IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bjafio/v13y2015i1p5-14n10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cognitive Neuroscience Perspectives on Food Decision-Making: A Brief Introduction

Author

Listed:
  • Lepping Rebecca J.
  • Papa Vlad B.

    (Hoglund Brain Imaging Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS 66160, USA)

  • Martin Laura E.

Abstract

Cognitive neuroscience methods have recently been employed to examine the neural underpinnings of food-related decision-making. The emerging field of food decision neuroscience uses cognitive neuroscience tools such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study how individuals make decisions regarding food intake, purchasing, branding, and advertising. These tools can be employed to inform marketing strategies, advertising, and product differentiation. Results can also be leveraged to aid in the design of food labeling and policy for obesity, advertising to children, and others. While these tools have the promise for advancing agricultural science as well as informing food related policy, there are some potential pitfalls when applying these techniques to new fields. The goal of this paper is to outline some of the major tools used by cognitive neuroscience – beginning with experimental design and behavioral measures, and then followed by a discussion of some of the neuroimaging tools (fMRI, electroencephalography and event-related potentials [EEG/ERP], and magnetoencephalography [MEG]) – and to highlight how those tools have been used to understand food decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Lepping Rebecca J. & Papa Vlad B. & Martin Laura E., 2015. "Cognitive Neuroscience Perspectives on Food Decision-Making: A Brief Introduction," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 5-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bjafio:v:13:y:2015:i:1:p:5-14:n:10
    DOI: 10.1515/jafio-2015-0026
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2015-0026
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/jafio-2015-0026?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. ., 2013. "Individual decision- making," Chapters, in: Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems, chapter 1, pages 35-51, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Kathleen Brooks & Jayson L. Lusk, 2010. "Stated and Revealed Preferences for Organic and Cloned Milk: Combining Choice Experiment and Scanner Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1229-1241.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Richard Friberg & Mark Sanctuary, 2018. "Market stealing and market expansion: an examination of product introductions in the organic coffee market," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 20(2), pages 287-303, April.
    2. Su, Lianfan & Adam, Brian D. & Lusk, Jayson L. & Arthur, Frank, 2011. "A Comparison of Auction and Choice Experiment: An Application to Consumer Willingness to Pay for Rice with Improved Storage Management," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 103975, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    3. Chen, Kee-Kuo & Ho, Hui-Ping & Chang, Ching-Ter, 2015. "Estimating attributes importance for container shipping industry by closing the listening gap with maximum convergent validity," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 145-163.
    4. Schuster, Monica & Vranken, Liesbet & Maertens, Miet, 2017. "You Can(’t) Always Get the Job You Want: Stated versus Revealed Employment Preferences in the Peruvian Agro-industry," Working Papers 254076, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    5. Xiang Wu & Bin Hu & Jie Xiong, 2020. "Understanding Heterogeneous Consumer Preferences in Chinese Milk Markets: A Latent Class Approach," Post-Print hal-02489646, HAL.
    6. Vanessa von Schlippenbach & Isabel Teichmann, 2012. "The Strategic Use of Private Quality Standards in Food Supply Chains," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1189-1201.
    7. Jo, Jisung & Lusk, Jayson L. & Muller, Laurent & Ruffieux, Bernard, 2016. "Value of parsimonious nutritional information in a framed field experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 124-133.
    8. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    9. Katherine Fuller & Carola Grebitus, 2023. "Consumers' preferences and willingness to pay for coffee sustainability labels," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(4), pages 1007-1025, October.
    10. Michael P. Keane & Nada Wasi, 2013. "The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. Stated Preference Data," Economics Papers 2013-W10, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    11. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    12. Paula Pereda & Maria Alice Christofoletti, 2019. "Heterogeneous welfare and emission effects of energy tax policies in Brazil," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2019_32, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    13. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Macro-scale analysis of literature and integrative synthesis of empirical evidence from applied economics, experimental psychology and neuroimag," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    14. Lauren Chenarides & Carola Grebitus & Jayson L Lusk & Iryna Printezis, 2022. "A calibrated choice experiment method [Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 971-1004.
    15. Apostolakis, George & van Dijk, Gert & Kraanen, Frido & Blomme, Robert J., 2018. "Examining socially responsible investment preferences: A discrete choice conjoint experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 83-96.
    16. Kristen L. Kovalsky & Jayson L. Lusk, 2013. "Do Consumers Really Know How Much They Are Willing to Pay?," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(1), pages 98-127, April.
    17. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton & Jo Pluske, 2016. "Preference Stability and Choice Consistency in Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 441-461, October.
    18. Tiziana Medda & Vittorio Pelligra & Tommaso Reggiani, 2016. "Does Experience Affect Fairness and Reciprocity in Lab Experiments?," CERBE Working Papers wpC09, CERBE Center for Relationship Banking and Economics.
    19. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    20. Sunjin Ahn & Jayson L. Lusk, 2021. "Non‐Pecuniary Effects of Sugar‐Sweetened Beverage Policies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(1), pages 53-69, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:bjafio:v:13:y:2015:i:1:p:5-14:n:10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.