Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Biological Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biopsycho

The shopping brain: Math anxiety modulates brain responses to buying decisions
William J. Jones a,∗ , Terry L. Childers b , Yang Jiang c
a
Department of Marketing, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
b
Department of Marketing, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA
c
University of Kentucky Chandler Medical Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Metacognitive theories propose that consumers track fluency feelings when buying, which may have
Received 15 September 2010 biological underpinnings. We explored this using event-related potential (ERP) measures as twenty high-
Accepted 14 October 2011 math anxiety (High MA) and nineteen low-math anxiety (Low MA) consumers made buying decisions
Available online 24 October 2011
for promoted (e.g., 15% discount) and non-promoted products. When evaluating prices, ERP correlates of
higher perceptual and conceptual fluency were associated with buys, however only for High MA females
Keywords:
under no promotions. In contrast, High MA females and Low MA males demonstrated greater FN400
Math anxiety
amplitude, associated with enhanced conceptual processing, to prices of buys relative to non-buys under
Consumer psychology
Neuromarketing
promotions. Concurrent late positive component (LPC) differences under no promotions suggest dis-
FN400 crepant retrieval processes during price evaluations between consumer groups. When making decisions
P3 to buy or not, larger (smaller) P3, sensitive to outcome responses in the brain, was associated with buying
Decision-making for High MA females (Low MA females) under promotions, an effect also present for males under no pro-
motions. Thus, P3 indexed decisions to buy differently between anxiety groups, but only for promoted
items among females and for no promotions among males. Our findings indicate that perceptual and
conceptual processes interact with anxiety and gender to modulate brain responses during consumer
choices.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Buying decisions are malleable (Schwarz, 2004). Rather than
holding well defined preferences, consumers often construct pref-
erences spontaneously using whatever information is available to
them (Bettman et al., 1998). Recent interest in neuroeconomic
methods to study buying behavior underscores attempts to under-
stand the processes by which consumers make these decisions.
For example, using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI),
Knutson et al. (2007) showed that excessive prices were linked
to increased insular activity and decreased activity in medial pre-
frontal regions. These findings confirm the positive relationship
between perceived price unfairness and negative affect that has
been proposed elsewhere (Xia et al., 2004), and are largely consis-
tent with Bechara and Damasio’s (2005) somatic marking notion
that our brains map anticipated outcomes of purchases from inte-
roceptive emotional signals prior to decision making, which then
guide choice.
The metacognitive experiences literature suggests that inte-
roceptive signals guide choices as early as perceptual processes
∗ Corresponding author at: 318 Prentis, 5201 Cass Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202-
3930, USA. Tel.: +1 313 577 4466; fax: +1 313 577 4515.
E-mail address: william.jones@wayne.edu (W.J. Jones).
(Reber et al., 1998). So-called fluency signals, which are hedonically
marked signals of processing ease (Winkielman et al., 2003), have
been shown to influence later judgments in which they are non-
integral. For example, a difficult-to-pronounce amusement ride
name (e.g., Vaiveahtoishi) increases the perception the ride will
make you sick (Song and Schwarz, 2009 – Study 3). Behaviorally,
the subparts of processing fluency, perceptual fluency and con-
ceptual fluency have repeatedly been shown as separable if often
interrelated (e.g., Cabeza and Ohta, 1993; Lee and Labroo, 2004;
Whittlesea, 1993). Perceptual fluency, defined as the ease with
which perceptual processing occurs, has been shown to influence
metacognitive judgments directly. For example, Whittlesea et al.
(1990) introduced a noise mask to target words in a repetition prim-
ing task and found that when noise level was light, consequently
making the perceptual features of target words more readily dis-
cernible, participants in an experiment were more likely to falsely
judge such items as having been previously presented.
Later work by Whittlesea (1993) extended the influence of flu-
ency on familiarity-based recognition judgments to also include
conceptual fluency. In this study, Whittlesea demonstrated that
manipulating either the perceptual or conceptual fluency of current
processing such as via repetition priming or semantically related
primes can induce feelings of familiarity. These feelings may or
may not be treated as diagnostic to decision making depending
on “the expectations aroused by a current judgment” (p. 1249).

0301-0511/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.10.011
202 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213
Because the feeling of familiarity engendered in perceptually or
conceptually facilitated processing or both is separable from actual
memory retrieval, it must be meaningfully inferred as a conse-
quence of past experience for it to be treated as diagnostic to
judgment (Whittlesea, 1993). Stated simply, the process by which
either, both, or neither forms of fluency are incorporated into famil-
iarity judgments is, as Whittlesea (1993) says, highly sophisticated
and wholly dependent on considerations of past experience and
current processing.
In order to dissociate familiarity-based recognition from rec-
ollection, Whittlesea and colleagues (Whittlesea et al., 1990;
Whittlesea, 1993) studied items in which a target was never pre-
viously presented. Because in these trials no memory trace for the
target was ever created, this allowed Whittlesea and colleagues to
isolate familiarity effects from recollection – i.e., those aspects of
recognition independent of familiarity feelings. Accounts of recog-
nition memory in which familiarity and recollection are considered
as distinct factors are typically labeled as dual-process accounts,
and have been investigated widely both behaviorally (for a review,
see Yonelinas, 2002) and neurally (for review, see Rugg and Curran,
2007). Horton et al. (1993), citing Bartlett (1932), remind us that
familiarity and recollection need not be mutually exclusive, and can
include additional processes such as judging likeness of a remem-
bered object. We argue that consumer contexts (here prices) are
scenarios which might be replete with both familiarity and recol-
lection aspects. Consumers are accurate at using information about
previously stored prices, but they often seem to store this informa-
tion as fuzzy memory traces rather than exact price representations
(Vanhuele and Drèze, 2002). Thus, this pathway assumes that a
presented price that feels familiar, owing to perceptual and/or
conceptual fluency feelings, may be judged as acceptable because
prices are not typically judged relative to exact prices. At the same
time, aspects of memory associated with recollection might also be
engaged during price evaluations because consumers are adept at
storing and identifying price ranges (Vanhuele and Drèze, 2002).
A second pathway by which fluency might affect buying deci-
sions is via an affect-as-information heuristic. At least partially,
consumer choice is frequently related to affect. That is, consumers
often buy what they like and reject what they do not like. Though
the present study is not concerned with preference judgments
explicitly, Reber et al. (1998) showed that perceptual fluency is
affectively positive and selectively enhances positive (but not neg-
ative) judgments. In the context of non-preference buying, feeling
good might be judged as having previously determined that a price
was acceptable. In this sense, the process is identical to the famil-
iarity prediction; familiarity feels good. However, for enhanced
conceptual fluency, Lee and Labroo (2004 – Study 4) demonstrated
that it does not necessarily follow that enhanced conceptual fluency
leads to positive judgments in a product evaluation task even if the
actual processing fluency aspect itself is experienced positively. In
their study, Lee and Labroo used a negatively valenced conceptual
prime (Lice Shampoo) and demonstrated reduced product evalua-
tions of a low familiarity brand of conditioner relative to evaluation
of a control product (alkaline batteries). In other words, it is pos-
sible that enhanced processing fluency can also be associated with
not buying.
Our study was designed to examine what differences, if any,
would be present among individuals that differ in their ability to
fluently consider prices presented to them. We recorded electroen-
cephalography (EEG) to study how neural responses, as measured
by event-related potentials (ERPs), to the onset of a price differ-
entiate buys from non-buys. Our low fluency group, those high in
math anxiety (hereafter High MA), was contrasted with a high flu-
ency group, those low in math anxiety (Low MA). Past research
has shown that High MA results in reduced processing fluency,
though accuracy is often left intact (Ashcraft and Kirk, 2001).
Anxiety-inducing stimuli in general induce disfluency by compet-
ing for attention within fronto-cingulate cortices (Bishop et al.,
2004). Though High MA has yet to be studied elsewhere using neu-
roscience techniques, behavioral research has shown High MA to
be entirely consistent with other forms of anxiety (for a review,
see Eysenck et al., 2007). Extreme avoidance of the object, event, or
context that brings about or intensifies anxiety symptoms is a hall-
mark of all anxiety disorders (Maner et al., 2007; Paulus and Stein,
2010). Under threat-related processing, anxiety prone individuals
also frequently rely on compensatory strategies such as increasing
effort and deploying cognitive resources disproportionate to the
task at-hand (Eysenck et al., 2007), which may be related to a form
of risk avoidance to committing errors (Paulus et al., 2003).
Yet, we note that the purpose of our research is not to explicitly
describe relationships between emotions and specific ERP compo-
nents. Indeed, these relationships may be non-specific to valence
and contingent on simultaneous appraisal processes (Hajcak et al.,
2006; Grandjean and Schere, 2008). In our work, we instead draw
a distinction between emotions and feelings, which we view as
less specific though related to emotion (and sometimes interre-
lated components of emotion), that represent ongoing monitoring
of internal processes (for similar views, see Pribram, 1970; Scherer,
2004). We argue that process-induced fluency feelings, as mea-
sured by event-related potentials, might be utilized as sources of
information in the non-preference related buying task described
in this paper. Notwithstanding, we emphasize emotional effects
through our simultaneous focus on trait math anxiety. In the
consumer behavior literature, Raghunathan et al. (2006) have
demonstrated that anxiety leads to a risk-reduction buying men-
tality. Brand et al. (2006) argue that optimal decision making under
risk is characterized by “both cognitive strategies as well as bias-
ing emotional signals” (p. 1273). Thus, despite our non-predictions
related to emotions and specific ERP components, we would predict
that High MA renders consumers more susceptible to incorporat-
ing feeling-related information into their choice making. In this
sense, we expect that High MA consumers will demonstrate more
buy versus non-buy differences as measured by ERPs than Low MA
consumers.
Past ERP studies of economic transactions have shown effects on
reward processing magnitude and valence (e.g., Yeung and Sanfey,
2004). To the best of our knowledge no study has directly inves-
tigated ERP correlates of buys versus non-buys. However, several
ERP studies which have shown fluency effects guided our thinking.
Curran and colleagues have amassed an impressive body of ERP
studies to support dual-process accounts of recognition memory
(for a review, see Curran et al., 2006). These studies have centered
on the frontal N400 (FN400) as an index of familiarity. For example,
Curran (2000) analyzed ERPs to previously presented words, sim-
ilar words with different pluralities, and new words. Results for a
FN400 between 300 and 500 ms varied as a function of familiarity
such that FN400 was more negative for new words than for simi-
lar and old words. A late positive component or LPC (400–800 ms),
was associated with both recollection and recognition, and con-
versely showed more positive amplitudes for studied words than
for old or similar words. Work by Voss and Paller and their col-
leagues (e.g., Voss and Federmeier, 2011; Voss and Paller, 2007;
Voss et al., 2010) calls into question this interpretation of FN400
as a singular index of familiarity. Instead, they contend that FN400
might only indicate conceptual processing (Voss and Federmeier,
2011; Voss et al., 2010), and therefore may be functionally indis-
tinct from N400 effects (Voss and Federmeier, 2011). In this sense,
FN400 effects found in prior studies (more positive for familiar
objects) really indexed reduced conceptual processing. Thus, sub-
jects in these studies possibly used reduced conceptual processing
signals in making familiarity judgments. For N400 itself, there is
precedent for its meaningfulness within ERP studies on arithmetic.
 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213
For example, Niedeggen and Rösler (1999) demonstrated increased
N400 amplitude for correct versus incorrect solutions in a multipli-
cation verification task. On the contrary, correct solutions lead to
a positive component at about 450 ms. Similar to Curran (2000),
N400 was attenuated when incorrect solutions were related to
errors of a small or medium distance from the true answer within
a multiplication table (e.g., 5 × 8 = 32, the product of 4 × 8).
Perceptual priming studies have generally shown that repe-
tition enhances early frontocental positive potentials in a time
window close to the P200 (Schendan and Kutas, 2003; Woollams
et al., 2008). Recently, Paynter et al. (2009) demonstrated that a
frontal P200 and a frontocentral P300 index a “feeling of knowing”
for arithmetic problems prior to retrieval, which they likened to
perceptual fluency. Whereas familiarity attenuates FN400, the sub-
jective feeling of knowing amplifies P200. Conceptually, this raises
an interesting question. Because fluency refers to processing ease,
it follows that less (not more) activation of conceptual knowledge
structures implicated in enhanced FN400 and N400 effects should
be present (Voss and Federmeier, 2011). Kotchoubey (2006) has
argued that functional differences underlie positive and negative
ERP components such that negative ERPs may reflect mobilization
of cortical resources and positive ERPs reflect consumption of these
resources.1 Because fluency should be positively marked, it follows
that disfluency should be less so, which may indicate that enhanced
negative ERPs such as N400 are effortful (Holcomb, 1993) and may
be associated with a subjectively more negative experience. Indeed,
research by Garbarino and Edell (1997) indicates that when effort
is required the subjective experience of negative affect occurs.
Unlike previous research on the neural consequences of buy-
ing, we controlled for numeracy ability. Theoretically, High MA can
be concurrent with and reciprocally interconnected to numeracy
deficits (Hembree, 1990). Highly numerate individuals have been
shown as less susceptible to numerical biases and to have better
calibrated affect expectancies when making numerical judgments
(Peters et al., 2006). To test boundary conditions of buying effects
under demanding cognitive conditions, we further included a con-
dition with percentage price promotions (e.g., 15% off), a widely
used marketing tactic.
Also unlike previous research, we explicitly take into account
effects of gender. Anecdotal evidence in the popular press from
self-styled “neuromarketers” indicates that neuromarketing con-
sultancy firms have obtained data demonstrating that women are
neurally more sensitive and aware of prices than men (Karlinsky
and Patrick, 2011). If true, these findings echo other findings
observed from research on gender selectivity theory (Darley and
Smith, 1995; Meyers-Levy, 1988; Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran,
1991). According to this theory, males are selective processors that
rely on a limited set of details whereas females are comprehensive
processors that consider a broader variety of information cues, both
readily apparent and subtle, when making decisions (Darley and
Smith, 1995). The increased sensitivity of women to prices might
present itself as a systematic tendency to encode more prices and
to elaborate on prices with greater frequency (cf. Meyers-Levy and
Maheswaran, 1991). Gender differences for math anxiety are well
established with women tending to exhibit math anxiety more so
than men (Hembree, 1990; Hopko et al., 2003; Miller and Bischel,
2004). However, these differences seem to have less to do with
ability and more to do with social factors such as gender stereo-
types (Eccles and Jacobs, 1986). The relationship between math
anxiety and math ability generally is unclear, though math anxi-
ety concurrently seems to reduce willingness to take math courses,
which affects acquisition of math skills (Ashcraft, 2002). Of specific
1
See p. 56 of Kotchoubey (2006) for a discussion as it relates to N400.
203
interest to the present study, Miller and Bischel (2004) found that
math anxiety impacts females’, but not males’, abilities to complete
applied math problems. Perhaps these effects result from males’
more selective use of decision inputs, which may render them more
immune to math anxiety effects.
In brief, our study complements fMRI work dissociating buys
from non-buys (e.g., Knutson et al., 2007), though extends that work
to a different method, examines boundary conditions related to
math anxiety, promotion formats, and gender, all while controlling
for numeracy, which is a plausible alternative explanation to math
anxiety.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
We utilized data from thirty nine introductory business students (17 female;
mean age = 21 years, SD = .84) who volunteered for extra credit and were paid $10
plus a chance at up to $20 extra based on relative accurate buys from a set aside
fund (range = $2–20; mean = $7.59). Due to excessive artifact, we excluded EEG and
behavioral data from one Low MA male participant. Prior to recruitment participants
were unknowingly prescreened for math anxiety from sections of undergraduate
business courses using the Abbreviated Math Anxiety Scale (AMAS; Hopko et al.,
2003). We recruited for volunteers with high and low scores on AMAS out of a
sample of 709 administered students. For High MA consumers, we recruited only
those participants deemed to have clinically significant or pathological math anx-
iety scores as recommended by the scale developer, which is at or around ∼32 or
1.5 SD or greater than the average sample mean (D. Hopko, personal communica-
tion, October 25, 2010; cf. Hopko et al., 2003). Sample characteristics were: High
MA AMAS M = 35.29, SD = 5.60; Low MA AMAS M = 12.33, SD = 3.00. Seven Low MA
females, 11 Low MA males, and 10 each High MA females and males were held out for
further analysis. All participants were right-handed, English speakers with normal
or corrected to normal vision, and none had neurological or psychiatric disorders.
Participants gave informed consent before taking part in the study.
2.2. Stimuli and procedure
We developed a stimulus list of products and their images familiar to the popula-
tion studied. A total of 50 products were used twice. Critical stimuli included product
prices and a “Buy?” stimulus. To include a range of overpriced and underpriced items,
we developed prices by first identifying price category midpoints from a local, pop-
ular retailer. Within conditions, we applied 10–34% markups/discounts to half of
the midpoint prices each without replacement to arrive at final price stimuli. This
range reflects research on price differences that consumers are adept at identifying
(Hoch et al., 1994). For the price promotions, we further added promotional stimuli
(7–33%), which we used twice each with random assignment. We excluded 10% as
it is processed with distinct ease. While we displayed final prices under no promo-
tions (e.g., $12.14), we displayed the equivalent of final prices under promotions for
the promotion condition (e.g., $13.13, 20% off). Displayed prices ranged from $.90
to $198.39.
One week before the experimental session, participants completed a numeracy
scale (Lipkus et al., 2001) and retook AMAS (retest r = .91, p < .001) by web survey.
Retesting of AMAS was done to substantiate the initial scores, which were collected
within a larger prescreening study given to a college wide subject pool. Conversa-
tions with participants during debriefing suggested to us that participants either
did little to connect the online survey to the laboratory portion of the study and/or
forgot about the survey at the time of the lab session. In addition, participants were
briefly shown the product stimuli and asked to provide absolute reference prices
and assessments of their confidence in these prices via a Likert scale anchored at 1
– “Not very Confident” to 5 – “Very Confident”. Due to a scheduling issue, this data
was unavailable from one High MA female.
The experimental session was run in blocks of all no promotions or all pro-
motions. Block order was counterbalanced across participants taking into account
group and gender. For both conditions, participants completed four practice trials
to acclimate to the task (Fig. 1). Participants were instructed to evaluate the prices
presented to them and then to make choices. Because participants would not have
enough time to ascertain exact answers we asked them to estimate after-discount
prices within the promotion condition. Past research has shown that consumers
do this spontaneously (Morwitz et al., 1998). We instructed participants that they
should only buy if they felt they could not get a better deal elsewhere locally rel-
ative to the screen offer. Each trial began with the name of the product presented
for 1000 ms and then an image of the product for 2000 ms followed by the price of
the offering presented for 4000 ms (hereafter Price). A stimulus featuring the word
Buy with a question mark (hereafter Buy) followed Price and was presented for
4000 ms. For the Price and Buy stimuli presentation, we used fixed timing intervals.
Fig. 1 provides a pictorial overview of the task. Past research indicates a differ-
ential response to collection of reaction time latencies and/or time pressure as a
function of math anxiety (Faust et al., 1996; Tsui and Mazzocco, 2007). Though
204 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213

Fig. 1. Illustration of the experimental task. Shown is a sequence for the promotion condition. Substitute no promotion as shown in figure. Each trial began with the name
of a product followed by its image. Stimuli of interest came thereafter including an offer price (labeled as Price), then a stimulus requesting that the participant decide on
whether to buy or not (labeled Buy), and finally a response stimulus. Answer choices for the response stimulus varied pseudo-randomly whose order was unknown to the
participant. Pseudo-randomly determined stimulus onset asynchronies of 100, 200, or 300 separated stimuli of interest. A cross fixation separated trials. Significant effects
are denoted with asterisks.

precluding the collection of reaction time latencies, our use of fixed time inter-
vals strengthens the conclusions we can draw by ruling out time pressure as an
alternative explanation for our results. Following these two critical stimuli, we pre-
sented a pseudo-randomly varying yes/no response stimulus for 500 ms, which was
used to dissociate the expected motor response from potentially contaminating the
buying decision. A 1000 ms fixation of a centered cross was used between trials.
Participants were asked to blink and move their eyes only when the fixation, prod-
uct name, or product image appeared on the screen. Pseudo-randomly determined
stimulus onset asynchronies of 100, 200, or 300 ms separated stimuli of interest.
2.3. EEG recording and ERP analysis
EEG was recorded from 32 Ag/AgCl electrodes (<5 k) using a linked-mastoid
reference including two electro-oculogram electrodes and amplified with a band-
pass of .1–100 Hz and sampled at 1000 Hz/channel. Off-line analysis followed
removal of eye movement and blink artifacts (>± 75 ␮V). Each averaging epoch
lasted 4.2 s, including a 200 ms baseline before the two critical stimuli, was offline
filtered at .1–30 Hz, and baseline-corrected.
EEG data were averaged separately for trials in which participants chose yes
to buy or not to buy. We focused our analysis on the Price and Buy stimuli. As a
rule, we required a minimum of 10 trials per epoch. Post-artifact rejection, actual
epochs contained an average of 21.71 trials (SD = 6.99) under Price and 21.55 trials
(SD = 6.61) under Buy. Between-group epoch sizes were statistically identical. Bad
electrodes were treated as missing data, which only reduced the number of channels
for interpolation of topographic maps. Statistically significant effects are reported
for Price at P200 (200–300), FN400 (300–500), and a late positive complex (LPC;
400–700). For the Buy decision, we reported results for P200 (200–300) and P300
(300–500). We quantified P200 and FN400 using five anterior electrodes centered
at FCz (Fz, FC3, FCz, FC4, and Cz). P3 was quantified using FCz, C3, Cz, C4, and CPz.
Finally, LPC was quantified using five posterior electrodes centered at CPz (Cz, CP3,
CP4, CPz, and Pz).
3. Results
3.1. Behavioral results
Behavioral data was analyzed via constructing linear mixed
models with numeracy as a covariate (used in all analyses
heretofore). Follow-up tests incorporated a Bonferroni adjust-
ment. We analyzed reference price confidence via an analysis with
Math Anxiety (MA: High vs. Low) and Gender (male vs. female) as
between-subjects factors. A significant main effect of gender (F(1,
1604) = 24.51, p < 001) and a MA group × Gender interaction effect
was noted (F(1, 1604) = 11.26, p < 001). The main effect of gender
resulted because males had greater reference price confidence
(M = 3.81, SEM = .03) than females (M = 3.57, SEM = .03). Follow-up
analyses to examine the interaction found that Low MA females
(M = 3.48, SEM = .06) demonstrated lower levels of reference price
confidence than High MA males (M = 3.73, SEM = .05) and Low MA
males (M = 3.89, SEM = .04), but not High MA females (M = 3.48,
SEM = .06, p > .10). Low MA males demonstrated greater reference
price confidence than High MA females (p < .001) and High MA
males at a marginally significant level (p < .10). High MA females
and High MA males did not differ with respect to reference price
confidence (p > .10). No effects were noted for an analysis of the
accuracy of consumers’ reference prices defined as a percentage
deviation of their stated prices relative to the actual price.
We also analyzed buys (yes vs. no) via a 2 (MA: High vs. Low) × 2
(Condition: no promotion vs. promotion) × 2 (Gender: male vs.
female) × 2 (median split of reference price confidence: high vs.
low) linear mixed-model analysis. Significant effects were found
for condition (F(1, 3670) = 17.58, p<.001), gender (F(1, 3670) = 5.13,
p = .024), and an MA × reference price confidence interaction (F(1,
3676) = 6.13, p = .013). The condition effect found that no promo-
tion trials (M = .62, SEM = .01) lead to more buys than promotion
trials (M = .54, SEM = .01). For the gender effect, males (M = .60,
SEM = .01) were more likely overall to buy than females (M = .56,
SEM = .01). Finally, follow-up analyses of the interaction effect
showed that High MA consumers were less likely to buy under low
confidence (M = .55, SEM = .02) than Low MA consumers (M = .60,
SEM = .01; F(1, 1242) = 4.07, p = .04). For High MA consumers, a
 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213
marginally significant trend was observed such that high confi-
dence (M = .60, SEM = .01) lead to more buys than low confidence
(M = .55, SEM = .02; F(1, 1835) = 3.78, p = .052).
3.2. ERP analysis
Mean amplitudes and component latencies were analyzed using
repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs). When appro-
priate, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction was applied. Data was
collected using amplifiers by Neuroscan (Neuroscan, Inc.) and pro-
cessed using Neuroscan software. Given advantages of fractional
approaches to ERP latencies over peak measures (e.g., Woodman,
2010), component latencies were calculated using the full dura-
tion at half maximum amplitude (FDHM), which we implemented
on our averaged files imported into EMSE software (Source Signal
Imaging, Inc.). This value reflects the difference between the half
maximum amplitude values from the component tails.
Our within-subjects factor (Buys) was buys versus non-buys.
Between-subjects factors were math anxiety group (MA: High vs.
Low), promotion condition (Condition: no promotion vs. promo-
tion), and gender (Gender: male vs. female). As noted previously,
we predicted a priori that High MA females will be most likely
to monitor changes in their physiological state and to incorporate
these changes into their buying decisions. Also noted previously,
we included numeracy as a covariate in addition to subject-level
effects. Thus, we expect significant four-way interaction effects of
Buys × MA × Condition × Gender throughout. Conceptually, this is
similar to predicting a MA × Condition × Gender interaction effect
of a difference wave analysis of buys versus non-buys. However,
our analyses utilize the original buy and non-buy dependent mea-
sures due to known reliability issues with difference scores (for a
review, see Peter et al., 1993). Thus, we explore the presence of
Buys × MA × Condition × Gender effects via planned comparisons
testing of the MA × Condition × Gender combinations across buy-
ing levels.
Given the complex design of this study, and for clarity of hypoth-
esis testing, we omit discussion of effects of the omnibus tests of
practical insignificance (Kirk, 1996). Grasso and Simons (2011) con-
sider partial eta square values of .05 a small effect, .1 a medium
effect, and greater than .2 a large effect. Cohen (1988) described
partial eta square values of .01, .06, and .14 as small, medium, and
large effect sizes, respectively. However, others have emphasized
caution with interpreting partial-eta square values because the
measure is directly impacted by sample size (Murray and Dosser,
1987). Our approach was to report all significant results whereby
significant planned comparisons were demonstrated for effects of
interest. We also report all meaningfully significant effects, which
we define as those demonstrating partial-eta square values of at
least .03. In addition, we report Cohen’s d for follow-up tests calcu-
lated based on means and standard deviations. As others have noted
(Kirk, 1996), Cohen’s d provides a true effect size measure relative
to variance accounted for measures such as partial-eta square. Post
hoc and planned comparisons applied the Bonferroni adjustment
for the number of tests. Reported p-values reflect this adjustment.
Significant interactions with the buy versus non-buy dependent
factor in the presence of the four-way interaction are explicated by
reference to the planned comparisons. In order to provide infor-
mation about the magnitude of buy versus non-buy differences,
planned comparisons are reported in the form of paired t-tests with
t-values and significant differences derived from the full model (cf.
Howell, 2009).
3.2.1. P200 – price
Significant effects were noted for Buys × MA × Condition
(F(1, 370) = 11.97, p < .001, p 2 = .03) as well as for the
Buys × MA × Condition × Gender interaction effect (F(1,
205
370) = 41.93, p < .001, p 2 = .10). Significant buy versus non-
buy effects were shown for Low MA females under no promotions
as well as for High MA females under no promotions and pro-
motions (see Fig. 2). For Low MA females, non-buys (7.39 ␮V)
lead to larger P200 amplitudes than buys (5.34 ␮V; t(34) = 2.97,
p = .04, d = .50) under no promotions. In contrast, High MA females
demonstrated larger P200 amplitudes to buys (7.38 ␮V) relative
to non-buys (5.82 ␮V) under no promotions (t(54) = −2.92, p = 04,
d = −.30), but larger amplitudes for non-buys (7.72 ␮V) compared
to buys (6.12 ␮V) under promotions (t(54) = 4.11, p < .001, d = .44).
Past research indicates that P200 is susceptible to effects of
degree of familiarity (Caharel et al., 2002). In other words, in first-
half trials it is possible that P200 effects are due to decreased
familiarity with the perceptual features of the stimuli rather than
by a rapid assessment of price evaluation feasibility. Given this
possibility, we conducted additional exploratory analyses of the
P200 by constructing epochs for trials within the second half
of price trials only. Results of this analysis again found a sig-
nificant Buys × MA × Condition × Gender interaction effect (F(1,
370) = 14.70, p < .001, p 2 = .04). Follow-up analyses confirmed
effects for High MA and Low MA females under no promotions
(High MA: Mnonbuy = 6.12 ␮V vs. Mbuy = 8.01 ␮V, t(49) = −3.69 ␮V,
p = .005, d = −.39, Low MA: Mnonbuy = 7.13 ␮V vs. Mbuy = 4.47 ␮V;
t(34) = 4.57, p < .001, d = .60). Interestingly, we also observed a sig-
nificant effect for Low MA males under promotions (t(34) = 4.57,
p < .001, d = .45, Mnonbuy = 6.54 ␮V vs. Mbuy = 4.07 ␮V). Under pro-
motions Low MA males behaved similarly to Low MA females under
no promotions, at least for second-half trials, which we accept only
tentatively. This result for Low MA males suggests that as Low MA
males become more familiar with the price evaluation task, per-
ceptual processes become increasingly diagnostic for them with
respect to decision making. The absence of such effects during this
time window among High MA females for promotions (t(49) = 1.89,
p > .10) likely indicates that P200 effects owe to stimulus decoding
processes. In other words, the P200 effect might reflect the initial
shock value of the promoted prices for High MA females, but noth-
ing more. We did not observe P200 latency effects for Price either
for the main analysis or the exploratory analysis.
3.2.2. FN400 – price
As expected, a significant Buys × MA × Condition × Gender
interaction effect emerged (F(1, 370) = 38.65, p < .001, p 2 = .10).
The interactive effect of Buys × Condition was also meaningfully
significant (F(1, 370) = 12.03, p < .001, p 2 = .03). Planned compar-
isons demonstrated significant buy versus non-buy differences
for Low MA males under promotions and for High MA females
under both promotions and no promotions (see Fig. 3). For Low
MA males, buys (M = 1.33 ␮V) were less positive than non-buys
(M = 2.75 ␮V, t(54) = 3.14, p = .02, d = .35) for promotions. Likewise,
among High MA females, buys (M = 2.01 ␮V) were less positive
than non-buys (M = 3.04 ␮V; t(54) = 2.91, p = .04, d = .34) also for
promotions. In contrast, for High MA females buys were more posi-
tive (M = 3.78 ␮V) than non-buys (M = .95 ␮V; t(54) = −7.17, p < .001,
d = −.68) under no promotions.
We observed several FN400 latency effects. Effects
were noted for MA (F(1, 370) = 15.26, p < .001, p 2 = .04),
MA × Condition (F(1, 370) = 9.78, p < .002, p 2 = .03),
Buys × MA × Gender (F(1, 370) = 9.78, p < .001, p 2 = .03), and
Buys × MA × Condition × Gender (F(1, 370) = 6.06, p = .014,
p 2 = .02) factors. Overall, High MA lead to delayed latencies
(M = 402 ms) compared to Low MA (M = 386 ms). Among the High
MA, no promotions were delayed (M = 411 ms) relative to pro-
motions (M = 392 ms, p = .005), which was significantly different
than Low MA under no promotions (M = 380 ms, p < .001) and
promotions (M = 389 ms, p = .001). Planned comparisons testing for
206 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213

Fig. 2. Event-related potentials (ERPs) at FCz are shown in the top two rows for females and males, respectively, for the Price stimulus. The time window corresponding to
the P200 interval is shown shaded. Buy outcomes are shown in red and non-buy outcomes are shown in blue. Bottom two rows show topographical maps of differences
waves for the shaded interval (Buy minus Non-buy). Columns from left to right indicate the promotion condition then no promotion condition for High MA consumers and
then for Low MA consumers. Significant effects are denoted with asterisks. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web
version of the article.)

the four-way interaction revealed significant buying differences
among High MA males under no promotions only (t(49) = −4.72,
p < .001, d = −.69). Non-buys elicited faster latencies (M = 394 ms)
than buys (M = 431 ms).
3.2.3. LPC – price
A significant Buys × MA × Condition × Gender interaction effect
was observed (F(1, 370) = 12.97, p < .001, p 2 = .03). Planned com-
parisons revealed significant differences for Low MA males, Low MA
females, and High MA females all under no promotions (see Fig. 4).
Low MA males exhibited larger buy amplitudes (M = 2.61 ␮V) than
non-buy amplitudes (M = 1.32 ␮V; t(54) = −4.08, p < 001, d = −.36).
In contrast, Low MA females demonstrated larger amplitudes to
non-buys (M = 5.82 ␮V) than buys (M = 4.38, t(34) = 3.06, p = 03,
d = .56). Interestingly, and like Low MA males, High MA females
demonstrated larger buy amplitudes (M = 5.06 ␮V) compared to
non-buy amplitudes (M = 2.67 ␮V; t(54) = −4.59, p < .001, d = −.38).
No significant latency differences were observed with respect to
buying. However, we observed a MA × Condition × Gender interac-
tion effect (F(1, 370) = 14.62, p < .001, p 2 = .04). We explicated this
interaction so as to gain insights into the individual difference fac-
tors affecting consumers’ price evaluation processes. Among Low
MA males, no promotion decisions (M = 554 ms) peaked later than
promotion decisions (M = 444 ms, p < .001, d = .84). Interestingly,
LPC peaked later among Low MA males under no promotions than
among High MA males under no promotions (M = 500 ms, p < .001,
d = .71) and promotions (M = 506 ms, p < .001, d = .62). Finally, LPC
latency was delayed for Low MA females (531 ms) relative to Low
MA males (494 ms, p < .001, d = .58) under promotions. Thus, the
only significant within group difference for promotion type was
observed among Low MA males.
3.2.4. P200 – buy
For the Buy stimulus, significant effects were obtained for
a Buys × MA × Gender interaction (F(1, 370) = 12.64, p < .001,
p 2 = .03) as well as a significant Buys × MA × Condition × Gender
interaction (F(1, 370) = 6.57, p = .01, p 2 = .02). Planned compar-
isons relegated this effect to Low MA males under promotions
(t(54) = −3.40, p = .008, d = −.43). As per the price stimuli, we again
re-epoched the P200 in an exploratory analysis designed to test
the veracity of the P200 finding relative to the second half of trials.
However, we were unable to support this finding as a result of this
analysis. We did not observe P200 latency effects for Buy within
the main analysis or exploratory analysis.
3.2.5. P3 – buy
As expected, a statistically significant Buys × MA ×
Condition × Gender interaction was observed (F(1, 370) = 7.76,
p = .006, p 2 = .02). We also observed meaningfully significant
effects for Condition (F(1, 370) = 54.20, p < .001, p 2 = .13), Gender
 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213 207

Fig. 3. Event-related potentials (ERPs) at FCz are shown in the top two rows for females and males, respectively, for the Price stimulus. The time window corresponding to
the FN400 interval is shown shaded. Buy outcomes are shown in red and non-buy outcomes are shown in blue. Bottom two rows show topographical maps of differences
waves for the shaded interval (Buy minus Non-buy). Columns from left to right indicate the promotion condition then no promotion condition for High MA consumers and
then for Low MA consumers. Significant effects are denoted with asterisks. Double asterisks denote a significant latency effect. (For interpretation of the references to color
in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of the article.)

(F(1, 370) = 23.42, p < .001, p 2 = .06), a Buys × MA interaction (F(1,
370) = 41.03, p < .001, p 2 = .10), and a MA × Gender interaction
(F(1, 370) = 14.92, p < .001, p 2 = .04). Condition effects were driven
by larger overall no promotion amplitudes (3.19 ␮V) compared to
promotion amplitudes (.90 ␮V) (see Fig. 5). Gender effects were
driven by larger overall amplitudes among males (2.84 ␮V) relative
to females (1.25 ␮V). The MA × Gender interaction resulted from
High MA females who demonstrated significantly smaller P300
amplitudes (M = .42 ␮V) than High MA males (M = 3.23, p < .001,
d = −.65), Low MA females (M = 2.08 ␮V, p = .003, d = −.38), and
Low MA males (M = 2.46, p < .001, d = −.45), respectively. We
explicated the Buys × MA interaction by reference to the 4-way
interaction. Among males, significant follow-up tests for buying
effects were confined to no promotion conditions. For Low MA
males, non-buys (M = 3.50 ␮V) elicited larger amplitudes than
buys (M = 2.53 ␮V; t(54) = 3.88, p = .002, d = 38). We observed
opposite-pattern effects for High MA males (t(49) = −2.93, p = .04,
d = −.44, Mnonbuy = 3.49 ␮V vs. Mbuy = 4.93 ␮V). With females, sig-
nificant follow-up tests were confined to promotion conditions
only. Interestingly, we observe the same pattern of amplitude dif-
ferences within females under promotions as among males under
no promotions. That is, Low MA females elicited larger P300 ampli-
tudes to non-buys (M = 1.59 ␮V) than buys (M = .04 ␮V; t(34) = 2.38,
p = .02, d = .48) under promotions. High MA females, on the other
hand, demonstrated larger buy amplitudes (M = .12 ␮V) relative
to non-buys (M = −1.91 ␮V; t(54) = −3.62, p = .008, d = −.61) under
promotions.
A gender effect was observed for latency (F(1, 370) = 17.55,
p < .001, p 2 = .05). Follow-up analyses found faster latencies among
females (M = 387 ms) than among males (M = 398 ms).
4. Discussion
Our emerging understanding of the neural network underly-
ing buying behavior has largely emphasized activations in brain
regions using fMRI, which typically does not capture neural
responses within 1 second. We used electrophysiological mark-
ers of consumers’ price evaluations and buying processes to show,
for the first time, differential neural activity between buys and
non-buys within 200–300 ms. Behavioral results indicated that
females, particularly Low MA females, felt less confident in their
reference prices than males. Females also bought at lower rates
than males. Despite this, math anxiety status and gender did not
impact reference price accuracy. In a similar vein, past research
has found that men are often overconfident in the area of financial
decision-making, and therefore our study extends previous find-
ings to the area of consumer decision-making (Barber and Odean,
2001). Notwithstanding, High MA consumers were less likely to
buy when their reference price confidence was low as compared
to Low MA consumers, and less likely to buy under low confidence
208 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213

Fig. 4. Event-related potentials (ERPs) at CPz are shown in the top two rows for females and males, respectively, for the Price stimulus. The time window corresponding to
the LPC interval is shown shaded. Buy outcomes are shown in red and non-buy outcomes are shown in blue. Bottom two rows show topographical maps of differences waves
for the shaded interval (Buy minus Non-buy). Columns from left to right indicate the promotion condition then no promotion condition for High MA consumers and then for
Low MA consumers. Significant effects are denoted with asterisks. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of the article.)

than high confidence. No promotion formats positively impacted
buying likelihood for all groups.
Our ERP results demonstrated differential sensitivity to neu-
ral processes during buying for a group that should process price
information relatively less fluently, High MA consumers, compared
to a more fluent group, Low MA consumers. Fluency effects also
interacted with promotion condition and gender. We interpret the
effects obtained during Price as possibly related to differences in
processing fluency (i.e., perceptual fluency and conceptual fluency)
and recollection which may vary due to math anxiety, promotion
level, and gender factors. Similar to others, we interpret P200 as a
marker of perceptual processing, FN400 as a neural signature for
conceptual processing, and LPC as indicative of recollective pro-
cessing (e.g., Rugg et al., 1998). Component differences emerging
during Buy likely characterize the actual buying process itself. Dif-
ferences during Price, on the other hand, reflect the dynamics of
processing the numerical information that feed into the buying
decision. We address each of these separately below.
4.1. Price effects
Differences in P200 for Price lend credence to the notion
that processing fluency is utilized as a source of information by
consumers largely automatically (Schwarz, 2004). P200 was larger
for buys under no promotions for High MA females, but larger for
non-buys among Low MA females also under no promotions (and
for Low MA males under promotions in our exploratory analysis).
Trying to understand these effects, we look to Paynter et al. (2009)
who found a similar frontocentral P200 to arithmetic problems that
became more positive as a function of problem familiarity. Payn-
ter et al. interpreted their P200 findings as indicative of enhanced
perceptual fluency, which their subjects presumably used to infer
whether they felt like they knew the answer to the arithmetic prob-
lem. Accordingly, when subjects felt like they knew the answer to
the problem, they initiated a retrieval attempt. Perhaps, a similar
process is operating within our High MA female group for no pro-
motions, which we discuss further below. Opposite effects among
Low MA females are intriguing and challenge this interpretation.
Voss et al. (2010) reported a frontopolar P170 that was more posi-
tive to novel versus repeated visual stimuli, though they also note
the atypicality of this finding (cf. Schendan and Kutas, 2003). Unlike
that study, our experimental paradigm did not employ a percep-
tual priming manipulation. So, while it is still possible that Low
MA females utilized perceptual fluency signals in assessing non-
promoted prices, an alternative and more plausible explanation is
that for Low MA females P200 indexes a form of selective attention.
Carretié et al. (2001) demonstrated larger P200 magnitude when
additional attentional resources were deployed to negative versus
 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213 209

Fig. 5. Event-related potentials (ERPs) at Cz are shown in the top two rows for females and males, respectively, for the Buy stimulus. The time window corresponding to the
P3 interval is shown shaded. Buy outcomes are shown in red and non-buy outcomes are shown in blue. Bottom two rows show topographical maps of differences waves for
the shaded interval (Buy minus Non-buy). Columns from left to right indicate the promotion condition then no promotion condition for High MA consumers and then for
Low MA consumers. Significant effects are denoted with asterisks. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version
of the article.)

positive stimuli. In the same sense, the perceived negative valence
of the price stimuli (i.e., “bad” price versus “good” price) could
account for the P200 difference among Low MA females. Nonap-
pearance of similar P200 effects for other consumers might indicate
that buying decisions for them are made further downstream.
Arithmetic fact-retrieval models (e.g., Siegler, 1988) support
Paynter et al.’s P200 interpretation, which we likewise attribute to
our finding among High MA females under no promotions. These
models proffer the idea of confidence criteria that must be met
before an individual will attempt to retrieve an answer to an arith-
metic problem or resort to a backup strategy such as informed
guessing, writing out a problem, etcetera. Theoretically, High MA
females could set higher retrieval confidence criteria than their Low
MA female counterparts when evaluating non-promoted prices as
a compensatory mechanism given felt comfortableness with this
format (LeFevre et al., 1993). As noted already, this process may
critically depend on a perceptual fluency assessment. This effect is
borne out in the behavioral data such that High MA consumers are
more likely to buy when confident in their reference prices. Further
enhancing the plausibility of this interpretation, High MA females
compared to Low MA females show differential FN400 responses
under no promotions (more positive to buys). Given the dual-
process perspective, High MA females possibly attempt to integrate
the price offered within the context of the product presented before
making a decision to buy, which may be supported by a conceptual
fluency assessment. Consequently, increased amplitude under no
promotions among High MA females for non-buys might operate
similarly to the typical N400 incongruity effect (Kutas and Hillyard,
1980). The consumer compares the price to her internal reference
price, which if rejected is reflected in an N400 mismatch effect.
Reduced amplitude for buys might indicate that a price that is con-
ceptually easier to process is more likely to be bought. Thus, it
would appear that High MA females utilize both perceptual flu-
ency and conceptual fluency in judging whether to buy under no
promotions. No effects for FN400 noted for other consumers under
no promotions might indicate that a conceptual fluency assessment
is not part of their decision making process or at least that such
assessments are not supported by conceptual fluency processes.
The resource allocation interpretation proposed by Paynter et al.
(2009) additionally implies opposite decision-making styles under
no promotions among High MA versus Low MA females. We specu-
late that, absent promotions, High MA females may seek to confirm
whether a price is acceptable whereas Low MA females may seek
to reject the acceptability of an offered price. Recent research by
Dutta et al. (2011) supports the notion that consumers sometimes
adopt different decision styles when evaluating price information
as a function of their regulatory focus. Indeed, states such as anx-
iety are well known to invoke a systematic processing bias (Clore
et al., 1994), and adoption of a confirmatory decision-making style
by High MA females may be part of this bias. If true, this leads to
the prediction that High MA females should conduct a more robust
memory search for accepted prices (i.e., buys) whereas the reverse
210 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213
might be found for Low MA females. Indeed, the amplitude data for
LPC under no promotions finds just that. The LPC is larger for buys
relative to non-buys among High MA females under no promotions,
but larger for non-buys relative to buys for Low MA females. This
indicates that Low MA females might carry out a more robust search
for conflicting price information and compare the outcome of that
search to the offered price, which results in a larger non-buy ampli-
tude. The decision-style explanation also provides a reason for the
lack of FN400 differences among Low MA females in that reject-
ing a price may less critically depend on familiarity processes that
rely on conceptual fluency. In fact, one should expect the price not
to feel conceptually familiar as the strategy goal is to retrieve the
more familiar reference price. For clarity, we surmise that High MA
females under no promotions assess whether they can retrieve a
reference price for an offer price, appraise whether the price feels
conceptually familiar to them for the product, and finally search the
contents of memory in an effort to match the offer price to a refer-
ence price. For Low MA females, we put forward that they initially
assess whether they can reject an offer price before conducting a
memory search to authenticate the rejection, which results in a
larger LPC to a rejected offer.
In our introductory discussion of gender selectivity theory, we
pointed out that females often process comprehensively, relying
on a broader variety of information cues when making decisions,
whereas males gravitate toward more selective processing. These
effects are largely confirmed under no promotions with the excep-
tion of LPC differences among Low MA males. LPC was larger
for buys relative to non-buys under no promotions for Low MA
males, an effect identical to that observed among High MA females.
However, Low MA males may experience numerical processing
differently than High MA males such that they are more metacog-
nitively aware of numerical processing dynamics such as price
retrieval. Under promotions, we again observe similar ERP effects
among Low MA males and High MA females with respect to FN400.
This is consistent with the view that High MA females would be
the most biased toward a comprehensive processing style, perhaps
owing to an anxiety bias and their gender role. This is also consis-
tent with the view that Low MA males are more metacognitively
aware of numerical processing dynamics, which they utilize in their
decision making.
FN400 effects also bear directly on the interplay of conceptual
fluency and buying. As discussed earlier, FN400 has been proposed
to be generally related to familiarity (Rugg et al., 1998) or specif-
ically related to conceptual processing (Voss and Paller, 2006,
2007). Under promotions, our results are more consistent with the
idea that FN400 is indicative of conceptual processing, at least for
buys. Greater FN400 (less positive) was observed for buys under
promotions for both High MA females and Low MA males. For High
MA females and Low MA males, this might signify that to the extent
that these consumers activate a semantic processing subroutine for
price promotions this is inferred as beneficial and increases pur-
chasing. Thus, it would appear that FN400 may vary as a function
of shopping task demands. Possibly this reflects an initial attempt
at identifying the post-promotion price via computation. Work
by Zhou et al. (2006) identifies an anterior negative component
within a similar time window (N300) that became larger when
subjects invoked multiplication routines. Our subjects may be
incorporating elements of multiplication into their decision strate-
gies when they ultimately buy. If true, this finding echoes recent
work on the “instrumentality heuristic” (Labroo and Kim, 2009).
In brief, the instrumentality heuristic refers to the notion that, in
the absence of a goal, effort decreases subjective evaluations. In
contrast, when pursuing goals effort leads to enhanced subjective
evaluations. Under promotions, the consumer is presented with
a goal of identifying a post-promotion price, and therefore the
effort enacted via engaging conceptual processing subroutines
(e.g., related to multiplying or computation) to arrive at that price
might be construed positively and treated as diagnostic to their
buying decision accordingly. This is not to say that the subjective
experience of effort is hedonically marked. Rather, among High MA
females who chronically experience negative affect under numer-
ical processing, this may signal for them an uncommonly tolerable
level of that state. Curiously, we also observed a latency delay for
buys compared to non-buys among Low MA males. Thus, FN400
amplitude for Low MA and High MA females, as well as latency
delay for High MA males, may all be indicative of these consumers
using conceptual processing feelings, possibly experienced as
effortful, to infer the quality of the post-promotion price.
4.2. Buy effects
When making buying decisions, High MA females exhibited
increased P3 amplitudes under promotions whereas Low MA
females exhibited increased P3 amplitudes for non-buys also under
promotions. Under no promotions, this pattern is observed for
males such that for High MA males buy amplitudes are larger than
non-buys, but for Low MA males non-buys are larger than buys.
Significant differences were not present for females under no pro-
motions or for males under promotions. From a selectivity theory
perspective, females might emphasize promotions at this stage due
to increased cognitive demands associated with evaluating pro-
motions whereas males might emphasize no promotions as they
are more selective processors disinclined to reconsider metacogni-
tive aspects of evaluating promotions. FN400 effects were observed
for males under promotions and ERPs delineate several differences
for females under no promotions. We note the striking similari-
ties in the scalp distributions of these parallel P3 findings. For High
MA participants, the scalp distributions appear to be frontocentral
for females under promotions and for males under no promo-
tions. For Low MA participants, the scalp distributions appear to
be central-parietal for females under promotions and males under
no promotions.
The P3 component may therefore be a P3a-like potential for
High MA consumers (hereafter P3a), which might indicate greater
reliance on rapid motivational and emotional factors.2 For the Low
MA group, the P3 is probably a P3b, indicating a qualitatively dif-
ferent process. We address each of these possibilities in tandem
as follows, though a bit of clarity is first required in relating our
High MA findings to the P3a literature. In assessing the extant lit-
erature on P3a, Polich (2007) argues that “the P3a, novelty, and
no-go P300 are most likely variants of the same ERP that varies in
scalp topography as a function of attentional and task demands”
(p. 2134). Novelty and no-go P3 relate to specific operationaliza-
tions of P3 in two- and three-stimulus experimental paradigms of
the oddball task to distractor stimuli (for a discussion, see Polich
and Comerchero, 2003). As we did not employ these paradigms,
we will instead emphasize the purported function and neural
underpinnings of the entire class of P3a subcomponents, which
largely results when a demanding stimulus commands frontal
attention (Polich, 2007; Polich and Comerchero, 2003; Polich and
Criado, 2006). Citing Desimone et al. (1995), Polich and Criado
(2006) propose that P3a may be subtended by neural changes in
anterior cingulate function when new stimuli replace the con-
tents of working memory. Paulus et al. (2003) demonstrated that,
compared to low trait anxious individuals, high trait anxiety indi-
viduals are more risk-avoidant with respect to committing errors
and subsequently are more likely to activate an anterior cingu-
late/medial prefrontal network during decision making even when
2
We thank Christopher Paynter for making this suggestion and for other helpful
comments on this paper.
 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213
the chance of committing an error is low. Fjell et al. (2007) showed
that P3a habituates more rapidly for high sensation seekers; the
converse may hold true for avoidant-seeking high anxiety types.
It is well known that P3b is associated with memory updating
processes (Polich and Criado, 2006). Kok (2001) puts forward that
P3b represents an “event categorization” decision when a stimulus
is matched relative to an internal representation. Larger P3bs are
elicited for improbable events whereas smaller P3bs are observed
under difficulty (Donchin, 1981; Kok, 2001). P3 effects (and appar-
ent locus) lend additional credence to the suggestion that High
MA and Low MA consumers differ with respect to their consumer
decision styles. Our view that High MA consumers seek to con-
firm buys is consistent with the finding that P3a is larger for buys
versus non-buys. High MA consumers possibly seek to confirm buys
because they are risk avoidant with respect to committing errors
(Paulus et al., 2003). Already mentioned, this is consistent with the
behavioral data that High MA consumers are more likely to buy
when reference price confidence is high and is supported by the
avoidance-tendency literature (Paulus and Stein, 2010). Increased
P3a for buys thusly might index the affective salience of buying
for High MA consumers. Quite possibly, P3a reflects the allocation
of additional frontal cortical resources (likely anterior cingulate)
when High MA consumers override their tendency to avoid buy-
ing decisions predicated on quantitative assessments of an item’s
price.
The decision to buy by Low MA consumers may well stem from a
reject decision style. For this group, the dominant buying proclivity
may be to buy. This is consistent with the notion that buying is nor-
mally a default mode, which does not occur when painful (Knutson
et al., 2007). In this sense, the P3 that they exhibit might represent
an updating of the dominant response to buy of which not buy-
ing would reflect an update. Alternatively, larger P3bs to non-buys
could reflect the demands of the task. Because the task is to buy,
and not to avoid buying, it may be that P3b codes the improbability
of the offer price. A larger P3b is generated to non-buys when an
offer is perceived as probably not a good buy.
Moreover, the decision style view confirms work by Polezzi
et al. (2010) who found that P3 amplitude is most sensitive to
risk proneness in situations where one has a preference for taking
a risk, which varies individually. In their study, participants who
showed a risk preference in a low-risk gambling task also showed
larger P3 within that task relative to participants that showed a
risk preference in a higher-risk task; the converse was true for
those with a risk preference in the high-risk task under high risk.
Unlike that study, the present study shows that P3 can be associated
with inter-individual variability within the same task as a function
of response type. Also interesting, Polezzi et al. found P3 effects
over both anterior and posterior regions. However, and unlike our
study, these authors emphasized participants P3 responses to both
gains and losses. Reminiscent of others (Yeung and Sanfey, 2004),
Polezzi et al. found that P3 s were larger for gains versus losses.
Furthermore, these differences were amplified for the participants
with a risk preference within the low-risk task and significant
only frontally (but marginally significant over the posterior). Thus,
Polezzi et al. (2010) demonstrated P3a sensitivity and larger P3a
amplitude among a lower risk-seeking group when they take risks,
though we again note the effect is topographically widespread as
in the present study. To the extent our High MA consumers avoid
making purchases, their buys might be akin to taking risks and our
findings are therefore similar to those of Polezzi et al. (2010).
In closing this discussion section, it is worth considering
whether the P3 findings we observe are associated with response-
related processes. Verleger et al. (2005) contend that P3b may be
a transitory stage between perceptual processing and response
initiation; however, P3a may be selectively driven by stimulus-
related processes. Why High MA consumers would demonstrate
211
stimulus-related process differences as evidenced by an underlying
P3a difference while Low MA consumers demonstrate response-
related differences as evidenced mainly by an underlying P3b
difference is unclear. One possibility is that High MA consumers
ruminate over their decisions to buy, thereby emphasizing stim-
ulus over response-related processes, perhaps owing to an error
avoidance tendency. In contrast, Low MA consumers are more
inclined to act and therefore P3 might reflect both the closure of
their decision cycle and response preparation. On the other hand,
P3 effects within High MA females seem to be at least partially
accounted for by an overlapping contingent negative variation
(CNV) and specifically for non-buys. It is well known that frontal
CNV is associated with response-related processes and is larger
for negative or threatening stimuli (Carretié et al., 2004). Perhaps,
CNV indexes preparation of the rejection response for High MA
females.
4.3. Summary of results
In summary, our results indicate that math anxiety, promo-
tion format, and gender combine to influence consumer purchase
processes. For High MA females and Low MA males, stronger
conceptual activation (FN400 effects) under promotions was asso-
ciated with buying; for High MA males, a similar effect is observed
such that FN400 latencies are delayed for buys.
The reverse effect also occurred for High MA females under no
promotions with non-buys presenting larger FN400 than buys. LPC
amplitude was larger for High MA females and Low MA males
under promotions, which we attribute to recollective processing.
We have argued that these effects might be due to a bias to engage
in comprehensive processing among High MA females and a greater
sensitivity among Low MA males to the processing dynamics of
quantitative reasoning relative to other males. Unlike High MA
females, Low MA females demonstrated larger LPC under no pro-
motions for non-buys. We hypothesized that this may be due to
the adoption of a decision style which seeks to reject offer prices
whereas High MA females may assess prices via attempting to con-
firm them. Differences between High MA and Low MA females
emerged at least as early as P200. Based on past research, we
interpret P200 as indicative of perceptual processing. High MA
females demonstrated larger P200 for buys and Low MA females
demonstrated larger P200 for non-buys, possibly reflecting the ini-
tial stages of alternative buying strategies. Under promotions, we
observed identical P3 patterns such that High MA females exhib-
ited larger amplitudes for buys and Low MA females exhibited
larger amplitudes for non-buys. We observed this same pattern
among males but under no promotions. Apparent anteriorization
of P3 among High MA may indicate greater reliance on emotional
and motivational factors when making buying decisions. There
appeared to be a more posterior P3 for Low MA, which suggests
that these consumers do more to integrate available information
when making decisions to buy or not buy.
5. Concluding remarks
Using fMRI, Knutson et al. (2007) investigated the neural con-
sequences of buying (Knutson et al., 2007). In the present study,
we explored individual differences in neural correlates of buying
with ERP. Apart from our method being more sensitive in time,
our work extended Knutson et al. (2007) by taking into account
math anxiety, promotion format, and gender. Additionally, while
Knutson et al. utilized a preference buying task, we instructed par-
ticipants in our study to buy when they felt that the offer price was
the best deal. In their study, Knutson et al. (2007) determined that
anterior insula and medial frontal cortex play key roles in shaping
buying behavior. Insular connections with frontal cortex, especially
212 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213
anterior cingulate and striatum, may be used to send signals about
the state of the organism, which then biases how choices are made
(Bechara and Damasio, 2005; Xue et al., 2010). Thus, in preference
how one literally feels about a product such as thinking its price
is too high is incorporated into a decision of whether to buy it.
Consider that in response to high prices, for example, consumers
sometimes say that they have been gouged (i.e., price gouged),
a word which literally can mean to remove the eye of another
with one’s thumb. When buying is rule based, it is less clear that
strong interoceptive signals should be present and that these
feelings should necessarily bias behavior. Mental arithmetic is,
however, widely known to induce an array of biomarkers in certain
individuals such as muscle tension, increased cardiac responses,
and so on (Berdina et al., 1972). Insula may play a pivotal role in
assessing these biomarkers, and this response may be exaggerated
in High MA consumers (Paulus and Stein, 2006). Anterior cingulate,
which receives information regarding the interoceptive state from
anterior insula, may mediate the process of deploying additional
attention resources as a gain-control function (Botvinick et al.,
2004; Paulus and Stein, 2006). Anteriorization of P3 and differences
thereof during buying may be related to interoceptive biasing of
decision-making within High MA consumers. The considerable buy
versus non-buy differences that we find here for High MA females
may result as a function of these tendencies. Among Low MA con-
sumers, particularly males, interoceptive signals might be used to
infer the quality of their information processes, which themselves
mediate buying or not buying rather than an altered decision pro-
cess per se. Future research utilizing our task and greater source
accuracy techniques may aid in clarifying this relationship. Assess-
ing whether P3a indexes interoceptive biasing of decision making
under preference seems worthy of future research likewise.
References
Ashcraft, M.H., 2002. Math anxiety: personal, educational, and cognitive conse-
quences. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11, 181–185.
Ashcraft, M.H., Kirk, E.P., 2001. The relationships among working memory, math
anxiety, and performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 130,
224–237.
Barber, B.M., Odean, T., 2001. Boys will be boys: gender, overconfidence, and com-
mon stock investment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116, 261–292.
Bartlett, F.C., 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bechara, A., Damasio, A., 2005. The somatic marker hypothesis: a neural theory of
economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior 52, 336–372.
Berdina, N.A., Kolenko, O.L., Kotz, I.M., Kuznetzov, A.P., Rodionov, I.M., Savtchenko,
A.P., Thorevsky, V.I., 1972. Increase in skeletal muscle performance during emo-
tional stress in man. Circulation Research 30, 642–650.
Bettman, J.R., Luce, M.F., Payne, J.W., 1998. Constructive consumer choice processes.
Journal of Consumer Research 25, 187–217.
Bishop, S.J., Duncan, J., Brett, M., Lawrence, A., 2004. Prefrontal cortical function and
anxiety: controlling attention to threat-related stimuli. Nature Neuroscience 7,
184–188.
Botvinick, M., Cohen, J.D., Carter, C.S., 2004. Conflict monitoring and anterior cingu-
late cortex: an update. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 539–546.
Brand, M., Labudda, K., Markowitsch, H.J., 2006. Neuropsychological correlates
of decision-making in ambiguous and risky situations. Neural Networks 19,
1266–1276.
Caharel, S., Poiroux, S., Bernard, C., Thibaut, F., Lalonde, R., Rebaï, M., 2002. ERPs
associated with familiarity and degree of familiarity during face recognition.
International Journal of Neuroscience 112, 1499–1512.
Cabeza, R., Ohta, N., 1993. Dissociating conceptual priming, perceptual priming, and
explicit memory. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 5, 35–53.
Carretié, L., Mercado, F., Tapia, M., Hinojosa, J.A., 2001. Emotion, attention, and the
‘negativity bias,’ studied through event-related potentials. International Journal
of Psychophysiology 41, 75–85.
Carretié, L., Mercado, F., Hinojosa, J.A., Martín-Loeches, M., Sotill, M., 2004. Valence-
related vigilance biases in anxiety studied through event-related potentials.
Journal of Affective Disorders 78, 119–130.
Clore, G.L., Schwarz, N., Conway, M., 1994. Affective causes and consequences of
social information processing. In: Wyer, R.S., Srull, T.K. (Eds.), The Handbook
of Social Cognition. , 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.
323–417.
Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.
Curran, T., 2000. Brain potentials of recollection and familiarity. Memory & Cognition
28, 923–938.
Curran, T., Tepe, K.L., Piatt, C., 2006. ERP explorations of dual process recognition
memory. In: Zimmer, H.D., Mecklinger, A., Lindenberger, U. (Eds.), Binding in
Human Memory: A Neurocognitive Approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
pp. 467–492.
Darley, W.K., Smith, R.E., 1995. Gender differences in information-processing strate-
gies: an empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response. Journal
of Advertising 24, 41–56.
Desimone, R., Miller, E., Chelazzi, L., Lueschow, A., 1995. Multiple memory system
the visual cortex. In: Gazzaniga, M. (Ed.), The Cognitive Neurosciences. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 475–486.
Donchin, E., 1981. Surprise! . . . surprise? Psychophysiology 18, 493–513.
Dutta, S., Biswas, A., Grewal, D., 2011. Regret from post-purchase discovery of lower
market prices: do price refunds help? Journal of Marketing 75, 124–138.
Eccles, J.S., Jacobs, J.E., 1986. Social forces shape math attitudes and performance.
Signs 11, 367–380.
Eysenck, M.W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., Calvo, M.G., 2007. Anxiety and cognitive
performance: attentional control theory. Emotion 7, 336–353.
Faust, M.W., Ashcraft, M.H., Fleck, D.E., 1996. Mathematics anxiety effects in simple
and complex addition. Mathematical Cognition 2, 25–62.
Fjell, A.M., Walhovd, K.B., Fischl, B., Reinvang, I., 2007. Cognitive function, P3a/P3b
brain potentials, and cortical thickness in aging. Human Brain Mapping 28,
1098–1116.
Garbarino, E.C., Edell, J.A., 1997. Cognitive effort, affect, and choice. Journal of Con-
sumer Research 24, 147–158.
Grandjean, D., Scherer, K.R., 2008. Unpacking the cognitive architecture of emotion
processes. Emotion 8, 341–351.
Grasso, D.J., Simons, R.F., 2011. Perceived parental support predicts enhanced late
positive event-related brain potentials to parent faces. Biological Psychological
86, 26–30.
Hajcak, G., Moser, J.S., Simons, R.F., 2006. Attending to affect: appraisal strategies
modulate the electrocortical response to arousing pictures. Emotion 6, 517–522.
Hembree, R., 1990. The nature, effects, and relief of mathematics anxiety. Journal for
Research in Mathematics Education 21, 33–46.
Hoch, S.J., Drèze, X., Purk, M., 1994. EDLP, Hi-Lo, and margin arithmetic. Journal of
Marketing 58, 16–27.
Holcomb, P.J., 1993. Semantic priming and stimulus degradation: implications for
the role of the N400 in language processing. Psychophysiology 30, 47–61.
Hopko, D.R., Mahadevan, R., Bare, R.L., Hunt, M.K., 2003. The Abbreviated Math Anx-
iety Rating Scale (AMAS). Construction, Validity, and Reliability Assessment 10,
178–182.
Horton, D.L., Pavlick, T.J., Moulinjulian, M.W., 1993. Retrieval-based and familiarity-
based recognition and the quality of Information in episodic memory. Journal of
Memory and Language 32, 39–55.
Howell, D.C., 2009. Multiple Comparisons with Repeated Measures. University of
Vermont, Burlintongton, VT, Retrieved from: http://www.uvm.edu/∼dhowell/
StatPages/More Stuff/RepMeasMultComp/RepMeasMultComp.html (accessed
08.01.11).
Karlinsky, N., Patrick, M., 2011. Brain activity measures responses to ads, commer-
cials. ABC News, Retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/scientists-
response-ads-measuring-brainwaves/story?id=12841570 (accessed 30.04.11).
Kirk, R.E., 1996. Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educational
and Psychological Measurement 56, 746–759.
Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G.E., Prelec, D., Loewenstein, G., 2007. Neural predic-
tors of purchases. Neuron 53, 147–156.
Kok, A., 2001. On the utility of P3 amplitude as a measure of processing capacity.
Psychophysiology 38, 557–577.
Kotchoubey, B., 2006. Event-related potentials, cognition, and behavior: a biological
approach. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 30, 42–65.
Kutas, M., Hillyard, S.A., 1980. Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect
semantic incongruity. Science 207, 203–205.
Labroo, A.A., Kim, S., 2009. The instrumentality heuristic: why metacogni-
tive difficulty is desirable during goal pursuit. Psychological Science 20,
127–134.
Lee, A.Y., Labroo, A.A., 2004. Effects of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand
evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research 41, 151–165.
LeFevre, J., Greenham, S.L., Waheed, N., 1993. The development of procedural and
conceptual knowledge in computational estimation. Cognition and Instruction
11, 95–132.
Lipkus, I., Samsa, G., Rimer, B., 2001. General performance on a numeracy scale
among highly educated samples. Medical Decision Making 21, 37–44.
Maner, J.K., Richey, J.A., Cromer, K., Mallott, M., Lejuez, C.W., Joiner, T.E., Schmidt,
N.B., 2007. Dispositional anxiety and risk-avoidant decision-making. Personality
and Individual Differences 42, 665–675.
Meyers-Levy, J., 1988. The influence of sex roles on judgment. Journal of Consumer
Research 14, 522–530.
Meyers-Levy, J., Maheswaran, D., 1991. Exploring differences in males’ and females’
processing strategies. Journal of Consumer Research 18, 63–70.
Miller, D., Bischel, M.I., 2004. Anxiety, working memory, gender, and math perfor-
mance. Personality and Individual Differences 37, 591–606.
Morwitz, V.G., Greenleaf, E.A., Johnson, E.J., 1998. Divide and prosper: consumers’
reactions to partitioned prices. Journal of Marketing Research, 453–463.
Murray, L.W., Dosser, D.A., 1987. How significant is a significant difference? Prob-
lems with the measurement of magnitude of effect. Journal of Counseling
Psychology 34, 68–72.
 W.J. Jones et al. / Biological Psychology 89 (2012) 201–213
Niedeggen, M., Rösler, F., 1999. N400 effects reflect activation spread during retrieval
of arithmetic facts. Psychological Science 10, 271–276.
Paulus, M.P., Rogalsky, C., Simmons, A., Feinstein, J.S., Stein, M.B., 2003. Increased
activation in the right insula during risk-taking decision making is related to
harm avoidance and neuroticism. NeuroImage 19, 1439–1448.
Paulus, M.P., Stein, M.B., 2006. An insular view of anxiety. Biological Psychiatry 60,
383–387.
Paulus, M.P., Stein, M.B., 2010. Interoception in anxiety and depression. Brain Struc-
ture and Function 214, 451–463.
Paynter, C.A., Reder, L.M., Kieffaber, P.D., 2009. Knowing we know before we know:
ERP correlates of initial feeling-of-knowing. Neuropsychologia 47, 796–803.
Peter, J.P., Churchill, G.A., Brown, T.J., 1993. Caution in the use of difference scores
in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 19, 655–662.
Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., Mazzocco, K., Dickert, S., 2006. Numeracy
and decision making. Psychological Science 17, 407–413.
Polezzi, D., Sartori, G., Rumiati, R., Vidotto, G., Daum, I., 2010. Brain correlates of risky
decision-making. Neuroimage 49, 1886–1894.
Polich, J., 2007. Updating P300: an integrative theory of P3a and P3b. Clinical Neu-
rophysiology 118, 2128–2148.
Polich, J., Comerchero, M.D., 2003. P3a from visual stimuli: typicality, task, and
topography. Brain Topography 15, 141–152.
Polich, J., Criado, J.R., 2006. Neuropsychology and neuropharmacology of P3a and
P3b. International Journal of Psychophysiology 60, 172–185.
Pribram, K.H., 1970. Feelings as monitors. In: Arnold, M. (Ed.), Feelings and Emotions.
Academic Publisher, New York, pp. 41–53.
Raghunathan, R., Pham, M.T., Corfman, K.P., 2006. Informational properties of anx-
iety and sadness, and displaced coping. Journal of Consumer Research 32,
596–601.
Reber, R., Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., 1998. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective
judgments. Psychological Science 9, 45–48.
Rugg, M.D., Curran, T., 2007. Event-related potentials and recognition memory.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11, 251–257.
Rugg, M.D., Mark, R.E., Walla, P., Schloerscheidt, A.M., Birch, C.S., Allan, K., 1998.
Dissociation of the neural correlates of implicit and explicit memory. Nature
392, 595–598.
Scherer, K.R., 2004. Feelings integrate the central representation of appraisal-driven
statement organization in emotion. In: Manstead, A.S.R., Frijda, N.H., Fischer,
A.H. (Eds.), Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 136–157.
Schendan, H.E., Kutas, M., 2003. Time course of processes and representations
supporting visual object identification and memory. Journal of Cognitive Neu-
roscience 15, 111–135.
Schwarz, N., 2004. Meta-cognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision
making. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14, 332–348.
Siegler, R.S., 1988. Strategy choice procedures and the development of multiplication
skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 117, 258–275.
Song, H., Schwarz, N., 2009. If it’s difficult to pronounce, it must be risky: fluency,
familiarity, and risk perception. Psychological Science 20, 135–138.
213
Tsui, J.M., Mazzocco, M.M.M., 2007. Effects of math anxiety and perfectionism on
timed versus untimed math testing in mathematically gifted sixth graders.
Roeper Review 29, 132–139.
Vanhuele, M., Drèze, X., 2002. Measuring the price knowledge shoppers bring to the
store. Journal of Marketing 66, 72–85.
Verleger, R., Jaśkowski, P., Wascher, E., 2005. Evidence for an integrative role of
P3b in linking reaction to perception. Journal of Psychophysiology 19, 165–
181.
Voss, J.L., Federmeier, K.D., 2011. FN400 potentials are functionally identical to
N400 potentials and reflect semantic processing during recognition testing.
Psychophysiology 48, 532–546.
Voss, J.L., Paller, K.A., 2006. Fluent conceptual processing and explicit memory for
faces are electrophysiologically distinct. Journal of Neuroscience 26, 926–933.
Voss, J.L., Paller, K.A., 2007. Neural correlates of conceptual implicit memory and
their contamination of putative neural correlates of explicit memory. Learning
& Memory 14, 259–267.
Voss, J.L., Schendan, H.E., Paller, K.A., 2010. Finding meaning in novel geometric
shapes influences electrophysiological correlates of repetition and dissociates
perceptual and conceptual priming. NeuroImage 49, 2879–2889.
Whittlesea, B.W.A., 1993. Illusions of familiarity. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 19, 1235–1253.
Whittlesea, B.W.A., Jacoby, L.L., Girard, K., 1990. Illusions of immediate memory: evi-
dence of an attributional basis for feelings of familiarity and perceptual quality.
Journal of Memory and Language 29, 716–732.
Winkielman, P., Schwarz, N., Fazendeiro, T., Reber, R., 2003. The hedonic
marking of processing fluency: implications for evaluative judgment. In:
Musch, J., Klauer, K.C. (Eds.), The Psychology of Evaluation: Affective Pro-
cesses in Cognition and Emotion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ,
pp. 189–217.
Woodman, G.F., 2010. A brief introduction to the use of event-related potentials in
studies of perception and attention. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72,
2031–2046.
Woollams, A.M., Taylor, J.R., Karayanidis, F., Henson, R.N., 2008. Event-related poten-
tials associated with masked priming of test cues reveal multiple potential
contributions to recognition memory. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20,
1114–1129.
Xia, L., Monroe, K., Cox, J., 2004. That price is unfair! A conceptual framework of
price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing 68, 1–15.
Xue, G., Lu, Z., Levin, I.P., Bechara, A., 2010. The impact of prior risk experiences
on subsequent risky decision-making: the role of the insula. NeuroImage 50,
709–716.
Yeung, N., Sanfey, A., 2004. Independent coding of magnitude and valence in the
human brain. Journal of Neuroscience 24, 6258–6264.
Yonelinas, A.P., 2002. The nature of recollection and familiarity: a review of 30 years
of research. Journal of Memory and Language 46, 441–517.
Zhou, X., Chen, C., Dong, Q., Zhang, H., Zhou, R., Zhao, H., Qiao, S., Jiang, T., Guo, Y.,
2006. Event-related potentials of single-digit addition, subtraction, and multi-
plication. Neuropsychologia 44, 2500–2507.