Next Article in Journal
Evaluating Arabic Emotion Recognition Task Using ChatGPT Models: A Comparative Analysis between Emotional Stimuli Prompt, Fine-Tuning, and In-Context Learning
Previous Article in Journal
From a Penny to Self-Disgust: How Cashback Rewards for Favorable Comments and Relationship Norms Affect Consumers’ Post-Purchase Behavioral Intentions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JTAER
Volume 19
Issue 2
10.3390/jtaer19020057
jtaer-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Eye Tracking as an Instrument in Consumer Research to Investigate Food from A Marketing Perspective: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis

by
Tonia Ruppenthal
* and
Nils Schweers
Department of Nutritional, Food and Consumer Sciences, Hochschule Fulda—University of Applied Sciences, Leipziger Str. 123, 36037 Fulda, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19(2), 1095-1117; https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020057
Submission received: 4 March 2024 / Revised: 25 April 2024 / Accepted: 7 May 2024 / Published: 13 May 2024
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Eye tracking plays a crucial role in consumer research. The aim of this work is to present the statuses of studies that used eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective. For this purpose, a bibliometric review of 118 articles from the Business Source Premier and Web of Science Core Collection database was compiled. The bibliometric review provides information on publication trends, leading authors, collaborative networks, journals, institutions, countries, articles, keywords, and themes investigated. Publications in the research field have appeared since 2011, primarily in Europe, the United States, and Uruguay. Three areas of research streams were identified: (1) how consumers became aware of and chose food, (2) nutritional information and its impact, and (3) how food information and its visual attention led to certain consumer behavior. The bibliographic review summarized past research directions and, thus, identified possibilities for future research streams.

1. Introduction

The United Nations data show that consumer spending by private households on food varies widely from 6.23 to 89.23% [1]. Despite this wide range of household spending on food, food is of great importance to private households, and in consumer research, it is important to understand what factors ultimately lead to consumer decisions [2]. Various studies in consumer research have, therefore, investigated relationships between marketing activities and customer acceptance. Marketing activities can influence consumers, for example, through different product positions on the shelf [3], the number of shelf spaces [4,5], the visual design [6,7,8], or the psychological interpretation of product quality [9,10]. Studies examining consumer acceptance show that consumers’ purchasing behavior and, thus, their decisions depend on the mental resources that they are willing to invest in the purchase decision [11,12]. Other studies question these results as they show that in many situations, consumers tend to simplify their information-seeking and information-processing behavior, meaning that preferences are often constructed and not always disclosed by consumers [5,13,14,15]. To improve understanding of consumers’ sub-conscious behavior and bypass consumer secrecy when confronted with seemingly “real” food-related choices [16], marketing researchers gradually adopted eye tracking as an evaluation instrument [17] to find out what factors (both bottom-up and top-down) ultimately lead to consumers’ responses [2]. Since then, the use of eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective has been growing steadily [2,16,18].
Eye tracking has been around since 1879, when the French ophthalmologist Louise Èmile Javal first discovered that the movement of the eye while reading was not continuous but consisted of quick movements (saccades) mixed with short pauses (fixations) [19]. In 1908, Edmund Huey built the first eye tracker, a device with which eye movements could be tracked during the reading process [20]. Over the years, eye tracking technology and methods evolved, and they are now used in almost all areas of life. Research institutions and businesses have specialized in using eye tracking in the food sector to investigate consumer behavior [2,16,18]. To obtain an overview of studies that used eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective, a bibliometric review was carried out while asking the following five research questions: Which authors published in the outlined research field and were cited most frequently (RQ 1)? With whom did the authors collaborate (RQ 2)? Which scientific publications, journals, countries, and institutions contributed to the growth of the research field (RQ 3)? What were the major keyword clusters in the research field (RQ 4)? What were the primary themes in the research field between 2008 and 2023 (RQ 5)?
To investigate the research questions and consider the sixteen-year period with numerous publications in consumer research with eye tracking as an instrument to investigate food from a marketing perspective, it seemed appropriate to examine the literature corpus through a bibliometric review. A bibliometric review can be used to investigate metadata in a literature corpus [21] to obtain information about developments in a field of research and provide a universal overview of what has been published [22]. In bibliometric reviews, a large number of articles can be analyzed by examining the effects of different similarity measures and displaying them through a bibliometric mapping technique [23]. In the present study, VOSviewer software (version 1.6.20) developed by van Eck and Waltman [24] was used, because with this software tool, bibliographic networks can be created and visualized with authors, co-authors, citations, journals, countries, or institutions based on co-authorship, bibliographic coupling, co-citations, co-occurrence, or co-word analysis [25,26]. Furthermore, this software is freely available to the bibliometric research community.
This bibliometric review aims to present the statuses of studies that used eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective. For this purpose, 118 articles were compiled from the Business Source Premier (BSP) and Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database. This bibliometric review contributes to the literature by first examining the contributions of researchers to the research field with performance analysis and identifying and presenting leading institutions, countries, and journals. Second, by identifying the most present and cited authors and highly referenced articles using co-authorship, bibliographic, and co-citation analysis, the research field’s underlying knowledge base and collaborative networks are highlighted. Third, the most popular keywords and co-word networks are shown using co-occurrence and text data analysis. Finally, bibliographic coupling analysis was used to identify three themes in the research field from 2008 to 2023 and provide recommendations for future research.
The remainder of the bibliometric review is structured as follows: Section 2 explains the bibliometric method and materials, while in Section 3, the analysis and findings of the bibliometric analysis are presented. Section 4 elaborates on key findings and future research directions, while Section 5 concludes this study.

2. Bibliometric Method and Materials

In 1934, Paul Otlet was the first author to define “bibliometrics” as a tool for measuring all aspects related to book publishing and reading [27]. However, the concept of bibliometrics experienced worldwide spread through the work of Pritchard in 1969 [21]. Bibliometric methods use bibliographic data from public databases such as WoS, Scopus, and PubMed to quantitatively investigate research and publication performance via performance analysis using publication-related metrics focusing mainly on authors, journals, countries, and institutions [22,28,29]. They also visually represent, with science mapping, bibliometric maps that describe how certain research disciplines or fields are conceptually, intellectually, and socially structured [22,28,29]. Following Donthu et al. [22] (p. 294), the four steps for conducting a bibliometric analysis were applied in this paper: (1) define the aims and scope, (2) choose the techniques, (3) collect the data, and (4) run the bibliometric analysis and report the findings.

2.1. Bibliometric Data Collection

The data collected for the bibliometric analysis were retrieved from two scientific databases, BSP and WoS. These two databases were chosen because they provide a wealth of information (such as authors, titles, journals, keywords, institutions, citations, etc.) for a bibliometric analysis [25], are commonly used scientific databases in bibliometric studies [22], and are among the leading databases in this field of research [18,30]. The final search was conducted on 15 January 2024 with the following four categories: (1) eye tracking, (2) consumer/nutrition, (3) food, and (4) marketing. The following search function was constructed from these four categories and applied to the following scientific databases: (eye-track* OR eye track OR eye movement* OR eye gaze OR visuali* OR visual attention) AND (consumer behave* OR purchase decision OR purchase intention OR shop* OR consumer OR buy* OR nutrition* OR diet OR health) AND (food OR food* OR grocer* OR beverage OR eat* OR drink*) AND (organic OR product* OR sustainab* OR price OR supermarket OR retail* OR e-commerce OR ecommerce OR online* OR electronic commerce OR package* OR label* OR marketing). The wildcard (*) was used to include spelling variations and reduce the number of phrases while still providing comprehensive search results.
The first search of articles resulted in a total number of 2273 records. An article was included if it was (1) written in the English language, (2) a full-text article published in a peer-reviewed journal, (3) a primary source (i.e., neither a conceptual paper, conference paper, or a review), (4) published in the period from 2008 to 2023, and (5) a study that used eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective (see Table 1).
The identification of studies was conducted by both authors to ensure that all qualified articles that focused on the use of eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective were included and that all selected papers met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. According to Edward et al. [31], no studies would be missed by a two-person screening. The detailed identification of studies via the databases and further filtering processes (see Figure 1) resulted in 118 articles from multiple journals for the final analysis of the sample, with the earliest article being from 2011 and the most recent one being from 2023.

2.2. Data Analysis and Visualization

Data were obtained from the BSP and WoS databases. Full records and cited references were downloaded for all articles from WoS in a tab-delimited text format. For six articles identified in BSP, the full records and cited references in a tab-delimited text format could not be obtained from WoS and, therefore, were excluded (see Figure 1). Performance, co-authorship, bibliographic, and co-citation analysis were used to identify leading authors, journals, countries, and institutions [22,28,32,33] and answer research questions one, two, and three. To answer the fourth research question, keyword co-occurrence and text data (co-word) analysis were used to classify and map salient keywords [22,34,35]. The bibliographic coupling analysis was used to identify primary themes in the research field and answer the fifth research question [28,32,36]. For the analyses, VOSviewer software was used to display the results in a graphical format and an easy-to-understand manner [26,37]. VOSviewer is designed for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks [25]. Since VOSviewer can combine the literature and enables the identification of similarities and important themes between the articles [24,25,33], VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) was used for the extraction and statistical analysis of the data. The tab-delimited text format data were uploaded into VOSviewer and then analyzed. Microsoft Excel 2021 was used to supplement VOSviewer’s data statistics.

3. Analysis and Findings

3.1. General Characteristics of the Bibliometric Analysis

A total of 118 articles from BSP and WoS were identified from 2008 to 2023. Moreover, 363 authors from 37 countries and 162 institutions contributed to the literature corpus. The articles were published in 58 different journals. Table 2 provides an overview of the main information regarding the bibliometric data collection retrieved from BSP and WoS.

3.2. Annual Publications and Publication Trend

The annual publications and the publication trend are shown in Figure 2. Although the period for the BSP and WoS search started in 2008, the first article related to the research field was published in 2011 by Bialkova and van Trijp [38]. While in the first six years (2011–2016), the number of publications increased from one to eleven, the number of publications in 2017 and 2018 fell to nine. In 2019, the highest number of publications was recorded, with twenty publications. In the following two years (2020–2021), the number of publications fell to seventeen and then to nine. In 2022, the publications rose again to twelve, only to stagnate in 2023 at eleven publications. Despite these fluctuations, the linear trend in publication numbers shows a steady increase. Accordingly, studies using eye tracking as an instrument in the research field are experiencing growing research interest, which is also confirmed by other reviews [2,16,18].

3.3. Publication by Country and Institution

The countries were determined based on the institutional affiliation of the corresponding authors. Thirty-seven countries contributed to the research field. From these thirty-seven countries, twelve countries met the inclusion criteria of a minimum number of five articles from a country. The co-authorship analysis with the number of co-authored articles was calculated by selecting the top twelve countries. The countries were grouped into four clusters with 22 links and a total link strength (TLS) of 36 (see the overlay visualization map in Figure 3).
The overlay visualization map shows the countries weighted after the number of articles involved in the research field in terms of the average publication years. The colors of the circles indicate the years. Accordingly, countries such as Australia, China, and Italy have the most recent publications in the research field, while those from countries such as Austria, England (UK), and Uruguay were published earlier. The United States and Uruguay were the most productive contributors in the research field, as shown by the sizes of the circles that represent the number of publications. The connecting lines between the countries represent the cooperation. The length of the connecting lines between the countries indicates the relative strength and similarity of the research themes. The shorter the distance of the connecting line between the countries, the stronger the relationship. As mentioned before, four clusters were identified. The first cluster consisted of Denmark, Spain, and Uruguay; the second cluster consisted of Austria, Australia, and Germany; the third cluster consisted of China, England (UK), and Italy; and the last cluster consisted of Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United States. These clusters showed close co-operation and similarities in the research themes.
The top twelve countries that investigated the research field with a minimum number of five articles are listed in Table 3. The United States was the most productive country, with a percentage contribution of 25.78% to the research field during the study period from 2008 to 2023. Uruguay was second, with a percentage contribution of 12.50%, and Germany was third, with a percentage contribution of 10.16%. Among the twelve leading countries were eight European countries, which together contributed more than fifty percent (51.56%) of the growth of the research field in terms of the number of articles.
Of the 162 institutions, 8 institutions contributed to the growth of the research field by providing at least four articles. The Universidad de la República in Uruguay was the most productive institution with sixteen articles, followed by Aarhus University in Denmark in second place with seven articles and Wageningen University in the Netherlands in third place with six articles (see Table 4).
Three clusters with six links and a TLS of 14 were obtained (see Figure 4). The three clusters show the relatedness of the institutions based on the number of co-authored documents. The first cluster (in green) consisted of the University of Arkansas and Ghent University. The second cluster (in red) was formed by Arizona State University and Wageningen University. The third cluster (in blue) comprised Aarhus University and the Universidad de la República. Colorado State University and Copenhagen Business School showed no relatedness with the other six institutions. Of the eight leading institutions, four were from Europe, which together contributed significantly to the growth of the research field, with 44.00% of articles.

3.4. Publications by Journal

All articles were published in fifty-eight journals. Food Quality and Preference was the journal that contributed the most to the research field, with twenty-three articles. With a much smaller number of articles, the journal Appetite followed with eight articles, then the journal Food Research International with seven articles and the Journal of Business Research with six articles (see Table 5).

3.5. Publication Activity by Authors, Co-Authorship, and Author Collaboration

In total, 363 authors contributed to the research field, 311 (85.67%) of them with one (single-authored) article and the remaining 52 authors (14.33%) with multi-authored articles, e.g., [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74]. The eight most productive authors contributed to almost 40% of all publications. Ares, G., e.g., [75,76,77,78,79,80] was the most productive author in the research field, with sixteen articles (10.53%), followed by the authors Machín, L. e.g., [81,82,83,84], with nine articles (5.92%), and Giménez, A., e.g., [85,86], with eight articles (5.26%) (see Table 6).

3.6. Co-Authorship Analysis

In the co-authorship analysis, the relatedness of authors was determined based on the author’s number of co-authored articles [87]. This examined the interaction between the authors in the research field [22], i.e., it was shown how they interacted with each other (including their disciplines). Of the 363 authors, 52 authors met the threshold of a minimum number of at least two articles, e.g., [88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111]. The larger the circle and the font of the author’s name, the greater the research achievement of the respective author. The colors of the circles represent the author’s networks with topics, working groups, etc. [25]. The connecting lines indicate the authors’ corresponding networks. In this study, there were sixteen author networks with 83 connection lines and a TLS of 166. Figure 5 shows the network visualization map, which depicts the authors’ collaboration in the context of the research field from 2008 to 2023 in sixteen networks, while there is a limited connection to publications among the author networks. It turns out that the authors of a publication in a network come from interdisciplinary fields, e.g., marketing, consumer studies, food science, and psychology.

3.7. Co-Citation Analysis

A co-citation analysis was used to determine the relatedness of authors based on the number of citations they shared [87,112] and, thus, identify the most cited authors. It is assumed that publications that are frequently cited together are thematically similar [22]. The colors indicate these thematic connections. In total, 3330 authors were identified, of which the 20 most frequently cited authors had at least twenty citations, e.g., [113,114,115,116,117,118,119]. The most cited and co-cited authors were Bialkova, S., with 115 citations, followed by Ares, G., with 97 citations, and Grunert, K. G., with 95 citations (see Figure 6 and Table 7).
A total of 4546 references were cited in the 118 articles included in this study. To identify the most cited references, the co-citation analysis with the cited references was used as the unit of analysis. Of the 4546 cited references, 14 meet the threshold of at least twenty citations of a cited reference. Table 8 lists the top eight most cited references from 2008 to 2023 in the research field.

3.8. Bibliographic Coupling Analysis

Bibliographic coupling analysis was used to identify the major themes in the research field between 2008 and 2023. Through bibliographic coupling analysis, the relatedness of articles is determined based on the number of references that they share [36]. Bibliographic coupling is generally used to better understand the research field and uncover specific themes that developed in the research field [126], and it is best used within a certain timeframe [28]. Accordingly, thematic clusters were identified that reflected the current state of research in the study period. For the bibliographic analysis, the article was used as the unit of analysis, and the inclusion criteria were set at fifty citations. Three clusters with twenty-four articles were identified (see Figure 7 and Table 9). The cluster ”Nutritional information and impact” is displayed with the color red, the cluster “Labeling, visual attention, and decision” with the color blue, and the cluster “Customer attention, choice, and preference” with the color green.

3.8.1. Red Cluster: Nutritional Information and Impact

Bialkova and van Trijp [38], Bialkova et al. [125], Fenko et al. [128], Graham and Jeffery [120], Graham et al. [129], Machín et al. [130], and Siegrist et al. [132] explored the attention, impact, information processing, and purchases of nutritional information. Benn et al. [127] investigated what information consumers were looking for. Ogle et al. [131] examined whether children’s attention to and preference for media characters increased regardless of nutritional quality.

3.8.2. Blue Cluster: Labeling, Visual Attention, and Decision

Ares et al. [123,133] and van Loo et al. [135] investigated the importance of visual attention in food labeling, as well as the impact of thinking styles on food decisions. Antúnez et al. [85] and Siegrist et al. [134] examined the effectiveness of different labeling formats and visual attentional capture. Samant and Seo [9] explored the impact of label education on consumers’ purchasing behavior, as measured by their visual attention to product labeling.

3.8.3. Green Cluster: Consumer Attention, Choice, and Preference

Meyerding and Merz [14] and Milosavljevic et al. [6] examined visual attention and consumer preferences, while Helmert et al. [140] and Jaeger et al. [137] demonstrated that damage of food products rapidly attracted consumers’ attention. Bigné et al. [136] found out that the key driver of additional brand choices was the time spent on the first choice and that allocating less time to the first choice triggered additional purchases within product categories. Oliveira et al. [86] studied consumer attention and evaluated differences between food products. Peschel et al. [8] and Rebollar et al. [138] investigated patterns when looking at packaging and attention capture. Van der Laan et al. [139] studied how goal priming affected food choice.

3.9. Keyword and Co-Occurrence Analysis

Co-occurrence analysis was used to determine the relatedness of keywords based on the number of articles in which the keywords appeared together [112]. In addition, the keywords were identified in different colored clusters using VOSviewer’s graphical representation [112]. Analyzing the co-occurrence of keywords is a useful tool for understanding the knowledge structure of a research field by assessing the association between keywords in a particular research field [141]. Each co-occurrence of a pair of words is represented as a link between the keywords [126]. The links between the circles show the strength of the relationship between each keyword [142]. The building network represents the cumulative knowledge and helps us to understand the knowledge components and structure of the research field [126]. A color-coded cluster represents circles with common attributes [126]. In total, 664 keywords were found, and 21 met the threshold based on the inclusion criteria of a minimum of eleven co-occurrences. Figure 8 shows the keyword co-occurrence network analysis map.
The co-occurrence analysis revealed three major clusters with 197 links and a TLS of 1046. The clusters were titled “Nutritional information and impact” (blue cluster), “Visual attention and food choice” (red cluster), and “Food information and decision” (green cluster). The keywords mapped in the blue cluster were mainly related to nutritional information and attracting consumers’ attention as they searched for food and made their choices. The red cluster included keywords such as visual attention, perception, preferences, health, willingness-to-pay, and food choice. The green cluster comprised keywords that were related to food information such as quality, design, and labels and helped with decision-making. The clusters and the keywords assigned to each cluster are listed in Table 10.

3.10. Text Data Analysis (Co-Word Analysis) of Title and Abstract

Text data analysis was used to identify existing and predict future relationships between key themes in the research field [35]. It was based on relevant words that appeared in the titles and abstracts of the articles [35]. Thus, in contrast to co-occurrence and bibliographic coupling analysis, with text data analysis, the actual content of the article was used, and frequently occurring terms, insofar as they were thematically related, were identified [22]. In total, there were 2849 terms in the title and abstract fields. Structured abstract labels and copyright statements were ignored, which meant that no terms were extracted from them. The twenty most frequently occurring terms were set as the inclusion criteria. Figure 9 shows the text data analysis map.
Three clusters with 128 links and a TLS of 11217 were detected. The following three themes were identified through text data analysis: (1) consumer attention and food choice, (2) nutritional information, and (3) behavior (see Table 11). The first theme corresponds to the green cluster “Consumer attention, choice, and preference” identified via the bibliographic analysis and the red cluster “Visual attention and food choice” identified via the keyword co-occurrence analysis. How consumers paid attention to and chose food (red theme of the text data analysis) was the central field of research in the articles examined when eye tracking technology was used. This should be seen as a research direction to be pursued further. The second theme of the text data analysis directly corresponds to the red cluster “Nutritional information and impact” identified via the bibliographic analysis and the blue cluster “Nutritional information and impact” identified via the keyword co-occurrence analysis. Accordingly, a focus in the research field was on studies related to the nutritional information about food and its impact, which should be considered a further future research stream. The third theme of the text data analysis is a sub-aspect of the blue cluster “Labeling, visual attention, and decision” identified via the bibliometric analysis and the green cluster “Food information and decision” of the keyword co-occurrence analysis. Food information, labeling, and visual attention lead to certain behavior that contributes to decision-making. These can be summarized under the future research field identified in the first theme.

4. Key Findings and Future Research Directions

The first paper that used eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective was published in 2011 by Bialkova and van Trjip [38]. This article was the second most cited reference (see Table 8). It can be considered a starting point for eye tracking research as Bialkova and van Tjip [38] (p. 592) stated that eye tracking “seems to be a promising tool for answering puzzling questions in consumer attention and decision-making with straightforward potential extensions to enlarge its scope.” This is also supported by the increase in the number of publications in the following years (see Figure 2), which shows that eye tracking as an instrument of investigation became increasingly important in consumer research [2,16,18].
The leading journal for publications within the field of research was the journal Food Quality and Preference (RQ 3; see Table 5). European countries contributed the most to the research field, followed by the United States and Uruguay (RQ 3; see Table 3), while Eastern European and Asian countries were under-represented. This could be an area of research for the future. One institution and country (Universidad de la República in Uruguay) was particularly noticeable. This one institution published all publications for Uruguay (RQ 3). In the network visualization map of the author collaboration, it can be seen that the Universidad de la República had the largest collaboration network of all authors (RQ 2; see the networks in green and light blue in the center of Figure 5). The Universidad de la República with the authors Ares, G.; Machín, L.; Giménez, A.; and Lucia A. collaborated primarily with Aarhus University in Denmark with the author Aschemann-Witzel, J. The second collaborative network was formed by Arizona State University in the United States with the author Grebitus, C., and Wageningen University in the Netherlands with the author van Loo, E. J. The third collaborative network was formed between the University of Arkansas in the United States with author Seo, H.-S. and Ghent University in Belgium with the authors van Loo, E. J. and Verbeke, W. (see Figure 4). Author networks were built from interdisciplinary areas, e.g., marketing, consumer studies, food science, and psychology. This close cooperation could enrich the research field in the future, especially if computer sciences are included even more. Aarhus University followed the Universidad de la República as the second highest contributing institution to the growth of the research field (RQ 3; see Table 4). In addition, the authors Ares, G.; Machín, L.; Giménez, A.; and Antúnes, L. of the Universidad de la República were the most productive in the research field (RQ 1; see Table 6).
When it comes to the co-citation analysis, a different picture than that in Table 6 emerged. Here, Bialkova, S. was the leading author in citations (RQ 1; see Table 7). She was cited by the authors Ares, G. and Grunert, K. G. from the two leading institutions contributing to the research field, but also by all other authors from other institutions (see Figure 6). This becomes apparent by the position of the author Bialkova, S. in the middle of Figure 6 with the largest circle and font size, as well as numerous connection lines to the twenty most cited authors (RQ 1). Bialkova, S. was also represented with three references among the top eight most cited references (see Table 8), which demonstrates her prominent position in the field of research at the time of the bibliometric review. Other leading authors in citations were Graham, D. J. from the University of Colorado and van Loo, E. J. from Ghent University (now Wageningen University) (see Figure 6).
The keyword co-occurrence analysis (RQ 4) was used to decode the most prominent terms in the literature with eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective. It was determined that the keyword “eye tracking” occurred most frequently. This is not surprising, as it was the method inclusion criteria to be used in all the studies examined. In addition, most of the research focused on attention, nutritional information, (food) choice, and decision-making. Further important terms were preferences, labels, and willingness-to-pay. These keywords are inevitably linked to consumer research.
Bibliographic coupling, co-occurrence, and text data analysis were used to identify primary clusters and research themes in the research field between 2008 and 2023 (RQ 5). The three clusters and themes identified in the analyses were similar. The first research stream with eye tracking aimed to investigate how consumers become aware of and choose food. For the second research stream, the focus was on nutritional information on foods and its impact. The third research stream dealt with food information, including labels and prices and their visual attention, which led to certain consumer behavior.
In terms of the practical implications of this research, we can state that packaging and label designs serve as an important source of information for consumers (see Table 9). This suggests that the way consumers perceive packaging and label design is a key success factor for the purchase of the food. Future marketing strategies should, therefore, focus even more on this and be examined for their effectiveness using eye tracking. In this context, price representations should also be given greater consideration, as prices are a key purchase criterion for consumers (see Table 10). Since research so far has focused on certain countries (see Table 3), this research needs to be expanded to other countries, for example, countries in Eastern Europe, Asia, or Africa. It would then be necessary to determine whether the marketing strategies identified above (see Table 9) are also successful in these countries, i.e., whether similar marketing strategies are effective worldwide or whether a different customer approach is required depending on the country or region.

5. Concluding Remarks

This bibliometric review answered five research questions to present the statuses of studies that used eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective. It makes important contributions to the literature while first examining the contributions of researchers to the research field with performance analysis and by identifying and presenting leading institutions, countries, and journals. Second, by identifying the most cited authors and highly referenced articles, the research field’s underlying knowledge base and collaborative networks are highlighted. Third, the authors’ collaborative networks are presented. Fourth, the most popular keywords are shown. Finally, the three themes in the research field are identified, and recommendations for future research are provided.
This study has limitations. The selection of keywords was based on the authors’ understanding of eye tracking, consumer/nutrition, food, and marketing. Other constellations of keywords could be added in the future. With a bibliometric review, only the tab-delimited cited data record at a specific point in time in the past can be accessed for a publication. In contrast to systematic literature reviews, if an author changed universities, this is not necessarily obvious. In the future, past research results could be bundled and presented in systematic literature reviews to advance research based on this information. The literature corpus could be expanded and a more comprehensive understanding enabled if publications related to the research field are searched for in other databases such as Scopus.

Author Contributions

T.R., conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, investigation, resources, data curation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing; N.S., methodology. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publishing Fund of Hochschule Fulda—University of Applied Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. DESTATIS. Key Table Household Consumption Expenditure on Food. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Countries-Regions/International-Statistics/Data-Topic/Tables/BasicData_HouseholdExpFood.html?nn=21880#AnkerOceania (accessed on 20 January 2024).
  2. Motoki, K.; Saito, T.; Onuma, T. Eye-tracking research on sensory and consumer science: A review, pitfalls and future directions. Food Res. Int. 2021, 145, 110389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Christenfeld, N. Choices from identical options. Psychol. Sci. 1995, 6, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Eisend, M. Shelf space elasticity: A meta-analysis. J. Retail. 2014, 90, 168–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zuschke, N. The impact of task complexity and task motivation on in-store marketing effectiveness: An eye tracking analysis. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 116, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Milosavljevic, M.; Navalpakkam, V.; Koch, C.; Rangel, A. Relative visual saliency differences induce sizable bias in consumer choice. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Orquin, J.L.; Bagger, M.P.; Lahm, E.S.; Grunert, K.G.; Scholderer, J. The visual ecology of product packaging and its effects on consumer attention. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 111, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Peschel, A.O.; Orquin, J.L.; Loose, S.M. Increasing consumers’ attention capture and food choice through bottom-up effects. Appetite 2019, 132, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Samant, S.S.; Seo, H.-S. Effects of label understanding level on consumers’ visual attention toward sustainability and process-related label claims found on chicken meat products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 50, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Song, L.; Lim, Y.; Chang, P.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, M.; Wang, X.; Yu, X.; Lehto, M.R.; Cai, H. Ecolabel’s role in informing sustainable consumption: A naturalistic decision making study using eye tracking glasses. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 218, 685–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Orquin, J.L.; Loose, S.M. Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychol. 2013, 144, 190–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Giray, C.; Yon, B.; Alniacik, U.; Girisken, Y. How does mothers’ mood matter on their choice of organic food? Controlled eye-tracking study. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 144, 1175–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bettman, J.R.; Luce, M.F.; Payne, J.W. Constructive consumer choice processes. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25, 187–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Meyerding, S.G.; Merz, N. Consumer preferences for organic labels in Germany using the example of apples—Combining choice-based conjoint analysis and eye-tracking measurements. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Drexler, D.; Fiala, J.; Havlickova, A.; Potuckova, A.; Soucek, M. The effect of organic food labels on consumer attention. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2018, 24, 441–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cong, L.; Luan, S.; Young, E.; Mirosa, M.; Bremer, P.; Torrico, D.D. The application of biometric approaches in agri-food marketing: A systematic literature review. Foods 2023, 12, 2982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Harris, J.M.; Ciorciari, J.; Gountas, J. Consumer neuroscience for marketing researchers. J. Consum. Behav. 2018, 17, 239–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ruppenthal, T. Eye-Tracking Studies on Sustainable Food Consumption: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 16434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huey, E.B. On the Psychology and Physiology of Reading. I. Am. J. Psychol. 1900, 11, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Huey, E.B. The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1908. [Google Scholar]
  21. Pritchard, A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics? J. Doc. 1969, 25, 348–349. [Google Scholar]
  22. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; Pandey, N.; Lim, W.M. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2009, 60, 1635–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. In Advances in Data Analysis; Decker, R., Lenz, H.-J., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 299–306. ISBN 978-3-540-70980-0. [Google Scholar]
  25. Moral-Munoz, J.A.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Cobo, M.J. Science mapping analysis software tools: A review. In Springer Handbook of Science and Technology Indicators; Glänzel, W., Moed, H.F., Schmoch, U., Thelwall, M., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 159–185. ISBN 978-3-030-02510-6. [Google Scholar]
  26. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Otlet, P. Traité de Documentation: Le Livre sur le Livre, Théorie et Pratique; D. Van Keerberghen & Fils: Brussels, Belgium, 1934. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cobo, M.J.; López-Herrera, A.G.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Herrera, F. Science mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2011, 62, 1382–1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ma, G.; Zhuang, X. Nutrition label processing in the past 10 years: Contributions from eye tracking approach. Appetite 2021, 156, 104859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Edwards, P.; Clarke, M.; DiGuiseppi, C.; Pratap, S.; Roberts, I.; Wentz, R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: Accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat. Med. 2002, 21, 1635–1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Small, H.G.; Koenig, M.E. Journal clustering using a bibliographic coupling method. Inf. Process. Manag. 1977, 13, 277–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Glänzel, W.; Schubert, A. Analysing scientific networks through co-authorship. In Handbook of Quantitative Science and Technology Research; Moed, H.F., Glänzel, W., Schmoch, U., Eds.; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 257–276. ISBN 1-4020-2702-8. [Google Scholar]
  34. Callon, M.; Courtial, J.-P.; Turner, W.A.; Bauin, S. From translations to problematic networks: An introduction to co-word analysis. Soc. Sci. Inf. 1983, 22, 191–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Emich, K.J.; Kumar, S.; Lu, L.; Norder, K.; Pandey, N. Mapping 50 Years of Small Group Research Through Small Group Research. Small Group Res. 2020, 51, 659–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kessler, M.M. Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Am. Doc. 1963, 14, 10–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Appropriate similarity measures for author co-citation analysis. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2008, 59, 1653–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bialkova, S.; van Trijp, H.C. An efficient methodology for assessing attention to and effect of nutrition information displayed front-of-pack. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 592–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Świda, J.; Halagarda, M.; Popek, S. Perceptions of older consumers regarding food packaging as a prerequisite for its improvement: A case study of Polish market. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 358–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Garcia-Madariaga, J.; Lopez, M.-F.B.; Burgos, I.M.; Virto, N.R. Do isolated packaging variables influence consumer’s attention and preferences? Physiol. Behav. 2019, 200, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Songa, G.; Slabbinck, H.; Vermeir, I.; Russo, V. How do implicit/explicit attitudes and emotional reactions to sustainable logo relate? A neurophysiological study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 71, 485–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bogomolova, S.; Oppewal, H.; Cohen, J.; Yao, J. How the layout of a unit price label affects eye-movements and product choice: An eye-tracking investigation. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 111, 102–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Gabor, A.M.; Stojnić, B.; Ostić, D.B. Effects of different nutrition labels on visual attention and accuracy of nutritional quality perception—Results of an experimental eye-tracking study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 84, 103948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sielicka-Różyńska, M.; Jerzyk, E.; Gluza, N. Consumer perception of packaging: An eye-tracking study of gluten-free cookies. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 45, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. López-Mas, L.; Claret, A.; Bermúdez, A.; Llauger, M.; Guerrero, L. Co-Creation with Consumers for Packaging Design Validated through Implicit and Explicit Methods: Exploratory Effect of Visual and Textual Attributes. Foods 2022, 11, 1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Melendrez-Ruiz, J.; Dujourdy, L.; Goisbault, I.; Charrier, J.-C.; Pagnat, K.; Nicklaus, S.; Arvisenet, G.; Chambaron, S. “You look at it, but will you choose it”: Is there a link between the foods consumers look at and what they ultimately choose in a virtual supermarket? Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 98, 104510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Šola, H.M.; Kljusurić, J.G.; Rončević, I. The impact of bio-label on the decision-making behavior. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 6, 1002521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yu, J.; Droulers, O.; Lacoste-Badie, S. Why display motion on packaging? The effect of implied motion on consumer behavior. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2022, 64, 102840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Dang, A.; Nichols, B.S. Consumer response to positive nutrients on the facts up front (FUF) label: A comparison between healthy and unhealthy foods and the role of nutrition motivation. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2023, 31, 223–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ahn, S.E.; Oh, J.; Cho, M.S. Capturing consumers’ visual attention toward sugar-reduction information—Focusing on sugar-reduced beverages using eye-tracking experiments. Br. Food J. 2023, 125, 3656–3678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Escandon-Barbosa, D.; Salas-Paramo, J.; López-Ramírez, M.P.; Pava-Cárdenas, A. The role of cognitive processes in healthy consumption food products: An eye-tracking technology study. J. Mark. Anal. 2023, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bartels, M.; Tillack, K.; Lin, C.J. Communicating nutrition information at the point of purchase: An eye-tracking study of shoppers at two grocery stores in the United States. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2018, 42, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gao, Z.; Li, Z.; Zhuang, X.; Ma, G. Advantages of graphical nutrition facts label: Faster attention capture and improved healthiness judgement. Ergonomics 2023, 66, 627–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Zhao, H.; Huang, F.; Spence, C.; Wan, X. Visual Search for Wines with a Triangle on the Label in a Virtual Store. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 2173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Vriens, M.; Vidden, C.; Schomaker, J. What I see is what I want: Top-down attention biasing choice behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 111, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Oswald, C.; Adhikari, K.; Mohan, A. Effect of front-of-package labels on consumer product evaluation and preferences. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2022, 5, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Thomas, D.; Seenivasan, S.; Wang, D. A nudge toward healthier food choices: The influence of health star ratings on consumers’ choices of packaged foods. Eur. J. Mark. 2021, 55, 2735–2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Popova, L.; Nonnemaker, J.; Taylor, N.; Bradfield, B.; Kim, A. Warning Labels on Sugar-sweetened Beverages: An Eye Tracking Approach. Am. J. Health Behav. 2019, 43, 406–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hong, S.; Misra, K.; Vilcassim, N.J. The Perils of Category Management: The Effect of Product Assortment on Multicategory Purchase Incidence. J. Mark. 2016, 80, 34–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Bix, L.; Sundar, R.P.; Bello, N.M.; Peltier, C.; Weatherspoon, L.J.; Becker, M.W. To See or Not to See: Do Front of Pack Nutrition Labels Affect Attention to Overall Nutrition Information? PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0139732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Alonso-Dos-Santos, M.; Ulloa, R.Q.; Quintana, Á.S.; Quijada, D.V.; Nazel, P.F. Nutrition Labeling Schemes and the Time and Effort of Consumer Processing. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Turner, M.M.; Skubisz, C.; Pandya, S.P.; Silverman, M.; Austin, L.L. Predicting Visual Attention to Nutrition Information on Food Products: The Influence of Motivation and Ability. J. Health Commun. 2014, 19, 1017–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Gomes, T.; Hurley, R.A.; Duchowski, A.; Darby, D.; Ouzts, A. The Effect of Full Body Versus Partial Body Graphic Labelling on Beverage Packaging. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2014, 27, 933–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Escandon-Barbosa, D.; Rialp-Criado, J. The Impact of the Content of the Label on the Buying Intention of a Wine Consumer. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zou, P.; Liu, J. How nutrition information influences online food sales. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2019, 47, 1132–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lamberz, J.; Litfin, T.; Teckert, Ö.; Meeh-Bunse, G. Is there a Link between Sustainability, Perception and Buying Decision at the Point of Sale? Bus. Syst. Res. 2020, 11, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Binder, A.; Naderer, B.; Matthes, J. A “Forbidden Fruit Effect”: An Eye-Tracking Study on Children’s Visual Attention to Food Marketing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Mansfield, E.D.; Ibanez, D.; Chen, F.; Chen, E.; de Grandpré, E. Efficacy of “High in” Nutrient Specific Front of Package Labels—A Retail Experiment with Canadians of Varying Health Literacy Levels. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, M.; Burke, R.R.; Hui, S.K.; Leykin, A. Understanding Lateral and Vertical Biases in Consumer Attention: An In-Store Ambulatory Eye-Tracking Study. J. Mark. Res. 2021, 58, 1120–1141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Castro, I.A.; Miles, M.P.; Gonzalez, G.R.; Ayala, G.X. Children’s perceptions of their parent’s parenting strategies and child influence on purchases in a supermarket. Appetite 2021, 162, 105149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Kleih, A.-K.; Sparke, K. Visual marketing: The importance and consumer recognition of fruit brands in supermarket fruit displays. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 93, 104263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mehlhose, C.; Schmitt, D.; Risius, A. PACE Labels on Healthy and Unhealthy Snack Products in a Laboratory Shopping Setting: Perception, Visual Attention, and Product Choice. Foods 2021, 10, 904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Fernández-Serrano, P.; Tarancón, P.; Bonet, L.; Besada, C. Consumers’ Visual Attention and Choice of ‘Sustainable Irrigation’-Labeled Wine: Logo vs. Text. Agronomy 2022, 12, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Puerta, P.; Laguna, L.; Tárrega, A.; Carrillo, E. Relevant elements on biscuits purchasing decision for coeliac children and their parents in a supermarket context. Food Qual. Prefer. 2022, 98, 104496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Antúnez, L.; Vidal, L.; Sapolinski, A.; Giménez, A.; Maiche, A.; Ares, G. How do design features influence consumer attention when looking for nutritional information on food labels? Results from an eye-tracking study on pan bread labels. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 64, 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Vidal, G.; Machín, L.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Ares, G. Does message framing matter for promoting the use of nutritional warnings in decision making? Public Health Nutr 2019, 22, 3025–3034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Varela, P.; Antúnez, L.; Cadena, R.S.; Giménez, A.; Ares, G. Attentional capture and importance of package attributes for consumers’ perceived similarities and differences among products: A case study with breakfast cereal packages. Food Res. Int. 2014, 64, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kim, M.-A.; Yoo, H.-J.; Ares, G.; Lee, H.-S. Effect of thinking style and consumption purpose on food choice: A case study with yogurt using a discrete choice experiment and eye-tracking. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 86, 104025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Jaeger, S.R.; Antúnez, L.; Ares, G.; Johnston, J.W.; Hall, M.; Harker, F.R. Consumers’ visual attention to fruit defects and disorders: A case study with apple images. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 116, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Tórtora, G.; Machín, L.; Ares, G. Influence of nutritional warnings and other label features on consumers’ choice: Results from an eye-tracking study. Food Res. Int. 2019, 119, 605–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Reis, F.; Machín, L.; Rosenthal, A.; Deliza, R.; Ares, G. Does a time constraint modify results from rating-based conjoint analysis? Case study with orange/pomegranate juice bottles. Food Res. Int. 2016, 90, 244–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Centurión, M.; Machín, L.; Ares, G. Relative Impact of Nutritional Warnings and Other Label Features on Cereal Bar Healthfulness Evaluations. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2019, 51, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Machín, L.; Alcaire, F.; Antúnez, L.; Giménez, A.; Curutchet, M.R.; Ares, G. Use of nutritional warning labels at the point of purchase: An exploratory study using self-reported measures and eye-tracking. Appetite 2023, 188, 106634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Machín, L.; Curutchet, M.R.; Giménez, A.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Ares, G. Do nutritional warnings do their work? Results from a choice experiment involving snack products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 77, 159–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Antúnez, L.; Giménez, A.; Maiche, A.; Ares, G. Influence of Interpretation Aids on Attentional Capture, Visual Processing, and Understanding of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2015, 47, 292–299.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Oliveira, D.; Machín, L.; Deliza, R.; Rosenthal, A.; Walter, E.H.; Giménez, A.; Ares, G. Consumers’ attention to functional food labels: Insights from eye-tracking and change detection in a case study with probiotic milk. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 68, 160–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Visualizing bibliometric networks. In Measuring Scholarly Impact; Ding, Y., Rousseau, R., Wolfram, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 285–320. ISBN 978-3-319-10376-1. [Google Scholar]
  88. Neuhofer, Z.; McFadden, B.R.; Rihn, A.L.; Wei, X.; Khachatryan, H. Association between visual attention to nutrition priming and subsequent beverage choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2023, 104, 104721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Neuhofer, Z.; McFadden, B.R.; Rihn, A.; Wei, X.; Khachatryan, H.; House, L. Can the updated nutrition facts label decrease sugar-sweetened beverage consumption? Econ. Hum. Biol. 2020, 37, 100867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Koenigstorfer, J.; Wąsowicz-Kiryło, G.; Styśko-Kunkowska, M.; Groeppel-Klein, A. Behavioural effects of directive cues on front-of-package nutrition information: The combination matters! Public Health Nutr. 2014, 17, 2115–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Grebitus, C.; Van Loo, E.J. Relationship between cognitive and affective processes, and willingness to pay for pesticide-free and GMO-free labeling. Agric. Econ. 2022, 53, 407–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Van Loo, E.J.; Nayga, R.M.; Campbell, D.; Seo, H.-S.; Verbeke, W. Using eye tracking to account for attribute non-attendance in choice experiments. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2018, 45, 333–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Van Loo, E.J.; Grebitus, C.; Verbeke, W. Effects of nutrition and sustainability claims on attention and choice: An eye-tracking study in the context of a choice experiment using granola bar concepts. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 90, 104100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Van Loo, E.J.; Grebitus, C.; Roosen, J. Explaining attention and choice for origin labeled cheese by means of consumer ethnocentrism. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 78, 103716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ballco, P.; De-Magistris, T.; Caputo, V. Consumer preferences for nutritional claims: An exploration of attention and choice based on an eye-tracking choice experiment. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ballco, P.; Caputo, V.; De-Magistris, T. Consumer valuation of European nutritional and health claims: Do taste and attention matter? Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 79, 103793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Danner, L.; de Antoni, N.; Gere, A.; Sipos, L.; Kovács, S.; Dürrschmid, K. Make a choice! Visual attention and choice behaviour in multialternative food choice situations. Acta Aliment. 2016, 45, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gere, A.; Danner, L.; Dürrschmid, K.; Kókai, Z.; Sipos, L.; Huzsvai, L.; Kovács, S. Structure of presented stimuli influences gazing behavior and choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 83, 103915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Jantathai, S.; Danner, L.; Joechl, M.; Dürrschmid, K. Gazing behavior, choice and color of food: Does gazing behavior predict choice? Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 1621–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Steinhauser, J.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ purchase decisions for products with nutrition and health claims: What role do product category and gaze duration on claims play? Appetite 2019, 141, 104337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Steinhauser, J.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Who Buys Products with Nutrition and Health Claims? A Purchase Simulation with Eye Tracking on the Influence of Consumers’ Nutrition Knowledge and Health Motivation. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Otterbring, T.; Gidlöf, K.; Rolschau, K.; Shams, P. Cereal Deal: How the Physical Appearance of Others Affects Attention to Healthy Foods. Perspect. Behav. Sci. 2020, 43, 451–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Otterbring, T.; Wästlund, E.; Gustafsson, A. Eye-tracking customers’ visual attention in the wild: Dynamic gaze behavior moderates the effect of store familiarity on navigational fluency. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ma, X.; Zhuang, X.; Ma, G. Transparent Windows on Food Packaging Do Not Always Capture Attention and Increase Purchase Intention. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 593690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Drexler, D.; Souček, M. The influence of sweet positioning on shelves on consumer perception. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2016, 10, 34–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Dudinskaya, E.C.; Naspetti, S.; Zanoli, R. Using eye-tracking as an aid to design on-screen choice experiments. J. Choice Model. 2020, 36, 100232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Szakál, D.; Fehér, O.; Radványi, D.; Gere, A. Effect of Scents on Gazing Behavior and Choice. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ozturk, E.; Kilic, B.; Dudinskaya, E.C.; Naspetti, S.; Solfanelli, F.; Zanoli, R. Message in a Bottle: An Exploratory Study on the Role of Wine-Bottle Design in Capturing Consumer Attention. Beverages 2023, 9, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Rihn, A.L.; Yue, C. Visual Attention’s Influence on Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay for Processed Food Products. Agribusiness 2016, 32, 314–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Vu, T.M.H.; Tu, V.P.; Duerrschmid, K. Gazing behavior reactions of Vietnamese and Austrian consumers to Austrian wafers and their relations to wanting, expected and tasted liking. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Takahashi, R.; Todo, Y.; Funaki, Y. How Can We Motivate Consumers to Purchase Certified Forest Coffee? Evidence From a Laboratory Randomized Experiment Using Eye-trackers. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 150, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. VOSviewer Manual, 2023. Available online: https://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.20.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2023).
  113. Bialkova, S.; Grunert, K.G.; van Trijp, H. From desktop to supermarket shelf: Eye-tracking exploration on consumer attention and choice. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 81, 103839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Graham, D.J.; Roberto, C.A. Evaluating the Impact of U.S. Food and Drug Administration–Proposed Nutrition Facts Label Changes on Young Adults’ Visual Attention and Purchase Intentions. Health Educ. Behav. 2016, 43, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wolfson, J.A.; Graham, D.J.; Bleich, S.N. Attention to Physical Activity–Equivalent Calorie Information on Nutrition Facts Labels: An Eye-Tracking Investigation. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2017, 49, 35–42.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Balcombe, K.; Fraser, I.; Williams, L.; McSorley, E. Examining the relationship between visual attention and stated preferences: A discrete choice experiment using eye-tracking. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2017, 144, 238–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Grebitus, C.; Davis, G.C. Change is good!? Analyzing the relationship between attention and nutrition facts panel modifications. Food Policy 2017, 73, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Clement, J.; Aastrup, J.; Forsberg, S.C. Decisive visual saliency and consumers׳ in-store decisions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2015, 22, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Clement, J.; Smith, V.; Zlatev, J.; Gidlöf, K.; van de Weijer, J. Assessing information on food packages. Eur. J. Mark. 2017, 51, 219–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Graham, D.J.; Jeffery, R.W. Predictors of nutrition label viewing during food purchase decision making: An eye tracking investigation. Public Health Nutr 2012, 15, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Bialkova, S.; van Trijp, H. What determines consumer attention to nutrition labels? Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 1042–1051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Grunert, K.G.; Wills, J.M. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J. Public Health 2007, 15, 385–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Ares, G.; Giménez, A.N.A.; Bruzzone, F.; Vidal, L.; Antúnez, L.; Maiche, A. Consumer Visual Processing of Food Labels: Results from an Eye-Tracking Study. J. Sens. Stud. 2013, 28, 138–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. van Herpen, E.; van Trijp, H.C. Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite 2011, 57, 148–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Bialkova, S.; Grunert, K.G.; Juhl, H.J.; Wasowicz-Kirylo, G.; Stysko-Kunkowska, M.; van Trijp, H.C. Attention mediates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers’ choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-tracking. Appetite 2014, 76, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Victor, V.; Nair, A.M.; Meyer, D.F. Nudges and choice architecture in public policy: A bibliometric analysis. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 2023, 104, 102020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Benn, Y.; Webb, T.L.; Chang, B.P.; Reidy, J. What information do consumers consider, and how do they look for it, when shopping for groceries online? Appetite 2015, 89, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Fenko, A.; Nicolaas, I.; Galetzka, M. Does attention to health labels predict a healthy food choice? An eye-tracking study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 69, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Graham, D.J.; Heidrick, C.; Hodgin, K. Nutrition Label Viewing during a Food-Selection Task: Front-of-Package Labels vs Nutrition Facts Labels. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2015, 115, 1636–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Machín, L.; Curutchet, M.R.; Gugliucci, V.; Vitola, A.; Otterbring, T.; de Alcantara, M.; Ares, G. The habitual nature of food purchases at the supermarket: Implications for policy making. Appetite 2020, 155, 104844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Ogle, A.D.; Graham, D.J.; Lucas-Thompson, R.G.; Roberto, C.A. Influence of cartoon media characters on children’s attention to and preference for food and beverage products. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2017, 117, 265–270.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Siegrist, M.; Ung, C.-Y.; Zank, M.; Marinello, M.; Kunz, A.; Hartmann, C.; Menozzi, M. Consumers’ food selection behaviors in three-dimensional (3D) virtual reality. Food Res. Int. 2019, 117, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. Ares, G.; Mawad, F.; Giménez, A.; Maiche, A. Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Siegrist, M.; Leins-Hess, R.; Keller, C. Which front-of-pack nutrition label is the most efficient one? The results of an eye-tracker study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Nayga, R.M.; Seo, H.-S.; Zhang, B.; Verbeke, W. Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 118, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Bigné, E.; Llinares, C.; Torrecilla, C. Elapsed time on first buying triggers brand choices within a category: A virtual reality-based study. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 1423–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Jaeger, S.R.; Machin, L.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Antunez, L.; Harker, F.R.; Ares, G. Buy, eat or discard? A case study with apples to explore fruit quality perception and food waste. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 69, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Rebollar, R.; Lidón, I.; Martín, J.; Puebla, M. The identification of viewing patterns of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. van der Laan, L.N.; Papies, E.K.; Hooge, I.T.C.; Smeets, P.A.M. Goal-directed visual attention drives health goal priming: An eye-tracking experiment. Health Psychol. 2017, 36, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Helmert, J.R.; Symmank, C.; Pannasch, S.; Rohm, H. Have an eye on the buckled cucumber: An eye tracking study on visually suboptimal foods. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 60, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Radhakrishnan, S.; Erbis, S.; Isaacs, J.A.; Kamarthi, S. Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Law, J.; Bauin, S.; Courtial, J.-P.; Whittaker, J. Policy and the mapping of scientific change: A co-word analysis of research into environmental acidification. Scientometrics 1988, 14, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jtaer 19 00057 g001
Figure 1. Search strategy and data filtering process.
Figure 1. Search strategy and data filtering process.
Jtaer 19 00057 g001
Jtaer 19 00057 g002
Figure 2. Number of publications by year and publication trend (N = 118).
Figure 2. Number of publications by year and publication trend (N = 118).
Jtaer 19 00057 g002
Jtaer 19 00057 g003
Figure 3. Overlay visualization map of the top twelve countries from 2008 to 2023.
Figure 3. Overlay visualization map of the top twelve countries from 2008 to 2023.
Jtaer 19 00057 g003
Jtaer 19 00057 g004
Figure 4. Relatedness of the eight institutions in the research field.
Figure 4. Relatedness of the eight institutions in the research field.
Jtaer 19 00057 g004
Jtaer 19 00057 g005
Figure 5. Network visualization map of author collaborations from 2008 to 2023.
Figure 5. Network visualization map of author collaborations from 2008 to 2023.
Jtaer 19 00057 g005
Jtaer 19 00057 g006
Figure 6. The top twenty most cited authors.
Figure 6. The top twenty most cited authors.
Jtaer 19 00057 g006
Jtaer 19 00057 g007
Figure 7. Bibliographic coupling of the articles with more than 50 citations.
Figure 7. Bibliographic coupling of the articles with more than 50 citations.
Jtaer 19 00057 g007
Jtaer 19 00057 g008
Figure 8. All keyword co-occurrences network analysis map.
Figure 8. All keyword co-occurrences network analysis map.
Jtaer 19 00057 g008
Jtaer 19 00057 g009
Figure 9. Text data analysis map.
Figure 9. Text data analysis map.
Jtaer 19 00057 g009
Table 1. Criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of an article for eligibility screening.
Table 1. Criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of an article for eligibility screening.
Inclusion Criteria
  • Obtainable in the BSP or WoS database;
  • Written in the English language;
  • Full-text article published in a peer-reviewed journal;
  • Primary source;
  • Published in the period from 2008 to 2023;
  • Used eye tracking as an instrument in consumer research to investigate food from a marketing perspective.
Exclusion criteria
  • Not a primary source (i.e., conceptual paper, conference paper, review);
  • No eye tracking applied;
  • Not related to consumer research;
  • No food investigated;
  • Articles focusing on developing eye tracking techniques rather than applying them;
  • No full record and tab-delimited cited reference text format obtainable for the identified article in WoS.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis: main information regarding the bibliometric data collection.
Table 2. Descriptive analysis: main information regarding the bibliometric data collection.
DescriptionResults
Articles118
Journals58
Countries37
Institutions162
Period2008–2023
Average citations per article29.16
Authors363
Authors appearances463
Authors of single-authored articles311
Authors of multi-authored articles152
Single-authored articles311
Multi-authored articles52
Articles per author0.325
Authors per article3.08
All keywords664
Author keywords353
Keyword plus370
References4546
Co-Author per articles3.92
Collaboration index2.92
Note: Collaboration index: total authors of multi-authored articles/total multi-authored articles.
Table 3. Top twelve countries that contributed to the growth of the research field by article.
Table 3. Top twelve countries that contributed to the growth of the research field by article.
RankCountryArticlesPercentageCitationsTLS
1United States3325.78113415
2Uruguay1612.506914
3Germany1310.163059
4Denmark118.594499
5Netherlands118.594619
6Spain118.593153
7China75.47982
8Australia64.691444
9England (UK)53.913134
10Austria53.911582
11Belgium53.91798
12Italy53.91613
Table 4. The top eight institutions that contributed to the growth of the research field by article.
Table 4. The top eight institutions that contributed to the growth of the research field by article.
RankInstitutionCountry LocationArticlesCitationsTLS
1Universidad de la RepúblicaUruguay166913
2Aarhus UniversityDenmark73415
3Wageningen UniversityNetherlands63927
4Ghent UniversityBelgium53136
5University of ArkansasUnited States42922
6Colorado State UniversityUnited States41410
7Copenhagen Business SchoolDenmark41080
8Arizona State UniversityUnited States4695
Table 5. Top journals with at least three publications in the research field.
Table 5. Top journals with at least three publications in the research field.
JournalCountryArticlesCitationsH-IndexJCR
Food Quality and PreferenceUnited Kingdom23810144Q1
AppetiteNetherlands8340168Q1
Food Research InternationalUnited Kingdom7254195Q1
Journal of Business ResearchUnited States6140236Q1
Frontiers in PsychologySwitzerland438157Q2
Public Health NutritionUnited Kingdom3104156Q1
Journal of Nutrition
Education and Behavior		United States39490Q2
Journal of Retail and
Consumer Services		United Kingdom376120Q1
International Journal of
Consumer Studies		United Kingdom35988Q1
Table 6. The top eight most productive authors from 2008 to 2023 in the research field.
Table 6. The top eight most productive authors from 2008 to 2023 in the research field.
RankAuthorCountryArticlesPercentage
1Ares, GastónUruguay 1610.53
2Machín, LeandroUruguay 95.92
3Giménez, AnaUruguay 85.26
4Antúnez, LucíaUruguay 74.61
5Grebitus, CarolaUnited States53.29
6van Loo, Ellen J.Netherlands53.29
7Graham, Dan J.United States42.63
8Maiche, AlejandroUruguay42.63
Table 7. The top twenty most cited authors from 2008 to 2023 in the research field.
Table 7. The top twenty most cited authors from 2008 to 2023 in the research field.
RankAuthorCitationsRankAuthorCitations
1Bialkova, Svetlana11611Clement, Jesper35
2Ares, Gastón9712Grebitus, Carola28
3Grunert, Klaus G.9513Balcombe, Kevin27
4Orquin, Jacob L.8214Fenko, Anna25
5Graham, Dan J.7815Antúnez, Lucia24
6Pieters, Rik6216Cowburn, Gill23
7van Loo, Ellen J.4517Visschers, Vivianne H.M.23
8Wedel, Michel4118Russo, J. Edward22
9van Herpen, Erica4019Rayner, Keith22
10Chandon, Pierre3520Otterbring, Tobias22
Table 8. The top eight most cited references from 2008 to 2023 in the research field.
Table 8. The top eight most cited references from 2008 to 2023 in the research field.
RankReferenceFirst AuthorCitationsTLSJournalCountryJCR
1Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision makingOrquin, J. L. [11]41122Acta PsychologicaNetherlandsQ1
2An efficient methodology for assessing attention to and effect of nutrition information displayed front-of-packBilakova, S. [38]36167Food Quality and PreferenceUnited KingdomQ1
3Eye tracking and nutrition label use: A review of the literature and recommendations for label enhancementGraham, D. [120]36163Food PolicyUnited KingdomQ1
4What determines consumer attention to nutrition labels?Bilakova, S. [121]30128Food Quality and PreferenceUnited KingdomQ1
5A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labelsGrunert, K. G. [122]30125Journal of Public HealthUnited KingdomQ1
6Consumer visual processing food labels: Results from an eye-tracking studyAres, G. [123]30105Journal of Sensory StudiesUnited StatesQ3
7Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraintsVan Herpen, E. [124]28132AppetiteUnited StatesQ1
8Attention mediates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers’ choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-trackingBialkova, S. [125]25121AppetiteUnited StatesQ1
Table 9. Thematic clusters identified through bibliographic coupling.
Table 9. Thematic clusters identified through bibliographic coupling.
Clusters IdentifiedSourcesBrief Description
Nutritional information and impact (red)Benn et al. [127]
Bialkova and van Trijp [38]
Bialkova et al. [125]
Fenko et al. [128]
Graham and Jeffery [120]
Graham et al. [129]
Machín et al. [130]
Ogle et al. [131]
Siegrist et al. [132]		The studies mainly examined nutritional information on foods related to health, attention, choice, awareness, information-seeking behavior, and decision-making.
Labeling, visual attention, and decision (blue)Antúnez et al. [85]
Ares et al. [123]
Ares et al. [133]
Samant and Seo [9]
Siegrist et al. [134]
van Loo et al. [135]		How the high-quality attributes (certain labels) and (label) designs of food products improve visual attention, thinking, and processing time.
Consumer attention, choice, and preference (green)Bigné et al. [136]
Milosavljevic et al. [6]
Jaeger et al. [137]
Oliveira et al. [86]
Rebollar et al. [138]
van der Laan et al. [139]
Helmert et al. [140]
Meyerding and Merz [14]
Peschel et al. [8]		Labels, design, priming, brand, brand aspects, etc., are investigated to find out what attracts visual attention and leads to food choice.
Table 10. Keyword clusters identified using keyword co-occurrence analysis.
Table 10. Keyword clusters identified using keyword co-occurrence analysis.
Nutritional Information
and Impact (Blue)		Visual Attention and
Food Choice (Red)		Food Information and
Decision (Green)
Attention (41)Eye-tracking (59)Information (45)
Choice (31)Visual attention (28)Eye tracking (40)
Impact (27)Visual attention (25)Labels (18)
Nutrition information (27)Perception (23)Decision-making (12)
Consumers (20)Food choice (19)Food (12)
Search (11)Willingness-to-pay (14)Design (12)
Preferences (13)Quality (11)
Health (12)
Table 11. Clusters generated using text data analysis.
Table 11. Clusters generated using text data analysis.
Consumer Attention
and Food Choice (Red)		Nutritional Information (Green)Behavior (Blue)
Attention (270)Label (233)Behavior (64)
Product (221)Participant (151)Color (24)
Consumer (181)Information (96)
Food (68)Nutrition information (53)
Preference (49)Front (50)
Purchase (49)Nutritional warning (21)
Influence (46)
Perception (44)
Child (39)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ruppenthal, T.; Schweers, N. Eye Tracking as an Instrument in Consumer Research to Investigate Food from A Marketing Perspective: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2024, 19, 1095-1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020057

AMA Style

Ruppenthal T, Schweers N. Eye Tracking as an Instrument in Consumer Research to Investigate Food from A Marketing Perspective: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 2024; 19(2):1095-1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ruppenthal, Tonia, and Nils Schweers. 2024. "Eye Tracking as an Instrument in Consumer Research to Investigate Food from A Marketing Perspective: A Bibliometric and Visual Analysis" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 19, no. 2: 1095-1117. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer19020057

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop