Ignorance is bliss. How parents of preschool children make sense of front-of-package visuals and claims on food.

ARTICLE IN PRESS Appetite ■■ (2014) ■■–■■

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s e v i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / a p p e t

Research report

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Ignorance is bliss. How parents of preschool children make sense of front-of-package visuals and claims on food ☆ Q2 Katie M. Abrams a,*, Caitlin Evans a, Brittany R.L. Duff b a

Q3

b

Department of Journalism and Technical Communication, Colorado State University, 1785 Campus Delivery, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA Charles H Sandage Department of Advertising, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

A R T I C L E

I N F O

Article history: Received 11 July 2014 Received in revised form 4 December 2014 Accepted 8 December 2014 Available online Keywords: Marketing Young children Snack Packaged food Qualitative research, food label

A B S T R A C T

With increasing scrutiny over how the food industry advertises products aimed toward children and fewer consumers using nutrition facts panels and ingredient lists, the fronts of food packages have become an increasingly important marketing tool to understand. Front-of-package (FOP) visual and verbal claims play a critical role in capturing consumers’ attention and helping them choose foods that fit their goals. Due to only possessing emergent literacy skills, preschool children are attuned to FOP visuals while parents are able to use the visuals in combination with verbal claims to make food choices for their children. The purpose of this focus group study was to explore how parents of preschool children make sense of FOP visual and verbal claims on packaged food products that are intended for their children. Thematic analysis revealed that parents associated aspects that most appeal to their preschool children – the characters and other playful visuals – with higher sugar content and artificial ingredients. However, parents were also easily led to believe the product was healthier based on visuals of fruit, more realistic pictures, health claims, cross-branding with healthier foods, and visuals suggesting the product is more natural. While parents recognized that the health claims and some visuals may not truly mean the food is healthier, they agreed that they rarely think beyond their initial impression. The food industry needs better regulatory guidance on how to communicate flavors and ingredients on package fronts in a way that helps consumers – particularly parents wanting to encourage healthy eating habits for their young children – better match their nutrition goals. © 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

Introduction Front-of-package (FOP) claims and other marketing characteristics on food products have commanded a lot of attention in the scholarly community recently. Much of this attention has been placed on FOP nutrition labeling in the interest of overcoming the shortfalls of the nutrition facts label mandated in the United States in 1990. Nutrition facts panels are typically on the back or side of a package and provide a standardized detailed overview of calories and various nutrient levels (e.g., sodium, fat, protein). These facts are communicated only as text. FOP nutrition labels highlight a few key nutrients but often do so using more than text. Research on FOP nutrition labels has shown that nearly all labels use pictorial or symbolic elements to convey meaning because they are recognized more Q4 readily than words (Van Kleef & Dagevos, 2013) and that labels that combine short text claims, graphics, and color are the most

60 61 62 63 64 65

Q1

☆ Acknowledgements: Research was funded in-part by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Campus Research Board. * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (K.M. Abrams).

effective. Designed this way, these labels are more likely to receive attention when the consumer is under time pressure (Van Herpen & Van Trijp, 2011). All of these efforts are designed to help consumers make efficient, smart food decisions in attempts to reduce the obesity rate among U.S. adults and children (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2013). However, despite the attention, standardized FOP nutrition labels like the U.S. Grocery Manufacturers Association “Facts Up Front” or others that may be governmentally mandated only constitute one potential source of consumer information about a product on a package front. Packaging claims, or marketing claims made by manufacturers on product packaging, are an important part of product communication strategy (Couste, Martos-Partal, & Martinez-Rios, 2012). Marketers use verbal claims on package fronts in combination with visual aspects, such as graphics/pictures, color, shapes, and typography that may imply healthiness or taste and advertise the product. Interestingly, nutrition claims such as claims in relation to products being “made from real fruit,” “made from fruit juice,” “naturally flavored,” and graphics representing fruit and vegetables are prevalent on unhealthy (e.g., high in sugar, sodium, and/or fat) packaged snacks for children (Elliott, 2008; Wirtz, Ahn, Song, & Wang, 2013). However, FOP visual elements combined with verbal claims have not been extensively examined in terms of the consumer

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.100 0195-6663/© 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article in press as: Katie M. Abrams, Caitlin Evans, Brittany R.L. Duff, Ignorance is bliss. How parents of preschool children make sense of front-of-package visuals and claims on food, Appetite (2014), doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.12.100

66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88

ARTICLE IN PRESS 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

K.M. Abrams et al./Appetite ■■ (2014) ■■–■■

interpretation of the claims, in particular, how parents of young, preliterate children perceive package claims of products aimed toward their children. Although the global food and beverage industry has claimed it is self-regulating unhealthy food advertising to children via television advertising, this self-regulation does not apply to product labeling and packaging, making this medium critical to examine (Galbraith-Emami & Lobstein, 2013; Hawkes, 2010). A recent United States Supreme Court hearing regarding a dispute between Pom Wonderful and Coca-Cola over false advertising on labeling drew attention to the significance of FOP visuals as both a consumer welfare issue and commercial competition issue. Pom Wonderful led the market in pomegranate based juices for several years until other companies started releasing similar products to capitalize on the pomegranate health craze (Bobelian, 2014). Coca-Cola released a juice called “Pomegranate Blueberry” containing less than 0.5% blueberry and pomegranate juices (Bobelian, 2014, para. 5). Pom Wonderful contended Coca-Cola misled consumers “through false representation of its product” (Tao & Tomioka, n.d., para. 3), pointing to the FOP visuals as a primary problem. The visuals prominently depicted blueberries and a pomegranate. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows companies to label a product by flavor rather than ingredients; however, the Lanham Act regulates commercial competition and prohibits false advertising. Thus, the Lanham Act was used as the legal basis under which Pom contends Coca-Cola misled consumers on nutrition and ingredients (Tao & Tomioka, n.d.). The FDA “has noted the food labeling issues that Pom has raised” (Tao & Tomioka, n.d., para. 9), but consumer advocacy groups contend that the FDA has difficulty enforcing misleading label policies (Tao & Tomioka, n.d.). Front-of-package (FOP) visuals could clearly impact children’s product perceptions. Preschool children, aged 3–5, are acutely persuaded by visual aspects because their reading ability consists primarily of emergent literacy skills, which include recognition of letters and word-based logos, that words are read left to right, and words can share a story or instructions (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). Regarding FOP food marketing geared toward children, character use has often been the focal point in the literature (e.g. Hebden, King, Kelly, Chapman, & Innes-Hughes, 2011; Lumeng, 2011; Maubach, Hoek, & McCreanor, 2009; Musicus, Tal, & Wansink, 2014). Only a few studies have examined additional visual characteristics, finding that packaged food products marketed primarily for children often rely on visual-based FOP design, using bright colors, cartoon or childlike script typeface, fruit and vegetable graphics, and/ or characters like an anthropomorphized animal or object, child, or licensed character (Elliott, 2008, 2009; Wirtz et al., 2013). Research on children’s response to these visuals has shown preschoolers choose foods based on characters, colors, pictures of the food, and fun appearance on package fronts (Carruth, Skinner, Moran, & Coletta, 2000). Similarly, Elliott’s (2009) findings showed children of 6–12 years old were strongly influenced by package designs featuring particular colors, characters (more so for 6–8 year olds), fun fonts, and pictures of the product in unique shapes or in ways that demonstrated interactivity. The research concluded that the children associated healthier food with more serious looking FOP design; however, their understanding of healthiness was limited. Another study looking at how 3–5 year old children associate food and healthiness found they were able to identify healthy foods but did not understand why they should not eat unhealthy foods (Tatlow-Golden, Hennessy, Dean, & Hollywood, 2013). However, it is the parents of preschool children (aged 3–5) that are ultimately making food purchasing decisions, which is why many products have FOP health and nutrition appeals, both verbal and visual, designed for both children and their parents. For example, one study found that 62.7% of fun foods designed with cartoonish font and graphics and largely consisting of cereal, fruit snacks, and

drinks marketed toward children had one or more FOP nutrition claim and some had a magnifying glass to supplement a “contains hidden vegetables” claim for parents (Elliott, 2008, p. 265). Another marketing strategy is to create multiple FOP designs of a single product to appear on a shelf as if they are, in fact, different products with different attributes. The visual and verbal FOP aspects can make a product packaged as ‘fun’ look like a more serious and perhaps healthier option to parents as demonstrated by the sample products analyzed by Elliott (2009). In examining parents’ views of their preschool children’s diets, Peters, Parletta, Lynch, and Campbell (2014) found media and advertising to be one barrier to healthy eating. Interestingly, in making comparisons between parents of children with healthy and unhealthy diets, they revealed that only half of the parents in the healthy-diet group discussed reading labels. Conceivably, then, even the healthier parents may be relying on the FOP information to make choices. However, those in the unhealthy group were more likely to use “energy dense, nutritionally poor foods for rewards and contingencies” (p. 135), and those foods are more likely to be packaged. In a similar study that interviewed parents of 5–12 year-old children on factors influencing their food purchases, FOP information did come up (Maubach et al., 2009): “some reported using the Heart Foundation Tick to identify healthier choices” while others “were skeptical of health-related claims” (p. 299). To simplify their search, parents seemed to pre-classify food categories as healthy or unhealthy to create a heuristic for food purchases. For fun foods and relatively unhealthy foods to fit this heuristic, FOP visual and verbal cues such as graphics of fruit and/or vegetables, “made with real fruit juice,” or “100% vitamin C” may lead parents to associate healthiness with these products. Because parents face practical pressures (appeasing children, shopping quickly, and routines) in deciding what type of food to buy, “price, marketing, and pressure from children” (Maubach et al., 2009, p. 301) can weaken their desire to let Q5 nutritional values be the primary deciding factor. When purchasing packaged foods for preschool children, parents likely use both the FOP visual and verbal aspects of food packages to make decisions. If their children are with them while shopping or will interact with the package at home, the parent may be influenced by child pestering or preference (Maubach et al., 2009; O’Dougherty, Story, & Stang, 2006) and choose a product with fun visual aspects to appease the child. The ‘fun’ packages may also contain a FOP verbal claim meant to appeal to parents (Elliott, 2008). Even when pestering or preference is not an issue, parents might still unknowingly choose what is actually the same or very similar product (same ingredients as the ‘fun’ product) that is positioned as a more healthy option via package elements. It is important then to understand the interplay of visual and verbal claims as they occur in combination, with variations sometimes occurring even for different packages of a single brand. Visual and verbal aspects of communications can interactively influence consumer percepQ6 tions (e.g., Edell & Staelin, 1983). Few qualitative studies have examined how parents interpret both verbal and visual FOP information for making decisions about what to buy and feed their preliterate children. This study begins to address that gap through its exploration of how parents of preschool children make sense of visual and verbal package claims on a food product marketed toward children. Methodology Design and procedure The exploratory nature of the research purpose warranted a qualitative approach as it allows for more open-ended inquiry and reveals the multiple facets of a topic in rich detail (Richards & Morse, 2012). Focus groups can offer unique insights because their format


67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132

ARTICLE IN PRESS K.M. Abrams et al./Appetite ■■ (2014) ■■–■■

(b)

(a)

(d)

(e)

(g)

(h)

3

(c)

(f)

(i)

(j) 1

Fig. 1. Existing fruit snack FOPs used to guide discussion.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

encourages interaction among participants. Another unique aspect is that participants share ideas and questions with each other, allowing them to become more explicit about their own views (Krueger, 2009). To address the question of how parents attend to and make sense of characteristics on the front of snack packages marketed toward their children, packaged fruit snacks were chosen as the stimuli for gathering their perceptions. Fruit snacks are a low-nutrient, energy dense food, whereas the category name (fruit snacks) may imply that they are a healthy snack choice (Irmak, Vallen, & Robinson, 2011). In a study exploring parents’ perceptions of these types of packaged foods, Petrunoff, Wilkenfeld, King, and Flood (2012) concluded balance and moderation were key factors and most “parents expressed the belief that provision of ‘extra foods’ can be frequent [sometimes every day], as long as children are eating a healthy balance of foods” (p. 985). To provide visual stimulus for the discussion, 8.5 inch by 11 inch photos of 10 different existing fruit snack package fronts were used (Fig. 1). The selection represented a variety

of visual marketing tactics, including licensed characters (e.g., Mario Brothers, Curious George), brands associated with other fruit products (e.g., Motts, Welch’s, Florida’s Natural 1 ), playful shapes/ generic cartoon characters (e.g., sea creatures, anthropomorphized fruit), and naturalness/healthfulness (e.g., natural claims, health claims, pictures of fruit). Additionally, eight mock-ups of fruit snack package fronts were developed (Fig. 2) and used to guide the focus group discussions after they had discussed the existing packages. Each mock-up had a different dominant visual representing a unique tactic while keeping most other characteristics the same (brand, location of dominant visual, layout) in order to look at responses to both interactive and isolated claims. Prior to recruiting for the focus groups, the researchers sought and obtained approval from their university’s institutional review

1

Motts, Welch’s and Florida’s Natural are well known U.S. fruit juice brands: apple, grape, and orange, respectively.


21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38


4

1

(a) Natural claim

(b) Licensed character

(c) Well-known character

(d) Unknown character

(e) Health-oriented character

(f) Picture of product

(g) Realistic fruit

(h) Health claims Fig. 2. FOP mock-ups featuring one dominant visual tactic.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

board to ensure all methodological procedures were in accordance with ethical standards for conducting research with human participants. The researchers strictly adhered to the approved procedures, which included informing participants of the study’s purpose, clearly explaining all risks (i.e., none beyond those that exist in daily life) and benefits, keeping participants’ identity separate from their responses, explaining that the groups would be audiorecorded but all identifying information would be removed and allowing them to receive the same compensation even if they chose to leave the study early. For this study, four 90-minute focus groups were held in conference rooms on a large, Midwest university campus. The focus group rooms had a single, large table to accommodate the participants and moderator and large windows throughout. Fresh fruit, plated crackers, plated cookies, iced tea and water were available as light refreshments. Name tags were used to encourage everyone to use each other’s first name, which is important to create an environment conducive to group discussion. A semi-structured moderator’s guide was used to facilitate the discussion while allowing for adaptations reflective of participants’ comments. The guide began with a brief script on the purpose and procedure and a prompt to have participants introduce themselves. The first few questions about their typical grocery store shopping habits and experiences were intended to orient them to the topic and picture themselves in the environment where they evaluate and purchase fruit snacks. The next few questions pertained to how they choose snacks for their preschool child(ren) so they could begin to think broadly about those decisions. Then, a series of questions prompted discussion about the packages (Figs 1, 2) in terms of what attracts their attention, their preschoolers’ attention, and what the FOP information means to them. The majority of the time was spent on this part of the discussion. To enhance the credibility of data collection and analysis in qualitative research, Denzin (1978) suggests triangulation through using multiple methods of data collection, more than one researcher to collect data, and different researchers for analysis. We employed these strategies by (1) having two experienced moderators (who

are also authors of this paper) each lead two focus groups, (2) using two assistant moderators (not authors of this paper) who collected observational data including notation of participants’ nonverbal language and tone of voice, and (3) having a researcher not involved in the design or data collection analyze the data (addressed further in the data analysis section). Participant recruitment and selection Participants for this study were parents or primary caretakers for at least one preschool-aged child between three to five years old. They were recruited via flyers around the researchers’ campus, local daycares, churches, and businesses; an announcement in a campus-wide faculty/staff e-newsletter, and Facebook posts by three of the researchers. Through this, 59 potential participants signed up, 40 were randomly selected using a random number generator, and 36 were initially invited to participate, while the remaining four were contacted as potential alternates. As participation incentives, participants were offered $30 cash, reimbursement for parking, and free on-site childcare during the focus groups. Two focus groups consisted of seven participants and two had eight, which is within Q7 the ideal range recommended by Krueger (2009). Participant demographics Of the 30 participants, there were 28 females and two males. All but one participant also completed an optional survey to provide demographic information and additional insight into their grocery shopping habits. Participants ranged in age from 24 to 52 years old (M = 34.41, SD = 5.36) and most were Caucasian (n = 18), six preferred not to respond, two were Asian, one Latino, one African American/Mexican, and one African American. Their monthly income ranged from $2000 to $10,000 (M = $4929, SD = $1959). Their weekly grocery budgets ranged from $40 to $225 (M = $122.41, SD = $49.40). Most participants (n = 16, 55.2%) had two children, 20.7% (n = 6) had one, 17.2% (n = 5) had three, only one had four, and one had five.


39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Table 1 Participants’ (n = 29) children’s ages. Years

N

%

1 or less 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 13 14 15

11 2 17 8 7 6 3 3 1 1 1 1 1

37.9% 6.9% 58.6% 27.6% 24.1% 20.7% 10.3% 10.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4% 3.4%

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

Table 1 shows all of the participants’ children’s ages and Table 2 shows the types of snacks they buy specifically for their preschooler(s). Data analysis The audio recording files of the focus groups were transcribed by a professional transcription service. Assistant moderator notes about participants’ nonverbal language and which package fronts or parts of the FOPs participants specifically referred to were overlaid on the focus group transcripts. The primary analytic question was two-fold: how do parents of preschool children make sense of visual and verbal FOP information and how does that information influence their choices? Data were first analyzed by one of the authors of this piece who was not involved with the design or data collection to control for confirmation bias that could occur as a result of the other researchers’ greater depth of involvement with the groups. Data were open-coded (Strauss, 1987; Strauss & Corbin, 1998) and analyzed using thematic analysis (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011; Miles Q8 & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 2002; Wolcott, 1994). Thematic analysis is an inductive analytical technique that consists of exploring the data to identify and classify recurring patterns. The lead author

40 41 42

Table 2 Snack foods participants (n = 29) buy for their preschooler(s).

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

Fruit Cheese Yogurt Cereal/Granola bars Crackers Milk Vegetables Juices Fruit snacks Applesauce Nuts/Trail mixes Pretzels Popcorn Cookies Vegetable chips Corn/Tortilla chips Cakes/muffins Candies Pudding Toaster pastries Meat snacks Rice snacks Potato chips Jello

N

%

29 26 26 24 24 24 21 19 18 17 17 16 15 11 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 1

100.0% 89.7% 89.7% 82.8% 82.8% 82.8% 72.4% 65.5% 62.1% 58.6% 58.6% 55.2% 51.7% 37.9% 20.7% 20.7% 17.2% 17.2% 17.2% 17.2% 13.8% 13.8% 10.3% 3.4%

Note. This was a “check all that apply” question. Includes response items and all writein “other” items.

5

cooperated with the primary analyst in a review of the raw analysis to look for complexities, organize and refine the themes, and corroborate the findings.

70 71 72 73

Findings Five major themes emerged from the data: (a) characters and colors cue fun for kids but ‘unhealthy’ to parents; (b) health claims and ‘natural’ design are meaningful; (c) visual realism means healthier options; (d) brand trust and perceived healthfulness; and (e) ignorance is bliss. One participant summed up most of the above themes by stating, “I would choose the Welch’s just because it seems like it’s more healthy to me and it would be between Welch’s and Mott’s because those are two really known brands. . .but the Welch’s looks less cartoonish than the Mott’s does to me. My daughter would pick Super Mario because she knows who he is” (FG 2).

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

Characters and colors cue fun for their kids but ‘unhealthy’ to parents The first major theme in the data was the discussion of playfulness and character identification. Participants often discussed the bright colors, the characters, and the shapes of the fruit snacks on the front of packaging as major factors contributing to what their preschool-aged children would be attracted to. Colors, characters and shapes displayed on packaging were all noted as important visuals for children. As one participant pointed out, “whatever it is, the more attractive it is. It doesn’t even matter. If you put liverwurst in a bright package with a cartoon character on it, I swear my son will grab it” (Focus Group [FG] 2). Multiple participants did note that the familiarity of characters was an important factor in attracting a child’s attention. One participant stated that recognizing a character that is popular at the moment is an important visual, as “it depends on what’s the hottest new thing” (FG 2). Other participants discussed the influence of characters in general, noting that “. . .it is the character. I mean, definitely, whatever character’s on there” (FG 4). It was obvious that participants thought the characters were important in attracting the attention of their preschoolers. As one participant stated, “I think my kids would be more excited about getting the creature one, and then do role play” (FG 1). Another participant mentioned, “my daughter loves Curious George, so she would go for that one, for sure” (FG 1). Yet another participant talked about Dora the Explorer being what that her child would be attracted to, “actually the Dora because she likes the character and she’ll run and look” (FG 3). Multiple participants discussed that the colors of product packaging would also attract attention from their preschool children. One participant commented specifically about not having a plain box, mentioning the “colors on the box. Not just [a] plain box. A splash of red and orange and yellow and gold” (FG 4). Another participant alluded to the coloring of the package by describing it as, “. . .the brightest, cheerfulest” (FG 1). Participants also discussed how their children would be attracted to the color because it looks fun. Some participants were more direct when it came to the discussion of color on the front of packaging, “it’s got fantastic colors” (FG 4). In general the “fun” color of fruit snack packaging played a key role in attracting their children to the product. There were also several discussions comparing fruit snacks and cereal boxes. One participant joked about fruit snacks and cereal boxes in a grocery store setting, noticing that “they have the cereal, the fruit snack, it’s just all the characters are on everything and it’s the ‘overload aisle.’ They need to put warning signs” (FG 2). Most participants believe that fruit snacks and cereal were the two types of food packaging that marketers used to display characters for children more than anything else.


87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134


6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54

While the parents’ understanding of their children’s attraction to packages utilizing fun colors and characters confirms well documented past research with children themselves (e.g. Elliott, 2009), the use of these tactics appeared to have unintended consequences when parents evaluated the packages themselves. A package with cartoon characters on it was associated with more sugar or at the very least, having fewer health benefits, regardless of additional health claims. The more cartoon-like the picture on the front of the package, the less healthy participants perceived it to be. One participant discussed the difference between a variety pack with a drawing of fruit and a package featuring cartoon dinosaurs for the same brand, “I would think, because it’s a character and because it’s dinosaurs, they probably put more sugar in it than the variety pack. That is just how my mind would go to. I would be like, ‘No, I will get that one (pointing to the package without dinosaur characters).’ The kids like the dinosaurs” (FG 1). Multiple participants echoed this sentiment. One participant stated, “Me, personally . . . just because I feel like you have to use a cartoon to market this [it’s] probably not as healthy (chuckles). I’m just saying . . . my initial impression” (FG 4). In a conversation about the Essential Everyday Dinosaur (Fig. 1e) packaging the moderator asked, “When you saw that first visual, what did that mean to you? What’s that signaling to you?” Typical responses were represented in this series from participants:

55 56 57 58 59

The reason I started giving my kids fruit snacks was that it took them so long to eat them, so you are buying yourself five minutes. If you have some sort of character, they have to sit there, identify the characters, if there are faces, if there are bodies, if it’s their sidekick or whatever. (FG 1)

“Junk food” (FG 3). “Sweet” (FG 3). “Just a sweet” (FG 3). These responses are representative of how the majority of the character-based package designs were interpreted by participants. Later, when contrasting these packages to those implying or stating the natural qualities of their ingredients, participants also made a connection between characters and an increased amount of artificial ingredients. This illustrates the consensus on the meaning of characters and bright colors to most, if not all of the participants. The playfulness of the packaging visuals attracts the attention of the preschool-aged children, but participants also equated it with a less healthy version of the snack more akin to candy or junk food. While it appeared that parents have created a defensive heuristic for “fun” marketing that characters and colors indicate a product that is unhealthier than a similar product without those features, it did not mean that they would never buy those products. Some participants did indicate they would choose the packages specifically featuring licensed or well-known characters, even with other misgivings, to appeal to their child or because they thought of fruit snacks as a special treat or reward. In addition to the goal of pleasing their child, it emerged that the character-based snacks in particular served as a way to keep children distracted longer than typical snack time, thus buying parents some time. Package fronts featuring depictions of the actual fruit snacks pieces, showing whether the snacks themselves were in fun shapes were at a special advantage here. One participant summarized this when she reported,

60 61 62 63 64 65

Health claims and ‘natural’ design are meaningful In direct contrast with what participants claimed would attract the attention of their preschool-aged children, the overwhelming consensus of parents was that FOP health claims would attract their

attention more than anything else. Not only did these claims attract the attention of the participants, but any products with health claims, regardless of the claim, were seen as healthier than other brands. Some participants talked about fruit snack packaging as typically not having any health claims so when a package does “it must mean something special.” Overwhelmingly, when participants were asked what parts of the packaging drew his or her attention they made statements such as: “It looks like this is one of the 95 percent fruit juice and real fruit” (FG 1). “The word natural stands out for me” (FG 2). “Full serving of fruit in each pouch and no sugar added” (FG 2). “No artificial flavors, colors or preservatives” (FG 2). “I noticed the 80 calories” (FG 2). The various verbal claims were lumped into being perceived as identifying healthier versions of the snacks. Many of these claims were on the packages primarily featuring visuals of fruit but few participants explicitly connected these images to the verbal claims. The word “natural” was lumped into being perceived as a health claim and these products were typically discussed as being more “real.” In one focus group the moderator explicitly asked, summarizing previous responses to the mock-ups, (Fig. 2), “do you all think the 100% natural looks the most healthy of all the ones there?” The participants all responded, “yes” (FG 2). While health claims and natural-style design (muted colors, visual of ingredients/flavors) are intended by manufacturers to imply healthier products, parents did not always choose these products solely to benefit their child’s health. For example, one participant stated, “[I’d pick the] 100 percent natural, so I am not like the mom that sends like Dora, the unhealthy fruit snack” (FG 1). This statement reflects the sentiment of others’ comments in that many of the participants expressed feelings of self-consciousness relating to the social stigma of sending their child to preschool or other activities with fruit snacks marketed with characters. The natural fruit snacks were their preference, particularly for occasions in which other adults would see what they were feeding their children or what they brought as a snack to share with other children. However, for activities in which the parent was looking to distract the child or appease the child in a private environment, fruit snacks with characters were preferred. FOP health claims were useful and significant to most participants in a broad sense but there was confusion about specific meaning in claims. One participant illustrated the confusion of health claims by stating, “it’s kind of like a double negative. It says naturally and artificially flavored. It’s either natural or artificial. I don’t get it” (FG 1). Another participant articulated possible thought processes that happen when they see health claims, noting that “. . .the fact that it has 100 percent vitamin C per serving, they are like, oh, vitamin C, that’s good” (FG 1). Other participants discussed the impact of health claims on their purchasing decisions by explaining that the claims help them make choices and differentiate between alternatives, “this had 80 calories and fat free, so that has to say something about this fruit snack” (FG 1). Another participant repeated this sentiment about calorie content, stating that “you know that there are 80 calories in the pouch, fat free and you know the vitamin content. Whereas the other ones you really have no idea” (FG 2). A few participants also discussed how health claims would serve as a prompt for them to pick up the box to examine the nutrition labels and ingredients on the other side. One participant noted, “this is one I would pick up and immediately turn [to] this side and look what they meant on the ingredients” (FG 4). Another stated, “then I would question and look at the ingredients because I wouldn’t believe that that was all that was in there” (FG 3). When


66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

discussing the Meijer Naturals (Fig. 1f) labeling one participant reported, “then I would look further and I would see no artificial flavors, no GMOs, and then I would check fleeting for the no gelatin. I’m sure it would still be there” (FG 3). A few participants also noted they often read nutrition facts panels and ingredient lists on the back of packaging. For example, “We often buy the store brand so we’ll often compare the label and actually it’ll be the same thing. It won’t necessarily have all the same attributes on the front, but the ingredients will be in the same order” (FG 3). When comparing the two packages for Everyday Essentials (Fig. 1d and 1a) one of the participants stated, “I am a label reader, but if just given, pick between these two, I would grab that one (Fig. 1a), probably, if I was going for health-based” (FG 3). The notion of reading nutrition labels also came up for one participant when evaluating the mock up packaging, “100 percent natural or the apple would make me look at the ingredients” (FG 3). Overall, health claims tended to attract the attention of the participants when evaluating fruit snack packaging. Some participants pointed out that health claims would encourage them to read the nutrition labels on the back of packages while others noted they thought any FOP with health claims meant something and probably signified a healthier version of the snack. Parents also felt that these cues for health would imply something about them as a parent when seen by other parents. Visual realism means healthier products Another theme found in the data was that FOPs without characters were often cited as healthier. Some participants even reported that the more realistic the fruit on a package, the healthier they thought the product would be. One participant sparked a discussion about packaging with only fruits (Fig. 1a) pictured on it mentioning they did not even realize it was a fruit snack, “my first impression, when I saw the fruit, was that this was yogurt or something and not fruit snacks” (FG 1). Several other participants agreed with this sentiment. Visualization of the fruit snacks themselves on packaging was also an important aspect. Having pictures of the fruit snacks seemed helpful to participants in choosing which fruit snack packaging they liked the best. As one participant noted, “I like that they picture their fruit snacks because for me visualization of what it is I’m going to eat is huge” (FG 4). In reference to the visuals on the Mott’s (Fig. 1g) packaging, one participant reported, “that’s fruit and vegetables. That’s why I want it. We buy it on occasion” (FG 4). In a discussion about the Welch’s (Fig. 1i) packaging, participants illustrated the importance of realism. One of the participants stated, “it looks old and more real like the blueberry (FG 4).” Another reported, “The blueberry is a blueberry” (FG 4). In another discussion centered around the choice of mockups, one group overwhelmingly chose the apple packaging (Fig. 2g). The Moderator asked, “with those of you that choose the apple, why the apple?” One participant responded, “it suggests whole food” (FG 3). Another participant thought the apple packaging even looked healthier, “it just seems like it’s healthier” (FG 3). In another focus group the moderator explicitly asked, “what does it indicate when [the fruit is] cartoonish versus the actual picture or more realistic?” Participants responded, “sugar” (FG 2). It was clearly illustrated that these participants viewed realistic FOP visuals as a healthier version of the snack. Overall participants illustrated that realistic visuals such as pictures of “real” fruit made the product seem healthier than other fruit snack options. Brand trust and perceived healthfulness Another theme that emerged from the data was in relation to well-known product brands. Brands seemed to go a long way in influencing perceptions of both health and trust. In general,

7

recognizable brands reminded the participants of other associations they have with the brand from other contexts. Brands with health or educational associations in particular were received with loyalty and trust. As one participant put it, “I like the PBS kids thing because I only let my kids watch PBS when they were younger, so that stands out to me” (FG 1). Multiple participants echoed similar sentiments. For example, one participant stated, “it’s a wellknown brand” (FG 2). When discussing the Welch’s packaging one participant reported, “. . .they’ve got a product line that has sugar in it and a product line that doesn’t. I would pick this box versus some of the others that I wouldn’t even touch” (FG 2). Another participant mentioned brand loyalty when it comes to the Meijer Naturals (Fig. 1f), “the brown label that I’ve come to adore” (FG 3). When referencing the Mott’s packaging one participant reported, “applesauce and it tends to be more natural” (FG 3). Also talking about the Mott’s brand, another participant mentioned “healthier, yeah. This is the winner” (FG 3)! Some of the participants even talked about the brands they trust, which they associated with education (PBS), juice (Florida’s Natural, Welch’s), and applesauce (Mott’s), and being more likely to use real fruit or healthier products. For example, “you trust that Welch’s is going to be made with real fruit as opposed to someone else” (FG 4). The reputation of the brands went a long way in influencing the perception of health and nutrition. One participant summarized this point by saying, “you look at Welch’s, you look at Mott’s, you look at the Florida’s Natural because it’s associated with juice and when you think of fruits, you think of juice. The closest thing to fruits is juice, you know? That’s what would catch my eye. I would look at that before the Mario Brothers and the sharks and the other stuff” (FG 3). Overall, the juice-branded fruit snacks were perceived not only as more trustworthy, but also more likely to contain fruit juice, which was associated with fruit and healthfulness. The PBS branded characters on FOPs were seen in a somewhat similar light. Ignorance is bliss (regarding the claims and visuals) While most participants talked about brands, realistic visuals, and health claims as indicators of healthier fruit snacks, some also noted that they might realize one product over the other is not necessarily healthier than others, but when they are shopping and they are in a hurry or need to make a quick decision, they will choose the healthier looking option if they can. This theme emerged when participants compared the different types of fruit snack packaging. One participant stated, “I think they probably want us to think it’s healthier because of the fact that there is fruits on it and not dinosaurs, but I am sure that, if you compare the two, it is probably just the same. I am sure that I have fallen into that trap as well. I can pretty much guarantee it. I am like, oh, there is fruit on this, and I am sure it’s better than that” (FG 1). When comparing the dinosaur to the fruit visuals on the Everyday Essentials brand, one participant also noted the fruit packaging seems “more healthy than a dinosaur of the same [brand.] I don’t actually think that but if I’m in a store and not paying attention . . . I’d more likely to buy these” (FG 4). This idea that the same brand with different FOP visuals would influence in-store purchases based on a quick decision is important when examining the influence of packaging on purchase decisions. Participants also talked about choosing certain types of fruit snacks based on health claims and realistic visuals because they were concerned or cognizant of the impressions they would be giving to others. Giving off the illusion of a healthy choice was more important than actual health. Participants implied it was easier to believe one fruit snack is healthier over another than to learn the truth. When discussing what types of fruit snacks a participant would purchase for a school event, one participant stated, “I feel like my choice impacts 25 kids then, not just my own so I try to do something


67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132


8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

healthy just because I don’t mind if my daughter has a cupcake for a snack, but there might be other parents in the class that do mind so I try to do the whole thing” (FG 2). When discussing what to bring for school events or birthday parties, another participant noted, “I’ll probably bring a Mott’s. I’m impressing the mother with my healthier choice” (FG 4). In general, not knowing the true nutrition of a fruit snack was perceived as almost better for some participants. When making quick purchase decisions and attempting to choose healthier options, participants gravitated toward more realistic visuals over characters and “fun” colors. They were also sensitive to what other parents would think of their choices, and they reported this leads them to purchase what will look as though it is a “healthier” version of the food. Discussion Summary of key findings In relation to characters and colors cue fun for their kids but ‘unhealthy’ to parents, participants reported that their preschoolaged children would be attracted to the characters and colors of the FOP visuals while, for the participants themselves, these visuals indicated a less healthy option. Health claims and ‘natural’ design are meaningful as a theme emerged as participants explained that the health claims (verbal and visual indicators) do indeed create perceptions of product healthiness, even if the product category is not perceived as entirely healthy. The third theme, visual realism means healthier options, was based on the overall feeling conveyed by participants that FOP visuals with more realistic fruit on the packaging were a healthy alternative to characters and “fun”-colored packaging. The fourth theme, brand trust and perceived healthfulness, revealed that most participants believed brands they had previously purchased or brands they recognized were more likely healthier options. Finally, ignorance is bliss, was an overarching theme that highlighted the idea that even though many participants ultimately realized one type of fruit snack is not likely to be any healthier than another, they would still purchase the healthier looking option if basing a decision on health. Implications In regard to what FOP aspects attract attention, parents indicated their preschool children recognize and are attracted to characters and the playfulness of the packaging, which provides additional support to what other studies have revealed (Carruth et al., 2000). Any fun visual aspect, whether it be color, font, cartoonish graphics, unknown or known characters, were likely seen as attracting young children not only because food-based entertainment is seen as important to preschoolers (Elliott, 2009), but also because their emergent literacy skills cause them to rely heavily on visual cues to make meaning (Lonigan et al., 2000). Although the food industry has reduced its television advertising, the use of television and game characters on food packaging is prevalent (Galbraith-Emami & Lobstein, 2013; Hawkes, 2010) and, according to this study’s participants, highly persuasive to preschool children. Known characters and other fun visuals are recognized by children, and some parents reported these appeal to the child even if they are not familiar with the food. The entertainment aspect was also important to parents in that it could provide utility because playful FOP visuals appease their children, and can be used as a reward, or as a way to distract the child. However, while research has shown widespread use of fun and Q9 playful elements on packages (Elliott, 2008, 2013), the research here indicated that parents are far from passive receivers of all-powerful marketing messages. Contrary to manufacturer intent, parents rather automatically seemed to use these fun elements as a defensive

heuristic to help guard against unhealthy food choices. Parents associated playful visuals, such as characters, bright colors, and cartoonish illustrations of fruit with unhealthiness and higher sugar content. This interpretation could be seen as beneficial or detrimental, depending on the food being advertised. With fruit snacks, it is beneficial since they do not provide much nutritional value and are often high in sugar as a low-nutrient, energy dense food. It seems ideal, then, for parents to liken the food more to candy or junk food than with juice or fruit. However, while less commonplace to advertise healthy or fresh foods with playful FOP visuals (particularly characters), doing so could potentially be detrimental for the product if parents continue to associate characters with reduced healthiness. Research should examine whether this is indeed true with healthier foods. The ignorance is bliss theme contained a notion of selfconsciousness among parents. The parents reported feeling selfconscious if they were to send their child with the characterpromoted snack to a place where other adults outside the family would be able to observe this choice. This finding, which had not been revealed by previous research, implies that the social norms of these parents are disapproving of poor food choices and that they believe that other parents also associate characters with junk food. Such social norms may aid in healthier food choices for their preschool children for snacks to be consumed socially but would not provide incentive where eating most often occurs: privately. It is interesting to note from the survey data collected how many participants identified fruit snacks (62.1%) as being a “snack” relative to other foods. Fruit snacks were used as snacks for their preschool child(ren) by about as many participants as relatively healthier foods, including juice (65.5%), applesauce (58.6%), nuts (58.6%), and pretzels (55.2%). This demonstrates that most do not generally classify fruit snacks as junk food like candy, cookies, and chips, which were used as snacks by far fewer parents. As a food category, it seems fruit snacks are interpreted by parents in different ways depending on visuals and situational factors. Simply changing the FOP visuals and claims on the same food made many parents assume the product is healthier, removing it from a possible classification as junk food. Parents in this study were more attuned to brand names associated with what they felt were healthier sources of fruit (juice and applesauce) and also the health claims on the packaging. Cross-branding with established healthy brands/products potentially primes parents to integrate those qualities with the unhealthier food. A wide variety of claims were associated with healthiness, including natural, nothing artificial, contains fruit or fruit juice, vitamins, calories, and no added sugar. Claims about a product’s naturalness (i.e., natural, no artificial ingredients, made with fruit or fruit juice) are commonplace on snacks marketed for children (Wirtz et al., 2013); however, such claims do not actually indicate anything about nutritional value. In fact, about 87% of these foods have sugar as one of the top three ingredients (Wirtz et al., 2013). The visual aspects that signaled healthiness to parents included more realistic fruit graphics, earthtone coloring of package elements, and increased white space. Parents indicated they would choose the healthier-looking product for their children despite it being essentially the same product as the playfully designed FOP, especially if the snacks would be consumed in front of other adults outside the family. One of the more interesting findings was the level of awareness that parents had of their own biases and shortcomings when it came to purchasing snacks for their children. Parents liked the FOPs that gave the illusion of healthiness, regardless of the accuracy of their belief. Although previous studies identified marketing as a factor undermining parents’ ability to choose healthy food (Maubach et al., 2009; Peters et al., 2014), past studies did not explicate what specific marketing elements influence them as this study did. Parents also reported, when thinking about it more deeply, that they realize some of the health claims might not mean one fruit


67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66

snack is actually healthier than another, but they are at least one heuristic to use when making fast decisions in the grocery store, which has also been supported by previous research (Kümpel-Nørgaard & Brunsø, 2009). Some said they would read the nutrition facts and/or ingredients in order to verify the FOP health claims (including natural claims). This is positive if such claims prompt some parents to consult nutrition/ingredient information. However, that also means that the products that might benefit the most from further nutritional scrutiny (products without any health claims) are the least likely to receive that scrutiny. Parents did not, however, comment on whether they thought the more realistic visuals were truly an accurate indicator of healthiness. They seemed to accept the subtle influence of such visuals on their reclassification of the product as a healthier choice, meaning, they no longer saw the fruit snacks as part of the junk food category when they were marketed using more realistic looking images of fruit. The parents did not connect the visuals of fruit to signaling flavor. Instead, the visuals of fruit, particularly the more realistic ones, signified ingredients and improved health or nutrition qualities of the product. This raises an important question: How do we allow marketers to use visuals to signify flavors without misleading consumers? The Pom Wonderful vs. Coca-Cola hearing brought light to the issue, and the present study demonstrates the power of such visuals in influencing how consumers make sense of food products. With limited time and mental resources to thoroughly evaluate each product when grocery shopping, the parents in this study reported relying largely on FOP information. They did not question whether the product actually contained the fruit pictured and instead immediately connected these visuals to improved healthiness, meaning, they are being misled. However, upon forced reflection of their choices and impressions, parents do understand that the package marketing is leading them to think the product is healthier when it might not actually be a healthier choice for their child. Eyetracking studies would be useful to identify the dominant visuals and claims used by parents to make a decision and to determine whether clarification text (often placed inconspicuously) is actually seen by people evaluating the rest of the package. Limitations While the focus groups offered rich and detailed insight into how parents of preschoolers make sense of FOP visual and verbal information, this research method does not yield generalizable results for the population. The results of this study applied to different contexts will require judgments and comparisons by the potential user (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 2006). It should be noted that focus groups could influence participants to respond in similar ways as their counterparts; therefore, some uniqueness may be lost among the participants. Also, all but two participants were women, who may differ from male parents in their familiarity and perceptions of FOP visual and verbal information. Future research examining male parents’ processing would be a useful addition to the literature. Conclusions It is apparent from this study that the various approaches on packages are perceived differently by parents compared to that of a child’s perception. In particular, parents utilize nuanced strategies to manage the meanings for different situations but still come to some incorrect conclusions based on mental shortcuts. For those parents who want to appease their children, provide a special treat/reward, or distract their children to free up the parent’s time and attention, the playful FOP visuals, particularly characters, match their purchasing goals. These visuals also help parents identify foods as being junk food or sweets. For the same or similar products, changing the FOP design and claims can then cause those same products to meet different parental goals.

9

For those who want to provide a healthier snack, parents are persuaded by the health claims, visuals and claims about the ingredients’ naturalness (e.g., realistic graphics of fruit, earth tone coloring), and using familiar ‘fruit’ brands or cross-branding with products associated with health and education (i.e. PBS). Parents clearly want to provide healthy snacks to their preschool children, and seem to understand that the occasional sweet is just that: something to give on occasion. However, FOP visuals and claims can lead them to believe that some options lead to a healthier snack and perhaps no longer necessarily part of the junk food category, leading to potentially poorer food choices for their children. The findings presented here are a timely contribution in light of recent debates involving food product regulatory agencies’ consideration of natural labeling criteria and visuals that communicate ingredients and nutrition. These regulatory agencies typically debate these issues on whether the labeling misleads consumers. It can be a particularly sensitive subject for food products marketed primarily for children since a great deal of literature points to the importance of creating healthy eating habits at an early age. Future eye-tracking studies and research leveraging experimental design would be useful to assess the extent of influence different FOP aspects have on parents of young children. In the meantime, the food industry may need regulatory guidance on how to communicate flavors and ingredients on package fronts in a way that helps consumers, particularly parents trying to encourage healthy eating habits in their young children, in order to better match their family’s nutrition goals.

67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

References Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (2006). Introduction to research in education (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson. Bobelian, M. (2014, April 22). In POM v. Coca-Cola, Supreme Court could shake up food labeling. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites /michaelbobelian/2014/04/22/supreme-court-asked-to-referee-disputebetween-coca-cola-and-pom/. Carruth, B. R., Skinner, J. D., Moran, J. D., III, & Coletta, F. (2000). Preschoolers’ food product choices at a simulated point of purchase and mothers’ consumer practices. Journal of Nutrition Education, 32(3), 146–151. doi:10.1016/S00223182(00)70542-5. Couste, N. L., Martos-Partal, M., & Martinez-Rios, E. (2012). The power of a package. Product claims drive purchase decisions. Journal of Advertising Research, 364–375. doi:10.2501/JAR-52-3-364-375. Denzin, N. K. (1978). Sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Edell, J. A., & Staelin, R. (1983). The information processing of pictures in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 45–61. Elliott, C. (2008). Marketing fun foods. A profile and analysis of supermarket food messages targeted at children. Canadian Public Policy, 34(2), 259–273. doi:10.3138/cpp.34.2.259. Elliott, C. (2013). Parents’ choice. Examining parent perspectives on regulation and child-targeted supermarket foods. Food, Culture and Society, 16(3), 437–455. Elliott, C. D. (2009). Healthy food looks serious. How children interpret packaged food products. Canadian Journal of Communication, 34(3), Retrieved from . Galbraith-Emami, S., & Lobstein, T. (2013). The impact of initiatives to limit the advertising of food and beverage products to children. A systematic review. Obesity Reviews, 14(12), 960–974. doi:10.1111/obr.12060. Hawkes, C. (2010). Food packaging. The medium is the message. Public Health Nutrition, 13(02), 297–299. doi:10.1017/S1368980009993168. Hebden, L., King, L., Kelly, B., Chapman, K., & Innes-Hughes, C. (2011). A menagerie of promotional characters. Promoting food to children through food packaging. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(5), 349–355. doi:10.1016/ j.jneb.2010.11.006. Irmak, C., Vallen, B., & Robinson, S. R. (2011). The impact of product name on dieters’ and nondieters’ food evaluations and consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(2), 390–405. doi:10.1086/660044. Krueger, R. A. (2009). Focus groups. A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kümpel-Nørgaard, M. K., & Brunsø, K. (2009). Families’ use of nutritional information on food labels. Food Quality and Preference, 20(8), 597–606. doi:10.1016/ j.foodqual.2009.07.005. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading skills in preschool children. Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 36(5), 596–613. doi:10.1037/00121649.36.5.596.


94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Q10 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Q11 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142

ARTICLE IN PRESS 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29

K.M. Abrams et al./Appetite ■■ (2014) ■■–■■

Lumeng, J. (2011). Cartoon characters on food packages influence taste and snack preferences in young children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 158(1), 170–171. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2010.09.076. Maubach, N., Hoek, J., & McCreanor, T. (2009). An exploration of parents’ food purchasing behaviours. Appetite, 53(3), 297–302. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.07.005. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded source book (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Musicus, A., Tal, A., & Wansink, B. (2014). Eyes in the aisles. Why is Cap’n Crunch looking down at my child? Environment and Behavior, doi:10.1177/ 0013916514528793; 0013916514528793. O’Dougherty, M., Story, M., & Stang, J. (2006). Observations of parent-child coshoppers in supermarkets. Children’s involvement in food selections, parental yielding, and refusal strategies. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38(3), 183–188. doi:10.1016/j.jneb.2005.11.034. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Peters, J., Parletta, N., Lynch, J., & Campbell, K. (2014). A comparison of parental views of their pre-school children’s “healthy” versus “unhealthy” diets. A qualitative study. Appetite, 76, 129–136. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.02.001. Petrunoff, N. A., Wilkenfeld, R. L., King, L. A., & Flood, V. M. (2012). Treats’, ‘sometimes foods’, ‘junk’. A qualitative study exploring ‘extra foods’ with parents of young children. Public Health Nutrition, 17(5), 979–986. Richards, L., & Morse, J. M. (2012). Read me first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York: Cambridge University Press. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Tao, H., & Tomioka, C. (n.d.). Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Company. Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from http://www.law .cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-761. Tatlow-Golden, M., Hennessy, E., Dean, M., & Hollywood, L. (2013). "Big, strong and healthy" . Young children’s identification of food and drink that contribute to healthy growth. Appetite, 71, 163–170. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2013.08.007. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2013). Front-of-package labeling initiative. . Van Herpen, E., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (2011). Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite, 57(1), 148–160. Van Kleef, E., & Dagevos, H. (2013). The growing role of front-of-pack nutrition profile labelling. A consumer perspective on key issues and controversies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, doi:10.1080/10408398.2011.653018. Wirtz, J. G., Ahn, R., Song, R., & Wang, Z. (2013). Selling or selling out? A content analysis of children’s snack packages and implications for advertising practitioners and educators. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication National Conference; Washington, DC; August 2013.

49 Uncited reference Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Company, 12–716. (2014). .


Q12

50 51 52 53 54

Ignorance is not bliss.

Persistent optimizing: how mothers make food choices for their preschool children.

Ignorance isn't bliss: why patients become angry.

Developmental neuroscience: how twitches make sense.

When ignorance is bliss: weight perception, body mass index and quality of life in adolescents.

How brain waves help us make sense of speech.

Cervical cancer screening: How do we make sense of it all and what is the right balance?

Linguistic analysis of the Preschool Five Minute Speech Sample: what the parents of preschool children with early signs of ADHD say and how they say it?

Food allergy and anaphylaxis in infants and preschool-age children.

How Mouse Macrophages Sense What Is Going On.

When wild ideas make sense.

How Can Parents Understand Their Children?

Children in critical care: how parents cope.

"Opening the curtains": How do voice hearers make sense of their voices?

How is dietary diversity related to haematological status of preschool children in Ghana?

How does a woman with Alzheimer's disease make sense of becoming cared for?

How do ants make sense of gravity? A Boltzmann Walker analysis of Lasius niger trajectories on various inclines.

Judgment is not ignorance.

Interpretation and Construction of Meaning of Bliss-words in Children.

Effect of WIC Food Package Changes on Dietary Intake of Preschool Children in New Mexico.

Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Parents of Food-Allergic Children.

Weeding out the information: an ethnographic approach to exploring how young people make sense of the evidence on cannabis.

Oral health attitudes and caries-preventive behaviour of Czech parents of preschool children.

How to use health and nutrition-related claims correctly on food advertising: comparison of benefit-seeking, risk-avoidance, and taste appeals on different food categories.