Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths

grant 2 Neuromerchandising ridicule the Myths? Graduate School of Business MARKETING MANAGEMENT 555 appellative 2 Neuromarketing repudiation the Myths? Actual Count 3624 (Excluding cover, contents and reference pages) foliate 0 of 18 denomination 2 Neuromarketing laugh at the Myths? TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION. 2 Neural Correlates .. Ethics of Neuromarketing . 8 b atomic number 18 leave alone & Decision-making . 9 induction 11 REFERENCES 2 Page 1 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? INTRODUCTION Neuromarketing, argues Lee, Broderick, & Chamberlain (2007) is an emerging interdisciplinary field that combines economics, neuroscience and psychology, with Neuromarketing cosmos term just six days ago says Smidts (2002). The goal of neuromarketing extracts Laybourne & Lewis, (2005) and Smidts (2002) is to study how the head is physiologically affected by marketing strategies and advertising.Brain exertion settlementing from viewing an advertizing is mon itored and measured victimisation neuro imaging techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (functional magnetic resonance imaging), as shown in visit 1, and electroencephalography ( encephalogram) is habituated in ball club to evaluate the Figure 1 fMRI Image force of these strategies (Laybourne & Lewis 2005). McClure et al (2004) says neuromarketing studies usually measure predilection between crops in impairment of marker acquainted(predicate)ity or harvesting election.As a viewer may hold a cognitive prejudice in traditional marketing studies, measures such as the product preference for a particular advertisement is nearlytimes difficult to measure argues Schaefer, Berens, Heinze, & Rotte (2006). Walter, Abler, Ciaramidaro, & Erk, (2005) suggest in neuromarketing studies, nonice familiarity and product preference go through been agree with neuronal operation. Further, consumer protection groups and academics view the field of neuromarketing with caution refer up to(p) to the possible ethical implications of functioning advertisements to by choice cause specific neurological effects (Commercial spanking, 2003).Laybourne & Lewis (2005) and Smidts (2002) says functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) argon ind stronging neuromarketing are neuroimaging techniques and comprise the neuroscience font of the field. fMRI requires a participant to lay on a bed, with their moderate located inside the ring of a s spatener. Researchers lot measure the neural activity throughout the thinker in terms of blood flow via oxygen usage by monitoring the participant? s brain with fMRI. As a contrast for this technique researchers back end overly use EEG equipment as it is fairly port open and light. Using numerous electrodes that are placed on the articipant? s scalp in a Figure 2 Brain Cap Page 2 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? net-like fashion, as shown in Figure 2, EEGs ca n measure brain activity by assessing electric activity at the scalp. Using both behavioural responses as well as neural activations Fugate (2007) says researchers are able to use neuroimaging to monitor and conduct marketing studies of the participant? s response. Fugate (2007) explains neuromarketing as being the turn that involves asking subjects to perform experimental tasks and control tasks whilst being wired to various electronic devices.Researchers are able to compare differences in the videos produced during the respective tasks as the devices generate instant, colourful images of a working brain. Researchers are because able to see what parts of the brain have responded to the stimuli used (Fugate 2007). Fugate (2007) describes the mechanics behind neuromarketing, as a revolution in the marketing, however, Fugate (2007) has overlooked some critical scientific concepts, specifically the corollary nature to neuromarketing research. Nneuromarketing as a concept suggests Sm idts (2002) emerged anterior to the word actually being used in 2002, despite suggestions otherwisewise.Many studies lacked the spatial resolution to make any useful claims as to the instruments behind effective and ineffective advertising techniques due to limitations of neuroimaging techniques conducted in the past few decades (Smidts 2002). An example argues Reeves, Lang, Thorson, and Rothschild (1989), is their claim that in an EEG study television scenes with contradict content causes activation of the anterior portion of the right hemisphere while positive messages cause great left hemisphere activity in the frontal region.It is important to none that as only quaternity electrodes were used (in addition to the two reference electrodes) cortical arousal was only monitored in terms of frontal versus occipital (Reeves, Lang, Thorson, and Rothschild 1989). Now days, EEG systems are much much precise and often have up to 256 electrodes to monitor brain activity. Many other studies from the same time period by Krugman, (1971) Rothschild, Hyun, Reeves, Thorson, & Goldstein (1988) Rothschild & Hyun (1990) Weinstein, Appel, & Weinstein (1980) also employ hemisphere? activations as profound purposes.Nonetheless, suggest Weinstein et al (1980) it is not the fact that earlier research in neuromarketing? has been imprecise that is of greatest importance, simply rather 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 are typically employed in neuromarketing research as means of evaluating an individual? s preference between products product preference and defect familiarity. Product Preference Product preference comparisons involve two known brands or products, which is unlike brand familiarity.Walter et al. (2005) uses an example of male participants being asked to rate a railcar? s looks unheeding of cost and practical requirements, given the c hoice between a high performance sports vehicle, a midsized vehicle and a small car. Participants ranked the sports car first, 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 social dominance, re fork overing independence, power and speed. In this example, the sports car acted as a substitute recognize.Money or cultural goods are secondary rewards that reinforce behaviour only after prior learning, through associations with primary rewards (innate reinforcers including food, water, and sexual stimuli). The three main functions of rewards as outlined by Walter et al (2005) can (a) induce positive effect, (b) induce learning via positive reinforcement, and (c) induce consuming behaviour for acquiring the reward. Sports cars are preferred, as seen from the study conducted by Walter et al (2005), as they correlate with primary rewards that we innately seek.They also represents characteristics th at we observe our culture values. Morgan et al (2002), as cited by Walter et al, (2005) say this study was also adapted from a foregoing study of dominance and social hierarchy involving prime mates. In short, given two identifiable products, preference will be given towards one over the other, which is due primarily to the preferred product having to a greater extent reinforcing qualities in terms of secondary reinforcers we identify as being relevant at a person-to-personly level, as well as to our cultural heritage. (Walter et al 2005) Brand Familiarity Comparisons between amiliar and unfamiliar products are outlined as brand familiarity (Campbell and Keller 2003). When a consumer first sees an advertisement for an unfamiliar brand Campbell and Keller (2003) suggest they feel prejudicial incredulity towards it as it is unfamiliar. However, repetition of an advertising message, argues Campbell and Keller (2003), Page 4 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? a t low levels, decreases this uncertainty and increases the strong point. One way that products can earn the trust of the consumer and become more familiar, suggest Fugate (2007), is through the use of celebrity endorsements.Repeated exposures can decrease the effectiveness of the advertisement by annoying the viewer, argues Campbell & Keller (2003), so wherefore advertisers must keep in mind not to advertise in any case much. Consumers can only store knowledge for the familiar, but not the unfamiliar, so repeated exposures for an already familiar product provides more time for the consumer to accomplish the advertisement and their associated experiences from using the product (Fugate 2007). Consumer can become world-weary and even annoyed more easily for unfamiliar brands as there is less knowledge to process (Fugate 2007).Therefore, for consumers to recognise a new brand entering into the markets Campbell & Keller (2003) suggest they need to be conservative in their marketing efforts by not overdo it. More identifiable brands, such as Pepsi, are able to advertise more often with less concern of annoying their audience argues Campbell & Keller (2003). Neural Correlates A key principle of neuromarketing, suggest Damasio (1996), is that it is base on finding a neural correlates for buying consumers such as product preference and brand familiarity.As most studies are only able to monitor neural activity observationally it is important to acknowledge that researchers are only able to seek a correlate and do not induce product preference via neural stimulation (Damasio 1996). Interestingly, peer reviewed evidence has been found linking brand familiarity and product preference with the mesial anterior cerebral mantle, says Damasio (1996). The mesial anterior cortex (mPFC), suggest Damasio (1996), is a alluviation of linkages between bioregulatory states and factual knowledge.In the more specific instance of advertising , this translates into experiences and product information being think to positive effect, via the mPFC (Damasio 1996). IMAGE 1. mPFC Studies by Kable and Glimcher (2007) point to the medial anterior 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 correlated 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 correlated with mPFC activity freelance of prices argues Knutson, Rick, Wimmer, Prelec, & Loewenstein (2007) and was found to be predictive of subsequent purchasing. Studies by Paulus & Frank (2003) observed when using a optic discrimination task as a control they found coinciding results when a simpler preference discernment study was conducted. McClure et al. (2004) conducted one of the most compelling neuromarketing studies. Researchers conducting a study monitored neural activity when drinking any 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 taste test. When conducting a blind taste test, brain activity between the Coca-Cola and Pepsi was observed as being nearly identical. However, in the brand-cued condition, significant differences were observed in with neural activity, primarily in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (McClure et al 2004). Figure 3 Coke Vs Pepsi The significant observation was no neural activation differences were identified 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 importantly more activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex region of the brain says McClure et al (2004). An important aspect of the study is that no choices are made b y the participant the soft drink were given to the participants in the fMRI in small quantities the manipulation was based when the brand was first announced the finding was based on the trigger regions on the brain as measured by the fMRI.Brand preference and previous conditioning is only demonstrated 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 puzzle of cola preference. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) explain that subjects tend to prefer Pepsi over Coca-Cola, or have no reliable 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 an d Tranel 2008). Cola preference was counterbalanced 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 normal 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 Pepsi. Several studies have connected brand familiarity with mPFC. Schaefer et al (2006) and Schaefer & Rotte (2007) wrap up 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 novelty detection in rat lesion studies suggest Dias & Honey (2002). Campbell and Keller (2003) suggest relative to behavio ural principles, brand familiarity is of extreme importance to advertisers. Fear the unknown pushed consumers away, and in advertising, this revere 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 increased 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 going 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 step in the consumer decision making. Consumers can evaluate their choices by weighing the pr os 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. close to of these Page 7 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? regions include the ventral striatum, amygdaloid nucleus and orbitofrontal cortex, (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-importance-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 strong suit in neuromarketin g studies, however, is commonly known for its role in processing emotional information. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), says Walter et al (2005), consists of principally 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 neuroimaging 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 commercial gain a major issue for research in neuromarketing is the ethical concerns of neuroimaging. Neuromarketing is nowhere near ready to allow researchers to design a marketing campaign, so addictive that overrides an individual? free will. 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 ethics of neuromarketing. Consumer Alert believe neuromarketing as finding a buy dismissal inside the skull (Commercial Alert 2003, 1). Commercial Alert (2003, 3) claims Our children are suffering from extraordinary levels of obesity, type 2 diabetes, anorexia, bulimia, and diseased gambling, while millions will eventually die from the marketing of tobacco. According to Consumer Alert (2003), the rise of neuromarketing will develop an end to free will. Lee et al (2007, 202) suggest Unfortunately, the barely concealed disdain for the idea 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 public which many Page 8 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? academics are also hesitant 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 infringe personal privacy to a totally unacceptable degree (Editorial, 2004b, 71). An anonymous author in Nature 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 may 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 commanding over buyrs may help to understand why these compulsive indi viduals tend to spend outside of their means. In addition, it can provide useful information for how clinicians treat these disorders by looking at the correlations between buying behaviour and clinical disorders. For example, the reward circuitry of the brain and in value-based decisionmaking 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 Reiner (2008), being (a) protection of consumer autonomy if neuromarketing reaches critical effectiveness, and (b) protect vulnerable parties from harm. To mitigate, recommendations for a autograph 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 co ercion.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 restricted to neuroimaging, but also includes computational neuroscience, which is the study of defineing the component steps that underlie a given behavioural process. Value-based decision-making, for example, can be broken down into five 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 split up decisions in the future. Montague (2008 , 584) says, Viewed this way, it? s easy to see why free? choice is an unconstructive way to conceptualize the way humans choose .Vohs & Schooler (2008) suggests that free will and the ability to manipulate perceptual experience of it have also recently become apparent. However, it has been many years, suggests Libet, Gleason, Wright, & Pearl (1983) since neuroimaging studies have suggested that neural activity does dispense with conscious aspiration, especially if it can be monitored. The decision of whether or not to buy a product is a result of from balancing the gain of obtaining the product, says Knutson et al (2007), offset by the act of actually having to purchase for the product, which is an interplay of corresponding valuations and choices.Using computational neuroscience, rather than neuroimaging, Walvis (2008), is able to connect neuroscience with common marketing principles. Walvis (2008) suggests three propositions of how the brain organises information and states, T hese three propositions function similarly 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 Three Branding Laws, based upon how engaging the branding environment is to the consumer, how instant and targeted 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 likely a given product will be selected by a consumer. We can again quantify factors winding 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 sugges ted 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 soon overcome current 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 terms of how the ad affects the viewer? emotional state (i. e. , excitement 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 links the auditory and visual stimuli of the celebrity as they cause hormonal secretions in cons umers 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. Neuromarketing, in its current stage, is by no means adequate in determining 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), provocation resulting in eating disorders (Uher et al. , 2004), and startle response s (Day-Wilson, Jones, Southam, Cilia, & Totterdell, 2006). The field shows great foretell 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 long-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 improved marketing capabilities are good or bad for the consumer however, with ethics being enforced through legislation I feel we are visual perception 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 behavioral 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 merry asks Emory University to halt neuromarketing experiments. Commercial Alert News 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 hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical transactions of the Royal fraternity 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 loss in rats with isolation rearing-induced de ficits in prepulse inhibition of acoustic 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. Behavioral Neuroscience, 116(3), 498503. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Editorial. 2004a. Brain scam? Nature Neuroscience, 7(10), 1015. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. 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. ledger 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 B ook 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 & Affective Neuroscience, 3(1), 16. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Krugman, H. 1971.Brain wave 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. International 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 onset 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. http//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. , Came rer, 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 television scenes and hemispheric specialization. Human Communication Research, 15(4), 493508 http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 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 February, 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 Provo cation 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. Motivating forces of human 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 magazine 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