IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea13/150333.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Eye Tracking Reveal More About the Effects of Buying Impulsiveness on the Green Industry Consumer Choice Behavior?

Author

Listed:
  • Khachatryan, Hayk
  • Behe, Bridget K.
  • Campbell, Benjamin L.
  • Hall, Charles R.
  • Dennis, Jennifer H.

Abstract

Although consumer behavior research has investigated impulsive buying behavior since the early 1950s, no studies explored the relationship between eye gaze metrics, buying impulsiveness scores and purchase decisions. The present study is a preliminary approach to setting consumer purchase decisions as a function of not only product attributes, but also individuals’ buying impulsiveness and eye gaze measures, which were collected using an eye tracking device during choice experiments. Specifically, we investigated the moderation effects of eye gaze measures on the relationship between buying impulsiveness and plant purchase likelihood. The results showed that impulsive buying scores were negatively related to purchase decisions, and that eye gaze duration (when viewing plant displays) influenced that relationship, depending on the type of the display information viewed (e.g., price vs. production methods or plant type signs). Theoretical contributions to choice behavior literature and implications for developing effective plant sales marketing efforts are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Khachatryan, Hayk & Behe, Bridget K. & Campbell, Benjamin L. & Hall, Charles R. & Dennis, Jennifer H., 2013. "Does Eye Tracking Reveal More About the Effects of Buying Impulsiveness on the Green Industry Consumer Choice Behavior?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150333, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150333
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.150333
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/150333/files/BIS%20Eye%20Tracking%20paper%208_1_13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.150333?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yue, Chengyan & Alfnes, Frode & Jensen, Helen H., 2009. "Discounting Spotted Apples: Investigating Consumers' Willingness to Accept Cosmetic Damage in an Organic Product," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 29-46, April.
    2. Ty Feldkamp & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Experimental Auction Procedure: Impact on Valuation of Quality Differentiated Goods," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 389-405.
    3. List, John A. & Shogren, Jason F., 1998. "Calibration of the difference between actual and hypothetical valuations in a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 193-205, October.
    4. Kuisma, Jarmo & Simola, Jaana & Uusitalo, Liisa & Öörni, Anssi, 2010. "The Effects of Animation and Format on the Perception and Memory of Online Advertising," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 269-282.
    5. Thales S. Teixeira & Michel Wedel & Rik Pieters, 2010. "Moment-to-Moment Optimal Branding in TV Commercials: Preventing Avoidance by Pulsing," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 783-804, 09-10.
    6. Yue, Chengyan & Alfnes, Frode & Jensen, Helen H., 2009. "Discounting Spotted Apples: Investigating Consumersï¾’ Willingness to Accept Cosmetic Damage in an Organic Product," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12693, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    7. Ai, Chunrong & Norton, Edward C., 2003. "Interaction terms in logit and probit models," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 123-129, July.
    8. Rook, Dennis W & Fisher, Robert J, 1995. "Normative Influences on Impulsive Buying Behavior," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 22(3), pages 305-313, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chengyan Yue & Ben Campbell & Charles Hall & Bridget Behe & Jennifer Dennis & Hayk Khachatryan, 2016. "Consumer Preference for Sustainable Attributes in Plants: Evidence from Experimental Auctions," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(2), pages 222-235, April.
    2. Jessica Aschemann-Witzel & Ilona De Hooge & Pegah Amani & Tino Bech-Larsen & Marije Oostindjer, 2015. "Consumer-Related Food Waste: Causes and Potential for Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Frode Alfnes & Chengyan Yue & Helen H. Jensen, 2010. "Cognitive dissonance as a means of reducing hypothetical bias," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 37(2), pages 147-163, June.
    4. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    5. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Shaw, W. Douglass & Silva, Andres, 2006. "The Effect of Risk Presentation on Product Valuation: An Experimental Analysis," 2006 Annual meeting, July 23-26, Long Beach, CA 21429, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Huffman, Wallace E., 2017. "Willingness-to-pay for natural, organic, and conventional foods: The effects of information and meaningful labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 214-232.
    7. Joseph Seong & Simone Valle de Souza & H. Christopher Peterson, 2023. "Seeds of Industry Sustainability: Consumer Attitudes towards Indoor Agriculture Benefits versus Its Advanced Technology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.
    8. Ozge Dinc‐Cavlak & Ozlem Ozdemir, 2021. "Comparing the willingness to pay through three elicitation mechanisms: An experimental evidence for organic egg product," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(4), pages 782-803, October.
    9. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    10. Lijia Shi & Jing Xie & Zhifeng Gao, 2018. "The impact of deal†proneness on WTP estimates in incentive†aligned value elicitation methods," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 353-362, May.
    11. Rolfe, John & Windle, Jill, 2006. "Using Field Experiments to Explore the Use of Multiple Bidding Rounds in Conservation Auctions," Discussion Papers 25801, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Biguzzi, Coralie & Ginon, Emilie & Gomez-y-Paloma, Sergio & Langrell, Sergio & Lefebvre, Marianne & Marette, Stephan & Mateu, Guillermo & Sutan, Angela, 2014. "Consumers' preferences for Integrated Pest Management: Experimental insights," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183081, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Lai, Yufeng & Yue, Chengyan, 2020. "Consumer Willingness to pay for Organic and Animal Welfare Product Attributes: Do Experimental Results Align with Market Data?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304328, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Aschemann-Witzel, Jessica & de Hooge, Ilona & Amani, Pegah & Bech-Larsen, Tino & Gustavsson, Jenny, 2015. "Consumers and food waste - a review of research approaches and findings on point of purchase and in-household consumer behaviour," 143rd Joint EAAE/AAEA Seminar, March 25-27, 2015, Naples, Italy 202716, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Adelina Gschwandtner & Jose Eduardo Ribeiro & Cesar Revoredo-Giha & Michael Burton, 2021. "Combining Stated and Revealed Preferences for valuing Organic Chicken Meat," Studies in Economics 2113, School of Economics, University of Kent.
    16. Razzolini, Tiziano, 2013. "How much trustworthy and salubrious an organic jam should be? The impact of organic logo on the Italian jam market," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-13.
    17. John Rolfe & Jill Windle & Juliana McCosker, 2009. "Testing and Implementing the Use of Multiple Bidding Rounds in Conservation Auctions: A Case Study Application," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 287-303, September.
    18. Vaneesha Dusoruth & Hikaru Hanawa Peterson, 2020. "Food waste tendencies: Behavioral response to cosmetic deterioration of food," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-22, May.
    19. Chengyan Yue & Yufeng Lai & Jingjing Wang & Paul Mitchell, 2020. "Consumer Preferences for Sustainable Product Attributes and Farm Program Features," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-19, September.
    20. Campbell, Benjamin L. & Behe, Bridget K. & Khachatryan, Hayk & Hall, Charles R. & Dennis, Jennifer H. & Huddleston, Patricia T. & Fernandez, R. Thomas, 2013. "Incorporating Eye Tracking Technology and Conjoint Analysis to Better Understand the Green Industry Consumer," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150431, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Consumer/Household Economics; Food Consumption/Nutrition/Food Safety;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aaea13:150333. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.