Journal of Marketing Research Vol. XLVI (February 2009), 14–24 14 © 2009, American Marketing Association ISSN: 0022-2437 (print), 1547-7193 (electronic) *Scott A. Huettel is Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuro- science, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience (e-mail: scott.huettel@duke. edu), and John W. Payne is Joseph J. Ruvane Jr. Professor of Management and Marketing, Fuqua School of Business (e-mail: jpayne@duke.edu), Duke University. The authors thank colleagues in the Duke Center for Neuroeconomic Studies for stimulating discussions about integrating the neural and decision sciences. The Duke Institute for Brain Sciences pro- vided support for those discussions and for our joint research. Commentaries and Rejoinder to “Trade-Off Aversion as an Explanation for the Attraction Effect: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study” the idea that the attraction effect reflects a transition from a compensatory trade-off-based strategy to a more heuristic strategy that avoids emotional trade-offs (e.g., the lexico- graphic rule) leads to the strong prediction that there should be a concomitant attenuation of negative emotions, which in turn could be measured using the techniques of neuro- science. The primary goal of this article was to evaluate whether neuroscience data could support or invalidate one postulated explanation for the attraction effect. Thus far, most neuroeconomic research has taken a rela- tively brain-centric form. Researchers have used techniques from behavioral economics and the decision sciences to improve the understanding of brain function. Some recent successes include identification of brain systems associated with reward evaluation (Delgado et al. 2000; Knutson et al. 2005; Schultz, Dayan, and Montague 1997), risk and uncer- tainty (Hsu et al. 2005; Huettel, Song, and McCarthy 2005), and other-regarding preferences (Harbaugh, Mayr, and Burghart 2007; Tankersley, Stowe, and Huettel 2007). Hedgcock and Rao take the opposite approach. They use the techniques of neuroscience to improve the understand- ing of decision phenomena. As we discuss in this commen- tary, moving from brain to behavior poses a specific set of challenges, both scientific and sociological, that have lim- ited progress in the past. We consider these challenges in the following sections, ending with some speculations about the future interactions between neuroscience and marketing research. NEUROESSENTIALISM VERSUS BEHAVIORAL SUFFICIENCY What does neuroscience data reveal about cognition and behavior? One attitude, which is frequently observed in popular accounts of the latest neuroscience studies, is that measurements of brain function provide access to previ- ously hidden mechanisms. In lay conceptions, measuring the brain is like opening the hood of a car, with previously inferred components now laid bare to the viewer. This atti- tude has been labeled “neuroessentialism” (Racine, Bar- Ilan, and Illes 2005). The rise of neuroessentialism can be attributed to several factors. First, there has been a remark- able growth since the early 1990s in the prevalence and accessibility of neuroimaging techniques, notably func- tional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Accompanying this growth has been an increased breadth of inquiry, as Integrating Neural and Decision Sciences: Convergence and Constraints SCOTT A. HUETTEL and JOHN W. PAYNE* One of the most remarkable aspects of modern science is its diversity. A given phenomenon can be studied simulta- neously within a range of different disciplines, each with its own methodologies and forms of explanation. Most of the time, these different disciplines proceed apace, without clear avenues of communication. However, in recent years, there has been growing interest in bridging the methods of neuroscience with behavioral studies of decision-making phenomena, leading to the burgeoning interdiscipline of neuroeconomics. In their target article, Hedgcock and Rao (2009) describe a novel and integrative neuroeconomic study of the “attrac- tion effect” (i.e., preference for one option in a choice set increases following the introduction of a new option that it dominates). The attraction effect, also known as the “asym- metric dominance effect” (Huber, Payne, and Puto 1982), is one of several important context effects in decision making that can lead to violations of basic economic choice princi- ples, such as regularity (Luce 1977). For example, a conse- quence of the attraction effect is an increase in the prefer- ence for an item in a choice set following the addition of another choice option. Hedgcock and Rao note several potential explanations for this context effect: The domi- nated option could change decision weights, alter the refer- ence point for choice, or allow the use of a heuristic deci- sion strategy. Each of these could be consistent with the existing behavioral data, at least in the types of simple choice scenarios typically studied, but they evoke different perspectives about the underlying mechanism. In particular,