Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter November 19, 2015

Visual Attention and Choice: A Behavioral Economics Perspective on Food Decisions

Carola Grebitus, Jutta Roosen and Carolin Claudia Seitz

Abstract

Food decisions receive a lot of attention from multiple disciplines. In this context, choice experiments are often used to determine consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for food product attributes. The design of choice experiments and its influence on measurement of consumer choices has received great consideration. This study analyzes the influence of visual attention on the final choice by combining choice experiments with eye tracking. Furthermore, the role of attention on more or less complex choices is investigated by using two treatments with three-attribute and five-attribute designs. We find that visual attention affects decision making of the average individual but there is heterogeneity in behavior present as to how much attention influences choice. Furthermore, results show that visual attention predicts choice more in the choice experiment with the three-attribute design than in the choice experiment with the five-attribute design.

Acknowledgements

We are very thankful for the reviewer comments we received throughout the review process.

References

Aaker, D. A., and K. L.Keller. 1990. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions.” Journal of Marketing54 (1, Jan):2741.Search in Google Scholar

Aaker, D. A., and J. G.Shansby. 1982. “Positioning Your Product.” Business Horizons25 (3):5662.10.1016/0007-6813(82)90130-6Search in Google Scholar

Awh, E., and J.Jonides. 2001. “Overlapping Mechanism of Attention and Spatial Working Memory.” Trends in Cognitive Science5 (3):11926.10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01593-XSearch in Google Scholar

Bojko, A.2013. Eye Tracking the User Experience. a Practical Guide to Research. New York: Rosenfeld Media, LLC.Search in Google Scholar

Bredahl, L.2003. “Cue Utilisation and Quality Perception with Regard to Branded Beef.” Food Quality and Preference15 (1):6575.10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00024-7Search in Google Scholar

Bulte, E., S.Gerking, J. A.List, and A.de Zeeuw. 2005. “The Effect of Varying the Causes of Environmental Problems on Stated WTP Values: Evidence From a Field Study.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management49:33042.10.1016/j.jeem.2004.06.001Search in Google Scholar

Caussade, S., J.Ortúzar, L. I.Rizzi, and D. A.Hensher. 2005. “Assessing the Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choice Experiment Estimates.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological39 (7):62140.10.1016/j.trb.2004.07.006Search in Google Scholar

Cowley, E., and A. A.Mitchell. 2003. “The Moderating Effect of Product Knowledge on the Learning and Organization of Product Information.” Journal of Consumer Research30:44354.10.1086/378620Search in Google Scholar

Cummings, R. G., and L. O.Taylor. 1999. “Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method.” American Economic Review89 (4):4564.10.1257/aer.89.3.649Search in Google Scholar

Dacin, P. A., and A. A.Mitchell. 1986. “The Measurement of Declarative Knowledge.” Advances in Consumer Research13:4549.Search in Google Scholar

Dellaert, B. G. C., B.Donkers, and A.Van Soest. 2012. “Complexity Effects in Choice Experiment–Based Models.” Journal of Marketing Research49 (3):42434.10.1509/jmr.09.0315Search in Google Scholar

Easterbrook, J. A.1959. “The Effect of Emotion on Cue Utilization and the Organization of Behavior.” Psychological Review66 (3):183201.10.1037/h0047707Search in Google Scholar

Engel, J. F., R. D.Blackwell, and P. W.Miniard. 1995. Consumer Behaviour, 8th ed. Forth Worth: Dryden Press.Search in Google Scholar

Gao, Z., and T. C.Schroeder. 2009. “Effects of Label Information on Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Food Attributes.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics91 (3):795809.10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01259.xSearch in Google Scholar

Grebitus, C.2008. Food Quality From the Consumer’s Perspective: An Empirical Analysis of Perceived Pork Quality. Göttingen: Cuvillier Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

Grebitus, C., and M.Bruhn. 2008. “Analyzing Semantic Networks of Pork Quality By Means Of Concept Mapping.” Food Quality and Preference19 (1):8696.10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.07.007Search in Google Scholar

Grunert, K. G., and C.Valli. 2001. “Designer-Made Meat and Dairy Products: Consumer-Led Product Development.” Livestock Production Science72:8398.10.1016/S0301-6226(01)00269-XSearch in Google Scholar

Henderson, G. R., D.Iacobucci, and B. J.Calder. 1998. “Brand Diagnostics: Mapping Branding Effects Using Consumer Associative Networks.” European Journal of Operational Research111:30627.10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00151-9Search in Google Scholar

Henderson, G. R., D.Iacobucci, and B. J.Calder. 2002. “Using Network Analysis to Understand Brands.” Advances in Consumer Research29:397405.Search in Google Scholar

Hensher, D. A.2006. “How Do Respondents Process Stated Choice Experiments? Attribute Consideration Under Varying Information Load.” Journal of Applied Econometrics21 (6):86178.10.1002/jae.877Search in Google Scholar

Jonassen, D. H., K.Beissner, and M.Yacci. 1993. Structural Knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.Search in Google Scholar

Keller, K. L.1993. “Memory Retrieval Factors and Advertising Effectiveness.” In Advertising Exposure, Memory and Choice, edited byA. A.Mitchell. 1148. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Keller, K. L., and D. A.Aaker. 1992. “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extentions.” Journal of Marketing Research29 (1):3550.10.1177/002224379202900104Search in Google Scholar

Kroeber-Riel, E., and P.Weinberg. 2003. Konsumentenverhalten. München: Verlag Franz Vahlen.Search in Google Scholar

Kuß, A., and T.Tomczak. 2000. Käuferverhalten. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius Verlag.Search in Google Scholar

List, J. A., and C. A.Gallet. 2001. “What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? Evidence From a Meta-Analysis.” Environmental and Resource Economics20:24154.10.1023/A:1012791822804Search in Google Scholar

Loftus, G. R.1972. “Eye Fixation and Recognition Memory for Pictures.” Cognitive Psychology3:52551.10.1016/0010-0285(72)90021-7Search in Google Scholar

Louviere, J. J., D. A.Hensher, and J. D.Swait. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511753831Search in Google Scholar

Orquin, J. L., and S.Mueller Loose. 2013. “Attention and Choice: A Review on Eye Movements in Decision Making.” Acta Psychologica144 (1):190206.10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.003Search in Google Scholar

Pieters, R., E.Rosbergen, and M.Wedel. 1999. “Visual Attention to Repeated Print Advertising: A Test of Scanpath Theory.” Journal of Marketing Research36 (4):42438.10.1177/002224379903600403Search in Google Scholar

Pieters, R., and L.Warlop. 1999. “Visual Attention During Brand Choice: An Eye-Fixation Analysis.” International Journal of Research in Marketing16 (1):116.10.1016/S0167-8116(98)00022-6Search in Google Scholar

Rayner, K.1998. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin124 (3):372422.10.1037/0033-2909.124.3.372Search in Google Scholar

Reutskaja, E., R.Nagel, C. F.Camerer, and A.Rangel. 2011. “Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice Under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study.” American Economic Review101 (2):90026.10.1257/aer.101.2.900Search in Google Scholar

Theeuwes, J., A.Belopolsky, and C. N. L.Olivers. 2009. “Interactions Between Working Memory, Attention and Eye Movements.” Acta Psychologica132 (2):10614.10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.01.005Search in Google Scholar

Theeuwes, J., A. F.Kramer, and D. E.Irwin. 2011. “Attention on Our Mind: The Role of Spatial Attention in Visual Working Memory.” Acta Psychologica137 (2):24851.10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.06.011Search in Google Scholar

Tonsor, G. T., and R. S.Shupp. 2011. “Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: Looking Beyond the Mean.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics93 (4):101531.10.1093/ajae/aar036Search in Google Scholar

Train, K. E.2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511753930Search in Google Scholar

Trommsdorff, V.2003. Konsumentenverhalten. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Search in Google Scholar

Tybout, A. M., B. J.Calder, and B.Sternthal. 1981. “Using Information Processing Theory to Design Marketing Strategies.” Journal of Marketing Research18:739.10.1177/002224378101800107Search in Google Scholar

Vossler, C. A., M.Doyon, and D.Rondeau. 2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics4 (4):14571.10.1257/mic.4.4.145Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-11-19
Published in Print: 2015-1-1

©2015 by De Gruyter