Healthy Choices? The Implications of Direct and Indirect Stimuli for Product Perception and Food Consumption



Consumers observe many stimuli in the environment when they choose or consume foods. These external stimuli can be differentiated as having a direct or indirect effect on people. Direct stimuli aim to influence consumers’ perception of a product (e.g., its expected taste) and their food choice. Nutrition labels, for example, aim to help consumers to make healthy food choices. In contrast, indirect stimuli are not knowingly observed by consumers but affect their food consumption subconsciously. For instance, people will buy more bread when the smell of freshly baked bread is spread throughout a supermarket. In this chapter, we review studies that have investigated how consumers are influenced by direct and indirect stimuli. We elaborate on the psychological factors that are involved in the perception and processing of these two stimuli types.

Direct stimuli are confined to nutrition information and thereby focus on how nutrition tables, labels, and claims can influence consumers’ perception of food products. Nutrition information on products can affect consumers in two ways. First, research shows that people can make healthier food choices if they have nutritional values of other products available as reference information for evaluating the nutritional value of a product. Second, nutrition labels and claims often function as translators of quantitative nutrition information (e.g., nutrient content).

Indirect stimuli, conversely, are part of the environment but will often go unnoticed as influences on food consumption. Previous studies show that a wide range of external cues can function as indirect stimuli or primers. To be able to affect food consumption, indirect cues need to prime an association that is related to this behavior. Moreover, people should be motivated to show the primed food consumption behavior.

We discuss how the mental processes of direct and indirect stimuli are related. We will also explain the conditions that determine which type of stimulus will influence food consumption, by elaborating on a dual process model of information processing.


Food Choice Nutrition Information Reference Information Nutrition Label Direct Stimulus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Front-of-package label


