Idea submissions in innovation contests contain a variety of information as e.g., the idea description, information on its contributor or feedback by the crowd. Raters might perceive and attend to these sources of information differently, which potentially influences the selection of the best ideas. Up to now, however, we know little about the extent to which the visual attention to such information changes during the idea selection process and what impact such changes might have on the outcome of idea selection. The goal of our experiment is to investigate the effect of two idea presentation modes on changes in visual attention to idea attributes, measured with fixations using eye-tracking over time. Preliminary results on a sample of 30 participants show that visual attention to idea attributes decreases rapidly after participants saw the first 8 ideas.
- Decision making
- Decision quality
- Idea selection
- Innovation contest
- Presentation mode
- Visual attention
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use onlyLearn about institutional subscriptions
Hoornaert, S., Ballings, M., Malthouse, E. C., & Van Den Poel, D. (2017). Identifying new product ideas: Waiting for the wisdom of the crowd or screening ideas in real time. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 34(5), 580–597. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12396.
Girotra, K., Terwiesch, C., & Ulrich, K. T. (2010). Idea generation and the quality of the best idea. Management Science, 56(4), 591–605. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1082392.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds: Why the many are smarter than the few and how collective wisdom shapes business, economies, societies and nations little. London: Little Brown.
Bullinger, A. C., & Moeslein, K. (2010). Innovation contests—Where are we ? In AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, 1–9.
Magnusson, P. R., Wästlund, E., & Netz, J. (2016). Exploring users’ appropriateness as a proxy for experts when screening new product/service ideas. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(1), 4–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12251.
Kornish, L. J., & Ulrich, K. T. (2014). The importance of the raw idea in innovation: Testing the Sow’s ear hypothesis. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(4), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2035643.
Reisen, N., Hoffrage, U., & Mast, F. W. (2008). Identifying decision strategies in a consumer choice situation. Judgement and Decision Making, 3(8), 641–658.
Hensher, D. A., Rose, J., & Greene, W. H. (2005). The implications on willingness to pay of respondents ignoring specific attributes. Transportation, 32(3), 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-004-7613-8.
Leimeister, J. M., Huber, M., Bretschneider, U., & Krcmar, H. (2009). Leveraging crowdsourcing: Activation-supporting components for IT-based ideas competition. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26(1), 197–224. https://doi.org/10.2753/mis0742-1222260108.
Chan, K. W., Li, S. Y., & Zhu, J. J. (2018). Good to be novel? Understanding how idea feasibility affects idea adoption decision making in crowdsourcing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43, 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.01.001.
Kerstholt, J. H. (1992). Information search and choice accuracy as a function of task complexity and task structure. Acta Psychologica, 80(1–3), 185–197.
Payne, J. W., & Braunstein, M. L. (1978). Risky choice: An examination of information acquisition behavior. Memory & Cognition, 6(5), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198244.
Lohse, G. L., & Johnson, E. J. (1996). A comparison of two process tracing methods for choice tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(1), 28–43. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0087.
Payne, J. W. (1976). Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: An information search and protocol analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 366–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90022-2.
Swain, M. R., & Haka, S. F. (2000). Effects of information load on capital budgeting decisions. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 12, 171–198.
Balcombe, K., Fraser, I., & McSorley, E. (2015). Visual attention and attribute attendance in multi-attribute choice experiments. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 30(3), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.2383.
Hensher, D. A. (2006). How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 21(6), 861–878. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.877.
Deubel, H., & Schneidert, W. X. (1996). Saccade target selection and object recognition: Evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Research, 36(12), 1827–1837.
Orquin, J. L., & Mueller Loose, S. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 190–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.06.003.
Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye movement during skill acquisition: More evidence for the information-reduction hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(1), 172–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7322.214.171.124.
Meißner, M., & Decker, R. (2010). Eye-tracking information processing in choice-based conjoint analysis. International Journal of Market Research, 52. https://doi.org/10.2501/s147078531020151x.
Day, B., Bateman, I. J., Carson, R. T., Dupont, D., Louviere, J. J., Morimoto, S., … Wang, P. (2012). Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 63(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.09.001.
Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118.
Svenson, O. (1979). Process descriptions of decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23(1), 86–112.
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., Coupey, E., & Johnson, E. J. (1992). A constructive process view of decision making: Multiple strategies in judgment and choice. Acta Psychologica, 80(1–3), 107–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(92)90043-D.
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 187–217. https://doi.org/10.1086/209535.
Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Science, 31(4), 395–414.
Isoni, A. (2011). The willingness-to-accept/willingness-to-pay disparity in repeated markets: Loss aversion or “bad-deal” aversion? Theory and Decision, 71(3), 409–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-010-9207-6.
Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The willingness to pay-willingness to accept gap, the “endowment effect”, subject misconceptions, and experimental procedures for eliciting valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530–545. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201387.
Mazumdar, T., Raj, S. P., & Sinha, I. (2005). Reference price research: Review and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 84–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.84.
Bradley, M., & Daly, A. (1994). Use of the logit scaling approach to test for rank-order and fatigue effects in stated preference data. Transportation, 21(2), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01098791.
Savage, S. J., & Waldman, D. M. (2008). Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: A comparison of online and mail survey modes. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.984.
Scarpa, R., Notaro, S., Louviere, J., & Raffaelli, R. (2011). Exploring scale effects of best/worst rank ordered choice data to estimate benefits of tourism in alpine grazing commons. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 93(3), 809–824.
Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: A theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79(4), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032955.
Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2010). Non-attendance and dual processing of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: A latent class specification. Empirical Economics, 39(2), 413–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-009-0310-x.
Foster, V., & Mourato, S. (2002). Testing for consistency in contingent ranking experiments. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 44(2), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1006/jeem.2001.1203.
Toubia, O., & Netzer, O. (2017). Idea generation, creativity, and prototypicality. Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.0994.
Chernev, A., & Chernev, A. (2004). Goal-attribute compatibility in consumer choice goal—Attribute compatibility in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1–2), 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401.
Freitas, A. L., Higgins, E. T., Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science, 13(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00401.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance: Distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1996.
Friedman, R. S., & Forster, J. (2001). The effects of promotion and prevention cues on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1001–1013. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-35188.8.131.521.
Liversedge, S. P., & Findlay, J. M. (2000). Saccadic eye movements and cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 6–14.
Glöckner, A., & Herbold, A. K. (2011). An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: Evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 24(1), 71–98. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.684.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.
Editors and Affiliations
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Wibmer, A., Wiedmann, F., Seeber, I., Maier, R. (2020). Adaptation of Visual Attention: Effects of Information Presentation in Idea Selection Processes. In: Davis, F., Riedl, R., vom Brocke, J., Léger, PM., Randolph, A., Fischer, T. (eds) Information Systems and Neuroscience. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 32. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28144-1_39
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-28143-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-28144-1