Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention

Abstract

Several decision-making models predict that it should be possible to affect real binary choices by manipulating the relative amount of visual attention that decision-makers pay to the two alternatives. We present the results of three behavioral experiments testing this prediction. Visual attention is controlled by manipulating the amount of time subjects fixate on the two items. The manipulation has a differential impact on appetitive and aversive items. Appetitive items are 6 to 11% more likely to be chosen in the long fixation condition. In contrast, aversive items are 7% less likely to be chosen in the long fixation condition. The effect is present for primary goods, such as foods, and for higher-order durable goods, such as posters.

The effect of consumer ratings and attentional allocation on product valuations

“…That is, while we find that attention predicts valuations in each of our studies, and that this is not just reflective of an emerging confirmatory information search, it is still not entirely clear if biases in attention simply reflect individuals' preferences instead of driving them, or simply act to capture errors in how ratings were assumed to affect valuations in the current analyses (i.e., through a weighted additive calculation). Thus, while we find evidence that attention is related to valuations of worth, we must remain cautious concerning conclusion about the direction of the effect; though our findings are in line with previous research that offers some support for the contention that attentional allocation has a direct, though minimal, impact on preference construction (Armel et al, 2008;Atalay et al, 2012;Glaholt & Reingold, 2009Shimojo et al, 2003). As such, based on the current findings, it seems possible that manipulations aimed at focusing attention on positive ratings, even if those ratings are in the minority, should have a positive effect on individual estimates of a products value.…”

“…We therefore suggest that future investigations should be aimed at addressing the direction of the relationship between attention and valuation by directly manipulating attention. Possibilities to do so would be (a) to show positive or negative product ratings or attributes for different durations (Armel et al, 2008) or (b) to manipulate their salience by varying brightness (Milosavljevic et al, 2012) or position (e.g., placing an option in the middle of a set, which receives more attention, Atalay et al, 2012). Such investigations-particularly when also avoiding demand effects by involving real incentives-would be critical for the development of theories related to evidence accumulation processes and the role attention plays in general decision processes.…”

“…This difference in attention has been shown to partially mediate the endowment effect (i.e., the disparity between WTP and WTA for the same good; Ashby et al, 2012). In addition to reflecting the information uptake and integration process, manipulations of attention have also been shown to shift preferences, with objects that receive more attention being preferred (Armel et al, 2008;Atalay et al, 2012;Shimojo et al, 2003; but see Glaholt & Reingold, 2009. Thus, there is ample evidence that that attention plays an important role in the processes underlying preference construction.…”

Consumers’ ability to identify a surplus when returns to attributes are nonlinear

“…The initial adjustment of scale values could alter the decision weight given to the adjusted attribute. Weight might increase because of additional attention given to the specific attribute (Armel et al, 2008;Krajbich et al, 2010), or decrease because processing of the attribute is less fluent (Shah & Oppenheimer, 2007).…”

Graphs versus numbers: How information format affects risk aversion in gambling

“…Smerecnik et al (2010) examined processing differences between textual, tabular, and graphical risk information, and found that graphs receive more attention (as indicated by inspection times) and require less cognitive effort (as indicated by pupil size) than the other probability formats. In turn, it has been shown that gaze durations themselves affect preferences and decisions, and can therefore enhance the preference for graphical information (Armel, Beaumel & Rangel, 2008;Krajbich, Armel & Rangel, 2010; for a review see Orquin & Mueller Loose, 2013). Thus, there is some evidence that graphical probabilities have an impact on decisions and contribute to risk averse choices.…”