IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/hal-02479464.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Shopper’s behavioural responses to ‘front-of-pack’ nutrition logo formats: GDA Diet-Logo vs. 6 alternative Choice-Logos

Author

Listed:
  • Laurent Muller

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

  • Bernard Ruffieux

    (GAEL - Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquée de Grenoble - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes - Grenoble INP - Institut polytechnique de Grenoble - Grenoble Institute of Technology - UGA - Université Grenoble Alpes)

Abstract

A Framed Field Experiment was implemented in France in order to compare the relative behavioural responses and then the induced nutritional effectiveness of seven front-of-pack logo formats: The Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA), and six ‘choice logos' such as Green Keyhole or Traffic Lights. From a consumer point of view, while GDA requires a demanding global-diet heuristic, the choice logos require an easy product comparison heuristic. Our six ‘choice logos' are different after 3 criteria: aggregate vs. analytical information, shelf vs. all products point of reference, multicolour logos vs. ‘only green' logos. We measure the effect of each logo on the nutritional quality of actual consumers' shopping baskets in a controlled experimental shop. We use a standard criterion aggregating the overall density of free sugar, saturated fatty acid and salt. We find that different logo formats generate different nutritional impacts. Some choice logos have better nutritional impacts than GDA. Aggregate and multicolour logos induce best responses. Shelf-referenced logos are not more efficient but they trigger very different behavioural trajectories than logos referenced on all-products.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurent Muller & Bernard Ruffieux, 2020. "Shopper’s behavioural responses to ‘front-of-pack’ nutrition logo formats: GDA Diet-Logo vs. 6 alternative Choice-Logos," Working Papers hal-02479464, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:hal-02479464
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-02479464
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-02479464/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    2. Glenn W. Harrison & John A. List, 2004. "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 42(4), pages 1009-1055, December.
    3. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    4. Wansink, Brian & Sonka, Steven T. & Hasler, Clare M., 2004. "Front-label health claims: when less is more," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 659-667, December.
    5. Balcombe, Kelvin & Fraser, Iain & Falco, Salvatore Di, 2010. "Traffic lights and food choice: A choice experiment examining the relationship between nutritional food labels and price," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 211-220, June.
    6. Laurent Muller & Anne Lacroix & Jayson L. Lusk & Bernard Ruffieux, 2017. "Distributional Impacts of Fat Taxes and Thin Subsidies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 127(604), pages 2066-2092, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Muller, L. & Ruffieux, B., 2020. "Shopper’s behavioural responses to ‘front-of-pack’ nutrition logo formats: GDA Diet-Logo vs. 6 alternative Choice-Logos," Working Papers 2020-01, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    2. S. Marette & L. Nabec & F. Durieux, 2019. "Improving Nutritional Quality of Consumers’ Food Purchases With Traffic-Lights Labels: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 377-395, September.
    3. Kim, Junghun & Seung, Hyunchan & Lee, Jongsu & Ahn, Joongha, 2020. "Asymmetric preference and loss aversion for electric vehicles: The reference-dependent choice model capturing different preference directions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    4. Adams, Paul & Hunt, Stefan & Palmer, Christopher & Zaliauskas, Redis, 2021. "Testing the effectiveness of consumer financial disclosure: Experimental evidence from savings accounts," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(1), pages 122-147.
    5. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    6. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    7. Crosetto, P. & Lacroix, A. & Muller, L. & Ruffieux, B., 2018. "Nutritional and economic impact of 5 alternative front-of-pack nutritional labels: experimental evidence," Working Papers 2018-11, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    8. Herriges, Joseph & Kling, Catherine & Liu, Chih-Chen & Tobias, Justin, 2010. "What are the consequences of consequentiality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 67-81, January.
    9. Laura Taylor & Mark Morrison & Kevin Boyle, 2010. "Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(2), pages 197-220, October.
    10. Litvine, Dorian & Gazull, Laurent & Dabat, Marie-Hélène, 2014. "Assessing the potential demand for biofuel by combining Economics and Psychology: A focus on proximity applied to Jatropha oil in Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 85-95.
    11. Stefano DellaVigna & John A. List & Ulrike Malmendier, 2012. "Testing for Altruism and Social Pressure in Charitable Giving," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 127(1), pages 1-56.
    12. Jose Apesteguia & Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, 2010. "Psychological Pressure in Competitive Environments: Evidence from a Randomized Natural Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(5), pages 2548-2564, December.
    13. Christian A. Vossler, 2016. "Chamberlin Meets Ciriacy-Wantrup: Using Insights from Experimental Economics to Inform Stated Preference Research," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(1), pages 33-48, March.
    14. Kip Viscusi, W. & Gayer, Ted, 2016. "Rational Benefit Assessment for an Irrational World: Toward a Behavioral Transfer Test1," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 69-91, April.
    15. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    16. Aoyagi, Keitaro & Sawada, Yasuyuki & Shoji, Masahiro, 2014. "Does Infrastructure Facilitate Social Capital Accumulation? Evidence from Natural and Artefactual Field Experiments in a Developing Country," Working Papers 65, JICA Research Institute.
    17. Swallow, Stephen K. & Anderson, Christopher M. & Uchida, Emi, 2018. "The Bobolink Project: Selling Public Goods From Ecosystem Services Using Provision Point Mechanisms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 236-252.
    18. Chersoni, Giulia & DellaValle, Nives & Fontana, Magda, 2022. "Modelling thermal insulation investment choice in the EU via a behaviourally informed agent-based model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    19. Michel André Maréchal & Christian Thöni, 2019. "Hidden Persuaders: Do Small Gifts Lubricate Business Negotiations?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3877-3888, August.
    20. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren B. Olsen, 2017. "Can a Repeated Opt-Out Reminder remove hypothetical bias in discrete choice experiments? An application to consumer valuation of novel food products," IFRO Working Paper 2017/05, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    FOOD CONSUMPTION; NUTRITIONAL LABELLING; FOOD POLICY; FRAMED FIELD EXPERIMENT; BEHAVIOURAL ECONOMICS;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:wpaper:hal-02479464. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.