The Effects of Fair Trade Label Prominence on
Impulsive and Reflective Product Evaluations
Master’s Thesis University of Amsterdam Graduate School of Communication Master’s Programme Communication Science
February 3rd 2017 Words: 7490
Nadine Froughi 11138386
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of the prominence of a fair trade claim on consumer product evaluations. In addition, a distinction was made between impulsive and reflective product evaluations, and a further aim was to ascertain if and to what extent these differ. 144 participants in 3 conditions (subtle claim, prominent claim and no claim)
completed an online questionnaire to measure reflective responses and a sequential priming task to measure impulsive responses. Results showed significant differences in impulsive evaluations between fair trade and non fair trade products and also between the subtle, prominent and no claim conditions. The only reflective response variable which was
significantly affected by a fair trade claim was willingness to pay (WTP). Whilst consumers are generally positive towards a product with a fair trade claim, claim prominence has the most significant effect on impulsive evaluations. More research is needed to understand the gap between reflective and impulsive responses, develop a more purpose built scale for fair trade product evaluations and replicate results in a practical setting.
The Effects of Fair Trade Label Prominence on Impulsive and Reflective Product Evaluations
In the USA, in 1899, the National Consumers League introduced its ‘White Label’ campaign. The purpose of the label was to certify that goods bearing it had been produced following fair labour standards, which at that time pertained mostly to the use of child labour. The white label exercise is perhaps the first known example of value-based labelling – a strategy wherein labels are used to sell products based on the perceived value of the product to the consumer, separately from its actual cost or market price. This perceived value is considered to be ‘non-market’, usually environmental, social or ethical, rather than price based. Value-based labelling often combines one or more non-market values, which usually justifies a higher price point than non-value labelled products (Barham, 2002; Basu & Hicks, 2008).
One modern example of widespread value-based labelling is the labelling of products as “fair trade”. Fairtrade International, the world’s largest and most recognised fair trade system, defines fair trade as an “alternative approach to trade which is based on fair
partnerships between producers, traders, businesses and consumers” (Fairtrade International (FLO), 2016a). Under Fairtrade International’s system, brands can use an internationally recognised ‘Fairtrade’ symbol (Figure 1), which certifies, as far as is possible to confirm, that everyone who has produced, farmed or sold the product has received a fair price for their work, and is entitled to certain rights (Fairtrade International, World Fair Trade Organization, & FLO-CERT, 2011).
Although the Fairtrade mark has become ubiquitous in most supermarkets since the launch of the first fair trade label, Max Havelaar, in 1988, literature has often focused on the attributes
of the fair trade consumer, and fair trade in its capacity as a value based label. This has resulted in research into consumer motivations often grouping fair trade branding in with other value-based labels such as organic or green marketing. The question as to whether or not consumers have favourable attitudes towards fair trade has been asked and answered multiple times in the literature. Many researchers have found significant evidence indicating a willingness to pay higher prices for Fair Trade products (Campbell, Heinrich, &
Schoenmüller, 2015; Didier & Lucie, 2008; Loureiro & Lotade, 2005). The attributes of fair trade consumers – whose heightened idealism is all that really sets them apart from the average consumer– have been well researched and discussed (De Pelsmacker, Driesen, & Rayp, 2005).
The way in which fair trade products are presented to these consumers in practice varies. Some brands opt for a subtle presentation of the fair trade claim, whilst others present the fair trade certification as an important selling point. These distinctions in claim
prominence, which will be the independent variable in this study, have been neglected in academic research until now. Various studies have found that other label attributes such as specific layout and content of labels (value based and otherwise) has the potential to impact customer attitude and purchase decisions (Basu & Hicks, 2008; Berning, Chouinard,
Manning, McCluskey, & Sprott, 2010; Bix, Bello, Auras, Ranger, & Lapinski, 2009) and thus it is possible that variations in prominence also have an effect on the impact of a fair trade claim on consumer attitudes, and therefore, behaviour.
Fair trade products are often identified with visual imagery, such as the Fairtrade International Fairtrade Mark (Figure 1). Rossiter and Percy proposed that visual content is as effective as verbal content in attitude creation (1980), and this basic premise forms the basis for the overarching theme of this research; that the visual presentation of fair trade products
has an effect on consumer evaluations. This research will investigate to what extent the prominence of a visual fair trade claim on product packaging has an impact on consumer evaluation.
The aim of the fair trade label in practice is to engender positive attitudes towards, and persuade customers to buy products which contribute to the fair trade goals. Consumer
attitudes and evaluations, however, are not always explicit. A growing school of thought exists within communication science and social psychology which argues that a great deal of consumer decision making is automatic, and therefore guided by implicit, rather than explicit reasoning processes. In the literature, implicit refers to those processes which take place outside of an individual’s direct consciousness, and explicit refers to those processes controlled by the conscious mind. (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000; Chartrand, 2005; Friese, Wänke, & Plessner, 2006; Kahneman & Frederick, 2005; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Strack, Deutsch, & Werth, 2006). These evaluations are not always the same, even within the same person (Friese, Hofmann, & Wänke, 2007; Friese et al., 2006; Häfner & Trampe, 2009).
Understanding whether implicit and explicit product evaluations differ as a result of fair trade labelling should not only add to the existing knowledge on the most effective ways to present fair trade products to consumers, but also contribute to empirical research on
Figure 1. The Fairtrade International ‘Fairtrade’ mark.
implicit and explicit attitudes and evaluations. In addition to the possible scientific relevance of this research, it could also provide useful guidelines for practitioners to improve the
efficacy of fair trade labelling on consumer products such as tea or coffee, making them more appealing to consumers.
Claim prominence and the possibility of diverging implicit and explicit evaluations within individual consumers are both missing from the literature on consumer evaluation of fair trade products, and as such this research will address both gaps in the literature and answer the central research question:To what extent does fair trade claim prominence on a product affect its evaluation, and are there different effects on impulsive versus reflective evaluations?
To answer this question, a thorough review of existing literature will be conducted before incorporating key insights into an experimental study. By testing reflective and impulsive responses to varying degrees of fair trade claim prominence, the experimental results will be placed in the context of the literature to answer the research question, suggest practical applications and propose avenues for further research.
Theoretical Background Value-based labelling and its effects on consumers
Value-based labelling is an umbrella term used to classify the labelling of products with a perceived non-market value, signified by certain labels (Barham, 2002). Amongst these labels are: organic, fair-chain and fair trade. Fair trade labelling is used on a wide range of consumer products, but is most prevalent on commonly used items notorious for exploitative labour practices like tea, chocolate and coffee. The logo in Figure 1 is the most widely used marker of fair trade products (Fairtrade International (FLO), 2016a), and the UK Fairtrade
Foundation (who use the logo) reported a large increase in public awareness over the last two decades. Recognition increased hugely from 1999, when only 11% of the British public were able to correctly identify it, to 78% recognition in 2013 (Fairtrade Foundation, 2014;
Witkowski, 2005). Scientific literature on value-based and specifically fair trade labelling provides essential insights into the current scientific and practical understanding of these labels and their effects.
Fair trade labelling. Since the introduction of the world’s first fair trade certification mark, ‘Max Havelaar,’ in 1988, marketers have embraced the use of these labels to signify the ethical value added on many consumer products. An increased interest in fair trade in global markets began at the beginning of the century, and at around the same time, academics took note, resulting in what Bennett and Raynolds (2015) call a “vibrant, multidisciplinary and sophisticated body of literature”(p.7).
Who is the fair trade consumer? The main player in almost all research on fair trade
labels and products is the consumer. Research frequently aims to understand who is buying fair trade labelled products and why. De Pelsmacker et al. (2005) found that the ‘fair trade consumer’ is most likely to be between the ages of 31 and 44, idealistic, non-conventional and highly educated. Fair trade consumers are also more likely to identify globally, concern themselves with global injustices and feel part of a global community (Reese & Kohlmann, 2015). This idealism is also reflected in a number of other studies investigating the ‘why’ of fair trade consumption. Consumers who wish to make a statement or affect positive global change with their purchases are often drawn to fair trade products, as they have been found to represent ‘empowerment’ within certain consumer segments, enabling consumers to express their own power over their choices in the market (Shaw, Newholm, & Dickinson, 2006; Varul, 2009). As well as empowerment, fair trade consumers may be seeking to control their
own self-image and presentation with the use of fair trade products. Consumers may use fair trade consumption to present themselves to others as an ethical consumer, therefore
strengthening their desired image, often as an ethical or ‘good’ person amongst their peers (Varul, 2009). Not only are consumers often motivated by the perceived opinion of others, but may consume ‘ethically’ in order to make themselves feel good, deriving some kind of
emotional as well as functional benefit (Patrick Hartmann, Vanessa Apaolaza Ibáñez, & Sainz, 2005).
Evaluations of fair trade products. For this research, the dependent variables being investigated are consumer evaluations. In this context, the concept of ‘evaluation’ is not limited to what consumers explicitly report about a product, which reflects modern scientific understanding about the way we perceive and evaluate the world around us. Almost 70 years’ worth of scientific literature exists which attempts to deconstruct and explain the nuances of consumer attitudes and evaluations, and at the core of most recent research is the idea that there might be individual differences in perceptual processing (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000). It is, according to existing research, entirely possible for one person’s evaluation of a product to differ on, for example, a conscious and subconscious level. This possibility will be central to this research as we explore the possible impact of individual differences in perception as they affect consumer evaluation of fair trade products.
Two pathways. The concept of differing pathways to evaluation has been articulated in
a number of different ways, all alluding to the same idea: reason versus intuition, rational versus instinctive, explicit versus implicit, reflective versus impulsive and conscious versus subconscious. Cognitive processes are commonly divided into these two types: processes that are explicitly controlled, and those that are not. It is now generally accepted in the literature
that individuals have not one, but two pathways to decision making, and this has resulted in many dual process models using different terminologies to describe the phenomenon.
Dual process models and theories rely on the assumption that decisions are made, or phenomena occur as a result of two different processes, one which is reflective (or explicit, or conscious) and one which is impulsive (or implicit, or subconscious). A common model often used to study persuasive processes is the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), which posits two routes described as central and peripheral. The central route relies on careful elaboration and deliberate thinking, whereas the peripheral route has been compared to a sort of cognitive ‘auto-pilot’, relying much more on heuristic cues and cognitive shortcuts. Chaiken, Liberman and Eagly (1989) proposed a model identifying heuristic and systematic processing, and Kahnemann and Frederick (2005) call the two processes intuition and reason, proposing a similar distinction, that intuition is quick, relying on automatic links already present, and therefore difficult to alter, whereas reasoning
processes are much more subject to change, and take longer to occur.
The two-pathway paradigm has also been applied directly to consumer behaviour. Strack, Werth and Deutsch (2006) describe another dual-system model, which sheds light on the ‘impulse buying’ phenomenon using these two channels. Their model proposes reflective and impulsive systems, the former of which relies on processing prior knowledge and the new information available to make a decision, as opposed to the latter, which is almost entirely automatic and does not require reflection and active thought. This model bases itself on the assumption that decision-making is a combined function of these two processes, and will be used in this research to define reflective and impulsive evaluations, the eventual dependent variables.
It is in the interest of those selling and branding fair trade to understand the likely outcomes of both pathways, and which of these pathways determines attitude and behaviour. It is worth noting that there is some disagreement over the importance of subconscious or impulsive processes, with some scholars (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000; Chartrand, 2005; Dijksterhuis & Smith, 2005; Dijksterhuis, Smith, van Baaren, & Wigboldus, 2005) arguing that customers may often be unaware of one or more processes which lead to a decision, therefore making it sub/unconscious, whereas others (Simonson, 2005) believe that the influence of impulsive processes are often overstated and that conscious or reflective
processes will most often ‘win.’ One of the dependent variables in this research will therefore be impulsive evaluations, based on the literature discussed above, and hopefully shed some light on the validity of applying this paradigm to fair trade products.
Willingness to pay. To investigate reflective evaluations, this research will collect
responses to a number of different variables, and one of the most prominent is willingness to pay (WTP). A great deal of recent research has focused on identifying how much consumers are willing to pay for products containing the fair trade label. This field of research
specifically focuses on how high of a premium consumers will pay, the amount added to the normal cost of a similar product. This willingness to pay is particularly interesting for products carrying the official fair trade mark, as Fairtrade International certification requires vendors to pay a minimum price for the product (e.g. coffee) in order to protect workers and producers from price insecurity in the market. In practice, this means that consumers pay a minimum price premium of 20% for certified fair trade Arabica coffee, the product under investigation in this research (Fairtrade International (FLO), 2016b). Individual brands can set an even higher price for their product, and it is this phenomenon that has generated the
In general, customers’ WTP does increase when products carry a value-based label, specifically a fair trade label. For example, consumers are willing to pay a 2 euro price premium for fair trade chocolate (Rousseau, 2015) and such increases in consumer WTP commonly result from a perceived increase in value (Didier & Lucie, 2008). A 2005 study conducted in Belgium found that average WTP was a 10% price premium, less than the contemporary minimum premium (20%) required by Fairtrade International. It also found that only 10% of respondents were willing to pay the actual price premium in Belgium at the time, which was 27% (De Pelsmacker et al., 2005). Continuing the trend, a study by Campbell et al., (2015) found that consumers were more willing to foot the bill for a price increase justified by a fair trade commitment, than increases related to other factors. In fact, the authors discovered that a fair trade related price increase could generate a WTP around twice as much as the WTP for tax related price increases.
Whilst the general trend in increased WTP being linked to value-based labelling is confirmed by a swathe of scientific research (Loureiro & Lotade, 2005), it is almost always presented with a caveat: that consumer WTP is never only influenced by the fair trade label and is almost always contingent on other product characteristics (Didier & Lucie, 2008). Consumers choose products for many reasons, and each individual assigns value to product characteristics in different ways. Some of us are very loyal to our favourite brands, some of us think taste is king, and some of us like to shop organic. The importance that consumers assign to various attributes is linked to WTP in the literature. De Pelsmaker et al. (2005) found an average WTP of a 10% premium; however, the WTP variation in the sample of Belgian consumers clearly shows that consumers who ‘loved’ fair trade products had a far higher WTP than, for example, consumers for whom flavour or brand was the most important
characteristic. This all stands as evidence that willingness to pay, whilst useful to investigate, can be sensitive to fluctuations in other variables.
Several other variables have been identified in the literature which directly influence WTP for fair trade products. For example, Van Loo et al., (2015) note that WTP often increases with attention paid to sustainability labels on coffee. Basu and Hicks (2008) discovered an ‘inverted U’ of WTP, where consumer WTP increases along with the increase in gains to farmers reported on the product label, but only up to a certain point. At this ‘critical point’, WTP starts to decrease, even though producers’ earnings continue to increase. The authors posit that this decrease is indicative of inequality aversion, as consumers feel that when producers are paid ‘too much,’ relative inequality among producers starts to increase. These results were replicated across US and German markets, albeit with variations in the critical threshold, nonetheless providing an insight into the sensitivity of WTP for fair trade, as is also noted in other studies (De Pelsmacker et al., 2005; Didier & Lucie, 2008). Since WTP has been shown to be sensitive to other factors, it follows logically that it may also be influenced by the prominence of the fair trade claim. Based on the literature synthesized here, it may be that as claim prominence increases, the same inverted U reveals itself, with consumers WTP decreasing as a product becomes ‘too’ prominently fair trade.
The existing academic discussion surrounding the effects of fair trade labelling provides instrumental insights into who buys fair trade products, why they do, and provides an interesting basis for a discussion of other factors in the way fair trade products are
presented to consumers that could influence their evaluations. Based on this literature we can hypothesise that consumers will evaluate fair trade products positively, and use this as an assumption in further analysis. Despite the fact that impulsive and reflective evaluations can differ, in the case of this first hypothesis we expect the two types of evaluation to be
consistent with one another. This provides a basis for the first hypothesis to be investigated in this research, which is as follows:
H1: A fair trade claim on a product will lead to more positive evaluations (reflective and impulsive) of the product than the lack of a fair trade claim.
Impact of claim prominence. Research has suggested that consumer evaluation of fair trade products can be influenced by the prominence of the fair trade claim on product
labelling. Van Loo et al., (2015) focus on an increase in WTP generated by granting fair trade labels more visual attention, finding that when consumers focus longer on the fair trade claim, they are willing to pay more for the product. More research has confirmed that visual content, like recognisable logos and icons, can be just as effective in improving consumers attitude as explicit verbal claims (Rossiter & Percy, 1980). Whether this applies to smaller visual aspects, such as the prominence of widely recognisable symbols like the fair trade logo, remains to be seen and represents a gap in the current academic discourse, which will be addressed here.
The effect of claim prominence, visual or otherwise, has also been investigated outside of the realm of value based labelling and marketing. For example, nutritional information on food products has been found to have varying effects based on its prominence, with high-prominence nutrition labels proving much more useful than less prominent nutrition labels, from which shoppers were found to derive no utility (Berning et al., 2010). A study on pharmaceutical packaging found that very subtle presentation of side effect warnings ensured that consumers paid little to no attention to these warnings in comparison to more
these warnings (Bix et al., 2009). All of this suggests that the prominence of a visual value based label component such as the fair trade logo should have an effect on eventual
evaluation of the product itself.
Reflective vs. impulsive evaluations. As discussed above, in the context of this research,
‘evaluation’ refers to both impulsive and reflective evaluations, and there is a possibility that the two types of evaluation can differ. As an example, Häfner and Trampe (2009) found that explicit (reflective) evaluations of advertisements including thin and plus size models diverge significantly from implicit (impulsive) evaluations. They found that implicit evaluations favoured thin models, based on a priming effect whereby the thin model is automatically associated with beauty, whereas the pattern was reversed for explicit evaluations. This is one example of particular interest to this research as it was found that within participants,
reactions could diverge, based on the manner in which the exact same image was evaluated. Based on this, the second hypothesis, which will be tested via two sub hypotheses, under investigation in this research is:
H2: The level of prominence of a fair trade claim on a product leads to a different effect on impulsive versus reflective evaluations.
This hypothesis speaks to the notion that evaluations of fair trade products in the literature are generally very positive, but a gap between this reflective positivity and actual purchase behaviour related to impulsive evaluations has been identified (Levi & Linton, 2003). When consumers are given time to explicitly reflect on the product, they are likely to evaluate it based on the information available as well as their existing knowledge, rather than rely on the automatic processes which inform impulsive evaluations.
We expect that reflective evaluations will be positive, which may differ from the implicit evaluations of the same product based on automatic processes that may associate fair trade implicitly with more negative aspects such as high price. This expectation is based on the results of the Häfner and Trampe (2009) study on plus size models discussed above, where the effect of the model shape on reflective evaluations was mediated by liking of the campaign, such a mediation did not occur in implicit evaluations. Fair trade products are also strongly associated with socially desirable factors (Ladhari & Tchetgna, 2015), which can contribute to the reflective liking of the product. If this mediation does not occur in impulsive evaluations in the current research, the same effect may manifest. Combining this knowledge with the hypothesis generated from the literature on consumer evaluations of fair trade products, two more hypotheses have been generated.
H2a) A more prominent fair trade claim leads to a more positive reflective evaluation than a less prominent claim or no claim.
H2b) A more prominent fair trade claim will lead to a more negative impulsive evaluation than a less prominent claim or no claim.
Method Participants and design
Participants in the study included 94 subjects, 37 American and 57 European. 144 responses were collected, however, participants who failed a manipulation check (n=50) were excluded from the analysis. Of the participants included in the analysis, the majority (57%) were between the ages of 18-35, 22% were between 35 and 50, 13% were between 50
and 65 and only 2% were older than 65. All participants in this study were recruited face-to-face or online, through emails and social media. This research used an independent measures experimental design. The independent variable used is claim prominence. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions, corresponding to the three different levels of the claim prominence variable: prominent claim (n=33), subtle claim (n=36) and no claim (n=25). The dependent variables of interest are participant evaluations; both reflective and impulsive evaluations were measured for each participant. Impulsive evaluations were calculated using reaction times in a sequential priming task and reflective evaluations were measured using four survey items: favourability, perceived quality, willingness to pay and purchase likelihood.
Procedure
Participants were asked to fill out an informed consent form before completing an online experiment, administered using Qualtrics. Participants were shown one of three products (Figure 2), each corresponding to an experimental condition: 1) prominent claim, 2) subtle claim and 3) no claim.
After being exposed to one of the ads, implicit evaluations were measured using an Affective Priming task and participants filled in a questionnaire regarding their reflective evaluation. Reflective and impulsive evaluations were collected from each individual
participant, and in order to control for the potential priming effect of the tasks themselves, the order of evaluation was reversed between participants, meaning that roughly half of the participants completed the priming task before the survey, and the remainder completed the survey first. All participants also filled in demographic questions, and a manipulation check was performed. At the end each participant was debriefed as to the nature of the research and thanked for their participation.
Materials and Measures
Target. Arabica coffee was selected for this research, as it is one of the most widely traded fair trade products in the world. Since many major brands sell fair trade coffee and it is relatively normal for shoppers to see fair trade coffee on the shelves, it is a good candidate for investigation and it is unlikely to require explanation to most participants. Most literature on fair trade branding, marketing and labelling uses coffee, so it follows logically that this study will do the same (Basu & Hicks, 2008; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005, 2005; Golding & Peattie, 2005; Loureiro & Lotade, 2005; Raynolds & Bennett, 2015; Sick, 2008; Van Loo et al., 2015; Winchester, Arding, & Nenycz-Thiel, 2015).
Claim prominence. All participants in this study were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions. In the ‘prominent’ condition, the stimulus was a coffee bag which is very clearly labelled as fair trade, with the logo in place, and also a written cue, ‘FAIRTRADE’ in bold, large capital letters. In the ‘subtle’ condition, the package bore only
the Fairtrade logo and in the ‘no claim’ condition, there was no indication as to whether or not the product is fair trade (Figure 2).
Reflective evaluations. To measure reflective evaluations, a survey was conducted, wherein the participants had unlimited time to answer questions about the product presented to them, as well as more general questions aimed at gathering data on possible moderators such as global identification (Reese & Kohlmann, 2015), scepticism and price concerns. The extended processing time was intended to allow for a more direct and specific appraisal of the product and provide a calculated response from participants (Lang, 2000; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Regardless of the condition they had been assigned, all participants answered the exact same questions about the product they were shown, with the only difference between
conditions being the image of the product the participants were shown. Reflective evaluations were measured using 4 items (α = .73). Three items – favourability, perceived quality and purchase likelihood) - were selected based on existing literature comparing explicit and implicit evaluations (Häfner & Trampe, 2009) and one further item, willingness to pay was selected due to its prominence in literature on fair trade products.
Willingness to pay (M=2.04, SD=1.00) was measured using the question “How much more would you pay for this coffee, than for a regular, non fair trade, non organic coffee from the supermarket of your choice?” A selection of five percentage values, each increasing by 10%, from 0% to 50% was presented to the participant. The other three items were measured on five point likert scales. For favourability (M=3.57, SD=.89) participants were asked “How favourably do you judge this product?” (1= extremely unfavourable, 5= extremely
favourable.) For purchase likelihood (M=2,94, SD=1.19) participants were asked “At a normal price, how likely are you to purchase this product?” (1= extremely unlikely, 5= extremely likely.) For perceived quality (M=3.41, SD=.83) participants were asked “How
would you judge the quality of this product?” (1= extremely low quality, 5= extremely high quality.)
Impulsive evaluations. The impulsive evaluations were collected using a sequential priming task. This task can be used in order to measure implicit responses to stimuli using simple psychological timing experiments. Sequential priming or affective priming tasks allow researchers to test for chronic connections between two representations, which automatically activate a certain response (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000). The experiment necessitated positive, neutral and negative images and words to show to participants. Positive and negative words were chosen from a database created by Hu and Liu (2004), originally with the purpose of conducting data analyses. The words chosen have either an extremely positive or extremely negative valence assigned to them in the database. Images (positive, negative and neutral) were chosen based on the Geneva affective picture database (GAPED), which also assigns valence to images (Dan-Glauser & Scherer, 2011).
After viewing the product for 5 seconds, participants were asked to focus on a fixating spot on their screen for 500ms. After these 500ms a prime image appeared (negative, positive or an image of the product) for a brief interval of 200ms. Immediately after this image, a word (positive or negative) appeared on the screen, and the participant was asked to categorise this word as positive or negative as quickly as possible. The word remained on screen until the participant categorised it. The fixation point reappeared and the process repeated itself. (Figure 3)
In total, participants viewed 32 prime images, 12 of which were unrelated filler images (8 positive, 8 negative and 8 neutral) and 8 of which are images of the product with different coloured backgrounds. See Appendix A for examples. The product appeared 4 times followed by a randomly selected negative word, and 4 times followed by a randomly selected positive
word. An evaluation index value (I) was calculated by subtracting the participant’s reaction times in cases where the product prime is paired with a positive word, from the reaction times when the product prime is paired with a negative word. A higher value should indicate a more positive reaction.
Figure 3 – Sequential priming task. Adapted from Bargh & Chartrand (2000)
Results Hypothesis 1: The fair trade effect
Reflective evaluations. The first hypothesis proposed that products with a fair trade claim would be evaluated more positively than products with no claim at all. Four separate ANOVAs were conducted with Fair trade as an independent variable (two levels: fair trade, not fair trade) and the four reflective evaluation variables (favourability, perceived quality, willingness to pay and purchase likelihood) as dependent variables to investigate this
hypothesis. Results showed that scores did not significantly differ between the two conditions for perceived quality (F(1,92)=3.25, p=0.08), purchase likelihood (F(1,92)=1.21, p=0.28) and favourability (F(1,92)=0.76, p=0.39.) Although not significant in this case, mean scores for favourability (Mfairtrade=3.62, SDfairtrade=0.88, Mnon-fairtrade=3.44, SDnon-fairtrade=0.96) purchase
likelihood (Mfairtrade=3.14, SDfairtrade=1.16, Mnon-fairtrade=2.84, SDnon-fairtrade=1.25) and perceived
quality (Mfairtrade=3.51, SDfairtrade=0.82, Mnon-fairtrade=3.16, SDnon-fairtrade=0.85) show that
non-fair trade condition. The only difference between the conditions which was found to be marginally significant was in the willingness to pay variable (F(1,92)=3.61, p=0.06), where participants self reported as willing to pay a higher price premium for a fair trade product than a non fair trade alternative (Mfairtrade=2.16, SDfairtrade=1.02, Mnon-fairtrade=1.72, SDnon-fairtrade=0.89).
Thus we can conclude that when asked to reflectively evaluate fair trade and non fair trade products, participants indicated a willingness to pay a higher premium for the fair trade options.
Impulsive evaluations. In the case of impulsive evaluations, an ANOVA was
conducted with fair trade as an independent variable and impulsive evaluation as a dependent variable. A significant effect of a fair trade claim was found (F(1,71)=5.8, p=0.02).
Participants in the conditions where a fair trade logo was present exhibited a more positive impulsive response to the product (M=0.26, SD=0.44) than participants who were exposed to a product with no fair trade claim (M=-0.07, SD=0.68). H1 is partially accepted as a
convincing effect of fair trade labelling was found for impulsive evaluations and a partial effect was found in reflective evaluations.
Table 1
Means of reflective and impulsive evaluations according to fair trade claim Condition Purchase Likelihood (M) WTP (M) Percieved Quality (M) Favourability (M) Impulsive Response Score (M) Fair trade 3.14 2.16 3.51 3.62 .26
Not fair trade 2.84 1.72 3.16 3.44 -.07
Hypothesis 2: Levels of prominence
H2 posited that the effects of level of prominence would differ between reflective and impulsive evaluations. This general hypothesis was further deconstructed into two
reflective evaluations than a subtle or non-existent claim, and H2b supposed that a more prominent claim would lead to more negative impulsive evaluations than a subtle or non-existent claim.
Reflective evaluations. To test H2a, on reflective evaluations, four ANOVAs were conducted using the favourability, perceived quality, willingness to pay and purchase likelihood as dependent variables and condition, prominent, subtle or no claim as and independent variable. No significant effect of condition was found on the reflective evaluations: favourability (F(2,91)= 0.61, p= 0.54), perceived quality (F(2,91)= 1.94, p= 0.15), willingness to pay (F(2,91)= 1.80, p= 0.17) and purchase likelihood (F(2,91)= 1.07, p= 0.35). H2a cannot be accepted.
Impulsive evaluations. To test H2b, an ANOVA was conducted with impulsive evaluation as the dependent value and condition (prominent, subtle or no claim) as the independent variable. Participants in the prominent (M=0.27, SD=0.37) and subtle (M=0.24, SD=0.53) conditions assigned more positive scores than participants in the no claim (M=-0.06, SD=0.68) condition. The differences between groups were found to be marginally significant (F(2, 69)= 2.88, p=0.06). Since participants in the prominent condition evaluated the product more positively than in the subtle and no claim conditions, H2b is rejected as it was expected that evaluations in the prominent category would be more negative than less prominent claims.
Table 2
Means of reflective and impulsive evaluations according to claim prominence
Condition Purchase Likelihood (M) WTP (M) Percieved Quality (M) Favourability (M) Impulsive Response Score (M) Subtle claim 3.00 2.18 3.42 3.55 .24 Prominent claim 3.28 2.13 3.58 3.69 .27 No claim 2.84 1.72 3.16 3.44 -.07
Discussion
The goal of this study was to ascertain to what extent fair trade claim prominence on a product has an effect on consumer evaluation, and whether the effects differ between
impulsive and reflective evaluations. The results provide insight into the role of fair trade claim prominence on product evaluation, and suggest that the prominence of fair trade claims exert greater influence on impulsive evaluations than on reflective ones. In the case of the mere presence of a fair trade label, the results showed the label to have a positive effect on both impulsive and reflective evaluations. Claim prominence was only found to have a marginal effect on impulsive responses, with the most prominent label eliciting the most positive response. The hypotheses investigated were derived from literature representing different areas of study and provided the basis for the analysis. In a broad sense, the findings of this research align with the conclusions prevalent in the literature which state that
subconscious and conscious evaluations of products can and often do diverge, even within the same person (Häfner & Trampe, 2009).
Evaluation of fair trade products.
The results presented in this study align with the majority of research on the subject of fair trade products, in that consumers exhibit a positive attitude towards fair trade products (Golding & Peattie, 2005; Loureiro & Lotade, 2005; Raynolds & Bennett, 2015; Rousseau, 2015; Winchester et al., 2015).
Reflective evaluations. Hypothesis 1, which reflected the trend in the literature, proposed that consumers would evaluate the product more positively when it had a fair trade claim than when it did not. H1 was partially accepted, and the hesitation to accept fully stemmed from the reflective evaluation results. Of the four variables assessed to ascertain reflective evaluations, the only one on which fair trade labelling had a marginally significant
effect was willingness to pay (WTP.) This analysis showed that participants presented with a product marked as fair trade were willing to pay a higher premium for the product than those presented with a generic, non fair trade product.
This effect on WTP is consistent with contemporary literature. Fair trade certification always necessitates some kind of price premium due to fixed minimum costs, so if consumer WTP does not increase with the inclusion of a fair trade claim, the product will not be sold. Because of this, many studies have focused either in part, or exclusively on consumer WTP for fair trade products. These studies often find an increase in WTP from non fair trade to fair trade products (Basu & Hicks, 2008; De Pelsmacker et al., 2005; Didier & Lucie, 2008; Van Loo et al., 2015). This increased WTP is most commonly linked to an increase in perceived value (Didier & Lucie, 2008; Rousseau, 2015). This experiment has shown that value-based fair trade labelling approach appears to have fulfilled its purpose: boosting the perceived value of the product shown to participants and as a result increasing their WTP.
Impulsive evaluations. A fair trade claim was found to have a significant effect on impulsive evaluations, showing clearly that participants who were exposed to a fair trade product reacted more positively than those shown the generic alternative. Again, this falls in line with previous studies where products bearing fair trade claims are evaluated more positively than products with no claim. Impulsive responses to fair trade claims have rarely been investigated before now, and where they are, the same effect becomes evident (Geuens, De Houwer, De Pelsmacker, & Vantomme, 2006). It is clear from the literature that
consumers are generally positive towards fair trade products, and the findings presented here are consistent this consensus. Although the positive evaluation found in this study is
positive reflective favourability, reflective purchase likelihood and perceived quality (the remaining, non significant reflective variables) raises a point of interest.
A possible explanation for this disconnect could be the gap, proposed by
communication scientists, between intentions and behaviour. Intention is often viewed as an important predictor of actual behaviour (Fishbein & Cappella, 2006), but studies have shown that often, a wide ‘gap’ exists between reported intention and reported behaviour (Sheeran, 2002).
The impulsive reactions in this study, as well as WTP can be categorised as intentional variables. The ‘intention’ construct in existing literature allows researchers to infer intentions from responses such as “I will do X”(Sheeran, 2002), which in the case of this research, fits well with the willingness to pay variable as participants were asked how much of a premium they will pay for the product shown to them. In addition, Sheeran clarifies that intentions are sometimes not ‘accessible,’ which allows for impulsive or subconscious intentions (2002, p. 20). The behavioural side of the equation is most strongly related to the non-significant reflective evaluation variables; especially purchase likelihood. Essentially, a latent preference for fair trade products and a reported intention to pay more for them represent the intention, and a reported lack of likely purchase behaviour illustrates the intention-behaviour gap in the case of the fair trade products shown here. Fortunately, strategies for bridging this gap have been proposed in literature (Sheeran, 2002; Sniehotta, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005) and applying these to fair trade labelling is a promising avenue for future research.
Influence of claim prominence. The assumptions behind the second set of
hypotheses were 1) that claim prominence would have an effect on evaluations and 2) that this impact would differ between impulsive and reflective evaluations. In the case of reflective evaluations, claim prominence had no effect at all, and the impulsive evaluations
were most positive in the prominent claim condition, which was not consistent with the expected results.
Reflective evaluations. Hypothesis 2a predicted that a prominent claim would lead to
more positive reflective evaluations than a subtle claim or no claim at all. This prediction was based on the assumption that when given adequate time to reflect on the qualities of fair trade products, as well as the socially desirable answers, participants would evaluate the most prominently fair trade product the most positively. In fact, no effect was found.
Research has found the desired impact of labels on medications and nutritional information to vary based on label attributes, including visibility (Berning et al., 2010; Bix et al., 2009). The reasons for the lack of significant results in this case are unclear, but one possibility is that the fair trade mark conveys much less specific information than the examples in the literature (side effects, calorie count, etc.), which dampens its impact. In order for the mark to have an effect, consumers need to know what it represents, and even though all participants included in the analysis knew the mark represented a fair trade product, it is possible that participants were unaware of what the fair trade label specifically represented.
Impulsive evaluations. This study found that, contrary to H2b, impulsive responses
were most positive in the prominent condition. This is consistent with the literature applied to hypothesis 1, which states that consumers are more positive towards fair trade products, but H2b predicted that impulsive evaluations would be most positive in the subtle condition. The reason for this assumption was rooted in previous findings which have found that reducing time to contemplate responses can result in a dramatic difference between implicit and explicit responses by avoiding possible mediators (Häfner & Trampe, 2009).
Although hypothesis 2b had to be rejected, this result has promising practical implications, as it shows that a product being ‘too’ fair trade does not dampen impulsive enthusiasm for fair trade products. In fact, in this case, the more prominently fair trade, the better.
Practical and scientific implications
This research is consistent with the general scientific consensus on positive consumer evaluations of fair trade, and adds an important new dimension. By recording impulsive as well as reflective responses, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of implicit consumer reactions to fair trade labelled products, which has not been thoroughly investigated in literature until now. In addition, research into claim prominence for value based labels is fairly limited and this research represents a step forward, setting a precedent for further research into the possible implications of the ways in which fair trade products are presented to consumers. Furthermore, the application of dual process theories to these labels is also sparse, and this research has shown that consumers’ implicit reactions to a product are not necessarily the same as their explicit response.
As for practical implications, this study has shown that regardless of outside factors, consumers have a positive impulsive response to fair trade products, and are willing to pay a premium for these products. The challenge for practitioners with this in mind will be linking the implicit positivity and WTP to meaningful purchase behaviour.
Limitations and recommendations for future research
No study is without limitations, and the research conducted here can be improved in future with the development and use of a purpose-built scale to measure attitudes towards value-based labels like the fair trade mark. This would improve the accuracy of the reflective elements of this research and possibly change or clarify the results. Once failed manipulation
checks were excluded from the sample used in this case, the sample size shrunk dramatically, so briefing participants, or conducting more testing before rolling out the experiment could improve the size issue. Additionally, as this study was experimental and conducted online, its validity in a supermarket setting is limited.
Future research on this topic should bear these limitations in mind and in addition to a more purpose-built scale for reflective evaluations; conduct experiments in a more realistic setting, perhaps using physical stimuli. Avenues for further research include a greater focus on possible differences in reflective and impulsive evaluations, as well as investigating possible avenues to bridge the gap between intentional and behavioural measures such as WTP and purchase behaviour. Applying remedies for the intention-behaviour gap already proposed in the literature to an experimental study like this would add a great deal to the findings of this study and the scientific study of consumer responses to fair trade labels in general.
Conclusions
The aim of this study was to ascertain consumer responses to fair trade labelling of coffee, and to understand if and how these responses were affected by fair trade claim prominence. Moreover, a distinction was made between reflective and impulsive responses, with both response types recorded and compared. The results shows that whilst participants were overwhelmingly positive towards the fair trade products shown to them, fair trade labels had the most significant impact on their impulsive responses.
A fair trade claim was found to have a significant effect on impulsive responses, as well as reflective willingness to pay. When claim prominence was investigated, it was found to have no effect on any reflective variables. However, an unexpected effect was found on impulsive responses, with the most positive results in the prominent condition. The results
found here are consistent with the general trend in existing literature of consumers responding positively to fair trade products and the approach taken addresses the gap in the literature where implicit responses are concerned. The significant impact of a fair trade claim and its prominence on impulsive responses adds a new dimension to existing scholarship on fair trade branding and opens up an exciting new avenue for future research. Furthermore, the gap between intention (represented by impulsive response and WTP) and variables predictive of behaviour presents a challenge for scientists and practitioners alike. An important future step will be identifying the causes of this gap and testing ways to harness the implicit positivity of consumers and turning it into meaningful behaviour.
References
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology (pp. 253–285). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barham, E. (2002). Towards a theory of values-based labeling. Agriculture and Human Values, 19(4), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021152403919
Basu, A. K., & Hicks, R. L. (2008). Label performance and the willingness to pay for Fair Trade coffee: a cross-national perspective. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00715.x
Berning, J. P., Chouinard, H. H., Manning, K. C., McCluskey, J. J., & Sprott, D. E. (2010). Identifying consumer preferences for nutrition information on grocery store shelf labels. Food Policy, 35(5), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.05.009 Bix, L., Bello, N. M., Auras, R., Ranger, J., & Lapinski, M. K. (2009). Examining the
conspicuousness and prominence of two required warnings on OTC pain relievers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(16), 6550–6555.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0810665106
Campbell, C. L., Heinrich, D., & Schoenmüller, V. (2015). Consumers’ reaction to fair trade motivated price increases. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 24, 79–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2015.02.005
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. Unintended Thought, 212. Retrieved from
https://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=HT6ddclz6EAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA212& dq=Heuristic+and+systematic+information+processing+within+and+beyond+the+pers
uasion+context&ots=dd8VMTt5yo&sig=JWTcPbveEVOnRh3eKQ3m73fzaiQ
Chartrand, T. L. (2005). The Role of Conscious Awareness in Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_4 Dan-Glauser, E. S., & Scherer, K. R. (2011). The Geneva affective picture database
(GAPED): a new 730-picture database focusing on valence and normative significance. Behavior Research Methods, 43(2), 468–477.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0064-1
De Pelsmacker, P., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do Consumers Care about Ethics? Willingness to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363– 385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00019.x
Didier, T., & Lucie, S. (2008). Measuring consumer’s willingness to pay for organic and Fair Trade products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5), 479–490.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00714.x
Dijksterhuis, A., & Smith, P. K. (2005). What Do We Do Unconsciously? And How? Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 225–229.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_7
Dijksterhuis, A., Smith, P. K., van Baaren, R. B., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2005). The Unconscious Consumer: Effects of Environment on Consumer Behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_3 Fairtrade Foundation. (2014). Businesses back Fairtrade Foundation autumn campaign.
Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/en/media-centre/news/august-2014/businesses-back-fairtrades-autumn-campaign
Fairtrade International (FLO). (2016a). About Fairtrade. Retrieved October 16, 2016, from http://www.fairtrade.net/about-fairtrade.html
Fairtrade International (FLO). (2016b). Fairtrade International (FLO): Minimum Price and Premium information. Retrieved November 15, 2016, from
http://www.fairtrade.net/standards/price-and-premium-info.html
Fairtrade International, World Fair Trade Organization, & FLO-CERT. (2011). Fairtrade Glossary.
Fishbein, M., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health communications. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), S1–S17.
Friese, M., Hofmann, W., & Wänke, M. (2007). When impulses take over: Moderated predictive validity of explicit and implicit attitude measures in predicting food choice and consumption behavior. ResearchGate, 47(Pt 3), 397–419.
https://doi.org/10.1348/014466607X241540
Friese, M., Wänke, M., & Plessner, H. (2006). Implicit consumer preferences and their influence on product choice. Psychology & Marketing, 23(9), 727–740.
Geuens, M., De Houwer, J., De Pelsmacker, P., & Vantomme, D. (2006). Explicit and implicit determinants of fair trade buying behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, 33(1), 699–703.
Golding, K., & Peattie, K. (2005). In search of a golden blend: perspectives on the marketing of fair trade coffee. Sustainable Development, 13(3), 154–165.
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.274
Häfner, M., & Trampe, D. (2009). When thinking is beneficial and when it is not: The effects of thin and round advertising models. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(4), 619– 628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.06.004
Hu, M., & Liu, B. (2004). Mining and Summarizing Customer Comments. KDD. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. The Cambridge
Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning, 267–293.
Ladhari, R., & Tchetgna, N. M. (2015). The influence of personal values on Fair Trade consumption. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 469–477.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.068
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02833.x Levi, M., & Linton, A. (2003). Fair Trade: A Cup at a Time? Politics & Society, 31(3), 407–
432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329203254862
Loureiro, M. L., & Lotade, J. (2005). Do fair trade and eco-labels in coffee wake up the consumer conscience? Ecological Economics, 53(1), 129–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2004.11.002
Patrick Hartmann, Vanessa Apaolaza Ibáñez, & Sainz, F. J. F. (2005). Green branding effects on attitude: functional versus emotional positioning strategies. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 23(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500510577447
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1–24). Springer. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1
Raynolds, L. T. editor, & Bennett, E. A. (2015). Handbook of research on fair trade / edited by Laura T. Raynolds, Elizabeth A. Bennett. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Reese, G., & Kohlmann, F. (2015). Feeling Global, Acting Ethically: Global Identification and Fairtrade Consumption. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155(2), 98–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2014.992850
Journal of Advertising, 9(2), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1980.10673313 Rousseau, S. (2015). The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate. Food
Quality and Preference, 44, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.002 Shaw, D., Newholm, T., & Dickinson, R. (2006). Consumption as voting: an exploration of
consumer empowerment. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10), 1049–1067. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560610681005
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003
Sick, D. (2008). Farmers of the golden bean: Costa Rican households, global coffee and fair trade. De Kalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press.
Simonson, I. (2005). In Defense of Consciousness: The Role of Conscious and Unconscious Inputs in Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1503_5
Sniehotta, F. F., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). Bridging the intention–behaviour gap: Planning, self-efficacy, and action control in the adoption and maintenance of physical exercise. Psychology & Health, 20(2), 143–160.
Strack, F., Deutsch, R., & Werth, L. (2006). Reflective and impulsive determinants of consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 205–216.
Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga Jr., R. M., Seo, H.-S., Zhang, B., & Verbeke, W. (2015). Sustainability labels on coffee: Consumer preferences, willingness-to-pay and visual attention to attributes. Ecological Economics, 118, 215–225.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.011
Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie. Retrieved from https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10036/4292
Winchester, M., Arding, R., & Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2015). An Exploration of Consumer Attitudes and Purchasing Patterns in Fair Trade Coffee and Tea. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 21(5), 552–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2015.1041197 Witkowski, T. H. (2005). Fair Trade Marketing: An Alternative System for Globalization and
Appendix A
