An overview of ethical issues in neuromarketing: Discussion and possible solutions

The emergence of new areas of investigation frequently elicits a division of opinion among the scientific community, particularly when human participants are involved. Consumer neuroscience, commonly referred to as neuromarketing in popular discourse, has given rise to a plethora of ethical predicaments and moral uncertainties in academic circles. In the absence of intervention, these obstacles possess the capacity to impede the advancement of this nascent discipline. Although certain ethical concerns may appear exaggerated, it is imperative for both researchers and neuromarketing firms to maintain rigorous data protection protocols and honor the confidentiality of study participants.
The concept of neuromarketing, as commonly portrayed in scholarly works, denotes the intersection of the fields of neuroscience and marketing. The present definition served as a catalyst for our investigation into ethical considerations as expressed in neuromarketing literature, situated within the theoretical constructs of neuroethics and marketing research ethics. This paper examines the ethical dilemma from two perspectives, namely marketing research and neuroethics. The following discourse delves into the ethical concerns derived from the existing neuromarketing literature, providing viable solutions and guidelines to effectively navigate this unexplored ethical landscape.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background of neuromarketing

Neuromarketing, as it is known in business, or consumer neuroscience, as it is referred to in academic circles, is thought of as a relatively recent development in the marketing world (Hakim and Levy 2019). From a purely perceptual standpoint, it is interesting to note that some authors characterize consumer neuroscience as a scientific subject, whereas neuromarketing is the managerial application of its findings (Senior and Lee 2008; Ulman et al. 2015), although, we will not necessarily consider such distinction during the development of this work; instead, we will concentrate on the ethical considerations regardless of the application domain. As discussed by Samuhelova and Simkova (2016), neuromarketing provides insights into consumer behavior and decision-making processes. Neuromarketing can be defined as an area of research originating from the combination of two or more scientific disciplines, and it comprises of a domain of marketing research focused on social psychology, econometrics, and the social sciences (Giraldi et al., 2014; Senior and Lee 2008). Some authors define it as a qualitative research technique that offers a significant advantage over conventional marketing research methods thanks to the use of neuroscience principles to assess consumer’s behavior to marketing stimuli (Eser et al. 2011). This advantage can be attributed to the fact that neuroscientific research can evaluate marketing stimuli more accurately.
It seems that the interest in studying brain’s functionalities is not very recent, as several researchers, more than 20 years ago, proposed utilizing electroencephalography (EEG, which analyzes brain waves) to examine the effect of advertisements on consumer purchasing behavior (Wilson et al. 2008). In fact, the credit of the earlier attempt of unifying neuroscience and marketing goes to Gerry Zaltman, which took place in the late 1990’s (Zaltman 1997). He offered tips and solutions to improve marketing research, and underlined that when all the components of marketing research (the subject, managers, customers, survey designs, sample methodologies…) disregard human nature, it may lead to bias and subjectivity, as it leaves researchers unduly prominent in the research process. This is one of the drawbacks of existing methodologies, and neuroscience can help improve marketing research by introducing cognitive processes that can be observed, evaluated, and analyzed. Later, in collaboration with his colleague Stephan M. Kosslyn (Zaltman and Kosslyn 2000) they secured a U.S. patent of invention after developing a new model for measuring the impact of marketing stimuli in the setting of automobile dealerships using PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography). This cutting-edge design is akin to a birth announcement for neuromarketing.
The introduction of neuroimaging approaches into the decision-making sciences, such as neuroeconomics, has consequently moved to the area of marketing (Ariely and Berns 2010), additionally, marketers have attempted to include theories regarding non-rational and rational processes, as well as concepts from the fields of cognitive and social neuroscience, they have decided then to use neuroscience-based approaches and technologies (Breiter et al. 2015; Lee et al. 2007), in fact, this growing interest is not a recent occurrence, some researchers attempted to study marketing issues such as advertising effectiveness, using some avant-grade tools and technologies, used before exclusively for medical purposes such as EEG and pupillometry (for further readings of neuromarketing origins and births see Fisher et al. 2010; Fugate 2007; Krugman 1964; Plassmann et al. 2012; Russo 1978; Wedel and Pieters 2006, 2015).
In June 2002, the first reports of the application of neuromarketing techniques began to emerge. Particularly the Atlanta-based advertising firm Brighthouse (USA) has announced the establishment of a department dedicated to conducting marketing research using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRIs) and brain scans (Fisher et al., 2010; Giraldi et al. 2014), and as Emory University academics launched the new neuromarketing branch of Brighthouse, this controversial move in marketing research soon drew criticism for potential conflicts of interest. It appears that the involvement of academic circles was only the beginning of the many ethical dilemmas that have arisen, as will be discussed in the next section, in fact, right after Brithhouse’s announcement, the consumer advocacy group Commercial Alert addressed a letter to the president of Emory University warning him against further research into neuromarketing because of the dangers it poses to consumers (Stanton et al. 2017).
When a new field of study emerges, it almost inevitably generates both positive and negative reactions from the scientific community, and this is especially true when human beings are used as test subjects. Neuromarketing has given rise to a wide variety of ethical difficulties and moral dilemmas that, if not resolved in an appropriate manner, could limit the growth of the field. Although some of the ethical questions we will discuss bellow are exaggerated, it is advised that neuromarketing companies and researchers be cautious with the preservation of data and respect the privacy of participants. Neuromarketing, as described by the great majority of writers, is the intersection of neuroscience and marketing. This definition prompted us to analyze the ethical concerns highlighted in neuromarketing literature within the conceptual frameworks of neuroethics and ethics in marketing research. In this study, we will briefly look into the issue of ethics from two perspectives: marketing research and neuroethics. We will next analyze the ethical concerns gleaned from neuromarketing literature and provide answers and guidelines.

1.2 Background of neuromarketing

The aim of this paper is to critically examine the ethical issues associated with neuromarketing practices, exploring both theoretical constructs and practical implications. By dissecting the ethical dilemmas from the dual perspectives of marketing research and neuroethics, this paper seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of these challenges. It aims to contribute to the field by offering viable solutions and guidelines to navigate the complex ethical landscape of neuromarketing. This comprehensive overview aspires to enrich the discourse in marketing ethics and to aid practitioners and researchers in making informed, ethical decisions in their neuromarketing endeavours.

2 Methodology

A general overview of neuromarketing literature focusing exclusively on ethical issues and considerations when conducting neuromarketing research. As neuromarketing is considered to be an interdisciplinary field, interlinking especially neuroscience and marketing, we reviewed also ethical practices in neuroscience by briefly discussing ethical questions in the field of neuroethics, and ethical practices in market research. By using „neuromarketing“ as a key word in research engines such as google scholar and PoP, we noticed that few papers were fully focused on demystifying the question of ethics in neuromarketing, although many other reviews have answered to the question succinctly. Due to time and reading constraints, we extracted and ranked the top 100 most-cited journal articles. After thorough reading, analysis, and coding, we retrieved 45 papers that either partially or extensively addressed ethics in neuromarketing. Then, we looked for the ethical questions and concerns that the authors brought up.

3 The rise of ethical issues in neuromarketing

Many authors and interested parties, presumably in good faith, distorted the concept of neuromarketing when it first became popular so that they could better promote their own publications and books, and some achieved this by making premature pledges and making unfounded assertions, which constitutes a fertile terrain for criticism and scepticism. In the contemporary corporate environment where the consumer is stifled by an endless choice of products and services, we can only imagine the enthusiasm of marketers when they are introduced to tools that unveil the hidden „buy button“ that is located inside the „black box,“ which alludes to the consumer’s brain (Lee et al. 2007), in fact, we believe that the usage of such enticing terms has been detrimental to the concept’s development. For the most part, the increased media interest in neuromarketing has focused on the widespread concern that the human brain may have a „purchase button“ which could be used to unethically promote products and services. The misleading promises made by commercial agencies and entities are the primary source of these misunderstandings (Javor et al. 2013). The hype surrounding neuromarketing and overselling its potential, with some describing it as a sort of „magic wand factory“ that will one day solve all of marketing’s problems and make all marketers into superhumans, has given rise to a number of ethical concerns that are still impeding the discipline’s progress in both academia and the business world, indeed, many of the earlier neuromarketing findings have been dramatized by the media, with claims that marketers have discovered the „buy button“ and that consumers are soon to be „brain-scammed“ (Fisher et al. 2010; Senior and Lee 2008; Wilson et al. 2008). These concerns are premature and exaggerated, but they are also comprehensible, especially when we consider Vicary’s subliminal advertising as an analogy. Subliminal advertising first gained widespread attention in the 1950s, thanks to James Vicary (Rogers 1992). Vicary claimed that he could increase concessions sales at movie theatres by secretly inserting advertisements into on-screen action. In reaction, well- respected publications like The New Yorker said consumers’ minds were being hacked (Moore 1982). Years later, Vicary acknowledged to fraud, but the idea of subliminal marketing was widely adopted, leading to concerns that businesses might abuse their power to influence people’ purchasing decisions (Stanton et al. 2017). Neuromarketing is susceptible to the same pitfalls as any other novel or controversial subject, particularly when early commentators’ unbridled excitement leads them to advocate fallacies and promote unproven claims. As we will see in the following sections, there is no scientific proof that the human brain has a „buy button“ (Gakhal and Senior 2008; Murphy and Illes 2008) and current neuroscientific research indicates that making a purchase choice is a highly complex process that does not involve a single brain region where emotions play a pivotal role (Ariely and Berns 2010; Hakim and Levy 2019; Plassmann et al. 2015; Stasi et al. 2018), as Senior and Lee (2008) pointed out, as consumer behavior is not a simple binary social response (i.e., „I saw the ad, ergo I buy the product“) attempts to pinpoint the location of such magic button are futile. In addition, there is currently no brain imaging technology that might manipulate customers in any way (Droulers and Roullet 2007).

4 Conceptual framework

Ultimately, neuromarketing can be described as a marketing research method that developed as a result of mutual influence between the fields of neuroscience and marketing. From this description, we present an investigation of neuromarketing’s ethical challenges and questions from the perspectives of marketing research ethics and neuroscience ethics. To do this, we will briefly examine the most pertinent ethical concerns in marketing and neuroscience to form the basis of a conceptual framework for the analysis and resolution of ethical dilemmas in neuromarketing studies, with an emphasis on their relevance, because as we will discuss in further sections, some of the ethical concerns highlighted in the literature are either exaggerated or fairly futuristic.

5 Ethics in marketing and marketing research

The study of ethics in marketing in general and in marketing research in particular is of crucial significance for the development of marketing theories and the improvement of their application. This is because the two areas of study are closely intertwined. Implementing ethics by a given company or organization in the creation endeavour of its marketing actions is fundamentally beneficial on a number of fronts, among which we can cite the following: building a trustworthy relationship with the customers, increasing customer loyalty and consequently elevating credibility in the market place, improving brand equity, and ultimately reaching financial goals. Ethics in marketing represent an important area of interest among scholars and practitioners because it is the most linked functional area related to ethical misconduct in firms. Since marketing is a vital company activity responsible for communicating and satisfying customers, it is an easy target for public criticism (Murphy and Laczniak 1981; Volle 2013). Bartels (2015) in his attempt of conceptualizing a model of ethics in marketing, he incorporated in his proposal some key concepts to be taken into consideration when studying ethical questions in marketing: (1) ethics as a norm of right behavior, (2) social interaction is where ethical judgments are made, (3) noneconomic and economic institutions influence personal conduct through role playing, (4) role expectations enforcing ethics through social sanction and (5) social sanction, not technical requirement, as ethical basis. Not to mention that these concepts need to be taken into consideration from two perspectives: the individual perspective and the organizational one. Individual values such as honesty, justice, integrity, and awareness to social and environmental issues can lead complex marketing decisions within the context of a business, these are the values that every marketer should uphold in order to avoid engaging in any unethical behavior. From the organizational standpoint, it is necessary to have organizational values, organizational codes, and training. The term „ethics of marketing“ refers to practices that encourage honesty and fairness in all forms of marketing communication that are engaged in by businesses with all of their stakeholders. Companies are able to increase customer interest in their products and services, create value for their stakeholders, and form strong relationships with their customers if they adhere to the ethical principles and values that underpin marketing. It aids businesses in making decisions on their new marketing strategy as well (Bartels 2015; Tybout and Zaltman 2016).
In a very comprehensive work, Robin and Reidenbach (1986) summarized the most important ethical issues reported by many marketing scholars by describing each issue with the interactions engaged by different stakeholders. The ones we believe are most relevant to the scope of this work are the relation/exchange Seller-Buyer and Researcher-Respondent. A seller of a neuromarketing method or solution would then engage in unethical behavior especially if as an individual is utilitarian or the company in question as whole adhere to such current, where issues are regarded as right or wrong in terms of their net impact, for instance, a marketing research company offering Neuromarketing study may tend to overstate the findings in order to sell its service ad-hoc and the trustworthiness of the findings may be compromised as a result (Giraldi et al. 2014; Senior and Lee 2008). The interaction between the researcher and the participant as we will see further on, is linked to most cited ethical concerns in Neuromarketing literature, the arsenal of tools provided by neuroscience are suspected by critics to allow the researcher the abuse of the respondent’s privacy, and expose the latter to risks of manipulation (Lim 2018; Murphy and Illes 2008). As Akaak (1990) stressed that marketing researchers face ethical challenges in the context of marketing research not only while interacting with respondents, but also in her/his relation with the company’s clients, the company different departments and the general public, as an example, a researcher may not be completely forthright with respondents regarding the study’s purpose in order to prevent respondents’ responses from being influenced by that knowledge and so failing to meet the client’s need for accurate and reliable data, this is interestingly a relevant ethical concern in the Neuromarketing context, as researchers and firms ought to conduct research under complete integrity and transparency, and guarantee participants their right to know the purpose of the study and have their full free consent to take part of the research/experiment (Tybout and Zaltman 2016). Chonko and Hunt (2000) reported that 1076 marketing professionals have indicated the 10 most difficult ethical problems they have experienced in their career. In ascending order of frequency theses ethical issues are related to: (1) purchasing, (2) manipulation of data, (3) advertising, (4) confidentiality, (5) personnel, (6) product, (7) pricing, (8) honesty, (9) fairness, and (10) bribery. Some of these ethical problems reported are not relevant or mentioned in Neuromarketing literature, which its analysis showed that the main relevant ones are manipulation and overstatement of findings, confidentiality and consumer’s privacy, and honesty vis à vis clients, respondents, corporation and public opinion. The growing importance of ethical concerns in marketing research has led to initiatives to implement guides or codes for the proper conduct of marketing studies. Perhaps one of the best-known initiatives to oversee the conduct of marketing research is the AMA’s Statement of Ethics which addresses general norms across marketing research and focuses mostly on abuses committed by practitioners and interviewers as one of the many ethical challenges posed by marketing research (Bezilla et al. 1976), it focuses on marketers duties to avoid any unethical behavior towards all parties involved in marketing activities (Laczniak 2012). By exploring the AMA’s statement, it appears that it proposes some guidelines for marketers to ensure an ethical conduct of marketing research, and it states that to achieve the highest possible level of ethical conduct, marketers should avoid any kind of harmful actions or omissions, foster trust in the marketing system by avoiding deceptive actions, and build transparent relationship with consumers based on honesty, responsibility, fairness and citizenship, for detailed reading of theses values (note [1]).
It is then interesting to analyze and discuss the ethical concerns in neuromarketing with a hindsight on marketing ethics as a basic framework, which we will do in further sections of this paper.

6 Neuroethics: a new window of ethics in neuromarketing

Given the beforementioned definition of neuromarketing, beside ethics in marketing research we believe that the analysis of ethical concerns from the point of view of neuroscience would be interesting in building the framework of analysis and hopefully resolution of ethical issues in neuromarketing, that is because it basically borrows technologies and protocols from neurosciences in order to assess the human behavior resulting from stimuli exposure. Neuroscience is a scientific field that studies the nervous system and its functions (Baars and Nicole 2010), and with the its rapid emergence as a multidisciplinary field (neuropsychology, affective neuroscience, neuroeconomics, etc.) multiple ethical concerns have accompanied its development in academia and industry, especially when it involves medical studies and interventions. As Kimberly Rose Clark (2020) pointed out, philosophers and neuroscientists alike discussed the moral and ethical concerns that might be raised by future medical innovations. It would be possible that neurological and physiological systems that govern humans’ actions could be uncovered using data streams gathered from the brain and body, and it might be problematic when these data become accessible to for-profit organizations and governmental entities as it raises the possibility of influencing the behavior of individuals without their agreement, or more specifically informed consent. The continuing development of technology and especially brain imaging technologies has opened new horizons to neuroscience, sometimes controversial, which consequently led to the rise of more ethical concerns revendicated by scholars, scientists, media and public opinion, in fact, brain imaging techniques (fMRI, EEG, PET, TMS, etc.) have already proven their worth in conveying data about our identities and emotions (Farah 2012), and this extraordinary advantage gave birth to an array of ethical issues.
The ethical dilemmas that have accompanied the improvement of neuroscience opened up for the emergence of a new field of study: neuroethics. In 2002, the word „neuroethics“ was introduced to characterize an interdisciplinary area that brings together experts from the fields of neuroscience, medical bioethics, cognitive science, public policy, law, and philosophy (Clark 2020; Roskies 2002) to cover the many moral, legal and social concerns that have arisen in response to scientific advances in the field of neuroscience (Farah 2012; Northoff 2009). Those concerns have emerged especially from clinical neuroscience experiments and genetic testing via the use of technologies such as PET (positron emission tomography), fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging), EEG (electroencephalography), MEG (magnetoencephalography) and other technologies that vary in their invasiveness and portability, although they can be utilized to gather data stealthily while in a study originally designed for other purposes. Martha J. Farah (2005) pointed out that since neuroethics is so broad, early discussions focused on specific subgroups of the problems it raises. The potential benefits and drawbacks of neurotechnology are the focus of certain debates in the field of neuroethics. The development of various neuroimaging methods and intervention has allowed for more precise monitoring and manipulation of the human mind in recent years (i.e., brain enhancement for healthy and dysfunctional brains). Having in mind that the field of neuroethic studies ethics and ethical concerns in neuroscience (i.e., ethics of practice, conduct of neuroscientific research, data privacy, application of findings) (Levy 2010), for the purpose of our research, we decided to explore the literature of neuroethics, instead of going through neuroscience literature that mentions ethics and ethical concerns, this choice is motivated and justified by the fact that neuroethics is a field that specializes mainly in the scope of ethics in neuroscience, and includes some very comprehensive reviews that summarize the most important and cited ethical dilemmas in neuromarketing literature (Bercea Olteanu 2015; Clark 2020; Ed 2007; Farah 2005, 2012; Illes and Bird 2006; Illes and Racine 2006; Levy 2010, 2011; Moreno 2003; Murphy and Illes 2008; Roskies 2002). The brief overview of the literature has allowed us to inventory a certain number of ethical considerations that we believe are relevant to neuromarketing application. We give a detailed description of these issues in the following section.

6.1 Brain privacy

Illes and Racine (2006) highlighted the importance of privacy of the human thought by emphasizing that it should weigh as much as privacy of genetic information does, if not more. The researchers described how the increased knowledge of individuals thinking is likely to generate ethical questions for both clinicians and researchers. Although, Steve Matthews cited in (Spence 2015) stressed that concerns related to brain privacy seem to be legitimate at first glance, but upon deeper inspection, these concerns are shown to be unfounded, but he does also warn that a persistent risk does remain as a result of the accumulation of brain data over time, and possibly the continuing and rapid advancement of neuroscience technology. This ethical challenge has preoccupied the public opinion for a long time, with an analogical comparison with genetics where people are concerned about having some deep personal information available for other parties, and it was suggested for any neuroscientific study, as it is the case for DNA analysis via tissue sampling, that participants need and have the right to be informed of the exact information that will be extracted (Farah 2005). Martha J. Farah (2012) one of the leading scholars in neuroscience and neuroethics made a very crucial point, namely that unlike traditional procedures (paper and pencil), psychological tests and experiments based on imaging technologies are well suited for covert applications, that is to say the possibility to gather brain scans with the total patient agreement for one announced purpose and then analyze the data for a totally different objective. We may extrapolate this issue to the field of neuromarketing, where it is essential that both businesses and professionals be completely forthright about their methods, the information they plan to collect, and the goals of their research.

6.2 Informed consent

One of the most mentioned issues in neuroethics literature is the concept of informed consent, which is considered to be crucial in all neuroscientific studies especially in medical experiments where it is of a crucial importance. For instance, Georg Northoff (2009) discussed this issue in clinical scientific studies and focused on how it is of crucial importance for studies involving psychiatric patients, and not only healthy ones. He explained how making a decision, or the ability to give informed consent, is a prerequisite for participating in any kind of decision- making process, as studies in neuroscience highlight the multifaceted nature of decision making, revealing the importance of both cognitive and emotional processes. Patients or participants with psychiatric or psychological diseases or disorders (depressions, schizophrenia) have probably impaired abilities to make valid and informed consent (Moreno 2003) which makes the issue of obtaining consent more complicated. For healthy participants the problem will not rise as long as they are informed with the exact purpose and procedures of the research, which is generally relevant to marketing research and neuromarketing studies where the researcher has the responsibility to make sure the participants in any given study are healthy and capable of giving a valid agreement, and to be totally transparent with the them.

6.3 Accidental findings

We invite the reader of this paper to project herself in the two following situations: We invite the reader of this paper to project herself in the two following situations: (1) You are a researcher taking part in a full-immersion neurological study with a specific goal in mind. While looking at the fMRI images of one of the participants, you find a brain tumor, an abnormal substance, or a structural disorder that could be a sign of a mental illness. How would you handle this difficult situation? Would you rather inform the participant of your accidental discovery, taking into account the stress and the anxiety that will certainly result from such difficult news, or would you rather avoid such an announcement? (2) Now imagine you are taking part in such a study as a participant, and you agree to have your brain scanned using fMRI. Would you like to be informed of such findings?
There is not universal answer to these questions, some scholars argue that there is still a need for standards and protocols on how to handle the unexpected discovery of clinically significant abnormalities in research (Illes and Bird 2006), because it is not clear if researchers do have the responsibility to inform the participants of any abnormalities found on their brains, and if the participants themselves should have the option to not be informed of such incidental findings (Farah 2012). Other scholars argue that scientists and researchers have the duty and the obligation to inform participants that in predictive experiments based on brain imaging technologies might reveal some neurological and psychiatric conditions and pathologies (Glannon 2006), it is suggested to be the only way to have a genuine valid agreement to take part an experiment before it even commences. Other neuroethicists appear to have settled the issue for good, like Kimberly R. Clark (2020), who faced such a predicament in one fMRI study for one of the prominent television networks, when she noticed a brain tumor situated in the left prefrontal cortex of one participant, and she decided, in accordance with the study protocol that was previously evaluated and approved by an Institutional Review Board, to let the person know that a neurologist should be consulted because it was possible she was suffering from a neurological disorder.
It is important to note that only fMRI and some other brain scans technologies (PET, MEG, EEG, TMS) who confront the researchers to the possibility of incidental findings. In the context of neuromarketing, the dilemma is amplified when the researcher lacks the ability to diagnoses brain abnormalities. Although this issue is not relevant when neurmarketing studies are conducted using biometrics, eye-tracking and facial coding, and also some EEG devices specially customized for pure commercial use and not for medical purposes.

6.4 Free will in neuroethics

One of the most recurrent questions in neuroscience trials is the individuals’ free will and brain manipulation. One thing for sure is that brain imaging technologies can by no means influence or manipulate the human brain and dictate to it specific actions and behaviors, some technologies thou permit the influence of cerebral circuits and brain enhancing such as tools used to achieve brain stimulation like transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), deep brain stimulation (DBS) and other drugs and interventions used to enhance cognitive performance or treat mental and psychological disorders and diseases. In the sphere of neuroscience, these methods are specifically used to achieve better understanding of the human brain and to find new ways to treat diseases and to enhance brain’s ability in some cases like Parkinson, for comprehensive reviews of these methods and technologies we’d refer the reader to the following papers: (Breit et al. 2004; Cagnan et al. 2019; Fecteau 2022; Luber 2014; Thut and Pascual-Leone 2010). When it comes to brain enhancement, this is considered to be a very ancient activity, humans have for long time used diverse substances and interventions (i.e., chemicals, drinks and plants) to enhance their cognitive performances (Farah 2012). Some scholars worry that the accumulation of data through commercial and governmental access to personal and brain information could lead to the potential to control the behavior of individuals without their awareness or agreement (Clark 2020), It is debatable, but is it actually possible? Currently, and based on our research, there is no evidence that imaging technologies, originally developed for neuroscientific purposes and afterwards employed in neuromarketing studies, are capable of controlling and affecting the behavior of humans.
Other issues should be noted, not necessarily of an ethical nature but rather barriers to the growth of neuroscience in general, which may be viewed as one of the causes of the increase in ethical concerns in the area. This refers to misinterpretation and overstatement of findings. A number of authors have made the argument that brain images are more likely to be viewed as objective and reliable by the general public than other forms of information regarding the human mind (Racine et al. 2005), and as Martha J. Farah, (2012) stressed, this could hasten the market entry of brain imaging technologies for several practical purposes based on premature judgments. She continues her argument by suggesting the necessity for entrepreneurs to develop guidelines in order to protect general public (citizens, consumers) from overhyped methods to avoid unrealistic assumptions and misunderstandings which nevertheless should not discourage researchers from conducting more studies and validating results. Illes and Bird (2006) noted how media portrayals of science in the popular press have had a significant influence upon ethical discussions and popular understanding of biomedical innovation, as evidenced by the development of the neuroscience field. However, there are several moral concerns that arise with sharing scientific findings with the general population. Invoking topics related to neuroscience and brain studies by using expressions such as „human brain is a black box“, „brain imaging to reveal the mind’s mysteries“, „the brain does not lie“, or expressions found in neuromarketing literature like „the buy-button“, „how to directly sell to the consumer’s brain“ are results of misinterpretations and overstatement of the potential of the current imaging technology which certainly delivers more precise and reliable measurements of neurological and psychological processes in order to provide a more accurate evaluation of human and consumer behavior (Farah 2005).
In the following section, we will review the ethical concerns that have been discussed in the previous research on neuromarketing, and we will try to analyze them by referring to ethics in marketing research and neuroethics as the main framework. Our ultimate goal is to discuss the significance of each concern and how it relates to neuromarketing.

7 Ethical concerns in neuromarketing literature

In order to conduct a literature review on the topic of ethics in neuromarketing, we needed to identify the works that have covered at least some parts of the subject. To accomplish this, we utilized „neuromarketing“ as a keyword in Google Scholar and PoP (publish or perish) to identify the top cited studies. Due to time and reading constraints, we extracted and ranked the top 100 most-cited journal articles. After thorough reading, analysis, and coding, we retrieved 45 papers that either partially or extensively addressed ethics in neuromarketing. Then, we looked for the ethical questions and concerns that the authors brought up. These are listed as follows in order of how often they came up: (1) the buy-button, (2) consumer’s privacy, (3) manipulation, (4) integrity and transparency of companies, (5) participants’ consent, and (6) free will. Table 1 summarizes the 23 papers that have mentioned each of the extracted ethical concerns, that we believe are ones that mostly require the attention of academicians and practicians as we will discuss in the next section.

7.1 The buy-button

In the literature, there seems to be a consensus that the idea of the „buy button“ is not based on scientific evidence and is part of the overblown claims that early observers, especially the general press, made about neuromarketing and its potential to develop marketing tactics that consumers cannot resist. In anecdotal fashion, Lee et al. (2007) emphasized the irrelevance of such a concept by extrapolating the idea of unique and „magical“ regions of the human brain, on psychology, where scholars would have been excited to find the love button, given that they’ve been using neuroscience technologies long before the advent of neuromarketing. To claim new knowledge before and without the evidence is in the human nature, and with the emergence of neuromarketing, the public opinion was concerned by the possibility of locating the magic buying spots of the consumer’s brain which would permit for-profit organizations and advertising agencies to turn consumers into manipulated robots that would buy any marketed products (Ait Hammou et al. 2013; Fisher et al. 2010). This confidence among researches of the inexistence of such concept is motivated by the available scientific research that indicates that the cognitive processes related with buying decisions are complex and therefore cannot be restricted to a particular area of involvement. In contrast, a specific brain area may participate in several cognitive activities, even if brain regions are considered to be functionally specialized by some neuroscientist they interact in a vast neuronal networks even for simple tasks, let alone complex ones like buying behaviors (Ariely and Berns 2010; Lee et al. 2018). As we have seen in neuroethics, misunderstanding and overstatement of findings represent an important ethical challenge that might impede the development of any novel area of study, and can be the source of the rise of an array of other ethical questions, which is the case here, as the premature and unfounded claims that technologies used in neurmarketing studies would allow marketers to locate buy buttons inside the consumer’s brain is considered to be one of the most addressed concerns in the literature. It is then the responsibility of scholars and marketing academicians to tackle neuromarketing companies claiming that neuroscience provides a sort of golden key that opens up the so called black-box (Stanton et al. 2017), and give all neuromarketing concepts clear and factual descriptions. Since brain imaging technologies do not allow for invasion into the private sphere of mind, they cannot be used to stifle or excite any particular traits in an individual. To reiterate, such a possibility is currently impossible and may or may not be theoretically achievable in the future. No way can neuromarketing make people feel like they don’t have a say in what they buy. In a free, competitive market, marketing’s main goal is, of course, to influence consumer choices, and neuromarketing gives us more information that we couldn’t get from more traditional marketing research methods, we can also argue some other marketing concepts such as data mining, big data might be way more manipulative than neuroscientific test giving the complexity of the human brain and the decision-making process.

