Consumer and product-specific characteristics influencing the effect of nutrition, health and risk reduction claims on preferences and purchase behavior – A systematic review
Introduction
Consumers' interest in leading a healthy lifestyle and their relationship with food is unabatedly high (Strijbos et al., 2016, p. 13; Boer & Bast, 2015, p. 61). Pointing out a food product's health-related characteristics by using nutrition, health, and risk reduction claims (NHR claims) is considered an advantageous strategy for food companies (Hoefkens & Verbeke, 2013, p. 83; Muth et al., 2013, p. 279; Krystallis & Chrysochou, 2011, p. 213) and is a widely used practice (Al-Ani, Devi, Eyles, Swinburn, & Vandevijvere, 2016, p. 1091; Hieke et al., 2016, p. 151; Pravst & Kušar, 2015, p. 9363; Devi et al., 2014, p. 257; No, Kelly, Devi, Swinburn, & Vandevijvere, 2014, p. 78; Hughes, Wellard, Lin, Suen, & Chapman, 2013, p. 2156; Colby, Johnson, Scheett, & Hoverson, 2010, p. 94f.). Following EU Regulation No. 1924/2006 which harmonized the law concerning NHR claims in the EU, this review article distinguishes between nutrition, health, and risk reduction claims. Based on EU Regulation No. 1924/2006, Art. 2, par. 2.4–2.6, a nutrition claim indicates that a food has a certain nutritional characteristic, while a health claim indicates a relationship between the food and a health effect on the body, and a risk reduction claim indicates that the consumption of the food reduces the risk of developing a disease.
While food companies expect NHR claims to have positive effects on consumers' preferences and purchase behavior, some recent studies have shown that the use of NHR claims should be well-considered. Newer studies have shown that they can actually lead to negative evaluations and purchase behavior towards these products (Aschemann-Witzel & Grunert, 2015, p. 90f.; van Buul & Brouns, 2015, 1558; Lähteenmäki, 2013, p. 196; Berning, Chouinard, & McCluskey, 2011, p. 368f.; Lähteenmäki et al., 2010, p. 235f.). The lack of consensus in the studies’ results about the effect of NHR claims has been pointed out by many authors (Hieke et al., 2015, p. 67; Annunziata & Vecchio, 2013, p. 353; Lähteenmäki, 2013, p. 199; Kim, Cheong, & Zheng, 2009, p. 528; Ares & Gámbaro, 2007, p. 148f.; van Kleef, van Trijp, & Luning, 2005, p. 300; Williams, 2005, p. 262). In a recent literature review on NHR claims, the authors examined articles for effects of NHR claim labeled products on purchase and/or consumption compared to products without NHR claims (Kaur, Scarborough, & Rayner, 2017, p. 93). They found that NHR claim labelling resulted in an increase of purchase and/or consumption of food products in 20 studies. However, in eight studies it showed mixed effects, and in two studies, negative effects. This review article investigates the reasons why different studies on NHR claims came to such incongruent results.
The review searched for and analyzed the determinants of the effects of NHR claims on consumers’ preferences and purchase behavior. This review not only gives reasons for the incongruence in the results, but can also be used as a basis for designing new studies. The focus of this review is on NHR claims that are presented in a written (explicit) and not in a pictorial or symbolic (implicit) form, like a heart shaped logo. Furthermore, we excluded nutrition labels on the back of food products such as nutrition fact tables, ingredient lists, or front-of-pack labels like Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) or Multiple Traffic Lights. While nutrition labels refer to several nutrients, an NHR claim only focuses on one single nutrient (Talati et al., 2016b, p. 57).
Section snippets
Theoretical framework
In this review paper, a theoretical framework is used which divides the determinants of the NHR claim effects into two categories. This is based on pioneering studies in which the determinants of the search for information and its processing are also divided into two categories (Hoch & Young-Won Ha 1986, 222; Bobrow & Norman, 1975, p. 140). The top-down category contains the determinants of consumer-specific characteristics like nutrition knowledge, whereas the bottom-up category combines the
Methodology of the review process
To achieve this paper's aim, all studies in the field of NHR claims published in academic journal articles were first retrieved, then searched for determinants of the NHR claim effect. Four databases (Thomson Reuters Web of Science, Science Direct, EBSCO, AgEcon) were scanned with a Boolean term restricted to the title, the abstract, and the keywords of articles. The restriction was necessary so that the search output only listed articles about NHR claims; thus, related topics like nutrition
Overview of the results
Several studies compared the effect of NHR claims on consumer behavior in different countries and came to very different conclusions (Aschemann-Witzel & Grunert, 2015, p. 90; van Wezemael et al., 2014, p. 173; Lähteenmäki, 2013, p. 198; Wills, Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, Kolka, & Grunert, 2012, p. 232; Lähteenmäki et al., 2010, p. 234; Saba et al., 2010, p. 389ff.; Williams, Ridges, Batterham, Ripper, & Hung, 2008, p. 642; van Trijp & van der Lans, 2007, p. 319). Even the perceived
Influence of nutrition knowledge
Nutrition knowledge is defined as a “scientific construct that nutrition educators have created to represent individual's cognitive processes related to information about food and nutrition” (Axelson & Brinberg, 1992, p. 239). When consumers look at a product package, they use internal and external information. At the point of sale, the external information the consumer can use is limited to the package (e.g. the nutrition facts panel, the ingredient list or claims such as NHR claims) (Miller &
Influence of the perceived healthiness of the food product
The role of perceived healthiness is an important determinant that influences the effect of NHR claims (Bialkova et al., 2016, p. 39). Based on the theoretical background of attitude models in which attitudes towards a certain product are mediated by product related beliefs, it can be assumed that the perceived healthiness of a product mediates the effect of NHR claims on dependent variables (Burton, Andrews, & Netemeyer, 2000, p. 238; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Furthermore, consumers do not
Discussion and conclusions
Following the remarks and findings of many studies which state that the results of NHR claim effects are incongruent, the aim of this review was to search for reasons and finally analyze the determinants of NHR claim effects on consumer preferences and purchase behavior. Firstly, a theoretical framework was built based on pioneer studies and previously addressed research requests by other authors, especially in the area of nutrition knowledge, health motivation, and interaction effects between
Acknowledgments
The authors are very grateful to the reviewers, which helped to improve the text significantly. The authors thank Anne Christopherson for proofreading the manuscript The study reported in this paper received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. The authors had no conflicts of interest in writing this paper.
References (159)
- et al.
Consumer perception of functional foods: A conjoint analysis with probiotics
Food Quality and Preference
(2013) - et al.
Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods
Appetite
(2007) - et al.
Influence of nutritional knowledge on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods
Appetite
(2008) - et al.
Consumer perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional milk desserts. Influence of ingredient, ingredient name and health claim
Food Quality and Preference
(2009) - et al.
Consumers' beliefs about whole and refined grain products in the UK, Italy and Finland
Journal of Cereal Science
(2007) - et al.
Influence of ‘soft’ versus ‘scientific’ health information framing and contradictory information on consumers' health inferences and attitudes towards a food supplement
Food Quality and Preference
(2015) - et al.
The measurement and conceptualization of nutrition knowledge
Journal of Nutrition Education
(1992) - et al.
Does nutrition information on food products lead to healthier food choices?
Food Policy
(2010) - et al.
The perceived healthiness of functional foods: A conjoint study of Danish, Finnish and american consumers' perception of functional foods
Appetite
(2003) - et al.
Standing out in the crowd: The effect of information clutter on consumer attention for front-of-pack nutrition labels
Food Policy
(2013)