摘要为了探究消费者使用支付方式如何影响产品购买偏好及其脑神经机制,根据心理账户理论,采用基于事件相关电位(ERP)脑电实验的双因素组内设计分析,即2(产品类型:实用型产品和享乐型产品)×2(支付方式:现金支付和非现金支付)。实验任务需要被试在随机出现的4种不同的购买情景下做出购买选择,并同时记录其选择时的脑神经电生理活动。结果表明,在早期认知阶段,消费者面对不同类型产品刺激时,对享乐型产品较实用型产品自动分配更多注意力且引起较大波幅P2成分((5.809±0.811)μV vs (4.878±0.944)μV,P<0.05);在认知过程阶段,消费者面对不同的支付方式,易产生决策冲突,现金支付较非现金支付会引起较小波幅P3成分((3.267±0.907)μV vs (3.913±0.833)μV,P<0.05);在认知决策阶段,现金支付享乐型产品较实用型产品的支付疼痛与购物内疚产生更大波幅晚期正成分波(LPP)成分((3.825±0.843)μV vs (2.929±0.769)μV,P<0.05),同时非现金支付享乐型产品较实用型产品的支付快感与购物愉悦均诱发强烈情绪唤醒,产生更大波幅晚期正成分波(LPP)成分((3.375±0.887)μV vs (2.03±0.768)μV,P<0.05)。因此,当消费者采用现金支付时,更偏爱实用型产品;当消费者采用非现金支付时,更偏爱享乐型产品。消费过程中的脑神经电生理分析对消费者、商家和支付机构均具有重要意义。
Abstract：In order to explore the influence of the ways for payment on product purchasing preference and its brain neural mechanisms, event-related potential (ERP) experiments with two-factor internal design, 2 (product type: hedonic products and practical products)×2 (payment methods: cash payment and non-cash payment), were used based on mental accounting theory. Participants were asked to make purchasing choices under four different experimental scenarios. And the neurophysiological processes were recorded at the same time for consumption choice. The results showed that in early cognitive stage, when the consumers were stimulated by practical products and hedonic products, they automatically allocated more attention to hedonic products than that to practical products and caused more volatile P2 components ((5.809±0.811)μV vs (4.878±0.944)μV , P<0.05); In cognitive process stage, when the consumers faced different payments, it was easy to create conflicts of decision-making, increasing the difficulty of decision-making, cash payments caused less volatile P3 component than that for non-cash payments ((3.267±0.907)μV vs (3.913±0.833)μV, P<0.05). In cognitive decision-making stage, when consumers paid for hedonic products, pain of payment and guilt of shopping resulted in more volatile LPP components compared with that for paying practical products in cash((3.825±0.843)μV vs (2.929±0.769)μV, P<0.05). And when consumers paid for hedonic products, pleasure of payments and shopping triggered strong emotional arousal resulted in more volatile LPP components compared with that for paying practical products in non-cash ((3.375±0.887)μV vs (2.030±0.768)μV, P<0.05).Therefore, consumers preferred practical products when using cash payments and hedonic products when using non-cash payments. Analysis from brain electrophysiological perspective has importance for consumers, merchants and payment institutions.
宋之杰, 张丽平, 王丹丹, 李天娇, 石蕊. 支付方式对产品偏好的事件相关电位研究[J]. 中国生物医学工程学报, 2019, 38(3): 281-290.
Song Zhijie, Zhang Liping, Wang Dandan, Li Tianjiao, Shi Rui. Research on ERP for the Ways of Payment on Consumer Product Preferences. Chinese Journal of Biomedical Engineering, 2019, 38(3): 281-290.
[1] Hirschman EC. Differences in Consumer Purchase Behavior by Credit Card Payment System[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 1979, 6(1): 58-66. [2] 杨晨, 王海忠. “空付”们怎样掏空用户的钱包?——支付方式对消费行为的影响[J]. 清华管理评论, 2014, 7(Z2): 84-90. [3] Runnemark E. Do consumers pay more using debit cards than cash[J]. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 2015, 14(5): 285-291. [4] Falk T, Kunz WH, Schepers JJL, et al. How mobile payment influences the overall store price image[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2016, 69(7): 2417-2423. [5] Thomas M, Desai KK, Seenivasan S. How credit card payments increase unhealthy food purchases: Visceral regulation of vices[J]. Journal of Consumer Research, 2011, 38(1): 126-139. [6] 杨晨, 王海忠, 钟科, 等. 支付方式对产品偏好的影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 2015, 12(2): 264-275. [7] 王琦, 席丹, 张晓航. 支付方式与消费者购买决策——基于心理账户理论的分析[J]. 商业研究, 2017, 10(10): 10-15. [8] Hirschman EC, Holbrook MB. Hedonic consumption, emerging concept, methods and propositions[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1982, 46(3): 92-101. [9] Noguchi Y, Murota M. Temporal dynamics of neural activity in an integration of visual and contextual information in an esthetic preference task[J]. Neuropsychologia, 2013, 51(6): 1077-1084. [10] Martin LE, Potts GF. Impulsivity in decision-making: An event-related potential investigation[J]. Personality and Individual Differences, 2009, 46(3):303-308. [11] Qin Jungang, Han Shihui. Neurocognitive mechanisms underlying identification of environmental risk[J]. Neuropsychologia, 2009, 47(2): 397-405. [12] Qin Jialan, Xiao Feng, Li Fuhong, et al. The characteristic of extrapolation in numerical inductive inference: An ERP study[J]. Brain Research, 2009, 1295(1295): 142-148. [13] Yuan Jiajin, Zhang Qinglin, Chen Antao, et al. Are we sensitive to valence differences in emotionally negative stimuli? Electrophysiological evidence from an ERP study[J]. Neuropsychologia, 2007, 45(12): 2764-2771. [14] Doallo S, Cadaveira F, Holguín SR. Time course of attentional modulations on automatic emotional processing[J]. Neuroscience Letters, 2007, 418(1): 111-116. [15] 韩伟伟, 王晶. 产品设计与性能冲突对消费者决策过程的神经学影响[J]. 南开管理评论, 2017, 20(2): 155-168. [16] 龚艳萍,侯伟,田爽.打折还是赠品?不仅仅是因为省钱——消费者对网络促销信息决策模糊性的神经机制研究[J].营销科学学报, 2015, 11(2): 99-117. [17] 何媛媛, 袁加锦, 伍泽莲. 正性情绪刺激效价强度的变化对外倾个体注意的调制作用[J]. 心理学报, 2008, 40(11): 1158-1164. [18] Mennes M, Wouters H, Van DBB, et al. ERP correlates of complex human decision making in a gambling paradigm: detection and resolution of conflict[J]. Psychophysiology, 2008, 45(5): 714-720. [19] Thaler R. Towards a positive theory of consumer choice[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1980, 1(1): 39-60. [20] Kamleitner B. Coupling: The implicit assumption behind sunk cost effect and related phenomena[EB/OL]. https://www.researchgate.net/ publication/4931756_Coupling_the_implicit_assumption_behind_sunk_cost_effect_and_related_phenomena. 2008-09/2018-08-06. [21] 陈璟, 姜金栋, 汪为,等. 决策中情绪作用机制的理论研究述评[J]. 心理科学, 2014(6):1346-1353. [22] 李爱梅, 李斌, 许华,等. 心理账户的认知标签与情绪标签对消费决策行为的影响[J]. 心理学报, 2014, 46(7):976-986. [23] Park WC. The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency[J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1992, 29(3): 296-313. [24] Schupp HT, Markus J, Weike AI, et al. Emotional facilitation of sensory processing in the visual cortex[J]. Psychological Science, 2010, 14(1):7-13. [25] Hajcak G, Moser JS, Simons RF. Attending to affect:appraisal strategies modulate the electrocortical response to arousing pictures[J]. Emotion, 2006, 6(3): 517-522. [26] Yen Naishing, Chen Kuanhua, Liu Estella H. Emotional modulation of the late positive potential (LPP) generalizes to Chinese individuals[J]. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2010, 75, 319-325. [27] 高敏, 孙洪杰. 产品类型和感知风险对消费者属性同异选择的影响研究[J]. 重庆大学学报(社会科学版), 2017, 23(1): 51-60. [28] Carretie L, Mercado F, Tapia M, et al. Emotion, attention, and the negativity bias, studied through event-related potentials[J]. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2001, 41(1): 75-85. [29] Folstein JR, Van Petten C. Influence of cognitive control and mismatch on the N2 component of the ERP: A review[J]. Psychophysiology, 2008, 45(1): 152-170. [30] Bruin KJ, Wijers AA. Inhibition, response mode, and stimulus probability: A comparative event-related potential study[J]. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2002, 113(7):1172-1182. [31] 郭向东, 王怀军. 价格折扣框架对消费选择的影响研究[J]. 商业经济研究, 2016(6): 49-51. [32] Matsuda I, Nittono H. Motivational significance and cognitive effort elicit different late positive potentials[J]. Clinical Neurophysiology, 2015, 126(2):304-313. [33] Foti D, Hajcak G. Deconstructing reappraisal: Descriptions preceding arousing pictures modulate the subsequent neural response[J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 2008, 20 (6): 977-988. [34] 姚卿, 陈荣, 赵平. 享乐品和实用品对后续购买行为的影响分析[J].营销科学学报, 2015, 11(1):71-84. [35] 张书恺, 吕巍. 金钱与非金钱付出对于产品价值感知的影响——产品类型与卷入度的调节作用[J]. 上海管理科学, 2017, 39(1): 7-11. [36] 章璇, 景奉杰. 网购商品的类型对在线冲动性购买行为的影响[J].管理科学, 2012, 25(3): 69-77.
