Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Attention’

Dan is driving in an inter-city road; on the sideline of the road he notices ahead of him a large ad billboard — he is likely to have about a second, maybe even less, to watch and get any details from the ad. Sharon is sitting in her living room, reading a print magazine; in between articles she may glance at full-page ads — she is dedicating perhaps a couple of seconds to any ad that attracts her attention before moving on. Such short durations are critically limiting the amount of information consumers are able to capture and utilise to make inferences and judgements about an ad.

Research of consumer response to advertising more often deals with the decoding of  messages embedded in ads — how consumers gather (by eye fixations) and process pieces of information from the ad, and how they interpret them to derive key points of the message. This process frequently involves reference by the consumers to text and images in the ad, and any relations between them — these are usually thick slices of information to work with. However, consumers’ exposure durations to ads get shorter, meaning they allow for capturing very few pieces of information (e.g., headline and an image or a portion of it) to make inferences — these are thin slices of information.  A quick exposure may be enforced by the display setting (e.g., rotating online ad banners, road billboards) or being the outcome of shorter attention spans (i.e., consumers choose to view any single print ad only briefly).

In three interesting experiments conducted by Elsen, Pieters and Wedel (2016), the researchers examine the implications of  allowing for short exposure durations (i.e., 100ms up to 2 seconds), compared with longer durations [*]. Shorter durations are likely to enable consumers to capture and use only thin slices of information, and probably  also give too little time to elaborate on them. The researchers suggest that short durations can at least permit consumers to correctly infer the identity of the focal product and brand advertised, and that is not something to be discarded.

Elsen and her colleagues test three different identification types of ads: (1) Upfront — identification is straightforward, with the product and brand presented more explicitly in the ad; the ad is similar to other ads in the same product category and dissimilar from ads in other categories. (2) Mystery — the product in this type of ad could appear in a more sublime way or be implicit within an artful design (visual rhetorical figure); the ad is atypical to its category, dissimilar from ads in the same product category, but also dissimilar from ads in other categories. (3) False Front — the product in this ad format could be disguised by presenting the product in a context of another type of product  (e.g., a metaphor rhetorical figure, such as a bottle of drink presented as if it were a bottle of fragrance); this ad is atypical in being dissimilar from other ads in its product category while being similar to ads in a different category than its own. The brand usually takes a less central place in a mystery or false front ad.

The mystery and false front types of ads are considered more difficult to identify the product than in an upfront ad. An upfront ad is easier to process because it follows a schema familiar to consumers for that category (e.g., including typical perceptual features). The mystery and false front ads are more difficult to interpret but in somewhat different ways. Both types apply a form of artful expressive figure, yet the false front ad could be more confusing (e.g., whereas a mystery ad may include a product of another type positioned in relation to the focal product, the false front would show in front the focal product as if it were another type of product {substitution}). Both ads may build on a relationship between a focal product and another product, yet assuming a different kind of relationship. The implication for the false front ad is that consumers need to switch schemas by which they process and interpret the ad content and identity of the product (i.e., they are likely get at first a wrong impression of what product is upfront, and it takes longer to comprehend what product is actually being advertised).

In a very brief exposure (100msec, less than a typical fixation), consumers can consciously grasp the gist of the ad scene; they can also identify a typical product if it appears centrally and straightforward.  This permits them to hold a more positive attitude towards the upfront ad compared with their attitudes towards mystery or false front ads. The attitude towards the false front ad seems to be somewhat more positive compared with the mystery ad, although not as significantly as the researchers expected — while the focal product may appear obvious in the false front ad, the scene is still not much easier to grasp than in a mystery ad. Yet, as exposure durations extend longer than two seconds, the differences in processing and evaluating the mystery and false front ads become more striking.

An exposure of half a second (500ms) allows for two fixations at two spatially-distinct locations in the ad and processing the information in them; it has been identified as closely the average exposure duration for outdoors ads. A two-second exposure allows already for fixating and processing a few more pieces of information throughout the ad; this is the average duration that consumers have been observed to attend to (fixed) display ads. The findings indicate that from 500ms onwards the attitude towards mystery ads is climbing and the attitude towards false front ads is in decline; it is however at about two seconds of exposure that attitude towards mystery ads closes the gap and becomes more positive than towards false front ads, and further on approaches the level of attitude towards upfront ads (after 10 seconds of exposure).

After exposures longer than 5-10 seconds it becomes apparent that an early impression about the product identity in a false front ad was illusory, and possibly following the realisation of their mistake, consumers seem to turn their evaluation in disfavour of the ad. On the other hand, mystery ads seem to be more positively intriguing, where demystified viewers who decode the “story” in the ad and figure out the product and brand identity become more in favour of the ad. (Note: Changes in attitude towards the ad transfer to changes in brand attitude though with weaker magnitude.)

Our understanding of these findings can be strengthened by considering the intervening effects of consumer knowledge: the feeling that one knows what product (and brand) the ad is for (subjective knowledge) and the accuracy of the inference or conclusion reached by the viewer (objective knowledge); furthermore important is how well subjective and objective knowledge match or calibrate.  Very quickly (after 100ms exposure) ad viewers have a strong feeling they know what type of product is being advertised, and indeed they are found correct (i.e., their knowledge is calibrated). For mystery ads, viewers are in clear difficulty of identifying correctly the product being advertised after brief exposures of 100ms, yet they seem to be aware of this difficulty as they feel quite uncertain about the product identity (i.e., their knowledge is also calibrated).  Objective knowledge with regard to mystery ads seems to improve sooner (at exposure of 500ms) than subjective knowledge, but in any case after two seconds viewers generally get it right, and feel more confident about it. It means that even in mystery ads, two seconds are likely to be sufficient to correctly identify the product being advertised.

With false front ads the situation is rather different: Ad viewers quickly (as early as 100ms) come to believe they know well what type of product is actually being advertised, while in fact they are as wrong as in the case of mystery ads (i.e., knowledge is not calibrated). After just 500ms the situation already improves, and after two seconds they could be on the right track, knowing better what product the ad is for and feeling confident about their conclusion — only that they likely had to change their course of thinking in order to arrive to a new and different conclusion about the product than they had thought before. The analyses of Elsen, Pieters and Wedel further show that the influence of ad types on viewers’ attitudes towards ads is mediated (‘explained’) by the subjective feeling of knowledge, not the accuracy of knowing the product identity. As consumers have more time to verify their inferences and feel successful in decoding the ad, at least identifying the product and brand, they are more likely to develop a higher favourable attitude towards the ad (and brand). Since in false front ads this verification process is more likely to fail and consumers need to rectify their conclusion, their ad attitude is likely to suffer.

  • Note: Certainty about the brand is low for mystery and false front ads after 100ms, and it is also relatively low for upfront ads vis-à-vis product identity; as exposures get longer the gaps in certainty narrow until conversion at 10 seconds of exposure (accuracy for brands is not measured)  — thinking about the specific brand may occur later than the product, and the brand placement may also be less central in the ad.)

Elsen et al. challenge a claim made by other researchers that longer exposures to ‘standard’ upfront ads would lead to a less favourable attitude because they are perceived as boring and routine. They argue instead that consumers-viewers who feel able to confirm their identification of the product (relatively easily) after a little more time of inspecting the ad might making them really more satisfied and favourable towards the ad. The attitude towards upfront ad remains quite stable at a high level over exposure durations. In Experiment 1 the attitude seems to drop a little as exposures get longer (up to 30 seconds), suggesting that after five seconds and longer, viewers do get bored by straightforward ads, but the estimated trend was not statistically significant. However, Experiment 3 revealed that the attitude towards upfront ads even improves after allowing for exposures of up to about 7 seconds. The results suggest that five seconds could be more than enough to interpret what the ad is about and identify the product advertised in an upfront ad; and if somewhat more time is given, this can only help the consumer to confirm an initial feeling he or she knows what product is advertised, thus contributing to the positive attitude towards the ad.


 

Distinguishing between mystery and false front ads is not clear-cut.  It can take a few seconds to realise what kind of rhetoric figure is being used and to understand the “story” being told in either a mystery or false front ad. The problem is that the identity of the product is often intertwined with the message, so that identifying the product requires at least partly interpreting the message (e.g., in a metaphor where an attribute of another product type or object is projected onto the focal product). I therefore suspect that the recommendation of the researchers that it is somehow possible to separate between tuning the ad identity (“what is promoted”) and tuning the ad message (“how it is promoted”) might be easier said than done. Elsen and her colleagues propose that “combining upfront identification with specific creative message templates might be particularly effective in cluttered media environments in which exposure durations are short” (p. 575). While accepting this recommendation, one should take into consideration that the ad may cease being truly “upfront” to the consumers-viewers, and could take longer to interpret and extract the product identity from the creative message.

It is not suggested to avoid false front ads but to acknowledge that they are more risky. If they apply a metaphor, it may take closer to ten seconds rather than two seconds to understand the situation and identify the product correctly; actually there is no guarantee that the viewer will “get it” even after ten seconds. The viewer might leave the ad happy after a brief exposure but associating it with a wrong product. The risk additionally is that the viewer may feel being fooled after realising the true product identity or frustrated of not being able to realise it after a few seconds, and that is manifested in the results about the ad attitude in all three experiments.

The important lesson is to evaluate in what conditions it is most suitable and effective to use each of these ad types. A duration of two seconds appears to be a significant threshold. There is little point in being too clever and showing mystery or false front ads neither on road billboards nor in digital display environments (e.g., Internet, apps) when the ad display rotates and every ad is replaced after a brief period (e.g., 1-2 seconds). Mobile devices in use, particularly smartphones, and screen displays that exhibit a strong competition between content and advertising can be especially challenging environments for the more creative and clever ads. Achieving product and brand identity through simple upfront ads would be a justified and reasonable goal in those circumstances. In other conditions, print and digital, and specifically when the ad is static, there should be greater flexibility for the advertiser to choose from the full spectrum of upfront, mystery, and false front ads (e.g., a mystery ad type could succeed if at least 3-4 seconds of showing an ad between webpages pass before the target page loads or the viewer is given an option to proceed to the target page after that duration). Moreover, grades of creativity may be applied to captivate attention in more cluttered and competitive media environments (consider also pedestrian areas in cities).

Gaining consumer identification of the product and brand in ads is vital and important. But it would be a loss and spoil if advertisers and advertising professionals stop aspiring for higher goals with more creative and clever rhetorical figures and designs. The research of Elsen, Pieters and Wedel highlights the need to choose wisely when and where it would be more suitable and effective to employ a straightforward or a more creative and clever ad design.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Note:

[*] Thin Slice Impressions: How Advertising Evaluation Depends on Exposure Duration; Millie Else, Rik Pieters, & Michel Wedel, 2016; Journal of Marketing Research, 53 (August), pp. 563-579 (DOI: 10.1509/jmr.13.0398).

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

A classic view regarding decision-making holds that attention serves foremost to acquire the information most relevant and important for choosing between alternatives. Thereby the role of attention is largely a passive one. However, an alternative view that is gaining traction in recent years, especially due to the help of eye tracking research, argues that attention plays a more active role in decision processes, influencing the construction of decisions.

This is a key message delivered by Orquin and Mueller Loose (2013) in their review on the role of attention in decision-making, as can be learnt from tracking of eye movements and subsequent fixations [1]. The approach taken by the researchers, however, is less usual: They do not constrain themselves concretely to the domain of decision-making; instead, they start their review and analysis of evidence from theories or models of tasks similar or related to decision-making (e.g., perception, information processing, visual search, working memory, top-down and bottom-up processes, problem solving).  Then they try to project how the functions of attention in such tasks may project to or be expressed in decision processes.

