Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conveying level of science: Tests of iconic and comparative formats

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Supplement and food manufacturers are permitted to make certain health claims from emerging science on package labels, provided that a qualifier which indicates the strength of science supporting the claim is used. The Food and Drug Administration has proposed four levels of strength of science; however, the research to date has demonstrated that consumers cannot distinguish between these four levels. The current study tests whether iconic and comparative representations are effective at conveying strength of science. We find that both displays are effective and that consumers' perceptions of level of science are significantly influenced by industry trust and processing involvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The type of product, either a supplement or food, was also manipulated. We do not present a detailed discussion of these manipulations in this article since, once the mediating effect of industry trust is accounted for, no statistically significant main effects are detected between claims on supplement packages and claims made on food packages.

  2. Recall that the product type had no impact on the results (see Footnote 1) and was collapsed.

References

  • Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J. C., & Durvasula, S. (1991). Suggestions for manipulating and measuring involvement in advertising message content. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1998). Consumer generalization of nutrient content claims in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 62, 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, J. R., Payne, J. W., & Staelin, R. (1986). Cognitive Considerations in Designing Effective Labels for Presenting risk Information. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 5, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: Lower calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derby, B., Levy, A. (2005). Effects of Strength of Science Qualifiers on the Communication Impacts of Health Claims. Division of Social Sciences, Office of Regulation and Policy, Center for Food and Safety, Food and Drug Administration, (September), Working Paper No. 1.

  • Federal Trade Commission. (2006). Comments of the staff of the Bureau of Economics, the Bureau of Consumer Protection, and the Office of Policy Planning of the FTC, (January 17), “Before the Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration: In the Matter of Assessing Consumer Perceptions of Health Claims; Public Meeting; Request for Comments”, (Docket no. 2005N-0413).

  • France, K. R., & Bone, P. F. (2005). Policy makers' paradigms and evidence from consumer interpretations of dietary supplement labels. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29, 27–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckler, S. E., & Childers, T. L. (1992). The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency? Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 475–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, N. H., Teratanavat, R. P. (2005). Qualified health claims: Food for thought. Paper presented at FDA public meeting, Washington D. C, November 17, 2005.

  • Grocery Manufacturers Association. (2006). GMA Comments to the FDA on Health Claims, (January 19), http://www.gmabrands.com/publicpolicy/functionalfoods.cfm, accessed June 2, 2006.

  • IFIC. (2005). “Qualified Health Claims Consumer Research Executive Summary”, (March), http://www.ific.org/research/qualhealthclaimsres.cfm, accessed June 2, 2006.

  • Lando, A. (2004). Results from the graphics for level of scientific evidence for health claims focus groups. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, (February 25), draft.

  • Miniard, P. W., Rose, R. L., Barone, M. J., & Manning, K. C. (1993). On the need for relative measures when assessing comparative advertising effects. Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 41–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, D., Hoppock, T. H., Rusk, M. K. (1998). Generic copy test of food health claims in advertising. A joint staff report of the Bureaus of Economics and Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, (November).

  • Murphy, D. (2005). Consumer perceptions of qualified health claims in advertising. Bureau of Economics, Federal Trade Commission, (July), Working Paper No. 277.

  • Pearson v. Shalala. (1999). U.S. App. Lexis 464.

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, VIII (pp. 20–24). Ann Arbor: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Picciano, M. F. (2006). What Dietary Supplements are US Children Taking? Office of Dietary Supplements national Institutes of Health available at: http://www.ods.od.nih.gov/pubs/fnce2006/WhatDietarySupplementsAreUSChildrenTaking_Picciano.pdf, accessed 26 April 2007.

  • US Food and Drug Administration (1999a). Emerging Science and Health Claims: A Report from the FDA Food Advisory Committee and its Emerging Science Working Group. June 25, available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/∼dms/faclaims.html

  • US Food and Drug Administration (1999b). Guidance for Industry Significant Scientific Agreement in the Review of Health Claims for Conventional Foods and Dietary Supplements. December 22, available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/∼dms/ssaguide.html

  • Vladeck, D. C. (2000). Truth and consequences: The perils of half-truths and unsubstantiated health claims for dietary supplements. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 19, 132–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Tim Terman and Jay Alvino for their assistance in developing the graphics used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business and Economics, West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6025, Morgantown, WV, 26506-6025, USA

    Karen Russo France & Paula Fitzgerald Bone

Authors
  1. Karen Russo France
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paula Fitzgerald Bone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Russo France.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

France, K.R., Bone, P.F. Conveying level of science: Tests of iconic and comparative formats. Mark Lett 20, 385–397 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-009-9081-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-009-9081-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation