banner
You are not using a standards compliant browser. Because of this you may notice minor glitches in the rendering of this page. Please upgrade to a compliant browser for optimal viewing:
Firefox
Internet Explorer 7
Safari (Mac and PC)
Post Archive
2014 (0)2013 (2)2012 (29)
December (1)November (2)

Give thanks this Thursday—and always
Monday, November 19, 2012

"neuroBLOGical" turns 1!
Sunday, November 4, 2012
October (4)September (1)

Sight without seeing: Balint's syndrome
Sunday, September 16, 2012
August (2)

Catnip fever: why your cat acts high
Tuesday, August 28, 2012

Paralyze your face, fight depression
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
July (2)June (4)May (3)April (2)March (3)February (2)

Seeing into the future? The neuroscience of déjà vu
Sunday, February 26, 2012

Your love is my drug
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
January (3)
2011 (7)
Rate This Post
Total votes: 2
Blogger Profile

Jordan Gaines
Neuroscience
Pennsylvania State University USA

A blog on biology, psychology, cognition, learning, memory, aging, and everything in between. Explaining recent discoveries in neuroscience, translated to language we can all understand!

My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.

Blog RSS Feed
RSS Add to My Yahoo Add to Google
Recent Comments

Your blog is perhaps one of the best pieces of science writings I have recently come across! Brilliant work ! I have been meaning to start something similar..now am inspired :) By the way- . . .Read More
May 08, 2013, 2:08pm

When you get to smell, I have some burning questions.   What's the scoop on that new car smell, and why does it make you want to buy?  :)   . . .Read More
Jan 28, 2013, 7:14pm

Coolest series ever!  I can't wait for the next one. . . .Read More
Dec 10, 2012, 9:46am
Comment by Brian Krueger, PhD in "neuroBLOGical" turns 1!

I'm starting as the Associate Director of the Genomic Analysis Facility at Duke University in two weeks!  Hopefully once things settle down I'll actually be able to write again and start recruitin. . .Read More
Nov 06, 2012, 7:20am
Comment by Jordan Gaines in "neuroBLOGical" turns 1!

Excellent! What's the new job? . . .Read More
Nov 05, 2012, 5:37pm
Blogroll
May 29, 2013, 6:34pm
Feb 01, 2011, 10:42am
Jan 07, 2011, 2:16pm
Saturday, December 8, 2012

On the first day of Christmas my true love gave to me...

...a bunch of crap I really didn't need.

With just sixteen shopping days until Christmas, it's easy to get roped into buying things we might not actually have on our gift list.

Most times, we're conscious of our impulse purchases—there's a great sale on this! I'll use that later!

But sometimes reasons for our frivolous purchases are not so obvious to us. Don't feel too bad—store chains actually hire researchers to study our shopping patterns and take advantage of our weaknesses.

Our brains are endlessly fascinatingly organs—but sometimes they betray us. The following is the first post in a five-part series on how stores trick our senses into shelling out more money than we may intend.

Taste

Did you ever take the Pepsi Challenge?

For those unfamiliar (or living under a rock), the Pepsi Challenge was a campaign started by Pepsi back in the 1970s where Coca-Cola was pitted against Pepsi in a blind taste test by consumers.

When it was revealed that most Americans chose Pepsi over Coca-Cola, sales skyrocketed.

How they tricks us: We consumers like brands, and we're loyal to them.

It make sense, right? If you love your old Chevy but are in the market for a new car, you'll probably stick to the same make. It's familiar, and it didn't let you down.

In 2004, Dr. Read Montague of the Baylor College of Medicine tested the Pepsi Challenge on people while their brains were imagined in an fMRI machine.

Among the volunteers, more than half of them, much like the national polls, claimed to prefer Pepsi.

Their enjoyment was confirmed via fMRI. Compared to Coca-Cola, activity was greater in the ventral putamen—a region associated with reward—when volunteers sipped on Pepsi.

The study then took a surprising twist when Dr. Montague conducted his second experiment. This time, the volunteers were told whether they'd be sampling Coke or Pepsi before they took a sip.

Strangely, 75% of participants suddenly claimed to prefer Coke.

Furthermore, fMRI scans showed activity in the medial prefrontal cortex—associated with higher thinking and decision-making—in addition to the ventral putamen. Now, it seemed, their brains were locked in a battle of rational thinking versus pleasurable feeling.

Why, exactly, did this happen? Montague reasoned that, suddenly, Coca-Cola's brand—its logo, color, history, the memorable ads and childhood recollections—beat out young, newfangled, inexperienced Pepsi.

One's biased, emotional link with a brand, it appears, can trump our natural, unbiased preferences.

Forget a blind taste test. If you went by brand alone, which cookies would you buy without thinking?

Now guess which costs more...?

Check back later this week for "How stores trick our senses to make us buy more (Part 2 of 5: Sight)."

McClure SM, Li J, Tomlin D, Cypert KS, Montague LM, & Montague PR (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44 (2), 379-87 PMID: 15473974

This post has been viewed: 3454 time(s)

Tags:                 

Blog Comments

Brian Krueger, PhD
Duke University
Rate Post:

Like 0 Dislike

Coolest series ever!  I can't wait for the next one.

Add Comment?
Comments are closed 2 weeks after initial post.
Friends