SOKOLOVA, KRISHNA, AND D € ORING
475
TABLE3
the four-item PEF scale. Critically, participants in the “plastic” and “visible plastic þ paper” conditions saw the same image on the first and second pages. Participants in the “hidden plastic þ paper” condition saw the chocolate packaged in paper on the first page and then saw the choc- olate packaged in plastic þ paper on the second page. They also read that they “ < found > the chocolate to be covered in a second layer made of translucent plastic wrap.” Finally, participants reported their age and gender. Results The four PEF scale items ( a ¼ 0.95) were averaged to compute a PEF score. A one-way ANOVA revealed a sig- nificant effect of packaging type on the PEF scores ( F (2, 298) ¼ 15.35, p < .001, g p 2 ¼ 0.093). Follow-up contrasts showed that the PEF was significantly lower in the “plastic” condition than in the “visible plastic þ paper” condition ( M plastic ¼ 2.23, SD ¼ 1.36, vs. M visible plasitc þ paper ¼ 3.36, SD ¼ 1.58, F (1, 298) ¼ 30.34, p < .001, g p 2 ¼ 0.092) and the “hidden plastic þ paper” condition ( M plastic ¼ 2.23, SD ¼ 1.36, vs. M hidden plastic þ paper ¼ 2.69, SD ¼ 1.40, F (1, 298) ¼ 5.11, p ¼ .025, g p 2 ¼ 0.017). The PEF was also significantly lower in the “hidden plastic þ paper” condition than in the “visible plastic þ paper” con- dition ( M hidden plastic þ paper ¼ 2.69, SD ¼ 1.40, vs. M visible plastic þ paper ¼ 3.36, SD ¼ 1.58, F (1, 298) ¼ 10.66, p ¼ .001, g p 2 ¼ 0.035). Discussion Study 1b suggests that the PEF bias emerges when plas- tic is visible upfront or hidden under paper and discovered later as a surprise, attesting to the generalizability of our results. The next two studies probe two theoretically rele- vant boundary conditions of the PEF bias, to test for its underlying mechanism. STUDY 2A: PEF BIAS AND PROPORTION OFPAPER Study 2a tests proportional reasoning as the underlying mechanism of the PEF bias. In this study, we manipulated the proportion of paper-to-plastic packaging by changing the size of paper packaging added to a layer of plastic, while keeping the size of plastic packaging constant. Per our theorizing, when the paper-to-plastic proportion in product packaging increases, the PEF should increase. By manipulating the size of paper packaging, study 2a also aimed to probe an alternative averaging account of the PEF bias (Chernev and Gal 2010). If paper is perceived as more environmentally friendly than plastic, averaging of the perceived environmental friendliness of plastic and paper packaging layers would lead to lower PEF evalua- tions for plastic than for plastic þ paper. Critically, when it
STUDY 1A: PACKAGING STIMULI
Plastic condition
Plastic+paper condition
TABLE4
PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLINESS (PEF) SCALE
Item 1 This packaging is friendly to the environment. Item 2 The manufacturing and disposal of this packaging causes less harm to the environment. Item 3 This packaging is relatively more eco-friendly than other packaging. Item 4 This packaging deserves to be labeled “environmentally friendly.”
( M plastic ¼ 1.87, SD ¼ 0.90, vs. M plastic SD ¼ 1.30, F (1, 203) ¼ 25.69, p < .001, g p
þ paper ¼
2.67,
2 ¼ 0.112).
Discussion Study 1a provides initial evidence of the PEF bias. It shows that adding a layer of paper to a layer of plastic increases the perceived environmental friendliness of prod- uct packaging. STUDY 1B: VISIBLE VERSUS HIDDEN PLASTIC In study 1a, participants evaluated the environmental friendliness of packaging with both plastic and paper pack- aging visible at the same time. However, consumers often encounter products whose plastic packaging is fully cov- ered by outer paper packaging (web appendix A), meaning that plastic packaging could be uncovered as a surprise after consumers purchase the product. Study 1b tests whether the PEF bias will emerge in these settings. Method Three hundred one Amazon Mechanical Turk panelists ( M age ¼ 44.60, 42% female) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions in a three-cell (packaging type: plastic vs. visible plastic þ paper vs. hidden plastic þ paper) between-subjects design. On the first page, participants saw a picture of a pack- aged chocolate bar (top row in table 5). They then moved to a second page with the packaged chocolate image and
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker