Abstract
The present paper examined the selection of processing heuristics for choice and judgment across a range of stimuli. Eye fixations were monitored while six subjects made choices or judgments of pairs of gambles, vacations, or gifts. Each stimulus was represented by three attributes that varied in the amount of dimensional interdependency. The two heuristics of interest were dimensional and holistic evaluation. Each manifested a characteristic pattern of eye fixations. Dimensional evaluation required alternating fixations from a single attribute of one stimulus to the same attribute of the other stimulus. Holistic evaluation was characterized by transitions from attribute to attribute within a single stimulus. The results demonstrated that when the stimulus attributes were either interdependent (gambles) or dissimilar (gifts), the processing heuristic was determined by stimulus characteristics. When the stimulus dimensions were neither interdependent nor dissimilar (vacations), the selection of a processing strategy was determined by the prescribed task. This study suggests that any global theory of choice or judgment must be validated over a wide range of stimuli.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Reference Notes
Russo. 1. E., & Dosher, B. A.Dimensional evaluation: A heuristic for binary choice. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, San Diego, 1975.
Svenson, O.Coded think aloud protocols obtained when making a choice to purchase one of seven hypothetically offered houses. Some examples. Progress Report on Project of Cognitive Processing and Decision Making, University of Stockholm, 1974.
Russo. J. E., & Mathews, P.A photoelectric eye position sensor. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, San Diego, 1975.
References
Anderson, N. H. Application of an additive model to impression formation.Science, 1962,138, 817–818.
Anderson, N. H. Averaging versus adding as a stimulus-combination rule in impression formation.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965,70, 394–400.
Anderson, N. H. A simple model for information integration. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire. T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.),Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.
Anderson, N. H. Functional measurement and psychophysical judgement,Psychological Review, 1970,77, 153–170.
Anderson, N. H. Information integration theory: A brief survey. In D. H. Krantz, R. C. Atkinson, R. D. Luce, & P. Suppes (Eds.),Contemporary developments in mathematical psychology. San Francisco: Freeman, 1974.
Bakan, P., &Shotland, R. L. Lateral eye movements, reading speed, and visual attention.Psychonomic Science, 1969,15, 93–94.
Brunswik, E.Perception and the representative design of experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956.
Dawes, R. M. A case study of graduate admissions: Application of three principles of human decision making.American Psychologist, 1971,26, 180–188.
Goldberg, L. R. Diagnosticians versus diagnostic signs: The diagnosis of psychosis versus neurosis from the MMPI.Psychological Monographs, 1965,79(9, Whole No. 602).
Goode, F. M., & Russo, J. E. A computerized system for collecting eye movement data.Proceedings of the 70th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1970, 845–846.
Hammond, K. R. Probabilistic functioning and the clinical method.Psychological Review, 1955,62, 255–262.
Hoffman, P. J., Slovic, P., &Rorer, L. G. An analysis-of-variance model for the assessment of configural cue utilization in clinical judgement.Psychological Bulletin, 1968,69, 338–349.
Keppel, G.Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Mackworth, N. H., &Morandi, A. J. The gaze selects informative details within pictures.Perception & Psychophysics, 1967,2, 547–552.
Payne, J. W. Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, in press.
Phillips, L. D.. &Edwards, W. Conservatism in a simple probability inference task.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,72, 346–357.
Russo, J. E., &Rosen, L. D. An eye fixation analysis of multialtemative choice.Memory & Cognition, 1975,3, 267–276.
Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. C. The relative importance of probabilities and payoffs in risk taking.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph Supplement, 1968,78(No. 3, Part 2).
Slovic, P., &Lichtenstein, S. C. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing behavior in judgement.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1971,6, 649–744.
Tversky, A. Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice.Psychological Review, 1972,79, 281–299.
Winer, B. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was partially supported by Grant MH-15828 from the National Institute of Mental Health to the Center for Human Information Processing, University of California, San Diego.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rosen, L.D., Rosenkoetter, P. An eye fixation analysis of choice and judgment with multiattribute stimuli. Memory & Cognition 4, 747–752 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213243
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213243