Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 425–436 | Cite as

The facilitating influence of consumer knowledge on the effectiveness of daily value reference information

  • Fuan Li
  • Paul W. Miniard
  • Michael J. Barone
Research Note

Abstract

As a means of enhancing consumer understanding of nutritional information, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 requires the provision of percentage daily values (%DVs) on food labels. Findings from existing research, however, vary in their support for the assumption that including %DVs will assist consumers in their efforts to comprehend nutritional information. To shed further light on this issue, the present study examines the moderating role of consumer knowledge about how to use %DVs in evaluating a product’s healthiness. The results indicate that the usefulness of providing %DVs on a nutritional label depends strongly on this form of knowledge. Implications for public policy and directions for future research efforts are presented.

Keywords

Food Label Reference Information Consumer Knowledge High Nutritional Trial Intention 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson. 1987. “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (March): 411–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Axelson, Marta L. and David Brinberg. 1992. “The Measurement and Conceptualization of Nutrition Knowledge.”Journal of Nutrition Education 24 (5): 239–246.Google Scholar
  3. Barone, Michael J., Randall L. Rose, Kenneth C. Manning, and Paul W. Miniard. 1996. “Another Look at the Impact of Reference Information on Consumer Impressions of Nutrition Information.”Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 15 (1): 55–62.Google Scholar
  4. Brucks, Merrie, Andrew A. Mitchell, and Richard Staelin. 1984. “The Effect of Nutritional Information Disclosure in Advertising: An Information Processing Approach.”Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 3: 1–25.Google Scholar
  5. Burton, Scot and J. Craig Andrews. 1996. “Age, Product Nutrition, and Label Format Effects on Consumer Perceptions and Product Evaluations.”Journal of Consumer Affairs 30 (1): 68–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — and Abhijit Biswas. 1993. “Preliminary Assessment of Changes in Labels Required by the Nutrition Labeling and Education.”Journal of Consumer Affairs 27 (1): 127–144.Google Scholar
  7. ——, and Richard Netemeyer. 1994. “Effects of Alternative Nutrition Label Formats and Nutrition Reference Information on Consumer Perceptions, Comprehension, and Product Evaluations.”Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 13 (Spring): 36–47.Google Scholar
  8. Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson. 1988. “The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes.”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (September): 210–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole, Catherine A. and Gary J. Gaeth. 1990. “Cognitive and Age-Related Differences in the Ability to Use Nutritional Information in a Complex Environment.”Journal of Marketing Research 37 (May): 175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Register. 1990. “Food Labeling: Mandatory Status of Nutrition Labeling and Nutrient Content Revision.” 55 (139): 29487–29533.Google Scholar
  11. —. 1993. “Food Labeling Regulations Implementing the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990.” 58 (3): 2066–2090.Google Scholar
  12. Jaccard, James. 1998.Interaction Effects in Factorial Analysis of Variance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Levy, Alan S., Sara B. Fein, and Raymond E. Schucker. 1991. “Nutrition Labeling Formats: Performance and Preference.”Food Technology 45 (July): 116–121.Google Scholar
  14. ——, and —. 1996. “Performance Characteristics of Seven Nutrition Label Formats.”Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 15 (1): 1–15.Google Scholar
  15. Moorman, Christine. 1990. “The Effects of Stimulus and Consumer Characteristics on the Utilization of Nutrition Information.”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (December): 362–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. —. 1996. “Information Processing Activities: The Case of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act.”Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 15 (1): 28–44.Google Scholar
  17. Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 19. Eds. Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press, 123–205.Google Scholar
  18. Russo, J. Edward, Richard Staelin, Catherine A. Nolan, Gary J. Russell, and Barbara L. Metcalf. 1986. “Nutrition Information in the Supermarket.”Journal of Consumer Research 13 (June): 48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Suter, Tracy A. and Scot Burton. 1996. “An Examination of Correlates and Effects Associated With a Concise Measure of Consumers’ Nutrition Knowledge.”Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 25 (2): 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Viswanathan, Madhubalan. 1994. “The Influence of Summary Information on the Use of Nutrition Information.”Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 13 (Spring): 48–60.Google Scholar
  21. Wyse, Bonita, Ann W. Sorenson, Arthur J. Wittwer, and R. Gaurth Hansen. 1976. “Nutritional Quality Index Identifies Consumer Nutrient Needs.”Food Technology 30 (January): 20–40.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fuan Li
    • 1
  • Paul W. Miniard
    • 2
  • Michael J. Barone
    • 3
  1. 1.Mercyhurst CollegeErieUSA
  2. 2.Florida International UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Iowa State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations