Findings and Discussion

An overview of the first preliminary study’s findings is provided in Figure 38 through displaying the participants’ mean agreement to each statement and for each product. To investigate whether the mean differences between the six products are statistically significant, a one-way ANOVA was calculated according to the guidelines by Burns & Burns (2008, pp. 287–296). It was found that for all independent variables the means differ significantly from each other. The results of the ANOVA along with the mean values of each variable and their standard deviations can be found in Appendix VIII. To further investigate which of the pairs of values differ significantly from each other (i.e. which pairs of products feature a significant mean difference), a post hoc test has to be performed. Since most variables are heteroscedastic, the Games-Howell test was chosen (Sarstedt & Mooi 2014a, p. 174). The findings of the test are displayed in Appendix IX.

With respect to the seven statements about the consumer goods classification criteria introduced in Section 2.3.1 (1A–1G), four products (i.e. garbage bags, picnic dishes, toothbrush, and stapler) more or less correspond to the non-durable consumer good profile.

Out of these four products, the garbage bags are the closest representation of a clear non-durable consumer good. Both electronics products on the other hand (i.e. headphones and hair blower) are rather correlating with the durable consumer goods profile with the headphones closest to being a clear durable consumer good. However, some distinct differences underline that a definite classification is not possible. Regarding durability, the stapler is considered being used for the longest period (MP2 = 7.76). Surprisingly, the participants evaluated headphones as being only somewhat more durable than a toothbrush (MP1 = 6.30 vs. MP6 = 5.43). Regarding purchasing frequency, the stapler (MP2 = 7.90) and the picnic dishes (MP3 = 6.63) are close to the durable consumer goods profile. The garbage bags and the toothbrush are bought with higher frequencies. For involvement, information search, alternative evaluation, and purchasing advice the profiles of the garbage bags, the picnic dishes, and the stapler are similar to each other. The

Preliminary Study 1: Classifying the Exemplary Products 127

participants indicate to buy these products without thinking much about their choices. In comparison, the toothbrush is considered a little bit “less non-durable”. On the other side of the spectrum, the headphones are clearly “more durable” than the hair blower as participants more consciously evaluate alternatives (MP1 = 7.34 vs. MP5 = 5.51) and use purchasing advice more frequently (MP1 = 6.99 vs. MP5 = 5.15).

Figure 38: Findings of Preliminary Study 1

Looking at the additional statements, the headphones are considered the only product which purchase is impacted by friends’ recommendations (MP1 = 5.47). Also, the headphones are by far the only product that is considered helping to express the personality of the owner (MP1 = 6.61). Surprisingly, participants claim that fashion trends have almost no impact on their purchasing decisions of any of the products. When it comes to

The product typically is of high value.

The product is a durableproduct. I typically use it over a long period of time.

I typically purchase the product with a low frequency.

Purchasing the product typically is a highly involvingactivity.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I am engaged into intensive information searchprior to purchasing the product.

I consciouslyevaluate the alternatives available prior to purchasing the product.

I typically use purchasing advice prior to purchasing the product.

Friends’ recommendationshave an impact on my decision to purchase the product.

Trough choosing I can make a difference in terms of environmental sustainability.

Through choosing I can make a difference in terms of social sustainability.

I can express my personalitythrough the product.

Fashion trends have an impact on my decision which alternative I purchase.

The priceI typically pay for the product.

20 50

3

environmental sustainability, the garbage bags (MP4 = 6.71) and the picnic dishes (MP3 = 6.46) are considered allowing for a noteworthy effect through choosing between product alternatives while all other products feature comparably low values (e.g.

headphones MP1 = 4.13). This also holds true for social sustainability even though the effect of the garbage bags and the picnic dishes is considered smaller. Nevertheless, participants estimate that the garbage bags and the picnic dishes offer higher potential for improving social sustainability than all other products. Finally, the distribution of the prices participants stated to be paying for the products positively correlates with the first statement’s evaluation of the products’ value.

Overall, the findings of the first preliminary study underline that consumer goods should not be classified as being either durable or non-durable. In fact, most products feature properties of both consumer goods classes. Thus, the individual product profiles resulting from this study clearly differ from each other. Of particular importance for the main experiments is the impact on sustainability participants think their choices can make. For environmental sustainability, participants indicate that choosing between different alternatives of the relatively simple products garbage bags and picnic dishes has the largest effect. On the other hand, choosing between product alternatives of more sophisticated products like stapler, hair blowers, or even headphones does not pose an opportunity for impacting environmental sustainability to the participants. The same holds true for social sustainability, even though the difference between the groups of products is smaller. This finding is surprising as the garbage bags and the picnic dishes have in common that they are simple products of low value that trigger low involvement and that are bought unaffected of purchasing advice, recommendations, or fashion trends. Moreover, participants state to buy these products without an actual evaluation of product alternatives. Taken together, these products seem to be of little interest for the participants. However, they also state that the environment could benefit from their choices if they just were to evaluate existing product alternatives. Furthermore, participants do not believe being able to make a difference through products they do evaluate consciously before purchasing (i.e.

headphones and hair blower).

Summing up, the first preliminary study illustrates that the garbage bags and the headphones are the opposite ends of the consumer goods spectrum under investigation.

However, limiting the focus of the subsequent studies to these two products is not deemed appropriate. Especially the sustainability issues expose differences among all six exemplary products. Thus, these differences will be used to set the findings of the subsequent studies into perspective. Overall, the following key findings are put forward:

Preliminary Study 2: Pilot-testing the Exterior Design Manipulation 129

Key Findings from Preliminary Study 1

 It is supported that the six products should not be handled as being either non-durable or durable consumer goods. They feature a variety of distinct differences that have to be taken into account for the subsequent studies.

 Products that are considered to offer notable opportunities for improving sustainability are simple, inexpensive, and the least interesting for the participants.

 Consumers do not consider more complex products that trigger high involvement and demand a thorough evaluation of alternatives to offer noteworthy potential for sustainability improvement.

6.3 Preliminary Study 2: Pilot-testing the Exterior Design Manipulation