In incentive-aligned choice experiments, each decision is realized with some probability, Prob. In three eye-tracking experiments, we study the impact of varying Prob from 0 (as in purely hypothetical choices) to 1 (as in real-life choices) on attention, information processing, and choice. Consistent with the bounded rationality literature, we find that as Prob increases from 0 to 1, consumers process the choice-relevant information more carefully and more comprehensively. Consistent with the psychological distance literature, we find that as Prob increases from 0 to 1, consumers become less novelty seeking and more price sensitive. These findings underscore that even with incentive alignment, preference measurement choice experiments such as choice-based conjoint analyses only represent an approximation of real-life choices. Although it is not feasible to systematically use questions with high Prob in the field, we predict and find that placing a higher probability question (such as an external validity task) at the beginning rather than the end of a questionnaire has a carryover effect on attention and information processing throughout the questionnaire, and it influences preference estimates as well.
AtchadéYves F.RosenthalJeffrey S. (2005), “On Adaptive Markov Chain Monte Carlo Algorithms,” Bernoulli, 11 (5), 815–28.
2.
CaoXinyuZhangJuanjuan (2018), “Prelaunch Demand Estimation,” working paper presented at MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, MA (September 7, 2017).
3.
ChandonPierreWesley HutchinsonJ.BradlowEric T.YoungScott H. (2009), “Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase.” Journal of Marketing, 73 (6), 1–17.
4.
ChildersTerry L.HoustonMichael J. (1984), “Conditions for a Picture-Superiority Effect on Consumer Memory,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (2), 643–54.
DharRavi (1997), “Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (2), 215–31.
7.
DharRaviKimEunice Y (2007), “Seeing the Forest or the Trees: Implications of Construal Level Theory for Consumer Choice,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 96–100.
8.
DingMin (2007), “An Incentive-Aligned Mechanism for Conjoint Analysis,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), 214–23.
DingMinParkYoung-HoonBradlowEric T. (2009), “Barter Markets for Conjoint Analysis,” Management Science, 55 (6), 1003.
11.
DingYingKehHean Tat (2017), “Consumer Reliance on Intangible Versus Tangible Attributes in Service Evaluation: The Role Of Construal Level,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 848–65.
12.
DongSongtingDingMinHuberJoel (2010), “A Simple Mechanism to Incentive-Align Conjoint Experiments,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27 (1), 25–32.
13.
EyalTalLibermanNiraTropeYaacovWaltherEva (2004), “The Pros and Cons of Temporally Near and Distant Action,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86 (6), 781.
14.
FörsterJensLibermanNiraShapiraOren (2009), “Preparing for Novel Versus Familiar Events: Shifts in Global and Local Processing,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (3), 383.
15.
GabaixXavierLaibsonDavidMolocheGuillermoWeinbergStephen (2006), “Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model,” American Economic Review, 96(4), 1043–68.
16.
GoodmanJoseph K.MalkocSelin A. (2012), “Choosing Here and Now Versus There and Later: The Moderating Role of Psychological Distance on Assortment Size Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 751–68.
KivetzYifatTylerTom R. (2007), “Tomorrow I’ll Be Me: The Effect of Time Perspective on the Activation of Idealistic Versus Pragmatic Selves,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102 (2), 193–211.
19.
KrosnickJon A.HolbrookAllyson L.BerentMatthew K.CarsonRichard T.Michael HanemannW.KoppRaymond J.. (2002), “The Impact of ‘No Opinion’ Response Options on Data Quality: Nonattitude Reduction or an Invitation to Satisfice?” Public Opinion Quarterly, 66 (3), 371–403.
20.
LevavJonathanHeitmannMarkHerrmannAndreasIyengarSheena S. (2010), “Order in Product Customization Decisions: Evidence From Field Experiments,” Journal of Political Economy, 118 (2), 274–99.
21.
LibermanNiraTropeYaacov (1998), “The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5.
22.
LiechtyJohn C.FongDuncan K. H.DeSarboWayne S. (2005), “Dynamic Models Incorporating Individual Heterogeneity: Utility Evolution in Conjoint Analysis,” Marketing Science, 24 (2), 285–93.
23.
LipmanBarton L. (1991), “How to Decide How to Decide How to…: Modeling Limited Rationality,” Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 59 (4), 1105–25.
24.
LutzKathy A.LutzRichard J. (1977), “Effects of Interactive Imagery on Learning: Application to Advertising,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (4), 493.
25.
MeißnerMartinMusalemAndresHuberJoel (2016), “Eye Tracking Reveals Processes that Enable Conjoint Choices to Become Increasingly Efficient With Practice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (1), 1–17.
26.
NetzerOdedToubiaOlivierBradlowEric T.DahanElyEvgeniouTheodorosFeinbergFred M.. (2008), “Beyond Conjoint Analysis: Advances in Preference Measurement,” Marketing Letters, 19 (3/4), 337–54.
27.
OppenheimerDaniel M.MeyvisTomDavidenkoNicolas (2009), “Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 867–72.
28.
PaivioAllan (1969), “Mental Imagery in Associative Learning and Memory,” Psychological Review, 76 (3), 241.
29.
ParkYoung-HoonDingMinRaoVithala R. (2008), “Eliciting Preference for Complex Products: A Web-Based Upgrading Method,” Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (5), 562–74.
PayneJohn W.BettmanJames R.JohnsonEric J. (1988), “Adaptive Strategy Selection in Decision Making,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14 (3), 534.
32.
PayneJohn W.BettmanJames R.JohnsonEric J. (1992), “Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective,” Annual Review of Psychology, 43 (1), 87–131.
33.
PayneJohn W.BettmanJames R.JohnsonEric J. (1993), The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
PietersRikRosbergenEdwardWedelMichel (1999), “Visual Attention to Repeated Print Advertising: a Test of Scanpath Theory,” Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 424–38.
35.
PietersRikWarlopLuk (1999), “Visual Attention During Brand Choice: The Impact of Time Pressure and Task Motivation,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16 (1), 1–16.
36.
PietersRikWarlopLukWedelMichel (2002), “Breaking Through the Clutter: Benefits of Advertisement Originality and Familiarity for Brand Attention and Memory,” Management Science, 48 (6), 765–81.
37.
PietersRikWedelMichel (2004), “Attention Capture and Transfer in Advertising: Brand, Pictorial, and Text-Size Effects,” Journal of Marketing, 68 (2), 36–50.
38.
RosbergenEdwardPietersRikWedelMichel (1997), “Visual Attention to Advertising: A Segment-Level Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (3), 305–14.
39.
ShiSavannah WeiWedelMichelPietersF. G. M. (2013), “Information Acquisition During Online Decision Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data,” Management Science, 59 (5), 1009–26.
40.
SimonHerbert A. (1955), “A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice,” The Quarterly Journal Of Economics, 69 (1), 99–118.
41.
SimonsonItamar (1990), “The Effect of Purchase Quantity and Timing on Variety-Seeking Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Research, 27(2), 150–62.
TodorovAlexanderGorenAmirTropeYaacov (2007), “Probability as a Psychological Distance: Construal and Preferences,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (3), 473–82.
44.
ToubiaOlivierJongMartijn G. DeStiegerDanielFüllerJohann (2012), “Measuring Consumer Preferences Using Conjoint Poker,” Marketing Science, 31 (1), 138–56.
45.
TropeYaacovLibermanNira (2010), “Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance,” Psychological Review, 117 (2), 440.
46.
TropeYaacovLibermanNiraWakslakCheryl (2007), “Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17 (2), 83–95.
47.
Van der LansRalfPietersRikWedelMichel (2008a), “Eye-Movement Analysis of Search Effectiveness,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103 (482), 452–61.
48.
Van der LansRalfPietersRikWedelMichel (2008b), “Research Note-Competitive Brand Salience,” Marketing Science, 27 (5), 922–31.
49.
Van der LansRalfWedelMichelPietersRik (2011), “Defining Eye-Fixation Sequences Across Individuals and Tasks: The Binocular-Individual Threshold (BIT) Algorithm,” Behavior Research Methods, 43 (1), 239–57.
50.
WakslakCheryl J.TropeYaacovLibermanNiraAlonyRotem (2006), “Seeing the Forest When Entry is Unlikely: Probability and the Mental Representation of Events,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135 (4), 641.
51.
WedelMichelPietersRik (2000), “Eye Fixations on Advertisements and Memory for Brands: A Model and Findings,” Marketing Science, 19 (4), 297–312.
52.
WedelMichelPietersRik (2008), “Eye Traking for Visual Marketing,” Foundations and Trends in Marketing, 1(4), 231–320.
53.
WedelMichelPietersRikLiechtyJohn (2008), “Attention Switching During Scene Perception: How Goals Influence the Time Course of Eye Movements Across Advertisements,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14 (2), 129.
54.
WilcoxNathaniel T. (1993), “Lottery Choice: Incentives, Complexity and Decision Time,” The Economic Journal, 103 (421), 1397–417.
55.
YangLiu (Cathy)ToubiaOlivierJongMartijn G. De (2015), “A Bounded Rationality Model of Information Search and Choice in Preference Measurement,” Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (2), 166–83.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
