Please complete Question 2 in 12 hours and Question 3 in 24 hours

As per our conversation, please find attached the data file bearing the following:

• Part I [from column G to CA]– 413 respondents indicated their likelihood to purchase a particular shawarma sandwich profile that had been systematically varied on six attributes with two levels each. Of the total eight attributes, one was price, three were functional and four were social; whereby two social attributes were systematically varied and two were mirrored. The 64 possible combinations of the 6 attributes were developed and assigned to 8 sets of respondents in groups of 8. Therefore, each respondent evaluated 8 different shawarma sandwiches.

Question 1 – Do consumers of the Middle Eastern street food shawarma dish value social benefits?

• Test the hypothesis that the likelihood of buyingincreases when there are social attributes offered in the shawarma sandwich profile. That is, identify the probability that an individual will choose a product based on whether or not a specific social feture is embedded in the product, every other feature – social and functional and price – held constant.
• Measure the willingness to pay, or the marginal dollar value of the social attributes.
• Classify the respondents as ethical or self-interested consumers. Those respondents whose choice for the social attributes were greater than any other variable should be classified as ethical consumer and the remaining respondents as self-interested.
• Re-run Logit Regression for the two groups of consumers – ethical and self-interested – and test the above hypothesis (a) against each of the groups in order to understand the influence of the presence of social features on the likelihood of purchase for both ethical and self-interested consumers.
• Identify the purchase intention for AED 7 and AED 15 sandwiches per consumer segment – ethical and self-interested.
• Identify the most important attributes for ethical and self-interested consumers.

• Part II [from column CB to CQ]– 413 respondents indicated their likelihood to purchase between two shawarma sandwich profiles that were each characterized as all good or all bad, socially and functionally. The functional and social attributes were the same used in Part I. The base prices were AED 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 20, 22 and 24; prices were marked up when all social features are good (cells 1 and 2 – Product Feature Mix – Part II worksheet). The Part II of the questionnaire included eight sets of two product profiles. For each of the eight profiles, respondents were asked the following question: Select between Shawarma A, Shawarma B, or neither product. Hence, each respondent made a total of eight choices for each question. The pairs were constructed as shown in Product Feature Mix – Part II worksheet. This implies four possible pairs: some that required choices with no dilemma – both the social features and the functional features were the same (cells 1 and 4) – and some that required a trade-off between the functional and social features (cells 2 and 3).

Question 2 – What is the relationship between the consumers’ intention and their willingness to pay when faced with trade-offs against functional benefits?

• Generate the equivalent of demand curves for the social features based on the price premium demanded for receiving a good social product. The price premium is equivalent to the average price between AED 7 and AED 15 (= AED 11). Therefore, any price level above AED 11 (i.e. 12, 15, 17, 20, 22 and 24) presents a premium of AED 1, 4, 6, 9, 11 and 13 respectively. The price axis is the premium associated with receiving the product with “good” social features, and the quantity axis is the probability that the respondent chose the product with the good social features.
• Test the hypothesis that individuals will choose the product with positive social features when there is no sacrificing of functionality (the “no dilemma” case) but that any hint of poor functionality will cause demand to collapse.
• Show on average, and over the entire price range, the percentage that the good social products were chosen of the time in the “no dilemma” case, as compared to the cases when there was a dilemma and functionality was compromised.
• Show the percentage that the potential products are chosen when there is no price premium for the better social product.
• Show the percentage that the potential products are chosen when the premium approaches 100 percent of the average price (= AED 22).

See below example for reference:

Question 3 – Will consumers of the Middle Eastern street food shawarma dish sacrifice function benefits for ethics?

What do people do when faced with the dilemma of bad functionality for good ethics? Show the percentage of the cases where individuals chose the product with good functional features despite the fact they were given the option of not making a choice (=neither product). Likewise, show the percentage of cases where individuals opted-out (chose “neither the product”) when they faced the dilemma of bad functionality for good ethics.