Attention Depends on Stimuli & Goals

Decision governance can neutralize or amplify factors driving attention in a decision situation. The choice of strategy depends on the observed or anticipated behavior of the decision maker and the desired outcome.

This text is part of the series on the design of decision governance. Decision governance are guidelines, rules, processes designed to improve how people make decisions. It can help ensure that the right information is used, that that information is correctly analyzed, that participants in decision making understand it, and that they use it before they make a decision. Find all texts on decision governance here.

Various strategies can steer attention, they include:

Controlling the sequence of information
Emphasizing differences between options
Using environmental cues
Designing environments for decision-making
Focusing on risk-related criteria
Changing presentation order
Delaying choices to shift references
Aligning with decision makers’ goals

Decision governance can control the sequence in which information is presented, which is important because more recent information tends to stand out and receive more attention. This phenomenon, known as the recency effect, has been well-documented in cognitive psychology, where decision makers give disproportionate weight to the most recently presented information (Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992).

Differences between options can be emphasized to draw attention to certain aspects over others. A straightforward method is to require decision makers to compare options using predefined criteria, which can be enforced through policies, processes, and training. For a more subtle approach, the environment can be designed to signal values that influence the criteria considered, even if those criteria are not explicitly mandated. Nudge theory supports this approach, demonstrating that subtle cues in the environment can shape behavior by emphasizing certain values (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). For instance, integrating sustainability criteria into decision-making becomes unavoidable if the brand is associated with promoting sustainability.

Cues in the environment can suggest which options or criteria deserve particular attention, especially if they lead to greater rewards or reduced risks. Prospect theory indicates that decision makers are sensitive to potential losses, which can be emphasized through environmental cues (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Clear examples include hints about what may be preferred or valued by those in positions of authority within the firm. Education on the firm’s values and strategy can also imply which criteria to use in decision-making, aligning choices with the organization’s goals. In academic research, these cues are referred to as behaviors with “survival value” (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992).

The environment can be designed either to focus people on making a decision or to distract them from it. A common yet effective tactic is to call a meeting specifically for decision-making, thereby creating an environment where the expectation is to focus and take action. Conversely, steps can be taken to avoid creating such an environment if the goal is to delay the decision. Poor decision governance can unintentionally cause delays, such as when the requirement to gather more information ends up postponing the decision. Decision paralysis, caused by an overload of information or excessive choices, can lead to delays in decision-making (Schwartz, 2004).

It might be necessary to focus attention on a specific set of criteria, either to encourage competition among options or to highlight criteria that favor only certain options. For example, if the decision maker is highly risk-averse, you might emphasize features that address this trait, thus broadening the range of options considered. Alternatively, you could stress the risks associated with certain options to favor those perceived as safer, even if they are less favorable by other measures. This aligns with research on risk perception, where individuals tend to weigh risk and safety differently depending on their personal risk tolerance (Slovic, 1987).

The order in which options are presented can also influence the decision. Research has shown that presentation order affects preference formation, as seen in studies on the impact of candidate order on election results. This effect, known as the primacy effect, shows that early information can disproportionately influence the decision maker’s final choice (Miller & Krosnick, 1998). More generally, the sequence influences what the decision maker uses as a reference when comparing subsequent options. (The primacy effect emphasizes earlier information, while the recency effect emphasizes later information.)

We can also design the environment to delay the choice, which can shift what is considered a reference option and affect the perceived urgency or importance of the decision. Temporal construal theory suggests that people perceive events differently depending on how far away they are in time, and delaying a decision can change how options are evaluated (Trope & Liberman, 2003).While we can guide attention to some extent through the environment, it may be more effective to understand the decision makers’ goals and then adjust the environment to emphasize or downplay the relationship between options and those goals. Attention is naturally guided by the goals the decision makers are pursuing. Research on goal-directed behavior indicates that decision makers prioritize information that aligns with their goals, shaping their attention and subsequent choices (Locke & Latham, 1990).

Table 1 is a summary of the strategies mentioned above. This is an illustrative, although not an exhaustive list.

Table 1: Strategies to influence attention in a decision situation
Strategy	Description	Example
Control the sequence of information	Present important information later to take advantage of the recency effect, ensuring it receives more attention.	During a strategy presentation, place the most critical financial forecasts at the end to ensure they stand out.
Emphasize differences between options	Highlight differences between options by using predefined criteria or environmental signals to focus attention.	In a procurement decision, require comparisons based on sustainability criteria to draw attention to environmentally friendly options.
Use environmental cues	Use cues in the environment to signal what options or criteria are important, particularly those aligned with goals.	A sustainability-focused company includes green certification symbols on product displays, signaling which products align with its values.
Design environments for decision-making	Create environments that focus attention on decision-making (e.g., meetings), or avoid them to delay decisions.	Call a focused decision-making meeting with no other agenda to create urgency for finalizing a product launch decision.
Focus on risk-related criteria	Emphasize criteria related to risk and safety, guiding risk-averse decision makers toward safer options.	Highlight safety features when presenting car models to a risk-averse customer, drawing their focus away from speed or style.
Leverage presentation order	Order options strategically to leverage the primacy and recency effects, influencing preferences.	List the most favorable options first and last in a product comparison report to take advantage of primacy and recency effects.
Delay choices to shift references	Delay decisions to change the reference point and shift how urgency or importance is evaluated.	Delay a decision on investment options until after a market forecast is released, shifting the reference point for comparison.
Align with decision makers’ goals	Adjust the environment to emphasize or downplay the relationship between options and the decision makers’ goals.	In a strategic meeting, emphasize how options align with the company’s growth objectives, guiding decisions toward those options.

A decision situation influences attention, and attention then influences behavior

In psychology, attention is defined as the cognitive process of selectively concentrating on specific information or stimuli while ignoring others.

It involves the allocation of mental resources to focus on particular aspects of the environment, enabling individuals to process relevant information more efficiently. Attention is often divided into various types, such as selective attention, sustained attention, and divided attention, depending on the task at hand and the demands placed on cognitive resources.

In decision-making processes, attention affects how decision makers perceive and process information. When their attention is drawn to particular data, options, or outcomes, they are more likely to prioritize those elements in their final decision. For instance, if attention is focused disproportionately on short-term results, decision makers may overlook long-term risks, which may lead to suboptimal outcomes (LaBerge, 1995).

Attention influences the extent to which decision makers consider new or alternative information. Individuals with focused attention may be more effective at processing relevant data but could also ignore broader context or unconsidered options, leading to a narrowed view of decision problems (Gollwitzer & Moskowitz, 1996).

Table 2 summarizes the mechanisms by which attention of a decision maker is influenced in a decision situation.

Table 2: Mechanisms that influence attention
Mechanism	How the mechanism influences attention	Example	References to academic publications where the mechanism is discussed
Information salience	Prominent information attracts more attention, while less salient data may be ignored.	A brightly colored advertisement grabs the attention of consumers more than a plain one.	Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Cognitive load	High cognitive load reduces available attentional resources, leading to a narrow focus.	A manager under stress focuses only on immediate, pressing issues, ignoring long-term considerations.	Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load.
Goal-directed attention	Attention is directed towards information that aligns with the decision maker’s goals.	A decision maker seeking cost reductions focuses primarily on financial data, overlooking other factors.	Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance.
Emotional influence	Emotional states draw attention to emotionally charged information.	An investor in a volatile market fixates on news that triggers fear, ignoring other relevant data.	Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings.

Table 3 shows mechanisms which describe how attention influences the behavior of the decision maker.

Table 3: Mechanism through which attention influences behavior
Mechanism	How the mechanism influences behavior	Example	References to academic publications where the mechanism is discussed
Framing effects	Directs attention to specific aspects of information, affecting the final choice.	A choice between two investment options appears safer when framed in terms of gains rather than losses.	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Availability heuristic	Decision makers focus on information that is easily retrievable from memory, influencing their judgments.	A manager decides to implement a strategy based on a recent successful experience, ignoring less vivid but relevant data.	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability.
Anchoring	Initial information (anchor) captures attention, disproportionately influencing subsequent judgments.	A salary negotiation starts with a high initial offer, shifting the final outcome towards a higher salary.	Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.

Attention is steered by goals and stimuli

In Stephen Yantis’s work (1984, 2000) the primary determinants that influence attention are divided into two categories: goal-directed (top-down) and stimulus-driven (bottom-up) processes. These determinants govern how attention is allocated and shifted between stimuli in the environment.

Goal-Directed Determinants (Top-Down Control)

Task relevance: Attention is directed toward stimuli that are relevant to an individual’s current goals, tasks, or intentions. When a person is engaged in a task, such as reading or driving, they prioritize attending to information that helps them achieve their immediate objectives.
- Example: If you are looking for your car keys, your attention will be focused on objects or areas where you expect the keys to be.
Expectation and prior knowledge: Expectations about the location or characteristics of relevant stimuli can guide attention. For instance, if one expects a certain event to occur in a specific location, they are more likely to focus attention there, anticipating relevant information.
- Example: Expecting a colleague to arrive through a specific door, your attention will be drawn to that door in anticipation.
Instructions or cues: External instructions, such as cues in experiments or tasks, can direct attention toward specific aspects of a scene or environment, enhancing focus on relevant stimuli.
- Example: In a visual search task, being instructed to find an object of a specific color or shape directs attention to stimuli with those attributes.

2. Stimulus-Driven Determinants (Bottom-Up Control)

Salience of stimuli: Certain stimuli naturally attract attention due to their inherent physical properties, such as brightness, contrast, color, movement, or sudden onset. These stimuli are considered salient because they stand out from the background and demand immediate attention.
- Example: A bright flashing light or a sudden loud noise captures attention automatically, even if the person is focused on another task.
Novelty: New or unexpected stimuli, particularly those that contrast sharply with the surrounding environment, are likely to capture attention. Novel stimuli signal potential importance, as they might represent changes or threats in the environment.
- Example: A car honking unexpectedly on a quiet street draws attention away from other activities.
Abrupt onsets: Stimuli that appear abruptly in the visual field can capture attention automatically, overriding goal-directed attentional control. Abrupt changes are often prioritized because they may signify important environmental changes.
- Example: A pedestrian suddenly stepping into the street grabs the driver’s attention immediately, even if they were previously focused on navigation.

Yantis’s research emphasizes that these two types of attentional control are not mutually exclusive but interact dynamically. While individuals can focus their attention based on their goals, highly salient or novel stimuli in the environment can disrupt this focus, redirecting attention.

The balance between goal-directed and stimulus-driven control depends on the task demands and the properties of the stimuli. When goal-directed attention is weak or cognitive load is high, stimulus-driven factors are more likely to capture attention.

In Yantis’s model, attention is influenced by both internal goals and external stimuli. Goal-directed determinants allow individuals to voluntarily focus on relevant stimuli based on tasks or instructions, while stimulus-driven determinants automatically capture attention when stimuli are particularly salient or novel.

References and Further Reading

Hogarth, R. M., & Einhorn, H. J. (1992). Order effects in belief updating: The belief-adjustment model. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 1-55.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163-228). Oxford University Press.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. HarperCollins.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280-285.
Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1998). The impact of candidate name order on election outcomes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62(3), 291-330.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403-421.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Prentice Hall.
Weber, Elke U., and Eric J. Johnson. “Mindful judgment and decision making.” Annual review of psychology 60.1 (2009): 53-85.
Meredith, Marc, and Yuval Salant. “On the causes and consequences of ballot order effects.” Political Behavior 35 (2013): 175-197.
LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional Processing: The Brain’s Art of Mindfulness. Harvard University Press.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Moskowitz, G. B. (1996). Goal effects on action and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 55-79.
Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(2), 75-82.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance. Prentice-Hall.
Loewenstein, G., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 267-286.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.
Yantis, S. (2000). Goal-Directed and Stimulus-Driven Determinants of Attentional Control. In S. Monsell & J. Driver (Eds.), Attention and Performance XVIII. MIT Press.
Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 601-621.