Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Mind Reading: A Neuromarketing Study for Anti-‐Tobacco Organizations
University of Illinois at Chicago
Consumer Behavior: Professor Chaplin
T/TR 12:30PM Section Team Blue: Cynthia Mancilla, Mariya Amiwala, Elizabeth Molina, Karolina
Munoz, Daera Jones, and Gonzalo Trejo
11/19/2015
1
Table of Contents
I. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………..........2
II. Conceptual Background…………………………………………………………………...5
III. Demographics……………………………………………………………………………10
IV. Sampling Method and Collection……………………………………………………..…10
V. Methodology……………………………………………………………………………..11
VI. Possible Analysis……………………………………………………………………...…12
VII. Conclusion and Contribution……………………………………………………………13
VIII. Limitations of Work……………………………………………………………………...14
IX. Future Research Directions…………………………………………………………...….15
X. Final Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………16
XI. References………………………………………………………………………………..17
XII. Appendix…………………………………………………………………………..……..19
2
ABSTRACT:
Mind reading is not just for psychics. With the new field called neuromarketing, researchers are
beginning to understand the consumer mind by studying their brain patterns. There is little
research on how big profit companies have utilized this field, but there is no research on how
nonprofit organizations have. This paper explores neuromarketing and how nonprofit
organizations, specifically anti-tobacco organizations, can use and benefit from the techniques.
Using our hypothesis, “anti-tobacco organizations should use neuromarketing with 18-25 year
olds because it can decrease tobacco related purchases,” we will discuss our background
research, process in developing our methodology, possible analysis, conclusions, contributions,
research limitations, and future research directions.
INTRODUCTION:
People can read your mind. No, it is not a lie; it is true—technically. With
neuromarketing, an emerging field that came about in 2002, marketers are using devices to “read
minds,” or rather, study brain patterns of consumers to uncover subconscious responses to
marketing media (Orzan & Purcarea, 2012). As futuristic and surreal as the concept seems, the
technology utilized in neuromarketing has actually been around for several years. The purpose of
neuromarketing is to understand consumer attitudes toward marketing media so that, in turn,
companies can learn how to make consumers favor their ads or products and get them to
ultimately purchase more from them.
In 2004 the executive director of Commercial Alert (a U.S. consumer association), Gary
Ruskin, began requesting the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce do an investigation on
3
neuromarketing (Touhami et al., 2011). As he urged, neuromarketing can be manipulated by
companies to attack the political world or assist in the growth of obesity, alcoholism, or cancers
if used by profit companies such as the food, alcohol, or tobacco companies (Touhami et al.,
2011). Gary’s efforts were ignored and now more and more big profit companies have begun to
use this field to tap into the minds of consumers. Although some people like Gary may find
neuromarketing threatening, the field is worth continuing if used correctly. Instead of big profit
companies, what if nonprofit organizations begin to use neuromarketing? More specifically,
what can happen if anti-tobacco organizations use it?
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, tobacco companies have
sold about 264 billion cigarettes in the U.S. in 2014. The CDC also reports that about 42.1
million adults in the United States currently smoke and that smoking is responsible for about
480,000 deaths every year. With that being said, one could almost say tobacco companies are
making a killing, literally. If tobacco companies use neuromarketing techniques to read the
minds of tobacco consumers, negative effects will emerge since there is no legal restriction
against them using it. Therefore, we believe anti-tobacco organizations should begin to use
neuromarketing to reduce tobacco-related issues (CDC.gov).
Big companies have begun using neuromarketing because they can afford to utilize the
devices which can cost anywhere from $400 to $3,000 for the operation cost and $500,000 for
additional software (Ruanguttamanun, 2014). However, in order to benefit the greater good,
nonprofit organizations like anti-tobacco organizations should invest in neuromarketing to win
the battle over tobacco purchases. With the aid of devices such as fMRI- functional magnetic
4
resonance imaging (measures brain activity by detecting oxygen levels in blood), EEG-
electroencephalography (measures electrical brain activity), MEG- magnetoencephalography
(Measures brain activity through a magnetic field), or eye tracking (tracks what consumers look
at), anti-tobacco organizations can use the information to greatly reduce tobacco related
purchases for adults (Sebastian, 2014). The increased brain activity detected by these devices
usually reflect favorable consumer attitudes and gives valuable insight on how to make effective
ads for preventing and quitting smoking tobacco.
There are few studies on profit-based companies using neuromarketing, but none on
nonprofits. This is the first study that explores how using neuromarketing can benefit anti-
tobacco organizations, and ultimately shine light on how other nonprofit organizations can
benefit and help society as well. Our hypothesis is that anti-tobacco organizations should use
neuromarketing with 18-25 year olds because it can decrease tobacco related purchases. We will
address several questions: how does studying brain activity uncover useful marketing
information? What do we need to know about addiction to tobacco products before developing
and experiment? Why are 18-25 year olds more likely to decrease their tobacco related purchases
after the use of neuromarketing techniques? Most importantly, how does neuromarketing not
only benefit anti-tobacco organizations, but nonprofits overall? While coming up with an
effective methodology for anti-tobacco organizations can be challenging, we present a new
perspective that will help the greater good.
5
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND:
Although there is no research linking neuroscience with anti-tobacco companies, we have
gathered sources that connect the two topics for a solid foundation of research to carry out our
hypothesis. Some gaps in research include but are not limited to: studies on how to use
neuroscience to make consumers buy less, studies that focus on negative brain reactions to
marketing media, and studies on how younger groups of adults differs from older adults in terms
of addiction to nicotine and influence on advertisements. The central issue here is that
neuromarketing researchers want to focus on what consumers find favorable and what the “buy
button” in the brain is. Not only but also, with regards to tobacco use, the problem is not that
there is insufficient studies on addiction to the chemical substances, rather, there is no research
on whether the marketing media used to speak against tobacco is subconsciously effective in
users or even nonusers. We have conducted extensive research on understanding the mind and
tobacco users to develop an effective plan to decrease tobacco purchases in users 18-25.
Before one can read a mind, one must understand the brain first. According to Orzan and
Purcarea, humans have three main brain sections: the reptilian brain or old brain, the limbic
system or emotional brain, and the neocortex or thinking brain. First of all, the reptilian brain is
responsible for survival functions like breathing and adrenaline, but it is also responsible for
making the final decision in purchases. Second, the emotional brain, as its name states, is
responsible for emotions and feelings. This part of the brain is intuitive and represents our
subconscious mind. This part of the brain is the most important element influencing the reptilian
brain to make purchase decisions. Last is the thinking brain, which is the newest part of the
6
brain—present only in humans. This section of the brain is responsible for logical thinking and
our conscious mind. Marketers study these parts closely because they give insight on consumer
attitudes and emotional states during exposure to marketing media. We know that neither a
positive nor a negative attitude causes consumers to buy or not to buy products; nevertheless,
understanding how the brain functions is vital in predicting purchases (Orzan & Purcarea 2012).
As previously mentioned, some of the technologies used in neuromarketing are fMRI,
EEG, MEG, and eye tracking. Not including eye tracking, the three techniques are the most well
established for measuring and detecting brain activity and are non-invasive for safer use (Morin,
2012). What these technologies track are neurons, which are the cells responsible for our
cognitive responses. These neurons begin to fire and create tiny electrical currents that have
multiple frequencies called brain waves after being shown a particular stimulus such as an ad.
Different brainwave patterns are associated with different states of arousal. For the most part,
fMRI, EEG, and MEG are used to show when the brain is becoming more active, not when it is
becoming less active. Furthermore, as reported in a study by William Hedgcock, “...problems
occur when researchers use brain activation results to infer cognitive processes. Since activity in
any one brain area is associated with several processes, activation in a particular area is not
incontrovertibly associated with a particular psychological process” (Hedgcock et al., 2012). All
of this needs to be taken into consideration when reading about and conducting neuromarketing
experiments. Failure to do so can result in flawed experiments and misinterpreted results, so we
will take precaution when testing our hypothesis, “anti-tobacco organizations should use
neuromarketing with 18-25 year olds because it can decrease tobacco related purchases.”
7
One study was done on how rapidly nicotine (the addictive chemical in tobacco products)
reaches the human brain using a technique called Positron Emission Tomography (PET).
Positron emission tomography consists of injecting people with a radioactive substance to track
increased flow in a particular area (Sebastian, 2014). While PET is another technique in
neuromarketing, it is less used because it is invasive and uncomfortable for participants. In this
nicotine study, the goal was to determine the true rate of nicotine traveling to the brain from
smoking (Berridge, 2010). Twelve participants between the ages of 19-47 who smoked anywhere
from 3-40 cigarettes per day for the 1-30 years were studied. The results of this study found that
nicotine rapidly reached more than half of maximum brain levels within 15 seconds from a
single puff of cigarette smoke. Researchers concluded that the speed of nicotine in the brain was
comparable to the speed cocaine smoke reached cocaine addicts, and that the fast rise contributes
to nicotine dependence in smokers. It is important to know how fast nicotine travels in tobacco
users to understand how easily addiction occurs because anti-tobacco companies will need to
tailor their marketing campaigns without triggering any desires to purchase more tobacco
products. This study gives a deep look into how all ages 19-47 were almost equally affected,
which allows us to understand nicotine effects on our hypothesized age group 18-25 (Berridge,
2010).
Going further into properties of nicotine, an fMRI experiment done by Stein et al. (1998),
was performed to determine what parts of the brain activated after nicotine was injected into
participants. Sixteen participants between the ages of 18-39 were studied. After 2 minutes of
being injected with nicotine, this group experiences a “high” and felt a “pleasantness” that lasted
8
for about 15 minutes. The fMRI image results displayed activation in the limbic or emotional
brain. This study provides a solid foundation to build on in terms of how to conduct a
neuromarketing study on tobacco users. It also highlights a possibility on what to expect when
exposing participants to tobacco related marketing media since the study has covered our 18-25
age group (Stien et al., 1998).
In consumer behavior, we learn that some of the sources of attitude formation are
personal experience, family, friends, and situations. We also know that consumers form attitudes
through either classical conditioning or instrumental conditioning. As explained by Neal
Benowitz, smoking is a conditioned behavior; however, it is difficult to determine whether
classical or instrumental conditioning is the main formation type since some smokers form
attitudes different than others. Just as in instrumental conditioning, regular smokers associate
specific emotions, situations, and environmental factors with the rewarding effects of nicotine.
Moreover, in terms of classical conditioning in smokers, Benowitz states, “Aspects of smoking
itself—the manipulation of smoking materials, or the taste, smell, or feel of smoke in the
throat—also become associated with the pleasurable effects of smoking” (Benowitz, 2010). This
information on attitude formation is considered when developing our methodology. If 18-25 year
olds have conditioned behavior to smoke, it is wise to test whether or not simply viewing
tobacco products influences them to crave the product.
One aspect of smoking addiction is that it follows the same reward system as the human
brain. Going back to the three sections of the brain, the emotional brain is where the reward
system activates. This system consists of motivation that is needed for survival (i.e. looking for
9
food or helping the reptilian brain make a decision). It is here in the middle brain (emotional
brain) that the reward system induces feelings of pleasure. When people anticipate or receive an
expected reward, activity in the emotional brain increases (Touhami et al., 2011). As previously
mentioned, some smokers are conditioned to expect rewarding feelings from using tobacco
products. With that being said, nicotine increases activity in the reward network. Used to relieve
stress and anxiety for users, nicotine also causes anxiety and stress when attempting to withdraw.
This vicious cycle of fulfilling and needing the reward of nicotine is a key detail needed by anti-
tobacco organizations to help 18-25 year olds overcome their habits. These facts assist in coming
up with a creative solution to prevent tobacco purchases after exploring the minds of the
consumer through neuromarketing methods.
From the studies on nicotine addiction and how the brain functions, we can begin
developing a set of procedures to test our hypothesis that anti-tobacco organizations should use
neuromarketing with 18-25 year olds because it can decrease tobacco related purchases. The
previous studies will help us take precaution in determining whether our results are based on
conditioned addictive behaviors or if participants truly favor/disfavor marketing media. Not only
but also, the studies provide a framework on how data should be analyzed and collected. Finally
and most importantly, the information gives ideas on how to alter past experimental aspects to
help anti-tobacco organizations as well as all other nonprofits. We will attempt to develop an
effective methodology to leverage anti-tobacco organizations’ efforts with the use of
neuromarketing.
10
DEMOGRAPHICS:
We decided to focus on the 18-25 smoking age group. We did not want to study underage
smokers or “kids” because of ethical concerns and difficulty in finding parents who would give
consent. We chose 18 years old as our starting point because that is the minimum age one can
legally buy tobacco products. This group’s mind and personality are still developing, therefore it
is crucial to study their attitudes towards smoking. These young adults are most likely in college
and live different lifestyles compared to those 25+ years old who are probably well-established
and have decided to give up on quitting smoking after trying to quit multiple times. Although
both age groups have a developed Theory of Mind (ToM), we feel that the 18-25 age group is
more open minded and emotionally vulnerable to marketing media than older age groups. We
would like to see how effective neuromarketing techniques are in changing attitudes and
preventing future purchases of tobacco products. We know from earlier that smokers from about
18-25+ years old are similar in brain effects from nicotine and in the reward system. However,
we believe 18-25 year olds are more stressed and anxious due to more pressure from school and
job competition than older generations experienced. We believe that 18-25 year olds hold the
most valuable information if our hypothesis is found true.
SAMPLING METHOD AND COLLECTION:
To collect our data, we would use convenience sampling to save time and money. A
survey (see Appendix) created with Qualtrics would be sent to all UIC students and faculty.
Included in the survey is a description of the purpose of the study, as well as incentives given to
those who qualify and participate in the actual experiment. To ensure safety, effectiveness, and
11
accuracy, participants chosen after filtering through surveys have to meet certain qualifications:
18-25 years of age, heavy smokers for 1 or more years, not pregnant, not diagnosed with mental
illness, not recovering from surgery, and not on medications. We will not select nonsmokers
because if we can develop and affective marketing media to reduce tobacco related purchases in
people who are already addicted to smoking, we have confidence the same marketing media will
prevent nonsmokers from future tobacco purchases. Participants selected will also have to give
consent through paperwork before the experiments. Our selected sample size would be small,
consisting of 15 people due to expensive equipment and data analysis software.
METHODOLOGY:
In our experiment we will be using both eye tracking and fMRI on all 15 participants.
The reason for this is because they are more beneficial than other devices for the purpose of this
study. Eye tracking is not the best method to determine attitudes, but it will give us insight on
what smokers concentrate on in viewing ads and packaging. Although more expensive, fMRI is
considered the most accurate for detecting brain activity, and it detects more in all areas of the
brain instead of just the surface. Using both technologies would compliment each other and
provide double the accuracy in interpreting results.
Part A: First off, we would use eye tracking to see what smokers focus on the most in
advertisements that show the negative health effects of smoking when a cigarette is included in
the ad and when the cigarette is not included in the ad. Here, we want to see if users focus more
on the cigarette in the ad or if the users focus more on the negative health effects displayed. The
advertisements shown can be found in the appendix as Ad 1 and Ad 2.
12
Second, we would also use the eye trackers to determine what parts of a regular pack of
cigarettes smokers focus most on versus a pack of cigarettes that have negative health effect
images printed on it. Here, we would like to see what parts of the cigarette packaging smokers
focus more on. The images for the packaging are displayed in the appendix as Pack 1 and Pack 2.
Part B: In the second portion of our experiment, we would have participants go under
fMRI and view the same ads and packaging to see what parts of the brain are triggered for each
stimulus. This would give us a deeper understanding of why participants focused on certain parts
of the ads and packaging during the eye tracking experiment in Part A.
After seeing both the eye tracking and fMRI results, we can determine what to include
and what not to include on advertisements and tobacco packaging. As a reminder, these
techniques show increased brain activity (usually meaning favorability), and not decreased brain
activity. In order to help anti- tobacco organizations create negative attitudes toward tobacco
products, we must think in reverse and eliminate what triggers increased brain activity.
Part C: Once the tests are over, we will show participants the advertisements and
packaging we selected that we found most effective in causing unfavorable attitudes in the
participants after analyzing and interpreting the results. Our last step is to survey participants to
see if they would be less likely to purchase tobacco products after seeing those particular
advertisements and packages in day to day settings.
POSSIBLE ANALYSIS:
To analyze our results, we will use the software packages Eyeworks for the eye tracking
studies, Brain Voyager for the fMRI studies, and SPSS for the second survey. Eyeworks will
13
show us real-time viewing of on-screen eye movement data. This application will also help us
collect and analyze data such as pupil size, timing information, and blinks (Eyeworks.com).
Furthermore, Brain Voyager will be used for the fMRI experiments to create 2D and 3D brain
activation maps and to translate results into numerical data for comparison (Brainvoyager.com).
As for the post-experiment survey, we will create a simple frequency table using SPSS. We are
not comparing samples or variables, but rather, we want to see how many people say “yes” or
“no” to each question to see whether or not our selections really would work in decreasing
tobacco purchases in users 18-25.
CONCLUSION AND CONTRIBUTION:
If our hypothesis is supported, anti-tobacco organizations should develop more
advertisements that participants found most effective in changing their attitudes. Also, these
organizations should make campaigns for the U.S. government to enforce packaging changes for
tobacco companies if negative health effect images on labels were found to be most effective in
reducing purchases. Although the campaigns have been tried before and failed, it is not that the
U.S. government did not like the idea, but rather, tobacco companies claimed it violated freedom
of speech. However, with this scientific evidence, we believe with the FDA’s help, the U.S.
government may be more willing to overturn the case. Moreover, if we conclude that
neuromarketing does reduce tobacco products purchases, anti-tobacco organizations should share
their experiences and findings with other nonprofit organizations to encourage investing in
neuromarketing. By reaching out to nonprofit organizations related to health, there is a potential
in reducing preventable diseases such as diabetes, obesity, and heart disease.
14
If our hypothesis is not supported, we must go back and find the flaws in the experiments,
correct the flaws, and retest (if possible), or develop a more effective experiment. The results of
our experiment can still be used as a basis for making new advertisements or tobacco packaging
even if our hypothesis is not supported. For instance, if eye tracking and fMRI results found that
smokers paid more attention to cigarettes in advertisements because of their addiction, anti-
tobacco organizations could eliminate the cigarettes in future ads. Equally important, anti-
tobacco organizations should not be discouraged if the hypothesis is not supported. Since this
would be the first study using neuromarketing to prevent tobacco-related purchases. These
organizations must be a pioneer in order to pave the way for other organizations so that we can
eventually use neuromarketing to reduce world problems.
LIMITATIONS:
For the limitations of our work, one limitation is the ethical concerns regarding
consumers’ rights and privacy. If the people being tested do not know or comprehend what
exactly they are being tested on, then that is a violation of their rights. To prevent issues, there
has to be complete understanding of the study between the participant and the researcher.
Furthermore, as previously stated, our sample size is 15 due to expenses. This small sample may
not accurately represent the entire population of smokers and may lead to problems if
participants decide to leave the study. Moreover, when conducting the fMRI experiment, we
have to keep in mind that the machine cannot actually predict what people will buy. The fMRI
can only identify increased brain activity in response to marketing stimuli. The brain might be
fired up when the smoker looks at the tobacco ad and box because it reminds them of smoking.
15
There is no clear determination of exactly why the brain lights up when it does, which leads us to
our next point on biases. It is very possible that we will encounter biases in data interpretation.
Different researchers can have different views on results from eye tracking and fMRI results. If
one researcher favors the cause of the experiment, we may accept the hypothesis when it is not
true. Considering that we are looking at eye movement and brain images, if researchers
interpreting the results are not properly trained, again, we may have misleading results. Last,
using participants that are between the ages of 18-25 is also a limitation. According to the Center
for Disease Control and Prevention, “nearly 9 out of 10 cigarette smokers first tried smoking by
age 18, and 99% first tried smoking by age 26” (CDC.gov). If our research was able to study
youth under 18, we could possibly find out how to change their attitudes and their behavior early
on to end the tobacco epidemic. It is sensitive to have underage smoking participants, at least 17,
because they may not want to admit to their activities, nor is it likely their parents would give
consent. Although we are not able to test the under 18 age group due to legal constraints; hence,
we are testing the age group that resembles it the most that can give us answers to decrease
tobacco consumption for even younger age groups.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS:
If our hypothesis is supported, we can take further research directions. First of all, we can
study the differences between genders. Girls may be more easily influenced to not buy tobacco
related products after seeing an ad or packaging because of how tobacco affects beauty. Second,
if neuromarketing becomes more accepted by society, we may be able to test the effects of anti-
16
tobacco ads and packaging on children. This would be done to understand their current attitudes
and prevent future purchases of unhealthy substances. Finally, we can further our research by
studying the minds of smokers currently trying to quit to see how we can help them overcome
withdrawal symptoms through marketing tools.
If our hypothesis is not supported, we would need to further our research and look deeper
into what visuals suppress addiction related attitudes and behaviors. Neuromarketing research is
fairly new, so we could also research what stimuli in general cause negative attitudes in people to
prevent unhealthy purchases and behaviors.
FINAL CONCLUSION:
Since the emergence of neuromarketing, researchers have tried to understand consumer
attitudes and predict their purchase behaviors through scientific methods. Researchers are still
trying to determine the “buy button” in the brain, but there is no neuromarketing research on how
to change consumer attitudes to buy less. Although there is vast research on tobacco effects on
users, there is no research on how anti-tobacco companies can use neuromarketing techniques,
making our research the first of its kind. By targeting these gaps in research, we hope to uncover
all the possibilities of how anti-tobacco organizations can reduce purchasing behaviors in 18-25
year olds. Although we are currently only looking at anti-tobacco organizations, we could take
our research a step further and study how all nonprofit organizations can utilize neuromarketing
methods. Whether our hypothesis is supported or not supported, our research could potentially
help aid in decreasing world problems, all with the help of mind reading.
17
REFERENCES:
Benowitz NL. Nicotine Addiction. The New England journal of medicine. 2010;362(24):2295-
2303. doi:10.1056/NEJMra0809890.
Berridge, M., Apana, S., Nagano, K., Berridge, C., Leisure, G., & Boswell, M. (2010). Smoking
Produces Rapid Rise of [11C]Nicotine in Human Brain. Psychopharmacology, 383-394.
Retrieved November 7, 2015, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00213-010-
1809-8#/page-1
BrainVoyager. (n.d.). Retrieved November 7, 2015, from /
http://www.brainvoyager.com/products/brainvoyager.html
Cigarette Smoking in the United States. (2015, October 23). Retrieved November 7, 2015, from /
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/resources/data/cigarette-smoking-in-united-
states.html
Hedgcock, W., Vohs, K., & Rao, A. (2012). Reducing self-control depletion effects through
enhanced sensitivity to implementation: Evidence from fMRI and behavioral
studies. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 486-495. Retrieved November 7, 2015, from
ScienceDirect.
Morin, C. (2011). Neuromarketing: The New Science of Consumer Behavior. Soc Society, 131-
135. Retrieved October 29, 2015, from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-
010-9408-1
18
Orzan G, Zara I, Purcarea V. Neuromarketing techniques in pharmaceutical drugs advertising. A
discussion and agenda for future research. Journal of Medicine and Life. 2012;5(4):428-
432.
Ruanguttamanun, C. (2014). Neuromarketing: I Put Myself into a fMRI Scanner and Realized
that I love Louis Vuitton Ads. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211-218.
Retrieved October 28, 2015, from ScienceDirect.
Sebastian, V. (2014). Neuromarketing and Evaluation of Cognitive and Emotional Responses of
Consumers to Marketing Stimuli. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,753-757.
Retrieved October 28, 2015, from ScienceDirect.
SOFTWARE: EyeWorks™. (n.d.). Retrieved November 5, 2015, from
http://www.eyetracking.com/Software/EyeWorks
Stein, E., Pankiewicz, J., Harsch, H., Cho, J., Fuller, S., Hoffmann, R., . . . Bloom, A. (n.d.)
(1998). Nicotine-Induced Limbic Cortical Activation in the Human Brain: A Functional
MRI Study. American Journal of Psychiatry AJP, 1009-1015. Retrieved November 7, 2015,
from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.155.8.1009
Touhami, Z. O., Benlafkih, L., Jiddane, M., Cherrah, Y., Malki, H. O. E., & Benomar, A. (2011).
Neuromarketing: Where marketing and neuroscience meet.African Journal of Business
Management, 5(5), 1528-1532.
19
APPENDIX:
: Ad 1
Ad 2
20
Pack 1
Pack 2
21
SURVEY 1:
Team Blue at The University of Illinois at Chicago is conducting a research study on neuromarketing and anti- tobacco organizations. This study would like to study tobacco usage and the effects of advertising during our experiments.
You may be eligible if you:
1. Are 18-25 years old
2. Are a smoker
Study includes:
1. One functional MRI scan to non-invasively measure brain function
2. One session of eye tracking
3. Follow up survey after machine testing
Interested volunteers should have no metal parts in their body and no major medical or neurological illness. Patients who are currently undergoing psychotherapy (talk therapy) or taking certain medications that affect the brain may not qualify for the study. Women should not be pregnant or trying to become pregnant. This study involves a time commitment of approximately 4-6 hours over a total of 3 visits. Volunteers will be compensated for their time. Volunteers must be US citizens or permanent residents. All information you give is confidential.
Fill out the following survey in order to determine your eligibility.
Please call or email for more information:
CALL: 555-555-5555
M-F 8:00am- 6:00pm
EMAIL: [email protected]
1. Do you currently smoke tobacco on a daily basis? a) Daily b) Less than Daily c) Not at all
22
2. How many years have you been smoking? a) >1 year b) 1-2 years c) 3-4 years d) 5-6 years e) 6+ years
3. During the past 12 months, have you tried to quit smoking? a) Yes b) No
4. About how many cigarettes do you smoke in a typical day?
a) 1-5 b) 6-11 c) 12-19 d) 20+
5. Do you currently have a mental illness? a) Yes b) No
6. Have you previously been diagnosed with a mental illness? a) Yes b) No
7. Have you suffered from any head injuries? a) Yes b) No
8. Are you currently pregnant? a) Yes b) No
9. Are you currently on any medication? a) Yes b) No
10. Are you currently recovering from any surgery? a) Yes b) No
11. How long ago was the surgery? ________Write time length 12. Age: ____Years Old 13. Gender: ____M ____F
23
SURVEY 2:
1. Would seeing this advertisement make you want to quit smoking? A. Yes B. No C. Undecided D. Other
2. Would seeing this advertisement prevent you from purchasing more tobacco products? A. Yes B. No C. Undecided D. Other
3. Do you feel that if you saw this more often you would be more likely to quit purchasing tobacco products?
A. Yes B. No C. Undecided D. Other
4. Do you feel that if you saw this more often you would be more likely to quit smoking? A. Yes B. No C. Undecided D. Other
24
1. Would seeing this packaging label make you want to quit smoking?
A. Yes B. No C. Undecided D. Other
2. Would seeing this packaging label prevent you from purchasing more tobacco products?
A. Yes B. No C. Undecided D. Other
3. Do you feel that if you saw this more often you would be more likely to quit purchasing tobacco products?
A. Yes B. No C. Undecided D. Other
4. Do you feel that if you saw this more often you would be more likely to quit smoking?
A. Yes B. No C. Undecided D. Other
