nach oben

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Erschienen in:

14.11.2017 | Original Empirical Research

Marketers’ use of alternative front-of-package nutrition symbols: An examination of effects on product evaluations

verfasst von: Christopher L. Newman, Scot Burton, J. Craig Andrews, Richard G. Netemeyer, Jeremy Kees

Erschienen in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

How front-of-package (FOP) nutrition icon systems affect product evaluations for more and less healthful objective nutrition profiles is a critical question facing food marketers, consumers, and the public health community. We propose a conceptually-based hierarchical continuum to guide predictions regarding the effectiveness of several FOP systems currently used in the marketplace. In Studies 1a and 1b, we compare the effects of a broad set of FOP icons on nutrition evaluations linked to health, accuracy of evaluations, and purchase intentions for a single product. Based on these findings, Studies 2 and 3 test the effects of two conceptually-different FOP icon systems in a retail laboratory in which consumers make comparative evaluations of multiple products at the retail shelf. While there are favorable effects of each system beyond control conditions with no FOP icons, results show that icons with an evaluative component that aid consumers’ interpretations generally provide greater benefits (particularly in product comparison contexts). We offer implications for consumer packaged goods marketers, retailers, and the public policy and consumer health communities.

Vorheriger Artikel Effect of analysts’ earnings pressure on marketing spending and stock market performance

Nächster Artikel Retail space invaders: when employees’ invasion of customer space increases purchase intentions

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

For convenience, we offer a listing of acronyms and abbreviations used in this manuscript in Web Appendix A1.

To support these proposed conceptual differences in diagnosticity suggested in Figure 1, we performed an online pilot study that we present as part of our Study 1a methodology.

While literature often advocates use of the quantitative measure in analyses via moderated regression, in complex designs (including 6 conditions for a single factor and 18 conditions overall), this becomes untenable (e.g., the coding of a manipulated factor necessitates 5 dummy variables for a single factor and then interaction terms must be created with each of the dummy variables).

Conceptually, perceived healthfulness potentially mediates the interaction of the FOP and objective nutrition profile (ONP) effect on purchase intention (e.g., Burton et al. 2015). Given the 6 × 3 experimental design, the use of regression procedures to examine this mediation effect is untenable (Hayes 2013). But as shown in Table 2, the (1) significant interaction of the FOP and ONP for healthfulness and nutrient evaluations (the “a” path in a mediation analysis), and (2) the significant positive correlations (p < .01) between healthfulness and purchase intent (the “b” path), suggest a significant a*b path that would support moderated mediation (Hayes 2013). We explicitly test this mediation in Study 3, which uses an experimental design more amenable to testing moderated mediation using regression.

Unlike the objective nutrition profile, the FOP*NC interaction reaches a .05 level of significance for only one nutrient. This pattern suggests that effects of NC across FOP information (which is designed to simplify nutrition information) are more similar than the moderating effect of NC for the objective profile information disclosed in the NFP.

While the moderating role of FOP did not reach a level of significance for the overall product healthfulness, there was a significant difference (all p < .05) between the objective profiles for the NFP only control, the FUF, the green FUF, and the traffic light (Fs range from 3.32 [for the FOP control] to 4.75 [all green FUF]). Contrasts showed that the Good profile exceeded the Poor objective profile. The full nutrition control and the IOM stars did not reach significance.

Given these findings, we also performed a simple mediation test for the evaluative icon (Hayes 2013). Results of this test indicated that the indirect effect for stars icon ➔ healthfulness ➔ purchase intentions was significant (IE = .33, CI [.09, .75]), and that the positive direct effect of the stars icon on intentions to purchase the focal healthful product also remains significant (p < .03) with the mediator included in the model (i.e., partial mediation).

We also had participants choose the one most preferred item from the set of nine packages on the retail shelf (i.e., “Which one granola bar would you be most likely to purchase?”). A nutritious Good product was chosen more often when the stars and FUF (44%) or stars alone (40%) were available on the packages, relative to the no icon control (17%; all z = 2.15 and 1.86, respectively; all p < .05). There was no significant difference between these two choice percentages (44% vs. 40%; p > .70), again suggesting that providing the more quantitative FUF icon together with the evaluative icon offers no incremental benefit. Inclusion of the FUF icon, alone, appeared to slightly increase selection of the objectively more nutritious product (33%) when compared to the no icon control, but it did not reach significance (z = 1.32, p = .09).

Based on reviewers’ suggestions, we conducted an initial exploratory study addressing the role of explicit goals in a 2 (goal: taste vs. health) × 2 (FOP format: reductive FUF icon vs. evaluative stars icon) × 3 (objective nutrition level: poor, moderate, good) mixed design for a frozen food product. As expected, while the “good” objective level decreased taste perceptions, and the goal and taste perceptions affected purchase intention, the specific FOP format did not interact with the goal. Further, for purchase intentions, the unhealthy-tasty intuition (Raghunathan et al. 2006), did not interact with the FOP format or objective nutrition level, and perceived credibility of the FOP format did not affect intent.

Alba, J., Hutchinson, J. W., & Lynch, J. (1991). Memory and decision making. In T. Robertson & H. Kassarjian (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Behavior (pp. 1–49). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (2009). The nutrition elite: Do only the highest levels of caloric knowledge, obesity knowledge, and motivation matter in processing nutrition ad claims and disclosures? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 41–55.CrossRef

Andrews, J. C., Burton, S., & Kees, J. (2011). Is simpler always better? Consumer evaluations of front-of-package nutrition symbols. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30, 175–190.CrossRef

Andrews, J. C., Lin, C. J., Levy, A. S., & Lo, S. (2014). Consumer research needs from the food and drug administration on front-of-package nutritional labeling. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 33(1), 10–16.CrossRef

Berry, C., Burton, S., & Howlett, E. (2017). It's only natural: the mediating impact of consumers' inferential beliefs on the relationships between product claims, perceived product healthfulness, and purchase intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(5), 698–719.CrossRef

Bialkova, S., Grunert, K. G., Juhl, H. J., Wasowicz-Kirylo, G., Stysko-Kunkowska, M., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2014). Attention mediates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers’ choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-tracking. Appetite, 76(1), 66–75.CrossRef

Bittman, M. (2014). Parasites, killing their host: the food industry’s solution to obesity. New York Times, available at https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/18/opinion/mark-bittmanthe-food-industrys-solution-to-obesity.html

Burton, S., Garretson, J. A., & Velliquette, A. M. (1999). Implications of accurate usage of nutrition facts panel information for food product evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 470–480.CrossRef

Burton, S., Creyer, E. H., Kees, J., & Huggins, K. (2006). Attacking the obesity epidemic: the potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 96(9), 1669–1675.CrossRef

Burton, S., Cook, L. A., Howlett, E., & Newman, C. L. (2015). Broken halos and shattered horns: overcoming the biasing effects of prior expectations through objective information disclosure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 240–256.CrossRef

CDC (2017). Overweight and Obesity. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September [http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/index.htm].

Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). Is obesity caused by calorie underestimation? a psychophysical model of meal size estimation. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1), 84–99.CrossRef

Ducrot, P., Julia, C., Méjean, C., Kesse-Guyot, E., Touvier, M., Fezeu, L. K., & Péneau, S. (2016). Impact of different front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 50(5), 627–636.CrossRef

Dzhogleva, H., & Inman, J. J. (2015). Healthy choice: the effect of simplified pos nutritional information on consumer choice behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 52, 817–835.CrossRef

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

European Union Food Information Council (2015) “Global update on nutrition labelling. [available at: http://www.eufic.org/upl/1/default/doc/GlobalUpdateExecSumJan2015.pdf].

Facts-Up-Front (2014). What is facts up front?” (accessed December 15, 2016), [available at http://www.factsupfront.org/].

FDA (2011). Letter of enforcement discretion to gma/fmi re ‘facts up front,’” Taylor, M. R. (Deputy Commissioner for Foods), U.S. Food and Drug Administration, (December 13), (accessed December 30, 2016), [available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm302720.htm].

Federal Register (2010). Front-of-pack and shelf tag nutrition symbols; establishment of docket: request for comments and information. 75 (82) (April 29), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, U.S. Food & Drug Administration, 22602–22606.

Feunekes, G. I. J., Gortemaker, I. A., Willems, A. A., Lion, R., & Kommer, M. (2008). Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four european countries. Appetite, 50(1), 57–70.CrossRef

Finkelstein, E. A., Khavjou, O. A., Thompson, H., Trogdon, J. G., Pan, L., Sherry, B., & Dietz, W. (2012). Obesity and severe obesity forecasts through 2030. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 42(6), 563–570.CrossRef

Goodman, J. K., & Paolacci, G. (2017). Crowdsourcing consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(1), 196–210.CrossRef

Graham, D., Heidrick, C., & Hodgin, K. (2015). Nutrition label viewing during a food-selection task: front-of-package labels vs nutrition facts labels. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 115(10), 1636–1646.CrossRef

Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) (2011). Food and beverage industry launches nutrition keys front-of-pack nutrition labeling initiative to inform consumers and combat obesity. Press Release. http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/food-and-beverage-industry-launches-nutrition-keys-front-of-pack-nutrition- (accessed November 17, 2016).

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, New York. New York: Guilford.

Iacobucci, D., Posavac, S. S., Kardes, F. R., Schneider, M. J., & Popovich, D. L. (2015). Toward a more nuanced understanding of the statistical properties of a median split. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 652–665.

Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2011). Examination of front-of-package nutrition rating systems and symbols. (October 18), (accessed March 11, 2014), [available at http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/NutritionSymbols.aspx].

Kees, J., Royne, M. B., & Cho, Y. (2014). Regulating front-of-package nutrition information disclosures: a test of industry self-regulation vs. other popular options. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 48(Spring), 147–174.CrossRef

Kees, J., Burton, S., & Andrews, J. C. (2015). Government efforts to aid consumers’ well-being: understanding federal health warnings and disclosures. in the Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology (Eds.), Michael Norton, Derek Rucker, and Cait Lamberton, 530-562.

Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017a). An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 141–155.CrossRef

Kees, J., Berry, C., Burton, S., & Sheehan, K. (2017b). Reply to Amazon's Mechanical Turk: a comment. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 159–162.CrossRef

Keller, S. B., Landry, M., Olson, J., Velliquette, A. M., Burton, S., & Andrews, J. C. (1997). The effects of nutrition package claims, nutrition facts panels, and motivation to process nutrition information on consumer product evaluations. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(Fall), 256–269.

Kozup, J., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: the influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumer’s evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67, 19–34.CrossRef

Mitra, A., Hastak, M., Ford, G. T., & Ringold, D. J. (1999). Can the educationally disadvantaged interpret the FDA-mandated nutrition facts panel in the presence of an implied health claim? Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(Spring), 106–117.

Nielsen (2015), “We Are What We Eat: Healthy Eating Trends Around the World,” (accessed July 7, 2017), [available at www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/eu/nielseninsights/pdfs/Nielsen%20Global%20Health%20and%20Wellness%20Report%20%20January%202015.pdf].

Newman, M. A. (2000). Health as Expanding Consciousness. Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett.

Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., & Burton, S. (2014). Shopper response to front-of-package nutrition labeling programs: potential consumer and retail store benefits. Journal of Retailing, 90(1), 13–26.CrossRef

Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., & Burton, S. (2016). The effects of objective and evaluative front-of-package cues on food evaluation and choice: the moderating influence of comparative and non-comparative processing contexts. Journal of Consumer Research, 42, 749–766.CrossRef

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) (1990), Public Law No. 101-535, 104 Stat. 2353 (codified in part at 21 U.S.C. 343).

NuVal (2014). ONQI: The science behind the scores. (accessed June 11, 2016), [available at http://www.nuval.com/science].

Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Kit, B. K., & Flegal, K. M. (2014). Prevalence of childhood and adult obesity in the united States, 2011-2012. Journal of the American Medical Association, 311(8), 806–814.CrossRef

Pettigrew, S., Talati, Z., Miller, C., Dixon, H., Kelly, B., & Ball, K. (2017). The types and aspects of front-of-pack food labelling schemes preferred by adults and children. Appetite, 109(February), 115–123.CrossRef

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1–24). New York: Springer.

Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy = tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 170–184.CrossRef

Scammon, D. (1977). Information load and consumers. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(3), 148–155.CrossRef

Sebolt, A. (2008). Standardized nutrition: food business groups seek uniform symbols on packaging. Food Business News, June 10. [Available at http://www.foodbusinessnews.net/ feature_stories_ print.asp?ArticleID=94121].

Stanish, J.R. (2010). The obesity epidemic in America and the responsibility of big food manufacturers. Inquiries Journal, 2 (11). (Available at www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/320/ the-obesity-epidemic-in-america-and-the-responsibility-of-big-food-manufacturers.

Tellis, G. J. (2017). Interesting and impactful research: on phenomena, theory, and writing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45(1), 1–6.CrossRef

van Horen, F., & Pieters, R. (2012). When high-similarity copycats lose and moderate-similarity copycats gain: the impact of comparative evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(1), 83–91.CrossRef

Viswanathan, M., Hastak, M., & Gau, R. (2009). Understanding and facilitating the usage of nutritional labels by low-literate consumers. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 28(2), 135–145.CrossRef

Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2012). Expanding our understanding of marketing in society. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 53–73.CrossRef

Titel: Marketers’ use of alternative front-of-package nutrition symbols: An examination of effects on product evaluations
verfasst von: Christopher L. Newman
Scot Burton
J. Craig Andrews
Richard G. Netemeyer
Jeremy Kees
Publikationsdatum: 14.11.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 0092-0703
Elektronische ISSN: 1552-7824
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0568-z

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Retail space invaders: when employees’ invasion of customer space increases purchase intentions

Where does pride lead? Corporate managerial hubris and strategic emphasis

When marketing strategy meets culture: the role of culture in product evaluations

Making emerging phenomena a research priority

Good, better, engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer engagement behavior on shareholder value

Effect of analysts’ earnings pressure on marketing spending and stock market performance