Eye Tracking, Journal of Marketing Research

Meißner, Musalem, Huber1 Eye Tracking and Conjoint Choices

Eye Tracking Reveals Processes That Enable Conjoint Choices to Become Increasingly Efficient with Practice

Martin Meißner, University of Southern Denmark, [email protected]

Andrés Musalem, Universidad de Chile,[email protected]

Joel Huber, Duke University,[email protected]


Choice task from our coffee maker study


To what extent does the focus on each alternative reflect the respondent’s utility for the

option?


• Mere exposure effect: Manipulated attention to objects results in greater liking. (Armel, Beaumel and Rangel 2008)

• Mere selection effect: Allocating attention to an object increases probability of choice. (Janiszewski, Kuo and Tavassoli 2013)

• Visually salient alternatives generate greater attention and are more likely to be chosen. (Milosavljevic, Navalpakkam, Koch and Rangel 2012)

To what extent does the focus on each alternative reflect the respondent’s utility for the option?

Previous research on alternative focus


• The central position of a new product on a shelf leads to a greater choice probability. (Atalay, Bodur and Rasolofoarison 2012)

Is there evidence that incidental attention distorts choice?

Centrality bias as incidental alternative focus distortion?


• Biased search: Information search and comparison processes are more favorably disposed towards the features of the leading object. (Willemsen, Böckenholt and Johnson 2011)

• Biased encoding: Once a favorite is identified then evidence supporting that choice is bolstered. Biases are most likely to occur when the decision is important, difficult or emotional. (Russo, Meloy and Medvec 1998)

Biased search as motivated feature focus distortion


• Unbiased search: In a binary choice task information supporting the leader was not different from a 50%-50% chance. No particular bias towards supportive features. (Carlson and Guha 2011)

• Absence of a pre-choice bias toward searching for preference-supporting information. Tendency towards balancing positive and negative information in self reported search strategy. (Chaxel, Russo and Kerimi 2013)

Is there evidence of greater attention to positive information for chosen alternatives?

Evidence against feature focus distortion


Study design and sample:• Questionnaire design: Explanation of attributes and

levels, 4 warm-up choice tasks (CT), 12 CT being used for utility estimation, 2 additional holdout CT

• Random task generation method: Sawtooth’s complete enumeration algorithm

• Sample: n= 60 (of 110) respondents

A conjoint study of coffee makers

Product attributes:1. Brand 4. Design2. Material 5. Price of a

cup3. System 6. Price


Fixations and saccades in a choice task:

Measuring attention

FixationsSaccades


Counting feature fixation frequencies


Technical data of our eye tracking equipment: • Head-mounted, video-based SMI Eye-Link II eye

tracking system • Head movement compensation• Temporal resolution: 250 Hz (every 4ms)• 9-step calibration, screen resolution: 1280 by1024

pixels

Eye tracking technology used in our first study


• Fixation frequency: number of times an element is fixated

• Fixation duration: increases closer to choice (e.g., Velichkovsky, Dornhoefer, Pannasch and Unema 2002)

• Pupil dilation: increases with greater cognitive load arousal (Beatty 1982; Just and Carpenter 1993)

• Saccade distance: may reflect perceptual shifts• Blinking: indicates processing or cognitive shifts

(Stern, Walrath and Goldstein 1984)

We focus on fixation frequencies to generate measures of attention to particular objects or features.

Eye tracking measures


Results


Feature utilities with standard deviations across respondents for the coffee maker study


Hit rate increases and decision time decreases with experience for the coffee maker study


Attention to an alternative increases with the attractiveness of the alternative, and this

relationship increases with practice


Attention to attributes increases for important attributes but is not significantly higher with

practice


Attention to features increases with greater utility for chosen alternatives but decreases for rejected

alternatives


Shift in fixations on left, right, and central alternatives as decision approaches


Differences between the three eye tracking conjoint studies


Multilevel analysis of factors influencing fixations in three studies


Incidental fixations have no/little effect on choice


1. Alternative focus directs attention to options with high utility

2. Attribute focus directs attention to important attributes

3. After we account for alternative attractiveness and attribute importance, feature utility has a minor impact on attention

Summary of findings


4. Incidental Fixations Have Little Effect on Choice: • The middle alternative gets more attention, but this

attention does not alter choice probabilities• The first fixated alternative gets more attention, but

this attention does not alter choice probabilities

Take away: “The attentional processes are consistent with a goal-driven causality mechanism whereby attention depends on stable values that each respondent brings to the task.”

Summary of findings


Appendix


Feature utilities with standard deviations across respondents for the beach vacation study


Feature utilities with standard deviations across respondents for the laptop study


Are short fixations the reason for the increased attention to the central object?


Are short fixations the reason for the increased attention to the central object? - Simulation

Eye Tracking, Journal of Marketing Research

Marketing

Transcript of Eye Tracking, Journal of Marketing Research