Product Web Page Design: A Psychophysiological Investigation of the Influence of Product Similarity, Visual Proximity on Attention and Performance

This research examines attention to distracting products unrelated to the shopping goal and its impact on performance when making online decisions. An experiment was conducted with thirty-eight participants in a laboratory setting. The study used a 2 (product similarity: similar vs. non-similar) × 2 (visual proximity: near vs. far) within-subject design. The attention of participants was measured with eye tracking during an online decision task. The results showed a significant effect of distractors’ visual proximity as participants spent more time on products that were near the target stimulus. In addition, the analysis yielded an interaction between product similarity and visual distance on users’ attention. Finally, distractors that were similar to the focal stimulus positively influenced decisions accuracy. These findings contribute to theory by providing quantitative measures of the Gestalt law of proximity. In addition, the user experience has become a cornerstone for the success of firms and the conclusions have HCI design implications about effective product presentations in online shops.

[1]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[2]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Experimental Effects and Individual Differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the Relationship between Spatial, Object, and Attraction Effects in Visual Attention , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[3]  D. Bavelier,et al.  The role of selective attention on academic foundations: A cognitive neuroscience perspective , 2012, Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience.

[4]  Alexandre N. Tuch,et al.  The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[5]  F. Strack,et al.  Reflective and Impulsive Determinants of Social Behavior , 2004, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[6]  Breugelmans Els,et al.  Shelf Sequence and Proximity Effects on Online Grocery Choices , 2005 .

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

[8]  Antao Chen,et al.  The temporal dynamics of visual working memory guidance of selective attention , 2014, Front. Behav. Neurosci..

[9]  J. Beattie,et al.  Objects, decision considerations and self-image in men's and women's impulse purchases. , 1996, Acta psychologica.

[10]  Arnd Florack,et al.  Using Implementation Intentions in Shopping Situations: How Arousal Can Help Shield Consumers Against Temptation , 2016 .

[11]  Gui-Song Xia,et al.  A Computational Model for Object-Based Visual Saliency: Spreading Attention Along Gestalt Cues , 2016, IEEE Transactions on Multimedia.

[12]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Early, involuntary top-down guidance of attention from working memory. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  Ryad Titah,et al.  Precision is in the Eye of the Beholder: Application of Eye Fixation-Related Potentials to Information Systems Research , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[14]  L. Barsalou.  Ideals, central tendency, and frequency of instantiation as determinants of graded structure in categories. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[15]  Michael G. Reynolds,et al.  To group or not to group: an ecological consideration of the stroop effect. , 2010, Experimental psychology.

[16]  J. Nigg.  On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. , 2000, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  Chih-Ming Chen,et al.  Assessing the attention levels of students by using a novel attention aware system based on brainwave signals , 2017, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[18]  Eli Tsukayama,et al.  Resisting Everything except Temptation: Evidence and an Explanation for Domain–specific Impulsivity , 2012 .

[19]  David A. Magezi,et al.  Linear mixed-effects models for within-participant psychology experiments: an introductory tutorial and free, graphical user interface (LMMgui) , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[20]  Gitte Lindgaard,et al.  Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression! , 2006, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[21]  A. Allport,et al.  Selection for action: Some behavioral and neurophysiological considerations of attention and action , 1987 .

[22]  Dennis W. Rook.  The Buying Impulse , 1987 .

[23]  F. Jäkel,et al.  An overview of quantitative approaches in Gestalt perception , 2016, Vision Research.

[24]  M. Zollo,et al.  Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance , 2015 .

[25]  René Riedl,et al.  Fundamentals of NeuroIS , 2016, Studies in Neuroscience, Psychology and Behavioral Economics.

[26]  M. J. Houston,et al.  Goal-Oriented Experiences and the Development of Knowledge , 1993 .

[27]  J. Gross.  The Emerging Field of Emotion Regulation: An Integrative Review , 1998 .

[28]  J. Bettman,et al.  The Effects of Brand Positioning Strategies on Consumers’ Brand and Category Perceptions: Some Insights from Schema Research , 1989 .

[29]  H. Schächinger,et al.  Irrelevant stimuli and action control: analyzing the influence of ignored stimuli via the distractor-response binding paradigm. , 2014, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[30]  Catherine Demangeot,et al.  Consumer perceptions of online shopping environments: A gestalt approach , 2010 .

[31]  Pierre-Majorique Léger,et al.  The Influence of Online Search Behavior on Consumers’ Decision-Making Heuristics , 2017, J. Comput. Inf. Syst..

[32]  S. Higgs.  Cognitive processing of food rewards , 2016, Appetite.

[33]  Han-Seok Seo,et al.  Visual attention toward food-item images can vary as a function of background saliency and culture: An eye-tracking study , 2015 .