Buying Odds Increase for Products That Are Looked at Longer

Given a choice of two snacks, study subjects picked the one they looked at slightly longer. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On September 10th we reported that people will pay more for snacks within reach. Now, another finding for the shopping science files—when you're trying to decide between two snacks on the shelf, chances are you'll choose the one you look at just a fraction of a second longer. The study appears in the journal Nature Neuroscience. [Ian Krajbich, Carrie Armel and Antonio Rangel, http://bit.ly/9Cc2XL]

Researchers recruited 39 students who are self-professed snack food junkies. They had the students fast for three hours, before rating the tastiness of snack foods like candy and chips. Then they asked the students to choose between pairs of snack foods they had previously rated as more or less equally desirable. And they tracked the subject’s eye movements.

Just like when you're hovering in front of a grocery store shelf, the students looked back and forth several times, usually glancing first at the snack on the left. But 70 percent of the time, they ended up choosing the snack food they looked at for just a half-second longer. Which probably confirms something packaging designers have known for a while now—flashy, eye-catching wrappers could lure us into studying a snack for a bit longer—and, they hope, throwing it in our cart.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Christopher Intagliata

[Scientific American is part of the Nature Publishing Group.]

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe