Running head: LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

The Effects of Brand Name on Quality Perception and Preference Serena D. Stevens Upper-Division Research Writing

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

Abstract Two experiments, one with 35 participants (13 male and 22 female, mean age = 21.5) and the other with 16(5 males and 11 females, mean age = 20.6), tested whether brand-name soymilk would be higher-rated than generic. Experiment 1: participants rated cups of soymilk, labeled with either brand-name or ambiguous symbols. No significant effects were found for soymilk type (F(1, 33) = .003, p = .959), label (F=1, 33) = .001, p = .978), or the interaction (F(1, 33) = .366, p = .549). Experiment 2: participants rated cups of identical soymilk, labeled as different brands. No significant results were found (t(15) = .824). This study indicated the need for research of taste perception among little-known brands.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

The Effects of Brand Name on Quality Perception and Preference Two products sit on a shelfone costs $3.49, the other $2.69. The only difference between the two? One is brand-name and the other generic. A person can hardly walk into a grocery store without noticing the plethora of goods available; consumers have more choice today than ever before. Among the profusion of products sit generic varieties. Lower in price and usually packaged blandly, these goods are often passed over for their more attractive counterparts. But should they be? If the only difference between brand name and generic products is the pasted-on label, consumers may be paying a high price for no reason. Krutulyte, Costa, and Grunert (2009) explained that products have intrinsic quality cues, which include all physical characteristics of the product (including packaging) and extrinsic quality cues, including brand name, price, store type, label information, information on origin, etc. (p. 307). Intrinsic quality cues have some research supporting their effects. In a study on packaging by Wansink, Park, Sonka and Morganosky (2000), the health information on the wrapper of a nutrition bar affected participants views of its taste (as cited in Fichter & Jonas, 2008). Bogue and Ritson (2004) demonstrated that dairy products lower in fat are seen as more appealing when labeled good for you or natural rather than light or low-fat (pp. 43-44). McCall and Lynn (2008) also found that elaborate descriptions of food on a menu affected consumers perceptions of quality more than simple descriptions (p. 444). Even before tasting a product, consumers make preliminary judgments about it based on the packaging. Germain, Wakefield, & Durkin (2010) demonstrated that when cigarettes have plain packaging, adolescents perceive them as being boring and unattractive. The expected taste ratings of the cigarettes became more negative as the packaging became blander (pp. 386, 390).

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

Despite this research, Krutulyte, Costa, and Grunert (2009) asserted that extrinsic cues (such as brand name) are generally more influential than intrinsic cues (such as packaging) (pp. 319-320). Varela, Ares, Gimenez, and Gambaro (2010) agreed, stating that the liking and purchase of a product depends on more than just the sensory details. Non-physical details such as brand and price influence consumers decisions (p. 873). Price has been interpreted as a determiner of quality, according to Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock (1971). Price is concrete and measurable, so the consumer trusts it more than most cues concerned with quality (p. 570). However, Ares et al. (2009) suggested that higher price could have one of two effects on consumer preference: it could cause the product to seem higher in quality, or it could make the product less desirable because of the extra expense (p. 365). A study by Krutulyte, Costa, and Grunert (2009) showed that prices reliance as an indicator of quality varies by culture (pp. 318-319). Whatever effects price may have on quality perception are overshadowed by the effects of brand name. Brand has been cited among the most important non-sensory factors affecting consumers choice decisions of food products (Varela et al., 2010, p. 873). According to Keller (1998), brand is seen as a promise, a guarantee or contract with the manufacturer and a symbolic mean and sign of quality (as cited in Varela et al, 2010, p. 873). Brand is communicated to the public through advertizing. Advertisers spend millions of dollars each year to familiarize the public with their brand images, defined by Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock (1971) as the subjective, emotional cluster of meaning and symbols that the consumer attributes to a particular brand (p. 571). Fichter and Jonas (2008) further define brand image as the stereotype held toward a brand (p. 226). The familiarity garnered from exposure to brand image leads to increased liking and increased quality perception

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

(Wardle and Solomons, 1994, p. 180; Ares, Gimenez, and Deliza, 2009, p. 365). According to PetersTexeira and Badrie (2005), advertizing is the most important factor that influences the purchase of a new product (p. 513). Multiple studies have demonstrated the remarkable effects of brand name. The first studies on brand name were conducted in the late 1940s. Two researchers repeatedly found that participants were unable to distinguish among numerous brands of cola, repeatedly naming the three most popular brands no matter the combination of beverages (Pronko & Bowles, 1948; Bowles & Pronko, 1948; Pronko & Bowles, 1949). Fleishman (1951) found in a study on beer that, when brand names were unknown, families favored a different brand of beer each day, and when asked which they preferred, the actual selection rarely matched the indicated preference (p. 135). In Allison and Uhls (1964) study on beer taste perception, all labeled bottles received higher scores than unlabeled; even the lowest-rated labeled bottle was preferred over the highest-rated unlabeled bottle (as cited in Fichter & Jonas, 2008, p. 227). Makens (1965) found that two identical samples of turkey were rated differently when consumers were told that one was from a well-known brand. The sample supposedly from an unknown brand was rated significantly lower, and consumers indicated an overall preference for the known brand (p. 262). Makens also demonstrated in a second experiment that consumers believed better-quality turkey to be brand-name (p. 263). Recently, interest in brand name has picked up, and researchers are finding that preference for brand name is not universal. Varela et al. (2010) found that brand name affected quality perception in powdered drinks more than actual taste differences. However, this positive effect was only demonstrated for the premium, high-recognized brands. Lesser-known brands saw no effect from brand name (p. 880). Additional limitations of brand name exist. Ares et al. (2009) discovered

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

that brand name was the most important factor for yogurt preferencebut only among participants who cared the least about health (p. 365). The possibility exists that brand-name products actually taste better than generic products, although all studies suggesting this have been conducted on beer. In Fleishmans study, (1951) three brands of beer were consistently rated higher than the others, and two were generally avoided (pp. 134-135). In another study on beer brands, Jacoby et. al (1971) found that ultrapremium beer was rated higher than inexpensive regional beer when brand names were unknown (p. 577). This shows that some brands do have quality differences, at least when discussing beer. The available research of the effects of brand name on quality perception and preference largely concern frequently consumed products whose brand names and brand images are linked tightly to the food itselfproducts such as beer, cola, and cigarettes (Makens, 1965). Even so, the results are inconclusive. In 1965, Makens pioneered a new area of research, studying the effects of brand name with turkey meat (p. 261) and Varela et al. (2010) recently studied orange drink powder. These products may be obscure compared to beer, cola, and cigarettes, but they are still commonly consumed. Does brand name still have an effect on people when they are unfamiliar with the brand, or even the food itself? Little research has been done on products that are even more obscure than drink powder and turkeyproducts such as soymilk. While soymilk consumption is on the rise, many people are still unfamiliar with or wary of this milk replacement. Is brand name seen as higher quality because of the brand, or is it because of the higher advertizing allotted to it? Silk soymilk was chosen for this study because it is among the most popular brands of soymilk, advertized heavily in magazines, on the Internet, and via television commercials. Silk is likely recognizable as brand name, even to those unfamiliar with soymilk.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of brand name on perceived quality of soymilk, an obscure food product. It is hypothesized that a well-known brand of soymilk (such as Silk) will be rated higher than a lesser-known or generic brand, that symbol-labeled soymilk will differ in taste perception than the same soymilk labeled with brand names, and that brand namelabeled soymilk will be preferred over the same soymilk labeled with a generic brand name. Method Overview Two experiments were conducted to investigate these hypotheses. Experiment 1 was a 2 x 2 mixed design. The within-groups variable was type of soymilk (Silk or generic), the between-groups variable was labeling (brand-labeled or symbol-labeled), and the dependent variable was taste quality. Experiment 2 was a two-level within-groups design with the independent variable of labeling (Silk or generic) and had a dependent variable of taste quality. Participants The two experiments together contained 51 participants. All were students at Union College, a Seventh-day Adventist college in Lincoln, Nebraska. Experiment 1 contained 35 students, 13 male and 22 female, with an ages ranging from 18-27 and an average age of 21.5. Experiment 2 contained 16 students, 5 male and 11 female, with ages ranging from 18-25 and an average age of 20.6. All participants were treated in accordance with the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (American Psychological Association, 2010). For both experiments, participants were collected by sign-ups in the school cafeteria, emails sent to all students informing them of the research, and a group on the social networking site Facebook. Participants received cookies for participating in this study. Participants were assigned to groups using a random number table.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

Apparatus Both experiments used two brands of vanilla soymilk: Silk and Best Choice (a generic brand found at Super Saver). The soymilk was served to participants in 3 oz. paper cups, filled half-full, on trays labeled with the condition. Participants filled out a questionnaire on the taste of the soymilk and frequency of consumption. Response options for taste of soymilk were organized in a Likert scale from (1) Bad to (5) Excellent; options for frequency of consumption ranged from (1) Never to (5) Everyday or Every other day. Questionnaires were printed on 11.5 x 18 inch white paper in 12point Garamond font. Procedure Experiment 1. Participants arrived at the testing site and were randomly assigned to one of two groups: brand-labeled or symbol-labeled. They were asked to fill out the informed consent form (Appendix A) and the demographic information and information about frequency of consumption in Part 1 of the questionnaire for Experiment 1 (Appendix B). When all participants arrived, the researcher collected the informed consent forms and made sure all had completed Part 1 of the questionnaire. The participants were told the name of a soymilk and instructed to take a cup from the presented correctly-labeled tray and drink it. The tray was labeled either Silk or Super Saver/Generic for the brand-labeled condition and * or % for the symbol-labeled condition. Participants were asked to rate the taste of the soymilk on Part 2 of the questionnaire for Experiment 1 (Appendix B). Next, a second tray of soymilk was presented, marked with the opposite label, and participants again rated its taste. The soymilk in the brand-labeled condition was correctly labeled, and in the symbol-labeled condition, * and % indicated Silk and generic, respectively. The order of presentation was counterbalanced to avoid multiple treatment effects.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

Experiment 2. Participants filled out the informed consent form (Appendix A) and Part 1 of the questionnaire for Experiment 2 (Appendix C), including demographic information and information about frequency of soymilk consumption. After collecting the informed consent form, the researcher told the participants to take a cup of soymilk from the tray marked Silk or Generic and rate its taste on Part 2 of the questionnaire. The other tray was then presented. Although labeled differently, the soymilk in both conditions was actually generic. Order of presentation was again counterbalanced to control for multiple treatment effects. Results Experiment 1 A 2 x 2 ANOVA was performed to test the following hypotheses: brand of soymilk will affect the perception of taste so that Silk brand soymilk will result in a higher perception of quality than generic (Main Effect 1); label of soymilk will affect taste perception in that soymilk labeled with symbols will be rated as significantly different in taste from soymilk labeled with brand names (Main Effect 2); and there will be a significant interaction between brand and label such that Silk brand and brand-labeled soymilk will produce the highest perception of quality. It is expected that Silk will consistently have higher ratings than generic and that brand-labeled will have higher ratings than symbol-labeled. Therefore, brand-labeled Silk is expected to have the highest rating. However, no significant effects were demonstrated. Analysis using an alpha level of .05, indicated no significant main effects for soymilk type (F(1, 33) = .003, p = .959, = .000) or for soymilk label (F=1, 33) = .001, p = .978, = .000). There was also no significant interaction (F(1, 33) = .366, p = .549, = .011). A chi-square test was conducted to determine the effects of frequency of consumption on taste perception.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

10

Table 1 Chi-square Test on Frequency of Soymilk Consumption x Silk Taste Rating Taste Rating Never Bad Poor Fair Good Excellent Total 0 1 1 1 0 3 Frequency of Consumption A few times A few times A few times per year per month per week 0 1 1 2 0 4 0 1 5 5 0 11 1 0 2 3 1 7

Everyday or Total every other day 0 1 3 6 0 10 1 4 12 17 1 35

The results in Table 1 seem to show that there is little difference between those who drink soymilk regularly and those who do not. Indeed, these results are not significant, (16) = 11.880, p = .752. Table 2 C hi-square Test on Frequency of Soymilk Consumption x Generic Taste Rating Taste Rating Never Bad Poor Fair Good Excellent Total 1 1 1 0 0 3 Frequency of Consumption A few times A few times A few times per year per month per week 0 1 1 1 1 4 0 1 2 8 0 11 0 2 1 3 1 7

Everyday or Total every other day 0 1 4 5 0 10 1 6 9 17 2 35

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

11

The results in Table 2 also seem to show little difference and are not significant, (16) = 22.139, p = .139. Experiment 2 No significant effects were found for brand-labeling in this experiment. The hypothesis that, between two cups of identical soymilk, the cup with the label Silk would be rated as higher quality than the cup labeled Super Saver/Generic was tested using a repeated measures t-test. The taste results of the cup labeled Silk (M = 3.625, SD = .6191) were not significantly different from those of the cup labeled Super Saver/Generic (M = 3.813, SD = .6551) (t(15) = .824, p = .423, twotailed, d = 7.0782). A chi-square test was used to determine whether frequency of consumption had an effect on taste perception. Table 3 C hi-square Test on Frequency of Soymilk Consumption x Silk-Labeled Taste Rating Taste Rating Never Fair Good Excellent 1 0 0 Frequency of Consumption A few times A few times A few times per year per month per week 0 2 0 3 3 0 3 0 0

Everyday or Total every other day 0 3 1 4 7 8 1 16

Total 1 2 6 3 Note. No participants rated the Silk-labeled soymilk Bad or Poor.

From Table 3, it looks as though those who consume soymilk more frequently were more likely to rate the Silk higher. However, these differences are not significant, (8) = 12.071, p = .148.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

12

Table 4 C hi-square Test on Frequency of Soymilk Consumption x Generic-Labeled Taste Rating Taste Rating Never Fair Good Excellent 0 1 0 Frequency of Consumption A few times A few times A few times per year per month per week 1 1 0 2 4 0 1 2 0

Everyday or Total every other day 1 1 2 4 5 9 2 16

Total 1 2 6 3 Note. No participants rated the Generic-labeled soymilk Bad or Poor.

The results in Table 4 also seem to show that those who consume soymilk more frequently tend to rate soymilkregardless of the labelhigher. However, these results are not significant either, (8) = 7.822, p = .451. Discussion Although it was hypothesized in the first experiment that scores for the symbol-labeled soymilk would differ significantly from scores for the brand-labeled soymilk, and in the second experiment that scores for the cup labeled Silk would be higher than a cup of identical soymilk labeled Super Saver/Generic, neither of these hypotheses were supported. Although the results were not significant for Experiment 1, it is interesting to note a few points about the data obtained. According to the research, one would expect participants to rate Silk higher when labels were included (Makens, 1965). However, the results show the opposite: when labels were included, participants rated the generic soymilk higher than the Silk soymilk, and when only symbols were given, the Silk was rated higher. Participants seemed to like Silk more when they

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

13

did not know it was Silk and to like it less when they knew the brand name. Even though these results are not significant, they are opposite of what was expected. The results were also not significant for Experiment 2, and the means exhibited the same strange reversal as seen in Experiment 1: participants rated the soymilk labeled as Generic/Super Saver the highest, even though both cups were the same brand of soymilk. Reasons for this switch could be many. Perhaps the participants, college students, have trained themselves to like generic foods because of the low cost. Cognitive dissonance may set in when students buy generic goods: if they buy them instead of name-brand goods, they believe they must like them better. Frequently buying generic products may actually make college students be more familiar with generic soymilk than with brand-name, which could cause the demonstrated effect, as suggested by Varela et al. (2010, p. 880). It is also possible that the results could be due to students making a conscious effort to like Silk less because it is a name-brand. Some participants may have had a reaction against name-brand goods because of views on company corruption or advertizing. However, since the results were not significant, it is possible that this reversal is due entirely to chance. If this study was accurate and brand name really has no significant effects, then a few possibilities exist. It is possible that Silk, a lesser-known product, has not yet built up a strong advertizing base. As Varela et al. (2010) found, lesser-known brands (and, assumedly, products) saw little effect of brand name on taste quality perception (p. 880). This makes particular sense if a brand-name product receives its high taste expectations from advertizinglesser-known brands are lesser-known because of less advertizing. Additionally, the experiments may have yielded different results if only participants familiar with soymilk had been studied. Although the chi-square analyses yielded no significant results, the

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

14

given information seems to show that frequent consumption of soymilk correlates with high taste ratings; infrequent consumption, on the other hand, may correlate with rating soymilk low in taste. Frequent consumption would probably indicate familiarity with soymilk brands and, therefore, more exposure to advertizing about Silk. It is also possible that soymilkof any kindis an acquired taste, and it simply tastes better to those more acquainted with the flavor. Perhaps consumers who enjoy soymilk are less affected by brand name; soymilk is often seen as a healthier alternative to cows milk and, according to Ares et al. (2009), people who care more about health are less affected by brand name (p. 365). This could be because health-conscious people might look more carefully at a products ingredients and nutrition information, choosing products based on their intrinsic quality rather than their extrinsic ones. Another possibility is that the two brands of soymilk differed dramatically in taste, but not necessarily in quality. Participants noted that the Silk soymilk tasted sweeter and had a stronger vanilla flavor than the generic soymilk. Preferences on sweetness and vanilla flavoring may differ. One participant noted that she preferred plain soymilk, so the generic one, with its blander flavoring, appealed to her more. If half the participants preferred Silk and half preferred generic, the taste rating means would be similar even though the preferences were polarized. A potential limitation of this study involves the sample sizes. Although large enough for some phenomena, sample sizes of 35 and 16 may not have been sufficient to test these hypotheses. The nonsignificant results may have actually been significant, but without more participants, the effects could not be shown. In conclusion, while this study did not yield significant results, it indicated the need for more research in the area of taste perception among little-known brands. Such research could help

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

15

determine the true influence of brand name and whether advertizing is the main factor in brand names attractiveness.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

16

References American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx Ares, G., Gimenez, A., & Deliza, R. (2009). Influence of three non-sensory factors of consumer choice of functional yogurts over regular ones. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 361-367. Bogue, J. & Ritson, C. (2004). Integrating consumer information with the new product development process: The development of lighter dairy products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(1), 34-44. Bowles, J. W. Jr. & Pronko, N. H. (1948). Identification of cola beverages: II. A further study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(5), 559-564. Fichter, C. & Jonas, K. (2008). Image effects of newspapers: How brand images change consumers product ratings. Journal of Psychology, 216(4), 226-234. Fleishman, E. A. (1951). An experimental consumer panel technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 35(2), 133-135. Germain, D., Wakefield, M. A., & Durkin, S. J. (2010). Adolescents perceptions of cigarette brand image: Does plain packaging make a difference? Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 385-392. Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C., & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price, brand name, and product composition characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(6), 570579. Krutulyte, R., Costa, A. L., & Grunert, K. G. (2009). A cross-cultural study of cereal food quality perception. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 15, 304-323. Makens, J. C. (1965). Effect of brand preference upon consumers perceived taste of turkey meat.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

17

Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(4), 261-263. McCall, M. & Lynn, A. (2008). The effects of restaurant menu item descriptions on perceptions of quality, price, and purchase intention. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11(4), 439-445. Peters-Texeira, A. & Badrie, N. (2005). Consumers perception of food packaging in Trinidad, West Indies and its related impact on food choices. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(6), 508-514. Pronko, N. H. & Bowles, J. W. Jr. (1948). Identification of cola beverages. I. First study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 304-312. Pronko, N. H. & Bowles, J. W. Jr. (1949). Identification of cola beverages. III. A final study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 33(6), 605-608. Varela, P., Ares, G., Gimenez, A., & Gambaro, A. (2010). Influence of brand information on consumers expectations and liking of powdered drinks in central location tests. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 873-880. Wardle, J. & Solomons, W. (1994). Naughty but nice: A laboratory study of health information and food preferences in a community sample. Health Psychology, 13(2), 180-183.

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

18

Appendix A: Informed Consent Form This research is concerned with taste perception. You will be asked to sample two brands of soymilk and report on their taste. The entire experiment should take between five and ten minutes. All the information you provide in this experiment will be kept confidential, and your name will not be attached to the data that you provide. There are no obvious risks involved in study participation, although those with an allergy to soy should not participate. You are free to withdraw from the experiment at any time without penalty. I hereby indicate that I am informed of the nature of this research and consent to the use of the results by the researchers. Print name: _______________________________ Signed: _____________________________ Date: ______________________________

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

19

Appendix B: Questionnaire Experiment 1 Questionnaire Please respond to items in Part 1 as you wait. Do not move on to Part 2 of the questionnaire until instructed to do so. Part 1 1. Gender: 2. Age: ______ 3. Indicate how often you drink soymilk by choosing the number which most closely corresponds to your answer. 1 Never 2 A few times per year 3 A few times per month 4 A few times per week 5 Everyday or every other day Male Female Other/Prefer not to respond

Part 2 Rate the taste of each cup of soymilk by choosing the number which most closely corresponds to your answer. Silk [or Super Saver/Generic or * or %) Soymilk 1 Bad 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent

Super Saver/Generic [or Silk or % or *] Soymilk 1 Bad 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent

LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE

20

Appendix C: Questionnaire Experiment 2 Questionnaire Please respond to items in Part 1 as you wait. Do not move on to Part 2 of the questionnaire until instructed to do so. Part 1 1. Gender: 2. Age: ______ 3. Indicate how often you drink soymilk by choosing the number which most closely corresponds to your answer. 1 Never 2 A few times per year 3 A few times per month 4 A few times per week 5 Everyday or every other day Male Female Other/Prefer not to respond

Part 2 Rate the taste of each cup of soymilk by choosing the number which most closely corresponds to your answer. Silk [or Super Saver/Generic] Soymilk 1 Bad 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent

Super Saver/Generic [or Silk] Soymilk 1 Bad 2 Poor 3 Fair 4 Good 5 Excellent