• No results found

ANTHROPOMORPHISM, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND FRAMING: THE EFFECTS ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "ANTHROPOMORPHISM, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND FRAMING: THE EFFECTS ON WILLINGNESS TO PAY"

Copied!
19
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

ANTHROPOMORPHISM, ENVIRONMENTAL

CONCERN AND FRAMING: THE EFFECTS ON

WILLINGNESS TO PAY

By

Alina Holodova

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

(2)

ABSTRACT

Due to consumers’ growing interest in sustainable products companies seek ways to adapt their operations and product communication.

In this paper, 100 participants expressed their willingness to pay for a sustainably produced soap that featured anthropomorphic messenger, sad or happy, and a frame, positive or negative. It was discovered that consumers are willing to pay the most for the product that combines sad anthropomorphic messenger and negative frame, but sad anthropomorphic condition alone does not influence WTP. Despite expectations, environmental concern did not show any interaction effects.

In conclusion, managerial implications, limitations, and future research directions were suggested.

Key words: anthropomorphism, willingness-to-pay, framing effects, environmental concern, sustainability

Research theme: Befriending my brand – the antecedents and consequences of brand humanization

(3)
(4)

1 INTRODUCTION

Sustainability is one of the main topics of the 21st century. Since climate change discussion became central, UN members have adopted Sustainable Development Goals, institutions and policy makers started pushing for circular economy adoption, and consumers became more interested in companies that reduce their environmental footprint (Tangari, Burton, & Smith, 2015). With each year, people are increasingly adapting their lifestyle and product choices toward sustainable alternatives to help preserve planet’s ecosystem (Nielsen, 2019; Tully & Winer, 2014; Arnot, Boxall, & Cash, 2006). As a result, many companies started to seek ways to introduce sustainable practices to their business operations, products, and services to cater consumers’ preferences while contributing to a greater cause.

Despite the research emphasis on the importance of sustainability in shaping consumers’ attitude, it is still not clear how to effectively communicate sustainable initiatives to increase buying behaviour (Cho, 2015; Olsen, Slotegraaf, & Chandukala, 2014; Wu & Wang, 2014). Extensive literature turns to different solutions, with anthropomorphism among the suggested. Anthropomorphism refers to tendency to prescribe human characteristics to inanimate objects (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007). Multiple studies have suggested that the use of anthropomorphic messengers in advertising yields positive effect on liking, potentially increasing purchase intention (Laksmidewi, Susianto, & Afiff, 2017; Lin & Wang, 2012).

However, current research stream seems to predominantly focus on increasing pro-social behaviour (Ahn, Kim, & Aggarwal, 2014; Corraliza & Berenguer, 2000; Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013), ignoring one of the foundational questions that marketeers try to address – consumers’ willingness to pay. In a recent study, Ketron and Naletelich (2019) attempted to combine anthropomorphism and request to donate for a sustainable product. When anthropomorphic messenger was sad, people perceived it as a profit-seeking marketeer, lowering their willingness to pay. To the best of my knowledge, there were no further attempts to revise and clarify the relationship.

(5)

Knowledge about the effects of combining both elements on consumers purchasing intention might prevent a waste of financial resources.

This study attempts to combine both important for product communication concepts by investigating consumers’ willingness to pay for a sustainable product using happy or sad anthropomorphic messenger paired with a message on environmental impact, framed as gain (positive) or loss (negative). Consumers’ environmental concern will be taken into an account as several findings have concluded that presence of environmental concern elevates willingness to pay for a sustainable product (Royne, Levy, & Martinez, 2011). Sad faces too were found to elevate willingness to pay (Small & Verrochi, 2009). However, it is unknown how presence of framing effects may influence relationship between anthropomorphism and willingness to pay. Therefore, it is important to clarify in what way does presence of environmental concern and framing modify the relationship (see figure 1).

The report begins by discussing literature on concerning constructs, supporting theories, and presents hypotheses. Then, the methodology part covers research procedures and applied techniques. After that, the results from analyses are presented and concluded. The report ends by discussing the findings, limitations, and future research directions.

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

Willingness to Pay (WTP)

(6)

Consumers’ willingness to pay is higher for sustainable products than for conventional products and depends on presented information rather than product’s sensory attributes, meaning that presentation is not as important as product information (Napolitano, Braghieri, Piasentier, Favotto, Naspetti, & Zanoli, 2010). Based on this, we could speculate that framing may have a greater impact than anthropomorphism.

Generally, it is of high significance to determine how much consumers are willing to pay for such products to make them more accessible to wide public simultaneously contributing to a good cause. Managerially, knowledge about willingness to pay, as noted by Schaltegger (2011): “can have a considerable (potentially positive or negative) influence on sales and market acceptance.” Findings can be then translated into set of actions to increase consumers’ purchasing behaviour.

Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Messengers

Anthropomorphism studies investigate humanization of inanimate objects. Extensive bodies of research have classified the domain into three subdomains: anthropomorphism, which takes human-focused perspective and focuses on human-like characteristics of a non-human objects (Guthrie, 1993); self-focused perspective, which investigates connection between oneself and a brand (Mourey, Olson, & Yoon, 2017); and relationship-focused perspective, which analyses human relationship resemblance between brands and a consumer (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). This research investigates the human-focused perspective.

Inclusion of human-like characteristics on an inanimate object can lead to perception that object has similar behaviour and motivation as an individual (Landwehr, McGill, & Herrmann, 2011; Waytz, Epley, & Cacioppo, 2010). Such as, when anthropomorphic messenger – that is, a nonhuman body with human characteristics that communicated a message (Touré-Tillery & McGill, 2015) - appears to be sad or victimized, consumers might feel as much sympathy as towards a real person. Such elicitation of sympathy is an important driver of moral attitudes and pro-social behaviour, including environmental involvement and concern (Carlo, Mestre, Samper, Tur, & Armenta, 2011).

Anthropomorphism and Willingness to Pay

Previous research on relationship between anthropomorphism and willingness to pay has not been extensive.

(7)

product value, that might lead to higher willingness to pay. In a study by Yuan and Dennis (2017) in the context of online auctions, participants were inclined to bid 7% more when an object appeared to have human features. Hence, it can be speculated that anthropomorphic messengers have a positive effect on consumers’ willingness to pay.

Empathy-altruism hypothesis has been tested in the domain of consumer research and has proven that negative emotions increase empathy and willingness to donate (Liang, Chen, & Lei, 2016; Fisher, Vandenbosch, & Antia, 2008). Ketron and Naletelich (2019) tested consumers’ sustainable behaviour by using anthropomorphic messengers. Results showed that sad faces were of more influence on conservation behaviour than control and happy messengers, though the latter being insignificant. Contrary, when donation was requested and messenger appeared sad, respondents felt less compelled to pay and describe it as “profit-seeking marketeer”.

These results let us speculate that sad anthropomorphic messengers will elicit stronger response than happy messengers. Cavanaugh, Brettman and Luce (2015) indicate that love may be a more effective driver for pro-social behaviour, including purchasing of sustainable goods. However, due to complexity of various extraneous variables which will not be possible to control in the study, we will focus on basic human emotions of happiness and sadness.

Hypothesis 1: Sad anthropomorphic messengers lead to higher willingness to pay than happy anthropomorphic messengers.

The moderating roles of Environmental Impact Framing and Environmental Concern on Willingness to Pay

When faced with a choice which product to buy, there are many factors that influence decision, ranging from music playing in the store to consumer’s moral standards. As we are attempting to draw conclusions about sustainable products, the role of environmental concern is of high interest.

Environmental concern, as summarized by Fransson and Gärling (1999), is: “an evaluation of, or an attitude towards facts, one's own behaviour, or others' behaviour with consequences for the environment.” Social identity theory and means-end theory, both state that individual values and beliefs affect decision making and purchase behaviour (Gutman, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

(8)

Means-end theory suggests that individual’s values, offer direction for purchasing a product or service whose attributes convey its core identity. Given that, customers with higher environmental concern may purchase green products to keep or boost their self-esteem (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). In contrast, attribution theory argues that when customers are exposed to environmental messages, they may seek for company’s motivation behind these initiatives (Kelley, 1972). If environmentally concerned customer concludes that company’s motivation lies in higher profit, the WTP may decrease (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006), but there need to be substantial reasons for such assumptions. Therefore, despite attribution theory remarks, let us assume:

Hypothesis 2: Environmental concern has a positive effect on anthropomorphic messenger and willingness to pay relationship.

