IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i13p8224-d856462.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Influence of Consumption Context on Indulgent Versus Healthy Yoghurts: Exploring the Relationship between the Associated Emotions and the Actual Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Petjon Ballco

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
    Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón—IA2, CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
    Dyson School of Economics and Management, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA)

  • Betina Piqueras-Fiszman

    (Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Hans C. M. van Trijp

    (Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

This work examines the associated emotions of consumers transmitted from extrinsic attributes (fat-related nutrition claims (full-fat, low-fat, and fat-free) and ingredient features (plain, berries, and double chocolate chunk)) labelled on yoghurt packages. It differentiates by consumption context (health versus indulgent) at the time of the survey and studies the relationship between the associated emotions (e.g., positive versus negative) attached to extrinsic attributes and the actual choices. The research was conducted in the Netherlands in 2019, with 209 regular consumers of yoghurt. Participants were divided into two treatments according to each consumption context and a control group (no context); they were instructed to imagine purchasing yoghurt to consume it as a healthy snack or as a dessert or received no instructions. After choosing their preferred option from a discrete choice experiment, participants indicated how the choice made them feel from a list of emotions. The results revealed significant differences between positive emotional profiles for choosing healthy (low-fat) yoghurts with berries and negative profiles for choosing less healthy alternatives (full-fat) with double chocolate chunk sensory features. The findings from a random parameter logit model showed that participants who continuously chose the same type of yoghurt in all choice tasks selected mostly positive rather than negative emotions. The overall findings suggest that the associated emotions affect yoghurt choices. However, the emotions were mainly affected by the consumption context.

Suggested Citation

  • Petjon Ballco & Betina Piqueras-Fiszman & Hans C. M. van Trijp, 2022. "The Influence of Consumption Context on Indulgent Versus Healthy Yoghurts: Exploring the Relationship between the Associated Emotions and the Actual Choices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-19, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8224-:d:856462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8224/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/13/8224/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, September.
    2. Jakubanecs, Alexander & Fedorikhin, Alexander & Iversen, Nina M., 2018. "Consumer responses to hedonic food products: Healthy cake or indulgent cake? Could dialecticism be the answer?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 221-232.
    3. Pierre Chandon & Brian Wansink, 2007. "The Biasing Health Halos of Fast-Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(3), pages 301-314, June.
    4. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    6. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    7. Bettman, James R & Luce, Mary Frances & Payne, John W, 1998. "Constructive Consumer Choice Processes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 25(3), pages 187-217, December.
    8. Richins, Marsha L, 1997. "Measuring Emotions in the Consumption Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 24(2), pages 127-146, September.
    9. Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M., 1990. "Conceptual model of the quality perception process," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 309-333, December.
    10. Ratneshwar, S & Pechmann, Cornelia & Shocker, Allan D, 1996. "Goal-Derived Categories and the Antecedents of Across-Category Consideration," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 23(3), pages 240-250, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    2. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    3. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    4. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    5. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    7. Tiziano Tempesta & Daniel Vecchiato, 2019. "Analysis of the Factors that Influence Olive Oil Demand in the Veneto Region (Italy)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    8. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    9. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    11. M. Lefebvre & C. Biguzzi & E. Ginon & S. Gomez-y-Paloma & S. R. H. Langrell & S. Marette & G. Mateu & A. Sutan, 2017. "Mandatory integrated pest management in the European Union: experimental insights on consumers’ reactions," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-54, July.
    12. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    13. Lingling Xu & Xixi Yang & Linhai Wu & Xiujuan Chen & Lu Chen & Fu-Sheng Tsai, 2019. "Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Food with Information on Animal Welfare, Lean Meat Essence Detection, and Traceability," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-22, September.
    14. Rajo, Lindelly A. & Michelle S, Segovia & Arias, Fredi & Marco A., Palma, 2016. "Willingness-to-Pay for an Educational Label: The Zamorano University Brand," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 19(1), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Pascucci, Stefano & Magistris, Tiziana de, 2013. "Information Bias Condemning Radical Food Innovators? The Case of Insect-Based Products in the Netherlands," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 16(3), pages 1-16, September.
    16. Yanling Peng & Yuansheng Jiang & Yu Hong, 2022. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Selecting Attributes of Farmland Management Right Mortgages in Western China: A Demand Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, July.
    17. Zachary G. Arens & Rebecca W. Hamilton, 2018. "The substitution strategy dilemma: substitute selection versus substitute effectiveness," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 130-146, January.
    18. Elisa Giampietri & Dieter B. A. Koemle & Xiaohua Yu & Adele Finco, 2016. "Consumers’ Sense of Farmers’ Markets: Tasting Sustainability or Just Purchasing Food?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-14, November.
    19. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    20. Peng, Yanling & Ren, Yanjun & Zhong, Yu & Jiang, Yuansheng, 2022. "Farmers’ Heterogeneous Preferences for Selecting Attributes of Farmland Management Right Mortgages: Evidence from Western China," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:13:p:8224-:d:856462. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.