A Natural Experiment: Using Immersive Technologies to Study the Impact of “All-Natural” Labeling on Perceived Food Quality, Nutritional Content, and Liking

Journal of Food Science

Volumn 82, Issue 3, 2017, Pages 825-833

  Liu, Rebecca ^a   Hooker, Neal H ^a   Parasidis, Efthimios ^a   Simons, Christopher T ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

consumer testing; food label; immersive technology; natural

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER; FOOD QUALITY; HUMAN; PERCEPTION; SAMPLING; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DIET; FEMALE; FOOD PACKAGING; FOOD PREFERENCE; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITIONAL VALUE; PROCEDURES; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMMERCE; COMMUNICATION; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; DIET; FEMALE; FOOD LABELING; FOOD PREFERENCES; FOOD QUALITY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NUTRITIVE VALUE; PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85012966798     PISSN: 00221147     EISSN: 17503841     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.13639     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Abrams KM, Meyers CA, Irani TA. 2010. Naturally confused: consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products. Agric Hum Values 27:365–74. doi: 10.1007/s10460-009-9234-5.
2. Bangcuyo RG, Smith KJ, Zumach JL, Pierce AM, Guttman GA, Simons CT. 2015. The use of immersive technologies to improve consumer testing: the role of ecological validity, context and engagement in evaluating coffee. Food Qual Pref 41:84–95. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.017.
3. Burnkrant RE, Cousineau A. 1975. Informational and normative social influence in buyer behavior. J Consum Res 2:206–15.
4. Boström M, Klintman M. 2003. Framing, debating, and standardizing ‘natural food’ in two different political contexts. Score Working Paper Series 2003:3. Stockholm: Score.
5. Carels RA, Harper J, Konrad K. 2005. Qualitative perceptions and caloric estimations of healthy and unhealthy foods by behavioral weight loss participants. Appetite 46(2):199–206.
6. Carpenter JM, Moore M. 2006. Consumer demographics, store attributes, and retail format choice in the US grocery market. Intl J Retail Distribution Mgmnt 34(6):434–52. doi 10.1108/09590550610667038
7. Costa-Font M, Gil JM, Traill WB. 2008. Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy. Food Policy 33:99–111.
8. Delarue J, Boutrolle I. 2010. The effects of context on liking: implications for hedonic measurements in new product development. In: Jaeger SR, MacFie H, editors. Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care products. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Ltd. p 175–218.
9. Deliza R, MacFie HJH. 1996. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: a review. J Sens Stud 11:103–28.
10. Forwood SE, Ahern AL, Hollands GJ, Ng YL, Marteau NL. 2015. Priming healthy eating. You can't prime all the people all of the time. Appetite 89:93–102.
11. Fukawa N. 2016. Priming effects on affective preference for healthy products upon brand exposure. Soc Mar Q 22(1):34–53.
12. Heilman C, Lakishyk K, Radas S. 2011. An empirical investigation of in-store sampling promotions. Brit Food J 113(10):1252–66. doi: 10.1108/00070701111177674
13. Hein KA, Hamid N, Jaeger SR, Delahunty CM. 2010. Application of a written scenario to evoke a consumption context in a laboratory setting: effects on hedonic ratings. Food Qual Pref 21: 410–6.
14. Hein KA, Hamid N, Jaeger SR, Delahunty CM. 2012. Effects of evoked consumption contexts on hedonic ratings: a case study with two fruit beverages. Food Qual Pref 26:35–44.
15. Jaeger SR, Meiselman HL. 2004. Perceptions of meal convenience: the case of at-home evening meals. Appetite 42(3):317–25.
16. Jaeger SR, Fiszman S, Reis F, Chheang SL, Kam K, Pineau B, Deliza R, Ares G. 2017. Influence of evoked contexts on hedonic product discrimination and sensory characterizations using CATA questions. Food Qual Pref 56:138–48.
17. Janiszewski C, Wyer Jr. RS. 2014. Content and process priming: a review. J Consum Psychol 24(1):96–118. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2013.05.006
18. Kelman HC. 1961. Processes of opinion change. Public Opin Quart 25:57–78.
19. Kemp SE, Hollowood T, Hort J. 2009. Sensory evaluation. A practical handbook. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, p 130.
20. Lawson M, McGuinness D, Esslemont D. 1990. The effect of in-store sampling on the sale of food products. Marketing Bulletin 1:1–6.
21. Lee W-CJ, Shimizu M, Kniffin KM, Wansink B. 2013. You taste what you see: Do organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Qual Pref 29:33–39. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.010
22. Li XE, Lopetcharat K, Drake M. 2014. Extrinsic attributes that influence parents' purchase of chocolate milk for their children. J Food Sci 79(7):S1407–1415. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12515.
23. Lunardo R, Saintives C. 2013. The effect of naturalness claims on perceptions of food product naturalness in the point of purchase. J Retail Consum Serv 20:529–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2013.05.006
24. Lusk KA, Hamid N, Delahunty CM, Jaeger SR. 2015. Effects of an evoked refreshing consumption context on hedonic responses to apple juice measured using best–worst scaling and the 9-pt hedonic category scale. Food Qual Pref 43:21–25.
25. Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC. 2012. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 337:1492–95.
26. Parasidis E, Hooker N, Simons CT. 2015. Addressing consumer confusion surrounding "natural" food claims. Am J Law Med 41(2–3):357–73.
27. Pesta DH, Samuel VT. 2014. A high-protein diet for reducing body fat: mechanisms and possible caveats. Nutr Metab 11:53. doi:10.1186/1743-7075-11-53
28. Powell LM, Slater S, Mirtcheva D, Bao Y, Chaloupka FJ. 2007. Food store availability and neighborhood characteristics in the United States. Prev Med 44:189–95.
29. Roe B, Levy AS, Derby BM. 1999. The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: Results from FDA experimental data. J Public Policy Mark 18(1):89–105.
30. Roosen J, Fox JA, Hennessy DA, Schreiber A. 1998. Consumers׳ valuation of insecticide use restrictions: an application to apples. J Agr Resour Econ 23(2):367–84.
31. Rozin P, Spranca M, Krieger Z, Neuhaus R, Surillo D, Swerdlin A, Wood K. 2004. Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 43:147–54.
32. Rozin P. 2005. The meaning of “natural”: process more important than content. Psychol Sci 16(8):652–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01589.x
33. Rozin P. 2006. Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: Process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness. Judgm Decis Mak 1(2):91–7.
34. Rozin P, Fischler C, Shields-Argelès C. 2012. European and American perspectives on the meaning of natural. Appetite 59:448–55. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.06.001.
35. Saba A, Messina F. 2003. Attitudes towards organic foods and risk/benefit perception associated with pesticides. Food Qual Pref 14(18):637–45.
36. Schuldt JP, Muller D, Schwarz N. 2012. The “fair trade” effect: health halos from social ethics claims. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 3(5):581–9.
37. Shapiro S, MacInnis DJ, Heckler SE. 1997. The effects of incidental ad exposure on the formation of consideration sets. J Consum Res 24(1):94–104.
38. Sheth JN, Parvatiyar A. 1995. Relationship marketing in consumer markets: antecedents and consequences. J Acad Market Sci 23(4):255–71.
39. Stafford TF. 1996. Conscious and unconscious processing of priming cues in selling encounters. J Pers Selling Sales Manage 16(2):37–44.
40. Sütterlin B, Siegrist M. 2015. Simply adding the word “fruit” makes sugar healthier: The misleading effect of symbolic information on the perceived healthiness of food. Appetite 95:252–61.
41. United States Dept. of Agriculture. 2007. Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2006. Available from https://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp/pdpdata. Accessed 2016 February 18.
42. United States Dept. of Agriculture and United States Dept. of Health and Human Services. 2015. Dietary guidelines for Americans, 8th ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
43. Verhoog H, Matze M, Van Bueren EL, Baars T. 2003. The role of the concept of the natural (naturalness) in organic farming. J Agr Environ Ethic 16:29–49.
44. Walters A, Long M. 2012. 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 44(4):350–4.
45. Wansink B, Shimizu M, Camps G. 2012. What would Batman eat? Priming children to make healthier fast food choices. Pediatr Obes 7:121–3.
46. Williams PRD, Hammitt JK. 2001. Perceived risks of conventional and organic produce pesticides, pathogens, and natural toxins. Risk Anal 21(2):319–30.