SOKOLOVA, KRISHNA, AND D € ORING
473
TABLE2
OVERVIEW OF STUDIES
A: Study 1a: product packaging and PEF ( N ¼ 205, M age ¼ 21.04, 64% female, Lab) Plastic condition
Plastic þ paper condition
1.87 (0.90) a
PEFscore ( a ¼ 0.89) Study design
2.67 (1.30)
Two-cell between-subjects design; participants rated a granola bar packaging on the four-item PEF scale Plastic þ paper packaging is perceived as more environmentally friendly than plastic-only packaging. B: Study 1b: visible versus hidden plastic ( N ¼ 301, M age ¼ 44.60, 42% female, MTurk) Plastic condition Visible plastic þ paper condition
Main finding
Hidden plastic þ paper condition
PEFscore ( a ¼ 0.95) Study design
2.23 (1.36)
3.36 (1.58)
2.69 (1.40)
Three-cell between-subjects design; participants rated a chocolate bar packaging on the PEF scale. Plastic þ paper packaging is perceived as more environmentally friendly than plastic-only packaging even when plastic is initially hidden under paper and revealed later as a surprise. C: Study 2a: PEF bias and proportion of paper ( N ¼ 801, M age ¼ 41.37, 51% female, MTurk)
Main finding
Plastic þ paper 1:0.5 proportion condition
Plastic þ paper 1:1 proportion condition
Plastic þ paper 1:2 proportion condition
Plastic condition
PEFscore ( a ¼ 0.93) Study design
2.16 (1.14)
2.91 (1.20)
3.06 (1.34)
3.34 (1.48)
Four-cell between-subjects design; participants rated tomato packaging on the PEF scale. PEF bias is stronger when the paper-to-plastic proportion in packaging is large.
Main finding
D: Study 2b: PEF bias and paper–plastic beliefs ( N ¼ 602, M age ¼ 35.13, 54% female, ProlificCo) Plastic condition
Plastic þ paper condition
PEFscore ( a ¼ 0.95)
3.28 (1.44)
4.37 (1.49)
PEF score: participants with strong “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” beliefs ( þ 1SD) PEF score: participants with weak “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” beliefs ( 1SD)
3.01
4.42
3.51
4.30
Study design
Packaging type was manipulated between subjects, “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” beliefs were measured on multi-item scales, and participants rated honeycomb packaging on the PEF scale. PEF bias is stronger among people with stronger “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” beliefs (packaging type and beliefs interaction: F (1, 598) ¼ 6.73, p ¼ .010). E: Study 3: implications for willingness to pay ( N ¼ 802, M age ¼ 41.16, 54% female, ProlificCo) Plastic condition Plastic þ paper condition
Main finding
PEFscore ( a ¼ 0.95)
2.77 (1.47) $0.94 (0.48)
3.81 (1.42) $1.09 (0.53)
WTP
Indirect effect of packaging type on WTP via PEF: b ¼ 0.05, SE ¼ 0.01, 95% CI: (0.02; 0.08) Study design
Two-cell between-subjects design; participants reported WTP for a granola bar. Next, on a separate screen, they rated the granola packaging on the PEF scale. Addition of paper to plastic in granola packaging increased WTP by 16% and increased packaging PEF scores. The effect of packaging type on WTP was partially driven by PEF.
Main finding
F: Study 4a: implications for choice ( N ¼ 400, M age ¼ 34.80, 67% female, ProlificCo) Plastic condition
Plastic þ paper condition
PEFscore ( a ¼ 0.96) Packaging utility
2.37 (1.40)
2.82 (1.57)
37.54 (67.07)
15.38 (46.57)
Indirect effect of packaging type on packaging utility via PEF: b ¼ 3.81, SE ¼ 1.47, 95% CI: (1.42; 7.36) Study design
Two-cell between-subjects design. In a choice-based conjoint experiment, participants made 12 choices between chocolate bars that varied in their packaging, price, and flavor. For half the participants, the bars were either packaged in paper or in plastic. For the remaining participants, the bars were either packaged in paper or inplastic þ paper. We estimated the utilities of plastic (plastic þ paper) packaging from individual choices. At the end of the study, participants rated the plastic (plastic þ paper) chocolate packaging on the PEF scale. Addition of a layer of paper to plastic packaging made people more likely to select a chocolate over a chocolate packaged in paper. This effect was partially driven by PEF.
Main finding
(continued)
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker