Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths

subsidisation 2 Neuromarketing debunking the Myths? Graduate School of Business MARKETING circumspection 555 subsidization 2 Neuromarketing ridicule the Myths? Actual debate 3624 (Excluding coer, contents and fictional character pages) varlet 0 of 18 engagement 2 Neuromarketing renunciation the Myths? TABLE OF content INTRODUCTION. 2 nervous Correlates .. Ethics of Neuromarketing . 8 Free pass on & Decision-making . 9 CONCLUSION 11 REFERENCES 2 rascal 1 of 18 fitting 2 Neuromarketing guy the Myths? INTRODUCTION Neuromarketing, argues Lee, Broderick, & Chamberlain (2007) is an emerging interdisciplinary domain of a function that combines economics, neuroscience and psychology, with Neuromarketing creation term just half-dozen years ago says Smidts (2002). The goal of neuromarketing purports Laybourne & Lewis, (2005) and Smidts (2002) is to study how the head is physiologic whollyy affected by marketing strategies and advert. ace activeness resulting from viewing a n advertizement is monitor lizarded and measured utilize neuroimaging techniques such(prenominal) as functional magnetic sonorousness imaging (functional magnetic resonance imaging), as shown in routine 1, and electroencephalography (pneumoencephalogram) is employ in order to evaluate the Figure 1 functional magnetic resonance imaging Image effectiveness of these strategies (Laybourne & Lewis 2005). McClure et al (2004) says neuromarketing stu take places ordinarily measure orientation amid crossroads in impairment of pit familiarity or product pick.As a viewer whitethorn hold a cognitive bias in traditional marketing studies, measures such as the product sense of taste for a crabbed enunciatement is several(prenominal)times difficult to measure argues Schaefer, Berens, Heinze, & Rotte (2006). Walter, Abler, Ciaramidaro, & Erk, (2005) intimate in neuromarketing studies, print familiarity and product pickence feed been matchd with anxious practise. Further, consumer protective cover groups and academics view the surface atomic lean 18a of neuromarketing with caution due to the possible ethical implications of purpose advertisements to intention eachy own specific neurological do ( commercial-grade officious, 2003).Laybourne & Lewis (2005) and Smidts (2002) says functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) be intrinsic neuromarketing ar neuroimaging techniques and comprise the neuroscience aspect of the field. fMRI requires a actor to lay on a bed, with their head located inside the ring of a s croupener. Researchers freighter measure the neural drug ab utilize end-to-end the judgement in price of blood geological period via oxygen usage by monitoring the participant? s hotshot with fMRI. As a pipeline for this technique inquiryers pile in addition use EEG equipment as it is fairly portable and light. Using numerous electrodes that argon placed on the articipant? s scalp in a Figur e 2 in regularizeect Cap varlet 2 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? net-like fashion, as shown in Figure 2, EEGs fag end measure reason act by assessing electrical bodily process at the scalp. Using twain behavioural chemical reactions as well as neural energizings Fugate (2007) says researchers argon able to use neuroimaging to monitor and discharge marketing studies of the participant? s response. Fugate (2007) explains neuromarketing as being the performance that involves asking subjects to perform experimental tasks and stamp down tasks whilst being wired to various electronic devices.Researchers argon able to comp atomic number 18 differences in the images produced during the respective tasks as the devices generate instant, colourful images of a working brain. Researchers be then able to see what parts of the brain hasten believe responded to the stimuli used (Fugate 2007). Fugate (2007) describes the mechanics behind neuromarketing, as a rev olution in the marketing, however, Fugate (2007) has over relished some faultfinding scientific concepts, specifically the corollary nature to neuromarketing research. Nneuromarketing as a concept suggests Smidts (2002) emerged prior to the word in truth being used in 2002, despite suggestions differentwise. numerous studies lacked the spatial resolution to make any recyclable claims as to the mechanisms behind effective and ineffective denote techniques due to limitations of neuroimaging techniques conducted in the past some decades (Smidts 2002). An mannikin argues Reeves, Lang, Thorson, and Rothschild (1989), is their claim that in an EEG study goggle box scenes with negative content showcases activation of the frontal batch of the right hemisphere while positive messages cause long-life left hemisphere activity in the frontal region.It is burning(prenominal) to note that as notwithstanding four electrodes were used (in addition to the two reference electrodes) corti cal arousal was only monitored in toll of frontal versus occipital (Reeves, Lang, Thorson, and Rothschild 1989). Now days, EEG systems argon much much precise and often know up to 256 electrodes to monitor brain activity. Many new(prenominal) studies from the same time period by Krugman, (1971) Rothschild, Hyun, Reeves, Thorson, & Goldstein (1988) Rothschild & Hyun (1990) Weinstein, Appel, & Weinstein (1980) to a fault employ hemisphere? activations as key cultures.Nvirtuosothe little, suggest Weinstein et al (1980) it is not the fact that before research in neuromarketing? has been imprecise that is of greatest importance, but kinda a how quickly the field has evolved over the last few years. Page 3 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? Conditioning & Marketing Two methods atomic number 18 typically employed in neuromarketing research as means of evaluating an various(prenominal)? s preference between products product preference and trade name familiar ity. Product election Product preference comparisons involve two cognise inciters or products, which is unlike commemorate familiarity.Walter et al. (2005) uses an example of phallic participants being asked to rate a elevator automobile? s looks regardless of cost and practical requirements, given over the selection between a high performance sports vehicle, a midsized vehicle and a small car. Participants ranked the sports car initial, followed by the med-sized car, with the small car ranked last. Walter et al (2005) suggested the sports cars as a primary reinforcer for cordial dominance, representing independence, power and speed. In this example, the sports car acted as a secondary refund.Money or ethnical broad(a)s argon secondary rewards that reinforce behaviour only afterwardswards prior development, through associations with primary rewards (innate reinforcers including food, water, and sexual stimuli). The terzetto main functions of rewards as outlined by Wa lter et al (2005) can (a) induce positive effect, (b) induce learning via positive reinforcement, and (c) induce consuming behaviour for getting the reward. Sports cars atomic number 18 preferred, as seen from the study conducted by Walter et al (2005), as they correlate with primary rewards that we innately seek.They excessively represents characteristics that we perceive our culture valuates. Morgan et al (2002), as cited by Walter et al, (2005) say this study was also adapted from a previous study of dominance and social hierarchy involving prime mates. In short, given two classifiable products, preference depart be given towards one over the otherwise, which is due in general to the preferred product having much reinforcing qualities in hurt of secondary reinforcers we spot as being relevant at a personally level, as well as to our cultural heritage. (Walter et al 2005) Brand Familiarity Comparisons between amiliar and unfamiliar products atomic number 18 defined as grade familiarity (Campbell and Keller 2003). When a consumer first sees an advertisement for an unfamiliar stigmatize Campbell and Keller (2003) suggest they get hold negative uncertainty towards it as it is unfamiliar. However, repeating of an advertising message, argues Campbell and Keller (2003), Page 4 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? at low levels, decreases this uncertainty and increases the effectiveness. iodin counsel that products can earn the trust of the consumer and drop dead more(prenominal) than familiar, suggest Fugate (2007), is through the use of famous person endorsements.Repeated exposures can decrease the effectiveness of the advertisement by annoying the viewer, argues Campbell & Keller (2003), so therefore advertisers moldiness keep in mind not to advertise too much. Consumers can only store association for the familiar, but not the unfamiliar, so repeated exposures for an already familiar product provides more time for the con sumer to process the advertisement and their associated experiences from using the product (Fugate 2007). Consumer can beseem bored and still annoyed more slowly for unfamiliar brands as there is less friendship to process (Fugate 2007).Therefore, for consumers to recognise a new brand entering into the markets Campbell & Keller (2003) suggest they need to be traditionalist in their marketing efforts by not overdo it. More identifiable brands, such as Pepsi, argon able to advertise more often with less concern of annoying their audience argues Campbell & Keller (2003). uneasy Correlates A key principle of neuromarketing, suggest Damasio (1996), is that it is based on finding a neural correlates for bribeing consumers such as product preference and brand familiarity.As most studies are only able to monitor neural activity remarkally it is important to acknowledge that researchers are only able to seek a correlate and do not induce product preference via neural stimulation (D amasio 1996). Interestingly, peer reviewed evidence has been set linking brand familiarity and product preference with the mesial anterior cerebral mantle, says Damasio (1996). The average prefrontal cortex (mPFC), suggest Damasio (1996), is a repository of linkages between bioregulatory states and factual knowledge.In the more specific instance of advertising , this translates into experiences and product discipline being linked to positive effect, via the mPFC (Damasio 1996). IMAGE 1. mPFC Studies by Kable and Glimcher (2007) point to the median(a) prefrontal cortex (mPFC) as the locus of interest for neuromarketing studies are quite notable. As outlined in the sports car study earlier Walter et al (2005) advise product preference has been correlate with the activation of Page 5 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? several brain regions in the reward circuitry of the brain, including the mPFC.Preference has also been correlate with mPFC activity independ ent of prices argues Knutson, Rick, Wimmer, Prelec, & Loewenstein (2007) and was found to be predictive of later(prenominal) purchasing. Studies by Paulus & Frank (2003) observed when using a visual discrimination task as a control they found coinciding results when a simpler preference judgement study was conducted. McClure et al. (2004) conducted one of the most stimulate neuromarketing studies. Researchers conducting a study monitored neural activity when drink either Coca-Cola or Pepsi (see Figure 3).Using an fMRI for an experiment McClure et al (2004) had two conditions, (a) brand-cued delivery, and (b) blind assay test. When conducting a blind taste test, brain activity between the Coca-Cola and Pepsi was observed as being nigh identical. However, in the brand-cued condition, solid differences were observed in with neural activity, primarily in the ventro median prefrontal cortex (McClure et al 2004). Figure 3 Coke Vs Pepsi The significant observation was no neural activ ation differences were set when no brand nformation was provided, but when brands were identified, product preference and brand familiarity came into play with Coca-Cola being generally preferred by the participants, which caused significantly more activity in the ventro average prefrontal cortex region of the brain says McClure et al (2004). An important aspect of the study is that no fillings are make by the participant the soft drink were given to the participants in the fMRI in small quantities the percentage was based when the brand was first announced the finding was based on the activated regions on the brain as measured by the fMRI.Brand preference and previous conditioning is only examined in brand-cued delivery, and only then is there significant ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation. Koenigs & Tranel (2008) in a follow-up to the McClure et al (2004) study shed more light on the paradox of cola preference. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) explain that subjects tend to pr efer Pepsi over Coca-Cola, or receive no accredited preference, in a blind-taste test, yet Coca-Cola consistently Page 6 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? outsells Pepsi therefore creating a Pepsi paradox.When brand information is available, CocaCola is preferred, however, when brand information is not provided, no reliable preferences can be made, which is creating the paradox (Koenigs and Tranel 2008). Cola preference was equilibrise in the McClure et al (2004) study. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) tested predictions from previous studies by using participants with damaged prefrontal cortex. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) discovered that when patients are presented with brand information, it makes no difference on their preferences.The conclusion was this finding mirrors effects found in linguistic rule individuals participating in blind-taste tests. Gladwell (2005) suggest the strong brand image of Coca-Cola, not taste, is the reason Coca-Cola is preferred over Pep si. Several studies nurse tie ined brand familiarity with mPFC. Schaefer et al (2006) and Schaefer & Rotte (2007) report that when comparing familiar and unfamiliar products with mPFC activity differences in neural activity are detected, which can also be connected to neurolearning literature of bric-a-brac detection in rat lesion studies suggest Dias & dulcorate (2002). Campbell and Keller (2003) suggest relative to behavioural principles, brand familiarity is of uttermost(prenominal) importance to advertisers. Fear the un cognize pushed consumers away, and in advertising, this dread creates uncertainty for product that results in consumers selecting a known product. For culturally familiar brands relative to unfamiliar brands Schaefer and Rotte (2007) demonstrate this as superior frontal activity and increase mPFC. In short, studies conducted McClure et al (2004), Paulus & Frank (2003), Walter et al (2005) have linked medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) activation to preference judgements.Further, Schaefer et al (2006) and Schaefer & Rotte (2007) suggest mPFC can be attributed to the preference for the familiar over the unfamiliar, assuming that the consumer is red ink to buy a product either way (i. e. a vehicle). Preferences between the available choices in terms of their relative value, suggests Montague (2008), is the next tonicity in the consumer closing making. Consumers can evaluate their choices by weighing the pros and cons of all the available choices (Montague 2008). Research by Sutherland (2004) shows that this process is primarily undertaken by the medial prefrontal cortex, which some have dubbed the liking centre? f the brain. Several other areas have been implicated as key brain regions relevant to neuromarketing research, suggest Walter et al (2005), other than the medial prefrontal cortex. Some of these Page 7 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? regions include the dorsoadaxial striatum, amygdala and orbitofrontal co rtex, (Walter et al 2005). The ventral striatum says Knutson et al (2007), Walter et al (2005), is the reward center of the brain and has been correlated with self-reported self arousal but only as an indicator of the predicted value of the reward.This is used as a mechanism for learning as it is thought of as prediction error. The amygdale says Walter et al (2005) has also been correlated with reward intensity in neuromarketing studies, however, is commonly known for its role in processing emotional information. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), says Walter et al (2005), consists of mainly two regions the lateral and medial (and is mainly thought of as a measure of preference. The medial OFC is activated by rewarding stimuli, which includes the medial prefrontal cortex. Lateral OFC activity is correlated with punishing stimuli.The use of neuroimaging is not limited to neural activation measures says Fugate (2007). For example, in terms of hormonal secretions such as dopamine neuroim aging quantitatively measure this affect (Fugate, 2007). Though the field is expanding rapidly there is much to discover in terms of neural correlates and interest to neuromarketing, suggests Fugate (2007). Ethics of Neuromarketing In order to enhance a moneymaking(prenominal) make believe a major issue for research in neuromarketing is the ethical concerns of neuroimaging. Neuromarketing is nowhere near ready to bear researchers to design a marketing campaign, so habit-forming that overrides an individual? easy go out. Founded or unfounded concerns are being allayed regarding this. A consumer protection group in America, known as Consumer Alert, has filed complaints to the US federal government, as well as a US senate committee, and universities, protesting the morality of neuromarketing. Consumer Alert believe neuromarketing as finding a buy button inside the skull (commercial Alert 2003, 1). Commercial Alert (2003, 3) claims Our children are suffering from extraordinary lev els of obesity, type 2 diabetes, anorexia, bulimia, and pathological gambling, while millions will eventually die from the marketing of tobacco. According to Consumer Alert (2003), the rise of neuromarketing will bring an end to free will. Lee et al (2007, 202) suggest Unfortunately, the barely concealed disdain for the inclination of neuromarketing? in the neuroscience literature is clearly based on the opinion that marketing research is a commercial activity purely designed to sell products to the domain which many a(prenominal) Page 8 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? academics are also hesitating to embrace (Thompson, 2003).Neuroscience academics tend to focus on more medically relevant questions, though there are many journals dedicated to economics and marketing (Thompson, 2003). As such, some believe that brain imaging will be used in ways that trench personal privacy to a totally unacceptable degree (Editorial, 2004b, 71). An anonymous author in ch aracter Neuroscience, took a similar stance, saying Neuromarketing is little more than a new fad exploited by scientists and marketing consultants to blind corporate clients with science. (Laybourne & Lewis 2005, 29). Neuromarketing research whitethorn help reduce the problems raised by Commercial Alert (2003).For example, Montague, Hyman, & Cohen (2004) say, by examining the differences between the brain activity of compulsive overpurchasers may help to understand wherefore these compulsive individuals tend to spend outside of their means. In addition, it can provide useful information for how clinicians serve these disorders by looking at the correlations between purchasing behaviour and clinical disorders. For example, the reward circuitry of the brain and in value-based ratiocinationmaking and the medial prefrontal cortex are quite important says Montague, Hyman, & Cohen (2004).Two significant ethical issues are present in neuromarketing research argues Murphy, Illes, and R einer (2008), being (a) protection of consumer autonomy if neuromarketing reaches critical effectiveness, and (b) protecting vulnerable parties from harm. To mitigate, recommendations for a code of ethics? to be adopted by the neuromarketing industry are proposed by Murphy et al (2008). Some of the recommendations include (1) accurate representation of scientific methods to businesses and the media, (2) full disclosure of ethical principles used in the study, and (3) protecting research subjects from any coercion.Free will & Decision-making Murphy et al (2008) suggests that if neuromarketing ever does reach critical effectiveness then the concerns of Commercial Alert (2003) may not be unfounded after all as neuromarketing may infringe on an individual? s free will. The importance of neuromarketing is not confine to neuroimaging, but also includes computational neuroscience, which is the study of evaluateing the function steps that underlie a given behavioural process. Value-based conclusiveness-making, for example, can be broken down into quintuplet steps suggest Rangel, Camerer, & Montague, (2008), Page 9 of 18ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? which are (1) identifying the decision problem (2) weighing the possible choices (3) making a decision based upon the evaluation of the choices available (4) after carrying out the decision, consider the resulting consequences and (5) learn from the decision-making process in order to make better decisions in the next. Montague (2008, 584) says, Viewed this way, it? s easy to see why free? choice is an unconstructive way to conceptualize the way world choose .Vohs & Schooler (2008) suggests that free will and the ability to belie perception of it have also recently pose apparent. However, it has been many years, suggests Libet, Gleason, Wright, & Pearl (1983) since neuroimaging studies have suggested that neural activity does precede sure intention, especially if it can be monitored. The decisio n of whether or not to buy a product is a result of from balancing the wear of obtaining the product, says Knutson et al (2007), offset by the act of very having to purchase for the product, which is an interplay of corresponding valuations and choices.Using computational neuroscience, quite than neuroimaging, Walvis (2008), is able to connect neuroscience with common marketing principles. Walvis (2008) suggests threesome propositions of how the brain organises information and states, These three propositions function as well to the basis of an artificial neural network model, implicating the importance of what other elements? the brand is associated with, the strength of these associations, and the sheer number of associations that are present between the brand and other elements? in the network (Walvis, 2008, 182).These form the basis, say (Walvis, 2008, 186) for the third Branding Laws, based upon how engaging the branding environs is to the consumer, how repetitive and t ake aimed the branding efforts are, and how personally relevant the brand? s marketing strategy is to the consumer. The stronger these pathways and connections are, the more presumable a given product will be selected by a consumer. We can again quantify factors involved in choice behaviour, through the use of an artificial neural network, by using these laws says Walvis (2008).Neuromarketing can greatly improve marketing techniques when using a strong neuroscientific basis for branding, as suggested by Walvis (2008), even without the use of neuroimaging, but rather employing other aspects of neuroscience. Page 10 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? CONCLUSION Fugate (2007) suggests a revolution will before long overcome up-to-the-minute market research as a consequence of several key implications of neuromarketing. Researchers are better able to evaluate an advertisement? s effectiveness much more scientifically, when applying neuromarketing techniques, in ter ms of how the ad affects the viewer? emotional state (i. e. , fanaticism or humour) as well as the viewer? s attention to the ad. Product appeal, suggested by Walter et al (2005) and the sports car? study are also identified with respect to the findings with the reward circuitry of the brain. Neuromarketing was shown to be able to connect and quantify the effects of celebrity endorsements, suggested by Fugate (2007) that link the auditory and visual stimuli of the celebrity as they cause hormonal secretions in consumers that identify with the product endorsement, which can lead to a positive emotional response and feelings of trust.As researched by McClure et al (2004), logo/brand selection and emotional attachment was shown to be significant with consumers, which explained the result that Coca-Cola outperforms Pepsi. Only time will tell how much of an effect these new techniques will have on marketing success as the future implications of neuromarketing show great potential. Neur omarketing, in its current stage, is by no means adequate in determine if an advertisement is effective. Stimulating the medial prefrontal cortex does not mean that an advertisement will be effective as it is only a corollary response.The medial prefrontal cortex region of the brain is also the subject of other research studies, which include those in fear conditioning as suggested by Baratta, Lucero, Amat, Watkins, & Maier (2008), temper resulting in eating disorders (Uher et al. , 2004), and startle responses (Day-Wilson, Jones, Southam, Cilia, & Totterdell, 2006). The field shows great promise as being the next step in market research despite the current flaws in neuromarketing research.Advertisers are likely to be more successful in making a longer lasting impression on the consumer if they took advantage to the many psychology studies that have been previously conducted as they would be better able to direct their efforts towards a target demographic. It is debatable if improv ed marketing capabilities are good or bad for the consumer however, with ethics being oblige through legislation I feel we are seeing the myths of neuromarketing being debunked. Page 11 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? REFERENCES Baratta, V. , Lucero, T. , Amat, J. , Watkins, L. & Maier, S. 2008. Role of the ventral medial prefrontal cortex in mediating behavioural control-induced reduction of later conditioned fear. Learning & Memory, 15(2), 8487. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Campbell, M. , & Keller, L. 2003. Brand familiarity and ad repetition effects. ledger of Consumer Research, 30, 292304. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Commercial Alert. 2003. Commercial alert asks Emory University to halt neuromarketing experiments. Commercial Alert watchword Release. Page 12 of 18ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? http//www. commercialalert. org/PDFs /neuromarketingrel. pdf accessed 26 February, 2011). Damasio, A. 1996. The somatic marker guess and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical transactions of the kinglike Society of London, Series B, Biological sciences, 351, 14131420. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Day-Wilson, K. , Jones, D. , Southam, E. , Cilia, J. , & Totterdell, S. 2006. medial prefrontal cortex volume spillage in rats with isolation rearing-induced deficits in prepulse inhibition of acoustical startle.Neuroscience, 141(3), 11131121. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Dias, R. , & Honey, R. C. 2002. Involvement of the rat medial prefrontal cortex in novelty detection. behavioural Neuroscience, 116(3), 498503. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Editorial. 2004a. Brain scam? constitution Neuroscience, 7(10), 1015. http//proquest. umi. com. dbg w. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Editorial. 2004b. Neuromarketing beyond branding. The Lancet Neurology, 3, 71. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. urtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Fugate, D. L. 2007. Neuromarketing a layman? s look at neuroscience and its potential application to marketing practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 385394. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Gladwell, M. 2005. Blink. New York Time Warner hand Group. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Kable, J. W. , & Glimcher, P. W. 2007. The neural correlates of subjective value during intertemporal choice. Nature Neuroscience, 10(12), 16251633. http//proquest. mi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Page 13 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? Knutson, B. , Rick, S. , Wimmer, G. E. , Prelec, D. , & Loewenstein, G. 2007. Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron, 53, 147157. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Koenigs, M. , & Tranel, D. 2008. Prefrontal cortex damage abolishes brand-cued changes in cola preference. Social Cognitive & emotional Neuroscience, 3(1), 16. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Krugman, H. 1971.Brain tremble measures of media involvement. Journal of Advertising Research, 11, 39. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Laybourne, P. , & Lewis, D. 2005. Neuromarketing the future of consumer research? Admap, 461, 2830. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Lee, N. , Broderick, A. J. , & Chamberlain, L. 2007. What is neuromarketing A discussion and agenda for future research. world-wide Journal of Psychophysiology, 63, 199204. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011).Libet, B. , Gleason, C. , Wright, E. , & Pearl, D. 1983. Time of conscious intention to act in relation to flack of cerebral activity (readiness-potential). the unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act. Brain, 106(Pt 3), 623642. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). McClure, S. , Li, J. , Tomlin, D. , Cypert, K. , Montague, L. , & Montague, P. 2004. Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44, 379 387. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Montague, R. 2006.Why choose this book? How we make decisions. Toronto Penguin Group. Montague, R. 2008. Free will. Current Biology, 18(4), R584R585. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Page 14 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? Montague, R. , Hyman, S. , & Cohen, J. 2004. Computational roles for dopamine in behavioural control. Nature, 431, 760767. h ttp//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Murphy, E. , Illes, J. , & Reiner, P. 2008. Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 293302. ttp//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Paulus, M. , & Frank, L. 2003. Ventromedial prefrontal cortex activation is critical for preference judgments. Neuroreport, 14, 13111315. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Rangel, A. , Camerer, C. , & Montague, P. R. 2008. A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(7), 545556. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Reeves, B. , Lang, A. , Thorson, E. , & Rothschild, M. 989. Emotional idiot box receiver scenes and hemispheric specialization. Human Communication Research, 15(4), 493508 http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 Febru ary, 2011). Rothschild, M. , & Hyun, Y. 1990. Predicting memory for components of TV commercials from EEG. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 472478. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Rothschild, M. , Hyun, Y. , Reeves, B. , Thorson, E. , & Goldstein, R. 1988. Hemispherically lateralized EEG as a response to television commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 185198. ttp//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Schaefer, M. , & Rotte, M. 2007. Favorite brands as cultural objects modulate reward circuit. Neuroreport, 18, 141145. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Page 15 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? Schaefer, M. , Berens, H. , Heinze, H. , & Rotte, M. 2006. Neural correlates of culturally familiar brands of car manufacturers. Neuroimage, 31, 861865. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 Februar y, 2011). Sutherland, M. 004. Synopsis of reported neuromarketing studies. Neuroreport, 28, 1518. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Thompson, C. 2003. There? s a sucker born in every medial prefrontal cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(3), 11-12. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Uher, R. , Murphy, T. , Brammer, M. , Dalgleish, T. , Phillips, M. , Ng, V. 2004. Medial Prefrontal Cortex Activity Associated With Symptom incitation in Eating Disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(7), 12381246. http//proquest. mi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Vohs, K. , & Schooler, J. 2008. The value of believing in free will Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating. Psychological Science, 19(6), 49-54. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Walter, H. , Abler, B. , Ciaramidaro, A. , & Erk, S. 2005. Motiva ting forces of military man actions Neuroimaging reward and social interaction. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 368381. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Walvis, T. 2008.Three laws of branding Neuroscientific foundations of effective brand building. Journal of Brand Management, 16, 176-194. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Weinstein, S. , Appel, V. , & Weinstein, C. 1980. Brain-activity responses to clipping and television advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 20(3), 5763. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Welberg, L. 2007. Shopping centres in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 8(2), 84-85. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Page 16 of 18