The necessity of nutrition knowledge in making healthy purchase decisions in-store, when there is time pressure and where healthy products are not always directly in sight.

(1)

1

The necessity of nutrition knowledge in making

healthy purchase decisions in-store, when there

is time pressure and where healthy products are

not always directly in sight.

J. (Janien) de Lange

2199696

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Department of Marketing

Master Thesis

Supervisor: K. van Ittersum

Date: 14-01-2019

De Kaai 13

9723 LD Groningen

(2)

2

The necessity of nutrition knowledge in making

healthy purchase decisions in-store, when there

is time pressure and where healthy products are

not always directly in sight.

ABSTRACT

This study researches the effect of nutrition knowledge on the healthiness of the purchase decision. Product placement; eye-level/knee-level and time pressure; time pressure/no time pressure functioned as moderators in this study. The control variables age and gender

showed that the study was heterogeneous. Results of a positive significant influence of age on the healthiness of the purchase decision were surprising, which makes it even more attractive to make suggestions for further research. In contrary to previous literature we did find that higher nutrition knowledge leads to less healthy purchase decisions. This suggests more research into this topic and to look for other factors which explain this relation.

(3)

3 INTRODUCTION

Obesity and overweight is globally becoming more and more of a problem and it is getting out of hand. Almost one third of the population is categorized as obese or overweight and this number is still growing (Ng et al, 2014). Even in the Netherlands, almost half of the

population is categorized as obese or overweight (CBS, 2018). A person is classified as overweight by a BMI of over 25 and a person is classified as obese by a BMI of over 30. The Body Mass Index calculates if the weight of a person is relative to its height and age. Obesity and overweight are the cause of a lot of health consequences and risks. Life expectancy rates drop, there are a lot of physical and psychic complaints, there are increased risks of different diseases and the quality of life goes down (Van Binsbergen et al, 2010).

So what causes obesity and overweight? There are multiple reasons as to why a person is becoming overweight or obese. Most known reasons are bad eating habits and the lack of sports or exercise. But what is the cause of these bad eating habits and lack of exercise? Because every person knows that you have to exercise and eat healthy to become and stay healthy. To focus on bad eating habits; every school, business or other organization is introducing health programs, healthy canteens etcetera, but the number of people who are overweight still increases. This is partly because of the lack of exercise and the lack of self-control, but also due to the lack of knowledge they have about calories and other nutritional values. Most consumers underestimate the calories or do not even know the absolute values of a product at all (Burton, Howlett, & Tangari, 2009).

There are labels and ingredients listed on every product, but if a person is unable or not motivated to transform this information into knowledge, then the person cannot make a conscious decision about which products to choose and there won’t be a change in purchase behavior (Elshiewy, & Boztug, 2018). Nutrition knowledge contains information about the actual risks and consequences for the body and health of the consumer. Consumers have to learn what the risks and consequences are for their body and health when they eat unhealthy food and what the benefits are when they eat healthy food. Everyone should have to learn the meaning of the different nutritional values and what this means related to their health

(4)

4

In-store

When walking into a supermarket nowadays, the store provides you immediately with a lot of stimuli. Most stores list their products based on revenues. So products with a high revenue are located at eye-level, because that is the first place a customer looks at (Corstjens & Doyle, 1981). Most high revenue products are the well-known brands with their chips, candy, soda or coffee, as seen in every supermarket. Most healthy products are not the highest revenue products, so they are located in the outlines of the shelves and stores. Even though fruits and vegetables are placed at the entrance of supermarkets, most healthy products in other product categories are not centralized. For example Coca-Cola regular is mostly placed at eye-level, but the Coca-Cola light and zero are placed around it. Most biological products are placed in the outlines of the store, not in the center. So even though every organization or supermarket wants to provide more healthy products and make their customer more healthy, they are not acting this way. Because if a customer can’t find or can hardly find the healthy products, he will end up making unhealthy decisions again (Adam, Jensen, Sommer, & Hansen, 2017). This research will look at product placement as a moderator on the relation between nutrition knowledge and healthy purchase decisions.

Living in a highly dynamic environment, making decisions is hard. There is a lot of choice, but there is little time. Customers that have the time to make decisions in the

supermarket can make a trade-off between products, based on gained information (Kupor, Liu & Amir, 2018). But when there is no time, customers fall into their old (bad) habits and choose their standard unhealthy products, because there is no time to look at other healthier options or to even read labels on other products to gain this information. So this research will look at time pressure as a moderator on the relation between nutrition knowledge and healthy purchase decisions.

Problem statement:

The lack of nutrition knowledge by consumers leads to unhealthy purchase decisions in-store and this will lead to more overweight and obesity, especially when consumers are under time pressure and when healthy products are not organized in the shelves.

(5)

5

articles focus on objective nutrition knowledge, which is linked to healthy eating, like eat enough fruits and vegetables (Harnack et al. 1997; Wardle, Parmenter & Waller, 2000; Moorman, Diehl, Brinberg, & Kidwell, 2004). Few articles focus on the cycle of processing the nutritional information, so that customers actually know the pros and cons of certain ingredients and nutritional values and what the information on the labels is about in relation to their health (Aboulnasr, 2013; Andrews, Burton, & Netemeyer, 2000). There is a lot of

research available on shelf space allocation and shelf management, however not in relation to healthy purchase decisions (Borin, & Farris, 1995; Lira, Rodrigues, & Zhang, 2004; Murray, Talukdar, & Gosavi, 2010). There is some research available on risk taking in relation to time pressure, however also not directly related to making healthy purchase decisions. That is why this research will be a contribution to the literature, as there is no previous research done on this model as a whole and it provides more data about the relations in this model.

This thesis is structured in a way that starts with a literature review. Starting with literature on nutrition knowledge and what this means in relation to making healthy purchase decisions. Next up are product placement and time pressure and their relation to making healthy purchase decisions. Hypotheses will be formulated and a conceptual model will be made. The research methods will be explained in the research design section. A two by two between subjects design is used to examine the three hypotheses. The design itself will first be explained. The results and analyses are displayed in the results section. This if followed by the conclusion of this research, a discussion of the results and the limitations of this research.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Nutrition knowledge

A relevant area nowadays is nutrition knowledge, given the fact that obesity rates are still increasing, not only in the Netherlands (CBS, 2018), also worldwide (Moore, Wilkie, & Desrochers, 2017). We have to educate ourselves for the sake of our own health and for the health of those around us. Nutrition knowledge means how well customers can process nutritional information to make healthier decisions (Brucks, 1985). In this context it covers the understanding of the benefits of eating healthy foods and the risks of eating unhealthy foods, as in an increase in fat percentage or risks for personal health (Bolton, Bhattacharjee, & Reed, 2015). Prior research has shown that internal consumer nutrition knowledge as well as external displays of nutritional information have a positive impact on the outcomes in

(6)

6

when they have knowledge about nutritional values like calories, sugar and fat (Andrews, Netemeyer, & Burton, 2009). Everybody knows that they should eat enough fruits and vegetables a day to become or stay healthy, this is a reflection of a consumer’s objective nutrition knowledge (Harnack et al. 1997; Wardle, Parmenter & Waller, 2000).

To educate customers more about the nutritional value of products and the calorie intake that comes with certain products, nutrition labelling information is provided on almost every product in the stores. Research has shown that nutrition labels have an effect on the purchase decision of customers. It changes the way customers see and perceive the products in a way that consumers can evaluate a product themselves, so they can be more health conscious if they want to (Drichoutis, Lazaridis, & Nayga Jr., 2006). Because of the nutritional labels, the health risks are brought to the attention, which means that health perceptions will improve by the customers (Andrews, Netemeyer, and Burton 1998; Howlett, Burton, and Kozup 2008; Moorman 1996). It is great that nutritional labels are on almost every product, but most of the times customers do not actually know what the values on the labels mean or where they stand for. If customers have any prior knowledge of nutritional values, it will help them by valuing the labels related to their health and it will influence their purchase behavior (Brucks, 1995; Moorman & Matulich, 1993).

(7)

7

where those nutritional values stand for and what it means for their health and body. So if customers have more nutrition knowledge, this can possibly result in a change in their healthy purchase behavior.

This leads to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Higher nutrition knowledge of products leads to more healthy purchase

decisions

Product placement

There are hundreds or even thousands of products in every store that need to be categorized and organized in the shelves. This is a difficult task to complete and it is even harder to switch the categorization of product placement. Product placement is defined by the allocation of shelf space among products and to organize product categories in store (Corstjens & Doyle, 1981). There are different strategies as to why certain products are allocated to certain shelves. Most common is the revenue-based strategy, which entails that products with a high revenue for the retailer are allocated to the ‘best shelves’ at eye-level (Corstjens & Doyle, 1981). If a product is located badly, the sales will decrease. If it is in the right place, sales can increase a lot. Most customers make their decisions in-store, which means the store can do a lot to make sure the customer buys certain products (Drèze, Hoch, & Purk, 1994). A great part of these decisions is made after just a minimal search, therefore product placement is even more important. Quickly finding products is also a way of information processing; a customer looks at the shelf, recognizes the product and buys it. This means that placing products at eye-level, or just making them more salient, influences the customers purchase decision (Hoyer, 1984). Food with high calories that is easy accessible to the customer leads to more

consumption of these kinds of foods (Chandon & Wansink, 2007).

With the still increasing rates of obesity and overweight globally, retailers have a lot to think about when making shelf space allocations. There is a public concern for healthy

(8)

8

candy, gum and all kinds of different unhealthy snacks. A replacement of these unhealthy snacks with healthier versions will increase the sale of those products. Not only the sales will increase, it is better for your health too. This shows that customers remain impulse buyers and that even at the check-outs the healthier snacks will increase sales (Sigurdsson, 2014).

So if healthy products are more organized and better in sight, at eye-level, this will lead to a positive increase in the healthiness of the purchase decision of the customer. And this leads to the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: The positive effect of high nutritional knowledge on making healthy purchase

decisions strengthens when healthy products are organized at eye-level

Time pressure

Everyday customers face a lot of different decisions that they have to make. Some are easy and habitual decisions, others are more difficult and take more time to deliberate on all the options. Time is scarce and it is of great importance in the fast changing environment as we live in today. Time pressure is defined as the reduced amount of time that customers have to make their decisions (Finucane et al, 2000; Maule & Svenson, 1993). According to

previous literature, time pressure causes a drop in the accuracy of the consumer’s decision (Dambacher & Hübner, 2015). This means if customers have time to think about their options in-store, thus when there is no time pressure, they can make a trade-off between different products with different nutritional values, based on previous or just gained information. When there is no time available, and there is time pressure, it will reduce the risks in the decision making process (Whitney, Rinehart, & Hinson 2008; Suri & Monroe 2003). Reducing risks means in our case that consumers tend to fall into their old purchase habits and go with the unhealthy products. So when consumers are placed under time pressure, they become more risk averse. This means that if they have not tried a certain healthy product before, they will make the decision to pick the product they normally buy instead of the new more healthy version of it (Kocher, Pahlke, & Trautmann, 2013).

(9)

9

Time pressure also has an effect on the perceptual processing of consumers, so when there is limited time to choose, customers are not ‘open’ for all the information given with the products. Consumers cannot process this information correctly when there is limited time (Ho, Brown, van Maanen, Forstmann, Wagenmakers, & Serences, 2012). The main consequence of time pressure is stress and consumers who experience stress when making decisions in store, tend to not go through all the different options there are. They tend to go with the most convenient decision (Ho et al, 2012; Rae, Heathcote, Donkin, Averell, & Brown, 2014).

When looking at health, it is important to make the right decisions in store. However, time pressure reduces the quality of the decision-making process (Kocher & Sutter, 2006). This means that even if customers know what the healthier option is, they choose for the unhealthier option if they have limited time. In such situations, decision-making under time pressure, customers only use the most important attributes to value their decisions. The negative aspects of options weigh heavier than the positive aspects, but in the end the customer is less satisfied with their decision (Ahituv, Igbaria, & Sella, 1998).

So when customers feel that they have limited time to make their purchase decisions, it will negatively influences the healthiness of the purchase decision. Which leads to the third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The positive effect of high nutritional knowledge on making healthy purchase

(10)

10

These three hypotheses combined lead to the following conceptual model (Figure 1):

Figure 1: Conceptual model. The expected positive relation between nutrition knowledge and healthiness of the purchase decision (H1). Expected to be positively moderated by product placement (H2) and negatively moderated by time pressure (H3).

RESEARCH DESIGN

An online survey was created to test the hypotheses. The sample consisted of 215

respondents, all located in the Netherlands. To check for heterogeneity in the sample, two control variables were added: age and gender. The experiment was a completely randomized 2 by 2 by 2 between subjects design.Respondents were randomly assigned to the conditions; high nutrition knowledge or low nutrition knowledge, product placement eye-level or product placement knee-level, time pressure or no time pressure. Eight groups were created (1) high nutrition knowledge, product placement eye-level, time pressure, (2) high nutrition

knowledge, product placement eye-level, no time pressure, (3) high nutrition knowledge, product placement knee-level, time pressure, (4) high nutrition knowledge, product placement knee-level, no time pressure, (5) low nutrition knowledge, product placement eye-level, time pressure, (6) low nutrition knowledge, product placement eye-level, no time pressure, (7) low nutrition knowledge, product placement knee-level, time pressure, (8) low nutrition

(11)

11

labels, like sugar, and what the consequences are for your body and health. The groups with low nutrition knowledge did not get a cover story at all. The groups with the organized assortment got pictures where the healthier options of the product category, like 0% sugar soda, were grouped together and were placed first in sight. The groups with the unorganized assortment got pictures where the healthier versions were not grouped together and where they had to scroll to see the healthier options. The groups with time pressure got 15 seconds to answer some questions, where the groups with no time pressure got infinite time to answer the questions.

Using this between subjects design also brings limitations. This design is created to look at the differences between groups, but does not look at personal or individual differences in the groups. Another limitation is that there are a lot more variables which affect the relation between nutrition knowledge and healthiness of the purchase decision. But this would be too complex to study all at once.

The survey started with a short general introduction. Then half of all the respondents got a cover story about sugars and the consequences of it and the other half didn’t get a cover story, this was randomly selected. This to test the differences in the outcomes of the survey between the groups (H1). After this the main questions were formulated, starting with the question to choose three products they would like to buy. The products were displayed differently along the groups to test differences in products at eye-level and knee-level (H2). The time allowed to answer this question also variated along the groups to test if the choices were affected by time pressure (H3). Three products out of nine were categorized as healthy, three as moderate healthy and another three as unhealthy. After choosing the three products, respondents were asked if they thought they made a healthy choice and based on what conditions they made their choice. Following this were some questions about conscious decision making and the consequences of too much sugar. To check for biases if respondents did not already know everything about nutrition knowledge, we asked how they rated their own nutrition knowledge. Last were a few basic questions as gender and age.

RESULTS

(12)

12

To check whether the questions for nutrition knowledge correlate or not, the correlation between variables was used (see Table 1).

Correlations Heb je veel kennis over gezond eten en voedingswaarde s? Maak je bewuste keuzes bij het boodschappen doen? Hoe belangrijk is het voor je dat je gezonde producten koopt?

Heb je veel kennis over gezond eten en voedingswaardes?

Pearson Correlation 1 ,561** ,476**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000

N 215 215 215

Maak je bewuste keuzes bij het boodschappen doen?

Pearson Correlation ,561** 1 ,594**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000

N 215 215 215

Hoe belangrijk is het voor je dat je gezonde producten koopt?

Pearson Correlation ,476** ,594** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000

N 215 215 215

(13)

13 Heb je bij je

keuzes gekeken naar het aantal suikers dat was

vermeld?

SumGezond SumVoedW

Heb je veel kennis over gezond eten en voedingswaardes?

Pearson Correlation ,349 ,141** ,406**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,039 ,000

N 215 215 215

Maak je bewuste keuzes bij het boodschappen doen?

Pearson Correlation ,400** ,242 ,564**

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000

N 215 215 215

Pearson Correlation ,490** ,257** ,571

Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 ,000

N 215 215 215

Heb je bij je keuzes gekeken naar het aantal suikers dat was vermeld? Pearson Correlation 1** ,297** ,658** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 N 215 215 215 SumGezond Pearson Correlation ,297* 1** ,444** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 N 215 215 215 SumVoedW Pearson Correlation ,658** ,444** 1** Sig. (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 N 215 215 215

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 1: Correlations between variables.

(14)

14

But to do a final check if this sum variable can be computed, a Cronbach’s alpha test is performed with these six variables.

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha

N of Items

,818 6

Table 2: Cronbach’s alpha

The Cronbach’s alpha needs to be 0.6 or higher to allow the variables to be summed up. As you can see in Table 2 Cronbach’s alpha here is 0.818, which means that all six variables can be transformed into one sum variable.

Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Heb je veel kennis over

gezond eten en voedingswaardes?

14,02 15,799 ,511 ,804

Maak je bewuste keuzes bij

het boodschappen doen? 14,13 14,108 ,636 ,777

14,47 15,082 ,660 ,778

Heb je bij je keuzes gekeken naar het aantal suikers dat was vermeld?

13,50 12,905 ,609 ,786

SumGezond 14,09 16,483 ,369 ,829

SumVoedW 13,61 12,042 ,756 ,745

Table 3: Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted

In Table 3 you can see that even when one item was deleted, the Cronbach’s alpha would still be higher than 0.6. The Cronbach’s alpha doesn’t change that much when one item is deleted. This means all six variables can definitely be transformed into one sum variable.

(15)

15

t(213)= -1.59, p= 0.11. So we can conclude that the average of the healthiness of the purchase decision does not differ significantly between men (M= 0.25, SD= 0.44) and women (M= 0.36, SD= 0.44).

To analyze whether or not the age of respondents influences the healthiness of the purchase decision, we performed a linear regression analysis with age regressed on healthiness of the purchase decision. The regression analysis was significant, R²= 0.019, F(1,211)= 4.01, p= 0.047. So we can conclude that the age of respondents influences the healthiness of the purchase decision positively, B= 0.005, t= 1.798, p= 0.047. This means that the a higher age of respondents leads to more healthy purchase decisions.

In order to analyze the effect of nutrition knowledge on the healthiness of the purchase decision we performed two different tests. We started with the independent samples t-test to analyze whether the cover story has an positive influence on the healthiness of the purchase decision. The independent samples t-test, as you can see in Table 4 and Appendix 4, was significant t(213)= 2.31, p= 0.022. So the average of the healthiness of the purchase decision of respondents with a cover story (M= 0.40, SD= 0.44) differs significantly from respondents without a cover story (M= 0.26, SD= 0.44). Respondents with a cover story chose healthier products than respondents without a cover story.

Group Statistics

Coverstory N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

SumAlles

Coverstory 107 ,3968 ,44181 ,04271 No coverstory 108 ,2580 ,44085 ,04242

Independent Samples Test

t-test for Equality of Means

Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std. Error Difference

SumAlles

Equal variances assumed ,022 ,13886 ,06020

Equal variances not assumed ,022 ,13886 ,06020

(16)

16

Next we performed a linear regression of nutrition knowledge on healthiness of the purchase decision in order to analyze whether higher nutrition knowledge leads to a healthier purchase decision.

Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square

Std. Error of the Estimate

1 ,441a ,195 ,191 ,40093

a. Predictors: (Constant), SumNK1245SumGezSumVoedw

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 8,283 1 8,283 51,528 ,000b

Residual 34,239 213 ,161

Total 42,522 214

a. Dependent Variable: SumAlles

b. Predictors: (Constant), SumNK1245SumGezSumVoedw

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) 1,064 ,106 10,013 ,000 SumNK1245SumGezSumV oedw -,264 ,037 -,441 -7,178 ,000

Table 5: Linear regression

(17)

17

higher nutrition knowledge leads to less healthy purchase decisions. Therefore we cannot accept H1, since the significance is negative.

The cover story contained information about sugar and the consequences of it. In one of the last questions of the survey respondents had to choose four out of eight options what the consequences were of too much sugar. So besides H1, I wanted to test for myself if respondents with a cover story had more answers or consequences good than respondents without a cover story. To analyze this a independent samples t-test was performed. The independent samples t-test was significant, t(214)= 3.66, p= 0.000. So the average of the percentage of good answer or consequences differs significantly (see Appendix 4) between respondents with a cover story (M= 0.78, SD= 0.23) and respondents without a cover story (M= 0.66, SD= 0.23). Respondents with a cover story made healthier purchase decisions.

In order to analyze the moderating effect of product placement on the main relation between nutrition knowledge and the healthiness of the purchase decision, a linear regression was performed. Before the regression could take place, we first looked at the correlations between nutrition knowledge and product placement, to see if they correlate significantly with each other. The correlation analysis showed that nutrition knowledge and product placement did not correlate significantly (r= -0.015, p= 0.829), see Appendix 5.This means that the two variables do not measure the same thing. Then there were three dummy variables created. The independent variable nutrition knowledge and the moderator product placement were

computed into mean-centered variables. The third dummy variable was the interaction effect between the two new variables.

Model Summary

1 ,453a ,205 ,194 ,40027

a. Predictors: (Constant), NKeyeknee, EyeKneeCentr, NKcentr

ANOVAa

1

Regression 8,717 3 2,906 18,136 ,000b

Residual 33,805 211 ,160

Total 42,522 214

(18)

18

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1

(Constant) ,328 ,027 12,020 ,000

NKcentr -,264 ,037 -,442 -7,196 ,000 ,998 1,002

EyeKneeCentr -,089 ,055 -,100 -1,633 ,104 1,000 1,000

NKeyeknee ,016 ,073 ,013 ,211 ,833 ,998 1,002

As can be seen in Table 5, the regression analysis overall was significant, R²= 0.205, F(3,211)= 18.14, p= 0.000. Above you can see that higher nutrition knowledge leads

significantly to slightly less healthy purchase decisions, B= -0.264, t(214)= -7.20, p= 0.000. However product placement (EyeKneeCentr) did not have a significant influence on the healthiness of the purchase decisions, B= -0.089, t(214)= -1.63, p= 0.104. The interaction effect between the two variables was also not significant, B= 0.016, t(214)= 0.211, p= 0.833. This means product placement is not a moderator in this model and therefore we reject H2.

In order to analyze the moderating effect of time pressure on the main relation between nutrition knowledge and the healthiness of the purchase decision, a linear regression was performed. First the correlations between nutrition knowledge and time pressure were

checked (see Appendix 6). The correlation analysis showed that nutrition knowledge and time pressure did not correlate significantly (r= 0.003, p= 0.962). This means the variables do not measure the same exact thing.

Model Summary

1 ,449a ,202 ,190 ,40111

a. Predictors: (Constant), NKtpntp, TpNtpCentr, NKcentr

ANOVAa

1

Regression 8,575 3 2,858 17,767 ,000b

Residual 33,947 211 ,161

Total 42,522 214

(19)

19

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients

t Sig. Collinearity Statistics

B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1

(Constant) ,328 ,027 11,997 ,000

NKcentr -,264 ,037 -,442 -7,183 ,000 1,000 1,000

TpNtpCentr ,072 ,055 ,081 1,319 ,189 1,000 1,000

NKtpntp -,021 ,074 -,018 -,286 ,775 1,000 1,000

As can be seen in Table 6, the regression analysis was significant overall, R²= 0.202, F(3,211)= 17.77, p= 0.000. However time pressure did not have a significant effect on the healthiness of the purchase decision, B= 0.072, t(214)= 1.319, p= 0.189. The interaction effect between the two variables was also not significant, B= -0.021, t(214)= -0.286, p= 0.775. This means that time pressure is not a moderator in this model and therefore we reject H3.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

(20)

20

they had high nutrition knowledge, but we couldn’t see that in the results. Next up was de moderator product placement in hypothesis 2, in which we looked at differences at eye-level and knee-level on the relation nutrition knowledge and healthiness of the purchase decision. There was not a significant result, which also contradicts the previous literature. It could be that it has to do with this research being online and that it differs in-store. There is already a lot of research on the differences at eye-level and knee-level, but this can be more expanded to this specific online field. The third hypothesis looked at the moderator time-pressure on the relation nutrition knowledge and healthiness of the purchase decision. Even this was

contradicting previous literature, as the results were not significant, even though they were still positive.

