influence of consumer’s standing point on final product choice
TRANSCRIPT
Influence of Consumer’s standing point on final
product choice Thesis
Nino Zavrashvili MSc Management, Economics and Consumer Studies
MSc Thesis Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Specialization
(MCB 80433)
Registration Number: 860704-984-100
Supervisors: Dr. Erica Van Herpen (Wageningen University,
Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group)
Dr. Ynte Van Dam (Wageningen University,
Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Group)
1
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who helped me to complete my thesis.
First and foremost, my utmost gratitude to my supervisors Dr Erica Van Herpen and Dr Ynte
Van Dam, for useful feedback and advices, for being patient and very helpful with handling
my questions and ideas, for giving me the right direction to hurdle all the obstacles in
completion research work.
Also I would like to thank to Mrs Leanne Loijens, who helped me with the program observer
XT 8.0 that I used for my data analysis.
My biggest thankfulness to the NUFFIC Fellowship program (NFP), who gave me an
opportunity to study in Wageningen University and have unforgettable two years in
Netherlands.
I would like to thank to my friends as well, who helped me during my experiment a lot to
finish it on time. To my friends at home, who always believed in me and are waiting for me
to go back home.
Last, I would like to thank to my mom, for supporting me through all these time.
Kind Regards,
Nino Zavrashvili
2
Table of Contents
Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ 1
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... 4
List of Pictures: ................................................................................................................. 4
List of Tables: .................................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 6
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Problem selection and problem background .......................................................................... 7
1.2 Problem Statement ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Objective of the Research ........................................................................................................... 10
1.4 Research questions: .................................................................................................................... 10
1.4.1. General Research Question ................................................................................................. 10
Sub Research Question .................................................................................................................. 10
1.5. Practical Relevance ..................................................................................................................... 11
1.6. Academic Relevance ................................................................................................................... 11
1.7. Structure of report ..................................................................................................................... 11
2. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................ 12
2.1 In-Store strategies of Retailers .................................................................................................... 12
2.2. Studies conducted on horizontal positioning ............................................................................. 14
2.3 Compromise effect ...................................................................................................................... 16
2.4. How people choose standing locations in front of shelves ................................................... 17
2.5. Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................................... 20
3. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 21
3.1. Participants ................................................................................................................................. 21
3.2. Research Design ......................................................................................................................... 21
3.3. Procedure of the Experiment ..................................................................................................... 23
3.4 Pre-test of the experiment .......................................................................................................... 25
3.5 Questionnaire design and measurement .................................................................................... 26
3.5.1 Product choice ............................................................................................................... 26
3.5.2 Product Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 27
3
3.5.3 Standing Position ........................................................................................................... 27
3.5.4 Coding Variables ............................................................................................................ 28
4.0 Results ...................................................................................................................... 30
4.1 Questionnaire results .................................................................................................................. 30
4.1.1 Stated reason for wine choice .............................................................................................. 30
4.1.2. Evaluation of chosen wine................................................................................................... 31
4.1.3. Realism of the setting .......................................................................................................... 33
4.2 Results from Observer XT ............................................................................................................ 34
4.3 Testing the hypotheses ............................................................................................................... 37
5. Discussion and Conclusion ........................................................................................... 42
5.1 Limitations and recommendations for further research ............................................................. 44
References: ..................................................................................................................... 45
Appendices: .................................................................................................................... 48
I. Questionnaire: ........................................................................................................................... 48
II. Consent Form ............................................................................................................................ 52
III. Coding Variables .................................................................................................................... 53
IV. Videos extracted from study ................................................................................................. 54
V. Schema of the wine shelf .......................................................................................................... 55
4
List of Figures
Figure1. Conceptual framework-------------------------------------------------------------------------18
Figure2. 2x2 Factorial Design ----------------------------------------------------------------------------21
Figure3. Elements of 2x2 Factorial Design------------------------------------------------------------ 22
Figure4. Condition 1 of factorial design -------------------------------------------------------------- 23
Figure5. Condition 2 of factorial design ------------------------------------------------------------- -23
Figure6. Condition 3 of factorial design ------------------------------------------------ -------------23
Figure7. Condition 4 of factorial design---------------------------------------------------------------23
List of Pictures:
Picture1. Trajectory Measurement by Tiles----------------------------------------------------------- 25
Picture2. Analysing videos in Observer XT 8.0-------------------------------------------------------- 26
5
List of Tables:
Table1. Wine choosing criteria----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28
Table2. Number of chosen wines---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------29
Table3.Participants’ feelings towards chosen wine (Mead and Standard Deviation) ---------------------30
Table4. Results of reliability analyses testing feelings, involvement, knowledge in organic and normal
wines--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------31
Table5.Time spent for choosing wine within two tasks----------------------------------------------------------- 33
Table6. Time spent in front of wine shelf within two tasks (mean and standard deviation)-------------35
Table7. Independent T-test results for testing time spent in front of wine shelf within each task-----35
Table8. Time spent in front of total shelf within two tasks (mean and standard deviation) ------------36
Table9. Independent T-test results for testing time spent in front of total shelf for each task---------36
Table10. Frequency table showing number of wines chosen from wine shelf based on standing point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------37
Table11. Chi-square test table ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------37
Table12. Frequency table showing number of wines chosen from wine shelf based on standing point
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------38
Table13. Chi-square test table------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------39
Table14. Variables for recoded chosen wine ----------------------------------------------------------------------39
Table15. Descriptive statistics showing the number of chosen wine based on standing position------40
Table16. Analysis of variance measuring significance of choosing middle product -----------------------40
Table17.Frequency table showing (Mean and standard deviation) values for chosen wines based on
standing most of the time------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------41
Table18. Analysis of variance testing between-subjects effects or chosen wine and standing most
time variables --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------41
6
Abstract
Nowadays retailing market is already saturated. In supermarkets, shelves are full with
multitude of products. One of the main challenges retailers are facing is to allocate
efficiently products on the shelves. By using horizontal positioning, during the experiment
different brands of products from one product category were placed on the shelves. Based
on the literature, horizontal positioning is unconscious for consumers and researchers still
are not aware of effectiveness of central or edge positions on the shelves. So by changing
products central position shouldn’t have an effect on product choice, because consumer’s
standing position towards the shelf makes product central towards the consumer. With 2X2
fractional factorial design, four different conditions had been applied, in order to measure
how consumer’s standing position would have changed towards the shelf and
correspondingly influence on final product choice.
The main finding of the thesis shows influence of standing position on final product choice
when chosen product was positioned in front of them, or when the product was noticed
from the first time and stimulating standing position.
Key words: Standing position, horizontal positioning, final product choice, fractional factorial
design
7
1. Introduction
The first chapter of the thesis defines an existing problem in merchandising and retailing
and formulates a general research question with two sub questions to find the solution for
them through the research. At the end of the chapter some practical and academic
relevance of the research is brought.
1.1 Problem selection and problem background
Demand for shelf space at retail outlets is constantly increasing, which forms scarcity
for the shelves (Lusch, Dunne and Gebhardt, 1993). As Corstjens and Corstjens (1995)
describe in their influential book ‘Store Wars’, the current national brand manufacturers
over the past decade are in a continuous battle for shelf and mind-spaces at the retailers.
Retailers want to maximise their shelf space in the supermarket, while manufacturers are
searching for ways to increase their sales within brands. (Corstjens and Costjens, 1995) As
the result, retailers come up with new methods that can strongly influence people’s buying
habits and cause them to purchase more (Lusch, Dunne and Gebhardt, 1993). Vertical or
horizontal positioning of products on shelves gives consumers impression about product’s
quality and price information. Vertical positioning is usually applied by allocating products
according to price and quality on top-bottom with higher priced products located on the top
shelves, whereas horizontal positioning refers to the left-right placement of the products,
whereby higher priced products are usually positioned on the right-hand side. Products
positioned in the centre are perceived as moderate price and quality for consumers and
associates with the middle ground between price-quality extremes. (Valenzuela et. al. 2009)
Getting insights from Valenzuela and Raghubir (2009), consumers are generally
aware of influences of verticality; they understand that products are placed on the shelves
according to high price and quality attributes from top to bottom. On the other hand,
consumers are not yet aware of the horizontality effect, as it is unconscious for them. They
are still unaware of its influence towards the product choice. Hence, the impact of vertically
positioned goods on their choice is higher, than in case of horizontally positioned products,
8
as it can increase product sales by 40%, while the horizontal positioning only by 15%.
(Valenzuela and Raghubir, 2009; Chandon et al. 2008)
Prior studies on product placement showed that the spatial product position
influences consumer’s choice and inferences about price and quality, attention across
brands (Simonson and Winer, 1992), and perceived product attractiveness and popularity
(Valenzuela and Raghubir, 2009). According to Folwell and Moberg (1993), products that are
placed at eye and hand-level have a higher probability to be chosen. The same can be said
about central positioning. ‘’Products in the centre of horizontal array are more likely to be
chosen, because they are perceived to be the most popular” (Valenzuela and Raghubir,
2009; Valenzuela and Raghubir, 2006).
The reasons for popularity of centre position can be the inferences for central
positioning, or simply salience that draws more attention compared to edge positions. The
purpose for higher awareness is provoked by the impression that in the supermarkets
middle shelves creates the perception for product freshness (Christenfeld, 1995). The paper
by Christenfeld (1995) indicated that, for 37 of the 40 products, shoppers showed a
preference for selecting the items from middle rows, and avoiding the items in either the
first or the last row. Correspondingly when the products are identical, people prefer to
choose from the centre because they find them new compared to the edge products.
Another possible reason for choosing the centre is that it allows least thinking (Christenfeld,
1995). Based on two systems of thinking, consumers make purchase decisions either based
on their emotions or cognitions. The literature shows that when consumers find schema-
consistent information they tend to use simple heuristics or prior beliefs instead of engaging
in more analytical processing (Sujan et al. 1986). Surveys about supermarket shopping
behaviour have found that most consumers make their choices very quickly after minimal
search and price comparison (Dickson and Sawyer, 1999). Correspondingly, people choosing
product from the centre are tending to perceive them fresher and get their decisions easily
without putting much effort on thinking.
As Chandon et al. (2008) states in his article, “Positioning brands near to the centre
of the shelf (vs. on its extreme ends) improves both attention and evaluation”, because
according to horizontal positioning products are placed left to right and centre position is
perceived as the middle ground according to price and quality, “but positioning them on the
middle shelves (vs. top and bottom) helps attention but not evaluation, because consumers
9
believe that the best products are places on the top shelves” (Chandon et al. 2008), as
defined by Valenzuela and Raghubir (2009) in their research as well. Therefore people
selecting from the middle option rely on simple cues like attractiveness and they pay
attention on visual characteristics. Chandon et al. (2008) stated that changing the position of
the brand on the shelf had a strong effect on attention, but not always on evaluation.
Positioning them to the left or right-hand side of the shelf made no difference on either
attention or evaluation in contrast to the horizontal centre of the shelf.
Consumer’s choice can be defined by other factors as well, for example by the spot
where consumer is standing, because, simultaneously, it will change the centrality of the
shelf, by changing consumers’ standing position. Based on above mentioned statement it
can be argued that the influence of consumers’ position at the time of purchase towards the
product has a strong influence on their final choice. This means that it doesn’t matter how
products are positioned, but it mostly matters where the consumer is standing at the point
of purchase, because it makes the shelf central towards the person. Prior research, however,
has not examined this but instead experimental studies so far have examined situations in
which research participants stand in the central position.
The problem facing the central positioning is that it may not always be effective,
because product centrality may change based on the position of consumer towards the shelf
or product. As has been mentioned above, correspondingly, attractiveness and effectiveness
of the central positioning may be shifted according to the standing position of the consumer.
Despite the potential importance of consumers’ standing point, this has not yet received
attention in prior studies.
With this research we want to test if there is an effect on product choice depending
on the consumers standing point. This means that we might conclude that consumers will be
choosing the spot, from where they could equally distribute their gaze to the shelves and
make their purchase decision. For our research we will use wine product category. Our
target product will be organic wine and we will observe how peoples standing position will
change towards target product. The above stated explanation is only valid assuming that the
place where the consumer is standing, while searching for appropriate product, has an
influence on the position from where the product is chosen.
10
1.2 Problem Statement
Existing high competition on the retail market seeks for new and effective ways to
attract consumer’s attention. The problem that merchandisers and retailers are facing is to
understand that central position is not always effective, as it can be changed according to
the consumer’s location towards the shelf. So, product centrality can be moved to the edge
positions and still be effective and attractive for the consumer by considering the standing
point of the person.
1.3 Objective of the Research
The aim of this research is to find out the influence of the location, where consumer
is standing on the purchase decision that stimulates consumers to choose products located
on the shelves based on the standing point.
On the other hand new opportunities will help retailers and merchandisers
effectively position their products compared to the competitors. In this case, point of
centrality on the shelf, according to the consumer’s standing point, can be the new cue,
which can influence the consumer’s purchase decision.
1.4 Research questions:
1.4.1. General Research Question
Does consumer’s standing point in relation to the product centrality in the product
category influence consumer’s final product choice?
Sub Research Question
To be able to answer the general research question two sub research questions have
been formulated
Does the consumer’s standing point determine the choice of the product?
Does the product centrality in the category determine the consumer’s choice?
11
1.5. Practical Relevance
The study will help both retailers and merchandisers effectively position their
products on the shelves and influence on consumers’ sub-consciousness and stimulate
choosing their products amongst competitors. The research will highlight points how
standing position of consumer may influence on their final product choice and this
knowledge will help retailers and merchandisers to take into consideration while positioning
products on the shelves.
1.6. Academic Relevance
The research will help fulfilling the existing knowledge gap in the literature about the
influence of consumer’s standing position on purchase decision. It will help to enrich scant
sources on how consumer’s standing position relates to the centrality of a product on the
shelf.
1.7. Structure of report
This research paper is divided in five parts. In the first chapter, an introduction to the
research problem is presented. Chapter 2 covers the theoretical and conceptual frameworks
with relevant sources and concepts. Chapter 3 talks about pre-test results of an experiment.
Chapter 4 summaries the methodology used during the research. Chapter 5 gives data
description and demonstrates the results. Finally, chapter 6 covers the conclusions and
discussion part of this research and gives some recommendations.
12
2. Theoretical Framework
This section integrates relevant literature about retailers in-store strategies, consumers’
choice behaviour and horizontal positioning, and later some literature about how people
choose the standing position in front of the shelves that helps providing a conceptual
framework and a set of testable hypotheses.
2.1 In-Store strategies of Retailers
Shelf space is one of the most important resources to attract more consumers in
logistic decisions (Yang and Chen, 1999). Nowadays, the number of available brands has
sharply increased. About 3000 new lines are launched each year (Corstjens, 1995). Constant
struggle for shelf space in supermarkets results in a battle between manufacturers and
retailers, as supermarket executives seek for maximising total shelf space within
supermarkets, while manufacturers try to maximise sales of their brands (Dreze et al. 1994).
“Every expert agrees that we are now dangerously over-retailed: too much is for sale,
through too many outlets” (Paco Underhill, 1999:31). Indeed, one of the many challenges
facing retailers is how to properly allocate shelf space to the multitude of products they sell.
A typical large supermarket carries more than 45,000 different items or stocking keeping
units on an everyday basis (Paco Underhill, 1999:31). An inappropriate location or an under-
allocation of space might kill a product before it achieves full sales potential. And retailers
work hard to maximize return on their investment as allocating too many facings is a waste,
while allocating too few will result in lost sales due to out of stocks. (Dreze et.al., 1994)
The retailing market has already saturated. In United States retailers aren’t opening
stores to serve new markets anymore. They are opening stores to try to steal someone else’s
customers. (Paco Underhill, 1999:31) Findings show that while consumers assign the central
position to the most popular product, retailers do not place the highest market share brand
in that position. These findings illustrate how consumers' beliefs about shelf space layouts
are not always reflected in the real marketplace (Valenzuela et al. 2012). In order to find
efficient ways to retain customers and attract them, retailers need to learn how consumers
13
shop, what are their preferences that attract their attention and use them effectively to
cajole them.
Research by Valenzuela et al. (2012) was conducted to explore how expectations of
actual marketplace meet the reality about what optimal shelf space layout should look like.
It was found, that there is a dissonance between what consumers assume is the typical
placement for the most popular brand and retailers' layouts.
Consumer’s preferences regarding ideal shelf space layouts are not well-matched in
reality. Valenzuela and Raghubir (2009) show that consumers expect retailers to place the
most popular item in the middle of an array, leading to choosing the central item, when their
goals are to purchase the most popular item. In three of the four categories studied, the
research showed that the most popular brand is not placed in the middle of the display.
Therefore it is not valid to argue that in horizontal positioning retailers order products left to
right.
In retailing industry, categorization process has been found to facilitate
comprehension and assimilation of product information to influence product judgments and
choice among considered products (Felcher et. al 2001). Valenzuela et al. (2012) based on
their research admitted, that consumers expect retailers to order product alternatives using
meaningful criteria such as price, popularity, and promotional status. The research results
showed that consumers share schemas that the premium brand is placed on the top, the
cheapest brand on the bottom, the most popular brand in the centre, products on
promotion at the horizontal extremes, and store brands next to promoted.
With the same conclusion came up Wright, (2002) by stating that consumers have
picture in mind about the meaning of a product's physical position in the marketplace.
Inman, McAlister, and Hoyer (1990) find that consumers believe that products placed at the
end of the aisle are discounted, even when they are not, suggesting that consumers use aisle
promotions as an alternative for price cuts.
The above mentioned arguments give us the reason of getting deep into studies
about horizontal positioning in order to learn how people understand an influence of its
positioning.
14
2.2. Studies conducted on horizontal positioning
Few studies had been conducted to learn the effects and influence of the horizontal
positioning on consumers choice.
In their research about shelf management and space elasticity Dreze et al. (1994)
found out, that product positions were an important factor in increasing sales. Positions had
been tested on both horizontal and vertical axes. Although there was no consensus about
the best position on the horizontal axes, categories were split between centre of the aisle or
the edges as being the best location. It has explained with the study conducted by
Valenzuela and Raghubir first in 2009 and later in 2012. Horizontal positioning refers to
consumers placing higher priced products on the right-side and lower priced products on the
left-side, “although they don’t explicitly state a right-left ordering rules as belief and there is
no evidence for right-left orderings in the marketplace either”(Valenzuela 2012). Valenzuela
and Raghubir (2009, 2012) analysed the implications for horizontal positioning and
concluded that consumers are not consciously aware of the influence of horizontal ordering
and are unable to control it.
In their research Chandon et al. (2008) tried to search for the effect between number
and position of shelf facings on attention and evaluation at the point of purchase and they
came up with further conclusions. According to the study, it showed that positioning the
product left-right side of horizontally positioned shelf made no change on evaluation or
attention, because of consumer’s unconsciousness, compared to horizontal centre, as
consumers had ability of product evaluation.
Another option suggested by Valenzuela and Raghubir (2006) about centrality is
heuristic: people believe centre positions are better, as people in the centre are paid more
attention. If consumers hold specific beliefs about the meaning of position in shelf space
layouts, they may use these heuristics to make inferences about products based on their
positions (McArthur and Post, 1977).
The research, conducted by Chung et al. (2007) was generated in order to determine
preferred product location for differing store types. They used “location-specific model
simulations” (Chung et. al, 2007) to examine the relative importance of product placed
horizontally and vertically. The study on milk products had been conducted in both
convenience store and supermarket. It showed that through the horizontal level, products
15
located in the centre were preferred in the smaller dairy cases in convenience stores,
whereas preferred product location in the supermarket was mostly the right edge. So, it
means that one of the factors influencing horizontal positioning is length of the shelf,
because it effects on product choice.
As already has been mentioned in the article by Shaw et. Al. (2000) people mostly
prefer middle items rather than the extremes. Christenfeld (1995) also cited in his paper that
consumers, while choosing identical products, reliably preferred items positioned in the
middle of the shelf. As Valenzuela and Raghubir (2009:9) mentioned in the article,
“Horizontal integration involves merger of products that are at the same stage of
production”, it means that horizontal differentiation is not related to price and/or quality
attributes, but it is expressed in placing different brands, but same type of products, on one
shelf line in order to maximise market share.
Overall, above mentioned studies showed that the influence of horizontal positioning
is unconscious for the consumer and still by the researches it is difficult to ascertain the
superlative position of horizontal axis, as it depends on the factors like size of the shelf and
same platform of production level.
It is relevant to explain further, separately from horizontal positioning, compromise
effect in relation to product choice, which is showing the preference for middle options. The
relevance of compromise effect, to be included in literature analysis, is caused by important
comparisons that are shown between attributes of choice sets. Based on attribute
comparisons consumers evaluate preferences between choice sets and make final decision.
16
2.3 Compromise effect
According to literature, the compromise effect denotes the finding that brands gain,
share when they become the intermediate, rather than an extreme option in a choice set
(Simonson 1989). In other words, “when three alternatives are presented, the middle
alternative is chosen more often, than when it is paired with only one other alternative”
(Wernerfelt 1995:627). In the research done by Simonson (1989) about “Choice Based on
Reasons”, “people tend to increase probability of choosing an alternative product, when it
becomes a compromise or middle alternative, if there is no superior relationship“ (Shaw,
2000). In the paper is argued that “if a consumer is uncertain about preference of others,
then the reasonable solution would be to choose the middle alternative, which is likely to be
the safest choice with smallest maximum error” (Simonson, 1989). So it means that people
often try to escape extreme choice decisions by finding average alternative to feel
themselves in equal condition towards the others.
As Sheng et al. (2005) stated a compromise choice can reduce the conflict, by arguing
that it combines attributes from each alternative option by leaving one attribute aside.
Mostly compromise option is chosen by the consumers when they have not enough
information or are less familiar about a product category and if it is evaluated in a triple or a
choice set with even more options. This action in the compromise-effect decision context
can be justified as a consumer makes a decision to maximize the expected gain that is equal
to minimizing the expected loss (Sheng et al. 2005).
Simonson (1989) emphasizes that a consumer tends to choose the compromise
alternative as need and reason for being favourably evaluated by others. Correspondingly
we suppose that consumers will choose middle position in the shelf in order to avoid any
kind of conflict or non-satisfaction.
Product’s middle position on the shelf is expressed by product centrality in the
category that combines the shelf with the same goods across different brands. Central
position gets the most attention from the consumers, when they aren’t sure about their
decision, and they commonly choose between alternatives that belong to the same product
category they are searching for. Based on it has been formulated further hypothesis:
H1: Products positioned in the middle of the category have the higher probability to be
chosen by the consumer.
17
2.4. How people choose standing locations in front of shelves
One of the most important elements of shopping is to define how people move, how
they walk. In accordance, the smart store is designed based on how we walk and where we
look (Underhill, 1999:79-80). Supermarkets are planned looking at trajectories people
choose while shopping and later bringing knowledge in building a new design of shops. So it
needs to be taken into consideration habits of movement of individuals and take advantage
out of them.
Many criterion need to be foreseen while building the store. The criterion of defining
a good store is to attract consumer from the first moment they enter the store. It has been
studied already by researchers, that only 45 percent of shoppers use a shopping list, they are
making main purchase decisions as they walk through supermarket aisles (Somerson
2009:102). Accordingly, merchandisers try to attract the field of vision of an individual in a
way that invites consideration. How people walk determines to a great extent what they will
see, but also where their eyes naturally go. If the store’s flow is good, if it offers no obstacles
or blind spots, then people will find their way to their required product easily (Underhill,
1999:81).
There is one more fact that should be measured while building aisle: how people
move in retail environments: ‘they inevitably walk toward right’ (Underhill, 1999:77). So they
start entering the store from the right side of entrance. Correspondingly cashier desks are
located on the left side of the store that makes consumers to walk through the whole store,
to make a circle, in order to get to cashier desk. With the same conclusion came up
Somerson (2009:76), while adding to this consideration that the shoppers enter from the
right side of the store, but then the dominant traffic appears around its perimeter, in a
counter clockwise rotation pattern, which dominates shopper’s movement in the store.
As most people are right-handed it is easier to grab product to the right of where a
person stands, rather than with the left hand. Accordingly shelves can be easily
accommodated the way people approach them (Underhill, 1999:76-77). This fact explains
the findings of Raghubir and Valenzuela (2009) that right hand-side location is preferable for
people than left-hand sided in case they are buying premium brand, or selecting among
unfamiliar products. This is how above mentioned counter clockwise direction can be
18
explained: a right handed person, while carrying the shopping cart, is pushing it with the
right hand, giving the cart a direction to turn left (Somerson, 2009:76).
While going to supermarkets, people often shop from multiple product categories in
one shopping trip, which is known as one-stop shopping expression. While walking through
the aisles, consumers find product(s) that they are searching for. They choose appropriate
standing point to equally distribute gaze on single or multiple product categories positioned
on the shelves to make a product choice. Single product category combines the products,
with the same product characteristics, between different brands, whereas multiple product
categories involve different type of products and brands positioned across the total shelf.
Consumers’ preferences toward the product can be influenced by simple cue, like the
standing point. As has been discussed in literature analysis, one of the factors people choose
standing point is based on visual attention that comes from shelves and grasps notice. It’s
also very important criterion to have a natural flow of vision in space, easily to notice
searching object. As has been mentioned above, middle position on the shelf is mostly
better perceived by the consumer. Better perception of the product determines consumers’
final product choice among other products and brands.
Research conducted by Broere et al. (1999) suggests that much depends on the
entrance point of the shelf. In line with primacy effect, items encountered earlier appear
more likely to be chosen. Moreover, products relative shelf position may affect its choice
probability, such that a placement near highly preferred items increases probability that
consumers will notice and select the product.
For our experiment we will use two product categories that are adjacent to each
other, so that participant could gaze on both product categories equally.
Analysing the literature and terms about how people choose standing position in
front of shelves gives an opportunity to formulate the next hypotheses:
H2: For people, selecting a product from one category, the standing position is
different compared to people, selecting a product from two adjacent categories.
According to literature, middle position is the most preferred place on the shelf by
the consumers, because it can be easily noticed and evaluated by consumer compared to
other products located on the edges. Correspondingly in order to test our assumption, had
been formulated next hypothesis that gives interaction between standing point, product
19
centrality in the category and final product choice. The place where consumers are standing
makes the product central towards them and better notice causes final product choice.
H3: Probability of choosing a middle product, when the person is standing in the
middle of the shelf is higher, rather than person standing at the edge of the shelf.
As we defined in the previous sub-chapter, product centrality represents the middle
position on the shelf. Central position, expressed by the standing point, makes products
placed in the middle towards the person, which creates consumer’s final product choice.
Therefore we can formulate fourth hypothesis for further testing:
H4: Consumer’s standing position increases the probability of the product to be
chosen, located in front of the consumer rather than located on right/left sides.
Above mentioned literature analysis and hypotheses gives the opportunity to build a
conceptual framework based on variables used in hypotheses.
20
2.5. Conceptual Framework
Conceptual framework had been built based on the hypotheses and theories
developed in theoretical framework. The model shows the relationship between one
independent variable (single /multiple product choice) and three intervening variables,
(Product centrality in the category, consumer’s standing point and amount of time spent on
each position) and how they influence on the dependent variable of the model, consumer’s
final product choice.
Figure1. Conceptual framework
Consumer’s
Standing Point
Final product
Choice
Product Centrality in
the Category
H2
H1
H3
H4
Single/multiple
product category
21
3. Methodology
This chapter provides relevant information about the methodology. After the end of this
chapter it will be cleared out how the research method had been chosen, study design and
questionnaire composed, pre-test of an experiment conducted and later measurement
process directed.
3.1. Participants
The target group for an experiment were 125 students and 20 non-students from
Wageningen University from 22 nationalities and 34 different studies. The age range of
participants varied from 18 to 40 years (Mean=23.57; SD=3.96).
The information about research was spread through fliers in Leeuwenborch and emails
to the participants. The University database currently holds approximately 1200 students
from the Wageningen University and they were sent an e-mail with an invite to participate in
this study.
3.2. Research Design
An experiment took place in Leeuwenborch experimental room, one of the campuses
of Wageningen University, which is fully equipped and satisfies requirements for conducting
this research. Students had to make a choice of buying products from either one or two
categories: Category A - Wine and Category B - cookies. Our target product in this case was
wine; it means that we used to observe how standing position of the participant changed
towards the wine shelf, when we asked to choose either from wine shelf or from both
shelves at the same time. Participants were asked to read consent form in advance to get
some information about the study and that they would be observed by the camera during
the experiment.
Consumers were ensured with general information about products like price, grape
variety, taste, country of origin and year of grapes harvested, which had been investigated to
be important extrinsic cues while consumers were choosing wine, rather than packaging and
22
label design (Thomas and Pickering, 2003). The reason for choosing these products were
existence of mentioned products in stock for conducting an experiment and also was taken
into consideration the following statements:
Consumers shouldn’t had to have a strong preference toward chosen products
Availability of various packages and brands to have a full shelf
Appropriateness for students to buy the product
For our research was chosen Factorial Experimental Design. The purpose for choosing
it, is simultaneously to examine the direct effects of a number of independent variables and
to see how various combinations of characteristics work together to produce an effect (De
Vaus 2001). We used simplest version of this design called 2 X 2 factorial design. In the
model we have two independent variables and one dependent variable. Our dependent
variable is product choice. One independent variable is single/multiple category choice X1
(single or multiple product categories chosen from the shelf) and another independent
variable is position in category X2 (side and central) (figure 2).
Factorial design helps to form experimental groups for each possible combination of
two independent variables. In this case formed groups are given in the figure 2.
Figure2. 2 X 2 factorial design
Single/multiple
product
category
(X1)
Position in category (X2)
Organic middle & Normal on
side(a)
(b) Normal middle & Organic
on side
Single product
category (a)
X1a-x2a X1a-x2b
Multiple product
categories(b)
X1b-x2a X1b-x2b
23
Figure3. Elements of a 2 X 2 factorial design
In our case, which is shown in figure 3, column intervention explains combinations of
randomly selected group of organic and normal wines. For each of these groups had been
introduced treatment of central or side product positioning in the category with interaction
of cookies or no-cookies chosen from shelf. Half of the organic wines were randomly
assigned to the central position in the category and half of organic wines to the side position
in the category. The same was applied to the normal wines.
3.3. Procedure of the Experiment
Those participants, who will take part in the experiment, will be asked to choose products
from shelves, either within one product category or two categories. An experiment will be
run by factorial design and consequently participants have to choose product/products from
four different conditions. To explain in more details, after every five participants condition
Methods for allocation to
groups
Interventions
(X1 and X2)
Test
Random allocation
X1a X2a
Organic middle & Normal on
side- single prod cat.
Measure Product choice
(y)
Random allocation
X1a x2b
Normal middle & Organic
on side- single prod. Cat.
Measure Product
choice(y)
Random allocation
X1b x2a
Organic middle & Normal on
side-multiple prod. Cat.
Measure Product
choice(y)
Random allocation
X1b x2b
Normal middle & Organic
on side- multiple prod. Cat.
Measure Product
choice(y)
24
will be changing in order to make an experiment more reliable. Below are given the figures
(#4-7) illustrating the designs of an experiment.
On Figure 4 is illustrated the condition, when consumers have to choose product
from wine category. We presume that participants from first condition will choose a central
position of the shelf to look through the wines, where we will allocate an organic wine.
Standing point is signed by red dot on the figure. So we assume they will use compromise
effect while evaluating alternatives and will choose middle option in order to feel safe in
their choice.
Figure 5 shows the condition where organic wine is shifted on the right side of the
shelf. We presume that consumer’s standing point will still stay in front of middle shelf in
case of choosing from one category.
Cookies Wine Cookies Wine
Figure4. Condition #1 (X1a-X2a) Figure5. Condition #2 (X1a-X2b)
Figure 6 and 7 illustrates the conditions, where consumers have to choose products
from two product categories (cookies and wine). Our target product will be normal wine. So
we suppose participants from conditions 3 and 4 will stand in the middle of the total shelf, as
it is shown on the picture. It means that centrality of shelf changes, as participant will
change standing point toward shelf.
Cookies Wine Cookies wine
Figure 6. Condition #3 (X1b-X2a) Figure7. Condition #4 (X1b-X2b)
N
orm
al w
ine
Org
anic
win
e
No
rmal
win
e
Org
anic W
ine
25
Considering all these cases will give more insights about how changing products on
the shelf can influence of product choice. Consumers’ standing point will be measured by
carpets attached on the floor which are 50cm quadratic shape. We will use 6 lines of carpets
of different colours to easily differentiate participant’s standing position towards shelf.
After making choice they will be asked to fill in short questionnaire. Procedure will be
recorded by the camera that will give us opportunity to observe how consumers might be
acting in real life while shopping.
To encourage students participate in the experiment will be given incentive, an ice-
cream, to stimulate them and express gratitude for their contribution.
Aim of the empirical study is to test the above mentioned hypotheses. The reason for
choosing this method is to gain knowledge by direct observations on participants during the
experiment.
3.4 Pre-test of the experiment
Pre-test of an experiment took place three weeks before the real experiment, in order to
test flow of the process, if it would run as had been planned before.
In the consumer research room shelves were positioned the way to give an impression
of supermarket to the participants. On the floor was placed small carpets of different colours
to observe their movement and standing position toward the shelf.
For the pre-test had been tested two conditions x1a-x2b and x1b-x2b (as described in
procedure of experiment) by 15 students around. Participants were announced before
experiment that they would be recorded by the camera for the future analyses. Students
were asked to choose only wine, or wine and the cookies at the same time.
Objective of the pre-test was to understand if the manipulations, used during the
experiment, were effective. We wanted to test if single or multiple product choice would
influence on change of participant’s standing position towards the wine shelf.
During the experiments participants more or less used to stand in the middle of the
category while choosing product, but not always middle position used to influence on their
final product choice, as for some of them packaging or information about wine was decisive
factor for final choice.
26
Pre-test helped us to understand what details need to be improved for real
experiment. Before making the choice, participants were asking for what reason they had to
choose the product, which is very influential detail while making a purchase decision.
According to it, we decided to give them small story to read before making the product
choice that will make an experiment more close to reality.
3.5 Questionnaire design and measurement
For the questionnaire design was administered pencil-and-paper questionnaire. In
the introduction, students were informed that they were part of the research conducted for
master thesis and asked to read consent form, where was explained the procedure of an
experiment. In case of agreement, they could sign the form and participate in the
experiment (the form can be seen in appendix II). The primary advantage of this method is
the relative efficiency with which data can be collected (Botchen, 1999). The front page of
each questionnaire included short text that was telling the participant to choose wine, or
wine and cookies for special occasion.
Questionnaire was including open questions which were used in order to put strong
demands on subjects to list consequences and goals that are important for us to understand
consumers’ needs and wants (Pieters et al.; 1994).
3.5.1 Product choice
During the experiment participants had to enter special zone of the room, where product
shelves were located. The room was isolated by moving boards from the rest of the space.
After participants made their choice, they were asked to fill in the questionnaire. To measure
how participants perceive product’s quality, price and other attributes and constructs, had
been used seven-point likert scale. Questions were formulated based on Marketing Scale
Handbook (1998-2001) and article by Gil and Garcia (2001). Respondents were asked to
indicate on seven-point scale importance of each attributes. During the experiment we were
observing the product choice of the participant, more precisely from wine category. As
camera hindered the vision of the bottle, I used to note down which wine had been chosen
for further analyses.
27
3.5.2 Product Evaluation
To assess how participants used to evaluate chosen product, in the questionnaire was
added the questions about consumers’ preferences, while choosing the products: what were
the reasons for their choice, what was their impression about brands, how people evaluate
and think about price and quality of chosen product and etc.
3.5.3 Standing Position
The main goal of the experiment was to measure the trajectory of the consumer
standing point while choosing the product. To make a clear perception, had been used
different colours of carpets on the floor, which simplified vision of participant’s standing
position towards the shelf (Picture 1).
Difference between the relocation points of consumer, while choosing product either
from one category or from both, will give a proof that it matters for their final choice where
consumers are standing. The choosing process was recorded and used later for further data
analyses.
Picture1. Measurement of standing point by tiles
28
3.5.4 Coding Variables
To simplify analysing data, by the help of program Observer XT 8.0, recordings were coded
for analysing duration of their movements and standing positions towards the shelf
(Picture2).
Picture2. Analysing videos in Observer XT 8.0
During the experiment we were observing every movement and behaviour of participant
and as the result was coded 7 behaviours and 6 modifiers (tiles):
No participant in (time recorded before participant entered the room)
Walking (process while participant was moving towards the shelf)
Standing position (on which tile (out of six) participant was standing)
Modifiers :
1. Tile 1 (right side of wine shelf)
2. Tile 2 (middle place of wine shelf)
29
3. Tile3 (left side of wine shelf)
4. Tile 4 (right side of cookies shelf)
5. Tile 5 (middle place of cookies shelf)
6. Tile 6 (left side of cookies shelf)
Changing position (moving from one tile to another)
Start choosing wine (when they had to choose from two categories)
Stop choosing wine
Leaving (finishing experiment)
30
4.0 Results
This chapter gives results from questionnaire and tests for hypotheses, provides statistical
outcomes and analyses given effects.
4.1 Questionnaire results
During the study, 145 participants were recorded and the same number of questionnaires
filled in.
The questionnaire included open questions. In order to analyse given answers, they were
coded into the categories based on typical responses on the questions. As the result we got
ten coded variables, each variable combining answers with similar meanings on the
questions. (Coded variables - appendix III)
4.1.1 Stated reason for wine choice
In the questionnaire, participants were asked the reasons for their wine choice. Below given
table shows ten coded variables named by participants as an important factor while
choosing wine. After summarizing the data, it has revealed that mostly participants were
paying attention on attractiveness of the label (46), on low price and COO (41), flavour (33)
and organic characters of wine (35).
Table1. Wine choosing criteria
46 41 41
35 33
21 20 17 17 11
7 2
05
101520253035404550
Why did you choose this wine?
31
Aim of the research is to get both practical and academic relevance and find out more about
influence of consumer’s standing position on choice. Based on above mentioned, it would be
very efficient considering this information both for the retailers, to make price tags more
informative, and for the manufacturers, to create eye-catching and enlightening labels for
attracting more consumers.
But the interesting fact that should be mentioned is that none of the participants pointed
out that they chose that specific wine because it was positioned just in front of them, or
noticed first on the shelf. Everybody was listing the reasons of wine attributes and criteria
that cause their choice. So it means that people are unconscious about influence of their
standing position on their final choice.
4.1.2. Evaluation of chosen wine
Hereby should be noticed that majority of the participants, almost 86.5 % of them didn’t
know presented wines on the shelves, but it didn’t bother them (57%) at all to evaluate their
chosen wine appropriately, as the information tags positioned below the bottles was
noticeable for 79% of the participants and for 61% of them the price tags were useful in
making decision (M=3.04; SD=1.5).
As our target product was wine, we got interested if the respondents drink wine. The results
showed that on seven point scale, 48.5% of participants mentioned that they drink wine
more often, 40% less often and 11.5% noticed that they don’t drink wine at all. By asking this
question we wanted to know how deep participants are knowledgeable in wines, because
fewer participants know wine brands, more they can be manipulated by conditions.
Table2. Number of chosen wines
23
17 17
12
8 9
28
17 14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
AfricanTreasure
Big Ears Vistana Camarsac LavillePavilion
Marquisde
Balmont
Saintroche
Cono Sur Bordeux
32
Above given chart shows number of times participants chose each wine brand. So we
can see that most of the time was chosen brand “African Treasure” from the extreme left
corner of the shelf and organic wine “Saint Roche” (who’s position on the shelf was changing
based on conditions, sometimes it used to be standing in the middle, sometimes on the right
side, as it is shown now on the chart).
In order to make sure how far participants were familiar with organic wines, we
asked them if they noticed organic wines on the shelf during the experiment. 59.3% of
respondents said that they noticed organic bottles on the shelf. So it means that were
familiar how label of organic wine looks like on the bottle.
As it is an experiment, we expect that participants are more attentive in choosing
process. So to make sure that they acted as in the supermarket, we asked if they have ever
noticed organic wines in their local supermarkets. 57.9% of them mentioned that they have
noticed them. So above mentioned information confirms that at least half of the participants
are familiar with wines and organic wines in general.
Below given table (3) shows mean and standard deviation of participant’s evaluation
towards their chosen wine.
Table3. Mean and Standard Deviation of participants’ feelings towards chosen wine
Report
I think my
chosen wine is
poor-high
quality
I think my
chosen wine is
low-high price
I think my
chosen wine is
not-very
popular
I think my
chosen wine is
non org-organic
N 145 145 145 145
Mean 5.117 3.814 3.924 4.372
Std. Deviation 1.0508 1.5320 2.0141 1.1663
On seven point scale, participants evaluated their chosen wine according to the
quality (M=5.1), price (M=3.8), popularity (M=3.9) and organic characteristics (M=4.4).
Meaning that their appraisal towards chosen wine ranges from 3 to 5, showing that wine
quality and organic characteristics are more important for them followed by popularity and
price. Standard deviation varies from 1 to 2, which means that the most participants
evaluated above mentioned criteria on average the same way, except “popularity”
(SD=2.02), as the range is bigger compared to others. We may conclude that participants
were aware of the price, quality and characteristics of the product of their chosen wine, but
33
the term “popularity” in case of wine was not so clear for them and accordingly SD was
wider compared to other criteria.
4.1.3. Realism of the setting
For an experiment the room was organised the way to give the participant impression of
supermarket. Accordingly the shelves were filled by different products. Therefore one of the
questions of the questionnaire was if they chose wine as they would have chosen in the local
supermarket. 78.62% of them said that were acting natural during experiment. Participants’
56.6% didn’t feel bothered by the camera (M=2; SD=1.47) that was positioned behind them
and recording their behaviour during the process. This positive information gives us
opportunity of objective interpretation of consumers’ behaviour, as it is supposed that they
will act the same way in real life situation.
Table4. Results of reliability analyses for measuring feelings, attitudes, involvement,
knowledge in organic and normal wines
Above given table shows results of reliability analysis. In order to check how closely the
items in questions are related to each other, was run reliability analyses and calculated
Cronbach’s Alpha. The Alpha coefficients for all items in each question are above 0.7 that
tells that items in each question have relatively high internal consistency.
Reliability statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha
N of
Items
Mean Standard
Deviation
Feeling towards organic wine
compared to regular wine Q9
.714 3 4.02 1.46
Attitudes towards organic
products Q11
.734 4 4.52 1.47
Involvement in organic wines
Q12
.857 4 4.04 1.71
General involvements in
wines Q13
.770 2 3.8 1.72
Knowledge towards the wines
Q16
.917 4 3.32 1.53
34
By using the scales, we wanted to know people’s attitudes, knowledge and general
involvement towards wine and organic wine.
Mean values varies from 3 to 4.5 meaning that participants prefer organic wine more
than normal wines (M=4.02; SD=1.46) and their attitudes are more positive towards organic
wines as well (M=4.52; SD=1.47) as they show higher involvement in organic wines (m=4.04;
SD=1.71) compared to general involvement (M=3.8; SD=1.72) and knowledge toward wines
(m=3.32; SD=1.53). So we may conclude that people living in Wageningen prefer organic
wines and are more interested in them compared to normal wines because of high
consciousness towards healthy eating and organic products.
4.2 Results from Observer XT
Recorded videos had been screened after finishing experiment and only 134 videos used out
of 145 for further analyses, as 3 of them weren’t available and the rest 8 videos not
appropriate for further studies (the reasons for extractions you may find in appendix IV).
After collecting the data by Observer XT, we had valuable information that gave us
opportunity to analyse amount of time spent by participants on each tile (out of three)
positioned in front of wine shelf.
Table5. Time spent for choosing wine during two tasks
360
1686
895
2941
245
1048
444
1737
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
tile 1
tile 2
tile 3
total
wine and cookies
wine
Time spent in seconds
35
After calculating time spent for tiles during two tasks, it has revealed that, while
choosing cookies and wine, participants used to spend 41% less time in choosing wine, than
in case of choosing only wine. So it means that they spent 31.9% less time standing on tile 1,
37.8% less on tile 2 and 50.3% less on tile 3 to choose wine while choosing products from
two diverse categories.
In order to check for above mentioned information by statistical data, was run SPSS and
created new variable “total time spent on choosing wine” to calculate sum of a time spent
on three tiles positioned in front of wine shelf. The numbers also showed significant data
(p=.001) meaning that participants spent less time for choosing wine, when they had to
choose products from two product categories (M=24.81) and more time when they were
choosing only wine (M=45.95).
Table6. Time spent in front of wine shelf within two tasks (mean and standard deviation)
Table7. Independent T-test results for testing time spent in front of wine shelf for each task
Lower Upper
Equal
variances
assumed
9.787 0.002 3.717 132 0 21.138 5.686 9.889 32.388
Equal
variances
not
assumed
3.607 85.63 0.001 21.138 5.861 9.488 32.79
Std. Error
Diff.
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
total_time
_wine
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variancest-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t DFSig. (2-
tailed)Mean Diff.
Group Statistics
either choosing wine or
wine and cookies
together
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
total_time_wine wine 64 45.9531 43.09290 5.38661
wine and cookies 70 24.8143 19.31305 2.30835
36
We also tested total time spent on six tiles during experiment, in order to check if
there was a time difference between two tasks (either choosing wine or wine and cookies).
Therefore, was also created new variable called “total time spent during experiment”. The
variable sums up all six tiles positioned in front of total shelf. After running independent t-
test for total time spent during two tasks, it has revealed that there is no significant (p=.269)
difference between mean values (M=46.26 for wine, M=39.34 for wine and cookies).
Table8. Time spent in front of total shelf within two tasks (mean and standard deviation)
Group Statistics
either choosing wine or
wine and cookies
together
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
total_time_exp wine 64 46.2656 42.92010 5.36501
wine and cookies 70 39.3429 26.55587 3.17403
Table9. Independent T-test results for testing time spent in front of total shelf within each task
So we can conclude that both groups of the people were using given time equally in case of
both tasks. They spent almost equal time in choosing product(s), no matter they had to
choose from one or two product categories. It might happen because of incentive, for
instance they spent as much time as an ice-cream worthy for them. Or because of
approximate time they knew in advance they will be spending for the experiment.
Low er Upper
Equal
variances
assumed
2.613 0.108 1.133 132 0.259 6.923 6.109 -5.162 19.008
Equal
variances
not
assumed
1.111 103.27 0.269 6.923 6.234 -5.439 19.285
DFSig.(2-
tailed)Mean Diff.
Std. Error
Diff.
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
total_time
_experime
nt
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variancest-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t
37
4.3 Testing the hypotheses
Non-parametric cross-tabulation, cross-tabulation and analysis of variance were run in SPSS
for checking the four hypotheses.
H1: Products positioned in the middle of the category have the higher probability to be
chosen by the consumer.
Non-parametric cross-tabulation was used to test H1. The tiles positioned in front of wine
shelf was named as left, middle and right tiles (locations of the chosen wine) and run non
parametric X2 test across all conditions.
Table10. Frequency table showing number of wines chosen
from wine shelf based on standing point
From the table we can see that the most of the wines were chosen from the left corner of
the shelf (56 bottles) rather than from the middle (51) or the right corner (38).
Table11. Chi-square test table
Test Statistics
location of chosen wine
Chi-Square 3.572a
DF 2
Asymp.
Sig.
.168
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected
frequencies less than 5. The minimum
expected cell frequency is 48.3.
location of chosen wine
Observed N Expected N Residual
left 56 48.3 7.7
middle 51 48.3 2.7
right 38 48.3 -10.3
Total 145
38
As X2 table shows, X2(2) =3.572, P value=.168 > 0.05 there is non-significant result meaning
that middle position was not most often chosen. So it means that there was no support
found to approve the hypothesis.
H2: For people, selecting a product from one category, standing position is different
compared to people, selecting a product from two diverse categories.
The second hypothesis in the research was tested by X2 to check if standing position
(Tile 1, Tile 2, Tile 3) changed based on task (either choosing product from one or two
categories).
As our target product is wine, in the experiment we were only interested in changing
standing positions towards the wine shelf. For this reason was created new variable called
“standing position” that shows on which tile participants used to stand most of the time.
After running cross-tabulation X2(2)=.591, there was found no significant difference
(p=.744) in standing position change (table13) as in both tasks participants most of the time
used to stand on the second tile, which means, that participants’ centrality towards the total
shelf didn’t change by changing task (while choosing from two product categories). Ones
more it can be confirmed by the number of participants standing in the middle position (91)
of wine shelf(table12).
Table12. Frequency table showing number of wines chosen from wine shelf based on standing point
Standing position Total
right middle left
task wine 8 42 14 64
wine and cookies
6 49 15 70
Total 14 91 29 134
39
Table13. Chi-square test table
Chi-Square Tests
Value DF Asymp. Sig.
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .591a 2 .744
Likelihood Ratio .591 2 .744
Linear-by-Linear
Association
.130 1 .718
N of Valid Cases 134
a. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum
expected count is 6.69.
As the conclusion we can say that different conditions didn’t give a big change in the
consumer’s standing position as in all conditions tile #2 was the most often used.
H3: The probability of choosing a middle product, when the person is standing in the
middle of the shelf, is higher than when person is standing at the edge of the shelf.
In order to check the third hypothesis, was run analysis of variance. Wines were re-coded in
SPSS in the sequence as it is shown below (the middle product signed with number 5;
table14).
Table14. Variables for recoded chosen wine
1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1
Brand #1 Brand #2 Brand #3 Brand #4 Brand #5 Brand #6 Brand #7 Brand #8 Brand #9
Independent variable in the test is standing position in front of wine shelf.
Dependent variable is chosen wine, which had been recoded as shown above. After running
analysis (table16), it has revealed non-significant results (P=.063) with F(2,131)=2.83,
meaning that participants mostly used to be choosing closest left or right product to the
centre, when they were standing in the middle of the wine shelf. So, their choice was not
always conditioned by standing point, that was stimulating final choice.
40
Ones more it can be confirmed by mean value (M=2.59; SD=1.17) (Table15) of chosen
wine, while people (N=91) were standing in the middle of the wine shelf.
Table15. Descriptive statistics showing the number of chosen wine based on standing position
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable : recoded wine choice
standing position Mean Std.
Deviation
N
right 2.4286 1.39859 14
middle 2.5934 1.17358 91
left 2.0000 1.03510 29
Total 2.4478 1.18618 134
Table16. Analysis of variance measuring significance of choosing middle product
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: recoded wine choice
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
DF Mean
Square
F Sig.
Corrected Model 7.750a 2 3.875 2.830 .063
Intercept 421.797 1 421.797 308.027 .000
Standing position 7.750 2 3.875 2.830 .063
Error 179.385 131 1.369
Total 990.000 134
Corrected Total 187.134 133
a. R Squared = .041 (Adjusted R Squared = .027)
In the conclusion, the analyses showed that during the experiment, participants used
to choose closest left or middle wines to the central product, when they were standing in
the middle of the shelf and making final product choice.
H4: Consumer’s standing position increases the probability of the product to be
chosen, located in front of the consumer rather than located on right/left sides.
The fourth and the last hypothesis in the research was tested by ANOVA. Chosen
wine (dependent variable, wines coded from 1 to 9) was analysed in combination with
41
standing point, measured by the tiles (independent variable). Variable “standing position”
sums up total time spent by participants on tiles positioned in front of wine shelf.
The table (18) shows significant results (p=.000) with F(2,131)=14.072 which means
that when people were standing on the right side of the wine shelf they were mostly
choosing products placed in front of them (M=7.57; SD=1.39), the same can be said about
shelf places in the middle (M=4.99; SD=2.69) and the left side (M=3.17; SD=2.63) (table17).
So it means that people mostly were choosing products that were positioned in front of
them.
Table17.Frequency table showing (Mean and standard deviation) values
for chosen wines based on standing most of the time
Descriptive Statistics
Dependent Variable: wine chosen
Standing position Mean Std.
Deviation
N
right 7.5714 1.39859 14
middle 4.9890 2.68946 91
left 3.1724 2.63315 29
Total 4.8657 2.81988 134
Table18. Analysis of variance testing between-subjects effects
or chosen wine and standing most time variables
In the conclusion can be noticed that the consumer’s final product choice is mostly
determined by the product positioned in front of the consumer rather than on the right or
left side.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable wine chosen
Source Type III Sum
of Squares
DF Mean
Square
F Sig.
Corrected Model 187.027a 2 93.513 14.072 .000
Intercept 2117.382 1 2117.382 318.621 .000
Standing position 187.027 2 93.513 14.072 .000
Error 870.556 131 6.645
Total 4230.000 134
Corrected Total 1057.582 133
a. R Squared = .177 (Adjusted R Squared = .164)
42
5. Discussion and Conclusion
The last chapter of thesis will illuminate outcomes, describe the limitations of the
experiment and will give some recommendations for the future research.
The purpose of this study is to get an answer on the main question of the research:
Does consumer’s standing point in relation to the product centrality in the product category
influence consumer’s final product choice? As the result, we were trying to search for the
effects of product category, standing position and centrality in the category on final product
choice.
This study addresses interaction between variables simultaneously. There was high
participation in the experiment. People from different nationalities and age groups helped in
conducting research. During the experiment there were two cases when students from one
of the Asian countries declined to participate in the experiment after reading the consent
form that they would be recorded for further analyses (consent form-Appendix ii).
Findings have shown that consumer’s standing position doesn’t always determine
their final choice. It means that during the experiment, participants were often standing in
the middle of the category, when they were observing the shelf, but in the end they could
choose product from the right or the left corner of the shelf. The reasons for their behaviour
were different.
For example numbers of students were attracted by the labels on the bottle that
influenced on their choice and the cheap price of wine (38.6% in total), out of it 12% of them
chose wine titled “African Treasure”, positioned on the left side of product category.
Another reason was preference towards organic wine. 26% of participants preferred
to choose organic wine, and also data shows that 60% of participants noticed organic wine
on the shelf. The preference towards organic wine can be explained by the sample used, as
people living in Wageningen are more aware of organic food, that’s why data cannot be
generalised towards the Dutch population. In two conditions out of four, organic wine was
standing on the right corner, that was attracting participants to make decision based on
product characteristics, rather than spontaneously, choosing product positioned in front of
them. As the result their final choice was not always influenced by standing position.
43
Accordingly it is answering on non-significance of the first hypothesis why people not always
were choosing products positioned in the middle of the category.
So we can conclude that in this case consumer’s standing position was not
determined by the centrality of the product, but by the preference towards organic wine
attractive labels, cheap price and premonition that organic wine should mean higher quality,
as their knowledge and familiarity in wines was low.
It was expected, that for people selecting a product from one category, standing
position would be different compared to people selecting products from two diverse
categories. Participants standing position was changing based on the task either they had to
choose wine or wine and cookies together.
By checking, on which tile participants were standing most of the time, within each
task, we got an idea how their standing position was changing according to the tasks.
Regardless of less time spent in front of wine shelf, while choosing from both
categories, participants used to stand on the second tile more often rather than on the third
tile as we expected (middle position in the total shelf) even after choosing cookies.
To find a possible explanation for non-significance, why participants used to be
choosing central product less often when they were standing in the middle of the wine shelf,
might be the reason that people could easily reach nearest left or right product, positioned
on the sides of central product, which was determining their final product choice.
It also approves the sub research question by confirming that product’s centrality in
the category determines consumer’s final product choice.
By testing the last hypothesis we wanted to show that people are most probably
choosing products positioned in front of them rather than located on left or right side. A
significant result tells that participants were mostly choosing products placed in front of
their standing point.
In the conclusion we can say that consumer’s standing position had influenced on
their final product choice when the chosen product was positioned in front of them. Or it
could be vice versa, product noticed from the first time had an influence on their standing
position. It also can be the argument for final choice when consumer already knows exactly
which brand he/she was searching for that correspondingly determines final choice.
44
5.1 Limitations and recommendations for further research
Due to some limitations, the research was oriented on student segment. For the
further research improvement, sample can be more diverse, for example, involve people
from different age groups and society, to bring more validity and reliability into the research.
Limitation for steady flow of research can be accounted in distraction of participant
during the experiment. As sometimes students used to come in groups to join the
experiment, it used to be noisy and distractive environment for the participant, such as
talking during the choosing process. It could be avoided, if the space for the experiment was
more isolated from other participants. So, for further research I would recommend to avoid
distractions around by putting a sign on the wall “No talking with participant during
experiment” while participants are in process.
One more drawback found after experiment is wine brand, which caused high
interest in African people, named “African Treasure”. In order to avoid partiality towards the
products based on names would be better to choose more neutral brand names for every
nation.
For the future, to make a choice among wines more faithful and close to reality,
would be an option to give participants their chosen wine as a gift. It will make their choice
more natural and close to their needs and will help experiment finding more about
consumers’ behaviours.
In the end, as the recommendation I would advise to change wine category in this
experiment for further research, because organic wine got more interest and preference in
category that influenced on participants standing position and as the result they were
choosing unplanned position. More neutral product, like cookies could be one of the
options.
45
References:
Botschen G.; Thelen E.M.; Pieters R. (1999), "Using means-end structures for benefit
segmentation: An application to services", European Journal of Marketing, 33(1), pp.38 –
58
Broere, Van G. and Oostrom Van, (1999). “De relatie tussen looprichting en
aankoopgedrag” Erasmus Food Management Institute, EFMI 2001-05 (in Dutch).
Bruner-Hensel-James, (1998-2001) “A compilation of multi-item measures for consumer
behaviour”, Marketing Scale Handbook; Volume IV; American Marketing Association,
Chicago, Illinois USA;
Christenfeld, N. (1995), “Choices from Identical Options,” Psychological Science, 6(1),
pp.50-55.
Chandon P.; Hutchinson J.W.; Bradlow T.E. and Young S.H.; (2008), “Does in-store
Marketing Work? Effects of the Number of shelf Facings on Attention and Evaluation at the
point of Purchase”. Alliance Center for Global Research and Development. Faculty and
Research Working Paper.
Chung Ch. Schmidt T. Dong D., and Kaiser H. (2007) “Economic Evaluation of Shelf-Space
Management in Grocery Stores” Agribusiness, 23 (4) pp.583–597
Corstjens J. and Corstjens M. (1995) “Store wars, the battle for Mind-space and Shelf-
space”. Chichester: Wiley.
David A. De Vaus; (2001) “Research design in Social Research”; Sage publications
Dickson, P.R. and Sawyer A.G. (1990); “The price knowledge and search of supermarket
shoppers”, Journal of Marketing; 54, pp.42–53.
Drèze X. Stephen J. Hoch Mary E. Purk (1994); “Shelf Management and Space Elasticity”;
Graduate school of Business; University of Chicago.
Felcher M. E., Malaviya P., Ann L. M. (2001) “The Role of Taxonomic and Goal-Derived
product categorization in, within, and across Category Judgments” Psychology &
Marketing, 18(8) pp.865–887
Folwell, Raymond J. and Moberg A. D. (1993), “Factors in Retail Shelf Management
Impacting Wine Sales,” Agribusiness, 9(6), pp.595-603.
46
Gil, J.M., Gracia A. and Sa´nchez M. (2000), “Market segmentation and willingness to pay
for organic products in Spain”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review;
3 pp. 207-26
Inman JJ, McAlister L, Hoyer WD. (1990) “Promotion signal: proxy for a price cut?” Journal
of Consumer Research; 17 pp.74–81.
Jerry I.S., Bergen J.E., Brown C.A. and Gallagher M.E. (2000):” Centrality Preferences in
Choices among Similar Options”, The Journal of General Psychology, 127(2), pp.157-164
Lusch, Dunne and Gebhardt (1993); “selling Environment” Retail Marketing, Second
edition, part 4.
Raghubir P., Valenzuela A., (2006) “Center of inattention: position biases in decision
making” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 99(1) pp.66–80.
Rik P., (1993) "A Control View of the Behaviour of Consumers: Turning the Triangle",
European Journal of Marketing, 27 (8), pp.17–27
Simonson I. (1989) “Choice Based on Reasons: The case of Attraction and Compromise
Effect”, Journal of Consumer Research, 16(1)
Shibin S., Parker A. M., Nakamoto K., (2005) “Understanding the Mechanism and
Determinants of Compromise Effects”; Psychology & Marketing, 22(7) pp: 591–609
Somerson H. (2009), “The science of retailing: Inside the mind of the shopper”; Wharton
School Publishing
Sujan M, Bettman JR, Sujan H. (1986); “Effects of consumer expectations on information
processing in selling encounters”, Journal of Marketing Research; 23(4) pp.346–53.
Thomas A. and Pickering G. (2003) “The importance of wine labels information”.
International Journal WineMark; 15, pp.58–74.
Underhill P. (1999), “Why We Buy: The Science of Shopping”; New York: Simon & Schuster
Valenzuela A. and Raghubir P. (2009) “Are top-bottom inferences conscious and left-right
inferences automatic? Implications for shelf space position”.
Valenzuela A.; Raghubir P.; Mitakakis C. (2012), “Shelf space schemas: Myth or reality?”
Journal of Business Research
47
Wernerfelt B.; (1995), “A Rational Reconstruction of the Compromise Effect: Using Market
Data to Infer Utilities”; Journal of Consumer Research, 21(4) pp. 627-633
Wright P. (2002) “Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence”, Journal of Consumer
Research; 28(4) PP.677–682.
Yang M. H., Chen W.C. (1999); “A study on shelf space allocation and management”,
International Journal: Production Economics 60-61 pp: 309-317
48
Appendices:
I. Questionnaire: This questionnaire is about the wine choice you have made.
1. Which wine did you choose?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Do you know any of these wines?
3. What was the reason of your choice of wine?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Please circle the number that represents how you feel about your chosen product:
I think my chosen wine is:
Poor quality 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High quality
Low price 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 High Price
Not popular 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very popular
Not organic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Organic
5. Do you drink wine
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very often
6. Have you noticed organic wine on the shelf?
Yes / No
7. Have you ever noticed organic wines in the supermarkets?
Yes / No
49
8. Did you choose wine as you would have chosen normally when visiting your local
supermarket?
Not at all
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
9. Please circle the number that presents how you feel about organic wine as compared to
regular wine:
I think organic wines are:
Healthier Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
Have superior quality
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
More tasty Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
10. Please circle one of the numbers below to describe your familiarity with organic wines
Not at all familiar 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Extremely familiar
11. Please circle one of the numbers below to describe how you assess your attitude towards
organic food:
Organic food is healthier Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
Organic products have superior quality
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
Organic products are more tasty
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
Organic products have no harmful effects
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
50
12. Please circle one of the numbers below to describe how you are involved in organic wines
I’m interested in organic wines Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
I would like to drink an organic wine Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
When i see organic wine in the store, I would definitely buy it
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
I would like to know more about organic wines
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
13. Please circle one of the numbers below to describe how you are involved in wines
I’m interested in wines general
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
Wines are important to me
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
14. Did you notice the information on the shelf tags?
Yes / No
15. Please indicate the degree to which the information was useful in your evaluation of your
chosen wine
Information was of no use
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the information was of great use
16. Please circle the number that represents your knowledge towards the wine:
Compared to the average person I know a lot about wines
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
51
I am knowledgeable consumer of wine
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
I’m usually well informed what is a reasonable price to pay for wines
Strongly disagree
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly agree
In general how knowledgeable are you about different types of wines?
Not at all knowledgeable
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very knowledgeable
17. Did you feel bothered by the camera?
Not at all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very much
18. Are you: right handed / left handed
Finally, some general questions:
What is your age? ________________ Years
What is your gender? Male / Female
Study program ________________
Nationality ________________
Are you student? Yes / No
Thank You!
52
II. Consent Form
Information about the study
In this study, you will be asked to choose products from shelves. After making the choice,
you will be requested to fill in short questionnaire about the choice you made.
The research consists of observation. It means that you will be observed by the camera while
choosing a product. The camera will be positioned behind you and we will try to record only
your lower body from shoulder down, so that your face is not visible. Recordings will be seen
only by me and my supervisor and will not be shown publicly.
Data will be kept on the server of the University. Only average scores will be revealed
making sure that answers can’t be connected to individual respondents.
You may withdraw from participation at any moment during the study, without
consequences of any kind.
Participation takes about 10-15 minutes and you will receive an ice-cream in the end for
compensation to express our gratitude.
If you have any questions about this study, feel free to ask the research leader in the room, or to contact Erica van Herpen (MCB group).
I hereby consent to being videotaped for the purpose of this study
Name ----------------------
Signature -----------------
Date ------------------------
53
III. Coding Variables
Question 2
1. Label attractiveness
Looks luxurious
Nice etiquette, label
2. Price
Cheap/cheapest price
Middle price (not too expensive, neither expensive nor cheap, the same price
as ordinary wine)
Expensive/high price
3. Recognizable brand
I like Merlot
I recognized the name
I have often tried that wine
popularity
4. Flavour
Fruity taste
Rich aroma and red dry wine
5. Organic
6. Year harvested
7. COO
Preference toward Chilean wine
Preference toward French wine
Preference toward African wine because she’s from Africa
8. Fits to casual dinner
Goes with food I’d prepare for dinner
Fits to the casual dinner
Seems the most suitable to drink for the dinner
It will taste good with the food i like
Goes with daily meal
9. Random choice
10. Information on the shelf tags
Information helped to make decision
According to the taste description it goes with meat
Goes with meat, pizza
Goes with cheese;
54
IV. Videos extracted from study
Videos #
14 - friends were saying “hurry up” to the respondent and she was talking during the process
as well
18 - didn’t act natural
25 – no video found
32 - no video found
60 – talking to friends while choosing
114 - very quick decision
115 - very quick decision
122 - no video found
124 - she said that she felt nervous as i was watching behind otherwise i takes longer for her
to choose
128 – video wasn’t put on time
130 - she was asking questions to me while standing in front of shelves
55
V. Schema of the wine shelf
Version A Wine shelf (organic wine positioned on the right side)
Version B Wine and cookies shelves (organic wine positioned on the right side)
LS / N African Treasure (2 faces)
LS /N Big Ears (2 faces)
LS/ N Vistana (2 faces)
MS /N Camarsac (2 faces)
MS /N Lavile Pavilion (2 faces)
MS /N Marquis de Balmont (2 faces)
RS /Bio Saint roche (2 faces)
RS /Bio Cono Sur (2 faces)
RS /Bio Bordeux (2 faces)
Version C Wine shelf (organic wine positioned in the middle)
LS / N African Treasure (2 faces)
LS /N Big Ears (2 faces)
LS/ N Vistana (2 faces)
MS /Bio Saint roche (2 faces)
MS /Bio Cono Sur (2 faces)
MS /Bio Bordeux (2 faces)
RS /N Camarsac (2 faces)
RS /N Lavile Pavilion (2 faces)
RS /N Marquis de Balmont (2 faces)
Version D Wine and cookies shelf (organic wine positioned in the middle)
LS / N African Treasure (2 faces)
LS /N Big Ears (2 faces)
LS/ N Vistana (2 faces)
MS /N Camarsac (2 faces)
MS /N Lavile Pavilion (2 faces)
MS /N Marquis de Balmont (2 faces)
RS /Bio Saint roche (2 faces)
RS /Bio Cono Sur (2 faces)
RS /Bio Bordeux (2 faces)
Tile 3 Tile 2 Tile 1
Tile 3 Tile 2 Tile 1
Tile 3 Tile 2 Tile 1
LS / N African Treasure (2 faces)
LS /N Big Ears (2 faces)
LS/ N Vistana (2 faces)
MS /Bio Saint roche (2 faces)
MS /Bio Cono Sur (2 faces)
MS /Bio Bordeux (2 faces)
RS /N Camarsac (2 faces)
RS /N Lavile Pavilion (2 faces)
RS /N Marquis de Balmont (2 faces)
Tile 3 Tile 2 Tile 1