Millennials and chocolate product ethics: Saying one thing and doing another
The following is a summary of the stated research mentioned above. The content summarized here, including the figures and tables, all belong to the researchers (unless otherwise indicated). The summary attempts to stay as close to the original paper as much as possible with some adjustments in regards to jargon, length, or to focus on bean to bar aspects.
Introduction
It appears that consumers have a growing interest in purchasing foods tied to better health and ethics. This paper aims to see if what consumers say they want, in particular millennial consumers, corresponds to what they end up purchasing. What product a consumer may want to purchase may not match up what they are willing to actually pay for it. These choices may also weigh in differently depending on the product. For instance, foods that we consume a great deal of (bread, meat, cereal) may be thought of as foods worth paying more for than foods we don’t eat as much of such as candy or chocolate.
The Millennial Generation (MG) was chosen since they will have a big impact in purchasing confections over the next 30-40 years due to greater purchasing power. MGs are broadly defined as those in their low 20’s to early 30’s. They are considered to be more tech savvy, more concerned about the environment, more global in their thinking, more community oriented, less brand-loyal, expect immediate product delivery, more concern for ethical sourcing and environmentally-friendly packaging. Due to all this, MG’s may help companies predict future food choice trends. The researchers in this study feel that it’s important to get a look specifically into foods that MGs deem as a treat and a small part of their overall diet.
Previous studies have looked at attitudes towards purchasing trends, but also state that these attitudes don’t always translate into behavioral changes. In an analysis of consumer research abstracts, Koster (2003) found 68% of papers only measured attitudes. Of the 32% that looked at both attitude and behaviour, only 8% found a positive effect of attitude on food choice, the rest finding no effect. It’s important that studies look at how and when attitudes towards foods translate into behaviour.
Some points to be aware of:
In a focus group setting, some might feel pressured to endorse products based on what’s socially preferred as opposed to what they actually would purchase
Anonymous on-line surveys (Rousseau, 2015) have shown to capture a more accurate representation of what people actually purchase (95% being taste, 8% fair trade)
The researchers prepared a two-stage approach. One gathered stated importance of various factors in a focus group setting. The second part was based on a choice study to see how the factors from part one controlled their choice within a limited information environment.
Working hypothesis:
MG’s will emphasis healthier choices, transparent labelling, concern for corporate responsibility via ethically sourced ingredients, organic farming, and environmental impact
These factors will be judged much less important for candy/chocolate products
MGs will choose candy based on ingredients unless this information is unavailable
Experiment 1
Method
Eight focus groups were asked a series of questions. Four groups had MGs aged 18-25, and four groups aged 26-35. The questions were:
What characteristics regarding the ingredients of a candy are important to you?
What nutritional aspects of a candy do you notice?
Are you eating more or less candy than you did five years ago? How much? If there was a change, why?
Are you eating more or fewer snack items than you did five years ago? How much? If there was a change, why?
Is the character of a company or its leadership important in your choice of which company’s products to purchase? If so, describe which factors have affected your choices in the past?
Which of the following issues regarding food are important to you and why? Gluten-free, GMO, organic ingredients, use of pesticides, labor source (minors, low pay, ethical sourcing)?
Results & Discussion
The results can be seen in the following word clouds (Fig. 1). These word clouds represent the 75 most frequently used words during the focus group discussions. These words do not include irrelevant words such as “else” or “thing”.
Fig. 1 Most popular words used in the 4 focus groups with people aged 18-25.
The results can be seen in the following word clouds (Fig. 1). These word clouds represent the 75 most frequently used words during the focus group discussions. These words do not include irrelevant words such as “else” or “thing”.
The younger group appeared to be more dismissive of most of the discussion questions, and were more interested in taste. Figure 1 shows us the younger group focused more on general factors such as:
nutrition
company/brand
fat
calories
ingredients
Whereas the older focus groups focused more on specific factors such as:
organic
ethical sources
non-GMO
dark chocolate
The older cohort (seniors in college to 35) appeared to be learning throughout college which attitudes were popular to express (pro-organic, anti-GMO, pro fair-trade). However, they admitted that they didn’t make purchases consistent with those attitudes due to limited financial resources.
Some people who were most supportive of social factors confessed their main motivation was driven by guilt reduction (choosing a product that didn’t require synthetic pesticides), and that products related to fair trade made them feel better about their purchases.
Experiment 2
Using data extracted from the focus group, the researchers conducted another experiment focusing on factors the MGs saw as important such as:
organic
GMOs
certified ethical sourcing
rainforest friendly
clean labels (there is no accepted definition for this term, but often associated with small number of ingredients with names that are pronounceable)
sugar and fat content
type of candy bar (plain chocolate, chocolate with caramel, chocolate with nuts, and chocolate with peanut butter)
vitamin and gluten content did not a appear to be important in the focus groups, but these terms were retained for this experiment to have some low end preferences as well
Brand, taste, and price were excluded factors. Brand was said to produce strong expectations about other factors (ingredients, price, organic, fair trade) and would impede their ability to manipulate these factors individually. Participants were not tasting the products, but rather discussing them. Price was excluded because participants were already asked to make 435 comparisons, and choice fatigue can occur after 400 comparisons which may compromise the data they collected.
Method
Participants were a mix of introductory psychology students at the University, and other local Millennials. They were asked to make comparisons among different stimuli which reflect the factors discussed above (See Figure 2).
Participants were a mix of introductory psychology students at the University, and other local Millennials. They were asked to make comparisons among different stimuli which reflect the factors discussed above (See Figure 2). In the ingredients list, the “C” or “U” indicate whether the labels were judged as “clean” or “unclean”. LFLS indicates low fat/low sugar and HFHS indicates high fat/high sugar.
The two sugar levels, two fat levels, five social factors (including none) were all combined to create 20 stimuli. The clean/unclean factor and four candy bar types were combined to create 8 stimuli. The high vitamin and gluten free stimuli were the last two (but were rarely preferred and will receive little attention here). Therefore, there were a total of 30 stimuli presented as choices via a computer screen.
Results & Discussion
Results were scaled to a score of 0 when a participant never chose it, to a score of 2 when they always chose it, and 1 being no preference (see Figures. 3, 4, & 5).
Cluster 1 (Fig. 3)
This represented the largest number of participants (31%). This group preferred lower fat products and labels where ingredients were known or seen as clean. They didn’t appear to have much of a preference for social issues (GMO, Organic, Fair Trade).
Cluster 2 (Fig. 3)
This cluster represented 19% of the participants, which is the second largest number of participants. This cluster saw a strong preference for low fat, yet higher sugar products, with a moderate preference for organic and cleaner ingredient labels.
Cluster 3 (Fig. 4)
This cluster represented 14% of participants. They showed a strong preference for labels that include any social factor over labels without them. Not much of a differentiation between fat or sugar content, but preferred cleaner labels overall.
Cluster 4 (Fig. 4)
They preferred products with higher sugar labels, but with a preference for cleaner ingredient labels. They also showed a high preference for Fair Trade and non-GMO products, which was preferred to having no social factors present on the label.
Cluster 5 (Fig. 5)
This cluster represented 11% of the participants. They had the strongest preference for showing ingredients on the labels, preferred higher fat (the only cluster to do so), and showed a dislike for organic and non-GMO products (the only cluster to show scores below 1 for social factors). They preferred products with no social factor on the label.
Cluster 6 (Fig. 5)
This cluster represented 14% of participants. They showed a very strong preference for low sugar and low fat, and for cleaner ingredient labels. There was a moderate preference for social factors, Organic coming up highest.
Cluster Predictions
Now that 6 clusters of choice preference were created, could one predict choice based on age, sex/impulsivity, and decisions latency (how long it took them to decide).
The researchers did not notice many differences between sexes, although women ate more chocolate as a proportion of their diet than men did (0.9% vs 0.6%). Impulsivity has been associated with binge eating and Body Mass Index (BMI), and higher motor impulsivity might make participant less likely to be part of Cluster 6 (the low fat/low sugar cluster). They did find that women with less impulsivity ended up more likely to be in Cluster 6, but this was not true for men. For men, more impulsive men ended up in Cluster 2 (low fat and some sugar) while less impulsive men ended up in Cluster 5 (Ingredients and anti-organic). See Figure 6.
Those who decided on their choices more quickly (Figure 7) were less represented in Cluster 6 (calorie and health conscious). Those who took the longest to make a choice were more likely to fall into Cluster 6, and rarely fell into Clusters 4 (sweet ingredients) and cluster 5 (ingredients and anti-organic). About 24% of the participants had this latency of more than 8 seconds to make a decisions (average being about 3 seconds).
General Discussion & Conclusion
The research here was supported by a grant from The Hershey Company, although company representatives were not involved in the conduct, analysis, writing, or interpretation of the results. Keep in mind that these findings were based on a specific group of MGs in the Midwest USA, mostly compromised of university students or graduates. Also, keep in mind that this research was conducted based on identifying preference differences when comparing at least two. In the real-world, there may not be these side by side comparisons when one is making a choice to purchase a chocolate. Also, the brand factor was not included in this study (so researchers could focus on other factors). When brand is clearly visible, the weak influence of social factors may have very little impact on the purchasing behaviour.
Social Factors
The older groups of MGs (26-35) appeared to have a major discrepancy over what they said and what they chose. They were more forward voicing an opinion in favour for organic, non-GMO, fair trade, and Rainforest Alliance Certified, than the younger MGs, but just as likely to choose products with these social tags as younger MGs. The researchers suggest their motivation of voicing strongly for the social factors during the focus group was to minimize their guilt.
Overall, most of the participants didn’t exhibit a strong preference for the social factors. Only those in cluster 3, who made up 14% of the MGs had a strong preference for products that had social factor labels vs not having them. The presence of only one social factor on a label could be enough to reduce guilt and increase the purchasing for this type of consumer.
Cluster 5 MGs which made up 11% of the participants were coined “anti-organic” because they showed a great distinction among the social factors. The comments from the focus group suggest that they have a distrust of companies who use labels more so as a ploy to increase their prices.
Essentially the MGs were unwilling to pay higher prices for organic and ethically certified products, even though they liked the idea of them.
Ingredient list
About 89% of the participants preferred the “clean” ingredient labels when only ingredient labels were presented. This is why we see the major chocolate companies (such as Nestle and Hershey) pushing this “clean” label idea. Most were concerned with fat content than sugar content, where 45% preferred less fat, and only 14% preferred less sugar. As well, 30% preferred higher sugar products, while only 11% preferred higher fat. Therefore, these MGs tolerated higher sugar content. Gluten-free and high vitamin content appeared to not be a motivating factor in choice behaviour.
Impulsivity
Impulsivity was self-rated by the participants. This suggested that choice preference is altered depending on whether or not they had immediate access to the chocolate. For instance, were they making their choice while in the check-out line with the chocolate bars right in front of them, or did they make their choice when they had to chose and order them online, and then wait for them to be delivered. More research needs to be done in this area, but they did find that those who took longer to decide often were more calorie and health conscious. The researchers suggest that those who are more impulsive are less likely to choose products low in fat or sugar.
The latency effect is consistent with the impulsivity effect where self control is crucial to withholding a fast response and make a decision that favors long term health.
Future
It’s unclear if these preferences are just a short-lived fad or a fundamental shift in consumer preferences that will be passed to the next generation.
