Health claims versus healthy products

(1)

Health claims versus healthy products

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business MSc Marketing Intelligence

June 2016

Supervisor: Dr. J. van Doorn

2nd supervisor: prof. Dr. K. van Ittersum

Author: Janneke Schipper

Address: Invasiestraat 92, 9728 CP Groningen Tel (Mobile): +31654673234

(2)

2

PREFACE

This thesis is the concluding paper of my Master Marketing Intelligence at the University of Groningen. After finishing my Bachelor in International Business and Languages I chose for the Master Marketing Intelligence and I am very content that I made that decision. This last

year was a very nice, though challenging experience. I am very happy that I got the opportunity to study purchase behavior regarding healthy food and health claims, because of

my interest in the food industry.

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. J. van Doorn, who was always there to offer guidance and provide me with constructive feedback.

Furthermore I would like to thank my family and friends for supporting me during the entire process.

Janneke Schipper

(4)

4

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

In this research it is investigated whether value orientations and health motivation have an effect on the purchase behavior of products with a health claim and healthy products. In addition, it is investigated whether these effects might differ between the purchase of products with a health claim and healthy products. As obesity is one of the greatest challenges in the 21st century, it is interesting to find out whether consumers can be stimulated to purchase healthier food by highlighting a value orientation.

The results from this research have some interesting findings for both food marketers and food policy makers. When it comes to the purchase of healthy food, it is found that biospheric values and health motivation are the most important drivers. However, health motivation is found to have a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim for the two largest segments that represents together 86.2% of the respondents. These findings indicate that health motivation drives the purchase of healthy products but not the purchase of products with a health claim. This has some important implications for policy makers; when health motivation increases the purchase of products with a health claim decreases whereas the share of actual healthy products increases. This suggests that health motivated consumers purchase healthy products without the use of health claims.

Furthermore, it is found that altruistic values and egoistic values have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim. When these values increase, the purchase of products with a health claim will increase. However, for altruistic values, some contradicting results were found for the purchase of healthy products. When altruistic values increase, the purchase of healthy products decreases. This finding has some important implications for policy makers as it suggests that when altruistic values increase the purchase of products with a health claim increase without increasing the purchase of actual healthy food.

(5)

5

products with a health claim does not go together with purchasing more (less) healthy products.

(6)

6

ABSTRACT

The increasing importance of consumers purchase decisions regarding healthy food and products with a health claim is of interest for both consumers and policy makers. This study examines what the effect of value orientations and health motivation on the purchase of products with a health claim and the purchase of healthy products is and how these effects differ. The results indicate that health motivation and biospheric values are the most important drivers for purchasing healthy products. However, by segmenting the consumers, it is found that health motivation has a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim for the two largest segments. These results indicate that when health motivation increases the share of healthy products increase and the share of products with a health claim decrease. Furthermore, egoistic and altruistic values are found to have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim. In addition, altruistic values have a negative effect on the purchase of healthy products. This research indicates that for health motivated consumers and consumers who endorse strong altruistic values, purchasing more (less) products with a health claim does not go together with purchasing more (less) healthy products.

(7)

7

1. INTRODUCTION

Increasing consumers’ awareness of the importance of making healthy nutrition decisions is critical. The greatest public health challenge of the 21st century is obesity. According to the World Health Organization (2016), obesity has tripled in many European countries since the 1980s. There is a discussion whether obesity is the cause of individual choices or that consumers are pushed toward unhealthy eating habits by food manufactures and supermarkets. Thornton et al. (2013) found that supermarkets promote heavily on unhealthy products such as chips, soft drinks and chocolate. Supermarkets serve as a link between consumers and nutrition and have an important influence on the food choice of consumers and their purchasing behavior with their marketing campaigns (Clarke et al. 2006; Hawkes 2008; Govindasamy et al. 2007). Furthermore, health claims are used to make it more clear to consumers whether a product is healthy or unhealthy. However, there is a conflict between systems that are designed to encourage consumption of healthier products and systems that are designed to encourage consumption of healthy products (Lobstein and Davies 2008). For example, a reduced-fat cookie is better than a normal cookie, but it may still remain an unhealthy product. Health claims can sometimes mislead a customer, as healthier does not necessarily means that it is a healthy product.

(8)

8

information about their products but manufactures may be selective about the information which can lead to wrong interpretations made by consumers. Second, when food has a health claim, consumers view the product as healthier and this may lead to a ‘halo effect’ which leads to the generalization of the positive perception to other nutrient levels which are not implicit in the claim (Hawley et al. 2012). For example, a brand uses the claim ‘low fat’ on its product package, but even though this health claim suggests it is a healthy choice, the product still contains a relatively large amount of salt. This may influence consumers since they will believe the suggestion of the health claim rather than looking for the actual amount of salt.

From previous literature it is clear that products with a health claim are not automatically healthy products. They can contain less sugar or fat, or are perceived as the best alternative in a food category. However, there is a gap in literature whether consumers who purchase products with a health claim also purchase healthy products. In this research, value orientations are used in order to find out whether consumers differ in purchasing behavior. Value orientations are used as consumers may differ in how important they find themselves, other people, or plants and animals. They are found to be a good predictor of behavior because they are stable and difficult to change (Krystallis et al. 2012). This research aims to find out what the effect of different value orientations on the purchase of products with a health claim and healthy products is and how this effect might differ. In addition, this research also aims to find out whether consumers with a high health motivation differ in purchasing behavior of products with a health claim and healthy products. It is found that consumers differ in their health motivation and this may affect the way they process nutrition information offered on products packages (Petty and Cacioppo 1986).

(9)

9

questions: (1) what is the effect of altruistic values, biospheric values and egoistic values on the purchase of products with a health claim and actual healthy products (2) and how do these effects differ between the purchase of products with a health claim and the purchase of actual healthy products. (3) What is the effect of health motivation on the purchase of products with a health claim and the purchase of actual healthy products and (4) how do these effects differ between the purchase of products with a health claim and actual healthy products.

From a managerial perspective, the findings of this research could offer marketing practitioners in the food industry new opportunities to increase healthy food decisions of consumers. If marketing practitioners know whether consumers with strong egoistic, altruistic or biospheric orientations differ in their decision making regarding healthy products, they can create different kind of marketing strategies.

This research is divided into different sections. First, the literature review will be presented and the hypotheses are discussed. Second, the research methodology will be discussed and the results of the regression analyses and latent class regression analyses are presented. The paper ends with a discussion, managerial implications and further research ideas.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Health claims

A health claim is “any representation that states, suggests, or implies that a relationship

exists between a food or a constituent of that food and health” (CAC, 2004). Health claims

may help consumers with processing information and make them more knowledgeable about the foods they consume. However, the effectiveness of health claims to support public health is still an ongoing debate. According to the American Medical Association, consumers will be confused and mislead if claims with lower levels of evidence are allowed (Mitka 2003). Some say that there is little evidence that health claims leads to healthy choices (Lawrence and Rayner 1998), or that health claims only have an effect on health-conscious consumers who are willing to pay more for products with health claims (van Assema et al. 1996).

(10)

10

level of understanding and usage at the point of making a purchase. Saba et al. (2010) found that the acceptance of health claims is culture specific and consumers accept health claims according to their requirements and needs. Furthermore, consumers’ perception about healthy food and healthy eating differ from consumer to consumer as well as from product to product (Ronteltap et al. 2012). Studies have found that consumers have negative feelings toward health claims. Some consumers consider a product as less natural when a health claim is placed on the product (Kahl et al. 2012; Lähteenmäki et al. 2010). Even though not all consumers have a positive opinion about health claims, they are commonly used by food processing companies (Caswell et al. 2003).

The effect of placing health claims on food products has been the subject of many recent research papers (Kozup, Creyer and Burton 2003; Orquin and Scholderer 2015; Schaefer, Hooker and Stanton 2015; Sütterlin and Siegrist 2015). The focus of these papers is mainly on the question whether health claims are misleading for consumers or not. According to Roe et al. (1999), consumers consider products to be healthier when health claims were presented. Contradicting this finding, Orquin and Scholderer (2015) find that health claims do not have an effect on the consumer perceptions of food healthfulness. They find that purchase intentions and sensory expectations decrease where health claims are placed, as consumers create the heuristic that health claimed products are less tasty (Orquin and Scholderer 2015). Wilcox et al. (2009) found that consumers are often misled by health claims (e.g. ‘sugar free’) and increase their overall consumption of foods. In addition, health halos also lead to overconsumption as they highlight only one particular healthy nutrient, which gives consumer the idea that the whole product is a healthy choice (Sundar and Kardes 2015; Wansink and Chandon 2006).

(11)

11

consumers react to health claims. They found that consumers chose higher calorie side dishes that were claimed to be healthy and underestimated the calories in main dishes.

2.2 Vice and Virtue

In this research, healthy and unhealthy food options are referred as virtues and vices. Vice (unhealthy) and virtue (healthy) products are often conceptualized in relation to each other as relative vice and relative virtue (van Doorn and Verhoef 2011). Vice products are hedonic indulgences that provide an immediate pleasure experience (such as sweets or cookies), but have negative long-term outcomes (health problems). Virtue products are utilitarian necessities which are less appealing in the short term but have more positive long term consequences, like losing weight (Milkman et al. 2009). According to Lui et al. (2015), consumers who buy relative more virtue products place a greater importance on health goals than on taste goals. On the other hand, consumers who buy relative more vice products attach a higher importance to taste goals than to health goals (Lui et al. 2015).

The purchase behavior of healthy and unhealthy products and why consumers choose one over the other has been the subject of many research projects. First, consumers require self-control in order to make healthy choices. A recent study by Keinan and Kivetz (2008) based on consumer choice between vice and virtue products studied the problem of self-control. This study implies that consumers choose vice over virtue products when they can justify their choice. For example, ‘I can eat a chocolate bar because I went to the gym this morning.’ When consumers cannot justify their choice for a vice product, the purchase can lead to a sense of guilt (Kivetz and Zheng, 2006).

Second, most consumers are present based and overemphasize the immediate benefits of purchasing a vice product and undervalue the benefits that are delayed (Ainslie 1975; Rick and Loewenstein 2008). This finding results in more purchases of unhealthy food. Furthermore, consumers are less likely to buy large quantities of vice products because this would break their self-imposed rules. When a product gives an immediate benefit, consumers are more likely to buy unhealthy products. However when buying them for the future, the immediate benefits have no effect.

(12)

12

consumers have to make every day, only a small number of fifteen can be recalled (Wansink and Sobel 2007). Wood and Neal (2007) found that many food choices are habitual. As choices can be cued automatically by the context where it is in, one can argue whether different value orientations have an effect on the purchase of healthy products.

There are a lot of different diets and nutrition advices in today’s society and this makes it difficult for consumers to know what is healthy and what is unhealthy. The Dutch Nutrition Centre (Voedingscentrum) has created guidelines to inform consumers about nutrition. They encourage consumers to develop and maintain sustainable and healthy eating habits. There is a need for independent, reliable information about healthy food choices, as consumers receive an extensive amount of information about food which sometimes is conflicting. The guideline is reported in the ‘Schijf van 5’ and is created by 19 scientists who worked on it for four years (Voedingscentrum 2016).

2.3 Value orientations

Schwartz (1992) defines a value as: “a desirable trans situational goal varying in importance,

which serves as a guiding principle in the life of a person or other social entity” (p.21).

(13)

13

Values have been studied in relation to food consumption in previous research. Research has shown that values can play an important role in explaining differences in consuming convenience food (Botonaki and Mattas 2010), perceptions of food (Osinga and Hofstede 2004), organic purchase behavior (van Doorn and Verhoef 2015) and food choice motives (Lindeman and Sirelius 2001). Furthermore, values are interesting to take into consideration when looking at promotional messages. Zhang and Gelb (1996) found that when promotional messages are consistent with consumers’ personal values, they tend to be evaluated more favorably. For example, emphasizing personal welfare, which is an egoistic value, has been found to be evaluated more favorably by consumers from independent cultures, whereas emphasizing collective welfare is more preferred by consumers from an interdependent culture (Han and Shavitt 1994). Although research builds on values and their relation to food consumption, no research is done which relates values to the purchase of healthy food and the purchase of products with a health claim. In this study, an effort is made to examine whether values have an effect on the purchase of products with a health claim and healthy products.

Individuals who have a strong egoistic value orientation consider the costs and benefits of pro-environmental behavior for them personally the most. They will behave in an environmentally friendly manner when the perceived benefits exceed the perceived costs. The decision on behaving pro-environmentally or not for individuals with a strong altruistic value orientation is based on the perceived costs and benefits for other people. Finally, for individuals with a strong biospheric value orientation the perceived costs and benefits for the ecosystem will be most important for making the decision to act pro-environmentally. None of the value orientations are mutually exclusive as all individuals hold to some extend egoistic, altruistic and biospheric values. According to Schwartz (1992), individuals base their choices on the values that are considered to be most important in a specific situation when opposing values are triggered. Values may have to compete with other determinants of behavior such as motivation. Health motivation may also affect the purchasing behavior regarding products with a health claim and healthy products.

2.4 Health motivation

Moorman and Matulich (1993) define health motivation as: “consumers’ goal-directed

arousal to engage in preventive health behaviors” (p. 210). According to Rosenstock (1960),

(14)

14

motivation. When consumers want to change their habits, they need to be motivated to do so. Motivation produces a force which comes from the inside of a consumer that energizes them to perform a preferred behavior and try to fulfill pre-set goals. Consumers usually have multiple motives at the time. For example, on the one hand consumers have the motivation for loose weight and on the other hand they want to purchase food which satisfies their taste needs.

According to Petty and Caciopppo (1986) consumers differ in their health motivation and this may affect the way they process nutrition information on specific claims and nutrient data offered on products packages. They developed the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) which states that consumers process information in varying degrees. According to this model, consumers can process information through the central route or peripheral route. The central route is used when consumers’ motivation to process information is high whereas the peripheral route is used when information processing requires less cognitive effort. The way consumers differ in their motivation influences the processing, perception and use of nutrition information (Keller et al. 1997; Moorman, 1996).

Motivation may affect perceptions of usefulness and accessibility of specific types of information in product evaluations. Consumers with a high health motivation may place a greater emphasis on looking at the detailed information in the Nutrition Facts panel whereas consumers with a lower motivation may place a greater emphasis on easily accessible information, such as health claims placed on the front of a package. Previous research finds that motivation has a moderating role for making choices. Consumers will be more likely to engage in more effortful cognitive processing to evaluate information when their motivational intensity is high (Andrews and Shimp 1990; Petty and Cacioppo 1979). Additionally, motivated consumers are more willing to spend time on processing and elaborating on information.

3. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

(15)

15

products with a health claim and healthy products. Values are used as they play a significant role in explaining behavior and beliefs, and can therefore be used to predict variables such as attitudes and behavioral intentions (Stern 2000; Stern and Dietz 1994).

In this research different value orientations are used to find out whether it is a predictor of purchasing products with a health claim and healthy products. Virtue products are more likely to fulfil normative goals like good health, whereas vice products are more likely to fulfil hedonic goals like good taste (Lui et al. 2015; Khan and Dhar 2006; Wertenbroch, 1998). Based on previous literature, it is expected that egoistic values have a negative effect on the purchase of virtue products. Additionally, altruistic and biospheric value orientations are expected to have a positive effect on purchasing virtue products.

Next to value orientations, consumers’ health motivation is taken into account. It is important to find out if consumers with a high health motivation buy more products with a health claim as health claims are designed to help consumers make better food choices. In line with the Elaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppe 1986), which assumes that consumers with a high motivation will process information more thoroughly, it is expected that a high health motivation will negatively affect buying products with a health claim. Previous research found that motivation is important for making choices and that consumers are more likely to evaluate information when motivation is high (Andrews and Shimp 1990; Petty and Cacioppo 1979). Therefore it is expected that health motivation has a positive effect on purchasing healthy products.

(16)

16

4. HYPOTHESES

The effect of consumers’ value orientation on buying behavior

Altruistic, biospheric and egoistic values are important predictors of consumers buying behavior, because they steer the focus on specific attributes of products (Schuitema and de Groot 2015). Consumers with strong egoistic values focus on maximizing individual outcomes, where they place their own interests above collective interests (de Groot and Steg, 2007). A reason why consumers buy products with health claims is to consume products that would benefit their health. Health claims are not focusing on the wellbeing of others but on the wellbeing of the individual consumer (Verhoef and van Doorn, 2016). Therefore, by spending money on health claims they spent money on themselves. Furthermore, most people choose healthy products when health consequences are expected to be soon and easy to recognize (Capaldi 1996). Health claims are easy to recognize and give consumers the immediate idea that they purchase a healthier product. The following hypothesis is formulated:

H1: Egoistic values have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim.

(17)

17

research has shown that consumers perceive products with a health claim as less natural (Kahl et al. 2012; Lähteenmäki et al. 2010). The following hypotheses are formulated:

H2a:

Biospheric values have a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim.

H2b: Altruistic values have a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health

claim.

It is expected that consumers with different value orientations will evaluate vice and virtue products differently. Based on previous literature, virtue products are more likely to fulfil normative goals like good health and vice products are more likely to fulfil hedonic goals like good taste (Lui et al. 2015; Khan and Dhar 2006; Wertenbroch, 1998). Hedonic goals are focused on immediate pleasures and gives a consumer a good feeling right now (Lindenberg and Steg 2007). Research finds that taste is an important characteristic and purchase motivator on food choice (Kennedy et al. 2004; van Loo et al. 2010). Consumers who endorse strong egoistic values will especially consider costs and benefits for purchasing healthy products for them personally. Hofmesiter and Neulinger (2000) found that for egoistic consumers, consumption is driven by enjoyment and their personal needs. Furthermore, previous research by Forewood et al. (2013) found that when consumers have to choose between taste and health, taste is the most important factor for making food choices. Unhealthy products are perceived as more tasteful and tasteful products can give consumers an immediate pleasure. It is expected that consumers who endorse strong egoistic values are more likely to purchase vice products.

(18)

18

H3a: Egoistic values have a negative effect on the purchase of virtue products. H3b: Biospheric values have a positive effect on the purchase of virtue products.

The effects of consumers’ health motivation on buying behavior

Previous research shows that consumers with a high health motivation tend to use and process nutrition information to a greater extent than consumers with a low health motivation (Grunert et al. 2010; Moorman 1996; Visschers, Hess and Siegrist 2010). Furthermore, consumers who have a higher health motivation evaluate products with health-related information more favorably and have greater purchase intentions (Andrews et al. 2009; Keller et al. 1997). Polymeros and Grunert (2014) found that consumers with a high health motivation do not utilize functional claims (e.g. calcium) more than consumers with a low health motivation. An explanation could be that consumers who have a high health motivation become more skeptical of functional claims (Keller et al. 1997). However, functional claims are statements made about functional components and do not directly communicate the health benefits as health claims do.

The above findings can be linked to the Elaboration likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). According to this model, consumers can process information in two ways, namely through systematic processing or heuristic processing. Consumers are assumed to use more of the available information in systematic processing to reach to a decision. In heuristic processing, consumers use cognitive heuristics or simple rules of thumb to interpret the information. It depends on the current motivation and ability of consumers how they process the available information and whether they engage in systematic of heuristic processing (Leathwood et al. 2007). Consumers who have a high health motivation are more likely to process information in more detail before making a decision. If health motivation is low, consumers may use heuristics or simple rules of thumb to make a decision between products. It is expected that consumers with a high health motivation will purchase fewer products with a health claim.

H4: Health motivation has a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health

claim.

(19)

19

literature has found that individuals who prioritize healthy eating and have a stable eating pattern are more likely to be healthy eaters (van’t Riet et al. 2011). In addition, it is found that the immediate benefits of unhealthy products are more salient than the negative long-term consequences (O’Donoghue and Rabin 2000). Short-term benefits like taste and pleasure are of major importance for most people. Capaldi (1996) found that consumers quickly learn to like foods offered at parties or as rewards (taste-environment) and food high in sugar and fat (taste-nutrient learning). Health is placed second when it comes to people’s food choice (Lennernas et al. 1997). Nevertheless, a report of HealthFocus (2005) found that 57% of Europeans indicated to never or rarely compromise on taste to improve the healthfulness of their eating habits.

Previous research found that motivation increase comprehension of and attention to relevant information and produce more enduring and stable attitudes (Petty and Cacioppo 1986). Furthermore, Celsi and Olson (1988) found that health motivation drives consumers to pursue health behaviors which are important to them. Health motivation stimulates consumers to put their skills and knowledge into making healthy food choices. Therefore, it is expected that a consumers’ health motivation is an important predictor whether they will purchase healthy products.

H5: Health motivation has a positive effect on the purchase of virtue products.

Control variables: Demographics

In this research gender, education, income, age and household size are included as control variables. Urala and Lähteenmäki (2007) found no gender differences when it comes to how sensitive women and men are to health claims. However, other literature does suggest that women are more sensitive to health claims (De Jong et al. 2003). Women are also more likely to follow a healthy diet than men. From the research of Wardle et al. (2004) it turned out that women eat more fruit and fiber, avoid high-fat foods and limit salt intake.

(20)

20

claims have been found to be positively related to education (Gracia, Loureiro and Nayga 2007).

5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

5.1 Data Collection

For this research the Dutch food market is chosen. Two types of data were used: (1) household-level behavioral data and (2) household-level survey data about consumer characteristics and sociodemographic information. By using in-home scanning devices, around 5,000 Dutch households scanned all their food purchases. These households differ in gender, age, income, education and household size. The food purchases are divided into 29 categories and together represent about 80% of the food purchases. The collected data is from two periods of 20 week each (November 2007 – March 2008; November 2008 – March 2009). The first period consists of 4023 household panel members and the second period consists of 4412 members. This data is collected within the Dutch GfK household panel. Furthermore, GfK collected data whether a product has a health claim. Health claims included in this study are: ‘Healthy choice label’, ‘Light claim’, ‘Zero fat claim’, ‘Reduced fat claim’ and ‘Nutrition/health claim’. The GfK panel contains actual purchase behavior of households and is therefore well-suited to test the conceptual model.

5.2 Measurement of Purchase Behavior

In this research, the purchase behavior of virtue products and health claims are examined. To measure these constructs, the share of wallet was calculated. Share of wallet represents the percentage that households allocate to the purchase of products with a health claim and to the purchase of healthy products. The share of health claims bought is calculated as follows:

SOW Health claims =Budget spent on health claims, 𝑖 𝑡 Total budget, 𝑖 𝑡

(21)

21

Vice products (such as soft drinks and chocolates) and virtue products (such as vegetables and fruit) can be allocated by different classifications. In order to improve the accuracy of this research, three different classifications are used to make a distinction between vice and virtue categories: (1) by Hui et al. (2009), (2) by ‘Voedingscentrum’ (2016) and (3) by Milkman et al. (2009).

Hui et al. (2009) indicated whether a product was vice, virtue or neither. This classification was formed by three independent judges who came to the agreement through discussion. ‘Voedingscentrum’ is the Dutch Nutrition Centre which gives information on healthy and safe food and also on making more sustainable food choices. They developed the ‘Schijf van 5’, which gives consumers an indication of what a healthy diet is. In sum, people eat healthy according to the ‘Schijf van 5’ when they eat especially from the five main categories, they eat the right portion and have a diverse diet (Brink et al. 2016). Based on the Dutch Nutrition Centre it is determined whether a category belonged to vice or virtue. Canned vegetables and fruits are labelled as ‘neither’ because it is unknown what the amount of salt is. The SOW of virtue products according to Hui et al. (2009) and the ‘Voedingscentrum’ (2016) are calculated as follows:

SOW Virtue categories =Budget spent on virtue products, 𝑖 𝑡 𝑗 Total budget, 𝑖 𝑡 𝑗

(22)

22 Table 1: Overview of vice and virtue categories

Category Hui et al. (2009) Voedingscentrum (2016) Milkman et al. (2009)

‘should score’: the higher, the more virtue

Cookies and pastries Vice Vice -5.098

Chocolate Vice Vice -4.42

Sweets and candy Vice Vice -4.42

Alcohol Vice Vice -4

Soft drinks Vice Vice -3.6

Baking ingredients Neither Vice -3.29

Sandwich filling Neither Vice -2.854

Ready-made meals Virtue Vice -2.093

Butter and margarine Neither Virtue -1.512

Nuts Vice Virtue -1.455

Crisps and salty biscuits Vice Vice -1.455

Beer Vice Vice -1.303

Seasoning Neither Vice -1.291

Coffee and tea Neither Virtue -1.253

Cereals Virtue Vice -1.13

Meat products Neither Vice -.957

Canned vegetables Virtue Neither -.545

Canned fruits Virtue Neither -.545

Bread Virtue Virtue -.481

Cheese Vice Virtue .024

Rice and pasta Neither Virtue .488

Meat Neither Virtue .54

Fish Neither Virtue .682

Soup Virtue Vice .704

Meat substitutes Virtue Virtue 1.439

Dairy products Virtue Virtue 1.663

Vegetables and fruit Virtue Virtue 2.125

Eggs Virtue Virtue 2.146

Chicken Neither Virtue -

(23)

23

27.8% had an H.S. or trade school degree; 36.1% had an associate’s /BA/BS degree and 35% went to graduate school. Furthermore, 56.8% of the respondents lived in a one- or two person household, 34.2% lived in a three or four person household and 9% lived in a household of five or more persons.

5.3 Measurement of covariates

A survey was administered to part of the Gfk panel to measure values. The surveys were conducted in two waves (November 2007 and May 2008). From both waves, 1983 responses were obtained. However, 630 respondents took part in both surveys. Values did not change between the two waves and it was therefore decided to merge the data. In total 1353 usable responses where obtained. Purchase data is available for 1043 respondents in period 1 and for 1198 respondents in period 2. In Gfk’s yearly panelist survey health motivation was measured. The data is used which was gathered in 2008.

The scale of Steg et al. (2005) was used to measure the different value orientations. This is a scale which contains 13 questions to indicate how high consumers score on the different value orientations. To measure health motivation, the scale of Moorman (1990) was used. The scales can be found in Appendix A. The database used in this study is used in previous studies by van Doorn et al. (2015 and 2016). They tested the reliability of the constructs. The constructs are reliable when the values are higher than 0.6 (Malhotra 2010). All the constructs exceed 0.6 as demonstrated in Appendix B.

5.4 Normality check

In order to test whether the residuals in the analyses are normally distributed a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Shapiro-Wilk test were performed. A normality test is used to determine if the residuals are well-modeled by a normal distribution. This is important as a regression analysis assumes that variables have a normal distribution. When this is not the case, it could distort the significance and relationships outcomes. All the residuals from the different analyses reach a significance level of p=0.000 indicating that the residuals are non-normally distributed. Therefore it is decided to use bootstrapping in the regression analyses to be able to interpret the outcomes.

5.5 Correlations

(24)

24

exception of biospheric values and altruistic values. As expected, these variables correlated positively with each other with a score of .619. In addition, the three different classifications of vice and virtue products correlated strongly with each other.

6. EMPIRICAL RESULTS

In this section the results of the hypotheses testing will be discussed. In order to test the hypotheses a multiple regression analysis is performed. This section is divided into two parts. First, the effects of different values and health motivation on the purchase of products with a health claim and healthy products will be discussed. Second, by using a latent class regression analysis, the effect of values and health motivation on the purchase of products with a health claim and healthy products will be discussed for different consumer segments.

6.1 Regression analyses

6.1.1 Effects of values and health motivation on the purchase of products with a health claim

A multiple regression analysis was performed in order to test what the effect of values and health motivation on the budget spend on products with a health claim are. Age, gender, income, education and household size were included as control variables. The results from this analyses are reliable as the models are significant (p = 0.000). The results of the regression analyses are displayed in table 2. The equation for the upcoming model is as follows:

𝑌_𝑡= 𝛼_𝑡+ 𝛽_1𝑡∗ 𝐻𝑀 + 𝛽_2𝑡∗ 𝐴𝑉 + 𝛽_3𝑡∗ 𝐵𝑉 + 𝛽_4𝑡∗ 𝐸𝑉 + 𝛽_5𝑡∗ 𝐴 + 𝛽_6𝑡∗ 𝐺 + 𝛽_7𝑡∗ 𝐼 + 𝛽_8𝑡 ∗ 𝐸 + 𝛽9𝑡∗ 𝐻𝑆 + 𝜀𝑡

Where:

𝑌_𝑡 = Share of budget spent on products with a health claim in period t. 𝛼 = Intercept

HM = Health motivation

AV = Altruistic value orientation BV = Biospheric value orientation EV = Egoistic value orientation A = Age in years

(25)

25

HS = Household size t = Period (1 or 2) 𝜀 = Disturbance term

Table 2: Influence of health motivation, value orientations and sociodemographic variables on purchasing health claims

DV: Budget spent on products with a health claim

Period 1 Period 2 Intercept 13.408 *** 13.600*** Health motivation .073 -.053 Altruistic values .404 .389 Biospheric values -.254 -.513** Egoistic values .221 .281 Age -1.127*** -1.130*** Gender -.182 -.154 Income .696*** .299 Education .379* .680*** Household size -.787*** -.796*** R² .051 .055 *** Significant at < .01 ** Significant at < .05 * Significant at < .1

H1 is not supported, as there is no effect found between strong egoistic values and the purchase of products with a health claim. In line with H2a, a biospheric value orientation has a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim (P2: β = -.513, p<.05). However, only a significant effect is found for the second period. In addition, H2b is not supported as no effect is found between altruistic values and the purchase of products with a health claim. Furthermore, H4 stated that consumers with a high health motivation purchase fewer products with a health claim. This hypothesis is not supported as no significant effect is found.

(26)

26

effect and income only has an effect in the first period. Consumers with a higher income spent more on products with a health claim. Furthermore, higher educated consumers spent more on products with a health claim. Lastly, household size has a negative effect on purchasing health claims, indicating that smaller households spent more on products with a health claim.

The variables were also tested for multicollinearity by using the VIF score. Multicollinearity is present when two or more predictor variables correlate with each other. Moderate multicollinearity is present when the VIF score exceeds 4.0. Multicollinearity was not found in this model as all variables had VIF a score below 1.635. Given that biospheric and altruistic values show a strong correlation, the models are estimated again where one of the variables was left out. When estimating the effects on the purchase of products with a health claim and altruistic value is left out, the effect of biospheric value is insignificant. This indicates that a biospheric value orientation and an altruistic value orientation have an effect on each other.

6.1.2 Effects of values and health motivation on the purchase of healthy products

In table 3 the coefficients of the multiple regression analyses are provided. A separate analysis is performed per time period per classification. The results from this analysis are reliable as the models are significant (p < .01). The equation for the upcoming model is as follows:

𝑌𝑗𝑡 = 𝛼𝑗𝑡 + 𝛽1𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐻𝑀 + 𝛽2𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐴𝑉 + 𝛽3𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐵𝑉 + 𝛽4𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐸𝑉 + 𝛽5𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐴 + 𝛽6𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐺 + 𝛽7𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐼 + 𝛽_8𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐸 + 𝛽_9𝑗𝑡∗ 𝐻𝑆 + 𝜀_𝑗𝑡

𝑌_𝑗𝑡 = Share of budget spent on healthy products using classification j in period t. 𝛼 = Intercept

HM = Health motivation

AV = Altruistic value orientation BV = Biospheric value orientation EV = Egoistic value orientation A = Age in years

G = Gender (1 = male 0 = female) I = Income in euros

HS = Household size

(27)

27

t = Period (1 or 2) 𝜀 = Disturbance term

The three classifications will be discussed separately.

Hui et al. (2009) – H3a stated that egoistic values have a negative effect on the purchase of virtue products. In period 1, egoistic values have a marginal significant effect on the purchase of healthy products (P1: β = -.542, p < .1). For period 2 no significant effect was found. A biospheric value orientation has a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products (P1: β = .830, P2: .800, p < .05). These findings are in line with H3b. Health motivation has no significant effect on the purchase of healthy products and therefore H5 is not supported.

Table 3: Influence of health motivation, value orientations and sociodemographic variables on purchasing virtue products

(28)

28

Voedingscentrum (2016) – Egoistic values are found to have a negative effect on the purchase of healthy products in period 2 (P2: β = -.630, p< .05). For period 1 no significant effect was found. Biospheric values are found to have a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products (P1: β =1.039, p< .05; P2: β = 1.215, p < .01), in support of H3b. Health motivation has a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products (P1: β = .927, p< .05 ; P2: β = .698 , p<.05). These findings support H5.

Milkman et al. (2009) – Egoistic values have a marginal significant effect on the purchase of healthy products in period 2 (P2: β -.024= -.024, p<.1). For period 1 no significant effect was found. Biospheric values have a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products (P1: β = .45; P2: β = .051, p < .01). These findings support H3b. The results support H5 as health motivation has a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products (P1: β = .045, p <.01; P2: β = .033, p < .05).

The analyses demonstrate that sociodemographic variables affect healthy purchase behavior. Age has a positive effect on purchasing healthy products, indicating that older consumers buy healthier products. In addition, gender plays an important role in eating habits. From the analyses it appeared that females buy more healthy products. Income is only found to have a negative effect for the classification of Hui et al. (2009) in period 2 (P2: β = -.625 < .05). Moreover, education has a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products. Consumers who are highly educated are more likely to buy healthy products than consumers with a low education. Lastly, household size is found to have a negative effect on the purchase of healthy products in the classification of Hui et al. (2009) (P1: β = -.889, p< .05; P2: β = -.803, p < .05).

The variables were also tested for multicollinearity by using the VIF score. Multicollinearity was not found in this model as all variables had VIF a score below 1.644. Given that biospheric and altruistic values show a strong correlation, the models are estimated again where one of the variables was left out. The effects on purchasing healthy products remained very similar.

6.2 Latent class regression analyses

(29)

29

customers. Furthermore, a latent class regression model allows for the fact that estimates might differ for different segments. This section is divided into three sections. First, a latent class regression analysis is performed to find out what the effect of values and health motivation are on the budget spend on products with a health claim. Second, a latent class regression analysis is performed to find out what the effect of values and health motivation are on the budget spent on healthy products. These analyses are performed for period 2 as this is the most recent period. In the third section, the latent class regression analyses are compared with each other to find out whether values and health motivation have a different effect on the budget spent on products with a health claim and budget spent on healthy products. The latent class regression analyses are conducted in Latent Gold 5.0.

6.2.1 Consumer segmentation for the purchase of products with a health claim

The dependent variable for this analysis is the share of budget which is spent on products with a health claim and the predictor variables are altruistic values, biospheric values, egoistic values and health motivation. Age, gender, income, education and household size were added as covariates. The number of segments is determined based on the standard fit criteria and the interpretability on the different segment. The following information criteria are used: BIC (Bayesian Information criteria), AIC (Akaike Information Criteria), AIC3 (Akaike Information Criteria) and CAIC (Consistent Akaike Information Criteria). The model with the lowest value is most preferred when comparing the models. According to Collins and Lanza (2010), when evaluating model fit, parsimony and model interpretability are also important.

(30)

30

Table 5 demonstrates the parameter estimates of the four different segments and the covariates. The significance of a set of parameters is measured by the Wald statistic. Whether there is a significant difference in parameter estimates across the segments is measured by Wald (=) statistics.

Health motivation is found to have a marginal significant positive effect on segment 1 and 4, and has a negative effect on segment 2 and 3 (Wald = 8.872, p < .1). The Wald (=) statistic indicates that there is a marginal significant difference in the estimates across segments (W(=) = 7.481, p < .1). This indicates that health motivation has a positive effect on the purchase on products with a health claim for segment 1 (β = .722) and 4 (β = .672). Furthermore, health

Table 4: Model selection

BIC (LL) AIC (LL) AIC3(LL) CAIC (LL) Npar Class. Err.

1-Class Model 8070.2738 8039.7433 8045.7433 8076.2738 6 .000

2-Class Model 7955.5067 7863.9154 7881.9154 7973.5067 18 .1766

3-Class Model 7980.2656 7827.6133 7857.6133 8010.2656 30 .1980

4-Class Model 8026.0983 7812.3852 7854.3852 8068.0983 42 .2344

Table 5: Parameter estimates

DV: Budget spent on products with a health claim

(31)

31

motivation has a negative effect on the purchase on products with a health claim for segment 2 (β = -.125) and 3 (β = -.139). Altruistic values have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim for segment 1 (β = .599), 2 (β = .394) and 3 (β = .484) and have a strong negative effect for segment 4 (β = -5.777) (Wald = 16.248, p < .01). The effect significantly differs across segments (W (=) = 9.819, p < .05). Egoistic values are found to have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim for segment 3 (β = .437) and segment 4 (β = 3.985), almost no effect for segment 2 (β = -.008) and a negative effect for segment 1 (β = -.357). Additionally, the Wald (=) statistic indicates that the estimates across classes differ significantly (Wald (=) = 12.010, p < .01). Furthermore, no significant effect in found for a biospheric value orientation.

Based on the above findings and the included covariates the four segments will be discussed. Gender (p = .19) and income (p = .11) did not reach a significant effect.

Segment 1- Non buyers – This segment spends the least of their budget on products with a

health claim (4.9%). The segment consists of 9.9% of the respondents. Health motivation has a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim (β = .722). Furthermore, altruistic values are also found to have a positive effect (β = .599). When altruistic values increase, the purchases of products with a health claim increase. Egoistic values have a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim. This indicates, when egoistic values increase, the share of products with a health claim decrease. 42% of the consumers are between 45 and 54 years old and 23% are between 55 and 75 years old. The consumers in this segment are compared to the other segments the oldest. The level of education varies in this segment; 37.9% has a high school or trade school degree, 34.6% has an associate’s BA/BS degree and 25.4% has a graduate degree. Household size in this segment is rather small; 31% of the consumers have a 1-peron household and 44% have a 2-person household.

Segment 2 – Light buyers – This segment consist of 42.2% of the respondents and spend on

(32)

32

old and 25% of the consumers are between 30 and 39 years old. Consumers in this segment live in the largest households; 31% of the households contain 4 or more persons.

Segment 3 – Medium buyers – Segment 3 is the largest segment consisting of 44% of the

respondents. This segment spends on average 17.4% of their budget on products with a health claim. Health motivation has a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim (β = -.139). Altruistic values have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim (β = .484). Furthermore, egoistic values have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim (β = .437). Indicating when egoistic values increase, the purchase of products with a health claim will increase. Consumers in this segment are younger than in segment 1 and 2. 28% of the respondents are between 30 and 39 years old and 18% is younger than 29 years old. Consumers in this segment have the highest level of education. 45% of the respondents have a graduate degree. Furthermore, 34% of the respondents have a 2-person household.

Segment 4 – Heavy buyers – Segment 4 is the smallest segment consisting of 3.9% of the

respondents. Compared to the other segments, they spend the most on products with a health claim (30.3%). Health motivation has a positive effect on the purchase on products with a health claim (β = .672). Altruistic values have a strong negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim (β = -5.777). Indicating when altruistic values increase, the purchase of products with a health claim will decrease. Egoistic values have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim (β = 3.985). This segment consists of the youngest consumers compared to the other segments. 35% of the consumers are younger than 29 years old. 28% of the respondents have a high school or trade school degree, 37% of the respondents have an associate’s BA/BS degree and 33% of the respondents have a graduate degree. Most of the customers (75%) live in 1-person household.

6.2.2 Consumer segmentation for the purchase of healthy products

(33)

4-33

class model. In addition, the classification error is found to be the lowest for the 2-class model. However, the interpretability of the different classes should also be taken into account. When looking at the class size differences and the significance of the predictor variables and covariates the 4-class model is selected as the best model.

Table 7 demonstrates the parameter estimates of the four different segments and the covariates. The significance of a set of parameters is measured by the Wald statistic. Whether there is a significant difference in parameter estimates across the segments is measured by Wald (=) statistics.

Table 6: Model selection - Voedingscentrum

BIC (LL) AIC (LL) AIC3(LL) CAIC (LL) Npar Class. Err.

1-Class Model 8934.8782 8904.3475 8910.3475 8940.8780 6 .0000

2-Class Model 8874.9626 8783.3712 8801.3712 8892.9626 18 .0432

3-Class Model 8848.2366 8695.5843 8725.5843 8878.2366 30 .1566

4-Class Model 8891.7892 8678.0760 8720.0760 8933.7892 42 .1817

Table 7: Parameter estimates

DV: Budget spent on healthy products

1 Healthy 2 Moderate healthy 3 Normal 4 Unhealthy

(34)

34

Health motivation is found to have a positive effect on the budget spent on healthy products for segment 1, 2 and 4. A negative effect was found for segment 4 (Wald = 9.476, p < .05. In addition, the Wald (=) statistic indicates that there is a marginal significant difference across the segments in the estimates (Wald (=) = 6.961, p < .1). Health motivation has the strongest effect on the purchase of healthy products for segment 4 (β = 2.864), followed by segment 2 (β = .935) and health motivation has the smallest positive effect on the purchase of healthy products for segment 1 (β = .236). Health motivation has negative effect on the purchase of healthy products for segment 3 (β = -.216). Altruistic values have a positive effect on the budget spent on healthy products for segment 4 and a negative effect on segment 1,2 and 3 (Wald = 14.498, p < .01). The estimates differ significantly across segments (Wald (=) = 10.629, p < .01). Altruistic values have a strong negative effect on the budget spent on healthy products for segment 2 (β = -3.151). In addition, altruistic values have a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products for segment 4 (β = .859). Biospheric values are found to have a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products for segment 2, segment 3 and segment 4. Biospheric values have a negative effect on the budget spend on healthy products for segment 1 (Wald = 19.822, p < .01). The estimates differ significantly across segments (Wald (=) = 11.572, p < .01). Biospheric values have the strongest positive effect on share of healthy products for segment 4 (β = 3.883), followed by segment 2 (β = 2.530) and the smallest positive effect was found for segment 3 (β = .818). Biospheric values have a negative effect on the purchase of healthy products for segment 1 (β = -.416). Furthermore, no significant effect was found for egoistic values.

Based on the above findings and the included covariates the four segments will be discussed. All covariates, except for income (p = .18), reached significance.

Segment 1 – Healthy – Segment 1 spends the most of their budget on healthy products

(35)

35

segment is rather small; 28% of the respondents live in a 1-person household and 58% of the respondents live in a 2-person household.

Segment 2- Moderate healthy – This segment consists of 18.4% of the respondents and spent

on average 63.1% on healthy products. Health motivation has a positive effect on the budget spent on healthy products (β = .935). Altruistic value have compared to the other segments the largest negative effect on the purchase of healthy products (β = -3.151). Biospheric values have compared to the other segments the largest positive effect on the purchase of healthy products (β = 2.530). Consumers in this segment are compared to the other segments the youngest. 38% is younger than 29 years and 28% is between 30 and 39 years old. Furthermore, 80% of the respondents are female. The level of education is in this segment the highest. 75% of the respondents have a graduate degree. In addition, 39% of the respondents have a household size of 2 persons.

Segment 3 – Normal – Segment 3 is the largest segment and represents 36.5% of the

respondents. This segment spends on average 58.8% on healthy products. Health motivation (β = -.216) and altruistic values (β = -.151) have a negative effect on the purchase of healthy products. Biospheric values have a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products (β = .818). 42% of the respondents are between 30 and 39 years old and 24% is between 40 and 44 years old. 93% of the respondents are female. Furthermore, compared to the other segments, this segment has the lowest level of education. 41% has finished high school or trade school and 42% has an associate’s BA/BS degree. Household size in this segment is the largest compared to the other segments; 62% of the households contain 4 or more persons.

Segment 4 – Unhealthy– Segment 4 is the smallest segment and represents 14% of the

(36)

36

37% has a graduate degree. The household size of the respondents in this segment are the smallest; 58% has 1-person household and 35% has a 2-person household.

6.2.3 Differences between purchase of products with a health claim and healthy products

In the previous two sections, latent class regression analyses were performed to identify homogeneous groups of customers. In this section the results from the two analyses will be compared in order to find out how values and health motivation have a different effect on the purchase of products with a health claim and healthy products.

First, health motivation is found to have a positive effect on the budget spent on healthy products in segment 1, segment 2 and segment 4 (table 7). These effects differ between segments where it has the largest effect on the ‘unhealthy’ segment, followed by the ‘moderate healthy’ segment and has the smallest effect on the ‘healthy’ segment. When health motivation increases, the budget spend on healthy products will increase. However, health motivation is found to have a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim for the two largest segments, namely the ‘light-buyers’ segment (42.2%) and the ‘medium-buyers’ segment (44%). When health motivation increases, the share of products with a health claim decreases. This finding suggest that when health motivation increase, the purchase of healthy products increases but the purchase of products with a health claim decreases.

Second, altruistic values are found to have a negative effect on the purchase of healthy products for the ‘healthy’ segment, ‘moderate healthy’ segment and the ‘normal’ segment. Altruistic values have the largest negative effect on the purchase of healthy products in the ‘moderate’ healthy segment. On the other hand, altruistic values were found to have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim for ‘non-buyers’ segment, ‘light-buyers’ segment and ‘medium ‘light-buyers’ segment. This finding suggest that when altruistic values increase, the purchase of products with a health claim increase but the purchase of healthy products will decrease.

(37)

37

products with a health claim will increase. However no effect was found for egoistic values to have an effect on the purchase of healthy products. No comparisons can be made between the effect of egoistic and biospheric values on the purchase of products with a health claim and healthy products.

6.3 Robustness checks

Several robustness checks were performed. First, the model is re-estimated using the share of virtue products (SOP) as the dependent variable, instead of the share of wallet of virtue products (Appendix D). The re-estimation is performed for all three classifications of vice and virtue. The biggest change using SOP can been seen in the health motivation variable. Where health motivation had a significant positive effect on purchasing healthy products calculated with SOW, it has no effect on buying healthy products using SOP. It appears that health motivated consumers spent more money on healthy products, but when it comes to the actual number of healthy products, no differences can be found. From these results it may be that health motivated consumers are willing to spend more money on healthy products. Health motivated consumers could buy the same amount of healthy products as consumers with a low health motivation and spent more money on these products. In addition, the coefficients associated with an altruistic value orientation become marginal significant. In this model a strong altruistic value orientation has a positive effect on buying healthy products. Furthermore, when using share of healthy products as the dependent variable, income gets a strong positive effect on purchasing healthy products. Consumers with a high income buy more healthy products.

The model is re-estimated using the share of volume of healthy products as the dependent variable as a second robustness check (Appendix E). From this analysis it also appeared that health motivation no longer has a significant effect on buying healthy products. Consumers with a high health motivation do no differ in the volume of buying healthy products from consumers with a low health motivation. Furthermore, no effect was found between an egoistic or altruistic value orientation and share of volume of healthy products. A biospheric value orientation has a significant effect using the classifications of Hui et al. (2009) and ‘Voedingscentrum’ (2016) however this effect is only marginal.

(38)

38

variable instead of the share of wallet (Appendix F). The negative effect of a biospheric value orientation in period 2 was only significant at p <.1. The effects of the other coefficients remained the same. This indicates that the results do not change when using share of products instead of share of wallet.

7. DISCUSSION

There is a growing attention to the importance of making healthier food choices. Health claims are designed to help consumers make better food choices. They ideally serve to increase nutrition awareness among consumers and to differentiate healthier foods from less healthy food (Ippolito and Mathios 1991; Colby et al. 2010). However, the effectiveness of health claims to support public health is still an ongoing debate. In this study, the purchase behavior regarding products with a health claim and actual healthy products has been studied. One of the major differences with prior research is that actual purchase behavior is studied with consumer data. A multiple regression analysis was performed in order to test the hypotheses. Furthermore, LC regression analyses were performed to identify homogeneous groups of customers. Four different segments were identified that differ in their buying behavior of products with a health claim and four segments were identified that differ in their buying behavior of healthy products.

Biospheric values are the most important driver of the purchase of healthy products; it is found that the purchase of healthy products increase with stronger biospheric values. This finding is in line with previous research by Botonaki and Mattes (2010) who found that consumers with a biospheric value orientation care more about natural food, involvement with food and find variety important. Furthermore, it is found that biospheric values have a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim. However, from the LC regression analysis, no differences between the segments on biospheric values were found.

(39)

39

motivation has a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim for the segments ‘light buyers’ and ‘medium buyers’ which represent together 86.2% of the respondents. This finding suggests that the purchase of products with a health claim decrease with a higher health motivation. This is in line with previous research by Keller et al. (1997) who found that consumers who have a high health motivation become more skeptical of health claims.

Altruistic values did not have an effect on the purchase of products with a health claim, neither did it have an effect on the purchase of healthy products. However, when the consumers where segmented, significant effects were found. Altruistic values have a positive effect on the purchase of products with a health claim for the ‘non-buyers’, ‘light-buyers’ and the ‘medium buyers’. When altruistic values increase, the purchase of products with a health claim increase. However, altruistic values were found to have a negative effect on the purchase of healthy products for the ‘healthy’ segment, the ‘moderate healthy’ segment and the ‘normal’ segment.

Overall, for health motivation and altruistic values contradicting effects were found for the purchase of products with a health claim and the purchase of actual healthy products. Whereas health motivation is a strong driver of the purchase of healthy products, it has a negative effect on the purchase of products with a health claim. This finding indicates that for health motivated consumers, an increase in the purchase of healthy products does not go together with an increase in the purchase of products with a health claim. Furthermore, altruistic values drive the purchase of products with a health claim. However, they do not drive the purchase of actual healthy products. This indicates that for consumers who endorse strong altruistic values the purchase of products with a health claim do not go together with purchasing actual healthy products.

(40)

40

Some strong similarities were found between the segments how health motivation and values have an effect on the purchase of healthy products. However, differences were also found between the segments. For the segment which spends the least of their budget on healthy products (‘unhealthy’ segment), health motivation and biospheric values have compared to the other segments the largest effect on purchasing healthy products. In addition, only is this segment altruistic values are found to have a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products. Compared to the other segments, consumers in this segment have the smallest households. This is in line with the finding of Gillespie and Gillespie (2000) who found that larger households have healthier eating habits than small households.

Furthermore, health motivation is found to have a negative effect on the purchase of healthy products for the ‘normal’ segment. This segment differs in demographic factors compared to the other segments. Consumers in this segment have the lowest education and live in the largest households. Increasing the health motivation of consumers in this segment will not lead to healthier food choices. However, biospheric values did have a positive effect on the purchase of healthy products for this segment.

Health claims versus healthy products