The objective of this article is to study the influence of the number of environmental attributes of a product on the weight given to these attributes. The results of two experiments show that certified or uncertified environmental attributes on the same product are weighted less (more) by consumers when they are presented jointly (separately). This non-rational effect, called the embedding effect, is stronger for individuals deeply concerned with the environment and involved towards eco labels. The outcome of this study challenges the value of accumulating attributes when dealing with consumers of environmentally friendly products.
AndreoniJ (1989) Giving with impure altruism: Applications to charity and Ricardian equivalence. Journal of Political Economy97(6): 1447–1458.
3.
AndreoniJ (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal100(401): 464–477.
4.
BakerRRobinsonASmithR (2008) How do respondents explain WTP responses? A review of the qualitative evidence. Journal of Socio-Economics37(4): 1427–1442.
5.
BaronJRitovI (2009) Protected values and omission bias as deontological judgments. In: BartelsDBaumanCSkitkaLMedinD (eds) Moral Judgment and Decision Making. San Diego: Academic Press, pp.133–167.
6.
BaronJSprancaM (1997) Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes70(1): 1–16.
7.
BatemanIMunroARhodesBStarmerCSugdenR (1997) Does part-whole bias exist? An experimental investigation. Economic Journal107(441): 322–332.
8.
BougheraraDPiguetV (2008) Marchés avec coûts d’information sur la qualité des biens: une application aux produits écolabellisés. Économie & Prévision182(1): 77–96.
9.
BrécardDHlaimiBLucasSPerraudeauYSalladarréF (2009) Determinants of demand for green products: An application to eco-label demand for fish in Europe. Ecological Economics69(1): 115–125.
10.
CarsonR (1997) Contingent valuation surveys and tests of insensitivity to scope. In KoppRPommerheneWSchwartzN (eds) Determining the value of non-marketed goods: Economic, psychological, and policy relevant aspects of contingent valuation methods. Boston: Kluwer, pp.127–164.
11.
ChernevAGalD (2010) Categorization effects in value judgments: Averaging bias in evaluating combinations of vices and virtues. Journal of Marketing Research47(4): 738–747.
12.
ChumpitazRVanhammeJ (2003) Les processus modérateurs and médiateurs: distinction conceptuelle, aspects analytiques and illustrations. Recherche et Applications en Marketing18(2): 67–100.
13.
CohenJBasuK (1987) Alternative models of categorization: Toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research13(4): 455–472.
14.
ComasJSeifertR (2012) Reviewing the adoption of ecolabels by firms. Survey report, EPFL – IMD International, Switzerland, EPFL – IMD, 23.
15.
DarbyMKarniE (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics16(1): 67–88.
16.
DesvousgesWJohnsonFDunfordRBoyleKHudsonSWilsonK (1992) Measuring nonuse damages using contingent valuation: An experimental evaluation of accuracy. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
17.
DietzTKalofLSternP (2002) Gender, values, and environmentalism. Social Science Quarterly83(1): 353–364.
18.
EhrichKIrwinJ (2005) Willful ignorance in the request for product attribute information. Journal of Marketing Research42(3): 266–277.
19.
EinhornHHogarthR (1981) Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment and choice. Journal of Accounting Research32(1): 53–88.
20.
FishbeinMAjzenI (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
21.
FischhoffBQuadrelMKamletMLoewensteinGDawesRFischbeckPKlepperSLelandJStrohP (1993) Embedding effects: Stimulus representation and response mode. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty6(3): 211–234.
22.
FriedrichJBarnesPChapinKDawsonIGarstVKerrD (1999) Psychophysical numbing: when lives are valued less as the lives at risk increase. Journal of Consumer Psychology8(3): 277–299.
23.
GiannelloniJ-L (1998) Les comportements liés à la protection de l’environnement and leurs déterminants: un état des recherches en marketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing13(2): 49–72.
24.
GrunertSJuhlH (1995) Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology16(1): 39–62.
25.
HarrisonG (1992) Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: A critique of Kahneman and Knetsch. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management23(3): 248–257.
26.
HenionK (1972) The effect of ecologically relevant information on detergent sales. Journal of Marketing Research9(1): 10–14.
27.
HongJSternthalB (2010) The effects of consumer prior knowledge and processing strategies on judgments. Journal of Marketing Research47(2): 301–311.
28.
HuberJHolbrookMKahnB (1986) Effects of competitive context and of additional information on price sensitivity. Journal of Marketing Research23(3): 250–260.
29.
HuberJMcCannJ (1982) The impact of inferential beliefs on product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research19(3): 324–333.
30.
IrwinJ (2009) Continuous variables: analyzing and interpreting interaction models. Paper presented at the SCP doctorial consortium, San Diego.
31.
IrwinJBaronJ (2001) Response mode effects and moral values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes84(2): 177–197.18 Recherche et Applications en Marketing.
32.
IrwinJMcClellandG (2001) Misleading heuristics for moderated multiple regression models. Journal of Marketing Research35(1): 100–109.
33.
IrwinJMcClellandG (2003) Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research40(3): 366–371.
34.
IrwinJNaylorR (2009) Ethical decisions and response mode compatibility: Weighting of ethical attributes in consideration sets formed by excluding versus including product alternatives. Journal of Marketing Research46(2): 234–246.
35.
IrwinJSpiraJ (1997) Anomalies in the values for consumer goods with environmental attributes. Journal of Consumer Psychology6(4): 339–363.
36.
JacobsenJ-BLundhedeT-HMartinsenLHaslerBThorsenB-J (2011) Embedding effects in choice experiment valuations of environmental preservation projects. Ecological Economics70(6): 1170–1177.
37.
JolibertAJourdanP (2006) Marketing research: Méthodes de recherche et d’études en marketing. Paris: Dunod.
38.
KahnemanDKnetschJ (1992a) Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management22(1): 57–70.
39.
KahnemanDKnetschJ (1992b) Contingent valuation and the value of public goods: reply. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management22(1): 90–94.
40.
KitiraV (2009) Eco-labels: best practices and what’s to come. Paper presented at the EPA sustainable products network conference (webconference). Available at: www.responsiblepurchasing.org/webinars (accessed 25 June 2014).
41.
LarceneuxFBenoit-MoreauFRenaudinV (2011) Why might organic labels fail to influence consumer choices? Marginal labelling and brand equity effects. Journal of Consumer Policy35(1): 85–104.
42.
Lefkoff-HagiusRMasonC (1993) Characteristic, beneficial, and image attributes in consumer judgments of similarity and preference. Journal of Consumer Research20(1): 100–110.
43.
Le Gall-ElyMRobert-DemontrondP (2005) Méthodes d’évaluation contingente et d’analyse conjointe. Paris: Apogée.
44.
LoureiroMMcCluskeyJMittelhammerR (2002) Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labeled apples?Journal of Consumer Affairs36(2): 203–219.
45.
LuchsMNaylorRIrwinJRajagopalR (2010) The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing74(5): 18–31.
46.
MazarNZhongC-B (2010) Do green products make us better people?Psychological Science21(4): 494–498.
47.
MillerKHofstetterRKrohmerHZhangZ (2011) How should consumers’ willingness to pay be measured? An empirical comparison of state-of-the-art approaches. Journal of Marketing Research48(1): 172–184.
48.
NunnallyJ (1978) Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
49.
OlsenJDonaldsonCPereiraJ (2004) The insensitivity of ‘willingness-to-pay’ to the size of the good: New evidence for health care. Journal of Economic Psychology25(4): 445–460.
50.
PhamM-T (1996) Heuristiques and biais décisionnels en marketing. Recherche et Applications en Marketing11(4): 53–69.
51.
RaoABergenM (1992) Price premium variations as a consequence of buyers’ lack of information. Journal of Consumer Research19(3): 412–423.
52.
RaoAMonroeK (1996) Causes and consequences of price premiums. Journal of Business69(4): 511–535.
53.
ReynoldsW (1982) Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology38(1): 119–125.
54.
RitovIBaronJ (1999) Protected values and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes79(2): 79–94.
55.
SedjoRSwallowS (2002) Voluntary eco-labeling and the price premium. Land Economics78(2): 272–284.
56.
ShiellAGoldL (2002) Contingent valuation in health care and the persistence of embedding effects without the warm glow. Journal of Economic Psychology23(2): 251–262.
57.
SmithV (1992) Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management22(1): 71–89.
SpillerSFitzsimonsGLynchJJr.McClellandG (2013) Spotlights, floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression. Journal of Marketing Research50(2): 277–288.
60.
SteenkampJ-B (1989) Product quality: An investigation into the concept and how it is perceived by consumers. Assen, Maastricht: Van Gorcum.
61.
StegLVlekC (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology29(3): 309–317.
62.
StrazzieriA (1994) Mesurer l’implication durable vis-à-vis d’un produit indépendamment du risque perçu. Recherche et Applications en Marketing9(1): 73–91.
63.
TellisGGaethG (1990) Best value, price-seeking, and price aversion: The impact of information and learning on consumer choices. Journal of Marketing54(2): 34–45.
UrminskyOKivetzR (2011) Scope insensitivity and the ‘mere token’ effect. Journal of Marketing Research48(2): 282–295.
66.
VeistenK (2007) Willingness to pay for eco-labelled wood furniture: Choice-based conjoint analysis versus open-ended contingent valuation. Journal of Forest Economics13(1): 29–48.
67.
VloskyROzanneLFontenotR (1999) A conceptual model of US consumer willingness-to-pay for environmentally certified wood products. Journal of Consumer Marketing16(2): 122–136.
68.
WhiteKMacDonnellRDahlD (2011) It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research48(3): 472–485.
69.
WhitmarshLO’NeillS (2010) Green identity, green living? The role of pro-environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse pro-environmental behaviours. Journal of Environmental Psychology30(3): 305–314.
70.
XiaoCDunlapR (2007) Validating a comprehensive model of environmental concern cross-nationally: A US–Canadian comparison. Social Science Quarterly88(2): 471–493.
71.
XuJJiangZDharR (2013) Mental representation and perceived similarity: How abstract mindset aids choice from large assortments. Journal of Marketing Research50(1): 1–45.
