Consumers’ Implicit and Explicit Recall, Understanding and Perceptions of Products with Nutrition-Related Messages: An Online Survey
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey Design, Participants, and Initial Randomization
2.2. Experimental Design and Stimuli
2.3. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Claim Recall and Understanding of the Claim
3.2. Perceived Nutritional Quality and Purchase Intentions
3.3. Sensitivity Analyses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow; Anchor Canada: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Bekker, G.A.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Tobi, H.; van Trijp, H.C.M. Explicit and implicit attitude toward an emerging food technology: The case of cultured meat. Appetite 2017, 108, 245–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fazio, R.H. Attitudes as Object-Evaluation Associations of Varying Strength. Soc. Cogn. 2007, 25, 603–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gawronski, B.; Bodenhausen, G.V. Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychol. Bull. 2006, 132, 692–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Hendrick, T.A.M.; Fischer, A.R.H.; Tobi, H.; Frewer, L.J. Self-reported attitude scales: Current practice in adequate assessment of reliability, validity, and dimensionality. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 43, 1538–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, B.; Baur, L.A.; Bauman, A.E.; King, L.; Chapman, K.; Smith, B.J. “Food company sponsors are kind, generous and cool”: (mis)conceptions of junior sports players. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Polonsky, M.J.; Speed, R. Linking sponsorship and cause related marketing: Complementarities and conflicts. Eur. J. Mark. 2001, 35, 1361–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cavanagh, K.V.; Forestell, C.A. The effect of brand names on flavor perception and consumption in restrained and unrestrained eaters. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 28, 505–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chou, S.Y.; Grossman, M.; Saffer, H. An economic analysis of adult obesity: Results from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. J. Health Econ. 2004, 23, 565–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Block, J.P.; Chandra, A.; McManus, K.D.; Willett, W.C. Point-of-purchase price and education intervention to reduce consumption of sugary soft drinks. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 1427–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, L.M.; Jones, K.; Duran, A.C.; Tarlov, E.; Zenk, S.N. The price of ultra-processed foods and beverages and adult body weight: Evidence from U.S. veterans. Econ. Hum. Biol. 2019, 34, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kern, D.M.; Auchincloss, A.H.; Stehr, M.F.; Diez Roux, A.V.; Moore, K.A.; Kanter, G.P.; Robinson, L.F. Neighborhood price of healthier food relative to unhealthy food and its association with type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance: The multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Prev. Med. 2018, 106, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tanner, S.A.; McCarthy, M.B.; O’Reilly, S.J. Exploring the roles of motivation and cognition in label-usage using a combined eye-tracking and retrospective think aloud approach. Appetite 2019, 135, 146–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hung, Y.; Grunert, K.G.; Hoefkens, C.; Hieke, S.; Verbeke, W. Motivation outweighs ability in explaining European consumers’ use of health claims. Food Qual. Prefer. 2017, 58, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visschers, V.H.; Hess, R.; Siegrist, M. Health motivation and product design determine consumers’ visual attention to nutrition information on food products. Public Health Nutr. 2010, 13, 1099–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Gidlöf, K.; Anikin, A.; Lingonblad, M.; Wallin, A. Looking is buying. How visual attention and choice are affected by consumer preferences and properties of the supermarket shelf. Appetite 2017, 116, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieters, R.; Warlop, L. Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. Int. J. Res. Mark. 1999, 16, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Fenko, A.; Nicolaas, I.; Galetzka, M. Does attention to health labels predict a healthy food choice? An eye-tracking study. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 69, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Brien, M.C.; McConnon, A.; Hollywood, L.E.; Cuskelly, G.J.; Barnett, J.; Raats, M.; Dean, M. Let’s talk about health: Shoppers’ discourse regarding health while food shopping. Public Health Nutr. 2015, 18, 1001–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Soederberg Miller, L.M.; Cassady, D.L. The effects of nutrition knowledge on food label use. A review of the literature. Appetite 2015, 92, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Malloy-Weir, L.; Cooper, M. Health literacy, literacy, numeracy and nutrition label understanding and use: A scoping review of the literature. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2017, 30, 309–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McGowan, L.; Pot, G.K.; Stephen, A.M.; Lavelle, F.; Spence, M.; Raats, M.; Hollywood, L.; McDowell, D.; McCloat, A.; Mooney, E.; et al. The influence of socio-demographic, psychological and knowledge-related variables alongside perceived cooking and food skills abilities in the prediction of diet quality in adults: A nationally representative cross-sectional study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Soederberg Miller, L.M.; Cassady, D.L.; Applegate, E.A.; Beckett, L.A.; Wilson, M.D.; Gibson, T.N.; Ellwood, K. Relationships among food label use, motivation, and dietary quality. Nutrients 2015, 7, 1068–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Wills, J.M.; Storcksdieck genannt Bonsmann, S.; Kolka, M.; Grunert, K.G. European consumers and health claims: Attitudes, understanding and purchasing behaviour. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 2012, 71, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- van Herpen, E.; Trijp, H.C. Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite 2011, 57, 148–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandle, J.; Tugendhaft, A.; Michalow, J.; Hofman, K. Nutrition labelling: A review of research on consumer and industry response in the global South. Glob. Health Action 2015, 8, 25912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walters, A.; Long, M. The effect of food label cues on perceptions of quality and purchase intentions among high-involvement consumers with varying levels of nutrition knowledge. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2012, 44, 350–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Wills, J.M.; Fernández-Celemín, L. Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite 2010, 55, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Steinhauser, J.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Consumers’ purchase decisions for products with nutrition and health claims: What role do product category and gaze duration on claims play? Appetite 2019, 141, 104337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steinhauser, J.; Janssen, M.; Hamm, U. Who Buys Products with Nutrition and Health Claims? A Purchase Simulation with Eye Tracking on the Influence of Consumers’ Nutrition Knowledge and Health Motivation. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hoefkens, C.; Verbeke, W. Consumers’ health-related motive orientations and reactions to claims about dietary calcium. Nutrients 2013, 5, 82–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hieke, S.; Kuljanic, N.; Wills, J.M.; Pravst, I.; Kaur, A.; Raats, M.M.; van-Trijp, H.C.; Verbeke, W.; Grunert, K.G. The role of health-related claims and health-related symbols in consumer behaviour: Design and conceptual framework of the CLYMBOL project and initial results. Nutr. Bull. 2015, 40, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Czarniecka-Skubina, E.; Górska-Warsewicz, H.; Laskowski, W.; Jeznach, M. Consumer Choices and Service Quality in the University Canteens in Warsaw, Poland. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Tugault-Lafleur, C.N.; Black, J.L. Differences in the Quantity and Types of Foods and Beverages Consumed by Canadians between 2004 and 2015. Nutrients 2019, 11, 526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sajdakowska, M.; Gębski, J.; Żakowska-Biemans, S.; Jeżewska-Zychowicz, M. Willingness to eat bread with health benefits: Habits, taste and health in bread choice. Public Health 2019, 167, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sajdakowska, M.; Gębski, J.; Gutkowska, K.; Żakowska-Biemans, S. Importance of Health Aspects in Polish Consumer Choices of Dairy Products. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- CODEX Alimentarius. Guidelines for Use of Nutrition and Health Claims (CAC/GL 23-1997). Available online: http://www.fao.org/ag/humannutrition/32444-09f5545b8abe9a0c3baf01a4502ac36e4.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2020).
- Pulker, C.E.; Scott, J.A.; Pollard, C.M. Ultra-processed family foods in Australia: Nutrition claims, health claims and marketing techniques. Public Health Nutr. 2017, 21, 38–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Al-Ani, H.H.; Devi, A.; Eyles, H.; Swinburn, B.; Vandevijvere, S. Nutrition and health claims on healthy and less-healthy packaged food products in New Zealand. Br. J. Nutr. 2016, 116, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kaur, A.; Scarborough, P.; Matthews, A.; Payne, S.; Mizdrak, A.; Rayner, M. How many foods in the UK carry health and nutrition claims, and are they healthier than those that do not? Public Health Nutr. 2016, 19, 988–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Lalor, F.; Kennedy, J.; Flynn, M.A.; Wall, P.G. A study of nutrition and health claims--a snapshot of what’s on the Irish market. Public Health Nutr. 2010, 13, 704–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Kaur, A.; Scarborough, P.; Hieke, S.; Kusar, A.; Pravst, I.; Raats, M.; Rayner, M. The nutritional quality of foods carrying health-related claims in Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Slovenia and the United Kingdom. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 70, 1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Franco-Arellano, B.; Labonté, M.; Bernstein, J.T.; L’Abbé, M.R. Examining the Nutritional Quality of Canadian Packaged Foods and Beverages with and without Nutrition Claims. Nutrients 2018, 10, 832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Government of Canada. Regulations amending the Food and Drug Regulations (Nutrition Labelling, Nutrient Content Claims and Health Claims). Available online: http://publications.gc.ca/gazette/archives/p2/2003/2003-01-01/pdf/g2-13701.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2018).
- Health Canada. Nutrition Claims. Bureau of Nutritional Sciences Food Directorate Health Products and Food Branch. Available online: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/label-etiquet/nutrition/cons/claims-reclam/index-eng.php2003 (accessed on 4 November 2020).
- Government of Canada. Regulations Amending the Food and Drug Regulations (Nutrition Labelling, Other Labelling Provisions and Food Colours). Canada Gazette Part II 2016, 150, 4351–4479. Available online: http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-12-14/html/sor-dors305-eng.php (accessed on 4 November 2020).
- Emrich, T.E.; Qi, Y.; Mendoza, J.E.; Lou, W.; Cohen, J.E.; L’abbé, M.R. Consumer perceptions of the Nutrition Facts table and front-of-pack nutrition rating systems. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2014, 39, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saba, A.; Vassallo, M.; Shepherd, R.; Lampila, P.; Arvola, A.; Dean, M.; Winkelmann, M.; Claupein, E.; Lähteenmäki, L. Country-wise differences in perception of health-related messages in cereal-based food products. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Talati, Z.; Pettigrew, S.; Dixon, H.; Neal, B.; Ball, K.; Hughes, C. Do Health Claims and Front-of-Pack Labels Lead to a Positivity Bias in Unhealthy Foods? Nutrients 2016, 8, 787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Kaur, A.; Scarborough, P.; Rayner, M. A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benson, T.; Lavelle, F.; McCloat, A.; Mooney, E.; Bucher, T.; Egan, B.; Dean, M. Are the Claims to Blame? A Qualitative Study to Understand the Effects of Nutrition and Health Claims on Perceptions and Consumption of Food. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hodgkins, C.E.; Egan, B.; Peacock, M.; Klepacz, N.; Miklavec, K.; Pravst, I.; Pohar, J.; Gracia, A.; Groeppel-Klein, A.; Rayner, M.; et al. Understanding How Consumers Categorise Health Related Claims on Foods: A Consumer-Derived Typology of Health-Related Claims. Nutrients 2019, 11, 539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Wong, C.L.; Mendoza, J.; Henson, S.J.; Qi, Y.; Lou, W.; L’Abbé, M.R. Consumer attitudes and understanding of cholesterol-lowering claims on food: Randomize mock-package experiments with plant sterol and oat fibre claims. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2014, 68, 946–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, M.G.; Lazard, A.J.; Grummon, A.H.; Mendel, J.R.; Taillie, L.S. The impact of front-of-package claims, fruit images, and health warnings on consumers’ perceptions of sugar-sweetened fruit drinks: Three randomized experiments. Prev. Med. 2020, 132, 105998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Carrillo, E.; Fiszmana, S.; Lähteenmäkib, L.; Varela, P. Consumers’ perception of symbols and health claims as health-related label messages. A cross-cultural study. Food Res. Int. 2014, 62, 653–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delivett, C.P.; Klepacz, N.A.; Farrow, C.V.; Thomas, J.M.; Raats, M.M.; Nash, R.A. Front-of-pack images can boost the perceived health benefits of dietary products. Appetite 2020, 155, 104831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, V.; Barratt, D.; Sørensen, H.S. Do natural pictures mean natural tastes? Assessing visual semantics experimentally. Cogn. Semiot. 2015, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Klepacz, N.A.; Nash, R.A.; Egan, M.B.; Hodgkins, C.E.; Raats, M.M. When is an image a health claim? A false-recollection method to detect implicit inferences about products’ health benefits. Health Psychol. 2016, 35, 898–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Campos, S.; Doxey, J.; Hammond, D. Nutrition labels on pre-packaged foods: A systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 2011, 14, 1496–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Franco-Arellano, B.; Bernstein, J.T.; Norsen, S.; Schermel, A.; L’Abbé, M.R. Assessing nutrition and other claims on food labels: A repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Canadian food supply. BMC Nutr. 2017, 3, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vanderlee, L.; Franco-Arellano, B.; Ahmed, M.; Oh, A.; Lou, W.; L’Abbé, M.R. The efficacy of ‘high in’ warning labels, health star and traffic light front-of-package labelling: An online randomised control trial. Public Health Nutr. 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franco-Arellano, B.; Vanderlee, L.; Ahmed, M.; Oh, A.; L’Abbé, M. Influence of front-of-pack labelling and regulated nutrition claims on consumers’ perceptions of product healthfulness and purchase intentions: A randomized controlled trial. Appetite 2020, 149, 104629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, M.; Oh, A.; Vanderlee, L.; Franco-Arellano, B.; Schermel, A.; Lou, W.; L’Abbé, M.R. A randomized controlled trial examining consumers’ perceptions and opinions on using different versions of a FoodFlip© smartphone application for delivery of nutrition information. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiss, B.D.; Mays, M.Z.; Martz, W.; Castro, K.M.; DeWalt, D.A.; Pignone, M.P.; Mockbee, J.; Hale, F.A. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: The newest vital sign. Ann. Fam. Med. 2005, 3, 514–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Mansfield, E.D.; Wahba, R.; Gillis, D.E.; Weiss, B.D.; L’Abbé, M. Canadian adaptation of the Newest Vital Sign©, a health literacy assessment tool. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 2038–2045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Bernstein, J.T.; Schermel, A.; Mills, C.M.; L’Abbe, M.R. Total and Free Sugar Content of Canadian Prepackaged Foods and Beverages. Nutrients 2016, 8, 582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Implementation Subcommittee for Food Regulation. Getting Your Claims Right-A Guide to Complying with the Nutrition, Health and Related Claims Standard of the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code. Available online: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/publications/Documents/FINAL%20-%20ISFR%20Health%20Claims.pdf (accessed on 10 May 2018).
- Wong, C.L.; Arcand, J.; Mendoza, J.; Henson, S.J.; Qi, Y.; Lou, W.; L’Abbé, M.R. Consumer attitudes and understanding of low-sodium claims on food: An analysis of healthy and hypertensive individuals. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2013, 97, 1288–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Benson, T.; Lavelle, F.; Bucher, T.; McCloat, A.; Mooney, E.; Egan, B.; Collins, C.E.; Dean, M. The Impact of Nutrition and Health Claims on Consumer Perceptions and Portion Size Selection: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey. Nutrients 2018, 10, 656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Arrúa, A.; Curutchet, M.R.; Rey, N.; Barreto, P.; Golovchenko, N.; Sellanes, A.; Velazco, G.; Winokur, M.; Giménez, A.; Ares, G. Impact of front-of-pack nutrition information and label design on children’s choice of two snack foods: Comparison of warnings and the traffic-light system. Appetite 2017, 116, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maubach, N.; Hoek, J.; Mather, D. Interpretive front-of-pack nutrition labels. Comparing competing recommendations. Appetite 2014, 82, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Menozzi, D.; Nguyen, T.T.; Sogari, G.; Taskov, D.; Lucas, S.; Castro-Rial, J.L.S.; Mora, C. Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Fish Products with Health and Environmental Labels: Evidence from Five European Countries. Nutrients 2020, 12, 2650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bialkova, S.; Sasse, L.; Fenko, A. The role of nutrition labels and advertising claims in altering consumers’ evaluation and choice. Appetite 2016, 96, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moubarac, J.C.; Martins, A.P.; Claro, R.M.; Levy, R.B.; Cannon, G.; Monteiro, C.A. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human health. Evidence from Canada. Public Health Nutr. 2013, 16, 2240–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Nardocci, M.; Leclerc, B.S.; Louzada, M.L.; Monteiro, C.A.; Batal, M.; Moubarac, J.C. Consumption of ultra-processed foods and obesity in Canada. Can. J. Public Health 2018, 110, 4–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Christoph, M.J.; Larson, N.; Laska, M.N.; Neumark-Sztainer, D. Nutrition Facts Panels: Who Uses Them, What Do They Use, and How Does Use Relate to Dietary Intake? J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2018, 118, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Egnell, M.; Talati, Z.; Hercberg, S.; Pettigrew, S.; Julia, C. Objective Understanding of Front-of-Package Nutrition Labels: An International Comparative Experimental Study across 12 Countries. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Graham, D.J.; Jeffery, R.W. Location, location, location: Eye-tracking evidence that consumers preferentially view prominently positioned nutrition information. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2011, 111, 1704–1711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Tórtora, G.; Machín, L.; Ares, G. Influence of nutritional warnings and other label features on consumers’ choice: Results from an eye-tracking study. Food Res. Int. 2019, 119, 605–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). Communications Monitoring Report 2018. Available online: https://crtc.gc.ca/pubs/cmr2018-en.pdf (accessed on 4 November 2020).
Demographics | Clicked at the NFt when Assessing Nutritional Quality | Clicked at the NFt when Assessing Purchase Intentions | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
All | Non-NFt Users | NFt Users | Non-NFt Users | NFt Users | |
(n = 1997) | (n = 1554) | (n = 443) | (n = 1860) | (n = 137) | |
Age (years) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
18-25 | 256 (12.8) | 225 (14.5) | 43 (9.7) | 242 (13.0) | 14 (10.2) |
26-35 | 652 (32.6) | 528 (34.0) | 112 (25.3) | 621 (33.4) | 31 (22.6) |
36-45 | 493 (24.7) | 384 (24.7) | 109 (24.6) | 459 (24.7) | 34 (24.8) |
46-55 | 359 (18.0) | 251 (16.2) | 108 (24.4) | 328 (17.6) | 31 (22.6) |
56-65 | 176 (8.8) | 121 (7.8) | 55 (12.4) | 157 (8.4) | 19 (13.9) |
66+ | 61 (3.1) | 45 (2.9) | 16 (3.6) | 53 (2.8) | 8 (5.8) |
Refused | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
Gender | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
Male | 957 (47.9) | 764 (49.2) | 193 (43.6) | 892 (48.0) | 65 (47.4) |
Female | 1037 (51.9) | 789 (50.8) | 248 (56.0) | 965 (51.9) | 72 (52.6) |
Another | 3 (0.2) | 1 (0.1) | 2 (0.5) | 3 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) |
Education | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
Did not graduate high school | 36 (1.8) | 27 (1.7) | 9 (2.0) | 32 (1.7) | 4 (2.9) |
High school certificate or equivalent | 324 (16.2) | 255 (16.4) | 69 (15.6) | 305 (16.4) | 19 (13.9) |
Trades certificate or diploma | 99 (4.9) | 73 (4.7) | 26 (5.9) | 91 (4.9) | 8 (5.8) |
Community college, technical college, or CEGEP | 511 (25.6) | 382 (24.6) | 129 (29.1) | 475 (25.5) | 36 (26.3) |
University (undergraduate degree) | 762 (38.2) | 617 (39.7) | 145 (32.7) | 715 (38.4) | 47 (34.3) |
Post-graduate degree (Masters, PhD) | 259 (13) | 194 (12.5) | 65 (14.7) | 236 (12.7) | 23 (16.8) |
Not stated | 6 (0.3) | 6 (0.4) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) |
Ethnicity | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
White | 1375 (68.9) | 1038 (66.8) | 337 (76.1) | 1264 (68.0) | 111 (81.0) |
Nonwhite | 589 (29.5) | 487 (31.3) | 102 (23.0) | 566 (30.4) | 23 (16.8) |
Not stated | 33 (1.7) | 29 (1.9) | 4 (0.9) | 30 (1.6) | 3 (2.2) |
Household income | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
$25,000 or less | 169 (8.5) | 134 (8.6) | 35 (7.9) | 164 (8.8) | 5 (3.6) |
$25,000–$49,999 | 373 (18.7) | 290 (18.7) | 83 (18.7) | 356 (19.1) | 17 (12.4) |
$50,000–$74,999 | 409 (20.5) | 322 (20.7) | 87 (19.6) | 384 (20.6) | 25 (18.2) |
$75,000–$99,999 | 338 (16.9) | 269 (17.3) | 69 (15.6) | 304 (16.3) | 34 (24.8) |
$100,000–$124,999 | 274 (13.7) | 218 (14.0) | 56 (12.6) | 253 (13.6) | 21 (15.3) |
$125,000 or more | 288 (14.4) | 213 (13.7) | 75 (16.9) | 265 (14.2) | 23 (16.8) |
Not stated | 146 (7.3) | 108 (6.9) | 38 (8.6) | 134 (7.2) | 12 (8.8) |
Language primarily spoken at home | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
English | 1830 (91.6) | 1427 (91.8) | 403 (91.0) | 1701 (91.5) | 129 (94.2) |
French | 44 (2.2) | 29 (1.9) | 15 (3.4) | 41 (2.2) | 3 (2.2) |
Other | 118 (5.9) | 93 (6.0) | 25 (5.6) | 113 (6.1) | 5 (3.6) |
Not stated | 5 (0.3) | 5 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) |
Dependent children (<18 years) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
Yes | 758 (38) | 591 (38.0) | 167 (37.7) | 710 (38.2) | 48 (35.0) |
No | 1229 (61.5) | 954 (61.4) | 275 (62.1) | 1140 (61.3) | 89 (65.0) |
Not stated | 10 (0.5) | 9 (0.6) | 1 (0.2) | 10 (0.5) | 0 (0.0) |
Health literacy * | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) | n (%) |
Likely low health literacy | 202 (10.1) | 197 (12.7) | 5 (1.1) | 200 (10.8) | 2 (1.5) |
Possible low health literacy | 263 (13.2) | 226 (14.5) | 37 (8.4) | 251 (13.5) | 12 (8.8) |
Adequate health literacy | 1528 (76.5) | 1127 (72.5) | 401 (90.5) | 1405 (75.5) | 123 (98.8) |
Missing | 4 (0.2) | 4 (0.3) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (0.2) | 0 (0.0) |
All | (1) No Claim No Symbol 2 | (2) Claim 2 | (3) Symbol 2 | (4) Claim + Symbol 2 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n = 1997 | n = 496 | n = 500 | n = 503 | n = 498 | ||||||
n | %responses | n | %responses | n | %responses | n | %responses | n | % responses | |
In response to “To the best of your recollection, was there a claim regarding the nutritional quality of the product that you were shown?” | ||||||||||
Yes | 797 | 43.4% | 55 | 12.0% | 340 | 73.4% | 50 | 11.0% | 352 | 76.0% |
No | 1041 | 56.6% | 402 | 88.0% | 123 | 26.6% | 405 | 89.0% | 111 | 24.0% |
Total responses | 1838 | 100% | 457 | 100% | 463 | 100% | 455 | 100% | 455 | 100% |
In response to “What did the claim describe?” | ||||||||||
Low sat fat and trans fat, low fat | 449 | 68.2% | 1 | 4.5% | 210 | 71.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 238 | 73.2% |
Low in sodium, fat, sat fat, trans fat | 104 | 15.8% | 1 | 4.5% | 53 | 18.1% | 2 | 11.1% | 48 | 14.8% |
Healthy, hearty, OK, good for you | 33 | 5.0% | 3 | 13.6% | 13 | 4.4% | 6 | 33.3% | 11 | 3.4% |
Number of calories, Net Weight, servings | 24 | 3.6% | 10 | 45.5% | 2 | 0.7% | 3 | 16.7% | 9 | 2.8% |
Chicken noodle soup, great soup, convenience, reliability, taste, quality | 18 | 2.7% | 6 | 27.3% | 4 | 1.4% | 4 | 22.2% | 4 | 1.2% |
Low calories, cholesterol, sugars, any fat | 17 | 2.6% | 0 | 0.0% | 9 | 3.1% | 0 | 0.0% | 8 | 2.5% |
Can’t remember, not sure | 10 | 1.5% | 0 | 0.0% | 1 | 0.3% | 2 | 11.1% | 7 | 2.2% |
Not healthy, high in sodium | 3 | 0.5% | 1 | 4.5% | 1 | 0.3% | 1 | 5.6% | 0 | 0.0% |
Total responses | 658 | 100.0% | 22 | 100.0% | 293 | 100.0% | 18 | 100.0% | 325 | 100.0% |
In response to “What do you think this claim means?” | ||||||||||
Low fat (sat, trans, total) | 296 | 49.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 144 | 53.9% | 0 | 0.0% | 152 | 52.8% |
Healthy, healthier choice, better choice, good for you, nutrition value, OK | 159 | 26.7% | 13 | 54.2% | 64 | 24.0% | 9 | 56.3% | 73 | 25.3% |
Low in salt/sodium, low in fats (sat, trans, total) | 66 | 11.1% | 0 | 0.0% | 36 | 13.5% | 3 | 18.8% | 27 | 9.4% |
Nothing, not much, not sure, neutral, marketing | 36 | 6.1% | 4 | 16.7% | 11 | 4.1% | 2 | 12.5% | 19 | 6.6% |
Less calories, sugars, cholesterol, low in any fat | 16 | 2.7% | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 1.5% | 0 | 0.0% | 12 | 4.2% |
Homestyle, homemade, minimal processed, tasty, great soup, noodle soup | 9 | 1.5% | 3 | 12.5% | 3 | 1.1% | 1 | 6.3% | 2 | 0.7% |
Number of calories, Nt Wt, servings, portions | 7 | 1.2% | 4 | 16.7% | 1 | 0.4% | 0 | 0.0% | 2 | 0.7% |
Contains ± chemicals, flavors, fiber | 6 | 1.0% | 0 | 0.0% | 4 | 1.5% | 1 | 6.3% | 1 | 0.3% |
Total responses | 595 | 100.0% | 24 | 100.0% | 267 | 100.0% | 16 | 100.0% | 288 | 100.0% |
Perceived Nutritional Quality | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(a) Gender 2 | Males (n = 843) | Females (n = 909) | |||||
Mean | 95% CI | p-value 4 | Mean | 95% CI | p-value 4 | ||
Group 1 | No Claim, No Symbol | 3.2 | 3.0–3.5 | p < 0.001 | 2.9 | 2.7–3.2 | p < 0.001 |
Group 2 | Claim | 3.9 | 3.6–4.3 | 3.6 | 3.3–4.0 | ||
Group 3 | Symbol | 3.1 | 2.9–3.4 | 3.0 | 2.7–3.3 | ||
Group 4 | Claim + Symbol | 3.9 | 3.6–4.3 | 3.6 | 3.3–3.9 | ||
(b) Health literacy 3 | Likely/possible low health literacy (n = 416) | Adequate health literacy (n = 1339) | |||||
Mean | 95% CI | p-value 4 | Mean | 95% CI | p-value 4 | ||
Group 1 | No Claim, No Symbol | 4.1 | 3.6–4.7 | p = 0.001 | 2.8 | 2.6–3.0 | p < 0.001 |
Group 2 | Claim | 4.5 | 4.0–5.0 | 3.6 | 3.3–3.8 | ||
Group 3 | Symbol | 3.5 | 3.1–4.0 | 2.9 | 2.7–3.1 | ||
Group 4 | Claim + Symbol | 4.5 | 3.9–5.0 | 3.6 | 3.3–3.8 | ||
Purchase Intentions | |||||||
(a) Gender 2 | Males (n = 890) | Females (n = 930) | |||||
Mean | 95% CI | p-value 4 | Mean | 95% CI | p-value 4 | ||
Group 1 | No Claim, No Symbol | 3.0 | 2.7–3.3 | p = 0.001 | 2.8 | 2.5–3.1 | p = 0.076 |
Group 2 | Claim | 3.4 | 3.1–3.8 | 3.1 | 2.8–3.4 | ||
Group 3 | Symbol | 2.9 | 2.6–3.2 | 2.7 | 2.5–3.0 | ||
Group 4 | Claim + Symbol | 3.4 | 3.1–3.8 | 3.1 | 2.8–3.4 | ||
(b) Health literacy 3 | Likely/possible low health literacy (n = 424) | Adequate health literacy (n = 1399) | |||||
Mean | 95% CI | p-value 4 | Mean | 95% CI | p-value 4 | ||
Group 1 | No Claim, No Symbol | 3.9 | 3.4–4.5 | p = 0.012 | 2.6 | 2.4–2.9 | p = 0.001 |
Group 2 | Claim | 4.4 | 3.8–5.0 | 2.9 | 2.7–3.1 | ||
Group 3 | Symbol | 3.4 | 3.0–3.9 | 2.6 | 2.4–2.8 | ||
Group 4 | Claim + Symbol | 4.1 | 3.5–4.7 | 3.0 | 2.8–3.3 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Franco-Arellano, B.; Vanderlee, L.; Ahmed, M.; Oh, A.; L’Abbé, M.R. Consumers’ Implicit and Explicit Recall, Understanding and Perceptions of Products with Nutrition-Related Messages: An Online Survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218213
Franco-Arellano B, Vanderlee L, Ahmed M, Oh A, L’Abbé MR. Consumers’ Implicit and Explicit Recall, Understanding and Perceptions of Products with Nutrition-Related Messages: An Online Survey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(21):8213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218213
Chicago/Turabian StyleFranco-Arellano, Beatriz, Lana Vanderlee, Mavra Ahmed, Angela Oh, and Mary R. L’Abbé. 2020. "Consumers’ Implicit and Explicit Recall, Understanding and Perceptions of Products with Nutrition-Related Messages: An Online Survey" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 21: 8213. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218213