Branding has become one of the most important determinants of consumer choices. Intriguingly, the psychological mechanisms of how branding influences decision making remain elusive. In the research reported here, we used a preference-based decision-making task and computational modeling to identify which internal components of processing are affected by branding. We found that a process of noisy temporal integration of subjective value information can model preference-based choices reliably and that branding biases are explained by changes in the rate of the integration process itself. This result suggests that branding information and subjective preference are integrated into a single source of evidence in the decision-making process, thereby altering choice behavior.
AnandB. N.ShaccharR. (2004). Brands as beacons: A new source of loyalty to multiproduct firms. Journal of Marketing Research, 41, 135–150.
2.
AtamanM. B.Van HeerdeH. J.MelaC. F. (2010). The long-term effect of marketing strategy on brand sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 866–882.
3.
BastenU.BieleG.HeekerenH. R.FiebachC. J. (2010). How the brain integrates costs and benefits during decision making. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 21767–21772.
4.
BogaczR. (2007). Optimal decision-making theories: Linking neurobiology with behaviour. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 118–125.
5.
BrownS. D.HeathcoteA. (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 153–178.
6.
CousineauD. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 1, 42–45.
7.
FitzGeraldT. H. B.SeymourB.DolanR. J. (2009). The role of human orbitofrontal cortex in value comparison for incommensurable objects. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8388–8395.
8.
GluthS.RieskampJ.BuchelC. (2012). Deciding when to decide: Time-variant sequential sampling models explain the emergence of value-based decisions in the human brain. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 10686–10698.
9.
GoldJ. I.ShadlenM. N. (2007). The neural basis of decision making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 30, 535–574.
10.
HareT. A.SchultzW.CamererC.O’DohertyJ. P.RangelA. (2011). Transformation of stimulus value signals into motor commands during simple choice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 18120–18125.
11.
HarveyA. H.KirkU.DenfieldG. H.MontagueP. R. (2010). Monetary favors and their influence on neural responses and revealed preference. Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 9597–9602.
12.
HeekerenH. R.MarrettS.UngerleiderL. G. (2008). The neural systems that mediate human perceptual decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 467–479.
13.
KenningP. H.PlassmannH. (2008). How neuroscience can inform consumer research. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 16, 532–538.
14.
KirkU.HarveyA.MontagueP. R. (2011). Domain expertise insulates against judgment bias by monetary favors through a modulation of ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108, 10332–10336.
15.
KrajbichI.ArmelC.RangelA. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 1292–1298.
16.
KrajbichI.LuD.CamererC.RangelA. (2012). The attentional drift-diffusion model extends to simple purchasing decisions. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 1–18.
17.
LamingD. R. J. (1968). Information theory of choice reaction time. New York, NY: Wiley.
18.
LeiteF. P.RatcliffR. (2011). What cognitive processes drive response biases? A diffusion model analysis. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 651–687.
19.
McClureS. M.LiJ.TomlinD.CypertK. S.MontagueL. M.MontagueP. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44, 379–387.
20.
McKoonG.RatcliffR. (2012). Aging and IQ effects on associative recognition and priming in item recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 416–437.
21.
MilosavljevicM.KochC.RangelA. (2011). Consumers can make decisions in as little as a third of a second. Judgment and Decision Making, 6, 520–530.
22.
MilosavljevicM.MalmaudJ.HuthA.KochC.RangelA. (2010). The drift diffusion model can account for the accuracy and reaction time of value-based choices under high and low time pressure. Judgment and Decision Making, 5, 437–449.
23.
MulderM. J.WagenmakersE. J.RatcliffR.BoekelW.ForstmannB. U. (2012). Bias in the brain: A diffusion model analysis of prior probability and potential payoff. Journal of Neuroscience, 32, 2335–2343.
24.
PhiliastidesM. G.BieleG.HeekerenH. R. (2010). A mechanistic account of value computation in the human brain. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 107, 9430–9435.
25.
PhiliastidesM. G.RatcliffR.SajdaP. (2006). Neural representation of task difficulty and decision making during perceptual categorization: A timing diagram. Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 8965–8975.
26.
PhiliastidesM. G.SajdaP. (2006a). Causal influences in the human brain during face discrimination: A short-window directed transfer function approach. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 53, 2602–2605.
27.
PhiliastidesM. G.SajdaP. (2006b). Temporal characterization of the neural correlates of perceptual decision making in the human brain. Cerebral Cortex, 16, 509–518.
28.
PlassmannH.O’DohertyJ.ShivB.RangelA. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 105, 1050–1054.
29.
PradeepA. K. (2010). The buying brain: Secrets for selling to the subconscious mind. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
30.
RatcliffR. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psychological Review, 85, 59–108.
31.
RatcliffR. (2006). Modeling response signal and response time data. Cognitive Psychology, 53, 195–237.
32.
RatcliffR.GomezP.McKoonG. (2004). A diffusion model account of the lexical decision task. Psychological Review, 111, 159–182.
33.
RatcliffR.McKoonG. (2008). The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20, 873–922.
34.
RatcliffR.PhiliastidesM. G.SajdaP. (2009). Quality of evidence for perceptual decision making is indexed by trial-to-trial variability of the EEG. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 6539–6544.
35.
RatcliffR.SmithP. L. (2004). A comparison of sequential sampling models for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 111, 333–367.
36.
RatcliffR.StarnsJ. J. (2009). Modeling confidence and response time in recognition memory. Psychological Review, 116, 59–83.
37.
RatcliffR.ThaparA.GomezP.McKoonG. (2004). A diffusion model analysis of the effects of aging in the lexical-decision task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 278–289.
38.
RatcliffR.TuerlinckxF. (2002). Estimating parameters of the diffusion model: Approaches to dealing with contaminant reaction times and parameter variability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 438–481.
39.
SchaeferM. (2009). Neuroeconomics: In search of the neural representation of brands. Progress in Brain Research, 178, 241–252.
40.
SchaeferM.RotteM. (2010). Combining a semantic differential with fMRI to investigate brands as cultural symbols. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5, 274–281.
41.
ShadlenM. N.NewsomeW. T. (2001). Neural basis of a perceptual decision in the parietal cortex (area LIP) of the rhesus monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 86, 1916–1936.
42.
SimenP.ContrerasD.BuckC.HuP.HolmesP.CohenJ. D. (2009). Reward rate optimization in two-alternative decision making: Empirical tests of theoretical predictions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1865–1897.
43.
UsherM.McClellandJ. L. (2001). The time course of perceptual choice: The leaky, competing accumulator model. Psychological Review, 108, 550–592.
44.
WenzlaffH.BauerM.MaessB.HeekerenH. R. (2011). Neural characterization of the speed-accuracy tradeoff in a perceptual decision-making task. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 1254–1266.
45.
WhiteC. N.RatcliffR.VaseyM. W.McKoonG. (2010). Using diffusion models to understand clinical disorders. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 54, 39–52.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
