Accepted Manuscript
Simply adding the word “fruit” makes sugar healthier: The misleading effect of
symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food
Bernadette Sütterlin, Michael Siegrist
PII:
S0195-6663(15)00328-1
DOI:
10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.011
Reference:
APPET 2633
To appear in:
Appetite
Received Date: 20 August 2014
Revised Date:
2 July 2015
Accepted Date: 9 July 2015
Please cite this article as: Sütterlin B. & Siegrist M., Simply adding the word “fruit” makes sugar
healthier: The misleading effect of symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food, Appetite
(2015), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.011.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
1
2
Simply adding the word “fruit” makes sugar healthier: The misleading effect of
3
symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food
4
Bernadette Sütterlin and Michael Siegrist
6
ETH Zurich, Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Consumer Behavior, Switzerland
RI
PT
5
7
Address for correspondence:
9
Michael Siegrist
SC
8
ETH Zurich
11
Institute for Environmental Decisions (IED), Consumer Behavior
12
Universitaetstrasse 22, CHN J76.3
13
CH-8092 Zurich
14
Switzerland
15
E-mail: msiegrist@ethz.ch
16
Telephone: +41 (0)44 632 63 21
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
10
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Abstract
18
People may use simple heuristics to assess the healthiness of food products. For instance, the
19
information that a product contains “fruit sugar” (in German, “fruit sugar” is the colloquial
20
term for fructose) could be interpreted as a cue that the product is relatively healthy, since the
21
term “fruit” symbolizes healthiness. This can have a misleading effect on the perceived
22
healthiness of a product. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 164) were asked to evaluate the
23
healthiness of one of two breakfast cereals based on the information provided in a nutrition
24
table. For one group, the label “fruit sugar” was used; for the other, the label “sugar” was
25
used. Results suggest that the phrase “fruit sugar” listed as an ingredient of the breakfast
26
cereal resulted in a more positive perception of the healthiness of the cereal compared with
27
the ingredient labeled “sugar.” In Experiment 2 (N = 202), the results of Experiment 1 were
28
replicated with a within-subjects design in which participants evaluated the two products
29
simultaneously. Experiment 3 (N = 251) ruled out the alternative explanation that the effect
30
could be due to differing inferences about the product’s ingredients based on the label used,
31
that is, that the product labeled with “fruit sugar” contains fruit. Finally, in Experiment 4 (N =
32
162), the results show that the perceived healthiness associated with the labeling of the
33
ingredient “sugar” (“fruit sugar” vs. “sugar”) mediates the observed effect. Results of the four
34
experiments indicate that symbolic information is an important factor that can influence
35
people’s health perceptions of food. These findings have implications for marketing and
36
public health.
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
EP
AC
C
37
RI
PT
17
38
Keywords: Health perception, fructose, fruit sugar, heuristics, health halo effect, symbolic
39
information
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
40
Simply adding the word “fruit” makes sugar healthier: The misleading effect of
41
symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food
42
1. Introduction
43
Most consumers seem to have limited nutrition knowledge (Parmenter & Wardle,
1999). For instance, a Swiss study showed that two thirds of the study participants
45
erroneously believed that brown sugar is much healthier than white sugar (Dickson-
46
Spillmann, Siegrist, & Keller, 2011). If people lack the necessary knowledge to make
47
informed decisions, they have to rely on substitutes for knowledge. In such situations, people
48
may rely on simple heuristics to make decisions (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). A possible
49
side effect related to the use of heuristics is that wrong conclusions are drawn. In the present
50
research, we examined whether a product labeled as containing “fruit sugar” 1 (in German,
51
“fruit sugar” is the colloquial term for fructose) is perceived to be healthier than a product
52
labeled as containing sugar, since the term “fruit” symbolizes healthiness. Such a result
53
would suggest that consumers rely on symbolic information (e.g., the word “fruit” in “fruit
54
sugar”) to judge non-observable food properties, such as the healthiness of a specific food
55
product. Furthermore, we examined the underlying mechanisms and whether the effect also
56
extends to other product expectations, such as taste.
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
44
A general feature of heuristic judgment is attribute substitution (Kahneman &
58
Frederick, 2005). A judgment is mediated by a heuristic when the attribute of the object a
59
person wants to judge (target attribute) is not readily accessible and a person assesses this
60
target attribute by substituting it with a seemingly semantically or associatively related
61
property that comes more easily to mind (heuristic attribute). Informational attributes with
62
high symbolic significance can serve as such heuristic attributes. Since the substituted
63
heuristic attribute differs from the target attribute, the use of heuristics may result in biased
64
decisions.
AC
C
57
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
65
The influence of the symbolic significance of information on people’s information
processing and evaluation of behaviors, attitudinal objects, and incidents has already been
67
demonstrated in previous studies. Recent research, for example, showed that due to the
68
tendency to focus on information with a strong symbolic meaning, people underestimate the
69
energy consumption of consumers engaging in behaviors with a strong symbolic meaning of
70
energy-friendliness, while they overestimate the energy consumption of consumers who show
71
behaviors with a strong symbolic meaning of energy-unfriendliness (Sütterlin & Siegrist,
72
2014). In line with the assumption that people rely mainly on symbolically meaningful
73
information, another study found that people are more concerned about negative outcomes of
74
hazards, and evaluate them more negatively when they are caused by humans, compared with
75
the identical negative outcomes caused by nature (Siegrist & Sütterlin, 2014). Due to the
76
symbolic nature, the judgments were mainly based on the information about the cause,
77
resulting in different evaluations of the very same outcome. In judgments of the healthiness of
78
food, the word “fruit” has high symbolic significance, since “fruit” is commonly perceived as
79
symbolizing healthiness (Briz et al., 2008). Therefore, if the phrase “fruit sugar” evokes
80
healthy associations because it includes the word “fruit,” this may positively influence the
81
perceived healthiness of a product that contains “fruit sugar,” compared with a product that is
82
described as containing “sugar.”
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
66
What type of symbolic information is relevant when it comes to the perceived
84
healthiness of food? Characteristics such as synthetic and natural seem to be important for
85
evaluating food products (Evans, de Challemaison, & Cox, 2010; Rozin, 2005). Consumers in
86
the Western world have a clear preference for natural products and seem to perceive synthetic
87
products in a negative way. Consequently, symbolic information that indicates the naturalness
88
of a food or reminds people that the food contains artificial ingredients may also influence the
89
perceived healthiness of a product and its sensory evaluation. A symbolic meaning attributed
90
to an aspect of a product or to a term used in the description of the ingredients (e.g., “fruit
AC
C
83
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
sugar”) is based on people’s interpretation of this aspect (e.g., natural ingredient that is
92
relatively healthy). The meaning is symbolic because it transcends the available facts, and
93
stereotypical information associated with the food shapes perception. In line with this
94
reasoning, findings of a recent qualitative study, for example, indicated that children tend to
95
perceive honey to be healthier than white sugar, because they associate it with naturalness
96
(Brierley & Elliott, 2015).
97
RI
PT
91
A closely related phenomenon is the health halo effect, which may lead consumers to
make incorrect inferences (Andrews, Burton, & Netemeyer, 2000; Roe, Levy, & Derby,
99
1999). A health halo effect occurs when the perception of an attribute of a product influences
SC
98
the health evaluation of an unrelated product attribute. Research suggests that health claims
101
can cause the perception of inappropriate health benefits (Roe et al., 1999). Perceiving food as
102
healthy may result in underestimating their calories. For instance, the calories in food at fast-
103
food restaurants that are perceived to be healthy were underestimated (Chandon & Wansink,
104
2007). This health halo effect has resulted in higher calorie consumption when food was
105
provided by “healthy” restaurants rather than “unhealthy” restaurants. Health claims also have
106
an impact on product evaluation and the perceived naturalness (Lähteenmäki et al., 2010).
107
Furthermore, health labels have been shown to influence people’s expectations of a product’s
108
taste (Liem, Toraman Aydin, & Zandstra, 2012). However, in studies demonstrating health
109
halo effects, participants did not receive numerical information about the products.
110
Participants had to evaluate food properties (e.g., calories) in a state of high ambiguity.
111
Studies need to demonstrate that symbolic information also influences the interpretation of
112
concrete numerical information, without providing health claims that are explicitly targeted to
113
push consumers’ thoughts in a certain direction.
114
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
100
The goal of the present study was to test whether information interpretation and,
115
consequently, perception of a food product differ depending on whether symbolic information
116
is included, even if identical information about the nutrients and calories of the product is
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
provided. We hypothesized that due to the positive symbolic meaning of the term “fruit,” the
118
ingredient “fruit sugar” would be perceived as healthier than (the unspecific term) “sugar.”
119
Thus, products labeled as containing “fruit sugar” may be perceived as healthier than products
120
labeled as containing sugar. We expected such a result even if the nutrition profiles of the
121
products are otherwise identical.
122
2. Experiment 1
123
RI
PT
117
In the first experiment, we used a between-subjects design to examine whether
participants in fact evaluate the identical nutrition information of breakfast cereals differently
125
with regard to healthiness when the labels “sugar” versus “fruit sugar” are used in the
126
nutrition table for the ingredient sugar. We postulated that, due to the symbolic meaning of
127
healthiness associated with the term “fruit,” the ingredient sugar is perceived to be healthier
128
when labeled as “fruit sugar” than when labeled with the umbrella term “sugar,” and that, as a
129
result, cereals presented as containing “fruit sugar” are assessed as healthier than cereals
130
presented as containing “sugar.”
131
2.1. Methods
132
2.1.1. Participants
M
AN
U
TE
D
Experiment 1 involved 164 participants. Participants represented a convenience sample
EP
133
SC
124
of people living in the German-speaking part of Switzerland who agreed to participate in
135
online studies conducted by our group. The sample consisted of 61 (37%) women and 103
136
(63%) men. The mean age was 55 years (SD = 14).
137
2.1.2. Materials and Procedure
138
AC
C
134
Participants received an e-mail asking them to fill out a short online questionnaire. In
139
addition to the experiment presented here, participants answered questions not related to the
140
research question of this study.
141
Participants received the following information: “Miss Meier wants to buy breakfast
142
cereals for her children. The following information is displayed on the package.” After this
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
introductory text, a nutrition table containing the nutrition information presented in Table 1
144
was shown. Participants were presented with either the nutrition table with the label “fruit
145
sugar” for the ingredient sugar (see Table 1, left side) or the one with the unspecific term
146
“sugar” (see Table 1, right side). They were then asked to answer the following question
147
using a slider: “How healthy are these breakfast cereals in your opinion?” The possible
148
responses ranged from “not healthy at all” (0) to “very healthy” (100).
Study participants were randomly assigned to the “fruit sugar” condition or the “sugar”
150
condition.
151
2.2. Results and Discussion
Experiment 1 showed that participants who received the nutrition table with the label
M
AN
U
152
SC
149
RI
PT
143
153
“sugar” assessed the cereal as less healthy compared with participants who received the
154
nutrition table with the label “fruit sugar.” The difference between the two groups was
155
significant, t(162) = 2.16, p = .032. Means and standard deviations are shown in Table 2.
In studies examining the health halo effect, the information thought to influence
TE
D
156
participants’ perception was in the foreground and stood out from the other information (e.g.,
158
a health claim or a brand); no further information about the food product was provided
159
(Gravel et al., 2012; Schuldt & Hannahan, 2013; Schuldt, Muller, & Schwarz, 2012). Table 1
160
shows that we used a very subtle manipulation, and provided the same concrete nutrition
161
information about the food product. Nevertheless, the symbolic information resulted in a
162
different perception of the product. Furthermore, in contrast to the studies on the health halo
163
effect, no specific product attribute (e.g., ingredient) was especially emphasized, only a
164
different labeling of the same attribute in the nutrition table was used.
165
3. Experiment 2
166
AC
C
EP
157
In Experiment 1, we used a between-subjects design; participants evaluated either the
167
product with the nutrition table with the label “sugar” or the one with the label “fruit sugar.”
168
This result could also be explained by the evaluability hypothesis described by Hsee (1998).
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
For example, he showed that in a separate evaluation condition, in which the participants were
170
presented with the information about only one object of evaluation (in this case, a cup of ice
171
cream), the participants’ willingness to pay for the ice cream was influenced by the irrelevant
172
but easier to evaluate dimension of cup size. That is, they based their decisions on whether the
173
cup was overfilled (5 oz cup with 7 oz of ice cream) or underfilled (10 oz cup with 8 oz of ice
174
cream). In a joint evaluation condition, however, participants’ willingness to pay for the ice
175
cream was influenced by the relevant dimension, that is, the actual amount of ice cream. The
176
study results suggest that people generally use the dimension that is easiest to evaluate as a
177
criterion for making a decision. It is therefore possible that people do not have any idea
178
whether a given amount of sugar or calories is “a lot” when presented with a product. The
179
information “fruit sugar” may be easier to evaluate due to its symbolic meaning, and may be
180
interpreted as a signal that the product does not contain a lot of sugar or calories. Therefore,
181
the numerical information was probably not taken into account, or to a lesser extent. To rule
182
out this alternative explanation, we conducted an experiment with a within-subjects design in
183
which participants could compare and evaluate two breakfast cereals: one with the label
184
“sugar” and one with the label “fruit sugar.” This is a realistic scenario because consumers
185
often compare products. Therefore, examining whether the same results can be observed in a
186
joint evaluation (i.e., within-subjects design) and in separate evaluations (i.e., between-
187
subjects design) is important.
188
3.1. Methods
189
3.1.1. Participants
190
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
169
Experiment 2 involved 202 participants. Participants represented a convenience sample
191
of people living in the German-speaking part of Switzerland who agreed to participate in
192
online studies conducted by our group. The sample for Experiment 2 consisted of 95 (47%)
193
women and 107 (53%) men. The mean age was 54 years (SD = 15).
194
3.1.2. Materials and Procedure
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
195
Participants received an e-mail asking them to fill out a short online questionnaire. In
196
addition to the experiment presented here, participants answered questions not related to the
197
research question of this study.
198
In Experiment 2, a within-subjects design was used; participants evaluated breakfast
cereals with a nutrition table with the label “fruit sugar” (“fruit sugar” condition) as well as
200
cereals with a nutrition table with the label “sugar” (“sugar” condition). Participants received
201
the following information: “Miss Meier wants to buy breakfast cereals for her children. The
202
following information is displayed on the package.” After this introductory text, the
203
description of the first product with the respective nutrition information was shown, followed
204
by the second product with the respective nutrition information. The nutrition information
205
depicted in Table 1 was used for the two products (i.e., conditions). The two product
206
descriptions with the respective nutrition tables that differed only in the labeling of the
207
ingredient sugar (“fruit sugar” vs. “sugar”) were presented simultaneously on the same screen,
208
one above the other. This allowed for a direct comparison of the described attributes, and
209
ensured the evaluability of the information about the amount of sugar and calories, which was
210
identical in both nutrition tables.
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
To correct for possible order effects, for half of the participants, the nutrition table for
EP
211
RI
PT
199
the product labeled with “fruit sugar” was presented above the nutrition table for the product
213
labeled with “sugar.” For the other half of the participants, the order was reversed. The
214
presentation order to which the participants were assigned was randomly determined. After
215
each product description, the participants were asked to answer the following question using a
216
slider: “How healthy are these breakfast cereals in your opinion?” The possible responses
217
ranged from “not healthy at all” (0) to “very healthy” (100).
218
3.2. Results and Discussion
219
220
AC
C
212
All participants evaluated both products. The order of the product descriptions (i.e.,
nutrition tables) did not affect participants’ evaluations. Therefore, pooled data were
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
221
analyzed. As shown in Table 2, participants perceived the cereals with the label “fruit sugar”
222
as healthier than the cereals with the label “sugar.” Results of a paired t-test show that
223
participants evaluated the two products significantly differently, t(201) = 5.28, p < .001.
224
Although we used a joint evaluation design in Experiment 2, allowing the participants
to directly compare the description attributes and the (identical) information on the amount of
226
sugar and calories, the results of Experiment 1 were successfully replicated. Therefore, we
227
can rule out evaluability as an alternative explanation for our results. The same effect can be
228
observed in the case of separate (Experiment 1) and joint (Experiment 2) evaluations.
229
4. Experiment 3
SC
RI
PT
225
Based on the information given to the participants in Experiments 1 and 2, we cannot
231
rule out that the participants in the “fruit sugar” condition assumed that the cereal contained
232
some fruit and, therefore, perceived them to be healthier. Consequently, the ingredient
233
“fruits,” not the ingredient “fruit sugar,” may have influenced participants’ responses. To rule
234
out this alternative explanation of the findings, in Experiment 3, a package of the cereals was
235
shown to inform participants that the cereals did not contain any fruits (see Figure 1).
TE
D
M
AN
U
230
One goal of Experiment 3 was to replicate the findings of Experiments 1 and 2, this
237
time making it clear to the participants that the cereal did not contain any fruits. To test for the
238
robustness of the misleading effect of the symbolic meaning of the term “fruit sugar” on the
239
perceived healthiness of the products, we used somewhat different numerical information
240
about the nutrients of the cereals. A higher sugar content was indicated. Increasing the amount
241
of sugar could make this information more prevalent, and possibly shift participants’ focus
242
toward the indicated amount of sugar. This could result in greater consideration of the amount
243
of sugar when evaluating a product’s healthiness and, consequently, in better judgments.
244
4.1. Method
245
4.1.1. Participants
AC
C
EP
236
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
246
Experiment 3 involved 251 participants. Participants represented a convenience sample
of people living in the German-speaking part of Switzerland who agreed to participate in
248
online studies conducted by our group. The sample consisted of 104 (41%) women and 150
249
(59%) men. The mean age was 58 years (SD = 13).
250
4.1.2. Materials and Procedure
251
RI
PT
247
Participants received an e-mail asking them to fill out a short online questionnaire. In
addition to the experiment presented here, participants answered questions not related to this
253
research question.
254
SC
252
In this experiment, after the introductory text, a corn flakes package was shown and,
subsequently, the nutrition table was presented. Figure 1 shows the text and information
256
provided to the participants. The design and color of the corn flakes package did not have any
257
similarities to existing packages on the Swiss market. The picture on the package indicated
258
that the cereal did not contain any fruits. Furthermore, to make the information about the
259
amount of sugar more prevalent, in the nutrition tables a higher amount of sugar (double digit
260
number) was indicated. As in the two previous experiments, the nutrition information
261
presented in the “fruit sugar” and the “sugar” conditions was identical, except for the labeling
262
of the ingredient sugar.
TE
D
EP
263
M
AN
U
255
After the product description, participants were asked to answer the following question
using a slider: “How healthy are these breakfast cereals in your opinion?” The possible
265
responses ranged from “not healthy at all” (0) to “very healthy” (100).
266
AC
C
264
Participants were randomly assigned to the “fruit sugar” (n = 127) or the “sugar”
267
condition (n = 124).
268
4.2. Results and Discussion
269
In line with the previous experiments, in the “fruit sugar” condition, the cereals were
270
perceived to be significantly healthier (M = 39.61, SD = 21.52), compared with the “sugar”
271
condition (M = 32.51, SD = 19.32), t(249) = 2.75, p = .006.
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
272
Again, the same nutrition information was evaluated as less healthy when the label
“sugar” was used in the nutrition table, compared with the label “fruit sugar.” In this
274
experiment, a picture of the package made it clear to the participants that the cereals did not
275
contain fruits. Therefore, we can rule out the alternative explanation that in the “fruit sugar”
276
condition, the cereals were perceived to be healthier because participants believed that the
277
cereals contained some fruit. Furthermore, pointing to the robustness of the effect, increasing
278
the amount of sugar to make this information more prevalent did not result in a greater
279
consideration of the amount of sugar. Consequently, the misleading effect of the symbolic
280
meaning of “fruit sugar” on the perceived healthiness of a product persisted, and was equally
281
pronounced.
282
5. Experiment 4
SC
M
AN
U
283
RI
PT
273
To this point, we have provided strong evidence for the existence and robustness of the
misleading effect of the label “fruit sugar” on the perceived healthiness of products. However,
285
that this misleading effect is in fact attributable to the symbolic meaning of healthiness
286
associated with the term “fruit,” respectively, the label “fruit sugar,” has yet to be
287
demonstrated. Consequently, a primary goal of Experiment 4 was to provide evidence for the
288
assumption that the healthiness evaluation of the cereals was influenced, that is, mediated by
289
the symbolic meaning of the information provided to the participants (i.e., the labeling of the
290
ingredient sugar).
EP
AC
C
291
TE
D
284
With regard to the underlying mechanisms, the question about possible enforcing
292
factors that could increase people’s susceptibility to the fallacy arises. Previous research
293
showed that health-conscious consumers and consumers with high self-control tend to engage
294
in more elaborate decision-making behavior, and are less subject to judgment biases that
295
could arise from a reliance on heuristic cues, when it comes to explicit beliefs and cognitively
296
shaped evaluations regarding health-related issues (Mai & Hoffmann, 2015). As a result, they
297
profit less from information presentation measures aimed at facilitating the evaluation of
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
concrete nutrition information, such as the amount of calories (Koenigstorfer, Groeppel-
299
Klein, & Kamm, 2014). Given these findings, it would be of interest to see whether this
300
moderating influence of health-consciousness holds true for people’s susceptibility to the
301
misleading effect of the “fruit sugar” labeling. Attempting to shed more light on the
302
mechanisms underlying the postulated misleading effect of the symbolic meaning of the
303
labels used for ingredients, Experiment 4 was additionally aimed to investigate whether more
304
health-conscious consumers are less prone to this fallacy than less health-conscious
305
consumers, or whether it is equally prevalent.
SC
306
RI
PT
298
Summing up, the first goal of Experiment 4 was to provide more insights into the
mechanisms underlying the misleading effect of the label “fruit sugar.” For this purpose, it
308
was aimed at more profoundly analyzing the differential perceptions associated with the terms
309
“fruit sugar” versus “sugar,” substantiating our claim that the effect is due to the symbolic
310
meaning assigned to the label “fruit sugar,” and identifying factors that exert a moderating
311
impact on the pronunciation of the fallacy.
TE
D
312
M
AN
U
307
Front-of-package food claims are generally associated with favorable impressions about
food products bearing such a claim, and they exert a substantial impact on consumers’
314
perceptions of a product’s healthiness (Roe et al., 1999). The presence of front-of-package
315
food claims can have a misleading effect on consumers’ product evaluations, and result in
316
suboptimal decision-making, because consumers tend to attribute inappropriate nutritional
317
characteristics and health benefits to products (Labiner-Wolfe, Jordan Lin, & Verrill, 2010).
318
Consumers with high product involvement were found to be less susceptible to the misleading
319
effect of product claims (Lee, Shimizu, Kniffin, & Wansink, 2013). Their higher motivation
320
to deal with this topic in depth leads to a more comprehensive and critical evaluation of the
321
information provided (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). In light of these findings, a second goal of
322
Experiment 4 was to investigate whether the additional presence of a front-of-package claim
AC
C
EP
313
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
323
that the cereal contained “fruit sugar” would have a reinforcing effect on the fallacy of the
324
symbolic meaning, especially when it comes to consumers with low health consciousness.
325
When judging food products, criteria other than healthiness are also evaluated. The
evaluation of these criteria may be derived based on different product characteristics, such as
327
package design, front-of-package claims and labels, as well as based on information on
328
nutritional components (cf. Orquin & Scholderer, 2015). For example, consumers
329
automatically draw inferences from claims about a food’s healthiness on the tastiness. They
330
tend to associate “unhealthy” foods with being tasty (Raghunathan, Naylor, & Hoyer, 2006).
331
Consequently, a final aim of Experiment 4 was to find out whether the fallacy related to the
332
symbolic meaning of the label “fruit sugar” also extends to the other evaluation criteria of
333
food, or whether it is specifically related to perceived healthiness.
334
5.1. Method
335
5.1.1. Participants
SC
M
AN
U
As in the previous experiments, the data were collected using a convenience sample of
TE
D
336
RI
PT
326
residents of the German-speaking part of Switzerland who agreed to take part in online
338
studies of our group on a regular basis. A total of 162 people participated in the study. The
339
sample consisted of 53 women (33%) and 109 (67%) men, with an average age of 59 years
340
(SD = 13).
341
5.1.2. Materials and Procedure
AC
C
342
EP
337
An invitation email was sent to the participants, asking them to take part in a short
343
online study. In addition to the experiment presented here, participants also answered
344
questions not related to these research questions.
345
The experiment consisted of three conditions. For the “fruit sugar” and the “sugar”
346
conditions, scenario descriptions and information (including the picture of the package of
347
cereal) identical to Experiment 3 were used. The text and information provided in the third
348
condition, the “fruit sugar & claim” condition, were the same as in the “fruit sugar” condition,
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
except for the fact that in the “fruit sugar & claim” condition, on the corn flakes package, the
350
food claim “contains 100% fruit sugar” was depicted on the front. Figure 2 shows the picture
351
of the corn flakes package presented to the participants in the “fruit sugar & claim” condition.
352
Participants were randomly assigned to one out of the three experimental conditions.
353
Following the product description, participants were asked to indicate their perceived
354
healthiness of the corn flakes using a slider ranging from “not healthy at all” (0) to “very
355
healthy” (100). The question read as follows: “How healthy are these breakfast cereals in your
356
opinion?” Moreover, they were asked to indicate how they judged the cereals with regard to
357
naturalness, from “not natural at all” (0) to “very natural” (100); how they judged the
358
nutritional value of these cereals, from “very low” (0) to “very high” (100); and how they
359
would judged the taste of these cereals, from “very bad” (0) to “very good” (100).
SC
M
AN
U
360
RI
PT
349
To provide evidence for the differential perceptions associated with the terms “fruit
sugar” and “sugar” related to their symbolic meaning of healthiness, previous to the
362
experimental part with the breakfast cereals, participants were asked the following questions:
363
“How healthy is fruit sugar [sugar] in your opinion?” (“not healthy at all” [0] to “very
364
healthy” [100]); “How high do you judge the nutritional value of fruit sugar [sugar]? (“very
365
low” [0] to “very high” [100]); and “How strongly does the consumption of food products
366
containing fruit sugar [sugar] symbolize health consciousness in your opinion? (“very weak
367
symbol” [0] to “very strong symbol” [100]). The participants assigned to the conditions “fruit
368
sugar” or “fruit sugar & claim” answered these questions with regard to “fruit sugar”. In the
369
questions provided to the participants assigned to the condition “sugar,” the term “fruit sugar”
370
was replaced by “sugar.”
AC
C
EP
TE
D
361
371
Health consciousness, which was assumed to represent a moderator, was measured by
372
three items formulated in the form of statements: “I am interested in nutritional issues.”; “A
373
healthy diet is important to me.”; and “I am not interested in the topic of nutrition.”
374
Participants had to rate, on a 6-point scale ranging from “applies not at all” (1) to “completely
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
375
applies” (6), how much the statement applied to them. The reliability of the health
376
consciousness measurement was satisfying, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .74.
377
To control for a possible social desirability bias that might occur, especially for topics
that are strongly subject to social norms, such as health and environmental friendliness,
379
socially desirable response patterns were assessed. For this purpose, we utilized the short
380
form of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale M-C 1, proposed by Strahan and
381
Gerbasi (1972). This short form was shown to be most appropriate for online studies, for
382
which, due to time constraints, it is essential to draw on short forms of the scale that are of
383
sufficient psychometric quality (Vésteinsdóttir, Reips, Joinson, & Thorsdottir, 2015). The
384
internal consistency of the short social desirability scale was α = .56, which corresponds to the
385
reliability scores found in other studies (Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972; Vésteinsdóttir et al., 2015).
386
5.2. Results and Discussion
387
5.2.1. The misleading effect of the label “fruit sugar”
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
378
The data were analyzed for each evaluation criterion (healthiness, naturalness,
389
nutritional value, taste) of the cereals separately using one-way analysis of variance
390
(ANOVA) with the factor experimental condition (“fruit sugar” vs. “sugar” vs. “fruit sugar &
391
claim”). Analyses revealed a significant effect of the factor experimental condition on the
392
perceived healthiness of the cereals, F(2, 159) = 3.91, p = .022. The cereals were judged
393
significantly healthier when the label “fruit sugar” compared to “sugar” was used. The same
394
was true for the condition with the additional “fruit sugar” claim. The conditions “fruit sugar”
395
and “fruit sugar & claim” did not significantly differ in the perceived healthiness of the
396
cereals. Detailed results are displayed in Table 3. The three experimental conditions did not
397
differ with regard to the other evaluation criteria: naturalness (F[2, 159] = 0.71, p = .493),
398
nutritional value (F[2, 159] = 2.31, p = .103), and taste (F[2, 159] = 0.18, p = .837). No
399
biasing influence of socially desirable response patterns was detected. 2
AC
C
EP
TE
D
388
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
400
To test for a possible moderating effect of health consciousness, participants were
grouped into low and high health consciousness using a median split. Subsequently, an
402
ANOVA with the factor experimental condition and the factor health consciousness group
403
(low vs. high health consciousness) was performed. The analysis yielded significant main
404
effects for the factors experimental condition, F(2, 154) = 3.61, p = .029, and health
405
consciousness group, F(1, 154) = 31.59, p < .001. However, there was no interaction effect,
406
F(2, 154) = 1.09, p = .337, indicating that the participants low and high in health
407
consciousness were equally susceptible to the misleading effect of the label “fruit sugar.” The
408
two health consciousness groups only differed in their healthiness judgments in general. The
409
health conscious participants over all of the experimental conditions judged the cereal’s
410
healthiness to be lower. 3
SC
M
AN
U
411
RI
PT
401
According to the findings, the misleading effect of the symbolic meaning of the label
“fruit sugar” seems to appear specifically when it comes to judgments related to the product’s
413
healthiness. Additionally, adding an explicit front-of-package claim that the product contains
414
“fruit sugar” did not significantly reinforce the biasing effect. No matter whether the symbolic
415
information is supposedly unobtrusively displayed in the nutrition table, or prominently
416
positioned on the front of the package, once the symbolic information has been read, it exerts
417
an equally misleading effect on the perceived healthiness. Furthermore, health consciousness
418
was not found to have a moderating influence on the misleading effect of the labeling. Health-
419
conscious consumers are as equally susceptible to the misleading effect as consumers who are
420
less interested in health-related issues. Consequently, when confronted with a labeling of
421
ingredients that has a strong symbolic meaning, a more profound evaluation of the depicted
422
nutritional information (as occurs with health conscious consumers) does not guarantee an
423
accurate judgment of the product’s healthiness. Also, in this case, the misleading effect of the
424
symbolic meaning of the used labeling still prevails, and reduces judgment accuracy.
425
5.2.2. The mediating role of the perceived healthiness associated with symbolic information
AC
C
EP
TE
D
412
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
426
In line with the assumption that the term “fruit sugar” symbolizes healthiness due to the
use of the word “fruit,” which finally results in an increase in the ingredient’s perceived
428
healthiness and a more favorable judgment of other health-related aspects, significant
429
differences in the perceptions associated with the terms “fruit sugar” and “sugar” emerged
430
(see Table 4). Compared to the general term “sugar,” “fruit sugar” was perceived to be
431
healthier, to have a higher nutritional value, and the consumption of products containing “fruit
432
sugar” was considered to be a stronger symbol for healthiness.
RI
PT
427
We postulated that the perceived healthiness of cereal was driven by the symbolic
434
meaning of the provided information, that is, the symbolic meaning of healthiness associated
435
with the labeling of the ingredient sugar (“fruit sugar” vs. “sugar”). Based on this assumption,
436
we expected that the impact of the different labeling (i.e., the provision of information with
437
different symbolic meanings) on the perceived healthiness of the cereal would be mediated by
438
the perceived healthiness associated with the labeling, as a result of its symbolic meaning.
439
This simple mediation effect was tested using the method proposed by Preacher and Hayes
440
(2008). The cereals in the experimental conditions “fruit sugar” and “fruit sugar & claim”
441
were described using the label “fruit sugar.” Since these two conditions did not significantly
442
differ in the perceived healthiness of the cereals, the data from these conditions were pooled
443
for the mediation analysis. The variable “labeling of the ingredient sugar” was dummy coded
444
(0 = sugar and 1 = fruit sugar). The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Figure 2.
445
Results show that the labeling of the ingredient sugar (i.e., the symbolic information) had a
446
significant impact on the healthiness associated with the ingredient, which, in turn,
447
significantly influenced the perceived healthiness of the cereal. Controlling for the healthiness
448
associated with the ingredient sugar due to its labeling resulted in a non-significant impact of
449
the labeling on the perceived healthiness of the cereal. Therefore, a full mediation could be
450
observed. A bias-corrected 95% bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect based on
451
1,000 bootstrap samples was clearly above zero (3.90 to 12.47).
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
433
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
452
Results suggest that the misleading effect of the labeling on the product’s perceived
healthiness can be explained by the difference in the perceived healthiness of the ingredient
454
sugar, when labeled “fruit sugar” compared to “sugar” (i.e., umbrella term), which is due to
455
the associated symbolic meaning of healthiness. The mediation analysis revealed that the
456
labeling of the ingredient sugar led to a different perception of the healthiness of the
457
ingredient sugar, and that the participants evaluated the healthiness of the breakfast cereals
458
based on the perceived healthiness associated with the labeling of the ingredient sugar.
459
6. General Discussion
SC
RI
PT
453
The aim of the present research was to provide evidence that people rely on symbolic
461
information when evaluating food properties. More precisely, it aimed to examine whether
462
presenting consumers with the information that a product contains “fruit sugar” affects
463
product evaluation due to the symbolic nature of the term “fruit.” Results of the present study
464
indicate that the phrase “fruit sugar” listed as an ingredient of breakfast cereals results in a
465
more positive perception of the cereals’ healthiness. The mediation analysis conducted in
466
Experiment 4 revealed that the labeling of the ingredient sugar as “fruit sugar” leads to a
467
higher perceived healthiness of the ingredient, compared with the labeling as “sugar,” and that
468
the healthiness associated with the ingredient as a result of the labeling mediates the perceived
469
healthiness of the food product. The findings impressively show that the healthiness of the
470
very same product, with the very same nutrition information, is perceived differently, simply
471
by changing the labeling of the ingredient sugar. The labeling of the ingredients by making
472
use of symbolic information may, consequently, exert a misleading effect on a consumer’s
473
assessment of the product’s healthiness. The findings suggest that the effect is quite robust. A
474
more profound and comprehensive evaluation of the provided information (as occurs with
475
people with pronounced health consciousness) does not protect against the misleading effect
476
of symbolic information, and does not add to judgment accuracy. This indicates that relying
477
and drawing on the symbolic meaning of information is, to a certain extent, an automatic and
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
460
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
478
implicit process that cannot easily be correct by increasing people’s health consciousness.
479
Furthermore, evidence was provided that the perception of a subtle cue is sufficient to trigger
480
reliance on symbolic information, when evaluating the healthiness of food products.
Why can we claim that the decisions in our experiments were biased? In general, it can
482
be stated that the term “sugar” represents an umbrella term that subsumes the different types
483
of sugar, such as fructose (“fruit sugar”). Bearing this in mind, no difference between the
484
ingredient sugar labeled as “fruit sugar” and labeled with the umbrella term “sugar” should be
485
observed. However, consumers could automatically associate the term “sugar” with sucrose,
486
commonly named “table sugar,” which is a combination of fructose and glucose. Therefore,
487
the question arises whether associating “fruit sugar” with higher healthiness than sucrose is in
488
fact inaccurate, and results in biased judgments. It has been shown that high fructose
489
consumption can induce, among other things, insulin resistance (Rizkalla, 2010), and that it is
490
a driver for pathological cardiac growth and dysfunction (Mirtschink et al., 2015). However,
491
in most of these studies, unrealistically high doses of fructose were used. In a comprehensive
492
review of the literature, no direct evidence was found for more negative effects of high
493
fructose compared with sucrose (Tappy & Le, 2010). Based on the scientific evidence, it can
494
be concluded that it does not matter whether the breakfast cereals contain added fructose or
495
sucrose (Rizkalla, 2010; Tappy & Le, 2010). There is no scientific justification for assessing
496
the cereals containing “fruit sugar” as healthier than the cereals containing sugar. On the
497
contrary, a recent study provided evidence that the brain and behavioral response to fructose,
498
relative to glucose, may promote feeding behavior. It was shown that the ingestion of fructose
499
relative to glucose resulted in a greater brain reactivity to food cues and, in line with this, led
500
to greater hunger and desire for food, as well as greater willingness to give up long-term
501
monetary rewards to obtain immediate high-caloric food rewards (Luo, Monterosso,
502
Sarpelleh, & Page, 2015). It is safe to conclude, therefore, that we have observed biased
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
481
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
503
responses in our experiments, because participants were influenced by the symbolic
504
significance of information that is not relevant to the evaluation task.
505
In the present experimental design, we made sure that the participants had identical
information about the two products, except for the manipulated variable (i.e., the labeling of
507
the ingredient sugar). The goal of our experiment was to test whether people perceive “fruit
508
sugar” as healthier than sugar and not whether people assume that the nutrition profile (e.g.,
509
the number of calories or amount of fat) of a product containing “fruit sugar” is different from
510
that of a product containing sugar. Therefore, we used the identical realistic nutrition
511
information for the products and presented it in the form of a nutrition table. In nutrition
512
tables commonly used in Switzerland and other European countries, the unspecific term
513
“sugar,” not “fruit sugar,” is used. However, claims on food packages or in advertisements
514
may emphasize that the product is sweetened with “fruit sugar”. Had we only used the full
515
product packaging and the “fruit sugar” claim, the participants could have concluded that the
516
breakfast cereals labeled as containing “fruit sugar” had a different nutritional profile than the
517
breakfast cereals labeled as containing “sugar.”
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
518
RI
PT
506
In the present study, participants evaluated breakfast cereals. 4 This product category
was chosen because in Switzerland, breakfast cereal manufacturers often emphasize that their
520
product does not contain additional sugar but is sweetened by honey and maple syrup or that
521
the product contains only “fruit sugar”. In various countries, soft drinks are sweetened with
522
high-fructose corn syrup. Sweetened soft drinks are most likely not perceived as healthy
523
products, which is why we used the more neutral food category of breakfast cereals. Future
524
studies could examine whether similar effects can also be observed for more hedonic products
525
such as soft drinks.
526
AC
C
EP
519
The present study is not the first to suggest that symbolic information influences the
527
perception of food (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Gravel et al., 2012; Lähteenmäki et al., 2010;
528
Schuldt & Hannahan, 2013; Schuldt et al., 2012; Schuldt & Schwarz, 2010; Wansink &
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Chandon, 2006). However, our research differs from the existing studies in a number of
530
aspects. First, our manipulation was more subtle than the interventions in most past studies.
531
We did not make an explicit claim regarding the food products directly targeted at pushing
532
consumers’ product evaluation in a certain direction (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Gravel et
533
al., 2012; Lähteenmäki et al., 2010; Schuldt & Hannahan, 2013; Schuldt et al., 2012; Schuldt
534
& Schwarz, 2010). In our experiments, we provided identical detailed information in the
535
nutrition tables with the same ingredients. Only a different labeling of the ingredient sugar
536
was used, which was effectuated by merely changing one word in the nutrition table.
537
Nevertheless, our manipulation had an impact. This further shows the powerful impact of
538
symbolic information on the perception of food. Second, in some past studies, the information
539
provided was ambiguous to participants (Gravel et al., 2012). It is very difficult to estimate
540
the calories of food without receiving concrete information about its ingredients. In the
541
present study, participants were fully informed about the nutrition profile of the food. Third,
542
past studies did not examine possible mechanisms of the observed effect. In Experiment 4, we
543
tested the perceived healthiness associated with ingredients’ labeling as a possible mechanism
544
underlying the effect of presenting symbolic information on the perception of food. Our
545
results point to the misleading effect of symbolic information, showing that simply by using
546
the symbolically positive label “fruit sugar,” consumers are misled to perceive the ingredient
547
sugar as healthier and, in the end, this results in the perception of the cereals as healthier.
548
Fourth, to the best of our knowledge, despite all the studies that have shown the possible
549
negative effects of high fructose intake (Luo et al., 2015; Tappy & Le, 2010), this is the first
550
study to suggest that the term “fruit sugar” is still perceived in a more positive way compared
551
with the unspecific term “sugar.”
552
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
529
Several limitations of the present study must be addressed. In all three experiments,
553
convenience samples were used. It is, therefore, unclear to what extent the present findings
554
can be generalized. Furthermore, we focused on the effect of symbolic information on
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
information processing and the resulting perceived healthiness of products, and the perception
556
of other evaluation criteria (e.g., taste). Several response types can be used to evaluate the
557
impact of symbolic information. In the present study, we examined the effect of the label
558
“fruit sugar” on the perceived healthiness. Another type of response that could be assessed is
559
people’s willingness to buy the product utilizing real food packages. We did not choose this
560
second approach, because some participants may not buy cereal, and the perceived healthiness
561
may be only one factor that influences people’s willingness to buy food products. Given these
562
additional confounding variables, much larger samples would be needed to show the expected
563
effects. Therefore, the focus of the present study was on the perceived healthiness, and not on
564
the purchase decision. In our experiments, we provided evidence for the misleading effect of
565
the labeling of nutrition information. Of course, paying attention to the information presented
566
in the nutrition table does not guarantee for a healthier product choice. However, it is obvious
567
that consumers, first of all, need to correctly interpret and process the nutrition information,
568
before they can use it to make more healthy decisions. Therefore, insights into the processing
569
of nutrition facts and potentially biasing factors are crucial for producers and policy makers,
570
when it comes to the provision of health-related information.
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
Future research should examine how people judge the healthiness of food in more
EP
571
RI
PT
555
detail, and whether there exists other symbolic information that may exert an (misleading)
573
influence on a consumer’s perception of a product’s healthiness. Furthermore, exploring
574
whether the label “fruit sugar” also changes other product expectations (e.g., product quality,
575
environmental friendliness), or the perception of other nutritional values provided on the
576
package (e.g., fat) would be worthwhile. In the present research, we focused on “fruit sugar”;
577
however, examining how other sugars (e.g., honey) are perceived compared to “fruit sugar”
578
using an experimental approach would also be interesting. As mentioned above, the presented
579
experiments investigated the biasing effect of symbolic information on the perceived
580
healthiness of food products, that is, on the processing of nutrition information. Future
AC
C
572
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
581
research might wish to expand the focus to the analysis of the impact of symbolic information
582
on the final food choice.
583
In sum, results of the present study suggest that consumers perceive a product labeled as
containing “fruit sugar” as healthier than one labeled with the unspecific term “sugar.” We
585
can rule out that the label “fruit sugar” made participants believe that the product has fewer
586
calories, less fat, or less sugar compared to the other product, because we provided identical
587
nutrition information for the products. Moreover, in the joint evaluation condition (i.e.,
588
within-subjects design in Experiment 2), it was obvious to participants that the nutrition
589
profiles of the two products were identical. Therefore, our results are in line with our
590
hypothesis that symbolic information is an important factor in people’s evaluation of how
591
healthy a food product is, and may lead to biased judgments. People perceive fruits as healthy
592
food (Bucher, van der Horst, & Siegrist, 2013); therefore, since the word “fruit” symbolizes
593
healthiness, the term “fruit sugar” is associated with higher healthiness. As a result, the
594
ingredient “fruit sugar” and, consequently, the food product are perceived to be relatively
595
healthy.
SC
M
AN
U
TE
D
596
RI
PT
584
The implications of these findings for marketing and public health are clear. From a
marketing point of view, the emphasis on natural ingredients and ingredients with a positive
598
symbolic meaning may result in a better health perception of food. Not only direct health
599
claims (Lähteenmäki, 2013), but also ingredients may automatically evoke positive
600
associations that have an important impact on a consumer’s information processing and
601
decision-making. From a public health perspective, the challenge is how to educate the public
602
so that consumers are not influenced by misleading symbolic product information, when they
603
evaluate the healthiness of food products. Our findings suggest that consumers are highly
604
susceptible to the symbolic information that food marketers may specifically use in an attempt
605
of greenwashing or nutriwashing to promote their products. Such information may bias
606
consumers’ information processing and product evaluation, and finally, result in suboptimal
AC
C
EP
597
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
purchase decisions. This is especially concerning, given that subtle symbolic cues are already
608
sufficient to induce biased product evaluation, and given that even high involvement
609
consumers, who generally engage in more profound information processing, are susceptible to
610
this fallacy.
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
607
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
611
References
612
Andrews, J. C., Burton, S., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2000). Are some comparative nutrition
claims misleading? The role of nutrition knowledge, ad claim type and disclosure
614
conditions. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 29-42. doi:
615
10.1080/00913367.2000.10673615
616
RI
PT
613
Brierley, M., & Elliott, C. (2015). Nutritional components and children's interpretations of
packaged food. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 1-14. doi:
618
10.1080/14635240.2015.1010654
619
SC
617
Briz, T., Sijtsema, S. J., Jasiulewicz, A., Kyriakidi, A., Dolors Guàrdia, M., van den Berg, I.,
& van der Lans, I. A. (2008). Barriers to fruit consumption: Driving forces behind
621
consumer behaviour. Scripta Horticulturae, 8, 7-18.
623
624
Bucher, T., van der Horst, K., & Siegrist, M. (2013). Fruit for dessert. How people compose
healthier meals. Appetite, 60(0), 74-80. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.10.003
Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health
TE
D
622
M
AN
U
620
625
claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal
626
of Consumer Research, 34(3), 301-314. doi: 10.1086/519499
Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., & Keller, C. (2011). Development and validation of a
EP
627
short, consumer-oriented nutrition knowledge questionnaire. Appetite, 56(3), 617-620.
629
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.01.034
630
631
632
633
AC
C
628
Evans, G., de Challemaison, B., & Cox, D. N. (2010). Consumers’ ratings of the natural and
unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite, 54(3), 557-563. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.02.014
Gravel, K., Doucet, É., Peter Herman, C., Pomerleau, S., Bourlaud, A.-S., & Provencher, V.
634
(2012). “Healthy,” “diet,” or “hedonic”. How nutrition claims affect food-related
635
perceptions and intake? Appetite, 59(3), 877-884. doi:
636
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.08.028
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
637
638
639
Hsee, C. K. (1998). Less is better: When low-value options are valued more highly than highvalue options. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 107-121.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2005). A model of heuristic judgment. In K. J. Holyoak & R.
G. Morrison (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 267-
641
293). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
642
RI
PT
640
Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kamm, F. (2014). Healthful food decision making in
response to traffic light color-coded nutrition labeling. Journal of Public Policy &
644
Marketing, 33(1), 65-77. doi: http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jppm.12.091
645
SC
643
Labiner-Wolfe, J., Jordan Lin, C.-T., & Verrill, L. (2010). Effect of low-carbohydrate claims
on consumer perceptions about food products' healthfulness and helpfulness for
647
weight management. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 42(5), 315-320.
649
650
Lähteenmäki, L. (2013). Claiming health in food products. Food Quality and Preference,
27(2), 196-201. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.03.006
Lähteenmäki, L., Lampila, P., Grunert, K., Boztug, Y., Ueland, Ø., Åström, A., &
TE
D
648
M
AN
U
646
Martinsdóttir, E. (2010). Impact of health-related claims on the perception of other
652
product attributes. Food Policy, 35(3), 230-239. doi:
653
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2009.12.007
655
656
657
Lee, W.-c. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see:
Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29(1), 33-39.
AC
C
654
EP
651
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.010
Liem, D. G., Toraman Aydin, N., & Zandstra, E. H. (2012). Effects of health labels on
658
expected and actual taste perception of soup. Food Quality and Preference, 25(2),
659
192-197. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.015
660
661
Luo, S., Monterosso, J. R., Sarpelleh, K., & Page, K. A. (2015). Differential effects of
fructose versus glucose on brain and appetitive responses to food cues and decisions
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
662
for food rewards. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(20), 6509-
663
6514. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1503358112
664
Mai, R., & Hoffmann, S. (2015). How to combat the unhealthy = tasty intuition: The
influencing role of health consciousness. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(1),
666
63-83. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1509/jppm.14.006
667
RI
PT
665
Mirtschink, P., Krishnan, J., Grimm, F., Sarre, A., Horl, M., Kayikci, M., . . . Krek, W.
(2015). HIF-driven SF3B1 induces KHK-C to enforce fructolysis and heart disease.
669
Nature, advance online publication. doi: 10.1038/nature14508
670
SC
668
Orquin, J. L., & Scholderer, J. (2015). Consumer judgments of explicit and implied health
claims on foods: Misguided but not misled. Food Policy, 51(0), 144-157. doi:
672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2015.01.001
674
675
Parmenter, K., & Wardle, J. (1999). Development of a general nutrition knowledge
questionnaire for adults. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 53(4), 298-308.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L.
TE
D
673
M
AN
U
671
676
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-205).
677
New York: Academic Press.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
EP
678
and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research
680
Methods, 40(3), 879-891. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
681
682
AC
C
679
Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy = tasty intuition and
its effects on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of
683
Marketing, 70(4), 170-184. doi:
684
http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.170
685
686
Rizkalla, S. W. (2010). Health implications of fructose consumption: A review of recent data.
Nutrition and Metabolism, 7, 82. doi: 10.1186/1743-7075-7-82
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
687
Roe, B., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The impact of health claims on consumer search
688
and product evaluation outcomes: Results from FDA experimental data. Journal of
689
Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 89-105. doi: 10.2307/30000511
690
Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: Process more important than content.
692
Psychological Science, 16(8), 652-658. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x
RI
PT
691
Schuldt, J. P., & Hannahan, M. (2013). When good deeds leave a bad taste. Negative
inferences from ethical food claims. Appetite, 62(0), 76-83. doi:
694
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.004
695
SC
693
Schuldt, J. P., Muller, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The “fair trade” effect: Health halos from
social ethics claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 581-589. doi:
697
10.1177/1948550611431643
698
M
AN
U
696
Schuldt, J. P., & Schwarz, N. (2010). The "organic" path to obesity? Organic claims influence
calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision Making,
700
5(3), 144-150.
701
702
TE
D
699
Siegrist, M., & Sütterlin, B. (2014). Human and nature-caused hazards: The affect heuristic
causes biased decisions. Risk Analysis, 34(8), 1482-1494. doi: 10.1111/risa.12179
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne
704
Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 191-193. doi:
705
10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G
707
708
709
710
711
712
AC
C
706
EP
703
Sütterlin, B., & Siegrist, M. (2014). The reliance on symbolically significant behavioral
attributes when judging energy consumption behaviors. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 40(0), 259-272. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.07.005
Tappy, L., & Le, K. A. (2010). Metabolic effects of fructose and the worldwide increase in
obesity. Physiological Reviews, 90(1), 23-46. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00019.2009
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.
Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
713
Vésteinsdóttir, V., Reips, U.-D., Joinson, A., & Thorsdottir, F. (2015). Psychometric
714
properties of measurements obtained with the Marlowe–Crowne Social Desirability
715
Scale in an Icelandic probability based Internet sample. Computers in Human
716
Behavior, 49(0), 608-614. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.03.044
718
Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can “low-fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity? Journal of
RI
PT
717
Marketing Research, 43(4), 605-617. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.43.4.605
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
719
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
720
Footnotes
721
1
722
is used. In German, however, the word “Fruchtzucker,” which translated into English means
723
“fruit sugar,” is commonly used. This word has much closer associations with fruits and
724
naturalness compared with the word “fructose.” Therefore, we use the term “fruit sugar,” the
725
literal translation of the German word “Fruchtzucker,” in this paper.
726
2
727
possible social desirability effects, revealed no significant results for the covariate social
728
desirability, F(1, 154) = 0.38, p = .538. Consequently, the findings on the perceived
729
healthiness were not subject to a social desirability bias. The same was true for the perceived
730
naturalness (p = .957), estimated nutritional value (p = .856), and estimated taste (p = .221).
731
3
Regression analyses resulted in the same conclusion.
732
4
The German word “Frühstücksflocken” was used. This term refers to breakfast cereals and
733
muesli.
RI
PT
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
An analysis of variance, with participants’ social desirability score as a covariate to test for
AC
C
734
We are aware that in the English language, the word “fructose,” not the phrase “fruit sugar,”
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
735
Table 1
736
Nutrition information provided in the “fruit sugar” (nutrition table on the left) and “sugar”
737
(nutrition table on the right) conditions in Experiments 1 and 2.
738
Nutrition value for a portion (30 g)
Nutrition value for a portion (30 g)
Energy
Energy
514.5 kJ
514.5 kJ
3.6 g
Carbohydrates
Protein
21.6 g
- Fruit sugar
- Starch
Fat
Carbohydrates
7.8 g
- Sugar
13.8 g
- Starch
2.1 g
3.6 g
21.6 g
7.8 g
13.8 g
2.1 g
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
739
Fat
SC
Protein
121.8 kcal
RI
PT
121.8 kcal
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
740
Table 2
741
Perceived healthiness of breakfast cereals using the label “fruit sugar” vs. “sugar” in the
742
nutrition table.
Sugar
M (SD) [N]
M (SD) [N]
48.71 (23.82) [73]
40.16 (26.22) [91]
52.01 (20.37) [202]
45.40 (21.21) [202]
(between-subjects design)
Experiment 2
(within-subjects design)
RI
PT
Experiment 1
Fruit sugar
Note. The ratings of perceived healthiness could range from 0 (not healthy at all) to 100 (very
744
healthy).
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
743
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
745
Table 3
746
Perceived healthiness, perceived naturalness, estimated nutritional value, and estimated taste
747
of breakfast cereals in the conditions “fruit sugar” vs. “sugar” vs. “fruit sugar & claim” of
748
Experiment 4.
Sugar
Fruit sugar & claim
M (SD) [N]
M (SD) [N]
M (SD) [N]
Perceived healthiness
39.29a (21.50) [52]
29.25b (20.07) [55]
38.58a (21.07) [55]
Perceived naturalness
32.60a (18.03) [52]
30.82a (23.47) [55]
35.60a (21.75) [55]
Estimated nutritional value 48.15ab (21.57) [52] 41.78b (27.29) [55]
51.93a (25.68) [55]
50.52a (21.76) [52]
50.64a (27.96) [55]
52.93a (20.64) [55]
SC
Estimated taste
RI
PT
Fruit sugar
Note. Different letters indicate significant differences between particular experimental
750
conditions, p < 0.05, using planned comparisons. The ratings of perceived healthiness could
751
range from 0 (not healthy at all) to 100 (very healthy), ratings of perceived naturalness from 0
752
(not natural at all) to 100 (very natural), ratings of estimated nutritional value from 0 (very
753
low) to 100 (very high), and ratings of estimated taste from 0 (very bad) to 100 (very good).
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
749
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
754
Table 4
755
Health-related perceptions associated with the labels “fruit sugar” vs. “sugar” in Experiment
756
4.
Fruit sugar
Sugar
t-test result
M (SD) [N]
M (SD) [N]
53.63 (19.24) [107] 32.55 (16.68) [55]
t(160) = 6.90, p < .001
Estimated nutritional value
56.35 (21.88) [107] 49.47 (28.78) [55]
t(160) = 1.70, p = .046 a
Symbolic meaning of healthiness 47.33 (23.40) [107] 40.04 (29.44) [55]
t(160) = 1.72, p = .044 a
RI
PT
Perceived healthiness
associated with consumption
Note. a One-tailed p-value is indicated. Participants in the “fruit sugar” and the “fruit sugar &
758
claim” conditions answered the questions related to “fruit sugar,” while participants assigned
759
to the “sugar” condition answered the questions related to “sugar.” The ratings of perceived
760
healthiness could range from 0 (not healthy at all) to 100 (very healthy), ratings of estimated
761
nutritional value from 0 (very low) to 100 (very high), and ratings of the symbolic meaning of
762
healthiness associated with consumption from 0 (very weak symbol) to 100 (very strong
763
symbol).
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
757
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
764
Figure 1
765
Information provided in the “fruit sugar” condition in Experiment 3. In the “sugar” condition,
766
the same information was provided, but the label “fruit sugar” was replaced by the label
767
“sugar.”
768
770
Mrs. Meier wants to buy breakfast cereals for her children.
M
AN
U
SC
771
RI
PT
769
772
773
Mrs. Meier finds the following information on the package:
775
TE
D
774
Nutrition value for a portion (30 g)
Energy
111.3 kcal
Protein
1.4 g
26.1 g
- Fruit sugar
11.1 g
- Starch
15.0 g
Fat
776
AC
C
Carbohydrates
EP
466.0 kJ
0.2 g
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
777
Figure 2
778
Picture of the corn flakes package with the claim “contains 100% fruit sugar” (in German:
779
“enthält 100% Fruchtzucker”) on the front, as presented to the participants in the experimental
780
condition “fruit sugar & claim” of Experiment 4.
M
AN
U
SC
RI
PT
781
AC
C
EP
TE
D
782
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 3
784
Results of the mediation analysis for the impact of the labeling of the ingredient sugar (“fruit
785
sugar” vs. “sugar”) on the perceived healthiness of cereals are shown. Direct effects are
786
presented in (a), and the model with the mediator variable “healthiness associated with
787
labeling” is shown in (b). Nonstandardized coefficients (and standard errors in parentheses)
788
are presented. Non-significant paths are depicted as dotted lines. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p <
789
.001.
RI
PT
783
AC
C
791
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
790
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Research Highlights
• Symbolic information influences people’s health perceptions of foods
• Using the label “fruit sugar” instead of “sugar” increases perceived healthiness of
foods
RI
PT
• Perceived healthiness associated with ingredients’ labeling affects health perception of
foods
AC
C
EP
TE
D
M
AN
U
SC
• Health consciousness does not reduce the biasing effect of symbolic information