Journal of Health Communication International Perspectives

ISSN: 1081-0730 (Print) 1087-0415 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhcm20

Differential Impact of Message Appeals, Food Healthiness, and Poverty Status on Evaluative Responses to Nutrient-Content Claimed Food Advertisements Hojoon Choi & Leonard N. Reid To cite this article: Hojoon Choi & Leonard N. Reid (2015) Differential Impact of Message Appeals, Food Healthiness, and Poverty Status on Evaluative Responses to Nutrient-Content Claimed Food Advertisements, Journal of Health Communication, 20:11, 1355-1365, DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018630 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1018630

Published online: 06 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 81

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhcm20 Download by: [Florida Atlantic University]

Date: 06 November 2015, At: 08:07

Journal of Health Communication, 20:1355–1365, 2015 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1081-0730 print/1087-0415 online DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018630

Differential Impact of Message Appeals, Food Healthiness, and Poverty Status on Evaluative Responses to Nutrient-Content Claimed Food Advertisements HOJOON CHOI1 and LEONARD N. REID2,3 1

Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA Department of Advertising & Public Relations, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA 3 Robertson School of Media and Culture, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

2

A 2  3  2 mixed factorial experimental design was used to examine how three message appeals (benefit-seeking vs. risk-avoidance vs. taste appeals), food healthiness (healthy vs. unhealthy foods), and consumer poverty status (poverty vs. nonpoverty groups) impact evaluative responses to nutrient-content claimed food advertisements. Subjects were partitioned into two groups, those below and those above the poverty line, and exposed to nutrient-content claimed advertisement treatments for healthy and unhealthy foods featuring the three appeals. The findings reaffirmed the interaction effects between perceivably healthy and unhealthy foods and different appeals reported in previous studies, and found interaction effects between consumer poverty level and response to the message appeals featured in the experimental food advertisements. Age, body mass index, current dieting status, education, and gender were examined as covariates.

Unhealthy eating has been linked to a number of serious health conditions in the United States (Curtis & Davis, 2014; Flegal, Kit, Orpana, & Graubard, 2013; Glasofer et al., 2013; Skelton, Cook, Auinger, Klein, & Barlow, 2009). Although many factors influence bad eating behaviors, food advertising and income disparity have been identified as two of the major drivers of unhealthy eating (e.g., Harker, Harker, & Burns, 2007; Hoek & Gendall, 2006; Kunkel, Mastro, Ortiz, & McKinley, 2013; Livingston & Helsper, 2006; Sharma et al., 2009). Critics claim extensive advertising of unhealthy foods influences people to consume unhealthy products to the detriment of their health (e.g., Kim & Willis, 2007; Nestle & Jacobson, 2000). Especially vulnerable are thought to be people in poverty who eat less nutritious foods, have unhealthy dietary habits, and expose themselves to more TV advertising for unhealthy foods than higher income people (e.g., Dennison, Erb, & Jenkins, 2002; Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005; Drewnowski & Eichelsdoerfer, 2010; Drewnowski & Specter, 2004; Johnson, Nelson, & Bradley, 2006; Tucker & Bagwell, 1991). Bringing the factors of food advertising and income together, this experiment examined (a) evaluative responses to three messaging characteristics (i.e., benefit-seeking,

Address correspondence to Hojoon Choi, Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of Houston, 101 Communications Building, Houston, TX 77204-3302, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

risk-avoidance, and taste appeals) in nutrient-content claimed advertisements for perceivably healthy and unhealthy foods (i.e., food healthiness); and (b) how income disparity, defined as consumers above and below (nonpoverty group and poverty group, respectively, hereafter) the U.S. poverty line (2012, see Table 2), moderates those responses. Although different aspects of health and nutrition claims (HNR claims hereafter) have been studied (e.g., Andrews, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1998; Andrews, Burton, & Netemeyer, 2000; Choi, Pack, & King, 2012; Choi & Springston, 2014; Choi, Yoo, Baek, Reid, & Macias, 2013; Kozup, Creyer, & Burton, 2003), no investigation has specifically addressed the general question of how and to what extent evaluative responses to different appeals in nutrient-content claimed advertisements for perceivably health and unhealthy foods are affected by consumer poverty status. Nutrient-Content Claims in Food Advertising In the 1990s, the U.S. government responded to criticism of marketing communication’s influence on unhealthy food consumption by passing three acts: the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994, and the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. In the case of advertising specifically, the acts prescribed usage guidelines for three health and nutrition-related claim types in food advertising (HNR-related claims hereafter): nutrient-content, structure= function, and health claims (Andrews et al., 1998; Choi & Springston, 2104; Kozup et al., 2003). More information

1356

H. Choi and L. Reid

Table 1. Attribute combinations and sequences for main experiment Set 1 2 3 4 5

Ad 1

Ad 2

Ad 3

Ad 4

Yogurt ad with better taste (YogT) Pizza ad with more fiber (PizF) Yogurt ad with more fiber (YogF) Cookie ad with less sugar (CookS) Cereal ad with less sugar (CerS)

Cookie ad with better taste (CookT) Yogurt ad with more calcium (YogC) Cookie ad with more protein (CookP) Cereal ad with less calories (CerCal) Pizza ad with less fat (PizFat)

Cereal ad with better taste (CerT) Cookie ad with more vitamins (CookV) Cereal ad with more vitamins (CerV) Pizza ad with less cholesterol (PizChol) Yogurt ad with less cholesterol (YogChol)

Pizza ad with better taste (PizT) Cereal ad with more protein (CerP) Pizza ad with more calcium (PizC) Yogurt ad with less fat (YogFat) Cookie ad with less calories (CookCal)

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

Note. Five survey sets as 1 taste þ 2 benefit-seeking þ 2 risk-avoidance attribute-based appeals. Order is fixed, but the starting point is randomized in online survey.

about the acts and their use requirements can be found elsewhere (e.g., Andrews et al., 1998; Andrews et al., 2000). Nutrient-content claims, the focus of this study, are used in food advertising to communicate nutrient levels in advertised foods by emphasizing either the increase of healthy ingredients (e.g., calcium added) or the reduction of unhealthy ingredients (e.g., less sodium; Choi et al., 2013; Parker, 2003). These claims are allowed when a specific food includes a certain proportion of the daily value per reference amount of a nutrient (Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, 1990) and=or substantiated by ‘‘significant scientific agreement among qualified experts’’ (Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act, 1994; Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, 1990). Nutrient claimed ads are not required to disclose a food’s poor nutritional quality in messaging (e.g., low-fat ice cream might have high sugar). Of the three HNR claims that have been studied, research has tended to focus on nutrient claims for two reasons. First, studies have established that nutrient-content claims appear more frequently in food advertising than structure=function or health claims (e.g., Choi et al., 2013; Yoon, Paek, Ahn, & Choi, 2010). For sample, Parker (2003) found that 65.9% of HNR claims in food advertisements in 1998–2000 magazine issues were nutrition-content claims. Choi and his colleagues (2013) found that nutrient-content claims had increased to

87.1% in ads from 2007 to 2009 magazine issues. Yoon and colleagues (2010) found nutrient-content claims were more frequent than structure=function and health claims in food commercials appearing in 2007 primetime network TV programming. Second, substantial concern has been expressed about the potential of nutrient-claimed food advertisements to mislead consumers. Because nutrient claims can be emphasized without mention of unhealthy ingredients, researchers have argued that nutrient claimed advertising has the capacity to mislead consumers into believing advertised foods are healthy even though they often contain high levels of unhealthy ingredients (e.g., Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Choi et al., 2012; Choi et al., 2013; Choi & Springston, 2014; Wansink & Chandon, 2006). The concern is supported by research which indicates nutrient-content claims are effective in enhancing healthiness perceptions of advertised foods, especially unhealthy foods (Choi et al., 2013; Mazis & Raymond, 1997). For example, Andrews and colleagues (1998) found association between nutrient-content claims and favorable evaluations (e.g., fat content and overall healthiness) of advertised foods as well as with reduced levels of concern about specific disease risks (e.g., heart disease). Another study found similar results for nutrient-content claims about sodium in food advertisements (Andrews et al., 2000).

Table 2. 2011 Health and Human Services poverty guidelines and sample distribution (dollars) Sample distribution (n) Persons in family 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 For each additional person, add

Annual income

Alaska

Hawaii

Poverty

Nonpoverty

10,890 14,710 18,530 22,350 26,170 29,990 33,810 37,630 3,820

13,600 18,380 23,160 27,940 32,720 37,500 42,280 47,060 4,780

12,540 16,930 21,320 25,710 30,100 34,490 38,880 43,270 4,390

60 56 15 11 5 3 0 1 N ¼ 151

38 82 28 39 10 5 1 0 N ¼ 203

Source. Federal Register, Vol. 76, No. 13, January 20, 2011, pp. 3637–3638.

1357

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

Differential Impact of Message Appeals Several studies have explained the effects of nutrientcontent claimed food advertisements relative to the health halo concept. The health halo contends that, because nutrient-content claimed advertisements produce cognitive biases, consumers are influenced to evaluate claimed foods higher on ad-delivered healthy attributes and lower on undisclosed unhealthy attributes (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Roe, Levy, & Derby, 1999). For example, studies by Choi and colleagues (Choi et al., 2012; Choi & Springston, 2014) found that nutrient-content claims in advertisements enhanced perceivably healthy benefits associated (including perceived healthiness) with advertised foods and reduced perceivably unhealthy risks. However, other research suggests that the health halo effect is not equivalent across all food advertisements. According to Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer (2006), judgments of food healthiness and tastiness are negatively correlated because of ‘‘unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition’’: the expectation that unhealthy foods are tasty and healthy foods are healthy and less tasty. Support for unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition has been reported in studies that found nutrient-content claimed advertisements produced better effects for perceivably healthy foods than taste claims whereas taste claims produced better effects for perceivably unhealthy foods than nutrient-content claims (Choi & Springston, 2014; Choi et al., 2012). Although informative, the existing research is incomplete as many of the recipient-based correlates of response to different aspects of food advertising messaging have not been investigated. This study extends inquiry regarding three distinct message appeals in nutrient-content claimed advertising for perceivably healthy and unhealthy foods relative to consumer poverty status. Theoretical Perspectives on Consumer Response Halo Effect As noted earlier, nutrient-content claims have been conceptualized to enhance food advertising effects because of the health halo effect (see Choi et al., 2013). Specifically, it is theorized that HNR claimed advertisements produce higher evaluations of food attributes not emphasized in messaging because HNR claims produce a cognitive bias for advertised products (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Choi & Springston, 2014; Choi et al., 2013; Roe et al., 1999; Wansink & Chandon, 2006). From the perspective of cognitive consistency theory, the halo effect occurs because consumers seek to maintain cognitive consistency with prior knowledge and feeling for an object or object feature (see Alhakami & Slovic, 1994; Roe et al., 1997). In the case of nutrientcontent claims specifically, such advertisements are thought to induce cognitive biases, causing consumers to appraise advertised foods higher on attributes not claimed in messaging or to attribute improper health benefits to advertised foods (Andrews et al., 2000; Roe et al., 1999; Wansink & Chandon, 2006). However, research comparing HNR claims to taste claims, the key driver of food choice (Urala & La¨hteenma¨ki, 2003; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2003), have found the health halo

effect is not equivalent across all advertised foods, especially on perceived healthiness. Studies have found that, while HNR claims are more persuasive than taste claims for healthy foods, taste claims are more persuasive than HNR claims for unhealthy foods (Choi & Springston, 2014; Choi et al., 2012). The reason for persuasion variability has been attributed to the ‘‘unhealthy ¼ tasty’’ intuition, which presumes that healthiness and tastiness are negatively correlated (see Raghunathan et al., 2006). In other words, because better taste is expected from unhealthy foods and greater healthiness from healthy foods, HNR-claimed content is unable to offset the ‘‘unhealthy ¼ tasty’’ intuition when unhealthy food advertisements are encountered. Approach and Avoidance Motivation Using Elliot’s (2008) distinction between approach and avoidance motivation, Choi and colleagues (2013) examined the health halo effect in association with benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals, reasoning that the approachavoidance distinction provides a conceptual framework by which the two nutrient content-associated appeals function in food advertising. The motivational framework suggests that behaviors tend to be regulated through the functioning of approach or avoidance motivation (Elliot, 2008) and has been used in studies of food choice and persuasion tactics (Dutta-Bergman, 2004a, 2004b; Elliot, 2008). Specifically, approach motivation directs behaviors toward positive stimuli, whereas avoidance motivation directs behavior away from negative stimuli (Elliot, 2008). The underlying premise is that food advertising evaluations, like food choice judgments, are driven by benefit-seeking, a form of approach motivation, and by risk-avoidance, a form of avoidance motivation. Heimbach (1987) was the first to contend that food choice is motivated by the need to avoid unhealthy ingredients (e.g., too much sugar and fat) and to seek beneficial healthy nutrients (e.g., vitamins and minerals). Guthrie Fox, Cleveland, and Welsh (1995) confirmed Heimbach’s contention. Later, Dutta-Bergman (2004a, 2004b) advanced Guthrie and colleagues by showing that both benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance motivations influence health consciousness and healthy eating perceptions, and Choi and colleagues (2013) demonstrated it in the context of food advertising. For nutrient-claimed advertising specifically, Choi and colleagues (2013) found (a) benefit-seeking appeals increased healthy benefit perceptions of advertised foods while risk-avoidance appeals decreased unhealthy risk of perceptions; (b) both appeals enhanced healthiness perceptions of advertised foods, but enhancement effects were more effective for unhealthy foods; and (c) risk-avoidance appeals were preferred over benefit-seeking appeals, regardless of product category.

Study Focus and Hypotheses Message Factor Hypotheses This study brings the health halo effect, approach=avoidance motivation, and unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition concepts

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

1358 together to test the assumption that the halo effect is relevant to the way benefit-seeking, risk-avoidance, and taste appeals function to enhance the perceived benefits or to reduce the perceived risks of advertised foods in nutrient-content claimed messaging. Given the inverse relation between perceived benefit and risk for an object and unhealthy ¼ taste taste intuition (Alhakami & Slovic, 1994), the expectation is that the halo effects of benefits or reduced risks leads cognitive bias toward advertised foods since consumers strive to establish cognitive consistency (also see Alhakami & Slovic, 1994; Roe et al., 1997). Empirical support for the expectation is partially provided by Choi and colleagues (2012), who found nutrient-content claims enhanced perceived healthiness of advertised foods regardless of perceived food healthiness. However, only benefit-seeking ad appeals were studied. This investigation studies both benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals in nutrient-content claimed advertisements for perceivably healthy and unhealthy foods and examines whether the two appeals, in association with the taste appeal, function either to enhance perceived food healthiness by increasing perceived benefits or by reducing perceived risks. Thus, it is hypothesized: Hypothesis 1a: In advertisements for healthy foods, benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals will result in higher ad evaluations than taste appeals. Hypothesis 1b: In advertisements for unhealthy foods, taste appeals will result in higher ad evaluations than benefit-seeking and riskavoidance appeals.

Poverty Influence Hypothesis Although a relation between health halo and unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition has been established (Choi et al., 2012; Choi & Springston, 2014), researchers have cautioned that the relation can be affected by other social influences (Drewnowski & Eichelsdoerfer, 2010; Nestle et al., 1998). Consequently, previous studies have consistently stressed the need for exploration of how social variables affect interactive relations between aspects of food advertising outcomes. Thus, this study explores the moderating role of poverty level (defined as nonpoverty vs. poverty groupings). Poverty has been identified as a significant socioeconomic obstacle for people who attempt to balance healthy eating with food affordability (e.g., Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005; Drewnowski & Eichelsdoerfer, 2010; Drewnowski & Specter, 2004; Freimuth & Hovick, 2012; Levine, 2011). Research indicates that although higher-income households are able to purchase healthier foods, lower-income households find healthier foods less affordable, are more likely to purchase cheaper, energy-dense foods, and less likely to prepare healthy meals (e.g., Andrieu et al., 2006; Darmon et al., 2004; Drewnowski & Eichelsdoerfer 2010; Levine, 2011). Moreover, poverty is also associated with disparities in nutrition literacy among people. Studies have found: income

H. Choi and L. Reid and education levels are highly correlated and the highest rates of obesity occur among poverty groups with the lowest income and the least education (Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005); low-income households are less aware of diet-disease relations (Guthrie & Morton, 1999; Klohe-Lehman et al., 2006); adults who are below the poverty threshold are less heath literate than are those who are above the poverty threshold (Kutner et al., 2006); and low-income and less-educated households are less likely to use nutrition fact panels on packaging (Pe´rez-Escamilla & Haldeman, 2002). The implication of these findings is, not only do people in poverty have less money to spend on healthier foods, they also are less educated about nutrition knowledge, less likely to use nutrition knowledge, and at greater risk of foodrelated health problems because of the knowledge deficit (see Burns, 2004). Therefore, considering that HNR claims were legislated to enhance healthy eating (Andrews et al., 1998; Parker, 2003), testing the moderating effect of poverty will shed light on the extent to which the nutrient-content claimed advertising is effective within a vulnerable consumer group. In this study, based on the aforementioned disparity factors, the expectation is that, even in the circumstance of unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition, the poverty group will exhibit less positivity toward nutrient-content claimed advertisements than the nonpoverty group. (Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005). In particular, it is expected risk-avoidance ad appeals will result in different evaluative patterns across the two groups. As noted above, people in poverty tend to prefer and consume more energy-dense foods having excessive sugars and fats (e.g., Avena et al., 2009; Gearhardt, Grilo, DiLeone, Brownell, & Potenza, 2011), and clinical studies have found that high sugar and fat content in energy-dense foods influence additive cravings. Accordingly, risk-avoidance appeals emphasizing reduced unhealthy ingredients should be less attractive to people below the poverty level than to those above the poverty level. Thus, we hypothesize: Hypothesis 2: The poverty group will have less favorable evaluations of the food advertisements with risk-avoidance appeals than will the nonpoverty group.

Method A 2 (perceivably healthy vs. unhealthy products)  3 (benefitseeking vs. risk-avoidance vs. taste appeals)  2 (poverty vs. nonpoverty groups) mixed factorial experimental design was used to test the three hypotheses. The experiment was preceded by a content analysis and pretests to guide experimental stimuli creation. Complete information about methodological details is available elsewhere (Choi, 2013). Content Analysis The 2007–2009 issues of People, Better Homes and Gardens, Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping, and Prevention were analyzed. Of the 1,374 food advertisements appearing in

1359

Differential Impact of Message Appeals the issues, 952 were not duplicates. Of the 952, 681 benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals were identified (71.5%). Almost two thirds of the 681 were risk-avoidance appeals (436, 64%), and reduced fat (189, 27.8%), reduced calories (174, 25.6%), and reduced sugar (43, 6.3%) were the most common attributes. In the advertisements with benefit-seeking appeals (245, 36%), fiber (103, 15.1%), fortified protein (67, 9.8%), and vitamins (40, 5.9%) were the most claimed attributes.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

Pretest: Selecting Perceived Healthy and Unhealthy Foods A pretest was conducted to select perceivably healthy versus unhealthy foods (Choi & Springston, 2014; Choi et al., 2012; Choi et al., 2013). Using the criterion of ‘‘regular eating by more than 60% of U.S. consumers,’’ 41 adults were asked to evaluate the perceived healthiness and perceived tastiness of 16 foods using 7-point bipolar scales (Choi et al., 2012). Two questions assessing perceived healthy benefit and unhealthy risk were also asked (Choi & Springston, 2014; Choi et al., 2013). As expected, the healthy foods were perceived as healthy and nutritious, whereas the unhealthy foods were perceived as less healthy and not nutritious. All of the foods exhibited statistical significance (p < .05) on perceived healthiness=perceived taste means, confirming unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition and the inverse relation between perceived healthiness and perceived taste. Similarly, and as expected, the healthy foods were perceived to be significantly more beneficial and less risky, whereas the unhealthy foods were seen as significantly less beneficial and more risky. On the basis of the pretest results, and considering product attributes, two healthy and unhealthy food match-ups were selected for the experiment: multigrain cereal versus chocolate chip cookies and plain yogurt versus pepperoni pizza. Multigrain cereal and chocolate chip cookies are grain-based foods, whereas plain yogurt and pepperoni pizza are diary-based foods (i.e., ingredients). The four products were either perceived as healthy beneficial but less tasty (multigrain cereal and plain yogurt) or unhealthy risky but more tasty (chocolate chip cookies and pepperoni pizza) at p < .001 level. Developing Stimuli Five advertisements (one taste attribute-based appeal þ two benefit-seeking attribute-based appeals þ two risk-avoidance attribute-based appeals) were created for each food matchup (i.e., multigrain cereal vs. chocolate chip cookies and plain yogurt vs. pepperoni pizza). The advertisements were modified from real advertisements to enhance external validity (see Choi et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2009). Execution elements of the created advertisements were held constant, but modified by featured brand, brand identifiers, and ad copy. Familia, a real but not well-known brand distributed in U.S. markets, was chosen to enhance external validity and to negate bias from existing attitudes. Ad copy was modified to communicate benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance attributes: benefit-seeking attribute-based

appeals were enhanced by inflating the beneficial nutrients offered by a specific food, while risk-avoidance attributebased appeals were enhanced by reducing the risky nutrients of a food. For the multigrain cereal vs. chocolate chip cookies match-up, ‘‘protein’’ and ‘‘vitamins’’ claims were used for benefit-seeking attribute-based appeals while ‘‘calorie’’ and ‘‘sugar’’ content claims were used for risk-avoidance appeals. For the plain yogurt vs. pepperoni pizza match-up, ‘‘calcium’’ and ‘‘fiber’’ claims were used for benefit-seeking appeals, while ‘‘fat’’ and ‘‘cholesterol’’ content claims were used for risk-avoidance appeals. These nutrient-content claims were selected based on (a) content analysis and pre-test results, (b) Nutrition Facts Panel on food packaging, and (c) actual foods sold in U.S. stores (e.g., WhoNu nutrition rich cookies: more vitamins and calcium, Amy’s Organic Roasted Vegetable Pizza: less cholesterol, Yoplait Healthy Heart: reduced cholesterol; Kashi’s Mediterranean Pizza: more calcium). Experiment A research firm administered the experiment. The firm solicited an equal proportion of female and male adults from its national online panel (N ¼ 354). Ages within the sample ranged from 20 to 87 (M ¼ 49.55, SD ¼ 14.26). Racially, 85.1% of respondents were White, 8.8% were Black, and 3.2% were Asian. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the five ad-response sets located on an on-line survey website (see Table 1). Each response set presented randomly generated advertisements preceded by an explanation of the Familia brand and followed by postexposure questions, including a manipulation check and measures of the dependent, moderator, and covariate variables. Subject considered one advertisement at a time before moving to another. Dependent Variables For each ad, subjects completed a questionnaire measuring claim believability (hereafter Cb), attitude toward ad (hereafter Aad), attitude toward product (hereafter Ap), attitude toward brand (hereafter Ab), and purchase intention (hereafter PI). Cb was measured by three 7-point items (believable, trustworthy, and credible; Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .93; Andrews et al., 1998). Five 7-point bipolar items (bad=good, dislike=like, uninteresting=interesting, negative=positive, and unfavorable=favorable) were used to measure Aad (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .89; Mitchell & Olson, 1981). Ab and Ap were measured using four bipolar question items (bad=good, low quality=high quality, unappealing=appealing, and unpleasant=pleasant; Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .96 for Ab, .91 for Ap; modified from Andrews et al., 2000). PI was measured by four bipolar scales (unlikely=likely; improbable= probable; uncertain=certain; and definitely not=definitely; Cronbach’s alpha ¼ .93). Moderating Variable Poverty grouping was calculated from two questions: ‘‘Including yourself, how many people live in your household?’’ and ‘‘Thinking about members of your family living in this household, what is your combined annual income,

1360

H. Choi and L. Reid

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

meaning the total pre-tax income from all sources earned in the past year?’’ (National Cancer Institute, 2005). The second question was a multiple-choice item based on the 2011 Poverty Guidelines provided by U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2012, see Table 2; Sentell, Baker, Onaka, & Braun, 2011). Thus, respondents were asked to choose one of the income categories that represent their combined annual household income (e.g., [1] less than $10,890; [2] $10,890 to $14,710; [3] $14,711 to $18,530 . . .). From these data, it was determined whether a subject’s income level was below or above the poverty line. As a result, 42.6% of subjects were assigned to the poverty group, while 57.4% were assigned to the nonpoverty group. Covariates and Manipulation Check Current dieting status, age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and education were measured as covariates because dietary behavior and obesity are related to current dieting status (see Mendelson, White, & Mendelson, 1996); consumer food preference can be differentially affected by age, gender, and BMI (Ares & Ga´mbaro, 2007; Wansink, Cheney, & Chan, 2003); and poverty and education level are correlated (Drewnowski & Spector, 2004; Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005). The education variable was added as a covariate to control its influence on the study’s results. Current dieting was measured using the question: ‘‘Are you currently dieting?’’ (Lindberg, et al., 2006). Subjects’ BMI level was measured using two questions, ‘‘About how tall are you without shoes?’’ and ‘‘About how much do you weigh without shoes?’’ BMI indices were calculated as follows (About BMI for Adults, 2015, April 17): BMI ¼ ðWeightÞ=ðHeight  HeightÞ  703 Education level was measured by the question, ‘‘What is the highest level of school you completed?’’ To check manipulations, subjects were asked to evaluate ad-presented nutrient-content as follows: ‘‘Compared with

a regular XXX (e.g., plain yogurt) product, please indicate how likely or unlikely it is that the advertised product possesses each of listed attributes.’’ Seven-point bipolar scales were used for the attribute evaluations (1 ¼ much lower than regular product; 7 ¼ much more than regular product). In addition, BMI and education level were also used to determine differences in obesity problems and education levels between the poverty and nonpoverty groups.

Results Responses of subjects who did not complete the survey or had not eaten any of the types of food in the past 6 months were excluded from data analyses. Manipulation Check Across the food messaging match-ups, subjects perceived the benefit-seeking appeal advertisements to have significantly higher healthy content than the taste appeal advertisements; they perceived the risk-avoidance appeal advertisements to have significantly lower unhealthy content than the taste appeal advertisements (p < .001, independent-samples t tests). Thus, the 20 advertisements were manipulated as intended. Analysis of the BMI measures found that the poverty group’s average BMI was 30.6 (classified as ‘‘obese class I’’), a level significantly higher than the nonpoverty group’s average BMI of 28.6 (classified as ‘‘overweight’’; p < .01). Likewise, the poverty group was less educated than was the nonpoverty group. More than 60% of the nonpoverty group had a college degree (less than high school ¼ 0.7%, high school graduate ¼ 13.3%, some college ¼ 25.8%, bachelor’s degree ¼ 37.2%, postbaccalaureate degree ¼ 23.0%), whereas more than 70% of the poverty group had not completed a college degree (less than high school ¼ 7.7%, high school graduate ¼ 24.7%, some college ¼ 43.8%, bachelor’s degree ¼ 16.6%, postbaccalaureate degree ¼7.1%). The

Table 3. Univariate F values of three-way analyses of covariance Claim believability

Factor Covariate Current diet status Age Gender Education Body mass index Main effects Product Type (A) Appeal Type (B) Poverty (C) Interaction effects AB BC AC ABC #

p < .10.  p < .05.



p < .01.



p < .001.

Attitude toward ad

Attitude toward product

Attitude toward brand

Purchase intension

.02 1.88 4.83 .08 .12

1.27 .22 1.19 2.16 .98

.36 1.89 2.92# 8.37 1.78

1.48 1.54 .37 5.38 .74

.37 .64 2.57 2.86# .24

2.29 .02 6.92

.00 .56 5.45

.22 1.00 3.39#

.05 1.18 2.87#

.01 2.11 3.67#

2.54# 5.79 1.15 1.42

2.37# 4.53 .07 .50

4.50 3.81 .24 .63

3.70 4.18 .35 .63

3.36 3.68 .05 .23

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

Differential Impact of Message Appeals

Fig. 1. Estimated marginal means of ad-related evaluations.

1361

1362 difference in education level between the two groups was statistically significant (v2 ¼ 166.47, p < .001). Thus, subjects in the poverty group had more weight problems and were less educated than those in the nonpoverty group (see also Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005; Drewnowski & Specter, 2004). In addition, perceived credibility of the appeal types by the foods was tested. Cb responses were not significantly different across the different appeals at the p > .05 level.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

Hypothesis Testing The hypotheses predicted that both benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals would be associated with positive evaluations of the healthy food advertisements, while taste appeals would be associated with positive evaluations of the unhealthy food advertisements. In addition, the hypotheses also predicted that the nonpoverty group would have higher evaluations of the food advertisements with risk-avoidance appeals than those with benefit-seeking and taste appeals, while the poverty group would have lower evaluations of the food advertisements with risk-avoidance appeals than those with benefit-seeking and taste appeals. Initially, three-way multivariate analyses of covariance was considered to be an appropriate analysis technique; however, Box’s M test determined that the dependent variables did not satisfy the homogeneity of covariance matrices (Box’s M ¼ 660.70, F ¼ 3.84, p < .001). Thus, multiple sets of analysis of covariance, controlling current dieting status, age, BMI, gender, and education were used to test the hypotheses. Multiple 2  3  2 analyses of covariance did not result in significant three-way interaction effects among the three factors (see Table 3). However, significant two-way interaction effects were found between message appeals and food healthiness and between message appeals and the poverty groups across dependent variables. Therefore, the two significant interaction effects were further scrutinized for each dependent variable. First, significant interaction effects between message appeals and food types were found for Ap, F(2, 984) ¼ 4.50, p < .01; Ab, F(2, 984) ¼ 3.70, p < .05; and PI, F(2, 984) ¼ 3.36, p < .05. The interaction effects for Cb and Aad approached significance, but were not significant: Cb, F(2, 984) ¼ 2.54, p ¼ .08; Aad, F(2, 984) ¼ 2.37, p ¼ .09. Bonferroni pairwise comparisons for the interaction effects found that, when the advertised foods were considered healthy, the benefit-seeking appeals were associated with higher ad-related evaluations than taste appeals. The mean differences were significant for PI (p < .05). Similarly, riskavoidance appeals were associated with higher evaluations than taste appeals. The mean differences were significant for Ap, Ab and PI (p < .05; see Figure 1 for the estimated marginal means of evaluations). In contrast, when the advertised foods were considered unhealthy, the evaluative means were not significantly different, although the ad-related evaluations for taste appeals were higher than those for the benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals. Thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were partially supported.

H. Choi and L. Reid Second, significant interaction effects between message appeals and the poverty groups were found for Cb, F(2, 984) ¼ 5.79, p < .01; Aad, F(2, 984) ¼ 4.53, p < .001; Ap, F(2, 984) ¼ 3.91, p < .05; Ab, F(2, 984) ¼ 4.18, p < .05; and PI, F(2, 984) ¼ 3.68, p < .05. Bonferroni pairwise comparisons for the interaction effects found that the nonpoverty group exhibited higher evaluations toward the food advertisements with risk-avoidance appeals than did the poverty group. The mean differences were statistically significant across all dependent variables (p < .01). In contrast, no significant differences between the poverty and nonpoverty groups (p > .05) were found for the other appeal types. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported. In addition, education level was a significant covariate for Ap, F(1, 984) ¼ 8.37, p < .05, g2 ¼ .008; Ab, F(1, 984) ¼ 5.38, p < .05, g2 ¼ .005; and closely approached the significant level for PI, F(1, 984) ¼ 2.86, p ¼ .08, g2 ¼ .003. When the relations were observed in detail, education level was significantly and negatively related to the evaluations of taste claims regardless of food type: Cb, r ¼ .28, p < .001; Aad, r ¼ .34, p < .001; Ap, r ¼ .28, p < .001; Ab, r ¼ .29, p < .001; PI, r ¼ .21, p < .01. However, no significant relations were found for education level by other conditions (p > .05). Current diet status, BMI, and age were not significant covariates for any of the dependent variables (p > .05). Gender functioned as a covariate for Cb only, F(1, 984) ¼ 4.82, p < .05, g2 ¼ .005.

Discussion Guided by the theoretical frameworks of the health halo effect, approach=avoidance motivation, and unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition, interaction effects among three ad-messaging characteristics (i.e., nutrient-content claims featuring benefit-seeking, risk-avoidance, and taste appeals), perceived food healthiness (healthy and unhealthy foods) and consumer poverty level were experimentally investigated. From the findings, which generally supported the three posed hypotheses, three conclusions can be drawn. First, the interaction effects between message appeals and food healthiness reported in past studies were reaffirmed (e.g., Choi et al., 2012; Choi & Springston, 2014). Higher evaluations were found when healthy foods were advertised with benefit-seeking or risk-avoidance appeals than with taste appeals. In contrast, the ads for unhealthy foods with benefit seeking or risk-avoidance appeals were no more persuasive than the ads with taste appeals. In addition, these findings not only reaffirm earlier studies, they also enhance confidence in the external validity of earlier results and of the reported hierarchical relation between health halo and unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition. Previous study results have been based mostly on student samples; these results were based on subjects from the general population (Choi & Reid, 2014). Moreover, given that consumer poverty level was not found to moderate the interactive relations between message appeals and perceived food healthiness (i.e., no significant three-way interaction effects were found), the findings provide strong theoretical support to research which indicates

1363

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

Differential Impact of Message Appeals that the unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition phenomenon is strong and implicit among consumers, and suggests that health and nutrition-related advertising appeals cannot override the intuition predisposition (Choi & Springston, 2014; Choi et al., 2012). Considering that consumer food preference is formed at an early life stage and not easily altered over time (Nestle et al., 1998), this finding makes logical sense. At the practical level, the implication of the aforementioned findings is that benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance attribute-based appeals be used in advertising for perceivably healthy foods, but not in advertising for perceivably unhealthy foods. As Choi and colleagues (Choi et al., 2012; Choi, Yoo, Baek, Reid, & Macias, 2013) have found, the use of nutrient-content based appeals in unhealthy food advertisements not only results in less effective and robust ad responsiveness, these claims also have also been criticized for their potentially misleading nature (Chandon & Wansink, 2007; Wansink & Chandon, 2006). Considering the potential of HNR claims in advertisements for unhealthy foods to mislead, it would seem problematic for advertisers to use nutrient-based appeals in unhealthy food messaging. The second finding is that poverty status has significant interaction effects with message appeal types. Subjects in the poverty group evaluated the food advertisements with risk-avoidance appeals significantly lower than did those in the nonpoverty group. Theoretically, this finding implies that poverty level moderates the effects of different food advertisement appeals, especially risk-avoidance appeals, even though the interactive relation between message appeal and perceived food healthiness in unaffected by the socioeconomic factor. Because people in poverty have less money to spend on food, are less healthy eating literate, and are more inclined toward energy-dense foods (e.g., Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005), it is reasonable to speculate that low income consumers are not especially attracted to risk-avoidance appeals because such content emphasizes the need to stay away from foods with unhealthy ingredients (i.e., fat and sugar). Burger King recently discontinued lower-fat French Fries as a result of poor sales (Disappointed Burger King, 2014). Considering that the food is a product that lower income consumers often prefer, the news provides anecdotal support to this study’s theoretical finding. Third, another interesting finding is that education level was negatively related to evaluations of the taste appeal advertisements. As reported herein, for food advertisements with taste appeals only, ad-evaluations decreased as education level increased. Considering the correspondence between education and health literacy levels (Kutner et al., 2006) and the unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition phenomenon (Raghunathan et al., 2006), the result suggest that the more knowledgeable consumers are about health and dietary behavior, the more likely they are to dismiss taste-claimed food advertisements as they intuitively see tasty foods as unhealthy (Raghunathan et al., 2006). However, caution should be exercised in accepting this finding as conclusive because of the small sample of less-educated respondents and because nutritional literacy was not directly measured. Thus, additional study is needed to establish the relation

between nutritional literacy and evaluative reactions to food advertisements. The study’s results also have important public health implications. First, the results indicate that risk-avoidance messages regarding unhealthy ingredients in foods have little chance of influencing the avoidance of unhealthy foods among lower income people. Thus, though legislated to improve healthy dietary behavior, these findings suggest such nutrient-content claimed advertisements are ineffective in moving this vulnerable consumer group. Therefore, health messaging regarding proper dietary behavior directed to poorer consumers should focus on the appropriate consumption of diverse foods, and not just on the avoidance of unhealthy foods. Second, the findings underscore the point that information about healthy eating delivered by advertising cannot offset one of the most impactful arbiters of eating behavior among the poor —limited financial resources (Drewnowski & Eichelsdoerfer, 2010). Thus, in addition to encouraging lower income consumers to consume healthier foods with media messaging, policy efforts ought to be directed toward providing financial support for purchasing healthier foods among poorer households (Drewnowski & Darmon, 2005). An example of such a program is the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. If poorer households received financial assistance to purchase healthy foods through a targeted program, messaging would more likely produce a synergy effect. Food advertising, by its presence in the communication landscape, would be part of such a synergistic effect, where its effects—whether counter to or supportive of healthy food consumption— are mediated and moderated by the financial resources of consumers. Limitations and Future Research Despite the significance of these findings, several limitations should be noted. First, the results are not generalizable to all foods or to all forms of food advertising. Future research is needed that replicates and extends the reported results using other foods, other advertising media (e.g., TV), and other message formats (commercials). Of special importance, research is needed that pairs healthy and unhealthy options in the same food category (e.g., healthy soup vs. unhealthy soup) as consumers also select between foods within the same categories (e.g., low sodium soup vs. regular soup). Second, no measure of actual behavior was accessed. Future research is needed that links marketplace behaviors to intermediate communication responses. In addition, future inquiries might incorporate health-specific measures, such as health beliefs and nutritional literacy, to complement the advertising-specific effect measures of this study. Third, the poverty factor was treated as a dichotomous variable to facilitate the observation of moderating effects. In future inquiry, data should be collected as a continuous variable and then analyzed by regression analysis to explore more detailed relations between poverty and advertising responses.

1364 Arguably, the present study suffers from other limitations. However, the aforementioned are the most problematic shortcomings. Future researchers are encouraged to advance knowledge on consumer response to different aspect of food advertising by building on these findings.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

References Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis, 14, 1085–1096. Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1998). Consumer generalization of nutrient content claims in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 62, 62–75. 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 conditions. Journal of Advertising, 29, 29–42. Andrieu, E., Darmon, N., & Drewnowski, A. (2005). Low-cost diets: More energy, fewer nutrients. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 60, 434–436. Ares, G., & Ga´mbaro, A. (2007). Influence of gender, age and motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite, 49, 148–158. Avena, N. M., Rada, P., & Hoebel, B. G. (2009). Sugar and fat bingeing have notable differences in addictive-like behavior. Journal of Nutrition, 139, 623–628. Burns, C. (2004). A review of the literature describing the link between poverty, food insecurity and obesity with specific reference to Australia. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fastfood restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 301–314. Choi, H. (2013). The role of self- and functional congruity in food advertising: A model of key moderators, mediators, and outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Choi, H., Pack, H. J., & King, K. W. (2012). Are nutrient-content claims always effective? Match-up effects between product type and claim type in food advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 31, 421–443. Choi, H., & Reid, L. N. (2014). Students as subjects in food advertising studies. An appraisal of appropriateness. Appetite, 81, 218–224. Choi, H., & Springston, J. K. (2014). How to use health and nutrition-related (HNR) claims effectively on food advertising: Comparison of benefit-seeking, risk-avoidance, and taste appeals on different food categories. Journal of Health Communication, 19, 1047–1063. Choi, H., Yoo, K., Baek, T. H., Reid, L. N., & Macias, W. (2013). Presence and effects of health and nutrition-related (HNR) claims with benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals in female-orientated magazine food advertisements. International Journal of Advertising, 32, 587–616. Curtis, C., & Davis, C. (2014). A qualitative study of binge eating and obesity from an addiction perspective. Eating Disorders, 22, 19–32. Darmon, N., Briend, A., & Drewnowski, A. (2004). Energy-dense diets are associated with lower diet costs: a community study of French adults. Public Health Nutrition, 7, 21–27. Dennison, B. A., Erb, T. A., & Jenkins, P. L. (2002). Television viewing and television in bedroom associated with overweight risk among low-income preschool children. Pediatrics, 109, 1028–1035. Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994. Public Law 103–4 17, 103rd Congress, 21 USC 301. ‘‘Disappointed Burger King yanks Satisfries from most stores.’’ (2014, August 13). AdAge.com. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/ cmo-strategy/disappointed-burger-king-yanks-satisfries-stores/ 294577

H. Choi and L. Reid Drewnowski, A., & Darmon, N. (2005). The economics of obesity: Dietary energy density and energy cost. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 82, 265S–273S. Drewnowski, A., & Eichelsdoerfer, P. (2010). Can low-income Americans afford a healthy diet? Nutrition Today, 44, 246. Drewnowski, A., & Specter, S. E. (2004). Poverty and obesity: The role of energy density and energy costs. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 79, 6–16. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004a). An alternative approach to social capital: Exploring the linkage between health consciousness and community participation. Health Communication, 16, 393–409. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004b). Reaching unhealthy eaters: Applying a strategic approach to media vehicle choice. Health Communication, 16, 493–506. Elliot, A. J. (2008). Approach and avoidance motivation. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and motivation (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Flegal, K. M., Kit, B. K., Orpana, H., & Graubard, B. I. (2013). Association of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity using standard body mass index categories: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 309, 71–82. Freimuth, V. S., & Hovick, S. R. (2012). Cognitive and emotional health risk perceptions among people living in poverty. Journal of Health Communication, 17, 303–318. Gearhardt, A. N., Grilo, C. M., DiLeone, R. J., Brownell, K. D., & Potenza, M. N. (2011). Can food be addictive? Public health and policy implications. Addiction, 106, 1208–1212. Glasofer, D. R., Haaga, D. A., Hannallah, L., Field, S. E., Kozlosky, M., Reynolds, J., & Tanofsky-Kraff, M. (2013). Self-efficacy beliefs and eating disorders in adolescent girls at risk for excess weight gain and binge eating disorder. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 46, 663–668. Guthrie, J. F., Fox, J. J., Cleveland, L. E., & Welsh, S. (1995). Who uses nutrition labeling, and what effects does label use have on diet quality? Journal of Nutrition Education, 27, 163–172. Guthrie, J. F., & Morton, J. F. (1999). Diet-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices of low-income households with children. Journal of Early Education and Family Review, 6, 26–33. Harker, D., Harker, M., & Burns, R. (2007). Tackling obesity: Developing a research agenda for advertising researchers. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 29, 39–51. Heimbach, J. T. (1987). Risk avoidance in consumer approaches to diet and health. Clinical Nutrition, 6, 159–162. Hoek, J., & Gendall, P. (2006). Advertising and obesity: a behavioral perspective. Journal of Health Communication, 11, 409–423. Johnson, K. M., Nelson, K. M., & Bradley, K. A. (2006). Television viewing practices and obesity among women veterans. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(Suppl. 3), S76–S81. Kim, S. H., & Willis, L. (2007). Talking about obesity: News framing of who is responsible for causing and fixing the problem. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 359–376. Kim, K., Cheong, Y. J., & Zheng, L. (2009). The current practices in food advertising: The usage and effectiveness of different advertising claims. International Journal of Advertising, 28, 527–553. Klohe-Lehman, D. M., Freeland-Graves, J., Anderson, E. R., McDowell, T., Clarke, K. K., Hanss-Nuss, H., . . . Milani, T. J. (2006). Nutrition knowledge is associated with greater weight loss in obese and overweight low-income mothers. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106, 65–75. Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making healthful food choices: The influence of health claims and nutrition information on consumers’ evaluations of packaged food products and restaurant menu items. Journal of Marketing, 67, 19–34. Kutner, M., Greenburg, E., Jin, Y., & Paulsen, C. (2006). The health literacy of America’s adults: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. NCES 2006–483. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 08:07 06 November 2015

Differential Impact of Message Appeals Kunkel, D., Mastro, D., Ortiz, M., & McKinley, C. (2013). Food marketing to children on US Spanish-language television. Journal of Health Communication, 18, 1084–1096. Levine, J. A. (2011). Poverty and obesity in the US. Diabetes, 60, 2667–2668. Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., & McKinley, N. M. (2006). A measure of objectified body consciousness for preadolescent and adolescent youth. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 65–76. Livingstone, S., & Helsper, E. J. (2006). Does advertising literacy mediate the effects of advertising on children? A critical examination of two linked research literatures in relation to obesity and food choice. Journal of Communication, 56(3), 560–584. Mazis, M. B., & Raymond, M. A. (1997). Consumer perceptions of health claims in advertisements and on food labels. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 31, 10–26. Mendelson, B. K., White, D. R., & Mendelson, M. J. (1996). Self-esteem and body esteem: Effects of age, gender, and weight. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 321–346. Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitudes? Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 318–22. National Cancer Institute. (2005). Health Information National Trends Survey. Retrieved from http://hints.cancer.gov Nestle, M., & Jacobson, M. F. (2000). Halting the obesity epidemic: A public health policy approach. Public Health Reports, 115, 12–24. Nestle, M., Birch, L., DiSogra, L., Drewnowski, A., Middleton, S., Sigman-Grant, M., . . . Economos, C. (1998). Behavioral and social influences on food choice. Nutrition Review, 56, 50–64. Nutrition Labeling and Education Act. 1990. Public Law 101–5 35, 104 Stat. 2355. Parker, B. J. (2003). Food for health. Journal of Advertising, 32, 47–55. Pe´rez-Escamilla, R., & Haldeman, L. (2002). Food label use modifies association of income with dietary quality. Journal of Nutrition, 132, 768–772. Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The unhealthy ¼ tasty intuition and its effects on taste inferences,

1365 enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing, 70, 170–184. Roe, B., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The impact of health claims on consumer search and product evaluation outcomes: Results from FDA experimental data. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18, 89–105. Sentell, T., Baker, K. K., Onaka, A., & Braun, K. (2011). Low health literacy and poor health status in Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in Hawai’i. Journal of Health Communication, 16(Suppl. 3), 279–294. Sharma, A. J., Grummer-Strawn, L. M., Dalenius, K., Galuska, D., Anandappa, M., Borland, E., . . . Smith, R. (2009). Obesity prevalence among low-income, preschool-aged children-United States, 1998–2008. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 58, 769–773. Skelton, J. A., Cook, S. R., Auinger, P., Klein, J. D., & Barlow, S. E. (2009). Prevalence and trends of severe obesity among US children and adolescents. Academic Pediatrics, 9, 322–329. Tucker, L. A., & Bagwell, M. (1991). Television viewing and obesity in adult males. American Journal of Publish Health, 81, 908–911. Urala, N., & La¨hteenma¨ki, L. (2003). Reasons behind consumers’ functional food choices. Nutrition and Food Science, 33, 148–158. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). The 2011 HHS Poverty Guidelines. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/ poverty/11fedreg.pdf Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can ‘‘low-fat’’ nutrition labels lead to obesity? Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 605–617. Wansink, B., Cheney, M., & Chan, N. (2003). Exploring comfort food preferences across age and gender. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 739–747. Yoon, H., Paek, H.-J., Ahn, H., & Choi, H. (2010). Are food ads healthy? Examination of television food advertising on claims and persuasion strategies. Health Communication Research, 1, 65–91. Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, L. (2003). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food: A means-end approach. British Food Journal, 8, 645–653.