Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Judging a product by its cover: Packaging sustainability and perceptions

of quality in food products
Lise Magnier , Jan Schoormans, Ruth Mugge
TU Delft, Landbergstraat 15, 2628CE Delft, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 17 December 2015
Received in revised form 14 June 2016
Accepted 15 June 2016
Available online 16 June 2016
Keywords:
Sustainability
Packaging
Intrinsic and extrinsic attributes
Naturalness
Perceived quality

a b s t r a c t
In this paper, we test the influence of packaging sustainability on consumers perceived quality of food
products using two experiments featuring raisins, chocolate bars and coffee. First, the results show that
the perceived quality of a food product is more positive when it is packed in a sustainable packaging than
when it is packed in a conventional packaging. Next, we demonstrate that product sustainability moderates the influence of packaging sustainability. Finally, we show that the perceived naturalness of the product induced by package and product sustainability explains the perception of product quality.
2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
Most consumer products are packaged for sale and their environmental footprint therefore depends on not only the product
itself but also its package. In order to reduce the environmental
footprint of a product, both the intrinsic attributes and the extrinsic attributes of the product (e.g. packaging) can be changed. We
define product sustainability as the endeavour to reduce the environmental footprint through altering the intrinsic attributes and
thus the composition of the product, for example, by the absence
of harmful chemicals or the use of organic ingredients. It is to be
noted that intrinsic sustainability can only be communicated via
labels and logos; therefore we consider labels and logos as ways
to represent these intrinsic attributes and thus the product sustainability. In addition, extrinsic attributes, such as the package,
can be redesigned. In this respect, packaging sustainability is
defined as the endeavour to reduce the products footprint through
altering the products packaging, for example, by using more environmentally friendly materials. The question can be raised as to
how consumers react to such product changes. Will such alterations have an effect on perceptions of product quality? Assessing
this effect is of major importance because in a purchase situation,
consumers often search for high performance quality in products
in order to get good value for their money (Mugge &
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: l.b.m.magnier@tudelft.nl (L. Magnier), j.p.l.schoormans@
tudelft.nl (J. Schoormans), r.mugge@tudelft.nl (R. Mugge).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.06.006
0950-3293/ 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Schoormans, 2012). A products performance quality is defined as

the perceived superiority and excellence of the products performance when compared with competing alternatives (Garvin,
1988). As a result, product quality is recognised as an important
competitive factor for companies, which can increase their market
share and profitability. Furthermore, individuals are usually willing
to pay more for products with higher perceived quality (Dawar &
Parker, 1994).
In Europe, sales of sustainable products are rising steadily. In
the last ten years, sales of organic food have more than doubled
(European Parliamentary Research Service Blog, 2015). Perceived
quality is generally referred to as a stable motivation for consumers to buy sustainable food products (Magnusson, Arvola,
Koivisto Hursti, berg, & Sjdn, 2001; McEachern & McClean,
2002; Thgersen, 2011; van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011). More specifically, consumer research has extensively studied the influence of
product sustainability (e.g. organic ingredients) on perceived quality. It has been demonstrated that consumers associate this product sustainability with naturalness of the food (Tobler,
Visschers, & Siegrist, 2011), and naturalness positively influences
perceived quality. However, in the literature, the influence of sustainable extrinsic attributes of the product on perceived quality
has received less attention.
Redesigning the intrinsic attributes of packaged food products
into more sustainable alternatives can thus increase consumers
perception of quality and therefore represent a profitable strategy
for companies. However, the degree to which the sustainability of
extrinsic attributes, such as packaging, contributes to better

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

133

perceptions of quality remains unclear. As the environmental footprint of fast-moving consumer goods packaging is enormous, it is
relevant to study whether more sustainable packages would have
a positive influence on product evaluations, and more specifically,
on perceived quality. Therefore, the central question of this
research lies in the extent to which packaging sustainability influences consumers perceptions of product quality. By investigating
the underlying factors of the influence of packaging sustainability
on product quality as well as the degree to which product sustainability interacts with packaging sustainability to influence the perceived quality of the product, we build on and contribute to the
literature on how consumers use packaging to make inferences
about product content.
The remainder of the article is organized as follows. First, we
discuss how product and packaging sustainability positively influence the perceived quality of the product and develop the associated hypotheses. These hypotheses are tested in two experiments
using three different food products. The paper concludes with a
discussion on the findings and implications for managers.

For food products, van Doorn and Verhoef (2011) differentiated

the effect of intrinsic sustainability between virtue (i.e. food products that do not offer immediate pleasurable experience but lead to
positive long-term outcome) and vice (i.e. products that are pleasurable to consume but can have a negative impact on health in
the long run) products. They demonstrated that while virtue products with an organic claim communicated by a logo are perceived
as having a higher quality than conventional virtue products, this
logo has an insignificant or even negative impact on the perceived
quality of vice products. This negative effect of the organic claim
is caused by the wholesomeness the logo signals, which in turn
reduces the amount of enjoyment and pleasure ascribed to vice
products (van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011). However, the majority of
studies in this domain have shown that signalling sustainability
leads to better perceived quality. More specifically, there is extensive literature showing that organic products are associated with
higher quality perceptions because they are perceived as healthier
and tastier (Haglund et al., 1998; Hughner, McDonagh, Prothero,
Shultz, & Stanton, 2007; Johansson, Haglund, Berglund, Lea, &
Risvik, 1999; Lee & Yun, 2015; Lee et al., 2013; Magnusson et al.,
2003; McEachern & McClean, 2002).

2. Sustainability and perceived quality

2.2. Influence of packaging sustainability on the perceived quality of

the product

2.1. Impact of intrinsic product sustainability on the perceived quality

of the product
Fast-moving consumer goods can become intrinsically more
sustainable in different ways. For example, more sustainable cleaning agents and personal care products can be produced by using
natural or organic ingredients or excluding certain chemicals in
their composition. In the domain of food products that we are
specifically studying in this paper, locally grown products
(Dentoni, Tonsor, Calantone, & Peterson, 2009; Feldmann &
Hamm, 2015) and organic products (Magnusson, Arvola, Hursti,
berg, & Sjdn, 2003) are examples of alternatives that are considered more sustainable.
For food products, labels play an important role in the marketing system through their impact on communication and consumer
confidence in food quality (Caswell & Padberg, 1992). Research has
demonstrated that consumers perceptions of product properties
and product quality was significantly affected by information
(Verbeke & Ward, 2006) and that consumers interest for direct
indications of food quality was high (Pieniak, Verbeke, Vermeir,
Bruns, & Olsen, 2007). Precisely, food labels are one of the most
used and trusted sources of information by European food consumers (de Almeida et al., 1997). In order to inform individuals
about the sustainability of a products ingredients, specific labels
and logos of the product sustainability are usually displayed on
the packaging. As such, labels and logos are often the only way
for individuals to recognize the intrinsic sustainability of a food
product.
Prior research on product sustainability has shown that the
impact of product sustainability on perceived quality is generally
positive (Haglund, Johansson, Berglund, & Dahlstedt, 1998; Lee,
Shimizu, Kniffin, & Wansink, 2013; Lee & Yun, 2015; McEachern
& McClean, 2002) with a few exceptions (Luchs, Naylor, Irwin, &
Raghunathan, 2010; Newman, Gorlin, & Dhar, 2014; van Doorn &
Verhoef, 2011). For example, products valued for their strength
attributes such as household cleaners are perceived as less effective when they are described as sustainable (Lin & Chang, 2012;
Luchs et al., 2010). In a similar vein, household cleaning products
that have been intentionally designed to be more sustainable can
be perceived less favourably because consumers believe that companies enhance greenness at the expense of product quality
(Newman et al., 2014).

In addition to sustainability related to the intrinsic attributes of

the product, food companies can communicate the sustainability of
their products through sustainable extrinsic attributes. In order to
decrease their global environmental footprint, industrial companies and manufacturers are developing more sustainable packaging. Will these investments in sustainable package design affect
evaluations of the product? More precisely, would a sustainable
packaging have a positive effect on the perceived quality of the
product?
From the consumer point of view, a sustainable or eco-friendly
package design can be defined as a package design that explicitly
or implicitly evokes the eco-friendliness of the packaging via its
structure, its graphical or iconographic elements and its informational elements (Magnier & Cri, 2015). A previous study on the
topic has shown that a sustainable packaging positively influences
the perceived ethicality of the brand and purchase intentions
(Magnier & Schoormans, 2015). However, despite the relevance
of perceived quality as a motivation to purchase a product, the
extent to which packaging sustainability influences the perceived
quality of the product was not yet studied.
Package design has been described as a means used by consumers to make inferences about the product and the brand
(Becker, van Rompay, Schifferstein, & Galetzka, 2011; Berkowitz,
1987; Gordon, Finlay, & Watts, 1994; Orth & Malkewitz, 2008).
Specifically, in product categories, such as FMCG, where the differentiation between products is low, individuals use packaging
design elements to evaluate the product. Prior research has in fact
shown that packaging design influences perceptions of the product
in many ways (Becker et al., 2011; Mugge, Massink, Hultink, & van
den Berg-Weitzel, 2014; Orth & Malkewitz, 2008). For example,
design elements such as colour and shape influence the perception
of product content. Even when the actual content is the same,
these studies demonstrated that based on the colour and the shape
of the package people judge the taste of food products differently
in taste tests (Becker et al., 2011; Dichter, 1964; Gordon et al.,
1994).
Although consumers often assess product quality through package design (Mugge et al., 2014), the influence of packaging sustainability on perceived quality of food products still has to be
determined. However, considering the existing literature concerning the positive influence of product sustainability on perceived

134

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

quality, we propose that sustainable package designs have the

potential to influence the perceived quality of the product. Indeed,
as we demonstrated in the previous section, the literature has
extensively shown that signalling sustainability positively influences the perception of product quality (Lee et al., 2013). Therefore, and based on the above, we suggest that for food products,
packaging sustainability will trigger a more positive perceived
quality of the product. More formally:
H1. The perceived quality of a food product will be more positive
when the product is packed in a sustainable packaging than when
it is packed in a conventional packaging.

2.3. Combined effects of product and package sustainability on

perceived quality
With this study, we also want to test how the sustainability of
the intrinsic and extrinsic attributes of the product may influence
consumers perceived quality when signalled jointly. In practice,
sustainable packages often protect sustainable products, and it is
therefore relevant to examine whether this influence is still significant when the product is intrinsically sustainable. In other words,
we aim to test how consumers react when sustainability is signalled via both the product and the package.
Literature has shown that sustainable signals are not always
processed in a rational way. The embedding effect was first
defined by Kahneman and Knetsch (1992) and refers to the general
finding that sometimes two or more environmental goods are valued less highly together than they are separately (Irwin & Spira,
1997). In other words, this effect describes the fact that when environmental attributes are evaluated separately, individuals tend to
rate their value higher than when the two same environmental
attributes are presented jointly on the same product. In the context
of this study, we can assume that the effect of packaging sustainability on perceived quality will be less important when signalled
jointly with product sustainability.
Next, the cue utilization theory (Olson & Jacoby, 1972) shows
that consumers use extrinsic attributes to evaluate product quality
when intrinsic attributes are not available. The relative weight of
extrinsic and intrinsic cues in quality evaluations depends on the
predictive value (i.e. the degree to which consumers associate a
given cue with product quality) and the confidence value (i.e. the
degree to which consumers have confidence in their ability to
use and judge the cue accurately) of the cues (Richardson, Dick,
& Jain, 1994). Transposing this theory to the use of sustainable cues
to assess product quality and providing that the confidence and the
predictive values of the sustainable cues are satisfactory for both
the intrinsic and the extrinsic attributes, we can assume that consumers will favour the sustainable cue related to the intrinsic attribute when assessing product quality. In this case, the sustainable
intrinsic attribute is directly related to the perceived quality of
the product evaluated, and therefore, the most relevant attribute
to draw inferences from. In addition, Gershoff and Frels (2015) suggest that sustainable benefits stemming from central attributes
lead to better evaluations than sustainable benefits stemming from
peripheral attributes. In this study, we can consider the sustainable
attribute related to the product as central, whereas the sustainability of the package can be considered a peripheral attribute.
Based on the above, we presume that the sustainability of the
package may not generate higher perceived quality when the sustainability of the product itself is also signalled. Although consumers use packaging attributes to make inferences about the
product, when the sustainability of the product and the package
are both signalled, it is likely that consumers will use the signal
related to product sustainability to infer about the quality of the

product rather than the sustainability of the package. Therefore,

we assume that an interaction effect between the sustainability
of the product and the sustainability of the packaging on perceived
quality will occur. More formally:
H2. Product sustainability will moderate the relationship between
packaging sustainability and the perceived quality of a food product.
Specifically, when there are no indications of product sustainability,
a sustainable packaging (vs. a conventional packaging) leads to
higher perceived quality. Packaging sustainability does not impact
perceived quality when the product is intrinsically sustainable.

2.4. The mediating influence of the perceived naturalness of the

product
By definition, a natural entity is the result of what has been created by natural forces without the need for human intervention
(Rozin et al., 2004). Natural entities are generally opposed to synthetic entities (Devcich, Pedersen, & Petrie, 2007). Due to rising
concerns over health and wellness, consumers are increasingly
demanding natural products (Lunardo & Saintives, 2013). Literature has shown that consumers generally think of natural as a
desirable attribute and demonstrate a preference for natural alternatives. The reasons for this preference can be either instrumental
or ideational (Li & Chapman, 2012). Indeed, consumers tend to
describe natural alternatives as healthier, more appealing to the
senses and environmentally friendly, as well as more moral, more
aesthetic or simply right (Lunardo & Saintives, 2013; Rozin, 2005;
Rozin et al., 2004). We can presume that the presence of this pattern will positively influence the perceived quality of the product.
We posit that people use signals of sustainability as proxies for
naturalness and that the perception of packaging and product sustainability will positively affect the perceived naturalness of the
product, which will in turn enhance the perceived quality of the
product. In other words, we suggest that perceived naturalness of
the product can explain the influence of package and product sustainability on the perceived quality of the product. More formally:
H3. The perceived naturalness of the product will mediate the
relationships between packaging and product sustainability and
perceived quality for a food product.
We test the aforementioned hypotheses in two experimental
studies. In study 1, we demonstrate across two product categories
that a sustainable packaging can positively influence the perceived
quality of food products (H1). Study 2 sheds light on the mitigating
effect of product sustainability (H2) and reveals the perception of
product naturalness as a mediator (H3).
3. Study 1: influence of packaging sustainability on perceived
quality of food products
The purpose of this first study is to establish that the perception
of the sustainability of a food product packaging positively influences the evaluation of product quality. To do so, we empirically
test H1 in two different product categories. This study consists of
a 2 (packaging sustainability: conventional vs. sustainable)  2
(product replicate: raisins vs. chocolate bars) between-subject
experimental design.
3.1. Method
3.1.1. Stimuli
Two product categories, raisins and chocolate bars, were chosen
for this experiment. These two product categories were selected to
test our first hypothesis with the aim of better generalizing our

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

results. Raisins and chocolate bars are comparable because they

can both be enjoyed as snacks. Yet, they are different in terms of
perceived healthiness, which can represent an important criterion
when evaluating product quality. The brands chosen for these
products were Sun-Maid Raisins for the raisins and Halter for the
chocolate bars. These brands are not sold in France and prior
knowledge biases were therefore avoided (Orth, Campana, &
Malkewitz, 2010). Previous research has shown that the sustainability of the package has better effects on consumer responses
when the sustainability is visibly showcased (Magnier &
Schoormans, 2015). Therefore, the manipulation of the sustainability of the package was realized by altering the appearance of the
package either in a conventional or in a sustainable condition. In
the conventional condition, the package was made of white plastic
whereas in the sustainable condition the package had a recycled
cardboard look. Other elements (i.e. brand, image, product description) were the same for both conditions (see Appendix 1).
3.1.2. Procedure and measures
One hundred and thirty-two French respondents (Mage = 31.07,
SD = 10.75, Female = 62%) participated in this online study. Participants were obtained through a networking procedure often
referred to as snowball sampling.
First, we asked the participants whether they were familiar
with the brand presented on the package they had to evaluate
(yes/no). Then, we asked them to evaluate the sustainability of
the packaging on two Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree
to strongly agree (This package is environmentally friendly, This
is a good example of an environmentally friendly packaging;
r = 0.85) in order to check whether our manipulation was successful. We also measured the perceived healthiness of the products on
a Likert scale (Eating raisins (chocolate bars) leads to positive consequences for health in the long run). In order to test the influence
of packaging sustainability on the dependent variable, participants
had to rate the product on a semantic differential measurement
scale of perceived quality composed of three items adapted from
Sprott and Shimp (2004) (All things considered, I would say that
these raisins (chocolate bars) are globally of: bad quality/excellent
quality, These raisins (chocolate bars) seem to have: a very bad
quality/a very good quality, and Globally, this product seems:
bad/excellent; a = 0.76). Finally, because the material and therefore the appearance of the package were altered, we wanted to
check for possible differences in the attractiveness of the packages.
Attractiveness was measured on a semantic differential scale (This
package is: unattractive/attractive). All measurements were rated
on 7-point scales. These measurements and their descriptive statistics are summarized in Table A.1 (Appendix 3).
3.2. Results
3.2.1. Manipulation checks
As expected, all participants were unfamiliar with the brands
that were used. In order to check whether the manipulated sustainable appearance of the packaging was perceived as significantly more sustainable than the conventional appearance, we
performed two independent samples t-test with sustainability of
the packaging as the dependent variable. Unless suggested otherwise, assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance were
met for the t-tests performed in this study. The analysis showed
that the package with the recycled cardboard look was perceived
as more sustainable than the package with the white plastic look
for the raisins (Mconventional = 3.03 vs. Msustainable = 5.26; t(60)
= 7.24; p < 0.001) and the chocolate bars (Mconventional = 2.27 vs.
Msustainable = 5.18; t(56) = 9.52; p < 0.001) and that our manipulations were therefore successful. It is to be noted that for raisins, the
Levenes test was significant, therefore we reported the t-value

135

presented for groups with unequal variances. Another independent

samples t-test with the product replicate as independent variable
and perceived healthiness as the dependent variable showed that
the raisins were considered to be healthier than the chocolate bars
(Mchocolatebars = 2.28 vs. Mraisins = 4.39, t(130) = 7.80, p < 0.001).
3.2.2. The effect of packaging sustainability on perceived quality (H1)
In order to verify our first hypothesis for the raisins and for the
chocolate bars categories, we adopted the following approach. First,
we tested the influence of packaging sustainability on attractiveness for both categories to check for a possible confounding effect
of attractiveness. Second, we tested the effect of packaging sustainability on the perceived quality of the product. Third, in order to test
our first hypothesis, we ran an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
with the packaging sustainability as the independent variable and
the perceived quality of the product as the dependent variable. As
packaging attractiveness can play a role in the evaluation of the perceived quality of the products (Dion, Berscheid, & Walster, 1972),
we included this variable as a covariate in the analyses. By including
attractiveness as a covariate, it is possible to control for its influence
on the dependent variable perceived quality, allowing us to more
accurately assess the effect of packaging sustainability.
First, we performed two independent t-tests with packaging
sustainability as the independent variable and attractiveness as
the dependent variable. For the raisins, there was no significant
effect of the packaging sustainability on packaging attractiveness
(p > 0.54). However, for the chocolate bars, the sustainable packaging was perceived as more attractive than the conventional packaging (Mconventional = 2.52 vs. Msustainable = 3.33, t(56) = 2.60,
p < 0.05).
Second, we performed two independent t-tests with packaging
sustainability as the independent variable and perceived quality of
the product as the dependent variable. For the raisins, perceived
quality was higher when the product was presented in a sustainable packaging than when it was presented in a conventional packaging (Mconventional = 4.13 vs. Msustainable = 4.57, t(72) = 2.10,
p < 0.05). Similarly, perceived quality was higher when the product
was presented in a sustainable packaging as opposed to a conventional packaging (Mconventional = 3.57 vs. Msustainable = 4.53, t(56)
= 3.20, p < 0.01) for the chocolate bars category as well.
Third, we performed ANCOVAs with the packaging sustainability as the independent variable, perceived quality of the product as
the dependent variable, and attractiveness as a covariate for both
product categories. The basic assumptions for these tests (homogeneity of variance, normality) were met and the adjusted means
are reported. For the raisins category, the covariate attractiveness
of the package was significant (F(1,71) = 7.94, p < 0.01). Furthermore, a significant main effect was found for packaging sustainability on perceived quality (F(1, 71) = 3.94; p = 0.05). Perceived
quality was significantly higher when the raisins were presented
in the sustainable packaging as opposed to the conventional packaging (Mconventional = 4.15 vs. Msustainable = 4.55), supporting H1. For
the chocolate bars, the covariate attractiveness was also significant
(F(1, 55) = 8.00, p < 0.01). Again, a significant main effect was found
for packaging sustainability on perceived quality (F(1, 55) = 5.21;
p < 0.05). The perceived quality of the product was significantly
higher when the chocolate bars were presented in the sustainable
packaging than when they were presented in the conventional
packaging (Mconventional = 3.70 vs. Msustainable = 4.38;), providing
additional support for H1.
3.3. Discussion
In study 1, we established that the sustainability of the packaging positively influences perceived quality in two different product
categories. When the package was noticeably more sustainable,

136

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

both the chocolate bars and the raisins were considered to be of

better quality. If we consider the healthier product, namely raisins,
as a virtue product and the chocolate bars as a vice product
(Milkman, Rogers, & Bazerman, 2008; van Doorn & Verhoef,
2011; Wertenbroch, 1998), our results are not completely in line
with the results of van Doorn and Verhoef (2011). In their study,
they tested the influence of a logo communicating the organic
intrinsic attributes for vice and virtue products and showed that
such a logo had either a non-significant or a negative influence
on the perceived quality of vice products. They explain this phenomenon by the fact that the wholesomeness this claim signals
may reduce the enjoyment and pleasure ascribed to vice food
(Raghunathan, Naylor, & Hoyer, 2006). Following this logic, the
chocolate bars in the sustainable package should have received
lower ratings on perceived quality. Two main reasons can explain
why the chocolate bars also received higher ratings on the perception of quality. The first one lies in the fact that we altered the sustainability of the package, an extrinsic attribute, and not the
intrinsic sustainability of the product. The second reason can be
found in the fact that the experiment was conducted among French
respondents, as they consider healthy products to be tasty (cf.
healthy = tasty French intuition) (Werle, Trendel, & Ardito, 2013).
In our study, we can presume that French consumers perceived
the vice product in the sustainable package as more natural than
when it is presented in the conventional package, and therefore
healthier, tastier and ultimately of better quality.
As we showed that there was no difference between vice and
virtue products when considering the influence of the sustainability of the package on perceived quality of the product, we do not
discuss the issue further. We selected another product category,
namely coffee, for study 2. In this study, we aim to test how product sustainability plays a role in the influence of packaging sustainability on the perceived quality of the product. Moreover, we
intend to determine the underlying effect of the perceived naturalness of the product to explain perceived quality. Specifically, we
expect that the perceived naturalness of the product will mediate
the interaction effect of product sustainability and packaging sustainability on perceived quality.
4. Study 2
The purpose of study 2 is to examine the influence of the sustainability of an extrinsic attribute, the package, when intrinsic
product sustainability is also signalled. Furthermore, we empirically test H2 and H3.

that the recycled material significantly influenced the

perceived sustainability of the package (Mconventional package = 2.07
vs. Msustainable package = 4.82; t(34) = 7.57; p < 0.01). Next, in order
to ensure that our manipulation of the sustainability of the product
was successful, participants also rated the product on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (This product is eco-friendly, This is a good example of an ecological
product; r = .92). An independent t-test was performed and
showed that the presence of an AB logo significantly improved
the sustainability perception of the product (Mconventional coffee = 3.04
vs. Morganic coffee = 4.54; t(42) = 2.99; p < 0.01). This pilot study was realized prior to the main study and showed that the manipulations
were perceived as expected.
4.1.2. Study design and participants
We employed a 2 (product sustainability: conventional coffee
vs. organic coffee)  2 (packaging sustainability: conventional
package vs. sustainable package) between-subject design. One
hundred twenty-seven participants (Mage = 31.86, SD = 10.81,
Female = 75) participated in the study. The study was conducted
in France and snowball sampling has been used to obtain the
participants.
4.1.3. Procedure and measures
All participants were asked to rate the package of coffee on several rating scales in an online questionnaire. First, familiarity with
the brand was assessed with the same item as in study 1. Next, in
order to assess the perceived quality of the product, participants
had to rate the product on two semantic differential scales (All
things considered, I would say that this coffee is globally of: bad
quality/excellent quality and Globally, this coffee seems: bad/
excellent; r = 0.75). Perceived naturalness was measured using a
semantic differential scale (This coffee is: not at all natural/completely natural). We also measured the attractiveness of the packages with the item used in study 1. As environmental concern (EC)
is likely to influence the perceived quality of sustainable products,
participants EC was measured using six Likert scales adapted from
Kilbourne and Pickett (2008) (I am very concerned about the environment, Humans are severely abusing the environment, I would
be willing to reduce my consumption to help protect the environment, Major political change is necessary to protect the natural
environment, Major social changes are necessary to protect the
natural environment, Anti-pollution laws should be enforced
more strongly; a = 0.91). All measurements were rated on
7-point scales. Appendix 4 presents all measurements and their
descriptive statistics.

4.1. Method
4.2. Results
4.1.1. Stimuli
Four packages of coffee were digitally altered in order to manipulate packaging and product sustainability. The packages were
given either a conventional aluminium or a sustainable recycled
look. Next, in order to manipulate product sustainability, a green
and white AB logo agriculture biologique was displayed on the
package in the organic condition whereas it was absent from the
package in the conventional condition. The AB label is a thirdparty certification of compliance with EU regulations for organic
food and is widely known in France. The brand used in this study
was Tullys coffee, which is not sold in France (see Appendix 2).
In the first phase, a pilot study was conducted to check whether
the manipulations were successful. Fifty-four individuals were presented with one of the four stimuli and rated it on two selfgenerated scales. The first 7-point Likert scale aimed at measuring
the sustainability of the package on two items (This package is
eco-friendly, This is a good example of an ecological packaging;
r = 0.89). An independent t-test was performed and it showed

Before performing the analyses, it was verified whether the participants were familiar with the brand. None of the participants
were familiar with the brand on the stimuli, and therefore, prior
knowledge of the brand did not influence the dependent variables.
Next, in order to verify the moderating role of product sustainability on the influence of packaging sustainability on the perceived
quality of a food product, we adopted the following approach: First,
we tested the influence of the independent variables on the covariates: attractiveness and environmental concern. Second, we tested
the influence of the independent variables packaging and product
sustainability on the dependent variable perceived quality without
the covariates. Third, we tested H2 to verify whether there is an
interaction effect between product sustainability and packaging
sustainability on perceived quality after controlling for attractiveness and environmental concern. Finally, we performed a similar
approach for the dependent variable naturalness as a first indication for possible mediation.

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

4.2.1. The effects of product and packaging sustainability on perceived

quality (H2)
First, we tested the influence of the independent variables package and product sustainability on the covariates attractiveness and
environmental concern. As intended, no effects were found for
package sustainability, product sustainability or their interaction
on attractiveness (ps > 0.10) and environmental concern
(ps > 0.20).
Second, we performed an analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test
the influence of package and product sustainability on perceived
quality of the product. The basic assumptions for this test (homogeneity of variance, normality) were met. A main effect was found
of package sustainability on perceived quality (F(1, 123) = 3.80,
p = 0.05). Specifically, perceived quality was perceived as higher
when the product was presented in the sustainable packaging as
opposed to the conventional packaging (Mconventional package = 4.46
vs. Msustainable package = 4.79). In addition, a main effect was found
of product sustainability on perceived quality. Perceived quality
was higher when the product was sustainable (i.e. organic coffee)
as opposed to conventional (Mconventional coffee = 4.27 vs.
Morganic coffee = 5.00, F(1, 123) = 18.11, p < 0.001). There was no significant interaction effect of package and product sustainability on
perceived quality (F(1, 123) = 1.38, p > 0.24).
Third and more importantly, to test our second hypothesis that
product sustainability moderates the relationship between packaging sustainability on perceived quality, we performed an ANCOVA
in which packaging sustainability and product sustainability were
included as the independent variables, attractiveness and EC were
included as covariates, and perceived quality of the product was
included as the dependent variable. Basic assumptions for the test
(homogeneity of variance, normality) were met and adjusted
means are presented.
The covariates attractiveness (F(1, 121) = 30.23, p < 0.001) and
environmental concern (F(1, 121) = 4.32, p < 0.05) were significant.
In addition, there was a significant main effect of product sustainability on perceived quality (F(1, 121) = 18.71, p < 0.001). Perceived
quality was higher when the coffee was organic as opposed to conventional (Mconventional coffee = 4.30 vs. Morganic coffee = 5.96). No main
effect was found for package sustainability (p > 0.18). However,
there was a marginally significant interaction effect of package
and product sustainability on perceived quality (F(1, 121) = 3.12,
p = 0.08), suggesting that product sustainability serves as a moderator and providing support for H2. Two additional ANCOVAs for the
conventional and organic coffee separately showed that for the
conventional (non-organic) coffee, results were in line with H1.
Specifically, the coffee presented in the sustainable package
was perceived as having a higher quality than the coffee in the conventional package (Mconventional package = 4.00 vs. Msustainable package =
4.53; F(1,55) = 4.04; p < 0.05). For the organic coffee, there was no
main effect of the package sustainability on the perceived quality
of the product (Mconventional package = 4.92 vs. Msustainable package =
5.06; F(1,64) = 0.08, p > 0.62) (see Fig. 1A).
4.2.2. The effects of product and packaging sustainability on perceived
naturalness
To test the effects on naturalness, we first performed an ANOVA
with perceived naturalness as the dependent variable, product and
packaging sustainability as the independent variables, without
inclusion of the covariates. Subsequently, we included the covariates in an ANCOVA to control for their effects. The basic assumptions for these tests (homogeneity of variance, normality) were
met.
The ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of package sustainability. Perceived naturalness was higher when the product
was presented in a sustainable packaging than when it was presented in a conventional packaging (Mconventional package = 4.21 vs.

137

Fig. 1. Influence of package and product sustainability on perceived quality (A) and
perceived naturalness (B) of the product.

Msustainable package = 5.33, F(1, 123) = 28.96, p < 0.001). Moreover,

perceived naturalness was higher when the product was sustainable (i.e. organic) as opposed to conventional (Mconventional coffee =
4.18 vs. Morganic coffee = 5.36, F(1, 123) = 31.65, p < 0.001). There
was also a significant interaction effect of package and product sustainability on perceived naturalness (F (1, 123) = 7.56; p < 0.01).
This interaction effect is further discussed in the next step.
Next, we performed an ANCOVA in which packaging sustainability and product sustainability were included as the independent
variables, attractiveness and EC were included as covariates, and
perceived naturalness was included as the dependent variable.
Adjusted means are presented. The covariate attractiveness was significant (F(1, 121) = 7.14, p < 0.01) and the covariate environmental
concern was marginally significant (F(1, 121) = 3.12, p = 0.08).
Furthermore, there were main effects of package sustainability
(Mconventional package = 4.26 vs. Msustainable package = 5.29, F(1, 121) =
25.69, p < 0.001) and product sustainability (Mconventional coffee =
4.20 vs. Morganic coffee = 5.34, F(1, 121) = 31.37, p < 0.001) on perceived naturalness. There was also a significant interaction effect
of package and product sustainability on perceived naturalness
(F(1, 121) = 9.42; p < 0.01). Additional ANCOVAs for the
conventional and organic coffee separately showed that for the conventional (non-organic) product, there was a main effect of packaging sustainability on perceived naturalness. Specifically, the
conventional product in the sustainable package was perceived as

138

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

more natural than the conventional product in the conventional

package (Mconventional package = 3.33 vs. Msustainable package = 5.03; F
(1,55) = 28.32; p < 0.001). However, for the organic product, there
was no significant effect of the sustainability of the package on perceived naturalness (Mconventional package = 5.09 vs. Msustainable package = 5.64; F(1,64) = 1.66, p > 0.20) (see Fig. 1B). These results
provide preliminary support that perceived naturalness mediates
the interaction effect of product and packaging sustainability on perceived quality. To further test for such a mediation effect, the bootstrapping procedure was used.

4.2.3. Test of the mediating effect of perceived naturalness (H3)

In order to test H3 whether the product sustainability  package sustainability interaction effect on perceived quality is mediated by perceived naturalness, we followed the procedure
recommended by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) and used bootstrapping, which is preferred to the procedure previously recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986). We used the PROCESS
macro (model 8) (Hayes, 2013) and 5000 iterations to determine
whether the indirect effect was significant.
In the bootstrap analysis, a packaging sustainability dummy
variable was included as a predictor variable. Product sustainability was designated as a moderator, perceived naturalness as the
mediator and perceived quality as the dependent variable. Attractiveness and environmental concern were included as covariates
(see Fig. 2). The PROCESS macro provides results of the regression,
results of the test of the indirect effect, as well as its bootstrap to
establish the existence of a mediation effect. To demonstrate support for perceived naturalness as a mediator of the product sustainability  package
sustainability
interaction
effect
on
perceived quality of the product, the 95% confidence interval associated with the point estimate of the indirect effect (through perceived naturalness) of the packaging sustainability  product
sustainability interaction on perceived quality must not include
zero (Mugge & Dahl, 2013; Preacher & Hayes, 2004; Zhao et al.,
2010). This point estimate represents the product of the regression
coefficient calculated when packaging sustainability  product
sustainability predicts perceived naturalness of the product, and
when perceived naturalness of the product predicts the perceived
quality of the product. When the results demonstrate that the
point estimate is not zero (with a 95% CI), mediation of perceived
naturalness is thus confirmed.
The bootstrap analysis replicated the ANCOVA results concerning the direct effect of the packaging sustainability  product sus-

tainability interaction on the perceived quality of the product.

Furthermore, perceived naturalness of the product had a significant influence on perceived quality of the product (b = 0.50,
t = 10.84, p < 0.001).
More importantly, the 95% confidence interval for the indirect
effect of the product sustainability  package sustainability interaction excluded zero, ranging from 0.9786 to 0.2125 for the point
estimate 0.56, indicating mediated moderation and confirming
the mediating role of product naturalness in the relationship
between packaging sustainability  product sustainability and perceived quality of food products. Examining the conditional indirect
effect, we found that, when the food product was conventional (i.e.
in the absence of a logo communicating the organic ingredients),
the 95% confidence interval excluded zero, ranging from 0.4713 to
1.0946 for the point estimate 0.75, indicating a significant indirect
effect of packaging sustainability on perceived quality through perceived naturalness. However, and not surprisingly when the food
product was organic, the 95% confidence interval for the indirect
effect did not exclude zero, ranging from 0.0438 to 0.4029, indicating that packaging sustainability did not have a significant indirect
effect on perceived quality, which corresponds to hypothesis 2 that
packaging sustainability does not impact perceived quality when
the food product is intrinsically sustainable.
5. General discussion
5.1. Theoretical implications
Across two studies, we showed that packaging sustainability
positively influences the perceived quality of a food product. Next,
we demonstrated that this effect is moderated by the sustainability
of the product. More precisely, we showed that when the intrinsic
attributes of a food product are sustainable, the sustainability of
the package does not have an added effect. We also showed that
the influence of the interaction of package and product sustainability on perceived quality is mediated by the perceived naturalness
of the product. These results add to the literature in several ways.
First, we contribute to the literature on consumers use of information connoted by the package design to draw inferences about
product content (Becker et al., 2011; Mugge et al., 2014; Orth &
Malkewitz, 2008). In particular, we showed that individuals make
inferences about the quality of food products when assessing a
noticeably sustainable packaging. When the sustainable package
design was not presented jointly with a signal of intrinsic product
sustainability, the evaluation of the quality of the product was sig-

Perceived naturalness
of the product (M)

Packaging sustainability (X)

Perceived quality of the
product (Y)
Product sustainability (W)
Packaging sustainability
Product sustainability (XW)

Covariates :
Attractiveness
Environmental Concern

X: independent variable
W: moderator
M: mediator
Y: dependent variable
Fig. 2. Moderated mediation model based on Hayes (2013).

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

nificantly higher in three categories of food products: raisins,

chocolate bars and coffee. More specifically, we found that the sustainability of food-related packaging positively influences the perception of the quality of the product in product categories with
different levels of perceived healthiness.
Second, although not hypothesized, the results of study 2 make
an important contribution to the literature on the influence of sustainable product attributes on perceived quality and confirm the
positive influence of organic labels on perceived quality of food
products (Haglund et al., 1998; Hughner et al., 2007; Johansson
et al., 1999; Lee et al., 2013; Magnusson et al., 2003; McEachern &
McClean, 2002).
Third, we add to the literature related to the cue utilization theory (Kirmani & Rao, 2000; Olson & Jacoby, 1972) in a sustainability
context. While the sustainable packaging (an extrinsic attribute of
the product) positively influences perceived quality when there is
no information about the sustainability of the product, its effect
becomes insignificant when presented jointly with a logo communicating the organic, intrinsic attributes of the product (the AB logo
used in our study enjoys good predictive and confidence values in
France). In addition, these results add to the literature on the embedding effect (Irwin & Spira, 1997), confirming that when it
comes to sustainability the accumulation of cues does not appear
to represent an efficient strategy.
Fourth, the literature suggesting that eco-labels and organic
labels positively influence consumers willingness to pay is extensive (Napolitano et al., 2010; Tagbata & Sirieix, 2008; van Loo,
Caputo, Nayga, Meullenet, & Ricke, 2011) but the underlying reasons for these effects are rarely explained. By showing that the perceived quality of sustainable food products is as higher than their
conventional counterparts, this study complements research findings on the influence of food labels on willingness to pay. Prior
research has demonstrated that willingness to pay was correlated
with the use of product quality signals (Dawar & Parker, 1994) and
it is thus likely that part of the price premium consumers are consenting to pay for food products displaying signals of sustainability
is due to a higher perceived quality of the product.
Finally, the results of this study also confirm the strong relationship existing between the concepts of sustainability and naturalness in the domain of food products (Tobler et al., 2011;
Verhoog, Matze, van Bueren, & Baars, 2003). It appears that a perception of sustainability leads to a higher perception of product
naturalness. The results also corroborate previous research that
has demonstrated a positive influence of perceptions of naturalness on perceived quality of food products, due to increased
healthiness and tastiness.
5.2. Managerial implications
Understanding how consumers perceive products with environmental benefits is of strategic importance for marketers, designers
and managers.
For brand, product and packaging managers in the domain of
food products, this study represents another insight about the
effect of packaging on the perceived quality of the product. By creating packages that demonstrate sustainability in a visually recognizable way, managers and designers may positively influence the
perceived quality of their food products.
For managers of organic food products, the results of this study
are also interesting. Although the sustainable look of the package
does not hurt the perceived quality of the product, it appears that
its effect is no longer significant when the product is organic. An
organic food product is not perceived as more natural or of a better
quality when it comes in a sustainable package design.
The results of this study are also important for policy makers to
control greenwashing practices. It is useful for them to understand

139

the role that more implicit signals related to extrinsic attributes

can play in consumers perceived naturalness of a product, and
subsequently, on the perceived quality of the product.

5.3. Limitations and further research

To conclude, we note several limitations in this study that offer
opportunities for future research.
First, the sustainability of the package was tested through a
visual appearance that was noticeably more sustainable. Further
research should also investigate whether sustainable packages that
do not display an explicit visual appearance (e.g. packages made of
bioplastics) could also lead to higher perceptions of food product
quality. In addition, it could be interesting to test the influence of
individual variables, such as expertise in environmental matters,
on the perceived quality of food products packed in a sustainable
packaging with a conventional look.
Second, we tested the influence of a specific extrinsic attribute:
the packaging. Instead, future studies could also test the influence
of other extrinsic attributes. For example, examining the influence
of a sustainable brand name versus a conventional brand name
could represent an interesting approach. Future experiments could
test whether the perception of food quality would be higher when
the product has a sustainable brand name.
Third, we showed that packaging sustainability does not
improve the perceived quality of food products that are organic.
Based on this, future research could determine whether the same
effect would apply when the food product presents other signals
of sustainability, such as when it is locally grown or when the product presents cues of intrinsic quality, which are not sustainable,
yet denote superior quality (e.g. high-end ingredients, such as
cookies containing real butter instead of palm oil).
Fourth, in this study, we tested perceptions of food quality with
a general measure of perceived quality. Prior studies have determined that these perceptions of quality are generally related to
the perception of a healthier and tastier product. Therefore, future
research could replicate the present study in a real tasting experiment in order to examine whether the perception of superior quality created by the presence of a sustainable package would also
lead to better perceptions of taste.
Fifth, the extent to which the changes in quality perceptions
affect behavioural variables, such as choice and willingness to
pay, was not tested in this research. Although behavioural patterns are not necessarily consistent with attitudes (Grunert &
Juhl, 1995; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006), it has often been demonstrated that environmental labels on food products positively
influence choice and willingness to pay (Napolitano et al.,
2010; Tagbata & Sirieix, 2008; van Loo et al., 2011). Nevertheless, future studies could test how changes in perceived quality
due to the packaging sustainability affect choice and consumers
willingness to pay.
Finally, further research could aim to confirm the results in
other contexts. The same study could be run in a country where
the intuition that unhealthy = tasty is more dominant to check
whether the sustainability of the package could negatively impact
the perceived quality of vice products. We can expect that in developing countries more sophisticated packages could lead to higher
perceived quality than packages that are noticeably more sustainable. Furthermore, replicating the results over other product categories, such as durables, could represent an interesting approach in
the future.
Considering the environmental challenges that society has to
face and the need to develop sales of sustainable products, the relationship between sustainability and perceived quality represents a
fertile topic for future research.

140

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

Appendix 1
Stimuli used in study 1.

Appendix 2
Stimuli used in study 2.

Appendix 3
See Table A.1.

Table A.1
Study 1: measurements and descriptive statistics.
Raisins

Chocolate bars

Conventional
package

Sustainable
package

Conventional
package

Sustainable
package

Familiarity with the brand

1. Are you familiar with the brand presented on the package? (yes/no)

0% (no)

0% (no)

0% (no)

0% (no)

Packaging sustainability (r = 0.85)

1. This package is environmentally friendly
2. This is a good example of an environmentally friendly packaging

3.03 (1.62)

5.26 (0.94)

2.27 (1.13)

5.18 (1.19)

Perceived healthiness
1. Eating raisins (chocolate bars) leads to positive consequences
for health in the long run

4.34 (1.61)

4.44 (1.23)

2.16 (1.73)

2.41 (1.64)

Product quality (a = 0.76)

1. All things considered, I would say that these raisins
(chocolate bars) are globally of: bad quality/excellent quality
2. These raisins (chocolate bars) seem to have: a very
bad quality/a very good quality
3. Globally, this product seems: bad/excellent

4.13 (0.88)

4.57 (0.94)

3.57 (1.16)

4.53 (1.11)

Packaging attractiveness
1. This package is: unattractive/attractive

2.89 (0.98)

3.06 (1.26)

2.52 (1.26)

3.33 (1.11)

SD in parentheses

141

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

Appendix 4
See Table A.2.
Table A.2
Study 2: measurements and descriptive statistics.
Conventional package

Sustainable package

Conventional
coffee

Organic
coffee

Conventional
coffee

Organic
coffee

Familiarity with the brand

1. Are you familiar with the brand presented on the package? (yes/no)

0% (no)

0% (no)

0% (no)

0% (no)

Packaging sustainability (r = 0.89)

1. This package is environmentally friendly
2. This is a good example of an environmentally friendly packaging

2.00 (0.73)

2.14 (1.13)

4.78 (1.35)

4.87 (1.78)

Product sustainability (r = 0.92)

1. This product is eco-friendly
2. This is a good example of an ecological product

2.00 (0.83)

3.85 (2.05)

4.07 (1.31)

5.50 (1.66)

Product quality (r = 0.75)

1. All things considered, I would say that this coffee is globally of:
bad quality/excellent quality
2. Globally, this coffee seems: bad/excellent

4.00 (1.09)

4.92 (0.95)

4.53 (0.90)

5.06 (0.90)

Perceived naturalness of the product

1. This coffee is: not at all natural/completely natural

3.33 (1.21)

5.09 (1.29)

5.03 (1.18)

5.64 (0.99)

Packaging attractiveness
1. This package is: unattractive/attractive

3.33 (0.79)

3.37 (0.85)

3.43 (0.67)

3.67 (0.52)

Environmental Concern (a = 0.91)

1. I am very concerned about the environment
2. Humans are severely abusing the environment
3. I would be willing to reduce my consumption to help protect the environment
4. Major political change is necessary to protect the natural environment
5. Major social changes are necessary to protect the natural environment
6. Anti-pollution laws should be enforced more strongly

5.56 (1.21)

SD in parentheses

References
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
Becker, L., van Rompay, T. J. L., Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Galetzka, M. (2011). Tough
package, strong taste: The influence of packaging design on taste impressions
and product evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 1723.
Berkowitz, M. (1987). Product shape as a design innovation strategy. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 4(4), 274283.
Caswell, J. A., & Padberg, D. I. (1992). Toward a more comprehensive theory of food
labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74(2), 460468.
Dawar, N., & Parker, P. (1994). Marketing universals: Consumers use of brand name,
price, physical appearance, and retailer reputation as signals of product quality.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 8195.
de Almeida, M. D. V., Graca, P., Lappalainen, R. E. T. A. L., Giachetti, I., Kafatos, A., de
Winter, A. M., & Kearney, J. M. (1997). Sources used and trusted by nationallyrepresentative adults in the European Union for information on healthy eating.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 51, S16S22.
Dentoni, D., Tonsor, G. T., Calantone, R. J., & Peterson, H. C. (2009). The direct and
indirect effects of locally grown on consumers attitudes towards agri-food
products. Agricultural & Resource Economics Review, 38(3), 384.
Devcich, D. A., Pedersen, I. K., & Petrie, K. J. (2007). You eat what you are: Modern
health worries and the acceptance of natural and synthetic additives in
functional foods. Appetite, 48(3), 333337.
Dichter, E. (1964). Handbook of consumer motivations: The psychology of the world of
objects. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285290.
European Parliamentary Research Service Blog (2015). Organic food: Last accessed
10.04.16. Available at <http://epthinktank.eu/2015/05/20/organic-food/>.
Feldmann, C., & Hamm, U. (2015). Consumers perceptions and preferences for local
food: A review. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 152164.
Garvin, D. A. (1988). Managing quality. New York: The Free Press.
Gershoff, A. D., & Frels, J. K. (2015). What makes it green? The role of centrality of
green attributes in evaluations of the greenness of products. Journal of
Marketing, 79(1), 97110.
Gordon, A., Finlay, K., & Watts, T. (1994). The psychological effects of colour in
consumer product packaging. Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 13(3), 311.

Grunert, S. C., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of
organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(1), 3962.
Haglund, ., Johansson, L., Berglund, L., & Dahlstedt, L. (1998). Sensory evaluation of
carrots from ecological and conventional growing systems. Food Quality and
Preference, 10(1), 2329.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach: Guildford Press.
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., & Stanton, J. (2007). Who are
organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why people purchase
organic food. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 6(23), 94.
Irwin, J. R., & Spira, J. S. (1997). Anomalies in the values for consumer goods with
environmental attributes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6(4), 339.
Johansson, L., Haglund, ., Berglund, L., Lea, P., & Risvik, E. (1999). Preference for
tomatoes, affected by sensory attributes and information about growth
conditions. Food Quality and Preference, 10(4), 289298.
Kahneman, D., & Knetsch, J. L. (1992). Valuing public goods: The purchase of
moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 22(1),
5770.
Kilbourne, W., & Pickett, G. (2008). How materialism affects environmental beliefs,
concern, and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Business Research,
61(9), 885893.
Kirmani, A., & Rao, A. R. (2000). No pain, no gain: A critical review of the literature
on signaling unobservable product quality. Journal of Marketing, 64(2), 6679.
Lee, W. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see:
Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29(1),
3339.
Lee, H. J., & Yun, Z. S. (2015). Consumers perceptions of organic food attributes and
cognitive and affective attitudes as determinants of their purchase intentions
toward organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 39(1), 259267.
Li, M., & Chapman, G. B. (2012). Why do people like natural? Instrumental and
ideational bases for the naturalness preference. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 42(12), 28592878.
Lin, Y. C., & Chang, C. C. A. (2012). Double standard: The role of environmental
consciousness in green product usage. Journal of Marketing, 76(5), 125134.
Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability
liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of
Marketing, 74(5), 1831.
Lunardo, R., & Saintives, C. (2013). The effect of naturalness claims on perceptions of
food product naturalness in the point of purchase. Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, 20(6), 529537.

142

L. Magnier et al. / Food Quality and Preference 53 (2016) 132142

Magnier, L., & Cri, D. (2015). Communicating packaging eco-friendliness: An

exploration of consumers perceptions of eco-designed packaging. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 43(4/5), 350366.
Magnier, L., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2015). Consumer reactions to sustainable
packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental
concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 44, 5362.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Hursti, U.-K. K., berg, L., & Sjdn, P.-O. (2003). Choice
of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to
environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite, 40(2), 109117.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K. K., berg, L., & Sjdn, P.-O.
(2001). Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British Food
Journal, 103(3), 209227.
McEachern, M. G., & McClean, P. (2002). Organic purchasing motivations and
attitudes: Are they ethical? International Journal of Consumer Studies, 26(2), 85.
Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T., & Bazerman, M. H. (2008). Harnessing our inner angels
and demons: What we have learned about want/should conflicts and how that
knowledge can help us reduce short-sighted decision making. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 3(4), 324338.
Mugge, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2013). Seeking the ideal level of design newness:
Consumer response to radical and incremental product design. Journal of
Product Innovation Management, 30(1), 3447.
Mugge, R., Massink, T., Hultink, E.-J., & van den Berg-Weitzel, L. (2014). Designing a
premium package: Some guidelines for designers and marketers. The Design
Journal, 17(4), 583605.
Mugge, R., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2012). Newer is better! The influence of a novel
appearance on the perceived performance quality of products. Journal of
Engineering Design, 23(6), 469484.
Napolitano, F., Braghieri, A., Piasentier, E., Favotto, S., Naspetti, S., & Zanoli, R. (2010).
Effect of information about organic production on beef liking and consumer
willingness to pay. Food Quality and Preference, 21(2), 207212.
Newman, G. E., Gorlin, M., & Dhar, R. (2014). When going green backfires: How firm
intentions shape the evaluation of socially beneficial product enhancements.
Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 823839.
Olson, J. C., & Jacoby, J. (1972). Cue utilization in the quality perception process. In
3rd annual conference of the Association of Consumer Research (pp. 167179).
Orth, U. R., Campana, D., & Malkewitz, K. (2010). Formation of consumer price
expectation based on package design: Attractive and quality routes. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 18(1), 2340.
Orth, U. R., & Malkewitz, K. (2008). Holistic package design and consumer brand
impressions. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 6481.
Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Vermeir, I., Bruns, K., & Olsen, S. O. (2007). Consumer
interest in fish information and labelling: Exploratory insights. Journal of
International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 19(23), 117141.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and
Computers, 36(4), 717731.

Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy = tasty
intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food
products. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 170184.
Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on
perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 2836.
Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of natural: Process more important than content.
Psychological Science, 16(8), 652658.
Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K.
(2004). Preference for natural: Instrumental and ideational/moral motivations,
and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43(2), 147154.
Sprott, D. E., & Shimp, T. A. (2004). Using product sampling to augment the
perceived quality of store brands. Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 305315.
Tagbata, D., & Sirieix, L. (2008). Measuring consumers willingness to pay for organic
and Fair Trade products. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(5),
479490.
Thgersen, J. (2011). Green shopping: For selfish reasons or the common good?
American Behavioral Scientist, 55(8), 10521076.
Tobler, C., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2011). Eating green. Consumers
willingness to adopt ecological food consumption behaviors. Appetite, 57(3),
674682.
van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2011). Willingness to pay for organic products:
Differences between virtue and vice foods. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 28(3), 167180.
van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., Meullenet, J. F., & Ricke, S. C. (2011).
Consumers willingness to pay for organic chicken breast: Evidence from choice
experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 22(7), 603613.
Verbeke, W., & Ward, R. W. (2006). Consumer interest in information cues denoting
quality, traceability and origin: An application of ordered probit models to beef
labels. Food Quality and Preference, 17(6), 453467.
Verhoog, H., Matze, M., van Bueren, E. L., & Baars, T. (2003). The role of the concept
of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 16(1), 2949.
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the
consumer attitude-behavioral intention gap. Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169194.
Werle, C. O., Trendel, O., & Ardito, G. (2013). Unhealthy food is not tastier for
everybody: The healthy = tasty French intuition. Food Quality and Preference,
28(1), 116121.
Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control via purchase quantity rationing.
Marketing Science, 17(4), 317337.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197206.