Willingness to pay and individual differences

Next, the effect that labelling condition has on price was considered. Participants were first asked whether they would be willing to purchase the product, and if so, were asked for how much (using standard chocolate prices as a reference; see Chapter 2 for details). A significant effect was also not observed for price, although a significant interaction was observed for price and BMI [F (1,71) = 4.130, p = .046].

The two BMI groups (i.e. below and above median BMI) were analysed separately, finding that there was not a significance difference in price between the two labelling conditions for those with a lower than median BMI [F (1,34) = 1.508, p = .228]. No significant difference was observed for those with a higher than median BMI [F (1,37) = 2.779, p = .104]. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test indicated that there was no significant difference between the low and high BMI groups for price of

‘Milk Chocolate’ [χ = 44.09, σ = 11.6 and χ = 43.93, σ = 15.09 respectively; t (76) = .055, p = .957].

Fig. 4.8. Ratings of price of samples labelled ‘Milk Chocolate’ and ‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’ for participants below, and above, the median BMI. Data are means, and error bars represent one standard

error of the mean. ‘*’ denotes a significance value ≤ 0.05.

However, a significant difference was observed between the low and high BMI groups for ‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’ [χ = 42.03, σ = 14.36 and χ = 49.26, σ ⁼ 16.06 respectively; t (76) = -2.087, p = .04], with participants with higher BMIs willing to pay significantly more for this chocolate than participants with lower BMIs (see Fig. 4.8). This may indicate that those with a higher BMI are concerned with their weight, and so are willing to pay more for this product.

A significant interaction was also observed for price and normal chocolate consumption [F (1,71) = 5.961, p = .017].

Fig. 4.9. Ratings of price for chocolate samples labelled ‘Milk Chocolate’ and ‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’, for frequent and occasional consumers of chocolate. Data are means, and error bars

represent one standard error of the mean.‘*’ denotes a significance value ≤ 0.05.

The two chocolate consumption groups were analysed separately, and while no significant difference between label condition was seen for frequent consumers of chocolate [F (1,46) = .753, p = .39], a significant difference in price was seen for consumers who normally consume chocolate once a week or less [F (1,25) = 5.003, p

= .034]. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test indicated that while there were no significant difference in price of ‘Milk Chocolate’ between frequent and occasional consumers of chocolate [χ^{ = 43.4,} σ = 14.07 and χ = 45.15, σ = 12.26 respectively; t (76) = -.544, p = .588], there was a significant difference in price between the groups

for ‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’ [χ
= 42.23, σ = 14.27 and χ^{ = 51.9,} σ ^{= 16.12} respectively; t (76) = -2.75, p = .007] (see Fig. 4.9). Although it is not clear why this group eats chocolate only occasionally, it is possible that this is a result of its high fat content, and so a reduced-fat chocolate would be preferable and worthy of a higher price tag. Conversely, these occasional consumers may normally purchase higher quality, more expensive chocolates and so are used to, or happy to, spend more on it.

Finally, a trend towards significance was observed for price and restriction [F (1,71) = 2.833, p = .097]. Low restriction and high restriction were analysed separately, finding no significant difference between label conditions for those with low restriction [F (1,35) = .366, p = .549], and a trend towards significance for those with high restriction [F (1,36) = 3.618, p = .065]. An independent samples t-test indicated that there were no significant difference between price of ‘Milk Chocolate’ for those with low restriction (χ = 45.58, σ = 11.9) and high restriction (χ = 42.51, σ ^{= 14.72)} [t (76) = 1.009, p = .316]. There was also no significant difference between the two groups for ‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate [χ = 44.13, σ = 15.8 and χ = 47.53, σ ⁼ 15.47 respectively; t (76) = -.961, p = .34] (see Fig. 4.10). It has been suggested that people with higher levels of cognitive dietary restraint are more likely to choose reduced-calorie or reduced-fat foods (Rideout et al., 2004). Being reduced in fat might increase the attractiveness of this normally forbidden food for these consumers, deserving of a higher price tag.

Fig. 4.10. Ratings of price of samples labelled ‘Milk Chocolate’ and ‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’ for participants below, and above, the median restriction. Data are means, and error bars represent one

standard error of the mean. ‘T’ denotes a trend towards significance at a value ≤ 0.1.

4.4 Discussion

The effect that information about fat content has on expected liking, actual liking, ratings of sensory attributes, consumption amount, purchase intent and price perception of chocolate has been investigated. The hypotheses set up for this investigation were presented in section 4.2. The following hypotheses were supported by the results:

H1. The label condition had an impact on ratings of expected liking, with

‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’ being rated lower than ‘Milk Chocolate’ (see Fig. 4.1);

H₂. Actual liking of the ‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’ was higher than expected liking, as a result of positive-disconfirmation (see Fig. 4.1);

H3. When the chocolate is labelled ‘Milk Chocolate’ the expected and actual hedonic ratings were similar (see Fig. 4.1);

H6. A person’s eating style and health concerns affected their ratings of the

chocolate (see Fig. 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 & 4.10);

H7. BMI had an effect on expected consumption amount (see Fig. 4.6).

However, the following hypothesis were not upheld:

H4. Sensory attributes perceived as being related to fat content in chocolate

were not rated as lower, or higher, when the chocolate was labelled as

‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’ than when it was labelled ‘Milk Chocolate’ (see Fig. 4.2);

H5. When the chocolate is labelled as reduced-fat, a higher quantity would not be expected to be consumed.

4.4.1 Liking

In summary, an effect of labelling condition was observed for expected liking, with lower expectations of liking for ‘Reduced-fat Milk Chocolate’, although no difference in scores was observed for actual liking (see Fig. 4.1). Similar observations are cited in the literature, where a reduced-fat version was expected to be less pleasant (Kähkönen & Tuorila, 1998). It is unclear in this case whether this is due to i)

tastes, or ii) an expected loss of pleasure because the reduced-fat chocolate would no longer be indulgent. This may be of concern to those aiming to manufacture a low-fat chocolate, as consumers may be less willing to buy the product due to reduced expectations. However, purchase intent is not completely driven by expectations about taste, but is also determined by the health benefits gained by purchasing and consuming the product.

A significant effect of label was not observed for actual liking, indicating that experience during consumption plays a role in judgements, and subsequent ratings.

Assuming that a genuine reduced-fat chocolate could be formulated to be similar in taste to a standard version, ratings of liking should not be significantly lower just because consumers are aware that it is reduced-fat. This is a positive outcome: if a reduced-fat chocolate can be produced, sensory attributes can be matched, and consumers can be encouraged to purchase the product, actual liking should not be affected by the knowledge that the product is reduced in fat. Furthermore, a difference in ratings of expected and actual liking was observed for reduced-fat chocolate, with higher ratings for actual liking. This indicates positive disconfirmation, with a large discrepancy between expected and actual experience, which has been reported to lead to consumer satisfaction and repeated use (Deliza & MacFie, 1996).

Furthermore, an interaction between expected liking and general willingness to try low-fat foods was observed (see Fig. 4.3), with both groups of participants expecting to like the reduced-fat chocolate less than the standard chocolate, but with greater negativity from those people who are normally unlikely to try low-fat foods.

Additionally, a trend was seen for the interaction between expected liking and

external eating (see Fig. 4.4), with those with higher than median levels of external eating expecting to like the ‘reduced-fat’ chocolate less than the standard chocolate, possibly as a result of a loss of excitement and expected pleasure.