A Comparison of Two Process Tracing Methods for Choice Tasks

1976). Understanding these prototypical patterns for Process tracing methods, particularly those based evaluating information helps identify behavior that on information acquisition, are becoming commoncould constrain or alter decision processes. Second, the place. Because of this, it is important to examine both information acquisition patterns directly influence cogthe reactivity and the validity of these techniques. nition and memory. Subtle changes in presentation forThis research compares information acquisition bemat can change the frequency of preference reversals havior for choice tasks using Mouselab, a computer(Johnson, Payne, & Bettman, 1988), change decision ized process tracing tool, and Eyegaze, an eye tracking making strategy (Bettman & Kakkar, 1977; Jarvenpaa, system. In an experiment using apartment selection 1989; Todd & Benbasat, 1991) and alter decision perfortasks and gambles, we found significant differences mance (Ashton & Ashton, 1988). Third, because the contingent upon the process tracing method for 10 process tracing measures including subsequent choices. way information is displayed can change decisions, unComputerized process tracing tools increase the derstanding these influences is important in the design amount of time needed to acquire information comof interfaces for electronic commerce (Widing & Talarpared with eye tracking equipment. As a result, subzyk, 1993). jects using Mouselab tend to have more systematic inProcess tracing methods often examine the informaformation acquisition behavior than that observed tion individuals seek before making a choice and how with eye tracking equipment. Additional research is that information produces a choice. Information acquineeded to explore the magnitude and consequences of sition behavior has been studied using eye tracking these differences. q 1996 Academic Press, Inc. equipment, information boards, and computerized process tracing tools (CPT) (Abelson & Levi, 1985). Verbal INTRODUCTION protocols have been used to study information acquisition behavior and processing stages of choice concurThe information acquisition processes underlying rently (see Ford, Schmitt, Schechtman, Hults, & Dohjudgment and choice have seen greater interest over erty (1989) for a review of 45 experiments that used the past 20 years. Information acquisition includes an either verbal protocols or information display boards). analysis of the content of the information sought, how Verbal protocols and information acquisition techlong the subject examines this information, the seniques have seen widespread application in the behavquence of acquisition, and the amount of information ioral decision-making literature (Einhorn & Hogarth, acquired (Einhorn & Hogarth, 1981). These data are 1981) and in the decision support system literature important for research in behavioral decision making (Todd & Benbasat, 1991). and decision support systems for at least three reasons. Each process tracing method requires different levels First, patterns of information processing suggest cerof information acquisition effort on the part of the decitain strategies for evaluating information (Payne, sion maker. Information boards present information in an envelope on a poster board containing an index card We thank Peter Todd, Carol A. E. Nickerson, and two anonymous with one piece of information (e.g., rent for apartment reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. Address correC, see Payne, 1976). Russo found that the overt action spondence and reprint requests to Gerald L. Lohse, Department of of selecting and reading one card requires 15–20 s per Operations and Information Management, 1319 Steinberg Hall-Dieacquisition (1978b). An experiment by Van Raaij (1977) trich Hall, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6366. E-mail: [email protected]. had subjects reach for an actual package. By turning