Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention

Contents:

Author Info

  • K. Carrie Armel
  • Aurelie Beaumel
  • Antonio Rangel
Registered author(s):

    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.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/8319/jdm8319.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://journal.sjdm.org/8319/jdm8319.html
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Society for Judgment and Decision Making in its journal Judgment and Decision Making.

    Volume (Year): 3 (2008)
    Issue (Month): (June)
    Pages: 396-403

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:3:y:2008:i::p:396-403

    Contact details of provider:

    Related research

    Keywords: construction of preferences; visual attention; race-to-barrier models; neuroeconomics.;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Busemeyer, Jerome R. & Diederich, Adele, 2002. "Survey of decision field theory," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 345-370, July.
    2. Weber, Elke U & Kirsner, Britt, 1997. "Reasons for Rank-Dependent Utility Evaluation," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 41-61, January.
    3. K. Carrie Armel & Antonio Rangel, 2008. "The Impact of Computation Time and Experience on Decision Values," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 163-68, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Nathaniel J. S. Ashby & Stephan Dickert & Andreas Glockner, 2012. "Focusing on what you own: Biased information uptake due to ownership," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(3), pages 254-267, May.
    2. Alessandro Innocenti & Alessandra Rufa & Jacopo Semmoloni, 2008. "Cognitive Biases and Gaze Direction: An Experimental Study," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 022, University of Siena.
    3. Enrico Rubaltelli & Stephan Dickert & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Response mode, compatibility, and dual-processes in the evaluation of simple gambles: An eye-tracking investigation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 427-440, July.
    4. Elena Reutskaja & Rosemarie Nagel & Colin F. Camerer & Antonio Rangel, 2011. "Search Dynamics in Consumer Choice under Time Pressure: An Eye-Tracking Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 900-926, April.
    5. Yingyao Hu & Yutaka Kayaba & Matt Shum, 2010. "Nonparametric Learning Rules from Bandit Experiments: The Eyes have it!," Economics Working Paper Archive 560, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
    6. Guala, Francesco & Mittone, Luigi, 2010. "How history and convention create norms: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 749-756, August.
    7. Caplin, Andrew & Dean, Mark, 2011. "Search, choice, and revealed preference," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 6(1), January.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:jdm:journl:v:3:y:2008:i::p:396-403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jonathan Baron).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.