C
ONT
RACT
SR 867
Influence of time pressure and
justification on consumer food choice
A case study with vanilla yoghurt in a simulated shopping like
setting
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 3
AIM ... 4
METHODS AND MATERIALS ... 5
PRODUCTS... 5
CONSUMERS ... 6
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN ... 7
PREFERENCE AND RANKING ... 9
EXPERIMENTAL SETTING ... 9
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF DATA ... 10
RESULT AND DISCUSSION ... 11
IMPORTANCE OF TIME PRESSURE AND JUSTIFICATION ON FOOD CHOICE ... 11
THE MANIPULATIONS AND MOOD ... 18
BEHAVIOR AND FOOD CHOICE, IN GENERAL AND SPECIFICALLY ... 23
PREFERENCE AND ACCEPTANCE TEST ... 25
SUMMARY ... 29
TIME PRESSURE OR JUSTIFICATION, WHICH IS MOST DECISIVE? ... 29
REFLECTIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 30
REFERENCES ... 33 APPENDIX 1 ... 34 APPENDIX 2 ... 37 APPENDIX 3 ... 38 APPENDIX 4. ... 41 SR 867 978-91-7290-329-6
Introduction
The multidisciplinary research project Consumer food choice – How, Why and When? combine sensory analysis and psychology during its three year long duration (2011-2013). The aim of the project is to identify and find explanations behind consumer decision making and behavior. In the study presented and discussed in this report consumers participated in an experimental setting, investigating the influence of different manipulations when choosing between different vanilla yoghurt products. A simulated shopping environment was created for a more retail-like setting however still performed in a controlled manner.
In previous research as well as former studies performed within this project1, consumers tend to make decisions regarding food from rather impulsive and habitual behavior where experience and emotional aspects are important in the decision making situation. The experiences from product consumption and what preference consumers develop for different products are often closely connected to emotions. Thereby, consumers tend to choose products that make them feel good (or continue to feel good). Habitual and intuitive behavior is used in order to make decisions more efficiently, especially when the ability to use cognitive resources are limited (for instance when being tired or stressed).
The rational part of the decision making system is more analytical, logical, conscious and foremost slower in making decisions. On the other hand, the affective/emotional system acts intuitive, unconscious, by experience/memories and is much faster. Humans constantly have a balance between the activation of these systems, and the systems are equally important for human living, but different decision making situations and choices do need dissimilar efforts of reflection. Situational as well as individual differences activate either the emotional or the rational system.
Being stressed or forced to act under time pressure might limit the capacity of action from the rational system and often hedonic products are preferred over utility alternatives (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 2002). The contrary happens when consumers have unlimited amount of time or consumers are informed to justify their decisions. People usually create reasons for justification of choices and it is easier to justify utilitarian consumption compared to hedonic (Okada, 2005). Consumers tend to make decisions based on affect when s/he does not focus on the decision making process/task. As a consequence, consumers are more likely to choose an alternative that is greater in the dimension of affect but lower on the reasoning/cognitive dimension (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999).
When thinking only about reasons for decisions, the process can be disrupted (McMackin & Slovic, 2000). It has been shown that cognitive resources are important in order to make more rational decisions. This statement is based on the fact that humans have two different systems where either rational and/or emotional decisions are controlled by different activations (Epstein, 1994; Kahneman, 2003 among others). Rational decisions are assumed to be less influenced by emotions, and often lead to a choice of utility products. However, human cognitive resources decrease when being hungry and tired, or when feeling stressed or having one´s mind on several other things except food choice, thereby often resulting in decisions of hedonic character.
The definition of a hedonic [utility] product/alternative is described by Shiv & Fedorikhin (1999) as when an alternative is superior [inferior] on the affective dimension but inferior [superior] on the cognitive dimension compared to another alternative. A hedonic product is thereby a product attracting your emotional system, often a pleasing and appealing product which of course might vary between individuals. A utility product instead is an alternative that “would do you well/be good for you”. As also discussed by Shiv & Fedorikhin (1999; 2002) hedonic products are more to be seen as an immediate satisfaction where utility alternatives instead might give a pleasure in the long run. But hedonism and utilitarianism are not automatically endpoints of a simple scale but where products instead might have both hedonic and utilitarian attributes (Okada, 2005). Some researchers suggest that consumers make evaluation of utilitarian character, where an alternative and its usefulness is estimated, as well as from its hedonic properties such as the pleasantness and what emotions evoked by the specific alternative (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Dhar & Wertenbroch, 2000). Hedonic products foremost bring enjoyment where utilitan products instead provide practical, functional advantages which might be easier to evaluate and especially justify. However, there is a larger need to jusify a hedonic choice than an utilitarian.
Aim
The aim of the study was to investigate if consumers tend to make different/dissimilar decisions if they are manipulated to act under time pressure and/or if they need to justify their decisions.
Methods and materials
ProductsYoghurt products were chosen for the experimental study. Real, actual products instead of using pictures or descriptive words were used with the intention of contributing to a more naturalistic setting. Previous studies (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 2002, as well as minor experiments performed within this project) have focused mainly on making a choice between two different product alternatives. In real life, consumers have much more product alternatives and in this study the consumers were asked to choose one out of four different yoghurt products.
Yoghurt has previously been used successfully within the project2 and vanilla yoghurt was chosen as test product. Today, the range of vanilla yoghurt includes numerous different brands, several variations of vanilla with or without fruit/berry flavors as well as different packaging materials, package sizes and nutritional aspects such as fat and sugar content. The selection of products was created by differences in product properties which were not too obvious to facilitate a blind tasting. Table 1 lists the products used in the study with pictures, fat content (as an indication about either being a hedonic product, with higher fat content, or utility product, with lower fat content) and other extrinsic factors such as the brand and price.
Table 1. The included products. The products each have different properties or characteristics, potentially various important
for the consumers. The price was not shown to the consumers during the study, however might be something some consumers knew beforehand.
Product brand
Product packaging Fat content Product properties Price SEK
(not communicated to the consumers)
ICA
0.5% Low fat, low price private label, regular
package. 12.50:-Arla 2% Well-known brand, organic/KRAV-label, non-sealable package. 17.50:-Lindahls
4.3% Delicacy yogurt with a higher fat content,
plastic packaging which is hard to pour
from however easy to empty. 25.50:-Valio 2.7% Healthy product properties with functional food character, new product on the market, well-known brand. 24.95:- Consumers
The same inclusion criteria as used in former studies within the project was used; meaning families (parents) with children (minimum one child aged <18) still living at home. The recruitment was done from a consumer database. Figure 1 shows the recruitment flow resulting in the participating consumers.
Consumers with information in the database regarding children received an email with an invitational link to an online recruitment form. In total 496 consumers were contacted. The online recruitment form included questions regarding themselves, their family and their food shopping behavior. The form was similar to those used as recruitment earlier within the project. 30% (n=149) consumers answered to the online form. 96 consumers were selected because they were regular consumers of vanilla yoghurt and actively participate in the purchases of food to their family. Consumers following specific diets and/or having allergy towards milk (protein) were excluded.
Figure 1. 496 consumers were contacted via email with an invitation to participate in the study. The email included a link to
an online recruitment form. The online recruitment form was answered by 149 consumers. 96 consumers were selected and recruited to the study, 70 consumers participated in the test.
Experimental design
The consumers were divided between twelve different sessions, split on four days each with different experimental designs. Table 2 shows the number of consumers participating each day and what experimental design the consumers were manipulated to. The four different settings were split between four days and are named 1. NM (No Manipulation) 2. TP (Time Pressure) 3. TPJ (Time Pressure AND Justification) 4. J (Justification) NM, no manipulation, can be seen as reference.
Table 2. The consumers were recruited to one of four days. The days were all different in experimental design. Two days, the
consumers had to make their decision under time pressure, the other days they had unlimited amount of time. Throughout the study, the consumers had to justify their choices, but only 50% of the consumers knew about the need for justification before they made their decision.
Day n Manipulation
NM
No Manipulation
17 Unlimited amount of time Without justification
TP
Time Pressure 17
Time pressure Without justification
TPJ
Time Pressure AND Justification
17 Time pressure With knowledge about
justification of decision
J
Justification
19 Unlimited amount of time With knowledge about justification of decision
The consumers made their product choices individually in a separate room which will be further described in the section experimental setting. When the choice of product was made, the consumers individually had to justify their decision in writing. The consumers then tasted the products as coded samples and made a blind preference test. In total a session was ended within
Figure 2. The boxes show the procedure of the study. The design is divided into separated parts to easier show the flow and
the different steps appearing during the study. Step 2. and 3. were dissimilar between the manipulations because of the experimental design.
The manipulations
In the experimental study two manipulations were used, time pressure and justification of product choice. As seen previously in table 2, the two manipulations resulted in four different settings.
Time pressure
Time pressure is seen as a contributor to what decisions humans make. The aim with time pressure was initially to stress the consumers, however time pressure was a way to keep the decision making situation restricted but still in a controlled manner, where other stressors were assumed to be harder to initiate. The assumption of appropriate time limit was measured through pilot testing and 7 seconds was considered stressful but still enough to be able to make a choice.
The time was controlled with a timer which started the second the consumers entered the shopping-like room where the product choice took place. The timer was ticking each second. To enhance the stressful situation even further, techno music (Techno Travel by Obi One) was played inside the room.
Unlimited amount of time
50% of the consumers, who did not act under time pressure, were informed to use all the time they needed in order to make their choice.
Justification of their choice
50% of the consumers received initial information regarding that they had to justify their choice afterwards. The justification was done in writing and all consumers within the study had to answer to the same questions, also those not being informed about it beforehand. The questionnaire can be found in Swedish in appendix 1.
1. Consumers were informed that they were about to participate in a study where they would choose a product to bring home.
2. The consumers either received knowledge about that they needed to justify their choice afterwards or not (that they should just choose a product).
3. The consumers entered the shopping-like room one at a time. Half of the consumers had to make their decision under time pressure (7 seconds), the rest had unlimited amount of time.
4. The consumers had to justify their product choice in writing and answer to questions about the decision they just made and their mood state.
5. Blind tasting and consumer preference of the yoghurt products. The yoghurt were served in a randomized order and rated for total liking and how likely the consumers thought it would be for them to buy the product to their family. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Preference and ranking
All consumers tested the four yoghurt products in a blind taste test. The products were coded in three-digit numbers and served in randomized order. The blind preference taste test was made using FIZZ Biosystémes (forms) and measured on a 9-point hedonic scale. The consumers rated the products from two aspects, total liking and how likely they considered it to be for them
to buy the product to their family. The most liked and least liked product was ranked into first
and fourth place respectively, together with comments and reasons of the ranking. The forms were scanned except for the open comments connected to the ranking (most and least liked); these comments were instead manually processed.
Experimental setting
The shopping-like room, where the consumers individually made their product choice, had the intention of simulating the setting of a shopping environment, more specific an illusion of a dairy disk. The room was just a regular group/study room of squared formation approximately 10m2 without windows.
The illusion of a dairy disk was simulated through pictures projected on two of the walls inside the room. The pictures were taken with a regular camera inside the same food store where the products were bought. Since dairy counters of today contain an enormous range of different yoghurts, two pictures were projected but even then did not fully embrace all products available on the market. Figure 3 shows the pictures and figure 4 shows how they were placed inside the room (in a corner). Figure 5 shows how the products were placed in front of the pictures.
Figure 3. The pictures were taken inside a regular food store; the products used in the experiment were all bought from the
Figure 4. The shopping-like environment arranged inside the room with the pictures projected on two walls in a corner. The products were placed on a table underneath and were visible for the consumers immediately when entering the room. The lightest picture in the figure was the wall first visible for the consumers when entering the room.
The yoghurt products were placed on cooling plates on a table just underneath the pictures. The products were presented five of each to create a setting more similar to what is found in dairy counters, with several product fronted at the time. The products were presented in randomized order between the different sessions. The room was lowered in temperature to increase the setting simulation.
Figure 5. The products were presented five packages of each brand with the intention of creating a more similar situation to
what is found inside food stores. Five products were considered suitable in relation to the size of the cooling plates. The temperature was lowered inside the room to keep the yoghurts in an acceptable environment also more similar to a real food store.
Statistical analysis and evaluation of data
All data from the justification questionnaire was digitalized into excel and the preference data was scanned into the software. Simple statistics, such as the frequency of each chosen product was done in excel, however crosstabs were made in the statistical software SPSS.
Comments and reasoning from consumer justifications were manually processed and analyzed, likewise freely translated in order to be presented in English within this report. The same procedure was undertaken considered the comments connected to the ranking of the blind tested products.
Result and discussion
The result will be presented in relation to the manipulations, time pressure and justification of choice. Actual product choice, how often the consumers buy chosen product and mood state in connection to the decision making situation are all presented in relation to the experimental setting. There will also be results and discussion regarding included consumers and their personalities of either emotional and/or rational behavior as well as general and specific comments about product properties. Results from the preference test are presented at the end of the section.
Importance of time pressure and justification on food choice Time pressure and stress
The manipulation of time pressure was used in TP (Time Pressure) and TPJ (Time Pressure AND Justification). The consumers had only 7 seconds in order to make their decision. The intention of acting in limited amount of time was to stress consumers in their process of making a decision, however limited amount of time is not quite the same as being stressed. Figure 6 shows the results from consumers´ self-rated level of stress. The line chart visualizes a tendency that consumers felt more stressed during TP and TPJ which is a confirmation of the study design and that the manipulation had influence on the consumers.
Figure 6. The chart shows perceived and self-rated level of stress in the decision making situation. On the left, 1=Not stressed
at all, 5=Yes, extremely stressed. The consumers of TP and TPJ made their decision under time pressure (7 seconds).
37% of all consumers rated themselves as 1=not stressed at all on the 5-point scale (5=Yes, extremely stressed). The same amount of consumers rated themselves as a 2, concluding that most consumers (74%) in general felt a low level of stress when making their choice. Because of a tendency during TP and TPJ with fewer scores in the lower part of the scale and instead slightly higher scores, it gives indication of an experimental design that served its purpose.
1 2 3 4 5 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 NM TP TPJ J
The most chosen product
The majority of the consumers (74%) in the study chose Lindahls delicacy yoghurt independent of manipulation. Only a few (13%) chose Arla organic or Valio OLO (12%) to bring home. Valio was more or less equally chosen throughout the study, even though there is a tendency for some more Valio chosen during NM (No Manipulation) and J (Justification). The private labeled ICA was least chosen; only one out of the 70 consumers chose this product. Table 3 shows the different manipulations (NM, TP, TPJ and J) and the products chosen, the table shows both frequencies and percentage. Since most consumers did choose Lindahls, this product has the highest number throughout. However, during TPJ, Arla is chosen more often and instead Lindahls less often in comparison. TP resulted in that most consumers (94%) chose Lindahls. Manipulation with just J, Lindahls was chosen by 84% and the other consumers chose Valio. J (and NM), with unlimited amount of time could explain why Valio was chosen more often. Valio is a new product on the market and could be considered rather unknown at the time, where time pressure perhaps decreased the possibility to notice the added values and recognize the familiar brand. The most common Valio packaging on the market is namely yellow instead of blue.
Table 3. The number of products chosen presented in figures and percentage, separated by manipulation.
ICA Arla Lindahls Valio
NM 6% (1) 12% (2) 65% (11) 18% (3) TP - 6% (1) 94% (16) - TPJ - 35% (6) 53% (9) 12% (2) J - - 84% (16) 16% (3) Total 1% (1) 13% (9) 74% (52) 11% (8)
So, the highest number of Valio products was chosen when consumers had unlimited amount of time (NM and J), but it is just a slightly larger number because of the minor number in total. 66% of the Arla yoghurt was chosen during TPJ. Arla has to be considered a well-known brand perhaps easier to grasp when stressed. A well-known product is also thought to be easier for consumers to justify, because the product is familiar and recognized. More or less recognized and regularly bought products will be discussed further on. Still, Lindahls was chosen in the majority of situations regardless to what manipulation/s the consumers were subjected to. In the justification consumers were asked to state how often they buy the product they chose. The results are shown in figure 7 and visualizes that most consumers were unfamiliar to, or had never bought, the product they chose. Further on, the aspect of how often the consumers buy chosen product will be subdivided and separated between each yoghurt product.
TP
Figure 7. The consumers answered to how often they buy the product they chose. The bars show the frequency of answers marked in white and on top of the bars, the percentages are presented.
The bars in figure 7 summarize that many consumers (51%) did chose a product they had never
tried before or had seen but never bought. But, as many as 12 out of these 36 consumers
(~33%) had tried or regularly buys either natural yoghurt from the same or similar brand, or for instance Arla, but the non-organic one, or Valio just not this specific OLO product. The frequently selected delicacy yoghurt from Lindahls appeared to be a new product to many consumers and most answers ended up on either have seen the product but never tried it or the
product is completely new to me. But, even then, the product name and packaging is familiar to
approximately 1/3 of the consumers, however in natural flavor (Turkish and/or Russian yoghurt) or in a few cases in another brand but in a similar packaging.
Table 4 lists the products and how often the consumers buy the chosen yoghurt. About the same number of consumers that regularly buy Lindahls (each week or a few times a month) stated that the product was completely new to them.
Seen totally, 37% of all consumers chose a product that was very familiar to them and regularly bought. 11 15 5 3 14 22 0 5 10 15 20 25
Varje vecka Någon gång i månaden Någon gång per år Har köpt produkten en gång Har sett produkten, men aldrig köpt den Produkten är helt ny för mig 31% 20% 4% 7% 21% 16%
Each week A few times a month A couple of times a year Have bought the product once Have seen the product but never bought it The product is completely new to me
Table 4. Chosen products divided by how regularly they are bought by the consumers. Each week and a few times a month are considered as regularly consumption. Green boxes highlight the consumption of Arla.
How often do you buy the chosen product?
ICA Arla Lindahls Valio Total
Each week - 44% (4) 10% (5) 25% (2) 16% (11)
A few times a month - 44%
(4) 19% (10) 12.5% (1) 21% (15)
A couple of times a year - - 10%
(5) -
7% (5)
Have bought the product once - - 6%
(3) -
4% (3)
Have seen the product but never bought it 100% (1) 11% (1) 21% (11) 12.5% (1) 20% (14)
The product is completely new to me - - 35%
(18)
50% (4)
31% (22)
When studying table 4, Arla is to 88%, a product bought regularly, either each week or at least
a few times a month. But when looking into details, the one consumer referring Arla to have seen the product but never bought it regularly buys and consume Arla vanilla yoghurt, although
not Arla organic. Results from this study thereby place Arla into an everyday product, at least bought every other week (not to forget that a package has an expiration date of about two weeks and could very well last for that long depending on how much and how often it is consumed). From what can be read in table 4, Lindahls is not that kind of product, only 29% of those choosing Lindahls are regularly buyers of the product.
The results above in combination to what manipulation the consumers were given show a tendency for consumers of TPJ to make slightly different decisions compared to the other experimental settings. As many as 76% of the consumers of TPJ chose a product that they buy
each week or a few times a month. The corresponding figures for respective manipulation were:
NM 41%, TP 18% and J 21%, concluding that TPJ resulted in decisions of more habitual character with a regularly bought product.
Satisfaction of the decision made, is there a difference between manipulations? Level of product satisfaction was rated on a 9-point hedonic scale, from extremely unsatisfied to extremely satisfied. Generally the consumers were satisfied with their choices and the mean of all 70 consumers was 7.6. Divided between manipulations; NM: 8.0, TP: 7.6, TPJ: 7.5 and J: 7.2, a slightly lower level of satisfaction during J, when the consumers knew they had to justify their choices. Only three consumers rated the choice of product as extremely unsatisfied throughout the study, these three consumers were manipulated with TP, TPJ and J respectively. The result concludes that no manipulation, neither time pressure nor justification, seems to effect consumer satisfaction. The less satisfied consumers did choose Lindahls, but at the same time had never tried the product before. A possible explanation to the unsatisfied consumers might be that they had difficulties to rate their level of satisfaction because they had never tried the product, or that they did not remember the other present products afterwards and by this were not able to put their choice in relation to other products/choices, however such reasoning have to be considered as assumptions. Table 5 shows the manipulations and the percentage of
consumers rating their level of satisfaction. TPJ received the highest number of scores on
extremely satisfied.
Table 5. The division of consumers and their self-rated level of satisfaction on a 9-point hedonic scale connected to the
different manipulations listed on the left.
Manipulation Extremely dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely satisfied NM - - - - - - 24% (4) 47% (8) 29% (5) TP 6% (1) - - - 6% (1) - 12% (2) 47% (8) 29% (5) TPJ 6% (1) - 6% (1) - - 6% (1) 12% (2) 24% (4) 47% (8) J 5% (1) 5% (1) 5% (1) - - - 21% (4) 32% (6) 32% (6)
The product choice combined with the level of self-estimated and reported satisfaction is presented in table 6, shown in combination to product. As mentioned before, the majority of consumers chose Lindahls, however, the consumers choosing one of the other products does not seem to be less satisfied with their choices. The level of satisfaction is only measured on a scale and not with additional consumer reasoning or comments which could be considered a limitation because it says less about why or why not they are satisfied.
Table 6. The table combines product and the level of satisfaction. The level of satisfaction was self-estimated on a 9-point hedonic scale, presented with the endpoints extremely dissatisfied and extremely satisfied. Lindahls was more often satisfying than unsatisfying. Product/Level of satisfaction Extremely dissatisfied 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely satisfied Total ICA 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) Arla 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 4% (3) 3% (2) 4% (3) 13% (9) Lindahls 4% (3) 1% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 1% (1) 0% (0) 9% (6) 31% (22) 27% (19) 74% (52) Valio 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 3% (2) 3% (2) 3% (2) 11% (8) Total 4% (3) 1% (1) 3% (2) 0% (0) 1% (1) 1% (1) 17% (12) 37% (26) 34% (24) 100% (70) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Is it easier or harder to make decisions when manipulated?
Generally, it can be concluded that the consumers found it rather easy to make their choice of vanilla yoghurt. On the 9-point hedonic scale (extremely hard to extremely easy) the mean value for all 70 consumers was 6.7 where 9 represents extremely easy. The total values and ratings are shown in figure 8. Mean value divided into the specific manipulation; NM: 6.7, TP: 6.8, TPJ: 6.0 and J: 7.3, overall quite similar independent of manipulation with tendency of an easier choice during J and harder during TPJ.
Figure 8. The chart shows the frequency (in white) of consumer ratings regarding how easy/hard they found the choice of yoghurt to be. Mean value independent of manipulation was 6.7 with 69% of consumers rating their product choice as 7, 8 or 9 on the 9-point hedonic scale.
So, even though the differences between the manipulations are minor, there are tendencies of a choice during TPJ to be experienced as slightly harder to make, where J instead is rated as a slightly easier setting. The differences are minor, partly because of a small sample set. In the experimental design, consumers of TPJ and J both knew they had to explain and justify their choice, but only TPJ acted under time pressure. Neither NM nor TP knew they had to justify their choice afterwards and perhaps was the choice perceived as easier (less thoughtful) where instead consumers who knew about the justification started to reason more with themselves. The reasoning was then harder when making a choice under limited amount of time (TPJ) than unlimited (J).
7, 8 and 9 on the 9-point hedonic scale cover 69% of all answers with the variation of 53-84% dependent of manipulation. The result is not really applicable to the number of consumers that are regular consumers of chosen product, meaning that new and never seen products are not perceived as harder [or easier] to choose. It could very well be thought that there might be a correlation between recognized and regularly consumed products and that these would have been easier to choose, but even completely new products were perceived as easy to choose within this study.
Table 7 lists the self-reported hardness/easiness separated by manipulation. The table shows that some consumers found it slightly harder to make the choices compared to the majority of consumers. As seen in figure 7, no consumer rated the choice below 3 and only 17% of all consumers rated the difficulty of the decision below 5 on the 9-point hedonic scale. TPJ received more scores in the lower part of the scale and also received fewer scores in the upper part of the scale. One conclusion to why consumers overall did not rate the decision as either
extremely hard or very hard could perhaps depend on the product in itself. It would probably be
0 0 4 8 7 2 22 17 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 Extremt svårt 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremt lätt 31% 24% 14% 6% 11% 10% 3% Extremely hard Extremely easy
harder to make a choice in 7 seconds regarding a more complex food product (or a no-food product). But so far, such reasoning is only assumptions since it was not examined.
Table 7. The scores of hardness/easiness on the 9-point hedonic scale spread on the different manipulations, the scale goes from extremely hard to extremely easy. A higher score on the scale refers to a choice being perceived as easier. There is a minor tendency towards TPJ perceived slightly harder/less easy.
Manipulation Extremely hard 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extremely easy
NM - - - 18% (3) 12% (2) - 29% (5) 29% (5) 12% (2) TP - - 6% (1) 12% (2) 12% (2) - 24% (4) 29% (5) 18% (3) TPJ - - 12% (2) 18% (3) 12% (2) 6% (1) 35% (6) 12% (2) 6% (1) J - - 5% (1) - 5% (1) 5% (1) 37% (7) 26% (5) 21% (4)
TPJ resulted, as mentioned above, more often in a regularly bought product. This result is not seen for either TP or J where instead new products were chosen. When compiling what product the consumers chose there is a tendency of more utility products chosen during TPJ, with fewer choices of Lindahls. But some consumers did choose Lindahls during TPJ as well, but in those cases, the consumers were regularly buyers of it.
So, all manipulations compared, it can be concluded that consumers, when making decisions under time pressure and with the need to justify their choices, tend to choose a product that is regularly bought, assumed to easier be reasoned, comment and justified than a completely new and unfamiliar product. These results demonstrate the dominant buying behavior for habitual choices which is common among many consumers especially when the mind is occupied with other tasks and thoughts. TPJ resulted in a tendency towards consumers reported the choice as slightly harder but in the meanwhile were the consumers of TPJ more often extremely satisfied with their choice.
The manipulations and mood
The consumers self-estimated their emotional status as they experienced it in the decision making situation. The self-estimation was made directly after the decision was made. Table 8 shows the frequency of what feelings the consumers reported, separated by manipulation (NM, TP, TPJ and J). 45% of the consumers considered themselves as happy-satisfied. Almost equal numbers of consumers described themselves as happy-satisfied spread over the four different manipulations. Overall, nearly all consumers reported what must be considered positive feelings. Just two consumers reported feeling sad-depressed and bored-declared respectively and both participated during NM. The result regarding NM has to be seen as a coincident (because of the minor sample set) even though this particular experimental setting actually was the only one without manipulation (perhaps not very interesting, surprising or challenging). Other emotions selected during the different experimental settings were calm-relaxed (20%), rather equally split between the different manipulations and unfortunately not correlated to either time pressure or unlimited amount of time. Because the consumers were told to rate their current mood state, the potentially stressful situation some minutes ago, perhaps had already decreased. Interest-enjoyment was mentioned by 26% of the consumers. Since 3 consumers incorrectly stated more than one mood state each, all statuses are listed in table 8 as single answers and thereby the result became more than 70.
Table 8. The consumers self-reported what emotions best represented their present mood state. The instruction was to choose one pair of words (one option) most suitable and representative. Up to 99% of the answers have to be considered as positive feelings. Those consumers interpreted as reporting negative emotions are marked with purple boxes. The green boxes show how equally happy-satisfied is split over the different days of manipulation. – refers to zero.
Mood state NM TP TPJ J Total Happy-Satisfied 8 9 9 8 45% (34) Sad-Depressed 1 - - - 1% (1) Calm-Relaxed 3 3 4 5 20% (15) Annoyed-Upset - - - - - Worried-Concerned - - - - - Angry-Cursed - - - - - Regret-Guilt - - - - - Nervous-Anxious - - - - - Delight-Pleasure 1 1 1 2 7% (5) Interest-Enjoyment 5 6 5 4 26% (20) Bored-Declared 1 - - - 1% (1) Total 19 19 19 19 100% (76)
Because no correlations can be seen between a certain manipulation and mood state, the self-estimated mood state was analysed in connection to chosen product as well. Most consumers, 66%, who chose Arla were happy-satisfied as well as for those who chose Lindahls, (with the corresponding figure of 48%). The slightly more negative emotions were connected to Lindahls, but it has to be seen as a random result not possible to connect to the choice of product, because of the limited number of respondents in total. Valio got its highest percentage with 40% in calm-relaxed. 29% of those who chose Lindahls self-estimated their mood state as
interest-enjoyment.
Since there were differences between the manipulations regarding how often the consumers buy the product they chose also self-estimated mood state and regularly product consumption was analyzed. By those consumers that chose a regularly bought product (each week or a few
times a month) 57% self-estimated their dominant feeling as happy-satisfied. Only a small
number stated calm-relaxed, delight-pleasure and interest-enjoyment as mood state. The consumers that chose a new or at least never bought product almost 38% stated happy-satisfied, 30% interest-enjoyment and approximately 23% felt calm-relaxed. The other mood states were only stated occasionally. By this, the majority of consumers that chose a regularly bought product felt happy-satisfied. The result from self-estimated mood state regarding those consumers that chose a new product was more diverse, however still positive.
Rational and emotional behavior
The consumers were initially (in the recruitment process) as well as during the study mapped out of different shopping behaviors. The objective was to get a balanced number of emotional respectively rational oriented consumers. Emotional versus rational behavior in shopping situations was mapped with a question regarding the usage of a shopping list and the compliance to such a tool when shopping. Table 9 lists the results from the online recruitment form and table 10 shows how the consumers answered to the question when they took part in the study. The blue boxes highlight the response rate of more emotional behavior and yellow boxes instead consumers of a more rational behavior.
Table 9. Results from the recruitment form in combination to manipulation. Blue boxes show consumers of more emotional behavior and yellow boxes more rational consumers, the behavior should be interpreted as more distinct when appearing on the extremes of the scale. – refers to zero.
I always bring a shopping list when I am in a food store NM TP TPJ J Total If having a shopping list, I seldom buy food
beyond what is put on the list
NM TP TPJ J Total I often feel that I enter the food
store without knowing what to buy. NM TP TPJ J Total 1. Do not agree 1 - 3 3 10% (7) 1. Do not agree 6 4 10 7 39% (27) 1. Do not agree 4 6 4 9 33% (23) 2. 3 2 2 1 11% (8) 2. 6 3 1 3 19% (13) 2. 8 4 4 4 29% (20) 3. 1 1 2 - 6% (4) 3. 1 1 3 - 7% (5) 3. 3 2 1 - 9% (6) 4. 2 3 4 6 21% (15) 4. 1 3 2 2 11% (8) 4. - 1 3 4 11% (8) 5. 4 4 3 3 20% (14) 5. 1 2 - 4 10% (7) 5. 2 3 1 1 10% (7) 6. 2 4 2 2 14% (10) 6. 2 4 1 2 13% (9) 6. - 1 2 1 6% (4) 7. Definitely agree 4 3 1 4 17% (12) 7. Definitely agree - - - 1 1% (1) 7. Definitely agree - - 2 - 3% (2)
The data in table 9 is to be compared to table 10. The consumers were recruited from their action according to different behaviors, but they were asked to answer to such statements in a slightly different way during the study; thereby the two tables have to be considered complementary. With data on how the consumers did answer before taking part in the study and complement and compare with data collected during the study, it give reliability to the results.
It is important to mention that statements like those listed in table 9 and 10, rated on a scale are just an indication and by no means enough in order to fully capture consumer emotional and/or rational behavior. In the justification questionnaire (filled in during the study), the consumers had to choose only one option that best suits their way of shopping, which is an even simpler and easy executed way of mapping rational and/or emotional behavior.
Table 9 shows a slightly higher frequency of emotional consumers participated during TPJ, however also NM had a higher frequency of emotional consumers compared to TP and J which is confirmed in table 10. Not only does TPJ have a larger response rate in the blue boxes but the yellow boxes have smaller numbers compared to the others, a pattern which is confirmed in table 10.
Table 10, lists the data collected during the study and the consumers were asked to choose one statement only. The statements are marked in yellow, green and blue color. Yellow boxes refers to rational orientation and blue instead emotional, the green boxes however are comparable to consumers with an intention to act rational; however have tendencies to act in an emotional behavior. In real life this could be exemplified with those consumers that end up with more items bought than what was initially written on the shopping list. Perhaps do the green boxes include a rather high amount of consumers in general; not least consumers with children where shopping lists most likely are used in order to remember the family´s needs and want. But go shopping with children might also result in more items bought than what was planned. TP and J have the highest frequencies in the green boxes and instead lowest numbers in the blue, emotional, boxes.
Table 10. Shopping behavior, the consumers stated their usage of a shopping list [or not], separated by manipulation.
Manipulation and shopping behavior
Always use a shopping list and make my purchases
from that list
Sometimes use a shopping list; I usually buy more
than what is written on the list.
Never use a shopping list but
roughly knows what to buy
Seldom know before entering the store/supermarket what I am about to buy NM 35% (6) 29% (5) 29% (5) 6% (1) TP 35% (6) 59% (10) 6% (1) - TPJ 24% (4) 41% (7) 35% (6) - J 21% (4) 74% (14) - 5% (1) Total 29% 51% 17% 3%
During TPJ fewer consumers chose Lindahls as product. If time pressure, the need to justify their choice or the orientation of having a more emotional behavior explains the particular product choice the most is hard to clarify. However all three aspects were present during TPJ. Since TPJ was the only setting where the three dimensions occurred, no such connections are seen during the other manipulations or even could be seen during the other settings and a hypothesis could be that a combination of all of them explains the result.
In total 35% of the consumers that chose Lindahls are interpreted as rational, however 52% of the consumers that chose Lindahls ended up in a “green box”. Arla was equal divided between rational and emotional consumers. Valio was never chosen by the most rational consumers, but were instead chosen by emotional consumers.
As can be seen in table 10, 20 consumers of rational behavior participated throughout the study, divided between the different manipulations. 35% of the rational consumers chose a regularly bought product (each week or a few times a month) and 55% of the rational consumers instead chose a new product (seen but never bought or completely new). The rational consumers of TPJ chose regularly bought products while rational consumers during TP and J instead resulted in new product choices. The rational consumers of NM chose a mixture of new and habitual (regular) choices.
The number of emotional consumers was in total 14 with a larger amount of participated consumers during NM and TPJ. 43% of the emotional consumers chose a regularly bought product and 36% chose a new one. The total number of emotional consumers is minor for the manipulations TP and especially J whereby it is not possible to draw conclusions regarding regularly and new product choices, however both NM and TPJ resulted in a mixture of new and regularly bought products between the emotional consumers.
The majority of consumers are found in between the most rational and emotional behaviors and are visualized in green boxes in table 10. From this group 36% chose a regularly bought product and 58% chose a new product. NM was a mixture of new and regularly bought products, as well as for TPJ. TP resulted in more new products than regularly bought, but the differences are minor, the same pattern was seen also for manipulation J where new product choices was the most common action from consumers in “green boxes”.
Summarizing, the emotional consumers did more often chose a regularly bought product but supposed to be independent of manipulation, because both TPJ and NM received similar results. The rational consumers tended to choose a regularly bought product when manipulated with TPJ, but not in TP or J where the rational consumers instead chose a new product. The results thereby indicate that rational consumers tend to choose regularly bought products, when acting under time pressure and need to justify their choice. This fact indicates that TPJ might be more explained by the manipulations (separate or in combinations) than the fact that several emotional consumers participated during this experimental setting, even though the majority of emotional consumers did choose regularly products during TPJ as well.
By this, patterns of neither emotional nor rational consumer behavior is clearly seen within this study, instead an effect of the manipulations where the experimental setting seemed to affect consumers of both rational and emotional behaviors. Time pressure is hypothetically thought to limit cognitive resources with the result of more hedonic product choices; while the need to justify once choice or decision is hypothetically thought to increase rational behavior. However, when these behaviors are split or combined, and analyzed in relation to the parameter of either rational or emotional behavior in combination to products that are not obvious utility or hedonic, the results are dependent on many variables and potential “however”, but that is
Behavior and food choice, in general and specifically
The consumers had to justify their choice from both product specific reasons but were also asked to answer to general questions about shopping behavior and what they consider
important when buying food. General food aspects mentioned were for instance the quality and freshness of products and a desire for product variability and well-composed product categories in food stores. One third of the consumers mention taste/flavor as one of the most important factors regarding food purchases. A minor part of the consumers listed aspects such as the importance of having enough time and/or money and not being hungry.
In appendix 3, the consumers´ individual and most important aspects when buying food are listed. Appendix 3 shows the chosen product within the experimental study, emotional vs. rational behavior, most preferred yoghurt from the blind tasting as well as most important aspects stated when it comes to general food choices.
The packaging does that matter?
Beside scales and ratings of the decision made, the consumers had to reason and comment their choices. The packaging was frequently mentioned as a contributor to this particular choice of vanilla yoghurt. The different product packages were mostly mentioned as contributors to the choices made during TP and TPJ however also mentioned by some consumers during NM and J. Emotional consumers more often described the packaging as luxurious, tempting, appealing or appetizing where rational consumers instead described packages with its functionality in focus. 35% of those that chose Lindahls mentioned the jar/bucket and described it as luxurious or because of its high functionality and ability to easy open-close and its potential to empty everything inside. The Lindahls packaging was also mentioned as looking larger than the other included products (although it contains the same quantity as the others). The pictures of a vanilla flower and the Greek man on the packaging were mentioned as positive eye-catchers and made the product attractive and pleasing. The packaging was also mentioned as a contributor to the choice regarding Valio and indirectly for Arla as well because of the fact that it was chosen from an organic/eco labeled point of view.
The packaging was also mentioned in a negative manner by consumers. For instance was the packaging of Lindahls mentioned and described by some as either too energy-consuming in its production (plastic), un-functional in usage because it is neither possible to store in the door of the refrigerator nor simple to pour from. The plastic jar was also mentioned as harder to recycle and that a smaller package (less than a liter) would be more suitable. The packaging of Arla was mentioned once as hard to open and Valio as unattractive by another. The negative aspects were neither connected to a particular manipulation nor emotional/rational behavior and could instead be explained by normal individual differences.
Other product properties and added values important for product choice Label
Out of the total, but minor, number of Arla, 55% mentioned that the eco-label was involved as part of their choice, independent of manipulation. Further on, these consumers stated that they generally find it important to buy organic food and that they regularly choose organic and
eco-Sensory aspects
The consumers were asked to state what was both liked and disliked with chosen product. Since many consumers that chose Lindahls had never bought or tasted the product before, they of course had difficulties to explain and reason about such questions. The positive “like” comments mostly considered an expected vanilla flavor and/or the packaging. Some of the consumers that had tried the product before stated comments about the texture (creaminess). Even though several consumers were not familiar with the chosen product of for instance Lindahls, the product were frequently commented anyway. Descriptive words such as luxurious, the different potential uses and the vanilla flavor were mentioned as positive. Interesting enough, the vanilla flavor was mentioned in comments such as “I like vanilla flavor” which of course was not exclusively for Lindahls, but a comment that instead very well could include all four vanilla yoghurt products. Perhaps was the vanilla flavor easier to capture in the decision making situation in the case of Lindahls than the others, but such reasoning must be considered assumptions.
Few consumers stated negative “disliked” comments about the products, but instead wrote none or nothing, possibly because they actually had not yet tried the product and did not know what to dislike.
Nutrition
The product content, the amount of fat and sugar was mentioned in some cases as a value. Some products were described as unhealthy, too sweet or contain too much fat. Lindahls, Arla and Valio all received such comments and it was not connected to any manipulation. All products did contain sugar and are flavored yoghurts. If comparing all yoghurts, ICA and Arla contain the lowest levels of sugar, Lindahls the highest and Lindahls contains the highest amount of fat as well. The products and its nutritional content are presented in appendix 2.
Price
The price of chosen product was only mentioned a few times, and only in connection to Lindahls. The price was actually never shown to the consumers during the study, but consumers that purchase the product every now and then most probably know that Lindahls is in comparison an expensive yoghurt, which was mentioned as a negative comment.
When the consumers stated general aspects what they consider important when buying food price and pricing (suitable prices/cheap) were mentioned by 64% of the consumers (n=45). The importance of price when it comes to food products and consumption are not new. Price is often more important regarding products than other extrinsic and/or intrinsic product properties.
Shopping behavior
The consumers were asked to state when they most often do their food purchases. Options such as shopping on my way to/home from work, before/after picking up children from school, on
weekends, order online etc. were listed, and no differences between consumers within different
manipulation groups could be seen. The consumers are thereby thought as comparable independent of manipulation and participation.
Most consumers (63%) do their purchases on their way home from work (or other daily activity). Making purchases during weekends were also quite common (33%). However neither
Preference and acceptance test
Far from all consumers preferred the yoghurt they chose the most. However, 37% of the consumers chose the product they also ranked as most liked in the preference test. These products were divided ICA; 0, Arla; 2, Lindahls; 22 and Valio; 2. If the consumers had to choose (bring home) the product they rated as most liked in the preference test, it would have been divided ICA; 4, Arla; 5, Lindahls; 29 and Valio; 30 (instead of ICA; 1, Arla; 9, Lindahls; 52 and Valio; 8, which were the frequency of chosen products). There are unfortunately missing data from 2 consumers. More results from the preference and acceptance tests are presented below.
Total liking
Table 11. The frequency of total liking rated on a 9-point hedonic scale. The top-box is a sum (in percentage) of consumers
ranking the products as 7, 8 or 9. Mean values are also seen in the table.
Product Mean Distribution (%) Top-box 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (7-9) ICA 4.6 7 3 12 14 8 12 6 6 1 19% Arla 6.1 1 1 6 3 11 13 18 13 3 49% Lindahls 7.2 1 - 2 4 4 8 10 23 17 71% Valio 7.5 1 - - 1 3 6 18 23 17 82%
The total liking of the 4 different products is seen in both table 11 and figure 9. Valio and Lindahls were similar in its scores, both products received a high frequency of score 9 (like
extremely) and 8 (like very much) on the hedonic scale. Valio had slightly fewer scores in the
lower part of the scale, but the average was about the same when comparing the two products. ICA was least liked but still received some higher scores on the scale. Arla was placed somewhere in between. No comments were asked regarding why the consumers rated the products as they did.
1 1 1 7 0 0 1 3 0 2 6 12 1 4 3 14 3 4 11 8 6 8 13 12 18 10 18 6 23 23 13 6 17 17 3 1 Valio Lindahls Arla ICA
Total liking
How likely is it that you would buy the product to your family?
Table 12. The frequency of how likely the consumers thought it would be for them to buy the tested product to their family
was rated on a 9-point hedonic scale. The top-box is a sum (in percentage) of consumers ranking the product as 7, 8 or 9. Mean values are also seen in the table.
Product Mean* Distribution (%) Top-box 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (7-9) ICA 3.8 18 11 10 6 4 7 8 4 2 20% Arla 5.5 8 3 6 6 7 12 10 10 8 40% Lindahls 6.7 2 4 6 4 4 6 8 11 25 62% Valio 7.2 1 - 4 5 5 4 13 12 25 71%
The consumers had to rate how likely they considered it to be for them to buy the tested products. These results are shown in table 12 and figure 10. The scale was a 9-point hedonic scale where 1 was not visualized by a figure but with “minor” and 9 with the word “large”. The results presented in table 12 are slightly different compared to the ratings seen from total liking however follows a similar pattern. ICA got the lowest scores and just a small number of consumers rated the likeliness above the middle of the scale. Both Valio and Lindahls were rather likely to be bought, even more visualized in figure 10 by the length of the green bars. The frequency of “large” (score 9) was equally split between Valio and Lindahls; however Valio had totally a slightly higher number of scores in the upper part of the scale which is seen in the top-box value in table 12. No comments were requested in connection to the ratings.
Figure 10. The bars go from red (minor) to green (large) and represent the ratings made on the 9-point hedonic scale. The frequencies are seen inside the bars and the percentage refers to the length of the different bars measured on the scale at the bottom. 1 1 8 18 0 4 3 11 4 6 6 10 5 4 6 6 5 4 7 4 4 6 12 7 13 8 10 8 12 11 10 4 25 25 8 2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Valio Lindahls Arla ICA Liten Stor
How likely is it that you would buy the product to your family?
m
Most and least liked – product ranking
The product ranking was only made by placing one product sample as most liked and another sample as least liked (or placed in first and fourth place respectively). Lindahls and Valio were nearly equally often placed first, similar results was seen for Arla and ICA, but the comparison between all 4 products show a large difference between the products. The results from “most liked” are seen in figure 11, “least liked” in figure 12. There are unfortunately missing data from 2 consumers who both left empty lines in the forms, one consumer did instead place two products as “least liked”.
44% of the consumers chose Valio as most liked 43% Lindahls, 7% Arla and 6% ICA.
Figure 11. Number of times each product was placed in first placed (most liked).
ICA received the highest number (65%, n=45) as “least liked”, or the product placed last. Arla was least liked by 25% of the consumers, Lindahls by 9% and Valio only once (the one consumer placing 2 products as least liked).
4 5 29 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
ICA Arla Lindahls Valio
First place
44% 43% 7% 6% 45 17 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Last place
25% 65%Consumer comments
The ranking of most and least liked products was followed by the possibility to explain and/or comment why the products were liked or not. The comments are presented in appendix 4 separated in product specific tables. The different manipulations (NM, TP, TPJ and J) are respectively seen in the left part of the table. When it comes to the differences between the four manipulations, especially the number of consumers ranking Lindahls as most liked during TPJ is different compared to the others, and during TPJ only 2 consumers liked Valio the most, which is dissimilar to the other three experimental settings where Valio instead was frequently placed as most liked in the preference ranking.
ICA received comments of being a yoghurt product for “everyday”, however being somewhat watery and thin in its texture. The flavor was described as strange and especially the aftertaste was mentioned as artificial and weak. Arla was described as fresh and “not-too-sweet” but many consumers was not satisfied with the vanilla flavor and described the yoghurt as tasteless and sour.
Lindahls was described as too thick in some cases and a product only suitable for special occasions. But Lindahls was more often described as very well-tasting, creamy, with real rich vanilla flavor, nice color and overall luxurious properties. Valio was actually not really placed in fourth place even once but instead often placed first. Valio was described as attractive, creamy, fresh, not too sweet, well-tasting and with a nice and full-bodied vanilla flavor.
With results from the consumer preference test it could have been interesting to make it possible for the consumers to change their choice of product if they wanted. Would the consumers prefer to choose the product that they thought tasted the best? Or would they keep the product they initially chose? This part was however not investigated within this study. With experience of how taste sessions inside supermarkets tend to increase the amount of consumers buying products they just tasted it is likely to think that at least some consumers would change their choice of product. Would emotional and/or rational consumers think and act different in this situation or would any manipulation correlate to a change in consumer behavior?
TPJ was the manipulation with most dissimilar result compared to the others. First a smaller number of consumers chose Lindahls to bring home during the experiment, then most consumers during TPJ placed Lindahls as most liked in the preference ranking. Valio on the other hand was instead most liked in the preference test during NM, TP and J, when instead Lindahls was chosen to bring home.
Summary
Time pressure or justification, which is most decisive?
Previous studies have shown that decisions made under time pressure increase hedonic product choices. In this study, the consumers were partly manipulated to act under time pressure only letting them use 7 seconds to make their choice. Time pressure was used as manipulation in two out of four settings, TP and TPJ. When comparing these; Lindahls, which has to be considered as the most hedonic product, was more often chosen during TP compared to TPJ, when the consumers also had to justify their choice. Because fewer consumers did choose Lindahls during TPJ it is likely to think that the aspect of time pressure was a larger contributor to a hedonic product choice compared to justification. Consumers self-rated it to be slightly harder to make their choice during TPJ, and at the same time were more consumers of emotional behavioral characteristics manipulated into TPJ than TP, which is important to highlight. Unfortunately, the data is limited in its conclusion due to a minor number of consumers and conclusions have to be seen as assumptions.
NM and J, the settings without manipulation of time pressure, Lindahls was frequently chosen too. The numerous choices of Lindahls might be explained by the fact that the packaging was considered most appealing (an eye-catcher), was perceived to be an expensive product and that the consumers were told to choose a product they could bring home for free.
The need to justify a choice has in previous studies foremost resulted in choices of more utilitarian character, since it is supposed to be easier to reason these compared to hedonic choices. No such correlations can exclusively be made within this study since the manipulation of only justification (J) often resulted in a choice of the [according to us] most hedonic product. Perhaps did the consumers not find the decision that important in order to be affected by the manipulation?
Regularly bought or not even seen before
During TP, consumers most often chose products that were new to them (never bought or seen but never bought). The comments mentioned in connection to their choice were mostly regarding an appealing packaging. Time pressure in itself thereby could be concluded as contributing to preferably choices driven by hedonic stimuli where sensory aspects of the packaging or tempting and pleasing properties of the product influence the decision, instead of relying on habitual action with a choice of a recognized product. In TPJ, consumers instead chose well-known and regularly bought products. Habitual choices are considered hedonic as well, although not in this case necessarily with a result in the most hedonic product. This aspect, however, puts a pressure on the definition of hedonic and utility product alternatives. When consumers need to justify a product choice and/or decision, previous studies have shown an increase of more rational behavior (Okada, 2005) and in choices between hedonic and utility products, a larger number of utility products are chosen mainly because utility products are easier to justify. Generally, consumers favor hedonic products but they find it harder to justify these, even though the needs to justify hedonic product are higher than for utility alternatives. Consumers within this study knew they had to justify their choices in two out of four manipulations, and actually all consumers had to justify their choice in an exact similar way,
