Reading the Results

02/25/2017

Hello from Golden, Colorado! This past week, I have absolutely been loving my visit at Colorado School of Mines, and I'm thinking more and more that this is where I am going to end up in the coming fall. :)

But, until graduation, it's time to buckle down and finish this research paper! After analyzing 3 different blind consumption studies that I previously included in my methods assignment (cited below), I was able to draw a lot of connections between what I have written so far (I am a little ahead of schedule - I already had the first draft of my results section written at the end of last week) and what other researchers have written in my field.

Citations: 
1. Bakke, A., & Vickers, Z. (2007). “Consumer Liking of Refined and Whole Wheat Breads.”
Journal Of Food Science, 72(7), S473-S480.
(Bakke and Vickers conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether consumers preferred refined or wheat breads and whether these preferences aligned with their self identified preference between the two types of bread.)
2. di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Torrieri, E., & Masi, P. (2007). “Consumer Acceptability of
Vegetable Soups.” Journal Of Sensory Studies, 22(1), 81-98.

(di Monaco et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether information regarding the ingredients, packaging, or the farming system involved in soup production affected consumer soup preference)

3. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Bruin, R. H. (2004). “Predictive Validity of the Implicit

Association Test in Studies of Brands, Consumer Attitudes, and Behavior.” Journal Of Consumer Psychology (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 14(4), 405-415.

(Maison et al. conducted a blind consumption test to determine whether soft drink consumers could determine the difference between Coke and Pepsi and whether their ability to determine this difference was related to the strength of their preference for one beverage over the other).

Two Main Features of All Three Sections - Relating them to my Research:

1. All the sources begin their results sections by identifying or measuring the degree of difference between the blind consumption test product preferences and the participant self-identified product preferences. Maison et al. especially paralleled my research because there were two variables; instead of just determining whether or not consumers COULD tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi, the researchers aimed to connect this ability to preference strength between the beverages. Thus, in their results section, not only did they measure the degree of difference between blind consumption and self-identified preferences, but they plotted this against the strength of consumer preference for one beverage over the other. Similarly, I not only listed the differences between participant blind consumption and self-identified lip gloss preference, but plotted this against the degree to which the participant had been influenced by the natural product movement.

2. Then, the researchers draw conclusions based off of the results. For example, di Monaco et al. was able to determine that information regarding the ingredients within a soup affected consumer preference because consumers ranked organic soups higher than inorganic soups in their self-identified preferences than under blind consumption conditions. Also, Maison et al. concluded that, the stronger a participant's preference for one soft drink over the other, the more likely the participant was able to correctly identify Coke and Pepsi under blind consumption conditions (the plot created in the first part of the results section showed that participants were able to distinguish correctly between the beverages more often if their strength of preference was higher). Similarly, I made conclusions from my plot. Participants, no matter how influenced they were by the natural product movement, were likely to have self-identified brand preferences that were significantly misaligned with their blind consumption preferences, thus showing that makeup consumers' decisions are significantly swayed by branding, but not by whether the brand is natural or unnatural. 

(631)