Journal of Economic 31 (2010) 812–817

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Economic Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/joep

Does give new impetus to economic and consumer research?

Mirja Hubert *

Zeppelin University, Am Seemooser Horn 20, 88045 Friedrichshafen, Germany article info abstract

Article history: The integration of neuroscientific methods and findings into economic theory has led to the Received 13 November 2009 emergence of the transdisciplinary approach of neuroeconomics. A sub-area of neuroeco- Accepted 7 December 2009 nomics that investigates marketing-relevant problems is called ‘‘’’ or ‘‘con- Available online 4 May 2010 sumer ’’. On the basis of 10 theses, this article discusses the status quo, the future development and essential challenges of these research branches. The central chal- JEL classification: lenge for neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience is to further expand and validate the M3 obtained results as well as to implement an increasingly deductive focus that allows for D87 negating, modifying, or extending existing economic theories. Recent neuroeconomic find- PsycINFO classification: ings indicate that the boundaries between psychological and physiological categories are 2500 arbitrary, and that a redefinition of the concept of is necessary. Additionally, the 2520 article emphasizes that the success of the new research areas is dependent upon the con- 3900 sideration of methodological problems, and the effective translation of findings into corpo- 3920 rate practice, and into the neurophysiological descriptions of classical theories and 3940 constructs. By facing these challenges of the future, neuroeconomics and consumer neuro- Keywords: science will become an integrated and accepted branch of economic and consumer Neuroeconomics research. Consumer neuroscience Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Functional magnetic resonance imaging Decision-making

1. Introduction

Over the past years, neuroscientific findings about human decision-making gained increasing attention across various re- search areas that are not necessarily associated with research. In economics, the transfer of neuroscientific insights and methods led to the emergence of the innovative field of neuroeconomics. This transdisciplinary research area strives to bet- ter understand economic decision-making by combining knowledge from both economic and brain research. Whereas tra- ditional economic research explains behavior primarily through theoretical constructs such as utility or preferences, neuroscience considers the physiological aspects and somatic variables that decision-making. As a combination of both research branches, neuroeconomics makes the positivistic assumption that the key to explaining human behavior is to understand corresponding neural and physiological processes (Camerer, Loewenstein, & Prelec, 2005; Kenning & Plassmann, 2005; Riedl, Hubert, & Kenning, 2010; Sanfey, Loewenstein, McClure, & Cohen, 2006). Especially in the idea of neuroeconomics gained attention, because interdisciplinary approaches to explain buying-decisions are often quickly

* Tel.: +49 7541 6009 1272; fax: +49 7541 6009 1299. E-mail address: [email protected]

0167-4870/$ - see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2010.03.009 M. Hubert / Journal of Economic Psychology 31 (2010) 812–817 813 accepted in consumer research (Hubert & Kenning, 2008; Lee, Broderick, & Chamberlain, 2007). The term ‘‘neuromarketing’’ is often used to identify this development but the label may be a misnomer. ‘‘Marketing’’ describes the idea of market- orientated corporate management. Accordingly, the term ‘‘retail marketing’’ denotes the concept of market-orientated management of retailers. Furthermore, the branch of ‘‘service marketing’’ is concerned with the market-orientated management of service companies. Given these exemplary uses for the term ‘‘marketing,’’ the notion of ‘‘neuromarketing’’ poses an impractical ambiguity. The term ‘‘consumer neuroscience,’’ therefore, is a more appropriate appellation for the new research area that uses neuroscientific methods and findings to better understand the (neuro-) physiological fundamen- tals of consumer behavior. Examples for this research branch can be found in studies on impact (Kenning, Plassmann, Deppe, Kugel, & Schwindt, 2002), on price perception, processing and storage (Knutson, Rick, Wimmer, Prelec, & Loewenstein, 2007; Plassmann, Kenning, Deppe, Kugel, & Schwindt, 2008; Plassmann, O’Doherty, & Rangel, 2007), on presen- tation effects such as framing or anchoring (Deppe et al., 2005, 2007), on appeal (Kenning et al., 2007), on product policy (Stoll, Baecke, & Kenning, 2008) and on the analysis of buying-decisions (Braeutigam, Stins, Rose, Swithenby, & Ambler, 2001; Grosenick, Greer, & Knutson, 2008; Knutson et al., 2007). However, from the beginning these studies were subject to critical examination. Of greatest controversy were questions regarding the operative benefits that can be provided by the new technical and theoretical potential of this field (Lee et al., 2007). Due to individual and situational differences concerning the usefulness of each neuroscientific method, that issue will not be addressed here (for an overview, see Kenning, Plassmann, & Ahlert, 2007). Instead, this article aims to outline the fu- ture development and potential importance of neuroeconomics for economic research ‘‘pars pro toto’’, using the example of consumer neuroscience on the basis of 10 theses.

2. Deduction of 10 theses

Consumer neuroscience, like most of the newly emerged transdisciplinary approaches, exhibited a mainly inductive and explorative development over the past years. Specific phenomena that could not be sufficiently described with conventional methods of consumer behavior research (‘‘white dots’’) were replicated with the help of imaging techniques (e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI]). To some extent, this research resulted in surprising findings. For instance, studies have shown that a consumer’s favorite brand may activate a specific neural decision pattern in the brain (Deppe, Schwindt, Kugel, Plassmann, & Kenning, 2005; Kenning et al., 2002). Decisions that comprise the favorite brand led to deactivation in areas that are associated with analytic processes, and to increased activation in areas that are linked to integrating emotions in the decision-making process. This effect is called the ‘‘First-Choice-Brand-Effect,’’ and now constitutes part of the basic neuroeconomic literature. Further inductive studies about the perception of status symbols such as cars (Erk, Spitzer, Wunderlich, Galley, & Walter, 2002), or in the field of advertising effects (Ambler, Ioannides, & Rose, 2000; Kenning et al., 2007), revealed the importance of emotions and the so-called ‘‘’’ for consumer decision-making. Additionally, these findings accentuated the enormous influence of emotions on economic decision-making behavior in general. In this respect, neuroeconomics allows a first appraisal of brain structures that are essential for consumer behavior (for an over- view, see Hubert & Kenning, 2008), but also has its limitations. One major constraint of neuroeconomics is the uncertain reliability and validity of the findings. Because replications of existing studies are lacking, and because of the small sample sizes (10–20 subjects) and the relatively simple experimental settings of brain-imaging studies, it is not always possible to derive practical or ethical-normative recommendations that are valid beyond the individual case. Neuroeconomists all over the world have arrived at very similar results concerning the spe- cific brain activation during the perception of different marketing stimuli (Ambler et al., 2000; Kenning et al., 2007; Koenigs & Tranel, 2007; McClure et al., 2004). However, this robustness of neuroeconomic findings may also be an argument against the validity. For example, according to fMRI studies the brain seems to process both semantic and phenomenological vari- ations of different in a very similar way. It may be possible that the research method is still too inaccurate to measure small variations in brain activation, for example evoked by different brand elements. Therefore, studies must always take methodological problems into consideration (e.g., Logothetis, 2008; Miller, 2008; Poldrack, 2006). Even though the technical methods are steadily improving, they still only offer a relatively indirect measurement of cortical activity changes, due to limitations in temporal and spatial resolution. Additionally, the scarcity of theoretical foundation makes general predictions difficult. From these limitations the first thesis is derived: Thesis 1: A central challenge for neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience is to further expand and validate the obtained results. In fact, there are already preliminary deductive experimental setups with the goal of replicating and validating the find- ings of previous phases. These investigations also apply alternative and complementary methods and techniques. Recently, Koenigs and Tranel (2007) replicated the study of McClure et al. (2004) in a lesion study. They found that patients with dam- age in the ventromedial are barely influenced by brand information. This finding enhances the importance of this brain region for the perception of brands. It can be assumed that studies either employing participants with specific brain damage or simulating brain lesions with the rTMS (repetitive transcranial magnet stimulation) method will be con- ducted more often in order to validate the findings of previous studies. Furthermore, it seems probable that the combination of different neuroscientific methods (e.g., EEG and fMRI) will be employed more frequently (Logothetis, 2008). In this way, 814 M. Hubert / Journal of Economic Psychology 31 (2010) 812–817 the validity and reliability of the (preliminarily) findings, with regard to their positivistic nature, will become apparent. The significant body of general neuroscientific publications available provides a more in-depth understanding of the achieved results. Against this background, it seems necessary for neuroeconomics to change from a context of discovery to a context of reasoning. This situation leads to the following thesis: Thesis 2: Within the next few years, neuroeconomic research will realign. In recent years, mainly inductive studies were conducted (‘‘context of discovery’’), but there will be more deductive experimental setups in future. In the course of the described development of the first and second thesis, one essential challenge of consumer neurosci- ence will be to verify the empiric matter of primary psychological theories (e.g., Prospect Theory), and to reject or further develop them. An example of the use of neuroscience to re-evaluate (and revise) a commonly-held theory is the popular hemisphere theory in advertisement effect research, which postulates the processing of emotions in the right brain hemi- sphere and rational stimuli in the left brain hemisphere (Hansen, 1981). Through the use of imaging methods, neuroscience studies have determined that this assumption is too simple. Even though there are special functions that are lateralized (e.g., speech), the brain consists of a very complex neural network and its mechanisms are not fully understood, yet. Another the- oretically motivated study that verifies the empiric matter of information economic theory in order to explain brand effects can be found in Plassmann, Kenning, Deppe, Kugel, and Schwindt (2008). That leads to the third thesis: Thesis 3: The essential challenge of neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience will be to verify the empiric mat- ter of existing theories, to reject, to modify, and/or to further develop them (‘‘theory testing’’). An important theoretical aspect for consumer neuroscience is the assumption that psychological effects should not be regarded as uncoupled from physiological and biological processes (Kallat, 2009). In consumer neuroscience this fact became apparent in an fMRI-study by Plassmann, O’Doherty, Shiv, and Rangel (2008), who showed that the (physiological) process- ing of the taste of identical wine samples can be strongly influenced by the (psychological) price information. Though the wines sampled were identical, those with a higher price were perceived to have a better taste. This modified perception in taste corresponded to a change in the neurophysiological processes. The findings clearly indicate that the psychological price information can moderate neurophysiological processes during wine tasting. Therefore, the fourth thesis is as follows: Thesis 4: Findings of neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience show that boundaries between psychological (e.g., price information) and physiological categories (e.g., product qualities) are arbitrary. The coherence between psychology and physiology is particularly evident in a consideration of the concept of emotion. Whereas classical consumer research often equalizes emotions with the psychological concept of feelings, consumer neuro- science predominantly defines emotions in a physiological and biological way. The difficulty of finding a common definition could be a possible explanation why the meaning of emotions has been neglected by economic research for a very long time (Elster, 1998; Loewenstein, 2000). The assumptions that emotions are not directly measurable (Camerer et al., 2005), have no ‘‘intelligence,’’ and therefore have only a distracting impact on rational judgments (Bechara & Damasio, 2005) points out fur- ther reasons for the disregard of emotions in economic theory. Consequently, the influence of emotions on the decision-mak- ing process was primarily seen in a negative sense (Bettman, Luce, & Payne, 1998). In neuroeconomics, emotions are defined as ‘‘a collection of changes in body and brain states triggered by a dedicated brain system that responds to specific contents of one’s perceptions, actual or recalled, relative to a particular object or event’’ (Bechara & Damasio, 2005, p. 39). In contrast, feelings are seen as mental representations and conscious experiences of physiological states triggered by emotions (Damasio, 2001). From this standpoint, the integration of emotions in rational decision-making processes is of great importance, because emotions often represent unconscious ‘‘embodied’’ knowledge. On the one hand, emotions trigger various processes in the brain that influence the decision-making process (Bechara & Damasio, 2005). On the other hand, they are considered as responses to direct rewards or punishments, as well as to changes in expectations, e.g., frustrations after a loss of an expected return (Rolls, 1999). In contrast to classic consumer behavior research, the role of emotions in neuroeconomics is strongly emphasized and is seen as a basic element in all phases of the cognitive process. This theory originates in studies of patients with lesions in brain areas such as the ventro- medial prefrontal cortex. Although they had normal intellectual skills, the test persons exhibited problems in solving eco- nomic and social decision tasks (e.g., during the so-called Iowa-Gambling-Task) (Bechara, Damasio, & Damasio, 2000). Because the subjects also had difficulties feeling and describing adequate emotions in different situations, Damasio and his team concluded in the somatic marker theory that optimal decisions are not solvable by pure cognitive thinking (Bechara & Damasio, 2005). Instead of a normal, efficient decision-making mechanism, such people apply a logical thinking process. They try to conduct a kind of cost-benefit-analysis of all possible options, but the great number of alternatives makes it an unceasing and difficult process. Although this procedure is consistent with the idea of the homo oeconomicus, it did not lead to beneficial outcomes (Bechara et al., 2000). Bechara and Damasio (2005) concluded from these results that an automatic emotional process exists that consciously or unconsciously helps to determine the right choice. These findings imply that the integration of emotions in decision-making processes contributes to the improvement of the decision qual- ity. It holds especially true if decisions are either particularly simple or particularly extensive. However, in other situations emotions can also generate suboptimal decisions (Shiv, Loewenstein, & Bechara, 2005). These observations lead to the fol- lowing thesis: M. Hubert / Journal of Economic Psychology 31 (2010) 812–817 815

Thesis 5: In the classical literature, the concept of emotion was often used in a ‘fuzzy’ and primarily psychological way. In neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience, emotions have gained importance and have become an essential focus of research. Future economic research will adopt some findings of neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience and integrate emotions into theories in order to explain economic behavior. As described in theses 4 and 5, neuroeconomic research enhances the physiological determination of human behavior. For example, emotions correlate to physiological phenomena such as hormone release, change of heartbeat, or tonicity, and thus evoke an alteration in the somatic state (Bechara & Damasio, 2005). Physiological changes, then, become inducible and mea- surable, as is shown in the pioneering study of Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher, and Fehr (2005), who induced trust through the administration of oxytocin. Another example is the study of Eberhardt, Fojcik, Linzmajer, Hubert, and Kenning (2010) that investigated how the perception of price fairness can be influenced by external biological factors such as food intake. Recent neuroeconomic studies have almost exclusively concentrated on observation of the brain, and have done this primarily by applying fMRI. Nevertheless, the described examples indicate that neuroeconomics will realign by incorporat- ing other important biological factors such as genetic predisposition (BDNF-polymorphisms), hormones, or physiological characteristics (e.g., Body Mass Index, blood pressure) in order to better predict economic behavior. This leads to the sixth thesis: Thesis 6: The conceptual revision posits that the physiological measuring methods will become (more) important in economic research. Consequently, the research will probably become (more) interdisciplinary and specific. The sixth thesis suggests that consumer neuroscience will veer away from corporate practice. This drifting apart may lead to a short-term vacuum, leaving room for speculations and worries concerning the new approach of consumer neuroscience. In the long run it can be assumed that this vacuum will be resolved by more or less scientific institutions of knowledge trans- fer (e.g., consulting companies) and education (e.g., university courses, seminars, summer schools). Accordingly, the research branch of consumer neuroscience will lead to the emergence of new corporate institutions. The scientific community must take a critical look at the emergence of these new institutions. Because the methods of neuroscience are demanding and complex, it will sometimes be difficult for business entities to analyze and interpret the collected data. Consequences of the less effective use of neuroscience data could include inaccuracies, misconceptions, and disappointments. The mission of the scientific community will be to (critically) guide the translation of obtained findings through companies (or media) into corporate practice. Thereby, it will be important to avoid striking formulations that can result from (over-) simplifica- tion, such as the expected and feared discovery of a ‘‘buy button’’ in the brain (Blakeslee, 2004). That leads to the seventh thesis: Thesis 7: A primary challenge of neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience will be to guide the translation of the obtained findings through companies (or media) into corporate practice. It will be important to avoid disappoint- ments that could result from (over-)simplification. The noteworthy element is the continuing difficulty of translating existing theoretical and psychological concepts into neurophysiological language. So far, it is not possible to find neural representation in the brain of ‘‘reference points’’, a basic idea of Prospect Theory, or of the concept of ‘‘mental accounting’’ that plays an important role in behavioral finance. As a matter of fact, neuroeconomic research is primarily occupied with measuring activity changes in various brain areas, while the subjects complete specific tasks (Kenning et al., 2007). One of the most important intellectual challenges of neuroeco- nomic research is the translation of theoretical constructs into neurophysiological categories. A recent publication tried to conduct such a translation for the construct of ‘‘customer satisfaction’’ by connecting it with neural activity changes in the (Kenning & Plassmann, 2008). It remains to be seen if the challenge to translate theoretical constructs into neurophysiological categories will be successful. Nevertheless, only if it succeeds will a favorable consolidation of neuroeco- nomic research and economic research be possible. This would enable the development of a genuine transdisciplinary re- search area that leads to a sustainable change within academic disciplines. Therefore, the following thesis can be assumed: Thesis 8: The future acceptance of neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience within the scientific community will mainly depend on the success of the (new) neurophysiological description of classical theories and constructs.

3. Conclusion

The integration of neuroscientific approaches and methods into economic and corporate research has led to prelimin- ary findings relevant for economic marketing theory and practice (Hubert & Kenning, 2008; Kenning & Plassmann, 2005; Lee et al., 2007). Because of the complex data analysis and the rather small number of studies conducted, there are still significant limitations in neuroeconomic studies. Currently, neuroeconomic research supplements the existing ap- proaches and contributes to their further development. However, it is probable that future findings of consumer neuro- science will lead to new important implications for economic research. For instance, in contrast to traditional surveys, the method of fMRI allows measurement of brain activities at about 300 000 points per second. Even if there is no direct coherence between the explained variance and the resolution of a measuring method, this comparison shows the enor- mous methodical differences between classical survey and fMRI. Recent publications that can explain, to some degree 816 M. Hubert / Journal of Economic Psychology 31 (2010) 812–817 more than 75% of buying behavior by analyzing fMRI-data (Grosenick et al., 2008) indicate the relevance of those mea- surement differences. However, previously-mentioned reasons suggest that there will be no systematic ad hoc integra- tion of neuroscientific findings and methods but, instead, this process will take a long time. The next thesis, therefore, is as follows: Thesis 9: The integration of neuroscientific methods and findings will not lead to a revolution of economic and con- sumer research, but will be carried out evolutionarily.

Against this background, consumer neuroscience still has a long way to go before it is a scientifically-approved and fully- integrated branch of traditional consumer research, and one that leads to sustainable changes within academic disciplines. Nevertheless, the increasing relevance of this research area is indicated by the growing interest of science, practice (Fugate, 2007; Lee et al., 2007) and the publication of neuroeconomic articles in reputable economic and consumer research journals (e.g., Caplin, Dean, Glimcher, & Rutledge, forthcoming; Hedgcock and Rao, 2009; Yoon, Gutchess, Feinberg, & Polk, 2006). Fu- ture research will determine whether the emergent field of neuroeconomics truly has the potential to add a sustainable new theoretical perspective (Riedl et al., 2010). Only if it effectually meets the challenge to address its limitations, and to add fur- ther value to economic theory, will this project be successful. This conclusion leads to the subsequent thesis: Thesis 10: By facing the challenges of the future, neuroeconomics and consumer neuroscience will become an inte- grated and accepted branch of economic and consumer research.

References

Ambler, T., Ioannides, A., & Rose, S. (2000). Brands on the brain: Neuro-images of advertising. Business Strategy Review, 11(3), 17–30. Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. R. (2005). The somatic marker hypothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52(2), 336–372. Bechara, A., Damasio, A. R., & Damasio, H. (2000). Emotion, decision making and the . Cerebral Cortex, 10, 295–307. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(December), 187–217. Blakeslee, S. (2004). If you have a ‘‘Buy Button’’ in your brain, what pushes it? New York Times (19.10.2004), 154–155. Braeutigam, S., Stins, J. F., Rose, S. P. R., Swithenby, S. J., & Ambler, T. (2001). Magnetoencephalographic signals identify stages in real-life decision processes. Neural Plasticity, 8(4), 241–251. Camerer, C., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2005). Neuroeconomics: How neuroscience can inform economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 43(1), 9–64 [March]. Caplin, A., Dean, M., Glimcher, W., & Rutledge, R. (forthcoming). Measuring beliefs and rewards: A neuroeconomic approach. Quarterly Journal of Economics. Damasio, A. R. (2001). Fundamental feelings. Nature Magazine, 413(October), 781. Deppe, M., Schwindt, W., Krämer, J., Kugel, H., Plassmann, H., Kenning, P., et al (2005). Evidence for a neural correlate of a framing effect: Bias-specific activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex during credibility judgments. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 413–421. Deppe, M., Schwindt, W., Kugel, H., Plassmann, H., & Kenning, P. (2005). Nonlinear responses within the medial prefrontal cortex reveal when specific implicit information influence economic decision-making. Journal of , 15, 171–182. Deppe, M., Schwindt, W., Pieper, A., Kugel, H., Plassmann, H., Kenning, P., et al (2007). Anterior cingulate reflects susceptibility to framing during attractiveness evaluation. NeuroReport, 18(11), 1119–1123. Eberhardt, T., Fojcik, T., Linzmajer, M., Hubert, M., Kenning, P. (2010). The sweet side of sugar – the influence of raised insulin levels on price fairness and willingness to pay. In M.C. Campbell, J. Inman, & R. Pieters (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 37). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research. Elster, J. (1998). Emotions and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 36(1), 47–74 [March]. Erk, S., Spitzer, M., Wunderlich, A. P., Galley, L., & Walter, H. (2002). Cultural objects modulate reward circuitry. NeuroReport, 13(18), 2499–2503. Fugate, D. L. (2007). Neuromarketing: A layman’s look at neuroscience and its potential applications to marketing practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 385–394. Grosenick, L., Greer, S., & Knutson, B. (2008). Interpretable classifiers for fMRI improve prediction of purchases. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 16(2008), 539–548. Hansen, F. (1981). Hemispheral lateralization: Implications for understanding consumer behavior. The Journal of Consumer Research, 8(1), 22–36 [June]. Hedgcock, W., & Rao, A. R. (2009). Trade-off aversion as an explanation for the attraction effect: A functional magnetic resonance study. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 1–13. Hubert, M., & Kenning, P. (2008). A current overview of consumer neuroscience. Journal of , 7, 272–292. Kallat, J. W. (2009). Biological psychology (10th ed.). Florence, KY: Wadsworth – Cengage Learning. Kenning, P., & Plassmann, H. (2005). NeuroEconomics: An overview from an economic perspective. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 343–354. Kenning, P., & Plassmann, H. (2008). How recent neuroscientific research could enhance marketing theory. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation, 16, 532–538. Kenning, P., Plassmann, H., & Ahlert, D. (2007). Applications of functional magnetic resonance imaging for market research. Qualitative Market Research, 10(2), 135–152. Kenning, P., Plassmann, H., Deppe, M., Kugel, H., & Schwindt, W. (2002). The discovery of cortical relief. Field of Research: Neuromarketing, 1, 1–26. Kenning, P., Plassmann, H., Kugel, H., Schwindt, W., Pieper, P., & Deppe, M. (2007). Neural correlates of attractive ads. In W. J. Koschnick (Ed.), FOCUS- Jahrbuch 2007, Schwerpunkt: Neuroökonomie, Neuromarketing, Neuromarktforschung (pp. 287–298). Munich: FOCUS Magazin Verlag. Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Neural predictors of purchase. Neuron, 53(1), 147–156. Koenigs, M., & Tranel, D. (2007). Prefrontal cortex damage abolishes brand-cued changes in cola preference. Social Cognitive and , 18, 1–6. Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435, 673–676. Lee, N., Broderick, A. J., & Chamberlain, L. (2007). What is ‘‘neuromarketing’’? A discussion and agenda for future research. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 63, 199–204. Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. The American Economic Review, 90(2), 426–432. Logothetis, N. K. (2008). What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature, 453, 869–878. McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Montague, P. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44, 379–387. Miller, G. (2008). Growing for fMRI. Science, 320, 1412–1414. Plassmann, H., Kenning, P., Deppe, M., Kugel, H., & Schwindt, W. (2008). Neural correlates of brand choice under uncertainty: The role of brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 360–367. M. Hubert / Journal of Economic Psychology 31 (2010) 812–817 817

Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., & Rangel, A. (2007). Orbitofrontal cortex encodes willingness to pay in everyday economic transactions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 27(37), 9984–9988. Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. PNAS, 105(3), 1050–1054. Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 59–63. Riedl, R., Hubert, M., & Kenning, P. (2010). Are there neural gender differences in online trust? An empathizing-systemizing-theory-based fMRI study on the perceived trustworthiness of eBay offers. MIS Quarterly [conditionally accepted]. Rolls, E. T. (1999). The brain and emotion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sanfey, A. G., Loewenstein, G., McClure, S. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2006). Neuroeconomics: Cross-currents in research on decision-making. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 108–116. Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G., & Bechara, A. (2005). The dark side of emotion in decision-making: When individuals with decreased emotional reactions make more advantageous decisions. Cognitive Brain Research, 23(1), 85–92 [April]. Stoll, M., Baecke, S., & Kenning, P. (2008). What they see is what they get? An fMRI-study on neural correlates of attractive packaging. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 342–359. Yoon, C., Gutchess, A. H., Feinberg, F., & Polk, T. A. (2006). A functional magnetic resonance imaging study of neural dissociations between brand and person judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 31–40.