IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jbusin/v5y2025i2p25-d1673901.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Neuroscience in Shaping Marketing Narratives for Rural Agricultural Producers: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Olaitan Shemfe

    (Department of Business Management and Economics, Faculty of Economic and Financial Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, Zamukulungisa Campus, Private Bag X2, Mthatha 5099, South Africa)

  • Ifeanyi Mbukanma

    (Department of Business Management and Economics, Faculty of Economic and Financial Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, Zamukulungisa Campus, Private Bag X2, Mthatha 5099, South Africa)

Abstract

Rural agricultural markets face unique challenges, yet neuromarketing applications in this sector are understudied. This systematic review investigates how neuroscience has been applied to shape marketing narratives for rural agricultural producers. The objectives were to catalog relevant studies, identify key themes using inductive thematic synthesis, and derive practical implications for rural marketing strategy and future research. We systematically searched English-language, peer-reviewed studies published between 2016 and 2024 across multiple academic databases, following PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers screened the records, resulting in the inclusion of 20 studies. Key data from each study were extracted and synthesized using an inductive thematic analysis approach. The synthesis revealed several recurrent findings. First, in terms of social and community context, farmers showed greater trust and engagement with familiar local buyers than with distant corporations, indicating that local relationships strongly influence producer behavior. Second, regarding product and narrative attributes, marketing narratives that emphasized local provenance, organic or sustainable production, and ethical values such as animal welfare and environmental sustainability resonated strongly with rural consumers. Third, sensory and emotional cues particularly visual elements and storytelling techniques including color, imagery, and packaging design consistently enhanced consumer attention and engagement. Overall, these neuroscience-informed themes suggest that marketing narratives emphasizing authenticity, trust-building, and community values can effectively strengthen rural agricultural marketing. This review provides neuroscience-informed interpretations of key rural marketing challenges, drawing on dual-process theory and consumer decision models for applying neuromarketing insights in this context. Practically, rural producers can leverage these findings by designing marketing messages and packaging that highlight local identity and ethical values, thereby building consumer trust and loyalty. The review also highlights gaps such as the need for more field-based neuromarketing studies and suggests directions for future research, offering guidance for both scholars and practitioners working at the intersection of neuroscience and rural consumer behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Olaitan Shemfe & Ifeanyi Mbukanma, 2025. "The Role of Neuroscience in Shaping Marketing Narratives for Rural Agricultural Producers: A Systematic Review," Businesses, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-25, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jbusin:v:5:y:2025:i:2:p:25-:d:1673901
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7116/5/2/25/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7116/5/2/25/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alicia Rihn & Hayk Khachatryan & Benjamin Campbell & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2016. "Consumer preferences for organic production methods and origin promotions on ornamental plants: evidence from eye-tracking experiments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(6), pages 599-608, November.
    2. Phoebe Koundouri & Barbara Hammer & Ulrike Kuhl & Alina Velias, 2023. "Behavioral Economics and Neuroeconomics of Environmental Values," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 15(1), pages 153-176, October.
    3. Thandazile Samukelisiwe Ntobela & Ifeanyi Mbukanma, 2024. "Conceptual Interface Between Sensory Marketing and Impulsive Buying Behaviour of Millennials in South Africa," The Journal of Accounting and Management, Danubius University of Galati, issue 1(14), pages 83-93, April.
    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. Ellen J Van Loo & Carola Grebitus & Rodolfo M Nayga & Wim Verbeke & Jutta Roosen, 2018. "On the Measurement of Consumer Preferences and Food Choice Behavior: The Relation Between Visual Attention and Choices," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 538-562, December.
    2. Kassas, Bachir & Cao, Xiang & Gao, Zhifeng & House, Lisa A. & Guan, Zhengfei, 2023. "Consumer preferences for country of origin labeling: Bridging the gap between research estimates and real-world behavior," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    3. Yuri Borgianni & Lorenzo Maccioni & Anton Dignös & Demis Basso, 2022. "A Framework to Evaluate Areas of Interest for Sustainable Products and Designs," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia L. Rihn & Benjamin Campbell & Chengyan Yue & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe, 2017. "Visual Attention to Eco-Labels Predicts Consumer Preferences for Pollinator Friendly Plants," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-14, September.
    5. Marike Isaak & Wolfgang Lentz, 2020. "Consumer Preferences for Sustainability in Food and Non-Food Horticulture Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-16, August.
    6. Natália Munari Pagan & Karina Munari Pagan & Adriano Alves Teixeira & Janaina Moura Engracia Giraldi & Nelson Oliveira Stefanelli & Jorge Henrique Caldeira Oliveira, 2020. "Application of Neuroscience in the Area of Sustainability: Mapping the Territory," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 21(1), pages 61-77, June.
    7. Bansal, Prateek & Kim, Eui-Jin & Ozdemir, Semra, 2024. "Discrete choice experiments with eye-tracking: How far we have come and ways forward," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    8. Giray, Caner & Yon, Belma & Alniacik, Umit & Girisken, Yener, 2022. "How does mothers’ mood matter on their choice of organic food? Controlled eye-tracking study," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1175-1185.
    9. Hongpeng Xu & Jing Li & Jianmei Wu & Jian Kang, 2019. "Evaluation of Wood Coverage on Building Facades Towards Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-12, March.
    10. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain & Williams, Louis & McSorley, Eugene, 2017. "Examining the relationship between visual attention and stated preferences: A discrete choice experiment using eye-tracking," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 238-257.
    11. McKenzie Thomas & Kimberly L. Jensen & Dayton M. Lambert & Burton C. English & Christopher D. Clark & Forbes R. Walker, 2021. "Consumer Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Potting Mix with Biochar," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn & Ben Campbell & Bridget Behe & Charles Hall, 2018. "How do consumer perceptions of “local†production benefits influence their visual attention to state marketing programs?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 390-406, March.
    13. Dong Hee Suh & Hayk Khachatryan & Alicia Rihn & Michael Dukes, 2017. "Relating Knowledge and Perceptions of Sustainable Water Management to Preferences for Smart Irrigation Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-21, April.
    14. Aaron Staples & Bridget K. Behe & Patricia Huddleston & Trey Malone, 2022. "What you see is what you get, and what you don't goes unsold: Choice overload and purchasing heuristics in a horticulture lab experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(3), pages 620-635, July.
    15. Zhang, Xumin & Khachatryan, Hayk & Gao, Zhifeng, 2020. "Using Mixed Logit Based Models to Control Attribute Nonattendance in Choice Experiments," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304547, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Naïs Segond & Gaëlle Pantin-Sohier & Ronan Symoneaux & Allan Maignant, 2020. "Perception Et Caracterisation Des Innovations Dans Le Secteur Du Vegetal D'Ornement : Une Etude Exploratoire," Post-Print hal-03260918, HAL.
    17. Carola Grebitus & Ellen J. Van Loo, 2022. "Relationship between cognitive and affective processes, and willingness to pay for pesticide‐free and GMO‐free labeling," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 407-421, May.
    18. Ardvin Kester S. Ong & Yogi Tri Prasetyo & Lance Albert S. De Leon & Irene Dyah Ayuwati & Reny Nadlifatin & Satria Fadil Persada, 2022. "Plantitas/Plantitos Preference Analysis on Succulents Attributes and Its Market Segmentation: Integrating Conjoint Analysis and K-means Clustering for Gardening Marketing Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-24, December.
    19. Eija Pouta & Eero Liski & Annika Tienhaara & Kauko Koikkalainen & Antti Miettinen, 2021. "Ecosystem-Based Food Production: Consumers′ Preferred Practices and Willingness to Buy and Pay," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, April.
    20. Tenaw G. Abate & Morten R. Mørkbak & Søren B. Olsen, 2018. "Inducing value and institutional learning effects in stated choice experiments using advanced disclosure and instructional choice set treatments," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 339-351, May.

    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:gam:jbusin:v:5:y:2025:i:2:p:25-:d:1673901. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.