Additional research can be done about age and by looking at the differences between age categories. The correlation in this research stated that a higher age leads to a healthier purchase decision. So this can be topic of interest. The cover story about risks and

consequences had a significant effect on the outcomes of the healthy purchase decisions, so here can also be looked deeper into. It is kind of strange that all three hypotheses are contradicting previous literature. This can be due to age, demographics or other unknown factors. The limitation of this research is that there was only looked at one product category. For further research I recommend to look at more and different product categories, to see if it differs between those categories. Other interesting factors one can look at within this research is the shape, color of looks of the products, or the familiarity of products. It could be helpful for the condition time pressure to reduce the amount of time to choose, or to make more groups with different timers. For example one group without time pressure, one group with 5 seconds to choose, one group with 10 seconds etcetera. One interesting thing could also be that there is looked at the differences between time to choose and age. Younger people can make faster decisions than older people most of the time, so that would be a new research topic. Last recommendation is to do a longitudinal study, to check if the relation between nutrition knowledge and healthiness of the purchase decision differs over time. In between those two studies there could be information provided to one group and to guide them in becoming more conscious about their health and nutritional values and to check if it has helped in the end. Nutrition knowledge is an very interesting topic, which will stay important for all of us, so doing more research about it can increase the knowledge and decrease all the consequences of too much sugar and too much fat intake.

(21)

21 REFERENCES

Aboulnasr, K. 2013. The Role of Self-Efficacy, Response Efficacy and Nutrition Knowledge in Consumers’ Utilization of Nutrition Labels. Marketing Management Journal, 23(1): 1-13.

Adam, A., Jensen, J. D., Sommer, I., & Hansen, G. L. 2017. Does Shelf Space Management Intervention have an Effect on Calorie Turnover at Supermarkets? Journal of Retailing

& Consumer Services, 34(1): 311-318.

Ahituv, N., Igbaria, M., Sella, A. 1998. The Effect of Time Pressure and Completeness of Information on Decision Making. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(2): 153-172.

Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., and Burton, S. 1998. Consumer Generalization of Nutrient Content Claims in Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 62(1): 62-75.

Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. 2009. The Nutrition Elite: Do Only the Highest Levels of Caloric Knowledge, Obesity Knowledge, and Motivation Matter in Processing Nutrition Ad Claims and Disclosures? Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, 28(1): 41-55.

Bolton, L. E., Bhattacharjee, A, Reed II, A. 2015. The Perils of Marketing

Weight-Management Remedies and the Role of Health Literacy. Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, 34(1): 50-62.

Borin, N., & Farris, P. 1995. A Sensitivity Analysis of Retailer Shelf Management Models.

Journal of Retailing, 71(2): 153-172.

Brucks, M. 1985. The Effects of Product Class Knowledge on Information Search Behavior.

(22)

22

Burton, S., Howlett E., and Tangari, A. H. 2009. Food for Thought: How Will the Nutrition Labelling of Quick Service Restaurant Menu Items Influence Consumers’ Product Evaluations, Purchase Intentions, and Choices? Journal of Retailing, 85(3): 258-273.

Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek. (2018, April 6). Leefstijl en (preventief)

gezondheidsonderzoek; persoonskenmerken. Retrieved from:

https://www.opendata.cbs.nl

Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. 2007. Is Obesity Caused by Calorie Underestimation? A Psychophysical Model of Meal Size Estimation. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(1): 84-99.

Corstjens, M., & Doyle, P. 1981. A Model for Optimizing Retail Space Allocations.

Management Science, 27(7): 822-833.

Dambacher, M., & Hübner, R. 2015. Time Pressure Affects the Efficiency of Perceptual Processing in Decisions under Conflict. Psychological Research, 79(1): 83-94.

De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van Den Bergh, J. 2007. Marketing Communications: A European Perspective. Prentice Hall, Harlow.

Dréze, X., Hoch, S., & Purk, M. E. 1994. Shelf Management and Space Elasticity. Journal of

Retailing, 70(4): 301-326.

Drichoutis, A., Lazaridis, P., & Nayga Jr., R. 2006. Consumers’ use of Nutritional Labels: A Review of Research Studies and Issues. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 9(1): 1-22.

Dumitrescu, C., Hughner, R. S., & Shultz, C. J. 2016. Policy and Marketing Changes to Help Curb Childhood Obesity: Government Ban and vs. Industry Self-regulation.

(23)

23

Elshiewy, O., & Boztug, Y. 2018.When Back of Pack Meets Front of Pack: How Salient and Simplified Nutrition Labels Affect Food Sales in Supermarkets. Journal of Public

Policy & Marketing, 37(1): 55-67.

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. 2000. The affect Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1): 1-17.

Godinho, S., Prada, M, Garrido, M. V. 2016. Under Pressure: An Integrative Perspective of Time Pressure Impact on Consumer Decision-Making. Journal of International

Consumer Marketing, 28(4): 251-273.

Harnack, L., Block G., Subar, A., Lane, S., & Brand, R. 1997. Association of Cancer

Prevention Related Nutrition Knowledge, Beliefs, and Attitudes to Cancer Prevention Dietary Behavior. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 97(9): 957-965.

Ho, T., Brown, S., van Maanen, L., Forstmann, B. U., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Serences, J. T. 2012. The Optimality of Sensory Processing during the Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff. The

Journal of Neuroscience, 32(23): 7992-8003.

Howlett, E. H., Burton, S., & and Kozup, J. 2008. How Modification of the Nutrition Facts Panel Influences Consumers at Risk for Heart Diseases: The Case of Trans Fat.

Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1): 83-97.

Hoyer, W. D. 1984. An Examination of Consumer Decision Making for a Common Repeat Purchase Product. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(3): 822-831.

Kidwell, B., Hasford, J., & Hardesty, D. M. 2015. Emotional Ability Training and Mindful Eating. Journal of Marketing Research, 52(1): 105-119.

Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kamm, F. 2014. Healthful Food Decision Making in Response to Traffic Light Color-coded Nutrition Labelling. Journal of Public Policy

(24)

24

Kocher, M. G., Pahlke, J., & Trautmann, S. T. 2013. Tempus Fugit: Time Pressure in Risky Decisions. Management Science, 59(10): 2380-2391.

Kocher, M. G., & Sutter, M. 2006. Time is Money – Time Pressure, Incentives, and the Quality of Decision-Making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 61(3): 375-392.

Kupor, D. M., Liu, W., & Amir, O. 2018. The Effect of an Interruption on Risk Decisions.

Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6): 1205-1219.

Lira, A., Rodrigues, B., & Zhang, X. 2004. Metaheuristics with Local Search Techniques for Retail Shelf-Space Optimization. Management Science, 50(1): 117-131.

Maule, J., & Svenson, O. 1993. Time Pressure and Stress in Human Judgment and Decision Making. New York: Plenum, 323–29.

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.

Moore, E. S., Wilkie, W. L., & Desrochers, D. M. 2017. All in the Family? Parental Roles in the Epidemic of Childhood Obesity. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(5): 824-859.

Moorman, C. 1996. A Quasi Experiment to Assess the Consumer and Informational Determinants of Nutrition Information Processing Activities: The Case of the

Nutrition Labelling and Education Act. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15(1): 28-44.

Moorman, C., Diehl, K., Brinberg, D., & Kidwell, B. 2004. Subjective Knowledge, Search Locations, and Consumer Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3): 673-680.

(25)

25

Mullaney, M. I., Corish, C. A., & Loxley, A. 2008. Exploring the Nutrition and Lifestyle Knowledge, Attitudes and Behaviour of Student Home Economics Teachers: baseline findings from a 4-year longitudinal study. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(4): 314-322.

Murray, C. C., Talukdar, D., & Gosavi, A. 2010. Joint Optimization of Product Price, Display Orientation and Shelf-Space Allocation in Retail Category Management. Journal of

Retailing, 86(2): 125-136.

Ng, M. (2014, May 28). Global, regional, and national prevalence of overweight and obesity

in children and adults during 1980-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Retrieved from: https://www.thelancet.com

Rae, B., Heathcote, A., Donkin, C., Averell, L., & Brown, S. (2014). The hare and the tortoise: emphasizing speed can change the evidence used to make decisions. Journal

of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40(5): 1226-1243.

Sigurdsson, V., Larsen, N. M., & Gunnarsson, D. 2014. Healthy Food Products at the Point of Purchase: An In-Store Experimental Analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Analysis, 47(1): 151-154.

Suri, R., & Monroe, K. B. 2003. The Effects of Time Constraints on Consumers’ Judgments of Prices and Products. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1): 92-104.

Van Binsbergen, J. J., Langens F. N. M, Dapper, A. L. M, Van Halteren, M. M., Glijsteen, R., Cleyndert, G. A., Mekenkamp-Oei, S. N., & Van Avendonk, M. J. P. 2010. NHG Standaard Obesitas. Huisarts Wet, 53(11): 609-625.

VanEpps, E. M., Downs, J. S., & Loewenstein, G. 2016. Calorie Label Formats: Using Numeric and Traffic Light Calorie Labels to Reduce Lunch Calories. Journal of

(26)

26

Verhoef, P. C., & Sloot, L. 2006. Out-of-stock: reactions, antecedents, management solutions, and a future perspective. Retailing in the 21st Century, Springer: 239-253.

Wardle, J., Parmenter, K., & Waller, J. 200. Nutrition Knowledge and Food Intake. Appetite, 34(3): 269-275.

(27)

27 APPENDIX 1 – SURVEY

Welcome,

Thank you for taking part in this survey. This survey takes approximately 5 minutes to take.

You’re about to start online grocery shopping. Read the questions and choose the products that you would like to buy. By some questions the number of products you need to pick is displayed.

Coverstory

Everybody knows that too much sugar is bad for your health. But what are in fact the

consequences for your body when you overindulge in sugar? When you overindulge in sugar, it results in an overcharge of the pancreas, overweight and a higher chance to become

diabetic. It also has a negative influence on the functioning of the brains and the muscles. If you eat too much sugar, the substance dopamine is released in the brains, which gives you a happy feeling. When this happy feeling goes away, you take a bad turn, which makes you want even more sugar. So, it is addictive.

Next to this, too much sugar disturbs your hormones, which makes it easier for your body to store fat. Lastly, it affects your blood sugar and by that also your emotions. A lot of sugar makes you feel energetic really quickly, but after that it makes you feel even more tired.

Carefully fill in the next questions and make sure you choose the right amount of products.

The next question is with a timer. You have 15 seconds to choose. Within these 15 seconds you have to choose three products.

(28)

28

If you had more time, would you have picked the same products? - Yes

- No

How healthy are the choices you made? - Very healthy

- Kind of healthy - Neutral

(29)

29

On the basis of which did you make your decision? - Taste of the product

- Looks of the product

- Information (sugar) of the product

Do you look at the place where a product stands in a shelf when you make your decision? - Yes, always

- Yes, often - Neutral - No, sometimes - No, never

Are you influenced by the nutritional values (sugar, calories) listed on the products? - Yes, always

Do you have a lot of knowledge about healthy eating and nutritional values? - Yes, very much

- Yes, a lot - Neutral - No, a little bit - No, nothing

Do you make conscious decisions while grocery shopping? - Yes, very much

(30)

30

Are you following any type of diet? (Losing weight/gaining weight/other) - Yes

- No

How important is it for you that you buy healthy products? - Very important

- Important - Neutral - Unimportant - Very unimportant

Did you look at the amount of sugar when you picked the products? - Yes, every time

What happens to your body if you overindulge in sugar? (Choose 4 answers) - Overcharge of the pancreas

- Pain in the kidneys

- Negative functioning on the brains and muscles - Pain in the stomach

- Higher chance of arrhythmias - Higher chance of becoming diabetic - It disturbs your hormones

- A lot of sugar is good

(31)

31

Age

- Fill in 0-100

Thank you for participating in this survey!

(32)

32 APPENDIX 2 – SPSS OUTPUT Descriptives, Correlations, Cronbach’s alpha

Descriptives Statistics Geslacht N Valid 215 Missing 0 Mean 1,70 Std. Deviation ,460 Minimum 1 Maximum 2 Geslacht

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Man 65 30,2 30,2 30,2 Vrouw 150 69,8 69,8 100,0 Total 215 100,0 100,0 Statistics Leeftijd N Valid 213 Missing 2 Mean 36,48 Std. Deviation 13,404 Minimum 15 Maximum 75 Correlations

Already in the results section. Cronbrach’s alpha

(33)

33 APPENDIX 3: SPSS OUTPUT, Control variables

Independent samples t-test: gender  healthiness of the purchase decision

Geslacht N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean SumAlles

Man 65 ,2540 ,44240 ,05487

Vrouw 150 ,3587 ,44495 ,03633

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F Sig. t df

SumAlles

Equal variances assumed ,138 ,710 -1,588 213

Equal variances not

assumed -1,591 122,311

SumAlles

Equal variances assumed ,114 -,10473 ,06596

Equal variances not assumed ,114 -,10473 ,06581

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower Upper

SumAlles

Equal variances assumed -,23475 ,02528

(34)

34

Linear regression: age  healthiness of the purchase decision

Model Summary

1 ,137a ,019 ,014 ,44233

a. Predictors: (Constant), Leeftijd

ANOVAa

1

Regression ,784 1 ,784 4,008 ,047b

Residual 41,283 211 ,196

Total 42,067 212

a. Dependent Variable: SumAlles b. Predictors: (Constant), Leeftijd

Coefficientsa

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. B Std. Error Beta 1 (Constant) ,158 ,088 1,798 ,074 Leeftijd ,005 ,002 ,137 2,002 ,047

(35)

35 APPENDIX 4: SPSS OUTPUT, Hypothesis 1

Independent samples t-test: cover story  healthiness of the purchase decision (already one part of the table is in the results section).

Levene's Test for Equality of Variances

F Sig. t df

SumAlles

Equal variances assumed ,115 ,735 2,307 213

Equal variances not

assumed 2,307 212,972

Lower Upper

SumAlles

Equal variances assumed ,02020 ,25752

Equal variances not assumed ,02020 ,25752

Linear regression: nutrition knowledge  healthiness of the purchase decision Already in the results section.

Independent samples t-test: cover story  good answers/consequences

Coverstory N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

SumNK6

Coverstory 107 ,7756 ,23090 ,02232

No coverstory 108 ,6614 ,22632 ,02178

(36)

36 Levene's Test for Equality of

Variances

F Sig. t df

SumNK6

Equal variances assumed ,001 ,975 3,663 213

Equal variances not

assumed 3,663 212,816

SumNK6

Equal variances assumed ,000 ,11422 ,03118

Equal variances not assumed ,000 ,11422 ,03119

Lower Upper

SumNK6

Equal variances assumed ,05275 ,17568

(37)

37 APPENDIX 5: SPSS OUTPUT, Hypothesis 2

Correlations EyeKnee SumNK1245Su mGezSumVoed w EyeKnee Pearson Correlation 1 -,015 Sig. (2-tailed) ,829 N 215 215 SumNK1245SumGezSumV oedw Pearson Correlation -,015 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,829 N 215 215

APPENDIX 6: SPSS OUTPUT, Hypothesis 3

Correlations

TpNtpCentr NKcentr

TpNtpCentr

Pearson Correlation 1 ,003

Sig. (2-tailed) ,962

Sum of Squares and

Cross-products 53,721 ,264 Covariance ,251 ,001 N 215 215 NKcentr Pearson Correlation ,003 1 Sig. (2-tailed) ,962

Sum of Squares and

Cross-products ,264 118,955

Covariance ,001 ,556