Impact of health claims in prebiotic-enriched breads on purchase intent, emotional response and product liking

What reported food-evoked emotions may add: A model to predict consumer food choice

“…Emotional responses to packaging information have been studied less frequently than intrinsic product properties. Nonetheless, packaging elements appear to have an influence on the emotional evaluation of a product (Coleman, Miah, Morris, & Morris, 2014;Moskowitz, Reisner, Lawlor, & Deliza, 2009;Schifferstein, Fenko, Desmet, Labbe, & Martin, 2013). In line with our findings, packaging design elements were found to drive specific emotions.…”

A systematic review, and meta-analyses, of the impact of health-related claims on dietary choices

“…Conducted in a University.31 female participants from the University community.Paired sample t-tests. Wansink (2006) [14]USA.Study 1: Between groups design (with claim/without), conducted during a University open day.Study 3: Between groups design (2 (regular versus low-fat label) × 3 (no serving label, “Contains 1 Serving” label, “Contains 2 Servings” label). Conducted in a cinema.Study 1: 269 participants, students and their families visiting food science and human nutrition open day, aged 18 < .Study 3: 210 university staff, undergraduates, and graduate students.ANCOVAs: consumption by label type (low fat versus regular).Experiment (rating based) Ares (2008) [25]Uruguay.Repeated measures, factorial experimental design (4 × 4), resulting in a set of 16 food concepts.104 participants.ANOVA. Ares (2009) [26]Uruguay.Repeated measures: three categorical factors: type of functional ingredient (2 levels) x name of the ingredient (2 levels) x claim (3 levels - No claim, ‘Enhanced function’ claim, ‘Reduced disease risk’ claim).83 participants.ANOVA. Coleman (2014) [34]UK.Repeated measures, online survey.122 volunteers.ANOVA with a Bonferroni post-hoc test. Kozup (2003) [41]USA.Between subjects design: 2 (heart-healthy, no claim) ×3 (nutrition information level with control). Mail survey.147 participants, primary shoppers of household.Multivariate and univariate Lin (2015) [43]Taiwan.Between subjects design: randomly assigned to with or without claim.300 students and office workersANOVA. Maubach (2014) [46]New Zealand.Repeated measures: 4 FOP summary indicators, ×3 nutrition profile levels, × 3 product claim levels (no claim, nutrient-content, health claim), ×4 flavours.…”

“…European studies were the most common studies with four studies from Spain [30, 36–38], three from Germany [28, 29, 40], two from the Netherlands [31, 53], and single studies from Denmark [51], Greece [42], Italy [33], and the UK [34]. There were two studies that used multiple countries; Contini et al (2015) [35] compared consumer behaviour of participants in Denmark and Italy, and Van Wezemael et al (2014) [54] investigated consumer preferences in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, and the UK.…”

“…There were nine experiments that involved participants rating, on a Likert scale, their intention to purchase or consume products [25, 26, 34, 41, 43, 46, 50–52], and six experiments that involved measuring how much participants consumed under different claim conditions [14, 31, 32, 40, 52, 53]. A single study used sales data to measure the effect of health-related claims [39].…”

“…There were eight studies that examined nutrition claims [14, 32, 36–39, 42, 47], 12 studies that examined health claims [27, 35, 40, 41, 43–45, 48–50, 52, 53], and 11 studies examined both health and nutrition claims [25, 26, 28–31, 33, 34, 46, 51, 54]. There was one study that measured the effects of health-related claims on ‘Fruits and Vegetables’ [48] whereas there were nine studies that examined ‘Foods High in Fat and/or Sugar’ [26, 31, 33, 35, 38–40, 42, 53], five studies examined ‘Beans, Pulses, Fish, Eggs, Meat and other Proteins’ [37, 44, 47, 50, 54], three studies on ‘Potatoes, Bread, Rice, Pasta and Other Starchy Carbohydrates’ [34, 46, 52], four studies on ‘Dairy and Alternatives’ [27, 36, 45, 51], and two studied ready meals [32, 41].…”