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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 3
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 4
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 5
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 6
(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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 7
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 8
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 9
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 10
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 11
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 12
= 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).
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 13
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 14
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 15
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).
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 16
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 17
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 18
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 19
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 20
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 21
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 22
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,
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 23
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 24
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 25
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 26
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 27
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 28
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 29
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
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 30
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 31
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.
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 32
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 %
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL LABEL = BETTER EVALUATIONS? 33
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.
Top Related