Final Research Methods Project

Running head: PERCEPTIONS OF GENERIC AND NAME BRAND FOOD 1

Perceptions of Generic and Name Brand Food

Samantha Weiss

State University of New York at New Paltz

1


Abstract

The purpose of my research is to determine how often people buy generic food products

over name brand food products. Is it more popular to purchase generic food items or name

brand? It was hypothesized that buying generic food items is more popular than buying name

brand food items. This study included eleven participants, 10 females and 1 male, age (M=22.64,

SD= 1.73). Participants were chosen for this study from the same Psychological Research

Methods class. The materials used in this study were a classroom with a projector, a response

form, and a writing utensil. The operational definition used to measure preference of name brand

or generic brand food items was the score participants gave certain food products on likeliness to

purchase, on a scale of 1-5,. t (10) = 5.97, p < .05. There is a significant difference between

preferences of generic or name brand food items. The results of this study concluded that name

brand items are more popular than generic when purchasing food items.

2


Perceptions of Generic and Name Brand Food

There are many theories of product purchasing in consumer behavior. Many of these

theories that will be discussed are related to consumer’s perception of the product. Perception

involves exposure, attention, categorization, and comprehension. Most of the time generic

products do not have the exposure necessary to get attention from consumers and grant a true

perception of the product. The Mere Exposure Effect (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.56) states that

consumers prefer objects to which they have been exposed, over stimuli they have not seen

before. This theory also works best when the consumer has low involvement in the product and it

is a novel product, like food. With that said, according to the mere exposure effect, consumers

would be more comfortable buying a name brand product because they are usually more familiar

with it in comparison to a generic product. An exemplar is a concept in someone’s schema that is

the single best representation of some category (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.81). For example, when

someone thinks of fast food a common exemplar is McDonald’s. Generic brands rarely create

exemplars, which does not help increase their popularity or perception. The Prospect Theory

suggests that people seek certainty in a gain domain and uncertainty or risk in a loss domain

(Babin & Harris, 2013, p.73). Relating to this study, people do not risk buying generic brand

products because the pain from the loss is more than the pleasure from the gain of the same

amount. People would rather stick to buying what they know and like, name brand products, than

risk disappointment in the generic products. Lastly, the Regulatory Focus Theory shows two

different types of thinking, promotion based and preventative based (Babin & Harris, 2013,

p.86). The United States is known as a promotion based country, meaning that we chose things

that will help us attain our goals and aspirations as opposed to preventing some negative

outcome. Generic products are not as popular as name brand products according to this theory

3


because we want a product that will help us be better than we truly are. Or perhaps we do not

buy generic brands as often because of preventative regulatory focus, meaning that we want to

prevent the bad instead of augmenting the good (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.86). In this case we

would not be buying generic brand goods because we want to prevent the possibility of a

negative outcome like not liking the product. Overall, perception is a main influence in

consumer’s decision-making process. People may not have a positive perception of generic

products because of the lack of attention and exposure due to lack of advertising. This fact

already puts generic products significantly behind name brand products because so much

influencing can be done through advertising. Advertising can carry subliminal messages, the

exposure products need, and even basic messages that generic brands cannot extrude. Exposure

leads to attention and ultimately memory (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.53). If a consumer does not

have a memory of a product this will not give them a positive impression of it.

Many researchers have studied the topic of product type and consumer opinion and

perception. Usually interviews or surveys are used to get a significant amount of data from many

people regarding their personal shopping habits. One study was conducted by Rosen (1984)

implementing a telephone survey to households using and not using generic products in a

Midwestern city. Researchers asked participants questions regarding quality and consistency of

generic, national brand, and private label products according to Rosen (1984). Many researchers

try and find a characteristic to test against the type of product brand chosen whether social

economic status, culture or in this case quality perception. Rosen (1984) hypothesized that

participants would find generic brands to be poorer in quality than national and private label

brands. He also hypothesized that generics would be seen as more consistent than the other two

categories of products. Results found that the generic brands were seen as poorer quality than the

4


national and private label brands, proving his hypothesis correct, according to Rosen (1984).

Rosen’s study pertains to this research because this study is to trying to find consumer perception

of name brand and generic products like his. Also, Rosen’s hypothesis is similar to my own

because he hypothesizes that participants will see generic products more positively than name

brand products. Rosen’s study shows that generic products are seen as poorer quality and more

negative than it’s counterparts.

Another study done in regards to product choice testing was Kim & Drolet (2009) who

conducted a study testing the degree to which culture influences decisions to buy name brand

versus generic products. They used a questionnaire to extract information from a large group of

people. Their sample consisted of US born European Americans, Asian born Asian Americans

and US born Asian Americans, according to Kim & Drolet (2009). Kim & Drolet (2009)

hypothesized that immigrant Asian Americans would choose to buy name brand products more

than European Americans. The researchers also hypothesized that this decision may be made

because of the desire to been seen as high status by buying the name brand items. The result of

Kim & Drolet’s (2009) study was that there was a difference in products bought based on

cultural differences, also these choices were made to reflect one’s self as high or low status. Kim

& Drolet’s (2009) research suggested that Asian Americans consistently chose the name brand

products over the generic because of the desire to be perceived as more high status. Asian

Americans were more concerned about their social status when buying products than European

Americans. This experiment pertains to my study because this is researching consumer behavior

on product type. Although Kim & Drolet focused on the cultural aspects of this product

purchasing decision, they did not hypothesize a negative view of generic products for European

5


Americans or in general. This experiment further researches why people may or may not buy

generic or name brand products and the perception of them.

Also studying this topic, Bellizzi (1981) studies consumer perception of national brands,

private brands, and generic brands by conducting a survey, which was administered by personal

interview with 125 people who went food shopping locally. Bellizzi (1981) hypothesized that

there was no perceptual difference between national, private and generic brands. The results

showed that national brands were seen most favorably followed by, private label then generic

brands according to Bellizzi (1981). Bellizzi’s hypothesis was disputed by his research. People

chose between national brand, name brand and generic brand on a multitude of reasons but all

seem to be significant in trying to understand this relationship. Bellizzi’s study pertains to and

agrees with this research because he did not believe generic products would be perceived more

negatively than national or private label brands. His hypothesis was rejected however his study

tested what my research intends to test, consumer perception of product types.

This study is important because unlike the previous studies mentioned, there was a focus

on food and specifically types of food compared to another. This study showed which specific

food products were more popular to buy as generic or name brand. Also, this study‘s results

displayed overall popularity of generic or name brand products in the food category. These

results are important for stores to know so that they can either produce less of the unpopular

products or make money by increasing advertising of popular generic products. If a company

finds this information extremely pertinent then they may even cut the line of products to avoid

wasting money. By knowing which individual product types are popular or unpopular this can

change the strategies of companies, marketers and that food business. If peanut butter is popular

to buy generically, name brand companies will have to increase their marketing and sales

6


strategies to compete. Overall popularity of name brand or generic food products and alter the

production and marketing of food altogether. As far as the psychological community, this study

showed the effect of exposure and attention on perception. Generic brands are not exposed as

widely as name brand products. This causes for less attention given to the generic products and

results in a weak perception or lack thereof. The importance of exposure of perception is shown,

especially when buying food products.

This study consisted of one independent variable with two levels and one dependent

variable. The independent variable was the type of products shown to the class. The levels were

generic brands, those that are not so popular and vary from store to store, and name brand

products, which are more common in many stores and popularly known. The dependent variable

for this study was the products participants would chose to buy, whether generic or name brand.

Participants were briefed about and shown a PowerPoint presentation. Each slide

represented food types, two of which being generic products and the other two being name brand

products. Participants were asked to rate each product on each slide from likelihood to buy on a

scale of 1-5, 1 being least likely to buy and 5 being most likely to buy.

It was hypothesized that generic food would be more popular to buy than name brand.

Method

Participants

Participants consisted of 11 SUNY New Paltz Psychology research methods students.

Participant’s age ranged from 18-27 years old, including one male and ten females, with a mean

age of 22.64 (SD=1.72). The population sample were students in Dr. Gayle’s research methods

Thursday lab class. The selection procedure was to include whoever was in class the day of this

7


study and was willing to participate.

Materials &\or Apparatus

Coykendall Science building room 21 was used in this study. Also used was the classroom

computer to display a PowerPoint presentation (refer to figure #1), and a projector and screen to

show the PowerPoint on the screen to participants. The participants were given a typed form to

fill out their responses to my experiment. A writing instrument was also necessary for this study.

Design and Procedure

I used a research within groups design. The independent variable was the type of product

shown to the class. The levels were generic brands, which are not always popularly known and

pertain to certain stores, and name brands, which are more popularly known and can be found at

a variety of stores. The dependent variable was the decision made to buy a food product. What

took part in the dependent variable is the perception and attitude participants have towards the

two types of food products, which influenced which product they would buy. This will be

measured by the rating participants give each product. Products A, B, C, and D will be rated on a

scale of 1-5, 1 being least likely to purchase and 5 being most likely to purchase. The dependent

variable was measured by adding up the scores of the generic and name brand products. The

scores of the two product types were compared and a relationship was found between the two

product types. All participants were exposed to the same pictures at the same time. Multiple

presentations were created in which the order of the generic and name brand products change per

slide so that order of items does not influence participant’s decisions. The control for this study

was randomization. The PowerPoint slides were purposely randomized by images so that the

order of product types on the slide did not influence participant’s choices.

8


First I read the consent script, then briefed the participants on the nature of the

experiment and asked their consent to participate in my study. Once consent was given, the

participants were given response forms they used to make their choices. A PowerPoint

presentation was prepared with slides showing groups of products. There were eight different

product types shown, each product type had their own slide. Each slide had four pictures of

generic and name brand products of that product type labeled A, B, C, and D. The participants

were asked to write on their paper which item they would buy (A, B, C, or D) as if they were

shopping for themselves. Each slide was presented for about 30 seconds. After all the slides were

shown their response papers showing which item per product type they would buy were

collected. The participants were debriefed about the uses of the study, including a discussion of

risks and asked participants if they have questions. The duration of the entire experiment was

about 5 minutes.

Results

The data in this study was manipulated; averages of the scores for name brand and

generic food products from the slides were calculated and compared. Results from this study

concluded that name brand food products were more popular (M = 3.72, SD= .62), compared

with generic food items (M = 2.37, SD= .33), refer to figure 1. A within subjects t-test was used

to find that t (10) = 5.97, p< .05. These results show that there is a significant difference between

popularity of generic and name brand food items. Participants showed a significant preference

for name brand food than generic food items.

Discussion

9


It was hypothesized that generic food products will be more popular that name brand food

products. It was believed that participants would prefer name brand food products compared to

generic food products. This hypothesis was not supported.

This study’s results do agree with the theories discussed in the introduction. The Mere

Exposure Effect states that by just being exposed to something we are more comfortable with it;

in this case we are more confortable with name brand food products because we are more

exposed to them than generic brands (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.56). The concept of Exemplars was

mentioned in the introduction, these are the best representation of a category. As related to

decision making, we associate most name brand food as exemplars over generic food. If

something is an exemplar it sticks out in our mental schema or mind frame, as the single best

example of a product of that category, so we may be more inclined to purchase that item over

generics (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.81). Also discussed earlier was the Prospect Theory, this says

that people seek certainty in a gain domain (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.73). Food shopping is a gain

domain, the consumer is looking to buy something that they need or want that will help them in

some way. According tot his theory consumers do not like to take chances or risk when we are

buying something that will help us, we want certainty that we will get the effect we are looking

for (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.73). Therefor, there is more risk associated with generic products

because there is less exposure, ads, and most people know what name brand they like and there

is no uncertainty when buying the product again. Generic brands are seen as risky and their

outcomes are uncertain, name brand food products are seen as the safe choice with minimal risk.

Last, the Regulatory Focus Theory, which suggests there are two frames of focus someone can

be involved in. The preventative focus is used to minimize negative outcomes, and the promotion

focus is used to increase positive outcomes (Babin & Harris, 2013, p.86). The United States is seen

10


as a promotion nation, we look to expand the good. A part of increasing the positive outcomes

of decision is how the decision makes the person feel, or how it alters perceptions of how others

feel about the user. As far as this study is concerned, by purchasing name brand products

consumers may feel more prestige and higher class affiliation than they would when buying

generic brands. The generic brand foods are seen as a lower class, which people do not like to

seem themselves as. Although the hypothesis was not supported, all the theories mentioned in the

introduction were supported. Consumers do not like risk, they like to have the best possible

outcomes they can with the purchases they make and do not want uncertainty. Because generic

foods are not as popular, not as advertised, and not as promoted as name brand foods, they are

seen as risky and may not provide the same satisfaction name brand products are known to have.

Overall. The name brand food products were seen in a more positive light than the generic food

products.

The results from this study stated that participants saw name brand food products as more

popular and more preferred than its generic counterparts. The results did relate to those discussed

in the literature. Results suggested that participants perceived generic brands as poorer quality

according to the study done by Rosen (1984). Also, results from Kim & Drolet (2009) suggest

that participants made their decisions on which product to buy based on how they wanted to be

perceived. Their participants had cultural difference on whether or not to buy generic or name

brand products, but that name brand products were seen to have higher prestige and status.

Lastly,

Bellizzi (1981) had results stating that national brands were seen as the most preferred followed

by private brands then generic brands, seen as least preferred. All of the above results do

11


correlate with what this study found. Generic brands are seen as lower quality, lower status and

less consistent than name brand products.

A few drawbacks of my study were the participant size, gender differences of the

participants, and age differences of the participants. I had only eleven participants, only one male

and all under the age of 27. Although this study did render significant results, I wish I had a more

diverse gender difference and a much larger sample. If I had a more desirable sample I would

have an easier time generalizing my data to more populations.

As far as confounding variables are concerned, many controlling techniques were used

but participants who may have added some confounding variables due to their characteristics

could not be changed. The fact that all of my participants were college students and there was

only one male poses an issue. Age and relative college lifestyle could have been a confounding

variable along with the participants being almost all female. It is possible that females may have

a different opinion or perception of generic and name brand food that males may of may not

have. Also, older populations may also have an alternate view of these products, which I did not

get to study due to my limited participant pool. As far as the study its self, the type of food

products shown may have been a confounding variable. The products were chosen to represent a

wide array of food types however it is possible that the choices chosen for the study may have

played a role in how participants rated the products.

The design of this study was successful. All participants were exposed to all of levels of

the independent variable at the same time and extraneous variables related to the design were

kept to a minimum. The design was successful and did not prove its self to be a problem.

12


This study could have been expanded to yield more information if the participant pool

was expanded greatly. Possible holding the experiment in a large lecture room with the

PowerPoint on a projector to accommodate a larger participant group would have given greater

data to analyze. Besides the amount of participants, a greater variety in participants would have

been beneficial as well. A more equal ratio of males to females and a wider age group would

have been better to study. Also, the study would have included other products besides food. To

yield more results there could have been various product types like tools, food, clothing,

appliances and apparel. This way findings could be generalized to all product categories and

inferences could be made about a much wider scale of consumers, not just food shoppers.

To get more information on the topic in future studies researchers would first take more

time to decide which products will be shown to participants. Maybe previous studies on this

topic did a similar design and used different product categories to study. Instead of choosing

food maybe researchers could just choose apparel. Or a team of researchers can do this study

multiple times analyzing perceptions of generic and name brand food, appliances, tools apparel

and other product categories as mentioned previously. The data from all the studies can be

analyzed together to get very broad and generalizable results of which product type is preferred.

As a follow up study it would be beneficial to conduct research on why consumers

choose the generic or name brand products. To better understand the literature on this topic it is

important to understand the emotions behind it as well. We see that name brand products are

more popular and preferred but we do not know why. By finding this out we can do further

research on the topic and possibly expand it even greater. The study of generic and name brand

products on consumer perception is a very interesting topic that is constantly changing and

requires more research. It is an exciting field that has many implications to psychology,

13


marketing, business, consumer behavior and even creative fields like art and digital design who

create the ads and packaging for these products. The topic deserves more research and studies

that can greater extend the topic’s knowledge and carry over into other fields.

References

Babin, Barry J., & Eric G. Harris. CB5. Mason, OH: South-Western, 2013. Print.

Bellizzi, J. S. (1981). Consumer Perceptions of National, Private, and Generic Brands. Journal

Of Retailing, 57(4), 56.

Kim, H. S., & Drolet, A. (2009). Express your social self: Cultural differences in choice of

brand-name versus generic products. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35,

1555-1566.

Rosen, D. L. (1984). Consumer perceptions of quality for generic grocery products: A

comparison across product categories. Journal Of Retailing, 60(4), 64-80.

14


Figure 1:

Example of slide used in study.

Table 1:

Mean Standard Deviation

Name Brand 3.72 .62

Generic 2.37 .33

15

Documents

Final Research Methods Project