Advertisement

Eye-Tracking und reaktionszeitbasierte Verfahren zur Messung impliziter Kommunikationswirkungen

  • Johanna Palcu
  • Arnd Florack
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer NachschlageWissen book series

Zusammenfassung

In der Praxis geschieht die Erfassung von Kommunikationswirkungen überwiegend in Form von Befragungen, die jedoch tatsächlich nur einen Teil der Werbewirkung abbilden. Der Beitrag befasst sich vor diesem Hintergrund mit Messmethoden zur Erfassung impliziter Kommunikationswirkungen, die KonsumentInnen nicht bewusst wahrnehmen. Die Autoren beschreiben Methoden, die implizite Kommunikationswirkungen auf den Ebenen der Wahrnehmung und Abspeicherung von Information sowie des tatsächlichen Verhaltens sichtbar machen. Die Bedeutung von Blickbewegungsmessungen und reaktionszeitbasierten Verfahren zur Optimierung von Kommunikationsstrategien wird vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Literatur und anhand praxisrelevanter Beispiele aufgezeigt und diskutiert.

Schlüsselwörter

Markenkommunikation implizite Messverfahren Eyetracking Priming Impliziter Assoziationstest 

Literatur

  1. Anderson, J. R., und G. H. Bower. 1973. Human associative memory. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Bamford, S., und R. Ward. 2008. Predispositions to approach and avoid are contextually sensitive and goal dependent. Emotion 8(2): 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger, S., U. Wagner, und C. Schwand. 2012. Assessing advertising effectiveness: The potential of goal-directed behavior. Psychology & Marketing 29(6): 411–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bojko, A. 2013. Eye tracking the user experience: A practical guide to research. New York: Rosenfeld Media.Google Scholar
  5. Brendl, C. M., A. B. Markman, und C. Messner. 2005. Indirectly measuring evaluations of several attitude objects in relation to a neutral reference point. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41(4): 346–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruce, N. D., und J. K. Tsotsos. 2007. An information theoretic model of saliency and visual search. Attention in Cognitive Systems. Theories and Systems from an Interdisciplinary Viewpoint 4840: 171–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brunel, F. F., B. C. Tietje, und A. G. Greenwald. 2004. Is the implicit association test a valid and valuable measure of implicit consumer social cognition? Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(4):385–404.Google Scholar
  8. Büttner, O., A. Florack, und M. Scarabis. 2014. Werbekommunikation. In Psychologie der Kommunikation für Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaftler, Hrsg. M. Blanz, A. Florack und U. Piontkowski, 194–203. Stuttgart: Vahlen.Google Scholar
  9. Chen, M., und J. A. Bargh. 1999. Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25: 215–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crane, H. D. 1994. The Purkinje image eyetracker, image stabilization, and related forms of stimulus manipulation. In Visual science and engineering: models and applications, Hrsg. D. H. Kelly, 13–89. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham, W. A., K. J. Preacher, und M. R. Banaji. 2001. Implicit attitude measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. Psychological Science 12(2): 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Houwer, J., S. Thomas, und F. Baeyens. 2001. Association learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin 127(6): 853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Houwer, J., S. Teige-Mocigemba, A. Spruyt, und A. Moors. 2009. Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin 135(3): 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Delabarre, E. B. 1898. A method of recording eye-movements. The American Journal of Psychology 9(4): 572–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dimofte, C. V. 2010. Implicit measures of consumer cognition: A review. Psychology & Marketing 27(10): 921–937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dimofte, C. V., und R. F. Yalch. 2007. Consumer response to polysemous brand slogans. Journal of Consumer Research 33(4): 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dodge, R., und T. S. Cline. 1901. The angle velocity of eye movements. Psychological Review 8(2): 145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duchowski, A. T. 2002. A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 34(4): 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Duchowski, A. T. 2007. Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice, 2. Aufl. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Duchowski, A. T., N. Cournia, und H. Murphy. 2004. Gaze-contingent displays: A review. CyberPsychology & Behavior 7(6): 621–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fang, X., S. Singh, und R. Ahluwalia. 2007. An examination of different explanations for the mere exposure effect. Journal of Consumer Research 34(1): 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fazio, R. H. 1986. How do attitudes guide behavior? In The Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, Hrsg. R. M. Sorrentino und E. T. Higgins, 204–243. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ferraro, R., J. R. Bettman, und T. L. Chartrand. 2009. The power of strangers: The effect of incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research 35(5): 729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Florack, A., und M. Scarabis. 2004. Warum ein Werbespot nicht nur gefallen sollte – Multimethodale Erfassung von Werbewirkungen. Wirtschaftspsychologie Aktuell 11:39–42.Google Scholar
  25. Forehand, M. R., und A. Perkins. 2005. Implicit assimilation and explicit contrast: A set/reset model of response to celebrity voice-overs. Journal of Consumer Research 32(3): 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frank, M. J., M. X. Cohen, und A. G. Sanfey. 2009. Multiple systems in decision making: A neurocomputational perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18(2): 73–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Freeman, J. B., und N. Ambady. 2010. MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods 42(1): 226–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Friese, M., W. Hofmann, und M. Wänke. 2008. When impulses take over: Moderated predictive validity of explicit and implicit attitude measures in predicting food choice and consumption behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology 47(3): 397–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Genschow, O., A. Florack, V. S. Chib, S. Shimojo, M. Scarabis, und M. Wänke. 2013. Reaching for the (product) stars: Measuring recognition and approach speed to get insights into consumer choice. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 35(3): 298–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gibson, B. 2008. Can evaluative conditioning change attitudes toward mature brands? New evidence from the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Consumer Research 35(1): 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Greenwald, A. G., und M. R. Banaji. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102:4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenwald, A. G., D. E. McGhee, und J. L. K. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Greenwald, A. G., T. A. Poehlman, E. L. Uhlmann, und M. R. Banaji. 2009. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(1): 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Henderson, J. M. 2014. Eye-tracking technology aims to take your unconscious pizza order. In Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/eye-tracking-technology-aims-to-take-your-unconscious-pizza-order/. Zugegriffen am 29.12.2014.
  35. Hildenbrand, A., und R. Kühl. 2014. Ritter Sport und Stiftung Warentest: Informationsdefizite überwinden. Wirtschaftsdienst 94(3): 217–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holmqvist, K., M. Nyström, R. Andersson, R. Dewhurst, H. Jarodzka, und J. Van de Weijer. 2011. Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures, 1. Aufl. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Huey, E. B. 1898. Preliminary experiments in the physiology and psychology of reading. The American Journal of Psychology 9(4): 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Itti, L., und C. Koch. 2000. A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research 40(10): 1489–1506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jacob, R. J., und K. S. Karn. 2003. Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind 2(3): 4.Google Scholar
  40. Just, M. A., und P. A. Carpenter. 1976. Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cognitive Psychology 8(4): 441–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krajbich, I., C. Armel, und A. Rangel. 2010. Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice. Nature Neuroscience 13(10): 1292–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Krieglmeyer, R., und R. Deutsch. 2010. Comparing measures of approach–avoidance behaviour: The manikin task vs. two versions of the joystick task. Cognition and Emotion 24(5): 810–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krishna, A. 2012. An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22:332–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krishnan, H. S. 1996. Characteristics of memory associations: A consumer-based brand equity perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13(4): 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Le Meur, O., und T. Baccino. 2013. Methods for comparing scanpaths and saliency maps: Strengths and weaknesses. Behavior Research Methods 45(1): 251–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Maison, D., A. G. Greenwald, und R. H. Bruin. 2004. Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(4): 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Meissner, F., und K. Rothermund. 2013. Estimating the contributions of associations and recoding in the Implicit Association Test: The ReAL model for the IAT. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104(1): 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Neely, J. H., D. E. Keefe, und K. L. Ross. 1989. Semantic priming in the lexical decision task: Roles of prospective prime-generated expectancies and retro-spective semantic matching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 15:1003–1019.Google Scholar
  49. Nosek, B. A., C. B. Hawkins, und R. S. Frazier. 2011. Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 15(4): 152–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Orquin, J. L., und S. Mueller Loose. 2013. Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica 144(1): 190–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oskamp, S., und P. W. Schultz. 2005. Attitudes and opinions, 3. Aufl. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Pieters, R., und L. Warlop. 1999. Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Marketing 16(1): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pieters, R., und M. Wedel. 2008. Informativeness of eye movements for visual marketing: six cornerstones. In Visual marketing – From attention to action, Hrsg. M. Wedel und R. Pieters. 1. Aufl., New York.Google Scholar
  54. Rayner, K., und M. S. Castelhano. 2008. Eye movements during reading, scene perception, visual search, and while looking at print advertisement. In Visual marketing – From attention to action, Hrsg. M. Wedel und R. Pieters, 1. Aufl., 9–42. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  55. Ridder, W. H., und A. Tomlinson. 1997. A comparison of saccadic and blink suppression in normal observers. Vision Research 37(22): 3171–3179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scarabis, M., und A. Florack. 2003. Was denkt der Konsument wirklich? Reaktionszeitbasierte Verfahren als Instrument der Markenanalyse. Planung & Analyse 6: 30–35.Google Scholar
  57. Scarabis, M., und A. Florack. 2007. Neue Einsichten durch neue Methoden: Reaktionszeitbasierte Verfahren in der Marken und Werbeforschung. In Psychologie der Markenführung, Hrsg. A. Florack, M. Scarabis und E. Primosch, 463–483. München: Vahlen.Google Scholar
  58. Shimojo, S., C. Simion, E. Shimojo, und C. Scheier. 2003. Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference. Nature Neuroscience 6(12): 1317–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Slabbinck, H., J. De Houwer, und P. Van Kenhove. 2011. A pictorial attitude IAT as a measure of implicit motives. European Journal of Personality 25(1): 76–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sriram, N., und A. G. Greenwald. 2009. The brief implicit association test. Experimental Psychology 56(4): 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Strack, F., und R. Deutsch. 2004. Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8: 220–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Dantzig, S., D. Pecher, und R. A. Zwaan. 2008. Approach and avoidance as action effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 61(9): 1298–1306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wedel, M. 2013. Attention research in marketing: A review of eye tracking studies. Robert H. Smith School Research Paper No. RHS, 2460289.Google Scholar
  64. Wedel, M., und R. Pieters. 2000. Eye fixations on advertisements and memory for brands: A model and findings. Marketing Science 19(4): 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wedel, M., und R. Pieters. 2006. Eye tracking for visual marketing. Foundations and Trends in Marketing 1(4): 231–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wedel, M., und R. Pieters. 2008. A review of eye-tracking research in marketing. Review of Marketing Research 4: 123–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wittenbrink, B. 2007. Measuring attitudes through priming. In Implicit measures of attitudes, Hrsg. B. Wittenbrink und N. Schwarz, 17–58. New York.Google Scholar
  68. Wittenbrink, B., C. M. Judd, und B. Park. 1997. Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(2): 262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Gabler Verlag | Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität WienWienÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations