2018
DOI: 10.1093/aepp/ppy020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visual Biases in Decision Making

Abstract: We review research on eye movements in decision making and show that decision makers are subject to several visual biases such as the size, salience, position, emotional valence, predictability, and number of information elements. These biases lead decision makers to allocate their attention in ways that are arbitrary to their goals and sometimes bias their choices. We show that while some visual biases can be minimized, others are unavoidable. Consequently, it is impossible to present information in a complet… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
27
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 49 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 71 publications
0
27
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our finding that negative framing has a positive effect on the number of user clicks confirms our expectations and has a strong theoretical grounding (see, e.g., [13,53]). Similarly, the fact that visual accent attracts users' attention and causes an increase in the number of clicks is compliant with research on visual biases [63], as well as with standard interaction design best practices. In contrast, our finding that the adoption of the Argumentum Ad Populum and Group-Ad Populum fallacies seems unable to influence user choices is quite surprising, even if it confirms the results of some previous works (see, e.g., [14,15]).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Our finding that negative framing has a positive effect on the number of user clicks confirms our expectations and has a strong theoretical grounding (see, e.g., [13,53]). Similarly, the fact that visual accent attracts users' attention and causes an increase in the number of clicks is compliant with research on visual biases [63], as well as with standard interaction design best practices. In contrast, our finding that the adoption of the Argumentum Ad Populum and Group-Ad Populum fallacies seems unable to influence user choices is quite surprising, even if it confirms the results of some previous works (see, e.g., [14,15]).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Maintained attention towards food was measured as fixation duration in seconds (s), visit duration in seconds (s), fixation counts and visit counts. These measurements can be seen as indicator for related information processing [ 17 ]. Furthermore, time to first fixation (in s) was measured as an indicator for initial orientation which shows automatic or unconscious responses regarding food [ 16 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thereby a realistic combination of bottom up and top down control of VA [ 14 , 15 ], linked to different stages of cognitive effort during food choice behavior [ 16 ] takes place. By measuring eye movements, it is possible to obtain insight into participants’ attention and infer linked cognitive processes [ 14 , 17 ]. Third, exclusive researching of unplanned purchase behavior compared to all purchases, limits the number of relevant purchase decisions to a manageable amount for data preparation and analysis.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, they might have been less critical against the specific production design and saw no reason to read the text very intensively. In answering the questionnaire, these participants might have primarily remembered the information they had seen last ('recency effect') and made their assessment against that backdrop [26]. The gaze behaviour of participants who were less interested in the pictures and more interested in the text might have been more goal-driven.…”
Section: Relationship Between Gaze Behaviour and Evaluation Of Aquapomentioning
confidence: 99%