Don’t Judge a Product by its Cover!

Running head: INFLUENCE OF HEALTH CLAIMS ON CONSUMING INTENTION

1

Don’t Judge a Product by its Cover!

An experimental study on the influence of health claims on front-of-pack food labels on

consumers’ consuming intention, moderated by consumers’ health consciousness

Femke Rusticus

U240163 | 2029803

Master’s thesis

Communication and Information Sciences

Specialization Business Communication and Digital Media

School of Humanities and Digital Sciences

Tilburg University, Tilburg

Supervisor: Dr. Frans Folkvord

Second Reader: Dr. David Peeters

January, 2020

Word count: 9045

INFLUENCE OF HEALTH CLAIMS ON CONSUMING INTENTION

2

Acknowledgement

The creation of this master’s thesis was not possible without the support and time of

many people. For instance, the numerous respondents who took the time to fill out my online

questionnaire: thank you very much! A special and sincere thanks to my University supervisor

Frans Folkvord for his time and feedback during this thesis writing process. Your advice helped

me to guide through and complete this master’s thesis. Also, I want to thank my family and

friends who supported me through the years, and for the love and encouragement I received from

them. I am grateful to have you by my side! Together, all these people made this research

possible.


3

Abstract

The number of people with obesity and diabetes type 2 has tripled worldwide since 1975,

and that is mainly due to an unhealthy dietary intake among the world population. Responsible

food marketing can contribute to a change in eating behavior. Therefore, this investigation

explored to what extent health claims on front-of-pack food labels influence consumers’

consuming intention, and whether this effect was moderated by the degree of consumers’ health

consciousness. An online questionnaire was conducted to examine the preliminary hypotheses.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions. The results

showed that there is no significant difference in consumers’ consuming intention between

participants who were exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label compared to

participants who did not encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label. Additionally, the

degree of health consciousness did not moderate the relationship between health claims on a

front-of-pack food label and consuming intention. The main conclusion of this investigation was

that health claims on front-of-pack food labels do not have a significant effect on consumers’

consuming intention, and the degree of consumers’ health consciousness does not have a

moderating effect in this relationship.

Keywords: Food marketing, health claims, consuming intention, no added sugar, organic,

front-of-pack food labels


4

Table of contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................6

2. Theoretical framework .......................................................................................................... 10

2.1 The relationship between health claims and consuming intention ..................................... 10

2.2 The moderating role of consumers’ health consciousness ................................................. 14

3. Method .................................................................................................................................. 19

3.1 Research design ............................................................................................................... 19

3.2 Participants ...................................................................................................................... 20

3.3 Experimental procedures .................................................................................................. 20

3.4 Experimental stimuli ........................................................................................................ 21

3.5 Measures dependent variable ........................................................................................... 23

3.6 Measure moderating variable ........................................................................................... 24

3.7 Control variable ............................................................................................................... 25

3.8 Pilot Test ......................................................................................................................... 25

3.9 Analysis plan ................................................................................................................... 25

4. Results .................................................................................................................................. 27

4.1 Descriptive statistics ........................................................................................................ 27

4.2 The effect of health claims on consuming intention .......................................................... 27

4.3 The moderating role of consumers’ health consciousness ................................................. 30

5. Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 34

5.1 The effect of health claims on front-of-pack food labels ................................................... 34

5.2 The moderating role of health consciousness ................................................................... 36

5.3 Limitations, future research, and strengths ....................................................................... 36

5.4 Implications ..................................................................................................................... 39

References ................................................................................................................................ 40


5

Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix A: Questionnaire ................................................................................................... 48

Appendix B: Informed Consent ............................................................................................. 51

Appendix C: Experimental conditions.................................................................................... 52


6

1. Introduction

Each year, companies spend billions of dollars on food advertising (Sharma, Teret, &

Brownell, 2010), and mainly on the promotion of unhealthy food (Levin & Levin, 2010; Boyland

et al., 2016). The result of this is an unhealthy dietary intake among the world population,

leading to the general health conditions of the population being worse than ever before (Global

Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators, 2015; Volksgezondheidenzorg.info, 2019).

According to the World Health Organization (2019), health problems, like obesity and diabetes

type 2, are increasing every year. Today, the amount of people suffering from obesity has tripled

worldwide since 1975. In many countries, like the Netherlands, these health problems are a

growing concern in contemporary society. The Netherlands alone, more than 50% of the Dutch

population was diagnosed as overweight and 15% were diagnosed as obese in 2018

(Volksgezondheidenzorg.info, 2019).

Therefore, due to this societal concern, national governments (e.g., the Netherlands) and

the World Health Organization intervened to change the unhealthy food promotion by the food

industry. More specifically, these parties (i.e., national governments and the World Health

Organization) stimulated the food chain to produce healthier food, for instance, lowering salt, fat,

and sugar content (World Health Organization, 2013; National Institute for Public Health and the

Environment, 2016; World Health Organization, 2019). Together with the International Food and

Beverage Alliance (IFBA), the World Health Organization came up with a set of global public

responsibilities, especially intended for multinational companies (e.g., Nestle, The Coca-Cola

Company, and Unilever). These responsibilities primarily addressed the promotion of healthy

lifestyles, the reformulation of food, and responsible marketing (Yach et al., 2010; The

International Food & Beverage Alliance, 2011).


7

Responsible marketing can make a difference in consumers’ consuming behavior,

specifically through front-of-pack, and back-of-pack product labels on food products (Vyth et al.,

2009; Feunekes et al., 2008; Wasowicz-Kirylo & Stysko-Kunkowska, 2011). As investigated by

Feunekes et al. (2008), consumers make healthier food decisions based on the design of front-of-

pack labeling. However, Provencer, Polivy, and Herman (2009) discovered that consumers have

a higher food intake when a product is promoted as being healthy. More specifically, the

participants (female undergraduate students with a mean age of 19.4 years old) ate 35% more of

a product labeled as healthy than a product missing a healthy label.

Besides responsible food marketing, the IFBA proposed a reformulation of food. This can

be defined as “the process of altering a food or beverage product’s recipe or composition to

improve the product’s health profile” (Federici et al., 2019, p. 2). However, Vyth et al. (2010)

found that the reformulation of food does not always create positive change. For instance, after

reformulation, sandwiches had a significant increase in sugar content. This phenomenon was also

revealed by Temme et al. (2010), who found that the sugar content in a low-fat dessert was

higher than in regular desserts.

As consumers tend to trust the health claims of food packages, reformulated products and

the probability of a higher food intake are drawbacks in the promotion of healthy foods.

Moreover, discourse is going on that front-of-pack food claims might occasionally mislead

consumers and “induce an inaccurate assessment of the product’s healthfulness” (Ikonen, Sotgiu,

Aydinli, & Verlegh, 2019, p. 2). For instance, the no added sugar claim on labels might not

always indicate that the product is healthier than conventional products. More specifically,

products may still be calorie-dense as other ingredients (e.g., fat) are added to replace sugar

(Patterson, Sadler, & Cooper, 2012; Bernstein et al., 2017).


8

Furthermore, organic products are perceived by consumers as being healthier than

conventional products (Lea & Worsley, 2005). However, several studies did not find proof to

support this perception (Williams, 2002; Magkos, Arvaniti, & Zampelas, 2003; Smith-Spangler

et al., 2012). It was found by Schuldt and Schwarz (2010), that when presented with a product

claiming to be organic, consumers infer the product as being lower in calories. Moreover,

consumers assumed that they could eat more of that particular product.

To this end, by drawing incorrect inferences based on front-of-pack food claims,

consumers might still make unfavorable food decisions and might continue to eat too much

unhealthy food (e.g., high sugar contained food), which eventually will lead to overweight and

obesity. The way consumers process and respond to food marketing (e.g., health claims) are

addressed in two theories, namely the Processing of Commercial Media Content (PCMC) theory

and the Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects (DSMM) theory. The PCMC model

discusses that different persuasion processes (i.e., systematic, heuristic, and automatic), when

encountering commercial media content, can lead to changes in consuming behavior (e.g., higher

consuming intention). The DSMM theory argues that this consuming behavior differs per

individual. To put this differently, consumers do not process and react in the same way to

commercial media content.

The degree of consumers’ health consciousness, for instance, might play a role when a

consumer encounters commercial media content (i.e., health claims). Michaelidou and Hassan

(2008) define health conscious consumers as being “aware and concerned about their state of

well-being and are motivated to improve and/or maintain their health and quality of life, as well

as preventing ill health by engaging in healthy behaviors and being self-conscious regarding


9

health” (p. 164). More specifically, health conscious consumers might respond differently to

commercial media content (i.e., health claims) than health unconscious consumers.

Several studies have addressed the role of commercial media content in the form of

health claims on front-of-pack labels concerning consumers’ responses and understanding of

food packaging (Patterson, Sadler, & Cooper, 2012; Festila, Chrysochou, & Krystallis, 2014),

nutrition information on packaging (Grunert & Wills, 2007; Vyth et al., 2010), and the degree of

health consciousness of males and females (Ikonen, Sotgiu, Aydinli, & Verlegh, 2019). Further

research, proposed by Ikonen, Sotgiu, Aydinli, and Verlegh (2019), is asked to investigate the

role consumers’ health consciousness plays when regarding front-of-pack food labels.

Accordingly, this research takes a specific focus on the favorable bias consumers might

have regarding healthy food claims. In particular, consumers’ consuming intention based on

health claims on the front-of-pack food label. This research focuses on the no added sugar and

organic claims on front-of-pack food labels, and whether this is moderated by consumers’ health

consciousness. Therefore, this study aims to fill the gap in the existing literature by answering

the following research questions: To what extent do health claims on front-of-pack food labels

influence consumers’ consuming intention?, and to what extent does consumers’ health

consciousness moderate the effect of health claims on front-of-pack labels on consumers’

consuming intention?


10

2. Theoretical framework

2.1 The relationship between health claims and consuming intention

A theoretical model that addresses the way consumers cope with commercial media

content (e.g., health claims) is termed the Processing of Commercial Media Content (PCMC)

model by Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, and Owen (2010). This model is based upon different

established interpretations of cognitive processes that play a part in interpreting media messages

described in the literature.

More specifically, the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) by Petty and Cacioppo

(1996) describes a systematic process when encountering a persuasive message. The Heuristic

Systematic Model (HSM) outlines a heuristic process when persuasive messages come across

(Chaiken & Trope, 1999). These models are, argued by Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, and Owen

(2010), distinct from each other, however, they share some fundamental concepts. More

specifically, both models presume that “people process a persuasive message systematically and

carefully and at other times…using low-effort mechanisms to respond to a message” (Buijzen,

Van Reijmersdal, & Owen, 2010; p. 429). To this end, people follow a systematic and heuristic

process when encountering a persuasive message (Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, & Owen, 2010).

Additionally, a less known process regarding processing persuasive messages is the automatic or

experiential process. This process is described as having automatic and unconscious reactions

towards persuasive messages. To summarize, the PCMC model concentrates on three levels of

persuasion processing, namely systematic, heuristic, and automatic processing.

These three processes are determined by differences in levels of cognitive elaboration

when encountering persuasive messages, meaning that consumers’ level of processing


11

information depends on the persuasive context (e.g., a health claim). Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal,

and Owen (2010) describe the cognitive elaboration of a consumer as “the level of attention to

and awareness of a message, and to their motivation and ability to process the message

effortfully” (p. 430). Additionally, the three processes (i.e., systematic, heuristic, and automatic)

described by the PCMC model contain mechanisms that lead to changes (i.e., attitudinal and

behavioral) in regards to the advertised product. To put this differently, all the three processes in

the PCMC model guide to attitudinal and behavioral changes. However, the mechanisms that

lead to these changes occur in correspondence with the employed processing method (i.e.,

systematic, heuristic or automatic).

The systematic persuasion process is defined as being relatively extensive, conscious,

and effortful cognitive elaboration is required of consumers (Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, & Owen,

2010). The consumer needs to be aware of the persuasive message and the attention towards the

message should be high. Besides, the consumer should be highly motivated and is capable of

processing the information at hand. Accordingly, this systematic processing process occurs when

the persuasive message is highly involving for consumers (i.e., when the persuasive message has

strong persuasive arguments). For this research, it would mean that when a health claim (i.e., no

added sugar or organic) on a front-of-pack food label is displayed, consumers are less inclined

to base their decision on that claim than when no health claim is shown on a front-of-pack food

label. In other words, consumers have a lower consuming intention when encountered with a

food claim than when no health claim was shown.

For the process of heuristic persuasion processing, a moderate level of cognitive

elaboration is required of consumers. More specifically, the level of consumers’ awareness and

attention towards the persuasive message is moderate to low, and consumers' motivation and


12

capability to process the message is low. To sum up, consumers evaluate products more quickly

and therefore rely on low-effort decision strategies. Empirical research by Orquin and Scholderer

(2015) found that consumers process healthfulness judgments (i.e., health claims) of products in

a heuristic way. Taking this into consideration, for this research, it would mean that consumers

are more inclined to base their decision more easily upon health claims (i.e., no added sugar and

organic) when displayed on a front-of-pack food label. To put this differently, it would mean

that consumers have a higher consuming intention when exposed to a health claim on a front-of-

pack food label than when they did not encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label.

The last persuasion process described by Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, and Owen (2010) is

automatic persuasion processing. Cognitive elaboration required for this process is decreased to

a minimal level compared to the systematic, and heuristic persuasion processing. When

consumers encounter a persuasive message, for automatic persuasion processing, consumers pay

little to no awareness or attention. Moreover, no motivation or capacity for processing the

message is needed. Thus, consumers perceive a persuasive attempt in a message less easily, as

they are not aware of being persuaded. For instance, the claims no added sugar and organic on a

front-of-pack food label do not always indicate that a product is healthier than conventional

products. Moreover, products with health claims are occasionally higher in calories as other

ingredients are added (i.e., fat) (Williams, 2002; Magkos, Arvaniti, & Zampelas, 2003; Patterson,

Sadler, & Cooper, 2012; Smith-Spangler et al., 2012; Bernstein et al., 2017). Subsequently in

this process (i.e., automatic persuasion process), consumers do not identify a health claim which

might lead to consumers being persuaded more easily. This could lead false conclusions being

drawn from food labels. This can eventually lead to a higher food intake, which in turn leads to

overweight people and obesity (Provencer, Polivy, & Herman, 2009; Schuldt & Schwarz, 2010;


13

Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, & Owen, 2010; Patterson, Sadler, & Cooper, 2012; Bernstein et al.,

2017).

In conclusion, according to the PCMC model, systematic, heuristic, and automatic

persuasion processing may all lead to changes in consuming behavior. However, this depends on

which persuasion processing process is activated. Although systematic persuasion processing

leads to a decrease in decision making based upon health claims compared to no health claims, it

is expected that consumers process persuasive commercial media content (i.e., health claims) in a

more heuristic and automatic way. More concretely, empirical studies show that advertising can

influence consuming behavior. As aforementioned, health claims on front-of-pack food labels

lead, on average, to a higher food intake in consumers (Provencer, Polivy, & Herman, 2009;

Schuldt & Schwarz, 2010; Patterson, Sadler, & Cooper, 2012; Bernstein et al., 2017). Even

though the PCMC model is introduced to investigate young people’s persuasion process abilities

(Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, & Owen, 2010), the current study applies the PCMC model to adults

(older than 18 years old) by investigating health claims (i.e., no added sugar and organic) on

front-of-pack food labels and the effect on consumers’ consuming intention.

To this end, the following hypotheses are proposed. First, it is expected that health

claims, in general, affect consumers’ consuming intention. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H1: Participants who are exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label have a higher

consuming intention of the advertised products, than participants who are not exposed to a health

claim on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition).

More specifically, it is expected that:


14

H1a: Participants who are exposed to a no added sugar claim on a front-of-pack food label have

a higher consuming intention of the advertised products, than participants who are not exposed to

a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition).

H1b: Participants who are exposed to an organic claim on a front-of-pack food label have a

higher consuming intention of the advertised products, than participants who are not exposed to a

health claim on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition).

The possible relationship between no added sugar claims and organic claims will not be

investigated in this study as no clear assumptions can be made based on the literature. Therefore,

no direct comparison between these claims will be made.

2.2 The moderating role of consumers’ health consciousness

Consumers’ intention to consume a particular product differs per individual. For instance,

the differences in the degree of consumers’ health consciousness might play a role in consumers’

consuming intention. A model which predicts that consumers do not process and react similarly

to commercial media effects is the Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects (DSMM) model

by Valkenburg and Peter (2013). This model addresses three types of susceptibility to media

effects, namely dispositional, developmental, and social susceptibility. Media effects are defined

as the consequences of media use creating deliberative and non-deliberative changes within a

person in regards to cognition, emotion, attitude, beliefs, physiology, and behavior. This model is

based on different existing theories in the literature. For instance, the Selective Exposure Theory

by Klapper (1960), the Social Cognitive Theory by Bandura (1986), Cacioppo’s Elaboration

Likelihood Model (1986), and the Limited Capacity Model of Motivated Mediated Message

Processing by Lang (2009),


15

In the DSMM model, dispositional susceptibility refers to different personal aspects (e.g.,

gender, personality, values, attitudes, and motivations) which are activated in the selection of,

and the responsiveness to media content (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). However, some of these

aspects fluctuate more between time and situations than other aspects (e.g., motivations). In other

words, there are personal aspects which are stable and others more temporal. Valkenburg and

Peter (2013) did note that personal aspects can change over long periods of time even though

they are stable. On the contrary, temporal aspects can last hours or even days. That is why

Valkenburg and Peter (2013) state that there is no clear distinction between stable and temporal

aspects. The DSMM model, therefore, takes these two aspects (i.e., stable and temporal) into

account, as both aspects are relevant when encountering media content. For the current study,

this might indicate that the degree of health consciousness (relates to motivations, attitudes, and

values) of people can influence the way they respond to media content.

Developmental susceptibility is defined as the selective use of media as a result of

cognitive, emotional, and social development and may change between different stages of life.

Concretely, the influence of these developmental effects is more evident in younger people than

adults (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). However, these developmental effects happen during all

stages of life. Concerning this research, it would mean that health conscious and health

unconscious people went through a different cognitive development. In other words, it is

expected that health conscious and health unconscious people respond differently when

presented with a health claim (i.e., no added sugar or organic) on a front-of-pack food label as

when a health claim is not presented on a front-of-pack food label. Moreover, as health

conscious people became more concerned about their state of well-being (Michaelidou and

Hassan, 2008), they no longer automatically rely on the health claims of front-of-pack food


16

labels. Therefore, it is expected that health conscious people respond similarly when presented

with a health claim on a front-of-pack food label as when no health claim on a front-of-pack food

label was shown.

The differences in consumers’ ability to process and react to media effects, as predicted

by the DSMM model, were also found by Yokum et al. (2014). More specifically, individuals

differ in neural susceptibility to commercial media content (i.e., health claims). Yokum et al.

(2014) described that some individuals might have an increased ‘reward region responsivity’ that

has been biologically determined. This means that these individuals are more vulnerable to

particular food cues. Yokum et al. (2014) specifically investigated this phenomenon for children

and young adults. However, this study focuses on adults (i.e., 18 years and older), and

specifically on the degree of health consciousness of adults. More specifically, it is expected that

health unconscious people are more vulnerable to particular food cues and are more inclined to

give in to a stimulus. To put this differently, it is expected that health unconscious people have a

higher consuming intention of the advertised product when presented with a health claim (i.e., no

added sugar or organic) on a front-of-pack food label than health unconscious people who did

not encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label.

Consequently, this investigation focuses on the differences in health conscious and health

unconscious adults, and whether they respond differently to health claims and what the effect is

on their consuming intention.

Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:


17

H2: There is an interaction effect on the degree of health consciousness on the effect of health

claims on front-of-pack food labels on consumers’ consuming intention of the advertised

products.

Additionally, it is expected that:

H2a: Health unconscious participants who are exposed to a no added sugar claim on a front-of-

pack food label have a higher consuming intention of the advertised products, than health

unconscious participants who are not exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label

(i.e., control condition).

H2b: Health unconscious participants who are exposed to an organic claim on a front-of-pack

food label have a higher consuming intention of the advertised products, than health unconscious

participants who are not exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control

condition).

H2c: Health conscious participants who are exposed to a no added sugar claim on a front-of-

pack food label have a similar consuming intention of the advertised products, as health

conscious participants who are not exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (i.e.,

control condition).

H2d: Health conscious participants who are exposed to an organic claim on a front-of-pack food

label have a similar consuming intention of the advertised products, as health conscious

participants who are not exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control

condition).

All hypotheses mentioned above are visualized in a theoretical model, which can be seen

in Figure 1.


18

Figure 1: Theoretical model


19

3. Method

3.1 Research design

The present study investigated to what extent health claims on front-of-pack food labels

influence consumers’ consuming intention and whether this is moderated by consumers’ health

consciousness. Therefore, a 3 (no claim vs. no added sugar claim vs. organic claim) x 2 (health

consciousness vs. health unconsciousness) between-subjects experimental design was conducted.

For this experiment, three different experimental conditions were employed. The three

experimental conditions consisted of 1. control condition (i.e., no health claim on the advertised

products); 2. no added sugar claim on the advertised products; 3: organic claim on the advertised

products. The participants who took part in this study were randomly assigned to one of the three

experimental conditions. More specifically, random convenience sampling was used in order to

avoid within-groups variations that might have caused systematic differences (Field, 2013).

In order to examine this, an online questionnaire (see Appendix A) via Qualtrics was

used to measure consumers' consuming intention and consumers' degree of health consciousness.

The reason for executing an online questionnaire for the current study is that online surveys can

ensure anonymity, an advantage, as it decreases the social desirability effect (see also Cheyne &

Ritter, 2001). That is, respondents are more inclined to respond in a way, which they think is the

desired answer or the answer which the surveyor might expect. Besides, an online questionnaire

has a greater range, therefore, the findings of this study can be generalized to a wider population

(Cheyne & Ritter, 2001).


20

3.2 Participants

Participants for this study were recruited via random convenience sampling through

different social media platforms, namely LinkedIn, Facebook, and WhatsApp. As

aforementioned, by using an online questionnaire, a greater population could be reached in order

to generalize the data to a wider population. Participants needed to fit the criteria of being an

adult (i.e., 18 years or older).

In total, 234 participants started this study. Participants who did not completely fill out

the survey (N = 72), declined to take part in the survey (N = 2), or who indicated that they were

younger than 18 years old (N = 10) were removed from the data. Also, after manually analyzing

the data, it appeared that there was a striking difference in the duration when filling out the

survey. Based on a participant who filled out the survey with exactly the same answers to every

question in less than four minutes, it could be concluded that the survey was not filled out

carefully when completed in less than four minutes. Therefore, these participants, who filled out

the survey in less than four minutes (N = 32), were removed from the data. Consequently, a total

of 118 participants remained and were taken into account for the analysis. Of these participants,

22.9% were male (N = 27) and 77.1% were female (N = 91), and the average age was 29 years

old (SD = 11.21). The participants had different levels of education, the lowest level being high

school graduates (N = 12) and the highest-level being university master’s graduates (N = 19).

3.3 Experimental procedures

The questionnaire has been online for a total of 14 days, running from November 6

through November 20, 2019. As aforementioned, participants were recruited via random

convenience sampling by way of distributing the questionnaire on different social media


21

platforms (i.e., LinkedIn, Facebook, and WhatsApp). Participants were invited to take part in the

questionnaire via a link that led to the online questionnaire in Qualtrics. After clicking on the

link, participants were exposed to an informed consent (see Appendix B). This informed consent

stated that participants could withdraw from the survey at any time, and without giving a reason.

Besides, it stated that the anonymity of the participants would be guaranteed, and that

participation in this study was voluntary. After reading the informed consent, participants had the

possibility to either agree or disagree with the terms. Subsequently, the online questionnaire

started.

After participants voluntarily agreed to take part in the online questionnaire, they had to

indicate whether they were 18 years or older, in order to ensure that they were suitable to take

part in this study. Thereafter, participants were randomly assigned to one of the three

experimental conditions (i.e., no health claim, no added sugar claim, or organic claim).

Participants had to focus on the health claim which was displayed on the presented products (i.e.,

yoghurt, breakfast cereals, jam, and soup). Based on the exposed products, the participants had to

indicate to what extent they agreed to different questions in the questionnaire. The questionnaire

consisted of two categories with questions, namely questions regarding the consumers’

consuming intention based on the stimuli they saw, and questions relating to their degree of

health consciousness. At the end of the questionnaire, several demographic questions were asked

(e.g., gender, education), and the participants were thanked for their participation.

3.4 Experimental stimuli

In the different experimental conditions, participants were exposed to different food

packages of different products (i.e., yoghurt, breakfast cereals, jam, and soup), of which the


22

front-of-pack food label was manipulated for all the different experimental conditions (i.e.

control condition (no health claim); no added sugar claim; and organic claim). More

specifically, the front-of-pack food label on the packages only differed in the health claim. On

the other hand, the design of the back-of-pack food label was kept identical for all the conditions.

An example of one of the stimuli can be seen in Figure 2, this is the control condition. The other

conditions can be found in Appendix C.

The products that were used for this experiment were: yoghurt, breakfast cereals, jam,

and soup. The reason for choosing these products was that there is a variation in different food

types from different product categories, which was done in order to give insight into possible

differential effects between these product categories (Talati et al., 2016). Moreover, all products

could be presented as either having a no added sugar claim or containing an organic claim. More

specifically, the reason for choosing yoghurt as a product was that yoghurt is perceived as being

Figure 2: Control condition


23

healthy (Talati et al., 2016). Breakfast cereals were chosen as people tend to have a positive bias

towards this product (Talati et al., 2016). Jam was selected as it contains a small number of

calories and does not contain any fat (Kelly, 2014). Lastly, the reason for choosing soup is that it

is considered a healthy meal and tends to be high in vegetables (Meier, 2019).

The logo of the brand (see Figure 3), which was presented on all the different food labels

in the different conditions, was fictional. The logo of the brand is not an existing brand in

supermarkets. This was done to avoid any prior knowledge (e.g., regarding the nutrition content)

about the products which could have led to a bias in participants’ evaluation. Therefore, the

probability that participants would have had a preference for a particular brand could be

eliminated.

3.5 Measures dependent variable

The dependent variable, consumers’ consuming intention, was measured with a

combination of two scales, of which both measured buying intention (Baker & Churchill, 1977;

Spears & Singh, 2004). However, for this study, all scales were adapted for consuming intention.

Firstly, the scale adapted from Baker and Churchill (1977) was used and consisted of three

Figure 3: Logo


24

statements in order to investigate how likely participants were to consider consuming the

product. Concretely, it was stated: ‘I would like to try this product’; ‘I would consume this

product’, and ‘I would actively seek out this product in a store in order to consume it.’

Participants could indicate to what extent they agreed to these statements on a 7-point Likert

scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Secondly, the adapted scale from Spears and Singh (2004) was used and consisted of five

statements. This scale was used in order to investigate consuming intention more extensively.

More specifically, the statements were: ‘I definitely have the intention to consume this product’;

‘I have an interest to consume this product’; ‘There is a strong likelihood that I would consume

this product’; ‘I probably would consume this product’, and ‘I am willing to consume this

product’. The participants could answer on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree,

7 = strongly agree). The combined scales of consuming intention for all products (i.e., yoghurt,

breakfast cereal, jam, and soup) showed a high internal consistency (yoghurt: α = .96; breakfast

cereal α = .97; jam α = . 97; and soup α = .98).

3.6 Measure moderating variable

The moderating variable, health consciousness, was measured based on the health

consciousness scale of Hong (2009). This scale is divided into three dimensions, namely self-

health awareness, personal responsibility, and health motivation, and consisted of 11 items (e.g.,

‘I’m concerned about my health all the time’, and ‘I take responsibility for the state of my

health’). These 11 items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 =

strongly agree), and participants could indicate which answer was most applicable to them. The

scale of health consciousness had a Cronbach's Alpha of .80. In total, 55 participants (46.6%)


25

were classified as being health unconscious, and 63 participants (53.4%) as being health

conscious.

3.7 Control variable

A randomization check was carried out in order to examine whether the variables age,

gender, and education levels appeared to be covariables. The results showed that gender had a

significant effect on the relationship between health claims on front-of-pack food labels and

consuming intention (F(2, 147) = 3.33, p = .039). More specifically, gender appeared to be a

covariate, and functioned as a control variable in the analysis.

3.8 Pilot Test

A pretest was carried out in order to investigate whether mistakes were made in the

questionnaire and if all the questions were perceived and understood as intended. The pretest was

done by sending the Qualtrics link to two different participants (i.e., one male and one female).

After the pretest was carried out, the feedback was incorporated and the questionnaire was

improved. Thereafter, the Qualtrics link was shared on the aforementioned social media

platforms.

3.9 Analysis plan

All analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics in order to test the hypotheses. Before

starting the actual analyses, the data had to be cleaned. More specifically, people who did not

completely fill out the survey (N = 72), declined to take part in the survey (N = 2), who indicated

that they were younger than 18 years old (N = 10), or completed the survey in less than four


26

minutes (N = 32) were removed from the data. Thereafter, the reliability of the different scales

(i.e., consuming intention, and health consciousness) was tested by determining the Cronbach's

Alpha (α). After testing the reliability of the different scales, the different items were computed

into five distinct variables. As aforementioned, gender appeared to be a covariate, therefore, a

Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) was used to examine the hypotheses.

The first hypothesis, H1, was examined by merging the no added sugar and organic

claim into one health claim variable. This was done in order to examine whether there was a

significant difference in consuming intention between participants who were exposed to a health

claim (no added sugar or organic) on a front-of-pack food label and participants who did not

encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label. Then, the two health claims were

examined separately in different hypotheses (H1a and H1b). More specifically, H1a examined

consumers’ consuming intention when presented with a no added sugar claim on a front-of-pack

food label, and H1b examined consumers’ consuming intention when presented with an organic

claim on a front-of-pack food label.

Hypotheses H2a and H2c were examined by comparing the participants (i.e., health

unconscious (H2a) or health conscious (H2c)) who were either exposed to a no added sugar

claim on a front-of-pack food label with participants who did not encounter a health claim on the

front-of-pack food label. On the other hand, the hypotheses H2b and H2d were examined by

comparing the participants (i.e., health unconscious (H2b) or health conscious (H2d)) who either

saw an organic claim on a front-of-pack food label with participant who did not encounter a

health claim on a front-of-pack food label.


27

4. Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics

The descriptive statistics per condition can be seen in Table 1. More specifically, the

means and standard deviations for all the different products in the different conditions are shown.

In the next two paragraphs, the results are discussed in detail.

4.2 The effect of health claims on consuming intention

First, the required assumptions were examined for this analysis. The majority of the

assumptions were met. However, the Levene’s test for the product breakfast cereals showed a

significant main effect (p = .004) among the independent groups for the covariate. Therefore, the

results have to be interpreted with caution.

The first hypothesis, H1, predicted that participants who were exposed to a health claim

(i.e., no added sugar or organic) on a front-of-pack food label would have a higher consuming

intention of the advertised products, than participants who were not exposed to a health claim on

Average

age

Total

females

Total males N

No claim 27 36 7 43

No added sugar 30 30 11 41

Organic 29 25 9 34

Total 29 91 27 118

Table 1: Descriptive statistics per condition


28

a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition). On average, participants who were exposed to

a health claim (i.e., no added sugar or organic) on a front-of-pack food label of the advertised

products had a higher consuming intention (yoghurt M = 4.14, SD = 1.69; breakfast cereals

M = 3.80, SD = 1.76; jam M = 3.81, SD 1.69; soup M = 3.44, SD = 1.66) than participants who

did not encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (control condition) (yoghurt

M = 4.02, SD = 1.44; breakfast cereals M = 4.19, SD = 1.26; jam M = 4.22, SD = 1.46, soup

M = 3.94, SD = 1.74). However, this difference was not significant in the intention to consume

yoghurt (F(2, 114) = .23, p = .794), breakfast cereals (F(2, 114) = .91, p = .407), jam (F(2, 114)

= 1.38, p = .257), and soup (F(2, 114) = 1.37, p = .258). Furthermore, the covariable gender

showed a significant relation with jam (F(1, 114) = 3.96, p = .049, partial 2 = .03).1 This

indicates that participants who came across a health claim on a front-of-pack food label did not

have a higher consuming intention compared to participants who did not encounter a health

claim on a front-of-pack food label (control condition) Therefore, hypothesis H1 is rejected.

Hypothesis H1a assumed that participants who were exposed to a no added sugar claim

on a front-of-pack food label would have a higher consuming intention of the advertised

products, than participants who were not exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label

(i.e., control condition). On average, however, participants who encountered a no added sugar

claim on a front-of-pack food label showed a lower consuming intention of the advertised

products (yoghurt M = 4.22, SD = 1.65; breakfast cereals M = 3.95, SD = 1.69; jam M = 3.59,

SD 1.78; soup M = 3.30, SD = 1.67) compared to participants who did not come across a health

claim (control condition) (yoghurt M = 4.02, SD = 1.44; breakfast cereals M = 4.19, SD = 1.26;

1Additional analysis was done in order to investigate whether women had a significantly higher consuming intention

of the product jam compared to men. A significant difference was found between condition and gender on jam,

however, there was no interaction between condition and gender on jam (F(2, 112) = 1.28, p = .283).


29

jam M = 4.22, SD = 1.46, soup M = 3.94, SD = 1.74). The MANCOVA revealed that this was not

a significant difference in the intention to consume yoghurt (p = 1.000), breakfast cereal

(p = 1.000), jam (p = .343), and soup (p = .303). Specifically, there is no significant difference in

consuming intention between participants who encountered a no added sugar claim compared to

participants who did not come across a health claim (control condition) on a front-of-pack food

label. Consequently, the lack of a significant effect leads to the rejection of hypothesis H1a.

Lastly, hypothesis H1b hypothesized that participants who were exposed to an organic

claim on a front-of-pack food label would have a higher consuming intention of the advertised

products, than participants who were not exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label

(i.e., control condition). On average, however, it was found that participants who did not

encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label had a higher consuming intention of the

advertised products (yoghurt M = 4.02, SD = 1.44; breakfast cereals M = 4.19, SD = 1.26; jam

M = 4.22, SD = 1.46, soup M = 3.94, SD = 1.74) than participants who came across an organic

claim (yoghurt M = 4.06, SD = 1.73; breakfast cereals M = 3.65, SD = 1.82; jam M = 4.02,

SD = 1.60; soup M = 3.58, SD = 1.64). The results of the MANCOVA showed that this was not a

significant difference in the intention to consume yoghurt (p = 1.000); breakfast cereals

(p = .546); jam (p = 1.000); and soup (p = 1.000). The lack of significant effects leads to

hypothesis H1b to be rejected. This indicates that participants who saw an organic claim on a

front-of-pack food label did not have a higher consuming intention compared to participants who

did not see a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (control condition).


30

4.3 The moderating role of consumers’ health consciousness

The moderating role of consumers’ health consciousness on the relationship between

health claims on front-of-pack food labels and consuming intention was examined.

Hypothesis H2 predicted that there was an interaction effect on the degree of health

consciousness on the effect of health claims on front-of-pack food labels of the advertised

products and consumers’ consuming intention. The MANCOVA indicated that there was no

interaction effect on the degree of health consciousness on the effect of health claims on front-of-

pack food labels on the intention to consume yoghurt (F(2, 111) = .49, p = .617), breakfast

cereals (F(2, 111) = .96, p = .387), jam (F(2, 111) = .31, p = .733), and soup (F(2, 111) = 1.66,

p = .195). More concretely, the effect of health claims on front-of-pack food labels on

consumers’ consuming intention is not moderated by the degree of health consciousness of the

participants. Accordingly, hypothesis H2 was rejected as no significant interaction effect was

found.

Hypothesis H2a assumed that health unconscious participants who were exposed to a no

added sugar claim on a front-of-pack food label would have a higher consuming intention of the

advertised products than health unconscious participants who were not exposed to a health claim

on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition). However, on average, participants who

were exposed to a no added sugar claim on a front-of-pack food label had a lower consuming

intention of the advertised products (yoghurt M = 4.05, SD = 1.23; breakfast cereals M = 3.75,

SD = 1.68; jam M = 3.30, SD = 1.72; soup M = 3.76, SD = 1.43) than participants who did not

encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (control condition) (yoghurt M = 4.21,

SD = 1.10; breakfast cereals M = 4.20, SD = 1.06; jam M = 4.05, SD = 1.46; soup M = 4.06,

SD = 1.25). Nevertheless, the MANOVA did not indicate this as a significant difference in the


31

intention to consume yoghurt (p = 1.000), breakfast cereals (p = 1.000), jam (p = 1.000), and

soup (p = 1.000). This indicates that health unconscious participants do not differ in their

consuming intention when either exposed to a no added sugar claim or when no health claim

was presented on a front-of-pack food label. Therefore, the lack of a significant effect leads to

the rejection of hypothesis H2a.

Hypothesis H2b hypothesized that health unconscious participants who were exposed to

an organic claim on a front-of-pack food label would have a higher consuming intention of the

advertised products, compared to health unconscious participants who were not exposed to a

health claim on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition). However, on average, health

unconscious participants who encountered an organic claim on a front-of-pack food label had a

lower consuming intention of the advertised products (yoghurt M = 3.94, SD = 1.62; breakfast

cereals M = 3.72, SD = 1.73; jam M = 4.36, SD = 1.40; soup M = 3.58, SD = 1.72) than health

unconscious participants who were not exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label

(yoghurt M = 4.21, SD = 1.10; breakfast cereals M = 4.20, SD = 1.06; jam M = 4.05, SD = 1.46;

soup M = 4.06, SD = 1.25). However, this difference was not significant in the intention to

consume yoghurt (p = 1.000), breakfast cereals (p = .178), jam (p = 1.000), and soup (p = .881).

