The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention
Open accessAbstract
Several decision-making models predict that it should be possible to affect real binary choices by manipulating the relative amount of visual attention that decision-makers pay to the two alternatives. We present the results of three behavioral experiments testing this prediction. Visual attention is controlled by manipulating the amount of time subjects fixate on the two items. The manipulation has a differential impact on appetitive and aversive items. Appetitive items are 6 to 11% more likely to be chosen in the long fixation condition. In contrast, aversive items are 7% less likely to be chosen in the long fixation condition. The effect is present for primary goods, such as foods, and for higher-order durable goods, such as posters.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992) · Journal of Risk and Uncertainty · doi:10.1007/bf00122574 · Cited by 15,467
Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.2.151 · Cited by 8,094
Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.106.2.265 · Cited by 1,970 · cited 1×
“A typical experiment shows that the subjects' reports about how much they like seeing an stimulus (e.g., a Chinese ideogram or a foreign language word) can be increased through repeated and brief previous exposures to the items (for a review see Bornstein, 1989).”
BackgroundMere Exposure: A Gateway to the Subliminal
Zajonc, R. B. (2001) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00154 · Cited by 1,299
Gaze bias both reflects and influences preference
Shimojo, S., Simion, C., Shimojo, E., & Scheier, C. (2003) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1150 · Cited by 924
Cited by
Visual fixations and the computation and comparison of value in simple choice
Krajbich, I., Armel, C., & Rangel, A. (2010) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.2635 · Cited by 1,408
Self-citationHare, T. A., Malmaud, J., & Rangel, A. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6383-10.2011 · Cited by 556
Self-citationLim, S.-L., O'Doherty, J. P., & Rangel, A. (2011) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1246-11.2011 · Cited by 329
Self-citationWilson, A. L., Buckley, E., Buckley, J. D., & Bogomolova, S. (2016) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.009 · Cited by 308
Eye tracking and pupillometry are indicators of dissociable latent decision processes.
Cavanagh, J. F., Wiecki, T. V., Kochar, A., & Frank, M. J. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0035813 · Cited by 289
Metadata
- Authors
- Armel, K. C., Beaumel, A., & Rangel, A.
- Venue
- Judgment and Decision Making
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 396-403
- ISSN
- 1930-2975 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2149763484
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 3.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1930297500000413
- The paper
- Armel, K. C., Beaumel, A., & Rangel, A. (2008). Biasing simple choices by manipulating relative visual attention. Judgment and Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500000413
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
