Jesper Clement, Viktor Smith, Jordan Zlatev, Kerstin Gidlöf and Joost van de Weijer
The purpose of this paper is to present an experimental study which aims at assessing the potentially misleading effect of graphic elements on food packaging. The authors call…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to present an experimental study which aims at assessing the potentially misleading effect of graphic elements on food packaging. The authors call these elements potentially misleading elements (PMEs) as they can give customers false expectations. They are either highlighted numerical information (30 per cent fibre, 8 per cent fat, 100 per cent natural […]) or pictorial information with no relation to the product (e.g. images of happy people).
Design/methodology/approach
In a combined decision task monitored by eye-tracking and a subsequence survey, the authors tested the impact of PMEs on common products. Combining different pairs of products, where one product had a PME, whereas the other did not, the authors could evaluate if preference correlated with the presence of a PME.
Findings
The authors found both types of PMEs to have analogous effects on participants’ preferences and correlate with participants’ visual attention. The authors also found evidence for a positive influence on a later explicit justification for the specific choice.
Research limitations/implications
This study was conducted in a lab environment and solely related to health-related decisions. The authors still need to know if these findings are transferable to real in-store decisions and other needs such as high quality or low price. This calls for further research.
Practical implications
The topic is important for food companies, and it might become a priority in managing brand equity, combining consumer preferences, loyalty and communicative fairness.
Originality/value
Using eye-tracking and retrospective interviews brings new insights to consumer’s decision-making and how misleading potentially occurs.
Details
Keywords
Jesper Clement, Mette Skovgaard Andersen and Katherine O'Doherty Jensen
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of disagreement between companies and consumers with respect to misleading information and to make suggestions as…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of disagreement between companies and consumers with respect to misleading information and to make suggestions as to how the conflict might be resolved.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on qualitative research methods, the authors discuss possible grounds for controversies with respect to product information and present a possible framework, inspired by the work of Boltanski and Thévenot, for examining these controversies.
Findings
An analysis of arguments shows that consumer representatives and companies, not surprisingly, agree on general moral principles as, for instance, the importance of not lying about the product; however they tend to disagree about where the boundaries between acceptable and misleading information should be drawn in practice. The findings point to the fact that the differences might partly be explained by Boltanski and Thévenots' “orders of worth” and that this classification would seem to provide a fruitful tool for identifying the character and basis of differences of opinions regarding whether or not product information is deemed to be misleading and hence form the basis for a new tool in the management toolbox for testing potentially misleading information.
Research limitations/implications
The data behind the analysis are limited and retrieved in a Danish environment, for which reason more research should be carried out in order to broaden the perspectives of the research.
Practical implications
To reduce controversies the paper proposes a reciprocal recognition of the particular order of worth from which an assessment is made.
Originality/value
Qualitative methods, in this case the combination of qualitative interviews combined with an analysis of arguments, shed light on the core problem concerning misleading information.