IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jconsa/v48y2014i3p620-633.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do They Have Your Number? Understanding the Moderating Role of Format Effects and Consumer Numeracy for Quantitative Front-of-Package Nutrition Claims

Author

Listed:
  • ANDREA H. TANGARI
  • SCOT BURTON
  • CASSANDRA DAVIS

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="joca12041-abs-0001"> Front-of-package (FOP) nutrient content claims are often used by food manufacturers to promote the nutrition levels of their products. In this research, two studies examine the influence of the numerical format (either percentages or absolute numbers) presented on FOP-reduced nutrient content claims and the moderating influence of consumers' numeracy levels (i.e., consumers' ability to interpret numbers). Low numerate consumers are more strongly influenced by the label's numerical format, but results differ across nutrition attributes linked to cardiovascular disease risk. For saturated fat, low numerate consumers had more favorable evaluations of the product that had a label presented in a percent format compared to an absolute unit format. In contrast, the moderating effect of numeracy had little effect on the format of reduced sodium claims. Implications are offered for policymakers, consumer researchers, and food manufacturers .

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea H. Tangari & Scot Burton & Cassandra Davis, 2014. "Do They Have Your Number? Understanding the Moderating Role of Format Effects and Consumer Numeracy for Quantitative Front-of-Package Nutrition Claims," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 620-633, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jconsa:v:48:y:2014:i:3:p:620-633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/joca.12041
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven W. Kopp, 2012. "Defining and Conceptualizing Product Literacy," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 190-203, June.
    2. Mario Pandelaere & Barbara Briers & Christophe Lembregts, 2011. "How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: The Unit Effect in Option Comparisons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 308-322.
    3. Natalie Ross Adkins & Julie L. Ozanne, 2005. "The Low Literate Consumer," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 32(1), pages 93-105, June.
    4. Scot Burton & Andrea H. Tangari & Elizabeth Howlett & Anna M. Turri, 2014. "How the Perceived Healthfulness of Restaurant Menu Items Influences Sodium and Calorie Misperceptions: Implications for Nutrition Disclosures in Chain Restaurants," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 62-95, March.
    5. M. Pandelaere & B. Briers, 2011. "How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: Numerosity Effects in Option Comparisons," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 11/712, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    6. Burton, S. & Creyer, E.H. & Kees, J. & Huggins, K., 2006. "Attacking the obesity epidemic: The potential health benefits of providing nutrition information in restaurants," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(9), pages 1669-1675.
    7. Sophie Hieke & Charles R. Taylor, 2012. "A Critical Review of the Literature on Nutritional Labeling," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 120-156, March.
    8. Aparna A. Labroo & Ravi Dhar & Norbert Schwarz, 2008. "Of Frog Wines and Frowning Watches: Semantic Priming, Perceptual Fluency, and Brand Evaluation," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(6), pages 819-831, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Judy Harris & Veronica L. Thomas, 2017. "The Influence of Bundling and Caloric Knowledge on Calories Ordered and Purchase Intent," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 113-132, March.
    2. Andrews, J. Craig & Netemeyer, Richard & Burton, Scot & Kees, Jeremy, 2021. "What consumers actually know: The role of objective nutrition knowledge in processing stop sign and traffic light front-of-pack nutrition labels," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 140-155.
    3. STANTON, John L & BAGLIONE, Stephen & SALNIKOVA, Ekaterina, 2023. "The Effect of Positive and Negative Nutrition/Health Advertising Label Claims on Intention to Buy," Holistic Marketing Management Journal, Holistic Marketing Management, vol. 13(2), pages 9-23, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pierrick Gomez & Carolina O. C. Werle & Olivier Corneille, 2017. "The pitfall of nutrition facts label fluency: easier-to-process nutrition information enhances purchase intentions for unhealthy food products," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 15-27, March.
    2. Ohlwein, Martin, 2022. "Same but different - The effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    5. C. Lembregts & M. Pandelaere, 2012. "Are All Units Created Equal?: The Effect of Default Units on Product Evaluations," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 12/812, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:2:p:214-222 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Rodrigo Aranda & Michael Darden & Donald Rose, 2021. "Measuring the impact of calorie labeling: The mechanisms behind changes in obesity," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(11), pages 2858-2878, November.
    8. Cadario, Romain & Parguel, Béatrice & Benoit-Moreau, Florence, 2016. "Is bigger always better? The unit effect in carbon emissions information," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 204-207.
    9. Jonathan W. Leland & Mark Schneider, 2016. "Salience, Framing, and Decisions under Risk, Uncertainty, and Time," Working Papers 16-08, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Arnaud Monnier & Manoj Thomas, 2022. "Experiential and Analytical Price Evaluations: How Experiential Product Description Affects Prices [The Utility of an Information Processing Approach for Behavioral Price Research]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 49(4), pages 574-594.
    11. Santana, Shelle & Thomas, Manoj & Morwitz, Vicki G., 2020. "The Role of Numbers in the Customer Journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 138-154.
    12. Antonio J. Morales & Enrique Fatas, 2021. "Price competition and nominal illusion: experimental evidence and a behavioural model," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 12(4), pages 607-632, December.
    13. Oliver James & Gregg G. Van Ryzin, 2019. "Rates and the Judgment of Government Performance," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    14. Scot Burton & Andrea H. Tangari & Elizabeth Howlett & Anna M. Turri, 2014. "How the Perceived Healthfulness of Restaurant Menu Items Influences Sodium and Calorie Misperceptions: Implications for Nutrition Disclosures in Chain Restaurants," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 62-95, March.
    15. Michal Mijal, 2012. "Computer games in the organization - psychological determinants (Gry komputerowe w organizacji - uwarunkowania psychologiczne)," Problemy Zarzadzania, University of Warsaw, Faculty of Management, vol. 10(38), pages 262-270.
    16. Huang, Wen-Hsien & Cheng, Yi-Ching, 2015. "Threshold free shipping policies for internet shoppers," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 193-203.
    17. Si-Chu Shen & Yuan-Na Huang & Cheng-Ming Jiang & Shu Li, 2019. "Can asymmetric subjective opportunity cost effect explain impatience in intertemporal choice? A replication study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(2), pages 214-222, March.
    18. Marie‐Eve Laporte & Sophie Rieunier & Geraldine Michel, 2020. "When family dining protects against sweet food consumption… and when it does not," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 628-647, June.
    19. Thomas Hagedorn & Jan Wessel, 2022. "How Information on Emissions per Euro Spent can Influence Leisure Travel Decisions," Working Papers 35, Institute of Transport Economics, University of Muenster.
    20. Suk, Kwanho & Hwang, Sanyoung & Jeong, Yunjoo, 2022. "The 1-in-X effect in perceptions of risk likelihood differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    21. Ho, Edward & Kowatsch, Tobias & Ilic, Alexander, 2014. "The Sales Velocity Effect on Retailing," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 237-256.
    22. Fecher, André & Robbert, Thomas & Roth, Stefan, 2020. "Per piece or per kilogram? Default-unit effects in retailing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jconsa:v:48:y:2014:i:3:p:620-633. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-0078 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.