474
JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
G: Study 4b: implications for choice of existing brands ( N ¼ 402, M age ¼ 35.67, 60% female, ProlificCo) Plastic condition Plastic þ paper condition
PEFscore ( a ¼ 0.96) Montperal brand utility
2.72 (1.35)
4.44 (1.52)
47.33 (83.06)
29.51 (86.45)
Indirect effect of packaging type on packaging utility via PEF: b ¼ 10.54, SE ¼ 5.71, 90% CI: (1.50; 20.33) Study design
Two-cell between-subjects design; participants made 12 choices among chips packs that varied in their brand, price, and weight. Half the participants chose between Lays, Tyrrells, and Montperal, all packaged in plastic. The remaining participants chose between the same brands, but the focal Montperal brand was packaged in plastic þ paper. We estimated the utilities of the Montperal brand from individual choices. At the end of the study, participants rated the plastic (plastic þ paper) Montperal packaging on the PEF scale. Addition of a layer of paper to plastic packaging made people more likely to select the Montperal brand over the other brands. This effect was partially driven by PEF. H: Study 5: on-package intervention ( N ¼ 590, M age ¼ 19.93, 51% female, Lab) Plastic-control condition Plastic-sticker condition
Main Finding
PEFscore ( a ¼ 0.95) Plastic packaging utility
3.08 (1.47)
4.58 (1.47)
10.98 (43.49)
35.05 (61.48)
Indirect effect of packaging type on packaging utility via PEF: b ¼ 9.89, SE ¼ 2.58, 95% CI: (5.14; 15.22) Study design
Two-cell between-subjects design; participants made 12 choices between granola bars that varied in their packaging, price, and flavor. Half the participants chose between bars packaged in plastic or in plastic þ paper. The remaining participants chose between bars packaged in plastic with a “minimal packaging” sticker or in plastic þ paper. We estimated the utilities of plastic packaging from individual choices. At the end of the study, participants rated the plastic (control vs. sticker) packaging on the PEF scale. In the control condition, people were less likely to choose plastic-only packaged granola bars. By contrast, they were more likely to choose plastic-only packaged bars in the “minimal packaging” sticker intervention condition. This effect was partially driven by changes in the PEF of plastic packaging.
Main finding
a We report standard deviations of group means in parentheses.
Method Two hundred five students at a public university com- pleted the study ( M age ¼ 21.04, 64% female). They were randomly assigned to one of two conditions in a two-cell (packaging type: plastic vs. plastic þ paper) between- subjects design. Participants, sitting in individual cubicles, saw a real product—a granola bar—packaged either in plastic or in plastic þ paper (table 3). They were asked to rate the envi- ronmental friendliness of the granola bar packaging on a four-item 7-point scale (e.g., “This packaging is friendly to the environment”; 1 ¼ strongly disagree; 7 ¼ strongly agree; table 4) adapted from Gershoff and Frels (2015) and Haws, Winterich, and Naylor (2014). After rating the envi- ronmental friendliness of product packaging, participants completed the manipulation checks (see web appendix B for details). Finally, they reported their age and gender. Results The four PEF scale items ( a ¼ 0.89) were averaged to compute a PEF score. A one-way ANOVA showed that perceived environmental friendliness was lower in the “plastic” condition than in the “plastic þ paper” condition
demonstrates that the effect is stronger among people with stronger “paper ¼ good, plastic ¼ bad” beliefs. Studies 3– 5 establish the downstream consequences of the PEF bias. Study 3 shows that consumers are willing to pay more for plastic-plus-paper-packaged products and this effect is driven by changes in PEF. Choice-based conjoint studies 4a and 4b demonstrate the implications of the PEF bias for consumer choice for hypothetical and real brands. Finally, choice-based conjoint study 5 shows that adding a “minimal packaging” sticker to plastic packaging attenu- ates the PEF bias and makes consumers more likely to choose plastic-packaged products over plastic-plus-paper (hereafter, plastic þ paper)-packaged products. The study stimuli, anonymized data, and syntax files are available at https://researchbox.org/712. STUDY 1A: PRODUCT PACKAGING AND PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLINESS Study 1a tests the effect of product packaging type— plastic versus plastic with an added layer of paper—in a laboratory setting using a real product—a granola bar.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker