From Neurometrics to Optimal Price: Quantifying the Shift from Price-Elastic to Behavior-Elastic Demand¶

1. Why Traditional Pricing Models Misread Consumer Psychology¶

Traditional price elasticity models, built on assumptions of rational calculation and linear relationships like the log-log model (\(\ln(Q)=\beta_0+\beta_1\ln(P)+\epsilon\)), systematically fail to capture the psychological realities of consumer decision-making. This section will first deconstruct the mathematical straightjacket that relegates critical factors to statistical noise, then detail the specific cognitive biases—such as anchoring and loss aversion—that disrupt the model of the rational consumer. Finally, it will present compelling empirical evidence from diverse markets demonstrating how these psychological factors cause traditional models to break down in practice, leading to suboptimal pricing strategies.

1.1. The Mathematical Straightjacket: When Formulas Fail Psychology¶

Traditional price elasticity models, while mathematically elegant, are built upon a set of simplifying assumptions that systematically exclude the complex realities of consumer psychology. These models, such as the fundamental Price Elasticity of Demand (PED) and the more advanced log-log model (\(\ln(Q)=\beta_0+\beta_1\ln(P)+\epsilon\)), treat factors other than price as an "error term (ε) representing factors not accounted for in the model" [72]. This foundational choice relegates critical psychological drivers like brand loyalty, emotional attachment, and cognitive biases to statistical noise, creating a fundamental gap between the model and real-world behavior [72][61]. The core mathematical properties of these models—linearity, the assumption of symmetric responses, and the ceteris paribus condition—act as a straightjacket, preventing them from accurately capturing the nuanced and often irrational nature of human decision-making.

A primary limitation is the assumption of a linear or log-linear relationship between price and quantity [72]. This mathematical structure is inherently ill-suited for modeling non-linear behavioral phenomena. For instance, loss aversion, a cornerstone of prospect theory, describes how the psychological pain of a loss is not proportional to the pleasure of an equivalent gain [56]. This asymmetry creates a "kink" in the demand curve that linear models cannot represent. Empirical evidence from public transport demand confirms this, showing that consumers react 0.5 to 1.0 percentage points more strongly to fare increases than to decreases—a direct contradiction of the symmetric response assumption [25][69]. This finding, attributed to loss aversion, demonstrates how traditional models systematically mispredict consumer behavior by ignoring such psychological reference points [25].

Furthermore, the ceteris paribus ("all other things being equal") assumption fails to account for the dynamic and contextual nature of price perception. Research shows that price elasticity is not a single, stable parameter but varies over time. The effect of a reference price is most potent immediately after a price change, making immediate-term elasticity higher than long-term elasticity [22][73]. A traditional model using a static elasticity value cannot capture this temporal dynamic, leading to suboptimal pricing decisions that fail to account for how consumers' perceptions adjust over time [73]. This gap between actual price and perceived price is further widened by cognitive biases like the anchoring effect, where an initial price point disproportionately influences subsequent value judgments, a factor traditional models treat as external to the core price-quantity relationship [43][23].

The limitations extend to how these models handle complex psychological constructs like brand loyalty. Empirical analysis reveals that loyal consumers exhibit a dual relationship with price sensitivity: they are less likely to switch brands due to a price increase but more likely to reduce the quantity they purchase [52]. A traditional model that assumes a single, monolithic price elasticity cannot capture this nuanced, two-faced response, leading to biased parameter estimates and potentially antagonizing a firm's most valuable customers [52][1]. This complexity is compounded by the finding that different subcomponents of loyalty (affective, cognitive, habit) have opposing effects on willingness to pay, a level of psychological detail that is omitted from standard econometric specifications [29].

Even when traditional methodologies attempt to incorporate behavioral factors, they face significant computational and scaling challenges. Modeling the interdependence of discrete brand choice and continuous purchase quantity decisions requires sophisticated "limited-dependent variable" frameworks; simpler, independent models yield inefficient and biased estimates [52]. This methodological hurdle highlights the inadequacy of traditional approaches for products where purchasing decisions are heavily influenced by psychological attachment rather than pure price calculation. The high failure rate of new products is cited as evidence of this insufficiency, as traditional models, built on the flawed assumption of a consumer as a tabula rasa, lack the ecological validity to predict behavior in context-rich, real-world scenarios [48].

In summary, the mathematical straightjacket of traditional pricing models—defined by linearity, symmetry, and static, context-independent parameters—creates systematic blind spots for the psychological factors that truly govern consumer demand. By treating these factors as error or external confounders, these models are fundamentally ill-equipped to explain why a consumer would pay a premium for a branded product or react irrationally to a price change, leading to suboptimal pricing strategies that fail to align with the subconscious drivers of value.

Having established the inherent limitations of the traditional mathematical framework, the following section will explore the specific cognitive biases that disrupt the model of the rational consumer calculator.

1.2. Cognitive Biases vs. Rational Calculators¶

Traditional price elasticity models are predicated on the Homo economicus assumption—a rational actor who calculates utility and optimizes decisions based on complete information. However, a substantial body of behavioral research demonstrates that real consumer decisions are systematically distorted by cognitive biases, creating predictable deviations from these rational predictions [40]. These biases are not random noise but are systematic patterns of deviation from rationality in judgment, arising from the brain's use of mental shortcuts, or heuristics [13]. Three specific phenomena—anchoring, loss aversion, and belief perseverance—are particularly potent in violating the core assumptions of traditional pricing models [40].

The anchoring effect is a robust cognitive bias where individuals rely heavily on an initial piece of information (the "anchor") when making subsequent judgments [43]. In pricing contexts, this means a consumer's perception of value and their willingness to pay are skewed toward an arbitrary or strategically placed reference price. For example, retailers actively leverage this by displaying a high Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) as an anchor to make a subsequent sale price appear as a significant bargain, thereby increasing the perceived value and purchase likelihood [19]. Experimental studies confirm that in experiential marketing scenarios, where objective value is difficult to assess, consumers' price judgments are systematically biased by high or low anchor values provided by the business, which dominates the information environment [43][23]. The strength of this bias is further modulated by consumer-specific factors such as gender, emotional state, personality traits, and product knowledge, demonstrating that the "error" in a traditional model is not random but systematically influenced by measurable psychological variables [43][51].

Loss aversion, a foundational concept of Prospect Theory, presents a direct challenge to the assumption of symmetric responses to gains and losses [49]. This bias describes the phenomenon where the psychological pain of losing is psychologically twice as powerful as the pleasure of an equivalent gain [49]. Consequently, consumers are not indifferent to a price change of a given magnitude; they react more strongly to a price increase (perceived as a loss) than to a price decrease (perceived as a gain) [56]. This asymmetry is empirically observed in markets like public transport, where demand is more elastic for fare increases than decreases [25]. Traditional models that assume a single, symmetric elasticity coefficient are therefore ill-suited to capture this fundamental driver of consumer behavior, leading to inaccurate predictions of demand following price adjustments [73].

Belief perseverance further complicates the rational actor model by causing consumers to cling to pre-existing beliefs about a product's value or a brand's pricing fairness, even when presented with contradictory evidence [40]. This bias, alongside others like the default effect and reactance, illustrates that consumer decisions are influenced by motivational factors and a desire to maintain cognitive consistency, not just objective cost-benefit analysis [13]. The limitations of traditional models in handling these biases are also evident in their methodological foundations. For instance, discrete choice models, a common tool for estimating demand, rely on the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives (IIA) assumption, which is frequently violated by behavioral phenomena like the decoy effect—where the introduction of a third, inferior option alters the relative preference between two original options [32].

These cognitive biases demonstrate that the relationship between price and demand is mediated by a complex web of psychological processes that traditional models relegate to an error term. The failure to account for these systematic deviations means that pricing strategies based solely on price elasticity will inevitably be suboptimal, as they ignore the subconscious anchors, asymmetric loss aversion, and entrenched beliefs that truly govern consumer willingness to pay.

The empirical evidence for these theoretical limitations is compelling and will be examined in the following section, which details real-world cases where traditional models break down.

1.3. Empirical Evidence: When Traditional Models Break Down in Practice¶

The empirical shortcomings of traditional price elasticity models are not merely theoretical but are consistently demonstrated in real-world settings where psychological factors override rational price calculations. These case studies reveal systematic patterns of consumer behavior that deviate from model predictions, leading to suboptimal pricing decisions and unexpected market outcomes.

A foundational example comes from the London Underground, where fare changes provided a clean laboratory to test elasticity assumptions [25]. Unlike goods that can be stockpiled, public transport demand reflects immediate consumer reactions, eliminating confounding logistical factors [25]. The study found a clear asymmetry: demand was 0.5 to 1.0 percentage points more sensitive to price increases than to equivalent decreases [25]. This contradicts the symmetric response assumed by traditional iso-elastic models and is directly attributed to the psychological phenomenon of loss aversion, where consumers perceive a fare hike as a loss to which they react more strongly [25][69]. The resulting "kinked" demand curve explains real-world price stickiness, as businesses fear antagonizing customers with increases—a dynamic a traditional model would not capture [25].

The limitations extend to markets where brand loyalty introduces complex psychological dynamics. Research on consumer goods reveals that loyal customers exhibit a dual price sensitivity: they are less likely to switch brands due to a price increase but more likely to reduce the quantity they purchase [52]. A traditional model using a single elasticity coefficient cannot represent this nuanced response, leading to biased estimates [52]. Furthermore, the subcomponents of loyalty have opposing effects; while cognitive and affective loyalty increase willingness to pay a premium, habit loyalty for low-priced products is associated with a lower intention to pay more [29]. This indicates that treating repeat purchases as a simple proxy for inelastic demand can be fundamentally misleading.

The hotel industry provides a stark case of paradoxical behavior that defies conventional theory. An analysis of 103 Prague hotels from 2011-2018 identified an instance of Giffen's paradox during the 2016 high season, where demand increased as prices rose [68]. This was driven by customers' psychological expectation of continued price increases, a factor traditional models treat as noise. The study also showed that price sensitivity varied dramatically by context, with low seasons showing unexpectedly low sensitivity due to non-yieldable leisure segments, further highlighting the failure of static elasticity models [68].

Consumer responses are also mediated by subconscious perceptions of the pricing agent itself, not just the price. An experimental study grounded in the Stimulus-Organism-Response model found that when a price difference was perceived as being set by an AI versus a human marketer, "ethical perception" completely mediated subsequent behaviors like repurchase intention and complaint rates [58]. For the same price stimulus, AI-initiated pricing led to significantly higher repurchase intention (M_AI = 2.87 > M_Marketer = 2.43) and lower complaints (M_AI = 5.34 < M_Marketer = 5.67) [58]. This demonstrates that the elasticity of demand for an identical price can vary based on ethical attributions, a nuance invisible to traditional models.

Luxury goods markets present another arena of failure, where traditional models struggle with the Veblen effect—demand that increases with price due to enhanced perceptions of exclusivity and prestige [2]. High prices are used as a marketing tool to convey quality, which can actually increase perceived value and demand, creating a positive slope in the demand curve that contradicts fundamental economic law [2]. Similarly, research on high-priced wine brands acknowledges rare cases of positive price elasticity for luxury goods, the reasons for which remain "elusive" to standard economic models that assume negative elasticity [6].

Finally, the methodological weakness of traditional models is exposed by neuromarketing comparisons. A study on willingness to pay a premium for green electricity found that while self-reported survey data showed an inconsistent range of acceptable increases (3% to 19%), neuropricing data revealed a precise, higher tolerance of up to 15% [75]. This discrepancy highlights how strategic behavior and biases in self-reporting lead traditional models to inaccurate valuations. The superior predictive power of neural data was further demonstrated in a crowdfunding study, where activity in the brain's reward center (Nucleus Accumbens) successfully forecasted market success, while traditional survey measures like project likeability failed [75].

These empirical cases collectively demonstrate that traditional price elasticity models break down when faced with the realities of asymmetric loss aversion, brand loyalty complexities, contextual expectations, ethical perceptions, and prestige-based consumption. The consistent theme is that price is filtered through a lens of psychological phenomena that traditional models are structurally unequipped to incorporate.

Having established the empirical evidence for the failure of traditional models, the next section will introduce the neuromarketing toolkit that provides the means to measure these hidden psychological drivers.

2. From Brain Waves to Price Tags: The Neuromarketing Measurement Toolkit¶

The construction of behavior-elastic demand curves, \(Q = f(P, B)\), requires a sophisticated measurement toolkit to quantify the behavioral parameter \(B\). This section provides a comprehensive overview of the primary neuromarketing techniques and the computational pipeline necessary to translate neural and physiological responses into actionable pricing data. We begin by examining the core tools for decoding neural valuation signals, then explore complementary physiological and behavioral measures, and conclude with the critical signal processing and multi-modal integration steps that transform raw data into model-ready parameters.

2.1. Decoding Neural Responses: EEG and fMRI for Valuation¶

Electroencephalography (EEG) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) provide the most direct neural correlates of consumer valuation, offering quantifiable metrics for price sensitivity, willingness-to-pay (WTP), and purchase decisions that underpin behavior-elastic pricing models. EEG, with its high temporal resolution, captures rapid, millisecond-scale neural dynamics during price evaluation. A key metric is Frontal Alpha Asymmetry (FAA), calculated as the difference in alpha-band power (8-13 Hz) between left and right prefrontal electrodes. A relative decrease in left-frontal alpha power (indicating increased cortical activity) signifies an "approach" motivation, which has been consistently and specifically associated with higher behavioral WTP [54]. This makes FAA a direct neural indicator of the motivational component driving purchase intention, superior to physiological arousal measures that only capture intensity, not direction [54]. Another critical EEG metric is Gamma Power Asymmetry. Studies have demonstrated that a positive Prefrontal Asymmetry Index in the gamma band (25-40 Hz), indicating stronger left prefrontal engagement, is a powerful predictor of WTP, with this neural measure alone explaining over 27% of the variance in stated prices [16]. The predictive power of these asymmetry indices is often enhanced when integrated with eye-tracking data; for instance, time spent visually fixating on price and discount areas correlates positively with the gamma-based Willingness to Pay Index (WPI) [70].

Beyond asymmetry, specific Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) offer a window into the cognitive chronology of price processing. The P300/P200 components, peaking 200-400 ms post-stimulus, reflect the allocation of attentional resources and are modulated by price presentation, indicating which price points successfully capture consumer focus [54]. The N200/N400 components are sensitive to cognitive conflict and are effectively used to measure neural reactions to violations in price expectations or perceived price deception [54]. The Late Positive Potential (LPP), a later component occurring after 400 ms, reflects conscious emotional evaluation and has demonstrated high single-trial accuracy (up to 70%) in predicting product preference, a key factor in the final purchase decision at a given price [54]. The application of machine learning to these EEG features, including Power Spectral Density (PSD) across frequency bands, has further advanced predictive capability, with models achieving up to 87.1% accuracy in classifying purchase decisions in authentic online shopping environments, significantly outperforming traditional survey-based methods [18].

In contrast to EEG's temporal precision, fMRI provides high spatial resolution, mapping the brain's valuation circuitry. The ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (vmPFC) is consistently identified as a core region for encoding subjective value, including WTP, across different product categories [3]. Activity in the dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex (dlPFC) is involved in evaluating options and consequences, working in concert with the vmPFC, while the insula is activated during affectively charged decisions, such as those involving price-quality tradeoffs [3][41]. This allows fMRI to delineate the neural substrates of deliberative and emotional processes that converge to form a price judgment. However, the utility of fMRI for pricing is constrained by its low temporal resolution, making it unsuitable for capturing the rapid sequence of cognitive events elicited by a price stimulus, and its high cost and operational complexity limit its scalability for routine pricing research [3].

The methodological application of these tools involves specific experimental protocols designed to elicit genuine valuation responses. Protocols often use incentive-compatible mechanisms, such as the Becker-DeGroot-Marschak procedure, where participants know their stated WTP has a chance of being realized, ensuring responses reflect true valuations [14]. Stimuli presentation is carefully controlled, with product images displayed for several seconds while neural data is recorded, and data analysis segments the neural signal to align with different stages of the decision process (e.g., initial evaluation, final decision) [70][14]. A critical finding is that the predictive power of neural metrics can be product-category specific; for example, gamma asymmetry may be a strong predictor of WTP for bags and shoes but not for fast-moving consumer goods, underscoring the need for context-specific calibration in pricing models [16].

Having detailed the neural metrics for valuation, the following section will examine the complementary role of peripheral physiological signals and behavioral tracking in constructing a comprehensive consumer response profile.

2.2. Physiological Signals: GSR, Eye-Tracking and Behavioral Coding¶

Complementing the neural insights from EEG and fMRI, peripheral physiological signals and behavioral coding provide a robust, multi-modal view of consumer response, capturing the unconscious arousal, attention, and observable actions that precede and accompany purchase decisions. These techniques are crucial for validating neural findings and providing a more ecologically valid dataset for behavior-elastic pricing models.

Galvanic Skin Response (GSR), or Electrodermal Activity (EDA), serves as a direct, non-conscious measure of emotional arousal. GSR quantifies changes in the skin's electrical conductivity, which are caused by minute sweat secretion triggered by activation of the sympathetic nervous system [67]. This provides an objective metric for the intensity of a consumer's physiological reaction to a stimulus, such as a price point or promotional offer, that is not subject to cognitive control or reporting bias [60][67]. A critical limitation, however, is that GSR output is identical for both positive and negative stimuli; it measures arousal intensity but cannot reveal emotional valence (i.e., whether the reaction is driven by desire or price aversion) [60][67]. This makes GSR most powerful when integrated with other modalities that can disambiguate the direction of the emotional response.

Eye-tracking technology quantifies visual attention with high spatial and temporal resolution, typically recording gaze points at 30 Hz (30 times per second) [12]. By defining geometric Areas of Interest (AOIs)—such as a product's price tag, brand logo, or a discount banner—researchers can extract specific metrics that translate into behavioral parameters. Total Dwell Time (TDT) and Fixation Count on an AOI are direct measures of visual attention, with higher values indicating greater interest or cognitive processing of that element [12][31]. Furthermore, Average Pupil Diameter (APD) serves as a reliable proxy for psychological excitement and emotional arousal, as pupil dilation is positively correlated with the strength of emotional stimulation [31]. This allows researchers to link where a consumer is looking with how aroused they are while doing so. The methodology requires pairing eye-tracking with an additional measure, such as a willingness-to-purchase scale, to accurately interpret the recordings, as visual attention alone does not guarantee a positive behavioral outcome [12].

Behavioral coding provides a framework for systematically categorizing and quantifying observable actions and reactions. Using integrated software platforms, researchers can define a custom coding scheme to label specific behaviors (e.g., subtle frowns, nods, or utterances of surprise) either in real-time or during post-processing [53]. The key strength of this approach is the ability to synchronize these behavioral labels with data streams from other sensors, such as GSR and eye-tracking. This creates a multi-layered dataset where a spike in GSR-measured arousal or a prolonged fixation on a price can be directly correlated with a specific, coded behavioral reaction, offering a comprehensive view of the consumer's response timeline [53].

The integration of these physiological and behavioral measures is a methodological imperative. For instance, combining GSR (for arousal intensity) with eye-tracking (for visual attention and pupil dilation) allows researchers to pinpoint not just that a consumer was emotionally engaged, but also to identify the specific stimulus—such as a price—that triggered the response [60][31]. This multi-modal approach compensates for the individual limitations of each technique, mitigating the risk of reverse inference and building a more robust foundation for the behavioral parameter \( B \) in a demand function \( Q = f(P, B) \).

The practical deployment of these tools is increasingly feasible. GSR sensors are often simple wristbands, benefiting from consumer familiarity with wearable technology, and can be used in both lab and real-world retail settings [60]. Modern eye-tracking systems include wearable glasses for in-store intercept studies, providing ecologically valid data on how consumers navigate and attend to pricing in a natural environment [12]. The synchronization and analysis of these diverse data streams are facilitated by specialized software platforms that enable the creation of a unified, time-aligned dataset ready for translation into pricing model parameters [53].

Having detailed the tools for measuring neural and physiological responses, the subsequent section will address the critical challenge of processing and integrating these multi-modal signals into a cohesive dataset for analysis.

2.3. Signal Processing and Multi-Modal Data Integration¶

The transformation of raw neuromarketing data into quantifiable parameters suitable for behavioral modeling requires a sophisticated computational pipeline. This process involves sequential stages of signal preprocessing, feature extraction, and multi-modal data fusion, which together convert the inherently noisy and high-dimensional signals from tools like EEG, fMRI, and GSR into stable inputs for behavior-elastic demand functions [62].

The initial and critical step is signal preprocessing, which aims to isolate the neural or physiological signal of interest from confounding noise and artifacts. Raw EEG data, for instance, is contaminated by artifacts from eye movements (electrooculographic, EOG), muscle activity (electromyographic, EMG), and environmental interference like power line noise [33][15]. A range of mathematical techniques are employed for denoising. The regression method uses a lagged regression model to subtract artifact components correlated with the EEG signal [33]. Blind Source Separation techniques, such as Independent Component Analysis (ICA), decompose the multi-channel signal into statistically independent components, allowing for the manual or automated removal of those identified as artifacts [33]. This is formalized by the matrix equation \(X = A S\), where \(X\) is the observed data, \(S\) contains the source signals, and \(A\) is the mixing matrix [33]. For non-stationary signals like EEG, the Wavelet Transform is particularly effective, providing a time-frequency representation that can localize and remove transient artifacts while preserving signal integrity [33][28]. Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) is another method that maximizes the correlation between the EEG signal and artifact templates for effective separation [33]. Pre-processing for fMRI data involves correcting for head motion, removing low-frequency signal drifts, and modeling the hemodynamic response function's delay to align neural activity with the measured BOLD signal [64].

Following preprocessing, feature extraction identifies the specific, quantifiable metrics that serve as proxies for cognitive and affective states. For EEG, this involves analyzing the signal in different domains. In the frequency domain, the power within specific bands is calculated: delta (\(<\)4 Hz) for drowsiness, theta (4-8 Hz) for cognitive load, alpha (8-13 Hz) for relaxation or attention (depending on location), beta (13-30 Hz) for active concentration, and gamma (\(>\)30 Hz) for heightened perception and cognitive processing [10][33]. Asymmetry in power between hemispheres, particularly frontal alpha asymmetry, is a key feature for measuring approach/withdrawal motivation [10][39]. In the time domain, Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) like the P300 (attention) and LPP (emotional evaluation) are extracted by averaging the EEG signal time-locked to specific stimuli, such as the presentation of a price [54][62]. For physiological signals, features include the amplitude and latency of GSR responses (for arousal) and eye-tracking metrics like fixation count and pupil diameter (for attention and arousal) [31][67].

The core challenge of multi-modal data integration is to fuse these disparate features into a coherent behavioral parameter \(B\). This can be approached through data-driven or theory-driven frameworks [65]. Data-driven methods use machine learning to find predictive patterns. For example, Supervised Spatial Filtering algorithms like Source Power Comodulation (SPoC) find spatial filters that maximize the covariance between EEG signal power and a continuous behavioral target, such as willingness-to-pay [74]. Alternatively, Riemannian Geometry Embedding offers a robust approach by representing the covariance matrices of neural signals on a geometric manifold, providing consistent function approximation for regression tasks [74]. Theory-driven approaches, such as generative modeling, use computational models (e.g., from reinforcement learning) to describe the cognitive process; parameters from these models can then be linked to neural data via techniques like model-based fMRI, creating interpretable features for prediction [65]. A common implementation involves using integrated software platforms to synchronize data streams (EEG, eye-tracking, GSR) on a common timeline, enabling the creation of a unified dataset where a spike in GSR can be correlated with a specific EEG feature and a visual fixation on a price tag [36][53].

The final output of this pipeline is a set of clean, quantified neuro-physiological features that are ready to be mapped onto the parameters of a behavior-elastic demand curve, \(Q = f(P, B)\). The accuracy of this mapping is highly dependent on the rigor of the signal processing and integration steps, as any noise or artifact remaining in the data will propagate into the final pricing model, compromising its predictive validity [33][15].

Having detailed the technical process of converting raw signals into model-ready data, the following section will formalize the economic models that use these parameters to construct behavior-elastic demand curves.

3. Economics Meets Neuroscience: The Pricing Paradigm Shift¶

The integration of neuroscience with economics initiates a fundamental paradigm shift in pricing theory, moving from static price-elastic demand models to dynamic, behavior-elastic formulations. This section details this transformation by first contrasting the core mathematical structures of traditional and neuro-pricing models, then presenting empirical evidence of their divergent performance outcomes. Finally, it explores the mathematical and practical implications of these differences for determining optimal pricing strategies.

3.1. Core Structural Formulations: From PED to Neuro-Parameters¶

Traditional price-elastic demand (PED) models are structurally defined by a mathematical relationship that isolates price as the primary variable influencing quantity demanded. The foundational formula for the PED coefficient is given by the ratio of percentage changes: \(E_d = \frac{\%\Delta Q_d}{\%\Delta P}\) [27]. This model is typically implemented using a linear or log-linear functional form. A common linear specification is \(Q_d = \beta_0 - \beta_1 P\), where \(\beta_1\) represents the slope of the demand curve. For estimation, the log-log model, \(\ln(Q) = \beta_0 + \beta_1 \ln(P) + \epsilon\), is frequently employed because the coefficient \(\beta_1\) directly interprets as the price elasticity [72]. A critical structural limitation of this formulation is the error term, \(\epsilon\), which encompasses all factors not explicitly modeled, including the psychological and emotional drivers of consumer behavior [72]. The optimization objective within this framework is to maximize revenue or profit by finding the price where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, with marginal revenue defined as \(MR = P\,\left(1+\frac{1}{E_{d}}\right)\) [27]. These models assume a continuous, often symmetric, response to price changes and rely on aggregate, historical market data for parameter estimation [25][27].

In contrast, behavior-elastic demand curves introduce a fundamental structural shift by parameterizing demand as a function of both price and a vector of latent behavioral variables derived from neuro-marketing data. The core formulation becomes \(Q = f(P, B)\), where \(B\) represents a composite behavioral parameter [21]. This parameter is not a single value but a function of quantifiable neuroscientific metrics: \(B = g(Attention, Arousal, Valence, Motivation)\) [46][67]. For instance, attention can be quantified by EEG alpha/theta power ratios or eye-tracking fixation counts; emotional arousal is measured by Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) or pupil dilation; and motivational approach/withdrawal is indexed by frontal alpha asymmetry in EEG [54][46][39]. The translation from raw neural data to the parameter \(B\) involves sophisticated computational pipelines, such as Supervised Spatial Filtering (e.g., Source Power Comodulation) or Riemannian Geometry Embedding, which transform high-dimensional neuro-physiological data into a stable input for the demand function [74][30].

The implications for model structure are profound. Whereas the traditional PED model assumes a static relationship, the behavior-elastic formulation captures dynamic, individual-level shifts in the demand curve driven by subconscious states. For example, a high level of positive emotional valence (measured via EEG asymmetry or facial coding) might decrease the price sensitivity parameter in a linear demand model, effectively making the curve more inelastic [39][17]. This structural incorporation of psychological variables allows the model to account for phenomena that violate traditional assumptions, such as the asymmetric responses to price changes driven by loss aversion, where demand is more elastic for price increases than decreases [25][73]. The optimization mechanics consequently change; the marginal revenue is now calculated from the behavior-elastic curve, \(MR = P\,\left(1+\frac{1}{E_{B}}\right)\), where \(E_B\) is a behavior-elasticity coefficient that reflects the sensitivity of demand to changes in the underlying neuro-behavioral drivers [21].

The following section will present empirical evidence comparing the performance and outcomes of these two structurally distinct modeling paradigms.

3.2. Empirical Performance: Traditional vs. Neuro-Pricing Outcomes¶

Empirical evidence provides a direct, quantitative comparison of the revenue and profit outcomes achievable with behavior-elastic neuro-pricing models versus those derived from traditional price elasticity of demand (PED). A pivotal study in this domain, "Willingness to pay lip service? Applying a neuroscience-based method to WTP for green electricity," offers a clear benchmark [75]. The research compared two methods for determining consumers' willingness to pay (WTP) a premium for green electricity among 40 participants. The traditional qualitative questionnaire yielded a wide and inconsistent range of acceptable price increases, from 3% to 19% above current energy costs. In contrast, the neuropricing method, which monitored brain activity and reaction times, revealed a more precise and higher consumer tolerance for a price increase of up to 15% [75]. The study concluded that neuropricing was "significantly better in predicting population behavior than reaction times, which in turn are significantly better than questionnaires," attributing its superiority to the avoidance of "strategic behavior" inherent in self-reported data [75]. This case demonstrates that a neuro-pricing model would have recommended a specific, strategically viable 15% price increase, whereas the traditional model provided an ambiguous and potentially undervalued range, risking suboptimal revenue capture.

The limitations of traditional models that lead to such discrepancies are further illustrated by cases where they fail to capture complex psychological dynamics. An analysis of 103 Prague hotels from 2011-2018 revealed a clear instance of Giffen's paradox during the 2016 high season, where demand increased as prices rose—a direct contradiction of conventional economic theory [68]. This paradoxical behavior was driven by customers' psychological expectation of continued price increases, a factor that standard PED models, reliant on historical sales data, are structurally unequipped to incorporate [68]. The study also highlighted how price sensitivity varied dramatically across different contexts (e.g., low vs. high season, weekdays vs. weekends), demonstrating that static elasticity coefficients lead to suboptimal pricing decisions when they ignore temporal and psychological dynamics [68].

Furthermore, consumer responses are mediated by subconscious perceptions that traditional models cannot detect. An experimental study grounded in the Stimulus-Organism-Response model found that for an identical price difference, the perceived ethicality of the pricing agent (AI vs. human marketer) completely mediated consumer behavior [58]. AI-initiated pricing led to significantly higher repurchase intention (\(M_{AI} = 2.87\) vs. \(M_{Marketer} = 2.43\), \(p = 0.004\)) and lower complaint rates (\(M_{AI} = 5.34\) vs. \(M_{Marketer} = 5.67\), \(p = 0.012\)) [58]. This demonstrates that the elasticity of demand for the same price stimulus can vary based on ethical attributions, a nuance invisible to traditional PED calculations.

It is important to note, however, that the predictive superiority of neuro-models is not automatic and is contingent on methodological rigor. A comparative study on inter-temporal choice found that a predictive model using single-trial fMRI data achieved a maximum accuracy of only 54.84%, significantly lower than the over 90% accuracy of well-specified traditional behavioral models for the same task [26]. This result underscores that the translation of neural data into a reliable predictive parameter is non-trivial; the advantage of neuro-pricing is realized with high-quality, multimodal data and sophisticated translation algorithms, not with noisy or poorly processed neuro-signals [26].

Despite this caveat, the evidence from successful applications indicates a significant financial advantage for neuro-pricing. The methodology's ability to magnify the granularity of WTP research allows companies to accurately price non-core product benefits, such as ethical production or regional origin, which traditional models often undervalue [75]. By capturing the true, often subconscious valuation of these attributes, behavior-elastic models enable price differentiation strategies that unlock hidden revenue streams and avoid the demand destruction caused by prices that trigger subconscious aversion.

The divergence in optimal price points identified by these two modeling paradigms has direct mathematical and practical implications for pricing strategy, which will be explored next.

3.3. Optimal Pricing Differences: Mathematical and Practical Implications¶

The comparative analysis of traditional price elasticity of demand (PED) and behavior-elastic models reveals significant divergence in the calculated optimal price points, with profound implications for revenue maximization and strategic pricing. The mathematical foundation for this divergence lies in the structural difference between the demand functions. The traditional model, \(Q = f(P)\), is optimized by finding the price where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, with marginal revenue given by \(MR = P\,\left(1+\frac{1}{E_{d}}\right)\) [27]. In contrast, the behavior-elastic model, \(Q = f(P, B)\), incorporates a behavioral parameter \(B\) derived from neuro-marketing metrics, leading to a marginal revenue function that is sensitive to shifts in these latent drivers: \(MR = P\,\left(1+\frac{1}{E_{B}}\right)\), where \(E_B\) is the composite behavior-elasticity [21].

Empirical evidence quantifies this divergence. The neuropricing study on green electricity demonstrated that optimal price increases could be precisely calibrated to 15%, a figure derived from neural data that was higher and more specific than the ambiguous 3-19% range suggested by traditional questionnaires [75]. This case illustrates that the primary mathematical implication is a recalibration of the demand curve's intercept and slope based on subconscious value perception. For instance, a high level of positive emotional valence, measured by EEG asymmetry or facial coding, can decrease the price sensitivity parameter in a linear demand model, making the curve more inelastic and justifying a higher optimal price than a traditional model would recommend [39][17]. Conversely, neuro-data revealing that a price point triggers negative emotional arousal (e.g., perceived unfairness measured by GSR) would indicate hidden demand destruction, leading the behavior-elastic model to identify a lower optimal price to preserve long-term customer value [55][46]. The magnitude of this price difference is not trivial; optimal prices derived from behavior-elastic curves can differ from traditional model prices by 10-25% or more, as they account for psychological factors like loss aversion that create asymmetric responses to price changes [25][73].

The practical implications for revenue maximization strategies are twofold. First, behavior-elastic models enable a shift from reactive, aggregate-level pricing to proactive, psychologically-attuned strategies. Firms can optimize prices not just for short-term revenue but for long-term customer equity by avoiding prices that trigger subconscious aversion. Second, these models reveal nuanced price sensitivity patterns that are invisible to traditional analysis. For example, the finding that loyal customers are less likely to switch brands but more likely to reduce purchase quantity in response to a price increase necessitates a different pricing tactic than a single elasticity coefficient would suggest [52]. A behavior-elastic model can segment customers based on neural correlates of loyalty (e.g., brand attachment measured via fMRI) and apply differentiated pricing strategies that a traditional model, blind to these psychological segments, would miss entirely. This granularity allows for pricing strategies that maximize revenue by aligning with the true, often non-conscious, drivers of consumer willingness to pay.

The analysis of price sensitivity patterns further shows that sensitivity is not a static property but varies with context and psychological state—dynamics that traditional static models cannot capture. The case of Prague hotels, where demand exhibited Giffen-like behavior during a high season driven by psychological expectations, is a stark example [68]. A behavior-elastic model, incorporating real-time metrics of consumer expectation and arousal, can dynamically adjust prices to capitalize on or mitigate these temporal psychological shifts, whereas a traditional model relying on historical data would be consistently behind the curve.

The transition to the next section on implementation frameworks will detail the specific computational methods and machine learning algorithms required to operationalize these mathematical insights into a viable pricing strategy.

4. Building Behavior-Elastic Pricing Models: Implementation Framework¶

The implementation of behavior-elastic pricing models requires a structured framework that translates neuro-marketing data into actionable pricing strategies. This section details the core components of this implementation, beginning with the critical mapping of neuro-metrics to quantifiable economic parameters for the demand function \(Q = f(P, B)\). It then explores the machine learning and optimization algorithms necessary to calculate profit-maximizing prices from these parameters, and concludes with a framework for validating the models against real-world outcomes and establishing continuous improvement cycles. We begin with the foundational step of neuro-metric to economic parameter mapping.

4.1. Neuro-Metric to Economic Parameter Mapping¶

The translation of neuro-marketing data into quantifiable economic parameters is the critical engineering step that bridges raw physiological signals with formal pricing models. This mapping process employs specific computational techniques to convert metrics like EEG asymmetry and GSR amplitude into parameters for a behavior-elastic demand function, \(Q = f(P, B)\), where \(B\) represents the behavioral state vector.

A primary methodological approach involves supervised machine learning for continuous outcome prediction. Techniques like Source Power Comodulation (SPoC) are used to find spatial filters in EEG data that maximize the covariance between neural signal power and a target variable like willingness-to-pay (WTP) [74]. This data-driven method transforms high-dimensional neural data into a feature set predictive of behavioral outcomes. An alternative, highly robust approach is Riemannian Geometry Embedding, which represents the covariance matrices of neural signals on a geometric manifold, providing a consistent framework for regression tasks that is less sensitive to noise and individual anatomical differences [74]. These methods are foundational for establishing a quantitative link between neuro-physiological activity and the continuous variables required for economic modeling.

The specific neuro-metrics serve as inputs for these models, each mapping to a distinct component of consumer decision-making relevant to pricing: * Frontal Alpha Asymmetry (FAA) in EEG, calculated as the difference in alpha-band power between left and right prefrontal electrodes, is a direct neural correlate of motivational direction. A relative decrease in left-frontal alpha power (indicating increased cortical activity) signifies an "approach" motivation and is consistently associated with higher behavioral WTP, making it a key input for modeling price sensitivity [54]. * Prefrontal Gamma Asymmetry is an even more potent predictor. A positive Prefrontal Asymmetry Index in the gamma band (25-40 Hz) has been shown to be the strongest neural predictor of WTP, explaining over 27% of the variance in stated prices on its own [16]. This metric is often operationalized as a Willingness to Pay Index (WPI) [70]. * Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) amplitude provides a quantifiable measure of emotional arousal intensity. While it does not indicate valence (positive/negative), its amplitude is reliably associated with the strength of unconscious physiological activation in response to a price stimulus [35]. This metric can be mapped to a parameter influencing the intercept of a demand curve, reflecting baseline engagement. * Eye-Tracking Metrics, such as Time Spent viewing a Price or Discount Area of Interest (AOI), provide behavioral correlates that enhance neural predictions. Studies show a strong positive correlation (e.g., r=0.605) between time spent looking at a discount and the gamma-based WPI, linking visual attention directly to the willingness-to-pay parameter [70].

The mapping from these metrics to economic parameters is achieved through regression models. For instance, a linear regression might reveal that a one-standard-deviation increase in the gamma-based WPI is associated with a \(\beta_{WPI}\)% increase in the baseline quantity demanded, \(Q_0\), of a demand function. Similarly, a specific pattern of FAA indicating approach motivation might correlate with a decrease in the price sensitivity parameter (the slope), making the demand curve more inelastic. This direct quantification formalizes how subconscious drivers precipitate a shift in the entire demand relationship [16][54].

A critical consideration for accurate mapping is the integration of multiple modalities. The combination of EEG (for motivational direction), eye-tracking (for visual attention), and GSR (for arousal intensity) compensates for the limitations of any single method and mitigates the risk of reverse inference, leading to a more robust and reliable behavioral parameter \(B\) [46][36]. Furthermore, the predictive power of these neural metrics can be product-category specific, necessitating context-specific calibration of the mapping function for accurate pricing models across different goods [16].

Having detailed the methods for translating neuro-metrics into economic parameters, the following section will explore the machine learning and optimization algorithms that utilize these parameters to calculate profit-maximizing prices.

4.2. Machine Learning and Optimization Algorithms¶

The implementation of behavior-elastic pricing models requires optimization algorithms capable of handling the dynamic and often non-linear relationships captured by neuro-marketing data. While traditional machine learning approaches for dynamic pricing, such as reinforcement learning (RL) and Bayesian methods, are well-established for models based on sales history and market data [8], their application to behavior-elastic curves necessitates adaptation to incorporate real-time or segment-level neuro-physiological parameters. The core optimization challenge shifts from learning a demand function \(Q = f(P)\) to learning a more complex function \(Q = f(P, B)\), where the behavioral parameter \(B\) is derived from metrics like EEG asymmetry or GSR amplitude [16][54].

Reinforcement Learning (RL) is a prominent framework for this adaptive optimization. In a behavior-elastic context, the state space of an RL agent must be expanded beyond traditional variables like inventory and competitor prices to include the aggregated neuro-behavioral state of the target consumer segment. For instance, the state could incorporate a normalized index of approach motivation derived from Frontal Alpha Asymmetry (FAA) measurements [54]. The reward function would then be designed to maximize long-term profit, but with the demand in each time step being influenced by the current behavioral state. Algorithms like Deep Q-Networks (DQN) or Soft Actor-Critic (SAC), which have been applied in competitive market simulations and ride-hailing [8], can be retrained to learn the policy that maps states (price, inventory, behavioral index) to optimal pricing actions. A key advantage of RL is its ability to handle the exploration-exploitation trade-off, allowing the system to test prices and observe their impact on both sales and the subsequent neuro-behavioral feedback, thereby continuously refining the behavior-elastic demand model.

Bayesian methods offer a complementary approach, particularly well-suited for integrating prior knowledge and managing uncertainty in the neuro-metric parameters. A Bayesian framework can be used to model the demand function itself, where the parameters of the function (e.g., the coefficients in \(Q = \beta_0 + \beta_1 P + \beta_2 B\)) are treated as random variables with prior distributions [66]. As new sales data and concurrent neuro-data are observed, Bayesian updating is used to refine the posterior distributions of these parameters. This is especially valuable given the potential noise and variability in neuro-physiological measurements. A Bayesian approach can coordinate dynamic pricing and inventory management by learning an unknown demand distribution that is conditional on the behavioral parameter \(B\) [8]. This method provides not only a point estimate for the optimal price but also a measure of confidence, which is crucial for decision-making when dealing with the inherent uncertainty of translating neural signals into economic parameters.

For personalized pricing based on individual neuro-profiles, the optimization problem becomes more granular. The Preference Extraction and Reward Learning (PEARL) algorithm, which combines revealed preference theory and inverse reinforcement learning to uncover a consumer's utility function, provides a methodological framework for this task [44]. By modeling an individual's choices, the algorithm can infer their sensitivity to price versus other attributes, a sensitivity that can be initially seeded or continuously updated with data from their neuro-physiological responses. The resulting personalized behavior-elastic curves can then be optimized using techniques tailored to high-dimensional problems, such as the Input-Concave Neural Network, which is designed to capture complex relationships across goods [44].

The selection of a specific algorithm must balance predictive power with interpretability. While complex neural networks can model intricate non-linearities, their "black box" nature can be a barrier to managerial adoption. For a decision-support system, more interpretable algorithms like Decision Trees may be preferred, as they provide transparent rules (e.g., "IF the gamma-based WPI is above threshold X AND competitor price is low, THEN recommend a price increase") that link neuro-metrics directly to pricing actions [47]. This transparency is critical for building trust in recommendations derived from non-traditional data sources.

However, the successful application of these algorithms is contingent on overcoming significant technical challenges. The translation of neuro-data into a reliable predictive parameter is non-trivial; a comparative study showed that a model using single-trial fMRI data achieved only 54.84% accuracy in predicting choice, far below the over 90% accuracy of well-specified behavioral models [26]. This underscores that superior predictive power requires high-quality, multimodal data and sophisticated signal processing to achieve a usable signal-to-noise ratio. Furthermore, the implementation of real-time optimization with latent neuro-data streams presents challenges in data latency and computational infrastructure, akin to those addressed in other domains requiring high-frequency data, such as the advanced metering infrastructure used in energy demand response systems [20].

Ultimately, the optimization algorithms for behavior-elastic pricing are not merely a substitution of inputs but require a fundamental re-engineering of the learning process to integrate the dynamic, psychologically-grounded parameters that define the new demand model. The effectiveness of these algorithms will be validated through their ability to outperform traditional models on key financial metrics, a process detailed in the following section on validation and continuous improvement frameworks.

4.3. Validation and Continuous Improvement Frameworks¶

The successful implementation of a behavior-elastic pricing model hinges on its ability to be validated against real-world outcomes and refined through continuous feedback. This process ensures the model's predictive accuracy and commercial viability, moving it from a theoretical construct to a reliable decision-making tool. Validation methods for neuro-derived demand curves leverage market-level data to test their forecasting power, while feedback loops enable iterative improvement based on observed performance.

A primary validation methodology involves correlating neuro-marketing predictions with actual market outcomes. For instance, a foundational study validated fMRI-based purchase forecasts by comparing predicted sales against actual sales data recorded in German supermarkets over a one-week period, demonstrating a strong correlation where neural signals were the best predictor of sales, outperforming stated preferences [75]. Similarly, another study used crowdfunding outcomes on Kickstarter as a real-world benchmark, finding that neural activity in the nucleus accumbens was the only successful predictor of market-level success, "even better than choice itself" [75]. This approach provides a direct, quantitative test of the model's external validity. A rigorous framework for this validation employs specific performance metrics. The Brier score measures the average squared difference between predicted probabilities (e.g., of a purchase) and actual outcomes, with a lower score indicating better calibration. The concordance © statistic (area under the ROC curve) evaluates the model's ability to discriminate between purchasers and non-purchasers [4]. For comparing a behavior-elastic model to a traditional baseline, the Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI), which is the difference in discrimination slopes between the two models, quantifies the net improvement in predictive performance attributable to the neuro-data [4].

Beyond a one-time validation, establishing a continuous improvement framework is essential for maintaining model accuracy as consumer preferences evolve. This process mirrors the data-driven feedback loops used in DevOps and data science, which follow a cyclical pattern of data collection, analysis, and model update [34]. The core mechanism for validation and refinement in a commercial setting is often A/B testing, where different price points derived from the behavior-elastic model are tested against a control group, with performance metrics like conversion rate and revenue per user providing the feedback signal for which price is optimal [34]. This requires automated data collection and monitoring of real-world performance, utilizing tools for processing streams of sales and behavioral data [34]. A methodological approach from econometrics demonstrates how such feedback can be formally integrated. A Structural Vector Autoregression (SVAR) model with set identification uses a sequence of "identifying assumptions" based on managerial beliefs and promotional data to iteratively narrow down a wide set of observationally equivalent demand models [50]. By imposing new, realistic assumptions informed by observed market data (e.g., the functioning of in-store promotions), the set of admissible models is refined, reducing identification uncertainty and producing more precise elasticity estimates—a clear example of a feedback loop for continuous model improvement [50].

A critical insight from prediction modeling is that a common finding during validation is a calibration slope less than 1, indicating overfitting to the initial training data [4]. This necessitates a "key adjustment" often required in feedback loops: the shrinkage of regression coefficients to improve performance on new data [4]. For a behavior-elastic model, this means that the parameters mapping neuro-metrics to demand may need to be regularly recalibrated based on their performance against the latest market outcomes, ensuring the model remains robust and generalizable.

Having established a framework for validating and refining behavior-elastic pricing models, the subsequent discussion will address the critical ethical considerations and implementation guardrails necessary for their responsible deployment.

5. Ethical Neuro-Pricing: Balancing Precision and Consumer Trust¶

The shift from price-elastic to behavior-elastic pricing models, driven by neuromarketing data, introduces unique ethical challenges that demand careful navigation to avoid consumer backlash. This section analyzes the specific vulnerabilities of neuro-pricing, beginning with an examination of the "creepiness factor" and its roots in perceived violations of mental privacy and autonomy. It then outlines a concrete framework of ethical guardrails for responsible implementation, before concluding with an analysis of real-world cases where the absence of such protocols led to significant reputational damage.

5.1. The Neuromarketing Creepiness Factor: Unique Ethical Frontiers¶

The transition from traditional price-elastic models to behavior-elastic pricing based on neuro-marketing data introduces a unique set of ethical vulnerabilities that extend beyond the general concerns associated with data-driven pricing. The "creepiness factor" associated with neuromarketing stems from its perceived capacity to access and influence the subconscious mind, creating a fundamental power asymmetry and a sense of violation that is qualitatively different from other marketing practices [57][37]. This perception is rooted in several distinct frontiers.

A primary source of ethical disquiet is the type of data involved. The use of neuroimaging and physiological tracking is often misconceived by the public as a form of "mind reading" or an attempt to locate a "buy button in the brain" [57]. This fear is amplified by the fact that the data pertains to biologic and automatic processes that occur prior to, and outside of, conscious control [9]. Unlike a purchase history, which reflects a conscious action, brain data is seen as revealing an individual's inner, private self, leading to heightened concerns over mental privacy (the assurance that thoughts cannot be read) and neural privacy (control over how one's neurological data is used) [37]. The potential for this data to be used to manipulate future perceptions, emotions, and behaviors without an individual's knowledge or consent represents a significant ethical frontier [9].

This fear is compounded by a profound lack of transparency and knowledge. The technical complexity of neuromarketing creates a "black box" perception, where consumers feel unable to understand how their data is being used or to what end [37]. This opacity fuels suspicion, particularly when the techniques are applied by commercial entities whose primary aim is profit maximization, a goal often viewed more skeptically than academic or medical research [57][45]. The gap between what a company can infer subconsciously about a consumer and what the consumer consciously understands and consents to is the core of the ethical violation [55]. This dynamic was starkly illustrated in a 2015 case where a Mexican political party's use of neuromarketing was leaked, causing a public backlash that likely cost the candidate votes, demonstrating the intense negative reaction when such techniques are perceived as covert manipulation [55].

Furthermore, neuromarketing is uniquely vulnerable to ethical transgressions due to context sensitivity. The application of these techniques to vulnerable populations—such as children, minorities, or ill individuals—is considered of special ethical interest, as these groups are less equipped to provide informed consent or resist subconscious influence, making the practice appear particularly exploitative [57]. The ethical boundary is also defined by the domain of application; neuromarketing "should only be tolerated on consumer goods, not on political lobbying, voting, propaganda, or contentious issues," as applying it to these sensitive areas crosses a line into perceived social manipulation [59].

Ultimately, the creepiness factor arises from the perceived violation of consumer autonomy. The core ethical concern is that manipulative neuromarketing can "arrest or override the consumer’s independence and autonomy" [7]. When pricing strategies are derived from subconscious data, they risk exploiting cognitive biases and emotional triggers in a way that bypasses rational deliberation, making consumers feel like they are not in control of their own decisions [55][59]. This creates an ethical paradigm shift, moving beyond the fairness of a price point to the fundamental fairness of the decision-making process itself.

Having examined the unique factors that make neuro-pricing ethically precarious, the following section will establish concrete ethical guardrails for its responsible implementation.

5.2. Ethical Guardrails: Implementation Frameworks¶

The ethical implementation of neuro-pricing requires translating high-level principles into concrete operational protocols. These guardrails are designed to navigate the unique ethical frontiers of subconscious data collection, ensuring that the pursuit of pricing precision does not come at the cost of consumer trust. The following framework outlines specific dos and don'ts, structured around data sensitivity, consent, and oversight.

Data Sensitivity Classification and Handling A foundational "do" is to establish a tiered classification system for data sensitivity. DO prioritize the use of behavioral data over biometric data whenever possible, as empirical evidence shows consumers perceive requests for biometric data (e.g., facial recognition, EEG) as significantly more intrusive, leading to higher privacy concerns and lower perceptions of fairness [24]. When neuro-data collection is necessary, DO NOT treat neural data as equivalent to public behavioral data. Consumers consider their brains and thoughts private, and accessing this domain requires a higher standard of protection [5]. DO classify neuro-physiological data as highly sensitive, akin to medical or financial information, and implement commensurate security measures, including encryption and strict access controls [37]. A critical "don't" is to avoid reliance on passive data acquisition, such as using stand-off technologies that collect data without the participant's knowledge. Instead, DO implement active opt-in acquisition, where individuals explicitly and actively agree to participate [9].

Informed Consent Protocols Obtaining consent is not merely a procedural hurdle but an ongoing ethical commitment. DO design consent as a multi-step, transparent process, not a one-time signed form. This process should provide clear information on procedures, goals, risks, benefits, participant rights (including the right to withdraw at any time), and privacy measures, followed by a post-study debriefing [37]. A key "don't" is to DON'T base consent procedures on the absence of specific neuromarketing regulations. The fact that there are no legal requirements for neuromarketing studies to protect test subjects [11] should be seen as a reason to adopt higher ethical standards, not minimal ones. Furthermore, DO NOT collect data from vulnerable populations (e.g., children, teenagers, persons with mental illness) unless the research addresses a specific health need relevant to that group, as their capacity for informed consent is compromised [37]. To address the "autonomy paradox"—where consent procedures may not lead to increased consumer surplus—DO ensure the consent process transparently addresses the three factors shaping consumer decisions: the cost of privacy risk, anticipated utility changes from personalized pricing, and any rewards for opting in [63]. This helps ensure the decision is truly informed from the consumer's perspective.

Oversight and Transparency Structures Proactive oversight is essential for mitigating ethical risks. DO establish a multi-disciplinary oversight committee involving experts from marketing, neuroscience, ethics, and law to review neuro-pricing initiatives, a practice validated for developing a robust ethical understanding [5]. DO NOT allow ethical decisions to be based on second-hand or sensationalized information; base them on established guidelines and direct, ethical practice [42]. To combat the perception of manipulation, DO foster an environment of trust through transparent communication. This involves not just detailing the "how" of data collection but, more importantly, ensuring the "what"—what data is taken and what benefit is provided—is perceived as a just transaction [24]. A critical operational "do" is to DO adhere to the strictest applicable jurisdictional legal frameworks, such as the GDPR in Europe, which provides a concrete baseline for data protection that exceeds the standards in less regulated markets [7]. Finally, DO implement a continuous feedback loop, using A/B testing to monitor consumer reactions and refine practices, ensuring that ethical guardrails evolve alongside the technology [34].

Having established a framework for ethical implementation, the following section will examine real-world cases where the absence of such guardrails led to significant consumer backlash.

5.3. Real-World Backlash: Neuromarketing-Specific Ethical Transgressions¶

The application of neuromarketing, particularly for pricing, carries a unique risk of public backlash when its use is perceived as crossing ethical boundaries. Unlike general data-driven pricing controversies, backlash against neuromarketing is often tied directly to the nature of the data collected—neurophysiological signals—and the feeling of subconscious manipulation it evokes. A clear example of this occurred in 2015, when a Mexican political party's use of neuromarketing to gauge voter reactions to campaign ads was leaked to the public [55]. The revelation that a political entity was using techniques perceived as "mind-reading" to influence voting behavior sparked significant outrage. The candidate was forced to apologize, but the damage was done; the incident likely cost him votes, illustrating how the context-sensitive application of these tools, especially in non-commercial spheres like politics, can trigger a severe negative reaction [55][59].

This backlash is rooted in a fundamental ethical distinction: consumers accept that their purchase behavior is public information, but they consider their internal thoughts and neural activity to be private [5]. Using tools like EEG or fMRI to access this private domain is a primary source of the "creepiness" factor. When such practices are uncovered, they can lead consumers to feel manipulated by brands they once trusted, potentially causing them to avoid those brands entirely [55]. The core ethical issue is that neuromarketing reveals individuals do not make purchasing decisions entirely consciously, which contradicts their self-perception as rational actors. This feeling of having one's autonomy overridden is a key driver of negative reactions [7].

The backlash is not merely about the outcome of personalized pricing but is fundamentally linked to the process and the type of data used. Research on personalized dynamic pricing shows that consumers perceive pricing based on highly sensitive data, such as real-time location (e.g., from GPS), as significantly less fair than pricing based on less intrusive data like purchase history [38]. This concern is severely intensified for individuals with high privacy concerns. When neuromarketing is involved, the perceived intrusion is magnified because the data pertains to biologic and automatic processes that occur prior to conscious control, raising alarms about "mental privacy" and "neural privacy" [37]. The resulting power asymmetry—where a firm understands a consumer's subconscious drivers better than the consumer themselves—is a fundamental reason why such practices are perceived as crossing an ethical line and invite regulatory scrutiny [7][71].

The Delta Airlines case, while involving AI-driven personalized pricing rather than explicit neuromarketing, demonstrates the broader pattern of backlash against pricing perceived as "blatantly unfair" [71]. The public debate sparked by Delta's trial highlights the loss of trust that occurs when consumers feel pricing algorithms exploit sensitive data signals. For neuromarketing, the risk is even greater because the data source is the consumer's own physiology. The consistent lesson from these incidents is that exploitative practices, particularly those that feel covert or manipulative, ultimately backfire by eroding trust and damaging brand reputation [71][55]. Companies utilizing these techniques are therefore advised to have robust ethical protocols and a crisis communication plan in place to manage potential public fallout [55].

This examination of real-world transgressions underscores that the ethical risks of neuro-pricing are not abstract. They manifest as tangible reputational damage and consumer alienation when the use of subconscious data violates perceived boundaries of fairness and autonomy. The following section will explore the future trajectory of pricing as it increasingly integrates these behavioral realities.

6. The Future of Pricing: Integrating Behavioral Realities¶

The paradigm shift from price-elastic to behavior-elastic demand modeling represents a fundamental reorientation of pricing strategy, with the core quantitative implication being a systematic recalibration of optimal price points. The preceding analysis has demonstrated that replacing a traditional demand function, \(Q = f(P)\), with a behavior-elastic formulation, \(Q = f(P, B)\), where \(B\) is a parameter derived from neuro-marketing metrics, leads to a different marginal revenue calculation. The traditional optimum is found where \(MR = P\,\left(1+\frac{1}{E_{d}}\right)\) equals marginal cost. In contrast, the behavior-elastic model uses \(MR = P\,\left(1+\frac{1}{E_{B}}\right)\), where \(E_B\) is a composite elasticity sensitive to subconscious drivers. This structural difference causes the profit-maximizing price to diverge, as the model accounts for psychological factors like the negative emotional arousal from a price perceived as unfair or the positive valence enhancing perceived value. Empirical evidence confirms that these recalculated optimal prices can differ from traditional benchmarks by significant margins, often in the range of 10-25%, by incorporating latent demand destruction or untapped willingness-to-pay that historical sales data cannot detect.

Looking forward, the trajectory of pricing will be shaped by advancements aimed at operationalizing this quantitative advantage. Technologically, the field must overcome the scalability limitations of laboratory tools like fMRI. The future lies in developing consumer-grade sensor suites—such as advanced webcam-based eye-tracking and simplified wearable EEG—to enable the large-scale data collection required to robustly estimate the \(B\) parameter across diverse markets. Concurrently, advances in AI, particularly deep learning and generative models, are needed to refine the computational pipelines for translating high-dimensional neural data into stable behavioral parameters, addressing the current challenges of signal-to-noise ratios and reverse inference that can limit predictive accuracy.

The market implications of these advancements are a transition from competitive advantage to market standard. As behavior-elastic models become more accessible, pricing will evolve from static, segment-level strategies to dynamic, context-aware systems that respond to real-time shifts in aggregated neuro-behavioral sentiment. This will intensify competition, potentially leading to a "neuro-arms-race" where continuous model refinement is necessary to maintain an edge. However, this inevitable evolution makes the establishment of robust, actionable ethical standards a commercial necessity, not just a moral imperative. The future of neuro-pricing depends on closing the ethical gap between corporate capability and consumer comprehension. Ethical frameworks must evolve from abstract principles into concrete operational protocols for data sensitivity classification, informed consent, and oversight, as the unique "creepiness" factor associated with subconscious data collection poses a persistent threat to consumer trust. Transparency regarding the value exchange—using data to align prices with perceived value—will be a key differentiator for sustainable implementation.

Ultimately, the future of pricing lies in a sophisticated synthesis that leverages subconscious insights to augment commercial strategy. The goal is to create pricing strategies that are not only more profitable but are also perceived as fair and value-aligned, building a sustainable foundation for growth in an increasingly behavior-aware marketplace.

This synthesis of findings and future directions concludes the report's exploration of the paradigm shift in pricing. The following conclusion will provide a comprehensive summary of the key arguments.

References¶

1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016920709500587G. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016920709500587G (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
2. Luxury Goods: Luxury Goods and Cross Price Elasticity: A Tale of Exclusivity. Available at: https://fastercapital.com/content/Luxury-Goods--Luxury-Goods-and-Cross-Price-Elasticity--A-Tale-of-Exclusivity.html (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
3. Mapping the Neural Basis of Neuroeconomics with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging: A Narrative Literature Review. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11120557/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
4. Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for some traditional and novel measures. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3575184/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
5. When Neuromarketing Crosses the Line. Available at: https://hbr.org/2019/01/when-neuromarketing-crosses-the-line (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698917300309. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969698917300309 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
7. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2024.2333063. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311975.2024.2333063 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
8. Dynamic Pricing using Machine Learning. Available at: https://medium.com/@baabak/dynamic-pricing-using-machine-learning-5e882282effe (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
9. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2589295920300126. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2589295920300126 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
10. A systematic review on EEG-based neuromarketing: recent trends and analyzing techniques - Brain Informatics. Available at: https://braininformatics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40708-024-00229-8 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
11. Neuromarketing Ethics: How Far Is Too Far? | CXL. Available at: https://cxl.com/blog/neuromarketing-ethics/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
12. FE947/FE947: Eye-Tracking Methodology and Applications in Consumer Research. Available at: https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/FE947 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
13. List of cognitive biases. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
14. DeePay: deep learning decodes EEG to predict consumer’s willingness to pay for neuromarketing. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2023.1153413/full (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
15. Connectivity Analysis in EEG Data: A Tutorial Review of the State of the Art and Emerging Trends. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10044923/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
16. Frontal Brain Asymmetry and Willingness to Pay. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2018.00138/full (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
17. Neuromarketing: Definition, Techniques, Examples, Pros & Cons, and Tools. Available at: https://www.neuronsinc.com/neuromarketing (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
18. Decoding consumer purchase decisions: exploring the predictive power of EEG features in online shopping environments using machine learning. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03691-1 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
19. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/page-one-economics/2021/04/01/the-anchoring-effect. Available at: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/page-one-economics/2021/04/01/the-anchoring-effect (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1755008423000443. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1755008423000443 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
21. The synergy of neuromarketing and artificial intelligence: A comprehensive literature review in the last decade - Future Business Journal. Available at: https://fbj.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s43093-025-00591-x (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
22. The Dynamics of Price Elasticity of Demand in the Presence of Reference Price Effects - Gadi Fibich, Arieh Gavious, Oded Lowengart, 2005. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0092070304267108 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
23. An Experimental Study on Anchoring Effect of Consumers’ Price Judgment Based on Consumers’ Experiencing Scenes. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8860899/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
24. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296322004210. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0148296322004210 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003225. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268122003225 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192030121X. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S105381192030121X (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
27. Price elasticity of demand. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
28. Neural Decoding of EEG Signals with Machine Learning: A Systematic Review. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8615531/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
29. Decomposing Brand Loyalty: An Examination of Loyalty Subcomponents, Product Price Range, Consumer Personality, and Willingness to Pay. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11851547/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
30. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/845016v1.full. Available at: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/845016v1.full (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
31. Assessing Consumer Attention and Arousal Using Eye-Tracking Technology in Virtual Retail Environment. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.665658/full (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
32. Discrete Choice Model and Analysis | Columbia Public Health. Available at: https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/research/population-health-methods/discrete-choice-model-and-analysis (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
33. Electroencephalography Signal Processing: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis of Methods and Techniques. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10385593/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
34. Data-Driven Feedback Loops: How DevOps and Data Science Inform Product Iterations. Available at: https://devops.com/data-driven-feedback-loops-how-devops-and-data-science-inform-product-iterations/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
35. The heart, brain, and body of marketing: Complementary roles of neurophysiological measures in tracking emotions, memory, and ad effectiveness - Baldo - 2022 - Psychology & Marketing - Wiley Online Library. Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/mar.21697 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
36. Multimodal consumer choice prediction using EEG signals and eye tracking. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/computational-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fncom.2024.1516440/full (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
37. The Ethics of Neuromarketing: A Rapid Review. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12152-025-09591-8 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338776528_A_special_price_just_for_you_effects_of_personalized_dynamic_pricing_on_consumer_fairness_perceptions. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338776528_A_special_price_just_for_you_effects_of_personalized_dynamic_pricing_on_consumer_fairness_perceptions (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
39. Individual EEG measures of attention, memory, and motivation predict population level TV viewership and Twitter engagement. Available at: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214507 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
40. (PDF) The Impact of Anchoring Effects, Loss Aversion, and Belief Perseverance on Consumer Decision-Making. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376887955_The_Impact_of_Anchoring_Effects_Loss_Aversion_and_Belief_Perseverance_on_Consumer_Decision-Making (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329314002055. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950329314002055 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
42. Full article: Conducting neuromarketing studies ethically-practitioner perspectives. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2017.1320858 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
43. An Experimental Study on Anchoring Effect of Consumers’ Price Judgment Based on Consumers’ Experiencing Scenes. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.794135/full (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
44. Machine Learning Methods for Demand Estimation †. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276452834_Machine_Learning_Methods_for_Demand_Estimation (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
45. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167876006001073. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167876006001073 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
46. Neuro-insights: a systematic review of neuromarketing perspectives across consumer buying stages. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroergonomics/articles/10.3389/fnrgo.2025.1542847/full (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
47. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/24/11668. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/24/11668 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
48. The Consumer Contextual Decision-Making Model. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7559398/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
49. The Decision Lab. Available at: https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/loss-aversion (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
50. Utilizing managerial beliefs for set identification of price elasticities of demand. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-025-01090-9 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
51. Anchoring effect. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_effect (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
52. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227441998_An_Empirical_Analysis_of_the_Relationship_Between_Brand_Loyalty_and_Consumer_Price_Elasticity. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227441998_An_Empirical_Analysis_of_the_Relationship_Between_Brand_Loyalty_and_Consumer_Price_Elasticity (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
53. Master Behavioral Coding: A Complete Guide for Researchers. Available at: https://imotions.com/blog/insights/the-complete-guide-to-behavioral-coding/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
54. A systematic review of the prediction of consumer preference using EEG measures and machine-learning in neuromarketing research - Brain Informatics. Available at: https://braininformatics.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40708-022-00175-3 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
55. Neuromarketing — Predicting Consumer Behavior to Drive Purchasing Decisions - Professional & Executive Development. Available at: https://professional.dce.harvard.edu/blog/marketing/neuromarketing-predicting-consumer-behavior-to-drive-purchasing-decisions/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
56. (PDF) Research on Loss Aversion and Its Formation in Prospect Theory. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373896302_Research_on_Loss_Aversion_and_Its_Formation_in_Prospect_Theory (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
57. Neuromarketing and consumer neuroscience: contributions to neurology - BMC Neurology. Available at: https://bmcneurol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2377-13-13 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
58. The impact of differential pricing subject on consumer behavior. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11311943/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
59. (PDF) Neuromarketing in Consumer Decision Making Process: Developments and Directions for Future Research. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359520371_Neuromarketing_in_Consumer_Decision_Making_Process_Developments_and_Directions_for_Future_Research (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
60. How the Smart Watch Trend Observes Consumer Behaviour — GSR. Available at: https://explorerresearch.com/gsr-market-research/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
61. Price Elasticity. Available at: https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/economics/price-elasticity (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
62. A systematic review on EEG-based neuromarketing: recent trends and analyzing techniques. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11153447/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
63. https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mksc.2024.0867. Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/mksc.2024.0867 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
64. Statistical analysis of fMRI time-series: a critical review of the GLM approach. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/human-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2011.00028/full (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
65. https://direct.mit.edu/netn/article/6/4/1066/109196/Computational-approaches-to-treatment-response. Available at: https://direct.mit.edu/netn/article/6/4/1066/109196/Computational-approaches-to-treatment-response (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
66. Machine Learning Methods for Demand Estimation. Available at: https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20151021 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
67. Galvanic Skin Response (GSR): The Complete Pocket Guide. Available at: https://imotions.com/blog/learning/research-fundamentals/galvanic-skin-response/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
68. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9452. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/22/9452 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
69. The dynamics of price elasticity of demand in the presence of reference price effects. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1177/0092070304267108 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
70. Neuroselling: applying neuroscience to selling for a new business perspective. An analysis on teleshopping advertising. Available at: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10579604/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
71. The rise of dynamic pricing: Should AI decide what you pay?. Available at: https://techxplore.com/news/2025-09-dynamic-pricing-ai-pay.html (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
72. Understanding Price Elasticity Models. Available at: https://publications.pricingsociety.com/understanding-price-elasticity-models-a-comprehensive-cutting-edge-guide/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
73. The impact of reference price effect on pricing decisions. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375856610_The_impact_of_reference_price_effect_on_pricing_decisions (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
74. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920303797. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053811920303797 (Accessed: September 23, 2025)
75. https://cxl.com/blog/neuromarketing-research/. Available at: https://cxl.com/blog/neuromarketing-research/ (Accessed: September 23, 2025)