Advertisement

Topoi in Neuromarketing Ethics

  • Cristian Ducu
Chapter

Abstract

Neuromarketing is one of those emerging fields that promise a lot, but are also surrounded in controversy. It promises to offer a privileged access to the most intimate emotions and unconscious thoughts, which should serve as an undisputed background for effective marketing practices. It promises to be successful where traditional market research techniques and tools failed. But this does not come cheap: a lot of public figures, philosophers and neuroscientists expressed multiple concerns regarding the ethical and legal implications of the neuromarketing research and applications. The aim of this study is to map these ethical concerns and provide a series of elements which can help both researchers and practitioners clarify the ethical limits of their work. The chapter contains two major sections and some brief closing remarks. The first one contains two major distinctions which will serve as basis for the entire ethical discussion in the next section: neuromarketing as both a field of research and applications and neuromarketing ethics as research ethics and as ethics of brain research. The second section is dedicated to a quasi-comprehensive presentation of the ethical challenges of neuromarketing. These topoi are divided in three categories: ethics of neuromarketing research (overclaiming; research conduct—informed consent, protection of vulnerable research participants, paying participants; data practices—research design and scientific validity, confidentiality, research dual use; publication practices—authorship, cherry-picking and salami-slicing, research transparency); ethics of neuromarketing technologies (no harm; privacy; incidental findings); and ethics of neuromarketing applications (manipulative and deceptive marketing practices; exacerbating the emotional factor).

Keywords

Neuromarketing ethics Research ethics Brain imagining Human dignity Consent 

References

  1. Ariely D, Berns GS (2010) Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nat Rev Neurosci 11(4):284–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlauskaité E, Sferle Al (2013) Ethical issues in neuromarketing. Master thesis. Lung University, School of Economic and Management, International Marketing and Brand Management Program. http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/3803908/file/3803909.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  3. Aron A et al (2007) Politics and the brain. New York Times, November 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/lweb14brain.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  4. Baker M (2016a) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research. Nature 533(7604). http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970. Accessed 26 May 2016
  5. Baker M (2016b) The reproducibility crisis is good for science. Weak statistics are getting called our, and replication is gaining respect. Slate, April 15. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2016/04/the_reproducibility_crisis_is_good_for_science.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2016
  6. Bhushan V, Saha G, Lindsen J, Shimojo S, Bhattacharya J (2012) How we choose one over another: predicting trial-by-trial preference decision. PLoS One 7(8):e43351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bielby (2008) Competence and vulnerability in biomedical research. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  8. BrightHouse Institute for Thought Sciences (2002) Brighthouse Institute for Thought Sciences launches first neuromarketing research company: company uses neuroimaging to unlock the consumer mind. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2002/6/prweb40936.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2015
  9. Brownsword R (2012) Regulating brain imaging: questions of privacy, informed consent, and human dignity. In: Richmond S, Rees G, Edwards SJL (eds) I know what you’re thinking. Brain imaging and mental privacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 223–244Google Scholar
  10. Canli T (2006) When genes and brains unite: ethical implications of genomic neuroimaging. In: Illes J (ed) Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 169–183Google Scholar
  11. Canli T, Brandon S, Casebeer W, Crowley PI, DuRousseau D, Greely HT, Pascual-Leone A (2007) Neuroethics and national security. Am J Bioeth 7(5):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cîrneci D, Angheluță AV, Gheorghe D (2014) The use of neuromarketing in the study of brand related mental processes. Case study—Romanian food brands. Int J Econ Pract Theories 4(2):331–342Google Scholar
  13. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2002) International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Guideline 13. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htm Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  14. Council of Europe (1997) Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the Application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine. Oviedo, March 4. https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168007cf98 Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  15. Edwards SJL (2012) Protecting privacy interests in brain images: the limits of consent. In: Richmond S, Rees G, Edwards SJL (eds) I know what you’re thinking. Brain imaging and mental privacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eijkholt M, Anderson JA, Illes J (2012) Picturing neuroscience research through a human rights lens: imaging first-episode schizophrenic treatment-naïve individuals. Int J Law Psychiatry 35(2):146–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2010) European textbook on ethics in research. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research Communication Unit, Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/textbook-on-ethics-report_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  18. Farah MJ (2002) Emerging ethical issues in neuroscience. Nat Neurosci 5(11):1123–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farah MJ (2005) Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical. Trends Cogn Sci 9(1):34–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fitz NS (2013) Neuroethics in neurosciences series: three visions of diversity in neuroethics. Kopf Carrie, no. 78Google Scholar
  21. Fuchs T (2006) Ethical issues in neuroscience. Curr Opin Psychiatry 19:600–607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garnett A, Whiteley L, Piwowar H, Rasmussen E, Illes J (2011) Neuroethics and fMRI: mapping a fledgling relationship. PLoS One 6(4):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grossman RI, Bernat JL (2004) Incidental research imaging findings. Pandora’s costly box. Neurology 62:849–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hayden BY (2011), Do you really love your iPhone that way?. Psychology Today, October 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-decision-tree/201110/do-you-really-love-your-iphone-way. Accessed 15 Jun 2016
  25. Haber SN (2011) Neuroanatomy of reward: a view from the ventral striatum. In: Gottfried JA (ed) Neurobiology of sensation and reward. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 235–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herzberg M (2011) Neuromarketing—is it unethical? Are magicians unethical, too? Global emotions forum, March 23. http://www.globalemotionsforum.com/?p=483. Accessed 6 Feb 2015
  27. Hubert M, Kenning P (2008) A current overview of consumer neuroscience. J Consum Behav 7(4–5):272–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iacoboni M, Freedman J, Kaplan J (2007) This is your brain on politics. New York Times, November 11. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/11/opinion/11freedman.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  29. Illes J, Bird SJ (2006) Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience. Trends Neurosci 30(10):1–7Google Scholar
  30. Illes J, Racine E (2005) Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. Am J Bioeth 5(2):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Illes J, Desmond JE, Huang LF, Raffin TA, Atlas SW (2002) Ethical and practical considerations in managing incidental findings in functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Cogn 50:358–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Illes J, Kann D, Karetsky K, Letourneau P, Raffin TA, Schraedley-Desmond P, Koening BA, Atlas SW (2004a) Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging. Arch Intern Med 164:2415–2419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Illes J, Kirschen MP, Karetsky K, Kelly M, Saha A, Desmond JE, Raffin TA, Glover GH, Atlas SW (2004b) Discovery and disclosure of incidental findings in neuroimaging research. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:743–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Illes J, Rosen AC, Huang L, Goldstein RA, Raffin TA, Swan G, Atlas SW (2004c) Ethical consideration of incidental findings on adult brain MRI in research. Neurology 62:888–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Illes J, Racine E, Kirschen MP (2006) A picture is worth 100 words, but which 1000? In: Illes J (ed) Neuroethics: defining the issues in theory, practice, and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 148–168Google Scholar
  36. Ison MJ, Mormann F, Cerf M, Koch C, Fried I, Quian Quiroga R (2011) Selectivity of pyramidal cells and interneurons in the human medial temporal lobe. J Neurophysiol 106(4):1713–1721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaffe S (2004) Fake method for research impartiality (fMRI). The Scientist, July 19. http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/15826/title/Fake-Method-for-Research-Impartiality--fMRI-/ Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  38. Kang J-H, Kim SJ, Cho YS, Kim S-P (2015) Modulation of alpha oscillations in the human EEG with facial preference. PLoS One 10(9):e0138153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Katzman GL, Dagher AP, Patronas NJ (1999) Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging from 1000 asymptomatic volunteers. J Am Med Assoc 281(1):36–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kiesel D (1984) Subliminal seduction. ABA J 70:25–27Google Scholar
  41. Kim BS, Illes K, Kaplan RT, Reiss A, Atlas SW (2002) Incidental findings on pedriatic MR images of the brain. Am J Neuroradiol 23:1674–1677Google Scholar
  42. Korn D (2001) Medical privacy in the information age: ethical issues, policy solutions. In: Humber JM, Almeder RF (eds) Privacy and health care. Humana Press, Totowa, pp 103–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kosfeld M, Heinrichs M, Zak PJ, Fischbacher U, Fehr E (2005) Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435(7042):673–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuhn S, Gallinat J (2013) Does taste matter? How anticipation of cola brands influences gustatory processing in the brain. PLoS One 8(4):e61569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lever A (2012) Neuroscience v. privacy? A democratic perspective. In: Richmond S, Rees G, Edwards SJL (eds) I know what you’re thinking. Brain imaging and mental privacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 205–222Google Scholar
  46. Levy N (2007) Neuroethics. Challenges for the 21st century. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lindstrom M (2008) Buyology. Truth and lies about why we buy. Double Day, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Lindstrom M (2011) You love your iPhone. Literally. New York Times, October 1, p A21. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/you-love-your-iphone-literally.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  49. Logothetis NK (2008) What we can do and what we cannot do with fMRI. Nature 45(6976):869–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marks JH (2010a) A neuroskeptic’s guide to neuroethics and national security. AJOB Neurosci 1(2):4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marks JH (2010b) Neuroconcerns: some responses to my critics. AJOB Neurosci 1(2):W1–W2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Matthews S (2015) Neuromarketing: what is it and is it a threat to privacy? In: Clausen J, Levy N (eds) Handbook of neuroethics. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1627–1645Google Scholar
  53. McNutt M (2014) Journals unite for reproducibility. Science 346(6210):679. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6210/679.full. Accessed 20 Apr 2016
  54. Morse SJ (2012) Diminished capacity, neuroscience, and just punishment. In: Richmond S, Rees G, Edwards SJL (eds) I know what you’re thinking. Brain imaging and mental privacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 155–182Google Scholar
  55. Murphy ER, Illes J, Reiner PB (2008) Neuroethics of neuromarketing. J Consum Behav 7:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. National Research Council (2004) Biotechnology research in an age of terrorism. National Academies Press, Washington DC. www.nap.edu/html/biotechnology_research/0309089778.pdf. Accessed 20 Feb 2016
  57. Nature Neuroscience (2004) Brain scam? Nat Neurosci 7:683. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n7/full/nn0704-683.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2015
  58. Plassman H, Ramsoy TZ, Milosavljevic M (2012) Branding the brain: a critical review and outlook. J Consum Psychol 22(1):18–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pop A, Dabija DC, Iorga A (2014) Ethical responsibility of neuromarketing companies in harnessing the market research—a global exploratory research. Amfiteatru Econ 16(35):26–40Google Scholar
  60. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2011) Moral science. Protecting participants in human subjects research. Washington, DC http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Moral%20Science%20June%202012.pdf Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  61. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (2013) Anticipate and communicate. Ethical management of incidental and secondary findings in the clinical, research, and direct-to-consumer contexts. Washington, DC. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/FINALAnticipateCommunicate_PCSBI_0.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  62. Racine E, Illes J (2006) Neuroethical responsibilities. Can J Neurol Sci 33:269–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Racine E, Bar-Ilan O, Illes J (2006) Brain imaging. A decade of coverage in the print media. Sci Commun 28(1):122–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Richmond S (2012) Brain imaging and the transparency scenario. In: Richmond S, Rees G, Edwards SJL (eds) I know what you’re thinking. Brain imaging and mental privacy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rodrigues R (2015) Principles and approaches in ethics assessment: dual-use in research. Stakeholders Acting Together on the Ethical Impact Assessment of Research and Innovation—SATORI, European Commission’s seventh framework programme (FP7/2007–2013), grant agreement no. 612231. http://satoriproject.eu/media/1.g-Dual-use-in-research.pdf Accessed 20 Feb 2016
  66. Rommelfanger K (2011) Ethical dimensions of neuromarketing. The Neuroethics Blog. http://www.theneuroethicsblog.com/2011/08/ethical-dimensions-of-neuromarketing.html. Accessed 6 Feb 2015
  67. Roskies A (2002) Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron 35:21–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ruskin G (2003) Commercial alert asks feds to investigate neuromarketing research at Emory University. Press release. http://commercialalert.org/news/news-releases/2003/%2012/commercial-alert-asks-feds-to-investigate-neuromarketing-research-at-emory-university. Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  69. Schooler JW (2014) Metascience could rescue the ‘replication crisis’. Nature 515(7525). http://www.nature.com/news/metascience-could-rescue-the-replication-crisis-1.16275. Accessed 20 Apr 2016
  70. Selgelid MJ (2009) Governance of dual-use research: an ethical dilemma. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/9/08-051383/en/ Last accessed 20 Feb 2016
  71. Smidts A (2002) Kijken in het brein: over de mogelijkheden van neuromarketing. ERIM Inaugural Address Series Research in Management. http://hdl.handle.net/1765/308. Accessed 3 Dec 2015
  72. Tang YY, Tang R (2016) Cultural neuroscience of moral reasoning and decision-making. In: Absher JR, Cloutier J (eds) Neuroimaging personality, social cognition, and character. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 279–287Google Scholar
  73. Tieu M (2007) Neuroethics: the law and the person. Bioethics Res Notes 19(3):1–7Google Scholar
  74. Ulman YI, Cakar T, Yildiz G (2014) Ethical issues in neuromarketing: “I consume, therefore I am!”. Sci Eng Ethics 21(5):1271–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van der Laan LN, De Ridder DTD, Viergever MA, Smeets PAM (2012) Appearance matters: neural correlates of food choice and packaging aesthetics. PLoS One 7(7):e41738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vincent D (2015) I hope I don’t intrude. Privacy and its dilemmas in nineteenth-century britain. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  77. Weisstub DN (1998) The ethical parameters of experimentation. In: Weisstub DN (ed) Research on human subjects: ethics. Law and social policy. Pergamon, Oxford, pp 1–35Google Scholar
  78. Wells M (2003) In search of the buy button. Forbes, September 1. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0901/062.html. Accessed 15 Jan 2016
  79. World Health Organization (2011) Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/fp7/89857/research-human-participants_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  80. World Medical Association (2008) Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for research involving human subjects. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html Accessed 10 Dec 2015
  81. Yarkoni T, Poldrack RA, Nichols TE, Van Essen DC, Wager TD (2011) Large-scale automated synthesis of human functional neuroimaging data. Nat Methods 8:665–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Advanced Research in Management and Applied EthicsBucureștiRomania

Personalised recommendations