Comparative analysis of the perception of neuromarketing tools by consumers in Russia and China
https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2019-6-58-68
Abstract
Aim. The presented study aims to gauge the reactions of Russian and Chinese consumers to the use of neuromaketing tools. In the course of the study, several hypotheses are tested using statistical analysis.
Tasks. The authors assess the awareness of the respondents in the field of interest and their attitude as consumers (individuals) to neuromarketing and the use of neurotechnology in Russia and China.
Methods. The hypotheses are tested in practice using a questionnaire survey of the respondents (by means of a handout questionnaire or an online questionnaire). The assessment of the attitude to the use of neuromarketing tools by the citizens of the Russian Federation and China is examined. The respondents are asked questions with one answer, multiple answers, and Likert scale questions. Data are processed in IBM SPSS Statistics 24 using such statistical methods as frequency analysis, contrast of means, etc.
Results. The opinion of Russian and Chinese consumers on the use of neurotechnology for commercial purposes is comprehensively assessed. The study analyzes the issues of the awareness of Russian and Chinese citizens about neurotechnology, their own consumer behavior, and their attitude to the use of neurotechnology. Consumer opinion is examined to determine the risk of public discontent and prejudice against the implementation of neurotechnology.
Conclusions. Both Russia and China are facing potential threats to the development of neurotechnology from public opinion. The risk of a statutory ban on neurotechnology due to public discontent and low perception of the ethical aspect of this tool by consumers in Russia and China is vastly overstated by contemporary researchers and media. Consumers are actually rather tolerant of the examined tool and show no signs of discontent or fear. The long-term relevance of the obtained data is
obvious.
About the Authors
N. N. Molchanov
St. Petersburg University
Russian Federation
Chaykovskogo St. 62, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191123
Russian Federation
Chaykovskogo St. 62, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191123
N. I. Galay
St. Petersburg University
Russian Federation
Chaykovskogo St. 62, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191123
Russian Federation
Chaykovskogo St. 62, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191123
J. Yang
St. Petersburg University
Russian Federation
Chaykovskogo St. 62, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191123
Russian Federation
Chaykovskogo St. 62, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation, 191123
References
1. Petition for the banning of Neuromarketing and its use within the EU. Available at: https://www.change.org/p/council-of-the-european-union-free-mind-petition-for-the-banning-of-neuromarketingand-its-use-within-the-eu. Accessed 01.04.2019.
2. Molchanov N. N., Korableva O. N., Muraveva O. S., Galay N. I. Neuromarketing as an innovative approach to market research of consumer behavior. In: Proc. 29th International Business Information Management Association Conference “Education excellence and innovation management through vision 2020: From regional development sustainability to global economic growth” (Vienna, 3-4 May, 2017). King of Prussia, PA: IBIMA, 2017, pp. 2489–2500.
3. Molchanov N. N., Murav’eva O. S., Galay N. I. Neyrotekhnologii: otsenka perspektiv razvitiya v Rossii [Neurotechnologies: Assessment of development prospects in Russia]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya Ekonomika i pravo, 2019, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 142–151.
4. Berman M. L. Manipulative marketing and the first amendment. Georgetown Law Journal, 2015, vol. 103, no. 2, pp. 497–546.
5. Lee N., Broderick A. J., Chamberlain L. What is “neuromarketing”? A discussion and agenda for future research. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 2007, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 199–204. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2006.03.007.
6. Stanton S. J, Sinnot-Armstrong W., Huettel S. Neuromarketing: Ethical implications of its use and potential misuse. Journal of Business Ethics, 2017, vol. 144, no. 4, pp. 799–811. DOI: 10.1007/s10551-016-3059-0.
7. Glaenzer E. Are the brain and the mind one? Neuromarketing and how consumers make decisions. Honors theses. 2016. Available at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1831&context=honorstheses. Accessed 01.04.2019.
8. Jones O. D., Bonnie R., Casey B. J., Davis A. et al. Law and neuroscience: Recommendations submitted to the President’s Bioethics Commission. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2014, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 224–236. DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsu012.
9. Arussy L. Neuromarketing isn’t marketing. Destination CRM. 2016. Available at: http://www.destinationcrm.com/Articles/Columns-Departments/CustomerCentricity/Neuromarketing-Isnt-Marketing-52113.aspx. Accessed 17.03.2019.
Review
For citations:
Molchanov N.N., Galay N.I., Yang J. Comparative analysis of the perception of neuromarketing tools by consumers in Russia and China. Economics and Management. 2019;(6):58-68. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.35854/1998-1627-2019-6-58-68
Views:
312
