An objective examination of consumer perception of nutrition information based on healthiness ratings and eye movements

Psychology Department, Nottingham Trent University, Burton Street, Nottingham, UK.
Public Health Nutrition (Impact Factor: 2.48). 04/2007; 10(3):238-44. DOI: 10.1017/S1368980007258513
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Previous research on nutrition labelling has mainly used subjective measures. This study examines the effectiveness of two types of nutrition label using two objective measures: eye movements and healthiness ratings.
Eye movements were recorded while participants made healthiness ratings for two types of nutrition label: standard and standard plus the Food Standards Agency's 'traffic light' concept.
University of Derby, UK.
A total of 92 participants (mean age 31.5 years) were paid for their participation. None of the participants worked in the areas of food or nutrition.
For the standard nutrition label, participant eye movements lacked focus and their healthiness ratings lacked accuracy. The traffic light system helped to guide the attention of the consumer to the important nutrients and improved the accuracy of the healthiness ratings of nutrition labels.
Consumers have a lack of knowledge regarding how to interpret nutrition information for standard labels. The traffic light concept helps to ameliorate this problem by indicating important nutrients to which to pay attention.

1 Bookmark
  • Source
    British Food Journal 07/2014; 116(7). DOI:10.1108/BFJ-02-2013-0042 · 0.65 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Different labeling systems that should help consumers make more balanced food decisions have been proposed and are currently in use. In the present study, the effectiveness of three different formats, the nutrition table format, the guideline daily amounts (GDAs) format, and the traffic light (TL) format, was examined. The eye-tracking method was combined with an experimental approach. The participants (N = 98) were randomly assigned to one of the three formats, and they were asked to evaluate the healthiness of five foods from different food categories. The eye-tracking data suggest that the participants needed more time to process the GDA format in comparison to the traffic light format and the nutrition table format. Moreover, the participants processed the traffic light format more efficiently than the nutrition table. In regard to information processing, the traffic light format was better than the other two formats. The participants were asked how they perceived the healthiness of the food products. The GDA, the TL and the nutrition table formats did not result in substantially different evaluations of the products. From an information processing perspective, the TL format has advantages over the other two formats. The TL format is a consumer-friendly way of communicating nutrition information.
    Food Quality and Preference 01/2015; 39:183–190. DOI:10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.010 · 2.73 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Adding easy-to-read information on menus is recommended for customers’ healthy food selections. But what format yields the best outcomes for restaurateurs has not been investigated. We use the emphasis framing effect as a theoretical lens to examine how the credibility of nutrition information affects parents’ perceptions of restaurant healthfulness and trustworthiness when exposed to two nutrition information frames on children's menus: numeric values only and numeric values with low-calorie symbols. The results of the experimental study show that parents who do not perceive nutrition information as being highly credible perceive restaurants providing numerical values only as more healthful and trustworthy. However, parents who do perceive nutrition information as being highly credible perceive restaurants as more healthful and trustworthy when both numeric values and low-calorie symbols are presented and have more positive perceptions overall. We advise restaurateurs to increase nutrition information credibility and provide additional easy-to-read information to elicit more positive perceptions.
    International Journal of Hospitality Management 04/2015; 46. DOI:10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.01.014 · 1.77 Impact Factor


Available from
May 29, 2014