Choice-based conjoint is a popular technique for characterizing consumers’ choices. Three eye-tracking studies explore decision processes in conjoint choices that take less time and become more accurate with practice. These studies reveal two simplification processes that are associated with greater speed and reliability. Alternative focus gradually shifts attention toward options that represent promising choices, whereas attribute focus directs attention to important attributes that are most likely to alter or confirm a decision. Alternative and attribute focus increase in intensity with practice. In terms of biases, the authors detect a small but consistent focus on positive aspects of the item chosen and negative aspects of the items not chosen. They also show that incidental exposures arising from the first-examined alternative or from alternatives in a central horizontal location increase attention but have a much more modest and often insignificant impact on conjoint choices. Overall, conjoint choice is found to be a process that is (1) largely formed by goal-driven values that respondents bring to the task and (2) relatively free of distorting effects from task layout or random exposures.
ArmelK. Carrie, BeaumelAurelie, and RangelAntonio (2008), “Biasing Simple Choices by Manipulating Relative Visual Attention,”Judgment and Decision Making, 3 (5), 396–403.
2.
AtalayA. Selin, BudurH. Onur, and RasolofoarisonDina (2012), “Shining in the Center: Central Gaze Cascade Effect on Product Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (4), 848–66.
3.
BirdGary D., LauwereynsJohan, and CrawfordMatthew T. (2012), “The Role of Eye Movements in Decision Making and the Prospect of Exposure Effects,”Vision Research, 60, 16–21.
4.
BrownsteinAron L. (2003), “Biased Predecision Processing,”Psychological Bulletin, 129 (4), 545–68.
5.
BusemeyerJerome R. and TownsendJames T. (1993), “Decision Field Theory: A Dynamic-Cognitive Approach to Decision Making in an Uncertain Environment,”Psychological Review, 100 (3), 432–59.
6.
CattinPhilippe and WittinkDick R. (1982), “Commercial Use of Conjoint Analysis: A Survey,”Journal of Marketing, 46 (July), 44–53.
7.
ChandonPierre, HutchinsonJ. Wesley, BradlowEric T., and 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 (November), 1–17.
8.
EckertChristine, LouviereJordan J., and IslamTowhidul (2012), “Seeing the Forest Despite the Trees: Brand Effects on Choice Uncertainty,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29 (3), 256–64.
9.
Fisher, Geoffrey and Antonio Rangel (2014), “The Multi-Attribute Attentional Drift Diffusion Model of Consumer Choice,” working paper, California Institute of Technology.
10.
GabaixXavier, LaibsonDavid, MolocheGuillermo, and WeinbergStephen (2006), “Costly Information Acquisition: Experimental Analysis of a Boundedly Rational Model,”American Economic Review, 96 (4), 1043–68.
11.
GilbrideTimothy J. and AllenbyGreg M. (2004), “A Choice Model with Conjunctive, Disjunctive, and Compensatory Screening Rules,”Marketing Science, 23 (3), 391–406.
12.
GlaholtMackenzie G. and ReingoldEyal M. (2009), “The Time Course of Gaze Bias in Visual Decision Tasks,”Visual Cognition, 17 (8), 1228–43.
13.
HarteJohanna M., KoelePieter, and van EngelenburgGijsbert (1996), “Estimation of Attribute Weights in a Multiattribute Choice Situation,”Acta Psychologica, 93 (1), 37–55.
14.
JaniszewskiChris, KuoAndrew, and TavassoliNader T. (2013), “The Influence of Selective Attention and Inattention to Products on Subsequent Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 39 (6), 1258–74.
15.
JohnsonEric J., MeyerRobert J., HardieBruce G.S., and AndersonPaul (1997), “Watching Customers Decide: Process Measures Add Insights to Choice Modeling Experiments,”Marketing Research, 9 (1), 32–38.
16.
JohnsonRichard M. and OrmeBryan K. (1996), “How Many Questions Should You Ask in Choice-Based Conjoint Studies?”research paper series, Sawtooth Software, (accessed November 12, 2015), [available at www.sawtoothsoftware.com/download/techpap/howmanyq.pdf].
17.
JustMarcel A. and CarpenterPatricia A. (1993), “The Intensity Dimension of Thought: Pupillometric Indices of Sentence Processing,”Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47 (2), 310–39.
18.
KhushabaRami N., WiseChelsea, KodagodaSarath, LouviereJordan, KahnBarbara E., and TownsendClaudia (2013), “Consumer Neuroscience: Assessing the Brain Response to Marketing Stimuli Using Electroencephalogram (EEG) and Eye Tracking,”Expert Systems with Applications, 40 (9), 3803–12.
