The study, published in Frontiers in Behavioral Economics, asked a deceptively simple question: does the occasion of purchase, self-consumption versus gift-giving, change not only what people say they want but how their eyes and brains process the information on the label? Gift-giving has long been described in the consumer literature as a highly involved, emotionally loaded process. The giver faces impression management and perceived risk, amplified when the recipient’s tastes are unknown and the product itself is unfamiliar. Wine is a natural testbed because it is routinely purchased both for personal drinking and as a gift, yet almost all prior comparisons of the two occasions relied on surveys and choice experiments, which reveal what people choose but say little about the cognitive machinery underneath.

Forty-seven participants were recruited through an online screening survey and took part in laboratory sessions in Minneapolis in December 2024 and Portland in May 2025. All were at least 21 years old, had drunk wine within the past year, had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and reported no neurological disorders. Each session lasted roughly 80 minutes and was compensated at 60 dollars. After excluding ten participants for unusable EEG recordings or incomplete eye-tracking data, the final analytical sample comprised 37 people, 18 in the self-consumption condition and 19 in the gift-giving condition. Random assignment produced statistically balanced groups on age, gender, income, education, wine expertise, and familiarity with disease-resistant grapes, and the study protocol was approved by the University of Minnesota’s Institutional Review Board.

The experimental stimuli were front labels of a fictitious white blend wine, varying systematically across four attributes: a sustainability badge with four levels (disease resistant, climate resilient, reduced agrichemicals, or no badge), a creative phrase (Friend of the Environment, Future of Wine, or none), customer reviews (three or five stars), and price ($9.99, $14.99, or $21.99 per 750 ml bottle, anchored to average US white wine prices). A non-GMO logo appeared on every label to defuse the GMO confusion documented in earlier work. A balanced fractional factorial design yielded 24 unique label combinations, and everything else on the label, brand logo, grape blend, alcohol content, color scheme, typography, was held constant. Attribute placement followed the well-documented Z-pattern of visual scanning, with badges in the top left corner and the non-GMO logo at the bottom right.

Each participant saw all 24 labels repeated 17 times, for 408 trials plus practice rounds. Every trial began with a 500-millisecond fixation cross, followed by a 4-second presentation of the label, another fixation cross, and then an untimed five-point Likert rating of purchase likelihood. The repetitions were not gratuitous: event-related potentials, the brain’s stimulus-locked voltage deflections, are extracted by averaging across many trials to push the signal above the noise. Eye movements were recorded with a Tobii Pro Fusion tracker at 60 Hz, while a 64-channel Ant Neuro EEG cap sampled brain activity at 500 Hz, with TTL markers from the presentation software synchronizing the two data streams to the millisecond. Participants sat about 68.5 centimeters from a 27-inch 4K monitor in a sound-attenuated room, and the EEG pipeline included average-mastoid referencing, bandpass and notch filtering, independent component analysis to strip out blinks and muscle artifacts, and spherical spline interpolation of noisy channels.

The behavioral results, modeled with mixed-effects Tobit regressions that accounted for the nested structure of repeated ratings within individuals, were striking. For self-consumption shoppers, customer reviews were the single most powerful driver of purchase intent, with five-star ratings carrying a coefficient of 1.44 against three stars, and all three sustainability badges significantly boosted intent, with the reduced-agrichemicals badge leading at 0.44. Price exerted a significant negative pull. Gift-givers were more selective: the climate-resilient badge dominated at 0.383, the reduced-agrichemicals badge followed at 0.270, and, notably, the disease-resistant badge lost its statistical significance entirely. A Wald test on the price-by-occasion interaction confirmed that gift-givers were significantly less price sensitive. Willingness-to-pay estimates, derived as the ratio of each attribute coefficient to the price coefficient, told the same story: the climate-resilient badge commanded a 48.2 percent premium in the gift condition, customer reviews a 20 percent premium, while the disease-resistant badge carried no significant premium at all among gift buyers.

The eye-tracking data painted a subtler picture. Fixations concentrated on the brand and badge regions across both conditions, and the presence of a badge visibly pulled attention toward itself, but differences between the two purchase occasions were modest. Self-consumers lingered slightly longer on the badge area, 500 milliseconds of total fixation versus 454 for gift-givers, and held their first fixation on customer reviews a bit longer, while gift-givers reached the non-GMO logo sooner and fixated it more often. Price attracted essentially identical visual attention in both groups. In other words, where people looked barely changed with the occasion; what changed was what happened next, inside the skull.

That is where the EEG results became decisive. In the self-consumption condition, all three badges significantly increased the amplitudes of the P100, an early marker of automatic visual attention peaking around 100 milliseconds; the P300, a mid-latency wave reflecting attentional allocation and working-memory updating; and the late positive potential, a sustained signature of conscious emotional and evaluative processing, while reducing the conflict-related N200 and the semantic-integration N400. In the gift-giving condition, the same badges produced even larger amplitudes across P100, P300, N400, and LPP, and scalp maps showed heightened neural activity in the gift group, especially in the later 600-to-2,000-millisecond window, consistent with deeper evaluative engagement. The climate-resilient badge stood out again: it produced the strongest P100 and P300 responses in gift-givers and the largest reductions in N200 and N400 among self-consumers, suggesting the message was processed with unusual fluency, perhaps because climate resilience is a broader and more familiar environmental concept than disease resistance.

Price told a fascinating double story. Behaviorally, gift-givers were less price sensitive, in line with the social-desirability dynamics of gift exchange, where the giver wants to signal generosity and care. But neurally, higher prices in the gift condition increased N200 and N400 amplitudes and decreased P300, a pattern the authors interpret as conflict monitoring and semantic dissonance: the brain registering tension between generosity norms and cost, between the desire to impress and the pain of paying. Customer reviews, by contrast, behaved like a cognitive heuristic rather than an emotional trigger; they dominated stated preferences and eased semantic integration in self-consumers, as shown by reduced N400, but left the emotional LPP largely untouched.

The authors are careful to frame their conclusions as preliminary and hypothesis-generating. Thirty-seven participants is a small sample by conventional standards, even if typical for EEG research; multiple comparisons across many ERP components and eye-tracking metrics raise the possibility of inflated false-positive risk; repeated exposure to the same labels may have induced habituation or fatigue; and the study included no direct manipulation check confirming how participants actually interpreted the disease-resistant badge, leaving open the possibility that some responses tracked the semantic salience of the word disease itself. The laboratory setting, a single fictitious label design, and hypothetical rather than incentive-compatible purchases further limit generalizability. Still, the practical implications are concrete: sustainability messaging, particularly the climate-resilient framing, consistently strengthened both behavioral and neural responses across occasions, and positioning unfamiliar sustainable wines as gifts may be an effective launch strategy, since gift-givers scrutinize messaging more carefully, pay more, and reward clear, interpretable environmental claims. Customer reviews emerged as a cheap, credible lever for reducing uncertainty around novel products. More broadly, the study demonstrates the payoff of multimodal consumer neuroscience: the eyes showed almost no difference between buying for oneself and buying for another, but the brain, measured in milliseconds, told a story of two fundamentally different acts of evaluation.

Subject of Research: Neural and attentional differences in consumer preferences for novel disease-resistant wines between gift-giving and self-consumption purchase occasions

Article Title: Consumer preferences for novel products: eye-tracking and EEG insights into gift-giving vs. self consumption

Article References: Consumer preferences for novel products: eye-tracking and EEG insights into gift-giving vs. self consumption. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.3389/frbhe.2026.1871704

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frbhe.2026.1871704

Keywords: consumer neuroscience, EEG, eye-tracking, gift-giving, self-consumption, disease-resistant wine, sustainability badges, willingness to pay, event-related potentials, wine labels, conjoint analysis, behavioral economics