Content uploaded by Robert Klitzman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Klitzman on Jun 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Robert Klitzman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Robert Klitzman
Content may be subject to copyright.
PERSPECTIVES
Defining Neuromarketing: Practices
and Professional Challenges
Carl Erik Fisher, MD, Lisa Chin, EdD, JD, MA, MPH, and Robert Klitzman, MD
Neuromarketing has recently generated controversies concerning the involvement of medical profes-
sionals, and many key questions remain—ones that have potentially important implications for the
field of psychiatry. Conflicting definitions of neuromarketing have been proposed, and little is known
about the actual practices of companies, physicians, and scientists involved in its practice. This article
reviews the history of neuromarketing and uses an exploratory survey of neuromarketing Web sites
to illustrate ethical issues raised by this new field. Neuromarketing, as currently practiced, is hetero-
geneous, as companies are offering a variety of technologies. Many companies employ academicians
and professionals, but few list their clients or fees. Media coverage of neuromarketing appears
disproportionately high compared to the paucity of peer-reviewed reports in the field. Companies
may be making premature claims about the power of neuroscience to predict consumer behavior.
Overall, neuromarketing has important implications for academic-industrial partnerships, the re-
sponsible conduct of research, and the public understanding of the brain. We explore these themes
to uncover issues relevant to professional ethics, research, and policy. Of particular relevance to psy-
chiatry, neuromarketing may be seen as an extension of the search for quantification and certainty
in previously indefinite aspects of human behavior. (HARV REV PSYCHIATRY 2010;18:230–237.)
Keywords: bioethics, conflicts of interest, ethics, fMRI, neuroethics, neuromarketing,
professionalism
Psychiatry is increasingly embracing functional magnetic
resonance imaging (fMRI) and other neurotechnologies,
From the Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University; New York
State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY.
Supported, in part, by a Doris Duke Charitable Foundation Clini-
cal Research Fellowship (CEF); National Institute of Mental Health
training grant no. T32 MH19139 (LC); and U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services Office of Research Integrity grant no.
1R01HG004214-01 (RK).
Original manuscript received 27 July 2009; revised manuscript re-
ceived 2 October 2009, accepted for publication 14 December 2009.
Correspondence: Carl Erik Fisher, MD, Department of Psychiatry,
New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1051 Riverside Dr., Box 103,
New York, NY 10032. Email: cf2141@columbia.edu
c2010 President and Fellows of Harvard College
DOI: 10.3109/10673229.2010.496623
which carry the promise of revealing the underpinnings
of emotions and social interactions. Similarly, various
domains have acquired the prefix neuro- as brain sci-
ence increasingly informs our daily lives, social prac-
tices, and intellectual discourses. This collection of new
fields—for example, neuroaesthetics, neurotheology, and
neuroeducation—has been labeled neuroculture,andthe
brain-based explanations arising from it are progressively
influencing public notions of personal identity, responsi-
bility, and causation.1Neuromarketing, which can be ten-
tatively defined as marketing designed on the basis of
neuroscience research, is one manifestation of this new neu-
roculture. The field offers insights into the development of
brain-based narratives and into the potential problems that
they might pose for medical ethics and the public under-
standing of science.
Neuromarketing has attracted increasing attention, but
critical aspects of it remain underexplored, including what
exactly it is or includes, and how it is used in practice. The
field has already generated controversy. For example, the
popular press has reported on the perceived dangers of neu-
romarketing, including concerns that advertisers might find
230
Harv Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Columbia University on 07/14/10
For personal use only.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
Volume 18, Number 4 Defining Neuromarketing 231
a “buy button” or “magic spot” in the brain;2,3editorials
in the scientific literature have argued that these worries
are most likely premature since the current state of imag-
ing technology does not allow for accurate, deterministic
predictions of human decision making;4,5and still others
have expressed concerns that neuromarketing might one
day threaten individual autonomy if this technology were
able to effectively manipulate consumer behavior.6Indeed,
the authors of one recent review are optimistic about the
potential of this technology, asserting that neuromarketing
will “soon be able to reveal hidden information about con-
sumer preferences”—though they recognize that this tech-
nology is unlikely to be more cost-effective than traditional
marketing.7
Universities and medical professionals have been crit-
icized for forming partnerships with neuromarketing
companies.8For example, consumer groups claimed that
Emory University violated the Belmont Report’s principle
of beneficence when it partnered with a neuromarketing
company; the groups asserted that this research promotes
“socially harmful” results such as increasing sales of un-
healthy food or facilitating political propaganda.8
Yet, surprisingly, there have been few descriptions of
neuromarketing as it currently exists, and many key as-
pects of such companies are unknown: to what extent these
technologies are actually being used in the private sector;
whether and how they are associated with academicians;
and what claims are being made. Indeed, there is little
consensus over what should be considered neuromarketing
at all.
This new development in neuroscience has important
implications for the public understanding of science. Some
have argued that the public understanding of brain imaging
lacks sufficient skepticism.9The public may not always real-
ize that the colorful results in a functional brain scan appear
as such only after extensive image processing and statisti-
cal analyses, and in the context of a specific experimental
paradigm.10 Indeed, members of the public find descriptions
of neuroscience findings more persuasive when descriptions
of research are accompanied by brain images—even though
these images have no actual impact on the objective validity
of those findings.11
WHAT IS NEUROMARKETING?
The earliest reported use of the word neuromarketing
appears to be in a June 2002 press release by an Atlanta
advertising firm, BrightHouse, announcing the creation of
a business division using fMRI for marketing research.12
This firm quickly attracted criticism for potential conflicts
of interest involving Emory University; the new business
division of BrightHouse was established by Emory faculty,
including at least one professor in psychiatry, and the imag-
ing studies used Emory’s facilities.8The anti-advertising
civic group Commercial Alert advanced some of the most
vocal criticisms of this work—for example, the spread of
“marketing-related diseases” resulting from the promotion
of junk food companies—and they soon asked the federal
Office for Human Research Protections and the U.S. Senate
to investigate BrightHouse’s research.13 The Web site for
BrightHouse Neurostrategies, as it was called, was quickly
taken down, and the new enterprise faded from public
attention.
Long before this type of work acquired its neuro-
prefix, however, and long before Emory University and
BrightHouse announced their partnership, corporations
have sponsored neurophysiologic research into market-
ing topics—for example, by studying consumer reactions
to television programming with electroencephalography
(EEG).14,15 Of note, four years before the term neuromar-
keting was coined, Professors Gerald Zaltman and Stephen
Kosslyn of Harvard University16 filed a patent for “Neu-
roimaging as a marketing tool”; however, Zaltman quickly
shifted his focus to the “Zaltman Metaphor Elicitation Tech-
nique,” a structured interview that does not employ imaging
technology, and Kosslyn appears not to have been involved
in neuromarketing until 2008, when he joined the advisory
board of a company called NeuroFocus.17,18
More recently, researchers have proposed conflicting defi-
nitions of neuromarketing, preferring to see it as essentially
a scientific field rather than as a business. Specifically, Lee
and colleagues19 have defined neuromarketing as academic
scholarship: “a valid field of study” and not simply “the ap-
plication of neuroimaging techniques to sell products.” Some
companies that describe their activities as neuromarketing
have not published their results in peer-reviewed journals,
however, and their efforts seem contained largely within
the private sector. Thus, in contrast to Lee and colleagues,
Hubert and Kenning20 see neuromarketing as a business
activity rather than an academic field focused on scholar-
ship. They propose that the broader field of neuroscientific
consumer research (what Lee and colleagues refer to as neu-
romarketing) should be labeled “consumer neuroscience,”
and they define neuromarketing more narrowly as “the
application of these findings within the scope of managerial
practice.”
A useful comparison can be made to neuroeconomics,
an academic discipline that studies various aspects of eco-
nomic decision making.21 This field has also attracted at-
tention recently and often uses imaging technology, but it is
more clearly an academic discipline. Recent commentators
echo the above distinction between scholarship and appli-
cation, asserting that neuroeconomics should be considered
apart from specific investigations for marketing purposes.2
Neuroeconomics has undergone extensive theoretical
Harv Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Columbia University on 07/14/10
For personal use only.
232 Fisher et al.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
July/August 2010
development as a field,21−24 and it has already produced
a wealth of evidence on decision making in real-world con-
texts. Neuroeconomics researchers often use commonly rec-
ognized objects like consumer products to study general con-
cepts like sensory processing, choice, and the evaluation of
losses and rewards, but these studies are not done for a
particular company or marketing application. For example,
McClure and colleagues25 examined subjects’ responses to
Coke and Pepsi using fMRI; this model was chosen to under-
stand sensory perception of common cultural symbols, not
to aid the Coca-Cola Company or PepsiCo in their market-
ing design. More broadly, much neuroscience and psychology
research is potentially useful for understanding choice and
preference, but is not neuroeconomics (or neuromarketing)
per se. The neuroeconomics community now comprises over
one dozen university-based research centers, one scientific
society, and a considerable literature that includes numer-
ous textbooks.
In contrast, the academic foundations of neuromarket-
ing as a field are difficult to identify. It is unclear at present
whether neuromarketing qualifies as an academic field, and
if it does, what distinguishes it from neuroeconomics. We
have found only a handful of scholarly reports of the re-
sults of industry-sponsored neuromarketing. In 2002, scien-
tists from the University of Ulm in Germany, supported by
Daimler Chrysler, published a report on the visual percep-
tion of automobiles,26 and scientists at UCLA received par-
tial funding from the political consultancy FKF Research
to analyze the neural reactions of registered Republicans
and Democrats to faces of presidential candidates.27 Anecdo-
tally, a few companies have also conducted neuromarketing
studies but have not published their work in peer-reviewed
journals. For example, researchers at Caltech’s Social Cog-
nitive Neuroscience Laboratory have reportedly partnered
with Lieberman Research to help Hollywood studios select
movie trailers.3
But beyond these few cases, it is not clear how widespread
neuromarketing is or even exactly what it is. Thus, sev-
eral critical questions remain: Does neuromarketing in-
volve more than this handful of companies? How are these
companies presenting themselves and neuromarketing it-
self? To what extent are medical professionals and aca-
demicians involved in their work? What claims are they
making? What are the ethical obligations of medical pro-
fessionals, including psychiatrists, with regard to this new
practice? To examine these themes, we performed an ex-
ploratory study to capture a sense of the range, variety, and
frequency of key characteristics of neuromarketing compa-
nies. Since an ever burgeoning amount of medical infor-
mation is being offered through the Internet,28−31 we de-
cided to examine these issues through neuromarketing Web
sites.
NEUROMARKETING WEB SITES
To probe the similarities, differences, and patterns that
might appear among neuromarketing companies, we
searched Google for “neuromarketing.” We examined the
maximum number of available hits—1,000 in this case—and
identified 16 companies offering neuromarketing services.
We included all marketing sites that described any neuro-
science methods but excluded Web logs (blogs), media sites,
and other noncommercial hits that did not offer such ser-
vices. Then, using the methodology we have described pre-
viously to study how the Web sites of in vitro fertilization
clinics present the risks and benefits of preimplantation ge-
netic diagnosis,32 we developed a coding strategy to qualita-
tively describe these neuromarketing sites. In brief, we each
independently read the 16 Web sites, developed categories
to code, and worked together to reconcile the three indepen-
dently developed coding schemes into a single scheme. With
that scheme in place, we reviewed all of the Web sites and
assigned codes together. The results are presented in the
text box on the next page.
Early commentators assumed the term neuromarketing
indicated the use of brain imaging such as fMRI,4but many
companies seem not to use imaging but rely, instead, on a va-
riety of technologies (or on no technology at all). As shown
in the text box, of the 16 companies identified, only 5 of-
fered fMRI; 9 offered EEG services; and 12 offered some
other neuroscience-related technology, including: magne-
toencephalography, “psychophysics,” software services, eye
tracking, galvanic skin response, electrocardiography, elec-
tromyography, and analysis of pupil dilation, blush, blink-
ing, heartbeat, or breathing. Of note, one company did not
offer any technology; instead, it offered only focus groups
and other simple marketing strategies, but described these
methods using neuroscience terms.
Only four companies listed their clients, and only one
listed costs. This relatively limited transparency is relevant
to consumer groups’ criticisms of Emory University. Those
groups alleged that companies could be secretly damag-
ing public health by promoting unhealthy products like
junk food or cigarettes, or that they could even threaten
individual liberty by designing more effective political
propaganda.8While this line of attack may seem alarmist
to some, it is comparable to the criticisms levied against
academic medical centers during debates about the divest-
ment of tobacco stock—which were made on the basis of the
mission of academic medical centers to protect the public
health.33
In terms of the science itself, 13 companies described
their methodology, but these descriptions were often insuf-
ficient to determine what was being done. For example, one
stated that it could “measure almost any form of stimulus
Harv Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Columbia University on 07/14/10
For personal use only.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
Volume 18, Number 4 Defining Neuromarketing 233
Characteristics of Neuromarketing Web Sites
(n=16)
Services offered
fMRI 31.2% (5)
EEG 56.3% (9)
Other technologies 75% (12)
Business considerations
Costs listed 6.2% (1)
Clients listed 25% (4)
Descriptions of science
Methodology described 81.2% (13)
Peer reviewed publications on Web site 31.2% (5)
Peer reviewed publications by lab or affiliates
on Web site
25% (4)
Professionals on staff
Academicians on staff 31.2% (5)
MDs listed on staff 31.2% (5)
PhDs listed on staff 56.3% (9)
Listing of university affiliation 6.2% (1)
Any holder of advanced science degree 56.3% (9)
Web s ite fo rmat
Picture of brain on home page 43.8% (7)
Picture of brain function (e.g., fMRI, EEG) on
home page
31.2% (5)
Cartoon graph on home page 12.5% (2)
Any other graph/visual data on home page 18.8% (3)
At least one of above graphics 56.3% (9)
Links of media coverage 56.3% (9)
Specific claims
Use of terms truth/real/really 62.5% (10)
Revealing secrets/subconscious 62.5% (10)
Predicting future behavior 6.2% (1)
Claims of neuromarketing as improvement over
other techs
Mitigating factors 50% (8)
Provide citations for claims 6.2% (1)
Caveats to technology 37.5% (6)
Ethics
Specific ethics section on Web site 12.5% (2)
Mention of word “ethics” 12.5% (2)
Advertise for subjects 12.5% (2)
Risk/benefits description for subjects 0†
†One includes a link to a Web site in German.
material in many different types of environment” via
“[t]echniques” involving “[n]eurological responses via EEG
eg [sic] the nature and intensity of different mind-state
shifts, levels of attention and emotions.”∗In most cases,
∗The concern here is not about specific companies but about the
broader phenomenon of neuromarketing. Although we have there-
fore not included the sources of the quotations from neuromarketing
Web sites, we do have the original sources on file.
the companies alluded to techniques or simply listed tech-
nologies without describing the actual experimental design.
Furthermore, little evidence was provided for their claims.
Eleven Web sites did not reference any peer-reviewed ar-
ticles, either in support of their methods or as reports of
their previous work. Six included caveats to their technol-
ogy, and only one company provided citations for its specific
claims.
The examples that we found illustrate the confusion
over the precise disciplinary definition of neuromarketing:
whether it is essentially an academic field or a marketing ap-
plication. Five of these companies do employ academicians;
five sites reference the academic literature; and one had a
university affiliation. The involvement of professionals is
comparatively larger, as nine sites had holders of advanced
science degrees on staff (more PhDs than MDs).
Seven sites displayed some graphic depiction of the brain
on their home pages, and nine had a picture of the brain or
of other “data.” Nine also had links to media coverage.
With regard to the claims themselves, the majority (10 of
16) of the neuromarketing companies promised the “truth”
or what customers “really” think; for example: “we measure
what consumers really think and feel, rather than simply
what they state,” or we “unlock what your customer really
thinks.” Ten also invoked the workings of the sub- or uncon-
scious mind in relation to their methods (e.g., “These mea-
surements ...will reveal mental activity operating below the
level of conscious awareness.”). Half explicitly claimed that
their methods were an improvement over past technologies,
though only one company claimed that it could predict fu-
ture behavior. In light of the current state of imaging tech-
nology, these claims appear questionable at best.
As shown in the text box on the next page, we saw a
variety of claims suggesting reductionism, which the Ox-
ford English Dictionary defines as the practice of describing
or explaining a complex phenomenon in terms of relatively
simple or fundamental concepts.34 In this case, reduction-
ism was apparent in statements such as “types and levels
of emotions” or “what part of the brain is telling” consumers
to make decisions. Other examples were less striking but
still seemed to suggest a simplistic explanation for complex
brain processes (e.g., “quantify and localise brain activity in
areas involved in emotion, attention, memory and decision-
making”) We did not develop an additional code for this pro-
cess of oversimplification; it was too difficult and uncertain
to specify exactly when an interpretation of neuroscientific
findings becomes reductionistic. However, we thought it im-
portant to bring these examples to light, as they seem to cap-
italize on the public fascination with neuroscience. Racine
and colleagues35 have described a concept they term neuro-
essentialism: the immediate, uninquisitive equation of iden-
tity and agency to the brain and its substructures. Similarly,
Vidal36 has proposed the concept of brainhood: the condition
of “being rather than having a brain,” in which humans are
Harv Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Columbia University on 07/14/10
For personal use only.
234 Fisher et al.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
July/August 2010
Examples of Reductive Claims
Web site Quotation
1 “we use the fMRI ...to learn why consumers make the decisions they do, and that part of the brain is telling them to
do it”
2 “instantaneously monitors and records how consumers’ brains process what they see, hear, and read from one moment
to the next”
3 “the member is exposed to a series of visual and sonic stimuli aimed to stimulate ...a brainwave response to a definite
recognition of the stimulus shown”
4 “Neuromarketing is now able to identify the type and levels of emotions experienced when consumers are exposed to all
types of commercial messages. It is possible to discover how that information is being processed ...by their brains, the
type and degree of interest shown and the extent to which new information is being established in long term memory.”
5 “The brainwave responses to these stimuli are measured using a patented headband equipped with EEG sensors.
The data is then analyzed to determine if the relevant information is present in the subject’s memory.”
6 “fMRI ...allows researchers to view the human mind in real-time, as emotions and cognitive thoughts are at play.
Using fMRI, we can literally “map” the human mind as it reacts to stimuli with which it is presented.”
7 “EEG capability that measures brainwave cognition and emotion on a moment-by-moment basis.”
8 “When a part of the brain becomes active, the brightness of the images changes. By analysing the images using
sophisticated computer programmes, we can quantify and localise brain activity in areas involved in emotion,
attention, memory and decision-making.”
“cerebral subjects” whose selfhood is determined by their
brains alone. Indeed, these examples seem to go beyond
simply overvaluing technology to suggest that all human
behavior and thought can be reduced to regional brain ac-
tivity.
Finally, none of the Web sites mentioned issues of privacy
or confidentiality (e.g., who else, if anyone, mighthave access
to data that are collected) and what, if anything, might be
done with incidental findings (e.g., evidence of pathology).
DISCUSSION
This brief study raises several broader issues relevant to the
public understanding of science and academic professional-
ism.
Public Understanding of Science
It is worrisome that neuromarketing companies appear to
be providing links to media rather than to scientific liter-
ature, as media coverage could be used in the absence of
peer-reviewed evidence to prematurely legitimize the use
of these technologies. The media has an important role in
communicating scientific discoveries, but multidirectional
communication between neuroscientists and the lay public
is more desirable than relying on the media alone to dissem-
inate scientific results; media reports alone may not suffi-
ciently capture essential limitations of specific studies.37
Many of the Web sites that we found included some
graphical representation of brain function, such as a pic-
ture of a brain, cartoon data, or other suggestive graphics.
This marketing approach is probably effective; as mentioned
above, when descriptions of research findings are accom-
panied by graphical representations, laypersons consider
those results more believable.11 The use of such graphics
may be problematic, however, as their widespread use may
obscure certain scientific and technological limitations that
have a general tendency to be ignored when such meth-
ods are popularized. Among other things, since these vivid
graphics are produced only through intensive statistical and
image processing, the results can be manipulated to high-
light or underplay differences among brain regions. Further
problems derive from the physical nature of the signal on
which these methods rely. All neurotechnologies measure
surrogate signals for neural activity (such as the blood oxy-
gen level–dependent, or BOLD, response of fMRI), and these
signals are constrained by the physical and biological lim-
itations of the technology in question and the brain itself.
This dependence upon surrogate signals, rather than direct
measures, is typically ignored in popular depictions of neu-
roscience, such as when technologies are described as direct
windows into the working of the brain (e.g., “we can literally
‘map’ the human mind as it reacts to stimuli”).
It appears that few neuromarketing companies have pub-
lished their results. These findings could be scientifically
useful, and companies would be performing a valuable pub-
lic service if they published them in the academic literature.
Such dissemination is unlikely, however, because of the pro-
prietary nature of such findings and their potential strategic
usefulness, and it is also unlikely that neuromarketing com-
panies (like any other for-profit businesses) can be compelled
Harv Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Columbia University on 07/14/10
For personal use only.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
Volume 18, Number 4 Defining Neuromarketing 235
to release those results. Such an intervention might be war-
ranted if neuromarketing were actually able to manipulate
consumer behavior and if the targets of that marketing ef-
fort could not detect that they were being manipulated. This
scenario, which is described as stealth neuromarketing in
one analysis,6is not possible using current technology. If
and when it does become possible, however, it would surely
represent a significant threat to consumer autonomy—so
much so that it would fundamentally alter our understand-
ing of autonomy and free will. But for now, neuromarketing
companies bear no special duty to transparency.
