The effect of sampling chocolate on customer experience

Transcription

1 RIJKSUNIVERSITEIT GRONINGEN The effect of sampling chocolate on customer experience Customer indulgence, cost or benefit? By Bibianne Roetert May 12 In this study the effect of sampling chocolate on customer experience is examined in a supermarket environment. The experiment provides thorough insight in the do s and dont s considering sampling. This thesis will conclude with an advice for retailers how to use sampling in order to improve customer experience.

2 The effect of sampling chocolate on customer experience Master thesis Author Bibianne Roetert, Burmanstraat SG Amsterdam Tel: University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business Msc Business Administration Specialization Marketing Management Supervisors Supervisor: Laurens Sloot Co-supervisor: Erjen van Nierop Amsterdam,

3 Management summary Providing superior customer value is important in today s food retail industry. Since a pleasant customer experience will enhance customer value the following study will examine the effect of sampling chocolate on the pleasantness of customer experience. Customer experience is divided into three constructs: Cognitive response; affective response; and conative response. These responses were all divided into several quantifiable attributes. Using a quasi-experimental design a study is performed in two Dutch value-for-money supermarkets. 296 female respondents were questioned equally divided over three different situations. In one situation chocolate was sampled; in the other pencils were sampled; and in the control situation nothing was sampled. Following a factor analysis in order to determine the reliability of the attributes, a regression analysis gave insight in the causality between in store sampling and the cognitive, affective and conative responses of female shoppers. The results from this analyses showed that only affective responses were affected by tasting chocolate. Cognitive response and conative response showed no significant relationship with sampling chocolate. Additionally, affective responses were both positively and negatively affected by sampling chocolate. Because the beta of the causality with the positive affective response was higher than the beta of the relationship with the negative affective response, the hypothesis concerning the positive effect of chocolate on positive affective response is supported. This means that it is very likely that sampling chocolate affects processes in the orbitofrontal cortex concerning the regulation of emotions. Because seeing chocolate proved to have the same effect as tasting chocolate, this effect is even more likely. To conclude, it seems that chocolate is a pleasure enhancer, but it enhances negative affective responses at the same time. Therefore, more research is essential in order to determine if and how retailers could benefit from providing samples of chocolate in their supermarket. 3

4 Preface When I was only twelve years old, I already wanted to become a marketeer. Searching for ways to improve people s everyday rituals and to fulfil needs by making innovative products sounded like the most fun job in the world. Therefore, after successfully finishing my Bachelor s degree it obviously wasn t hard to choose which Master I wanted to apply for. Marketing management it was. Finally all courses which were thought attracted my attention and made me a fully dedicated student. To complete my marketing knowledge with some practical experience I learned a lot during my internship at Albert Heijn. During this internship I knew all my choices have been right and marketing is really the part of business which I can accelerate in and where my heart lies. Therefore, I m happy to finally finish my studies and to start practice real marketing in a Marketing traineeship at Unilever. Finishing this thesis will mean the end of a fun and informative project. I couldn t have finalised this without the help of a couple of great people. First, I want to thank Laurens Sloot for his endless patience and his useful tips. I also like to thank professor Verbeke for being so helpful and enthusiastic during the entire process. John Macleane has made it possible to collect data in both his supermarkets in Elst, I want to thank him a lot for this possibility and for the samples supplied by his supermarkets. In advance I also want to thank Erjen van Nierop for being my second supervisor and for spending time to read the whole text. Also I would like to thank the supermarket manager of Albert Heijn Jeremy for providing me with some useful insights from Holland s biggest retailer. At last I want to thank my parents, brother, sister, friends and boyfriend for supporting me throughout the entire process. They have always paid full attention to my stories and encouraged me to proceed with my fantastic ideas. Again, thanks to all of you who were involved in anyway and have made me finalize this challenging project! 4

5 Table of content Management summary... 3 Preface 4 1. Introduction Background Customer Experience Cognitive responses Affective responses Conative responses Problem statement Relevance of study Structure of the study Theoretical framework Sampling food Tasting food Customer Experience Cognitive responses Affective responses Conative responses Conceptual model Research design Experimental design Sample Procedure Plan of analysis Extra analysis Results Representativeness of sample Factor analysis Regression analysis Extra analysis Overview of the results Conclusion The effect of chocolate on cognitive response The effect of chocolate on affective response The effect of chocolate on conative response The effect of chocolate on customer experience Limitations and guidelines for future research Managerial implications...60 References 62 Appendix A1 - Questionnaire

6 Appendix A2 - Questionnaire...73 Appendix A3 - Questionnaire...79 Appendix B Interview...85 Appendix C SPSS- results...87 Appendix D Pictures

7 1. Introduction 1.1 Background In food retail, creating value to your customer is the key to success. Especially in the supermarket industry of today, which is characterized by price wars, all practices of a food retailer are based on persuading consumers to spend money at their place and not at the competition. Where most food retailers focus on price and products in order to differentiate, Dutch consumers are looking for good service and the feeling of to this place I want to return (GFK.nl 2012²). Therefore, to maintain and even expand their position in the market, Dutch retailers have to start investing in creating superior customer experience in order to attract customers and differentiate from competition. 1.2 Customer Experience Verhoef et al (2009) define customer experience as a holistic construct which involves the customer s cognitive, affective, emotional, social and physical responses to the retailer. This includes the total experience starting from the search, to the purchase, consumption and eventually the after-sale phase. During these phases, customers can be affected by elements under control of the retailer or beyond their control. An element in these phases which can be controlled is the store environment (Baker et al. 2002). Since two-third of the purchase decisions is made in-store, this is actually the place to make a difference after the consumer has decided to enter your supermarket (POPAI 1995; Inman et al. 2009). Research shows that the more time one spends in the store, the higher the probability of unplanned purchases (Inman et al. 2009). According to this same research, time spent in the supermarket can be increased by making the shopping experience as pleasant possible. This is supported by Donovan et al. (1994) who claim that feelings of pleasure perceived in a store environment, lead to spending more time in this environment and eventually spend more money. Moreover, 7

8 today s Dutch consumer spends 25 minutes per shopping trip (CBL.nl 2012¹). Hence, retailers can enhance this time and thereby sales by making the customer experience as pleasant as possible. Moreover, in-store promotions lead to enhancement of emotion and experience which is crucial in involving Dutch customers with their supermarket (GFK.nl 2012²). Additionally, a tool to make the customer experience outstand the competition is sampling of food in a supermarket. It is expected that especially the (sweet) taste of chocolate has the ability to influence customer responses in a retail environment (Herz 2007). However, the effect of sampling chocolate on customer responses has never been studied before. Therefore, in this study the effect of sampling chocolate on the perceived customer experience is examined. With the in-store stimulus of chocolate, retailers attract the consumer s attention. While having their attention, customers get the opportunity to appraise the stimulus which results in cognitive, affective and conative responses (Inman et al. 2009). As Verhoef et al. (2009) claim, these responses ultimately determine the perception of the construct customer experience. 1.3 Cognitive responses Cognitive responses are responses towards stimuli which are generated consciously. The consumer is not a passive receiver of influences from the in-store environment, but instead he or she actively tries to process the information from in-store stimuli (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). Moreover, cognitive responses vary from perceptions of interpersonal service quality up to perceptions of assortment quality (Baker et al. 2002; Dabholkar et al. 1996; Parasuraman et al. 1988). In addition, cognitive response may either result in active approach, active resistance, or unchanged behaviour which depends on the positivity of the customers perception (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). 8

9 1.4 Affective responses Affect relates to ones internal status in view of the collection of moods and emotions (Puccinelli et al. 2009). An affective response towards a supermarket is generally considered as the feeling of perceived pleasure in that supermarket (Kaltcheva and Weitz 2006; Donovan et al. 1994; Baker et al. 1992). In addition, positive affective responses cause an increased willingness to buy (Inman et al. 2009; Kaltcheva and Weitz 2006; Donovan et al. 1994; Baker et al. 1992). Consequently, positive affective responses can turn out in an increased share of wallet per customer or maybe even stimulate patronage behaviour. Affective responses are mostly accompanied by cognitive responses (Inman et al. 2009); nevertheless they influence behaviour independently (Donovan et al. 1994). 1.5 Conative responses Besides cognitive and affective responses, in-store stimuli can evoke conative responses. Conative response can be explained as either approach or avoidance behaviour (Mehrabian and Russel 1974). In former research this is measured as: the intention to visit the store (Baker et al. 1992; Donovan and Rossiter 1982); the intention to recommend the store to your friends (Baker et al. 1992); spending extra time in the store than intended (Inman et al. 2009; Donovan and Rossiter 1994); spending more money than intended (Inman et al. 2009; Kaltcheva and Weitz 2006; Sherman et al. 1997; and Donovan and Rossiter 1997); and liking of the store (Sherman et al. 1997; Donovan and Rossiter 1982). Figure 1 describes the relationship between in-store stimuli and responses. 9

10 Figure 1 The relationship between In-store stimuli and consumer response Cognitive response In-store stimuli Affective response Conative response 1.6 Problem statement It is of great importance to find out what factors make the difference in a retail environment in order to enhance the perceived customer experience. Furthermore, this is what eventually leads to creating customer value and what will differentiate one retailer from another. Additionally, since the degree of perceived customer experience affects patronage intentions and the share of wallet per customer, every possible method should be examined in order to improve this experience. In this study only one method is assessed, sampling of chocolate. The effect of sampling chocolate, which is expected to enhance the perception of customer experience, is studied using the following research question: Does sampling of chocolate increases the perceived customer experience? Customer experience is the result of the cognitive, affective and conative responses of a customer towards a retailer. Therefore, the sub questions focus on the effect of chocolate on these three specific constructs. 10

11 1.2.1 Sub questions The following sub questions are formulated in order to examine the general research question: 1. What is the effect of chocolate on cognitive responses? 2. What is the effect of chocolate on affective responses? 3. What is the effect of chocolate on conative responses? 1.7 Relevance of study The current Dutch food retailing market is characterized by the battle for consumers. In order to retain or even expand intrinsic market share, supermarkets have to ensure they provide the best service and the best products. Consumers are more critical than ever and pioneering in other markets is necessary for retailers to stay ahead. For example, the biggest Dutch supermarket Albert Heijn bought one of the biggest online providers of media and entertainment Bol.com. This contributes to achieving their goal of expanding their online market share. The knowledge from bol.com in the field of e-commerce makes it easier for Albert Heijn to provide convenient and high-end online shopping for daily groceries in then future. However, expanding in the online market is not the only way to protect from the heavy competition. Jumbo, another big Dutch retailer, is increasing their extrinsic market share by the take-over of C1000. These are only two examples of the dynamic and unpredictable battle between Dutch retailers. It can be said that the focus of food retailing moves towards factors apart from the core business of supermarkets, which is providing qualitative groceries and service to your customers. In combination with the current economic situation this lack of attention for the customers needs has resulted in stagnation of the amount which customers spent per shopping trip from 2010 to 2011 which is presented in Figure 2. 11

12 Figure 2 Amount spent per transactions in Dutch supermarkets over the last years (GFK.nl 2012 ¹) 19,47 19,52 20, , Creating excellent customer value is what distinct today s successful retailers from others (GFK.nl 2012²) today. Therefore, to detect whether the move of focus towards the web can be approved or whether there still lay opportunities inside the supermarket, this study examines the effect of chocolate on enhancing customer experience. If customer experience will be improved by offering something simple as chocolate, chocolate might serve as a secret weapon in the battle of the superior Dutch retailer in the near future. 1.8 Structure of the study The problem which gave rise to this study is formulated above. Besides, the three different constructs which determine (the perception of) customer experience are explained. In the next six chapters, the effect of chocolate on customer experience is stressed in detail. First, the problem will be supported by a theoretical framework in chapter two. Second, in chapter three the research is made more tangible in a research design. This explains both the design of the study and the method of performing the experiment and interpreting the results. Chapter four contains the results and the analysis which are the basis of chapter five, the conclusion. In addition, in chapter six several limitations are stressed and to complete the research, managerial implications are proposed in chapter seven. 12

13 2. Theoretical framework 2.1 Sampling food Sampling food in food retail environments The emotional and social responses to environmental stimuli are crucial in affecting purchase behaviour, as mentioned by Verhoef et al. (2009). Sampling food is a tool to influence this response. Hence, offering free food in supermarkets will build excitement in the store and stimulates buying (Levy and Weitz 2009). Moreover, tasting, seeing and smelling the product makes consumers more convinced of their attitudes and provide them stronger beliefs of the benefits of that product (Marks and Kamins 1988). Although Kotler (1973) claims that taste cannot directly be applied to atmosphere, Heiman et al. (2001) contradicts this statement. He states that demonstrations and sampling food have two effects: increasing the probability that a consumer will purchase a product; and increase the formation of goodwill of the consumer. This latter effect is of great importance to food retailers. It would mean that the mood of consumers in the supermarket can be influenced by offering free food samples. This would explain the reason food sampling is a tool already used in supermarkets (Interview Appendix B). However, earlier research provides little evidence about the formation of goodwill after receiving a sample. Explanations of the formation of goodwill after receiving a free food sample can be the reciprocity effect, people respond positive to favorable treatment (Fennis and Stroebe 2010); or the effect of eating on customers mood while shopping (Andrade 2005; Garg et al. 2007; Donovan et al. 1994) or it might be explained by physical responses of individuals to tasting and smelling food (O Doherty et al. 2000; Kringelbach et al. 2003; Pellegrino et al. 2010) Physical theory about food sampling The effect of tasting food on the emotional state of people has been studied in both the physical as the psychological field. Research in the physical field focuses on the unconscious 13

14 process which happens in one particular part of the brain. In addition, the part of the brain responsible for influencing human emotional states after tasting food is the orbitofrontal cortex (O Doherty et al. 2000; Kringelbach et al. 2003; Pellegrino et al. 2010). After tasting food, the pleasantness evoked by the specific food is evaluated in regions of the orbitofrontal cortex. This part of the orbitofrontal cortex indicates the amount of pleasure one perceives after eating (Kringelbach et al. 2003). In figure 3, the activated part of orbitofrontal cortex which correlates with pleasantness ratings, is indicated as the yellow spot in the left of the picture. Figure 3 Area of the orbitofrontal cortex which correlates with pleasantness ratings (Kringelbach et al. 2003) 14

15 Figure 4 An overview of the human brain The orbitofrontal cortex is part of the prefrontal cortex which is situated in the area of the brain right behind the eyes as can be seen in figure 4 and 5. It is connected to the amygdale and receives input of the following sensory stimuli: odor, taste, sound and touch (O Doherty et al. 2000). The orbitofrontal cortex is part of the total affective network which processes and controls emotional impulses. Hence, emotions and feelings of pleasure are evaluated in this part of the brain (Bechara et al. 2000; Kringelbach et al. 2003). In addition, affect is linked to ones internal collection of moods and emotions (Puccinelli et al. 2009) which are evaluated in the orbitofrontal cortex. Therefore, it can be stated that the orbitofrontal cortex is involved in controlling the affective responses of consumers. 15

16 Figure 5 The human brain, the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex (Neuralmodel.net 2012) Function of the orbitofrontal cortex The orbitofrontal cortex contains neurons that respond to the texture of fat in the mouth, scent, and to the sight of food, but the same as with the reward value of taste, these neurons only respond to the present hunger of the person (Kringelbach et al. 2003). Moreover, the orbitofrontal cortex is only activated if a person is hungry and deprived from food for several hours. In contrast, when a person is fed to satiety with a specific food the neural response to the taste, sight, scent and texture to this food will decrease since the orbitofrontal cortex is not activated. This effect is called the sensory-specific satiety (Kringelbach et al. 2003; Rolls et al. 1981). This phenomenon is the factor in control of the regulation of food intake of all people (O Doherty et al. 2000). Due to this, consumers who have eaten multiple pieces of one food sample would perceive less pleasantness and reward value of that particular food than other consumers who had less or had not eaten the food sample. However, eating food samples to satiety in a supermarket environment is not very likely to occur. Therefore the statement of Wadhwa et al. (2006) supports retailers in offering food samples, claiming that one bite of food can actually lead to intensification of hunger. Intensification of hunger after 16

17 one bite could lead to higher interest in the particular product or in products from the assortment in general Psychological theory about food sampling In contrast, the effect of tasting food on the human emotional state has also been examined from a psychological point of view. However from this view people are already in a certain emotional state and eating can contribute to either preserve this emotional state or improve their state. Since the emotional state of shoppers can predict shopping behavior according to Donovan et al. (1994), it is important to facilitate food which can positively influence the mood of customers. However, whether a person perceives food to be either mood lifting or mood threatening depends on the person s affective state at that time (Garg et al. 2007). For happy people healthy food is mood enhancing, while sad people want to navigate away from their negative emotional state by eating more hedonic products as fattening snacks (Tice et al. 2001). Moreover, only the presence of food is an important factor in psychological studies as well. Providing free food can be perceived as a favourable treatment. According to the principle of reciprocity (Fennis and Stroebe 2010), positive responses follow a favorable treatment. Besides the principle of reciprocity, sampling food in general contains a positive action of the supermarket. Moreover, this action might contribute to consumers feelings and perception of the store characteristics Food sampling as a tool to evoke both cognitive and affective responses Both affective and cognitive positive responses are evoked by sampling of food, taking into account the positive effect of sampling food on emotional states of pleasure (Baker et al. 1992); the strength of attitudes (Marks and Kamins 1988); and the acceptance of messages (Smith and Swinyard 1983). Since affective responses cause an increased willingness to buy (Inman et al. 2009; Kaltcheva and Weitz 2006; Donovan et al. 1994; Baker et al. 1992) and leads to more positive evaluations of the store (Puccinelli et al. 2009) it is of great 17

18 significance to discover what influences this affective response of the consumer. At the same time it is important to determine the factors that influence cognitive responses. Since cognitive responses ultimately increase involvement (Fennis and Stroebe 2010) which results in more word of mouth, liking of the store, and future shopping intentions (Puccinelli 2009) Effectiveness of food sampling in retail environments Improving the total evaluation of the supermarket is eventually each retailer s aspiration in order to improve customer experience. What the influence of the sample is on the total evaluation of the supermarket is examined in the following experiment. Goal of this research is to help supermarkets to (re)evaluate the effectiveness of sampling food and use sampling effectively in order to create the ultimate customer experience. The sum of the customers cognitive, affective and the conative response gives insight in whether or not the retailer has succeeded to create this outstanding customer experience, as shown in figure 6. Figure 6 Cognitive, affective and conative customer responses affect customer experience Cognitive response Affective response Conative response Customer experience 2.2 Tasting food Informational and affective component of consumption Ultimately, the goal of sampling food is to evoke positive responses from customers. In addition, this positive response is partly based on conscious and unconscious consideration of the food sample. Shiv and Nowlis (2004) claim that the environment, in which the sampled 18

19 product is tasted, plays an important role in the dominance of conscious or unconsciousness decisions of consumption. They separate an informational- and an affective component of consumption. Of which the informational component is a composition of objective features related to aspects such as the quality of the tasting experience. On the other hand, the affective component is a composition of the subjective, more emotional, reactions to the experience. According to Shiv and Nowlis (2004), distraction will lead to an increased impact of the affective component. This would mean that sampling food in a crowded environment will have a different effect than sampling in a less crowded environment. Since supermarkets are generally crowded, mostly the affective component of consumption overrules the informational component in this setting. Therefore, choices made in supermarkets seem to be more often based on emotion rather than objective features of a product Type of food However, according to Mishra and Mishra (2010) it is not the distraction that influences the behavior or preference in a supermarket, it is the type of food consumed. Less impulsive choices are made when people had eaten food with a high level of serotonin the night before. In other words, Mishra and Mishra (2010) claim that it is consumers everyday diet which influences the fact if they can be easily influenced by offering them a food sample. Steinberg and Yalch (1978) found an interesting difference between obese and non-obese consumers in their reactions towards food. Moreover, appetite of normal weigh consumers would be satisfied when consuming food, while the need of obese consumers for consuming more food increases after eating. An explanation for this is that internal hunger cues are less important than taste for obese people. They tend to consume more of a good tasting product, which motivates them to show more interest in this good. Experiencing the taste of a product by trying a food sample could therefore lead obese to show more interest in buying that particular product. 19

20 2.2.3 Taste and smell Subsequently, the orbitofrontal cortex can also be activated by odors (Kringelbach et al. 2003; O Doherty 2000). Hence, tasting of the sample is not even necessary in order to affect responses in a retail environment. Kotler (1973) indicates that smell is one of the main olfactory dimensions of atmosphere; therefore smell can influence ones perception about the environment. In addition, this effect is explained by the fact that smell is more intensely and intimately linked to our moods and emotional life than any of our other sensory experiences (Herz 2007). Therefore, all odors which enter your nose can unconsciously influence the current emotional state of consumers. However, if an odor will enter your nose depends on the awareness and appreciation of the scent. Moreover, the awareness and appreciation of the scent increases the human capability to smell (Herz 2007). Sampling food in a supermarket is already expected to enhance awareness since the sampling situation differs from the normal situation without sampling. Initially, smelling food starts as an objective process. However, the odor is immediately marked as a good or bad scent by the instinctive, hardwired predisposition of humans after entering the nose (Herz 2007). Aromas which people like elicit pleasant moods and have positive effects, while odors people dislike tend to evoke negative moods. Positive emotions trigger people to approach the smell, while negative emotions cause people to avoid it (Herz 2007). What odor is perceived as positive and which as negative, depends on the characteristics of the product. Unfamiliar odors will be more readily disliked than liked. Whereas a sweet odor is initially liked since it signals carbohydrates. This effect results from human evolution since carbohydrates are necessary to survive in a food scarce environment (Herz 2007). This is also the reason why no other species are as driven by sugar as humans. 20

21 2.2.4 Chocolate as a treat In addition, the drive to eat certain food is detectable with people who crave to eat sweets or salty snacks. Hence, craving can be explained as an intense desire to eat a particular food (Herz 2007). Women and men differ in type of food they crave for. While 60% of women crave for sweet food, with chocolate high on that list, 60% of men crave for savory food (Herz 2007). Apart from this gender differences in preference for cravings, eating sweet food is perceived as pleasurable by both men as women. This is both explained by nature, human evolution, as by nurture since most people have initially learned that the taste and smell of sweets are good because it is tasty food (Herz 2007). 2.3 Customer Experience Customer experience can be influenced from the moment a customer enters the store until he or she checks out (CBL.nl¹). Based on both the background of chocolate and of sampling it is expected that sampling chocolate can positively influence this customers experience which will increase the customer value. Customer experience is based on five different responses towards the retailer as mentioned by Verhoef et al. (2009). However, chocolate will possibly not influence all these responses in a positive manner. For instance, social responses are influenced by other customers and the sales persons inside a supermarket (Verhoef et al. 2009). Therefore, the social aspect is excluded from this study since offering chocolate is not expected to affect social responses. The remaining four constructs of affective, cognitive, emotional, and physical responses are expected to be directly influenced by chocolate. Since the dictionary explains affect as being a feeling or emotion, emotion is considered to be a part of the affective response. Physical responses have a different designation in this study; they are called conative responses, but enclose exactly the same elements as the responses from the study of Verhoef et al. (2009). This leaves three constructs of customer experience to be influenced by the sampling of chocolate: cognitive, affective and conative response. 21

22 Detecting the influence of chocolate on these three responses is supposed to answer the research question: Does sampling of chocolate increases the perceived customer experience? 2.4 Cognitive responses Cognitive responses are responses towards a stimulus or a situation which are processed in a higher-order cognitive manner. In this study, cognitive response is defined as the response following upon a thorough conscious deliberation of the situation (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). The cognitive response can be compared to the informational component of Shiv and Nowlis (2004). Hence, in cognitive responses the focus lies beyond emotion upon the higherprocessing level. As Sherman et al. (1997) claim, cognitive responses account for most planned purchases. Therefore, cognitive processes are important to monitor since in most cases they do influence at least one-third of the purchase decisions, since two-third is made in-store (POPAI 1995) Objectively process information Processing resources play an important part in the level of cognition. Hence, when the processing resources are constraint, the dominance of affective responses enlarges (Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999). Therefore, it is important in evoking cognitive responses that the situation is transparent and consumers have the opportunity to deliberately process all information objectively. By all information is meant: All features which could elicit a reaction or opinion that are detectable by the human senses (Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999). In this study, the focus is on sight and taste. Specifically, it is the sight of the features in the supermarket and the taste of the chocolate sample. Hence, in this study it is assumed that customers are not able to process information objectively since they will be affected by the stimulating effect of chocolate on the brain. Therefore, it is expected that the positivity evoked by eating chocolate will influence their overall evaluation. 22

23 Additionally, relevant interactions in the definition of cognitive responses are the items that are objective and transparent in the manipulated situation. At the same time, the relevant items should drive purchase decisions in order to add value for retailers Cognitive responses driving purchase decisions The items which comply with this are defined by Parasuraman et al. (1988) in their SERVQUAL scale. The SERVQUAL scale measures the consumer perceptions of service quality in retailing organizations. Although it is difficult to measure quality objectively, this scale provides a framework to assess the overall service quality based on attitudes resulting from the comparison between customer s expectations and their perceptions of actual performance (Parasuraman 1988; Dabholkar et al. 1996). Zeithaml et al. (1996) emphasize the importance of measuring service quality in order to improve it. In addition, they claim that improving service quality can increase favorable behavioral intentions towards the supermarket. Hence, the SERVQUAL scale contains five dimensions: Tangibles; reliability; responsiveness; assurance; and empathy. The average score on each of these five dimensions gives insight in the extent to what the supermarket is complying with customer s needs. Baker et al. (2002) and Verhoef et al. (2009) confirm the value of this scale by stating that the perceptions of interpersonal service quality, and retail atmosphere affect store patronage intentions. Furthermore, Verhoef et al. (2009) outline the importance of measuring current satisfaction in order to affect future customer satisfaction. Therefore, measuring the quality perception of customers in a supermarket is very relevant in order to determine the effect of chocolate on cognitive responses Measuring cognitive responses In addition, Dabholkar et al. (1996) have extended the original 22-item instrument of Parasuraman et al. (1988) by adding six sub dimensions to the five main dimensions. These sub dimensions are based upon associations which customers in retail environments have with 23

24 the main dimensions. Hence, this adjusted scale is more appropriate for examining retail businesses offering a mix of services and merchandise (Dabholkar et al. 1996). Since the up to date measurement instrument of Dabholkar et al.(1996) provided more accurate theorems to assess the retail service quality perception then the SERVQUAL scale of Parasuraman et al. (1988), fifteen theorems from the instrument of Dabholkar et al. (1996) are selected to measure cognitive response. Furthermore, the selection of fifteen theorems is supposed to reflect all relevant items considered by Dutch customers inside a supermarket (GFK.nl 2012¹). Which theorems were selected and eventually will be used to assess cognitive response is outlined in TABLE 1. TABLE 1 SERVQUAL dimensions (Dabholkar et al ; Parasuraman et al. 1988) Dimensions Definition Theories Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Physical facilities, equipment, and look of personnel Ability to perform the promised service consistently and correctly Willingness to help the customer and to provide quick service Knowledge and politeness of employees and their ability to instigate trust and confidence 1. TAN1: The physical facilities at this store are visually appealing 2. TAN2: This store has modern-looking equipment and fixtures 3. TAN3: Materials associated with this store s service (such as shopping bags, catalogues or statements) are visually appealing 1. REL1:This store provides the service right the first time 2. REL2:This store has merchandise available when the customers want it 3. REL3:This store insists on error-free sales transactions and records 1. RESP1:Employees in this store give prompt service to customers 2. RESP2:Employees in this store tell customers exactly when services will be performed 3. RESP3:Employees in this store are never too busy to respond to customer s requests 1. ASS1:This store gives customers individual attention 2. ASS2:Employees in this store are consistently courteous with customers 3. ASS3:Employees in this store are hospitable* 24

25 Empathy Caring, providing personal service 1. EMP1:This store offers high quality merchandise 2. EMP2:This store provides plenty of convenient parking for customers 3. EMP3:The store has operating hours convenient to all their customers Assessing cognitive responses In this study, all fifteen theorems from TABLE 1 are included in the three different questionnaires which are presented in appendices A1, A2, and A3. The responses towards the theorems are measured on a 5-point Likert scale. Respondents can indicate if they totally disagree (1) up to totally agree (5) with the theorem. It is expected that offering free chocolate to customers will enhance each dimension of cognitive response, while customer-employee interaction affects the perception of the 5 dimensions of the SERVQUAL scale (Parasuraman et al. 1988). Hence, everything that influences the customer-employee interaction positively will influence the perception of the five quality dimensions in a positive manner (Baker et al. 2002). Because people associate chocolate with happiness and warmth (Herz 2007), these thoughts are expected to spread out to the perception of the reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy of the employees. In addition, in the time when chocolate is sampled, it is believed that consumers are more positive in general because of the presence of chocolate (Herz 2007). However, when chocolate is not sampled the perception of the dimensions relies on objective deliberation which can be either positive or negative. That sampling of chocolate is indeed such a relevant factor in affecting cognitive responses inside a supermarket, is proposed in the following hypothesis: H1: Sampling of chocolate will evoke a positive cognitive response towards the supermarket. If this hypothesis is indeed supported by the results from the study, retailers will be able to increase word of mouth, liking of the store and influence shopping intentions in the near 25

26 future by offering chocolate (Puccinelli 2009). At the same time, future store selection and most planned purchases are positively influenced by positive cognitive responses (Sherman et al. 1997). In competitive times like these, such positive outcomes makes the effect of chocolate as a marketing tool worth examining. 2.5 Affective responses Customer experience is also based upon affective customer responses, the subjective and personal responses towards a supermarket (Verhoef et al. 2009). According to Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006); Donovan et al. (1994) and Baker et al. (1992), an affective response towards a supermarket can be described as the feelings of perceived pleasure in a supermarket. Perceived pleasure is therefore the overall variable measured in order to determine the affective response of a customer. To measure the effect of chocolate on the variable perceived pleasure, different items are relevant Measuring affective responses Baker et al. (1992) relate pleasure to the extent to which a person feels good in the environment. They measure pleasure according to six items: Nice, dissatisfying, displeasing, repulsive, unpleasant, and uncomfortable. These items have been assessed for both internal and external consistency. In addition, Donovan et al. (1994) describe pleasure as an emotional state which is influenced by the external environment. They measure pleasure based on happiness, annoyance, satisfaction, contention, hopefulness and relaxedness. Kaltcheva and Weitz (2006) at last measure the affective response based upon satisfaction, pleasantness, happiness and the fact if someone feels pleased or displeased. As stated above, there are a couple of different items which determine the affective response of perceived pleasure. Not all of them are relevant in order to measure the effect of chocolate on the affective response inside a supermarket. To make sure the questionnaire covers the relevant items, five of the items of Baker et al. (1992) are used to measure affective responses since these proved to be 26

27 internally and externally consistent. Hence, the items are submitted both positively as negatively in order to prevent bias of rehearsal. Whereas feelings of repulsion are not considered relevant in a supermarket environment, this item has been deleted. In addition, also the Happiness-item of Donovan et al. (1994) is added to these 5 items of Baker et al. (1992). Combined with the feeling of being welcome, a very important item when visiting a store (GFK.nl¹ 2012), ten items are used in order to measure affective response. To exclude the limitation of measuring perceived pleasure prior entering the store and after visiting the store, this study only measures the perceived pleasure inside the store Assessing affective response That eating chocolate could influence the regulation of emotions is explained in the above theory. However, in what way and to what extent chocolate is influencing the process of regulating emotional impulses in a true environment has not been examined in earlier research. Therefore, it will be studied by documenting customer responses towards the different items of perceived pleasure after eating or seeing chocolate. These ten items are each tested on a five-point Likert scale. As the researcher calls each feeling, the respondent can subsequently indicate if they totally disagree (1) up to totally agree (5) with the feelings at that moment. Agreeing means that the respondent indeed feels like that mood at the moment, while disagreeing means the opposite. In order to prevent bias of rehearsal, five items are stated positively and five are stated negatively. Since it is expected that women will respond favorably towards sweet food, all 5 positive items will likely be influenced positively by chocolate in the manipulated situation. In addition, the opposite effect is expected for the negative items. It is expected that the affective response of women who are confronted with chocolate samples, is less negative than in situations without chocolate. In the control situation without chocolate, no extreme feelings are expected. This would imply that positive affective responses towards the supermarket are strengthened when sampling chocolate. At 27

28 the same time, negative affective responses are expected to be weakened when chocolate is sampled because women will respond more favorable towards the chocolate. Therefore, two hypotheses have been separated to determine the effect of chocolate on affective responses of female shoppers: H2a: Sampling of chocolate will strengthen positive affective responses towards the supermarket. H2b: Sampling of chocolate will weaken negative affective responses towards the supermarket. 2.6 Conative responses A conative response is often defined as the intention to buy a product or particular brand after being exposed to stimuli (MacKenzie et al. 1986; Goodwin and Etgar 1980). These stimuli can be of any kind. Moreover, exposure to chocolates on a display is expected to lead to a conative response. Nevertheless, the effect of tasting chocolate on the conative responses of customers inside supermarkets has not been studied yet. The ideal immediate conative response towards the display full of chocolates is that customers would pick a piece of chocolate, taste it, and let the taste of the chocolate influence their future buying and patronage intentions. Subsequently, it is expected that tasting of chocolate evokes positive emotions which lead to approach behavior (Herz 2007). In general, it is expected that the approach behaviour will eventually spread over towards the supermarket in general. If this latter holds true in this experiment, it means the retailer could influence approach behaviour towards its store by sampling chocolates. If chocolate indeed has an effect on general approach behavior, customers will indicate it is very likely they will visit that supermarket again next time. Furthermore, the preference for the supermarket is assessed in order to determine future sales (Grewal et al. 2009). At the same time, customers are asked how likely 28

29 it is that they would recommend the store to friends. Baker et al. (1992) specify this latter question as an indication of approach behavior. In addition, customers are asked to answer these three questions on a five-point Likert scale from very unlikely (1) up to very likely (5). It is expected that respondents who are in the situation where chocolate is sampled are more willing to recommend the supermarket to their friends then others. Subsequently, customers will prefer the supermarket above others and are more likely to visit the store again on their next shopping trip when chocolate is sampled. This positive influence of chocolate results from the assumption that positive experiences lead to positive attitudes which in turn lead to positive conative responses (Baker et al. 1992). Hence, attitude-behavior consistency is higher in the case of trial, if people are able to taste the product and have a positive experience with it (Smith and Swinyard 1983). Since most women hold positive attitudes towards chocolate because of its sweetness (Herz 2007), it is expected that respondents perceive the experience of tasting chocolate to be positive. Therefore a positive conative response is expected to result from the presence of the chocolate. A positive conative response in this study is indicated by: (1) the likelihood of visiting the supermarket again next shopping trip; (2) supermarket preference; (3) and the likelihood of recommending the supermarket to their friends. In addition, to verify the connection between good attitudes and good behavior, a fourth extra conative response is measured. What will be measured is the willingness to donate 0,50 to charity (4). In theory, the reciprocity effect will make respondents more willing to donate after receiving a chocolate (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). However, if this will be supported by research will examined in this study. A positive response is expected on all four conative responses. The hypothesis formulated based on the above is hypothesis 3: H3: Sampling of chocolate will evoke a positive conative response towards the supermarket 29

30 2.6 Conceptual model The conceptual model in figure 6 will help answering the problem statement whether sampling of chocolate can serve as an effective tool in supermarkets to provide the ultimate customer experience. The three sub questions explained in H1, H2a & H2b, H3, support answering the problem. Hence, customer experience is divided in cognitive response; affective response; conative response. Moreover, a positive influence of chocolate on these three constructs is expected based on the previous described theories. Figure 7 Conceptual model H1 Cognitive response Sampling chocolate in a supermarket H2a/b Affective response Customer experience H3 Conative response 30

31 3. Research design In the following chapter the research method of collecting and analysing data is explained in four steps. First, the experimental design of the study will be clarified. This design will be followed by an explanation of the sample which implies a description of the respondents. In addition, the procedure of performing the experiment will be outlined. Moreover, the chapter will conclude with a detailed plan of how the results will be analysed after collecting the data. In other words, this chapter will serve as a guide through the process of starting the experiment all the way to the end of the experiment when the necessary data is collected. 3.1 Experimental design In order to get insight in how customer experience is enhanced through sampling of chocolate, a field experiment is conducted in the supermarket. The goal of this experiment is to detect differences between the situation with chocolate, and the situations without chocolate. Analysing the experiment results is expected to give insight in the causality between the independent variable tasting of chocolate and the dependent variables: cognitive response; affective response; and conative response as outlined in TABLE 2. TABLE 2 Sampling chocolate and its expected relationship with customer response Cognitive response Affective response Conative response Sampling chocolate H1: + H2a positive affect: + H3: + H2b negative affect: - The experiment is designed as a quasi-experimental research which will be performed in a real world setting inside a supermarket on regular weekdays. The manipulation of the independent variable and the random assignment of respondents are similar to a true experiment, though the lack of control over all extraneous variables makes it a quasiexperimental design (Malhotra 2007). Moreover, the study is designed as a betweenparticipant design which tackles the disadvantage of test-retest issues since retesting is not 31

32 possible. Random assignment of respondents has to be guaranteed in order to use a betweenparticipant design (Malhotra 2007). 3.2 Sample In order to reach the goal of enhancing the customer experience by sampling chocolate, it is important to determine who your target group is (Kotler 1973). In case of a supermarket, this target group is extremely varied. Therefore a clear distinction is made in the customers who are targeted and which are not. In this study only women are included because of their apparent preference for the taste of chocolate (Herz 2007). Data is collected from a total of 300 respondents (n=300). Additionally, respondents are not aware of the hypotheses or the goals of the study. In general, respondents which are not biased by foreknowledge are most objective and reliable (Malhotra 2007). The sample of respondents includes all women who happen to be in the supermarket at the time of the test, men are excluded. Random assignment is guaranteed since respondents are asked on beforehand if they have not participated in the research one of the days before. 3.3 Procedure In the experiment, two different supermarkets are used with both different store characteristics to correct for selection bias (Malhotra 2007). Supermarket A is a relatively big supermarket with a large assortment opposed to Supermarket B, more of a so called neighbourhood supermarket. Because of the distinct characteristics of these two supermarkets in size, revenue and customer base, it is assumed they represent the vast majority of Dutch supermarkets. The difference between the two supermarkets is clearly outlined in TABLE 3 which presents the characteristics of both supermarkets. 32

33 TABLE 3 Characteristics supermarkets Europaplein (Supermarket A) Westeraam (Supermarket B) Size of supermarket (excl m² 907m² storage room) Amount of transactions a week a week Average amount spent per incl transaction Service corner and excl. corner Amount of parking places Average age of customers 49.2 Years old 48.7 years old Opening date 16 th of June th of June 2007 Amount of employees +/ Inside the two supermarkets, exactly the same study is performed. In the first manipulated situation, a big plate full of dark chocolate is placed near the entrance of both supermarkets (Pictures Appendix D). In this situation, the questions from the questionnaire in Appendix A1 are asked by the researcher. To control for the reciprocity effect (Fennis and Stroebe 2010), another non-food product is sampled near the entrance of both supermarkets in the second situation. This product will be a standard C1000 pencil. Offering also a taste and smell lacking non-food item makes it possible to exclude the reciprocity effect on gifts in general, and to focus on the effect of chocolate instead. In this second situation, the questionnaire from Appendix A2 is used. In the third and control situation, all other store characteristics are equal. However, no product is sampled at the entrance. In the third situation, the questions from the questionnaire in appendix A3 are asked. Moreover, results from this last situation tend to be reliable for representing the supermarket in a standard situation. Comparing this third situation with the former two, indicates if offering a product in general will change any response Experimental conditions The experiment in the supermarket starts in the morning at 10 AM and, taking into account time to prepare each situation, it finishes about 7 hours later at 5 PM. In order to protect from day bias, the three situations of sampling chocolate, a pencil, or nothing, rotate during the day 33

34 which is presented in TABLE 4. For example, first nothing is sampled for two hours, than chocolate is available for two hours and at last there are pencils at the entrance for a period of two hours. In every two hours per situation, about 15 to 20 respondents are questioned. In total 50 respondents per situation in each supermarket are questioned. TABLE 4 Order of experiment situations per supermarket, per day Supermarket Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 A Westeraam B Europaplein 1. Chocolate 2. Pen 3. Nothing 1. Pen 2.Nothing 3.Chocolate 1.Nothing 2.Chocolate 3.Pen 1.Chocolate 2.Pen 3.Nothing 1.Pen 2.Nothing 3.Chocolate Overall, the experiment will take six days to gather the necessary amount of data, three in each supermarket. 1.Nothing 2.Chocolate 3.Pen Respondents Customers are approached by the researcher while they are shopping through the aisles. The specific place in the supermarket is unimportant, but in the situations chocolate and pencil respondents have to have passed the display with the samples. Furthermore, approaching a respondent includes a short introduction of the researcher followed by the question whether the customer is willing to participate in an experiment or not. If the customer agrees, the researcher proceeds by running through Appendix A1, A2 or A3 depending on the situation. 3.4 Plan of analysis Before drawing any conclusions, the data collected from the experiment needs to be analysed in order to determine whether the hypothesis are supported. Based on the hypotheses, it is expected that the customers who have received chocolate will show more positive responses in general than customers who haven t received anything or received a pen. This is expected to be the same in both supermarkets apart from their differences in size or revenue. 34

35 3.4.1 Representativeness of the sample In order to reassure that this experiment is a thorough reflection of the real world situation, a comparison will be made between the means of the variables in the study and means from upto-date research. This analysis is supposed to answer the question to what extend conclusions from this research can be generalized over all supermarkets and all customers Factor analysis The effect of chocolate on customers in the supermarket will be examined by analysing the data collected from the questionnaires measuring three different responses. In addition, each response is composed of different attributes which makes it easier to determine the exact effect. These attributes are first tested on their reliability and validity. To determine the extent to what the questions measure the actual attribute, a factor analysis has to be performed per response in order to compare the amount of factors with the amount of attributes. Furthermore, to get insight in the reliability per attribute the Cronbach s alpha per factor has to be computed (Malhotra 2007). Subsequently, a Cronbach s alpha perimeter of > 0.5 represents a reliable attribute. In TABLE 5 an overview is given from the expected different attributes per response based on theory. Conative response consists of only one attribute conative response and the extra variable donation. TABLE 5 Attributes per response Response Attributes Cognitive response Tangibles Responsiveness Reliability Assurance Empathy Affective response Positive emotions Negative emotions Conative response Conative response *Donation * This is an extra variable which will be measured separately from conative response Independent variables In order to measure the effect of chocolate on the different attributes, all other independent variables have to be taken into account. Moreover, including these independent variables in a 35

36 regression analysis will show the relationship between chocolate and response excluding the influence of other factors. The independent variables measured in the experiment are outlined in TABLE 6, both main as console variables are involved. TABLE 6 Independent variables Main independent variables CHOCTASTE PENPICK 0-Condition Console independent variables Day Store Shopper Frequency of visiting p/w Loyalty Age Size of household Income Choctaste and penpick indicate whether someone, who was in the chocolate or pen situation, took a sample or not. The 0-Condition is the condition where neither a pencil nor chocolate was available. Day is indicated as 1, 2 or 3 based on the explanation in TABLE 4. Store speaks for itself. If someone is the shopper, she is responsible for shopping for groceries of the entire family. Frequency indicates how many times she visits a supermarket a week. Furthermore, loyalty gives insight in how many times of the ten, one visits this specific supermarket. In addition, age, size of household and income speak for itself Regression analysis The relationship between the attributes per response and the independent variables will be assessed in a linear regression. Per response a linear regression is performed inserting each attribute as the dependent variable and the independent variables of TABLE 6 as independent variables. If these linear regressions show a R² >0.05 and a p-value of the ANOVA of p< 0.05 the results will reflect a reliable explanation of the dependent variable (Huizingh 2006). In addition, the causality between the dependent and the independent variable should show a significance of p/2< 0.1 in order to be considered significant in explaining the response 36

37 attribute. Each p-value is divided by 2 in order to determine its significance because each analysis is a one-tailed test with an expected positive relationship, or an expected negative relationship in the case of H2b (Huizingh 2006). In addition, the corresponding beta of the relationship indicates the positive or negative nature of the causality (Huizingh 2006) Accepting the hypothesis After interpreting the results from the regression analysis, a decision will be made to either accept the hypotheses or to reject them. This decision will be made for each response separately based upon the results from the belonging attributes. If the majority of the attributes show a significant connection and a positive beta with tasting chocolate, the hypothesis will be supported. If the attributes significantly connected with tasting chocolate are in a minority, the hypothesis will be rejected. The hypothesis will also be rejected if the majority of causalities show negative beta s or shows no significant causalities at all. In the case of affective response, a negative beta means accepting hypothesis 2b where a weakened negative affective response after eating or seeing chocolate is expected. 3.5 Extra analysis In order to measure the effect of chocolate in the most wide-ranging way, also the effect of just seeing the chocolate is measured. Sight is important input for objectively processing information (Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999) and it enhances the ability to smell the sample (Herz 2007). Therefore, the relationship between seeing chocolate and the three different responses will also be examined in a regression analysis. The same independent variables as in the previous analysis will be used, only CHOCTASTE and PENPICK will now be changed into SAWCHOC and SAWPEN. These independent variables indicate whether or not the customer has seen the chocolate or the pen. The 0-condition is removed from the list of independent variables since this effect has already been examined in the first regression analysis. Because the 0-condition does not change no different results are expected. 37

38 4. Results In this chapter, an overview is presented of the results from the analysis accompanied by an interpretation of these results. These results will confirm or deny the statement that chocolate has an effect on customers experience in the supermarket. This chapter will begin with the results from the factor analysis. Thereafter, the results from the linear regression are presented. The SPSS output of both analyses can be found in Appendix C. At last, in the conclusion of this chapter a summary is given which provides insight in whether or not the hypotheses are supported by the analyzed data. 4.1 Representativeness of sample Before proceeding with the results, first the representativeness of the sample will be discussed in this sub chapter. Previously, data from the questionnaire was transformed in an SPSS dataset in order to perform the necessary analysis. From the 300 respondents, a reliable dataset of n=296 remained because of an error in the answers of four respondents. From these 296 respondents, the chocolate situation contained 96 respondents (n = 96), both the penciland the control situation contained 100 respondents (n = 100). Figure 9 presents a diagram which gives insight in the behaviour of respondents in both situations. Figure 9 Respondent behaviour Chocolate Pen 3 Respondents per situation Respondents who tasted/picked a sample Respondents who saw the sample 38

39 The sample consists from a total of 296 women who shop for groceries in two C1000 supermarkets in Elst. The C1000 is a Dutch value-for-money supermarket, offering average service and average prices; they serve 66% primary customers (Supermarkt.nl 2012). Furthermore, the average Dutch consumer visits the supermarket 2.8 times a week and there they spend 25 minutes per shopping trip (CBL.nl 2012). The results from this study show that the average respondent visits the supermarket 3,3 times a week so a little more often than the average. The sample contains women from all ages with 73 women between 18-35, 114 between and 109 above 55 years old. These women have an average household consisting of 3 persons. The average income in this study is similar to the average Dutch income modal. Moreover, the respondents are mostly the ones responsible for shopping for groceries and indicate that they averagely visit these supermarkets 7.59 out of ten times. This implies that they tend to be quite loyal. Furthermore, the average Dutch supermarket scores an 8 based on consumer rates. The value-for-money formula scores a 7.9 which is close to the average (Supermarket.nl 2012). Therefore it is expected that the satisfaction score in this C1000 shows no spectacular differences with other supermarkets which is ideal to measure the effect of the external factor chocolate. These results have given insight in the composition of the respondents and show similarities between the experiment situation and the real world situation. In addition, it can be concluded that this study is a relatively reliable reflection of supermarkets and feminine customers in today s Dutch supermarket industry. Based on this understanding, the following results can be generalized over the majority of Dutch supermarkets. 4.2 Factor analysis The results from the factor analysis indicate whether the different attributes measure the right response. 39

40 4.2.1 Cognitive response To measure cognitive response, five attributes are discriminated based on theory: Tangibles; responsiveness; reliability; assurance; and empathy. Each attribute contains three questions in the questionnaire. These fifteen questions are all entered as communalities in the factor analysis. The component matrix extracted 5 different components. Hence, the total variance is explained by 5 different factors. This matches the five initial attributes. Additionally, the Cronbach s alpha per attribute gives us more insight in the reliability of each attribute which is presented in TABLE 7. TABLE 7 Factor analysis Cognitive response (1.2 Appendix C) Attribute Cronbach s alpha New Cronbach s alpha Tangibles Responsiveness Reliability ** Assurance Empathy * ***Assortment *(EMPNEW) EMP2+EMP3; **(RELNEW) REL1+REL3; ***REL2+EMP1 makes Assortment Since the Cronbach s alpha perimeter was stated at > 0.5, empathy contains not the right attributes. Excluding Emp1 from empathy gives a new Cronbach s alpha of which confirms the reliability of the new attribute called empathynew. Since there is evidence that the Cronbach s alpha of reliability is higher excluding Rel3, also reliability is again computed inserting only Rel1 en Rel2. The new attribute reliabilitynew has a Cronbach s alpha of which is slightly higher than the former. From now on, these two new attributes are used to examine empathy and reliability. In addition, because of the nature of questions Emp1 and Rel3 it is possible to create a new attribute called assortment which contains a combination of these two questions. As presented in TABLE 7, the Cronbach s alpha of the new attribute assortment is which indicates it is a reliable measure. In order to measure the effect of chocolate on cognitive response, the variable is now divided in six 40

41 different attributes which each measure a different cognitive response. The presence of chocolate might have different effects on each one of them Affective response For affective response, the same analysis is performed as above. The results present that the two attributes from theory were reliable. From the factor analysis, two perfect factors were excluded after entering the ten questions measuring the affective response of customers in the supermarket. These two factors could be extracted by combining the 5 positive statements to one factor; and the negative statements to another factor. Combining the five positive statements created the attribute: Positive affective response with a Cronbach s alpha of Hence, the other five negative statements make the new attribute: Negative affective response with a Cronbach s alpha of Both Cronbach s alphas are presented in TABLE 8. TABLE 8 Factor analysis Affective response (1.3 Appendix C) Attribute Cronbach s alpha Positive affective response Negative affective response Conative response Conative response consists of, unexpectedly, three factors. Why Donation will be used as a separate variable measuring conative response is already explained in chapter 2. Moreover, the three questions measuring conative response appeared to be reliable indicated by a Cronbach s alpha of (TABLE 9). However, excluding the statement of I would recommend this supermarket to my friends and family increased the Cronbach s from up to Since the Cronbach s alpha is already > 0.5 and the increase is not radical, conative will still consist out of the three initial questions about store preference, likelihood of shopping there again and the likelihood of recommending. However, recommending the supermarket will also be taken into account as a separate variable since this factor has proven to be a strong indicator of conative response. Therefore another separate attribute is included 41

42 next to donation which is recommend. Taking into account that recommend involves only one question the Cronbach s alpha is 1. From now on, conative response is divided into the three attributes conative ; recommend ; and donation. TABLE 9 Factor analysis Conative response (1.4 Appendix C) Attribute Cronbach s alpha New Cronbach s alpha Conative response (CONATIVE) * RECOMMEND 1 DONATION 1 *Conative without the statement I would recommend this supermarket to my friends or family 4.3 Regression analysis Interpreting the results from the linear regression analyses gives insight into the causality of the relationship between sampling chocolate and the three different customers responses. The following results are presented per hypothesis. The fit of each regression is presented per attribute Cognitive response Based on the results of the factor analysis, cognitive response consists of six different attributes. Hence, each of the six attributes is inserted in a regression analysis as a dependent variable together with the ten independent variables. The results from this regression analyses are presented in TABLE 10. Because a positive result is expected, the significance levels are divided by 2 to determine their relevance. This is a standard procedure in a one-tailed test (Huizingh 2006). In addition, betas are only presented in TABLE 10 if 0.5 times the p-value is < 0.1. A p-value lower than 0.1 means that the chance is over 90% that a change in the independent variable explains the change in the dependent variable. The lower the p-value, the more significant the causality (Huizingh 2006). 42

43 MAIN variables TABLE 10 Regression analysis Cognitive response (2.1 Appendix C) Tangibles R²: p: Reliability R²: p: Responsiveness R²: p: Assurance R²: p: Empathy R²: p: Assortment R²: p: CHOCTASTE α: α: α: α: α: α: PENPICK α: α: α: α: α: α: Condition α: α: α: α: α: α: 0.005* β: CONSOLE variables Day α: α: α: α: α: α: Store α: α: α: 0.194*** β: α: α:.194*** β: α: 0.000* β: Shopper α: α: α: α: 0.019** α: α: β: Frequency of visiting p/w α: α: 0.186*** β: α: α: α:.154*** β: α: 0.032** β: Loyalty α: 0.000* β: α: 0.001* β: α: 0.000* β: α: 0.000* β: α: 0.000* β: α: 0.018* β: Age α: α: α: 0.101*** α: 0.009* α: 0.041** α: β: β: β: Size of household α: α: 0.157*** β: α: α: α: α: 0.200*** β: Income α: α: α: α: α: α: 0.057** β: * = p/2< 0.01; ** = p/2< 0.05; *** = p/2:< 0.1 Interpreting TABLE 10 provides the insight that neither sampling chocolate nor sampling a pen will affect the cognitive attributes. Only sampling nothing will improve the perception of assortment significantly indicated by the low p-value and the accompanied positive beta β: (TABLE 10). Moreover, most attributes are affected by the console variables which can be concluded from the low p-values of those causalities. However, tasting chocolate should have had effect upon the majority of the attributes in order to confirm hypothesis 1 but unfortunately it did not. Based on these findings, it can be stated that the cognitive response of customers is not positively influenced by tasting chocolate. Probably customers have already made up their minds about objective features of the store before entering, or they just stay critical about objective features no matter what. This suggestion is supported by the fact that respondents rate the assortment more positive in the situation when nothing is sampled. What will actually 43

44 influence the cognitive response could be examined in future research. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 is not supported by the results of this analysis. Positive cognitive responses from customers are not evoked by sampling chocolate. H1: Sampling of chocolate will evoke a positive cognitive response towards the supermarket Affective response The second hypothesis consists of two parts: Hypothesis 2a assesses the effect of tasting chocolate upon enhancing positive affective responses; and hypothesis 2b assesses the affect of chocolate on weakening negative affective responses. Another regression analysis is performed in order to examine the relationship between the independent variables and the dependent variables which in this case are: positive affective response, and negative affective response. In TABLE 11 the p-values per causality are presented, remember that the significance levels are divided by 2 since this is a one-tailed test. MAIN variables TABLE 11 Regression analysis Affective response (2.2 Appendix C) Positive affective response R²: p: Negative affective response R²: p: CHOCTASTE α: 0.068** β: α: 0.141*** β: PENPICK α: 0.100** β: α: Condition α: α: CONSOLE variables Day α: α: Store α: α: Shopper α: α: Frequency of visiting p/w α: α: 0.046** β: Loyalty α: 0.000* β: α: 0.000* β: Age α: α: Size of household α: α: Income α: α: 0.069** β: * = p/2< 0.01; ** = p/2< 0.05; *** = p/2:< 0.1 Moreover, significant causalities are detected between sampling chocolate and both positive and negative affective responses (α: 0.068/2 <0.5; and α: 0.141/2<0.1). Additionally, only positive responses show a significant causality with sampling pencils (α: 0.100/2< 0.05). In 44

45 TABLE 11 also the corresponding Beta values are presented which gives insight in the nature of the causality. The beta values in TABLE 11 indicate a positive causality between tasting chocolate and both positive (β: 0.204) as negative affective responses (β: 0.134). Hence, tasting chocolate evokes more positive affective responses but evokes more negative affective responses at the same time. Therefore, it can be stated that tasting chocolate makes affective responses more extreme. Furthermore, it is remarkable that picking a pen weakens positive affective responses (β: ). However, since there are only three people in the entire experiment who have picked a pencil, this effect should be examined in future research. Considering the positive beta of the causality between tasting chocolate and positive affect, hypothesis 2a is supported. However, since the causality between tasting chocolate and negative affective response is positive it means that negative affective responses are strengthened instead of weakened. Based on this finding, hypothesis 2b is rejected. Sampling chocolate does not turn negative affect into more positive affect. Instead, tasting chocolate enhances the negative affect felt inside the supermarket. To conclude, customers who eat chocolate indicate their feelings to be more extreme compared to situations when there is no chocolate sampled. Therefore, in order to determine if tasting chocolate could indeed benefit the retailer, the effect of feelings of extreme affect in supermarkets needs to be assessed in future research. Nevertheless, based on the results of the current study hypothesis 2a is supported and hypothesis 2b is rejected: H2a: Sampling of chocolate will strengthen positive affective responses towards the supermarket. H2b: Sampling of chocolate will weaken negative affective responses towards the supermarket. 45

46 4.3.3 Conative response In order to support the third hypothesis, again a regression analysis has been performed of which the results are presented in TABLE 12. Considering the main variables, the results in TABLE 12 show only a significant connection between picking a pencil and recommending the store to friends and family (α: 0.037/2< 0.05); and between sampling nothing and making a donation (α: 0.000/2< 0.01). TABLE 12 Regression analysis Conative response (2.3 Appendix C) MAIN variables Conative R²: p: Recommend R²: p: Donation R²: p: TASTECHOC α: α: α: PENPICK α: α: 0.037** α: β: Condition α: α: α: 0.000* β: CONSOLE variables Day α: α: 0.188*** α: β: Store α: α: α: 0.087** β: Shopper α: α: α: Frequency of visiting p/w α: α: 0.148*** β: α: 0.054** β: Loyalty α: 0.000* α: 0.000* α: β: β: Age α: α: α: 0.000* β: Size of household α: α: α: 0.136*** β: Income α: α: α: 0.000* β: * = p/2< 0.01; ** = p/2< 0.05; *** = p/2:< 0.1 Hence, in contrast to the expectation tasting chocolate does not affect conative responses in a supermarket. This might be the result of cognitive dissonance, which implies that all respondents indicate that they prefer this supermarket above others and that they are likely to recommend it to their friends only because they don t want to question their own presence in the supermarket that day. In this case, tasting chocolate would not change something about the conative response since customers will react positive towards the interviewer anyway. 46

47 Picking a pen does affect recommending which is specified in TABLE 12 where the beta of this causality is presented. Moreover, the beta in TABLE 12 for picking a pen is negative (β: ) which indicates that picking a pencil will decrease the chance one will recommend the supermarket to their friends or family. Again, this relationship should be examined in future research since there were only three individuals in the study who have picked a pencil. The causality between making a donation in the situation where nothing is sampled is negative, which implies that less people are willing to make a donation when nothing is sampled. This would mean that there is indeed a reciprocity effect and sampling anything is therefore better then sampling nothing in order to make customers more generous. However, since the other main variables PENPICK and CHOCTASTE show no causality with the dependent variable donation it is not clear what a retailer is supposed to sample in order to enhance the willingness to donate. This could be examined in future research. Returning to answering the hypothesis about the effect of sampling chocolate on conative response, this hypothesis is not supported in this study. Therefore Hypothesis 3 will be rejected: H3: Sampling of chocolate will evoke a positive conative response towards the supermarket Positive conative responses are not evoked by sampling chocolate. 4.4 Extra analysis A complete answer on the three hypotheses should include the effect of seeing chocolate next to tasting this chocolate. From subchapter 4.1 it can be seen that from all 96 respondents in the chocolate situation, 70 respondents have seen the chocolate while only 42 have actually tasted it. In the situation where pencils were sampled 36 respondents of the 100 have seen the pencils, but only three have actually taken them. Hence, there are more people who have seen 47

48 the chocolate but have decided not to eat it, then people who have tried a piece. If it is necessary for retailers to make customers eat the sample of chocolate will be examined in this last subchapter before the conclusion. Since theory expects that smell has an important effect on mood and other unconscious processes inside the brain (Herz 2007), insight in the effect of passing the chocolate; seeing it; and likely smelling it, will complete this study Cognitive response Again, a regression analysis is performed. This time the main variables CHOCTASTE and PENPICK have been changed in SAWCHOC and SAWPEN. These variables include all people who were in the chocolate situation and indicated they have seen the chocolate and the same for the respondents in the pencil situation. From the regression analysis concerning the attributes of cognitive response, one significant causality is detected with one of the main variables. TABLE 13 shows that seeing chocolate has had an effect on the perception of reliability. The beta of this causality (β: 0.127) specifies that this causality is positive and that the perception of reliability will increase when customers see that chocolate is being sampled. TABLE 13 Regression analysis Cognitive response towards seeing chocolate (3.1 Appendix C) MAIN Variables Tangibles R²: p: Reliability R²: p: Responsiveness R²: p: Assurance R²: p: Empathy R²: p: Assortment R²: p: SAWCHOC α: α:.152*** α: α: α: α: β: SAWPEN α: α: α: α: α: α: 0.079** β: CONSOLE variables Day α: α: α: α: α: α: 0.181*** β: Store α: α: α: α:.177*** β: α: α: 0.000* β: Shopper α: α: α: α: 0.020* α: α: β: Frequency of visiting p/w α: α: α: α: α: 0.146*** β: α: 0.021** β: Loyalty α: 0.000* β: α: 0.001* β: α: 0.000* β: α: 0.000* β: α: 0.000* β: α: 0.012* β:

49 Age α: α: α: 0.110*** α: 0.011* α: 0.038** α: β: β: β: Size of household α: α:.139*** β: α: α: α: α: 0.116*** β: Income α: α: α: α: α: α: 0.032** β: * = p/2< 0.01; ** = p/2< 0.05; *** = p/2:< 0.1 In addition, from this study it can be concluded that retailers cannot improve the total cognitive response by sampling chocolate. However, placing chocolates on a visible location will help increasing the perception of reliability. Whether this effect is the result of conscious deliberation of the store characteristics, or unconscious processes in the brain evoked by seeing and smelling chocolate, should be examined in future research Affective response Next, another regression analysis is performed using the same independent variables as the above analysis but using positive affective response and negative affective response as dependent variables. The results are outlined in TABLE 14. A significant causality is detected between seeing chocolate and both positive and negative affective responses (α: 0.018/2< 0.01; and α: 0.034/2< 0.05). Again, seeing a pen affects only the positive affective response (α: 0.094/2< 0.05). TABLE 14 Regression analysis Affective response towards seeing chocolate (3.2 Appendix C) MAIN variables Positive affective response R²: p: Negative affective response R²: p: SAWCHOC α: 0.018* β: α: 0.034** β: SAWPEN α: 0.094** β: α: CONSOLE variables Day α: α: Store α: α: Shopper α: α: Frequency of visiting p/w α: α: 0.056** β: Loyalty α: 0.000* β: α: 0.000* β: Age α: α: Size of household α: α: Income α: α: 0.070** β: * = p/2< 0.01; ** = p/2< 0.05; *** = p/2:<

50 To determine the nature of the relationship, the beta s for each of the significant causalities are also computed and presented in TABLE 14. TABLE 14 shows positive beta s for seeing chocolate and both positive and negative affective response (β: 0.211; and β: 0.154). At the same time, seeing a pen will decrease positive affective response (β: ). These relationships, apart from slightly different betas, followed also from the regression analysis with tasting chocolate and picking a pen. Therefore, it can be stated that there is no difference in tasting chocolate or seeing chocolate and there is no reason to make customers try the chocolate, as long as female customers see that it is provided it will already have the same effect of making feelings felt inside the supermarket more extreme Conative response At last, another regression analysis is performed considering conative responses and seeing chocolate and seeing the pen of which the results are presented in TABLE 15. TABLE 15 Regression analysis Conative response towards seeing chocolate (3.3 Appendix C) MAIN variables Conative R²: p: Recommend R²: p: Donation R²: p: SAWCHOC α: α: α: 0.085** β: SAWPEN α: α: α: 0.024** β: CONSOLE variables Day α: α: 0.178*** β: α: Store α: α: α: 0.191** β: Shopper α: α: α: Frequency of visiting p/w α: α: 0.188*** β: α: 0.095** β: Loyalty α: 0.000* β: α: 0.000* β: α: Age α: α: α: 0.000* β: Size of household α: α: α: 0.134*** β: Income α: α: α: 0.000* β: * = p/2< 0.01; ** = p/2< 0.05; *** = p/2:< 0.1 These results show no significant effect of seeing chocolate or seeing a pen on conative responses in general or recommending the supermarket. However, seeing the chocolate or seeing the pen does affect the willingness to donate (α: 0.085/2< 0.05; and α: 0.024/2< 0.05). 50

51 The accompanying beta s presented in TABLE 15 indicate that both relationships are positive. Seeing that something is sampled has an effect on the willingness to donate unlike tasting it or picking it. This would, support the reciprocity effect that customers are more willing to donate money to charity when they are being offered a gift (Fennis and Stroebe 2010). For a retailer, this could mean that he should give customers the idea that he provides them something extra or a gift in order to make these customers more generous. However, if making a donation to charity has a connection to buying more groceries or spending more money in the supermarket can be subject of another study. 4.5 Overview of the results Before proceeding to the general conclusion a small overview is presented in TABLE 16, which summarizes the results. TABLE 16 Overview of the results Hypotheses Supported Yes/No Conclusion H1: Sampling of chocolate will evoke a positive cognitive response towards the supermarket. H2a: Sampling of chocolate will strengthen positive affective responses towards the supermarket. H2b: Sampling of chocolate will weaken negative affective responses towards the supermarket H3: Sampling of chocolate will evoke a positive conative response towards the supermarket No Yes No No Chocolate did not affect the majority of the cognitive attributes Seeing and eating chocolate enhanced positive affective response. However chocolate also enhanced negative affective response instead of weaken this response. No causality is found between tasting chocolate and conative response As shown in TABLE 16, only hypothesis H2a is supported by the results from this study. H2a is supported based on the reliable and valid evidence for proving the expectation that positive affective responses of female shoppers are enhanced by seeing and tasting chocolate. However, caution is required since sampling chocolate also enhanced negative affective 51

52 responses which was not expected. Since the beta of the relationship between sampling chocolate and negative affective response was positive instead of negative, hypothesis 2b was rejected. H1 is not supported by the results since chocolate did not relate to the majority of the cognitive attributes. In addition, H3 is not directly supported because chocolate did not affect the two attributes conative and recommend. In addition, the extra analysis has not contributed to proving any of the hypothesis based on only seeing (or smelling) the chocolate. However, sampling chocolate on a visible place does increase the perception of reliability which does not result from tasting the chocolate. Moreover, the positive causalities between sampling chocolate and both positive affective response and the willingness to donate account also for only seeing the chocolate which indicates that it is not necessary for a retailer to make their customers taste the chocolate. Based on the significant causalities between the console variables and the dependent variables, it might be concluded that all three responses are strongly affected by other variables than tasting and seeing chocolate. However, that positive affective responses result from tasting and seeing chocolate does indicate the importance of this study in order to provide a tool to improve customer experience inside a supermarket. 52

53 5. Conclusion Following up the results, the next chapter will discuss some concluding remarks comparing the findings of this study with the theory. Each hypothesis will be discussed in their own sub chapter. In the last sub chapter, a conclusion is drawn considering the problem statement: Does chocolate affect customer experience? This conclusion can be very useful for food retailers who are searching for ways to create customer value in order to survive the heavy competition in the supermarket industry. 5.1 The effect of chocolate on cognitive response Following the results, tasting chocolate does not influence decisions made in a higher-order cognitive manner. Although, only seeing chocolate does enhance the perception of reliability. Taking that into account, sampling chocolate on a visible location inside the supermarket will benefit retailers who want their customers to perceive the supermarket to be more adequate in offering their services. An example of supermarkets who could benefit from this are C1000 stores which claim to provide value for money both in service as in products. Moreover, the results imply that a retailer does not have to make customers eat chocolate since only seeing chocolate will be enough in order to enhance the perception of reliability. Although, the results have shown a significant difference in one important attribute unfortunately that is not enough to support the hypothesis. An explanation for the lack of change in the other cognitive response attributes might be the fact that chocolate has simply no constraining effect on processing resources. Shiv and Fedorikhin (1999) claim that it is more difficult to objectively evaluate the environment when the processing resources are restrained. However, the unconscious processes in the orbitofrontal cortex have obviously not affected the processing resources. In addition, this outcome confirms the statement of O Doherty et al. (2000); Kringelbach et al. (2003); and Pellegrino et al. (2010). They claimed that after eating chocolate only the emotions associated with this food are assessed unconsciously in our brain. 53

54 Merging this theory with the results, it can be concluded that cognitive responses are not influenced by processes inside the orbitofrontal cortex which is activated by chocolate. Therefore, because the effect of sampling chocolate on cognitive responses is not fully proven, there is no guarantee that the profit from enhanced evaluation of the supermarket will be higher than the costs of the sampled chocolate. Hence, it not advised to retailers to sample chocolate in order to enhance objective evaluation because there is no certainty yet about the strength of the relationship between sampling chocolate and enhancing the cognitive response. 5.2 The effect of chocolate on affective response Sampling chocolate did affect affective response of customers inside a supermarket. Both positive and negative responses were more extreme after both eating as seeing chocolate. This confirms the statement of Marks and Kamins (1988) who claim that tasting a sample strengthens attitudes. That seeing chocolate has the same effect on affect as eating chocolate could be explained by the function of the orbitofrontal cortex. The orbitofrontal cortex is activated by both tasting chocolate as seeing and smelling chocolate (Kringelbach et al. 2003). Additionally, if seeing the chocolate means that the customer has also smelled the chocolate the theory of Herz (2007) and Kotler (1973) is supported. They claimed that smelling chocolate has a strong effect on emotions which has proven to be very likely in this experiment. Because there is no evidence that customers have indeed smelled the chocolate we cannot draw any conclusions upon this in this study. However, based on the assumption that seeing chocolate is enough to activate the orbitofrontal cortex the theory of Marks and Kamins (1988) can be adjusted by adding the function of sight of the sample in order to strengthen attitudes. In addition, the strengthened positive affect seems favourable for most retailers. However, at the same time negative affect is enhanced instead of weakened by eating and seeing chocolate. This reinforces the importance of choosing the right food to 54

55 sample. Moreover, whether food lifts mood or threatens mood might indeed rely on the affective state of the customer at that time (Garg et al. 2007). Furthermore, since chocolate is a fat and hedonic food, happy people might want to navigate away from it (Tice et al. 2001). This effect might have caused the strengthened negative affect with happy people. If this effect holds true should be examined in future research. Remarkably, sampling pencils decreased the positive affective response while sampling nothing did have no effect on affective responses. This result confirms the assumption that the orbitofrontal cortex is activated by seeing and eating chocolate since nothing happened when chocolate was unavailable. Hence, the emotions evoked by seeing and tasting chocolate have been evaluated in the orbitofrontal cortex which has resulted in significantly more positive and significantly more negative emotions felt in the supermarket (Bechara et al. 2000; Kringelbach et al. 2003). The effect of taste and sight of chocolate is supported by the fact that sampling pencils did affect the mood of consumers only less extremely. Accordingly, since pencils have no taste it can explain the detail that moods were less extremely formed. Concluding, the statement of Heiman et al. (2001) is not fully supported since demonstrations and sampling do not just increase the formation of goodwill of customers. The results from this research indicate that the effect depends on the characteristics of the product and in this study only sampling chocolate enables a retailer to influence the formation of goodwill. This effect works both in a more positive direction as in a negative direction. Sampling a non-food product as pencils decreases the level of positive affect. Therefore, it can be concluded that sampling chocolate serves the goal of enhancing the extremity of affective responses inside a supermarket. However, to what extent this will benefit the retailer for example with improved sales or retention behaviour should be assessed in future research. 55

56 5.3 The effect of chocolate on conative response Conative responses are not affected by sampling of chocolate. In addition, picking a pencil will negatively influence the willingness to recommend the supermarket to others. However, since the amount of respondents who have picked a pen is very low, this effect can be neglected. Nevertheless, the effect of sampling on the extra variable willingness to donate is remarkable. The willingness to donate to charity decreases when nothing is sampled. In return, the willingness increases when the respondents have seen the plateau with the chocolates or the pencils on it. However, tasting this chocolate or picking the pencil has no significant effect. Therefore, putting the samples on a visible location will be enough for the retailer to enhance the generosity of customers towards charity. If the willingness to donate spreads over towards the willingness to buy it would comply with the theory of Grewal et al. (2009) who said that favorable attitudes lead to actual sales. Baker et al (1992) confirm this by arguing that affective states influenced by the supermarket environment affect consumer s willingness to buy. However, only the willingness to donate has increased when chocolate was sampled while the other elements did not change. For a retailer this means that he should not sample chocolate when his goal is to enhance word of mouth, liking of the store, and future shopping intentions. Only when he wants customers to contribute to charity he should consider sampling chocolate at the same time. 5.4 The effect of chocolate on customer experience Sampling chocolate influences customer experience in both a positive as a negative manner. This conclusion can be drawn based upon the past research. Although cognitive and conative responses are not altered when chocolate is sampled in the supermarket, positive and negative affective responses enhanced when chocolate was sampled. This implies that Dutch retailers can use sampling chocolate in order to enhance perceived pleasure of customers in their supermarket which could eventually lead to increased patronage behavior, liking of the 56

57 store and word of mouth (Pucinelli et al. 2009). However, it is important to also keep in mind the positive effect of sampling chocolate on negative affective responses. This implies that sampling chocolate could also negatively influence the feelings of customers and therefore caution is required when one decides to use chocolate samples as a tool to improve the customer experience inside a supermarket. 57

58 6. Limitations and guidelines for future research This study has given insight in the effect of sampling chocolate on customer experience. In order to guide upcoming research concerning this topic, the limitations of this study are explained below. Additionally, concrete guidelines for future research are suggested which might inspire the search for new theory in the field of sampling food in a retail environment. Data is collected in two supermarkets both of the same format. However, the following results were generalized over all Dutch supermarkets. Although these two supermarkets were selected with care, every supermarket is different. Hence, the two supermarkets differ in multiple characteristics which are supposed to provide a valid representation of the average Dutch supermarket. In order to reassure that the results can be generalized over all supermarket formats, multiple supermarkets of different formats should be assessed in future research. Furthermore, all respondents had the freedom to participate or to continue their shopping trip without answering questions. This made random assignment of respondents not completely guaranteed, because customers had the choice of participating or not (Malhotra 2007). At the same time, there is no data available of all women who were in the supermarket at time of the experiment. If these women who refused participation would have participated, the results might have been different. Future research could take these women into account as well. Additionally, future research could also take the effect of sampling chocolate on men into account since this data was excluded. Since the experiment had a between-participant design, pretests have not been performed (Malhotra 2007). However, in future research it will be valuable to perform a pretest since this could provide insight in the moderating effect of: the affective state of respondents before shopping (Garg et al. 2007; Tice et al. 2001); respondents every day diet (Mishra and Mishra 2010). 58

59 Activation of the orbitofrontal cortex by seeing and tasting chocolate is assumed in this study. Nevertheless, it was impossible to measure this activation in a neurological responsible manner. It will give future research more neurological support when activation in the brain is detected using a CT-scan which Kringelbach et al. (2003) used in his research. Furthermore, customer s responses are the indicator of quality and at the same time the fundament for retailers to base their sampling decision upon. Taking this into account, there is no sales-data collected nor value of transactions measured because this was not the goal of this research. Nevertheless, it would provide retailers essential data to justify the cost of chocolate if they had an indication of the real sales that sampling would gain them. Therefore, an overview of the difference in sales will be important in future research to compare the cost of chocolate to the real benefit for the retailer. Additionally, including sales data in this research could have provided insight in the generosity of customers evoked by offering a sample. Customers have proven to be more generous towards charity, however if this results also spreads out towards spending more in the supermarket has to be considered in future research. In future research also another food or non-food product can be used in order to test the distinct characteristics of dark chocolate. Since pencils have proven to be less wanted/taken maybe responses to another product might show different results. At last, a 5-point Likert scale is used to measure responses and to indicate data as interval data. This 5-point Likert scale is used because of the nature of the study, and considering the extra time it takes to complete the questionnaire. However, Malhotra (2007) considers that one can only use a 7-point Likert scale in order to measure interval data. Dutch people tend to navigate away from extreme answers; therefore using a 7-point Likert scale in future research might provide more reliable data. 59

60 7. Managerial implications Now there is evidence that sampling chocolate has an effect on customer experience, the implications for Dutch retailers can be outlined in order to provide practical knowledge about the use of sampling of chocolate as an effective marketing tool. To improve customer experience, food retailers can use a display in the beginning of the supermarket full of dark chocolate. Just the sight of pure chocolate will affect the mood of female customers inside the supermarket and their perception of reliability. However, based on the interview with a supermarket manager of Albert Heijn, a Dutch supermarket with +/- 850 stores, it can be difficult to facilitate the chocolate (Interview Appendix B). Because there is no budget reserved for sampling durable foods and no space is available to present this food, it is important to outline the importance of a positive mood of customers to general management. Accordingly, a positive mood will lead to a more pleasantly perceived shopping experience which is the most important element in creating customer value (GFK.nl¹ 2012). However, because sampling also involves the enhancement of negative affective responses it is important for the big players in the Dutch food retail industry to continue to study the effect of chocolate in order to determine the value of sampling this. At the same time it is important for retailers to determine whether it is important for them to enhance customer experience or not. For example, for a value-for-money supermarket like C1000 sampling of chocolate is less interesting since their focus lies not upon enhancing customer experience but instead it lies upon offering mediocre service against mediocre prices (Supermarkt.nl 2012). However, a service-oriented Dutch supermarket like Albert Heijn XL, Plus or Marqt could benefit from sampling chocolate because they focus on providing superior experience inside their stores. If future research would prove that the positive effect of chocolate on affective response is bigger than the negative effect, these service-oriented supermarkets could boost the customer experience by sampling chocolate. Nonetheless, retailers should bear in mind that sampling 60

61 alone is never enough to enhance customer experience and create customer value. Chocolate will not compensate for store characteristics which are not up to standard or for employees who are unhelpful. Therefore, chocolate only contributes to customer value when it is supported with a high performance on tangibles, responsiveness, assurance, reliability, empathy (Dabholkar et al. 1996) and assortment. At the same time, a retailer should not use sampling of chocolate when he needs to increase the store preference, patronage behavior or word of mouth. This study has proven that other factors such as loyalty are better predictors of these conative responses. To conclude with answering the question whether it is wise to indulge your customers; sampling chocolate is definitely an interesting way to indulge customers in order to change their affective response towards the supermarket. However, the subject of this study the effect of sampling chocolate in supermarket environments needs more research before the Dutch food retail industry can adopt it and implement it as a successful tool. Therefore, this research serves hopefully as a start in the right direction for many future studies concerning the effect of sampling chocolate in order to enhance customer experience. 61

62 References Andrade, E.B. (2005), Behavioral Consequences of Affect: Combining Evaluative and Regulatory Mechanisms, Journal of Consumer Research, 32, p Baker, J., A. Parasuraman, Dhruv Grewal, and Glenn B. Voss (2002), The Influence of Multiple Store Environment Cues on Perceived Merchandise Value and Patronage Intentions, Journal of Marketing, 66, p Baker, J., Michael Levy and Dhruv Grewal (1992), An Experimental Approach to Making Retail Store Environment Decisions, Journal of Retailing, 68-4, p Bawa, K. and Robert Shoemaker (2004), The Effects of Free Sample Promotions on Incremental Brand Sales, Marketing Science, 23-3, p Bechara, A., Hanna Damaslo and Antonio R. Damasio (2000), Emotion, Decision Making and the Orbitofrontal Cortex, Cerebral Cortex, 10, p Biswas, D., Dhruv Grewal and Anne Roggeveen (2010), How the Order of Sampled Experiential Products Affects Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, 47-3, p Bosmans, A. (2006), Scents and Sensibility: When Do (In)Congruent Ambient Scents Influence Product Evaluations?, Journal of Marketing, 70, p32-43 Dabholkar, P.R, Dayle I. Thorpe and Joseph O. Rentz (1996), A Measure of Service Quality for Retail Stores: Scale Development and Validation, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24-1, p3-14 Darke, P.R. and Cindy M.Y. Chung (2005), Effects of Pricing and Promotion on Consumer Perceptions it Depends on How You Frame it, Journal of Retailing, 81-1, p35-47 Donovan, R.J., John R. Rossiter, Gilian Marcoolyn and Andrew Nesdale (1994), Store Atmosphere and Purchasing Behavior, Journal of Retailing, 70-3, p Donovan, R.J. and John R. Rossiter (1982), Store Atmosphere: An Environmental Psychology Approach, Journal of Retailing, 58, p34-57 Garg N., Brian Wansink and J. Jeffrey Inman (2007), The Influence of Incidental Food Intake on Consumers Food Intake, Journal of Marketing, 71, p Grewal, D., Michael Levy and V. Kumar (2009), Customer Experience Management in Retailing: An Organizing Framework, Journal of Retailing, 85-1, p1-14 Goodwin, S. and Micheal Etgar (1980), An Experimental Investigation of Comparative Advertising: Impact of Message Appeal, Information Load, and Utility of Product Class, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 17, p Gupta, S. (1988) Impact of Sales Promotions on When, What, and How Much to Buy, Journal of Marketing Research, 25, p

63 Heiman, A., Bruce McWilliams, Zhihua Shen and David Zilberman (2001), Learning and Forgetting: Modelling Optimal Product Sampling Over Time, Management Science, 47-4, p Hoyer, W.D. and Deborah J. MacInnis (2008), Consumer Behavior, South-Western Cengage Learning, fifth edition Inman, J.J., Russel S. Winer and Rosellina Ferraro (2009) The Interplay Among Category Characteristics, Customers Charateristics, and Customer Activities on In-Store Decision Making, Journal of Marketing, 73, p19-29 Jain, D., Vijay Mahajan, Eitan Muller (1995), An Approach for Determining Optimal Product Sampling for the Diffusion of a New Product, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12-2, p j Johnson, C. (2008), Decision '08: Event Marketing or Product Sampling?, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25-5, p Kalra, A. and Mengze Shi (2010), Consumer Value-Maximizing Sweepstakes and Contests, Journal of Marketing Research, 57, p Kaltchevka, V.D. and Barton A. Weitz (2006), When Should a Retailer Create an Exciting Store Environment?, Journal of Marketing, 70, p Keller, K. L. (1993), Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity, Journal of Marketing, 57, p1-22 Kotler, P. (1973), Atmosphere as a Marketing Tool, Journal of Retailing, 49-4, p48-64 Kringelbach, M.I, J. O Doherty, E.T Rolls and C. Andrews (2003), Activation of the Human Orbitofrontal Cortex to a Liquid Food Stimulus is Correlated with its Subjective Pleasure, Cerebral Cortex, 13-10, p Lempert, Phil (2004), Show Them You Care, Progressive grocer, 83-15, p18 MacKenzie, S.B., Richard J. Lutz and Gearge E. Belch (1986), The role of attitude The Role of Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations, Journal of Marketing Research, 13, p Marks, L.J. and Micheal K. Kamins (1988), The Use of Product Sampling and Advertising: Effects of Sequence of Exposure and Degree of Advertising Claim Exaggeration on Consumers' Belief Strength, Belief, Confidence, and Attitudes, Journal of Marketing Research, 25-3, p266 McGoldrick, P.J. and Christos P. Pieros (1998), Atmospherics, Pleasure and Arousal: The Influence of Response Moderators, Journal of Marketing Management, 14, p Mishra, A. and Himanshu Mishra (2010), We Are What We Consume: The Influence of Food on Impulsive Choice, Journal of Marketing Research, XLVII, p Neslin, S.A., Caroline Henderson and John Quelch (1985) Consumer Promotions and the Acceleration of Product Purchases, Marketing Science, 4-2, p

64 Nijs, V.R., Marnik G. Dekimpe, Jan-Benedict E.M Steenkamp and Dominique M. Hanssens (2001), The Category-Demand Effects of Price Promotions, Management Science, 20-1, p1-22 O Doherty, J., E.T Rolls, S. Francis, R. Bowtell, F. McGlone, G. Kobal, B. Renner and G. Ahne (2000), Sensory-Specific Satiety-Related Olfactory Activation of the Human Orbitofrontal Cortex, Neuroreport, 11-4, p Olive R.L. (1980), A Cognitive Model of Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions, Journal of Marketing Research, 17, p Parasuraman A., Valerie A. Zeithaml, Leonard L. Berry (1988), SERVQUAL: A Multiple- Item Scale for Measuring Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality, Journal of Retailing, 64-1, p12-40 Pellegrino, G., Silvia Magarelli and Flavia Mengarelli (2010), Food Pleasantness Affects Visual Selective Attention, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 64-3, p POPAI (1995), The 1995 POPAI Consumer Buying Habits Study, NJ: Point-of-Purchase Advertising Institute Puccinelli, N.M., Ronald C. Goodstein, Dhruv Grewal, Robert Price, Priya Raghubir and David Stewart (2009), Customer Experience Management in Retailing: Understanding the Buying Process, Journal of Retailing, 85-1, p15-30 Raghubir, P. (2004), Coupons in Context: Discounting Prices or Decreasing Profits?, Journal of Retailing, 80, p1-12 Rolls, B.J., Edmund T. Rolls, Edward A. Rowe and Kevin Sweeney (1981), Sensory Specific Satiety in Man, Physiology and Behavior, 27, p Sherman, E., Anil Mathur and Ruth Belk Smith (1997), Store Environment and Consumer Purchase Behavior: Mediating Role of Consumer Emotions, Psychology and Marketing, 14, p Shiv, B. and Alexander Fedorikhin (1999), Heart and Mind in Conflict: The interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making, Journal of Consumer Research, 26-3, p Shiv, B. and Stephen M. Nowlis (2004), The Effect of Distractions While Tasting a Food Sample: The Interplay of Informational and Affective Components in Subsequent Choice, Journal of Consumer Research, 31-3, p Shi, Y.Z, Ka-Man Cheung and Gerard Prendergast (2005) Behavioral Response to Sales Promotion Tools, International Journal of Advertising, 24-4, p Smith, R.E. and William R. Swinyard (1983) Attitude-Behavior Consistency: The Impact of Product Trial versus Advertising, Journal of Marketing Research, 20, p Sprotta, D.E. and Terence A. Shimp (2004), Using Product Sampling to Augment the Perceived Quality of Store Brands, Journal of Retailing, 80-4, p

65 Steinberg, S.A. and Richard F. Yalch (1978), When Eating Begets Buying: The Effects of Food Samples on Obese and Nonobese Shoppers, Journal of Consumer Research, 4, p Swaminathan, S. and Kapil Bawa (2005), Category-Specific Coupon Proneness: The Impact of Individual Characteristics and Category-Specific Variables, Journal of Retailing, 81-3, p Tice D.M., Ellen Bratslavsky and Roy F. Baumeister (2001), Emotional Distress Regulation Takes Precedence over Impulse Control: If You Feel Bad, Do it!, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80-1, p53-67 Verhoef, P.C., Katherine N. Lemon, A. Parasuraman, Anne Roggeveen, Michael Tsiros, Leonard A. Schlesinger (2009), Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and Management Strategies, Journal of Retailing, 85-1, p31-41 Wadhwa M., Baba Shiv and Stephen Nowlis (2006), A Bite to Whet the Reward Appetite: Influence of Sampling on Appetitive Behaviors, Advances in Consumer Research, 33, p154 Yoo, C., Jonghee Park and Deborah J. MacInnis (1998), Effects of Store Characteristics and In-Store Emotional Experiences on Store Attitude, Journal of Business Research, 42, p Zeithaml V.A., Leonard L. Berry and A. Parasuraman (1996), The behavioural consequences of service quality, Journal of Marketing, 60, p31-46 Books Fennis, B. and Wolfgang Stroebe (2010), The Psychology of Advertising, Psychology Press, Hove and New York, first edition Herz, R. (2007), The Scent of Desire Discovering Our Enigmatic Sense of Smell, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, first edition Huizingh, E. (2006), Inleiding SPSS 14.0 voor Windows en Data Entry, Sdu Uitgevers bv, Den Haag, first edition Malhotra N. K. (2007), Marketing Research An Applied Orientation, Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River New Jersey, fifth edition Mehrabian, A. and James A. Russel (1974), An Approach to Environmental Psychology, MA: MIT Pres., Cambridge World Wide Web (15 april 2012), Supermarkt bezoeken, (15 april 2012), (15 april 2012), Top topics retail 2011, 65

66 Neuralmodel.net (15 april 2012), Neuro.science, Supermarkt.nl (15 april 2012) Consumententrends

67 Appendix A1 - Questionnaire Goede. Voor mijn afstudeerproject ben ik bezig met een onderzoek naar hoe klanten winkels beoordelen. Heeft u misschien 5 minuten tijd om mee te werken aan dit onderzoek? De eerste vragen die ik heb, gaan over uw winkelgedrag: Ja Nee 1. Bent u thuis degene die meestal de boodschappen doet? (Dat kan ook samen met iemand anders zijn) Gemiddeld aantal keer per week: 2. Hoe vaak per week gaat u gemiddeld naar de supermarkt? Aantal keer boodschappen bij deze winkel: 3. Van de afgelopen 10 keer dat u boodschappen heeft gedaan, hoe vaak heeft u dit gedaan bij deze winkel? 67

68 Winkelbeleving (deels cognitief, deels affectief) Graag wil ik van u weten hoe u deze winkel beoordeelt. Dat gebeurt in de vorm van stellingen en met iedere stelling kunt u op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in welke mate u het eens bent met de stelling. Als u een 1 geeft betekent dat, dat u het helemaal oneens bent met de stelling en als u een 5 geeft houdt dit in dat u het helemaal eens bent met de stelling (ENQ: LAAT TOONKAART ZIEN) De eerste stellingen gaan over hoe u deze winkel beleeft: 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. De openingstijden van deze winkel zijn ruim voldoende om alle klanten goed van dienst te zijn 2. Medewerkers van deze winkel geven klanten voldoende persoonlijke aandacht 3. De door de winkel gebruikte verkoopmaterialen zoals: plastic tassen, schapkaartjes, plafondhangers en folders, zien er visueel aantrekkelijk uit 4. De diensten die deze winkel verricht worden over het algemeen goed uitgevoerd 5. Winkelmedewerkers zijn nooit te druk om op vragen van klanten te reageren 6. Bij het afrekenen wordt altijd de juiste prijs en de juiste korting aangeslagen 7. Deze winkel heeft gastvrije medewerkers 8. Als een vak leeg is, dan geven winkelmedewerkers precies aan wanneer het product weer verkrijgbaar is als de klant daar om vraagt 9. Deze winkel heeft uitstekende parkeermogelijkheden 68

69 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 10. De schappen, de koelingen en kassa s zien er keurig verzorgd uit 11. Winkelmedewerkers getuigen altijd van goede manieren ten opzichte van de klant 12. De winkel maakt gebruik van moderne materialen 13. Deze winkel heeft een kwalitatief hoogstaand assortiment 14. Winkelmedewerkers zijn attent in hun dienstverlening richting klanten 15. Deze winkel heeft over het algemeen de juiste producten voldoende op voorraad 69

70 Affectieve reacties (persoonsgebonden) Sommige mensen vinden dit een prettige supermarkt en andere mensen voelen zich hier iets minder thuis. De volgende stellingen gaan over welke gevoelens deze winkel bij u oproept als u hier boodschappen doet. U kunt op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in hoeverre de stelling op u van toepassing is. 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Eens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. Prettig 2. Vervelend 3. Welkom 4. Saai 5. Warm 6. Oncomfortabel 7. Gezellig 8. Koud 9. Blij 10. Kil 70

71 Conatieve reacties Uw voorkeur voor een supermarkt zegt veel over uw toekomstige bezoeken aan deze winkel. Onderstaande stellingen geven inzicht in uw voorkeur. U kunt wederom op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in hoeverre deze stellingen op u van toepassing zijn. 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. Het liefst doe ik mijn boodschappen in deze supermarkt 2. Als ik de komende keer boodschappen ga doen, dan is de kans heel groot dat ik de boodschappen bij deze supermarkt ga doen 3. Als ik met vrienden en kennis over supermarkten praat, dan zal ik deze winkel beslist aanbevelen Achtergrond klant De volgende vragen gaan over uw achtergrond en dat van uw huishouden: Man Vrouw 1. Wat is uw geslacht? Leeftijd 2. Wat is uw leeftijd? Aantal personen: 3. Uit hoeveel personen bestaat uw huishouden (Uzelf meegerekend)? 71

72 Inkomenssituatie 4. Welke inkomenssituatie is het meest op u van toepassing? Onder modaal of enigszins onder modaal Ongeveer modaal Tussen 1 en 2 keer modaal 2 keer modaal of meer Weet ik niet/ Zeg ik liever niet Dan heb ik tot slot nog een vraag over dit winkelbezoek Ja Nee 1. Is het u opgevallen dat er bij de ingang van de winkel een schaal stond met chocolade? 2. Heeft u een stukje chocolade geproefd? Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek! Als dank wil ik u graag een presentje aanbieden. U kunt kiezen uit de volgende mogelijkheden: o U ontvangt een lootje waarmee u kans maakt op een waardebon t.w.v. 50. Binnen twee weken hoort u of u de gelukkige winnaar bent. Het winnende nummer kunt u vinden bij de servicebalie. o De andere optie is dat u van ons 0,50 krijgt om te doneren aan het goede doel. De opbrengst uit deze collectebus zal uiteindelijk ten goede komen aan het kankerfonds. 72

73 Appendix A2 - Questionnaire Goede. Voor mijn afstudeerproject ben ik bezig met een onderzoek naar hoe klanten winkels beoordelen. Heeft u misschien 5 minuten tijd om mee te werken aan dit onderzoek? De eerste vragen die ik heb, gaan over uw winkelgedrag: Ja Nee 1. Bent u thuis degene die meestal de boodschappen doet? (Dat kan ook samen met iemand anders zijn) Gemiddeld aantal keer per week: 2. Hoe vaak per week gaat u gemiddeld naar de supermarkt? Aantal keer boodschappen bij deze winkel: 3. Van de afgelopen 10 keer dat u boodschappen heeft gedaan, hoe vaak heeft u dit gedaan bij deze winkel? 73

74 Winkelbeleving (deels cognitief, deels affectief) Graag wil ik van u weten hoe u deze winkel beoordeelt. Dat gebeurt in de vorm van stellingen en met iedere stelling kunt u op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in welke mate u het eens bent met de stelling. Als u een 1 geeft betekent dat, dat u het helemaal oneens bent met de stelling en als u een 5 geeft houdt dit in dat u het helemaal eens bent met de stelling (ENQ: LAAT TOONKAART ZIEN) De eerste stellingen gaan over hoe u deze winkel beleeft: 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. De openingstijden van deze winkel zijn ruim voldoende om alle klanten goed van dienst te zijn 2. Medewerkers van deze winkel geven klanten voldoende persoonlijke aandacht 3. De door de winkel gebruikte verkoopmaterialen zoals: plastic tassen, schapkaartjes, plafondhangers en folders, zien er visueel aantrekkelijk uit 4. De diensten die deze winkel verricht worden over het algemeen goed uitgevoerd 5. Winkelmedewerkers zijn nooit te druk om op vragen van klanten te reageren 6. Bij het afrekenen wordt altijd de juiste prijs en de juiste korting aangeslagen 7. Deze winkel heeft gastvrije medewerkers 8. Als een vak leeg is, dan geven winkelmedewerkers precies aan wanneer het product weer verkrijgbaar is als de klant daar om vraagt 9. Deze winkel heeft uitstekende parkeermogelijkheden 74

75 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 10. De schappen, de koelingen en kassa s zien er keurig verzorgd uit 11. Winkelmedewerkers getuigen altijd van goede manieren ten opzichte van de klant 12. De winkel maakt gebruik van moderne materialen 13. Deze winkel heeft een kwalitatief hoogstaand assortiment 14. Winkelmedewerkers zijn attent in hun dienstverlening richting klanten 15. Deze winkel heeft over het algemeen de juiste producten voldoende op voorraad 75

76 Affectieve reacties (persoonsgebonden) Sommige mensen vinden dit een prettige supermarkt en andere mensen voelen zich hier iets minder thuis. De volgende stellingen gaan over welke gevoelens deze winkel bij u oproept als u hier boodschappen doet. U kunt op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in hoeverre de stelling op u van toepassing is. 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Eens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. Prettig 2. Vervelend 3. Welkom 4. Saai 5. Warm 6. Oncomfortabel 7. Gezellig 8. Koud 9. Blij 10. Kil 76

77 Conatieve reacties Uw voorkeur voor een supermarkt zegt veel over uw toekomstige bezoeken aan deze winkel. Onderstaande stellingen geven inzicht in uw voorkeur. U kunt wederom op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in hoeverre deze stellingen op u van toepassing zijn. 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. Het liefst doe ik mijn boodschappen in deze supermarkt 2. Als ik de komende keer boodschappen ga doen, dan is de kans heel groot dat ik de boodschappen bij deze supermarkt ga doen 3. Als ik met vrienden en kennis over supermarkten praat, dan zal ik deze winkel beslist aanbevelen Achtergrond klant De volgende vragen gaan over uw achtergrond en dat van uw huishouden: Man Vrouw 1. Wat is uw geslacht? Leeftijd 2. Wat is uw leeftijd? Aantal personen: 3. Uit hoeveel personen bestaat uw huishouden (Uzelf meegerekend)? 77

78 Inkomenssituatie 4. Welke inkomenssituatie is het meest op u van toepassing? Onder modaal of enigszins onder modaal Ongeveer modaal Tussen 1 en 2 keer modaal 2 keer modaal of meer Weet ik niet/ Zeg ik liever niet Dan heb ik tot slot nog een vraag over dit winkelbezoek Ja Nee 1. Is het u opgevallen dat er bij de ingang van de winkel een schaal stond met pennen? 2. Heeft u een pen meegenomen van de schaal? Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek! Als dank wil ik u graag een presentje aanbieden. U kunt kiezen uit de volgende mogelijkheden: o U ontvangt een lootje waarmee u kans maakt op een waardebon t.w.v. 50. Binnen twee weken hoort u of u de gelukkige winnaar bent. Het winnende nummer kunt u vinden bij de servicebalie. o De andere optie is dat u van ons 0,50 krijgt om te doneren aan het goede doel. De opbrengst uit deze collectebus zal uiteindelijk ten goede komen aan het kankerfonds. 78

79 Appendix A3 - Questionnaire Goede. Voor mijn afstudeerproject ben ik bezig met een onderzoek naar hoe klanten winkels beoordelen. Heeft u misschien 5 minuten tijd om mee te werken aan dit onderzoek? De eerste vragen die ik heb, gaan over uw winkelgedrag: Ja Nee 1. Bent u thuis degene die meestal de boodschappen doet? (Dat kan ook samen met iemand anders zijn) Gemiddeld aantal keer per week: 2. Hoe vaak per week gaat u gemiddeld naar de supermarkt? Aantal keer boodschappen bij deze winkel: 3. Van de afgelopen 10 keer dat u boodschappen heeft gedaan, hoe vaak heeft u dit gedaan bij deze winkel? 79

80 Winkelbeleving (deels cognitief, deels affectief) Graag wil ik van u weten hoe u deze winkel beoordeelt. Dat gebeurt in de vorm van stellingen en met iedere stelling kunt u op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in welke mate u het eens bent met de stelling. Als u een 1 geeft betekent dat, dat u het helemaal oneens bent met de stelling en als u een 5 geeft houdt dit in dat u het helemaal eens bent met de stelling (ENQ: LAAT TOONKAART ZIEN) De eerste stellingen gaan over hoe u deze winkel beleeft: 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. De openingstijden van deze winkel zijn ruim voldoende om alle klanten goed van dienst te zijn 2. Medewerkers van deze winkel geven klanten voldoende persoonlijke aandacht 3. De door de winkel gebruikte verkoopmaterialen zoals: plastic tassen, schapkaartjes, plafondhangers en folders, zien er visueel aantrekkelijk uit 4. De diensten die deze winkel verricht worden over het algemeen goed uitgevoerd 5. Winkelmedewerkers zijn nooit te druk om op vragen van klanten te reageren 6. Bij het afrekenen wordt altijd de juiste prijs en de juiste korting aangeslagen 7. Deze winkel heeft gastvrije medewerkers 8. Als een vak leeg is, dan geven winkelmedewerkers precies aan wanneer het product weer verkrijgbaar is als de klant daar om vraagt 9. Deze winkel heeft uitstekende parkeermogelijkheden 80

81 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 10. De schappen, de koelingen en kassa s zien er keurig verzorgd uit 11. Winkelmedewerkers getuigen altijd van goede manieren ten opzichte van de klant 12. De winkel maakt gebruik van moderne materialen 13. Deze winkel heeft een kwalitatief hoogstaand assortiment 14. Winkelmedewerkers zijn attent in hun dienstverlening richting klanten 15. Deze winkel heeft over het algemeen de juiste producten voldoende op voorraad 81

82 Affectieve reacties (persoonsgebonden) Sommige mensen vinden dit een prettige supermarkt en andere mensen voelen zich hier iets minder thuis. De volgende stellingen gaan over welke gevoelens deze winkel bij u oproept als u hier boodschappen doet. U kunt op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in hoeverre de stelling op u van toepassing is. 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Eens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. Prettig 2. Vervelend 3. Welkom 4. Saai 5. Warm 6. Oncomfortabel 7. Gezellig 8. Koud 9. Blij 10. Kil 82

83 Conatieve reacties Uw voorkeur voor een supermarkt zegt veel over uw toekomstige bezoeken aan deze winkel. Onderstaande stellingen geven inzicht in uw voorkeur. U kunt wederom op een schaal van 1 tot 5 aangeven in hoeverre deze stellingen op u van toepassing zijn. 1. Helemaal oneens 2. Oneens 3. Noch eens, noch oneens 4. Eens 5. Helemaal eens 1. Het liefst doe ik mijn boodschappen in deze supermarkt 2. Als ik de komende keer boodschappen ga doen, dan is de kans heel groot dat ik de boodschappen bij deze supermarkt ga doen 3. Als ik met vrienden en kennis over supermarkten praat, dan zal ik deze winkel beslist aanbevelen Achtergrond klant De volgende vragen gaan over uw achtergrond en dat van uw huishouden: Man Vrouw 1. Wat is uw geslacht? Leeftijd 2. Wat is uw leeftijd? Aantal personen: 3. Uit hoeveel personen bestaat uw huishouden (Uzelf meegerekend)? 83

84 Inkomenssituatie 4. Welke inkomenssituatie is het meest op u van toepassing? Onder modaal of enigszins onder modaal Ongeveer modaal Tussen 1 en 2 keer modaal 2 keer modaal of meer Weet ik niet/ Zeg ik liever niet Hartelijk dank voor uw medewerking aan dit onderzoek! Als dank wil ik u graag een presentje aanbieden. U kunt kiezen uit de volgende mogelijkheden: o U ontvangt een lootje waarmee u kans maakt op een waardebon t.w.v. 50. Binnen twee weken hoort u of u de gelukkige winnaar bent. Het winnende nummer kunt u vinden bij de servicebalie. De andere optie is dat u van ons 0,50 krijgt om te doneren aan het goede doel. De opbrengst uit deze collectebus zal uiteindelijk ten goede komen aan het kankerfonds. 84

85 Appendix B Interview Where is your supermarket situated? The Albert Heijn is situated at the Museumplein in the city centre. The store s size is 1.500m², excluding the warehouse. In addition, the supermarket itself has a surface of 2.000m² including the warehouse. Does this supermarket differs from Dutch supermarkets? The supermarket at the Museumplein is situated underground. It has no self-scan and its layout is according the newest formula of Albert Heijn 3.0. AH 3.0 differentiates from other supermarkets especially in presentation manners. The products are presented in lower shelfs which are easy to access for elderly, children etc. Furthermore, there lies a focus upon fresh food and present food in so called Bancarella s. Museumplein has a customer base typically like city centre supermarkets. Besides many one-person households and families who visit the store during the day, before 15:00 many school children and junkies visit the supermarket as well. Do you sample food inside of your supermarket? Food is mainly sampled during weekends on Saturdays and Sundays. Because customers in the weekends shop for more groceries and bigger shopping baskets, they spend more time in the supermarket. We believe that customers are easier tempted to buy impulse goods in the weekends. Especially fresh products like cheese, bread and other private label fresh foods are sampled. Sometimes also during weekdays fresh products are sampled, only after 15:00 to avoid spoiling food to school children or junkies. Is there any underlying theory for sampling this food? There is no underlying theory for the choice to sample food. Moreover, Albert Heijn has no standard rules about sampling, so the choice is made based upon own initiative. The result of sampling in the supermarket is definitely noticed in the turnover of the particular product. At the same time, also products from the category of the sampled product are sold more often. Furthermore, sampling in combination with a special promotion table has proven to be very effective in increasing sales. Why do you choose not to sample food during weekdays? During weekdays less products are sampled because it is costly. Since we mostly combine sampling of private labels with sharing knowledge about the product, a qualified employee should be paid to present the samples which is expensive. After 15:00 from Monday until 85

86 Friday there is more focus on providing food to customers, mostly fresh food. Before 15:00 the target group will be definitely missed since there are mostly school children and some junkies which abuse the ability to taste. If it can be proven that chocolate will enhance the mood of customers, would you consider putting a plate full of chocolate in the store so every customer can take a piece? Considering the high schools in the neighbourhood, sampling chocolate could miss its target group before 15:00. When the effect of chocolate will be supported with evidence than we are interested in sampling more chocolate. However, in the current management model of Albert Heijn there is no budget or time left to use in order to sample durable food, only fresh products like cheese. Therefore, sampling can become the responsibility of suppliers who offer chocolate to the supermarket which subsequently will be sampled. Which location inside the supermarket will it be possible to sample chocolate? Close to the chocolate shelf seems most logical. However, there is no room in the paths to place a display. Therefore, close to the entrance might be a good idea. Nevertheless, the few available meters in the supermarket and the lack of support in the management model will make it hard to sample private label chocolate in general. What response do you consider most important: the perception of quality of a customer; the mood of a customer in the store; or the patronage behaviour of customers? All three are as important. When customers feel good, they tend to visit the supermarket more often. Additionally, when people feel good they buy impulse goods more easily what increases their share of wallet. The most important for us, Albert Heijn Museumplein, is quality. Albert Heijn measures customer satisfaction based upon four aspects: Check out speed, friendly personnel, availability and management in the store. Albert Heijn have measured that the average AH customer finds availability the most important aspect. Therefore our priority lies in keeping products available when customers need them. 86

87 Appendix C Amount of observations Case Processing Summary SPSS- results N % Cases Valid ,0 Excluded a 0,0 Total ,0 a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure. 1. Factor analysis 1.1 Cognitive response extraction of 5 components Rotated Component Matrix a Component EMP3: Openingstijden,622,459 ASS1: Persoonlijke,850 aandacht TAN3: Verkoopmaterialen,894 REL1: Diensten goed,395,416,533 uitgevoerd RESP3: Bereidheid,750 beantwoorden klantvragen REL3: Afrekenen juist,876 ASS3: Gastvrije,714 medewerkers RESP2: Juiste info bij leeg,518,397 schap EMP2: Uitstekende,857 parkeermogelijkheden TAN1: Verzorging,308,749 winkelmateriaal ASS2: Goede manieren,560,338 TAN2: Moderne materialen,326,459,411 EMP1: Kwalitatief goed,854 assortiment RESP1: Attente,686,304 dienstverlening REL2: Juiste producten op,868 voorraad

88 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. 1.2 Cognitive response Cronbach s alpha per attribute Tangibles Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items, Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items, Responsiveness Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Assurance,713 3 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items Empathy,792 3 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items, Assortment Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items,

89 1.3 Affective response - Cronbach s alpha per attribute Positive affective response Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items, Negative affective response Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items, Conative response - Cronbach s alpha per attribute Conative response Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items, Regression analysis Tasting chocolate 2.1 Cognitive response Regression analysis per attribute Tangibles Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,289 a,083,045,55218 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 7,378 11,671 2,200,015 b 1 Residual 81, ,305 Total 88, a. Dependent Variable: TANGIBLES 89

90 b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd Reliability Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,283 a,080,042,62027 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 8,936 11,812 2,112,020 b 1 Residual 102, ,385 Total 111, a. Dependent Variable: ReliabilityNEW b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd Responsiveness Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,307 a,094,057,61631 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 10,503 11,955 2,514,005 b 1 Residual 101, ,380 Total 111, a. Dependent Variable: RESPONSIVENESS b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd 90

91 2.1.4 Assurance Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,389 a,151,116,55044 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 14, ,303 4,299,000 b 1 Residual 80, ,303 Total 94, a. Dependent Variable: ASSURANCE b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd Empathy Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,386 a,149,113,47288 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 10,389 11,944 4,224,000 b 1 Residual 59, ,224 Total 69, a. Dependent Variable: EmpathyNEW b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd 91

92 2.1.6 Assortment Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,424 a,180,146,68659 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 27, ,505 5,313,000 b 1 Residual 125, ,471 Total 152, a. Dependent Variable: ASSORTMENT b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd 2.2 Affective response - Regression analysis per attribute 2.2.1Positive affective response Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,333 a,111,074,62376 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 12, ,174 3,018,001 b 1 Residual 103, ,389 Total 116, a. Dependent Variable: ARPOS b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd 92

93 2.2.2 Negative affective response Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,292 a,085,048,50978 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 6,450 11,586 2,256,012 b 1 Residual 69, ,260 Total 75, a. Dependent Variable: ARNEG b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd 2.3 Conative response - Regression analysis per attribute Conative Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,659 a,435,411,64849 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 85, ,814 18,580,000 b 1 Residual 111, ,421 Total 197, a. Dependent Variable: CONATIVE b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd 93

94 2.3.2 Recommend Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,368 a,136,100 1,011 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 42, ,874 3,793,000 b 1 Residual 271, ,021 Total 314, a. Dependent Variable: Aanbevelen bij vrienden en kennissen b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd Donation Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,482 a,232,201,359 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 10,396 11,945 7,324,000 b 1 Residual 34, ,129 Total 44, a. Dependent Variable: Waardebon of donatie? b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Winkel, CHOCTASTE, PENPICK, Dag, Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden, NULCONDITIE, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd 94

95 3. Regression analysis Seeing chocolate 3.1 Cognitive response - Regression analysis per attribute Tangibles Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,284 a,081,046,55190 a. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 7,158 10,716 2,350,011 b 1 Residual 81, ,305 Total 88, a. Dependent Variable: TANGIBLES b. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden Reliability Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,284 a,081,046,61895 a. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 8,987 10,899 2,346,011 b 1 Residual 102, ,383 Total 111, a. Dependent Variable: ReliabilityNEW b. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden 95

96 3.1.3 Responsiveness Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,305 a,093,059,61553 a. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 10, ,038 2,740,003 b 1 Residual 101, ,379 Total 111, a. Dependent Variable: RESPONSIVENESS b. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden Assurance Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,385 a,148,116,55030 a. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 14, ,407 4,645,000 b 1 Residual 80, ,303 Total 94, a. Dependent Variable: ASSURANCE b. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden 96

97 3.1.5 Empathy Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,383 a,146,114,47262 a. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 10, ,023 4,580,000 b 1 Residual 59, ,223 Total 69, a. Dependent Variable: EmpathyNEW b. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden Assortment Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,407 a,166,135,69124 a. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 25, ,537 5,309,000 b 1 Residual 127, ,478 Total 152, a. Dependent Variable: ASSORTMENT b. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden 97

98 3.2 Affective response - Regression analysis per attribute Positive affective response Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,350 a,123,090,61844 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, SAWPEN, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 14, ,429 3,737,000 b 1 Residual 102, ,382 Total 116, a. Dependent Variable: ARPOS b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, SAWPEN, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden Negative affective response Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,311 a,097,063,50562 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, SAWPEN, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 7,318 10,732 2,863,002 b 1 Residual 68, ,256 Total 75, a. Dependent Variable: ARNEG b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, SAWPEN, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden 98

99 3.3 Conative response - Regression analysis per attribute Conative Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,661 a,438,416,64554 a. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 86, ,655 20,768,000 b 1 Residual 111, ,417 Total 197, a. Dependent Variable: CONATIVE b. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden Recommend Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,348 a,121,088 1,017 a. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 38, ,814 3,688,000 b 1 Residual 276, ,034 Total 314, a. Dependent Variable: Aanbevelen bij vrienden en kennissen b. Predictors: (Constant), SAWPEN, Leeftijd, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Inkomenssituatie, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden 99

100 3.3.3 Donation Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1,425 a,180,150,370 a. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, SAWPEN, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden ANOVA a Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 8,071 10,807 5,880,000 b 1 Residual 36, ,137 Total 44, a. Dependent Variable: Waardebon of donatie? b. Predictors: (Constant), Inkomenssituatie, SAWPEN, Frequentie supermarktbezoek per week, Leeftijd, Dag, Winkel, SAWCHOCO, Supermarkttrouw (0-10), Boodschapper, Aantal personen in huishouden 100

101 Appendix D SUPERMARKET A: Europaplein Pictures 101

102 102

103 SUPERMARKET B: Westeraam 103

104 104