SOKOLOVA, KRISHNA, AND D € ORING
479
¼ bad” belief scores ( þ 1 SD; M plastic ¼ 3.01 vs. M plastic þ paper ¼ 4.42, F (1, 598) ¼ 69.71, p < .001, g p 2 ¼ 0.104) than among participants with lower “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” belief scores ( 1 SD; M plastic ¼ 3.51 vs. M plastic þ paper ¼ 4.30, F (1, 598) ¼ 22.16, p < .001, g p 2 ¼ 0.036). Floodlight analysis (Spiller et al. 2013) revealed that the Johnson-Neyman point at which packaging type has a significant effect on PEF scores at p ¼ .05 lies at M beliefs ¼ 1.92. In the sample, 99% of the explicit belief scores were above the Johnson-Neyman threshold of 1.92. Discussion The study tested the effect of explicit beliefs about plas- tic and paper on the PEF bias. The results suggest that the PEF bias is stronger among participants who believe that the difference between the environmental harm of plastic and paper is relatively large and weaker among those who believe that the difference between the environmental harm of plastic and paper is smaller. Together, studies 1a–2b provide robust evidence of the PEF bias, attesting to its generalizability across different product categories and decision contexts. They also pro- vide evidence of the underlying process of the PEF bias. The next four studies examine the downstream consequen- ces of the PEF bias for consumer decision-making.
resulting in a final sample of 802 participants ( M age ¼ 41.16, 54% female). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two con- ditions (packaging type: plastic vs. plastic þ paper). In the main task, participants saw a granola bar packaged either in plastic or in plastic þ paper (table 8) and indicated how much they would be willing to pay for the bar on an unmarked slider scale anchored on $0 on the left and on $4 on the right. Next, on a separate screen, participants rated the perceived environmental friendliness of the granola packaging on the four-item PEF scale. Finally, participants reported their age and gender.
Results
Willingness to Pay. A one-way ANOVA indicated that participants were willing to pay less for the plastic- packaged granola bar compared to the plastic þ paper- packaged one ( M plastic ¼ $0.94, SD ¼ 0.48, vs. M plastic þ paper ¼ $1.09, SD ¼ 0.53, F (1, 800) ¼ 18.12, p < .001, g p 2 ¼ 0.022). Perceived Environmental Friendliness. Next, we ana- lyzed participants’ PEF scores ( a ¼ 0.95) across the two packaging type conditions. Replicating prior results, a one- way ANOVA revealed that people perceived plastic pack- aging to be less environmentally friendly than plastic þ paper packaging ( M plastic ¼ 2.77, SD ¼ 1.47, vs. M plastic þ paper ¼ 3.81, SD ¼ 1.42, F (1, 800) ¼ 103.84, p < .001, g p 2 ¼ 0.115). Mediation Analysis. A mediation analysis with 10,000 bootstrap samples revealed a significant indirect effect of packaging type on willingness to pay via PEF [ b ¼ 0.05, SE ¼ 0.01, 95% CI: (0.02; 0.08); figure 1], suggesting that packaging type affected participants’ willingness to pay for the granola bar by affecting the environmental friendliness perceptions of the bar’s packaging.
STUDY 3: IMPLICATIONS FOR WILLINGNESS TO PAY
Study 3 examines the implications of the PEF bias for consumers’ willingness to pay.
Method Eight hundred five ProlificCo panelists completed the study. Three surveys were removed due to duplicate IPs,
TABLE8
STUDY 3: PACKAGING STIMULI
Plastic condition
Plastic+paper condition
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker