Adapting Human-Computer-Interaction of Attentive Smart Glasses to the Trade-Off Conflict in Purchase Decisions: An Experiment in a Virtual Supermarket

  • Jella Pfeiffer
  • Thies Pfeiffer
  • Anke Greif-Winzrieth
  • Martin Meißner
  • Patrick Renner
  • Christof Weinhardt
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10284)

Abstract

In many everyday purchase decisions, consumers have to trade-off their decisions between alternatives. For example, consumers often have to decide whether to buy the more expensive high quality product or the less expensive product of lower quality. Marketing researchers are especially interested in finding out how consumers make decisions when facing such trade-off conflicts and eye-tracking has been used as a tool to investigate the allocation of attention in such situations. Conflicting decision situations are also particularly interesting for human-computer interaction research because designers may use knowledge about the information acquisition behavior to build assistance systems which can help the user to solve the trade-off conflict. In this paper, we build and test such an assistance system that monitors the user’s information acquisition processes using mobile eye-tracking in the virtual reality. In particular, we test whether and how strongly the trade-off conflict influences how consumers direct their attention to products and features. We find that trade-off conflict, task experience and task involvement significantly influence how much attention products receive. We discuss how this knowledge might be used in the future to build assistance systems in the form of attentive smart glasses.

References

  1. 1.
    Balasubramanian, S.K., Cole, C.: Consumers’ search and use of nutrition information: the challenge and promise of the nutrition labeling and education act. J. Mark. 66(3), 112–127 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bettman, J.R., Johnson, E.J., Luce, M.F., Payne, J.W.: Correlation, conflict, and choice. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 19(4), 931 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    British Department of Health: Guide to creating a front of pack (fop) nutrition label for pre-packed products sold through retail outlets (2013). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/front-of-pack-nutrition-labelling-guidance
  4. 4.
    Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., Zeelenberg, M.: Option attachment: when deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. J. Consum. Res. 30(1), 15–29 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cruz-Neira, C., Sandin, D.J., DeFanti, T.A.: Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the cave. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 135–142 (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dhar, R.: Consumer preference for a no-choice option. J. Consum. Res. 24(2), 215–231 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrich, K.R., Irwin, J.R.: Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. J. Mark. Res. 42(3), 266–277 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fasolo, B., McClelland, G.H., Lange, K.A.: The effect of site design and interattribute correlations on interactive web-based decisions. In: Haugtvedt, C.P., Machleit, K.A., Yalch, R. (eds.) Online Consumer Psychology. Advertising and Consumer Psychology, pp. 325–344. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Festinger, L.: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1957)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harmening, K., Pfeiffer, T.: Location-based online identification of objects in the centre of visual attention using eye tracking. In: Pfeiffer, T., Essig, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Solutions for Automatic Gaze-Data Analysis 2013 (SAGA 2013), pp. 38–40. Center of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iglesias-Parro, S., De La Fuente, E.I., Ortega, A.R.: The effect of context variables on cognitive effort in multiattribute binary choice. Theor. Decis. 52(2), 101–125 (2002)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kivetz, R.: The effects of effort and intrinsic motivation on risky choice. Mark. Sci. 22(4), 477–502 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Luce, M.F., Bettman, J.R., Payne, J.W.: Choice processing in emotionally difficult decisions. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 23(2), 384–405 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Meißner, M., Musalem, A., Huber, J.: Eye tracking reveals processes that enable conjoint choices to become increasingly efficient with practice. J. Mark. Res. 53(1), 1–17 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nowlis, S.M., Dhar, R., Simonson, I.: The effect of decision order on purchase quantity decisions. J. Mark. Res. 47(4), 725–737 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nowlis, S.M., Simonson, I.: Attribute-task compatibility as a determinant of consumer preference reversals. J. Mark. Res. 34(2), 205–218 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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(3), 262–280 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pfeiffer, J., Meißner, M., Prosiegel, J., Pfeiffer, T.: Classification of goal-directed search and exploratory search using mobile eye-tracking. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2014) (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pfeiffer, T.: Towards gaze interaction in immersive virtual reality: evaluation of a monocular eye tracking set-up. In: Schumann, M., Kuhlen, T. (eds.) Virtuelle und Erweiterte Realität - Fünfter Workshop der GI-Fachgruppe VR/AR, pp. 81–92. Shaker Verlag GmbH, Aachen (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pfeiffer, T., Memili, C.: Model-based real-time visualization of realistic three-dimensional heat maps for mobile eye tracking and eye tracking in virtual reality. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, pp. 95–102. ACM Press (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pfeiffer, T., Renner, P., Pfeiffer-Leßmann, N.: EyeSee3D 2.0: model-based real-time analysis of mobile eye-tracking in static and dynamic three-dimensional scenes. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Biennial ACM Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications, pp. 189–196. ACM Press (2016)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slovic, P.: Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 6(6), 649–744 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stanney, K.M., Schmorrow, D.D., Johnston, M., Fuchs, S., Jones, D., Hale, K.S., Ahmad, A., Young, P.: Augmented cognition: an overview. Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon. 5(1), 195–224 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Toyama, T., Dengel, A., Suzuki, W., Kise, K.: Wearable reading assist system: augmented reality document combining document retrieval and eye tracking. In: 2013 12th International Conference on Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR), pp. 30–34. IEEE (2013). http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6628580/
  25. 25.
    Wang, J., Novemsky, N., Dhar, R., Baumeister, R.F.: Trade-offs and depletion in choice. J. Mark. Res. 47(5), 910–919 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeung, C.W., Soman, D.: Attribute evaluability and the range effect. J. Consum. Res. 32(3), 363–369 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhang, L., Li, X.Y., Huang, W., Liu, K., Zong, S., Jian, X., Feng, P., Jung, T., Liu, Y.: It starts with iGaze: visual attention driven networking with smart glasses. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, MobiCom 2014, pp. 91–102. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jella Pfeiffer
    • 1
  • Thies Pfeiffer
    • 2
  • Anke Greif-Winzrieth
    • 1
  • Martin Meißner
    • 3
    • 4
  • Patrick Renner
    • 2
  • Christof Weinhardt
    • 1
  1. 1.Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.CITECBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany
  3. 3.University of Southern DenmarkEsbjergDenmark
  4. 4.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations