Consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the organic
nature of a product:
The effect of type of organic labeling, product category and consumer’s
level of environmental concern
Laura Baars
Graduation date: 22-06-2015
MSc Marketing: Marketing Management University of Groningen
2
Consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the organic
nature of a product:
The effect of type of organic labeling, product category and consumer’s
level of environmental concern
Author: Laura Baars
Student number: S2577240
Address: Grote Kromme Elleboog 8c 9712 BK Groningen Email: laurabaars@hotmail.com
Telephone number:+31 (0) 621 910 025
1st supervisor: Dr. J.A. Voerman 2nd supervisor: Dr. J. van Doorn
University: University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business - Department Marketing Master Thesis MSc Marketing, Marketing Management
3
Management summary
A growing interest in healthy food products has made organic food very popular among consumers. This is because of the fact that organic food is perceived as healthier than conventional food. Although there is an increased interest in organic food products, the organic food market is characterized by distrust. This distrust relates to the concern
consumers have about believing labeled organic products to be really organic. Furthermore, consumers are very dependent on the organic labeling on packages to see if a product is organic. Organic labeling consists of labels/logo’s and the word ‘’organic’’ placed on the package. So, organic labeling plays a crucial role in forming the trust consumers have
regarding organic food. As a result, the European Commission implemented a mandatory EU label that must be placed on each pre-packed organic food product that is produced in the EU. This EU label guarantees that the product is produced according to organic standards.
Therefore, this new mandatory EU label may improve the trust consumers have in organic labeling. This study examines the effect of different types of organic labeling on the consumers perceived emotional trust in the organic food product. Put differently, does the consumer believe the product really is organic dependent on the type of organic labeling. More specific, this study investigates the effect from the EU label, the voluntary/regional Dutch EKO label and the word ‘’organic’’ on the consumer’s perceived emotional trust. The effect of the three types of organic labeling is examined separately for vice and virtue organic products.
Next to the effects being examined separately for vice and virtue products, consumer’s level of environmental concern is taken into account as moderator. Since organic food production is beneficial for the environment, level of environmental concern could play a role in consumers their attitude towards organic labeling.
4
Preface
After finishing my study of Nutrition and Dietetics, I started with my Pre-MSc Marketing two years ago. I believe the master Marketing will be a good addition to my role as nutritionist. Food is essential in human their lives and is nowadays becoming more and more a subject of interest among consumers. I hope I can combine my knowledge of nutrition and marketing to help consumers make healthy food choices.
5
Table of Content
1 Introduction ... 7
1.1 Background ... 7
1.2 Organic food market ... 8
1.3 Trust in organic food ... 9
1.4 Effect of labeling on trust ... 10
1.5 Development organic labeling ... 11
1.6 Vice versus virtue ... 11
1.7 Problem statement and research questions ... 12
1.7.1 Research questions ... 13
1.8 Academic relevance ... 13
1.9 Outline of thesis ... 13
2 Theoretical framework ... 14
2.1 Influence of type of organic labeling on consumer’s perceived trust ... 14
2.1.1 Mandatory EU label vs. voluntary/regional label ... 14
2.1.2 Label versus word ‘’organic’’ ... 15
2.1.3 Vice versus virtue product category ... 16
2.2 Moderating role of consumer’s level of environmental concern ... 17
2.3 Conceptual framework ... 18
3 Research Design ... 19
3.1 Experimental design ... 19
3.1.1 Conditions experimental design ... 19
3.2 Participants ... 21
3.2.1 Procedure ... 22
3.3 Operationalization ... 22
3.3.1 Dependent variable ... 25
3.3.2 Manipulation checks ... 26
3.3.3 Manipulation check type of organic labeling ... 26
3.3.4 Manipulation check product category ... 26
3.3.5 Trustworthiness ... 27
3.3.6 Moderating variable: Consumer’s level of environmental concern ... 27
3.4 T-tests manipulation check product category ... 27
3.5 Control analyses data ... 28
3.5.1 Results for respondents who noticed the organic label ... 28
3.5.2 Results for control questions familiarity and trustworthiness ... 29
6
4 Results ... 32
4.1 Results for perceived emotional trust ... 32
4.2 Main analyses ... 34
4.3 Additional analyses ... 38
4.3.1 Regression base EKO and word organic ... 38
4.3.2 Additional analyses on respondents who did see organic label ... 39
4.4 Summary of results ... 42
5 Conclusion ... 44
5.1 Discussion of findings ... 44
5.2 Managerial implications ... 46
5.3 Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 47
6 References ... 49
7
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
People are nowadays increasingly health consciousness (Wier & Calvery, 2002). As a result, there is a growing interest in healthy food products from consumer and marketer side
(Wansink et. al, 2004). Because of this growing interest in healthy foods, organic food
products have become very popular among consumers, as organic food products are perceived as healthier than conventional products by consumers (Pearson et. al, 2010). Organic food products are produced according to predefined standards, i.e. the specific product is produced without pesticides, herbicides, inorganic fertilizers, antibiotics and growth hormones
(Honkanen et. al, 2006). Moreover, animal welfare is taken into consideration and bioengineering and genetically modified foods are not accepted (Honkanen et. al, 2006). Thus, ‘’organic’’ refers to the way a product is produced. This organic production has the goal to produce food while establishing an ecological balance (FAO, 2015). Organic food products carry an organic label, which is a certification that ensures the consumer the product is
produced according to the organic standards. Since 2010, there is a mandatory EU label for all pre-packed organic food products (see figure 1).
FIGURE 1: European organic label
But before this mandatory EU label, there were many voluntary and regional organic
certification labels. There is for example the German Bio-Spiegel label, the Dutch EKO and Demeter label, the Belgian Biogarantie label or the British Soil Association label (see figure 2).
8 These labels could be added on the packaging before the implementation of the mandatory EU label and still can be added on the packaging alongside the mandatory EU label. To sum up, healthy food products, such as organic food products, are increasingly popular among consumers. These organic food products carry an organic label, the mandatory EU label, to ensure that the product is organic.
1.2 Organic food market
The organic food market is especially interesting since the global organic food sector has grown substantially and is seen as the biggest growth market in the food industry (Baker et. al, 2004; Hughner et. al, 2007). This growth of and growing interest in the organic food market has triggered many companies to offer organic food (Bauer et. al, 2013). Organic food considers the environment. Nowadays, one of the global challenges is the climate change which induces the protection of the long-term collective welfare of our population.
Sustainable consumption, such as organic food, can help achieve this goal (Larceneux et. al, 2012). As a result, the organic label has gained high recognition in Western economies. Nonetheless, organic food still represents a small part of the total food consumption
(Larceneux et. al, 2012). More studies confirm the growing interest in organic products, but state the market is still very slim in comparison to the overall market (Hughner et. al, 2007; Wier & Calvery, 2002). According to Roddy et. al (1994), there is a gap between people’s attitude and purchase behavior concerning organic food: Consumers have a positive attitude toward organic food, but do not have the intentions to purchase it. Therefore, it is relevant to investigate how this gap can be overcome.
Prior studies in the area of organic food mainly examined the typical organic consumer, purchase motivations or the reasons why consumers fail to purchase organic food products. Firstly, the typical organic consumer is female (Davies et. al, 1995), has children (Thompson & Kidwell, 1998), is on average older, has a high income and is college educated (Ngobo, 2010). The typical organic consumer also has a certain level of greenness. The level of greenness represents the amount of concern with the physical environment of the consumer (Shrum et. al, 1995).
9 Thirdly, high prices, limited availability, satisfaction with conventional food or lack of
perceived value are barriers to purchasing organic food. A last and striking barrier to
purchasing organic food is lack of trust in the organic label (Davies et. al, 1995; Fotopoulos & Krystallis, 2002; Magnusson et. al, 2001; Zanoli et. al, 2004).
In summary, organic food is gaining a prominent spot in the food market. Nevertheless, consumers seem to be inhibited to purchase organic food products, for various reasons among which the lack of trust. This is the topic of this study.
1.3 Trust in organic food
Wier & Calvery (2002) state trust in organic labels is very important, as lack of trust is one of the barriers to purchasing organic food. Padel & Foster (2005) confirm there is a lot of
mistrust of organic food in regular supermarkets, i.e. the doubt as to whether something labeled as organic really is organic. This is a result of consumer’s their opinion that organic food is not compatible with regular supermarkets. They believe real organic food can only be sold at special organic supermarkets (Padel & Foster, 2005). Aarset et. al (2004) also state that consumers mistrust the organic food sector because of cynicism about the motives of the food industry and skepticism about independent certifiers and/or the government’s role. Like previous mentioned, organic food products carry an organic label. This label is a certification which communicates to the consumers the product is produced according to organic standards. Yet, organic products are credence goods (Wirth et. al, 2011). Consumers seldom learn product attributes of credence goods (Keller, 2013). This implies that only the producer really knows whether the product is exactly organic. The organic characteristics are not detectable by the consumer even after purchase and use of product (Giannakas, 2002). These results are in line with findings of Golan et. al (2001) that consumers are not able to visually separate organic food from conventional food. Hence, consumers only have the information available on the packaging to see if the product is organic. But, an interesting finding is that consumers usually have limited opportunity and motivation to process all the information available on the packaging when they shop in a supermarket (Petty et. al, 1983). This results in consumers performing superficial information processing at supermarket shopping (Petty et. al, 1983). This is also in line with the findings of Higginson et.al (2002) that most consumers only have a quick look at nutrition information and do not process the information completely at the point of purchase.
10 organic consumers and are the only resource consumers can use to see if a product is organic. Thus, organic labeling plays a key part in the trust of consumers regarding the organic food market. Organic labeling must be clear and visible since consumers seem to fully rely on it but do not take the time to fully comprehend it at point of purchase.
1.4 Effect of labeling on trust
So, consumers mistrust the organic food market and organic labeling is an important factor that influences this trust. Research shows consumers have little knowledge about organic labeling: Janssen & Hamm (2011) investigate the awareness and perception of several organic certification schemes consisting of different organic labels. They show that the overall
consumer knowledge of organic labels is low. Moreover, a study among Swedish consumers shows that they find it difficult to distinguish between the many types of food labeling they come across during shopping and that some consumers even perceive non-organic food labels as denoting organic foods (Magnusson et. al, 2001).
Moreover, organic labeling does not only consist of labels. Organic labeling can also include the word ‘’organic’’ on a packaging. According to Padel & Foster (2005) using the word organic on the packaging can also influence the consumer. TSN performed a study in the UK on how consumers identify organic products. Their results showed that more than half of the consumers look for the word organic on a label (SA, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004). This implies that consumers attach must value to the word organic. Furthermore, Mintel (2000) stated that the best known brand in the UK is likely to be the word ‘’organic’’ itself rather than the organic labels on a packaging.
From these results, the mistrust consumers have in organic labeling can be linked to emotional trust. Emotional trust is based on the emotions of the consumer. As oppose to cognitive trust, emotional trust is not knowledge driven (Johnson & Grayson, 2005). Since consumers seem to have low knowledge of organic labeling and do not fully process all information on a packaging, they form their inferences based on emotions. Thus, consumer’s emotional trust in organic labeling is very important.
11 1.5 Development organic labeling
The new mandatory EU label is implemented to improve the trust among consumers in the organic food market. This makes you wonder if this label is indeed more trustworthy than previous voluntary/regional labels.
The mandatory EU label must be on each pre-packed organic food product that is produced in the EU (Janssen & Hamm, 2011). The regulation is implemented in the same way in all EU member states. This means the same minimum standards and certification procedures apply for each product. Moreover, the new mandatory EU label will probably gain consumer awareness relatively rapidly, since all pre-packed organic food products must carry the label. Therefore, this new mandatory EU label may improve the trust consumers have in organic labeling. This is also one of the main goals stated by the European Commission: The
mandatory EU label is a fast and easy way to for consumers to identify the product is organic. In addition, it is an important step in guaranteeing consumers the specific product really is organic and is produced according to the defined standards (European Commission, 2014). In conclusion, this new regulation of the mandatory EU label raises the question of whether this label indeed induces more feelings of trust among consumers. In other words, the effect of the mandatory EU label as oppose to a voluntary/regional label. Likewise, the word ‘’organic’’ on the packaging is also a form of organic labeling. It seems this word is a clear and easy cue for consumers to see if the product is organic.
Therefore, this study will be investigating the effect of different type of organic labeling on consumer’s emotional trust.
1.6 Vice versus virtue
12 products are the more unhealthy food products (Mishra & Mishra, 2011). This could lead to the assumption that organic claims and health perceptions are more compatible with virtue food products than vice food products. Therefore, organic claims could have a more positive influence on the health perceptions of virtue food products as oppose to vice food products (Doorn, van & Verhoef, 2011). This leads to the question of whether organic labeling also has a different effect on trust among virtue versus vice products. Therefore, these different
perceptions on vice and virtue products are a good reason to examine these two categories separately in this study.
1.7 Problem statement and research questions
Consumers are increasingly paying attention to their health which leads to an interest in healthy food products. Moreover, consumers are more concerned with the environment. Therefore, there is a growing interest in organic food products since these are perceived as healthier than conventional products and benefit the environment. Despite this growing interest in organic food, the organic food market is still remarkably small. Hence, knowing how consumers are more inclined to purchase organic food products is essential. It seems that consumer’s purchase behavior regarding organic products is very dependent on the organic labeling on the packaging. However, consumers seem to have lost their trust in organic labeling. Organic labeling consists of organic labels and the word ‘’organic’’ on the
13 This results in the following problem statement:
How does type of organic labeling on the packaging of an organic food product affect the perceived emotional trust in the food product (the fact that it is organic) among vice versus virtue products and how is this moderated by the consumer’s level of environmental concern?
1.7.1 Research questions
In order to answer the problem statement, several research questions have been formulated: 1. What is the effect of type of organic labeling on perceived trust in the food product? 2. What is the effect of type of organic labeling on perceived trust in the food product in a vice versus virtue product category?
3. How does consumer’s level of environmental concern moderate the relationship between type of organic labeling and consumer’s perceived trust in the food product?
1.8 Academic relevance
The organic food market is growing substantially and many companies are participating in the organic food market. But, consumers have lost their trust in organic labeling. This mistrust is a big barrier for consumers to purchase organic food. This study explores several organic labeling options to find out which one results in the highest perceived trust of whether the product really is organic. No research on this area is available yet in the literature and it is especially important to find out if the mandatory EU label has the desired effect. For this reason, this study begins to fill the gap on this research area.
1.9 Outline of thesis
14
2 Theoretical framework
Chapter 2 concentrates on the available literature on organic labeling in scientific journals. Subsequently, a conceptual framework will be presented based on the results. This conceptual framework represents the guideline for the rest of the research.
2.1 Influence of type of organic labeling on consumer’s perceived trust
The three type of labeling that will be researched in this study are: The mandatory EU label, a voluntary/regional label and the word ‘’organic’’. The mandatory EU label is introduced in 2010. So, the label has had quite some time to create awareness and familiarity. Furthermore, this effect is even more enlarged since all organic EU pre-packed food products must carry the label. The mandatory EU label is much more seen by consumers than previous
voluntary/regional labels in this way. In addition, the mandatory EU label and a voluntary regional label can be seen as a visual/pictorial display. On the other hand, the word organic can be seen as a verbal description.
2.1.1 Mandatory EU label vs. voluntary/regional label
It is shown that repeated exposure to, among other things, words, slogans, abstract drawings and pictures, enhances positive affect toward these mentioned stimuli. This result is similar to the finding of Janiszewski (1993) that mere exposure to a brand name or product package can motivate consumers to establish a more favorable attitude toward the brand. This even holds when consumers cannot remember the initial exposure. Applying these theories to organic labeling implies consumers will have more favorable attitudes toward the mandatory EU label because they have been more exposed to this label as oppose to the voluntary/regional label. Subsequently, since consumers are more exposed to the mandatory EU label, they are getting also more familiarized with the label. Herrera & Blanco (2011) examined how consumer’s familiarity with a food product with a protected denomination of origin (PDO) influences consumer behavior. They show more familiarized consumers will have greater trust in the PDO of a specific food product. This in turn has a positive effect on loyalty and purchase intention. This PDO can be compared to the organic label. Therefore, since consumers are more familiarized with the mandatory EU label than the voluntary/regional labels, they will trust the mandatory EU label more.
15 expertise of the European Commission. Hence, consumers acknowledge this expertise and this induces more trust.
In conclusion, the mandatory EU label has more exposure and familiarity than the
voluntary/regional labels which leads to more favorable attitudes. This results in more trust toward the label. Lastly, it is expected that consumers associate the mandatory EU label with expertise. This expertise leads to greater trust among consumers.
H1. The presence of the mandatory EU label on the packaging of an organic food product has a positive effect on consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the food product, compared to a voluntary/regional label: the perceived emotional trust in the food product is higher for the mandatory label than for a voluntary/regional label.
2.1.2 Label versus word ‘’organic’’
Holbrook & Moore (1981) examined the effect of verbal descriptions versus pictorial displays. The study shows that pictorial displays give a more holistic and integrative focus than verbal descriptions. This leads to a more global view on the product.
Also, Smith (1991) shows that pictures have a strong effect on consumers. Pictures are the basis both for beliefs about attributes for which obvious claims are made as well as for conclusions about other attributes. Examples of these attributes are product safety or reliability. Thus, consumer’s conclusions are very visually dependent.
16 consumers do not have emotional trust, cognitive trust alone is not sufficient to account for how consumers make decisions about whether to trust or not (Komiak & Benbasat, 2006). Thereby, organic labels are more inclined to increase the perceived trust as oppose to verbal advertisements such as the word ‘’organic’’.
To conclude, pictorial displays, such as organic labels, are more significant in consumer’s mindset than verbal descriptions, such as the word organic. Besides, research shows
emotional trust is very important in adoption behavior of consumers. Organic labels seem to be more prone to activate emotional responses than the word organic. Thus, consumers perceived trust is greater for the mandatory EU label and voluntary/regional label than the word organic on the packaging.
H2. The presence of the mandatory EU label on the packaging of an organic food product has a positive effect on consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the food product, compared to the word ‘’organic’’: the perceived emotional trust in the food product is higher for the
mandatory label than for the word ‘’organic’’.
H3. The presence of a voluntary/regional label on the packaging of an organic food product has a positive effect on consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the food product, compared to the word ‘’organic’’: the perceived emotional trust in the food product is higher for the voluntary/regional label than for the word ‘’organic’’.
2.1.3 Vice versus virtue product category
Doorn van & Verhoef (2011) showed that the willingness to pay for organic products varies between vice and virtue products. Consumers have a higher willingness to pay for virtue organic products than for vice organic products. This is due to consumers associating organic claims with lower quality in vice product categories. This also leads to virtue organic products being more popular than organic vice product categories. Furthermore, consumers seem to associate organic products at first with vegetables and fruit. Organic fruit and vegetables are most of the time the only organic products consumers purchase (Padel & Foster, 2005). Besides, the willingness to pay for organic fruit and vegetables is higher than for other organic products (Krytallis & Chryssohoidis, 2005).
17 consuming a vice product instead of a virtue product. This is because of the two opposite goals of vice versus virtue food products: Short term pleasure gratification with vice products versus long term health preservation with virtue products (Wansink & Chandon, 2006). So, since virtues are more healthier than vices, they are guilt reducing and therefore are easier to justify (Botti & McGill, 2011). The increasing difficulty of justifying a consumption of a vice product leads to more inner conflict. Korsgaard & Brodt (2002) state that conflicts can have a negative effect on building a trusting relationship. This implies that conflict is negatively correlated to trust.
To sum up, consumers appear to link organic vice products to inner conflict and lower quality than organic virtue products. This inner conflict arises from consuming a vice product. This inner conflict poses a threat to trust. In addition, consumers primarily relate organic products with virtue products. This could imply consumers perceive virtue products as more true organic products instead of vice products. Therefore, it is expected that consumers will have more trust in virtue food products being really organic than organic vice products. Thus, consumer’s perceived trust of organic labeling is also higher with organic virtue products than organic vice products.
H4a. A virtue product category has a positive effect on consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the organic food product, compared to a vice product category: the perceived emotional trust in the food product is higher for virtue than for vice products.
H4b. The type of product category moderates the effect of organic labeling on the perceived emotional trust in the organic food product. Organic labeling has a more positive effect on perceived emotional trust in the food product for virtue products compared to vice products. 2.2 Moderating role of consumer’s level of environmental concern
Consumers differ in their level of health consciousness and greenness. Level of greenness is linked to how ‘’pro-environmental’’ (concern for the environment) the consumer is. Concern for the environment is after concern for health an important motivational driver for purchasing organic food. Furthermore, persons who buy green products consider themselves as opinion leaders, have an interest in new products and are actively exchanging product information. In addition, they are careful in their shopping habits. Moreover, the green/pro-environmental consumer is an information seeker. This means that they want to seek information about the product by means of actively exchanging product information or pay close attention to
green/pro-18 environmental consumer is a careful and thoughtful consumer. The green/pro-environmental consumer pays attention to detail and wants to be well informed. The greener the consumer is, the higher the level of environmental concern. Therefore, it is expected that a higher level of environmental concern of the consumer results in more knowledge of organic labeling. Hence, the consumer has more trust in organic food products.
H5.Organic labeling will have a more positive effect on perceived emotional trust in the organic food product the higher the level of environmental concern is.
2.3 Conceptual framework
Figure 3 illustrates the conceptual framework developed, based on the literature assessed in the previous sections. This model will help answering the problem statement of what the effect is of different type of organic labeling on the perceived emotional trust among
consumers. Moreover, consumer’s level of environmental concern and product category are hypothesized to moderate this relationship.
FIGURE 3: Conceptual framework of the effect of different types of organic labeling on consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the organic food product
Perceived Emotional Trust In the Food Product PT
19
3 Research Design
In this chapter the research design will be presented. Firstly, the research method will be discussed. Secondly, the data collection method will be explained. Thirdly, the
operationalization of the independent-, dependent- and moderating variables are explored. Subsequently, this will be presented in a measurement overview. Lastly, a plan of analysis will be included. The research question that is answered by this study is:
How does type of organic labeling on the packaging of an organic food product affect the perceived emotional trust in the food product (the fact that it is organic) among vice versus virtue products and how is this moderated by the consumer’s level of environmental concern?
3.1 Experimental design
To test the formulated hypotheses, a 3 (type of labeling: mandatory EU label vs.
voluntary/regional label vs. word ‘’organic’’) x 2 (product category: vice vs. virtue) between subject experimental design was used within this study (see table 1). All measurements were measured through a survey. The treatment conditions were six different versions of the survey: Mandatory EU label/vice, voluntary-regional label/vice, word organic/vice, mandatory EU label/virtue, voluntary-regional label/virtue and word organic/virtue. Each respondent is randomly assigned to a treatment condition and is only exposed to one treatment condition.
TABLE 1: Experimental design
Type of labeling
Product category
Vice Virtue
Mandatory EU label Mandatory EU label Voluntary/regional label Voluntary/regional label Word ‘’organic’’ Word ‘’organic’’
3.1.1 Conditions experimental design
Type of organic labeling was manipulated as the presence of the mandatory EU label, the voluntary/regional label or the word ‘’organic’’ on the packaging of a food product. In order to find the appropriate voluntary/regional label, a pre-test was conducted. In order to research the effect of the type of organic labeling on the perceived emotional trust, the participants must have at least some familiarity with the voluntary/regional label. The pre-test was used to examine which Dutch voluntary/regional label had the most familiarity among Dutch
20 100 points. The participants had to allocate 100 points between the two labels. The more familiar a participant was with a certain label, the higher amount of points this label received. A total of 29 participants took part in the pre-test. The EKO label proofed to be the most familiar voluntary/regional label among Dutch consumers (see appendix B). The EKO label had a total of 2610 points versus the Demeter label with 290 points. So, the chosen label to represent the voluntary/regional label was the Dutch EKO label.
The chosen vice/virtue products were chocolate chip cookies and a smoothie (see table 2). The reason for this choice was because the chocolate chip cookies clearly portray the characteristics of a vice product: A direct sense of pleasure while being unhealthy. The smoothie on the other hand shows characteristics of a virtue product: Less satisfying than a vice product, but beneficial for the health. Moreover, chocolate chip cookies were also used in the study of Mishra & Mishra (2011) to represent a vice product. For their virtue category, Mishra & Mishra (2011) used a fruit salad. However, since most consumers at first associate organic products with fruit and vegetables, the fruit salad was not used in this study. This could be a too obvious organic choice for consumers and thus could bias the results.
21 TABLE 2: Six conditions of experimental design
Product category
Vice: cookies Virtue: smoothie
Ty
pe
o
f o
rg
a
n
ic l
a
be
li
n
g
EU label Packaging carries mandatory
EU label
Packaging carries mandatory EU label
EKO label Packaging carries EKO label Packaging carries EKO
label
Word ‘’ organic’’ Packaging carries word organic
(Dutch: biologisch)
Packaging carries word organic (Dutch: biologisch)
3.2 Participants
22 TABLE 3: Descriptive statistics participants
Variable Results
Gender Male: 53 (33,5%) participants
Female: 105 (66,5%) participants
Age Range: 15-78 years
M: 38 years SD: 18 years
Degree Secondary school: 19 participants (12,0%)
LBO: 1 participant (0,6%) MBO: 16 participants (10,1%) HBO 60 participants (38,0%) WO: 62 participants (39,2%)
Income Under modal: 85 participants (53,8%)
Modal: 35 participants (22,2%) Above modal: 38 participants (24,1%)
3.2.1 Procedure
Participants were approached via an online survey distributed by Facebook and e-mail. The survey was distributed in Dutch since most of the respondents were from Dutch origin. The participants were randomly assigned to a version of the survey. There were no specific demographics required. If they agreed to participate, the survey could be filled in through a provided link. The survey started with a general introduction. After this, participants were exposed to either a vice or a virtue product that featured either a mandatory EU label, a voluntary/regional label (EKO label) or the word organic on the packaging. Participants were asked to rate the pictured product on perceived emotional trust (dependent variable) by means of 3questions. With regard to the product category, a manipulation check was conducted. The reason for this manipulation check was to see if the participants actually perceived the used products chocolate chip cookies as vice and a smoothie as virtue. In the manipulation check, participants were asked to rate the food product on how harmful they would be for your health (Cornil et. al, 2014) and how gratifying they were. Subsequently, the participants answered questions that measured their level of environmental concern. Moreover, several control – and demographical questions needed to be answered. Finally, the participants were thanked for their participation in the survey. The English and Dutch version of the survey can be found in appendix A.
3.3 Operationalization
24 TABLE 4a: Measurement overview
Variable Source Items Scale Cronbach’s alpha &
Factor analysis Perce ived trus t in the food p rodu ct t hat is organi c Komiak & Bensabat, 2006 α = 0.95
1. I feel secure about relying on this product to be organic.
2. I feel comfortable about relying on this product to be organic. 3. I feel content about relying on this product to be organic. 7-point Likert scale 1 = Strongly disagree 7 = Strongly agree α = 0.935 Eigenvalue = 2,658 Variance explained = 88,610% KMO = 0,749 Chi-squared = 417,754 p-value = 0.00 Manipulation check Produ ct cat egor y vi ce vs. vi rt u e Cornil et. al, 2014
1. Rate the displayed product on the following scales. 9-point semantic scale 1 = Very harmless to one’s health 9 = Very harmful to one’ health 7-point semantic scale 1 = Not gratifying 7 = Very gratifying - Moderating variable L eve l o f env iron m en ta l co ncer n Schlegelmil ch et. al, 1996 α = 0.709 and 0.817 1. I choose the environmentally-friendly alternative if one of a similar price is available.
25 Table 4b: Measurement overview control construct familiarity
Control construct familiarity
Fami li ari ty o rgani c l abel ing Bruner, 2009 α = 0.95, 0.80 and 0.94
1. Rate the organic labeling on the following scales. Three 7-point semantic scales 1 = Not at all familiar 7 = Extremely familiar 1 = Definitely do not recognize 7 = Definitely recognize 1 = Definitely have not heard of it before 7 =Definitely have heard of it before EU label α = 0.953 2nd item removed Eigenvalue = 2,440 Variance explained = 81,337% KMO = 0,666 Chi-squared = 354,071 p-value = 0.00 EKO label α = 0.976 2nd item removed Eigenvalue = 2,692 Variance explained = 89,744% KMO = 0,718 Chi-squared = 528,152 p-value = 0.00 Word organic α = 0.966 2nd item removed Eigenvalue = 2,521 Variance explained = 84,029% KMO = 0,680 Chi-squared = 415,985 p-value = 0.00 3.3.1 Dependent variable
The perceived emotional trust of the consumer in whether the food product presented is actually organic was measured via three statements: (1) ‘’I feel secure about relying on this product to be organic’’, (2) ‘’I feel comfortable about relying on this product to be organic’’ and (3) ‘’I feel content about relying on this product to be organic. These statements were derived from the construct and measures by Komiak & Bensabat (2006) and were measured on a 7-point Likert scale anchored by ‘’Strongly disagree’’ (1) and ‘’Strongly agree’’ (7). 3.3.1.1 Reliability analysis
26 3.3.2 Manipulation checks
3.3.3 Manipulation check type of organic labeling
Two manipulation checks were included in the survey regarding the manipulation of type of organic labeling. The first control question included in the survey measured if participants noticed the organic labeling. The second control question included three sub questions where the participants had to rate each type of organic labeling on familiarity. This construct on familiarity consisted of three statements on a 7-point semantic scale: Please indicate how familiar you are with the type of organic label (Bruner, 2009):
(1). ‘’Not at all familiar’’ (1) / ‘’Extremely familiar’’ (7)
(2). ‘’Definitely do not recognize’’ (1) / ‘’Definitely recognize’’ (7)
(3). ‘’Definitely have not heard of it before’’ (1) / ‘’Definitely have heard of it before’’ (7) 3.3.3.1 Reliability analysis
For the reliability analysis, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. The three questions measuring familiarity, show a Cronbach's alpha for respectively EU label, EKO label and the word organic of α = .882, α = .941 and α = .905. These are acceptable values since they are higher than .6. However, Cronbach’s alpha could be higher for all three constructs if the second item was deleted. Therefore, the second item was removed from this construct. This gives higher Cronbach’s alpha values of α = .953 (EU label), α = .976 (EKO label) and α = .966 (word organic).
3.3.4 Manipulation check product category
In order to check that the used products were actually perceived as vice and virtue by the consumer, a manipulation check was included in the survey. This manipulation check consisted of two items that measured participants their perception of healthiness and amount of gratification of the product. In the first item, participants had to rate the product on a 9-point semantic scale anchored by ‘’Very harmless to one's health’’ (1) and ‘’Very harmful to one's health’’ (9) (Cornil et. al, 2014). In the second item, participants had to rate the product on a 7-point semantic scale anchored by ‘’Not gratifying ‘’ (1) and ‘’Very gratifying’’ (7). 3.3.4.1 Reliability analysis
27 3.3.5 Trustworthiness
A control question was included in which participants had to rate how trustworthy each type of organic labeling was. This was measured via a single item ‘’How trustworthy would you rate the displayed label?’’ anchored by ‘’Not at all’’ (1) and ‘’To a great extent’’ (7). 3.3.6 Moderating variable: Consumer’s level of environmental concern
The consumer’s level of environmental concern, pro-environmental behavior, is a summated measure of responses to three purchasing statements, namely: (1) “ I choose the
environmentally-friendly alternative if one of a similar price is available”, (2) “I choose the environmentally-friendly alternative regardless of price” and (3) “ I try to discover the environmental effects of products prior to purchase”. Each item was measured on a 5-point frequency of purchase scale anchored by “Never” (1) and “Always” (5) (Schlegelmilch et. al, 1996). In this study, instead of using the sum of the three responses, the mean of the three responses was used for analyses. The reason for this was to maintain consistency since all other constructs were based on the mean.
3.3.6.1 Reliability analysis
In order to check the internal reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was measured. The three questions measuring level of environmental concern show a Cronbach's alpha of α = .733. But leaving the first item out of the construct gives a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .759. Thus, the first item was removed from this construct.
3.4 T-tests manipulation check product category
28 So, the results show that there is a significant difference between the group who rated the chocolate chip cookies and the group who rated the smoothie. The chocolate chip cookies have a higher mean on perceived healthiness and gratification. This means that they are more perceived as unhealthy and gratifying than the smoothie. Hence, the manipulation was successful.
3.5 Control analyses data
The survey included a control that measured if participants noticed the organic label on the displayed package. In addition, the survey included control questions regarding the familiarity and trustworthiness of the three types of organic labeling. So before the main analysis will be conducted, some control tests are performed on the data.
3.5.1 Results for respondents who noticed the organic label
The survey included a question that measured if participants noticed the organic labeling on the displayed food packaging. A total of 120 respondents noticed the organic label. First, to get an idea of the difference in emotional trust for these respondents and the remaining respondents, the mean emotional trust for each label is calculated for three groups. One group is all respondents, the second group is only the respondents who did see the organic labeling and the third group is only the respondents who did not see the organic labeling.
TABLE 5: Means emotional trust for various groups
Group 1 Mean emotional trust from all respondents
Group 2
Mean emotional trust from respondents who did see the organic labeling
Group 3 Mean emotional trust from respondents who did not see organic labeling EU label M = 3,32 M = 3,60 M = 2,51 EKO label M = 4,18 M = 4,33 M = 2,80 Word organic M = 3,96 M = 4,01 M = 3,88
29 1,53) and for the respondents who did not see the label (M = 3,27, SD = 1,69) (t(156) = 2.533, p = .012). The results indicate that respondents who did see the label have more trust in the organic nature of the displayed product. This is further explored by performing three t-tests that measured if there was a significant difference in emotional trust between the group who noticed the organic labeling and the group who did not notice the organic labeling. These t-test were done separately for the EU label, the EKO label and the word organic. Table 6 provides an overview of the results.
TABLE 6: t-tests noticing conditions
Mean emotional trust respondents who did not notice label
Mean emotional trust respondents who did notice label
t-test
EU label M = 2,51 M = 3,60 t(48) = 2.315, p = .025
EKO label M = 2,80 M = 4,33 t(51) = 2.427, p = .019
Word organic M = 3,88 M = 4,01 t(53) = 0.257, p = .798
As can be seen from table 6, there is a significant difference between the groups for the EU label. Next, there is a significant difference between the groups for the EKO label. Lastly, there is no significant difference between the groups for the word organic. Thus, for the EU and EKO label, respondents who noticed the label on the package have more emotional trust compared to the respondents who did not notice this label.
So, these results form an interesting incentive to perform more analyses on the group who noticed the organic labeling in chapter 4.
3.5.2 Results for control questions familiarity and trustworthiness
The survey contained three control questions that measured how familiar the respondents were with the three types of organic labeling. A paired-samples t-test was conducted to compare the familiarity of each type of organic labeling.
TABLE 7: Paired samples t-test results familiarity
Pair familiarity
EU label - EKO label EU label
M = 2,69 SD = 1,94 EKO label M = 5,54 SD = 1,91 t(157)= -13.701, p = .000 EU label - word organic EU label M = 2,69 SD = 1,94 word organic M = 3,44 SD = 2,18 t(157)= -3.476, p = .001 EKO label - word
30 Firstly, there was a significant difference in the scores for familiarity EU label and familiarity EKO label. Secondly, there was a significant difference in the scores for familiarity EU label and familiarity word organic. Lastly, there was a significant difference in the scores for familiarity EKO label and familiarity word (see table 7). To summarize, the EKO label is much more familiar to the respondents compared to the EU label and the word organic. This is an interesting finding since it was expected that the EU label would be more familiar than the EKO label.
Furthermore, the survey contained a control question that checked how trustworthy each type of organic labeling was. So, a second paired samples t-test was performed to compare the trustworthiness among the three types of organic labeling.
TABLE 8: Paired samples t-tests results trustworthiness
Pair trustworthiness
EU label - EKO label EU label
M = 3,65 SD = 1,66 EKO label M = 5,07 SD = 1,45 t(157)=-8,572, p = .000 EU label - word organic EU label M = 3,65 SD = 1,66 word organic M = 3,78 SD = 1,67 t(157)=-0,842, p = .401 EKO label - word
organic EKO label M = 5,07 SD = 1,45 word organic M = 3,78 SD = 1,67 t(157)=8,372, p = .000
First, there was a significant difference in the scores for the EU label and EKO label. Next, there was no significant difference in the scores for EU label and word organic. Finally, there was a significant difference in the scores for EKO label and word organic (see table 8). Thus, the EKO label is more trustworthy compared to the EU label and the word organic. Again, this is an interesting finding since it was expected that the EU label would be more
trustworthy.
3.6 Plan of analysis
In order to test the hypotheses, data from the online survey was used. This survey was made in Qualtrics. The results were analyzed using the program SPSS.
Since reliability analyses were conducted, it is safe to assume that the items of a construct represent the same construct. Therefore, these items can now be grouped together into one variable. The variables were based on the mean of the responses.
31 voluntary/regional EKO label and word ‘’organic’’) and in different product categories (vice vs. virtue) while taking into account the consumer’s level of environmental concern. Written below is the regression equation.
32
4 Results
Chapter 4 describes the results of the survey on consumer’s perceived emotional trust. Firstly, the results of several analyses on the DV and EV’s will be shown. In addition, the results of the moderated regression with dummy variables will be shown, followed by a detailed discussion of the results of all hypotheses. Lastly, additional analyses will be discussed. 4.1 Results for perceived emotional trust
First, to gain some insights on the dependent variable perceived emotional trust, the mean is calculated for each condition of the experiment. Table 9 provides an overview of the perceived emotional trust for each condition.Figure 4 and 5 provide a graphical representation of these results.
TABLE 9:Overview of means perceived emotional trust
Vice Virtue Overall mean label
EU label M = 3.31 (n= 25) M = 3.33 (n= 25) M = 3.32 (n= 50)
EKO label M = 4.11 (n= 27) M = 4.26 (n= 26) M = 4.18 (n= 53)
Word organic M = 3.60 (n= 29) M = 4.37 (n= 26) M = 3.96 (n= 55)
Overall mean type of product M = 3.68 (n= 81) M = 4.00 (n= 77) Overall mean = 3.83
FIGURE 4: ANOVA plots of means for perceived emotional trust
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
EU label EKO label Word organic
Perceived emotional trust
33 FIGURE 5: ANOVA plots of means for perceived emotional trust
From table 9 and the graphs of figure 4 and 5, it can be seen that perceived emotional trust is higher for the EKO label and word organic than the EU label. Furthermore, for the EU label and EKO label, the difference in emotional trust between a vice and virtue product is not high. But, for the word organic, there is substantial difference in emotional trust for a vice and virtue product. The word organic is more trustworthy on a virtue product than on a vice product.
Next, an ANOVA has been done to have an idea of the main and interaction effects of type of organic labeling and product category. Table 10 provides an overview on the results of the ANOVA.
TABLE 10: Results ANOVA
Variable F-value p-value
Product category (vice versus virtue) 1,609 .207
Type of organic labeling 4,297 .015
Product category*Type of organic labeling 0,884 .415
Overall model 2,387 .041
The ANOVA test shows that there is no difference in the means for emotional trust between the vice and virtue groups (F(1,609) = 3.918, p = .207). This result is also confirmed by the performed independent samples t-test between the vice versus virtue groups on emotional
3 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4 4,2 4,4 4,6 4,8 5
EU label EKO label Word organic
Perceived emotional trust
34 trust (t(156) = 1.250, p = .213).The results however do show a significant difference in means between the three types of organic labeling (F(4.297) = 10.465, p = .015). Lastly, the results of the ANOVA shows that there is no significant interaction effect between product category and type of organic labeling (F(0,884) = 2.153, p = .415). These results suggest that type of organic labeling does have an effect on the perceived emotional trust. But, product category (vice/virtue) does not have an effect on the perceived emotional trust.
Finally, an ANOVA test shows there are differences in the mean of perceived emotional trust between the six conditions (F(2,387) = 5.814, p = .041).
4.2 Main analyses
The main analysis consists of a multiple regression with dummy variables. It must be noted that the EU label was used as base in the regression. Before completing the final model, several models will be estimated at first. However, it is important to mention that multicollinearity can occur during the estimation of the models. Therefore, the Variance Inflation Factors (VIF) are taken into account. A VIF score between 4 and 10 is considered as a moderate level of multicollinearity. However, if the VIF score is greater than 10,
multicollinearity is very strong and the models should be interpreted with some caution. Table 11 is an overview of the components of each regression model.
TABLE 11: Overview regression models
Model 1a Main EV’s (Vice/Virtue, EKO label and word organic) Model 1b Main EV’s and interaction effects EV’s
Model 2a Main EV’s, interaction effects EV’s and direct effect moderator (environmental
concern)
Model 2b Main EV’s, interaction effects EV’s, direct effect moderator and interaction effect
environmental concern*vice/virtue
Model 2c Main EV’s, interaction effects EV’s, direct effect moderator, interaction effect
environmental concern*vice/virtue and interaction effect environmental concern*EKO
Model 2d Main EV’s, interaction effects EV’s, direct effect moderator, interaction effect
35 TABLE 12: Regression results for all models
Model 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 2d (Constant) 3,483*** 3,333*** 3,479*** 3,068*** 3,443*** 4,006*** Vice/Virtue -0,326 n.s. -0,027 n.s. -0,028 n.s. 0,660 n.s. 0,559 n.s. 0,543 n.s. EKO 0,865*** 0,923** 0,900** 0,965** 0,041 n.s. -0,518 n.s. Word organic 0,653** 1,038** 1,046** 1,025** 1,044** -0,129 n.s. Vice/Virtue* EKO -0,119 n.s. -0,103 n.s. -0,182 n.s. -0,239 n.s. -0,233 n.s Vice/Virtue* Word organic -0,747 n.s. -0,747 n.s. -0,713 n.s. -0,718 n.s. -0,709 n.s. Environmental concern -0,061 n.s. 0,110 n.s. -0,046 n.s. -0,280 n.s. Environmental concern*Vice/ Virtue -0,288 n.s. -0,247 n.s. -0,242 n.s. Environmental concern*EKO 0,428 n.s. 0,661* Environmental concern*Word organic 0,477 n.s. R2 0,062 0,073 0,074 0,080 0,093 0,105 R2 Adjusted 0,044 0,042 0,037 0,037 0,044 0,051 F (Sig) 3,394(.020) 2,387(.041) 2,010(.068) 1,871(.078) 1,900(.064) 1,931(.052) n.s. not significant *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01
An overview of the results of the regression can be found in table 12. The first model includes only the main effects of product category and type of organic labeling. The model is overall significant with a p-value of .020 and F = 3,394 and thus appropriate for interpretation. Product category is not significant. The remaining EKO label and the word organic are significant accompanied by a positive coefficient. The results imply that vice versus virtue category does not have an effect on perceived emotional trust. But use of the EKO label or the word organic relative to the EU label produces more perceived emotional trust.
36 significant. In addition, the interaction effects between product category and type of organic labeling are also not significant. However, consistent with the first model, EKO label and word organic are significant and produce a positive coefficient.
The third model includes the direct effect of the moderator environmental concern. This model is overall not significant as can be seen from the p-value of .068 and F-value of 2,010. Therefore, the results of this model cannot be interpreted.
The fourth, fifth and sixth model slowly includes the interaction effects of the moderator environmental concern. All three models are not significant as the p-values of .078, .064 and .052 and F-values of 1,871, 1,900 and 1,931 respectively demonstrate. Hence, the results of the three models cannot be interpreted.
Moreover, VIF scores were also examined for each model. Model 1a, 1b and 2a show a low level of multicollinearity. But, model 2b, 2c and 2d show a moderate/high level of multicollinearity. So, in addition to the models not being significant, interpretation is hampered by multicollinearity.
To conclude, models 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d are not significant at a 95% confidence level, but are at a 90% confidence level. Moreover, models 2b, 2c and 2d present multicollinearity. Since model 1b has a higher R2 than model 1a, model 1b is the best base model for interpretation.
37 TABLE 13: Results ANOVA main analyses
Variable F-value p-value
Product category (vice versus virtue) 2,341 0.128 n.s.
Type of organic labeling 4,998 0.008***
Environmental concern 0,006 0.939 n.s. Vice/Virtue*Label 0,554 0.576 n.s. Vice/Virtue*Environmental concern 0,955 0.330 n.s. Label*Environmental concern 1,223 0.297 n.s. Overall model 1,674 0.100* n.s. not significant *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01
FIGURE 6 : ANOVA Plots
38 4.3 Additional analyses
4.3.1 Regression base EKO and word organic
Since the EU label was used as base in the regression for the main analyses, additional analyses were conducted. These analyses consisted of estimating the base models 1a and 1b (main effects product category and type of organic labeling and interaction effects) whereby EKO label was base and word organic was base.
TABLE 14:Regression results base EKO
Model 1a 1b (Constant) 4,349*** 4,256*** Vice/Virtue -0,326 n.s. -0,145 n.s. EU label -0,865*** -0,923** Word organic -0,213 n.s. 0,115 n.s. Vice/Virtue*EU label 0,119 n.s. Vice/Virtue*Word organic -0,629 n.s. R2 0,062 0,073 R2 Adjusted 0,044 0,042 F (Sig) 3,394 (.020) 2,387 (.041) n.s. not significant *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01
Table 14 provides the results of the regression performed whereby EKO label was used as base. Both models are significant as the p-value of respectively .020 and .041 show. Since model 1b produced a higher R2, this model is used for interpretation. The results show that product category is not significant, which is in line with the previous models. The variable EU label is significant and has a negative coefficient. The variable word organic is not significant. In conclusion, use of the EU label compared to the EKO label has a negative effect on
emotional perceived trust.
TABLE 15: Regression results base word organic
39 Table 15 provides the results of the regression performed whereby word organic was used as base. Both models are significant as the p-value of respectively .020 and .041 show. Since model 1b produced a higher R2, this model is used for interpretation. The results show that product category is significant. This is in line with the graphical representations. The word organic is more trustworthy on a virtue product than on a vice product. The variable EKO label is not significant. The variable EU label is significant accompanied by a negative coefficient. To sum up, use of the EU label compared to the word organic has a negative effect on emotional perceived trust. In addition, the word organic placed on the package of a virtue product induces more emotional trust than placed on a package of a vice product. 4.3.2 Additional analyses on respondents who did see organic label
40 TABLE 16: Regression results for all models (only respondents who did see the organic label)
Model 1a 1b 2a 2b 2c 2d (Constant) 3,772*** 3,667*** 3,510*** 3,217*** 3,382*** 4,347*** Vice/Virtue -0,366 n.s. -0,137 n.s. -0,118 n.s. 0,303 n.s. 0,293 n.s. 0,217 n.s. EKO 0,753** 0,848* 0,866* 0,892* 0,628 n.s. -0,359 n.s. Word organic 0,426 n.s. 0,667 n.s. 0,655 n.s. 0,636 n.s. 0,645 n.s. -1,538 n.s. Vice/Virtue* EKO -0,211 n.s. -0,240 n.s. -0,251 n.s. -0,248 n.s. -0,130 n.s. Vice/Virtue* Word organic -0,492 n.s. -0,518 n.s. -0,449 n.s. -0,430 n.s. -0,354 n.s. Environmental concern 0,066 n.s. 0,166 n.s. 0,120 n.s. -0,286 n.s. Environmental concern*Vice/ Virtue -0,188 n.s. -0,189 n.s. -0,209 n.s. Environmental concern*EKO 0,119 n.s. 0,536 n.s. Environmental concern*Word organic 0,882** R2 0,054 0,058 0,059 0,062 0,063 0,102 R2 Adjusted 0,029 0,016 0,009 0,003 -0,004 0,029 F (Sig) 2,190(0.093) 1,391(0.233) 1,180(0.322) 1,056(0.397) 0,934(0.492) 1,389(0.202) n.s. not significant *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01
41 TABLE 17: Results ANOVA additional analyses (only respondents who did see the organic label)
Variable F-value p-value
Product category (vice versus virtue) 2,438 0.121 n.s.
Type of organic labeling 2,980 0.055*
Environmental concern 0,929 0.337 n.s. Vice/Virtue*Label 0,107 0.898 n.s. Vice/Virtue*Environmental concern 0,352 0.554 n.s. Label*Environmental concern 1,515 0.224 n.s. Overall model 1,239 0.279 n.s. n.s. not significant *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01
The ANOVA model is overall not significant as the p-value of .279 and F = 1,239 demonstrate. Thus this model is not appropriate for interpretation.
Just as in the main analyses, additional analyses of estimating the base models 1a and 1b (main effects product category and type of organic labeling and interaction effects) whereby EKO label was base and word organic was base are conducted.
TABLE 18: Regression results base EKO (only respondents who did see the organic label)
Model 1a 1b (Constant) 4,525*** 4,515*** Vice/Virtue -0,366 n.s. -0,348 n.s. EU label -0,753** -0,848* Word organic -0,327 n.s. -0,182 n.s. Vice/Virtue*EU label 0,211 n.s. Vice/Virtue*Word organic -0,281 n.s. R2 0,054 0,058 R2 Adjusted 0,029 0,016 F (Sig) 2,190(0.093) 1,391(0.233) n.s. not significant *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01
42 TABLE 19: Regression results base word organic (only respondents who did see the organic label)
Model 1a 1b (Constant) 4,198*** 4,333*** Vice/Virtue -0,366 n.s. -0,630 n.s. EKO label 0,327 n.s. 0,182 n.s. EU label -0,426 n.s. -0,667 n.s. Vice/Virtue*EKO label 0,281 n.s. Vice/Virtue*EU label 0,492 n.s. R2 0,054 0,058 R2 Adjusted 0,029 0,016 F (Sig) 2,190(0.093) 1,391(0.233) n.s. not significant *p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01
Both models are not significant as the p-values of .093 and .233 show and thus not appropriate for interpretation.
4.4 Summary of results
43 TABLE 20: Hypothesis Validation
Hypothesis Results
H1. The presence of the mandatory EU label on the packaging of an organic
food product has a positive effect on consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the food product, compared to a voluntary/regional label: the perceived emotional trust in the food product is higher for the mandatory label than for a voluntary/regional label.
Opposite Direction (Sig.)
H2. The presence of the mandatory EU label on the packaging of an organic
food product has a positive effect on consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the food product, compared to the word ‘’organic’’: the perceived emotional trust in the food product is higher for the mandatory label than for the word ‘’organic’’.
Opposite Direction (Sig.)
H3. The presence of a voluntary/regional label on the packaging of an organic
food product has a positive effect on consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the food product, compared to the word ‘’organic’’: the perceived emotional trust in the food product is higher for the voluntary/regional label than for the word ‘’organic’’.
Rejected (Not Sig.)
H4a. A virtue product category has a positive effect on consumer’s perceived
emotional trust in the organic food product, compared to a vice product category: the perceived emotional trust in the food product is higher for virtue than for vice products.
Rejected (Not Sig.)
H4b. The type of product category moderates the effect of organic labeling on
the perceived emotional trust in the organic food product. Organic labeling has a more positive effect on perceived emotional trust in the food product for virtue products compared to vice products.
Rejected (Not Sig.)
H5. Organic labeling will have a more positive effect on perceived emotional
trust in the organic food product the higher the level of environmental concern is.
44
5 Conclusion
This chapter will start with discussing the main findings of this study. As a result, the research question of this study will be answered. Subsequently, the managerial implications of the findings will be explored. Finally, limitations of this study as well as suggestions for further research will be given.
5.1 Discussion of findings
This study had the purpose to examine the effect of different types of organic labeling on the consumer’s perceived emotional trust in the organic food product (the fact that it is organic). This was investigated in two product categories, vice versus virtue food products. The three types of organic labeling that were measured were the mandatory EU label, the
voluntary/regional EKO label and the word ‘’organic’’. It was expected that the EU label would produce the most trust in the organic food product compared to the EKO label and word organic. Moreover, it was expected that the EKO label would be more trustworthy than the word organic. As for the product category, it was assumed that the perceived emotional trust would be higher for virtue food products than for vice food products. These relationships were expected to be moderated by level of environmental concern of the consumer. This meant that consumers with higher levels of environmental concern had more emotional trust in the organic food product. These concepts are tested by means of a between-subject experimental design in which both the type of organic labeling (EU label, EKO label, word organic) and the product category (vice, virtue) were manipulated.
45 market experiences much distrust as to whether all labeled organic food products are indeed organic. So, the EU label was implemented to improve the trust in organic food products among consumers. The contradicting results could imply that the EU label requires more attention. The label is obviously not well-known by the Dutch consumer and therefore not trusted. It could be that five years is not enough time for a label to gain recognition. In this way, the EU label must be present on packages for more years before it can be compared to the EKO label which is already on the market for several years.
Furthermore, it was assumed that both labels, EU label and EKO label, were more trustworthy than the word organic. This was expected because theory indicated that pictorial displays, such as organic labels, are more significant in consumer’s mindset than verbal descriptions, such as the word ‘’organic’’. Yet, the results show the reversed for the EU label. The word organic triggers more emotional perceived trust among consumers than the EU label. A possible explanation for this result could be that the EU label is so unfamiliar to consumers, this unfamiliarity outweighs the effects of pictorial displays versus verbal descriptions. As for the EKO label, the word organic is equal to this label. An explanation could be that length of the word ‘’organic’’ (Dutch: biologisch) plays a crucial part. Walker & Hulme (1999) show that long words are recalled less well than short words. This is due to the simple fact that longer words take more time to say during recollection. This finding is in line with the research of Baddely et. al (1975) that shows shorter words are easier recalled from memory than longer words. These findings indicate that longer words require more cognitive resources than shorter words. Given the earlier theory discussed in this study, cognitive effort can cause feelings of unfamiliarity and novelty. For that reason, these longer words are more prone to generate a negative emotional response. Thus, leading to less perceived emotional trust. The word organic is a relatively short word. As a consequence, this word is more easily processed and requires few cognitive resources. So, this could explain the result of the EKO label not being more trustworthy than the word organic. The relative short word ‘’organic’’ is just as easily to process as the EKO label.
