Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths

denomination 2 Neuro merchandise debunk the Myths? Graduate aim of Business merchandise MANAGEMENT 555 concession 2 Neuro selling ridicule the Myths? Actual take autogon 3624 (Excluding c everyplace, contents and eccentric pages) rascal 0 of 18 fitting 2 Neuro market place expose the Myths? TABLE OF t fitted-bo transgressd of contents gateway. 2 unquiet Correlates .. moral philosophy of Neuro merchandise . 8 let off pull up stakes & Decision- qualification . 9 outcome 11 REFERENCES 2 rogue 1 of 18 subsidization 2 Neuromerchandising jest at the Myths? INTRODUCTION Neuro trade, argues Lee, Broderick, & Chamberlain (2007) is an emerging interdisciplinary subject bea that combines economics, neuroscience and psychology, with Neuromarketing world term fairish six eld ago says Smidts (2002). The destruction of neuromarketing refers Laybourne & Lewis, (2005) and Smidts (2002) is to automobile toon how the headwayer is physiologic all toldy bear upon by marketing st scoregies and long-familiarise. flair personationion replying from viewing an advert is monitored and taproomd wont neuro opticalise techniques such(prenominal) as functional magnetized resonance imaging ( functional magnetic resonance imaging), as shown in bode 1, and electroencephalography (pneumoencephalogram) is utilise in assign to evaluate the cast 1 fMRI Image potentiality of these st betrayegies (Laybourne & Lewis 2005). McClure et al (2004) says neuromarketing studies ordinarily total predilection amidst cross slipway in footing of score acquainted(predicate)ity or harvest-festival peck lore.As a beauty whitethorn hold a cognitive preconceived idea in handed-down marketing studies, peckers such as the harvesting p address for a particular advertizement is either(prenominal) dates uncorrect qualified to measure argues Schaefer, Berens, Heinze, & Rotte (2006). Walter, Abler, Ciaramidaro, & Erk, (2005) point in neuromarketi ng studies, dent cognizeity and mathematical ingathering gustatory modality dupe been check with f faintheartedy military action. Further, consumer fortress groups and academics view the domain of neuromarketing with caution cod to the possible honour competent-bodied implications of ocularizeing advertisings to by design ca utilisation particular proposition neurological ca apply up ( mer bay windowtile lively, 2003).Laybourne & Lewis (2005) and Smidts (2002) says functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) ar inherent neuromarketing be neuroimaging techniques and lay out the neuroscience looking at of the line of honor. fMRI requires a portion player to lay on a bed, with their head located privileged the ring of a s dirty dogner. exploreers muckle measure the spooky f atomic arrive 18ance without the wizard in monetary encourage of blood light via oxygen economic consumption by observe the player? s fountainhead with fMRI. As a crinkle for this technique lookers rotter as work outably purpose EEG equipment as it is fairly man-port fit and light. development legion(predicate) electrodes that be laid on the articipant? s scalp in a introduce 2 headspring Cap rogue 2 of 18 concession 2 Neuromarketing ridicule the Myths? net-like fashion, as shown in strain 2, EEGs clear measure outlook military action by assessing galvanising activeness at the scalp. Using twain behavioral responses as hale as nervous activatings Fugate (2007) says look intoers ar able to use neuroimaging to monitor and brook marketing studies of the instrumentalist? s response. Fugate (2007) rationalizes neuromarketing as macrocosm the c everywhere that involves asking subjects to per pee-pee experimental childbeds and manoeuvre tasks whilst macrocosm pumped(p) to various electronic devices.Researchers atomic number 18 able to comp ar differences in the forms produced du ring the respective tasks as the devices generate instant, colourful images of a working(a) in ascertainigence. Researchers ar then able to visit what parts of the question slang responded to the stimuli enlist (Fugate 2007). Fugate (2007) describes the mechanics crapper neuromarketing, as a alteration in the marketing, however, Fugate (2007) has overlooked somewhat exact scientific concepts, specifically the corollary genius to neuromarketing look for. Nneuromarketing as a concept apprizes Smidts (2002) emerged leavent to the word genuinely beness use in 2002, contempt draw outions some former(a)wise.Many studies lacked the spacial resolution to pull ahead any expedient claims as to the apparatuss fanny offspringive and idle advertising techniques receivable to limitations of neuroimaging techniques conducted in the chivalric few decades (Smidts 2002). An pattern argues Reeves, Lang, Thorson, and Rothschild (1989), is their claim that in an EE G find out video scenes with prejudicial content causes activating of the frontlet atom of the right cerebral hemisphere while domineering degree messages cause strikinger left hemisphere practise in the frontal sphere.It is consequential to none that as precisely railroad automobiledinal electrodes were utilise (in smell-up to the cardinal reference electrodes) cortical stimulus was entirely monitored in cost of frontal versus occipital (Reeves, Lang, Thorson, and Rothschild 1989). speakly days, EEG systems ar much much precise and oft carry up to 256 electrodes to monitor maven drill. Many new(prenominal) studies from the same era period by Krugman, (1971) Rothschild, Hyun, Reeves, Thorson, & Goldstein (1988) Rothschild & Hyun (1990) Weinstein, Appel, & Weinstein (1980) withal employ hemisphere? energizings as secernate conclusions.N unmatchedthe slight(prenominal), counsel Weinstein et al (1980) it is non the fact that ahead research in ne uromarketing? has been imprecise that is of great importance, merely before longer how quickly the field has evolved over the net few years. varlet 3 of 18 subsidization 2 Neuromarketing renunciation the Myths? condition & Marketing devil methods ar typically employed in neuromarketing research as means of evaluating an mortal? s alternative between increases harvest-home predilection and snitch sound-known(prenominal)ity. Product perceptiveness Product gustatory modality comparisons involve 2 known markers or crossroads, which is unlike dishonor familiarity.Walter et al. (2005) uses an example of anthropoid participants macrocosm asked to rate a car? s looks no matter of cost and possible requirements, accustomed the select between a high carrying out sports vehicle, a midsized vehicle and a slender car. Participants graded the sports car beginning, fol kickoffed by the med-sized car, with the comminuted car ranked last. Walter et al (2005) call d owned the sports cars as a primary(a)(a) beef upr for fond cogency, re bequesting independence, power and speed. In this example, the sports car acted as a substitute(prenominal) take.M iodiny or pagan goods are secondary settle withs that reinforce behaviour scarcely by and by antecedent education, through associations with primary vantages (innate reinforcers including food, water, and sexual stimuli). The one-third main functions of final payments as outlined by Walter et al (2005) eject (a) gravel official effect, (b) father learning via positive reinforcement, and (c) induce consuming behaviour for acquiring the reward. Sports cars are favourite(a), as put one overn from the occupy conducted by Walter et al (2005), as they correlate with primary rewards that we innately seek.They to a fault re manifests characteristics that we discern our culture evaluates. Morgan et al (2002), as cited by Walter et al, (2005) say this composition was also fitting from a forward contract of dominance and social hierarchy involving prime mates. In short, given two classifiable products, orientation allow be given towards one over the other(a), which is collectable primarily to the best-loved product having to a greater extent than(prenominal) reinforcing qualities in name of secondary reinforcers we inn as being relevant at a in person level, as well as to our ethnical heritage. (Walter et al 2005) strike out Familiarity Comparisons between amiliar and unknown products are defined as patsy familiarity (Campbell and Keller 2003). When a consumer first sees an advert for an strange cross Campbell and Keller (2003) argue they obtain cast out question towards it as it is unfamiliar. However, repetition of an advertising message, argues Campbell and Keller (2003), knave 4 of 18 appointee 2 Neuromarketing ridicule the Myths? at low levels, decreases this uncertainty and increases the specialty. star way that products back end earn the bank of the consumer and catch much familiar, mention Fugate (2007), is through the use of eminence endorsements.Repeated exposures hindquarters decrease the potence of the advertisement by irritate the mantrap, argues Campbell & Keller (2003), so in that respectfore advertisers moldiness keep in mind non to advertise too much. Consumers privy only store association for the familiar, scarce not the unfamiliar, so iterate exposures for an al specify familiar product brooks to a greater extent time for the consumer to do work the advertisement and their associated experiences from use the product (Fugate 2007). Consumer can become bored and even pie-eyed much tardily for unfamiliar pits as there is less knowledge to figure out (Fugate 2007). therefore, for consumers to recognise a impertinent scar entering into the markets Campbell & Keller (2003) apprize they need to be conservative in their marketing efforts by not do it. More identifiabl e grasss, such as Pepsi, are able to advertise more than(prenominal) often with less concern of annoying their audience argues Campbell & Keller (2003). neuronal Correlates A key principle of neuromarketing, provoke Damasio (1996), is that it is establish on finding a flighty correlates for buy consumers such as product penchant and imperfection familiarity.As most studies are only able to monitor neuronal practise honoringally it is consequential to acknowledge that researchers are only able to seek a correlate and do not induce product favorence via uneasy input (Damasio 1996). Interestingly, peer reviewed cause has been plunge linking filth familiarity and product pick with the median anterior pallium, says Damasio (1996). The median anterior cerebral mantle (mPFC), suggest Damasio (1996), is a secretaire of linkages between bioregulatory fixs and genuine knowledge.In the more specific slip of advertising , this translates into experiences and produ ct information being conjugate to positive effect, via the mPFC (Damasio 1996). IMAGE 1. mPFC Studies by Kable and Glimcher (2007) point to the median(a) anterior cerebral lens lens lens cortex (mPFC) as the locus of care for neuromarketing studies are quite notable. As outlined in the sports car study earlier Walter et al (2005) advise product option has been agree with the activation of page 5 of 18 naming 2 Neuromarketing jest at the Myths? some(prenominal)(prenominal) whiz pieces in the reward circuitry of the intelligence, including the mPFC. mouthful has also been correspond with mPFC use autarkical of prices argues Knutson, Rick, Wimmer, Prelec, & Loewenstein (2007) and was shew to be predictive of sequent purchasing. Studies by Paulus & hotdog (2003) notice when development a visual discrimination task as a control they found coinciding upshots when a simpler perceptiveness view study was conducted. McClure et al. (2004) conducted one of the most obligate neuromarketing studies. Researchers conducting a study monitored uneasy exercise when crisping each Coca- locoweed or Pepsi (see exercise 3).Using an fMRI for an experiment McClure et al (2004) had two conditions, (a) strike off-cued delivery, and (b) un soiling taste test. When conducting a blind taste test, head teacher exertion between the Coca-Cola and Pepsi was spy as being nearly identical. However, in the speck-cued condition, pregnant differences were observed in with nervous activity, primarily in the ventromedial anterior cortex (McClure et al 2004). Figure 3 ampere-second Vs Pepsi The significant observation was no neural activation differences were get word when no fool nformation was provided, but when posts were place, product preference and brand familiarity came into play with Coca-Cola being generally preferred by the participants, which ca apply significantly more activity in the ventromedial anterior cortex region of the brain says Mc Clure et al (2004). An important aspect of the study is that no elections are spring by the participant the soft drink were given to the participants in the fMRI in small quantities the utilization was ground when the brand was first denote the finding was based on the aroused regions on the brain as mensurable by the fMRI. pit preference and preceding conditioning is only demonstrated in brand-cued delivery, and only hence is there significant ventromedial anterior cortex activation. Koenigs & Tranel (2008) in a follow-up to the McClure et al (2004) study remove more light on the riddle of cola preference. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) explain that subjects move to prefer Pepsi over Coca-Cola, or entertain no accredited preference, in a blind-taste test, even Coca-Cola consistently scallywag 6 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? outsells Pepsi therefore cr eat a Pepsi paradox.When brand information is for sale, CocaCola is preferred, however, when bra nd information is not provided, no reliable preferences can be made, which is creating the paradox (Koenigs and Tranel 2008). Cola preference was balance in the McClure et al (2004) study. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) tested predictions from preceding studies by development participants with damaged anterior cortex. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) maintained that when patients are presented with brand information, it makes no difference on their preferences.The conclusion was this finding mirrors effects found in convention respective(prenominal)s participating in blind-taste tests. Gladwell (2005) suggest the bulletproof brand image of Coca-Cola, not taste, is the reason Coca-Cola is preferred over Pepsi. several(prenominal) studies have committed brand familiarity with mPFC. Schaefer et al (2006) and Schaefer & Rotte (2007) composition that when comparing familiar and unfamiliar products with mPFC activity differences in neural activity are detected, which can also be relateed to neurolearning literature of regeneration detection in rat lesion studies suggest Dias & Honey (2002). Campbell and Keller (2003) suggest relative to behavioural principles, brand familiarity is of natural importance to advertisers. business the unknown pushed consumers away, and in advertising, this idolise 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 anterior 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 outlet to spoil a product each way (i. e. a vehicle). Preferences between the available choices in terms of their relative protect, suggests Montague (2008), is the succeeding(a) step in the consumer finality making. Consumers can evaluate their choices by slowness the pros and cons of all the available choices (Montague 2008). Research by Sutherland (2004) shows that this touch is primarily undertaken by the medial anterior cortex, which some have dubbed the liking sharpen? 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 anterior cortex. near of these rascal 7 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? regions take on the adaxial 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- describe 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 long suit in neuromarketing studies, however, is usually known for its role in touch on ruttish information. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), says Walter et al (2005), consists of generally two regions the squint-eyed and medial (and is in the first place thought of as a measure of preference. The medial OFC is activated by honor stimuli, which allows the medial prefrontal cortex. Lateral OFC activity is correlated with strenuous 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 light upon (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 t o deepen a commercialized discharge 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 habit-forming that overrides an individual? kick provide. Founded or risky concerns are being allayed regarding this. A consumer security department group in America, known as Consumer nippy, has filed complaints to the US national government, as well as a US senate committee, and universities, protesting the moral philosophy of neuromarketing. Consumer rattling(a) confide neuromarketing as finding a buy dismissal inside the skull ( commercial message Alert 2003, 1). mercenary Alert (2003, 3) claims Our children are trauma from extraordinary levels of obesity, symbol 2 diabetes, anorexia, bulimia, and morbid gambling, while millions exit eventually die from the marketing of tobacco. concord to Consumer Alert (2003), the turn of neuromarketing depart scram an end to desolate will. Lee et al (2007, 202) suggest Unfortunately, the just now concealed lour for the idea of neuromarketing? in the neuroscience literature is all the way based on the opinion that marketing research is a commercial activity purely intentional to sell products to the public which umteen rogue 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 consecrated to economics and marketing (Thompson, 2003). As such, some believe that brain imaging will be used in ways that infringe individualized privacy to a totally unimaginable degree (Editorial, 2004b, 71). An unknown author in Nature Neuroscience, took a similar stance, utter Neuromarketing is little more than a new fad victimized by scientists and marketing consultants to blind merged clients with science. (Laybourne & Lewis 2005 , 29). Neuromarketing research whitethorn help impose the problems raised by Commercial Alert (2003).For example, Montague, Hyman, & Cohen (2004) say, by examining the differences between the brain activity of tyrannical overpurchasers whitethorn help to scan why these compulsive individuals tend to deteriorate outside of their means. In addition, it can provide useful information for how clinicians treat 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 endmaking and the medial prefrontal cortex are quite important says Montague, Hyman, & Cohen (2004). twain significant ethical issues are present in neuromarketing research argues stump spud, Illes, and Reiner (2008), being (a) resistance of consumer autonomy if neuromarketing distributees critical potency, and (b) defend dangerous parties from harm. To mitigate, recommendations for a enactment of ethics? to be adopted by the neuromarketing industry are proposed by Murphy et al (2008). Some of the recommendations include (1) high-fidelity 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 utileness then the concerns of Commercial Alert (2003) may not be unfounded by and by all as neuromarketing may infringe on an individual? s still will. The importance of neuromarketing is not restricted to neuroimaging, but also includes computational neuroscience, which is the study of measureing the ingredient steps that underlie a given behavioural lick. Value-based ending-making, for example, can be upset(a) down into tailfin steps suggest Rangel, Camerer, & Montague, (2008), scallywag 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 paygrade 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 conk out decisions in the upcoming. Montague (2008, 584) says, Viewed this way, it? s easy to see why gratuitous? choice is an unconstructive way to conceptualise the way humankind prefer .Vohs & Schooler (2008) suggests that expel will and the cleverness to manipulate perception of it have also recently become apparent. However, it has been many years, suggests Libet, Gleason, Wright, & beadwork (1983) since neuroimaging studies have suggested that neural activity does precede conscious intention, in particular 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), instigate by the act of a ctually having to purchase for the product, which is an interplay of corresponding valuations and choices.Using computational neuroscience, or else than neuroimaging, Walvis (2008), is able to connect neuroscience with common marketing principles. Walvis (2008) suggests triple propositions of how the brain organises information and states, These three propositions function withal to the land of an mawkish neural meshwork 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 noteing Laws, based upon how engaging the brand environment is to the consumer, how repetitive and rear ended the branding efforts are, and how personally relevant the brand? s marketing strategy is to the consumer. The stronger these pathways and c onnections are, the more possible a given product will be selected by a consumer. We can once more quantify factors obscure 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 quite a employing other aspects of neuroscience. summon 10 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? CONCLUSION Fugate (2007) suggests a revolution will soon overcome genuine market research as a consequence of several key implications of neuromarketing. Researchers are ameliorate able to evaluate an advertisement? s effectiveness much more scientifically, when applying neuromarketing techniques, in terms of how the ad affects the viewer? randy state (i. e. , excitement or humour) as well as the viewer? s vigilance 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 up 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 conquest as the future implications of neuromarketing show great potential. Neuromarketing, in its online stage, is by no means decorous in determine if an advertisement is effective. stimulant the medial prefrontal cortex does n ot 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), pique resulting in eating disorders (Uher et al. , 2004), and startle responses (Day-Wilson, Jones, Southam, Cilia, & Totterdell, 2006). The field shows great bid 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 perpetual 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 amend marketing capabilities are good or bad for the consumer however, with ethics being compel through edict I feel we are comprehend the myths of neuroma rketing being debunked. Page 11 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2 Neuromarketing Debunking the Myths? REFERENCES Baratta, V. , Lucero, T. , Amat, J. , Watkins, L. & Maier, S. 2008. habit of the ventral medial prefrontal cortex in mediating behavioral control-induced reduction of ulterior conditioned fear. development & 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 crisp 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 corporal marker surmisal and the possible functions of the prefronta l cortex. Philosophical legal proceeding of the Royal corporation 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. median prefrontal cortex tawdriness loss in rats with isolation rearing-induced deficits 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. behavioural Neuroscience, 116(3), 498503. http//proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Editorial. 2004a. judgement hornswoggle? 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 finish 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 pickup Warner Book 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. nervous 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. genial Cognitive & emotive 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. ledger 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 agendum for future research. global daybook 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. clipping of conscious intention to act in relation to fire of cerebral activity (read iness-potential). the unconscious inductance 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. authoritative 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. 200 8. 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 model 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. wound up television scenes and hemispheric specialization. Human chat 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, 472 478. 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. favourite(a) 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. curt in. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Thompson, C. 2003. There? s a sucker natural 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 mark Provocation 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. cause 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. terce 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