Attention is the foundation of perception, memory, and decision-making. In marketing and advertising, it has become a key performance metric, influencing how brands engage with consumers across the globe. But is attention truly universal? When we watch an ad, we rarely think about why certain elements catch our eye. Our brains process visual information automatically, guiding our attention without us even realizing it. But does this subconscious processing work the same way across different cultures? If an ad is designed based on European attention benchmarks, will it still work effectively in Asia, Africa, or Latin America?

Neuroscience suggests that attention follows certain innate biological principles that apply to all humans. However, cultural differences can subtly shape the way we allocate our attention. This blog explores the universal and culturally specific aspects of attention, supported by neuroscientific findings and global eye-tracking studies.

The Universal Nature of Attention

One of the reasons attention is the most valuable metric in advertising is that it is rooted in fundamental human behavior. Research shows that human attention is universally drawn to certain elements, such as faces, movement, and contrast. These patterns are hardwired into our brains due to evolutionary factors.

For instance, studies consistently find that people’s eyes are naturally attracted to faces in images. This happens because, from birth, humans are wired to recognize and respond to faces, which play a crucial role in social interaction and learning. Similarly, abrupt scene changes and chaotic visuals can cause cognitive overload, making it harder for viewers to focus. These are universal cognitive responses that are unlikely to change across cultures.

Eye-Tracking Research Confirms Consistency

Eye-tracking studies provide further evidence that attention patterns remain largely the same across different cultural backgrounds. One global eye-tracking study found that people from various regions tend to focus on the same elements in ads—such as branding, products, and text—suggesting that core attention behaviors are consistent worldwide. 

Another study examined how men and women pay attention to images and found a 97% correlation between male and female eye-tracking heatmaps. The heatmaps below on a static ad show a very high correlation between female (top) and male (bottom) participants.

‍This means that gender-based differences in visual attention are minimal, reinforcing the idea that certain subconscious processing mechanisms are universal.

The Neuroscience Behind Attention

The human brain’s attention system is deeply embedded in its neural architecture. The primary regions responsible for attention are:

• The Prefrontal Cortex (PFC): Regulates top-down attention, meaning our ability to focus on something deliberately.
• The Parietal Cortex: Helps process spatial awareness and guides eye movements.
• The Superior Colliculus: Controls reflexive attention, such as when a sudden movement or loud noise catches our eye.
• The Amygdala: Plays a role in emotional processing and influences what captures our attention based on emotional salience.

These systems work together to filter out distractions and focus on the most relevant information in any given environment. Research suggests that while the underlying neural mechanisms of attention are universal, cultural factors influence how these systems prioritize different types of stimuli.

The Universality of Visual Attention

Certain aspects of attention appear to be hardwired in human cognition.

1. Faces and the Human Brain: The Power of Recognition

One of the most well-documented aspects of human attention is our automatic focus on faces. Studies using fMRI scans have shown that the fusiform face area (FFA), a specialized part of the human brain, is activated when we see a face. 

This response is hardwired—infants as young as a few hours old show a preference for looking at faces over other stimuli (Johnson et al., 1991). Evolutionary psychology explains why: humans are hardwired to focus on faces. Faces provide critical information about emotions, intentions, and identity, making them almost impossible to ignore. 

This explains why, in advertising, faces are an effective way to grab attention. Regardless of cultural background, the human brain is predisposed to process and remember faces. Research using eye-tracking data confirms that ads featuring prominent faces consistently draw more attention than those without them, regardless of the viewer’s cultural background.

For example, studies in both Western and Eastern countries have shown that faces are often the first visual element noticed in an advertisement. This suggests a universal biological mechanism at play, transcending cultural differences.

However, while the attraction to faces is universal, how we interpret facial expressions can be influenced by cultural differences. For example, Western cultures tend to focus on the mouth for emotional cues, while East Asian cultures emphasize the eyes (Jack et al., 2009). Despite this, the mere presence of a face in an ad is likely to increase attention across cultures due to its biological significance.

2. Branding and Memory: The Role of Primacy and Recency Effects

The positioning of brand names and logos also plays a crucial role in advertising recall. Cognitive psychology highlights two powerful memory effects: the primacy effect (better recall of items at the beginning of a sequence) and the recency effect (better recall of items at the end). These effects are universal in nature, stemming from how short-term and long-term memory function.

This has major implications for branding: displaying a logo or brand name at the beginning and end of an ad enhances recall, as these positions leverage our natural memory processes.

Neuroscientific studies show that the hippocampus and prefrontal cortex play crucial roles in memory encoding and retrieval (Squire, 1992). When an ad strategically places brand elements at the start and end, it aligns with the way our brain encodes and retrieves information, making the brand more memorable. This suggests that while specific cultural preferences in branding styles may exist, the underlying cognitive processing of brand recall remains universal.

3. Cognitive Load and Visual Processing: The Impact of Clutter

Another key factor in ad perception is cognitive load—the amount of mental effort required to process information. The human brain has a limited capacity for attention, and when an ad is overly cluttered with information, it can lead to cognitive overload, making it harder for viewers to retain key messages (Sweller, 1988).

Cross-cultural research suggests that while people from different cultures may have varying tolerances for visual complexity, the underlying cognitive limitation is universal. A global eye-tracking study found that excessive scene changes and crowded visuals lead to distraction and reduced comprehension across different regions (Wedel & Pieters, 2008). This aligns with the broader understanding of how our visual system works—our brains prefer clear focal points and well-structured layouts to optimize processing efficiency. 

However, cultural differences may influence what constitutes “clutter”. For instance, consumers from high-context cultures (e.g., Japan or China) may tolerate or even prefer more intricate visuals, while those from low-context cultures (e.g., the US or Germany) may favor simplicity.

Cultural Differences in Attention

While some aspects of attention remain universal, others show subtle variations across cultures:

1. Analytic vs. Holistic Attention
   
   • Western cultures (e.g., U.S., Europe) tend to have an analytic cognitive style, meaning they focus more on individual objects and their properties.
   • Eastern cultures (e.g., Japan, China) tend to have a holistic cognitive style, meaning they pay more attention to contextual elements and background scenery.
   • For example, an American viewer might focus on the brand logo in an ad, while a Japanese viewer might pay more attention to the overall composition.
2. Depth Perception and Object Focus
   
   • While many aspects of attention are universal, some visual processing tendencies show cultural variability. A study using immersive virtual reality and eye-tracking technology found that participants from different cultures varied in their focus on near vs. distant objects. Specifically, Turkish participants tended to focus more on closer objects, while participants from Czechia, Ghana, and Taiwan did not show this pattern. The image below was the one shown to participants from different countries.
   • It is important to note that Czechia was considered as a western culture country whereas Ghana and Taiwan were considered more eastern. Still not a significant difference in their depth perception was found, which adds to the argument of many visual attention perception being universal in nature if you look at it from the subconscious point of view.
   • This suggests that while the biological mechanisms of attention remain constant, environmental and cultural factors can subtly shape how people distribute their focus in complex visual scenes. However, for ad design, this variation is more relevant to aesthetic preferences than to the core principles of attention itself.

3. Category Cues and Memory Retrieval
   
   • Memory recall plays a crucial role in advertising effectiveness. Research suggests that memory retrieval is cue-dependent, meaning that people rely on familiar triggers to recall information. A study by Alba and Chattopadhyay (1986) found that when a cue (such as a brand name or logo) is strongly associated with an item, recall improves. However, cultural differences may influence which cues are most effective. For example, some cultures may rely more on visual associations, while others may prioritize linguistic or symbolic cues.

So, Can junbi’s Attention Scores Be Used Across Cultures?

Since junbi’s attention scores—Ad Breakthrough, Brand Attention, and Cognitive Ease—are based on universal cognitive principles, they are likely applicable across different markets. However, minor cultural variations in perception should not be ignored. While the fundamentals of attention and recall remain constant, small differences in focus and cognitive load sensitivity may exist.

For brands expanding globally, this means that while junbi’s scores provide a strong foundation for predicting ad performance, testing across multiple regions can provide additional insights. Combining universal attention principles with localized testing can help advertisers refine their strategies for different audiences.

Final Thoughts

The subconscious processing of ads is largely universal, with human attention being drawn to faces, clear branding, and structured visuals. However, cultural nuances in depth perception, object focus, and memory retrieval cues may introduce slight variations in how ads are perceived. For advertisers, this means leveraging fundamental attention principles while remaining mindful of regional preferences.

junbi’s benchmarks, built on thousands of European YouTube ads, are not just limited to that region—they reflect core human attention mechanisms. So while cultural testing is always valuable, the underlying science behind attention remains a reliable guide for advertisers worldwide.

‍

References

Alba, J. W., & Chattopadhyay, A. (1986). Salience effects in brand recall. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151812

Boduroglu, A., Shah, P., & Nisbett, R. E. (2006). Cultural differences in allocation of attention in visual information processing. Psychological Science, 17(7), 550–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01743.x

Cerf, M., Frady, E. P., & Koch, C. (2009). Faces and text attract gaze independent of the task: Experimental data and computer model. Journal of Vision, 9(12), 10. https://doi.org/10.1167/9.12.10

Jack, R. E., Blais, C., Scheepers, C., Schyns, P. G., & Caldara, R. (2009). Cultural confusions show that facial expressions are not universal. Current Biology, 19(18), 1543–1548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.07.051

Marquis, A. R., & Sugden, N. A. (n.d.). Meta-analytic review of infants' preferential attention to familiar and unfamiliar face types based on gender and race.

Masuda, T. (2017). Culture and attention: Recent empirical findings and new directions in cultural psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1441. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01441

Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R. E., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and the physical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances. Psychological Science, 17(2), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01673.x

Murdock, B. B., Jr. (1962). The serial position effect of free recall. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64(5), 482–488. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0045106

Pascalis, O., & Kelly, D. J. (2009). The origins of face processing in humans: Phylogeny and ontogeny. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X08004079

Reynolds, J. H., & Desimone, R. (2003). Interacting roles of attention and visual salience in V4. Neuron, 37(5), 853–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00062-9

Squire, L. R. (1992). Memory and the hippocampus: A synthesis from findings with rats, monkeys, and humans. Psychological Review, 99(2), 195–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.2.195

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4

Šašinková, A., Čeněk, J., Ugwitz, P., Tsai, J.-L., Giannopoulos, I., Lacko, D., Stachoň, Z., Fitz, J., & Šašinka, Č. (2023). Exploring cross-cultural variations in visual attention patterns inside and outside national borders using immersive virtual reality. Scientific Reports, 13, 16904. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-46103-1

Taylor & Francis. (2018). Face presence and gaze direction in print advertisements: How they influence consumer responses—An eye-tracking study. Journal of Advertising Research, 58(4), JAR-2018-004. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2018-004

Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (Eds.). (2008). Visual marketing: From attention to action. Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Additional Source (Webpage, Non-Academic)

Neurons Inc. (n.d.). Eye-tracking study: Cultural differences in attention. Retrieved from https://www.neuronsinc.com/insights/eye-tracking-study-cultural-differences-attention