This research finds that how a firm conveys a food’s organic nature through an organic label impacts consumers’ evaluation of that food. Consistent with previous research, adding organic labels to foods is detrimental to evaluations of vice (but not virtue) foods, but simple changes to the structure of the organic label attenuate the negative effect of such labels on evaluations of vice foods. Specifically, whereas product-level organic labels (e.g., “organic burrito”) result in lower evaluations of vice foods, ingredient-level organic labels (e.g., “burrito with all organic ingredients”) do not. No effect of organic label structure is found for virtue foods. The authors draw on theories of feature-based categorical typicality and fluency to suggest one psychological process by which organic label structure can impact consumers’ evaluations of vice foods.
AldridgeDawn K. (2007), “Message Framing Effects in Nutrition Education,” Food and Nutrition Service, 3, 1–15.
2.
AlterAdam L.OppenheimerDaniel M. (2009), “Uniting the Tribes of Fluency to Form a Metacognitive Nation,” Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13 (3), 219–35.
FernqvistFredrikAxelsonLena E. (2013), “Consumer Attitudes Towards Origin and Organic—the Role of Credence Labels on Consumers’ Liking of Tomatoes,” European Journal of Horticultural Science, 78 (4), 184–90.
5.
Grzybowska-BrzezinskaMariolaGrzywinska-RapcaMalgorzataZuchowskiIreneuszBórawskiPiotr (2017), “Organic Food Attributes Determine Consumer Choices,” European Research Studies, 20 (2), 164–76.
6.
HamptonJames A. (2007), “Typicality, Graded Membership, and Vagueness,” Cognitive Science, 31 (3), 355–384.
7.
HermanC. PeterRothDeborah A.PolivyJanet (2003), “Effects of the Presence of Others on Food Intake: A Normative Interpretation,” Psychological Bulletin, 129 (6), 873–86.
8.
HilverdaFemkeJurgensManonKuttschreuterMargot (2016), “Word Associations with ‘Organic': What Do Consumers Think Of?” British Food Journal, 118 (12), 2931–48.
9.
KingDanJaniszewskiChris (2011), “The Sources and Consequences of the Fluent Processing of Numbers,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (2), 327–41.
10.
KroeseFloor M.MarchioriDavid R.de RidderDenise T. (2016), “Nudging Healthy Food Choices: A Field Experiment at the Train Station,” Journal of Public Health, 38 (2), e133–37.
LeeAngela Y.LabrooAparna A. (2004), “The Effect of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (2), 151–65.
13.
LevinIrwin P.GaethGary J. (1988), “How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (3), 374–78.
14.
LevinIrwin P.SchneiderSandra L.GaethGary J. (1998), “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76 (2), 149–88.
15.
LokenBarbaraWardJames (1990), “Alternative Approaches to Understanding the Determinants of Typicality,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (2), 111–26.
16.
LoureiroMaria L.LotadeJustus (2005), “Do Fair Trade and Credence Labels in Coffee Wake Up the Consumer Conscience?” Ecological Economics, 53 (1), 129–38.
17.
LoureiroMaria L.McCluskeyJill J.MittelhammerRon C. (2002), “Will Consumers Pay a Premium for Eco-Labeled Apples?” The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 36 (2), 203–19.
18.
LuchsMichael G.NaylorRebecca W.IrwinJulie R.RaghunathanRajagopal (2010), “The Sustainability Liability: Potential Negative Effects of Ethicality on Product Preference,” Journal of Marketing, 74 (5), 18–31.
19.
MandlerGeorge (1982), “The Structure of Value: Accounting for Taste,” in Affect and Cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium, ClarkMargaret S.FiskeSusan T., eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 3–36.
20.
Meyers-LevyJoanTyboutAlice M. (1989), “Schema Congruity as a Basis for Product Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (1), 39–54.
21.
MoserRiccardaRaffaelliRobertaThilmanyDawn D. (2011), “Consumer Preferences for Fruit and Vegetables with Credence-Based Attributes: A Review,” International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 14 (2), 121–42.
ParkerJeffrey R.LehmannDonald R. (2014), “How and When Grouping Low-Calorie Options Reduces the Benefits of Providing Dish-Specific Calorie Information,” Journal of Consumer Research, 41 (1), 213–35.
25.
ParkerJeffrey R.LehmannDonald R.KellerKevin L.SchleicherMartin G. (2018), “Building a Multi-Category Brand: When Should Distant Brand Extensions Be Introduced?” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46 (2), 300–16.
RaghunathanRajagopalNaylorRebecca W.HoyerWayne D. (2006), “The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products,” Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 170–84.
28.
ReberRolfWinkielmanPiotrSchwarzNorbert (1998), “Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Affective Judgments,” Psychological Science, 29 (1), 45–48.
ReinJonathan R.GoldwaterMicah B.MarkmanArthur B. (2010), “What Is Typical About the Typicality Effect in Category-Based Induction?” Memory & Cognition, 38 (3), 377–88.
31.
ReinholtzNicholasBartelsDaniel M.ParkerJeffrey R. (2015), “On the Mental Accounting of Restricted-Use Funds: How Gift Cards Change What People Purchase,” Journal of Consumer Research, 42 (4), 596–614.
32.
RipsLance J.AllanCollins (1993), “Categories and Resemblance,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122 (4), 468–86.
33.
RoschEleanorMervisCarolyn B. (1975), “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories,” Cognitive Psychology, 7 (4), 573–605.
34.
SeamonJohn G.WilliamsPepper C.CrowleyMichael J.KimIrene J.LangerSamantha A.OrnePeter J., et al. (1995), “The Mere Exposure Effect Is Based on Implicit Memory: Effects of Stimulus Type, Encoding Conditions, and Number of Exposures on Recognition and Affect Judgments,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21 (3), 711–21.
SirianniNancy J.BitnerMary JoBrownStephen W.MandelNaomi (2013), “Branded Service Encounters: Strategically Aligning Employee Behavior with the Brand Positioning,” Journal of Marketing, 77 (6), 108–23.
37.
SlovicPaul (1972), “From Shakespeare to Simon: Speculations—and Some Evidence—About Man’s Ability to Process Information,” Oregon Research Institute Bulletin, 12 (12).
38.
TverskyAmosKahnemanDaniel (1981), “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice,” Science, 211 (4481), 453–58.
39.
Van DoornJennyVerhoefPeter C. (2011), “Willingness to Pay for Organic Products: Differences Between Vice and Virtue Foods,” International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28 (3), 167–80.
40.
Van DoornJennyVerhoefPeter C. (2015), “Drivers of and Barriers to Organic Purchase Behavior,” Journal of Retailing, 91 (3), 436–50.
41.
VeryzerRobert W.JrHutchinsonJ. Wesley (1998), “The Influence of Unity and Prototypicality on Aesthetic Responses to New Product Designs,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 374–94.
WertenbrochKlaus (1998), “Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of Virtue and Vice,” Marketing Science, 17 (4), 317–37.
44.
WinkielmanPiotrCacioppoJohn T. (2001), “Mind at Ease Puts a Smile on the Face: Psychophysiological Evidence that Processing Facilitation Elicits Positive Affect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (6), 989–1000.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
