See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335586023

Building a Foundation for Neuromarketing And Consumer Neuroscience

Research: How Researchers Can Apply Academic Rigor To the Neuroscientific
Study of Advertising Effects

Article  in  Journal of Advertising Research · September 2019

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-2019-034

CITATIONS READS

11 1,990

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The brain bases of value-based decision making View project

Overview of neuroscience View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Z. Ramsøy on 22 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WORKING PAPER

BUILDING A FOUNDATION FOR

NEUROMARKETING AND
CONSUMER NEUROSCIENCE
Thomas Zoëga Ramsøy

For inspection only -- full citation available as:

Ramsøy, T. Z. (2019). Building a Foundation for Neuromarketing And Consumer Neuroscience

Research. Journal of Advertising Research, 59(3), 281–294. h​ ttps://doi.org/10.2501/jar-2019-034

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

1
ABSTRACT

Since its modern inception about two decades ago, the use of neuroscience tools and insights in

studying advertising has grown an increasing foothold in the advertising researcher toolbox. As a

branch of applied neuroscience, approaches such as “neuromarketing” and “consumer neuroscience”

are often used interchangeably, and this emerging field suffers from many childhood diseases.

Methodological differences, conceptual inconsistencies, a lack of systematic validation of neuroscience

based metrics, and questionable business practices are all symptoms of a discipline that is in need of

rigor and maturation. The goal of this paper is to suggest a basic foundation for the use of neuroscience

and related methods in studying advertising effects. Three main elements are suggested: 1) a distinction

between basic, translational and applied research; 2) a conceptual clarification; and 3) a framework for

the validation of neuroscience based metrics. Together, these steps may serve as the basic building

blocks that ensure a robust scientific foundation and a validated discipline for both researchers,

practitioners and buyers of commercial consumer neuroscience methods.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

2
INTRODUCTION

  When the term “neuromarketing” was officially published in academic journals (Ariely & Berns, 2010;

Hotz, 2008; Lee, Broderick, & Chamberlain, 2007; Wilson, Gaines, & Hill, 2008)⁠ it was preceded by

both academic research and commercial attempts to employ neuroscience to provide answers to

challenges in business practices, especially in advertising and marketing research. Around the same

time, a novel breed of corporations were established that offered neuroscience tests to corporations,

selling solutions that purportedly measured true, subconscious emotional and cognitive responses.

Interestingly, this line of thinking stems back at least 40 years (Kroeber-Riel, 1979)⁠ when studies were

made using different neuroscience and physiology measures to test the efficacy of advertising. While

these early steps failed to consolidate, probably because neither the technology or the science was

sufficiently mature at the time, the initiatives at the turn of the millennium and especially after 2010

have had much more success, both commercially and academically.

Articles also emerged that considered that the inclusion of neuroscience tools could be used to boost

our understanding of consumer behavior and psychology. Early hallmark studies suggested that the

measuring of brain responses could allow us to better understand why brands added value to products

(McClure et al., 2004)⁠, the role of emotional engagement in advertisements (Marci, 2006)⁠, how price

influenced the experience of products (Schmidt et al., 2017)⁠, the causal mechanisms underlying

value-based consumer choice (Knutson et al., 2007)⁠, and even how in-store emotions could affect store

purchase (Groeppel-Klein, 2005)⁠. More recent research have built on this and now demonstrate how

price modulates the appeal and enjoyment of products (Bogomolova et al., 2015; Garaus, Wolfsteiner,

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

3
& Wagner, 2016; Karmarkar, Shiv, & Knutson, 2015; Plassmann, Doherty, Shiv, & Rangel, 2008;

Votinov, Aso, Fukuyama, & Mima, 2016)⁠, how responses in smaller samples can be predictive of

market responses (Berns & Moore, 2012; Boksem & Smidts, 2015; Christoforou, Papadopoulos,

Constantinidou, & Theodorou, 2017; Dmochowski et al., 2014; Shen & Morris, 2016)⁠⁠ and making

advances in theoretical models of advertising effects (Reynolds & Phillips, 2018)⁠, branding

(Plassmann, Ramsøy, & Milosavljevic, 2012)⁠ and other aspects of the consumer journey. Together,

these findings demonstrate how the inclusion of neuroscience and psychology has benefited our

understanding of consumers and communication effects.

Notably, this branch of science initially used the term “neuromarketing” but soon also included

“consumer neuroscience.” One originally intended distinction was between “neuromarketing” as the

commercial use of neuroscience tools and insights, and “consumer neuroscience” was intended to

denote the more basic research questions addressing how consumption choices are made (Ramsøy,

2015)⁠. However, many companies now use the term “consumer neuroscience” to describe their

commercial solutions, thus confounding the original intention with the terminological distinction.

From the very emergence of neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience, many articles have circled

around a few central themes, such as 1) the possible added value of neuromarketing to market research;

2) basic research into the brain bases of consumer preference and choice; and 3) the ethical aspects of

using neuroscience to boost advertising effects. Topics that were then and still is only marginally

covered includes the translation of basic research into applicable practices, and the validity of

neuromarketing claims. At the same time that such critical aspects were not included in this emerging

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

4
literature, the commercial side saw its first of two “hype cycles” where vendor companies offered more

than they could hold, validate or make actionable to their clients (Neff, 2016)⁠. This dissociation

between the promise of neuroscience applied to advertising and marketing, and what was actually

provided, led many to completely abandon the approach altogether.

Similarly, the scientific literature of consumer neuroscience has at best been described as highly

fragmented and with a lack of user friendly and high-quality primers (Harris, Ciorciari, & Gountas,

2018; Lee, Chamberlain, & Brandes, 2018)⁠. Thus, despite great scientific and commercial

developments, the discipline as a whole is still facing multiple issues, including an uncertainty in terms

of the methods and metrics, uncertainty in the interpretation of findings, and a lingering commercial

distrust in the methods and metrics offered. This is not helped by offers and claims where the scientific

credibility is not only non-existing, but where such claims would not have been accepted at scientific

conferences or peer-reviewed journals. Today, we may encounter claims that (non-described) brain

imaging methods can predict price sensitivity, measure deep brain activity with mastoid positioned

electrodes on a pair of Google Glasses, or use a single frontal electrode to measure a vast array of

cognitive and emotional states – all claims with no independent scientific publications as support. At

the intersection between commercial interests and scientific legitimacy, one may often find frustration

in that intellectual property becomes a winning argument, at the cost of transparency and independent

scientific assessments of the legitimacy of a given claim.

Finally, the commercial presentation of neuroscience often does not reflect the deep and fundamental

debates that are ongoing in basic neuroscience research. While commercial uses of a more basic

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

5
science always need to strike the right balance between being accurate and informative, a few examples

should serve as a reminder that the claims of neuromarketing sometimes can be more grand than the

claims of the basic scientists working in noncommercial settings. One example is the equation of a

brain structure and mental operations such as emotions or memory. Here, commercial presentations

sometimes refer to the brain as a collection of “centers” that are specialized units for processing certain

types of information. In this view, we have a center for attention, a center for reward, and a center for

memory. This view is highly reminiscent of the antiquated view of the brain as a collection of neatly

organized compartments, labeled as “phrenology” (Diener, 2010)⁠. Such notions have long been

abandoned in basic neuroscience research to the benefit of a more complex and comprehensive model

of the brain as a dynamic network of semi-specialized structures that are both involved in multiple

processes, and can take on new roles, also going under headings such as redundancy, pluripotentiality,

and degeneracy (Friston & Price, 2003)⁠, concepts that are also found in modern genetics. Today, recent

work suggests that this notion is becoming spread within advertising research (Kennedy & Northover,

2016)⁠, although time will tell whether this will replace the frequently seen notions of “center for X” in

commercial presentations and media outlets alike. Notably, even more extreme and long abandoned

brain-myths are long overdue for being take off commercial sales materials, including the idea of a

right-left brain hemisphere idea of creative-logical differences (Corballis, 2014; Hines, 1987)⁠, that we

are using only 10% of our brain capacity (Higbee & Clay, 1998; Jarrett, 2014)⁠, and the triune brain

model where the brain is divided into three distinct brain systems (LeDoux, 1996; Pogliano, 2017)⁠.

While many of these mythical narratives can serve as attention grabbers and selling points, they even

more likely to become obstacles to valid metrics, proper understanding of the subject matter, and

interpretations that can drive insights to better practices.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

6
Still, this paper is not intended as an exhaustive list of the scientific literature on consumer

neuroscience or neuromarketing, or an evaluation of the many different commercial claims in

neuromarketing, although such a review is long overdue. Rather, the purpose is to take a perspective

from someone who works both in academic research and in applied, commercial research to highlight

three key areas that should be considered foundational for a science that is both basic and applied, as is

the case with neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience. These key areas are: 1) a distinction

between types of research, and how they should be employed; 2) conceptual clarifications, which will

allow the field to align on a mutual nomenclature and understanding of even the most basic phenomena

at stake; and 3) a framework for creating and validating neuroscience-based metrics.

THREE TYPES OF RESEARCH

Within many disciplines it is possible to distinguish between two or three types of research: basic,

translational, and applied. ​Basic research​ ​is the denotation of research that aims to improve theories

and models of a given set of phenomena. In consumer neuroscience, several studies have used

neuroscience methods to better understand the causal mechanisms of consumer psychology and choice.

A few notable studies should be mentioned here. For example, in the previously mentioned hallmark

neuroimaging study by McClure et al. (2004) it was reported that brand-induced changes in product

taste were related to increased activation in the brain’s memory system, such as the dorsolateral

prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. This suggested that brands give value to products through an

automatic memory-related associative spreading of thoughts. More recent studies have extended this

finding by showing that brands and brand derivatives (e.g., brand mascots such as the Michelin man)

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

7
can implicitly lead to an associative spreading that is related to the number of brand associations

(Hulme et al., 2014)⁠.

Second, in a study of neural correlates of purchasing behaviors (Knutson et al., 2007)⁠ participants were

given money to choose whether to buy products or not while being scanned using functional Magnetic

Resonance Imaging (fMRI). Here, the researchers found that during product viewing, responses in deep

brain structures such as the nucleus accumbens were highly predictive of choice several seconds later.

In addition, engagement of the insula during price viewing was related to reduced likelihood of

purchase. This study demonstrated that customer choice is related to early emotional product evaluation

that has a significant impact on subsequent conscious choice. More recent studies have provided a

closer link to this by demonstrating how other types of early emotional responses, such as the frontal

brain asymmetry response, is related to subsequent consumer choice (Ravaja, Somervuori, & Salminen,

2012)⁠ and the willingness to pay for products (Ramsøy et al., 2018)⁠.

A third example comes from studies showing that brain responses to advertisements in a smaller

sample of participants can predict market responses. In one study (Dmochowski et al., 2014)⁠ it was

found that coherent responses in a study sample was related to both Nielsen ratings and twitter trends

when the same episodes and advertisements were aired. Similarly, a study by Boksem and Smidts

(2014)⁠ showed that two types of brain responses to movie trailers were predictive of either individual

preference or market responses. Frontal brain activity in the beta frequency band was negatively related

to individual trailer preference, while frontal gamma was associated with US box office sales for the

related movies. These studies demonstrate that coherent brain responses in a smaller subset of people

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

8
can be highly predictive of market responses. One implication is that there may be general,

“archetypal” responses that are highly reliable across a culture, so that smaller samples can be used to

reliably predict cultural responses. Importantly and interestingly, these responses seem to not be related

to subjective preference formation.

Translational research​ is a term that mainly stems from clinical sciences, which views this type of

research as the exercise in which we can apply findings from basic science to enhance human health

and well-being (Woolf, 2008)⁠. In this context, translational research in consumer neuroscience is the

type of research where we apply the insights from basic research into practical usage in advertising. A

general example of this is how recent theoretical advances in our understanding of the brain-bases of

perception, preference and choice works. For example, Shiv (2011)⁠ employs these recent advances to

put forward a model of how advertising and branding works, through four “powers”: 1) ​stopping

power,​ which denotes an ad’s ability to grab and maintain attention; 2) ​transmission power,​ which

stands for the ad’s ability to convey the crucial message and link to the brand; 3) ​persuasion power,​

which is the ad’s ability to convey an emotionally compelling and persuasive offer; and 4) ​locking

power,​ which denotes the ad’s ability to ensure sustained ad and brand memory. This model, which is

overlapping with other models, is currently being put to use with specific neuroscience based measures,

so that stopping power is assessed with eye-tracking, transmission power is measured with cognition,

related brain responses, persuasion power is related to emotion-based brain responses (or other

measures of emotions), and locking power is related to different types of memory test (e.g., implicit

measures, free recall, recognition tests) that assesses both ad memory and brand memory.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

9
A different line of research is found in attention research, where recent studies have demonstrated that

in Western countries (where we read from left to right), information that is placed at the bottom right

corner receives less visual attention (Hernandez et al., 2017)⁠. This insight is a practical test based on

other eye-tracking studies, and can show direct practical application within advertising. Similarly,

studies have demonstrated that boosting of visual saliency can boost not only visual attention but even

the likelihood that products will be chosen (Milosavljevic & Cerf, 2008)⁠. Such findings suggest that

basic knowledge about drivers and mechanisms of visual attention can lead to more effective

advertising, both in making advertisers avoid making bad choices, but also in providing a causal

understanding of not only how something happens, but also why it happens.

Finally, ​applied research​ is the approach which is used to solve a practical problem. In the context of

consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing, we find this in commercial studies that compare two or

more versions of the same ad, or how the same ad works on different platform. For example, in two

neuromarketing studies by Canada Post (summarized in ​https://goo.gl/GZ2tb3​), it was first found that

direct mail provided 21% increased comprehension and 20% higher emotional responses to ads than on

digital platforms (email and display). A second study looked at the dynamic combination of advertising

on print and digital media, where it was found that print advertising produced 40% more brand recall

when it followed digital advertising, compared to other media orders. Such studies demonstrate how

neuroscience tools and methods can be used to provide tangible, quantifiable results that go beyond

self-reported measures. Similar studies have been made on the comparison of advertising on

publisher’s websites compared to social news feeds (Neuro-Insight, ​https://goo.gl/fT2Ly9​) and that the

combination of neurometric assessment with self-reports demonstrates superior predictive power of

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

10
market effects (Nielsen Consumer Neuroscience, ​https://goo.gl/Rbg4RE​)

Crucially, applied research is needed to support translational research in avoiding making logical

errors. In particular, one challenge with translational research is the concept of ​reverse inference,​ which

in logical terms if referred to as “afrming the consequent.” This is best explained through a famous

example, such as the study by Martin Lindstrøm in his best-selling book “Buyology” (Lindström,

2010)⁠, that was also an early defining publication for this discipline. As part of his many studies, he

found that when smokers were scanned using fMRI and were shown a cigarette package with health

warnings on, they displayed a higher degree of activation of the ventral striatum. This region had

previously been shown to be responsive to the expectation to rewards (Haber & Knutson, 2009)⁠,

leading Lindstrøm to assert that smokers watching the warning signs were expecting a reward.

However, the implicit assumption here is that there is a 1:1 relationship between brain activity in the

ventral striatum and reward expectation. On the contrary, other studies have demonstrated that the

ventral striatum can also be engaged in the expectation of punishments (Levita et al., 2009)⁠. Thus,

merely reading off the activity of the ventral striatum cannot be used as a direct measure of reward --

smokers watching the warning signs could just as well be engaging the ventral striatum as a part of

expecting a punishment or a bad experience (perhaps bad conscience). Indeed, several emotional

structures are showing a so-called bi-valent response pattern, meaning that they can be engaged by

positive and negative events (Gelskov et al., 2015; Ramsøy & Skov, 2010)⁠. Thus, just as the ventral

striatum cannot be seen as a “reward” structure, the amygdala cannot be seen as a “fear” structure.

What is therefore needed from applied research, is a way to ensure that basic research is translated,

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

11
validated and tested up against the initial claims from basic research. If it is suggested that, say, a

particular brain response is related to brand loyalty (Plassmann, Ramsøy, & Milosavljevic, 2012)⁠ then

applied research should seek to validate this in independent studies, both by testing the accuracy of this

claim, as well as whether the response is specifically about brand loyalty. In doing this, applied

research needs a solid methodological footing, something that I will return to in the last section on

establishing a neurometric validation framework.

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS

A conceptual confusion seems to be at stake in the intersection between the difference sciences of

economics, psychology and neuroscience, and especially in business. Here, words like “emotions” can

have different meanings depending on whether you take an approach from psychology (emotions often

mean bodily responses, typically with a subconscious origin) or behavioral economics (emotions may

be seen as conscious “feelings”). There are existing definitions from cognitive neuroscience and

neuroscience, lending support from psychology, that could be recommended to be used – the primary

aspect here is that concepts need to be further deconstructed into smaller subcomponents, so that

“attention” and “memory” are not treated as single entities and measures. Here, I strongly recommend

that the language of cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience be employed, as it by far has the

longest and most substantial research on the faculties of the mind.

Let us take a couple of examples, and please note that these examples are only noted to serve as

examples of the conceptual issues, and are not to be seen as fully developed concepts to be applied in

consumer neuroscience or neuromarketing. Here, we start with “attention.” This is well described by a

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

12
famous quote by the 19th century psychologist William James: “Everyone knows what attention is. It is

taking possession of the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seems several simultaneously

possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration of consciousness are of its essence. It

implies a withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others” (James, 1890)⁠. Indeed,

in everyday language, we know what attention is. However, probing slightly deeper, we can also

recognize that the term “attention” covers a host of different phenomena and mechanisms. In cognitive

psychology and neuropsychology, it has long been known that attention needs to be divided into

several forms, such as:

Bottom-up attention​ -- this type of attention is fast, non-volitional and driven by the senses,

which in turn respond to features of the object of attention. In visual attention, aspects such as

contrast, density, angles, movement and color composition can all operate as indices of “visual

salience” and affect the likelihood that an item is seen. In many ways, bottom-up attention is

“always on.” For example, in a study of attention to billboard advertisements during driving

showed that attention was mainly driven by billboard position, there was also a small but

significant contribution of visual saliency (Wilson & Casper, 2016)⁠. In the domain of food

choice, a forthcoming paper demonstrates how products ability to capture attention can increase

the likelihood of these products in being chosen (Peschel, Orquin, & Mueller Loose, 2019)⁠.

Top-down attention​ -- best equated to “concentration,” this type of attention is related to a slow,

effortful and volitional mobilization of one’s mind to an object of interest. By contrast to

bottom-up attention, top-down needs time to be mobilized, and as such is not “always on.” For

example, in a study of attention-related brain responses during product viewing, it was found

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

13
 that watching branded luxury products with another person led to an increase in attention and

desire towards the product (Pozharliev et al., 2015)⁠.

Emotion-driven attention ​-- when something triggers an emotional response, one immediate

effect is that it boosts attention towards the item that triggers the event. From neuroscience, we

know that “emotional” brain regions such as the amygdala sends more signals back to the visual

cortex than it receives from it (Morris et al., 2015)⁠, thus exerting emotional control over visual

attention. This not only leads to a brain-based boost in activity, but also other behaviors such as

stronger pupil dilation, and longer fixation to the item of interest. In terms of advertising, the

literature may initially seem slightly divided, as some studies suggest that strong emotional

responses are able to grab and sustain attention (Teixeira, Wedel, & Pieters, 2012)⁠, while other

studies suggest that emotional advertising can lead to lower ad attention (Heath, Nairn, &

Bottomley, 2009)⁠.

Cognition-driven attention​ -- items that are attended, even for a brief moment, can lead to

automatic cognitive responses. Most notably, when the eyes fall on a text, it is practically

impossible not to read the text. This acquired automatic reading leads to slightly longer

attention to the items that contain words, at least when they are seen in the first place (Bang &

Wojdynski, 2016)⁠. One cognitive driver of attention is different aspects of visual complexity.

For example, in a study comparing levels of ad complexity reported that only ads that had

higher visual complexity were associated with lower brand attention, while ads with a higher

creative complexity were associated with attention that was more dedicated to relevant

information such as product, text and brand (Pieters, Wedel, & Batra, 2010)⁠.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

14
Together, this subdivision demonstrates that “attention” is not a single thing or process, but a

phenomenon that covers multiple causes. As such, the term “attention” can only be used as a general

reference. More notably, research questions such as “what are people paying attention to?” can only be

considered in a more detailed context, and should rather be asked as “what are people paying attention

to automatically, what needs more time, and what is driven by emotional and cognitive responses?”

