{"title":"Order in multi-attribute product choice decisions: Evidence from discrete choice experiments combined with eye tracking","authors":"Nick Zuschke","doi":"10.1002/bdm.2320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Over time, research on order effects during information searching and choice tasks has received thorough attention in marketing, psychology, and economics. When early information search influences choice in favor of that information, it is called <i>primacy</i>; the equivalent for later information search is called <i>recency</i>. However, research that disentangles primacy and recency effects during multi-attribute product choice, as well as studies on the cognitive processes underlying primacy and recency effects are lacking. I address this gap with two choice-based conjoint experiments combined with eye tracking and by means of multilevel mediation analysis. Consistent with my prediction that to counterbalance the impact of decision irrelevant information on choice through early information search by later information search is mentally too costly, I find that “spatial position” biases choice due to primacy rather than recency. This bias, however, is small. This suggests that for decision irrelevant information, the causal influence of attention on choice generalizes to more complex decisions, though with little impact. Consistent with my prediction that the level of information elaboration moderates the mediation process, increasing task motivation decreases the dominance of primacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48112,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/bdm.2320","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bdm.2320","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Over time, research on order effects during information searching and choice tasks has received thorough attention in marketing, psychology, and economics. When early information search influences choice in favor of that information, it is called primacy; the equivalent for later information search is called recency. However, research that disentangles primacy and recency effects during multi-attribute product choice, as well as studies on the cognitive processes underlying primacy and recency effects are lacking. I address this gap with two choice-based conjoint experiments combined with eye tracking and by means of multilevel mediation analysis. Consistent with my prediction that to counterbalance the impact of decision irrelevant information on choice through early information search by later information search is mentally too costly, I find that “spatial position” biases choice due to primacy rather than recency. This bias, however, is small. This suggests that for decision irrelevant information, the causal influence of attention on choice generalizes to more complex decisions, though with little impact. Consistent with my prediction that the level of information elaboration moderates the mediation process, increasing task motivation decreases the dominance of primacy.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Behavioral Decision Making is a multidisciplinary journal with a broad base of content and style. It publishes original empirical reports, critical review papers, theoretical analyses and methodological contributions. The Journal also features book, software and decision aiding technique reviews, abstracts of important articles published elsewhere and teaching suggestions. The objective of the Journal is to present and stimulate behavioral research on decision making and to provide a forum for the evaluation of complementary, contrasting and conflicting perspectives. These perspectives include psychology, management science, sociology, political science and economics. Studies of behavioral decision making in naturalistic and applied settings are encouraged.