The Scarce, Necessary, and Unjustly Condemned Consumer Psychology and Economic Psychology

Probably because it is considered a somewhat “unromantic” field, consumer psychology is still mistakenly seen as a less humanized area — which is a profound error. Understanding the consumer is not “dehumanizing” psychology; on the contrary, it is about seeking to offer the best, the most appropriate, and the most accessible solutions, delivering products and services that make sense and inspire respect and admiration for a company.

Another common misconception is labeling this specialty as “capitalist psychology.” After all, all professionals seek remuneration, whether by charging clients directly or by receiving payment from the state through taxes paid by the population. The psychologist focused on the corporate environment does not charge society directly: they provide services to companies that want to better understand their audience, and in many cases, these analyses result in a healthier, more conscious, and more satisfying relationship between company and consumer.

In my work tracking FM radio station audiences, I see this firsthand. By analyzing different programs, I can clearly see which ones create genuine engagement and which drive the audience away. Many of these behaviors go unnoticed: successful programs are not recognized as such, while others that attract little attention are considered “hits” without any real measurement. Over time, this lack of understanding leads to a loss of connection with listeners and, consequently, a loss of relevance.

Consumer psychology is the field that studies how people choose, purchase, use, and discard products and services. Its aim is to understand:

• The motivations and needs that drive consumption.

• The decision-making processes, how and why someone chooses one brand over another.

• The social, emotional, and cognitive influences on buying behavior.

• The reactions to marketing strategies, advertising, and brand positioning.

Companies that invest in this kind of knowledge can deeply understand their target audience, create more attractive products, more effective campaigns, and more meaningful buying experiences. Far from being “less human,” this is a psychology that connects science, behavior, and market reality and for that very reason, it is indispensable.

And yes, the natural and desirable path for consumer psychology is to be deeply evidence-based, moving hand in hand with the scientific method. This means developing research with methodological rigor, maintaining familiarity with numbers, statistical data, and quantitative analysis, and conducting broad and consistent surveys on behaviors, preferences, and decision-making patterns.

The strength of this field lies precisely in this combination: psychological theory combined with concrete data. From this union come reliable insights capable of guiding strategic decisions and generating real impact in the relationship between people, brands, and products. A mature and relevant consumer psychology is not built on guesswork or isolated intuitions, it is built on solid evidence that reveals what truly drives human choices.

The so-called consumer psychology does not usually appear as a prominent discipline in undergraduate psychology courses in Brazil, unlike in some countries (for example, the United States or Germany), where there are entire departments dedicated to Consumer Psychology or Consumer Behavior.

Economic Psychology

I see economic knowledge as an essential component of the theoretical foundation for anyone who wants to work seriously in economic or consumer psychology. When I speak of economic knowledge, I mean a broad and consistent understanding of how macroeconomics and microeconomics function, as well as a genuine familiarity with finance and investment.

Standing out in this field is not about surrounding oneself with acronyms, terminology, and jargon. Above all, it means developing a mind structured around logic, numerical reasoning, mathematical thinking, and data analysis, in order to avoid superficial conclusions or conceptual contradictions.

I do not deny that rigid rules and consistent methodologies are indispensable to prevent personal biases, those that come “from my own head”, from overriding good scientific practices. Only with this intellectual foundation is it possible to build solid, coherent, and useful analyses capable of generating reliable knowledge about human economic behavior.

Misses X Marx

I want to be very direct on a point that, although painful for some, must be said: trying to understand economics through the lens of Karl Marx simply does not work in contemporary practice. If anyone doubts this, the facts speak for themselves. Just look at China, a country that has experienced astronomical economic growth precisely since it incorporated extremely liberal formulas: it opened up to global competition, prioritized productive efficiency, competition, and market expansion.

Today, China, which still officially declares itself socialist, practices intensive and pragmatic capitalism on many fronts. This transformation was no accident: it was a choice based on concrete results, not ideological dogmas.

If you ask me whether this model is ideal or “fair,” I would say no, there are serious issues regarding individual freedom, particularly freedom of expression and opinion, which are typical characteristics of authoritarian regimes. Just look at examples like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Congo, or Burkina Faso, where political control and the rejection of basic market principles have resulted in economic stagnation, chronic poverty, and brain drain.

The point here is not to glorify capitalism itself, but to recognize that the tools driving the modern economy, innovation, competition, market openness, and proper incentives, are born from liberal logic. Ignoring them or trying to frame them within 19th-century models is to condemn oneself to shallow analysis and structural error.

Donald Trump Is Not a Good Example of an Economic Liberal

Another important point, and one that many ignore, is that economic policies are not defined by who adopts them but by the content they carry. A clear example of this is the tax policies implemented by Donald Trump in the United States. Despite his rhetoric associated with liberalism and free markets, many of these measures were much closer to classic protectionism than to a liberal framework.

By raising tariffs on imported products and attempting to “protect” domestic industry through trade barriers, Trump applied strategies that resemble those of economies in recovery or countries trying to compensate for structural delays, practices that have historically been more aligned with statist and socializing policies than with economic liberalism.

This reinforces a fundamental point: liberalism is not a discourse, it is a set of concrete practices. It requires trust in competition, openness to trade, a predictable regulatory environment, and freedom for capital and innovation to flow. When a government, even a right-wing one, decides to intervene excessively in the market, raise tariffs, or protect inefficient sectors, it distances itself from these principles and approaches economic models that limit sustainable growth.

Trump Imitates Sarney and Other Brazilian Presidents

In many respects, Donald Trump’s protectionist policies resemble those of José Sarney’s government in Brazil, when importing any product was almost impossible. During that period, access to technologies, consumer goods, and innovative products produced abroad, often more efficient, modern, and cheaper, was severely restricted in the name of protecting the so-called “national industry.”

The result of this model is well known: instead of strengthening through global competition, much of Brazil’s industry became dependent on this artificial barrier. Without the pressure of international competition, there were no real incentives to innovate, improve quality, or reduce costs. Brazilian consumers became captives of a closed market, with no options and forced to consume whatever was available often of inferior quality and at high prices.

This experience shows how protectionist policies, even when well-intentioned, create comfort zones that erode competitiveness and slow down economic development. That is why similar measures, when adopted by countries like the United States, sound so contradictory: instead of opening space for efficiency and innovation, they recreate the outdated logic of economic isolation, which has already proven harmful in many moments of history, including in Brazil.