The more we care, the
harder we snack:
How do in store display advertisements for healthy and unhealthy snacks affect high and low health consciousness- consumers’ baskets?
Ghaith Adnan– S2709317
Table of Contents
▪ 1. Background: Obesity Overview
▪ 2. Problem: Obesity in a marketing, retail and consumer context
▪ 3. Solution: Scope of study, overview of theory, conceptual model & hypotheses
▪ 4. Methodology & Results
Obesity:
▪ Health risk: (diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol etc…)(Mokdad et al.
2003)
▪ Other risks: Obese females - fewer years of school, have lower household
incomes and were less likely to be married. Similar study on men - similar
results for marriage (Gortmaker 1993).
▪ Scale of problem & forecasting: 33% increase in obesity prevalence and a
A look at the Causes of Obesity:
▪
Dietary and physical activity factors seem to be main general
causes of obesity (Martinez 2000).
▪
This study focuses on marketing and consumer factors that
influence food intake, an integral half of the force driving obesity
rates.
▪
An advertising ban on fast food in Quebec in led to an $88
million decrease in spending on fast food per year (Dhar and
The
Problem
Summary of Problem
▪ What we think we do is not what we do. Perceived ≠ Objective
▪ Lack of processing of nutritional info, they will rely on cues set by
marketers and retailers. (ELM)
▪ Psychological effects such as the licensing effect, vicarious licensing and
induced hunger from force eating healthy meals (Finklestein & Fischbach 2010).
▪ Retailers power - influence consumption through perceived assortment
variety and shelf structures as well as in store communications. Average retailer interested in sales not in healthiness.
▪ Lack of studies relating to the topic within retail settings where many of
The
The Study:
▪
An experiment involving purchase of snack foods after exposure to
retailer communications supporting either healthy choices or sinful
indulgences.
▪
As such we shed light on the effects of in store advertising on snack
Main Ideas in Literature:
▪
Licensing Effect : Kahn and Dhar
▪ Series of decisions
▪ If first decision fulfils self concept/ goal
Main Ideas in Literature:
▪
Vicarious Licensing: Wilcox et al.
▪ Only consideration of healthy/goal fulfilling option needed.
Main Ideas in Literature:
▪
Guilt Effect:
▪ Fishbach, Friedman, and Kruglanski’s finding that an exposure to a
temptation to stray from a goal may activate the goal itself (Fishbach, Friedman, and Kruglanski 2003).
▪ Should vices be succumbed to, it is likely that the consumer will
experience feelings of guilt (Chen and Sengupta 2014).
▪ This should prompt consumers to act in a direction opposite to the one
Overview of theory:
▪
Incidental Pride Effect:
▪ When vices are resisted, consumers may experience emotions of
incidental pride (Mukhopadhyay and Johar 2007).
▪ Pride enhances one’s ability to pursue goals (Williams and Desteno
2008). Pride increases chances of greater future accomplishments (Fredrickson 2001).
▪ Incidental pride led to less indulgent decisions when consumers’ lent low
cognitive resources to the decision task (Wilcox, Kramer and Sen 2011).
▪
We expect incidental pride gained from resisting unhealthy
Hypotheses:
▪
H1: Priming with a healthy brand will result in an unhealthier basket
relative to the non-prime condition.
▪
H2: Priming with an unhealthy brand will result in a healthier basket
Methodology Summary:
▪ Convenience sampling technique - anyone shops, no restrictions 68
respondents.
▪ IV: Condition – Healthy Prime, Unhealthy Prime, Control (No prime) –
Graphics presented in next slides.
▪ DV: 5 healthiness of basket measures, total calories, sugar, saturated fat,
healthy product count and total perceived healthiness.
▪ Covariants: Gender & B.M.I (B.M.I investigated as moderator at first with
no significant findings but found as significant covariant)
▪ Moderators: Interaction and simple main effects of health consciousness
with the IV’s examined. H.C. measured with Michaelidou & Hassan 2008 scale.
Healthy Prime Condition Stimuli:
Healthy Prime Condition Stimuli:
Unhealthy Prime Condition Stimuli:
Unhealthy Prime Condition Stimuli:
Results:
Descriptives:
▪
Majority of respondents (60.3%) were between 25 to 50 years of
age.
▪
Nearly even split between male and female respondents (48.5% /
51.5%).
▪
A perfect split is exhibited with 34 health conscious respondents
and 34 non-health conscious respondents.
Results:
Hypothesis 1 – tested with MANCOVA – IV Conditions, Mod HC, COV
Gender & BMI, DV – Basket Healthiness
▪
Pillai’s Trace showed p(0.54) – not significant
▪
Wilks’ Lambda showed p(0.53) – not significant
▪
Furthermore, between subject test showed no significant effect of
conditions on any dependant variable measures.
Results:
Hypothesis 2 – tested with MANCOVA – IV Conditions, Mod HC, COV
Gender & BMI, DV – Basket Healthiness
▪
Pillai’s Trace showed p(0.54) – not significant
▪
Wilks’ Lambda showed p(0.53) – not significant
▪
Furthermore, between subject test showed no significant effect of
conditions on any dependant variable measures.
Results:
Hypothesis 2 – tested with MANCOVA – IV Conditions (only unhealthy
prime and control), Mod HC, COV Gender & BMI, DV – Basket Healthiness
▪ Pillai’s Trace showed p(0.45) – not significant.
▪ Wilks’ Lambda showed p(0.45) – not significant.
▪ Although no main effect found, a planned comparison analysis shows a
directional effect of the unhealthy prime condition on total sugar and saturated fat, with p values of 0.06 and 0.04 respectively.
▪ The unhealthy prime condition exhibited higher means than the control
with a mean difference of 143.84 grams of sugar and 71.90 grams of saturated fat per basket.
Results:
Hypothesis 2 – tested with MANCOVA – IV Conditions (only unhealthy
prime and control), Mod HC, COV Gender & BMI, DV – Basket Healthiness
▪ Pillai’s Trace showed p(0.45) – not significant.
▪ Wilks’ Lambda showed p(0.45) – not significant.
▪ Although no main effect found, a planned comparison analysis
shows a directional effect of the unhealthy prime condition on total sugar and saturated fat, with p values of 0.06 and 0.04 respectively.
▪ The unhealthy prime condition exhibited higher means than the control
with a mean difference of 143.84 grams of sugar and 71.90 grams of saturated fat per basket.
Results:
Moderation effects – tested with MANCOVA – IV Conditions, Mod HC, COV Gender & BMI, DV – Basket Healthiness
▪ Interaction effects between experimental conditions and health consciousness
were not shown to be significant with p>0.1 for dependent variable measures.
▪ Health Consciousness not a moderator, yet simple main effects analysis yields interesting results. (Next Slide)
▪ HC main effects significant: Pillai’s Trace and Wilks’ Lambda for health
consciousness showed significance p(0.02) & p(0.02).
▪ health consciousness exhibiting a significant main effect on sugar (p=0.01),
saturated fat (p=0.00), perceived healthiness (p=0.00) and healthy items picked (p=0.00).
Results:
Pairwise Comparisons between DV means of high & low HC
respondents within conditions:
▪
significant simple main effect of health consciousness in the
unhealthy prime condition on sugar and saturated fat content of
baskets, perceived healthiness of baskets as well as the total
healthy items picked per basket. *See table in appendix
▪
In summary; health conscious respondents in this condition
Condition HC Level of participants
Finding
Unhealthy Advert High Consumed less healthily
than low HC participants
Low Consumed more
healthily than high HC participants after
Appendix Descriptives:
DESCRIPTIVES N %
Age Lower than 25 22 32.4 25-50 41 60.3 Greater than 50 5 7.4
Gender Male 33 48.5 Female 35 51.5
Respondents Per Condition Unhealthy Prime 27 39.7 Control 20 29.4 Healthy Prime 21 30.9
N %
Health Consciousness Health Conscious 34 50.0 Non Health Conscious 34 50.0
BMI <25 47 69.1
Appendix:
MANCOVA
Overall Model
Test Value F Hypothesis df Error df Significa nce IV -Condition Pillai’s trace 0.18 0.91 12 112 0.54 n.s. Wilks’ lambda 0.83 0.90 12 110 0.53 n.s. IV – Health Consciousn ess Pillai’s trace 0.23 2.70 6 55 0.02 * Wilks’ lambda 0.77 2.70 6 55 0.02 * Interaction: HC*Conditi on Pillai’s trace 0.19 0.95 12 112 0.50 n.s. Wilks’ lambda 0.82 0.94 12 110 0.51 n.s. COV – Gender Pillai’s trace 0.20 2.23 6 55 0.05 ** Wilks’ lambda 0.82 2.23 6 55 0.05 ** COV – B.M.I Pillai’s trace 0.10 1.00 6 55 0.43 n.s. Wilks’ lambda 0.90 1.00 6 55 0.43 n.s. Source DV DF F Significance
Condition Total Calories 2 0.44 0.65 n.s. Total Sugar 2 1.72 0.19 n.s. Total Sat. Fat 2 2.32 0.11 n.s. Total RDV 2 0.42 0.66 n.s. Total Perceived
Healthiness
2 0.79 0.46 n.s.
Healthy Items Picked 2 1.02 0.37 n.s.
HC Total Calories 1 2.31 0.13 n.s. Total Sugar 1 7.58 0.01 * Total Sat. Fat 1 11.26 0.00 * Total RDV 1 2.25 0.14 n.s. Total Perceived
Healthiness
1 14.55 0.00 *
Healthy Items Picked 1 12.43 0.00 *
Condition * HC Total Calories 2 1.59 0.21 n.s. Total Sugar 2 1.80 0.17 n.s. Total Sat. Fat 2 0.98 0.38 n.s. Total RDV 2 1.57 0.22 n.s. Total Perceived
Healthiness
2 1.33 0.27 n.s.
Healthy Items Picked 2 2.05 0.14 n.s.
Gender Total Calories 1 4.54 0.04 * Total Sugar 1 7.76 0.01 * Total Sat. Fat 1 4.95 0.03 *
Total RDV 1 4.58 0.04 *
Total Perceived Healthiness
1 8.46 0.01 *
Healthy Items Picked 1 11.36 0.00 *
B.M.I Total Calories 1 2.25 0.14 n.s. Total Sugar 1 4.48 0.04 * Total Sat. Fat 1 1.97 0.17 n.s. Total RDV 1 2.26 0.14 n.s. Total Perceived
Healthiness
1 3.05 0.09 **
Healthy Items Picked 1 3.87 0.05 **
Table 4.4- MANCOVA – IV: Experimental Condition; COV: Gender, B.M.I; MOD: Health Consciousness; DV: Healthiness of basket measures 4.4 - Between Subjects Effects:
Appendix:
MANCOVA UH condition vs control
Overall Model
Test Value F Hypothesis df Error df Significan ce IV -Condition Pillai’s trace 0.14 0.99 6 36 0.45 n.s. Wilks’ lambda 0.86 0.99 6 36 0.45 n.s. IV – Health Consciousn ess Pillai’s trace 0.32 2.77 6 36 0.03 * Wilks’ lambda 0.68 2.77 6 36 0.03 * Interaction: HC*Conditio n Pillai’s trace 0.17 1.21 6 36 0.32 n.s. Wilks’ lambda 0.83 1.21 6 36 0.32 n.s. COV – Gender Pillai’s trace 0.29 2.50 6 36 0.04 * Wilks’ lambda 0.71 2.50 6 36 0.04 * COV – B.M.I Pillai’s trace 0.16 1.18 6 36 0.34 n.s. Wilks’ lambda 0.84 1.18 6 36 0.34 n.s. Source DV DF F Significance
Condition Total Calories 1 0.75 0.39 n.s. Total Sugar 1 3.68 0.06 ** Total Sat. Fat 1 4.60 0.04 * Total RDV 1 0.76 0.39 n.s. Total Perceived Healthiness 1 1.57 0.22 n.s. Healthy Items Picked 1 1.20 0.28 n.s. HC Total Calories 1 5.61 0.02 * Total Sugar 1 9.99 0.00 * Total Sat. Fat 1 10.02 0.00 * Total RDV 1 5.30 0.03 * Total Perceived Healthiness 1 12.40 0.00 * Healthy Items Picked 1 9.81 0.00 *
Condition * HC Total Calories 1 0.05 0.82 n.s. Total Sugar 1 0.32 0.57 n.s. Total Sat. Fat 1 0.31 0.58 n.s. Total RDV 1 0.02 0.88 n.s. Total Perceived Healthiness 1 2.02 0.16 n.s. Healthy Items Picked 1 3.72 0.06 **
Gender Total Calories 1 4.55 0.04 * Total Sugar 1 2.90 0.10 ** Total Sat. Fat 1 0.67 0.42 n.s. Total RDV 1 4.19 0.05 * Total Perceived
Healthiness
1 1.12 0.30 n.s.
Source DV DF F Significance
Gender Healthy Items Picked
1 3.77 0.06 **
Appendix:
Pairwise Comparisons
DV: Sugar
Condition (I) (J) Mean difference (I-J) Std. Error Significance Unhealthy Prime: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss 296.34 99.61 0.00 *
Control: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss 219.08 119.12 0.07 ** Healthy Prime: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss 15.43 111.82 0.89 n.s. DV: Saturated Fat
Condition (I) (J) Mean difference (I-J) Std. Error Significance Unhealthy Prime: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss 135.21 43.60 0.00 *
Control: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss 104.31 52.14 0.05 * Healthy Prime: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss 43.71 48.94 0.38 n.s. DV: Perceived Healthiness
Condition (I) (J) Mean difference (I-J) Std. Error Significance Unhealthy Prime: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss -113.91 29.75 0.00 *
Control: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss -59.20 35.58 0.10 ** Healthy Prime: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss -46.60 33.40 0.17 n.s.
DV: Healthy Items Picked
Condition (I) (J) Mean difference (I-J) Std. Error Significance Unhealthy Prime: High health consciousne ss Low health consciousne ss -35.57 8.88 0.00 *
H1
▪ Licensing previously only studied on few
subsequent choices (choice set in Wilcox et. Al only 3). Could be that licensing lasts only for a few
choices.
▪ The results of this study indicate that vicarious goal
fulfilment may not have a significant enough effect on consumer decisions in a retail setting to alter healthiness of their basket and nutritional choices negatively.
Priming with a healthy product advertisement to induce vicarious licensing would lead to consumers making subsequent choices which in total would be less healthy than the choices made by a control group.
H2
▪ Incidental pride from temptation resistance and
guilt effects from succumbing to temptations which were supposed to encourage healthier choices and deter from unhealthy selections respectively may not have played an important enough part to lead to overall healthier baskets.
▪ Simple main effects found for health consciousness
within the unhealthy prime condition can be
explained by the self regulatory capacity literature.
▪ Self regulatory capacity depletion could have
played a stronger role than guilt and pride effects.
participants in the unhealthy prime condition would on average select baskets that were healthier than those selected by the control group.
Main Implications
▪ Retail managers should not worry about inducing
harmful consumer choices through advertising of healthy products in their stores even though some theory hints at possible adverse effects of this.
▪ Unhealthy brands may increase advertising
effectiveness by targeting health conscious
Limitations
▪ The use of a survey experiment in this study may
be a limitation. It would be of interest to know
whether guilt effects from choosing a vice product would have been stronger in an actual shopping setting.
▪ The proximity between exposure to the priming
communications as well as the product shelves and the responses to the health consciousness scale. It is proposed to hedge against the effects of priming and the shelves on health consciousness
responses – should any exist – by running the
