Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T15:21:37.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice of Food Products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Dragan Miljkovic ,
Jian Gong  and
Linda Lehrke
Dragan Miljkovic
Affiliation:
Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics at North Dakota State University in Fargo, North Dakota
Jian Gong
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology at Penn State University in State College, Pennsylvania
Linda Lehrke
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kansas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Trivial or irrelevant attributes are defined as attributes that do not create a meaningful difference in a brand's performance. The objective of this paper is to determine if and how trivial attributes affect consumers in their choice of variety/brands of food products including frozen green beans, orange juice, canola oil, and frosted strawberry toaster pastries. Sixty subjects participated in the experiment. Subjects understood that trivial attributes are less important than substantive attributes. Substantive (important) quality attributes and economic variables affecting choice were all perceived equal across brands by the subjects in the experiment. Two critical driving forces in determining the presence and direction of the effect of a trivial attribute on the consumer choice are the size of the choice set and the type of trivial attribute, i.e., product versus promotional attribute.

Keywords

consumer choicefood productsproduct attributespromotional attributeschoice set sizetrivial attributes
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , October 2009 , pp. 142 - 152
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akerlof, G. 1970. “The Market for Lemons: Qualitative Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 84(3): 484–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amemiya, T., and Nold, F.C. 1975. “A Modified Logit Model.” Review of Economics and Statistics 57(1): 255–257.Google Scholar
Bastardi, A., and Shafir, E. 1998. “On the Pursuit and Misuse of Useless Information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75(1): 19–32.Google Scholar
Binswanger, H.P. 1980. “Attitudes toward Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 62(2): 395–407.Google Scholar
Broniarczyk, S.M., and Gershoff, A.D. 2003. “The Reciprocal Effects of Brand Equity and Trivial Attributes.” Journal of Marketing Research 40(2): 161–175.Google Scholar
Brown, C.L., and Carpenter, G.S. 2000. “Why Is the Trivial Important? A Reasons-Based Account for the Effects of Trivial Attributes on Choice.” Journal of Consumer Research 26(March): 372–385.Google Scholar
Camerer, C.F., and Hogarth, R.M. 1999. “The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework.” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 19(1/3): 7–42.Google Scholar
Carpenter, G.S., Glazer, R., and Nakamoto, K. 1994. “Meaningful Brands from Meaningless Differentiation: The Dependence on Irrelevant Attributes.” Journal of Marketing Research 31 (August): 339–350.Google Scholar
Cunha, M. Jr., Janiszewski, C., and Laran, J. 2008. “Protection of Prior Learning in Complex Consumer Learning Environments.” Journal of Consumer Research 34(6): 850–864.Google Scholar
Domencich, T., and McFadden, D. 1975. Urban Travel Demand: A Behavioral Analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Fischer, G.W., Carmon, Z., Ariely, D., and Zauerbam, G. 1999. “Goal-based Construction of Preference: Task Goals and the Prominence Effect.” Management Science 45(6): 1057–1075.Google Scholar
Friedman, D. 1998. “Monty Hall's Three Doors: Construction and Deconstruction of a Choice Anomaly.” American Economic Review 88(4): 933–946.Google Scholar
Goldstein, W.M., and Busemeyer, J. 1992. “The Effect of ‘Irrelevant’ Variables on Decision Making: Criterion Shifts in Preferential Choice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 52(3): 425–454.Google Scholar
Greene, W.H. 2003. Econometric Analysis (5th edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Grether, D.M., and Plott, C.R. 1979. “Economic Theory of Choice and the Preference Reversal Phenomenon.” American Economic Review 69(3): 623–638.Google Scholar
Huber, P.J. 1967. “The Behavior of Maximum Likelihood Estimates under Non-Standard Conditions.” In Neuman, J., ed., Proceedings of the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability (Volume 1). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, D. 2006. Agricultural Markets and Prices. New York: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
Hutchison, W., and Alba, J.W. 1991. “Ignoring Irrelevant Information: Situational Determinants of Consumer Learning.” Journal of Consumer Research 18(2): 325–345.Google Scholar
Kim, S.Y., Nayga, R.M. Jr., and Capps, O. Jr. 2001. “Health Knowledge and Consumer Use of Nutritional Labels: The Issue Revisited.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 30(1): 10–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, J.A., and Shogren, J.F. 1998. “The Deadweight Loss of Christmas: Comment.” American Economic Review 88(5): 1350–1355.Google Scholar
Loken, B. 2006. “Consumer Psychology: Categorization, Inferences, Affect, and Persuasion.” Annual Review of Psychology 57(1): 453–485.Google Scholar
Meyvis, T., and Janiszewski, C. 2002. “Consumers’ Beliefs about Product Benefits: The Effect of Obviously Irrelevant Product Information.” Journal of Consumer Research 28(4): 618–635.Google Scholar
Nayga, R.M. Jr. 2000. “Nutrition Knowledge, Gender, and Food Label Use.” Journal of Consumer Affairs 34(1): 97–112.Google Scholar
Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., and O’Curry, S. 1994. “Experimental Evidence on the Negative Effect of Product Features and Sales Promotions on Brand Choice.” Marketing Science 13(1): 23–40.Google Scholar
Simonson, I., Nowlis, S.M., and Simonson, Y. 1993. “The Effect of Irrelevant Preference Arguments on Consumer Choice.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 2(2): 287–306.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P.E., and Boettger, R. 1989. “Accountability: A Social Magnifier of the Dilution Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(3): 388–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomek, W.G., and Robinson, K.L. 2003. Agricultural Product Prices. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. 1969. “Intransitivity of Preferences.” Psychological Review 76(1): 31–48.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211(4481): 453–458.Google Scholar
Tversky, A., Sattah, S., and Slovic, P. 1988. “Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice.” Psychological Review 95(3): 371–384.Google Scholar
van Osselaer, S.M.J., Alba, J.W., and Manchanda, P. 2004. “Irrelevant Information and Mediated Intertemporal Choice.” Journal of Consumer Psychology 14(3): 257–270.Google Scholar
Winchester, M., Romaniuk, J., and Bogomolova, S. 2005. “Positive and Negative Brand Beliefs and Brand Defection/Uptake.” European Journal of Marketing 42(5/6): 553–570.Google Scholar
Zeratsky, K. 2007. “Canola Oil: Is It Harmful to Your Health?” Available at http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/canola-oil/AN01281 (accessed August 21, 2007).Google Scholar