SOKOLOVA, KRISHNA, AND D € ORING
487
TABLE14
STUDY 5: ATTRIBUTE UTILITIES
Plastic-control condition
Plastic-sticker condition
M (SD)
t -Stat.
p -Value
M (SD)
t -Stat.
p -Value
(Test value ¼ 0)
(Test value ¼ 0)
Zero-centered utility scores a
Price
62.74 (28.33) 10.98 (43.49) 118.47 (99.43)
38.04 4.33 20.46
< .001 < .001 < .001
56.87 (27.46) 35.05 (61.48) 112.45 (93.36)
35.57 9.79
< .001 < .001 < .001
(Plastic) packaging b
Flavor
20.69
a $3.00 price, plastic þ paper packaging, and nuts flavor served as the baseline attribute levels for utility estimates. b On average, plastic is worse than plastic þ paper packaging by 10.98 utils in the plastic-control condition. Plastic is better than plastic þ paper packaging by 35.05 utils in the plastic-sticker condition.
that addition of a “minimal packaging” sticker not only attenuates but also reverses the effect of adding paper to plastic packaging on choice. In the “plastic-control” condi- tion, plastic packaging had a negative utility compared to the plastic þ paper baseline, meaning that people were less likely to choose plastic-packaged granola bars than plastic þ paper-packaged granola bars. Importantly, in the “plastic-sticker” condition, plastic had a positive utility, meaning that people became more prone to choose plastic- packaged granola bars than plastic þ paper-packaged gran- ola bars.
packaging, making people more likely to choose plastic- packaged products over their plastic-plus-paper overpack- aged counterparts. To assess the evidential value of the studies reported in the paper, we used the p-curve method (Simonsohn, Nelson, and Simmons 2014). To conduct the p-curve anal- ysis, we used the seven studies for which the PEF scores for both the “plastic” and “plastic þ paper” conditions were available (web appendix K). The analysis indicated that the reported studies have evidential value, with the power of tests included in the p-curve estimated at 99%, after correcting for selective reporting. Theoretical Implications Product Packaging and Consumer Decisions. Our research contributes to the packaging literature in market- ing. Extant research has examined several dimensions of product packaging design, attesting to its important role in consumer judgments and decisions. For instance, packag- ing size (e.g., small vs. large; single serve vs. multi-serve) is known to affect consumers’ perceptions of product effi- cacy (Ilyuk and Block 2016) and consumption amounts (Argo and White 2012; Coelho do Vale et al. 2008). Graphic design of product packaging (e.g., pale vs. bright coloring; high vs. low image placement) has been shown to influence consumers’ purchase intentions and willingness to pay (Mai et al. 2016; Sundar and Noseworthy 2014). Finally, the presence of on-package labeling (e.g., low-fat; Nutri-score food labels) is suggested to affect products’ purchase and consumption rates (Dubois et al. 2021; Wansink and Chandon 2006). We add to the above line of work by examining how packaging composition—plastic versus plastic þ paper—shifts consumers’ packaging eval- uations and how these evaluations affect product valuation and purchase decisions. Sustainable Consumer Behavior. This research also contributes to the growing stream of literature in marketing and sustainability by revealing perceptual barriers to sus- tainable consumption. Extant research highlights the chal- lenge to increase sustainable consumer behavior (White
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Across eight studies, we show that objectively less envi- ronmentally friendly plastic þ paper packaging is system- atically perceived as more environmentally friendly compared to plastic-only packaging. We refer to this effect as the PEF bias in packaging evaluations. Studies 1a and 1b provide evidence of the PEF bias and show that the effect manifests in lab and online settings when plastic is visible upfront or revealed later. 2 Next, studies 2a and 2b test two theoretically relevant boundary conditions of the PEF bias. Study 2a shows that the effect is stronger when the proportion of paper in product packaging increases; and study 2b shows that the effect is stronger among peo- ple with stronger “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” beliefs. Studies 3–4b establish the downstream consequences of the PEF bias for consumer willingness to pay (study 3) and choice (studies 4a and 4b). Study 5 introduces a manageri- ally relevant intervention, wherein addition of a “minimal packaging” sticker to plastic packaging increases the envi- ronmental friendliness perceptions of plastic-only 2 Studies B and C (web appendices H and I) further attest to the gen- eralizability of the PEF bias and show that the bias emerges for both food and non-food categories and that it holds in stimulus- and memory-based evaluations. Only when additional paper packaging is conspicuously superfluous (e.g., when paper packaging is four times larger than the product), do we find that consumers perceive plastic- only packaging as more environmentally friendly than the plastic þ paper option (study D, web appendix J).
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker