Escaping the corner of death?

An eye-tracking
study of reading direction influence on
attention and memory
Monica D. Hernandez
Department of Management and Marketing, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, Texas, USA
Yong Wang
Department of Marketing, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, USA
Hong Sheng
Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA
Morris Kalliny
Department of Marketing, Eastern Washington University, Spokane, Washington, USA, and
Michael Minor
Department of Marketing, Robert C. Vackar College of Business & Entrepreneurship, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley,
Edinburg, Texas, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The authors aim to examine the effect of location-driven logo placement on attention and memory on the web addressing differences
between individuals that read unidirectionally (left-to-right [LTR]) versus bidirectionally (both right-to-left and LTR).
Design/methodology/approach – Using an eye-tracking approach combined with traditional verbal measures, the authors compared attention
and memory measures from a sample composed of bidirectional (Arab/English) readers and unidirectional readers.
Findings – The findings reveal that unidirectional and bidirectional readers differ in attention patterns. Compared to bidirectional readers,
unidirectional readers pay less attention to the logo on the bottom right corner of the webpage based on verbal measures. The eye-tracking data
of the two groups further identify differences based on total hits and duration time. Unidirectional LTR readers demonstrate higher fluency in
feature-based attention whereas bidirectional readers show higher fluency in spatial attention.
Originality/value – The authors expand on scarce research on reading direction bias effect on location-driven stimuli placement in online settings.
They contribute to the understanding of the differences between unidirectional and bidirectional readers in their cognitive responses (attention and
memory) to organization of marketing stimuli.
Keywords Online marketing, Attention, International consumer, Location-driven placement, Reading direction
Paper type Research paper

Internet users are constantly exposed to marketing stimuli
such as banners, sponsored search, logos, pop-up ads and
rectangle ads in multiple locations of a webpage. However,
Agarwal et al. (2011) highlighted the matter that the specific
location on a webpage for placing the marketing stimuli
determines different levels of revenue generation by the
stimuli. Along this vein, research about the most effective and
memorable location of such elements on the webpage is
fragmented and inconclusive. Hill (2010) warns advertisers to
avoid the “corner of death”, a term coined to indicate the
lower right-hand corner of any layout, whether it is a web site
page, a TV screen, a print ad, direct mail piece or billboard. It
is important to note that Hill’s (2010) advice is based on
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
Outing and Ruel’s (2006) exploratory study with American
participants. Considering the diverse internet audience, the
question of whether this scanning pattern also applies to any
internet reader remains unanswered. Despite being one of the
typical places where marketers and advertisers place their logo,
according to Outing and Ruel (2006), the corner of death is
typically the second to last place an audience looks on a page.
On the other hand, contrary to the advice of avoiding the
corner of death or lower right-hand corner, Goodrich (2010)
found that online ads placed on the lower visual field of the
screen received more attention than those placed on the upper
visual field. Therefore, decisions about marketing stimuli
placement in online settings become critical if we consider the
average ad viewing time per reader usually is less than 2 s
(Hill, 2010).

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Received 16 February 2016
34/1 (2017) 1–10 Revised 30 June 2016
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] 21 August 2016
[DOI 10.1108/JCM-02-2016-1710] Accepted 23 August 2016

1
 Attention and memory
Monica D. Hernandez et al.
Outing and Ruel (2006) noted this pattern on a webpage –
Eyes fixate first in the upper left then hover in that area before
going left to right, and, after perusing the top, eyes explore
down. Correspondingly, it is common to see online advertisers
striving to secure the top left screen position under the premise
that the higher the ad placement, the more likely to receive
extended exposure and, therefore, the more effective its
economic performance.
The inconclusive literature calls for a closer investigation of
the effects of marketing stimuli location-driven placement
and, particularly, logo position on the visual attention and
memory of a diverse internet audience. Given that internet is
borderless, it is critical to address consumer responses to
location-driven placement in an international context. Our
study attends to this issue by investigating the differences
between unidirectional and bidirectional readers. The study
addresses the question: What is the differed outcome of
attention and memory for unidirectional and bidirectional
readers when they respond to a logo placed within the “corner
of death” of a webpage? In efforts to consider these
differences, we analyze the impact of the position on visual
information search pattern and memory relative to the natural
direction of reading. Given the scarce use of physiological
measures in addressing the effect of written language, we
attempt to use eye-tracking device to uncover the
physiologically different patterns across natives of different
languages. We attempt to advance our knowledge in this area
by making contributions to the literature, particularly on
visual attention and memory of logos in the online setting that
can be generalized to online advertising and communication in
the global marketplace.
Conceptual background
Should we place a logo to the left or to the right of the content
on a webpage? Previous research has offered insights about the
directional/lateral organization of marketing stimuli. The
directional or lateral display influences consumers’ cognitive
(e.g. information processing and value judgment) as well as
affective (e.g. attitude) evaluations of stimuli (Janiszewski,
1990, 1993; Valenzuela and Raghubir, 2009; Chae and
Hoegg, 2013; Romero and Biswas, 2016). Among them,
Atalay et al. (2012) examined the effect of product layout and
found how items are laterally displayed has a prominent
influence on consumers’ visual attention in a shopping
environment.
Hoyer et al. (1997) defined attention as the process by
which a person apportions his or her cognitive resources to a
visual stimulus. The importance of attention in marketing has
been highlighted in various major advertising response
models, such as AIDA and the hierarchy of effects. The
importance of attention stems from its position as a
prerequisite for the effectiveness of visual information
processing. In other words, there is little chance that any
information provided to the consumers will produce desired
result without consumers devoting appropriate attention to
the information. Thus, understanding attention patterns may
help advance academic marketing knowledge and guide
managerial efforts toward more successful advertising
outcomes, particularly in the online setting.
2
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10
Body specificity theory (Casasanto, 2009) supports the
claim that right- and left-handers’ patterns of motor
experience influence the way of thinking. Relevant to our
study, Casasanto (2011) contended that there are differences
in the functional role of language processing, providing
evidence that different areas of the brain are activated to both
communicate and represent the meaning of action verbs and
abstract ideas. Furthermore, language writing and reading are
also habitual. For example, the literature has documented
significant habitual differences in information processing
among individuals speaking dissimilar languages, based on
different alphabets (Schmitt et al., 1994). In particular, there
are significant differences in the reading direction of written
languages (Smith and Elias, 2013). The focus of our study is
the difference in reading direction. Toward this end, we
classify languages as follows. The left-to-right (hereafter,
LTR) language family includes most alphabetic languages
(e.g. English, Spanish), and the modern versions of Far East
languages (e.g. Chinese, Korean, Japanese). The right-to-left
(hereafter, RTL) language family includes Arabic, Farsi,
Hebrew, Urdu, Pashto and a few African languages.
Addressing this distinction, Smith and Elias (2013)
considered the native reading direction and its effect on
preferences for lit images. They concluded that LTR natives
exhibit a larger number of fixations on the left side as well as
preference for lit-images in the same side, whereas RTL
natives exhibit the mirror pattern and preference. While
extensive work has been conducted with LTR natives, there
are only a handful of studies addressing the eye movement of
RTL readers. The Arabic alphabet – second only to the Latin
alphabet in usage around the world – consists of 28 letters (32
in Farsi), all representing consonants, and is written from
RTL (Britannica, 2016). Among the studies including Arabic
natives, Maass and Russo (2003) advanced the hypothesis that
hemispheric brain specialization and scanning habit affect
visual imaging. Specifically, their study addressed cultural
influences on the semantic representation of actions among
Italian (LTR) and Arabic (RTL) natives. Italians showed a
clear LTR preference, whereas Arabs showed the reverse
pattern. In the same vein, Spalek and Hammad (2005) found
a LTR bias in a group of English (LTR) speaking natives.
Conversely, a RTL bias was found among Arabic (RTL)
speaking natives. The Spalek and Hammad (2005) results
were attributed to the direction of text reading. More recent
scholarly work has also found significant differences in
information processing, which presumably are acquired
because of language constraints. Dobel et al. (2007) compared
Germans (LTR) and Israelis (RTL), and preschool-age
children in both countries showed no directional bias.
Nevertheless, adults manifested a bias that was consistent with
the writing system of their language.
Despite having the same direction of reading, it is important
to note there are diverse structural differences between
alphabetic and non-alphabetic based writing systems. Among
them, sound structure, meaning and reading direction are
fundamental to classifying writing systems. For instance,
Akmajian et al. (1990) distinguished between two major types
of writing systems based on the graphic symbols associated
with sound or meaning. These graphic symbols or “letters”
represent the sound structure of the spoken work in alphabetic
 Attention and memory
Monica D. Hernandez et al.
languages (such as English). In contrast, the graphic symbols
or “logographs” represent a complete word in the Chinese
language. Another prominent structural difference was that
ancient Chinese and Japanese were written from top to bottom
(with the columns printed from right to left). Currently,
Chinese is written from LTR. Moreover, at a difference from
alphabetic writing systems, Chinese is written without spaces
between successive characters and words.
Despite these and other differences, few scholarly studies
have addressed the underlying mechanisms of eye movement
taking into consideration language differences. Interestingly,
some differences have been found between natives of
alphabetic and non-alphabetic writing systems. Among them,
Chinese readers make shorter saccades than do English
readers, and the perceptual span of Chinese readers is smaller
than that of English readers (Rayner et al., 2005). It is central
to point out that, according to Rayner et al. (2005),
informational density is much higher in Chinese than in
English.
Given the increasing number of bilinguals, particularly in
Asia (e.g. Arab/English), the number of users reading
bidirectionally is also frequent. In the era of globalization, the
behavior of consumers who are bidirectional readers should be
well examined to offer guidance for international marketing
managers. As this tendency indicates, there is a need to
address the various effects of bidirectional reading. Román
et al. (2013) noted that developed contradictory directional
habits of bidirectional readers (e.g. Arabic and English
bilinguals) will enter in competition, and resulting bias would
be different from that of the unidirectional readers. However,
there are still a number of key questions on the role of
bidirectionality in reader’s cognitive responses. In the
following section, we attempt to address the gap by examining
their attention and memory patterns as compared to
unidirectional readers.
Hypotheses
Relevant to the study of two-dimensional space, there are two
main mechanisms of visual attention: spatial attention and
feature-based attention (Liu et al., 2007; Carrasco, 2011).
Spatial attention is the attention process onto a specific spot
from a visual field. It allows individuals to selectively process
all visual information of a visual area. It is overt and is
indicated by eye movement to the focus of attention. On the
other side, feature-based attention can be deployed regardless
of the focus of attention. Feature-based attention is deployed
to differentiate and highlight particular features in a visual
field. It operates both within and outside the spatial focus of
attention. For example, individuals follow two mechanisms of
attention when browsing products on an e-tailing website:
1 where to look on the webpage (spatial attention); and
2 what product to look for (feature-based attention).
Individuals are likely to locate the items after directing
attention to a specific spot and/or to distinctive visual features
of a target product being sought.
A number of studies linked the directions of text reading
and patterns of information processing, presumably based on
language constraints (Rayner et al., 2005; Román et al., 2013).
By extension, we think that the amount of visual information
3
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10
processing of logo in the bottom right corner of a webpage, the
“corner of death”, depends on the bidirectionality of readers.
The unidirectional LTR readers are found to pay less
attention on the corner of death (Hill, 2010). This is because
of the LTR language constraints, which influences the
attention mechanism of unidirectional LTR readers. Hill’s
(2010) study is in a North American context. For RTL
readers, such as Arab people, the “corner of death” will likely
not to be in the same location as for LTR readers. It means
that RTL readers will likely to avoid the specific “corner of
death” the LTR readers often experience. Putting together, we
think that the bidirectional (RTL/LTR) readers will have
higher attention at this spot because of their RTL reading
ability. With the underlying fluency of reading from either
side, bidirectional readers have a higher tendency for spatial
attention than their unidirectional counterparts because of
their bidirectional bias. On the contrary, unidirectional LTR
readers have developed the directional habitat in visual
information processing. The reading fluency because of
directional reading habitat eases the processing of other
related features and enhances the accuracy of such
information processing (Chen, 2000). When the directional
habitat does not function, time spent on visual information
process may be higher. Thus, unidirectional LTR readers are
more fluent in feature caption. The processing, feedback and
differentiating time period used to distinguish selected visual
features in the webpage is shorter for unidirectional readers.
This results in their higher tendency for fluent feature-based
attention than the bidirectional readers.
Because of the reasoning, unidirectional LTR readers are
more likely to ignore the logo placed in the corner of death
than the bidirectional readers are. We argue that, when we
measure attention through eye fixation hits, bidirectional
readers will be able to scan a larger number of spots including
the corner of death, an indicator for higher fluency of spatial
attention. When we measure attention through eye fixation
duration, however, bidirectional readers will use a larger
amount of time in visual information processing on the
webpage, indicating lower fluency for feature-based attention.
Hence, we hypothesize:
H1. Indicated by verbal measure, unidirectional (LTR)
readers have lower amount of visual attention to logo
placed in the corner of death than do bidirectional
(RTL/LTR) readers.
H2. Indicated by smaller total eye fixation hits,
unidirectional (LTR) readers have a lower tendency for
fluent spatial attention to logo placed in the corner of
death than do bidirectional (RTL/LTR) readers.
H3. Indicated by shorter eye fixation duration,
unidirectional (LTR) readers have a higher tendency
for fluent feature-based attention placed in the corner
of death than do bidirectional (RTL/LTR) readers.
Memory is often measured by recall and/or recognition. While
recall refers to the ability to reproduce previously presented
items, with or without aid, recognition refers to the ability to
identify an item that has been recently encountered (Wixted
and Squire, 2004). The literature addressing the relationship
 Attention and memory
Monica D. Hernandez et al.
of attention and memory measured with an eye-tracker is
inconclusive. Agarwal et al. (2011) did not find a correlation
between eye-tracking measures and memory-based attention
measures. However, Yeh et al. (2011) noticed that trained
readers looked back more often and spent a higher percentage
of time on a sentence. They concluded that a change in eye
movement and increased recall occurred together on second
language English readers, supporting the efficacy of a reading
training program. We expect that, as a consequence of the
native reading directional bias, bidirectional readers will
allocate stronger cognitive effort to remember information. By
extension, we hypothesize that:
H4. Indicated by verbal measure, unidirectional (LTR)
readers have lower amount of logo memory than do
bidirectional (RTL/LTR) readers when it is placed in
the corner of death.
Method
In this section, we discuss how we carried out the
experimental procedures. This process includes recruiting
participants who are specifically bidirectional and
unidirectional readers, creating an experimental webpage as
the marketing stimuli and instructing the participants to
conduct the experiment in lab settings.
Participants
Normal (and corrected-to-normal) vision adult participants
were recruited to participate in the experiment. Participants
received a $10 gift card in return for their participation.
Participants were unaware of the purpose of the experiment
until they had completed all tests. Rayner et al. (2006) found
differences in reading between old and young participants
(e.g. older participants read more slowly and their perceptual
span is smaller). To avoid this issue, we restricted our
participants to those older than 18 years old. Our convenience
sample was composed of 25 English-speaking natives, 27
Chinese-speaking natives and 22 Arabic-speaking natives. It is
important to note that all participants in both Chinese and
Arab groups are bilingual, with English as second language.
Thus, the 22 Arab participants were treated as the
bidirectional readers (both LTR and RTL) because of their
bilingual reading capacity. On the other hand, the American
and Chinese participants were regarded as unidirectional
readers (LTR). The Chinese bilinguals are unidirectional
because both Chinese and English languages are LTR. We
compare American and Chinese participants to see if there is
within-group difference in the unidirectional family.
Our English-speaking native sample consisted of 60 per cent
males and 40 per cent females with educational level ranging
from high school (4 per cent), undergraduate (84 per cent)
and graduate (12 per cent). The English sample also varied in
terms of time spent online and frequency of shopping online,
where 32 per cent of our sample spent 1-10 h online a week
and 68 per cent spent more than 10 h a week. The Arabic
speaking sample consisted of 59 per cent male and 41 per cent
female with educational level of 32 per cent having completed
high school, 23 per cent having an undergraduate degree and
45 per cent having completed or currently pursuing a graduate
degree: 9 per cent of the sample spent less than 1 h online a
4
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10
week, 27 per cent spent between 1 and 10 h online a week and
64 per cent spent more than 10 h a week online. As for
shopping, 32 per cent stated that they rarely shop online,
whereas 45 per cent shop several times a year, and 23 per cent
stated that they shopped online several times a week. The
Chinese-speaking sample consisted of 70 per cent males and
30 per cent females with educational level ranging from
19 per cent having an undergraduate degree and 81 per cent
having or pursing a graduate degree; 19 per cent of the sample
spent 1 to 10 h online a week, and 81 per cent spent more than
10 h online a week, whereas 4 per cent rarely shop online,
41 per cent shop several times a year and 55 per cent shop
several times a month. Table I contains the demographics of
the participants.
Stimuli
We used one webpage for all groups in the experiment. A
complete experimental webpage was created for this purpose.
The webpage was designed as the homepage for a fictitious
non-profit organization. Rayner’s (2009) review indicated that
average fixation durations and the mean saccade length in
silent reading, oral reading, scene perception and visual search
may be influenced by text difficulty, reading skill and
characteristics of the writing system. Therefore, no text was
used on the webpage to void the intervention of written
language. A total of 25 200 ⫻ 150 pixel pictures were used as
the content of the webpage. Figure 1 shows the experimental
webpage. All the items in the pictures were tested for their
cultural meanings using subjects from each of the three
groups. The meanings reported by the three groups were
identical across the three cultures. In addition, meanings of
the items in the pictures are culturally neutral. The pictures
require significant processing time from viewers. Moreover,
reading LTR or RTL will lead to similar interpretations and
an almost identical amount of processing time because
pictures and design were symmetrical. To eliminate brand
familiarity, fictitious brand logos were created. Four different
logos were placed in the corners, respectively, and
aesthetically incorporated to the webpage. The four logos have
the same number of color elements and follow the same color
schemes. The meanings of the four logos are all linked to the
theme of the pictures. Based on our focus group test, the
meanings of the logos are also culturally neutral.
Measures – self-report
Our self-report verbal measures of attention and memory
(recall) were adopted from Moorman et al. (2012) who also
intended to capture attention and memory of participants.
Attention was measured by asking participants to report in a
scale of one-seven how much attention was paid to the brand
logos displayed in the four corners. Unaided recall was
obtained by asking the participants to check from a list of
verbal descriptions as many logos, as they might have seen
when the experimental stimuli were presented. In addition, we
added a recognition measure, which was obtained by
displaying sets of four logos and asking the participants to
mark the one seen in each corner of the screen. A structured
print questionnaire was used, and all the questions were
presented in English. The questionnaire also addressed native
language and second language proficiency. Six additional
 Attention and memory Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monica D. Hernandez et al. Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10

Table I Participant demographicsa

American (N ⴝ 25) Chinese (N ⴝ 27) Arab (N ⴝ 22)
Demographic variable Unidirectional (LTR) Unidirectional (LTR) Bidirectional (LTR/RTL)
Gender distribution
Male 60% (N ⫽ 15) 70% (N ⫽ 19) 59% (N ⫽ 13)
Female 40% (N ⫽ 10) 30% (N ⫽ 8) 41% (N ⫽ 9)
Age (average) 24 25 30

Education level
High school 4% (N ⫽ 1) 0% 32% (N ⫽ 7)
Undergraduate 84% (N ⫽ 22) 19% (N ⫽ 5) 23% (N ⫽ 5)
Graduate 12% (N ⫽ 3) 81% (N ⫽ 22) 45% (N ⫽ 10)

Currently a student
Yes 76% (N ⫽ 19) 33% (N ⫽ 9) 50% (N ⫽ 11)
No 24% (N ⫽ 6) 67% (N ⫽ 18) 50% (N ⫽ 11)

Time spent online (per week)

Less than 1 h 0% 0% 9% (N ⫽ 2)
From 1 to 10 h 32% (N ⫽ 8) 19% (N ⫽ 5) 27% (N ⫽ 6)
More than 10 h 68% (N ⫽ 17) 81% (N ⫽ 22) 64% (N ⫽ 14)

Frequency of shopping online

Rarely 24% (N ⫽ 6) 4% (N ⫽ 1) 32% (N ⫽ 7)
Several times a year 44% (N ⫽ 11) 41% (N ⫽ 11) 45% (N ⫽ 10)
Several times a month 32% (N ⫽ 8) 55% (N ⫽ 15) 23% (N ⫽ 5)
Note: a All the Chinese and Arabic participants are bilingual based on their English proficiency test

Figure 1 Experimental webpage

5
 Attention and memory
Monica D. Hernandez et al.
items addressing demographic background and Internet usage
were collected at the end of the questionnaire.
Measures – eye-tracker
Eye movements were recorded with a Tobii Studio T60 eye
tracker system. Before starting the session, we calibrated the
eye tracker. A check calibration pattern occurred with five
fixed targets and a calibration cross that moved in
synchronization with the eye. If there was a discrepancy
between the calibration cross and the fixed target, the system
was recalibrated for the participant. The experimental website
designed for the present study was then launched.
Procedure
Initially, informed consent was obtained from each
participant. Each participant was individually led to the
eye-tracking lab and asked to sit in front of the experimental
computer. Participants were seated approximately 60-70 cm
in front of the computer screen. Rayner (2009) indicated that
average fixation durations and the mean saccade length in
silent reading and oral reading tasks differ. Specifically, mean
fixation duration for silent reading is shorter than for oral
reading whereas mean saccade length for silent reading is
larger than for oral reading. To avoid these disparities between
participants, all participants were asked to complete the tasks
in silence.
The instruction we gave the participants for the experiment
is:
You will see a webpage that has 25 pictures presenting a thematic story. You
have to scan the webpage in 10 seconds and tell the story based on all the
pictures.
Their eye movement patterns were tracked. After the
experimental procedure was completed, they were asked to
briefly write down a filler task consisting of the thematic story
based on their own interpretation. Lastly, participants were
asked to complete the paper-and-pencil questionnaire
described above. The total experimental procedure for every
participant was completed in 6-12 min.
Results
Eye-tracking data
Eye-movement data, including both gaze duration and
fixation, are informative of the visual attention process.
Analyses were conducted on both time allocation (total
fixation duration) and location of fixation (AOI hits). Overall,
the logos placed on the right side of the screen received less
frequent eye fixations [frequency of hits on the area of interest
(hereafter AOI)], and they were looked at more briefly (total
fixation duration) over the data collection process. Table II
contains a summary of statistical results.
To ensure information acquisition per each fixation,
fixations that lasted less than 100 milliseconds were eliminated
(Atalay et al., 2012; Pieters and Wedel, 2012). Consistent with
Atalay et al. (2012) and Pieters and Wedel (2012), the cases of
200 milliseconds and above did not alter the results.
Therefore, these cases were retained.
Attention – hits
It was argued that unidirectional readers would have more
frequent eye fixations on their native language bias (in our
6
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10
case, left bias). Results of a t-test revealed a significant effect of
frequency of hits on the top right corner of the screen as
captured by the eye-tracking measures (t ⫽ ⫺2.641, p ⬍
0.01). As expected, the bidirectional readers exhibited a larger
number of hits on the right side. However, the t-test revealed
no significant effect of frequency of hits on the bottom right
corner (t ⫽ 0.793, p ⬎ 0.05). H2 was not supported by the
eye-tracking data. According to Atalay et al. (2012), orienting
oneself may be the reason for the initial fixations. So,
additional analyses were conducted after the first fixation, and
the results were similar.
Although there is no difference in the spatial attention
between unidirectional and bidirectional readers on the
bottom right corner, statistical evidence was found on the top
right corner. Further, as demonstrated in Figure 2 (heat
maps), the likelihood of fixating on the right side logos,
compared to the logos on the left side, was higher by the
bidirectional readers. This effect was particularly prevalent in
the first hit. Therefore, there is a spatial attention difference
between the two groups.
Attention – percentage of time
We hypothesized that unidirectional readers would allocate a
greater percentage of time to the direction of their native
language bias (in our case, left side). Because the time of
completion of the experiment varied by participant, the
percentage gaze duration of fixation was deemed appropriate
to measure the attention allocation of the participants who hit
the AOIs. A t-test was conducted to compare the gaze
duration for bi- and unidirectional readers. The t-test revealed
significant differences between bidirectional and
unidirectional readers [t(72) ⫽ ⫺2.549, p ⬍ 0.05]. The
difference was not significant between Chinese and American
unidirectional readers [t(47) ⫽ 0.281, p ⬎ 0.05].
Unambiguously, we found that the bidirectional readers
allocated a greater percentage of time to fixations when they
process the logo information. The results indicated that
unidirectional readers spend less time in visual information
processing when their eyes are focused on the logo in the
bottom right corner. Thus, H3 was supported.
Self-reported verbal measures
Self-reported attention
An independent samples t-test was performed, with
self-reported attention as the dependent variable and direction
of reading as the independent variable. Results showed a
significant difference between the two groups [t(72) ⫽
⫺2.921, p ⬍ 0.01], with bidirectional readers reporting a
greater degree of attention than the unidirectional
counterparts. The two unidirectional groups, American and
Chinese, did not exhibit significant difference (p ⬎ 0.10). H1
was supported by the result of the analysis on self-reported
attention to the logo in the corner of death.
Memory
Memory for the logo placed on the bottom right corner shows
a similar level between unidirectional and bidirectional readers
[t(72) ⫽ ⫺0.968, p ⬎ 0.05]. In addition, results of an ANOVA
testing each corner of the screen revealed no significant effect
of logo memory between groups via either recall or
recognition. The rate of correct recall of each logo (one logo
 Attention and memory Journal of Consumer Marketing
Monica D. Hernandez et al. Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10

Table II Summary of statistical analysis

Dependent variable Means (SD) t-value df p-value
Eye-tracker data (on corner of death)
Attention – hits to AOI 0.793 3612 0.428
Unidirectional 0.00 (0.044)
Bidirectional 0.00 (0.031)
Attention – percentage of time ⫺2.549 3612 0.011
Unidirectional 1.92% (1.21%)
Bidirectional 2.05% (1.86%)

Self-reported verbal measures (on corner of death)

Attention (self-report) ⫺2.787 72 0.008
Unidirectional 2.17 (1.31)
Bidirectional 3.18 (1.47)
Memory (self-report) ⫺0.968 72 0.339
Unidirectional 2.62 (1.05)
Bidirectional 2.86 (0.99)

Figure 2 Representative heat maps

per screen corner) was used as the dependent variables. The
classified group (unidirectional vs. bidirectional) was the
independent variable. The interaction effect was
nonsignificant [F(2,71) ⫽ 0.211, MSE ⫽ 0.814,
p ⫽ 0.811]. The results indicate that there is no overall
difference in recall or recognition between the two groups
because of reading direction. Thus, H4 was not supported.
Interestingly, attention between the two groups differ but
not for memory as measured by recognition. In other words,
the bidirectional group’s self-reported data indicated higher
attention to stimuli. However, this time allocation did not
improve their logo memory.

Discussion
The corner of death has been identified as the least desired
place for a logo because of the lack of attention (Hill, 2010).
Such notion was based on experiments conducted with North
American consumers. Previously, how the different locations
on a webpage are processed or remembered across countries
and cultural groups has not been fully understood. Among the
earliest to shed light on this research topic, our findings
contribute to the understanding of the differences between
unidirectional and bidirectional readers in their responses to
directional organization of marketing stimuli. The results from
the verbal measures revealed that consumers who are
bidirectional readers pay more visual attention on the corner
of death than the unidirectional (LTR) readers. Further, from
the eye-movement analysis, it was found that unidirectional
(LTR) readers and bidirectional readers differ in attention as
measured by total fixations and duration time. In particular,
we found that bidirectional readers spent a higher percentage
of time fixed on the bottom right corner (the corner of death).
They also have a larger amount of eye fixations on the right
side of the webpage and, in particular, the top right corner.
These results are consistent with previous findings reported by
Román et al. (2013) and Dobel et al. (2007). Interestingly, we
found non-significant effect in logo memory. This finding
converges with Agarwal et al. (2011), who did not find a
correlation between attention and memory.

7
 Attention and memory
Monica D. Hernandez et al.
In summary, we found that bidirectional readers are not as
vulnerable as unidirectional LTR readers when encountering
the corner of death phenomenon because of the differences in
their visual attention mechanisms. More illustrative of the
phenomenon, compared to unidirectional (LTR) readers,
bidirectional readers are less fluent in deploying feature-based
attention but are more fluent in using spatial attention when
presented with the same webpage. This offers insights into
understanding the habitual nature of certain international
consumers who are accustomed to reading from both
directions. Meanwhile, the findings suggest that the corner of
death phenomenon is at least partially caused by
unidirectional LTR readers’ habitual tendency in higher
feature-based attention and lower spatial attention. When
consumers are able to read from both directions, they show
higher fluency in spatial attention, which reduced the
possibility of not visually capturing the corner of death.
There was no difference in memory found in the results, in
a general sense suggesting that the attention pattern
differences do not result in differences in memory. Given that
the means for recall were low (Table II), logos placed in the
corner of death are not effective in terms of memory,
regardless of viewers’ reading directions. The advantage of the
bottom right corner for bidirectional readers is not further
transferred to the long-term memory outcomes for a logo.
Thus, we should be aware that, in a content-rich web page,
logo placed in the corner of death could achieve no more than
a marginal memory effect, regardless of reading directions of
the consumer group.
The findings may help to generate specific insights to the
marketing and advertising industry. The discovered patterns
of difference help marketers delineate better directional/lateral
layouts when physically placing marketing stimuli, such as
brand logos, banner ads, remarks, sponsored search results,
pop-up ads and information ads on a webpage, with
anticipated international impact. Location-driven ad
placement in view of our findings has implications for Internet
managers managing certain international audience. The
numerous marketing activities on the web, such as social
networking and advertising copy, require an integrated
platform. In an international marketing context, marketers are
also aware of the combined use of the native language in the
home country and the language of English as the universal
business language.
Specifically, the effect of logo position on visual attention
and memory by a diverse Internet audience helps global
marketers to understand the adaptation of webpage design
based on reading directions and English language fluency.
The results also offer important suggestions for online
interface design. In a North American consumer environment,
the corner of death is said to be the worse place for important
visual information. However, the corner of death may be a
corner of opportunity based on the characteristics of the web
browsers. Previous thoughts on location-driven ad placement
have not fully considered reading directions and its impact on
the information processing patterns. Our findings highlight
the attention pattern differences between North American
consumers who are by default unidirectional LTR readers and
many Arab consumers who are bidirectional (RTL/LTR)
readers. With the example of Arab natives who are bilingual in
8
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10
Arabic and English, it suggests that directional bias needs to
be taken into consideration when bidirectional readers are
targeted.
Managerial implications
From a managerial standpoint, the findings can help global
marketing managers understand how to improve the
effectiveness of advertisements and webpage design. The
findings render clear managerial expertise in regard to logo
placement. The placement of a logo on the corner of death is
not as detrimental in an advertising platform targeting
bidirectional (LTR/RTL) readers. This is especially important
when the time of fixation is abundant. For ads or web pages
intended for certain international populations that are
bidirectional readers, the corner of death might be strategically
used for logo placement to achieve good results in visual
attention.
The implications can also be extended to online visual
search patterns. Search engines such as Google and Bing
follow the same patterns displaying organic results and
sponsored ads. The rationale to position the relevant
information closer to the top left corner (diagonally opposite
to the corner of death) is the visibility and number of
click-through on the listings in this area. A similar pattern
occurs in social media outlets such as Twitter. However, the
location of information seems to follow the natural LTR
pattern and both the RTL and bidirectional pattern have been
overlooked. Our findings shed light when international
consumers are of concern.
Given the popularity and prominence of social media, the
position of marketing stimuli in any given screen is important.
As social media differs from traditional advertising in that the
former motivates users to engage and share, the elements with
which the user interacts with the most should be easily
accessible and within rapid reach. Decisions about the
location of display and/or banner ads can also be targeted to
the specific type of readers. We commonly find this type of
advertising at the top or at the left side of the screen. Again,
the decision to place these ads in these specific locations
perhaps follows the natural LTR pattern. However, ads
targeting bidirectional readers may benefit from a right-side
placement instead.
Limitations and future research
Regarding sample selection, Arabic and Chinese speaking
participants are recruited to represent bidirectional and
unidirectional reader groups. It seems as though individuals
from those cultures would have a considerably different
mindset regarding exposure to pictorial materials in general.
Essentially the question becomes the comparability on many
variables. Future research that replicates or extends the
current study needs to ensure comparability via cultural-
psychological analysis and demographic analysis.
Future research also needs to devote additional effort to
external validity. Another limiting factor in our study was that
the time of completion of the experiment slightly varied by
participants. We attempted to correct this issue by considering
the percentage of fixation instead of the raw data. For future
work, one can further explore other memory measures, such as
aided recall, to see if the results still hold. Future work can
 Attention and memory
Monica D. Hernandez et al.
consider the relevance of position given the purpose of a
search. For example, does the attention shift to different areas
of the screen whether the activity of the reader is leisure or
purchase oriented? In addition, future work can explore the
attention, memory and click-through behavior of display/
banner ads between groups of unidirectional versus
bidirectional readers. For social media, future research can
explore the effect of marketing stimuli position on consumer
engagement and/or interaction. As social media networks
evolve, more questions about the relevance of the position of
marketing stimuli may arise.
References
Agarwal A., Hosanagar, K. and Smith, M.D. (2011),
“Location, location, location: an analysis of profitability of
position in online advertising markets”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1057-1073.
Akmajian, A., Demers, R.A., Farmer, A.K. and Harnish,
R.M. (1990), Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and
Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Atalay, A. Selin, Bodur H.O. and Rasolofoarison, D. (2012),
“Shining in the center: central gaze cascade effect on
product choice”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 848-866.
Britannica, Encyclopedia (2016), “Arabic alphabet”, available
at: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/31666/Arabic-
alphabet (accessed 1 June 2016).
Carrasco, M. 2011), “Visual attention: the past 25 years”,
Vision Research, Vol. 51 No. 13, pp. 1484-1525.
Casasanto, D. (2009), “Embodiment of abstract concepts:
good and bad in right- and left-handers”, Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 138 No. 3,
pp. 351-367.
Casasanto, D. (2011), “Different bodies, different minds: the
body specificity of language and thought”, Current Directions
in Psychological Science, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 378-383.
Chae, B.G. and Hoegg, J.A. (2013), “The future looks ‘right’:
effects of the horizontal location of advertising images on
product attitude”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 40
No. 2, pp. 223-238.
Chen, Z. (2000), “An object-based cost of visual filtering”,
Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 482-495.
Dobel, C., Diesendruck, G. and Bolte, J. (2007), “How
writing system and age influence spatial representations
of actions: a developmental, cross-linguistic study”,
Psychological Science, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 487-491.
Goodrich, K. (2010), “What’s up? exploring upper and lower
visual field advertising effects”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 91-106.
Hill, D. (2010), “The 6 secrets of eye-tracking”, Marketing
Daily, 15 October, available at: www.mediapost.com/
publications/?art_aid⫽137686&fa⫽Articles.showArticle
(accessed 1 June 2016).
Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, D.J. and Pieters, R.(1997), Consumer
Behavior, Cengage, Mason, OH.
Janiszewski, C. (1990), “The influence of print advertisement
organization on affect toward a brand name”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Janiszewski, C. (1993), “Preattentive mere exposure effects”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 376-392.
9
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10
Liu, T., Stevens, S.T. and Carrasco, M. (2007), “Comparing
the time course and efficacy of spatial and feature-based
attention”, Vision Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 108-113.
Maass, A. and Russo, A.(2003), “Directional bias in the
mental representation of spatial events: nature or culture?”,
Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 296-301.
Moorman, M., Willemsen, L.M., Neijens, P.C. and Smit,
E.G. (2012), “Program-involvement effects on commercial
attention and recall of successive and embedded
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 41 No. 2,
pp. 25-37.
Outing, S. and Ruel, L. (2006), “The best of eyetrack III:
what we saw when we looked through their eyes”, Eyetrack
III, available at: www.uvsc.edu/disted/decourses/dgm/2740/
IN/steinja/lessons/05/docs/eyetrack_iii.pdf (accessed 1 June
2016).
Pieters, R. and Wedel, M. (2012), “Ad gist: ad
communication in a single eye fixation”, Marketing Science,
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 59-73.
Rayner, K. (2009), “Eye movements and attention in
reading”, Scene Perception, and Visual Search, The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 8,
pp. 1457-1506.
Rayner, K., Li, X., Juhasz, B.J. and Yan, G.(2005), “The
effect of word predictability on the eye movements of
Chinese readers”, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Vol. 12
No. 6, pp. 1089-1093.
Rayner, K., Reichle, E.D., Stroud, M.J., Williams, C.C. and
Pollatsek, A. (2006), “The effect of word frequency, word
predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of
young and older readers”, Psychology and Aging, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 448-465.
Román, A., Fathi, A. and Santiago, J. (2013), “Spatial biases
in understanding descriptions of static scenes: the role of
reading and writing direction”, Memory & Cognition,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 588-599.
Romero, M. and Biswas, D. (2016), “Healthy-left,
unhealthy-right: can displaying healthy items to the left
(versus right) of unhealthy items nudge healthier choices?”
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 103-112.
Schmitt, B.H., Pan, Y. and Tavassoli, N.T. (1994),
“Language and consumer memory: the impact of linguistic
differences between Chinese and English”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 419-431.
Smith, A.K. and Elias, L.J. (2013), “Native reading direction
and corresponding preferences for left- or right-lit images”,
Perceptual & Motor Skills: Learning & Memory, Vol. 116
No. 2, pp. 355-367.
Spalek, T.M. and Hammad, S. (2005), “The left-to-right bias
in inhibition of return is due to the direction of reading”,
Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 15-18.
Valenzuela, A. and Raghubir, P. (2009), “Position-based
beliefs: the center-stage effect”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 185-196.
Wixted, J.T. and Squire, L.R. (2004), “Recall and recognition
are equally impaired in patients with selective hippocampal
damage”, Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience,
Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 58-66.
 Attention and memory
Monica D. Hernandez et al.
Yeh, L.H., Schwartz, A.I. and Baule, A.L. (2011), “The
impact of text-structure strategy instruction on the text
recall and eye-movement patterns of second language
English readers”, Reading Psychology, Vol. 32, pp. 495-519.
Further reading
Dooley, R.(2010), “Avoid the corner of death!
neuromarketing”, available at: www.neuroscience
marketing.com/blog/articles/corner-of-death.htm (accessed
1 June 2016).
Green, D.W. and Meara, P. (1987), “The effects of script on
visual search”, Second Language Research, Vol. 3 No. 2,
pp. 102-117.
Green, D.W., Liow, S.J.R., Tng, S.K. and Zielinski, S.
(1996), “Are visual search procedures adapted to the nature
of the script?”, British Journal of Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2,
pp. 311-326.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
10
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 34 · Number 1 · 2017 · 1–10
Krueger, L.E. (1970), “Visual comparison in a redundant
display”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 7, pp. 314-357.
Luna, D. and Peracchio, L.A. (2001), “Moderators of
language effects in advertising to bilinguals: a
psycholinguistic approach”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 284-295.
Rayner, K., Li, X., Williams, C.C., Cave, K.R. and Well,
A.D. (2007), “Eye movements during information
processing tasks: individual differences and cultural
effects”, Vision Research, Vol. 47 No. 21, pp. 2714-2726.
Siok, W.T., Perfetti, C.A., Jin, Z. and Tan, L.H. (2004),
“Biological abnormality of impaired reading is constrained
by culture”, Nature, Vol. 431 No. 7004, p. 71.
Corresponding author
Yong Wang can be contacted at: wangy@ohio.edu
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.