532 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION ENGINEERING, VOL. 16, NO.
6, DECEMBER 2008
How Neuroscience Can Inform Consumer Research
Peter H. Kenning and Hilke Plassmann
AbstractRecently, a rapidly growing approach within con-
sumer research has developed under the label of consumer
neuroscience. Its goal is to use insights and methods from neu-
roscience to enhance the understanding of consumer behavior. In
this paper we aim to provide an overview of questions of interest
to consumer researchers, to present initial research findings, and
to outline potential implications for consumer research. In order
to do so, we first discuss the term consumer neuroscience and
give a brief description of recently discussed issues in consumer
research. We then provide a review and short description of initial
empirical evidence from past studies in consumer neuroscience.
Next, we present an example of how consumer research or, more
specifically, customer loyalty research, may benefit from the
consumer neuroscience approach. The paper concludes with a
discussion of potential implications and suggestions for future
research in the nascent field of consumer neuroscience.
Index TermsConsumer neuroscience, consumer research, neu-
roeconomics.
I. INTRODUCTION
O VER the past few years, consumer researchers have been
discussing the use of neuroscientific methods and in-
sights for consumer research and behavioral decision-making.
In particular, researchers have addressed issues related to
branding, advertising, and consumer decision-making (Ambler
and Burne [1], Deppe et al. [2], [3], McClure et al. [4], Paulus
and Frank [5], Zaltman [6], Babiloni et al. [7]). The key moti-
vation for these issues is that, to date, it has not been possible to
directly observe the underlying mental processes when subjects
perceive marketing stimuli such as advertisements, or when
they make purchasing decisions. Despite the pervasiveness
and long history of consumer research, little is known about
the neural representation of how marketing stimuli affects
consumers perceptions, their decision-making processes, and
their consumption experiences.
In the past, consumer researchers had to rely on varying the
stimuli (e.g., prices or packaging) and context factors (e.g.,
putting subjects in a good or bad mood) in order to measure
participants reactions (e.g., choice behavior or brand prefer-
ence). Researchers were thus forced to develop hypothetical
constructs that mediate decision-making processes. Some
marketing researchers suggest that the neural underpinnings
Manuscript received June 17, 2008; revised June 17, 2008; accepted July 10,
2008. First published November 21, 2008; current version published January
06, 2009.
P. H. Kenning is with Zeppelin University, D-88045 Friedrichshafen, Ger-
many (e-mail: peter.kenning@zeppelin-university.de).
H. Plassmann is with INSEAD, 77300 Fontainebleau, France (e-mail: hilke.
plassmann@insead.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TNSRE.2008.2009788
1534-4320/$25.00 2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 10, 2009 at 15:34 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
of those constructs will soon be observable directly in vivo
because of considerable progress in using neuroscientific tools
to observe brain activity (Ambler et al. [8] and [9], Shiv and
Fedorikhin [10], Shiv et al. [11]). Taking into account that the
first results from the emerging discipline of consumer neuro-
science have received considerable attention as expressed by
several scientific conferences (e.g., Association for Consumer
Research preconferences and special sessions, conference
on Neuro Economics (ConNEcs), Neuro Psych Economics
Conference) and special issues in different journals (e.g.,
Journal of Consumer Behavior, Brain Research Bulletin, and
International Journal of Advertising) the goal of this paper
is to provide an overview of the status quo in the field. With
consideration for the audience of this journal, the next section
provides an overview of the questions of interest from consumer
researchers. We then discuss some initial findings from recent
studies, and conclude by giving specific examples that illustrate
how customer loyalty research could benefit from research in
neuroscience.
II. PRIMER CONSUMER RESEARCH
Broadly speaking, consumer research investigates how
people make consumption decisions, what their objects of
consumption are, when they decide to purchase and to con-
sume, and why they purchase and consume [12]. The research
integrates elements from psychology, sociology, anthropology,
economics, and marketing, and more recently also from neuro-
science. The goal is to understand consumer decision-making
processes, both from individuals and from groups (e.g.,
families). Understanding consumer behavior is relevant for
management, because it enables decision makers from different
institutions (i.e., managers in companies, public policy makers,
etc.) to effect informed decisions and to develop strategies
that maximize both consumer welfare and well being, and the
institutions profitability.
For example, consumer research studies the ways in which
characteristics of individual consumers such as socio-demo-
graphics (e.g., age, gender, and income) or personality variables
(e.g., risk attitude or reward sensitivity) influence behavioral
variables (e.g., attitudes toward specific objects such as brands,
toward purchasing decisions, and toward impulsive/addictive
behavior). Consumer research investigates motivational pro-
cesses (e.g., formulation and influence of needs), perceptual
processes (e.g., consumer attention and information search),
and higher cognitive processes (e.g., attitude and expectation
formation toward different available brands) in a prepurchasing
stage, as well as information integration during actual pur-
chasing decision and consumer learning (e.g., comparison of
expectations with actual consumptions experiences, or loyalty
formation) in a postpurchasing stage.
KENNING AND PLASSMANN: HOW NEUROSCIENCE CAN INFORM CONSUMER RESEARCH 533

Methodological approaches in consumer research include TABLE I

survey methods and observation of how experimental manip- OVERVIEW OF CONSUMER NEUROSCIENCE STUDIES (CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)
ulations influence consumers attitudes and behavior. In other
words, consumer researchers rely on stimulus-organism-re-
sponse models from psychology that are based on more or
less realistic assumptions about the black-box of underlying
brain processes. This methodological constraint in consumer
research can be seen as the initial starting point of consumer
neuroscience. Consumer neuroscience attempts to broaden
methodological approaches in consumer research by intro-
ducing physiological measures and by theorizing based on
insights from neuroscience. The idea of introducing phys-
iological measures as another independent variable is not
entirely new to consumer research; as early as thirty years ago
researchers such as KroeberRiel [13] investigated responses
of the peripheral nervous system (e.g., skin conductance re-
sponses) or eye movements in order to investigate the neural
processing of marketing stimuli. However, recent technological
advances in measuring neural activity in the brain through
functional brain imaging techniques allow real-time observa-
tion of the underlying brain processes during prepurchasing,
purchasing, and postpurchasing stages of the consumer deci-
sion-making process in a laboratory environment. Researchers
within the consumer neuroscience community promote the
view that findings and methods from neuroscience complement
and illuminate existing knowledge in consumer research in
order to better understand consumer behavior (e.g., Ambler et
al. [8], Klucharev et al. [14]).

III. FIRST EMPIRICAL FINDINGS OF CONSUMER NEUROSCIENCE

Due to the very large number of more general neuroimaging
and neuroeconomic studies to date, it is not possible to provide
a detailed overview of all studies that could be of interest for
consumer research. In the following, we will therefore narrow
down to those studies that explicitly focus on questions in con-
sumer research.
Table I is an essential subjective summary of studies which
address, more or less explicitly, marketing-related issues such
as branding, advertising, or buying behavior. With respect to the
primary goal of consumer neuroscience, which is to enhance the
understanding of consumer behavior, the studies noted above
provide initial insights into the neural underpinnings of adver-
tising processing, choice behavior, and brand preference pro-
cessing. Although these findings are preliminary, they demon-
strate that the underlying brain mechanisms of consumer be-
havior are very complex. In fact, depending upon the stimuli,
the context, and the physiological state of the subject, the brain
uses different decision processes that recruit activity in areas
distributed over the entire brain. To date, the contributions to
consumer research could be summarized as follows.

A. Research on Brand-Induced Preference Formation

The influence of brand associations and brand preferences
on decision making and the consumption experience are one of
the major topics in consumer neuroscience. The first studies in-
dicated that there is no such thing as a specific brand area
in the brain that should be addressed by brand management.
Other brand research studies, namely those of Deppe et al. [2],
Deppe et al. [3], McClure et al. [4], and Plassmann et al. [17],
provide evidence that affective processes are fundamental to
successful branding, although the studies do not explain how
to emotionalize a brand. The findings of Deppe et al. [2]

Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 10, 2009 at 15:34 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
534 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION ENGINEERING, VOL. 16, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2008
may be surprising to brand researchers, particularly the con-
clusion that there is a nonlinear effect of brand equity with re-
spect to how prior brand preference modulates brain activity
(first-choice-brand-effect, see Deppe et al. [2]). To date, this
nonlinear effect is still not fully understood and more research is
needed on this. However, in a recent lesion-study conducted by
Koenigs and Tranel [20], patients with damage in the ventrome-
dial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) did not demonstrate the normal
brand-related preference bias when exposed to brand informa-
tion during choice as compared to a control population. More-
over, Yoon et al. [16] reported neural differences when subjects
made person judgments, as opposed to brand judgments. This
could indicate that, on a neural basis, brand personality may
differ from the personality of people, which could be of interest
for empirical brand research promoting the view that brands
have personalities. The findings of Yoon et al. [16] might ex-
plain why, in some cases, people can hardly describe a brand in
personality-related terms such as friendly or exciting.
B. Research on Advertising
Advertising research studies have often pointed out the im-
portant role of emotions for ad memorization (see Ambler et al.
[8], Delgado et al. [23], and Klucharev et al. [14]). In adver-
tising research, the hemisphere theory has been widely used
(e.g., Rossiter et al. [24]), suggesting that emotion and ratio
are represented in different hemispheres of the brain. Research
on the neural representation of stimuli-induced emotions, how-
ever, could show that emotions are not only processed in the
left brain hemisphere, but are also processed bilaterally (e.g.,
in the left and right hemispheres of such cortical structures as
the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and such subcortical struc-
tures as the striatum). However, taking into account the che-
quered or multifaceted character of emotions, it is hard to lo-
calize them in the brain (Ochsner and Gross [25]). To the best
of our knowledge, emotions seem to be associated with several
highly complex brain patterns, and the neural representation of
specific emotions such as sadnessas compared to angeris
poorly understood (Ochsner and Gross [25]).
C. Research on Choice Behavior and Purchasing Decisions
Using a term often promoted by the popular press, there is
nothing resembling a simple buy button in the brain. Instead,
the brain recruits different brain processes during choice tasks.
Some of these processes involve subcortical brain structures
such as the striatum (e.g., Plassmann et al. [17]). Most studies
report that structures in the prefrontal cortex attempt to control
the impact of emotions as expressed, for instance, in impulse
buying. Reducing (enforcing) these areas of executive control
can have an impact on what and how people buy (Ambler et
al. [9], Ochsner and Gross [25], Paulus and Frank [5], and Rid-
derinkhof et al. [26]). For instance, music might reduce cogni-
tive control, suggesting the reason why music is reported to have
a positive influence on nonplanned purchasing decisions (Shiv
and Fedorikhin [10]).
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 10, 2009 at 15:34 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IV. EXAMPLE: CAN CONSUMER NEUROSCIENCE BE APPLIED
IN ORDER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND CUSTOMER LOYALTY?
We have provided a brief overview of first findings of
consumer neuroscience, and below we illustrate the approach
of consumer neuroscience by using customer loyalty as an
example. Customer loyalty can be defined as a deeply held
commitment to rebuy or repatronize a preferred product /ser-
vice consistently in the future (Oliver [27]). We have selected
customer loyalty as an example for the following reasons.
First, research in customer loyalty has attracted increased at-
tention from marketing researchers (e.g., Bell et al. [28]) and
findings are published in top tier marketing journals (e.g., Dick
and Bansu [29]).
Second, while early research tried to establish whether
customer loyalty has impact on aspects of business perfor-
mance (such as profit margin and sales), researchers are still
attempting to explain the theoretical foundations of customer
loyalty (Johnson et al. [30]).
Third, loyalty is a psychological construct that develops
over time during a learning process of the consumer. Learning
theories have received considerable attention in neuroscience
and more recently also in the nascent field of neuroeconomics
(e.g., Caplin and Dean [31]). Thus, loyalty research can benefit
from insights in neuroscience and neuroeconomics about how
learning processes are represented in the brain.
Fourth, customer satisfaction and commitment play a central
role in loyalty research. Most of the studies have looked merely
at cognitive aspects of these constructs, however some studies
found that affective processes have a higher impact on satisfac-
tion and loyalty (Westbrook and Oliver [32], Evanschitzky et al.
2006 [33]). To better understand the role of affective processes
for customer loyalty, neuroimaging might complement existing
methods in this area because it enables an online measure of un-
conscious and conscious aspects of affect-based loyalty during
the time of decision-making.
In the following section, we attempt to show that con-
sumer neuroscience can enhance the understanding of
customer loyalty. In doing so, we apply the Temporal-Dif-
ference-Learning-Model (TDLM) (Schultz et al. [34]). This
model has primarily been used for solving the reinforcement
learning problem. While we assume that building customer
loyalty is comparable with the more general process of learning,
we suggest that the application of the TDLM, in particular the
TD learning algorithm, might be useful to explain the devel-
opment of customer loyalty from a neuroscientific perspective.
The basis for this suggestion can be found in a recent study
by Plassmann et al. [17]. They provide first evidence that a
change in neural activity (i.e., in the striatum) correlates with
customer loyalty (see Fig. 1). In order to identify these brain
regions, they employed Deppe et al.s first-choice-brand-task
[2]. By comparing and contrasting the brain activities of loyal
customers with those of disloyal ones, they found significant
activity changes in the striatum (marked in yellow and red in
Fig. 1, for details of the study, see Plassmann et al. [17]).
The most significant activity changes are reported for the
dorsal striatum, a small structure of the brain that is part of the
human action-related reward system (ODoherty et al. [35]).
KENNING AND PLASSMANN: HOW NEUROSCIENCE CAN INFORM CONSUMER RESEARCH
Fig. 1. Differences in brain activity changes in the striatum when deciding be-
tween several retail brands (MNI-Coordinates: ),
rected, clusterlevel), (Plassmann et al. [17]).
Against this background, consumer neuroscience research
might question how the brain learns to be loyal. The starting
point for answering this question could be the general assump-
tion that people behave in a somatic-state-oriented manner.
They try to avoid punishments and to receive rewards. Given
that the human capability for solving problems is restricted, it
is essential that people are able to learn, and to continuously
improve their behavior, so that they adapt to the specific en-
vironment. This concept could also be applied to explain how
people learn to be loyal. In such a condition, the brain would
have to manage at least the following three processes in order
to learn to be loyal.
1) The brain should be able to memorize and retrieve positive
and negative outcomes of former decisions (such as posi-
tive experiences after choosing brand A over brand B).
2) The brain should be able to predict several outcomes of
choosing between alternatives (buying A or B).
3) The brain needs to integrate the information from pro-
cesses 1 and 2 into the decision process.
In the following section, we try to explain which brain areas
might be associated with each of the above processes. In turn
this will illuminate which brain areas might be crucial for de-
veloping loyalty and commitment. We assume that if there are
deficits in one of these brain areas, for any reason, people will
have impairments in developing customer loyalty. Finally, we
show that loyalty is the result of a learning process that could be
described in terms of consumer neuroscience.
A. Ad 1) Neural Representation of Reward and Punishment
A growing number of studies in neuroscience focus on how
the brain processes rewards and punishments (Platt and Glim-
cher [36], ODoherty [37], Schultz et al. [34], and Sugrue et al.
[38]). Essentially, these studies find that learning from reward
and punishment is the result of an interplay of cognitive and af-
fective elements. Orbitofrontal and ventral parts of the medial
prefrontal cortex, the amygdala, and the striatum were found to
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 10, 2009 at 15:34 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
535
play a key role in this interaction (Canli et al. [39], Morris et al.
[40], ODoherty et al. [41] and [42]). The involvement of these
brain areas was reported in studies on the neural responses to
sensory stimuli and the receipt of money (Aharon et al. [43],
Blood et al. [44], Elliot et al. [45], ODoherty et al. [41], [42]).
Thus, either monetary incentives such as immediate discounts at
the point of sale, or a friendly salesperson, might exert a positive
impact on customer loyalty. In addition, we know that reactivity
in the striatum is prone to individual differences (e.g., because of
age, disorders such as depression). To date, such individual dif-
ferences have not been investigated in consumer research. Also,
the interplay of punishment and customer loyalty has not been
yet addressed in extenso in loyalty research.
B. Ad 2) Neural Representation of Reward Prediction
The ability to predict rewards or punishments associated with
choosing between alternatives (e.g., brand A or brand B) is fun-
damental for learning. Several neuroscientific studies provide
(cor-
evidence that the amygdala and the striatum are crucial for pre-
dicting the physiological outcomes of certain decisions (Got-
tfried et al. [46], Knutson et al. [47]). A central question re-
cently discussed in neuroscience is how the human brain learns
to make such predictions (Bayer und Glimcher [48], Delgado
et al. [49], and Schultz et al. [34]). Based on findings in the
areas of artificial intelligence (Sutton and Barto [50]) and the-
oretical-mathematical neuroscience (Dayan and Abbott [51]),
the Temporal-Difference-Learning algorithm was developed
to answer the question of how the brain learns to make predic-
tions (Sutton and Barto [51], Schultz et al. [34]). This model
includes several variables. At the core of the model is the ex-
pected reward . At a certain time , the expected reward is
the sum of a certain weight factor multiplied by vector
as follows:
(1)
For customer loyalty research, the expected reward associ-
ated with choosing brand A as opposed to B should be crucial.
In fact, this corresponds to findings in marketing research that a
fit of expectations and experience is essential for building loy-
alty and satisfaction (Oliver [52] and [53]; Homburg et al. [54]).
In the Temporal-Difference-Learning algorithm, the latter is ex-
pressed in , while the vector represents a construct
for modeling the absence or presence of the stimuli in question.
Therefore, can be either 0 or 1 ( when the stimuli
is present, when it is not). The value of is based
on the minimum square mean differences between the expected
and the experienced reward. It therefore reflects the variance of
outcomes perceived by the customer. In order to learn, is
modified at the end of each decision process, that means that
customer expectations are not fixed but can vary over time ac-
cording to the experiences of the customer.
Another related variable that plays an important role is the
prediction error (PE) or . This variable reflects the degree
to which the experienced reward corresponds to the consumers
expectations, and is defined as follows:
(2)
536 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION ENGINEERING, VOL. 16, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2008
In (2), the term represents the experienced reward at a cer-
tain point in time . If is equal or greater 0, meaning that
the experienced reward is equal or greater than expected, this
should lead to satisfaction which in turn positively influences
loyalty. Accordingly, if , the experiences were lower
than expected which, in terms of loyalty theory, leads to disap-
pointment and dissatisfaction.
In addition, (2) also incorporates another variable that has
been largely neglected in loyalty research: , the temporal delay
between the expected and the actual reward. Several studies in-
vestigating the intertemporal choice indicate that there is a re-
lationship between the value of a reward at the point in time
when it is predicted and the time when it is received. Generally,
people have the tendency to prefer immediate rewards over de-
layed ones (Read et al. [55], McClure et al. [56]). For example,
McClure et al. [56] found evidence that an immediate reward
experience recruits brain areas different from those of a delayed
reward experience.
Finally, the temporal-difference learning model defines the
delta of the weighting factor as follows:
(3)
In (3), reflects the individual learning rate of the customer.
To the best of our knowledge, this variable has not yet been
discussed in the loyalty research. However, the learning ability
of customers may play an important role in building loyalty.
C. Ad 3) Integration of Predicted and Experienced Rewards in
Decision-Making Processes
In order to make advantageous decisions, it is essential that
the brain is able to predict which decisions are advantageous and
which are not. Recent neuroscientifc studies have reported that
for such predictions and their integration in the decision-making
process, the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the striatum are
crucial (ODoherty et al. [35]). Related to that finding, several
studies could show that activity changes in the ventromedial pre-
frontal cortex predict whether or not a particular brand is an indi-
viduals first choice (Deppe et al. [2], Koenigs and Tranel [20])
Considering that all brain structures mentioned above are
associated with the entire process of the TDLM, it can be
concluded that dopaminergic neurons in areas such as the ven-
tral tegmentum, in particular the nucleus accumbens, generate
a signal which reflects (Schultz et al. [34]). Recently,
fMRI-studies (Delgado et al. [49], ODoherty et al. [57], Mc-
Clure et al. [56]) have revealed that, as well as the striatum, the
orbitofrontal cortex, the amygdala, and the medial prefrontal
cortex are crucial for successful learning. With respect to the
findings of Plassmann et al. [17] that indicate that activity
similar to the above-mentioned brain structures predict whether
or not a customer is loyal, it seems possible to use the TDLM
to explain how customer loyalty arises. One benefit of its
application to consumer research is that the TDLM yields to
a neuroscientific-based explanation of why it is difficult to
develop loyalty in some cases, while in others it is not. The
degree of difficulty could depend on individual differences with
respect to the variables in the above-mentioned model.
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 10, 2009 at 15:34 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
V. HOW NEUROSCIENCE CAN LEARN FROM
CONSUMER RESEARCH
In the previous sections we have shed light on how con-
sumer research can benefit from neuroscience. In this section,
we address the perspective of how neuroscience can benefit
from knowledge in consumer research and behavioral deci-
sion-making theory. Though it might be premature to delineate
these benefits completely, in the overall it is appropriate to
speculate that the combination of consumer research and
neuroscience might allow researchers to better understand con-
sumer decision making and to learn more about how healthy
brains function in everyday decision making. In turn, this may
help to identify specific consumption-related dysfunctions.
For instance, issues of persons suffering from addictions, or
from obesity or compulsive spending, are discussed in both
consumer research and in clinical research, but little is known
about the underlying decision-making mechanisms of persons
with these conditions. While recent evidence indicates that
overeating is affected by biases in decision making (Chandon
and Wansink [58] and [59]), insights into consumer decision
making might, perhaps, increase the understanding of the
reasons people are obese and the knowledge of interventions
that might decrease obesity behavior. For instance, Christakis
and Fowler [60] describe how weight gain occurs in social
clusters, and they stress a view that people are influenced by
the appearance and behaviors of others. In consumer research,
this mechanism is referred to as anchoring, meaning that
judgments are based not on absolute values but on comparison
with implicit reference points. One can speculate that people
who are susceptible to anchoring may have a higher risk for
obesity. However, little is known to date about the neural
mechanisms of anchoring and how to influence it, although
such understandings could be quite useful for health marketing
(e.g., Jones [61]). In addition, little is known about how insights
from neuroscience might support the development of specific
rehabilitation methods for recovering higher cognitive abilities
(e.g., after a stroke). As mentioned, the 2007 study by Koenigs
and Tranel [20] provides evidence that people suffering from
lesions in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex are unable to
integrate brand-induced emotions into decision making. Taken
together with other studies by Bechara and Damasio [62] it can
be concluded that this brain area is important for advantageous
decision making. Moreover, consumer neuroscience may shed
more light on the neural mechanisms associated with specific
kinds of addiction like gambling or shopping (Reuter et al.
[63], Glimcher et al. [64], Bijou et al. [65]). Therefore, insights
from consumer neuroscience may help to identify early stages
of those dysfunctions and contribute to the development of
better treatments. A better understanding of the human brain,
on the other hand, might enable marketing companies to sell
unnecessary products to consumers (e.g., cigarettes or alcohol).
This dark side of consumer neuroscience, often addressed
by the popular press, needs to be discussed very carefully by
researchers in consumer neuroscience. Moreover, consumer
neuroscientists should take care about the ways in which their
findings are presented by the popular press and are used for
KENNING AND PLASSMANN: HOW NEUROSCIENCE CAN INFORM CONSUMER RESEARCH
commercial purposes (e.g., by marketing consultants). Particu-
larly, they must be cautious about the tendency on the part of
the press and marketers to oversimplify the research results,
which has the potential to create fear or disappointment. To
date, transferring the scientific results gained from the restricted
contexts of consumer neuroscience to real life applications is
still in a preliminary stage.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have presented an overview of the nascent
field of consumer neuroscience. We began by outlining ques-
tions of interest to consumer research. Then an overview of first
studies in the field of consumer neuroscience followed, leading
to an example of how knowledge in neuroscience can be em-
ployed to advance theorizing in consumer behavior, i.e., cus-
tomer loyalty. To extend our proposal, we changed perspective
and introduced ideas about how neuroscience may learn from
knowledge in consumer research. To conclude, it must be ad-
mitted that research in the field of consumer neuroscience is
still in its infancy. However, we believe that consumer neuro-
science has significant potential to advance both research in neu-
roscience and consumer research. For this reason, we call for
more transdisciplinary work that combines ideas, methods, and
existing findings in both fields.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank B. Scho and J. Niessing for
their tremendous help with this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Ambler and T. Burne, The impact of affect on memory of adver-
tising, J. Advertising Res., vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 2534, Mar./Apr. 1999.
[2] M. Deppe, W. Schwindt, H. Kugel, H. Plassmann, and P. Kenning,
Non-Linear responses within the medial prefrontal cortex reveal when
specific implicit information influences economic decision-making, J.
Neuroimag., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 171183, 2005.
[3] M. Deppe, W. Schwindt, J. Krmer, H. Kugel, H. Plassmann, P.
Kenning, and E. B. Ringelstein, Evidence for a neural correlate of the
framing effect: Bias-specific activity in the ventromedial prefrontal
cortex during credibility judgements, Brain Res. Bull., vol. 67, no. 5,
pp. 413421, 2005.
[4] S. McClure, L. J. Jian, D. Tomlin, K. S. Cypert, L. M. Montague, and P.
R. Montague, Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally
familiar drinks, Neuron, vol. 44, pp. 379387, 2004.
[5] M. P. Paulus and L. R. Frank, Ventromedial prefrontal cortex activa-
tion is critical for preference judgments, NeuroReport, vol. 14, no. 10,
pp. 13111315, 2003.
[6] G. Zaltman, Consumer researchers: Take a hike!, J. Consumer Res.,
vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 423429, 2000.
[7] F. Babiloni, V. Meroni, and R. Soranzo, Neuroeconomia, neuromar-
keting E processi decisionali, Nell Uomo, 2007.
[8] T. Ambler, A. Ioannides, and S. Rose, Brands on the brain: Neuro-
images of advertising, Business Strategy Rev., vol. 11, 3, pp. 1730,
2000.
[9] T. Ambler, S. Brautigam, J. Stins, S. Rose, and S. Swithenby, Salience
and choice: Neural correlates of shopping decisions, Psychol. Mar-
keting, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 247261, 2004.
[10] B. Shiv and A. Fedorikhin, Heart and min in conflict: The interplay of
affect and cognition in consumer decision making, J. Consumer Res.,
vol. 26, pp. 278292, Dec. 1999.
[11] B. Shiv, A. Bechara, I. Levin, J. Alba, J. Bettman, L. Dube, A. Isen, B.
Mellers, A. Smidts, S. Grant, and A. Mcgraw, Decision neuroscience,
Marketing Lett., vol. 16, no. 3/4, pp. 375386, 2005.
[12] J. Howard and J. N. Sheth, Theory Buyer Behaviour. New York:
Wiley, 1968.
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 10, 2009 at 15:34 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
537
[13] W. Kroeber-Riel, Psychobiology and consumer research: A problem
of construct validity: Rejoinder, J. Consumer Res., vol. 7, no. 1, pp.
9698, 1979.
[14] V. Klucharev, G. Fernandez, and A. Smidts, Brain mechanisms of per-
suasion: How expert power modulates memory and attitudes, Social
Cognitive Affective Neurosci., 2008.
[15] S. Erk, M. Spitzer, A. Wunderlich, L. Galley, and H. Walter, Cultural
objects modulate reward circuitry, Neuroreport, vol. 13, no. 18, pp.
24992503.
[16] C. Yoon, A. H. Gutchess, F. Feinberg, and T. H. Polk, Comparing
the structures of brand and human personality: A functional magnetic
resonance imaging study, J. Consumer Res., vol. 33, pp. 3140, 2006.
[17] H. Plassmann, P. Kenning, and D. Ahlert, Why companies should
make their customers happy: The neural correlates of customer loy-
alty, in Adv. Consumer Rese. North Amer. Conf. Proc., 2007, vol.
34, pp. 73539.
[18] H. Plassmann, J. ODoherty, and A. Rangel, Orbitofrontal cortex en-
codes willingness to pay in everyday economic transactions, J. Neu-
rosci., vol. 27, no. 37, pp. 998488, 2007.
[19] B. Knutson, S. Rick, G. E. Wimmer, D. Prelec, and G. Loewenstein,
Neural predictors of purchase, Neuron, vol. 53, pp. 14756, 2007.
[20] M. Koenigs and D. Tranel, Prefrontal cortex damage abolishes brand-
cued changes in cola preference, in Social Cognitive Affective Neu-
rosci., Advance Access, 2008, vol. 3, pp. 16.
[21] M. Deppe, W. Schwindt, A. Pieper, H. Kugel, H. Plassmann, P. Ken-
ning, K. Deppe, and E. B. Ringelstein, Anterior cingulate reflects sus-
ceptibility to framing during attractiveness evaluation, Neuroreport,
vol. 18, no. 11, pp. 111923.
[22] H. Plassmann, J. ODoherty, B. Shiv, and A. Rangel, Marketing
actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasant-
ness, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 105054, Jan. 2008.
[23] M. R. Delgado, M. M. Miller, S. Inati, E. Rossiter, J. R. Rossiter, R.
B. Silberstein, P. G. Harris, and G. Nield, Brain-imaging detection of
visual scene encoding in long-term memory for TV-commercials, J.
Advertising Res., vol. 41, pp. 1322, Mar./Apr. 2001.
[24] J. R. Rossiter, R. B. Silberstein, P. G. Harris, and G. Nield, Brain-
imaging detection of visual scene encoding in long-term memory for
TV-commercials, J. Advertising Res., vol. 41, pp. 1322, Mar./Apr.
2001.
[25] K. N. Ochsner and J. J. Gross, The cognitive control of emotion,
Trends Cognitive Sci., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 242249, 2005.
[26] K. Ridderinkhof, M. Ulsperger, E. E. Crone, and S. Nieuwenhuis, The
role of the medial frontal cortex in cognitive control, Science, vol. 306,
no. 5695, pp. 443447, 2004.
[27] R. L. Oliver, Whence consumer loyalty?, J. Marketing, vol. 63, pp.
3344, 1999.
[28] S. J. Bell, S. Auh, and K. Smalley, Customer relationship dynamics:
Service quality and customer loyalty in the context of varying levels of
customer expertise and switching costs, J. Acad. Marketing Sci., vol.
33, no. 2, pp. 169183, 2005.
[29] A. S. Dick, S. Alan, and K. Basu, Customer loyalty: Toward an inte-
grated conceptual framework, J. Acad. Marketing Sci., vol. 22, no. 2,
pp. 99113, 1994.
[30] M. D. Johnson, A. Herrmann, and F. Huber, The evolution of loyalty
intentions, J. Marketing, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 122132, 2006.
[31] A. Caplin and M. Dean, Dopamine, reward prediction error, and eco-
nomics, Q. J. Economics, vol. 123, no. 2, pp. 663701, 2008.
[32] R. A. Westbrook and R. L. Oliver, The dimensionality of consumption
emotion patterns and consumer satisfaction, J. Consumer Res., vol. 18,
no. 1, pp. 8491, 1991.
[33] H. Evanschitzky, G. R. Iyer, H. Plassmann, J. Niessing, and H. Meffert,
The relative strength of affective commitment in securing loyalty in
service relationships, J. Business Res., vol. 59, no. 12, pp. 12071213,
2006.
[34] W. Schultz, P. Dayan, and P. R. Montague, A neural substrate of pre-
diction and reward, Science, vol. 275, pp. 15931599, 1997.
[35] J. P. ODoherty, P. Dayan, J. Schultz, R. Deichmann, K. Friston, and
R. J. Dolan, Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instru-
mental conditioning, Science, vol. 304, no. 5669, pp. 452454, 2004.
[36] M. L. Platt and P. W. Glimcher, Neural correlates of decision variables
in parietal cortex, Nature, vol. 400, pp. 233238, Jul. 1999.
[37] J. P. ODoherty, Reward representations and reward related learning in
the human brain: Insights from neuroimaging, Curr. Opin. Neurobiol.,
vol. 14, no. 6, pp. 769776, 2004.
538 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL SYSTEMS AND REHABILITATION ENGINEERING, VOL. 16, NO. 6, DECEMBER 2008
[38] L. P. Sugrue, G. S. Corrado, and W. T. Newsome, Matching behavior
and the representation of value in the parietal cortex, Science, vol. 304,
no. 5678, pp. 17821787, 2004.
[39] T. Canli, H. Sivers, S. L. Whitfield, L. H. Gotlib, and J. D. Gabrieli,
Amygdala response to happy faces as a function of extraversion, Sci-
ence, vol. 296, no. 5576, p. 2191, 2002.
[40] J. S. Morris, C. D. Frith, D. I. Perrett, D. Rowland, A. W. Young, A. J.
Calder, and R. J. Dolan, A differential neural response in the human
amygdala to fearful and happy facial expressions, Nature, vol. 383,
pp. 812815, 1996.
[41] J. P. ODoherty, E. T. Rolls, S. Francis, R. Bowtell, and F. McGlone,
Representation of pleasant and aversive taste in the human brain, J.
Neurophysiol., vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 13151321, Mar. 2001.
[42] J. P. ODoherty, M. L. Kringelbach, E. T. Rolls, J. Hornak, and C. An-
drews, Abstract reward and punishment representations in the human
orbitofrontal cortex, Nature Neurosci., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 95102, 2001.
[43] I. Aharon, N. Etcoff, D. Ariely, C. F. Chabris, E. OConnor, and H. C.
Breiter, Beautiful faces have variable reward value: fMRI and behav-
ioral evidence, Neuron, vol. 8, no. 32(3), pp. 53751, Nov. 2001.
[44] A. J. Blood, R. J. Zatorre, P. Bermudez, and A. C. Evans, Emotional
responses to pleasant and unpleasant music correlate with activity in
paralimbic brain regions, Nature Neurosci., vol. 2, pp. 382387, 1999.
[45] R. Elliott, K. J. Friston, and R. J. Dolan, Dissociable neural responses
in human reward systems, J. Neurosci., vol. 16, pp. 61596165, 2000.
[46] J. A. Gottfried, J. ODoherty, and R. J. Dolan, Encoding predictive
reward value in human amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex, Science,
vol. 301, no. 5636, pp. 11041117, 2003.
[47] B. Knutson, G. W. Fong, C. M. Adams, J. L. Varner, and D. Hommer,
Dissociation of reward anticipation and outcome with event-related
FMRI, Neuroreport, vol. 12, pp. 36833687, 2001.
[48] H. M. Bayer and P. W. Glimcher, Midbrain dopamine neurons encode
a quantitative reward prediction error signal, Neuron, vol. 47, no. 1, pp.
129141, 2005.
[49] M. R. Delgado, M. M. Miller, S. Inati, E. Rossiter, J. R. Rossiter, R.
B. Silberstein, P. G. Harris, and G. Nield, Brain-imaging detection of
visual scene encoding in long-term memory for TV-commercials, J.
Advertising Res., vol. 41, pp. 1322, Mar./Apr. 2001.
[50] R. S. Sutton and A. G. Barto, Reinforcement Learning: An Introduc-
tion. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
[51] P. Dayan and L. F. Abbott, Theoretical Neuroscience: Computational
and Mathematical Modelling of Neural Systems. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press, 2001.
[52] R. L. Oliver, A Cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences
of satisfaction decisions, J. Marketing Res., pp. 40669, Nov. 1980.
[53] R. L. Oliver, SatisfactionA Behavioral Perspective on the Con-
sumer. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997.
[54] C. Homburg, H. Krohmer, J. P. Cannon, and I. Kiedaisch, Customer
satisfaction in transnational buyer-supplier relationships, J. Int. Mar-
keting, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 129, 2002.
[55] D. Read, S. Frederick, B. Orsel, and J. Rahman, Four score and seven
years from now: The date/delay effect in temporal discounting, Man-
agement Science, vol. 51, no. 9, pp. 13261335, 2005.
[56] S. McClure, D. I. Laibson, G. Loewenstein, and J. D. Cohen, Sepa-
rate neural systems value immediate and delayed monetary rewards,
Science, vol. 306, pp. 503507, Oct. 2004b.
Authorized licensed use limited to: IEEE Xplore. Downloaded on January 10, 2009 at 15:34 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
[57] J. P. ODoherty, P. Dayan, K. Friston, H. Critchley, and R. J. Dolan,
Temporal difference models and reward-related learning in the human
brain, Neuron, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 329337, 2003.
[58] P. Chandon and B. Wansink, The biasing health halos of fast food
restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish
consumption intentions, J. Consumer Res., vol. 37, pp. 301314, Oct.
2007.
[59] P. Chandon and B. Wansink, Is obesity caused by calorie underesti-
mation? A psychophysical model of fast-food meal size estimation, J.
Marketing Res., vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 8499, 2007.
[60] N. A. Christakis and J. H. Fowler, The spread of obesity in a large
social network over 32 years, New Eng. J. Med., vol. 357, pp. 370379,
2007.
[61] S. C. Jones, Implications of behavioral decision theory for health mar-
keting, Marketing Theory, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 7591, Mar. 2007.
[62] A. Bechara and A. R. Damasio, The somatic marker hypothesis: A
neural theory of economic decision making, Games and Economic
Behavior, vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 336372, 2005.
[63] J. Reuter, T. Raedler, M. Rose, I. Hand, J. Glscher, and C. Bchel,
Pathological gambling is linked to reduced activation of the
mesolimbic reward system, Nature Neurosci., vol. 8, pp. 147148,
2005.
[64] P. W. Glimcher, J. Kable, and K. Louie, Neuroeconomic studies of
impulsivity: Now or just as soon as possible?, Amer. Economic Rev.,
vol. 97, no. 2, pp. 142147, May 2007.
[65] Y. Bijou, M. Spinella, and D. Lester, Credit card use and prefrontal
cortex dysfunction: A study in neuroeconomics, Psychological Rep.,
vol. 94, no. 3, pt. 2, pp. 12671268, Jun. 2004.
Peter H. Kenning is Professor of Marketing at
Zeppelin University, Germany. His primary re-
search interests are consumer behavior, consumer
neuroscience, neuroeconomics, and marketing man-
agement. His work has been published widely e.g.,
in Management Decisions, Journal of Consumer Be-
havior, and Advances in Consumer Research, as well
as in the Journal of Neuroimaging, NeuroReport,
and Brain Research Bulletin.
Prof. Kenning has received several best paper
awards and grants from the German government.
Hilke Plassmann is Assistant Professor of Mar-
keting at INSEAD, France. Her primary research
areas are consumer decision making and its strategic
marketing implications at the intersection of neuro-
science, psychology, and economics (e.g., influence
of marketing actions on the consumption experience,
the neural basis of different decision making related
value signals, and ways to alter/self-control/regulate
these signals). Her research has appeared in the
leading academic journals such as the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America and the Journal of Neuroscience.