Construction of consumer evaluation : researching the interaction with varying types of nutrition information and different levels of nutrition consciousness

(1)

Master Business Administration

Marketing Track

Master Thesis

Under supervision of Dhr. drs. Frank Slisser

Construction of consumer evaluation

Researching the interaction with varying types of nutrition information and different levels of nutrition consciousness

Simone van der Steeg 5878985

s.l.vandersteeg@hotmail.com 23-06-2015

(2)

Abstract

How do consumers evaluate different types of nutrition information? And is this process of consumer evaluation moderated by nutrition consciousness? That is the main

research question of this study. According to the elaboration likelihood model (Petty, Cacioppo 1986), nutrition information, tempts consumers to take the shortcut of interpretation, the peripheral route. When consumers are not motivated or able to interpret the exact meaning of nutrition information, priming and halo-effects can occur and cause incorrect evaluation of nutrition information. An online survey collected a sample of 132 respondents; based on these results the relation between types of nutrition information and consumer evaluation is tested. This relation however proves to be non-existent. Nutrition consciousness, the construct that measures consumers’ interest in, knowledge of and motivation to interact with the nutrition information is the main predicting variable for consumer evaluation. The type of nutrition information has no significant effect on consumer evaluation.

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Simone van der Steeg who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

1. Introduction to thesis

In the past decades the increased consumption of unhealthy food and overconsumption in general, have made obesity one of the (literally) biggest problems on the agenda of developed and undeveloped societies today. Not only is it decreasing the quality of life but also life expectancy decreases. Recent developments luckily show that the public realisation has grown that that we are growing:

“If US trends based on historical data for 1988–2008 continue, the prevalence of obesity in US adults will increase from its present level [2011] of about 32% to about 50% by 2030, with increased costs of up to US$66 billion per year for treatment of obesity-associated diseases. If the UK trends for 1993-2008 continue, the prevalence of obesity will rise from 26% to 35-48% by 2030, depending on the sex considered, and the costs will increase by £2 billion per year.” (p. 744, Dietz

2011).

These figures might be for the U.S. and U.K. only, but the entire western society experiences this problem (World Obesity Federation 2014). The Dutch “Raad voor Volksgezondheid & Zorg” (council for public health & healthcare) estimates that a yearly amount of €500 million is spent on the direct consequences of severe obesity, the

indirect costs add up to over €2 billion a year. For the general health of the population, but also to cut the costs of healthcare linked to obesity, it is important to turn these numbers around. Healthful eating is the cornerstone in the prevention of these chronic diet related diseases (Jebb, 2007). By increasing the consumption of healthy food, individual health will improve and health expenditures will go down. But how do you increase the consumption of healthy food? The Dutch Nutrition Centre

(Voedingscentrum) has published a study: “Dagelijks Eten”, on the knowledge, attitude and behaviour regarding healthy eating patterns amongst the Dutch people

(Voedingscentrum 2011). Comparing trends of 2007, 2009 and 2011, it shows an increasing desire for a healthier eating pattern. Over half of the consumers report that they would like more information on healthy eating (57% in 2011 versus 35% in 2007). So (Dutch) consumers themselves do intrinsically experiencing the same trend, seeking for more healthy eating habits. Awareness is growing for healthier lifestyles and paired with it comes a healthier consumption pattern. However, this causes for questions to appear. What kind of products fit in a healthy diet? The food manufacturing industry and governments worldwide recognize this search by consumers for tools and directions in

(6)

the construction of a healthy diet. The first has been creating an extensive range of front-of-package (FOP) nutrition icons and symbols, the latter follows on par with regulations to keep them on the right track. Manufacturers and all sorts of organizations have stepped into the demand for information and have created a range of symbols1_{to make}

their products stand out. Not only nutritional health appears as a theme, the themes of the icons stretch as far as animal welfare (“Beter Leven Kenmerk”, Dolphin Safe), fair trade (Max Havelaar), and the environment (EKO, MSC). To stick to the subject of this thesis, the nutritional health FOP-icons are relevant symbols in the battle against obesity and regulations are quite clear and strict in the Netherlands (, Rijksoverheid Gezonde Voeding2014). There are a few sector specific icons like “Glutenvrij”(gluten free), “Toothfriendly” and “Verantwoord Frituren”(responsible deep frying), but the Dutch government allows only one source for nutrition quality marks indicating general healthfulness (Food Holland 2013). The Healthier Choice (figure 1) and Conscious Choice (figure 2) checkmarks (“Het Vinkje”) from the “Ik Kies Bewust”-foundation are the only nutritional health indicating FOP-icons allowed and therefore also the most prominent front-of-package (FOP) icons in the Netherlands.

1_{The most important icons are shown in this chapter, an overview of all icons/symbols}

referred to in this thesis can be found in Appendix A.

Figure 1. Healthier Choice Icon

Figure 2. Conscious Choice Icon

(7)

The “Ik Kies Bewust”-foundation is a joint effort by three large Dutch food manufacturers: Unilever, Friesland Campina and Albert Heijn. It also operates internationally under the name of the “Choices Programme”, active in the Czech Republic and Poland. Their goal is explained on the website, stating:

“The Choices Programme is a unique multi-stakeholder cooperation aiming to fight

obesity and other diet-related health issues. Our goal is to make the healthy choice the easy choice. The positive front-of-pack logo helps consumers make healthy food choices and stimulates producers to develop healthier products. Choices criteria, based on solid science, determine if a product is qualified to carry the Choices logo.”

(, Choices Programme2015).

Another common form of front of package nutrition information is the Guideline Daily Amounts (“Referentie-Inname”) (Figure 3.). This shows the percentage of how much a product contributes to the daily nutritional needs for several key nutrients. It is not connected to any form of institution or organisation; this is simply another method of displaying the nutrition information.

In June 2013 the U.K. introduced a Traffic Light Colour-coded Reference Intake FOP-label (the former term for Reference intake was the Guideline Daily Amounts) (Figure 4.). The aim of this label is to make healthier choices easier for consumers. “The consistent system will combine red, amber, green colour-coding and nutritional

information to show how much fat, saturated fat, salt and sugar, and calories are in food products”(Department of Health, U.K. Government 2013).

Figure 3. Reference Intake, the former Guideline Daily Amounts

(plain)

Figure 4. Reference Intake (Traffic Light Colour Coded)

(8)

The concept of the “Ik Kies Bewust”–icons, how government supported they might be, is in my opinion however quite a disputable topic. A striking comparison can be made with an icon that appeared in the United States a few years ago. In 2009 the Keystone Group, a large United States based, industry, government and academic coalition, launched an icon, similar to the “Bewuste Keuze”-icon, namely the Smart Choice-icon (Figure 5), as a part of the overarching “Smart Choices Program”. Their website describes the program in the following manner:

“The program was developed because of the need for a single front-of-pack nutrition labelling program that U.S. food manufacturers and retailers could voluntarily adopt to promote informed food choices and help consumers construct better diets.” (Smart Choices Program 2015).

This vision is extremely similar with the goals of “Stichting Ik Kies Bewust” and a remark must be made on this issue. The fact that the citation above is written in past tense is due to the fact that the program was pulled at the end of 2009 (State of Conneticut 2009, Smart Choices Program 2015), only months after was launched. As soon as the Smart Choices-icon made its way into the supermarkets and grocery stores, criticism arose throughout the entire health community.

How can it be that in the United States this kind of nutrition label is pulled because of concerns about the claims that it may not be helping consumers to

distinguish healthy products from less healthy products (they might even be false or misleading) (U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2011)? Whilst a similar FOP-icon thrives in the Netherlands (and other countries) and is supported by the government? Even though the goals of the program and the requirements for obtaining the icon are comparable (Smart Choices Program 2015, Stichting Ik Kies Bewust 2015, , Choices Programme2015). As mentioned before, the governments are also stepping up, in December 2014, E.U. regulations on information obligated in nutrition fact panels have

(9)

been elaborated and even more demands for nutrition fact panels are planned for 2016 (European Commission 2013). All are actions in order to make sure that consumers receive correct information regarding nutrition. Because an important question

remains, are consumers capable of interpreting this information overload of FOP-icons and symbols? Does a consumer understand what a ‘healthier choice’ product does for you? And what it doesn’t? Especially in the matter of the quite extensive nutrition facts panel, do consumers understand and use the labelling? And does it at all lead to

healthier food choices? On the other hand, the more simple FOP-icons, do they provide enough information to form a grounded decision? The article by Van Trijp and Van Der Lans (2006) points out that the mere posting of claims, values and symbols is not enough: “Consumer choices for functional foods depend on how consumers perceive and

understand the health and nutritional claims.”

1.1. Research gap

The general goal of FOP-icons is to help consumers to make better-underpinned choices in constructing a balanced diet, because of the simplicity of the icons and the suggested ease of use. But as earlier referred to, Scammon et al. press the importance of the perception process of the consumer on which this effect depends. In the light of the increasing obesity figures, the related costs of healthcare that tag along, and the

ambiguity surrounding the nutrition information, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has named this an important area for research. The aim is to gain better understanding in how consumers exactly interpret different types of nutrition information (Federal Register 2010), to be able to better meet the need for information of the consumers. If we want to inform consumers better on healthy nutrition, it should be investigated how consumers deal with nutrition information. Andrews, Burton & Kees draw in their article from principles of the elaboration likelihood model and Halo-effects to examine the way consumers evaluate Front-of-Package nutrition information. In their study they include the availability of a Nutrition facts panel but also focus on the mediating factor of nutrition consciousness. Nutrition conscious consumers generally display a substantial concern and interest in, great knowledge on, and a certain level of ability in their interaction with and use of information related in the environment related to nutrition (Newman 1999). In their study, Andrews et al. found that consumers with a higher level of nutrition consciousness are more likely to use the information on the nutrition facts

(10)

panel, than those who experience no, or a low level of nutrition consciousness. On top of that they find that the simple FOP-icons (like the Smart Choice-icon and the “Bewuste Keuze”-icon) can lead to positive (and potentially false positive) evaluations of nutrition value and product healthfulness, in comparison with the more elaborate Traffic Light-Coded, Reference Intake symbol (comparable with the Dutch “Referentie-Inname”-icon) or no icon at all. Their study is among the first to test the different effects of FOP-icons of varying complexity (Smart Choice versus Traffic Light) and an area for further research that they point out are the challenges in processing nutrition information that consumer’s experience.

Taking notice of the suggestions for further research, combined with the

similarity between the U.S. Smart Choices-icon and the ‘Dutch’ “Bewuste Keuze”-icon, I would like to take the consumer evaluation of nutrition information on packaging as main research subject. I will focus on three types of FOP-icons, the concise, blue circled

“Bewuste Keuze”-icon (comparable with the discarded Smart Choices-icon from the U.S.,

used in the study by Andrews et al.’s), the ‘disc of five’ indicator with the green circle: the “Gezonde Keuze”-icon and last but not least, the traffic light-colour coded display of nutrition information. The nutrition facts panel will be included in the study, however not as a variable since it is obligatory in the Netherlands. It will be present in all the different manipulations of this study. Since the ability, interest and knowledge factors of nutrition consciousness play a big part in the consumers’ interaction with nutritional information (Newman 1999), I will incorporate nutrition consciousness as a potential moderator in my study.

The main research question of this thesis therefore states:

“How do consumers evaluate nutrition information labels?”

With the following sub question:

“Is the consumer evaluation of nutrition information moderated by the consumer’s level of nutrition consciousness?”

(11)

1.2. Purpose of this thesis

Recent developments in the de food and health industries show a shift of the focus of the corporation towards the direction of healthy products (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). It is a valuable asset for companies and marketers to know what considerations

consumers substantially make in a ‘healthy’ choice. How does a consumer interpret symbols/icons that (aim to) signal healthfulness? The benefits of this knowledge work in two ways; on one hand it enables companies and their marketers to respond to this consumer’s way of evaluating nutrition information. With the knowledge of how

consumers use available nutrition information to construct their evaluations, a company can make sure that they tick all the boxes and are favoured by consumers. On the other hand it can provide the government with information, useful to incorporate in the regulations and restrictions regarding (potentially misleading) display of nutrition information and values, to increase the knowledge of consumers and enable them in the process of making healthy decisions. Not only will this research be a practical tool to understand how consumers form their evaluation of a product based on its nutrition information, it will also theorize how consumers get to their evaluation. Do they construct their own evaluation of a products health, by interpreting the nutrition information? Or is this process moderated by a consumer’s nutrition consciousness? As stated earlier, this will be of value in the battle against obesity, knowing how consumers forming their evaluation of a product; preventing misconceptions that hinder

consumers’ efforts to make healthy choices. The specific case of the “Bewuste Keuze” FOP-icon of the “Ik Kies Bewust”-Foundation has my attention, being the only FOP-icon on healthy food allowed in the Netherlands, whilst a nearly identical FOP-icon was abolished in the U.S. The results of my thesis will give more insights in consumers’ evaluation of this FOP-icon and perhaps could be a call to action if results are found to be alarming.

1.3. Structure of thesis

In this study I will start with an extensive review of the existing literature to outline an in-depth overview of the theoretical concepts that I use in this study. The actual study will be conducted in the form of an online questionnaire. On the basis of this survey I hope to answer the question how consumers evaluate nutrition information in the form of different FOP-icons, and whether this is moderated by the level nutrition

(12)

consciousness of the consumers. I am especially interested whether the simplicity of the “Bewuste Keuze”-icon has a more (and potentially false) positive effect on consumer evaluation. This would have immense managerial implications, since it is the most common FOP-icon used in the Netherlands.

(13)

2. Literature review

The purpose of this thesis is to study consumer’s evaluation of nutrition information. I will look at the way consumers use nutrition information that is presented on food packaging available in the retail environment. Additional focus of this study will lie on the potential moderator of this process, nutrition consciousness. I am interested to find out whether differing complexity of Front-of-Package (FOP) information leads to different consumer evaluations.

Prior to the empirical part of the study, an extensive review of existing literature on this topic will be made. First I will discuss the practice and theory of the forms of

nutrition information, relevant for this research. What are their purposes, their benefits and the outspoken critiques? I will involve the recent trends and developments in legislation on this topic. Subsequently the construct of the consumer evaluation will be elaborated on. What is it composed of and how is it constructed? In the discussion of this process, the behavioural theories of the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), the Halo-effect and the process of priming will be addressed. Attention will also be paid to the potentially moderating effect of nutrition consciousness. Afterwards a separate look will be taken at the different consumer segments that may be identified on the basis of those moderators. Concluding the literature review, I will construct the conceptual model for this thesis.

2.1. Nutrition information in practice & theory

Consumers today face a dazzling amount of nutrition information in the form of symbols, icons and fact panels (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). The term ‘Information Overload’ might even be applicable (Raymond 2014). Given the societal relevance and actuality of this topic, it is no surprise that a lot has been, and is being written on nutrition information. In this paragraph I will try to present a clear overview of the trends and developments in the field of nutrition information, the goals they attempt to achieve, discus legislation and I will expound on the specific types of nutrition

(14)

2.1.1. Trends and developments

Obesity is one of the major points of concern for the world population. Summits of the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 and in 2004 have recognized obesity as a significant determinant of a negative health outcome. Regulations have been established legally, politically and physically to help consumers to make more healthful food choices, aiming to reverse the ever-increasing obesity numbers (WHO World Health

Organisation 2000, WHO World Health Organisation 2004). As mentioned earlier, this has led to the introduction of a tremendous amount of nutrition symbols and icons (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). A question that could be asked is whether this has gone too far? Can consumers see the wood for the trees? (Barreiro-Hurlé, Gracia et al. 2010) In the introduction I have already mentioned the study “Dagelijks Eten”, by the Dutch Nutrition Centre. Comparing trends of 2007, 2009 and 2011, it shows an increasing desire for a healthier eating pattern. In 2011, 41% of the population has the intention of a healthier diet, compared to 35% in 2009. In 2011, 43% of the Dutch found it difficult to take on healthier eating habits, versus 37% in 2007. Over half of the consumers report that they would like more information on healthy eating (57% in 2011 versus 35% in 2007) (Voedingscentrum 2011). So whilst the amount of information available

increases, the consumer demand for information increases as well. But do consumers really want more information on nutrition? Or do they need more clarity and guidance in the current information? Multiple studies indicate different outcomes in consumers’ ability to correctly interpret the information offered. This confirms the need for research on the way that consumers evaluate nutrition information, to be able to enable

consumers in their encounters with nutrition information.

2.1.2. Function and legislation of nutrition information

Because the setting of this study takes place in the Netherlands, the focus in this chapter mainly accounts for the Dutch and European regulations. The original Dutch law on the character and denotation on consumer goods stems from 1935 (Ministerie

Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport 1935) but is most recently updated in November 8, 2011 on the changes in the regulations of the European Union. The European Council implemented a change of enactment regarding the function and purpose that nutrition information must serve:

(15)

“To achieve a high level of protection of the health of consumers and to guarantee their right on information, it must be ensured that consumers receive the needed information on the food products they consume. Consumer choices can be

influenced by health-, economical-, environmental-, social- and

ethical-considerations. A general principle of food legislation is that consumers should be offered the tools to be able to make considered decisions on the food products they consume and that that practices be prevented which could mislead consumers”

(European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2011).

This legislation applies to all nutrition information in its broadest sense. The importance of these regulations on nutrition information is stressed by the observations that

consumer choices for functional foods depend on how consumers perceive and understand the health and nutritional claims”(Scammon, Keller et al. 2011). The nutrition information sources at the focal point of this study are the FOP-icons and the nutrition facts panels. Since both variants are quite different in form and function, they both have an own set of rules that applies. The general goal of FOP-icons should be to help consumers to make better choices in constructing a balanced diet, because of the simplicity of the icons and the suggested ease of use (Food Standards Agency 2008, Food Standards Agency 2009). This definition of the U.K. government is in fairly well line with the policy by the Dutch government, although the Netherlands has taken it a step

further. Since the 16th_{of April of 2013, the icons of the “Ik Kies Bewust”-Foundation are}

the only icons for healthy food that is permitted by the government. (Stichting Ik Kies Bewust 2015). The nutrition facts panels should be approached differently, since they are obligatory on pre-packaged nutrition products. It is of course variable whether consumers choose to look at it, or understand the information, but it is always available. So it cannot be seen as a variable factor in the manipulation of this research for the construction of consumer evaluation, since it is always present. They are subjected to very strict regulations and in December 2014, E.U. regulations on information obligated in nutrition facts panels have been increased and even more demands for nutrition fact panels are planned for 2016 (European Commission 2013). All with the main purpose to ensure that consumers receive correct information regarding nutrition to base their decisions on.

(16)

2.1.3. Types of nutrition information

Due to the recent changes in the Dutch regulations on nutrition information sources, only three types of nutrition labels are common in the Netherlands. The-FOP icons of the “Ik Kies Bewust”-Foundation, the nutrition facts panel (mostly located on the back or the side of the packaging) and a third source is the “Referentie-Inname” (displaying the guideline daily amounts). The U.S. equivalent of the “Ik Kies Bewust”-Foundation’s icons is the Smart Choice-icon. Andrews et al. studied the Smart Choices-icon in comparison with the Traffic Light Color-Coded guideline for daily amounts. Since I will incorporate an aspect of their conceptual model in my study, I will also elaborate on these sources of nutrition information in this paragraph.

Smart Choices-icon

The Smart Choices-icon (SC) is part of the Smart Choices Program (Figure 5. Page 7). This program was an initiative developed by the KeystoneGroup, a large industry, government and academic coalition, with the aim to combat confusion created by the many symbols and icons present in the U.S. market (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). Prior research indicated that most consumers like and prefer the simple “healthy choice tick” form of FOP-information (Feunekes, Gortemaker et al. 2008). And consumer tests that the KeystoneGroup had performed indicated that the simplicity of summarising all the information of the nutrition facts panels into one single icon to categorize a product was a very desirable tool for consumers (Lupton, Balentine et al. 2010). The Keystone Group has set a general benchmark of criteria (Figure 6.) that the products should meet to qualify the Smart Choice FOP-icon:

Figure 6. These are nutrients that Americans need to eat less of in their diet for better health(Smart Choices Program 2015)

(17)

“The coalition developed a comprehensive set of qualifying nutrition criteria

derived from the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, FDA standards, reports from the Institute of Medicine and other sources of authoritative nutrition guidance. The criteria were designed to be flexible and adaptable – allowing for revisions to new public policy, dietary guidelines and emerging authoritative science”(Smart

Choices Program 2015)

However at the same time many concerns were expressed. The Smart Choices-icon would be based on cherry-picking the good characteristics and disclosing the lesser components of products (Neuman 2009), with inevitably misleading evaluations for the consumers as a result (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). The critiques piled up, the

allegations were that it would lead to (false) positive and therefore potentially misleading nutrient evaluations and observed product healthfulness(Pinkston 2009, Neuman 2009, Nestle 2009, Taylor, M. & Mande, J. 2009). As a consequence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration set out an investigation. In the same year that it was introduced, the KeystoneGroup took the Smart Choices-icon off the market. The results of the FDA study are not known yet and the Smart Choices-icon remains inactive: “not currently conducting active operations pending the outcome of FDA’s front-of-package rulemaking process” (, Choices Programme2015).

“Ik Kies Bewust”-Foundation

The “Ik Kies Bewust”-Foundation was founded by a partnership between Unilever, Friesland Campina and Albert Heijn, the three largest Dutch food manufacturers.

Founded in 2006, its monopoly has been secured in 2013 when the government decided that the icons from the “Ik Kies Bewust”-Foundation are the only healthy food icons allowed in the Netherlands. The foundation carries two icons, the first is the checkmark with a green circle surrounding it, indicating a healthy staple food from ‘the disk of five' (Figure 1. Page 5). The ‘schijf van vijf’, freely translated into the disk of five is a guideline from the Dutch Nutrition Centre. Indicating the essential nutrients, it forms a decent choice to obtain your daily-required nutrients (, Choices Programme2015). The title of this green checkmark is the Healthier Choice-icon. The second checkmark is surrounded by a blue circle (Figure 2. Page 5). One could wonder what the difference is between a healthy choice and a conscious choice, and it appears that the “Ik Kies

Bewust”-Foundation had the same problem. They define the Conscious Choice-icon as

(18)

less calories, saturated fat, sugar or salt then the alternatives in their category that don’t carry the Conscious Choice-icon(, Choices Programme2015). This is the category of inter alia diet coke and sugar-free wine gums. A category that has no overlay with a person’s daily nutrient requirements whatsoever, but still is one of the only two logos for healthy food allowed in the Netherlands. General criteria for products to qualify for the icons have been set on the basis of recommendations by the World Health Organisation and in 2013 it has been complemented by research of (Figure 7.). These criteria are the same for both the Conscious Choice-icon and the Healthy Choice-icon because, as stated earlier the difference between these is whether the product can be rallied under the ‘schijf van vijf’ guideline of the Dutch Nutrition Centre.

On the website the following statement is made on the generic criteria: “The generic criteria are somewhat less stringent than the

WHO-recommendations because diets consist of many food products, not all of which contain saturated fat, trans fat, sodium or added sugar. Ultimately, the total daily intake of food products should be in line with the recommendations of (inter) national dietary authorities” (, Choices Programme2015).

A question that immediately comes to mind, is whether consumers understand the difference between the blue and the green circle around the checkmark? The Dutch Consumers Association questioned over a thousand consumers and results were that less than one in five people do know the difference (Polderman 2012). Another criticism often heard is on the often not-healthful nature of the products that fall within the

(19)

category of the Conscious Choice-icon and how this can potentially lead to confusion for consumers (Vyth, Steenhuis et al. 2009, Groen Kennisnet 2013, Havermans 2013). Combining these questions with the resemblance of the Conscious Choice-icon to the (abolished) Smart Choices-icon from the U.S., I find it very interesting to investigate consumer evaluations of the icons of the “Ik Kies Bewust”-Foundation.

“Referentie Inname”

The Dutch government does permit the display of a label with the guideline daily amounts, next to the “Ik Kies Bewust”-icons. This “Referentie-Inname” (Reference-Intake) label (Figure 3. Page 6) shows the nutritional value of a product in the context of the entire, recommended, nutrition pattern. The “Referentie-Inname” depiction shows objective, factual information, applicable to all products. It’s icons show consumers in one blink of an eye what quantities of energy, sugar, fats and salt are present in a portion of the product and how this fits in the nutritional needs of an average adult (Federatie Nederlandse Levensmiddelen Industrie 2015). The percentage in the icon, is calculated on the basis of target values for a balanced diet. These values are defined in Dutch legislation on nutrition information as “Reference Intakes”(, Rijksoverheid Gezonde Voeding2014) (Figure 8.). Manufacturers are free to choose whether or not to display the Reference Intake on their packaging.

After the Smart Choices-icon was abolished, a similar label was introduced in the U.S. as well to provide consumers with nutrition information (Figure 9.). The Facts-up-Front-icon is more elaborate and supported; it presents consumers with the amount of calories, fats, sodium and sugar in each serving (, Facts up Front2015).

Figure 8. Advised Daily Reference Intake for adults (, Rijksoverheid Gezonde Voeding2014).

• Energy: 8400 kj/2000 cal • Total fats: 70 grams

• Saturated fats: 20 grams • Carbohydrates: 260 grams • Sugar: 90 grams

• Protein: 50 grams • Salt: 6 grams

(20)

Traffic Light Color-Coded guideline for daily amounts

In the U.K. a traffic light system is used to indicate nutrition healthfulness (Figure 4. Page 6). The guideline daily amounts of a product are combined with the

green/amber/red colour indicating a traffic light depiction of low/medium/high values judging the healthfulness of the item (European Food Information Council 2015).

Figure 9. Facts-up-Front logo (, Facts up Front2015).

Figure 10. Criteria for 100g of food (whether or not it is sold by volume) (UK Government, Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency 2013).

Figure 11. Criteria for drinks, per 100ml

(21)

According to the U.K. Food Standards Agency and the Health Department, the color-coding and the high/medium/low indication should not be applied to information on energy values of nutrition. This should be presented against a neutral background, which provides good contrast (UK Government, Department of Health, the Food

Standards Agency 2013). The study by Andrews et al. compares consumer evaluations of the Smart Choices-icon to the evaluations of the Traffic Light Colour-Coded system (TL-system): “In contrast with the single summary indicator of relative healthfulness,

another viable option for providing FOP nutrition information is with a nutrient-specific symbol, such as the Traffic-Light Guidelines Daily Amounts. The FOP TL-icon offers a nutritional snapshot of information from the nutrition facts panel that covers the attributes generally of greatest interest to consumers” (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). They state that although the TL-system offers specific absolute and percentage amounts of the nutritional value of the product, it does not boil the various attributes down to one indication of relative health. It shows consumers the colours and figures per attribute, but leaves it to the consumer to decide on the overall healthfulness. The use of traffic light colours in labelling capitalizes on an environmental prime that strengthens the consumer’s tendency to avoid unhealthy food (Koenigstorfer, Groeppel-Klein et al. 2014).

Nutrition facts panel

This paragraph concludes with the nutrition facts panel. The information that

manufacturers should provide on the nutrition facts panel is comprehensively defined in the Dutch and European law, as stated earlier in this chapter. Aiming to protect the health of the consumers and to make sure they have access to nutrition information on the products they consume (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2011). In December 2014, E.U. regulations on information obligated in nutrition fact panels became stricter and more demands for nutrition fact panels are planned for 2016 (European Commission 2013). All in order to make sure that consumers receive correct information regarding nutrition. The elaborate extent of this information

however makes it a quite complicated source of information. Higher levels of motivation and knowledge are required for consumers to be able to interpret and use the

assortment of information on the nutrition facts panel correctly. It is a contrast with the FOP-icons that are designed with the aim to enhance simplicity and ease of use

(22)

(Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). The difference between the nutrition facts panel and the FOP-icons is that the nutrition facts panel is merely a factual display of information, where the FOP-icons contain a judgement for the nutritional value of the product. That is also the reason there are no substantive criteria for the nutrition facts panel, it is not something whereof the criteria can be met. The criteria set out by the European Parliament concern the manner and minimum amount of the display of the data (Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit 2011).

(23)

2.2. Consumer evaluation of a product

Due to the rapid developments in the area of nutrition information, as discussed in the previous paragraph, the U.S. FDA has highlighted consumer evaluation of nutrition information as an important research area. Their aim is to improve our understanding of how consumers exactly interpret different types of nutrition information, in different situations (Federal Register 2010). A general understanding in literature is that all consumers differ in the way that they process nutrition information. The list of factors that can be of influence on this process is extensive. From motivational factors, to consumer’s ability (Barreiro-Hurlé, Gracia et al. 2010, Cowburn, Cowburn et al. 2005) and of course product intrinsic characteristics and environmental preconditions like taste and price. In this paragraph I will evaluate these existing theories to identify a construct of consumer evaluation that will serve the purpose of my thesis. I will start by looking into the process of how consumers establish their evaluation of a product and then discuss the relevant theories on this topic.

2.2.1. Process of evaluation by consumers

All consumers differ in their ways of interpreting nutrition information (Aboulnasr, Sivaraman 2010). Previous studies on consumer’s evaluation of nutrition information mention several possible theories on how this process takes place. Since I will construct the conceptual model of this thesis continuing on the study by Andrews, Scott & Kees (2011), their evaluation of theories on the process of consumer evaluation will function as a principle and be the starting point for this study. The main theory they work form is the elaboration likelihood model with its central versus peripheral routes of processing information (Petty, Cacioppo 1986, Eagly, Chaiken 1993). In their study, Andrews et al. link the consequences of this model to the Halo-effect (Nisbett, Wilson 1977). A third theoretical approach I would like to add is the concept of priming (Tulving, Schacter 1990), to look at the power of associations that are evoked by the nutrition information labelling (Koenigstorfer, Groeppel-Klein et al. 2014).

(24)

2.2.1.1. Elaboration likelihood model

The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion (ELM) developed by Petty & Cacioppo (1977), describes a two way process of how attitudes are formed. It states that there are two routes that people can follow in their response to stimuli, two ways of being

persuaded. The routes they identify are the central route and the peripheral route. To follow the central route, a person has to be capable to understand the purpose and content of the stimulus as the maker/sender intended it. When a person is able to fulfil this elaborate and often challenging route, the persuasion results in enduring and

predictive behaviour (the behaviour intended by the sender). With the peripheral route, persuasion is a result of a person’s associations. The positive or negative cues that one associates with the stimulus will affect the formed attitude. The cues one uses on the peripheral route are mostly unrelated to the intention of the stimulus; even trivial factors can be called in. The selection of the route followed and which persuasion it results in, is determined by the person’s motivation and ability to understand the presented argument (Petty, Cacioppo 1986). “When faced with a complex decision environment, peripheral cues, or heuristics can reduce the effort needed in processing the nutrition information and allow the consumer to make judgements and evaluations based on the simplified cue or heuristic”(Eagly, Chaiken 1993). Mai & Hoffmann have applied the ELM on the situation of consumers’ attitude formation: “The ELM suggests that the individual’s motivation (here: health consciousness) and ability (here: nutrition self-efficacy) influences the extent of elaboration in information processing. Under low motivation and ability conditions, consumers apply simple decision rules, such as relying on one or a few proxy attributes that they consider particularly important (peripheral route). Under high motivation and ability conditions, by contrast, they engage in a more detailed processing of an object (central route)”. The peripheral route can be seen as ‘shortcut-solution’, therefore I theorise that a consumer’s evaluation of front-of-package icons can lead to consumers taking the peripheral route, if they do not possess the ability to follow the central route. This confirms the possibility of a short-cut effect of the FOP-icons, especially the concise ones like the “Bewuste Keuze”- and the “Gezonde Keuze”-checkmarks. When consumers are neither motivated nor able to interpret the (more) complex information of the nutrition facts panel, whilst consumers request more information on healthful eating, it is important to realise how consumers evaluate the FOP nutrition information relative to the nutrition facts panel. Do they take

(25)

the central route (nutrition facts panel) or the peripheral route (FOP-icons) and to provide consumers with more information, how do you incorporate this into a strategy?

2.2.1.2. Halo-effect

The Halo-effect is an old theory stemming from psychology, referring to people’s fundamental inability to resist the affective influence of a general evaluation on the evaluation of specific attributes (Thorndike 1920). The leading study on the Halo-effect is by Nisbett & Willson (1977), in their research they have proven Thorndike’s

definition. They define their conception in a following manner:

“Global evaluations might colour presumptions about specific traits or influence interpretation of the meaning or affective value of ambiguous trait information. Thus, if we like a person, we often assume that those attributes of the person about which we know little are also favourable”.

In the light of consumer’s interpretation of nutrition information, it is however often seen as a risk, subsequent to the peripheral route for interpreting nutrition icons and/or symbols. In general, consumers see health claims as useful; they prefer short, concise formulations, rather than long, complex claims. The perception of health that consumers construct due to these claims creates a ‘Halo’-effect (consumers view the food products as healthier if it carries a health claim). This could discourage consumers from seeking further nutrition information on the products (Williams 2005). Roe, Levy & Derby (1999) also stress the likelihood of the Halo-effect for nutrition information, stating that the presence of FOP-icons can lead consumers to generalize that the product is more favourable in nutrition on which information is not identified in the FOP-icon.

2.2.1.3. Priming

“Priming is a type of implicit memory; it does not involve explicit or conscious recollection of any previous experiences. It has affinities to both procedural and semantic memory”. The colour scheme of a traffic light is a good example of priming. Through their entire lives, consumers in the Western world learn the meanings of colours. Repeated situations occur where red is an arousing colour, indicating danger or prohibition, especially versus green, which carries an opposite meaning. These colours now function as a prime. Koenigstorfer et al. (2014) focus their study on consumer’s evaluation of the Traffic Light Colour-Coded nutrition labelling (TL-system). Results of

(26)

their study show that TL-system labelling addresses us as an environmental prime that strengthens our tendency to avoid un-healthful food, especially for low-self-control consumers. Geyskens, Pandelaere, Dewitte, & Warlop (2007) have studied the effect of associating “low-fat” food with health references. They found that these consumer misconceptions, associating low-fat products with health cues, might contribute to the risk of obesity, rather than solving the problem. This study shows that the priming effect of nutrition information can actually increase the consumption of these low-fat

products. They even state that these health primes led the participants to the perception of being closer to their own ideal weight. In the light of the FOP-icons, this would be comparable to the Conscious Choice-icon, which does not indicate the health of the product itself, but only whether the products meet the criteria (Figure 6. Page 15). And that it would be a better/more healthy choice compared to its alternative options (, Choices Programme2015).

2.2.2. Construct of consumer evaluation

The purpose of FOP-icons is to help consumers to make better choices in their construction of a balanced diet, with the help of the simplicity of the icons and the suggested ease of use. The previous paragraph has however indicated that the process of consumer evaluation is quite complex and that stimuli are not always received and interpreted as intended. Miss-interpretation of nutrition information is a risk and consumers should be protected against it (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2011). It is therefore of significance that the manner in which

consumers interpret nutrition information stimuli is thoroughly researched. To track and map this interpretation I will use the measure of consumer evaluation, as

constructed by Andrews, Scot & Kees (2011) in their study on consumer evaluations of FOP-nutrition symbols. It uses three different sets of dependent measures, based on the FDA request for information (Federal Register 2010). They combine consumers’ overall

perception of healthfulness of a product, a general product evaluation and finally

incorporate a usage task. The latter is included to check whether consumers indeed understand the nutrition information they are confronted with.

(27)

The process of consumers’ evaluation of nutrition information will be the starting point in this study to answer my research question: “How do consumers evaluate nutrition

information labels?” The first hypothesis I therefore propose is the following: Figure 12. Conceptual model H1

H1a The Consumer Evaluation of a product differs for varying types of nutrition

information.

Types of nutrition information vary distinctively, it is therefore important to assess the different types of nutrition information on their potential effect on the consumer evaluation of a product. As discussed earlier, nutrition information on a food package always consists of the nutrition facts panel, possibly accompanied by a FOP-icon. According to the Elaboration Likelihood Model, solely the nutrition facts panel can be seen as complex information, requiring sufficient knowledge and ability of consumers to engage in the central route. So it is difficult to interpret. The peripheral route

however, enables consumers to take a shortcut, around the complex information. But this could potentially lead to (over) positive evaluations of the product.

H1b The Consumer Evaluation of a product is more positive when FOP-icons are present,

then when no FOP-icons are present (only the nutrition facts panel).

Within FOP-icons a distinction should also be made. As mentioned earlier, in the light of the Elaboration Likelihood Model, the “Conscious Choice”-icon and the “Healthy Choice”-icon might encourage the less meticulous peripheral route of interpretation. This is dangerous since we stated earlier that the “Conscious Choice”-icon does not indicate direct health, but should be viewed in a quite complex context. So it is not a suitable reference point for the peripheral route, however it is likely to induce high product evaluation with consumers. The more detailed Traffic-Light-Code enables an easier path along the central route than the complex nutrition facts panel. This is underpinned by the Priming-effect the colours red, amber and green have on us.

(28)

However despite the consumer enabling approach, it still requires more motivation and ability from consumers than the peripheral route that the “Conscious Choice”-icon and the “Healthy Choice”-icon requires. The next hypotheses therefore state:

H1c The Consumer Evaluation of a product is more positive when a “Conscious Choice”-icon is present, then when a Traffic-Light-Code is present.

H1d The Consumer Evaluation of a product is more positive when a “Healthy Choice”-icon is present, then when a Traffic-Light-Code is present.

Finally, the “Healthy Choice”-icon is depicted only on products within the “disk of five” of healthy products. The way this is categorized in reference to the “Conscious Choice”-icon should result in a more positive consumer evaluation. However, this is where it gets interesting. If, as expected by among others the Dutch Consumers Association, consumers are not aware of the difference between the “Healthy Choice”-icon and the “Conscious Choice”-Choice”-icon the results will not turn out as predicted.

H1e The Consumer Evaluation of a product is more positive when a “Healthy Choice”-icon is present, then when a “Conscious Choice”-Choice”-icon is present.

2.3. Nutrition consciousness

M.A. Newman gave a definition of nutrition consciousness in his book Health as

Expanding Consciousness (1999). He states that generally, nutritionally conscious

consumers express substantial concern with, interest in, knowledge of and capability in their interplay and use of nutrition related information. As mentioned earlier, these higher levels of motivation and knowledge are needed for consumers to be able to interpret and use extensive information as it is for example presented on the nutrition facts panel (Burton, Biswas et al. 1994, Howlett, Burton et al. 2008, Keller, Landry et al. 1997, Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). It is therefore that consumers with higher levels of nutrition consciousness are more likely to be able to include the nutrition facts panel in their evaluation of a product, than the consumers who do not experience nutrition consciousness. This greater level of concern, knowledge, desire and ability of coping

(29)

with nutrition information that nutrition conscious consumers possess can also be linked to the elaboration likelihood model. It indicates that these consumers are able to follow the central route of persuasion and correctly interpret nutrition information they are confronted with (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). The construct of nutrition

consciousness that Andrews et al. follow focuses on three areas, the interest in,

knowledge of and motivation to interact with the nutrition information that consumers encounter. Nutritionally conscious consumers react positively to favourable nutrient values, but less nutritionally conscious consumers are substantially less affected (Keller, Landry et al. 1997). This suggests a positively moderating effect of nutrition

consciousness on the consumers’ evaluation of a product. Andrews et al. discuss the contrast between the interpretation of elaborate nutrition information (such as the nutrition facts panel) and FOP-icons. The latter are designed for simple and easy use and understanding of the information provided in the nutrition facts panel. This means that the relative need for higher levels of nutrition consciousness to be able to interpret it will be reduced. Indicating that interaction between a FOP-icon and nutrition

consciousness is less likely than for the detailed nutrition facts panel(Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). This is explained by the Halo-effect; the perception of the healthfulness of products that consumers construct due to the peripheral interpretations of the FOP-icons creates a false positive ‘Halo’-effect. FOP-FOP-icons present could lead consumers to generalize that the product is more favourable in nutrition on which information is not identified in the FOP-icon (especially the case in the “Conscious Choice”-icon).

Continuing along this line of thought the second set of hypotheses is drafted, studying whether the level of nutrition consciousness experienced by a consumer, moderates the consumer’s evaluation of a product. I propose that the presence of FOP-icons, leads low nutrition consciousness consumers to form a higher evaluation of the product, than when no FOP-icons are present. The FOP-icons facilitate the possibility to follow a peripheral route of interpretation and on top of that the ‘Halo’-effect leads to generalizations of the positive nutritional characteristics that the FOP-icons indicate.

Figure 13. Conceptual model H2

Nutrition Information Consumer Evaluation

(30)

H2a The level of Nutrition Consciousness moderates the relationship between Consumer Evaluation and Nutrition Information

H2b The level of Nutrition Consciousness positively moderates the Consumer Evaluation to be more positive when FOP-icons are present, then if no FOP-icons are present.

Up to this point however, this study and its hypotheses assume the existence of a relationship between the (different types of) nutrition information and the consumer evaluation that is constructed. This is the prognosis following on the existing studies and literature, but of course not a guarantee that this will be true. Therefore I would like to examine a second option, viewing nutrition consciousness as the independent variable in the relationship to see whether it only focusses as a moderator, or whether it has its own effect.

H3 The Consumer Evaluation of a product is positively related to the level of nutrition consciousness.

Looking at the construction of consumer evaluation, depending on nutrition consciousness, the question comes in mind whether you can mirror the approach of the previous hypotheses completely. Can the type of nutrition information on its turn be an influencer of the relationship between nutrition consciousness and consumer

evaluation?

H4 The type of Nutrition Information moderates the relationship between Nutrition Consciousness and Consumer Evaluation.

Nutrition Consciousness Consumer Evaluation

Nutrition Information

(31)

3. Methodology

In the course of this chapter I will set out the design of this study, how the hypotheses are tested, aiming to find an answer on the research question: “How do consumers

evaluate nutrition information labels?”

3.1. Research design

The goal of this thesis is to investigate how consumers evaluate the nutrition

information they are presented with and whether the evaluations vary for different types of nutrition information. From the literature the variable of nutrition

consciousness comes forward as a potentially moderating factor in this evaluation process of nutrition information. This assumption will also be tested as a possibility. The setup of this thesis can therefore be seen as an explanatory study(Lewis, Thornhill et al. 2007) and it will be executed in the form of a self-administered, online survey. The survey itself will be conducted in Dutch, because this language is the mother tongue of the respondents aimed for. In this survey the respondents will first be asked fourteen questions in total, starting with questions to gauge the nutrition consciousness of the respondents, prior to the rest of the survey to ensure that respondents will give unbiased answers. After that the respondents are confronted with the image of a packaging of a frozen chicken dinner (Aviko Maaltijdpannetje Malse Kip, depicted in Appendix D) to measure the other variables. The choice for this product is made on the basis of a comparable study by (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011):

“Because the frozen chicken dinner category on the mock package represents a complete meal, it has been used in previous studies examining health and nutrient claims and nutrition information in the Facts Panel (e.g. (Burton, Biswas et al. 1994, Ford, Hastak et al. 1996, Roe, Levy et al. 1999, Kemp, Burton et al. 2007, Mitra, Hastak et al. 1999)”

The survey will conclude with general questions on age, gender, education level, and residential area. These function as dummy variables but they also etch a background of the respondents, additionally to the researched measures. The survey will measure the responses according to four different manipulations; the respondent will view a picture of one of these three conditions: the “Conscious Choice”-icon, the “Healthy Choice”-icon,

(32)

the Traffic Light Colour Coded display of nutrition information or none of the FOP-icons. The survey software Qualtrics will randomly select which condition is presented to the respondent. For each condition, a sample of at least 30 respondents is required (Myers, Sandler et al. 2011), since this study consists of four conditions, the sample size should be 120, with an included marge for error of 10%. This leads to a target sample size of N = 132 respondents. I see this sample size selection as reliable, because using another method by Green (1991) the outcome is very similar. Green states that to test an overall model, one should take 50+8k respondents, with k being the number of predictors (Green 1991), to obtain valid results. In this research the number of predictors is 8; 4 different conditions of nutrition information that respondents will be confronted with and a split of two types of consumers is made in the hypotheses: high and low nutrition consciousness. This leads to a total of 50 + (8 x 8) = 114 respondents needed for a valid sample, add 10% the outcome is 125 respondents. Taking the mean of both selection methods I aim for N = 130 at least.

The sample will be selected at the age of 12 and higher, for I presume that all people of the age of 12 years and older interact with food products on a regular basis. The rest of the sample population will be kept from restraints, as I am curious to find out from the results whether there are differences for factors like age, gender, education, place of residence, etc. As mentioned before, since the country the survey is conducted in is the Netherlands, I will translate the survey into Dutch. This manner the respondents will have as little restrictions as possible filling out the survey. They way to reach the

respondents will be online, by emailing the survey, posting it in social media and posting it on relevant platforms and forums with nutritional topics.

3.2. Measures

In the next paragraph, an elaboration will be made on the way that the variables will be measured. As mentioned earlier, the first variable to be measured in the survey is

nutrition consciousness, after that the product package will be shown accompanying the questions, whereupon the consumer evaluation will be measured. Closing the survey I will ask the respondents which forms of nutrition information they have noticed. This will function as a basal check on the manipulations presented to the respondents (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011).

(33)

3.2.1. Independent variable: Nutrition information

Three possible manners of displaying the nutrition information are included in this study (all include the presence of the obliged nutrition facts panel). The four conditions will be manipulated and are assigned randomly to the respondents.

Table 1. Conditions of nutrition information.

I II III IV

FOP-icon None “Conscious

Choice”-icon

“Healthy Choice”-icon

Traffic Light Colour Coded. 3.2.2. Dependent variable: Consumer evaluation

To measure the consumer evaluation of a product I will use the construct created by Andrews et al. (2011). This is built upon the FDA request for information on consumer behaviour and based on different prior studies. The measure consists of three levels: perceptions of overall healthfulness and specific nutrient levels, product evaluations and the accuracy of using nutrition information (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). The first level measures the respondents’ perception of overall healthfulness and specific nutrient levels. The selection of items is based upon the measure by Andrews et al., 2011, but adapted to the Dutch rendering of nutrition items in the nutrition facts panel. It boils down to six items including: calories, fats, saturated fat, sugar, carbohydrates and sodium. All except for the carbohydrates are also present on the Traffic Light Colour Coded FOP-icon. The perception of the healthfulness will be measured per item, scoring them on a seven-point, single item scale, ranging from “low” up to “high”. Also the concept of overall healthfulness is measured on a seven-point scale from “healthy for you” to “unhealthy for you”. Afterwards some items will be recoded to make sure that the results all indicate the same direction in their measure of healthfulness.

The second part is the product evaluation by the respondents, which is measured through attitude towards the product, purchase intentions and the respondents

perception of long-term disease risk and weight gain, based on regular consumption of the depicted frozen chicken diner packaging, for clarity in this paragraph referred to as

Product X. Andrews et al (2011) have based this measure on prior research (Kozup,

Creyer et al. 2003, Andrews, Netemeyer et al. 1998, Burton, Creyer et al. 2006). The following items measure the perception of long-term disease risk and weight gain, based

(34)

on regular consumption: “Regularly eating Product X may contribute to the risk of coronary heart disease” and “Regularly eating Product X may contribute to the risk of gaining weight”. These are scored in single-item, seven-point Likert-type scales, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” for both questions. The attitude towards the product is measured by letting the respondents scale Product X with three items: “Based on the information shown on the front and back portion of the mock package design, what is your overall attitude toward the product? (favourable/unfavourable; good/bad; positive/negative) all to be recoded afterwards” (Keller, Landry et al. 1997)Purchase intention will be measured with the respondents answers to the question: “If available, how likely is it that you would buy the Product X product on one of your shopping trips this month?” Measured by the endpoints “likely/unlikely” and “probable/not probable”. To use these multi-item measures I will collect the results and use both the individual results as the means for analysis.

The third dependent measure to form the respondents consumer evaluation makes use of a nutrient information usage task, to be able to paint a picture of how accurate the respondents use the available nutrition information on the package and whether this differs for the different FOP-icons depicted in combination with the

nutrition facts panel (Andrews, Burton et al. 2011). Respondents are asked: “If you were to consume six servings of Product X in a day (and nothing else), would you consume more or less then the recommended amount for each of the nine different nutrients?” The six items asked for are fat, saturated fat, calories, carbohydrates, sodium and sugar, similar to the first part of the consumer evaluation measurement. All items asked for are available on the nutrition facts panel. The results of the accuracy-variable will be

measured in percentages. These percentages will be calculated by counting the number of correctly reported answers. When everything is filled in correctly, the respondent receives a 100% ranking, for each incorrect answer, points are subtracted. 83.33% for one wrong answer, 66.67% for two wrong, 50% for three wrong, 33.33% when four out of six are filled in incorrectly, 16.67% is rewarded for only one correct answer and finally a score of 0% when the entire task is completed wrongly.

3.2.3. Moderator: Nutrition consciousness

Last but not least, the proposed moderating variable in the study: nutrition consciousness. This will be asked in the survey before the frozen chicken diner

(35)

packaging is shown, to prevent biased outcomes when people realise the study concerns nutrition and health. The measure of nutrition consciousness developed by Andrews et al. (2011) focuses on the nutritional aspects of health and its function in product

evaluations and product choices by consumers. This is also a measure constructed from three items with seven-point scales that they have based on prior studies on nutrition interest, knowledge and motivation (Keller, Landry et al. 1997, Andrews, Netemeyer et al. 2009, Burton, Garretson et al. 1999, Moorman 1996).

The following questions are asked:

• "I usually am interested in looking for nutritional information on food packages" (strongly disagree/strongly agree).

• "Compared to other people, how much do you feel you know about nutrition" (almost nothing/a lot).

• "I would like to see additional nutritional information on food packages" (strongly disagree/strongly agree).

The collected data will first be looked at separately, but also merged into a combined, nominal measure to analyse.

3.2.4. Manipulation check

The final question asks respondents which nutrition information they recall from the pictures, to check on the manipulations and see whether respondents recall the FOP-item they have been confronted with. Here the options are written text, in the survey the respondents will be shown pictures of the logo’s to select since it is neither expected nor necessary for the results of this study that the respondents know the names of the FOP-icons.

“Which indicators of nutritional value were present on the packaging you were presented with”?

a. Conscious Choice logo b. Healthier Choice logo

c. Traffic Light Colour Coded label d. Nutrition facts panel

(36)

3.2.5. Statistical approach

The analysis of the collected data starts with the process of cleaning it. Incomplete entries will be deleted list wise, converse measures will be recoded and processed, ensuring all data is interpreted similarly. In the end, all scores at the high end of a scale will indicate positive health indications and effects, low scores the opposite. For all variables the reliability and validity will be reviewed, leading as a base for the computing of the combined variables. The goal of the study is to answer the main research question: “How do consumers evaluate nutrition information labels?” With the sub question: “Is the consumer evaluation of nutrition information moderated by the

consumer’s level of nutrition consciousness?” In order to do so I will compare the means

of the different (independent) manipulations by running independent sample T-tests and ANOVA’s. This will measure the different effects for the different types of nutrition information. The potentially moderating effects of nutrition consciousness, respectively the type of nutrition information will be tested by running ANCOVA’s that incorporate the covariates. This will be done for each of the three dependent variables on their own, to isolate results as clear as possible. I have looked into the possibility of running

MANCOVA analysis, viewing all three dependent variables at the same time, this however did not result in significant results, therefore I stuck to the plan of running ANCOVA’s.

(37)

4. Results

In the following chapter, the results of the empirical study will be discussed. Starting with a description of the sample characteristics, followed by the measurements of the variables and concluding with the analysis of the stated hypotheses.

4.1. Sample

The aim of the study was to collect a minimum of 130 respondents (paragraph 3.1: Research Design). This target was well achieved, a total of 164 respondents have filled out the survey. The cleaning process of the data however, led to the removal of 32 respondents due to missing data and incomplete entries. This resulted in a sample size of N = 132 (a completion rate of 80.5%). The respondents were randomly confronted with one out of four possible manipulations.

4.1.1. Independent variable: Nutrition information

Table 2. Spread of respondents over manipulated nutrition information conditions.

Manipulation n Healthy Choice-icon 29 Conscious Choice-icon 37 Traffic-Light-code 35 No icon 31 Total Sample 132

The spread has a mean of N=33, with a standard deviation of 3.7 which I find acceptable to work with. Descriptive statistics tell that 56.8% of the respondents are female, with a complementing 42.4% male (1 respondent indicated to be gender neutral, accounting for 0.8%, this entry will be viewed as an outlier and removed from the sample). Birth year of the respondents range from 1923 up to 1999, I however assume 1923 to be an outlier. First of all because the second oldest respondents comes from 1939, second because I estimate the chance that someone of that age has filled in my survey to be very small, therefore I assume it to be an incorrect entry and it will not be included in the study. The average year of birth is 1989, which makes the average age of the sample 25

Construction of consumer evaluation : researching the interaction with varying types of nutrition information and different levels of nutrition consciousness

Master Business Administration

Marketing Track

Master Thesis

Construction of consumer evaluation

Abstract

Contents

1. Introduction to thesis

2. Literature review

2.2.

Consumer evaluation of a product

2.3.

Nutrition consciousness

3. Methodology

3.1.

Research design

4. Results

4.1.

Sample