Brandingthebrain Acriticalreviewandoutlook

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/233470025
Branding the brain A critical review and outlook
Data in Journal of Consumer Psychology · November 2012
CITATIONS READS
69 2,305
3 authors, including:
Hilke Plassmann
INSEAD
51 PUBLICATIONS 5,026 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Brain bases of social cognition and choice View project
Brands & brains View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Thomas Z. Ramsøy on 18 October 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Journal of
CONSUMER
PSYCHOLOGY
Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 18 – 36
Branding the brain: A critical review and outlook

Hilke Plassmann a,⁎, Thomas Zoëga Ramsøy b, c
, Milica Milosavljevic d
a
INSEAD, Boulevard de Constance, 77305 Fontainebleau, France, and Decision Neuroscience Group, Cognitive Neuroscience Unit, INSERM, Ecole Normale
Supérieure, Paris, France
b
Decision Neuroscience Research Group, Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
c
Danish Research Centre for Magnetic Resonance, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre, Hvidovre, Denmark
d
Division of Computation and Neural Systems, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA
Received 2 February 2011; received in revised form 28 November 2011; accepted 30 November 2011
Available online 21 January 2012
Abstract
The application of neuroscience to marketing, and in particular to the consumer psychology of brands, has gained popularity over the past decade in
the academic and the corporate world. In this paper, we provide an overview of the current and previous research in this area and explain why researchers
and practitioners alike are excited about applying neuroscience to the consumer psychology of brands. We identify critical issues of past research and
discuss how to address these issues in future research. We conclude with our vision of the future potential of research at the intersection of neuroscience
and consumer psychology.
© 2011 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Consumer neuroscience; Neuromarketing; Branding; Attention; Memory; Value
Introduction theories from neuroscience—combined with behavioral theo-

ries, models, and tested experimental designs from consumer
The application of neuroscience to consumer psychology, and psychology and related disciplines such as behavioral decision
in particular to branding, has gained popularity over the past de- sciences—to develop a neuropsychologically sound theory to
cade in academic research and business practice: in the last decade understand consumer behavior.
the number of publications in top marketing journals and Google To appreciate the value of combining neuroscience with con-
references around this topic has grown exponentially and the sumer psychology, it is important to understand the broad range
same holds for the number of neuromarketing companies founded of insights available from neuroscience. Neuroscience is the
(see Fig. 1). study of the nervous system that seeks to understand the biologi-
The birth of the field of consumer neuroscience has gener- cal basis of behavior. This range of insights is too broad for the
ated wide-ranging, ongoing debates of whether this hybrid study of consumer psychology, which is why in the following
field benefits its parent disciplines (consumer psychology paragraphs we briefly clarify which areas within neuroscience
and neuroscience) and, within them, what forms these bene- are the most relevant for consumer neuroscience.
fits might take (Ariely & Berns, 2010; Kenning & Neuroscience research ranges from studying single cells (cel-
Plassmann, 2008; Lee, Broderick, & Chamberlain, 2007; lular neuroscience) to studying how different brain areas or com-
Plassmann, Ambler, Braeutigam, & Kenning, 2007). The plex brain systems, such as the visual system, interact (systems
goal of consumer neuroscience is to adapt methods and neuroscience). Because of the complexity of consumer behavior,
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (H. Plassmann), [email protected] (T.Z. Ramsøy), [email protected] (M. Milosavljevic).
URL: http://www.decisionneuroscience.net (H. Plassmann).
1057-7408/$ -see front matter © 2011 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.010
H. Plassmann et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 18–36 19
Fig. 1. Growth of research applying neuroscience to marketing over time.
insights from systems neuroscience are crucial for consumer neu- critical issues of past research and discuss how to address
roscience, whereas those from cellular neuroscience currently are these issues in future research. We conclude with our vision
limited. of the future potential of research at the intersection of neuro-
Neuroscientists study species ranging from the primitive science and consumer psychology.
(such as sea snails, fruit flies, and leeches) to the complex
(such as mammals and primates). Most consumer neuroscience
studies investigate mental processes in human subjects, but a What is currently done: toward an interdisciplinary
few selected studies also use non-human primates or small an- understanding of consumer decision making
imals such as monkeys as subject populations. 1
Another important distinction is between clinical and non- In this section, we review previous work in neuroscience
clinical research in neuroscience. Clinical research, known as pertinent to understanding underlying processes involved with
neurology, studies how nervous system disorders, trauma, tu- brand decisions. We structure the review using a simple con-
mors and injuries affect cognition, emotion, and behavior in pa- sumer decision-making framework based on prior work in con-
tients as compared to healthy subject populations. In general, sumer psychology (Fig. 2; Kahneman & Snell, 1992;
consumer neuroscience studies consumer responses in healthy Kahneman, Wakker, & Sarin, 1997; Rangel, Camerer, &
subject populations. 2 Montague, 2008; Wirtz, Kruger, Scollon, & Diener, 2003).
A last critical distinction is between consumer neuroscience, We also use this framework to integrate previous consumer
which refers to academic research at the intersection of neuro- neuroscience studies that are directly related to branding ques-
science and consumer psychology, and neuromarketing, tions and to point the way for future applications in consumer
which refers to practitioner and commercial interest in neuro- research.
physiological tools, such as eye tracking, skin conductance, The framework divides the stages that are required for brand
electroencephalography (EEG), and functional magnetic reso- preference formation over time into four basic components:
nance imaging (fMRI), to conduct company-specific market re- (1) representation and attention, (2) predicted value, (3) experi-
search. Neuromarketing has received considerable attention in enced value, and (4) remembered value and learning. Below we
the corporate world, and the growth of neuromarketing compa- explain these basic components and review previous findings
nies over the last decade has been impressive (see Fig. 1). on the underlying neuropsychological processes of each of
The goal of this paper is to shed light on what neuroscience those components. The main brain areas involved with each
can bring to the table to advance our understanding of the con- component of the model are shown in Fig. 3.
sumer psychology of brands. In particular, we aim to provide an
overview of the current state of research in this area, identify
Representation and attention
1
There are at least two major reasons to study non-human subjects in con-
sumer neuroscience. First, studying animals allows consumer neuroscientists The amount of information consumers are exposed to is
to make causal links between brain areas and specific behaviors. Animal work enormous, yet our processing capacity is limited. Each second
allows the application of more invasive methods to brain systems that animals
and humans have in common. Second, if consumer neuroscience researchers
we are exposed to an estimated 11 million bits of information
are using evolutionary theories to explain phenomena in consumer behavior that reach us through all our senses, yet humans are capable
such as behavioral biases, using an animal model allows evolutionary infer- of processing only around 50 bits of that information, letting
ences (i.e., going back in the evolutionary chain). most of the input go by unnoticed (Wilson, 2002). How con-
2
However, there are several reasons to use patient populations in consumer sumers represent, attend to, and perceive incoming information
neuroscience. The most prominent one is to use patients with brain lesions to
establish causal relationship between brain regions and consumption behavior. may have a profound influence on their behavior. In the current
At the end of this paper, we will discuss some of these aspects as potential fu- section, we discuss representation (i.e., brand identification)
ture developments. and attention.
20 H. Plassmann et al. / Journal of Consumer Psychology 22 (2012) 18–36
Fig. 2. Value signals important for brand decisions.
Representation The first process in brand decisions involves Humans are predominately visual creatures, and most of the
forming the representation of the choice alternatives—that is, incoming information we receive is visual (Koch, 2004). Our
brand identification. This entails processing the incoming infor- visual system contains two cortical routes that are involved
mation, so that different options for choice are identified (e.g., with visual processing (see Fig. 3). The dorsal visual pathway
different beer brands). At the same time, the consumer needs to is involved with the spatial deployment of attention (the
integrate information on internal states (e.g., thirst level) and ex- “where/how” pathway) and proceeds from the primary visual
ternal states (e.g., location, social context) that drive attention. cortex V1 in the occipital lobe, through the posterior parietal
For example, when faced with a choice between drinking cortex, to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). The ven-
Heineken or Beck's beer (an incoming information) a consumer's tral visual pathway is responsible for object recognition (the
choice is likely to depend on her own level of thirst (an internal “what” pathway) and originates in V1, then continues to the
state) and what her friend chooses to drink (an external state). inferotemporal cortex, and to the ventrolateral PFC.
Fig. 3. Overview of prominent brain areas involved in brand decisions.Abbreviations used: ACC = anterior cingulate cortex; dlPFC = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; lOFC =
lateral orbitofrontal cortex; mOFC = medial orbitofrontal cortex; NAcc = nucleus accumbens; vmPFC = ventromedial prefrontal cortex; VS = ventral striatum.
The visual system allows for rapid brand and product iden- packaging, even when subjects preferred the taste of alternative
tification. A recent magnetoencephalography (MEG) study food options.
showed that female participants viewing shoes (compared to There are other automatic biases known to influence what
motorcycles) had stronger activity in occipitotemporal re- people pay attention to (Glaholt, Wu, & Reingold, 2010). For
gions between 130 and 180 ms after image presentation example, people tend to look toward the upper visual field
(Junghoefer et al., 2010). Similarly, Milosavljevic, Koch, (Durgin, Doyle, & Egan, 2008) and the right visual field
and Rangel (2011) showed that consumers can identify two (Efron & Yund, 1996), which may be of importance in the con-
different food brands and make up their mind about which sumer behavior context (e.g., at the point of purchase). In a fa-
one they prefer in as little as 313 ms. Furthermore, processes mous experiment, when five identical stockings were displayed
involved in the representation stage need not even be horizontally, subjects were biased toward choosing stockings
conscious, as recent studies have demonstrated that uncon- on the outmost right (Nissbet & Wilson, 1977). Chandon and
scious processes also shape how we represent our decision- colleagues showed that only the top-shelf positions carry
making situations (Chartrand, Huber, Shiv, & Tanner, 2008). through to brand evaluation (Chandon, Hutchinson, Bradlow,
One of the key questions at this stage, discussed next, is & Young, 2009). Clearly, products can be placed in locations
what consumers pay attention to (i.e., focus on) once they that are known to attract more attention and will thus be more
are exposed to a number of rapidly identified choice alterna- likely to be chosen by a buyer (Pieters & Warlop, 1999).
tives (i.e., brands). Strong location effects were also found when consumers
browse websites (Dreze & Hussherr, 2003). The influence of
bottom-up factors may be especially strong online, as con-
Attention Attention is the mechanism responsible for selecting sumers engage in fast web surfing and often spend very little
the information that gains preferential status above other avail- time on any given page. Systematically manipulating low-
able information. Recent review of attention in neuroscience in- level visual features to “guide” viewers' eyes to a webpage's re-
dicates that four conceptual components are fundamental to gions of interest is possible by utilizing insights from visual
attention: bottom-up or saliency filters, top-down control, com- neuroscience. Milosavljevic (2009) used a computer simulation
petitive visual selection, and working memory (Knudsen, of visual attention to optimize banner ads, and the rest of a web-
2007). We will focus on the first three components and discuss site, to make certain brands/banner ads visually salient. This
their relevance for research on branding. manipulation resulted in an increased liking for the target ban-
Bottom-up or saliency filters automatically select the most ner ad, perhaps due to mere exposure effects (Milosavljevic &
important information from all available information. This Cerf, 2008). Recently, a strong bias of looking toward the cen-
selection is based on the low-level features of the visual ter of the viewing area (e.g., the center of the computer screen)
input: colors, luminance, orientation, size, shape, movement, has been reported (Tatler, 2007). Reutskaya and colleagues
etc. (Itti, Koch, & Niebur, 1998; Wolfe & Horowitz, 2004). showed that an item in the center of the screen was almost
Such bottom-up factors have a strong effect on the initial 60% more likely to be chosen by a decision maker than similar
eye movements when consumers are exposed to marketing items displayed at other locations (Reutskaya, Nagel, Camerer,
information: the first four eye-movements are made within & Rangel, 2011).
the initial 2.5 s of exposure (Leven, 1991). Some higher- Top-down control depends on internal and external states,
level factors are also capable of gaining automatic, preferen- goals, and expectations. Hence, looking for a can of Coke will en-
tial access to attention. These include faces, text, novelty, hance processing of red areas in visual input by increasing the
and one's own name. neuronal sensitivity for that particular color (Theeuwes, 2010;
All of these features are combined in the brain, and preatten- Treisman & Gelade, 1980; Van der Lans, Pieters, & Wedel,
tional scan paths are created, making a saliency map of the re- 2008). Expectation can modulate what consumers pay attention
gions in the visual field that are most important and thus most to via brain structures that include the dorsolateral cortex (Egidi,
likely to be further processed. Nusbaum, & Cacioppo, 2008). The information that is relevant
Thus, at the outset of early attention, the decision maker is for goal attainment will be attended to more than irrelevant infor-
biased toward salient stimuli (van Zoest, Donk, & Theeuwes, mation. For example, when we are thirsty, we pay more attention
2004). The salient stimuli will attract the initial eye movements to drinks than to other items (Aarts, Dijksterhuis, & De Vries,
of consumers, and thus may have a profound effect on related 2001; Dijksterhuis & Aarts, 2010).
consumer behavior. Goals also exert a strong influence on eye-movements and
For example, Pieters and Wedel (2007) showed that ensur- can result in different eye-movement patterns when subjects
ing that consumers pay attention to the brand displayed in a are exposed to the same visual input (Glaholt et al., 2010;
print ad is the most effective way to ensure that they will trans- Pieters & Wedel, 2007; Yarbus, 1967). Rosbergen, Pieters,
fer their attention to other elements of the print ad. Further, and Wedel (1997) identifed tendencies in how individuals
Milosavljevic and colleagues showed that salient features (i.e., scan marketing materials, such as print ads or store shelves.
the brightness of the food packaging) influence real food Their work was based on a well-established idea of visual
choices (Milosavljevic, Navalpakkam, Koch, & Rangel, scan paths, that is, the patterns of saccades and fixations across
2011). Namely, at fast decision speeds a significant number some visual input (Norton & Stark, 1971). They found three
of food choices were biased toward the food items with brighter types of eye movements that are characteristic of people
examining the ads: scanning (eyes move to headline and picto- branding-related behavior. However, research in this area has
rial), initial (eyes move to headline, pictorial, and brand), and received little attention in consumer neuroscience, which offers
sustained (eyes move to headline, pictorial, brand, and text). a lot of potential for future research.
As one might expect, the time spent viewing the ad, the level of
involvement, brand attitude, and recall all improved from the Predicted value
first to the third type of viewing. Further, Pieters and Wedel
(2007) showed that the informativeness of ads is contingent on The predicted value of each brand that is available for choice
the goals consumers pursue while viewing them. For example, (e.g., Heineken vs. Beck's) represents the consumer's belief
in comparison with free viewing of the same ads, consumers about the experienced value of that brand at some time in the
spend more time on the text when asked to evaluate the brand, future. In other words, the predicted value involves the consu-
and less time on pictorial elements when asked to learn about mer's evaluation of how much enjoyment she will derive
the brand. from consuming a Heineken or a Beck's beer.
Visual selection occurs when the most important information Previous studies suggest that at least three brain structures
from all the areas that are identified as potentially important in might be of particular importance when consumers evaluate
preattentive scans (based on the bottom-up input) is chosen. predicted values: the striatum, the ventral medial prefrontal cor-
This means that attention is given to a particular location in tex (vmPFC), and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC; see
space. It is believed that as the number of choice options in- Fig. 3). In the next sections, we first review these previous stud-
creases, the decision maker becomes more selective in what in- ies and then review studies that have investigated how branding
formation he or she encodes, that is, which locations in the influences predicted value signals in each respective brain re-
scene he or she processes (Payne, Bettman, & Johnson, 1993). gion. For the latter we use Keller's customer-based brand equi-
Glaholt et al. (2010) showed that when asked to choose the ty framework to categorize the different studies (Keller, 1993).
most expensive of six items (6-alternative-forced-choice, or 6- Applying Keller's framework, we distinguish between studies
AFC), subjects were more selective in the processing of stimu- investigating how favorableness, type, and uniqueness of
lus information (i.e., they achieved greater differentiation be- brand associations alter the neural signatures of predicted
tween individual stimuli via more fixations, longer duration of value (see Table 1). Fig. 4 visualizes the results of the studies
total fixations, etc.) than when they were asked to choose listed in Table 1 and shows which brain areas are involved in
which of the two sets of three items (2-AFC) was more expen- representing Keller's framework in the brain.
sive. Thus, gaze selectivity increases as the number of alterna-
tives increases (Glaholt et al., 2010). Reutskaya et al. (2011) Predicted value signals in the striatum Several studies have
showed that time pressure induced people to shorten the duration used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate the
of their fixations and to search somewhat longer so as to increase predicted value of products or other types of desirable objects
the number of options that are considered before making a choice. such as money. Pioneering work by Knutson and colleagues
Visual selection and eye movement enhance the quality of showed that a structure within the ventral striatum (VS), the nu-
incoming information. Gaze bias shows that people spend lon- cleus accumbens (NAcc), is involved in encoding anticipated
ger time examining (i.e., fixating on) options that they eventu- rewards of monetary payoffs (Ballard & Knutson, 2009;
ally choose (Glaholt & Reingold, 2009; Krajbich, Armel, & Knutson, Adams, Fong, & Hommer, 2001; Knutson &
Rangel, 2010; Pieters & Warlop, 1999; Shimojo, Simion, Cooper, 2005; Talmi, Dayan, Kiebel, Frith, & Dolan, 2009)
Shimojo, & Scheier, 2003). For example, consumers spent and branded products (Knutson, Rick, Wimmer, Prelec, &
54% more time looking at the ads of businesses (in a phone di- Loewenstein, 2007; Knutson et al., 2008).
rectory) that they ended up choosing (Lohse, 1997). It is espe- Two studies investigated how favorableness of brand associa-
cially interesting to note that externally manipulating what tions affects predicted value signals in the striatum. In the first
people look at—for example, by displaying choice options one, Schaefer and Rotte (2007a) found that imagining a pleasant
one at a time while manipulating the exposure duration—biases experience, such as driving a car of a brand that is linked to favor-
the resulting choices toward the options subjects are exposed to able brand associations, correlates with activity changes in that
longer (Armel, Beaumel, & Rangel, 2008). brain area. However, it remains unclear what exactly consumers
Further, eye movements may be useful in evaluating the effec- were imagining and whether activity in the striatum is based on
tiveness of brand extensions. Stewart, Pickering, and Sturt (2004) the difference in pleasantness of the predicted experience per se
showed that consumers spend 200 ms longer examining implau- or the difference in brand information. This weakness of the
sible brand extensions (they cause immediate disruption of visual study is further confounded by the fact that the more attractive
processing) compared to plausible brand extensions. The authors car brands are also more expensive, and driving an expensive
propose eye-tracking as a useful tool for determining the extent to car might be a pleasurable experience by itself.
which consumers find different brand extensions plausible. One problem with using a given brain activation (the striatum)
In sum, representation and attention are complex processes to infer a mental process (a pleasurable experience) is the pro-
that influence all subsequent steps in our brand decisions posed one-to-one relationship between the brain activity and the
framework. Theoretical and methodological insights from neu- mental process of interest. Such a “reversed inference” is prob-
roscience can prove especially useful in allowing consumer re- lematic because one brain area is usually involved in more than
searchers to better understand attention and its effects on one mental process (for a detailed discussion of the “reverse
Table 1
Overview of consumer neuroscience studies directly related to branding.
Branding area Author Main question Method Main results
Favorability of Deppe, Schwindt, What brain areas correlate with brand fMRI When choosing between one's favorite brand as compared to a
brand associations Kugel, Plassmann, preference? second or lower ranked brand increased activity in the vmPFC
and Kenning (2005) and reduced with activity in dlPFC/IFG and visual cortex
(cuneus/precuneus) are triggered.
Deppe, Schwindt, What are the underlying neural processes fMRI Activity in the ACC predicted whether a person is biased by the
Kramer, et al. (2005) of how brand information bias semantic brand name of a newspaper while evaluating the credibility of a
product judgments? headline.
Deppe et al. (2007) What are the underlying neural processes fMRI Activity in the ACC predicted whether a person is biased by the
of how brand information bias visual brand name of a newspaper while evaluating the attractiveness
product judgments? of print advertisements.
Schaefer and Rotte What are the neural correlates of brand fMRI Imagining driving a car from one's favorite brand correlates
(2007a) preferences during (imagined) consumption? with activity changes in the ventral striatum. Activity in this
area also correlates with perceived luxury and sportiness of
the car.
Koenigs and Tranel What is the role of the vmPFC for how Lesion- Patients with damage in the vmPFC were not biased by brand
(2008) brand information biases preference study information during blind vs. open tasting of Coke and Pepsi.
judgments?
Plassmann et al. Does uncertainty modulate the neural fMRI Interaction of brand preference with uncertainty of the decision
(2008) signatures of brand preference? amplifies the neural correlate of brand preference in the vmPFC.
Different Erk et al. (2002) What are the neural correlates of fMRI Sports cars vs. limousines induced increased activity changes in
types of preferences for product types that are vs. the brain areas involved in reward processing (striatum,
brand associations low in social status signaling? vmPFC/mOFC and ACC).
Schaefer and Rotte Does high social status signaled by brands fMRI • Car brands signaling high social status activated regions in the
(2007b) trigger the same responses than low social MPFC and precuneus.
status signals? • Car brands signaling low social status activated the left
superior frontal gyrus and ACC
McClure et al. (2004) What are the underlying brain processes of fMRI Stated preferences for Coke vs. Pepsi did not correlate with
how brand information alters brand revealed preferences in blind tastings
evaluations during consumption? Revealed preference correlated with activity changes in the
vmPFC/mOFC
Knowing you drink Coke vs. not knowing what you drink
correlated with activity changes in memory/association areas
(hippocampus, dlPFC/SFG). No such difference could be
found for the case of Pepsi
Yoon et al. (2006) Do brand judgments recruit the same fMRI Brain areas involved in making judgments about human traits
neural networks as judgments about for people do not overlap with brain areas involved in making
people? judgments about human traits for brands.
Brand recall and Schaefer et al. (2006) What are the neural correlates of brand fMRI Activity changes in the MFG correlate with familiar vs.
memories familiarity? unfamiliar brands
Klucharev et al. How does the expertise of an endorser fMRI Increased brand recall for expert endorsement was related to
(2008) affect brand memory and attitude? stronger activation during encoding of memory structures of
the left hemisphere, the dlPFC and medial temporal lobe
structures, and accompanied by stronger engagement of the
bilateral striatum.
Esch et al. (2012) What are the neural correlates of brand fMRI Unfamiliar brand logos vs. “strong” brands induce activity
familiarity and brand “strength” changes in the IFG
“strong” vs. unfamiliar brands induce activity changes in the
hippocampus and lingual gyrus
“strong” vs. “weak” brands induce activity changes in the
dlPFC/MFG
Brand loyalty Plassman, Kenning, Do loyal customers recruit other brain fMRI Activity in the striatum correlates with brand loyalty to retail
and Ahlert (2007) areas than disloyal customers during brands.
brand choice?
Note: The table includes studies that uncover brain areas involved in different topics related to branding that allow making inferences about locations in the brain. We
did not include studies investigating temporal dynamics, such as techniques with a high temporal resolution such as EEG/MEG.
Abbreviations used: ACC = anterior cingulate cortex; dlPFC = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; IFG = inferior frontal gyrus; mOFC = medial orbitofrontal cortex;
vmPFC = ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
inference problem” in consumer neuroscience studies see below). investigate how this is altered by brand information while con-
A potentially interesting direction for further studies in this area is trolling for price levels.
to manipulate the expected pleasantness of the consumption ex- The second study, by Plassmann, Kenning, and Ahlert
perience (e.g., a road trip vs. commuting in heavy traffic) and (2007), found that when choosing between buying identical
Fig. 4. Overview brain systems involved in the psychology of brands.Note: this figure shows a three-dimensional view of the brain and it is important to note that the
front (anterior) to back (posterior) slice view shown differs between the different parts of the figure, i.e. a view showing the hippocampus is more posterior than views
showing the striatum; Abbreviations used: dlPFC = dorsolateral prefrontal cortex; vmPFC = ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
clothes at different retail stores (e.g., H&M vs. Zara), customers Predicted value signals in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex
who are loyal to a store as measured by real purchasing behavior (vmPFC) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) An-
(i.e., amount spent, frequency and recency of purchases based on other series of human fMRI studies has studied predicted values
loyalty card data) show more activation in the striatum compared using real choices and has found that neural activity in the
to customers who are less loyal. Although this study provides an vmPFC correlates with behavioral measures of consumers' pos-
interesting and methodologically valuable link between real-life itive and negative predicted values for a range of different
purchasing behavior outside the lab (i.e., based on scanner data branded products (Chib, Rangel, Shimojo, & O'Doherty,
at the point of sale) and brain activation by inviting loyalty card 2009; Hare, O'Doherty, Camerer, Schultz, & Rangel, 2008;
holders to the brain imaging lab, one potential confound of this Plassmann, O'Doherty, & Rangel, 2007; Plassmann, O'Doherty,
study is the passive choice paradigm applied in the study. In the & Rangel, 2010) and also in a social context when making deci-
passive choice paradigm test persons were not required to re- sions about charitable donations (Hare, Camerer, Knoepfle, &
spond, i.e. make choices inside the scanner. Instead, behavioral Rangel, 2010).
measures were taken outside the scanner. The lack of these re- Most of the abovementioned studies found that a brain sys-
sponse measures results in missing important manipulation tem consisting of the vmPFC and the dlPFC encodes behavioral
checks. This is further linked to the above-mentioned problematic preferences (Camus et al., 2009; Plassmann et al., 2007;
reliance on reverse inference. Plassmann et al., 2010; Wallis & Miller, 2003). Importantly,
To the best of our knowledge, no study to date has investi- in Camus et al.'s (2009) study, test subjects were “virtually le-
gated the impact of the different types of brand associations sioned” in the dlPFC using transcranial magnetic stimulation
or uniqueness of brand associations on predicted value signals (TMS) and showed a change in behavioral measures of pre-
in the striatum. This calls for further research in this area. dicted values.
Several consumer neuroscience studies have investigated (2002) and Schaefer and Rotte (2007a) found that exposure to
how brand associations alter predicted value signals in the branded products associated with high social status induces ac-
vmPFC and dlPFC as well as in related brain areas. Some of tivity changes in the vmPFC, ACC, PFC and striatum. For both
these studies investigated how brand favorableness influences studies it remains unclear whether the type of brand association
neural signatures of predicted value signals; other studies com- (i.e., high vs. low social status) or how much people like the
pared how different types of brand associations alter those brand (i.e., favorableness of brand association) is driving the re-
signals. sults because the experimental design does not allow these two
A series of studies by Deppe and colleagues investigated factors to be dissociated. As a result, both studies also rely on
how favorableness of brand associations influences predicted reverse inference.
value signals in the brain. In the first study, the authors found A study by Yoon, Gutchess, Feinberg, and Polk (2006) in-
increased neural activity in the vmPFC when the choice set vestigated brand personality associations. The authors com-
contained the consumer's favorite brand compared to choice pared whether judgments about personality attributes of
sets containing two less preferred brands. They also found people are represented in the same neural system as judgments
that the part of the dlPFC involved in working memory and about personality attributes of brands and whether this differs
the part of the visual system involved in object recognition when these judgments refer to the self or others. They found
were less active when the choice set contained the consumer's that brain areas involved in making judgments about human
favorite brand compared to a set containing two non-preferred traits for people do not overlap with brain areas involved in
brands (Deppe, Schwindt, Kugel, Plassmann, & Kenning, making judgments about human traits for brands. These first
2005). A potential confound of this first study is the passive findings challenge the view that we associate brands with per-
choice design that did not allow the recording of choices and re- sonalities and are able to form relationships with brands the
action times. In other words, no actual behavioral choices were same way we form relationships with people (Aaker, 1997;
recorded, but preference rankings were sampled at the end of Aaker & Fournier, 1995; Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1997;
the experiment outside the scanner. These measures could Swaminathan, Page, & Gurhan-Canli, 2007) and call for further
have served as important manipulation checks and would research.
have avoided having the results rely on reversed inference, dis- To the best of our knowledge, no study has looked at the im-
cussed below. pact of the uniqueness of brand associations on predicted value
In two follow-up studies the authors applied an active choice signals in the vmPFC and dlPFC to date. This calls for further
task and replicated their finding that the vmPFC correlated with research in this area.
favorableness of brand associations (Deppe et al., 2005; Deppe
et al., 2007). Interestingly, in these follow-up studies, the au- Experienced value
thors showed that the degree to which a brain area involved
in selective attention and conflict monitoring (the anterior cin- Experienced value is based on the pleasure derived from
gulate cortex, ACC; see Fig. 3) is correlated with the degree consuming a brand. According to early notions of utility or
of how much consumers' judgments are biased by brand asso- value, experienced value is the “true value” that should matter
ciations (Deppe, Schwindt, Kramer, et al., 2005; Deppe et al., the most for value-based decision making (Kahneman et al.,
2007). In other words, these two studies suggest that ACC ac- 1997). Experienced value consists of the (a) valence and (b) in-
tivity predicts individual differences of how much brand associ- tensity of the consumption experience. In this section, we first
ations influence consumers' judgments. review general and branding-related neuroscientific research in-
A more recent study by Esch et al. (2012) also investigated vestigating valence and intensity of experienced values and
how favorableness of brand associations influences brain activ- then review the neural basis of a concept that connects brain
ity during brand decisions. They found that the part of the systems involved in representing predicted and experienced
dlPFC involved in predicted value encoding is more active value, namely motivational value.
when consumers are exposed to “strong” vs. “weak” brands.
They also found that exposure to “weak” vs. “strong” brands Valence The neural bases of computations made by the evalua-
leads to more activity in the insula, the brain area previously tion system during the consumption experience are beginning
found to encode disgusting, painful, or more generally intense to be understood. Human fMRI studies have shown that activity
and arousing emotional experiences. However, because the in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), in particular its medial parts
reported results are based on a very low statistical threshold not (see Fig. 3), at the time a reward is being enjoyed correlates
corrected for multiple comparisons (i.e., .005) or for cluster levels with subjective reports about the pleasantness or valence of
(i.e., small volume corrections or region of interest analysis) that the experience. This has been shown for olfactory experiences
are typically not reported as core findings in neuroscience jour- (Anderson et al., 2003; Kringelbach, O'Doherty, Rolls, &
nals, the study by Esch et al. awaits further empirical validation. Andrews, 2003; McClure et al., 2004; Small, Zatorre, Dagher,
Several studies have investigated how different types of Evans, & Jones-Gotman, 2001; Small et al., 2003), musical re-
brand associations influence predicted value signals in the wards (Blood & Zatorre, 2001), visual rewards (Aharon et al.,
vmPFC, dlPFC, and related areas. Most of the studies look at 2001; Kirk, Skov, Hulme, Christensen, & Zeki, 2009), pleas-
brand associations linked to cultural influences and social sta- antness of touch (McCabe, Rolls, Bilderbeck, & McGlone,
tus. Studies by Erk, Spitzer, Wunderlich, Galley, and Walter 2008), and even secondary rewards such as money (Breiter,
Aharon, Kahneman, Dale, & Shizgal, 2001; Knutson, Fong, consumption of wine depended on quality beliefs about its
Adams, Varner, & Hommer, 2001; Knutson, Fong, Bennett, price (Plassmann, O'Doherty, Shiv, & Rangel, 2008). Yet an-
Adams, & Hommer, 2003). Moreover, the activity in the OFC other study found that experienced values of works of art, and
is reduced when consumers are fed to satiety on a specific food accompanying engagement of the medial OFC, depended on
(O'Doherty et al., 2000). whether the subjects believed they were created by an expert
Taken together, these findings suggest that the medial OFC (i.e., an artist) or by a non-expert (i.e., the experimenter; Kirk
might be an area where positive experienced values are com- et al., 2009). Together, these findings suggest that the experi-
puted. Other studies have found that brain areas that receive in- enced valuation system is modulated by higher cognitive pro-
puts from the OFC areas, such as the ventral striatum and the cesses that determine expectancies and beliefs—a
pregenual cingulate cortex (Grabenhorst, Rolls, & Bilderbeck, phenomenon recently referred to as the “placebo effects of mar-
2008; McCabe et al., 2008; Rolls, Grabenhorst, & Franco, keting” actions (Shiv, Carmon, & Ariely, 2005; Waber, Shiv,
2009; Rolls & McCabe, 2007), are also correlated with sensory Carmon, & Ariely, 2008) or “expectation bias” (Plassmann &
pleasantness. Niessing, 2010).
An interesting open question is which neural systems encode To date there is only one study that has investigated how fa-
negative experiences. Several studies have found that unpleas- vorable brand associations alter experienced value signals.
antness of taste might be correlated with brain activity in the McClure et al. (2004) investigated differences in brain activity
lateral OFC and left dorsal anterior insula/operculum (Small during consumption of sodas when the subjects knew they
et al., 2001; Small et al., 2003). O'Doherty and colleagues were drinking Coke or Pepsi vs. when they did not know
found that the size of abstract punishments (i.e., losing which brand they were consuming. Unbeknownst to the sub-
money) activated lateral parts of the OFC (O'Doherty, jects, they were consuming Coke and Pepsi in both conditions
Kringelbach, Rolls, Hornak, & Andrews, 2001). One problem (brand-cued and non-brand-cued trials). The study showed that
in investigating negative experience is to dissociate it from in- the experienced value signals depended on brand associations.
tensity. This problem arises due to the negativity bias of inten- In particular, the authors found that subjects' knowing they
sity: negative experiences are usually also perceived to be were drinking Coke vs. not knowing what they were drinking
more intense and thus are often confounded (Small et al., correlated with activity changes in their memory/association
2003), in particular for visual stimuli such as facial or object areas (hippocampus, dlPFC/SFG). No such difference could be
attractiveness. found for Pepsi.
Using a different methodological approach to investigate An interesting follow-up of this experiment would be to
positive vs. negative emotional experiences, neuromarketing have four different types of trials. In two types of trials
studies are based on the idea that there is a left–right asymme- Coke would be administered, once cued with a Coke logo
try of the frontal electroencephalography (EEG) signals and once cued with a Pepsi logo. In the other two types of
(Davidson, Ekman, Saron, Senulis, & Friesen, 1990). These trials Pepsi would be administered, once cued with a Pepsi
and related studies suggest that relatively greater activity in logo and once cued with a Coke logo. This would help to
the left frontal region is associated with either positive emotion- dissociate the role of brand information for preference encod-
al experience or the motivational drive to approach an object ing from memory functions linked to retrieving the brand
(Harmon-Jones, 2003). Although there are strong correlations associations.
between frontal EEG asymmetry and personality traits, the A similar version of the above-suggested experiment has
degree to which the asymmetry changes from one moment to been done using a different methodological approach, namely
another is questionable. Some studies have applied this using patients with brain damage or lesions in a specific brain
approach to measure moment-to-moment fluctuations in area, here the vmPFC. Koenigs and Tranel (2008) investigated
emotional responses to advertisements without accounting how preferences for Coke vs. Pepsi in patients with damage in
for autocorrelations in time or multiple statistical compa- the vmPFC changed during blind vs. open tasting of both
risons (Ohme, Reykowska, Wiener, & Choromanska, 2009). sodas. They found that brand associations in the open tasting
However, the validity of such approaches is unclear, as did not influence the lesion patients, only the control patients.
hemispheric asymmetry is also an index of working memory In other words, patients with a lesioned vmPFC did not reverse
load (Habib, Nyberg, & Tulving, 2003; Tulving, Kapur, their preferences when they knew what brand of soda they were
Craik, Moscovitch, & Houle, 1994). Further research to inves- consuming. To better understand the roles of the regions
tigate the neural representation of positive vs. negative experi- reported by McClure et al. (2004), similar studies should be
enced values is needed. conducted on patients with injury to the dorsolateral PFC and
Several recent human fMRI experiments have provided hippocampus. The advantage of using lesion patients as com-
novel insights into how marketing actions such as branding pared to fMRI is that causal and not “only” correlational links
might alter the properties of the experienced value signals. between mental processes and brain functioning can be
For example, one study showed that activity in the medial established.
OFC in response to an odor depended on whether subjects
believed that they smelled cheddar cheese or body odor Intensity Another, much smaller stream of research has investi-
(de Araujo, Rolls, Velazco, Margot, & Cayeux, 2005). In an- gated the intensity of emotional and sensory experiences: In
other study, activity in the medial OFC in response to the humans, subjective reports of pain intensity correlated with
activity in the insula and the ACC (Davis, Taylor, Crawley, shown in commercials or told by friends through word of
Wood, & Mikulis, 1997; Peyron et al., 1999). Recent studies mouth.
in the chemosensory domain found that amygdala activity in- Remembered value refers to how different brand associa-
creased with the intensity of negative and positive tions are encoded, consolidated, and retrieved in the consu-
chemosensory stimuli (Anderson et al., 2003; Small et al., mer's memory. Recent research suggests that parts of these
2003). Several studies by Berns and colleagues suggest that the processes happen on an unconscious level. Similar models
saliency or intensity of objects such as sound and money correlate have been seen in consumer psychology. For example, Van
with neural activity in the dorsal and ventral striatum (Zink, Osselaer and Janiszewski (2001) distinguished between the
Pagnoni, Chappelow, Martin-Skurski, & Berns, 2006; Zink, Human Associative Memory model, a process that was a general
Pagnoni, Martin, Dhamala, & Berns, 2003; Zink, Pagnoni, and unfocused incidental (or unconscious) associative learning,
Martin-Skurski, Chappelow, & Berns, 2004). Similar results have and an adaptive learning mechanism focusing on feature-benefit
been found for the neural correlates of flavor intensity vs. flavor associations for future rewards.
pleasantness (Small et al., 2003). To the best of our knowledge Hence, the remembered value consists of both explicit memory
no studies to date have investigated how brand associations influ- and implicit memory of prior consumption experience. In this sec-
ence the intensity of experienced value signals. In turn, there are a tion, we first review the neuroscientific literature of explicit and im-
lot of questions open for future research in this area. plicit memory and learning processes relevant to branding.
Following this, we briefly review recent studies on the dynamic na-
Motivational value A concept that is related to how predicted and ture of brand memories, that is, how explicit and implicit memory
experienced values interact is the motivational value or incentive changes over time and how external factors such as marketing ac-
salience of an option. Over the past two decades, pioneering work tions might affect remembered value.
by Berridge and colleagues has contributed to a better understand-
ing of value processing in the brain by distinguishing between Explicit brand memory Studies have demonstrated that explicit
“wanting” and “liking” responses to stimuli (Berridge, 2007, memories—also known as declarative memories—rely on spe-
2009a, 2009b; Berridge & Kringelbach, 2008; Berridge & cific brain regions such as the hippocampus and surrounding
Robinson, 1998). “Wanting” refers to a person's (or animal's) mo- medial temporal lobe (MTL) region, in synchrony with other
tivation to obtain a given reward, as observed by increased effort, brain regions such as the dlPFC (Squire & Zola, 1996a,
longer viewing times, and stronger grip strength (e.g., Pessiglione 1996b, 1998). Indeed, the distinction between declarative and
et al., 2007). “Liking” refers to the experienced value. This line non-declarative memories remains a dominant model for our
of research has found an important role of the dopaminergic system understanding of memory function (Ramsøy et al., 2009; but
for wanting, but not necessarily for liking (Berridge & see Henke, 2010, for a recent alternative account). Several stud-
Kringelbach, 2008; Berridge & Robinson, 1998). ies have reported a strong link between memory and preference. In
A study by Litt, Plassmann, Shiv, and Rangel (2011) a seminal paper by McClure et al. (2004), it was reported that an
showed that the predicted value signals encoded in the increase in preference for the beverage labeled as Coca-Cola, but
mOFC/vmPFC are not confounded with related saliency sig- not the one labeled Pepsi Cola, was paralleled by an activation in-
nals of the options for choice. crease in the hippocampus and the dlPFC. In other words, the
More recently, the distinction between “wanting” and “liking” brand-induced change in preference was mediated by regions im-
has also received more attention in consumer behavior research plicated in declarative memory.
(Brendl, Markman, & Messner, 2003; Litt, Khan, & Shiv, Similar activations of the PFC were reported in the afore-
2010; Morewedge, Huh, & Vosgerau, 2010; Xianchi, Brendl, & mentioned study by Schaefer, Berens, Heinze, and Rotte
Ariely, 2010). However, to date there is no behavioral or neuro- (2006) in which subjects were asked to visually imagine driving
scientific research trying to understand how different types of a car of a well-known car manufacturer (e.g., BMW) or an un-
brand associations, and how favorable or unique they are, affect known generic car brand in the German car market at the time
wanting and liking for brands. the study was conducted (e.g., Acura). That is, while the act
of imagining driving a car was equal between the two condi-
Remembered value and learning tions, imagining driving a well-known car led to a stronger en-
gagement of the superior frontal gyrus of the PFC, which has
Consider again our example of choosing between Heineken also been implicated in memory function.
and Beck's. An important predictor of your choice is your In a recent study by Klucharev, Smidts, and Fernandez
memory of previous exposures to the two brands. If you re- (2008) the link between memory and preference was further
member that Heineken had a bitter taste and Beck's had a dis- strengthened by studying how “expert power” influences
tinct whiff of something sweet, these experiences may this link. In the study, products that were presented simulta-
influence your decision. You may remember a recent entertain- neously with an expert person were associated with improved
ing Heineken commercial, but you have no such memory of a recall at a subsequent memory test on a different day. Nota-
Beck's commercial. Brands “work their magic” by associating bly, by using fMRI during expert object presentations, the re-
themselves with experiences, which in turn influence subse- searchers found activation changes related to successful
quent retrieval and recognition. It is important to note that encoding and subsequent recall. Expert conditions were asso-
these can be personal experiences or those of other people— ciated with increased activity in the striatum (both caudate
and likely the ventral striatum/NAcc) and, interestingly, with unconscious mechanisms, while high-level executive functions
memory-related activity in the dlPFC, hippocampus, and such as decision making require consciousness. Yet an increasing
parahippocampal cortex. Probing the relationship between body of evidence suggests that higher processing levels can be
favorable attitude toward experts and memory performance, engaged unconsciously.
the researchers also demonstrated a more direct coactivation Recent studies have demonstrated that the prefrontal cortex,
of the bilateral caudate nuclei, hippocampus, and parahippo- associated with conscious executive functions, can be engaged
campal cortex. Thus, the link between preference and memo- by subliminal task-switching cues (Lau & Passingham, 2007).
ry seems to be based on a synergic coactivation of the reward For example, Pessiglione et al. (2007) reported that subliminal
system and memory-related structures such as the dlPFC, high-value rewards increased the strength with which subjects
hippocampus, and parahippocampal cortex. In another deployed effort on a hand grip task relative to low-value re-
study, Schaefer and Rotte (2007b) demonstrated that brand wards. This was related to activation of the ventral striatum
names or logos engaged the neural reward system, further (VS), a subcortical reward structure.
suggesting that a brand can work as a secondary reinforcer Similar findings were made for abstract icons as primes,
and act on the valuation systems of the brain. showing that reward-related activation and learning mecha-
Nevertheless, much is still unknown about the relationship nisms of the VS could operate unconsciously (Pessiglione
between explicit memory and preference formation, and studies et al., 2008), and such findings suggest a role for unconscious
have shown inconsistencies. In another study by Schaefer and learning processes in guiding motivated behaviors. From early
Rotte (2007a) it was found that when subjects viewed their studies of primates and mammals (Hollerman & Schultz,
most beloved brands, there was a decrease in the activation of 1998; Schultz, 1998, 2001; Schultz & Dickinson, 2000) to
both the dlPFC and the hippocampus and an increase in activa- more recent neuroimaging studies (Brown & Braver, 2007;
tion in reward regions such as the striatum. Thus, this study D'Ardenne, McClure, Nystrom, & Cohen, 2008), value-based
may seem at odds with previous suggestions of a positive rela- learning is now thought to include sub-cortical, low-level
tionship between memory engagement and preference forma- brain regions such as the ventral tegmental area, striatum, ante-
tion. However, one may contend that the increased activation of rior cingulate cortex, and hippocampus.
memory-related regions found by Schaefer et al. (2006) can be Taken together, the implicit brand memories seem to engage
explained by the greater visualization richness when imagining both the deeper basic structures of the brain and memory re-
driving a well-known car brand compared to an unknown, generic gions previously thought to be dedicated solely to explicit
car. Thus, this complicating factor may be related to differences in memories. By using new and sophisticated analysis tools on
study design and other factors, but nevertheless highlights that the neuroimaging data, it is possible to track neural processes that
neural bases and the basic mechanisms of branding are still poorly precede and even predict conscious choice. Such advances
understood. not only improve our understanding of implicit brand memory
but provide a whole new avenue for studying the consumer
Implicit brand memory As shown by several recent reports dur- psychology of branding.
ing the past few decades, the search for unconscious processes
and implicit measures of branding is an active field of inquiry in The dynamic nature of memories Different models of memory
consumer psychology (Baker, 2003; Bargh, 2002; Brasel and retrieval have seen memories as being “replayed,” contributing
Gips, 2011; Chartrand et al., 2008; Claudi, Dimofte and to the popular notion that (episodic) memories are stored as hard
Yalch, 2011; Friese, Wänke, & Plessner, 2006; Janiszewski, copies in the brain. In this view, remembering is the process of re-
1993; Moore, 1988; Nevid, 2010; Pratkanis & Greenwald, trieving factual and true information about the experiences we
1988; Saegert, 1987; Shapiro, 1999; Synodinos, 1988; Theus, have had. While memories have been thought of as labile during
1994; Zajonc & Markus, 1985; Zaltman, 2000). For example encoding, information that is consolidated in memory has been
Chartrand et al. (2008) demonstrated that subliminally pres- thought to be retrieved as more stable “information packages.”
ented retail brand names had an influence on goal pursuit. This Neurobiological studies have recently challenged this notion
suggests that the motivational effect of brands has an uncon- (Nader, Schafe, & LeDoux, 2000; Schafe, Nader, Blair, &
scious basis. LeDoux, 2001), showing that even powerful memories such as
Although some scholars suggest a more cautious take on the fear conditioning can be altered or eradicated by inhibiting the
power of the unconscious in the consumer research domain (see neural mechanisms (protein synthesis in the amygdala) during re-
Simonson, 2005), recent insights from both behavioral ap- trieval. This suggests that the retrieval stage is an active and dy-
proaches and neuroimaging make it inescapable that brands can namic relearning process rather than the mere replay of
be triggered unconsciously or, even when presented overtly, previously acquired information.
can affect consumer behavior without the person being privy to The idea of false memories has been paralleled by research in
such effects. consumer psychology and behavior. A study by Braun-Latour
An ongoing debate in cognitive neuroscience concerns the and Zaltman (2006) demonstrated that advertising can uncon-
degree to which unconscious stimuli can affect processing in sciously alter consumers' beliefs as reflected by a change in
the brain and influence behaviors (Kouider & Dehaene, how they recalled their earlier reporting of these beliefs following
2007). Most accounts postulate that low-level computations exposure to advertising. A related study by Cowley (2007) also
(e.g., motor reflexes and sensory processing) are driven by showed that affective reactions derived from post-experience
information (i.e., advertising) may interfere with the retrieval of particular, is reverse inference, by which the engagement of a
experience-based reactions: The results of three experiments particular mental process is inferred from the activation of a
showed that when post-experience affective reactions interfere particular brain region (Poldrack, 2006). We believe the deduc-
with the retrieval of an experience-based reaction, consumers tive validity of such inferences is limited.
use post-experience behavior as a proxy for their liking of the ex- The inference that is usually drawn from neuroimaging data,
perience. In a recent study making use of the dynamic nature of according to current scientific standards, is of the form “if cog-
memory, Rajagopal and Montgomery (2011) demonstrated that nitive process X (e.g., willingness-to-pay computation) is en-
exposure to an imagery-evoking ad led to a false memory of gaged, then brain area Z (e.g., mOFC) is active.” However,
prior product exposure, further causing alterations in product atti- previous consumer neuroscience and commercial neuromarketing
tude. Future studies should connect the consumer psychology and studies reverse this reasoning, as follows:
neuroscience literatures, and focus on the role and neural bases of
dynamic memory in the formation, sustaining, and alteration of • In the current study, when task comparison A was presented
brand preferences. (e.g., imagining driving a car branded by a familiar vs. an
Taken together, this review of “what has been done” shows that unfamiliar logo seen on the screen), brain area Z (e.g., the
interdisciplinary effort in understanding how decision making is medial prefrontal cortex) was active.
represented in the brain has taken off and that these findings can • In other studies, when cognitive process X (e.g., self-
be applied to extend our understanding of the psychology of reflection and self-relevant thoughts) was putatively en-
branding. Our review also points out directions for future research gaged, brain area Z (e.g., the medial prefrontal cortex) was
in this area. Two critical issues are important to note: active.
• Thus, the activity of area Z (e.g., the medial prefrontal cortex)
First, most of the studies reviewed above are mostly exploratory in the current study demonstrates engagement of cognitive
in nature, but have already succeeded in challenging our notions of process X (e.g., self-reflection and self-relevant thoughts) by
how branding works. We encourage researchers to go beyond a task A (e.g., imagining driving a car branded by a familiar
mere correlation approach, i.e., localizing the neural bases of vs. an unfamiliar logo seen on the screen).
brand familiarity or brand preference. This type of research is im-
portant but contributes mostly to our understanding of the brain This has been referred to as a reverse inference, since it rea-
while providing fewer novel insights into the psychology of sons backwards from the presence of brain activation to the en-
brands. To advance the psychology of branding, we suggest that gagement of a particular mental process (Poldrack, 2006). The
future work focus more on establishing meaningful brain- fact that reverse inference is problematic is partly due to the
behavior relationships that go beyond correlational findings, by fact that functional brain imaging research is still relatively
combining the neuroscientific tool kit with traditional methods. new, and as a consequence, we do not have a detailed map of
We make suggestions to address this point in the last section of the brain to date. More important is the fact that a single brain
this paper. area can multitask, and that the brain has a built-in redundancy.
In other words, one particular brain area could be involved in
Second, the review in this section pointed out several methodo- encoding both brand personality associations and brand familiarity.
logical issues with previous consumer neuroscience studies related If a study finds this brain area Z to be involved in brand decisions
to branding that have been published in academic journals. Many without implementing a design that allows dissociating between
additional issues can be raised for unpublished work in the form the two, the inference that activity in this area means that one
of commercial applications of neuroscience to the psychology of brand is more familiar is of only limited validity.
branding, which has become a business with almost exponential In many cases the use of reverse inference is informal; the
growth. In the next section of the paper we detail the major issues presence of unexpected activation in a particular region is
and make suggestions for how to overcome them. explained by reference to other studies that found activation
in the same region. The issue of reverse inference becomes
What should not be done: the need of standards for much more problematic when the central findings and contribu-
neuroscience work published in marketing journals tions of the paper are built on reverse inference. As our review
of consumer neuroscience studies related to branding revealed,
How can neuroimaging be a valuable tool for branding re- several of the previous studies in this area (these authors' in-
searchers? The promise of having a method for opening the cluded) use reverse inference as a central feature to discuss
“black box” of consumers' brains may seem like a dream come their findings. There are several ways to address the problem
true for any academic or practitioner interested in branding and of reverse inference in neuroimaging studies.
other areas of consumer behavior. However, as seen in the review The first and most straightforward way is to implement an
above, one can identify at least one major issue that needs the atten- experimental design and data analysis that allow capturing the
tion of researchers applying neuroscience tools for branding ques- neural signature of the mental process of interest directly. For
tions and of reviewers of such work: how to overcome the problem example, a recent study investigated how changing the price
of reverse inference. of wine affects taste processing in the brain (Plassmann et al.,
One practice that has become common in consumer neuro- 2008). The study found that when subjects consumed the
science studies in general, and those related to branding in same wine in two experimental conditions, once cued with a
high price and once with a low price, brain activity in the potential for at least two reasons. First, it can be viewed as a
mOFC was affected. Other studies found that this brain area new methodological tool, as a “magnifying glass” to observe
encoded taste pleasantness. The design of the study allowed mental processes without asking consumers directly for their
the authors to run a different data model to check which brain thoughts, memories, evaluations, or decision-making strategies,
area in their data encoded taste pleasantness. They found that and thus can provide access to otherwise hidden information
in their data also the mOFC encoded taste pleasantness irre- (Ariely & Berns, 2010; Plassmann et al., in press). Second, neu-
spective of the changes in the price of the wine. Their design roscience can be viewed as a source of theory generation, sup-
and data analysis procedure allowed the authors to control for plementing traditional theories from psychology, marketing,
relying on reverse inference. and economics (Plassmann et al., in press). We explain both
The second way to address the reverse inference problem is ideas in the following section.
to find a measure of the degree to which the region of interest is
selectively activated by the mental process of interest (Ariely & Neuroscience as a tool
Berns, 2010; Poldrack, 2006). If, on one hand, a region is acti-
vated by a large number of mental processes, then activation in Neuroscience's potential as a tool stems from at least two ways
that region provides relatively weak evidence of the engage- it can contribute to a better understanding of the psychology un-
ment of the mental process. If, on the other hand, the region derlying brands. First, combining advanced statistical models
is activated relatively selectively by the specific mental process from computer science with neuroscience data makes it possible
of interest, then one can infer with substantial confidence that to predict behavior in a more accurate way than relying on tradi-
the process is engaged given activation in the region. The tional measures such as self-reports. Second, by combining differ-
idea is to compute a selectivity factor that determines the poste- ent tools from the neuroscientific tool kit we can establish brain–
rior probability for the reverse inference using Bayesian statis- behavior relationships that are meaningful for understanding the
tics based on previous findings (see Poldrack, 2006 for details). psychology underlying consumer choices.
However, there are at least two important concerns. First, al-
though Poldrack's procedure to compute a selectivity factor is Predicting consumer choices Empirical studies in consumer
meaningful in a statistical sense, the assumptions behind such neuroscience and neuromarketing employ neuroimaging tools
a calculation are rather liberal and may suffer from a publica- as biomarkers to assess responses to marketing stimuli such
tion bias for positive results. Second, the mental process of in- as brands, advertisements, packaging and to predict consumer
terest needs to be specified very precisely for an application of choices.
this idea to consumer neuroscience. “Reward processing” For example, in a study by Knutson et al. (2007), subjects,
seems rather general, and the question remains whether this re- while being scanned using fMRI, first saw the product (4 s),
fers to the prediction or the experience of reward. In other then were shown the price of the product (4 s), and finally
words, different and imprecise definitions of “reward” are made their choice (4 s). Subjects reported making their decision
problematic. consciously only at the very end of each run (i.e., the last 4 s),
Taken together, the application of such a selectivity factor yet analysis of the fMRI data showed the neural predictors of
for judging whether reverse inference is possible needs to be purchase at earlier time points. Notably, these activation
done with caution. Given the limited power of reverse inference changes could be traced from 8 to 12 s before the decision
from single-region brain activations, more sophisticated multi- was made, and before subjects reported having made up their
variate methods for interpreting brain imaging data have been minds. However, the neural predictors did not demonstrate bet-
at the forefront of analysis techniques. The idea behind these ter predictive power than self-reports (pseudo-R 2 was 0.528
techniques and how consumer neuroscience research related when only self-reports were included and changed to 0.533
to branding may benefit from those is detailed in the next sec- when neural predictors were added; note that pseudo-R 2 was
tion of this paper. 0.105 based on neural predictors alone). Taken together, Knut-
son and colleagues could extract neural predictors at a time
What could be done: conclusions and suggestions for future when subjects had not made up their minds yet, but these pre-
directions dictors were not fundamentally better at predicting purchase be-
havior than simply asking the subjects about their preferences.
In this last section of the paper we lay out our vision of fu- Another example is a recent study by Berns and Moore
ture consumer neuroscience research and why we think aca- (2012) that used a small group of subjects' neural responses
demics and practitioners alike could and should be excited to music to predict subsequent market level impact in form of
about this new field. Since we have already provided concrete commercial success of the songs (using sales data for a period
future directions for branding research in our review of what of three years after the experiment). Interestingly, subjective
is currently done, we conclude with a broader view on the liking ratings of songs did not correlate with future sales data,
new directions the field of consumer neuroscience could take but the neural response did (i.e., brain activation within the nu-
to make a substantial contribution to consumer research and cleus accumbens).
the psychology of branding. New developments in neural pattern classification tech-
The application of neuroscience to consumer psychology, niques and multivariate decoding analysis of fMRI data
specifically to the psychology of branding, has an interesting (Haynes & Rees, 2006) are very promising to increase the
predictive power of neuroscientific tools in the years to come. recent study (Dietvorst et al., 2009) that aimed at developing
A first study in the context of consumer behavior was done a sales force–specific Theory-of-Mind (ToM) scale in two
by Tusche, Bode, and Haynes (2010). In their study subjects steps. First, they developed a personality scale measuring sales-
were presented with images of different cars, and asked either people's interpersonal-mentalizing skills, based on question-
to rate their liking of each car (high-attention group) or perform naires. Second, they validated the questionnaire-based scale by
a visual fixation task (low-attention group). After the task, sub- comparing high- and low-scoring salespeople on the scale when
jects rated their willingness to buy each car. Crucially, subjects they worked on interpersonal-mentalizing and control tasks
were scanned using fMRI during the task, allowing the re- while having their brains scanned using fMRI. Interestingly,
searchers to test whether neural activation could predict subse- they found that salespeople who scored high on their sales
quent car choice. The fMRI data were analyzed using a force-specific ToM scale also showed more activation in brain
multivariate analysis approach, in which data were fed into areas involved in ToM during the interpersonal-mentalizing
the analysis, showing brain regions between the high- and tasks but not during the control tasks.
low-attention groups that predicted subsequent purchase It is important to note that the next level of research in this
intentions. area needs to go beyond merely establishing associations be-
The idea behind these techniques is as follows. Whole-brain tween brain activity and a specific behavior. A review by
neuroimaging data acquisition, such as fMRI, generates time Kable (2011) showed that 60% to 70% of empirical studies ap-
series data from thousands of data points across the brain. plying neuroscience to behavioral decision-making theories use
While standard analyses of neuroimaging data employ large- only one method: fMRI. To establish a deeper understanding of
scale univariate analyses by contrasting different experimental the relationships between neuropsychological processes and be-
conditions, multivariate pattern classification techniques take havior that can profoundly advance our understanding of con-
advantage of information contained in multiple voxels distrib- sumer psychology, consumer neuroscientists need to expand
uted across space. They allow investigation of whether spatial the neuroscientific tool kit. The idea behind this is to show
patterns of brain activation contain stable information about that (a) brain mechanisms are necessary for a specific consumer
different experimental conditions (e.g., purchase vs. no behavior (i.e., when brain activity is interrupted, behavior is im-
purchase). paired) and (b) brain mechanisms are sufficient for a specific
These approaches promise better predictions of decision- consumer behavior (i.e., when brain activity is induced, behav-
making behavior across domains, such as neural, physiological, ioral effects occur; see Kable, 2011, for a more detailed
and behavioral predictors of in-store purchase, unhealthy be- discussion).
haviors, and overspending. We believe that decoding of brain Methods to test necessity include using patients who have a
patterns using such sophisticated algorithms will be a turning lesion in a specific brain area of interest, such as the vmPFC,
point for consumer neuroscience research. and testing their behavior as compared to control populations.
For example, it has been shown that focal brain lesions in this
Establishing brain–behavior relationships that are meaningful area make patients outperform healthy controls in financial per-
for consumer psychology Another potential way to apply meth- formance tasks (Shiv, Loewenstein, & Bechara, 2005). Another
odologies from neuroscience to consumer behavior is to ob- way to study necessity is the application of techniques that “vir-
serve consumers' mental processes in real time. As discussed tually lesion” healthy subjects by temporarily interrupting elec-
earlier, this is of particular importance when the underlying tromagnetic activity (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS)
processes are difficult to investigate because they are below or cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (TDCS)).
consumers' awareness or are difficult to verbalize and/or ma- A recent study by Camus et al. (2009) showed that the applica-
nipulate in a traditional experimental setting or survey. One ex- tion of inhibitory TMS to subjects' dlPFC decreased subjects'
ample was provided by a recent study (Plassmann et al., 2008) predicted values in an economic auction.
that investigated whether marketing actions (i.e., changing the The toolkit to test sufficiency is much more limited and in-
price of a wine) does alter taste processing (i.e., the wine actu- cludes primarily a reversed version of transcranial direct current
ally tastes better) or cognitive processing because of rationaliz- stimulation (anodal TDCS). For example, a study by Fregni
ing (i.e., the consumer thinks the wine tastes better). It is very et al. (2008) showed that stimulation of the lateral prefrontal
difficult for consumers to verbalize whether the price changes cortex reduced craving in smokers.
how much they think they like the wine or how much they ac- Beyond testing relationships between brain systems and be-
tually like the wine, although this difference is very important havior, another novel and exciting approach is to go one level
from a consumer psychology perspective. The authors could deeper and test the relationships between specific neurotrans-
show that changing the price of an identical wine does actually mitters and behavior. Recent advances in our understanding
change taste processing and more specifically that part of taste of the role of neurotransmitters, and how they relate to process-
processing that encodes the pleasantness of the taste. This find- es underlying decision making, may lead to improved under-
ing provides neuropsychological evidence for a placebo effect standing of consumer psychology. Few studies, if any, have
of marketing actions on positive experiences similar to placebo approached this from a consumer behavior perspective, but in-
effects in the pain domain. sights from studying decision-making on a neurotransmitter-
Another approach is to use neuroscientific measures to vali- level might serve as a source to generate new research ideas
date behavioral measures. An example of this approach is a (see Ramsøy & Skov, 2010, for a review). Applying the same
idea described above, the neuroscientific tool kit allows us to to be linked to the activation of the general motivation system in
test associations, necessity, and sufficiency of neurotransmitters the brain.
and specific consumer behavior (see Kable, 2011, for a more Another example is a recent study by Ramsøy, Loving, Skov,
detailed discussion). and Clement (2011) in which women were studied during different
Specific brain imaging techniques that allow tracking of phases of their ovarian cycle. It is well known that this cycle has
changes in neurotransmitters (forms of Positron Emission To- significant effects on female thinking and behavior, including
mography (PET)) and the study of genetics allow researchers to changes in memory, sexual behavior, and mate selection (Jones
make associations between neurotransmitters such as dopamine et al., 2008; Pillsworth, Haselton, & Buss, 2004; Rupp &
and a specific behavior such as gambling or other impulsive Wallen, 2007; Vranić & Hromatko, 2008; Zhu et al., 2010). In par-
behaviors. ticular, recent studies have demonstrated changes in consumer
Administration of pharmacological antagonists or depletion behavior, including the increased likelihood of purchasing and
of a specific neurotransmitter (e.g., through dietary restrictions) wearing sexually suggestive clothing at peak fertility (Durante,
allows researchers to test necessity. For example, a study by Li, & Haselton, 2008; Durante et al., 2010), although Saad and
Crockett, Clark, Tabibnia, Lieberman, and Robbins (2008) Stenstrom (2012), interestingly, did not find evidence linking
found that serotonin depletion increased rejection of unfair offers menstrual cycle to attitudes towards brand-related information.
in an ultimatum game. Little is known about the exact mechanisms underlying such ef-
Along those lines, administration of pharmacological agonist fects and to what extent menstrual cycle affects the processing
or depletion of a specific neurotransmitter allows researchers to of different kinds of brands or advertisements. By using eye
test specificity. For example, Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, tracking to assess visual attention, Ramsøy et al. (2011) found
Fischbacher, and Fehr (2005) demonstrated that administration that at peak fertility, women tended to show faster and more fre-
of oxytocin increased trust during economic exchange. Another quent fixations and longer total viewing time toward sexual ele-
example is a study by Schweighofer et al. (2008), who tested ments in ads. Such effects were not at the cost of visual
the effect of serotonin loading and depletion on reward attention toward brand information and did not have an impact
discounting. on preference or long-term memory scores. Nevertheless, these
Taken together, studies in consumer psychology can benefit findings demonstrate how a known biological factor may influ-
from new tools that allow the testing of association, necessity, ence consumer psychology.
and sufficiency of neuropsychological processes and consumer be- These studies are examples of how scholars in consumer psy-
havior. By expanding the toolbox in consumer neuroscience, ad- chology can integrate findings and concepts from neuroscience
vances can be made in our understanding of both basic without actually applying neuroscientific methods. This approach
mechanisms and individual differences in consumer decision is of great potential for developing an interdisciplinary under-
making. standing of how consumers make decisions and may provide sig-
nificant improvements in our understanding of preference
formation and decision making. We hope this review will help re-
Neuroscience as basis for theory generation searchers as a starting point for generating hypotheses based on
an interdisciplinary framework to advance existing theories in
Although most of the hype around the potential of consumer consumer psychology.
neuroscience and neuromarketing evolves around using neuro- To conclude, in this last section of this critical review, we
scientific tools, in this review we would like to suggest neuro- have pointed out two major new directions in which neurosci-
scientific findings as a novel source of understanding the ence might advance consumer psychology. These new direc-
mechanisms underlying consumer psychology, as pioneered tions extend first findings in the nascent field of consumer
by Wadhwa, Shiv, and Nowlis (2008) and others (e.g., Lee, neuroscience related to branding and, more important, help to
Amir, & Ariely, 2009; Van Den Bergh, Dewitte, & Warlop, address the issues of previous work reviewed in this paper.
2008). We hope this review provides researchers with exciting new
Wadhwa and colleagues investigated the effect of product perspectives and ideas for their future work in consumer neuro-
sampling at the point of sale on subsequent consumption be- science to advance our understanding of the psychology of
havior (Wadhwa et al., 2008). The authors compared different branding.
hypotheses about whether product sampling would increase
subsequent consumption behavior, and if so, whether the ef-
fects would be specific to the product sampled, to its product Acknowledgments
category, or to anything perceived as pleasurable. These predic-
tions were based on different theories from psychology, physi- The authors would like to thank Beth Pavlicek, Anupama
ology, and neurophysiology of taste and reward. In a series of Deepa Kumar, and the participants of the INSEAD course “De-
experiments, the authors found support for the prediction that our cision-Making and the Human Brain” for their comments on
general motivation system in the brain is at work when we sample previous versions of this paper. We thank the participants of
products, leading to an increased subsequent reward-seeking be- the tutorial “Decision Neuroscience” at the University of California
havior for any other type of reward. Similarly, a study from Van at San Diego and University of Southern California for their in-
Den Bergh et al. (2008) found impatience in intertemporal choice sightful comments on aspects addressed in this paper. We also
thank the editors and the two anonymous reviewers for their Camus, M., Halelamien, N., Plassmann, H., Shimojo, S., O'Doherty, J., Camerer,
valuable feedback and comments. C., & Rangel, A. (2009). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over the
right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex decreases valuations during food choices.
European Journal of Neuroscience, 30(10), 1980–1988.
Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J. W., Bradlow, E. T., & Young, S. H. (2009). Does
References
in-store marketing work? Effects of the number and position of shelf facings
on brand attention and evaluation at the point of purchase. Journal of Marketing,
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing 73(6), 1–17.
Research, 34, 347–356. Chartrand, T. L., Huber, J., Shiv, B., & Tanner, R. J. (2008). Nonconscious
Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner, and a person: goals and consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2),
Three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in Consumer 189–201.
Research, 22, 391–395. Chib, V. S., Rangel, A., Shimojo, S., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2009). Evidence for a
Aarts, H., Dijksterhuis, A., & De Vries, P. (2001). On the psychology of drinking: common representation of decision values for dissimilar goods in human
Being thirsty and perceptually ready. British Journal of Psychology, 92(4), ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(39),
631–642. 12315–12320.
Aggarwal, P. (2004). The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes Cowley, E. (2007). How enjoyable was it? Remembering an affective reaction
and behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 87–101. to a previous consumption experience. Journal of Consumer Research,
Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O'Connor, E., & Breiter, H. C. 34(4), 494–505.
(2001). Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behavioral Crockett, M. J., Clark, L., Tabibnia, G., Lieberman, M. D., & Robbins, T. W.
evidence. Neuron, 32(3), 537–551. (2008). Serotonin modulates behavioral reactions to unfairness. Science,
Anderson, A. K., Christoff, K., Stappen, I., Panitz, D., Ghahremani, D. G., Glover, 320(5884), 1739.
G., Gabrieli, J. D., & Sobel, N. (2003). Dissociated neural representations of D'Ardenne, K., McClure, S. M., Nystrom, L. E., & Cohen, J. D. (2008). BOLD
intensity and valence in human olfaction. Nature Neuroscience, 6(2), responses reflecting dopaminergic signals in the human ventral tegmental
196–202. area. Science, 319(5867), 1264–1267.
Ariely, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of Davidson, R. J., Ekman, P., Saron, C. D., Senulis, J. A., & Friesen, W. V. (1990).
neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(4), 284–292. Approach-withdrawal and cerebral asymmetry: Emotional expression and
Armel, K. C., Beaumel, A., & Rangel, A. (2008). Biasing simple choices by brain physiology. International Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
manipulating relative visual attention. Judgment and Decision Making, 3, 58(2), 330–341.
396–403. Davis, K. D., Taylor, S. J., Crawley, A. P., Wood, M. L., & Mikulis, D. J.
Baker, W. E. (2003). Does brand name imprinting in memory increase brand (1997). Functional MRI of pain- and attention-related activations in the
information retention? Psychology and Marketing, 20(12), 1119–1135. human cingulate cortex. Journal of Neurophysiology, 77(6), 3370–3380.
Ballard, K., & Knutson, B. (2009). Dissociable neural representations of future de Araujo, I. E., Rolls, E. T., Velazco, M. I., Margot, C., & Cayeux, I. (2005).
reward magnitude and delay during temporal discounting. Neuroimage, Cognitive modulation of olfactory processing. Neuron, 46(4), 671–679.
45(1), 143–150. Deppe, M., Schwindt, W., Kramer, J., Kugel, H., Plassmann, H., Kenning, P., &
Bargh, J. A. (2002). Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer Ringelstein, E. B. (2005). Evidence for a neural correlate of a framing effect:
judgment, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), Bias-specific activity in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex during credibility
280–285. judgments. Brain Research Bulletin, 67, 413–421.
Berns, G., & Moore, S. E. (2012). A neural predictor of cultural popularity. Deppe, M., Schwindt, W., Kugel, H., Plassmann, H., & Kenning, P. (2005). Non-
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 154–160. linear responses within the medial prefrontal cortex reveal when specific implicit
Berridge, K. C. (2007). The debate over dopamine's role in reward: The case for information influences economic decision making. Journal of Neuroimaging, 15,
incentive salience. Psychopharmacology (Berl), 191(3), 391–431. 171–182.
Berridge, K. C. (2009). “Liking” and “wanting” food rewards: Brain substrates Deppe, M., Schwindt, W., Pieper, A., Kugel, H., Plassmann, H., Kenning, P.,
and roles in eating disorders. Psychology & Behavior, 97(5), 537–550. Deppe, K., & Ringelstein, E. B. (2007). Anterior cingulate reflects suscep-
Berridge, K. C. (2009). Wanting and liking: Observations from the neuroscience tibility to framing during attractiveness evaluation. Neuroreport, 18,
and psychology laboratory. Inquiry (Oslo), 52(4), 378. 1119–1123.
Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2008). Affective neuroscience of pleasure: Dietvorst, R. C., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., Bagozzi, R. P., Yoon, C., Smits, M., &
Reward in humans and animals. Psychopharmacology, 199(3), 457–480. van der Lugt, A. (2009). A sales force-specific theory-of-mind scale: Tests of
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998). What is the role of dopamine in reward: its validity by classical methods and functional magnetic resonance imaging.
Hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Research Reviews, Journal of Marketing Research, 46(5), 653–668.
28(3), 309–369. Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2010). Goals, attention, and (un)consciousness.
Blood, A. J., & Zatorre, R. J. (2001). Intensely pleasurable responses to music Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 467–490.
correlate with activity in brain regions implicated in reward and emotion. Dimofte, C. V., & Yalch, R. F. (2011). The mere association effect and brand
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 98(20), evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(1), 24–37.
11818–11823. Dreze, X., & Hussherr, F. -X. (2003). Internet advertising: Is anybody watching?
Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Red Bull “Gives You Wings” for better or worse: Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(4), 8–23.
A double-edged impact of brand exposure on consumer performance. Journal Durante, K. M., Griskevicius, V., Hill, S. E., Perilloux, C., Li, N. P., &
of Consumer Psychology, 21(1), 57–64. Nordqvist, C. (2010). Ovulation, female competition, and product
Braun-Latour, K. A., & Zaltman, G. (2006). Memory change: An intimate measure choice: Hormonal influences on consumer behavior. Journal of
of persuasion. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(1), 57–72. Consumer Research, 37, 921–934.
Breiter, H. C., Aharon, I., Kahneman, D., Dale, A., & Shizgal, P. (2001). Functional Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., & Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women's choice of
imaging of neural responses to expectancy and experience of monetary gains dress across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence.
and losses. Neuron, 30(2), 619–639. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1451–1460.
Brendl, C. M., Markman, A. B., & Messner, C. (2003). The devaluation effect: Durgin, F. H., Doyle, E., & Egan, L. (2008). Upper-left gaze bias reveals competing
Activating a need devalues unrelated objects. Journal of Consumer Research, search strategies in a reverse Stroop task. Acta Psychologica, 127(2), 428–448.
29(4), 463–473. Efron, R., & Yund, E. W. (1996). Spatial nonuniformities in visual search.
Brown, J. W., & Braver, T. S. (2007). Risk prediction and aversion by anterior Brain and Cognition, 31(3), 331–368.
cingulate cortex. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(4), Egidi, G., Nusbaum, H. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). Neuroeconomics:
266–277. Foundational issues and consumer relevance. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Erk, S., Spitzer, M., Wunderlich, A. P., Galley, L., & Walter, H. (2002). Cultural Knudsen, E. I. (2007). Fundamental components of attention. Annual Review of
objects modulate reward circuitry. Neuroreport, 13, 2499–2503. Neuroscience, 30, 57–78.
Esch, F. R., Möll, T., Schmitt, B., Elger, C. E., Neuhaus, C., & Weber, B. (2012). Knutson, B., Adams, C. M., Fong, G. W., & Hommer, D. (2001). Anticipation of
Brands on the brain: What happens neurophysiologically when consumers increasing monetary reward selectivity recruits nucleus accumbens. Journal of
process and evaluate brands? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 75–85. Neuroscience, 21(16), RC159.
Fournier, S. (1997). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory Knutson, B., & Cooper, J. C. (2005). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of
in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. reward prediction. Current Opinion in Neurology, 18(4), 411–417.
Fregni, F., Liguori, P., Fecteau, S., Nitsche, M. A., Pascual-Leone, A., & Boggio, Knutson, B., Fong, G. W., Adams, C. M., Varner, J. L., & Hommer, D. (2001).
P.S. (2008). Cortical stimulation of the prefrontal cortex with transcranial direct Dissociation of reward anticipation and outcome with event-related fMRI.
current stimulation reduces cue-provoked smoking craving: A randomized, Neuroreport, 12(17), 3683–3687.
sham-controlled study. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 69, 32–40. Knutson, B., Fong, G. W., Bennett, S. M., Adams, C. M., & Hommer, D.
Friese, M., Wänke, M., & Plessner, H. (2006). Implicit consumer preferences and (2003). A region of mesial prefrontal cortex tracks monetarily rewarding
their influence on product choice. Psychology and Marketing, 23(9), 727–740. outcomes: Characterization with rapid event-related fMRI. Neuroimage,
Glaholt, M. G., & Reingold, E. M. (2009). Stimulus exposure and gaze bias: A fur- 18(2), 263–272.
ther test of the gaze cascade model. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2007).
71(3), 445–450. Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron, 53(1), 147–156.
Glaholt, M. G., Wu, M. C., & Reingold, E. M. (2010). Evidence for top-down control Knutson, B., Wimmer, G. E., Rick, S., Hollon, N. G., Prelec, D., & Loewenstein,
of eye movements during visual decision making. Journal of Vision, 10(5), 15. G. (2008). Neural antecedents of the endowment effect. Neuron, 58(5),
Grabenhorst, F., Rolls, E. T., & Bilderbeck, A. (2008). How cognition modulates 814–822.
affective responses to taste and flavor: Top-down influences on the orbitofrontal Koch, C. (2004). Quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Englewood,
and pregenual cingulate cortices. Cerebral Cortex, 18(7), 1549–1559. CO: Roberts & Company Publishers.
Habib, R., Nyberg, L., & Tulving, E. (2003). Hemispheric asymmetries of memo- Koenigs, M., & Tranel, D. (2008). Prefrontal cortex damage abolishes brand-cued
ry: The HERA model revisited. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(6), 241–245. changes in cola preference. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3, 1–6.
Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., Knoepfle, D. T., & Rangel, A. (2010). Value compu- Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin
tations in ventral medial prefrontal cortex during charitable decision making in- increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673–676.
corporate input from regions involved in social cognition. Journal of Kouider, S., & Dehaene, S. (2007). Levels of processing during non-conscious
Neuroscience, 30(2), 583–590. perception: A critical review of visual masking. Philosophical Transactions
Hare, T. A., O'Doherty, J., Camerer, C. F., Schultz, W., & Rangel, A. (2008). of the Royal Society B, 362(1481), 857–875.
Dissociating the role of the orbitofrontal cortex and the striatum in the com- Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010). Visual fixations and the computation
putation of goal values and prediction errors. Journal of Neuroscience, and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience, 13(10),
28(22), 5623–5630. 1292–1298.
Harmon-Jones, E. (2003). Clarifying the emotive functions of asymmetrical Kringelbach, M. L., O'Doherty, J., Rolls, E. T., & Andrews, C. (2003). Activation
frontal cortical activity. Psychophysiology, 40(6), 838–848. of the human orbitofrontal cortex to a liquid food stimulus is correlated with its
Haynes, J. D., & Rees, G. (2006). Decoding mental states from brain activity in subjective pleasantness. Cerebral Cortex, 13(10), 1064–1071.
humans. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(7), 523–534. Lau, H. C., & Passingham, R. E. (2007). Unconscious activation of the cognitive
Henke, K. (2010). A model for memory systems based on processing modes control system in the human prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience,
rather than consciousness. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(7), 523–532. 27(21), 5805–5811.
Hollerman, J. R., & Schultz, W. (1998). Dopamine neurons report an error in the tem- Lee, L., Amir, O. N., & Ariely, D. (2009). In search of Homo economicus: Cognitive
poral prediction of reward during learning. Nature Neuroscience, 1(4), 304–309. noise and the role of emotion in preference consistency. Journal of Consumer
Itti, L., Koch, C., & Niebur, E. (1998). A model of saliency-based visual attention Research, 36(2), 173–187.
for rapid scene analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Lee, N., Broderick, A. J., & Chamberlain, L. (2007). What is “neuromarketing”? A
Intelligence, 20(11), 1254–1259. discussion and agenda for future research. International Journal of Psycho-
Janiszewski, C. (1993). Preattentive mere exposure effects. Journal of Consumer physiology, 63(2), 199–204.
Research, 20(3), 376–392. Leven, W. (1991). Blickverhalten von Konsumenten. Grundlagen, Messung und
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Perrett, D. I., Little, A. C., Feinberg, D. R., & Law Anwendung in der Werbeforschung. Heidelberg: Physica Verlag.
Smith, M. J. (2008). Effects of menstrual cycle phase on face preferences. Litt, A., Khan, U., & Shiv, B. (2010). Lusting while loathing. Psychological
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 37(1), 78–84. Science, 21(1), 118–125.
Junghoefer, M., Kissler, J., Schupp, H. T., Putsche, C., Elling, L., & Dobel, C. Litt, A., Plassmann, H., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2011). Dissociating valuation
(2010). A fast neural signature of motivated attention to consumer goods and saliency signals during decision-making. Cerebral Cortex, 21, 95–102.
separates the sexes. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 4, 179. Lohse, G. L. (1997). Consumer eye movement patterns on yellow page advertising.
Kable, J. W. (2011). The cognitive neuroscience toolkit for the neuroeconomist: A Journal of Advertising, 26, 61–73.
functional overview. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, McCabe, C., Rolls, E. T., Bilderbeck, A., & McGlone, F. (2008). Cognitive in-
4(2), 63–84. fluences on the affective representation of touch and the sight of touch in the
Kahneman, D., & Snell, J. (1992). Predicting a changing taste: Do people know human brain. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 3(2), 97–108.
what they will like? Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 5(3), 187–200. McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Montague,
Kahneman, D., Wakker, P. P., & Sarin, R. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations P. R. (2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar
of experienced utility. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 375–405. drinks. Neuron, 44(2), 379–387.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer- Milosavljevic, M. (2009). Computational modeling of visual attention and consumer
based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. research: Initial allocation of visual attention and its effects on consumer
Kenning, P. H., & Plassmann, H. (2008). How neuroscience can inform consumer behavior. Saarbruecken, Germany: VDM Verlag.
research. IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, Milosavljevic, M., & Cerf, M. (2008). First attention then intention: Insights from
16(6), 532–538. computational neuroscience of vision. International Journal of Advertising,
Kirk, U., Skov, M., Hulme, O., Christensen, M. S., & Zeki, S. (2009). Modulation 27(3), 381–398.
of aesthetic value by semantic context: An fMRI study. Neuroimage, 44(3), Milosavljevic, M., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2011). Consumers can make choices in
1125–1132. as little as a third of a second. Judgment and Decision Making, 6(6), 520–530.
Klucharev, V., Smidts, A., & Fernandez, G. (2008). Brain mechanisms of persua- Milosavljevic, M., Navalpakkam, V., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2011). Relative
sion: How “expert power” modulates memory and attitudes. Social Cognitive visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. Working
and Affective Neuroscience, 3(4), 353–366. Paper: California Institute of Technology.
Moore, T. E. (1988). The case against subliminal manipulation. Psychology and Pratkanis, A. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1988). Recent perspectives on unconscious
Marketing, 5(4), 297–316. processing: Still no marketing applications. Psychology and Marketing, 5(4),
Morewedge, C. K., Huh, Y. E., & Vosgerau, J. (2010). Thought for food: Imagined 337–353.
consumption reduces actual consumption. Science, 330(6010), 1530–1533. Rajagopal, P., & Montgomery, N. V. (2011). I imagine, I experience, I like: The
Nader, K., Schafe, G. E., & LeDoux, J. E. (2000). The labile nature of consolidation false experience effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 38.
theory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1(3), 216–219. Ramsøy, T. Z., Liptrot, M. G., Skimminge, A., Lund, T. E., Sidaros, K., Christensen,
Nevid, J. S. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: Implicit measures of consumer M. S., Baare, W., Paulson, O. B., & Jernigan, T. L. (2009). Regional activation of
response—The search for the holy grail of marketing research. Psychology and the human medial temporal lobe during intentional encoding of objects and posi-
Marketing, 27(10), 913–920. tions. Neuroimage, 47(4), 1863–1872.
Nissbet, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal Ramsøy, T. Z., Loving, P., Skov, M., & Clement, J. (2011). Ovarian cycle im-
reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259. pacts on women's visual attention towards sex in advertising. Working
Norton, D., & Stark, L. (1971). Scanpaths in eye movements during pattern percep- Paper. : Copenhagen Business School.
tion. Science, 171(3968), 308–311. Ramsøy, T. Z., & Skov, M. (2010). How genes make up your mind: Individual
O'Doherty, J., Kringelbach, M. L., Rolls, E. T., Hornak, J., & Andrews, C. (2001). biological differences and value-based decisions. Journal of Economic
Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human orbitofrontal Psychology, 31(5), 818–831.
cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 4(1), 95–102. Rangel, A., Camerer, C., & Montague, P. R. (2008). A framework for studying the
O'Doherty, J., Rolls, E. T., Francis, S., Bowtell, R., McGlone, F., Kobal, G., neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
Renner, B., & Ahne, G. (2000). Sensory-specific satiety-related olfactory 9(7), 545–556.
activation of the human orbitofrontal cortex. Neuroreport, 11(4), 893–897. Reutskaya, E., Nagel, R., Camerer, C., & Rangel, A. (2011). Search dynamics
Ohme, R., Reykowska, D., Wiener, D., & Choromanska, A. (2009). Analysis of in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. American
neurophysiological reactions to advertising stimuli by means of EEG and Economic Review, 101, 900–926.
galvanic skin response measures. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, Rolls, E. T., Grabenhorst, F., & Franco, L. (2009). Prediction of subjective
and Economics, 2, 21–31. affective state from brain activations. Journal of Neurophysiology, 101(3),
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision 1294–1308.
maker. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Rolls, E. T., & McCabe, C. (2007). Enhanced affective brain representations of
Pessiglione, M., Petrovic, P., Daunizeau, J., Palminteri, S., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, chocolate in cravers vs. non-cravers. European Journal of Neuroscience,
C. D. (2008). Subliminal instrumental conditioning demonstrated in the 26(4), 1067–1076.
human brain. Neuron, 59(4), 561–567. Rosbergen, E., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (1997). Visual attention to advertising:
Pessiglione, M., Schmidt, L., Draganski, B., Kalisch, R., Lau, H., Dolan, R. J., A segment-level analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 305–314.
& Frith, C. D. (2007). How the brain translates money into force: A neuro- Rupp, H. A., & Wallen, K. (2007). Sex differences in viewing sexual stimuli: An eye-
imaging study of subliminal motivation. Science, 316(5826), 904–906. tracking study in men and women. Hormones and Behavior, 51(4), 524–533.
Peyron, R., Garcia-Larrea, L., Gregoire, M. C., Costes, N., Convers, P., Lavenne, Saad, G., & Stenstrom, E. (2012). Calories, beauty, and ovulation: The effects
F., Mauguiere, F., Michel, D., & Laurent, B. (1999). Haemodynamic brain re- of the menstrual cycle on food and appearance-related consumption. Jour-
sponses to acute pain in humans: Sensory and attentional networks. Brain, nal of Consumer Psychology, 22, 102–113.
122(9), 1765–1780. Saegert, J. (1987). Why marketing should quit giving subliminal advertising the
Pieters, R., & Warlop, L. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: The impact benefit of the doubt. Psychology and Marketing, 4(2), 107–120.
of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Schaefer, M., Berens, H., Heinze, H. J., & Rotte, M. (2006). Neural correlates of
Marketing, 16(1), 1–16. culturally familiar brands of car manufacturers. Neuroimage, 31, 861–865.
Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2007). Goal control of visual attention to advertising: The Schaefer, M., & Rotte, M. (2007). Favorite brands as cultural objects modulate
Yarbus implication. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 224–233 (August). reward circuit. Neuroreport, 18(2), 141–145.
Pillsworth, E. G., Haselton, M. G., & Buss, D. M. (2004). Ovulatory shifts in Schaefer, M., & Rotte, M. (2007). Thinking on luxury or pragmatic brand products:
female sexual desire. Journal of Sex Research, 41(1), 55–65. Brain responses to different categories of culturally based brands. Brain
Plassmann, H., Ambler, T., Braeutigam, S., & Kenning, P. (2007). What can Research, 1165, 98–104.
advertisers learn from neuroscience? International Journal of Advertising, Schafe, G. E., Nader, K., Blair, H. T., & LeDoux, J. E. (2001). Memory consolidation
26(2), 151–175. of Pavlovian fear conditioning: A cellular and molecular perspective. Trends in
Plassmann, H., Kenning, P., & Ahlert, D. (2007). Why companies should make Neurosciences, 24(9), 540–546.
their customers happy: The neural correlates of customer loyalty. Advances Schultz, W. (1998). Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. Journal of
in Consumer Research—North American Conference Proceedings, 34. Neurophysiology, 80(1), 1–27.
(pp. 735–739). Schultz, W. (2001). Reward signaling by dopamine neurons. Neuroscientist,
Plassmann, H., & Niessing, J. (2010). Expectation biases as neuropsychological 7(4), 293–302.
basis for branding. German original title: Expectation Biases als neuropsycho- Schultz, W., & Dickinson, A. (2000). Neuronal coding of prediction errors.
logische Grundlage des Markenmanagements. In M. Bruhn, & R. Köhler Annual Reviews of Neuroscience, 23, 473–500.
(Eds.), Impulse aus der Neuroökonomie für die Markenführung, 119–130. Schweighofer, N., Bertin, M., Shishida, K., Okamoto, Y., Tanaka, S. C., Yamawaki,
Wiesbaden: Gabler. S., & Doya, K. (2008). Low-serotonin levels increase delayed reward discount-
Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J., & Rangel, A. (2007). Orbitofrontal cortex ing in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 28, 4528–4532.
encodes willingness to pay in everyday economic transactions. Journal of Shapiro, S. (1999). When an ad's influence is beyond our conscious control:
Neuroscience, 27(37), 9984–9988. Perceptual and conceptual fluency effects caused by incidental ad exposure.
Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J. P., & Rangel, A. (2010). Appetitive and aversive Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 16–36.
goal values are encoded in the medial orbitofrontal cortex at the time of decision Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003). Gaze bias both reflects
making. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(32), 10799–10808. and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience, 6(12), 1317–1322.
Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions:
can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research,
of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), 105(3), 1050–1054. 42(4), 383–393.
Plassmann, H., Yoon, C., Feinberg, F., & Shiv, B. (in press). Consumer neurosci- Shiv, B., Loewenstein, G., & Bechara, A. (2005). Investment behavior and the
ence. In R. P. Bagozzi & A. Ruvio (Eds.), Wiley International Encyclopedia of negative side of emotion. Psychological Science, 16(6), 435–439.
Marketing. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Simonson, I. (2005). In defense of consciousness: The role of conscious and
Poldrack, R. A. (2006). Can cognitive processes be inferred from neuroimaging unconscious inputs in consumer choice. Joournal of Consumer Psychology,
data? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(2), 59–63. 15(3), 211–217.
Small, D. M., Gregory, M. D., Mak, Y. E., Gitelman, D., Mesulam, M. M., & Van Osselaer, S. M., & Janiszewski, C. (2001). Two ways of learning brand
Parrish, T. (2003). Dissociation of neural representation of intensity and associations. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 202–223.
affective valuation in human gustation. Neuron, 39(4), 701–711. van Zoest, W., Donk, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2004). The role of stimulus-driven
Small, D. M., Zatorre, R. J., Dagher, A., Evans, A. C., & Jones-Gotman, M. and goal-driven control in saccadic visual selection. Journal of Experi-
(2001). Changes in brain activity related to eating chocolate: From pleasure mental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(4),
to aversion. Brain, 124(9), 1720–1733. 746–759.
Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996). Memory, memory impairment, and the medial Vranić, A., & Hromatko, I. (2008). Content-specific activational effects of estrogen
temporal lobe. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, 61, on working memory performance. The Journal of General Psychology, 135(3),
185–195. 323–336.
Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative and Waber, R. L., Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2008). Commercial features
nondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of of placebo and therapeutic efficacy. JAMA, 299(9), 1016–1017.
Sciences (USA), 93(24), 13515–13522. Wadhwa, M., Shiv, B., & Nowlis, S. M. (2008). A bite to whet the reward
Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1998). Episodic memory, semantic memory, and appetite: The influence of sampling on reward-seeking behaviors. Journal
amnesia. Hippocampus, 8(3), 205–211. of Marketing Research, 45(4), 403–413.
Stewart, A. J., Pickering, M. J., & Sturt, P. (2004). Using eye movements during Wallis, J. D., & Miller, E. K. (2003). Neuronal activity in primate dorsolateral
reading as an implicit measure of acceptability of brand extensions. Applied and orbital prefrontal cortex during performance of a reward preference
Cognitive Psychology, 18, 697–709. task. European Journal of Neuroscience, 18(7), 2069–2081.
Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gurhan-Canli, Z. (2007). “My” brand or “our” Wilson, T. D. (2002). Strangers to ourselves: Discovering the adaptive uncon-
brand: The effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on scious. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 248–259. Wirtz, D., Kruger, J., Scollon, C. N., & Diener, E. (2003). What to do on spring
Synodinos, N. E. (1988). Review and appraisal of subliminal perception within the break? Psychological Science, 14(5), 520–524.
context of signal detection theory. Psychology and Marketing, 5(4), 317–336. Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment
Talmi, D., Dayan, P., Kiebel, S. J., Frith, C. D., & Dolan, R. J. (2009). How of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience,
humans integrate the prospects of pain and reward during choice. Journal 5(6), 495–501.
of Neuroscience, 29(46), 14617–14626. Xianchi, D., Brendl, C. M., & Ariely, D. (2010). Wanting, liking, and preference
Tatler, B. W. (2007). The central fixation bias in scene viewing: Selecting an construction. Emotion, 10(3), 324–334.
optimal viewing position independently of motor biases and image feature Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision. New York: Plenum Press.
distributions. Journal of Vision, 7(14), 1–17. Yoon, C., Gutchess, A. H., Feinberg, F., & Polk, T. A. (2006). A functional
Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta magnetic resonance imaging study of neural dissociations between
Psychologica, 135(2), 77–99. brand and person judgments. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1),
Theus, K. T. (1994). Subliminal advertising and the psychology of processing un- 31–40.
conscious stimuli: A review of research. Psychology and Marketing, 11(3), Zajonc, R. B., & Markus, H. (1985). Must all affect be mediated by cognition?
271–290. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 363–364.
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Zaltman, G. (2000). Consumer researchers: Take a hike! Journal of Consumer
Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136. Research, 26(4), 423–428.
Tulving, E., Kapur, S., Craik, F. I., Moscovitch, M., & Houle, S. (1994). Zhu, X., Wang, X., Parkinson, C., Cai, C., Gao, S., & Hu, P. (2010). Brain
Hemispheric encoding/retrieval asymmetry in episodic memory: Positron activation evoked by erotic films varies with different menstrual phases:
emission tomography findings. Proceedings of the National Academy of An fMRI study. Behavioural Brain Research, 206(2), 279–285.
Sciences of the United States of America, 91(6), 2016–2020. Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Chappelow, J., Martin-Skurski, M., & Berns, G. S. (2006).
Tusche, A., Bode, S., & Haynes, J. D. (2010). Neural responses to unattended Human striatal activation reflects degree of stimulus saliency. Neuroimage,
products predict later consumer choices. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(23), 29(3), 977–983.
8024–8031. Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin, M. E., Dhamala, M., & Berns, G. S. (2003). Human
Van Den Bergh, B., Dewitte, S., & Warlop, L. U. K. (2008). Bikinis instigate striatal response to salient nonrewarding stimuli. Journal of Neuroscience,
generalized impatience in intertemporal choice. Journal of Consumer 23(22), 8092–8097.
Research, 35(1), 85–97. Zink, C. F., Pagnoni, G., Martin-Skurski, M. E., Chappelow, J. C., & Berns, G. S.
Van der Lans, R., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2008). Competitive brand salience. (2004). Human striatal responses to monetary reward depend on saliency.
Marketing Science, 27(5), 922–931. Neuron, 42(3), 509–517.
View publication stats

Brandingthebrain Acriticalreviewandoutlook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brandingthebrain Acriticalreviewandoutlook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brandingthebrain Acriticalreviewandoutlook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Branding the brain A critical review and outlook

Data in Journal of Consumer Psychology · November 2012

Brain bases of social cognition and choice View project

Brands & brains View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Branding the brain: A critical review and outlook

Keywords: Consumer neuroscience; Neuromarketing; Branding; Attention; Memory; Value

Introduction theories from neuroscience—combined with behavioral theo-

Fig. 1. Growth of research applying neuroscience to marketing over time.

Fig. 2. Value signals important for brand decisions.

View publication stats

You might also like