Allgemeine Inhalte
Seminar Contents
“If You Can’t Measure it, You Can’t Manage it!” Peter Drucker
Outside our conscious awareness, when we see a piece of cake or chocolate, a branded car or shirt, our positive or negative evaluation towards these objects arises quickly, without effort, and intention. In fact, enjoyable stimuli in the environment might produce immediate approach tendencies and negative stimuli might produce instant avoidance action tendencies (Heuer, Rinck, & Becker, 2007; Semmelmann & Weigelt, 2016; Stacy & Wiers, 2010). Regardless of whether we consider them true or false “such associative and automatic evaluations have been termed implicit attitudes” (Prestwich, Hurling, & Baker, 2011, p. 875). However, it is difficult for managers and researchers to sufficiently measure a person’s unconscious or automatic approach-avoidance tendencies by directly asking questions. Questionnaires and interviews are insufficient due to “self-presentation strategies, demand characteristics, distortions based on social desirability and “they tend to address many different social situations without focusing on the processing” (Heuer et al., 2007). Thus, the new measures have been termed ‘‘indirect or implicit’’ where people are not explicitly asked to reveal their attitudes.
The Approach-Avoidance Task (AAT) is based on the finding that stimulus’ emotion is related to our psychological element of approach and avoidance (Rinck & Becker, 2007). Compared with other indirect (implicit) measures such as memory association, and attentional biases, the AAT has unique advantages “because it measures behavioral avoidance tendencies” and even the AAT are valuable additions to direct measures like self-report measure (Heuer et al., 2007). Practically, the results of seven studies (Romero & Biswas, 2016) indicate that displaying healthy items to the left of unhealthy items enhances preference for the healthy food options in a restaurant. However, the effect of these factors on approach-avoidance tendencies remain largely unexplored (Roelofs, Elzinga, & Rotteveel, 2005; Weil, Feist, Moritz, & Wittekind, 2017) especially in an online environment (Semmelmann & Weigelt, 2016). Traditionally, the AAT aim was to reveal automatic tendencies by means of arm movements (Klein, Becker, & Rinck, 2011; Weil et al., 2017). To go beyond the traditional AAT, Ask Your Brain (AYB) software/App is developed. Figure 1 depicts an AAT trial showing food-related stimuli using AYB software/App. Therefore, a key objective of this seminar is to provide students with a novel application of AAT in consumer and management field (i.e., application of the AAT to the measurement of individual unconscious tendencies).
Seminar Setup and Timeline
The seminar allows students to experience a real-life consumer research project using Ask Your Brain (AYB) software/App. Students will be provided with essential guidance on how to use the AYB software/App during the seminar. State-of-the-art measurement instruments will be used to measure consumers´ cognitions (i.e., AAT). As we work empirically, the seminar is bound to be time-consuming, demanding and challenging. However, it enables students to participate in cutting-edge market research paving the way for Master and Ph.D. theses. Potential areas to be explored:
- Digital marketing
- Sustainable consumption
Due to empirical nature of the seminar, it is expected that students are equipped with basic knowledge of data analysis strategies (e.g., descriptive statistics, ANOVA) and primary understanding of statistical software. However, students will be provided with required guidance on data coding and analysis during the seminar. Following a mandatory organizational kickoff, the seminar will be held in four blocks as depicted in Table 1.
Students will outline the theoretical basis during the second block of the seminar by a short presentation of a literature synopsis. Following the second block, students are expected to begin data collection followed by data analysis (under supervision). In block 4, students are expected to present their empirical findings followed by discussion. Students need to submit their written report for the seminar.
Grading information
Passing the seminar requires the following:
· Presentation on theoretical foundation
· Final presentation of findings
· Written report on the own empirical study
Each part has to be passed at least with a 4.0 in order to pass this course.
Required reading- Foundations of implicit cognition
Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1999). The architecture of human memory. In: J.K. Foster & M. Jelicic (Eds), In Memory: Systems, Process or Function?. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–231.
Kahneman, D. (2003), Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics, The American economic review, 93, 1449-1475.
Stacy, A. W., & Wiers, R. W. (2010). Implicit cognition and addiction: a tool for explaining paradoxical behavior. Annual Review Of Clinical Psychology, 6, 551-575.
Perkins, A., Forehand, M., Greenwald, A. G. and Maison, D. (2008), “The influence of implicit social cognition on consumer behavior: Measuring the non-conscious,” In C. Haugtvedt, P. Herr & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 461-475). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Literature and Sources
Heuer, K., Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Avoidance of emotional facial expressions in social anxiety: The Approach-Avoidance Task. Behav Res Ther, 45(12), 2990-3001. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2007.08.010
Klein, A. M., Becker, E. S., & Rinck, M. (2011). Approach and Avoidance Tendencies in Spider Fearful Children: The Approach-Avoidance Task. J Child Fam Stud, 20(2), 224-231. doi: 10.1007/s10826-010-9402-7
Prestwich, A., Hurling, R., & Baker, S. (2011). Implicit shopping: attitudinal determinants of the purchasing of healthy and unhealthy foods. Psychol Health, 26(7), 875-885. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2010.509797
Rinck, M., & Becker, E. S. (2007). Approach and avoidance in fear of spiders. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 38(2), 105-120.
Roelofs, K., Elzinga, B. M., & Rotteveel, M. (2005). The effects of stress-induced cortisol responses on approach-avoidance behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 30(7), 665-677. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.02.008
Romero, M., & Biswas, D. (2016). Healthy-Left, Unhealthy-Right: Can Displaying Healthy Items to the Left (versus Right) of Unhealthy Items Nudge Healthier Choices? Journal of Consumer Research, 43(1), 103-112. doi: 10.1093/jcr/ucw008
Semmelmann, K., & Weigelt, S. (2016). Online psychophysics: reaction time effects in cognitive experiments. Behav Res Methods. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0783-4
Stacy, A. W., & Wiers, R. W. (2010). Implicit cognition and addiction: a tool for explaining paradoxical behavior. Annual review of clinical psychology, 6, 551-575.
Weil, R., Feist, A., Moritz, S., & Wittekind, C. E. (2017). Approaching contamination-related stimuli with an implicit Approach-Avoidance Task: Can it reduce OCD symptoms? An online pilot study. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry, 57, 180-188. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2017.05.007