  1. Ajzen I. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 1991; 50:179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bargh JA. In: Higgins ET, Sorrentino RM, editors. Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior. New York: Guilford; 1990. p. 93–130.Google Scholar
  3. Bargh JA, Chartrand TL. In: Reis HT, Judd CM, editors. Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. p. 253–85.Google Scholar
  4. Bellisle F, Dalix A-M. Am J Clin Nutr. 2001; 74:197–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Boon B, Stroebe W, Schut H, Jansen A. Brit J Health Psych. 1998; 3:27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. British Market Research Bureau. Comprehension and use of UK nutrition signpost labelling schemes. London: Food Standards Agency; 2009.Google Scholar
  7. Brunner T, Siegrist M. Primed to eat less: How unobtrusive external cues influence how much we eat. Unpublished manuscript. Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich; 2009.Google Scholar
  8. Caldwell C, Hibbert S. Psychol Market. 2002; 19:895–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaiken S, Liberman A, Eagly AH. In: Uleman JS, Bargh JA, editors. Unintended thought. New York: Guilford; 1989. p. 212–52.Google Scholar
  10. Chandon P, Wansink B. J Marketing Res. 2002; 39:321–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conger J, Conger A, Costanzo P, Wright L, Matter J. J Pers. 1980; 48:258–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cowburn G, Stockley L. Public Health Nutr. 2005; 8:21–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Danzig F. Advertising Age. 1962; 33.Google Scholar
  14. De Bruijn G-J, Kremers SPJ, de Vet E, de Nooijer J, van Mechelen W, Brug J. Psychol Health. 2007; 22:899–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Castro J, Brewer E. Physiol Behav. 1992; 51:121–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dijksterhuis A, Smith PK, van Baaren RB, Wigboldus DHJ. J Consum Psychol. 2005; 15:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edelman B, Engell D, Bronstein P, Hirsch E. Appetite. 1986; 7:71–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engell D, Kramer M, Malafi T, Salomon M, Lesher L. Appetite. 1996; 26:129–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fazio RH, Towles-Schwen. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual process theories in social psychology. New York: Guilford; 1999. p. 97–116.Google Scholar
  20. Feunekes GI, Gortemaker IA, Willems AA, Lion R, van den Kommer M. Appetite. 2008; 50:57–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Geiger CJ, Wyse BW, Parent CR, Hansen RG. J Am Diet Assoc. 1991; 91:800–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldman S, Herman C, Polivy J. Appetite. 1991; 17:129–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Henderson C. Wall Street J. 1957; 1:14.Google Scholar
  24. Herman C, Polivy J. Physiol Behav. 2005; 86:762–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herman C, Roth D, Polivy J. Psychol Bull. 2003; 129:873–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Herman P, Polivy J. In: Stunkard A, Stellar E, editors. Eating and its disorders. New York: Raven Press; 1984. p. 141–56.Google Scholar
  27. Higgins E. In: Higgins E, Kruglanski A, editors. Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. New York: Guilford Press; 1996. p. 133–68.Google Scholar
  28. Higginson CS, Kirk TR, Rayner MJ, Draper S. Nutr Food Sci. 2002; 32:145–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hsee CK. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 1996; 67:247–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hsee CK. J Behav Decis Making. 1998; 11:107–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnston L. Soc Cognition. 2002; 20:18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kähkönen P, Tuorila H. Appetite. 1998; 30:13–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Karremans J, Stroebe W, Claus J. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2006; 42:792–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Khan U, Dhar R, Wertenbroch K. In: Ratneshwar S, Mick DG, editors.Inside consumption: Frontiers of research on consumer motives, goals, and desires. London: Routledge; 2005. p. 144–65.Google Scholar
  35. Levitsky D. Appetite. 2002; 38:143–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Levy AS, Fein SB, Schucker RE. J Public Policy Mark. 1996; 15:1–15.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis CJ, Yetley EA. J Am Diet Assoc. 1992; 92:62–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyman B. A psychology of food. More than a matter of taste. New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold; 1989.Google Scholar
  39. Nisbett R, Storms M. In: London H, Nisbett R, editors. Thought and feeling: Cognitive alternation of feeling states. Chicago, IL: Aldine; 1974. p. 190–208.Google Scholar
  40. Painter J, Wansink B, Hieggelke J. Appetite. 2002; 38:237–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer; 1986.Google Scholar
  42. Pliner P, Bell R, Hirsch ES, Kinchla M. Appetite. 2006; 46:189–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Polivy J, Herman C, Younger J, Erskine B. J Pers. 1979; 47:100–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Raghunathan R, Naylor RW, Hoyer WD. J Mark. 2006; 70:170–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rolls B, Roe L, Meengs J. Obesity. 2007; 15:1535–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rolls B, Rowe E, Rolls E, Kingston B, Megson A, Gunary R. Physiol Behav. 1981; 26:215–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rosenthal B, Marx R. Addict Behav. 1979; 4:215–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schachter S, Friedman L, Handler J. In: Schachter S, Rodin J, editors. Obese humans and rats. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum; 1974. p. 61–4.Google Scholar
  49. Solheim R, Lawless HT. Food Qual Prefer. 1996; 7:137–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stevenson R, Prescatt J, Boakes R. Chem Senses. 1999; 24:627–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strahan E, Spencer S, Zanna M. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2002; 38:556–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stubenitsky K, Aaron JI, Catt SL, Mela DJ. Food Qual Prefer. 1999; 10:367–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Kleef E, van Trijp H, Paeps F, Fernández-Celemín L. Public Health Nutr. 2007; 1–11.Google Scholar
  54. Veltkamp M, Aarts H, Custers R. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008; 44:866–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Visschers VHM, Hess R, Siegrist M. Public Health Nutr. 2010; 13:1099–106.Google Scholar
  56. Visschers VHM, Siegrist M. Appetite. 2009; 52:505–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Visschers, VHM, Siegrist M. When reduced fat causes increased preference: How fat reduction in nutrition tables and numeracy skills affect food choices. Appetite. In press, corrected proof, DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2010.09.001.Google Scholar
  58. Viswanathan M, Hastak M. J Public Policy Mark. 2002; 21:305–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wansink B. J Mark. 1996; 60:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wansink B, Kim J. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2005; 37:242–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wansink B, Park S. Food Qual Prefer. 2001; 12:69–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wansink B, van Ittersum K. J Cons Res. 2003; 30:455–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Environmental Decisions, Consumer BehaviorETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations