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 dima.shipilko@student.uva.nl.

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