Running head: LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
The Effects of Brand Name on Quality Perception and Preference
Serena D. Stevens
Upper-Division Research Writing
1
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
2
Abstract
Two experiments, one with 35 participants (13 male and 22 female, mean age = 21.5) and the other
with 16(5 males and 11 females, mean age = 20.6), tested whether brand-name soymilk would be
higher-rated than generic. Experiment 1: participants rated cups of soymilk, labeled with either
brand-name or ambiguous symbols. No significant effects were found for soymilk type (F(1, 33) =
.003, p = .959), label (F=1, 33) = .001, p = .978), or the interaction (F(1, 33) = .366, p = .549).
Experiment 2: participants rated cups of identical soymilk, labeled as different brands. No significant
results were found (t(15) = .824). This study indicated the need for research of taste perception
among little-known brands.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
3
The Effects of Brand Name on Quality Perception and Preference
Two products sit on a shelf—one costs $3.49, the other $2.69. The only difference between
the two? One is brand-name and the other generic. A person can hardly walk into a grocery store
without noticing the plethora of goods available; consumers have more choice today than ever
before. Among the profusion of products sit generic varieties. Lower in price and usually packaged
blandly, these goods are often passed over for their more attractive counterparts. But should they
be? If the only difference between brand name and generic products is the pasted-on label,
consumers may be paying a high price for no reason.
Krutulyte, Costa, and Grunert (2009) explained that products have intrinsic quality cues,
which include all physical characteristics of the product (including packaging) and extrinsic quality
cues, including “brand name, price, store type, label information, information on origin, etc.” (p.
307). Intrinsic quality cues have some research supporting their effects.
In a study on packaging by Wansink, Park, Sonka and Morganosky (2000), the health
information on the wrapper of a nutrition bar affected participants’ views of its taste (as cited in
Fichter & Jonas, 2008). Bogue and Ritson (2004) demonstrated that dairy products lower in fat are
seen as more appealing when labeled “good for you” or “natural” rather than “light” or “low-fat”
(pp. 43-44). McCall and Lynn (2008) also found that elaborate descriptions of food on a menu
affected consumers’ perceptions of quality more than simple descriptions (p. 444).
Even before tasting a product, consumers make preliminary judgments about it based on the
packaging. Germain, Wakefield, & Durkin (2010) demonstrated that when cigarettes have plain
packaging, adolescents perceive them as being “boring” and “unattractive.” The expected taste
ratings of the cigarettes became more negative as the packaging became blander (pp. 386, 390).
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
4
Despite this research, Krutulyte, Costa, and Grunert (2009) asserted that extrinsic cues (such
as brand name) are generally more influential than intrinsic cues (such as packaging) (pp. 319-320).
Varela, Ares, Gimenez, and Gambaro (2010) agreed, stating that the liking and purchase of a
product depends on more than just the sensory details. Non-physical details such as brand and price
influence consumers’ decisions (p. 873).
Price has been interpreted as a determiner of quality, according to Jacoby, Olson, and
Haddock (1971). Price is “concrete and measurable,” so the consumer trusts it more than most cues
concerned with quality (p. 570). However, Ares et al. (2009) suggested that higher price could have
one of two effects on consumer preference: it could cause the product to seem higher in quality, or
it could make the product less desirable because of the extra expense (p. 365). A study by Krutulyte,
Costa, and Grunert (2009) showed that price’s reliance as an indicator of quality varies by culture
(pp. 318-319). Whatever effects price may have on quality perception are overshadowed by the
effects of brand name.
Brand has been cited among the “most important non-sensory factors affecting consumers’
choice decisions of food products” (Varela et al., 2010, p. 873). According to Keller (1998), brand is
seen as a “promise, a guarantee or contract with the manufacturer and a symbolic mean and sign of
quality” (as cited in Varela et al, 2010, p. 873). Brand is communicated to the public through
advertizing.
Advertisers spend millions of dollars each year to familiarize the public with their brand
images, defined by Jacoby, Olson, and Haddock (1971) as the “subjective, emotional cluster of
meaning and symbols that the consumer attributes to a particular brand” (p. 571). Fichter and Jonas
(2008) further define brand image as “the stereotype held toward a brand” (p. 226). The familiarity
garnered from exposure to brand image leads to increased liking and increased quality perception
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
5
(Wardle and Solomons, 1994, p. 180; Ares, Gimenez, and Deliza, 2009, p. 365). According to PetersTexeira and Badrie (2005), “advertizing is the most important factor that influences the purchase of
a new product” (p. 513). Multiple studies have demonstrated the remarkable effects of brand name.
The first studies on brand name were conducted in the late 1940s. Two researchers
repeatedly found that participants were unable to distinguish among numerous brands of cola,
repeatedly naming the three most popular brands no matter the combination of beverages (Pronko
& Bowles, 1948; Bowles & Pronko, 1948; Pronko & Bowles, 1949). Fleishman (1951) found in a
study on beer that, when brand names were unknown, families favored a different brand of beer
each day, and when asked which they preferred, the actual selection rarely matched the indicated
preference (p. 135). In Allison and Uhl’s (1964) study on beer taste perception, all labeled bottles
received higher scores than unlabeled; even the lowest-rated labeled bottle was preferred over the
highest-rated unlabeled bottle (as cited in Fichter & Jonas, 2008, p. 227).
Makens (1965) found that two identical samples of turkey were rated differently when
consumers were told that one was from a well-known brand. The sample supposedly from an
unknown brand was rated significantly lower, and consumers indicated an overall preference for the
known brand (p. 262). Makens also demonstrated in a second experiment that consumers believed
better-quality turkey to be brand-name (p. 263).
Recently, interest in brand name has picked up, and researchers are finding that preference
for brand name is not universal. Varela et al. (2010) found that brand name affected quality
perception in powdered drinks more than actual taste differences. However, this positive effect was
only demonstrated for the “premium, high-recognized” brands. Lesser-known brands saw no effect
from brand name (p. 880). Additional limitations of brand name exist. Ares et al. (2009) discovered
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
6
that brand name was the most important factor for yogurt preference—but only among participants
who cared the least about health (p. 365).
The possibility exists that brand-name products actually taste better than generic products,
although all studies suggesting this have been conducted on beer. In Fleishman’s study, (1951) three
brands of beer were consistently rated higher than the others, and two were generally avoided (pp.
134-135). In another study on beer brands, Jacoby et. al (1971) found that ultrapremium beer was
rated higher than inexpensive regional beer when brand names were unknown (p. 577). This shows
that some brands do have quality differences, at least when discussing beer.
The available research of the effects of brand name on quality perception and preference
largely concern frequently consumed products whose brand names and brand images are linked
tightly to the food itself—products such as beer, cola, and cigarettes (Makens, 1965). Even so, the
results are inconclusive. In 1965, Makens pioneered a new area of research, studying the effects of
brand name with turkey meat (p. 261) and Varela et al. (2010) recently studied orange drink powder.
These products may be obscure compared to beer, cola, and cigarettes, but they are still commonly
consumed.
Does brand name still have an effect on people when they are unfamiliar with the brand, or
even the food itself? Little research has been done on products that are even more obscure than
drink powder and turkey—products such as soymilk. While soymilk consumption is on the rise,
many people are still unfamiliar with or wary of this milk replacement. Is brand name seen as higher
quality because of the brand, or is it because of the higher advertizing allotted to it? Silk soymilk was
chosen for this study because it is among the most popular brands of soymilk, advertized heavily in
magazines, on the Internet, and via television commercials. Silk is likely recognizable as brand name,
even to those unfamiliar with soymilk.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
7
The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of brand name on perceived quality of
soymilk, an obscure food product. It is hypothesized that a well-known brand of soymilk (such as
Silk) will be rated higher than a lesser-known or generic brand, that symbol-labeled soymilk will
differ in taste perception than the same soymilk labeled with brand names, and that brand namelabeled soymilk will be preferred over the same soymilk labeled with a generic brand name.
Method
Overview
Two experiments were conducted to investigate these hypotheses. Experiment 1 was a 2 x 2
mixed design. The within-groups variable was type of soymilk (Silk or generic), the between-groups
variable was labeling (brand-labeled or symbol-labeled), and the dependent variable was taste quality.
Experiment 2 was a two-level within-groups design with the independent variable of labeling (Silk or
generic) and had a dependent variable of taste quality.
Participants
The two experiments together contained 51 participants. All were students at Union College,
a Seventh-day Adventist college in Lincoln, Nebraska. Experiment 1 contained 35 students, 13 male
and 22 female, with an ages ranging from 18-27 and an average age of 21.5. Experiment 2 contained
16 students, 5 male and 11 female, with ages ranging from 18-25 and an average age of 20.6. All
participants were treated in accordance with the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of
Conduct” (American Psychological Association, 2010).
For both experiments, participants were collected by sign-ups in the school cafeteria, emails
sent to all students informing them of the research, and a group on the social networking site
Facebook. Participants received cookies for participating in this study. Participants were assigned to
groups using a random number table.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
8
Apparatus
Both experiments used two brands of vanilla soymilk: Silk and Best Choice (a generic brand
found at Super Saver). The soymilk was served to participants in 3 oz. paper cups, filled half-full, on
trays labeled with the condition. Participants filled out a questionnaire on the taste of the soymilk
and frequency of consumption. Response options for taste of soymilk were organized in a Likert
scale from (1) Bad to (5) Excellent; options for frequency of consumption ranged from (1) Never to
(5) Everyday or Every other day. Questionnaires were printed on 11.5 x 18 inch white paper in 12point Garamond font.
Procedure
Experiment 1. Participants arrived at the testing site and were randomly assigned to one of
two groups: brand-labeled or symbol-labeled. They were asked to fill out the informed consent form
(Appendix A) and the demographic information and information about frequency of consumption
in Part 1 of the questionnaire for Experiment 1 (Appendix B). When all participants arrived, the
researcher collected the informed consent forms and made sure all had completed Part 1 of the
questionnaire.
The participants were told the name of a soymilk and instructed to take a cup from the
presented correctly-labeled tray and drink it. The tray was labeled either “Silk” or “Super
Saver/Generic” for the brand-labeled condition and “*” or “%” for the symbol-labeled condition.
Participants were asked to rate the taste of the soymilk on Part 2 of the questionnaire for
Experiment 1 (Appendix B). Next, a second tray of soymilk was presented, marked with the
opposite label, and participants again rated its taste. The soymilk in the brand-labeled condition was
correctly labeled, and in the symbol-labeled condition, “*” and “%” indicated Silk and generic,
respectively. The order of presentation was counterbalanced to avoid multiple treatment effects.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
9
Experiment 2. Participants filled out the informed consent form (Appendix A) and Part 1
of the questionnaire for Experiment 2 (Appendix C), including demographic information and
information about frequency of soymilk consumption. After collecting the informed consent form,
the researcher told the participants to take a cup of soymilk from the tray marked “Silk” or
“Generic” and rate its taste on Part 2 of the questionnaire. The other tray was then presented.
Although labeled differently, the soymilk in both conditions was actually generic. Order of
presentation was again counterbalanced to control for multiple treatment effects.
Results
Experiment 1
A 2 x 2 ANOVA was performed to test the following hypotheses: brand of soymilk will
affect the perception of taste so that Silk brand soymilk will result in a higher perception of quality
than generic (Main Effect 1); label of soymilk will affect taste perception in that soymilk labeled with
symbols will be rated as significantly different in taste from soymilk labeled with brand names (Main
Effect 2); and there will be a significant interaction between brand and label such that Silk brand and
brand-labeled soymilk will produce the highest perception of quality. It is expected that Silk will
consistently have higher ratings than generic and that brand-labeled will have higher ratings than
symbol-labeled. Therefore, brand-labeled Silk is expected to have the highest rating.
However, no significant effects were demonstrated. Analysis using an alpha level of .05,
indicated no significant main effects for soymilk type (F(1, 33) = .003, p = .959, η² = .000) or for
soymilk label (F=1, 33) = .001, p = .978, η² = .000). There was also no significant interaction (F(1,
33) = .366, p = .549, η² = .011).
A chi-square test was conducted to determine the effects of frequency of consumption on
taste perception.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
10
Table 1
Chi-square Test on Frequency of Soymilk Consumption x Silk Taste Rating
Taste Rating
Never
Frequency of Consumption
A few times
A few times A few times
per year
per month
per week
Everyday or
Total
every other day
Bad
0
0
0
1
0
1
Poor
1
1
1
0
1
4
Fair
1
1
5
2
3
12
Good
1
2
5
3
6
17
Excellent
0
0
0
1
0
1
Total
3
4
11
7
10
35
The results in Table 1 seem to show that there is little difference between those who drink soymilk
regularly and those who do not. Indeed, these results are not significant, χ² (16) = 11.880, p = .752.
Table 2
C hi-square Test on Frequency of Soymilk Consumption x Generic Taste Rating
Taste Rating
Never
Frequency of Consumption
A few times
A few times A few times
per year
per month
per week
Everyday or
Total
every other day
Bad
1
0
0
0
0
1
Poor
1
1
1
2
1
6
Fair
1
1
2
1
4
9
Good
0
1
8
3
5
17
Excellent
0
1
0
1
0
2
Total
3
4
11
7
10
35
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
11
The results in Table 2 also seem to show little difference and are not significant, χ² (16) = 22.139, p
= .139.
Experiment 2
No significant effects were found for brand-labeling in this experiment. The hypothesis that,
between two cups of identical soymilk, the cup with the label “Silk” would be rated as higher quality
than the cup labeled “Super Saver/Generic” was tested using a repeated measures t-test. The taste
results of the cup labeled “Silk” (M = 3.625, SD = .6191) were not significantly different from those
of the cup labeled “Super Saver/Generic” (M = 3.813, SD = .6551) (t(15) = .824, p = .423, twotailed, d = 7.0782).
A chi-square test was used to determine whether frequency of consumption had an effect on
taste perception.
Table 3
C hi-square Test on Frequency of Soymilk Consumption x Silk-Labeled Taste Rating
Taste Rating
Never
Frequency of Consumption
A few times
A few times A few times
per year
per month
per week
Everyday or
Total
every other day
Fair
1
0
3
3
0
7
Good
0
2
3
0
3
8
Excellent
0
0
0
0
1
1
4
16
Total
1
2
6
3
Note. No participants rated the Silk-labeled soymilk “Bad” or “Poor.”
From Table 3, it looks as though those who consume soymilk more frequently were more
likely to rate the “Silk” higher. However, these differences are not significant, χ² (8) = 12.071, p =
.148.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
12
Table 4
C hi-square Test on Frequency of Soymilk Consumption x Generic-Labeled Taste Rating
Taste Rating
Never
Frequency of Consumption
A few times
A few times A few times
per year
per month
per week
Everyday or
Total
every other day
Fair
0
1
2
1
1
5
Good
1
1
4
2
1
9
Excellent
0
0
0
0
2
2
4
16
Total
1
2
6
3
Note. No participants rated the Generic-labeled soymilk “Bad” or “Poor.”
The results in Table 4 also seem to show that those who consume soymilk more frequently
tend to rate soymilk—regardless of the label—higher. However, these results are not significant
either, χ² (8) = 7.822, p = .451.
Discussion
Although it was hypothesized in the first experiment that scores for the symbol-labeled
soymilk would differ significantly from scores for the brand-labeled soymilk, and in the second
experiment that scores for the cup labeled “Silk” would be higher than a cup of identical soymilk
labeled “Super Saver/Generic,” neither of these hypotheses were supported.
Although the results were not significant for Experiment 1, it is interesting to note a few
points about the data obtained. According to the research, one would expect participants to rate Silk
higher when labels were included (Makens, 1965). However, the results show the opposite: when
labels were included, participants rated the generic soymilk higher than the Silk soymilk, and when
only symbols were given, the Silk was rated higher. Participants seemed to like Silk more when they
did not know it was Silk and to like it less when they knew the brand name. Even though these
results are not significant, they are opposite of what was expected. The results were also not
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
13
significant for Experiment 2, and the means exhibited the same strange reversal as seen in
Experiment 1: participants rated the soymilk labeled as “Generic/Super Saver” the highest, even
though both cups were the same brand of soymilk.
Reasons for this switch could be many. Perhaps the participants, college students, have
trained themselves to like generic foods because of the low cost. Cognitive dissonance may set in
when students buy generic goods: if they buy them instead of name-brand goods, they believe they
must like them better. Frequently buying generic products may actually make college students be
more familiar with generic soymilk than with brand-name, which could cause the demonstrated
effect, as suggested by Varela et al. (2010, p. 880).
It is also possible that the results could be due to students making a conscious effort to like
Silk less because it is a name-brand. Some participants may have had a reaction against name-brand
goods because of views on company corruption or advertizing. However, since the results were not
significant, it is possible that this reversal is due entirely to chance.
If this study was accurate and brand name really has no significant effects, then a few
possibilities exist. It is possible that Silk, a lesser-known product, has not yet built up a strong
advertizing base. As Varela et al. (2010) found, lesser-known brands (and, assumedly, products) saw
little effect of brand name on taste quality perception (p. 880). This makes particular sense if a
brand-name product receives its high taste expectations from advertizing—lesser-known brands are
lesser-known because of less advertizing.
Additionally, the experiments may have yielded different results if only participants familiar
with soymilk had been studied. Although the chi-square analyses yielded no significant results, the
given information seems to show that frequent consumption of soymilk correlates with high taste
ratings; infrequent consumption, on the other hand, may correlate with rating soymilk low in taste.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
14
Frequent consumption would probably indicate familiarity with soymilk brands and, therefore, more
exposure to advertizing about Silk. It is also possible that soymilk—of any kind—is an acquired
taste, and it simply tastes better to those more acquainted with the flavor.
Perhaps consumers who enjoy soymilk are less affected by brand name; soymilk is often
seen as a healthier alternative to cow’s milk and, according to Ares et al. (2009), people who care
more about health are less affected by brand name (p. 365). This could be because health-conscious
people might look more carefully at a product’s ingredients and nutrition information, choosing
products based on their intrinsic quality rather than their extrinsic ones.
Another possibility is that the two brands of soymilk differed dramatically in taste, but not
necessarily in quality. Participants noted that the Silk soymilk tasted sweeter and had a stronger
vanilla flavor than the generic soymilk. Preferences on sweetness and vanilla flavoring may differ.
One participant noted that she preferred plain soymilk, so the generic one, with its blander flavoring,
appealed to her more. If half the participants preferred Silk and half preferred generic, the taste
rating means would be similar even though the preferences were polarized.
A potential limitation of this study involves the sample sizes. Although large enough for
some phenomena, sample sizes of 35 and 16 may not have been sufficient to test these hypotheses.
The nonsignificant results may have actually been significant, but without more participants, the
effects could not be shown.
In conclusion, while this study did not yield significant results, it indicated the need for more
research in the area of taste perception among little-known brands. Such research could help
determine the true influence of brand name and whether advertizing is the main factor in brand
name’s attractiveness.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
15
References
American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx
Ares, G., Gimenez, A., & Deliza, R. (2009). Influence of three non-sensory factors of consumer
choice of functional yogurts over regular ones. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 361-367.
Bogue, J. & Ritson, C. (2004). Integrating consumer information with the new product development
process: The development of lighter dairy products. International Journal of Consumer Studies,
30(1), 34-44.
Bowles, J. W. Jr. & Pronko, N. H. (1948). Identification of cola beverages: II. A further study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 32(5), 559-564.
Fichter, C. & Jonas, K. (2008). Image effects of newspapers: How brand images change consumers’
product ratings. Journal of Psychology, 216(4), 226-234.
Fleishman, E. A. (1951). An experimental consumer panel technique. Journal of Applied Psychology,
35(2), 133-135.
Germain, D., Wakefield, M. A., & Durkin, S. J. (2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of cigarette brand
image: Does plain packaging make a difference? Journal of Adolescent Health, 46, 385-392.
Jacoby, J., Olson, J. C., & Haddock, R. A. (1971). Price, brand name, and product composition
characteristics as determinants of perceived quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(6), 570579.
Krutulyte, R., Costa, A. L., & Grunert, K. G. (2009). A cross-cultural study of cereal food quality
perception. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 15, 304-323.
Makens, J. C. (1965). Effect of brand preference upon consumers’ perceived taste of turkey meat.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 49(4), 261-263.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
16
McCall, M. & Lynn, A. (2008). The effects of restaurant menu item descriptions on perceptions of
quality, price, and purchase intention. Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 11(4), 439-445.
Peters-Texeira, A. & Badrie, N. (2005). Consumers’ perception of food packaging in Trinidad, West
Indies and its related impact on food choices. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 29(6),
508-514.
Pronko, N. H. & Bowles, J. W. Jr. (1948). Identification of cola beverages. I. First study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 32(3), 304-312.
Pronko, N. H. & Bowles, J. W. Jr. (1949). Identification of cola beverages. III. A final study. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 33(6), 605-608.
Varela, P., Ares, G., Gimenez, A., & Gambaro, A. (2010). Influence of brand information on
consumers’ expectations and liking of powdered drinks in central location tests. Food Quality
and Preference, 21, 873-880.
Wardle, J. & Solomons, W. (1994). Naughty but nice: A laboratory study of health information and
food preferences in a community sample. Health Psychology, 13(2), 180-183.
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
17
Appendix A: Informed Consent Form
This research is concerned with taste perception. You will be asked to sample two brands of
soymilk and report on their taste. The entire experiment should take between five and ten minutes.
All the information you provide in this experiment will be kept confidential, and your name will not
be attached to the data that you provide. There are no obvious risks involved in study participation,
although those with an allergy to soy should not participate. You are free to withdraw from the
experiment at any time without penalty.
I hereby indicate that I am informed of the nature of this research and consent to the use of
the results by the researchers.
Print name: _______________________________ Signed: _____________________________
Date: ______________________________
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
18
Appendix B: Questionnaire Experiment 1
Questionnaire
Please respond to items in Part 1 as you wait. Do not move on to Part 2 of the questionnaire until
instructed to do so.
Part 1
1. Gender:
Male
Female
Other/Prefer not to respond
2. Age: ______
3. Indicate how often you drink soymilk by choosing the number which most closely corresponds to
your answer.
1
2
3
4
5
Never
A few times
per year
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Everyday or
every other day
Part 2
Rate the taste of each cup of soymilk by choosing the number which most closely corresponds to
your answer.
Silk [or Super Saver/Generic or * or %) Soymilk
1
2
3
4
Bad
Poor
Fair
Good
5
Excellent
Super Saver/Generic [or Silk or % or *] Soymilk
1
2
3
4
Bad
Poor
Fair
Good
5
Excellent
LABELING EFFECT ON TASTE
19
Appendix C: Questionnaire Experiment 2
Questionnaire
Please respond to items in Part 1 as you wait. Do not move on to Part 2 of the questionnaire until
instructed to do so.
Part 1
1. Gender:
Male
Female
Other/Prefer not to respond
2. Age: ______
3. Indicate how often you drink soymilk by choosing the number which most closely corresponds to
your answer.
1
2
3
4
5
Never
A few times
per year
A few times
per month
A few times
per week
Everyday or
every other day
Part 2
Rate the taste of each cup of soymilk by choosing the number which most closely corresponds to
your answer.
Silk [or Super Saver/Generic] Soymilk
1
2
3
4
Bad
Poor
Fair
Good
5
Excellent
Super Saver/Generic [or Silk] Soymilk
1
2
3
4
Bad
Poor
Fair
Good
5
Excellent