Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization

Ed. by Azzam, Azzeddine

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.223
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.660

Online
ISSN
1542-0485
See all formats and pricing
More options …

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

Carola Grebitus
  • Corresponding author
  • Morrison School of Agribusiness, W. P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, 7231 E. Sonoran Arroyo Mall, San Tan 235F Mesa, AZ 85212, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Jutta Roosen
  • Chair of Marketing and Consumer Research, Technische Universität München, Alte Akademie 16, 85350 Freising, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Carolin Claudia Seitz
  • Chair of Marketing and Consumer Research, Technische Universität München, Alte Akademie 16, 85350 Freising, Germany
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2015-11-19 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2015-0017

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.

Keywords: bias; choice experiments; complexity; eye tracking; information

References

  • Aaker, D. A., and K. L. Keller. 1990. “Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions.” Journal of Marketing 54 (1, Jan):27–41.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Aaker, D. A., and J. G. Shansby. 1982. “Positioning Your Product.” Business Horizons 25 (3):56–62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Awh, E., and J. Jonides. 2001. “Overlapping Mechanism of Attention and Spatial Working Memory.” Trends in Cognitive Science 5 (3):119–26.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Bredahl, L. 2003. “Cue Utilisation and Quality Perception with Regard to Branded Beef.” Food Quality and Preference 15 (1):65–75.CrossrefGoogle 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 Management 49:330–42.CrossrefGoogle 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: Methodological 39 (7):621–40.CrossrefGoogle 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 Research 30:443–54.CrossrefGoogle 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 Review 89 (4):45–64.Google Scholar

  • Dacin, P. A., and A. A. Mitchell. 1986. “The Measurement of Declarative Knowledge.” Advances in Consumer Research 13:454–9.Google Scholar

  • Dellaert, B. G. C., B. Donkers, and A. Van Soest. 2012. “Complexity Effects in Choice Experiment–Based Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 49 (3):424–34.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Easterbrook, J. A. 1959. “The Effect of Emotion on Cue Utilization and the Organization of Behavior.” Psychological Review 66 (3):183–201.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Engel, J. F., R. D. Blackwell, and P. W. Miniard. 1995. Consumer Behaviour, 8th ed. Forth Worth: Dryden Press.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 Economics 91 (3):795–809.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Grebitus, C., and M. Bruhn. 2008. “Analyzing Semantic Networks of Pork Quality By Means Of Concept Mapping.” Food Quality and Preference 19 (1):86–96.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grunert, K. G., and C. Valli. 2001. “Designer-Made Meat and Dairy Products: Consumer-Led Product Development.” Livestock Production Science 72:83–98.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Henderson, G. R., D. Iacobucci, and B. J. Calder. 1998. “Brand Diagnostics: Mapping Branding Effects Using Consumer Associative Networks.” European Journal of Operational Research 111:306–27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Henderson, G. R., D. Iacobucci, and B. J. Calder. 2002. “Using Network Analysis to Understand Brands.” Advances in Consumer Research 29:397–405.Google Scholar

  • Hensher, D. A. 2006. “How Do Respondents Process Stated Choice Experiments? Attribute Consideration Under Varying Information Load.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 21 (6):861–78.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Keller, K. L. 1993. “Memory Retrieval Factors and Advertising Effectiveness.” In Advertising Exposure, Memory and Choice, edited by A. A. Mitchell. 11–48. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar

  • Keller, K. L., and D. A. Aaker. 1992. “The Effects of Sequential Introduction of Brand Extentions.” Journal of Marketing Research 29 (1):35–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Kuß, A., and T. Tomczak. 2000. Käuferverhalten. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius Verlag.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 Economics 20:241–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Loftus, G. R. 1972. “Eye Fixation and Recognition Memory for Pictures.” Cognitive Psychology 3:525–51.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

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

  • Orquin, J. L., and S. Mueller Loose. 2013. “Attention and Choice: A Review on Eye Movements in Decision Making.” Acta Psychologica 144 (1):190–206.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Pieters, R., E. Rosbergen, and M. Wedel. 1999. “Visual Attention to Repeated Print Advertising: A Test of Scanpath Theory.” Journal of Marketing Research 36 (4):424–38.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pieters, R., and L. Warlop. 1999. “Visual Attention During Brand Choice: An Eye-Fixation Analysis.” International Journal of Research in Marketing 16 (1):1–16.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Rayner, K. 1998. “Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 Years of Research.” Psychological Bulletin 124 (3):372–422.CrossrefGoogle 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 Review 101 (2):900–26.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Theeuwes, J., A. Belopolsky, and C. N. L. Olivers. 2009. “Interactions Between Working Memory, Attention and Eye Movements.” Acta Psychologica 132 (2):106–14.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle 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 Psychologica 137 (2):248–51.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Tonsor, G. T., and R. S. Shupp. 2011. “Cheap Talk Scripts and Online Choice Experiments: Looking Beyond the Mean.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 93 (4):1015–31.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Train, K. E. 2003. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Trommsdorff, V. 2003. Konsumentenverhalten. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar

  • Tybout, A. M., B. J. Calder, and B. Sternthal. 1981. “Using Information Processing Theory to Design Marketing Strategies.” Journal of Marketing Research 18:73–9.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Vossler, C. A., M. Doyon, and D. Rondeau. 2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (4):145–71.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2015-11-19

Published in Print: 2015-01-01


Citation Information: Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, ISSN (Online) 1542-0485, ISSN (Print) 2194-5896, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2015-0017.

Export Citation

©2015 by De Gruyter. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Karen E. Lewis, Carola Grebitus, and Rodolfo M. Nayga
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, 2016, Volume 64, Number 4, Page 753

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in