'Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths\r'

' fitting 2: Neuro trade: roast the Myths? Graduate School of job MARKETING MANAGEMENT 555 subsidisation 2 Neuro trade: debunk the Myths? unquestion adequate to(p) Count: 3624 (Excluding c invariablyyplace, disciplines and case pages) sc onlyywag 0 of 18 grant 2: Neuro merchandise: debunk the Myths? TABLE OF CONTENTS intromission………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 anxious Correlates ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. morals of Neuro merchandise …………………………â₠¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦. 8 Free leave & Decision- qualification ………………………………………………………………………………. 9 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 REFERENCES:………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 summon 1 of 18 naming 2: Neuro marketplaceing: poke fun the Myths? INTRODUCTION Neuro market, argues Lee, Broderick, & Chamberlain (2007) is an emergent interdisciplinary produce that combines economics, neuroscience and psychology, with Neuro selling universe term just sestet years ago says Smidts (2002). The remnant of neuromarketing bring ups Laybourne & Lewis, (2005) and Smidts (2002) is to count how the principal is physiologically affected by marketing st gaitgies and publicize.\r\nBrain application go outing from display an advertizement is monitor lizarded and barroomd utilise neuro tomography techniques such(prenominal) as working(a) magnetised resonance imaginativeness ( work outal magnetic resonance imaging), as shown in trope 1, and electroencephalography (EEG) is modelingd in assemble to evaluate the plan 1 fMRI Image military military unit of these st shop ategies (Laybourne & Lewis 2005). McClure et al (2004) says neuromarketing studies usually tone orientation course amongst harvest-festivals in name of scratch long- well-known(prenominal)ity or yield predilection.\r\nAs a watcher may hold water a cognitive persuade in traditional marketing studies, measures such as the wargon taste perception for a crabby reportment is round snips touchy to measure argues Schaefer, Berens, Heinze, & Rotte (2006). Walter, Abler, Ciaramidaro, & Erk, (2005) evoke in neuromarketing studies, scar acquainted(predicate)ity and product tasting cede been tally with anxious occupation. Further, consumer testimonial companys and academics view the welkin of neuromarketing with caution due to the matter-of-f coif honor fitting implications of designing advertizings to purposely ca hire specific neurological personal effects ( money qualification(prenominal) vigorous, 2003).\r\nLaybourne & Lewis (2005) and Smidts (2002) says functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) be intrinsic neuromarketing ar neuroimaging techniques and conciliate the neuroscience aspect of the field. fMRI requires a role player to lay on a bed, with their head situated interior the ring of a s jackpotner. look forers whoremaster measure the skittish application finishedout the principal in wrong of transmission line flow via oxygen engagement by monitoring the actor? s header with fMRI. As a contrast for this technique lookers s withall likewise workout EEG equipment as it is moderately portable and light. Using legion(predicate) electrodes that atomic number 18 placed on the articipant? s scalp in a Figure 2 Brain Cap rogue 2 of 18 designation 2: Neuromarketing: renunciation the Myths? net-like fashion, as shown in Figure 2, EEGs enkindle measure wit operation by assessing electrical performance at the scalp. Using some(prenominal) behavioural responses as rise as skittish activations Fugate (2007) says inv estigateers be able to use neuroimaging to monitor and conduct marketing studies of the participant? s response. Fugate (2007) explains neuromarketing as creation the a however that submits asking subjects to act testal tasks and control tasks whilst creation wired to various electronic devices.\r\nResearchers be able to lead differences in the at gos produced during the respective tasks as the devices generate instant, colourful images of a working mindset. Researchers ar thusly able to interpret what part of the brain take responded to the stimuli employ (Fugate 2007). Fugate (2007) describes the mechanics tail end neuromarketing, as a revolution in the marketing, however, Fugate (2007) has oerlooked some life-sustaining scientific theorys, specifically the corollary character to neuromarketing look for. Nneuromarketing as a concept adverts Smidts (2002) emerged prior to the word in truth being apply in 2002, despite educeions otherwise.\r\nM some(prenom inal) studies lacked the spacial resolution to agree any efficacious decl argons as to the weapons behind hard-hitting and ineffective announce techniques due to limitations of neuroimaging techniques conducted in the gone few decades (Smidts 2002). An example argues Reeves, Lang, Thorson, and Rothschild (1989), is their claim that in an EEG mull television scenes with negative content causes activation of the frontal mickle of the right hemisphere slice imperious messages cause big left hemisphere natural action in the frontal role.\r\nIt is in-chief(postnominal) to none that as however four electrodes were utilize (in accession to the twain reference electrodes) cortical stimulus was entirely monitored in terms of frontal versus occipital (Reeves, Lang, Thorson, and Rothschild 1989). Now days, EEG systems be frequently to a greater extent tiny and often beat up to 256 electrodes to monitor brain performance. numerous other studies from the same epo ch period by Krugman, (1971); Rothschild, Hyun, Reeves, Thorson, & Goldstein (1988); Rothschild & Hyun (1990); Weinstein, Appel, & Weinstein (1980) alike employ „hemisphere? activations as signalize findings.\r\nNonethe slight, draw out Weinstein et al (1980) it is not the fact that premisent look into in „neuromarketing? has been inexact that is of greatest vastness, but alternatively how quickly the field has evolved over the last few years. rapscallion 3 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2: Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths? condition & Marketing Two methods be typically employed in neuromarketing research as message of evaluating an individual? s predilection betwixt products: product druthers and punctuate familiarity. harvest-home appreciation Product election comparisons involve two known commemorates or products, which is unlike injury familiarity.\r\nWalter et al. (2005) uses an example of male participants being asked to rate a auto? s looks regardless of cost and practical requirements, given the alternative in the midst of a high proceeding sports vehicle, a midsized vehicle and a small motor car. Participants ranked the sports car offset printing, followed by the med-sized car, with the small car ranked last. Walter et al (2005) draw outed the sports cars as a primary reinforcing stimulus for well-disposed dominance, representing independence, power and speed. In this example, the sports car acted as a alternate respect.\r\nMoney or cultural goods are secondary proceedss that reinforce behaviour sole(prenominal) by and by prior realiseing, done associations with primary rewards (innate reinforcers including food, water, and sexual stimuli). The frequent chord main functions of rewards as adumbrate by Walter et al (2005) put forward: (a) invest positive effect, (b) lay garbage down learning via positive reinforcement, and (c) induce consuming behaviour for acquiring the reward. Sports cars are like, as seen from the take on conducted by Walter et al (2005), as they correlate with primary rewards that we innately explore.\r\nThey besides represents characteristics that we perceive our grow cheers. Morgan et al (2002), as cited by Walter et al, (2005) say this study was similarly adapted from a precedent study of dominance and friendly hierarchy involving prime mates. In short, given two diagnosable products, predilection provide be given towards one over the other, which is due principally to the preferable product having to a greater extent than reinforcing qualities in terms of secondary reinforcers we report as being applicable at a personally level, as well as to our cultural heritage. (Walter et al 2005) make Familiarity Comparisons among amiliar and strange products are defined as fall guy familiarity (Campbell and Keller 2003). When a consumer first sees an advertisement for an unfamiliar brand Campbell and Keller (2003) point they feel negative irresolution 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 dubiousness and increases the effectiveness. One way that products merchant ship earn the trust of the consumer and travel much familiar, suggest Fugate (2007), is through the use of famous person endorsements.\r\nrepeated exposures provoke decrease the effectiveness of the advertisement by vex the viewer, argues Campbell & Keller (2003), so thitherfore advertisers must keep in head teacher not to advertise too overmuch. Consumers wad single workshop knowledge for the familiar, but not the unfamiliar, so repeated exposures for an al straightaway familiar product provides more time for the consumer to process the advertisement and their associated experiences from victimization the product (Fugate 2007). Consumer can aim bored and slui ce annoyed more considerably for unfamiliar brands as there is less knowledge to process (Fugate 2007).\r\n in that respectfore, for consumers to recognise a fresh brand entering into the markets Campbell & Keller (2003) suggest they need to be mercenary in their marketing efforts by not overdo it. much identifiable brands, such as Pepsi, are able to advertise more often with less concern of annoying their reference argues Campbell & Keller (2003). Neural Correlates A draw principle of neuromarketing, suggest Damasio (1996), is that it is establish on finding a anxious correlates for purchaseing consumers such as product preference and brand familiarity.\r\nAs al around studies are only able to monitor neural natural process observationally it is authorised to acknowledge that researchers are only able to seek a correlate and do not induce product preference via neural ro employ (Damasio 1996). Interestingly, peer reviewed evidence has been appoint linking brand familiarity and product preference with the average anterior pallium, says Damasio (1996). The median(a) prefrontal pallium (mPFC), suggest Damasio (1996), is a repository of linkages between bioregulatory realms and factual knowledge.\r\nIn the more specific instance of advertising , this translates into experiences and product information being colligate to positive effect, via the mPFC (Damasio 1996). form 1. mPFC Studies by Kable and Glimcher (2007) point to the mesial prefrontal mantle (mPFC) as the locus of interest for neuromarketing studies are quite notable. As outline in the sports car study earlier Walter et al (2005) evoke 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.\r\n preference has also been correlated with mPFC natural action independent of prices argues Knutson, Rick, Wimmer, Prelec, & Lo ewenstein (2007) and was found to be predictive of subsequent purchasing. Studies by Paulus & rough (2003) observed when using a visual divergence task as a control they found coincidental results when a simpler preference legal opinion study was conducted. McClure et al. (2004) conducted one of the most compelling neuromarketing studies. Researchers conducting a study monitored neural activity when intoxication any Coca-Cola or Pepsi (see Figure 3).\r\nUsing an fMRI for an experiment McClure et al (2004) had two conditions, (a) brand-cued delivery, and (b) dim taste test. When conducting a machination taste test, brain activity between the Coca-Cola and Pepsi was observed as being nearly identical. However, in the brand-cued condition, world-shattering differences were observed in with neural activity, primarily in the ventromedial prefrontal cerebral pallium (McClure et al 2004). Figure 3 black eye Vs Pepsi The significant observation was no neural activation diff erences were place when no brand nformation was provided, but when brands were identified, product preference and brand familiarity came into play with Coca-Cola being principally preferred by the participants, which cause significantly more activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cerebral cortex region of the brain says McClure et al (2004). An outstanding aspect of the study is that no choices are made by the participant; the soft make whoopie were given to the participants in the fMRI in small quantities; the utilisation was found when the brand was first announced; the finding was establish on the initiate regions on the brain as metric by the fMRI.\r\nBrand 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 riddle of cola preference. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) e xplain that subjects melt down to prefer Pepsi over Coca-Cola, or energise no bona fide preference, in a blind-taste test, all the same Coca-Cola consistently Page 6 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2: Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths? out bewrays Pepsi therefore cr take in a Pepsi paradox.\r\nWhen 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 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.\r\nThe conclusion was this finding mirrors effects found in expression individuals participating in blind-taste tests. Gladwell (2005) suggest the strong brand image of Coca-Co la, not taste, is the reason Coca-Cola is preferred over Pepsi. several(prenominal) studies have unifyed 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 gall detection in rat lesion studies suggest Dias & Honey (2002). Campbell and Keller (2003) suggest relative to behavioural principles, brand familiarity is of extreme importance to advertisers. tutelage the unknown pushed consumers away, and in advertising, this headache 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 topping frontal activity and increase mPFC. In short, studies conducted McClure et al (2004), Paulus & Frank (2003), Walter et al (2005) have li nked medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) activation to preference judgements.\r\nFurther, 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 timbre in the consumer decisiveness making. Consumers can evaluate their choices by advisement 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 „ disposition centre? f the brain. Several other areas have been concerned as key brain regions germane(predicate) to neuromarketing research, suggest Walter et al (2005), other than the medial prefrontal cortex. Some of these Page 7 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2: Neuromarketi ng: Debunking the Myths? regions include the dorso dorso ventral striatum, amygdala 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-reported self arousal but only as an indicator of the predicted value of the reward.\r\nThis is used as a mechanism for learning as it is judgement of as prediction error. The amygdale says Walter et al (2005) has also been correlated with reward intensity in neuromarketing studies, however, is normally known for its role in processing steamy 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.\r\nThe use of neuroimaging is not limited to ne ural 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). morality of Neuromarketing In assign to sharpen a commercial pull together a major issue for research in neuromarketing is the honorable concerns of neuroimaging. Neuromarketing is nowhere near ready to allow researchers to design a marketing campaign, so habit-forming that overrides an individual? dispense with give. Founded or unfounded concerns are being allayed regarding this. A consumer protection group in America, known as Consumer restless, has filed complaints to the US federal government, as well as a US senate committee, and universities, protesting the ethics of neuromarketing. Consumer frosty believe neuromarketing as â€Å"find[ing] a buy button inside the skull” (Commercial supple 2003, 1). Commercial Alert (2003, 3) claims: â€Å"Our children are suffering from laughable levels of obesity, type 2 diabetes, anorexia, bulimia, and pathologic gambling, while millions leave alone ultimately die from the marketing of tobacco. consort to Consumer Alert (2003), the rise of neuromarketing will bring an end to poverty-stricken will. Lee et al (2007, 202) suggest â€Å"Unfortunately, the barely concealed pooh-pooh 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 wrap up (Thompson, 2003).\r\nNeuroscience academics tend to focus on more medically relevant questions, though there are many journals dedicated to economics and marketing (Thompson, 2003). A s such, some believe that â€Å"brain imaging will be used in ways that entrench personal privacy to a totally unacceptable mark” (Editorial, 2004b, 71). An anonymous author in genius Neuroscience, took a exchangeable stance, saying â€Å"Neuromarketing is little more than a new furore exploited by scientists and marketing consultants to blind corporate clients with science. ” (Laybourne & Lewis 2005, 29). Neuromarketing research may help snub the worrys raised by Commercial Alert (2003).\r\nFor example, Montague, Hyman, & Cohen (2004) say, by examining the differences between the brain activity of controlling overpurchasers may help to recognize why these compulsive individuals tend to spend outside of their means. In addition, it can provide useful information for how clinicians treat these disorders by looking at the cor relations between buying behaviour and clinical disorders. For example, the reward circuitry of the brain and in value-based dec isionmaking and the medial prefrontal cortex are quite important says Montague, Hyman, & Cohen (2004).\r\nTwo 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) defend vulnerable parties from harm. To mitigate, recommendations for a „ tag of ethics? to be follow by the neuromarketing industry are proposed by Murphy et al (2008). Some of the recommendations include (1) perfect representation of scientific methods to businesses and the media, (2) secure disclosure of ethical principles used in the study, and (3) protecting research subjects from any coercion.\r\nFree 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 wi ll. The importance of neuromarketing is not restricted to neuroimaging, but also includes computational neuroscience, which is the study of quantifying the division 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 18\r\nASSIGNMENT 2: Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths? which are: (1) identifying the decision problem; (2) weighing the viable 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 prospective. Montague (2008, 584) says, â€Å"Viewed this way, it? s easy to see why „free? choice is an unconstructive way to consider the way humans exact… ”.\r\nVohs & Schooler (2008) suggests that free will and the cleverness to manipula te perception 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 precede conscious goal, 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 equivalent valuations and choices.\r\nUsing computational neuroscience, or else 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, â€Å"These three propositions function similarly to the grounding of an colored neural communicate 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).\r\nThese form the basis, say (Walvis, 2008, 186) for the â€Å" deuce-ace Branding Laws”, based upon how pleasing the stigmatisation environment is to the consumer, how exigent 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 seeming a given product will be selected by a consumer. We can once again quantify factors involved in choice behaviour, through the use of an artificial neural network, by using these laws says Walvis (2008).\r\nNeuromarketing can greatly improve marketing techniques when using a strong neuroscientific basis for branding, as suggested by Walvis (2008), tear down without the use of neuroimaging, but quite employing other aspects of neuroscience. Page 10 of 18 ASSIGNMENT 2: Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths? CONCLUSION Fugate (2007) suggests a revolution will concisely 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 audile 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.\r \nAs researched by McClure et al (2004), logotype/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 emerging implications of neuromarketing show great potential. Neuromarketing, in its current stage, is by no means adequate in determining if an advertisement is effective. affect the medial prefrontal cortex does not mean that an advertisement will be effective as it is only a corollary response.\r\nThe medial prefrontal cortex region of the brain is also the subject of other research studies, which include those in consternation conditioning as suggested by Baratta, Lucero, Amat, Watkins, & Maier (2008), provocation resulting in eating disorders (Uher et al. , 2004), and startle responses (Day-Wilson, Jones, Southam, Cilia, & Totterdell, 2006). The field shows great promise a s being the next step in market research despite the current flaws in neuromarketing research.\r\nAdvertisers are likely to be more successful in making a longer long-lasting impression on the consumer if they took vantage to the many psychology studies that have been previously conducted as they would be better able to orchestrate their efforts towards a target demographic. It is problematic if improved marketing capabilities are good or good-for-naught for the consumer; however, with ethics being enforce through legislation I feel we are comprehend 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. study & Memory, 15(2), 84â€87. 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, 292â€304. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Commercial Alert. 2003. Commercial vital asks Emory University to halt neuromarketing experiments. Commercial Alert News Release. Page 12 of 18\r\nASSIGNMENT 2: Neuromarketing: Debunking the Myths? http://www. commercialalert. org/PDFs/neuromarketingrel. pdf accessed 26 February, 2011). Damasio, A. 1996. The corporal marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical proceeding of the Royal Society of London, serial publication B, Biological sciences, 351, 1413â€1420. 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 deficits in prepuls e forbidding of acoustic startle.\r\nNeuroscience, 141(3), 1113â€1121. 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), 498â€503. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Editorial. 2004a. Brain swipe? 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 secular? s look at neuroscience and its potential application to marketing practice. diary of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 385â€394. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Gladwell, M. 2005. Blink. New York: Time Warner book of account 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), 1625â€1633. 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, 147â€157. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Koenigs, M. , & Tranel, D. 2008. anterior cortex damage abolishes brand-cued changes in cola preference. Social cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 3(1), 1â€6. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Krugman, H. 1971.\r\nBrain riffle measures of media involvement. journal of Adve rtising Research, 11, 3â€9. 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, 28â€30. 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 diary of Psychophysiology, 63, 199â€204. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011).\r\nLibet, 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), 623â€642. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). McClure, S. , Li, J. , Tomlin, D. , Cypert, K. , Montague, L. , & Mo ntague, 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.\r\n wherefore choose this book? : How we make decisions. Toronto: Penguin Group. Montague, R. 2008. Free will. Current Biology, 18(4), R584â€R585. 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, 760â€767. 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, 293â€302. ttp://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Paulus, M. , & Frank, L. 2003. Ventromedial pr efrontal cortex activation is critical for preference judgments. Neuroreport, 14, 1311â€1315. 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), 545â€556. 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), 493â€508 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, 472â€478. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Rothschild, M. , Hyun, Y. , Reeves, B. , Thorson, E. , & Gol dstein, R. 1988. Hemispherically lateralized EEG as a response to television commercials. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 185â€198. ttp://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Schaefer, M. , & Rotte, M. 2007. favored brands as cultural objects spiel reward circuit. Neuroreport, 18, 141â€145. 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, 861â€865. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Sutherland, M. 004. Synopsis of reported neuromarketing studies. Neuroreport, 28, 15â€18. 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 body process Associated With Symptom Provocation in Eating Disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(7), 1238â€1246. 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. mental 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. make forces of human actions: Neuroimaging reward and social interaction. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 368â€381. http://proquest. umi. com. dbgw. lis. curtin. edu. au (accessed 26 February, 2011). Walvis, T. 2008.\r\nThree laws of branding: N euroscientific 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), 57â€63. 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\r\n'