The influence of the superfoods claim and nutrient content claim on consumers’ perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention of superfoods and non-superfoods

(1)

The influence of the superfoods claim and nutrient

content claim on consumers’ perceived healthiness,

perceived product credibility and purchase intention of

superfoods and non-superfoods

Name:

Yvette Damen

Student number:

10868720

Date:

June 29

th

, 2015

Study:

MSc. in Business Administration – Marketing Track

Institution:

University of Amsterdam

First supervisor:

Prof. drs. ing. A.C.J. Meulemans

Second supervisor:

Prof. dr. J.H.J.P. Tettero

(2)

Statement of originality

This document is written by Student Yvette Damen 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)

List of figures and tables

Figure 1: Model of Consumer Behavior ... 26

Figure 2: Conceptual Model ... 29

Table 1: Experimental design ... 36

Table 2: Ten statements to measure attitude towards superfoods ... 39

Table 3: Tests of normality for the demographic variables gender, age and education level ... 87

Table 4: Test of normality for each dependent variable by itself ... 88

Table 5: Tests of normality for perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention split by claim type ... 88

Table 6: Tests of normality for perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention split by product type ... 89

Table 7: Tests of normality for perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention split by product + claim ... 89

Table 8: Tests of multicollinearity and singularity for perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention ... 91

Table 9: Test of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices ... 91

Table 10: Tests of normality for perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention split by the dummy variable nutrient content claim ... 92

Table 11: Tests of normality for perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention split by the dummy variable superfoods claim ... 92

Table 12: Tests of normality for perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention split by the dummy variable nutrient content claim + superfoods claim ... 92

Table 13: Tests of normality for knowledge and attitude ... 93

Table 14: Tests of multicollinearity and singularity for the three dummy claim type variables ... 93

Table 15: Main and interaction effects of product type and claim type on perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention. ... 94

Table 16: Main effect of the combination of product + claim on perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention. ... 95

(6)

Table 17: One-way between groups ANOVA for the relationship between claim type and perceived product credibility ... 97 Table 18: Kruskal-Wallis test for the relationship between claim type and perceived product credibility ... 97 Table 19: Independent samples t-test of the relationship between product type and perceived

healthiness ... 98 Table 20: Post hoc Tukey test of the affect of product + claim on perceived healthiness ... 98 Table 21: Independent samples t-test of the relationship between product type and perceived product credibility ... 101 Table 22: Mann-Whitney test for the relationship between product type and perceived product

credibility ... 102 Table 23: One-way between groups ANOVA for product + claim and perceived product credibility 102 Table 24: Kruskal-Wallis test for the relationship between product + claim and perceived product credibility ... 102 Table 25: Post hoc Games-Howell test of the affect of product + claim on perceived product credibility ... 103 Table 26: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of knowledge on the relationship between the dummy variable nutrient content claim and perceived healthiness. ... 106 Table 27: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of knowledge on the relationship between the dummy variable superfoods claim and perceived healthiness. ... 106 Table 28: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of knowledge on the relationship between the dummy variable nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived healthiness. ... 108 Table 29: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of knowledge on the relationship between the dummy variable nutrient content claim and perceived product credibility. ... 108 Table 30: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of knowledge on the relationship between the dummy variable superfoods claim and perceived product credibility. ... 109 Table 31: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of knowledge on the relationship between the dummy variable nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived product credibility. ... 109 Table 32: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of attitude on the relationship between the dummy variable nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived healthiness. ... 110 Table 33: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of attitude on the relationship between the dummy variable superfoods claim and perceived healthiness. ... 111 Table 34: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of attitude on the relationship between the dummy variable nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived healthiness. ... 111 Table 35: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of attitude on the relationship between the dummy variable nutrient content claim and perceived product credibility. ... 112 Table 36: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of attitude on the relationship between the dummy variable superfoods claim and perceived product credibility. ... 112 Table 37: PROCESS analysis of the moderating effect of attitude on the relationship between the dummy variable nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived product credibility. ... 113 Table 38: One-way between groups ANOVA for the relationship between claim type and purchase intention ... 114 Table 39: Kruskal-Wallis test for the relationship between claim type and purchase intention ... 114 Table 40: Independent samples t-test for the relationship between product type and purchase intention ... 115 Table 41: Mann-Whitney test for the relationship between product type and purchase intention ... 115 Table 42: One-way between groups ANOVA for the relationship between product + claim and

(7)

Table 43: Kruskal-Wallis test for product + claim and purchase intention ... 116 Table 44: Correlation between perceived healthiness and purchase intention ... 116 Table 45: Correlation between perceived product credibility and purchase intention ... 117 Table 46: PROCESS analysis of the mediating effect of perceived healthiness between the relationship of the dummy variable nutrient content claim and purchase intention. ... 117 Table 47: PROCESS analysis of the mediating effect of perceived healthiness between the relationship of the dummy variable superfoods claim and purchase intention. ... 119 Table 48: PROCESS analysis of the mediating effect of perceived healthiness between the relationship of the dummy variable nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and purchase intention. ... 120 Table 49: PROCESS analysis of the mediating effect of perceived product credibility between the relationship of the dummy variable nutrient content claim and purchase intention. ... 122 Table 50: PROCESS analysis of the mediating effect of perceived product credibility between the relationship of the dummy variable superfoods claim and purchase intention. ... 123 Table 51: PROCESS analysis of the mediating effect of perceived product credibility between the relationship of the dummy variable nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and purchase intention. ... 125

(8)

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of claim types (no claim, nutrient content claim, superfoods claim and nutrient content claim + superfoods claim) on perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention of two product types (superfoods and non-superfoods). Knowledge about superfoods and attitude towards superfoods were included as possible moderators on the mentioned relationships. Moreover perceived healthiness and perceived credibility were seen as mediators between the relationship of the different claim types and purchase intention. The experiment was a 2x4 between subjects design which resulted in eight different treatment groups. Data was collected online through eight different questionnaires in which respondents answered questions on one product type (superfoods/non-superfoods) with one claim type (no claim/nutrient content claim/superfoods claim/nutrient content claim + superfoods claim). A total of 240 respondents filled out the questionnaire which resulted in exactly 35 respondents per treatment group. The results indicate no significant affect of any claim type on perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility or purchase intention. However, product type as general effect appeared to be of significant influence on perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility. Moreover the nutrient content claim lead to a significant higher perceived healthiness score on a superfoods compared to a non-superfoods. Only one moderating effect was found of knowledge about superfoods on the relationship between the superfoods claim and perceived healthiness. Furthermore results showed that perceived product credibility negatively mediated between the relationship of the superfoods claim and purchase intention. Finally the findings reveals that a high level of perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility leads to a high purchase intention.

