COLIN CAMERER and CAROLYN YOON

Introduction to the Journal of Marketing

Research Special Issue on Neuroscience
and Marketing

This special issue showcases research that demonstrates aggregate-market levels (Boksem and Smidts 2015; Telpaz,
the usefulness of neuroscientific approaches to a range of Webb, and Levy 2015; Venkatraman et al. 2015).
marketing-related questions. The past decade has yielded These articles use a wide variety of methods. This variety
extraordinary advances in understanding of how brain pro­ is important to note, because although functional magnetic
cesses produce human behavior. These advances have resonance imaging (fMRI) is the most “glamorous” method
fueled a steady growth in the application of neuroscientific (it “looks great on camera”), it is also the most expensive in
methods to generate both theoretical and practical insights marginal cost and has slow temporal resolution (which is
into consumer behavior and marketing. They have been poorly suited to studying rapid subsecond “fast and slow”
especially fruitful in illuminating consumers’ decision pro­ processes). As a result, the most convincing conclusions
cesses across multiple marketing-related domains, particu­ will emerge when a combination of methods are used, typi­
larly those underlying valuation and choice (for recent cally across studies (cf. Venkatraman et al. 2015), so that the
reviews, see Smidts et al. 2014; Yoon et al. 2012). Because strengths of one method can offset the weaknesses of other
these developments have been published primarily in neuro­ methods.
science journals, marketing scholars and practitioners may In this issue, one article uses human single-neuron record­
not be fully aware of the range of problems and questions ing (Cerf et al. 2015), three employ electroencephalography
that neuroscientific methods can address. This special issue
(EEG; Boksem and Smidts 2015; Pozharliev et al. 2015;
aims to bring Journal o f Marketing Research readers up to
Telpaz, Web, and Levy 2015), and four use neuroimaging
date on what neuroscience has done, and can do, to inform
(Cascio et al. 2015; Chen, Nelson, and Hsu 2015; Kar­
marketing.
markar, Shiv, and Knutson 2015; Plassmann and Weber
The special issue attracted a large number of high-quality
2015). Venkatraman et al.’s (2015) study compares six com­
submissions from researchers within marketing proper, as
monly used methods to assess advertising effectiveness; tra­
well as related disciplines, including the neurosciences, eco­
ditional self-reports, implicit association test, eye tracking,
nomics, psychology, communications, and management
biometrics, EEG, and fMRI.
information systems. The ten articles included in this issue
Next, we present brief summaries of the articles in the
cover a diverse set of topics and methods. With the excep­
special issue. After discussing Plassmann et al.’s (2015)
tion of the first article, which presents an overarching per­
spective on consumer neuroscience (Plassmann et al. 2015), overview article, we organize the remaining articles largely
this issue comprises original empirical research making use by the types of insights they generate for marketing theory,
of neuroscientific tools. Specifically, the authors contribute research, and practice: understanding processes and mecha­
to marketing theory, research, and practice by (1) generating nisms, uncovering individual differences, and predicting
insights about implicit processes and mechanisms (Cascio individual- and market-level outcomes.
et al. 2015; Cerf et al. 2015; Chen, Nelson, and Hsu 2015; OVERVIEW
Karmarkar, Shiv, and Knutson 2015; Pozharliev et al.
2015), (2) uncovering individual heterogeneity that has con­ Plassmann et al. (2015) consider ways in which consumer
sequences for preferences and choice (Plassmann and neuroscience research can more directly influence market­
Weber 2015), and (3) offering the potential to substantially ing theory and practice. To be useful to academic scholars
improve predictions of choice at both the individual- and and practitioners in marketing, neuroscientfic methods
should provide insights that are unavailable using tradi­
tional behavioral data. First, Plassmann et al. discuss how
♦Colin Camerer is Robert Kirby Professor of Behavioral Economics, neuroscience can be applied to identify process mechanisms
California Institute of Technology (e-mail: camerer@hss.caltech.edu). Caro­
that ultimately lead to validation, refinement, and extension
lyn Yoon is Associate Professor of Marketing, Stephen M. Ross School of
Business, University of Michigan (e-mail: yoonc@umich.edu). of theories of consumer behavior and marketing. Second,
they note that neuroscience techniques are especially useful

© 2015, American Marketing Association Journal o f Marketing Research

ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) 423 Vol. LH (August 2015), 423^426
424 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2015

as a means to measure implicit processes that are typically Prices are obviously important in consumer decisions.
difficult to access using other research methods. Third, they However, whether the price is seen before or after the prod­
suggest ways that neuroscience can be useful in identifying uct seems to change the way the product information is
dissociations between psychological processes, thereby processed. Using fMRI, Karmarkar, Shiv, and Knutson
revealing information that could not be obtained otherwise. (2015) provide neural evidence of how consumer valuation
Fourth, they consider ways in which neuroscientific meth­ processes differ depending on when the consumer sees the
ods can be used to observe heterogeneity in preferences and price. Understanding changes in the brain’s valuation pro­
choice at the neural level. Finally, and of particular impor­ cesses provides novel insights about how the order in which
tance to marketing practice, the authors suggest that neuro­ pricing is presented can influence willingness to pay for dif­
science offers the potential to substantially improve predic­ ferent types of products. This finding is especially relevant
tions of choice at both the individual- and aggregate-market to marketers (and consumers) in online shopping contexts,
levels. They further acknowledge several current challenges in which companies can control, to some extent, the order of
for consumer neuroscience and offer suggestions for the price and product information.
addressing them. An exciting new opportunity in consumer neuroscience
combines machine learning techniques with fMRI data
UNDERSTANDING PROCESSES AND MECHANISMS (sometimes called neural decoding). The decoding approach
Researchers in marketing typically collect explicit behav­ chooses, from the whole brain, sets of regions or individual
ioral measures when providing process-based accounts of voxels that encode abstract intangible characteristics or psy­
consumer behavior. Many processes, however, occur at the chological constructs while carefully guarding against overfit­
implicit or unconscious level so that consumers are unable ting. The article by Chen, Nelson, and Hsu (2015) moves the
to articulate the reasons for their behavior, which makes field beyond questions that rely on spatial localization of brain
such processes challenging to measure appropriately. Of data. It represents an advance in testing previously unad-
course, some behavioral measures of implicit processes dressable research questions—notably, whether researchers
(e.g., reaction times) do exist and can be useful, but they are can predict consumers’ thought processes on the basis of
at best proxies for the processes of interest and can fail to some spatially distributed pattern of fMRI activity on a
deliver deep or even accurate insights. Neuroscientific small group of participants. The authors report evidence that
methods allow for more proximal examination of implicit or brand personality traits exist a priori in the minds of con­
unconscious processes by enabling researchers to identify sumers; as a result, the brands a consumer is thinking about
the neural processes underlying consumers’ responses with can be reliably predicted from patterns of neural activations.
suitably granular spatial and temporal resolutions. Beyond fMRI and EEG methods, human single-neuron
In the age of online commerce and recommendation sys­ recording also has high spatial resolution as well as high
tems, in which marketing-relevant information can be temporal resolution, allowing for finer-grained measures of
instantly and widely shared, the effects of social influence neural processes. In this method, ultra-thin electrodes are
on consumers are probably more pervasive than ever. How­ temporarily implanted to record firing rates in specific
ever, consumers’ susceptibility to social influence is often populations of neurons. The method is limited for consumer
difficult to observe directly, and consumers may not be neuroscience because it is only used on people with severe
aware of it. Neuroscientific methods can be valuable for brain disorders (e.g., epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease) in just a
examining such implicit processes. For example, Cascio et handful of research hospitals around the world. However, it
al. (2015) use fMRI to investigate how adolescents’ is useful for marketing scholars to be aware of, and evi­
responses to peer opinions influence their own recommen­ dence from nonhuman primates has been important for cata­
dations to others, a phenomenon in which self-reports may lyzing many areas of decision neuroscience (e.g., the dis­
yield biased accounts of how influence works. They report covery of reward prediction error neurons in dopaminergic
evidence suggesting that both neural mechanisms previ­ regions). The article by Cerf et al. (2015) illustrates how
ously implicated in susceptibility to social influence and human single-neuron research can capture, at the neuronal
greater consideration of the others’ mental states contribute levels of specificity, activity in consumers’ brains associated
to other-directed recommendations. with up-regulation (e.g., increase) of emotions in response
Pozharliev et al. (2015) investigate a different aspect of to fear appeals.
social influence: whether brain responses during passive
UNCOVERING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
viewing of luxury- versus nonluxury-branded products are
different when participants are alone versus together. By Neuroscience offers new ways to measure heterogeneity
leveraging the temporal resolution afforded by EEG, they in consumer behavior by measuring differences in individ­
uncover differences in amplitudes of the event-related ual sensitivity across regions or structural differences in the
potential (ERP) across specific components (P2, P3) when brain. Uncovering individual differences at the neural level
consumers are alone versus together. They discover that the may generate ideas for how marketers can detect segments
late positive potential (LPP) amplitudes are greater for luxury- of consumers in markets. Plassmann and Weber (2015) use
than for non-luxury-branded products, but only in the a novel automated structural neuroimaging approach, com­
together condition, suggesting that the presence of another bined with behavioral experiments, to elucidate how indi­
person magnifies the emotional effect of brand type. Taken vidual differences in gray matter volume in brain areas asso­
together, the ERP results are informative about increased ciated with personality traits moderate the extent to which
attention allocation and motivational significance of brands— consumers respond to marketing-based expectancy effects
specifically, luxury brands—in the presence of another person. (e.g., price).
Introduction to the JMR Special Issue 425

PREDICTING INDIVIDUAL- AND MARKET-LEVEL ering the physiological context and the role of numerous
OUTCOMES biological factors, including hormones and genes, on con­
The potential benefits of neuroscience research to market­ sumer preferences and decisions.
ing are arguably the most evident in efforts to leverage the Going forward, we expect neuroscience research in mar­
predictive power afforded by incorporating neural data in keting to continue to generate important insights that link
models of marketing-relevant behavior. Recent advances in specific brain processes and mechanisms to both unobserv­
neuroimaging methods and analyses have enabled researchers able intermediate concepts (e.g., traits, beliefs, goals) and
in consumer neuroscience the opportunity to generate con­ observable behavior (e.g., choices, search). Advances in
sumer insights and to inform real-world marketing deci­ neuroscience and computational techniques have enabled
sions with practical and economically significant conse­ the use of a diverse set of methodological approaches.
quences. In particular, the notion that neural data collected Notably, fMRI and EEG can measure neural activity associ­
on a relatively small sample of participants can predict ated with specific mental processes without having to ask
choices in real-world contexts holds tremendous promise consumers what they are processing or which mental sys­
for marketers. tems are engaged. Of course, each method (including other
In this special issue, two articles use EEG to make predic­ physiological methods, e.g., eye tracking, biometrics) has
tions about product choices. The first, by Telpaz, Webb, and unique advantages and disadvantages in terms of what can
Levy (2015), applies EEG to a small group of participants be measured and the inferences to be drawn. (These relative
and shows that changes in amplitude of the N200 compo­ strengths and weaknesses have been detailed elsewhere;
nent and in theta band power during passive viewing of con­ see, e.g., Kable 2011.)
sumer products reliably predict future choices of consumer The articles in this special issue speak to the variety of
products. This is the first EEG study to predict product neuroscientific approaches and methods that can be used to
choices without eliciting any responses whatsoever from answer marketing-related questions. In particular, they both
consumers. It has clear implications for marketing insofar as demonstrate and explicate how researchers can benefit from
EEG is much more cost effective, widely accessible, and applying a mix of neuroscientific and behavioral perspec­
portable than fMRI. tives to develop and test richer models and to generate
Boksem and Smidts (2015) also use EEG and analyze insights that are ultimately valuable for not only academic
amplitudes of beta and gamma oscillations of a relatively scholars but consumers and practitioners as well.
small group of consumers as they view movie trailers. The We would like to thank all the authors who responded to
authors then use these neural measures to predict stated our call for papers in this special issue. We are especially
individual-level preferences as well as movie sales at the grateful to the authors of the articles in this special issue and
population level. They find a significant increase in predic­ to the many anonymous reviewers who provided sugges­
tive power of the neural measures, beyond self-reported tions. We also appreciate that the authors put in extra effort
preference measures, to predict people’s willingness to pay to make technical details and interpretation accessible to
and market-level sales outcomes. Thus, brains can help pre­ Journal o f Marketing Research readers. We are excited
dict box office sales. about the new research paradigms that are now possible,
Finally, the article by Venkatraman et al. (2015) directly and we hope that readers will share our enthusiasm.
compares the efficacy of six behavioral and neurophysio­
logical methods in assessing consumers’ responses to 30- Colin Camerer, California Institute of Technology
second television ads. The methods they compare span a Carolyn Yoon, University of Michigan
wide range: traditional self-reports, an implicit association Guest Coeditors
test, eye tracking, biometrics, EEG, and fMRI. They further
compare the six measures in terms of how well they predict REFERENCES
aggregate market-level advertising elasticities. They find Boksem, Maarten A.S. and Ale Smidts (2015), “Brain Responses
that fMRI explains the most variance in advertising elas­ to Movie Trailers Predict Individual Preferences for Movies and
ticities beyond the baseline traditional measures. Analyses Their Population-Wide Commercial Success,” Journal of Mar­
of the 30-second advertising time intervals may have placed keting Research, 52 (August), 482-92.
Cascio, Christopher N., Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Joseph Bayer,
biometric and EEG measures at a disadvantage because
Francis J. Tinney Jr., and Emily B. Falk (2015), “Neural Corre­
those methods are better than fMRI for rapid subsecond lates of Susceptibility to Group Opinions in Online Word-of-
resolutions. The authors note that biometric and EEG mea­ Mouth Recommendations,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52
sures may be more effective for understanding millisecond- (August), 559-75.
by-millisecond or scene-by-scene resolution of ads. Cerf, Moran, Eric Greenleaf, Tom Meyvis, and Vicki G. Morwitz
(2015), “Using Single-Neuron Recording in Marketing: Oppor­
CONCLUSION tunities, Challenges, and an Application to Fear Enhancement in
Adding neuroscientific methods to the researcher’s tool Communications,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52
kit will inevitably lead to richer insights about consumer (August), 530-45.
behavior and marketing in general. Drawing on neuro­ Chen, Yu-Ping, Leif Nelson, and Ming Hsu (2015), “From
science is expected to yield several tangible benefits —for ‘Where’ to ‘What’: Distributed Representations of Brand Asso­
ciations in the Human Brain,” Journal o f Marketing Research,
example, opportunities and guidelines to facilitate theoreti­ 52 (August), 453-66.
cal development; new empirical tests of standard theoretical Kable, Joseph W. (2011), “The Cognitive Neuroscience Toolkit for
claims; explanations for observed heterogeneity within and the Neuroeconomist: A Functional Overview,” Journal of Neu­
across consumer groups; and novel mechanisms for consid­ roscience, Psychology and Economics, 4 (2), 63-84.
426 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 2015

