How Logo Colors Influence Shoppers’ Judgments of Retailer Ethicality: The Mediating Role of Perceived Eco-Friendliness

Abstract

Despite the moral gravity and far-reaching consequences of ethical judgment, evidence shows that such judgment is surprisingly malleable, prone to bias, informed by intuition and implicit associations, and swayed by mere circumstance. In this vein, this research examines how mere colors featured in logos can bias consumers’ ethical judgments about a retailer. Exposure to a logo featuring an eco-friendly color makes an ethically ambiguous practice seem more ethical; however, exposure to a logo featuring a non-eco-friendly color makes the same practice seem less ethical (Study 1). This effect is due to the embodied meaning of color, not referential meanings associated with the names of colors, and it is mediated by perceptions of a retailer’s eco-friendliness (Study 2a). Furthermore, although the word “green” appears to influence ethical ratings of retail practices more than the word “blue,” visual exposure to either color evokes similar perceptions of eco-friendliness and influences ethical judgments (Study 2b). Study 2c assesses and rules out alternative explanations for this effect. Critically, an eco-friendly color can skew judgments even when the practices judged are not ethically ambiguous (Study 3). Individual differences in ethical sensitivity moderate the observed effect, such that individuals who are less ethically sensitive are less influenced by color (Study 4). The article concludes with a discussion on how logo colors shape consumers’ perceptions of retailer ethicality.

Appendix: Summary of Pretests

Pretest 1a

We exposed participants (n = 239) to a logo featuring one of 16 different colors adopted from various retailer logos, selected to represent the full range of the color spectrum. Participants were recruited from an online panel and were given monetary compensation for their participation. After providing consent, participants reviewed the following profile of a fictitious retailer:

DAVY Grocery Store operates 109 supermarkets in the Houston, Austin, and Dallas-Fort Worth areas under the DAVY Flagship banners. DAVY employs more than 10,000 associates. Most stores include fresh seafood, floral, cosmetic, bakery, and film processing departments. The premium DAVY Flagship stores have expanded their take-out departments to provide fresh-made pizza, pasta, and barbecue. Many locations offer bank branches, ATMs, coffee shops, 1-h photograph processing, drive-through pharmacy windows, fueling stations, and full-service counters where a customer can purchase lottery or movie tickets, pay utility bills, and renew car licenses.

This profile was accompanied by a colored logo. Each participant saw only one of the 16 colors tested, in a between-subjects design. A professional designer created a test logo in which the graphical composition was ambiguous with respect to eco-friendliness. Designed on a circular template, half the logo consisted of the outline of a cogged wheel, and the other half consisted of the outline of a globe (see Fig. 2). Participants were asked to evaluate “How eco-friendly do you suppose DAVY Grocery Store is?” (anchored: 1 = “not at all eco-friendly,” 7 = “very eco-friendly”).

Fig. 2

Logo colors used in Pretest 1

We eliminated responses of self-identified color blind participants from the analysis. We present the mean eco-friendly ratings in Table 2. Participants rated the retailer as most eco-friendly when it was represented by a logo featuring blue (M = 5.00, SD = 1.22). The two colors rated lowest in eco-friendliness were both shades of red: Trader Joe’s red (M = 3.85, SD = 1.61) and Target red (M = 3.78, SD = 1.84). Thus, we used blue and red as the high and low eco-friendly colors, respectively, in Studies 1, 2a, 2c, 3, and 4, because they differed statistically in perceived eco-friendliness (t(25) = 2.06, p < .05). In Studies 2b, 2c, and 4, we used the color green (M = 4.87, SD = 1.02), which did not differ statistically from the color blue (p = .77).

Table 2 Eco-friendly ratings

Pretest 1b

To rule out the possibility that any of the colors used in the studies would be associated with a specific, identifiable retailer, we conducted a follow-up pretest (n = 154) with the three colors mentioned previously (blue, green, and red). After eliminating six responses because of self-identified color blindness, we examined 148 responses (43.2 % female, M _age = 20.08). The six stimuli used consisted of the words “red,” “green,” or “blue” or visual exposure to the actual color red, blue, or green. Each participant was exposed to one of the six stimuli in a randomized, between-subjects design. After viewing the stimuli, participants performed a sentence completion task: “I associate this color with retailers such as _______ (list one or more stores).” This item was presented among filler items (“How typical is this practice?” “How creative is this practice?” “How interesting does the store sound?” “How useful do you think the store is to shoppers?” We selected these fillers from a pretest that showed no difference in conditions). The order of presentation of the stimuli was randomized.

We found similar results for participants exposed to the actual color (vs. the word used to describe the color); no one retailer was associated with a given color by the majority of participants. The largest percentage of associations were as follows: word “red”: 19 % of participants associated it with Target; color red: 21 % associated it with Target; word “blue”: 15 % associated it with Wal-Mart; color blue: 16 % associated it with Wal-Mart and 15 % associated it with Kroger; word “green”: 19 % associated it with Dollar General; color green: 12 % associated it with Dick’s Sporting Goods. The pretest also confirmed that participants were not primed to rate a target positively or negatively because of the fillers used. Therefore, we carried these colors forward to the studies as exemplars of high (blue and green) and low (red) eco-friendly colors.

Pretest 2

We conducted this pretest (n = 226) to determine ethical perceptions of common retail practices that could be construed as ethically controversial. The goal of this pretest was to select exemplars of ethically ambiguous (mid-scale) practices for use in the main studies. We also wanted to identify practices that were judged as unambiguously ethical or unethical (for Study 3). We formulated 10 statements describing common, ethically controversial retailer practices from consumer blog sites. See Table 3. Participants were randomly assigned to read one statement in a between-subjects design. Participants were told, “This common retail practice is perfectly legal. However, opinions differ widely concerning how ethical the practice is. How would you rate this practice in terms of ethics?” (anchored: 1 = “not ethical at all,” 7 = “very ethical”; adapted from Dabholkar and Kellaris 1992; this article lists 20 scenarios in personal selling and asked participants to rate each from “very unethical” to “very ethical.” In the current research, we reworded the scale description to capture judgments of ethicality of the retailer).

Table 3 summarizes the results. On the basis of these results, we selected two statements that averaged neither high nor low (Ms = 4.65 and 4.82), and thus were deemed ethically ambiguous, as stimuli for Study 1. These two statements were as follows:

Supermarkets and grocery stores typically have floor plans that place dairy, eggs, produce, bread, and meat (“staples”) at the periphery of the store. Other products, such as snacks, candy, and seasonal items, are placed in areas shoppers must pass through on their way to find staples or checkout lanes. Stores have learned through experience that such floor plans help maximize sales by increasing the probability of shoppers making unplanned purchases.

Shelf design is an important aspect of retail store design. Products can be at, below, or above eye level. Eye-level shelf spaces are often reserved for higher-priced products. Less expensive alternatives are often displayed on lower shelves.

This program of pretesting resulted in exemplars of low and high eco-friendly colors and descriptions of ethically ambiguous retailing practices for use in the main studies.

Table 3 Ethical ratings for business practices

Pretest 3a

In this pretest, we wanted to examine the portion of variance in a multi-item eco-friendly rating scale captured by a single-item scale to be used in the studies. Students (N = 70) were asked to review the three colors described in Pretest 1a. Participants were asked to evaluate “How eco-friendly do you suppose DAVY Grocery Store is?” (anchored: 1 = “not at all eco-friendly,” 7 = “very eco-friendly”). Participants also rated a 32-item, 7-point Corporate Environmental Performance scale (anchored 1 = “completely disagree,” 7 = “completely agree”; adapted to describe the retailer; Trumpp et al. 2015). Results indicate that the single-item measure captured a high percentage of variance in the multi-item measure (Pearson correlation = 0.92, p < .001). Thus, we adopted the single-item measure in the main studies.

Pretest 3b

In this pretest, we wanted to examine the variance on a multi-item ethical rating scale versus a single item to be used in the studies. Students (n = 67) were asked to review one of the two ethically ambiguous statements described in Pretest 2. Participants were told, “This common retail practice is perfectly legal. However, opinions differ widely on how ethical the practice is. How would you rate this practice in terms of ethics?” (anchored: 1 = “not very ethical,” 7 = “very ethical”; adopted from Dabholkar and Kellaris 1992). They also rated the practice on a five-item, 7-point scale (“ethical/unethical,” “positive/negative,” “right/wrong,” “appropriate/inappropriate,” and “good/bad”; Jung and Kellaris, 2002). An analysis of the results showed a high percentage of variance and the multi-item measure (Pearson correlation = 0.89, p < .001). Thus, we adopted the single-item measure in the main studies.