Food for Thought:

A Study of Ethical Consumption in the Millennial Generation

By
Hannah Torry

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

for Departmental Honors

Business Administration Department

Coe College
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
April 2016

Table Of Contents
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................... 10
CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY .................................................................................................................. 10
CONSUMER PURCHASE BEHAVIOR ........................................................................................................................ 13
ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR GAP ....................................................................................................................................... 16
BREAKING THE GAP ................................................................................................................................................... 18
RESEARCH INCONSISTENCIES .................................................................................................................................. 20
RESEARCH PREPARATION ......................................................................................................................................... 20
OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................................................... 22
CONSUMER INTENTION PRE-SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 22
PUB EXPERIMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
POST-PURCHASE SURVEY ......................................................................................................................................... 25

RESEARCH RESULTS ............................................................................................ 26

SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26
PRE-SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 26
Demographics .............................................................................................................................................................. 26
Purchase Intention Multiple Choice Results .................................................................................................... 30
Purchase Intentions Short Answer Results ....................................................................................................... 36
Pub Experiment ........................................................................................................................................................... 39

DICUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................... 42

LIMITATIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................................... 43

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 47
APPENDIX A: PRE-SURVEY ...................................................................................................................................... 53
APPENDIX B: PROMOTIONAL E-MAIL ................................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX C: PROMOTIONAL FLYER ..................................................................................................................... 57
APPENDIX D: QUESTION 8 SHORT ANSWER RESPONSES ............................................................................... 58
APPENDIX E: QUESTION 9 SHORT ANSWER RESPONSES ................................................................................ 66
APPENDIX F: CONSUMER BEHAVIOR POST-SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................... 75

INTRODUCTION
Consumer behavior, the study of how people make decisions about what they buy,
want, need or act in regards to a product, service, or company, (Schofield, n.d., 2) has been
studied for decades. Through the years, scholars have analyzed the psychological, personal,
and social factors that affect consumer purchase behavior. Studying these factors has led to
predictability in understanding how customers will respond to various products or
promotions. A branch of consumer behavior that has escalated in popularity in recent years is
ethical consumption.
Ethical consumption is a phrase that has been circulating in popular culture for a very
long time. The UKs leading alternative consumer magazine, Ethical Consumer, selfproclaims being at the heart of the ethical consumer movement since the magazines first
publication in 1989 (Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd. [ECRA], 2016). Beginning
with human rights activist Rob Harrisons interest in the consumption of products produced
by companies linked to the South African apartheid movement, the Ethical Consumer
published rating tables of various companies in terms of their ethical and environmental
responsibility with the primary goal of using consumer pressure to make global businesses
more sustainable (ECRA, 2016). The publication of materials similar to these began research
progression in the area of corporate social responsibility and ethical consumerism.
In one explanation of ethical consumerism, The Institute of Grocery Distribution, a
research and training charity which has been providing collaborative insight to the food and
grocery industry for 105 years, defines it as the practice of purchasing products and services
produced in a way that minimizes social and/or environmental damage, while avoiding
products and services deemed to have a negative impact on society or the environment (The
Institute of Grocery Distribution [IGD], 2016, 2). Multiple scholars (Doane, 2001;

Pelsmacker, Driesen, & Rayp, 2005; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006) have built definitions of
ethical consumerism, all of which focus on different social and environmental sectors. In
order to best identify a relationship between these numerous and complex definitions, the
research team from The Ethical Consumer spent over 20 years conducting research on ethical
consumerism and systematically organizing the resulting data. From this work the
researchers were capable of effectively classifying the dynamics into five primary sectors of
concern:

Environment: Environmental Reporting, Nuclear Power, Climate Change, Pollution

& Toxics, Habitats & Resources
People: Human Rights, Workers' Rights, Supply Chain Policy, Irresponsible
Marketing, Armaments
Animals: Animal Testing, Factory Farming, Other Animal Rights
Politics: Political Activity, Boycott Call, Genetic Engineering, Anti-Social Finance,
Company Ethos
Product Sustainability: Organic, Fairtrade, Positive Environmental Features, Other
Sustainability (IGD, 2016).
Following the early publication and promotion of the benefits of ethical consumerism,

the international movement towards ethical consumption rapidly spread. A 2010 study by the
General Social Society, a full-probability, personal-interview survey designed to monitor
changes in social characteristics and attitudes in the United States, showed decreasing
participation rates in almost all forms of political activity from 2003 to 2008. An exception to
this decrease was found in the increased civic participation within two categories: searching
for political information (up 3 percentage points from 24% to 27%) and ethical
consumption (up 7 percentage points from 20% to 27%) (Turcotte, 2010). The interest in
ethical consumption has only continued to increase. Data from the Nielsen Global Survey on
Corporate Social Responsibility conducted in 2015 reported, sixty-six percent of global
respondents say theyre willing to pay more for products and services that come from

companies who are committed to positive social and environmental impact, up from fiftyfive percent in 2014 and fifty percent in 2013 (The Nielsen Company [TNC], 2015, 1).
Although there are a significant number of published studies that identify the effects
ethicality plays on consumer purchase behavior in broad populations, such as the two reports
discussed above, there are few directed specifically towards one of the current most
influential populations of the world: the millennial generation. The millennial generation
includes people born between 1982 and 2004 (Horovitz, 2012). According to a Forbes article
written by Soloman in November, 2015, there are about 80 million millennials in the United
States alone. This generation makes up almost 25% of the U.S. population, and it is estimated
theyll be spending $200 billion annually by 2017 and $10 trillion over their lifetimes as
consumers (Solomon, 2015, 2). This populations dominating size, as well as significant
monetary power, leads scholars such as Joe Kessler, president of The Intelligence Group, to
define the millennial generation as a force to be reckoned with because of its influential
power in defining Americas principal values (Consoli, 2012). This potential is reiterated by
Nahal, head of Thematic Investing at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, If you look at the
U.S. they [millennials] are the most important group in terms of the workforce, and by 2018
theyre going to overtake the boomers and by 2025 were looking at over $8 trillion worth of
annual net income (Ellyat, 2015, 6).
In the few studies of ethical consumption taking into consideration the millennial
generation, scholars present data which opens the door to the suggestion of differences in the
purchase behavior of varying generations. Multiple studies indicate ethical responsibility to
be a high priority for the millennial generation. In the 2014 Nielsen Global Survey on
Corporate Social Responsibility, it was found that millennial respondents in favor of
sustainability actions are three times more agreeable, on average, to sustainability actions

than Generation X (age 35-49) respondents and 12 times more agreeable, on average, than
Baby Boomer (age 50-64) respondents (TNC, 2014, 7). In Ethical Consumers Among the
Millennials, millennials are identified as a generation that is typically sympathetic to ethical
issues and that actively contribute to the well-being and civic morale of the community
(Bucic, Harris, & Arli, 2012).
A study completed by the consumer insights company The Intelligence Group found
59% of surveyed millennials indicated a companys ethics and practices as important factors
in their brand consumption decisions (Consoli, 2012). The same study reported 30% of
respondents had stopped supporting a brand in the past year due to the companys corporate
practices and ethics, and 27% of respondents started purchasing or supporting a brand
specifically because of the companys corporate practices and ethics. When asked about the
most important characteristics in a brand, 71% made mention of environmentally-friendly
characteristics, 71% also cited ethical practices, and 61% claimed alignment with a cause or
social issue as incentive to purchase a brand (Consoli, 2012).
Along with millennials identifiable belief in corporate social responsibility, this
generation has also been a catalyst of the farm-to-table movement. Millennials have shown
increased support of various locally-produced goods such as products found at farmers
markets, restaurants sourced by local goods, and locally-brewed craft beers. For example, in
a survey conducted by Packaged Facts, almost half of the respondents stated they were
willing to pay up to 10% more money for locally grown or produced foods and almost one in
three said they were willing to pay up to 25% more (Contreras, 2014). The National
Restaurant Associations 2016 culinary forecast surveyed almost 1,600 chefs in America to
find the predicted hot restaurant menu trends of the coming year. Locally-sourced meats

and seafood ranked number one on the list with a response rate of 80%, while locally-grown
produce ranked number three with a 77% response (National Restaurant Association, 2015).
While these data indicate a desire to purchase locally and ethically, one must take into
consideration the attitude-behavior gap identified in many situations such as this one. As
explained by Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000), attitude-behavior gaps occur because
although consumers express willingness to make ethical purchases linked to good
reputation, the reality is more likely to be that responsible corporate behaviour is not the most
dominant criterion in their purchase decision (p. 8). Consumer intention studies indicate
positive corporate social responsibility as an important factor in determining intended
purchase behavior. However, consumers shopping carts do not.
This study intends to analyze the relationship between consumer purchase intentions
of American consumers in the millennial generation and their purchase behavior. An
understanding of this relationship is important because, due to its large population size and
significant spending power, the millennial generation also has significant trendsetting power
within society. This spending and trendsetting power demands that corporations respond to
the desires of the millennial generation. Thus, understanding the consumption behavior of
millennials has the potential to help corporations make financially intelligent decisions in
terms of the production and promotional efforts of socially responsible products and ideas.
Because movements toward creating a more socially-responsible corporation are typically
costly, as well as time consuming (Cheng, Ioannou, & Serafeim, 2014), it is important for
corporations to know their efforts will be rewarded by financial success. The presence of the
hypothesized ethical attitude-behavior gap in the millennial generation would significantly
lessen the opportunity for financial success in socially responsible corporations.

In the following sections, I review current and past literature discussing corporate
social responsibility, consumer purchase behavior, and the attitude-behavior gap, as well as
discuss an experiment I conducted as a preliminary test of my hypothesis. This two-part
experiment first uses an anonymous survey to measure the purchase intentions of Coe
College millennials in consideration of corporate social responsibility variables, specifically
examining purchase intentions related to the consumption of locally and naturally produced
food products. Then, the purchase behavior of the surveyed millennials is examined in an oncampus promotional event featuring locally-produced, naturally-raised hamburger meat.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Corporate Social Responsibility
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been an area of concern in America since
the mid-1970s (Wood, 1991), and more recent studies have indicated corporate social
responsibility as a factor affecting consumer purchase behavior (Webb, Mohr, & Harris,
2007). Thus, it is imperative for marketers to have knowledge of corporate social
responsibility to gain the most comprehensive understanding of consumer purchase behavior.
Early studies completed by Bowen (1953) and Frederick, Post & Davis (1988)
attempted to construct definitions of corporate social responsibility. In Bowens 1953 study
of the social responsibility of corporations, it was stated that businesses have an obligation
to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which
are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society (p.6). Corporate social
responsibility as defined by Frederick et al. (1988) also places ethical responsibility pressure
on corporations, claiming CSR is a principle stating that corporations should be accountable
for the effects of any of their actions on their community and environment (p. 113). It is
reasonable to assume these definitions sparked scholarly interest in the interwoven
relationship between business and society and established a foundation for future scholars.
From the resulting research, it became widely suggested that corporations not only had legal
and economic responsibilities to society, but also had ethical and moral responsibilities.
As the importance of corporate social responsibility was realized, scholars attempted
to define CSR by first defining company responsibilities. Total corporate social responsibility
can be modeled as being comprised of four kinds of social responsibilities, which are best
organized as a pyramid (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2014). These four kinds of social
responsibilities include economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic activity. Economic

10

responsibilities sit at the base of the pyramid, as a corporations primary priority is to

perform economically. Legal obligations are seen as the second priority, followed by the
ethical obligation to do what is right, just, and fair, and to avoid or minimize harm to
stakeholders (Carroll & Buchholtz, 2014, p. 35). At the very top of the pyramid sits the
expectation to be a good corporate citizen to act as a philanthropist. As one of the earlier
models of corporate social responsibility, this pyramid was used to evaluate corporate
achievement.
This basic model established a framework of corporate social responsibility which
allowed for significant expansion in the efforts to gain an understanding of what constituted
an organizations social responsibility. A 2006 study conducted by Dahlsrud was completed
with the intentions of cultivating a clear understanding of the way corporate social
responsibility is defined. In the study, 37 definitions of corporate social responsibility written
by 27 different authors between 1980 and 2003 were found and analyzed (Dahlsrud, 2006).
In applying a coding scheme to these definitions, five primary dimensions of corporate social
responsibility were identified:

The environmental dimension the natural environment

The social dimension the relationship between business and society

The economic dimension the socio-economic or financial aspects

The stakeholder dimension stakeholders or stakeholder groups

The voluntariness dimension actions not prescribed by law

Considering the large number of definitions analyzed to complete this study and the
similarity to the pyramid model of corporate social responsibility, these five dimensions can
be considered a well-accepted organization of the values important to corporate social
responsibility. However, due to the large range of issues encompassed under these varying

11

dimensions, a single definition of CSR remains difficult to articulate. Modifying earlier

definitions, Mohr, Webb & Harris (2001) present one of the most encompassing definitions
of corporate social responsibility as, a companys commitment to minimizing or eliminating
any harmful effects and maximizing its long-run beneficial impact on society (p. 47). A
socially responsible corporation makes improving society, no matter how or why, a priority
of its corporate goals and strives to make its ethical standings understood by stakeholders,
including its consumers.
Regardless of the specific area of ethics in which a company is invested, research has
indicated that a companys social responsibility profile has a positive relationship with a
majority of consumer attitudes towards its products. Frequently, these positive attitudes then
affect consumer purchase intentions. In a 2001 study conducted by Sen and Bhattacharya
(2001) examining how consumers react to corporate social responsibility (CSR),
respondents company evaluations were found to be significantly affected by the companys
CSR record. The ratings of companies practicing positive CSR were considerably higher than
ratings of the control group, and much higher than ratings of companies practicing negative
CSR (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). It was also found that respondents ratings of companies
were influenced more by negative CSR information than positive, indicating that consumers
are more sensitive to actions of negative CSR than they are to positive CSR behavior (Sen &
Bhattacharaya, 2001).
The 2004 Cone Corporate Citizenship Study, an 11-year poll measuring American
attitudes toward corporate support of social issues, reported that eight in 10 Americans say
that corporate support of causes wins their trust in that company, a 21% increase since 1997
(Cone, 2004, 5). As American societal values change with time, the national consumer
population has adopted a sense of moral obligation to consume ethically, consequently

12

putting pressure on companies to acclimate to the demand for socially responsible products
and production values. In a 2004 press release, Carol Cone, CEO of Cone strategic marketing
firm, summarizes results from the 2004 study in claiming, in todays climate, more than
ever before, companies must get involved with social issues in order to protect and enhance
their reputations (Cone Inc., 2004, 2).
The heightened interest in corporate social responsibility is not only evident in
consumer responses, but is also made obvious by recent economic changes in society. The
Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment, an organization working to support
sustainable investing across America, reported that from 2012 to 2014, sustainable,
responsible and impact investing enjoyed a growth rate of more than 76 percent, increasing
from $3.74 trillion in 2012 (US SIF Foundation, 2014, 7). This equates to more than one
out of every six dollars (18% of $36.8 trillion total management assets) spent on professional
management throughout the nation is associated with sustainable, responsible, and impact
investing. With such a large investment being put toward the development of a more socially
responsible society, it is becoming impossible to ignore the trend of ethical spending,
consumption, and production.
This consumer interest in social responsibility provides a possible avenue of focus for
marketers. It is reasonable to assume marketing products as socially responsible may draw
positive attention from consumers and consequently increase sales.

Consumer Purchase Behavior

In order to best interpret how the positioning of products as socially responsible may
result in increased sales, it is important to understand the concepts behind consumer purchase
behavior. Consumer purchase behavior examines the products and services consumers buy

13

and use and how these purchases influence their daily lives (Noel, 2009, p. 12). Consumer
purchase behavior is an important component of the business model. Due to the abundance of
factors affecting consumer purchase behavior, it is hard to develop viable explanations for
purchase intention. In fact, approximately 48 percent of consumer intention remains
unexplained (Shaw et al., 2005).
Attempting to create less ambiguity surrounding consumer purchase intention, Ajzen
(1991) developed the theory of planned behavior, which has become one of the most
influential frameworks for the study of human action (Ajzen, 2001). The theory of planned
behavior suggests behavioral intention to be the immediate antecedent of behavior and a
combination of three considerations:

Behavioral beliefs (attitude toward the behavior) beliefs about the likely
consequences or other attributes of the behavior

Subjective norm perceived social pressure, i.e. the normative expectations of

other people

Perceived behavioral control beliefs about the presence of factors that may
further or hinder performance of the behavior (Azjen, 2002, p.1).

According to Azjen (2001, 2002), consumers evaluate these three considerations

before making purchasing decisions, giving these factors influential power throughout the
purchasing process. For example, consider the behavior of purchasing an organic apple. A
consumers first consideration is his or her own behavioral beliefs does he or she think
purchasing an organic apple is good/bad, harmful/beneficial, worthless/valuable, or
enjoyable/unenjoyable? Next, a consumer evaluates perceived social pressures of the
behavior is he or she expected to purchase an organic apple, would people important to him
or her find it important that they purchase organically? Finally, a consumer considers factors

14

that may hinder his or her ability to purchase an organic apple does the store sell organic
apples, does he or she have enough money for an organic apple? The combination of these
variables influence purchase intention to determine purchase behavior. Generally, the more
favorable the behavioral beliefs and subjective norms of a behavior are and the more
perceived control a consumer feels he or she has, the more likely he or she is to carry out his
or her purchase intentions (Azjen, 2002).
Thus, positively influencing as much of consumers purchasing consideration as
possible is beneficial to businesses. In attempting to place a sense of social pressure on
consumers or by ensuring there are few external factors hindering purchase ability (i.e.
making products easily available or affordable), corporations increase the likelihood of
consumer purchases. The relationship between considerations, intentions, and behavior as
described by the theory of planned behavior is illustrated in the flowchart below.

Ajzen, 1991

Even following this model of consumer purchase behavior, it is difficult to routinely

predict consumer purchase behavior. This is most likely due in part to the phenomenon
known as the attitude-behavior gap.

15

Attitude-Behavior Gap
In research conducted regarding the theories of consumer purchase behavior, it is
predicted that individuals will behave in ways consistent with their attitudes (Gupta &
Ogden, 2006). Classical social psychology studies go as far as to claim, attitudes are always
seen as precursors of behavior, as determinants of how a person will actually behave in his
daily affairs (Cohen, 1964, p. 137-138). Thus, knowledge of consumer intention, preference,
and common behavior once was expected to give marketers an advantage in terms of
purchase predictability.
However, an attitude-behavior gap is frequently present in the habits of consumers
(Boulstridge & Carrigan, 2000; Futerra, 2005; Auger & Devinney, 2007), therefore
diminishing the effectiveness of purchase behavior predictions. This attitude-behavior gap
exists when consumers purchase decisions do not match their purchase intentions. For
reasons discussed below, consumers often indicate a strong intent to purchase in some
specific manner, yet at the point of purchase they do not act on those intentions. As suggested
by a social psychology study conducted in 1969 by Allan W. Wicker, this happens frequently
in studies of all areas. Wicker states, only rarely can as much as 10% of the variance in
overt behavioral measures be accounted for by attitudinal data (p. 65). Despite their ethical
intentions, ethically minded consumers rarely purchase ethical products (Auger & Devinney,
2007).
Statistical results from various studies place perspective on the attitude-behavior gap
in specific reference to ethical consumption. One study found that while 30% of consumers
stated that they would purchase ethically, only 3% actually do (Futerra, 2005, p. 92). Data
from the same study also predicted that attempts to assume ethical behavior directly from
ethical intentions will be wrong 90% of the time (Futerra, 2005).

16

Carrington, Neville & Whitwell (2010), suggest this lack of attitude-behavior

prediction consistency is due in part to the isolating of decision making from the external
effects of the purchasing environment or situation, all of which affect purchasing decisions.
An individual interacts with both a physical and social environment throughout the transition
between purchase intention and actual buying behavior and both of these environments
produce a multitude of factors that influence a consumers decision (Carrington et al., 2010).
Belk (1975) organizes consumer behavior prompts by clarifying two different types
of environmental stimuli: situational stimulus and object stimulus. Object stimuli are
characteristics that are typically general and lasting qualities of a product (e.g., a
Lamborghini is more expensive than a Toyota), while situational stimuli are specific to a
place and time (e.g., a special sale) (Belk, 1975). Because the category of situational stimuli
includes such a large number of factors, situational characteristics are organized into five
overarching groups:

Physical surroundings The most readily apparent features of a situation

(geographical and institutional location, dcor, sounds, aromas, lighting,
weather, and visible configurations of merchandise or other material
surrounding the stimulus object)
Social surroundings Other persons present, their characteristics, their
apparent roles, interpersonal interactions occurring, etc.
Temporal perspective Units ranging from time of day to season of the year;
time may also be measured relative to some past or future event for the
situational participant
Task definition Intent or requirement to select, shop for, or obtain
information about a general or specific purchase; also buyer and user roles
Antecedent states - Momentary moods (anxiety, hostility) or momentary
conditions (cash on hand, fatigue) (Belk, 1975).

These situational and object factors combine to create a convoluted buying

environment limited by varying constraints and competing needs of the purchasing
experience that result in hard-to-predict buying behaviors. Consumers subconsciously
process an immense amount of stimulus in the transition between purchase intention and

17

buying behavior; thus, research has been done to identify characteristics of an ideal ethical
shopping environment. One study suggests ethical shoppers are passive, meaning,
consumers do not wish to be inconveniencedethical purchasing will only take place if
there are no costs to the consumer in terms of added price, loss of quality, or having to shop
around (Carrigan & Attalla, 2001, p. 571). This research suggests shopping experience as
another critical component in consumers decision-making process, thus indicating marketers
should attempt to create the optimal consumer shopping environment if they want their goods
to be consumed.

Breaking The Gap

Due to the awareness of the hypothesized attitude-behavior gap and an understanding
of the effect corporate social responsibility has on consumer purchase intentions, researchers
have conducted studies aiming to examine the relationship between corporate social
responsibility and consumer purchase behavior.
For example, Ross, Stutts & Patterson (1991) found that 49 percent of their 225
surveyed consumers stated that they had purchased a product or a service primarily because
of their desire to support a cause (p. 61), and 54 percent of the same population said they
would be willing to try a new brand in the future as a result of cause-related marketing.
Taking into consideration the theory of planned behavior, marketers can use this information
to manipulate consumers intentions and therefore purchase behavior. As a citizen recognizes
a population of other consumers showing support of corporate social responsibility, social
pressure begins to shape their sense of obligation to ethical consumption. This idea suggests
the possibility that marketers can manipulate large populations of consumer intentions by
simply persuading one influential group of consumers to support their cause. Further, in their

18

study, Mohr et al. (2001), found consumers are more willing to reward firms that make
charitable donations and expect firms to behave ethically. Respondents of this study admitted
to occasionally basing their purchasing decisions on factors of ethicality.
Another concept frequently studied in the field of consumer purchase behavior,
especially in relation to socially responsible consumers, is the asymmetrical responses to
varying degrees of moral actions. Multiple studies, for example, Reeder and Brewer (1979)
and Skowrnski and Carlston (1987), indicate that corporate vices detract positive consumer
responses more than virtues enhance them. This is explained in Folkes and Kamins (1999) as,
immoral actions (e.g., dishonesty) are more diagnostic of negative traits than moral actions
(e.g., honesty) are of positive traits (p.245). The common consumer feels a sense of moral
obligation not to harm others; however, they do not necessarily feel they have a
responsibility to help others. This is reiterated in Castaldo et al. (2008) where it is stated,
positive social responsibility associations had a modest influence on product evaluations,
while negative ones seemed to have more substantial consequences (p. 3).
This asymmetrical relationship is important for corporations to understand when
developing marketing plans. Though involvement with a positive cause may increase positive
company evaluations by small measures, it may prove best to remain neutral in the realm of
social responsibility by simply avoiding any negative, unethical, or immoral actions. With
the realization of the weight social responsibility carries over consumers intentions and
actions, a question of effective marketing tactics is raised. Is it best to spend time, money,
and effort promoting oneself as a socially responsible corporation, or to save money by
bypassing positive marketing, but consciously avoiding anything linked to social
irresponsibility?

19

Research Inconsistencies
This literature review exemplifies the inconsistencies in research related to the
relationship between corporate social responsibility and consumer purchase behavior.
Varying definitions of corporate social responsibility, varying demographics of populations
studied, as well as varying research methods all presumably play part in this disagreement of
theories. With so many factors affecting the relationship between corporate social
responsibility and consumer purchase behavior, it is difficult to determine one expected
behavior. This difficulty may also be due in part to the lack of studies examining consumers
actual purchasing behavior. There is a significant amount of research published on
consumers attitudes towards corporate social responsibility (Mohr et al. 2001; Ross, et al.,
1991) and the positive relation between corporate social responsibility and purchase
intentions (Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Cone, 2004). However, few studies continue this
research to examine whether consumers purchase as socially responsibly as they claim they
intend to, or if the presence of an attitude-behavior gap is unavoidable in the market of
socially responsible products.

Research Preparation
Much research has been conducted to examine purchase intentions of past
generations, but little has been done to study the especially influential millennial generation.
The millennial generation has large purchase and persuading power, and frequently identifies
with feelings of ethical purchasing obligations. Because of this generations effect on society,
it is worthwhile to specifically study its purchase behavior.
Knowledge gained from this literature review will be used to measure students
purchase intentions and their self-reported purchase behavior. This information regarding

20

common consumer purchase intentions of the target population will be gathered from an
anonymous, online pre-survey. Then, a simple experiment will be run as a preliminary test of
the findings of the pre-survey in order to analyze the relationship between socially
responsible consumer purchase intentions and purchase behavior of Coe College students in
the millennial generation. This study will attempt to determine whether consumer intention
studies can realistically be used to predict consumer purchase behavior or if the attitudebehavior gap provides too much discrepancy to allow for accurate prediction.

21

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Overview
The purpose of this study was to explore the food purchasing behavior of millennial
students found at Coe College, specifically exploring their intentions to consume ethically
and then their actual behaviors in an attempt to identify the presence or absence of a behavior
gap. The data analyzed in this examination were gathered through a short online survey
administered to all students through the campus-wide email system, followed by a simple
experiment held in the secondary dining hall on campus, the Pub.
Consumer Intention Pre-survey
In order to better understand the purchase intentions and self-reported consumer
behavior of Coe College students, an anonymous nine-question survey was created using
SurveyMonkey (See Appendix A). An online survey was chosen as the most efficient and
effective method of gathering data because it provided a quick avenue in which a large
number of subjects within the target population could be polled. An online survey also
provided the ability to keep respondents answers anonymous in order to eliminate cultural
pressure. Because there are many different factors that potentially affect consumer purchase
behavior, a combination of multiple choice and short answer questions was included in the
survey. This variation allowed for the coverage of all essential discussion topics, resulting in
a comprehensive analysis of respondent purchase intentions.
The first three questions of the survey assessed respondents gender, academic year in
school, and dining habits. These questions were vital in identifying potential differences in
the purchase intentions of males and females, as well as the effects year in school may play
on reported purchase behavior. Previous studies (Ross et al., 1991) have indicated differences

22

in male and female purchase behavior. However, the brief focus on demographic information
in the current study allows for a comparison of gender differences specifically within the
millennial generation.
The next seven questions were written to gain an understanding of the purchase
intentions of respondents, all concentrating on variables of ethical and/or environmentallybeneficial production and distribution of food. Survey questions were based off surveys
found in previous studies, Folkes and Kamin (1999) and Castaldo et al. (2008). All which
included specific questions about food products or production. In order to conceal the
specific objective of this survey, mention of locally-produced goods was limited to only three
questions. To gather a more complete understanding of respondents views on ethical
purchasing, questions with regard to ethical food consumption, such as positive cause
marketing and the purchasing of goods produced in America rather than internationally, were
also included in this survey. The survey was created with respondent population
characteristics (busy college students with short attention spans) in mind, thus explaining its
brevity and simplicity. It was pre-tested for ease and coherence by a few students in the
target population as well as by a faculty advisor.
Because this study is explicitly interested in the purchase behavior of the millennial
generation, the pre-survey was sent to only current Coe College students and not the entire
Coe community which would likely include faculty and staff from generations other than the
millennial generation. The relatively small sample of staff and faculty members in the
millennial generation would not allow for firm conclusions. Although faculty and staff were
not included in the survey process, they were allowed to participate in the Pub experiment. In
one campus-wide email, the embedded survey link was sent from my personal email account

23

to approximately 1,400 student g-mail accounts. The survey was closed two weeks after it
was sent.
Pub Experiment
In order to uncover a hypothesized attitude-behavior gap present in Coe College
students, a purchasing experiment was conducted in the Pub, the secondary dining option on
campus. The Pub offers convenient bar-and-grill service to students for the same price as a
meal in the Cafeteria -- $8.03. Between the hours of 10:30 am and 2:00 pm, the Pub serves
various meals, regularly consisting of frozen hamburger patties purchased from the mass
producer, Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation and shipped to Cedar Rapids from Wichita,
Kansas. Partnering with Sodexo, Coe Colleges food service provider, 50 locally-produced,
all-natural Black Angus beef hamburger patties were ordered from Doty Angus Cattle
Company for the experiment. The intent of the experiment was to make comparisons
between the student bodys stated intentions about the importance of ethical consumption and
their purchase of a more ethical burger choice in the Pub.
Doty Angus Cattle Company is a third-generation family farm located in Malcom,
Iowa, approximately one-hour southwest of Cedar Rapids. It specializes in producing
hormone-free, steroid-free, and antibiotic-free beef from cattle raised on a hay, corn, and
silage diet and tended to on a personal level.
In the morning of the day the Doty hamburgers would be available in the Pub, a
promotional message was sent to all students, staff and faculty through an all campus email
from the Sodexo services email account. This process helped to ensure no identifiable
connection between the pre-survey and the experiment (Appendix B). The message
advertised an event to be held that day during in which students, staff, and faculty had the
option to support a local farm by spending an extra $1 to purchase a Doty Angus Cattle

24

Company burger rather than the typical Sodexo hamburger. The email advertised the
hamburgers as a locally-grown, hormone-free option that would support a local family farm.
It also provided a link to the farms website to provide recipients with more information
about the farm and its farming practices. A promotional flyer with the same information was
also displayed on the counter of the checkout line in the Pub throughout the day of the
experiment (See Appendix C).
On the day of the experiment, students, staff and faculty had the option of purchasing
any of the ordinary Pub food for the usual price or paying an extra $1 to purchase a Doty
Angus Cattle Company hamburger. Pub staff members recorded the number of specialty
hamburgers and Sodexo hamburgers purchased throughout the day.
Post-Purchase Survey
Regardless of which hamburger they purchased, every person who ordered a
hamburger from the Pub on the day of the experiment was given a short, written survey
immediately following his or her checkout at the register. To help increase completion rate of
the survey, only five short questions assessing their purchase, why they made the purchase
decisions they did, and their role (faculty/staff, student, or other) on campus. The specific
questions were:
1. Are you: (Please circle)
Faculty/Staff

Student

Other

2. Which burger did you chose to consume today? (Please circle)

Dotys Angus Beef

Pub Burger

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over the other?
4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?

25

RESEARCH RESULTS
Summary
A total of 464 student responses to the pre-survey were received using
SurveyMonkey, yielding approximately a 33% response rate. The pre-survey short answer
responses were read through individually and scanned for similar themes. On the day of the
purchase experiment, the Pub served one of the two available hamburgers to 35 customers
and 20 handwritten post-purchase surveys were collected, yielding a 57% response rate. The
post-purchase survey responses were also read individually and scanned for repeated themes.
From the results of the pre-survey, the ethical values of a majority of the respondent
population were found to be very similar, as well as very obvious. The surveyed millennial
consumers undeniably viewed corporate social responsibility as an important factor affecting
their purchasing behavior. This is supported by the fact that 50% of respondents indicated
they were likely or very likely to support every situation indicating a companys efforts
of socially responsibility, regardless of the proposed variables.

Pre-Survey Results
Demographics
Question 1 Gender
A majority of respondents (65%) were female (See Figure 1). Data from Ross et al.
(1991) indicated a difference in the purchase behavior of males and females, specifically in
products engaged in cause-related marketing (Ross et al., 1991). Thus, this question was
included in the pre-survey in order to identify potential differences in the purchase intentions
of males versus females in the millennial generation when products support a positive cause
or are viewed as socially responsible.

26

Placing a gender filter on the results of this pre-survey showed significantly similar
purchase intention between males and females. A majority of both male and female
responses indicated that corporate social responsibility had large influence on their purchase
intentions. Notable similarities were found in that variables involving locally-produced,
naturally-produced, or ethically-produced products had the largest influence on self-reported
purchase behavior of both males and females. The only significant difference found through
this filter was the stronger likelihood that a woman would spend an extra 10% at a restaurant
to ensure her food was produced naturally and ethically (85%) than a man (68%). It is
reasonable to assume this difference in purchase intention may stem from the large amount of
social pressure placed on women to be thin, and therefore pressuring healthy eating habits.

Figure 1
5
(1.08%)

Respondent Gender

(n=461)

153
(33.19%)

Male
Female

303
(65.73%)

Other

27

Question 2 Grade level

There was even distribution in terms of grade level of respondents. Each of the four
classes represented approximately 25% of the response pool (See Figure 2). The freshman
class had the most respondents, while sophomores had the least. Because all respondents fall
within the millennial generation, there should be noticeable similarities in the attitudes each
grade level has towards corporate social responsibility.
A respondent grade level filter indicated that the variable of grade level had little to
no effect on purchase intention. However, one notable difference between the responses of
upperclassmen (juniors and seniors) and underclassman (freshmen and sophomores) was
found in students stated dining habits. Most likely due to meal plan options offered at Coe,
1.7% of upperclassman respondents indicated the Pub as their primary dining choice, while
12% of underclassman stated the Pub was their primary dining choice. This suggests that
results from the experiment held in the Pub primarily explain the purchase behavior of
underclassmen that may not have the accessibility to as many dining options as the
upperclassman do.

Figure 2
Respondent Grade Level

(n=463)

129

(28%)

110

(24%)

Senior

Junior

Sophomore

102

(22%)

122

(26%)

Freshman

28

Question 3 Coe College dining habits

In order to determine the population of Coe students who frequent the Pub during
meal times, (thus, those who this experiment would most likely include), respondents were
asked where they primarily dined while residing on campus. Almost half the respondents
stated they primarily eat in the Cafeteria, while another large majority (most likely upper
classman) eat primarily in their own kitchens or off-campus dining options (See Figure 3).
The small number of respondents (8%) who regularly eat in the Pub confirmed the need of an
all-campus promotional email. Without promotional efforts, a majority of Coe students
would not be aware of the experimental option to purchase a more socially responsible meal.

Figure 3

Respondent Dining Habits

(n=463)
37
(7.99%)

183
(39.52%)

211
(45.57%)

Caf
Pub
Dorm/Apartment
Off Campus

32
(6.91%)

29

Purchase Intention Multiple Choice Results

Question 4 Corporate actions effect on food purchase decisions
Question four asked respondents to rate the effect various corporate actions would
have on their purchase decisions. Out of five situations, four were actions commonly seen as
positive corporate social responsibility and one was seen as negative. This question intended
to show what specific ethical values millennial consumers found most important, and
whether or not those values would be likely to positively affect their purchase decisions.
Respondents answered as expected typically selecting choices classifying
themselves as ethical shoppers. As predicted by Sen and Bhattacharaya (2001), respondent
answers were more sensitive to the option pertaining to unethical corporate behavior (the
utilization of low-wage labor) than to the companies going out of their way to act positively.
Likely to positively affect was the most common response for every situation with the
exception of situation four, the only situation in which the product was associated with
unethical behavior (See Figures 4 and 5). Of the four ethical behavior situations, prospective
consumers had the least positive response to recyclable packaging, suggesting this ethical
value to be least important to them.

30

Figure 4
Likelihood of Socially Responsible Actions to Affect Respondent Purchase
Intention

Figure 5
Likelihood of Socially Responsible Actions to Affect Respondent
Purchase Intention
(n=386)

Number of Respondents

300
250
69%

200
56%

55%

150

45%
43%

39%

100

32%

30%

50

16%
15%

Very likely
Likely

94
25%

25%

20%

25%

Not Likely

6%

0
Supports a
good cause

100%
Grown at local Produced
Produced in
recyclable family farm & overseas with the U.S. by
packaging
organic
low-wage
well-known
labor, making
producer
it cheaper

31

Question 5 Weight of influence socially responsible actions have on purchase behavior

In order to identify the influence corporate social responsibility had on millennial
consumption behavior, question five asked respondents to indicate how various corporate
situations had affected their purchasing decisions in the past year. Over half the respondents
claimed three different factors (positive cause marketing, local production, and
natural/organic growth), to be positively influential in their purchase behavior in the past year
(See Figures 6 and 7). This indicates - not only do respondents intend to purchase with
consideration of those factors (as demonstrated by question four), but they also report to
following through with those intentions and actually purchasing products in consideration of
those ethical factors.
Of the options provided, respondents were most likely to purchase a food product due
to it being grown naturally and/or organically and it being produced in a local area.
According to these results, the millennial generation expresses a strong appetite for locally
grown, natural products. Respondents were, again, particularly unresponsive to the theme of
recycling.

Figure 6

Affect of Socially Responsible Actions on Respondent Purchase Behavior in

the Past Year

32

Figure 7
Affect of Socially Responsible Actions on Respondent Purchase
Behavior in the Past Year

(n=356)

Percentage of Respondents

70%
66%

60%
50%

66%

56%

40%
38%

30%
30%

20%
10%
0%
Product was
Product was
Product was
associated with a locally produced. grown naturally
positive cause.
and/or
organically.

Product was
packaged in
recylable
packaging.

Product was
produced by an
environmentally
friendly company.

Question 6 Effect of price on socially responsible consumption in the grocery store

In studying consumer purchase behavior, perceived behavioral control has a large
impact on how consumers behave (Azjen, 2002). Price is commonly considered when
evaluating behavioral control. Thus, question six included the variable of price to determine
whether increased costs, which are very frequently associated with socially responsible
products, changed respondents purchase intentions. Respondents were asked how likely they
would be to spend an extra 10% on their groceries if it meant everything in their cart upheld
certain socially responsible factors.
Taking into consideration the hindrance increased price has on purchase behavior, a
majority of respondents still stated socially responsible actions would be likely or very likely
to affect their purchasing decisions. Over 40% of respondents indicated they would be likely

33

to spend an extra 10% on their groceries in every ethical situation listed (See Figures 8 and
9). All situations were similar in that they exemplified positive corporate social
responsibility. Again, natural/ethical production of food products received the most positive
responses while environmentally friendly packaging received the least number of responses.

Figure 8
Respondent Likelihood to Spend an Extra 10% on Socially Responsible
Food Products at the Grocery Store

Figure 9
Respondent Likelihood to Spend an Extra 10% on Socially Responsible
Food Products at the Grocery Store
Percentage of Respondents

(n=384)
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%

45%

45%
33%
26%

45%

28%

29%

23%

Very Likely
Likely
Not Likely

Produced naturally Processed by a

& ethically
company with
high ethical
standards

32%

29%

20%

43%

Packaged in an Marketed in an
environmentally ethical and honest
friendly way
manner

34

Question 7 Effect of Price on Socially Responsible Consumption in a Restaurant

Because this study assessed consumer purchase behavior in a restaurant-like setting
rather than a grocery store setting, question seven asked respondents to identify how likely
they would be to consume products marketed as socially responsible in various ways even if
they had to pay an extra 10% for the product. Eighty percent of respondents claimed they
would be willing to spend an extra 10% on a food product produced naturally and ethically
(See Figures 10 and 11). These data indicates that the natural production of food is important
to the surveyed millennial consumers.
As consistent with other survey questions, respondents seemed less influenced by
environmentally friendly packaging than by factors regarding the actual production and
promotion of food products. This suggests millennials are not as concerned with recycling as
they are with personal physical benefits, such as naturally and ethically produced products.

Figure 10
Respondent Likelihood to Spend an Extra 10% on Socially Responsible
Food Products at a Restaurant

35

Figure 11

Percentage of Respondents

Respondent Likelihood to Spend an Extra 10% on Socially

Responsible Food Products at a Restaurant
(n=384)
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%

44%

40%
37%

36%
20%

48%

47%

25%

28%

23%

Very Likely
25%

27%

Likely
Not Likely

0%
Produced
naturally &
ethically

Processed by a Packaged in an Marketed in an

company with environmentally
ethical and
high ethical
friendly way
honest manner
standards

Purchase Intentions Short Answer Results

Question 8 Perceived benefits of consuming naturally-produced food products
Question eight was designed to gain a better understanding of why respondents may
have answered the previous questions the way they did. These short answer responses
allowed for identification of the various behavioral beliefs, subjective norms, and perceived
behavioral controls in the decision-making process as identified and discussed by Azjen
(2002). Factors that would potentially be influential to respondents consumer purchase
behavior of naturally-produced food products could be identified.
Respondents were asked to briefly describe any benefits they associated with
consuming-naturally produced food products. The theme of personal health was the most
frequently discussed benefit. Approximately 200 of the 239 recorded responses (84%) listed
some sort of positive personal physical or mental health benefit to consuming naturallyproduced food products, while approximately 40 responses (17%) discussed natural

36

consumption positively affecting an issue not directly related to personal health. The most
common social benefits mentioned were environmental health/sustainability, and economicrelated issues, such as supporting small and local businesses. Only fifteen respondents (6%)
reported negative feelings or listed no perceived benefits to naturally-produced products (See
Figure 12). (See Appendix D for a full list of respondent comments).

Number of Responses With BeneRit Mention

Figure 12
Perceived Benefits to Consumption of Naturally-Produced Food
Products

250
200

200

150
100
50
0
Personal Health BeneRit

40

15

Issue Not Related to

Personal Health

No Perceived BeneRit

Perceived BeneRit

37

Question 9 Perceived benefits of consuming locally-produced food products

Question nine sought to determine the benefits, if any, that respondents felt by
consuming locally-produced food products. Because the Pub experiment involved locallyproduced hamburgers, this question was asked in order to provide potential explanation to the
consumer behavior trends found in the data collected from the Pub experiment.
Response themes from question nine were much more varied than those from
question eight, indicating a weaker consensus of the benefits of locally-produced foods than
the consensus of benefits of naturally-produced foods. This finding may be explained by the
social fad of clean eating constantly pressuring consumers to question how their food is
produced. Respondents stated benefits of locally-produced products ranged from the
promotion of tourism, to an increased sense of local pride, to less use of greenhouse gases.
Although respondents perceived benefits were inconsistent with one another, a few
commonly discussed themes were identified (See Appendix E for a full list of respondent
comments). The most frequently discussed benefits to local consumption included: support of
a community or local economy, the support of small or family-owned business rather than
large corporations, the assumption of fresher products, and the benefits associated with
knowing where products are coming from before consuming them.

38

Pub Experiment
Of the 35 hamburgers sold throughout the lunch hour, 22 were the socially
responsible Doty Family Farm hamburgers and 13 were the regular Pub hamburgers.
Approximately 63% of Pub customers who bought a hamburger on the day of the experiment
opted to spend an extra $1 to purchase a socially responsible product (See Figure 13).
Twenty post-purchase surveys were collected, of which twelve were filled out by students,
seven were filled out by faculty or staff, and one was filled out by a customer identifying as
other (See Appendix F). Of the collected surveys, fourteen were from a consumer of the
Doty hamburger and five were from consumers of a Pub hamburger.
Student purchase behavior was split evenly between the two hamburger options.
Seven students purchased a Doty hamburger, while five purchased a regular Pub hamburger.
Six out of the seven faculty or staff customers chose a Doty hamburger (See Figure 14).
Several common themes were identified in the short answer responses to the postpurchase surveys. Respondents mentioned health benefits of the naturally-produced
hamburger having a positive effect on purchase behavior five different times, twice by
faculty/staff members and three times by students. The support of a local business was listed
as a factor influencing buying behavior seven times, four of which were student responses
and three of which were faculty/staff responses. The hope of a better tasting hamburger was
listed as purchasing incentive on two different student response surveys. Mention of money
or price was present on three post-purchasing surveys; twice being listed as the reason the
consumer chose a Pub hamburger over a Doty hamburger (one being a faculty/staff response,
and one being a student response). One student listed money as a factor affecting his or her
purchase behavior, but still opted to spend the extra money and purchase a Doty burger (See
Figure 15).

39

Figure 13
Total Hamburgers Sold

(n = 35)

Pub Hamburgers
13
(37%)

Doty
Hamburgers
22
(63%)

Figure 14
Purchase Behavior by Population
8
Number of Burgers Sold

6
5
4

6
5
Pub Hamburger

Doty Hamburger

2
1

0
Student

Faculty/Staff

Other

Respondent Population

40

Figure 15
Factors Affecting Purchasing Decisions by Population
Number of Times Mentioned

4.5
4

3.5
3

2.5
2
1.5

3
Faculty/Staff

1
0.5

0
Health

Support of
Local Business

Taste

2
1

Student
Other

Price

Factor Affecting Purchase Decision

41

DICUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Data from this study lead to conclusions regarding corporate social responsibility and
its effect on the consumer purchase behavior of the millennial generation. From results of the
pre-survey alone, a lot is learned about the purchase behavior of college students and their
behavioral similarities to the rest of their generation. Just as Sen and Bhattacharaya (2001)
found consumer ratings of companies to increase with the evidence of corporate social
responsibility, data from this study indicates college students purchase intentions increase
with evidence of corporate social responsibility. Because of differences in the lifestyles of
college students and the rest of the millennial generation (including factors such as - time
restraints, monetary restraints, and living situations), it can be assumed college students
might value corporate social responsibility differently than the rest of their generation. Thus,
marketers face a dilemma in determining how to market and sell specifically toward the
college population. However, this study exemplified common purchasing behavior
characteristics between college students and the millennial generation as a whole, indicating
separate marketing techniques are not necessary.
One interesting finding of this study not identified in any other studies of the
millennial generation, is the suggestion that millennial consumers hide selfish purchase
intentions behind the support of corporate social responsibility. Surveyed millennial students
consistently indicated recycling as the least important variable to corporate social
responsibility, as recyclable packaging received the least amount of positive attention from
survey responses.
In contrast, variables of natural and ethical production had the highest association
with positive purchase intention. Survey respondents indicated these variables to have the
largest influence in their purchase decisions in every multiple-choice question. When

42

examining respondents statements of the perceived benefits of the consumption of naturally

and ethically-produced products, a significant association of personal health factors to ethical
or natural consumption is found. Approximately 84% of responses indicated factors of
personal health as a benefit to natural consumption. These were the only two variables with a
strong correlation to personal benefits.
The relationship between the consistent response sensitivity of these two variables
suggest millennials are eager to act as ethical consumers, and are willing to spend more
money in that process, when that purchase behavior is thought to directly benefit them (e.g.
the health benefits of purchasing natural foods). However, if said purchase behavior will not
directly benefit them, but instead the environment or the rest of society, (e.g. purchasing
products with recyclable packaging) they are significantly less likely to make ethical
purchase decisions.
Although more evident in the results of surveyed purchase intentions, this idea of
selfish millennial purchase intention is also apparent in the results of the Pub experiment.
Seven out of the fifteen (46%) surveyed consumers who chose to consume a Doty burger
rather than a Pub burger suggested personal reasons (taste or health) for their purchasing
behavior, rather than social reasons such as support of a local business or environmental
precaution.

Limitations and Opportunities for Future Research

A few limitations should be kept in mind when interpreting the results of this study.
Any results from this study are dependent on both the population sampled and the products
included in the study. The population of 1,400 Coe College students was limiting in a few
ways. First, using a sample population of only college students makes price an especially

43

important variable. This is due to the common generality that college students have a limited
disposable income in comparison to working adults. While college students are
representative of a large portion of the millennial generation, surveying purchase intentions
from only this group eliminates a significant number of older millennials with a presumably
more disposable income and purchasing experience. This more financially stable group of
millennials may have been less likely to allow factors of increased price deter them from
both declaring intentions to consume ethically, as well as consuming the socially responsible
hamburger.
The second limitation of this study resulting from a population of only Coe College
students is the likely bias many Coe students have toward the support of local farms. Being
as 50% of the colleges student population resides in Iowa, one of the top agricultural
producing states in the nation (USDA, 2016), it is fair to assume a substantial number of
study participants had personal ties to a local farm of some sort. This bias may contributed to
the consistent, high preference to corporate actions supportive of natural, locally-grown
products identified throughout the data.
Not only did the geographical location of this study provide limitations to exhaustive
data collection, but so did the location of the study within the college campus. As seen from
the results of question three, only 8% of respondents reported they eat in the Pub
consistently. Thus, hypothetically, holding the experiment in the Pub limited the population
of purchase behavior respondents to only 8% of the colleges population, or roughly 112
students. Testing the purchase behavior of a larger population of students may have produced
different results.
The sample size of this experiment also placed limitations on possible interpretation
of the data. Only 35 burgers were sold on the day of the experiment, providing very little data

44

to analyze. Of those 35 sales, explanation for purchase in the form of a post-survey were only
gathered for 20, and of those 20, only 12 of which were completed by students. Thus, this
experiment only provided 12 counts of complete information on student purchase behavior.
With only having data from 12 participants, it is hard to draw conclusions between consumer
intentions found in the pre-survey and purchase behavior identified by the Pub experiment.
Lastly, only one product, locally-sourced hamburger meat, was tested in this study.
This limited the examination of consumer purchase intention and behavior to the many other
components of corporate social responsibility. It also eliminated a portion of possibly
important respondents consumers who follow a vegetarian or vegan diet.
Regardless of these limitations, results from this particular study allow for interesting
avenues for the research to be replicated for varying product categories, populations, or
procedure locations. Specifically, performing this study at a college in a more urban location
where fewer students may have a connection to farm life could produce contrasting
sensitivity to the different variables of corporate social responsibility examined. Future
research should also consider marketing and selling from a different product category, such
as socially responsible clothing, in order to determine what CSR factors are most influential
in consumer purchase behavior if the factor of personal health is no longer a variable.
Without changing locations or variables, it may also be worthwhile to run the same
experiment in the Pub a few more times. After word of this hamburger option spreads
through campus, it can be assumed more students would go out of their way to eat in the Pub
on the days the burgers are being sold. This would allow the opportunity to test a larger,
hypothetically more diverse, population than the 8% of the students who responded to the
pre-survey indicating they frequently eat in the Pub. This increase in population would most
likely provide a more encompassing explanation of the purchasing behavior of students,

45

which could then be compared to the self-reported high ethical consumption intentions of
students. This comparison would identify a more realistic account of the absence or presence
of an attitude-behavior gap associated with the effect of corporate social responsibility on
millennial consumers purchase behavior.
Lastly, if desiring an even more realistic account of millennial purchasing behavior, a
suggested modification to this study would be moving it to a more public location. Working
with a small college campus proved to be much more difficult than expected. With limited
resources in terms of socially responsible products available for use in an experiment, dining
facilities to hold the experiment, staff available to facilitate the experiment, and popular
dining times, a small college environment was difficult to work with. Running a similar
experiment off-campus somewhere, potentially a popular grocery store or restaurant, would
allow for more flexibility in the execution of an experiment.

46

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and Operation of Attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 2758. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27
Azjen, I. (September 2002). Constructing a TpB Questionnaire: Conceptual and
Methodological Considerations.
Auger, P., & Devinney, T. M.. (2007). Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment
of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(4),
361383. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25075526
Belk, R. (1975). Consumer Behavior. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Consumption
and Consumer Studies.
Boulstridge, E. & Carrigan, M. (2000). Do consumers really care about corporate
responsibility? Highlighting the attitude-behaviour gap. Journal of Communication
Management, 4(4) pp. 355368.
Bowen, H. R. 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. New York: Harper.
Bucic, T., Harris, J., & Arli, D. (2012). Ethical Consumers Among the Millennials: A CrossNational Study. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1), 113-131. doi:10.1007/s10551-0111151-z
Carrigan, M., & Attalla, A. (2001). The Myth of the Ethical Consumer Do Ethics Matter in
Purchase Behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560-578.
doi:10.1108/07363760110410263
Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why Ethical Consumers Dont
Walk Their Talk: Towards a Framework for Understanding the Gap Between the Ethical

47

Purchase Intentions and Actual Buying Behaviour of Ethically Minded Consumers.

Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139-158. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0501-6
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2014). Business & Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and
Stakeholder Management (9th ed.). Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2008). The Missing Link Between
Corporate Social Responsibility and Consumer Trust: The Case of Fair Trade Products.
Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 1-15. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9669-4
Cheng, B., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). Corporate social responsibility and access to
finance. Strategic Management Journal, 35(1), 1-23.
COHEN, A. R. Attitude change and social influence. New York: Basic Books, 1964.
Cone. (2004). 2004 Cone Corporate Citizenship Study: Building Brand Trust. Retrieved
April 18, 2016, from
http://twopercentclub.org/repository/documents/2004_cone_corporate_citizenship_exec
_summary.pdf
Cone, Inc. (2004, December 8). Multi-Year Study Finds 21% Increase in Americans Who Say
Corporate Support of Social Issues is Important in Building Trust [Press release].
Retrieved April 18, 2016, from
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20041208005724/en/Multi-Year-Study-Finds21-Increase-Americans-Corporate
Consoli, J. (2012, October 23). Study Finds Millennial Consumers Are Heavily Swayed By
Ethics and Practices of Marketers. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/news-articles/study-finds-millennialconsumers-are-heavily-swayed-ethics-and-practices-marketers/113706

48

Contreras, T. (2014, December 3). Millennials Seek Local Foods That Offer a Sense of
Place. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from http://smartblogs.com/food-andbeverage/2014/12/03/millennials-seek-out-local-foods-that-offer-a-sense-of-place/
Dahlsrud, A. (2006). How Corporate Social Responsibility is Defined: An Analysis of 37
Definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, 15(1). doi:10.1002/csr.132
Doane, D. 2001. Taking Flight: The Rapid Growth of Ethical Consumerism. London: New
Economics Foundation.
Ellyat, H. (2015). How Trillion-Dollar 'Millennials' are Spending Cash. Retrieved April 17,
2016, from http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/17/how-trillion-dollar-millennials-arespending-their-cash.html
Ethical Consumer Research Association Ltd. (2016). About Ethical Consumer. Retrieved
April 16, 2016, from http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/aboutus.aspx
Folkes, V., & Kamins, M. (1999). Effects of Information About Firms Ethical and Unethical
Actions on Consumers Attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 243-259.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0803_03
Frederick, W. C., Post, J. E., & Davis, K. (1988). Business and Society: Corporate Strategy,
Public Policy, Ethics (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Futerra, S. C. L.: 2005, The Rules of the Game: The Principals of Climate Change
Communication (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London,U K).
Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. (2006). The attitude-behavior gap in environmental consumerism.
APUBEF Proceedings, 3(1), 199-206.
Horovitz, B. (2012, May 4). After Gen X, Millennials, What Should the Next Generation Be?
Retrieved April 17, 2016, from

49

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/advertising/story/2012-05-03/naming-the-nextgeneration/54737518/1?loc=interstitialskip
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do Consumers Expect Companies to be
Socially Responsible? The Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility on Buying
Behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45-72. doi:10.1111/j.17456606.2001.tb00102.x
N. (2015, December 10). Sustainable Selections: How Socially Responsible Companies Are
Turning A Profit. Retrieved April 14, 2016,
National Restaurant Association. (2014, September). What's Hot: 2016 Culinary Forecast.
Retrieved April 17, 2016, from http://www.restaurant.org/Downloads/PDFs/NewsResearch/WhatsHot2016
Noel, H. (2009). Consumer behaviour. Lausanne, Switzerland: AVA Academia.
Pelsmacker, P. D., Driesen, L., & Rayp, G. (2005). Do Consumers Care about Ethics?
Willingness to Pay for Fair-Trade Coffee. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 39(2), 363-385.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2005.00019.x
Ross III, J. K., Stutts, M. A., & Patterson, L. (1991). Tactical considerations for the effective
use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 7(2), 5865.
Schofield, T. (n.d.). What Is Consumer Behavior in Marketing? - Factors, Model &
Definition. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-isconsumer-behavior-in-marketing-factors-model-definition.html
Scherreik, S. (2000, May 1). A Conscience Doesn't Have to Make You Poor. Retrieved April
18, 2016, from http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_18/b3679136.htm

50

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better?
Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(2), 225-243. doi:10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838
Shaw, D., Grehan, E., Shiu, E., Hassan, L., & Thomson, J. (2005). An Exploration of Values
in Ethical Consumer Decision Making. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(3), 185-200.
doi:10.1002/cb.3
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgment and social memory: The role of
cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 52(4), 689.
Solomon, M. (2015, November 14). 2016 Is The Year Of The Millennial Customer: Is Your
Customer Experience Ready? Retrieved April 16, 2016, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/micahsolomon/2015/11/14/2016-is-the-year-of-themillennial-customer-heres-how-to-be-ready/#246076eb6e72.
The Institute of Grocery Distribution. (2016). Ethical Consumerism. Retrieved April 16,
2016.
The Nielsen Company. (2014, June 17). Global Consumers Are Willing To Put Their Money
Where Their Heart Is When It Comes To Goods And Services From Companies
Committed To Social Responsibility. Retrieved April 17, 2016, from
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/press-room/2014/global-consumers-are-willing-to-puttheir-money-where-their-heart-is.html
The Nielsen Company. (2015, October 12). Sustainable Selections: How Socially
Responsible Companies Are Turning A Profit. Retrieved April 16, 2016, from
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2015/sustainable-selections-how-sociallyresponsible-companies-are-turning-a-profit.html

51

Turcotte, M. (2010). Ethical Consumption. Component of Statistics Canada Catalogue,

No.(11-008-x), 20-23. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11008-008-x2011001/article/11399-eng.pdf
US SIF Foundation. (2014). SRI Basics. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from
http://www.ussif.org/sribasics
USDA. (2016, February 8). USDA ERS - Home: FAQs. Retrieved April 19, 2016, from
http://www.ers.usda.gov/faqs.aspx#10
Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable Food Consumption: Exploring the Consumer
Attitude Behavioral Intention Gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics, 19(2), 169-194. doi:10.1007/s10806-005-5485-3
Webb, D.J., Mohr, L.A., & Harris, K.E. "A Re-Examination of Socially Responsible
Consumption and Its Measurement." Journal of Business Research 61.2 (2007). Web.
Wicker, A. W. (1969). Attitudes versus Actions: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt
Behavioral Responses to Attitude Objects. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 41-78.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00619.x
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. The Academy of Management
Review, 16(4), 691-718. doi:10.2307/258977

52

Appendix A: Pre-Survey
Consumer Intention Pre-Survey Page 1: Demographics

53

Consumer Intention Pre-Survey Page 2: Intention Multiple Choice

54

Consumer Intention Pre-Survey Page 3: Intention Multiple Choice & Short Answer

55

Appendix B: Promotional E-mail

Subject: Support local farmers!
To: All students, staff, & faculty
Hello Kohawks!
Tomorrow (Friday, April 15th), all Coe College students, staff and faculty have the
opportunity to support a local family farm by opting to upgrade your Pub lunch!
Stop by the Pub from 11:00am 2:00pm to upgrade your typical meal exchange hamburger
to a locally grown, hormone free burger -- all while supporting a local Iowan family farm.
For one meal exchange swipe and an extra $1, all students can purchase a natural, farm raised
Black Angus beef burger from Doty Angus Cattle Company. These burgers are made from
natural beef with no added hormones, steroids or antibiotics.
Staff and faculty meals will cost $9.03.
To learn more about Doty Angus Cattle Company visit: http://www.beefforyourfreezer.com

56

Appendix C: Promotional Flyer

TODAY SPECIAL:

Doty Angus Cattle Company

All Natural Black Angus Beef Hamburger
Enjoy a delicious hamburger from Doty Family Farm today!
All natural, farm raised with no added hormones, steroids or antibiotics.
Calves are born and raised on the Doty Family farm, tended to on a
personal level and kept on a diet of hay, corn and silage.
Doty Angus Cattle Company is owned and operated by Daryl and
Mellissa Doty as well as their three children.
The farm is located in Malcom, Iowa.

57

Appendix D: Question 8 Short Answer Responses

What benefits, if any, do you see in consuming naturally produced food products?
239 Responses

Healthier lifestyle with more energy and higher self esteem.

Healthy
They are better for our bodies and the environment.
Healthier
Good for the health of my body as well as the rest of the world
It is more environmentally friendly and healthier.
Mainly environmental benefits. The need to keep our high population fed will likely
be the number one challenge in taking action to improve the environment.
Better vitamins and healthier.
Healthier for my own body.
Less chance for unhealthy chemicals to be ingested
N/A
None. As an Iowa farm child, I think its a joke. I go out of my way not to buy
organic. If its organic, I will not buy it. I do not agree that it tastes better or any
different.
Nowadays everything has something bad in it! It make me very cautious about the
foods I eat, but if I knew everything was all natural, I'd feel less skeptical. There are
many benefits to living a healthy lifestyle.
Naturally produced food products tend to taste better, especially regarding fruits and
vegetables.
They are better for your health and provide a better diet to a person's eating habits.
Naturally produced food products, if anything, may have a placebo effect that makes
you "feel better" in mind, body, and spirit.
I suppose they generally tend to be healthier.
You feel better afterwards versus feeling lethargic, fat, and gross if you decided on
fast food for example.
It is healthier and better for the environment.
More healthy and wouldn't have to worry about harmful chemicals that are used in
GMO foods.
They're better for our bodies. The less processed they are, the better our systems can
handle them.
Less harsh on your body in the long run than highly processed foods
None.
Naturally produced food products are better for your body.
It's more healthy for people and you would know exactly where your food is coming
from rather then fast food places that you don't even want to know how they make
their food.
It is healthier and for the most part you know what has been done to the products, and
what is going into it, which informs me what I am taking in.
we reduce our toxic chemical intake and it helps keep you healthier.
58

We are a healthier society if we eat locally, what the earth gives us, and take as little
as we can. The mass consumption of beef alone is killing the earth. And why is
styrofoam still being used? I honestly don't understand it.
Less herbicides/pesticides/etc., healthier for environment and myself
There are no unhealthy chemicals added to the products and I know exactly what I'm
consuming
They tend to be healthier and is less likely to have negative effects, especially when
compared to processed foods.
These are all great things, but I never check to see if what I'm eating is any of this. If
it was marketed as this, I would lean towards it, but right now, I don't know any
brands that do this.
There would be less consumption of harmful pesticides and other chemicals.
They have the potential to cause less harm to people physically. Unknown chemical
additives could have adverse effects on humans and the animals that are also fed
those food products.
They hopefully will be less likely linked to diseases or anything harmful for our body
Healthier for us to eat
They are healthier
Organic food tends to be healthier overall for our digestive systems.
Better for your body and economy
The fact that it is healthier for you as well as better for the environment while
producing it.
We know exactly what is in the product
Processed foods are not what the body is meant to consume and causes unhealthy
spikes in sugar which cause unhealthy reactions.
There's less chemicals.
Tend to be healthier
Potentially harmful additives are not present, thereby making the product healthier.
Healthier, without the preservatives, supporting others with a similar goal in life
Better overall health.
You don't have to eat preservatives
They're healthier and safer for your body
It is what are bodies are meant to consume, so every health benefit you can imagine.
I think consuming naturally produced food products would benefit my digestive
system and lead to healthier eating habits--such as more balanced meals.
There are none. Use of pesticides and GMO's is better for the world since it increases
food production with no harmful effects on people or the environment. I am less
likely to buy a food product if it is "naturally produced" because I don't want people
to starve.
Natural just means that the food hasn't been concocted in a lab by food scientists.
Eating an apple is going to better than eating a bowl of apple jacks because of nutrient
content (apples are natural whether organic or not while the Apple Jacks have been
engineered to be addictive with a ton of sugar (and maybe sodium) in order to
increase sales). But if you look at an ingredient and it says "natural flavors", that
could include something like...like beaver butt juice - it IS naturally occurring, but
does anyone want to consume that? Probably not. "Natural" doesn't really hold any
59

sort of baring for me.

Less likely to have carcinogens
There are no added hormones or heavily treated with chemicals.
healthier - less chemicals
It's probably healthier
maybe some health benefits
Healthier lifestyle Less concern about risks
it's better for you
It's healthier for individuals then prepackaged foods.
It depends on what other benefits it has. "Natural" has little actual meaning in
marketing.
I feel better when I eat better.
Taste better usually. Thought to be better for you.
It is a healthier option
Healthier and better for the environment
Consuming naturally produced products would decrease the amount of harmful
Chemicals I put in my body
Healthier
Potentially less carcinogens
They are healthier and better for the environment.
Seem to be healthier
Better health benefits
Its better for health and environment
Safer for the environment/healthier
Healthy for me and the farmers, environment, ect.
Health
Health primarily
Better for your body and the natural environment
I know exactly what's in the food and don't have guess what I'm consuming.
There are less chemicals that you put in your body that could harm it.
I think naturally produced prodcuts are better for everyone, the environment
uncluded! I also think that these products should be more accessible and cheaper than
processed foods.
A healthier lifestyle.
I feel better when I eat naturally produced/organic foods. Personal preference, I
guess.
It's better for your overall health.
None
Greater health benefits down the road
Not developing cancer, cause lab produced gmos.
Healthy for myself and for the environment because there are less chemicals
involved.
Better health and tastes better.
Physical and mental benefits. You're healthy physically and mentally.
'Natural' is a very loose term and can be used misleadingly to jack up prices For some
60

foods, natural (and I assume you also include 'organic' in this category as well)
production is an ethical concern - for instance, runoff from some farms can be
extremely harmful to the environment In other cases, natural production is simply
considered higher quality; artificially flavored foods are usually going to be less
quality than something flavored naturally (herbs, broth, whatever it may be)
Less toxins.
Consuming naturally produced food products are better for our health overall without
added chemicals and artificial growth hormones. Although these chemicals and
artificial growth hormones are claimed to not be affecting the population negatively,
there are some odd things that are coming up in recent generations that could be in
part due to the way food is grown and made. I think this should be studied further, but
consuming naturally produced food products is probably better for our overall health
short-term and long-term.
I believe that is great but i also know that the economy will never rely solely on
naturally produced products because they are more expensive.
Less toxins in your body leading to better energy and overall health.
It's healthier
I feel like there are less artificial substances and preservatives that may or may not be
linked to other diseases and what not.
Just better high quality food. It would beat the fight of GMOs.
It's healthier.
Healthy and good for the body and environment.
Processed food is harder for your body to digest, so I try and limit the amount of
seriously processed food I eat every day. This is pretty difficult in the caf, but I try to
make most of my meal fruits and veggies.
Health
Don't question it's health value, generally healthy foods are naturally produced which
after consuming healthier options for a few weeks generally feel better and have more
energy
Health benefits- there's a lot of added junk in foods today that lead to bad health
conditions and diseases
I think it's better for the environment as a whole, versus putting chemicals all over
everything and forcing things to grow.
health benefits as well as environmental benefits
Even though potential benefits are debated, it simply seems worth it in the long run
(and often healthier in simple nutrition). Also, it seems naturally-produced foods tend
to be more ethical in the end.
Healthier for you opposed to processed foods
It's healthier for you. The things that is done to make food in factories is lengthy and
its all fructose.
It's better both for the environment and my body.
My body handles it better.
Naturalness.
Not developing cancer.
Health, yo!
Improved health for our bodies and our earth
61

In some cases it can allow us to have more control over what we eat, since mass
produced food may use more preservatives
Less chemicals consumed.
I think that consumer naturally produced food products helps improve your health and
your general well-being
Benefits to animal justice and health reasons for people
The health benefits.
None of those chemicals n stuff
Feeling healthier, feel good about making a difference, knowing you did the right
thing
No difference to me.
Naturally produced foods have less potentially harmful ingredients and generally
have shorter ingredient lists which is helpful if you have a lot of allergies.
Health benefits
Environmental sustainability, health benefits
Health
Better taste and more nutritional food
I'll take any food that isn't processed. Processed food is terrible in so many ways.
Our bodies have adapted to the chemicals and processing of current products but
natural foods contain better versions of those nutrients and are usually produced
ethically.
Physical health and ethical, social responsibility
We promote a healthier society and healthier Earth.
It is most likely healthier.
Healthier
Should have less pesticides and growth factors
I would be more healthy in return
It a much healthier product to the body, getting people to live a better life.
Better taste
It's healthier
It feels like a smaller impact on the environment
Benefitial towards the society and the current climate economy
Avoids the overuse of pesticides, which are harming the environment.
Healthier than processed foods
None
No GMO's or artificial additives
No difference to me between natural and genetically engineered foods. Processed
foods however are terrible for your health.
Better for our earth
Naturally produced food products are not linked to as many carcinogens as processed
food products.
Healthier
Potential health benefits
Healthy, better taste
I believe consuming naturally produced food products allows for less chemicals to be
62

applied to foods, less packaging to be used, as well as fresher and cleaner foods to be
consumed.
Better for the environment and one's health.
Fewer preservatives and fresher. Made with real ingredients that are better for the
body.
None
Knowing what's in our food, not consuming chemicals that make food last for years
Knowing I will be putting good food in my body and promoting natural produce
It's a healthy waay to love. It is better for the body and the environment.
Health
They're good for you.
Better for your body
It's healthier. I try to avoid highly processed foods because it doesn't have the same
health benefits as naturally produced food.
Not only good for your body (it can't break down and effectively use synthetic
products), but it's good for the environment. It might cost more, but it's for a good
cause: your health.
More sustainable, less environmentally harmful practices.
It just freaks me out to put something in my body that isn't natural.
The elimination of chemicals in your body.
Healthier
Sustainability, but on a college budget that's difficult to consider in budgeting.
At least you know what you're putting in your body. The chemicals in most foods are
so scary!
Less chemicals enter your system and I like to think they taste better.
Naturally produced food products are most likely better for you and you have a much
better idea of what will be in the product you consume.
They seem to be healthier than other products
It taste a lot better and is a lot better for you.
Health benefits for myself in the longrun
They are better for you
The idea of natural food is obviously appealing. However, I think the typical
consumer is relatively unaware of what "natural" really means. I think there is
something to be said for the rhetoric behind "natural" products and how just
marketing food as natural incentivizes buying that product. If something is actually
naturally produced, you should be free of harmful/unhealthy chemicals. Furthermore,
when you consider most the food that is "naturally produced" you're probably
thinking about something that is also considerably more expensive than regularly
produced food items. So, now low-income, working class people aren't even able to
consume "naturally produced" food because it has become a money making moniker.
Better health benefits
It's good for you.
Health benefits
Organic and natural farming is more sustainable and better for the environment. I also
don't want to consume unnecessary chemicals
63

I am not sure with what you mean by "naturally", but the major thing for me would be
no animal cruelty
It's easier for your body to break down and absorb the nutrients it needs. Processed
foods make it more difficult.
There are no benefits, it means food is produced less efficiently and more expensively
and aggravating issues with world hunger
Healthier options with less preservatives. Comes at higher cost but if you have the
expendable money probably a better option than non-naturally produced items
There's no added chemicals or anything like that
Health.
No extra chemicals
Less processed, more healthy
Not supporting factory farming, supporting sustainable and fair business practices
Health benefits,
I know what I am eating due to knowing more about its source.
Good for small companies Eliminates a lot of junk food and people will become
healthier
It is important to eat natural foods because it is much healthier for our bodies and will
prolong our lifespans.
it's more healthy
Healthier, makes my skin glow, makes my eyes pop.
Health
They are usually a lot healthier for you
"Naturally" is a difficult word for me because I'm not a huge believer in organic
foods, simply because there's a difference between using harmful chemicals on crops
and using less-harmful chemicals on crops. There's no way of distinguishing between
these two and which farmers are growing their crops responsibly. Also, without some
chemicals, the yields of many crops wouldn't even be worth growing, and the farmer
wouldn't make it financially. In many places, the term organic isn't regulated so
anybody can slap it on their food product--simply because its appealing to some
consumers. These may all be common misconceptions, but if they are, then I guess it
just shows how uneducated even an Environmental Studies major is. If you want a
more simple answer, sometimes naturally produced food products have better flavor
or more realistic color.
I feel it's better for my body & the environment.
Healthy, less chemicals
The term "organic," is actually pretty loose by today's standards, since consuming
"organic" food is actually more of a socio-economic statement than a decision on
food consumption. Due to the fact that it costs more and it is a trend to be an ethical
eater, a lot of "organically produced" foods are only slightly more ecologically
beneficial than those otherwise produced. Still, at a time when people rarely consider
the food they're eating and how it affects their bodies or the environment, I appreciate
when companies inform me of how their food is produced. In this respect, I also have
a primarily vegan diet and most of the food I can eat is also produced naturally.
No GMOs equal no hoes
Depends on what you mean by naturally, but usually they are better for you with
64

more nutrients and less sugar and salt.

It is healthier and helps smaller farms
None directly.
More sustainable than more artificial products, less likely to contribute to the
antibiotic crisis
Less preservatives and a better immune resistance
Good chicken nuggets
Healthy for my body.
Natural foods are better for the body and help prevent diseases such as cardiac
disease, type II diabetes, and obesity that can be caused by eating an unhealthy diet
made up of processed foods.
You know where all the food is made and know that it is not processed foods but less
genetically modified.
More nutrient and mineral absorption
healthier lifestyle
It just makes me feel good about myself to know I'm not putting unknown chemicals
into my body
healthier for you-no chemicals
healthier
Healthier lifestyle leading to more alertness and focus in class.
I don't know what naturally produced food means, but if I see any advertising that
says that the food is organic or "GMO free" then I immediately try to find another
food, because I hate when companies try to pretend that GMO free foods are better,
same thing with organic.
No preservatives or additives. Healthier for our bodies.
They are healthier for you and in turn make you feel better.
Knowledge of how it is produced
Health benefits
I honestly don't know enough about this industry to have an opinion.
Feel better about the money your spending to fuel your body right
Pesticides, steroids, preservatives, etc. are all bad for you so the health benefits are
innumerable.
They are healthier
You don't consume as many of the chemicals that go into growing produce
It helps your body stay healthy
Health benefits
It benefits our health and our bodies tremendously. It also allows local farmers to
flourish and abundantly grow crops that don't contain GMOs.
N/a
It's healthy for meeee
it is much healthier for you, especially in the long run
o Better for your health

65

Appendix E: Question 9 Short Answer Responses

What benefits, if any, do you see in consuming locally produced food products?
249 Responses

Supporting the community around you instead of large corporations is always

positive.
Fresh
less impact on environment, better for local economies and local food producers.
they help the local economy stay afloat. It also helps families from going out of
business because they can'y afford to compete with large companies.
Direct location from where it came from, you don't have to wonder where your food
is coming from.
It supports our local economy and is more likely to be ethically produced and
environmentally friendly.
Again, the environment, on top of cutting down on capitalism and bringing back local
economy and jobs.
Help the local economy.
Support of local community to benefit said area.
support to small farmers that do not get large subsidies
It can help our local economy.
Local honey helps with allergies. Local beef hasn't been shipped and its fresh. Local
doesn't mean organic it just means its fresh from here and supports the community. I
do not buy local organic. Good luck Hannah!
This can be great except not all products are available throughout the year.
It's nice knowing the food came from close by, and that the food is fresher, rather
than picked while it was still unripe. It's also nice to support local companies.
It is easier to get natural products when they are grown locally.
Supporting local economy
Locally produced food products are better for the environment because they require
less use of fossil fuels to transport them. Also, purchasing locally produced items is a
benefit to our local economies.
It tends to be a bit fresher and it supports local businesses.
By purchasing local goods in your community you are: 1. Putting food on another
families plate (the business owner's family). 2. More than likely ensured a better,
fresher product. 3. Adding to the sense of "community". 4. Making a small effort
towards not allowing corporations to have such a hold on peoples' lives - both here in
the U.S. and others around the world.
It helps the local economy and supports local businesses.
It helps those that are around you.
Buying locally helps support the local economy, meaning there are more people
employed, a higher living wage is achievable, and eventually a wider array of
products will be available.
Supports small businesses
helping the community and decreasing transportation needed for the food
This supports local business and we have more knowledge on how/where it was
66

produced.
Helps the economy locally
It might help each community/town be more profitable? But I'm not sure. This isn't
my area of expertise.
I feel very strongly about supporting the little man. An added bonus from buying
local is the product is not being transported a great distance and or frozen in the back
of ta truck for 18 hours.
it supports local growers and supports the local economy, in turn, positively
impacting the community.
Help with reduction in allergies, support local business, help the environment, help
yourself.
Supporting local business, fresher (doesn't have to travel as far)
Helping our country and I feel safer eating things produced in our country
You help local farmers and in a way help your community.
These are all great things, but I never check to see if what I'm eating is any of this. If
it was marketed as this, I would lean towards it, but right now, I don't know any
brands that do this.
A major benefit is that the costumers know the conditions and area their products
come from.
They support local businesses and local economic stability through jobs, money, and
social connections.
N/A
Supports the local economy
healthier and support the community
It would help to stimulate the local economy.
Don't support monopolies
Support the local farmers
It supports the local economy and the money stays within your given area rather than
going to a billion dollar company.
We know exactly what is in the product
You know where the food is coming from.
supports local economy
You know where your food is coming from and there is less of a chance of
mishandling or "bad-stock."
Supporting local business can be cool
Helping out local businesses. If I choose to not purchase apples from Target, Target
would not notice. They have so many consumers. If I was to choose not to buy apples
from the Cedar Rapids Farmers Market, that could affect that farmer because they are
spending their time at the market to make a living. Each purchase matters.
Buying and consuming locally produced foods help bolster the microeconomy of the
city/region, lending more money to small businesses and farms rather than large
corporations.
supporting local economy, know what part of the world it is coming from
Usually fresher and tastier products and one way to support local communities.
you can help support the local economy
You're promoting economic growth in your area
67

Reducing emissions and supporting small farms

The foods produced are better for my diet, but they also boost the local economy. It's
important to support locally grown and sold products because it keeps a community
together financially.
Only in so far as they are seafood or vegetables and that is due to freshness. There are
no other benefits.
Local is my jam! You're helping to build up your community around you! whether
organic or not, if you eat locally produced foods, it spends way less time sitting
around and being delivered, which means you're helping reduce the number of trucks
using gas (as well as how much gas is being used because the trip is 30 minutes
instead of across the country) and creating that nasty greenhouse effect. While local
doesn't mean ethical (buying Sandy Hill Farm eggs is different from buying eggs on
the shelf at Target, even though both businesses exist locally), I think it's more likely
that a local food producer will be smaller-scale, and in being smaller scale, can be
more ethical in its treatment of animals as well. Going vegetarian takes money from
the. Usinesses that factory farm their animals, yes, but it also somewhat ignores the
problem I think. I enjoy eating meat, so in purchasing from a farmer whose farm I've
visited and talked to to ensure the ethical treatment, I don't have to feel guilty being
an omnivore.
Less greenhouse gases are used.
It contributes to the community's small businesses.
promote local and small businesses!
Benefits the community and is probably healthier
supports the community and gives them money
Support community Ensure the quality by knowing the people
personal connection to the person producing the product
Helping the economy and usually organic without pesticides.
Supporting the economy in a local area, you know where the food comes from and
how it's being produced, community involvement.
Not only is it good for my health, but I can support the local economy.
More fresh. Supporting local farmers.
Supports local businesses
More jobs for people just trying to make a living. Less gas used in transportation as
well.
This promotes the local economy and takes business away from large umbrella
corporations
None
Support local market
The carbon footprint of good produced close to home is less than those from abroad,
products are fresher and the local economy sees a boost! Go NewPi!
Supports local businesses and farmers
Helping out the local and small buisnesses
Better for economy fresher ingredients.
Support local growers/businesses
Fresher food and supports local farmers.
Helping the community in which you live
68

Supporting local economies and almost always guaranteed to have some fresh good
food!
Healthier, more nutritious
Supporting a local business, decrease in pollution from having to transport food, you
can trust that the locally produced food is fresh, decreasing the support for the
massive companies, better overall for the environment
Helps the community around me grow and continue to show other options for a
source of food.
One benefit would be that I would be supporting my local economy and supporting
local small businesses.
Locally produced products support the hardworking individuals in the community,
keep small businesses afloat, prevent mass companies from taking over, and keeps the
economy in check.
All positive ones
Supporting local economy, in some cases less environmental impact as far as
shipping goes, etc.
It helps to support the local community you live in.
Supports local farmers
Perhaps increased economic prospects locally
Supporting local businesses and learning more people in community.
I am able to support my neighbors, the food is more fresh, and it's usually easy to
access.
You're helping those locally and it has a higher possibility of being organically
grown.
Supporting local farmers/economy In my experience, locally grown foods are
produced by people who have a much higher investment (emotionally for sure, can't
speak to monetarily) in their work Locally, there is a lot of variety depending on the
season and the region - variety is the spice of life etc. etc. Buying food locally often
results in developing a real relationship between the consumer and producer
Consuming locally produced food products stimulates the local economy and helps
out people in the community by giving them business. Small businesses have to
charge more to keep running, but they are also likely to give back to and support the
community more.
It supports the local economy and it is usually a higher quality product.
Improvement on the local economy.
It supports local businesses and the food will probably healthier
It helps the community economically sound and helps local families you may know.
I think it supports the fight against GMOs
It helps our local economy.
Better for the environment.
Having grown up on a farm, I know the quality that growing or buying local food has
to offer. Buying local saves shipping costs, keeps food fresh (because it avoids bulk
shipments that have to be frozen to be transported), and benefits local farms and
businesses.
Local support
Locally grown foods are attractive in that we are able to compare them with similar
69

foods produced globally and how they measure up and often locally produced foods
have a uniqueness to them which gives a sense of pride and keeps people coming
back to them
It supports local farmers and the local economy
It helps local business. It's more personal.
supporting local farmers/workers in your community
Support of the community and freshness.
Buying from local always helps out local farms
Living in Iowa, having things that were grown here almost gives people a sense of
pride. That might be the biggest influencing factor.
It puts back into the community and supports the community.
Supporting the local economy keeps money in the hands of the people.
Originality.
Support for local businesses and learning of members within the community.
helping the local economy!
Support for local community
It helps small businesses grow, diversifying our economy
Supporting the local economy.
I think that consuming locally produced goods help the local economy and helps to
improve health.
Better economically for the local community
It supports the local economy.
None
Support your community
Helps people in your community, you know where it comes from and how it's grown,
etc.
Usually more expensive so I don't buy them.
locally produced food products help put money back into the community that we live
in. Local produce helps support small businesses and help ensure that we dont
become a food desert.
Support local business and farmers
Helping good, local farmers, health benefits, knowing where my food came from
Economic
Possibly more robust local economy due to payment going more directly to local
producers, but most likely a higher cost of food.. Therefore consumers may
potentially look for cheaper products if buying locally is not a priority
Helps support the community and its growth!
Helps the local economy and you know where it comes from
Helps local economy
Community support and physical health benefits
Less likely to have some sort of food poisoning that you are unaware of.
We cut down on fossil fuel use, and support people in our community which will
benefit us in return.
It helps to support the local businesses.
You know exactly where your food is coming from, also helps the local economy
Supporting local economy, more fresh, less energy wasted in transportation of
70

product
more money for local farmers
It always there to help with impacting the community in different ways. Helping
people with employment opportunities, also not only can help local producers that are
in the near that disturb to the local food operation.
A sense of local pride is gained.
Helps local companies
Local food has travelled a smaller distance and therefore most likely has fewer
preservatives
Transportation, locally grown food products can be consumed by the locals in and
around the area where produced.
Helps support local businesses.
Supporting local farmers
None
They are probably harvested ethically without harmful additives
Support for local businesses
Support to community and economy
Helps our community
Helping the local economy will help you too.
Helps out the local economy
Support of the local economy, make your money and support the same community
It helps out local business and you know exactly where your food products are
coming from.
More money to the local area, supports members of the community
Supporting the local economy.
Not only does it help the community as a whole economically, but it has the ability to
promote tourism and put more people to work in local places.
Better for the local economy, more availability of fresher produce
I like to support local growers and distributors. Food is usually fresher than what is at
a grocery store.
Support a local economy
Helps our economy
Putting good food in my body and supporting local business
It builds the community, healthy, and provides income for a family.
Economic stimulation
It supports local farmers and it's usually more fresh.
Supporting local businesses
It means supporting local businesses, which is important for the country,
economically.
You help out small businesses and don't support big corporations (*cough cough
Tyson*) who don't care about anything but money. Locally produced food is usually
more morally conscious and healthy. They looking out for you, not looking to make a
quick buck.
Reduced emissions from transportation, higher food freshness, supports local
growers.
It leaves a lighter carbon print on our environment. It also helps out a local, smaller
71

business.
Supporting the people in our community instead of big corporations that are capitalist
bastards.
Putting money back into local markets is very good for the local economy.
Fresher food.
Less preservatives, plus you're supporting local business
Putting more money into the local economy and helping small businesses stay afloat
in corporate America. It also feels like more care goes into the product from a local
producer.
By consuming locally produced food products, you are not only consuming products
that you know the origin, you are supporting you local community economically.
It helps to support local business and farmers
Most locally produced food is naturally produced food, so it is better in taste, health,
and support smaller local farms.
Our city will have more money
Support of the communities. and less packaging so less bad contaminates
Consuming locally produced food products seemingly supports the local economy
and local small business owners. Locally produced foods are also priced higher than
mass produced products because these small, local food producers have to be able to
cover expenses and make a profit. Basically, profit-making behavior is destroying the
food we should be consuming everyday, for every meal.
Supporting local farmers and not the big corporations.
support locals
Supporting the local economy
Sustainable farming, supports local community
help local economy
It helps support the local community and reduce shipping emissions which are
obviously bad for the environment.
I don't it is more expensive and more expensive forcing families to spend more on
their food budget
More fresh, less travel to get to market.
It's probably healthier, and supporting local businesses is good for the economy
Yay for the locals!
Giving money into community not just corporations
Lower gas costs to transport food, better for the environment
Stimulating the local economy over big business, helping smaller businesses and
independent entrepreneurs stay afloat, locally produced things, especially food, are
more likely to be made cruelty-free and the workers paid a decent wage.
They're grown nearby and I'd have more of an idea of how they were produced.
Good for small business Healthy
It helps the local economy I guess. Also, if the food is created locally, it is likely to be
fresher and have less preservatives.
it provides business for local food producers
Not really any unless its really well marketed and from a small distributor ie a
farmers market etc
Benefitting local economy
72

Helps out the community you live in

Logically it should keep the money spent on the goods in the community and
surrounding area so that the profits made by the local company also went back into
the local economy.
Good for the economy!! And generally fresher.
Healthy, less chemicals
Consuming locally produced foods means supporting local businesses, reducing
carbon emissions from food traveling, and it means having a direct relationship from
consumer to producer.
Local = more money in economy
In general, local farms have better ethics
Local farmers could use the support, and I know where my food is coming from
it helps local businesses thrive i suppose. apathy doesn't really help out there though.
local economies are important to nourish
Supports local people instead of shipping our food elsewhere
More jobs I suppose
Healthier for my body and better for the local economy.
Increases business for local businesses, which boosts the economy while also making
it easier to find out what is in your food product and where it comes from.
Helps the local farmers and companies
Less GMOs, helps out local farmers, grocery stores, and other producers.
Helping out posdible friends/family
usually healthier
I feel like it's saying "Hey, I support this bish!" AKA community. It's like a high five
to your neighbor that works hard and probs wears plaid and overalls.
supporting local producers and your community
regulating economy
Helps out the local companies and the people that are striving to make a living in my
area.
It helps the local economy. I'm all for helping my friendly neighborhood farmer.
Helps the local economy and local businesses.
It is beneficial to your local economy.
knowledge of where it is produced and knowing who you are specifically supporting
Help local economy
Helping local farmers and producers.
Sometimes they're a little cheaper
Feel good about helping the people around you especially if you live in a close knit
community
None really.
Supports local businesses
It helps out our envionrment
Helps stimulate the local economy and creates business for local business owners.
Get to help out your neighbors and know your food is coming from a trustworthy
place
Supports local economics
N/a
73

America
it helps keep big money out, and supports local people, building up our community
Know where it comes from

74

Appendix F: Consumer Behavior Post-Survey Results

Respondent 1:
1. Are you:
Staff
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

Recommended

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?




Respondent 2:
1. Are you:
Staff
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

B/c its local!

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
High quality meat

75

Respondent 3:
1. Are you:
Faculty/Staff
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?
Student recommended I try it
4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?

N/A

5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?

The burger was delicious!

Respondent 4:
1. Are you:
Faculty/staff
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

Appreciate local, responsible beef! Yum!

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?

76



Respondent 5:
1. Are you:
Faculty/staff
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

I like to choose healthier and local when I can.

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
It was announced I like animal-friendly farms.



Respondent 6:
1. Are you:
Faculty/staff
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

I felt compelled to eat this burger because it seemed like a healthier

option.

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
N/A

77



Respondent 7:
1. Are you:
Faculty/Staff
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Pub Burger

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?
4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
Cost. Saw menu w/ Doty Burger was $9.00

v. $5.00

5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?

Respondent 8:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

To taste it

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
How much I want to spend

78


Respondent 9:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

Supports responsible, local beef

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?

I hadnt had a hamburger in awhile, so it sounded good

Respondent 10:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

To support local farms

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
Curiosity and I love ecofriendliness (i.e. buying local)

79



Respondent 11:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

Hormone Free

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?



Respondent 12:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

To support local business

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
It tastes better

80



Respondent 13:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

It sounded really appealing. I cam to the Pub specifically for this!

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
This burger sounds a lot healthier and like itll have better flavor.
Also, its locally grown.



Respondent 14:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

Looks healthier

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
Something different

81



Respondent 15:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Pub burger

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?
4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
Quick and easy
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
It tastes better
None



Respondent 16:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Pub burger

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?
4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
I didnt know there was another option
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
No

82



Respondent 17:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Pub burger

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

NO

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
Its much better. (Down with Dotys!)
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
No.



Respondent 18:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Pub burger

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?
4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
Because I dont know what the other kind tastes like
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?

83



Respondent 19:
1. Are you:
Student
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Pub burger

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?
4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
Im broke
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
$$



Respondent 20:
1. Are you:
Other
2. Which burger did you choose today?

Dotys Angus Beef

3. If you chose Dotys Angus Beef, why did you choose this hamburger over
the other?

It smells like steak and I only eat organic anyway

4. If you chose the Pub burger, why did you choose this hamburger over the
other?
5. Were there any other factors affecting your purchase decision?
No. I try to be as humane as I can.

84