(PDF) Unconscious Mental Processes in Consumer Choice: Toward a New Model of Consumer Behavior

www.palgrave-journals.com/bm/

Correspondence:

Neale Martin

Management & Entrepreneurship

Department, 1000 Chastain Rd.,

Kennesaw, Georgia 30144-5591,

USA.

O r i g i n a l A r t i c l e

U n c o n s c i o u s m e n t a l p r o c e s s e s i n

consumer choice: Toward a new

model of consumer behavior

Received (in revised form): 15 th January 2011

Neale Martin

is a Professor of Innovation Management at the Coles College of Business at Kennesaw State University in Atlanta,

Georgia, and CEO of Sublime Behavior Marketing, a consulting and education ﬁ rm. His book Habit: The 95 % of

Behavior Marketers Ignore updates the principles of marketing in light of research from cognitive psychology and

neuroscience that suggest that most of human behavior is under the sway of unconscious habits. As a speaker,

trainer and consultant, Martin has been helping companies adjust their strategic marketing in the face of rapid change

since 1995.

Kyle Morich

is the co-founder and Vice President of Sublime Behavior Marketing and has worked as the primary editor and

researcher for Neale Martin ’ s book Habit: The 95 % of Behavior Marketers Ignore . Morich graduated from the Goizueta

Business School at Emory University in Atlanta, and before founding Sublime spent several years as a management

consultant specializing in product segmentation analysis and marketing organization optimization for clients in the

consumer packaged goods industry. He is also an amateur triathlete, and completed his ﬁ rst Half-Ironman distance race

in the fall of 2010.

ABSTRACT Theories of consumer behavior often posit that consumers are rational

agents making conscious decisions about the branded products and services they

purchase and use. It is assumed that consumer decisions are preceded by an explicit

formation of attitudes and needs that determine the brand of choice. However,

research from the domain of automaticity proposes that the majority, if not all,

of human behavior either begins as an unconscious process or occurs completely

outside of conscious awareness. These automatic processes, including behavioral

mimicry, trait and stereotype activation, and nonconscious goal pursuit, also impact

attitudes, beliefs and goals without engaging consumers ’ conscious minds. Habits, a

special type of automaticity, are behaviors completely controlled by contextual stimuli;

habits occur outside of goals and intentions. In light of the evidence for the primacy

of unconscious behavior, this article proposes a new model of consumer behavior that

dynamically incorporates both conscious and unconscious mental processes to

represent how consumers make brand decisions in the context of their daily lives.

Journal of Brand Management advance online publication, 18 March 2011;

doi: 10.1057/bm.2011.10

Keywords: consumer behavior ; habits ; unconscious behavior ; marketing ; branding ;

consumer behavior model

Martin and Morich

2

in modeling a wide variety of complex

systems from the weather to cotton prices

( Lorenz, 1993 ). We argue that the prepon-

derance of marketing concepts, theories of

consumer behavior and models of both

have been profoundly shaped by the

assumption of a conscious consumer built

into Howard and Sheth’s (1969) original

work. This assumption was perceived as the

normative interpretation of the human

condition until countervailing research

from the past 10 to 15 years began to reveal

that human behavior often occurs outside

conscious awareness and intent.

In the ﬁ rst part of this article, we will

review the implications of this primal

assumption on the ﬁ eld of marketing. In

the next section, we will review research

from numerous disciplines that conclusively

demonstrates the fallacy that consumers

are primarily rational agents making con-

scious decisions. The subsequent section

proposes a new model of consumer behavior

that dynamically incorporates both con-

scious and unconscious mental processes

in both purchase and use.

The implications of the assumption

of the rational, cognitive consumer

The pervasiveness of Howard and Sheth ’ s

original assumption of a rational consumer

can be seen in current textbooks on

marketing and consumer behavior:

The consumer decision making process . When

buying products, consumers generally follow

the consumer decision-making process:

(1) need recognition, (2) information search,

(3) evaluation of alternatives, (4) purchase, and

(5) postpurchase behavior. ( Lamb et al , 2010 )

We deﬁ ne consumer behavior as the

behavior that consumers display in searching

for, purchasing, using, evaluating, and

disposing of products and services that they

expect will satisfy their needs. ( Schiffman

and Kanuk, 2009 )

A CONSCIOUS CONSUMER?

Chaos theory and academic inertia

First, we assume that buying behavior

is rational in the sense that it is within

the buyer ’ s ‘ bounded rationality; ’ that is,

his behavior is rational within the limits

of his cognitive and learning capacities

and within the constraint of limited

information. ( Howard and Sheth , A Theory

of Buyer Behavior (1969))

This initial assumption posited by John

Howard and Jagdish Sheth in their seminal

work A Theory of Buyer Behavior has shaped

and inﬂ uenced the theoretical and practical

approach to consumer behavior for 40

years. The idea that consumers are rational

agents making conscious decisions has

formed the foundations of multiple studies

of consumer behavior ( Bargh, 2002 ), yet

recent research from across multiple disci-

plines clearly demonstrates that most human

behavior is not cognitively motivated and

is instead the result of unconscious mental

processes ( Bargh and Chartrand, 1999 ;

Dijksterhuis et al , 2005 ; Dijksterhuis and

Nordgren, 2006 ; Bargh and Morsella, 2009 ;

Wood and Neal, 2009 ; Dijksterhuis et al ,

in press ). Howard and Sheth ’ s assumption

of rational behavior can be seen as a logical

extension of ‘ Homo economicus ’ , a term

widely used in economics for more than a

century to describe the nature of humans

as rational actors narrowly focused on their

own self-interest ( Persky, 1995 ).

A core principle of chaos theory is sen-

sitive dependence on initial conditions

( Gleick, 1987 ). Scientists discovered that

very small differences in the starting point

of a process with numerous iterations create

signiﬁ cant and unpredictable results. The

key insight of chaos theory is that the con-

ditions at the beginning of a complex

process powerfully determine the future

state of the system. Often referred to as the

butterﬂ y effect, this process has been found

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

3

The assumption that ‘ need recognition ’ is

the beginning of consumer behavior is cer-

tainly logical. This logic appears to be the

way we experience the world. A consumer

becomes aware of a need, and then starts

looking around for ways to fulﬁ ll that need.

He gets thirsty, goes to the fridge and looks

at the cans of soda, jugs of water, containers

of juice and bottles of beer and decides

which product would best slake his thirst.

Marketers, in turn, create organizational

structures to match this perceived reality.

Market research affects what features and

beneﬁ ts consumers are seeking in their bev-

erage choices by surveying the preferences

of thousands of people each year. Product

Development works tirelessly to create the

attributes that market research identiﬁ es

as critical to consumers, and then tests these

concepts out on subjects. Once a con-

vincing majority of test subjects indicate a

strong willingness to purchase, the new

product is introduced to the marketplace

(under ideal situations anyway). Then

Advertising spends millions of dollars clev-

erly communicating those attributes in an

attempt to make consumers aware of their

unmet needs, inﬂ uence their purchase deci-

sions and induce trial of the new product.

A logical process ﬂ ow is built around a

logical understanding of how the consumer

behaves . This organizational design around

a rigid understanding of consumer behavior

was not without precedent. Another long-

standing decision-making framework, the

Hierarchy of Effects ( ‘ Attention, Interest,

Desire and Action ’ ), was designed less as a

concrete map of consumer behavior but as

a means to standardize the tactics of sales-

people. From Frederick Sheldon, author of

the Art of Selling : ‘ … the customer … is

persuaded to make a purchase because you

follow the right method. You do not try

to make him take action before you have

stimulated his desire; and you do not try

to create desire until you have secured his

interest ’ (see Barry, 1987 ).

But what if consumer behavior is not

the result of a consciously perceived need?

What if the behavior of going to the fridge

and grabbing a cold bottle of beer was a

completely unconscious process, driven by

automatic responses to stimulus cues within

the environmental context? What if rational

thought and perception of a ‘ satisﬁ ed need ’

only showed up later in a process that psy-

chologists refer to as post hoc rationalization?

Signiﬁ cant research across multiple disci-

plines indicates that this scenario – the

consumer is not consciously aware of his

actions – is the more likely case.

This counterintuitive reality in which

unconscious processes drive the majority of

daily behavior calls into question the very

foundation of our traditional marketing

approach. Surveying consumers assumes

that they can consciously identify why they

choose a particular beverage, they are aware

of the attributes and the critical thresholds

for those attributes, and even remember

what they chose. If the information uncov-

ered by market research is unreliable, then

product developers may create the wrong

product. And all the money spent on adver-

tising is falling on deaf ears and blind eyes

of unconscious consumers engrained in

their habitual shopping behaviors.

Post-purchase evaluation must also be

questioned. Satisfaction of needs and wants

is often used as the very deﬁ nition of mar-

keting ( Chartered Institute of Marketing,

2010 ). The current assumption is that the

consumer considers her options, makes a

conscious choice and then evaluates whether

this choice resulted in a satisfactory out-

come. But if the purchase or usage behavior

was not driven by conscious intent, then

how useful is measuring satisfaction?

Marketers deﬁ ne satisfaction in terms of

a conﬁ rmation or disconﬁ rmation of expec-

tations ( Fornell, 1996 ). If a product or

service matches expectations, it results in

satisfaction. A failure to meet expectations

results in dissatisfaction; and if a product

Martin and Morich

4

UNDERSTANDING UNCONSCIOUS

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Fearing the unknown

Discussions of the unconscious motivations

and behaviors of consumers tend to invoke

Vance Packards 1957 book The Hidden Per-

suaders and the purported success of James

Vicary ’ s subliminal advertising carried out

in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Vicary stated that

he had ﬂ ashed words on the movie screen

at 1 / 3000 of second ( ‘ Drink Coca Cola ’ ,

and ‘ Hungry? Eat Popcorn ’ ), and the sales

of soda increased by 57.8 and 18.1 per cent,

respectively. Although this experiment was

later found to be a hoax and attempts to

replicate the experiment showed little to

no impact of subliminal messages, the

lasting effect has been an inherent distrust

of consumer research that deals with the

unconscious mind ( Bargh, 2002 ). It is not

uncommon today to see pejorative references

to the study of unconscious consumer

behavior, such as ‘ brandwashing ’ , within

major publications such as the New York

Times (for example, Singer, 2010 ).

Unconscious behavior associates fre-

quently with studies of our brain ’ s primitive

stimulus – response reactions, such as condi-

tioning a subject to blink automatically to

a tone that had been previously paired with

a puff-of-air to the eye ( Woodruff-Pak and

Steinmetz, 2000 ). Other popular descrip-

tions of the brain ’ s unconscious processes

include ‘ emotional ’ ( LeDoux, 1996 ) and

‘ irrational ’ ( Ariely, 2008 ) terms that mini-

mize the importance, richness and com-

plexity of mental processes that are not

available to unconscious inspection. The

popular portrayal of the unconscious as

illogical and unable to handle ﬂ exible, com-

plex decision making, combined with the

regular assertion that attempts to inﬂ uence

these nonconcious processes is manipula-

tive and immoral, has hindered the expan-

sion of unconscious research into commercial,

consumer-centered applications. As such,

exceeds expectation, a consumer might be

very satisﬁ ed. Achieving customer satisfac-

tion is believed important to getting repeat

purchase and loyalty ( Fornell, 2007 ). How-

ever, after years of prioritizing customer

satisfaction, there is little evidence to sup-

port the linkage between satisfaction and

future behavior ( Neal, 1999 ).

The only measure of satisfaction that

seems to predict repurchase is ‘ delight ’ , a

mercurial measure at best. If delight results

from exceeding expectations, consumers

likely revise their expectations in light of

this feedback, making the future chance

of failing to meet expectations more and

more certain. But because ‘ delight ’ inﬂ u-

ences repurchase positively, many compa-

nies have ‘ delighting customers ’ as part of

their advertising, not realizing that elevating

customer expectation makes delight that

much more difﬁ cult to achieve.

Once again, the realization that the

consumer ’ s behavior is not the result of

conscious intention explains much of satis-

faction ’ s shortcomings. If a particular con-

sumer behavior was unconscious, there was

no preliminary setting of expectations to

compare against product performance.

The ﬂ awed assumption of ever-conscious

decision making is not limited to marketers;

consumers assume the same thing as well.

Researchers asking consumers about their

preferences, intentions to purchase and

satisfaction will receive answers. Unfortu-

nately, for these researchers, the bulk of

these responses represent the post hoc ration-

alization of the consumer, an attempt to

rationally explain behavior that was largely

unconscious ( Dijksterhuis et al , in press ).

Need recognition, search, evaluation and

satisfaction are all natural extensions of the

idea that consumers are rational agents

making conscious decisions to purchase and

use products. The inﬂ uences of these con-

cepts are pervasive through every aspect of

marketing and are implicated in some of

marketing ’ s most persistent shortcomings.

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

5

the majority of consumer research remains

focused on consciously motivated and

deliberately executed purchase and usage

decisions ( Bargh, 2002 ).

In reality, consciousness is, in evolu-

tionary terms, notably late to the informa-

tion-processing party. For millions of years,

unconscious systems controlled intelligent

life ( Steen, 2007 ). Subjective experience

from within a conscious system prevents us

from truly imaging an ‘ unconscious life ’ ,

yet each day trillions of creatures, including

humans, perform a wide range of behaviors

unconsciously ( Bargh and Morsella, 2009 ).

Deﬁ ning consciousness itself proves to be

a difﬁ cult task, with philosophers and neu-

roscientists alike struggling to understand

its limits, qualities and the extent of its con-

trol over our actions ( Dennett, 1991 ; Crick

and Koch, 1998 ). Although arguments on

the nature of consciousness are valuable, for

the purposes of this article we agree with

Steen’s (2007) general deﬁ nition of con-

sciousness as a combination of attention,

perception, memory and, most importantly,

awareness.

As mentioned in the introduction, the

cognitive bias of consumer research begins

with need recognition as the starting point

for consumer behavior. Continuing through

the purchase process, market researchers

then assume that before people buy, choose

or decide on a product or service, they

engage in conscious information processing

( Chaiken, 1980 ; Petty et al , 1983 ). Informa-

tion processing then may lead to attitude

formation, and those attitudes, in turn, to

decisions. Although useful, the assumption

of information processing is also dangerous.

Painting a picture of a conscious shopper

basing her decisions on the pros and cons

of a product and service ( Dijksterhuis et al ,

2005 ) removes or dramatically minimizes the

possibility of variables outside of conscious

awareness inﬂ uencing or motivating behavior.

Minimizing the inﬂ uence of unconscious

behavior as a factor in consumer decision

making ignores millions of years of brain

evolution ( Steen, 2007 ). Our human ances-

tors used their conscious minds to hunt,

whereas their unconscious minds moni-

tored the surroundings for danger and

predators. The same dual-brain systems

exist today, only now we use our conscious

mind to talk on the phone, whereas our

unconscious minds drive our two-ton auto-

mobiles down crowded highways ( Martin,

2007 ). As much as unconscious behavior

may imply a lack of control or, to some, a

denial of free will, we could not survive

without it.

Over the past three decades, researchers

across multiple disciplines have greatly

improved our understanding of uncon-

scious behavior, yet consumer research

continues to rely on models that support

consciously made, deliberate choices and

decisions. The integration of unconscious

research into models of the consumer deci-

sion-making process is long overdue.

Applying automaticity to consumer

behavior

Unconscious behavior, by deﬁ nition, is not

available to direct conscious introspection.

The study of automaticity , or the automatic

processes executed by the unconscious

mind, focuses on how environmental

features (A) trigger automatic processes (B)

that result in some outcome (C) ( Figure 1 ).

According to Bargh (1994) , automatic

behavior is deﬁ ned by four components: a

lack of awareness, unintentionally initiated,

efﬁ cient and effortless, and out of personal

control. However, not all four need to be

present for a process to be automatic, and

they rarely are. An accomplished guitar

player does not need to consciously mon-

itor his strumming; the play is automatic

(marked by efﬁ ciency). He is, however,

certainly aware that he is playing the guitar,

started playing on purpose and could stop

at any time.

Martin and Morich

6

We will introduce research from two

broad areas of automaticity that directly

affect the study of consumer behavior. We

will review some of the automatic processes

that unconsciously impact the attitudes,

beliefs and goals that lead to consumer

outcomes. We will also discuss habits, a

certain type of automaticity that generates

unconscious behaviors outside of goals and

intentions.

Automatic processes that impact

attitudes, beliefs and goals

New product introductions fail at a spec-

tacular rate of 80 per cent ( Cooper, 2001 ),

whereas the best companies manage to get

their success rates somewhere around 50

per cent. Understanding the factors that

drive consumer purchase decisions is the

Holy Grail for marketers, brand managers

and product designers. A blueprint of a

consumer ’ s attitudes, beliefs and goals

would provide endless opportunities to

create the perfect products and services

and deliver billions of dollars in annual

revenue.

Yet the tools market researchers prima-

rily deploy, such as surveys, focus groups

and laboratory tests, rely on consumers to

consciously access and explain their opin-

ions and needs. Some researchers are begin-

ning to incorporate observation techniques

and deep interviewing to access insights

beyond the conscious level. And as automa-

ticity research has demonstrated, consumers

often do not have access to the internal

mechanisms that drive their decisions.

The average grocery store is a building

with nearly 50 000 square feet of space and

over 45 000 SKUs on its shelves (see the

Food Marketing Institute, 2008 ). A fully

conscious consumer, rationally assessing her

needs before making a decision (comparing

prices, evaluating food labels, considering

alternatives and so on), would be quickly

overwhelmed by sensory overload and cog-

nitive limitations. Yet in an average shop-

ping trip, a mom needs just 25 min to

identify and purchase the 30 or so items

she needs. All but a few of these items have

likely been purchased with very little

awareness into the processes that drove her

decisions. These choices ‘ are introspectively

blank ’ ( Dijksterhuis et al , 2005 ). This cog-

nitive efﬁ ciency occurs over time as behav-

iors are repeated in stable contexts.

Bargh (1994) describes three categoriza-

tions for lack of awareness. First, the person

is unaware of the stimulus that drove the

process. Second, the person does not know

how the stimulus is interpreted and catego-

rized. Third, the person is unaware of what

speciﬁ cally inﬂ uenced his judgments and

feelings and mistakenly applies some other

salient cause that she is aware of. The

problem with consumer research is that

consumers often fall into this third category.

A shopper will rarely indicate that she

does not know why she purchased a

certain brand of detergent or chose apples

instead of oranges. She will more likely

come up with a plausible reason that may

have had no actual impact on her purchase

decision.

Environmental

Features (A)

Automatic

Processes (B) Outcome (C)

•Social situations

•Events

•Other people

•Objects

•Places

•Attitude activation

•Evaluation & emotion

•Behavioral mimicry

•Trait & stereotype activation

•Nonconscious goal pursuit

•Behavior

•Motivation

•Judgments

•Decisions

•Emotions

Figure 1 : The diagram of automatic behavior ( Chartrand, 2005 ).

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

7

Three particular forms of automaticity –

behavioral mimicry, trait and stereotype

activation, and nonconscious goal pursuit

– indicate that consumer attitudes, beliefs

and goals can be modiﬁ ed or changed

through environmental features and other

factors outside conscious control.

Behavioral mimicry

Laboratory experiments, PET scans and

fMRI have found evidence for ‘ mirror

neurons ’ , groups of neurons that become

active when we perceive the behavior of

another. These neurons activate the same

areas of the premotor cortex that are active

when we perform the behaviors ourselves

( Fadiga et al , 1995 ; Decety and Grezes,

1999 ; Iacoboni et al , 1999 ).

As our behavior and our perception of

others ’ behavior co-occupy many of the

same brain regions, perception often affects

our behavior directly and unconsciously.

Called the ‘ Perception – Behavior Link ’ , we

very often do what we see ( Dijksterhuis and

Bargh, 2001 ). This link affects behaviors

ranging from basic motor movements to

elaborate intrapersonal behavior patterns

( Dijksterhuis et al , 2005 ). One form of imi-

tation is the automatic mimicry of the

observable behavior of others.

Mimicry occurs throughout almost every

facet of human interaction. We imitate

speech, facial expressions, postures and

gestures ( Chartrand et al , 2005 ). We mimic

the laughter of others ( Young and Frye,

1966 ), and although we deride the tackiness

of television shows that use ‘ canned

laughter ’ to punctuate their jokes, laugh

tracks induce more laughter from viewers

( Bush et al , 1989 ). The clich é on how

yawning is ‘ contagious ’ is actually true

( Provine, 1986 ), and we wince when we

see others in pain ( Bavelas et al

, 1987 ).

Infants two to three weeks old imitate

simple movements such as sticking out their

tongues and blinking their eyes ( Meltzoff

and Moore, 1977, 1983 ). In turn, mothers

mimic their babies, opening their mouths

as their babies begin to feed ( O ’ Toole and

Dubin, 1968 ). Mimicry also occurs between

complete strangers. Chartrand and Bargh

(1999) paired strangers in a discussion on

photographs and had confederates either

rub their face or shake their foot. Partici-

pants paired with face-rubbing confederates

rubbed their faces more and those paired

with foot-shaking confederates were more

likely to shake their feet. Participants were

unaware they were mimicking the other

person.

It appears that mimicry almost functions

as ‘ social glue ’ , binding groups together

and encouraging harmonious relationships

( Lakin et al , 2003 ). It increases our liking

and rapport in our relationships ( Chartrand

and Bargh, 1999 ), as well as how we treat

others. Van Baaren et al (2003) conducted

an experiment in a restaurant environment

to examine how verbal mimicry would

inﬂ uence the diners ’ tipping of their

waitresses. They discovered that when a

waitress mimicked her customers (by

repeating their orders word-for-word), she

received signiﬁ cantly higher tips than when

she did not (by paraphrasing their orders).

Mimicry also impacts consumption.

Johnston (2002) demonstrates that people

tend to eat more ice cream when someone

across the table from them eats a larger por-

tion of ice cream. But the more important

question for marketers is ‘ does mimicry

inﬂ uence a consumer ’ s preference for a

product? ’ In another consumption experi-

ment ( Tanner et al , 2008 ), participants had

two bowls of snacks in front of them (gold-

ﬁ sh crackers and animal crackers). A con-

federate across the table also had these two

snack options. When the confederate ate

more goldﬁ sh crackers, the subject tended

to eat more goldﬁ sh, and when the con-

federate ate more animal crackers, the sub-

ject consumed more animal crackers.

What ’ s more, the subjects indicated a higher

Martin and Morich

8

either ‘ politeness ’ or ‘ rudeness ’ , and were

then told to go speak with another exper-

imenter in another room. Upon ﬁ nding

the experimenter engaged in conversation

with another person, those primed with

‘ rudeness ’ were more likely to interrupt

his conversation than those primed with

‘ politeness ’ . In another study ( Zemack-

Rugar et al , 2007 ), participants were primed

with the emotions of ‘ guilt ’ and ‘ sadness ’

to determine whether the emotional con-

cepts could inﬂ uence shopping indulgence.

Despite feeling no affect on their moods,

participants primed with sadness words

were more likely to indulge in a personal

item (such as a CD / DVD player) than

those primed with guilty words (who

purchased more ‘ responsible ’ items, like

school supplies). In an attempt to impact

mental performance, Dijksterhuis and van

Knippenberg (1998) primed some of their

participants with the stereotypes of college

professors ( ‘ intelligent ’ words). With the

concept of ‘ intelligence ’ subliminally

primed, participants tended to perform

better on a set of questions taken from

Trivial Pursuit, answering more questions

correctly than those who had not been

primed. On the contrary, when the stere-

otype of soccer hooligans had been primed

( ‘ low intelligence ’ ), participants performed

worse.

Bargh et al ’ s experiments with elderly words

and Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg ’ s con-

trast of professors and soccer hooligans

show that an individual tends to assimilate

the behavior traits of a different group

when exposed to stereotypes of that group.

We actually see the opposite effect when

an individual is exposed to the traits of

another individual. In a recreation of the

Bargh experiment by Dijksterhuis et al

(1998) , individuals primed with a speciﬁ c

example of an elderly individual (in this

case, the Dutch Queen Mother) walked

faster than the control group. This behav-

ioral contrast occurs because our brains

preference for the cracker choice they mim-

icked, regardless of previous preferences.

The study of mimicry indicates that there

is a basal human instinct to copy the

behavior of those around us. This imitation

occurs unconsciously and can even sway

our opinions and preferences toward other

objects and people. Consumer research that

does not account for mimicry is missing a

fundamental process that drives consumer

attitudes and behavior.

Trait and stereotype activation

Perception of others ’ behavior often goes

beyond simple mimicry, activating traits

and stereotypes automatically. Referred

to by social psychologists as ‘ priming ’ , the

activation of these higher-level constructs can

lead to subsequent behaviors ( Dijksterhuis

et al , 2005 ).

The classic study of priming on behavior

( Bargh et al , 1996 ) exposed some partici-

pants to words related to older people, such

as gray, bingo or Florida . These prime words

were exposed subliminally, through the use

of a scrambled sentence language task.

Upon completion of the task, the partici-

pants were told the experiment was over

and instructed to exit the room and walk

to the elevator to leave the building.

Unknown to the participants, a confederate

observed the participants and timed how

long it took them to leave the ofﬁ ce and

reach the elevator. The data showed that

those primed with the words relating to

older people took longer to walk down

the hall than those who completed neutral

language tasks. The participants displayed

behavior that incorporated the elderly

stereotype.

Other priming examples show that this

subconscious activation of traits can have a

wide inﬂ uence on our behavior, emotion

and mental performance. In another exper-

iment by Bargh et al (1996) , participants

were primed with words that described

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

9

implicitly compare its traits with that of

the primed example. We tend to naturally

contrast ourselves with individuals we see

as different from us.

The researchers took this ﬁ nding one

step further to determine whether subjects

who identify themselves as part of a group

performed contrasting behavior when

primed with qualities of an ‘ opposite ’ group

( Spears et al , 2004 ). The researchers took a

group of Psychology majors and had them

take questionnaires that reinforced their

membership with their ‘ group ’ (f o r ex a m p l e ,

‘ Most of my courses are in the Psychology

Dept ’ .). They were then told that they

would be helping with a ‘ creativity test ’ ,

where the students had 7 min to color a

picture. They were also told that the

coloring exercise would need to be per-

formed twice for accuracy, and that another

‘ unrelated ’ piece of research from another

experiment would occur during the two

tests to give them a break (apparently, col-

lege students will believe almost anything

for course credit). The buffer experiment

was another scrambled sentence test. One

group of students was told fellow Psych

majors composed the sentences, whereas

the other was told that the sentences came

from Economics majors. Each sentence was

designed to prime the idea of neatness

( ‘ Margot sorts her old papers ’ ). Once

completed, the students took the second

coloring test.

What the researchers found is that behav-

ioral contrast can occur at the group level.

The psych students who received the sen-

tence test ‘ designed by Economics majors ’

were primed to perceive Economics majors

as neat. As a result, their second coloring

tests were signiﬁ cantly messier than the

students who got a sentence test built by a

Psych major (measured by how much

coloring occurs outside the lines).

Trait and stereotype priming has impli-

cations for consumer research. Advertisers

often use imagery and written words to

communicate to an audience. Consider

makeup commercials. Would a woman

watching television have a different reac-

tion to a Mabelline commercial featuring

multiple ‘ anonymous ’ pretty people rather

than a speciﬁ c celebrity example of beauty?

Perhaps the ‘ anonymous ’ approach would

create more feelings of beauty, whereas

comparison to the celebrity would create

the opposite effect ( ‘ I ’ m so ugly compared

to her … ’ ). Advertising and other mar-

keting methods can have powerful priming

effects, but little research has gone into how

the visual stimuli and written claims sub-

liminally inﬂ uence consumer behavior.

Nonconscious goal pursuit

Priming of certain traits and stereotypes has

provided numerous indications that the

manner in which a consumer performs a

behavior can be affected at an unconscious

level. The third realm of automaticity

research, nonconscious goal pursuit, pro-

vides evidence that goals can also be primed;

that is, the entire path from goal activation

and goal setting to goal completion occurs

without conscious introspection ( Dijksterhuis

et al , 2005 ).

The idea behind nonconscious goal

pursuit began with the observation that

once a goal has been activated, such as

driving to work, the process proceeds auto-

matically ( Bargh, 1990 ). It was argued that,

just like other mental constructs, goals

could be automatically activated by cues

from the environment. Chartrand and

Bargh (1996) tested this notion when they

attempted through unconscious means to

replicate the results of a previous study on

conscious goal activation ( Hamilton et al ,

1980 ). This previous study found that

people process information about others

they meet depending on whether they are

given the goal to form an impression, or

the goal to memorize the information.

Those given the goal to form an impression

Martin and Morich

10

is often associated with creativity and inno-

vation, that personality would subcon-

sciously prime the goal to be more creative.

Analysis found that even though none of

the participants had any idea they had been

primed with the Apple or IBM brand logos,

those who had been primed with the Apple

logo were more creative. Apple-primed

participants came up with more unusual use

ideas and those ideas were independently

judged to be more creative than those

primed with IBM. Brands have personalities,

and these personalities can have an uncon-

scious impact on consumer behavior.

Behavior can be unconsciously inﬂ u-

enced through the perception of others ’

behavior. We unconsciously assimilate the

traits and stereotypes of others as we per-

form behaviors. Even our goals can become

activated and pursued unconsciously. The

consumer behavior models that posit only

conscious information processing and the

deliberate formation of attitudes, beliefs and

intentions lead to purchase decisions do not

accommodate this reality.

Habits: Behavior on autopilot

Some researchers treat habits and automa-

ticity as the same, but habits distinguish

themselves as a speciﬁ c type of noncon-

scious behavior, which are activated by

environmental cues and occur outside of

goals and intentions. Habits form as the

brain learns through frequent repetitions to

associate particular behaviors (for example,

buying a brand of cereal) with internal (for

example, hunger) or external (for example,

brand name or logo) cues within a partic-

ular contextual situation (for example,

stocking up at the grocery store). In the

future, perception of the context will

directly activate the associated habitual

behavior in memory ( Wood and Neal,

2009 ).

Habits have roots in the neuroscience of

the mind. The brain relegates decisions to

actually remember information about a

person better than those asked to memo-

rize. Chartrand and Bargh also had par-

ticipants meet new people and measured

how well each participant remembered

information about these new acquaintances;

only their experiment contained an impor-

tant difference: the goal of forming an

impression and the goal of memorizing

information were presented subliminally,

through priming. The results were the same

as the previous study. The unconsciously

primed goals had achieved the same effect

as the conscious ones.

Nonconscious goal pursuit has been fur-

ther explored in a number of experiments.

Social goals, such as achievement and

cooperation, can be activated unconsciously

( Bargh et al , 2001 ). Environments also

automatically prime nonconscious goals.

In one study, participants led to believe

they would be visiting a library would

randomly begin whispering ( Aarts and

Dijksterhuis, 2003 ). Goals can be activated

by environmental cues outside conscious

awareness, and they can be pursued uncon-

sciously.

In a goal-priming experiment that is

perhaps the most applicable to consumers,

Fitzsimons et al (2008) set out to explore

what unconscious inﬂ uence, if any, brand

names could have on goal pursuit. Con-

sumer researchers have found evidence that

consumers instill brands with human-like

qualities ( Aaker, 1997 ), and that it has been

theorized that these ‘ brand personalities ’

can affect consumer behavior in the same

way that the personality traits of other

people impact attitudes and goal pursuit.

The experimenters subliminally primed

participants with either the Apple or IBM

logos. Participants were then given a two-

part test that contained a mindless text

reading exercise and an ‘ unusual uses ’ test

( ‘ how many ways can you use a paper

clip? ’ ) that measured creativity. The team

hypothesized that because the Apple brand

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

11

the basal ganglia to free resources up for

the conscious mind for more creative

purposes. Neurological research shows that,

as a behavior is repeated, goal-oriented

structures in the brain have reduced activity

and systems linked to stimulus control and

automatic responses increase in activity.

The brain physically changes while inter-

preting the environment following habit

formation ( Yin and Knowlton, 2006 ).

Human brains shift control of human

behavior to environmental contexts. After

forming a habit, goals, intentions, attitudes

and beliefs have no role in behavioral

execution.

Neal et al (2009) demonstrate this in a

clever experiment involving moviegoers

and popcorn. Participants in the study rated

a series of movie trailers. They were also

given a bag of popcorn; some of the pop-

corn was fresh, whereas other bags were

1 week old. Participants who rarely ate

popcorn, predictably, liked the stale pop-

corn less and ate much less than those who

had fresh popcorn. However, participants

who habitually ate popcorn at the movies

were different. Although they expressed a

disliking for the stale popcorn, they still

consumed just as much popcorn as those

with fresh bags. Liking and preference did

not inﬂ uence their consumption; rather,

the movie theater context triggered the

popcorn-eating behavior.

Repetition is a central feature of

consumer life. Consumers buy the same

brands across multiple shopping trips

( Seetharaman, 2004 ), spend the same

amount of money with each visit to a retail

store ( Vogel et al , 2008 ) and eat similar

foods for each meal every day ( Khare and

Inman, 2006 ). Quinn and Wood (2005)

showed that nearly 50 per cent of people ’ s

behavior is repeated almost daily and

usually in the exact same circumstances and

at the same time. And in most situations,

they are thinking about something else at

the time.

Automatic processes drive the bulk of

consumer behavior, and that the majority

of these automatic processes are habits. The

next section proposes a new model of con-

sumer behavior that incorporates habitual

behavior and other automaticity to reﬂ ect

the dynamics, and often unconsciousness,

of consumer behavior.

TOWARD A NEW MODEL OF

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR

Into the void

As existing consumer behavior models are

built on the foundation of a conscious agent

making rational decisions (Part 1), and we

now understand this assumption is highly

ﬂ awed (Part 2), a new model of consumer

behavior is necessary. This section proposes

just such a model. The underlying frame-

work of this model is that of a dynamic

consumer with a rich history of experience

who is utilizing conscious and unconscious

mental processes to accomplish a wide range

of goals.

Most market research focuses narrowly

to answer speciﬁ c questions and to reduce

complexity that might confound the study.

Integrating ﬁ ndings across studies is difﬁ cult

because there lacks a mechanism to dynam-

ically combine results. Consumer insight

organizations might hire an ethnographer

to study product usage at home, as well as

sponsor research delving into the elasticity

of product pricing, while simultaneously

testing the emotional engagement for a

new product advertisement. Each study

generates signiﬁ cant data with potential for

illuminating discoveries; however, the ﬁ nd-

ings must be considered in isolation because

there is not a single functional model of

consumer behavior that can tie these con-

cepts together.

Most prior research in consumer behavior

has been compromised by incorrect assump-

tions about the underpinnings of consumer

behavior. For decades, companies have

Martin and Morich

12

adding an unconscious element to existing

models is insufﬁ cient – consumer behavior

is not a rigid, linear process. The goal for

creating a new model of consumer behavior

is to provide both academics and practi-

tioners with a model that both ﬁ ts more

closely to actual behavior and the automatic

processes that drive it. The model provides

a practical method for advancing marketing

theory and practice, while also providing

consumer researchers with an integrated,

holistic view of the consumer.

Level of automation

The central problem with early conceptu-

alizations of consumer behavior is the pre-

supposition of conscious thought preceding

action. Instead of positing the decisive

‘ beginning of consumer behavior ’ as a

conscious evaluation of needs, the Martin-

Morich model begins with a new perspec-

tive on how the consumer behaves ‘ in the

wild ’ ( Figure 2 ). To accurately evaluate

relied on consumer insights generated from

surveys, customer interviews and focus

groups. Each of these techniques is inca-

pable of revealing the motivations behind

behaviors that were driven by unconscious

habits – consumers cannot consciously

access the part of the brain that initiated

the behavior ( Beilock and Carr, 2001 ;

Foerde et al , 2006 ). When a consumer is

asked a question about the purchase or use

of a product, she assumes that a rational

explanation exists for their behavior and

proceeds to make one up on the spot

( Bem, 1972 ; Neal et al , 2009 ). This biased

information process populates a company ’ s

models, strategies and basic understanding

of its customers and is often unquestioningly

the basis for new product development,

advertising campaigns and merchandising.

Traditional marketing models miss the

dynamic, organic process of human

behavior. Owing to the primacy and

potency of unconscious behavior, simply

Figure 2 : The Martin-Morich model of consumer behavior.

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

13

consumer behavior, we must ﬁ rst under-

stand how consciously or unconsciously the

consumer is interacting with the brand,

product, website or store – her level of

automaticity. The marketer should assess

the consumer ’ s level of automation along

a continuum of consciousness to uncon-

sciousness that is broken into the categories

of Autopilot, Pilot or Co-Pilot mode.

A consumer continuously operates in the

world with some degree of automaticity.

The more familiar the environment, the

more routine the behavior, the higher the

level of automaticity (autopilot) the con-

sumer uses to navigate the situation. In

contrast, the more novel the setting or

problem, the more the conscious mind

attends to the circumstances (pilot) ( Ouellette

and Wood, 1998 ). The conscious mind

rarely, if ever, initiates behavior. Rather,

conscious awareness is dependent on the

unconscious mind ’ s ability to interpret and

process its surroundings.

Autopilot

Autopilot mode represents habitual pur-

chase and usage behavior, and is the state

of being that enables a person to complete

tasks that are not linked to conscious intent,

needs or goals. As the conscious mind can

only think of one thing at a time, it ofﬂ oads

as much as possible to the unconscious

mind (Nilsen et al , 2008 ). Through repeat-

edly solving problems in stable situations,

the unconscious mind can master a wide

range of complex behaviors ( Bargh, 1989 ;

Ouellette and Wood, 1998 ).

Habit research from multiple disciplines

reveals that most behavior involves uncon-

scious responses to cues in the environ-

ment, meaning the vast majority of time

consumer behavior falls into the autopilot

category. This defeats marketing efforts that

assume or require conscious recall or

processing of information. For example,

marketers have tried for years to improve

upon the lackluster performance of new

product introductions, but failure persist-

ently hovers at around 80 – 85 per cent.

New products that test well in market

research often wither and fail in the mar-

ketplace ( Cooper, 2001 ). A testing envi-

ronment places subjects in a novel situation,

which engages the conscious mind to make

‘ rational ’ evaluations of the new product.

However, when the consumer is back in

her natural shopping environment, she

returns to autopilot and is likely to not even

notice the new product. Even if she does

notice it, she will be unlikely to purchase

the new product unless her automatic

behavior path is disrupted. Similarly,

product use or consumption behavior fol-

lows the same dynamic process.

Pilot

A consumer who is consciously attending

to the purchase of a product or service is

in Pilot mode. This may involve weighing

costs and beneﬁ ts and making comparisons

with competing products, as well as com-

paring purchase to non-purchase outcomes.

Pilot mode is more likely to occur when a

consumer is in a novel purchase situation

or if some element of the routine purchase

behavior has changed, such as price, fea-

tures or distribution channels, which acti-

vates the consumer ’ s conscious awareness.

In addition, purchases that involve high

risk or high expense will engage conscious

processing ( Dijksterhuis et al , 2005 ).

Although most models of consumer

behavior assume the customer is in Pilot

mode at all times, fully conscious decision

making is a rare, and ﬂ eeting, experience.

When a consumer encounters a novel

situation, the conscious brain becomes

active ( Wood et al , 2005 ). Novelty relates

to both the environment one is in and the

particular situation one is experiencing. A

novel environment, such as the ﬁ rst visit to

a store, activates many conscious mental

Martin and Morich

14

such as buying a name brand when pur-

chasing new technology.

Consumer behavior cannot be evaluated

without understanding where the consumer

is along the continuum of automaticity

during purchase or usage. Some marketers

assume that consumers were making rational

and conscious decisions, yet a large per-

centage of consumer behavior is occurring

unconsciously. As a result, advertising,

pricing and, indeed, the entire concept of

‘ the marketing mix ’ are often ineffectual.

This does not imply that conscious

processing is unimportant. On the contrary,

the model posits that there is an active

interplay between conscious and uncon-

scious processing. However, as the model

illustrates, the conscious consumer mind is

always working to automate its behaviors.

Marketers beneﬁ t from respecting the large

and active role unconscious behavior plays

in every consumer action, and adjust their

marketplace approaches accordingly.

Context and cues

Familiarity drives automaticity. If the mind

perceives an environment as familiar, the

perception enables the unconscious to

automate behavior. If the consumer per-

ceives the environment as novel, the con-

scious mind actively engages to interpret

its surroundings and ﬁ gure out what to do.

The human mind assesses familiarity and

automates behavior through the perception

of context ( Wood and Neal, 2009 ).

Habits form when a behavior is repeated

and rewarded inside a stable context. By

frequently performing an action in a con-

stant setting, the unconscious mind learns

to associate that environment, and the var-

ious stimuli within it, with that particular

behavior and its outcomes ( Ouellette and

Wood, 1998 ). Once the behavior is

habitual, the mind no longer needs con-

scious goals or intentions to launch the

behavior ( Triandis, 1977 ; Verplanken et al ,

1994 ; Ouellette and Wood, 1998 ; Ferguson

processes, giving the consumer a strong

conscious engagement with her surround-

ings. A novel situation, such as seeking

out low-fat foods at the grocery store in

reaction to a recent doctor visit, similarly

engages the conscious mind and the con-

sumer becomes aware of his behavior.

These instances of novel consumer experi-

ences fully engage the shopper with the

setting and information around him as

he attempts to rationally decide on an

outcome.

However, even in novel situations and

environments, just because the mind is

aware of what is going on does not neces-

sarily imply control over its actions.

Behavior often leads, not follows, conscious

intent. For example, Americans almost uni-

formly enter a store and go to the right,

rather than left or straight ahead ( Sorensen,

2009 ). The conscious mind may believe

that the right-hand turn was made to head

for the fruits and vegetables, but the reality

is that the body was heading there anyway,

healthy diet or not. This section of the

model illustrates the challenge – even when

‘ thinking ’ about a new product, what

consumers do is still largely a result of

unconscious mental processes. And most

of the time customers are shopping, they

are not ‘ thinking ’ .

Co-pilot

In many familiar situations, consumers

experience a relatively narrow range of

choices that do not require a fully conscious

evaluation, yet are too complicated to be

relegated to automatic habitual choice. In

these cases, consumers are likely to use

heuristics (simple rules) to partially auto-

mate behavior ( Shen and Wyer, 2007 ; Xu

and Wyer, 2008 ). For example, when a

product is on sale, consumers may have a

heuristic that causes them to purchase mul-

tiple units. Co-pilot mode may also be

activated in situations of mild complexity,

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

15

and Bibby, 2002 ; Danner et al 2008 ; Ji and

Wood, 2007 ). Unconscious recognition of

a context and contextual cues is enough to

initiate a habit ( Wood and Neal, 2009 ).

However, contexts form actively, not

passively, and humans are not automatons

blindly reacting to cues in the environment.

Consumers align their contexts with higher-

order goals, and internally generated con-

siderations can break the linkages between

contexts and behavior ( Aarts et al , 1998 ).

The model illustrates this dynamic by

separating context into three layers: the

meta-Context, the contextual event and

the sub-context.

Meta-context

The meta-context is an overarching, goal-

oriented framework that consumers use to

organize their worlds. For example, most

consumers have a ‘ Going to Work ’ meta-

context. On a typical weekday morning,

they engage in multiple tasks routinely:

waking to an alarm, showering, shaving,

washing hair, drying hair, styling hair,

putting on makeup and deodorant, choosing

clothes, eating breakfast and driving or

taking public transportation to work and

so on. Most days, each of these tasks

is performed completely on autopilot

( Verplanken et al , 2005 ). The meta-context

framework surrounding these tasks deﬁ nes

their parameters and thresholds and helps

dramatically reduce the number of con-

scious choices that have to be made.

A meta-context is a ﬁ lter that shapes

consumer perception. ‘ Going to Work ’

deﬁ nes the subset of a wardrobe that is

acceptable for the workplace. Similarly, it

may outline a particular way hair is styled

and the foods prepared that are eaten for

breakfast. These parameters, determined

by corporate policy (dress code) and as part

of the logistics of getting to work (amount

of time available to prepare breakfast), make

consumers more efﬁ cient by reducing

choices and establishing thresholds of

awareness that determine what stimuli the

consumer perceives ( Anderson, 2003 ;

Danner et al , 2007 ; McCulloch et al , 2008 ).

In dressing for work, the jeans and running

shoes get ignored – only the ‘ work clothes ’

are given consideration.

Meta-contexts can be universal, cultural,

segment-speciﬁ c or individual constructs.

They are a critical component of habit

formation because they help the uncon-

scious mind narrow down the thousands

of cues in an environment to the ones rel-

evant to the situation at hand. A product,

brand or message that does not resonate

with the parameters established by a con-

sumer ’ s meta-context will be ignored as

irrelevant.

Contextual event

A contextual event is a situation-speciﬁ c

behavior (task) associated with a meta-

context. In most of the research on habit

formation, the literature ’ s deﬁ nition of

context is equivalent to the Martin-Morich

Model ’ s concept of the contextual event.

These contextual events are a framework

for the brain to perform a habitual behavior

within a context. The unconscious mind

assesses the physical environment, the time

of day, the day of the week, and all of

the accompanying stimuli surrounding

the consumer and is cued to launch one

or many habitual behaviors ( Neal et al ,

2009 ).

A contextual event is not a behavior

itself, but a marker for the brain to perform

an associated behavior. All the routine

tasks that occur within the ‘ Going to

Work ’ meta-context are contextual events.

Standing in front of the bathroom sink

could launch a range of behaviors that

might include shaving, putting on makeup

and brushing teeth. Opening the refriger-

ator door will cue some consumers to reach

for fruit and yogurt, whereas others will

Martin and Morich

16

pull out bacon and eggs. Sitting in the car

will send the driver automatically along his

usual route to the ofﬁ ce. The brain has an

innate ability to unconsciously recognize

contextual events and respond with the

associated habitual behaviors ( Yin and

Knowlton, 2006 ).

A habitual behavior cannot exist without

a contextual event. As a marker for a situ-

ation-speciﬁ c behavior, the contextual

event is one of the most important sections

of the model for marketers to grasp. Each

contextual event represents potentially

hundreds of brand choices – which tooth-

paste to brush with, which cereal to eat,

which radio station to listen to and so on.

Once a consumer links a brand with a con-

textual event, the habitual use of that brand

can be very hard to disrupt, even if the

brand is not viewed as superior. However,

if a brand does not establish its connection

to a particular context or create a new

context for its purchase or use, it will not

become habitual ( Ouellette and Wood,

1998 ). At best, the consumer will have

to consciously decide to use it every

time, a cognitively expensive and unlikely

scenario.

Marketers have long operated under the

simple illusion that the consumer views

brands in isolation, such as a painting

hanging on an art gallery wall. The reality

is a far messier organic process where

products are integrated into behavior,

typically outside of conscious awareness.

Sub-context

Just because behavior is largely unconscious

does not imply that consumer actions do

not align with intentions and goals. Humans

have a highly evolved adaptive mechanism

that allows them to alter even the most

highly habitual behaviors if the mind

perceives potential signs that a behavior

may not align with internal requirements.

Sub-contexts are vectors of concern that

typically lie below conscious awareness, but

can be elevated to conscious consideration

and interrupt habitual behavior ( Macrae

and Johnston, 1998 ).

Typically, factors such as convenience,

economy, family, morals and health serve

as sub-context vectors. Each habitual

behavior in a given context more or less

aligns with a consumer ’ s sub-context

requirements. For example, in the time-

compressed contextual event of grabbing

breakfast before heading off to work, con-

venience often trumps nutrition (a health

sub-context). But if the health vector is

elevated into a concern, say from a tight-

ﬁ tting pair of jeans or ten extra pounds

on the bathroom scale, then the consumer

may consciously attend to her breakfast

choice and eschew the hi-carb bagel for a

piece of fruit instead.

An elevated sub-context vector may just

temporarily impact behavior, or can induce

lasting change. Think of a sub-context

vector as a tuning fork. A single hit will

emit a vibration for a short period of time,

and then go silent. The conscious reminder

to make better breakfast choices will fade,

and behavior will return to the bagel, the

habitual choice. But if the vector is con-

tinually struck, the disruption in habitual

behavior may be long enough to produce

enough repetitions of alternative behavior

and result in new habits being formed. The

economic recession that began in 2008 is

playing this scenario out right now. The

near-constant reminders of the economy

vector have brought many consumers ’

spending habits into conscious awareness

for so long that the behavior of limiting

discretionary spending and trading down to

store brands has become habitual. These

new habits will likely extend far beyond

the actual recession.

Marketers need to understand their con-

sumer ’ s underlying sub-contexts and

actively monitor the marketplace for mes-

saging that might resonate to elevate these

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

17

areas to conscious awareness. Then mar-

keters must work to align their brand with

what is going on in the world that might

be elevating behavior to conscious awareness.

The utility of viewing context in three

parts is that academics and marketers can

get a far better understanding of consumer

behavior by understanding the conscious

and unconscious elements of that behavior.

Without this level of understanding, it is

unlikely that companies will develop prod-

ucts with the correct attributes to lead to

habitual use.

Cues

Through repeated exposures, the uncon-

scious mind begins associating various

stimuli within a context with behaviors and

their outcomes. With repetition, the process

turns stimuli in the environment into cues

that automate behavior. Eventually, cues

trigger behavior within a context inde-

pendent of conscious intentions and goals

( Wood and Neal, 2009 ). This creates sig-

niﬁ cant cognitive efﬁ ciency, enabling the

conscious mind to contemplate novel

problems or attend to other matters ( Nilsen

et al , 2008 ).

Any stimulus that occurs in concert with

a contextual behavior can potentially

become a cue. Cues can be internal or

external. Internal cues can be moods,

thoughts, feelings or state changes perceived

by the mind. External cues can be anything

perceived by the senses. The smell of

popcorn can be a powerful cue for many

moviegoers, but a dark movie theater can

also become a popcorn cue ( Neal et al ,

2009 ). Brand names, logos, packaging,

jingles and slogans can become cues in the

shopping environment ( Warlop et al , 2005 ).

Even a time of day, other people, or an

entire context could become a cue ( Wood

et al , 2005 ; Wood and Neal, 2009 ).

Cues can form through pairing, as in

classical conditioning. Advertisers use this

technique relentlessly, putting brands in the

hands of beautiful models and celebrity

endorsers ( Gorn, 1982 ; Stuart et al , 1987 ).

Consumers can learn cues through operant

conditioning where a consumer is actively

working with a product to solve a problem

or create a beneﬁ t ( Nord and Peter,

1980 ).

Cues are essential to habit formation, and

critical to any successful marketing effort.

When cues are managed well, they can lead

to nearly addictive responses, as with the

RIM BlackBerry. The auditory or vibra-

tory sensation is so powerfully associated

with the receipt of an email that corporate

users have the device in their hand before

they are consciously aware of the stimulus.

However, marketers often neglect to

take control of cues to activate behavior.

A consumer shopping on autopilot is not

consciously thinking about her need states

and the value offered by a particular product

choice, but automatically responding to the

cues around her. Without associated cues,

a marketer must actively sell their brand at

every purchase occasion.

In January of 2009, Tropicana orange

juice launched a major package redesign,

replacing the familiar straw in an orange

with a glass of orange juice that promi-

nently displayed the words ‘ 100 per cent

Juice ’ . Sales declined 20 per cent between

1 January and 22 February, when the old

packaging was reintroduced ( Zmuda, 2009 ).

Disrupting the cues that consumers use to

automate behavior is fraught with peril.

Behavior, feedback and learning

Habits form through the repetition of

behavior in a stable context ( Ouellette and

Wood, 1998 ). Throughout these repeti-

tions, the mind is assessing the behavior and

its resulting outcomes. By gathering this

conscious- and unconscious-level feedback,

the brain learns whether or not to perform

the behavior in the same context in the

future.

Martin and Morich

18

Behavior

Any action that a consumer takes in

response to a product or service, even inac-

tion, amounts to behavior. Behaviors typi-

cally occur within a context and in response

to internal or external cues: to purchase or

not to purchase; buy the usual brand or try

something new; stock up or hope the

product is on sale next time. Most of the

time, consumers make these decisions

without any conscious consideration. By

adulthood, most consumers have a vast

storehouse of scripted behaviors for con-

textualized situations. This repository

allows consumers to move quickly through

a grocery or department store, as well as

the kitchen and the pantry.

Behavior can be simple or inordinately

complex. Although it is hard to compre-

hend, the vast majority of behavior is initi-

ated by the unconscious mind. The

conscious mind might be aware a choice

was made, but in the words of Dijksterhuis

et al (2005) ‘ These choices were introspec-

tively blank ’ . This perspective means that

no conscious thought processes occur that

a consumer can review to explain why a

choice was made.

However, just because no conscious

thought process is available does not mean

the behavior is not fueled by intention. Every

behavior begins as a choice fueled by reason.

The conscious brain is highly involved in

early behavioral learning, making decisions,

executing actions and assessing the results.

Over time, this activity dies down, and

unconscious habits take over ( Thorn et al ,

2010 ). Habits are simply shortcuts developed

by the mind from past successful behavior.

The feedback process helps the brain deter-

mine which behaviors are successful.

Feedback

Feedback is the mind ’ s perceived conse-

quence of a behavior. After a consumer

makes a purchase or uses a product,

anything that comes afterward might be

interpreted as feedback from that action.

This feedback interpretation occurs at both

the conscious and unconscious levels.

Immediate feedback effectively trains the

unconscious mind, whereas the conscious

mind can bridge the gap between a delayed

response and a behavior ( Schultz, 2006 ).

However, the closer in time the feedback

is to the behavior, the more likely the con-

sumer will associate this as cause and

effect.

Feedback comes in three essential ﬂ a-

vors: reinforcing, punishing or neutral.

Reinforcement is feedback that makes a

behavior more likely to occur in the future.

Punishment is feedback that makes a

behavior less likely to occur. Neutral feed-

back provides no information that will

affect the behavior, either because the

response was not strong enough to alter

future likelihood, or the brain ignored the

response ( Pryor, 1984 ).

Reinforcement and punishment are

often regarded in absolute terms: reinforce-

ment is a reward with sensory appeal, for

example, a cookie, and a punishment is an

uncomfortable or painful experience. But

reinforcement and punishment are not

always so obvious – the terms only refer to

the effect on future behavior when the

feedback is received. Both can be positive

or negative. The annoying buzzer on an

alarm clock is a negative reinforcer. The

irritating sound stops when a sleeper per-

forms the behavior of hitting the ‘ off ’ or

‘ snooze ’ button. A shocking cell phone bill

is a positive punishment. Its introduction

decreases a customer ’ s propensity to use as

many minutes in the future.

Marketers used to think that a measure

of satisfaction would be an indicator of

future use, but that metric does a poor job

of predicting future purchase ( Neal, 1999 ).

Instead of striving for customer satisfaction,

marketers should strive for customer

reinforcement. By reinforcing consumer

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

19

behavior, marketers increase the chances of

repetition and, in turn, the chances of habit

formation around their brand.

Learning

The brain learns from feedback generated

by a behavior, and that learning impacts

future performance of that behavior. A

feedback response interpreted by the brain

can either strengthen habitual behavior or

disrupt it. A reinforcing experience with a

brand makes repurchase more likely,

whereas a punishing experience makes

future purchase less likely ( Nevin et al ,

1987 ). Reinforcement and punishment also

impact how conscious the consumer will

be the next time she performs a behavior

in a context. For non-habitual behaviors, a

reinforcing round of feedback will strengthen

context and cue association and increase the

level of automation. Punishing feedback

disrupts automation and re-elevates behavior

to conscious scrutiny.

For already habitual behaviors, only

intermittent reinforcement at moderate

levels is required to maintain the behavior.

In fact, constant reinforcement or abnor-

mally large rewards can be a disruption

( Pryor, 1984 ). Constant reinforcement cre-

ates a tit-for-tat scenario where the mind

is consciously seeking an outcome.

Abnormal rewards engage the conscious

mind and focus the brain on the behavior,

and future reinforcement that does not

match the ‘ jackpot ’ previously received

could be seen as a punishment ( Dickinson

et al , 1983 ). Marketers should be aware that

learning for non-habitual customers differs

from that of habitual customers. A strategy

that leads to automation in one group may

be disrupting the other.

Emotion

A critical component to learning, as well

as to recall, is the role of emotion. Research

from several disciplines reveals emotion as

critical for storing and recalling memories,

forever altering the belief that rational deci-

sions devoid of emotional considerations

are ‘ better ’ . Indeed, researchers now under-

stand that decision making requires emo-

tions.

Emotion is a catalyst. When behavioral

feedback is paired with an emotion, the

consumer is more likely to learn from that

behavior ( Baumeister et al , 2007 ). In the

model, emotion ampliﬁ es the effects of

reinforcement and punishment. With the

proper use of emotion, marketers can

encourage faster learning, more repetition

and habit formation (see Innerscope

Research, 2010). More importantly, if mar-

keting communications does not evoke an

appropriate emotional response, it is less

likely the message will be attended to,

stored in memory or recalled.

However, the role of emotion is not

conﬁ ned to the feedback loops that modu-

late the Level of Automaticity. Instead,

emotion is posited to exert inﬂ uence

throughout every level of the model. Emo-

tions affect our behavior, what cues we

attend to and ignore, what we choose to

remember, and what we choose to recall.

Moving forward

The need for a new model of consumer

has been evident for a while, but ironically

the feedback mechanisms that exist for aca-

demics and practitioners has made it difﬁ -

cult for a coherent new model to emerge.

Academic publications have to be narrowly

focused for substantive contributions to

advance our understanding of speciﬁ c phe-

nomena. By referencing prior referred arti-

cles to assure a continuous reﬁ nement of

our understanding of any speciﬁ c topic,

most academics are forced to narrow their

vision, making it difﬁ cult to feel sufﬁ ciently

well versed across marketing disciplines to

propose anything as wide reaching as a

new, integrated model of marketing. Prac-

titioners are similarly narrow in their focus

Martin and Morich

20

around their own product category, brand

or specialty. In addition, the rich mix of

interdisciplinary literature that undergirds

this type of model would prove daunting

for a professional with full-time responsi-

bilities.

This model may enable practitioners and

academics to approach the complex and

ever-changing world of consumer more

effectively and efﬁ ciently by explicitly

undertaking to understand the role of the

unconscious in any behavior of interest.

Simultaneously, we hope that the model

will help researchers use qualitative methods

in conﬁ rmatory, as well as exploratory,

ways.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge and are grateful

for the cooperation and encouragement of

clients including Procter & Gamble and

Campbell Soup in the development of this

article and accompanying model. The

authors alone are responsible for all limita-

tions and errors that may relate to the study

and the article.

REFERENCES

Aaker , J . L . ( 1997 ) Dimensions of brand personality .

Journal of Marketing Research 34 : 347 – 356 .

Aarts , H . and Dijksterhuis , A . ( 2003 ) The silence of

the library: Environment, situational norm, and

social behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

chology 84 : 18 – 28 .

Aarts , H . , Verplanken , B . and van Knippenberg , A .

( 1998 ) Repeated decision making or a matter of

habit? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (15) :

1355 – 1374 .

Anderson , M . C . ( 2003 ) Rethinking interference theory:

Executive control and the mechanisms of forget-

ting . Journal of Memory and Language 49 : 415 – 445

.

Ariely , D . ( 2008 ) Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces

That Shape Our Decisions . New York, NY: Harper

Collins .

Bargh , J . ( 1994 ) The four horsemen of automaticity:

Awareness, intention, efﬁ ciency, and control in

social cognition . In: R.S. Wyer Jr and T.K. Srull

(eds.) The Handbook of Social Cognition , Vol. 2.

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , pp. 1 – 40 .

Bargh , J . and Morsella , E . ( 2009 ) Unconscious behav-

ioral guidance systems . In: C. Agnew, D. Carlston,

W. Graziano and J. Kelly (eds.) Then a Miracle

Occurs: Focusing on Behavior in Social Psychological

Theory and Research . New York: Oxford University

Press .

Bargh , J . A . ( 1989 ) Conditional automaticity: Varieties

of automatic inﬂ uence in social perception and

cognition . In: J.S. Uleman and J.A. Bargh (eds.)

Unintended Thought . New York: Guilford Press ,

pp. 4

– 51 .

Bargh , J . A . ( 1990 ) Auto-motives: Preconscious deter-

minants of social interaction . In: E. Higgins and

R.M. Sorrentino (eds.) Handbook of Motivation and

Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior , Vol. 2. New

York, NY: Guilford Press , pp. 93 – 130 .

Bargh , J . A . ( 2002 ) Losing consciousness: Automatic

inﬂ uences on consumer judgment, behavior, and

motivation . Journal of Consumer Research 29 (2) :

280 – 285 .

Bargh , J . A . and Chartrand , T . L . ( 1999 ) The unbearable

automaticity of being . American Psychologist 54 (7) :

462 – 479 .

Bargh , J . A . ,

Chen , M . and Burrows , L . ( 1996 ) The

automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait

concept and stereotype activation on action . Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 71 : 230 – 244 .

Bargh , J . A . , Gollwitzer , P . M . , Lee-Chai , A . , Barn-

dollar , K . and Trotschel , R . ( 2001 ) The automated

will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behav-

ioral goals . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

81 : 1014 – 1027 .

Barry , T . ( 1987 ) The development of the hierarchy of

effects: A historical perspective . Current Issues and

Research in Advertising 10 : 251 – 295 .

Baumeister , R . , Vohs ,

K . , DeWall , N . and Zhang , L .

( 2007 ) How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback,

anticipation, and reﬂ ection, rather than direct cau-

sation . Personality and Social Psychology Review 11 :

167 – 203 .

Bavelas , J . B . , Black , A . , Lemery , C . R . and Mullett , J .

( 1987 ) Motor mimicry as primitive empathy . In:

N. Eisenberg and J. Strayer (eds.) Empathy and its

Development . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press , pp. 317 – 338 .

Beilock , S . L . and Carr , T . H . ( 2001 ) On the fragility

of skilled performance: What governs choking

under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General

130 : 701 – 725 .

Bem , D . J . ( 1972 ) Self-perception theory . In:

L. Berkowitz (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social

Psychology , Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press ,

pp. 1 – 62 .

Bush , L . K . , Barr , C . L . , McHugo , G . J . and Lanzetta , J . T .

( 1989 ) The effects of facial control and facial mim-

icry on subjective reactions to comedy routines .

Motivation and Emotion 13 : 31 – 52 .

Chaiken , S . ( 1980 ) Heuristic versus systematic informa-

tion processing and the use of source versus message

cues in Persuasion . Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 39 : 752 –

766 .

Chartrand , T . L . ( 2005 ) The role of conscious awareness

in consumer behavior . Journal of Consumer Psychology

15 (3) : 203 – 210 .

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

21

Chartrand , T . L . and Bargh , J . A . ( 1996 ) Automatic acti-

vation of impression formation and memorization

goals: Nonconscious goal priming reproduces

effects of explicit task instructions . Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology 71 : 464 – 478 .

Chartrand , T . L . and Bargh , J . A . ( 1999 ) The Chame-

leon effect: The perception-behavior link and social

interaction . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

76 (6) : 893 – 910 .

Chartrand , T . L . , Maddux , W . W . and Lakin , J . L . ( 2005 )

Beyond the perception-behavior link: The ubiqui-

tous utility and motivational moderators of non-

conscious mimicry . In: R. Hassin, J.S. Uleman and

J.A. Bargh (eds.) The New Unconscious . New York:

Oxford University Press , pp. 334 –

361 .

Cooper , R . ( 2001 ) Winning at New Products .

Cambridge, MA: Basic Books .

Crick , F . and Koch , C . ( 1998 ) Consciousness and

Neuroscience . Cerebral Cortex 8 (2) : 97 – 107 .

Danner , U . N . , Aarts , H . and de Vries , N . K . ( 2007 )

Habit formation and multiple means to goal attain-

ment: Repeated retrieval of target means causes

inhibited access to competitors . Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 33 : 1367 – 1379 .

Danner , U . N . , Aarts , H . and de Vries , N . K . ( 2008

)

Habit vs. intention the prediction of future behavior:

The role of frequency, context stability and mental

accessibility of past behavior . British Journal of Social

Psychology 47 : 245 – 265 .

Decety , J . and Grezes , J . ( 1999 ) Neural mechanisms

subserving the perception of human actions . Trends

in Cognitive Sciences 3 : 172 – 178 .

Chartered Institute of Marketing . ( 2010 ) Deﬁ nition of

marketing . 8 December 2010, http://www.cim.co

.uk/resources/understandingmarket/deﬁ nitionmkting

.aspx .

Dennett , D . ( 1991 ) Consciousness Explained . Boston,

MA: Back Bay Books .

Dickinson , A . , Nicholas , D . J . and Adams , C . D . ( 1983 )

The effect of the instrumental training contingency

on susceptibility to reinforce devaluation . Quarterly

Journal of Experimental Psychology

35 : 35 – 51 .

Dijksterhuis , A . and Bargh , J . A . ( 2001 ) The percep-

tion-behavior expressway: The automatic effects of

social perception on social behavior . In: M.P. Zanna

(ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology ,

Vol. 33. San Diego, CA: Academic , pp. 1 – 40 .

Dijksterhuis , A . , Chartrand , T . L . and Aarts , H . ( forth-

coming ) Automatic behavior . In: J.A. Bargh (ed.)

Automatic Processes in Social Thinking and Behavior .

Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press , in press .

Dijksterhuis , A . and Nordgren , L . F . ( 2006 ) A theory

of unconscious thought . Perspectives on Psychological

Science 1 (2)

: 95 – 109 .

Dijksterhuis , A . , Smith , P . , van Baaren , R . and

Wigboldus , D . ( 2005 ) The unconscious consumer:

Effects of environment on consumer behavior .

Journal of Consumer Psychology 15 (3) : 193 – 202 .

Dijksterhuis , A . et al ( 1998 ) Seeing one thing and doing

another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior .

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 : 862 – 871 .

Dijksterhuis , A . and van Knippenberg , A . ( 1998 ) The

relation between perception and behavior, or how

to win a game of trivial pursuit . Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 74 (4) : 865 – 877 .

Fadiga , L . ,

Fogassi , L . , Pavesi , G . and Rizzolatti , G .

( 1995 ) Motor facilitation during action observation:

A magnetic stimulation study . Journal of Neurophys-

iology 73 : 2608 – 2611 .

Ferguson , E . and Bibby , P . A . ( 2002 ) Predicting future

blood donor returns: Past behavior, intentions, and

observer effects . Health Psychology 21 : 513 – 518 .

Fitzsimons , G . M . , Chartrand , T . L . and Fitzsimons , G . J .

( 2008 ) Automatic effects of brand exposure on

motivated behavior: How apple makes you “ think

different ” . Journal of Consumer Research 35 : 21 – 35 .

Foerde , L . , Knowlton , B . J . and Poldrack , R . A . ( 2006 )

Modulation of competing memory systems by dis-

traction . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

103 : 11778 – 11783 .

Food Marketing Institute . ( 2008 ) Supermarket facts:

Industry overview . 24 July 2010, http://www.fmi

.org/facts_ﬁ gs/?fuseaction=superfact .

Fornell , C . ( 1996 ) The American Customer Satisfaction

Index [ACSI]: Nature, purpose, and ﬁ ndings .

Journal of Marketing 60 (4) : 7 – 18 .

