Impacts of situational factors on process attribute uses for food purchases

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 44, Issue , 2015, Pages 84-91

  Loebnitz, Natascha ^a   Mueller Loose, Simone ^a,b   Grunert, Klaus G ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Priming; Process related attribute; Situational factors; Time pressure

Indexed keywords

EID: 84927730115     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.03.014     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Adaval R., Monroe K.B. Automatic construction and use of contextual information for product and price evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research 2002, 28(4):572-588.
2. Bargh J.A., Chartrand T.L. The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology 2000, 253-285. Cambridge University Press, New York. H.T. Reis, C.M. Judd (Eds.).
3. Ben Zur H., Breznitz S.J. The effect of time pressure on risky choice behaviour. Acta Psychologica 1981, 47(2):89-104.
4. Biel A., Dahlstrand U., Grankvist G. Habitual and value-guided purchase behavior. Ambio 2005, 34(4):360-365.
5. Carlsson F., Mørkbak M.R., Olsen S.B. The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments. Journal of Choice Modelling 2012, 5(2):19-37.
6. Dhar R., Nowlis S.M. The effect of time pressure on consumer choice deferral. Journal of Consumer Research 1999, 25(4):369-384.
7. Dunlap R.E., Van Liere K.D., Mertig A.G., Jones R.E. New trends in measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 2000, 56(3):425-442.
8. Edland A., Svenson O. Judgment and decision making under time pressure. Time pressure and stress in human judgment and decision making 1993, 27-40. Plenum Press, New York. O. Svenson, J. Maule (Eds.).
9. European Commission. (2014). EU ecolabel for consumers. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecolabel/eu-ecolabel-for-consumers.html.
10. Fazio R.H., Williams C.J. Attitude accessibility as a moderator of the attitude-perception and attitude-behavior relations: An investigation of the 1984 presidential election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 51(3):505-514.
11. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Genetic engineering and food: What determines consumer acceptance?. British Food Journal 1995, 97(8):31-36.
12. Gamble J.C., Muggleston S., Hedderly D., Parminter T., Vaugham G. Genetic engineering: The public's point of view 2000, Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand.
13. Grankvist G., Dahlstrand U., Biel A. The impact of environmental labelling on consumer preference: Negative vs. positive labels. Journal of Consumer Policy 2004, 27(2):213-230.
14. Grunert K.G. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 2005, 32(3):369-391.
15. Grunert K.G., Svenson O. Marketing parameters and their influence on consumer food. The psychology of food choice 2006, 161-177. CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire. R. Shepherd, M. Raats (Eds.).
16. Grunert K.G., Bredahl L., Brunsø K. Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector: A review. Meat Science 2004, 66(2):259-272.
17. Grunert K.G., Bredahl L., Scholderer J. Four questions on European consumers' attitudes toward the use of genetic modification in food production. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 2003, 4(4):435-445.
18. Hamlin R.P. Cue-based decision making. A new framework for understanding the uninvolved food consumer. Appetite 2010, 55(1):89-98.
19. Hoogland C.T., de Boer J., Boersema J.J. Food and sustainability: Do consumers recognize, understand and value on-package information on production standards?. Appetite 2007, 49(1):47-57.
20. Howard J.A., Sheth J.N. The theory of buyer behavior 1969, Vol. 14. Wiley, New York.
21. Louviere J.J., Hensher D.A., Swait J.D. Stated choice methods: Analysis and application 2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
22. Louviere J.J., Islam T. A comparison of importance weights/measures derived from choice-based conjoint, constant sum scales and best-worst scaling. Journal of Business Research 2008, 61:903-911.
23. Luchs M.G., Naylor R.W., Irwin J.R., Raghunathan R. The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing 2010, 74(5):18-31.
24. Mueller Loose S., Lockshin L. Testing the robustness of best worst scaling for cross-national segmentation with different numbers of choice sets. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 27(2):230-242.
25. Park C.W., Iyer E.S., Smith D.C. The effects of situational factors on in-store grocery shopping behavior: The role of store environment and time available for shopping. Journal of Consumer Research 1989, 15(4):422-433.
26. Payne J.W., Bettman J.R., Johnson E.J. Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1988, 14(3):534-552.
27. Reutskaja E., Nagel R., Camerer C.F., Rangel A. Search dynamics in consumer choice under time pressure: An eye-tracking study. The American Economic Review 2011, 900-926.
28. Rozin P., Spranca M., Krieger Z., Neuhaus R., Surillo D., Swerdlin A., et al. Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 2004, 43(2):147-154.
29. Scheibehenne B., Miesler L., Todd P.M. Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision heuristics. Appetite 2007, 49(3):578-589.
30. Schmitt B.H. Contextual priming of visual information in advertisements. Psychology & Marketing 1994, 11(1):1-14.
31. Scholderer J., Frewer L.J. The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy 2003, 26(2):125-157.
32. Schwartz S.H. Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 1992, 25(1):1-65.
33. Shen H., Wyer R.S. Procedural priming and consumer judgments: Effects on the impact of positively and negatively valenced information. Journal of Consumer Research 2008, 34(5):727-737.
34. Steenkamp J.-B.E.M., Wittink D.R. The metric quality of full-profile judgments and the number-of-attribute-levels effect in conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 1994, 11(3):275-286.
35. Suri R., Monroe K.B. The effects of time constraints on consumers' judgments of prices and products. Journal of Consumer Research 2003, 30(1):92-104.
36. Tenbült P., de Vries N.K., Dreezens E., Martijn C. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 2005, 45(1):47-50.
37. Thøgersen J. How may consumer policy empower consumers for sustainable lifestyles?. Journal of Consumer Policy 2005, 28(2):143-177.
38. Thurstone L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 1927, 34(4):273-286.
39. Verbeke W., Pérez-Cueto F.J., de Barcellos, Krystallis A., Grunert K.G. European citizen and consumer attitudes and preferences regarding beef and pork. Meat Science 2010, 84(2):284-292.
40. Vermeir I., Verbeke W. Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer attitude-behavioral intention gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2006, 19(2):169-194.
41. Verplanken B., Holland R.W. Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002, 82(3):434-447.
42. Wheeler S.C., DeMarree K.G., Petty R.E. Understanding the role of the self in prime-to-behavior effects: The active-self account. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2007, 11(3):234-261.
43. Whitmarsh L., O'Neill S. Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2010, 30(3):305-314.