Neuromarketing and the perception of knowledge

Journal of Consumer BehaviourJ. Consumer Behav. 7: 415–419 (2008)Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/cb.260
Neuromarketing and the perceptionof knowledgeMichael J.R. Butler*Aston Business School, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK

� T

*CorScho7ET,E-ma1SeeSepttions

Asso

Cop

he emerging field of neuromarketing reveals that knowledge has plasticity. In other

words, different stakeholders, marketing researchers and practitioners, perceive the develop-

ment and application of neuromarketing knowledge in different ways. Having different

perceptions of knowledge is not a new issue, but finding new interconnections between those

perceptions is beneficial to knowledge creation and diffusion. The research–practice gap in

neuromarketing is briefly discussed and then resolved through the contribution of this

commentary, the proposal of a novel Neuromarketing Research Model. The Model

interconnects basic research reporting, applied research reporting, media reporting

and power processes.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

A man may be very sincere in good

principles, without having good practice.

Dr. Samuel Johnson (1709–1784): Bos-

well, Tour of the Hebrides, 25 October

1773.1

It may seem odd to connect neuromarketingand the perception of knowledge, but theemerging field of neuromarketing reveals afundamental tension within organisation studies– the perennial concern about the interconnec-tion between research and practice. It willbe argued here that the research and practiceaudiences have different perceptions about

respondence to: Michael J.R. Butler, Aston Businessol, Aston University, Aston Triangle, Birmingham B4UK.il: [email protected] S. (1977). Boswell, Tour of the Hebrides, 17ember 1773. In The Penguin Dictionary of Quota-

, Cohen JM, Cohen MJ (eds.), page 210. Book Clubciates, London.

yright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Jour

the development and application of knowl-edge about neuromarketing and, as a con-sequence, it is incumbent on this communityof practice, like other fields of knowledge, tofind a way of reconciling these differences. Tothis end, a novel research model for neuro-marketing is proposed.This is only a short commentary and so a

boundary will be put on the discussion byfocusing onwhat is meant by the perception ofknowledge, highlighting some key issuesconcerning neuromarketing and the research–practice interconnection and proposing aNeuromarketing Research Model.

Perception of knowledge

In 1967 Jacob Bronowski gave the forty-fourthSilliman Foundation Lectures at Yale Univer-sity. In the first lecture he argued that:

‘we need to review the whole of our

natural philosophy in the light of scientific

knowledge that has arisen the last fifty

nal of Consumer Behaviour, July–October 2008

DOI: 10.1002/cb

416 Michael J.R. Butler

years. It is really pointless to go on talking

about what the world is like . . . when the

modes of perception of the world which are

accessible to us have so changed in

character.’ (Bronowski, 1978, p. 4).

Three ideas emerge from this quote whichare relevant to this Special Issue: the meaningof natural philosophy, changing scientificknowledge and the role of perception.By natural philosophy Bronowski (1978,

p. 4) meant ‘that enterprise of the human mindwhich attempts to trace lawfulness in nature,dead and living, but which is not directed tospecific inquiries into how this or that lawworks’. Similarly, neuromarketing is con-cerned with the general nature of natural lawsbecause it has been defined as understandinghuman behaviour in the specific context ofmarkets and marketing exchanges (Lee et al.,2007).Bronowski (1978) also discusses how one

system of scientific knowledge replacesanother. Indeed, he anticipated the move toa focus on understanding human behaviour inbiological terms by, in his first lecture, askingthe question ‘What kind of an animal is a man’?(Bronowski, 1978, p. 7). Following this line ofquestioning, neuromarketing is attempting tounderstand the biology of human behaviour,especially, in this context, of the thoughts andactions of the consumer.By the role of perception Bronowski (1978,

p. 5) took a Kantian view: ‘He [Kant] wrote anumber of books and papers whose basicmessage was this: our knowledge of theoutside world depends on our modes ofperception, and I am going to write philosophyas a description of the structure of the world asseen by man’. Bronowski (1978) uses themetaphor of the physiology of the eye todiscuss perception, which he sees as the

problem for anyone who seeks to understandall aspects of nature. The eye exercises finediscrimination using very coarse units becausethe system of interconnection is such that agreat deal of overlap is created, and as a resultnot only the brain but the eye itself makesinferences about the world. The point for

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Jour

neuromarketing is the interconnection offrames of interpretation in order to achieve afuller understanding of consumer behaviour.

Unfortunately, there is more of a research–practice gap than an interconnection inneuromarketing. There is, though, a biologicalturn and a focus on understanding underlyingprocesses concerning markets and marketingexchanges. This commentary is concernedwith resolving the research–practice gap, butfirst, the nature of the gap needs to be brieflydiscussed.

Research–practice gap inneuromarketing

In a succinct and balanced survey of the field ofneuromarketing, Fugate (2007) concludes hisarticle by arguing that in order for the field tobecome legitimised, it would be necessary toconstruct a behavioural model that wouldpredict which stimuli (marketing inputs)provide the appropriate brain structure withthe material it needs to accomplish its assignedtask. He accepts that this is far in the future andrequires more of a shift from basic to appliedresearch in neuromarketing. Such a shift islikely to result in more complexity andambiguity, as simplistic and causal expla-nations of arousal and market behaviourbecome even rarer.

