master thesis - bibliotheek - universiteit van amsterdam
TRANSCRIPT
Master Thesis
The impact of the use of neuromarketing on a brands’ CBBE
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business
Master of Science in Business Administration
Track: Marketing
Under supervision of: dr. Evşen Korkmaz
By:
Student: Dima Shipil’ko
Student number: 10732284
7th of June, 2015
�2
Statement of originality
This document is written by Dima Shipil’ko who declares to take full responsibility for the
contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original
and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references
have been used in creating it.
The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of
completion of the work, not for its contents
�3
. 1 . Introduction 7
. 2 . Literature review 10 2.1 Neuromarketing 10 2.1.1 Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging 13 2.1.2 Electroencephalography 14 2.1.3 Magnetoencephalogram 15 2.1.4 Heart Rate 15 2.1.5 Challenges for neuromarketing 16
2.2 Consumer-based brand equity 19 2.2.1 Defining customer-based brand equity 19 2.2.2 Ingredients for customer-based brand equity 20
2.3 Conceptual model and construction of hypotheses 22 2.3.1 Main Hypothesis 23 2.3.2 Moderating hypotheses 24 2.3.3 Conditional hypothesis 26
. 3 . Research method 27 3.2 Instrumentation 27 3.2.1 Research design 28 3.2.2 Measurement 29
3.3 Procedure 31 3.3.1 Pilot study 31 3.3.2 Main Study 31
. 4 . Results 32 4.1 Reliability 32 4.2 Correlation Check 33 4.3 Model Testing 35
. 5 . Discussion 40 5.1 Relevance and Implications 42 5.1.1 Academic relevance 42 5.1.2 Managerial implications 42
5.2 Limitations and future research 43 . 6 . Conclusion 45 . Reference list 47 Internet resources 58 Images 59
�4
APPENDIX 1 - CBBE & Uncertainty Avoidance questionnaire 60 APPENDIX 2 - Coca-Cola case 62 APPENDIX 3 - Pepsi-Cola case 63 APPENDIX 4 - Neuromarketing case 64 APPENDIX 5 - ANOVA for the experimental groups per CBBE variable65APPENDIX 6 - Effect size of the levels of Uncertainty Avoidance on the CBBE variables 66
�5
Abstract
Neuromarketing is a marketing method already being used for 13 years, but the method is
still in its infancy. This method has much potential for marketers and firms, but also threads
on thin ice for consumer acceptance, as marketing does not generate positive feelings
within consumers in general (Heath & Heath, 2008). The current research was set out to
find the impact that neuromarketing could have on the CBBE (Keller, 1993) of two known
brands, namely Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola. Moreover, according to the Coca-Cola exper-
iment (Du-Jian Gang et al., 2012), Coca-Cola is a brand with strong positive associations
compared to Pepsi-Cola. This research tried to replicate the results of the former experi-
ment, to test wether consumers have a more positive bias towards Coca-Cola than Pepsi-
Cola. Furthermore, as Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions seem to impact a consumers
perception of a firms unethical behavior (Leonidiou et al., 2012), this research tried to find
the moderating impact of Uncertainty Avoidance on the decline of CBBE when a firm uses
neuromarketing as a marketing tool. 152 cases of survey data were collected from Dutch
consumers, which showed a more positive bias towards Coca-Cola, but did not find a de-
cline in CBBE when a brand used neuromarketing. Furthermore, no moderating relation-
ship was found through Uncertainty Avoidance. This thesis is concluded by managerial
implications and suggestions for future research.
Keywords: neuromarketing, CBBE, uncertainty avoidance, consumer response towards
neuromarketing and marketing
�6
Aknowledgments
I would like to thank the following people for their aid during the writing of this thesis. First
of all, I would like to thank dr. Evşen Korkmaz for her helping hand and guidance during
the thesis process. Furthermore, I would like to thank every individual that helped me with
the study, for filling out my questionnaire and helping me find more respondents. I would
also like to thank Anouar El Haji for clearing up my experimental design. Thank you all
again for your support.
I hope you enjoy reading this thesis.
Dima Shipil’ko (Amsterdam, June 2015)
�7
. 1 . Introduction
In the 90’s, professor Gerald Zaltman of the Harvard Business School took an interest in
investigating the consumers’ brain by using neuroscientific techniques to get a better un-
derstanding of their decision making process (Kwiatkowska, 2008). This resulted in a new
emerging field in marketing which, in 2002, was dubbed ‘neuromarketing’ (Smidts, 2002).
This new field combined the research field of marketers and neuroscientists, in which the
scientific methods like the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroen-
cephalography (EEG), galvanic skin response (GSR), magnetoencephalography (MEG),
steady state topography (SST), heart rate and respiratory rate (Giovanni et al., 2011; Vec-
chiato et al., 2010) are used to measure consumer preferences, consumer behavior and
their responses to marketing stimuli (Lewis & Bridger, 2005). This method also has opened
up possibilities for marketers for more effective marketing programs and it also comple-
ments modern marketing methods (Morin, 2011). Neuromarketing is said to be the best
method so far to collect unbiased consumer information (Egrie & Bietsch, 2014) but it is
also confined with ethical challenges. Marketing by itself walks a thin line between com-
mercial persuasion and manipulation of the consumer (Wible, 2011), and with neuromar-
keting the risk for manipulation has increased.
Since the method was first introduced, research on the topic has grown rapidly. Re-
search subjects ranged from showing the important implications neuromarketing has for
the marketers and consumers (i.e. Javor, Koller & Ransmayr, 2013; Morin, 2011; Hubert et
al., 2009) to the ethical issues that arise from this new research method (i.e. Wilson,
Gaines & Hill, 2008; Murphy, Illes & Reiner, 2008; Egrie & Bietsch, 2014). With the intro-
duction of neuromarketing, the ethical aspects of this method have become a high priority
for researchers. A big concern in this research is the question if marketers are able to by-
pass the consumers’ free will (Fisher et al., 2010). With current technology, companies like
�8
Shopperception and Anaxa Vida follow customers real-time by using in-store movement-
and eye-tracking (for more information: www.shopperception.com and www.anaxa-vida.-
com). This form of ‘stealth neuromarketing’ (Fisher, Chin & Klitzman, 2010) can be a pri-
mary source of unconscious consumer preference and can help marketers construct more
efficient, but also more intrusive, marketing strategies. This might also have an impact on
the perception consumers have of companies that use this marketing method, but this has
not been studied thoroughly. As the consumer is the centre of focus within marketing, he is
the most important factor within marketing research (Heath & Heath, 2008). However as
the latter authors propose, some but not much, research has been conducted on the con-
sumers’ response and attitude towards marketing. Where marketers are searching for the
best ways to sell their products, the response of the consumer has often been left out. The
studies that have been conducted, showed mostly negative media coverage (Dalsace &
Markovitch, 2009) and negative responses because of the lack of trust by consumers in
marketing (Sheth & Sisodia, 2005; Gaski, 2008). With neuromarketing being a relatively
new marketing method, no research has been conducted on the acceptance of this prac-
tice by consumers. As this might have an impact on the way consumers judge a brand, it is
therefore interesting to know how the use of neuromarketing affects a brands value. The
value a brand has to a consumer can be described by Keller’s (1993) customer-based
brand equity (CBBE). The author defines this as the added value a brand has for a prod-
uct, compared to the same product without the brand name. A famous neuromarketing ex-
periment that shows this brand equity, was the ‘Coca Cola experiment’. For this, an fMRI
scan was used to measure the preference for a brand, comparing Coca Cola with Pepsi-
Cola. In the blind condition, the majority of participants preferred Pepsi-Cola over Coca
Cola when tasting the drink. But when participants knew what drink they were served, the
fMRI scans showed a strong preference toward Coca Cola because of the positive associ-
ations they had with the brand (Du-Jian Gang et al., 2012, p. 285). The results of this study
�9
show how much a brand can affect consumer decision.
In this thesis we attempt to find out whether the knowledge of the use of neuromar-
keting by a brand affects its CBBE and what moderates this relationship. In light of the
Coca-Cola experiment, we use Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola to measure the effect of neu-
romarketing on their CBBE. The reason for choosing Coca-Cola as the main brand is, first-
ly, because it’s the world’s number four most valuable brand, secondly because Coca Cola
has publicly claimed to use neuromarketing (respectively Forbes, 2014; 2013) and to repli-
cate the results of the Coca-Cola experiment (Du-Jian Gang et al., 2012). With our re-
search, we wish to fill the gap of consumer response toward neuromarketing. Our main
research question is therefore “Does the use of neuromarketing generate a decline in the
CBBE of a brand”. Testing this is important, because ethical marketing is a valuable aspect
of conducting this practice. We acknowledge that neuromarketing might be seen as an un-
trustworthy method by the consumers as they do not seem to trust marketing in general.
Therefore we want to state the challenges for consumer approval of neuromarketing. Fur-
thermore, individuals may vary in their responses to neuromarketing. Some consumers
tend to seize their brand purchase if they deem its practices to be untrustworthy. According
to Leonidou et al. (2012) these individuals seem to score high in uncertainty avoidance (as
described by Hofstede, 1980), which states that they respond negatively to ambiguous sit-
uations and untrustworthy behavior. We therefore believe that individuals’ uncertainty
avoidance will have a moderating effect on the relationship between neuromarketing and
CBBE. In the following section we will discuss neuromarketing, its practices and its the
ethical concerns regarding its practice. In this section we will also describe the term brand
equity and we will propose hypothesis based on the assumptions made from the literature.
In the later sections, we will describe our research method along with the results, our con-
clusions, implications and future research.
�10
. 2 . Literature review
2.1 Neuromarketing
There are many marketing research methods used today, but they seem to face a com-
mon problem. These methods rely on the assumption that consumers are able to describe
their own cognitive process, but this seems to be more hope than fact. The reason for this
is that a consumers’ cognition has many subconscious elements, Morin (2011) concludes.
He describes the fact that consumers could be prone to distorting the research, for rea-
sons like incentives, time constraints or peer pressures. Kwiatkowska (2008) also argues
that the modern marketing is based on theories from the 1950’s. She notes that the ways
of our understanding of consumers has long been outdated and that new methods should
be developed. Current research methods consist of qualitative as well as quantitative
methods. Qualitative methods use an inductive approach on a small population, and they
are a good way to provide a psychological analysis and form a theory. On the other hand,
the amount of subjectivity leaves it open for bias of interpretation and its test procedure is
harder to control (Amaratunga et al., 2002). Another way of studying consumer behavior, is
the quantitative method. Herein, researchers use measurements to test hypotheses which
is focused on a large population in a controlled situation. It is efficient and fast, but it is in-
flexible and it can not generate theories (Amaratunga et al., 2002). Therefore, since 2002,
neuromarketing has attracted the attention of many marketers.
Neuromarketing was described in 2002 by Smidts (2002) as the research that is
able to measure neural activity in consumers brains while being exposed to marketing
stimuli. This research combines neuroscientific and marketing methods to gather more ef-
ficient information about consumers’ responses to marketing stimuli. Javor et al. (2013)
have distinguished two definitions for the use of neuroscience for marketing purposes in
their article, neuromarketing being the first and ‘consumer neuroscience’ as the second.
They define consumer neuroscience as the scientific research of consumer behavior. Neu-
�11
romarketing, on the other hand, was defined as the commercial application of neurology.
Consumer neuroscience relies on studies done in other areas of neuroscience, for exam-
ple social neuroscience and neuroeconomics (Smidts et al., 2014). These studies draw
conclusions on framing (De Martino et al., 2006), self-control (Hare, Camerer & Ranger,
2009), heuristic choice (Venkatraman et al., 2009) and trust, fairness, and reciprocity (Hsu,
Anen & Quartz, 2008). These research areas provide a solid basis for theorizing consumer
behavior (Yoone et al., 2012). These theories can be used to describe consumer decision
making and they can be used to build decision making models. These models and theo-
ries, in their turn, can be applied in neuromarketing research.
When neuromarketing was introduced, it was seen as a very promising marketing
tool of those times. Morin (2011) rendered that neuroimages could be used to measure
consumers emotional responses and get an insight on their latent wants and needs. With
this tool, marketers could get an inside-look into the mind of the consumer and therefore
provide a more customized product-promotion program. The marketing tool was perceived
to have much potential and its use by commercial companies has increased rapidly, from
13 in 2008, 60 in 2012 and to over 85 by 2013 (Levallois, Smidts & Wouters, 2013). Com-
panies like Brighthouse, SalesBrain, BrainTrends, BrainSigns, etc. are specialized in con-
ducting neuromarketing research and help brands effectively present their product. The
previously named Coca Cola-experiment is an example of such research. The results of
that experiment show that consumer decision making depends on more than just rational
preferences. Another research by Hubert et al. (2009) also shows how much latent wants
and needs affect the purchase decisions. They hypothesized that emotions and memories
can influence the perception of product packaging, and that these perceptions can affect
purchase decisions. The results state that perception of brands and products rely on con-
sumers’ emotional experiences with that brand. This leads to the notion that effective mar-
keting is lead by relevant emotional responses by consumers (Bagozzi, 1997). Although
�12
the concept of emotions affecting consumer decisions is not new within marketing (e.g.
Laros & Steenkamp, 2005; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982), neuroscientific methods are
more efficient in measuring emotional responses through neural activity than other market-
ing methods. These responses are then measured in the limbic system, the part of the
brain that is associated with emotions, seen in figure 1 (Joseph, 1992). (Neuro-)marketing
is most effective when its able to tap into the relevant regions of the brain; i.e. the amyg-
dala is associated with emotional memory (Phelps & Anderson, 1997), the hypothalamus
with controlling motivational states (hunger, satisfaction, comfort etc.) (meta-health.com,
2012) and the hippocampus that controls long- and short-term memory (National Institute
of Health, 2001). Various researchers believe that using neuroscientific methods for mar-
keting can aid marketers to, more efficiently,
tap into consumer decision making process-
es. Knutson et al. (2007) stated that the use
of an fMRI scanner during a shopping task
could aid in better predicting purchasing deci-
sions. The use of EEG technology, wherein
brainwaves can be measured, prove to be effective
for marketing efficacy (Ohme et al., 2009). Further-
more, consumer neuroscience has the advantage of
refining current theories and models that can provide insights in consumer decision mak-
ing (Greene et al., 2001). Like it has been noted above, current marketing methods seem
to be outdated (Kwiatkowska, 2008) and according to Bercea (2013), neuromarketing is
able to bridge the gap between current methods (i.e. qualitative and quantitative methods).
“It implies defining a problem (qualitative approach), defining and test hypothesis (quanti-
tative approach) and exploring the results in depth (qualitative approach)” (Bercea, 2013,
p. 9). Venkatraman et al. (2011) suggest that neuromarketing currently has contributed to
figure 1. The limbic system of the brain. Retrieved from http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/limbicsystem.gif
�13
our understanding of consumer behavior by making it possible to measure preferences by
measuring subjective value, that it is able to measure individual preferences which can aid
in the understanding of how and when preferences can change (Chib et al. 2009; Mon-
tague, King-Casas & Cohen, 2006; Plassmann, O’Doherty & Rangel, 2007). Neuromarket-
ing seems to have much potential for marketers and companies, and it is seen as a
method that can aid them in many ways. It complements current marketing tools and it is
able to help generate more efficient marketing strategies. But this method also faces its
own challenges. Neuromarketing deals with criticism by researchers, is subjected to ethi-
cal problems and might generate a negative response within consumers. These chal-
lenges will be discussed later, in section 2.1.5. Firstly we will discuss the methods used by
neuromarketing in the following paragraphs. As it was noted before, neuromarketing uses
various neurological techniques (e.g. fMRI, EEG, MEG). We will describe these briefly be-
low, but only describe the three most popular methods used within neuromarketing and
one that contrasts the most with those methods which is also frequently used by neuro-
marketers.
2.1.1 Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a neurological non-invasive method (the
body of the participant is not ‘invaded’ or cut open during research) used to measure and
map the consequences of altered electrical brain activity (Matthews & Jezzard, 2004).
These consequences can be measured through changes in blood perfusion, blood volume
or blood oxygenation that are caused through neuronal activity within the brain. The last
method is called blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) fMRI. Whenever neuronal ac-
tivity is increased, blood flow to the brain increases along with the oxygen levels
�14
(Matthews & Jezzard, 2004). This activity is then measured by the fMRI machine which
produces images of a changing mental state (which is
displayed in Figure 2). This method is able to provide an
image spatial resolution of a few millimetres and a tempo-
ral resolution of a few seconds. In other words, this
method can provide a more precise but a slower (than
other methods) image of neuronal activity. This method
can be used to provide images of activity within the previ-
ously mentioned limbic system, and thus a more objec-
tive consumer reaction to marketing stimuli. For a more
detailed overview of workings of fMRI and brain process-
es during neuronal activity, we want to refer the reader to the book by Ulmer and Jansen
(2013) called fMRI - Basics and Clinical Application.
2.1.2 Electroencephalography
Another method for measuring neuronal activity is called electroencephalography, or EEG
(Matthews & Jezzard, 2004). This non-invasive method
localises the underlying electrical activity of the brain
through electrical pulses sent out during brain activities
by placing electrodes on the scalp. This method provides
a fast temporal resolution (10 - 100 milliseconds), but a
bigger spatial resolution (between 1 and several cen-
timetres). Therefore this method is able to produce a
quicker response of neuronal activity than the fMRI, but
with a less precise position within the brain. To measure
the neural activation within the brain, electrodes are
figure 2. fMRI scan of the brain. Retrieved from http://psychcentral.com/lib/img/fm-ri_scan.jpg
figure 3. Spike waves of EEG scan of the brain. Retrieved from http://upload.wikime-dia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Spike-waves.png/220px-Spike-waves.png
�15
placed on the participants’ scalp that capture the change in voltage as neurons send out
pulses when activated (Kennett, 2012). This technique allows marketers to measure fast
changes in brain activity, but this method suffers from less precise localisation of brain ac-
tivation than the fMRI. For a more detailed explanation of this method and its basics, the
book Practical Approach to Electroencephalography by Liberson provides a great over-
view.
2.1.3 Magnetoencephalogram
A more recent method than the EEG is the magne-
toencephalogram, MEG for short (Lancet, 1990).
Neuronal activity produce electrical charges that are
measured by EEG, but these electrical charges also
produce magnetic fields. These magnetic fields
therefore are then measured by the MEG, also a
non-invasive method. This method also has the
same temporal resolution as the EEG, but it bene-
fits from a better spatial resolution (Lancet, 1990). This latter benefit stems from the fact
that the human scalp is relatively bad with conduction, and thus may distort the electrical
charges sent out by neural activation, whereas magnetic fields are not distorted. Therefore
MEG’s implication for marketers are similar to EEG, but with a more precise brain activa-
tion image. For a more detailed discussion on MEG, Clinical Magnetoencephalography
and Magnetic Source Imaging by Papanicolaou provides a good overview of this method.
2.1.4 Heart Rate
An increased heart rate (HR) is a physical reaction to sympathetic nervous activation
(Vecchiato et al., 2010). The sympathetic nervous system is activated whenever a person
figure 4. MEG scan. Retrieved from: http://mommasmoneymatters.com/wp-content/up-loads/2012/04/meg.jpg
�16
is stimulated or excited, otherwise known as the ‘fight-or-flight’ reaction. This method mea-
sures the HR when participants are exposed to (marketing) stimuli, and thus measures
their excitement. If excitement occurs, marketers are able to relate this to emotional re-
sponse toward the marketing stimuli. We shall not go into greater detail for this method, as
it mostly speaks for itself. In the following section we shall discuss the challenges faced by
neuromarketing.
2.1.5 Challenges for neuromarketing
Research on the benefits of neuromarketing has also been accompanied by research on
the challenges this method faces. Ariely and Berns (2011) distinguish the hypes from
hopes for neuromarketing in their article. They note that this research area has much po-
tential, but do state that this method is also highly expensive. Furthermore, neuromarket-
ing companies suggest that this method has the potential of finding the ‘buy-button’ within
the consumers (Javor et al., 2013). Although these companies try to convince that this
buy-button exists, the latter authors suggest otherwise. This means that neuromarketing
by itself is not a holistic marketing method, but is seen as more complementary to other
current methods (Javor et al., 2013). Furthermore, and more importantly, neuromarketing
is also subjective to ethical issues (Dinu, 2013). This method being a primary subject in
ethical marketing discussions, has attracted much research attention (Wilson, Gaines &
Hill, 2008; Fisher, Chin & Klitzman, 2010; Lindell & Kidd, 2013). An issue that has been
emphasized by Wilson et al. (2008), is that consumers lose their free will in buying deci-
sions if marketers are able to surpass the consumers unwillingness to buy a product. If
marketers are able to convince consumers without their consent, then this can be seen as
an intrusion into the consumers mind (Canli & Amin, 2002; Illes, 2003; Hyman, 2004;
Kennedy, 2004; New York City Bar Association, 2005). This could allow marketers to ma-
nipulate consumers into making purchase decisions (Neuroscience, 2004). Wilson et al.
�17
(2008) conclude that consumers should be informed about the use of neuroimaging data
for commercial use, and they should be able to give their consent in the use of this method
for influencing consumer decision making while purchasing products. The authors state
that future research must be conducted on the ownership of neuroimaging information,
how can it be combined with existing databases and under what conditions can it be used
by companies and/or sold to third parties.
Another study conducted by Fisher et al. (2010) states a similar research question
and results, namely what ethical issues can arise from the use of neuromarketing in com-
mercial applications. They conclude that neuromarketing can have significant professional,
ethical and scientific concerns. Professional ethics can be a difficult subject to discuss and
the new practice of neuromarketing can host contradicting opinions on the use of this re-
search method. Fisher et al. (2010) also point out the possibility of stealth neuromarketing,
but concluded that this wasn't possible at that time with the technology available. But as
Foscht and Swoboda (2012) predicted, it would be possible to monitor consumers in the
store much more effectively. Like it has been described in the introduction, today’s compa-
nies like Shopperception and Anaxa Vida use real-time in-store monitoring and eye-track-
ing of consumers. In the eye of the consumer, neuromarketing methods can hold an immi-
nent threat to their free will. Smidts et al. (2014) also bring up the advancement in con-
sumer neuroscience, in which they propose marketing possibilities within the genetics and
molecular neuroscience. This poses the question if marketers, with the current technology
and upcoming technologies, will still be able to conduct ethical marketing practices. Be-
cause of the likelihood of this threat, the ‘Neuromarketing Science and Business Associa-
tion’ (NMSBA) has drawn up a Code of Ethics that prevents the use of neuromarketing re-
search with the intention to manipulating the consumer (NMSBA, 2013). All its members
are bound to comply to this code and are not allowed to take advantage of the partici-
pants. Still a lot of research must be done on this fairly new research method. Fisher et al.
�18
(2010) provide future research questions comparable to Wilson et al. (2008), stating that
research is needed to see by whom and for which goals neuromarketing is being used,
and ask if there is a perceived return on the use of this method. Effective use of the
method may benefit a companies revenue, but this aspect is also susceptible to consumer
response to neuromarketing.
If neuromarketing is to be used unethically, this might damage the consumer trust
and thus result in a negative impact on the company using the method. Therefore mar-
keters must be aware of the consumer response toward neuromarketing. As there is some
research on consumer acceptance of marketing (Sheth and Sisodia, 2005; Dalsace &
Markovitch, 2009; Gaski, 2008; Kachersky & Lerman, 2013), no research could be found
on consumer attitude toward neuromarketing. The research that has been conducted on
consumers’ view on marketing, showed mostly negative responses because of the belief
that marketing conducted untrustworthy and unethical behavior. Consumers believe that
marketing efforts are mostly used to benefit the firms instead of satisfying consumers’
wants and needs (Kachersky & Lerman, 2013). Marketers must therefore be careful in us-
ing neuromarketing in the wrong ways, because consumers might respond negatively to
this practice if they perceive it as unethical (Yoo & Donthu, 2002). These responses may
be influenced by individual characteristics, such as Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions
(i.e. uncertainty avoidance, individualism). Yoo and Donthu (2002) concluded that uncer-
tainty avoidance and collectivism is positively related to firms’ marketing ethics. Other re-
search also shows that individual perception of ethical attitudes and judgement is also re-
lated to individualism and uncertainty avoidance (Jackson, 2001). These results show that
ethical behavior by brands will be judged differently by an individuals level of the cultural
dimensions. The way a brand is judged will have an effect on its consumer value. With our
research, we wish to measure if the use of neuromarketing will affect the value of a brand
�19
that uses this marketing method. This value of a brand is described by customer-based
brand equity and is described in the following section.
2.2 Consumer-based brand equity
Brand equity has been studied on multiple accounts (i.e. Aaker & Biel, 1992; Farquhar,
1989) and is described as the added value a brand name has to a product opposing the
same product without the brand name. In this section we firstly describe customer-based
brand equity (CBBE) as defined by Keller (1993) in his article. This is a logical step to take,
as our research is also focused on consumer response to neuromarketing. Furthermore
we will also briefly discuss what factors build up customer-based brand equity, after which
we will present our hypotheses based on this description of CBBE. Herein we will describe
how CBBE might be affected by the use of neuromarketing by brands.
2.2.1 Defining customer-based brand equity
Branding of a product is a practice that has been done for centuries. The reasons for
branding consist of assuring consumers of a certain quality, legal protection and offering
value to a product (Farquhar, 1989). The latter is also known as brand equity (Leuthesser,
1998). Much research, especially within Marketing Science Institute (MSI), has been con-
ducted on the concept of brand equity and how this helps to build, manage and extend a
brand (i.e. Broniarczyk & Alba, 1994; Farquhar, 1989; Feldwick, 1996). Keller (1993) de-
fines CBBE “as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the
marketing of the brand” (p. 8). Differential effect, in Keller’s (1993) paper, is defined as the
effect a known brand has over a fictitious brand when the same marketing mix occurs.
Consumer response can be seen as the consumers’ preference, perception and behav-
iours that occur from the marketing mix. And the latter, brand knowledge, he describes by
brand awareness and brand image. A clear overview of the latter concepts can be seen in
�20
Figure 5. A more detailed description can be found in Keller’s (1993) article, as it goes be-
yond the scope of this thesis. Further in this section, we will focus on building customer-
based brand equity.
2.2.2 Ingredients for customer-based brand equity
To achieve a high level of customer-based brand equity, a brand must develop strong
brand associations through well chosen brand identities (i.e. name, logo) and these must
be supported by a strong marketing program (Keller, 1993). The choice of brand identities
can help enhance brand awareness or link brand associations. A well chosen brand name,
for example, can affect the recall and recognition of the brand (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987).
The latter authors conclude that a brand name/logo must be simple, familiar and distinctive
figure 5. Keller’s (1993) overview of brand image and brand awareness
�21for a strong and positive affect. For this to be effective, a supporting marketing program
must be developed that can increase brand awareness and the intention to purchase the
brand’s products (Keller, 1993). The marketing program can help increase the brand famil-
iarity, which is defined as the accumulated product experience by the consumer (Alba &
Hutchinson, 1987). A well chosen marketing program can affect favourable, strong and
unique brand associations and experiences, which can help increase the CBBE (Keller,
1993).
Besides these primary and more direct sources of brand associations (i.e. brand
name or communications by the brand), consumers also develop their own associations
that can be indirectly linked to the brand. This is what Keller (1993) calls secondary asso-
ciations. These can be evoked through the company, the country of origin, the distribution
channels, celebrity spokesperson or an event. The first three are associations from factual
sources (who makes it, where is it made, where is it purchased) and this information is
mostly available to everyone. For example, consumers may deem a company to be reli-
able with their products (i.e. Apple). Consumers may also think the country of origin plays
a big role in a product’s reliability (i.e. German cars are seen as efficient and reliable).
Also, the distribution channels may play a role in forming brand associations (i.e. certain
retailers selling certain brands). The latter sources of secondary associations, the celebrity
spokesperson or an event, “occur when primary brand associations are for user and usage
situation attributes” (Keller, 1993). When a celebrity promotes a brand, associations to-
wards this celebrity can spill over to the brand (Rossiter & Percy, 1987). This is also possi-
ble when the brand is linked to a certain event by the consumer (Keller, 1993). These sec-
ondary associations may become important when a consumer does have existing brand
associations, but when these lack power. Secondary associations can then help to achieve
strong and favourable associations toward the brand, however relying on these can be
risky as there is less control over the consumers’ secondary attributes toward the brand.
�22In the following section we construct our hypotheses and conceptual model based
on the literature noted above. Afterwards we describe our research method in which we
give a detailed explanation of the instrumentation used for our research. We conclude our
research by presenting the results, discussion and room for future trajectories.
2.3 Conceptual model and construction of hypotheses
In this thesis we want to describe the relationship between Neuromarketing and CBBE.
This relationship is shown in Figure 6, our conceptual model, with ‘Brand’ and ‘CBBE’ as
the two major factors. Within this model we describe the positive relationship between the
brand and CBBE. As described in the previous section, a brand can have a positive effect
on the consumer value. We believe that the brand we use, namely Coca-Cola, will have a
positive effect on its value because of its positive associations (Du-Jian Gang et al., 2012).
However, we do believe that this relationship may be affected by factors, which we de-
scribe as ‘neuromarketing’ and ‘uncertainty avoidance’. We expect that the use of neuro-
marketing will have a negative impact on the CBBE of a brand because of the lack of trust
in marketing in general as we described earlier. Hence the negative effect of this moderat-
ing relationship between neuromarketing and CBBE. However, we do believe this effect to
be less strong when a highly valued brand (Forbes, 2014) uses this method, than when a
lesser valued brand uses this marketing tool. Furthermore, this model also investigates the
moderating role of Hofstede’s (1980) uncertainty avoidance on the moderating relationship
of neuromarketing. We believe that consumers that have a high level of uncertainty avoid-
ance will also be more reluctant to purchase brands’ products when they deem the brands
marketing practices to be unethical. We choose this moderator because of its highest im-
pact on consumer trust in case of unethical behavior by a firm (Leonidou et al., 2012). A
total of 5 hypotheses have been constructed which we describe in the following section.
During the study, we provide our participants with a case wherein neuromarketing will be
�23
explained and also will be placed in a situation where it is used by a brand for the design
of their new advertising campaigns.
2.3.1 Main Hypothesis
As we described in the previous section, the amount of value a product of a known brand
has above the same product without the brand name, is described by brand equity (Aaker
& Biel, 1992). Keller (1993) looked at this concept from the consumers’ point of view and
described this as CBBE. He notes that a product from a well known brand, with positive
associations, will have a higher CBBE than the same product without the brand name. As
we noted in the introduction, and in light of the Coca-Cola experiment (Du Jian Gang et al.,
2012), Coca-Cola is a brand with positive associations. These associations, we believe,
will have a more positive effect on a drink of Coca-Cola than on the same drink with Pepsi-
Cola as a brand. As it has been concluded by the experiment by Du Jian Gang et al.
(2012), Pepsi-Cola has a lower CBBE than Coca-Cola. Therefore, we present the following
hypotheses:
figure 6. Conceptual model
CBBE+
UncertaintyAvoidance
Brand
Neuormarketing
- +
�24H1a: Pepsi-Cola will have a lower CBBE than Coca-Cola
H1b: Coca-Cola will have a higher CBBE than Pepsi-Cola
2.3.2 Moderating hypotheses
Leonidou et al. (2012) noted that there are several factors that result in a positive relation-
ship between consumers and a brand. These are ‘trust’, ‘satisfaction’ and ‘loyalty’. They
conclude that when consumers trust a brand, they will be more likely to be satisfied with
the brand and thus loyal to it. Consumers that are loyal tend to reinforce the relationship
they have built with a brand, rather than risking a new relationship which might bring un-
certainties (Macintosh et al., 1992). Trust plays a big role in a brands’ performance, com-
pany loyalty, purchase intention and market performance (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001;
Metzler et al., 2008), although Dick and Basu (1994) do conclude that satisfaction does
not lead to repurchase all the time. Anyhow, there is evidence that in case of good experi-
ences with a firm, consumers tend to increase repurchase behavior and commitment (An-
tón et al., 2007). Thus, it could be stated, that when consumers are satisfied with a brand,
they most likely trust the brand and its actions. A known brand like Coca-Cola seems to
have consumer trust, as it is one of the worlds most valuable brands (Forbes, 2014; Sta-
tista, 2014), and has almost fifty percent of the global market share of carbonated bever-
ages in 2015 (Statista, 2015). Following the findings by Leonidou et al. (2012), it can be
believed that consumers will have positive associations with Coca-Cola, and thus be satis-
fied and trust the brand and its actions. Also, Hustvedt and Kang (2013) noted that building
consumer trust requires transparency by the firm. They state that when a firm is transpar-
ent about their actions, this can result in an intention to purchase their products and
spread positive word of mouth. We believe that the knowledge of Coca-Cola using neuro-
marketing will not cause a significant decline in its CBBE because of the satisfaction, trust
�25
and loyalty for the brand that consumers already seem to possess. Our hypotheses are
therefore:
H2a: The use of neuromarketing by the brand Coca-Cola will not affect its CBBE
H2b: The CBBE of Coca-Cola will be higher than Pepsi-Cola if neuromarketing is
used
According to the notions made above, consumers that have less positive associations with
a brand, will not have the same trust in that brand as they do with a brand like Coca-Cola.
Therefore it is possible that Pepsi-Cola, with less positive associations (Du Jian Gang et
al., 2012), will generate more feelings of distrust in their marketing actions, as consumers
do not seem to trust marketing in general (Heath & Heath, 2008; Pollay & Mittal, 1993).
This is mostly caused by consumers’ suspicion of marketing deception. As Fisher et al.
(2010) note, neuromarketing has manipulative potential, and can thus lead to a higher
sense of distrust within consumers. The lack of trust in marketing and no experience with
an unknown brand may cause greater distrust in that brand. We therefore state the hy-
potheses:
H3a: The use of neuromarketing by the brand Pepsi-Cola will have a negative im
pact on its CBBE, than when this tool is not used
H3b: The CBBE of Pepsi-Cola will be lower than Coca-Cola if neuromarketing is
used
�26
2.3.3 Conditional hypothesis
Neuromarketing being a relatively new marketing method, its use and implications are not
always straightforward and uncertain at times according to research, as mentioned in the
literature review. Also no research on consumer response to this method has been con-
ducted. Therefore we believe consumer knowledge on neuromarketing will unlikely be de-
tailed, and for them will mostly be an unknown area. According to Hofstede (1997), people
differ when it comes down to ambiguous or unknown situations. Some people are more
comfortable than others with situations that require coping with uncertain moments in their
lives. This is one of Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions, namely uncertainty avoidance.
Individuals that have a high degree of uncertainty avoidance tend to feel more uncomfort-
able in situations they cannot control. These individuals feel more at peace in environ-
ments that are controlled and are structured in the way they know (Vitell et al., 2003). On
the other hand, individuals that tend to score low on uncertainty avoidance are more com-
fortable taking risks, feel more comfort in situations that are not part of a routine and tend
to be more flexible than their counterparts (Yoo & Donthu, 2002). Both the latter authors
and Vitell et al. (2003) confirmed that ethical behaviors by a firm and uncertainty avoid-
ance correlate positively. When people with high uncertainty avoidance perceive a firms
practices to be unethical, this lowers their trust in the firm (Leonidou et al., 2012). Thus it
can be stated that individuals in high uncertainty avoidance are more reluctant to purchase
products from companies they deem to behave untrustworthy. As we mentioned earlier,
research showed that consumers seem perceive marketing as untrustworthy. If this is the
case, and consumers believe neuromarketing to be unethical, we believe that individuals
with high uncertainty avoidance will respond more negatively to a brand when this brand
uses neuromarketing as a method. Therefore, our last hypothesis is:
�27
H4: The negative moderating effect of neuromarketing on the relationship between
brand and CBBE will be higher in individuals with a high level of uncertainty avoid
ance than individuals with lower levels of uncertainty avoidance.
. 3 . Research method
In this chapter we describe our research methodology. In the first section our research
sample is described after which, in the second section, we present our instrumentation,
research design and measurement. The third section provides the procedure and how the
data has been collected.
3.1 Research sample
For this thesis, the population was taken from the Coca-Cola consumer group. Coca-
Cola’s main target group is mostly the younger generation (12 to 18 years), but they also
focus on young adults with their Coca-Cola Zero and Light campaigns (cocacolaneder-
land.nl, 2015). For our research we seek a group that has more knowledge on marketing,
and thus for this reason, we believe that the young adult group is most representative. In
the Netherlands there are 4.1 million people between the ages 20 and 40, which covers
the largest part of the young adult group (CBS, 2014). For this study a non-probability
sampling method was used, because no sampling frame could be achieved for such a
large population. The study took place mostly among students from the University of Ams-
terdam, most of which came from the master Business Administration. There are around
2000 students participating in the master, and according to the power analysis from www.-
surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm, around 330 responses were needed.
3.2 Instrumentation
�28
In this study, we assigned the participants randomly into four different groups. These were
named the control, brand, neuromarketing and interaction. To measure the effect of neu-
romarketing and its practices (conditions) on the CBBE of Coca-Cola, we compared the
conditions’ effect on CBBE with each other. The groups used in this experiment are dis-
played in Table 1. Because we wanted to measure if neuromarketing and its practices
caused a decline in CBBE, we believe that the experimental design would be the best
method for this study. This is because of random assignment to the conditions, the control
group and the manipulation of variables. Statistical data was acquired through surveys
filled out by the participants, because surveys form a formal method to test hypotheses
statistically in quantitative research. The surveys were filled out at one point in time, and
therefore this makes this study cross-sectional.
3.2.1 Research design
For the study, all participants filled out the questionnaire measuring CBBE, which also in-
cluded demographic questions and which can be found in Appendix 1. In addition to the
brand equity questionnaire, the participants in the brand and interaction condition also
filled out items that measured attitude, ownership, purchase intention and experience with
the brand (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). This was done in order to measure if participants are fa-
miliar with our chosen brands and if they have experience with the products. Also, we
wanted to account for any positive bias towards Coca-Cola, as we expected the brand to
Table 1: Experimental Groups
Brand used
Neuromarketing used
No Yes
No Control Brand
Yes Neuromarketing Interaction
�29
be positively rated by most of the participants (according to the Coca-Cola experiment
mentioned earlier and Coca-Cola’s status as a brand). The items on purchase intention,
attitude and involvement of the brand were placed after CBBE. The reason for placing atti-
tude and intention after brand equity, was to reduce the halo effect that is common in mul-
tiattribute attitude models, “in which subjects distort their perceptions when expressing
their overall attitudes before they evaluate details that contribute to the attitudes” (Yoo &
Donthu, 2001, p. 5).
Firstly, participants in the control group read a case on a product of ‘Pepsi-
Cola’ (Wikipedia, 2015; Appendix 3) which sells a similar carbonated soft drink as Coca-
Cola, which was followed by the questionnaire on CBBE. Participants in the brand condi-
tion had a similar procedure, except in their essay on Pepsi-Cola was replaced by an es-
say on Coca-Cola (Appendix 2). Secondly, participants in the neuromarketing and interac-
tion conditions also read an essay on a product of a brand (respectively Pepsi-Cola and
Coca-Cola), and this was also followed by an essay on neuromarketing and the fact that
their brand uses this tool for the design of their latest marketing campaigns (Appendix 4).
Moreover, these latter conditions also filled out the questionnaire on CBBE, and lastly a
questionnaire on Uncertainty Avoidance as well (Appendix 1).
3.2.2 Measurement
In this study, two sets of questionnaires were used to measure CBBE and uncertainty
avoidance. The items of these questionnaires were measured through, respectively, a five-
point and seven-point Likert scale. Apart from these items, the concepts of brand experi-
ence and brand usage/ownership were measured by yes or no items. Brand experience
was measured by “Have you ever bought Coca-Cola?” and brand usage/ownership by “Do
you currently use/own Coca-Cola?”. Purchase intention was measured by the items “I
would like to buy Coca-Cola” and “I intend to purchase Coca-Cola” on a five-point scale.
�30
Attitude was measured by five-item scales of “very bad/very good”, “very nice/very awful”,
“very attractive/very unattractive”, “very desirable/very undesirable” and “very likeable/very
unlikable”. Lastly, brand involvement was measured by five-point items: “I am very in-
volved with Coca-Cola”, “I drink Coca-Cola very often”, “I am a Coca-Cola expert” and “I
am not interested in Coca-Cola” (Yoo & Donthu, 2001).
As Keller (1993) only provided the ingredients for CBBE, but has not defined a clear
scale on how the concept should be measured. Therefore we borrowed the scale from Yoo
and Donthu (2001) for our first questionnaire on CBBE. The authors comprised a multidi-
mensional scale for the measurement of this concept based on extensive research on the
subject. The questionnaire consists of four variables, namely ‘brand loyalty’, ‘brand aware-
ness and associations’, ‘perceived quality’ and ‘overall brand equity’. Brand loyalty was
described as the intention to buy the brand as a primary choice (Yoo and Donthu, 2001)
and consists of three items. Perceived quality is the subjective evaluation by consumers
on product quality (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 3), and consists of two items. Brand awareness is
“the ability for a buyer to recognise or recall that a brand is a member of a certain product
category” (Aaker, 1991, p. 61), and is measured by two items. Brand associations is de-
fined as everything that the memory links to a brand (Aaker, 1991), which can be strength-
ened by experiences, which has three items. Overall brand equity measures the brand eq-
uity in general, which is assessed by four items. The items are measured by a five-point
Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”. The items cho-
sen all showed a Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.70 (Yoo & Donthu, 2001). A higher score
on all four variables for a brand, would imply a higher CBBE for that brand.
The second questionnaire on uncertainty avoidance, has been taken from Hofst-
ede's (1980) cultural dimensions. This questionnaire measures the amount of risk avoid-
ance or risk seeking behavior within participants. The measurement of this variable is
measured through four items, which also had a Cronbach’s alpha higher than 0.70. These
�31
items were measured by a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
7 = strongly agree.
3.3 Procedure
The data for this research was collected through an online survey. A pilot study was con-
ducted to account for any inconsistencies in the research design, after which the main
study has been done.
3.3.1 Pilot study
A pilot study was conducted among five respondents, four male and one female, prior to
the research on the 7th of May 2015. This was done in order to account for any inconsis-
tencies and inconveniences that may occur during the research, thus their results were not
included in the main research. The respondents were mostly personal acquaintances of
the researcher, which differ from education and lifestyle. Following the pilot study, we re-
moved the items on ‘product involvement’, as this seemed not to be of value to the results.
Furthermore, we initially used ‘Brand X’ to compare it to Coca-Cola on their CBBE, but we
noticed that the participants associated a ‘cola’ product directly to Coca-Cola. To account
for this occurrence, we changed Brand X to ‘Pepsi-Cola’, as to create more contrast be-
tween the brands, which is also a replication of the Coca-Cola experiment (Du Jian Gang
et al., 2012) mentioned before. Afterwards, we also adjusted our hypotheses according to
this change. SPSS 22.0 for Mac was used to measure reliabilities.
3.3.2 Main Study
Qualtrics.com was used to distribute the online survey, and the data was collected through
this website. On the 8th of May 2015 the survey was distributed to the researcher’s per-
sonal network through social media (Facebook) and through e-mailing the Business Stud-
�32
ies student group. Also, the respondents were asked to spread the survey in their personal
network. Therefore, the snowball technique helped to gather more respondents than the
researcher could reach himself. The survey was online until the 21st of May 2015. No ex-
act number of surveys spread could be noted, as it was unclear how many surveys were
spread among the personal networks of the researchers acquaintances.
. 4 . Results
A total of 205 responses were returned after thirteen days. Of these responses, 53 partici-
pants did not fill out more than 50% of the questionnaire. Therefore, these 53 were dis-
carded from the data. The total number of participants consisted was 152, male (n = 93)
and female (n = 59) with a mean age of 29. Three items from the questionnaire were re-
coded, namely “I have difficulty in imagining Coca-Cola/Pepsi-Cola in my mind”, “Uncer-
tainty is a normal feature of life and each day must be accepted as it comes” and “Fear of
ambiguous situations and of unfamiliar risks is normal” because these were counter-in-
dicative.
4.1 Reliability
Reliable items are items that measure the variable that they should measure. Therefore,
for the items in used in our research, a reliability analysis was conducted. A way to mea-
sure the reliability of items is through the Cronbach’s alpha. When the alpha is >.70, the
item can then be presumed as reliable. Table 2 shows the reliability analysis, where the
reliability of the variables is displayed per brand category. As can be seen below, most
variables were reliable, as the alpha is above .70. However, for the variables Perceived
Quality of Coca-Cola, Brand Awareness/Associations of Coca-Cola, Purchase Intention of
Coca-Cola and Uncertainty Avoidance, the scale did not reach above the threshold.
�33
Firstly, the variable Perceived Quality of Coca-Cola reached an alpha of .60. This
indicates that the items within the scale are not internally consistent enough for this con-
struct to be reliable. Deleting items within the variable would not affect the measurement in
any way (probably because this variable consisted of only two items). However, this vari-
able was needed for testing the hypotheses. Therefore it was kept for further analysis. The
same also goes for Brand Awareness/Associations of Coca-Cola. The alpha of this vari-
able does not reach a positive score, namely a -.31 alpha. However, deleting the item
“Some characteristics of Coca-Cola come to my mind quickly” raises the alpha to .69. As
the score increased significantly by deleting the item, this item was discarded from the
variable. Furthermore, Purchase Intention of Coca-Cola scored .04 on reliability. As this
variable was merely to check for positive bias of Coca-Cola, it was not needed for the de-
fined hypotheses. Therefore it was removed from the research, and is not mentioned in
Table 2 below. Because we will not be able to compare Coca-Cola with Pepsi-Cola on
Purchase Intention, we have also removed this variable for Pepsi-Cola.
The alpha for Uncertainty Avoidance did not reach a positive score, namely -.56.
This means that the internal consistency was negative between the items. The results
showed that these items were negatively correlated with each other. This suggests that
this variable does not measure what it should measure. This could mean that the partici-
pants, for some reason, did not answer consistently on the the scale items. However, while
this variable and its items were unreliable, it was needed for one of the hypotheses. Never-
theless, as we we used this variable in our analysis, we cannot say anything conclusive
about the measures.
4.2 Correlation Check
Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to measure if variables are related. Ta-
bles 3 and 4 below show these correlations. It can be seen that mostly the correlations
�34
from the Pepsi-Cola measures were significant (p<0.05), but only six from the Coca-Cola
measurements had reached significance. For both groups (Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola),
the measurement of Uncertainty Avoidance was not related to any of the other variables.
This is also in line with the negative Cronbach’s alpha that was described for Uncertainty
Avoidance in the previous section.
Table 2: Reliability of scales*
Variable N of Items Cronbach’s Alpha*
Brand Loyalty Pepsi-Cola 3 .79
Perceived Quality Pepsi-Cola 2 .71
Brand Awareness/Associations Pepsi-Cola
5 .75
Overall Brand Equity Pepsi-Cola 4 .89
Brand Loyalty Coca-Cola 3 .82
Perceived Quality Coca-Cola 2 .60
Brand Awareness/Associations Coca-Cola
5 .69
Overall Brand Equity Coca-Cola 4 .87
Attitude Pepsi-Cola 5 .95
Attitude Coca-Cola 5 .88
Uncertainty Avoidance 4 -.56
*Cronbach’s alpha should be > 0.70
�35
4.3 Model Testing
This research was based upon testing wether Coca-Cola would have a higher CBBE than
Pepsi-Cola (hypothesis 1a and 1b), if the knowledge of the use of neuromarketing by a
brand would negatively affect its CBBE (hypothesis 2a and 3a) and if Coca-Cola would
have a higher CBBE than Pepsi-Cola if those brands used neuromarketing as a tool (hy-
pothesis 2b and 3b). Furthermore, we tested if the different levels of Uncertainty Avoid-
Table 3: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Cronbach’s Alpha of Pepsi-Cola related questions
Nr Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 Loyalty 1,71 ,69 (,79)
2 Quality 3,09 ,87 ,448** (,71)
3 Awareness/Associations
3,96 ,68 ,09 ,240* (,75)
4 Overall Equity
2,32 ,86 ,530** ,465** ,244* (,89)
5 Attitude 1,59 ,45 ,517** ,681** ,279* ,492** (,95)
6 Uncertainty Avoidance
3,95 ,48 ,04 -,12 ,22 ,09 -,12 (-,56)
*p<0.05, **p<0.01 (one-tailed)
Table 4: Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Cronbach’s Alpha of Coca-Cola related questions
Nr Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Loyalty 3,15 1,12 (,82)
2 Quality 3,71 ,71 ,630** (,60)
3 Awareness/Associations
4,06 2,31 -,15 -,14 (,69)
4 Overall Equity 3,10 ,95 ,486** ,419** -,06 (,87)
5 Attitude 1,85 ,29 ,376** ,567** -,03 ,222* (,88)
6 Uncertainty Avoidance
3,95 ,48 -,00 ,08 ,14 -,05 ,03 (-,56)
*p<0.05, **p<0.01 (one-tailed)
�36
ance would affect the impact of neuromarketing on CBBE (hypothesis 4). All tests were
tested at a significance level of p<.05, and thus every result above that level was rejected.
For the the study, the participants were first divided into four groups, namely the ex-
perimental groups mentioned before. Furthermore, the mean scores of the CBBE con-
structs were calculated and can be found in Table 5 below. To compare the means of the
CBBE variables between the experimental groups, a One-Way ANOVA was used to test
the first four hypotheses (1a, 1b, 2a and 2b). This method requires a few assumptions to
be tested, namely normality, homoscedasticity and independence of the variables.
The normality check showed that most variables were normally distributed, besides
the variable Brand Attitude. The distribution of the data for the variable Brand Awareness/
Associations was slightly platykurtic and Brand Loyalty was slightly leptocurtic. As normali-
ty does not have a strong effect on the Type 1 error, which states that the null hypothesis
will unjustly get rejected, normality of the variables was accepted.
Also homoscedasticity was checked for the variables. Most variables were ho-
moscedastic, besides the variables Brand Loyalty and Brand Attitude. The Levene’s statis-
tic for these latter variables was significant, which implies heteroscedasticity. However, the
F-test is robust enough for violation of this assumption, thus this does not impact the re-
sults greatly.
The independence of variables was also tested. This resulted in a intraclass correla-
tion coefficient of .24, and thus a low independence between the variables. This low inde-
pendence has a major effect on the Type 1 error. This means that the chance, that the null
hypothesis will get rejected while it should be accepted, increases dramatically. Therefore
this can have a significant impact on the results. However, the analysis was still done.
Hypothesis 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b were tested using a one-way ANOVA, com-
paring the means of the different experimental groups. This is the most viable test to com-
pare the different scores of CBBE variables between the experimental groups. As noted
�37
above, table 5 shows these mean scores on the variables by the different groups. The dif-
ferent mean scores by the groups is also shown in Figure 7 below.
Table 5: Mean scores on the Brand Equity variables
ExperimentalGroups
Score on the different variables of Brand Equity: Mean (SE)
Loyalty Quality Awareness/Associations
Overall Equity
Control (n=35) 1,88 (0,80) 3,17 (0,98) 3,89 (0,71) 2,37 (0,84)
Brand (n=41) 3,08 (0,96) 3,63 (0,72) 4,30 (0,48) 3,18 (0,93)
Neuromarketing (n=38)
1,56 (0,53) 3,01 (0,76) 4,03 (0,65) 2,26 (0,88)
Interaction (n=38) 3,23 (1,27) 3,80 (0,70) 3,30 (0,53) 3,01 (0,98)
Notes:1. Participants in the Control and Neuromarketing group answered Pepsi-Cola related questions,
Brand and Interaction group answered Coca-Cola related questions 2. Responses were on a scale from 1: Strongly Disagree, 5: Strongly Agree
figure 7. Mean scores on Brand Equity variables by experimental groups (error bars represent +/- 2SD)
�38
The results showed significant differences between the groups for the variables Brand
Loyalty, F (3, 148) = 30.99, p < .05, Perceived Quality, F (3, 148) = 8.48, p < .05, and
Overall Brand Equity, F (3, 148) = 9.72, p < .05. However, for the variable Brand Aware-
ness/Associations, no statistically significant differences were found between the experi-
mental conditions, F (3, 148) = .60, p = .62.
To compare the mean scores on the variables between the single groups (Brand -
Control; Interaction - Neuromarketing; Neuromarketing - Control; Interaction - Brand), a
Tukey post-hoc test was analyzed. This test revealed a statistically significant higher score
for Brand Loyalty for the Brand condition compared to the Control condition (p = .00) and
for the Interaction condition condition compared to the Neuromarketing condition (p = .00).
However it did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the Neuromarketing
condition and Control condition (p = .48), and also not between Interaction condition and
the Brand condition (p = .90). For Brand Quality, the test showed statistically significant
higher scores for the condition Interaction compared to Neuromarketing (p = .00). Between
the conditions Brand and Control, Neuromarketing and Control, and Interaction and Brand
no statistically significant differences were found (respectively p = .06; p = .83; p = .78). As
expected, the variable Brand Awareness/Associations did not show any statistically signifi-
cant differences between the experimental groups (Brand - Control, p = .74; Interaction -
Neuromarketing, p = .95; Neuromarketing - Control, p = .99; Interaction - Brand, p = .60).
For the variable Overall Brand Equity, statistically significant difference were found in
higher scores for Brand condition compared to Control condition (p = .00) and Interaction
compared to Neuromarketing (p = .00). No statistical significant differences were found be-
tween Neuromarketing and Control groups (p = .96) and Interaction and Brand groups (p =
.85). The results show that the Brand condition scores higher than the Control condition on
two of the four variables. Therefore hypothesis 1a and 1b are partly supported. The Tukey
post-hoc test did not reveal a lower score on CBBE in the Interaction condition compared
�39
to the Brand condition. This supports hypothesis 2a. However, also no statistically signifi-
cant difference was found between the Neuromarketing and Control condition. Therefore
hypothesis 3a is rejected. Moreover, the above statistics do show some evidence of a
higher score of the Interaction condition compared to the Neuromarketing condition in
three of the four variables. Therefore hypothesis 2b and 3b are partially supported.
An interesting result was found when comparing the Interaction with the Control
condition. In three of the four variables, namely Loyalty, Quality and Overall Brand Equity,
the Interaction condition scored statistically significantly higher than the Control condition
(respectively p = .00; p = .01; p = .02). These results would also partially support our hy-
potheses by the fact that Coca-Cola has a higher CBBE than Pepsi-Cola, even when the
former brand uses neuromarketing. Also, the Brand condition scores higher on the previ-
ously mentioned variables compared to the Neuromarketing condition (respectively p = .
00; p = .00; p = .00).
To test for the moderating effect of Uncertainty Avoidance, the PROCESS test by
Hayes (2013) was used to test the amount of variance explained by the variable (signifi-
cance of ∆R2). Table 10 below shows these results. As can be seen, Uncertainty Avoid-
ance does not seem to explain any of the variance in the CBBE variables. Therefore, hy-
pothesis 4 was rejected.
Accounting for the expected positive bias for Coca-Cola, we measured the amount
of experience and usage/ownership of Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola. All the participants that
Table 10: Effect size of the moderator Uncertainty Avoidance on the Brand Equity constructs
Construct R2-change F DF1 DF2 p
Brand Loyalty ,000 ,014 1 72 ,906
Brand Quality ,008 ,741 1 72 ,392
Brand Awareness/Associations
,004 ,279 1 72 ,599
Overall Brand Equity ,004 ,369 1 72 ,546
�40
filled in the Coca-Cola related questionnaire have previously bought the drink (n = 79). Of
the participants that filled in the Pepsi-Cola questions, the majority claimed to have bought
the drink before (n = 66) and a small part claimed that they haven’t (n = 7). Furthermore,
the majority of Coca-Cola participants claimed to currently use Coca-Cola (n = 42) and the
minority claimed that they did not (n = 37). For Pepsi-Cola it was the other way around
(respectively n = 11; n = 62). Moreover, comparing the conditioned groups by the variable
Attitude, the difference between the Brand and Control condition showed a statistically
significant difference (p = .00). Therefore, this result shows a more positive Brand Attitude
for Coca-Cola than for Pepsi-Cola.
. 5 . Discussion
The previously mentioned Coca-Cola experiment by Du-Jian et al. (2012) showed that
consumers that compare Coca-Cola with Pepsi-Cola are more positively biased towards
Coca-Cola because of its positive associations with the brand. The results in the current
study showed a similar bias towards Coca-Cola. For this reason, we also expected Coca-
Cola to have a reasonably higher CBBE (Keller, 1993) than Pepsi-Cola. This however was
only partly supported by the results, as only the half of the variables on the CBBE survey
were answered more positively for Coca-Cola than for Pepsi-Cola. The other half of the
results were not statistically significant. Therefore some evidence has been found for a
stronger positive bias towards Coca-Cola, in line with previous research.
Research by Heath & Heath (2008) showed that marketing lacks consumer ap-
proval and trust (Sheth, Sisodia & Barbulescu, 2006). Because neuromarketing is a rela-
tively new marketing method, no research has been conducted on the approval of this
method among consumers. Therefore, our current research has tried to measure the effect
neuromarketing would have on the CBBE of a brand. The results showed no significant
�41
results containing a different CBBE for the brand that used neuromarketing compared to
the same brand that did not use this method. However, the results of this research did
show a slight negative difference between Pepsi-Cola that used neuromarketing and Pep-
si-Cola that did not use this marketing method. This does suggest a slight negative re-
sponse to neuromarketing if a brand does not have strong positive associations. Although
this notion is suggested, no causal effect could be concluded, as the results were not sta-
tistically significant. Moreover, the results showed no difference in the CBBE of Coca-Cola
when the brand used neuromarketing, compared to when it did not use this tool. This con-
firmed our hypothesis that a brand with strong positive associations is not strongly affected
by its practices. Nevertheless, comparing the scores on CBBE while a brand used neuro-
marketing, these results showed a more positive CBBE for Coca-Cola than for Pepsi-Cola.
But these results were only partly supported by the analysis, as differences on three out of
four CBBE variables were significant. This, again, partly supports the notion of a more pos-
itive bias towards Coca-Cola than for Pepsi-Cola.
In their research, Leonidou et al. (2012) have concluded that consumers can re-
spond differently to unethical behaviors by companies compared to other consumers. This
depends on their score on Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions. Uncertainty avoidance
was one of these dimensions that had the strongest moderating effect on unethical behav-
iors by firms. Consumers that scored highly on this dimension, also perceived a firms un-
ethical behavior as a valid reason to stop the repurchase of the firms products. As market-
ing mostly triggered a negative response within consumers (Gaski, 2008), because of its
lack of trust, we believed that this could be seen as unethical behavior by consumers that
scored highly on uncertainty avoidance. Because of the high potential of deception and
manipulation by neuromarketing (Morin, 2011), we expected neuromarketing to generate a
stronger negative response for individuals with a high uncertainty avoidance score. How-
ever, the results showed no moderating relationship of uncertainty avoidance on the CBBE
�42
of a brand that used neuromarketing as their main marketing strategy. This is also ex-
plained by the negative Cronbach’s alpha score of this variable. This rejects our hypothe-
sis that a high uncertainty avoidance had a negative correlation with the fact that a brand
used neuromarketing.
5.1 Relevance and Implications
5.1.1 Academic relevance
This study contributes to the existing literature that a brand with positive associations is
less affected by its practices compared to a brand that does not have these values. Fur-
thermore, our current study showed a gap in current research on the acceptance of neu-
romarketing as a practice. It also contributes to the fact that little research has been done
on consumer response toward marketing in general.
5.1.2 Managerial implications
The importance of positive brand associations and brand value have been (partly) shown
by the current study. This implies the notion, also in line with previous research by Keller
(1993), that brands must focus on building and maintaining a strong CBBE. Generating
this brand equity may, in its turn, foster feelings of trust, satisfaction, loyalty and repur-
chase behavior (Leonidou et al., 2012). Managers can therefore build their CBBE by the
ingredients mentioned in the introduction section of this thesis and in Keller’s (1993) paper.
This can then aid firms to create a more positive value, generate a higher revenue for their
products and focus their marketing more efficiently.
The current study also showed that marketing, as a practice, threads on thin ice for
consumers acceptance. Moreover, the acceptance of neuromarketing by consumers is a
�43
relatively unknown area, as no main research has had this focus. As neuromarketing tends
to make the ice even thinner, because of its manipulative potential (Fisher et al., 2010),
this remains an important subject to be studied. Our study did not find conclusive results,
however, but a a slight decline in a brands CBBE was found if the brand did not already
have strong positive associations. No conclusions can be drawn, but this decline may
carefully be explained by the use of neuromarketing by a brand. This can be important for
managers, as they must focus on not damaging their brand equity by their practices. Firms
must be careful on how consumers view them and their methods, so as not to generate
feelings of unethical behavior within consumers. This may harm their CBBE and therefore
their revenue. Therefore, ethical marketing practices may be of positive value to a brand.
However, this study did not show a decline in a brands’ CBBE if it used neuromarketing as
a tool when positive associations already existed. This does not directly state that highly
valued brands can conduct any practice without consequences, but this does suggest that
consumers seem to trust the practices of highly valued brands more than others. Building
trust should therefore be an important focus of managers. One method for this might be
transparency in the firms practices (Hustvedt & Kang, 2013)
5.2 Limitations and future research
This thesis is not without limitations. First and foremost, the study lacks generalisability to
the general public as the study was held mostly among students from the master Business
Administration at the University of Amsterdam. This group of participants is not directly
representative of the group of consumers that purchase certain brands. Future research
can focus on measuring consumer acceptance of neuromarketing among consumers that
frequently purchase Coca-Cola as their preferred brand. Also, a higher response rate may
positively influence the results in the future.
�44
Moreover, the fact that a survey was used, may be subjective to biased responses
and not be a clear indicator of behavior. Like we noted in the introduction, surveys may be
prone to distortion by respondents (Morin, 2011). Therefore, future research should gather
data through behavior measurements to see if neuromarketing, as a marketing tool, im-
pacts purchase behaviour of a brand if consumers are aware of this practice.
Another limitation is that our research mainly focused on two brands, while there
are more brands that use neuromarketing for strategic purposes. Relatively recently,
Unilever also publicly claimed to use neuromarketing for their marketing research (Forbes,
2013). Also, as it has been noted before, the growth of neuromarketing companies has in-
creased greatly within five years. We believe that the coöperation between commercial
brands and neuromarketing companies will increase in the near future as this method has
much commercial potential. Future research can focus on these brands and their goals for
the use of neuromarketing. In some cases, neuromarketing can be used for the benefit of
the consumer, i.e. corporate social responsibility initiatives. Researchers can relate these
initiatives to consumer acceptance of the neurological methods.
More limitations occur through the low Chronbach’s alpha’s and statistically insignif-
icant results. These can greatly impact the acceptance of hypotheses. Especially the re-
sults for Uncertainty Avoidance showed a negative Chronbach’s alpha. This is caused by a
negative correlations between the items, and therefore this variable was not measured
correctly. Future research can focus on limiting this negative correlation and therefore
measuring this item more reliably. Moreover, the variables measured for Coca-Cola also
generated a low alpha score. No direct cause can be appointed to these results, but future
research might focus on raising the reliability of these variables. The ANOVA also did not
always show significant results. A major cause for this can be the low independence of the
measured variables. Making sure the variables are independent can aid the results in the
future. Also, the cases used to describe Pepsi-Cola, Coca-Cola and Neuromarketing to the
�45
participants were not thoroughly tested. The cases were written as objectively as possible,
but they might have had an undesired and unknown impact on the results. Testing these
cases in the future may generate more stronger conclusions.
The methods described in our literature review are limited to four neurological
methodologies, but as it was mentioned in the introduction, more neuromarketing methods
currently exist, and there is a great chance that more will come. Methods like the EEG are
already evolving (Lancet, 1990) and technological possibilities increase marketing poten-
tial. As these methods also carry potential threats to consumers’ free will, ethical research
is also required. Also, other methods like SST, GSR and Respiratory Rate have been left
out of this research. These factors can be taken into account by future research.
. 6 . Conclusion
This study is focussed on bridging the gap in current research of the consumer response
toward marketing, and especially neuromarketing in this case. As this is a relatively new
practice (Smidts, 2002), not much research has been done on its acceptance by the con-
sumer. Fisher et al. (2010) and more researchers have expressed their feelings toward
neuromarketing as being a potentially manipulative method. This study therefore set out to
find if the consumer also believes this to be an unethical method. Therefore, the main
question for this research is: “Does the use of neuromarketing generate a decline in the
CBBE of a brand”. Moreover, this research shows to what extent the cultural dimension
Uncertainty Avoidance (Hofstede, 1980) impacts the negative feelings toward neuromar-
keting. Complementary to the main research question, we replicate the Coca-Cola experi-
ment by Du-Jian Gang et al. (2012) so as to find out whether Coca-Cola has a higher val-
ue compared to Pepsi-Cola. These results measure the impact of the use of neuromarket-
ing by the brand, and to see if a highly valued brand will generate a lower decline than for
a less valued brand. Previous research showed that whenever consumers trust a brand,
�46
they also trust its practices (Leonidou et al., 2012). With our research, we set out to find
out if this also holds for brands that use neuromarketing as a practice.
�47
. Reference list
Aaker D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity. New York: The Free Press
Aaker, D. A. and Biel, A. (1992). Building Strong Brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates
Alba, J. W. and Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of
Consumer Research, 13, p. 411 - 53
Amaratunga, D., Baldry, D., Sarshar, M. and Newton, R. (2002). Quantitative and qualita-
tive research in the built environment: application of “mixed” research approach.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 51 (1), p. 19 -
20
Antón, C., Camarero, C., & Carrero, M. (2007). The mediating effect of satisfaction on
consumers’ switching intention. Psychology and Marketing, 24 (6), p. 511 - 538
Ariely, D., and Berns, G. S. (2011). Neuromarketing: the hope and hype of neuroimaging in
business. Nat Rev Neuroscience, 11(4), p. 284–292, Retrieved from: http://
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2875927/
Bagozzi, R. P. (1997). Goal-Directed Behaviors in Marketing: The Role of Emotion, Volition
and Motivation. Psychology & Marketing, 14 (4), p. 309 - 313
�48
Bercea, M. D. (2013). Quantitavie versus qualitative in neuromarketing research.
Alexandru Ioan Cuza University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration,
Department of Marketing, p. 1-13, Retrieved from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/
44134/1/MPRA_paper_44134.pdf
Broniarczyk, S. M. and Alba, J. W. (1994). The Importance of the Brand in Brand Exten-
sions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31, p. 214 - 228
Canli, T. and Amin, Z., (2002). Neuroimaging of emotion and personality: Scientific evi
dence and ethical considerations. Brain and Cognition, 50, p. 414 - 431
CBS (2014). Bevolking Kerncijfers. Retrieved 04/03, 2015, Retrieved from: http://stat
line.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=37296ned&D1=a&D2=0,10
,20,30,40,50,60,(l-1),l&HD=130605-0924&HDR=G1&STB=T
Chib, V. S., Rangel, A., Shimojo, S., and O'Doherty, J. P. (2009). Evidence for a common
representation of decision values for dissimilar goods in human ventromedial
prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 29 (39), p. 12315 - 12320
Chow, S. and Holden, R. (1997). Toward an understanding of loyalty: The moderating role
of trust. Journal of Managerial Issues, 9 (3), p. 275 - 298
Cocacolanederland.nl (2015). Ons bedrijf. Retrieved on 05/03, 2015, Retrieved from:
http://www.cocacolanederland.nl/Ons_Bedrijf.aspx
�49
Dalsace, F. and Markovitch, D.G. (2009), “Is marketing becoming a dirty word? A longitu
dinal study of public perceptions of marketing”, working paper, HEC Paris, available
at: www.hec.fr/var/fre/storage/original/applica
tion73173d4212f664cd69272b9e18636306.pdf
De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., and Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and
rational decisionmaking in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), p. 684 - 687
Dinu, V. (2013). Protection of consumer rights in the field of economic services of general
economic interest, Amfiteatru Economic, XV (34), p. 309 - 310
Dick, A., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (2), p. 99 - 113
Du-Jian, G., Wang-Lin, Zheng-Qi and Liu-Li Ya, (2012). Neuromarketing: marketing
through science. International Joint Conference on Service Science, 285-289. doi:
10.1109/ijcss.2012.65
Egrie, J. and Bietsch, S. (2014). Marketing Research Ethics: How Consumers Feel About
Neuromarketing. Marketing Educators Association, 38, p. 208 - 215
Fisher, C. E., Chin, L. and Klitzman, R. (2010). Defining Neuromarketing: Practices and
Professional Challenges. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 18 (4), p. 230 - 237
Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing Brand Equity. Marketing Research, 1 (3), p. 24 - 33
�50
Feldwick, P. (1996). What Is Brand Equity Anyway, and How Do You Measure It?. Journal
of the Market Research Society, 38, p. 85 - 104
Forbes.com (2013). Neuromarketing: For Coke, It’s the Real thing. Retrieved from: http://
www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2013/03/07/coke-neuromarketing/
Forbes.com (2014). The World’s Most Valuable Brands. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.
com/powerful-brands/
Gaski, J. F. (2008). The index of consumer sentiment toward marketing: validation, up-
dated results, and demographic analysis. Journal of Consumer Policy, 31, p. 195 -
216
Giovanni, V., Astolfi, L., Fallani, F. D. V., Toppi, J., Aloise, F., Bez, F., Wei, D., Kong, W.,
Dai, J., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D. and Babiloni, F. (2011). On the use of EEG or MEG
brain imaging tools in neuromarketing research. Comput. Intell. Neurosci, 12
Greene, Joshua D. et al. (2001). "An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral
Judgment," Science 293, p. 2105 - 2108
Hare, T. A., Camerer, C. F., and Rangel, A. (2009). Self-control in decision-making involves
modulation of the vmPFC valuation system. Science, 324, p. 646 - 648
Hayes, A. F. (2013). PROCESS. Retrieved from: http://www.processmacro.org/index.html
�51
Heath, M. T. P. and Heath, M. (2008). (Mis)trust in marketing: a reflection on consumers’
attitudes and perceptions. Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (9-10), p.
1025 - 1039
Hofstede, G. (1997). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw
Hill
Holbrook, M. B. and Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:
Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (2), p.
132 - 140
Hubert, M., Hubert, M., Sommer, J. and Kenning, P. (2009). Consumer Neuroscience: The
effect of Retail Brands on the Perception of Product Packaging. Marketing
Review, 26(4), p. 28 - 33
Hustvedt, G., and Kang, J. (2013). Consumer perceptions of transparency: A scale dev-
elopment and validation. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 41, p.
299 - 313
Hsu, M., Anen, C., and Quartz, S. R. (2008). The right and the good: distributive justice
and neural encoding of equity and efficiency. Science, 320(5879), p. 1092 - 1095
Hyman, S.E., (2004). Introduction: The brain’s special status. Cerebrum, 6, p. 1 - 4
Illes, J., (2003). Neuroethics in a new era of neuroimaging. American Journal of
Neuroradiology, 24, pp. 1739 - 1741
�52
Javor, A., Koller, M., Lee, N., Chamberlain, L. and Ransmayr, G. (2013). Neuromarketing
and consumer neuroscience: contributions to neurology. Biomedcentral. Retrieved
from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/13/13
Joseph, R. (1992). The Limbic System: Emotion Laterality, and Unconscious Mind. Psy-
choanalytic Review, 79 (3), p. 405 - 456
Kachersky, L. and Lerman, D. (2013). Bridging marketing’s intentions and consumer per-
ceptions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 30 (7), p. 544 - 552
Keller, K. L. (1993). Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57(1), p. 1 - 22
Kennedy, D., (2004). Neuroscience & neuroethics. Science, 306, p. 373
Kennett, R. (2012). Modern electroencephalography. Journal of Neurology, 259, p. 783 -
789
Knutson, B., Rick, S., Wimmer, G. E., Prelec, D., and Loewenstein, G. (2007). Neural
predictors of purchases. Neuron, 53(1), p. 147 - 156
Kwiatkowska, J. (2008). Management of consumers’ attention - What can the advertiser do
to survive the media revolution. Czestochowa University of Technology, Faculty of
Management, Poland
�53
Laros, F. J. M. and Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. (2005). Emotions in consumer behavior: a hier-
archical approach. Journal of Business Research, 58 (10), p. 1437 - 1445
Lindell, A. K. and Kidd, E. (2013). Consumers Favor “Right-Brain” Training: The Danger-
ous Lure of Neuromarketing. Mind, Brain and Education, 7(1), p. 35 - 39
Leonidou, L. C., Kvasova, O., Leonidou, C. N. and Chari, S. (2012). Business Unethicality
as an Impediment to Consumer Trust: The Moderating Role of Demographic and
Cultural Characteristics. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, p. 397 - 415
Leuthesser, L. (1998). Defining, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity: A Conference
Summary. Marketing Science Institute, p. 88 - 104
Lewis, D., and Bridger, D. (2005). Market researchers make increasing use of brain imag
ing. Advances in Clinical Neuroscience and Rehabitilitation, 5(3), 36-37. Retrieved
from http://www.acnr.co.uk/
Levallois, C., Smidts, A., and Wouters, P. (2013). The neuro-turn in science and society:
investigating the birth of neuromarketing through traditional and new media
(2002-2008). Working paper Erasmus Center for Neuroeconomics, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, p. 43
Macintosh, G., Anglin, K. A., Szymanski, D. M., & Gentry, J. W. (1992). Relation develop-
ment in selling: Cognitive analysis. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Man-
agement, 12(4), 23–34.
�54
Martin, G. S. and Brown, T. J. (1990). In search of brand equity: the conceptialization and
measurement of brand impression construct. Marketing Theory and Applica-
tions, 2, American Marketing Association, p. 431 - 438
Matthews, P. M. and Jezzard, P. (2004). Functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal
of Neurology Neurosurgery Psychiatry, 75 (6), p. 6 - 12
Meta-health (2012). Hypothalamus function. Retrieved from: http://www.meta-health.com/
hcg/hypothalamusFunction.php
Montague, P. R., King-Casas, B., and Cohen, J. D. (2006). Imaging valuation models in
human choice. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 29, p. 417 - 448
Morin, C. (2011). Neuromarketing: the new study of consumer behavior. Springer Science
Business Media, 48, p. 131 - 135
Murphy, E. R., Illes, J. and Reiner, P. B. (2008). Neuroethics of neuromarketing. Journal of
Consumer Behavior, 7, p. 293 - 302
National Institute of Health (2001). Know Your Brain. National Institute of Neurological Dis
orders and Stroke at the National Institute of Health, Print
New York City Bar Association (2005). Are your thoughts your own? Neuroprivacy and
the legal implications of brain imaging. New York: The Committee on Science and
Law.
�55
Neuroscience (2004). Brain scam?. Nature Neuroscience, 7 (7), p. 683
NMSBA, 2013. [online] Available at: <http://www.nmsba.com/ethics> [Accessed 20
August 2013]
Ohme, R., Reykowska, D., Wiener, D., and Choroman´ ska, A. (2009). Analysis of
neurophysiological reactions to advertising stimuli via EEG and GSR mea-
sures. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics, 2(1), 21–31
Phelps, E. and Anderson, A. (1997). Emotional Memory: What Does the Amygdala Do?
Current Biology 7.5, p. 311 - 314
Plassmann, H., O'Doherty, J., and Rangel, A. (2007). Orbitofrontal cortex encodes
willingness to pay in everyday economic transactions. Journal of Neuro
science, 27(37), p. 9984 - 9988
Pollay, R. W. and Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the Beef: Factors, Determinants, and Segments
in Consumer Criticism of Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 57 (3), p. 99 - 114
Rossiter, J. R. and Percy, L. (1987). Advertising and Promotion Management. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company
Sheth, J. N. and Sisodia, R. S. (2005). Does Marketing Need Reform?. In: Bolton, R. N.,
(ed.), “Marketing Renaissance: Opportunities and Imperatives for Improving
Marketing Thought, Practice, and Infrastructure”. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 (4),
p. 10 - 12
�56
Sheth, J. N., Sisodia, R. S. and Barbulescu, A. (2006). The Image of Marketing. In:
Sheth, J. N. and Sisodia, R. S., (eds.), Does Marketing Need Reform?, New York:
M. E. Sharpe Inc., p. 26 - 36
Smidts, A. (2002). Brain imaging: Opportunities for neuromarketing. Inaugural address,
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University
Smidts, A., Hsu, M., Sanfey, A.G., Boksem, M. A. S., Ebstein, R. B., Huettel, S. A., Kable,
J. W., Karmarkar, U. R., Kitayama, S., Knutson, B., Liberzon, I., Lohrenz, T., Stallen,
M., and Yoon, C. (2014). Advancing consumer neuroscience. Mark Lett, 25, p. 257 -
267
Statista.com (2014). Most valuable global brands in 2014, by brand value (in billion U.S.
dollars). Retrieved from: http://www.statista.com/statistics/269852/most-valuable-
global-brands/
Statista.com (2015). Market share of carbonated beverages worldwide as of 2015, by
company. Retrieved from: http://www.statista.com/statistics/387318/market-share-
of-leading-carbonated-beverage-companies-worldwide/
The Lancet (1990). Magnetoencephalography. The Lancet, 335 (8689), p. 576 - 577
Ulmer, S. and Jansen, O. (2013). fMRI: Basic and Clinical Applications. New York:
Springer Heidelberg
�57
Vecchiato, G., Astolfi, L., Fallani, F. D. V., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D., Salinari, S., Roranzo, R.,
and Babiloni, F. (2010). Changes in brain activity during the observation of TV
commercials by using EEG, GSR and HR measurements. Brain Topography, 23 (2),
p. 165 - 179
Vecchiato, G., Astolfi, L., Fallani, F. D. V., Toppi, J., Aloise, F., Bez, F., Wei, D., Kong, W.,
Dai, J., Cincotti, F., Mattia, D., and Babiloni, F. (2011). On the use of EEG or MEG
Brain Imaging Tools in Neuromarketing Research. Computational intelligence and
neuroscience, 2011, p. 643489
Venkatraman, V., Clithero, J. A., Fitzsimons, G. J. and Huettel, S. A. (2011). New scanner
data for brand marketers: How neuroscience can help better understand dif-
ferences in brand preferences. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (2021), p. 143
- 153
Venkatraman, V., Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., and Huettel, S. A. (2009).
Separate neural mechanisms underlie choices and strategic preferences in risky
decision making. (2009). Neuron, 62(4), p. 593–602
Vitell, S. J., Paolillo, J. G. P., & Thomas, J. L. (2003). The perceived role of ethics and so
cial responsibility: A study of marketing professionals. Business Ethics Quarterly,
13 (1), p. 63 - 86
Wang, Y.-S., Tang, T.-I. and Tang, J. E. (2001). An instrument for measuring satisfaction to
ward websites that market digital products and services. Journal of Electronic
Commerce Research, 2 (3), p. 89–102
�58
Wible, A. (2011). It’s all on Sale: Marketing Ethics and the Perpetually Fooled. Journal of
Business Ethics, 99, p. 17 - 21
Wikipedia.com (2015). Pepsi-Cola. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi
Wilson, M. R., Gaines, J. and Hill, R. P. (2008). Neuromarketing and Consumer Free Will.
The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 42(3), p. 389-410
Yoo, B. and Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-
based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52, 1 - 14
Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2002). The effects of marketing education and individual cultural
values on marketing ethics of students. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 92 -
103
Yoon, C., Gonzales, R., Bechara, A., Berns, G. S., Dagher, A. A., Dubé, L., Huettel, S. A.,
Kable, J. W., Liberzon, I., Plassmann, H., Smidts, A. and Spence, C. (2012). Deci-
sion neuroscience and consumer decision making. Springer Science Business Me
dia, 23, p. 473-485
Zeithaml V. A. (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end
model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark, 52, p. 2 - 22
Internet resources
�59
http://anaxa-vida.com
http://neurorelays.wordpress.com/2012/05/08/neuromarketing-companies-worldwide/
http://www.shopperception.com
Images
Figure 1: http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/limbicsystem.gif
Figure 2: http://psychcentral.com/lib/img/fmri_scan.jpg
Figure 3: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/Spike-waves.png/
220px-Spike-waves.png
Figure 4: http://mommasmoneymatters.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/meg.jpg
�60
APPENDIX 1 - CBBE & Uncertainty Avoidance questionnaireSurvey on Keller’s (1993) CBBE & Hofstede’s (1980) Uncertainty Avoidance
Measurement Item
Dear respondent,
Welcome and thank you for participating in my research on the brand Coca-Cola for my master thesis at the Faculty of Economics and Business of the University of Amsterdam. This survey will take five to ten minutes. The results of the questionnaire are anonymous and confidential. If you have any questions or remarks, you can always contact me through an e-mail to [email protected].
Please keep in mind that:
- It is important that all questions are answered;- There are no wrong answers- Only your opinion counts;- You are participating voluntarily in this research;- You may quit at any point of the research if any inconveniences occur.
Thank you again for your participation.
Kind regards,
Dima Shipil'ko, University of Amsterdam
Brand Purchase Experience Have you ever bought Coca-Cola?
Usage/ownership Do you currently use/own a product of Coca-Cola?
Ten-item MBE
Brand Loyalty
LO1 I consider myself to be loyal to Coca-Cola**
LO2 Coca-Cola** would be my first choice
LO3 I will not buy other brands if Coca-Cola** is available at the store
Perceived Quality
QL1. The quality of Coca-Cola** is extremely high
QL2. The likelihood that Coca-Cola** would be enjoyable is very high
Brand Awareness/associations
AW1. I can recognise Coca-Cola** among other competing brands
Survey on Keller’s (1993) CBBE & Hofstede’s (1980) Uncertainty Avoidance
Measurement
�61
AW2. I am aware of Coca-Cola**
AS1. Some characteristics of Coca-Cola** come to my mind quickly
AS2. I can quickly recall the symbol or logo of Coca-Cola**
AS3. I have difficulty in imagining Coca-Cola** in my mind (R)*
Four-item OBE
OBE1. It makes sense to buy Coca-Cola** instead of any other brand even if they are the same
OBE2. Even if another brand has the same features as Coca-Cola**, I would prefer to buy Coca-Cola**
OBE3. If there is another brand as good as Coca-Cola**, I prefer to buy Coca-Cola**
OBE4. If another brand is not different from Coca-Cola** in any way, it seems smarter to purchase Coca-Cola**
Purchase intention
PI1. I would like to buy Coca-Cola**
PI2. I intend to purchase Coca-Cola**
Attitude toward the brand I find Coca-Cola very:
Good/BadNice/AwfulAttractive/UnattractiveDesirable/UndesirableLikeable/Unlikable
Uncertainty Avoidance
UAV1. High stress and subjective feelings of anxiety are frequent among people
UAV2. Decisiveness is a necessity characteristic of success
UAV3 Uncertainty is a normal feature of life and each day must be accepted as it comes (R)*
UAV4 Fear of ambiguous situations and of unfamiliar risks is normal (R)*
What’s your gender? Male/Female
Survey on Keller’s (1993) CBBE & Hofstede’s (1980) Uncertainty Avoidance
Item
Survey on Keller’s (1993) CBBE & Hofstede’s (1980) Uncertainty Avoidance
Measurement
�62
* R items are reversed
** ‘Coca-Cola’ was replaced by ‘Brand X’ in the control and neuromarketing conditions
APPENDIX 2 - Coca-Cola case
The story of Coca-Cola
In 1886, John Pemberton, a broke Atlanta pharmacist presented a new patent medicine
together with all his other (failed) elixirs and brain tonics in his search for a substitute for
his morphine addiction (Bartow, 2013; Wikipedia, 2015). He went bankrupt when trying to
promote his products, but a few investors took a risk in 1892 and named their company
The Coca-Cola Company. Coca-Cola’s first main ingredients were caffeine and sugar. This
company eventually grew out to a billion dollar enterprise (Bartow, 2013), and the reason
for this success is Coca-Cola’s marketing expenditures and their ability to link Coca-Cola
to everything people like and enjoy. Their products are recognized by people all over the
globe by their iconic bottle shape and signature logo (Bartow, 2013). The company be-
What's your age?
What's your nationality?
What's your residence?
What's your highest achieved level of education?
No educationVMBOHAVOVWOMBOHBOUniversity Bachelor DegreeUniversity Master DegreeOther type of education
Thank you very much for your co-operation!
Survey on Keller’s (1993) CBBE & Hofstede’s (1980) Uncertainty Avoidance
Item
Survey on Keller’s (1993) CBBE & Hofstede’s (1980) Uncertainty Avoidance
Measurement
�63
came great due to purchasing raw materials from others and great networking. Currently
the companies products range from regular Coca-Cola to Coca-Cola Light, Zero, Vanilla
and Cherry and the brand can be found in mostly any country in the world, besides Cuba
and North-Korea (Wikipedia, 2015). Since the beverage’s birth in 1886, it has grown to be
one of the worlds most known brands (Forbes, 2014).
References
Bartow, J. E. (2013). Citizen Coke: An Environmental and Political History of the Coca-
Cola Company
Forbes.com (2014). The World’s Most Valuable Brands. Retrieved from: http://www.forbes.
com/powerful-brands/
Wikipedia.com (2015). Coca-Cola. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola
APPENDIX 3 - Pepsi-Cola case
The story of Pepsi-Cola
In the year of 1893, Pepsi-Cola has launched their new carbonated soft cola drink in the
United States. This drink had the characteristics of aiding digestion and boosting energy.
At first, Pepsi-Cola ran into bankruptcy, but during the Great Depression (late 1930’s) the
soft-drink made its rise and doubled their profits. After World War 2, Pepsi-Cola’s new
president tapped a niche market of the African American population in America, which
caused Pepsi-Cola to overtake all other soft-drinks by their market share. Currently, Pepsi-
Cola remains a popular soft-drink in many countries and holds a dominant market position
�64
over other soft-drinks. The main ingredients of the drink contain fructose corn syrup,
caramel, sugar, caffeine and citric acids (Wikipedia, 2015).
References
Wikipedia.com (2015). Pepsi-Cola. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepsi
APPENDIX 4 - Neuromarketing case
The story of Neuromarketing
Neuromarketing was described in 2002 by Smidts (2002) as the research that is able to
measure brain activity while being exposed to marketing stimuli. This research combines
neuroscientific (i.e. fMRI, EEG, MEG, Heart Rate scan) and marketing methods to gather
more efficient information about consumers’ responses to marketing stimuli. With this tool,
marketers could get a more detailed look into the mind of the consumer than current mar-
keting methods, and therefore provide a more customized and more efficient marketing. Its
use by commercial companies has increased rapidly, from 13 in 2008, 60 in 2012 and to
over 85 by 2013 (Levallois, Smidts & Wouters, 2013). Companies like Brighthouse, Sales-
Brain, BrainTrends, BrainSigns, etc. are specialized in conducting neuromarketing re-
search and help brands effectively present their product. The growth of commercial neu-
romarketing companies also attracted brands to use this marketing method. Quite recently,
Coca-Cola* claimed to be using neuromarketing for all their marketing research in 2014
(Forbes, 2013). Therefore, for their latest marketing strategies, Coca-Cola* measures con-
sumers’ brain activity for a more effective marketing of their products.
* ‘Coca-Cola’ was replaced by ‘Brand X’ in the control and neuromarketing conditions
�65
References
Forbes.com (2013). Neuromarketing: For Coke, It’s the Real thing. Retrieved from: http://
www.forbes.com/sites/rogerdooley/2013/03/07/coke-neuromarketing/
Levallois, C., Smidts, A., & Wouters, P. (2013). The neuro-turn in science and society: in
vestigating the birth of neuromarketing through traditional and new media
(2002-2008). Working paper Erasmus Center for Neuroeconomics, Erasmus Uni
versity Rotterdam, p. 43
Smidts, A. (2002). Brain imaging: Opportunities for neuromarketing. Inaugural address,
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University
APPENDIX 5 - ANOVA for the experimental groups per CBBE variableTable 6: Results of a one-way ANOVA with experimental groups as the independent variable and Brand Loyalty as the dependent variable (n = 152)
Experimental GroupsSum of Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
80,86 3 26,95 30,99 .000
Error 128,68 148 ,87
Table 7: Results of a one-way ANOVA with experimental groups as the independent variable and Perceived Quality as the dependent variable (n = 152)
Experimental GroupsSum of Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
15,89 3 5,30 8,48 .000
Error 92,50 148 ,63
Table 8: Results of a one-way ANOVA with experimental groups as the independent variable and Brand Awareness/Associations as the dependent variable (n = 152)
Experimental GroupsSum of Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
5,40 3 1,80 ,60 .616
Table 8: Results of a one-way ANOVA with experimental groups as the independent variable and Brand Awareness/Associations as the dependent variable (n = 152)
�66
APPENDIX 6 - Effect size of the levels of Uncertainty Avoidance on the CBBE variables
Error 444,05 148 3,00
Table 8: Results of a one-way ANOVA with experimental groups as the independent variable and Brand Awareness/Associations as the dependent variable (n = 152)Table 8: Results of a one-way ANOVA with experimental groups as the independent variable and Brand Awareness/Associations as the dependent variable (n = 152)
Table 9: Results of a one-way ANOVA with experimental groups as the independent variable and Overall Brand Equity as the dependent variable (n = 152)
Experimental GroupsSum of Squares DF Mean Square F Sig.
24,01 3 8,00 9,72 .000
Error 121,81 148 ,82
Table 11: Effect of Uncertainty Avoidance on Brand Loyalty by levels
Level of Uncertainty Avoidance Effect SE t p Lower Level CI
Upper Level CI
Low 1,697 ,381 5,173 ,000 1,043 2,351
Middle 1,669 ,230 7,255 ,000 1,211 2,129
High 1,642 ,325 5,047 ,000 ,994 2,291
Table 12: Effect of Uncertainty Avoidance on Brand Quality by levels
Level of Uncertainty Avoidance Effect SE t p Lower Level CI
Upper Level CI
Low 0,635 0,244 2,600 ,011 ,148 1,123
Middle 0,784 ,171 4,574 ,000 ,442 1,126
High ,933 ,242 3,848 ,000 ,449 1,416
Table 13: Effect of Uncertainty Avoidance on Brand Associations/Awareness by levels
Level of Uncertainty Avoidance Effect SE t p Lower Level CI
Upper Level CI
Low -0,414 0,791 -,524 ,602 -1,990 1,162
Middle -0,119 ,555 -,214 ,831 -1,225 ,987
High ,177 ,784 ,225 ,823 -1,387 1,740
�67
Table 14: Effect of Uncertainty Avoidance on Overall Brand Equity by levels
Level of Uncertainty Avoidance Effect SE t p Lower Level CI
Upper Level CI
Low 0,889 0,309 2,874 ,005 ,272 1,506
Middle 0,756 ,217 3,485 ,001 ,324 1,189
High ,623 ,307 2,032 ,046 ,012 1,235