Victorine Marchesini

(1)

Victorine Marchesini

26 July 2012

Health claims on packaging: rewarding or not?

(2)

Health claims on packaging: rewarding or not?

The effect of health claims on consumers’ willingness to pay

and the roles of regulatory focus and product influence

Master Thesis

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc. Marketing Management

26 July 2012

Author:

(3)

Management summary

Recently, a popular tool in marketing has become to add claims to product packaging. Many products exhibit claims in the form of an ingredient that is added with its corresponding health benefit, a so-called health claim. Frequently the consumer however has no real proof of the truthfulness of these claims, the working of the product is often assumed. The research flow on these claims has uncovered that this assumption is reflected in consumers evaluating these products as being more healthy. Also, consumers’ purchase intentions for these products is higher than for product without a health claim. Next to these two main effects of health claims on consumer behavior, there is evidence on consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) to be higher as well. However, these is no vast amount of literature to generalize this effect. Therefore, the first objective of this study is to investigate this relationship. Also, in the body of literature on health claims, no moderating effects on such a relationship were found. Therefore, the second purpose is to explore the possible moderating effects of people’s focus in life and type of product influence. The method used for this study is a 2 (health claim vs. no health claim) x 2 (prevention vs. promotion focus) x 2 (direct vs. indirect product influence) design. Four different questionnaires were created which generated 158 participants.

The study could not confirm the positive relationship found in previous research between the use of a health claim and WTP. This therefore is a conflicting finding compared to existing literature. Also, there were no moderating effects found on this relationship. The moderator product influence however was found to have a main effect on WTP, meaning that WTP was higher for the indirectly influential products in general. The study furthermore contributes to the literature on the relationship between health claims on products and purchase intentions. Consumers with a prevention focus in life are focused on their health and exhibited higher purchase intentions for these healthy products, showing a moderating effect.

(4)

Preface

For the past years, I very much enjoyed my time in Groningen, doing my BSc. IB&M and MSc. Marketing Management here. After 5.5 years of studying, I felt that it was time to graduate. The new program of writing your thesis at the Marketing department appealed very much to me. Thankfully the placebo effects subject is something I have always been interested in when watching commercials, print ads, packaging etc. Especially I have always been skeptical about claims that were made concerning people’s health, I thought that most of them must only work in the mind of the consumer. The regular deadlines for handing in work and the feedback sessions with the group and supervisor accelerated the process. These really motivated me to stay focused at times when I felt it was a never ending story. I had already finished all my courses, which gave me the freedom to write without too much stress and enjoy my last semester as a student. This resulted in finishing the thesis in about 6 months, right before the new academic year starts again. I would like to thank my supervisor Jia Liu for her time and effort in commenting on my work and always being approachable for questions or a chat about the problems I encountered. I would also like to thank my second supervisor Stefanie Salmon for her detailed and helpful comments on my work. Furthermore, I would like to thank my fellow group members Eliza Komen and Suzanne Legtenberg for the feedback and library sessions which really helped in making progress. Although we sometimes felt the SPSS sessions were quite dreadful, we could offer each other help and some needed laughs during the entire process.

After graduating this summer, I hope to again enjoy a period of living abroad and that I will find a challenging internship somewhere around the globe.

Groningen, 26 July 2012

(5)

1 Introduction

1.1 Background problem

On 12 June 2012, Unilever brand Becel received the ‘Gouden Windei 2012’ for the marketing campaign of one of its products (www.foodwatch.nl). This prize is given to the product that has the most misleading marketing campaign according to the consumer. Foodwatch does research to check what the actual ingredients and working of these are in a variety of foods and beverages, after which consumer can give their vote to for the most misleading product. The Becel Pro-Activ fat spread containing ‘plant sterols’ claimed to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease by lowering the consumer’s cholesterol. This claim is made in their entire campaign, and is shown on the product’s packaging. Despite a price that was significantly higher than other margarines, the product was successful from the start since Unilever collaborated with the Dutch Heart Association in its campaign (www.hartstichting.nl). According to Foodwatch however, this reduced risk was never proven to be true (www.nos.nl). This example shows that when a product makes a claim concerning people’s health, it can generate extra profits. In this case, consumers are persuaded to purchase a product due to the argument of health benefits. Showing this benefit of lower cholesterol levels on the product packaging functions as an argument made in order to persuade the consumer.

(8)

(9)

There is a well-researched positive effect of health claims on purchase intentions, which can relate to willingness to pay. Consumers with higher purchase intentions for such a product namely might be willing to pay more for it then as well. The evidence for a positive effect of a health claim on willingness to pay is quite limited, however it is known and can be related to the purchase intention literature. Besides the evidence for fat spreads, there is little evidence of this positive relationship. Therefore, as a starting point the relationship between a health claim on packaging and willingness to pay is researched. Moreover, concerning the regulatory focus people have, there is a missing link in literature regarding both willingness to pay. A health claim might only work for people with a prevention focus. This might result in differences in consumers’ willingness to pay. Furthermore, there are different influential effects on consumer health of products with such a claim, for which consumers might have different amounts they are willing to pay. Consumers might be willing to pay more or have higher purchase intentions for a product with a direct health effect like foods than for one with an indirect health effect like cosmetics. This possible moderating effect is not elaborated upon in the willingness to pay so far. For these reasons two moderating variables are introduced, which are the core focus of this study. In addition, as mentioned above there is a well-established positive relationship between the presence of a health claim and purchase intentions. However, these two moderating effects have not been researched in that literature either, showing two missing links as well. The main effect of a health claim on willingness to pay is however not that well-established, which makes it more difficult to predict moderating effects since the main effect may not turn out to be true after all. Therefore, the moderating effects are tested for the variable purchase intention as well since this can generate a contribution to the purchase intention literature. In case the health claim – willingness to pay relationship and its corresponding moderators does not turn out to be true, we therefore step back to the well-established purchase intention relationship to see whether the moderating variables have an effect on this relationship.

1.2 Problem statement

(10)

Therefore, the problem statement is as follows, where the latter part is the main focus:

What is the influence of the presence of a health claim on packaging on consumers’ willingness to pay and purchase intention and what are the effects of regulatory focus and product influence on this relationship?

1.3 Research questions

In order to find a solution for the problem stated in the above section, several research questions are necessary. These questions are more specific translations from the problem statement. The following questions are examined:

1) How does the presence of a health claim on product packaging influence consumers’ willingness to pay and purchase intention?

2) How is this effect moderated by a regulatory focus? 3) How is this effect moderated by product influence?

1.4 Theoretical and managerial relevance

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, the aim is to find whether the positive effect of a health claim on willingness to pay for fat spreads can be replicated with the use of another food product and another food category, namely cosmetics. Second, the aim is to find whether moderating effects can be found on the positive relationship between products with health claims on their packaging willingness to pay. A contribution to the literature on health claims is made by examining the effects of another food product than a fat spread and cosmetics on willingness to pay, and how regulatory focus and product influence moderate the relationship between health claims on packaging and willingness to pay. The first moderating variable – regulatory focus – consist of either a promotion or prevention focus. Consumers tend to predominantly exhibit one of the two foci in life. The second moderating variable – product influence – can be direct or indirect. This entails the product can go straight into the body or via a stop in between, namely the skin. The moderating variables can ultimately alter consumer behavior, in this case how much consumers are willing to pay for a product.

(11)

Nowadays a focus on health issues has become a larger part of people’s daily lives since the dangers of neglecting one’s health are becoming more apparent. The population is aging making elderly people a larger part of society, which means more people have a higher risk of coronary heart disease and high blood pressure (Stewart, MacIntyre, Capewell, & Murray, 2003). Health is focused a lot upon in media as well, especially on being in shape to avoid a wide range of diseases and on anti-aging. For instance, in recent years TV-shows with the topic of weight-loss in order to reduce risks of heart disease have attracted many viewers resulting in high ratings. A couple of examples are shows like ABC’s Extreme Makeover Weight Loss Edition (targeting adults), MTV’s I Used To Be Fat (targeting teens) and Dutch show Help, Mijn Kind is te Dik (Help, My Child is Overweight), which targets entire families to change their lifestyle. Next to a focus on healthy intestines and heart problems, the fact that the population is aging makes consumers want to age gracefully for which the possibilities are becoming more widely spread. Dutch shows like RTL’s Gewoon Mooier (Simply More Beautiful) and Beauty+ are examples of media attention given to this fact.

(12)

1.5 Structure of the thesis

(13)

2 Theoretical Framework

In this chapter the variables used in the research are explained in more detail in order to draw a clearer picture. This is done using literature, as a basis for the research. From this literature review, hypotheses and a conceptual framework are drawn up as guidelines. First, the independent variable (IV) health claim is discussed. Second, the dependent variable (DV) willingness to pay is elaborated upon. Third, the first moderating variable (MV) regulatory focus is explained. Finally, the second moderating variable product influence is discussed.

2.1 Health claim

(14)

The NLEA applies to products that fall in the category foods and beverages, which is the most common category in which products with a health claim are sold.

Next to this product category, health claims are widely used on cosmetic products as well. According to Manela-Azulay & Bagatin (2009), cosmetic products containing a health claim are very popular in the personal care industry. These products come in a variety of forms, of which skin care products (e.g.: moisturizer and body lotion) are the most commonly purchased. The packaging of these products does not have the nutritional information in the form of the Nutrition Facts Panel mandated by the NLEA, however it does contain a list of ingredients on the back. For cosmetics, the FDA drew up a similar act, namely the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). Under this act, all cosmetic products must show all ingredients on packaging in descending order of quantity (Dayan & Kromidas, 2011). The health claim works in the same manner as for foods and beverages, namely that it shows a specific ingredient on the front of the package related to a disease or health condition. In cosmetics, these conditions are commonly skin conditions. For instance, a health claim on cosmetics can be: ‘With Vitamin C, proven to counter the aging effects of UV-radiation’ (finding from Shapiro & Saliou, 2001; Zussman, Ahdout & Kim, 2010; Manela-Azulay & Bagatin, 2009; Lupo, 2001). The healthy ingredient (Vitamin C) can be found in the ingredient list and is connected with a (well-known and common) condition. This might appeal to consumers since sun damage applies to many consumers which might become less visible when using this product.

(15)

Hastak, Ford, & Ringold, 1999). Furthermore, Williams (2005) has found that consumers state that their purchase intention of products with a health claim is higher than that of products without a health claim. Next to consumption and purchase intentions, product evaluation may be different between products with the presence and absence of a claim, especially concerning the healthiness of the product. For instance, Andrews et al. (1998) found that showing ads for products containing the words ‘healthy’ or ‘no cholesterol’ resulted in consumers perceiving the advertised brands themselves to be respectively low in fat and healthy. Roe et al. (1999) found that when asking consumers to evaluate the ‘healthiness’ of the product, this variable was rated higher for products with a health claim. Williams (2005) draws the same conclusion, namely that consumers view the product as being more healthy.

(16)

Secondly, a well-supported effect of health claims on consumer behavior is that consumers view the product as being healthier. The same reasoning as for the health claim – purchase intention is in place here. This means that the underlying factor of the consumer evaluating the product as being more healthy when a health claim is present is the way in which the health effect is communicated (clear, short, and scientific). Furthermore, the information on the package is about a nutrient linked to a certain disease or health condition, reducing the perceived risk of getting that disease or condition when consuming the product (Kozup et al. 2003). Due to this lower risk, the product is viewed as being healthier. In addition, Andrews et al. (1998) use so-called activation theory in explaining this effect. They argue that when a nutrient – disease link exists in consumer memory this link can be activated by displaying a health claim on a product. The health claim in its turn addresses other links as well, for instance a link between the nutrient and healthiness of the product. This causes a so-called generalization made by the consumer that the product is more healthy than one without a claim.

2.2 Willingness to pay

In the above section it is mentioned that product packaging containing a health claim can change consumers’ evaluation and purchase intention for the product. However, for this research the dependent variable of interest is willingness to pay (WTP). In short, the question is whether consumers are willing to pay more for a product that has a health claim on its packaging than for a product that does not.

(17)

Nunes & Boatwright (2004) argue that it is evident that market prices affect WTP, meaning that prices of close substitutes influence the price a consumer is willing to pay for a product. In addition to this, they find that WTP is also influenced by unrelated products that are not at all identical to the product that is aimed to be purchased. In accordance with Kalish & Nelson (1991), Simonson & Drolet (2004) argue that the product a consumer is considering purchasing has a certain value attached to it by the consumer, which influences WTP. A higher perceived value leads to higher WTP. It is also stated that the sacrifice made for the product, the price, affects WTP.

(18)

2.3 Purchase intention

The second concept of interest for this study is purchase intention. It is however not part of the core focus, since this is on WTP. However, this concept is used as an additional factor in the model. This is done since the risk that the moderating results on WTP are insignificant is present due to a weakly established main relationship between health claims and WTP. Therefore, purchase intention is important to look at as well since the literature on this does not present evidence on moderators. Since this concept shifts away from the core focus of the study, only a short description is given in this section.

The concept of purchase intention is defined by Chintagunta & Lee (2012) as the likelihood that consumers will purchase a new product. According to the authors, this is used in forecasting the sales of a new product. Many factors can influence a consumer’s intention to purchase a product, for instance perceived price, quality, and value of a product (Chang & Wildt, 1994), attitudes towards the brand and the ad (Teng & Laroche, 2007). In this study the focus is on health claims influencing, in this case, purchase intention. From section 2.1 we have been able to conclude that the presence of a health claim on packaging (Kozup et al., 2003; Roe et al., 1999; Williams, 2005) influences purchase intention in the sense that this rises with a claim included. The main reasons for higher purchase intentions for goods that have a health claim are clear communication about its usefulness (Urala et al., 2003), the use of an understandable name of the healthy ingredient (Ares et al., 2009; Willams, 2005), and an extra piece of information provided to the consumer (Roe et al., 1999). When these factors are taken into account and executed in a correct manner, purchase intention may increase.

Summarizing the above discussion about health claims and willingness to pay and purchase intention, one can conclude that previous research has shown that claims made on packaging that a certain ingredient is beneficial for the consumer’s health can lead to more positive attitudes about the healthiness and more favorable purchase intentions. Next to this, including a health claim on packaging may increase consumers’ WTP as well. Therefore, the following hypothesis is drawn up:

H1: Product packaging containing a health claim leads to a higher willingness to pay and purchase intention than packaging without a health claim.

2.3 Regulatory focus theory

(19)

The way in which consumers self-regulate is elaborated upon in the ‘regulatory focus theory’, consisting of two self-regulatory systems: promotion and prevention. These two foci can be dispositional (Fellner et al., 2007), meaning that people tend to chronically and predominantly exhibit either a promotion or a prevention focus. One of the most important self-regulatory functions is that self-regulation involves a person’s current state in relation to a desired end-state (Higgins, 1996). Hoyer & MacInnis (2008) state this as well, mentioning that people have an actual state, which is the real situation and an ideal state, which is the way consumers like it to be. When consumers become aware of any discrepancy between the two states, problem or need recognition occurs. To solve the problem, the consumer is stimulated to make a decision on what to do next, which is an interesting topic for this study. Consumer decision making is stimulated for instance by a changing actual state when an appliance needs replacement because it is broken. Another example of decision making stimulation is when the ideal state changes when a consumer sees a better type of the appliance at the store. Discrepancy between the two states has occurred, rising a problem: the need for a new appliance. This stimulates the consumer to take action to reduce the degree of discrepancy, by purchasing a new appliance. Moreover, several authors (Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999; Fellner et al. 2007; Crowe & Higgins, 1997) state that consumers with a promotion and prevention focus have different needs. These needs lead to differences in problem recognition and therefore differences in consumer decision making. Liberman et al. (1999) state that advancement and growth needs relate to a promotion focus and safety and security needs to a prevention focus. These differences in needs and consumer decision making might influence the relationship between health claims and WTP, since the satisfaction of one need type (advancement and growth) might not be achieved by the consumption of the same product (healthy claimed in our case) as the satisfaction of another need type (safety and security). The two types of focus are discussed in more detail in the following sections.

2.3.1 Promotion focus

(20)

It entails being prepared to take risks, which means that one is eager to try new things, where outcomes are classified as gains and non-gains. People have an ideal state or goal that they aim to achieve and are prone to take action to reach these. In her own research, Higgins (1996) already speaks of an ideal self-regulatory system related to the promotion focus. Signs of the successful working of this system are cheerful feelings, where people are happy and satisfied. Sings of the system not working are dejection feelings, where people are sad and disappointed.

In addition, Higgins, Shah, & Friedman (1997) argue that the emotional response promotion focused consumers have to attaining their goals can differ in strength. The authors argue that when a strong promotion focus is present, a strong cheerfulness - when the goal is achieved - or dejection - when the goal is not achieved - emotion is the result.

The feeling of dejection is caused by a chronic discrepancy between the actual and ideal self. This discrepancy can be linked to need recognition, since the actual (current) state differs from the ideal (desired) state a person is in. As mentioned above, several authors (Fellner et al., 2007; Liberman et al., 1999; Crowe & Higgins, 1997) argue that the promotion focus is based on different needs than the prevention focus. Fellner et al. (2007) divides these promotion needs into the categories autonomy and openness to new things. Liberman et al. (1999) emphasizes upon the promotion focus to exhibit the needs for advancement and growth, which are mentioned by Crowe & Higgins (1997) as well as a main pillars of the promotion focus. Linking these findings from psychology literature to consumer behavior literature, Hoyer & MacInnis (2008) state that different needs lead to differences in consumer behavior. Since needs are a basis of differences in consumer behavior, differences between the needs the two foci exhibit are important for this research. Ekins & Max-Neef (1992) argue that a way of helping to meet consumer needs is the consumption of goods. This indicates that different needs can be satisfied by the consumption of different goods. Therefore, the promotion needs may lead to consumption of different goods than the preventions needs.

2.3.2 Prevention focus

Consumers with a prevention focus have different goals and needs in life than ones with a promotion focus. As mentioned above, the main focus is on safety and security. In the discussion below the characteristics and focus points of a prevention focus are brought forward, which lead to consumers’ behavior.

(21)

what I believe you ought to do’. People have a desired goal of how they ought to behave and act and try to avoid states that do not match this. Furthermore, Higgins & Silberman (1998) find that prevention focus is concerned with negative outcomes as opposed to positive ones. This entails that the absence of negative outcomes must be maximized while the presence of negative outcomes must be minimized. Friedman & Förster (2001) argue that a prevention focus entails avoidance of harmful factors in life for security purposes. In addition, this focus is quite risk-averse as opposed to risk-seeking, which means new things are avoided and repetition is considered pleasant. The outcomes of a prevention focused task are classified as losses and non-losses. As mentioned above, Higgins (1996) links the prevention focus to the ought self-regulatory system. When this system operates successfully, people have a feeling quiescence, which makes them calm and relaxed. Signs of this system not working properly are agitation, meaning feeling nervous and worried. According to Higgins et al. (1997) the emotional response to the attainment of their goal is different from promotion focused responses. A strong prevention focus leads to a strong quiescent emotional feeling when a goal is successfully achieved. In contrast, when a goal is not met, having a strong prevention focus results in a experiencing a strong agitation emotion.

This feeling of agitation is caused by a chronic discrepancy between a person’s actual and ought self (Higgins, 1996). Since there is a discrepancy, need recognition occurs. Fellner et al. (2007) state that the needs prevention focused consumers feel are categorized as orientation to the expectations of others and sense of obligation. In addition, Liberman et al. (1997) as well as Crowe & Higgins (1997) argue that the main pillars of a prevention focus are the need for safety and security. Crowe & Higgins (1997) already drew the same picture as Fellner et al. (2007), arguing that the need for meeting obligations is exhibited by prevention focused people. Also, Crowe & Higgins (1997) found that the prevention focus entails the need for protection. Consumers try to help satisfy these needs by means of consuming certain goods that they feel are appropriate in this process, which may mean consuming different goods for need satisfaction purposes than promotion focused people.

(22)

Having safety and security (food, shelter, and work) is related to being in physical health (Ekins & Max-Neef, 1992), which means these needs might be satisfied by consuming healthy products. Furthermore, the need for protection indicates that the body needs to be protected, which can be achieved by consuming healthy products as well. Ekins & Max-Neef (1992) add to this that the need for protection entails being occupied with preventing bad things to happen in life, which is also mentioned by Friedman & Förster (2001), who state that the prevention focus is risk-averse and that avoidance of harmful factors in life is necessary. For instance, these bad things and harmful factors can be disease or even death. Avoidance or risk reduction of this can be aided by consuming healthy goods. Moreover, since prevention focused people try to maximize the absence of negatives (Higgins & Silberman, 1998), they might avoid unhealthy products since these generate the risk of a negative outcome and in contrast consume healthy products to reduce this risk.

One can therefore hypothesize that consumers with this focus are concerned with their health and therefore with consuming goods related to this. Consumers with a promotion focus do not express this health need as evidently, therefore being less concerned with the consumption of these goods. This might result in differences in WTP and purchase intentions for health products between the two foci. Therefore, this generates a possible moderating effect on the relationship between health claims and WTP and health claims and purchase intention. It is hypothesized that consumers with a strong prevention focus are willing to pay more for products with a health claim than consumers with a strong promotion focus. Concerning purchase intention, it is hypothesized that consumer are more likely to purchase the product with a health claim included when they have a strong prevention focus as opposed to a strong promotion focus.

From the line of reasoning above, the following hypotheses are drawn up:

H2a: The positive relationship between product packaging containing a health claim and consumers’ willingness to pay and purchase intention is strengthened for consumers with a strong prevention focus

(23)

2.4 Product influence

From the literature on health claims, we can notice that there are two types of products emphasized upon which each have a different influence on a person’s health. The theoretical framework on health claims above has shown that these two categories are foods & beverages and cosmetics. The influence foods & beverages has is direct, since these products are going straight into the intestines and organs where they do their work. In contrast, the influence cosmetics has is indirect since these products are applied to the skin before they can do their work in the body.

Furthermore, both types of product fall in the utilitarian as well as the hedonic product category. They are utilitarian since the function of the product is important as well as the fact that both have a problem-solving ability (Park & Moon, 2003). They are hedonic since both can generate pleasure when using them, and they can be used for self-expression and give the consumer a certain feeling as well (Park & Moon, 2003). For this research, the focus is on the two types of product influence to which the categories foods & beverages and cosmetics correspond. The products are narrowed down to products that have a healthy function. The types of influence with their corresponding product categories and their effects on consumer health are discussed in more detail in the next section.

2.4.1 Direct influence

Products can have a direct influence on consumer health. Direct influence entails being immediately and straightly taken in by the organs and intestines by consuming the product orally. This means the product should be swallowed meaning eaten or drunk. Corresponding to this influence therefore is the product category foods & beverages. This category encompasses a wide selection of products. The function of this product type is its nutritious value and the problem that is solved by consuming this product type is the feeling of hunger of thirst. For this research the focus is on healthy nutrition to make the inside of the human body healthier. Therefore, ingredients are added to help the consumer eat and drink healthily.

(24)

Author(s) Ingredient(s) Effect Notes

Bingham, Day, and Luben (2003) - Fiber - Lowers risk of colorectal cancer - Widely used in cereal

Verbeke, Scholderer, and Lähteenmäki (2009)

- Calcium

- Omega-3 fatty acid - Fiber

- Lowers risk of osteoporosis - Lowers blood cholesterol

- Lowers risk of inflammatory bowel disease

- Widely used in fruit juice - Widely used in spreads - Widely used in cereal

Balasubramanian & Cole (2002) - Calcium - Sodium

- Lowers risk of osteoporosis

- Low sodium content lowers high blood pressure

(hypertension) - Health claim with low sodium level

Menrad (2003)

- Fiber - Calcium - Iron

- Omega-3 fatty acid

- Lower risk of type II diabetes - Bone strength

- Aids in red blood cell production - Lowers blood cholesterol

- Fiber, calcium, and iron are recognized by consumers as having health effects

- Widely used in cereal

Hu, van Dam, and Liu (2001) - Omega-3 fatty acid - Fiber

- Lowers risk of type II diabetes

- Lowers risk of type II diabetes - Especially when used in cereal

Tribble (1999) - Vitamin E - Lowers risk of (potentially coronary heart) diseases due to antioxidant function

- Found in fruits & vegetables and whole grain foods (cereal)

Stampfer, Hennekens, Manson,

Colditz, Rosner, and Willett (1993) - Vitamin E - Lower risk of coronary heart disease - Found when taking supplements

Stampfer & Rimm (1995) - Vitamin E - Lowers risk of coronary heart disease

(25)

2.4.2 Indirect influence

(26)

Author(s) Ingredient(s) Active against/working Notes

Shapiro & Saliou (2001)

- Vitamin A - Vitamin C - Vitamin D - Vitamin E

- Coenzyme Q (also called Q10 in cosmetics)

- Acne, psoriasis, cellulite, striae, photo-damage - Regulates collagen

- Psoriasis

- UV-induced damage, prevents sunburn - Environmental aggressions, photo-damage

- Cosmetics are largely advertised containing this

Lupo (2001) - (pro) Vitamin A - Vitamin B (5) - Vitamin C - Vitamin E - Vitamin K - Coenzyme Q (Q10)

- Protects against UVA radiation, decreases roughness and wrinkling

- Hair care: elasticity. Skin care: moisturizes - Protects against UVB radiation, reduces inflammation, stimulates collagen

- Photo-damage, reduces wrinkling and tumors - Bruising, under-eye circles (vascular)

- Aging (heart) diseases, protects vit. E, sunburn, may affect protein and genes involved in growth and metabolism

- Frequently used in anti-aging products

- ‘Protector’ of the skin, also popular due to rejuvenating effects

Zussman, Ahdout, & Kim (2010)

- Vitamin A - Vitamin B(3) - Vitamin C - Vitamin D - Vitamin E - Vitamin K

- Photo-aging, acne, rosacea, skin cancer,

contributes to bone growth, reproduction, immune system, increased collagen, decreased roughness and wrinkling

- Acne, rosacea, skin aging, blood cholesterol - Wrinkling, roughness, dryness, UV radiation effects - Calcium regulation, bone health, immune system, cancer, muscles, cardiovascular system importance - UV radiation protection, scarring

- Deficit: easy bruising, bleeding gums

Manela-Azulay & Bagatin (2009)

- Vitamin A - Vitamin B(3) - Vitamin C

- Vitamin E

- Acne, photo-aging

- Inflammation, acne, wrinkles, improved elasticity - Collagen production, inflammation, photo-aging, hyperpigmentation

- Defense mechanism: protects against sun damage

- Better concentration in the skin than taken orally

- Application before sun exposure, possible effective combination with vitamins A and C

(27)

After having reviewed the healthy ingredients for the human body, we can conclude that certain ‘healthy’ ingredients are most popular in marketing, having either a direct or indirect influence on consumer health. These ingredients have been used widely and their health benefits have become more known to the public which makes the success of selling the product more likely (Urala et al., 2011). We can see that for both types of influence, vitamin E is identified as an popular extra ingredient. Later on in the research, this ingredient will be used on fictitious packaging to function as a health claim.

(28)

Therefore, these tests are often failed to be performed, which results in people having no proof or idea of their carrying this disease. Furthermore, other prevalent issues that can be bettered with the use of indirectly influential products are acne problems, inflammation, and wrinkling (its more hedonic function). The only means to measure the effects of using cosmetics to better these issues is by judging before-and-after photographs and doing self-assessment (Weiss, Weiss, & Beasly, 2002). This leaves the consumer with rather subjective proof, in contrast to testing for health issues that concern directly influential products. A final remark can be made about the priority placed on each type of influence. Rozin et al. (1999) argue that human beings tend to see food and beverages as a nutrient as well as poison, which is the concept of food worrying. According to the author, consumers worry about food intake and the effect on their life expectancy, which is a focus in life. Comparing this to cosmetics that are applied to the skin, Wills (2002) mentions that low priority is placed upon skin diseases in health care. From this we can conclude that society and human beings themselves prioritize the intake of directly influential products over the use of indirectly influential products.

From the above discussion, the following hypothesis is drawn up:

(29)

2.5 Conceptual model

From the literature review above a conceptual framework for studying the topic is drawn up. This is shown in figure 2 below, where purchase intention functions as an extra insight variable for the moderating effect in case WTP is not proven to have significantly changes.

H1

H2a

H3

H2b

Health claim

Willingness

to pay

Regulatory

focus:

- Prevention

- Promotion

Product

influence:

- Direct

- Indirect

Figure 1: Conceptual model

(30)

3 Methodology

This chapter describes the method used for executing the study in detail. In the first three sections, the type of researched performed, the way in which participants were found, and the design itself are described. After that, in the latter three sections, the way in which the variables are measured, the procedure of participating, and a plan of analyzing the results are discussed.

3.1 Study type

This study is classified as a formal study. According to Cooper & Schindler (2006) this encompasses studies that begin with a research question and hypotheses and have the goal of testing these hypotheses and answer the research question. Since these goals match the goals of this study, one can classify this as a formal study. To be more specific, the purpose of this study is to explain relationships among variables, namely among the IV, DV, and MVs. This is what the authors identify as a causal study, a type of formal study. Furthermore, Cooper & Schindler (2006) state that a causal relationship entails how an IV (health claim) affects a DV (WTP). In this case, we speak of an asymmetrical relationship. This means that a change in the IV (health claim versus no health claim presented) is responsible for changes in the DV (WTP is higher with a health claim than with no health claim). In addition, two moderating variables (MVs) as extra IVs are added to this relationship to see if these have a significant contributory or contingent effect on it.

3.2 Participants

(31)

3.3 Design

The experimental design used for this study is a 2 x 2 x 2 design depicted in table 3 below. One can see that the three independent and moderating variables all have two levels, hence the 2 x 2 x 2 design.

Prevention focus Promotion focus

Direct influence Indirect influence Direct influence Indirect influence

Health claim on packaging 1 2 3 4

No health claim on packaging 5 6 7 8

Table 3: Research design

This design shows that this study has a total of eight different conditions for which 20 respondents per condition are required. There are however only four different questionnaires used, each showing a different packaging type. These four questionnaires encompass the four main conditions of this study. This is the case since moderating variable regulatory focus entails characteristics of the participants’ personality, which cannot be manipulated. Therefore, this variable is asked in the questions instead of manipulated in the packaging shown to the participants. This leaves the variables health claim and product influence as manipulated variables for the packaging. The packaging types used in the four questionnaires are shown in table 4 below.

Direct influence Indirect influence

Health claim on packaging Packaging type 1 Packaging type 2

No health claim on packaging Packaging type 3 Packaging type 4

Table 4: The four packaging types used in the study

Please see appendix B for the four fictitious packages used in the survey. Furthermore, it is a between-subjects design, meaning that the respondents are randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. This means they receive only one questionnaire with fictitious product packaging type 1, 2, 3, or 4 which they are asked to look at and evaluate.

3.4 Variables

(32)

3.4.1 Independent variable: health claim

The independent variable used in this research is the presence of a health claim on product packaging. A picture of a product package is shown to the participants, which they are asked to look at closely. The variable health claim is here manipulated by randomly showing participants either a package with a health claim presented on it or without the claim. This claim entails the ingredient Vitamin E, since it is mentioned as an important ingredient in every study shown in table 2. Also, it is frequently present in directly influential products as shown in table 1 and therefore this ingredient is used. When formulating the health claim, the definition of Kozup et al. (2003) is used. They state that health claims are “claims that address the relationship between a specific nutrient and a disease or health condition”. Therefore, the health claim in itself encompasses the text: ‘Contains Vitamin E’ on the package and in addition a balloon next to the package with the text: ‘Extra Vitamin E’. Furthermore, below the package the text: ‘This product has extra Vitamin E added which has several health benefits. For instance, Vitamin E is beneficial for the heart and the skin’ is placed. This is done in order to trigger the health claim to the participants. This method of measuring the effect of a health claim is consistent with the research on the health claim – purchase intention relationship by Kozup et al. (2003), who showed participants restaurant menus and packages with either the inclusion or the exclusion of a health claim. Their health claim consisted of a heart-shaped symbol and a footnote relating to the positive relationship between the ingredient (low saturated fat) and the health benefit (lower risk of heart disease). This way of presenting a health claim also corresponds with what Urala et al. (2011) argue about health claims. They state that a simple link between the healthy component and the positive result on the consumer’s body is effective. This is done by using the ingredient Vitamin E linked to heart and skin benefits. To see whether participants actually saw the health claim presented, a pre-test is done for manipulation checking. 16 participants were randomly shown an ad with or without the health claim and were asked the following question: ‘This product had an extra healthy ingredient added’. This question was also asked in the actual research to check if the manipulation worked. The results of this are discussed in the next chapter.

3.4.2 Dependent variable I: willingness to pay

(33)

First, respondents were asked to think for themselves of a number they would pay by asking ‘Please fill in the maximum amount you are prepared to pay for the product shown. € ..’ On the next page, a scale was presented including amounts of money the respondent had to choose from. This is done since Donaldson, Thomas, & Torgerson (1997) argue that the use of such a payment scale is more valid. According to the authors, a scale generates more reliable results than an open-ended question. Therefore, a payment scale is given where respondent can mark the amount they are willing to pay. The question is as follows, ‘If you need to pay one of the following prices, which one would you pay for the product shown? Please indicate the maximum amount that you are sure you would be prepared to pay’. The scale ranges from €0 to €10 .00 or more.

3.4.3 Dependent variable II: purchase intention

Since the main focus of this study is on moderating effects and these are not found in the purchase intention literature, this concept is added as a second dependent variable to the model. The goal is similar to that of willingness to pay, only in this case the purpose is to see whether people are more likely to purchase a product with a health claim than without a health claim, and especially whether this is influenced by the moderating variables described below. Since this is variable is not the core focus of the study, its measurement is performed with the use of only one question in the questionnaire. Participants were asked to rate their purchase intention on a 7-point Likert scale, which is mentioned by Chintagunta & Lee (2012) to be a suitable instrument for this. They were asked to indicate how likely it was that they would purchase the product presented to them, ranging from ‘very unlikely’ to ‘very likely’.

3.4.4 Moderating variable I: regulatory focus

(34)

3.4.5 Moderating variable II: product influence

The second moderating variable is product influence, which will be manipulated by using the packaging of two different products. This means participants are randomly shown either a directly influential product package or an indirectly influential product package, resulting in a 50/50 spread. As mentioned above, the products chosen had to both contain Vitamin E, in order to keep them as similar as possible for comparability of the findings. For the directly influential product, cornflakes are chosen. This is done since research by Miller, Rigelhof, Marquart, Prakash, & Kanter (2000) has shown that antioxidants like Vitamin E can be consumed by adding breakfast cereals to one’s diet. Also, Tribble (1999) found that whole grain foods like cereal are antioxidant and therefore Vitamin E rich. For the indirectly influential product lip balm is used. The goal of lip balm is to protect the skin from environmental influences, which is exactly what Vitamin E does according to the authors mentioned in table 2. Also, cosmetics are advertised widely containing this ingredient according to Shapiro & Saliou (2001) and Vitamin E is a popular addition to cosmetics (Lupo, 2000). Moreover, the products should differ as little as possible on other dimensions than influence, which is the case with these two products. First, the prices of the products are quite similar, where Kellogg’s cornflakes has a reference price of €1.68 (webwinkel.ah.nl) and Vaseline lip balm of €1.89 (drogistplein.nl). These brands are not used to avoid bias, however instead fictitious brands are used. Second, both have the same purchase convenience, since they can be purchased in the supermarket. Third, both products are generally consumed on a daily basis, which means frequency of usage is similar as well. Finally, both products are consumed by male as well as female consumers. Since lip balm might be more purchased by females, the lip balm packaging used is clean, and blue and white colored to appeal to the males as well.

3.5 Procedure

(35)

3.6 Plan of analysis

(36)

4 Results

The results chapter is the chapter in which the data generated by the survey is analyzed and presented. First, a description of the sample is given by means of the demographic variables used in the survey. After that, the two manipulations are checked to see whether this was done correctly. Another check then is done for the reliability of the questions used in the survey. The most important part is next, namely the results of the hypotheses tests. Finally, a couple of additional analyses were done in addition to the former ones.

4.1 Sample characteristics

In this section, the demographics of the sample are described. The variables gender, education, and age were used in each questionnaire. The distribution of each variable of the total sample are shown, as well as the distribution of these variables in each of the four types of product packaging used in the survey.

4.1.1 Demographics total sample

From the 158 respondents that filled out the entire questionnaire, the demographic characteristics are shown in graph 1, 2, and 3 below (please see appendix C-1). All respondents had to answer the same three questions concerning their demographic characteristics, no matter which type of product packaging they were assigned to.

Graph 1: Gender distribution Graph 2: Education distribution

(37)

Graph 3: Age distribution

From the above bar charts we can see that 45 (29%) were male participants and 113 (72%) were female participants. Furthermore, we can notice that almost all participants enjoyed higher education. In the Netherlands this means HBO and University (including PhD.). The chart tells us that 98% of the total sample belongs to this type of education. Finally, the majority of the sample is 18-29 years old (90%).

4.1.2 Demographics per condition

As opposed to the abovementioned demographics, the total sample was not asked to look at the same product packaging. In contrast, the participants were randomly assigned to take one of four questionnaires, which focus on one of the four different product packaging types. For all these questionnaires, the samples should be quite equal when it comes to demographics. If not, the variables that differ significantly have to be controlled for in the upcoming analyses of the experiment. In appendix C-2, each packaging type with its corresponding sample size, gender, education, and age distribution is shown to check random assignment. Looking at gender, no remarkable differences can be noticed between the four types. However, the distributions for the variables education and age at first glance do not seem as similar. Therefore, in order to check whether there are significant differences concerning these demographic variables between the four packages, a one-way ANOVA is performed with an confidence interval of 95%, meaning the p-value (p) has to be lower than 5% (.05) to be significant. The result of this analysis is that the samples differ significantly in terms of age (F(3, 514) = 2.960, p = .034) and education (F(3, 154) = 3.217, p = .025). Please see appendix C-3 for the ANOVA output. Therefore, these variables are later on included as control variables in the regression analyses for hypotheses testing.

(38)

4.2 Manipulation checks

In this section, the manipulation checks for the independent variable ‘health claim’ and the moderating variable ‘product influence’ are discussed. This is done in order to see whether the manipulation of the packages participants were shown actually worked out the way they should. This means checking whether the health claim was seen and whether cereal and lip balm are viewed as being respectively directly and indirectly influential on a person’s health.

4.2.1 Health claim

A manipulation check is done in order to check whether every participant actually saw the health claim when presented or not when not presented. The statement used was ‘This product has an extra health ingredient added’. The answer possibilities were yes, no, and not sure. The variable ‘health claim’ was computed here into a dummy variable, where 0 means no health claim was shown and 1 means a health claim was shown. The participants in the health claim condition all answered ‘yes’ or ‘not sure’, meaning no wrong answers were given. Two of the participants in the no health claim conditions answered ‘yes’, which means they thought an extra healthy ingredient was added (to cereal) which was not shown to them. Since this is the wrong answer, these two cases were deleted leaving a total of 158 cases. The possibility ‘not sure’ was used seven times in total, six times for the no health claim condition and one time for the health claim condition (for an overview please see appendix C-4). The analysis was done with and without these cases to see whether the results would differ. This was not the case, so all cases were kept for analysis in the dataset.

4.2.2 Product influence

(39)

Furthermore, this manipulation check should show us whether the directly influential product – although it might not be perceived as such – scores higher on health influence than the indirectly influential product as elaborated upon in section 2.4. The t-test (please see appendix C-5) indicates that there is no significant difference (t(156) = -1.64, p = .104) between the two means of these products. This suggests that the directly influential product is not perceived as having a significantly higher influence on the participant’s health.

4.3 Reliability

For the regulatory focus scale as well as the WTP variable several questions were asked for their measurement. As mentioned above, the regulatory focus scale is split up into two categories, namely promotion and prevention, each consisting of five items. The WTP variable consists of two questions that both measure this. Therefore, three summated scales should be made in order to combine the separate questions into three new constructs (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). In order to check whether the questions used for these variables actually measure the same concept and can be put together to form new variables, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability check is done before making summated scales using SPSS. This measure assesses the consistency of a scale, and must above .65 to be acceptable (Hair et al., 2010). All reliability scores are depicted in table 5 below and can be found in more detail in appendices C6-8.

Variable Nr of questions Cronbach’s alpha (α)

Prevention Focus 5 .637

Promotion Focus 4 .710

WTP 2 .871

Table 5: Reliability scores for the scales used

(40)

Therefore, statement b is not per se a promotion focus one, however can also relate to the prevention focus. Finally, the score for WTP is high, meaning that the consistency is good. After the reliability was checked, three new variables (summated scales) were computed by combining the questions that generated a good reliability score for each old variable. This is done in SPSS by using the MEAN function, which calculates the average of a number of questions (Huizingh, 2007). The new average scores for each participant for prevention, promotion, and WTP are named respectively PrevMean, PromMean, and WTPMean.

4.4 Hypotheses tests

In this section, the main results of hypotheses testing are given. For hypotheses 1-3, a linear regression analyses is performed with the purpose of checking whether these can be supported or have to be rejected. As a simple overview of the very basic results, the means and standard deviations of WTP per packaging type are depicted in table 6 below (please see appendix C-9).

Packaging type Sample size M SD

1 HC – Direct 40 3.3190 1.32604

2 No HC – Direct 38 2.5966 .84954

3 HC - Indirect 40 3.4312 1.17395

4 No HC – Indirect 40 3.1462 1.09147

Table 6: WTP per packaging type

One can see that for both packaging types with a health claim, the WTP of the consumer is higher than for the packaging types without the claim. Regardless of the product influence, the packaging types with a claim generate a higher WTP than without a claim. At first glance this is consistent with H1, which is checked by performing a regression analysis using the following equation:

:

Willingness to pay and Purchase intention

:

Health claim

:

Prevention focus

:

Promotion focus

:

Product influence

:

Interaction health claim and prevention focus

:

Interaction health claim and promotion focus

:

Interaction health claim and product influence

:

Education level

(41)

:

Intercept

:

Error term i: Respondent i

Before executing the regression analysis, the variables PrevMean and PromMean were mean-centered creating Prev_C and Prom_C to reduce multicollinearity. After that, three interaction variables were constructed by multiplying the independent variable (HC) with each moderating variable (Prev_C, Prom_C, ProdInfl). To check for significance, a confidence interval of 95% is used, which means that in order for the hypotheses to be supported, the p-value has to be < .05. Furthermore, since the randomization check showed us that there were significant differences between the samples regarding education and age, these variables were included in the regression analysis as extra IVs as well. After performing a stepwise method regression analysis (please see appendix C-10), H1 seems supported (B = .497, t(154) = 2.745, p < .05). However, except for product influence and age, all other variables in the model were excluded by SPSS. This means that without taking all these excluded variables into account, H1 would be supported. However, we do need to take these into account since the participants were exposed to the excluded variables in the questionnaire as well. Thinking about these questions concerning the excluded variables during the filling out of the questionnaire might have an effect on their response behavior, meaning that this might eventually influence their amounts for the WTP questions. Therefore, these variables need to be included in the regression analysis in order to have a representative result of the study performed. The more appropriate method is therefore the enter method, which will be focused on. An overview of these regression results is given in table 7 below (whereas the complete analysis may be found in appendix C-11). B t P-value H1: HC .319 1.256 .211 Prev_C .127 .704 .484 Prom_C -.039 -.290 .772 ProdInfl -.512 -1.977 .05 H2a: HC * Prev_C -.264 -1.126 .262 H2b: HC * Prom_C .137 .701 .485 H3: HC * ProdInfl .220 .584 .560

Table 7: Regression results with WTP as dependent variable

(42)

This might indicate that there are variables incorporated in the model that do not significantly contribute to predicting WTP (Hair et al., 2010). This is elaborated upon further in this section, where the significance of the hypotheses is discussed.

When we quickly look at the p-values in table 7, we can immediately notice that none are significant since all are above .05. Since these are not significant, we stepped back to the well-established positive relationship between health claim and purchase intention (Kozup et al., 2003; Roe et al., 1999; Willams, 2005). Next to this main effect, there is no evidence of possible moderating effects of regulatory focus or product influence. Therefore, this second dependent variable of the model is analyzed as well in the exact same manner as WTP, to see if this might generate significant moderating effects. These results are depicted in table 8 below. The complete output may be viewed in appendix C-12. B t P-value H1: HC .183 .451 .635 Prev_C -.234 -.809 .420 Prom_C -.034 -.158 .875 ProdInfl -.661 -1.597 .112 H2a: HC * Prev_C .786 2.095 .038 H2b: HC * Prom_C -.123 -.394 .694 H3: HC * ProdInfl -.356 -.592 .555

Table 8: Regression results with purchase intention as DV

Again, the model (R2 = .039, F (9, 148) = 1.704, p > .05) has a low fit, in this case the adjusted R2 is only .039. This means that only 3.9% of the variance in purchase intention is explained by the independent variables. In the remainder of this section, the testing of the hypotheses with both WTP and purchase intention as dependent variables is further elaborated upon.

4.4.1 Hypothesis 1: Health claim

(43)

This means that the study could not validate that the presence of a health claim on packaging in general results in a higher WTP by the consumer. The direction of the relationship is positive as anticipated meaning that the presence of a health claim should in theory heighten WTP as opposed to lowering it, however the WTP part of the hypothesis cannot be accepted due to the fact that it is not significant. Since it is not significant, purchase intention is implemented as a second dependent variable. This part of H1 could not validate previous research on a positive relationship between a health claim and purchase intention, since it was not significant (B = .183, t(148) = .415, p > .05) although the direction is correct. Therefore, H1 needs to be rejected.

4.4.2 Hypothesis 2a: Prevention focus

The first moderating effect hypothesized in H2a concerned the prevention focus part of regulatory focus. It was hypothesized that the positive link between health claim and WTP was stronger when consumers had a higher score for prevention focus, meaning WTP was higher for them. Looking at table 7, it can firstly be concluded that the direction of this relationship is reverse (B = -.264), which means the higher the prevention score, the lower WTP for health claim products. This contradicts the hypothesis. Also there is no significant support for this opposite direction (B = -.264, t(148) = -1.126, p > .05). meaning that H2a needs to be partially rejected.

From table 8 however, we can conclude that prevention has a significant (B = .786, t(148) = 2.095, p < .05) moderating effect on the positive relationship between health claim and purchase intention. This means the higher the prevention focus of the consumer is, the higher their purchase intention for products with a health claim is (R2 = .039, F(148) = 1.704, p < .05). Therefore, we can state that H2a can be partially accepted, namely that: The positive relationship between product packaging

containing a health claim and purchase intention is strengthened for consumers with a strong prevention focus is accepted.

4.4.3 Hypothesis 2b: Promotion focus

(44)

This result however is not significant (B = -.123, t(148) = -.394, p > .05), indicating that the purchase intention part of the hypotheses cannot be supported. Together, this means that H2b needs to be rejected.

4.4.4 Hypothesis 3: Product influence

The second moderating variable looked at the product influence. The aim of this hypothesis was to see whether products that have a health claim presented on packaging and have a direct influence on consumer health generated a higher WTP than health claim products with an indirect influence on consumer health. The direction of this hypothesis was as anticipated (B = .220) which supports the fact that a directly influential product might generate higher WTP than an indirectly influential product. However, the result of the analysis is not significant (B = .220, t(148) = .584, p > .05), meaning that the WTP part of H3 cannot be supported. Now looking at the purchase intention part, the direction is opposite of what was anticipated and of that of WTP (B = -.358), indicating that indirect products actually generate a higher purchase likelihood. This part of the hypothesis cannot be supported either (B = -.358, t(148) = -.592, p > .05) since it is not significant. Therefore, H3 needs to be rejected.

4.5 Additional results

In this section, additional results of extra analyses are discussed. Firstly, in addition to the statements in the survey that encompass all the variables used in the hypotheses, a couple of factors had to be taken into account that might have an influence on the study. For this reason, extra statements were added to check whether consumers are actually familiar with, consume, and like the product. Furthermore, they were asked to indicate whether they feel that Vitamin E in general has a health benefit. The mean scores for these 7-point Likert scale statements may be viewed in appendix C-13. For all these statements, the means were higher than an average score of 3.5 on a 7-point scale. This is a positive sign, since it means that on average the participants were familiar with, consume, and like the products they were shown. In general, they also perceive Vitamin E as a healthy ingredient. Also, it is important to note that the participants do look at what is presented on packaging and use this as an information source when purchasing products. In sum, since low scores might have had an impact on WTP, this shows that there were no constraints to the study pertaining these factors. Therefore, there is no need to control for them in the regression analysis.

(45)

Victorine Marchesini