Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Framing or Gaming? Constructing a Study to Explore the Impact of Option Presentation on Consumers

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Transforming Healthcare Through Information Systems

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation ((LNISO,volume 17))

Abstract

The manner in which choice is framed influences individuals’ decision-making. This research examines the impact of different decision constructs on decision-making by focusing on the more problematic decision constructs: the un-selected and pre-selected opt-out. The study employs eye-tracking with cued retrospective think-aloud (RTA) to combine quantitative and qualitative data. Eye-tracking will determine how long a user focuses on a decision construct before taking action. Cued RTA where the user will be shown a playback of their interaction will be used to explore their attitudes towards a decision construct and identify problematic designs. This pilot begins the second of a three phase study, which ultimately aims to develop a research model containing the theoretical constructs along with hypothesized causal associations between the constructs to reveal the impact of measures such as decision construct type, default value type and question framing have on the perceived value of the website and loyalty intentions.

A prior version of this paper has been published in the ISD2015 Proceedings (http://aisel.aisnet.org/isd2014/proceedings2015/).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Simon, H.: A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice, in Models of Man, Social and Rational: Mathematical Essays on Rational Human Behavior in a Social Setting. Wiley, New York (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choices. Science 211, 453–458 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Samuelson, W., Zeckhauser, R.: Status quo bias in decision making. J. Risk Uncert. 1(1), 7–59 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Belman, S., Johnson, E., Lohse, G.: To opt-in or opt-out? It depends on the question. Comm. ACM 44(2), 25–27 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson, E., Goldstein, D.: Do defaults save lives? Science 302, 1338–1339 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lai, Y., Hui, K.: Internet opt-in and opt-out: investigating the roles of frames, defaults and privacy concerns. In: Proceedings of SIGMIS-CPR’06, 13–15 Apr, Claremont, California, USA (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Torres, A., Barry, C., Hogan, M.: Opaque web practices among low-cost carriers. J. Air Trans. Manag. 15, 299–307 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. European Union: 1008/2008, Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Common Rules for the Operation of Air Services in the Community (Recast) (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  9. European Union: 2011/83/EU, Directive on Consumer Rights (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Barry, C., Hogan, M., Torres, A.: Perceptions of low cost carriers’ compliance with EU legislation on optional extras. In: 20th International Conference on Information Systems Development, 24–26 Aug, Edinburgh, Scotland (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Torres, A.M., Barry, C., Hogan, M.: The identification of decision constructs used in online transactional processes. In: 27th Bled eConference, 29 June–3 July, Bled, Slovenia (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hogan, M., Barry, C., Torres, A.: Theorising and testing a taxonomy of decision constructs. J. Cust. Behav. 13(3), 181–186 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Peter, J.P., Olsen, J.C.: Consumer Behavior: Marketing Strategy Perspectives, Homewood. Irwin, Illinois (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dholakia, U.M.: A motivational process model of product involvement and consumer risk perception. Euro. J. Mark. 35(11/12), 1340–1360 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Thomsen, C.J., Borgida, E., Lavine, H.: The causes and consequences of personal involvement. In: Petty, R.E., Krosnick, J.A. (eds.) Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, pp. 191–214. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Trumbo. C.W.: Heuristic-systematic information processing and risk judgment, risk analysis. Int. J. 19(3), 391–400 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Herrero, A., San Martín, H.: Effects of the risk sources and user involvement on e-Commerce adoption: application to tourist services. J. Risk Res. 15(7), 841–855 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Moon, S.Y., Philip, G.C., Moon, S.: The effects of involvement on E-Satisfaction models. Serv. Market. Q. 32(4), 332–342 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Park, D.H., Lee, J., Han, I.: The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: the moderating role of involvement. Int. J. Electron. Comm. 11(4), 125–148 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. MacInnis, D.J., Moorman, C., Jaworski, B.J.: Enhancing and measuring consumers’ motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from Ads. J. Market. 55(4), 32–53 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Johnson, B.T., Eagly, A.H.: The effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 106(2), 290–314 (1989)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Celsi, R.L., Olson, J.C.: The role of involvement in attention and comprehension processes. J. Con. Res. 15(2), 210–224 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Nielsen, J., Pernice, K.: Eyetracking Web Usability, Fremont. Nielson Norman Group, CA (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., Tullis, T., Dai, R.: Efficiency, trust, and visual appeal: usability testing through eye tracking. In: The 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1–10. IEEE (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Di Stasi, L., Antoli, A., Gea, M., Canas, J.: A neuroergonomic approach to evaluating mental workload in hypermedia interactions. Int. J. Indus. Erg. 41, 298–304 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huang, Y., Kuo, F.: An eye-tracking investigation of internet consumers’ decision deliberateness. Internet Res. 21(5), 541–561 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sivaji, A., Downe, A., Mazlan, M., Soo, S., Abdullah, A.: Importance of incorporating fundamental usability with social and trust elements for e-Commerce website. In: 2011 International Conference on Business, Engineering and Industrial Applications (ICBEIA), pp. 221–226, IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Djamasbi, S., Siegel, M., Skorinko, J., Tullis, T.: Online viewing and aesthetic preferences of generation Y and the baby boom generation: testing user web site experience through eye tracking. Int. J. Elec. Comm. 15(4), 121–158 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Goh, K.N., Chen, Y.Y., Lai, F.W., Daud, S.C., Sivaji, A., Soo, S.T.: A comparison of usability testing methods for an E-commerce website: a case study on a Malaysia online gift shop. In: The Tenth International Conference on Information Technology: New Generations (ITNG), pp. 143–150. IEEE (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pernice, K., Nielsen, J.: How to Conduct Eyetracking Studies. http://www.nngroup.com/reports/how-to-conduct-eyetracking-studies/ (2009). Accessed 28 Jan 2015

  31. Glöckner, A., Herbold, A.K.: An eye-tracking study on information processing in risky decisions: evidence for compensatory strategies based on automatic processes. J. Behav. Dec. Making 24, 71–98 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Day, R., Shyi, G., Wang, J.: The effect of flash barriers on multi-attribute decision making: distractor or source of arousal? Psych. Mark. 23(5), 369–382 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Hyrskykari, A., Ovaska, S., Majaranta, P., Räihä, K.J., Lehtinen, M.: Gaze path stimulation in retrospective think-aloud. J. Eye Mov. Res. 2(4), 1–18 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Holzinger, A.: Usability engineering methods for software developers. Comm. ACM 48(1), 71–74 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Monk, A., Wright, P., Haber, J., Davenport, L.: Improving Your Human-Computer Interface A Practical Technique. Prentice Hall, New York (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kim, B., Dong, Y., Kim, S., Lee, K.P.: Development of integrated analysis system and tool of perception, recognition, and behavior for web usability test: with emphasis on eye-tracking, mouse-tracking, and retrospective think aloud. In: Usability and Internationalization. HCI and Culture, pp. 113–121, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ball, L.J., Eger, N., Stevens, R., Dodd, J.: Applying the PEEP method in usability testing. Interfaces 67, 15–19 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Van den Haak, M.J., de Jong, M.D.T., Schellens, J.: Retrospective vs. concurrent think-aloud protocols: testing the usability of an online library catalogue, Behav. Inf. Tech., 22(5), pp. 339–351 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Chris Barry, Mairéad Hogan & Ann M. Torres

Authors
  1. Chris Barry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mairéad Hogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ann M. Torres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Barry .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

    Doug Vogel

  2. Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China

    Xitong Guo

  3. Caulfield School of IT, Monash Univ, Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia

    Henry Linger

  4. Cairnes School of Business & Econonomics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Chris Barry

  5. Cairnes School of Business & Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland

    Michael Lang

  6. City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Christoph Schneider

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Barry, C., Hogan, M., Torres, A.M. (2016). Framing or Gaming? Constructing a Study to Explore the Impact of Option Presentation on Consumers. In: Vogel, D., Guo, X., Linger, H., Barry, C., Lang, M., Schneider, C. (eds) Transforming Healthcare Through Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Information Systems and Organisation, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30133-4_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation