrogate.)

Positive affect generally activates relational cognitive processing, meaning that we assess how things generally relate to one another, placing less importance on discriminating details.  On the positive side this leads to…

• Less cognitive effort
• Seeing all things more positively
• Remembering more things (but not more accurately)
• Greater creativity

However, on the negative side this leads to…

• Less attention to detail
• Less accurate memory
• Greater bias
• Greater gullibility

Negative affect generally activates item-specific cognitive processing, meaning that we assess the specific details of stimuli, being much more scrutinous.  On positive side this leads to…

• More attention to detail
• More accurate memory
• Less vulnerability to deception

However, on the negative side this leads to…

• Greater cognitive effort
• Over analysis at times
• Greater skepticism
• Greater argumentation

Regarding the effect of arousal, Storbeck and Clore make the point that arousal generally augments the effects of valence.  For instance, where negative affect is associated with enhanced memory for details, stronger negative affect is associated with even stronger memory for details.

It’s important to point out that these relationships are generalizations.  They don’t always apply.  Both articles point out moderating conditions.  For instance, one’s personality traits, one’s personal goals, and the degree to which pre-existing responses have been programmed over time can override these general effects.  However, it can be valuable to know that, generally speaking, these effects do apply.

Now perhaps what you’ve been waiting for.  How can this apply to marketing toward desired consumer behavior?  Well, here goes (with the caveat that I have not specifically found research studies that directly support these points; here they simply serve as hypotheses):

Induce some sort of positive affect along with your product/service message if you want targeted consumers to…

• Simply feel good about your product/service without any details;

• Not question your proposition and continue to agree with what they already believe or how they currently behave (e.g., brand loyalty);

• Be more creative in inventing solutions.

However, induce some sort of negative affect along with your product/service message if you want targeted consumers to…

• Pay attention to the details of your product/service;

• Question past propositions and change their minds about what they already believe or how they currently behave (i.e., brand switching);

• Be more discriminating in determining solutions.

Finally, with either induced affective state (positive or negative), add intensity (i.e., arousal) to augment these effects.

Returning to the RPBC analogy, I guess it’s literally too simple.  How beautiful if the emotion/cognitive processing relationship was as consistent as the delicious flavor of chocolate and peanut butter.  But please realize that the foundation is similar.  The two work together, not separately, to produce a wonderful, desired effect. 

As always, comments are certainly welcome.  Until next time…

This installment of Ask the Emotional Expert features John Nolte, Ph.D., noted psychodramatist and author of The Psychodrama Papers.  Dr. Nolte trained under J.L. Moreno, the founder of psychodrama.

Here’s what Dr. Nolte has to say about assessing consumer emotions via psychodrama.

Conner:  I always start out with this question: More and more we are learning that emotions drive humans’, and therefore consumers’, behavior.  What are your thoughts about that?

Nolte:  From a psychodramatic point of view, emotions are intentional.  That is, there is always some object to which the emotion is connected.  Basically, an emotion is triggered by a change in the situation in which we find ourselves.  As soon as we perceive ourselves facing a danger, for example, we experience fear not only as an emotion, but as a message concerning what we should do.  Fear tells us to get away from that which is perceived as dangerous.  So an emotion is an immediate evaluation of our situation and an instruction on what to do about it.  If we perceive a barrier between ourselves and a goal toward which we are moving, we experience anger (or one of the several variants of anger) and the instruction to get it out of the way.  If we perceive that something is of value, whether material like a diamond, or not so material as knowledge about something, the emotion aroused is desire which instructs us to possess it.  So I certainly consider emotion to be involved in every act, including the act of purchasing something.

Conner:  How do or would psychodramas work to get at emotions that drive consumers’ behavior?

Nolte:  Psychodrama is so flexible and creative that it is difficult to answer this question in a very specific way, to say that this is the way to do it.  What we know is that people do not act in a vacuum.  That is, every action is preceded by a warming up process, a period of preparing for the action of purchasing.  So a reasonable place to begin is to focus the respondents on a recent purchase, and a purchase which has something in common with that for which the research is being conducted.  For example, the director might ask a group (or individual) to recall the last time that they bought an automobile.  The director might then ask a willing member of the group to re-enact the actual purchase of the car.  In the process, he might ask the protagonist (respondent) to soliloquize the feelings he has as he drives the car away from the dealer.  A next step might be to ask: “When did the idea of buying this car first come into your mind?”  That event is explored and all the feelings involved elicited through psychodramatic techniques, largely for this purpose, soliloquy and doubling.  The director then guides the protagonist through all the steps which were taken psychologically and emotionally that led to the purchase of this specific car.  This could involve researching on the internet, talking with friends or spouse, all the positive emotions instructing him to buy, and the negative emotions instructing him otherwise; for example, “see if you can’t get a better price;” “maybe a different make would be better;” “maybe you can’t afford to buy just now…wait a little while;” etc.  The object is to consider all elements that go into the decision to buy.  In the process, it is quite likely that we would discover that many of the emotional reactions could be related to early experiences in one way or another.  These, too, can be explored and could yield valuable information about the development of attitudes related to the purchase of a car.

One could expect that participating in the psychodramatic action would warm other participants to their experiences, both common and different from those of the first protagonist.  These, too, can be re-enacted and the emotions elicited explored in depth.

It’s likely that however we start, we will discover unanticipated avenues to explore.

Conner:  Many would argue that traditional two-hour focus groups, especially with a good moderator, can do the same thing as psychodramas.  How would you respond to that?  Do you think psychodramas are more effective at uncovering emotions than traditional focus groups?

Nolte:  I doubt that anybody who has participated in a psychodrama would argue that a focus group is as effective as a psychodrama in eliciting both information and emotions.

The advantage of psychodrama over focus groups lies in the action techniques which psychodrama provides for accessing emotions at a deeper level. For example, setting a scene and re-enacting an event activates memory, and the emotions associated with it, in a more complete way, involving all the senses including kinesthetic ones.  Techniques such as soliloquy and doubling permit a detailed exploration of of the subject’s emotional state which almost always includes a mixture of emotions.  Psychodrama also allows for exploration of the subject’s history with emotions or emotional complexes.

So, it’s the action dimension of psychodrama which makes it more effective than the more passive modality of the focus group.

Conner:  What are some of the special techniques used within psychodramas that are especially effective at uncovering important emotions that drive consumer behavior?

Nolte:  “Setting the scene” anchors the protagonist in a concrete situation which includes all of the respondent’s previous experiences, including emotions.  Movement in this structured space enhances recall of both an experience and the emotions associated with that experience.  Psychodramatists know that memory is not simply a neurological process — it’s a neuro-muscular one.

“Soliloquy” involves inward focus on the bodily manifestations of emotion as well as on conceptualization which can arise from emotion as well as elicit emotion.

“Doubling” adds the assistance of another person in the search for emotional expression.

“Mirroring” and “role reversal” are two other highly useful techniques.

Conner:  Are psychodramas better conducted in group sessions or in individual sessions?

Nolte:  By and large, psychodrama in groups is more effective than when it is used individually.  There may be special circumstances which point to working with an individual. They are rare.  The group can be considered as a significant and integral aspect of the psychodramatic method, and a psychodrama can be considered as a product of group effort and collaboration.

Conner:  And how about the amount of time and number of respondents needed to make a group psychodrama most effective?

Nolte:  This is another flexible component of psychodrama. The most workable group is probably between 7 and 12 participants with 2½ to 3 hours for a session.

Conner:  What advice would you give consumer researchers who are interested in using psychodramas in their work?

Nolte:  Engage a well-trained, experienced psychodramatist who has experience working outside the field of psychotherapy and who is comfortable with non-therapeutic applications of psychodrama.

Conner:  Thank you very much, Dr. Nolte.  I know this from my experience, but you’ve neatly explained why psychodrama is a highly effective emotional assessment technique.

Take a look at this image.

What do you see? You might be saying:

“This is a smiling car.”

Is this car really smiling?  I don’t think so.  People smile, and maybe animals, but not cars.  If you see a smiling car, you’re not crazy.  You’ve just “anthropomorphized” it.  This means that you’ve imagined it as a person.

(Because “anthropomorphize” is a long, hard to type, and hard to say word, I’ll abbreviate it as APM.)

It’s well-established that we APM products and brands.  Why do we do it?  Because we’re by nature social animals and APM’ing gives us a better “feel” for products and brands, which directs our buying decisions about them.  More academically, APM’ing is a natural social heuristic that helps us optimize our (consumer) lives.

(If you’re interested in learning more about what APM is and why we do it, I suggest searching for and reading works by Susan Fournier, Grainne Fitzsimons, Nicholas Epley, Adam Waytz, and Pankaj Aggarwal to name a few.)

I’m particularly interested in APM because I’ve come to believe that we automatically APM almost everything we come into contact with — including products and brands — again, in order to more easily examine our feelings toward them and decide what to do with them.

Recently though, I’ve read many articles indicating that maybe APM is not as automatic as I had thought.  (Some of these articles, and more about APM, are highlighted in a recent EMA Facts newsletter that you can download for free at the newsletters page of this website — it’s #13.)

What I’ve learned so far from this reading has lead to the following points about how to optimize the benefits of APM marketing:

(To further understand these points, again, it will be helpful for you to download EMA Facts 13 from this website.)

I’m sure there’s much more to APM’ing, but these points represent some of the important things I’ve learned about optimizing APM marketing efforts.

These APM caveats or best practices have not completely shaken my belief that we automatically APM almost everything, including products and brands.  So I’ll continue to search for research to support my belief and will likely revisit the topic at a later date.  Stay tuned and return often!

And please submit your related comments and pass this along to others you think might be interested.

Until next time…

Most marketers rightly see emotions as critical to their product strategies.  They want their targets to feel a certain way.  So a fundamental question they ask is, “WHAT do I want my targeted customers to feel or not feel?”

Some marketers have a good idea of what they want their targets to feel or not feel about their product or brand.  But some do not.  In fact, believe it or not, many marketers simply stop at “I want my customers to feel good about my product and/or bad about my competitors’ products.”  (I’m not kidding.  I hear this a lot.  That’s a start, but not enough.)

This article presents some ideas to consider.

Besides just “good” or “bad,” the most fundamental set of discrete emotions I have seen is a set of four rather vernacular, poetic feelings — mad, glad, sad, or “afrad” (i.e., afraid).

Stepping it up a bit, getting into what prominent scientists think, Ekman’s set of primary emotions consists of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, disgust, contempt, and surprise.  (See Ekman, P. (2003) Emotions Revealed: Recognizing Faces and Feelings to Improve Communication and Emotional Life, Times Books.)    Plutchik’s primary list includes joy, acceptance, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger, and anticipation.  (See Plutchik, R. (1980), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience: Vol. 1. Theories of emotion, 1, New York: Academic.)

(More lists are summarized at http://www.personalityresearch.org/basicemotions/plutchik.html.)

Getting into consumer emotions, Richins found the following to be psychometrically reliable: excitement, joy, pride, contentment, optimism, relief, peacefulness, love, romantic love, loneliness, envy, guilt, fear, shame, sadness, worry, discontent, anger, surprise, and eagerness.  (See Richins, M.L. (1997) Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24, No. 2., pp. 127-146.)

At this point, I hope you have a few emotions to consider for your product or brand.  However, I’d like to share another set with you — a set I’ve developed over the past several years of hearing consumers talk about how they feel.

My set, which you can download, appears within this website at Categories of Emotions and Feelings.  Let me summarize the main “factors” — Positive and Negative – within this taxonomy.

Within each of these factors exist more discrete emotions.  For instance, DESIRE includes feeling curious, interested, eager, and envious to name a few.  SADNESS includes feeling disappointed, sad, unfulfilled, and lonely to name a few.

The point here is that once you’ve come to believe that emotions are important in creating the behavior you want, you will need to investigate and choose specific emotions to include in your strategies.  I hope I’ve given you some ideas for your particular application.

If you want to discuss this more, please post a comment or contact me at pconner@experiemotive.com or 314-752-0564.  I’d be interested to hear just how you want your targets to feel.

About buying motives, I often say to marketers: “Emotions strongly, if not exclusively, drive people’s behavior – they tell us what to do, including what to buy.”

In response, I often hear something like this:  “Oh, no!  People are very rational when they buy our product.  Emotions really don’t apply.”

This response represents the most important challenge I face when marketing experiEmotive® analytics.  That’s why I am addressing it as my first blog topic.

Although I admit that this brand emotion cartoon is very funny, the woman who thinks that tile grout is not emotional has it all wrong.

The fact is that ALL products are emotional – even tile grout!.  By this I mean that when people consider buying a product or not, their emotions ARE involved.  And because emotions ARE involved, they should be studied.

What do I mean when I say that emotions are INVOLVED in consumer buying?  At the very least, I mean that the physiological (or biological, or neurological, or insert any other “body process” synonym) processes of emotion are “consulted” for their input.  When someone considers purchasing a product, thinking about this triggers neurochemical activity in the “thinking” areas of the brain (involving various areas of the cortex), which automatically triggers activity in the “feeling” areas of the brain (involving a wide variety of areas also within the cortex, but mostly deeper within the brain often collectively referred to as the limbic system).  (Sometimes when we encounter a product, thinking is even bypassed and the feeling system kicks in without much, if any, thinking!)

But this involvement is somewhat understated.  I tend to believe (along with many neuroscientists and psychologists who are much smarter about this than me) that emotions are not only INVOLVED in our decision-making, they are virtually REQUIRED.  Emotions represent the mechanism by which VALUE is given to our ‘reasoned’ behavioral options.  They are the force, the energy, the spark that is necessary for our thoughts to become our consumer decisions and behavior.

Two of my favorite quotes that support this come from Nico Frijda (and colleagues) and from John O’Shaughnessy and Nicholas Jackson O’Shaughnessy.

Frijda is a psychologist well-known for his study of emotion.  In the article ‘The Influence of Emotions on Beliefs’ (Frijda, Manstead, and Bem in Emotions and Beliefs: How Feelings Influence Thoughts, 2000) they say, “Although beliefs may guide our actions, they are not sufficient to initiate action.  …Emotions are prime candidates for turning a thinking being into an actor.”

O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy wrote The Marketing Power of Emotion (2003), a compelling book about emotional marketing.  In this book they say, “Emotion is not an aberrant element when making buying decisions, but a necessary condition if decisions are not to be continually postponed.” A NECESSARY condition – quite compelling, don’t you think?

Even more compelling support comes from neuroscientists who study the physiological processes of decision-making.  One of the foremost neuroscientists on this subject is Antonio Damasio.  In his book, The Feeling of What Happens (1999), Damasio says, “These findings suggest that selective reduction of emotion is at least as prejudicial for rationality as excessive emotion.  It certainly does not seem true that reason stands to gain from operating without the leverage of emotion. …Emotion and the biological machinery underlying it are the obligate accompaniment of behavior, conscious or not.”

More recent and stronger support for emotions’ “neurological rule” comes from Jonah Lehrer in How We Decide (2009).  After extensive study of the most recent neuroscience research, Lehrer boldly states, “There’s only one problem with this assumption of human rationality: it’s wrong.  …Whenever someone makes a decision, the brain is awash in feeling, driven by its inexplicable passions.  Even when a person tries to be reasonable and restrained, these emotional impulses secretly influence judgment.”

So this is a start.  If you think that emotion is not involved with your product, add the neuroscientific evidence to your thinking.  Chances are you’ll come away with a different feeling.  Your product IS emotional!

[Future blogs will discuss more about how emotion impacts consumer buying decisions and behavior as well as ways marketers can effectively assess emotions' impact.]