IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jacres/doi10.1086-707929.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Should We Trust Front-of-Package Labels? How Food and Brand Categorization Influence Healthiness Perception and Preference

Author

Listed:
  • Gustavo Schneider
  • Anastasiya Pocheptsova Ghosh

Abstract

Helping consumers make better nutritional choices is an important issue for policy makers and marketers. We examine the role of front-of-package (FOP) labels in guiding consumer preferences toward making healthier choices. We propose that, when consumers have a prior belief that a product/brand is healthy, reading an FOP label on product packaging thus increases consumer trust, as a result of the agentic role companies play in displaying voluntary FOP labels. This enhanced trust has a downstream positive effect on healthiness perceptions and preferences for foods displaying FOP labels. However, because consumers may be suspicious that an unhealthy brand or product displays an FOP label as an attempt to persuade consumers to buy unhealthy products, no comparable positive effects are found when consumers hold a prior belief that a product/brand is unhealthy.

Suggested Citation

  • Gustavo Schneider & Anastasiya Pocheptsova Ghosh, 2020. "Should We Trust Front-of-Package Labels? How Food and Brand Categorization Influence Healthiness Perception and Preference," Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(2), pages 149-161.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jacres:doi:10.1086/707929
    DOI: 10.1086/707929
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/707929
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/707929
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/707929?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    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:ucp:jacres:doi:10.1086/707929. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JACR .

    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.