Skip to main content
Log in

Nutrition Ad Claims and Disclosures: Interaction and Mediation Effects for Consumer Evaluations of the Brand and the Ad

  • Published:
Marketing Letters Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effects of ad disclosure information on evaluations of the brand, the advertisement, and purchase intentions are postulated to vary across different ad claim types. In addition, consumers' product health perceptions are hypothesized to mediate the effects of the disclosure information and ad claim type on brand and ad-related evaluations. Results from a between subjects' experiment show that the health perception measure mediates the effect of the disclosure on brand and ad evaluations, but the interaction between the ad claim type and the disclosure is not mediated by the inclusion in the model of consumers' product health perceptions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J.C. and T.J. Maronick. (1995). “Advertising Research Issues from FTC Versus Stouffer Foods Corporation,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 14 (2), 301-309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, J.C., R.G. Netemeyer, and S. Burton. (1998). “Consumer Generalization of Nutrient Content Claims in Advertising,” Journal of Marketing 62 (4), 62-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R.M., and D. Kenny. (1986). “The Moderator-Mediator Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173-1182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deighton, J. (1984). “The Interaction of Advertising and Evidence,” Journal of Consumer Research (3), 763-770.

  • Ford, G.T., D.B. Smith, and J.L. Swasy. (1990). “Consumer Skepticism of Advertising Claims: Testing Hypotheses from Economics of Information,” Journal of Consumer Research 16 (4), 433-441.

    Google Scholar 

  • FTC Enforcement Policy Statement on Food Advertising (1994). May, Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, 1-28.

  • Johar, G.V. (1995). “Consumer Involvement and Deception from Implied Advertising Claims,” Journal of Marketing Research 32 (3), 267-279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R.J. (1983). Information Processing Research in Advertising. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastie, R. (1984). “Causes and Effects of Causal Attributions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46 (1), 44-56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoch, S.J. and Y.W. Ha. (1986). “Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research 13 (2), 221-233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmbeck, G.N. (1997). “Toward Terminological, Conceptual, and Statistical Clarity in the Study of Mediators and Moderators: Examples from the Child-clinical and Pediatric Psychology Literatures” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 65 (4) 599-610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, J. and S. Schmidt. (1992). “Food Labels Get Healthy”, Nutrition Action Healthletter July/August, 8-9.

  • Keller, S. et al. (1997). “The Effects of Nutrition Package Claims, Nutrition Facts Labels, and Motivation toProcess Nutrition Information on Consumer Product Evaluations,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 16(2), 256-269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loken, B. and B. Howard-Pitney. (1988). “Effectiveness of Cigarette Advertisements on Women: An Experimental Study,” Journal of Applied Psychology 73 (3), 378-382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maronick, T.J. (1991). “Copy Tests in FTC Deception Cases: Guidelines for Researchers,” Journal of Advertising Research (December), 9-17.

  • Moorman, C. (1990). “The Effects of Stimulus and Consumer Characteristics on the Utilization of Nutrition Information,” Journal of Consumer Research 17 (3), 362-374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, P. (1974). “Advertising as Information,” Journal of Political Economy, 78 (March–April), 729-754.

  • Nisbett, R. and L. Ross. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ono, Y. (1995). “Today's Low-fat Diet: Pretzels, Licorice,” The Wall Street Journal, (March 14), B9.

  • Pechmann, C. (1996). “Do Consumers Overgeneralize One-sided Comparative Price Claims, and Are More Stringent Regulations Needed?” Journal of Marketing Research 33 (2), 150-162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russo, J.E., B.L. Metcalf, and D. Stephens. (1981). “Identifying Misleading Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research 8 (2), 119-131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimp, T.A. (1983). “Evaluative Verbal Content and Deception in Advertising: A Review and Critical Analysis.” In Information Processing Research in Advertising. Richard J. Harris, Ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 195-216.

    Google Scholar 

  • “Shopping for Health” (1995). The Food Marketing Institute/Prevention Magazine.

  • Silverglade, B.A. (1991). “A Comment on Policy Issues in Health Claims for Foods,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 10 (1), 54-62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D.B. (1990). “The Economics of Information: An Empirical Approach to Nelson's Search-Experience Framework,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 9, 111-128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starek, R.B., III (1993). Ross Starek's Wish List Or, a Call for Extrinsic Evidence. Prepared remarks of Roscoe B. Starek, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, 1993 Marketing and Public Policy Conference, East Lansing, MI, June 4, 1-19.

  • Wilkie, W.L. (1985). “Affirmative Disclosures at the FTC: Objectives for the Remedy and Outcomes of Past Orders,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 4, 91-111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P. (1986). “Schemer Schema: Consumers' Intuitive Theories about Marketers' Influence Tactics.” In Advances in Consumer Research, v. 13, Richard J. Lutz, ed., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1-3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burton, S., Andrews, J.C. & Netemeyer, R.G. Nutrition Ad Claims and Disclosures: Interaction and Mediation Effects for Consumer Evaluations of the Brand and the Ad. Marketing Letters 11, 235–247 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008187110096

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008187110096

Navigation