For more information, please contact Rachel Czapla.

In a world where virtual reality meets the physical realm, the concept of the metaverse is no longer confined to science fiction. Michelle Niedziela, VP of Research & Innovation at HCD, delves into the transformative impact of the metaverse on personal care products and experiences. Her insightful article sheds light on the challenges and opportunities presented by this digital frontier. Check it out here: https://tks-hpc.h5mag.com/hpc_today_1_2024/column_consumer_perspective_-_navigating_the_sensory_gap_in_metaverse_personal_care The metaverse, a term that once resided solely within the pages of futuristic novels, has transcended its fictional origins to become a tangible reality. In her illuminating article, Michelle Niedziela, HCD's VP of Research & Innovation, unravels the intricate interplay between virtual and physical realities in the realm of personal care. Niedziela's exploration begins by elucidating the metaverse as a convergence of immersive technologies like augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and the internet, where individuals can interact, socialize, work, and play. This digital universe, once the domain of gaming enthusiasts, is now permeating diverse industries, from entertainment to education, healthcare, and commerce. Central to Niedziela's analysis is the burgeoning trend of virtual personal care within the metaverse. As virtual spaces become integral to our daily lives, individuals seek avenues to express their identities and enhance their self-care routines digitally. Virtual skincare regimens, makeup trials in immersive environments, and a plethora of digital beauty options are becoming the norm, reflecting a growing demand for innovative and interactive personal care experiences. However, Niedziela astutely highlights a significant hurdle: the sensory gap. In the absence of tactile and olfactory sensations, consumers struggle to fully connect with virtual products, raising questions about their efficacy and desirability. Yet, amidst these challenges lie opportunities for technological innovations to bridge this gap. Technologies like AR and VR, alongside haptic feedback and scent-emitting devices, hold promise in recreating sensory experiences within the metaverse. These advancements not only enhance user immersion but also pave the way for hyper-personalized self-care experiences tailored to individual preferences. Furthermore, Niedziela underscores the importance of cultural inclusivity in metaverse personal care, advocating for the recognition and celebration of diverse beauty ideals across cultures. Niedziela paints a compelling vision of the future, where advancements in technology blur the lines between virtual and physical beauty, offering limitless possibilities for customization, personalization, and holistic self-care in the metaverse. Closing Thoughts: This article offers a captivating glimpse into the evolving landscape of metaverse personal care, urging us to embrace innovation and inclusivity as we navigate this digital frontier. As we journey forward, let us harness the transformative power of the metaverse to redefine the way we perceive and engage with self-care in the digital age.

As we reflect on the dynamic landscape of the market research industry, it's evident that the last 30 years have been nothing short of a rollercoaster ride. In this blog post, I, as the CEO of HCD Research, invite you to join me in exploring the seismic shifts that have shaped our industry, with a particular focus on the transformative events of the last four years. Weathering the Storms: Adapting to Unprecedented Challenges 9/11 - 2001: A Paradigm Shift The dawn of the new millennium brought about seismic change, none more impactful than the events of September 11, 2001. The market research industry, heavily reliant on central location focus groups and face-to-face interactions, saw an immediate upheaval. The fallout from this earth-shattering event compelled large companies to halt air travel, disrupting our traditional research methodologies. However, as the world slowly regained its footing, so did the research industry, marking a pivotal moment in our journey. The Great Recession - 2008 through 2011: Economic Juggernaut A decade later, the economic juggernaut of the Great Recession brought research to a standstill, leaving both small and large providers grappling with its aftermath. Media, PR, advertising agencies, and communications research witnessed a shift as large companies sought bundled services from media conglomerates. Budgets were frozen, and the ripple effects reached pharmaceutical research, causing unprecedented challenges. The extended payment terms adopted during this crisis have since become a standard industry practice, posing ongoing challenges for research vendors. COVID and Post-COVID: The Unpredictable Rollercoaster Fast forward to March 16, 2020, when the world was blindsided by the COVID-19 pandemic. Research plans were canceled or modified to adhere to health safety requirements, reshaping the industry's landscape overnight. Face-to-face methodologies took a back seat, making way for the rise of online research as the new standard. Yet, just as expectations were set for a post-COVID surge, the logistics crisis of 2022 and global uncertainties led to frozen budgets and a decline in various verticals. Navigating the Near-Term Future As we gaze into the near-term future, certain trends emerge, reshaping the way we approach market research: Evolution of Research Platforms: Expect more sophisticated modeling capabilities as research platforms continue to grow, potentially replacing the need for traditional research vendors in templated study areas. Shift in Budget Control: Some companies will witness a shift in budget control from research managers to higher-level management in marketing and procurement, signaling a new era in financial scrutiny. End of "Use it or Lose it": The traditional December