CONSUMERS' PERCEIVED HEALTHINESS:
THE EFFECT OF A FRONT-OF-PACK NUTRITION LOGO AND THE
PRODUCT CATEGORY
Janine Voerman
Graduation Date: 17 December 2012
MSc Business Administration: Marketing Management
University of Groningen
2
CONSUMERS' PERCEIVED HEALTHINESS:
THE EFFECT OF A FRONT-OF-PACK NUTRITION LOGO AND THE
PRODUCT CATEGORY
Author: Janine Voerman
S1693379
Kerkstraat 71, 8325BJ Vollenhove Janine_voerman@hotmail.com +31 (0) 610 150 067
1st supervisor: Dr. J.A. Voerman
2nd supervisor: Dr. S.J. Salmon
University: University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business - Department Marketing
Master Thesis MSc Business Administration, Marketing Management
Research theme: Perceived Healthiness, Nutrition information
3
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Consumers are increasingly becoming health- and nutrition-conscious: they are taking more self-responsibility for their health and are increasingly adopting a broader “wellness” oriented lifestyle (Datamonitor 2009). However, in order to make healthier choices, consumers must be able to distinguish healthier products from less healthy ones. Attempts to change eating patterns by informing consumers about the link between diet and health have been difficult (Grunert and Wills 2007). One of the major instruments in trying to bring about more healthy eating patterns has been nutrition labeling (Grunert and Wills 2007). Nutrition labeling is an attempt to provide consumers, at the point of purchase, with information about the nutrition content of individual food products, in order to enable consumers to choose nutritionally appropriate food (Grunert and Wills 2007; Vyth et al. 2009) as well as to stimulate the production of healthful products by manufacturers (Baltas 2001a; Vyth et al. 2009). It is an attractive instrument that supports the goal of eating healthy while retaining consumer freedom of choice. Various formats of nutrition labeling exist. One of the most well-known examples are the traditional back-of-pack Nutrition Facts panel and the front-of-pack nutrition logo on food products.
The various formats of nutrition information vary in design and complexity (Feunekes et al. 2008). The Nutrition Facts panel provides extensive information about product composition, expressed in relative and absolute quantification of nutrients. In contrast, a nutrition logo is typically placed on products with a favorable product composition as compared with similar products within the same product category. As a result it can act as a heuristic cue that reduces the complexity and noise within the package environment, thereby minimizing consumer effort (Andrews, Burton and Kees 2011).
4
The results indicate that no significant relationship exist between nutrition information and consumers' perceived healthiness of the product. Besides, no interacting effects for either product category or consumer involvement are found. However, in line with the expectations a significant main effect is found between the product category and consumers' perceived healthiness. In other words, a utilitarian product category yields a more positive effect towards perceived healthiness compared to a hedonic product category. Thereby, this research underlines the importance of understanding how consumers acquire and use the various forms of nutrition information and other relevant information sources (such as the product category) available in supermarket environments, and how this might effects their nutritional judgment and attitude towards the product. The findings are translated to pragmatic solutions for marketers.
Keywords: Nutrition logo, nutrition information, perceived healthiness, product category, hedonic,
5
PREFACE
Five years ago I decided to start my academic career at the Rijksuniversity of Groningen with the study of International Business and Management. My interest and curiosity into the field of international business; the differences between countries, cultures and people were the main drivers of this decision. However, during the first year of my study, the course marketing grabbed my attention and enlarged by curiosity into this field of business. Marketing management, and consumer behavior in particular, is fascination. Understanding consumers' conscious and unconscious ways of thinking and behaving, by fulfilling their everyday needs seems like a never ending challenge. In order to do so, you should get absorbed by it, inspired by it, and try to get every detail out of it.
6
TABLE OF CONTENT
1. INTRODUCTION ... 7
1.1 Background... 7
1.2 Use of Nutrition Information by Consumers ... 8
1.3 The effect of nutrition logos on consumers' perceived healthiness ... 10
1.4 Problem Statement and Research Question ... 13
1.5 Sub questions ... 14
1.6 Relevance of the study ... 14
1.7 Structure of Thesis ... 15
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 16
2.1 Use of nutrition information by consumers ... 16
2.2 Product categories ... 24 2.3 Consumer involvement ... 27 2.4 Conceptual framework ... 30 3. RESEARCH DESIGN... 32 3.1 Experimental design ... 32 3.2 Participants ... 33 3.3 Procedure ... 34 3.4 Operationalization... 35 3.7 Measurement Overview ... 37 3.8 Manipulation Check ... 38 3.9 Plan of analysis ... 40 4. RESULTS ... 42
4.1 Results for Perceived healthiness ... 42
4.2 Homogeneity of Slopes ... 43 4.3 Covariate Analysis ... 43 4.4 Main analyses ... 44 4.5 Additional Analysis ... 45 4.6 Summary of results ... 48 5. CONCLUSION ... 50 5.1 Discussion of Findings ... 50 5.2 Managerial Implications ... 52
5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research ... 53
6. REFERENCE ... 55
7
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
In March 2011, the foundation Ik Kies Bewust (nowadays called "Het Vinkje") and the Dutch supermarket retailer Albert Heijn combined their two independent health logo’s into a new national logo called the "Smart Choices" logo. This new national logo is available for all manufacturers and supermarkets throughout the Netherlands and should support and make it easier for the Dutch consumer to make a deliberate and health conscious choice while grocery shopping. Simultaneously it should stimulate supermarkets, caterers and manufacturers to produce healthier products (HetVinkje 2012a). At this moment, the "Smart Choices" logo is supported by a foundation of food manufacturers, retail and food service organizations, and nutrition scientists. Besides, it is conditionally endorsed by the Dutch Government (Vyth et al 2010).
The "Smart Choices" logo has distinguished itself from other nutrition logos. One reason for this is that, as mentioned before, the logo is not supported by a single authority, but instead by a foundation of food manufacturers, retail and food service organizations, the Netherlands Nutrition Center, nutrition scientists, and is endorsed by the Dutch government. The second reason is that it is the only nutrition logo in the Netherlands for which criteria were developed and are continuously monitored by an independent scientific committee of nutrition and food scientist (Vyth et al. 2009). The logo is assigned to products that have a more favorable nutrient composition than alternatives within the same product category, thereby the logo should stimulate consumers to make well considered food choices (Vyth et al 2009).
The "Smart Choices" logo is placed on the front of 6600 food packages available in Dutch supermarkets (HetVinkje 2012c). Figure 1.1 shows the number of available products carrying the Choices logo per product category. The items are mutually exclusive.
FIGURE 1.1 The number of products carrying the Smart Choices logo per March 2011 (HetVinkje 2012b) 703 183 277 285 202 65 355 199 195 333
102 Fruits and vegetables
8
In order to display the logo, a product has to comply to certain requirements, determined by a scientific committee, concerning the amount of saturated fat, trans fat, sugar, sodium, fibers and vitamins (HetVinkje 2012c). The new logo has two appearances: the green logo refers to all ‘healthy products’ within the assortment of basic nutrition (e.g. vegetables and fruits), whereas the blue logo refers other non-basic products (e.g. soups and snacks). This should enable Dutch consumers to make a more conscious and healthier choice in all product categories. Figure 1.2 shows an overview of the varying product groups which display either the green or blue "Smart Choices" logo.
FIGURE 1.2 Product groups per Smart Choices logo
1.2 Use of Nutrition Information by Consumers
9
10
Cacioppo 1986; Andrews et al. 2011). When faced with a complex decision environment, heuristics can reduce consumers effort required in order to process nutrition information, while it at the same time allows the consumers to make judgments and evaluations based on this simplified cue or heuristic (Andrews et al. 2011). For instance, when processing effort is low, attitudes may be based on only a few simple and not very strong beliefs because consumers were not able to process the message deeply (Hoyer and MacInnis 2010). Nutrition logos could very well serve as such an heuristic cue, since they are a low-effort tool that provide consumers with an overall interpretation of a food product.
1.3 The effect of nutrition logos on consumers' perceived healthiness
Many researchers suggest that the addition of health claims or nutrition logos on food products can have its benefits. For instance, resent research investigating the role of the Dutch "Smart Choices" logo in guiding buying decisions in the supermarket, indicates that consumers who pay considerable attention to their weight as well as the ones who look at nutrition information on food packages, do actually purchase more products with the "Smart Choices" logo (Vyth et al. 2010). However, it also argues that consumers often buy products with the logo unintentionally (Vyth et al. 2010). Although the "Smart Choices" logo aims to intentionally facilitate consumers in making healthy choices, the increased availability of healthier products might already helps to improve the dietary pattern of both intentional and unintentional shoppers (Vyth et al. 2010). Additionally, some prior researches investigated consumers believability of nutrition information, as well as how it might affect product evaluations. These studies suggest that whereas some consumers tend to be somewhat suspicious on health and nutrition claims (Kozup et al. 2003), in general they believe the salient nutrition information on most packaging (Wansink and Chandon 2006). When a product features a health claim or nutrition logo, consumers view the product as healthier and state they are more likely to purchase it, independent of their search for other sources of information related to the nutrition composition of the product (Roe et al. 1999). In addition, when favorable nutrition information and nutrition logos are presented on packaged foods, consumers have more favorable attitudes toward the product, nutrition attitudes and purchase intentions (Kozup et al. 2003). In this an attitude can be defined as a relatively global and enduring evaluation of an object, issue, person or action (Hoyer and MacInnis 2010). In the context of this paper, therefore, perceived healthiness refers to an overall evaluation that expresses consumers' perception of healthfulness of a certain food product, thereby reflecting the overall attitude towards the nutritiousness of the product (Keller et al. 1997).
11
utilization of nutrition information and nutrition logos at the point of purchase as well as consumers ability to use this nutrition information adequately, varies depending on certain consumers characteristics, such as their level of involvement (Bruck et al. 1984; Moorman 1990; Moorman, and Matulich 1993; Nayga et al. 1998; Wang et al. 1995). Besides, consumers tend to divide various degrees of attention towards different product categories (Grunert and Wills 2007).
1.3.1 Product Categories
Prior research suggests that consumers are more interested in nutrition information for some product than for others (Grunert and Wills 2007), and that the effectiveness of nutrition information and -logos therefore varies across hedonic and utilitarian product categories (Balasubramanian and Cole 2002; Grunert and Wills 2007). The underlying reason for this is that hedonic and utilitarian constructs are separate and important dimensions of attitude towards products and brands (Voss et al. 2003). Balasubramanian and Cole (2002) support this assumption by stating that consumers' search for nutrition information in a given food category depends on how they perceive the category. As a result, product categories are assumed to influence the degree of consumer information search and acquisition (Bhatnager and Ghose 2003). Since according to the principle of persuasion, consumers first need to get exposed to a message (e.g. a nutrition logo), pay attention to it, comprehends the message, and subsequently accept its conclusion, before it can have any effect on their attitudes (Zimbardo and Leippe 1991), product categories seem to be an important determinant when examining the possible effects of nutrition logos on food packages. Consumers may actively seek for nutrition information on utilitarian products while they ignore this kind of information for fun foods, such as candy, because these foods meet hedonics as opposed to health-related needs (Kleef et al. 2005). Although in the past nutrition information have been placed primarily on utilitarian products (Ipploito and Mathios 1991), during the last decade a trend can be observed in which hedonic products are increasingly displaying health claims and -logos as well (HetVinkje 2012b).
1.3.2 Consumer involvement
12
process the message (Zaichkowsky 1985; Petty and Cacioppo 1979; Celsi and Olson 1988). Besides, researches have suggested that involvement could be an important variable which mediates the effect of comparative advertising (Ash and Wee 1983; Gotlieb and Sarel 1991). Attitude researchers have distinguished between two different types of involvement that can affect susceptibility to influence, namely 'issue involvement' (also called personal involvement) and 'response involvement' (also called task involvement). In this 'issue involvement' refers to involvement that concerns the extent to which the attitudinal issue under consideration is of personal importance to the individual, whereas in case of 'response involvement' the attitudinal issue is not particularly important to the person (Petty and Cacioppo 1979). Rather, while the attitudinal issue is not particularly important to the person, adopting a position that will maximize the immediate situational reward is (Petty and Cacioppo 1979). Nonetheless, in this report involvement will refer to issue involvement: as a person's
perceived relevance of the object based on inherent needs, values and interests (Greenwald and
Leavitt 1984).
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
According to Hoyer and MacInnis, (2010) involvement is a psychological state in consumers and is the final outcome of motivation. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is one of the most famous models of persuasion and it builds on the premise that consumers are neither motivated nor able to process all information they receive (Petty and Cacioppo 1979; Petty and Wegener 1998; Petty et al. 2005). A key construct in the ELM is the elaboration likelihood continuum (Petty and Wegener 1998), provided in figure 1.3. According ELM is the amount and nature of the thinking that a person does about a persuasive message (e.g. a nutrition logo) a very important determinant of the kind of persuasion that occurs (Petty and Cacioppo 1981; Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Petty et al. 2005). Consumers are only motivated to accurately process information about things they feel are personally relevant.
FIGURE 1.3 The Elaboration Likelihood Continuum
Low involvement High involvement
Low effort High effort
Limited Thinking Extensive thinking
Peripheral route to persuasion Central route to persuasion
13
The reasoning that personal relevance (e.g. health consciousness) is to increase a person's motivation to engaging in a careful consideration of the issue- or product-relevant information (e.g. nutrition information) presented in order to form a veridical opinion (Petty, Cacioppo and Schumann 1983) is supported by several studies. Previous research has linked motivation to increased information processing (Bettman and Park 1980; Petty and Cacioppo 1986) as well as health motivation to greater health information acquisition (Moorman and Matulich 1993). Besides, Petty and Cacioppo (1986) argue that individual differences, such as the enduring motivation to process nutrition information, may also affect consumers' perception, processing, and evaluation of information on specific claims and nutrition data offered on product packages. For instance, consumers with lower motivation to process (due to a lower level of involvement) may place greater emphasis on the most easily accessible information, such as a front-of-pack logos and claims made on the front of the package. In addition, detailed back-of-pack nutrition labels are more likely to be used by interested and informed consumers, including those with special dietary needs (Stockley 2007). Due to their stronger likelihood of examining and considering the Nutrition Facts panel, consumers higher in motivation are assumed to be less likely to draw (inappropriate) conclusions about the perceived healthiness of the product from a nutrition logo (Kemp et al. 2007). In contrast, low involved consumers are more likely to use the nutrition logo as a heuristic cue to (automatically) base their perception about the products' healthiness upon. In this, the former requires extensive information processing (central route of persuasion) whereas the latter only requires limited information processing (peripheral route of persuasion).
Overall, it can be assumed that the utilization of nutrition information and its effects on consumers' perceived healthiness of the product is likely to be affected by a consumers' level of involvement. Some consumers are more health conscious, and thus have a higher level of involvement in healthful food products than others. As a result, they will be more likely to search for, and make use of detailed nutrition information compared to less involved (health conscious) consumers.
1.4 Problem Statement and Research Question
14
by Dutch consumers among hedonic- and utilitarian product categories. Besides, it wants to better understand whether consumers level of involvement possibly influences this effect. In order to fulfill this objective the following research question is stated:
What is the effect of the addition of a nutrition logo on food packages on consumers' perceived healthiness of a product among different product categories (hedonic versus utilitarian) and how is this relationship moderated by consumers' level of involvement?
1.5 Sub questions
In order to define whether nutrition logos have an effect on consumers' perceived healthiness of food products among various product categories, while simultaneously examining whether this relationship is influenced by consumers' level of involvement, the following sub questions are established:
What is the effect of the addition of a nutrition logo on food packages in a hedonic food category?
What is the effect of the addition of a nutrition logo on food packages in a utilitarian food category?
How does consumers' involvement moderate the relationship between the addition of a nutrition logo on consumers' perceived healthiness?
1.6 Relevance of the study
The substantial number of nutrient and health claims appearing on packaged food labels highlights the importance of understanding how consumers use health claims to form product attitudes. As the introduction already pointed out, a large amount of consumers wants nutrition information to be available on food products and has a positive attitude towards its availability. However research reveals that only a considerably small amount of people actually uses this form of information to base their product attitudes and evaluation upon.
15
nutritional judgment and product attitude, as well as how this effect might is influenced by consumers' level of involvement (high versus low).
Why are attitudes so important? According to Petty and Cacioppo (1981) are attitudes, next to the fact that they serve as convenient summaries of our beliefs, important to other people for several reasons, for instance they help others to know what to expect from us. Hence, knowing people's attitudes presumably helps us to predict the kinds of behaviors they are likely to engage in more accurately than almost anything else we can tell them. Prior research by Chandon and Wansink (2007) for instance, indicates that people eat more in restaurants they perceive as being "healthy" (versus "unhealthy"). This acknowledges that it is of considerably interest to better understand how consumers acquire and use the various forms of nutrition information in supermarket environments (e.g. nutrition logos provided on a food labels), and how this might effects their nutritional judgment and attitude towards the product. Therefore, identifying factors that are responsible for the apparent attenuation in nutrition information use continues to be an important empirical problem.
1.7 Structure of Thesis
16
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Chapter two consist of an overview of academic literature on the subjects nutrition information, product categories, and consumer involvement, all related to the use of nutrition logos on food packages and consumers' perceived healthiness of food products. At the end of the chapter an overview of the results will be presented as well as a conceptual framework. This conceptual framework represents the outcomes of the theoretical framework and will be used as a guiding line throughout the rest of the research.
2.1 Use of nutrition information by consumers
Getting consumers to eat more healthy is a difficult task. While health is valued by everyone and therefore is one of the drivers of human behavior, attempts to change eating patterns by informing consumers about the link between diet and health have been difficult (Grunert and Wills 2007). Past research has claimed that information disclosure can be used in order to influence consumer processing and/or choice activities (Bettman 1975). One of the major instruments in trying to bring about more healthy eating patterns, therefore, has been the earlier described phenomenon of nutrition labeling. Nutrition labeling is an attractive attempt to provide consumers, at the point of purchase, with information about the nutrition content of individual food products in order to enable consumers to choose nutritionally appropriate food. It supports the goal of healthy eating while it simultaneously reduces information search costs for consumers which would make it more likely that the information provided is actually being used (Grunert and Wills 2007). Numerous studies indicate that the majority of consumers want more nutrition information available on food packages (Daly 1976; Muller 1985; Baltas 2001b). However, at the same time several other studies show that consumers, even though they indicate that they prefer more availability of nutrition information, they engage only in limited nutritional information processing (Jacoby et al. 1977; Bruck et al. 1984; Russo et al. 1986; Moorman 1990). For instance, Jacoby et al. (1977) argue that despite the fact that consumers express a strong desire for nutrition information, they devote only a negligible proportion of their pre-purchase search to actually acquiring such information. Additionally, also Grunert and Wills (2007) state that there is a widespread interest for nutrition information on food packages among consumers. Hence, whereas consumers say that they want nutrition information and say they would (or do) use it, past research reveals something different.
2.1.1 Consumer knowledge and understanding of nutrition information
17
they attempt to process “too much” information in a limited time (Jacoby 1984; Malhotra 1984). This in turn can significantly influence consumers' product evaluations since, processing (nutrition) information is a necessary condition in order for an accurate understanding of the actual meaning of detailed sources of information (Bettman 1979) such as the Nutrition Facts panel. In addition to a lack of time, prior nutrition knowledge seems a necessary prerequisite for effectively interpreting and using nutrition information too (Daly 1976; Jacoby et al. 1977; Moorman 1990; Moorman and Matulich 1993; Mazis and Raymond 1997; Szykman et al. 1997; Andrews et al. 2000; Cowburn and Stockley 2005). Consumers using the central route to persuasion need to understand (detailed) nutrition information before they can actually use it (Brucks et al. 1984, Burton et al. 1994; Keller et al. 1997). However, only consumers who have high levels of nutrition knowledge are able to interpret and use detailed nutrition information to form product judgments in a correct manner (Mazis and Raymond 1997). Hence, nutrition knowledge provides the foundation for nutrition information processing. In this nutrition information knowledge can be defined in several ways. According to Moorman (1996) nutrition information knowledge can be defined as nutrition labels knowledge which reflects the ability to recall the characteristics of a nutrition label (e.g. label content such as types of nutrients).
Consumer Understanding
18
Nutrient Facts Panel on the back of packaged food products, which provides extensive information about product composition, expressed in relative and absolute quantification of nutrients (Vyth et al. 2009). Since consumers have difficulties interpreting these food labels, especially older consumers and consumers with lower levels of education and income (Moorman 1990; Vyth et al. 2009; 2010), simplified, low-effort nutrition logos may be a good alternative.
2.1.2 Various forms of nutrition information labels
Few consumers actually acquire nutrition information from the traditional Nutrition Facts panel (Jacoby et al. 1977; Moorman 1990). Previous research by Wansink (2003) suggests that consumers may simply ignore this format due to its excessive amount of information. Besides many do not have a proper understanding of what they acquire (Jacoby et al. 1997; Moorman 1990; Viswanathan 1994; Parker 2003; Cowburn and Stockley 2005; Vyth et al. 2010). In response to this phenomenon, different parties (e.g. retailers, manufacturers, governmental and non-governmental organizations) have tried to design front-of-pack nutrition information labels that complement it and are easier to understand and use (Feunekes et al. 2008; Stockley 2007). These nutrition labels come in different formats, and vary from complex detailed nutrition labels to simple logos (Feunekes et al. 2008). Detailed nutrition labeling formats enable consumers to make an informed choice by providing information about key nutrients in a friendlier way compared to the traditional Nutrition Facts Panel (Feunekes et al. 2008), whereas simple logos provide an interpretation of the healthiness of the overall product, thereby reducing the processing load (Scott and Worsely 1994). Well known examples are the "Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), the 'Wheel of Health', the 'Multiple Traffic Light', and the "Smart Choices" logo which is discussed in the introduction. The GDA shows the amount in grams of percentages for calories, sugar, fat, statures and salt per serving (Feunekes et al. 2008). The 'Multiple Traffic Light' label is similar to the 'Wheel of Health', since both show the amount of the five key nutrients energy, total fat, satured fatty acids, sugar and salt in each serving. They represent different nutrient levels by words as HIGH or MEDIUM or LOW, or by visual representations e.g. RED or ORANGE or GREEN (Stockley 2007). Some examples of nutrition labels are shown in figure 2.1.
19
There are thus a multitude of front-of-pack labels that aim to help consumers make a healthier choice. Research by Feunekes et al. (2008) shows that front-of-pack labeling formats are indeed effective in helping consumers make healthier choices. These results also suggest that consumers do not observe large differences in ease of use between the various formats. Nevertheless, most consumers do place substantial value on simplicity (Feunekes et al. 2008). This finding is in line with Viswanathan (1994), who states that summary information and verbal presentation of nutrition information facilitates the usage of such information. Overall, formats that avoid quantitative tasks to derive information, but rather use graphics and colors, should be preferred (Drichoutis et al. 2006). Therefore, summarizing the information into a single icon allows use of simple generalized conjunctive or satisfying heuristic that may be sufficient for many consumers in order to make healthy choices (Andrews et al. 2011). A front-of-pack nutrition logo is typically placed on products with a favorable product composition as compared with similar products within the same product category. It ideally can act as a heuristic cue that reduces the complexity and noise within the package environment, thereby minimizing consumer effort (Andrews et al. 2011). This since interpreting a front-of-pack nutrition logo does not require much effort or detailed nutrition knowledge. As a result, it could be a useful aid for all consumer groups. Prior research supports this assumption by stating that heuristic cues are used more when attitudes cannot be based on central merits of the target, for instance in situations where the stimuli are quite difficult to assess (Petty et al. 1997). By using heuristics, consumers can form product judgments. Interpretational aids like verbal descriptors and recommended reference values help in product comparison (Viswanathan 1994; Cowburn and Stockley 2005). Besides, it may reduce consumer misperception of nutrition information.
2.1.2 The effects of nutrition information on consumers' perceived healthiness
The effects of nutrition information and -logos have been extensively researched in the context of both advertising (Brucks et al. 1984; Russo et al. 1986; Andrews et al. 1998) and package design (Ford et al. 1996; Keller et al. 1997; Kozup et al. 2003). Although most consumers are skeptical of health claims, in general they do believe the salient nutrition information on most packaging (Wansink and Huckabee 2005). Beside, resent research indicates increased exposure, attention and actual use of nutrition logos by consumers in supermarkets environments (Vyth et al. 2009; 2010).
Perceived overall healthiness
20
(Ford et al; 1996; Andrews et al. 1998; Roe et al. 1999; Kozup et al. 2003; Grunert and Wills 2007; Feunekes et al. 2008; Aschemann-Witzel and Hamm 2010; Andrews et al. 2011), others did not found such a relationship (Keller et al. 1997; Garretson and Burton 2000; Roberto et al. 2012). Table 3 provides an overview of existing literature about the effects of nutrition information on consumers' product attitude. While more studies did investigate the effect of nutrition information, these studies do not mention the effect towards consumers' perceived healthiness. Instead, most studies only focused on the effects on the behavior aspects (e.g. consumer consumption or purchase behavior).
TABLE 2.1 Overview of relevant studies concerning the effects of nutrition information on consumers' product evaluation
Study Purpose of the study Method and Findings
Ford et al. (1996)
Whether consumers can evaluate nutrition information in the presence of a health claim.
Laboratory experiment - Both health claims and nutrition
information influence beliefs about product healthfulness. Importantly, health claims and nutrition information have independent effects on consumer beliefs.
Keller et al. (1997)
The effects on nutrition and product evaluations of nutrition claims made on a product package, product nutrition value levels, and enduring motivation to process nutrition information.
Laboratory experiment - Nutrition claims on the front of the
package generally did not affect positively consumers' overall product and purchase intention evaluation.
Mazis and Raymond (1997)
Whether consumers' beliefs are affected by nutrition information on food labels.
Questionnaires - Consumers tended to have lower beliefs
about the nutrition value of food products with both nutrition information and the health claim as opposed to food products with only the health claim.
Andrews et al. (1998)
Whether consumers do misinterpret (e.g. over generalize) common nutrient content claims in advertising.
Between-subjects experiment - Misleading generalizations,
beyond those of control ad claims, are found for general (e.g. "healthy) and specific (e.g. "no cholesterol) nutrient content claims.
Roe et al. (1999)
The effects of health claims on consumer information search and processing behavior.
Mall-intercept study - Consumers who viewed claims
provide more positive summary judgments of products and give greater weight to the information mentioned in claims than to the information available in the Nutrition Facts panel.
Garretson and Burton (2000)
How differences in Nutrition Facts information on fat and fiber, coupled with differing claims for these nutrients (including multiple nutrient claims and a health claim) influence consumers' product evaluations, perceptions and awareness of disease risk, and trust of the claims and Nutrition Facts information.
Between-subjects experiment - Claims do not affect product
evaluations and purchase intentions, and there is a weak effect of inclusion of a health claim on disease risk perception.
Kozup et al. (2003)
The effects of health claims and nutrition information placed on restaurant menus and packaged food labels.
Three experiments - When favorable nutrition information
or health claims are presented, consumers have more favorable attitudes toward the product, nutritional attitudes, and purchase intentions.
Grunert and Wills (2007)
How consumers perceive, understand, like and use nutrition information on food labels.
Literature review - Respondents rated he overall
21
Feunekes et al. (2008)
The impact of eight front-of-pack nutrition labeling format that differed in complexity across four European countries (UK, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands).
Questionnaires - All formats were more likely to increase
the perceived healthiness of the healthier products than to decrease the perceived healthiness of the less healthy product.
Ascheman-Witzel and Hamm (2010)
Investigates whether food products with a claim are more preferred to product alternatives without a claim.
Experimental choice test - Products with a claim are clearly
preferred, but determining factors of choice differ between the food categories. Choice was positively influenced by perception of healthiness of the product.
Andrews et al. (2011)
Compare effects of various nutrition logos. Between-subject experiment - Smart Choices logo can lead
to positive (and potentially misleading) nutrient evaluations and product healthfulness when compared with the TL-GDA icon or no-FOP icon control.
Roberto et al. (2012)
The influence the SC logo has on the serving and consumption of cereal, and the impact of providing calorie and servicing size information on a FOB label.
Questionnaire - No differences across groups on
perceptions of healthfulness, taste, purchase intention, and levels of vitamins, and sugar or amounts of cereal poured or consumed. The SC logo has little impact on behavior.
Several experimental studies thus show that when exposed to nutrition logos or health claims, consumers accept and use the information in judgment and evaluations of product alternatives (Ford et al. 1996; Kozup et al. 2003; Grunert and Wills 2007; Andrews et al. 2011). For instance, Ford et al. (1996) state that a health claim creates favorable expectations regarding the products healthfulness.
Truncated information search
22 Generalizations and Inferences
Due to the lack of specific diagnostic information, the summary logo might lead to inferences that are not always correct (Andrews et al. 2011). Consumers are likely to make generalizations and inferences beyond the attribute information provided in labels and advertisements (Russo et al. 1981). Consequently, specific expectations created by a nutrition logo may bias the processing of information presented by the Nutrition Facts panel. Unfortunately, such generalizations may result in ad-based beliefs that are invalid, incorrect or deceptive (Andrews et al. 1998). As mentioned before, in general, health claims and nutrition logos complement the Nutrition Facts panel on the back of the product. Consumers could integrate the health claim and nutrition information in a straightforward, independent manner in order to form a nutrition attitude, or base their perceived healthiness of the product upon. By following the peripheral route of persuasion, explained in chapter 1, consumers may use the information provided through the nutrition logo, as well as their intuitive beliefs to make inferences about missing attributes that are important for their decision (Broniarczyk and Alba 1994). Besides, consumer information processing behavior may suffer from a confirmation bias: inaccurate expectations may not be updated properly after exposure to the second information source, particularly when the second source’s information is ambiguous (Ford et al. 1996). With nutrition, however, deceptive inferences can occur from omission of information that is needed to prevent a favorable representation from being misleading (Andrews et al. 1998). For instance, halo
effects are likely to occur since the presence of a nutrition logo can lead consumers to generalize that
the product is more favorable on other nutrition elements not explicitly identified in the logo (Andrews et al. 1998; Roe et al. 1999; Wansink and Chandon 2006). This in turn can result in a more positive product attitude. Examples of incorrect generalizations, found in prior research, that are often made by consumers are: decreased perception of calorie density due to low-fat labels; and the perception that foods low in cholesterol are also low in fat (Andrews et al. 1998). Reasons for these generalizations are that nutrition logos ideally can act as a heuristic cue that reduces the complexity and noise within the package environment, thereby minimizing consumer effort (Andrews et al. 2011). As discussed in chapter 1, when faced with a complex decision environment, peripheral cues can reduce the effort needed to process nutrition information and allow the consumer to make judgments and evaluations based on the simplified cue or heuristic (Andrews et al. 2011). Nutrition logos are such a low-effort attempt that provide an interpretation of the overall healthiness of a particular product.
23
products as "healthy" than when no such a claim is present. However, it also appears that many consumers do make incorrect generalizations based on this simplified form of nutrition information. In addition, consumers may attach another meaning to nutrition logos than the sender of the label initially intended to communicate. Based on this literature review exposure to product packages containing a nutrition logo is expected to result in a more favorable belief about the product healthfulness (nutrition attitude) than expose to product packages without such a logo. An important issue is whether this effect, due to the presence or absence of a nutrition logo, is independent of other factors that also may (either directly or indirectly) affect beliefs about the products' healthfulness. Whereas nutrition logos might affect the processing of the back-of-pack Nutrition Facts panel, a reverse relationship is not expected. Therefore, the following hypothesis is stated: H1a: The presence of a nutrition logo on a food package has a positive effect on the perceived
healthiness of the product: products with a nutrition logo are perceived to be healthier than products without a nutrition logo.
H1b. The positive effect of a nutrition logo on the perceived healthiness of the product is not
influenced by the presence of other forms of nutrition information (e.g. a Nutrition Facts Panel).
Moderating variables
24
Bhatnager and Ghose 2004; Ascheman-Witzel and Hamm 2010). Hence, this research will extend prior research by distinguishing between foods in different product categories carrying the logo, in order to identify the possible effect of a nutrition logo towards consumers' perception about the products' healthines.
In addition, it is important to be careful in making generalizations about the described findings, since consumers' search for, and response to, nutrition information is not homogeneous among individuals (Baltas 2001b). Consumers vary in their degree of health consciousness, or in other words, in their level of involvement. Some consumers are more interested in health and nutrition information than others. As a result, the extent of search and acquisition of nutrition information by consumers varies (Moorman and Matulich 1993). Prior research suggests that personal relevance, or in the case of nutrition information, health consciousness, is to increase a person's motivation to consider and adequately process all relevant information available (Petty and Wegener 1998). In contrast, people low in involvement, thus people not concerned with eating healthy, are assumed to only use simple heuristics that require little effort (Roe et al. 1999). Therefore, it seems that involvement influences the extent to which individuals are influenced by various sources of nutrition information. Whereas, people high in involvement tend to follow the central route of persuasion by using extensive forms of information (e.g. both the detailed Nutrition Facts panel and a nutrition logo), people low in involvement are more likely to follow the peripheral route of persuasion, by using only simple cues (e.g. a nutrition logo) to base their attitudes and health perceptions upon. Hence, it is important to distinguish various levels of consumer involvement (Moorman 1990; 1996) in order to define the effect of a nutrition logo on consumers' perception about the healthiness of a food product.
2.2 Product categories
As described in the introduction, consumers need to go through the first four mental steps of the persuasion process in order for attitude change to occur. However, consumers spend different amounts of time searching in various product categories (Beatty and Smith 1987). Besides, they devote different amounts of time to processing information in order to from new attitudes. In other words, product category can be assumed to influence on the degree of consumers information search and acquisition (Bhatnagar and Ghose 2003) and consequently the forming of (nutrition) attitudes. A possible explanation might be that various categories consist of different shopping motives.
2.2.1 Hedonic versus utilitarian food products
25
multisensory, fantasy, and emotive aspects of consumption (e.g. snacks and sauces) (Arnolds and Reynolds 2003). According to Babin et al. (1994) are hedonic shopping motives similar to the task orientation of utilitarian shopping motives, only the "task" is concerned with hedonic fulfillment, such as experiencing fun, amusement or sensory stimulation. While all motivations can be described as containing both hedonic and utilitarian elements, some are more utilitarian in nature while others are more hedonic in nature (Arnolds and Reynolds 2003). Research by Cramer and Antonides (2011) shows that utilitarian and hedonic food products differ in perceptions concerning the utility of the product, i.e. 'healthiness,' 'improves resistance,' 'not fattening,' and 'functionality.' Additionally, people's attitude towards utilitarian goods turns out to be more positive compared to their attitudes towards hedonic food products (Cramer and Antonides 2011). Since consumers' motivation and involvement, and thus their information processing effort, differs across product categories it seems likely that the effects of package information (such as nutrition logos) on perceived healthiness also differ across various categories.
2.2.2 The effect of nutrition information among various product categories
26
of the "Smart Choices" logo on unhealthy products may lead to misunderstanding of the message. Besides, as mentioned before, people tend to select out for attention those ads which are quickly recognizable as being in accord with interests or beliefs they already hold; and they are much less likely to pay attention to other ones (Maloney 1994). Therefore, it seems assumable that people will ignore nutrition logos that claim the hedonic products to be "healthy" (e.g. snacks and sauces). Another possibility is that they will pay attention to nutrition logo on unhealthy products, but do not understand the objective message of the sender. For instance, they might assume that a nutrition logo states that the product is healthy, whereas it actually distinguishes the most healthy product among a certain category. In line with this assumption it is also likely to assume that they will be more skeptical of subjective health claims (e.g. "healthy") compared to objective health claims (e.g. "sugar free") (Andrews et al. 1998). According to Zimbardo and Leippe (1991), people react to persuasive information (e.g. nutrition logos) by relating it to their existing attitudes, knowledge, and feelings about the message topic. In doing so, they generate thoughts, or "cognitive responses", relevant to the message that may or may not include the information in the message and may or may not agree with what the message advocates. What is important in this is the evaluative nature of the cognitive response. People will change their attitude in agreement with the message position to the extent that the message evokes cognitive responses in them that agree with the position the message advocates. But if the cognitive response support "the other side" - if they are counterarguments or otherwise unfavorable to the message position - our attitude will either remain unchanged or possible even "boomerang", that is, change away from the message advocated (Zimbardo and Leippe 1991). This can for instance be the case when a general nutrition logo ("healthy") is placed on a hedonic food product such as candy.
Overall, whereas not much is known about the effects of nutrition logos on consumers' perceived healthiness in various product categories, the general assumption is that consumers’ pay more attention to, and are more likely to accept nutrition information and health claims on utilitarian (healthy) product compared to hedonic (unhealthy) products.
H2a: A utilitarian product category has a positive effect on consumers' perceived healthiness,
compared to a hedonic product category: the perceived healthiness of the product is higher for utilitarian than for hedonic products.
H2b: The type of product category moderates the effect of a nutrition logo on the perceived
27
2.3 Consumer involvement
Consumers vary in their degree of health consciousness, and subsequently their interest in nutrition information. As mentioned in the previous section, people tend to select out for attention those sources of information which are quickly recognizable as being in accord with interests or beliefs they already hold; and they are much less likely to pay attention to other ads (Maloney 1994). In other words, consumers ignore comparative information they consider as not being worthwhile to be processed (Muller 1985).
2.3.1 Personal Involvement
Over the past decades, theorists in attitude research have generally described the persuasion process as either one in which message recipients actively process arguments presented in a communication or one in which the message arguments are virtually irrelevant to persuasion, since in these situations attitude change can result from various non content cues (Cacioppo and Petty 1982). In this, an important situational determinant of persuasion is how extensively the message recipient is personally involved with the issue under consideration (Petty and Cacioppo 1981). When personal involvement is high, rational processing of the message content tends to predominate. In contrast, when a message is on a topic of low personal importance, non content features of the persuasion setting tend to be more important in determining attitude change (Cacioppo and Petty 1982). As mentioned in the introduction, the reasoning that personal relevance is to increase a person's motivation to engaging in a diligent consideration of the issue- or product-relevant information (e.g. nutrition information) presented in order to form an opinion (Petty et al. 1983) is supported by several studies. For example, high motivation leads to increased information processing by consumers (Bettman and Park 1980; Petty and Cacioppo 1986). In addition, health motivated consumers (consumers' goal-directed arousal to engage in preventive health behaviors) causes increased acquisition of health information (Moorman and Matulich 1993; Szykman et al. 1997). Besides, Chaiken (1980) represents motivation to search for information as a key variable affecting the elaboration or systematic processing of a message.
High involved consumers
28
29 Low involved consumers
In contrast, low involved consumers may do not perceive the detailed information in the Nutrition Facts panel as necessary for the judgment task at hand, and therefore prefer to use the nutrition logo as a simple cue to base their perceived healthiness of the product upon. In accordance with the peripheral route to persuasion they make a simple inference about the presence of the nutrition logo (e.g. "If a nutrition logo is present, it must be a healthy product"). They are not very conscious about their health and therefore will use only little effort in order form a judgment about the nutritious composition of food products. As a result, they will place greater emphasis on minimum effort tools and cues available (e.g. a nutrition logo) in order to form a perception about the healthiness of the product. Consequently it seems likely that they will use the nutrition logo as the main source of nutrition information to base their assumption about the healthfulness of the product on (Roe et al. 1999), independent of the availability of other sources of nutrition information. This assumption is supported by Petty et al. (1997) who show that cues have a greater impact when motivation and/or ability to scrutinize the central merits of the product are low.
In conclusion, the above described literature suggest that involvement influences the way nutrition information is processed. High involved consumers are the main users of the nutrition logo. However, simultaneously highly involved consumers will follow the central route to persuasion, thereby processing all available package information thoroughly. In contrast, low involved consumers will be more likely to follow the peripheral route to persuasion by relying on nutrition logos as a heuristic cue indicating the healthiness of the food product. Therefore, low involved consumers will rely on nutrition logos as the primary source of nutrition information in order to form a perception about the healthiness of the product in cases where various forms of nutrition information are available. In contrast, high involved consumers will only use it as an additional source to verify the information from other sources, such as the Nutrition Facts Panel. Nonetheless, when no other sources are available they will use it as their primary source of information as well.
H3a. A nutrition logo will have a more positive effect on perceived healthiness of the product in case
of high involvement versus low involvement with healthy eating, if no other forms of nutrition information are available.
H3b. The combination of a logo with additional nutrition information (e.g. a Nutrition Facts panel)
30
H3c. In cases were only the Nutrition Facts panel is available (absence of a nutrition logo), nutrition
information has a more positive effect on the perceived healthiness for individuals high, compared to individuals low involved with healthy eating.
2.4 Conceptual framework
Figure 2.2 depicts the conceptual framework developed, based on the literature evaluated in the previous sections. This model will help answering the problem statement what the effect is of the addition of a nutrition logo on food packages, on consumers' perceived healthiness among various product categories (hedonic versus utilitarian). Moreover, consumer involvement and the product category are hypothesized to moderate this relationship. Table 2.2 provides the conceptual framework including all hypotheses.
TABLE 2.2 Overview of Hypotheses
Hypothesis
Nutrition Information
H1a: The presence of a nutrition logo on a food package has a positive effect on the perceived
healthiness of the product: products with a nutrition logo are perceived to be healthier than products without a nutrition logo.*
H1b: The positive effect of a nutrition logo on the perceived healthiness of the product is not
influenced by the presence of other forms of nutrition information (e.g. a Nutrition Facts Panel).
Product Category
H2a: A utilitarian product category has a positive effect on consumers' perceived healthiness,
compared to a hedonic product category: the perceived healthiness of the product is higher for utilitarian than for hedonic products.*
H2b: The type of product category moderates the effect of a nutrition logo on the perceived
healthiness of the product. A nutrition logo has a more positive effect on perceived healthiness for utilitarian products compared to hedonic products.
Consumer Involvement
H3a: A nutrition logo will have a more positive effect on perceived healthiness of the product in
case of high involvement versus low involvement with healthy eating, if no other forms of nutrition information are available.
H3b: The combination of a logo with additional nutrition information (e.g. a Nutrition Facts panel)
has a more positive effect on the perceived healthiness for individuals high, compared to individuals low involved with healthy eating.
H3c: In cases were only the Nutrition Facts panel is available (absence of a nutrition logo), nutrition
information has a more positive effect on the perceived healthiness for individuals high, compared to individuals low involved with healthy eating.
31 FIGURE 2.2 Conceptual framework of the effect of the addition of a nutrition logo on food
packages on consumers' perceived healthiness
H2b H2a H1
H3
Nutrition Information (NI)
- Absence (control) - Nutrition logo (cue)
- Nutrition Facts Panel (argument) - Nutrition logo + Nutrition Facts Panel (both)
Perceived Healthiness (PH)
Consumer Involvement (CI)
- Low involvement (LI) - High involvement (HI)
Product Category (PC)
32
3. RESEARCH DESIGN
In this chapter the research design will be presented. At the start of the chapter the research method will be discussed in which the type of research is explained. Secondly, a short description of the participants of the research is provided followed by the experimental design. Thirdly, the operationalization of the independent-, dependent- and moderating variables are discussed. The chapter ends with the explanation of the procedure of how the research was conducted. The research questions that is answered by this research is:
What is the effect of the addition of a nutrition logo on food packages on consumers' perceived healthiness of a product among different product categories (hedonic versus utilitarian) and how is this relationship moderated by consumers' level of involvement?
3.1 Experimental design
In order to get insight in the effects of nutrition claims on consumers' perceived healthiness, an experimental design is used. This since experiments can be conducted in order to determine whether certain marketing phenomena affect consumer behavior (Hoyer and MacInnis 2010). Or in other words, to infer causal relationships (Malhotra 2010). To test the formulated hypotheses, a 4 (nutrition information: control condition vs. cue condition vs. argument condition vs. both condition) x 2 (product category: hedonic vs. utilitarian) between-subjects factor design was used. Since a between-subjects factor design was used, each respondent is only exposed to one treatment condition (Malhotra 2010). The questionnaire is structured and standardized in order to enhance reliability. Furthermore, the questionnaires are translated to Dutch since all respondents are native Dutch speakers. Table 3.1 shows an overview of the design of the experiment. Moreover, the eight conditions to which the participants were randomly assigned are shown in table 3.2.
TABLE 3.1 The Experimental Design
Product
Category
Type of Nutrition
Information
Hedonic Utilitarian Control condition (No nutrition information) n = 28 n = 25
Cue Condition (Nutrition Logo) n = 28 n = 24
Argument Condition (Nutrition Facts Panel) n = 23 n = 32
Both condition (Nutrition logo + Nutrition Facts Panel)
33 TABLE 3.2 The eight conditions of the experimental design
Product Category
T
ype
of
n
ut
rit
ion
In
fo
rm
a
tion
Hedonic (ice) Utilitarian (milk)
Control condition
The package of the hedonic food product contains no nutrition information
The package of the utilitarian food product contains no nutrition information.
Cue
Condition The package of the hedonic food
product contains a nutrition logo.
The package of the utilitarian food product contains a nutrition logo.
Argument Condition
The package of the hedonic food product contains a Nutrition Facts panel.
The package of the utilitarian food product contains the Nutrition Facts panel.
Both condition
The package of the hedonic food product contains both a nutrition logo and a Nutrition Facts panel.
The package of the utilitarian food product contains both a nutrition logo and the Nutrition Facts panel.
3.2 Participants
34
aware of the hypotheses or the goal of the study. This since, in general respondents which are not biased by foreknowledge are most objective and reliable (Malhotra 2010).
TABLE 3.3 Descriptive Statistics
Variable Results Scale
Gender 80 male participants (39,4%)
123 female participants (60,6%)
Binomial
Age Range: 10-72 years
M = 31 years SD = 12 years
Ratio
Education Primary school: 1 participant (0,5%)
Secondary school: 24 participants (11,8%) MBO: 32 participants (15,8%)
HBO: 50 participants (24,6%) WO: 96 participants (47,3%)
Ordinal
3.3 Procedure
35
questionnaire in order to prevent that negative feelings about the provision of personal information would influence the other questions (Lietz 2010). Finally they were thanks for their participation in the survey. The various questionnaires can be found in Appendix A of this paper.
3.4 Operationalization
3.4.1 Independent Variable: Type of Nutrition Information
Type of nutrition information was operationalized as the presence or absence of the a nutrition logo and/or Nutrition Facts panel on a food product. In order to assess how the addition of a nutrition logo would affect a consumers' perceived healthiness towards the product, a no-message control condition was conducted to assess absolute attitude change from a premessage baseline (Petty et al. 1981). For the nutrition logo the "Smart Choices" logo described in the introduction was used. Additionally, original Nutrition Fact Panels were used. Four manipulated conditions were included in the research: (1) control condition, (2), cue condition, (3) argument condition, and (4) both condition. In the control condition, all nutrition information was removed from the product. In the cue condition, the "Smart Choices" logo identified the food product as a healthier choice among the product category, while the Nutrition Facts panel was omitted from the package. In the argument condition, only the traditional detailed Nutrition Facts panel was available, indicating the nutrient levels of the product, while the "Smart Choices" logo was omitted. In the both condition, both the "Smart Choices" logo as well as the Nutrition Facts panel was available. Whenever possible, other logos were excluded from package design to increase the validity. Moreover, since color is suggested to determine whether we see stimuli as well as how much we like a product (Hoyer and MacInnis 2010), all conditions used the blue version of the “Smart Choices” logo. Therefore, the green version of the "Smart Choices" logo was replaced by the blue one in the utilitarian conditions.
3.4.2 Independent Variable: Product Category
36 Reliability Analysis
In order to analyze the internal reliability, Cronbach's alpha is used1. The first five questions measuring the degree of hedonism show a high Cronbach's alpha (α = .890). In turn, the last five question measuring the degree of utilitarianism also show a high Cronbach's alpha (α = .860). As mentioned, values higher than .6 indicate that the questions measure the same construct, which means that the questions indeed can be combined into two variables: hedonic and utilitarian. The manipulation check is described in chapter 3.8.
3.4.3 Dependent variable: Perceived Healthiness
Following the example of Keller et al. (1997) and Kozup et al. (2003), perceived healthiness was measured as the overall attitude toward the nutritiousness of the product. Seven-point likert scales were used for the four items, where 1 = strongly disagree, and 7 = strongly agree.
Reliability analysis
In order to analyze the internal reliability, Cronbach's alpha is used. The first four questions measuring the overall perceived healthiness, show a high Cronbach's alpha (α = .925). As mentioned, values higher than .6 indicate that the questions measure the same construct, which means that the questions can be combined.
3.4.4 Moderating variable: Consumer involvement.
Consumer involvement was measured rather than a manipulated variable. It was measured by using the food choice motive importance of 'general health interest' developed by Roininen et al. (1999). This questionnaire has validated and has proven to be reliable, consistent and stable over time (Roininen et al. 1999; Vyth et al. 2010). Negative statements are marked with an "R" after the statement number. These statements were recoded for the final scores. This parsimonious questionnaire is preferred over the Dutch version of the Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) developed by Steptoe et al. (1995) based on the assumption that a shorter questionnaire minimizes consumers' effort required, thereby minimizing consumers unwillingness to participate in the survey.
1
37 Reliability analysis
First of all, negative statements were recoded for the final scores (question 15.1, 15.3, 15.7 and 15.8). Subsequently, in order to analyze the internal reliability, Cronbach's alpha is used. The first four questions measuring the overall perceived healthiness, show an acceptable Cronbach's alpha (α = .783). As mentioned, values higher than .6 indicate that the questions measure the same construct, which means that the questions accurately measure consumer involvement and therefore can be combined.
3.7 Measurement Overview
All questions and scales relating to the variables are presented in table 10. It also provides an overview of the internal reliability per variable by means of Cronbach's Alpha.
TABLE 3.5 Overview of Experiment
Variable Questions / Items Cronbach's
Alpha (α)
Scale Source
Dependent variable Perceived
Healthiness
1. I think the nutrition level of this product is
2. Based on the information provided, how important would this product be as part of a healthy diet? 3. This product is
4. Overall, how would you rate the level of nutritiousness suggested by the information provided?
.925 Bipolar
1. poor/good 2. not important
at all/very important 3. bad for your
health/good for your health 4. not nutritious at all/very nutritious Keller et al., 1997; Kozup et al. 2003 Independent Variables Nutrition Information
1. Control condition (absence) 2. Cue condition (logo)
3. Argument condition (table) 4. Both condition (logo &
table) - - - Product Category (Hedonic vs. Utilitarian)
