Limits...
Brands and Inhibition: A Go/No-Go Task Reveals the Power of Brand Influence.

Peatfield N, Caulfield J, Parkinson J, Intriligator J - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Whether selecting a candy in a shop or picking a digital camera online, there are usually many options from which consumers may choose.With such abundance, consumers must use a variety of cognitive, emotional, and heuristic means to filter out and inhibit some of their responses.The results showed no differences in response times or in commission errors (CE) between familiar and unfamiliar logos.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, LL57 2AS, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
Whether selecting a candy in a shop or picking a digital camera online, there are usually many options from which consumers may choose. With such abundance, consumers must use a variety of cognitive, emotional, and heuristic means to filter out and inhibit some of their responses. Here we use brand logos within a Go/No-Go task to probe inhibitory control during the presentation of familiar and unfamiliar logos. The results showed no differences in response times or in commission errors (CE) between familiar and unfamiliar logos. However, participants demonstrated a generally more cautious attitude of responding to the familiar brands: they were significantly slower and less accurate at responding to these brands in the Go trials. These findings suggest that inhibitory control can be exercised quite effectively for familiar brands, but that when such inhibition fails, the potent appetitive nature of brands is revealed.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Performance of participants for the different measures, and the different subjective-ratings.(a) GO trial accuracy. I.e. pressing the space bar when required to do so. (b) Percentage of commission errors. I.e. pressing the space bar when it was not required to do so. (c) Mean RT for GO trials, (d) Mean RT for commission errors. Error bars indicate standard error. * Denotes significance.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4636362&req=5

pone.0141787.g001: Performance of participants for the different measures, and the different subjective-ratings.(a) GO trial accuracy. I.e. pressing the space bar when required to do so. (b) Percentage of commission errors. I.e. pressing the space bar when it was not required to do so. (c) Mean RT for GO trials, (d) Mean RT for commission errors. Error bars indicate standard error. * Denotes significance.

Mentions: After a brief presentation on the requirements during experimentation, the participants were given an information sheet and consent form, which they were asked to complete before continuing. Participants were then asked to complete the GNG task. They were informed that they needed to respond as quickly as possible when brand logos were presented on the screen (Go trials), and not to respond to a brand logo if it repeated itself (No-Go trials). The required response to the Go trials was the spacebar, and participants were asked to place both index fingers on it. The GNG trial frequency was 1 Hz (see Fig 1). Within the 1000 msec trial window the brand logo was presented for the first 600 msec, and the remaining 400 msec was a blank screen. During the ISI the screen was black. During the logo presentation period the logo took up the centre 320x320 pixels of the screen and the rest of the screen was the same black as in the ISI. The Go/No-Go experiment consisted of 1080 trials broken into four blocks of 270 trials, this lead to 8 presentations of each brand as a Go trial and a single presentation as a No-Go (repeat stimulus) trial. At the end of each block participants had a self-timed break (minimum of 30 sec).


Brands and Inhibition: A Go/No-Go Task Reveals the Power of Brand Influence.

Peatfield N, Caulfield J, Parkinson J, Intriligator J - PLoS ONE (2015)

Performance of participants for the different measures, and the different subjective-ratings.(a) GO trial accuracy. I.e. pressing the space bar when required to do so. (b) Percentage of commission errors. I.e. pressing the space bar when it was not required to do so. (c) Mean RT for GO trials, (d) Mean RT for commission errors. Error bars indicate standard error. * Denotes significance.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4636362&req=5

pone.0141787.g001: Performance of participants for the different measures, and the different subjective-ratings.(a) GO trial accuracy. I.e. pressing the space bar when required to do so. (b) Percentage of commission errors. I.e. pressing the space bar when it was not required to do so. (c) Mean RT for GO trials, (d) Mean RT for commission errors. Error bars indicate standard error. * Denotes significance.
Mentions: After a brief presentation on the requirements during experimentation, the participants were given an information sheet and consent form, which they were asked to complete before continuing. Participants were then asked to complete the GNG task. They were informed that they needed to respond as quickly as possible when brand logos were presented on the screen (Go trials), and not to respond to a brand logo if it repeated itself (No-Go trials). The required response to the Go trials was the spacebar, and participants were asked to place both index fingers on it. The GNG trial frequency was 1 Hz (see Fig 1). Within the 1000 msec trial window the brand logo was presented for the first 600 msec, and the remaining 400 msec was a blank screen. During the ISI the screen was black. During the logo presentation period the logo took up the centre 320x320 pixels of the screen and the rest of the screen was the same black as in the ISI. The Go/No-Go experiment consisted of 1080 trials broken into four blocks of 270 trials, this lead to 8 presentations of each brand as a Go trial and a single presentation as a No-Go (repeat stimulus) trial. At the end of each block participants had a self-timed break (minimum of 30 sec).

Bottom Line: Whether selecting a candy in a shop or picking a digital camera online, there are usually many options from which consumers may choose.With such abundance, consumers must use a variety of cognitive, emotional, and heuristic means to filter out and inhibit some of their responses.The results showed no differences in response times or in commission errors (CE) between familiar and unfamiliar logos.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Psychology, Bangor University, Bangor, Wales, LL57 2AS, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
Whether selecting a candy in a shop or picking a digital camera online, there are usually many options from which consumers may choose. With such abundance, consumers must use a variety of cognitive, emotional, and heuristic means to filter out and inhibit some of their responses. Here we use brand logos within a Go/No-Go task to probe inhibitory control during the presentation of familiar and unfamiliar logos. The results showed no differences in response times or in commission errors (CE) between familiar and unfamiliar logos. However, participants demonstrated a generally more cautious attitude of responding to the familiar brands: they were significantly slower and less accurate at responding to these brands in the Go trials. These findings suggest that inhibitory control can be exercised quite effectively for familiar brands, but that when such inhibition fails, the potent appetitive nature of brands is revealed.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus