Testing consumer perceptions regarding the treatment variation in our study "Consumer Demand for Responsibly Produced Products: Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment in E-Commerce"

In the survey we will show each participants one version of the seller's two webpages -
one in which we include and emphasize information about the backpacks’ socially and
ecologically responsible production in the CSR treatment and one in which we leave any
such information out.

2025-12-15

2025-12-19

Since our subjectpool comprises participants who are unlikely who have children in
kindergarden age, we expect that few of them are familiar with the brand. This was also
the case when we ran the original A/B testing experiment becaus at this time it was a
new brand.

We further expect that participants' perceptions of the backpacks offered on the CR
webpage will be significantly higher with respect to the backpacks’ socially and
ecologically responsible production compared to the neutral treatment.

We do not expect differences between treatments in the perceptions of the
attractiveness and the quality of the backpacks, and whether they are appealing for kids.

We also do not expect differences between treatments in there willingness to purchase
the shown backpack if they were searching for such a backpack for a child.

We will ask participants to carefully look at the webpage and subsequently answer some
questions about whether they know the backpacks of the brand, and to rate perception
questions as the following each on a five-items Likert-scale:
- the quality of the shown backpack is very good,
- the likelihood that the backpack would be very highly functional,
- the likelihood that the backpack is highly reliable,
- the brand appears an environmentally safe brand,
- the brand is an environmentally responsible brand,
- the brand is a sustainable brand,
- the brand’s backpack visually is appealing for kids,
- the backpack's design is attractive,
- I like the look and feel of the brand's backpacks,
- the brand’s backpacks are aesthetically pleasing for kids,
- the brand appears to produce under fair working conditions,
- I think that the workers are treated fairly who produce the brand’s backpacks,
- the brand provides a safe and secure working environment,
- I feel that the brand’s sustainability commitments are generally reliable,
- I feel that the brand’s sustainability performance is generally dependable,
- I feel that the brand’s sustainability argument is generally trustworthy.

We also ask them whether they would purchase the shown backpack if they were
searching for such a backpack for a child.

In order to be able to control for personal characteristics of the participants we will also
ask several question about how similar they would rate (on a 7 item Lickert scale)
themselves in relation to a person for whom it is important
- to avoid environmental harm,
- to protect the environment,
- to respect nature,
- that people have equal opportunities,
- to care about people who are worse off,
- to help others,
- to enjoy life,
- to be influential,
- to have money and possessions,
- to work hard and be ambitious.

Randomization is done by the computer when subjects log in.

Individual

No

200 per treatment, i.e., 400 in total

We first registered the experiment with only 100 per treatment but a power analysis suggested to go for 200 per treatment.

200 per treatment, i.e., 400 in total

200 per treatment

We conducted a power analysis and for a minimal detectable effect size of 0.3 standard deviations and 80% power we need a sample size of 176 observations per treatment. To be able to detect somewhat smaller effect sizes we decided to collect 200 observations per treatment.