¡Descarga Nanomarketing: Advancements and Ethical Considerations in Neuromarketing Research - Prof. y más Ejercicios en PDF de Psicología solo en Docsity!
Nanomarketing: A New Frontier
for Neuromarketing
Antonio Mileti, Gianluigi Guido, and M. Irene Prete
University of Salento, Italy
ABSTRACT
The emergence of neuromarketing has significantly advanced conventional marketing research, illuminating how unconscious responses and emotions impact consumers’ perceptions and decision-making processes. Neuromarketing is founded on the assumption that individual sensory and motor systems can be identified in specific networks of brain cells, the observation of which can reveal the unconscious or emotional characteristics of consumer decision making. Yet, neuromarketing technologies present several limitations that can impede the extension and validation of their application: (i) the development of high-priced and time-restricted neuroimaging experiments; (ii) the employment of large and immovable devices confined to artificial laboratory environments; (iii) the use of a single neuroimaging technology at a time (usually the functional magnetic resonance imaging); (iv) the use of a single nonneuroimaging device at a time; and (v) the potentially unethical manipulation of research subjects. One way to address these issues involves nanotechnologies, which present a ground-breaking opportunity for neuromarketing research. These technologies encompass not only the traditional notion of structures, devices, and systems created by limiting shape and size at the nanometer scale, but also the new miniaturized tools based on one or more nanocomponents. The integration of neuromarketing and nanotechnologies could start a new field of research, which is termed here nanomarketing****. Nanomarketing makes it possible to: (i) carry out noninvasive and nonintrusive experiments in shopping places; (ii) monitor consumers’ mental processes in real time; (iii) combine different technologies to corroborate results obtained by different neuroscientific tools; (iv) integrate neurophysiological field indicators with laboratory neuroimaging results; and (v) highlight ethical issues raised by the use of these novel, portable, and easy-to-use nanodevices. This study thus has a twofold aim: (i) investigating both the limitations and opportunities, for researchers and practitioners, that accompany the miniaturization process and application of nanotechnologies to neuromarketing; and (ii) providing a critical review of the aforementioned limitations, highlighting the theoretical and managerial implications, and summarizing the discussion for future research. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Over the last decade, the emergence of neuromarket- ing has significantly advanced conventional marketing research, illuminating how unconscious responses and emotions impact consumers’ perceptions and decision- making processes. Neuromarketing employs the con- cepts and techniques of cognitive neuroscience —that is, the investigation of the brain mechanisms underlying cognition. By concentrating on the neural substrates of psychological processes and their behavioral expres- sions (Gazzaniga, Ivry, & Mangun, 2002), this new field of research seeks to formulate, implement, and evalu- ate marketing plans and actions (Smidts, 2002). Neu- romarketing is based on two postulations: first, that individual sensory and motor systems can be identified in specific networks of brain cells; and second, that ob- serving these networks can reveal the unconscious or emotional characteristics of consumer decision making that conventional qualitative and quantitative research methods cannot (cf. Achrol & Kotler, 2012).
Yet, neuromarketing technologies present some par- ticular weaknesses that can impede the extension and validation of their applications, and which can be sum- marized in the following five limitations. First, the high costs of neuromarketing devices require researchers to limit the amount of time devoted to empirical stud- ies, and, as a result, researchers cannot afford to continuously monitor consumers’ mental and physiological processes. Second, the most advanced technologies in neuromarketing research are large and immovable devices , confined to artificial environ- ments in laboratories; this characteristic can distort individuals’ perceptions of consumption and impede a broad understanding of consumers’ emotional and behavioral states. Third, neuromarketing studies usually employ a single research technology at a time , therefore limiting exploration into the relationships between the different neurophysiological elements comprising consumer behavior (Kable, 2011). Fourth,
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 33(8): 664–674 (August 2016) View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar. 664
the results obtained by neuroimaging techniques, mainly functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), are generally not aligned with other complementary neuroscientific tools , such as behavioral indicators applied in everyday life on large-scale samples. Fifth, neuromarketing invokes severe moral, social, and ethical considerations , such as the “buy bottom in the brain” myth, which describes attempts to find a specific human brain region that could drive and control unconscious consumption behavior (Murphy, Illes, & Reiner, 2008; Senior & Lee, 2008; Ulman, Cakar, & Yildiz, 2015). One way to address the above issues is through nanotechnologies, which represent a ground-breaking development. Such technologies are commonly under- stood as the “design, characterisation, production and application of structures, devices and systems by con- trolling shape and size at the nanometre scale” (The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineer- ing, 2004). However, the definition can also more broadly encompass new, miniaturized tools based on one or more nanocomponents, which exploit the ul- timate technological capabilities of mechanical, elec- tronic, magnetic, and biological systems (Jasinsky & Petroff, 2000). Nanotechnologies—the so-called “tech- nology of the small” (Courtney, 2008)—have succeeded in miniaturizing complex tools into nanodevices, which can obtain enhanced results at minimal dimensions and costs. The integration of neuromarketing and nanotechnologies drives the impetus for a new field of research, which is termed here nanomarketing. Nanomarketing makes it possible to: (i) carry out non- invasive and nonintrusive experiments in shopping places; (ii) monitor consumers’ mental processes in real time; (iii) combine various technologies to corroborate the results obtained by different neuroscientific tools; (iv) associate neurophysiological field indicators with laboratory neuroimaging results; and (v) highlight eth- ical issues raised by the use of these novel, portable and easy-to-use nanodevices. The goal of this arti- cle is to propose an efficacious integration of neu- romarketing tools with miniaturized, portable, non- intrusive, and wireless nanotechnology devices (i.e., in the broader sense, nanomarketing technologies). This study’s aim is, thus, twofold: first, it inves- tigates the effects and potentialities of nanotech- nologies when applied to neuromarketing, based on recent theoretical and empirical research; and sec- ond, it provides a critical review of the above- mentioned limits, examined in light of recent literature advancements. This article is structured in three sections. The first section provides an overview of the aforesaid five limi- tations, as well as the purposes and problems stemming from neuromarketing technologies. The second section illustrates the new nanodevices and their potential neu- romarketing applications, describing five opportunities that align with the five limits. The third section dis- cusses the managerial and theoretical implications of
implementing nanomarketing devices , and then offers some conclusions.
LIMITATIONS OF NEUROMARKETING
TOOLS
One of the key concepts of the digital age is how individuals’ senses influence the consumption expe- rience (Achrol & Kotler, 2012). To this end, re- searchers have striven to integrate psychological, phys- iological, and behavioral neurophysiological research (Zaltman, 2003), the fruits of which have revealed two bases for merging marketing and neuroscience. From a marketing perspective, scientists are giving increas- ing attention to the unconscious and emotional aspects of decision making (Bechara & Damasio, 2005). From a neuroscience perspective, there is the postulation that human cognitive, perceptual, and emotional pro- cesses arise from the electrochemical activity of specific networks of cells in the brain (Cohen, 2012). Under- standing the role of emotions is crucial for both market- ing researchers and neuroscientists, though the fields define emotions differently. The former group defines them as states of readiness to act which arise from the evaluation of events or thoughts, together with physiological processes and behavioral manifestations (Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999); the latter group evaluate them as “a collection of changes in body and brain states triggered by a dedicated brain system that responds to specific contents on one’s perceptions, ac- tual or recalled, relative to a particular object or event” (Bechara & Damasio, 2005, p. 339). Emotions are no longer considered distinct from reason and rational- ity; rather, they are a means of prescreening numerous options as part of rational decision making (Damasio, 1995). Thus, emotions are essential to purchasing and consumption settings, and particularly to perception, attention and memory (see Dolan, 2002, for a review). To measure consumers’ emotions, neuromarketing research uses various instruments and techniques that feature different levels of complexity, and as such, achieve distinct results (Kable, 2011). These can be classified into three main categories: the first and the second ones both employ neuroimaging tools—nuclear medicine devices able to obtain in vivo nervous system information—as well as use techniques that respectively measure neuronal metabolism and brain electrical activity; the third one includes tools aimed at evaluating neurophysiological indicators of individuals’ mental states. The first category includes the most advanced scientific neuroimaging devices, such as the fMRI and positron emission tomography (PET). The fMRI is based on the principle of nuclear magnetic resonance and measures blood oxygen levels in order to identify the specific brain regions activated in response to specific stimuli. The PET captures details about cerebral activity during cognitive or
NANOMARKETING: A NEW FRONTIER 665
Limitation Number 3: The Use of a Single
Neuroimaging Technology at a Time—fMRI
The fMRI—which is based on the hemodynamic re- sponse function uncovered in the 1990s (Kwong et al., 1992; Ogawa, Lee, Kay, & Tank, 1990)—represents the most advanced and predictive technique in this field (Venkatraman et al., 2015). As such, it is the most used technology in empirical neuromarketing studies on consumer behavior; in fact, about 70% of these experiments only apply this single methodology (Kable, 2011). While fMRI has revolutionized neuro- marketing research, the technology nonetheless con- tains some important limitations (Reimann, Schilke, Weber, Neuhaus, & Zaichkowsky, 2011). One of the major constraints of fMRI concerns the uncertain reli- ability and validity of its results (Kenning et al., 2007). The results of fMRI not only represent a measure of brain activity during the accomplishment of a certain task, but also allow reverse inferences from brain acti- vation to brain function (Reimann et al., 2011). How- ever, some authors have emphasized the inaccuracy of fMRI, noting that it only provides indirect measures of cortical activities (e.g., Hubert & Kenning, 2008). Likewise, Garcia and Saad (2008) underlined that the level of sophistication achieved by fMRI and empiri- cal neuroimaging techniques could create the illusion of explanatory depth, even as their results lack robust theoretical frameworks. In addition, the fMRI suffers limitations related to the absence of a detailed cere- bral functions map (Yoon, Gutchess, Feinberg, & Polk, 2006), as different brain areas can simultaneously con- trol various functions. As a result, interpretations of fMRI findings can be highly error-prone, particularly when trying to connect performance to related cere- bral activities (Kenning et al., 2007). Another limitation of neuroimaging techniques is their temporal resolu- tion properties. In particular, notwithstanding spatial resolution of fMRI is higher than other neuroimaging methods, and allow to discriminate between stimuli oc- curred at a one-second time interval, it complicates the measurement of stimuli which produce responses at a quicker time interval (Reimann et al., 2011). The cur- rent empirical marketing literature highlights that the relationship between purchase decisions and cognitive processes is multifaceted and cannot be restricted to the activation of a single brain area (Ariely & Berns, 2010). Moreover, the cerebral variations that occur in response to experiment stimuli may be too modest for fMRI, or analogous neuroimaging tools, to detect in their current state (e.g., Logothetis, 2008; Miller, 2008). Limiting the field of neuromarketing to the application of a single, al- beit advanced, technology could produce an inadequate understanding of the relationships between neurophys- iological processes and behavior (Kenning, Marci, & Calvert, 2008). To this end, some authors (e.g., Kenning et al., 2007; Zurawicki, 2010) assert that the simulta- neous use of various tools could advance neuroscientific research on consumer behavior.
Limitation Number 4: The Use of a Single
Nonneuroimaging Device at a Time
Physiological measurements provide a basic vision of an individual’s autonomy and involuntarily reactions to external stimuli. By combining those techniques with neuroimaging tools, neuromarketing studies can de- vise various methodologies that capture useful informa- tion about consumers’ emotional states (Wang & Minor, 2008). Indeed, the evaluation of physiological responses could provide a basic comprehension of the automatic and involuntarily reactions of individuals to external stimuli. Despite their advantages, nonneuroimaging techniques have prompted an intense debate in the scientific community on the validity and acceptance of their findings (for a review, see Wang & Minor, 2008). The main objection is that each methodology, if individ- ually considered, derives its results from the analysis of one signal at a time (Kenning et al., 2007). Further- more, these techniques, while academically valid, show various limits (Wang & Minor, 2008). For instance, both the EEG—one of the most widely used and rapid noninvasive devices for brain wave analysis—and the Steady State Topography —an advanced version of the EEG (Silberstein & Nield, 2008)—are constrained in terms of brain exploration (Ohme, Reykowska, Wiener, & Choromanska, 2009). Meanwhile, the pupillary re- sponse has been criticized for providing only tenuous evidence of the relationship between psychological pro- cesses and pupil dilation. Similarly, several criticisms have been leveled at studies using electrodermal anal- ysis , mainly involving the correct placement of skin sensors (Stewart & Furse, 1982). Finally, Kroeber-Riel (1979) criticized eye-tracking as an unreliable physio- logical measure.
Limitation Number 5: The Moral, Social,
and Ethical Abuses of Neuromarketing
Devices
The study of brain mechanisms has spawned the in- terdisciplinary field of “neuroethics” (Roskies, 2002; Vl ˘asceanu, 2014), which includes both the “ethics of neuroscience” and the “neuroscience of ethics.” The for- mer deals with the moral, social and ethical questions related to the design and implementation of neuro- science experiments, as well as their effects on existing ethical, social, and legal structures. The latter refers to the study of free-will, self-control, personal iden- tity, and intention from the viewpoint of brain perfor- mance (Roskies, 2002). The emergence of neuroethics is partly due to the growing sense of public aversion and protest that accompanies neuromarketing (Ulman et al., 2015). The field is frequently suspected of ma- nipulative abuses stemming from “reading” consumers’ minds and “guiding” their purchase choices. Neuromar- keting research has also been criticized for its impact on human dignity—here referring to the “integrity of
NANOMARKETING: A NEW FRONTIER 667
moral stature and dignity of identity based on a set of rights on part of the human being” (Ulman et al., 2015, p. 1275)—as well as its potential violations of bioethi- cal principles and individual values, such as autonomy, self-determination, confidentiality, and respect for pri- vate life (Ulman et al., 2015). Some have responded to these claims by asserting that neuromarketing cannot interpret consumers’ thoughts nor it can manage indi- viduals’ purchasing choices. The technologies involved are still imprecise and cannot provide a deep explana- tion of the true brain mechanisms (Fugate, 2007). Yet, several authors (e.g., Wilson, Gaines, & Hill, 2008) have pointed out instances of neuromarketing researchers attempting to manipulate consumers’ purchase decisions by acting primarily on their emotions. Going forward, there are three ethical areas that need to be addressed: participants’ degree of awareness and com- prehension regarding the objectives and potentialities of the experiments; the transparency of research pro- tocols, specifically in relation to consequences deriving from the marketing strategies carried out by companies or other organizations; and the creation of proper legis- lation to accompany the rapid development of this new discipline (Murphy et al., 2008).
OPPORTUNITIES OF NANOMARKETING
TECHNOLOGIES
According to Drexler (1996), nanotechnology will evolve to the point where it can build new physical structures in progressive stages—from nanoscale, to micro-scale, to macro-scale. Since that writing, miniaturization ad- vancements have attracted the attention of several eco- nomic markets and industries (Courtney, 2008), such as the textile sector (Syduzzaman, Patwary, Farhana, & Ahmed, 2015) and the educational field (Kapoor, Burleson, & Picard, 2007). The military and athletic fields have moved forward with devices able to control physiological parameters, while the biomedical field has invested significantly in bio-analytic tools and med- ical devices (Heath, 2015). In this latter case, universi- ties and companies are particularly focused on creating Ambient Assisted Living (AAL) technologies, aiming to reduce hospitalization through remote control moni- toring and assistance, and ideally improve patients’ lifestyles without interfering in their everyday activ- ities (Fernandes et al., 2010). These initiatives have re- sulted in new portable and wearable devices, capable of contextually recording and transmitting several neuro- logical, biological, and physiological signals in real time (Heath, 2015). In neuroscience, meanwhile, nanotech- nologies are being used to measure neurophysiological signals, especially in the evaluation of individuals’ emo- tional states, by means of sophisticated algorithms that can decode and classify specific neurological and phys- iological patterns in relation to different emotions. On this basis, the following subsections outline five new opportunities for nanomarketing research that
each addresses one of the aforementioned limitations concerning neuromarketing applications (see Table 1). These are the opportunity to: (i) employ nanomarket- ing technologies to measure emotional states in real time; (ii) use unobtrusive and portable nanomarketing devices; (iii) apply multifunctional nanomarketing de- vices to measure both neuronal and bio-physiological signals; (iv) combine laboratory experiments with daily life tests involving nanodevices; and (v) balance ad- vanced nanomarketing techniques with moral, social, and ethical requirements.
Opportunity Number 1: The Employment
of Nanomarketing Technologies to Measure
Emotional States in Real Time
A potential way to improve neuromarketing methodolo- gies is to observe consumers’ mental processes in real time. Future nanomarketing research will use remote control methods to monitor consumers in their every- day life. Nanotechnologies have enabled the development of small, advanced, wireless devices that can remotely measure consumers’ emotional states and behaviors in real time (Brown et al., 2010). Although these tools were initially limited to the telemedicine sector, they have since been extended to the military sector for the pur- pose of technological war, and, as well as to the leisure time and PC entertainment industries and, of course, to neuromarketing studies (Achrol & Kotler, 2012). The most advanced nanodevices use new pro- totypes and products that can wirelessly and unobtrusively record heart rates, breathing and mus- cle activities, skin conductivity, and movement, all with an excellent signal quality (Brown et al., 2010). This technology also extends to large, sophisticated mon- itoring devices, such as the EEG, which allow brain analyses to travel seamlessly from the hospital- based diagnostic to long-distance neuromarketing ap- pliances (Balanou, van Gils, & Vanhala, 2013). Further nanodevices have been proposed, such as a wearable, contactless and wireless EEG/EEG monitor able to measure cardiac, and neural signals (Chi et al., 2010); a real-time EEG-based system for detecting drowsi- ness during driving (Tsai, Hu, Kuo, & Shyu, 2009); and a device that integrates a mobile and wireless EEG system and a signal-processing platform into a wear- able and wireless brain–computer interface system (Wang, Wang, & Jung, 2011). These devices have also been applied in marketing research and advertising, and permit the measurement of brain activity, heart rates, breathing, head rotations, body temperature, and eye movements with an aim toward detecting emo- tional states (Balanou et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2010). Wireless and remote-controlled nanodevices could al- low for the continuous monitoring of subjects’ neuro- physiological processes, thus eliminating the typical limitations and artificiality of laboratory studies while making the results more generalizable to everyday life
668 MILETI, GUIDO, AND PRETE
solutions focused on redesigning brains caps to be more stylish and comfortable (Balanou et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2010). Such developments speak to a larger trend of evolving portable and mobile devices into wear- able neurophysiological monitoring systems, capable of measuring simple physiological signals alongside more complex neurological processes (Pandian et al., 2008). In this regard, there are three main typologies of miniaturized devices, according to their degree of com- fort for and contact with the tester: digital devices , portable devices, and environmental devices. Digital devices are easy-to-use, but not necessarily portable systems that can be employed in daily life. They can measure simple and physical parameters, such as pres- sure on a mouse or posture in a chair (Kapoor et al., 2007). Portable devices , meanwhile, encompass the fol- lowing: visible portable devices , invisible portable de- vices , and wearable devices. Visible portable devices are mobilized, but optically invasive systems aimed at measuring both physiological and cerebral activi- ties. Encompassing tools such as the EEG and ECG have been introduced in telemedicine and are ben- eficial when individuals actively participate in dis- ease management (Korhonen, Parkka, & van Gils, 2003). Invisible portable devices , by contrast, are mo- bile systems that are nonintrusive and optically non- invasive. Although less sophisticated than their visible counterparts and usually limited to the measurement of physiological parameters, they can be integrated seamlessly into users’ daily life as watches, glasses, or jewels, thus helping individuals to behave more spontaneously (Korhonen et al., 2003). Wearable de- vices are the latest generation, consisting of shirts with embedded micro-sensors that can continuously monitor fundamental physiological parameters, such as body temperature, heart rate, blood pressure, and GSR. For instance, the so-called Smart Vest , developed by Pan- dian et al. (2008), is a washable shirt that allows remote, multiparameter physiological monitoring via GPS. Finally, environmental (embedded) devices are in- visible and complex systems, created for telemedicine purposes, which are complementary to other portable devices. The sensors are not wearable, but instead embedded in the objects or spaces (houses, cars, of- fices, etc.) frequently used by testers. They are par- ticularly useful for patients who do not actively partic- ipate in disease management and prefer to maintain their normal life (Korhonen et al., 2003). Portable and wearable devices are advantageous in that they can measure otherwise-inaccessible physiological variables remotely and continuously. That said they do feature limitations related to data processing and transmis- sion, as well as power consumption. Environmental de- vices have the opposite pros and cons, but also do not suffer problems from the micronization process. The optimal solution should lie in combining these three typologies of devices, which could produce robust data for companies’ marketing strategies (Korhonen et al., 2003). The miniaturization of neuromarketing tools and their integration into daily life could eliminate
perceptions of intrusiveness and distortion associated with conventional laboratory devices, making it pos- sible to monitor different neuronal and physiological signals in a continuous and comfortable manner. Specifically, portable and wearable devices can pro- vide real-time verification of consumers’ emotional responses to a product, merchandising event, or advertising communication, whether directly in the place of purchase or in shopping itineraries. Environ- mental devices , meanwhile, could measure consumers’ perceptions of brands or advertising messages in their usual daily spaces (homes, offices, etc.).
Opportunity Number 3: The Employment
of Multifunctional Nanomarketing Devices
To establish a deeper understanding of the relationship between neuromarketing and behavior, researchers need to expand upon and correlate various neuroscien- tific tools. Future marketing research will use a combi- nation of different nanomarketing technologies to test research hypotheses. Recent findings show that the boundary between physiological and psychological events is arbitrary (Hubert, 2010), with neuroscience revealing a physio- logical basis for human behavior. Specifically, emotions are correlated to physiological phenomena, such as heart rate, sweating, hormone release, and, in general, alterations of physiological states (Bechara & Damasio, 2005; Kapoor et al., 2007). The combination of different physiological measures can offer cross-validations and more robust results, since these processes activate a va- riety of neurophysiological reactions within the human nervous system (Ohme et al., 2009). Such an integrated approach has prompted some consumer researchers to suggest the development of a promising discipline, the biometric economy (Ohme, Reykowska, Wiener, & Choromanska, 2010), and the simultaneous combina- tion of several technologies (e.g., the fMRI and EEG; Hubert, 2010; Logothetis, 2008; Ohme et al., 2010). Over the last several years, neuromarketing studies have primarily concentrated on observing the cerebral area through the almost exclusive use of fMRI technolo- gies (e.g., Murphy, Nimmo-Smith, & Lawrence, 2003; Yoon et al., 2006). Going forward, however, neuromar- keting experiments could be improved and confirmed by combining the most advanced technologies with other simple techniques based on biological and physiological parameters (Perrachione & Perrachione, 2008). Indeed, study by Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zack, Fishbacher, and Fehr (2005) has completely substantiated the reliability and measurability of physiological parameters in neu- roscience studies. For instance, Fernandez and Picard (1998) demonstrated the possibility of measuring neg- ative affective states through the GSR and blood pres- sure tests, whereas Qui, Reynolds, and Picard (2001) successfully employed tactile sensors to evaluate frus- tration. Furthermore, the EEG seems to lend itself to miniaturization, thanks to its small dimensions and the
670 MILETI, GUIDO, AND PRETE
completeness of its results (Brown et al., 2010). It can be especially valuable in estimating the brain’s electric re- sponses to unexpected stimuli, such as in reward eval- uation (Perrachione & Perrachione, 2008). In addition, Kapoor et al. (2007) and Gallego et al. (2010) demon- strated that experiments which co-measure physiologi- cal signals (e.g., heart rate, skin conductance) and body signals (e.g., pressure or posture) provide more robust and reliable results about emotional states. Since affect can be expressed in many ways, researchers could re- inforce the predictive reliability of neuromarketing by employing various biological and physiological parame- ters in tandem with the fMRI. This should also help re- searchers reduce statistical hazards deriving from the criticized correlation between purchasing behavior and brain areas (Ariely & Berns, 2010).
Opportunity Number 4: The Combination
of Laboratory Experiments with Daily
Life Tests Involving Miniaturized
Nanomarketing Devices
To better comprehend how consumers process emo- tional responses to marketing stimuli, it is necessary to balance nanophysiological devices and functional neu- roimaging methods. Future marketing research should compare the results of laboratory neuroimaging meth- ods with the results obtained by new, mobile neuro- physiological nanodevices. Amidst the value and potentialities offered by neu- rophysiological devices, the fMRI still represents the most advanced technology available for neuromarket- ing research. As emphasized by Kenning et al. (2007), other technologies have indeed contributed to our un- derstanding of consumer behavior by measuring neuro- physiological activations in response to specific stimuli; however, these studies cannot completely explain con- sumers’ emotive responses to external marketing stim- uli, such as packaging or brand logo. Technological improvements in neuroimaging may overcome the methodological problems of neurophys- iological approaches, providing new solutions to un- resolved questions (Yoon et al., 2006). Neuroimaging techniques can be judged more accurately than tradi- tional market surveys and focus groups, as they do not suffer the same limitations when measuring physiolog- ical states (Wang & Minor, 2008). At the same time, their results are achieved in a closed, artificial lab- oratory environment, and in the absence of external stimuli. This latter issue can be surmounted by apply- ing noninvasive, wireless and portable nanodevices to users’ real-life environments. The joint use of labora- tory and field experiments could imbue neuromarket- ing results with greater robustness, as it would allow neuronal responses to be compared with simple prod- uct representations or real consumption acts (Ariely & Berns, 2010).
Opportunity Number 5: The Balance
of Nanomarketing Techniques with Moral,
Social, and Ethical Requirements
To guarantee a balance between potential discoveries and moral beliefs, it is necessary to establish a “neu- roethics” approach that covers the use of micro- and noninvasive devices. Future marketing research should evaluate and adopt a nanomarketing ethical frame- work. As has been widely discussed in the marketing lit- erature (e.g., Hubert & Kenning, 2008), the ability to acquire information about consumers without their knowledge has ethical implications (Murphy et al., 2008). These issues would likely be exacerbated by the introduction of miniaturized devices and nanotechnolo- gies in neuromarketing practices. Wearable, unobtru- sive, and imperceptible devices could allow for a deeper control of consumers’ everyday behavior, either at home or at the point of purchase, with the prospect of coerc- ing people into consuming undesired products (Ariely & Berns, 2010). According to Rapp, Hill, Gaines, and Wilson (2009), consumers have three main areas of concern regarding companies’ use of their own data: transparency, security, and liability. At the same time, consumers need some depth of understanding about the collection process and some perceived control over the treatment of their data in order to deal effectively with privacy issues. Thus, there is a growing argument that the new scientific frontier of nanomarketing —the nexus of neuromarketing and nanotechnologies—must defend human dignity and integrity, safeguard consumers’ pri- vacy and autonomy, and protect vulnerable population groups. For instance, Conati (2004) noticed that chil- dren do not perceive the sensors that measure skin conductivity as being intrusive. As a matter of fact, the rise of small- and nanomethodologies in neuromarket- ing theory have stimulated the long-standing debate about whether marketing is a tool of manipulation or a way to improve consumers’ lifestyles. In order to assuage concerns, neuromarketing can pursue projects that benefit consumers. For instance, the continuous, real-time control offered by portable nanodevices could provide a better understanding and treatment of some compulsive behaviors, such as shop- ping addiction. Furthermore, by understanding how emotions affect behavior at the point of purchase, con- sumers may be able to improve their buying habits and manage their own emotional states. Nonetheless, consumers’ autonomy needs to be guaranteed through the adoption of an ethical code and/or protective reg- ulations (Murphy et al., 2008), especially for private industrial applications. First and foremost, any regu- latory framework for nanomarketing research should cover subjects’ autonomy and informed consent, ensur- ing that participants receive information about experi- ments’ benefits and risks (Murphy et al., 2008; Ulman et al., 2015). Consequently, they should be informed about their right to withdraw at any time, without penalty and for any reason, even for minimal discomfort
NANOMARKETING: A NEW FRONTIER 671
exacerbated by the development of more unobtrusive and imperceptible devices, which could offer greater control over people’s daily routines and minds. As nan- otechnologies mutually affect individuals’ dignity and security, on one hand, and the opportunity for innova- tions and solutions, on the other, scientists and practi- tioners should advance public awareness not only about their disadvantages and inconveniences but also their benefits and values.
REFERENCES
Achrol, R., & Kotler, P. (2012). Frontiers of marketing paradigm in the third millennium. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 35–52. Ariely, D., & Berns, G. (2010). Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Natural Reviews Neuro- science, 11, 284–292. Arnould, E. J., & Thompson, C. P. (2005). Consumer Culture Theory (CCT): Twenty years of research. Journal of Con- sumer Research, 31, 868–882. Bagozzi, R., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. (1999). The role of emo- tions in marketing. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 27, 184–202. Balanou, E., van Gils, M., & Vanhala, T. (2013). State-of-the- art of wearable EEG for personalised health applications. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 10th Inter- national Conference on Wearable Micro and Nano Tech- nologies for Personalized Health, Tallinn. Amsterdam: IOS Press. Beauchamp, T. L. (1997). Informed consent. In R. M. Veatch (Ed.), Medical ethics (pp. 185–208). Sudbury: Jones Bartlett Publishers. Bechara, A., & Damasio, A. (2005). The somatic marker hy- pothesis: A neural theory of economic decision. Games and Economic Behavior, 52, 36–372. Brown, L., Van de Molengraft, J., Yazicioglu, R., Torfs, T., Penders, J., & Van Hoof, C. (2010). A low–power, wireless, 8-channel EEG monitoring headset. 32nd Annual Interna- tional IEEE EMBS Conference. Buenos Aires: ITS. Chi, Y. M., Ng, P., Kang, E., Kang, J., Fang, J., & Cauwen- berghs, G. (2010). Wireless non-contact cardiac and neural monitoring. Wireless Health, October 15−23, San Diego, USA. Cohen, M. X. (2012). Approaches and assumptions in human neuroscience. Switzerland, Lausanne: Frontiers Media SA. Conati, C. (2004). Personal conversation. 7th Conference on Intelligent Tutoring System. Macei`o: Springer-Verlag. Courtney, E. H. (2008). Small science makes big influence. Technology Focus, 6, 20–24. Damasio, A. (1995). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York: Harper Perennial. Dolan, R. (2002). Emotion, cognition, and behavior. Science, 298, 1191–1194. Drexler, K. E. (1996). Engines of creation. The coming era of nanotechnology. London: Fourth Estate. Fernandes, M. S., Dias, N. S., Silva, A. F., Nunes, J. S., Lanceros-Mendes, S., Correia, J. H., et al. (2010). Hydrogel- based photonic sensor for a biopotential wearable recording system. Biosensor and Bioelectronics, 26, 80–86. Fernandez, R., & Picard, R. (1998). Signal processing for recog- nition of human frustration. IEEE International Confer- ence on Acoustic, Speech, and Signal Processing. Los Alami- tos: Browse Conference Publications.
Flores, J., Baruca, A., & Saldivar, R. (2014). Is neuromarketing ethical. Consumers say yes. Consumers say no. Journal of Legal, Ethical, and Regulatory Issues, 17, 77–91. Fugate, D. (2007). Neuromarketing: A layman’s look at neuro- science and its potential application to marketing practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24, 385–394. Gallego, J., Lemos, D., Meneses, G., & Hernandez, A. (2010). Development of a wearable vital signs monitor for healthcare. Annual International IEEE EMBS Conference. Buenos Aires: IEEE. Garcia, J. R., & Saad, G. (2008). Evolutionary neuromar- keting: Darwinizing the neuroimaging paradigm for con- sumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7, 397–
Gazzaniga, M. S., Ivry, R., & Mangun, G. R. (2002). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. Heath, J. R. (2015). Nanotechnologies for biomedical science and translational medicine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 112, 14436–14443. Hubert, M. (2010). Does neuroeconomics gives new impetus to economic and consumer research? Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 812–817. Hubert, M., & Kenning, P. (2008). A current overview of consumer neuroscience. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 272–292. Isais, R., Nguyen, K., Perez, G., Rubio, R., & Nazeran, H. (2008). A low cost microcontroller-based wireless ECG- blood pressure telemonitor for home care. Proceedings of the 25° Annual International Conference of the IEEE EMBS. Cancun: IEEE. Jasinsky, J., & Petroff, P. (2000). Applications: Nanode- vices, nanoelectronics, and nanosensor. Nanotechnology Research Directions: IWGN Workshop Report. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Javor, A., Koller, M., Lee, N., Chamberlain, L., & Ransmayr, G. (2013). Neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience: Contributions to neurology. BMC Neurology, 13, 1–12. Kable, J. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience toolkit for the neuroeconomist: A functional overview. Journal of Neuro- science, Psychology, and Economics, 4, 63–84. Kapoor, A., Burleson, W., & Picard, R. (2007). Automatic pre- diction of frustration. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 65, 724–736. Kenning, P., Plassman, H., & Ahlert, D. (2007). Applications of functional magnetic resonance imaging for market re- search. Qualitative Market Research, 10, 1352–2752. Kenning, P., Marci, C., & Calvert, G. A. (2008). Advertising and the brain. International Journal of Advertising, 27, 355–356. Korhonen, I., Parkka, J., & van Gils, M. (2003). Health moni- toring in the home of the future. Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine, 5, 66–73. Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zack, P., Fishbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increase trust in humans. Nature, 435, 663–676. Kroeber-Riel, W. (1979). Activation research: Psychobiologi- cal approaches in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 5, 240–251. Kwong, K., Belliveau, J., Chesler, D., Goldberg, I., Weisskoff, R., Poncelet, B., et al. (1992). Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of human brain activity during primary sensory stimulation. Neurobiology, 89, 5675–5679. Logothetis, N. (2008). What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature, 453, 869–878.
NANOMARKETING: A NEW FRONTIER 673
Mileti, A., Prete, M. I., & Guido, G. (2013). Brand emo- tional credibility: Effects of mixed emotions about branded products with varying credibility. Psychological Reports, 113, 404–419. Miller, G. (2008). Growing pains for fMRI. Science, 320, 1412–
Murphy, E. R., Nimmo-Smith, I., & Lawrence, A. (2003). Func- tional neuroanatomy of emotions. A meta-analysis. Cogni- tive, Affective and Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 207–233. Murphy, E. R., Illes, J., & Reiner, P. B. (2008). Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 293–
Ogawa, S., Lee, T., Kay, A., & Tank, D. (1990). Brain mag- netic resonance imaging with contrast dependent on blood oxygenation. Biophysics, 24, 9868–9872. Ohme, R., Reykowska, D., Wiener, D., & Choromanska, A. (2009). Analysis of neurophysiological reactions to adver- tising stimuli via EEG and GSR measures. Journal of Neu- roscience, Psychology and Economics, 2, 21–31. Ohme, R., Reykowska, D., Wiener, D., & Choromanska, A. (2010). Application of frontal EEG asymmetry to adver- tising research. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31, 785–
Pandian, P., Mohanavelu, K., Safeer, K., Kptresh, T., Shakun- thala, D., Gopal, P., et al. (2008). Smart Vest: Wearable multi-parameter remote physiological monitoring system. Medical Engineering and Physics, 30, 466–477. Perrachione, T., & Perrachione, J. (2008). Brain and brands: Developing mutually informative research in neuroscience and marketing. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 303–318. Prete, M. I., Guido, G., & Pichierri, M. (2013). Consumer hypnotic-like suggestibility: Possible mechanism in com- pulsive purchasing. Psychological Reports, 113, 1174–1186. Qui, Y., Reynolds, C., & Picard, R. (2001). The Bayes point ma- chine for computer-user frustration detection via pressure mouse. Workshop on Perceptive User Interface. Orlando: ACM. Rapp, J., Hill, P. R., Gaines, J., & Wilson, M. (2009). Adver- tising and consumer privacy: Old practices and new chal- lenges. Journal of Advertising, 38, 51–61. Reimann, M., Schilke, O., Weber, B., Neuhaus, C., & Zaichkowsky, J. L. (2011). Functional magnetic resonance imaging in consumer research: A review and application. Psychology & Marketing, 28, 608–637. Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neu- ron, 35, 21–23. Senior, C., & Lee, N. (2008). A manifesto for neuromarketing science. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 7, 263–271. Siefert, C., Gallent, J., Levine, D., Stipp, H., & Marci, C. (2008). Biometric and eye-tracking insights into the efficiency of in- formation processing of television advertising during fast- forward viewing. International Journal of Advertising, 27, 425–446. Silberstein, R., & Nield, G. (2008). Brain activity correlates of consumer brand choice shift associated with television advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 27, 359–
Slowther, A., & Kleinman, I. (2009). Confidentiality. In P. Singer & A. M. Viens (Eds.), The Cambridge textbook of bioethics (pp. 43–48). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.
Smidts, A. (2002). Kijken in het Brein: Over de Mogelijkheden van Neuromarketing [Look in the brain: On the possibili- ties of neuromarketing], Inaugural Addresses Research in Management Series, Erasmus Research Institute of Man- agement. Stewart, D., & Furse, F. (1982). Applying psychophysiological measures to marketing and advertising research problems. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 5, 1–38. Syduzzaman, Md., Patwary, S. U., Farhana, K., & Ahmed, S. (2015). Smart textiles and nanotechnology: A general overview. Journal of Textile Science Engineering, 5, 1–7. The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineer- ing. (2004). Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: Opportu- nities and uncertainties. Retrieved July 5, 2015, from http://www.nanotec.org.uk /finalReport.htm Tsai, P. Y., Hu, W., Kuo, T. B., & Shyu, L. Y. (2009). A portable device for real time drowsiness detection using novel active dry electrode system. Conference Proceedings of the IEEE Engineering Medical Biology Society (pp. 3775–3778). Min- neapolis, Minnesota, USA: EMBS. Ulman, Y. I., Cakar, T., & Yildix, G. (2015). Ethical issue in neuromarketing: “I consume, therefore I’m”. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 1271–1284. Venkatraman, V., Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P. A., Vo, K., Hamp- ton, W., Bollinger, B., et al. (2015). Predicting advertising success beyond traditional measures: New insights from neurophysiological methods and market response model- ing. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 436–452. Vl ˘asceanu, S. (2014). New directions in understanding the decision-making process: Neuroeconomics and neuromar- keting. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 127, 758–762. Wang Y., & Minor, M. (2008). Validity, reliability, and ap- plicability of psychophysiological techniques in marketing research. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 197–232. Wang, Y. T., Wang, Y., & Jung, T. P. (2011). A cell-phone- based brain-computer interface for communication in daily life. Journal of Neural Engineering, 8, 1–5. Wilson, M., Gaines J., & Hill, R. (2008). Neuromarketing and consumer free will. Journal of Consumers Affair, 32, 389–
Wise, K. (2007). Integrated sensor, mems, and microsystems: Reflections on a fantastic voyage. Science Direct, 136, 39–
Yoon, C., Gutchess, A., Feinberg, F., & Polk, T. (2006). A func- tional magnetic resonance imaging study of neural disso- ciation between brand and person judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 31–40. Zaltman, G. (2003). How customer think: Essential sights into the mind of the market. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. Zurawicki, L. (2010). Neuromarketing—Exploring the brain of the consumer. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Antonio Mileti, Research Associate of Marketing, University of Salento, Ecotekne Campus, Via per Monteroni, 73100 Lecce, Italy ([email protected]).
674 MILETI, GUIDO, AND PRETE
