IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v3y2019i6d10.1038_s41562-019-0584-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Armin W. Thomas

    (Technische Universität Berlin
    Freie Universität Berlin
    Freie Universität Berlin)

  • Felix Molter

    (Freie Universität Berlin
    Freie Universität Berlin
    Freie Universität Berlin
    WZB Berlin Social Science Center)

  • Ian Krajbich

    (The Ohio State University)

  • Hauke R. Heekeren

    (Freie Universität Berlin
    Freie Universität Berlin)

  • Peter N. C. Mohr

    (Freie Universität Berlin
    Freie Universität Berlin
    Freie Universität Berlin
    WZB Berlin Social Science Center)

Abstract

How do we make simple choices such as deciding between an apple and an orange? Recent empirical evidence suggests that choice behaviour and gaze allocation are closely linked at the group level, whereby items looked at longer during the decision-making process are more likely to be chosen. However, it is unclear how variable this gaze bias effect is between individuals. Here we investigate this question across four different simple choice experiments and using a computational model that can be easily applied to individuals. We show that an association between gaze and choice is present for most individuals, but differs considerably in strength. Generally, individuals with a strong association between gaze and choice behaviour are worse at choosing the best item from a choice set compared with individuals with a weak association. Accounting for individuals’ variability in gaze bias in the model can explain and accurately predict individual differences in choice behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Armin W. Thomas & Felix Molter & Ian Krajbich & Hauke R. Heekeren & Peter N. C. Mohr, 2019. "Gaze bias differences capture individual choice behaviour," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(6), pages 625-635, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1038_s41562-019-0584-8
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0584-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0584-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-019-0584-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shen Li & Yuyang Zhang & Zhaolin Ren & Claire Liang & Na Li & Julie A. Shah, 2024. "Enhancing Preference-based Linear Bandits via Human Response Time," Papers 2409.05798, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.
    2. Molter, Felix & Thomas, Armin W. & Heekeren, Hauke R. & Mohr, Peter N. C., 2019. "GLAMbox: A Python toolbox for investigating the association between gaze allocation and decision behaviour," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(12), pages 1-23.
    3. Frederick Callaway & Antonio Rangel & Thomas L Griffiths, 2021. "Fixation patterns in simple choice reflect optimal information sampling," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Fischbacher, Urs & Hausfeld, Jan & Renerte, Baiba, 2022. "Strategic incentives undermine gaze as a signal of prosocial motives," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 63-91.
    5. Moshe Glickman & Orian Sharoni & Dino J Levy & Ernst Niebur & Veit Stuphorn & Marius Usher, 2019. "The formation of preference in risky choice," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Bansal, Prateek & Kim, Eui-Jin & Ozdemir, Semra, 2024. "Discrete choice experiments with eye-tracking: How far we have come and ways forward," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    7. Zhao, Meina & Wang, Xuqi, 2021. "Perception value of product-service systems: Neural effects of service experience and customer knowledge," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:6:d:10.1038_s41562-019-0584-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.