Neurophysiological Correlates of Consumer Responses: A PRISMA-Based Meta-Analysis

Öz

Aim: Consumer neuroscience increasingly integrates neurophysiological measurement with self-report methods, yet a comprehensive quantitative synthesis across different neurophysiological modalities within a common meta-analytic framework has remained limited. This meta-analysis systematically evaluates the association between EEG, eye-tracking, galvanic skin response (GSR), and multimodal measures and consumer outcomes (purchase intention, brand attitude, advertisement evaluation, and preference) reported in empirical studies published between 2010 and 2024. Materials and Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 3,109 records were screened, resulting in 22 primary studies included in the final analysis. Effect sizes were synthesized in two independent pools (standardized mean differences and Fisher z-transformed correlations) using random-effects models (REML with Knapp-Hartung adjustment). Results: The pooled effect sizes were moderate and statistically significant (SMD: d = 0.47, 95% CI [0.18, 0.75]; correlation: r ≈ 0.33, 95% CI [0.07, 0.61]), with high heterogeneity observed across studies (I² = 77.3%-84.1%). None of the tested moderators reached statistical significance after FDR correction. Publication bias was detected in the SMD pool, but corrected estimates remained significant. Conclusion: Neurophysiological measures provide meaningful but context-dependent insights into consumer behavior, functioning as complementary rather than universal predictors whose explanatory value varies depending on stimulus characteristics, measurement modality, and experimental design.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• consumer neuroscience
• meta-analysis
• EEG
• eye-tracking
• GSR

Tüketici Tepkilerinin Nörofizyolojik Korelatları: PRISMA Temelli Bir Meta-Analiz

Öz

Aim: Consumer neuroscience increasingly integrates neurophysiological measurement with self-report methods, yet a comprehensive quantitative synthesis across different neurophysiological modalities within a common meta-analytic framework has remained limited. This meta-analysis systematically evaluates the association between EEG, eye-tracking, galvanic skin response (GSR), and multimodal measures and consumer outcomes (purchase intention, brand attitude, advertisement evaluation, and preference) reported in empirical studies published between 2010 and 2024. Materials and Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, 3,109 records were screened, resulting in 22 primary studies included in the final analysis. Effect sizes were synthesized in two independent pools (standardized mean differences and Fisher z-transformed correlations) using random-effects models (REML with Knapp-Hartung adjustment). Results: The pooled effect sizes were moderate and statistically significant (SMD: d = 0.47, 95% CI [0.18, 0.75]; correlation: r ≈ 0.33, 95% CI [0.07, 0.61]), with high heterogeneity observed across studies (I² = 77.3%-84.1%). None of the tested moderators reached statistical significance after FDR correction. Publication bias was detected in the SMD pool, but corrected estimates remained significant. Conclusion: Neurophysiological measures provide meaningful but context-dependent insights into consumer behavior, functioning as complementary rather than universal predictors whose explanatory value varies depending on stimulus characteristics, measurement modality, and experimental design.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• tüketici nörobilimi
• meta-analiz
• elektroensefalografi
• göz izleme
• galvanik deri yanıtı

Kaynakça

1. 1. Damasio AR. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. G.P. Putnam’s Sons; 1994.
2. 2. Kahneman D. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review. 2003;93(5):1449-1475. doi:https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392
3. 3. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.
4. 4. Bechara A, Damasio H, Tranel D, Damasio AR. Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science. 1997;275(5304):1293-1295. doi:https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5304.1293
5. 5. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD. Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review. 1977;84(3):231-259. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
6. 6. Zaltman G. How Customers Think: Essential Insights into the Mind of the Market. Harvard Business School Press; 2003.
7. 7. Plassmann H, Venkatraman V, Huettel S, Yoon C. Consumer neuroscience: Applications, challenges, and possible solutions. Journal of Marketing Research. 2015;52(4):427-435. doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0048
8. 8. Smidts A, Hsu M, Sanfey AG, Boksem MAS, Ebstein RB, Huettel SA, et al. Advancing consumer neuroscience. Marketing Letters. 2014;25(3):257-267. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-014-9306-1

9. 9. Alsharif AH, Salleh NZM, Baharun R. Neuromarketing research in the last five years: A bibliometric analysis. Cogent Business & Management. 2021;8(1):1978620. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1978620
10. 10. Kalaganis FP, Georgiadis K, Oikonomou VP, Laskaris NA, Nikolopoulos S, Kompatsiaris I. Unlocking the subconscious consumer bias: A survey on the past, present, and future of hybrid EEG schemes in neuromarketing. Frontiers in Neuroergonomics. 2021;2:672982. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnrgo.2021.672982
11. 11. Davidson RJ. Anterior cerebral asymmetry and the nature of emotion. Brain and Cognition. 1992;20(1):125-151. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2626(92)90065-T
12. 12. Harmon-Jones E, Gable PA. On the role of asymmetric frontal cortical activity in approach and withdrawal motivation: An updated review of the evidence. Psychophysiology. 2018;55(1):e12879. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12879
13. 13. Boksem MAS, Smidts A. Brain responses to movie trailers predict individual preferences for movies and their population-wide commercial success. Journal of Marketing Research. 2015;52(4):482-492. doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0572
14. 14. Wedel M, Pieters R. Eye tracking for visual marketing. Foundations and Trends in Marketing. 2008;1(4):231-320. doi:https://doi.org/10.1561/1700000011
15. 15. Boucsein W. Electrodermal Activity (2nd ed.). Springer; 2012. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-1126-0
16. 16. Dawson ME, Schell AM, Filion DL. The electrodermal system. In: Cacioppo JT, Tassinary LG, Berntson GG, editors. Handbook of Psychophysiology (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press; 2017. p. 217-243. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781107415782.010
17. 17. Venkatraman V, Dimoka A, Pavlou PA, Vo K, Hampton W, Bollinger B, et al. Predicting advertising success beyond traditional measures: New insights from neurophysiological methods and market response modeling. Journal of Marketing Research. 2015;52(4):436-452. doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0593
18. 18. Karmarkar UR, Plassmann H. Consumer neuroscience: Past, present, and future. Organizational Research Methods. 2019;22(1):174-195. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117730598
19. 19. Ariely D, Berns GS. Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2010;11(4):284-292. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2795
20. 20. Lim WM. Demystifying neuromarketing. Journal of Business Research. 2018;91:205-220. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.036
21. 21. Hsu M. Neuromarketing: Inside the mind of the consumer. California Management Review. 2017;59(4):5-22. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617720208
22. 22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
23. 23. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2009. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
24. 24. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software. 2010;36(3):1-48. doi:https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
25. 25. Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Statistics in Medicine. 2003;22(17):2693-2710. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1482
26. 26. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557-560. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
27. 27. Baujat B, Mahé C, Pignon JP, Hill C. A graphical method for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analyses: Application to a meta-analysis of 65 trials. Statistics in Medicine. 2002;21(18):2641-2652. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1221
28. 28. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2008;61(10):991-996. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
29. 29. Egger M, Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629-634. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
30. 30. Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):455-463. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341X.2000.00455.x
31. 31. Bender R, Lange S. Adjusting for multiple testing—when and how? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2001;54(4):343-349. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00314-0
32. 32. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). 1995;57(1):289-300. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
33. 33. Ohme R, Reykowska D, Wiener D, Choromanska A. Application of frontal EEG asymmetry to advertising research. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2010;31(5):785-793. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2010.03.008
34. 34. Vecchiato G, Astolfi L, De Vico Fallani F, Toppi J, Aloise F, Bez F, et al. On the use of EEG or MEG brain imaging tools in neuromarketing research. Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing. 2011;49(5):595-606. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-011-0747-x
35. 35. Pozharliev R, Verbeke WJMI, Van Strien JW, Bagozzi RP. Merely being with you increases my attention to luxury products: Using EEG to understand consumers’ emotional experience with luxury branded products. Journal of Marketing Research. 2015;52(4):546-558. doi:https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0560
36. 36. Ramsøy TZ, Skov M, Christensen MK, Stahlhut C. Frontal brain asymmetry and willingness to pay. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2018;12:138. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00138
37. 37. Bialkova S, van Trijp H. What determines consumer attention to nutrition labels? Food Quality and Preference. 2010;21(8):1042-1051. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.001
38. 38. Atalay AS, Bodur HO, Rasolofoarison D. Shining in the center: Central gaze cascade effect on product choice. Journal of Consumer Research. 2012;39(4):848-866. doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/665984
39. 39. Kim N, Lee H. Assessing consumer attention and arousal using eye-tracking technology in virtual retail environment. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:665658. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.665658
40. 40. Ohira H, Hirao N. Analysis of skin conductance response during evaluation of preferences for cosmetic products. Frontiers in Psychology. 2015;6:103. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00103
41. 41. Bettiga D, Lamberti L, Noci G. Do mind and body agree? Unconscious versus conscious arousal in product attitude formation. Journal of Business Research. 2017;75:108-117. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.02.008
42. 42. Smith R, Kelly B, Yeatman H, Johnstone S, Baur L, King L, et al. Skin conductance responses indicate children are physiologically aroused by their favourite branded food and drink products. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019;16(17):3014. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16173014
43. 43. Ramsøy TZ, Michael N, Michael I. A consumer neuroscience study of conscious and subconscious destination preference. Scientific Reports. 2019;9(1):15102. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-51567-1
44. 44. Bettiga D, Bianchi AM, Lamberti L, Noci G. Consumers emotional responses to functional and hedonic products: A neuroscience research. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:559779. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.559779
45. 45. Garcia-Madariaga J, Moya I, Recuero N, Blasco MF. Revealing unconscious consumer reactions to advertisements that include visual metaphors: A neurophysiological experiment. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:760. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00760
46. 46. Bettiga D, Noci G. The influence of television content on advertisement: A neurophysiological study. Frontiers in Psychology. 2024;15:1266906. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1266906
47. 47. Garczarek-Bąk U, Disterheft A. EEG frontal asymmetry predicts product purchase differently for national brands and private labels. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics. 2018;11(3):182-195. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/npe0000094
48. 48. Wang X, Huang Y, Ma Q. The neural mechanism of consumer preference: EEG evidence. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2022;16:901123. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2022.901123
49. 49. Bosshard SS, Bourke JD, Kunaharan S, Koller M, Walla P. Established liked versus disliked brands: Brain activity, implicit associations and explicit responses. Cogent Psychology. 2016;3(1):1176691. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2016.1176691
50. 50. Diao L, Li W, Zhang W, Ma Q, Jin J. Electroencephalographic theta-band oscillatory dynamics represent attentional bias to subjective preferences in value-based decisions. Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 2021;14:149-158. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S292172
51. 51. Pozharliev R, Rossi D, De Angelis M. Consumers’ self-reported and brain responses to advertising post on Instagram: The effect of number of followers and argument quality. European Journal of Marketing. 2022;56(3):922-948. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-09-2020-0719
52. 52. Di Gruttola F, Orsenigo G, Malizia AP, Lauro LJR, Piarulli A, Laurino M, et al. How the asymmetry of frontal alpha activity relates to the increase of advertising message persuasion. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2021;14:577978. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2020.577978
53. 53. Castiblanco Jimenez IA, Gomez Acevedo JS, Olivetti EC, Marcolin F, Ulrich L, Moos S, et al. User engagement comparison between advergames and traditional advertising using EEG: Does the user’s engagement influence purchase intention? Electronics. 2022;12(1):122. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12010122
54. 54. Moriuchi E. Cultural aspect of informational and normative influences on purchasing intentions: An eye-tracking approach. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. 2021;29(4):498-517. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/10696679.2021.1877155