Neuroethics of Neuromarketing Emily Murphy University of California Hastings College of Law, [email protected]
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2008 Neuroethics of neuromarketing Emily Murphy University of California Hastings College of Law, [email protected] Judy Iles Peter B. Reiner Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Recommended Citation Emily Murphy, Judy Iles, and Peter B. Reiner, Neuroethics of neuromarketing, 7 J. Consumer Behav. 293 (2008). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1506 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Journal of Consumer Behaviour J. Consumer Behav. 7: 293–302 (2008) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.252 Neuroethics of neuromarketing Emily R. Murphy1,2y,JudyIlles1z and Peter B. Reiner1* 1National Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada 2Center for Law and the Biosciences, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, USA Neuromarketing is upon us. Companies are springing up to offer their clients brain-based information about consumer preferences, purporting to bypass focus groups and other marketing research techniques on the premise that directly peering into a consumer’s brain while viewing products or brands is a much better predictor of consumer behavior. These technologies raise a range of ethical issues, which fall into two major categories: (1) protection of various parties who may be harmed or exploited by the research, marketing, and deployment of neuromarketing and (2) protection of consumer auto- nomy if neuromarketing reaches a critical level of effectiveness. The former is straightfor- ward. The latter may or may not be problematic depending upon whether the technology can be considered to so effectively manipulate consumer behavior such that consumers are not able to be aware of the subversion. We call this phenomenon stealth neuromar- keting. Academics and companies using neuromarketing techniques should adopt a code of ethics, which we propose here, to ensure beneficent and non-harmful use of the technology in consideration of both categories of ethics concerns. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Introduction Nation called it ‘‘the most alarming invention since Mr. Gatling invented his gun’’ and The In 1957, the marketing executive James Vicary New Yorker stated that ‘‘minds had been announced that he had increased sales of food entered and broken’’ (Moore, 1982). With and drink at a movie theater by secretly growing public understanding that the brain is flashing subliminal messages with the words the mediator of behavior, the public’s reaction ‘‘Drink Coca Cola’’ and ‘‘Eat Popcorn’’. The to neuromarketing intrusions into their brains study was never published and may have even may prove to be equally vigorous. been a hoax (Karremans et al., 2006), but the The term ‘‘neuromarketing’’ identifies a new episode illustrates the public’s strong reaction field of research championed by both aca- to covert manipulation. An article in The demics and self-labeled companies using advances in neuroscience that permit power- *Correspondence to: Peter B. Reiner, Professor, National ful insights into the human brain’s responses to Core for Neuroethics, University of British Columbia, 2211 Wesbrook Mall, S121 Vancouver, BC V6T 2B5, marketing stimuli (Renvoise´ and Morin, 2007; Canada. Senior et al., 2007). The goals of neuromarket- E-mail: [email protected] ing studies are to obtain objective information yFellow zCanada Research Chair in Neuroethics and Professor of about the inner workings of the brains of Neurology consumers without resorting to the subjective Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb 294 Emily R. Murphy et al. reports that have long been the mainstay of neuromarketing industry to prevent harms and marketing studies. Thus, neuromarketing pur- preserve business integrity and consumer ports to provide qualitatively different infor- trust. mation, ostensibly superior to that obtained by traditional means, about the economically The market for neuromarketing valuable topic of consumer preferences. There is, of course, nothing inherently Although the electroencephalography (EEG) problematic about the use of scientific tech- has been in use for the study of marketing nology to advance commercial interests (Eaton preferences for over 35 years (Krugman, and Illes, 2007). But the use of technology that 1971), there is little doubt that we have probes the inner workings of the human entered a new age of neuromarketing in which brain, especially beyond what one might advanced technology is being used in unpre- divulge in traditional behavioral testing, cedented ways to probe consumer prefer- raises substantial ethical issues. These concerns ences. A raft of peer-reviewed papers and fall into two major categories: (1) protection of books have appeared in recent years in which various parties who may be harmed or positron emission tomography (PET), func- exploited by neuromarketing and (2) protection tional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and of consumer autonomy. The public outcry quantitative EEG analyses have been used to in response to Vicary’s subliminal imagery assess consumer behavior (Smith et al., 2002; reflects a clear ethical boundary – the autonomy Dickhaut et al., 2003; McClure et al., 2004; violation produced intrinsic discomfort with Mast and Zaltman, 2005; Ahlert et al., 2006; consumers having their preferences manipu- Knutson et al., 2007; Koenigs and Tranel, lated when they did not and could not know as 2008; Plassmann et al., 2007; Renvoise´ and much. A similar boundary can be drawn for Morin, 2007; Schaefer and Rotte, 2007a, b). It contemporary marketing, particularly when has already been anticipated that other informed by information gleaned from novel neuroimaging technologies such as magne- neurotechnologies. Neuroethics, in proactively toencephalography and cortical manipulation dealing with ethical issues unique to knowledge with transcranial magnetic stimulation, as well about and manipulation of the human brain, is as combinations of modalities will be adopted well-positioned to offer guidance for beneficent by ‘‘market researchers who wish to deploy a and non-harmful deployment of neuromarket- specialized neuromarketing profile’’ (Senior ing techniques. et al., 2007). We refer the reader interested in We will first briefly review the state of the art details of each technology to the recent and state of the market in neuromarketing. overview by Senior et al. (2007) as well as The second section tackles current ethical other papers in this Special Issue; different issues in neuromarketing, which apply irre- neuroimaging techniques have strengths and spective of the technological capabilities. We weaknesses in temporal and spatial resolution. focus our discussion on potential harms The choice of modality by neuromarketers will to research subjects, exploitation of vulner- no doubt be informed by a priori hypotheses able niche populations, and the integrity of and pilot research about relevant brain areas business relationships, public trust, and con- and activation patterns useful for predicting sumer confidence. The third section will actual consumer behavior. thoroughly explore the most substantial neu- The convergence of increased power in the roethical concern associated with neuromar- form of technology and advances in our keting: the incursion on autonomy made by understanding of cognitive function has neuromarketing if it achieves a level of emboldened some to make sweeping con- effectiveness that amounts to consumer coer- clusions about the power of neuromarketing. cion. We conclude with pragmatic recommen- Indeed, at least ten commercial enterprises dations: an ethical code to be adopted by the have been established with the explicit Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb Neuroethics of neuromarketing 295 objective of using these advanced technologies and commercial settings have both ethical and to provide neuromarketing (Emsense, FKF legal responsibilities to obtain informed con- Applied Research, Lucid Systems, Neurofocus, sent and protect the privacy of research Neuroco, Neurosense Limited, OTOInsights, subjects whose brain function is probed with Sales Brain, Sands Research, and Thought imaging technologies, as per the Common Rule Sciences) and at least one US patent has been (DHHS, 1991). The legal framework for such issued on the topic (Zaltman and Kosslyn, privacy protection in the United States is 2000). Neuromarketing studies have garnered covered under PRIVACY RULE of the Department a great deal of attention from the public, with of Health and Human Services (DHHS, 2005); extensive coverage in both the mainstream while this applies in some instances, it is press (Kelly, 2002; Roston, 2004; Greene, notable that such protections are apparently 2007; Haq, 2007; Park, 2007; Saletan, 2007; absent when the subject is participating in a Baker, 2008; Brainard, 2008) and internet study being carried out for marketing purposes weblogs (Dooley, 2007). One study has even (Tovino, 2005). Thus standards for protecting cautioned against a ‘‘neurorealism’’ created by the privacy of individuals participating in