The moderating effect of product type on the relationship
between message framing and consumer responses
The moderating effect of product type on the relationship
between message framing and consumer responses
Master Thesis MSc Marketing University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Supervisor University Dr Jan Willem Bolderdijk
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Today’s overconsumption is one of the main causes of environmental degradation, and a threat for next generations. To constrain the exploitation, people need to behave pro-environmentally. Advertisement can be a great tool to shift consumer preferences, and marketers often stress fair trade or organic aspects to trigger sales of sustainable products. This study deals with different framing strategies for different products and its influence on consumer responses. In doing so, it distinguishes between social (fair-trade products) and environmental (organic products) framing, and between the product categories food and apparel.
In order to be effective advertising messages must be framed in a way that consumer respond positively towards the product. Due to varying customer motives when buying sustainable products, different framing will have different effects on consumer responses. Social issues are less abstract than environmental issues. As a result, it is easier for people to identify and sympathize with humanitarian issues than with environmental issues. Accordingly our first hypothesis is: “social message framing leads to more positive
consumer responses compared to messages addressing environmental issues”.
Because of the symbolic and public effect of apparel, and the health effect of food, consumer responses towards these products are likely to differ. People who consume sustainable products can be seen as moral outliers, and therefore be rejected by others, whose consumption is not sustainable. The risk of rejection is higher when consuming sustainable apparel compared to sustainable food, as it is consumed in public, and thus highly visible for others. Therefore our second hypothesis is: “consumers evaluate sustainable food more
positively compared to sustainable apparel”.
Organic food is associated with positive attributes like being healthier and of better taste. In contrast organic apparel is associated with negative attributes like being unaesthetic and less functional. Because of the public and symbolic effect of apparel, it is likely that consumers are distressed of being associated with these negative attributes, and therefore deny buying sustainable apparel. Accordingly our third hypothesis is: “environmental
The aim of this study is to gain a better understanding of how messages have to be framed in order to shift consumer preferences towards green products. In particular whether or not different framing strategies (environmental issues vs. social issues) influence customers’ response towards sustainable products, and if this relationship is moderated by different types of sustainable products (food vs. apparel).
The developed hypotheses are based on recent literature about message framing, consumer responses and consumer psychology. A 2 x 2 between subjects experiment was designed in order to test the hypotheses. Therefore an online questionnaire was developed with 4 different scenarios. Data was analyzed with the help of SPSS.
The Two-way ANOVA showed no significant main effects. Therefore we could neither support hypothesis one nor hypothesis two. The third hypothesis can be supported, as the interaction effect of the Two-way ANOVA reaches a significant level. In line with the assumptions, the test results showed that respondents responded more positive towards apparel when they saw the socially framed message, compared to when they saw the environmentally framed message. In contrast, respondents responded more positive towards food when they saw the environmentally framed message, compared to when they saw the socially framed message.
PREFACE
“We Do Not Inherit the Earth from Our Ancestors; We Borrow It from Our Children” ~ Moses Henry Cass, 1974
Nowadays, people buy and consume a lot of products to fulfill their needs and whishes, never worrying about the downsides. This wasteful consumption behavior is harmful to the environment and one of the main causes of environmental degradation. Although green products are available in the market, consumers often go for the non-green ones. The steady growth of the population and the increasing consumption levels require to induce consumers’ to behave pro-environmentally. Advertising is one promising way to shift consumer preferences towards sustainable products.
The concept of sustainability became more important over the last decades, is a promising and growing labor market, and opens new doors for future research. Doing research on the effectiveness of differently framed advertisement messages on sustainable products perfectly combines my personal fields of interest, namely sustainability and marketing, and is a contribution to my future plans of working in the field of corporate social responsibility or sustainable campaigning.
This master thesis is written during the second semester of a Degree in Marketing Management at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The thesis is based upon several academic articles and conclusions drawn from the field research.
I would like to say a word of thanks to: • Dr. Jan Willem Bolderdijk • Dr. Janny C. Hoekstra
• All fellow students from my thesis group • Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Marlene Daum
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY III
PREFACE V
1. INTRODUCTION 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Consumer Responses 10
2.2 Message Framing: Environmental vs. Social Issues 10
2.3 Sustainable Product Types: Food vs. Apparel 12
2.4 Conceptual Model 15
3. METHODOLOGY 16
3.1 Participants and Design 17
3.2 Measurement: Consumer Response 17
3.3 Manipulation: Message Framing and Product Type 18
3.4 Manipulation Check 20
4. RESULTS 21
4.1 Perceived Symbolic Meaning of Product Type 21
4.2 Perceived Health Effects of Product Type 22
4.3 Manipulation Check: Product Type 22
4.4 Manipulation Check: Message Framing 23
4.5 Hypotheses Testing 23
4.5.1 Main Effect of Message Framing on Consumer Response 23
4.5.2 Main Effect of Product Type on Consumer Response 24
4.5.3 Interaction Effect of Message Framing and Product Type 25
4.6 Conclusion 25
5. CONCLUSION 27
5.1 General Discussion 27
5.2 Limitations and Future Research 28
6. REFERENCES 30
7. APPENDICES 35
Appendix A - Survey 36
Appendix B – Descriptive Statistics 41
Appendix B1: Gender Distribution 41
Appendix B2: Age Distribution 41
Appendix B3: Nationalities 42
Appendix B4: Educational Levels 43
Appendix C – Manipulation Check 44
Appendix C1: Chi-Square Test - Product Type 44
Appendix C2: Chi-Square Test – Message Framing 44
Appendix D – Health Effects and Symbolic Meaning of Apparel and Food 46
Appendix D1: Independent Samples T-test – Health Effects 46
Appendix D2: Independent Samples T-test - Symbolic Meaning 47
Appendix E – Correlation and Reliability Analysis 48
Appendix E1: Correlations Analysis – All Variables 48
Appendix E2: Reliability Analysis – All Variables 49
Appendix F – Hypotheses Testing: Two-way ANOVA Test 50
Appendix G – Factor Analysis: All Variables 51
TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES
FIGURE 2.1: Conceptual Model 15
FIGURE 3.1: Environmental framing x apparel 19
FIGURE 3.2: Social framing x apparel 19
FIGURE 3.3: Environmental framing x food 19
FIGURE 3.4: Social framing x food 19
FIGURE 4.1: Effect of social vs. environmental framing on consumer response 24
FIGURE 4.2: Effect of food vs. apparel on consumer response 24
FIGURE 4.3: Interaction effect of social vs. environmental framing and food vs. apparel 25
TABLE 3.1: Study design; 2x2 between-subject design. 17
TABLE 4.1: Descriptive statistics 21
TABLE 4.2: Symbolic meaning of food vs. apparel 22
TABLE 4.3: Perceived health effects of food vs. apparel 22
TABLE 4.4: Manipulation check on product type 22
1. INTRODUCTION
The consumption patterns of humans cause pollution and exhaustion of natural resources, and thus have destructive effects on the environment. In order to preserve the environment for future generations, it is important that people behave pro-environmentally. Although sustainable products are already available in the market, consumers’ adoption of these products is low. Especially products that are bought regularly could help to foster sustainability. For example, the food and apparel production have a big negative influence on the environment. The food production is responsible for 20% of the worldwide greenhouse gas emission (Hertwich, & Peters, 2009), causes farmland erosion, excess sewage, avoidable waste, and loss of species (Tanner, & Wölfing Kast, 2003). The production of apparel is responsible for air and water pollution by using high amounts of chemicals that are harmful to the environment and human health (Allwood, Laursen, DeRodriguez, & Bocken, 2006; Claudio, 2007). Both industries are known for abysmal working conditions, bad payments, and child labor. Shifting consumer choices towards sustainable food and apparel could have a great positive influence on preserving the environment and increasing social well-being. Environmental disasters, climate change, and growing concerns about social issues make consumers more aware of and interested in eco-products (Stisser, 1994). However, switching to green products seems to be difficult. This leads to the following problem statement:
How can marketing help in making consumers respond positively to and purchase environmentally friendly products?
Research shows that message framing, which is how information is presented, could influence consumers’ choices towards sustainable products (Kim, & Kim, 2014). Additionally, due to different motivations, consumer intentions towards sustainable products differ across product categories (McDonald, Oates, Thyne, Alevizou, & McMorland, 2009). Although there is research in the field of marketing and communication, there is little research in the area of sustainability addressing the effect of message framing on individual perceptions, intentions and activities. Therefore greater attention should be given on how to optimally use information in green messages across different product categories, so that consumers are supported in their decision making towards sustainable products.
not taking into consideration if and how the pillars of sustainability, namely environmental and social issues could effect consumers responses. Research on consumer responses or sustainable purchasing behavior is often restricted to a few food or non-food categories (Verhoef, 2005; Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Berg, 2010), not comparing responses and behaviors across product categories. This leads us to the following research question:
Do different framing strategies (environmental issues vs. social issues) influence customers’ response towards sustainable products, and is this relationship moderated by different types of sustainable products (food vs. apparel)?
Thus, this paper contributes to existing literature and theories of sustainable consumption because it is the first to experimentally determine the moderating role of product type on the relationship between message framing and consumer responses towards sustainable products. Distinguishing between social (stressing the fair-trade aspect of a product) and environmental (stressing the organic aspect of a product) framing is relevant as these are the pillars of sustainability, well-known and used concepts to market products. As social issues are less abstract than environmental issues, it might be easier for people to identify and empathize with humanitarian, than with environmental issues. The differentiation between products is relevant as consumers have different motives when buying apparel or food. This is because apparel has a symbolic and public effect and food has a health effect. Therefore, it is likely, that the effect of message framings varies between these product categories. This study is able to fill the gap in existing literature and provides new approaches for future research. Additionally, the results will give sufficient information that help managers to relate their marketing efforts to the right message framing, in order to promote sustainable products and to create a more effective and efficient communication towards their customers.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Consumer Responses
Consumer responses towards a product (product evaluation) can widely be described as judging or calculating the quality, importance, amount or value of a product (Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary). Thus, by using certain attributes like quality, price, design, and durability as indicators, consumers assess and compare products with other products and estimate whether or not the products provide sufficient value for money (Klein, & Dawar, 2004; Perera, & Chaminda, 2013). The evaluation of products can be influenced by a wide range of characteristics, like an individuals prior experience with a product, demographics or familiarity with the product class (Johansson, Douglas, & Nonaka, 1985).
Research shows that sustainability could also be considered to be an important aspect for consumers, in order to evaluate products. Promoting sustainability could positively influence consumers’ responses towards products (Perera, & Chaminda, 2013; Matute-Vallejo, Bravo, & Pina, 2011; Auger, Devinney, Louviere, & Burke, 2008; Klein, & Dawar, 2004), but there are also difficulties attached to it. Sustainable information is complex and as a result, it is difficult for the consumer to process the information, and to utilize it for decision-making (Öberseder, Schlegelmilch, & Gruber, 2011).
2.2 Message Framing: Environmental vs. Social Issues
Message framing is a widely researched topic in marketing, as marketers want to know, how to make consumer respond positive towards products (Loroz, 2007; Qin, & Brown, 2007; Kim, & Kim, 2014). Message framing seems to be a critical factor especially in terms of persuasive impact (Yan, Dillard, & Shen, 2010), and can be an effective tool to steer consumers’ preferences towards sustainable products (Kim, & Kim, 2014). Therefore, it is important to spend greater attention on how messages towards consumers must be framed, in order to create a more sustainable society.
Okada and Mais (2010) found that positive framed messages were viewed more positively compared to negative ones and the studies of Beach et al. (1996) and Buda and Zhang (2000) showed that consumers respond more favorably towards positive messages.
This study will distinguish between environmental message framing and social message framing. In environmental message framing, it will be stressed that sustainable products (organic products) are of benefit to the environment because no chemicals and no pesticides are used in the production process. In social message framing, the social advantages of sustainable products (fair trade products) will be stressed. These products support fair working conditions and fair payment of the suppliers.
We chose for this concept as sustainability encompasses social, environmental, and economic concerns (WCED, 1987), and some studies propose a holistic application of sustainability in order to improve the effectiveness of sustainable marketing campaigns (Sheth, Sethia, & Srinivas, 2011). But the great variety of sustainable information complicates the purchase process rather than simplifying it (McDonald et al. 2009) and consumers feel unsure about which issue to address with their purchases and consumption. Hence, it might be more effective to address only one issue of sustainability in the communication towards the consumer. When addressing only one issue, it is important to know, which issue best to address to steer consumers preferences towards sustainable products. Distinguishing between environmental (organic) and social (fair-trade) framing is relevant, as these concepts are often used when promoting sustainable products but so far there is no research that investigates the different effects of environmental and social message framing on consumer response.
those products, consumers get the feeling of helping others and having a great impact on enhancing circumstances of these people in a meaningful way. Additionally, helping to create fair working conditions is less abstract than protecting the environment and therefore, we assume that people are more likely to sympathize with the people in the social framing condition, and as result will have more positive feelings in the social framing condition compared to the environmental framing condition. Although consumers mostly regard sustainability and environmental issues as the same concept (Gam, & Banning, 2011; Kagawa, 2007) and believe that environmental and economic appeals are most important (Nolan, Schultz, Cialdini, Goldstein, & Griskevicius, 2008), we expect that social framing evokes more affect compared to environmental framing. Therefore our first hypothesis is:
Hypothesis 1: Social message framing leads to more positive consumer responses compared to messages addressing environmental issues.
2.3 Sustainable Product Types: Food vs. Apparel
Research has been done in the context of sustainable consumption, addressing the purchase or behavioral intentions towards specific products (Verhoef, 2005; Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van den Berg, 2010), implicitly assuming that sustainable consumers act rational and that their actions will be consistent across product categories (Schaefer, & Crane, 2005; Salmela, & Varho, 2006; McDonald et al., 2009). If this would be true, consumers’ behavior could be translated across product categories. But research suggests that sustainable consumption is not consistent (McDonald et al., 2009). This is, because consumers have different motives when buying certain products, and communicate their status, identity, values or affiliation to a group to other consumers (Dolan, 2002; Griskevicius et al., 2010). Nevertheless research, comparing purchases between different product categories is rare (McDonald et al., 2009).
growth (Lipson, 2008; Yan, Hyllegard, & Bleasi, 2012). The differences between the acceptance of sustainable food and sustainable apparel possibly stem from different consumer motives, and the public and health effect of apparel respectively food.
Public consumption can signal characteristics about the consumer to an immediate audience (Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van den Berg, 2010), and consumers often associate the choice towards sustainable products with morality (Venhoeven, Bolderdijk, Steg, & Keizer, 2013). This moral behavior can raise the risk of being rejected by others who do not behave morally. This, because behaving morally implicitly condemns the behavior of people who not behave morally, and therefore threatens their self-image (Monin, Sawyer, & Marquez, 2008). People who shop for sustainable apparel can easily be identified as moral outliers, because apparel is consumed in public whereas food is consumed in privacy. Thus, the threat of being rejected is higher when shopping for sustainable apparel compared to sustainable food. As people want to be accepted by others (Asch, 1956; Ariely, & Levav, 2000) it is likely that consumers deny consuming sustainable apparel in order to avoid resentment.
Furthermore, consumers are only interested in buying sustainable products if it is convenient (Joergens, 2006). Within the food sector, there are a lot of sustainable alternatives from which the consumer can choose, and prices are comparable with non-sustainable products. Additionally, when a product does not fulfill the consumers’ sustainability criteria they are eager to relinquish these products (McDonald et al., 2009). Hence, the decision to buy sustainable food did not cause inconvenience.
Apparel is part of the humans’ communication, expressing a range of social information (McCracken, & Roth, 1989). Accordingly, consumers have a desire to change their appearance corresponding to fashion trends, or changing identities (Solomon, & Rabolt 2004). Thus, factors like being associated with a certain social status, constructing identity through product symbols and brands, or desire for a certain lifestyle play a major role when consuming apparel (Joergens, 2006). In contrast to their unsustainable counterparts, sustainable apparel is not very popular, and not uniformly available (Meyer, 2001; Joergens, 2006). Therefore it is difficult for consumers to express their personality with sustainable apparel and causes inconvenience.
Accordingly we developed the following hypothesis:
Social and symbolic motives play a major role in the consumers’ decision process for apparel. This is because apparel is consumed in public where the social presence is high. Accordingly, the influence of others on what is being purchased is immense (Hoyer, MacInnis, & Pieters 2013). People have the desire to be accepted by others (Asch, 1956; Ariely, & Levav, 2000), and are aware that their own behavior and actions could have social consequences, especially when these are observable (Holmes, Miller and Lerner, 2002). Hence, it is likely that consumers control their behavior in public. With clothing, consumers express their individuality and inner personality (McCracken, & Roth, 1989). As organic clothing is associated with fewer choices, less aesthetical appeal and functionality (Meyer, 2001; Joergens, 2006) it is likely that people deny buying organic apparel. They do so, in order to avoid being associated with these negative attributes, and avoid the risk of not being accepted by others. In addition, the concept of organic apparel is not well known by the consumer and there is only limited understanding of its impact on the environment (Hiller Connell, 2011). Therefore we expect that organic framing will lead to less positive consumer responses towards sustainable apparel compared to social framing.
When purchasing food, health aspects play a major role, and therefore we expect that consumers are more sensitive for organic arguments. Consumers show an increasing interest in organic products especially when these have a direct influence on ones’ health (Joergens, 2006). Additionally, people have positive associations with organic food. It is perceived as being healthier and being of better taste (Schuldt, Muller, & Schwarz 2012; Thogerson, 2011). Accordingly, when shopping for organic food, consumers can argue that they buy it for health reasons and not because of moral convictions. This probably hinders the threat of being seen as moral outliers and alleviates the resentment of others.
Given the symbolic and hedonic characteristics of apparel (McCracken, & Roth, 1989) and the health effects of food (Schuldt, Muller, & Schwarz 2012; Thogerson, 2011) we expect that social framing will be more effective for apparel whereas organic framing will be more effective for food. Therefore we come up with the following hypothesis:
2.4 Conceptual Model
!
FIGURE 2.1: Conceptual model
3. METHODOLOGY
We analyzed previously collected data in order to investigate the relationship of different message framing types (social framing, environmental framing) and different product types (food, apparel) on consumer responses (hypotheses 1 and 2). In addition, we want to investigate the moderating effect of different product types on the relationship between message framing and consumer responses (hypothesis 3). In this method section we give detailed information on data, data collection and measurements.
In order to collect data we developed a survey (appendix A) and spread it via internet. The survey started with a short introduction section explaining why this survey is conducted. In the survey, we first confronted respondents with a fictional advertisement with either an environmental or social message framing. Respondents were presented with an advertisement of sustainable apparel (jeans) or sustainable food (coffee). In both cases the advertisement once stresses that with buying the product the purchaser would help to protect the environment (environmental framing) and the other time that the purchaser would support fair working conditions (social framing) when purchasing that product. After looking at and reading the advertisement, the respondents completed the questionnaire. The questionnaire included seven questions that measure consumer responses. We included two questions in order to check whether or not respondents regard food as more influential to their health than apparel, and whether or not respondents think that apparel says something about their personality (symbolic meaning of apparel). A manipulation check was done to control if the priming of product type and message framing was successful. At the end several demographic questions were asked. After completing the survey, participants were thanked for their participation.
3.1 Participants and Design
We examined the effects of message framing and product type on consumer responses via a 2 (message framing: environmental vs. social) x 2 (product type: food vs. apparel) between-subjects design (table 3.1), thus each participant only took part in one of the four conditions. The questionnaire was conducted randomly. In total 289 respondents took part in the survey (table 3.1). Participants were approached via internet, mostly via social media, in order to reach a sufficient number of respondents in a limited time. We asked 300 people via personal messages on Facebook to take part in our survey. We also publicly shared the survey on Facebook and ask people to widespread it. Hence, due to the snowball effect it is difficult to make a statement about the response rate. A short introduction section in the survey explained the scope of the research and emphasized the importance of participation. The questionnaire was designed so that answering would take no more than five minutes in order to avoid participants to stop the questionnaire before the end. Participants did not get any incentives for their participation. Data was collected in May 2014.
TABLE 3.1: Study design; 2x2 between-subject design.
Environmental framing Social framing Food Condition 1 (72) Condition 2 (70)
Apparel Condition 3 (72) Condition 4 (75)
3.2 Measurement: Consumer Response
At the beginning of the survey respondents had to look at and read an advertisement. Thereafter respondents had to answer 13 questions. Of these, 7 questions (question 1-7 of the survey) measured consumer responses on three different aspects: overall impression of the product, purchase intentions, and satisfaction with the purchase (appendix A).
Overall impression: To get to know how respondents perceive the product in general, we
asked questions about their feeling and beliefs towards the product like “I feel positively towards the product I saw in the advertisement” or “I think the product I saw in the advertisement is of good quality”.
Purchase intentions: To measure purchase intentions we asked the respondents whether
Satisfaction: In order to see if respondents would be satisfied with the product we asked them
to indicate how happy they would be with the purchase, “I think purchasing the product I saw in the advertisement would make me happy”.
All of the answers were given on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, so that higher numbers indicate more positive consumer responses towards the product. The questions and measuring procedures used for this study are consistent with previous research on consumer responses (Kim, Haley, & Lee, 2008; Kim 2011; Park, Maclnnis, Priester, Eisingerich, & Lacobucci, 2010; Carter, & Gilovich, 2010).
In order to reduce the items, to make further analysis easier, we performed a factor analysis (appendix G). To check whether or not it is reliable to reduce the set of variables by averaging them into one new variable, we looked at the correlation matrix (appendix E1) and performed a reliability analysis (appendix E2). From the correlation matrix we saw that all variables did significantly correlate p= 0.00. To check if it would be reliable to sum up all single items into one variable we performed a reliability analysis on the 7 questions measuring consumer responses. All variables together counted for a reliability of α= 0.904. As the value was above 0.65 and no higher scores were reached by dropping one of the variables, no questions must be dropped for computing one variable. The new variable was named consumer response.
3.3 Manipulation: Message Framing and Product Type
We manipulated message framing by giving two different scenarios (advertisements) in either the apparel or the food condition. Once we stressed the environmental advantages of the product, and the second time we stressed social advantages of the product. In order to manipulate the product type, the advertisement showed either jeans (apparel condition) or coffee (food condition). We arranged the advertisements between the conditions similarly, for example by using the same organic and fair trade labels and using the same colors for the text; thus we limited the effect that respondents liked one advertisement better based on design aspects.
Scenario environmental framing/ apparel: the advertisement showed two people wearing
Scenario social framing/ apparel: the advertisement showed the same jeans picture and the
labels were arranged in the same way but this time, the labels in the picture were fair trade ones (figure 3.2). The text of the advertisement reads as follows “Want to support fair working conditions? Buy fair trade jeans. These jeans are made under fair working conditions. The cotton farmers are fairly treated and paid.”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
FIGURE 3.1: Environmental framing x apparel FIGURE 3.2: Social framing x apparel
Scenario environmental framing/ food: the advertisement showed a picture of coffee and
pictures of organic labels (figure 3.3). The advertisement text contains the following message: “Want to protect the environment? Buy organic coffee. This coffee is made from organic beans. No chemicals and no pesticides have been used to grow up the coffee plant.”
Scenario social framing/ food: the advertisement showed the same picture of coffee and
pictures in the advertisement were arranged in the same way (figure 3.4). The labels in this condition were fair trade labels and the text contained the following message: “Want to support fair working conditions? Buy fair trade coffee. This coffee is made under fair working conditions. The coffee farmers are fairly treated and paid.”
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !
3.4 Manipulation Check
We included two manipulation checks in the final part of the survey in order to see if our manipulation for product type and message framing has had the intended effect on the participants. This check is necessary as it indicates whether or not the manipulation had the intended meaning to the participants and if differences in the dependent measure are attributable to the manipulation. Therefore we compared the outcomes of question 8 (The product I saw above was said to: protect the environment/ support better working conditions) respectively question 9 (The advertisement I saw above was about: apparel/ food) between the different scenarios (environmental framing vs. social framing and food vs. apparel) by using crosstabs with a chi-square test
4. RESULTS
To get an overview, we provide some descriptive statistics about the sample (appendix B). Table 4.1 shows the distribution of gender and age of the respondents. Two hundred eighty-nine respondents answered the questionnaire, 71 respondents took part in study 1 (food/environmental), 70 in study 2 (food/social), 72 in study 3 (apparel/environmental), and 75 in study 4 (apparel/social). Two hundred twenty of the respondents are women and 68 are men (appendix B1). The average age of the respondents is 28.7 (ranging from 16 to 66) (appendix B2). Most of the respondents are Germans (235 = 81.3%), 33 respondents (11.4%) are Dutch and 21 respondents (7.3%) have another nationality (appendix B3). The majority of the respondents are highly educated, 148 respondents (54%) have a university degree and 36 (12,5%) have a post-grad degree (appendix B4). If we compare the demographics with those of the German population we see that our sample is not representative. The average age of people living in Germany is 45.7 years (statista, 2014) and 49.1 percent of the population are men and 50.9% women (bpb, 2012). As the sample is not representative we have to be careful with making generalizations.
In the following sections ‘M’ refers to mean and ‘SD’ to standard deviation.
TABLE 4.1: Descriptive statistics
Gender Age
Number respondents
Scenarios Female Male Mean Standard
deviation Min Max Environmental Food 51 20 29.08 10.05 18 64 72 Social Food 53 17 29.06 9.54 16 65 70 Environmental Apparel 59 13 27.69 10.34 16 66 72 Social Apparel 57 18 28.89 10.10 17 66 75 TOTAL 220 68 28.68 9.980 16 66 289 !!!!!!!!!!!
4.1 Perceived Symbolic Meaning of Product Type
TABLE 4.2: Symbolic meaning of food vs. apparel
Product type Symbolic meaning of products
Mean Standard deviation
Food 3.40 1.67
Apparel 3.95 1.64
4.2 Perceived Health Effects of Product Type
In order to analyze whether or not the influence of food on ones’ health is different from that of apparel, we performed an independent samples t-test (appendix D1). The results of this test, as could be seen in table 4.3,were as intended. Respondents in the food condition rated the products’ health effects as greater (M=3.5) compared to those in the apparel condition (M=3.1). We assume variances to be equal as the p-value of the Levene’s test is 0.195. The independent samples t-test was significant as t(284)= 2.129 and p= 0.034. The reasoning that food has a direct influence on the consumers’ health is correct.
TABLE 4.3: Perceived health effects of food vs. apparel
Product type Products’ influence on health
Mean Standard deviation
Food 3.50 1.60
Apparel 3.10 1.56
4.3 Manipulation Check: Product Type
In order to check whether or not our manipulation of product type has worked as intended, we performed a Chi-Square test with apparel and food (appendix C1). Results of this test confirmed that the manipulation of product type was successful as the test was significant, χ2= 251.537; p= 0.000. Table 4.4 shows that in the food condition 132 of 142 respondents (93%) indicated that the advertisement was about food. In the apparel condition 147 of 147 subjects (100%) indicated that the advertisement was about apparel.
TABLE 4.4: Manipulation check on product type
Manipulation check product type Answer respondents
Product type Food Apparel
Food 132 10
4.4 Manipulation Check: Message Framing
To check whether the manipulation of message type has worked, we performed a Chi-Square test (appendix C2). The Chi-Square test was significant χ2= 227.591, and p= 0.000. Therefore, we can conclude that the manipulation of message type was successful. As could be seen in table 4.5, in the environmental condition 134 of 143 subjects (93.7%) stated that the product was said to protect the environment. In the social condition 138 of 145 respondents (95,2%) confirmed that the product was said to support better working conditions.
TABLE 4.5: Manipulation check on message framing
Manipulation check message framing Answer respondents Message framing Environmental Social
Environmental 134 9
Social 7 138
4.5 Hypotheses Testing
To test our three hypotheses we used a Two-way ANOVA test (Appendix F) with consumer response being the dependent variable and message framing (environmental vs. social framing) and product type (food vs. apparel) being between subject factors. The variable message framing was grouped into environmental framing and social framing; the variable product type was grouped into food and apparel.
4.5.1 Main Effect of Message Framing on Consumer Response
!
FIGURE 4.1: Effect of social vs. environmental framing on consumer response
4.5.2 Main Effect of Product Type on Consumer Response!
In order to get to know if consumer response differs per product type, we analyzed the main effect of product type on consumer response (appendix F). In line with our second hypothesis, we expected that respondents in the food condition would score higher on consumer response compared to respondents in the apparel condition. However, the test shows the opposite. Figure 4.2 shows that subjects in the apparel condition scored marginally higher on consumer response (M= 4.90, SD= 1.02) than compared to those in the food condition (M= 4.68, SD= 1.04). The absolute differences in the mean scores are again very small and the effect was not statistically significant, as F(1, 272)= 3.46, and p= 0.06. Therefore we have to reject hypothesis two.
!
FIGURE 4.2: Effect of food vs. apparel on consumer response
! 3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Social framing Environmental framing
M ean s cor e c on su me r r es p on se
Effect message framing
3 3,5 4 4,5 5 Food Apparel M ean s cor e c on su me r r es p on se
4.5.3 Interaction Effect of Message Framing and Product Type
In order to analyze the influence of message framing type and product type on consumer responses towards the product, we looked at the interaction effect of the Two-way ANOVA (appendix F). In line with hypothesis 3, we expected that subjects in the food condition would score higher on consumer response when the message framing contained environmental arguments compared to when the message contained social arguments. In contrary, we expect that subjects in the apparel condition would score higher on consumer response when the message contains social arguments compared to a message containing environmental arguments. The interaction effect of message framing type and product type appeared significant; F(1, 272)= 8.174, and p= 0.005. As could be seen in figure 4.3, subjects in the apparel condition scored higher on consumer response when the message was socially framed (M= 5.09, SD= 0.77) compared to when the message was environmentally framed (M= 4.7, SD= 1.2); and subjects in the food condition scored higher on consumer response when the message was environmentally framed (M= 4.82, SD= 0.98) compared to when the message was socially framed (M= 4.51, SD= 1.08). Therefore we have enough evidence to support hypothesis three.
!
FIGURE 4.3: Interaction effect of social vs. environmental framing and food vs. apparel
!
4.6 Conclusion
The results of the manipulation check were significant and thus showed that the manipulation for message framing type as well as for product type was successful.
The outcome of the two-way ANOVA test of message framing type and product type on consumer response showed no significant main effects. The difference between consumer response of the subjects in the different message framing conditions was not relevant and
4 4,5 5 5,5
therefore we do not have enough evidence to support hypothesis one. The difference between consumer response of the subjects in the different product type conditions was not relevant either, and therefore we do not have enough evidence to support hypothesis two. In contrast, the interaction effect of message framing and product type turn out to be significant. As expected, respondents in the apparel condition had higher scores on consumer response when the message was socially framed compared to when it was environmentally framed. In the food condition, the respondents scored higher on consumer response when the message was environmentally framed compared to when it was socially framed. Therefore, we do have enough evidence to support hypothesis three.
5. CONCLUSION 5.1 General Discussion
Literature about the effectiveness of sustainable message framing is somewhat narrow in its approach as it often concentrates on the effects of loss- versus gain-framed messages, and on one product category only. In addition, the results of recent research are inconsistent. This could possibly be attributed to the different research approaches, and the implicit assumptions that consumer motives are similar for purchasing different sustainable products and services.
This paper contributes to the literature by using a new approach in sustainable message framing, investigating consumer responses when advertising for sustainable products stresses environmental respectively social issues. Therefore, well-known slogans and logos are used, namely “organic” for environmental framing and “fair trade” for social framing. By testing the first hypothesis, we found only marginal differences in mean scores between the two framing alternatives and the Two-way ANOVA showed no significant effect. Hence, we could not support the first hypothesis, that social message framing lead to more positive consumer responses compared to environmental framing.
The mixed findings of prior research suggested that other factors might also play a role in the consumer responses towards sustainable products. As most studies about message framing only focus on one product, we, in our study made the distinction between sustainable apparel and sustainable food. Because of the public and symbolic effect of apparel, and the health effect of food, we expected consumer responses to be more negative for sustainable apparel compared to sustainable food. The test showed very small, insignificant differences, and therefore it was not possible to support the second hypothesis.
Reasons for not reaching a significant level might be attributed to the low representativeness of the sample. In addition, due to the significant interaction effect, the main effects might cancel each other out. Furthermore, at the time of data collection (May 2014) there was increased media attention on working conditions in the apparel industry as one year ago (24 April 2013) a lot of people have died because a garment-factory in Bangladesh collapsed. The increased coverage in media raised peoples’ awareness of grievances in the fashion industry, which might have lead to biased results.
that the effect of different framing strategies varies between the different conditions. Our results indeed indicated the relevance of using different framing strategies for different product categories to efficaciously market sustainable products. We found that respondents in the apparel condition scored higher on consumer response when the message was socially framed. In contrast, respondents in the food condition scored higher on consumer response when the message was environmentally framed. As these results reach a significant level, we are able to support our third hypothesis. In order to come to more reliable and consistent conclusions about the impact of message framing, product types and consumer motives, further research is needed.
The results of our study show the importance of tailored advertisement to increase sustainable consumption. It is not enough to have custom-tailored advertisement; sustainable messages must be framed differently per product type, to aim at different consumer motives in order to be highly effective. Our findings suggest two main managerial implications. First, as people evaluate sustainable apparel more positive when the advertisement stresses social issues like fair working conditions, management should make use of these logos and slogans to market their sustainable fashion. Second, in the marketing of sustainable food, management should stress environmental issues in the advertisement because respondents rated sustainable food better when logos and slogans like “organic” were used in the advertisement. This is probably due to people perceiving organic food as being healthier. Because of the growing population, the concept of sustainability will become more important in the future. Therefore, it is indispensable for management to keep on track with future developments in order to frame advertisement for green products effectively and therewith support sustainable consumption.
This study also contributes to sustainable consumption literature, as it is the first study that experimentally investigates the impact of different product types on the relationship of environmental and social message framing on consumer response. Our study shows that consumer motives differ between sustainable products and that this is of influence to the effectiveness of different message frames.
5.2 Limitations and Future Research
even European population would possibly have come to other results. Second, the survey was an online survey, meaning that respondents were approached via internet and filled in the survey online, in absence of the researcher. Therefore, it was not possible to clarify questions to the respondents, which possibly resulted in wrongly answered questions. In addition, the circumstances in which the respondent filled in the survey were not under control of the researcher. Respondents may filled in the survey in presence of other people or discussed questions with friends and family rather than filling in the survey by their selves. These circumstances might have influenced or distracted respondents when answering the questions. Third, by using different products for the manipulation, people could have been influenced by prior experiences with these products. For example, people in the coffee condition might have scored less on consumer response because they do not like coffee. Fourth, using pictures of jeans and coffee in the advertisement might have influenced the respondents in the sense that they simply liked one advertisement better than the other one, which could have lead to biased answers. Fifth, our experiments did not involve the actual purchasing of products but focused on consumer responses. Future research, overcoming these limitations is therefore clearly welcome.
6. REFERENCES
Aknin, L.B., Dunn, E.W., Whillans, A.V. & Grant, A.M. (2013). Making a difference matters: Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization, 88, 90-95.
Allwood, C.K., Laursen, S.E., DeRodriguez, C.M. & Bocken, N.M.P. (2006). Well Dressed? The Present and Future Sustainability of Clothing and Textiles in the United
Kingdom. University of Cambridge, Institute for Manufacturing, Cambridge. Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theorie of Warm-
Glow Giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464-477.
Ariely, D. & Levav, J. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 279-290.
Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1-70.
Auger, P., Devinney, T.M., Louviere, J.J. & Burke, P.F. (2008). Do social product features have value to consumers?. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 183– 191.
Beach, L.R., Puto, C.P., Heckler, S.E., Naylor, G. & Marble, T.A. (1996). Differential versus unit weighting of violations, framing, and the role of probability in image theory’s compatibility test. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Making Processes,
65(2), 77-82.
Buda, R. & Zhang, Y. (2000). Consumer product evaluation: The interactive effect of message framing, presentation order, and source credibility. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 9(4), 229-42.
Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb). (2012). Die soziale Situation in Deutschland: Bevölkerung nach Altersgruppen und Geschlecht.
http://www.bpb.de/nachschlagen/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-situation-in- deutschland/61538/altersgruppen (accessed May 2014).
Carter, J.T. & Gilovich, T. (2010). The relative relativity of material and experiential purchases. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(1), 146-159. Claudio, L. (2007). Waste couture: environmental impact of the clothing industry.
Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(9), 448-454.
Dolan, P. (2002). The sustainability of ‘sustainable consumption’. Journal of
Gam, H.J. & Banning, J. (2011). Addressing sustainable apparel design challenges with problem-based learning. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 29(3), 202-219. Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M. & Van den Berg, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status,
reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98(3), 392-404.
Hertwich, E. & Peters, G. P. (2009). Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked analysis. Environmental Science & Technology, 43, 6414-6420.
Hiller Connell, K.Y. (2010). Internal and external barriers to eco-conscious apparel acquisition. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(1), 279-86.
Holmes, J. G., Miller, D. T., & Lerner, M. J. (2002). Committing altruism under the cloak of self-interest: The exchange fiction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 144-151.
Hoyer, W.D., MacInnis, A.J. & Pieters, R. (2013). Consumer Behavior. (6th ed.). South- Western: Cengage Learning.
Joergens, C. (2006). Ethical fashion: myth or future trend?. Journal of Fashion Marketing
and Management, 10(3), 360–371.
Johansson, J.K., Douglas, S.P. & Nonaka, I. (1985). Assessing the Impact of Country of Origin on Product Evaluations: A New Methodological Perspective. Journal of
Marketing Research, 22, 388-396.
Kagawa, F. (2007). Dissonance in students’ perceptions of sustainable development and sustainability: implications for curriculum change. International Journal of
Sustainability, 8(3), 317-338.
Kim, S. (2011). Transferring Effects of CSR Strategy on Consumer Responses: The
Synergistic Model of Corporate Communication Strategy. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 23(2), 218–241.
Kim, S., Haley, E. & Lee, Y. (2008). Does consumers’ product-related involvement matter when it comes to corporate ads? Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 30, 37–48.
Kim, S.-B. & Kim, D.-K. (2014). The Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on Green Messages in Hotels. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 55(64), 64-75.
Klein, J. & Dawar, N. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product harm crisis. International Journal of Research in
Leshner, G. & Cheng, I.-H. (2009). The effects of frame, appeal, and outcome extremity of antismoking messages on cognitive processing. Health Communication, 24, 219-27. Lipson, E. (2008). International market for sustainable apparel. Rockville, MD: Packaged
Facts.
Lord, K. R. (1994). Motivating recycling behavior: A quasiexperimental investigation of message and source strategies. Psychology & Marketing, 11(4), 341-58.
Loroz, P. S. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 24(11), 1001-1023.
Matute-Vallejo, J., Bravo, R. & Pina, J.M. (2011). The influence of corporate social
responsibility and price fairness on customer behaviour: Evidence from the financial sector. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18, 317– 331.
McCracken, G.D. & Roth, V.J. (1989). Does clothing have a code? Empirical findings and theoretical implications in the study of clothing as a means of communication.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 6, 13-33.
McDonald, S., Oates, C., Thyne, M., Alevizou, P. & McMorland, L.-A. (2009). Comparing sustainable consumption patterns across product sectors . International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 33, 137–145.
Meyer, A. (2001). What’s in it for the customers? Successfully marketing green clothes.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(5), 317-330.
Monin, B., Sawyer, P. J., & Marquez, M. J. (2008). The rejection of moral rebels: Resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 76- 93.
Nolan, J.P., Schultz, P.W., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J. & Griskevicius, V. (2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34, 913–923.
Öberseder, M., Schlegelmilch, B.B. & Gruber, V. (2011). Why don’t consumers care about CSR?: A qualitative study exploring the role of CSR in consumption decisions.
Journal of Business Ethics, 104(4), 1–12.
Okada, E.M. & Mais, E.L. (2010). Framing the “green” alternative for environmentally conscious consumers. Sustainability Accounting Management and Policy Journal,
Park, C. W., Maclnnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B. & Lacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74, 1–17.
Perera, L.C.R. & Chaminda, J.W.D. (2013). Corporate Social Responsibility and Product Evaluation: The Moderating Role of Brand Familiarity. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20, 245–256.
Qin, W. & Brown, J. L. (2007). Public reactions to information about genetically engineered foods: Effects of information formats and male/female differences. Public
Understanding of Science, 16, 471-88.
Salmela, S. & Varho, V. (2006). Consumers in the green electricity market in Finland.
Energy Policy, 34, 3669–3683.
Schaefer, A. & Crane, A. (2005). Addressing sustainability and consumption. Journal of
Macromarketing, 25, 76–92.
Schuldt, J.P., Muller, D. & Schwarz, N. (2012). The ‘Fair Trade’ Effect: Health halos from social ethics claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 00(0), 1-9. Sheth, J.N., Sethia, N.K. & Srinivas, S. (2011). Mindful consumption: a customer-centric
approach to sustainability. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 21-39.
Small, D.A., Loewenstein, G. & Solvic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 102, 143-153.
Solomon, M. & Rabolt, N. (2004). Consumer Behaviour in Fashion. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Solvic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D.G. (2002). Rational actors or rational foold: implications of the affect heuristics for behavioral economics. Journal of
Socio-Economics, 31, 329-342.
Statista GmbH. (2014). Durchschnittsalter der Bevölkerung in ausgewählten Ländern im Jahr 2013. http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/37220/umfrage/altersmedian-der- bevoelkerung-in-ausgewaehlten-laendern/ (accessed May 2014).
Stephenson, M.T. & Witte, K. (2000). Creating fear in a risky world: Generating effective health risk messages. In: Public communication campaigns. (3rd ed). R.E. Rice & Atkin, C.K. 88-104.Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Tanner, C. & Wölfing Kast, S. (2003). Promoting sustainable consumption: Determinants of green purchases by Swiss consumers. Psychology & Marketing, 20(10), 883-902. Thogerson, J. (2011). Green shopping: For selfish reasons or the common good? American
Behavioral Scientist, 55(8), 1052-1076.
Venhoeven, L.A., Bolderdijk, J.W., Keizer, K. & Steg, L. (2013). The association between environmentally-friendly behavior and positive emotions. Manuscript under review at Nature Climate Change.
Verhoef, P.C. (2005). Explaining Purchase Behavior of Organic Meat by Dutch Consumers. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 245-67.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common
Future. Oxford Press, New York.
Willer, H. & Lernoud, J. (2014). The World of Organic Agriculture—Statistics and Emerging
Trends 2014. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), and International
Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM), Bonn.
Yan, C., Dillard, J. P. & Shen, F. (2010). The effects of mood, message framing, and behavioral advocacy on persuasion. Journal of Communication, 60(2), 344-36. Yan, R.-N., Hyllegard, K.H. & Bleasi, L.F. (2012). Marketing eco-fashion: The influence of
brand name and message explicitness. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(2), 151-168.
Appendix A - Survey
A. Introduction (used for all studies: 1,2,3,4)
Dear participants, the following survey is developed within the scope of my master’s program in Marketing at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The survey consists of 15 short questions taking less than 10 minutes. Participation is voluntarily and you can stop answering the questions at any given moment. The answers are anonymized and will remain confidential. At no time we will ask for your name or your address. We will not pass your data to third parties or use it for any other purposes.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey!
B. Study scenarios (independent variable and moderator manipulation)
Please take some time to look at the advertisement below and read the text carefully. Study 1: Environmental framing x food
Study 2: Social framing x food
Below you can see an advertisement of fair trade coffee.
Study 3: Environmental framing x apparel
Study 4: Social framing x apparel
Below you can see an advertisement of fair trade jeans.
C. Evaluation; dependent variable measurement (used for all studies: 1, 2, 3, 4)
Please remember the advertisement you saw above while answering the following questions. Please select the answer you most agree with.
Questions about attitudes towards the product adopted from Kim, Haley, & Lee, (2008) and Kim (2011):
1. I feel positively towards the product I saw in the advertisement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree strongly agree
2. I think the product I saw in the advertisement is of good quality
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree strongly agree
3. I like the product I saw in the advertisement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree strongly agree
4. The product in the advertisement is appealing to me
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
5. My overall expectation about the product is favorable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree strongly agree
Questions about purchase intentions adapted from Park, Maclnnis, Priester, Eisingerich, and Lacobucci (2010)
6. I am likely to buy the product I saw in the advertisement
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree strongly agree
Question about satisfaction adapted from Carter & Gilovich (2010)
7. I think purchasing the product I saw in the advertisement would make me happy
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree strongly agree
D. Manipulation check (used for all studies: 1,2,3,4)
8. The product I saw above was said to:
protect the environment support better working conditions 9. The advertisement I saw above was about:
Apparel Food
E. Check health effects and symbolic meaning of apparel and food (used for all studies: 1,2,3,4)
10. I think the product I saw in the advertisement says something about my personality
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
strongly disagree strongly agree
11. I think the product I saw in the advertisement has a direct influence on my health and well-being
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
E. Demographic questions (used for all studies: 1,2,3,4)
12. What is your gender? Male Female
13. What is your age? ___________ years
14. What is your nationality? ____________
15. What is your highest level of education? Lower secondary education Upper secondary education Associates or vocational degree University degree
Post grad degree Doctorate None
F. Debriefing (used for all studies: 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B)
Appendix B – Descriptive Statistics Appendix B1: Gender Distribution
Gender
Value Count Percent
Standard Attributes Label What is your gender?
Valid Values 1 2 Male Female 220 68 23,5% 76,1%
Missing Values System 1 0,3%
Appendix B2: Age Distribution
Age
Value
Standard Attributes Label What is your age?
N Valid 289
Missing 0
Central Tendency and Dispersion
!
Appendix B3: Nationalities
Nationality
Value Count Percent
Standard Attributes Label What is your nationality?
!
Appendix B4: Educational Levels
Education
Value Count Percent
Standard Attributes Label Highest level of education?
Valid Values
1 Lower secondary education 0 0,0%
2 Upper secondary education 41 14,2%
3 Associates or vocational degree 51 17,6%
4 University degree 148 51,2%
5 Post grad degree 36 12,5%
6 Doctorate 6 2,1%
7 None 2 0,7%
Missing Values System 5 1,7%
0 50 100 150 200 250
GER NED AUT FIN TUR ITA Frau LUX USA SLO CHN GRE BEL IND
Appendix C – Manipulation Check
Appendix C1: Chi-Square Test - Product Type
Appendix C2: Chi-Square Test – Message Framing
Product Type * The advertisement I saw above was about: Crosstabulation
The advertisement I saw above was about:
Total Apparel Food Product Type Food Count 10 132 142
% within Product Type 7,0% 93,0% 100,0%
% within The advertisement was about: 6,4% 100,0% 49,1%
% of Total 3,5% 45,7% 49,1%
Apparel
Count 147 0 147
% within Product Type 100,0% 0,0% 100,0%
% within The advertisement was about: 93,6% 0,0% 50,9%
% of Total 50,9% 0,0% 50,9%
Total
Count 157 132 289
% within Product Type 54,3% 45,7% 100,0%
% within The advertisement was about: 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% of Total 54,3% 45,7% 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 251,537a 1 ,000 Continuity Correctionb 247,804 1 ,000 Likelihood Ratio 326,130 1 ,000
Fisher's Exact Test ,000 ,000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 250,666 1 ,000
N of Valid Cases 289
a. 0 cells (,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 64,86. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Message Type * The product I saw above was said to: Crosstabulation
The product I saw above was said to: Total Protect the environment Fair working conditions Message Type Environmental Count 134 9 143
% within Message Type 93,7% 6,3% 100,0%
% within Product was said to: 95,0% 6,1% 49,7%
% of Total 46,5% 3,1% 49,7%
Social
Count 7 138 145
% within Message Type 4,8% 95,2% 100,0%
% within Product was said to: 5,0% 93,9% 50,3%
% of Total 2,4% 47,9% 50,3%
Total
Count 141 147 288
% within Message Type 49,0% 51,0% 100,0%
% Product was said to: 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided) Exact Sig. (2-sided) Exact Sig. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 227,591a 1 ,000 Continuity Correctionb 224,048 1 ,000 Likelihood Ratio 275,837 1 ,000
Fisher's Exact Test ,000 ,000
Linear-by-Linear
Association 226,801 1 ,000
N of Valid Cases 288
Appendix D – Health Effects and Symbolic Meaning of Apparel and Food Appendix D1: Independent Samples T-test – Health Effects
Group Statistics
Product Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Product has health effects Food 140 3,50 1,598 ,135
Apparel 146 3,10 1,557 ,129
Independent Samples Test Levene's Test
for Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of Means
Appendix D2: Independent Samples T-test - Symbolic Meaning Group Statistics
Product Type N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Product has a
symbolic meaning
Food 141 3,40 1,665 ,140 Apparel 147 3,95 1,644 ,136
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for Equality of variances
t-test for Equality of Means
Appendix E – Correlation and Reliability Analysis Appendix E1: Correlations Analysis – All Variables
Correlations Feel positively towards product Product is of good quality I like the product Product is appealing Expectati on is favorable Likely to buy product Happy with purchase Feel positively towards product Pearson Correlation 1 ,521** ,579** ,573** ,584** ,497** ,496** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 289 288 288 286 286 286 286 Product is of good quality Pearson Correlation ,521** 1 ,529** ,500** ,590** ,394** ,405** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 288 288 287 285 285 285 285 I like the product Pearson Correlation ,579** ,529** 1 ,795** ,716** ,626** ,520** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 288 287 288 285 285 285 285 Product is appealing Pearson Correlation ,573** ,500** ,795** 1 ,780** ,670** ,561** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 286 285 285 286 283 283 283 Expectation is favorable Pearson Correlation ,584** ,590** ,716** ,780** 1 ,635** ,528** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 286 285 285 283 286 284 283 Likely to buy product Pearson Correlation ,497** ,394** ,626** ,670** ,635** 1 ,683** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 286 285 285 283 284 286 283 Happy with purchase Pearson Correlation ,496** ,405** ,520** ,561** ,528** ,683** 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 N 286 285 285 283 283 283 286