practice of "use it or lose it" is fading away. Budgets are now subject to meticulous scrutiny, reflecting a change in financial management strategies. Rise of "Research Plus": The concept of "Research Plus" gains prominence, where market research companies not only provide data but also offer tactical and strategic advice based on research results. Transformation of Research Models: Research companies will evolve from the traditional project model to a consultative approach, anticipating research needs and offering advice in areas of expertise. In conclusion, our journey through 30 years of market research has been marked by resilience, adaptability, and an unwavering commitment to understanding the evolving needs of our clients. As we face the future, these lessons learned will undoubtedly guide us in navigating the ever-changing currents of our dynamic industry. Sincerely, Glenn Kessler CEO, HCD Research

Written by: Brenda Torres As I approached the end of my first year at HCD, I had the opportunity to attend NeuroU 2023 and be reminded of why my role as a marketing research analyst had been such a great fit for me and my interests in both psychology and data analytics. The topics covered by the speakers ranged from how emotions are defined and measured to how AI is used to enhance product research and development, showcasing how multidisciplinary the field of consumer research is. The day began with Dr. Meiselman providing some background knowledge on emotions and helping to explain why something we all experience constantly can be so difficult to understand and quantify. The first challenge is simply defining what emotions are. While there are multiple definitions each with their own nuances, it can be generally agreed that they are brief, intense, valenced (i.e., not neutral) and most importantly measurable. However, this brings up the question of how best to measure emotions, with two broad categories of options: explicit (questionnaires, self-reported, etc.) and implicit (physiological, IAT, etc.). Although each has its own advantages and disadvantages, both (and often a combination) types of methods can be very valuable to consumer research. This was echoed by the presentations of both Dr. Almeida (of MediaProbe) and Tessa Moxley, Stephen Lillford (Reckitt), and Rachel Horn (HCD Research). Dr. Almeida presented on the use of physiological measures of emotion, including the challenges, limitations, and strengths of these methods. One application discussed was the use of electrodermal activity measurement to evaluate the emotional response to media, and how it can be used in improving advertising and other media content. Similarly, Tessa, Stephen, and Rachel spoke of how the combination of explicit and implicit measures can improve the way perceptions of fragrance are understood. While liking of a fragrance is easy to evaluate by simply asking a participant how much they like it, it can be harder to understand how a fragrance makes someone feel or what higher-order benefits they associate it with. The use of implicit association tests (IAT) addresses this issue and the combination of both through regression analysis provides a clearer picture of fragrance perceptions. Lastly, presentations like Dr. Vanessa Rios de Souza and Bartosz Smulski’s (of Aigora) and Dan Alferov’s (of Heartbeat AI) explained how data science techniques can be used to better understand human emotions and decisions. Aigora has made use of machine learning models to improve and speed up the way companies make product research and development decisions. This is done in part by better understanding previous data and using this insight to create virtual prototypes of products and evaluating their performance, which can be done more efficiently than traditional consumer research. Similarly, Heartbeat AI uses natural language processing to quantify human emotions. This presentation outlined NLP basics, emerging AI like BERT, how they are evaluated, and the possible ethical concerns that come with new technologies. Both presentations spoke about the challenges of using data science in consumer research; however, the benefits prove to be very exciting. Overall, NeuroU was full of exciting presentations that truly show how consumer research incorporates psychology, neuroscience, and data science to better understand how consumers feel and make decisions and how we can leverage this understanding into better business outcomes. I hope to apply what I learned at Neuro U and continue to explore topics of interest as I progress in my career as a marketing analyst.

Autumn Weeks, Ph.D. is a data science consultant with two years of experience in statistical analysis and modeling. Autumn earned her Ph.D. in Biomedical Sciences from Colorado State University in 2006 studying nootropics and the kinetics of AMPA-type glutamate receptors. In May 2023, Autumn graduates from the University of West Florida with her Master’s in Data Science on the analytics and modeling track. The Data Science program at UWF focuses on machine learning, data mining, and statistical analysis. Autumn is excited to share her insights and expertise within these areas with the HCD team. As a data science consultant at HCD Research, Autumn is responsible for assisting in statistical modeling and interpretation of data. This will include developing accessible visualizations and creating new dashboards to summarize, share, and tailor data client reports. Autumn is committed to researching new and important questions while learning effective ways to model, visualize and interpret data. Outside of work, Autumn loves to swim and is an avid reader of sci-fi and fantasy novels. On many occasions, she has even been spotted in the wild reading and swimming at the same time. As a recovering Type-A personality, Autumn has lists for her lists and even makes lists of the books she’s read for fun. She also enjoys playing board games, exploring new hobbies and spending time with her family.

As seen in Insights magazine... The product experience is a multifaceted process. It involves not just the physical use of the product but encapsulates the messaging, branding, and consumer perception. Consumer decision-making requires the consideration of cognitive, affective, and sensory experiences, as these interactions do not live independently of one another. To have an effective impact on the affective experience, brands can tap into sensory cues to enhance the product story contributing to consumer decision-making. By incorporating the sensory experience into established tools, like journey mapping, brands can better develop a pleasurable and satisfying product experience from start to finish. Figure 1. Brand harmony is the idea that there is importance in ensuring that all products and experiences within a particular brand and brand portfolio have consistency. What is journey mapping? Journey mapping is one tool often used in marketing to capture levels of engagement, understand consumer decisions and behaviors, and uncover potential pain points and successes. These maps expose a myriad of moments in which the consumer either abandons or continues building the relationship with a brand or product. Exploring both direct and indirect contact with a consumer shows how the relationship evolves over time (Micheaux & Bosio, 2019). The chain of events throughout the product experience is often referred to as “touch points” because it shows the sequential decisions that the consumer makes while interacting with the brand. Journey mapping is a major focus for many teams because of the belief that creating a strong, positive experience will elevate its performance and improve customer satisfaction, which then promotes a healthy relationship (Lemon & Verhoef, 2016). The information regarding journey mapping traditionally has an emphasis on understanding the emotional, cognitive, and social aspects of decision-making; yet there is an element that remains relatively underrated throughout the overall experience: sensory performance. Regardless of the type of touch point, every experience is a multisensorial experience. The sensorial components that are being stimulated impact the consumer’s perception of the product because the sensory inputs communicate a message to the consumer. By addressing the various exchanges and responses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell throughout a product experience, companies can ensure they are communicating a congruent message that will propel a positive experience. Why sensorial mapping? As a consumer interacts with a product, each sensorial feature contributes to the overall impression integrated in the brain. These impressions impact much of the consumer response including, but not limited to, a consumer’s mood, interests, decisions, and overall perception (HBR, 2015). Accounting for the sensory experience can serve as a strategy to intensify brand identity and build stronger connections. This process can amplify and cue certain messages by evaluating and adjusting how the senses work in tandem at specific points in the product experience. Developing multidimensional considerations for the product experience increases the number of opportunities to innovate because of its holistic approach. Using touchpoints, companies can understand the relationship among the five senses throughout the consumer experience. By learning what the consumer perceives as prominent or obscure, companies can make sure that important aspects of the sensorial experience are not being overlooked or that a dominating sense is communicating the right message. Sensory footprint To display the rating data over the five modalities of sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell, spider plots can be used to illustrate the sensory experience at that moment in time. This provides a cohesive visual representation of the sensory touchpoint, documenting what sense is driving the product perception. The spider plot gives a sensory profile in an intuitive figure, and when collected over various touchpoints, can reveal the need gaps within the product experience. Further, this type of evaluation can also be conducted on competitor products to see what is driving their sensory experience, giving companies a pairwise comparison opportunity to see what is and is not working throughout the overall experience. Figure 2. The sensory footprint is a tool for tracking how products are experienced via sensory systems like sight, smell, taste, touch & sound – 5 dimensionally. It is important to note that the sensory experience of a product shifts over time, as specific sensory elements claim or compete for perceptual dominance. Sensory footprints can track the relevance of the senses over a product experience, allowing marketers, R&D teams, and consumer scientists to craft a harmonious experience from start to finish. Sweet as candy To understand the sensorial journey of a product, consider a candy bar. The first interaction may not be in a store but through an ad. The first interaction may not be in a store, but through an ad. Seeing the bright colors and hearing the upbeat music may be pulling the sensory experience more so than something like taste or smell. But when the consumer is in the store aisle and sees the candy bar again, the visual sensory experience may still be prevalent based on the messaging and package design, but it is now paired with the added layer of the texture of the box and the outer shell the candy is encased in. The tactile experience then continues if the consumer chooses to purchase the treat and unravel the foil or take off the sleeve to reveal the actual candy. At this moment, the aroma of the candy may take precedence until the inevitable first bite where taste finally becomes prominent, and the flavor profile is either inadequate or satisfying. Everything leading up to that bite is setting the stage for what is to come. Each of these small moments imprints a message on the consumer about the product experience. Whether it is leading with visuals or smells, the sensory experience must provide an accurate depiction of what not only the first bite, but every bite will entail. This is why it is so important to make sure that the sensorial properties of the overall experience are congruent. The truth is that each of these interactions must work with each other to create a seamless, special experience that meets the consumer’s expectations. By matching smell to the taste to the designs, there is a sense of trust built between the consumer and the company that the consumer is getting what they paid for. Figure 3. Sensory Journey Mapping can be a valuable tool for understanding the consumer experience. Conclusion Every company benefits by acknowledging the multisensory experience that occurs throughout the use of a product. Car companies capitalize on the “new car smell,” while clothing stores brand themselves by having buttery smooth fabrics. Sensory input is intertwined and messy, but by using methodologies, like the spider plot over the entire experience, companies can identify the channels that are most impactful in creating a positive experience. By embracing cross-functional collaboration to build a product, companies can design product experiences that guide consumers to make informed decisions in a simple, impactful, and enjoyable way. Citations: Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C. (2016). Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of marketing, 80(6), 69-96. Micheaux, A., & Bosio, B. (2019). Customer journey mapping as a new way to teach data-driven marketing as a service. Journal of Marketing Education, 41(2), 127-140. The Science of Sensory Marketing. Harvard Business Review. (2015, February 17). Retrieved October 17, 2022, from https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-science-of-sensory-marketing