Keywords: Superfoods; Nutrient; Claims; Perceived healthiness; Perceived product credibility;

(9)

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Today's consumers are more aware of their health and lifestyle and the important role of food. This means that consumers are paying much more attention to which foods they consume as it can have an effect on the way they feel and their overall well-being. Due to the increasing health awareness and health consciousness of consumers, the food industry has increasingly introduced products that respond to those needs. Such products are amongst others organic foods,

biological foods, raw foods, functional foods and superfoods which is of interest in this research. The packages of these foods mostly contain claims that are present in order to influence consumers’ perceptions and intentions. Several research has already been done on the influence of health and nutrient claims on perceived healthiness (Bech-Larsen & Grunert, 2003; Trijp van & Lans van der, 2007; Ares, Giménez, & Gámbaro, 2009; Saba et al., 2010), perceived (product) credibility (Kleef van, Trijp van, & Luning, 2005; Trijp van & Lans van der, 2007; Verbeke, Scholderer, & Lähteenmäki, 2009) and purchase intention (Kozup, Creyer, & Burton, 2003; Verbeke et al., 2009; Saba et al., 2010) for several products.

However, there has been no research done on a new type of product claim that appeared on the Dutch market a couple of years ago namely the superfoods claim. Well, there has been one research on superfoods by Temminghoff, van Oirschot, and Santegoets (2014) however they did not look at the effect of the claims specifically on perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention but only at the superfoods concept as a whole in relation to usage and familiarity among Dutch consumers. The so-called ‘superfoods’ contain a superfoods claim and regularly as well a nutrient content claim. Although there is no official scientific definition, superfoods are promoted in the market as foods that have a high amount of nutrients and bioactive substances such as vitamins, antioxidants and minerals that positively influence ones health in the form of stimulation of a person’s libido, prevention of heart diseases, prevention and reduction of depressions, prevention of aging and the loss of weight (Temminghoff et al., 2014). As there is no clear definition of superfoods, many different products/foods have been assigned to be a superfood. Some of the “special” superfoods are: goji berries, cacao beans, chia seed, hennep seed, bee pollen, wheatgrass, coconut oil, seaweed, algae extract, quinoa and açaí (Menezes, Deliza, Chan, & Guinard, 2011; Temminghoff et al., 2014; Voedingscentrum, n.d.). Over the years other foods that were never considered to be superfoods have also been classified as superfoods due to their substance such as: oily fish (omega-3), olive oil, dark chocolate, certain nuts, green tea and different types of fruit and vegetables (berries, red grapes,

pomegranate juice, garlic, onions, tomatoes, broccoli, beetroot) (NHS, 2013; Voedingscentrum, n.d.). In the last few years superfoods have popularized very quickly resulting in an increasing amount of superfoods in several types of stores (amongst others supermarkets, drug stores and health stores). As a result superfoods have also been discussed frequently in the news and on television, though mostly with a skeptic undertone or criticism. For example the Consumentenbond tested the nutrition claims about vitamins and minerals on eight of the most popular superfoods and discovered

(10)

that four of the eight products contain false claims on the amount or content of vitamins or minerals (Cammelbeeck, 2014). Moreover several (online) newspapers have posted articles about pesticide residues on the superfoods goji berries, chiaseeds and quinoa which resulted from a sample done by the Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (NVWA) (amongst others Nu.nl, 2015; Parool, 2015; Telegraaf, 2015). Much of the reports on superfoods are contradicting each other and the same food can be declared harmful one day and healthy the other day (NHS, 2011). The use of the claim ‘superfoods’ on product packaging has even been banned when the European Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation came into effect in the year 2007 (Bupa, 2015). This regulation states that unless the claim is backed up by convincing research it is not allowed to claim the product being a

‘superfood’ or to make any other related health claims (NHS, 2011; Bupa, 2015). Although this regulation is in place, the term superfoods is still used frequently as a marketing strategy by manufacturers in the form of claims on products (Cammelbeeck, 2014). Therefore some people consider the term superfoods just as a marketing tool used by the food industry to influence consumers’ perceptions and intentions and to attract them to their stores (Huddleston, 2014).

Claims on superfoods (superfoods claim and nutrient content claim) are presented in order to influence a healthy choice, consumers’ health perceptions and purchase intentions. However do these claims still provoke this intended impact even if there has been all this criticism and these skeptic views on the credibility and healthiness of the superfoods? In other words, do the claims made on superfoods have an impact on consumers’ perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention and what role plays the existing knowledge about superfoods and attitude towards superfoods in this evaluation or decision process. Moreover, what would be the effect of those claims on consumers’ perceptions and intentions when they are present on a non-superfoods?

1.2 Problem statement

In order to answer the questions that are stated in the first part of this introduction it is important to investigate the relationship between the claims made on superfoods (superfoods claim and nutrient content claim) and perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention of these products. Previous research has mainly focused on health and nutrition claims on functional foods, biological foods or on either healthy or unhealthy foods. Hence, the effect of the specific superfoods claims (superfoods claim and nutrient content claim) on superfoods and non-superfoods have not been studied as far as the researcher is aware.

The objective of the present study is to complement to existing research and investigate consumers’ reactions towards two product types, namely a typical superfoods (goji berries) and a non-superfoods (peanut butter), each with four presentations of claims (no claim, nutrient content claim, superfoods claim and a combination of the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim). Consumers’ reactions are measured for perceived healthiness of the product, perceived credibility of the product

(11)

and intention to buy the product, while accounting for moderating variables knowledge about superfoods and attitude towards superfoods. Moreover the mediating effect of perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility is measured. This objective was formulated into the following research question:

To what extent do the nutrient content claim, superfoods claim and the combination of the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim affect consumers’ perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention of superfoods and non-superfoods?

Besides the discussed variables there was more data collected on store type and price however we decided not to continue with this data but solely use it informatively. It is also not discussed in the literature review however it is mentioned in the questionnaire and the frequency outcome is mentioned in the last part of the results chapter.

1.3 Theoretical contribution

The aim of this research is to expand the existing literature on different claim types and its impact on consumer behavior. Several research has already been done on the influence of health and nutrient claims on perceived healthiness (Bech-Larsen & Grunert, 2003; Trijp van & Lans van der, 2007; Ares et al., 2009; Saba et al., 2010), perceived (product) credibility (Kleef van et al., 2005; Trijp van & Lans van der, 2007; Verbeke et al., 2009) and purchase intention (Kozup et al., 2003; Verbeke et al., 2009; Saba et al., 2010) for different types of products. However, as far as the researcher is aware there has not been any research on the effect of the most frequent claims on superfoods (nutrient content claim & superfoods claim) on perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and

purchase intention for superfoods and non-superfoods. This study will investigate these relationships and complement to the current literature.

1.4 Managerial contribution

The outcome of this study can provide interesting information for the food industry, retailers, marketers and other organizations that may want to use the superfoods claims in the future. The results will create a better understanding on the effect of superfoods claims (nutrient content claim and/or superfoods claim) on perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention for both superfoods and non-superfoods.

(12)

1.5 Thesis structure

This research is structured into several chapters. After this introduction chapter, the second chapter will discuss prior relevant literature on packaging claims, perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention. In this same chapter the hypotheses will be formulated based on the results of previous research and an overview of the conceptual framework is given. Chapter three will give an outline of the methodology which will contain a description of the research design, measurement instrument, stimuli development, sampling technique & procedure and finally how the data will be analyzed. Chapter four will outline the results of this research and gives a description of the data preparation, sample, assumptions check and finally tests the proposed hypotheses. Chapter five provides the reader with the discussion of the results of this study. Finally chapter six will state the conclusions in which we will give an answer to the research question and describe the theoretical implications, managerial implications, limitations of this study and implications for future research.

(13)

Chapter 2 – Literature review

As mentioned in the introduction chapter, this research will be executed in the context of superfoods. In most situations consumers cannot try a food before purchasing to measure the degree of product healthiness. Therefore, credible (health) communication is needed on food packaging material in order for consumers to make purchase decisions (Grunert, Bech-Larsen, & Bredahl, 2000). The literature review provides an overview of the relevant research and literature related to the topic of this thesis which is the impact of product claims (superfoods claim & nutrient content claim) on

consumers’ perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention for superfoods and non-superfoods.

The first part of this literature review gives a general introduction and touches upon the explanation of product, packaging, packaging claims and product type in order to ensure that the reader understands what is meant with concepts such as nutrient content claim and superfoods claim. The second part provides an overview of the literature on how packaging claims as communication tool can affect the consumers’ perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility with the moderating effects of product type, knowledge about superfoods and attitude towards superfoods. The third part provides an overview of the literature of the effect of claims on purchase intention as well as the moderating effect of product type and mediating effect of perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility. Moreover the literature on the effect of perceived healthiness and perceived credibility on purchase intention will be discussed. The literature review will end with an overview of the conceptual model and the formulated hypotheses.

2.1 Product, claim type and product type

This section discusses important basic concepts such as product, packaging and product type and provides a more detailed part on packaging claims.

2.1.1 Product

A product can be defined as anything that can be offered to a market for use, acquisition, attention or consumption which satisfies a need or want (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012, p. 224). Products include tangible as well as intangible products. This thesis will focus on the tangible product and a distinction is made between a typical superfoods and a non-superfoods.

Product attributes are used to define the benefits the product will offer to the consumer (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012, p. 230). Manufacturers use product attributes to promote and differentiate their product from competitors. Moreover product attributes are used to influence the attitudes and

purchasing behavior of consumers. Consumer food choice is a complex process which involves many different aspects. According to the cue utilization theory, consumers use product-related attributes as cues for indicators of quality (Olson & Jacoby, 1972). Cues can be either intrinsic or extrinsic.

(14)

Intrinsic cues are product-related attributes such as sensory attributes (e.g. color, taste, aroma) and ingredients which cannot be changed without also altering physical properties of the product (Olson & Jacoby, 1972). On the other hand there are extrinsic cues which are product-related attributes such as brand name, price, claims, store name and packaging (Olson & Jacoby, 1972). The latter, extrinsic cues, are of interest in this research. The study of Grunert et al. (2000) also indicates that consumers have to form expectations about the healthiness of the product in order to make purchase decisions as consumers mostly do not have the possibility to experience the degree of healthiness of the product before purchase. Expectations about health-related quality can be formed based on for example previous experience, appearance, price or the store in which the product is bought (Grunert et al., 2000).

Previous studies have already demonstrated the importance of the effects of product-related extrinsic cues on consumers’ purchase intention (Abadio Finco, Deliza, Rosenthal, & Silva, 2010), perceived quality (Bernués, Olaizola, & Corcoran, 2003; Miyazaki, Grewal, & Goodstein, 2005) and consumer acceptance (Chrea et al., 2010). This thesis is interested in the effects of extrinsic product-related attribute cues on consumers’ perceived healthiness, perceived credibility and purchase intention. Product packaging claims are the extrinsic attributes studied in this research. The next two paragraphs will elaborate more on packaging and packaging claims.

2.1.2 Packaging

A package is the first contact between the consumer and the product and therefore an important marketing communication tool. The package must attract attention of the consumer, describe the product and help to make the sale (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012, p. 232). In this highly competitive environment in which consumers have a product choice overload, the package itself has become an important promotional medium for many companies (Kotler & Armstrong, 2012, p. 232). Product packaging can be seen as a form of advertising and a significant in-store communication tool and stimuli (Cousté, Martos-Partal, & Martínez-Ros, 2012).

The product package is not only important for companies but also for consumers. Today's consumers are more aware of their health and lifestyle and the important role of food. This means that consumers are paying much more attention to which foods they purchase and consume. The trend towards healthier eating has increased demand for more detailed, accurate and accessible information on food package/labels covering nutritional content, claims, ingredients and aspects related to food safety (Deliza, MacFie, & Hedderley, 1999). Health, quality and/or credibility judgments and expectations about the product are potentially influenced by the cues communicated on the package. As mentioned before, one of these cues which is of interest in this research are packaging claims. The following section provides more detailed information on packaging claims.

(15)

2.1.3 Packaging claims

Packaging claims are used on products to communicate certain product features and benefits to the consumer. The word ‘claim’ has a widely accepted definition which is; “Any representation, which states, suggests or implies that a food has certain characteristics relating to its origin, nutritional properties, nature, production, processing, composition, or any other quality” (Codex Alimentarius, 1979, p. 1). There are many types of packaging claims depending on the type of product and what the manufacturer or marketer wants to communicate to the consumer. In response to the consumer environmental concerns marketers started communicating claims on the environmental benefits of their products such as being recyclable (Cousté et al., 2012). In reaction to the increasing concern for one’s health, the amount health and nutrition claims on packaging have increased (Cousté et al., 2012). In line with this are the functional and production claims that also give the consumer more information on the health and nutrition benefits of the product.

The Codex Alimentarius (1997, pp. 1-2) distinguishes three types of claims that are allowed to be made on foods throughout the European Union:

1. Nutrition claims. Implies, states or suggests that a food has certain nutritional properties due to its composition. Examples of nutrition claims contain: ‘source of’, ‘less than’ or ‘increased’ in a particular nutrient or energy.

2. Health claims. Implies, states or suggests that a relationship exists between a food or a component and health. This claim mentions the physiological function of a constituent such as ‘Calcium can help build strong bones’ (Wills, Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, Kolka, & Grunert, 2012).

3. Disease risk factor reduction claims. These claims state that a food or one of its components reduces the risk of developing diseases. An example of this claim would be: phytosterols that can help reduce blood cholesterol and therefore reduce the risk for CVD (Wills et al., 2012).

Besides the nutrition claim and health claim there is also the marketing claim that communicates the benefit it brings to the consumer (Trijp van & Lans van der, 2007).

Perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility in relation to product claims will be investigated in later sections in this literature review. The next section will address another important factor which is product type.

2.1.4 Product type

Besides the type of claim there is another important factor to take into consideration which is the type of product or also known as the base product. There is increasingly more attention for the particular carrier products in combination with various claim formats in the health claim consumer studies (Verbeke et al., 2009). This is because the extent to which people trust the claim or the willingness to try the respective product can be determined by the product carrier (Wills et al., 2012).

Existing studies will be reviewed in the moderating effect sections in order to retrieve more insights on the influence of product type in itself and in combination/interaction with claim types on

(16)

perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention. There are several product types that can be used as a base however for this research we will look at superfoods and

non-superfoods. As far as the author is aware there has only been one research on superfoods as a product (so not the effect of its claims) among Dutch consumers. This research gives more insight in the familiarity, knowledge and use of superfoods and was conducted among 1000 18+ Dutch consumers (Temminghoff et al., 2014). The most interesting research outcomes are the following;

Familiarity/knowledge on superfoods

- About 1 out of 6 Dutch consumers are familiar with the term ‘superfoods’. One quarter of consumers knows the term superfoods but does not know what it implies. Moreover 6 out of 10 Dutch consumers had never heard of the term superfoods. After reading a description of superfoods, still 4 out of 10 Dutch consumers were unfamiliar with the term superfoods. - Especially vegetables, vitamins, healthy products and fruit are spontaneously named as

superfoods. Specific superfoods such as quinoa are named by 5% of the respondents and 16% of the respondents names one or more specific superfoods. Finally 4 out of 10 respondents cannot name one single superfood.

Use of superfoods

- Around 4 out of 10 Dutch consumers that are familiar with superfoods have also bought these products which is 23% of the total population. There are 8% of the respondents that have never bought superfoods but have a positive attitude towards buying superfoods.

- Of the respondents that consume superfoods most eat berries and seeds. Moreover 1 out of 5 consumers of superfoods consume superfoods daily, half consumes once per week or less. Especially seeds and quinoa meet the expectations.

Reasons to use superfoods

- 9 out of 10 Dutch consumers do not find superfoods necessary besides their daily nutrition. - Respondents have named the improvement of resistance and a better healthy/vitality as the

most important reasons to buy superfoods.

- About 1 out of 5 Dutch consumers is convinced about the existence of superfoods. Youth and high educated respondents are convinced most.

The study shows that the four most eaten superfoods among 18+ Dutch consumers are berries (such as inca, Goji and mulberries), seeds (such as hennep, Chia and linseed), cocoa products and quinoa seeds (Temminghoff et al., 2014). Moreover, not a lot of Dutch consumers are familiar with superfoods. However a relatively high amount of the consumers that are familiar with superfoods have also actually bought superfoods. Health benefits seem to be the primary reason for those people to buy

(17)

superfoods. Although health benefits appear to be an important element for superfoods, only 1 out of 10 Dutch consumers find superfoods necessary besides their daily nutrition.

2.2 Consumer perceptions

After reviewing the literature about product, packaging, claims and product type, this section will provide an overview of the existing literature on the impact of packaging claims on consumers’ perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility. Finally the moderating effects of product type, knowledge about superfoods and attitude towards superfoods will be discussed.

2.2.1 Perceived healthiness

In most situations consumers cannot try food before purchasing to measure the degree of product healthiness. Therefore, credible (health) communication is needed on food packaging material in order for consumers to determine the degree of healthiness and finally make the purchase decision (Grunert et al., 2000). Consumers consider packaging-based (marketing) claims and design cues especially for unfamiliar and new foods when reliable information is absent about how consumers will experience that food (Chandon, 2013). Traditionally, the healthiness of food has been related to nutritional factors such as fibre, salt, fat and vitamin contents (Urala, Arvola, & Lähteenmäki, 2003). This information on nutrition and health claims might influence the consumers’ perception about the healthiness of the food. Superfoods have not been around for a long time and as a result many

consumers might consider them as an unfamiliar and new food. Therefore packaging-based claims on superfoods such as a nutrient content claim might be important in the decision making process. To the researchers’ knowledge there has not been any research on the effect of superfoods claims in itself or in combination with a nutrient content claim on perceived healthiness. However, there are several researches that have studied the effect of product nutrition and health claims on consumers’ perceived healthiness. The literature of those studies will be reviewed in order to get a clear insight in the

outcomes of prior studies that conducted research on the impact of product (nutrient and health) claims on perceived healthiness.

Product claims versus perceived healthiness

The study of Bech-Larsen and Grunert (2003) showed that both kinds of health claims

(physiological and prevention claims) had a positive influence on consumers’ perceived healthiness of foods among consumers across three different countries (United States, Finland and Denmark). However this same study also concluded that the base product primarily determines the perceived healthiness of food rather than health claims and functional ingredients. The effect of the base product will also be discussed later on in this literature review in the moderating section underneath product type. The study of Ares et al. (2009) showed that milk desserts with nutrition information (fiber and

(18)

antioxidants) and claims (enhance function and disease reduced risk claims) had an increasing effect on perceived healthiness as well compared to the regular milk dessert. Finally the study of Saba et al. (2010) revealed the positive influence of health claims on the consumers’ perceived healthiness which was differently across the four countries used in this study (Finland, Germany, Italy and UK).

However, there is one study whose results are not completely in line with the previous discussed study results. The study of Trijp van and Lans van der (2007) reveals that there is no general effect of claim type (structure-function, product, content, disease-risk reduction and marketing claim) on perceived overall healthiness. However, the studies of Ares and Gámbaro (2007) and Sabbe, Verbeke, Deliza, Matta, and Damme (2009) contradict this finding by revealing that the general effect of

enrichment/info was highly significant on perceived healthiness.

Most studies measure the effect of a single claim or the general effect of a claim/label on perceived healthiness. However, it is also possible to have multiple claims/labels on the product package. The study of Barreiro-Hurle, Gracia, and de-Magistris (2010) studied the presence of two types of labels on a single product. The results showed that multiple labels/claims had a weaker effect on consumers’ utility compared to the use of each label/claim individually on a product. Only one out of the six cases containing multiple labels were perceived as increasing utility. When the claim is not directly observable in the facts panel (sausages), the complementary effect is detected as the label provides additional information on the same subject (nutrition) by two different means (claim and facts panel). In contrast it appears that consumers who trust existing labels are less likely to value additional labels. The study of Saba et al. (2010) researched the effect of nine combinations of four dimensions (base product, health claims, pictorial information and the presence of wholegrain) on perceived healthiness and purchase intention. Results showed that base product was the most important dimension influencing perceived healthiness followed by verbal and visual message and finally the presence of wholegrain.

Until this far we found from the relevant literature that there can be either an effect of claim type on perceived healthiness or no effect of claim type on perceived healthiness. As the majority of the findings indicate an effect of claim type on perceived healthiness this study also suggests this effect. Furthermore, the majority of the earlier mentioned studies in this paragraph indicate a positive impact of health claims and nutrition information on perceived healthiness. However, the study of Trijp van and Lans van der (2007) showed that amongst other things the marketing claim lowered perceived healthiness for cvd and stress benefits and was only relatively high for other benefits tested in the study. As superfoods are considered as a marketing claim in this study, it is suggested that the superfoods claim has a negative effect on perceived healthiness. Based on the reviewed literature on multiple information/claims on the package, this study will assume that the complementary effect is in place for the combination of the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim. The reason for this is that the meaning of the superfoods claim in itself might not be very clear and contribute to the perceived healthiness but the nutrient content claim might complement the overall meaning and perceived

(19)

healthiness. Therefore a positive effect of the combination of the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim on perceived healthiness is expected. Based on previous empirical findings the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 1: Claim type has a positive effect on perceived healthiness.

Hypothesis 1A: Nutrient content claim has a positive effect on perceived healthiness. Hypothesis 1B: Superfoods claim has a negative effect on perceived healthiness.

Hypothesis 1C: The combination of the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim has a positive

effect on perceived healthiness.

2.2.2 Perceived product credibility

Besides health perception this research will also include and investigate credibility perception. Perceived credibility is the judgment of consumers about the veracity and quality of the information processed (Schiffman, Lazarkanuk, & Hansen (2008) in (Hung, 2012)), such as the symbols and packaging claims on products (Hung, 2012). This research is particularly interested in perceived product credibility between the condition without a claim and the conditions with claims for two different product types (superfoods and non-superfoods). When taking the perceived credibility definition into account, perceived product credibility can be defined as the consumer’s judgment about the veracity and quality of the entire product. Superfoods have been in the news frequently of which many times with a negative attitude or skeptic view towards the superfoods hype and credibility of the products (NHS, 2011; Cammelbeeck, 2014; Huddleston, 2014; Telegraaf, 2015). For this reason the researcher is curious to find out if the chosen product types with different types of claims are found credible and what the differences are between those diverse situations.

There are several researches that have studied the effect of product nutrition and health claims on consumers’ perceived (product) credibility. The literature of those studies will be reviewed in order to get a clear insight in the outcomes of prior studies that conducted research on the impact of product (nutrient and health) claims on perceived product credibility.

Product claims versus perceived product credibility

If product claims are not credible to the public, the success of foods such as functional foods will never achieve health gain or commercial potential (Landström, Hursti, Becker, & Magnusson, 2007; Lalor, Kennedy, & Wall, 2011). This logic also applies to any other food with claims such as superfoods. Several studies have examined the credibility of product claims and the effect of different product claims on the consumers’ perceived (product) credibility which are discussed in the upcoming paragraphs.

The general effect of health framing was found not significant for credibility as it depended on the health benefit described in the claim (Kleef van et al., 2005). However the results of the study of

(20)

Trijp van and Lans van der (2007) showed that claim type (content, structure-function, product, disease-risk reduction and marketing claim) still had some general effect on credibility in which gender had a moderate contribution. Claim credibility levels were also distinguished by type of claim. The most credible were content claims and the least credible were product claims that do not mention any ingredients. The same order of relative credibility applied for the claim types stress, weight and concentration benefits. Finally the study of Verbeke et al. (2009) used three types of claims and revealed that the reduction of disease risk claims lowered the credibility of the product and the health and nutrition claims both increased the product credibility.

Hence, the relevant discussed studies showed that claim type/health framing can have both an effect and no effect on perceived (product) credibility. However as the positive effect is weak, this study proposes that claim type has a negative effect on perceived product credibility. The analyzed studies reveal that perceived product credibility is dependent on the specific type of claim. In the case of nutrient content claim both the study of Trijp van and Lans van der (2007) and Verbeke et al. (2009) reveal that it is either the most credible out of all claims or increasing perceived product credibility. The effect of the superfoods claim on consumers’ perceived product credibility has not been tested as far as the researcher is aware. However, the superfoods claim can be seen as a

marketing claim and the study of Verbeke et al. (2009) showed that the perception of functional foods as a marketing scam decreased the effect of perceived product credibility. Finally this study assumes that the positive influence of the nutrient content claim will increase the product credibility when it is combined with the superfoods claim that is proposed to have a negative effect. Based on the discussed studies the following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 2: Claim type has a negative effect on perceived product credibility.

Hypothesis 2A: Nutrient content claim has a positive effect on perceived product credibility. Hypothesis 2B: Superfoods claim has a negative effect on perceived product credibility.

Hypothesis 2C: The combination of the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim has a positive

effect on perceived product credibility.

2.2.3 Moderating variables: product type, knowledge and attitude

This paragraph will look into the variables that have a moderating effect on the relationship between the different types of claims and perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility. This research investigates the moderating effects of the variables product type, knowledge and attitude.

Product type

The healthiness perceptions of the base product partly influences the evaluation of the claim which would suggest that some claims combine better with some food products (Roe, Levy, & Derby, 1999; Bech-Larsen & Grunert, 2003; Kleef van et al., 2005). The study of Bech-Larsen and Grunert

(21)

(2003) shows that the perceived healthiness of food is primarily determined by the nutritional qualities of the base product instead of the health claims and functional ingredients. This was also seen in the study of Saba et al. (2010) that used three different base products and results showed that the base product cake had a negative influence on perceived healthiness whereas bread and cereal-containing yoghurt scored positively on perceived healthiness. Of those three base products it was

cereal-containing yoghurt that was the most influential on increasing the perceived healthiness. The findings of the study of Saba et al. (2010) suggest that yoghurt and bread could be more likely to be accepted as credible carrier products for health message and functional ingredients as these base products are perceived as the healthiest and most likely to be bought.

The articles of Ares and Gámbaro (2007) and Ares, Giménez, and Gámbaro (2008) report that the general effect of the variables ‘nutritional modification’/’enrichment’ and ‘carrier’ had a highly significant effect on perceived healthiness. Both studies also found a highly significant interaction effect between carrier and nutritional modification/enrichment for perceived healthiness, indicating that certain combinations of carriers and nutritional modifications/enrichment evaluations were evaluated as more/less healthy compared to their separate evaluations. The results of the study of Ares and Gámbaro (2007) showed that when the enrichment was a functional ingredient inherent in the original product, the highest positive perceived healthiness were measured. This is also coherent with the results of Kleef van et al. (2005) who stated that functional food concepts that communicate disease-related health benefits in carriers that have an history or image in healthiness are preferred by consumers. However Ares et al. (2008) suggest that products that are considered healthy such as yoghurt are not benefiting from nutritional modifications to increase the perceived healthiness and willingness to try. Therefore the authors of that article suggest it would be more interesting to develop functional foods with products that have an intermediate healthy image such as milk desserts and pan bread.

The study of Sabbe et al. (2009) evaluated the effect of a health claim and personal

characteristics on the acceptance of two unfamiliar acaí fruit juices that have a low (40% acaí) versus a high (4% acaí) a priori overall liking. Moreover the study looked at health- and nutrition-related attribute perceptions and purchase intention. In the without health-related claim/information condition the perceived healthiness of the both juices was equal. However, when the health-related

claim/information was provided, a significant difference between the perceived healthiness of both juices was observed in favor of the 40% acaí juice. This result is contradictory with the previous discussed studies as it indicates that the product that is perceived the most healthy (40% acaí juice) is having a higher perceived healthiness then the less healthy product (4% acaí juice).

Hence, we have found from the relevant literature that the product carrier/type itself and in interaction with a claim has an important influence on the perceived healthiness. Based on these studies the researcher decided to compare combinations of two types of products with four types of claims. The product types that are selected for this study are a typical superfoods and a

(22)

superfoods. The claims used in this research are correct for the superfoods but not for the

non-superfoods. Therefore this study indicates that perceived healthiness will be higher for superfoods with claims then for non-superfoods with claims as the reviewed studies indicate that the perceived

healthiness or preference will be higher when the nutrient stated in the claim is inherent in the original product. Based on the discussed results of previous studies the following hypotheses were formulated: Hypothesis 3: Product type has a positive effect on perceived healthiness.

Hypothesis 3A: The presence of a nutrient content claim on superfoods leads to a higher perceived

healthiness than on non-superfoods.

Hypothesis 3B: The presence of a superfoods claim on superfoods leads to a higher perceived

healthiness than on non-superfoods.

Hypothesis 3C: The presence of a nutrient content claim + superfoods claim on superfoods leads to

a higher perceived healthiness than on non-superfoods.

Product type can also be an important influence on perceived product credibility. The paragraph on product type and perceived healthiness showed that some claims combine better with some food products (Roe et al., 1999; Bech-Larsen & Grunert, 2003; Kleef van et al., 2005) and that base products that are perceived healthy are more credible carriers of claims compared to products that are perceived unhealthy (Ares & Gámbaro, 2007; Ares et al., 2008; Saba et al., 2010). The study of Kleef van et al. (2005) asked respondents to rate the proposed mini concepts with claims on credibility and results showed that perceived product credibility is dependent on the specific claim-carrier combination. Besides this finding the study also showed that the general effect of carrier had an effect on perceived product credibility. Moreover the study of Verbeke et al. (2009) revealed that the concept fibre-enriched cereals was perceived as being most credible followed by omega-3-enriched spread and calcium-enriched fruit juice. In the study the interaction effect between product concept and claim type showed that there was not much difference between nutrition and health claims with respect to the credibility of the product concepts. Though the credibility of the concepts fibre-enriched cereal and calcium-enriched fruit juice were lowered in case of the claim reduction of the disease risk claims whereas the omega-3-enriched spread concept remained the same. Like the other discussed studies, the results show that the appeal of a claim depends on the claim type and the combined carrier product.

We found from the relevant discussed literature that the general effect product carrier/type as well as the claim-carrier combination is found to be important for perceived product credibility. The hypotheses will indicate that the superfoods will have a higher perceived product credibility than the non-superfoods. The reason for this is previous studies that revealed that base products that are perceived healthy are more credible carriers of claims compared to products that are perceived unhealthy (Ares & Gámbaro, 2007; Ares et al., 2008; Saba et al., 2010). The researcher believes that the superfoods has a more healthy image than the non-superfoods. Based on these empirical results the following hypotheses were formulated:

(23)

Hypothesis 4: Product type has a positive effect on perceived product credibility.

Hypothesis 4A: The presence of a nutrient content claim on superfoods leads to a higher perceived

product credibility than on non-superfoods.

Hypothesis 4B: The presence of a superfoods claim on superfoods leads to a higher perceived

product credibility than on non-superfoods.

Hypothesis 4C: The presence of a nutrient content claim + superfood claims on superfoods leads to

a higher perceived product credibility than on non-superfoods.

Knowledge

In the research area of functional foods it is said that in order for consumers to consider consuming a food product enriched with a certain (functional) ingredient, consumers need to be aware of its potential health benefits (Ares et al., 2008). This way consumers might only perceive functional foods healthier than their conventional alternative (Ares et al., 2008). Knowledge about functional ingredients and health benefits is likely to have an impact on consumers’ perception of functional foods (Ares et al., 2008). Therefore, functional ingredients such as vitamins, fibre, minerals and calcium which are in the mind of the consumer for long period of time achieve higher rates of

acceptance compared to ingredients such as Omega-3 fatty acids and flavonoid which have been in the mind of the consumer for a shorter period of time (Menrad, 2003).

The study of Ares et al. (2008) revealed that products enriched with antioxidants were perceived as healthier than conventional ones by consumers with medium to high nutritional knowledge. In contrast, perceived healthiness scores of consumers with low level of nutritional knowledge decreased or maintained when antioxidants or fibre were added to the products.

As superfoods also contain functional ingredients such as vitamins, minerals and antioxidants, this logic can also be applied to superfoods. Knowledge about superfoods and its ingredient and health benefits is likely to have an impact on consumers’ perceived healthiness of superfoods. Based on the results of the previous study on functional foods and the appliance of this logic onto superfoods the following hypothesis has been formulated:

Hypothesis 5A: A high level of knowledge about superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between nutrient content claim and perceived healthiness.

Hypothesis 5B: A high level of knowledge about superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

negative relationship between superfoods claim and perceived healthiness.

Hypothesis 5C: A high level of knowledge about superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived healthiness.

Knowledge has also been studied in relation to claims and perceived (product) credibility. The study of Trijp van and Lans van der (2007) shows that subjective knowledge has an impact on claim

(24)

credibility. However opposite results show that nutrition knowledge did not have an impact on the credibility of health claims expect for the claim “yogurt and bones and teeth” (Lalor et al., 2011). Nor did a high level of nutrition knowledge lead to a higher claim credibility.

What is of particular interest in this study is the perceived product credibility. Research reveals that subjective knowledge about functional foods increased perceived product credibility (Verbeke et al., 2009).

As the reviewed literature reveals that knowledge about the particular food concept in question is said to have an impact on perceived product credibility it is assumed that this will also be the case for knowledge about superfoods. Based on the discussed studies the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 6A: A high level of knowledge about superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between nutrient content claim and perceived product credibility.

Hypothesis 6B: A high level of knowledge about superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

negative relationship between the superfoods claim and perceived product credibility.

Hypothesis 6C: A high level of knowledge about superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived product credibility.

Attitude

Attitude refers to the favorable or unfavorable evaluation of the particular behavior (Ajzen & Madden, 1985). Besides credible communication it appears that consumers attitudes also play an important role in the acceptance or rejection of products (Grunert et al., 2000). Consumers might have strong attitudes towards certain products or particular product characteristics. Depending on the strength of the original attitudes, the effectiveness of communication on the package will vary (Grunert et al., 2000). The study of Grunert et al. (2000) reveals that to a large extent both perceived quality and perceived trustworthiness of the product are determined by the consumers’ general attitude towards the use of genetic modification in food production. The respondents in this same study show a lack of trust in the use of genetic modification which overcompensates for potential positive effects on convenience-related, health-related or hedonic quality. This means that communication to establish more trust and to promote tangible benefits of the use of genetic modification are a fight against the mostly negative existing general consumer attitudes (Grunert et al., 2000).

The results of the previous discussed study could indicate that communication such as product claims might not have a great impact on consumers’ perceived healthiness when strong existing attitudes are present. The study of Dean et al. (2012) actually showed that attitude towards using foods as medicine decreased perceived healthiness for the risk reduction claim and significantly for the nutrition claim. Moreover attitude towards using foods as medicine significantly increased likelihood to buy for the risk reduction claim but significantly decreased likelihood to buy for the nutrition claim.

(25)

The study concluded that consumers need to have a positive attitude towards functional food products in order to be influenced by health claims. The discussed studies in this paragraph on attitude indicate that positive attitudes are needed in order for consumers to be influenced by product claims (Dean et al., 2012). Based on these empirical results the following hypotheses are formulated:

Hypothesis 7A: A positive attitude towards superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between nutrient content claim and perceived healthiness.

Hypothesis 7B: A positive attitude towards superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between the superfoods claim and perceived healthiness.

Hypothesis 7C: A positive attitude towards superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived healthiness.

This study will also look at the moderating effect of attitude on the relationship between claims and perceived product credibility. Verbeke et al. (2009) revealed a strong positive impact of general attitude towards functional foods on how positively the presented claims were rated on perceived product credibility.

This indicates that a positive attitude is also needed in order for consumers to positively rate the perceived product credibility. Based on this result the following hypotheses were formulated: Hypothesis 8A: A positive attitude towards superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between nutrient content claim and perceived product credibility.

Hypothesis 8B: A positive attitude towards superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

negative relationship between the superfoods claim and perceived product credibility.

Hypothesis 8C: A positive attitude towards superfoods has a positive moderating effect on the

already positive relationship between the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim and perceived product credibility.

2.4 Consumer intentions

After the reviewing of the relationship between claims and perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility it is time to discuss the final stage of the conceptual model which is purchase intention. This section provides an overview of the literature of the effect of claims on purchase intention as well as with the moderating affect of product type and the mediating affect of perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility. Moreover the literature about the direct effect of perceived healthiness and perceived credibility on purchase intention will be discussed.

(26)

2.4.1 Purchase intention

Purchase intention can be defined as the willingness and readiness of an individual to purchase a certain service or product (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The model of consumer behavior (Kotler & Keller, 2012, p. 183), also known as the stimulus-response model, is a good model to explain

consumer behavior. The model of consumer behavior is presented in figure 1 (Kotler & Keller, 2012, p. 183).

Figure 1: Model of Consumer Behavior

The model provides a starting point in understanding consumer behavior. Marketing and other (environmental) stimuli enter the consumer’s black box or consciousness in which a set of

psychological processes combine with certain consumer characteristics which lead to a consumer’s decision process and finally to the consumer’s purchase decision (Kotler & Keller, 2012, p. 182). Marketers are especially interested in the processes that goes on in the consumer’s psychology and decision process as it reveals the reactions of consumers to different stimuli such as product claims. Such reactions are the consumer perceptions we discussed earlier such as perceived healthiness and perceived product credibility. In the buying decision process consumers form purchase intentions and most of the times it ends in an actual purchase at the purchase decision phase.

The consumer behavior model shows that certain elements such as attitudes, perceptions and consumer characteristics influence the purchase intention. This research is interested in the influence of product claims and consumer’s perceptions on purchase intention. Moreover the moderating effect of product type on the relationship between claim type and purchase intention is of interest in this study. The following sections will explore the literature on these relationships.

Product claims versus purchase intention

When consumers are not familiar with a certain product, product claims can be a source of more specific information which may influence their buying decision. Several studies have examined the effect of product claims on purchase intention and these will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

The study of Kozup et al. (2003) revealed first of all that there was a significant general effect of nutrition information on attitude towards the product, nutrition attitude and purchase intentions. The

(27)

same research also made a distinction between the kind of information and revealed that favorable (unfavorable) nutrition information presented led to more positive (negative) attitudes towards

nutrition, the product, purchase intention and reduced perceived disease risk. However the presence of a health claim did not influence attitudes toward the product, nutrition attitude or purchase intentions. The study of Verbeke et al. (2009) showed that the nutrition claim increased the intention to buy compared to the health claim. The reduction of disease risk claim lowered the intention to buy. The study of Saba et al. (2010) also showed that the absence and presence of health claims had no influence on the likelihood to buy the presented product. Moreover the results showed that the label with the nutrition information ‘contains wholegrain’ had a positive but weakly influence on likelihood to buy which aligns with the results of the study of Kozup et al. (2003).

Most studies measure the effect of a single claim or the general effect of a claim/label on purchase intention. However, it is also possible to have multiple claims/labels on the product package. The study of Kozup et al. (2003) looked at the interaction between the nutrition information and health claim on the package and found a significant effect for amongst other things purchase intention. The follow-up analyses showed that the presence of the claim does not have any positive effect on amongst others purchase intention when the nutrition information is not favorable nor does the claim affect purchase intention when the nutrition information is favorable.

Hence, the relevant research discussed in this section shows that nutrition information is found to have a general impact on purchase intention as well as the favorable nutrient

information/claim by itself. Therefore this study will also expect a significant an effect of claim type on purchase intention as well as a positive effect of the nutrient content claim on purchase intention. The effect of the superfoods claim on purchase intention has not been tested as far as the researcher is aware. However, the superfoods claim can be seen as a marketing claim and the study of Verbeke et al. (2009) showed that the perception of functional foods as a marketing scam decreased the purchase intention. Hence, this study expects the superfoods claim to have a negative effect on purchase intention. Finally this study expects that the combination of the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim will not have an effect on purchase intention as the study of Kozup et al. (2003) suggests that the claim does not affect purchase intention when the already present nutrition information is favorable. Based on the discussed literature the following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 9: Claim type has a positive effect on purchase intention.

Hypothesis 9A: Nutrient content claim has a positive effect on purchase intention. Hypothesis 9B: Superfoods claim has a negative effect on purchase intention.

Hypothesis 9C: The combination of the nutrient content claim + superfoods claim does not have an

The influence of the superfoods claim and nutrient content claim on consumers’ perceived healthiness, perceived product credibility and purchase intention of superfoods and non-superfoods