Cue use is the cognitive process of gathering information from the external environment and using it to make a decision (Olson, 1978). There are many cues available in the shopping environment (e.g., labels/signs and the merchandise itself), which the consumer could use to make product assessments or a purchase decision. Olson (1972) categorized cues as either intrinsic (e.g., product ingredients or the product itself) or extrinsic (e.g., price, brand, package, etc.). He also posited a two-step cue assessment theory in which consumers first identify important cues before using them in judgments. Decades of consumer research has documented the persistent impact that price has on product perceptions (Dodds et al., 1991; Gabor and Granger, 1961; Janakiraman et al., 2006; Rao, 2005; Vanhuele et al., 2006). Other extrinsic cues such as brand (Allison and Uhl, 1964; Richardson et al., 1994) and packaging (Koutsimanis et al., 2012; McDaniel and Baker, 1977) are often also assessed when consumers make product choices.
With respect to plant purchasing, plant quality is nearly always identified as an important purchase factor to consumers (Behe and Barton, 2000; Hudson et al., 1997; Klingeman et al., 2004). Because plants are sold with very little packaging and often do not have brand names, consumers mainly use intrinsic cues (the plant themselves) and extrinsic cues (tags or signs when available) in the purchase decision. Understanding the consumer segment that uses each type of cue can help retailers improve the shopping process, which may lead to greater customer satisfaction and improved sales.
To better understand the role of intrinsic and extrinsic cues, researchers have typically relied on various techniques such as focus groups and experiments. As technology has evolved, researchers have explored the use of new techniques to examine drivers of purchase. Recently developed technologies such as eye tracking technology (ETT) allow researchers to see exactly what the consumer sees, thereby allowing for a better understanding of the consumer mind set. Given its recent adoption, the literature using ETT on retail plant displays is sparse. To fill this void and examine the potential impact on the green industry, we used ETT to investigate what captures attention in horticultural retail displays to better understand cue use. Our objective was to investigate the use of intrinsic cues (plants) and extrinsic cues (signs) in retail plant displays with ETT. Using visual behavior data within conjoint analysis framework, we gain a better understanding of how consumers view cues during the purchase decision.
An important contribution of this study to both methodological and applied research is the unique combination of visual behavior and stated preference data within the choice analysis framework. The first component—conjoint analysis—has routinely been used to understand the effects of product attributes and demographic characteristics on choice decisions. Conjoint studies have been used as a means to elicit consumer preferences for a wide range of ornamental products such as Christmas trees (Behe et al., 2005b), landscapes (Behe et al., 2005a; Zagaden et al., 2008), plant containers (Hall et al., 2010), and mixed flowering annual containers (Mason et al., 2008). Hall et al. (2010) found that 13% of plant preference survey participants valued an extrinsic cue, carbon footprint label, more than other product cues such as price, plant container type, and waste composition in the container. Building on that study, Behe et al. (2013b) used a conjoint design to identify nine consumer segments, focusing on their gardening purchases, and documented differences in consumer preferences for plant provenance and environmental attributes of transplants.
Although techniques such as conjoint analysis are invaluable to understanding the consumer mind set, most cases use stated preference data, which has been subject to criticism for systematic biases (e.g., hypothetical commitment bias) (Carson and Louviere, 2011). Hence, the second component of our framework—ETT—can be applied in conjunction with commonly used experimental techniques (e.g., conjoint analysis) to mitigate these biases and gain an in-depth understanding of behavioral mechanisms underlying consumers’ choice decisions. Wedel and Pieters (2008) reported that, “The areas in the visual brain are highly specialized to process information collected during eye fixations and continuously interact with areas that direct eye movement to salient and/or informative locations in visual scenes and stimuli, which enables purposeful and goal-directed eye movement” (p. 13–14). In other words, people do not look randomly and the subconscious movement of the eye is guided by the type of information sought and its value to the task at hand. The bulk of the peer-reviewed studies using ETT investigated the process of reading by following eye movements (see Rayner, 1998, for a 20-year review of this subject).
Visual behavior data were previously used to investigate whether branded products receive more visual attention compared with unbranded products regardless of product size (Teixeira et al., 2010). Meissner and Decker (2010) demonstrated that consumers spent more time (fixations) viewing product attributes that were more important to them. Kuisma et al. (2010) found that animation in online advertisements drew the viewer’s attention more for vertical advertisements compared with horizontal advertisements. Patalano et al. (2009) documented that consumer indecisiveness was positively related to time spent viewing information about the purchase as well as time spent looking away from information directly related to that choice task. ETT methods have also been used to examine the effects of package label design on individual choice decision-making behavior. For example, Bix et al. (2009) investigated the prominence of package warnings on over-the-counter medicines and found that they were not readily viewed by consumers. Sorensen et al. (2012) showed that a product name on a label attracted six times more attention than any organic production claim, whereas illustrations captured more attention than health claims, even if the illustration was irrelevant. Behe et al. (2013a) recently demonstrated the potential use of ETT for analyzing green industry consumer behavior.
Atalay, A.S., Bodur, H.O. & Raslofoarison, D. 2012 Shining in the center: Central gaze cascade effect on product choice J. Consum. Res. 39 848 866
Behe, B. & Barton, S. 2000 Consumer perceptions of product and service quality attributes in six U.S. states J. Environ. Hort. 18 71 78
Behe, B., Hardy, J., Barton, S., Brooker, J., Fernandez, T., Hall, C., Hicks, J., Hinson, R., Knight, P., McNiel, R., Page, T., Rowe, B., Safley, C. & Schutzki, R. 2005a Landscape plant material, size, and design sophistication increase perceived home value J. Environ. Hort. 23 127 133
Behe, B.K., Walden, R.M., Duck, M., Cregg, B., Kelley, K. & Lineberger, R.D. 2005b Consumer preferences for and cost of production of tabletop Christmas trees HortScience 40 409 412
Behe, B.K., Fernandez, R.T., Huddleston, P.T., Minahan, S., Getter, K.L., Sage, L. & Jones, A.M. 2013a Practical field use of eye tracking for consumer research in the retail environment HortTechnology 23 517 524
Behe, B.K., Campbell, B.L., Hall, C.R., Khachatryan, H., Dennis, J.H. & Yue, C. 2013b Consumer preferences for local and sustainable plant production characteristics HortScience 48 209 215
Bix, L., Bello, N.M., Auras, R., Ranger, J. & Lapinski, M.K. 2009 Examining the conspicuousness and prominence of two required warnings on OTC pain relievers Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 6550 6555
Campbell, B.L., Khachatryan, H., Dennis, J., Hall, C. & Behe, B.K. 2013 Consumer perceptions and misperceptions of ecofriendly and sustainable terms Agr. Res. Econ. Rev. (in press)
Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. & Grewal, D. 1991 Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ perceptions of product quality and value J. Mktg. Res. 28 307 319
Duda, R.O., Hart, P.E. & Stork, D.B. 2001 Pattern classification and scene analysis. 2nd Ed. Wiley, New York, NY
Green, P.E. & Helsen, K. 1989 Cross-validation assessment of alternatives to individual-level conjoint analysis: A case study J. Mktg. Res. 26 346 350
Greene, W.H. 2003 Econometric analysis. 5th Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. 1998 Multivariate analysis. 5th Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Hall, C., Campbell, B., Behe, B., Yue, C., Dennis, J. & Lopez, R. 2010 The appeal of biodegradable packaging to floral consumers HortScience 45 583 591
Herpen, E. & van Trijp, H.C.M. 2011 Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints Appetite 57 148 160
Hudson, J., Behe, B.K., Ponder, H.G. & Barrick, W.E. 1997 Consumer perceptions and expectations of garden center product and service quality J. Environ. Hort. 15 12 15
Janakiraman, N., Meyer, R.J. & Morales, A.C. 2006 Spillover effects: How consumers respond to unexpected changes in prices and quality J. Consum. Res. 33 361 372
Klingeman, W.E., Eastwood, D.B., Brooker, J.R., Hall, C.R., Behe, B.K. & Knight, P.R. 2004 Consumer survey identifies plant management awareness and added value of dogwood powdery mildew resistance HortTechnology 14 275 282
Kotler, P. & Armstrong, G. 2001 Principles of marketing. 9th Ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Koutsimanis, G., Getter, K., Behe, B., Harte, J. & Almenar, E. 2012 Influences of packaging attributes on consumer purchase decisions for fresh produce Appetite 59 270 280
Kuisma, J., Simola, J., Uusitalo, L. & Oorni, A. 2010 The effects of animation and format on the perception and memory of online advertising J. Interactive Mktg. 24 269 282
Lenzner, T., Kaczmirek, L. & Galesic, M. 2011 Seeing through the eyes of the respondent: An eye-tracking study on survey question comprehension J. Public Opinion Res. 23 361 373
Mason, S., Starman, T., Lineberger, R.D. & Behe, B.K. 2008 Consumer preferences for price, color harmony and care information of container gardens HortScience 43 380 384
Olson, J. 1978 Inferential belief formation in the cue utilization process, p. 35–43. In: Hunt, H. (ed.). Advances in consumer research. Vol. 5. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI
Olson, J.C. 1972 Cue utilization in the quality perception process: A cognitive model and an empirical test. doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
Patalano, A.L., Juhasz, B.J. & Dicke, J. 2009 The relationship between indecisiveness and eye movement patterns in a decision making informational search task J. Behav. Decis. Making 23 353 368
Richardson, P.S., Dick, A.S. & Jain, A.K. 1994 Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality J. Mktg. 58 28 36
Rothschild, T.S. 1984 Perspectives on involvement: Current problems and future directions. In: Kinnear, T. (ed.). Advances in consumer research. Vol. 11. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI
Shaw, J.I., Bergen, J.E., Brown, C.A. & Gallagher, M.E. 2000 Centrality preferences in choices among similar options J. Gen. Psychol. 127 157 164
Sorensen, H.S., Clement, J. & Gabrielsen, G. 2012 Food labels - An exploratory study into label information and what consumers see and understand Intl. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 22 101 114
Teixeira, T.S., Wedel, M. & Pieters, R. 2010 Moment-to-moment optimal branding in TV commercials: Preventing avoidance by pulsing Mktg. Sci. 29 783 804
Zagaden, Y., Behe, B.K. & Gough, R. 2008 Consumer preferences for native plants in Montana residential landscapes and perceptions for naturalistic designs J. Environ. Hort. 26 109 114