Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

It’s only natural: the mediating impact of consumers’ attribute inferences on the relationships between product claims, perceived product healthfulness, and purchase intentions

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Foods positioned as natural, all-natural, and 100% natural can be found across a wide variety of product categories. However, the FDA has not provided a formal definition of the term “natural,” and this has resulted in a surge in class action lawsuits filed against manufacturers due to the potentially misleading use of natural claims. Activation theory and the inferential processing literature serve as the conceptual foundation for three studies that examine the effects of natural claims on consumers’ attribute inferences and product evaluations. Results suggest that natural claims affect consumers’ attribute inferences, which in turn influence product evaluations. Furthermore, findings show that the provision of objective information regarding the ambiguity of natural claims moderates the effects of these claims on consumers’ attribute inferences and product evaluations. The implications for marketing management, those involved in litigation driven by potentially deceptive natural claims, and the policy community are discussed.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We also asked questions to assess the perceived influence of the attributes on taste perceptions. We used a seven-point item for each attribute: “In general, when a food product has each of the following characteristics, how does it affect the taste of the product?” with endpoints of “Would negatively affect taste/Would positively affect taste.” While there was no difference between the reported influence of the organic and minimally processed attributes on taste perceptions (Ms ranged from 4.85 to 4.92; t(47) = .40, p > .60), both of these attributes’ influence on taste perceptions were greater than “contains no genetically modified organisms (GMOs)” (M = 4.54; ts(47) range from 2.08 to 2.46, ps < .05).

  2. Discriminant validity was assessed among the measures by comparing the average AVE of each pair of measures to the square of the ɸ estimate between the two measures (Fornell and Larcker 1981). This AVE-shared variance comparison has recently been recommended as a standard for publication in marketing (Voorhees et al. 2016). For each pair of measures, the AVE exceeded the shared variance, offering evidence of discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

  3. Discriminant validity was assessed and supported using the same method used in Study 2 (Fornell and Larcker 1981).

  4. Because taste is a key concern for food products, we examined whether the natural claim influenced participants’ inferred taste beliefs. Taste beliefs were measured using two seven-point items (r = .94) drawn from prior research (Berry et al. 2015): “I believe that the taste of this product would be:” with endpoints of “very poor/excellent” and “very bad/very good.” ANOVA results indicate that the effect of the natural claim on inferred taste beliefs was nonsignificant (F(3, 305) = 2.17, p > .05), and results in which taste was included as a mediator for effects on healthfulness and purchase intent also were nonsignificant. Similarly, using perceived taste as a covariate did not affect results of tests of hypotheses.

  5. In Study 3, we also addressed familiarity with each of the attributes and used these three measures as covariates. Familiarity with each of the attributes was assessed using the measures used in Pilot Study 2. The MANCOVA and mediation results were consistent when controlling for attribute familiarity, indicating that the effects of the natural claim are not due to mere attribute familiarity.

  6. To initially explore whether other claims that could be used by food marketers and manufacturers have effects on purchase intentions similar to those of natural claims, we also conducted a single-factor between-subjects experiment with five ad conditions (no claim control, natural claim, organic claim, no GMO claim, minimally processed claim) to compare four claims to a no claim control on a soda product. Compared to the no claim control, the all-natural claim, the organic claim, and the minimally processed claim each significantly increased purchase intentions (ps < .05 for each); however, the increase due to the no GMOs claim did not reach significance (p > .05).

References

  • Anderson, J. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., Wachenheim, C. J., & Lesch, W. (2006). Perceptions of genetically modified and organic foods and processes. AgBioforum, 9(3), 180–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1998). Consumer generalization of nutrient content claims in advertising. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 62–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balasubramanian, S. K., & Cole, C. (2002). Consumers‘ search and use of nutrition information: the challenge and promise of the nutrition labeling and education act. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 112–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, H. H., Heinrich, D., & Shäfer, D. B. (2012). The effects of organic labels on global, local, and private brands: more hype than substance? Journal of Business Research, 66(8), 1035–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, C., Mukherjee, A., Burton, S., & Howlett, E. (2015). A COOL effect: the direct and indirect impact of country-of-origin disclosures on purchase intentions for retail food products. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 533–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brucks, M. & Mitchell, A. (1981). Knowledge structures, production systems and decision strategies. In K. B. Monroe (Ed.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 8). Ann Abor, MI: 750–757.

  • Burton, S., Garretson, J. A., & Velliquette, A. M. (1999). Implications of accurate usage of nutrition facts panel and information for food product evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 470–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, S., Cook, L. A., Howlett, E., & Newman, C. L. (2015). Broken halos and shattered horns: overcoming the biasing effects of prior expectations through objective information disclosure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 240–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Z., & Yan, R. (2016). Health creates wealth? The use of nutrition claims and firm performance. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(1), 58–75.

    Article  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 

  • Charles, D.. (2016). “Congress just passed a GMO labeling bill. Nobody's super happy about it,” National Public Radio, http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/07/14/486060866/congress-just-passed-a-gmo-labeling-bill-nobodys-super-happy-about-it.

  • Chrysochou, P., & Grunert, K. G. (2014). Health-related ad information and health motivation effects on product evaluations. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1209–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Consumer Reports National Research Center (Consumer Reports). (2014a). Food labels survey: 2014 nationally-representative phone survey. Retrieved from http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/consumerreportsfoodlabelingsurveyjune2014.pdf.

  • Consumer Reports National Research Center (Consumer Reports). (2014b). Organic food labels survey: 2014 nationally-representative phone survey. Retrieved from http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/CR2014OrganicFoodLabelsSurvey.pdf.

  • Cornucopia Institute. (2011). Cereal crimes: how “natural” claims deceive consumers and undermine the organic label–a look down the cereal and granola aisle. Retrieved from http://cornucopia.org/cereal-scorecard/docs/Cornucopia_Cereal_Report.pdf.

  • Darke, P. R., Ashworth, L., & Main, K. J. (2010). Great expectations and broken promises: misleading advertising, product failure, expectancy disconfirmation and consumer suspicion. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(3), 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitri, C. & Greene, C. (2002). Recent growth patterns in the U.S. organic foods market. Agriculture Information Bulletin, Number 777.

  • Esterl, M. (2013). The natural evolution of food labels. The Wall Street Journal, p. B1.

  • Federal Register. (2015a). Use of the term “natural” in the labeling of human food products; request for information and comments. 80, 69905–69909.

  • Federal Register. (2015b). Use of the term “natural” in the labeling of human food products; request for information and comments; extension of comment period. 80, 80718–80719.

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobserved variables with measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2005). The role of spokescharacters as advertisement and package cues in integrated marketing communications. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, P. & Czarnezki, J. J. (2016). It’s time for the FDA to define “natural.” Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4317988/fda-natural-definition/.

  • Hamilton, R. (2016). Consumer-based strategy: using multiple methods to generate consumer insights that inform strategy. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(3), 281–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartman Group. (2010). Beyond organic and natural 2010: Resolving confusion in marketing food and beverages.

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2015). An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014). Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(3), 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, E., Burton, S., Tangari, A. H., & Bui, M. (2012). Hold the salt! Effects of sodium information provision, sodium content, and hypertension on perceived cardiovascular disease risk and purchase intentions. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31(1), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamins, M. A., & Marks, L. J. (1991). The perception of kosher as a third party certification claim in advertising for familiar and unfamiliar brands. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kees, J., Burton, S., & Andrews, J.C. (2015). Government efforts to aid consumers’ well-being: understanding federal health warnings and disclosures. In M. Norton, D. Rucker, & C. Lamberton (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 530–562).

  • Keller, S., Landry, M., Olson, J., Velliquette, A., Burton, S., & Andrews, J. C. (1997). The effects of nutrition package claims, nutrition facts panels, and motivation to process nutrition information on consumer product evaluations. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 256–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G. (1991). Design and analysis: a researcher's handbook (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kowitt, B. (2015). Is the largest natural-foods brand even sold at Whole Foods? Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2015/10/28/kroger-natural-organic-food/

  • 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(2), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 13–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, K., Jensen, T., Burton, S., & Roach, D. (2001). The accuracy of brand and attribute judgments: the role of information relevancy, product experience, and attribute-relationship schemas. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(3), 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam-Webster. (2015). Natural. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/natural.

  • Nielsen. (2015). We are what we eat: Healthy eating trends around the world. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/nielsenglobal/eu/nielseninsights/pdfs/Nielsen%20Global%20Health%20and%20Wellness%20Report%20-%20January%202015.pdf.

  • Organic Trade Association. (2014). State of the industry. Retrieved from http://ota.com/sites/default/files/indexed_files/StateOfOrganicIndustry_0.pdf.

  • Petty, R. (2015). “natural” claims in food advertising: policy implications of filling the regulatory void with consumer class action lawsuits. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(1), 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A. & Wang, E. Y. (2016). Demand for ‘healthy’ products: the impact of false claims. Kilts Center for Marketing at Chicago Booth – Nielsen Dataset Paper Series 1–019.

  • Ross, W. T., & Creyer, E. H. (1992). Making inferences about missing information: the effects of existing information. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of “natural”: process more important than content. Psychological Science, 16(8), 652–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D., Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004). Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite, 43(2), 147–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. (2012a). Labeling organic products. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Labeling%20Organic%20Products%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf.

  • USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service. (2012b). Organic 101: what the USDA organic label means. Retrieved from http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-the-usda-organic-label-means/.

  • USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Service (2015). Meat and poultry labeling terms. Retrieved from http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/food-labeling/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms/meat-and-poultry-labeling-terms .

  • Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., & Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can “low-fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity? Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 605–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkie, W. L., & Moore, E. S. (2012). Expanding our understanding of marketing in society. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 53–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Editor-in-Chief, the Area Editor, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, College of Business, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 80523, USA

    Christopher Berry

  2. Department of Marketing, Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, 72701, USA

    Scot Burton

  3. Department of Marketing and International Business, Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 99164, USA

    Elizabeth Howlett

Authors
  1. Christopher Berry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scot Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth Howlett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher Berry.

Additional information

Kelly Haws served as Area Editor for this article.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1980 kb)

Appendix

Appendix

Notes: In both studies, the order of the products was counterbalanced. In Pilot Study 1 and the all-natural claim condition in Study 1, the natural claim was counterbalanced (rotated) across the three fictitious brands.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berry, C., Burton, S. & Howlett, E. It’s only natural: the mediating impact of consumers’ attribute inferences on the relationships between product claims, perceived product healthfulness, and purchase intentions. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 45, 698–719 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0511-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0511-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation