Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Neuroethics and Responsibility in Conducting Neuromarketing Research

  • Review Paper
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the last decade, academics and companies have shown an increased interest in brain studies and human cerebral functions related to consumer’s reactions to different stimuli. Therefore neuroethics emerged as a way to draw attention to ethical issues concerning different aspects of brain research. This review explores the environment of neuromarketing research in both business and academic areas from an ethical point of view. The paper focuses on the ethical issues involving subjects participating in neuroimaging studies, consumers that experience the effects of research results and also researchers that conduct such studies. Starting the analysis from the gaps in traditional marketing research, the paper provides information on ethics of neuromarketing research and its challenges and offers perspectives concerning the standards that should be implemented in order to allow the development of both neuroethics and neuromarketing under appropriate conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Mapative official website: http://www.maptive.com

References

  1. Levy, N. 2007. Rethinking neuroethics in the light of the extended mind thesis. The American Journal of Bioethics 7(9): 3–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Becker, W.J., and R. Cropanzano. 2010. Organizational neuroscience: prospects and promise of an emerging discipline. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31: 1055–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Becker, W.J., R. Cropanzano, and A. Sanfey. 2011. Organizational neuroscience: taking organizational theory inside the neural black box. Journal of Management 37(4): 933–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Illes, J., and A. Mizgalewicz. 2012. Neuromarketing: at the intersection of technology, privacy and choice. Medical Ethics 19(1): 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Javor, A., M. Koller, N. Lee, L. Chamberlain, and G. Ransmayr. 2013. Neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience: contributions to neurology. BMC Neurology 13(13).

  6. Lee, N.J., C. Senior, and M.J.R. Butler. 2012. The domain of organizational cognitive neuroscience: theoretical and empirical challenges. Journal of Management 38: 921–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee, N., C. Senior, and M.J.R. Butler. 2012. Leadership research and cognitive neuroscience - The state of the union. The Leadership Quarterly 23: 213–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Murphy, E.R., J. Illes, and P.B. Reiner. 2008. Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 7: 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Waldman, D.A., P.A. Balthazard, and S. Peterson. 2011. Social cognitive neuroscience and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 22: 1092–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Waldman, D.A., P.A. Balthazard, and S. Peterson. 2011. The neuroscience of leadership: can we revolutionize the way that leaders are identified and developed? Academy of Management Perspectives 25(1): 60–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Illes, J., and S.J. Bird. 2006. Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience. Trends in Neurosciences 29(9): 511–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lombera, S., and J. Illes. 2009. The international dimensions of neuroethics. Developing World Bioethics 9(2): 57–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gazzaniga, M.S. 2006. The ethical brain. New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Levy, N. 2008. Introducing neuroethics. Neuroethics 1: 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Roskies, A. 2002. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron 35: 21–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Northoff, G. 2009. What is neuroethics? Empirical and theoretical neuroethics. Curent Opinion in Psychiatry 22(6): 565–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Macdonald, M. 2011. Some ethical issues in brain imaging. Cortex 47: 1272–1274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Touhami, Ouazzani Z., L. Benlafkih, M. Jiddane, Y. Cherrah, H.O. El Malki, and A. Benomar. 2011. Neuromarketing: where marketing and neuroscience meet. African Journal of Business Management 5(5): 1528–1532.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ariely, D., and G.S. Berns. 2010. Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 11: 284–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Morin, C. 2011. Neuromarketing: the new science of consumer behavior. Symposium: Consumer Culture in Global Perspective 48: 131–135.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McClure, S.M., J. Li, D. Tomlin, K.S. Cypert, L.M. Montague, and P.R. Montague. 2004. Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron 44: 379–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Andreu-Sanchez, C., A. Contreras-Gracia, and M.A. Martin-Pascual. 2014. Situation of neuromarketing in Spain. Profesional de la Informacion 23(2): 151–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Fisher, C.E., L. Chin, and R. Klitzman. 2010. Defining neuromarketing: practices and professional challenges. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 18(4): 230–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kenning, P., and M. Linzmajer. 2011. Consumer neuroscience: an overview of an emerging discipline with implications for consumer policy. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety 6: 111–125.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Pop, N.A., D.C. Dabija, and A.M. Iorga. 2014. Ethical responsibility of neuromarketing companies in harnessing the market research - A global exploratory approach. Amfiteatru Economic 16(35): 26–40.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Senior, C., and N. Lee. 2013. The state of art in organizational cognitive neuroscience: the therapeutic gap and possible implications for clinical practice. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7(808).

  27. Wilson, R.M., J. Gaines, and R.P. Hill. 2008. Neuromarketing and consumer free will. The Journal of Consumer Affairs 42(3): 389–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. O’Connell, G. 2011. Tracking the impact of neuroethics. Cortex 47: 1259–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee, N., A.J. Broderick, and L. Chamberlain. 2007. What is’Neuromarketing’? A discussion and agenda for further research. International Journal of Psychophysiology 63: 199–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Madan, C.R. 2010. Neuromarketing: the next step in marketing research? Eureka 1(1): 34–42.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Davidaia, S., Gilovicha, T., Ross, L. 2012. The meaning of default options for potential organ donors. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences). pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1211695109.

  32. McCabe, M. 2004. A privacy and confidentiality primer. Conflicts of Interest, Privacy/Confidentiality, and Tissue Repositories: Protections, Policies, and Practical Strategies Conference. Columbia University Center for Bioethics. 2004 May 3–5. Boston, MA, USA.

  33. National Human Genome Research Institute. Washington, DC: Protecting Human Research Subjects: Office for Protection from Research Risks. Available at: http://www.genome.gov/10001752.

  34. Neuromarketing Science & Business Association. 2013. Code of Ethics first published on January 2013. Available at: http://www.neuromarketing-association.com/ethics.

  35. Roskies, A. 2006. Neuroscientific challenges to free will and responsibility. Cognitive Sciences 10(9): 419–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Garland, Brent. 2004. Neuroscience and the law. Brain, mind and the scales of justice. New York: Dana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Racine, E., O. Bar-Ilan, and J. Illes. 2006. Brain imaging. a decade of coverage in the print media. Science Communication 28: 122–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Illes, J., and B.J. Sahakian. 2011. The Oxford handbok of neuroethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Wardlaw, J.M., G. O’Connel, K. Shuler, J. DeWilde, J. Haley, O. Escobar, S. Murray, R. Rae, D. Jarvie, P. Sandercock, and B. Schafer. 2011. “Can It Read My Mind?” What do the public and experts think of the current (Mis) uses of neuroimaging? Plos One 6(10): 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Deslauriers, C., E. Bell, N. Palmour, B. Pike, J. Doyon, and E. Racine. 2010. Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics. Review of neuroimaging research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5(1): 49–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Department of Marketing, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Iasi, Romania

    Monica Diana Bercea Olteanu

Authors
  1. Monica Diana Bercea Olteanu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Diana Bercea Olteanu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bercea Olteanu, M.D. Neuroethics and Responsibility in Conducting Neuromarketing Research. Neuroethics 8, 191–202 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9227-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9227-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation