“White” Space and Organic Claims on Food Packaging: Communicating Sustainability Values and Affecting Young Adults’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Organic Food Products
2.2. Packaging Design and Sustainable Aesthetics
2.3. “White” Space and Design Simplicity
3. Study 1
3.1. Research Questions
3.2. Methodology
3.2.1. Sample
3.2.2. Coding Scheme and Procedure
3.3. Results
3.4. Discussion
4. Study 2
4.1. Hypotheses Development
4.1.1. Perceived Naturalness, Quality and Trustworthiness of Organic Food
4.1.2. “White” Space on Organic Food Packaging: The Impact on Perceived Naturalness, Quality and Trustworthiness
4.1.3. Perceived Naturalness, Perceived Quality, Perceived Trust and Abr
4.1.4. Abr and PI
4.2. Methodology
4.2.1. Experimental Stimuli
4.2.2. Measures
4.2.3. Pretest
4.2.4. Participants and Procedure
4.3. Results
4.3.1. Manipulation Checks
4.3.2. Main Results
4.4. Discussion
5. General Discussion
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Managerial Implications
6. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
7. Conclusions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Carrington, M.J.; Zwick, D.; Neville, B. The ideology of the ethical consumption gap. Mark. Theory 2015, 16, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Henninger, C.E.; Alevizou, P.J.; Oates, C.J. What is sustainable fashion? J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2016, 20, 400–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otto, S.; Strenger, M.; Maier-Nöth, A.; Schmid, M. Food packaging and sustainability—Consumer perception vs. correlated scientific facts: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 298, 126733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, D.M.; Schouten, J.W. The answer is sustainable marketing, when the question is: What can we do? Rech. Appl. Mark. 2014, 29, 107–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, T. Longer Lasting Products: Alternatives to the Throwaway Society; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Wilkie, W.L.; Moore, E.S. Expanding our understanding of marketing in society. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2011, 40, 53–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grönman, K.; Soukka, R.; Järvi-Kääriäinen, T.; Katajajuuri, J.M.; Kuisma, M.; Koivupuro, H.K.; Linnanen, L. Framework for sustainable food packaging design. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2013, 26, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilg, A.; Barr, S.; Ford, N. Green consumption or sustainable lifestyles? Identifying the sustainable consumer. Futures 2005, 37, 481–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barham, E. Towards a theory of values-based labeling. Agric. Hum. Values 2002, 19, 349–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulos, B. Green power in perspective: Lessons from green marketing of consumer goods. Electr. J. 1998, 11, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramirez, E.; Jiménez, F.R.; Gau, R. Concrete and abstract goals associated with the consumption of environmentally sustainable products. Eur. J. Mark. 2015, 49, 1645–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rettie, R.; Burchell, K.; Riley, D. Normalising green behaviours: A new approach to sustainability marketing. J. Mark. Manag. 2012, 28, 420–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazar, N.; Zhong, C.-B. Do green products make us better people? Psychol. Sci. 2010, 21, 494–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scalvedi, M.L.; Saba, A. Exploring local and organic food consumption in a holistic sustainability view. Br. Food J. 2018, 120, 749–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azzurra, A.; Massimiliano, A.; Angela, M. Measuring sustainable food consumption: A case study on organic food. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 17, 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemmerling, S.; Hamm, U.; Spiller, A. Consumption behaviour regarding organic food from a marketing perspective—A literature review. Org. Agric. 2015, 5, 277–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnier, L.; Schoormans, J.; Mugge, R. Judging a product by its cover: Packaging sustainability and perceptions of quality in food products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 53, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, H.J.; Yun, Z.S. Consumers’ perceptions of organic food attributes and cognitive and affective attitudes as de-terminants of their purchase intentions toward organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 259–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mother Earth Living. 14 Sustainable Food Companies You Can Trust—Eat Healthy—Natural Home & Garden. 2012. Available online: Motherearthliving.com (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Kilbourne, W.; McDonagh, P.; Prothero, A. Sustainable consumption and the quality of life: A macromarketing challenge to the dominant social paradigm. J. Macromarketing 1997, 17, 4–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prothero, A.; Fitchett, J.A. Greening capitalism: Opportunities for a green commodity. J. Macromarketing 2000, 20, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McDonagh, P.; Prothero, A. Sustainability marketing research: Past, present and future. J. Mark. Manag. 2014, 30, 1186–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forbes, P. Sustainable Packaging in 2021 and Beyond. Ideas & Examples. Pack-Help. 2021. Available online: https://packhelp.com/sustainable-packaging/?epik=dj0yJnU9RTM3aEdTb21uMHllaEdQa2VXVE9BclNHdzNKZU1IV1QmcD0wJm49R3NuY0FvRnZlbXR6UVJtb0JyckN3dyZ0PUFBQUFBR0VidW5Z (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Liao, G.Z.; Chen, C.H. Comparing human aesthetic perception of basic geometric forms to the principles of golden section. In Proceedings of the 5th Asian Design Conference, National University, Seoul, Korea, 11–13 October 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Mossetto, G. Aesthetics and Economics; Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; p. 216. [Google Scholar]
- Walker, S.; Dorsa, E. Making design work—Sustainability, product design and social equity. J. Sustain. Prod. Des. 2001, 1, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Magnier, L.; Crié, D. Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: An exploration of consumers’ perceptions of eco-designed packaging. Int. J. Retail. Distrib. Manag. 2015, 43, 350–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zafarmand, S.J.; Sugiyama, K.; Watanabe, M. Aesthetic and sustainability: The aesthetic attributes promoting product sustainability. J. Sustain. Prod. Des. 2003, 3, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chim, I.S.; Blebea, I. Minimalism: An Optimal Aesthetic for the Sustainable Design. Available online: https://atna-mam.utcluj.ro/index.php/Acta/article/view/421 (accessed on 15 June 2021).
- Margariti, K.; Hatzithomas, L.; Boutsouki, C.; Zotos, Y. A path to our heart: Visual metaphors and “white” space in advertising aesthetic pleasure. Int. J. Advert. 2021, 1–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pracejus, J.W.; O’Guinn, T.C.; Olsen, G.D. When white space is more than “burning money”: Economic signaling meets visual commercial rhetoric. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2013, 30, 211–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pracejus, J.W.; Olsen, G.D.; O’Guinn, T.C. How nothing became something: White space, rhetoric, history, and meaning. J. Consum. Res. 2006, 33, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berger, V. Social norm-based gamification to promote eco-friendly food choice. J. Consum. Mark. 2019, 36, 666–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Wang, S. Understanding consumers’ intentions to purchase green products in the social media marketing context. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 32, 860–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krystallis, A.; Fotopoulos, C.; Zotos, Y. Organic consumers’ profile and their willingness to pay (WTP) for selected organic food products in Greece. J. Int. Consum. Mark. 2006, 19, 81–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kahneman, D.; Knetsch, J.L. Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 1992, 22, 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhaskaran, S.; Polonsky, M.; Cary, J.; Fernandez, S. Environmentally sustainable food production and marketing: Opportunity or hype? Br. Food J. 2006, 108, 677–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Magnusson, M.K.; Arvola, A.; Hursti, U.K.K.; Åberg, L.; Sjödén, P.O. Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite 2003, 40, 109–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bigsby, H.; Ozanne, L.K. The purchase decision: Consumers and environmentally certified wood products. For. Prod. J. 2002, 52, 100–105. [Google Scholar]
- Vis, J.K.; Standish, M. How to make agri-food supply chains sustainable: Unilever’s perspective. Sustain. Dev. Int. 2003, 3, 111–117. [Google Scholar]
- Menon, A.; Menon, A. Enviropreneurial marketing strategy: The emergence of corporate environmentalism as market strategy. J. Mark. 1997, 61, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Beamon, B.M. Designing the green supply chain. Logist. Inf. Manag. 1999, 12, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Verbeke, W.; Ward, R.W. Consumer interest in information cues denoting quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef labels. Food Qual. Prefer. 2006, 17, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartnett, J.L.; Schechter, S.H.; Kropp, D.H.; Garvin, D.A. Managing quality: The strategic and competitive edge. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1988, 13, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, W.C.J.; Shimizu, M.; Kniffin, K.M.; Wansink, B. You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 29, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vermeir, I.; Verbeke, W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2006, 19, 169–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Grijp, N.M.; den Hond, F. Green Supply Chain Initiatives in the European Food and Retailing Industry; Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Kumar, D.S.; Purani, K.; Sahadev, S. Visual servicescape aesthetics and consumer response: A holistic model. J. Serv. Mark. 2017, 31, 556–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Hsu, Y. Does sustainable perceived value play a key role in the purchase intention driven by product aesthetics? Taking smartwatch as an example. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Underwood, R.L. The communicative power of product packaging: Creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2003, 11, 62–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNeal, J.U.; Ji, M.F. Children’s visual memory of packaging. J. Consum. Mark. 2003, 20, 400–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jordan, P.W. Human factors for pleasure in product use. Appl. Ergon. 1998, 29, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloch, P.H. Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response. J. Mark. 1995, 59, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nancarrow, C.; Wright, L.T.; Brace, I. Gaining competitive advantage from packaging and labelling in marketing communications. Br. Food J. 1998, 100, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mugge, R.; Dahl, D.W.; Schoormans, J.P. What you see, is what you get? Guidelines for influencing consumers’ perceptions of consumer durables through product appearance. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 309–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creusen, M.E.; Veryzer, R.W.; Schoormans, J.P. Product value importance and consumer preference for visual complexity and symmetry. Eur. J. Mark. 2010, 44, 1437–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creusen, M.E.H.; Schoormans, J.P.L. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2004, 22, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloch, P.H. Product design and marketing: Reflections after fifteen years. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2011, 28, 378–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, F.; Capelli, S. The effect of the number of ingredient images on package evaluation and product choice. Rech. Appl. Mark. 2018, 33, 6–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Underwood, R.L.; Klein, N.M.; Burke, R.R. Packaging communication: Attentional effects of product imagery. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2001, 10, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steenis, N.D.; van der Lans, I.A.; van Herpen, E.; van Trijp, H.C. Effects of sustainable design strategies on consumer preferences for redesigned packaging. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 854–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balconi, M.; Sebastiani, R.; Angioletti, L. A neuroscientific approach to explore consumers’ intentions towards sustainability within the luxury fashion industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Magnier, L.; Schoormans, J. Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 44, 53–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stevanovich, V. A reading of interpretative models of minimalism architecture. J. Fac. Archit. 2013, 30, 181–194. [Google Scholar]
- Pieters, R.; Wedel, M.; Batra, R. The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. J. Mark. 2010, 74, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwan, C.M.; Dai, X.; Wyer, R.S., Jr. Contextual influences on message persuasion: The effect of empty space. J. Consum. Res. 2017, 44, 448–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berlyne, D.E.; Boudewijns, W.J. Hedonic effects of uniformity in variety. Can. J. Psychol. Rev. Can. Psychol. 1971, 25, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ulrich, R.S. Aesthetic and Affective Response to Natural Environment; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983; pp. 85–125. [Google Scholar]
- Karvonen, K. The beauty of simplicity. In Proceedings of the 2000 Conference on Universal Usability, Arlington, VA, USA, 16–17 November 2000; pp. 85–90. [Google Scholar]
- Kasar, P.M.; Tribhuwan, C.S.; Khode, J.G. Innovative packaging of medicines. Asian J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2020, 10, 56–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aboud, D.; Al Adawy, N.Y.; Moawad, M.G. Fostering value co-creation as a determinant for customers’ satisfaction in the corporate identity. Int. Des. J. 2019, 9, 249–259. [Google Scholar]
- Sijtsema, S.J.; Onwezen, M.C.; Reinders, M.J.; Dagevos, H.; Partanen, A.; Meeusen, M. Consumer perception of bio-based products—An exploratory study in 5 European countries. NJAS-Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2016, 77, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tobler, C.; Visschers, V.H.; Siegrist, M. Eating green. Consumers’ willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite 2011, 57, 674–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rozin, P.; Spranca, M.; Krieger, Z.; Neuhaus, R.; Surillo, D.; Swerdlin, A.; Wood, K. Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 2004, 43, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Moore, G.E.; Baldwin, T. Principia Ethica; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Tenbült, P.; de Vries, N.K.; Dreezens, E.; Martijn, C. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 2005, 45, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dano, F. Packaging: Une approche sémiotique. Rech. Appl. Mark. 1996, 11, 23–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orth, U.R.; Malkewitz, K. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, L.; van Rompay, T.J.; Schifferstein, H.N.; Galetzka, M. Tough package, strong taste: The influence of pack-aging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petersen, M.; Brockhaus, S. Dancing in the dark: Challenges for product developers to improve and communicate product sustainability. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 161, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, M.; Chapman, G.B. Why do people like natural? Instrumental and ideational bases for the naturalness preference. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 42, 2859–2878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Battcock, G. Minimal: A Critical Anthology; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.-W.; Lo, L.Y.-S.; Huang, T.K. Visual complexity and figure-background color contrast of e-commerce websites: E_ects on consumers’ emotional responses. In Proceedings of the 2016 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Koloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 3594–3603. [Google Scholar]
- Favier, M.; Celhay, F.; Pantin-Sohier, G. Is less more or a bore? Package design simplicity and brand perception: An application to Champagne. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 46, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, N.; Varki, S. Active white space (AWS) in logo designs: Effects on logo evaluations and brand communication. J. Advert. 2018, 47, 270–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- McEachern, M.; McClean, P. Organic purchasing motivations and attitudes: Are they ethical? Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2002, 26, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlson, L.; Grove, S.; Kangun, N.; Polonsky, M.J. An international comparison of environmental advertising: Substantive vs. associative claims. J. Macromarketing 1996, 16, 57–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawar, N.; Parker, P. Marketing universals: Consumers’ use of brand name, price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 81–95. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, M.; Wang, Y.; Yin, S.; Hu, W.; Han, F. Chinese consumer trust and preferences for organic labels from different regions: Evidence from real choice experiment. Br. Food J. 2019, 21, 1521–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martinho, G.; Pires, A.; Portela, G.; Fonseca, M. Factors affecting consumers’ choices concerning sustainable packaging during product purchase and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 103, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, M.-F. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1008–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, S.; Paladino, A. Eating clean and green? Investigating consumer motivations towards the purchase of organic food. Australas. Mark. J. 2010, 18, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ragavan, N.; Mageh, R. A study on service quality perspectives and customer satisfaction in new private sector banks. IOSR J. Bus. Manag. 2013, 7, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werner, J.; Alvensleben, R.V. Consumer attitudes towards organic food in Germany (F.R.). Int. Symp. Hortic. Econ. Manag. 2011, 7, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Doorn, J.; Verhoef, P. Willingness to pay for organic products: Differences between virtue and vice foods. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2011, 28, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.S.; Chang, C.H. Enhance green purchase intentions: The roles of green perceived value, green perceived risk, and green trust. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 502–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reheul, D.; Mathijs, E.; Relaes, J. Elements for a Future View with Respect to Sustainable Agri- and Horticulture in Flanders. In Sustainable Agriculture; Stedula: Ghent, Belgium, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Dehghani, M.; Kim, K.J. The effects of design, size, and uniqueness of smartwatches: Perspectives from current versus potential users. Behav. Inf. Technol. 2019, 38, 1143–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavie, T.; Tractinsky, N. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. Int. J. Human-Computer Stud. 2004, 60, 269–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Charter, M.; Tischner, U. Sustainable Solutions: Developing Products and Services for the Future; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Bragd, A. The Organising of Green Products: Five Case Studies of Green Technological Innovation Products; University of Gothenburg: Gothenburg, Sweden, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- James, P. The sustainable cycle: A new tool for product development and design. J. Sustain. Prod. Des. 1997, 2, 56–57. [Google Scholar]
- Vidales Giovannetti, M.D. El Mundo del Envase. Manual para el Diseno y Produccio’n de Envases y Embalajes; Editorial Gustavo Gili: Mexico City, Mexico, 1995; p. 90. [Google Scholar]
- Aday, M.S.; Yener, U. Assessing consumers’ adoption of active and intelligent packaging. British Food J. 2015, 117, 157–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bloch, P.H.; Brunel, F.F.; Arnold, T.J. Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: Concept and measurement. J. Consum. Res. 2003, 29, 551–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, K.; Ali, M. Impact of electronic word of mouth on consumer purchase intention in footwear industry of Pakistan. Kuwait Chapter Arab. J. Bus. Manag. Rev. 2017, 6, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thorson, E. Experiment, Laboratory, Design of The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Mhlophe, B. Consumer Purchase intentions towards organic food: Insights from South Africa. Bus. Soc. Sci. J. 2016, 1, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binninger, A.-S. Perception of naturalness of food packaging and its role in consumer product evaluation. J. Food Prod. Mark. 2015, 23, 251–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodds, W.B.; Monroe, K.B.; Grewal, D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. J. Mark. Res. 1991, 28, 307–319. [Google Scholar]
- Ohanian, R. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. J. Advert. 1990, 19, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geuens, M.; Pelsmacker, P.D. Need for cognition and the moderating role of the intensity of warm and humorous advertising appeals. ACR Asia-Pac. Adv. 1998, 1, 1–32. [Google Scholar]
- Lafferty, B.A.; Goldsmith, R.E. Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. J. Bus. Res. 1998, 44, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheehan, K.; Atkinson, L. Green Advertising and the Reluctant Consumer; Routledge: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, J.R. The Complete Problem Solver; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Pritschet, L.; Powell, D.; Horne, Z. Marginally significant effects as evidence for hypotheses: Changing attitudes over four decades. Psychol. Sci. 2016, 27, 1036–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schuldt, J.P. Does green mean healthy? Nutrition label color affects perceptions of healthfulness. Heal. Commun. 2013, 28, 814–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alvensleben, R. von Padberg, D. Consumer behavior. In Agro-Food Marketing; Padberg, D., Ritson, C., Albisu, L., Eds.; Oxon Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1997; pp. 209–224. [Google Scholar]
- Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Product labelling in the market for organic food: Consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay for different organic certification logos. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 25, 9–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado-Ballester, E.; Munuera-Alemán, J.L. Brand trust in the context of consumer loyalty. Eur. J. Mark. 2001, 35, 1238–1258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, L.M.S.; Cassady, D.L. The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use. A review of the literature. Appetite 2015, 92, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Akowska-Biemans, S. Polish consumer food choices and beliefs about organic food. Br. Food J. 2011, 113, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieters, R.; Wedel, M. Attention capture and transfer in advertising: Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. J. Mark. 2004, 68, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwin, T. Logo Decode: From Logo Design to Branding; Promopress: Barcelona, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Conner, M.; Armitage, C. Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 1429–1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teng, C.C.; Wang, Y.M. Decisional factors driving organic food consumption: Generation of consumer purchase intentions. Br. Food J. 2015, 117, 1066–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batte, M.T.; Hooker, N.H.; Haab, T.C.; Beaverson, J. Putting their money where their mouths are: Consumer willingness to pay for multi-ingredient, processed organic food products. Food Policy 2007, 32, 145–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lohr, L. Factors affecting international demand and trade in organic food products. In Changing Structure of Global Food Consumption and Trade; Economic Research Service/USDA: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; pp. 67–79. [Google Scholar]
- Rezaei, J.; Papakonstantinou, A.; Tavasszy, L.; Pesch, U.; Kana, A. Sustainable product-package design in a food supply chain: A multi-criteria life cycle approach. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2018, 32, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Basha, M.B.; Mason, C.; Shamsudin, M.F.; Hussain, H.I.; Salem, M.A. Consumers attitude towards organic food. Procedia Econ. Finance 2015, 31, 444–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fernqvist, F.; Ekelund, L. Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food—A review. Food Qual. Preference 2014, 32, 340–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1984, 46, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hughner, R.S.; McDonagh, P.; Prothero, A.; Shultz, C.J.; Stanton, J. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 2007, 6, 94–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fotopoulos, C.; Krystallis, A. Organic product avoidance: Reasons for rejection and potential buyers’ identification in a countrywide survey. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 233–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fotopoulos, C.; Krystallis, A. Purchasing motives and profile of the Greek organic consumer: A countrywide survey. Br. Food J. 2002, 104, 730–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variables and Sub-Variables | Brief Description | Coding | Inter-Coder Reliability (Cohen’s Kappa) |
---|---|---|---|
Organic Products | |||
Organic foods | The organic product is included in the food and beverage category or not | 0 = other than organic food 1 = organic food | 0.91 |
“White” Space | |||
Extended space | The extent of “white” space compared to the total ad layout | 0 = (<1/2 of the total ad layout) | 0.90 |
1=(≥1/2 of the total ad layout | |||
Monochrome space | “White” space is monochrome (unique color) or not (multiple color) | 0 = not monochrome | 0.92 |
1 = monochrome | |||
Space in grayscale | “White” space is in shades of gray (black, white or gray) or not (other than black, white or gray) | 0 = not grayscale | 0.91 |
1 = grayscale |
Types of “White Space” | |||
---|---|---|---|
Extended Space | Monochrome Space | Space in Grayscale | |
% (N) | % (N) | % (N) | |
Organic products | 74.14 (301) | 51.48 (209) | 55.42 (225) |
Variables | Items | Responses | Cronbach’s Alpha |
---|---|---|---|
“White” space |
| 1 = Strongly disagree…7 = Strongly agree | 0.888 |
Description of organic food product |
| 1 = Strongly disagree…7 = Strongly agree | 0.866 |
Packaging sustainability |
| 1 = Strongly disagree…7 = Strongly agree | 0.890 |
Product naturalness |
| 1 = Strongly disagree…7 = Strongly agree | 0.896 |
Product quality |
| 1 = very low…7 = very high 1 = very low…7 = very high 1 = very poor quality…7 = very high quality 1 = very low…7 = very high 1 = strongly disagree… 7 = strongly agree | 0.853 |
Product trustworthiness |
| 1 = Undependable… 7 = Dependable 1 = Dishonest… 7 = Honest 1 = …Unreliable… 7 = Reliable 1 = Insincere… 7 = Sincere 1 = Untrustworthy… 7 = Trustworthy | 0.952 |
Brand familiarity |
| 1 = Completely Unfamiliar… 7 = Completely Familiar | - |
Abr |
| 1 = Strongly disagree… 7 = Strongly agree | 0.874 |
Purchase intention |
| 1 = Strongly disagree… 7 = Strongly agree | 0.849 |
Perceived Naturalness | Abr | PI | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | t (303) | β | T (302) | β | t (301) | |
Organic food product | 0.39 *** | 3.03 | −0.14 | −1.14 | 0.20 * | 1.39 |
Perceived naturalness | 0.52 *** | 9.99 | 0.36 *** | 6.79 | ||
Abr | 0.52 *** | 10.20 | ||||
Mediation | IndexLLCI | ULCI | ||||
Organic food product-> Perceived naturalness-> Abr->PI | 0.11 (0.0342, 0.1942) | |||||
β | t (155) | β | t (154) | β | t (151) | |
Organic food product x “white” space | 0.24 | 1.40 | −0.06 | −0.35 | 0.20 | 1.36 |
Perceived naturalness | 0.41 *** | 5.31 | 0.40 *** | 5.23 | ||
Abr | 0.51 *** | 7.14 | ||||
Mediation | Index | LLCI ULCI | ||||
Organic food product x “white” space-> Perceived naturalness-> Abr->PI | −0.05 (−0.0114, 0.1451) |
Perceived Quality | Abr | PI | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | t (303) | β | t (302) | β | t (301) | |
Organic food product | 32 *** | 2.68 | −0.14 | −1.36 | 0.16 | 1.68 |
Perceived quality | 0.68 *** | 12.99 | 0.61 *** | 10.57 | ||
Abr | 0.37 *** | 7.37 | ||||
Mediation | IndexLLCI | ULCI | ||||
Organic food product-> Perceived quality->Abr->PI | 0.08 (0.0213, 0.1623) | |||||
β | t (155) | β | t (154) | β | t (153) | |
Organic food Product x “white” space | 0.28 | 1.75 | −0.13 | −0.89 | 0.13 | 0.94 |
Perceived quality | 0.64 *** | 8.32 | 0.63 *** | 7.41 | ||
Abr | 0.35 *** | 4.79 | ||||
Mediation | Index LLCI | ULCI | ||||
Organic food product x “white” space-> Perceived quality->Abr->PI | 0.06 (0.0025, 0.1635) |
Perceived Trustworthiness | Abr | PI | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | t (303) | β | t (302) | β | t (301) | |
Organic food Product | 0.15 | 1.23 | −0.03 | −0.28 | 27 *** | 2.79 |
Perceived trustworthiness | 0.65 *** 12.80 | 0.57 *** | 12.26 | |||
Abr | 0.38 *** | 7.56 | ||||
Mediation | IndexLLCI | ULCI | ||||
Organic food product-> Perceived trustworthiness->Abr->PI | 0.04 (−0.0192, 0.1109) | |||||
β | t (155) | β | t (154) | b | t (153) | |
Organic food Product x “white” space | 0.39 * | 2.38 | −0.19 | −1.26 | 0.0752 | |
Perceived trustworthiness | 0.60 *** | 8.14 | 0.59 *** | 7.24 | ||
Abr | 0.37 *** | 4.95 | ||||
Mediation | IndexLLCI | ULCI | ||||
Organic food product x “white” space-> Perceived trustworthiness ->Abr->PI | 0.09 (0.0188, 0.2011) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Margariti, K. “White” Space and Organic Claims on Food Packaging: Communicating Sustainability Values and Affecting Young Adults’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911101
Margariti K. “White” Space and Organic Claims on Food Packaging: Communicating Sustainability Values and Affecting Young Adults’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):11101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911101
Chicago/Turabian StyleMargariti, Kostoula. 2021. "“White” Space and Organic Claims on Food Packaging: Communicating Sustainability Values and Affecting Young Adults’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 11101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911101
APA StyleMargariti, K. (2021). “White” Space and Organic Claims on Food Packaging: Communicating Sustainability Values and Affecting Young Adults’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions. Sustainability, 13(19), 11101. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911101