Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Attention’

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.

Advertisements

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 »