For more Classes Visit www.tutorialoutlet.com Brand Name versus Store Brand Sodas

1. Brand Name versus Store Brand Sodas
To Purchase This Material Click below Link
http://www.tutorialoutlet.com/all-miscellaneous/taste-preference-
for-brand-name-versus-store-brand-sodas-jennifer-e-breneiser-amp-
amp-sarah-n-allen-valdosta-state-university-previous/
FOR MORE CLASSES VISIT
www.tutorialoutlet.com
Taste Preference for Brand Name versus Store
Brand Sodas
Jennifer E. Breneiser & Sarah N. Allen
Valdosta State University
Previous research indicates that identification of colas, on the basis of
taste alone, may not be accurate (e.g., Pronko & Bowles, 1948).
Recent
research with orange juice indicates that taste preference ratings vary
based on whether brand name information is known or unknown
(Wulf,
Odekerken-Schroder, Goedertier, & Van Ossel, 2005). The
present study
examined blind versus non-blind taste preference ratings for cola
flavored
sodas (Coca-Cola, Sam’s Choice, and Publix). Participants completed
rank-order taste preference ratings in a blind condition where brand
information was unknown, and a non-blind condition, where brand

2. information was known. Results indicate that the national brand
(CocaCola) is rated as first choice significantly more often in the non-
blind
condition, relative to the blind condition. The results suggest that
brand
equity and brand loyalty also affect taste preference judgments. How
similar in taste preference are store brand products compared to
the major national brands? Various stores such as Wal-Mart have
their
own private label versions of major products. The typical advantage
to
these products is the reduced price, relative to national brand names.
However, brand equity may also play a role in perceptions and
preferences for specific products (e.g., LeClerc, Schmitt, &
Dubé, 1994,
see also brand differentiation, Chakravarti & Janiszewski, 2004).
Brand
equity can be described as added knowledge or “added value” that
impacts a consumer’s response to a product, given the brand name of
the
product (Keller, 1993; LeClerc et al., 1994). A brand name, in and of
itself, can have an impact on consumer perceptions and responses to
products. The present study focuses specifically on cola-flavored soft
drinks.
A significant amount of research has focused on participants’ ability
to correctly identify cola beverages from blind samples. For example,

3. Pronko and Bowles (1948) instructed participants to taste and identify
four samples of soda. The researchers found that participants tended
to
identify sodas in terms of better-known brands rather than the actual
brands used. Even more powerfully, when participants received 4
samples of the same cola drink, the results of participants’ responses
were comparable to those of participants who received samples of 4
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Jennifer
Breneiser,
Department of Psychology and Counseling, 1500 North Patterson
Street,
Valdosta, GA 31698-0100 jebreneiser@valdosta.edu
North American Journal of Psychology, 2011, Vol. 13, No. 2, 281-
290. NAJP 282 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF
PSYCHOLOGY different cola drinks. Pronko and Bowles (1948)
suggested that, based
on these results, participants could not detect taste (gustatory)
differences
between the different soda brands. Bowles and Pronko followed up
with
further studies that continued to examine participants’ identification
of
cola beverages (Bowles & Pronko 1948; Pronko & Bowles,
1949).
Bowles and Pronko (1948) examined the distribution of participant

4. identifications with only 3 soda samples (rather than 4, as in Pronko
&
Bowles, 1948), as well as examining the pattern of participant
responses
when participants were given 3 samples of the same soda (rather than
3
different soda samples). Correct identification of soda samples did not
differ significantly from chance, regardless of whether participants
were
given 3 different sodas to sample or 3 samples of the same soda.
Bowles
and Pronko (1948) again provided evidence indicating that
participants
could not correctly identify different cola-flavored sodas by taste. Of
note, these earlier studies used relatively well-known soda brands:
CocaCola, Pepsi Cola, RC (Royal Crown) Cola, and (only in Pronko
&
Bowles, 1948) Vess Cola.
Pronko and Bowles (1949) later indirectly addressed issues relating to
name-brands and less popular brands in correct identification of cola
beverages by examining participants’ ability to identify lesser-known
brands of cola beverages (Hyde Park Cola, Kroger Cola, and Spur
Cola).
The procedure was essentially the same as with the previous studies,
where some participants sampled 3 different sodas, and others
sampled

5. the same soda 3 times, in a paradigm where participants were not
notified
of the soda brand (or brands) presented. Interestingly, there were no
correct identifications in the study. Participants indicated that their
samples were Coca-Cola, Pepsi, or RC Cola especially often, but
occasionally also identified the Hyde Park, Kroger, and Spur
colaflavored beverages as 7 Up, Dr. Pepper, or Cleo Cola. These
results again
suggest that participants are not able to correctly identify soda
samples
(the authors concluded that all of these sodas may thus be considered
“equivalent stimuli,” p. 608). Further, the results suggest that
participants
have, at the very least, a response bias wherein they identify
unmarked
soda stimuli as the popular brands, regardless of the actual brands
presented.
However, when Thumin (1962) examined correct soda identification
via a different procedure, his results differed from previously
observed
results. Unlike previous research (e.g., Bowles & Pronko 1948;
Pronko
& Bowles, 1948; 1949) Thumin (1962) informed participants of
the
brands presented (Coca-Cola, Pepsi Cola, and RC Cola), while still
using

6. a blind soda identification procedure, and also used paired
comparisons
for presenting the soda samples. Results indicated that participants
were
able to correctly identify Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola at a significant
Breneiser

7. a blind soda identification procedure, and also used paired
comparisons
for presenting the soda samples. Results indicated that participants
were
able to correctly identify Coca-Cola and Pepsi Cola at a significant
Breneiser