Relative visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice

Journal of Consumer Psychology

Volumn 22, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 67-74

  Milosavljevic, Milica ^a   Navalpakkam, Vidhya ^a   Koch, Christof ^a   Rangel, Antonio ^a,b  

^a California Institute of Technology HHMI   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Attention; Consumer choice; Decision making; Packaging; Reward; Visual saliency

Indexed keywords

EID: 84857795975     PISSN: 10577408     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcps.2011.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Armel C., Beaumel A., Rangel A. Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention. Judgement and Decision Making 2008, 3(5):396-403.
2. Armel C., Rangel A. The impact of computation time and experience on decision values. American Economic Review 2008, 98(2):163-168.
3. Bettman J.R. An information processing theory of consumer choice 1979, AddisonWesley, Reading, MA.
4. Brainard D. The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision 1997, 10:433-436.
5. Cornelissen F.W., Peters E.M., Palmer J. The Eyelink Toolbox: Eye tracking with MATLAB and the Psychophysics Toolbox. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 2002, 34(4):613-617.
6. Dijksterhuis A., Smith P.K., van Baaren R.B., Wigboldus D.H.J. The unconscious consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2005, 15:193-202.
7. Drolet A., Luce M.F., Simonson I. When does choice reveal preferences? Moderators of heuristic versus goal-based choice. Journal of Consumer Research 2009, 36(1):137-147.
8. Fischer B., Weber H. Express saccades and visual attention. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1993, 16:553-610.
9. Gilovich T., Griffin D., Kahneman D. Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment 2002, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Hare T., Camerer C., Rangel A. Self-control in decision-making involves modulation of the vMPFC valuation system. Science 2009, 324:646-648.
11. Henderson J.M., Weeks P.A., Hollingworth A. The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 1999, 25(1):210-228.
12. Itti L., Koch C. Computational modelling of visual attention. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2001, 2(3):194-203.
13. Choices, values, and frames 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. D. Kahneman, A. Tversky (Eds.).
14. Koch C., Ullman S. Shifts in selective visual attention: Towards the underlying neuronal circuitry. Human Neurobiology 1985, 4:219-227.
15. Kotler P. Atmospherics as a marketing tool. Journal of Retailing 1973, 49:48-64.
16. Krajbich I., Armel C., Rangel A. Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in goal-directed choice. Nature Neuroscience 2010, 13(10):1292-1298.
17. Krajbich I., Rangel A. A multi-alternative drift diffusion model predicts the relationship between visual fixations and choice in value-based decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2011, 108(33):13852-13857.
18. Litt A., Plassmann H., Shiv B., Rangel A. Dissociating goal value and attention signals during simple decision making. Cerebral Cortex 2009, 21:95-102.
19. Mannan S.K., Kennard C., Husain M. The role of visual salience in directing eye movements in visual object agnosia. Current Biology 2009, 19(6):R247-R248.
20. North A.C., Hargreaves D.J., McKendrick J. In-store music affects product choice. Nature 1997, 390:132.
21. Parkhurst D., Law K., Niebur E. Modeling the role of salience in the allocation of overt visual attention. Vision Research 2002, 42(1):107-123.
22. Rangel A., Camerer C., Montague P.R. A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2008, 9(7):545-556.
23. Reutskaja E., Nagel R.M., Camerer C., Rangel A. Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. American Economic Review 2010, 101:900-906.
24. Ratcliff R., Smith P. A comparison of sequential sampling modles for two-choice reaction time. Psychological Review 2004, 111:333-367.
25. Ratcliff R., McKoon G. The diffusion decision model: Theory and data for two-choice decision tasks. Neural Computation 2008, 20:873-922.
26. Shimojo S., Simion C., Shimojo E., Scheier C. Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience 2003, 6(12):1317-1322.