Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper aims to investigate the effect of a model's eye gaze direction on the information processing behavior of consumers varying based on their gender. Design/methodology/approach An eye-tracking experiment and a memory test are conducted to test the research hypotheses. Findings Compared to an averted gaze, a model with a direct gaze attracts more attention to the model's face among male consumers, leading to deeper processing. However, the findings show that when a model displays a direct gaze rather than an averted gaze, female consumers pay more attention to the brand name, thus leading to deeper processing. Originality/value This study contributes to not only the existing eye gaze direction literature by integrating the facilitative effect of direct gaze and considering the moderating role of consumer gender on consumer information processing but also the literature concerning the selectivity hypothesis by providing evidence of gender differences in information processing. Moreover, this study offers practical insights to practitioners regarding how to design appealing webpages to satisfy consumers of different genders. Peer review The peer review history for this article is available at:


Authors

Wang, Qiuzhen;  Ma, Lan;  Huang, Liqiang;  Wang, Lei

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

Contributors on Publons
  • 2 reviewers
Followers on Publons
  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/08/27

    27-Aug-2020


    Dear Wang, Qiuzhen; Ma, Lan; Huang, Liqiang; Wang, Lei


    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript OIR-01-2020-0025.R2, entitled "Effect of the Model Eye Gaze Direction on Consumer Information Processing: A Consideration of Gender Differences" in its current form for publication in Online Information Review. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.


    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.


    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.


    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.


    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.


    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships


    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of Online Information Review, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.


    Sincerely,


    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/25

    It is improved enough to be accepted.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/08/23

    1. The Discussion is mainly about the analysis of the experimental results. 2. Limitations (6.2) are better at the end of this article and it doesn’t have to be a separate section. Further modifications to the Discussion and Conclusion are suggested prior to publication.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Author Response
    2020/07/24

    24-Jul-2020


    Dear Professor Siapera,


    Thank you very much for the great efforts in organizing the review team to review our paper again. We are happy that the last revision largely met the requirements of the review team.


    The following are our point-by-point responses to each comment from the review team. We hope all the concerns have been well addressed in this round of revision. We also upload our changes as a "SUPPLEMENTARY FILE FOR REVIEW" at the file upload step. We hope it is much easier to follow.


    Thank you again for the time and effort in helping us improve the paper further.


    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    Now, this paper is better, but motivations to focus particularly on direct gaze still need to be clear. Why not concern averted gaze?


    Thank you for the great effort in reviewing our paper again and for providing us with invaluable comments and suggestions.
    According to your suggestion, we have revised the Introduction section and highlighted the research motivation to focus on model’s direct gaze (vs. averted gaze). Please see Page 2, Paragraph 2 in the revised manuscript.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Good. But motivations to focus particularly on direct gaze still need to be clear. Why not concern averted gaze?


    Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the Introduction section and highlighted the motivations to focus on model’s direct gaze (vs. averted gaze). Please see Page 2, Paragraph 2 in the revised manuscript. We hope the revised version is much easier to follow.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Good.


    Thank you.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Now, it is better.


    Thank you for the positive feedback.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Good.


    Thank you.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Now, it is better.


    Thank you for the positive feedback.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Good.


    Thank you.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Good. Carefully check for minor grammatical and similar mistakes.


    We have edited the paper once again, inviting a native English-speaker editor to review it. We hope that the grammatical errors are not serious in the revised manuscript.


    Once again, we sincerely appreciate your great effort and time reviewing our paper and for providing constructive comments and suggestions.


    Reviewer: 2


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    Some problems need further modification.


    Thank you again for the great effort in reviewing our paper and for providing constructive comments and suggestions. The following are our point-by-point responses to your comments.


    1) Introduction. Page 2, “With the rapid development of electronic commerce, platforms have become even more important for consumers to communicate, consume and entertain in their daily lives”, put it at the beginning of this article may be better.


    Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised this text accordingly. Please see Page 2, Paragraph 1 in the revised manuscript.


    2) At the beginning of each chapter, a brief introduction to the main work in this section may be better.


    Thank you for the invaluable suggestion. First, we have added a brief introduction to the main work at the end of the revised Introduction section to clarify the whole structure of the paper. Please see Page 4 in the revised manuscript. Moreover, at the beginning of section 4, a brief introduction to the main work has been added. Please see Page 12. We hope the revised manuscript is improved.


    3) Please check the coherence and logic of the sentences further.


    We have carefully checked the whole paper again and refined it throughout. Thank you.


    4) Research methodology, 4.3. Participants and experimental procedures
    The criteria for selecting participants in the experiment need further to be specified.


    Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the “Participants and experimental procedures” section. More details of the criteria for selecting participants in the experiment have been specified. Please see Page 14 in the revised manuscript. We hope the revised version is much easier to follow.


    5) Discussion is not Conclusion(6.1), Why not separate the discussion and conclusion?


    Thank you for the comment. In the revised version, we separated the Discussion and Conclusion, as you suggested. We discussed the findings, implications, limitations and possible directions for future research in section 6 (please see Page 20) and added a brief conclusion in section 7 (please see Page 27). Thank you.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: YES.


    Thank you for the positive feedback.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: YES.


    Thank you for the positive feedback.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Need further modification.


    We have corrected the “Participants and experimental procedures” section as you requested in point 4). More details of the criteria for selecting participants in the experiment have been specified. Please see Page 14. Thank you.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes.


    Thank you for the positive feedback.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Need further modification.


    We have revised this section as you requested in point 5). In the revised version, the Discussion and Conclusion are presented separately. Thank you for the excellent suggestion.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: YES.


    Thank you.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Need further modification.


    We have edited the paper once again, inviting a native English-speaker editor to review it. We hope that the grammatical errors are not serious in the revised version. Thank you for your patience in reviewing our paper.


    Once again, thank you for the great effort in reviewing our paper for providing invaluable suggestions, which have helped us to improve the paper significantly.



    Cite this author response
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2020/07/02

    02-Jul-2020


    Dear Asst. Prof. Huang,


    Manuscript ID OIR-01-2020-0025.R1 entitled "Effect of the Model Eye Gaze Direction on Consumer Information Processing: A Consideration of Gender Differences" which you submitted to Online Information Review, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.


    The reviewer(s) have recommended publication, but also suggest some minor revisions to your manuscript. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript. Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir&PHPSESSID=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."


    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.


    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.


    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.


    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).


    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.


    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.


    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review and I look forward to receiving your revision.


    Yours sincerely,


    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.


    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    Co-Editor
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie


    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    Now, this paper is better, but motivations to focus particularly on direct gaze still need to be clear. Why not concern averted gaze?


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Good. But motivations to focus particularly on direct gaze still need to be clear. Why not concern averted gaze?


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Good.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Now, it is better.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Good.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Now, it is better.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Good.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Good. Carefully check for minor grammatical and similar mistakes.


    Reviewer: 2


    Recommendation: Minor Revision


    Comments:
    Some problems need further modification.
    1) Introduction. Page 2, “With the rapid development of electronic commerce, platforms have become even more important for consumers to communicate, consume and entertain in their daily lives”, put it at the beginning of this article may be better.
    2) At the beginning of each chapter, a brief introduction to the main work in this section may be better.
    3) Please check the coherence and logic of the sentences further.
    4) Research methodology, 4.3. Participants and experimental procedures
    The criteria for selecting participants in the experiment need further to be specified.
    5) Discussion is not Conclusion(6.1), Why not separate the discussion and conclusion?


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: YES.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: YES.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Need further modification.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Yes.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Need further modification.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: YES.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Need further modification.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/06/30

    Some problems need further modification. 1) Introduction. Page 2, “With the rapid development of electronic commerce, platforms have become even more important for consumers to communicate, consume and entertain in their daily lives”, put it at the beginning of this article may be better. 2) At the beginning of each chapter, a brief introduction to the main work in this section may be better. 3) Please check the coherence and logic of the sentences further. 4) Research methodology, 4.3. Participants and experimental procedures The criteria for selecting participants in the experiment need further to be specified. 5) Discussion is not Conclusion(6.1), Why not separate the discussion and conclusion?

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/06/29

    Now, this paper is better, but motivations to focus particularly on direct gaze still need to be clear. Why not concern averted gaze?

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Author Response
    2020/05/27

    Dear Professor Siapera,


    Thank you so much for handling our paper with great effort. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript.


    The following are our point-by-point responses to each comment from the review team. We hope that all concerns have been well addressed in this round of revisions. We also uploaded the full response letter in the "File Upload" stage, it might be easier for the review team to follow.


    Thank you again for your great efforts.


    Response to Reviewer 1’s Comments:


    Comments:
    Overall, this paper has a lot of potential and is valuable, but it must be improved significantly (particularly the methodology) before it can be accepted by this journal.


    Thank you for your kind comment. We sincerely appreciate your great effort in reviewing our paper and providing constructive comments and suggestions. These comments were really helpful in further advancing our paper. The following are our point-by-point responses to your comments.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: (Good). This paper uses an eye-tracking method to investigate the effect of a model’s eye gaze direction on online consumers’ information processing, and considers the differences in gender. The topic is interesting and promising.


    Thank you! We are happy that you like this paper!


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: (Good) References are sufficient and appropriate.


    Thank you!


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: (Fair) Firstly, research has found that an averted gaze captures more attention to a product, leading to the faster processing of the gaze product (Madipakkam et al., 2019). And a direct gaze enables people to pay more attention to the model’s face (Lyyra et al., 2018). Based on the abovementioned, it seems more reasonable to infer that a model with averted gaze is able to draw more attention to product information. Why did authors hypothesize that for female consumers, a model with a direct gaze can attract more attention towards the product information?


    We apologize for the unclear statement in the previous version that caused a misunderstanding.
    Previous studies concerning the eye gaze direction have mainly focused on the gaze-evoked shift in behavior based on the mechanism of joint attention, i.e., products that are gazed at can be processed faster than those that are ignored (Madipakkam et al., 2019), and faces with a direct gaze can be detected more rapidly than those with an averted gaze (Rato et al., 2019). However, these studies ignore the fact that a direct gaze, as an especially salient social cue, can capture a greater amount of attention (Scott et al., 2019) and that such an increase in attention facilitates the processing of information delivered simultaneously with the eye gaze. This facilitative effect of a direct gaze is the main focus of the current research. Therefore, we rewrote the literature review and eliminated material less central to the hypothesis development. We hope that the revised version is more cohesive and easier to follow.
    We rewrote our hypotheses based on the newly built literature review (please see the “Hypothesis development” section). Thank you for this comment.


    Secondly, more details about the experiment design are needed.


    According to your suggestion, we provided more details regarding the experimental design (please refer to page 12 of the revised manuscript).


    (1) How is the models’ gender controlled?


    In fact, we did not control the model gender in our experiment considering the generalizability of this research. We selected 16 models (8 females and 8 males) and displayed these models with the webpage ads in random order to approximate natural browsing to the greatest extent possible. From a methodological perspective, generalizability is a key weakness of experimental studies (Compeau et al., 2012; Falk and Heckman, 2009). Therefore, the consideration of both male and female models in experimental designs is ideal for the generalizability of the results.
    Nevertheless, we sincerely agree with you that the models’ gender is a critical factor that probably influences the final results and that needs to be controlled. Therefore, we re-analyzed the data to verify the possible confounding effect of the models’ gender and found that the model’s gender has main effects on some fixation indicators (e.g., fixation time on the model’s face, fixation time on the brand name, fixation time on the product description, and average fixation duration on the product description; please see Table A.2 for more details). There is no interactive effect between the models’ gender and subjects’ gender on the main fixation indicators. In our study, we do not consider the models’ gender a main variable of investigation. Therefore, we included this variable as a within-subjects factor in the subsequent analyses to control for its impact on the treatment effects.
    Thank you for the constructive suggestion. We revised the manuscript accordingly (see page 16 for the reference).


    (2) Are the two product categories, skin care products and perfumes, no differences for participants?


    Similar to the model’s gender, we re-analyzed the data to verify the possible confounding effect of the product categories. The results uncovered that there is no significant difference in the main fixation indicators among the participants between the two conditions (please see Table A.1). As a result, we omitted this variable from the final analysis. We revised the “Data analysis” section and added more details accordingly (see page 16). Once again, thank you for your excellent question.


    Authors examined product familiarity between the groups that model with a direct gaze and model with an averted gaze, and found there were no differences. How was this conducted?


    We conducted the tests by using a survey after the eye-tracking experiment with a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 representing unfamiliar). Then, an independent-samples between-subjects t-test of product familiarity was performed. The procedures are presented in “4.3 Participants and experimental procedures”, and the results are displayed in “5.1 Manipulation and control checks”. Thank you.


    Is there a direct examination towards product familiarity between the two product categories? Participants’ preferences toward product categories may influence their eye movement behavior.


    We did not directly examine product familiarity between the two product categories in the survey after the eye-tracking experiment. However, we realize that consumer preferences toward product categories are likely influential on their eye movement behavior as you mentioned. Therefore, we re-analyzed the eye movement data between the two product categories and examined whether there is a potential confounding effect. Paired-samples t-tests of the main fixation indicators were conducted. The results showed that there is no significant difference between the two product categories on the main fixation indicators among the participants (please see Table A.1 for more details). Thank you for this comment.


    (3)Since real brands were used, how were they manipulated? Are they all familiar or unfamiliar to participants, or other conditions? Selection of brands is related to participants’ performance in memory test.


    We sincerely agree with you that brand familiarity may influence the participants’ performance in the memory test. Therefore, in this study, we adopted unfamiliar and real foreign brands to minimize the potential effect of brand familiarity (Cheung et al., 2017) and approximate natural browsing to the greatest extent possible (see page 14). We examined brand familiarity by using a survey after the eye-tracking experiment with a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 representing unfamiliar and 7 indicating familiar). An independent-samples between-subjects t-test of brand familiarity was further conducted. The results showed that there is no significant difference in brand familiarity (t = -0.969, p = 0.335) between the group with the model with a direct gaze (M = 3.29, SD = 1.576) and the group with the model with an averted gaze (M = 3.60, SD = 1.468). Furthermore, the brand familiarity scores under both conditions were close to or even below the average, indicating relative unfamiliarity with the brand name (Benedicktus et al., 2010) (please see page 15 for the reference). Thank you for your questions.


    (4)In line 15-30 of page 13, the examinations of product familiarity and brand familiarity towards participants are parts of manipulation check. It is more reasonable to present in 5 Data analysis. Moreover, more details about manipulation of products and brands should be elaborated in 4.2 Stimuli.


    Thank you for your suggestion. We revised this part. In the revised manuscript, the examinations of product familiarity and brand familiarity of the participants are presented in “5.1 Manipulation and control checks”. Furthermore, we revised the “Manipulation and control checks” section accordingly, and more details are included in the new version (please see page 15). Thank you very much for your suggestions.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: (Good) ANOVA analyses were performed to test hypotheses related to eye fixation and brand memory.


    Thank you for your kind words. Due to the major revision of the hypothesis development, we re-organized and rewrote the “Data analysis and results” section. We hope that the revised version is concise and easier to follow.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: (Fair) The empirical findings consistent with previous work are scarcely discussed.


    We rewrote the “Discussion” section. In the revised manuscript, the research findings are discussed and better related to previous work in the revised manuscript (please refer to Section 6 for reference).


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: (Good) More deeply understand the facilitative effect of eye gaze on consumer information processing. In practical perspective, differentiate advertising for consumers with different genders.


    Thank you!


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: (Good) Carefully check for minor grammatical and similar mistakes.


    Thank you!


    Once again, we sincerely appreciate your great efforts and time reviewing our paper and providing constructive comments and suggestions!


    Response to Reviewer 2’s Comments:


    Thank you for your great efforts in reviewing our paper and providing constructive comments and suggestions. The following are our point-by-point responses to your comments.


    Comments:
    1. Originality/value
    What you mean “but also to the literature on gender differences in information processing” ?


    We apologize for the unclear expression in the previous version. We intended to indicate that the current study also contributes to the literature concerning the selectivity hypothesis by providing evidence of gender differences in information processing. We revised the text accordingly.



    1. Page2, Line 4, “design an effective ad online” spelling mistake.


    Thank you for your careful review of the whole manuscript. We corrected the spelling mistake (please see our revised manuscript on page 2).



    1. Research methodology, this part needs Major Revision


    Thank you for your kind suggestions. We revised this part.


    1) The order of Part 4.1/4.3/4.4/4.5 should be adjusted.


    The order of the “Research methodology” was adjusted, and more details are provided in the revised version (please refer to Section 4).


    2) Part 4.2, Page 13 Line 9-30, this part should be put in Results


    Regarding part 4.2, the examination of product familiarity and brand familiarity of the participants is currently presented in “5.1 Manipulation and control checks”. Moreover, we revised the “Manipulation and control checks” section accordingly, and more details are displayed in the new version (please see page 15). Thank you.



    1. This paper lacks the part of Results


    Thank you for your kind comment. Due to the major revision of the hypothesis development section, we rewrote the results. In the revised manuscript, the “Data analysis and results” section covers both the data analysis and results. We hope that the revised version is clear and easier to follow. Thank you.



    1. Part 5 Data analysis should be modified to Discussion


    Thank you for your suggestion. We re-organized the data analysis in the revised manuscript. The procedures and results are currently presented in the “Data analysis and results” section (see page 15). Furthermore, we rewrote the “Discussion” section and presented this section in a separate part (please see page 19). We hope that the revised version is easier for you to follow. Thank you.



    1. Part 6 Discussion should be modified to Conclusion


    Thank you for your suggestions. We rewrote the “Discussion” section. The conclusions of our study are currently presented in “6.1 Conclusions” (please see page 19). Thank you for your suggestions.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Need further modification.


    Thank you for your suggestions. We almost rewrote the whole manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your great efforts in reviewing our paper.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Need further modification.


    We rewrote the literature review and eliminated material that is less central to the hypothesis development (please see page 4 for the reference). We hope that the revised version is cohesive and easier for you to follow. Thank you.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Need further modification.


    Thank you for your suggestion. We rewrote our hypotheses based on the newly built literature review (please see the “Hypothesis development” section). Thank you.
    Moreover, we revised the research methodology and rewrote the data analysis and results. More details are presented in the “Research methodology” (see page 12) and “Data analysis and results” (see page 15) sections (please refer to the revised manuscript). Thank you.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Need further modification.


    Due to the major revision of the hypothesis development section, we rewrote the “Data analysis and results” section (see page 15). Manipulation checks and ANOVA analyses of the main eye movement and brand recall data are performed to test our hypotheses. The results are presented in this section. We hope that the revised version is concise and easier for you to follow. Thank you.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Need further modification.


    Thank you for your suggestions. We rewrote the “Discussion” section (see page 19). The relationships between our findings and previous work are discussed. We hope that the revised version is easier for you to follow.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Need further modification.


    We rewrote the “Implications” section (please see “6.2 Implications”). We hope that the revised version is more appropriate.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Need further modification.


    We carefully checked for grammatical and spelling mistakes in the revised version. Thank you for your patience in reviewing our paper.


    Once again, thank you for your great efforts in reviewing our paper and providing invaluable suggestions, which really helped us improve the paper!


    References


    Benedicktus, R. L., Brady, M. K., Darke, P. R., & Voorhees, C. M. (2010), "Conveying Trustworthiness to Online Consumers: Reactions to Consensus, Physical Store Presence, Brand Familiarity, and Generalized Suspicion", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 86 No. 4, pp. 310-323.


    Cheung, M., Hong, W., & Thong, J. (2017), "Effects of Animation on Attentional Resources of Online Consumers", Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 8, pp. 605-632.


    Compeau, D., Marcolin, B., Kelley, H., & Higgins, C. (2012), "Research commentary—Generalizability of information systems research using student subjects—A reflection on our practices and recommendations for future research", Information Systems Research, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 1093-1109.


    Falk, A., & Heckman, J. J. (2009), "Lab experiments are a major source of knowledge in the social sciences", science, Vol. 326 No. 5952, pp. 535-538.


    Madipakkam, A. R., Bellucci, G., Rothkirch, M., & Park, S. Q. (2019), "The influence of gaze direction on food preferences", Scientific Reports, Vol. 9, p. 9.


    Rato, M. L., Mares, I., de Sousa, D. A., Senju, A., & Martins, I. P. (2019), "Direct Gaze Partially Overcomes Hemispatial Neglect and Captures Spatial Attention", Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 9, p. 7.


    Scott, H., Batten, J. P., & Kuhn, G. (2019), "Why are you looking at me? It's because I'm talking, but mostly because I'm staring or not doing much", Attention Perception & Psychophysics, Vol. 81 No. 1, pp. 109-118.



    Cite this author response
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/03/30

    &PHPSESSID30-Mar-2020


    Dear Asst. Prof. Huang,


    Manuscript ID OIR-01-2020-0025 entitled "Effect of Model Eye Gaze Direction on Consumer Information Processing: A Consideration of Gender Differences" which you submitted to Online Information Review has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.


    The reviewers have recommended that you make major revisions to your manuscript prior to it being considered for publication.


    Please read their suggestions and if you choose to prepare a revised manuscript ensure that any changes that you make to your manuscript are highlighted, as well as described in your response to reviewers.


    Please also ensure that in doing so your paper does not exceed the maximum word length of 10000 words and that it meets all the requirements of the author guidelines at http://www.emeraldinsight.com/products/journals/author_guidelines.htm?id=oir=ubl727mru90lg3hc8sa5p5qrt2."


    To revise your manuscript log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/oir and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions". Under "Actions" click on "Create a Revision". Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.


    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.


    Once the revised manuscript is prepared you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre.


    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).


    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.


    Because we are trying to facilitate timely publication of manuscripts submitted to Online Information Review, your revised manuscript should be uploaded as soon as possible. If it is not possible for you to submit your revision in a reasonable amount of time, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.


    To help support you on your publishing journey we have partnered with Editage, a leading global science communication platform, to offer expert editorial support including language editing and translation.
    If your article has been rejected or revisions have been requested, you may benefit from Editage’s services. For a full list of services, visit: authorservices.emeraldpublishing.com/
    Please note that there is no obligation to use Editage and using this service does not guarantee publication.


    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to Online Information Review. I look forward to receiving your revision.


    Yours sincerely,


    Dr. Eugenia Siapera
    eugenia.siapera@ucd.ie


    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1


    Recommendation: Major Revision


    Comments:
    Overall, this paper has a lot of potential and is valuable, but it must be improved significantly (particularly the methodology) before it can be accepted by this journal.


    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: (Good). This paper uses an eye-tracking method to investigate the effect of a model’s eye gaze direction on online consumers’ information processing, and considers the differences in gender. The topic is interesting and promising.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: (Good) References are sufficient and appropriate.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: (Fair) Firstly, research has found that an averted gaze captures more attention to a product, leading to the faster processing of the gaze product (Madipakkam et al., 2019). And a direct gaze enables people to pay more attention to the model’s face (Lyyra et al., 2018).
    Based on the abovementioned, it seems more reasonable to infer that a model with averted gaze is able to draw more attention to product information. Why did authors hypothesize that for female consumers, a model with a direct gaze can attract more attention towards the product information?
    Secondly, more details about the experiment design are needed.
    (1) How is the models’ gender controlled?
    (2) Are the two product categories, skin care products and perfumes, no differences for participants? Authors examined product familiarity between the groups that model with a direct gaze and model with an averted gaze, and found there were no differences. How was this conducted? Is there a direct examination towards product familiarity between the two product categories? Participants’ preferences toward product categories may influence their eye movement behavior.
    (3)Since real brands were used, how were they manipulated? Are they all familiar or unfamiliar to participants, or other conditions? Selection of brands is related to participants’ performance in memory test.
    (4)In line 15-30 of page 13, the examinations of product familiarity and brand familiarity towards participants are parts of manipulation check. It is more reasonable to present in 5 Data analysis. Moreover, more details about manipulation of products and brands should be elaborated in 4.2 Stimuli.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: (Good) ANOVA analyses were performed to test hypotheses related to eye fixation and brand memory.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: (Fair) The empirical findings consistent with previous work are scarcely discussed.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: (Good) More deeply understand the facilitative effect of eye gaze on consumer information processing. In practical perspective, differentiate advertising for consumers with different genders.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: (Good) Carefully check for minor grammatical and similar mistakes.


    Reviewer: 2


    Recommendation: Major Revision


    Comments:
    1. Originality/value
    What you mean “but also to the literature on gender differences in information processing” ?




    1. Page2, Line 4, “design an effective ad online” spelling mistake.




    2. Research methodology, this part needs Major Revision
      1) The order of Part 4.1/4.3/4.4/4.5 should be adjusted.
      2) Part 4.2, Page 13 Line 9-30, this part should be put in Results




    3. This paper lacks the part of Results




    4. Part 5 Data analysis should be modified to Discussion




    5. Part 6 Discussion should be modified to Conclusion




    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper make a significant theoretical, empirical and/or methodological contribution to an area of importance, within the scope of the journal?: Need further modification.


    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored? Is the literature review up-to-date? Has relevant material published in Online Information Review been cited?: Need further modification.


    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas? Has the research on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate and fully explained? Have issues of research ethics been adequately identified and addressed?: Need further modification.


    Results: For empirical papers - are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?: Need further modification.


    Discussion/Argument: Is the relation between any empirical findings and previous work discussed? Does the paper present a robust and coherent argument? To what extent does the paper engage critically with the literature and findings? Are theoretical concepts articulated well and used appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Need further modification.


    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Need further modification.


    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Need further modification.

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/03/28

    1. Originality/value What you mean “but also to the literature on gender differences in information processing” ? 2. Page2, Line 4, “design an effective ad online” spelling mistake. 3. Research methodology, this part needs Major Revision 1) The order of Part 4.1/4.3/4.4/4.5 should be adjusted. 2) Part 4.2, Page 13 Line 9-30, this part should be put in Results 4. This paper lacks the part of Results 5. Part 5 Data analysis should be modified to Discussion 6. Part 6 Discussion should be modified to Conclusion

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
    Reviewer report
    2020/03/03

    Overall, this paper has a lot of potential and is valuable, but it must be improved significantly (particularly the methodology) before it can be accepted by this journal.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Endorsed by
    Ongoing discussion (0 comments - click to toggle)
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.