The fictional product that I will look at is the EyePhone. This is a virtual headset device embedded behind one’s eye to allow the person to project images before their eyes and control them with their minds (Brownell, 2011). This gives it a more significant competitive advantage; the product comes concomitantly with a parody of Twitter that gives one room to post every preceding thought instantly and the video, respectively (Wong & Mulligan, 2016). It, therefore, allows its users to listen, check emails, watch, stalk pals, or ignore them in crowded places. Like any other product, the EyePhone fictional product has some flaws worth noting in advance; for example, its battery has a lower capacity (Matheson & Cooke, 2013). However, the product’s reception is spotty, and it can be used behind closed doors to mind-control the phone’s users.
Classical conditioning refers to a system of learning by which a conditional stimulus is associated with an unrelated unconditioned stimulus for the intention of producing a behavioral response called a conditioned response (McSweeney & Murphy, 2014). Eyephone has facets that encourage attention, effective response, and behavioral approaches simultaneously, hence very influential to consumers’ buying attitude (Aronson et al., 2019. Furthermore, it views all learning as a response transfer between a conditioned stimulus and an unconditioned one (Levy et al., 2018). This means that when various responses originate from conditioning, then various transfers emerge in line with the product’s Pavlovian conditioning process (Staats & Staats, 1958). Therefore, the process and the product offer the flexibility of considering the effect of conditioning on various learning areas; it also encourages conceptual and perceptual systems to inductively learn about co-variations (Muzellec et al., 2013).
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Akert, R. M., & Sommers, S. R. (Eds.). (2019). Social psychology (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Brownell, M. (2011). 8 Fictional Products We Wish We Could Buy. Retrieved on April, 2021,
Levy, N., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Dissonance and discomfort: Does a simple cognitive inconsistency evoke a negative affective state? Motivation Science, 4(2), 95–108. http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/mot0000079
Matheson, J. A., & Cooke, W. D. (2013). Is a Trademark Infringement Claim Based on a Fictional Product Coming Soon to a Courtroom near You. Landslide, 6, 16.
McSweeney, F. K., & Murphy, E. S. (Eds.). (2014). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of operant and classical conditioning (pp. 455-482). Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Muzellec, L., Kanitz, C., & Lynn, T. (2013). Fancy a coffee with Friends in ‘Central Perk’? Reverse product placement, fictional brands and purchase intention. International Journal of advertising, 32(3), 399-417. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-32-3-399-417
Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57(1), 37–40. doi: 10.1037/h0042782
Wong, R. Y., & Mulligan, D. K. (2016, June). When a product is still fictional: anticipating and speculating futures through concept videos. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing interactive systems (pp. 121-133).