cm 771 digest final revised

8/4/2019 CM 771 Digest Final Revised

1/15

Running Head: NEUROMARKETING AND ETHICS

Neuromarketing and Ethics

Challenges Raised by the Possibility of Influencing Buy Buttons in Consumers Brains

DigestBlog Post (revised September 11, 2011)

Christophe Morin

1104 Sir Francis Drake Blvd

San Anselmo, CA 94960

[email protected]

School of Media Psychology, 771 KA with Dr. Jean Pierre Isbouts

Fielding Graduate School

August 21, 2011


2/15

Neuromarketing and Ethics 1

Neuromarketing is an emerging field claiming to provide advertisers with better ways to

understand what triggers buy buttons in consumers brains. While the prospect of improved

advertising has generated excitement in the business community at large [1, 2], critical ethical

issues have also been raised by consumer groups, scientists, and scholars [3, 4]. These concerns,

however, have been largely ignored by the industry.

The State of Advertising Ethics

Deplorably, both the marketing and the advertising industries have a poor reputation

when it comes to applying ethical standards. A 2011 survey conducted by Gallup [5] ranked the

advertising profession at the bottom of the honesty scale with only 11% of participants rating

advertising practitioners with very high or high scores, barely above salespeople and lobbyists.

Table 1: Honesty/Ethics in Profession


3/15


Formed in 1914, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is responsible for keeping

consumers safe from advertisers who are unscrupulous or unethical. According to theDeception

Policy Statementof the FTC, advertising must always be: 1) non-deceptive 2) supported by

evidence to back up expressed or implied claims, and 3) fair. An example of a deceptive ad is

presented in the clip below.

Figure 1: Rapid Shave commercial (1960s)

Despite the legal framework in which both advertisers and advertising agencies are

regulated, it appears that the advertising industry has been able to operate without much regard

for what constitutes ethical advertising, primarily because of the rather subjective nature of the

what defines deception or fairness [6]. Over the last fifty years, a complex set of laws combined

with a general industry belief that ethics dont matter in advertising have fostered the idea that

the practice of advertising should evolve without strong government intervention.. Furthermore,

when the government does intervene, it faces fierce legal resistance from lobbying groups

invoking the constitutional right of free speech. Commercial speech is indeed protected under the

First Amendment as long as it does not distort or falsify advertising claims [7]. In this context,

the practice of deceptive advertising has flourished.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/asr/v008/videos/8.3unit13_mov02.mp4


4/15


The Practice of Deceptive Advertising

We all recognize that advertisers develop creative ways to influence us to buy products

and services we may not always want or need. However, there is a fine line between being

influenced and being manipulated, which the current legal environment does not appear to

address effectively. Yet, the practice of producing deceptive messaging seems to have especially

flourished over the last ten years, especially subliminal and mind controlling messages.

Subliminal Messages

The word subliminal conveys the notion that a stimulus is having an effect below our

level of conscious awareness. [8]. In 1957, James Vicary claimed that he had successfully used

subliminal messages to increase sales of Coca Cola and popcorn in a movie theater [9].

However, his research was never replicated and Vicary eventually admitted he had invented the

story for promotional purposes. Since the 60s, most of the literature on subliminal advertising

has been fueled by conspiracy theorists such as August Bullock[10].

Figure 2: The Secret Sales Pitch


5/15


But even though 85% of people believe advertisers use subliminal messaging to persuade

[11], academics in general disagree. A research paper published in 2004 by Sheri Broyles insists

that a review of 50 years of studies on subliminal advertising shows the effects are negligible

[12]. Yet, there is research evidence confirming that subliminal effectdoes exist. For instance,

Karremans, Stroebe, and Claus demonstrated that it is possible to positively affect participants

choice of drink options after using subliminal priming techniques [9]. The prime was delivered

via a computer display showing a brand of tea for 23 ms, a time period known to be too short for

conscious processing. Cooper and Cooper [13] were also able to manipulate behavior by

showing cans of Coca Cola and the word thirsty.

While there are basically no laws regulating the production of subliminal advertising

today, there are regulatory policies that specifically forbid subliminal broadcasting on public

airwaves. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) is the guardian of the directive

banning content that is designed to be perceived on a subconscious level only [14]. While

networks claim to comply however, several videos posted on social media show that violations

have occurred.

Figure 3: Food Network featuring subliminal advertising
http://youtu.be/LMzbwa6PvEE


6/15


More importantly though, most scholars agree that the FCC has little if any influence to

enforce the directive over the Internet, by far the single most powerful platform available today

to disseminate subliminal messages [15].

Mind Controlling Messages

A mind controlling message attempts to hijack consumers ability to think, effectively

blocking their free will. According to Kathleen Taylor, advertising can involve a deliberate intent

to control the mind or brainwash consumers [16] because it aims to override the victims

capacity to rationalize about his or her situation and beliefs (p. 50). For instance, the use of

excessive emotions is an effective way to trigger buying responses below the level of

consciousness. Likewise, repetition of a simple message creates patterns of activity in the brain

that wire for particular cravings or urges. Taylor calls these patterns cogwebs. Derren Brown, a

popular British illusionist has produced multiple video clips featuring how mind control

techniques work on people. In the clip below, he unveils how it is possible to subconsciously

influence how two advertising executives come up with creative ideas for a campaign.

Figure 4: Mind Control
http://youtu.be/f29kF1vZ62o


7/15


Now that I have established that the practice of producing deceptive advertising messages

exists, is poorly regulated, and that both subliminal and mind controlling messages have proven

effects, it is easy to understand why debating ethics and neuromarketing is an important and

often controversial issue. After all, the rapid growth of new interactive media platforms provides

advertisers endless opportunities to experiment with engaging messages, many of which

trigger strong and frequent emotional responses at pre-conscious or even sub-conscious levels.

Neuromarketing Ethics

In order to understand the ethical issues surrounding the use of neuroscientific methods in

advertising researcher, it is important to clarify how these methods actually work. While a

growing range of tools claim to measure brain responses without cognitive or affective

participation from participants, only a few are recognized to deliver credible and dependable

measurements of neuronal activity: EEG andfMRI.

EEG

EEGis a rather old technology in neurology but is considered a good way to measure

neuronal activity while people respond to advertising stimuli. . When active, neurons produce a

tiny electrical current that can be amplified and recorded.


8/15


Figure 5: EEG helmet

The first use of EEG for the study of advertising effectiveness can be traced back to 1971

[17]. More recent studies have confirmed that the cortical activity of subjects who remember

commercials is significantly different than those who dont, especially in frontal and parietal

areas of the brain [18] and that the cortical activity of swing voters is sharply different that the

activity of supporters [19]. Even though EEG has high temporal resolution by recording neural

activity in milliseconds, it offers low spatial resolution because it cannot precisely locate where

the neurons are firing in the brain. This limitation is especially severe in deeper, older structures

such as the limbic system or the brain stem that mediate many of the emotional and instinctual

aspects of our behavior.

fMRI

Unlike EEG,fMRI is based on scanning the change of blood flow in the brain. When

neurons fire, energy is delivered to them by the blood flow and quickly metabolized. The spatial

resolution offMRI is 10 times better than EEG while the temporal resolution of the technology is

considerably inferior. Nevertheless,fMRI has the major advantage of being able to image deep


9/15


brain structures, especially those involved in mediating emotional responses. All these factors

combined explain whyfMRI has become the most respected brain imaging technique among

academic researchers who investigate advertising effectiveness.

Figure 6: fMRI scanner

ManyfMRI studies have shown that advertising messages can affect brain activity and

that correlations exist between specific brain areas and key variables such as arousal, emotional

valence, and memorization. For instance, several critical brain areas have been found to be more

active in the presence of ads that produce positive emotional valence [20]. Also, Klucharev,

Smidts, & Fernandez [21] measured that celebrities enhance the memory encoding for objects

they are paired with in ads. Another importantfMRI study showed that activity in the pre-frontal

cortex can increase relative to baseline when participants read persuasive messages attributed to

experts [22].

Based on the current state of research produced using neuromarketing techniques, it is

difficult to predict whether or not the field will continue to blossom. Undeniably though, the

commercialization of neurotechnology represents a serious public issue that raises many ethical

questions [23]. Yet, only a handful of journal articles discussing ethics and neuromarketing have

been published in the last five years. I believe that there are effectively three key ethical


10/15


questions which must be addressed.

Is the Protection of Human Subjects Adequate?

The current ethical context in which organizations can conduct research using human

subjects is well defined for academics, medical practitioners, and/or researchers using federal

funding and is protected under what is referred to as the common rule [24]. Curiously though,

none of these standards apply to the advertising research industry [3] and, of course, by

extension to neuromarketing companies. For decades, self-regulation has been assumed to

guarantee the protection of research participants in marketing studies. Additionally, medical

devices are regulated by the FDA dictating rules and regulations that users offMRI and EEG are

supposed to follow. While this may provide adequate guarantees that such devices are not used

carelessly, it does not insure that specific research designs will not inflict psychological or

physiological harm during an experiment. Thus, the protection of neuromarketing participants

from ethical misconduct appears poorly addressed by both the government and the

neuromarketing research industry. A review of websites of the top neuromarketing research

companies also confirms that they provide little if any information on the protocols and ethical

guidelines they follow during their studies [25]..

Is Privacy of Thoughts Violated?

A number of scholars have expressed major concerns over the possibility that the

privacy of thoughts may be violated by neuromarketing practitioners [3, 26]. In the last decades,

marketing researchers have dramatically improved their ability to collect consumer data from

loyalty cards, credit cards, or online browsing records [26]. But nothing compares to the ability

to probe directly the consumers mind. Indeed, being able to observe subconscious cognitive and

affective processes represents a huge leap in cracking the code of possible buy buttons in the


11/15


brain [27]. But many believe that inner thoughts are sacred and are constitutionally protected

[28]. For instance, Eaton and Illes [23] warn that some private information such as personality

traits, emotions, memories, sexual preferences, and even lies may be revealed by a brain scan.

While the concerns about privacy violation appear legitimate, published studies show

that scientists have a very limited ability to decode our private thoughts. According to Fisher for

instance, the current state of imaging technology does not allow for accurate, deterministic

predictions of human decision making [25]. Additionally, as long as participants provide

consent and researchers guarantee confidentiality, no laws are effectively broken. Nevertheless,

the current ethical context in which neuromarketing companies are allowed to operate does not

seem to address the issue adequately.

Can Neuromarketing Findings Harm the Public?

There are two types of neuromarketing findings that may harm participants and possibly

the public at large: incidental findings and manipulative insights.

Incidental findings occur when brain abnormalities are identified as a result of

performing a brain scan during a research protocol, such as the presence of a tumor. The

frequency and seriousness of such findings have been extensively documented while usingfMRI.

For instance, Nelson estimates that more than 5% of brain scans produce incidental findings [29].

Most neuromarketing companies are typically ill-equipped to address incidental findings because

they are not required to adopt a particular protocol for handling incidental findings and they

typically dont use a board-certified neuroradiologist.

Manipulative insights may be used to increase the volume of deceptive messages toward

the general public. Since the bulk of neuromarketing research is private, little is known about the

quantity of deceptive messages that are designed using manipulative insights. Reports from


12/15


neuromarketing studies which are published or shared with the public on various blogs [30, 31]

would suggest that neuromarketing research is used primarily to weed out the worst ads from the

best rather than to build elaborate blueprints of the perfect persuasive message. There is only one

scholarly paper [32] addressing the degree to which neuromarketing may harm consumers and it

strongly suggests that there is no evidence advertisers are gaining more power to manipulate

consumers by conducting neuromarketing studies. Not all scholars agree though. Wilson, Gaines

& Hill believe that the near future will see more commercial integration of neuromarketing

findings to manipulate [26]. They imagine a not distant future in which consumers brains will be

scanned on the spot so that advertisers can deliver instant customized messages; a world in

which free will is completely controlled by big brands, such as the world described in the

popular movie Minority Report.

Figure 7: Minority Report

Conclusion

The ethical context in which advertising agencies operate in the United States is both

weak and fragile. Additionally, the growth of new digital platforms has provided advertisers with

more options to test and deploy more deceptive messages, especially to promote products that
http://youtu.be/oBaiKsYUdvg


13/15


are heavily regulated such as alcohol and tobacco. A largely self-regulated environment makes it

potentially easier for advertisers using neuromarketing insights to increase their ability to

manipulate consumers. However, there is still limited evidence that advertising agencies have

gained more manipulative power using neuromarketing findings. First, the complexity of the

tools used to investigate brain responses in front of advertising is poorly understood by agencies.

Second, there is an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that interpreting

the data generated by neuroimaging remains in its infancy. Clearly, the commercial leverage

gained by advertisers using neuromarketing is, if any, highly speculative.

However, it remains conceivable that neuromarketing insights may be used to increase

the volume of deceptive messages in the near future. Thats why it is timely and critical that

scholars and researchers continue to debate ethical and legal issues that are presented in this blog

post. It will foster a productive dialogue on what neuromarketing can actually do to enhance the

science of consumer behavior while influencing future policies protecting vulnerable groups

from highly manipulative strategies.


14/15


References

1. Lee, N., L. Broderick, and L. Chamberlain, What is 'neuromarketing'? A discussion and

agenda for future research. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2006. 63: p. 200-

204.

2. Kenning, P., Plassmann, H., Ahlert, D,Applications of functional magnetic resonance

imaging for market research. Qualitative Market Research, 2007. 2: p. 135-152.3. Murphy, E.R., J. Illes, and P.B. Reiner,Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of

Consumer Behavior, 2008. 7: p. 293-302.

4. Senior, C., P. Haggard, and J. Oates (2011)A discussion paper: neuroethics and the

British Psychological Society research ethics code.

5. Gallup.Honesty and ethics in professions. 2011 [cited 2011 6/18/2011]; Available from:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx .6. Drumwright, M.E. and P.E. Murphy, The current state of advertising ethics. Journal of

Advertising, 2009. 38(Spring): p. 85-107.

7. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council. 1976,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

8. Merriam-Webster,Limen. 2011, Encyclopaedia Britannica.9. Karremans, J.C., W. Stroebe, and J. Claus,Beyond Vicary's fantasies: The impact ofsubliminal priming and brand choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2006.

42: p. 792-798.

10. Bullock, A., The secret sales pitch: an overview of subliminal advertising. 2004, San

Jose, CA: Norwich.11. Rogers, M. and K.H. Smith, Public perceptions of subliminal advertsing: why

practitioners shouldnt ignore this issue. Journal of Advertising Research, 1993. 33: p.

10-18.

12. Broyles, S.J., Subliminal advertising and the perpetual popularity of playing to people's

paranoia. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2006. 40(2): p. 392-406.

13. Cooper, J. and G. Cooper, Subliminal motivation: A story revisited. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 2002. 32: p. 2213-2227.

14. FCC. The public and broadcasting: subliminal programming. 2008; Available from:http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc20258756

8.

15. Rapp, J., R.P. Hill, and R.M. Wilson,Advertising and consumer privacy. Journal ofAdvertising, 2009. 38(4): p. 51-61.

16. Taylor, K.,Brain washing: The science of thought control. 2004, New York: Oxford

University Press.17. Krugman, H.E.,Brain wave measures of media involvement. Journal of Advertising

Research, 1971. 1: p. 3-9.

18. Astolfi, L., et al.,Neural basis for brain responses to TV commercials: A high-resolutionEEG study. Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, 2008. 16(6): p. 522-531.

19. Vecchiato, G., et al.,EEG Analysis of the Brain Activity during the Observation of

Commercial, Political, or Public Service Announcements. Computational Intelligence

and Neuroscience, 2010. 2010(985867): p. 1.20. Mobbs, D., et al., Personality predicts activity in reward and emotional regions

associated with humor. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2005(102): p.

16502-16506.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspxhttp://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspxhttp://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587568http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587568http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587568http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587568http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/public_and_broadcasting.html#_Toc202587568http://www.gallup.com/poll/1654/honesty-ethics-professions.aspx


15/15


21. Klucharev, V., A. Smidts, and G. Fernndez,Brain mechanisms of persuasion: how

'expert power' modulates memory and attitudes. Social Cognitive AffectiveNeuroscience, 2008. 3(4): p. 353-366.

22. Falk, E., et al., Predicting Persuasion-Induced Behavior Change from the Brain. Journal

of Neuroscience, 2010. 30(25): p. 8421-8424.

23. Eaton, M.L. and J. Illes, Commercializing cognitive neurotechnologythe ethicalterrain. Nature Biotechnology, 2007. 25(4): p. 393-397.

24. DHHS, Common Rule, D.o.H.a.H. Services, Editor. 1979.

25. Fisher, C.E., L. Chin, and R. Klitzman,Defining neuromarketing: Practices and

professional challenges. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 2010. 18(4): p. 230-237.

26. Wilson, R.M., J. Gaines, and R.P. Hill,Neuromarketing and consumer free will. The

Journal of Consumer Affairs, 2008. 42(3): p. 389-410.27. Renvoise, P. and C. Morin,Neuromarketing: Understand the buy buttons in your

customer's brain. 2007, Wishita, K: Nelson Publishing.

28. Tovino, S.A., The visible brain: privacy issues, in Graduate School of Biomedical

Sciences of Galveston. 2006, The University of Texas: Galveston.

29. Nelson, C.A.,Incidental findings in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain research.Journal of Law, Medecine and Ethics, 2008(Summer): p. 315-319.

30. Dooley, R., htt:www.neurosciencemarketing.com. 2011.31. Morin, C.,http://www.neuromarketing.com, inNeuromarketing.com. 2011.

32. Ariely, D. and G.S. Berns,Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging inbusiness. Nature reviews Neuroscience, 2010(March).
http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/http://www.neuromarketing.com/http://www.neuromarketing.com/http://www.neuromarketing.com/http://www.neuromarketing.com/http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/

cm 771 digest final revised

Documents