» Articles » PMID: 31156410

People of Lower Social Status Are More Sensitive to Hedonic Product Information-Electrophysiological Evidence From an ERP Study

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2019 Jun 4
PMID 31156410
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Consumer psychology research has shown that individuals of different social statuses have distinctive purchase intentions for different products. Individuals of a high social status will simultaneously measure the symbolic status meaning and utilitarian value of a product, but they will not show strong preferences for any attributes. However, individuals of a low social status show strong purchasing tendency for hedonic products that are associated with symbolic status meaning and could satisfy their spiritual needs. This phenomenon may be due to self-threat, which caused by hedonic products. Based on the above, this study compares the cognitive processing differences of hedonic and utilitarian label products between high- and low-social-status groups by recording event related potentials (ERPs). The results showed that under the P2, P3, and LPP components, the low-social-status group elicited smaller deflections in hedonic label stimuli than in utilitarian label stimuli. The high-social-status group did not show a significant difference in these components. These results suggested that individuals with a low social status are more sensitive to hedonic product information, because high-status information contained in the hedonic label induces a sense of threat in them and generates certain negative emotions.

Citing Articles

Exploring consumers' perceptions of online purchase decision factors: electroencephalography and eye-tracking evidence.

Psurny M, Mokry S, Stavkova J Front Hum Neurosci. 2024; 18:1411685.

PMID: 39624186 PMC: 11608952. DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2024.1411685.

References
1.
Cuthbert B, Schupp H, Bradley M, Birbaumer N, Lang P . Brain potentials in affective picture processing: covariation with autonomic arousal and affective report. Biol Psychol. 2000; 52(2):95-111. DOI: 10.1016/s0301-0511(99)00044-7. View

2.
Miller E, Cohen J . An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex function. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001; 24:167-202. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.neuro.24.1.167. View

3.
Ohman A, Mineka S . Fears, phobias, and preparedness: toward an evolved module of fear and fear learning. Psychol Rev. 2001; 108(3):483-522. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.483. View

4.
Wei J, Chan T, Luo Y . A modified oddball paradigm "cross-modal delayed response" and the research on mismatch negativity. Brain Res Bull. 2002; 57(2):221-30. DOI: 10.1016/s0361-9230(01)00742-0. View

5.
Schupp H, Junghofer M, Weike A, Hamm A . Attention and emotion: an ERP analysis of facilitated emotional stimulus processing. Neuroreport. 2003; 14(8):1107-10. DOI: 10.1097/00001756-200306110-00002. View