week 6: (post)purchase

Question 1

me-too products

Answer 1

products appear the same but are different
- should not be exactly the same that consumers recognize it
- but enough that the association of one brand is going trough the other brand as well

Question 2

meaningless differentiation

Answer 2

product that look different, but area actually the same

Question 3

compromise effect

Answer 3

people can justify product (is on the line)

Question 4

mere categorization effect

Answer 4

especially consumers that are unfamiliar within domain helps consumers
- informs
- helpful in choice
- liked better
- only not for small assortments and messy stores that are known for it

Question 5

taxonomic categorization

Answer 5

based on physical features (chairs)

Question 6

goal-derived categorization

Answer 6

based on their goal (things you take on a weekend trip)

Question 7

complementary vs. substitues

Answer 7

complementary categories (breakfast, main course etc.) where liked more than substitute categories
- increase in sales

Question 8

underlying process of complementary categories

Answer 8

• ease of visualization: people can imagine combining them –> more buying
• moderators: involvement and specific leads to bigger effect

Question 9

other ways to guide the decision process

Answer 9

• clarify product differences (colour coding of packaging)

Question 10

imperfect foods

Answer 10

• few days left before expires
• product looks funny
• package is damaged

Question 11

sustainability vs authentic strategy

Answer 11

sustainability: make consumers aware of sustainable surrounding (waste of) of suboptimal foods

authenticity: referring to genuine, real and/or sincerely the naturalness dimension

Question 12

anthropormorphism

Answer 12

• humanizing foods
• abnormally shaped products evokes inferior taste perceptions compared with normally shaped products (inferior effect) –> humanizing evokes positive affective reaction
• especially among abnormal products this worked

Question 13

COM-B model

Answer 13

1. capability to do so
2. opportunity: social and physical environment
3. people have to be motivatedd

Question 14

different motivations to avoid waste

Answer 14

1. environmental (not good for environmental)
2. financial (wasting 10 euro’s)
3. moral (people in Africa have hunger) –> most important
4. social (what would other think of me)

Question 15

study COM model

Answer 15

motivation: conflicting motives –> food waste reduction as resourceful
motivation: relevant motives –> info booklet
capability: reliance on mental shortcuts –> 3+1
opportunity: implementation intentions can be helpful –> seen up a use-up day
opportunity: addressing lack of time/energy –> 3+1

Question 16

different types of interventions

Answer 16

1. mass media campaigns (beware of norms and careful with negative emotions)
2. one-one coaching (effective, but costly)
3. education campaigns (train next generation, spill-over to their family)
4. tools and nudges (first indications may be remarkably effective)

Question 17

quality attributes vs. quality cues

Answer 17

quality attributes: benefits or product characteristics that people are looking for
quality cues: are info stimuli that are, according to the consumer, related to the quality of the product, and can be ascertained by the consumer prior to consumption
—> info stimuli –> determine consumption

Question 18

types of quality cues

Answer 18

1. intrinsic quality cues: observable part of the product that signifies quality (product itself)
2. extrinsic quality cue: indicator of quality that is made visible by adding it (package, brand)

Question 19

burnswik’s kens model of perception

Answer 19

distal phenomenon — ecological validity –> functional validity (proximal sensory cues) —- cue utilisation —> perceived phenomenon

eco validity: how well do the cue indicate the reality (some better than others: the better the higher the validity)
cue utilisation: people use different cues to make a perception (certain combination cues are better than others, shapes perception)
fuctional validity: how wel does the perceived phenomenon match the distal phenomenon
-matching index: predicted and perceived

Question 20

Hierarchical effects model (from info cues to behavior) from Grunert

Answer 20

exposure –> perception (barrier 1) –> understanding –> (liking to decision making (barrier 2)) inference making (barrier 3) –> decision making (barrier 4) –> purchase behavior

barrier 1: not seeing/notice it
barrier 2: only peripheral processing: liking it, not understanding –> isn’t enough to buy it more often than once
barrier 3: wrong inferences: think it’s healthy, while it’s not
barrier 4: trade-off against other products

motivation: not motivated
ability: aware of the cues and its meaning and find it credible (not credible label)

Question 21

info processing MOA model

Answer 21

ability to process
^
exposure to info (opportunity to process)—————————> understanding info cue (ability to make choice)
^
motivation to process

Question 22

behavioral MOA

Answer 22

opportunity to behave
^
understanding info cue (ability to make choice) ———————–> behavior
^
motivation to behave

• opportunity and ability are switched