Wansink et al. (2005) investigated the effect of food names. Cathy: 'I think I'll have Traditional Cajun Red Beans with Rice and Grandma's Zucchini Cookies for lunch today. What will you have?' Julia: 'I think I'll have Grilled Chicken and Chocolate Pudding.'

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Oct/Nov 2020). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. Answers:
2. Evocative, descriptive menu names (e.g. Succulent Italian Seafood Filet) and
3. 'regular' names (e.g. seafood filet).
4. Marks: 1 mark for each correct identification.
5. Answer:
6. Quote from study: 'During the Tuesday and Friday lunch of each of the six test weeks, two of the items were presented with their regular name (e.g., grilled chicken); two items were presented with a descriptive name; and two items were not offered. For each of the next two weeks, the items and the conditions were systematically rotated until all menu items were presented in all conditions. The rotation was repeated in weeks four through six.'
7. Marks: 1 mark for basic answer. 1 mark for elaboration.
8. Most likely answer: (other appropriate responses to be credited):
9. To control for extraneous variables: 'The rotation was planned in order to minimise any unexpected variations that might affect either preferences or participation (such as blizzards, religious holidays or game days)'.
10. Marks: 1 mark for basic answer (e.g. as a control). 1 mark for elaboration/ example (e.g. as a control to avoid confounding, because changes in the weather might affect food choice.
11. Most likely answer (other appropriate responses to be credited):
12. Strengths
13. participants can say what they think about their experience (give the reasons why they made a certain food choice)
14. detailed and in-depth data can be gathered (researchers knowing more than just 'seafood filet').
15. Weaknesses
16. participants may not give honest answers (may say 'homestyle chicken' to please the researchers; because that is what they think they should say).
17. the responses may be misunderstood or mis-categorised by the researcher (saying 'because I like seafood' doesn't help because it can apply to both Succulent Italian Seafood Filet and seafood filet).
18. the researchers may not be able to write the answers quickly enough to be word-for-word.
19. Marks: 1 mark for basic answer. 1 mark for elaboration/example x2
20. Most likely answer (other appropriate responses to be credited):
21. Advantages:
22. A field experiment has an IV, DV and controls.
23. Often participants do not know they are taking part in a study and so behave more naturally (in this study questionnaires were given after food choices had been made).
24. Most consumer behaviour takes place in the real world and so studies should be conducted in the real world (rather than in a laboratory).
25. Disadvantages:
26. A field experiment may have variables that are more difficult to control than a laboratory experiment.
27. Often participants do not know they have taken part in a study at all so there is no consent (in this study there was because they were asked to complete questionnaires).
28. It may be reductionist to isolate variables to study (i.e. the IV) when many other variables that are controlled may contribute to consumer behaviour as a whole.
29. Conclusion: any appropriate conclusion drawn from the discussion that has been presented. 1 mark if appropriate. A conclusion is a 'decision reached by reasoning' and so a summary of points already made scores 0 marks.
30. Marks: Question requires discussion; always plural of each argument, and always requires conclusion. 1 mark for each advantage/disadvantage (however detailed) and related to the question up to 4 max. 2 marks max for two strengths/weaknesses unrelated to the question. 1 mark for conclusion.