Similarly, Lee et al. (2007) emphasise theimportance of more scientific analysis to under-standing marketing-relevant human behaviour.In particular, the self-assessment measurescommonly used in marketing research relytotally on the ability and willingness of therespondent to accurately report their attitudesand/or prior behaviours. Instead, physiologicalresponses can be collected when respondentsare directly participating in the behaviour andare difficult for subjects to control.

In order to develop a newbehavioural modelof consumer behaviour, Fugate (2007) arguesthat marketing researchers and practitionersshould adopt new roles. Researchers shoulduse neuroimaging to confirm, reconfigure orimprove conventional theories of consumer


DOI: 10.1002/cb

Figure 1. Stokes’ (1997, p. 73) Quadrant Model of Scien-tific Research.

Figure 2. Tushman et al.’s (2007, p. 348) BusinessSchool Research Model (adapted from Stokes, 1997,p. 73).

Perception of knowledge 417

behaviour. Such validation efforts might not beconclusive, but it is likely that some strengthsand weaknesses in existing theories will bediscovered. Practitioners, for their part, shouldbe forthcoming with their experiments andresults, which might have two effects. First,releasing such data might demonstrate thatneuromarketing is not incompatible with con-sumer interests and, second, the data might helpconsumers know themselves better, so they cancurb, e.g. overspending, which, in turn, informspolicy making.There are moves to achieve Fugate’s (2007)

vision. Marketing researchers are using neu-roimaging in the context of consumer beha-viour. Kenning et al. (2007) have shown thatalthough in its infancy fMRI seems to be auseful and promising tool for market research-ers because it reveals how emotions influencebrand positioning, advertising strategies andpricing strategies.Practitioners are mindful of the need for

scientific rigour and ethical considerations intheir work. Michael Brammer (2004), Chair-man of Neurosense Limited, in correspon-dence with the Editor of Nature Neuroscience,pointed out commercial success depends onclients having confidence in the results theyare presentedwith and confidence comes fromrigour and ethical practice.Clearly, the research and practice audiences

still have different perceptions about thedevelopment and application of neuromarket-ing knowledge. In order to take advantage ofthe benefits of Bronowski’s (1978) interconnec-tion of frames of interpretation, it is important tofind a way of reconciling these differences.

Neuromarketing research model

A novel Neuromarketing Research Model isproposed to interconnect the different percep-tions of neuromarketing knowledge. It inter-connects marketing researchers, practitionersand other stakeholders. It is developed fromthe work of Stokes (1997) and Tushman et al.(2007; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007).Stokes (1997) proposed that research be

characterised by the joint goals of under-


standing and use (Figure 1). The QuadrantModel of Scientific Research shows how someresearch was driven by understanding but notuse, e.g. Bohr’s discovery of the structure ofthe atom. Other research developed applieduses, for instance, Edison’s invention of thephonograph. More research proceeded withjoint goals, e.g. Pasteur’s development ofmicrobiology.Tushman et al. (2007; Tushman and

O’Reilly, 2007) adapt Stokes’ (1997) Modelto inform the debate about the role of businessschool research (Figure 2). Tushman et al.(2007; Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007) argue thatunlike conventional academic disciplines whichfocus on basic disciplinary research (economics,psychology and sociology) and consulting firmswhich focus on meeting clients’ needs,business schools and professional schoolsmore generally are about rigour and relevance.Whilst agreeingwith Tushman et al.’s (2007;

Tushman and O’Reilly, 2007) argument, theirmodel is problematic. Not all business schoolresearch neatly fits into their professionalschools/business schools quadrant. Indeed,their quadrant compresses different researchactivities into one box.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

Figure 3. Neuromarketing Research Model (adaptedfrom Tushman et al., 2007, p. 348).

418 Michael J.R. Butler

By revisiting Stokes (1997) and combininghis work with Tushman et al.’s (2007; Tush-man and O’Reilly, 2007) work, a new Neuro-marketing Research Model is proposed tointerconnect basic research reporting, appliedresearch reporting, media reporting and powerprocesses (Figure 3). Power processes havebeen introduced because, as Stiles (2004)notes in his discussion of knowledge andacademic organisation, knowledge becomesideological and biased in favour of particularactors through a conflictual process. Theemergence of neuromarketing emphasisesthe need to utilise for the first time, all fourquadrants. The activities associated with eachquadrant are being explored, as researchfindings from neuromarketing are being dis-seminated.Basic research reporting satisfies the needs

of academics and applied research reportingthe needs of employers (Doherty, 1994). Mediareporting is less definitive because it satisfiesthe needs of the target audience for the publi-cation, which could be academic, employer oranother social group. Again, power processesis less definitive because they satisfy the needsof dominant actors in the networks identifiedhere: academia, work and the media (Cleggand Palmer, 1996).To explore the interconnections, brief

specific examples of the activities associatedwith each quadrant will be given. Currently,most attention is being given to basic researchreporting because the research is being under-taken now (e.g. Kenning et al., 2007).Nevertheless, media reporting is increasing.

Recently, the International Herald Tribune


(Elliott, 2008) reported on the neuroscientificpresentations at the 54th Annual Conventionand Exposition of the Advertising ResearchFoundation in New York. The article isextensive and balanced, explaining the viewsof marketing practitioners and researchers.

By engaging with basic research and mediareporting, the researchers have become sub-ject to power processes. The stakeholdersfrom both groups interpret the value of rigourand relevance in their own particular ways.When reporting basic research, the papers andthe ideas they contain become subject to peerreview. Media reporting becomes subject towhat interests the reader.

Because most attention is being given tobasic research reporting, so far, less attentionhas been given to applied research reporting.To echo Fugate’s (2007) comments, thisrequires more of a shift from basic to appliedresearch in neuromarketing. Some progress istaking place here, as evidenced by theappointment of Robert Knight, the Directorof the HelenWills Neuroscience Institute at theUniversity of California at Berkeley who is alsothe Chief Science Adviser at NeuroFocus, anorganisation similar to Neurosense.

Concluding remarks

Any new field of study, like neuromarketing,needs research to be performed in order toestablish their academic relevance. The dangerof this stage in the lifecycle of a new field ofstudy, is that the focus may be on addressingthe specialist needs of academic peer review,insulated from the wider social environment.As a consequence, neuromarketing drives rightat the heart of the research–practice gap inorganisation studies.

Bronowski (1978) reminds us that this is nota new issue and that interconnecting frames ofinterpretation will lead to a fuller under-standing of consumer behaviour. Indeed, in aprevious publication by the author aboutresearch possibilities for organisational cogni-tive neuroscience, it was argued that there is aneed for


DOI: 10.1002/cb

Perception of knowledge 419

‘evidence-driven contributions [to aca-

demic journals] to engage more with the

practice of organizing. . . This also raises

the issue of turning current research

findings into practical tools with which

to develop business and management’.

(Butler and Senior, 2007b, p. 208).

The contribution of this commentary is tofollow the guidance and propose a novelNeuromarketing Research Model. This is toreveal that not all business school researchneatly fits into Tushman et al.’s (2007; Tush-man and O’Reilly, 2007) professional schools/business schools quadrant. The case of neuro-marketing is used to emphasise the need toutilise all four quadrants. Further debate betweenall stakeholders involved in neuromarketing isneeded to explore and improve conceptualmodels of business school research.

Biographical notes

Michael JR Butler is a Lecturer in Managementin the Work and Organisational PsychologyGroup of Aston Business School, Aston Univer-sity, UK; is Co-Director of the university’scross-disciplinary Organisational CognitiveNeuroscience Centre (OCNC) and works as amanagement consultant across the private andpublic sectors. He focuses on change manage-ment, Management learning and organisationalpsychology. He has two teaching awards.

References

Brammer M. 2004. Correspondence—brain scam?

Nature Neuroscience 7(10): 1015.

Bronowski J. 1978. The Origins of Knowledge and

Imagination. Yale University Press: New Haven

and London.


Butler M JR, Senior C. 2007b. Research possibilities

for organizational cognitive neuroscience.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

1118: 206–210.

Clegg S R, Palmer G (eds). 1996. The Politics of

Management Knowledge. Sage: London.

Doherty G. 1994. Can we have a unified theory of

quality?. Higher Education Quality 48: 240–

255.

Elliott S. 2008. Exploiting brain waves and biology.

International Herald Tribune Monday 31

March: 8–9.

Fugate D L. 2007. Neuromarketing: a layman’s look

at neuroscience and its potential application to

marketing practice. Journal of Consumer Mar-

keting 24(7): 385–394.

Kenning P, Hilke P, Dieter A. 2007. Applications

of functional magnetic resonance imaging

for market research. Qualitative Market

Research: An International Journal 10(2):

135– 152.

Lee N, Amanda J B, Laura C. 2007. What is neuro-

marketing? a discussion and agenda for future

research. International Journal of Psychophy-

siology 63: 192–198.

Stiles D R. 2004. Narcissus revisited: the values of

management academics and their role in

business school strategies in the UK and Canada.

British Journal of Management 15: 157–

175.

Stokes DE. 1997. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic

Science and Technological Innovation. Brook-

ings Institution Press: Washington, DC.

Tushman M, O’Reilly C III. 2007. Research and

relevance: implications of Pasteur’s quadrant for

doctoral programs and faculty development.

Academy of Management Journal 50(4): 769–

774.

Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA, Fenollosa A, Kleinbaum

AM, McGrath D. 2007. Relevance and rigor:

executive education as a lever in shaping prac-

tice and research. Academy of Management and

Learning 6(3): 345–362.


DOI: 10.1002/cb

Documents

Neuromarketing and the perception of knowledge