7.2 Consumer’s privacy

Keeping customers’ personal information secure is an important part of conducting effective market research as it includes the disclosure of sensitive data. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, made clear in article 12 that everyone has right to protection of his privacy, it is then axiomatic that neuromarketing companies respect such a right and take it into consideration in setting up their research protocols, and like medical institutions, they should take precautions to protect the privacy of the data they collect and to ensure the storage and transferability of data in complete anonymity (Fisher et al. 2010). It is also recommended that the research findings not be disclosed or sold to third parties, especially if they contain sensitive information about people; doing so under the pretext of conducting business would be unethical. Whether this is a common business practice or not, it is advised to withhold judgment for the time being. Our reluctance to take a stance on the matter is due to the fact that in the business world, some marketers and managers may engage in unethical behavior for the purpose of conducting business and increasing profit, and it is well-known within the marketing industry that some successful marketing managers may engage in certain unethical behaviors (Chonko and Hunt 2000). Even if the code of ethics established by the NMSBA (note [2]) states that he collection of personal information should be limited to defined aims and shall not be used for any other objective, also, researchers must ensure that suitable security mechanisms are in place to prevent unauthorized access to any gathered findings so that the data, including neuroimaging studies, will remain the sole property of the research firm and will not be divulged. The question that we should ask, are there defined post-study methods to verify and validate that the research was completed in full compliance with all applicable legal and institutional requirements? Institutional Review Board guidelines their main purpose is to establish a sort of guidelines framework that should be reviewed prior to the research starting (Murphy and Illes 2008; Senior and Lee 2008; Stanton et al. 2017), it may be possible to establish an external audit system to review the conducted neuromarketing researches, but for this to occur, local and universal charts of conducting neuromarketing studies are required.

7.3 Manipulation

The potential manipulation of customers’ decisions through the use of neuroscience technologies is recognized as a crucial ethical issue in numerous scholarly works. Some of the cited sources indicated, with a concerned tone, that Neuromarketing could potentially possess the capacity to manipulate people and dictate their decisions, which, in our opinion, is overstated and premature. In their work on this subject, R. M. Wilson et al. (2008) argued that advancements in neuroscience and brain research would eventually lead to the ability to influence consumers without their knowledge. Their argument is that since suggestions to use brain waves in evaluating the impact of promotions on customers date back more than two decades, the application of neurosciences to the study of consumer purchasing behavior would be extremely risky. They then argued that neuroimaging technologies could be used in public context and enable mind reading and discern the exact stimuli that trigger different emotions on the consumer, such as excitement, trust, and pleasure, affirming that these emotions lead people to purchase. However, this is not entirely accurate; we should take such assertions with great caution, as emotions, even if they play a crucial role in decision-making processes in some contexts, do not have a direct causal relationship with the act of buying, it is not stated anywhere that consumers will buy a product if its advertisement makes them happy, it may though impact the intention and brand loyalty. In addition, we believe that neuroscientific tools and technologies are currently insufficiently advanced to read the minds of consumers, and that this possibility is not foreseeable in the near future, and we believe it would be difficult to set up neuroimaging instruments in public to scan and track the brain activity of consumers without their awareness, even in a futuristic scenario! Stanton et al. (2017) discussed a very interesting point, that bombarding neuromarketing with ethical problems is not justified when the issues in question are originally relevant to other disciplines like sales and advertising, they argued, and we adhere too, that it is unconceivable to manipulate consumers’ choices the way laymen and public opinion imagine, it would require new technologies and heavy expenses. It is important to distinguish between two disparate concepts: influence is not a synonym of manipulation, we believe that all marketing actions share the same objective which is to make customers and potential clients to consider the company’s products’/services’, this is achievable by influencing their choices, and we think it is the essence of marketing and a legitimate endeavor, and neuromarketing does not provide other solutions that go beyond statistical prediction and choice influence (Ariely and Berns 2010; Fugate 2007; Morin 2011; Stanton et al. 2017). The autonomy of consumers will not be compromised in the context of neuromarketing studies so long as no known technology permits such a practice and it cannot be altered by merely observing brain activity (Droulers and Roullet 2007; Fisher et al. 2010).

7.4 Integrity and transparency of companies

The manner in which businesses adopt and integrate neuroscience into marketing will either alleviate or increase ethical concerns. Neuromarketing firms and their clients are obligated to discuss data and conclusions with test subjects and other individuals involved in the study project in an honest and forthright manner, is it a realistically expected approach from neuromarketing firms? We believe it is hardly conceivable as Stanton et al. (2017) argued that despite the potential benefits, neuromarketing firms are unlikely to adopt full openness and transparency because they are, first and foremost, for-profit businesses. The authors also examine the lack of peer review when neuromarketing businesses submit results and findings to their clients. They emphasize that instituting such guidelines for reporting results will reduce exaggerated claims and keep researchers within the realm of scientific integrity. Not only does it appear difficult to implement such a solution, but we also question the willingness of neuromarketing and marketing research firms to share openly the protocols and results of their studies, and as we suggested in the previous section, an external independent audit could help ensure companies adhere to ethical policies. The peer-review publication mechanism that is applied to published research is designed to ensure methodological rigor and appropriate interpretation of outcomes, making it less likely that academics may exaggerate the results or capabilities of their research. In this way, academic science uses peer review as a form of self- correction (Stanton et al. 2017). Transparency could be ensured by clearly explaining to test subjects the protocols of the study, its scope and the data the company seeks to retrieve, such procedures is referred to in ethical conduct of marketing research as debriefing (Tybout and Zaltman 2016) which is a widely common practice, although in the context of neuromarketing studies especially based on neuroimaging technics, a more straightforward explanation in laymen terms will be highly recommended, and it should include information about procedures, benefits, eventual risks and discomfort, incidental findings when using neuroimaging technologies (Giraldi et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2018; Lim 2018; Ulman et al. 2015). As discussed in the section on ethical issues in marketing research, the relationship between the researcher and the respondent is crucial for the outcome of the study, both from an individual and an organizational perspective. The researcher and the company have the responsibility to adhere to professional integrity and transparency-based policies, which would be extremely beneficial to the company and to the growth of the industry.

7.5 Participants’ consent

The summary in the section on neuroethics demonstrated that worries regarding consent should not arise when individuals are healthy and able to provide genuine informed consent. Typically, knowing that healthy individuals who are the most studied (Clark 2020), it should not be a cause for concern in the context of marketing research and neuromarketing so long as researchers ensure that participants can provide valid and authentic consent, which may be gained by being completely clear and honest with them about the goal of the study. We also think that participants should be able to choose whether or not their data can be used by any potential user/client of the research company after being told how the study’s findings and results could be used by academia, corporations, for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, as Tybout and Zaltman (2016) suggested that to ensure the freedom to choose is not violated, researchers should inform participants of their right to refuse, provide them with sufficient information to make an informed decision, and allow them to choose .Some authors warned to potential of some instruments to allow marketers and sales persons to monitor their moods and emotions without their explicit informed consent in points of sales, the advent of some thermal video surveillance like the ones set up in airports, might be used to classify emotions, and this measure could be used then for merchandising (Clark 2020). We would categorially contest such practices, stealth neuromarketing is unethical and considered to be a clear violation of individuals’ privacy. All of these efforts should be made to notify participants of their rights before studies are done (Giraldi et al. 2014), in order to minimize biased data and any type of pressure the researcher may exert on subjects.
The relation researcher-respondent is then crucial and ought to be established on solid policies to ensure the valid consent is gained, and consequently ensure a high quality results and insights (Murphy and Illes 2008; Pop et al. 2014), although in the majority of situations, if not always, participants consent to participate in a study in exchange for compensation, we question whether or not this affects the relationship’s credibility.

7.6 Free will and neuromarketing practices

Consumer Alert in 2003 stated that the advent of neuromarketing will bring the end of free will (Madan 2010), some of the critics mentioned in the literature have stated that neuromarketing not only intends to obtain brain information from clients, but also exploit it to remove their freedom (Ait Hammou et al. 2013). It is true that the symbiosis between marketing and neuroscience was, maybe still perceived controversial, and the field opponents have concerns that consumers’ freedom will be diminished by the usage of these methods, making them more susceptible to the company’s marketing activities (Giraldi et al. 2014), but from a scientific perspective, neuromarketing has not advanced to the point where it would allow scientists to create an addictive marketing campaign that would force people to buy things against their will (Madan 2010; Stanton et al. 2017), or that it will lead to excessive consumerism and promotion of unhealthy products, which is a major concern in the public’s mind. We should keep in mind that neuromarketing as a research method offers probabilistic rather than deterministic predictions, but it is important to note that companies have the responsibility to promote in a clearer manner that consumers in response to a given marketing campaign are more likely to purchase certain products under certain circumstances than under others, which is the ultimate goal of marketing research regardless of technique (Morin 2011; Stanton et al. 2017), nonetheless, consumers require a certain level of market and consumption habits education to exercise their free will (Wilson et al. 2008).

8 Conclusive thoughts and suggested solutions

Through this research paper, we have examined some of the main ethical questions regarding the field of neuromarketing, and we have noted that some of them are exaggerated, which is the case for example of the mention of the buy-button which is not supported by any scientific data and is a portion of the exaggerated statements that early observers made regarding the field, and we brought attention to the irrelevance of such a concept. As we have seen in the field of neuroethics, misinterpretation and exaggeration of findings constitute a significant ethical concern that has the potential to hamper the growth of any newly emerging field of research. Neuromarketing cannot in any way give the impression to consumers that they do not have a choice in the products they purchase. Because the technologies utilized for brain imaging do not permit an incursion into a person’s private domain of mind, they cannot be used to stifle or excite any particular characteristics that an individual possesses. The code of ethics established by NMBSA specifies that the acquisition of personally identifiable information should be restricted to the achievement of identified goals and must not be utilized to accomplish any other goals. It is also advised that the findings of the research not be made public or sold to third parties, particularly if they contain sensitive information about persons; doing so under the pretense of conducting business would be unethical. The possibility that neuromarketing could have the ability to influence people and direct the choices they make is, in our view, is exaggerated and premature. We believe that academicians, marketing professionals and companies should focus more on the relationship buyer-seller and researcher-respondent that should be based on moral groundings in order to ensure a perfectly ethical conduct of their studies. The adherence of the ethical code of institutions like the NMBSA is crucial, but we argue it might be insufficient without external and independent surveillance especially when neuroimaging technologies are involved. We think that asking marketers and neuromarketers about the ethical challenges they encounter in their journey, how they actually handle them would be a valuable source to establish new guidelines and codes to be standardized within the field of marketing research in general and in neuromarketing in particular.

Poznámky/Notes

[1] The statement can be consulted in the following link: https://myama.force.com/s/article/AMA-Statement-of-Ethics.
[2] The Neuromarketing Science & Business Association in the following link: https://nmsba.com/neuromarketing-companies/code-of-ethics.

Annex

Table 1: A comprehensive list of scholarly publications addressing the ethical considerations in neuromarketing
Source: Authors

Literatúra/List of References

1. Ait Hammou, K., Galib, M. H. and Melloul, J., 2013. The contributions of neuromarketing in marketing research. In: Journal of Management Research. 2013, 5(4), 20. ISSN 1467-6486. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v5i4.4023>
2. Akaak, I. P., 1990. Attitudes of marketing professionals toward ethics in marketing research: A cross-national comparison. In: Journal of Bussines Ethics. 1990, 9, 45-53. ISSN 1573-0697. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382563>
3. AMA, 2023. [online]. [cit. 2023-11-14]. Available at: <https://myama.force.com/s/article/AMA-Statement-of-Ethics>
4. Arch, D. C., 1979. Pupil dilation measures in consumer research: Applications and limitations. In: Advances in Consumer Research. 1979, 6, 166-168. ISSN 0098-9258.
5. Ariely, D. and Berns, G. S., 2010. Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. In: Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2010, 11(4), 284-292. ISSN 1471-0048. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2795>
6. Baars, B. J. and Nicole, M. G., 2010. Cognition, brain, and consciousness: Introduction to cognitive neuroscience. Academic Press, 2010. ISBN 9780123814401.
7. Bartels, R., 1967. Model for ethics in marketing. In: Journal of Marketing. 1967, 31(1), 20-26. ISSN 1547-7185. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1177/002224296703100105>
8. Bercea Olteanu, M. D., 2015. Neuroethics and responsibility in conducting neuromarketing research. In: Neuroethics. 2015, 8(2), 191-202. ISSN 1874-5490. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152- 014-9227-y>
9. Bezilla, R., Haynes, J. B. and Clifford, E., 1976. Ethics in marketing research. In: Business Horizons. 1976, 19(2), 83-86. ISSN 0007-6813.
10. Breit, S., Schulz, J. B. and Benabid, A. L., 2004. Deep brain stimulation. In: Cell and Tissue Research. 2004, 318, 275-288. ISSN 1432-0878.
11. Breiter, H. C., Block, M., Blood, A. J., Calder, B., Chamberlain, L., Lee, N., Livengood, S., Mulhern, F. J., Raman, K., Schultz, D., Stern, D. B., Viswanathan, V. and Zhang, F. Z., 2015. Redefining neuromarketing as an integrated science of influence. In: Frontiers in Human Neuroscience. 2015, 8, 1073. ISSN 1662-5161. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0704-683>
12. Cagnan, H., Denison, T., Mclntyre, C. and Brown, P., 2019. Emerging technologies for improved deep brain stimulation. In: Nature Biotechnology. 2019, 37, 1024-1033. ISSN 1546-1696.
13. Chonko, L. B. and Hunt, S. D., 2000. Ethics and marketing management: A retrospective and prospective commentary. In: Journal of Business Research. 2000, 50, 235-244. ISSN 0148-2963.
14. Clark, K. R., 2020. A field with a view: Ethical considerations for the fields of consumer neuroscience and neuromarketing. Ethical dimensions of commercial and DIY neurotechnologies. ISBN 9780128161821. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.dnb.2020.03.002>
15. Droulers, O. and Roullet, B., 2007. Émergence du neuromarketing: Apports et perspectives pour les praticiens et les chercheurs. In: Décisions Marketing. 2007, 46, 09-22. ISSN 2269-8469. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.7193/dm.046.09.22>
16. Ed, J., 2007. Neuroethics: Defining the issues in theory, practice and policy. 254, 250-252. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1002/casp>
17. Eser, Z., Isin, F. B. and Tolon, M., 2011. Perceptions of marketing academics, neurologists, and marketing professionals about neuromarketing. In: Journal of Marketing Management. 2011, 27(7-8), 854-868. ISSN 1472-1376. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/02672571003719070>
18. Farah, M. J., 2005. Neuroethics : the practical and the philosophical. In: Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2005, 9(1), 34-40. ISSN 1364-6613. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.001>
19. Farah, M. J., 2012. Neuroethics: The ethical, legal, and societal impact of neuroscience. In:Annual review of psychology. 2012, 63, 571-591. ISSN 1545-2085. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100438>
20. Fecteau, S., 2023. Influencing human behavior with noninvasive brain stimulation: Direct human brain manipulation revisited. In: The Neuroscientist. 2023, 29(3), 317-331. ISSN 1073-8584.
21. Fisher, C. E., Chin, L. and Klitzman, R., 2010. Defining neuromarketing: Practices and professional challenges. In: Harvard Review of Psychiatry. 2010, 18(4), 230-237. ISSN 1067-3229. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.3109/10673229.2010.496623>
22. Fugate, D. L., 2007. Neuromarketing: A layman’s look at neuroscience and its potential application to marketing practice. In: Journal of Consumer Marketing. 2007, 24(7), 385-394. ISSN 0736-3761. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710834807>
23. Gakhal, B. and Senior, C., 2008. Examining the influence of fame in the presence of beauty an electrodermal ‘neuromarketing’ study. In: Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review. 2008, 7(4-5), 331-341. ISSN 1472-0817.
24. Ghosh, S., 2020. Marketing (Ethics of). In: Idowu, S., Schmidpeter, R., Capaldi, N., Zu, L., Del Baldo, M., Abreu, R. (eds), 2020. Encyclopedia of sustainable management. Springer, Cham. ISBN 978-3-030-02006-4. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02006-4_595-1>
25. Giraldi, J. M. E., Henrique, J. and Oliveira, C., 2014. A review of studies on neuromarketing: Practical results, techniques, contributions and limitations. In: Journal of Management Research. 2014, 6(2), 201. ISSN 1941-899X. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.5296/jmr.v6i2.5446>
26. Glannon, W., 2006. Neuroethics. In: Bioethics. 2006, 20(1), 37-52. ISSN 0269-9702.
27. Hakim, A. and Levy, D. J., 2019. A gateway to consumers’ minds: Achievements, caveats, and prospects of electroencephalography-based prediction in neuromarketing. In: Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science. 2019, 10(2), 1-21. ISSN 1939-5078. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1485>
28. Illes, J. and Bird, S. J., 2006. Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience. In: Trends in neurosciences. 2006, 29(9), 511-517. ISSN 1878108X. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2006.07.002>
29. Illes, J. and Racine, E., 2005. Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics. In: The American Journal of Bioethics. 2005, 5(2), 5-18. ISSN 1536-0075. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/15265160590923358>
30. Javor, A., Koller, M., Lee, N., Chamberlain, L. and Ransmayr, G., 2013. Neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience: contributions to neurology. In: BMC Neurology. 2013, 1-12. ISSN 1471-2377.
31. Kabslake, J. S., 1940. The perdue eye-camera: apractical apparatus for studying the attention value of advertisements. In: Journal of Applied Psychology. 1940, 24(4), 417-440. ISSN 0021-9010. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054171>
32. Krugman, H. E., 1964. Some applications of pupil measurement. In: Journal of Marketing Research. 1964, 1(4), 15-19. ISSN 1547-7193.
33. Laczniak, G. R., 2012. Ethics of Marketing. 308-322. 2012. [online]. [cit. 2023-11-14]. Available at: <www.uk.sagepub.com/books/Book235879>
34. Lee, N., Broderick, A. J. and Chamberlain, L., 2007. What is „neuromarketing“? A discussion and agenda for future research. In: International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2007, 63(2), 199-204. ISSN 0167-8760. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.03.007>
35. Lee, N., Butler, M. J. R. and Senior, C., 2010. The brain in business: neuromarketing and organisational cognitive neuroscience. In: Der Markt Journal Für Marketing. 2010, 49(3-4), 129-131. ISSN 0025-3863. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12642-010-0033-8>
36. Lee, N., Chamberlain, L. and Brandes, L., 2018. Welcome to the jungle! The neuromarketing literature through the eyes of a newcomer. In: European Journal of Marketing. 2018, 52(1-2), 4-38. ISSN 0309-0566. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2017-0122>
37. Levy, N., 2010. Neuroethics: Challenges for the 21st century. In: Philosophical Psychology. 2010, 23(1), 125-130. ISSN 1465-394X. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/09515080903538891>
38. Levy, N., 2011. Neuroethics: A new way of doing ethics. In: AJOB Neuroscience. 2011, 2(2), 3-9. ISSN 2150-7759. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2011.557683>
39. Lim, W. M., 2018. Demystifying neuromarketing. In: Journal of Business Research. 2018, 91, 205-220. ISSN 0148-2963. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.036>
40. Luber, B. and Lisanby, S. H., 2014. Enhancement of human cognitive performance using transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). In: Neuroimage. 2014, 85, 961-970. ISSN 1053-8119.
41. Madan, C. R., 2010. Neuromarketing: the next step in market research? In: Eureka. 2010, 1(1), 34-42. ISSN 1923-1520. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.29173/eureka7786>
42. Moore, T. E., 1982. Subliminal advertising: What you see is what you get. In: Journal of Marketing. 1982, 46(2), 38-47. ISSN 0022-2429.
43. Moreno, J. D., 2003. Neuroethics: an agenda for neuroscience and society. In: Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2003, 4(2), 149-153. ISSN 1471-003X.
44. Morin, C., 2011. Neuromarketing: The new science of consumer behavior. In: Society. 2011, 48(2), 131-135. ISSN 1936-4725. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9408-1>
45. Mouammine, Y. and Azdimousa, H., 2021. A review of neuromarketing origins as a new marketing research method. In: Marketing Science & Inspirations. 2021, 16(4), 34-50. ISSN 1338-7944.
46. Murphy, E. R. and Illes, J., 2008. Neuroethics of neuromarketing. In: Journal of Consumer Behaviour: An International Research Review. 2008, 7(4-5), 293-302. ISSN 1472-0817.
47. Murphy, P. E. and Laczniak, G. R., 1981. Marketing ethics: A review with implications for managers, educators and researchers. In: Review of Marketing. 1981, 251-266. ISSN 1546-5616.
48. NMSBA, 2023. [online]. [cit. 2023-11-14]. Available at: <https://nmsba.com/neuromarketing-companies/code-of-ethics>
49. Northoff, G., 2009. What is neuroethics? Empirical and theoretical neuroethics. In: Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 2009, 22(6), 565-569. ISSN 1473-6578. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1097/YCO.0b013e32832e088b>
50. Plassmann, H., Ramsøy, T. Z. and Milosavljevic, M., 2012. Branding the brain: A critical review and outlook. In: Journal of consumer psychology. 2012, 22(1), 18-36. ISSN 1532-7663. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.010>
51. Plassmann, H., Venkatraman, V., Huettel, S. and Yoon, C., 2015. Consumer neuroscience: Applications, challenges, and possible solutions. In: Journal of Marketing Research. 2015, 52(4),427-435. ISSN 1547-7193.
52. Pop, N. A, Dabija, D. C. and Iorga, A. M., 2014. Ethical responsibility of neuromarketing companies in harnessing the market research – A global exploratory approach. In: Amfiteatru Economic. 2014, 16(35), 26-40. ISSN 2247-9104.
53. Pop, N. A. and Iorga, A. M., 2012. A new challenge for contemporary marketing – neuromarketing. In: Management & Marketing. 2012, 7(4), 631-644. ISSN 2069-8887.
54. Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O. and Illes, J., 2005. fMRI in the public eye. In: Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 2005, 6, 159-164. ISSN 1471-003X.
55. Robin, D. P. and Reidenbach, R. E., 1986. A framework for analyzing ethical issues in marketing. In: Business and Professional Ethics Journal. 1986, 5(2), 3-22. ISSN 0277-2027. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.5840/bpej19865232>
56. Rogers, S., 1992. How a publicity blitz created the myth of subliminal advertising. In: Public Relations Quarterly. 1992, 37, 12-12. ISSN 0033-3700.
57. Roskies, A., 2002. Neuroethics for the new millenium. In: Neuron. 2002, 35, 21-23. ISSN 0896-6273.
58. Russo, E. J., 1978. Eye fixations can save the world: a critical evaluation and a comparison between eye fixations and other information processing methodologies. In: Advances in Consumer Research. 1978, 5, 561-570. ISSN 0098-9258.
59. Samuhelova, M. and Simkova, L., 2016. Neuromarketing. Úvod do problematiky. Časť II. In: Marketing Science & Inspirations. 2016, 11(1), 2-21. ISSN 1338-7944.
60. Senior, C. and Lee, N., 2008. A manifesto for neuromarketing science. In: Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 2008, 7, 263-271. ISSN 1472-0817.
61. Spence, E. H., 2015. Ethics of neuromarketing: Introduction. in handbook of neuroethics. Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht, 2015, pp. 1621-1625. ISBN 978-94-007-4707-4. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4707-4>
62. Stanton, S. J., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. and Huettel, S. A., 2017. Neuromarketing: Ethical implications of its use and potential misuse. In: Journal of Business Ethics. 2017, 144(4), 799-811. ISSN 0167-4544. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3059-0>
63. Stasi, A., Songa, G., Mauri, M., Ciceri, A., Diotallevi, F., Nardone, G. and Russo, V., 2018. Neuromarketing empirical approaches and food choice: A systematic review. In: Food Research International. 2018, 108(November), 650-664. ISSN 0963-9969. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.11.049>
64. Thut, G. and Pascual-Leone, A., 2010. A review of combined TMS-EEG studies to characterize lasting effects of repetitive TMS and assess their usefulness in cognitive and clinical neuroscience. In: Brain Topography. 2010, 22, 219-232. ISSN 0896-0267.
65. Tybout, A. M. and Zaltman, G., 2016. Ethics in marketing research: Their practical relevance. In: Journal of marketing research. 2016, 11(4), 357-368. ISSN 1547-7193.
66. Ulman, Y. I., Cakar, T. and Yildiz, G., 2015. Ethical issues in neuromarketing: „I consume, therefore I am!“ In: Science and Engineering Ethics. 2015, 21(5), 1271-1284. ISSN 1471-5546. Available at: <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9581-5>
67. Volle, P., 2013. Le marketing peut-il être responsable? In: Après Demain. 2013, 1, 10-12. ISSN 0003-7176.
68. Wedel, M. and Pieters, R., 2006. Eye tracking for eye tracking for visual marketing. In: Foundations and Trends in Marketing. 2006, 1(4), 231-320. ISSN 1555-0753.
69. Wedel, M. and Pieters, R., 2015. A review of eye-tracking research In: Marketing. Review of Marketing Research. 2015, 123-147. ISSN 1944-7035.
70. Wilson, R. M., Gaines, J. and Hill, R. P., 2008. Neuromarketing and consumer free will. In: The Journal of Consumer Affairs. 2008, 42(3), 389-410. ISSN 1745-6606.
71. Zaltman, G., 1997. Rethinking market research: Putting people back. In: Journal of Marketing Research. 1997, 34(4), 424-437. ISSN 1547-7193.
72. Zaltman, G. and Kosslyn, S. M., 2000. Neuroimaging as a marketing tool (Patent No. US006099319A). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). 2000. [online]. [cit. 2023-11-14]. Available at: <https://patents.google.com/patent/US6099319A/en>

Kľúčové slová/Key words

neuromarketing, ethics, neuroethics
neuromarketing, etika, neuroetika

JEL klasifikácia/JEL Classification

D87, M31

Résumé

Prehľad etických otázok v neuromarketingu: Diskusia a možné riešenia
Vznik nových oblastí výskumu často vyvoláva vo vedeckej komunite názorové rozpory, najmä ak ide o ľudí. Spotrebiteľská neuroveda, v populárnom diskurze bežne označovaná ako neuromarketing, vyvolala v akademických kruhoch množstvo etických problémov a morálnych nejasností. Ak sa nezasiahne, tieto prekážky môžu brániť rozvoju tejto rodiacej sa disciplíny. Hoci sa niektoré etické obavy môžu zdať prehnané, je nevyhnutné, aby výskumníci aj neuromarketingové firmy dodržiavali prísne protokoly na ochranu údajov a ctili dôvernosť účastníkov štúdií.
Koncepcia neuromarketingu, ako sa bežne uvádza vo vedeckých prácach, označuje prienik oblastí neurovedy a marketingu. Táto definícia nám poslúžila ako katalyzátor nášho skúmania etických úvah vyjadrených v neuromarketingovej literatúre, situovaných do teoretických konštruktov neuroetiky a etiky marketingového výskumu. Tento článok skúma etickú dilemu z dvoch hľadísk, a to z hľadiska marketingového výskumu a neuroetiky. Nasledujúci diskurz sa zaoberá etickými problémami vyplývajúcimi z existujúcej neuromarketingovej literatúry, pričom poskytuje životaschopné riešenia a usmernenia na efektívne prechádzanie týmto neprebádaným etickým priestorom.

Recenzované/Reviewed

22. November 2023 / 29. November 2023