Stimulus exposure and gaze bias: A further test of the gaze cascade model

We tested predictions derived from the gaze cascade model of preference decision making (Shimojo, Simion, Shimojo, & Scheier, 2003; Simion & Shimojo, 2006, 2007). In each trial, participants’ eye movements were monitored while they performed an eight-alternative decision task in which four of the items in the array were preexposed prior to the trial. Replicating previous findings, we found a gaze bias toward the chosen item prior to the response. However, contrary to the prediction of the gaze cascade model, preexposure of stimuli decreased, rather than increased, the magnitude of the gaze bias in preference decisions. Furthermore, unlike the prediction of the model, preexposure did not affect the likelihood of an item being chosen, and the pattern of looking behavior in preference decisions and on a nonpreference control task was remarkably similar. Implications of the present findings in multistage models of decision making are discussed.

[1]  R. Zajonc.  Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. , 1968 .

[2]  John W. Payne,et al.  Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis☆ , 1976 .

[3]  Shinsuke Shimojo,et al.  Interrupting the cascade: Orienting contributes to decision making even in the absence of visual stimulation , 2007, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  S. Senter,et al.  Information presentation constraints and the adaptive decision maker hypothesis , 1999 .

[5]  John W. Payne,et al.  A Constructive Process View of Decision Making: Multiple Strategies in Judgment and Choice , 1992 .

[6]  R. Moreland,et al.  Is stimulus recognition a necessary condition for the occurrence of exposure effects? , 1977, Journal of personality and social psychology.

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

[8]  K. Rayner.  Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  R. Zajonc,et al.  Affective discrimination of stimuli that cannot be recognized. , 1980, Science.

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

[11]  Eyal M. Reingold,et al.  The time course of gaze bias in visual decision tasks , 2009 .

[12]  Stuart M. Senter,et al.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Looking and Weighting in Judgment and Choice Performed without Ever Forming an Overall Integrated , 2022 .

[13]  R. Held,et al.  Preferential-looking assessment of fusion and stereopsis in infants aged 1-6 months. , 1985, Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science.

[14]  R. L. Fantz.  Visual Experience in Infants: Decreased Attention to Familiar Patterns Relative to Novel Ones , 1964, Science.

[15]  J. Ford,et al.  Process tracing methods: Contributions, problems, and neglected research questions , 1989 .

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

[17]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[18]  Richard L. Moreland,et al.  Exposure effects in person perception: Familiarity, similarity, and attraction , 1982 .