Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.