Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
This exploratory laboratory study examines whether different content types of digital product presentation are associated with differences in subjective evaluation and global visual processing. Using a repeated-measures design, 30 participants viewed 12 commercial stimuli representing four products presented as a web-based product page, a branded social media post, or an influencer-generated social media post. Subjective measures assessed post attractiveness, product relevance, declared purchase activation, and perceived advertising character, while global eye-tracking indicators were derived from fixation duration, fixation count, and saccade count. Data were analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance, Holm-adjusted pairwise comparisons, Spearman correlations, and targeted post hoc linear mixed-model robustness analyses. The findings show selective rather than general effects of content type. Branded social media content was perceived as significantly more advertising-like than influencer-generated content, but influencer-generated content did not produce significantly higher post attractiveness, product relevance, or declared purchase activation. Content type also showed an overall effect on a fixation-based processing index, whereas global visual engagement and visual scanning activity did not differ significantly across formats. Within influencer-generated content, greater influencer-related affinity was positively associated with declared purchase activation. The study shows that perceived advertising character, subjective evaluation, and eye-tracking indicators capture distinct aspects of responses to digital product content. Given the small and homogeneous sample, limited stimulus set, laboratory setting, global eye-tracking indicators, and reliance on declared rather than actual purchasing behaviour, the findings should be interpreted as preliminary.
Štefko et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: