A paper and presentation that outlines the PEACCC framework for classifying consumer behaviour, where PEACCC stands for: Physical Environmental Affective Cognitive Conative Cultural

1. Hearts, Minds, Will, Body,
World, Tribe
A Framework for Considering Consumer
Behaviour
Huw Hepworth
Account Director
Painted Dog Research

2. Background To The
Framework
What’s being added to an already big pile
of existing models?

3. A Simple Question…
PEST SWOT
Political
Strengths Weaknesses
Technology Economic
Opportunities Threats
?
Social

4. The Traditional Consumer Behaviour Model
Information Decision Other
Input
Processing Process Variables
Exposure Need
Recognition
• Marketer
dominated Environmental
Stimuli Influences
• Other Attention
Search
Comprehension
External Alternatives
Search Evaluation
Individual
Acceptance Influences
Purchase
Engel-Kollat-Blackwell, 1973,
Abridged Retention
Post-Purchase
Evaluation

5. A Very Short History of Consumer Behaviour
Frameworks
1950s /
1940s
60s
Homo Freud Comes
Economicus To Advertising

6. A Very Short History of Consumer Behaviour
Frameworks
1970s /
2000s
80s /
+
90s
Neuroscience,
Complex
Behavioural Economics,
Interactions
Big Data

7. Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural
The PEACCC (or CACPEC) Framework

8. The Components & Their
Interactions
A synthesis of internal and external
consumer behaviour aspects

9. Cognitive
Knowledge Perceived
Not rational!
& facts control

10. Affective
Emotions ‘Unconscious’ Lots of
and feelings control emotions /
models

11. Conative
Conation often missed in
Drive / willpower examination between
cognitive and affective

12. Physical
Can’t separate the body Physical state (e.g.
from the mind hunger, pain, fatigue)

13. Environmental
World around us Powerful stimuli

14. Cultural
Social behaviours – that
Shared behaviour, beliefs which doesn’t fit in,
– what other people do stands out

15. Conative
Physical
Environmental
Cultural

16. Conative
Physical
Environmental
Cultural

17. But that’s not all…
Lots of things take Not having enough mental
away from mental load available means
Decision-making requires
load shortcuts are made
mental load

18. Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural
The PEACCC (or CACPEC) Framework

19. Component Interactions
Everything influences everything else

20. Lots of interactions
Complex direct and Just going to look at a
indirect influences sample…

21. Internal To The Interactive
Internal processes
have physiological
impacts
Conative
Physical
Physical state (e.g.
hunger, fatigue) effects
mental components

22. Interactive To The External
Physical state influences
how environment / culture
impacts on decision
Physical Environmental
External conditions / cultural Cultural
norms dictate physiological
expectations / reactions

23. Internal To The External
Internal processes
influences how external
info is assessed
Conative
Environmental
Situational factors and
expected ‘normal’ Cultural
knowledge / feelings

24. Using the PEACCC
Framework
Some examples

25. Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural
The PEACCC (or CACPEC) Framework

26. A Useable Framework
Intent that this framework is Can be used to help set-up a
simple to use, but allows project, for analysis or for
complex approaches presentation of findings

27. Example: Setting Up A Project
Cultural:
Cognitive: Affective: Conative: Physical: Environmental:
What are the What do other
What does What does How difficult is What physical
situational people /
the target the target it to make / effort / state is
aspects to society think
audience audience stick to a required (or
consider? about the
know? feel? decision? do we want)?
decision?

28. Example: Classifying Market Research Techniques
Conative:
Cognitive: Affective: Physical: Environmental:
Data mining / ‘big Cultural:
Behavioural Projective Biometric / neuro Literature review
data’ Literature review
economics techniques measurement Environmental
Behavioural Ethnography
Neuro Biometrics / neuro Observational analysis
economics Semiotics
measurement measurement Usability testing Semiotics
Choice modelling
Traditional qualitative / quantitative techniques

29. Example: Choosing a Chocolate Bar
Environmental:
Cognitive: Conative: Physical:
Affective: Layout of Cultural:
Know they Willpower Tired / hungry store, location
Will provide a Role of
don’t need the required to status, current of chocolate
short-term chocolate,
empty resist the chocolate bar brands on
positive boost role of brand
calories purchase habit shelf

30. Example: Choosing a Mortgage
Conative: Cultural:
Cognitive: Affective: Environmental:
Complex Physical: Distrust of
Facts around Anxiety about Economic
decision – Stressed, situation, bank banks vs.
mortgages, a wrong
ideally tired – mental branch importance of
interest rates, choice, love of
requires high load depleted condition, etc. owning a
etc. the house
mental load home

31. Example: Giving Up Smoking
Affective: Physical: Environmental: Cultural:
Cognitive:
Concern Conative: Habitual Financial Peer group
Know that costs, where
about health Requires a lot behaviour view of
smoking has cigarettes are
impacts, of willpower to with smoking, poor
health purchased
social quit physiological view of
impacts from
ostracism reactions tobacco co.’s

32. Next Steps / Limitations
Impact of time
‘Conscious / active’ versus ‘unconscious /
passive’ component interactions
Relative influence within specific decisions

33. Feel free to use PEACCC!
Feedback appreciated if
Offered for wider use
you use it

34. Images
Taken from Microsoft Office Imagery (http://office.microsoft.com/en-au/images/)
Except for Action Comics #176 – reproduced without permission
All rights for that image remain with DC Comics / Warner Brothers

35. HEART, MIND, WILL, BODY, ENVIRONMENT,
TRIBE: A FRAMEWORK FOR CONSIDERING
CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR
Huw Hepworth – Account Director, Painted Dog Research
About the Author:
Huw Hepworth is an Account Director at Painted Dog Research and has worked on a
wide range of local, national and international projects during his 8 years in market
research. He has worked on research projects across a wide range of industry
sectors, including fashion, property, financial services, government, FMCGs and
retailing / shopping and for clients in all life stages, from start-ups to blue chips. In
2006, he was awarded the Mike Larbalestier Scholarship for WA by the AMSRS and
in 2009 he was awarded the George Camakaris Best Paper by a Young Researcher
at the AMSRS National Conference.
Painted Dog Research
Suite 1, Level 2
658 Newcastle Street
Leederville WA 6007
t/f 08 9227 6464
m 0488 343 497
www.painteddog.com.au
Page 1 of 1

36. HEART, MIND, WILL, BODY, WORLD, TRIBE: A FRAMEWORK FOR
CONSIDERING CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR
Background to the Development of This Paper
There is no shortage to the number of models available to organisations looking to understand how
their customers think and act. Since the start of formal study into consumer behaviour in the 1940s
based on the theoretical “economically rational man”, through the 1950s and 1960s consideration of
psychoanalysis and cultural meaning, across the 1970s and 1980s and their increased focus on
consumer decision making, and into the 1990s and the formation of a collective consumer culture, a
great deal of investigation has occurred into this area (see Zaichkowsky, 1991; Ryynänen, 2010;
Belch & Belch, 1985 for a broader consideration of the history of consumer behaviour research).
With the start of a new century has come an even more certified push to understand consumer
motivations, especially the aspects hidden to even the consumer themselves. Neuroscience has
started looking straight into the brain of consumers to understand which regions fire at key times
and what that means; behavioural economics has helped bring to light the decision-making short
cuts used by consumers every day; the rise and reach of “Big Data” (Poynter, 2012) means that
organisations are increasingly able to predict consumer needs before the consumer is aware of
them, such as identifying pregnant woman purely on the products they buy (Duhigg, 2012a).
Over time new techniques and technologies have been engaged to grapple with understanding how
various populations go about buying / using products and services. A vast array of new insights has
been generated, but it always seems that the consumer has more secrets still left to be uncovered.
Indeed, there is a wealth of existing information about consumer behaviour and new discoveries are
still being made. But how do we fit them together in a way that is simple to understand and also
usable?
The aim of this paper is to propose a framework for considering and arranging the complicated web
of aspects around consumer behaviour. This proposed framework has been developed to be as
straightforward to use as the Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats (SWOT) or Political
Economic Social Technological (PEST) models often used to assist in organisational decision
making, while being backed up as robust and reliable by existing research.
The framework has been developed by synthesising a range of different sources of information –
using sources outlined in this paper – and will be usable across a wide range of applications, from
the consideration of individuals, assisting in the assessment of qualitative findings and to provide a
backbone for planning quantitative tools.
The Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural (PEACCC)
Framework
Let’s start with a view of the framework in its entirety before breaking it down and showing the
importance of each individual component and how they fit together.
The full framework is shown in Figure 1.
Page 1 of 21

37. Figure 1: The PEACCC Framework
In short, the framework proposes that consumer behaviour is driven by the sometimes
complementary, sometimes conflicting forces that occur within (i.e. cognition, affection, conation), to
(i.e. physical) and around (i.e. environmental, cultural) the consumer.
The name of the framework – PEACCC – has been selected in order that is serves as an acronym
that is as simple to remember as possible. If named in a way that better reflects the arrangement of
the internal, interactive and external factors, the acronym is CACPEC, which is much harder to say
and thus much harder to remember.
Framework Hypothesis
Key to this framework is the concept that all these aspects work holistically within each decision
making process. Depending on the type of decision being made and the individual involved, various
factors may have a greater or lesser impact, but each of these factors need to be considered both
in isolation and in conjunction.
Although the framework above separates each of these factors, real consumer decision making
isn’t necessarily as clear cut. As Demasio (1995) indicates, there is no rational decision making
without the influence of emotional factors. People who have suffered damage to the emotional
centres of their brains end up being terrible rational decision makers because they are unable to
determine something as simple as which outcome they might prefer to achieve, or how their
decisions will impact on other people.
Other examples showing the difficulty in tying consumer behaviour to only one of the above
components will be shown in further sections of this paper.
Page 2 of 21

38. Summary of Model Components
As an overview of the model and a brief description of each component:
1. Cognitive (Mind) – the reasoning, fact-based aspect of decision making that can (with
effort) override certain other components of consumer decision making; linked to conscious
behaviour.
2. Affective (Heart) – the feeling, emotional component that has a huge role in influencing
behaviour; linked to more unconscious behaviour and works faster than the cognitive
component.
3. Conative (Will) – the component responsible for seeing a decision acted upon; the drive
that turns cognitive and / or affective processes into actions.
4. Physical (Body) – the physical state that the consumer is in; existing physical states (e.g.
pain, hunger) have a major impact on how people perceive the world and made decisions
about it.
5. Environmental (World) – the stimuli that is occurring outside of the consumer; the presence
of absence of stimuli (e.g. the smell of baking bread) influence consumer decisions.
6. Cultural (Tribe) – shared beliefs and social behaviours across a broad or narrow (i.e.
subculture) consumer group that will influence how stimuli is interpreted and what is the
“acceptable” response to that stimuli.
Framework Rules and Assumptions
1. Consumer behaviour is governed by a combination of cognitive, affective, conative,
physical, environmental and cultural factors.
2. Making choices around behaviour requires consumers to spend mental effort or bear a level
of mental load; the amount of effort / load required depends on the nature of the behaviour
and the level of consumer investment in that behaviour.
3. Consumers have a limited amount of mental load to spend on a daily basis.
4. Consumers are naturally disposed to use as little mental effort / keep mental load low when
making decisions (i.e. are “cognitive misers”) about their behaviour.
5. Expending more mental load on their consumer behaviour requires a conscious choice.
Consumers can minimise the impact of other components on their behaviour through strong
active cognitive and conative focus, but this generates a heavy mental load.
6. Affective, cognitive and conative components form the ‘internal’ factors of consumer
behaviour. All three are important components, but their relative influence will change
depending on the nature of the decision and how much mental load is spent on that
behaviour.
7. Environmental and cultural factors form the ‘external’ factors of consumer behaviour. Their
relative influence will also change depending on the nature of the decision and how much
mental load is spent on that behaviour.
8. The physical component forms the link between the ‘internal’ factors and ‘external’ factors of
consumer behaviour and decision making.
9. Emotional states, physical states, environmental cues and cultural norms can provide
decision-making short-cuts that help reduce mental load.
10. Familiar behavioural patterns (e.g. habits) also reduce mental load. Consumers experience
physical and mental discomfort if these patterns are disrupted.
11. Conscious and active decision-making can over-ride the contributions of the other
components, but this requires mental load capacity to be available to do so.
Page 3 of 21

39. We will now explore each of the above components in more detail and justify their place in the
framework.
Cognition – I Think, Therefore I Am
The roots of cognition in consumer behaviour research can be tied back to the inherently rational
consumer brought to us thanks to the field of Economics. The history of Homo Economicus (the
“Economic Human”) goes back a long way, with Mill (1844) attributed as being the first to fully coin
the idea as understood in the modern context. The Homo Economicus model of behaviour posits
that people behave:
 To maximise their individual self-interest; and
 To minimise the effort taken to achieve that self-interest.
Behaving in this fashion is perceived to be ‘economically rational behaviour’, often shortened to
‘rational behaviour’. Homo Economicus is generally treated as knowing and understanding
everything they need to know to make a decision, and then choosing the option that maximises
their rewards while minimising the costs required to achieve those rewards.
This approach eschewed any requirement for understanding other facets of human behaviour while
still being able to predict decision outcomes. Framing rationality in this way made it easy to
understand – we perceive that we have a high degree of cognitive control over our behaviour – and
relatively easy to model mathematically (and gave Economics a strong lock the term ‘rational
behaviour’ within a social science context – a hold it still has to this day1). Consumer models that
focused on maximising utility – a cognitive process of weighing rewards versus the resources
required to obtain those rewards – became popular. Cognitive was king.
This approach also fit with other thinking on consumer decision making of the time. Behaviourists
were only interested in the outcomes resulting from the presentation of certain stimuli (LeDoux,
1996). Models such as those proposed by Nicosia (1966), Engel Kollat Blackwell (1973) and
Howard Sheth (1969) showed lists of steps that consumers would go through in making a decision
– identifying the need, looking for information, evaluating the alternatives, and so on. Consumer
decision making was seen to be a deliberate and carefully evaluated process.
1
It should always be checked when you see the term ‘rational’ in relation to consumer behaviour if the author
is really referring to ‘economic rationality’. Economic rationality is a long way from real world rationality that
includes factors such as social contracts and the emotional reactions of others (although some will argue that
mathematical utilities can be applied to such concepts) – a person who is self-interested and energy-
minimising wouldn’t make decisions most would see as rational; the perception of such behaviour would be
that it was selfish.
This distinction is important because by placing ‘rational’ squarely in the grounds of economic rationality, all
other factors are pushed towards the ‘irrational’ side of the ledger. Given that ‘irrationality’ is generally a
negative space to be in, this gives rational (read: economically rational) behaviour even more weight when
discussing consumer behaviour and what should be considered ‘correct’ (read: rational). There is evidence of
this effect in how behavioural economics currently has almost cornered the market as the arbiter of what is
rational and what isn’t, despite other factors such as emotions arguably also having a place behind a more
holistic consideration of rational behaviour (e.g. not accepting a high-paying job if it would lead to excessively
loneliness, or perhaps helping someone push their stalled car off the road – and not asking money for such
an act! – to experience the simple joy of their thanks).
It is for this reason that this paper avoids the term ‘rational’ and uses terms such as ‘cognitive’ or ‘mental’
instead.
Page 4 of 21

40. The appeal of a cognitively-based consumer decision approach is obvious. It appears widely
applicable, mostly clear in terms of the nature of inputs required to obtain the desired outputs and
makes general logical sense. However, it has been recognised that these kind of models have a
number of deficiencies – Homo economicus is a fictional creature, while the decision models might
be wonderfully descriptive, they lack specificity in application (Rau & Samiee, 1981).
It has also been recognised that rather than fully considering information within a cognitive
evaluation, consumers often take mental shortcuts on the way to making a decision. Biases and
heuristics play a large part in how people consider information. Behavioural economics has helped
in developing a much greater understanding of those information processing shortcuts through the
work of authors such as Kahneman (2011) and how to use that understanding to enhance decision
making through the work of authors such as Thaler & Sunstein (2009).
This theory of biases and shortcuts fits with another cognitive decision theory – that most
consumers are cognitive misers when processing new information (Fiske & Tailor, 1984). Rather
than taking all information on board, people are most easily able to process information that fits with
what they already know or believe. New or contradictory information requires a lot more effort to
process, so is more likely to be ignored… which is certainly not the behaviour of a Homo
economicus!
The important role of emotion in decision making has also been receiving increasing attention over
the past decade. As previously mentioned, Damasio (1995) showed that rational decisions can’t be
made without the influence of emotion. Where Descartes is famous for the quote, “I think, therefore
I am”, it is much more accurate to say, “I think and feel, therefore I am” because there is no true
separation between the areas of cognition and emotion.
Kahneman (2011) discusses the roles in decision making of System 1 and System 2 thinking –
where System 2 is the slower, energy-hungry, information processing cognitive arbiter, System 1 is
the impulsive, intuitive, instinctive and more emotive decision force. Both Systems come into play
during decision making, with Kahneman arguing that although System 2 has the final say, it can
easily be led astray by the fast moving and convincing System 1.
Although cognitive-driven decision models have fallen from grace in recent times, it is important to
recognise that the cognitive mind has a strong influence over the decision being made. Gibson
(2008) showed while a distracted consumer can be swayed into their selection through prior
exposure to stimuli, a consumer that is paying attention (and spending the mental energy) is still in
charge of their own decisions. What matters is the amount of mental load being spent in processing
a choice – a high mental load would correspond to spending a lot mental energy on evaluating
options on informational terms and potentially downplaying emotional aspects (similar to ensuring
System 2 is behind the wheel in a decision) while a low mental load would reflect a situation of
limited resources or cognitive miserliness which could see a more impulsive decision made.
Affective – I Am, I Feel
The recent interest in emotions as part of the decision making process can be tied to Damasio
(1995) and neuroscience’s increasing understanding of how the brain works, but it should not be
forgotten that for several decades research into emotions was dismissed as a waste of resources.
Since the 1960s psychological models have focused on the cognitive and behaviourist aspects of
human nature, leaving emotion as a “ghost in the machine” (Ryle, 1949). Cognitive science kept the
Page 5 of 21

41. focus on passionless thinking, reasoning and intellect while behaviourists (led by industry pioneer
B.F. Skinner) were known to ridicule those who considered anything outside of that which was
directly observable (LeDoux, 1996). Emotion in consumer behaviour might have been noted, but it
was relegated to minor status (if recognised at all) –
“[A] reading of much of the literature in this field in the period ranging from the 1960s to the early
1980s could have led you to the conclusion that consumers act in a semiautomatic, non-emotional
manner, weighing purely cognitive factors such as price and performance in arriving at a decision.”
(Engel, Blackwell, Miniard, 1995, p406).
But this view of consumer behaviour has changed over recent times. Neuroscience has however
been clear in showing that emotional systems are a key part of decision-making and that the ‘purely
rational’ person makes incredibly poor decisions, if they can decide at all (Damasio, 1994). It has
also been uncovered that there is a long-term emotional memory function in the brain, separate
from the long-term cognitive memory function. Whilst the cognitive memory remembers the details
of what happened, the emotional memory remembers the emotions felt during that situation
(LeDoux, 1996).
The importance of emotion likely comes from its ability to bypass other parts of the brain and work
at an unconscious level. For much of the human timeline emotions promoted the survival of the
species – it was important for emotional reactions to occur without much conscious processing
time, such as recoiling from danger or recognising friend versus foe (LeDoux, 1996).
Emotional reactions function as the gatekeeper to further cognitive and behavioural reactions
(Poels & Dewitte, 2006) so although it may feel as if the cognitive mind is in control, the fact is that
emotion is working behind (and sometimes in front of) the scenes, influencing the consumer.
Studies have shown this influence – for example, angry people see the world as more threatening
(Markman, 2010) while happy people make decisions more quickly and spend less time reviewing
potentially relevant information (Isen & Means, 1983).
One of the complexities around emotion is that there are many that may have an influence on
people. There are no shortage of emotional models using indicators such as facial expressions,
physiological symptoms, neurochemical arrangement or linguistic arrangement that attempt to
classify emotion into categories such as “basic / universal”, “complex” and “social”. To show this
complexity in emotional classification, Table 1 shows the Parrot (2001) arrangement of primary,
secondary and tertiary emotions – although highly detailed, it is still to be determined if it is
complete or even fully accurate. Unfortunately, this is true of almost any emotional model.
At this point in time there is little disagreement about the importance of emotions in consumer
decision making, but there is still a long way to go in terms of understanding and classifying the
effects of emotion and in gaining a consensus around how emotions fit together. (For example,
within the Parrot (2001) categorisation arousal has been included as a tertiary emotion to lust. The
author disagrees that arousal is more accurately characterised as a physical state that is caused by
the emotion lust and not an emotion itself.)
Page 6 of 21

42. Table 1: Categorisation of Emotion – Parrot (2001)
Primary emotion Secondary emotion Tertiary emotions
Adoration, affection, love, fondness, liking, attraction, caring,
Affection
tenderness, compassion, sentimentality
Love
Lust Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation
Longing Longing
Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, joviality, joy,
Cheerfulness delight, enjoyment, gladness, happiness, jubilation, elation,
satisfaction, ecstasy, euphoria
Zest Enthusiasm, zeal, zest, excitement, thrill, exhilaration
Contentment Contentment, pleasure
Joy
Pride Pride, triumph
Optimism Eagerness, hope, optimism
Enthrallment Enthrallment, rapture
Relief Relief
Surprise Surprise Amazement, surprise, astonishment
Irritation Aggravation, irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness
Exasperation Exasperation, frustration
Anger, rage, outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, ferocity, bitterness, hate,
Anger Rage
loathing, scorn, spite, vengefulness, dislike, resentment
Disgust Disgust, revulsion, contempt
Envy Envy, jealousy
Torment Torment
Suffering Agony, suffering, hurt, anguish
Depression, despair, hopelessness, gloom, glumness, sadness,
Sadness
unhappiness, grief, sorrow, woe, misery, melancholy
Disappointment Dismay, disappointment, displeasure
Sadness Shame Guilt, shame, regret, remorse
Alienation, isolation, neglect, loneliness, rejection, homesickness,
Neglect
defeat, dejection, insecurity, embarrassment, humiliation, insult
Sympathy Pity, sympathy
Horror Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic, hysteria, mortification
Fear
Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry,
Nervousness
distress, dread
Page 7 of 21

43. Conative – The Power or Ability to Prefer or Choose
Despite the power of cognition and affect in influencing how a consumer places values on various
factors within a decision, there still comes a point where the decision has to be made. Without that
point, the options and factors being considered circle in a continuous loop, leading to either
frustration at an inability to decide or an eventual move away from considering the decision at all.
Early consumer decision making models (such as Engel Kollat Blackwell (1973)) proposed a formal
approach to choice, particularly as the importance / involvement in the choice increased. Under
such models, once a need had been recognised, a detailed information search would occur,
followed by careful evaluation of alternatives until a choice was made. However, it has been
recognised that such models don’t reflect reality – consumers make shortcuts when making
decisions as discussed above. A consumer may purchase a house – a high-involvement decision if
ever there was one – after seeing it for the first time because they “fell in love” with the place.
Conation is the process by which the cognitive and affective components are combined to form and
drive action on the decision itself. It is the use of will to self-direct and self-regulate (Huitt, 1999), but
it should recognised (and be obvious) that not all self-directed decisions are beneficial to the
consumer. Indeed, willpower is often a matter of effortful self-control, ideally to resist natural
impulses (Gots, 2011) that have short-term benefits but longer-term negatives e.g. eating an extra-
large piece of delicious cheesecake. It might taste good now, but later on it may be a decision that
is regretted!
Conation requires mental load, which is something that can be both built up and depleted. People
can be trained to increase their self-discipline (and thus be able to spend more time in making a
decision) (Gots, 2011), but having to use conative ability to do something unpleasant depletes that
ability in future. For example, people who are made to complete a task that requires will power
(such as eating radishes instead of chocolates or to supress emotions) are more likely to give up at
a task quicker than those who haven’t required as much conative effort (Baumeister, et al, 1998).
Active, energy-intensive conation is potentially something that some organisations want consumers
to avoid. Referring to Gibson (2008) and Shiv & Fedorikhan (1999), it has been shown that
distractions or increased mental load leave consumers more vulnerable to making less considered,
more impulsive decisions.
There is also evidence that human nature is designed against requiring large amounts of mental
energy for every decision, hence the power of habit on behaviour. If conative effort can be spent
over enough a long enough period on a behaviour and with a suitable reward from that behaviour is
received, then that behaviour will become a habit – something that occurs almost automatically and
requiring a lot less conative effort over time. It has been shown that people with habitual behaviours
experience the joy of the reward just anticipating that behaviour, and feel distinctly at loss if they
aren’t able to indulge in the habit (Duhrigg, 2012b). This helps to explain why habits are easy to
follow, but hard to break.
Conation – the actual moment of decision-making – is something that is receiving increasing
attention within neuroscientific circles in order to understand how the brain works (an in-depth view
of this can be seen at PsychWiki, 2012). There is physical evidence of conation occurring – pupils
dilate in response to mental load being applied, so when that processing stops, pupil dilation stops
Page 8 of 21

44. as well (Kahneman, 2011). However, our exact understanding of conation is still in its infancy and
no doubt this area that will uncover some interesting developments over the next decade.
Physical – A Wave Is Continuous With the Ocean
The three previous components are internal to a consumer, and thus relatively invisible to those
looking to understand consumer behaviour (at least without close, direct observation and / or
expensive monitoring equipment). But the physical aspects of a consumer are much easier to
observe, and in some cases have been perceived to be the only factor that really matters.
Behaviourists weren’t interested in what was going on inside a consumer unless it led to action
happening on the outside.
However, it isn’t reasonable to divorce the internal decision processes (i.e. cognitive, affective,
conative) from the body that enacts the outcome. Both influence each other – it is impossible to
separate the wave from the ocean, although the physical element of consumer decision-making has
generally been excluded from consideration.
This is a very big oversight given the weight of evidence that a consumers’ physical condition has a
dramatic influence on their behaviour. People who are hungry will spend more effort and resources
going for food items and less attracted by non-food items (ScienceDaily, 2011). Sleep-deprived
consumers are also more likely to have increased appetite due to changes in hormonal balance
(Taheri et al, 2004). The old adage of “never go shopping when you are hungry” should be updated
to say, “never go shopping when you are hungry or tired”!
Being tired doesn’t just change behaviour in relation to appetite – it changes the ability of people to
apply mental load to tasks. One study of judges found that they would grant parole to 65% of cases
they saw immediately after a meal, but this parole rate gradually decreased to nearly zero as the
judges approached their next meal time, suggesting that “tired and hungry judges tend to fall back
on the easier default position of denying requests for parole” (Danziger, Levav & Avnaim-Pesso,
2011).
In a similar vein, recent discoveries also indicate it is impossible to untie emotional states to
physical conditions. Cosmetic Botox injections are used to reduce lines and wrinkles in the human
face, but have found to have the side effect of reducing the ability of a person to both feel emotion
(Davis et al., 2010) and to recognise it in others (Neal and Chartrand, 2011). Without the physical
ability of the body to provide mirrored facial feedback, people lose the ability to empathise with
others and feel it within themselves.
Consumer aspects such as gender or physiological capabilities should also be considered as part
of the physical component, given how important such things are to the consumer decision-making
process.
The link between the physical and other aspects of consumer behaviour are also shown through the
power of habit. After a consumer has built up a habit, the brain reward system starts to anticipate
the sensation that comes with that habit in front of actually receiving it, while also objecting to not
experiencing that sensation. This relationship can be both positive and negative – a positive habit
such as brushing teeth is continued when a consumer desires the tingly feel of a clean mouth (and
misses it when they can’t do it) is a net benefit to a consumer, while problem gambling (and the
gambler growing to anticipate the sensation of gambling rather than focus on winning / losing) is
clearly a net negative. (Duhrigg, 2012b) Not engaging in a habit has a physical impact.
Page 9 of 21

45. There are also other physical conditions such as pain, arousal, relaxation and pleasure that
influence consumer behaviour. Sometimes these and the above aspects are treated as cognitive
and / or affective states, but this isn’t broadly correct – they are physical states. Consumer decision-
making is not purely driven by the nebulous world of the mind; the physical interface between the
mind and the broader world has a great deal of say in determining what a consumer does.
Environmental – The Experience of Our World
What is occurring in the world around a consumer has a large impact on consumer behaviour. In
this case, the term “environment” refers to the tangible and intangible elements around the
consumer, from macro-elements such as the weather to more variable factors such as store fronts
and product / service packaging.
It is important to recognise (although obvious) that consumers act differently if the weather is hot
versus if the weather is cold, or if they are in an environment where they are resource- and option-
rich (such as if they have a full bank account and heading into a retail shopping district) to one
where they are resource- and option-poor.
Weather is an obvious external factor that influences behaviour. Impulse purchases of ice cream
are higher in summer than winter, and higher still on bright, sunny summer days than on overcast
summer days (ConvenienceStore.co.uk, 2010). Seasonal factors influence the types of clothes and
accessories worn, as well as the types and cost of food that may be available.
Seasons also influence emotions, which in turn directs behaviour. Seasonal Affective Disorder is a
depressive illness with a seasonal pattern. People sleep more, eat more and usually crave
carbohydrates (which leads to weight gain), have a lot less energy and don't want to spend time
with others. It is believed that reduced exposure to sunlight is at least partly responsible for this
condition. (BeyondBlue.org.au, 2007) There have also been links between hotter weather,
increased violent behaviour (Keim, 2011) and higher suicide rates (BBC, 2007).
The senses of smell, sight, taste, hearing and touch are all touch points where the environment and
consumer’s physical being interact, with each having its own impact on behaviour. Sight is
recognised as a very important sense, given how critical it is to our interpretation of the world
around us, but it can also have subtle effects on the other senses. Sensation transference means
that consumers transfer what they perceive on a product’s packaging means they also experience
when they consume the product (i.e. taste, touch, smell). An example of this transference is that
adding more yellow to a drink’s packaging sees consumers believing it tastes more lemony, even
though the underlying recipe is unchanged (Gladwell, 2005).
A similar association effect means that the environment has a big impact on how stimuli are treated.
There is the famous example that showed that a world-class violinist busking in a busy subway
station barely attracted any attention, but that same violinist attracts $1000 a minute in international
concert halls (Weingarten, 2007). Although a number of factors are at play in that experiment, a key
one is environment – no-one expects to see a famous violinist playing for money in a subway so the
location had a negative effect on his perceived skill levels and audience interest. In a similar
fashion, it would be expected that a restaurant with high-class, fashionable décor would be
perceived to provide a better quality meal than a café with a lower-class interior, even if the actual
food they served was exactly the same.
Page 10 of 21

46. Sounds and scents in the surrounding environment also can impact consumer behaviour. Music
can influence the quantity and nationality of wine purchased in a liquor store (North, Hargreaves &
McKendrick, 1997) or change perceptions of how a wine tastes through priming effects (North,
2011), while numerous studies indicate that music tempo change physical heart rates (Bernardi,
Porta & Sleight, 2005) and emotional states (Mok & Wong, 2003).
It seems obvious to say that where a consumer is has a dramatic influence on the kinds of
decisions they will make, but environmental factors are conspicuously absent from numerous
consumer behaviour models.
Culture – Everybody Knows
Circling around all these other factors influencing consumer behaviour – even more so than if it
something that effects everyone, such as if the temperature is hot or cold – is culture. It may be
perceived that environment has a greater impact, but human history dictates that where
environment clashes with culture, it often comes off second best. Humankind has been responsible
for an awesome (in many senses of the word) change in the environment due to cultural
requirements. When the English arrived in Australia, they continued to wear the same kind of
clothes they would have worn in their much more temperate motherland. Culture dictated they
ignore the environment. Even today we do our best to modify the world around us (e.g. through air
conditioners, transport options, changes to natural landforms) so that we can live a lifestyle that we
want to, not one forced onto us by the environment.
Culture is crucial to understanding how consumers behave because people are heavily influenced
by others around them. Through both explicit and implicit observation along with individual and
group interaction, people learn the kinds of behaviours that are acceptable and those that aren’t.
Different consumer groups will have different collective cultures under a much larger societal
culture, with each determining a wide range of factors around behaviour.
Culture dictates how consumers cognitively process information. People brought up in a Western-
individualist culture are much more likely to focus on only the main parts of images they see and
are more likely to focus on individual personal characteristics when processing information, while
those raised in an Eastern-collectivist culture are more likely to describe the whole image presented
to them and to focus on situational factors contained within presented information (Winerman,
2006).
Emotions are also heavily influenced by cultural factors. Ekman (1972) indicates that recognition of
core emotional types are universal between cultures – a smile is seen as linked to joy in all cultures,
a frown is tied to anger, etc. – but that expressions of emotions are culturally driven. There are a
deep set of cultural norms that indicate what is “acceptable” when it comes to the time and place for
emotion, such as displays of grief at a funeral (e.g. quiet sobbing versus loud wailing and open
anguish) or public displays of affection (e.g. hugs and kisses versus respectful bowing). There are
also emotional states that are unique to certain cultures, such as ‘amok’ (violent frenzy) in Malaysia
and ‘amae’ (indulgent feeling of dependency, akin to what a child feels towards a mother, between
adults) in Japan (Prinz, 2004).
Culture also dictates reactions to physical states. How people react to the signs of age – such as
seeking to minimise them through Botox injections versus proudly displaying characteristics that will
be greeted with respect – or what they are willing to put up with in order to ‘fit’ with a particular
cultural image – such as wearing uncomfortable shoes or clothes that are expected within a
Page 11 of 21

47. particular social setting and putting fashion before comfort – are examples of culture driving
physically-oriented consumer behaviours. Culture also strongly influences behaviour towards
environmental conditions, such as reactions to different colour schemes (Mills, 2009) or what kinds
of traditions accompany different times of the year.
When it comes to consumer behaviour, it should be recognised that culture often helps consumers
in their decision-making by reducing the amount of mental load required. It provides a short-cut –
when provided with common cultural experiences, everybody knows what their reactions should be.
Little energy needs to be spent in weighing up choices, unless the consumer is considering options
that may go against cultural norms or be considered taboo.
Combining the Components
As indicated in the discussion on each component above, there is a lot of interplay within this
framework. Although the framework shown in Figure 1 shows clear delineations between the
components, hopefully it is clear that it is harder in the real world to cleanly separate things. For
example, if emotions strongly influence conation, and environment and cultural factors influence
emotion, it can be hard to draw a straight line between only emotional factors and consumer
behaviour. There are a lot of inter-relationships going on that blur the line.
A summary of some of these interactions / component influences is included in Table 2 below.
Page 12 of 21

48. Table 2: Partial Summary of Component Interactions
Cognitive Affective Conative Physical Environmental Cultural
Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence Influence
Cognitive Emotional Creates Physical Provides Changes
Component associations history of state external stimuli perspective
influences decision- changes to be given to
how making for how much considered focus on
information consideration mental decision
is processed in similar load can factors
situation be applied
Affective Can provide Can override Physical Influences Dictates
Component information emotional state can emotional acceptable
to (weakly) reactions enhance / status e.g. emotional
overcome restrict Seasonal displays
emotional emotions Affective
biases Disorder
Conative Contributes Strong Physical Sensation Influences
Component facts / emotional state transference decisions
knowledge reactions changes dictates how by
for can short-cut how much stimuli is evaluating
consideration decision- mental perceived what
making load can others
be applied would do
Physical Dictates the Emotions Physical Environmental Determines
Component desired level cause component stimuli changes physical
of mental physiological required to physical norms for
load to apply reactions apply / enact experience decision-
to the decision around the making
decision decision
Environmental Conscious Emotional Bounded Physical Norms
Component processing of weights on decision- state (e.g. dictate
external stimuli making hot, cold) acceptable
stimuli dictate how based on influences patterns of
they are what is perception behaviour
valued available of external
around the stimuli
consumer
Cultural Base level of Feelings / Importance Determines Provides
Component culturally- emotions of the what external stimuli
related info / that are decision cultural that interacts
knowledge shared within the role applies with cultural
(i.e. the across a cultural (e.g. male values / norms
‘facts’ that homogenous setting versus
everyone cultural female)
knows) group
However, such uncertainty doesn’t help make the framework easy to use, so it makes sense to treat
the components as separate when using it for analysis purposes. It may not be easy to always
cleanly place a decision factor into one component, but this is for the reason that sometimes factors
will stretch across two (or more) components.
Page 13 of 21

49. Using the PEACCC Framework in a Market Research Context
Following the concept that this framework should be easy to use, the simplest approach for its use
is to classify key decision elements to their appropriate component. Figure 3 provides an example
of a silo-based approach to the PEACCC framework.
Figure 3: A Silo-Based Approach to the PEACCC Framework
This approach works well when classifying qualitative information. As an example, let’s use the
PEACCC silos to briefly cover the kind of consumer behaviour factors that may be in play when a
person is deciding which financial institution to take a mortgage from.
Page 14 of 21

50. Figure 4: PEACCC Framework Silos – Example of a Consumer Selecting a Mortgage
The PEACCC model can also be used from a project-planning or informational perspective to
ensure that all facets of consumer behaviour are being covered. As a brief overview, market
research techniques can be classified under the PEACCC framework:
Figure 5: Classifying Selected Market Research Techniques / Approaches Using the
PEACCC Framework
Page 15 of 21

51. Framework Limitations
Three recognised limitations of this framework are:
1. Omission of a time-related component
2. Possibility of further splitting of the components into ‘conscious’ versus ‘unconscious’
aspects
3. The relative influence of each component within specific decision-making situations
Time As Part of Consumer Behaviour
Without doubt time is an important part of consumer behaviour. It takes time to consider a decision,
to execute it and to evaluate the outcomes. Sometimes it is only possible to determine if the
‘correct’ consumer behaviour path was taken after time has elapsed, while time can also see short-
term benefits turn into longer-term detriments. Also, all components change over time – as a
consumer learns, achieves and experiences more, their cognitive, affective, conative and even
physical components will change. Such changes can occur over minutes or span years.
As it stands, the PEACCC framework isn’t able to include a time component on the grounds that
time provides a different dimension for consumer behaviour. This framework works best as a
‘snapshot’ model of consumer behaviour, but it certainly can be used to analyse ‘current’ consumer
behaviour and then also be used to develop a list of ideal or future behaviours that it is intended /
desired for the consumer to move to. It could also be used to map previous consumer behaviours –
what they knew, their moods, values, etc. – alongside current consumers and evaluate how various
components have changed.
‘Conscious’ Versus ‘Unconscious’ Impact of Components
There is also the potential for the existing PEACCC components to be split into ‘conscious’ versus
‘unconscious’ (or ‘active’ versus ‘passive’, or ‘recognised’ versus ‘unrecognised’) sub-components.
A number of long-established consumer behaviour models appear to treat the factors that surround
decision-making as being recognised and acknowledged, but more recent findings indicate this isn’t
true – a lot can be going on below the surface that isn’t consciously processed by consumers.
As examples:
 Cognitive processes can be focused on a problem at hand (active) or passively absorbing
facts or processing other problems in the background (passive)
 Consumers can be aware (conscious) or unaware (unconscious) of their own emotional
state (e.g. not recognising that you are angry or in a good mood until someone else points it
out to you)
 Although conation requires a degree of active involvement, it is also possible for decisions to
be made where the consumer wonders after why they chose what they chose
 Consumers can be unaware of their physical state until attention is drawn to it by external
stimuli (e.g. recognising you are hungry after smelling baking bread)
 Environmental factors have both a conscious (e.g. the consumer sees the high quality décor
of a restaurant) and unconscious (e.g. French music playing in the background causes the
consumer to buy French wine) impacts
Page 16 of 21

52.  Cultural values and their influence on consumer behaviour may be recognised (e.g. moral
values dictating acceptable advertising content guidelines) or unrecognised (e.g. gender or
racial biases)
In order to keep the PEACCC framework straightforward to use, the separation of active / passive
or conscious / unconscious components hasn’t been formally included. With that in mind, anyone
looking to use the PEACCC framework for in-depth analysis of consumer behaviour should
recognise that such above- and below-the-surface influences do exist and should be considered.
Relative Influence of Components Within Specific Decision-Making Contexts
This issue is discussed in the section below.
Next Steps
This paper is a justification for the relevance and applicability of the PEACCC framework. As
described, this framework can be easily used for qualitative analysis using the suggested ‘silo’
analysis approach.
Moving forward, the challenge will be in understanding the relative importance of each component
within different industry sectors and consumer decision contexts. Different consumer decisions will
have different internal (i.e. cognitive, affective, conative), physical and external (environmental,
cultural) requirements. For instance, a common and familiar consumer behaviour such as going to
the beach in Australia is probably a relatively easy behaviour to consider. The consumer has likely
been to the beach many times before, knows what to expect, knows what they require to enact this
behaviour and Australia has a long history of a beach culture that provides a lot of baseline
knowledge to that consumer.
However, an unfamiliar and unestablished behaviour is going to see the relative importance of the
different components change. For instance, buying a high-tech gadget in an entirely new category
where there is a high degree of uncertainty about the future and capability of the device, less
tangible elements because it is providing online services, no established culture to consider or
influence the decision – this kind of decision will likely fall more heavily on internal and physical
factors (i.e. the look and feel of the device) than the unestablished external components.
Another ‘next step’ for this framework will be seeing its (hopeful) adoption and use among a wider
audience. The author would appreciate any feedback on the framework from those who have used
it, or be happy to answer any questions about its theoretical underpinnings. Indeed, just knowing
that it has been used by people other than the author would be a reward, so please contact the
author even just to say that the framework was useful in a project!
Page 17 of 21

53. References
Baumeister, Roy. Bratslavsky, Ellen. Muraven, Mark. Tice, Dianne. 1998. “Ego depletion: Is the
active self a limited resource?”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74(5). 1252-1265.
Accessed 6 June 2012 from:
http://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/345/345%20Articles/Baumeister%20et%20al.%20%281998%29.p
df
BBC. 2007. “Suicide rate rises in hot weather”. BBC News. Accessed 11 July 2012 from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6925882.stm
Belch, Michael A. & Belch, George E. 1985. “The Historical Evolution Of Advertising Consumer
Behavior Research”. Historical Perspective in Consumer Research: National and International
Perspectives. Pages 72-75. Accessed 31 May 2012 from:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/display.asp?id=12118
Bernardi, L.. Porta, C. Sleight, P. 2005. “Cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, and respiratory changes
induced by different types of music in musicians and non-musicians: the importance of silence”.
Heart. 2006. 92: 445-452. First Published Online 30 September 2005. Accessed 15 June 2012
from: http://heart.bmj.com/content/92/4/445.full
BeyondBlue.org.au. 2007. “Seasonal Affective Disorder - More than the Winter Blues”. BeyondBlue
News. Winter 2007. Accessed 25 June 2012 from:
http://www.beyondblue.org.au/index.aspx?link_id=59.855
ConvenienceStore.co.uk. 2010. “Ice cream: the short but sweet seasonal winner”. 19 March 2010.
Accessed 14 June 2012 from: http://www.conveniencestore.co.uk/product-news/ice-cream-the-
short-but-sweet-seasonal-winner/208021.article
Damasio, Antonio. 1995. Descarte’s Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain. Penguin. 2005
paperback reprint.
Danziger, Shai. Levav, Johnathan. Avnaim-Lesso, Liora. 2011. “Extraneous factors in judicial
decisions”. PNAS. April 26, 2011. Vol. 108 no. 17 6889-6892. Accessed 12 June 2012 from:
http://www.pnas.org/content/108/17/6889
Davis Joshua, Senghas Ann, Brandt Fredric, Ochsner Kevin. 2010. “The Effects of BOTOX
Injections on Emotional Experience”. Emotion. 2010 June ; 10(3): 433–440. Accessed 2 June 2012
from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2880828/pdf/nihms-200692.pdf
Duhigg, Charles. 2012a. “How Companies Learn Your Secrets”. The New York Times. Accessed 31
May 2012 from: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/19/magazine/shopping-
habits.html?pagewanted=all
Duhigg, Charles. 2012b. The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business.
Random House.
Ekman, Paul. 1972. “Universals and Cultural Differences in Facial Expressions of Emotion”. In J.
Cole (Ed.) Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1971. Vol. 19. Lincoln, University of Nebraska
Page 18 of 21

54. Press. Accessed 15 June 2012 from: http://www.paulekman.com/wp-
content/uploads/2009/02/Universals-And-Cultural-Differences-In-Facial-Expressions-Of.pdf
Ekman, Paul. 1999. “Basic Emotions”. In T. Dalgleish and T. Power (Eds.) The Handbook of
Cognition and Emotion Pp. 45–60. Sussex, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accessed 15 June 2012
from: http://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/Basic-Emotions.pdf
Engel, James. Kollat, David. Blackwell, Roger. 1973. Consumer Behaviour. Second Edition. New
York. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Engel, James. Blackwell, Roger. Miniard, Paul. 1995. Consumer Behavior. International Edition.
Eighth Edition. The Dryden Press.
Fiske, Susan & Taylor, Shelley. 1984. Social Cognition. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
Gibson, Bryan. 2008. “Can Evaluative Conditioning Change Attitudes toward Mature Brands? New
Evidence from the Implicit Association Test”. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 35, No. 1 (June
2008), pp. 178-188.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2005. Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. USA. Little, Brown and
Company.
Gots, Jason. 2011. “The Neuroscience of Success”. BigThink.com. August 7, 2011. Accessed 6
June 2012 from: http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-neuroscience-of-success
Howard, John & Sheth, Jagdish. 1969. Theory of Buyer Behavior. New York. John Wiley & Sons.
Huitt, W. 1999. “Conation as an important factor of mind”. Educational Psychology Interactive.
Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Accessed 6 June 2012 from:
http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/conation/conation.html
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London. Penguin Books.
Keim, Brandon. 2011. “The Hazy Science of Hot Weather and Violence.” Wired Science.
Accessed 11 July 2012 from: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/hot-weather-
violence/
LeDoux, Joseph. 1996. The Emotional Brain. Simon & Schuster.
Markman, Art. 2010. “Anger makes the world seem more threatening”. Psychology Today.
Published October 12, 2010. Accessed June 5, 2012 from:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201010/anger-makes-the-world-seem-more-
threatening
Mill, John Stuart. 1844. “Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy - Essay V: On
the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Investigation Proper To It”. London:
Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer. 2nd Edition. 1874. Accessed 4 June 2012 from:
http://www.econlib.org/library/Mill/mlUQP5.html
Page 19 of 21

55. Mills, Rob. 2009. “How Colour Communicates Meaning”. ThinkVitamin.com. 10 September 2009.
Accessed 15 June 2012 from: http://thinkvitamin.com/design/how-colour-communicates-meaning/
Mok, Esther. Wong, Kwai-Yiu. “Effects of music on patient anxiety”. AORN J. Feb 2003. 77(2): 396-
7, 401-6, 409-10. Accessed 15 June 2012 from:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_2_77/ai_98134863/?tag=content;col1
Neal, David & Chartrand, Tanya. 2011. “Embodied Emotion Perception - Amplifying and
Dampening Facial Feedback Modulates Emotion Perception Accuracy”. Social Psychological and
Personality Science. November. Vol. 2 no. 6 pp. 673-678. Accessed 2 June 2012 from:
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/2/6/673
Nicosia, Frank. 1966. Consumer Decision Processes. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs.
North, Adrian. 2011. “Wine & Song: The Effect of Background Music on the Taste of Wine”.
WinePsych.com. November 2011. Accessed 15 June 2012 from: http://www.winepsych.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/11/adrian-north-music-and-wine.pdf
North, Adrian., Hargreaves, D. J., and McKendrick, J. 1997. “In-store music affects product choice”.
Nature. 390, 132.
Ortony, Andrew. Turner, Terence. 1990. “What’s Basic About Basic Emotions?”. Psychological
Review. Volume 97, Number 3, pp 315 – 331.
Parrott, W. Gerrod. 2001. Emotions in Social Psychology. Psychology Press. Philadelphia.
Poels, Karolien. Dewitte, Siegfried. 2006. “How to capture the heart? Reviewing 20 years of
emotion measurement in advertising”. KUL Working Paper No. MO 0605. April 2006. Accessed 5
June 2012 from: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/228488/1/MO_0605.pdf
Poynter, Ray. 2012. “Is Market Research Ready for Big Data?”. 13 March. Accessed 31 May 2012
from: http://vcu.visioncritical.com/2012/03/is-market-research-ready-for-big-data/
Prinz, Jesse. 2004. “Which Emotions are Basic?”. In D. Evans and P. Cruse (Eds.),
Emotion, Evolution, and Rationality. Oxford University Press.
PsychWiki. 2012. “Neuroscience and Decision Making”. Webpage. Accessed 25 June 2012 from:
http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Neuroscience_and_Decision_Making
Rau, Pradeep & Samiee, Saeed. “Models of Consumer Behavior: The State of the Art”. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science. June 1981. Vol. 9: 300-316.
Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. University of Chicago Press.
Ryynänen, Toni. 2010. “A Search for Interpretation and Understanding: Consumer Studies in
Design Research”. University of Helsinki, Department of Economics and Management. Discussion
Paper n:o 49. Accessed 31 May 2012 from: http://www.helsinki.fi/taloustiede/Abs/DP49.pdf
ScienceDaily. 2012. “Ghrelin Increases Willingness to Pay for Food”. July 12, 2012. Accessed 12
June 2012 from: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110712094044.htm
Page 20 of 21

56. Shiv, Baba & Fedorikhan, Alexander. 1999. “Heart and Mind in Conflict: The Interplay of Affect and
Cognition in Consumer Decision Making”. Journal of Consumer Research. Vol. 26, No. 3
(December 1999), pp. 278-292.
Taheri, S. Lin, L. Austin, D. Young, T. Mignot, E. 2004. “Short sleep duration is associated with
reduced leptin, elevated ghrelin, and increased body mass index.” PLoS Med. 2004. Dec;1(3):e62.
Epub 2004 Dec 7. Accessed 12 June 2012 from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15602591
Thaler, Richard & Sunstein, Cass. 2009. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and
Happiness. Revised and Expanded Edition. USA. Penguin Books.
Weingarten, Gene. 2007. “Pearls Before Breakfast”. Washington Post. Sunday, April 8, 2007.
Accessed 15 June 2012 from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
Winerman, Lea. 2006. “The culture-cognition connection”. Monitor on Psychology. February 2006.
Vol. 37. No. 2, p64 (print version). Accessed 15 June 2012 from:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb06/connection.aspx
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne. 1991. “Consumer Behavior: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”.
Business Horizons. May – June. Accessed 31 May 2012 from:
http://itu.dk/~petermeldgaard/B12/lektion%203/Consumer%20Behavior_Yesterday%20Today%20a
nd%20Tomorrow.pdf
Page 21 of 21