According to Cheng and Wu (2010) framing effects are found to have a stronger impact when environmental involvement is low. When environmental concern is high, information processing takes longer since decision may affect an area of interest and individuals may arrive to conclusion that company is greenwashing, lowering their willingness to pay. On the other hand, when environmental concern is low, negatively framed messages will generate a stronger response, leading to higher willingness to pay (Newman, Howlett, Burton, Kozup, & Heintz-Tangari, 2012).

Previous studies have not investigated the effects of framing in combination with anthropomorphism. Therefore, it is intriguing to see whether framing will intensify the effects of anthropomorphism, have no effect or, perhaps, counteract the elicitation of positive or negative emotions occurred due to exposure to anthropomorphic messengers. Since sad anthropomorphic messenger and loss frame in isolation have the highest emotional response:

Hypothesis 3: Willingness to pay for sad anthropomorphic messengers with negative frame is the highest.

3 METHODOLOGY

(9)

The 2 (anthropomorphic messenger: sad vs. happy) x 2 (framing effects: gain vs. loss frame) between-subjects factorial was employed. Volunteers have been asked to complete a short survey indicating their willingness to pay on a slider scale. The direct questioning of willingness to pay appeared in various studies (Homburg, Koschate, & Hoyer, 2005; Krishna, 1991). However, it was criticized as respondents are not obliged to buy the products, therefore their answer may differ from the actual willingness to pay (Wertenbroch & Skiera, 2002). Despite that, study by Miller and colleagues (2011) has found self-stated WTP to be satisfactory if products are non-durable, inexpensive, and frequently purchased. Due to that, a custom-designed soap bar was chosen to be evaluated.

Each soap bar presented a combination of either sad or happy picture of planet and gain (“Thank you for helping to save our environment”) or loss (“Without your support our planet is suffering”) frame (see figure 2). For both signs the number of symbols and the formatting style were kept identical to make sure that required reading comprehension does not differ.

FIGURE 2 Product example

(10)

FIGURE 3

New environmental paradigm scale

There has been a large debate between supporters and opponents of the scale; a meta-analysis shows that original 12-item scale or recently modified 15-item scale are more reliable measurement tools (Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010). However, due to time constraints and involuntary change of data collection method toward online survey due to COVID-19, it has been decided to sacrifice reliability for a greater probability of survey completion. The survey proceeded with demographic questions about respondents’ age, gender, nationality, and educational level, and concluded with manipulation check. Respondents were asked to evaluate in what light did the ad appear to them.

(11)

4 RESULTS

In total, 104 volunteers, aged 20-31, participated in the survey, with 50% identifying themselves as female (n=50), 49% male (n=49) and 1% other (n=1). Additionally, independent samples t-test for manipulation check revealed consistencies between what messenger was presented to respondents and how they have perceived it (MS=.94, SDS=.25; MH=.10, SDH=.32,

p=.00).

The reliability of Environmental Concern (EC) scores was measured with Cronbach’s alpha. It appeared to have an overall acceptable internal consistency, α=.70 (Taber, 2017).

In order to test hypothesis 1, independent samples t-test was applied. It revealed that sad anthropomorphic messengers accumulate slightly higher average WTP (MS=3.64,

SDS=1.50) than product that showcases happy anthropomorphic messenger (MH=3.40,

SDH=1.78), although, statistically insignificant (t(98)=-.72, p=.23). Hence, hypothesis 1 is not supported.

I have performed a moderation analysis using Hayes’ Process model 2 to test hypothesis 2. Contrary to my expectations, EC does not show significant positive interaction effect on the relationship between the WTP and anthropomorphism (p=.08), thus rejecting hypothesis 2. Framing effect, however, shows significant positive interaction on the relationship between the two variables (p=.00) (see table 1).

TABLE 1 Summary of results

Effect t-value p-value

Constant 1,51 1,28 ,20

Anthropomorphism 1,46 ,90 ,37

Environmental concern ,69 2,30 ,02

Anthropomorphism * Environmental Concern -,75 -1,76 ,08

Framing -1,13 -2,64 ,01

Anthropomorphism * Framing 2,90 4,88 ,00

On: Willingness to Pay (DV)

(12)

messenger with a happy anthropomorphic condition and negative frame respondents were willing to pay the least (M=2. 67, SD=2.04, p=.003).

5 CONCLUSIONS

Theoretical findings suggested that on average willingness to pay is the highest for a sad anthropomorphic condition than for a happy condition. However, the analysis did not present valid evidence of higher willingness to pay for sad anthropomorphic messengers.

Contrary to assumption, environmental concern does not show any significant influence on the relationship between anthropomorphism and willingness to pay. Moreover, framing effects show positive significant moderation on the relationship between the two variables.

Influence of framing is evident in comparison between WTPs for different combinations of frames and anthropomorphic conditions. Such as, willingness to pay for a combination of sad messenger and negative frame proved to be the highest, followed a combination of happy messenger and positive frame. For sad messengers with positive frame and happy messengers with negative frame respondents were willing to pay the least.

6 DISCUSSION

In light of recent global discussion about the environmental protection and increasing interest in sustainable practices the study aimed to look at one of the many suggested product communication tools – anthropomorphism and framing effects. Anthropomorphism is considerably new research stream with many possible directions. Present study makes an attempt to discover the effects of combining anthropomorphism, framing effects, and environmental concern, stepping into an unexplored branch of research.

It is important to remember, that studies on willingness to pay, as it has been previously discussed, often do not indicate the actual price that consumers would be willing to pay if they to encounter the product in the store. Therefore, this research gives only a general direction in which further research attempts can be made. It also demonstrates that the concept “the more, the better” may not always be correct as it has been seen with contradicting framing and anthropomorphism conditions. These findings indicate, there should be a careful consideration before combining different elements.

(13)

straightforward theory, showed a significant importance. In line with expectations, respondents expressed greater willingness to pay for negatively framed messages with sad anthropomorphic agent. Despite that, dominance of sad anthropomorphic condition on willingness to pay has not shown any significant results. This indicates that anthropomorphism in combination with other theories might yield even more fruitful results and researchers should not only differentiate products or fields they investigate. Different theoretical combinations might too bring surprising outcomes and new avenues for exploration.

This paper offers one of the many ways how managers, particularly working in branding, can adjust existing product’s communication to influence customers’ willingness to pay without substantially altering the product itself. The results indicate that when it is possible, inclusion of unhappy anthropomorphic messenger and negative frame may increase consumers’ willingness to pay for a sustainable product. Moreover, managers might try to avoid combining emotionally conflicting visuals and messages on the packaging. Such as, if message conveys a positive frame the supporting visual and logo should be perceived as positive too.

The study was limited due to several factors. Initial process was changed due to global COVID-19 outbreak, limiting the control of extraneous variables, data collection methods and target group. For substantial insights, it was assumed to have 2-3 experiments with different products. However, several points had to be adjusted to fit into placed conditions. Therefore, number of experiments with products from different categories are recommended to be used for a repeated measurement to test the reliability of the data.

As it has been previously mentioned, there is a debate surrounding New Environmental Paradigm scale. The original scale was introduced in 1978 by Dunlap and van Liere and included 12 items. Perhaps, Dunlap realized that in some conditions a 12-item scale might be impractical, as in the late 70s he used an altered version with 6 statements. Although the reliability and validity of the latter scale has not been tested, due to its convenience many researchers have utilized it. This means that the outcomes of moderating role of environmental concern in the present research might deviate after adoption of a 12-item NEP scale.

The future research might further investigate the effects of anthropomorphism and framing in a different context, such as, regulations, news, or such. It could potentially be applicable in behavioural science to test whether combination of the tools might alter existing behaviour or create a new response.

(14)

consumers. Aside from sustainability, combination of anthropomorphism and framing for non-sustainable initiatives and products might provide different results.

On a broader level, further developments on anthropomorphism should be made to discover its underlying mechanisms. With constantly evolving world, affected by politics, changing social norms, technological advancement and so forth, perception of anthropomorphic cues will evolve too. As suggested by Williams, Masser and Sun (2015), effects of anthropomorphism are contextually sensitive. Therefore, instead of limiting anthropomorphism to only general understanding, researchers should not be hesitant to explore situational factors too.

(15)

7 REFERENCES

Ahn, H.-K., Kim, H. J., & Aggarwal, P. 2014. Helping fellow beings: Anthropomorphized social causes and the role of anticipatory guilt. Psychological Science, 25(1): 224–229.

Arnot, C., Boxall, P. C., & Cash, S. B. 2006. Do ethical consumers care about price? A revealed preference analysis of fair-trade coffee purchases. Canadian Journal of Agricultural

Economics, 54(4): 555-565.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3): 497.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. 2006. The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59(1): 46–53.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. 1997. The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1): 68-84.

Carlo, G., Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., Tur, A., & Armenta, B. E. 2011. The longitudinal relations among dimensions of parenting styles, sympathy, prosocial moral reasoning, and prosocial behaviors.

International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2): 116-124.

Cavanaugh, L. A., Bettman, J. R., & Luce, M. F. 2015. Feeling love and doing more for distant others: Specific positive emotions differentially affect prosocial consumption. Journal of Marketing

Research, 52(5): 657 – 673.

Cheng, F., & Wu, C. S. 2010. Debiasing the framing effect: The effect of warning and involvement.

Decision Support Systems, 49(3): 328-334.

Cho, Y. 2015. Different shades of green consciousness: The interplay of sustainability labelling and environmental impact on product evaluations. Journal of Business Ethics, 128(1): 73-82. Corraliza, J. A., & Berenguer, J. 2000. Environmental values, beliefs, and actions: A situational

approach. Environment and behavior, 32(6): 832-848.

(16)

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. 2007. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4): 864–886.

Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M., & Antia, K. D. 2008. An empathy-helping perspective on consumers' responses to fund-raising appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3): 519–531.

Fransson, N., & Gärling, T. 1999. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research findings. Journal of environmental psychology, 19(4): 369-382. Gray, S. G., Raimi, K. T., Wilson, R., & Árvai, J. 2019. Will Millennials save the world? The effect of

age and generational differences on environmental concern. Journal of environmental

management, 242: 394-402.

Guthrie, S. 1993. Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Gutman, J. 1982. A means-end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. Journal of

Marketing, 46(2): 60–72.

Hart, P. M., Jones, S. R., & Royne, M. B. 2013. The human lens: How anthropomorphic reasoning varies by product complexity and enhances personal value. Journal of Marketing

Management, 29(1-2): 105-121.

Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. 2010. The use (and abuse) of the new environmental paradigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2): 143– 158.

Homburg, C., Koschate, N., & Hoyer, W. D. 2005. Do satisfied customers really pay more? A study of the relationship between customer satisfaction and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing, 69(2): 84-96.

Kahneman, D. 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American

(17)

Kelley, H. H. 1972. Attribution theory in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior: 1-26. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Ketron, S., & Naletelich, K. 2019. Victim or beggar? Anthropomorphic messengers and the savior effect in consumer sustainability behaviour. Journal of Business Research, 96: 73–84.

Krishna, A. 1991. Effect of dealing patterns on consumer perceptions of deal frequency and willingness to pay. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(4): 441-451.

Laksmidewi, D., Susianto, H., & Afiff, A. Z. 2017. Anthropomorphism in advertising: The effect of anthropomorphic product demonstration on consumer purchase intention. Asian Academy of

Management Journal, 22(1): 1–25.

Landwehr, J. R., McGill, A. L., & Herrmann, A. 2011. It's got the look: The effect of friendly and aggressive "facial" expressions on product liking and sales. Journal of Marketing, 75(3): 132 –146.

Liang, J., Chen, Z., & Lei, J. 2016. Inspire me to donate: The use of strength emotion in donation appeals. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(2): 283-288.

Lin, K-W., & Wang, Y-J. 2012. The influence of animated spokescharacters in customer orientation.

The International Journal of Organizational Innovation, 4(4): 142–154.

Miller, K. M., Hofstetter, R., Krohmer, H., & Zhang, Z. J. 2011. How should we measure consumers' willingness to pay? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(1): 172-184.

Mourey, J. A., Olson, J. G., & Yoon, C. 2017. Products as pals: Engaging with anthropomorphic products mitigates the effects of social exclusion. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2): 414-431.

Napolitano F., Braghieri, A., Piasentier, E., Favotto, S., Naspetti, S., & Zanoli, R. 2010. Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and consumer willingness to pay. Food

(18)

Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., Burton, S., Kozup, J. C., & Heintz-Tangari, A. 2012. The influence of consumer concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability messages. International Journal of Advertising, 31(3): 511-527.

Nielsen. 2011. A ‘natural’ rise in sustainability around the world. From: https://www.nielsen.com/eu/en/insights/article/2019/a-natural-rise-in-sustainability-around-the-world/ Accessed on 17 June, 2020

Olsen, M. C., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Chandukala, S. R. 2014. Green claims and message frames: How green new products change brand attitude. Journal of Marketing, 78(5): 119-137.

Royne, M. B., Levy, M., & Martinez, J. 2011. The public health implications of consumers' environmental concern and their willingness to pay for an eco‐friendly product. Journal of

Consumer Affairs, 45(2): 329-343.

Schaltegger, S. 2011. Sustainability as a driver for corporate economic success: Consequences for the development of sustainability management control. Society and Economy, 33(1): 15-28. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001. Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions

to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 381(2): 225–243.

Small, D. A., & Verrochi, N. M. 2009. The face of need: Facial emotion expression on charity advertisements. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(6): 777–787.

Taber, K.S. 2017. The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48: 1273–1296.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1986. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In: S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations: 7–24. Nelson-Hall: Chicago.

Tam, K. P., Lee, S. L., & Chao, M. M. 2013. Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 49(3): 514-521.

(19)

Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. 2015. Who or what to believe: Trust and the differential persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messengers. Journal of Marketing, 79(4): 94-110.

Tully, S. M., & Winer, R. S. 2014. The role of the beneficiary in willingness to pay for socially responsible products: A meta-analysis. Journal of Retailing, 90(2): 255–274.

Waytz, A., Epley, N., & Cacioppo, J. T. 2010. Social cognition unbound: Insights into anthropomorphism and dehumanization. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1): 58–62.

Wertenbroch, K., & Skiera, B. 2002. Measuring consumers’ willingness to pay at the point of purchase.

Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2): 228-241.

Williams, L. A., Masser, B., & Sun, J. 2015. Revisiting the effect of anthropomorphizing a social cause campaign. PLoS One, 10(9).

Wu, S., & Wang, W. 2014. Impact of CSR perception on brand image, brand attitude and buying willingness: A study of a global café. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 6(6): 43-56.

Yuan, L., & Dennis, A. 2017. Interacting like humans? Understanding the effect of anthropomorphism on consumer’s willingness to pay in online auctions. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

In deze studie is gekeken naar het verband tussen expliciete en impliciete associaties bij zowel trait anxiety als wiskundeangst.. Expliciete associaties bij trait anxiety werden

The Effect of Thematic Frames on Attribution of Responsibility in the European Multi-level Government: The Moderating Role of the Scale Frame and Political Sophistication

1) For each illegal image in the public database D, an extractor uses the helper data h in order to com- pute a hash-extract hext that is then matched (in a matching algorithm) with

televisiereclames een positiever effect heeft op kijkers dan recente populaire muziek, omdat er met gedateerde populaire muziek meer nostalgische herinneringen worden opgeroepen

MalekGhaini, “Effect of friction stir welding speed on the microstructure and mechanical properties of a duplex stainless steel,” Materials Science and

Nederland past echter een lagere vrijstelling voor buitenlandse belasting op grond van de objectvrijstelling toe in de situatie dat een activum vanuit een Nederlands hoofdhuis

When the police officer has a dominant yet a↵ectionate stance, he will, according to our theory, use a positive politeness strategy combined with a negative impoliteness strategy (+P

The Lutece twins cannot exist in anything more than a fixed multiplied form unless the player engages with the game – specifically, if the player breaks the ludic logic of the