480
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
FIGURE1
STUDY 3: PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLINESS OF PACKAGING MEDIATES THE EFFECT OF PACKAGING TYPE ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY
Perceived environmental friendliness
a*** b = 1.04 (0.10)
b*** b = 0.04 (0.01)
c*** b = 0.15 (0.04) c’ ** b = 0.11 (0.04)
Packaging type (0 = plastic; 1 = plastic+paper)
Willingness to pay
ab path: b = 0.05, SE = 0.01, CI 95%: (0.02; 0.08)
Coefficient standard errors are marked in parentheses. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Discussion This study provides further evidence of the PEF bias in packaging evaluations and demonstrates its implications for consumers’ willingness to pay. We observe that addi- tion of a layer of paper to plastic packaging increased con- sumers’ willingness to pay by 15 cents, or by 16%, a difference by no means trivial for the fast-moving con- sumer goods sector. We also observe that the effect of packaging type on WTP was mediated by packaging environmental friendli- ness perceptions. However, packaging type may have affected willingness to pay via multiple mechanisms, for example, by changing the inferred product quality. Critically, if product quality is correlated with perceived environmental friendliness of packaging, study 3 would run the risk of overestimating the role of PEF in driving consumers’ willingness to pay. As such, in our next study, we aimed to minimize the possibility that packaging type prompted additional inferences about product quality. Moreover, we aimed to explore whether PEF has implica- tions for product choice, and not just willingness to pay.
to one of two conditions (packaging type: plastic vs. plastic þ paper). At the beginning of the study, participants read that they would be making a series of choices between chocolate bars. The bars were described on three attributes—price ($3.00 vs. $3.50 vs. $4.00), packaging (“paper vs. plastic” vs. “paper vs. plastic þ paper”), and flavor (dark chocolate vs. dark chocolate with strawberries). To rule out the possi- bility that our packaging manipulation led to additional interferences about product quality, participants were also explicitly informed that the evaluated chocolate bars varied only on price, packaging, and flavor. Participants then made 12 choices between pairs of choco- late bars. The choice sets were created in Sawtooth software using the balanced overlap method (see table 9 for screen- shots of sample choice tasks). In the “plastic” condition, the choice pairs included two types of packaging—paper (only) and plastic (only). In the “plastic þ paper” condition, the choice pairs also included two types of packaging—paper (only) and plastic þ paper. The inclusion of paper packaging in both conditions allowed us to compare participants’ choice propensities for plastic packaging relative to plastic þ paper packaging in a between-subjects setting. After making 12 choices between pairs of chocolate bars, participants in the “plastic” (“plastic þ paper”) condi- tion saw a chocolate bar packaged in plastic (plastic þ paper) and rated the environmental friendliness of its pack- aging on the four-item PEF scale. Finally, they reported their age and gender.
STUDY 4A: IMPLICATIONS FOR CHOICE
While consumers may feel that they should pay more for products with additional packaging, they may be less likely to choose these products. Thus, study 4a tests the effect of packaging type on choice, using a choice-based conjoint experiment. Method Four hundred ProlificCo panelists completed the study ( M age ¼ 34.80, 67% female). They were randomly assigned
Results
Conjoint Analysis. We obtained individual-specific utilities of each attribute—price, packaging, flavor—using
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker