Neuroethics and Responsibility in Conducting Neuromarketing Research
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.
KeywordsNeuroethics Neuromarketing Neuroscience Consumer free will
- 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).Google Scholar
- 13.Gazzaniga, M.S. 2006. The ethical brain. New York: Harper Perennial.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
- 20.Morin, C. 2011. Neuromarketing: the new science of consumer behavior. Symposium: Consumer Culture in Global Perspective 48: 131–135.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).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.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 36.Garland, Brent. 2004. Neuroscience and the law. Brain, mind and the scales of justice. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar