Factors Influencing Visual Attention A Meta Analysis PDF

Journal of Marketing Management
ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
Factors influencing visual attention: a meta-

analysis
Wagner Junior Ladeira, Vinicius Antonio Machado Nardi, Fernando de

Oliveira Santini & William Carvalho Jardim
To cite this article: Wagner Junior Ladeira, Vinicius Antonio Machado Nardi, Fernando de Oliveira
Santini & William Carvalho Jardim (2019) Factors influencing visual attention: a meta-analysis,
Journal of Marketing Management, 35:17-18, 1710-1740, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2019.1662826
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1662826
Published online: 19 Sep 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 230
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT
2019, VOL. 35, NOS. 17–18, 1710–1740
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1662826
Factors influencing visual attention: a meta-analysis

Wagner Junior Ladeira , Vinicius Antonio Machado Nardi ,
Fernando de Oliveira Santini and William Carvalho Jardim
Department of Management, Unisinos University, São Leopoldo, Brazil
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The goal of the present study is to conduct the first meta-analysis Received 12 March 2018
on the antecedents (top-down and bottom-up factors) and con- Accepted 26 April 2019
sequences (evaluation factors) of visual attention. In this research, KEYWORDS
201 empirical articles were examined, with a total of 781 effect Theory of attention to visual
sizes highlighting the visual attention effect on consumption marketing; eye-tracking;
choices. An ordered synthesis of the different types of empirical top-down and bottom-up
results involving visual attention in the marketing area was per- factors; meta-analysis
formed. Our research deepens and describes the effects of top-
down and bottom-up factors on visual attention, demonstrating
the differences between the variables that compose them.
Introduction
Visual attention studies have a long tradition in several areas of marketing knowledge
and been performed for different purposes (Lindstrom, Berg, Nordfalt, Roggeveen, &
Grewal, 2016; Pieters, Wedel, & Batra, 2010; Russo & Leclerc, 1994). Especially in the field
of consumer behaviour, visual attention can help in understanding consumer judgement
and decision processes through the search for information (Orth & Crouch, 2014),
alternative evaluations (Wastlund, Otterbring, Gustafsson, & Shams, 2015) and selection
(Orquin & Loose, 2013).
Strategic marketing decisions are based on observations of how consumers behave at
decision stages (Bettman & Park, 1980; Shocker, Ben-Akiva, Boccara, & Nedungadi, 1991).
Analysis of consumers’ gaze behaviour allows marketing managers to generate more
competitive advantages than assumptions based on hunches or intuition (Harris,
Ciorciari, & Gountas, 2018). The greater understanding of these stages through visual
attention can help managers to develop communication strategies which mitigate
information overlaps and increase product viewing time (Khachatryan et al., 2018;
Orth & Crouch, 2014). In this way, knowledge about consumer behaviour through the
sensing of vision can be important to a company’s success (Vu, Tu, & Duerrschmid,
2016).
Understanding consumer judgement and decision processes has been facilitated
through eye-tracking technology. Thus, visual attention has become a central element
which has been evaluated in marketing studies in different contexts (retail, television
CONTACT Vinicius Antonio Machado Nardi viniciusamnardi@gmail.com Department of Management, Unisinos

University, Unisinos Av. 950, São Leopoldo, RS 93022-750, Brazil
© 2019 Westburn Publishers Ltd.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 1711
commercials, print advertising, web usability assessment etc.), using different measures
(fixation frequency, time spent, fixation count, visit count and number of fixations,
among others) (Chandon, Hutchinson, Bradlow, & Young, 2009; Lindstrom et al., 2016;
Meiner, Musalem, & Huber, 2016) and resulting in different experimental formats for
analysing visual attention by employing different variables (consumer motivations,
brand familiarity, product involvement, recall, recognition, visual complexity, perceived
amount of information, time-pressure conditions etc.).
The popularisation of eye-tracking technology has led to an increase in the number of
studies on visual attention, in turn enhancing knowledge about this phenomenon. On
the other hand, conflicting results have been reported in the literature. For example, we
can find positive (Otterbring, Wastlund, & Gustafsson, 2016; Pieters, Rosbergen, & Wedel,
1999) and negative (Clement, Aastrup, & Forsberg, 2015; Clement, Kristensen, &
Grønhaug, 2013) effects between the antecedent of brand familiarity and visual atten-
tion. In the same way, positive (Bialkova et al., 2014; Milosavljevic, Navalpakkam, Koch, &
Rangel, 2012) and negative effects (Hong, Misra, & Vilcassim, 2016) were found for the
relationship between visual attention and the consequence of preference. These dis-
crepancies can be associated with the characteristics of data collection, contexts and
different measurements.
In this sense, a study is needed to reduce these discrepancies. Meta-analytical
research could make a significant contribution in order to better understand the visual
attention construct because this method offers the possibility of integrating findings,
thus producing an understanding of the phenomenon. Meta-analytic research is acade-
mically important in grouping results and consolidating an understanding of
a phenomenon (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Thus, this research carried out a meta-analysis
to analyse the effects generated by visual attention. Thus, our goals are threefold: (i) to
analyse the effect of top-down and bottom-up factors on visual attention; (ii) to test
visual attention in evaluation variables; and (iii) to evaluate the influence of possible
moderators which increase/decrease the size of the effects generated by visual
attention.
This study proposes some important contributions to studies on visual attention.
Through the results, we present information on more synthesised and generalised visual
attention effect sizes. In addition, we propose future paths for visual attention marketing
research, demonstrating the status quo of each of the relationships found in the
systematic review. Finally, we will be able to offer assistance to managers in their
decision-making processes because meta-analyses are more consistent than traditional
primary surveys (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
Theory of attention to visual marketing and consumption choices

Visual attention is considered to be one of the ways in which the consumer acquires
information about products and optimises the choice process (Clement, 2007; Kim &
Lennon, 2008; Lang, Kelley, & Moore, 2016; Lindstrom et al., 2016). The insight generates
interesting information with which to interpret consumer behaviour while, over in the
last 100 years, marketing researchers have invested in eye-tracking technologies. The
term eye-tracking refers to a cluster of technologies whose aim is to record and measure
people’s ocular movements before a controlled stimulus (artificial environment) or an
1712 W. J. LADEIRA ET AL.
uncontrolled scene (real environment) (Graham, Orquin, & Visschers, 2012). This tech-
nology, through the recording and measurement of eye movements, is capable of
analysing the consumer’s visual attention in a given period of time and in a given
space (Duchowski, 2007).
Visual attention can be regarded metaphorically as a spotlight, which the consumer
uses to focus on the product and reduce event processing at the time of choice (Orquin
& Loose, 2013). This spotlight moves along a scanpath, aided by the movement of the
eyes and the head, determining a focus within a physical space in a certain period of
time (Pieters & Warlop, 1999).
The scanpath is constructed from two types of small eye movements: fixations and
saccades (Orquin & Loose, 2013). Fixations are pauses in which the eyes are immobile;
they generally have durations ranging from 50 milliseconds to more than one second
(Chandon et al., 2009) and are genearely measured by the number of fixations/fixation
count (the number of times a fixation has occurred) and fixation frequency (the amount
of due to exposure time). The fixations serve to project a small area within the visual
field. Within the eye, fixations occur in the region of the fovea, which is an area of the
eye with visual acuity superior to the other areas (Chandon et al., 2009). During an
attachment, an area is projected onto the fovea for detailed visual processing. Only
about 8% of the visual field is projected onto the fovea and available for more detailed
processing (Wedel & Pieters, 2008).
Saccades are quick jumps made by the eyes from one fixation to another (Orquin &
Loose, 2013). During these movements, vision is essentially suppressed (Chandon et al.,
2009). The saccades are quick ballistic jumps of the eyes, usually designed, in a range of
20–40,000th of a second, to project site-specific images to a region of the eye called the
fovea (Duchowski, 2007). The saccades perform the fastest movement in the human
body (Kirchner & Thorpe, 2006).
The sets of movements created by fixations and saccades are measured by various
types of eye-trackers available on the market. Traditionally, these devices help to
measure the movement of visual attention in consumption choices (Huddleston,
Behe, Minahan, & Fernandez, 2015; Meiner et al., 2016). In consumer choices, visual
attention can be influenced by several marketing variables (Huddleston et al., 2015;
Pieters & Warlop, 1999). The variables influencing visual attention can be divided into
top-down factors and bottom-up factors (Orquin & Loose, 2013; Theeuwes, 2010).
The variables influenced by visual attention can be categorised as evaluation
variables.
It can be inferred that consumer judgement and decision processes are affected by
visual attention, which increases during selection and focalisation processes (Wedel &
Pieters, 2000). The increase occurs in two ways. The first is through the processing of
long-term visual memory affecting the sequence of fixations and saccades over time and
space (Janiszewski, 1998). The second is through the saliency of objects promoted by
many different types of visual marketing stimuli (static and dynamic) in various scenar-
ios: advertisements, displays, objects, brands and websites (Huddleston et al., 2015).
These two paths are objects of study in the theory of visual attention marketing (Wedel
& Pieters, 2000). The theory uses eye-tracking techniques to assess visual attention in the
processing of long-term visual memory and visual marketing stimuli (Janiszewski, 1998;
Vu et al., 2016).
We performed a systematic review then identified similar constructs which are named
in different ways. In this case, we carried out a content analysis promoting single
definitions, which are used as antecedents or consequents of visual attention. This
minimum number of relationships is recommended by Hunter and Schmidt (2004).
After this, we classified some groups of constructs according to similar dimensions.
The similar dimensions identified were: (i) top-down, (ii) bottom-up and (iii) evaluation
variables. These three dimensions represent factors that already exist within the indivi-
dual (top-down factors) factors related to the design package and/or placement of the
product (somewhat controllable by the marketer) (bottom-up factors), and consumer-
related consequences (evaluation variables).
The influence of top-down factors on visual attention

The top-down factors are formed by variables which are originated by long-term visual
memory. The internal goals and intentions are known as top-down factors and closely
related to long-term visual memory (Lee & Ahn, 2012). Top-down factors reside in the
person and in his or her attentional process (Pieters & Wedel, 2004). Top-down factors
can be understood in terms of a person’s characteristics, such as individual traits and
motivations (Huddleston et al., 2015; Theeuwes, 2010).
A clear understanding of top-down factors relates to an active volitional process
similar to when a person decides to select a particular feature from the environment
(Theeuwes, 2010). Top-down factors are considered to be voluntary mechanisms which
guide visual attention (Lang et al., 2016; Lindstrom et al., 2016), for example, looking for
a brand which the consumer knows or remembering a benefit associated with a product
which was seen days before. These events occur on a voluntary basis and are clear top-
down expressions of visual attention. Thus, top-down factors will influence consumers’
attention (Chandon et al., 2009; Lee & Ahn, 2012). Variables representing top-down
factors found in the systematic review are presented in Table 1.
The influence of bottom-up factors on visual attention

Bottom-up factors are found directly in marketing stimuli and appear instantaneously
in the first eye fixation, due to some perceptual characteristics which may be
associated with product or display disclosure (Chandon et al., 2009; Pieters &
Warlop, 1999). For example, a product exposed on the same shelf as an attractively
sumptuous product will tend to draw attention to other products which have not
been properly exposed (Huddleston et al., 2015). This happens largely on an invo-
luntarily basis and is a clear expression of bottom-up factors in visual attention
(Pieters & Warlop, 1999).
Bottom-up processing is completely driven by salience (Theeuwes, 2010). This implies
that the consumer is influenced by a stimulus as it exists in the outside world (Pieters &
Warlop, 1999). In this sense, bottom-up factors influence the visual attention due to
some perceptual characteristics that may be associated with colour, border, brightness,
shapes and sizes (Huddleston et al., 2015).
Table 2 describes the constructs related to bottom-up factors, as identified in the
systematic review.
1714
Table 1. Top-down factors that are directly related to visual attention.

Expected
Variable/Definition Keywords Eye-tracking measures used Products that were viewed Sign
Consumer motivations are the propensity of an Motivation condition, shopping motivation, product Fixation frequency, number Shampoo, sunscreen, and +
individual to have high experiential motivations for motivation and motivation of the brand. of fixations, gaze duration, food packaging.
shopping (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). scan paths and fixation
count.
Brand familiarity reflects the extent of a consumer’s Familiarity and brand familiarity, store familiarity and Fixation frequency, time Brands of various -
direct and indirect experience with a brand (Alba & consumers’ familiarity. spend, fixation count, visit products,
Hutchinson, 1987). count and number of advertisements, and
W. J. LADEIRA ET AL.
fixations. food in displays.

Amount of time spent refers to the time it takes to find Amount of time spent, time of the decision, time Visit duration, fixation count Juice, washing-up liquid, +
or choose a product (Chandon et al., 2009). spend, time on the image, processing time, decision and fixation duration. display, print
time, time spent viewing and search times. advertisements, yellow
pages, and catalogues.
Time pressure condition regulates the amount of Time pressure, the speed of information processing, Gaze-time, fixations duration, Pages advertising, +
information that can be processed, and its impact on decision time and more time or less time. fixation count and number mannequin, web site,
consumer decision making is significant (Pieters & fixations. clothes and displays.
Warlop, 1999).
Health consciousness is a propensity to have a lifestyle Health consciousness, health concern and health Fixation duration and fixation Food in displays, nutrition +
oriented towards the prevention of health problems conscious. count. labels, and grocery.
and the maximisation of personal well-being (Ran, Yue,
& Rihn, 2017).
Knowledge is an attribute that is associated with the General food knowledge, knowledge, and expert. Fixation count and fixation Mannequin styles, clothes, +
ability to know. Knowledge differs from expert and number. and food.
novice consumers, as they process information in
different ways (Lindstrom et al., 2016).
Memory performance depends on factors related to the Memory effects of format, memory accuracy, Fixation frequency, fixation Juice, detergent, display +
ability to acquire, store and retrieve information about memorization advertisement and attention on count, fixation duration and web advertising.
products and brands (Keller, 1987). memory. and gaze duration.
Product involvement is defined as an internal state Product involvement, involvement, brand involvement A number of fixations, gaze- Food, juice, display, and +
variable that indicates the amount of excitation, and cause involvement. time, fixation count, shampoo.
interest, or momentum evoked by a product class proportion fixating and
(Dholakia, 2001). time spend (Duration).
The recall is the ability to correctly retrieve from memory
Brand recall, recall of pictorial brand, recall by the Fixation number, number of Soda, cigarette, cookies, +
without any mention of product class or other brand attitude to the poster, recalling the target brand, fixations, fixation count, shampoo, snowboard,
names (Aaker, 1992). recalling a related brand, recall aided advertising gaze duration and fixation car and food.
and self-reported recall. duration.
Recognition refers to the ability of a consumer to simply Recognition of signpost labels, recognition data, Fixation duration, total Coffee, shampoo, movies, +
remember that something was past exposure (Aaker, recognition aided, brand recognition, recognition, fixation duration, fixation web pages, and
1992). recognised with more accuracy and attention on count, gaze duration and restaurant.
recognition. fixation frequency.
Table 2. Bottom-up factors that are directly related to visual attention.
Products that have Expected
Variable/Definition Keywords Eye-tracking measures used been viewed Sign
Visual complexity refers to the idea that most images Perceived complexity, complexity context, scene A number of fixation, fixation Food in displays, +
contain redundancy and that images are more complexity, complexity treatments, complexity, the frequency, fixation count and nutrition labels,
complex to the extent that they contain less complexity of advertising and design complexity gaze duration. wine, packages and
redundancy (Pieters & Warlop, 1999) commercial.
Some acquisition quantity of products that are Number of advertising, number of acquisitions, number The proportion of fixations, Juice, detergent, +
purchased (Russo & Leclerc, 1994). of choice and number of brands fixated. fixation count, fixations display, and brands.
duration, fixation frequency
and average gaze duration.
Perceived amount of information is the available Types of additional of information, information A number of fixation, fixations Nutrition panels, book, +
quantity of product information (Pieters & Warlop, acquisition, perceived amount of information, search duration, and fixation count. web site, display
1999). pattern, percent information searched, product and plants.
information and information sign.
The competition for attention occurs when the The competition for attention from the items and the Fixation frequency, number of Web site and display. -
exploratory search will become slower (Janiszewski, competition for attention. fixations, fixation count and
1998). fixation duration.
The size of the product is the size of the commodity The size of the product perceived the size of the Gaze duration, fixations duration, The print ad, yellow +
being exposed (Janiszewski, 1998) picture, ad size, size display size and package size. average fixation number, pages, shampoo,
average gaze duration and and catalogues.
fixation count.
Visual area of advertising is an area of interest Visual advertising and advertising zone. Fixation duration, viewing time, Coffee, display and +
corresponding to advertising (Hartmann, Apaolaza, & fixation time, visit count and health warning
Alija, 2013). total fixation duration. advertisements.
Visual area of body text is an area of interest Text element, text ad elements, the proportion of Fixation number, fixation count, Shampoo, beauty +
corresponding to body text (Pieters et al., 1999). textual, perceived amount of verbal information, text fixation duration, number of products, nutrition
surface, body copy surface area, body text position fixations and eye fixations. panels, and web
and amount of text. site.
Visual area of the brand is an area of interest Name brand, brands fixated, brand ad elements and Proportion fixating; time spends, Coffee, display, web +
corresponding to the brand (Pieters et al., 1999). brandy type. fixations duration, fixation site, beauty
frequency, number of fixations products, social
and fixation time. media, display, and
food.
Visual area of headline is an area of interest Headline included and headline Gaze duration, scan paths, Display and web site. +
corresponding to headline (Pieters et al., 1999) number of fixation and eye
fixations.
(Continued)
1715
1716
Table 2. (Continued).
Products that have Expected

Variable/Definition Keywords Eye-tracking measures used been viewed Sign
Visual area of the label is an area of interest Label format, evaluation label, and label. Fixations duration, fixation Nutrition panels and +
corresponding to label (Siegrist, Leins-Hess, & Keller, frequency, number of fixations food packaging.
2015) and fixation time.
Visual area nutritional information is an area of Guideline daily amounts, nutrition labels, nutrition Fixation duration, number of Nutrition panels and +
interest corresponding to nutritional information Information, nutrition facts labels and amount of fixations and eye fixations. food packaging.
(Siegrist et al., 2015) nutrition information.
Visual area of pictorial is an area of interest Pictorial and pictorial ad elements. Gaze duration, scan paths, Nutrition panels, +
corresponding to pictorial part (Pieters et al., 1999). proportion fixating, time display, and food
spend and number of fixation. packaging.
Visual area of price is an area of interest corresponding Price prediction, price, price points and position of Fixation count, fixation Display, web site, +
to price (Coulter, 2007). price. frequency, number of yellow pages, and
fixations, fixation duration and catalogues
fixation time.
Visual area of traffic light system is an area of interest Multiple traffic light and traffic light system. A number of fixation, fixation Nutrition panels and +
corresponding to traffic light system (Siegrist et al., count, and total fixation food packaging.
2015). duration.
The influence of visual attention on evaluation variables

The visual attention outcomes comprise the constructs related to evaluation variables
(Clement, 2007; Meiner et al., 2016). The evaluation variables synthesise and build on
efforts to conceptualise the visual effects of consumer attention behaviours. Specifically,
evaluation variables group a set of constructs which consider the direct effects of visual
attention on behavioural intentions, actions and attitudes. This convergence of con-
structs in a group, known as evaluation variables, emerged from different studies
analysing the influences of visual attention (Kim & Lennon, 2008; Lindstrom et al.,
2016; Orth & Crouch, 2014). In this way, studies have investigated relationships between
visual attention and decision-making processes (Day, Lin, Huang, & Chuang, 2009;
Milosavljevic et al., 2012; Russo & Leclerc, 1994), as well as visual attention and attitude
(Cian, Krishna, & Elder, 2014), and attractiveness (Orth & Crouch, 2014). Table 3 presents
the variables identified.
Moderators used in the meta-analysis

In order to reduce the heterogeneity of the studies, we propose to analyse the moderator
variables. The moderators were defined based on three categories: those associated with
the scene (retail object used to measure the eye movements, scene containing images of
food, number of competing products in the scenario, competing brands and people in the
scene), those associated with the characteristics of the data collection process (classifica-
tion of measures, types of eye-tracking used in the data collection, gaze sampling
frequency and percentage of women participating in the data collection) and cultural
influence. By analysing these three groups of moderators, we can fill the gaps in the visual
attention literature and address some important shortcomings and inconsistencies found
in past studies.
The moderators associated with the scene analysed the discrepancy in the scenario
which the consumer sees. The scenarios used in experimental eye-tracking studies are
formed by different images which can influence the consumer’s look, such as: the
number of people in the scene, quantity of products involved in the choice, type of
object where fixations occur, presence of food and a brand. These moderators can be
explained in relation to bottom-up factors. Bottom-up processing is completely driven
by salience, which is the physical characteristic of a stimulus as it exists in the outside
world (Theeuwes, 2010). It is believed that the attentional set is then established
through bottom-up priming, in the sense that prognostication cannot be counteracted
by top-down factors (Belopolsky, Schreij, & Theeuwes, 2010; Theeuwes, 2010).
Concerning the possible moderators of data collection characteristics, the divergence
results may be explained by the types of measurements, equipment and samples. Eye-
tracking measures are made, based directly on the amount, time and location of
fixations and saccades. The analysis of these measures allows us to understand the
behaviour of consumer observations which can be described in relation to other
important behavioural aspects, such as choice behaviour (Lai et al., 2013). These mea-
sures can be collected by different types of equipment: screen-based eye-trackers and
eye-tracker to capture natural viewing (Wastlund et al., 2015). In addition, such equip-
ment collects data through different frequencies, either as static or mobile collections
1718
Table 3. Evaluation variables influenced by visual attention.

Expected
Variable/Definition Keywords Eye-tracking measures used Products that have been viewed Sign
Attitude is acquired and relatively stable Display, web site and food +
Attitude to the poster, ad attitude, attitude towards A number of fixation,

predispositions that lead the individual to react the product, attitude towards the ad and brand fixations, fixations duration, packaging.
positively or negatively about a social object (Batra attitude. fixation count and fixation
& Ahtola, 1991). time.
Attractiveness is conceptualised as the client’s Attractiveness Fixation frequency, fixation Web site and food packaging. +
estimate of the likely number, and fixation
satisfaction available in an alternative relationship count.
(Sharma & Patterson, 2000).
Consumer choice refers to the decisions that Chosen alternatives, choice, chosen ads, brand Visit count, fixation count, Healthiness food, clothes, +
consumers make about products and services choice, choosing, choice set, choice evaluation fixation duration, total displays, web site, yellow
(Bettman & Park, 1980). items and consumer choice. fixation, first fixation and pages, nutrition panels, book,
fixation time. and grocery.
Decision Accuracy is considered as a decision to allow Prediction accuracy, decision accuracy and accuracy. Fixations, fixations duration, Healthiness food displays and +
consumers to make much better decisions while fixation number and web site.
expending substantially less effort (Haubl & Trifts, fixation count.
2000).
Preferences are a general liking, positive attitude, or Preference preferences beverage and preference Fixation duration and fixation Displays, food and web site. +
favourable affect towards objects (Holbrook & goal. count.
Schindler, 1991).
Purchase intention is the propensity to purchase the Purchased products, purchase behaviour, products Fixation duration, fixation Displays, Healthiness food, +
product of interest over the specified time periods purchased, decision mode, natural decision, count, total fixation, first clothes, web site, yellow
(Morrison, 1979). purchase interest, purchase likelihood and fixation and fixation time. pages, nutrition panels, book,
purchase intent and grocery.
(Wedel & Pieters, 2008). Finally, it is believed that the percentage of women in an
experiment can generate different results. This is because women have different eye
behaviour to men (Andersen, Dahmani, Konishi, & Bohbot, 2012).
The test for the moderation effect of economic contexts is interesting, because some
studies (Zarantonello & Schmitt, 2013) have highlighted that emerging and developed
countries can promote different ways in which to interpret the advertising persuasion.
Finally, investigation of cultural contexts is important because other studies (Boduroglu,
Shah, & Nisbett, 2009) demonstrated that Eastern consumers are different to Western ones
in the case of attention in visual information processing. Table 4 gives a description of the
moderators.
Materials and method

Data collection and coding
First, we selected eight databases (JSTOR, Emerald, PsycINFO, Taylor & Francis, Elsevier
ScienceDirect, Scopus, SciELO and EBSCO) and searched for studies with the following
combination of terms: ‘theory of attention to visual marketing’ and ‘eye-tracking techni-
que’ in the document title and/or summary.
In the second stage, we accessed research provided by congresses and dissertation
banks. In this case, the search was performed using the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
platform. This step was aimed at incorporating unpublished studies, which allows for the
file drawer problem to be discussed. This is a current academic belief that studies having
significant and strong effects are more likely to be published (Rosenthal & Rubin, 1991).
To prevent data repetition, we carried out two searches which promoted a double
check, especially by searching for duplicity of authorship and homogeneity of the
presented effect sizes. After this procedure, possible doubts were submitted for the
analysis of a third reviewer to avoid this problem.
After the completion of these two steps, we identified 310 articles/papers. Each
article/paper was a scientific article published in the mentioned eight databases and
in some conferences in the area of consumer behaviour (Association for Consumer
Research Conference, Academy of Marketing Science Conference, Global Marketing
Conference). We excluded 39 articles as they were theoretical and did not contain
effects sizes for calculation purposes. We eliminated 70 articles because they did not
focus directly on the consumer behaviour field, that is, they were not about consump-
tion decisions. After these eliminations, we identified 201 valid papers and 781
observations.
Variables relating to visual attention are defined and operationalised differently in
different experiments on the primary data. The criterion used to conceptualise and
operationalise the variables was the presence of measures generated by eye-tracking:
total fixation duration, gaze duration, average fixation duration, first fixation duration,
time to first fixation, revisited fixation duration, proportion of fixation duration, saccade
duration, total reading time, first pass time, rereading time, fixation position, fixation
sequence, saccade length, scanpath pattern, total fixation count, average fixation count,
revisited fixation count, probability of fixation count, saccade count and inter-scanning
count.
1720
Table 4. Moderator variables used in the meta-analysis.

Variable Description and Operationalization Coding scheme and data description
Moderators associated with the scene
A retail object that was In which object was visual attention measured by eye tracking. The data found in the experiments of the primary studies were
measured the eye extracted from (1) display, (2) web advertising, (3) package design
movements and (4) print advertising.
The scenes had the image The scenes that were described in the chapter of the method indicated whether the In the scene could have the (1) presence of food or (2) absence of food.
of food presence of food existed.
Quantity competing Refers to the number of products in the scene that were captured by eye-tracking. It was calculated the median of quantity products in the experiments
products on the scene and divided into (1) low and (2) high.
The brands were Refers to the number of brands in the scene that were captured by eye-tracking. It was calculated the median of quantity brand in the experiments and
competing divided into (1) low and (2) high.
People on the scene The scenes that were described in the chapter of the method indicated whether the In the scene could have the (1) presence of people or (2) absence of
presence of people existed. people.
Moderators associated with the characteristics of data collection
Classification of measures Time scales are those in which eye movement is measured in a time dimension in The scales of measurements can be divided into scales: (1) temporal
some specific areas of interest. Spatial scales measure ocular motion in a spatial (measured by time travelled) and (2) spatial (measured by the space
dimension. travelled)
Types of eye-tracking There are types of devices that record the patterns of fixations and saccades of Eye tracking collects data in two different ways: (1) Screen-based eye
used in data collection people to interpret a visual stimulus: (1) those in which the participant needs to tracker and (2) Eye tracker to capture natural viewing.
carry a device of their own, in the case glasses, and (2) those that record eye
movement at distance, normally placed and integrated into the monitor.
Specification of eye The specification of eye tracking machines provides differences with respect to the Eye tracking collects data in two different machines: (1) static and (2)
tracking machines accuracy of measurements. mobile.
Gaze sampling frequency Sampling frequency refers to how many times per second the eye position is Gaze sampling frequency in the study can be: (1) 120 Hz, (2) 60 Hz, (3)
measured. 50 Hz and (4) 30 Hz.
Percentage of women Percentage of women who were used in the experiments of agreements with data It was calculated the median percentage of women participating in the
that participated in provided in the chapter of methods of primary articles. experiments and divided into (1) low and (2) high.
data collection
Moderators associated with economic and cultural contexts
HDI index The human development index (HDI) was classified into two groups: low and high. 0 = low
This classification was based on the origin of the collection of the works and the 1 = high
median value assigned by the United Nations (UN)
Cultural orientation The origin of the countries of study was separated into two respective cultural 0 = Western
orientations. This separation was based on the parameters of Hofstede (2011). 1 = Eastern
(Continued)
Variable Description and Operationalization Coding scheme and data description
Power distance The power distance comprises the ‘extent to which the less powerful members of 0 = High
institutions and organisations within a country expect and accept that power is 1 = Low
distributed unequally’ (Hofstede, 2011, p.26). This separation occurred from the
origin of the study application and was based on the parameters established by
Hofstede (2011) obtained from the median of the indices of each country.
Individualism level The individualism level is ‘the degree of interdependence a society maintains among 0 = High
its members’ (Hofsted, 2011, p. 26). This classification also apply the median 1 = Low
analysis by Hofstede (2011) parameters.
Uncertainty avoidance The uncertainty avoidance represent ‘the extent to which the members of a culture 0 = High
feel threatened by ambiguous or unknown situations and have created beliefs and 1 = Low
institutions that try to avoid these’ (Minkov & Hofstede, 2013, p. 1). We apply the
same procedure made in the other cultural dimensions.
Long term orientation The long term orientation comprises ‘how every society has to maintain some links 0 = High
with its own past while dealing with the challenges of the present and future’. 1 = Low
(Minkov & Hofstede, 2013, p.1). We apply the same procedure made in the other
cultural dimensions.
Indulgence level The indulgence level is ‘the extent to which people try to control their desires and 0 = High
impulses’ (Minkov & Hofstede, 2013, p. 1). We apply the same procedure made in 1 = Low
the other cultural dimensions.
Masculinity level The masculinity level ‘is what motivates people, wanting to be the best (Masculine) 0 = High
or liking what you do (Feminine)’ (Minkov & Hofstede, 2013, p. 1). We apply the 1 = Low
same procedure made in the other cultural dimensions.
1721
1722
Table 5. Homa results and projection of failsafe number of top-down factors.

Summarising the study Heterogeneity Coefficients of Current status of research
characteristics Describing Effect Size Distributions tests robustness domain
Consumer motivations k 6 N Effect r ICI (95%) .328 Z 6,484 Q 104.51 FSN* 1134 Expected Sign +
O 23 2,459 .453 ICS (95%) .562 p-value .000 I2 84.69 FSN** 138 Expectation Supported
√
Brand familiarity k 15 N Effect r ICI (95%) −.271 Z 1.263 Q 667.07 FSN* NC Expected Sign -
2
O 22 5,603 −.108 ICS (95%) .060 p-value .207 I 96.85 FSN** NC Expectation Supported NO
Amount of time spent k 11 N Effect r ICI (95%) .222 Z 5.538 Q 150.00 FSN* 1388 Expected Sign +
O 19 2,662 .336 ICS (95%) .441 p-value .000 I2 88.00 FSN** 153 Expectation Supported √
Time pressure condition k 10 N Effect r ICI (95%) .172 Z 2,878 Q 352.72 FSN* 708 Expected Sign +
2
O 15 766 .495 ICS (95%) .723 p-value .000 I 96.03 FSN** 127 Expectation Supported √
Health consciousness k 3 N Effect r ICI (95%) .028 Z 2,111 Q 197.94 FSN* 357 Expected Sign +
Knowledge k 4 N Effect r ICI (95%) −.004 Z 1.943 Q 143.42 FSN* NC Expected Sign +
2
O 5 243 .458 ICS (95%) .759 p-value .052 I 97.21 FSN** NC Expectation Supported NO
Memory performance k 9 N Effect r ICI (95%) .252 Z 7.119 Q 34.47 FSN* 474 Expected Sign +
Product involvement k 11 N Effect r ICI (95%) .373 Z 6.229 Q 438.89 FSN* 3297 Expected Sign +
2
O 18 3,697 .517 ICS (95%) .637 p-value .000 I 96.35 FSN** 120 Expectation Supported √
Recall k 16 N Effect r ICI (95%) .259 Z 11.09 Q 794.33 FSN* 5557 Expected Sign +
Recognition k 12 N Effect r ICI (95%) .212 Z 4.891 Q 145.93 FSN* 496 Expected Sign +
2
Note: (k) number of studies used from the analysis; (O) number of observations taken from the analysis of the studies; (N) number of accumulated samples of the assessed studies; Effect
r = correlation found in the studies; ICI (95%) = confidence interval lower; ICS (95%) = confidence interval higher; p-value = degree of significance of the effect size (*p < .10; **p < .05;
***p < .01); Z = Standard score; Q = test of heterogeneity at the individual; I2 = scale-free index of heterogeneity; Expectation Supported = + positive relationship (compared with base
level); − negative relationship; -/+ ambiguous relationship, N.A. stands for not applicable; FSN Rosenthal parameters = number of items needed for a false result; FSN Orwin
parameters = number of items needed for a false result; NC = Not calculated because the effect size was not significant (p > .05).
The effect size associated with visual attention was divided into three types of factors:
(1) top-down, (2) bottom-up and (3) evaluation variables. The top-down factors evalu-
ated 148 effect sizes divided into 10 variables: consumer motivations, brand familiarity,
amount of time spent, time-pressure conditions, health consciousness, knowledge,
memory performance, product involvement, recall and recognition, as can be seen in
Table 5. The bottom-up factors evaluated 374 effect sizes divided into 14 variables:
visual complexity, number of acquisitions, perceived amount of information, competi-
tion for attention, size of the product, visual area of advertising, visual area of body text,
visual area of branding, visual area of the headline, visual area of labelling, visual area of
nutritional information, visual area of pictorial information, visual area of pricing and
visual area of traffic light system. The evaluation factor analysed 183 effect sizes divided
into seven variables: attitude, attractiveness, consumer choice, accuracy, preference,
purchase intention and word of mouth. Finally, 75 effect sizes were not used because
they did not have at least three equal variables for use in the calculations in the meta-
analysis.
The articles were extracted from scientific studies published between 1989 and 2018,
and the data collection described in the primary articles was carried out in 30 different
countries. The scenes in which the theory of attention to visual marketing was analysed
occurred in several areas of marketing: display (n = 301), print advertising (n = 230), web
advertising (n = 131), package design (n = 98) and brand (n = 21).
Meta-analytic procedure
The effect size metric for the meta-analysis is the correlation coefficient. Since this is
a meta-analysis in which the primary data were collected through experiments, we
followed the procedures suggested (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) for conversion to the
Pearson correlation (r). Student’s t and F-ratio statistics were determined based on the
formulas suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004).
Once the effect sizes of each relationship were collected, they were corrected for
sample size (Hedges & Olkin, 1985) and the effect-size random effect was applied, as
suggested by Hunter and Schmidt (2004). In this sense, the correlations were trans-
formed using Fisher’s z-transformation. The upper and lower confidence interval index
was also analysed at the 95% level, giving an estimate of the mean range of corrected
weighted correlations (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004).
In order to analyse the level of heterogeneity in the studies, Q and I2 tests were used.
The former, known as Cochran’s Q, verifies whether the data found in a primary study
refute the null hypothesis, i.e., if the null hypothesis is confirmed (p > .05), the studies are
considered homogeneous (Lau, Ioannidis, & Schmid, 1998). The I2 statistic is obtained via
the Q statistic and can range from zero to 100%. Studies with a 25% index show low
heterogeneity, studies with values around 50% show moderate heterogeneity and values
over 75% indicate high heterogeneity (Higgins, Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003).
The coding of the studies in the moderated relationships was carried out by two
researchers. However, before the beginning of this activity, the criteria were discussed
among all the authors of this study. Subsequently, the coding was performed in isola-
tion. After the coding was completed, results from the two researchers were compared.
A concordance index of 93% for the cases was obtained. In cases where there was no
consensus, a third researcher served as a judge. In these cases, the dubious elements
were analysed together in group meetings.
Finally, for the significant direct relationships, the fail-safe number (FSN) index was
analysed. This estimate allows us to evaluate the number of non-significant or unpub-
lished studies necessary to refute the findings in this research (Orwin, 1983; Rosenthal,
1979). This analysis enabled us to evaluate whether the effect observed in the relation-
ships was sufficiently robust (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). Thus, the
higher the ratio, the higher the robustness of the result. The two parameters (Rosenthal’s
index and Orwin’s index) were used because both are commonly employed in meta-
analytical studies, although in different ways.
The Orwin (1983) parameter proposes a variant of Rosenthal’s formula, allowing
a researcher to stipulate how many missing studies would be required to raise the
overall effect to a specified level other than zero (Borenstein et al., 2009).
The Rosenthal (1979) parameter assesses the number of hidden studies required to render
the effect of a meta-analysis non-significant, rather than investigating the number of unpub-
lished studies required to reduce the observed effect to the point of non-significance. This
parameter has been criticised because it focuses on the question of statistical significance.
Furthermore, this parameter assumes that the size of the effects in the hidden studies is zero,
when in fact they may be negative or positive with a lower strength. This increases the
number of studies required to increase the effect (Borenstein et al., 2009).
Results
The results of this meta-analysis are presented from two perspectives: (i) HOMA and (ii)
HiLMA. The HOMA method (Hedges-Okin meta-analysis) comprises the steps described
above with respect to the conversion of the values to the correlation level and their
corrections from the transformation of the effect via Fisher’s z. The HiLMA method (hier-
archical linear meta-analysis) serves to evaluate the moderating effects, since it uses
a multivariate format based on regressions (Geyskens, Krishnan, Steenkamp, & Cunha, 2009).
HOMA results for top-down factors

The random-effects HOMA was evaluated for ten top-down factors: consumer motiva-
tions, brand familiarity, amount of time spent, time-pressure conditions, health con-
sciousness, knowledge, memory performance, product involvement, recall, and
recognition.
For the first relationship, the HOMA results provide evidence that consumer motiva-
tions have a positive impact on visual attention (r = .453; p < .001). This relationship
appears to be consistent in the findings (FSN Rosenthal = 1,134; FSN Orwin = 138) indicating
that an individual’s propensity towards experiential motivations for shopping may
directly impact visual attention.
The brand familiarity construct did not show any significance relationship with visual
attention (r = −.108; p = .201). In addition, we can infer that there is a significant and positive
relationship between the amount of time spent and visual attention (r = .336; p < .001). This
implies that the greater the amount of time the consumer spends on a product, display or
brand, the greater his or her visual attention (Zander & Hamm, 2010).
Regarding the variable representing time-pressure conditions (r = .495; p < .001) the
HOMA results demonstrated a positive and significant relationship with visual attention.
From the random-effects HOMA, we conclude that there is an overall significant and
positive relationship between health consciousness and visual attention (r = .375;
p < .05), which is non-negligible (Ran et al., 2017). This result is consistent (FSN
Rosenthal = 357; FSN Orwin = 55) indicating that the propensity to have a lifestyle oriented
towards the prevention of health problems can increase the visual perception of the
consumer with respect to a product.
The relationship between knowledge and visual attention had a positive but not
significant effect (r = .458; p = .052). On the other hand, the HOMA results provide
evidence that memory performance (r = .342; p < .001) and product involvement
(r = .517; p < .001) interact positively with visual attention. In this case, we note that
the relationship between product involvement and visual attention is more robust than
between memory performance and visual attention (FSN Rosenthal = 3,297; FSN
Orwin = 120; FSN Rosenthal = 474; FSN Orwin = 66, respectively).
Overall, we also find positive and statistically significant sizes for the constructs of
recall (r = .312; p < .001) and recognition (r = .344; p < .001). These results indicate
that the ability to correctly retrieve information from memory and the ability to
remember something from the past can directly affect visual attention (Chandon
et al., 2009; Rosbergen, Pieters, & Wedel, 1997). We note that the results are not
especially consistent, if we consider Orwin’s parameters (FSN Orwin = 11 and 6,
respectively).
HOMA results for bottom-up factors

The systematic review detected 14 constructs associated with bottom-up factors: visual
complexity, number of acquisitions, perceived amount of information, competition for
attention, size of the product, visual area of advertising, visual area of body text, visual
area of branding, visual area of the headline, visual area of labelling, visual area of
nutritional information, visual area of pictorial information, visual area of pricing and
visual area of the traffic light system.
Based on the results in Table 6, the relationship between visual complexity and visual
attention is positive and significant (r = .664; p < .001). This result indicates that the
greater the complexity of a scene, the greater the visual attention of the consumer
(Pieters et al., 2010). Both findings were consistent (FSN Orwin = 153; 286).
The number of acquisitions has been shown to have a positive and significant
influence on visual attention (r = .489; p < .001; FSN Rosenthal = 148; FSN Orwin = 32).
This indicates that the number of products a consumer wishes to acquire will directly
influence the number of saccades and fixations. Similarly, the perceived amount of
information also has a positive and non-negligible significant effect on visual attention
(r = .493; p < .001) (Pieters et al., 1999). The quantity of product information available on
labels, websites and displays directly influences visual attention.
The competition for attention variable has been shown to have an inverse relation-
ship with visual attention (r = −.323; p < .001). The results show that the higher the level
of competition, the lower the visual attention of the consumer (Nordfält, 2011).
Regarding the variable representing the size of the product (r = .476; p < .001), the
1726
Table 6. Homa results and projection of failsafe number of bottom-up factors.

Summarising the study Heterogeneity Coefficients of Current status of research
characteristics Describing Effect Size Distributions tests robustness domain
Visual complexity k 8 N Effect r ICI (95%) .617 Z 32.94 Q 735.80 FSN* 3445 Expected Sign +
Number of acquisition k 7 N Effect r ICI (95%) .229 Z 3,472 Q 892.58 FSN* 2257 Expected Sign +
2
Perceived amount of information k 10 N Effect r ICI (95%) .345 Z 5,865 Q 216,92 FSN* 1616 Expected Sign +
O 19 1,687 .493 ICS (95%) 617 p-value .000 I2 91.70 FSN** 148 Expectation Supported
√
The competition for attention k 6 N Effect r ICI (95%) −.545 Z −2.38 Q 548.65 FSN* 416 Expected Sign +
2
O 11 2,315 −.323 ICS (95%) −.060 p-value .000 I 97.08 FSN** 32 Expectation Supported √
The size of the product k 8 N Effect r ICI (95%) .320 Z 5,443 Q 68.24 FSN* 634 Expected Sign +
O 10 970 .476 ICS (95%) .607 p-value .000 I2 86.81 FSN** 107 Expectation Supported √
Visual area of advertising k 13 N Effect r ICI (95%) .228 Z 5.686 Q 4100.2 FSN* 6729 Expected Sign +
2
Visual area of body text k 18 N Effect r ICI (95%) .391 Z 10,43 Q 7856.28 FSN* 10,003 Expected Sign +
Visual area of brand k 20 N Effect r ICI (95%) .228 Z 8.689 Q 526.12 FSN* 3,344 Expected Sign +
2
Visual area of headline k 4 N Effect r ICI (95%) 371 Z 79.21 Q 2308.6 FSN* 5,536 Expected Sign +
Visual area of label k 13 N Effect r ICI (95%) .149 Z 4.758 Q 378.56 FSN* 1,694 Expected Sign +
2
Visual area nutritional information K 7 N Effect r ICI (95%) .416 Z 5.622 Q 115.69 FSN* 983 Expected Sign +
Visual area of pictorial k 23 N Effect r ICI (95%) .318 Z 9,736 Q 6106.4 FSN* 5,273 Expected Sign +
2
Visual area of price K 21 N Effect r ICI (95%) .297 Z 8.261 Q 290.13 FSN* 4,420 Expected Sign +
Visual area of traffic light system k 3 N Effect r ICI (95%) −.36 Z .0879 Q 485.73 FSN* NC Expected Sign +
2
O 10 467 .302 ICS (95%) .764 p-value .379 I 98.14 FSN** NC Expectation Supported NO
Table 7. Homa results of evaluation variables.
Summarising the study
characteristics Describing Effect Size Distributions Heterogeneity tests Coefficients of robustness Current status of research domain
Attitude k 11 N Effect r ICI (95%) .297 Z 5.33 Q 421.26 FSN* 2,697 Expected Sign +
Attractiveness k 3 N Effect r ICI (95%) .418 Z 3.52 Q 324.53 FSN* 1,113 Expected Sign +
Consumer choice k 39 N Effect r ICI (95%) .459 Z 11.35 Q 1628.75 FSN* 1,114 Expected Sign +
2
Decision Accuracy k 6 N Effect r ICI (95%) .175 Z 3.34 Q 37.37 FSN* 131 Expected Sign +
Preference k 9 N Effect r ICI (95%) −169 Z .82 Q 166.84 FSN* NC Expected Sign +
2
O 10 2,070 .122 ICS (95%) .394 p-value .412 I 94.6 FSN** NC Expectation Supported NO
Purchase Intention k 20 N Effect r ICI (95%) .352 Z 9.67 Q 991.33 FSN* 8,013 Expected Sign +
Word-of-mouth k 3 N Effect r ICI (95%) .116 Z 2.80 Q 14.78 FSN* 33 Expected Sign +
2
O 4 364 .371 ICS (95%) .580 p-value .047 I 79.7 FSN** 19 Expectation Supported √
1727
HOMA results demonstrated a positive and significant relationship with visual attention,
as can be seen in Table 7. These relationships have proven to involve highly consistent
FSN values.
The bottom-up factors included nine variables which measured the influence of the
visual area on increased visual attention. Of these relationships, only the visual area of
the traffic light system had no significant relationship with visual attention (r = .302;
p = .379). All other relationships had positive and meaningful relationships with visual
attention. According to the Orwin parameters, we observe that the more consistent
relationship was between the visual area of the body text and visual attention
(FSN = 232), followed by the relationship between the visual area of pricing and visual
attention (FSN = 199) and the visual area of nutritional information and visual attention
(FSN = 157).
Other relationships showed moderate consistency, for example, between the visual area
of the headline and visual attention (FSN Orwin = 84) and between the visual area of labelling
and visual attention (FSN Orwin = 95). Finally, the remaining relationship constructs showed
less consistency between the visual area of advertising (FSN Orwin = 40), the visual area of
branding (FSN Orwin = 25) and the visual area of pictorial information (FSN Orwin = 55).
HOMA results for evaluation variables

The HOMA calculations also examined the relationship between visual attention and its
impact on evaluation factors. The first relationship tested was attitude. Visual attention
has been shown to have a positive and consistent impact on attitude (r = .525; p < .001;
FSN Rosenthal = 2,697; FSN Orwin = 155), confirming claims made in previous articles (Cian
et al., 2014; Folkes & Matta, 2004; Kim & Lennon, 2008).
Visual attention has been shown to have a positive impact on attractiveness (r = .763;
p < .01) and consumer choice (r = .537; p < .001). The results proved to be consistent in
the case of attractiveness (FSN Rosenthal = 1,113; FSN Orwin = 120) and consumer choice
(FSN Rosenthal = 1,114; FSN Orwin = 146).
The relationship between visual attention and decision accuracy was positive and
significant (r = .405; p < .001; FSN Rosenthal = 131; FSN Orwin = 71). This implies that
increasing the saccades and fixations tends to result in consumers making better
decisions with less effort. In contrast, the relationship between visual attention and
preference had no significant effect (r = .122; p = .412).
Finally, we analysed, through HOMA, the relationships involving purchase intention and
word of mouth. These variables were shown to have positive and significant relationships
with visual attention (purchase intention: r = .432; p < .001; word of mouth: r = .371; p < .05).
In this case, the results for purchase intention were shown to be consistent (FSN
Rosenthal = 8,013; FSN Orwin = 131) and weak in terms of the relationship between visual
attention and word of mouth (FSN Rosenthal = 33; FSN Orwin = 19).
HiLMA results for moderating relationships

The direct relationships in these meta-analyses were shown to be significant. However,
a high heterogeneity was observed in these relationships according to Cochran’s Q-test
and the scale-free index of homogeneity, I2. For this reason, we have selected
relationships with the largest effect sizes for testing via moderators. Using the same
procedure of preview approaches (Schepers & Wetzels, 2007) and taking into account
conceptual and methodological aspects of the data sets, we decided to classify mod-
erators into three groups: moderators associated (1) with the scene; (2) with the
characteristics of the data collection and; (3) with economic and cultural contexts. By
analysing these three groups of moderators, we filled the gaps in the visual attention
literature and addressed some important shortcomings and inconsistencies found in
past studies.
Table 8 shows the results of the back-transformed estimates (ßa) of the HiLMA
method and the back-transformed predicted correlations (ra) in the existential relations
between (1) visual attention and consumer choice and (2) visual attention and purchase
intention.
Moderators associated with the scene were evaluated through HiLMA using five
variables: the retail object used to measure the eye movements, scenes containing
images of food, the number of competing products in the scene, the competing brands,
and the people in the scene.
The findings showed that scenes containing food proved to be more effective than
scenes not containing food. In this case, the presence of food in the scenes tended to
increase the number of fixations and saccades, thus causing an increase in consumer
choice (r Yes = .567; r No = .389; p < .05) and purchase intention (r Yes = .53; r No = .254;
p < .001).
The number of competing products in the scene tends to generate a strong
influence on consumer choice (r High = .568; r Low = .42; p < .05) and purchase
intention (r High = .553; r Low = .279; p < .001). In this specific case, the presence of
a higher number of products tended to directly influence an increase in visual atten-
tion, thereby increasing the probability of consumption.
The competing brands variable was the only variable with a confounding effect on
the relationship between visual attention and purchase intention. The moderating effect
showed that the greater the competition between brands, the stronger the relationship
between attention and purchase intention (r High = .457; r Low = .292; p < .05).
The moderators associated with the characteristics of data collection (classification of
measures, types of eye-tracking used in the data collection, specification of eye-tracking
machines, gaze sampling frequency and percentage of women participating in the data
collection) did not prove to be significant in the relationships studied.
Finally, we analysed possible moderators associated with economic and cultural
contexts (human development index, cultural orientation, power distance, individualism
level, uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, indulgence and masculinity level). In
the relationship between visual attention and consumer choice, we observed
a significant moderation effect of the masculinity level. In this case, the relation was
stronger in cultures with a low masculinity level than cultures with a high masculinity
level (r High = .493; r Low = .252; p < .05).
We also found a significant moderation effect of the relation between visual attention and
purchase intention. In this case, we discovered that cultures with a low level of individualism (r
High
= .260; r Low = .539; p < .001) and a low level of indulgence (r High = .317; r Low = .603;
p < .01) presents stronger effect sizes than cultures with a higher level of individualism and
1730
Table 8. HiLMA results of moderation variables.

Visual attention – > Visual attention – >
Consumer choice Purchase intention
Types of moderation Variables Levels ß n r p-value ß n r p-value
Moderators associated with the scene Retail object that was measured the eye Intercept .557 .000 .499 .000
movements Display 1 7,102 .474 1 4,454 .427
Web advertising −.222 437 .317 ns −.241 167 .228 ns
Package design .289 484 .591 ns N.A N.A N.A N.A
Print advertising .170 836 .549 ns N.A N.A N.A N.A
The scenes had the image of food Intercept .464 .001 .279 .001
Yes 1 6,263 .567 1 3,406 .53
No .255 1,633 .389 .05 .376 1,215 .254 .001
Quantity competing products on the scene Intercept .709 .000 .684 .000
High 1 3,807 .568 1 1,134 .553
Low −.195 4,072 .420 .05 −.373 3,487 .279 .001
The brands were competing Intercept .562 .000 .339 .000
Low 1 3,189 .447 1 1,799 .292
High .057 4,552 .506 ns .202 4,621 .457 .05
People on the scene Intercept .593 .000 .427 .000
Presence 1 7,524 .481 1 3,974 .401
Absence .089 355 .566 ns −.037 647 .372 ns
Moderators associated with the characteristics of Classification of measures Intercept .567 .000 .491 .000
data collection Space 1 4,751 .461 1 2,420 .409
Temporal .094 3,244 .534 ns −.137 2,201 .323 ns
Types of eye-tracking used in data collection Intercept .584 .000 .489 .001
Screen-based eye tracker 1 3,187 .466 1 1,019 .367
Eye tracker to capture natural .026 4,692 .506 ns .043 3,549 .397 Ns
viewing
Specification of eye tracking machines Intercept .519 .000 .544 .000
Static 1 3,133 .442 1 1,182 .369
Mobile .031 4,721 .493 ns .025 3,712 .387 ns
Gaze sampling frequency Intercept .277 .05 N.A N.A
120 Hz 1 233 .269 N.A N.A N.A
60 Hz .59 3,007 .640 ns N.A N.A N.A N.A
50 Hz .097 260 .351 ns N.A N.A N.A N.A
30 Hz .310 264 .528 ns N.A N.A N.A N.A
Percentage of women that participated in Intercept .657 .000 .52 .000
data collection High 1 345 .497 1 364 .474
Low −.128 2,784 .456 ns .190 383 .562 ns
(Continued)
Visual attention – > Visual attention – >
Consumer choice Purchase intention
Types of moderation Variables Levels ß n r p-value ß n r p-value
Moderators associated with the economic and IDH index Intercept .531 .000 .402 .000
cultural contexts High 1 7,226 .392 1 10,278 .382
Low .024 3,112 .469 ns −.038 949 .391 ns
Cultural orientation Intercept .533 .000 N.A .001
Western 1 7,860 .489 N.A N.A N.A
Eastern .065 2,478 .424 ns . N.A N.A N.A N.A
Power Distance Intercept .586 .000 .260 .000
High 1 4,668 .464 1 9,554 .570
Low −.058 5,670 .393 ns .409 1,673 .239 .01
Individualism level Intercept .420 .000 .288 .001
High 1 6,419 .356 1 9,184 .260
Low .179 3,781 .467 ns .395 2,043 .539 .001
Uncertainty avoidance Intercept .454 .000 .644 .000
High 1 4,971 .353 1 10,156 .498
Low .179 5,300 .509 ns .078 1,071 .603 ns
Long term orientation Intercept .483 .000 .650 .001
High 1 3,491 .393 1 9,150 .498
Low .015 6,847 .400 ns −.349 2,077 .272 Ns
Indulgence level Intercept .520 .000 .362 .000
High 1 3,716 .406 1 10,625 .317
Low .078 6,622 .464 ns .364 602 .603 .01
Masculinity level Intercept .306 .000 .491 .000
High 1 5,226 .252 1 9,184 .332
Low .299 5,112 .493 .05 .284 2,043 .527 ns
1731
indulgence, respectively. On the other hand, stronger effects sizes are present in cultures with
a higher level of power distance (r High = .570; r Low = .239; p < .01).
Discussion
This meta-analysis examined the convergences and divergences of previous research
encompassed within the theory of visual marketing, by testing and applying an under-
standing of the effects of top-down and bottom-up factors on visual attention and the
effect of visual attention on different types of consumer evaluations. An ordered synth-
esis of the different types of empirical results involving visual attention in the marketing
area was performed in this study. Eye-tracking studies directly analysing visual attention
comprise experiments which initially demonstrate particularly complex relationships.
This research involved a meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between ante-
cedents, consequents and moderators of visual attention. Thus, a systematic review was
carried out to analyse 201 empirical articles, in turn generating a total of 781 effect sizes.
The results of this systematic review identified three main dimensions (top-down,
bottom-up and visual attention outcomes), in which we distributed 24 antecedent and
seven consequent constructs. Additionally, we tested 17 possible moderators distributed
into three main dimensions (moderators associated with scene, with data collection, and
with economic and cultural contexts).
Prior research has found that there are individual differences in top-down and
bottom-up factors (Chandon et al., 2009; Janiszewski, 1998; Lindstrom et al., 2016).
However, these studies do not describe all these relations together, but instead verify
their possible effect sizes. This meta-analysis proposes a clearer description of top-down
and bottom-up factors and thus a better understanding of the theory of attention in
visual marketing. Our research describes and deepens the interrelationships between
these two factors in visual attention, demonstrating the differences between the vari-
ables that compose them. For example, for top-down factors, it was possible to verify
that the variable with the greatest impact on visual attention is product involvement,
while the variable with the least significant impact is recall. For bottom-up factors, the
variable with the greatest positive and significant impact on visual attention is visual
complexity, while the variable with the least impact is the visual area of the label.
Analysing the top-down factors, the results show consistent effect sizes for several
relationships (e.g. product involvement, consumer motivations and health). These results
are interesting in the following ways. First, the consistency found in the positive relation-
ship between visual attention and product involvement undermines the theoretical
debates (e.g. Clement et al., 2013) insisting that prior experience of product involvement
might diminish the visual attention of consumers. Second, the meta-analysis demon-
strated a significant positive effect of the relationship between visual attention and
consumer motivation, which is in line with the theoretical claim that consumer motiva-
tion, as one additional effort, signals the instrumentality of the target product in order to
fulfil a consumer’s goal, resulting in enhanced evaluations (Orth & Crouch, 2014). These
finds are contrary to theoretical claims linking consumer motivation with less visual
attention due to a low level of learning across tasks (Pieters & Wedel, 2004). Third, the
analysed studies reinforce the view that health-conscious people require more detailed
product characteristics and information because they are more worried about their body
and health (Reale & Flint, 2016).
Concerning bottom-up factors, we also find interesting results which contribute to
improved knowledge about the visual attention phenomenon. We observed a strong
effect size between visual complexity and visual attention. These results were expected
because complexity encourages more visual attention effort. However, it is important to
note that, in this case, a greater amount of visual attention promoted in the complexity
context will not necessary promote more attractiveness perceptions (Orth & Crouch,
2014). In the same vein, this finding is reinforced by the positive relationship found
between the perceived amount of information and visual attention. Another interesting
result is related to the positive relationship between time-pressure conditions and visual
attention. At the same time, this finding demonstrates that, as the consumer shortens
his or her search process, he or she seeks more detailed information about a product
and its characteristics (Clement et al., 2013).
The direct relationships tested also demonstrated strong effects in terms of the
relationship between visual attention consequences such as attitude, attractiveness
and consumer choice. In turn, this reinforces the findings of other studies (e.g. Orth &
Crouch, 2014), which highlight the positive outcomes for firms capable of attracting the
attention of consumers.
Although the current meta-analysis documented several significant direct relationships
between visual attention and top-down factors, bottom-up factors and evaluation factors,
given the unexplained heterogeneity observed in the effect sizes, we chose to analyse some
moderators. We also found interesting results from performing a moderation analysis.
Among the moderators associated with the scene, we identified significant moderation
effects in relation to the type of image, the amount of competition and branding in the
scene, as captured by eye-tracking. In the moderation analysis of the type of image, the
stronger relationship between visual attention and consumer choice/purchase can be
related to the greater propensity towards the risk perception that food choices can promote
when compared to traditional products (Auler, Teixeira, & Nardi, 2017). Thus, in this case,
consumers tend to demand more detailed information, formats and designs (Tzafilkou &
Protogeros, 2017). Concerning the amount of competition and brand offers, we detected
positive moderation effects. Therefore, if the scene presents more products and brands, the
effect sizes between visual attention and consumer responses (choice/purchase) will be
stronger. These results are congruent with theoretical claims that complexity (Orth &
Crouch, 2014) enhances consumer attention in the process of task consumption.
Cultural moderation effects were also detected. In this case, Hofstede’s (2011) cultural
dimensions demonstrated stronger effect sizes in the case of Eastern consumers’ orien-
tations. To this extent, we observed stronger effect sizes between visual attention and
consumer purchases in research carried out in cultures with less power distance,
individualism and indulgence. In the relationship between visual attention and consu-
mer choice, we found stronger effect sizes in cultures with a low masculinity level. This
result suggests that Eastern consumers require more details than Western consumers in
order to process the information available at the scene and are congruent to the
theoretical claim that Eastern consumers take a more holistic approach when processing
offer information (Boduroglu et al., 2009; Nisbett & Miyamoto, 2005).
Implications for researchers and managers

The meta-analysis of visual attention described in this paper provides objective evidence
of the effects of top-down and bottom-up factors on attention. In addition, visual
attention tends to influence consumer evaluations. These three dimensions represent
factors which already exist within the individual factors related to the design package
and/or placement of the product, as well as consumer-related consequences. In contrast
with previously published reviews of eye-tracking techniques, this meta-analysis system-
atically retrieved all studies supporting the strong argument that consumers’ evaluations
can be explained by the theory of attention to visual marketing.
Thus, this study overcame possible biases associated with previous research and its
respective limitations. This is because the methodology used in this case improved on
conventional theoretical surveys due to the integration of the effect sizes of several
previous studies and the generation of a uniquely generalisable effect (Robinson &
Dickersin, 2002). According to Hunter and Schmidt (2004), the generalisable findings
obtained in our meta-analysis are not possible in any other type of primary study. Thus,
researchers and students investigating the theory of attention to visual marketing now
have an updated table of effect sizes produced by visual attention, which can be used in
comparing and evaluating their research.
In addition to providing insights into visual attention and its possible relationships, as
found in academic marketing studies, the present research classifies effect sizes accord-
ing to a variety of study conditions. In other words, the results provide empirical
evidence of what constitutes visual attention effect size in selected research situations
(small, medium or large).
Marketing scholars have identified and analysed several relationships between visual
attention and retail conditions (visual complexity, number of acquisitions, perceived
amount of information, competition for attention, size of the product and time-
pressure conditions). Our meta-analysis allows us to generalise the effects of visual
attention within the retail environment.
The results from this study offer great support to managers involved in decision-
making because our meta-analytic findings are robust (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Thus,
managers can maximise visual attention in relation to their offers in some respects.
First, consumer segmentation can be useful in promoting visual attention strategies
since the results demonstrate that consumer involvement and motivation significantly
affect visual perception. In turn, products that evoke less involvement or non-
experimental motivation will require more effort in attracting attention. In this case,
the visual area of products or offers should more efficiently attract attention, given
that, as we detected in this study, there is a positive effect of visual attention on the
area of advertising, the body of text, the headline, labelling and branding. It also
noteworthy that health product managers should offer more detailed product infor-
mation because health-conscious consumers are more inclined to search out data
(Reale & Flint, 2016).
Second, the results demonstrate that the pressure of time leads to more visual
attention. In this way, promotions that foster this feeling, could be a good way to
stimulate more visual attention and, consequently, deliver firms’ outcomes. These
strategies are typically applied in sales promotion theory to promote more sales (Tan &
Chua, 2004).
Third, the context of offer presentations prompt different consumer responses. The
results suggest that the food industry tends to be more attentive in terms of information
about offers because consumers in this segment appear to have a greater perception of
risk (Auler et al., 2017). The results also suggest that products and the exposure of
competitors encourage more visual effort on the part of consumers, which confirms the
effectiveness of merchandising strategies targeted at consumer choice at the point of
sale (Curhan, 1974). Fourth, the cultural element should also be considered by marketing
managers since Eastern consumers demand more detail in order to process information
than Western consumers (Boduroglu et al., 2009), meaning that the offers should be
adapted to reflect the appropriate cultural context.
The moderation effects associated with the scene yielded interesting implications for
academia and for future research. The results showed stronger effects for scenes con-
taining images of food and scenes where the competition between products is high.
This implies that commercial scenes containing food products tend to increase the
number of fixations and saccades on the part of the consumer.
This meta-analysis assists with the sensory strategies of product exposure and the
development of packaging and labels. Managers need to pursue different implementa-
tion strategies in order to attract consumers’ attention to their products. They should
also be aware that visual attention can be produced by the characteristics of a store or
product (bottom-up factors), as well as by the construction of a long-term visual
memory (top-down factors), and that these factors are important for shaping consumer
assessments (attitude, attractiveness, consumer choice, decision accuracy, purchase
intention and word of mouth).
Limitations and directions for further research

This meta-analysis has some limitations with respect to data collection and analysis. As
far as data collection is concerned, this is limited by the variables provided in primary
studies. Further, it is not possible to add to the calculations by using articles considered
as bibliographical reviews. Another point to be cautious about is the fact that variables
related to visual attention were defined and operationalised differently in the different
experiments on the primary data. In this sense, a good understanding of data analysis
should lead to caution, because the direct relationships demonstrate a high degree of
heterogeneity. That said, the use of effect sizes in the meta-analysis and the non-
significant moderation results mitigate doubts about the findings. In addition, care
must be taken when using moderators with small samples (consumer choice: n= 68;
purchase intention: n = 30).
Another limitation concerns the number of comparative observations among the mod-
erators. In the moderator concerning scenes with an image of food, food or food-related
products was/were not considered in only five out of the 30 variables. In this way,
a limitation refers to the validity of results beyond food products category. This fact does
not invalidate the results of the meta-analysis. However, larger amounts of variables should
deliver more robust results. We expect that, with access to an even greater range of studies
related to visual attention in the future, it will be possible to investigate other relationships
(e.g. uniqueness, shopping frequency, trust and promotions) which have not been tested in
the present study because we did not generate a minimum of three relationships, which is
necessary to perform the meta-analysis (Hedges & Olkin, 1985).
In general, we have also shown that there is a proliferation of methods for measuring
relationships in current visual attention studies, thereby hindering theoretical integration
and providing material for future research. Despite these limitations, this meta-analysis
contributes in an important way to the understanding of the existing relationships in the
theory of attention to visual marketing. We found direct relationships between top-down
and bottom-up factors and visual attention. In addition, we demonstrated that visual
attention impacts consumer evaluations.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Wagner Junior Ladeira is a researcher at CNPq (Productivity Scholarship) and an eye tracking
techniques specialist, having a degree in Business Administration from the Federal University of
Viçosa (2003), a master's degree in Business Administration from the Federal University of Rio
Grande do Sul (2006) and PhD in the area of Technology Management and Innovation at the
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (2011).
Vinicius Antonio Machado Nardi has a degree in Law (2008) and Technology in Management
Processes (2014), a specialist in Public Law (2010), a master's degree in Business Administration
(2014) and a PhD in Business Administration with a sandwich period from Università Degli Studi di
Firenze. Supply analyst at Embrapa Grape and Wine, serving as chairman of the bidding
committee.
Fernando de Oliveira Santini is a professor at the Graduate Program at the University of the Rio
dos Sinos Valley (UNISINOS). Coordinator of the Administration Course at UNISINOS. Doctorate in
Business Administration from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul - PUC / RS
(2013). Master in Business Administration from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do
Sul - PUC / RS (2010). Graduated in Advertising from Lutheran University of Brazil - ULBRA.
William Carvalho Jardim works in the Business Administration area, with emphasis in Marketing,
has experience in industrial financial management, performing planning, strategy and manage-
ment of industrial and corporate finance. Graduated from UNISINOS (University of the Rio dos
Sinos Valley), a renowned Brazilian university with the highest marks and distinctions in the area of
Management and Business, holds a CAPES Strictu Sensu scholarship from the UNISINOS Graduate
Program in Administration. Conducts marketing research in the area of Consumer Behavior, Visual
Attention, Priming Effect, using Eye tracking techniques and Meta Analysis methodology.
ORCID
Wagner Junior Ladeira http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1793-6206
Vinicius Antonio Machado Nardi http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5363-876X
Fernando de Oliveira Santini http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2161-0313
William Carvalho Jardim http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2821-2227
References
Aaker, D. A. (1992). The value of brand equity. Journal of Business Strategy, 13(4), 27–32.
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13(4), 411–454.
Andersen, N. E., Dahmani, L., Konishi, K., & Bohbot, V. D. (2012). Eye tracking, strategies, and sex
differences in virtual navigation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 97(1), 81–89.
Auler, D. P., Teixeira, R., & Nardi, V. (2017). Food safety as a field in supply chain management
studies: A systematic literature review. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,
20(1), 99–112.
Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and or fun - measuring hedonic and utilitarian
shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170.
Belopolsky, A. V., Schreij, D., & Theeuwes, J. (2010). What is top-down about contingent capture?
Attention Perception & Psychophysics, 72(2), 326–341.
Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the
choice process on consumer decision-processes - a protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer
Research, 7(3), 234–248.
Bialkova, S., Grunert, K. G., Juhl, H. J., Wasowicz-Kirylo, G., Stysko-Kunkowska, M., & van
Trijp, H. C. M. (2014). Attention mediates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers’
choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-tracking. Appetite, 76, 66–75.
Boduroglu, A., Shah, P., & Nisbett, R. E. (2009). Cultural differences in allocation of attention in
visual information processing. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 40(3), 349–360.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Front matter (chapter 30 –
Publication bias). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Chandon, P., Hutchinson, J. W., Bradlow, E. T., & Young, S. H. (2009). Does in-store marketing work?
Effects of the number and position of shelf facings on brand attention and evaluation at the
point of purchase. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 1–17.
Cian, L., Krishna, A., & Elder, R. S. (2014). This logo moves me: Dynamic imagery from static images.
Journal of Marketing Research, 51(2), 184–197.
Clement, J. (2007). Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment on the
visual influence of packaging design. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(9–10), 917–928.
Clement, J., Aastrup, J., & Forsberg, S. C. (2015). Decisive visual saliency and consumers’ in-store
decisions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 22, 187–194.
Clement, J., Kristensen, T., & Grønhaug, K. (2013). Understanding consumers’ in-store visual
perception: The influence of package design features on visual attention. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 20(3), 234–239.
Coulter, K. S. (2007). The effects of digit-direction on eye movement bias and price-rounding
behavior. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 16(7), 501–508.
Curhan, R. C. (1974). The effects of merchandising and temporary promotional activities on the
sales of fresh fruits and vegetables in supermarkets. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 286–294.
Day, R. F., Lin, C. H., Huang, W. H., & Chuang, S. H. (2009). Effects of music tempo and task difficulty
on multi-attribute decision-making: An eye-tracking approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 25
(1), 130–143.
Dholakia, U. M. (2001). A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk
perception. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1340–1362.
Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. Clemson, SC: Springer.
Folkes, V., & Matta, S. (2004). The effect of package shape on consumers’ judgments of product
volume: Attention as a mental contaminant. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 390–401.
Geyskens, I., Krishnan, R., Steenkamp, J., & Cunha, P. V. (2009). A review and evaluation of
meta-analysis practices in management research. Journal of Management, 35(2), 393–419.
Graham, D. J., Orquin, J. L., & Visschers, V. H. M. (2012). Eye tracking and nutrition label use: A review of
the literature and recommendations for label enhancement. Food Policy, 37(4), 378–382.
Harris, J. M., Ciorciari, J., & Gountas, J. (2018). Consumer neuroscience for marketing researchers.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(3), 239–252.
Hartmann, P., Apaolaza, V., & Alija, P. (2013). Nature imagery in advertising attention restoration
and memory effects. International Journal of Advertising, 32(2), 183–210.
Haubl, G., & Trifts, V. (2000). Consumer decision making in online shopping environments: The
effects of interactive decision aids. Marketing Science, 19(1), 4–21.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in
meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327(7414), 557–560.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 8.
Holbrook, M. B., & Schindler, R. M. (1991). Echoes of the dear departed past - some work in
progress on nostalgia. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 330–333.
Hong, S., Misra, K., & Vilcassim, N. J. (2016). The perils of category management: The effect of
product assortment on multicategory purchase incidence. Journal of Marketing, 80(5), 34–52.
Huddleston, P., Behe, B. K., Minahan, S., & Fernandez, R. T. (2015). Seeking attention: An eye
tracking study of in-store merchandise displays. International Journal of Retail & Distribution
Management, 43(6), 561-+.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research
findings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Janiszewski, C. (1998). The influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(3), 290–301.
Keller, K. L. (1987). Memory factors in advertising - the effect of advertising retrieval cues on brand
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 316–333.
Khachatryan, H., Rihn, A., Behe, B., Hall, C., Campbell, B., Dennis, J., & Yue, C. Y. (2018). Visual
attention, buying impulsiveness, and consumer behavior. Marketing Letters, 29(1), 23–35.
Kim, M., & Lennon, S. (2008). The effects of visual and verbal information on attitudes and
purchase intentions in internet shopping. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 146–178.
Kirchner, H., & Thorpe, S. J. (2006). Ultra-rapid object detection with saccadic eye movements:
Visual processing speed revisited. Vision Research, 46(11), 1762–1776.
Lai, M. L., Tsai, M. J., Yang, F. Y., Hsu, C. Y., Liu, T. C., Lee, S. W. Y., . . . Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of
using eye-tracking technology in exploring learning from 2000 to 2012. Educational Research
Review, 10, 90–115.
Lang, M., Kelley, J., & Moore, K. (2016). Simulated attention-tracking methodologies: An examina-
tion of measurement efficacy. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 22(8), 872–890.
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Schmid, C. H. (1998). Summing up evidence: One answer is not always
enough. Lancet, 351(9096), 123–127.
Lee, J., & Ahn, J. H. (2012). Attention to banner ads and their effectiveness: An eye-tracking
approach. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 17(1), 119–137.
Lindstrom, A., Berg, H., Nordfalt, J., Roggeveen, A. L., & Grewal, D. (2016). Does the presence of
a mannequin head change shopping behavior? Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 517–524.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Meiner, M., Musalem, A., & Huber, J. (2016). Eye tracking reveals processes that enable conjoint
choices to become increasingly efficient with practice. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 1–17.
Milosavljevic, M., Navalpakkam, V., Koch, C., & Rangel, A. (2012). Relative visual saliency differences
induce sizable bias in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 67–74.
Minkov, M., & Hofstede, G. (2013). Cross-cultural analysis: The science and art of comparing the
world's modern societies and their cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morrison, D. G. (1979). Purchase intentions and purchase behavior. Journal of Marketing, 43(2),
65–74.
Nisbett, R. E., & Miyamoto, Y. (2005). The influence of culture: Holistic versus analytic perception.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(10), 467–473.
Nordfält, J. (2011). Improving the attention-capturing ability of special displays with the combina-
tion effect and the design effect. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 18(3), 169–173.
Orquin, J. L., & Loose, S. M. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision
making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 190–206.
Orth, U. R., & Crouch, R. C. (2014). Is beauty in the aisles of the retailer? Package processing in
visually complex contexts. Journal of Retailing, 90(4), 524–537.
Orwin, R. G. (1983). A fail-safe N for effect size in meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8
(2), 157–159.
Otterbring, T., Wastlund, E., & Gustafsson, A. (2016). Eye-tracking customers’ visual attention in the
wild: Dynamic gaze behavior moderates the effect of store familiarity on navigational fluency.
Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 28, 165–170.
Pieters, R., Rosbergen, E., & Wedel, M. (1999). Visual attention to repeated print advertising: A test
of scanpath theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 424–438.
Pieters, R., & Warlop, L. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure
and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(1), 1–16.
Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2004). Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and
text-size effects. Journal of Marketing, 68(2), 36–50.
Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Batra, R. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of
visual complexity. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 48–60.
Ran, T., Yue, C. Y., & Rihn, A. (2017). Does nutrition information contribute to grocery shoppers’
willingness to pay? Journal of Food Products Marketing, 23(5), 591–608.
Reale, S., & Flint, S. W. (2016). Menu labelling and food choice in obese adults: A feasibility study.
BMC Obesity, 3(1). doi:10.1186/s40608-016-0095-3
Robinson, K. A., & Dickersin, K. (2002). Development of a highly sensitive search strategy for the
retrieval of reports of controlled trials using PubMed. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31
(1), 150–153.
Rosbergen, E., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (1997). Visual attention to advertising: A segment-level
analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 305–314.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin,
86(3), 638–641.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1991). Further issues in effect size estimation for one-sample
multiple-choice-type data. Psychological Bulletin, 109(2), 351–352.
Russo, J. E., & Leclerc, F. (1994). An eye-fixation analysis of choice processes for consumer
nondurables. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(2), 274–290.
Schepers, J., & Wetzels, M. (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model:
Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44(1),
90–103.
Sharma, N., & Patterson, P. G. (2000). Switching costs, alternative attractiveness and experience as
moderators of relationship commitment in professional, consumer services. International
Journal of Service Industry Management, 11(5), 470–490.
Shocker, A. D., Ben-Akiva, M., Boccara, B., & Nedungadi, P. (1991). Consideration set influences on
consumer decision-making and choice: Issues, models, and suggestions. Marketing Letters, 2(3),
181–197.
Siegrist, M., Leins-Hess, R., & Keller, C. (2015). Which front-of-pack nutrition label is the most
efficient one? The results of an eye-tracker study. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 183–190.
Tan, S.-J., & Chua, S. H. (2004). “While stocks last!” Impact of framing on consumers’ perception of
sales promotions. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(5), 343–355.
Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2),
77–99.
Tzafilkou, K., & Protogeros, N. (2017). Diagnosing user perception and acceptance using eye
tracking in web-based end-user development. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 23–37.
Vu, T. M. H., Tu, V. P., & Duerrschmid, K. (2016). Design factors influence consumers’ gazing
behaviour and decision time in an eye-tracking test: A study on food images. Food Quality
and Preference, 47, 130–138.
Wastlund, E., Otterbring, T., Gustafsson, A., & Shams, P. (2015). Heuristics and resource depletion:
Eye-tracking customers’ in situ gaze behavior in the field. Journal of Business Research, 68(1),
95–101.
Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2000). Eye fixations on advertisements and memory for brands: A model
and findings. Marketing Science, 19(4), 297–312.
Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2008). A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. In Review of
marketing research (pp. 123–147). Hanover, MA: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Zander, K., & Hamm, U. (2010). Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic
food. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 495–503.
Zarantonello, L., & Schmitt, B. H. (2013). The impact of event marketing on brand equity the
mediating roles of brand experience and brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 32
(2), 255–280.

Factors Influencing Visual Attention A Meta Analysis PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Factors Influencing Visual Attention A Meta Analysis PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: 0267-257X (Print) 1472-1376 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Factors influencing visual attention: a meta-

Wagner Junior Ladeira, Vinicius Antonio Machado Nardi, Fernando de

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2019.1662826

Published online: 19 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 230

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Factors inﬂuencing visual attention: a meta-analysis

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

CONTACT Vinicius Antonio Machado Nardi viniciusamnardi@gmail.com Department of Management, Unisinos

Theory of attention to visual marketing and consumption choices

The inﬂuence of top-down factors on visual attention

The inﬂuence of bottom-up factors on visual attention

Table 1. Top-down factors that are directly related to visual attention.

ﬁxations. food in displays.

Products that have Expected

The inﬂuence of visual attention on evaluation variables

Moderators used in the meta-analysis

Table 3. Evaluation variables inﬂuenced by visual attention.

Attitude to the poster, ad attitude, attitude towards A number of ﬁxation,

Materials and method

Table 4. Moderator variables used in the meta-analysis.

Table 5. Homa results and projection of failsafe number of top-down factors.

HOMA results for top-down factors

HOMA results for bottom-up factors

Table 6. Homa results and projection of failsafe number of bottom-up factors.

HOMA results for evaluation variables

HiLMA results for moderating relationships

Table 8. HiLMA results of moderation variables.

Implications for researchers and managers

Limitations and directions for further research

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi