ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
Within-Category Versus Cross-Category Substitution in Food Consumption
Carey Morewedge, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Joachim Vosgerau, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
Young Eun Huh, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
When a desired food is unavailable, consumers often switch to substitutes. We examine how consuming cross-category vs. withincategory substitutes influences consumption of the desired target. Although consumers prefer within-category substitutes, crosscategory substitutes are more effective in reducing craving for and consumption of the target food.
[to cite]:
Carey Morewedge, Joachim Vosgerau, and Young Eun Huh (2013) ,"Within-Category Versus Cross-Category Substitution in
Food Consumption", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 41, eds. Simona Botti and Aparna Labroo, Duluth, MN :
Association for Consumer Research.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1014885/volumes/v41/NA-41
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
Within-Category versus Cross-Category Substitution in Food Consumption
Young Eun Huh, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
Carey K. Morewedge, Carnegie Mellon University, USA
Joachim Vosgerau, Tilburg University, The Netherlands
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
Substitutes are goods that can replace one another by satisfying,
at least partly, the same consumers’ needs (Nicholson 1998). When
a desired product is not available or its price is deemed too high,
consumers may look for and switch to a substitute. Substitutes can
be classified as within-category and cross-category substitutes based
on whether they belong to the same or a different product category
as the target product. Within-category substitutes are often less desired than the target as they are not the consumer’s preferred choice
(i.e., the target), but—by definition—share many features with the
target and satisfy the same consumer needs. Store brand potato chips,
for example, would be a within-category substitute for Lay’s potato
chips. However, substitution can occur across product categories,
too, where the cross-category substitute satisfies a higher level consumer need as the target. For example, Rold Gold pretzels are not
potato chips but they satisfy a consumer’s craving for snacks, so pretzels are a cross-category substitute for Lay’s potato chips.
Although cross-category substitution is common (Park and
Gupta 2011), surprisingly little research has examined how crosscategory substitutes influence consumption experiences. In the current research, we examine how the consumption of cross-category
versus within-category substitutes influences craving for and consumption of the desired target food. Specifically, we show that although consumers prefer within-category substitutes over crosscategory substitutes when the target is not available, consuming a
cross-category substitute actually satisfies consumers’ needs better
than within-category substitutes.
Study 1 tested consumers’ preference for a within-category substitute and a cross-category substitute to satisfy their craving for the
target. Participants first sampled one piece of a target chocolate (Ritters Sports Hazelnut chocolate), which whetted participants’ appetite
for the target food (Wadhwa, Shiv, and Nowlis 2008), and indicated
how much they craved for another piece of the target chocolate.
Participants then chose between a within-category substitute (storebrand chocolate) and a cross-category substitute (granola bar) to
satisfy their craving for the target chocolate by consuming a larger
amount of their chosen substitute. 72.7% chose the within-category
substitute. Logistic regression showed that the more participants
craved the target after initial exposure, the more they were likely to
choose the within-category substitute.
In Study 2, we examined whether participants in Study 1 were
correct in predicting that consuming the within-category rather than
the cross-category substitute would be more effective in satisfying
their craving for the target food. As in the previous study, participants
first sampled one piece of the target chocolate. They then consumed
one of three foods: the same target (Ritters chocolate), a within-category substitute (store-brand chocolate), or a cross-category substitute (granola bar) before consuming the target ad libitum. We found
that participants who had eaten the within-category substitute subsequently ate more of the target than those who had eaten the crosscategory substitute and those who had eaten the target again (the
latter two conditions did not differ in terms of amount consumed).
The results of Study 2 suggest that although consumers believe a
within- rather than a cross-category substitute would better satisfy
their craving for the target, a cross-category substitute actually satisfies consumers’ craving for the target better than the within-cross
category substitute.
Study 3 examines the role of comparison between the target and
the substitute in the substitution effects. Participants consumed either
a within- or cross-category substitute which is as good as the target or
inferior to the target before consuming the target ad libitum. Among
those who had consumed the within-category substitute, participants
who had consumed the inferior substitute subsequently consumed
more target than those who had consumed the substitute which was
as good as the target. However, the amount of target consumed was
not different between those who had consumed the cross-category
substitute. The results suggest that substitution effect occurs because
the within-category substitute is compared to the target food resulting in a contrast effect, but no such contrast arises when the crosscategory substitute is compared to the target food.
In summary, we demonstrate that although consumers prefer
within-category substitutes, the consumption of cross-category substitutes can be more effective in reducing craving for the target food.
Such substitution effects are driven by contrast between the target
and the substitute, which occurs only within the same category, but
not across different categories.
REFERENCES
Nicholson, Walter (1998). Microeconomic Theory. The Dryden
Press.
Park, Sungho and Sachin Gupta (2011), A Regime-Switching Model
of Cyclical Category Buying, Marketing Science, 30 (3), 469480.
Wadhwa, Monica, Baba Shiv, and Stephen M. Nowlis (2008), A
Bite to Whet the Reward Appetite: The Influence of Sampling
on Reward-Seeking Behaviors, Journal of Marketing
Research, 45 (August), 403-413.
481
Advances in Consumer Research
Volume 41, ©2013