Fornell , C . ( 2007 ) The Satisﬁ ed Customer: Winners and

Losers in the Battle for Buyer Preference . New York,

NY: Palgrave Macmillan .

Gleick , J . ( 1987 ) Chaos: Making a New Science . New

York, NY: Viking Press

.

Gorn , G . ( 1982 ) The effect of music in advertising on

choice behavior: A classical conditioning approach .

Journal of Marketing 46 : 94 – 101 .

Hamilton , D . L . , Katz , L . B . and Leirer , V . O . ( 1980 )

Organizational processes in impression formation .

In: R. Hastie, T.M. Ostrom, E.B. Ebbesen, R.S. Wyer,

Jr., D.L. Hamilton and D.E. Cariston (eds.) Person

Memory: The Cognitive Basis of Social Perception . Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates , pp. 121 – 153 .

Howard , J . and Sheth , J . ( 1969 ) The Theory of Buyer

Behavior . New York: John Wiley & Sons .

Iacoboni , M . , Woods , R . P .

, Brass , M . , Bekkering , H . ,

Mazziotta , J . C . and Rizzolatti , G . ( 1999 ) Cortical

mechanisms of human imitation . Science 286 :

2526 – 2528 .

Ji , M . F . and Wood , W . ( 2007 ) Purchase and consump-

tion habits: Not necessarily what you intend . Journal

of Consumer Psychology 17 : 261 – 276 .

Johnston , L . ( 2002 ) Behavioral mimicry and stigmatiza-

tion . Social Cognition 20 (1) : 18 – 35 .

Khare , A . and Inman , J . J .

( 2006 ) Habitual behavior in

American eating patterns: The role of meal occa-

sions . Journal of Consumer Research 32 : 567 – 575 .

Lakin , J . L . , Jeffries , V . E . , Cheng , C . M . and Chartrand ,

T . L . ( 2003 ) The Chameleon effect as social glue:

Evidence for the evolutionary signicance of non-

conscious mimicry . Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

27 (3) : 145 – 162 .

Lamb , C . W . , Hair , J . F . and McDaniel , C . D . ( 2010 )

MKTG 3.0 . Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage

Learning .

Martin and Morich

22

LeDoux , J . ( 1996 ) The Emotional Brain: The Mysterious

Underpinnings of Emotional Life . New York, NY:

Simon & Schuster .

Lorenz , E . N . ( 1993 ) The Essence of Chaos . Seattle, WA:

University of Washington Press .

Macrae , C . N . and Johnston , L . ( 1998 ) Help, I need

somebody: Automatic action and inaction . Social

Cognition 16 : 400 – 417 .

Martin , N . ( 2007 ) Habit: The 95% of Behavior Marketers

Ignore . Upper Saddle River, NJ: Financial Times

Press .

McCulloch , K . C . , Aarts , H . , Fujita , K . and Bargh , J . A .

(

2008 ) Inhibition in goal systems: A retrieval-

induced forgetting account . Journal of Experimental

Social Psychology 44 : 614 – 623 .

Meltzoff , A . N . and Moore , M . K . ( 1977 ) Imitation of

facial and manual gestures by human neonates .

Science 198 : 75 – 78 .

Meltzoff , A . N . and Moore , M . K . ( 1983 ) Newborn

infants imitate adult facial gestures . Child Develop-

ment 54 : 702 – 709 .

Neal , D . T . , Wood , W . , Lally , P . and Wu , M . ( 2009

)

Do habits depend on goals? Perceived versus actual

role of goals in habit performance . Manuscript

under Review, University of Southern California .

Neal , W . ( 1999 ) Satisfaction is nice, but value drives

loyalty . Marketing Research, A Magazine of Manage-

ment and Applications 11 (1) : 21 – 23 .

Nevin , J . , Smith , L . and Roberts , J . ( 1987 ) Does con-

tingent reinforcement strengthen operant behavior?

Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 48 (1) :

17 – 33 .

Nilsen , P . , Bourne , M . and Verplanken , B . ( 2008 )

Accounting for the role of habit in behavioural

strategies for injury prevention . International Journal

of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 15 (1) : 33 – 40 .

Nord ,

W . R . and Peter , J . P . ( 1980 ) A behavior modi-

ﬁ cation perspective on marketing . Journal of Mar-

keting 44 : 36 – 47 .

O ’ Toole , R . and Dubin , R . ( 1968 ) Baby feeding and

body sway: An experiment in George Herbert

Mead’s “ Taking the Role of the Other. ” . Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 10 : 59 – 65 .

Ouellette , J . and Wood , W . ( 1998 ) Habit and intention

in everyday life: The multiple processes by which

past behavior predicts future behavior . Psychological

Bulletin 124 (1) : 54 – 74 .

Packard , V . ( 1957 ) The Hidden Persuaders. New York:

David McKay .

Persky , J . ( 1995 ) Retrospectives – The ethology of

Homo Economicus . The Journal of Economic Perspectives

9 (2) : 221 – 231 .

Petty , R . E . , Cacioppo , J . T . and Schumann , D . ( 1983 )

Central and peripheral routes to advertising effec-

tiveness: The moderating role of involvement .

Journal of Consumer Research 10 : 135 – 146 .

Provine , R . R . ( 1986 ) Yawning as a stereotyped action

pattern and releasing stimulus . Ethology 72 : 109 – 122 .

Pryor , K . ( 1984 ) Don ’ t Shoot the Dog! The New Art of

Teaching and Training . New York, NY: Bantam

Books .

Quinn , J . M . and Wood , W . ( 2005 ) Habits across the

lifespan . Unpublished Manuscript, Duke University .

Schiffman , L . G . and Kanuk , L . L . ( 2009 ) Consumer

Behavior . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall .

Schultz , W . ( 2006 ) Behavioral theories and the neuro-

physiology of reward . Annual Review of Psychology

57 : 87 – 115 .

Seetharaman , P . B . ( 2004 ) Modeling multiple sources

of state dependence in random utility models: A

distributed lag approach . Marketing Science 23 :

263 – 271 .

Shen , H . and Wyer , R . S . (

2007 ) Procedural priming

and consumer judgments: Effects on the impact of

positively and negatively valenced information .

Journal of Consumer Research 34 : 727 – 737 .

Singer , N . ( 2010 ) Making Ads that whisper to the brain .

New York Times , November 2010. 1 December

2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/

business/14stream.html .

Sorensen , H . ( 2009 ) Inside the Mind of the Shopper .

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Pub-

lishing , p. 76 .

Spears , R . , Gordijn , E . , Dijksterhuis , A . and Stapel ,

D . A . ( 2004 ) Reaction in action: Intergroup contrast

in automatic behavior . Personality and Social Psy-

chology Bulletin 30 (5) : 605 – 616 .

Steen , R . G .

( 2007 ) The Evolving Brain: The Known

and the Unknown . Amherst, NY: Prometheus

Books .

Stuart , E . , Shimp , T . and Engle , R . ( 1987 ) Classical

conditioning of consumer attitudes: Four experi-

ments in an advertising context . Journal of Consumer

Research 14 : 334 – 349 .

Tanner , R . J . , Ferraro , R . , Chartrand , T . L . , Bettman ,

J . R . and van Baaren , R . ( 2008 ) Of chameleons and

consumption: The impact of mimicry on choice

and preferences . Journal of Consumer Research 34 :

754 – 766 .

Thorn , C . , Atallah , H .

, Howe , M . and Graybiel , A .

( 2010 ) Differential dynamics of activity changes in

Dorsolateral and Dorsomedial Striatal loops during

learning . Neuron 66 (5) : 781 – 795 .

Triandis , H . C . ( 1977 ) Interpersonal Behavior . Monterey,

CA: Brooks/Cole .

van Baaren , R . B . , Holland , R . W . , Kawakami , K . and

van Knippenberg , A . ( 2003 ) Mimicry for money:

Behavioral consequences of imitation . Journal of

Experimental Psychology 39 (4) : 393 – 398 .

Verplanken , B . , Aarts , H . , van Knippenberg , A .

and

van Knippenberg , C . ( 1994 ) Antecedents of travel

mode choice . Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24 :

285 – 300 .

Verplanken , B . , Myrbakk , V . and Rudi , E . ( 2005 )

The measurement of habit . In: T. Betsch and S.

Haberstroh (eds.) The Routines of Decision Making .

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum , pp. 231 – 247 .

Vogel , V . , Evanschitzky , H . and Ramaseshan , B . ( 2008 )

Customer equity drivers and future sales . Journal of

Marketing 72 : 98 – 108 .

Warlop , L . , Ratneshwar , S . and

Van Osselar , S . ( 2005 )

Distinctive brand cues and memory for product

Unconscious mental processes in consumer choice

23

consumption experiences . International Journal of

Research in Marketing 22 : 27 – 44 .

Wood , W . and Neal , D . T . ( 2009 ) The habitual con-

sumer . Journal of Consumer Psychology 19 : 579 – 592 .

Wood , W . , Tam , L . and Guerrero Witt , M . ( 2005 )

Changing circumstances, disrupting habits . Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 88 : 918 – 933 .

Woodruff-Pak , D . and Steinmetz , J . ( 2000 ) Past,

present, and future of human eyeblink classical con-

ditioning . In: D. Woodruff-Pak and J. Steinmetz

(eds.) Eyeblink Classical Conditioning . Norwell, MA:

Kluwer Academic Publishers , pp. 1 – 18 .

Xu , J . A . and Wyer , R . S . ( 2008 ) The effect of mindsets

on consumer decision strategies . Journal of Consumer

Research 35 : 556 – 566 .

Yin , H . Y . and Knowlton , B . J . ( 2006 ) The role of the

basal ganglia in habit formation . Nature Reviews

Neuroscience 7 : 464 – 476 .

Unconscious Mental Processes in Consumer Choice: Toward a New Model of Consumer Behavior

Abstract and Figures