The contribution of neuroscience to consumer research: A conceptual framework and empirical review

By Celine Solnais, Javier Andreu-Perez, Juan Sánchez-Fernández, Jaime Andreu-Abela. 2013

157 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Following the development of advanced neuroimaging techniques, the growing interest in studying the brain’s response to marketing stimuli resulted in the birth of consumer neuroscience within the field of neuroeconomics. However, marketing scholars have remained reluctant to adopt the techniques of neuroscience and there is still uncertainty about the capacity of neuroimaging data to provide useful findings about consumer psychology and behaviour. In order to clarify the current scope and contribution of consumer neuroscience, we first develop a semantic cluster analysis of the boundaries of the field, followed by a comprehensive empirical review from 34 selected studies. We propose a novel approach to classify findings and facilitate the assessment of evidence around the topics of decision-making, rewards, memory and emotions. Finally, we discuss the possible role of several brain mechanisms in the processing of marketing stimuli as well as obstacles to the integration of these findings with classical consumer behaviour theories. We conclude that the contribution of neuroimaging remains too limited to replace existing consumer research techniques and provide recommendations for future research.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7323e8486e270f0f13470e8462cf416ae46caa9d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

Citations in the corpus

Consumer neuroscience for marketing researchers (2018, background): “…consumer neuroscience studies have identified neural structures especially in the frontal lobes hypothesised to process reward and value perceptions influencing different types of decision‐making processes (Levy & Glimcher, 2012; Plassmann et al., 2015; Smidts et al., 2014; Solnais et al., 2013).”