Neuroethics of Neuromarketing Emily Murphy University of California Hastings College of Law, Murphyemily@Uchastings.Edu

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 autonomy 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 neuromarketing. 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 press coverage of novel technologies and their neuromarketing studies in the United States real or potential applications in society (Racine are at the very least considerably comprom- et al., 2005). ised. In academic and medical research centers, subjects volunteering to participate in neuroimaging-based studies are protected Protection of vulnerable parties by Institutional Review Board guidelines, in research, selling, and which can include strict experimental guide- representation of neuromarketing lines because most imaging technologies We first consider a set of issues that merit are considered to be FDA-regulated medical ethical analysis irrespective of whether the devices (FDA, 1998). However, when moved most speculative claims of neuromarketing into commercialized and private enterprise, hold up to rigorous scientific analysis. Ethical such subject protections may not be present, development of neuromarketing requires and the particularly loose restrictions sur- protection of the research subjects, respon- rounding studies for marketing purposes are sible business-to-business advertising, and especially worrying. Moreover, if new tech- accurate representation of the state of the nologies are developed that fall outside the art of the technology to the public. Each of purview of regulatory authorities, even these these duties can be ensconced in an industry- protections may be lost. A key initiative for wide code of ethics that we propose be neuroethics in neuromarketing is to develop adopted by all researchers and vendors of published codes of subject protections equal neuromarketing and enforced by a discerning to those required by academic and medical marketplace of neuromarketing consumers research centers. fMRI, the most prevalent of doing business with companies voluntarily the neuromarketing imaging modalities, is adhering to the code of ethics. Not only would arguably a low-risk technology; nonetheless, adoption of a code of ethics be justified on risks of various sorts are inherent in all brain- moral grounds, but it would also serve to imaging research and all subjects regardless of insulate this young and dynamic industry from the purpose of the study are deserving of accusations of irresponsible behavior. adequate protection and appropriate informed consent procedures. Even thornier than the issue of subject protection is the notion that advanced tech- Human subjects’ protection nology in the neurosciences, in particular It is well established that federally funded fMRI, might allow invasion of the inner scientists working in academic, government, sanctum of private thought. It bears repeating

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb 296 Emily R. Murphy et al. that such a breach is not possible today and sorts. Independent critics have openly and quite may or may not be technically achieved in the rightly condemned neuromarketing efforts that future. Nonetheless, a vigorous discussion has overstate the benefits of the approach. The emerged regarding this possibility (Kulynych, editors of the high-impact journal Nature 2002; Illes and Racine, 2005; Tovino, 2005; Neuroscience succinctly reviewed the dangers Greely, 2006; Alpert, 2007; Appelbaum, 2007; of over interpretation of neuromarketing results, Illes, 2007; Tovino, 2007) and it is certainly noting that the traditional skeptical approach of worth considering how society might manage scientific inquiry is being displaced by a wave of such information if it became technically media hype which suggests that fMRI ‘‘is on the feasible. verge of creating advertising campaigns that we will be unable to resist’’ (Editorial, 2004). In this Preventing exploitation of niche sense, neuromarketing represents just one populations example of a more general problem in neuroimaging research – the question of the degree to Special ethics review should be a minimum which results which are certainly fascinating standard for neuromarketing research that and worthy of continued attention can be used either involves or targets vulnerable popu- to derive bona fide insights about the working lations. Among the individuals that would fall of the human brain (Illes and Racine, 2005), and, under this umbrella are persons (or family with particular relevance to the claims of members of persons) with neurological disease neuromarketing, the accurate prediction of or psychological disorders, children, and other human behavior. Business consumers of neuro- members of legally protected groups (Civil marketing may find their advertising dollars Right Act (2008) 42 U.S.C.A. xx 2000e et seq.; misspent if the technology does not live up to its Coenen, 2007). While such ‘‘segmentation’’ claims and pass the real-world test of accurate and ‘‘target marketing’’ is standard business prediction of actual consumer behavior. How- practice in the marketing industry, there is a ever, we are not overly concerned here with fine line between target marketing and exploi- business-to-business relationships; harms there tation (Sims, 1997). Our neuroethical concern is are primarily the potential for financial loss, about potential harms to vulnerable persons but are not inherently unethical (though they as: (1) subjects in unregulated neuromarketing may not meet industry standards of ‘‘truth-in- research (introduced above), (2) targeted advertising’’) (Frazier, 2007). However, poten- populations who may be especially sensitive tial for actual harm exists if such ‘‘neurohype’’ to trumped-up claims of product effectiveness around the perceived capabilities of neuromar- based on information derived from advanced keting create fear, anxiety, or mistrust in the neuroscience technologies, and (3) people general public. particularly exposed to ‘‘stealth neuromarket- Scientists working in the field of neurobiol- ing’’ techniques that such research and devel- ogy recognize the considerable challenge opment may produce (see below). Fortunately, involved in the translation of the brain’s the prevention of such harms to vulnerable extraordinary connectivity – the human brain persons aligns with profit motive, for as Sims is arguably the most complex biological organ (1997) points out, when targeting a particular in the known universe, with tens of billions of market ‘‘maligns those it tries to serve,’’ it cells, each of which make thousands of undercuts its own business interests. connections with other cells (Purves et al., 2008) – into the complex repertoire of behavior exhibited by humans. At the same Responsible business-to-business time, the general public finds color-coded advertising and public representation images of brains in action accompanied by It is perhaps not surprising that neuromarketing neuroscientific explanations to be particularly oversells its wares – an occupational hazard of persuasive (Dumit, 2003; McCabe and Castel,

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb Neuroethics of neuromarketing 297

2007; Weisberg et al., 2008). This tension leads Stealth neuromarketing to a situation where highly sophisticated scientists, subject to both public adulation In our view, the most vexing of the issues and profit motive, are tempted to provide raised by neuromarketing is in the realm of simplistic answers to what in reality are highly autonomy. One could argue that the essential nuanced questions. objective of marketing as a discipline is to The neuromarketing field has already seen manipulate consumer behavior – effectively, a egregious abuse of such information. In an op- ‘‘soft’’ attack on autonomy. Moreover, many of ed piece in the New York Times, a group of the traditional tools of marketing such as focus academics and neuromarketers presented a groups and polls rely upon nuanced interpret- small body of unpublished data on the ations of human psychology to draw con- results of an fMRI study of political preferences clusions about consumer behavior and then of so-called ‘swing voters’ (Iacaboni et al., use that information to inform marketing 2007). The results were presented essentially decisions. The implicit question in the present as de facto probes into the minds of their discussion is whether the new tools of subjects in one of the most widely read neuromarketing will provide sufficient insight newspapers in the world; for several days into human neural function to allow manip- after its publication, the article topped the ulation of the brain such that the consumer rankings of those most frequently emailed by cannot detect the subterfuge and that such readers of the online version of the New York manipulations result in the desired behavior in Times. Given widespread concerns about at least some exposed persons. Such stealth over-interpretation of fMRI data (Illes et al., neuromarketing is not possible with current 2006b), it was notable that the op-ed piece technology, but if developed would represent contained none of the qualifications that a major incursion on individual autonomy. In would normally accompany a scholarly article this analysis, we deliberately consider a set of in a peer-reviewed journal. Academic col- issues that will only arise with developments in leagues responded with considerable outrage technology that are yet to be realized and may in letters to the editor (Aron et al., 2007) and never come to fruition. Nonetheless, it is in the most visibly in a scathing editorial in Nature best interest of all parties involved in the (Editorial, 2007). Incidents such as this draw discussion that these issues are considered attention to the absence of a code of ethics for today rather than at some unspecified time- responsible media – if not academic – point in the future, possibly in response to an representation in the field of neuromarketing. adverse event. To appreciate how stealth Such misrepresentation can do considerable neuromarketing may come to pass, we present damage to the public trust of science and may a short discourse on phenomena in which even generalize in public perception to create decision-making and motivation occur without anxieties about the perceived motivations of explicit conscious awareness. neuroscientists conducting human neuroima- It is well established that cognition is not a ging research. In the current climate of monolithic process but rather one with various tightening public funds for basic research, submodalities carrying out a variety of func- any such anxiety threatens the future of the tions, some of which have been reasonably field, with potential harms to public health. well delineated. Of relevance to the present Academic and private sectors of neuroscience discussion are two well-studied phenomena in research need to maintain close partnerships cognitive neuroscience. The first is blindsight and work together to promote public trust and (Weiskrantz, 1990), in which individuals with investment in neuroscience research. That damage to portions of their visual cortex trust can be earned with forthright communi- declare themselves unable to see objects cation and full disclosure of risks, benefits, and placed in the damaged portion of their visual limitations of research findings. field, but when asked to guess are easily able to

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb 298 Emily R. Murphy et al. identify the object. These experiments unequi- Recommendations vocally demonstrate that there is a distinction between perception and conscious awareness. We conclude with a preliminary version of a The second phenomenon is implicit learning code of ethics that we recommend be adopted (Reber, 1993), in which normal subjects are by the neuromarketing industry. The over- presented with seemingly random strings of arching goal of this code of ethics is to promote letters and asked to memorize them. Unknown research and development, entrepreneurship, to the individuals is the fact that there is a set of and profitable enterprise alongside beneficent rules being employed, but their attention is and non-harmful use of neuroimaging techno- directed towards memorization in the first part logy at all stages of development, deployment, of the experiment. Later they are asked to and dissemination. These codes should be describe the rules, and after protesting that discussed within the neuromarketing com- they did not know there were any rules, they munity with the advice of independent aca- are asked to guess. Remarkably, subjects demic researchers working in the area of correctly identify the rules over 70% of the neural correlates of decision-making, social time. A recent brief report in Science (Aarts behavior, and consumer preferences, as well as et al., 2008) takes these phenomena one step neuroethicists and professionals in marketing further and demonstrates how subliminal industry ethics. Proactive development of such priming effects can actually motivate and guidelines within the professional community mobilize people to respond more quickly will provide credibility and garner greater and spend extra effort on a simple motor task. acceptance than those that may be imposed The simple but elegant study provides evi- upon the field by regulatory bodies, especially dence for the ‘‘human capacity to rely on if they arise in response to adverse events (Illes mental processes in preparing and motivating et al., 2003). Timeliness in this effort is critical behavior outside of awareness’’ (Aarts et al., given the rapid pace of advancements in the 2008). As the authors note, such responses are field. of considerable utility insofar as they prepare individuals to react quickly as circumstances Protection of research subjects. Policies for necessitate; at the same time, subliminal responsibly managing clinical findings, priming represents an additional step towards including provision of sufficient subject pro- realization of stealth neuromarketing. tections, procedures for informed consent, If it is possible to carry out highly sophisti- and explicit protocols for dealing with inci- cated cognitive tasks such as visual perception dental findings (Illes et al., 2006a) are a or understanding grammatical rules, as well as requirement for any entity involved in brain to enhance motivation and mobilization of research. Furthermore, private companies voluntary action without the relevant neural offering financial incentives for participation computation arising to the level of perceptual in research studies significantly greater than awareness, then it follows that at some point in those offered in academic settings should be the future insights from advanced technology in cautious of undue influence of such incen- the neurosciences might allow corporations, tives, which may cross over into indirect governments and others to influence decisions coercion. While most technologies used and actions regarding brand preference without by neuromarketing may be considered mini- the individual being aware of the subterfuge. mal risk, subjects should be advised and We would propose such an eventuality as the reminded of their right to withdraw from sensible point at which the erosion of personal any study for any reason, including minor autonomy becomes so substantial that one discomfort. might consider regulatory control, voluntary or Protection of vulnerable niche populations otherwise, to protect the citizenry from from marketing exploitation. Policies for unwanted intrusions on individual agency. research subjects’ protection should include

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb Neuroethics of neuromarketing 299

additional ethics review for research done on sustained validity will require neuromark- protected or potentially vulnerable subject eters to align their product with changing populations. In addition, neuromarketing- technologies and expanding neuroscience influenced advertising targeted at specific knowledge. Maintenance of safety and effi- protected consumer groups should aim to cacy verification in any research, develop- beneficently serve the special needs of the ment, and deployment of neuromarketing is population without marginalizing, malign- absolutely required. ing, or otherwise causing harm, whether psychosocial or financial in nature. These recommendations form the basis for Full disclosure of goals, risks, and benefits. immediate and short-term action in the neuro- Disclosure can be achieved through the marketing community and longer-term empiri- publication of ethics principles that have cal research. Multidisciplinary collaboration been adopted to protect the privacy and will enable efficient and positive progress autonomy of human subjects and consu- along this continuum. mers. Publication infers all aspects of the In the 50 years since Vicary’s subliminal process from consent documents to report- imagery marketing stunt, interest in the possib- ing and advertising and applies to both writ- ility that neuroscience might be used in the ten and verbal communication. service of a marketing agenda has remained Accurate media and marketing representa- robust, with the current resurgence of interest tion. Neuromarketing companies bear the and proliferation of companies in the new burden of accurately representing their neuromarketing being noteworthy. It should wares in media and business-to-business be emphasized that there is no evidence that at marketing materials. At a minimum, this the present time that any advanced neurotech- standard encompasses full disclosure of nology permits the types of insights and sub- scientific methods and measures of validity sequent manipulation that Vicary envisaged in mass media formats such as invited (Illes and Racine, 2005; Illes, 2007). However, opinions, editorials, and news reports. the fact that one must insert qualifiers such as Adherence to a code of responsible com- ‘‘at the present time’’ provides ample reason to munication and truth-in-advertising will help carefully consider the implications that such a maintain a positive and trusting public per- development might have and the means by ception of brain science research as well as which it might be sensibly managed. In the promote development of effective technol- meantime, there are a host of ethical issues in ogies. the research, marketing, and deployment of Internal and external validity. Eaton and neuromarketing on the table right now. Such Illes (2007) have outlined the challenges in proactive conduct is at the heart of the neu- initial and sustained product validity in the roethical agenda. commercialization of any neurotechnology. We extend their recommendations here to any marketing product influenced by Acknowledgements neuromarketing research with particular attention to the point that the validity ques- This study was supported by grants from the tions ‘‘arise most acutely for neurotechnol- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Insti- ogy that can be deployed without a tute for Neuroscience, Mental Health and regulatory gatekeeper, such as the FDA’’ Addiction and the Ethics Office of CIHR), the (Eaton and Illes, 2007). At a minimum, Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the internal validity checks should ensure a suf- British Columbia Knowledge Development ficiently comprehensive research database Fund, the Dana Foundation, the Greenwall to provide meaningful and effective results Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation- to neuromarketing consumers. External and funded Law and Neuroscience Project.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb 300 Emily R. Murphy et al.

Biographical notes lization of neuroscience, with a particular interest in the emerging debate over cognitive Emily R. Murphy is a research fellow at the enhancers. Stanford Law School Center for Law and the Biosciences, a research fellow on the MacArthur Foundation-funded Law and Neuro- science Project, and a visiting fellow at the References National Core for Neuroethics, UBC. Dr Mur- Aarts H, Custers R, Marien H. 2008. Preparing and phy received her Ph.D. in behavioral neuro- motivating behavior outside of awareness. science from the University of Cambridge, Science 319: 1639. where her work focused on neural and neuro- Ahlert D, Kenning P, Plassmann H. 2006. A window chemical correlates of behavioral inhibition to the consumer’s mind: application of func- and behavioral flexibility. Her current research tional brain imaging techniques to advertising interests are at the intersection of law and research. In International Advertising and neuroscience, particularly in the areas of neu- Communication. 163–178. roimaging as evidence, and the neuroscience Alpert S. 2007. Brain privacy: how can we of decision-making and drug addiction. protect it? The American Journal of Bioethics Judy Illes is the Director of the National Core 7: 70–73. for Neuroethics at UBC and a pioneer in the Appelbaum PS. 2007. Law & psychiatry: the new lie field with deep interests in ethical, social, and detectors: neuroscience, deception, and the policy challenges at the intersection of the courts. Psychiatric Services 58: 460–462. neurosciences and biomedical ethics. Dr Illes Aron A, Badre D, Brett M, Cacioppo J, Chambers C, has written numerous books, edited volumes Cools R, Engel S, D’Esposito M, Frith C, Harmon- and articles. Her latest book, Neuroethics: Jones E, Jonides J, Knutson B, Phelps L, Poldrack Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice and R, Wager T, Wagner A, Winkielman P. November Policy, was published by Oxford University 14 2007. Politics and the brain (Letter to the Press in 2006. Dr Illes is a member of the Editor). New York Times. Internal Advisory Board for the Institute of Baker S. 2008. What you really want to buy. Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction Business Week. http://www.businessweek. (INMHA) of the Canadian Institutes of Health com/technology/content/jan2008/tc20080127 Research (CIHR), the Institute of Medicine, 697425.htm?chan=technology_technology+ index+page_top+stories [10 March 2008]. Forum on Neuroscience on Neurological Brainard C. 2008. Beware of ‘‘neuropunditry’’. Disorders, the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiat- Columbia Journalism Review. http://www.cjr. ives, and co-Chair of the Committee on Women org/campaign_desk/beware_of_neuropunditry. in Neuroscience for the Society for Neuro- php [11 March 2008]. science. Coenen D. 2007. The future of footnote four. Peter B. Reiner is a Professor in the National Georgia Law Review 41: 797. Core for Neuroethics at the University of Brit- DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services, ish Columbia. Following a distinguished career NIH, and OPRR. 1991. 45 CFR 46. as a research scientist studying the neurobiol- DHHS, Department of Health and Human Services, ogy of behavioral states and the molecular 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164, 2005. underpinnings of neurodegenerative disease, Dickhaut J, McCabe K, Nagode JC, Rustichini A, Dr Reiner became President & CEO of Active Smith K, Pardo JV. 2003. The impact of the Pass Pharmaceuticals, a drug discovery com- certainty context on the process of choice. Pro- pany that he founded to tackle the scourge of ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Alzheimer’s disease. Upon returning to aca- 100: 3536–3541. demic life, Dr Reiner refocused his scholarly Dooley R. 2007. Neuromarketing blog [Internet], work in the area of neuroethics, focusing upon http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/, the ethical issues associated with commercia- accessed on November 26, 2007.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb Neuroethics of neuromarketing 301

Dumit J. 2003. Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans Illes J, Racine E, Kirschen MP. 2006b. A picture is and Biomedical Identity. Princeton University worth 100 words, but which 1000?. In Neu- Press: Princeton, NJ. roethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, Practice, Eaton ML, Illes J. 2007. Commercializing cognitive and Policy, J Illes (ed). Oxford University Press: neurotechnology – the ethical terrain. Nature Oxford; 148–168. Biotechnology 25: 393–397. Karremans JC, Stroebe W, Claus J. 2006. Beyond Editorial. 2004. Brain scam? Nature Neuroscience Vicary’s fantasies: the impact of subliminal prim- 7: 683. ing and brand choice. Journal of Experimental Editorial. 2007. Mind games. Nature 450: 457. Social Psychology 42: 792–798. FDA. 1998. Guidance for institutional review board Kelly M. 2002. The science of shopping. In CBC’s and clinical investigators. Medical devices. Marketplace (Canada). Frazier M. 2007. Hidden persuasion or junk Knutson B, Rick S, Wimmer GE, Prelec D, Loewen- science? Advertising Age 78: 1–2. stein G. 2007. Neural predictors of purchases. Greely HT. 2006. The social effects of advances in Neuron 53: 147–156. neuroscience: legal problems, legal perspectives. Koenigs M, Tranel D. 2008. Prefrontal cortex In Neuroethics: Defining the Issues in Theory, damage abolishes brand-cued changes in cola Practice, and Policy, J Illes (ed). Oxford Uni- preference. Social Cognitive Affect Neuro- versity Press: Oxford; 245–264. science 3: 1–6. Greene K. 2007. Brain sensor for market research. Krugman HE. 1971. Brain wave measures of media Technology Review. http://www.technologyre involvement. Journal of Advertising Research view. com/Biztech/19833/ [10 March 2008]. 11: 3–9. Haq A. 2007. This is your brain on advertising. Kulynych J. 2002. Legal and ethical issues in neu- Business Week. http://www.businessweek. roimaging research: human subjects protection, com/globalbiz/content/oct2007/gb2007108_28 medical privacy, and the public communication 6282.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index of research results. Brain and Cognition 50: global+business [11 March 2008]. 345–357. Iacaboni M, Freedman J, Kaplan J, Jamieson KH, Mast FW, Zaltman G. 2005. A. behavioral window Freedman T, Knapp B, Fitzgerald K. 2007. This on the mind of the market: an application of the is your brain on politics. The New York Times. response time paradigm. Brain Research Bulle- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/ tin 67: 422–427. 11freedman.html?_r=1&sq=marco%20iacoboni% McCabe DP, Castel AD. 2007. Seeing is believing: 202007&st=cse&oref=slogin&scp=1&pagewan- the effect of brain images on judgments of scien- ted=all [18 November 2007]. tific reasoning. Cognition. 107: 343–352. Illes J. 2007. Empirical neuroethics. Can brain ima- McClure SM, Li J, Tomlin D, Cypert KS, Montague ging visualize human thought? Why is neu- LM, Montague PR. 2004. Neural correlates of roethics interested in such a possibility? EMBO behavioral preference for culturally familiar Reports 8(Spec No): S57–S60. drinks. Neuron 44: 379–387. Illes J, Racine E. 2005. Imaging or imagining? Moore TE. 1982. Subliminal advertising: what you A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. see is what you get. Journal of Marketing 46: The American Journal of Bioethics 5: 38–47. 5–18. Park A. 2007. Marketing to your mind. JT Time. Illes J, Fan E, Koenig BA, Raffin TA, Kann D, Atlas http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0, SW. 2003. Self-referred whole-body CT imaging: 9171,1580370,00.html [11 March 2008]. current implications for health care consumers. Plassmann H, Ambler T, Braeutigam S, Kenning P. Radiology 228: 346–351. 2007. What can advertisers learn from neuro- Illes J, Kirschen MP, Edwards E, Stanford LR, Ban- science? International Journal of Advertising dettini P, Cho MK, Ford PJ, Glover GH, Kulynych J, 26: 151–175. Macklin R, et al. 2006a. Ethics. Incidental findings Purves D, Fitzpatrick D, Augustine GJ, Katz LC. in brain imaging research. Science 311: 783– 2008. Neuroscience, 4th edn. Sinauer: 784. Sunderland, MA.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008 DOI: 10.1002/cb 302 Emily R. Murphy et al.

Racine E, Bar-Ilan O, Illes J. 2005. fMRI in the Sims R. 1997. When does target marketing public eye. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 6: become exploitation? Marketing News 31: 159–164. 10. Reber AS. 1993. Implicit Learning and Tacit Smith K, Dickhaut J, McCabe K, Pardo JV. 2002. Knowledge: An Essay on the Cognitive Uncon- Neuronal substrates for choice under ambiguity, scious. Oxford University Press: New York. risk, gains, and losses. Management Science 48: Renvoise´ P, Morin C. 2007. Neuromarketing: 711–718. Understanding the ‘‘Buy Button’’ in Your Cus- Tovino SA. 2005. The conﬁdentiality and privacy tomer’s Brain. T. Nelson: Nashville, TN. implications of functional magnetic resonance Roston E. 2004. The why of buy. Time. http:// imaging. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171, 33: 844–850. 1101040308-596161,00.html. Tovino SA. 2007. Functional neuroimaging and Saletan W. 2007. Peering into the soul. Washington the law: trends and directions for future scholar- Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/ ship. The American Journal of Bioethics 7: 44– content/article/2007/03/16/AR2007031602672. 56. html [11 March 2008]. Weisberg DS, Keil FC, Goodstein J, Rawson E, Gray Schaefer M, Rotte M. 2007a. Thinking on luxury or JR. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience pragmatic brand products: brain responses to explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuro- different categories of culturally based brands. science 20: 470–477. Brain Research 1165: 98–104. Weiskrantz L. 1990. The Ferrier lecture,1989. Out- Schaefer M, Rotte M. 2007b. Favorite brands as looks for blindsight: explicit methodologies for cultural objects modulate reward circuit. Neu- implicit processes. Proceedings of the Royal roreport 18: 141–145. Society of London. Series B, Containing papers Senior C, Smythe H, Cooke R, Shaw RL, Peel E. of a Biological character. Royal Society (Great 2007. Mapping the mind for the modern market Britain) 239: 247–278. researcher. Qualitative Market Research 10: Zaltman G, Kosslyn SM. 2000. Neuroimaging as a 153–167. marketing tool. USPTO, ed. (United States).