Furthermore, Orquin and Mueller Loose examine the extent to which the evidence coincides with four alternative theories and associated models of decision-making (i.e., whether empirical evidence substantiates or refutes assumptions or conclusions in each theory). They review evidence from previous research on similar or related tasks that could also be traced specifically in decision tasks, based on eye tracking in decision-making research, and evaluate this evidence in the context of the alternative decision-making theories.

The theories and related models considered are: (1) rational models; (2) bounded rationality models; (3) evidence accumulation models (e.g., the attention drift diffusion model [aDDM] posits that a decision-maker accumulates evidence in favour of the alternative being fixated upon at a given time); and (4) parallel constraint satisfaction models (a type of dual process, neural network model based on the conception of System 1’s fast and intuitive thinking [first stage] and System 2’s slow and deliberate thinking [second stage]). Rational models as well as bounded rationality models more explicitly contend that the role of attention is simply to capture the information needed for making a decision. ‘Strong’ rational models hold that all relevant, available information about choice alternatives would be attended to and taken into account, whereas ‘relaxed’ rational models allow for the possibility of nonattendance to some of the information (e.g., attributes or object [product] features). Bounded rationality models suggest that information is acquired just as required by the decision rules applied. The two other categories of models are more flexible in regard to how information is acquired and used, and its effect on the decision process and outcome. However, the authors argue that all four theories are found to be in deficit to a smaller or larger degree in their consideration of the role and function of attention in decision processes, having at least some of their assumptions being rejected by the evidence evaluated.

Selected insights drawn from the review of Orquin and Mueller Loose are enlisted here only briefly to shed light on the significance of attention in consumer decision-making.

A crucial question in decision-making is how information enters the decision process and is being utilised in reaching a choice decision: information may be acquired through attention guided by a top-down (goal-driven) process, yet information may also be captured by a bottom-up (stimulus-based) attentional process. The entanglement of both types of processes when making a decision is a prime aspect in this domain and has multiple implications. A more efficient selection process may be driven by greater experience with a task (e.g., more important information cues have a higher probability of being fixated on) and increased expertise in comprehension of visualisations (e.g., more fixations to relevant areas, and inversely fewer fixations to irrelevant areas, requiring shorter fixation durations, and longer saccades [‘jumps’ between more distant elements of information in a scene]). The interaction between bottom-up and top-down processing can amplify attention capture and improve the visual acuity of objects perceived. Bottom-up attention in particular is likely to be influenced by the saliency of a visual stimulus; however, it may not take effect when the task demands on attention are high, wherein priority is given to top-down directives for attention. Decision-making research has shown that visually salient alternatives or attributes are more likely to capture attention and furthermore affect the decision in their favour.

An interplay occurs between working memory and ‘instant’ attention: As the load of information fixated becomes larger, more elements are passed to working memory, and information is accessed from there for processing; however, as the strain on working memory increases, consumers turn to re-fixating information elements and consider them instantly or just-in-time (i.e., fixations are thus used as external memory space). This type of interplay has been identified in tasks of problem solving. Toggling between working memory and fixations or re-fixations in decision tasks can be traced, for instance, in alternative comparisons. Greater demands imposed by information complexity and decision difficulty (due to greater similarity between alternatives) may require greater effort (operations) in acquiring and processing information, yet the process may be shortened on the other hand through learning.

  • Another area with interesting implication is processing of visual objects: Previous research has shown that visual objects are not encoded as complete representations (e.g., naturalistic product images) and the binding of features is highly selective. Thereof, encoding of particular features during an object-stimulus fixation may be goal-driven, and a re-fixation may be employed to refer just-in-time to specific object [product] features as needed in a decision task, thus saving on working memory capacity.

Consumers have a tendency to develop a bias during a decision task towards a favoured alternative. This alternative would get more fixations, and there is also a greater likelihood for the last alternative fixated to be the one chosen (put differently, consumers are likely to re-affirm the choice of their favourite alternative by re-fixating it just before making the decision). A desired or favoured attribute can also benefit from a similar effect by receiving more frequent attention (i.e., fixations). The authors point, however, to a difficulty in confirming evidence accumulation models: whether greater likelihood of a more fixated alternative to be chosen is due to its higher utility or greater exposure to it. They suggest a ‘soft’ model version in support for a greater effect of extended mere exposure leading to choice of an alternative. They add that a down-stream effect of attention from perception onto choice through a bottom-up process may play a role of gatekeeping the alternatives entering a consideration set. It is noted that a down-stream effect, arising from a bottom-up process, is clearly distinguishable from a utility effect, since the former is stimulus-driven and the latter is goal-driven.

Consistent with bounded rationality theory, heuristics shape patterns of attention, directed by the information that a heuristic calls for (e.g., by alternative or by attribute). Yet, eye-tracking studies conducted to trace the progression of decision processes could not corroborate the patterns of heuristics used as proposed in the literature. More formally, studies failed to substantiate the assumption that heuristics in use can be inferred from the patterns of attention recorded. Transitions of consumers between alternative-wise and attribute-wise rules during a decision task make inferences especially difficult. Not only decision rules influence what information is attended to, but information cues met with during the decision process can modify the course of the decision strategy applied — consider the potential effect that salient stimuli captured unexpectedly in a bottom-up manner can have on the progression of the decision strategy.

In summary, regarding the decision-making theories, Orquin and Mueller Loose conclude: (a) firmer support for the relaxed rational model over the strong model (nonattendance is linked to down-stream effects); (b) a two-way relationship between decision rules and attention, where both top-down and bottom-up processes drive attention; (c) the chosen alternative has a higher likelihood of fixations during the decision task and also of being the last alternative fixated — they find confirmation for a choice bias but offer a different interpretation of the function of evidence accumulated; (d) an advantage of the favoured alternatives or most important attributes in receiving greater attention, and advantage of salient alternatives receiving more attention and being more likely to be chosen (concerning dual process parallel constraint satisfaction models).

Following the review, I offer a few final comments below:

Orquin and Mueller Loose contribute an important and interesting perspective in the projection of the role of [visual] attention from similar or related tasks onto decision-making and choice. Moreover, relevance is increased because elements of the similar tasks are embedded in decision-making tasks. Nevertheless, we still need more research within the domain because there could be aspects specific or unique to decision-making (e.g., objectives or goals, structure and context) that should be specified. Insofar as attention is concerned, this call is in alignment with the conclusions of the authors. Furthermore, such research has to reflect real-world situations and locations where consumers practically make decisions.


In retail stores, consider for example the research by Chandon, Hutchinson, Bradlow, and Young (2009) on the trade-off between visual lift (stimulus-based) and brand equity (memory-based); this research combined eye tracking with scanner purchase data [2]. However, it is worth looking also into an alternative approach of video tracking as used by Hui, Huang, Suher, and Inman (2013) in their investigation of the relations between planned and unplanned considerations and actual purchases (video tracking was applied in parallel with path tracking)[3].

For tracing decision processes more generally, refer for example to a review and experiment with eye tracking (choice bias) by Glaholt and Reingold (2011)[4], but consider nonetheless the more critical view presented by Reisen, Hoffrage and Mast (2008) following their comparison of multiple methods of interactive process tracing (IAPT)[5]. Reisen and his colleagues were less convinced that tracking eye movements was superior to tracking mouse movements (MouseLab-Web) for identifying decision strategies while consumers are acquiring information (they warn of superfluous eye re-fixations and random meaningless fixations that occur while people are contemplating the options in their minds).


 

It should be noted that a large part of the research in this field, using eye-tracking measurement, is applied with concentrated displays of information on alternatives and their attributes. The most frequent and familiar format is information matrices (or boards), although in reality we may also encounter other graphic formats such as networks, trees, layered wheels, and more art-creative diagram illustrations. Truly, concentrated displays can be found in shelf displays in physical stores and also in screen displays online and in mobile apps (e.g., retailers’ online stores, manufacturers’ websites, comparison websites). However, on many occasions of decision tasks (e.g., durables, more expensive products), consumers acquire information through multiple sessions while constructing their decisions. That is, the decision process extends over time. In each session consumers may keep some information elements or cues for later processing and integration, or they may execute an interim stage in their decision strategy. If information is eventually integrated, consumers may utilise aides like paper notes and electronic spreadsheets, but they do not necessarily do so.

Orquin and Mueller Loose refer to effects arising from spatial dispersion of information elements in a visual display as relevant to eye tracking (i.e., distance length of saccades), but these studies do not account for temporal dispersion of information. Studies may need to bridge data from multiple sessions to accomplish a more comprehensive representation of some decision processes. Yet, smartphones today can help in closing somewhat the gap since they permit shoppers to acquire information in-store while checking more information from other sources on their smartphones — mobile devices of eye tracking may be used to capture this link.

Finally, eye tracking provides researchers with evidence about attention to stimuli and information cues, but it cannot tell them directly about other dimensions such as meaning of the information and valence. The importance of information to consumers can be implied from measures such as the frequency and duration of fixations, but other methods are needed to reveal additional dimensions, especially from the conscious perspective of consumers (vis-à-vis unconscious biometric techniques such as coding of facial expressions). An explicit method (Visual Impression Metrics) can be used, for example, to elicit statements by consumers as to what areas and objects in a visual display that they freely observe they like or dislike (or are neutral about); if applied in combination with eye tracking, it would enable to signify the valence of areas and objects consumers attend to (unconsciously) in a single session with no further probing.

The review of Orquin and Mueller Loose opens our eyes to the versatile ways in which [visual] attention may function during decision tasks: top-down and bottom-up processes working in tandem, toggling between fixations and memory, a two-way relation between decision strategies and visual attention, choice bias, and more. But foremost, we may learn from this review the dynamics of the role of attention during consumer decision-making.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

References: 

[1] Attention and Choice: A Review of Eye Movements in Decision Making; Jacob L. Orquin and Simone Mueller Loos, 2013; Acta Psychologica, 144, pp. 190-206

[2] Does In-Store Marketing Work? Effects of the Number and Position of Shelf Facings on Brand Attention and Evaluation at the Point of Purchase; Pierre Chandon, J. Wesley Hutchinson, Eric T. Bradlow, & Scott H. Young, 2009; Journal of Marketing, 73 (November), pp. 1-17

[3] Deconstructing the “First Moment of Truth”: Understanding Unplanned Consideration and Purchase Conversion Using In-Store Video Tracking; Sam K. Hui, Yanliu Huang, Jacob Suher, & J. Jeffrey Inman, 2013; Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (August), pp. 445-462.

[4] Eye Movement Monitoring as a Process Tracing Methodology in Decision Making Research; Mackenzie G. Glaholt and Eyal M. Reingold, 2011; Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics, 4 (2), pp. 125-146

[5] Identifying Decision Strategies in a Consumer Choice Situation; Nils Reisen, Ulrich Hoffrage, and Fred W. Mast, 2008; Judgment and Decision Making, 3 (8), pp. 641-658

Read Full Post »

Ever so often, in many and different places, people take photos. The immediacy of access to cameras on smartphone devices has made photography a ubiquitous and more casual activity. The awareness and sensitivity of people to visual scenes and materials has increased, and photo images especially play a greater role in our lives. When people take their own photos to capture their experiences, this activity may become an integral part of the experience. It raises therefore an interesting question, how an experience could be subjectively affected by the act of taking photos whilst the experience is happening.

Almost obviously, our tendency to take photos is stronger during touristic experiencesAscona: Promenade on Lago Maggiore away from home while travelling in our own country and furthermore on visits to foreign countries. The experience could take place on holiday in a major city when touring its main streets and famous sites, or on vacation in a holiday resort in nature, going on a trip to the top of mountains, near a lake or along the sea-shore. However, we may take photos during more ordinary experiences such as dining in a restaurant (e.g., photo-taking of appetizing food dishes); in a party or family gathering; while playing (e.g., creative games like Lego); watching parades, sports events or other festivities; and even during a shopping tour. In those experiences we could be more passive observers or more active players, which may influence any additional involvement in photo-taking and its effect on the overall experience.

Kristin Diehl, Gal Zauberman and Alixandra Barasch (2016) investigated in-depth the effect that taking photos by consumers during an experience may have on their enjoyment from the experience: whether it amplifies enjoyment, or instead dampens it, and how the level of enjoyment varies in different conditions. Furthermore, they examined a proposed mechanism where engagement in an experience mediates enjoyment: in positive experiences, when individuals are more intensively engaged or immersed in the experience, it may elevate their enjoyment; thereby, to the extent that taking photos increases engagement, it would also heighten enjoyment. The researchers consider two routes of influence: (a) photo-taking competes with the ‘source’ experience by causing attention shifts, thus reducing engagement and enjoyment from the experience; (b) photo-taking helps in directing and focusing more attention on visual aspects of the ‘source’ experience, leading to increased engagement and consequently heighten enjoyment.

The photos taken may have subsequent benefits to individuals such as in aiding with memory of experienced events at a later time (i.e., serving as memory cues) and in showing photos of their experiences to relatives and friends (i.e., social benefit), but the researchers focus specifically on effect of the act of taking a photo at the time of the experience. Their research entailed nine studies (3 field studies & 6 lab experiments), using a range of methodologies and experience-contexts.

A most typical touristic experience is a city bus tour — consider riding a double-decker bus on an open-air top floor. Diehl and her colleagues organised actual bus tours in Philadelphia for photo takers and non-photo takers. They succeeded in showing in this setting that photo takers enjoyed their touristic experience more than those who did not take photos. They also obtained some evidence that the photo takers may have felt more engaged during the experience though the effect was statistically too weak. (Note: In order to exclude any benefits from using photos after the bus tour all participants were disallowed to take their personal cameras or smartphones with them and the assigned  ‘photo-takers’ were given instead a digital camera with a new memory card, yet they could not keep the card afterwards).

The researchers conducted a second field study, this time in the context of a casual lunch (i.e., it was not suggested the food was especially attractive to photograph). In this study the results were already stronger. Consistent with the bus tour study, photo-takers enjoyed the lunch experience more than those not taking photos, but in addition the photo-takers were found significantly more engaged. The setting was sufficient to support just in part that greater engagement mediates the higher enjoyment felt by those taking photos. (Note: In this study no physical restrictions were imposed — those instructed to take photos could use their own cameras or smartphones).

Lab experiments create less realistic experiences since they are only simulated, and the act of taking a photo is also simulated (i.e., a camera icon and a mouse click). However, a controlled experiment can facilitate surfacing the effects of interest while testing for the influence of additional factors. It is acknowledged that the researchers have already shown there is ground to their expected effects on enjoyment in real-life settings.

A lab experiment of simulated bus tours (using videos of tours in Hollywood, California, and London, UK), found support that photo-takers enjoyed their bus tour experiences significantly more, as well as felt significantly more engaged in them, than those not taking photos. Furthermore, there also was support that engagement fully mediates or connects positively between taking photos and enjoyment. Moreover, memory of the greater enjoyment of those taking photos persists as long as a week after the experience. (Note: Remembered enjoyment is to be distinguished from remembered content of the experience).

So, does taking photos indeed work to focus greater attention on what people experience and thus enhances their engagement and increases their enjoyment? The researchers provide important evidence with the help of eye-tracking (field study, museum exhibit) that taking a photo channels more attention to the objects of interest in the experience. In particular, it directs more attention to relevant visual aspects of the experience, that is, to the exhibit artifacts vis-à-vis other objects (e.g., information displays) in the exhibit hall. First, significant effects of greater enjoyment and engagement by photo-takers, and the mediation function of engagement, are replicated. Second, taking photos leads to spending a relatively greater time fixating on the artifacts (as proportion of total duration of fixations) compared to visiting without taking photos. Visitors taking a photo of an artifact fixate for a longer duration on it compared with those who only watch it; no such differences were found for other objects. Third, it is not only the duration of fixations but also the number of fixations dedicated to artifacts that are relatively higher among those taking photos compared to those who do not. (It should be noted, however, that measures were aggregated across ‘exhibit artifacts’ versus ‘other objects’, and not verified for every single artifact being photographed or not.)

Scenes for photography can be very different, some are rich with detail, light and colour (e.g., a lakeside landscape), others being more monotonic or homogenous (e.g., a vase or a person against a dark uniform background). This difference in experience seems to matter little with regard to enjoyment or engagement when taking photos. Comparing between bus tours (Hollywood/London) and pop/rock concerts (performing against a plain and non-changing background), it is found that similarly in those experiences those taking photos enjoy the experience more and feel more engaged than non-photo takers, regardless of the type of experience (full mediation was also supported).

Any indication that participants in the experiment have enjoyed the concert somewhat more than bus tours did not lead to any consistent conclusions; it may be due more to a music concert being more energizing than a city bus tour at least in idea, especially if we take into account also the experience of the music not captured in a photograph. But in real-life concerts of performing artists the viewers more usually today record video clips, not still photographs, by simply raising the smartphone above the head and filming. It is hard to say in these circumstances how much they may lose of the experience at all if they watch it through the screen and how it may affect their attention and enjoyment. Dealing with the smartphone or tablet to check the videos during the performance may distract them somewhat more. Yet, it could be that viewers recording videos on their devices may be disturbing more to other people in the audience than their own enjoyment of the experience.

Expo Milano 2015: Dining Bar (Argentina)

EXPO Milano 2015: For illustration of experience

We may find ourselves in different positions in experiences: Imagine taking a boat cruise on a lake, standing on the deck viewing the landscape around, or watching a parade on a maid road, looking from the side of the road — in these events one is primarily a passive observer. However, one becomes an active participant in the event, for example, of playing a creative game such as building Lego models or possibly visiting a museum exhibit that allows learning by using interactive displays and tools. As Diehl and colleagues suggest, it may have two implications: (a) the ‘active’ experience is in origin more entertaining and enjoyable so there is less to gain by additionally taking photos; (b) engaging in the task of taking photos interferes with participation in the main activity. The researchers applied creative arts-and-crafts projects (e.g., building an Eiffel Tower from wafers and icing): to make conditions comparable, they assigned participants to either actively building the tower model or to passively observing someone else building the same kind of model.

Indeed, taking photos during the experience makes a difference in increasing engagement and enjoyment only for those observing the project and not for those who are actively building the model. Photo takers who actively built the model were also more inclined to report that taking photos during the experience interfered with their project compared to those who only observed and took photos. On the other hand, the latter took more photos (about ten on average) compared with those who tried to build the project and take photos simultaneously (5.5 on average). Reasonably observers were more free to take photos and enjoy it as well. While taking photos did not increase enjoyment of the ‘builders’, there is also no evidence that it decreased it. It could be a little disappointing as we may expect that taking photos as we progress may enhance our sense of pride and satisfaction with our creation taking form — a sort of ‘I Built It Myself’ effect (following an “I Designed It Myself” effect by Franke, Schreier and Kaiser, 2010). Two requirements may be needed: first, that the ‘builder’ is of course successful during his or her task, and second, that by intermittently advancing with the project and stopping for a minute when progress is made to take a photo, it helps to minimise interference or distraction.

This topic brings to mind a particular concern, when the task of photography intervenes in the ‘source’ experience, and potentially disrupts it. Diehl and her colleagues cleverly distinguish between the functional-physical act of taking photos (i.e., operating a camera) and the mental process driving behind it (i.e., planning  the photos). It may be argued in this regard that the impact may be different on people taking photos with a smartphone or tablet device, a compact camera, or a more complex single-lens-reflex (SLR) camera. Also, more dedicated amateur photographers, with greater interest and photographic skills, may approach taking photos during an experience differently from others. This issue unfortunately does not receive an adequate answer in the research.

The researchers test two kinds of suspected interferences that may disrupt or distract photo takers from the main experience they engage in: (1) physical — by assuming one would have to carry and hold a bulky digital SLR camera (represented in the experiment just by a larger camera icon); and (2) functional — by enabling the photographer also to delete unsatisfactory photos right after taking them. The results have shown that with medium-interference (‘holding SLR’) the enjoyment of these photo-takers was in-between those taking photos as above and those not taking photos, not significantly different from either. Yet, with high-interference (‘SLR + deletion’) enjoyment was close and not statistically different from non-photo takers and lower compared with ‘regular’ photo-takers. Corresponding findings were obtained for engagement. Attending to delete photos is the task that appears to truly distract photo takers from the main experience (like checking one’s video during a concert). Holding an SLR camera should not disturb so much dedicated amateur photographers (with some exceptions of extra equipment) but certain operations in taking photos may demand additional attention that could indeed compete with the subject experience.

Nevertheless, the researchers demonstrate in another experiment that the mental process of thinking about taking photos and planning them is more crucial than the functional act of taking the photos. Planning to take photos alone increased enjoyment just as for those actually taking photos, compared with those not involved in any way in taking photos. In other words, planning to taking photos “led to similar levels of enjoyment as actually taking photos”. Reported engagement was similarly heightened when planning to take photos. For more dedicated amateur photographers planning the photos to be taken is a key part of the activity and may not be easy to separate from some functions (e.g., choices of composition, focal object, exposure and speed). Yet the photography-related activity may not be viewed as an interference but as an integral part of the whole experience, a way of living the experience more deeply and vividly.

When the experience is perceived as negative, taking photos would also increase engagement, but in this case it will result in lower enjoyment compared to those not taking photos. The increased engagement means more attention of the photo takers becomes focused on negative aspects of the experience.

The researchers study a specific mechanism of mediation by engagement between taking photos and enjoyment. But many consumers may receive their satisfaction and joy from recording their experience to refresh their memories later through the photos, perhaps more so if they are less interested in photography per se. Moreover, consumers increasingly take photos with the intention of uploading them to social media networks (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) for sharing with their acquaintances, close and far. Diehl and colleagues are not convinced, based on an initial survey, that people anticipate such benefits while taking the photos. Nevertheless, they do not exclude this possibility: they note that “individuals presumably take photos in part because they expect that reviewing those photos in the future will provide them with additional enjoyment” and such forward-looking behaviour may enhance their immediate enjoyment from the experience. In their judgement many consumers do not anticipate such an effect. They do note, however, that many marketers also forbid taking photos on their premises because they seem to believe that taking photos ruins individuals’ experiences.

The research of Diehl, Zauberman and Barasch is interesting and refreshing on a topic not studied often. It shows from different angles how taking photos enhances the enjoyment of consumers in positive experiences through increased engagement (i.e., focus more attention, feeling more deeply immersed in the experience). Taking photos could plausibly be seen as less interfering or disrupting to people the closer they perceive this activity as complementary to the experience itself, and especially so for those more interested in photography. Marketers should be less reluctant to let consumers taking photos since it is more likely to make them enjoy the experience better. Consumers have to learn when is the best timing to turn to taking photos so as to enjoy it the most as part of the whole experience.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Reference:

How Taking Photos Increases Enjoyment of Experiences; Kristin Diehl, Gal Zauberman, and Alixandra Barasch, 2016; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111 (2), pp. 119-140.

Read Full Post »

Obama’s administration is taking a bold step in fighting overweight and moreover obesity: requiring chain restaurants and similar food establishments to post information on food calories for their items or dishes on menus and menu boards. The new directive published in November 2014 by the United States’ Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is mandated by the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress in 2010. The expectation is that restaurant customers will consider the nutritional values, particularly calories, of  food items on the menu if the information appears in front of them, inducing them to make more healthy choices. It is estimated that Americans consume a third of their calories dining out. But will consumers, who are not voluntarily concerned about healthy dietary, change their eating behaviour away-from-home just because the information is easily and promptly available?