19.
KrajbichIan and RangelAntonio (2011), “Multialternative Drift-Diffusion Model Predicts the Relationship Between Visual Fixations and Choice in Value-Based Decisions,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108 (33), 13852–57.
20.
KreplinUte, ThomaVolker, and RodwayPaul (2014), “Looking Behaviour and Preference for Artworks: The Role of Emotional Valence and Location,”Acta Psychologica, 152, 100–108.
21.
LohseGerald L. and JohnsonEric J. (1996), “A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods on Choice Tasks,”Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68 (1), 28–43.
22.
MilosavljevicMilica, NavalpakkamVidhya, KochChristof, and RangelAntonio (2012), “Relative Visual Saliency Differences Induce Sizable Bias in Consumer Choice,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22 (1), 67–74.
23.
Mormann, Milica, R. Blythe Towal, and Christof Koch (2013), “What the Eye Does Not Admire the Heart Does Not Desire: The Effects of Stimulus-Based Factors on Consumer Attention and Choice,” working paper, University of Miami.
24.
OrquinJacob L., AshbyNathaniel J., and ClarkeAlasdair D.F. (2015), “Areas of Interest as a Signal Detection Problem in Behavioral Eye Tracking Research,”Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, (published electronically March 20), [DOI:10.1002/bdm.1867].
25.
OrquinJacob L. and LooseSimone Mueller (2013), “Attention and Choice: A Review on Eye Movements in Decision Making,”Acta Psychologica, 144, 190–206.
26.
PietersRik and WarlopLuk (1999), “Visual Attention During Brand Choice: The Impact of Time Pressure and Task Motivation,”International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16 (1), 1–16.
27.
PietersRik and WedelMichel (2007), “Goal Control of Attention to Advertising: The Yarbus Implication,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 224–33.
28.
RehderBob and HoffmanAaron B. (2005), “Eye Tracking and Selective Attention in Category Learning,”Cognitive Psychology, 51, 1–41.
29.
ReutskajaElena, NagelRosemarie, CamererColin F., and RangelAntonio (2011), “Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice Under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study,”American Economic Review, 101 (2), 900–926.
30.
RussoJ. Edward and LeclercFrance (1994), “An Eye-Fixation Analysis of Choice Processes for Consumer Nondurables,”Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (2), 274–90.
ShiWei, WedelMichel, and PietersRik (2012), “Information Acquisition During Online Decision-Making: A Model-Based Exploration Using Eye-Tracking Data,”Management Science, 59 (5), 1009–26.
33.
ShimojoShinsuke, SimionClaudiu, ShimojoEiko, and ScheierChristian (2003), “Gaze Bias Both Reflects and Influences Preference,”Nature Neuroscience, 6 (12), 1317–22.
34.
SimionClaudiu and ShimojoShinsuke (2006), “Early Interactions Between Orienting, Visual Sampling and Decision Making in Facial Preference,”Vision Research, 46 (20), 3331–35.
35.
StüttgenPeter, BoatwrightPeter, and MonroeRobert T. (2012), “A Satisficing Choice Model,”Marketing Science, 31 (6), 878–99.
36.
TatlerBenjamin W. (2007), “The Central Fixation Bias in Scene Viewing: Selecting an Optimal Viewing Position Independently of Motor Biases and Image Feature Distributions,”Journal of Vision, 7 (14), 1–17.
37.
TowalR. Blythe, MormannMilica, and KochChristof (2013), “Simultaneous Modeling of Visual Saliency and Value Computation Improves Predictions of Economic Choice,”Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110 (40), E3858–67.
38.
ValenzuelaAna and RaghubirPriya (2009), “Position-Based Beliefs: The Center-Stage Effect,”Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9 (2), 185–96.
39.
Van der LansRalf, PietersRik, and WedelMichel (2008), “Competitive Brand Salience,”Marketing Science, 27 (5), 922–31.
40.
WillemsenMartijn C., BöckenholtUlf, and JohnsonEric J. (2011), “Choice by Value Encoding and Value Construction: Process of Loss Aversion,”Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 140 (3), 303–24.
41.
YangCathy L., ToubiaOlivier, and de JongMartijn G. (2015), “A Bounded Rationality Model of Information Search and Choice in Preference Measurement,”Journal of Marketing Research, 52 (April), 166–83.
42.
ZajoncRobert B. (1968), “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monograph Supplement, 9 (2), 1–28.
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.