Karmarkar, Uma R., Baba Shiv, and Brian Knutson (2015), “Cost Smidts, Ale, Ming Hsu, Alan G. Sanfey, Maarten A.S. Boksem,
Conscious? The Neural and Behavioral Impact of Price Primacy Richard B. Ebstein, Scott A. Huettel, et al. (2014), “Advancing
on Decision Making,” Journal o f Marketing Research, 52 Consumer Neuroscience,” Marketing Letters, 25 (3), 257-67.
(August), 467-81. Telpaz, Ariel, Ryan Webb, and Dino J. Levy (2015), “Using EEG
Plassmann, Hilke, Vinod Venkatraman, Scott Huettel, and Carolyn to Predict Consumers’ Future Choices,” Journal o f Marketing
Yoon (2015), “Consumer Neuroscience: Applications, Chal­ Research, 52 (August), 511-29.
lenges, and Possible Solutions,” Journal o f Marketing Research, Venkatraman, Vinod, Angelika Dimoka, Paul A. Pavlou, Khoi Vo,
52 (August), 427-35. William Hampton, Bryan Bollinger, et al. (2015), “Predicting
------- and Bernd Weber (2015), “Individual Differences in Mar­ Advertising Success Beyond Traditional Measures: New
keting Placebo Effects: Evidence from Brain Imaging and Insights from Neurophysiological Methods and Market
Behavioral Experiments,” Journal o f Marketing Research, 52 Response Modeling,” Journal o f Marketing Research, 52
(August), 493-510. (August), 436-52.
Pozharliev, Rumen, Willem J.M.I. Verbeke, Jan W. van Strien, and Yoon, Carolyn, Richard Gonzalez, Antoine Bechara, Gregory S.
Richard P. Bagozzi (2015), “Merely Being with You Increases Bems, Alain A. Dagher, Laurette Dube, et al. (2012), “Decision
My Attention to Luxury Products: Using EEG to Understand Neuroscience and Consumer Decision Making,” Marketing Let­
Consumers’ Emotional Experience with Luxury Branded Prod­ ters, 23 (2), 473-85.
ucts,” Journal o f Marketing Research, 52 (August), 546-58.
Copyright of Journal of Marketing Research (JMR) is the property of American Marketing
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.