While this may seem unnecessarily complex, such questions not only allow an answer to the general

question of what people are looking at, but also allows a better understanding of ​why​ people are

looking there in the first place. Such causal understanding allows advertisers to have a better model of

how they can change and boost attention to the items that they are most interested in being seen.

A second mongrel concept is, as noted earlier, the concept of “emotions.” Here, we also almost naively

know what emotions and feelings are, but are more challenged once pressed to come up with a crisp

definition. In the literature, as in the English language, the words “emotions” and “feelings” are often

used to denote the same mental response. For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines

emotions as “a conscious mental reaction (such as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong

feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and

behavioral changes in the body,” and feelings as multiple things, among them “an emotional state or

reaction,” “the undifferentiated background of one's awareness considered apart from any identifiable

sensation, perception, or thought,” and “the overall quality of one's awareness” and “conscious

recognition.” Conversely, in the psychology and neuroscience literature, there is a strong tendency to

distinguish between “emotions” to mean neural and bodily responses to events, often occurring without

subjective awareness, and “feelings” to address the conscious experience of (some of) emotional

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

15
responses (Ramsøy, 2015). This distinction is not typically made in marketing or in other disciplines,

often leading to unnecessary confusion.

Clearly, decades of research into psychology and neuroscience have demonstrated that there is indeed a

distinction between conscious and subconscious responses that needs a better nomenclature. For

example, in the aforementioned study by McClure (2004), it was found that hedonic experience was

related to the engagement of specific parts of the frontal lobe, such as the ventromedial prefrontal

cortex. Similar studies of hedonic experience support this, and have extended into different domains of

hedonic experience, such as whether the reward experience is abstract, concrete, positive or negative

(Kringelbach & Radcliffe, 2005)⁠. Conversely, decades of studies have demonstrated neural and

physiological responses that occur before or under conscious detection that are related to valuation and

decision-making. For example, studies of negative emotions show that the fear response occurs much

faster than conscious detection, leading to physiological (e.g., the heart starts racing) and bodily

responses (e.g., the body starts to tense up) before we become aware of being scared (Bishop, 2008;

Hariri et al., 2003; Morris et al., 2015)⁠. Such examples, also supported by the wiring of the brain

(Bishop, 2008; Linke et al., 2010; Vuilleumier, 2005)⁠ demonstrate that early valuation occurs before

conscious experience, and become embedded as part of the conscious experience of fear (e.g., you feel

scared at the same time as you jump in the chair).

Moreover, in an fMRI gambling study by Pessiglione et al. (2008)⁠ it was shown that participants were

able to learn reward-punishment contingencies to subliminally presented visual cues before the gamble

choice was to be made. These previously shown cues were either contingently related to subsequent

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

16
win or loss. Since they were presented subliminally, the participant had no way of detecting this

contingency consciously and thereby use such information to consciously steer their choice. Here, the

subliminally presented cues led to the engagement of deep structures of the brain, such as the nucleus

accumbens, without the participant noticing the stimulus or any kind of evaluation process. Still, this

response led to changes in stimulus-based decisions, with the participants still feeling that they were

guessing the right choice. This study also demonstrates that a subconscious valuation process is at stake

that drives behavior and precedes conscious experience. Such studies are further supported by other

studies showing that conscious valuation occurs after the behavioral aspects of a choice has been made

(Santos et al, 2011)⁠.

Taken together, we now know that valuation processes, which eventually affect behavior and choice,

are related to at least two types of mental responses -- one conscious and another subconscious.

Capturing this into terms such as “emotions” and “feelings” to describe the subconscious and conscious

nature of valuation, respectively, is both scientifically supported and valuable for the discourse of an

emerging multidisciplinary discipline.

A NEUROMETRIC VALIDATION FRAMEWORK

The validity of claims in commercialized neuroscience, in the form of neuromarketing practices, has

been a critical issue since the earliest days of the field. There have been laudable efforts in comparing

methods and establishing standards, such as the 2010 NeuroStandards 1.0 and 2.0 projects by the

Advertising Research Foundation (ARF, ​www.thearf.org​) (Varan et al., 2015)⁠, and by the

NeuroMarketing Business and Science Association (NMSBA, ​http://www.nmsba.com/​), as well as the

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

17
European Society for Opinion in Marketing Research (ESOMAR, ​https://goo.gl/hoA4rV​).

However, in these publications and efforts, the main findings and recommendations have been that 1)

neuromarketing measures that are assumed to assess the same (e.g., of emotional responses) diverge

substantially when compared against each other, and 2) more research is needed to validate each

method and to demonstrate predictive ability of these measures. At the same time, one may claim that a

general shortcoming of these approaches has been to establish true standards for the emerging

discipline, especially in ensuring that metrics are validated and documented, that any claim should be

fully supported by the science at which it rests, and that independent research can be conducted to

ensure that metrics are valid and reliable.

We are currently in a time where scientific validity and reliability is not only something that is a

challenge in applied sciences. Rather, recent debates in basic science, and perhaps psychology in

particular (Collaboration, 2015)⁠, suggest that the validity and reliability of scientific claims can be

challenged. The current “replication crisis” in science is not only seen as something within science, but

also something that hinges on the commercialization of science results, which may in turn lead to

selectivity and boosting of otherwise smaller effects (Aguinis, Cascio, & Ramani, 2017)⁠. Indeed, this

proves to be a valuable discourse that neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience can make use of.

The issues pointed out in this paper, on the lack of validation studies in consumer neuroscience and

neuromarketing, are shared more broadly with science as a whole.

Therefore, instead of “reinventing the wheel,” there are existing terms and approaches that can be

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

18
adopted for ensuring a validated science of neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience. To some

extent, some of this can be borrowed from the clinical sciences, as often seen in medical companies

developing drugs. For example, if a pharmacological company claims to have developed a drug that

cures 80% of depressed patients, they will and shall not be trusted on the results of internally conducted

studies. Rather, independent groups will run tests on the drug to test the purported effects of the drug,

as well as adjacent topics, such as side effects. Notably, the medical company does not necessarily need

to disclose the exact contents of the drug to have their medication tested. In the same vein,

neuromarketing companies need not disclose the exact calculation of their metric to have it tested by an

independent agent. Thus, intellectual property can be retained while independent validation can be

performed.

When establishing new metrics, or in assessing existing metrics, there are already several measures that

should be used. Here, borrowing heavily from psychometrics and clinical neuropsychology, we can

focus on what can be considered to be some of the crucial measures: sensitivity, specificity, validity,

and reliability. Beyond this, we shall also consider the extra step that commercialization of metrics

means for normalizing scores and establishing normative ranges and industry benchmarks.

Sensitivity​ -- a metric needs to be able to respond to what it is supposed to measure. A metric claiming

to assess emotional valence, should show a response to positive and negative stimuli that is different

from neutral stimuli. The same for measures of cognitive load, or mental demand, should also be

responsive to whether people are indeed mentally demanded. This feat can be established through

well-controlled experiments, in which only the critical factor (e.g., emotional valence) is controlled and

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

19
all other factors (e.g., cognitive demand) are kept constant. Alternatively, it is possible to ensure

sensitivity through a golden standard measure, such as another well-established measure. This is often

done if the existing measure is expensive and/or difficult to implement in the current setting.

Specificity ​-- a metric should not only be sensitive to the response it is intended to measure. At the

same time, it should not be sensitive to responses that are not considered its main target. For example, a

measure of emotional valence should not be sensitive to mental demand (unless high cognitive demand

leads to negative emotions), or other non-valence properties. Here, tests with good experimental control

over the intended measure (e.g., emotional valence) and other effects (e.g., cognitive demand) should

be conducted. For example, for the aforementioned interpretation by Lindstrøm (2010) that activity in

the nucleus accumbens was indicative of reward expectation should be true, the nucleus accumbens

should ​only b​ e responding during reward expectation and not anything else. But as we saw, a single

study demonstrating that the same structure can be engaged by expected negative outcomes will suffice

as a rejection of this specificity assumption (Levita et al., 2009). The same goes for assumptions that

the amygdala is a “fear structure” (Ledoux & Ravalomanana, 2004)⁠ where studies have shown that this

structure is responsive to rewards (Fellows, 2004; Kühn, Strelow, & Gallinat, 2016; Murray, 2007)⁠ and

novelty (Balderston, Schultz, & Helmstetter, 2011; Blackford et al., 2010)⁠.

The use of sensitivity and specificity allows a good designation of the metric’s positive predictive value

(PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), which denotes the metric’s ability to correctly respond to

the real effect and to correctly say when there is no response, respectively.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

20
Validity​ -- the concept of validity in metrics is an enormous area, and too large for a substantial

treatment here. In general, validity is concerned with whether a given claim can be supported. If a

metric is supposed to measure emotional valence, can this be seen in a well controlled study, and is the

measure also not only working inside a controlled lab environment, but also predictive of responses and

behaviors outside the lab? A few selected validity types include:

Construct validity ​-- This validity is typically broken down into two main sections: convergent

validity, and discriminant validity. ​Convergent validity​ is best explained as whether two metrics

that are intended to measure the same, are indeed doing so. Indeed, this is much related to the

term “sensitivity” as described earlier, although we here focus on two metrics that should be

compared. Here, we should expect the two measures to show a high degree of correlation with

each other, and no significant differences with direct comparisons (e.g., through t-test

comparison). ​Discriminant validity​ is the ability of two or more metrics that are not intended to

show the same, to correctly not show any relationship. This can be assessed through a

combination of direct comparisons (e.g., a t-test should show that they are different, but a

correlation analysis should show no positive or negative correlation). Here, the work by Varan

et al. (2015) is a clear demonstration that vendor definitions and measures of single terms such

as “engagement” and “positive emotions” varied widely, and that there was basically no

convergent validity between these vendors, even though the statistical approach used in this

paper did not employ recommended statistical approaches for evaluating construct validity

(Campbell & Fiske, 1959; Duckworth & Kern, 2011)⁠.

External validity -​ - This type of validity is concerned with whether the result from a study can

be extrapolated to a broader population. If an effect can only be observed in a highly controlled

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

21
 lab environment, and it is not related to any response in the population as a whole, it is said that

the external validity is low. For example, we would be in trouble if a lab based study showed

strong emotional responses to ads with a particular feature, but that this was not the case in the

broader population. Here, the previously mentioned studies can serve as examples of good

examples of relevant external validity, as these metrics demonstrate a clear and direct relation to

independent market behaviors such as Twitter behavior and Nielsen ratings (Dmochowski et al.,

2014)⁠, music hits that had gone viral (Berns & Moore, 2012)⁠, and box office sales of movies

(Boksem & Smidts, 2015)⁠.

Internal validity​ -- This type of validity is more concerned with how the test is actually done,

both in terms of when making a metric, but also when employing the metric to test a given

condition, such as advertisements. Here, internal validity is concerned with whether the test

controls for important factors so that irrelevant aspects do not impact the results. For example,

in running a gender-comparison test of ad responses, there would be low internal validity if men

and women were also exposed to different testing conditions, such as one group sitting in a

more noisy room, or seeing ads in a systematically different order than the other group.

Sometimes, internal validity can be in conflict with external validity – the need for good

experimental control can sometimes make the experiment less like normal situations. Here, an

important discussion between the parties should address the balancing act of making a study

that is both well-controlled and representative of a broader population.

Reliability​ -- This concept is related to whether a given metric is consistently producing the same

response, and thereby the same conclusions. Reliability comes in four types:

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

22
 Test-retest reliability​ -- This is a crucial score where a metric should lead to the same result and

conclusion in two separate yet comparable samples. If a given metric is low on test-retest

reliability, it is not trustworthy as a metric for usage. Related to this score is a ​split-half​ test,

where larger samples can be randomly (or pseudo-randomly to balance groups) assigned to two

groups, and where a strong positive correlation on the metric should be expected. While this is

done, it is also possible to test different group sizes, to better understand at what group size a

test shows a sufficiently high test-retest reliability. To my knowledge, although the literature on

reliability in neuroimaging methods is growing and supporting the methods and basic metrics

(Angelidis et al., 2016; Aron, Gluck, & Poldrack, 2006; Ettinger et al., 2003; Farzin et al., 2011;

Mathewson et al., 2015)⁠, there are at this point no known publications of test-retest reliability in

consumer neuroscience research. This strongly suggests that as a field, consumer neuroscience

methods need a concerted effort to engage in projects that assess the reliability of their

measures and metrics beyond what is found in the basic neuroscience methods.

Parallel forms reliability​ -- A metric can also be confirmed by being compared to other

measures of the same phenomenon. For example, if a metric claims to assess cognitive demand,

then a test can be conducted in which the score itself is compared to existing and established

scores of cognitive demand. Such a measure could be compared to the engagement of the

dorsolateral prefrontal cortex as measured with fMRI (Rypma, Berger, & Esposito, 2002)⁠, and

even with pupil dilation, as measured with high-resolution eye-tracking and pupillometry

(Hyona, Tommola, & Alaja, 1995)⁠.

Internal consistency reliability​ -- This type of reliability is concerned with whether the given

metric is corresponding to other metrics. For example, let’s say that we have five different

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

23
 measures of emotional valence, using different methods to measure this, and we call them the

“emotion test battery” and claim that they measure exactly the same. So, we have one measure

using electroencephalography (EEG) brain scanning, one using fMRI, another using galvanic

skin response (GSR), one using pupil dilation, and one using facial expressions. In testing

internal consistency reliability, we would expect that the correlation between each pairwise

comparison of these measures should be highly positive. If they are not, we cannot claim that

these measures are assessing exactly the same response. The same argument goes if we find,

say, four different brain responses of emotional valence just by using one brain scanning

method -- if we claim that these are all the same responses can be tested with internal

consistency reliability. Interestingly, while we would not expect independent commercial

vendors in coming up with multiple measures of the same, this approach would still be very

valuable in ensuring that claims of the same measure ​between​ vendors.

Inter-rater reliability​ -- This type of reliability should mostly be done within an experiment, to

make sure that results and conclusions do not depend on the person running the test. As an

extension, we can say that there should be no effect of which technicians are doing the test, who

runs the data preprocessing, or who runs the analyses. Here, running inter-rater reliability

testing can be done through means such as intraclass-correlation correlation analyses.

These four steps are to be considered crucial in ensuring that a robust and valid science and

commercialization of neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience. Besides this, a few other notable

areas should be addressed that may be more or less specific to this industry. First, recent advances in

cognitive neuroscience imply that we can consider ​consistency in a smaller sample​ to be a predictor of

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

24
market effects. Studies have shown that responses within a smaller sample can be highly predictive of

population responses. An early smaller study by Berns and Moore (2010)⁠ showed that neural responses

in a small sample was predictive of later music hits. In the aforementioned study by Boksem and

Smidts (2014), a similar type of study found that brain responses to movie trailers in a small sample

was relatively predictive of box office sales. Some studies suggest that these responses are related to

the degree to which the smaller group shows coherent responses, as demonstrated by Dmochowski et

al. (2014), who showed that coherent responses in a sample of 16 participants were predictive of both

Nielsen ratings and Twitter feed responses, which prior research had also show to be correlated (see

https://www.multichannel.com/news/big-tweets-map-big-tvratings-nielsen-study-306648​).

Together, these studies suggest that a neuroscience based metric can also be assessed as to whether it is

predictive of behaviors outside of the study itself. Importantly, while such studies demonstrate that

consumer neuroscience studies with smaller sample sizes can produce predictive results and significant

insights, more often we see that larger sample sizes are recommended. Typically, a sample size of

N=30 is a recommended minimum for a coherent sample, and this number should be multiplied by the

number of groups that one wants to study based on aspects such as age, income, geography, education,

and ethnicity. Such studies often reach sample sizes of 120, 180, or other multipliers of 30.

Commercial solutions should additionally strive to establish metrics with additional properties. Most

notably, normalization and benchmarking is probably among the most crucial elements. In making use

of commercial metrics, buyers of such services are interested in understanding both how well an ad

performs in absolute terms, as well as how it stacks up against some industry benchmark. Therefore,

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

25
two steps should be taken to obtain this. First, companies offering neurometric solutions should

normalize their scores, as this potentially allows a normative read-out of whether a score in itself is

positive, neutral or negative. This is crucial, as the difference in emotional performance of two or more

ads is tremendously more relevant if one at the same time can say that the scores are negative, or

whether the highest performing is a positive emotions and the rest are negative emotions. This

additional discriminatory ability allows a better understanding of the results. Second, the establishment

of industry benchmarks for ads can also be highly relevant -- perhaps ads for fast-moving consumer

goods are in general producing much lower scores on cognitive demand than insurance ads. Similar to

this, benchmarks for types of products (e.g., following the divisions by Rossiter, Percy and Donovan

(1991)⁠) and for advertising platform types (e.g., mobile, print, desktop) should be considered. These,

and other similar efforts to standardize metrics are highly likely to not only increase the scientific

validity and reliability of these new metrics, but also to foster better usage and more trust in them.

CONCLUSION

For many years, we have been touted the promise of neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience as an

unparalleled access to consumers’ subconscious minds. However, despite these assertions, we have

instead seen a fragmentation of academic research, a general sub-par publication level, industrial

over-promising and under-delivering, and a generally non-existing validation of the metrics that are

offered. Here, I have suggested three main steps that can be necessary first steps to ensuring that

neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience can become a valid, coherent field of conduct. First,

making a distinction between basic, translational and applied research will allow us to better navigate

the different types of insight, and how it can be used for inspiration and for application. Second, we

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

26
need to clear the conceptual confusion that this field is littered with -- a full nomenclature of consumer

neuroscience and neuromarketing is needed, and proper definitions should be made and followed by

the industry. Finally, we need to have a rigorous of ensuring the validity of neurometric approaches and

measures. Here, independent research would be the golden standard, although other standards are also

acceptable, such as publication in esteemed peer-reviewed science journals. Indeed, the ARF is

continuing efforts to raise standards and quality in all research, including neuroscience.

These three steps are in no way to be seen as sufficient to create a valid neuromarketing and consumer

neuroscience discipline. The three steps may serve as a foundation and even a roadmap, but more steps

should already be considered. For example, there should be an organizational leverage, through

organizations such as the ARF, NMSBA, ESOMAR and related organizations. Further publication

efforts should be made, both through special issue, such as the present paper is embedded as a part of,

through traditional journal publications, and through independent journal and publication initiatives.

Importantly, researchers and practitioners alike should strive towards lifting the quality of these papers

to be accepted to the highest available publication standards. Furthermore, conference sessions with the

aim of ensuring validity of neuroscience measures should be a regular topic, and even in the high seat

of meetings.

The current state of neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience is far from where it is both intended

and promised to be. A recent business report suggests that the total market interest in consumer

neuroscience, neuromarketing and non-conscious assessment methods is around 80% and thus has

“reached a tipping point and is now being embraced by the majority of the industry using one or more

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

27
of the [non-conscious] key methods available (...)” (Greenbook Research Industry Trends report,

https://goo.gl/ahrUuG​, p. 23). This suggests that consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing is at the

cusp of going big. However, if the issues mentioned in this paper persist, one can only assume that such

development will stall and possibly reverse, as an increase in confusion and distrust. To avoid this, the

contention of this paper is that there needs to be at least a bare minimum of collaborative efforts to

reduce conceptual confusion and increase validity of neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience. The

upside of this will be easier access for newcomers to the field, improved translation of insights from

basic research, a better clarification of what can be delivered with neuroscience based metrics, and a

higher degree of transparency for buyers and offerers of this technology.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

28
REFERENCES

Angelidis, A., van der Does, W., Schakel, L., & Putman, P. (2016). Frontal EEG theta/beta ratio as an
electrophysiological marker for attentional control and its test-retest reliability. Biological
Psychology, 121, 49–52.
Aguinis, H., Cascio, W. F., & Ramani, R. S. (2017). Science’s reproducibility and replicability crisis:
International business is not immune. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(6), 653–663.
Ariely, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in business.
Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 11(4), 284–292.
Aron, A. R., Gluck, M. A., & Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Long-term test-retest reliability of functional
MRI in a classification learning task. NeuroImage, 29(3), 1000–1006.
Balderston, N. L., Schultz, D. H., & Helmstetter, F. J. (2011). The human amygdala plays a stimulus
specific role in the detection of novelty. NeuroImage, 55(4), 1889–1898.
Bang, H., & Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). Tracking users’ visual attention and responses to personalized
advertising based on task cognitive demand. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 867–876.
Berns, G. S., & Moore, S. E. (2012). A neural predictor of cultural popularity. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22(1), 154–160.
Bishop, S. J. (2008). Neural mechanisms underlying selective attention to threat. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences, 1129, 141–152.
Blackford, J. U., Buckholtz, J. W., Avery, S. N., & Zald, D. H. (2010). A unique role for the human
amygdala in novelty detection. NeuroImage, 50(3), 1188–1193.
Bogomolova, S., Oppewal, H., Cohen, J., & Yao, J. (2015). How the Layout of a Price Label
Influences Unit Price Visual Attention and Choice During Grocery Shopping. Ssrn, 1–12.
Boksem, M. A. ., & Smidts, A. (2014). Brain responses to movie-trailers predict individual preferences
for movies and their population-wide commercial success. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4),
482–492.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix 1. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81-105.
Christoforou, C., Papadopoulos, T. C., Constantinidou, F., & Theodorou, M. (2017). Your Brain on the
Movies: A Computational Approach for Predicting Box-office Performance from Viewer’s Brain
Responses to Movie Trailers. Frontiers in Neuroinformatics, 11(December), 1–13.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

29
Collaboration, O. S. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science (New
York, N.Y.), 349(6251), aac4716.
Corballis, M. C. (2014). Left Brain, Right Brain: Facts and Fantasies. PLoS Biology, 12(1).
Diener, E. (2010). Neuroimaging: Voodoo, New Phrenology, or Scientific Breakthrough? Introduction
to Special Section on fMRI. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 714–715.
Dmochowski, J. P., Bezdek, M. a., Abelson, B. P., Johnson, J. S., Schumacher, E. H., & Parra, L. C.
(2014). Audience preferences are predicted by temporal reliability of neural processing. Nature
Communications, 5, 1–9.
Duckworth, A. L., & Kern, M. L. (2011). A Meta-Analysis of the Convergent Validity of Self-Control
Measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 259–268.
Ettinger, U., Kumari, V., Crawford, T. J., Davis, R. E., Sharma, T., & Corr, P. J. (2003). Reliability of
smooth pursuit, fixation, and saccadic eye movements. Psychophysiology, 40(4), 620–628.
Farzin, F., Scaggs, F., Hervey, C., Berry-Kravis, E., & Hessl, D. (2011). Reliability of eye tracking and
pupillometry measures in individuals with fragile X syndrome. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 41(11), 1515–1522.
Fellows, L. K. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of human decision making: a review and conceptual
framework. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(3), 159–172.
Friston, K. J., & Price, C. J. (2003). Degeneracy and redundancy in cognitive anatomy. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 151–152.
Garaus, M., Wolfsteiner, E., & Wagner, U. (2016). Shoppers’ acceptance and perceptions of electronic
shelf labels. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3687–3692.
Gelskov, S. V., Henningsson, S., Madsen, K. H., Siebner, H. R., & Ramsøy, T. Z. (2015). Amygdala
signals subjective appetitiveness and aversiveness of mixed gambles. Cortex, 66(July 2016),
81–90.
Groeppel-Klein, A. (2005). Arousal and consumer in-store behavior. Brain Research Bulletin, 67(5),
428–437.
Haber, S. N., & Knutson, B. (2009). The Reward Circuit: Linking Primate Anatomy and Human
Imaging. Neuropsychopharmacology : Official Publication of the American College of
Neuropsychopharmacology, 4–26.
Hariri, A. R., Mattay, V. S., Tessitore, A., Fera, F., Weinberger, D. R., James, W., … Lazarus, R.
(2003). Neocortical Modulation of the Amygdala Response to Fearful Stimuli. Physiology &

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

30
 Behavior.
Harris, J. M., Ciorciari, J., & Gountas, J. (2018). Consumer neuroscience for marketing researchers.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(3), 239–252.
Heath, R. G., Nairn, A. C., & Bottomley, P. A. (2009). How effective is creativity? emotive content in
TV advertising does not increase attention. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(4).
Hernandez, M. D., Wang, Y., Sheng, H., Kalliny, M., & Minor, M. (2017). Escaping the corner of
death? An eye-tracking study of reading direction influence on attention and memory. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 34(1), 1–10.
Higbee, K. L., & Clay, S. L. (1998). College students’ beliefs in the ten-percent myth. Journal of
Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 132(5), 469–476.
Hines, T. (1987). Left brain / right brain mythology and implications for management and training.
Academy of Managemeni Review, 12(4), 600–606.
Hotz, L. (2008). A manifesto for neuromarketing science. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
271(October), 263–271.
Hulme, O. J., Skov, M., Chadwick, M. J., Siebner, H. R., & Ramsøy, T. Z. (2014). Sparse encoding of
automatic visual association in hippocampal networks. NeuroImage, 102(P2).
Hyona, J., Tommola, J., & Alaja, A.-M. (1995). Pupil Dilation as a Measure of Processing Load in
Simultaneous Interpretation and Other Language Tasks. The quarterly journal of experimental
psychology, 48(3), 598–612.
Jarrett, C. (2014). Great myths of the brain. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. Volumes I and II. CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform; Combined edition.
Karmarkar, U. R., Shiv, B., & Knutson, B. (2015). Cost Conscious? The Neural and Behavioral Impact
of Price Primacy on Decision Making. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 467–481.
Kennedy, R., & Northover, H. (2016). How to Use Neuromeasures To Make Better Advertising
Decisions: Questions Practitioners Should Ask Vendors and Research Priorities for Scholars.
Journal of Advertising Research, 56(2), 183–192.
Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Neural predictors of
purchases. Neuron, 53(1), 147–156.
Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007). Neural predictors of
purchases. Neuron, 53(1), 147–156.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

31
Kringelbach, M. L., & Radcliffe, J. (2005). The human orbitofrontal cortex: linking reward to hedonic
experience. Neuroscience, 6(September), 691–702.
Kroeber-Riel, W. (1979). Activation Research: Psychobiological Approaches in Consumer Research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 5(4), 240.
Kühn, S., Strelow, E., & Gallinat, J. (2016). Multiple “buy buttons” in the brain: Forecasting chocolate
sales at point-of-sale based on functional brain activation using fMRI. NeuroImage, 136, 122–128.
LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain : the mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. Simon &
Schuster.
LeDoux, J., & Ravalomanana, M. (2004). The amygdala. Current Biology, 17(20), 868–874.
Lee, N., Broderick, A. J., & Chamberlain, L. (2007). What is “neuromarketing”? A discussion and
agenda for future research. International Journal of Psychophysiology : Official Journal of the
International Organization of Psychophysiology, 63(2), 199–204.
Lee, N., Chamberlain, L., & Brandes, L. (2018). Welcome to the jungle! The neuromarketing literature
through the eyes of a newcomer. European Journal of Marketing, 52(1–2), 4–38.
Levita, L., Hare, T. a, Voss, H. U., Glover, G., Ballon, D. J., & Casey, B. J. (2009). The bivalent side of
the nucleus accumbens. NeuroImage, 44(3), 1178–1187.
Lindström, M. (2010). Buyology : truth and lies about why we buy. Broadway Books.

Linke, J., Kirsch, P., King, A. V, Gass, A., Hennerici, M. G., Bongers, A., & Wessa, M. (2010).
Motivational orientation modulates the neural response to reward. NeuroImage, 49(3), 2618–2625.
Marci, C. D. (2006). A biologically based measure of emotional engagement: Context matters. Journal
of Advertising Research, 46(4), 381–387.
Mathewson, K. J., Hashemi, A., Sheng, B., Sekuler, A. B., Bennett, P. J., & Schmidt, L. A. (2015).
Regional electroencephalogram (EEG) alpha power and asymmetry in older adults: a study of
short-term test–retest reliability. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience, 7, 177.
Mcclure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Montague, P. R. (2004). Neural
correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks. Neuron, 44(2), 379–387.
Milosavljevic, M., & Cerf, M. (2008). First attention then intention Insights from computational
neuroscience of vision, 27(3), 381–398.
Morris, J. S., Friston, K. J., Büchel, C., Frith, C. D., Young, A. W., Calder, A. J., & Dolan, R. J.
(2015). A neuromodulatory role for the human amygdala in processing emotional facial
expressions. Science, 121 ( Pt 1, 47–57.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

32
Murray, E. A. (2007). The amygdala, reward and emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(11),
489–497.
Neff, J. (2016). Neuromarketing Exits “Hype Cycle,” Begins to Shape TV Ads | CMO Strategy - Ad
Age. Retrieved from
http://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/neuromarketing-exits-hype-cycle-begins-shape-tv-ads/3035
82/
Peschel, A. O., Orquin, J. L., & Mueller Loose, S. (2019). Increasing consumers’ attention capture and
food choice through bottom-up effects. Appetite, 132, 1–7.
Pessiglione, M., Petrovic, P., Daunizeau, J., Palminteri, S., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2008).
Subliminal instrumental conditioning demonstrated in the human brain. Neuron, 59(4), 561–567.
Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Batra, R. (2010). The Stopping Power of Advertising: Measures and Effects
of Visual Complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 48–60.
Plassmann, H., Doherty, J. O., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural
representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
105(3), 3–7.
Plassmann, H., Ramsøy, T. Z., & Milosavljevic, M. (2012). Branding the brain : A critical review and
outlook. Journal of Consumer Psychology.
Pogliano, C. (2017). Lucky Triune Brain: Chronicles of Paul D. MacLean’s Neuro-Catchword.
Nuncius, 32(2), 330–375.
Pozharliev, R., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Van Strien, J. W., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2015). Merely Being with
You Increases My Attention to Luxury Products: Using EEG to Understand Consumers’
Emotional Experience with Luxury Branded Products. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4),
546–558.
Ramsøy, T. Z. (2015). Introduction to neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience. Neurons Inc
Publishing.
Ramsøy, T. Z., & Skov, M. (2010). How genes make up your mind: Individual biological differences
and value-based decisions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31(5).
Ramsøy, T. Z., Skov, M., Christensen, M. K., & Stahlhut, C. (2018). Frontal brain asymmetry and
willingness to pay. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12(MAR).
Ravaja, N., Somervuori, O., & Salminen, M. (2012). Predicting Purchase Decision: The Role of
Hemispheric Asymmetry Over the Frontal Cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and
Economics.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

33
Reynolds, T. J., & Phillips, J. M. (2018). The Strata Model Predicting Advertising Effectiveness.
Journal of Advertising Research, JAR-2018-037.
Rossiter, J. R., Percy, L., & Donovan, R. J. (1991). Planning Grid. Journal of Advertising, November,
11–22.
Rypma, B., Berger, J. S., & Esposito, M. D. (2002). The Influence of Working-Memory Demand and
Subject Performance on Prefrontal Cortical Activity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(5),
721-731.
Santos, J. P., Seixas, D., Brandão, S., & Moutinho, L. (2011). Investigating the Role of the
Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex in the Assessment of Brands. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 5(June),
8.
Schmidt, L., Skvortsova, V., Kullen, C., Weber, B., & Plassmann, H. (2017). How context alters value:
Price information recruits the brain’s valuation and affective regulation system for shaping
experienced taste pleasantness.
Shen, F., & Morris, J. D. (2016). Decoding neural responses to emotion in television commercials: An
integrative study of self-reporting and fMRI measures. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(2),
193–204.
Shiv, B. (2011). Is Mr. Spock a good candidate for being a connected customer? The role of emotion in
decision making. In “The Connected Customer: The Changing Nature of Consumer and Business
Marketing” (pp. 141-161), eds. S. Wuyts, M. G. Dekimpe, E. Gijsbrechts & R. Pieters, Routledge:
New York, NY
Teixeira, T., Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2012). Emotion-Induced Engagement in Internet Video
Advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(2), 144–159.
Varan, D., Lang, A., Barwise, P., Weber, R., & Bellman, S. (2015). How reliable are neuromarketers’
measures of advertising effectiveness: Data from ongoing research holds no common truth among
vendors. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(2), 176–191.
Votinov, M., Aso, T., Fukuyama, H., & Mima, T. (2016). A Neural Mechanism of Preference Shifting
Under Zero Price Condition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 10(April), 1–11.
Vuilleumier, P. (2005). How brains beware: Neural mechanisms of emotional attention. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 9(12), 585–594.
Wilson, R. M., Gaines, J., & Hill, R. P. (2008). Neuromarketing and Consumer Free Will. Journal of
Consumer Affairs, 42(3), 389–410.
Wilson, R. T., & Casper, J. (2016). The role of location and visual saliency in capturing attention to

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

34
View publication stats

outdoor advertising: How location attributes increase the likelihood for a driver to notice a
billboard ad. Journal of Advertising Research, 56(3), 259–273.
Woolf, S. H. (2008). The Meaning of Translational Research and Why It Matters. JAMA, 299(2),
211–213.

IN PRESS MANUSCRIPT – PLEASE REFER TO THIS AS

Ramsøy (in press) A foundation for consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Journal of Advertising
Research

35