This means that health unconscious participants who were exposed to an organic claim did not

differ significantly from health unconscious participants who were not exposed to a health claim

on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition). This lack of significant effects leads to

hypothesis H2b to be rejected.

Hypothesis H2c predicted that health conscious participants who were exposed to a no

added sugar claim on a front-of-pack food label have a similar consuming intention of the

advertised products, as health conscious participants who were not exposed to a health claim on a


32

front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition). On average, health conscious participants who

encountered a no added sugar claim on a front-of-pack food label had a lower consuming

intention of the advertised products (yoghurt M = 4.43, SD = 1.84; breakfast cereals M = 3.93,

SD = 1.78; jam M = 3.89, SD = 1.90; soup M = 3.12, SD = 1.81) compared to health conscious

participants who were not exposed to a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (control

condition) (yoghurt M = 3.92, SD = 1.59; breakfast cereals M = 4.21, SD = 1.41; jam M = 4.29,

SD = 1.71; soup M = 3.89, SD = 2.05). The results of the MANCOVA showed that there was no

significant difference on the intention to consume yoghurt (p = .808), breakfast cereals

(p = 1.000), jam (p = .614), and soup (p = .133). This indicated that hypothesis H2c can be

accepted as health conscious participants have a similar consuming intention of the advertised

product when exposed to either a no added sugar claim or when no health claim was presented

(i.e., control condition).

Lastly, hypothesis H2d assumed that health conscious participants who were exposed to

an organic claim on a front-of-pack food label would have a similar consuming intention of the

advertised products, as health conscious participants who were not exposed to a health claim on a

front-of-pack food label (i.e., control condition). On average, health conscious participants who

were exposed to an organic claim on a front-of-pack food label had a higher consuming intention

of the advertised products (yoghurt M = 4.13, SD = 1.65; breakfast cereals M = 4.32, SD = 1.71;

jam M = 4.08, SD = 1.60, soup M = 4.07, SD = 1.71) than health conscious participants who did

not encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (control condition) (yoghurt M = 3.92,

SD = 1.59; breakfast cereals M = 4.21, SD = 1.41; jam M = 4.29, SD = 1.71; soup M = 3.89,

SD = 2.05). The MANCOVA indicated that this was not a significant difference in the intention

to consume yoghurt (p = 1.000), breakfast cereals (p = 1.000), jam (p = 1.000), and soup


33

(p = 1.000). More specifically, there is no significant difference in consuming intention between

health conscious participants who came across an organic claim on a front-of-pack food label

compared to health conscious participants who did not encounter a health claim on a front-of-

pack food label. Accordingly, hypothesis H2d can be accepted, as it was shown that health

conscious participants have a similar consuming intention of the advertised product when they

encountered either an organic claim or no health claim (i.e., control condition).


34

5. Discussion

The present study sought to investigate the effects health claims on front-of-pack food

labels could have on consumers’ consuming intention, and whether this effect was moderated by

consumers’ degree of health consciousness. In order to generate valid answers to the proposed

hypotheses, an online questionnaire was designed, and shared on different social media platforms

(i.e., LinkedIn, Facebook, WhatsApp) to reach a wider population. Participants were randomly

assigned to one of the experimental conditions. More specifically, participants encountered either

a health claim (i.e., no added sugar or organic) on a front-of-pack food label or did not see any

health claim on a front-of-pack food label (control condition). By way of this, consumers’

consuming intention was assessed by presenting participants with different food products (i.e.,

yoghurt, breakfast cereals, jam, and soup) and related questions were asked. Additionally,

questions relating to the participants’ degree of health consciousness were presented.

The main conclusion of this investigation was that health claims on front-of-pack food

labels do not have a significant effect on consumers’ consuming intention. Moreover, the

moderating role of consumers’ degree of health consciousness could not be proved by the

performed analysis. More specifically, the degree of consumers’ health consciousness does not

moderate the relationship between health claims on front-of-pack food labels and consumers’

consuming intention.

5.1 The effect of health claims on front-of-pack food labels

Previous studies described the effect health claims on front-of-pack food labels could

have concerning consumers’ food intake (Lea & Worsley, 2005; Provencer, Polivy, & Herman,

2009; Schuldt & Schwarz, 2010; Ikonen, Sotgiu, Aydinli, & Verlegh, 2019), for instance, higher


35

food intake (Schuldt & Schwarz, 2010). Therefore, based on previous literature, it was assumed

that participants who were exposed to a health claim (i.e., no added sugar or organic) on a front-

of-pack food label would have a higher consuming intention of the advertised products than

participants who did not encounter a health claim on a front-of-pack food label (i.e., control

condition). However, the results showed that there was no significant effect of health claims on

front-of-pack food labels and consumers’ consuming intention. More specifically, the lack of

significant effects led to a rejection of the hypotheses H1, H1a, and H1b.

These results are not in line with previous literature, which stated that consumers are

more inclined to consume higher amounts of the advertised product when promoted as being

healthy (e.g., Provencer, Polivy, & Herman, 2009; Schuldt & Schwarz (2010). Additionally, the

findings of the current study are not in line with the Processing of Commercial Media Content

(PCMC) theory, in which it is discussed that consumers process persuasive media content in

different ways (i.e., systematic, heuristic, and automatic) and that it could lead to changes in

consuming behavior (Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, & Owen, 2010). Based on the current findings,

it can be concluded that there are no significant differences in how consumers process health

claims (i.e., media content) on front-of-pack food labels.

A possible explanation for not finding significant results might be that this study was

done through an online questionnaire. Participants were asked to imagine doing grocery

shopping in a supermarket, however, this method could not replicate a real shopping

environment (Talati et al., 2016). More specifically, when consumers are in a real shopping

environment, they might be more engaged in the decision-making process, as consumers have to

decide on the spot which product to buy (Talati et al., 2016). Therefore, for future research, it


36

would be beneficial to replicate this study in a real shopping environment in order to study real

behavioral activity. Moreover, this method would increase the ecological validity of the study.

5.2 The moderating role of health consciousness

Building on previous literature, it was expected that the degree of consumers’ health

consciousness could perform as a moderator in the relationship between health claims on front-

of-pack food labels and consumers’ consuming intention. This was in agreement with findings

that support the notion that individuals differ in consuming intention of a particular product

(Michaelidou & Hassan, 2008), and that consumers behave differently, according to the

Differential Susceptibility to Media Effects (DSMM) theory, towards commercial media content

(i.e., health claims) (Valkenburg & Peter, 2013). The assumption of this moderating effect was

proposed in different hypotheses (i.e., H2, H2a, H2b, H2c, and H2d).

The analysis did not confirm the moderating role of health consciousness on the

relationship of health claims on front-of-pack food labels and consumers’ consuming intention.

A possible explanation for not finding significant effects might be that participants did not have

an affinity with the different products (i.e., yoghurt, breakfast cereals, jam, and soup) they

encountered during the online survey. Therefore, future research might explore the effects of

different food types.

5.3 Limitations, future research, and strengths

Apart from the aforementioned deficiencies, several other limitations of the current study

can be distinguished concerning the reliability and generalizability of the results. Firstly, the

claims on the front-of-pack food labels (i.e., no added sugar and organic) may not have been


37

recognized by the participants, which can offer an explanation for not finding significant effects.

More specifically, it was not communicated beforehand that the health claims were the target of

this investigation, and on which participants had to focus. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to

use neuroimaging techniques (e.g., fMRI) or eye-tracking in future research in order to determine

which specific attributes of the package consumers focus on (Venkatraman, 2015; Wicherts et

al., 2016). Especially with eye-tracking, it could be determined which elements of the front-of-

pack food label consumers focus their attention on (Venkatraman, 2015). This method can

enhance the validity and reliability of the data (Billingsley-Marshall, Simons, & Papanicolaou,

2010).

Another explanation for not finding significant results might be that the sample size was

relatively small. More specifically, this is also concerns the generalizability of the results. The

aim was to reach 150 participants, thus 50 participants per condition. However, while 234

participants started filling out the survey, merely 118 participants remained and were taken into

account for this analysis. This is due to that participants who did not completely fill out the

survey (N = 72), declined to take part in the survey (N = 2), who indicated that they were

younger than 18 years old (N = 10), or participants who filled out the survey in less than four

minutes (N = 32), were removed from the data. This resulted in an unequal number of

participants in each condition (i.e, 43 participants in the no claim condition, 41 participants in the

no added sugar condition, and 34 participants in the organic condition). This has also led to an

unequal division in health conscious participants (N = 63) and health unconscious participants

(N = 55). This relatively small sample size could be an explanation for not finding significant

effects. Therefore, replication of this study with a larger sample size would be worthwhile, as a

larger sample size has more strength to detect effects (Field, 2013).


38

A possible clarification for the reasonable amount of participants that did not completely

fill out the survey (N = 72) and participants who filled out the survey in less than four minutes

(N = 32), could be that the questions of the survey were not completely understood by the

participants or were too similar. Also, the length of the survey (approximately 10 minutes) could

have been a reason for not completely filling out the survey.

Lastly, in this study, only food products were investigated (i.e., yoghurt, breakfast

cereals, jam, and soup). Future research could expand this by investigating beverages (Yang &

Chiou, 2010). More specifically, beverages containing sugar contribute to the increasing obesity

problem, which is a threat to the general health conditions of the world population. Therefore, it

would be interesting to investigate what influence health claims (e.g., no added sugar and

organic) on beverages might have on consumers’ consuming intention. Many studies have

investigated different food products (e.g., Vyth et al., 2009; Feunekes et al., 2008; Wasowicz-

Kirylo & Stysko-Kunkowska, 2011), however, there is a lack in research that examined

beverages.

Besides the limitations of the current study, on the other hand, this investigation also

contained several strengths. For instance, consumers’ consuming intention was assessed by way

of different food products (i.e., yoghurt, breakfast cereals, jam, and soup) which were all from a

different product category. This could have given insight into possible differential effects

between these product categories (Talati et al., 2016), and there would be a higher chance that

participants would be familiar with at least one of the four products. Besides, both consumers’

consuming intention as the degree of health consciousness was measured on two reliable scales,

both consisting of multiple items. Lastly, the experiment was employed double-blinded, in order

to avoid experimenter expectancy effects during the collection of the data (Rosenthal, 1966).


39

5.4 Implications

Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations of this present study, this investigation

contributes to the academic field of consumer behavior. More specifically, it was possible to test

whether there was a relationship between health claims on front-of-pack food labels and

consuming intention and whether this was moderated by the degree of health consciousness. It

can be concluded that consumers (either health conscious or unconscious) do not differ in

consuming intention when encountering a health claim (i.e., no added sugar or organic) on a

front-of-pack food label compared to consumers who do not encounter a health claim. This

might indicate that consumers might not strongly base their decision on health claims on front-

of-pack food labels, as found by different scholars (e.g., Feunekes et al., 2008).

A practical implication for companies might be to investigate other forms of healthy food

promotion, as the results implied that healthy food claims (i.e., no added sugar or organic) do

not increase the consuming intention of consumers. Future research, which could be based on the

PCMC and DSMM model, could use the findings of the current study in order to investigate

whether other health claims could have an effect on the promotion of healthy foods.


40

References

Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on

advertising evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 538-555.

Bernstein, J., Franco-Arellano, B., Schermel, A., Labonté, M. E., & L’Abbé, M. R. (2017).

Healthfulness and nutritional composition of Canadian prepackaged foods with and

without sugar claims. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 42(11), 1217-

1224.

Boyland, E. J., Nolan, S., Kelly, B., Tudur-Smith, C., Jones, A., Halford, J. C. G., & Robinson,

E. (2016). Advertising as a cue to consume: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the

effects of acute exposure to unhealthy food and nonalcoholic beverage advertising on

intake in children and adults. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 103(2), 519-

533.

Billingsley-Marshall, R. L., Simons, P. G., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2010). Reliability and

validity of functional neuroimaging techniques for identifying language-critical areas in

children and adults. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(2), 541-563.

Buijzen, M., Van Reijmersdal, E., & Owen, L. (2010). Introducing the PCMC Model: An

Investigative Framework for Young People's Processing of Commercialized Media

Content. Communication Theory, 20(4), 427-450.

Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York:

Guilford Press.


41

Cheyne, C. L., & Ritter, F. E. (2001). Targeting audiences on the internet. Communication of the

ACM, 44(4), 94–98.

Federici, C., Detzel, P., Petracca, F., Dainelli, L., & Fattore, G. (2019). The impact of food

reformulation on nutrient intakes and health, a systematic review of modelling studies.

BMC Nutrition, 5(2), 1-21.

Festila, A., Chrysochou, P., & Krystallis, A. (2014). Consumer response to food labels in an

emerging market: the case of Romania. International Journal of Consumer Studies,

38(2), 166-174.

Feunekes, G. I. J., Gortemaker, I. A., Willems, A. A., Lion, R., & van den Kommer, M., (2008).

Front-of-pack nutrition labelling: testing effectiveness of different nutrition labelling

formats front-of-pack in four European countries. Appetite, 50(1), 57-70.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Global Burden of Disease Study 2013 Collaborators (2015). Global, regional, and national

incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 301 acute and chronic diseases

and injuries in 188 countries, 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the global burden of

disease study 2013. The Lancet, 386(9995), 743-800.

Grunert, K. G., & Wills, J. M. (2007). A review of European research on consumer response to

nutrition information and food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15(5), 385-399.


42

Hong, H. (2009). Scale development for measuring health consciousness: re-conceptualization.

Retrieved from https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-

content/uploads/ScaleDvlpmentMeasuring.pdf

Ikonen, I., Sotgiu, F., Aydinli, A., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2019). Consumer effects of front-of-

package nutrition labeling: an interdisciplinary meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 1-24.

Kelly (2014). Jam, wat is het? Is jam gezond? Retrieved from

https://dieetvandaag.nl/5273/2014/12/27/jam-wat-is-het-is-jam-gezond/

Lea, E., & Worsley, A. (2005). Australians’ organic food beliefs, demographics and values.

British Food Journal, 107(11), 855-869.

Levin, A. M., & Levin, I. P. (2010). Packaging of healthy and unhealthy food products for

children and parents: The relative influence of licensed characters and brand names.

Journal of Consumer Behavior, 9(5), 393-402.

Magkos, F., Arvaniti, F., & Zampelas, A. (2003) Organic food: nutritious food or food for

thought? A review of the evidence. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition,

54(5), 357-371.

Meier, M. (2019). Is soup actually a healthy dinner? Retrieved from

https://www.kidspot.com.au/health/family-health/seasonal-health/is-soup-actually-a-

healthy-dinner/news-story/ce33c55b551d4191a270239dd8fc591f

https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-%09content/uploads/ScaleDvlpmentMeasuring.pdf

https://www.instituteforpr.org/wp-%09content/uploads/ScaleDvlpmentMeasuring.pdf

https://dieetvandaag.nl/5273/2014/12/27/jam-wat-is-het-is-jam-gezond/

https://www.kidspot.com.au/health/family-health/seasonal-health/is-soup-actually-a-%09healthy-dinner/news-story/ce33c55b551d4191a270239dd8fc591f

https://www.kidspot.com.au/health/family-health/seasonal-health/is-soup-actually-a-%09healthy-dinner/news-story/ce33c55b551d4191a270239dd8fc591f


43

Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008). The role of health consciousness, food safety concern

and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International

Journal of Consumer Studies, 32(2), 163–170.

National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (2016). Food Reformulation. Retrieved

from https://www.rivm.nl/en/food-reformulation

Orquin, J. L., & Scholderer, J. (2015). Consumer judgments of explicit and implied health claims

on foods: Misguided but not misled. Food Policy, 51, 144-157.

Patterson, N. J., Sadler, M. J. & Cooper, J. M. (2012). Consumer understanding of sugars claims

on food and drink products. Nutrition Bulletin, 37(2),. 121-130).

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary

approaches (new ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Provencher, V., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2009). Perceived healthiness of food. If it's healthy,

you can eat more! Appetite, 52(2), 340-344.

Rosenthal, R. (1966). Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York, NY: Appleton-

Century-Crofts.

Schuldt, J. P., & Schwarz, N. (2010). The “organic” path to obesity? Organic claims influence

calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(3),

144-150.

https://www.rivm.nl/en/food-reformulation


44

Sharma, L. L., Teret, S. P., & Brownell, K. D. (2010). The food industry and self-regulation:

Standards to promote success and to avoid public health failures. American Journal of

Public Health, 100(2), 240-246.

Smith-Spangler, C., Brandeau, M. L., Hunter, G. E., Bavinger, J. C., Pearson, M., Eschbach, P.

J.,... Bravata, D. M. (2012). Are organic foods safer or healthier than conventional

alternatives? Annals of Internal Medicine, 157(5), 348-366.

Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions.

Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.

Talati, Z., Pettigrew, S., Dixon, H., Neal, B., Ball, K., & Hughes, C. (2016). Do health claims

and front-of-pack labels lead to a positivity bias in unhealthy foods? Nutrients, 8(12),

1-18.

Temme, E. H. M., van der Voet, H., Roodenburg, A. J. C., Bulder, A., van Donkersgoed, G., &

van Klaveren, J. (2010). Impact of foods with health logo on saturated fat, sodium and

sugar intake of young Dutch adults. Public Health Nutrition, 14(4), 635-644.

The International Food & Beverage Alliance (2011). The International Food and Beverage

Alliance’s Five Commitments to Action in support of the World Health Organization’s

2004 Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health. Retrieved from

https://ifballiance.org/uploads/ifbaResource/report/IFBA_Progress_Report_2009-2010_-

_Executive_Summary.pdf

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model.

Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221-243.

https://ifballiance.org/uploads/ifbaResource/report/IFBA_Progress_Report_2009-2010_-%09_Executive_Summary.pdf

https://ifballiance.org/uploads/ifbaResource/report/IFBA_Progress_Report_2009-2010_-%09_Executive_Summary.pdf


45

Venkatraman, V., Dimoka, A., Pavlou, P. A., Vo, K., Hampton, W., Bollinger, B., Hershfield, H.

E., Ishihara, M., Winer, R. (2015). Predicting advertising success beyond traditional

measures: new insights from neurophysiological methods and market response modeling.

Journal of Marketing Research, 52(4), 436-452.

Volksgezondheidenzorg.info (2019). Trend overgewicht volwassenen. Retrieved from

https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/overgewicht/cijfers-

context/trends#node-trend-overgewicht-volwassenen

Vyth, E. L., Steenhuis, I., Mallant, S. F., Mol, Z. L., Brug, J., Temminghoff, M., Feunekes, G. I.,

Jansen, L., Verhagen, H., & Seidell, J. (2009). A front-of-pack nutrition logo: a

quantitative and qualitative process evaluation in the Netherlands. Journal of Health

Communication, 14(7), 631-645.

Vyth, E. L., Steenhuis, I. H. M., Roodenburg, A. J. C., Brug, J., & Seidell, J. C. (2010). Front-of-

pack nutrition label stimulates healthier product development: a quantitative analysis.

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 7(65), 1-7.

Wasowicz-Kirylo, G., & Stysko-Kunkowska, M. (2011). Attributes of nutritional information

labelling that determine attractiveness of labels and correctness of inferences made about

food healthfulness. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 722-728.

World Health Organization (2013). Global action plan for the prevention and control of NCDs

2013-2020. Retrieved from

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/94384/9789241506236_eng.pdf?sequenc

e=1

https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/overgewicht/cijfers-%09context/trends#node-trend-overgewicht-volwassenen

https://www.volksgezondheidenzorg.info/onderwerp/overgewicht/cijfers-%09context/trends#node-trend-overgewicht-volwassenen

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195666307003066#bbib33

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/94384/9789241506236_eng.pdf?sequenc%09e=1

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/94384/9789241506236_eng.pdf?sequenc%09e=1


46

World Health Organization (2019). Essential Nutrition Actions: mainstreaming nutrition

throughout the life-course. Retrieved from

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/9789241515856-eng.pdf

Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L. S., Augusteijn, H. E. M., Bakker, M., van Aert, R. C. M., &

van Assen, M. A. L. M. (2016). Degree of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and

reporting psychological studies: a checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers of Psychology,

7(1832), 1-12.

Williams, C. M. (2002). Nutritional quality of organic food: shades of grey or shades of green?

Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 61(1), 19-24.

Yach, D., Khan, M., Bradley, D., Hargrove, R., Kehoe, S., & Mensah, G. (2010). The role and

challenges of the food industry in addressing chronic disease. Globalization and Health,

6(10), 1-8.

Yang, C. C., & Chiou, W. B. (2010). Substitution of healthy for unhealthy beverages among

college students. A health-concerns and behavioral-economics perspective. Appetite,

54(3), 512-516.

Yokum, S., Gearhardt, A. N., Harris, J. L., Brownell, K. D., & Stice, E. (2014). Individual

differences in striatum activity to food commercials predict weight gain in adolescents.

Obesity (Silver Spring), 22(12), 2544-2551.

https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/9789241515856-eng.pdf


47

Appendices


48

Appendix A: Questionnaire

The questionnaire started off with this question:

Are you 18 years old or older?

• Yes, I am 18 years old or older

• No, I am younger than 18 years old

Both the scales of consuming intention and health consciousness are measured on a 7-point

Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Consuming intention (Baker & Churchill, 1977; Spears & Singh, 2004).

• I would like to try this product

• I would consume this product

• I would actively seek out this product in a store in order to consume it

• I definitely have the intention to consume this product

• I have an interest to consume this product

• There is a strong likelihood that I would consume this product

• I probably would consume this product

• I am willing to consume this product.

Health consciousness scale (Hong, 2009).

• I’m very self-conscious about my health.

• I’m generally attentive to my inner feelings about my health.


49

• I reflect about my health a lot.

• I’m concerned about my health all the time.

• I notice how I feel physically as I go through the day.

• I take responsibility for the state of my health.

• Good health takes active participation on my part.

• I only worry about my health when I get sick.

• Living life without disease and illness is very important to me.

• My health depends on how well I take care of myself.

• Living life in the best possible health is very important to me.

Demographic questions

What is your gender?

• Male

• Female

How old are you?

………...

What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If you are currently enrolled in a

degree please indicate highest degree received at this moment.

• Less than high school

• High school graduate

• Vocational education (MBO)

• Higher vocational education (HBO)


50

• Premaster

• University bachelor’s degree

• University master’s degree

• Doctorate/postdoctoral

Control question

You just saw different products, please indicate which statement applies you

• I saw products with no specific label on the package.

• I saw products with a no added sugar label on the package.

• I saw products with an organic label on the package.


51

Appendix B: Informed Consent


52

Appendix C: Experimental conditions

Figure 4: Control condition

Figure 5: No added sugar condition


53

Figure 6: Organic condition

Don’t Judge a Product by its Cover!

Documents

Transcript of Don’t Judge a Product by its Cover!