Set It Free: The Influence of Free-From Claims on Consumers’ Risk and Healthfulness Perceptions of Food Products
Fabiana Cristina Colombo Student Number: 10967664
Graduate School of Communication Master's Thesis
Master's Programme Communication Science: Persuasive Communication Supervisor: Stefan Bernritter
Abstract
The use of free-from claims on food products’ labels have been a practice in constant expansion in recent years. Despite the growth of the free-from food market, literature devoting attention to the understanding of those claims is still scarce. This category of products claiming the absence of an allergenic ingredient traditionally targeted a small niche of consumers of those suffering from food allergies and intolerances. However, currently over half of these products’ consumers are completely free of food restrictions and believe that eating these products is a healthier practice. In order to investigate the effect of free-from claims on perceived healthfulness of food products a 2x2 between-subjects experimental design is proposed to investigate how these icons can represent a risk-reducing cue on food packaging, and how perceived risk mediates the influence of the claim on perceived
healthfulness. In addition, a conditional indirect effect of regulatory focus was searched in order to explore how the level of risk perceived can differ according to promotion or
prevention mind-set of consumers. Results from the analysis show that the effect of free-from claims on perceived healthfulness of the product is mediated by perceived risk of the product and that lower levels of risk represented higher levels of healthfulness. No evidences were found that regulatory focus moderated the mediation in the model. Possible explanations for this are proposed, including language barrier, in the study limitations and future research suggestions are provided, such as reproducing the experiment in a more controlled
environment. This study contributes to a better understanding of the influences of free-from claims on consumes’ perceptions of food products and enables the industry to understand the mechanisms allowing the sector’s growth.
Keywords: Food Claims, Free-from, Regulatory Focus, Perceived Risk and Perceived Healthfulness.
Set It Free: The Influence of Free-From Claims on Consumers’ Risk and Healthfulness Perceptions of Food Products
The market of free-from products has increased immensely in recent years. The gluten-free market in the US alone was, for instance, estimated to be worth 8.8 billion US dollars in 2014, representing a growth of 63% in 2 years (Mintel, 2014). This category of products carrying claims that state the absence of specific allergenic ingredient was
previously destined to a very particular and narrow niche of consumers: those suffering from food restrictions. However, it has recently being earning space on the shelves of mainstream supermarkets. Surprisingly, 55% of the consumers of free-from products do not suffer or do not live with somebody that suffers from any type of food allergy or intolerance (Stone, 2014).
A previous study has suggested that icons claiming the absence of an ingredient can affect consumers’ perception of risk of the product (Radam, Yacob, Bee, & Selamat, 2010). The authors investigated consumers’ perceptions of products with no Monosodium Glutamate (no-MSG) labels and put forward for consideration that the exposures to those labels
generate and reinforce beliefs that the ingredient is harmful or unsafe. As claiming a food product does not contain a certain component can trigger uncertainty and perception of adverse consequences towards the free-ingredient, the free-from claim can represent a cue to a safer choice or a risk reduction option. Furthermore, risk-related variables are important determinants of food choice and are strongly related to people’s food consumption (Raats & Sparks, 1995).
A large amount of research has shown that perceived risk is among the drivers of consumers’ perceived healthfulness of products together with demographics, product
familiarity, and product relevance (de Jong, Ocké, Branderhorst, & Friele, 2003; Dean et al., 2012; Lähteenmäki, 2013). When attempting to understand the rapid growth of the free-from
food sector it is important to take into account that consumers are more health conscious today than they used to be, and that consumers’ perception of healthfulness of a product is a strong predictor of purchase intention (Burton, Andrews, & Netemeyer, 2000; Graham & Mohr, 2014). In the niche of free-from food claims, research has been found in accordance with the positive effect of perceived healthfulness on the products’ consumption showing that 65% of US consumers eat gluten-free products because they think it is healthier (Mintel, 2015). However, gluten-free claims on product labels were analysed and no impact of them on consumers’ perception of food quality was found, suggesting that consumers may have unsubstantiated beliefs about the healthfulness of those products and the possible benefits related to a gluten-free diet (Dunn, House, & Shelnutt, 2014). In effect, being free-from a particular ingredient does not mean it is a healthier product; although, the claims these products carry on their packaging seem to affect perception of risk of the product and increase how healthy consumers perceive them.
Risk perception has a strong influence on the perceived healthfulness of food products, especially when the claim on the food product represents a risk reduction (Dean et al., 2012). However, individuals can differ in their information processing of the claims according to their motivation to process risk. Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins 1997; 1998) suggests that people’s motivation to approach a desired-end varies in two different ways according to their self-regulation. People can be promotion-focused (more risk taken and sensitive to positive outcomes and gains), or prevention-focused (more risk averse and sensitive to negative outcomes and losses). As people approach risk differently, free-from claim, as a risk reduction cue, can affect the perception of risk for prevention-focused consumers more deeply than promotion–focused consumers, as the former are more risk averse.
Free-from claim is, in its definition, a claim displayed on a food product stating that the product does not contain a possible allergenic ingredient, such as gluten, lactose, nuts, and
shellfish (Food and Drink Federation, 2015). Unlike the majority of nutritional and health claims, often presented on food packaging, free-from product claims are limited to the absence of specific allergenic ingredients, that can have serious and even fatal consequences for people suffering from allergies and intolerances. Free-from claims, with exception of ‘gluten-free’, have not yet being specifically regulated by EU legislation and it is still under the provisions of General Food Law (Regulation [EC] No 178/2002). But why are products that are primarily targeted at a particular group of people being largely perceived healthier than regular products?
While a great amount of research has investigated nutritional and health claims in a wide variety of perspectives, the understanding of free-from claims in particular remain not fully explored. The single study available in relation to free-from claims has found a positive relationship between exposure to claim and perceived healthfulness of the product (Priven, Baum, Vieira, Fung, & Herbold, 2015). However, nothing is known yet about how those icons claiming the absence of an allergenic ingredient can affect a products’ risk perception and represent a safer and healthier choice to consumers in the general food market. Due to the rapid growth of the free-from market and its icons, the limited literature available restricts the understanding of the effects of free-from claims to a level yet far from ideal.
In order to close this gap and add to the understanding of free-from claims, the aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of free-from claims presented on food packaging on risk perception of those food products, and how this effect shapes perceived healthfulness. In addition, how consumers’ regulatory focus of preventing or promoting a health-related outcome can influence free-from claims processing and risk perception of the products will be investigated. This research uses factitious free-from claims in an experimental design with a multicultural sample to extend the findings of Priven and colleagues (2015) across different nationalities. The objectives of this research are to gain a better understanding of the factors
influencing consumers’ perceptions of healthfulness of products with free-from claims and obtain a deeper understanding of the motives behind the growth of the free-from market in recent years.
Theoretical Background Perceived Healthfulness
Consumers make hundreds of eating decisions daily. Cues on food packaging (e.g., health claims) have been found to lead to an increase in consumption volumes of products, for example, low-fat claims can lead consumers to buy and ingest a higher amount of these products (Wansisnk & Chandon, 2006). The food choices of an individual are influenced by different environmental and individual factors (French, 2003). It has been found that the main variables influencing food choice are taste, perceived value, which includes price and portion size, and perceived nutrition, i.e. what can be understood by how healthy and beneficial a food product is perceived by individuals (French et al., 1999). Regarding the strength of influence of those variables on consumers’ food choice, a study has shown that people are now more health conscious than they used to be before (Sanders, 2015). The study’s report, detailing trends over a ten year period, indicated that healthfulness, as an impact force on consumers’ decision to buy a food product, is on the rise, while taste impact is in decline. Healthfulness influenced 60% of consumers choice in 2015 against 58% in 2006, at the same time, taste dropped from 85% to 83% during the previous mentioned ten year period (Sanders, 2015).
According to attitude models, such as Theory of Reasoned Action (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980), attitude and purchase intention towards a brand or product is formed by product-related beliefs, and the intention one holds towards performing an action is the best predictor of actually performing it. In other words, food choice is based on the beliefs people hold about a certain food product. Burton et al. (2000) analysed nutritional advertisement claims
on food packaging and the mediation role of perceived healthfulness on brand attitude and purchase intention. Their research found that the effect of nutritional claims on brand attitude and purchase intention was mediated by beliefs of product healthfulness. Those findings are consistent with Theory of Reasoned Action, with the intention to purchase products
containing claims on their packaging dependent on beliefs of how healthy consumers perceived the product. It indicates that advertisements and claims focusing on increasing healthfulness perception of products are effective in increasing the product’s purchase.
A number of studies’ results regarding the presence of nutritional and health claims on food product packaging have consistently shown that claims are effective in increasing perceived healthfulness of food products (e.g., Burton et al., 2000; Soldavini, Crawford, & Ritchie, 2012; Lwin et al., 2013). However, concerning specifically free-from claims on food packaging, one recent research study has devoted exclusive attention to these icons
comparing factitious free-from claim with gluten-free claim (Priven et al., 2015). The results showed that independent of having previous knowledge about the ingredient absent in the product and mentioned on the claim, participants rated both products (factitious and gluten-free) to be healthier in comparison to regular products. This study demonstrated that the effectiveness of free-from claims in enhancing perceived healthfulness is independent of previous information about the ingredient (Priven et al., 2015).
In summary, nutritional and health claims on food packaging have shown to be an effective strategy to increase consumers’ perception of healthfulness of the product and, in consequence, increase purchase intentions towards the product. Due to those previous findings, the first hypothesis of this current study proposes to test the findings from Priven and colleagues (2015) to confirm whether free-from claims increase perceived healthfulness of the product.
H1: Free-from claims will have a positive effect on perceived healthfulness, meaning that products displaying the claim will be rated healthier than regular food products.
Perceived Risk of Food Product
Media information is often pointed as the main force influencing consumers’ healthfulness perception of free-from products. High-profile celebrities such as Victoria Beckham, Jessica Alba and Miley Cyrus called out to their fans on Twitter that gluten is very bad and they should try cutting it off from their diets (Mullaney, 2014). However, research evidences have shown that free-from claims are effective in increasing perceived
healthfulness of food product even when the ingredient is unknown (Priven et al., 2015), suggesting that other mechanisms play the role mediating the effect of the claim on how healthy consumers perceive the product.
Perceived risk is a crucial determinant of food choice, and a level of risk perceived towards a certain food product determines levels of consumption (Knox, 2000). The concept of risk in consumer behaviour research was introduced by Bauer (1960), who argued that consumers’ behaviour involves risk regarding the consequences of the decision, and that decision happens in a scenario of uncertainty and probability about possible unpleasant outcomes. Decision theorists defined risk as “the situation where a decision maker has a priori knowledge of both the consequences of alternatives and their probabilities of
occurrence” (Dowling, 1986, p. 194). However, consumer researchers have been using the concept in the sense of partial ignorance, where neither consequences nor probabilities are accurately known (Dowling, 1986). Despite the concept of perceived risk being used in social psychology and consumer behaviour research for decades, it has only become more explored in relation to food during the 1990s, the so called ‘decade of food scares’ (Knox, 2000). It was during this period that concerns about salmonella, chemicals used in food production,
and the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in beef raised among the general population, increasing the volume of research on food risk (Knox, 2000).
Regarding specifically how claims on food labels affect consumers’ evaluation of the product, Radam and colleagues (2010) investigated consumers’ perceptions of products containing no-MSG claims on their labels, and found that 82% of participants considered the products with the claim to be healthier. However, while participants’ rates of awareness about possible hazards of MSG reached slightly above 50%, the large majority reported that
products displaying no-MSG labels were safer to consume. In addition, the authors suggested that the exposure to those labels may reinforce perceptions of unsafety of MSG ingredient (Radam et al., 2010). This idea suggests that claims stating the absence of an ingredient (such as free-from claims) might work as a risk-reducing cue, and consumers might be purchasing those products in order to minimize possible health-related risks. This is consistent with the suggestion of Priven et al. (2015) that free-from labels may convey an intrinsic quality able to influence perceptions of healthfulness of food products.
The possible risk-reducing effect of free-from claims finds support in the widely explored research topic of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) labels. A previous study has compared the effectiveness of positive (indicating the presence of GMOs) versus negative (indicating the absence of GMOs) labels on food products and concluded that stating the absence of an ingredient reduces perceptions of risk of the product, once it is perceived as a certainty (Runge & Jackson, 2000). Supporting this idea, later research has found that
claiming the absence of GMOs was reported by consumers to be more adequate than the label claiming the presence of GMOs (Roe & Teisl, 2007). In addition, it was argued that claiming the absence of an ingredient/component is more straight forward and would not require further information about the content in the product. On the other hand, claiming the presence of a certain ingredient/component would trigger the need for further information about
possible unsafe consequences of consuming the product (Roe & Teisl, 2007). Both findings about GMOs labels suggest that negative claims reduce perception of risk of the product and generate consumers’ feelings of being well informed about the product. In this sense, this category of claims stating the absence of ingredients can work as a cue, or a shortcut to avoid threats without need of further explanation about the component or ingredient.
As perceived risk of product is among the beliefs consumers hold about the food product and evidences presented earlier on this paper suggest that it can lead to healthfulness perception, this current study aims to investigate whether free-from claims, as a statement of absence of an ingredient, reduces perceptions of uncertainty and adverse consequences towards the product, and as a consequence enhances healthfulness perceptions for the food product. We hypothesize that the effect of free-from claims displayed on food packaging will be mediated by risk perception of the product.
H2: Exposure to free-from claims will result in reduced perceived risk of the product and reduced risk will reflect in increased perceived healthfulness of the product. This effect will categorise the mediation role of perceived risk between free-from claims and perceived healthfulness of the product.
Regulatory Focus Theory
In the previous section we have hypothesised that the presence of free-from claims on food packaging reduces risk perception of the products. However, the strength of this effect might depend on how motivated consumers are to process risk information. According to the Regulatory Focus Theory (Higgins, 1996; 1997) people have approach-avoidance
motivations when facing risky situations. The motivation to approach risk is referred to as promotion focus, while the motivation to avoid risk is referred to as prevention focus. Promotion-focused people are more risk taken, more sensitivity to positive outcomes (e.g., become healthier), focused in the ideals of a goal, and have emphasis on self-fulfilment.
Prevention-focused people, as the opposite, are more risk averse, more sensitivity to negative outcomes (e.g., avoiding overweight), focused on security and vigilance (Fosters & Higgins, 2005).
Higgins (1997) stated that regulatory focus could influence differences in
performance, emotions, and decision making of consumers, and literature shows evidence that regulatory focus affect how people process information in order to make decisions (Zhu & Meyers-Levy, 2003). Prevention-focused people process information in a local, narrower way and they look for cues in the environment to identify threats and avoid them. In
opposition, promotion-focused people process information in a more global, broader way, and they integrate multiple elements of the message in the process (Fosters & Higgins, 2005). Concerning how regulatory focus affects the free-from claim processing, it could be argued that promotion people might see the claim on the products’ label and search for positive and additional information on the packaging, such as calories, sugar, and fat content. On the contrary, prevention people might see the claim as a new negative cue on food products; a new and unknown risk to be avoided.
Empirical findings have shown that levels of risk aversion affected consumers’ acceptance of GMOs in food products (Baker & Burnham, 2004). Therefore, more risk aversion means more avoidance to GMOs. If we apply this to the scenario of free-from claims, claiming the absence of an ingredient can generate more avoidance to the ingredient claimed, and by consequence more acceptance of the product by highly risk averse
consumers. In addition, as exposed in the previous section, claiming the absence of an ingredient would require no further information about the component (Roe & Teisl, 2007), for this reason free-from claims per se would be enough to affirm the safety of the product fitting perfectly on the type of cues prevention motivated consumers search for.
Promotion and prevention focus can be chronic (people can be naturally prevention-oriented or promotion-prevention-oriented), or situational (depending on the situation and/or information framing), and both strategies have been shown to be effective (Bargh, Bond, Lombardi, & Tota, 1986). Chronic and situational regulatory focus have been part of empirical studies and are consistent in their results showing that promotion-motivated consumers hold more favourable attitudes towards gain-framed messages, while prevention-motivated consumers hold more favourable attitude towards loss-framed messages (Aaker & Lee, 2001; Hsu & Chen, 2014). In addition, Kao (2013) analysed the message framing in healthcare advertising and found that prevention-focused participants demonstrated more favourable advertising attitudes towards negative messages, while promotion-focused participants demonstrated more favourable attitudes towards positive messages. Considering that free-from claims are negative worded statements, those claims might work as a prime to trigger risk avoidance resulting in a lower risk perception of the product for prevention-focused people once they search for this information in the environment in order to avoid health risk.
Regarding how self-regulation can affect the free-from claims information processing, this current study assumes that prevention-focused people will process claims as a risk to healthiness (a risk to be avoided), while promotion-focused group will process claim as a chance to improve healthiness (a chance to approach). Furthermore, once prevention-focused people search for cues in the environment to avoid making mistakes they will perceive the free-ingredient as a threat to health maintenance. In this way they will perceive the product to be safer. On the contrary, people that are promotion-focused process information in a broader way and might consider other attributes of the product; as they look for opportunities to improve healthiness, they will perceive the product as more risky than prevention-focused people.
In order to investigate the role of regulatory focus in the model, we hypothesize a conditional indirect effect of regulatory focus as a moderator of the mediation proposed in hypothesis 2. Figure 1 represents the theoretical model graphically.
H3: Regulatory focus will moderate the indirect effect of free-from claim and perceived risk of the product on perceived healthfulness of the product. Participants in the prevention-focus condition will perceive the product as less risky than participants in the promotion focus condition.
Figure 1. Theoretical model and hypotheses.
Method Pretest
In order to choose the products to be used in this research, ten factitious food products packaging were created exclusively for this study. The choice of not using already existing food products is to increase comparability among conditions and internal validity of the experiment. In addition, the use of fictitious products reduces the chance of brand familiarity bias.
A pretest survey was created on the research platform Qualtrics to assess perceived healthfulness of the ten newly created food products, namely crisps, jelly, mayonnaise, beer,
Free-From Claim Perceived Risk Perceived Healthfulness Regulatory Focus H1 H2 H3
crackers, yoghurt, jam, cereal bar, bread, and water (Figures A1 to A10 in Appendix A illustrate the products’ images used in the pretest). The intention of the pretest was to exclude the possibility of the product to be considered inherently very healthy or very unhealthy that could bias respondents’ perception of the products. Participants were recruited on social media and participation was voluntary. In total 20 participants (N = 20) were part of the pretest, which consisted of observing each of the products’ images in turn and rating how healthy they perceived the product to be on a 1-7 Likert scale (1 being very unhealthy and 7 being very healthy). The product bread (M = 4.30, SD = 1.13) and cereal bar (M = 4.60, SD = 1.43) showed to be centred in the middle of the perceived healthfulness scale and were selected to be part of the experiment. The mean and standard deviation of all the products are presented in Table 1, below.
Table1.
Participants’ perceived healthfulness of pretest products (N=20).
M SD Crisps 1.35 .49 Jelly 1.75 1.12 Mayonnaise 2.55 1.40 Beer 2.55 1.50 Crackers 3.85 1.31 Yoghurt 4.10 1.83 Jam 4.40 1.70 Cereal Bar 4.60 1.43 Bread 4.30 1.13 Water 5.85 2.11
Participants and Design
To test the hypotheses, this study conducted an experiment with a 2 (Claim: free-from claim versus no claim) x 2 (Regulatory focus: prevention focus versus promotion focus) between-subjects design.
The experiment was launched online on April 16 and ran for 25 days. During this period, Qualtrics recorded 250 participants starting the experiment, with 40% dropout rate. One hundred participants who did not complete the full experiment were excluded from the data analysis. The response time of each participant was thoroughly examined on SPSS. Due to the demands of the experiment, such as answering an open-ended question and carefully observing a product’s image, participants who spent less than 4.5 minutes to complete the entire questionnaire were excluded from the analysis. In addition, respondents who did not finish the questionnaire within 1.5 hours could not be considered, once that could represent a struggle in understanding the English language used in the experiment. In addition, the effects of the manipulations could not be guaranteed after long periods.
After excluding invalid participants, the total N =121 was formed mainly by females, accounting 69 (57%) responses, against 52 (43%) of males. The Brazilian nationality was found to be the most common (43%), followed by the Irish (14%) as the second most
common nationality. Dutch participants accounted only 6.6%, and other nationalities from all over the world accounted 36.4% all together. Regarding age, participants ranged from 15 to 50 years old (M = 28.91, SD = 6.22), being the majority (44.8%) composed by young adults. In general, participants were highly educated, with 76.9% having completed at least a
Bachelors’ degree or higher.
Regarding food restrictions and habits of participants, 32 people (26.4%) reported to suffer or be unsure about having any type of food intolerance. When asked if participants lived with someone that suffers from food intolerance, 28 (23.1%) declared yes or unsure
about it. Almost one quarter of respondents (24%) stated that they were following a restrictive diet at that moment.
Stimulus Material
Free-from claim. The experimental material consisted of a factitious free-from claim called ‘MUI free’. The claim was reproduced from Priven et al., (2015) and visually reconstructed in order to look as close to reality as possible. A factitious claim was chosen in order to prevent bias from information risk, bound to occur in the case of gluten-free or lactose-free products.
In order to create the claim condition, the free-from claim was placed at a central position on the two food products’ packaging (bread and cereal bar), that were created exclusively for this study and selected among ten different products in the pretest. Figures 2 and 3, bellow, illustrate the free-from claim conditions.
Figure 3. Bread packaging displaying the free-from claim (MUI-free).
Regulatory focus. In order to manipulate Regulatory Focus of participants, the priming method used by Lockwood, Jordan, and Kunda (2002), which was part of a study about the impact of role models on individuals who were promotion or prevention goal-primed. The priming question was adapted to fit this research replacing ‘academic outcomes’ by ‘health outcomes’. This method is consistent with later research regarding regulatory focus and information processing (Lee & Aaker, 2004; Yoon, Sarial-Abi, & Gürhan-Canli, 2012).
In the promotion-primed condition, participants were asked to “think about a positive health outcome that you might want to achieve” and to briefly describe the strategies they could use “to successfully promote this outcome”. In opposition, participants in the
might want to avoid” and to briefly describe the strategies they could use “to successfully prevent this outcome”.
Dependent Measures
Perceived healthfulness. Consistent with previous research about food products’ packaging information and claims (Feunekes, Gortemaker, Willems, Lion, & van den Kommer, 2008; Ares, Giménez, & Gámbaro, 2009; Carrillo, Varela, & Fiszman, 2012), the outcome variable perceived healthfulness of the food product was measured with one single item. Participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 representing very healthy and 7 very unhealthy, how healthy they considered the product to be.
Perceived risk of food product. In order to measure perceived risk of the products, the attitude scale describing consumers' willingness to use functional foods developed by Urala and Lähteenmäki (2004) was analysed. Among the 7 factors in the scale, one represented measures of perceived risk of functional food using 4 items. The items were adapted replacing the word ‘functional food’ by ‘the product’, and participants were asked on a 7-point Likert scale (1 representing strongly disagree and 7 representing strongly agree) to which extent they agreed with the statements regarding the product they have seen: “if used in excess, this product can be harmful to health”, “in some cases, this product may be harmful for healthy people”, “the properties of this product carry unforeseen risks”, and “this product is consumed mostly by people who have no need for them”.
Factor analysis was conducted on SPSS to explore the 4-item scale measuring
perceived risk of the product. One single component found comprehending the four items of the scale; this component could explain 54% of variance. Reliability test showed satisfactory Crombach’s Alpha of .70 including the 4 items. Subsequently, the mean of the four items was computed into a new variable representing ‘perceived risk of food product’ (M= 3.98 and SD= 1.39).
Background variables. Participants were asked to respond to demographic questions such as age, gender, and nationality; the last had the intent to assess the multinationalism of the sample. In addition, questions regarding food intolerance (“do you suffer from any type of food intolerance?” and “do you live with someone that suffers from any type of food
intolerance?”) and restrictive diet (“are you following any type of restrictive diet at the moment?”) were added to the questionnaire in order to search for possible confounding factors that could be used in further research.
Manipulation Checks.
Regulatory focus. To check for the manipulation of regulatory focus, the 3-item scale developed by Pham and Avnet (2004) and replicated by Yoon et al., (2012) was used in this experiment. Participants were asked to rate on a 7-point bipolar scale to which extent they would prefer to: “do what is right versus do whatever I want”, “take a trip around the world versus pay back my loans”, and “go wherever my heart takes me versus do whatever it takes for me to keep my promises”.
Factor analysis was conducted on SPSS to explore the 3-item scale. Together they were able to explain 48.9% of the variance. The reliability test was conducted and found not satisfactory with Crombach’s Alpha .43. When item 1 was excluded, the reliability of the scale increased to .62, and both items were able to explain 72.5% of variance. The mean was computed using 2 items, namely ‘to which extent would you prefer to: take a trip around the world versus pay back my loans’ and ‘to which extent would you prefer to: go wherever my heart takes me versus do whatever it takes for me to keep my promises’. The new variable representing the regulatory focus manipulation check had M = 3.67 and SD = 1.94.
Claim exposure. In order to check if participants recognised the presence of a free-from claim (versus no claim) on the food packaging, they were asked to indicate on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 representing definitely not and 7 representing definitely yes) if the product they have seen was free of any ingredient.
Procedure
Participants were approached through social media posts and via personal online messages with an invitation to participate in a research about food products preference. By entering the link provided, respondents faced an introduction text, in which they were thanked for their interest in this research and it was stated that their response would remain anonymous and they were free to stop the questionnaire at any time. By clicking on the arrow button to agree and proceed with the questionnaire, participants were randomly
assigned to one of the regulatory focus conditions and they were asked to think about a health outcome they would like to promote or prevent and describe briefly the strategies to achieve or avoid it, depending on the condition they were allocated. After filling in the open-ended question, participants were again randomly assigned to a claim condition containing the image of a food product (with claim or without claim); this time, they were asked only to observe the product as if they were in a shopping scenario. After exposure to both stimulus materials, respondents were asked questions related to risk of the product and perceived healthfulness followed by the manipulation checks. Next, participants were asked some demographic and background information questions. At last, after completing the experiment, participants were thanked for their participation and the debriefing opportunity was offered via personal email contact.
Results Randomisation Checks
Before starting the randomisation checks, the condition groups for ‘claim’ and ‘regulatory focus’ were created. The ‘claim’ variable separated respondents in two groups, those who viewed the free-from claim (on the bread product and on the cereal bar product) and
the respondents who did not viewed the free-from claim (on the bread product and on the cereal bar product). Both products were added together due to the result of the pretest, which
indicated that bread and cereal bar were equally perceived in terms of their healthfulness, and two conditions for ‘claim’ were created (no claim versus claim). In similar manner, a
dichotomous variable was created to separate participants according to the regulatory focus manipulation they received (promotion versus prevention).
In order to conduct a randomisation check to asses participants distribution across conditions, the dependent variables ‘gender’, ‘age’, ‘education level’, ‘self-reported food intolerance’ and ‘restrictive diet’ were analysed for the two independent variables claim (claim versus no claim) and regulatory focus (prevention and promotion). No significant statistical difference was found between the groups and equal distribution across conditions was assumed. The complete and detailed analysis of randomization checks is found in Appendix B.
Manipulation Checks
Free-from claim. In order to assess the claim manipulation check a Univariate ANOVA was conducted in SPSS first using the independent variable ‘claim’ (no claim = 0 versus claim = 1) and the dependent variable ‘please indicate if the product you have seen earlier is free of any ingredient’. The findings show that there is a statistically significant effect for claim exposure on the dependent variable F(1, 120) = 4.75, p = .031, η² = .038 and this effect is of small size. The results indicated that people who viewed the free-from claim on the product packaging (M= 3.77, SD= 1.70) scored higher on the scale of recognition of the claim than people who viewed no claim on the food product packaging (M= 3.17, SD= 1.31). Thus, we can assume that the manipulation of free-from claim worked as expected.
Regulatory focus. In order to assess the manipulation check for regulatory focus a Univariate ANOVA was conducted in SPSS between the independent variable ‘regulatory focus’ (promotion = 0 versus prevention = 1) and the computed variable representing the
manipulation check items. The findings show no significant difference between the groups F(1, 120) = .22, p = .641, η² = .002. Although the results indicated that people who received the promotion focus manipulation (M= 3.58, SD= 2.01) scored slightly lower on the scale (towards promotion focus) than people who received the prevention focus manipulation (M= 3.75, SD= 1.87), it is not possible to assure that the manipulation worked as expected, as it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
Main Analyses
Main effect analysis. The main effect analysis was intended to assess the direct effect of free-from claim on perceived healthfulness of the product. In order to conduct this analysis, an independent samples t test was performed in SPSS using the independent variable ‘claim’ and the dependent variable ‘perceived healthfulness of product’. Participants who were exposed to the free-from claim (N = 62) were associated with an average of perceived healthfulness of the product M = 4.32 (SD = 1.30). By comparison, the group not exposed to the free-from claim (N = 59) was associated with numerically smaller average of perceived healthfulness of product M = 3.76 (SD = 1.38). The assumption of homogeneity of variance was tested by Levene’s test and satisfied, F(119) = .67, p = .413. The t test showed a statistically significant effect t(119) = -2.29, p = .024. The group of participants exposed to the free-from claim was associated with a statistically significantly larger mean of perceived healthfulness of product. Cohen’s d was estimated at 0.42, which is a small to medium effect size. Thus, hypothesis 1 is confirmed.
The mediation role of risk perception of food products. This analysis investigated the second hypothesis, which proposed that exposure to free-from claim would decrease risk perception of the food product and by consequence increase healthfulness perception
Regression analysis was conducted using PROCESS Macro on SPSS with the independent variable ‘claim’ (no claim = -.5 versus claim = .5) and the dependent variables ‘perceived healthfulness of product’ and ‘perceived risk of food product’. Results indicated that the freefrom claim was a significant predictor of perceived risk of food product, b = .627, SE = .25, p = .012, and that perceived risk of food product was a significant predictor of perceived healthfulness of product, b = - .445, SE = .081, p < .001. The free-from claim was no longer a significant predictor of perceived healthfulness of the product after
controlling for the mediation of perceived risk of food product, b = .280, SE = .224, p = .214. Thus, the results support full mediation of perceived risk. Approximately 24% of the variance in perceived healthfulness of product was explained by the predictors ‘claim’ and ‘perceived risk of food product’ (R2
= .236). The indirect effect using bootstrap samples of 1000 was found to be significant, b = .279, SE = .118, 95% CI [.065, .527]. The analysis indicated that participants exposed to the free-from claim were associated with .28 points higher in
perceived healthfulness of the product mediated by perceived risk of food product. The findings support hypothesis 2.
The interaction effect of regulatory focus. It was hypothesized that there was a moderated mediation effect of claim and regulatory focus on perceived healthfulness of the product through perceived risk of the product. In the previous analysis we have shown that perceived risk mediates the effect of claim on perceived healthfulness of the product. In this analysis we assess if the strength of this mediation can differ for prevention- or promotion-primed participants.
To test hypothesis 3, a regression analysis was conducted using PROCESS Macro on SPSS with the independent variables ‘claim’ and ‘regulatory focus’ (promotion = -.5 and prevention .5), and the dependent variables ‘perceived healthfulness of product’ and
predictor of perceived risk of food product, b = - .601, SE = .248, p = .017. However, the interaction between free-from claim and regulatory focus was not statistically significant, b = .257, SE = .496, p = .604. Thus, the results do not support conditional indirect effect of free-from claim and regulatory focus on perceived risk of product and perceived
healthfulness. The moderated mediated effect using bootstrap samples of 1000 was found not significant, b = -.115, SE = .222, 95% CI [-.545, .319]. The findings do not support
hypothesis 3.
Relevant additional analyses
In order to search for possible confounding factors for future research, additional analyses were performed to assess possible differences among the participants exposed to the free-from claim and also following a restrictive diet or suffering from food allergy or
intolerance. The relevant findings identified in the process referred to participants following a restrictive diet. From all participants exposed to the free-from claim (N = 62), those who reported being following a restrictive diet (N =15) were associated with an average of perceived healthfulness of the product M = 5.20 (SD = .94). By comparison, the group not following a restrictive diet (N = 47) was associated with numerically smaller average of perceived healthfulness of product M = 4.04 (SD = 1.28). The assumption of homogeneity of variance was tested by Levene’s test and satisfied, F(60) = 1.18, p = .282. The t test showed a statistically significant effect t(60) = 3.22, p = .002. The group of participants exposed to the claim and following a restrictive diet was associated with a statistically significantly larger mean of perceived healthfulness of product than participants exposed to the claim and not following a restrictive diet. Cohen’s d was estimated at 1.03, which represents a large effect size.
Regarding the variable perceived risk of food product, from all participants exposed to the free-from claim (N = 62), those who reported being following a restrictive diet (N =15)
were associated with an average of perceived risk of the product M = 2.98 (SD = 1.25). By comparison, the group not following a restrictive diet (N = 47) was associated with
numerically larger average of perceived risk of product M = 3.89 (SD = 1.41). The
assumption of homogeneity of variance was tested by Levene’s test and satisfied, F(60) = .22, p = .643. The t test showed a statistically significant effect t(60) = - 2.37, p = .029. The group of participants exposed to the claim and following a restrictive diet was associated with a statistically significantly smaller mean of perceived risk of product than participants exposed to the claim and not following a restrictive diet. Cohen’s d was estimated at 0.68, which represents a medium to large effect size.
Discussion and Conclusion
Free-from products that until recently were only available in specialised stores targeting a very small niche of consumers of those suffering from food allergies and
intolerances, now have been gaining significant space on the selves of big supermarket chains. Research indicates that more than half of consumers of free-from products do not suffer or do not live with someone that suffers from any type of food intolerance or allergy (Stone, 2014). In addition, the majority of free-from food eaters think that consuming this type of products is healthier (Mintel, 2015). Therefore, the question that lies here is why products displaying free-from claims have been perceived as healthier than regular products, once they do not represent a real threat to the general food consumers. Despite the singularity of free-from claims as being a statement of absence of an allergenic ingredient, until the present moment only one study has attempted to understand consumers’ perception of healthfulness of products containing these claims (Priven et al., 2015). While Priven et al., (2015) found that the effect of free-from claims on perceived healthfulness is independent of previous
multinational sample. In addition, we extended the study’s investigations to assess the influence of additional variables in the process, such as perceived risk.
Consistent with Priven and colleagues (2015), our results show that free-from claims had a positive effect on perceived healthfulness of the food product in a multinational sample. The support of hypothesis 1 indicates that free-from claims increases consumers’
healthfulness perception of food products independent of nationality, and the same effect found among American consumers was found significant around the globe.
Furthermore, an indirect effect of risk perception between exposure to free-from claim and perceived healthfulness of the product was observed. The results from this research showed that exposure to free-from claim decreased perception of risk of the product and that lower levels of perceived risk affected perceived healthfulness positively. The overall indirect effect model was found significant, statistically confirming our expectation. The support of hypothesis 2 indicates that free-from claims are able to decrease risk perception of food products, which is in support of Radam and collegues (2010) suggestion that claiming the absence of an ingredient may reinforce the unsafety of the component and by consequence the safety of the product that does not contain the ingredient. In addition, perceived risk was found to be an important predictor of perceived healthfulness of free-from products
characterised by the mediation effect.
The last hypothesis in this study proposed that a conditional indirect effect with regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention) moderated the effect between exposure to free-from claims and risk perception on perceived healthfulness. No significant effect was found supporting the moderated mediation, in other words, no significant perceived risk difference was found between the participants exposed to the promotion-focus manipulation and the participants exposed to prevention-focus manipulation. Despite the literature support of different levels of risk perceived by prevention and promotion-focused consumers (Baker
& Burnham, 2004; Roe & Teisl, 2007), the statistical analysis of this current study did not support hypothesis 3. This analysis was unable to completely exclude the possible effect of regulatory focus within the model and suggested that the lack of statistical significance may find explanation in this study’s limitations, which are presented further in this paper.
Theoretical and Practical Implication
Free-from claims demand exclusive research attention due to the fact that they are claims not related to the general consumers’ health, as the majority of health and nutritional claims. Nevertheless, they are icons stating the absence of allergenic ingredients for
consumers suffering from food allergies. Furthermore, if an ingredient can cause allergy or intolerance it represents a high threat to health, however, even being treacherous for a small percentage of the population, those food components cause no health damage to healthy people. This disparity of claiming the absence of an ingredient that is not necessarily
dangerous is what makes free-from claims so particular, and set this category apart from the other claims.
This research adds knowledge to the understanding of free-from claims displayed on food packaging and how those claims can be a powerful strategy to increase perceived healthfulness. Since, up to this date, only one research study has devoted attention to analyse those claims in particular (Priven et al., 2015), this paper not only confirmed these previous findings, but extended them to a multinational population sample. Moreover, the findings of this study is a step further in understanding the mechanisms driving consumers perception of healthfulness of free-from claims, as it has been found in this study that perceived risk plays an important role mediating this effect, as suggested by previous research on consumers’ decision making (Knox, 2000; Radam et al., 2010).
A large number of studies have investigated how consumers’ perception of
et al., 2012; Lähteenmäki, 2013). However, this paper is, to our knowledge, the first study to investigate the influence of free-from claims on perceived risk of the food product and how risk performs a mediation role between the claims exposure on consumers’ perceived healthfulness.
Regarding practical applications that can be derived from the results found in this study are, firstly, considering that consumers are now more health conscious and concerned about food habits (Sanders, 2015), increasing perceived healthfulness results in a large force driving purchase intention. Hence, marketers and the industry should invest in this type of claim to enlarge the niche of consumers in the sector. Secondly, having found that perceived risk is a driver of perceived healthfulness, the sector should keep investing in negative worded claims as a mechanism to reduce risk perception without having consumers’ need of further explanation about the ingredient or the product.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
In terms of limitations of the study, the sample may not be at the optimal level of heterogeneity, as a large percentage of participants were Brazilian (43%) and highly educated (76.9%). Hence, future research should try to broaden even further the multinational sample and also investigate different education levels, as this may have an impact on the perceived healthfulness of free-from claims on food products.
The main limitation of this study could have been the possible language barrier, as the experiment was conducted in the English language. Participants, in the majority, were non-native English speakers (76%) and they could have had difficulties in understanding the questionnaire. This fact could be appointed as one of the responsible factors for the non-significant effect of regulatory focus manipulation, as it required a response to an open-ended question in which participants had to understand, reflect and write a brief paragraph in
be that the study was conducted by means of an online experiment and participants might not have had the necessary attention in order to successfully enter the expected mind-set.
As a suggestion for future research, further investigation should consider this study’s proposed theoretical model and measure the chronic regulatory focus of participants as moderator of the conditional indirect effect instead of the situational regulatory focus.
Another option would be to reproduce this study in a more controlled environment, such as a laboratory experiment, in order to increase chances of the regulatory focus manipulation to be successful. Moreover, the variables taste and price could be added to the model with the purpose of better understanding of the influences of free-from claims. Furthermore, future research could also consider participants’ language and education level as possible influential factors.
As part of further analyses relating to confounding factors, it was found that among participants who were exposed to the free-from claim, the ones following a restrictive diet scored significantly higher on perceived risk and healthfulness of the product in comparison to participants who were not following a restrictive diet. For both, risk and healthfulness perceptions, the effect size was found large, indicating that there is a large difference between how individuals following a restrictive diet or not following a restrictive diet perceive free-from claim and their products. This additional consideration sheds light on a possible impact of following a restrictive diet on the model for future examination and warrants further investigation with a larger sample.
References
Aaker, J. L., & Lee, A. Y. (2001). “I” seek pleasures and “We” avoid pains: The role of self-regulatory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28(1), 33–49.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ares, G., Giménez, A., & Gámbaro, A. (2009). Consumer perceived healthiness and
willingness to try functional milk desserts. Influence of ingredient, ingredient name and health claim. Food Quality and Preference, 20(1), 50–56.
Ares, G., & Gámbaro, A. (2007). Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite, 49(1), 148–158.
Baker, G., & Burnham, T. (2004). Consumer Response to Genetically Modified Foods: Market Segment Analysis and Implications for Producers and Policy Makers. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 26, 387–403.
Bargh, J. A., Bond, R. N., Lombardi, W. J., & Tota, M. E. (1986). The additive nature of chronic and temporary sources of construct accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(5), 869–878.
Bauer, R. A. (1960). Consumer behavior as risk taking. In R. S. Hancock (Ed.), Dynamic marketing for a changing world (pp. 389–398). Chicago: American Marketing Association.
Burton, S., Andrews, J. C., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2000). Nutrition ad claims and disclosures: interaction and mediation effects for consumer evaluations of the brand and the ad. Marketing Letters, 11(3), 235–247.
Carrillo, E., Varela, P., & Fiszman, S. (2012). Effects of food package information and sensory characteristics on the perception of healthiness and the acceptability of enriched biscuits. Food Research International, 48(1), 209–216.
De Jong, N., Ocké, M. C., Branderhorst, H. A. C., & Friele, R. (2003). Demographic and lifestyle characteristics of functional food consumers and dietary supplement users. British Journal of Nutrition, 89(02), 273.
Dean, M., Lampila, P., Shepherd, R., Arvola, A., Saba, A., Vassallo, M., Claupein, E., Winkelmann, M., Lähteenmäki, L. (2012). Perceived relevance and foods with health-related claims. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 129–135.
Dowling, G. R. (1986). Perceived risk: The concept and its measurement. Psychology and Marketing, 3(3), 193–210.
Dunn, C., House, L., & Shelnutt, K. P. (2014). Consumer perceptions of gluten-free products and the Healthfulness of gluten-free diets. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 46(4), S184–S185.
Feunekes, G. I. J., Gortemaker, I. A., Willems, A. A., Lion, R., & van den Kommer, M. (2008). Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: Testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite, 50(1), 57–70. Food and Drink Federation. (2015). Guidance on free-from allergen claims. Retrieved from
https://www.fdf.org.uk/corporate_pubs/brc-free-from-guidance.pdf
Forster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631–636.
French, S. A. (2003). Pricing effects on food choices. The Journal of nutrition, 133(3), 841S– 843S.
French, S. A., Story, M., Hannan, P., Breitlow, K. K., Jeffery, R. W., Baxter, J. S., & Snyder, M. P. (1999). Cognitive and demographic correlates of low-fat vending snack choices
among adolescents and adults. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99(4), 471– 474.
Graham, D. J., & Mohr, G. S. (2014). When zero is greater than one: Consumer misinterpretations of nutrition labels. Health Psychology, 33(12), 1579–1587.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational
principle. Advances in experimental social psychology, 30, 1–46.
Hsu, C. L., & Chen, M. C. (2014). Explaining consumer attitudes and purchase intentions toward organic food: Contributions from regulatory fit and consumer characteristics. Food Quality and Preference, 35, 6–13.
Kao, D. T. (2013). Framing in Healthcare Advertising: The Moderating Effects of Regulatory Focus and Product Category on Advertising. Attitudes.Journal of Business Theory and Practice, 1(1), 94–108.
Knox, B. (2000). Consumer perception and understanding of risk from food. British Medical Bulletin, 56(1), 97–109.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. SSRN Electronic Journal.
Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.
Lwin, M. O., Morrin, M., Tang, S. W. H., Low, J. Y., Nguyen, T., & Lee, W. X. (2013). See the seal? Understanding restrained Eaters’ responses to nutritional messages on food packaging. Health Communication, 29(8), 745–761.
Lähteenmäki, L. (2013). Claiming health in food products. Food Quality and Preference, 27(2), 196–201.
Mintel. (2014). Gluten-free foods surge 63% in last two years. Retrieved from
http://www.mintel.com/press-centre/food-and-drink/gluten-free-foods-surge-63-percent Mintel. (2015). Trends and opportunities in the growing market for gluten-free foods.
Retrieved from http://www.freefromfoodexpo.com/pdf/2015-conference-mintel.pdf Mullaney, L. (2014). Free-from Category Report 2014. The Grocer
Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2004). Ideals and oughts and the reliance on affect versus substance in persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 503–518.
Priven, M., Baum, J., Vieira, E., Fung, T., & Herbold, N. (2015). The influence of a factitious free-from food product label on consumer perceptions of healthfulness. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 115(11), 1808–1814.
Raats, M. M., & Sparks, P. (1995). Unrealistic optimism about diet-related risks: Implications for interventions. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 54(03), 737–745.
Radam, A., Yacob, M. R., Bee, T. S., & Selamat, J. (2010). Consumers’ perceptions, attitudes and willingness to pay towards food products with “No added Msg” labeling.
International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(1).
Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European food safety authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety. (2002). Retrieved from
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:031:0001:0024:en:PDF
Roe, B., & Teisl, M. F. (2007). Genetically modified food labelling: The impacts of message and messenger on consumer perceptions of labels and products. Food Policy, 32(1), 49– 66.
Runge, C. F., & Jackson, L. A. (2000). Negative labelling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): the experience of rBST. AgBioForum, 3(1), 1–4.
Sanders, L. (2015). International food information council foundation food and health survey 2015. Retrieved from http://www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/2015-Food-and-Health-Survey-Full-Report.pdf
Soldavini, J., Crawford, P., & Ritchie, L. D. (2012). Nutrition claims influence health
perceptions and taste preferences in fourth- and fifth-grade children. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 44(6), 624–627.
Stone, A. (2014). Most free-from buyers are free from allergies or intolerances. The Grocer Urala, N., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2004). Attitudes behind consumers’ willingness to use
functional foods. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7-8), 793–803.
Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can “Low-Fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity? Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 605–617.
Yoon, Y., Sarial-Abi, G., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2012). Effect of regulatory focus on selective information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(1), 93–110.
Zhu, R., & Meyers-Levy, J. (2003). The influence of regulatory focus on consumer information processing. Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 116–117.
Appendix A
Images of the products created exclusively for this study and used in the pretest.
Figure A1. Crisps packaging reading
“Potato Crunchy”.
Figure A2. Jelly packaging reading “Jelly Bear”.
Figure A3. Mayonnaise packaging reading “Smooth and Tangy – Real Mayonnaise”.
Figure A4. Beer bottle reading “More Beer - IPA”
Figure A5. Crackers packaging reading “Crunchy Special – Improved Recipe”
Figure A6. Yogurt packaging reading “Pure Milk – Fresh homemade yogurt”
Figure A7. Jam pot reading “Pure Fruit – Natural Strawberry Jam”.
Figure A8. Cereal Bar packaging reading “Crunchy Cereal Bar – With Chocolate and Cashew Nuts”.
Figure A9. Bread packaging reading
“Bread Delight – Freshly Baked – Fresh Every Day”.
Figure A10. Water bottle reading “Sublime – Fizzy Water”.
Appendix B
Detailed analysis of randomization checks
Gender distribution across conditions was analysed using Crosstabs analysis in SPSS. The dependent variable ‘gender’ and the independent variables ‘claim’ and ‘regulatory focus’ were taken into account in the process. Out of 59 participants in the ‘no claim’ condition, 24 (40.7%) were males and 35 (59.3%) were females. These percentages do not significantly differ from the 62 participants in the ‘claim’ condition, of whom 28 (45.2%) were males and 34 (54.8%) were females, χ2 (1) = .25, p = .619. Out of 59 participants in ‘promotion focus’ condition, 24 (40.7%) were males and 35 (59.3%) were females. These percentages are not significantly different from the 62 participants in the ‘prevention focus’ condition of whom 28 (45.2%) were males and 34 (54.8%) were females, χ2 (1) = .25, p = .619. The results indicate that there is no significant difference of gender across the conditions, thus we can assume that males and females are equally distributed.
Age differences across conditions were analysed using Univariate ANOVA taking into account ‘age’ as dependent variable, and ‘claim’ and ‘regulatory focus’ as independent variables. The findings presented no significant age mean difference between the ‘claim’ and ‘no claim’ conditions F(1, 120) = .19, p = .666, η²=.002, and no significant age mean
difference between ‘promotion focus’ and ‘prevention focus’ conditions F(1,120) = 1.61, p = .207, η²= .014. The findings indicate that the mean of age does not significantly differ across conditions, thus we can assume that age was equally distributed across conditions.
Education level differences across conditions were checked conducting a Univariate ANOVA with ‘education level’ as dependent variable, and ‘claim’ and ‘regulatory focus’ as independent variables. The findings show no significant education mean difference between the ‘claim’ and ‘no claim’ conditions F(1, 120) = .23, p = .634, η²=.002, and no significant mean difference between ‘promotion focus’ and ‘prevention focus’ conditions F(1,120) =
2.47, p = .119, η²= .021. The findings indicate that the mean of education level does not significantly differ across conditions, thus we can assume that education level was equally distributed across conditions.
In order to analyse ‘self-reported food intolerance’, respondents who selected ‘yes’ or ‘unsure’ were added together and a dichotomous variable was created (yes or unsure versus no). To check for food intolerance across conditions, Crosstabs analysis in SPSS was used. The dependent variable ‘self-reported food intolerance’ and the independent variables ‘claim’ and ‘regulatory focus’ were taken into account in the process. Out of 59 participants in the ‘no claim’ condition, 46 (78%) reported not suffering from any food intolerance and 13 (22%) reported to suffer or be unsure about suffering from food intolerance. These percentages do not significantly differ from the 62 participants in the ‘claim’ condition, of whom 43 (69.4%) do not suffer from food intolerance and 19 (30.6%) suffer or are unsure about suffering from food intolerance, χ2 (1) = 1.15, p = .283. Out of 59 participants in ‘promotion focus’
condition, 40 (67.8%) reported not to have any food intolerance and 19 (32.2%) reported to suffer or be unsure about suffering from food intolerance. These percentages are not
significantly different from the 62 participants in the ‘prevention focus’ condition of whom 49 (79%) do not suffer from food intolerance and 13 (21%) do suffer or are unsure about suffering from food intolerance, χ2 (1) = 1.96, p = .161. The results indicate that there is no significant difference of food intolerance across the conditions, thus we can assume that food intolerants and non-intolerants are equally distributed.
The last randomization check was conducted to verify the distribution of participants following a restrictive diet at the moment of the experiment. Crosstabs analysis in SPSS was conducted using the dependent variable ‘diet’ and the independent variables ‘claim’ and ‘regulatory focus’. Out of 59 participants in the ‘no claim’ condition, 14 (23.7%) reported to be following a restrictive diet at the moment and 45 (76.3%) reported not be following a
restrictive diet. These percentages do not significantly differ from the 62 participants in the ‘claim’ condition, of whom 15 (24.2%) reported to be following a restrictive diet at the moment and 47 (75.8%) were not, χ2 (1) = .01, p = .952. Out of 59 participants in ‘promotion focus’ condition, 15 (25.4%) reported to be following a restrictive diet at the moment and 44 (74.6%) reported not be following a restrictive diet. These percentages are not significantly different from the 62 participants in the ‘prevention focus’ condition of whom 14 (22.6%) reported to be following a restrictive diet at the moment and 48 (77.4%) were not, χ2 (1) = .13, p = .714. The results indicate that there is no significant difference of diet across the
conditions, thus we can assume that participants on a restrictive diet and participants not on a restrictive diet males and females are equally distributed.