The new requirements of the FDA apply to restaurant chains with 20 or more outlets, including fast food chains — likely a primary target of the new directive. Detail of total calorie content of food items should appear on print menus (e.g., at full-service restaurants) and menu boards positioned above counters for ordering (e.g., at fast-food restaurants). The rule covers meals served at a table or taken to a table by the customer to be consumed, take-away food like pizzas, and food collected at drive-through windows. Also included are sandwiches-made-to-order at a grocery store or delicatessen, coffee-shops, and even ice-cream parlours. (1)

  •  The FDA directive also refers in a separate section to food sold through vending machines by owners or operators of 20 or more machines.

Calorie content in a food item (actually kilocalorie) indicates the amount of energy it provides. Usually the energy intake of consumers from meals, snacks and refreshments is more than the body requires, and the surplus not “burned”   accumulates and adds to body weight. The rule maintains that additional information on components such as calories from total and saturated fat, sodium, carbohydrates, protein, and sugars should be made available on request in writing. Critics could argue that while a summary measure of energy is an important nutritional factor, other nutritional values as those mentioned by the FDA, and more (e.g., fat in grams, Vitamins A and C), also need to be transparent to consumers. Practically, loading menus, and foremost menu boards, with too many nutritional details may be problematic for both business owners and their customers. Therefore, there is logic in focusing on an indicator regarded of higher priority. Nonetheless, restaurants should offer a supplementary menu with greater nutritional values to customers who are interested. Again, the question is how many customers will request and use that extra information.

The food service industry overall reacted positively to the new rules. The National Restaurant Association in the US (representing 990,000 restaurant and food-service outlets) is satisfied with the way the FDA has addressed its major concerns. Contention remains over food sold in amusements parks and cinemas, and regarding fresh sandwiches and salads and ready-to-eat meals made by supermarkets for individual consumers (i.e., single-serving). In fact,  several restaurant chains have already been displaying nutritional information on menus voluntarily for several years to cater for more health-conscious customers and improve their retail-brand image (e.g., Starbucks, McDonalds, Subway). Some chains also provide detailed nutrition information and assistant tools for customers to plan their meals on the chains’ websites. It should further be noted that regulations for posting nutrition information in food-service establishments are in place at the level of local authorities in various cities and counties across the US. Business and regional administrative initiatives are not new in the US as well as in Canada and other countries. However, such measures will be obligatory in the US at a country-level within a year ahead.

Consumers are likely to have some general guidelines (a schema of rules) in memory that they can consult on what is more or less healthy to eat and how much to eat of different items (e.g., “high levels of calories, fat and salt in hamburgers and french fries”, “cream cakes are rich with calories and sugar”). When arriving to a restaurant or coffee-shop, the more conscious consumer may apply those guidelines to compose one’s meal with greater care for his or her health. Yet, the ability to extract accurate nutrition values of food items offered on the menu is likely to be rather limited — our memory is not accurate and retrieving information may also be biased by prior goals or hypotheses. Even if we consider only total calories, we would recall gross estimates or value ranges for general food categories. Consumers furthermore tend to take into account only the alternatives explicitly presented and attribute information available on them in a choice setting (a “context effect”). Information not provided (e.g., has to be retrieved from memory) is likely to be ignored. Customers anxious enough may pull out a mobile device and look up some more accurate nutritional information from an app or a website of the company or a third-party source. But for most consumers, it should appear, there is strong logic as well as justification to provide the nutrition information on specific food items easily accessible at the food outlet to allow them to consider it on-the-spot in their choices.

A probable cause of resistance from consumers to take into account the nutritional content of the food they are about to order is that this might spoil their pleasure of eating the meal.  People commonly prefer to concentrate on which items to order that will be more enjoyable for them on a given occasion. The negative nutritional consequences of the desired food could be considered as ‘cost’, just like monetary price and perhaps even worse, a notion consumers would like to avoid. There is also a prevailing belief that healthier food is less tasty. To make consumers more receptive they would have to be persuaded beforehand that this belief is false or that nutritional components have both positive and negative consequences to consider. Surely consumers have to account for constraints on their preferences; health advocates have to help and ease any barriers to embracing health constraints, or turn pre-conceived constraints into consumers’ own preferences.

We may gain another insight into consumer food choices by considering the comparisons consumers utilise to make decisions. Simonson, Bettman, Kramer and Payne (2013) offer a new integrative perspective on the selection and effect of comparisons when making judgements and choice decisions — how consumers select the comparisons they rely upon vis-à-vis those they ignore, and what information is used in the process. They propose that the comparisons consumers seek have first to be perceived relevant and acceptable responses to the task (e.g., compatible with a goal); these comparisons fall within the task’s Latitude of Acceptance (LOA). They also need to be justifiable. Then, consumers will prefer to rely upon comparisons that are cognitively easier to perform (i.e., greater comparison fluency), given the information available on options. Importantly, even if bottom-up evidence suggests that certain comparisons require less effort to apply, these will be rejected unless they are instrumental for completing the task. Information factors that can facilitate the comparison between options may affect, however, which comparisons consumers perform among those included in the LOA. The following are factors suggested by the researchers that increase the probability that a comparison will be performed: attribute values that can be applied “as-is” and do not need additional calculation or transformation (i.e., “concreteness effect”); alignable input (i.e., values stated in the same units); information perceptually salient; and yet also information that can generate immediate, affective responses. (2)

Let us examine possible implications. Suppose that you visit a grill bar-restaurant of a large known chain. You have to choose the food composition of your meal, keeping with one or more of the following personal goals: (a) “not leave hungry” (satiated); (b) pleasure or enjoyment (taste/quality); (c) “eat healthy” (nutrition); (d) “spend as little as possible” (cost). Calorie values are stated on menu in a column next to price. If the primary goal is to keep a healthy diet you would most likely use calorie information to compare options. However, if “eat healthy” is not a valued goal for you, there is greater chance that calorie information will be ignored — even if values of calories are very easy to read-out, assess and compare. They may be perceived as distraction from considering and comparing, for instance, the ingredients of items that would determine your enjoyment from different food options. Consumers often have a combination of goals in mind, and thus if your goals are nutrition and price, there is an advantage to displaying numeric calorie and price values next to each other across items. It would be more difficult to weigh-in calories with information on ingredients that should predict enjoyment or satiation as your goals. Therefore, it can be important to display nutritional values in a format that facilitates comparison, and not provide too many values. Yet, if “eat healthy” is not one’s goal all those measures are unlikely to have much effect on choice.

  • Some would argue that a salient perceptual stimulus can trigger consumer response in the desired direction even unconsciously. That is a matter for debate — according to the viewpoint above strong perceptual or affective stimuli will not be influential if the consumer’s goal is driving him in another direction.
  • Given the growing awareness to health, justifying decisions based on calories to others may be received more favourably. Can this be enough to induce consumers to incorporate a nutrition comparison in their decision when it is not their personal goal?

A research study performed by the Economic Research Service (ERS) of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) examined consumer response to display of nutrition information in food service establishments, comparing between fast-food and full-service chain restaurants. The researchers (Gregory, Rahkovsky, & Anekwe, 2014) show that consumers who see nutrition information have a greater tendency to use it during choice-making in full-service restaurants; overall, women are more sensitive to such information than men (especially using it in fast-food restaurants). Furthermore, they provide support that consumers who are already more conscious and care about a healthful diet are more likely to react positively to nutrition information in restaurants:

  • Consumers who inspect always or most of the time the nutrition labeling on food products purchased in a store (enforced in the US for more than twenty years) are more likely to see and then use the nutrition information presented in full-service restaurants (notably, 76% of those who inspect the store-food labeling regularly use the information seen in the restaurant versus 18% of those who rarely or never use the labeling on store-food).
  • Additionally, the researchers find that a Healthy Eating Index score (measuring habitude to using nutrition information and keeping a healthy diet) is positively correlated with intention to use nutrition information in fast-food or full-service restaurants (those who would often or sometimes use the information in full-service restaurants score 57-54 versus those who would use it rarely or never who score 50 on a scale of 1 to 100).

Gregory and his colleagues at USDA-ERS argue that following these findings, displaying nutrition information on menus at food-away-from-home establishments may not be enough to motivate consumers not already caring about healthful diet to read and use that information — “It may be too optimistic to expect that, after implementation of the nutrition disclosure law, consumers who have not previously used nutrition information or have shown little desire to use it in the future will adopt healthier diets.”

A research study in Canada involved an interesting comparison between two hospital cafeterias, a ‘control’ cafeteria that displays limited nutrition information on menu boards and an ‘intervention’ cafeteria that operates an enhanced programme displaying nutrition information in different formats plus educational materials (Vanderlee and Hammond, 2014). The research was based on interviews with cafeteria patrons. A significantly higher proportion of participants in the ‘intervention’ cafeteria reported noticing nutrition information (80%) than in the ‘control’ cafeteria (36%). However, among those noticing it, similar proportions (33% vs. 30%, respectively) stated that the information influenced their item choices. Hospital staff were more alert and responsive to the information than visitors to the hospital and patients. This research also indicates that customers who use more frequently nutrition labels on pre-packaged food products are also more likely to perceive themselves being influenced by such information.

Vanderlee and Hammond subsequently found lower estimated levels of calories, fat and sodium in the food consumed in the ‘intervention’ cafeteria than the ‘control’ cafeteria (using secondary information on nutrition content of food items). In particular, customers at the ‘intervention’ cafeteria who specifically reported being influenced by the information consumed less energy (calories).(3)

Actions to consider: Fast-food restaurants may place menus with extended nutrition information, beyond calories, on or next to the counter where customers stand for ordering. Full-service restaurants may place extended menus on tables, or at least a card inviting customers to request such a menu from the waiter. It may be advisable to add one more nutrition value next to calories as a standard (e.g., sugars because of the rise in diabetes and the health complications it may cause). Notwithstanding, full-service restaurants could be allowed to implement the rule during the day (e.g., for business lunch), but in the evening spare customers the pleasure of dining-out as entertainment without worries. Nonetheless, menus with nutrition information should always be available on request.

Nutrition information displayed on menus and menu-boards can indeed help consumers in restaurants, coffee-shops etc., to make more healthy food choices, but it is likely to help mostly those who are already health-conscious and in habit of caring about their healthful diet. Information clearly displayed has a good chance to be noticed; yet, educating and motivating consumers to apply it for a healthier diet should start at home, in school, and in the media. A classic saying applies here: You can lead a horse to the water but you cannot make it drink. Nutrition information may be a welcome aid for those who want to eat more healthy but it is less likely to make those who do not care about healthful diet beforehand to use the information in the expected manner.

Ron Ventura, Ph.D. (Marketing)

Notes:

(1) Overview of FDA Labeling Requirements for Restaurants, Similar Food Retail Establishments and Vending Machines, The Federal Food and Drug Administration (US), November 2014 http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm248732.htm; Also see: “US Introduces Menu Labeling Standards for Chain Restaurants”, Reuters, 24 Nov. 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/25/usa-health-menus-idUSL2N0TE1KP20141125

(2) Comparison Selection: An Approach to the Study of Consumer Judgment and Choice; Itamar Simonson, James R. Bettman, Thomas Karamer, & John W. Payne, 2013; Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (1), pp. 137-149

(3) Does Nutrition Information on Menus Impact Food Choice: Comparisons Across Two Hopital Cafeterias; Lana Vanderlee and David Hammond, 2013; Public Health Nutrition, 10p, DOI: 10.1017/S136898001300164X. http://www.davidhammond.ca/Old%20Website/Publication%20new/2013%20Menu%20Labeling%20(Vanderlee%20&%20Hammond).pdf; Also see: “Nutrition Information Noticed in Restaurants If on Menu”; Roger Collier; Canadian Medical Association Journal, 3 Aug., 2013 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3735740/

 

Read Full Post »