Neuromarketing vs. Traditional Methods: Can Brain Science Outperform Traditional Marketing Methods in Predicting Consumer Purchasing Behavior?

Background:

In a consumer-driven global economy, the effectiveness of traditional marketing methods, however eccentric, are slowly coming to a grinding halt. In today’s world, the people who fall for such surface level gimmicks are very few. And so, it seems that the only place to go now is inside. Inside the brain. Neuromarketing is an emerging but potential-filled interdisciplinary field combining neuroscience and market research and claims to bridge this gap by analysing how the brain responds to other advertising and brand related messages by scientifically analysing brain activity. This field uses advanced tools such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography, (EEG) and biometric sensors (eye-tracking, galvanic skin response). Experts in neuromarketing argue that it provides a window into the subconscious processes which influence our daily decisions especially when it comes to purchase intent. However, as this field steadily continues to grow, skepticism is not uncommon, with skeptics arguing that neuroscientific data may be over-interpreted, and its predictive power may be hyperbolized. Above all, the intimacy of the data accessed in the brain raises other potential ethical ramifications, regarding privacy and manipulation.

 

Research Question:

To what extent can neuromarketing techniques accurately predict consumer purchasing behavior compared to traditional survey-based methods, and how can ethical circumstances be maintained during its research?

 

Existing Literature:

Multiple research reports have confirmed the ability of neuromarketing approaches to determine consumer actions. Rodents in a study by Plassmann et al. (2012) demonstrated brain activity reflecting reward and emotional responses revealed more accurate responses about their choices than self-reported metrics did. The application of neuromarketing data for ad enhancement lies in practical examples described by Genco, Pohlmann, and Steidl (2013). Neuromarketing provides marketers with subconscious preference data which goes beyond what traditional approaches can discover according to Morin (2011). The study by Ohme et al. (2010) demonstrates how EEG and GSR measurements deliver detailed information about consumer emotional reactions to advertisements and these data patterns have been linked to buying patterns. The marketing strategies of companies receive substantial enhancement through neuromarketing tools such as fMRI and eye tracking that help identify attention patterns while providing data to optimize content presentation (Ariely & Berns, 2010; Dimoka, Pavlou, & Davis, 2011). Bercea (2012) explains that EEG and facial coding and GSR provide multiple perspectives for understanding consumer behavior patterns. Researchers raise increasing ethical doubts about neuromarketing practices despite their identified value. Faden (2016) leads alongside other critics who highlight ethical problems in neuromarketing because persuasion often becomes confused with manipulation thus requiring authorities to create regulations for these practices. The researchers Stanton, Sinnott-Armstrong, and Huettel (2017) support this ethical worry by focusing on research protection of vulnerable groups while emphasizing disclosure along with consent in neuromarketing studies. According to Fugate (2007) the immediate application of neuroscience in marketing exceeds our current understanding of resulting effects which requires constant oversight.

 

Methodology:​ 

Through mixed methods research the study determines the effectiveness of neuromarketing methods in consumer purchase evaluation by using both quantitative and qualitative measurement approaches. The research unites conventional feedback instruments with biological measurement data to create multidimensional data collection. Through multiple online platforms the team will gather 300 participants from different economic groups within the age range of 18– 55 years to obtain diverse behavioural and gender variations. Four random assignment groups completes a study to determine the effects that neuromarketing procedures have on participants. One group will view advertisements while undergoing biological response tools: EEG captures brainwave activity in decision-making and emotional areas, targeting alpha and gamma ranges; eye tracking records gaze behaviour, heatmaps, fixation durations, and scan paths; GSR measures skin conductance changes indicating arousal; facial coding uses AI to detect microexpressions based on Ekman’s emotions; fMRI, used on a subsample (n = 30), tracks oxygenated blood flow to identify cognitive load and engagement. The second group will be faced with standardized questionnaires to rates of commercial products with emotional appeal and verdicts about brand quality and advert retention as well as preferences towards purchase. The third group (control participants) will view emotionless content (nature scenes, historical clips) for baseline physiological and psychological response measurement. And finally, the fourth group will see the usage of biometric indexes will identify dimension correlations between purchase intent and recall through ANOVA, t-tests, and multivariate regression analysis by controlling all demographic variables. Researchers will evaluate relationships between biological indicators and time deployments of advertising. The study adheres to all ethical standards. Participation in the study provides both entry and exit flexibility to each participant who faces no negative effects from their decisions. Anonymity will be maintained. Data will be securely stored. The post-study debriefing process will handle disclosure about data management along with summary descriptions of study results and transparency measures. Researchers will utilize no identifiable data that could be employed for business activities or educational use beyond their academic work.

 

Research Significance:

This research holds significant importance when it comes to understanding the impact of neuromarketing on consumer behavior and ethics surrounding its useability. By factually and experimentally exploring and measuring neuromarketing’s advantages when compared to traditional marketing, the research will contribute to the rapidly growing body of evidence that seeks to guide the marketers in ethical and neurological practices will increase profitability twofold. Take the example of Amazon. Amazon made their checkout process and website just 1/10th of a second faster and increased their revenue by more than $2 billion. This is the power of neuromarketing. Its scale for making a massive and significant change in the way we market products and services and the way corporations do the same is unmatched. It stands atop the peak of the greatest marketing techniques, untouched by any other conventional and customary method of influencing our purchasing proclivities.

​

Bibliography (APA 7th Edition) :

Ariely, D., & Berns, G. S. (2010). Neuromarketing: The hope and hype of neuroimaging in business. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(4), 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2795

 

Bercea, M. D. (2012). Anatomy of methodologies for measuring consumer behavior in neuromarketing research. Economics and Finance Review, 2(3), 43–50.

 

Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P. A., & Davis, F. D. (2011). NeuroIS: The potential of cognitive neuroscience for systems research. Information Systems Research, 22(4), 687–702. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0284

 

Fugate, D. L. (2007). Neuromarketing: A layman's look at neuroscience and its potential application to marketing practice. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(7), 385–394. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710834807

​

Plassmann, H., Ramsøy, T. Z., & Milosavljevic, M. (2012). Branding the brain: A critical review and outlook. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.010

 

Morin, C. (2011). Neuromarketing: The new science of consumer behavior. Society, 48(2), 131– 135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-010-9408-1

 

Ohme, R., Reykowska, D., Wiener, D., & Choromanska, A. (2010). Analysis of neurophysiological reactions to advertising stimuli by means of EEG and galvanic skin response measures. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 3(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019092

 

Stanton, S. J., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Huettel, S. A. (2017). Neuromarketing: Ethical implications of its use and potential misuse. Journal of Business Ethics, 144(4), 799–811. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3059-0

​

Zurawicki, L. (2010). Neuromarketing: Exploring the brain of the consumer. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-77829-5

 

Faden, R. (2016). The ethics of neuromarketing: Manipulation vs. information. Journal of Medical Ethics, 42(3), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-103005

 

Genco, S. J., Pohlmann, A., & Steidl, P. (2013). Neuromarketing for dummies. Wiley.

 

Plassmann, H., Ramsøy, T. Z., & Milosavljevic, M. (2012). Branding the brain: A critical review and outlook. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.11.010

 

National Cancer Institute. (2018, January 8). Galvanic skin response. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancerterms/def/galvanic-skin-response