organic food consumers
TRANSCRIPT
ORGANIC FOOD CONSUMERS
DOES MORAL THREAT AFFECT OUR PERCEPTIONS OF MORALLY DRIVEN
ORGANIC CONSUMERS?
F I N A L Y E A R P R O J E C T C O D E : E W I 0 9
R O S A D A U M A L P L A U N I V E R S I T A T P O M P E U F A B R A
J U N E 2 0 1 4 T U T O R : G E R T C O R N E L I S S E N
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ 2
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 3
THE FOOD SECTOR ................................................................................................................................ 4 1. THE FACTS .............................................................................................................................................. 4 2. URGENCY TO CHANGE ............................................................................................................................. 6
MORAL THREAT: A THEORETICAL APPROACH ........................................................................... 8 A MORAL APPROACH ................................................................................................................................... 8
EMPIRICAL STUDY ............................................................................................................................... 13 MOTIVATIONS AND HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................................. 13 DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS ..................................................................................................................... 13 STIMULI ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 DEPENDENT VARIABLES ........................................................................................................................... 16 CONTROL GROUP ....................................................................................................................................... 16 RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................... 17 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................................... 20
CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 21
AKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................................... 22
NOTES AND REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 23 NOTES ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................. 24
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX 1 -‐ SURVEY DESIGN ................................................................................................................. 26 APPENDIX 2 -‐ SPSS ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................ 32
1
ABSTRACT
Centered in unfavorable upward moral comparison, the aim of this project is first to
analyze the different theories regarding moral threat from an external view, and then prove
that it can also be applied to the conscious organic consumer.
For this purpose, two experiments were done in two completely different settings in
Barcelona: (1) BioCultura 2014, a bio fair where conscious consumers and companies and
organizations related to the organic sector meet each year, with 82 participants asked to
answer a survey while waiting in line for a conference; and (2) an Architecture class from
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, with 73 surveys identical to the first experiment
answered when students assisted in an exam review class.
Our results concluded that there is in fact a difference when perceiving a moral versus a
neutral driven man, and that him being moral made participants value him more positively in
both experiments, albeit lower in the second experiment. However, adding an extra
imperfection manipulation resulted in a higher likeability of the moral person compared to
the neutral one.
2
INTRODUCTION
Although the organic food and cosmetic industry represents a very small percentage of
Catalonia’s GDP, its consumers may be identified not only as promising but also as an
already profitable segment.
It is understandable, then, how organic companies seek strategies to increase
population’s awareness regarding the negative consequences of consuming conventional
products, both for individuals and the environment, as a way to promote their organic
products.
Regardless of all their advertising efforts, the word-of-mouth, books as well as the
influence of social media and Internet in general, the recent food news and many
documentaries regarding the matter, there is still a wide group of consumers who, in spite of
knowing of their existence and their advantages, don’t purchase them.
Initially, we may associate their reluctance to the price they are sold for. It is true they are
in general much more expensive than conventional products, but in this statement we are
ignoring all the alternative ways that exist nowadays such as organic fruit and vegetable
delivery boxes [1], as well as the frozen food category. Other factors may be more or less
relevant, such as convenience and the features of the product itself and trust to their
certification authorities.
Perhaps another explanation could be their perception of moral threat when facing a
convinced organic consumer, resulting in their conviction to continue eating conventional
food. There are many theories that could explain why individuals feel this way that we will
see later on in this project. Afterwards, a study will follow to actually test the hypothesis that
non-organic consumers on average have a negative perception towards a moral (organic)
confident consumer.
3
THE FOOD SECTOR
1. THE FACTS
There is no mistake in saying that the world we are living in nowadays is more polluted
than before, its varied species are diminishing each passing day but only one has all the
blame for it. Apart from the natural cycle of life, in order to live better we made inventions
and modified the environment to our own needs, without considering seriously all the long-
term consequences this would mean to our surroundings and to ourselves. As a result, we
now live longer but suffer the first symptoms of what we call Global Warming, and feel ill for
causes that could have been prevented.
According to a course held by Esther Vivas [2], the major part of the food industry is
partly responsible for it because it is responding to determined interests and in most cases it
does not consider their negative impact on the ecosystem and on individuals. Some
companies even present their food as the unique solution to global hunger thanks to the
incremented amount of produce resulting from new inventions. But truth be told, we are
living in a toxic food environment [3], with increased cardiovascular, obesity, cancer and
other serious diseases as a result of this corrupted sector.
THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE PROBLEM
In her course, Esther Vivas also said that global hunger although commonly known as
an African problem is nearer than we think due to access restrictions, politic causes together
with the resulting pillaging of natural resources. She also said that since the 60s, thanks to a
modernization of the agriculture system, production has increased three fold and population
only twice. As a result, according to the UN there is food for everyone [4]. Evidently,
producing food for 12B people would be more than sufficient to fill the 7B inhabitants on
Earth. But in this world of abundance [5], there is still hunger. A response to this would be the
implementation of technology to solve the ecological crisis, and quoting UN, we need to
produce more food to solve hunger. However, this solution still assumes resources are
unlimited, and this is not realistic. Again, the same causes of the food crisis would be its
solutions.
4
There is another relevant aspect that should be seriously rethought. According to Esther
Vivas, people have preferences for big, attractive food that tastes well, smells usually nice
and shows signs of freshness. In result, supermarkets effect on food waste (which according
to FAO (2013) [6], is “the food that is appropriate for human consumption that is being
discarded, whether or not after it is kept beyond its expiry date or left to spoil”) is enormous
(see Figure 1). Added to this is the farmers’ policy to burn or throw away food so as to
control pricing when produce is too large.
Figure 1: Food wastage volumes, at world level by phase of the food supply chain [FAO, 2013]
The consequence of transitioning from local food to a larger and normally more distant
food chain is evident as well, since nowadays farmer-consumer information transfer is less
easy and a limited amount of companies own almost the whole market.
All in all, the major impact on nature has been due to the Green Revolution [7] starting
from the 60s. Thanks to the financing or managers provided by Ford and Rockfeller
Foundations, the Development Advisory Service, the World Bank and USAID on one hand,
it increased food production and its major contributors have even won a Nobel of
Agriculture [8] for aiding at solving global hunger. However, due to the phytosanitary
chemicals used in production and the hybrid seeds companies like Monsanto sell to farmers,
land fertility has decreased [9], seed variety has lessened, vital species such as bees are now
endangered [10] and there have been several cases of farmer suicides [11]. And the safety of
such products is also questionable [12&13].
Genetically Modified Foods, also known as GMO, have also taken a major role in the
second Green Revolution phase, the Biotechnology Revolution [14], contributing to put an
5
end to starvation even more according to its inventors [Montsanto, one of the leading
companies in producing GMO, has the slogan “Produce more. Conserve more. Improve
lives.”]. However, many studies show they also are questionably safe for our health and that
of the environment [15].
It is obvious that due to all the previous reasons, the food system must be changed. In
addition to continuous research on the effect of such practices, some criticals such as Prince
Charles and Al-Gore favor alternatives over this system.
2. URGENCY TO CHANGE
A way to save the environment would be to start applying the principle of precaution in all
the food we eat. By demanding safer food, we will help change the way it is produced, and
thus the planet will benefit from it. It is obvious that eating out or precooked food won’t be
a good way to start. We need to change our habits and start taking conscience of everything
we do. It won’t be easy, that is true.
A transition towards local food is quite approachable. Buying food from local farmers or
markets that clearly state the origin of their products is a good start. Considering that,
according to Esther Vivas, nowadays food travels around 5000km before we eat it and most
of it is harvested before its optimum point of maturity, its impact is unquestionable.
However, a change towards organic food is also needed to ensure food security, health,
and more importantly diversity and life in a long-term horizon.
ORGANIC FOOD
Originating from organic agriculture, a farming and production system of food that
combines beneficial environmental practices, high level of biodiversity, the preservation of
natural resources and the utilization of natural raw materials and processes, its aim is to not
only respond to consumer demands, but also produce common goods that contribute to
protecting the planet, the animals and the development of the rural sector.
As a consequence of the lack of intensive crops and phytosanitary products, organic
food is exempt of toxics (although in many cases some may still be found in studies) [16],
they have an optimum maturity which results in better taste, flavor, nutritional value, less
water content and are more digestible. Given that they are being mostly sold as whole foods,
6
they are balanced and adequate to the needs of human consumption, due to their higher
nutritional value.
But the Organic movement affects not only food. In general, the organic sector applies a
more social responsible model regarding an ethical management, fair trade, and beneficiary
and reentry-into-society labor policies.
The way to identify organic products is to look for their organic logo. In fact, since 2010
the European Commission has established that all products certified in Europe must include
the European Organic Certificate [17] (shown in Figure 2), while they optionally may include
another from the country or autonomy they are certified in. Among others, we may find the
following logos:
Figure 2: European Comission certification [18]
Figure 3: Consell Català de la Producció Agrària Ecològica in
Catalonia [19]
Figure 4: Organic Trade Association in USA [20]
Figure 5: BIO-SIEGEL in Germany [21]
Figure 6: Japanese Agricultural Standard certification [22]
Figure 7: Agence BIO’s logo in France [23]
Additionally, organic products may include other certificates such as
Figure 8: Fairtrade International [24]
Figure 9: Demeter International logo [25]
Figure 10: ECOCERT logo [26]
All in all, consuming organic food may be an initiative completely driven by the
conviction that a better future is possible, or due to alternative reasons that are not
supported by this “moral” approach. Given this, now that we know about the need and
benefits of consuming organic products apart from the ways to clearly differ them from
conventional products, it would be interesting to analyze the theories that surround being or
not moral from an external perspective, and their reactions.
7
MORAL THREAT: A THEORETICAL APPROACH
Consumers have several concerns that may influence their consumption of organic food
and these concerns may be more or less influenced by literature.
Given the similarity of the motives and applying Ibarra and Kitsuse’s (1993) study
regarding vegetarians, vegetarians may defend themselves with arguments based on either (1)
entitlement-driven motives, where they emphasize “the virtue of securing for all persons
equal institutional access and freedom of choice” or (2) endangerment-driven, “emphasizing
the optimal bodily function and health care”. In fact, several European studies focused on
this topic, and one specifically exposed the various motivations to purchase organic food.
These factors [27] are organic knowledge, environmental concern, price consciousness,
health consciousness, availability, quality, subjective norms, risk aversion, perceived control,
convenience and familiarity. Additionally, all the factors can fall into two main motives:
individualistic and altruistic [28]. However Siderer et al (2005) classified their justifications
into health, environment or social status driven motives.
According to Lund et al (2013), there exists a segment of organic consumers that is fully
convinced of the whole organic concept and it is through their consumption behavior that
they seek to show and maintain their motives. Such consumers, as stated by Sirieix et al
(2011), are generally driven by altruistic values and universalism.
There might be some cases where these “concerned consumers” state their reasons
without any negative repercussions from the audience, being more plausible when the
audience has some green-consciousness. However, not everyone willingly accepts his or her
motivations. Depending on how the person explains them, the listener may feel morally
threatened. In the following section we will further analyze this concept, and see how it is
related to the Organic food movement.
A MORAL APPROACH
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [29], the term morality may be
used when referring to:
o “Codes of conduct that are put forward by a society or some other group […], or are
accepted by an individual for his or her own behavior”
8
o “Code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational
persons”
Thus, the term morality is highly important and widely accepted in our lives and it
applies to “all who can understand it and can govern their behavior by it”. We might
consider something immoral than another culture might not, and even within the same
culture people differ in their morality driven behavior.
When applying this concept to green-conscious individuals and especially to organic
food consumers, we might believe that they have created a moral code of their own. It is for
this reason that it would be interesting to analyze the different perceptions external people
have of these individuals when being faced with their moral statements.
EXTERNAL VIEW
Although inoffensively expressed, moral statements such as Leo Tolstoy’s “A man can
live and be healthy without killing animals for food; therefore, if he eats meat, he participates
in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite. And to act so is immoral.” may
trigger many positive and negative reactions to the audience surrounding said speaker. Kelley
(1971) states that when we face a person, we evaluate his or her morality according to
o A reality system, based on opinions, when we determine whether an action is right or
wrong
o An achievement system, based on abilities, which give the means to follow said
conviction
Nonetheless, the same author concludes that both elements are strictly necessary to be
present when perceiving someone as moral.
It is important to remark that moral comparisons may be directed upwards, when a
moral person exposes his or her views and/or actions, which may threaten the observer in
some way; or downwards, which is the way the moral person perceives the others compared
to him or herself. This project centers on unfavorable upward moral comparison, given the
open ground for research on the matter.
It would be a mistake to disregard all possible reactions this upward moral comparison
may result in. Monin (2007) described a more positive outcome as “the best of human
nature, which provides life templates to aspire to”. A different way to explain the same
9
concept would be elevation, described as “a warm, uplifting feeling that people experience
when they see unexpected acts of human goodness, kindness and compassion” [Haidt,
2000]. In this case, people feel attracted to such behavior and admire it, wanting perhaps to
reassemble it in some way. Keltner and Haidt (2003) also mentioned that such perception
“makes the moral other socially attractive, and inspires people to do good themselves”
[Monin, 2007].
But not all reactions are supportive. They may trigger some negative reactions that give
reason to perceive the other person as offensive and unpleasant. Monin (2007), who
describes it as resentment, proposes that “moral behavior can constitute a threat when it
suggests to the perceiver that [said person] is not as moral as [he or she] could be, and that
the specific action called for by the self resembles reactions documented in other cases of
self-threat” [Major, Testa & Isma, 1991; Salovey, 1991].
The next possible step is to understand what directs us towards one of the two
directions. Alicke (2000) concluded it was in fact moderated by “the nature of the subject
and the target’s relationship, the importance of the comparison dimension for the subject’s
self-concept, the comparison’s ambiguity, and the subject’s need for accuracy. Festinger
(1954) described that “superior others are more threatening when they are similar, whereas
dissimilar others can be dismissed as irrelevant [Wheeler, 1991; Mettee & Risking, 1974;
Wood, 1989; Salovey, 1991; Major et al, 1991; Tesser, 1991].
A very interesting approach is that of Mussweiler (2003) and Mussweiler, Rüter &
Epstude (2004), where they suggest that whether “social comparison results in assimilation
or contrast is a result of the initial ‘holistic’ assessment of the comparison, and the resulting
selective accessibility of features”, that is, when we see ourselves similar to the speaker, we
look for information to confirm this conclusion in order for us to embrace his or her
convictions. Monin (2007) added this is also restrained by whether we are referring to
objective performance (such as “How many push-ups can you do?”) against subjective
assessment (such as “How athletic are you?”). And according to Mussweiler (2003), the
selective accessibility model results in that right after we consider moral others, we tend to
think about our own moral behavior as we retrieved it for the comparison. However he
concludes that this may result in lower moral assessment of ourselves given the higher
reference point.
10
What are the exact causes of such negative views of others who behave more morally
than we do? As stated by Monin (2007), we can differ between three possible sources, and
different focuses of comparison, in line with Smith’s (2000) research: moral inferiority and
moral confusion, focused on the self; and anticipated moral reproach, focused on others.
o Moral inferiority assumes that “threat of morally superior others can resemble other threats
by others who seem better than us” [Tesser, 1991; Beach & Tesser, 2000]. In line with
this, “people can feel less moral relative to others whom they see as more moral than
themselves”. All in all, as stated by Monin (2007), we may think that upward moral
comparison could result in self-threat, and as a consequence people may activate defense
mechanisms.
o Moral confusion. Monin (2007) argues that in upward moral comparison, we may even
come to the point where we doubt our own morality, that is, when we believe it is not at
a desirable level, which in turn causes an uncomfortable situation with the self.
Additionally, sometimes moral others may open our eyes to surprising paths we didn’t
know existed.
o Anticipated moral reproach. In many cases, when being confronted by a moral person we
may think he or she is judging our own morality. Monin (2007) expresses this may cause
resentment, but authors such as Sabini and Silver (1982) see the difficulties in expressing
moral reproach due to coming to an undesired conclusion: moral superiority. And, as the
same author explains, in the moral domain “it seems less acceptable to comment on
other’s choices unless one’s choices are at least as moral”. In that sense, he explains that
regardless of our own morality state caused by moral others, as long as they are
perceived as judgmental and conceited our reaction would be resentment. Also, Monin
(2007) remarks, “even then they don’t agree that the domain of judgment is of moral
relevance, people resent being reproached by others”.
Of course these causes imply some consequences. In this case, we may refer to a
defensive strategy to ease a threatening upward moral comparison. There are in fact 3 main
reactions to such circumstances: suspicion, trivialization and resentment, and we will pick
one or a combination depending on the context.
o Suspicion - denying virtue. As explained by Monin (2007), this approach is based on the
denial of the other person’s righteousness entirely, and gives little respect to said
11
behavior. In fact, research proves that a common response would be to be suspicious
and skeptical as for the real intentions of the moral actor concern, attributing them to
false and selfish virtues.
o Trivialization - do-gooder derogation. Given that in this approach disregarding goodness
of the actor’s behavior would be too apparent, a solution would actually be to allusively
remove the threat by humiliating moral others on other aspects by suggesting a lack of
capability, treating their moral gesture as unimportant, judging morally driven individuals
as good intentioned but ingenuous, feeble and ignorant with a lack of perspicacity and
no reality consciousness. In the case of vegetarians, Monin & Minson (2007) found that
omnivores indeed “think they are seen as morally inferior by vegetarians, and that the
extent of this anticipated moral reproach correlates with the negative valence of words
associated with vegetarians”, such as being notably less intelligent and moral to a lesser
degree.
o Resentment - disliking and distancing. In the event said morally driven person is
unmistakably moral and benefits from strong arguments, both previous strategies
become practically ineffective. When all else has failed, perhaps because of our
convincement of the other’s morality and potency, we might defer to distancing
ourselves from the moral other while feeling a lack of aspiration to associate with him or
her, who is in fact threatening us with his convictions [SEM model by Tesser, 1991].
However, it’s important to consider Monin’s (2007) conclusion that when being
confronted by a moral person, admiration is the most probable outcome as long as the moral
other does not threaten his or her audience, or gives room to judgments upon their morality.
In the following section we will see in depth how an scenario of a moral person is
perceived by two groups, a more morally driven (BioCultura) and another which may be
considered as neutral (Architecture class).
12
EMPIRICAL STUDY
MOTIVATIONS AND HYPOTHESIS
Given the lack of abundant research on the field, and especially in that of the organic
food sector, we want to better understand the nature of our perceptions when facing a moral
organic consumer who defends his or her motives. As presented in the last section, there are
different reactions to such a statement, but we want to do research on resentment, that is,
the Likeability of the refuser and how Moral Threat affects it. Thus, profiting from the lack
of abundant work on the matter, a study has been performed to confirm the theory that
behaving morally may result in negative external evaluations. However, we have added an
imperfection factor to assess if the degree of morality is indeed important when evaluating
such person, as it would trigger the moral statement’s power.
Following this, the main hypothesis to be tested is
H1: Compared to participants facing a neutral scenario, those that are faced with
a moral scenario value the moral person more negatively
Additionally and to complement our analysis we also wanted to test the following two:
H2: Relative to participants in a neutral scenario, those in a moral scenario will
evaluate the moral person more negatively when he is not described with the
imperfection than when the imperfection is present.
H3: Participants will evaluate the neutral person more negatively when he is
described with the imperfection than when the imperfection is not present.
DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS
To better understand its possible precursors, two experiments were conducted in two
different places: (1) BioCultura 2014, an organic food fair held each year in Barcelona among
other cities in Spain, with many conferences as well as exhibitors presenting their products
to both consumers and retailers; and (2) an Architecture university course, called
“Condicionament i Serveis III”, with students of 4th course from Escola Tècnica Superior
d’Arquitectura in Barcelona focused on lightening systems, electroacoustics and
acclimatization. Thus, the nature of both groups is expected to be different.
13
EXPERIMENT 1: BIOCULTURA BARCELONA 2014
The experiment consisted on asking a total of 100 respondents to answer a Spanish
written three-page survey with 12 questions (see Appendix for more information) while they
were waiting on a line to attend a conference held by Olga Cuevas regarding cholesterol.
Among them, only 97 returned the survey, and only 81 are considered in the analysis
[consisting of 24 men and 57 women] due to unanswered important questions and
inconsistency in the results.
First, participants were asked some demographic questions such as sex, age, education
level, city of residence and job status. Additionally, they were inquired whether they knew
about organic products, because before then we assumed that everybody present in
BioCultura knew of these products. Actually, from our participants 90.24% knew of organic
food and 3.66% did not. We also tested the frequency to consume them as well as the
influence of other people in their decision to consume. A final open question asking to add
some comment was also present.
In the following page, they were introduced to one scenario with two independent
variables: morality and imperfection; and were required to assess the likeability of the other
person using a 7-point Likert scale on 12 items based on Monin et al (2008), that will be
explained in the section “Dependent variables”. Another open question to add comments
was present as well.
In the third and last page, they were asked to draw themselves sitting below a tree. Their
drawing was measured with the aid of a compass, and its aim was to test if participants
facing a moral scenario were more likely to draw bigger drafts compared to those facing a
neutral scenario, and whether the imperfection factor influenced the results as well. Our
prediction was they would compensate their resentment with a bigger drawing of
themselves.
EXPERIMENT 2: ARCHITECTURE COURSE
For this experiment, the same method introduced in Experiment 1 was applied, with the
only difference that participants were students from Architecture in an exam revision class
held in May 2014. A total of 76 students participated in it and only 73 are considered for the
analysis, consisting of 36 men and 37 women.
14
In this case, there was no assumption on whether they knew of organic food or not, but
the same questions regarding this matter were asked this time as well (for more information
on the survey see Appendix). This time 76.71% knew of organic food and 13.7% did not.
STIMULI
Participants in both experiments were randomly assigned to one out of four scenarios,
each one containing a specific stimulus:
Scenario 1 (moral , with imperfection): “Imagine you are having dinner with some friends and one of them brought a friend of his. The conversation turns out to be quite lively until one of your friends brings out the employment situation of the present days, and mentions the difficulties he is facing in his job position. The invited friend, who is actively seeking for a job, comments that on this day he received a job offer from a
Consumer Panel company, specialized in monitoring the consumer’s behavior of a group of consumers, with multinational companies being their main clients. He commented that he re fused the offer because in case he accepted it he would be betraying his values as a conscious and responsible consumer. He also mentions that
in fact some of the clients from that company were those that financed the contra-legislation to label Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). He adds that he regularly uses his bike, and finishes off by saying
that today he jumped some traffic lights.”
Scenario 2 (moral , no imperfection): “Imagine you are having dinner with some friends and one of them brought a friend of his. The conversation turns out to be quite lively until one of your friends brings out the employment situation of the present days, and mentions the difficulties he is facing in his job position. The invited friend, who is actively seeking for a job, comments that on this day he received a job offer from a
Consumer Panel company, specialized in monitoring the consumer’s behavior of a group of consumers, with multinational companies being their main clients. He commented that he re fused the offer because in case he accepted it he would be betraying his values as a conscious and responsible consumer. He also mentions that
in fact some of the clients from that company were those that financed the contra-legislation to label Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO). He adds that he regularly uses his bike, and finishes off by saying
that he does not jump any traffic light.” Scenario 3 (neutral , with imperfection): “Imagine you are having dinner with some friends and one of them
brought a friend of his. The conversation turns out to be quite lively until one of your friends brings out the employment situation of the present days, and mentions the difficulties he is facing in his job position. The invited friend, who is actively seeking for a job, comments that on this day he received a job offer from a
Consumer Panel company, specialized in monitoring the consumer’s behavior of a group of consumers, with multinational companies being their main clients. He commented that he re fused the offer because it was too far away from the place he is currently living in. He adds that he regularly uses his bike, and finishes
off by saying that today he jumped some traffic lights.”
Scenario 4 (neutral , no imperfection): “Imagine you are having dinner with some friends and one of them brought a friend of his. The conversation turns out to be quite lively until one of your friends brings out the employment situation of the present days, and mentions the difficulties he is facing in his job position. The invited friend, who is actively seeking for a job, comments that on this day he received a job offer from a
Consumer Panel company, specialized in monitoring the consumer’s behavior of a group of consumers, with
15
multinational companies being their main clients. He commented that he re fused the offer because it was too far away from the place he is currently living in. He adds that he regularly uses his bike, and finishes
off by saying that he does not jump any traffic light.”
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Each of the experiments measured the following Dependent Variables (DV)
o Likeability of the refuser, by answering a 7-Likert scale (with 1 being “not at all” and
7 “completely”) regarding twelve factors introduced by Monin et al (2008): smart,
kind, warm, pleasant, generous, reasonable, stupid*, cold*, dishonest*, stingy*,
obnoxious* and to what extend they thought it would be pleasant to cooperate with
the refuser (all items marked with * were reverse coded in the analysis). A reliability
analysis was performed to identify the relevant Likeability items, and afterwards only
those were considered to form an average scale called Likeability.
o Draft of the participant. A compass was used to measure the farthest length of the
drawing of the “person” (i.e. from head to toes, if that was the longest distance) and
by doing a circle with that distance, its diameter was measured using a millimeter-
precise ruler. Using the same method, the tree was measured as well resulting in a
circle of 15.4 cm of diameter. Additionally, a percentage of the drawing compared to
the tree (used as a point of reference) was also calculated, and it will indeed be the
variable considered in the analysis.
CONTROL GROUP
As both experiments wanted to examine whether a person being morally driven was
liked more negatively, we randomly introduced the neutral group of scenarios (3 and 4) in
50% of the surveys to assess if the results were indeed caused because of the manipulations,
and the implications resulting from that. Scenario 4, neutral and no imperfection, was the
control group.
16
RESULTS
EXPERIMENT 1: BIOCULTURA
Before proceeding to analyze the results, a Factor analysis (A) was conducted to better
explain all Likeability items and how they were correlated. It resulted in 2 factors, but only
the first one is considered as it gave a power of ! = 5.86. All items that were negatively
correlated were reverse coded for our analysis, following the same method as the original
experiment by Monin et al (2008). Note that all results can be found in Appendix 2.
Next, a reliability analysis (B) followed giving Cronbach’s alpha !! = 0.91 and thus
indicated a high reliability of the factor in our analysis.
We later on analyzed independently our 12 Likeability items for each scenario (C). Only
the factors “Smart” (F=3.93), “Generous” (F=5.19), “Reasonable” (F=8.81), “To what
extent do you want to cooperate with the refuser?” (F=2.33), “Stingy” (F=2.37) and
“Dishonest” (F=1.714, although significant later on) were significant for our analysis. In
general, the refuser is perceived more positively when being moral than neutral. Additionally,
the not imperfect moral refuser is seen as smarter, more reasonable, less stingy and less
dishonest than the imperfect moral refuser. Resulting from a Post-hoc analysis (C3), almost
in all cases where the refuser was imperfect and moral were significantly better perceived
than when being imperfect and neutral.
After this, we conducted a Univariate Variance analysis of Likeability for each scenario
(D), resulting in a significant mean difference (F=3.842). We can deduce from the graph
below participants indeed considered more positively a moral refuser and additionally not
being imperfect.
17
Afterwards, by performing a 1-way ANOVA analysis (E) we confirmed the relevance of
Likeability items “Smart” (F=4.37), “Generous” (F=5.42), “Reasonable” (F=8.42),
“Cooperate” (F=1.88, although significant in previous analysis), “Stingy” (F=2.78) and
“Dishonest” (F=2.06).
A mean and ANOVA analysis was conducted (F), indicating the significant (F=3.84)
effect of each scenario on Likeability, in line with the Univariate variance analysis. Given that
we also included a second measure in our survey, the % of the drawing compared to the
reference tree, we wanted to see whether it could be considered in our conclusions.
Unfortunately, although the means indicated a difference between being moral or neutral,
and being imperfect and not, with F=0.23 we couldn’t conclude our hypothesis that a moral
refuser would influence a bigger drawing as a consequence of feeling moral threat.
We also run a Crosstab analysis (G), both separately and with all Likeability items
included considering each scenario. Although Likeability and % of reference tree were not
significant with Pearson Chi-squares of 136.85 and 139.69 respectively, if we analyzed all
items separately only “Reasonable” (35.26) and “Dishonest” (31.47) were significant. The
items “Smart” (26.47), “Kind” (25.05), “Generous” (28.15), “Stupid” (24.40) and “Stingy”
(26.45) were marginally significant.
EXPERIMENT 2: ARCHITECTURE COURSE
As in the first experiment, all analysis procedures were replicated for this experiment.
Thus, a Factor analysis was conducted (H), resulting in 3 factors, but only the first one is
considered as it gave a power of ! = 4.76. All items that were negatively correlated were
reverse coded for our analysis as well, following the same method as the original experiment
by Monin et al (2008). Analogously, all results can be found in Appendix.
Next, a reliability analysis (I) gave Cronbach alpha !! = 0.87 and thus indicated a high
reliability of the factor in our analysis.
When running a multivariate general linear model (J), we analyzed our 12 Likeability
items for each scenario. In this experiment only the factors “Smart” (F=4.97), “Kind”
(F=3.51), “Generous” (F=3.71), “Reasonable” (F=4.41), “Stupid” (F=4.49), “Stingy”
(F=6.58), “Obnoxious” (F=2.06) and “Dishonest” (F=4.48) were significant for our
analysis. As in the previous experiment, in this case the refuser is generally perceived more
18
positively when being moral than neutral. In items such as “Generous”, “Reasonable”,
“Stupid” and “Obnoxious” our neutral not imperfect refuser is surprisingly better
considered than the rest, although in almost all cases we can appreciate how the moral not
imperfect refuser is seen as smarter, kinder, more generous, more reasonable, less stupid, less
stingy, more obnoxious and less dishonest compared to the moral imperfect refuser. A Post-
hoc analysis (J3) confirmed that the difference between the moral imperfect and the neutral
imperfect refuser is significant for each item, although in most cases we can appreciate a
significant difference between the second scenario and the third.
After this, we conducted a Univariate variance analysis of Likeability for each scenario
(K), resulting in a significant mean difference (F=4.786). As shown in the graph below, we
can deduce participants perceived more positively the not imperfect refuser, but the moral
manipulation was not clearly different from the neutral manipulation.
Afterwards, by performing a 1-way ANOVA analysis (L) we confirmed the relevance of
Likeability items “Smart” (F=5.35), “Kind” (F=2.86), “Generous” (F=3.73), “Reasonable”
(F=4.03), “Stupid” (F=4.02), “Stingy” (F=2.63) and “Dishonest” (F=3.35).
Again, we run a mean and ANOVA analysis (M), resulting in a significant (F=4.79)
effect of each scenario on Likeability. As in the previous experiment, the % of the drawing
with reference to the tree did still not have a significant effect (F=0.29), and results were
confluent between scenarios.
Finally, we performed a Crosstab analysis (N) as in the previous experiment. This time,
Likeability and % of reference tree were still not significant with Pearson Chi-squares of
129.97 and 133.02 respectively, but if we analyzed all items separately only items “Smart”
19
(28.1), “Stupid” (24.98), “Stingy” (24.95) and “Dishonest” (24.45) were marginally
significant.
DISCUSSION
When we first designed both experiments, we had in mind that a moral refuser would be
regarded less positively than a neutral refuser. Although this was our first hypothesis and the
base of our project, we have seen how in both experiments it is the exact opposite in most
of the Likeability items as well as the Likeability factor by itself. For our second experiment
the results are less clear in some items, but they are concluding nonetheless.
Our predictions were also that supposedly our moral refuser would be perceived more
negatively if he did not have an imperfection rather than if he did. Our results refute our
second hypothesis as well, as we have seen how in our experiments when he does not have
the defect he is generally perceived more positively than if he does. A reason for this would
be a lack of sufficient understanding of the scenario by the participants, although perhaps a
real situation where participants were confronted with the refuser in person could be more
concluding.
Additionally, we also forecasted that a neutral person would be evaluated better if he did
not have an imperfection than if he did. This third hypothesis turned out to be true, and
even though it is not statistically significant in the first experiment, in the second one we may
differentiate it.
All in all, our participants in the first experiment had more positive views of the moral
refuser compared to participants in the second experiment. We expected this, as the morality
of the scenario would be less threating in their case due to similar grounds, but we also
forecasted they would have more extreme perceptions, which was not the case.
However, we could not assess how morally driven the interviewed participants were,
despite the fact that it could have proven beneficial for our conclusions. The comments in
the survey were a way to differentiate them, but it turned out they were not widely used,
even in the BioCultura experiment. Additionally, the questions should be rethought to make
the scenarios clearer to participants, and the control (neutral) group should also be
reconsidered due to the results we got from the groups exposed to the scenario.
20
CONCLUSIONS
In this project we have seen how adopting a more conscious consumption behavior
could solve a problematic food system and most likely save the planet. That being said, one
of the main constraints or problems when adopting such behavior is the fact that individuals
or groups are going against the flow, facing many obstacles on the way and many people
contrary to their beliefs. Thus, how people perceive them, especially when they defend their
ideals against arguments from the others, is specially a delicate matter. If we analyze it from
an external view in the event moral threat is present, that is, when we may feel the other is
more moral than us and we take it negatively, we may respond in three different ways: we
may (1) feel morally inferior to said person, influencing defense mechanisms which could
either be suspicion, trivialization or disliking and distancing; (2) be confused with our own
behavior, and surprised as well for finding that our morality was not as clear as we though;
or (3) feel they are judging our own morality and thus we feel dissatisfied (and it may not
only be for morality topics, but in general).
When trying to apply it in a practical experiment of a job offer moral refuser compared
to a neutral refuser, we saw that in general those facing a moral refuser tend to perceive
more positively the refuser compared to neutral ones, although we first predicted it would be
the other way around. We introduced the imperfection manipulation as well, as we tried to
define if an imperfect moral refuser would be better perceived and less extreme. However,
those that were presented with a moral and not imperfect refuser valued him more positively
than if he was moral but imperfect. Additionally, a neutral refuser was valued more positively
when he was not imperfect, in line with our predictions.
For further research on the art, we would suggest to run an improved experiment in a
more real situation where manipulations are more accurate with the results we are trying to
look for. The lack of a manipulation check before running the experiments could be one of
the answers of our results being so surprising. Additionally, we could study if age influences
our perceptions of the moral refuser, and if perhaps sex is also indicative in a sense given
that in our study we did not have a sufficient sample size for each of the sexes when
considering them separately in each scenario. The fact that our moral individual was a man
instead of sex undetermined person could also change to see if it affected the results.
21
AKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to give a special thank you to all the people that accompanied me during this
project, an idea that started four years ago.
To Estève Giraud, for guiding me not only in this project but also in life. To Gert
Cornelissen, because apart from gladly accepting to tutor this work and providing many
useful ideas on how to focus it he also taught extremely useful knowledge during his classes
in Consumer Behavior. To Maria Galli, my Market Research II professor during the current
term, for giving her support when designing and analyzing the experiments, and her
monumental patience and dedication. To Carola Camañés, my godmother, and to Ruth
Muñoz, my Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor, who have given me proof of the benefits
of an organic food diet as well as life changing counsel. To Veritas, for their monthly
newsletter as an introductory source of knowledge and for being my first reference during
my transition to organic products in 2009. To BioSpace, OBBIO, L’Hort d’en Climent, and
Ecobotiga.cat for being my current ones. To all the initiatives I support that encouraged this
project: my cousin Paul Domènech’s land conversion to an organic farm, Etselquemenges’s
blog, club and projects, Club de Probadores Bio by TVBio, BioCultura, BioFach… who
make organic food more accessible and known, as well as all the institutions, CCPAE and
EU among them, ensuring organic food to be possible. To holaBIO!, for offering me the
opportunity to have an inside view of the sector during my internship. To all the people who
contributed in the experiments study, giving this project a consistent conclusion. To
everyone who agreed to let me run both experiments, including Vida Sana (for the first
experiment in BioCultura) and my father (for the second experiment in the Architecture
class). To Thaïs Morillas, for suggesting a more appropriate way of measuring the drawings,
given the variety of results. To Pompeu Fabra University and Inholland Hogeschool, for
their excellent information resources databases.
And last but not least, to my family and friends for being there when most needed, and
because if not for them this project would not have been possible.
22
NOTES AND REFERENCES
NOTES
1. Ets el que menges, Qué hago con mi cesta de verduras. Available at: http://www.etselquemenges.cat/blogs/que-hago-con-mi-cesta-22869 [Accessed April 20, 2014aa]. 2. Esther Vivas, Curs a Barcelona: Del camp a la taula. Qui decideix què mengem? | More info at: http://esthervivas.com/intern/curs-a-barcelona-del-camp-a-la-taula-qui-decideix-que-mengem/ [Accessed February 20, 2014d]. 3. Battle EK; Brownell KD, 1996. Confronting a rising tide of eating disorders and obesity: treatment vs. prevention and policy. Addict Behav., (21), pp.755–65. Brownell, K. & Horgen, K.B., 2003. Food Fight, Available at: http://books.google.es/books/about/Food_Fight.html?id=Zs4QWm9kaosC&pgis=1 [Accessed May 1, 2014]. 4. WEP, United Nations World Food Programme - Fighting Hunger Worldwide. Available at: http://www.wfp.org/ [Accessed April 28, 2014ag]. 5. Nierenberg, D. & Massey, A., In a world of abundance, food waste is a crime - USATODAY.com. Available at: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-06-16-column16_ST1_N.htm [Accessed April 28, 2014q]. 6. FAO, 2013. Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources 7. For more information, visit: Hazell, P.B.R., 2003. Green Revolution: Curse or Blessing ? The Oxford Enclyclopedia of Economic History, pp.1–4. Available at: http://www.ifpri.org/sites/default/files/pubs/pubs/ib/ib11.pdf. Pingali, P.L., 2012. Green revolution: impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(31), pp.12302–8. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3411969&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract [Accessed May 27, 2014]. 8. Anon, “Nobel of agriculture” goes to Monsanto executive — RT USA. Available at: http://rt.com/usa/world-food-prize-monsanto-executive-971/ [Accessed April 11, 2014v]. 9. Anon, Special Report: Are regulators dropping the ball on biocrops? | Reuters. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/13/us-usa-gmos-regulators-idUSTRE63C2AJ20100413 [Accessed April 28, 2014ad]. 10. Gillam, C., Bees crucial to many crops still dying at worrisome rate: USDA | Reuters. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/15/us-usda-honeybees-report-idUSKBN0DV12120140515 [Accessed May 20, 2014b]. 11. Anon, India’s farmer suicides: are deaths linked to GM cotton? – in pictures | Global development | theguardian.com. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/gallery/2014/may/05/india-cotton-suicides-farmer-deaths-gm-seeds [Accessed May 05, 2014r]. 12. Lupkin, S., The Health Effects of GMO Foods - ABC News. Available at: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/health-effects-gmo-foods/story?id=23459884 [Accessed April 28, 2014ae]. 13. Gillam, C., Heavy use of herbicide Roundup linked to health dangers-U.S. study | Reuters. Available at: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/25/roundup-health-study-idUSL2N0DC22F20130425 [Accessed April 28, 2014p]. 14. Vidal, J., GM foods: a “biotech revolution”? | Environment | theguardian.com. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/19/gm-foods-a-biotech-revolution [Accessed April 28, 2014m]. 15. Some of the studies include: - Aris A., Leblanc S., Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada, Reproductive Toxicology, Volume 31, Issue 4, May 2011, Pages 528-533. - Spisák, S. et al., 2013. Complete genes may pass from food to human blood. A. Dewan, ed. PloS one, 8(7), p.e69805. Available at: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069805 [Accessed June 3, 2014]. - IRT, Institute for Responsible Technology - Are Genetically Modified Foods a Gut-Wrenching Combination? Available at: http://responsibletechnology.org/glutenintroduction [Accessed April 28, 2014s]. - Séralini, G.-E. et al., 2012. Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize. Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 50(11), pp.4221–31. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637 [Accessed May 23, 2014]. - Anon, Detection of Glyphosate Residues in Animals and Humans. Available at: http://omicsonline.org/open-access/detection-of-glyphosate-residues-in-animals-and-humans-2161-0525.1000210.pdf [Accessed April 28, 2014e]. - Schubert, D., 2002. A different perspective on GM food. Nature Biotechnology, 20(10), pp.969–969. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nbt1002-969 [Accessed June 7, 2014]. 16. Burke, M., Don’t worry, it's organic. Available at: http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/June/organic.asp [Accessed April 20, 2014f]. 17. European Commission, Organic Legislation. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/eu-legislation/brief-overview/index_en.htm [Accessed April 20, 2014y].
23
18. Figure 2 at http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/downloads/logo/index_en.htm [Accessed April 20, 2014i]. 19. Figure 3 at http://www.ccpae.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=209&lang=en [Accessed April 20, 2014h]. 20. Figure 4 at http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=organic-agriculture [Accessed April 20, 2014x] 21. Figure 5 at http://www.oekolandbau.de/bio-siegel/ [Accessed April 20, 2014w]. 22. Figure 6 at http://www.maff.go.jp/e/jas/specific/organic.html [Accessed April 20, 2014ah]. 23. Figure 7 at http://www.agencebio.org/la-marque-ab [Accessed April 20, 2014t]. 24. Figure 8 at http://www.fairtrade.net/ [Accessed April 20, 2014j]. 25. Figure 9 at http://www.demeter.net/certification [Accessed April 20, 2014c]. 26. Figure 10 at http://www.ecocert.com/en/certification [Accessed April 20, 2014g]. 27. Smith, S. & Paladino, A., 2010. Eating clean and green? Investigating consumer motivations towards the purchase of organic food. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 18(2), pp.93–104. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S144135821000011X [Accessed February 10, 2014]. 28. Sirieix, L., Kledal, P.R. & Sulitang, T., 2011. Organic food consumers’ trade-offs between local or imported, conventional or organic products: a qualitative study in Shanghai. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(6), pp.670–678. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00960.x [Accessed February 8, 2014]. 29. Using: - Doris, J. & Stich, S., 2006. Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-psych-emp/#IntWhaMorPsy [Accessed June 1, 2014]. - Gert, B., 2002. The Definition of Morality. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/ [Accessed June 1, 2014].
REFERENCES
Alicke, M., 2000. Evaluating Social Comparison Targets. In Handbook of Social Comparison. pp. 271–293. Beach, S.H. & Tesser, A., 2000. Self-Evaluation Maintenance and Evolution. In J. Suls & L. Wheeler, eds.
Handbook of Social Comparison SE - 7. The Springer Series in Social Clinical Psychology. Springer US, pp. 123–140. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4237-7_7.
Cramwinckel, F.M. et al., 2013a. The threat of moral refusers for one’s self-concept and the protective function of physical cleansing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), pp.1049–1058. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S002210311300142X [Accessed April 4, 2014].
Cramwinckel, F.M. et al., 2013b. The threat of moral refusers for one’s self-concept and the protective function of physical cleansing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, pp.1049–1058.
Festinger, L., 1954. A Theory of Social Comparison Processes. Human Relations, 7, pp.117–140. Greene, J. & Haidt, J., 2002. How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, pp.517–
523. Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E. & Holly, H., 2003. Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, pp.1–36. Han, H. et al., 2011. Are lodging customers ready to go green? An examination of attitudes, demographics, and
eco-friendly intentions. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(2), pp.345–355. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0278431910000903 [Accessed February 25, 2014].
Ibarra, P.R., Kitsuse, J.I. & Best, J., 1993. Vernacular Constituents of Moral Discourse: An Interactionist Proposal for the Study of Social Problems. In Constructionist Controversies. Issues in Social Problems Theory. pp. 21–54.
Keltner, D. & Haidt, J., 2003. Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 17, pp.297–314.
Kelley, H.H., 1971. Moral evaluation. American Psychologist, 26, pp.293–300. Kreps, T.A. & Monin, B., 2011. “Doing well by doing good”? Ambivalent moral framing in organizations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, pp.99–123. Lund, T.B., Andersen, L.M. & O’Doherty Jensen, K., 2013. The Emergence of Diverse Organic Consumers:
Does a Mature Market Undermine the Search for Alternative Products? Sociologia Ruralis, 53(4), p.n/a–n/a. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/soru.12022 [Accessed March 2, 2014].
Magaña-Gómez, J.A. & de la Barca, A.M.C., 2009. Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health. Nutrition reviews, 67(1), pp.1–16. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19146501 [Accessed June 11, 2014].
Major, B., Testa, M. & Blysma, W.H., 1991. Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact of esteem-relevance and perceived control. In Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. pp. 237–260).
24
Mettee, D.R. & Riskind, J., 1974. Size of defeat and liking for superior and similar ability competitors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(4), pp.333–351. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022103174900304 [Accessed June 11, 2014].
Minson, J.A. & Monin, B., 2012. Do-Gooder Derogation: Disparaging Morally Motivated Minorities to Defuse Anticipated Reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, pp.200–207.
Monin, B., 2007. Holier than me? Threatening social comparison in the moral domain. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 20(1), pp.53–68.
Monin, B., Sawyer, P.J. & Marquez, M.J., 2008. The rejection of moral rebels: resenting those who do the right thing. Journal of personality and social psychology, 95, pp.76–93.
Monin, B., Pizarro, D., & Beer, J., 2007. Deciding vs. reacting: Conceptions of moral judgment and the reason-affect debate. Review of General Psychology.
Monin, B., Sawyer, P., & Marquez, M., 2007. Resenting those who do the right thing: Moderators of liking for moral rebels. Unpublished manuscript.
Mussweiler, T., 2003. Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. Psychological Review, 110, pp.472–488.
Mussweiler, T., Rüter, K. & Epstude, K., 2004. The ups and downs of social comparison: mechanisms of assimilation and contrast. Journal of personality and social psychology, 87, pp.832–844.
Rozuel, C., 2011. The Moral Threat of Compartmentalization: Self, Roles and Responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(4), pp.685–697. Available at: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10551-011-0839-4 [Accessed June 11, 2014].
Ruby, M.B., 2012. Vegetarianism. A blossoming field of study. Appetite, 58, pp.141–150. Ruby, M.B. & Heine, S.J., 2011. Meat, morals, and masculinity. Appetite, 56, pp.447–450. Sabini, J. & Silver, M., 1982. Moralities of everyday life, Oxford University Press. Available at:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=7Ua7AAAAIAAJ. Salovey, P., 1991. Social comparison processes in envy and jealousy. In Social comparison: Contemporary theory and
research. pp. 261–285. Siderer, Y., Maquet, A. & Anklam, E., 2005. Need for research to support consumer confidence in the growing
organic food market. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 16(8), pp.332–343. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924224405000361 [Accessed February 25, 2014].
Smith, R.H., 2000. Reactions to upward and downward social comparisons. Handbook of Social Comparison: Theory and Research, pp.173–201.
Tesser, A., 1991. Emotion in social comparison and reflection processes. In Social comparison contemporary theory and research. pp. 115–145.
Tung, S.-J. et al., 2012. Attitudinal inconsistency toward organic food in relation to purchasing intention and behavior: An illustration of Taiwan consumers. British Food Journal, 114(7), pp.997–1015. Available at: http://www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00070701211241581 [Accessed February 14, 2014].
Wheeler, L., 1991. A brief history of social comparison theory. In Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research. pp. 3–21.
Wood, J. V., 1989. Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106, pp.231–248.
Zepeda, L. & Deal, D., 2009. Organic and local food consumer behaviour: Alphabet Theory. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(6), pp.697–705. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00814.x [Accessed February 22, 2014].
25
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Survey design
26
Scenario 1 (Moral, Imperfect)
27
Scenario 2 (Moral, not Imperfect)
28
Scenario 3 (Neutral, Imperfect)
29
Scenario 4 (Neutral, not Imperfect)
30
Drawing of oneself with a reference of a tree
31
Appendix 2. SPSS Analysis
Part 1: Experiment 1 – BioCultura
A. Factor Analysis
B. Reliability Analysis
32
C. General linear model (Multivariate)
C1. Gender analysis in each scenario
C2. Do you know about organic food?
Moral 1, Defect 1
Moral 1, Defect 0
Moral 0, Defect 1
Moral 0, Defect 0 Total
Woman 12 16 14 15 57
Man 5 6 7 6 24
SCENARIO
Gender
33
C3. Post-hoc analysis (continues in next page)
34
C4. Likeability items depending on scenario (statistically significant items only)
35
D. Univariate Variance Analysis
E. ANOVA Analysis
36
F. Means Analysis
G. Crosstab Analysis (Chi-square) – All items
Smart
Kind
Generous
Reasonable
Stupid
Stingy
Dishonest
37
Part 2: Experiment 2 – Architecture Class
H. Factor Analysis
I. Reliability Analysis
38
J. General linear model (Multivariate)
J1. Gender analysis in each scenario
J2. Do you know about organic food?
Moral 1, Defect 1
Moral 1, Defect 0
Moral 0, Defect 1
Moral 0, Defect 0 Total
Woman 7 10 12 8 37
Man 12 7 7 10 36
SCENARIO
Gender
39
J3. Post-hoc analysis (continues in the next page)
40
J4. Likeability items depending on scenario (statistically significant items only)
41
K. Univariate Variance Analysis
42
L. ANOVA Analysis
M. Means Analysis
43
N. Crosstab Analysis (Chi-Square) – All items
Smart
Stupid
Stingy
Dishonest
44