The Almighty Label: Does a Pro-environmental Label lead to Better Product Evaluations?

Running head: PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 1

The Almighty Label: Does a Pro-environmental Label lead to Better Product

Evaluations?

C. Reuter

(s2261855)

June 2015

Bachelor Thesis BSc Programme of Psychology

Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences

University of Groningen

Supervised by: Dr. G. Perlaviciute

Secondary evaluator: Dr. S. Schleim

PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract …………………………………………………………………………………... 3

Does a Pro-environmental Label lead to Better Product Evaluations? …………………... 4

Literature Review ……………………………………………………………………… 4

Conceptual Framework ………………………………………..………………………. 6

Method …………………………………………………………………………………… 10

Participants and Procedure …………………………………………………………...... 10

Design and Materials …………………………………………....................................... 11

Results ……………………………………………………………………………………. 13

Main Effect of Values……..…………………………………………………………… 13

Interaction Effects of Pro-environmental Label and Values ……..………………...….. 14

Discussion …………………….………………………………………………………….. 16

Joint Effect of Values and Product Type on Product Evaluations ………….……...….. 17

Pro-environmental Label = Health Halo ……………………………………………..... 18

Joint Effect of Values, Product Type and Pro-environmental Label ………………….. 19

Limitations and Future Research ………...…………………………………….……… 21

Implications ………………………………………………………………..................... 21

Conclusion ……………………………………………………..…………………………. 23

References............………………………………………………………………………… 24

Appendices...……………………………………………………………………………… 32


Abstract

Promoting a wide range of products as pro-environmental is common practice in the organic

food industry, but is this marketing strategy really beneficial? The present study aims to improve

understanding of how adding a pro-environmental label affects product evaluations by

investigating the joint effect of values and product type. Importantly, the interaction between

values and product type seems to be the main driving force behind product evaluations. As

predicted, stronger biospheric values resulted in more positive taste evaluations of the virtue

product and more negative taste evaluations of the vice product, whereas the opposite effect was

found for hedonic values. Interestingly, pro-environmental label did not have much added value

to product evaluations, when compared to values and product type. The present findings speak

against the effectiveness of a pro-environmental label; further research is needed to clarify the

effect of pro-environmental label on evaluations of various product characteristics (e.g.

healthiness, eco-friendliness).

Keywords: pro-environmental, product evaluations, values, virtue, vice


The Almighty Label: Does a Pro-environmental Label lead to Better Product Evaluations?

According to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate

Change, agricultural production is responsible for at least 25% of global greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions, and if the processing chain and food handling practices were to be included, this

figure would even rise to approximately one third of worldwide emissions (Field & Van Aalst,

2014). Considering the large share of the food industry to GHG emissions, rethinking the choice

of production systems is vital to counteract climate change. Organic food production represents a

valuable alternative to conventional production systems as it largely relies on renewable energy

from local natural resources, thereby utilizing natural biological and ecological processes to

produce sustainable food (Scialabba & Müller-Lindenlauf, 2010). Owing to the increasing

acknowledgement of its great potential, organic food production has begun to emerge over the

last years (Tobler, Visschers, & Siegrist, 2011). However, the success of this novel industry

crucially depends on the acceptance from consumers. In order to support the transition from

conventional to organic food production, consumers need to fundamentally change their

consumption behaviour. This change can be facilitated through the use of smart marketing tools.

In recent years, adding a pro-environmental label to products and providing information about

their positive environmental impact has been a widely used marketing strategy for organic foods

(Thøgersen, Jørgensen, & Sandager, 2012). But is promoting a product as pro-environmental

really the silver bullet for ensuring better product evaluations?

Literature Review

Evaluations of products with pro-environmental label. Overall findings for the effects

of a pro-environmental label on product evaluations are mixed (Loureiro & McCluskey, 2000),

with different effects across consumers, depending on consumers’ individual motives. Motives


leading to more positive evaluations of organic food products include heightened environmental

awareness (Kriwy & Mecking, 2012), care for animal welfare (Harper & Makatouni, 2002),

strong health concern (Magnusson, Arvola, Hursti, Åberg, & Sjödén, 2003) and scepticism

regarding the food safety of conventionally produced foods (Kirk, Greenwood, Cade, &

Pearman, 2002; Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008). In contrast, unwillingness to pay the price

premium (Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011), and distrust in the organic food industry (Davies,

Titterington, & Cochrane, 1995) were found to negatively affect product evaluations of organic

food. Essentially, these findings indicate that product evaluations seem to be based on which

product attributes consumers find important, which in turn depends on their individual values. In

other words, consumers evaluate (organic) products according to how well the products support

their values.

Value theory. Values are defined as “desirable goals, varying in importance, that serve as

a guiding principle in people’s lives” (Schwartz, 1992, p. 21). They are relatively stable in time

(Stern, 2000) and may influence beliefs and actions in different domains (Rokeach, 1973),

including the food domain (Arvola et al., 2008). Four types of values have been found to be

especially important in explaining pro-environmental behavior: Biospheric and altruistic values,

or self-transcendent values, encourage pro-environmental behaviour because concern extends

beyond the scope of self-interest. In contrast, hedonic and egoistic values, or self-enhancement

values, prevent pro-environmental behaviour as concern primarily revolves around self-interest

(De Groot & Steg, 2008; Robertson & Barling, 2014; Steg, Perlaviciute, Van der Werff, &

Lurvink, 2012).

Biospheric and hedonic values. In the present study, I will focus on biospheric and

hedonic values because both have been shown to directly affect evaluations of organic food


(Dreezens, Martijn, Tenbült, Kok, & De Vries, 2005; Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011). People with

strong biospheric values primarily orient their acting according to the consequences it has for the

environment (e.g. buying environmentally-friendly washing detergent; Dahlstrand & Biel, 1997).

On the one hand, research has shown that the stronger people’s biospheric values, the more

positively they evaluate organic products (Thøgersen & Ölander, 2002; Thøgersen, Haugaard, &

Olesen, 2010). On the other hand, it has been found that consumers with strong biospheric values

rated an organic formula drink more negatively than its conventional counterpart (Schuldt &

Hannahan, 2013). Contrary to people with strong biospheric values, those who strongly endorse

hedonic values are especially concerned with pleasure-seeking and immediate gratification (e.g.

choosing a food product based on its perceived tastiness; Steg et al., 2012). While there is

evidence that consumers with strong hedonic values are more likely to buy organic food when

they evaluate the product’s sensory attributes as pleasant (H. Lee & Yun, 2015), another study

has found that a pro-environmental label led to more negative quality and taste evaluations (Van

Doorn & Verhoef, 2011).

Thus, although researchers have investigated how individual differences in values can

affect evaluations of organic products, the findings on the effects of values on product

evaluations are inconsistent and do not allow for definite conclusions. These mixed findings

might result from the fact that the studies mostly involved very few products, hence paying little

attention to the different product types (Van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011). In view of this

shortcoming, I propose that product evaluations of organic food are not only affected by values

but also by the product type.

Conceptual Framework

In the present study, I examine how adding a pro-environmental label affects evaluations


of food products depending on consumers’ values and the product type. Importantly, this study

plays a pioneering role in that it investigates the joint effect of values and product type, thereby

merging two factors which have thus far only been studied separately. I propose that the pro-

environmental label as well as the product type may have different perceived implications for

consumers’ values, which in turn determines how consumers, given their values, will evaluate

the product. If the pro-environmental label and the product type are supportive of consumers’

individual values, more positive product evaluations will occur. However, if only one of them

disagrees with consumers’ values, more negative evaluations will occur. Based on literature, I

distinguish between the “virtue” and the “vice” product typea (Mishra & Mishra, 2011; Thomas,

Desai, & Seenivasan, 2012; Wertenbroch, 1998), which bear striking similarities to biospheric

and hedonic values respectively, but stand in marked contradiction to each other, as I will

explain in the following.

Joint Effect of Pro-environmental Label, Values and Product Type. As mentioned

above, consumers with strong biospheric values primarily look for products that facilitate pro-

environmental behaviour (e.g. crops that are organically grown to support sustainable soil

management). As the purchase of such products oftentimes entails renunciation of one’s own

immediate interests (e.g. paying higher price premium for organic crops), it can be considered a

form of normative action (Eskine, 2013). Interestingly, this normativity is also inherent to the

virtue product type (e.g. vegetables, fruits) because virtue products are generally associated with

the promotion of health and well-being (e.g. through sufficient vitamin intake; Milkman, Rogers,

& Bazerman, 2008; Okada, 2005) which implies conscious renunciation from unhealthy but

pleasurable vice products (e.g. chocolate, potato chips). Thus, just like with pro-environmental

a In the literature, virtue and the vice products are commonly considered in relation to each other, i.e. as relative virtues and relative vices.


behaviour, the consumption of virtue products serves a normative, long-term goal (namely, the

maintenance of health and well-being) and means refraining from immediate interests (e.g.

indulgence in a health-threatening chocolate bar). Accordingly, it appears that the normativity

signalled by the virtue product type is particularly supportive of biospheric values, resulting in

more positive product evaluations by consumers with strong biospheric values. In contrast, the

pleasure and immediate gratification ascribed to the vice product type conflicts with the

normative implications that biospheric values entail, leading to more negative product

evaluations by consumers with strong biospheric values. Based on the above, I expect consumers

with strong biospheric values to evaluate virtue products more positively than vice products.

H1a: The stronger people’s biospheric values, the more positively they will evaluate the virtue product and the more negatively they will evaluate the vice product.

Furthermore, adding a pro-environmental label to virtue products may enhance product

evaluations because consumers with strong biopheric values perceive the normativity and

wholesomeness signaled by the pro-environmental label as supportive of their values. It hence

follows that, for people with strong biospheric values, adding a pro-environmental label is more

likely to enhance evaluations of virtue products than vice products.

H1b: For people with strong biospheric values, a pro-environmental label (versus no label) is most likely to enhance product evaluations when added to a virtue product, as compared to a vice product.

Contrary to consumers with strong biospheric values, consumers who strongly endorse

hedonic values primarily look for products that give instant pleasure (e.g. enjoying the taste of

French fries), a product characteristic which is inherent to the vice product type. Thus, although


the consumption of vice products might come at the cost of negative long-term consequences

(e.g. tooth decay, weight gain), it serves the immediate self-interest of consumers with strong

hedonic values. Accordingly, it appears that the pleasure and gratification signalled by the vice

product type is particularly supportive of hedonic values, resulting in more positive product

evaluations from consumers with strong hedonic values. In contrast, the normativity and

wholesomeness signaled by the virtue product type conflicts with consumers’ hedonic values,

leading to more negative product evaluations. Based on the above, I predict that consumers with

strong hedonic values will evaluate vice products more positively than virtue products.

H2a: The stronger people’s hedonic values, the more positively they will evaluate the vice product and the more negatively they will evaluate the virtue product.

Yet, adding a pro-environmental label to vice products may lead to a change in

evaluations because consumers with strong hedonic values perceive the normativity and

wholesomeness signaled by the pro-environmental label as conflicting with the indulgence they

associate with the vice product. In the literature, this perceived trade-off has been referred to as

the “zero-sum heuristic” which posits that people intuitively judge a situation according to the

principle “one entity’s gain is another’s loss” (Raghunathan, Naylor, & Hoyer, 2006). In terms of

product evaluations, it follows that particularly consumers with strong hedonic values will

evaluate organic vice products less positively than conventional vice products because they

believe that an organic vice product cannot be both tasty and environmentally friendly at the

same time (Choi & Springston, 2014).

H2b: If a pro-environmental label is added, stronger hedonic values may not lead to more positive product evaluations but even to more negative product evaluations of particularly vice products.


To test the current hypotheses, I measured the effects of pro-environmental label, values

and product type on evaluations of tastiness and healthiness. These two product characteristics

were chosen for the following reasons: First, because perceived taste quality and healthiness are

considered important criteria for consumers’ purchase decisions (Furst, Connors, Bisogni, Sobal,

& Falk, 1996). Characteristics that directly relate to the perceived environmental friendliness of

food products were not included in order to prevent suspicions about the purpose of the present

study which might have distorted the results. Second, perceived tastiness and healthiness are well

suited to test whether consumers’ value-based evaluations spread to product characteristics that

are not directly related to people’s values, in this case particularly biospheric values, a

phenomenon known as the “halo effect” (W. J. Lee, Shimizu, Kniffin, & Wansink, 2013; Wirtz,

2000).

Method

Participants and Procedure

Residents from different neighbourhoods of the Dutch city Groningen were visited at

their homes and asked to participate in the study about consumer preferences, by filling in a

questionnaire. The questionnaires were later collected by the interviewer upon agreement, the

respondents were debriefed and offered a small food gift as a token of appreciationb. In total, 203

valid questionnaires (response rate 70 %c) were received, 12 of which were administered in

English, the rest were administered in Dutch. The age of the respondents, of whom 97 were men

and 106 were women, ranged from 18 to 74 (M = 40.92, SD = 14.18). A comparison with

statistics recorded by the municipality of Groningen has indicated that the sample was

b Respondents could choose between conventionally produced Dutch waffles or an organic chocolate bar, both worth approximately 0.80 €. Product choice also served as a dependent measure, but it was not analysed here, given the scope of this thesis. c As the response rate was not documented, this percentage only represents an approximate estimate.


representative for the population of the city (Onderzoek en Statistiek Groningen, n.d.; see

Appendix A for sample characteristics).

Design and Materials

First, the respondents filled in a personal value scale, followed by a filler task. Next, they

were introduced to food products, each product was presented with a photo and a short product

description including a list of ingredients. Respondents evaluated the products on a list of

characteristicsd.

Pro-environmental label manipulation. Product label was manipulated in a between-

subjects design, about half of the respondents were introduced to food products with pro-

environmental label, whereas the other half were introduced to the same products without label.

In the pro-environmental label condition, the product title read “organic” (e.g. “organic mixed

salad”), a “bio”- logo was added to the product photos, and some of the products’ ingredients

were said to be organic.

Product type manipulation. Product type was manipulated in a within-subjects design.

Respondents were introduced to a mixed salad as a virtue product, whereas they were presented

with chocolate cookies as a vice product (Sela, Berger, & Liu, 2009; Thomas, Desai, &

Seenivasan, 2012). The order in which these two products were shown was counterbalanced,

with either the salad or the cookies appearing as the first product on the liste.

Biospheric and hedonic values. The respondents rated 16 values with respect to the

importance of these values as guiding principles in their lives on a 9-point scale ranging from −1

d Product evaluations were part of a larger battery of questions about the food products; other items are not discussed here, given the scope of this thesis. The complete questionnaire is available upon request. e For explorative reasons, an insect-containing food, namely a mealworm-vegetable quiche, was included, which was always presented as the last product. The product could potentially be classified as a moderate virtue product (e.g. bread, eggs, milk; Perlaviciute, 2014).Yet, classification for this product was less clear because insect products have not yet been subject to much research. No significant effects of pro-environmental label or values on evaluation of the insect product were found; the product is not further discussed in this study.


= opposed to my principles, 0 = not important, to 7 = extremely important (Steg, Perlaviciute,

Van der Werff, & Lurvink, 2014)f. Four values represented biospheric value orientation:

respecting the earth, unity with nature, protecting the environment, preventing pollution; and

three values represented hedonic value orientation: pleasure, enjoying life, self-indulgent. The

ratings for these items were averaged to create overall scales of biospheric values (α = 0.87; M =

4.65, SD = 0.46) and hedonic values (α = 0.82; M = 4.78, SD = 0.42). The value scale was

followed by a filler task in which the respondents were asked to unscramble six sentences, each

consisting of five words, and to note down the one word that did not grammatically belong in the

sentence (cf. Srull & Wyer, 1979; see Appendix B). The purpose of the filler task was to reduce

the impact that respondents’ heightened awareness of their personal values could have on

product evaluations (i.e. so-called priming effects; Perlaviciute, 2014).

Evaluations of food products. The respondents marked on a 6-point rating scale (ranging

from 0 = not at all to 5 = very much) how accurately a list of 12 characteristics described the

respective food products. Nine positively or negatively valenced characteristics were given; four

characteristics represented perceived tastiness: delicious, tasteless (reversed coding), rich in

flavour, sickening (reversed coding); and five characteristics represented perceived healthiness:

healthy, poor in nutrients (reversed coding), of high quality, bad for me (reversed coding), fresh.

Additionally, the scale contained three filler characteristicsg measuring other product attributes

that are unrelated to tastiness and healthfulness: expensive (reversed coding), filling (reversed

coding), and easy to prepare for salad or easy to take with me for cookies. Table 2 illustrates the

f The value scale also measured egoistic and altruistic values, but those are not further discussed as they are not relevant for this study. g The valence of these characteristics can be seen as ambiguous; for example, a high score on filling could signify a positive product evaluation (e.g. suitable to sate hunger) but also a negative product evaluation (e.g. gives bloated feeling).


overall composite scores for perceived tastiness and healthiness of the virtue and the vice

product.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Perceived Tastiness and Healthiness Evaluations per Product

Evaluations per Product

M

SD

Reliabilityh

(Cronbach’s α)

Virtue Product

Tastiness 3.98 .63 .60

Healthiness 4.23 .53 .51

Vice Product

Tastiness 3.96 .76 .75

Healthiness 1.56 .74 .56

Results

Tastiness and healthiness evaluations of the virtue and vice product were regressed on

standardized scores for biospheric and hedonic values respectively, pro-environmental label

(coded 1 for no label and 2 for pro-environmental label), and the corresponding interaction

terms.

Main Effect of Values

Biospheric values. For biospheric values, all four regression models were significant

(perceived tastiness of the virtue product: R² = .11, F (3, 199) = 8.11, p < .001; perceived

h Due to the relatively low Cronbach’s alpha for the composite scores for perceived tastiness and healthiness, the effects for each characteristic were also tested separately. Similar effects were found for individual characteristics.


tastiness of the vice product: R² = .05, F (3, 199) = 3.40, p = .02; perceived healthiness of the

virtue product: R² = .04, F (3, 199) = 2.93, p = .03; perceived healthiness of the vice product: R²

= .08, F (3, 199) = 6.13, p < .001). Stronger biospheric values resulted in perceiving the virtue

product as tastier (β = .77, p < .001) and the vice product as less tasty (β = -.52, p = .01). No

effect on perceived healthiness of the virtue (β = .14, p = .50) and the vice product (β = -.06, p =

.77) was found.

Hedonic values. For hedonic values, three of the four regression models were significant

(perceived tastiness of the virtue product: R² = .04, F (3, 198) = 2.92, p = .03; perceived tastiness

of the vice product: R² = .06, F (3, 198) = 4.37, p = .005; perceived healthiness of the vice

product: R² = .08, F (3, 198) = 5.72, p < .001); the regression model for perceived healthiness of

the virtue product was not significant (R² < .01, F (3, 198) = 0.09, p = .96). Stronger hedonic

values resulted in perceiving the virtue product as less tasty (β = -.20, p = .003) and perceiving

the vice product as tastier (β = .605, p = .005). No effect on perceived healthiness of the vice

product was found (β = .18, p = .40).

Interaction Effects of Pro-environmental Label and Values

Two interaction effects were found for pro-environmental label and biospheric and

hedonic values, respectively, on perceived tastiness of the virtue (β = -.51, p = .01) and the vice

product (β = -.42, p = .04). The interaction effects of the other regression models were not

significant (all p’s > .05), however, pro-environmental label (versus no label) resulted in more

positive healthiness evaluations of the vice product (R² = .08, F (3, 198) = 5.72, p = .001; β = -

.27, p < .001). To explore the nature of the interaction effects, simple slopes analyses were

performed, testing the effects of pro-environmental label for weak (-1 SD below the mean) and

strong (+1 SD above the mean) biospheric and hedonic values, respectively.


Biospheric values and pro-environmental label. Contrary to expectations, people with

strong biospheric values evaluated the pro-environmental virtue product as less tasty than the

conventional virtue product (β = -.24, p = .04; see Figure 1). For people with weak biospheric

values, pro-environmental label had no effect on perceived tastiness of the virtue product (β =

.19, p = .112).

Figure 1. Simple slopes of pro-environmental label (versus no label) predicting perceived

tastiness of the virtue product for strong (1 SD > M) and weak (1 SD < M) biospheric values.

Hedonic values and pro-environmental label. Pro-environmental label had no effect on

perceived tastiness of the vice product for respondents with strong (β = -.22, p = .15; see Figure

2) and weak hedonic values (β = .21, p = .18).


Figure 2. Simple slopes of pro-environmental label (versus no label) predicting perceived

tastiness of the vice product for strong (1 SD > M) and weak (1 SD < M) hedonic values.

Discussion

The present study was designed to examine how adding a pro-environmental label affects

product evaluations depending on consumes’ values and product type. I predicted and found that

product evaluations are based on how well the products support consumers’ individual values. In

fact, the findings show that the interaction between values and product type seems to be the main

driving force behind product evaluations, while adding a pro-environmental label had relatively

little additional value. By investigating the joint effect of pro-environmental label, product type

and values, the present study provided valuable insight into the nature of their interaction,

thereby calling attention to some interesting theoretical and practical implications for organic


marketing.

Joint Effect of Values and Product Type on Product Evaluations

Values had different effects on product evaluations, depending on the product type: The

stronger people’s biospheric values, the more positively they evaluated the taste of the virtue

product and the more negatively they evaluated the taste of the vice product (H1a). The stronger

people’s hedonic values, the more positively they evaluated the taste of the vice product and the

more negatively they evaluated the taste of the virtue product (H2a). These findings support my

reasoning that product evaluations depend on how supportive the product type is of consumers’

individual values. If the product type supports consumers’ values, more positive evaluations will

follow, if it disagrees with consumers’ values, more negative evaluations will occur. Indeed, the

virtue product is typically associated with wholesomeness and normativity, qualities which are

very supportive of strong biospheric values. In contrast, the instant pleasure and gratification that

the vice product signals support hedonic values.

Yet, neither biospheric nor hedonic values had an effect on evaluations of healthiness for

the virtue and the vice product. Based on the halo effect (Perlaviciute & Steg, 2015), I expected

values to colour evaluations of different product characteristics in a similar way, but the present

findings suggest that healthiness evaluations were not susceptive to this effect. This might be

explained by the fact that there is a clearer consensus about healthiness than tastiness perceptions

(Bech-Larsen & Grunert, 2003; Thomas et al., 2012), especially for products that are considered

prototypical of the virtue (e.g. salad) and the vice product type (e.g. cookies), as in the case of

the present study. Indeed, there is evidence that product characteristics have to be somewhat

ambiguous for the halo effect to occur (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Future research is needed to

test this theoretical account by using products that are not as prototypical of the virtue and the


vice product type (e.g. pasta, cheese).

Pro-environmental Label = Health Halo

Interestingly, adding a pro-environmental label led to higher perceived healthiness of the

vice product, but had no effect on perceived healthiness of the virtue product, neither did it affect

tastiness evaluations of the virtue and the vice product. Although the present study did not aim to

test for individual effects of pro-environmental label on product evaluations, it is worthwhile to

discuss these striking findings given their theoretical and practical implications. The

wholesomeness signalled by the pro-environmental label seems to have functioned as a “health

halo” (Kozup, Creyer, & Burton, 2003; Schuldt, 2012), leading consumers to perceive the

organic vice product as healthier than the conventional vice product, whereas adding a pro-

environmental label to the virtue product did not affect healthiness evaluations, probably because

of its already healthy product image.

The present findings accord with prior research on the health halo (W. J. Lee et al., 2013;

Schuldt, Muller, & Schwarz, 2012). For example, Sundar and Kardes (2015) found that labelling

one product as pro-environmental and the other product as conventional resulted in lower calorie

and fat estimates but higher nutrition and fibre content ratings for identical pairs of cookies and

potato chips. However, the difference in healthiness evaluations of yogurt was less pronounced,

pointing to the fact that a pro-environmental label does not seem to noticeably improve

healthiness evaluations of virtue products. Given the suggestive power of health halos, it would

be fruitful to elaborate on the current findings, especially with respect to the social responsibility

of food producers (e.g. overconsumption of supposedly healthier organic vice products may lead

to rising overweight levels). In this context, examining which consumer segment is most

susceptible to health halos is of particular importance.


Joint Effect of Values, Product Type and Pro-environmental Label on Product Evaluations

Somewhat surprisingly, pro-environmental label did not have much added value to

product evaluations, when compared to values and product type, indicating that values and

product type seem to be the main driving force behind product evaluations.

Hedonic values. Although an interaction effect between hedonic values and pro-

environmental label on taste evaluations of the vice product was found, no solid conclusions can

be drawn about the direction of this interaction as the simple slopes were not significant (H2b).

Nevertheless, the interaction effect suggests that the effect of pro-environmental label on taste

evaluations of the vice product may differ depending on hedonic values. In fact, there is evidence

that tastiness evaluations of cookies with a pro-environmental label were less positive for some

taste attributes, compared to the tastiness evaluations of conventional cookies (Schuldt &

Hannahan, 2013; see also Westcombe & Wardle, 1997). The present findings seem to take the

same direction, yet as the simple slopes were not significant, further research is needed to see

whether the findings can be replicated.

Biospheric values. Contrary to the hypothesis, people with strong biospheric values

perceived the organic virtue product as less tasty than the conventional virtue product, no effect

was found for tastiness evaluations of people with weak biospheric values (H1b). This

counterintuitive finding could be explained by two theoretical accounts which are not necessarily

mutually exclusive.

Scepticism about the integrity of organic products. First, the more negative taste

evaluations for the organic compared to the conventional virtue product might be ascribed to

possible scepticism about the integrity of the presented organic products, especially with respect

to the “bio” logo. As consumers cannot verify the pro-environmental label by means of certain


product attributes (taste, colour etc.), they have to rely on credence attributes (e.g. certified

logos) instead. For this reason, gaining consumer trust in such credence attributes is of crucial

importance for the organic food industry (Golan, Kuchler, Mitchell, Greene, & Jessup, 2001). In

the present study, an unknown and uncertified “bio” logo was used, which might have led to

distrust in the integrity of the organic virtue product, resulting in more negative taste evaluations.

Previous research has indeed shown that trust, credibility and willingness to pay were lowest for

products with a fake logo and highest for products with well known certified logos that can be

found in the marketplace (Janssen & Hamm, 2012). Although the present study did not directly

measure these attributes, it is reasonable to assume that the more negative taste evaluations of the

organic virtue product were linked to diminished trust in the “bio” logo on sides of people with

strong biospheric values. A varied replication of the present study may prove useful to test for

differential impact of credence attributes, for example, by varying several certified and familiar

logos. To further ensure trust in organic product integrity, studies should simulate real

purchasing situations by presenting the products in original packaging.

Self-enhancement bias. A second interesting explanation for this unexpected finding

may be that respondents with strong biospheric values evaluated the organic virtue product as

less tasty so as to clarify that they do not value organic products because of their better taste

qualities but primarily because of the products’ higher environmental friendliness. That is, a

form of self-enhancement bias may have occurred (Dean, Raats, & Shepherd, 2012; Sedikides &

Gregg, 2008), meaning that respondents with strong biospheric values subconsciously wanted to

distance themselves from the focus on taste quality by evaluating the organic virtue product as

less tasty. Importantly, the more negative taste evaluations do not necessarily imply that

respondents with strong biospheric values generally evaluated the organic virtue product more


negatively than its conventionally produced counterparti. For people with strong biospheric

values, perceived tastiness may simply be an unfit benchmark for evaluation as it does not

directly measure what they consider most important in products (e.g. positive environmental

product attributes). Future studies should investigate this self-enhancement account by testing

whether and how taste evaluations of organic virtue products, compared to their conventional

version, will be affected by adding more value-based evaluation criteria.

Limitations and Future Research

The present study should primarily be viewed as a first attempt to investigate how a pro-

environmental label affects product evaluations depending on values and product type. Hence,

future research is key to reach a more substantial understanding of the current findings. I studied

product evaluations of organic food in a single country, only using one product each to represent

the different product types. More studies in different countries are needed to examine a variety of

products per product type in order to be able to generalise the present findings. In addition,

because consumers’ product evaluations may not necessarily reflect their purchasing behaviour,

it might be more informative to measure purchase intentions or, at best, analyse actual purchase

behaviour. Limitations aside, the present study carries important implications for the marketing

of organic products.

Implications

Promoting organic food products by adding a pro-environmental label is a popular

marketing strategy in the organic food industry. Yet, the present study indicates that this

approach is likely to be too simplistic as it disregards how value-based associations per product

i The questionnaire also included measures of the intention to buy and to eat the respective food products. In fact, people with strong biospheric values indicated that they were more likely to eat the virtue product instead of other similar products when it was presented as organic compared to conventional. Given the scope of this thesis, these behavioural intention measures are not discussed here; the results are available upon request.


type influence product evaluations. Given the very heterogeneous consumer and product

segment, a differential approach should be taken that pays special attention to the interplay of

values, product type, and the marketing message. The present findings point to the importance of

the fit between consumers’ values and the product type, at least with regard to perceived

tastiness, which is an important criterion for product evaluations (Furst, Connors, Bisogni, Sobal,

& Falk, 1996). Based on their individual values, consumers evaluate virtue and vice products

very differently. That is, if the image of the product type supports consumers’ values, they will

evaluate the product more positively. However, if the image conflicts with consumers’ values, a

more negative evaluation will result. Therefore, when promoting products, marketers should

particularly consider the relation between values and product type as it is crucial in determining

the relevant target group. It is evident from the present findings that people who strongly endorse

biospheric values constitute a suitable target group for virtue products, whereas those with strong

hedonic values should best be targeted for the promotion of vice products. In view of the above,

marketers should carefully consider whether and how promoting organic products as pro-

environmental will further influence product evaluations.

Promoting organic vice products as pro-environmental seems to be a poor marketing

strategy because the wholesomeness and normativity signalled by the label conflicts with the

unhealthy and hedonic image of the vice product type. The enhancing effect of the pro-

environmental label on healthiness evaluations of vice products (“health halo”) could negatively

influence tastiness evaluations, particularly for consumers with strong hedonic values, who

represent an important target group for vice products. It might be more effective not to promote

vice products as pro-environmental, but to emphasize the taste qualities of organic vice products

instead (e.g. offering in-store coupons or product samples of organic vice products); however,


more research is needed to test the effectiveness of this strategy.

The picture is less clear for the marketing of organic virtue products because determining

what caused the more negative taste evaluations of the organic vice product, compared to its

conventional counterpart, is beyond the scope of this study and requires further investigation.

Nevertheless, possible marketing implications arise from the present findings: If scepticism

about the integrity of the organic virtue product led to more negative taste evaluations, marketers

would be well advised to devote particular attention to the choice of logo in order to gain

consumer trust. However, if consumers with strong biospheric values really consider the virtue

product type in itself environmentally friendly, the beneficial effect of adding a pro-

environmental label to organic virtue products is questionable, meaning that rethinking of

marketing strategies is absolutely necessary.

Conclusion

The present findings show that promoting organic food products as pro-environmental is

not the silver bullet that ensures better evaluations for all products and among all consumers.

Rather, the interaction between values and product type seems to be the main driving force

behind product evaluations as values affect evaluations differently depending on the product

type. Only if the product type supports consumers’ values, positive product evaluations will

occur. Hence, marketing messages should be tailored to both consumers’ individual values and

the product type. Taking a differential approach that pays special attention to the interplay of

values, product type, and the marketing message can help explain evaluations of (organic)

products. Further research is needed to clarify the extent to which a pro-environmental label

affects evaluations of various product characteristics (e.g. healthiness, environmental

friendliness) in addition to values and product type.


References

Arvola, A., Vassallo, M., Dean, M., Lampila, P., Saba, A., Lähteenmäki, L., & Shepherd, R.

(2008). Predicting intentions to purchase organic food: The role of affective and moral

attitudes in the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Appetite, 50, 443-454.

Bech-Larsen, T., & Grunert, K. G. (2003). The perceived healthiness of functional foods: A

conjoint study of Danish, Finnish and American consumers' perception of functional foods.

Appetite, 40, 9-14.

Choi, H., & Springston, J. K. (2014). How to use health and nutrition–related claims correctly on

food advertising: Comparison of benefit-seeking, risk-avoidance, and taste appeals on

different food categories. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 1047-1063.

doi:10.1080/10810730.2013.872723

Dahlstrand, U., & Biel, A. (1997). Pro-environmental habits: Propensity levels in behavioral

change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 588-601. doi:10.1111/j.1559-

1816.1997.tb00650.x

Davies, A., Titterington, A. J., & Cochrane, C. (1995). Who buys organic food? A profile of the

purchasers of organic food in Northern Ireland. British Food Journal, 97(10), 17-23.

De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental

significant behavior how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations.

Environment and Behavior, 40, 330-354.


Dean, M., Raats, M. M., & Shepherd, R. (2012). The role of self-identity, past behavior, and

their interaction in predicting intention to purchase fresh and processed organic food.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 669-688.

Dreezens, E., Martijn, C., Tenbült, P., Kok, G., & De Vries, N. K. (2005). Food and values: an

examination of values underlying attitudes toward genetically modified-and organically

grown food products. Appetite, 44, 115-122.

Eskine, K. J. (2013). Wholesome foods and wholesome morals?: Organic foods reduce prosocial

behavior and harshen moral judgments. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4,

251-254.

Field, C., & Van Aalst, M. (2014). Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.

Part A: global and sectorial aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., & Falk, L. W. (1996b). Food choice: a

conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26, 247-266.

Golan, E., Kuchler, F., Mitchell, L., Greene, C., & Jessup, A. (2001). Economics of food

labeling. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 117-184.

Harper, G. C., & Makatouni, A. (2002). Consumer perception of organic food production and

farm animal welfare. British Food Journal, 104, 287-299.


Janssen, M., & Hamm, U. (2012). Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer

preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Quality

and Preference, 25, 9-22.

Kirk, S. F., Greenwood, D., Cade, J. E., & Pearman, A. D. (2002). Public perception of a range

of potential food risks in the United Kingdom. Appetite, 38, 189-197.

Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: the influence of

health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations of packaged food

products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67, 19-34.

Kriwy, P., & Mecking, R. (2012). Health and environmental consciousness, costs of behaviour

and the purchase of organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 36, 30-37.

doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2011.01004.x

Lee, H., & Yun, Z. (2015). Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and

affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food

Quality and Preference, 39, 259-267.

Lee, W. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see: Do

organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29, 33-39.

Loureiro, M. L., & McCluskey, J. J. (2000). Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for

food labeling: A discussion of empirical studies. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 34,

95-102.


Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U. K., Åberg, L., & Sjödén, P. (2003). Choice of organic

foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly

behaviour. Appetite, 40, 109-117.

Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008). The role of health consciousness, food safety concern

and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal

of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 163-170.

Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Harnessing our inner angels and

demons: What we have learned about want/should conflicts and how that knowledge can

help us reduce short-sighted decision making. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3,

324-338.

Mishra, A., & Mishra, H. (2011). The influence of price discount versus bonus pack on the

preference for virtue and vice foods. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 196-206.

Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of

judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250.

Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification effects on consumer choice of hedonic and utilitarian goods.

Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53.

Onderzoek en Statistiek Groningen. (n.d.). Bevolking: Groningen, The Netherlands, 2.1.a., 2.8.,

2.10. Retrieved June, 2015, from http://www.os-groningen.nl/images/stories/rapport/

Thema07_inkomens.pdf


Onderzoek en Statistiek Groningen. (n.d.). Sociale Zorg, Inkomen; en Lasten: Groningen, The

Netherlands, 7.4.1. Retrieved June, 2015, from http://www.os-groningen.nl/images/

stories/rapport/Thema07_inkomens.pdf

Perlaviciute, G., & Steg, L. (2015). The influence of values on evaluations of energy alternatives.

Renewable Energy, 77, 259-267.

Perlaviciute, G. (2014). Goal-Driven Evaluations of Sustainable Products. Ph.D thesis, Faculty

of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen.

Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy= tasty intuition and its

effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing,

70(4), 170-184.

Robertson, J. L., & Barling, J. (2014). The Psychology of Green Organizations. Oxford:

University Press.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free press.

Schuldt, J. P., & Hannahan, M. (2013). When good deeds leave a bad taste. Negative inferences

from ethical food claims. Appetite, 62, 76-83.

Schuldt, J. P., Muller, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The “fair trade” effect health halos from social

ethics claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 581-589.

Schuldt, J. P. (2012). Health halo effects of values-based food claims. Ph.D thesis, Department of

Communication, Cornell University, Michigan.


Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances

and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25(1), 1-

65.

Scialabba, N. E., & Müller-Lindenlauf, M. (2010). Organic agriculture and climate change.

Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(2), 158-169.

Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2008). Self-enhancement: Food for thought. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 3, 102-116.

Sela, A., Berger, J., & Liu, W. (2009). Variety, vice, and virtue: How assortment size influences

option choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 941-951.

Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of

information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 37, 1660.

Steg, L., Perlaviciute, G., Van der Werff, E., & Lurvink, J. (2014). The significance of hedonic

values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and

Behavior, 46(2), 163-192. doi:10.1177/0013916512454730

Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally

significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 407-424.

Sundar, A., & Kardes, F. R. (2015). The role of perceived variability and the health halo effect in

nutritional inference and consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 32, 512-521.

doi:10.1002/mar.20796


Thøgersen, J., Haugaard, P., & Olesen, A. (2010). Consumer responses to ecolabels. European

Journal of Marketing, 44, 1787-1810.

Thøgersen, J., Jørgensen, A., & Sandager, S. (2012). Consumer decision making regarding a

“green” everyday product. Psychology & Marketing, 29(4), 187-197.

Thøgersen, J., & Ölander, F. (2002). Human values and the emergence of a sustainable

consumption pattern: A panel study. Journal of Economic Psychology, 23, 605-630.

Thomas, M., Desai, K. K., & Seenivasan, S. (2012). Vice and Virtue Food: Perceived

Impulsiveness and Healthfulness of 100 Food Items. Johnson School Research Paper

Series, (26-2012). Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=

2078654

Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to

adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57, 674-682.

Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2011). Willingness to pay for organic products: Differences

between virtue and vice foods. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28, 167-

180.

Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and

vice. Marketing Science, 17, 317-337.

Westcombe, A., & Wardle, J. (1997). Influence of relative fat content information on responses

to three foods. Appetite, 28(1), 49-62.


Wirtz, J. (2000). An examination of the presence, magnitude and impact of halo on consumer

satisfaction measures. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 7(2), 89-99.


Appendix A

Table A1: Sample Characteristics (N = 203)

Education Levels Low (elementary education, lower vocational training, general secondary school) 6,4 % Medium (secondary vocational training, higher general education) 38,9 % High (higher vocational training, university education) Other

53,2 % 1,5 %

Income levels (net income per household per month) Low (<2000 €) 45,8 % Medium (2000 – 4000 €) 41,9 % High (> 4000 €) 9,8 % Missing 2,5 % Household type Living alone 26,6 % Living alone with child/ children 4,3 % Living together with partner 30,0 % Living together with partner and child/ children 24,1 % Living together with others (e.g. students, shared flat) 11,8 % Other 3,2 % Diet Vegetarian 16,3 % Vegan 1,5 % Gluten-free 3,0 % Lactose-free 3,0 % Other 10,3 % Most frequently visited supermarket(s) Lidl 32,5 % Jumbo 52,3 % C1000 4,4 % Aldi 23,6 % Spar 7,4 % Super de Boer Albert Heijn EkoPlaza

1,0 % 76,8 % 14,3 %

Poiesz Plus Coop Other supermarkets

6,4 % 7,4 % 7,9 % 9,4 %


Appendix B

Sentence building exercise (cf. Srull & Wyer, 1979)

Below there are six word strings with five words each. Try to form a correct sentence in your

mind with four of those words and write down the one word that does not belong to your

sentence (you do not have to write down the correct sentence, see example below).

Example: 'red is swim hat the'.

Correct sentence: 'the hat is red'. In this case you write down 'swim' because it does not belong to

the sentence.

1. white fridges jump usually are.

2. boiling the bells is water.

3. is glass the monthly transparent.

4. small is the rackets kitchen.

5. drawers empty saying the are.

6. is cup blue the birds.

The Almighty Label: Does a Pro-environmental Label lead to Better Product Evaluations?

Documents

Transcript of The Almighty Label: Does a Pro-environmental Label lead to Better Product Evaluations?