ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2018
Things Become Appealing When I Win: Neural Evidence of the Influence of Competition Outcomes on Brand Preference.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Love at first glance: Imbalanced processing to gaming and natural rewards in internet gaming disorder.Journal of behavioral addictions · 2025Article
- A systematic review on EEG-based neuromarketing: recent trends and analyzing techniques.Brain informatics · 2024Review
- Intertemporal Decision-making and Risk Decision-making Among Habitual Nappers Under Nap Sleep Restriction: A Study from ERP and Time-frequency.Brain topography · 2023Article
- A systematic review of the prediction of consumer preference using EEG measures and machine-learning in neuromarketing research.Brain informatics · 2022Review
- Why Do You Trust News? The Event-Related Potential Evidence of Media Channel and News Type.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Symbolic Product Superiority in the Neural Salience of Compensatory Consumption Behavior.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Use of Electroencephalography for the Study of Gain-Loss Asymmetry in Intertemporal Decision-Making.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Against the background of an increasingly competitive market environment, the current study aimed to investigate whether and how victory and defeat, as two critical factors in competition outcomes, would affect consumers' preference of unfamiliar brands. In the experiment, participants' status of victory or defeat was induced by a pseudo-online game, followed by a main task of brand preference rating. Using the precise and intuitive attributes of neuroscientific techniques, we adopted event-related potentials to analyze brain activity precisely during brand information processing when individuals experienced victory or defeat. Behavioral data showed that individuals had a stronger preference for unfamiliar brands in victory trials than in defeat trials, even if the brand was completely unrelated to the competition; this indicated a transfer of valence. Three emotion-related event-related potential components, N1, P2 and later positive potentials, were elicited more negatively in victory trials than in defeat trials, indicating the existence of incidental emotions induced by victory or defeat. No significant correlation was found between any pair of ERP components and preference scores. These results suggest that the experience of victory and defeat can evoke corresponding incidental emotions without awareness, and further affect the individual's preference for unfamiliar brands. Therefore, playing a game before presenting brand information might help promote the brand by inducing a good impression of the brand in consumers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.