Professional and Academic Conduct
Psychiatry has often served as a crucible for testing new
ideas about the brain and mind, and the example of neuro-
marketing may hold lessons for our field. The current value
granted to neuroimaging could be said to descend directly
from the late-nineteenth-century concept of “instruments of
precision.”38 From thermometers and blood pressure cuffs
to EEG and fMRI machines, medical researchers have long
striven to quantify previously subjective observations. Neu-
romarketing, as one of the earliest manifestations of com-
mercialized neuroscience in the post-imaging era, may well
be a harbinger of developments within psychiatry—for ex-
ample, a rush toward diagnostic certainty through imag-
ing. Indeed, one for-profit venture is already marketing the
use of brain imaging for psychiatric diagnosis.39 Psychi-
atry as a field should closely consider the limitations of
such measures. At a time when the development of the
new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is attracting vig-
orous public commentary, and when the validity of psychi-
atric diagnosis is publicly debated, the claim that imaging
technology is a unique route to diagnostic certainty could
be a premature way to seek to legitimize complex disease
concepts; if these new methods or the concepts they sup-
port are not consistently found to be valid and reliable,
“neuronosology” could undercut public trust in psychiatric
research.
Several topics in medical professionalism suggest further
concerns. There exists a sizeable literature on conflicts of in-
terest in medicine, and in view of the potential for such con-
flicts to encourage reporting bias40 and data withholding,41
detailed proposals for academic medical centers have been
advanced. Regarding communications and the public under-
standing of science, however—unlike research per se—there
is little specific guidance about professional involvement
with entrepreneurial ventures such as neuromarketing. The
Charter on Medical Professionalism identifies one aspect of
professionalism as “providing expert advice to society on
matters of health,”42 and previous writers have highlighted
the need for physicians to counteract declining trust in the
medical profession by doing work that “contributes to the
public value for which the profession stands.”43 Society ex-
pects the medical profession to be beneficent: honest, ac-
countable, transparent, and a source of objective advice and
information.44 Some have urged physicians to be more en-
gaged in the public arena, but these discussions often refer
primarily to advocacy and activism, not public communica-
tions about science.45
Since neuromarketing has socially and ethically relevant
implications—for example, regarding self, agency, and free
will—it is important to consider closely the participation
of medical professionals in neuromarketing companies.46
Considering that the field of neuromarketing is still emerg-
ing, it is premature to recommend prohibiting professionals
from becoming involved at all. That said, academic medical
centers might well consider formulating policies to address
concerns about neuromarketing. Survey data have revealed
that institutional policies around conflicts of interest vary
significantly47 and that most such policies lack specificity.48
Academic medical centers could take the lead in promoting
transparency regarding neuromarketing and similar enter-
prises by requiring their faculty to publish consulting agree-
ments, advisory positions, and other entrepreneurial rela-
tionships on a publically available source such as the institu-
tion’s Web site. This suggestion mirrors existing policy pro-
posals regarding ties to pharmaceutical companies—policies
that, in an attempt to safeguard against bias in reporting
research results, require the posting of information about
such ties.49
More broadly, all academicians have a duty to the public
trust: they need to communicate clearly about science and
cannot rely on the popular press to fulfill that responsibility
with the same clarity and accuracy.50 Gibbons51 has pro-
posed that the production of scientific knowledge should be
seen by society to be “both transparent and participative.”
It is troubling that in our example of neuromarketing, com-
panies with academicians on staff have made questionable
claims without evidence-based citations. Indeed, promising
to deliver a deterministic way of understanding and ulti-
mately manipulating consumer behavior is premature, and
over time such unrealistic claims could be seen as a viola-
tion of an implicit social contract—and as harming public
respect for science and jeopardizing public support of re-
search in general.52
Individual neuromarketing companies and the academi-
cians employed by them should recognize the potential
benefit to be gained by instituting better practices on
their own—for instance, to avoid unfounded claims and
to adhere more closely to accepted standards of scientific
evidence. In response to the perceived excesses of neuro-
marketing, some observers have suggested that legislation
may be needed to regulate the commercial use of imaging
technology.5Self-regulation by industry and by individual
Harv Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Columbia University on 07/14/10
For personal use only.
236 Fisher et al.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
July/August 2010
academicians might help to forestall such restrictions
while simultaneously improving transparency and research
quality. Similarly, while these companies are not under
the purview of health privacy laws, as they are not health
care providers, they should have measures in place both
to protect the confidentiality of the data that they record
and to enable the portability of images, records, and other
information that might prove to be useful for their subjects.
Considering that neuromarketing studies might disclose
important radiologic findings, companies should have an
explicit protocol in place for reporting and referral, as
recommended by Murphy and colleagues.6
CONCLUSIONS
The issues raised by neuromarketing highlight important
professional, ethical, and scientific concerns. This new field
exemplifies the complicated issue of professional ethics as
applied to academic-industrial relationships. Furthermore,
as a new application of neuroscience methods, neuromar-
keting raises important considerations for the responsible
conduct of research and the public understanding of neuro-
science.
More research is needed in order to better under-
stand neuromarketing, neuromarketing companies, and
their practices and claims. Our exploration of these com-
panies used only publicly presented information. Further
investigations could directly assess the actual roles of pro-
fessionals and academics in these companies. For example:
whether they are in a position to oversee the collection, in-
terpretation, or dissemination of research findings; how the
roles of academicians are defined; and whether they are
paid. Several questions remain: Who is using neuromarket-
ing, and for what specifically? What advice and data do they
receive as part of these services? And do they perceive any
return on investment?
It would be interesting to investigate the quality of neu-
romarketing research directly since the private sponsor-
ship of biomedical research has been found to be associated
with pro-industry conclusions.39 As neuromarketing grows
in scale and enters more fully into society, as well as into
various media and economic marketplaces, the concerns ex-
pressed here about the industry’s claims and about the roles
of professionals in promoting scientific legitimacy will be-
come increasingly important.
Psychiatrists in academics and clinical practice alike
should be alert to the implications of new neurotechnolo-
gies, including neuromarketing, as these applications carry
important consequences for both the public trust in aca-
demic medicine and the public’s evolving comprehension of
mind/brain interrelationships.
Thanks to Paul Appelbaum for helpful comments on an ear-
lier version of this paper.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of
interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content
and writing of the article.
REFERENCES
1. Frazzetto G, Anker S. Neuroculture. Nat Rev Neurosci
2009;10:815–21.
2. Blakeslee S. If you have a ‘buy button’ in your brain, what
pushes it? N Y Times 2004;19 Oct.
3. Thompson C. There’s a sucker born in every medial prefrontal
cortex. N Y Times Mag 2003;26 Oct.
4. Brain scam? Nat Neurosci 2004;7:683.
5. Neuromarketing: beyond branding. Lancet Neurol 2004;3:71.
6. Murphy ER, Illes J, Reiner PB. Neuroethics of neuromarketing.
J Consum Behav 2008;7:293–302.
7. Ariely D, Berns GS. Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of
neuroimaging in business. Nat Rev Neurosci 2010;11:284–92.
8. Ruskin G. Commercial alert asks feds to investigate neuro-
marketing research at Emory University. 17 December 2003.
http://www.commercialalert.org/news/news-releases/2003/
12/commercial-alert-asks-feds-to-investigate-neuromarketing-
research-at-emory-university
9. Farah MJ. Neuroethics: the practical and the philosophical.
Trends Cogn Sci 2005;9:34–40.
10. Canli T, Amin Z. Neuroimaging of emotion and personal-
ity: scientific evidence and ethical considerations. Brain Cogn
2002;50:414–31.
11. McCabe DP, Castel AD. Seeing is believing: the effect of
brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition
2008;107:343–52.
12. Brighthouse Institute for Thought Sciences launches first
“neuromarketing” research company. 22 June 2002. http://
www.prweb.com/releases/2002/6/prweb40936.php
13. Canli T. When genes and brains unite: ethical implications of
genomic neuroimaging. In: Illes J, ed. Neuroethics. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press, 2006.
14. Krugman HE. Brain wave measures of media involvement. J
Advertising Res 1971;11:3–10.
15. Rothschild M, Hyun YJ. Predicting memory for components of
TV commercials from EEG. J Consum Res 1990;16:472–8.
16. Zaltman G, Kosslyn SM. Neuroimaging as a marketing tool.
U.S. Patent 6,099,319. 8 August 2000.
17. Lewis D, Bridger D. Market researchers make increasing use
of brain imaging. Adv Clin Neurosci Rehabil 2005;5:3.
18. Neurofocus appoints Stephen Kosslyn to its Advisory Board.
17 September 2009. http://www.neurofocus.com/news/stephen.
htm
19. Lee N, Broderick AJ, Chamberlain L. What is ‘neuromarket-
ing’? A discussion and agenda for future research. Int J Psy-
chophysiol 2007;63:199–204.
20. Hubert M, Kenning P. A current overview of consumer neuro-
science. J Consum Behav 2008;7:272–92.
Harv Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Columbia University on 07/14/10
For personal use only.
Harv Rev Psychiatry
Volume 18, Number 4 Defining Neuromarketing 237
21. Glimcher P. Neuroeconomics: the consilience of brain and deci-
sion. Science 2004;306:447–52.
22. Lowenstein G. Neuroeconomics. Annu Rev Psychol 2008;59:
647–72.
23. Sanfey A, Loewenstein G, McClure S, Cohen JD. Neuroeco-
nomics: cross-currents in research on decision-making. Trends
Cogn Sci 2006;10:108–16.
24. Zak PJ. Neuroeconomics. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci
2004;359:1737–48.
25. McClure SM, Li J, Tomlin D, Cypert KS, Montague LM, Mon-
tague PR. Neural correlates of behavioral reference for cultur-
ally familiar drinks. Neuron 2004;44:379–87.
26. Erk S, Spitzer M, Wunderlich AP, Galley L, Walter H.
Cultural objects modulate reward circuitry. Neuroreport
2002;13:2499–503.
27. Kaplan, JT, Freedman J, Iacoboni M. Us versus them: politi-
cal attitudes and party affiliation influence neural response to
faces of presidential candidates. Neuropsychologia 2007;45:55–
64.
28. Hajjar I, Gable SA, Jenkinson VP, Kane LT, Riley RA. Quality of
Internet geriatric health information: the GeriatricWeb project.
J Am Geriatr Soc 2005;53:885–90.
29. Cheung BK, Morze CJ, Jones MA, Venkatesh B. Information
on the Internet about head injury pertaining to intensive care:
less quantity and more quality is needed. Crit Care Resusc
2006;8:100–6.
30. Hargrave DR, Hargrave UA, Bouffet E. Quality of health in-
formation on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro
Oncol 2006;8:175–82.
31. Bernstam EV, Walji MF, Sagaram S, Sagaram D, Johnson CW,
Meric-Bernstam F. Commonly cited website quality criteria are
not effective at identifying inaccurate online information about
breast cancer. Cancer 2008;111:1206–13.
32. Klitzman R, Zolovska B, Folberth W, Sauer MV, Chung W,
Appelbaum P. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis on in vitro
fertilization clinic websites: presentations of risks, benefits and
other information. Fertil Steril 2009;92:1276–83. Epub 2008
Sep 30.
33. Wander N, Malone RE. Selling off or selling out? Medical
schools and ethical leadership in tobacco stock divestment.
Acad Med 2004;79:1017–26.
34. Reductionism. In: Oxford English dictionary, New York: Oxford
University Press, 2009.
35. Racine E, Bar-Ilan O, Illes J. fMRI in the public eye. Nat Rev
Neurosci 2005;6:159–64.
36. Vidal F. Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. Hist
Human Sci 2009;22:5–36.
37. Rose SP. How to (or not to) communicate science. Biochem Soc
Trans 2003;31:307–12.
38. Matthews JR. Quantification and the quest for medical cer-
tainty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
39. Amen Clinics. http://www.amenclinics.com
40. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of fi-
nancial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA
2003;289:454–65.
41. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, et al. Data with-
holding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey.
JAMA 2002;287:473–80.
42. American Board of Internal Medicine; ACP-ASIM Foundation.
American College of Physicians–American Society of Internal
Medicine; European Federation of Internal Medicine. Medical
professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter.
Ann Intern Med 2002;136:243–6.
43. Sullivan W. Work and integrity: the crisis and promise of pro-
fessionalism in North America. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 2005.
44. Cruess RL, Cruess SR. Expectations and obligations: profes-
sionalism and medicine’s social contract with society. Perspect
Biol Med 2008;51:579–98.
45. Gruen RL, Pearson SD, Brennan TA. Physician-
citizens—public roles and professional obligations. JAMA
2004;291:94–8.
46. Roskies A. Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron
2002;35:21–3.
47. McCrary SV, Anderson CB, Jakovljevic J, et al. A national sur-
vey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical
research. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1621–6.
48. Cho MK, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D. Policies on fac-
ulty conflicts of interest at US universities. JAMA 2000;284:
2203–8.
49. Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al. Health industry prac-
tices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for aca-
demic medical centers. JAMA 2006;295:429–33.
50. Kulynych J. Legal and ethical issues in neuroimaging research:
human subjects protection, medical privacy, and the public com-
munication of research results. Brain Cogn 2002;50:345–57.
51. Gibbons M. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature
1999;402(6761 suppl):C81–4.
52. Schroeder SA, Zones JS, Showstack JA. Academic medicine as
a public trust. JAMA 1989;262:803–12.
Harv Rev Psychiatry Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by Columbia University on 07/14/10
For personal use only.
