Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Operationalization of Information Acquisition Switching Behavior in the Context of Idea Selection

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Information Systems and Neuroscience (NeuroIS 2020)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation ((LNISO,volume 43))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1034 Accesses

Abstract

Decision makers ought to adapt their information acquisition (IA) contingent to the task, which has not yet been investigated in the context of idea selection. Therefore, this paper suggests an operationalization of IA switching behavior using eye-tracking data. A first data analysis indicates that raters switch between modes of high and low IA in an idea selection task. These modes of IA could be associated with compensatory and non-compensatory information integration. The extent of switches between IA modes seems to stay stable between the first and the second half of the task with a slight decreasing trend towards the end. Future research will add cognitive load to explain occurring switches between different IA modes and may allow to deduce recommendations for more efficient IT designs, preserving rater’s cognitive resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jensen, M.B., Hienerth, C., Lettl, C.: Forecasting the commercial attractiveness of user-generated designs using online data : an empirical Study within the LEGO user community. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 31, 75–93 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Beretta, M.: Idea selection in web-enabled ideation systems. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 36, 5–23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Einhorn, H.J., Hogarth, R.M.: Behavioral decision theory: processes of judgment and choice. J. Account. Res. 19, 1 (1981). https://doi.org/10.2307/2490959

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ferioli, M., Dekoninck, E., Culley, S., Roussel, B., Renaud, J.: Understanding the rapid evaluation of innovative ideas in the early stages of design. Int. J. Prod. Dev. 12, 67 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPD.2010.034313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bullinger, A.C.B., Moeslein, K.: Innovation Contests – Where are we ? AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, pp. 1–9 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hoornaert, S., Ballings, M., Malthouse, E.C., Van Den Poel, D.: Identifying new product ideas: waiting for the wisdom of the crowd or screening ideas in real time. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 34, 580–597 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dawes, R.M.: The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. Am. Psychol. 34, 571–582 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.7.571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tversky, A.: Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 76, 31–48 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026750

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Tversky, A.: Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol. Rev. 79, 281–299 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gigerenzer, G., Goldstein, D.G.: Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol. Rev. 103, 650–669 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.4.650

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Patalano, A.L., Juhasz, B.J., Dicke, J.: The relationship between indecisiveness and eye movement patterns in a decision making informational search task. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 23, 353–368 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Russo, J.E., Dosher, B.A.: Strategies for multiattribute binary choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 9, 676–696 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.9.4.676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Meißner, M., Oppewal, H., Huber, J.: Surprising adaptivity to set size changes in multi-attribute repeated choice tasks. J. Bus. Res. 111, 163–175 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Zuschke, N.: An analysis of process-tracing research on consumer decision-making. J. Bus. Res. 111, 305–320 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Coupey, E., Johnson, E.J.: A constructive process view of decision making: multiple strategies in judgment and choice. Acta Psychol. (Amst) 80, 107–141 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90043-D

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johnson, E.J., Payne, J.W.: Effort and accuracy in choice. Manag. Sci. 31, 395–414 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.4.395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Payne, J.W., Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J.: Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 14, 534–552 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Johnson, E.J., Shu, S.B., Dellaert, B.G.C., Fox, C., Goldstein, D.G., Häubl, G., Larrick, R.P., Payne, J.W., Peters, E., Schkade, D., Wansink, B., Weber, E.U.: Beyond nudges: tools of a choice architecture. Mark. Lett. 23, 487–504 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-012-9186-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Vom Brocke, J., Riedl, R., Léger, P.M.: Application strategies for neuroscience in information systems design science research. J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 53, 1–13 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645627

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lohse, G.L., Johnson, E.J.: A comparison of two process tracing methods for choice tasks. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 68, 28–43 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Horstmann, N., Ahlgrimm, A., Glöckner, A.: How distinct are intuition and deliberation? An eye-tracking analysis of instruction-induced decision modes. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 4, 335–354 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1393729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ryan, M., Krucien, N., Hermens, F.: The eyes have it: using eye tracking to inform information processing strategies in multi-attributes choices. Heal. Econ. (U. K.) 27, 709–721 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Glaholt, M.G., Reingold, E.M.: Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research. J. Neurosci. Psychol. Econ. 4, 125–146 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020692

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Riedl, R., Brandstätter, E., Roithmayr, F.: Identifying decision strategies: a process- and outcome-based classification method. Behav. Res. Methods 40, 795–807 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rosen, L.D., Rosenkoetter, P.: An eye fixation analysis of choice and judgment with multiattribute stimuli. Mem. Cogn. 4, 747–752 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Balcombe, K., Fraser, I., McSorley, E.: Visual attention and attribute attendance in multi-attribute choice experiments. J. Appl. Econ. 30, 447–467 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Payne, J.W.: Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 16, 366–387 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90022-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Glöckner, A., Herbold, A.-K.: An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 24, 71–98 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Velichkovsky, B.M., Rothert, A., Kopf, M., Dornhöfer, S.M., Joos, M.: Towards an express-diagnostics for level of processing and hazard perception. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 5, 145–156 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00013-X

  30. Ball, C.: A comparison of single-step and multiple-step transition analyses of multiattribute decision strategies. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 69, 195–204 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Payne, J.W., Braunstein, M.L.: Risky choice: an examination of information acquisition behavior. Mem. Cogn. 6, 554–561 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Wibmer, A., Wiedmann, F.M., Seeber, I., Maier, R.: Why less is more: an eye tracking study on idea presentation and attribute attendance in idea selection. In: 27th European Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–14 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Shi, S.W., Wedel, M., Pieters, F.G.M.: (Rik): information acquisition during online decision making: a model-based exploration using eye-tracking data. Manag. Sci. 59, 1009–1026 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chernev, A.: Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice. J. Consum. Psychol. 14, 141–150 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Toubia, O., Netzer, O.: Idea generation, creativity, and prototypicality. Mark. Sci., 1–20 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.0994

  36. Blascheck, T., Kurzhals, K., Raschke, M., Burch, M., Weiskopf, D., Ertl, T.: State-of-the-art of visualization for eye tracking data. In: Borgo, R., Maciejewski, R., and Viola, I. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eurographics Conference on Visualization (EuroVis). The Eurographics Association (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Rayner, K.: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 62, 1457–1506 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902816461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sambandam, R.: Cluster analysis gets complicated. Mark. Res. 15, 16–21 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E.: Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/259433b0

  40. Ward, J.H.: Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58, 236–244 (1963). https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Caliński, T., Harabasz, J.: A dendrite method for cluster analysis. Commun. Stat. 3, 1–27 (1974). https://doi.org/10.1080/03610927408827101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pfeiffer, J., Duzevik, D., Rothlauf, F., Bonabeau, E., Yamamoto, K.: An optimized design of choice experiments: a new approach for studying decision behavior in choice task experiments. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 28, 262–280 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1847

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Information Systems, Production and Logistics Management, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

    Arnold Wibmer, Frederik Wiedmann, Isabella Seeber & Ronald Maier

  2. Vice Rectorate for Digitalisation and Knowledge Transfer, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Ronald Maier

Authors
  1. Arnold Wibmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frederik Wiedmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isabella Seeber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ronald Maier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arnold Wibmer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Information Systems and Quantitative Sciences (ISQS), Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Fred D. Davis

  2. University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Steyr, Austria

    René Riedl

  3. Department of Information Systems, University of Liechtenstein, Vaduz, Liechtenstein

    Jan vom Brocke

  4. Department of Information Technology, HEC Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Pierre-Majorique Léger

  5. Department of Information Systems, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

    Adriane B. Randolph

  6. Department for Digital Business, University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria, Steyr, Austria

    Thomas Fischer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Wibmer, A., Wiedmann, F., Seeber, I., Maier, R. (2020). Operationalization of Information Acquisition Switching Behavior in the Context of Idea Selection. In: Davis, F.D., Riedl, R., vom Brocke, J., Léger, PM., Randolph, A.B., Fischer, T. (eds) Information Systems and Neuroscience. NeuroIS 2020. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 43. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60073-0_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60073-0_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60072-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60073-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation