Discover how desire drives real-world decisions, long before liking does. Learn why consumers chase products they later regret, and how neurophysiological tools like EEG and fNIRS can quantify motivational salience and hedonic value. From product testing and ad effectiveness to packaging studies and innovation strategy, this article explores how understanding the neural mechanics of desire unlocks predictive insights for consumer behavior and choices.

Why do consumers sometimes feel strongly drawn to products they don’t end up enjoying? And why do genuinely satisfying products often struggle to gain traction in the market?

These questions point to a familiar gap in consumer research: the difference between what people say they like and what actually motivates them to act.

In consumer neuroscience, desire is not treated as a simple emotion or a post-purchase opinion. Instead, it is understood as a motivational state that shapes attention, engagement, and choice often before conscious reflection. This distinction matters because many of the decisions that drive trial, engagement, and impulse buying unfold long before consumers can clearly explain their preferences. (1–4)

In recent years, biometric research platforms like iMotions have transformed how researchers measure human motivation. With synchronized data from EEG, fNIRS, facial expression analysis, and behavioral timing, and how motivational signals relate to downstream choice behavior

What Is Desire in Consumer Behavior?

Traditional consumer research has often equated desire with stated preference or satisfaction. However, affective neuroscience and behavioral decision research show that desire is more complex. It can be decomposed into distinct but interacting components, each playing a different role in shaping choice.

From a neurobehavioral standpoint, desire can be conceptualized across several operational dimensions:

Motivational Incentive (“Wanting”): Motivational incentive, commonly referred to as wanting, reflects a process of incentive salience. It is a cue-triggered motivational state that energizes approach behavior toward a stimulus independently of predicted or experienced hedonic pleasure. Wanting can arise rapidly, often prior to conscious deliberation, and may persist even when the outcome itself is not ultimately enjoyable. (1–5)

This mechanism helps explain why branding, novelty, scarcity, and emotional cues can strongly influence behavior even when consumers later report ambivalence or dissatisfaction.

Hedonic Enjoyment (“Liking”): Hedonic enjoyment, or liking, refers to the experienced pleasure derived during or after consumption. Unlike wanting, liking does not primarily drive approach behavior. Instead, it reflects the subjective enjoyment of an outcome and contributes to post-consumption satisfaction and learning. (1–4)

Crucially, wanting and liking can vary independently. A consumer may strongly want a product they do not end up liking, or enjoy a product they never felt motivated to choose in the first place.

Goal-Oriented Motivation: Beyond neural mechanisms, behavioral models also emphasize the role of desire in decision-making. Within the Model of Goal-Directed Behavior (MGB), desire functions as a mediator between attitudes and purchase intention, translating evaluation into action. This framework distinguishes appetitive desire (driven by consumption goals) from volitive desire (driven by commitment and reasoned intent). (6),(12)

From this perspective, desire is not just a feeling, it is the motivational bridge between evaluation and behavior.

Impulse Desire: Sudden, context-triggered urges to buy or engage, reflecting rapid shifts in motivational salience. In applied neuromarketing research, impulse-related responses have been indexed through neural activity in prefrontal regions, particularly in studies examining impulse buying and valuation under time or affective pressure. These studies show that prefrontal activity patterns can index impulse-related engagement before explicit choice or self-report (10) (see also 3 for incentive-salience theory)

Desire for Uniqueness: Not all desire is momentary. Some forms are identity-driven and relatively stable over time. The desire for unique consumer products reflects individual differences in the motivation to seek scarcity, customization, and symbolic distinction. This dimension of desire shapes responses to innovation, exclusivity, and brand signaling, especially in markets where products function as extensions of identity. (7),(13-18)

The Wanting ≠ Liking Distinction

One of the most influential insights from affective neuroscience is that anticipating a reward and experiencing a reward rely on partially distinct processes. Wanting reflects motivational pull, while liking reflects experienced pleasure. (1-4)

When wanting is high but liking is low, consumers may be drawn toward a product yet experience disappointment after consumption.
Conversely, when liking is high but wanting is low, genuinely rewarding options may fail to be selected in the first place.

For consumer researchers, this distinction is critical. It highlights why relying solely on post-hoc self-report risks missing the motivational dynamics that drive real-world behavior.

Why Desire Doesn’t Always Predict Satisfaction

In a product test for a new beverage, participants may respond positively to branding and concept, reporting excitement and curiosity before tasting. During consumption, however, the experience may feel only moderately enjoyable, even though the product still aligns with performance goals or identity.

A second product in the same test might generate less initial excitement but deliver a more consistently rewarding experience once consumed.

These outcomes show that desire and satisfaction can coexist yet differ in strength or source. Desire reflects motivational pull shaped by cues and context, while satisfaction depends on the experienced value of the outcome.

This distinction mirrors established findings in affective neuroscience showing that motivational and hedonic processes are related but not identical.

This is why multimodal biometric testing matters so much in consumer research. It captures the full journey from initial attraction to lasting satisfaction, revealing mismatches that surveys simply can’t detect

Measuring Desire Beyond Words: Why Biometrics Matter

Traditional consumer research methods such as satisfaction ratings, verbal feedback, and post-hoc behavioral observation capture reflective evaluations after an experience has occurred. However, these approaches often fail to fully capture anticipatory and partially nonconscious motivational processes that influence choice before outcomes are known. (1-3)(8)

To address this gap, consumer neuroscience increasingly relies on multimodal biometric approaches to examine:

Early motivational pull before preferences are articulated
Emotional salience that drives attention and engagement
Reward valuation as experiences unfold
Interactions between motivation and cognitive regulation

EEG, fNIRS, and behavioral response latency together provide complementary insights across the temporal arc of desire.

How Neuroscience Measures Desire

1. EEG: High-Temporal Markers of Motivational Salience

EEG offers millisecond-level temporal resolution, making it well suited for capturing rapid attentional and motivational dynamics early in decision-making. Neuromarketing research has associated several EEG-derived markers with motivational engagement, including frontal alpha asymmetry, midfrontal theta activity, and the late positive potential. (8, 9)

Key electrophysiological indices include:

EEG Marker	Meaning	Insight
Frontal Alpha Asymmetry (FAA) (8)	approach-withdrawal motivation	Strength of wanting
Midfrontal Theta (4–8 Hz)(9)	Cognitive & motivational engagement	Effortful engagement / cognitive–motivational engagement
Late Positive Potential (LPP) (8)	Emotional significance	Sustained attraction

Illustrative EEG findings suggest that neural activity recorded during passive product exposure before any explicit decision is made can predict later consumer preferences at above-chance levels, complementing self-report rather than replacing it. (8, 9)

Example from UX research:

Imagine testing two onboarding flows for a new digital product. One version immediately draws users in as they explore more screens and stay visually engaged but later struggle to clearly articulate whether they liked the experience. Another version feels less exciting at first glance, yet users describe it as smoother and more comfortable to use.

This pattern highlights how early motivational pull and later evaluative judgments don’t always align. Initial engagement can be present even when users feel uncertain in verbal feedback.

This aligns with research distinguishing anticipatory motivational processes from reflective evaluation, reinforcing why early neural and behavioral signals can complement self-report rather than replace it.

Electroencephalography (EEG) Software

2. Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (fNIRS): Hemodynamic Correlates of Reward Valuation

While EEG captures timing, functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) provides information about where cortical valuation-related activity occurs. fNIRS measures changes in oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin in prefrontal regions, serving as an indirect proxy for cortical metabolic engagement. (10),(11)

Region	Function
OFC	Subjective pleasure, reward valuation
mPFC	Integrated valuation, affective appraisal
DLPFC/VLPFC	Executive inhibition, control of impulsivity, Regulation of motivational conflict

Research using fNIRS has linked prefrontal activity to valuation, affective appraisal, and regulatory control processes that become especially relevant during consumption and evaluation.

Applied sensory example
In a snack taste test, one product stands out immediately due to bold packaging and novelty. Participants feel curious and eager to try it. During tasting, however, reactions are mixed. A second product generates less initial excitement but delivers a more consistently enjoyable experience.

Even when participants continue to talk enthusiastically about the first product, additional measures can help clarify what’s happening: one product excels at attracting attention, while the other delivers greater experienced value. This distinction is particularly useful for guiding sensory optimization and expectation-setting.

fNIRS

3. Machine Learning Integration: From Correlates to Predictions

The predictive value of biometric data increases when signals are combined using machine-learning approaches. Studies integrating EEG and fNIRS features through classifiers such as Support Vector Machines and ensemble models report substantially higher-than-chance accuracy in predicting consumer preference and impulse-related outcomes compared with self-report alone. (8–11)

Multimodal integration allows researchers to jointly observe motivational dynamics and valuation processes, improving interpretability and robustness without making causal claims about neural determinism.

Multimodal Synergy: Why Combination Matters

Modality	Temporal Resolution	Spatial Resolution	Primary Strength
EEG	<1 ms	Low	Fast motivational tracking
fNIRS	1–2 s	Moderate	Spatially resolved hedonic mapping
Combined EEG + fNIRS	Optimal	Optimal	Full-spectrum temporal–spatial integration

The cross-modal coupling of EEG and fNIRS allows simultaneous observation of the motivation–valuation circuit, offering both speed and precise localization. For instance, increased midfrontal theta (from EEG) aligned with elevated OFC activation (from fNIRS) indicates synchronized neural engagement underlying the convergence of “wanting” and “liking” consistent with concurrent engagement of motivational and valuation-related processes. (11)

Neuroanatomical Overview: The Brain Regions of Desire (8)(9)(10)(11)

Brain Region	Role in Desire	Typical Measure
Orbitofrontal Cortex (OFC)	Reward valuation, hedonic processing	fNIRS (HbO/HbR)
Medial Prefrontal Cortex (mPFC)	Integrated affective appraisal, valuation expectancy	fNIRS
Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (DLPFC)	Cognitive control, effort modulation	fNIRS
Anterior Cingulate Cortex (ACC)	Conflict monitoring, control engagement	EEG (theta activity)
Midfrontal sites (Fz/Cz)	Motivational and control-related salience	EEG (ERP / theta)

Desire in Action: From Impulse to Intention

Motivational signals can emerge before conscious evaluation, shaping attention and approach tendencies ahead of explicit judgment. This helps explain why cues such as scarcity, novelty, or emotional storytelling can quickly elicit desire even before detailed product assessment. (1–3, 9)

Within behavioral frameworks such as the Model of Goal-Directed Behavior, desire mediates the relationship between attitudes and intention, translating attraction into action. Measuring desire therefore provides a leading indicator of behavior, capturing dynamics that traditional post-hoc methods often miss. (6)

How Desire Research can be Applied Across Industries

Understanding desire has practical implications across domains:

Marketing & Advertising: Identifying motivational pull before recall or persuasion metrics
UX & Product Design: Surfacing latent engagement beyond stated usability feedback
Sensory & CPG Research: Aligning anticipatory desire with rewarding experiences
Retail & Pricing: Distinguishing impulse attraction from sustainable value
Health & Behavior Change: Understanding why intention fails despite awareness

Desire is not synonymous with liking, satisfaction, or stated preference. It is a dynamic motivational construct shaped by anticipation, experience, and identity. By distinguishing wanting from liking and complementing self-report with biometric measures, consumer neuroscience offers a more precise understanding of why people choose what they choose.

For researchers and practitioners alike, the implication is clear: to predict behavior, we must measure motivation as it unfolds, not just preferences in hindsight.

Resources:

1 Berridge, K. C. (2023). Separating desire from prediction of outcome value. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(10), 932-946. Link.

2 Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?. Brain research reviews, 28(3), 309-369. Link.

3 Kringelbach, M. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2015). Motivation and pleasure in the brain. The psychology of desire, 129-145.

4 Kringelbach, M. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2017). The affective core of emotion: Linking pleasure, subjective well-being, and optimal metastability in the brain. Emotion Review, 9(3), 191-199. Link.

5 Chiappini, E., Silani, G., & Korb, S. (2022). Anticipatory and consummatory responses to touch and food rewards: A protocol for human research. Bio-protocol, 12(4), e4325-e4325. Link.

6 Leyva-Hernandez, S. N., Toledo-Lopez, A., & Hernandez-Lara, A. B. (2021). Purchase intention for organic food products in Mexico: The mediation of consumer desire. Foods, 10(2), 245. Link.

7 Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology & Marketing, 14(6), 601-616. Link.

8 Byrne, A., Bonfiglio, E., Rigby, C., & Edelstyn, N. (2022). A systematic review of the prediction of consumer preference using EEG measures and machine-learning in neuromarketing research. Brain Informatics, 9(1), 27. Link.

9 Telpaz, A., Webb, R., & Levy, D. J. (2015). Using EEG to predict consumers’ future choices. Journal of marketing research, 52(4), 511-529. Link.

10 Bak, S., Jeong, Y., Yeu, M., & Jeong, J. (2022). Brain–computer interface to predict impulse buying behavior using functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Scientific reports, 12(1), 18024. Link.

11 Kaheh, S., Ramirez, M., & George, K. (2021, October). Using concurrent fNIRS and EEG measurements to study consumer’s preference. In 2021 IEEE 12th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON) (pp. 0305-0310). IEEE. Link.

12 Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt. 2015. SmartPLS (Version 3.3.2); Windows; GmbH: Boenningstedt, Germany, 2015.

13 Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 301-312. Link.

14 Snyder, C. R. (1992). Product scarcity by need for uniqueness interaction: A consumer Catch-22 carousel? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 9-24. Link.

15 Snyder, C.R., & Fromkin, H.L. (1977). Abnormality as a positive characteristic: The development and validation of a scale measuring need for uniqueness. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 518-527. Link.

16 Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum Press. Link.

17 Harris, J., & Lynn, M. (1996). Manifestations of the desire for unique consumer products. Paper presented at the American Marketing Association’s Winter Educator’s Conference, Hilton Head, South Carolina.

18 Harris, J., Lynn, M., & Clair, S. (1991). Scarcity’s polarization of evaluations: Current theories and null results. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 19, 121-135.