When shoppers enter a store, they form an opinion on the environment and products within the first 90 seconds, and more than half of their opinion is based on the color scheme.

A new study looked at how colors influence or bias the way consumers make ethical judgments, specifically if they view a company as environmentally friendly. Results indicated consumers considered companies with blue logos to be more eco-friendly, compared to those with red logos.

University of Oregon and University of Cincinnati gave shoppers a fictitious logo with the color of a known brand.

“What we’re finding is that color biases the way consumers make ethical judgments,” said Aparna Sundar, professor of marketing with the University of Oregon Lundquist College of Business.

“Of course green is one of those colors, but blue is also one of those colors that consumers associate with eco-friendliness.”

It only took one unfamiliar logo for researchers to discover that shoppers consider retailers using Walmart’s blue or Sam’s green in their logos to be more eco-friendly than those using Trader Joe’s red.

“Interestingly, blue is ‘greener’ than green in terms of conveying an impression of eco-friendliness, despite the frequent use of the word green to convey that idea,” said co-author James Kellaris of the University of Cincinnati’s marketing department.

Once researchers established a set of eco-friendly colors, they also identified colors perceived to be environmentally unfriendly, such as Target’s red. Sundar and Kellaris then developed additional studies to test whether the colors impacted perceptions of the retailer’s environmental friendliness.

Participants were asked if they felt DAVY Grocery Store acted ethically in various morally ambiguous scenarios, such as spraying water on produce. The results indicated that seeing a more eco-friendly color in a logo influences consumer judgments, and ethically ambiguous business practices seemed more ethical.

While individual differences still play a role in this observed effect of color, Sundar’s research suggests that color used in a logo has far-reaching consequences on consumers’ perceptions of retailers.

走进一家店铺，消费者会在90秒内对环境和产品有一个大致印象，而这种印象一半以上来自颜色。

一项新的调查研究颜色如何影响消费者的道德判断，尤其是他们认为该品牌是否环保。

调查结果表明，相比红色商标，消费者觉得蓝色商标更环保。

俄勒冈大学和辛辛那提大学的研究者给消费者一些虚构商标，这些商标采用已知品牌的颜色。

俄勒冈大学朗德科斯特商学院营销学教授阿帕那· 桑达说：“我们发现颜色影响消费者的道德判断。”

“消费者认为绿色当然是环保的颜

色，蓝色也是。”

研究者只需一个消费者不熟悉的商标，便能发现顾客认为沃尔玛使用的蓝色或山姆的绿色标志要比乔之店的红色更环保。

共同作者辛辛那提大学营销系的詹姆士· 凯拉瑞斯说：“有趣的是，在生态友好印象上，蓝色比绿色更‘绿’，尽管我们总是用绿色来传达环保的概念。”

研究者确定了一系列生态友好颜

色，也列出那些被认为不环保的颜色，如塔吉特的红色。

桑达和凯拉瑞斯随后研究了颜色是否影响人们对零售商是否环保的看法。

参与者被要求作答是否认为DAVY零售店某些模棱两可的做法是否道德，如在产品上喷水。

结果表明，看起来更生态友好的颜色会影响消费者的判断，让他们认为那些模棱两可的做法更容易接受。

虽然在研究颜色的影响上，仍存在个体差异，但桑达的研究表明商标使用的颜色影响消费者对零售商的看法。

    Words to Learn 相关词汇

   【使...有偏见】shǐ ... yǒu piānjiàn bias cause to hold or exhibit a particular bias; to influence, especially unfairly

    【模棱两可的】móléngliǎngkě de ambiguous open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations