The Effect of a Price Premium
on the Taste Perception of a Fair Trade Product
Olan Lumbantobing
2
The Effect of a Price Premium
on the Taste Perception of a Fair Trade Product
Olan Lumbantobing S1545795
3
Abstract
Past research shows that Fair Trade products are perceived as better tasting, but the exact reason why is not clear. Price may play an important role, but there is little literature on this topic. The present research tries to examine this. What are the effects of a premium priced sustainable-labeled product (i.e. Fair Trade chocolate) on taste? Participants were asked to taste and rate chocolate. They found chocolate to taste better when a) it was Fair Trade labeled rather than non Fair Trade labeled and 2) when it was higher priced rather than lower priced. Also, when a Fair Trade product was lower priced, taste was rated much less favorable. Thus, consumers rate a Fair Trade labeled product as better tasting, especially when in line with price
expectancies (i.e. higher price = better quality). I discuss the results with respect to the producers and suggest how the observed effects can be used to increase value.
4
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5
2. Theoretical Framework 7
2.1 Sustainable products 7
2.2 The effects of sustainability labels 8 2.3 The effects of higher priced products 9 2.4 The effects of regular priced sustainable product 10
2.5 Conceptual model 11
3. Research Design 12
3.1 Participants and design 12
3.2 Procedure 12
4. Results 14
4.1 With manipulation check 14
4.2 Without manipulation check 16
5. General Discussion 19
5.1 Discussion 19
5.2 Limitations and further research 20
6. Conclusions 21
7. References 22
8. Appendices 25
8.1 Output with manipulation check 25
8.2 Output without manipulation check 27
8.3 Questionnaire 29
5
1.
Introduction
Sustainability is a hot topic globally and more products are becoming available in their sustainable counterparts. For instance, organic food sales in the United States have grown from 1 billion US dollars in 1990 to over 25 billion US dollars in 2010 (OTA, 2011). On a global scale, sales are growing by an estimate of 10 to 20% per year (Zepeda and Li, 2007). In another field of sustainability, Fair Trade, sales have increased from 220 million in 2000, to 4.3 billion Euros in 2010 (FLO, 2014). The interest in this topic has also triggered interest in the academic world: In 2005 400 journal articles concerned the topic of sustainability, by 2010 this number exceeded 1000 (Laureat et al., 2013).
Consumers purchase sustainable products primarily because of the environmental-friendliness, but also because of personal motives such as health and safety reasons, the product being chemical free, environmental sustainability and having better taste (e.g. Larue et al., 2004; Schifferstein and Oude Ophuis, 1998). Other researchers assert that taste is actually the most important reason to purchase sustainable products (Zanoli and Naspetti, 2002).
That sustainable products have better taste might be true for organic products, as this type of products can have better quality and taste due to organic farming. In the field of Fair Trade the intrinsic quality or taste simply cannot improve, because this type of sustainability only considers ‘support of local production structure and the well-being of those engaged in food production’ (Zander et al., 2012). In others words, this only concerns the social aspect of sustainability. Surprisingly, positive perceptions of organic products can also transfer to Fair Trade products, meaning that consumers tend to perceive Fair Trade products also as having a better quality or taste than their conventional counterpart (Sorqvist et al., 2013). But is only explanation why Fair Trade products taste better?
Frankly, sustainability comes at a price—literally. Whether it is to cover the
6
a fair wage. These higher production costs result in a higher product price for the consumer. Past research neglects to incorporate this element into their equation of perceived quality (e.g. Lee et al., 2013; Johnston and Roheim, 2006).
So what are the effects of this increase in price? We know that higher prices have an effect on perceived quality of a product because of the so-called placebo effect (e.g. Plassmann et al., 2008). Referring to a placebo treatment, which is a harmless treatment that benefits the psychological effects more than the actual physiological effects. If we would translate this effect into the field of marketing, it means that consumers actually experience what they expect to experience. Hence, if you expect a premium priced product to taste better, it probably will taste better, because you will ‘get what you pay for’ (Shiv, Carmon and Ariely, 2005). Plassmann and colleagues (2008) confirmed this with their research that revealed that wine tastes better when it is expensive.
This brings us to an alternative explanation for the fact that Fair Trade products are perceived as having superior quality: the products are inherently more expensive, higher priced products are rated as better tasting, ergo Fair Trade products taste better. To my knowledge there is no literature on the effect of price in combination with sustainability labels on a product’s quality perception. This research will specifically take the price premium of a sustainable product into consideration when exploring the effects on taste quality.
In the following section I will review relevant literature and construct a theoretical framework and define hypotheses. Then that I will discuss my research design and the results and will conclude with a general discussion, recommendations and the
7
2.
Theoretical Framework
2.1 Sustainable products
It is important to define sustainability for the purpose of this research, because it can be interpreted in several ways. The general definition I will use is that sustainability is ‘a development that meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’ (WCED, 1987). Within this definition, I would like to further define sustainability as ‘the greener, the healthier, and the fairer’ (Sustainable Development Commission, 2008). These three segments cover the three basic premises.
First, ‘the greener’: reasons to engage in this type of sustainability are based on environmental motives, such as preserving environmental biodiversity. Products within this category are sourced using environmental friendly methods, but in such a way that it cannot enhance the intrinsic properties of the product—this type of product will not be any healthier. An example is sustainable palm oil. This is sourced at deforestation-free plantations and this product would carry, after having followed the proper certification process, the sustainability label ‘RSPO’ (Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil). Although this label legitimizes the sustainable way of sourcing, it says little about the product’s actual quality.
Secondly there is ‘the healthier’: a sustainable process that, in contrast to the above-mentioned type, can change the intrinsic properties. Some argue that quality improves due to higher levels of antioxidants, or ‘higher crop nutritional’ and thus yielding higher organoleptic quality, a term that relates to the ‘sensory properties and quality attributes’ (Theuer, 2006)—you can think of taste or smell. This is the main
contribution to the growth of the organic foods market. It is also believed that pesticides and antibiotics are more common in conventional than organic food (Latacz-Lohmann and Foster, 1997).
8
practically addressing these issues. Fair Trade focuses on the social aspect of sustainability to ‘help the world’s poor’ (Bowes and Croft, 2007). The Fair Trade Labeling Organization (FLO) is the biggest organization of its kind and describes itself as ‘a global organization working to secure a better deal for farmers and
workers’ and claims to ‘design standards to tackle poverty and empower producers in the poorest countries in the world’ (FLO, 2014). Better working conditions and compensation in order for a product to attain Fair Trade status does not necessarily improve the actual product’s intrinsic quality (Poelman et al., 2008). The only improvement is that contracted farmers will benefit from the Fair Trade network, because a percentage of the price ‘at an ethical premium’ is given to them (Bird and Hughes, 1997).
This research will focus on this last type of sustainability, as is interesting for marketing proposes: perception of quality of this type of products cannot be
influenced by a change of the intrinsic characteristics or actually quality, but only on the basis of extrinsic cues. For marketers it is vital to know how this perception can be influenced in order to increase brand equity.
2.2 The effects of sustainability labels
Whether products have the greener RSPO accreditation, a healthier USDA Organic label, or a fairer Fair Trade certificate, the common purpose of these labels is ‘to raise consumer awareness about the environmental effects of products and to inform consumers about the environmental characteristics of a product’ (Lehtonen, 1997). We do have to bear in mind that labeling sustainable products is still a recent innovation with most of the schemes being less than ten years old at time of writing (Edwards and Laurance, 2012). Because consumers may not be familiar with all the differences in sustainability labels, one could argue that this is the reason why consumers (too) easily assume benefits from these label. This is based on the ‘halo-effect’, an effect that has been cited as being the main driver for this phenomenon (Lee et al., 2013). In marketing it means that a positive trait of a particular product extends to another product with the same brand or label, or in this case the
9
Labels, being external influences—so not directly linked to the actual quality—are referred to as extrinsic cues and can have a strong effect on consumer’s perception of products. Other examples of extrinsic cues are price and shopping environment. In fact, in some cases effects can actually be stronger than intrinsic cues—which are directly related to the actual quality (Pohl, 2004).
Organic labeled food products are often perceived as being ‘good and healthy’ (Rozin, 2004). More specifically, consumers might think that these products contain fewer calories, are lower in fat than their regular counterpart, and even taste as having less fat and being higher in fiber (Lee et al., 2013). Interesting, these results also translate to products that are not considered to be healthy in the first place. Schuldt and Schwartz (2010) discovered that participants considered sustainable-labeled cookies also as having fewer calories and being healthier than conventional cookies. That organic labels may transfer abstract ideas to another organic product (i.e. both being healthy) is evident based on the halo-effect, but it has also been recognized that these concepts transfer outside of their segment. For instance, positive effects of organic food (e.g. better taste) can transfer to a Fair Trade product, which means that the ‘perceived value of a product apparently can be independent of the product’s actual physical value’ (Ariely and Norton, 2009). This is considered an explanation as to why participants prefer the taste of sustainable coffee to non-labeled coffee
(Sorqvist et al., 2013). Lotz and colleagues (2013) state that consumers have a taste for sustainability, resulting in Fair Trade coffee and chocolate being rated as better tasting. Consequently my first hypothesis is:
H1: Fair Trade labels have positive effect on taste perception
2.3 The effect of higher priced products
We know that sustainable products come with a price premium. In some cases this is necessary in order to maintain a segregated or sustainable production line within the production process. In other cases it is because of the financial incentive for producers to ‘go green’ in the first place (Roheim et al., 2011). Also, sometimes producers just
can ask a higher price because of customer’s willingness-to-pay (WTP) for such
10
During the current research no evidence has been found of prior research that takes the price premium as a factor on its own into consideration. Several studies examine the effects of the perceived sustainability quality on the WTP a certain premium for a product (e.g. Roheim, 2011), but not the other way around: what are the effects of price on perception of sustainability quality? If sustainable products are inherently premium priced (MORI, 2003) and have better taste (Lotz, 2013), to what extent is this because of the higher price? Before taking a deeper look into this, consideration will first be made of the effects of price on its own.
From a consumer’s point of view, some point out the negative psychological effects of a price increase (e.g. Mattila and O’Neill, 2003), stating that consumers simply prefer lower prices. Nevertheless, others suggest that consumers consider higher priced products as being better products, because higher priced products actually prompt consumers to think twice about the purchase. Examples highlighted include purchasing expensive wine (Plassmann et al., 2008) or premium priced coffee in bars (DonHee and Jang (2013). This increases the WTP for such a premium, assuming that ‘it must be worth it’ (Van Herpen et al., 2012). In other words: consumers use price as an indicator of quality, which is another example of an external cue (Pohl, 2004). You can actually sum this school of thought as: ‘you get what you pay for’ (Roa and Monroe, 1989).1
If higher priced products are perceived as being of better quality, it must mean that lower priced products are perceived as being of lower quality. Interestingly, when perception of quality worsens, actual performance does as well: a discounted product resulted in worse performance by participants of an experiment in which they drank similar drinks, with one group having bought the drink at discounted prices and the other group at normal prices (Shiv, Carmon and Ariely, 2005).
Therefore my second hypothesis is:
H2: Price premiums have positive effects on taste perception
1 Some doubt whether this perception is justified, Riesz (1979) for example examined the relationship
11
2.4 The effects of regular priced sustainable products
We know the effect of sustainability labels (which are always in combination with a price premium), but not to what extent this is because of the labeling effects on its own. It is interesting to investigate how ‘soft cues’ (i.e. a Fair Trade label) influences the perception compared to other cues. This is an issue on which Lotz and colleagues (2013) recommend further research. I also consider this to be a missing link in past research. It is in mine opinion that prior research should have separated these hard and soft cues (i.e. price vs. label), instead of considering it as one factor. The key focus of this research is to examine the effects of a price premium separate from the effects of a sustainability label.
I have stated that the label is more important in the perception of quality when it comes to Fair Trade. If consumers are already in the position to select between
sustainable/not sustainable, they base their purchases on the label rather than the price (Sorqvist et al., 2013). Therefore my third hypothesis is:
H3: Sustainable-labeled products will be rated as better tasting, even when they are equally expensive as their conventional counterpart
2.5 Conceptual model
The three hypotheses would result in the following conceptual model as depicted below. H1 is considered by Lotz and colleagues (2013): higher priced Fair Trade coffee is perceived as better tasting. H2 is ‘you get what you pay for’ (Shiv, Carmon and Ariely, 2005). H3 is still underexposed in past literature: are Fair Trade products only better tasting because of the label, or also because of the higher price? In other words, what is the effect of a Fair Trade label, without ‘the help’ of a price premium?
12
3.
Research Design
3.1 Participants and design
Ninety-six students were recruited from a Dutch university from the faculty of
economics and business over a period of nine days. Participants either received € 8 in cash or four university research credits. They participated in an experiment involving analytical thinking and taste perceptions, which was a joint experiment. To measure both the effect of the Fair Trade label and the price I used a full 2 (label: Fair Trade vs. conventional label) x 2 (price: € 0.80 vs. € 1.20) between-subjects design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.
3.2 Procedure
Participants were placed in a cubicle as depicted below where they were presented with an image of two chocolate bars: a Fair Trade chocolate bar of the brand Cadbury with either a low or high price (€ 0.80 or € 1.20) and also a chocolate bar from a generic brand (Albert Heijn’s own brand), also with one of the two prices as a reference.
13
It was made clear that they would taste and rate a piece of the Cadbury chocolate, but all participants actually tasted the same chocolate (private brand). After being
instructed to remember as much as possible of the image, because ‘we would quiz them on it in a later stage’, they were allowed to taste and rate the chocolate, on a scale from 1 to 100 (Lotz et al., 2013) and fill in other questions on perceptions and feelings. After the conclusion of this part, participants were asked to hand in a completed questionnaire and continue with the next part of the experiment. This part falls out of the scope of this research, as I conducted a joint experiment with a fellow student. To check the manipulation, participants were asked during the funneled debriefing stage whether they remembered the product price (€ 0.80 or € 1.20) and whether they noticed the Fair Trade label on the chocolate bar of the piece of chocolate they tasted (appendix 8.4).
Image 2: lower priced without Fair Trade label Image 3: higher priced without Fair Trade label
Image 4: lower priced with Fair Trade label Image 5: higher priced with Fair Trade label
14
4.
Results
From the total of 96 filled in questionnaires, 5 were deemed useless because of missing data (no taste rating); another 3 were left out as they were considered to be outliers (M < 43.4) after checking. This left us with 88 questionnaires upon which to base our findings.
Of these results, 74% remembered the label correctly, 16% did not notice the Fair Trade Label and 10% actually said that they noticed the label, but in fact were not presented with one.
Price wise: 95% of the 88 remembered the price correctly and when taking price and label together, 69% recalled both the label and the price correctly.
4.1 With manipulation check
In order to analyze the effect of price and a Fair Trade label on taste, I performed a two-way ANOVA test and the confidence interval was tested by performing a one-sample t-test (appendix 8.1). I want to know how participants rated the taste of (what they believed to be) a piece of the Cadbury chocolate at two different price levels. First I will discuss the results of the 61 participants (Mage = 21.66; SD = 2.59) whom remembered correctly both the label and price (Mtaste rating = 76.18; SD = 10.59, 95% CI = 73.47 to 78.89).
15
Graph 1: taste ratings based on label or price based on results with the manipulation check
The interaction effect also appeared not to be statistically significant, F (1, 57) = 2.755, p = .102. A product that is lower priced + Fair Trade labeled is rated as having the worst taste of all the four conditions (MFair Trade / low price = 70.33; SD = 9.28), but we see that when the price of this Fair Trade labeled product increases, perception of taste also improves (MFair Trade / high price = 78.76; SD = 6.97) (see graph 2).
16
Graph 2: interaction effect based on the results with the manipulation check
4.2 Without manipulation check
The results above are based on 61 participants that correctly remembered both price and label they were presented with when under the assumption that they tasted the Cadbury chocolate. Nevertheless, we should also look at all the 88 useable results (Mage = 21.63; SD = 2.47), (Maverage taste = 76.32; SD = 11.06, 95% CI = 73.97 to 79.66).
Reasons to do so includes that participants may have noticed the label and took them into consideration when rating the taste, but could not remember them when filling in the manipulation check questions. This is plausible because between the tasting part and the manipulation check another unrelated experiment took place. Also,
participants may have subconsciously noticed the Fair Trade label and price, which would mean that these extrinsic cues functioned as subliminal stimuli. Concerning the two main effects in this scenario, we see the following (appendix 8.2).
A higher priced product appears to taste better (Mhigh price = 77.02; SD = 10.54) than a similar product that is lower priced (Mlow price = 75.55; SD = 11.68), F (1, 84) = .378, p = .541, as can be seen in graph 3.
17
11.88), F (1, 84) = .456, p = .501 (graph 3). This is a different trend than in the first scenario (where participants correctly remembered the price and label), but with these results both main effects are in line with earlier research. It must be noted that the results proved not to be statistically significant.
Graph 3: taste ratings from the results without the manipulation check
18
Graph 4: interaction effects from the results without the manipulation check
19
5.
General Discussion
5.1 Discussion
The results for the main effects of this research are ambiguous and also not statistically significant. The sample size of respectively 61 and 88 is too small to provide consistent and significant findings concerning the first hypothesis: what are the effects of Fair Trade labels on taste?
The main effect concerning price indicates corresponding results in both scenarios, hinting that higher priced products are perceived as better tasting, which aligns with hypothesis 2: the ‘you get what you pay for’-placebo effect exists. This is in line with prior research, but we may not draw conclusions, as results are not statistically significant.
This research also examined whether a sustainable-labeled product with a similar price level as a conventionally labeled product would still be rated as better tasting— which was hypothesized. In both scenarios a normally priced Fair Trade product seems not to taste better than a normally priced + conventionally labeled product. This hints that taste perception of a Fair Trade labeled product is only effective when the product has a price premium. This is the opposite to what was hypothesized, because I expected Fair Trade labels on its own to have effect on taste perception, as described in hypothesis 3. An explanation for this might be that the sustainability-cue only works as a ‘package deal’ in combination with a higher price. The consumer is conditioned to think that sustainability equals quality; quality equals higher price; hence the price-cue is crucial for the positive perception of a Fair Trade labeled product.
20
Although you do not expect the highest quality, the lower prices compensates this, hence the product has a justified or fair price. In that line of reasoning, an alternative explanation for normally priced Fair Trade products (which may be considered as cheap because of its segment) having the worst taste ratings, might be because it feels unfair: a price premium is supposed to support local farmers, but without a price premium this is impossible.
Finally, it might feel counterintuitive to increase prices, but literature suggests that consumers are willing to pay around 10% more for a product that is sustainable (Pelsmacker et al., 2005). So why wouldn’t you as a producer? I identify three main benefits. Firstly, it covers the costs for ‘going sustainable’ so shareholders won’t take any financial risks. Secondly, it is an indication of product quality, thus boosting perceived product quality. Thirdly, ‘the higher cost would even be justified in the eyes of the consumer as they get what they pay for’ (Lee et al., 2013) so one could argue that it is simply expected by customers.
Limitations and further research
This study has several limitations. Because participants consisted of only students recruited from a Dutch university, the external validity is limited. Also, the number of participants was limited, 96 in total. This is especially notable because I used a 2 x 2 between-subjects design and participants could only be part in one of the four conditions. Also this specific study was limited to the Fair Trade scope of sustainability with chocolate as the only product that was considered. A greater variety of sustainable products would be necessary to generalize the conclusion and broaden the scope of this research.
21
I examined the effects of Fair Trade labels at two price levels: € 0.80 and € 1.20, representing a normally priced product and a premium priced product—in this case chocolate bars. Future research could examine optimum price levels for Fair Trade products in order to yield best results, both financially and perception-wise.
6.
Conclusion
22
7.
References
Ariely, D., & Norton, M. I. (2009). Conceptual consumption. Annual Review of
Psychology, 60, 475–499.
Bird, K., & Hughes, D.R (1997). Ethical consumerism: The case of “fairly-traded” coffee. Business Ethics: A European Review 6, 159–67.
Bowes, J., & Croft, D. (2007). Organic and fair trade crossover and convergence. In S. Wright & D. McCrea (Eds.), The handbook of organic and fair trade food
marketing (pp. 262–283). Oxford: Blackwell.
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.
DonHee, K., & Jang, S. (2013). Price placebo effects in hedonic consumption.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 35(12), 306-315.
Edwards, D. P., & Laurance, S. G. (2012). Green labeling, sustainability and the expansion of tropical agriculture: Critical issues for certification schemes. Biological
Conservation, 151(1), 60-64.
Fairtrade International (2014). Revised Standard Bolsters Support for Workers. Web. 1 June 2014.
Herpen E., Nierop, E., & Sloot, L. (2012). The relationship between in-store marketing and observed sales for organic versus fair trade products. Marketing
Letters, (23)1, 293-308
Johnston, R. J., Roheim Wessells, C., Donath, H. and Asche, F. (2001) Measuring consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: An international comparison. Journal
of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2620–39.
Latacz-Lohmann, U., & Foster, C. (1997). From ‘niche’ to ‘mainstream’–strategies for marketing organic food in Germany and the UK. British Food Journal, 99(8), 275–282.
Larue, B., West, G., Gendron, C., & Lambert, R. (2004). Consumer response to functional foods produced by conventional, organic, or genetic manipulation.
Agribusiness, 20(2), 155–166.
Laureati, M. M., Jabes, D. D., Russo, V. V., & Pagliarini, E. E. (2013). Sustainability and organic production: How information influences consumer’s expectation and preference for yogurt. Food Quality & Preference, 30(1), 1-8.
Lee, W. C. J., Shimizu, M., Wansink, B., & Kniffin, K. M. (2013). You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference,
23
Lehtonen, M., 1997. Criteria in environmental labeling: a comparative analysis of environmental criteria in selected labeling schemes. Environment and Trade (UNEP). Lotz, S., Christandl, F., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2013). What is fair is good: Evidence of consumers’ taste for fairness. Food Quality & Preference, 30(2), 139-144
Market & Opinion Research International Limited (MORI) (2003) 'Green Choice' Is
Still A Middle Class Affair, MORI, London.
Mattila, A.S., & O’Neill, J.W., (2003). Relationships between hotel room pricing, occupancy, and guest satisfaction: a longitudinal case of a midscale hotel in the United States. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 27(3), 328–341.
Martins, M., & Monroe, K. B. (1994). Perceived price fairness: A new look at an old construct. Advances in Consumer Research, 21, 75–78.
Organic Trade Association, (2011). Seventy-eight percent of U.S. families say they purchase organic foods. Release 2.11.11.
Plassmann, H., O’Doherty, J., Shiv, B., & Rangel, A. (2008). Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science, 105, 1050–1054.
Poelman, A., Mojet, J., Lyon, D., & Sefa-Dedeh, S. (2008). The influence of
information about organic production and fair trade on preferences for and perception of pineapple. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 121–141.
Pohl, R. F. (2004). Effects of labeling. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: A
handbook on fallacies and biases in thinking, judgment and memory (pp. 327–344).
Hove: Psychology Press.
Riesz, P. C. (1979), Price-Quality Correlations for Packaged Food Products, Journal
of Consumer Affairs, (13)4, 236–47.
Roa, A. R., & Monroe, K. B., (1989) The Effect of Price, Brand Name, and Store Name on Buyers' Perceptions of Product Quality: An Integrative Review. Journal of
Marketing Research, (26)3, 351-357
Roheim, C. A., Asche, F., & Santos, J. (2011). The Elusive Price Premium for Ecolabelled Products: Evidence from Seafood in the UK Market. Journal Of
Agricultural Economics, 62(3), 655-668.
Rozin, P., Riklis. J., & Margolis L. (2004). Mutual exposure or close peer
relationships do not seem to foster increased similarity in food, music or television program preferences. Appetite 2004(42), 41–48.
Schifferstein, H. N. J. & Oude Ophuis, P. A. M. (1997). Health related-determinants or organic food consumption in the Netherlands, Food Quality and Preference 9(3), 119-135.
Schuldt, J. P., & Schwarz, N. (2010). The ‘organic’ path to obesity? Organic claims influence calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision
24
Shiv, B., Carmon, Z., & Ariely, D. (2005). Placebo effects of marketing actions: Consumers may get what they pay for. Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 383–393. Sörqvist, P., Hedblom, D., Holmgren, M., Haga, A., Langeborg, L., Nöstl, A., & Kågström, J. (2013). Who Needs Cream and Sugar When There Is Eco-Labeling? Taste and Willingness to Pay for “Eco-Friendly” Coffee. Plos ONE, 8(12), Stratton J., & Werner M. (2013). Consumer behavior analysis of fair trade coffee: evidence from field research. Psychological Record 63(2), 363–374.
Sustainable Development Commission (2008).
www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/ GreenHealthyAndFair.pdf.
Teuer, R., (2006). Do organic fruit and vegetables taste better than conventional fruits and vegetables? State of Science Review, 1–2.
WCED (1987). Our Common Future, (the Brundtland Report). United Nations. Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A means end approach. British Food Journal, 104(8), 643–653.
Zander, K., Stolz, H., & Hamm, U. (2013). Promising ethical arguments for product differentiation in the organic food sector. A mixed methods research approach.
Appetite, 62133-142.
Zepeda, L., & Li, J. (2007). Characteristics of organic food shoppers. Journal of
25
8.
Appendices
8.1 Output with manipulation check
One-Sample Test Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Difference Lower Upper 56.200 60 .000 76.180 73.47 78.89 Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N 0 0.80 EUR 28 Checked_Price 1 1.20 EUR 33 0 No Label 32 Checked_Label 1 Fair Trade 29 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Taste_Rating
Checked_Price Checked_Label Mean Std. Deviation N
No Label 77.25 12.407 16 Fair Trade 70.33 9.277 12 0.80 EUR Total 74.29 11.521 28 No Label 76.75 11.958 16 Fair Trade 78.76 6.969 17 1.20 EUR Total 77.79 9.610 33 No Label 77.00 11.989 32 Fair Trade 75.28 8.912 29 Total Total 76.18 10.587 61
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Taste_Rating
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 547.291a 3 182.430 1.683 .181
Intercept 343874.458 1 343874.458 3172.825 .000
26 Checked_Label 89.944 1 89.944 .830 .366 Checked_Price * Checked_Label 298.586 1 298.586 2.755 .102 Error 6177.725 57 108.381 Total 360735.000 61 Corrected Total 6725.016 60
27 8.2 Output without manipulation check
One-Sample Test Test Value = 0
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean
Difference Lower Upper 64.735 87 .000 76.318 73.97 78.66 Between-Subjects Factors Value Label N 0 0.80 EUR 42 Price 1 1.20 EUR 46 0 No Label 43 Label 1 Fair Trade 45 Descriptive Statistics Dependent Variable: Taste_Rating
Price Label Mean Std. Deviation N
No Label 75.80 11.981 20 Fair Trade 75.32 11.680 22 0.80 EUR Total 75.55 11.681 42 No Label 75.17 12.048 23 Fair Trade 78.87 8.657 23 1.20 EUR Total 77.02 10.540 46 No Label 75.47 11.877 43 Fair Trade 77.13 10.286 45 Total Total 76.32 11.059 88
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Dependent Variable: Taste_Rating
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 207.205a 3 69.068 .556 .646
Intercept 510515.290 1 510515.290 4110.001 .000
28 Label 56.623 1 56.623 .456 .501 Price * Label 95.670 1 95.670 .770 .383 Error 10433.886 84 124.213 Total 523194.000 88 Corrected Total 10641.091 87
29 8.3 Questionnaire
___________________________________________________________________________
Please fill in your SONA number: ________________________________
// Please closely inspect the attached pictures (previous page) where you see two chocolate bars, and try to memorize the different features on the pictures. You will be quizzed during a later point of this experiment, so we can see whether you memorized the pictures correctly. // Now please taste the piece of Cadbury chocolate (you have just evaluated the packaging of this chocolate; it was presented on the picture on the bottom right).
1. Please rate the taste of this piece of chocolate on a scale from 0 to 100, where a higher number denotes a better taste:
___________________
I found the taste to be …
30
Very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all
3. Sour:
Very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all
4. Bitter:
Very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all
5. Salty:
Very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all
6. Favorable texture:
Very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all
7. Good feeling after consumption:
Very 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all
On the next page you will find 16 values. Behind each value there is a short explanation concerning the meaning of the value. You have to rate how important each value is for you AS A GUIDING PRINCIPLE IN YOUR LIFE.
The rating scale is as follows:
0 means the value is not important at all; it is not relevant as a guiding principle in your life 3 means the value is important
6 means the value is very important
-1 means the value is opposed to the principles that guide you
7 means the value is of supreme importance as a guiding principle in your life; ordinarily there are no more than two such values
31 O pp os ed to m y v al ue s N ot i m po rta nt Important Ve ry im po rta nt O f s up re m e i m po rta nc e
8. EQUALITY: equal opportunity for all -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. RESPECTING THE EARTH: harmony
with other species -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. SOCIAL POWER: control over others,
dominance -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
11. PLEASURE: joy, gratification of desires -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. UNITY WITH NATURE: fitting into
nature -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
13. A WORLD AT PEACE: free of war and
conflict -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
14. WEALTH: material possessions, money -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
15. AUTHORITY: the right to lead or
command -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
16. SOCIAL JUSTICE: correcting injustice,
care for the weak -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
17. ENJOYING LIFE: enjoying food, sex,
leisure, etc. -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
18. PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT:
preserving nature -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
19. INFLUENTIAL: having an impact on
people and events -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20. HELPFUL: working for the welfare of
others -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
21. PREVENTING POLLUTION: protecting
natural resources -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
22. SELF-INDULGENT: doing pleasant
things -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
23. AMBITIOUS: hard-working, aspiring -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
32 8.4 Debriefing
Cookies and More…. – Debriefing Document
Finally, we would like to quiz you to check whether you have memorized the pictures correctly: What was the price of the Cadbury chocolate?
A. 0.80 Euros B. 1.20 Euros
Was there a Fair Trade label on the packaging of the Cadbury chocolate?
A. Yes
B. No
The above-mentioned are the last questions on the chocolate-part of the experiment. This was done to test how you would rate the taste based on extrinsic cues such as packaging/labels and price. More specific: fair trade label vs. normal label and normal priced vs. premium priced. You were a participant in one of these four conditions. Frankly, all participants tasted the same (non Fair Trade) Albert Heijn private brand, but with different packaging and/or prices.
(…)
(…)
