Communication Campaigns to Support the Use of Nutritional Warnings: Different Messages for Different People?

Abstract

Communication campaigns are expected to contribute to increase the efficacy of nutritional warnings. In this context, the aims of the present work were (a) to evaluate how citizens perceive different types of messages for a communication campaign and (b) to determine if personal characteristics such as gender, age, and educational level, as well socioeconomic and nutritional status, moderate how citizens perceive such campaign messages. A series of graphic pieces were designed for each of the following three types of messages: promotion of informed food choices; raising awareness of the negative health consequences of excessive consumption of sugar, fat, and sodium; and promotion of healthy food choices. An online study was conducted with 774 participants, who were randomly assigned to one of the three types of messages. The participants’ self-reported perception of the graphic pieces was evaluated using 7-point Likert-type scales. After completing the evaluation task, the participants proceeded to a series of choices. This was implemented to evaluate whether exposure to different types of messages affected hypothetical food choices. Results revealed that messages related to the promotion of healthy eating were perceived as the most adequate as part of a communication campaign and had the potential to encourage more healthful hypothetical choices in the experimental task. However, gender, age, and nutritional status moderated the influence of the type of message on the participants’ perception, meaning that different groups perceived different types of messages as the most adequate. The results from the present work stress the need to include different types of messages in a communication campaign to target individuals with different motivations and characteristics.

Old minds, new marketplaces: How evolved psychological mechanisms trigger mismatched food preferences.

“…Consumers are generally not aware of evolutionary mechanisms driving their food choices; hence, making them aware of these mechanisms can facilitate healthier eating (Ares et al, 2021;Kessler, 2009, p. 247). Four strategies that policymakers can embrace to help consumers make informed food choices are as follows: (1) listing calories of all items in the restaurant menus; (2) labeling foods in such a way that makes information about unhealthy ingredients salient; (3) conducting public education campaigns highlighting OLD MINDS, NEW MARKETPLACES 13 health risks associated with eating unhealthy foods; and (4) demarketing companies that promote unhealthy products by publicly exposing their business practices (Kessler, 2009, pp.…”

An Experimental Study Evaluating the Influence of Front-of-Package Warning Labels on Adolescent’s Purchase Intention of Processed Food Products

“…In Uruguay, a recent study showed the need to create different types of communication campaign messages according to gender, age and nutritional status of the target population when promoting the use of WLs [30], showing that diverse approaches are necessary in the population segments since each one responds differently to the WLs. Informing and educating children and adolescents to adequately use the WLs when choosing their food is essential, especially when ultra-processed products are highly available in school environments [31].…”

Old minds, new marketplaces: How evolved psychological mechanisms trigger mismatched food preferences

“…Marketing literature has established numerous state and trait predictors of consumer behavior (Belk, 1975;Haugtvedt et al, 1992;Vinson et al, 1977). With respect to healthy (vs. unhealthy) food choices, the mainstream literature focuses on proximate explanations such as quality expectations, nutrition information, and certification (Grunert, 2002;Nikolova & Inman, 2015;Sigurdsson et al, 2020;Thøgersen et al, 2019), but also in-store product placement (Sigurdsson et al, 2011(Sigurdsson et al, , 2014, individual differences (Otterbring, 2019;Rojas-Rivas et al, 2020), and message framing (Ares et al, 2020;Ares et al, 2021), as well as shopping habits (Machín et al, 2020), visual imagery (Banovic & Otterbring, 2021; OLD MINDS, NEW MARKETPLACES 4 Otterbring & Shams, 2019), and visual attention to food products (Folwarczny et al, 2019;Gidlöf et al, 2021;Wästlund et al, 2018). However, to fully understand human decision-making, it is crucial to also consider ultimate explanations.…”