Anthropomorphism as a Differentiation Strategy for Standardized Reusable Glass Containers
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Reusable Packaging and Packaging Shape
2.2. Personification and Packaging
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Participants and Design
3.2. Stimulus Material and Measures
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
7. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Statista. Global Plastic Production 1950–2020. 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/282732/global-production-of-plastics-since-1950/ (accessed on 13 June 2022).
- Lebreton, L.; Slat, B.; Ferrari, F.; Sainte-Rose, B.; Aitken, J.; Marthouse, R.; Hajbane, S.; Cunsolo, S.; Schwarz, A.; Levivier, A. Evidence that the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is Rapidly Accumulating Plastic. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 4666. Available online: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22939-w (accessed on 12 June 2022). [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ingarao, G.; Licata, S.; Sciortino, M.; Planeta, D.; Di Lorenzo, R.; Fratini, L. Life cycle energy and CO2 emissions analysis of food packaging: An insight into the methodology from an Italian perspective. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2017, 10, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Błażejewski, T.; Walker, S.R.; Muazu, R.I.; Rothman, R.H. Reimagining the milk supply chain: Reusable vessels for bulk delivery. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1030–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrara, C.; De Feo, G.; Picone, V. LCA of glass versus pet mineral water bottles: An Italian case study. Recycling 2021, 6, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stahel, W.R. The circular economy. Nature 2016, 531, 435–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Ferrara, I.; Plourde, C. Refillable versus non-refillable containers: The impact of regulatory measures on packaging mix and quality choices. Resour. Policy 2003, 29, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Picuno, C.; Van Eygen, E.; Brouwer, M.T.; Kuchta, K.; Thoden van Velzen, E.U. Factors shaping the recycling systems for plastic packaging waste—A comparison between Austria, Germany and The Netherlands. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, D.A.L.; Reno, G.W.S.; Sevegnani, G.; Sevegnani, T.B.; Truzzi, O.M.S. Comparison of disposable and returnable packaging: A case study of reverse logistics in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 47, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hogg, D.; Elliott, T.; Gibbs, A.; Grant, A.; Sherrington, C. Impact of a deposit refund system for one-way beverage packaging on local authority waste services. Eunomia Res. Consult. Rep. 2017, 1–62. Available online: https://www.oldsite.cpre.org.uk/resources/energy-and-waste/litter-and-fly-tipping/item/4692-impacts-of-a-deposit-refund-system-on-local-authority-waste-services (accessed on 13 June 2022).
- Van Thoden Velzen, E.U.; Brouwer, M.T. Reusable Packaging in Europe: Between Facts and Fiction—An Informed Opinion for Metal Packaging Europe; Wageningen Food & Biobased Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKinsey. True Packaging Sustainability: Understanding the Performance Trade-Offs. 2021. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.de/industries/paper-forest-products-and-packaging/our-insights/true-packaging-sustainability-understanding-the-performance-trade-offs (accessed on 13 June 2022).
- Muranko, Z.; Tassell, C.; van der Laan, A.Z.; Aurisicchio, M. Characterisation and environmental value proposition of reuse models for fast-moving consumer goods: Reusable packaging and products. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, G.; Gu, Y.; Wu, Y.; Gong, Y.; Mu, X.; Han, H.; Chang, T. A systematic review of the deposit-refund system for beverage packaging: Operating mode, key parameter and development trend. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 251, 119660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orth, U.R.; Malkewitz, K. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Epley, N.; Waytz, A.; Cacioppo, J.T. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 114, 864–886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pauer, E.; Wohner, B.; Heinrich, V.; Tacker, M. Assessing the environmental sustainability of food packaging: An extended life cycle assessment including packaging-related food losses and waste and circularity assessment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ross, S.; Evans, D. The environmental effect of reusing and recycling a plastic-based packaging system. J. Clean. Prod. 2003, 11, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Waste Framework Directive. 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/topics/waste-and-recycling/waste-framework-directive_en (accessed on 12 June 2022).
- Walls, M. Deposit-refund systems in practice and theory. In Encyclopedia of Energy, Natural Resource, and Environmental Economics; Shogren, J.F., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 3, pp. 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahmoudi, M.; Parviziomran, I. Reusable packaging in supply chains: A review of environmental and economic impacts, logistics system designs, and operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228, 107730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bocken, N.M.P.; Harsch, A.; Weissbrod, I. Circular business models for the fastmoving consumer goods industry: Desirability, feasibility, and viability. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2022, 30, 799–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, D.R.; Styles, D.; Lane, E.T. Packaging choice and coordinated distribution logistics to reduce the environmental footprint of small-scale beer value chains. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 307, 114591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gardas, B.B.; Raut, R.D.; Narkhede, B. Identifying critical success factors to facilitate reusable plastic packaging towards supply chain management. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 263, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neill, C.; Williams, R. Consumer preference for alternative milk packaging: The case of an inferred environmental attribute. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2016, 48, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dijkgraaf, E.; Gradus, R. Are bottle banks sufficiently effective for increasing glass recycling rates? Sustainability 2021, 13, 9540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Greenwood, S.C.; Walker, S.; Baird, H.M.; Parsons, R.; Mehl, S.; Webb, T.L.; Rothman, R.H. Many happy returns: Combining insights from the environmental and behavioural sciences to understand what is required to make reusable packaging mainstream. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 27, 1688–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statista. Likelihood of Using Deposit Return Scheme in Great Britain 2019. 2019. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1028031/likelihood-of-using-deposit-return-scheme-great-britain/ (accessed on 13 June 2022).
- Research Affairs. Die Einstellung der ÖsterreicherInnen zur Einführung Eines Pfandsystems. 2020. Available online: http://www.researchaffairs.at/.cm4all/uproc.php/0/Eigenstudie_Einf%C3%BChrung%20Pfandsytem.pdf?cdp=a&_=173c346b5d0 (accessed on 9 June 2022).
- Deloitte. Deposit-Refund System (DRS). Facts & Myths. 2019. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/pl/Documents/Brochures/pl_DRS_Brochure_Deloitte.pdf (accessed on 13 June 2022).
- Coelho, M.; Megale, P.; Corona, B.; Klooster, R.; Worrell, E. Sustainability of reusable packaging. Current situation and trends. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. X 2020, 6, 100037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PWC. Mehrweg- und Recyclingsysteme für Ausgewählte Getränkeverpackungen aus Nachhaltigkeitssicht. 2011. Available online: https://www.duh.de/fileadmin/user_upload/download/Projektinformation/Mehrwegschutz/110927_PwC_Studie_Getr%C3%A4nkeverpackungssysteme_FINAL_KORRIGIERT_ohne_Titelbild_270911.pdf (accessed on 12 June 2022).
- Kassaye, W.; Verma, D. Balancing traditional packaging functions with the new green packaging concerns. SAM Adv. Manag. J. 1992, 57, 15–29. [Google Scholar]
- Livingstone, S.; Sparks, L. The new German packaging laws: Effects on firms exporting to Germany. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 1994, 24, 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machová, R.; Ambrus, R.; Zsigmond, T.; Bakó, F. The impact of green marketing on consumer behavior in the market of palm oil products. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prendergast, G.; Pitt, L. Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: Are there trade-offs? Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 1996, 26, 60–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, L.; Van Rompay, T.L.; Schifferstein, H.N.J.; Galetzka, M. Tough package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions and product evaluations. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Celhay, F.; Boysselle, J.; Cohen, J. Food packages and communication through typeface design: The exoticism of exotypes. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 39, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Court, C.; Elzinga, D.; Mulder, S.; Vetvik, O.; The Consumer Decision Journey. McKinsey Quarterly. 2009. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/growth-marketing-and-sales/our-insights/the-consumer-decision-journey?source=post_page (accessed on 10 June 2022).
- Silayoi, P.; Speece, M. The importance of packaging attributes: A conjoint analysis approach. Eur. J. Mark. 2007, 41, 1495–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schwartz, B. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less; Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Reber, R.; Schwarz, N.; Winkielman, P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience? Personal. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2004, 8, 364–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Velasco, C.; Salgado-Montejo, A.; Spence, C. Using combined eye tracking and word association in order to assess novel packaging solutions: A case study involving jam jars. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 328–338. [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]
- Ares, G.; Deliza, R. Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 930–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, S.; Raghubir, P. Can bottles speak volumes? The effect of package shape on how much to buy. J. Retail. 2005, 81, 269–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Bondt, C.; Van Kerckhove, A.; Geuens, M. Look at that body! How anthropomorphic package shapes systematically appeal to consumers. Int. J. Advert. 2018, 37, 698–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Pang, J.; Koo, M.; Patrick, V.M. Shape matters: Package shape informs brand status categorization and brand choice. J. Retail. 2020, 96, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Ooijen, I.; Fransen, M.L.; Verlegh, P.W.J.; Smit, E.G. Signalling product healthiness through symbolic package cues: Effects of package shape and goal congruence on consumer behaviour. Appetite 2017, 109, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yarar, N.; Machiels, C.J.A.; Orth, U.R. Shaping up: How package shape and consumer body conspire to affect food healthiness evaluation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 75, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koo, J.; Suk, K. The effect of package shape on calorie estimation. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2016, 33, 856–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folkes, V.; Matta, S. The effect of package shape on consumers’ judgments of product volume: Attention as a mental contaminant. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fournier, S.; Alvarez, C. Brands as relationship partners: Warmth, competence, and in-between. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triantos, A.; Plakoyiannaki, E.; Outra, E.; Petridis, N. Anthropomorphic packaging: Is there life on “Mars”? Eur. J. Mark. 2016, 50, 260–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aguirre-Rodriguez, A. Cultural factors that impact brand personification strategy effectiveness. Psychol. Mark. 2014, 31, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, B.; Mai, Y.; Mo, M. Chubby or thin? Investigation of (in)congruity between product body shapes and internal warmth/competence. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delbaere, M.; Mcquarrie, E.F.; Philips, B.J. Personification in advertising: Using a visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. J. Advert. 2011, 40, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodward, A.L. Infants’ ability to distinguish between purposeful and non-purposeful behaviors. Infant Behav. Dev. 1999, 22, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waytz, A.; Heafner, J.; Epley, N. The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 52, 113–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, E.W.; Chen, R.P.; Jin, L. Judging a book by its cover? The effect of anthropomorphism on product attribute processing and consumer preference. J. Consum. Res. 2017, 43, 1008–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaker, J.L. Dimensions of brand personality. J. Mark. Res. 1997, 34, 347–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, E.W.; Chen, R.P. Anthropomorphism and object attachment. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2021, 39, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aggarwal, P.; McGill, A.L. When brands seem human, do humans act like brands? Automatic behavioral priming effects of brand anthropomorphism. J. Consum. Res. 2012, 39, 307–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, R.P.; Wan, E.W.; Levy, E. The effect of social exclusion on consumer preference for anthropomorphized brands. J. Consum. Psychol. 2017, 27, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kara, S.; Gunasti, K.; Ross, W.T. My brand identity lies in the brand name: Personified suggestive brand names. J. Brand Manag. 2020, 27, 607–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, N.D.; Tormala, Z.L. “Think” versus “feel” framing effects in persuasion. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 36, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williamson, S.; Szocs, C. Smiling faces on food packages can increase adults’ purchase likelihood for children. Appetite 2021, 165, 105301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado-Ballester, E.; Fernandez-Sabiote, E.; Hourubia-Pardo, A. Un estudio exploratorio sobre la generacion de experiencias afectivo-sensoriales a traves de los personajes de marca. Universia Bus. Rev. 2013, 37, 32–50. [Google Scholar]
- Yuan, L.; Dennis, A. Interacting like humans? Understanding the effect of anthropomorphism on consumers’ willingness to pay in online auctions. In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 2017, Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Han, N.R.; Baek, T.H.; Yoon, S.; Kim, Y. Is that coffee mug smiling at me? How anthropomorphism impacts the effectiveness of desirability vs. feasibility appeals in sustainability advertising. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2019, 51, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puzakova, M.; Aggarwal, P. To wink or not to wink? The role of anthropomorphism, power, and gender stereotypes in luxury branding. In NA-Advances in Consumer Research; Diehl, K., Yoon, C., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 2015; Volume 43, pp. 667–668. [Google Scholar]
- Ding, Y.; Xu, S. Detrimental impact of contagious disease cues on consumer preference for anthropomorphic products. Mark. Lett. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choueiki, Z.; Geuens, M.; Vermeir, I. Animals like us: Leveraging the negativity bias in anthropomorphism to reduce beef consumption. Foods 2021, 10, 2147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velasco, F.; Yang, Z.; Janakiraman, N. A meta-analytic investigation of consumer response to anthropomorphic appeals: The roles of product type and uncertainty avoidance. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 131, 735–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boudreaux, C.A.; Palmer, S.E. A charming little Cabernet: Effects of wine label design on purchase intent and brand personality. Int. J. Wine Bus. Res. 2007, 19, 70–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryła, P. Who reads food labels? Selected predictors of consumer interest in front-of-package and back-of-package labels during and after the purchase. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Davis, T.; Kravets, O. Bridges to displaced meaning: The reinforcing roles of myth and marketing in Russian vodka labels, In NA-Advances in Consumer Research; Menon, G., Rao, A.R., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Duluth, MN, USA, 2005; Volume 32, p. 480. [Google Scholar]
- Chou, M.C.; Wang, R.W. Displayability: An assessment of differentiation design for the findability of bottle packaging. Displays 2012, 33, 146–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berlyne, D.E. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1960. [Google Scholar]
- Machleit, K.A.; Allen, C.T.; Madden, T.J. The mature brand and brand interest: An alternative consequence of ad-evoked affect. J. Mark. 1993, 57, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.W.; Lessig, V.P. Judgment rules and stages of the familiarity curve—Promotional implications. J. Advert. 1977, 6, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petty, R.D.; Lindsey-Mullikin, J. The regulation of practices that promote brand interest: A “3Cs” guide for consumer brand managers. J. Prod. Brand Manag. 2006, 15, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izard, C.E. Basic emotions, relations among emotions, and emotion-cognition relations. Psychol. Rev. 1992, 99, 561–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renninger, K.A.; Wozniak, R.H. Effect of interest on attentional shift, recognition, and recall in young children. Dev. Psychol. 1985, 21, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortenberry, J.L.; McGoldrick, P.J. Do billboard advertisements drive customer retention? Expanding the “AIDA” model to “AIDAR”. J. Advert. Res. 2019, 60, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sreejesh, S.; Anusree, M.R. Effects of cognition demand, mode of interactivity and brand anthropomorphism on gamers’ brand attention and memory in advergames. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 70, 575–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Izard, C.E. Human Emotions. Emotions, Personality, and Psychotherapy; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Silvia, P.J. What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion 2005, 5, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Garber, L., Jr.; Burke, R.; Jones, J.M. The Role of Package Color in Consumer Purchase Consideration and Choice; University Report-Working Paper 00-104; MSI: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Schoormans, J.P.L.; Robben, H.S.J. The effect of new package design on product attention, categorization and evaluation. J. Econ. Psychol. 1997, 18, 271–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ding, Z.; Sun, J.; Wang, Y.; Jiang, X.; Liu, R.; Sun, W.; Mou, Y.; Wang, D.; Liu, M. Research on the influence of anthropomorphic design on the consumers’ express packaging recycling willingness: The moderating effect of psychological ownership. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 168, 105269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandler, G. The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In Affect and Cognition: The Seventeenth Annual Carnegie Symposium; Clark, M.S., Fiske, S.T., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, MI, USA, 1982; pp. 3–36. [Google Scholar]
- Garaus, M.; Halkias, G. One color fits all: Product category color norms and (a)typical package colors. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2019, 14, 1077–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Callister, M.; Stern, L.A.; John, K.K.; Seipel, M. Digital body disturbances in advertising: Attraction or repulsion? J. Curr. Issues Res. Advert. 2022, 43, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medina-Molina, C.; Rey-Moreno, M.; Periáñez-Cristóbal, R. Analysis of the moderating effect of front-of-pack labelling on the relation between brand attitude and purchasing intention. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 304–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.A.; Jeong, M. Role of brand story on narrative engagement, brand attitude, and behavioral intention. J. Hosp. Tour. Technol. 2017, 8, 465–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kozup, J.C.; Creyer, E.H.; Burton, S. Making healthful food choices: The influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. J. Mark. 2003, 67, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Erdem, T.; Swait, J.; Broniarczyk, S.; Chakravarti, D.; Kapferer, J.-N.; Keane, M.; Roberts, J.; Steenkamp, J.-B.; Zettelmeyer, F. Brand equity, consumer learning and choice. Mark. Lett. 1999, 10, 301–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-López, F.J.; Anaya-Sánchez, R.; Esteban-Millat, I.; Torrez-Meruvia, H.; D’Alessandro, S.; Miles, M. Influencer marketing: Brand control, commercial orientation and post credibility. J. Mark. Manag. 2020, 36, 1805–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Pelsmacker, P.; Dens, N.; Goos, P.; Aleksandrovs, L. How brand interest mediates the relationship between cross-media investments and word-of-mouth and purchase intention. In The Routledge Companion to Marketing Research; Wright, L.T., Moutinho, L., Stone, M., Bagozzi, R.P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ang, S.H.; Lee, Y.H.; Leong, S.M. The ad creativity cube: Conceptualization and initial validation. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2007, 35, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halkias, G.; Kokkinaki, F. The degree of ad–brand incongruity and the distinction between schema-driven and stimulus-driven attitudes. J. Advert. 2014, 43, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Webster, M., Jr.; Sell, J. Laboratory Experiments in the Social Sciences, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shadish, W.R.; Cook, T.D.; Campbell, D.T. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference, 2nd ed.; Houghton Mifflin: Boston, MA USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Statista. DACH Countries—Statistics & Facts. 2021. Available online: https://www.statista.com/topics/4623/dach-countries/#dossierKeyfigures (accessed on 19 July 2022).
- European Commission. A New Circular Economy Action Plan for a Cleaner and More Competitive Europe. 2020. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:9903b325-6388-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1.0017.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 10 June 2022).
- Dijksterhuis, A.; Smith, P.K.; Van Baaren, R.B.; Wigboldus, D.H. The unconscious consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2005, 15, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G. Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 369–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hur, J.D.; Koo, M.; Hofmann, W. When temptations come alive: How anthropomorphism undermines self-control. J. Consum. Res. 2015, 42, 340–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holbrook, M.B.; Batra, R. Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 14, 404–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moon, J.; Chadee, D.; Tikoo, S. Culture, product type, and price influences on consumer purchase intention to buy personalized product online. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 61, 31–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zepatou, V.; Loizidou, M.; Chaloulakou, A.; Spyrellis, N. School facilities and sustainability-related concepts: A study of Hellenic secondary school principals’, teachers’, pupils’ and parents’ responses. Sustainability 2016, 8, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Economic and Social Committee. Recycling Food Packaging & Food Waste in Plastics Revolution. 2020. Available online: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/files/qe-03-20-534-en-n_0.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2022).
- Ncube, L.K.; Ude, A.U.; Ogunmuyiwa, E.N.; Zulkifli, R.; Beas, I.N. An overview of plastic waste generation and management in food packaging industries. Recycling 2021, 6, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Age | Gender | Education | |
---|---|---|---|
Anthropomorphized Label (n = 68) | M = 40 SD = 12 | 34% female 65% male 2% diverse | University degree: 49% High school: 19% Apprenticeship: 19% Vocational school: 13% Compulsory school: 0% |
Non-Anthropomorphized Label (n = 83) | M = 41 SD = 12 | 35% female 64% male1 % diverse | University degree: 53% High school: 28% Apprenticeship: 15% Vocational school: 4% Compulsory school: 1% |
Total (n = 151) | M = 41 SD = 12 | 34% female 64% male 1% diverse | University degree: 51% High school: 24% Apprenticeship: 16% Vocational school: 8% Compulsory school: 1% |
Mediators/Dependent Variables | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
M1 Brand Interest | M2 Brand Attitude | Y Purchase Intention | ||||||||||
Antecedent | Coeff. | SE | p | Coeff. | SE | p | Coeff. | SE | p | |||
Label design | a1 | 0.57 | 0.23 | 0.01 | a2 | −0.44 | 0.16 | 0.01 | c’ | −0.37 | 0.15 | 0.02 |
Brand interest (M1) | d21 | 0.82 | 0.06 | 0.00 | b1 | 0.53 | 0.08 | 0.00 | ||||
Brand attitude (M2) | b2 | 0.54 | 0.08 | 0.00 | ||||||||
Constant | iM1 | 3.98 | 0.15 | 0.00 | iM2 | 1.43 | 0.25 | 0.00 | iM3 | −0.58 | 0.26 | 0.03 |
R2 = 0.04; F(1, 149) = 6.36; p < 0.05 | R2 = 0.58; F(2, 148) = 103.58; p < 0.01 | R2 = 0.73; F(3, 147) = 129.70; p < 0.01 | ||||||||||
Indirect effects | ||||||||||||
Anthropomorphized label → brand interest → purchase intention | a1b1 | 0.30, CI [0.07, 0.57] | ||||||||||
Anthropomorphized label → brand attitude → purchase intention | a2b2 | −0.24, CI [−0.49, −0.06] | ||||||||||
Anthropomorphized label → brand interest → brand attitude → purchase intention | a1d21b2 | 0.26, CI [0.06, 0.51] |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. 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
Garaus, M.; Garaus, C.; Wolfsteiner, E.; Jermendy, C. Anthropomorphism as a Differentiation Strategy for Standardized Reusable Glass Containers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159473
Garaus M, Garaus C, Wolfsteiner E, Jermendy C. Anthropomorphism as a Differentiation Strategy for Standardized Reusable Glass Containers. Sustainability. 2022; 14(15):9473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159473
Chicago/Turabian StyleGaraus, Marion, Christian Garaus, Elisabeth Wolfsteiner, and Charlotte Jermendy. 2022. "Anthropomorphism as a Differentiation Strategy for Standardized Reusable Glass Containers" Sustainability 14, no. 15: 9473. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14159473