Unhealthy In A Healthy Packaging
To What Extent Does It Work?
Effectiveness Of Packaging
Even After Tasting And Reading Nutrition Information
Liselotte Vuijk 10608435 June 22, 2017 – Final Version
MSc Business Administration – Marketing Amsterdam Business School
University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Kristopher Keller
Statement of Originality
This document is written by Student Liselotte Vuijk who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in
creating it.
The Faculty of Economic and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Nowadays a lot of people are more aware of their health and are trying to eat healthier. A lot of food manufacturers, therefore, started to manipulatively highlight the healthfulness of their unhealthy products using certain claims and colours. In this study an experiment was conducted using real products to examine the influence of the combination of claims and colours for healthy and unhealthy food products. The results show that customers are already noticeably good in judging the healthfulness of food products after just looking at the packaging. A healthy or unhealthy looking packaging did not influence this effect. These results were the same after tasting and reading the nutrition information. In addition, the results suggest that a packaging with a regular claim and a red colour promotes the purchase intention. These findings provide more insights regarding the uncertain effects of claims and colours on food packaging. Further research could further examine these effects in a realistic environment, for example in a grocery store. Further research could moreover look at other elements of the packaging that could influence the perceived healthfulness, such as images of the healthy nutrients on the packaging. In order to fight the global obesity epidemic, public health organizations have to find out what drives customers to keep on consuming unhealthy products. To ultimately help customers decrease the intake of unhealthy food and to make them less susceptible for particular marketing tricks.
Table of Contents Abstract 3 1. Introduction 6 2. Literature Review 9 2.1 Product Healthfulness 9 2.2 Product Packaging 10
2.2.1. Claims and Colours on Packaging 11
2.3 Health Perception 11
2.4 Purchase Intention 13
3. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses 15
4. Methodology and Data Collection 19
4.1 Research Method and Sample 19
4.2 Procedure 19
4.3 Selection of Healthy and Unhealthy Food Products 21
4.4 Initial and Final Health Perception 22
4.5 Purchase Intention 23
4.6 Control Variables 23
4.7 Descriptive Statistics 23
4.8 Data Analysis 25
5. Results 26
5.1 Initial Health Perception 26
5.1.1. Control Variables 28
5.2 Final Health Perception 28
5.2.1. Control Variables 30 5.3 Purchase Intention 31 5.3.1. Control Variables 32 5.4 Results Extensions 33 6. Discussion 34 6.1 Theoretical Implications 34 6.2 Managerial Implications 35
6.2.1. Implications for Food Manufacturers 35 6.2.2. Implications for Public Health Organizations 36
6.3 Limitations and Further Research 36
7. References 38
8. Appendices 42
Appendix 1. Formulas and distribution of points to calculate 42 healthfulness of food products
Appendix 2a. Information Sheet Questionnaire English Version 43
Appendix 4. Stimulus products per condition and healthfulness 53 calculations
List of Tables
Table 1. Distinction between healthy and unhealthy according to UK 9 Food Standards Agency
Table 2. Range, means, standard deviations and correlations of variables 24
Table 3. Descriptive statistics per condition 25
Table 4. Regression Model of Initial Health Perception 27 Table 5. Regression Model of Final Health Perception 29
Table 6. Regression Model of Purchase Intention 31
Table 7. Points to calculate total A points (negative nutrients) 42 Table 8. Points to calculate total C points (positive nutrients) 42
Table 9. Classification negative nutrients 53
Table 10. Classification negative nutrients 54
Table 11. Classification negative nutrients 55
Table 12. Classification negative nutrients 56
List of Figures
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework 15
Figure 2. Photo of the product with the designed sticker on it 22 ‘Recette Gourmande – Heerlijk Recept’
Figure 3. Interaction between product healthfulness and product 28 packaging on initial health perception
Figure 4. Interaction between product healthfulness and product 30 packaging on final health perception
Figure 5. Interaction between product healthfulness and product 32 packaging on purchase intention
Figure 6. Average difference between final and initial health 33 perception per condition
1. Introduction
In 2015 43 per cent of the Dutch population struggled with overweight and even 11.6 per cent with extreme overweight, also known as obesity. Shockingly, this percentage of obese people in the Netherlands has more than doubled compared to 1981 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 2016). These days there are approximately more than 1.9 billion adults globally with overweight (World Health Organization, 2016). Overweight and obesity can cause several diseases, among which diabetes type 2, heart and vascular disease and various forms of cancer (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016). This global obesity epidemic is mainly caused by the way food products are marketed (Chandon, 2013); it is rather an increasing dietary intake than a decrease in physical exercise (Madzharov & Block, 2010). As a result, people are now more aware of their health and are trying to eat healthier (Huang & Lu, 2016; Proper, Bakker, Van Overbeek & Van Mechelen, 2006). Following this trend, food manufacturers started to highlight the healthfulness of their products (Carrillo, Varela & Fiszman, 2012; Mai, Symmank & Seeberg-Elverfeldt, 2016). There are several marketing tools that can be used to do so. One of these tools is the packaging. Packaging is one of the most important marketing tools for a food manufacturer (Levin & Levin, 2010; Raheem, Vishnu & Ahmed, 2014; Rundh, 2016). Food manufacturers are often using nutrition claims on their packaging such as ‘Vitamin B’, ‘Zero Sugar’, ‘Low Calories’ and specific colours like green and blue to make a product look healthy (Ford, Fastak, Mitra & Ringold, 1996).
In order to not deceive customers the European Union composed regulations for nutrition claims in 2007 (European Commission, n.d.). Even though the nutrition
and put customers on the wrong track (Kozup, Creyer & Burton, 2003; Silayoi & Speece, 2007). An example is Vitamin Water, which presents itself as ‘nutritious with
Vitamin C and B5’, although it contains a quarter of the daily recommended amount
of sugar. These kind of claims are one of the reasons people are still consuming products like Vitamin Water (Munsell, Harris, Sada & Schwartz, 2015). Another example is Eat Natural and their cereal bars. These cereal bars appear to look healthy; blue packaging and claim to be gluten free without any artificial colours, flavours or preservatives. However, they do not tell that their bar consists of 30.5 per cent sugar. These examples show that there are still products that, legally, can be marketed as healthy while it is actually unhealthy. Customers are often misled by the packaging believing the products are more healthful than they actually are (Orquin, 2013). This is of course an undesirable situation, especially for the public health.
Nonetheless, previous research only paid attention to either the influence of packaging claim or the influence of colours on health perception and purchase intention. The combination of the two has in all probability never been studied before. Moreover, mostly all of these studies used whether an unrealistic or a photoshopped packaging and only examined the influence of packaging at the point of purchase. In this study it is therefore decided to look at an existing product and at the long-term effectiveness of the packaging. In store people do not have the opportunity to taste the product or to deliberately look at the nutrition information, but at home they do. After tasting and reading nutrition information their health perception can change and there is a probability that this takes away the influence of the packaging. To address this gap the research question of this study will therefore be as followed: To what extent
initial health perception and to what extent does product packaging also influence the final health perception and purchase intention after tasting and reading nutrition information?
The results of this study can be used by public health organizations to create campaigns to make customers more aware of the various marketing tools food manufacturers are frequently using to put customers on the wrong tack. The results could even be used to think about stricter regulations regarding claims and perhaps colours of packaging. Public health organizations want customers to make healthier choices. Stricter regulations regarding food packaging can thus give customers the ability to easily identify the most healthful products from the overload of products in the grocery store (Newman, Howlett & Burton, 2016). This could encourage customers to eat healthier. By answering the question this study will even test the congruity theory in respect of food packaging. Furthermore, this study will contribute to the existing literature about food packaging and its influence on the long-term.
The remainder of this study is organized as follows. In the next section previous research will be discussed about food packaging regarding healthy and unhealthy food and their influence on health perception and purchase intention. Followed by the method and data section in which the experiment of this study, the data collection and data analysis will be explained. Afterwards the regression models will be analysed and interpreted. The analyses offer insights in the effect of food packaging at point of purchase and after tasting and reading nutrition information. The study will end with a discussion including the implications, limitations and further research suggestions and
organizations and food manufacturers. The results can help them think about an environment in which it is easy to identify healthier food products, which will create more favourable attitudes towards the food manufacturers. Ultimately resulting in a win-win situation for both the customer and food manufacturer.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Product Healthfulness
The difference between a healthy and unhealthy is not that obvious. Food products are generally classified based on their nutrients. However, this classification differs slightly across food safety agencies. Lobstein and Davies (2009) discuss the distinction between healthy and unhealthy food made by the United Kingdom (UK) Food Standards Agency. The UK Food Standard Agency states that it depends on the amount of fat, saturates, sugar, and salt per 100 gram. In this study these numbers are held. Table 1 provides an overview of their distinction.
Table 1.
Distinction between healthy and unhealthy according to UK Food Standards Agency
Note. Amount per 100 gram.
However, this table only gives an overview of the amount of negative nutrients. The average food product also contains positive nutrients such as fruit, fibre, and protein. Moreover, it does not mean that a food product is directly classified as unhealthy when it scores higher on salt than on fat, saturates, and sugar. Therefore the UK Food Standard Agency created formulas to specify the classification for healthy and
Healthy Moderate Unhealthy
Fat ≤3 g >3 to ≤20 g >20 g
Saturates ≤1.5 g >1.5 to ≤5 g >5 g
Sugar ≤5 g total sugars >5 to ≤12.5 g added sugars >12.5 g added sugars
unhealthy food. They allocate points for every negative and positive nutrient. To calculate the healthfulness of a food product they distract the points for negative nutrients with the points for positive nutrients. A food product can be classified as unhealthy when it scores above 4 on the overall score. See Appendix 1 for the formulas and tables with the distribution of points.
2.2 Product Packaging
The packaging of a product performs two functions. First, it protects the content and secondly, it is used as a marketing tool (Pires & Agante, 2011). The packaging is usually one of the first contacts between the customer and the product (Argo & White, 2012; Carrillo, et al., 2012) and it plays a crucial role in the decision making process (Mai, et al., 2016; Rundh, 2016). At the point of purchase the packaging is an important factor; customers base their food choice mainly on the packaging (Clement, 2007; Prendergast & Pitt, 1996). It is being said that around 82 per cent of the purchase decisions are made in store (Newman, et al., 2016). A packaging that attracts customers while they are in the store will persuade them to buy the product more quickly (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). The packaging does not only promote the purchase decision at the point of purchase, but it also promotes and reinforces this every time the product is used (Raheem, et al., 2014). The packaging must thus be differentiated from competitors (Mai, et al., 2016; Pieter & Warlop, 1999). This is especially important since more and more products are introduced to the market (Rundh, 2016). The average grocery store nowadays contains around 40,000 different products (Newman, et al., 2016). To differentiate the product food manufacturers, for instance, are using distinctive claims and colours on their packaging that attract customers
2.2.1. Claims and colours on packaging
One kind of claim that often appears on food packaging is a nutrition claim. A nutrition claim states, implies or suggests that a particular nutrient in the food product is increased or reduced or that it is present or absent (Carrillo, et al., 2012). A nutrition claim is a relevant element on the packaging; more than three-quarter of the customers confirmed they read nutrition claims on packaging before purchase (Trivedi, Sridhar & Kumar, 2016). Although people are often sceptical about claims on packaging, in general they still believe these claims (Wansink & Chandon, 2006). Fajardo and Townsend (2016) even indicate that claims on a packaging are perceived as more credible and believable than claims in advertisements. Customers tend to use these claims to ignore the nutrition information on the back of the packaging (Nestle & Ludwig, 2010). Not only nutrition claims play a critical role in the decision making process for food products, colours also do so. Around 90 per cent of the customers base their purchase decision on visual elements, like the colour of the packaging (Kauppinen-Räisänen, 2014). The colour of the packaging has to make the product stand out of the shelf and has to grab the attention from customers (Moriarty, 1991). Colour also triggers the fastest response from the customer (Swientek, 2001) and it is known to shape customers’ judgment (Mai, et al., 2016).
2.3 Health Perception
Food manufacturers are not only using claims and colours to differentiate and attract, but also to convey symbolic meaning about the product to the customer (Mai, et al., 2016; Rundh, 2016). The idea behind that is that customers use the symbolic information of a packaging to form specific expectations about the product (Bloch, 1995; Govers & Schoormans, 2005). The packaging of a food product can thus play a
critical role in the perceived healthfulness of the product (Fenko, Lotterman & Galetzka, 2016). The health perception is defined as the expectations that customers have of the health benefits and the influence of a food product on one’s health state (Mai, et al., 2016). Customers usually use the packaging to derive information about the healthfulness (Argo & White, 2012). Claims and colours are therefore often used to make the product appear healthier. It is known that nutrition claims and cool colours like green and blue positively influence the beliefs about the perceived healthfulness of a product (Ford, et al., 1996; Huang & Lu, 2015; Northup, 2014). Associative learning can partly explain this perception. The colour green is often associated with nature and health. It is thus usually used as a packaging colour for healthy products or to make a product look healthy (Kauppinen-Räisaänen, 2014; Schuldt, 2013). Previous research also found that nutrition claims create health halos (Lähteenmäki, et al., 2010; Van Trijp & Van der Lans, 2006; Wansink & Chandon, 2006). Customers believe that products with a nutrition claim on their packaging contain fewer calories. Nutrition claims may even lead to a decrease in the feeling of guilt when consuming unhealthy food. Cleeren, Geyskens, Verhoef and Pennings (2016) found that nutrition claims therefore lead to a single-occasion overconsumption of food. Similarly, Wansink and Chandon (2007) indicate that ‘low-fat’ claims increase the amount of consumption of snack foods by 50 per cent.
However, previous research mostly examined the effect of claims and colours by using an unrealistic or photoshopped product. In the study of Huang and Lu (2015), for example, they photoshopped an image of a bucket of yoghurt. They made the entire bucket green or red with just the name ‘yoghurt’ on it. In this study green was
as unhealthy. Schuldt (2013) also examined the effect of colour by photoshop the calorie labels on the packaging. He also found that the product with the green calorie label was perceived as healthier than the products with an orange and red calorie label. Even though the amount of calories was the same across the different conditions. In line with the results of Schuldt (2013), Koenigstorfer, Groeppel-Klein and Kamm (2014) found that food products with green nutrients labels on the front packaging were perceived as healthier compared to food products with red labels. Besides colour, also nutrition claims were photoshopped on packaging in many studies. Sometimes they did use real products instead of images, but mostly manipulated an aspect on the packaging. Especially for the studies that examined the effect for colours, this is an unrealistic view compared to the products in the grocery stores. The findings are therefore not representative for the real situation. Besides that, the influence of colours and claim together as making the product look healthy or unhealthy has not been studied before.
Furthermore, prior research mainly focused on the effect of packaging at the point of purchase. People do not have the opportunity to taste the product at that moment and are often not motivated, or do not have the ability to read the nutrition information. After purchase they more have the opportunity to do so. It is possible that the effect that the packaging has at the point of purchase will vanish after tasting and reading nutrition information. However the long-term effect of packaging has not been studied before.
2.4 Purchase Intention
As mentioned before, the packaging has an essential role in the purchase intention. The purchase intention depends on the degree to which customers expect the product
to satisfy their needs if they purchase it (Silayoi & Speece, 2004). Previous studies mainly examined the effect of packaging on purchase intention. Purchase intention is, according to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) a good indicator for the actual purchase.
The effect of nutrition claims at the point of purchase has been studied thoroughly, but there has not been found a consistent effect of nutrition claim. There are authors who suggest that nutrition claims do not affect purchase intention (Garretson & Burton, 2000; Keller, Landry, Olson, Velliquette, Burton & Olson, 1997). While other authors do suggest that nutrition claims affect the purchase intention. Cao and Yan (2016) found that using nutrition claims lead to an increase in sales and value. Kozup, Creyer and Burton (2003) also found a positive effect of nutrition claims on purchase intention, providing that the nutrition claim is perceived as favourable.
The effect of colour on purchase intention has not been studied as much as nutrition claims. One study found that the colour red decreased the consumption of snacks and soft drinks compared to a blue packaging (Genschouw, Reutner & Wänke, 2012). On the other hand, Bellizzi and Hite (1992) suggest to use warm colours in food packaging to attract customers. This is in line with the findings of Wu, Chen and Yen (2008) who state that red and yellow attract the eye at the point of purchases and influences the purchase intention positively. Considering the lack of knowledge about the effect of colour on purchase intention and the inconsistency for the effect of claims it is thus decided to look at the purchase intention as an dependent variable in this study.
3. Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
Figure 1 provides a framework for the different variables in this study and their connections.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Note. Direct Effect
Moderation Effect Treatment
As seen in Figure 1 the product healthfulness will influence the initial health perception. People tend to classify food in different categories like ‘snacks’ and ‘healthy’ (Fenko, et al., 2016; Orquin, 2013). The same authors also mention that the health perception is influenced by the product category. It sounds therefore logical that people will perceive the healthy product as healthier than the unhealthy product. The first hypothesis is therefore as follows:
H1. A healthy product will initially be perceived as healthier than an unhealthy product.
Furthermore, it is expected that the product packaging will influence this effect. Based on previous literature it is hypothesized that a packaging that looks healthy with a nutrition claim and a green colour will be perceived as more healthy than a packaging that looks unhealthy with a regular claim and a red colour (Huang & Lu, 2015; Moriarty, 1991; Schuldt, 2013; Wu, Cheng & Yen, 2008). That means that even
though the product is unhealthy it will be perceived as healthier when it is wrapped in a healthy looking packaging compared to an unhealthy looking packaging. Huang and Lu (2015) also found that there was no interaction between the packaging colour and the product. This indicates that the effect of packaging colour on health perception was the same across different products. The effect will thus be the same for healthy and unhealthy products in this study. The hypothesis that derives from this is:
H2. A food product will initially be perceived as healthier when it is shown in a healthy looking packaging compared to an unhealthy looking packaging.
In this study the participants will get the opportunity to taste the products and to read the nutrition information on the back of the packaging. Cao and Yan (2016) mention in their study that the tastiness and health perception are negatively correlated. This means that when a product is tasteful it is perceived as less healthy. This is in line with the findings of Mai et al. (2016). In the present study the unhealthy product will probably be perceived as more tasteful because it contains chocolate. The healthy product in this study is a simple rusk, what is normally eaten with a topping. People could thus see the unhealthy product as more tasteful than the healthy product what could influence the health perception. Besides tasting, people also get the opportunity to read the nutrition information on the back of the packaging. This could also influence their health perception. These assumptions lead to the third hypothesis:
H3. After tasting and reading nutrition information a healthy product will be perceived as healthier than an unhealthy product and this difference will be bigger than before.
Previous literature found an effect of nutrition claims on packaging and packaging colour at the point of purchase. Nutrition claims and the colour green are perceived as healthier than regular claims and the colour red (Huang & Lu, 2015; Moriarty, 1991; Schuldt, 2013; Wu, et al., 2008). There is a chance that even though customers have the opportunity to taste and to read nutrition information the packaging of the product will still influence the health perception. Therefore the following hypotheses are formulated:
H4a. After tasting and reading nutrition information the healthy product in an unhealthy looking packaging will not be perceived as healthier than before, compared to the healthy product in the healthy looking packaging.
H4b. After tasting and reading nutrition information the unhealthy product in a healthy looking packaging will not be perceived as unhealthier than before, compared to the unhealthy product in the unhealthy looking packaging.
Taste has a major influence in the choice for food (Lappalaien, Saba, Holm, Mykkanen & Gibney, 1997; Pires & Agante, 2011; Steptoe & Pollard, 1995). People do not want to forgo on taste for health. People tend to favour unhealthy food, because they think it is tastier. Therefore their attitude towards the product will, according to the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), influence the purchase intention. The hypothesis that derives from this is as follows:
H5. The purchase intention for unhealthy products will be higher compared to healthy products.
Prior research found that customers prefer a product with a packaging that is congruent with the actual product (Van Rompay & Pruyn, 2011). This effect can be explained by the congruity theory (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955). This theory states that if there are two contradicting sets of information on which a judgment must be made, the observer will feel pressure to change his or her judgment. At the same time, if both sets of information are congruent the observer will feel no pressure to change. It is thus likely that an unhealthy product in a healthy looking packaging will therefore be seen as not congruent and therefore will create less favourable attitudes towards the product (Van Rompay & Pruyn, 2011). This same effect could occur for a healthy product in an unhealthy looking packaging. Congruency also gives customers the ability to process the packaging more easily. According to Lee and Labroo (2004), processing information fast and effortless is perceived as more satisfying and this also influences the purchase intention (Kupiec & Revell, 2001). Accordingly, it is expected that the healthfulness of a product influences the purchase intention positively when the packaging is congruent with the product. Moreover, expected sensory characteristics that are not in line with the real product characteristics will also lead to a decrease in purchase intention (Delize & MacFie, 1996). This means that people who see a healthy looking packaging will expect the product to taste healthy, but when the product actually tastes unhealthy this will negatively influence their purchase intention. The last hypotheses of this study are therefore as follows:
H6a. The purchase intention for a healthy product in a healthy looking packaging will be higher than for a healthy product in an unhealthy looking packaging.
H6b. The purchase intention for an unhealthy product in an unhealthy looking packaging will be higher than for an unhealthy product in a healthy looking packaging.
4. Methodology and Data
4.1 Research Method and Sample
The goal of this study was to find out what the (long-term) effect of food packaging of healthy and unhealthy food products on health perception and purchase intention is. This was studied by using an experiment with a 2 (Product healthfulness: healthy vs. unhealthy) x 2 (Product packaging: healthy looking vs. unhealthy looking) between-subjects design.
To recruit participants for this study mainly family, friends and colleagues were approached. They were asked if they were willing to voluntary participate in an experiment. A convenience sampling strategy was used to recruit participants. The total sample existed of 80 Dutch men and women in the age of eighteen and above.
4.2 Procedure
Prior to the experiment participants were told the experiment was about a certain food product and their opinion about this product. The exact goal of the study was not clear to them. They were instructed that they had to answer a few questions, had to taste the product, and had to read the nutrition information (see Appendix 2a for the information sheet in English and Appendix 3a for the Dutch version). Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions, using an online random sequence generator, In every condition participants got to see and taste one product
(see Appendix 4). The questionnaire was in Dutch and the same questions were asked in every condition. The different conditions were:
Condition 1. Healthy product with a healthy looking packaging Condition 2. Healthy product with an unhealthy looking packaging Condition 3. Unhealthy product with a healthy looking packaging Condition 4. Unhealthy product with an unhealthy looking packaging
Participants started with looking at the front packaging of the product. They were first asked to answer questions about their initial health perception of the product. Then, they had the opportunity to taste the product and to read the nutrition information on the back of the packaging. This was done to give them an opportunity to form an opinion about the healthfulness of the product. After this, the purchase intention was asked and their health perception once more. At the end of the questionnaire their health consciousness, gender, age, and highest education level were asked to include as control variables. As reported by Ellison, Luks and Davis (2013) health consciousness people are more aware of their health and it is likely that they have more knowledge about nutrients. Claims and colours will probably have a minimal influence on their health perception and purchase intention. They possibly already have the knowledge to know which food product is healthy and which product is unhealthy. On the other hand, the claims and colours could thus more influence people who are not health consciousness (Mai, et al., 2016). Besides health consciousness, gender will also be included as a control variable. According to Zhu, Brescoll, Newman and Uhlmann (2015) men prefer unhealthy food and women prefer
Nelson, 2003). Furthermore, age and highest education level will also be included as control variables in this study. Age seems to influence the use and understanding of nutrition information (Carrillo, et al., 2012). Roininen, Lähteenmåki, and Tuorila (1999) also predicate that young people are less interested in the healthfulness of food and care more about the taste compared to elderly. Ma, Ailawadi, and Grewal (2013) found that higher educated customers consume fewer calories and are more aware of their health. These variables can therefore influence the results of this study and will be examined as control variables. The entire questionnaire can be found in Appendix 2b and the Dutch version in Appendix 3b.
4.3 Selection of Healthy and Unhealthy Food Products
The food products that were used in this study were all from a French supermarket chain. It was decided to choose products from a French supermarket chain so participants were mostly not familiar with the product. In this way participants were unlikely to have an opinion about the products and this could not influence the results. All four products in this study were from the same brand, so this could also not influence the results.
The food products selection was based on the packaging and category. All products fell into the breakfast and bread substitutes category. There were two products that could be classified as healthy, one with a healthy looking packaging and one with an unhealthy looking packaging. The same counts for two unhealthy products. Based upon previous research (Huang & Lu, 2015; Moriarty, 1991; Schuldt, 2013; Wu, et al., 2008) the healthy looking packaging contained a nutrition claim (‘very low salinity’ and ‘5 whole grains’) and a green colour and the unhealthy looking
packaging contained a regular claim (‘delicious recipe’)1 and red colour. To
determine the healthfulness of the food products the definition and formulas from Lobstein and Davies (2009) were used. The products that were used in this study and the healthfulness calculations can be found in Appendix 4.
Figure 2. Photo of the product with the designed sticker on it ‘Recette Gourmande –
Heerlijk Recept’
4.4 Initial and Final Health Perception
The dependent variables initial (α=0.87)2 and final (α=0.89) health perception were
measured using the perceived product healthfulness scale from Fenko et al. (2016). The scale consists of six statements about the perceived healthfulness (exact
1 The unhealthy looking packaging for the unhealthy product contained a nutrition claim. Thus it was
chosen to design a sticker with a regular claim (‘delicious recipe’) to cover the nutrition claim (See Figure 2 for a photo of the product and Appendix 4 for an image of the sticker).
statements can be found in Appendix 2b). To answer the statements a five-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 ‘Strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘Strongly agree’.
4.5 Purchase Intention
The dependent variable purchase intention (α=0.95) is measured using three statements compiled by Dodds, Monroe, and Grewal (1991) (exact statements can be found in Appendix 2b). The statements could all be answered on a seven-point answer scale ranging from 1 ‘Very low’ to 7 ‘Very high’.
4.6 Control variables
The control variables in this study were health consciousness, gender, age, and highest education level. Health consciousness was measured using the General Health Interest (α=0.84) scale by Roininen, et al. (1999). A total of eight statements were asked about components such as diet, importance of healthy food and healthy choices. Four out of eight statement had to be reversed coded. To answer the statements a seven-point Likert scale was used ranging from 1 ‘Strongly disagree’ to 7 ‘Strongly agree’. An overview of these statements can be found in Appendix 2b. Furthermore, participants had to indicate if they were man or woman and had to write their age. Highest education level was measured by a multiple-choice question using the Dutch education system terms. These were later classified into ‘Low’, ‘Middle’, and ‘High’ educated.
4.7 Descriptive Statistics
A total of 80 people filled in the questionnaire for this study. The data was analyzed using SPSS. There were no missing values and standardized variables were analyzed
to see if there were any outliers. There were no values under -3 or above 3, meaning that there were no outliers in the data. Second, the normal distribution for every relevant variable in this study was checked. This was done by means of histogram and their values for skewness and kurtosis. Every variable in this study had a normal distribution, except age. The kurtosis for the variable age was slightly flat. Furthermore, 42 men and 38 women participated in this study. The average age was 36.54 (SD = 15.93). Around 36.3 per cent of the participants was low educated, this percentage was the same for middle educated and 27.5 per cent was high educated. The average health consciousness was 3.93 (SD = 1.16), indicating that on average participants were medium health consciousness. The descriptive statistics per condition are displayed in Table 2.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics per condition
Two chi-squared tests showed no significant differences across the four conditions with respect to gender χ2 (3) = 5.01, p = 0.171 and education level χ2 (6) = 5.53, p =
Condition 1 2 3 4 Variable n (%) M (SD) n (%) M (SD) n (%) M (SD) n (%) M (SD) Gender Man 13 (65%) 8 (40%) 13 (65%) 8 (40%) Woman 7 (35%) 12 (60%) 7 (35%) 12 (60%) Age 35.15 (15.08) 38.30 (16.82) 34,65 (16.25) 38.05 (16.4) Average Level of Education
Middle Middle Middle Middle
Health Consciousness 3.89 (1.00) 4.19 (1.17) 3.64 (1.16) 4.01 (1.29)
p = 0.841 and health consciousness F (3,76) = 0.78, p = 0.511 across the four conditions.
4.8 Data Analysis
Before testing the hypotheses a correlation analysis was done for every variable including control variables.
Table 3.
Range, means, standard deviations and correlations of variables
Note. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level
As shown in Table 3, the correlations between the independent variables are all below .80 indicating no problematic multicollinearity for further analyses. Furthermore, product healthfulness had a significant negative moderate correlation with both initial and final health perception. Initial health perception also had a significant positive moderate correlation with final health perception. Moreover, product packaging had a significant positive weak correlation with purchase intention and gender. Gender even had a positive moderate correlation with age and health consciousness. One possible explanation could be the fact that a lot of older participants were woman and a lot of
Variable Variable Range M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Product Healthfulness 0/1 0.50 0.50 2. Product Packaging 0/1 0.50 0.50 .00 3. Initial Health Perception 1-5 3.36 0.72 -.41** -.10 4. Final Health Perception 1-5 3.21 0.78 -.59** -.07 .62** 5. Purchase Intention 1-7 3.41 1.46 .04 .23* .20 .12 6. Gender 0/1 0.48 0.50 .00 .25* -.05 -.14 .16 7. Age 18-69 36.54 15.93 -.01 .10 -.12 .01 -.18 .31** 8. Education 1-3 1.91 0.80 -.02 -.05 -.01 -.06 .16 -.08 -.39** 9. Health consciousness 1-7 3.93 1.16 -.09 .15 -.07 -.13 -.02 .37** .38** -.15
younger participants were man. In addition, women tend to be more health consciousness than men (Zhu, et al., 2015). Age had a significant negative moderate correlation with education and a significant positive moderate correlation with health consciousness. This could be due to the question that is asked for education level. Participants were asked to fill in their highest education level. Younger people are still studying and probably have to mention a lower education level than older people, who already finished studying. Besides that, younger people also tend to be less health consciousness than older people (Roininen, 1999).
To test the first and second hypothesis a multiple regression analysis was used. Including initial health perception as continuous dependent variable and product healthfulness, product packaging, and their interaction as dichotomous independent standardized variables. To predict the value of the continuous dependent variable final health perception another multiple regression analysis was used with the same dichotomous independent standardized variables as in the first analysis. Using this analysis the third and fourth hypothesis were tested. In addition to that, a third multiple regression analysis was used to test the last hypotheses. The value of the continuous dependent variables purchase intention was thereby predicted with the same dichotomous independent standardized variables as in the previous analyses. The control variables were included in every analysis to test whether they had an influence on the results.
5. Results
5.1 Initial Health Perception
6.08, p = 0.001. The regression model is therefore useful to predict the initial health perception. However, as can be seen in Table 4, the strength of the prediction is slightly low: 19 per cent of the variance in initial health perception could be explained based on product healthfulness and product packaging (R2 = 0.19). Product healthfulness β = -0.41, t = -4.02, p < 0.000, 95% CI [-0.45, -0.15] has a significant cohesion with initial health perception. Suggesting that when a product is unhealthy the health perception after just looking at the product will on average decrease with 0.30 compared to a healthy product. Thus, the first hypothesis is supported. A healthy product will initially be perceived as healthier than an unhealthy product.
Table 4.
Regression Model of Initial Health Perception
Note. * F-test significant at the 0.001 level.
** Significant at the < 0.001 level
Furthermore, the interaction effect between product healthfulness and product packaging on initial health perception is not significant β = -0.11, t = -1.04, p = 0.302, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.07]. The second hypothesis is therefore rejected. An (un)healthy product will initially not be perceived as healthier when it is shown in a healthy looking packaging compared to an unhealthy looking packaging. This can also be seen in Figure 3. Although that there is a slight difference in the health perception between the two packaging and between the health perception of the (un)healthy product in an unhealthy looking packaging this difference is not significantly big enough and it can therefore not predict the initial health perception.
R R2 B SE β t
Model 1 0.44 0.19*
Product Healthfulness -0.30 0.08 -0.41 -4.02**
Product Packaging -0.07 0.08 -0.10 -0.99
2 3 4 5
Healthy Product Unhealthy Product Healthy Looking Packaging Unhealthy Looking Packaging
Figure 3. Interaction between product healthfulness and product packaging on initial health perception
5.1.1. Control Variables
The regression model was significant when controlling for the variables age, gender, education level, and health consciousness F (3,76) = 2.80, p = 0.01. The model explained 21 per cent of the variance in the initial health perception, based on product healthfulness, product packaging and the control variables (R2 = 0.21). However, there were no significant results for the control variables. Meaning that they all do not affect the previous results. It was therefore decided not to include these variables in the regression model that is used to test the hypotheses.
5.2 Final Health Perception
The second regression model with final health perception as dependent variable and product healthfulness and product packaging as independent variables was also significant F (3,76) = 13.89, p < 0.001. This model explained 35 per cent of the
packaging (R2 = 0.35) (See Table 5). Product healthfulness β = -0.59, t = -6.32, p <
0.000, 95% CI [-0.60, -0.31] has a strong significant cohesion with the final health perception. If a product is unhealthy the final health perception will on average, after tasting the product and reading nutrition information, decrease with 0.46 compared to a healthy product. This means that after tasting the product and after reading the nutrition information on the back of the packaging the (un)healthy product is perceived as (un)healthier than after just looking at the front packaging. There is a difference of 0.16 between the two unstandardized coefficients.3 Therefore the third hypothesis of this study is supported.
Table 5.
Regression Model of Final Health Perception
Note. *Significant at the < 0.001 level.
The interaction effect between product healthfulness and packaging is also not significant for the final health perception β = -0.06, t = -0.67, p = 0.435, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.10]. In Figure 4 it is also clearly visible that there is no significant interaction effect. For both the healthy looking packaging and unhealthy looking packaging the final health perception is lower for the unhealthy product compared to the healthy product. This means that hypotheses 4A and 4B are rejected. After tasting and reading
3 A seemingly unrelated regression analysis was estimated using the statistical program R to once more
test these values. Both the multiple regression analysis and the seemingly unrelated regression analysis showed the same values. This is due to the fact that the same independent variables were used in both analyses. In this study it is therefore decided to look at the values of the multiple regression analysis in SPSS.
R R2 B SE β t
Model 2 0.60 0.35*
Product Healthfulness -0.46 0.07 -0.59 -6.37*
Product Packaging -0.06 0.07 -0.07 -0.79
2 3 4 5
Healthy Product Unhealthy Product Healthy Looking Packaging Unhealthy Looking Packaging
nutrition information, the final health perception for the healthy product in both the healthy and unhealthy looking packaging is the same as initially perceived. The final health perception for the unhealthy product for both the product in a healthy looking packaging and in an unhealthy looking packaging is perceived as unhealthier than before.
Figure 4. Interaction between product healthfulness and product packaging on final health perception
5.2.1. Control Variables
The regression model was significant when controlling for the variables age, gender, education level, and health consciousness F (3,76) = 6.92, p < 0.000. The model explained 40 per cent of the variance in the final health perception, based on product healthfulness, product packaging and the control variables (R2 = 0.40). However, there were no significant results for the control variables. Meaning that they all do not affect the previous results. It was therefore decided not to include these variables in
5.3 Purchase Intention
The regression model with purchase intention as dependent variable and product healthfulness and product packaging as independent variables was not significant
F(3,76) = 1.63, p = 0.189. This means that this regression model does not sufficiently
predict the dependent variable purchase intention (R2 = 0.06). Further description should, therefore, not be taken too strict. The product healthfulness of the product does not have a significant influence on the purchase intention β = 0.04, t = 0.361, p = 0.791 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38]. This means that the healthfulness of the product does not predict the purchase intention of the product. The fifth hypothesis is thus rejected. The purchase intention for an unhealthy product will not be higher compared to the purchase intention for a healthy product.
Table 6.
Regression Model of Purchase Intention
Note. *Significant at the 0.05 level.
Moreover, even for purchase intention there was not a significant interaction effect between product healthfulness and product packaging β = 0.80, t = 0.72 , p = 0.473, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.44]. This is also visible in Figure 5. Indicating that the purchase intention will not be higher for a healthy product in a healthy looking packaging compared to a healthy product in an unhealthy looking packaging. The same counts for the purchase intention for the unhealthy product in the unhealthy looking packaging. The purchase intention will also not be higher than for the unhealthy
R R2 B SE β t
Model 3 0.25 0.06
Product Healthfulness 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.36
Product Packaging 0.34 0.16 0.23 2.06*
2 3 4 5
Healthy Product Unhealthy Product Healthy Looking Packaging Unhealthy Looking Packaging
product in the healthy looking packaging. Therefore the last two hypotheses of this study are rejected.
Figure 5. Interaction between product healthfulness and product packaging on purchase intention
However, interesting here is that there is found a significant main effect of product packaging on purchase intention β = 0.23, t = 2.06, p = 0.04, 95% CI [0.01, 0.66]. This means that the purchase intention for an unhealthy looking packaging will on average increase with 0.34 compared to the purchase intention for a healthy looking packaging.
5.3.1. Control Variables
The regression model for purchase intention was also not significant when controlling for the variables age, gender, education level, and health consciousness F (3,76) = 1.67, p = 0.13. The model explained 14 per cent of the variance in the purchase intention, based on product healthfulness, product packaging and the control variables
-0,4 -0,2 0 0,2
Healthy Product Unhealthy Product
Healthy Looking Packaging Unhealthy Looking Packaging
all do not affect the previous results. It was therefore decided not to include these variables in the regression model that is used to test the hypotheses. That R2 increases with 8 per cent compared to the first regression model for purchase intention can be explained due to the fact that age was almost significant (p = 0.06).
5.4 Results Extensions
In addition, the difference between final and initial health perception depending on the condition was examined. Another regression model was used with the difference between initial and final health perception as dependent variable and product healthfulness, product packaging, and their interaction as independent variables. The regression model was not significant F(3,76) = 1.67, p = 0.181. This means that this regression model does not sufficiently predict the difference between final and initial health perception (R2 = 0.06). Therefore, further description should not be taken too
strict. The product healthfulness of the product does have a significant effect on the difference between final and initial health perception β = -0.24, t = -2.19, p = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.30, -0.01]. The difference between final and initial health perception on average increases with 0.16 when a product is unhealthy. This indicates that participants perceived the unhealthy products as healthier after looking at the front packaging compared to after tasting and reading nutrition information.
Figure 6. Average difference between final and initial health perception per condition
6. Discussion
In this study the (long-term) influence of the product packaging of a healthy and unhealthy product was examined using an experiment with 80 participants. The results suggest that participants indeed perceived a healthy product as healthier than the unhealthy product after just looking at the product. The packaging of the product did not influence these results. A food product in a healthy looking packaging does not make the product appear healthier, whereas a food product in an unhealthy looking packaging also does not make the product appear unhealthier. These results were the same after tasting and reading nutrition information. This indicates that participants are noticeably good in judging the healthfulness of a food product. Moreover, the packaging of a product does not have an effect on the health perception at the point of purchase and not on the long-term. One of the reasons for these results could be the fact that the amount of calories was also already shown on the front of packaging, which could influence the health perception. Furthermore, the healthfulness of the product did not influence the purchase intention. The intention to purchase the product is the same for a healthy product and an unhealthy product. The product packaging also did not influence the effect of product healthfulness on purchase intention. This indicates that the purchase intention will be the same for healthy looking products and unhealthy looking products across a healthy and unhealthy product.
6.1 Theoretical Implications
This study provides several theoretical implications. First of all, this study examined the effect of product packaging in a more realistic setting than previous studies. This
previous results. Second, Koenigstorfer, et al. (2014) and Kauppinen-Räisänen (2014) mentioned the uncertainty in the effect of nutrition claims and colours. Therefore, this study provides more insights regarding the effect of nutrition claims and colours on food packaging. Contrary to the expectations, but in line with Garretson and Burton (2000), Keller, et al. (1997), Lähteenmäki, et al. (2010), and Van Trijp and Van der Lans (2006) the results show no significant influence of nutrition claims and colours on the effect of product healthfulness on health perception and purchase intention. Thus providing more evidence for previous results. Last, the congruity theory was examined in the field of food packaging of healthy and unhealthy products and purchase intention. The results reveal no influence of congruency between product healthfulness and product packaging on purchase intention. Indicating that the congruity theory does not apply to this specific setting.
6.2 Managerial Implications
Besides theoretical implications this study also provides some managerial implications, subdivided into implications for food manufacturers and implications for public health organizations.
6.2.1. Implications for Food Manufacturers
Food manufacturers could use the results to help them create a packaging that attracts customers. In this study a main effect was found of product packaging on purchase intention. An unhealthy looking packaging did positively influence the purchase intention of both healthy and unhealthy products. This means that the intention to purchase is higher for a packaging with a red colour and a regular claim than for a packaging with a green colour and a nutrition claim. This is consistent with the results
from Bellizzi and Hite (1992) and Wu, et al. (2008) who suggest that a red colour in food packaging attracts customers and let people make a quick decision. This result is also consistent with Garretson and Burton (2000) and Keller et al. (1997) who suggest that a nutrition claim does not influence the purchase intention.
Furthermore, food manufacturers should think about standardized evaluative cues on the packaging to help customers better identify the most healthful food products in the grocery store. Although no significant differences were found in this study for the interaction between product healthfulness and product packaging, on average the participants saw even the unhealthy products as moderated healthy. Standardized evaluative cues could create a win-win situation on the long term, for both the customer and the food manufacturer. Helping customers to identify the most healthful food products not only creates more favourable attitudes towards the brand but also reduces the probability of disadvantageous regulations.
6.2.2. Implications for Public Health Organizations
This study indicates no stricter or new regulations are needed regarding nutrition claims and specific colours on food packaging. However, this study does provide other concerns for public health organizations. On average the unhealthy products are still perceived as moderated healthy. Just as food manufacturers public health organizations should also think about the development of standardized evaluative cues to fight against the obesity epidemic.
participants also knew it was an academic study. Participants could thus already become sceptical about the product. The experiment was also taken in the presence of the researcher, what could result in participants adjusting their opinion to a politically correct answer. This is not representative for a real situation in a grocery store or at home. In a grocery store you are not asked to deliberately look at the front packaging. Besides that, you often shop under time pressure and there is an overload of products in the grocery store. Under time pressure customers mainly focus on heuristics of the packaging (Pieters & Warlop, 1999). Further research could thus look at the influence of packaging in a more realistic situation (i.e., a grocery store) and under time pressure. Lastly, after the experiment there was a chance to speak with the participants. Participants often mentioned it were the images on the packaging that made them think the product appeared healthy or unhealthy. For example, many participants mentioned the image of the cereals made them think the product was healthy. Even images of orange juice and milk made them think that. Mai et al. (2016) also mention that images are often used to highlight the healthfulness of products and images are often used by customers to get an idea of how the product tastes (Silvayoi & Speece, 2007). It is therefore possible that images have a greater effect on health perception than colour. Further research could thus look at the influence of images in combination with nutrition claims on the health perception. Moreover, it is more interesting to see the influence this has on the health perception of several unhealthy products in different food categories. Ultimately, to fight against the obesity epidemic customers need to decrease the intake of unhealthy food products and need to become less susceptible of marketing tricks.
7. References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Argo, J. J., & White, K. (2012). When do customers eat more? The role of appearance self-esteem and food packaging cues. Journal of Marketing, 76(2), 67-80. Bech-Larsen, T., & Scholderer, J. (2007). Functional foods in Europe: Consumer
research, market experiences and regulatory aspects. Trends in Food Science
and Technology, 18(4), 231-234.
Bellizzi, J. A., & Hite, R. E. (1992). Environmental color, consumer feelings and purchase likelihood. Psychology and Marketing, 9(5), 347-363.
Bloch, P. H. (1995). Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response.
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 16-29.
Brunel, F. F., & Nelson, M. R. (2003). Message order effects and gender differences in advertising persuasion. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(3), 330-342. Cao, Z., & Yan, R. (2016). Health creates wealth? The use of nutrition claims and
firm financial performance. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 35(1), 58-75.
Carrillo, E., Varela, P., & Fiszman, S. (2012). Packaging information as a modulator of consumers’ perception of enriched and reduced-calorie biscuits in tasting and non-tasting tests. Food Quality and Preferences, 25(2), 105-115.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). Adults obesity causes & consequences. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/causes.html Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (2016). Lengte en gewicht van personen,
ondergewicht en overgewicht; vanaf 1981. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=81565ned&D1=a& D2=a&D3=0&D4=a&D5=0,34&HDR=G1,G3&STB=G2,T,G4&VW=T
Chandon, P. (2013). How package design and package-based marketing claims lead to overeating. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 35(1), 7-31.
Cleeren, K., Geyskens, K., Verhoef, P. C., Pennings, J. M. E. (2016). Regular or low-fat? An investigation of the long-run impact of the first low-fat purchase on subsequent purchase volumes and calories. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 33(4), 896-906.
Clement, J. (2007). Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design. Journal of Marketing
Management, 23(9), 917-928.
Delize, R., & MacFie, H. (1996). The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal
of Sensory Studies, 11(2), 103-128.
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand and store information on buyers’ product evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research,
28(3), 307-319.
Ellison, B., Luks, J. L., & David, D. (2013). Looking at the label and beyond: The effects of calorie labels, health consciousness and demographics on caloric intake in restaurants. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity, 10(21), 1-9.
European Commission. (n.d.). Nutrition and health claims. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/labelling_nutrition/claims_en
Fajardo, T. M., & Townsend, C. (2016). Where you sat it matters: Why packages are a more believable source of product claims than advertisements. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 26(3), 426-434.
Fenko, A., Lotterman, H., & Galetzka, M. (2016). What’s in a name? The effects of sound symbolism and package shape on consumer responses to food products.
Food Quality and Preference, 51(1), 100-108.
Ford, G. T., Hastak, M., Mitra, A., & Ringold, D. J. (1996). Can consumers interpret nutrition information in the presence of a health claim? A laboratory investigation. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 15(1), 16-27.
Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2000). Effects of nutrition facts panel values, nutrition claims, and health claims on consumer attitudes, perceptions of disease-related risks, and trust. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19(2), 213-227.
Genschouw, O., Reutner, L., & Wänke, M. (2012). The color red reduces snack food and soft drink intake. Appetite, 58(2), 699-702.
Govers, P.C.M., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(4), 189-197. Huang, L., & Lu, J. (2015). Eat with your eyes: Package color influences the
expectations of food taste and healthiness moderated by external eating. The
Marketing Management Journal, 25(2), 71-87.
Huang, L., & Lu, J. (2016). The impact of package color and nutrition content labels on the perception of food healthiness and purchase intention. Journal of Food
Products Marketing, 22(2), 191-218.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H. (2014). Strategic use of colour in brand packaging.
Packaging Technology and Science, 27(8), 663-676.
Keller, S. B., Landry, M., Olson, J., Velliquette, A. M., Burton, S., & Andrews, J. C. (1997). The Effects of Nutrition Package Claims, Nutrition Facts Panels, and Motivation to Process Nutrition Information on Consumer Product Evaluations.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 16(2), 256-269.
Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kamm, F. (2014). Healthful food decision making in response to traffic light color-coded nutrition labeling. Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, 33(1), 65-77.
Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H. & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: The influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing,
67(2), 19-34.
Kupiec, B., & Revell, B. (2001). Measuring consumer quality judgments. British
Food Journal, 103(1), 7-22.
Lähteenmäki, L., Lampila, P., Grunert, K., Boztug, Y., Ueland, Ø., Åström, A., & Martinsdóttir, E. (2010). Impact of health-related claims on the perception of other product attributes. Food Policy, 35(3), 230-239.
Lappalainen, R., Saba, A., Holm, L., Mykkanen, H., & Gibney, M. J. (1997). Difficulties in trying to eat healthier: Descriptive analysis of perceived barriers for healthy eating. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 51(2), 36-40.
Lee. A. Y.& Labroo, A. A. (2004). The effect of conceptual and perceptual fluency on brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165.
Levin, A. M., & Levin, I. P. (2010). Packaging of healthy and unhealthy food products for children and parents: The relative influence of licensed characters and brand names. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9(5), 393-402.
Lobstein, T., & Davies, S. (2009). Defining and labelling ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ food. Public Health, 12(3), 331-340.
Ma, Y., Ailawadi, K. L., & Grewal, D. (2013). Soda versus cereal and sugar versus fat: drivers of healthful food intake and the impact of diabetes diagnosis.
Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 101-120.
Madzharov, A. V., & Block, L. G. (2010). Effects of product unit image on consumption of snack foods. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(4), 398-409. Mai, R., Symmank, C., & Seeberg-Elverfeldt, B. (2016). Light and pale colors in food
packaging: When does this package cue signal superior healthiness or inferior tastiness? Journal of Retailing, 92(4), 426-444.
Moriarty, S. E. (1991). Creative advertising: theory and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Munsell, C. R., Harris, J. L., Sarda, V., & Schwartz, M. B. (2016). Parents’ beliefs about the healthfulness of sugary drink options: Opportunities to address misperceptions. Public Health Nutrition, 19(1), 46-54.
Nestle, M., & Ludwig, D. S. (2010). Front-of-package food labels. Public health or propaganda? The Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(8), 771-772.
Newman, C. L., Howlett, E., & Burton, S. (2016). Effects of objective and evaluative front-of-package cues on food evaluation and choice: The moderating influence of comparative and noncomparative processing contexts. Journal of Consumer
Research, 42(5), 749-766.
Northup, T. (2014). Truth, lies, and packaging: how food marketing creates a false sense of health. Food Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 3(1), 7-18.
Orquin, J. L. (2014). A Brunswik lens model of consumer health judgments of packaged foods. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(4), 270-281.
Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1955). The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 62(1), 42-55
Pieter, R., & Warlop, L. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 16(1), 1-16
Pires, C., & Agante, L. (2011). Encouraging children to eat more healthily: The influence of packaging. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 10(3), 161-168.
Prendergast, G., & Pitt, L. (1996). Packaging, marketing, logistics and the environment: Are there trade-offs? International Journal of Physical
Distribution and Logistics Management, 26(6), 60-72.
Proper, K. I., Bakker, I., Van Overbeek, K., & Van Mechelen, W. (2006). De effectiviteit van interventies ter stimulering van gezonde voiding. Tijdschrift
voor Bedrijfs- en Verzekeringsgeneeskunde, 14(6), 285-292.
Raheem, A. R., Vishnu, P., & Ahmed, A. M. (2014). Impact of product packaging on consumer’s buying behavior. European Journal of Scientific Research, 122(2), 125-134.
Roininen, K, Lähteenmåki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite, 33(1), 71-88. Rundh, B. (2016). The role of packaging within marketing and value creation. British
Food Journal, 118(10), 2491-2511.
Schuldt, J. P. (2013). Does green mean healthy? Nutrition label color affects perceptions of healthfulness. Health Communication, 28(8), 814-821.
Silayoi, P., & Speece, M. (2004). Packaging and purchase decisions. An exploratory study on the impact of involvement level and time pressure. British Food
