The influences of product similarity on consumer preferences: a study based on eye-tracking analysis

Product similarity plays an important role in affecting consumer preferences. Although the existing literature discusses consumer preferences or product similarity, there are only a few studies investigating their relationship. The current study explored the influences of product similarity on consumer preferences including the underlying cognitive processes by analyzing eye movement data as well as survey data and retrospective interviews. Forty-four participants were invited to take part in the experiment. The results showed that: (1) increases in preference decision time and fixation counts are caused by a higher product similarity; (2) more fixation time is spent on the ultimately chosen options than on the rejected ones and product similarity has no impact on this phenomenon; (3) preference randomness increases with the increase of product similarity; and (4) there is a negative correlation between the mean discrepancy degree of preference rating and the mean similarity rating. Understanding the influences of product similarity on consumer preferences may contribute to better product design and sales. Further studies should quantify the effects of product features on consumer preferences with more diverse stimulus materials and more advanced technologies and methods.

[1]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Early interactions between orienting, visual sampling and decision making in facial preference , 2006, Vision Research.

[2]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  Eye Movement Monitoring as a Process Tracing Methodology in Decision Making Research , 2011 .

[3]  Eiko Yoneki,et al.  Cognitive dissonance and social influence effects on preference judgments: An eye tracking based system for their automatic assessment , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[4]  Frédéric Vanderhaegen,et al.  A rule-based support system for dissonance discovery and control applied to car driving , 2016, Expert Syst. Appl..

[5]  Ping Du,et al.  Investigating effects of product visual designs on consumer judgments with the aid of eye-tracking , 2016 .

[6]  S. Plous.  The psychology of judgment and decision making , 1994 .

[7]  S. Shimojo,et al.  Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference , 2003, Nature Neuroscience.

[8]  Jacob L. Orquin,et al.  Attention and choice: a review on eye movements in decision making. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[9]  Stanislav Popelka,et al.  EyeTribe Tracker Data Accuracy Evaluation and Its Interconnection with Hypothesis Software for Cartographic Purposes , 2016, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[10]  Yuhua Liang,et al.  Reading to make a decision or to reduce cognitive dissonance? The effect of selecting and reading online reviews from a post-decision context , 2016, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  A. Chernev.  When More Is Less and Less Is More: the Role of Ideal Point Availability and Assortment in Consumer Choice This Research Argues That Choices from Different Size Assort- Ments Are a Function of the Degree to Which Consumers Have , 2022 .

[12]  Erin F. MacDonald,et al.  Eye-Tracking Data Predicts Importance of Product Features and Saliency of Size Change , 2013 .

[13]  Jennifer J. Vogel-Walcutt,et al.  A review of eye-tracking applications as tools for training , 2012, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[14]  Jon-Fan Hu,et al.  An Exploratory Study on Remote Associates Problem Solving: Evidence of Eye Movement Indicators , 2017, CogSci.

[15]  Arthur B. Markman,et al.  Processes of Similarity Judgment , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[16]  J. Findlay,et al.  Active Vision: The Psychology of Looking and Seeing , 2003 .

[17]  U. Böckenholt,et al.  Choice overload: A conceptual review and meta-analysis , 2015 .

[18]  Elizabeth R Schotter,et al.  Heuristics and criterion setting during selective encoding in visual decision making: Evidence from eye movements , 2012, Visual cognition.

[19]  Robert Schmitt,et al.  Objectifying user attention and emotion evoked by relevant perceived product components , 2014 .

[20]  Frédéric Vanderhaegen,et al.  Can dissonance engineering improve risk analysis of human–machine systems? , 2017, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[21]  Rachel A Robbins,et al.  A Review and Clarification of the Terms “holistic,” “configural,” and “relational” in the Face Perception Literature , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[22]  S. Iyengar.  The Art of Choosing , 2010 .

[23]  Thi Minh Hang Vu,et al.  Design factors influence consumers’ gazing behaviour and decision time in an eye-tracking test: A study on food images , 2016 .

[24]  L. Festinger.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 1957 .

[25]  Laura Chamberlain.  Eye Tracking Methodology; Theory and Practice , 2007 .

[26]  Mariëlle E. H. Creusen,et al.  The Different Roles of Product Appearance in Consumer Choice , 2005 .

[27]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Comparison and Choice: Relations between Similarity Processes and Decision Processes , 1995 .

[28]  J. Henderson,et al.  CRISP: a computational model of fixation durations in scene viewing. , 2010, Psychological review.

[29]  Erin F. MacDonald,et al.  Eye-Tracking Data Predict Importance of Product Features and Saliency of Size Change , 2014 .

[30]  Chin-Teng Lin,et al.  Visual attention and association: An electroencephalography study in expert designers , 2017 .

[31]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[32]  Erin F. MacDonald,et al.  Impact of Product Design Representation on Customer Judgment , 2013 .

[33]  Wei Zi-Han,et al.  Decision Process Tracing: Evidence from Eye-movement Data , 2015 .

[34]  Larry D. Rosen,et al.  An eye fixation analysis of multialternative choice , 1975, Memory & cognition.

[35]  Wei Gao,et al.  How does presence influence purchase intention in online shopping markets? An explanation based on self-determination theory , 2018, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[36]  Xingshan Li,et al.  From quality to quantity: The role of common features in consumer preference , 2012 .

[37]  S. Iyengar,et al.  The Mere Categorization Effect: How the Presence of Categories Increases Choosers' Perceptions of Assortment Variety and Outcome Satisfaction , 2008 .

[38]  Jan P.L. Schoormans,et al.  The nature of differences between similarity and preference judgements , 1997 .

[39]  Stephanie Moser,et al.  Insight into analogies: Evidence from eye movements , 2007 .

[40]  Elizabeth R Schotter,et al.  Gaze bias: Selective encoding and liking effects , 2010 .

[41]  Erin F. MacDonald,et al.  Products' Shared Visual Features Do Not Cancel in Consumer Decisions , 2015 .

[42]  Liborio Cavaleri,et al.  Prediction of the Fundamental Period of Infilled RC Frame Structures Using Artificial Neural Networks , 2015, Comput. Intell. Neurosci..

[43]  Huei-Tse Hou,et al.  Visual attention for solving multiple-choice science problem: An eye-tracking analysis , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[44]  Steven J. Sherman,et al.  Cancellation and focus: the role of shared and unique features in the choice process , 1995 .

[45]  Ming-Chuen Chuang,et al.  The Difference of User Perception between Similarity and Dissimilarity Judgments , 2013, HCI.

[46]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[47]  J. E. Russo,et al.  An Eye-Fixation Analysis of Choice Processes for Consumer Nondurables , 1994 .

[48]  Chih-Chieh Yang,et al.  Classification model for product form design using fuzzy support vector machines , 2008, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[49]  Mark Heitmann,et al.  A Novel Approach for Predicting and Understanding Consumers' Sense of Design Similarity , 2017 .

[50]  Andreas Glöckner,et al.  The Dynamics of Decision Making in Risky Choice: An Eye-Tracking Analysis , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[51]  Hans W. Guesgen,et al.  Predicting user preferences of environment design: a perceptual mechanism of user interface customisation , 2016, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[52]  H. V. Trijp,et al.  Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: a critical review of methods and techniques , 2005 .