Explore

Model answers

1. Model Answers (Exemplary / 1.0 level)

Style used below = what you’d expect from a top student: all required elements, precise terms, explicit links, short but complete.

⁠

Q1 (16 pts | ~180 words)

a) Define information asymmetry + link to market efficiency (4 pts, ~60 w) Information asymmetry = one party in a transaction holds more (or better) information than the other; it erodes market efficiency because buyers cannot match products to preferences.

b) Two ways firms/labels reduce it (6 pts, ~70 w)

Signalling: the informed party (producer/government) discloses credible info (e.g., certified eco-labels), improving efficiency.

Screening: the less-informed party (consumer/retailer) seeks info (reading detailed back-of-pack nutrition panels). Labels operationalise both: they communicate credence attributes (origin, sustainability) that cannot be assessed at purchase.

c) Apply one communication model (e.g., AIDA) to an eco-label example (6 pts, ~50 w) Eco-label on olive oil:

Attention (green logo); Interest/Desire (claim of sustainable farming); Action (purchase). Hierarchy-of-effects logic fits because cognition (awareness/knowledge) precedes affect and conation here.

⁠

Q2 (17 pts | ~200 words)

a) Two key regulatory constraints (4 pts)

Claims must be authorised/substantiated by generally accepted scientific evidence (Art. 6, Reg 1924/2006).

Mandatory nutrition declaration when a claim is made (Art. 30 Reg 1169/2011 cross-referenced).

b) Impact on claim design & consumer autonomy (7 pts) Legal definitions of “nutrition claim” and “health claim” narrow wording, preventing misleading messages; this protects autonomy/sovereignty by ensuring informed choice. However, strict templates may limit creative messaging, possibly reducing perceived relevance if consumers don’t see their own context (average consumer concept is contested).

c) Compliant persuasive strategy for a plant-based yogurt (6 pts) Use an authorised general function claim: “Calcium contributes to normal muscle function” (if product qualifies), plus a specific nutrition table. Frame it with storytelling about sustainable farming (allowed as context, not as a health claim) and keep any “healthy” umbrella term tied to a specific authorised claim.

⁠

Q3 (17 pts | ~200 words)

a) Define “nudge” & “intrusiveness” (4 pts) Nudge (own synthesis from behavioural econ): a choice-architecture tweak that steers behaviour without forbidding options or significantly changing incentives (own synthesis). Intrusiveness = degree to which the nudge bypasses deliberation/autonomy (own synthesis).

b) Two perspectives (8 pts)

Pro: Nudges (e.g., traffic-light labels) reduce information overload and align choices with consumers’ own health goals—thus enhancing autonomy via better information.

Critical: Over-standardised or overly salient labels can manipulate by exploiting cognitive biases, and multiple labels create overload—challenging sovereignty.

c) Position for supermarkets (5 pts) Support transparency-focused, low-intrusion nudges: standardised front-of-pack schemes tied to authorised claims; require disclosure of criteria to avoid greenwashing.

⁠

Q4 (16 pts | ~180 words)

a) Theory vs model + two features of a good theory (6 pts)

Theory: systematic set of concepts & relationships explaining phenomena (broad scope).

Model: simplified representation/applicable tool derived from theory. Good theories: parsimony & scope/utility (predictive power).

b) Pick a model + assign to a tradition/context (6 pts) ELM (Elaboration Likelihood Model): fits the socio-psychological tradition and mass/media context—focus on attitude change via message processing routes.

c) Research question (4 pts) “Does high MAO (motivation–ability–opportunity) increase central-route processing of sustainability labels, leading to stronger attitude change?”

⁠

Q5 (17 pts | ~200 words)

a) Dissonance in a food ad (5 pts) Ad showing “indulgent chocolate spread” + “fit lifestyle” can create dissonance between health beliefs and desire for taste. Magnitude depends on importance, ratio, rationale.

b) Narrative coherence & fidelity (6 pts) Story must “hang together” (coherence) and “ring true” with audience values (fidelity). If the ad’s story shows a believable routine (parent choosing balanced treats), it scores high on both.

c) Combining CDT + Narrative Paradigm (6 pts) Use narrative to pre-empt dissonance: craft stories that justify indulgence (e.g., portion control) or align product with consumer identity, reducing aversive arousal while preserving credibility.

⁠

Q6 (17 pts | ~200 words)

a) One pre-test + one post-test metric (6 pts)

Pre-test: Readability/Checklist to see if ad is “on strategy” and understandable at first glance.

Post-test: Recognition + brand attitude change (before/after) following hierarchy-of-effects logic.

b) Sampling & data collection (4 pts) Quota sample of target segment; lab-based split-scan for behaviour proxy, plus online survey for awareness/attitude.

c) Handling consequential errors (7 pts) Rubric rule: deduct once for a wrong figure/definition, then carry the corrected value forward so later analytical steps can still earn points (Accuracy vs Application scored separately). (Own policy linked to our analytic rubric.)

Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.

Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (

CtrlP

) instead.