The lack of understanding of what "emotion" is has become apparent as business interest in understanding and measuring consumer emotions to improve products and services grow. While it may seem easy at first to identify basic emotions, like happiness, sadness, and anger, defining the nuances of feelings and mood spaces can be a significant challenge, as the term "emotion" means different things to different people. But the problem becomes even more obvious when trying to measure emotional changes. Many of the issues plaguing emotion research can be attributed to a misunderstanding of the science and a reliance on researchers who are pressured to push the limits of what tools and technologies can measure. To satisfy expectations and keep the topic flashy, emotion research often falls short, with problems ranging from misused, overgeneralized tools to overreaching and unsupported claims and interpretations from those measures. Recently, HCD Research hosted a webinar bringing together an expert panel of emotion researchers including Pedro Almeida, PhD from MindProber, Toby Coates from MMR, Michelle (Lani) Shiota, PhD from Arizona State University, and Tian Yu, PhD from Aigora to discuss the challenges of conducting sound emotion research. This webinar aimed to shed light on these issues and provide guidance for conducting impactful emotion research. Keep reading to hear some highlights from the webinar and learn how to avoid the pitfalls of “Junk Science” in emotion research. Let’s try to define “emotion.” To kick this conversation off, HCD’s Michelle Niedziela, PhD prompted the panelists to try to explain exactly what is an emotion. Michelle (Lani) Shiota, PhD caveats the question by explaining how the word “emotion” is an umbrella term for psychological and biological experiences that are sometimes associated with behavior. She defines emotion as “a moderately instinctive response to what we believe is happening in the environment, and the implications of what is happening to our environment for our own well-being.” In an attempt to capture this vague, multifaceted phenomenon, researchers use tools and technology to act as imperfect indicators and help us better understand the motivation for such reactions. Why is it so easy to make a mistake when looking into emotions? Because psychological constructs are NOT real, concrete things that can be measured without error Pedro Almeida, PhD acknowledges a lot of emotion research is motivated by clients who are interested in proving the quality of their product and may use several approaches to find one that supports the narrative they want. The emotion measures- from self-reported responses to fMRI- are not the problem; it is the assumptions that are made about the measures. Changes measured are not equivalent to the construct being measured but serve as an indicator or proxy because of the correlations validated in research. Sweat gland activity strongly correlates with arousal, but it is a much looser correlation when the construct of arousal is stretched to something like fear or lying. Complicated emotional experiences involve context and nuance and make it challenging, sometimes impossible, to attribute the same correlations to specific scenarios. Let’s talk about implicit association A big distinction came about during the conversation surrounding the topic of implicit association testing. Lani addresses how often people assume it is a measure of emotion when, in fact, this test reveals concept associations, or the extent people associate a target concept word with a concept. This reaction is based on a cultural network of knowledge, which means it may not be equivalent to how we feel. Implicit testing focuses on associations between two concepts, yet the affective response about that association requires different measures, such as self-reported responses. But, Michelle calls out that this is why it is important to remember that one tool alone will never tell the whole story. The importance of data quality Tian Yu, PhD emphasizes how crucial it is to use the tool to collect the right type of data by asking, “Is the data enough to support the question you are asking?” She goes on to share that the model can only predict what the data has seen. Conversations around Emotion AI reveal that clients often push researchers to use tools for the sake of using them or want to generalize and extend the data to mean something untrue about emotion. Toby Coates plays devil’s advocate by empathizing with clients who are enticed to use certain interfaces that make it seem simple. “The truth is that there is nothing wrong with technology… [Facial coding] is not measuring emotion at all, it is measuring small facial movements.” Toby goes on to mention how context is lost in only focusing on the face rather than accounting for things like body language. When have you gone too far? Pedro shares that the best way to avoid over interpreting the data is to develop a hypothesis and a pre-analysis plan prior to data collection. “We try to do things hypothesis based. Let’s build this set of hypotheses, and those are the things that we will be looking at the data on. We then need multiple instances of a given event… if you have so many events, you can average out everything else that is happening. This is a really hard thing to do.” Educating clients about the proper way to do research can be challenging, but there is a space where academics and industry leaders can work together to explore these mechanisms. The most effective partnerships come from defining a good question and setting good boundaries together. The future of emotion research So, what does the future hold? Here are some thoughts about opportunities in emotion research: “Activation of measures in real-time, processing data with validity, and having outcomes of value. I also believe the [neuromarketing] industry will be scrutinized and use academic consultants to make the research better.”- Pedro “Think about how these measures correlate with behavior rather than trying to use them to understand what is going on in people’s minds.” – Toby “If we see the right form of the data and different factors that could affect helping these measures, we move forward on interpreting this measure to the right emotion”- Tian “We need to do research that integrates and acknowledges that when we talk about “emotion,” we are talking about loosely correlated phenomena that appear to have some type of motivational direction. Get out of the competitive space and understand better how that system works from the strengths that we have learned, and learn applications of behavior.” - Lani If you are interested in learning more about emotion research, please watch register for the recording here or contact Allison Gutkowski at allison.gutkowski@hcdi.net for any other inquiries.

A note from Glenn Kessler, the founder and CEO of HCD Research I am excited to announce that this month marks the 30th anniversary of HCD Research. When we began conducting market research for healthcare companies in 1993, we focused on communications research. However, as the industry evolved, so did we. In the early 2000s, we started utilizing biometrics and applied neuroscience to study TV pilots, broadcast, print, and social network communications. Over the past three decades, we have continued to expand our capabilities by entering the world of sensory and product testing. Collaborating with clients across various sectors to help build strong, specialized, and targeted research programs to meet expanded client needs has, in turn, pushed us to expand our own toolbox to include a range of validated measures from neuroscience, psychology, and traditional market research. The addition of these tools to our work has provided valuable and actionable insights into consumer behavior and perceptions. In our experience, we have found an overarching driver of success is not in one ad or one design but in the overall, multi-dimensional experience of brand harmony. Brand harmony is when you are able to create a seamless and cohesive experience for the consumer, blending brand and product perceptions. In the world of advertising and communications testing, the focus is heavily on breakthrough and recall, but does the “most seen” concept truly represent the consumer’s product experience? Do the emotions experienced during an ad match the sentiment that the brand itself evokes? To answer these questions, it is essential to evaluate messages not just for their potential to break through but also with regard to the consumer’s product experience. While communications and product testing are often researched in silos by different departments with different evaluative criteria, it is critical that all elements of messaging and brand representation are congruent with product experience. Having product developers and brand marketers work together toward a cohesive concept creates a cross-functional synergy for brand-message-product harmony. This brand harmony aligns consumer expectations with the product experience, increasing overall satisfaction. As we celebrate 30 years in business, our next frontier is continuing to promote the importance of quality research programs that work towards ensuring the product meets the promise. We are proud of our journey, all we have learned, and the role we have played in helping our clients navigate the ever-evolving landscape of consumer research (from new technologies to new insights). Thank you for your continued support and trust in our company. We look forward to the next 30 years and beyond, providing high-quality research services and making a positive impact in the world of consumer research.

If a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? This philosophical thought experiment is meant to challenge our concept of observation and perception (Berkeley, 1982). Applying this conundrum to emotional research sparks debate about the limits of consumer testing. As Lisa Feldman Barrett (Barrett, 2006) describes, “People believe that they know an emotion when they see it, and as a consequence assume that emotions are discrete events that can be recognized with some degree of accuracy, but scientists have yet to produce a set of clear and consistent criteria for indicating when an emotion is present and when it is not.” The last decade has shown a growing interest in the emotional effects of marketing and consumer products. Marketers and product developers are now tasked with proving that advertisements, lotions, shampoos, and packaging are having a desired effect on consumers’ moods. Consumer testing has evolved beyond assessing only liking and product specifications to now being required to assess consumer emotional states using validated measures. One of the reasons for this success is related to the fact that it is widely recognized that the measurement of liking alone fails to predict performance in market. However, a real challenge in the assessment of consumer emotional responses has been the need for validated but also meaningful measures. But this isn’t always so straightforward or simple. Emotions exert an incredibly powerful force on human behavior. Why exactly do we have emotions and what causes us to have these feelings? Researchers, philosophers, and psychologists have proposed different theories to explain the how and why behind human emotions. At the same time, consumer researchers have grown increasingly interested in measuring beyond self-reported emotions (conscious) from surveys with more implicit approaches from psychology and neuroscience (non-conscious). But if the consumer does not self-report the experience (or the emotional experience is not recognized by the consumer), what does that mean for efficacy? As the nuances and intricacies of emotions unravel, assessments in the industry are deemed more complicated than at first glance. The general problems in testing consumer emotions sit with 3 main points: operationally defining emotion, validating measures of emotion, and consumer relevant emotional research. Defining Emotion Human emotion is a complex, subjective experience consisting of biological and behavioral changes, a series of correlated changes within our thoughts and state of our body, affecting how we feel, behave, and respond to different situations based on past experiences, social context, goals, and desires (Scherer, 2001). Although emotions impact every decision we make and the way we interpret the world around us, there is still a lot of mystery surrounding why we have emotions. Research on emotions continues to explore what causes feelings and how these feelings affect us. As such, defining emotion remains challenging with different theories regarding how and why people experience emotion (Barrett & Russell, 2014). Physiological theories (such as James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, Schachter-Singer) suggest that responses within the body are responsible for emotions, while neurological theories propose that activity within the brain leads to emotional responses. Cognitive theories, on the other hand, argue that thoughts and other mental activity play an essential role in forming emotions (cognitive appraisal theories). And then, evolutionary theories of emotion postulate that emotions exist to serve an adaptive role (e.g., facial-feedback theory). These examples just skim the surface of differing theories on emotion, alluding to the complexity in defining the topic. In research, it is crucial to be able to operationally define variables (procedures, actions, or processes) by which they can be observed and measured, specifying how to measure and detect it. The paradox, however, is that it remains unclear if current methodologies accurately detect emotions. For example, while galvanic skin response has been found to be correlated with arousal levels, how much increase in skin conductance is required to identify a state of excitement? Changes in specific muscle groups have been associated with identifying emotions such as joy, but how much change must occur to prove that someone is feeling happy? Measuring Emotion Differentiation of emotions based on only one of its identified components (biological, behavioral, cognitive, etc.) does not reflect the complexity of the phenomenon. Any emotional response measured at the subjective level needs to be associated with correlated responses on a cognitive, behavioral, and/or physiological level to be fully considered a true emotional response. Multiple methods of measurement should always be considered for complementary results. However, this is not always feasible or even meaningful in consumer research. Budgets and time may limit the number or type of methodologies used. Yet, researchers need to consider if the results of the type of methodology used are truly meaningful to the research goal. Does a change in frontal asymmetry activity measured with EEG provide strong enough evidence as action criteria? Each of the different theories of emotion generates different methods for measuring emotional responses. But which one is correct? Validated measures are methods tested to ensure production of reliable, accurate results. But a more important question may be whether the results are truly useful for demonstrating product emotional efficacy and predictive power in market (Niedziela & Ambroze, 2020). Consumer Relevance When considering the question of whether something exists if it is not perceived, it is important to note that products are not experienced in a vacuum. Whether experienced on the shelf, in a store, or while using at home, consumers are experiencing all sorts of inputs from packaging and branding to sensory and physical attributes of products, all influencing their perceptions and reactions. Therefore, when measuring emotional response, different elements of the consumer experience must be considered, such as individual differences and generalizability. The perceptions consumers have of a brand, its values, and its products or services can have a dramatic impact on the consumer experience. Perception is how we view the world around us and can be defined by how we select, organize, and interpret stimuli into a meaningful and coherent picture of the world. Emotional congruence with these perceptions and expectations are key to a cohesive consumer experience and consumer satisfaction. Perception Can Be Reality If all aspects of the product experience (from packaging and branding to product attributes) convey a cohesive and harmonized experience, it is possible to drive consumer perceptions. Those perceptions can become reality, driving consumer behaviors and emotional reactions. While it’s difficult to impact the expectations and motives of individual consumers, product developers can alter the physical attributes of the products consumers experience and ultimately drive perceptions and realities. The emotion paradox is a real problem that neuromarketers must contend with and acknowledge. As consumer emotion research becomes more popular and central to the business decision-making criteria, clients deserve honest answers for questions regarding the validity and meaning of methods and results. References Barrett LF. Solving the emotion paradox: categorization and the experience of emotion. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10(1):20-46. Barrett, L. F., & Russell, J. A. (Eds.). (2014). The psychological construction of emotion. Guilford Publications. Berkeley, George, 1685-1753. (1982). A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. Niedziela, M. M., & Ambroze, K. (2020). The future of consumer neuroscience in food research. Food Quality and Preference, 104124. Scherer, K., Schorr, A., & Johnstone, T. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion theory, methods, research. Oxford University Press.

The following blog is in response to the ICO’s statement, which can be read here. Neuro-hype has plagued the world of applied consumer neuroscience since its inception. Enthusiasts can easily get carried away by the suggestion of a quick and easy way to get the answers they want. But the truth is that if businesses rely on the flashiness of neuroscience to bring in customers, over-promising and underdelivering is inevitable. Recently, Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) made a statement raising concerns about the improper use of biometric technology, facial coding, and Emotion AI. Neuro-hype is a precursor to the misuse of technology, so HCD wanted to revisit some of the important red flags when conducting this type of research. Common Neuro-Hype Characteristics include: Psychobabble Relying on anecdotal evidence Using unprovable, false claims Putting company claims (through mediums such as case studies) against scientific facts Having little to no peer review HCD takes pride in producing quality research by leading with limitations, staying updated on the latest thought theories, and being honest if something sounds too good to be true. HCD Resources: The Future of Consumer Neuroscience in Food Research HCD blog | Myths and Methods HCD blog | Neuromarketing: Identifying The Fact From the Fiction HCD MindSet ep | Are we still talking about neuromarketing? EEG… Does this smell funny? Addressing Emotion AI. Within the Information Commissioner’s Office post, “Emotion AI” is one of the components called out for lacking scientific validity and reliability. HCD Research will continue to try to demystify and call out inadequacies in using algorithms for emotions. We know that emotions are a challenging space to research, which is proven by the sheer number of theories of emotions that exist. There is no consensus on what emotions actually are, therefore, it is going to be difficult (and sometimes even dangerous) to make claims based on one researcher’s interpretation of emotion. To further the issue, using artificial intelligence to explain emotion can be problematic since it lacks context, a crucial piece of understanding an emotional experience. AI is the use of machinery to complete a task, which means that it will run what is it programmed to accomplish. However, bad data in is bad data out. That means that an algorithm programmed to detect emotions without context will quickly find patterns that misrepresent a person’s lived experience. The oversimplification and disregard for cultural differences when designing research about emotion can result in grave consequences and poor interpretations of data, furthering the concern for improper experimentation when studying emotions. HCD Research strives to produce quality research that acknowledges and accounts for the nuances involved in studies exploring emotion. HCD Resources: HCD Webinar Series | What is AI, Anyway? HCD MindSet ep | Special Topic: AI & Emotions HCD MindSet ep | The Ethics of AI HCD MindSet ep | John Ennis HCD blog | Brainstorming: The Evolution of Thought Theories Addressing Facial Coding. Facial coding (FC) recently received backlash stemming from this article. HCD has and will continue to be vocal about the limitations of facial coding and, more largely, the concept of universal facial expressions. From its high dropout rates to easily skewed results, facial coding is often oversold as a method for collecting emotional states. People do not emote the same way, and FC perpetuates stereotypical expressions of emotion. The biases and data discrepancies perpetuated by the misuse of this tool can be blamed on emotion artificial intelligence (AI). Emotions are variable and messy, making any real-world predictions about someone’s emotions based solely on facial configurations unreliable. The lack of consideration for cultural differences, context, and what “emotions” are when trying to categorize facial expressions through algorithms can lead to harmful and inaccurate claims about human emotion. There can be situations where facial coding can provide value, but the research design must account for any tool’s limitations to ensure that other methodologies or technologies cover where it falls short. At HCD, we strongly believe that many validated technologies exist that have advantages and disadvantages depending on the question being asked. By using the right tool for the right question, you can develop a strong research design and build out actionable insights. HCD Resources: Published peer-reviewed articles/book chapters on the topic: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329320303931 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012821124300017X HCD blog | Is facial coding a valid means of collecting emotional state? Media Coverage | Feature: Neuroscience Techniques and Best Practice #1 HCD MindSet ep | Episode 11: Facial Coding HCD MindSet ep | What's the first rule of Journal Club? HCD MindSet ep | Facial Coding – You get what you pay for. Addressing Biometrics. Finally, the last component of the ICO’s a statement important for HCD to address focuses on the misuse of biometric technology in research exploring emotions. HCD wants to discuss some of the concerns regarding biometrics; however, it is important to start with defining terms. Any output from the body, from fingerprints to signatures, can be considered a biometric measure. Therefore, the vagueness of biometrics creates a problem because not all tools or outputs are used the same way. As researchers, we have to define the terms and conditions upfront to avoid confusion. The measures we collect and interpret are better referred to as psychophysiological tools because it is the analysis of the body and mental processes. Physiological measurement of emotional response has a long and rigorously studied history validating the correlations between bodily and emotional response. Psychophysiological measures, such as galvanic skin response (GSR) or facial electromyography (fEMG), do exactly what they are supposed to do. However, each tool has limitations, and we must be sure to address those gaps in the research design. In short: psychophysiological tools should not be used in a vacuum because there is not one tool that can provide all the answers. There is also no consensus in the literature on a universal theory of emotion; therefore, one psychophysiological tool alone cannot confidently address an entire emotional experience. Understanding the human experience involves using the best tools for a specific situation. Collaborating with experts to provide guidance on a wide variety of tools can help direct which tool, or combination of tools, will be best for each specific research question. HCD Resources: HCD White Paper | The World of Biometrics HCD blog | The Brain, What is it good for? HCD MindSet ep | Episode 17: The Gold Standard HCD MindSet ep | DIY Neuroscience ft Anna Wexler PhD HCD MindSet ep | Building Better Businesses with Neuroscience ft Elizabeth Johnson (Zab) PhD HCD MindSet ep | Getting the skinny on the “new” tool on the block: fNIRS ft Kristin Shumaker PhD If you have any questions about the topics covered in this blog post, please contact Allison Gutkowski (Allison.Gutkowski@hcdi.net)

When most people think about cannabis, the first thing that usually comes to mind is either smoking or eating something to produce some type of high. Yet, there is so much more to the cannabis plant. It is actually very complex, containing hundreds of chemical compounds that are still being discovered and described. The compounds produced by this plant are known as cannabinoids. Given the lack of accessible consumer information and educational materials around cannabis that are both correct and free, in this blog, we are going to break down two of the most common and abundant cannabinoids: cannabidiol (CBD) and Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Family ties- Where do these cannabinoids come from? CBD and THC are both classified as phytocannabinoids, which, put simply, means that they are chemicals made by plants in the genus Cannabis (Cannabaceae). This precision of language is important for cannabinoids, as it distinguishes phytocannabinoids made by plants from endocannabinoids, which are made endogenously by all mammals. While CBD and THC have similar chemical structures, the two differ in how they bind with target receptors in the body and in which receptors they are able to bind. This complexity in receptor activity, coupled with the distribution of receptors through the body, ultimately results in the differential effects elicited by using either THC or CBD. What is CBD? “I’m a THC isomer that won’t get you high. What molecule am I?” was the query posed by the American Chemical Society when CBD was their Molecule of the Week for February 6, 2017, which remains a very appropriate description of CBD. While a number of distinguished scientists conducted research on cannabinoids in the three decades prior, the structure of CBD was first described by cannabis pioneer and legend, Dr. Raphael Mechoulam, and his colleagues in Israel in 1963. To dive further into the history behind cannabis, it was first reported as an anti-seizure medication in 1843 by professor and physician W.B O’Shaughnessy. He noted its remarkable efficacy in the treatment of a toddler’s recurrent convulsive seizures. Unfortunately, the emphasis was placed on the intoxicating effect of cannabis rather than its treatment of seizures, so it wasn’t until the separation of CBD from THC that CBD’s potential was truly appreciated. Just in the last decade, a number of high-quality, controlled clinical studies were conducted that provided the evidence required for the FDA (US Food & Drug Administration) to approve a CBD formulation for severe pediatric seizure disorders in 2018. CBD was made famous in 2013 by the plight of Paige Figi and her daughter Charlotte, who suffered Dravet syndrome, a rare type of epilepsy that caused her to have more than 300 seizures a week by the age of five. The use of hemp-derived CBD dramatically reduced Charlotte’s seizure load down to just a few per month. Since then, thousands of children afflicted with intractable seizures have also found relief with ‘Charlotte’s Web’, the high CBD-producing cannabis cultivar (i.e., strain, genetics) named for the young girl whose life it first saved and whose story sparked an explosion of cannabinoid research. Charlotte’s story ignited a complete shift in paradigm and perspective of the clinical potential of cannabis. Anecdotal and clinical evidence suggests that CBD has the potential to treat or mitigate numerous diseases and disorders besides epilepsy, including chronic pain, anxiety, insomnia, inflammation, cancer, and even COVID-19. While it might be tempting to consider CBD a miracle cure for all that ails you, it's important to be cautious in using CBD for personal health regimens. Research on CBD is still limited but based on its interactions with other drugs, including common over-the-counter medications (e.g., acetaminophen), CBD shouldn’t be considered a simple dietary supplement, but rather as a proper, and potentially prescription, medication. What is THC? Just a year after Mechoulam’s discovery of CBD came the discovery of THC by the same research group. Unquestionably the world’s best-known cannabinoid, THC, also called dronabinol, is the main intoxicating component of cannabis. Currently, there are only two formulations of THC, both synthetic rather than plant-derived, that are FDA-approved: Marinol is a soft gel capsule Syndros is an oral solution Both dronabinol products are for HIV/AIDs-induced anorexia and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting – Marinol was first approved for this in 1985. THC is not the only cannabinoid used for addressing medical ailments. Nabilone, marketed as Cesamet, has the same indications as dronabinol but is also used off-label for the management of chronic pain. While research on the effects of isolated THC continues, cannabis products with both THC and CBD together are used to treat spasticity and pain associated with multiple sclerosis. In fact, Sativex, an oral spray containing THC and CBD in almost equal proportions, has been approved in over 25 countries for multiple sclerosis (MS) for over a decade but is not yet approved in the US. In addition, cannabis with THC has been shown effective in relieving symptoms of both Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, among others. Most recently, THC-containing cannabis has been suggested as a viable substitute for opioids for pain relief and mitigation of opioid withdrawal symptoms. Key Differences Both CBD and THC are, by definition, psychoactive and psychotropic, in that both can cause changes in brain function, psychological state, mood, and consciousness. The main experiential difference between CBD and THC is intoxication; CBD does not cause intoxication, while THC has long been widely recognized for its potent intoxicating effect or subjective feelings of being ‘euphoric’, ‘high’, or ‘stoned’. Societally, it seems the associations with using cannabis comes from either the negative associations people have of THC or the positive health halo around CBD. While these are overly generalized perceptions, there certainly is a difference between the two phytocannabinoids (the chemical compounds in cannabis). Whether the cannabis product is inhalable (e.g., vapes, dabs, etc.), edible (e.g., foods, beverages, oils, tinctures, etc.), topical (e.g., cream, salve, bath bomb, etc.), or something else, consumers need transparency and verification on product composition from brands and producers. Consumers benefit by educating themselves with a high-level understanding of key characteristics of both CBD and THC, as provided here, to maintain their personal wellbeing and make informed choices. If you are interested in learning more about how HCD Research can help you explore the wellness space, including cannabinoids, please contact Allison Gutkowski at Allison.Gutkowski@hcdi.net.

Brenda graduated from the University of Texas at El Paso where she majored in Mathematics and minored in Psychology. During her time in college, she learned about how different data analysis techniques are used and how they can come together to help us understand complex topics. While in school, Brenda became interested in studying human behavior and decision-making. This led her to seek out a position in marketing analytics where she could apply her academic background, gain more research experience, and explore a broad range of exciting projects. At HCD Research, the ideal blend of analytics and psychology allows Brenda to develop her data analysis skills and learn more about neuroscience, marketing, and consumer behavior. She is excited to be part of a team of knowledgeable analysts that are passionate about delivering high quality research to every client. Fun facts about Brenda: Outside of work, Brenda’s favorite activities include hiking, playing boardgames, or simply spending time with friends and family!