Download An Attributional Explanation of Consumers` Unexpected Attitudes

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
An Attributional Explanation of Consumers’ Unexpected Attitudes and Behavior Toward Poor-Nutritional Products, With
Implications For Childhood Obesity
Claudia Dumitrescu, Whitworth University, USA
Clifford J. Shultz, II, Loyola University Chicago, USA
Renée Shaw Hughner, Arizona State University, USA
This study (1) advances an alternative psychological mechanism, which explains unexpected consumers’ attitudes and behavior; (2)
proposes a mediating role of attributions of responsibility between government regulation and product satisfaction; (3) offers a new
conceptualization of the government regulation construct (i.e., moderator of attributions of responsibility/self-serving bias).
[to cite]:
Claudia Dumitrescu, Clifford J. Shultz, II, and Renée Shaw Hughner (2013) ,"An Attributional Explanation of Consumers’
Unexpected Attitudes and Behavior Toward Poor-Nutritional Products, With Implications For Childhood Obesity", in NA Advances in Consumer Research Volume 41, eds. Simona Botti and Aparna Labroo, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer
Research.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1015375/volumes/v41/NA-41
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
An Attributional Explanation of Consumers’ Unexpected Attitudes and Behavior Toward
Poor-Nutritional Products, with Implications for Childhood Obesity
Claudia Dumitrescu, Whitworth University, USA
Renée Shaw Hughner, Arizona State University, USA
Clifford J. Shultz, II, Loyola University Chicago, USA
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Rising obesity rates among children have led many to blame
the fast food industry because frequenting quick-service restaurants
has been linked to higher intakes of sodium, fat, calories, and soft
drinks, and lower intakes of healthful nutrients like fruits and vegetables (Bowman et al. 2004; Paeratakul et al. 2003). As such, some
regulatory agencies are seeking legislation to restrict certain marketing practices by fast food outlets. One such regulation took effect
recently in the state of California and requires meals targeted to children to meet certain nutritional standards for fat, calories, sugar, and
sodium if toy premiums or any other incentives are included with the
food purchase (Baertlein 2010). This regulation aims to help parents
change their attitudes, and subsequent behavior, toward unhealthy
food products.
In conjunction with government regulations, amidst growing
public concerns about childhood obesity, food marketers have responded with self-regulatory actions. For example, Kraft pledged to
eliminate advertising to children, of foods that do not meet certain
nutritional standards and Jack in the Box has eliminated toys from its
children’s meals as of June 2011 (Morrison 2011).
While these governmental and corporate initiatives addressing childhood obesity may be well intended, it is unclear how and
why consumers respond to such efforts. Childhood obesity is indeed
epidemic in the US (CDC 2012), which raises questions about how
best to develop theory and change behaviors, and ultimately redress
this societal problem. The Theory of Psychological Reactance was
extensively used to explain consumers’ unintended reactions to government regulations (Ringold 2002); however, in some cases, this
and other frameworks may not explain this deviance phenomenon in
the way that attributional processes can (Conway and Schaller 2005).
First, Reactance Theory posits that individuals most likely deviate
from expectations such that they can reassert their lost freedom of
choice (Conway and Schaller 2005). Although children’s meals toys
are banned, parents may still purchase the same food item, without a free toy, or paying for the toy. That is, parents still have the
freedom to select their food products, regardless of the nutritional
content. Second, Reactance and Attribution Theories predict indeed
the same outcomes (deviance); nonetheless, these two psychological
approaches provide “different accounts of the origins of deviance”
(Conway and Schaller 2005, 313). For instance, reactance is more
emotionally-driven (Knowles and Linn 2004), which may imply that
parents persist in buying potential harmful products for their children just to rebel against this policy, a hardly acceptable perspective.
Conversely, attribution provides a cognitive reason for deviance; this
suggests that parents may deviate due to factors (e.g., government
regulation) that influence their attributional judgments; hence, the
unique explanatory value of the attribution model. Consequently, this
study builds on Attribution Theory to provide a better understanding
of how and why consumers respond to government regulations (GR)
relative to corporate self-regulations (CSR). We argue that the presence of GR versus CSR triggers more unexpected attitudes, and subsequent behavior, toward poor-nutritional products, because parents
have an unexpected lower tendency to blame the food marketers for
these products. The mediating role of attributions of responsibility is
particularly important here, especially when examining consumers’
post-consumption reactions, because these cognitive processes are
likely to have a lasting impact on consumer behavior (Weiner 2000).
This research essentially suggests that government regulations,
despite their good intentions, may be detrimental in changing parents’ attitudes and behavior toward unhealthy food products due to
unexpected attributions of blame for the nutritional value of their
children’s meals. A unique view on the power of attributions of responsibility is thus provided. Our findings further highlight that corporate self-regulations could truly make a difference when it comes
to childhood obesity. Specifically, consumers reported more negative
attitudes and behavior toward poor-nutritional products when corporate self-restrictions on toy premiums were announced.
The theoretical rationale for this research is Attribution Theory
(Kelley 1973). Research has demonstrated that, in co-production
contexts, consumers are subject to self-serving bias or have the
tendency to blame the company when a negative product outcome
occurs, which in turn negatively affects their satisfaction with the
firm and its products (Bendapudi and Leone 2003). In the current
context, parents would normally blame the food marketers for children’s unhealthy meals, which leads to negative attitudes regarding
these products. Nevertheless, we find that the presence of GR mitigates this self-serving bias. Specifically, a toy premium ban causes
less attributions of blame to the firm, for poor-nutritional meals. As
a result, consumers’ attitudes and subsequent behavior, toward these
products, are enhanced. Thus, we test the impact of GR on product
satisfaction through attributions of responsibility, stressing the mediating role of attributional judgments.
Data for testing the hypotheses were collected experimentally,
using a sample of US parents who purchase children’s meals from
McDonald’s. Two studies were conducted: a pilot study, in which
some of the scales were tested and the main experiment, used to test
the hypotheses. We used between-subjects and randomized experimental design; parents were randomly assigned to one of the experimental conditions -- control group, GR, and CSR --, which reduced
the possibility of confounding effects. One hundred and eighty respondents were used, with 60 participants per each condition.
Attributions of responsibility (α = 0.73) measured the degree
to which parents blame the company for their poor-nutritional meal
choices. Product satisfaction (α = 0.90) scale, adapted from Huffman
and Kahn (1998) and Fitzsimons (2000), captured parents’ overall
satisfaction with these meal selections. Lastly, the behavioral intentions scale (α = 0.93), modified from Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000),
measured parents’ tendency to make similar food choices in the future.
The multivariate analysis of variance was employed to examine
whether GR had the hypothesized impact on attributions of responsibility and product satisfaction. As predicted, attributions of responsibility to the firm, in the GR condition, were lower (M = 2.98) relative
to the control group (M = 3.68) and CSR treatment (M = 3.99); (F
(2,179) = 6.61, p < .05). Our results further showed that participants
in the GR condition reported a higher product satisfaction (M = 6.09)
as opposed to those parents in the control group (M = 5.30) and CSR
treatment (M = 5.43); (F (2, 179) = 3.26, p = < .05). Participants’
gender, education, age, and income were controlled for. Gender (coded 1 for male and 0 for female) had a significant impact on consum-
618
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 41, ©2013
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 41) / 619
ers’ attributions of responsibility (F (1,179) = 6.43, p < .05); nevertheless, participants’ education (F (7,179) = 1.28, p > .10), age (F
(3,179) = 0.91, p > .10), and income (F (5,179) = 0.74, p > .10) did
not show significant effects on attributions of responsibility. Lastly,
gender (F (1,179) = 1.57, p > .10), education (F (7,179) = 1.30, p >
.10), age (F (3,179) = 1.65, p > .10), and income (F (5,179) = 1.57, p
> .10) did not have significant effects on product satisfaction.
The model proposed in this study and the traditional mediation
steps (Baron and Kenny 1986; Holmbeck 1997) were tested using
structural equation modeling (Iacobucci 2012). This mediation testing procedure is preferred, and continues to be used, by researchers in the marketing and social psychology fields (Iacobucci 2012;
Klein and Dawar 2004). One hundred and twenty responses were
considered in the mediation analyses which include the manipulated
conditions. The path coefficients and goodness of fit indices of the
proposed model are presented in table 1. All coefficients were significant at p < .05 and had the hypothesized direction. We find that
the impact of GR on product satisfaction is mediated by attributions
of responsibility. Lastly, product satisfaction significantly predicted
behavioral intentions (b = 0.68, p < .05) and the sign of the coefficient was in the expected direction.
This study responds to calls from ACR/TCR champions (Mick
2010) and the MSI (2010-2012) to conduct research on substantive
matters, and ultimately to transform/enhance consumer well-being.
We propose and test a conceptual framework of consumer responses
to government regulations with regard to a major societal challenge
such as childhood obesity. The study (1) advances an alternative
psychological mechanism, which explains unexpected consumers’
attitudes and behavior; (2) proposes a mediating role of attributions of responsibility between government regulation and product
satisfaction; (3) offers a new conceptualization of the government
regulation construct (i.e., moderator of attributions of responsibility/
self-serving bias).
This research shows that, in the presence of a government regulation, parents take more personal responsibility, for poor-nutritional
meals, which triggers higher satisfaction with, and subsequent enhanced behavioral intentions toward, these products. Nonetheless, it
would be relevant to examine the extent to which Reactance Theory
versus Attribution Theory explains consumer responses to different
consumer protection regulations. Lastly, while both studies -- the
pilot and main study -- supported the unexpected impacts of a government regulation, the results may not be generalizable to different
other contexts and operationalizations of government versus corporate regulations. Future research should thereby broaden the scope of
product category and examine whether consumers’ responses to various regulations can be explained by their attributional judgments.
REFERENCES
Baertlein, Lisa (2010), “Law curbs McDonald’s Happy Meal toys,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/03/us-mcdonalds-toysodd-idUSTRE6A25P220101103.
Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny (1986), “The Moderator–
Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological
Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51 (6), 1173-1182.
Bendapudi, Neeli and Robert P. Leone (2003), “Psychological
Implications of Customer Participation in Co-Production,” The
Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 14-28.
Bowman, Shanthy A., Steven L. Gortmaker, Cara B. Ebbeling,
Mark A. Pereira, and David S.
Ludwig (2004), “Effects of Fast-Food Consumption on Energy
Intake and Diet Quality Among Children in a National
Household Survey,” Pediatrics, 113 (1), 112-118.
CDC (2013), “Childhood Obesity Facts,” Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/
obesity/facts.htm.
Conway, III Lucian G. and Mark Schaller (2005), “When
Authorities’ Commands Backfire: Attributions About
Consensus and Effects on Deviant Decision Making,” Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (3), 311-326.
Cronin, J. Joseph Jr., Michael K. Brady, and G. Tomas M. Hult
(2000), “Assessing the Effects of Quality, Value, and Customer
Satisfaction on Consumer Behavioral Intentions in Service
Environments, “Journal of Retailing, 76 (2), 193-218.
Table 1. MANOVA and Structural Equation Modeling Results
Condition
Control group
Government regulation
Corporate self-regulation
Dependent variable
Product satisfaction a
Product satisfaction b
Attributions of responsibility
Behavioral intentions
Model
Model 1a
Model 2b
MANOVA results: cell means
Attributions of responsibility
3.68
2.98**
3.99**
Product satisfaction
5.30
6.09*
5.43*
Structural equation modeling results
Independent variable
b
Government regulation a
0.24
Government regulation b
0.18
Attributions of responsibility
-0.21
Government regulation
-0.25
Product satisfaction
0.68
Goodness of fit indices
χ2
df
p
NFI
NNFI
13.51
6
.04
0.92
0.87
7.64
5
.17
0.95
0.95
**
*
t
2.92*
2.23*
-2.52*
-2.98*
13.75**
CFI
0.95
0.98
R2
0.25
0.31
0.20
0.46
RMSEA
0.10
0.06
Note. a The model that does not include attributions of responsibility; b The model that includes attributions of responsibility. NFI = normed fit index;
NNFI = non-normed fit index; CFI = comparative fit index; RMSEA = root-mean squared error of approximation.
* p < .05; ** p < .01
620 / An Attributional Explanation of Consumers’ Unexpected Attitudes and Behavior Toward Poor-Nutritional Products, with
Implications for Childhood Obesity
Fitzsimons, Gavan J. (2000), “Consumer Response to Stockouts,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (2), 249-266.
Holmbeck, Grayson N. (1997), “Toward Terminological,
Conceptual, and Statistical Clarity in the Study of Mediators
and Moderators: Examples from the Child-Clinical and
Pediatric Psychology Literatures,” Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 65 (4), 599-610.
Huffman, Cynthia and Barbara E. Kahn (1998), “Variety for
Sale: Mass Customization or Mass Confusion?” Journal of
Retailing, 74 (4), 491-513.
Iacobucci, Dawn (2012). “Mediation Analysis and Categorical
Variables: The Final Frontier,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 22 (4), 582-94.
Kelley, Harold H. (1973), “The Processes of Causal Attribution,”
American Psychologist, 28 (2), 107-128.
Klein Jill and Niraj Dawar (2004), “Corporate Social Responsibility
and Consumers’ Attributions and Brand Evaluations in a
Product-Harm Crisis,” International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 21, 203-217.
Knowles, Eric S. and Jay A. Linn (2004). “The Importance of
Resistance to Persuasion,” in Resistance and Persuasion, ed.
Eric S. Knowles and Jay A. Linn, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 3-9.
Mick, David G. (2010), “Transformative Consumer Research,”
www.acrwebsite.org/fop/index.asp?itemID=325.
Morrison, Maureen (2011), “Jack in the Box eliminates toys
from kids’ meals,” http://adage.com/article/news/jack-boxeliminates-toys-kids-meals/228334/.
MSI (2010-2012), Marketing Science Institute Research Priorities.
1000 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA.
Paeratakul, Sahasporn, Daphne P. Ferdinand, Catherine M.
Champagne, Donna H. Ryan, and George A. Bray (2003),
“Fast-Food Consumption among US Adults and Children:
Dietary and Nutrient Intake Profile,” Journal of the American
Dietetic Association, 103 (10), 1332-1338.
Ringold, Debra J. (2002), “Boomerang Effect in Response to Public
Health Interventions: Some Unintended Consequences in the
Alcoholic Beverage Market,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 25
(1), 27-63.
Weiner, Bernard (2000). “Attributional Thoughts About Consumer
Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (3), 382-387.