Content uploaded by Tong Chen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tong Chen on Jun 04, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
The halo effect of biofortification
claims on taste inference and
purchase intention
Tong Chen
Department of Marketing, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China
Gnel Gabrielyan
Independent Researcher, Los Angeles, California, USA
Mitsuru Shimizu
Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville,
Edwardsville, Illinois, USA, and
Ping Qing
Department of Marketing, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this research is to investigate how biofortification claims impact consumer food
taste inference and purchase intention. Based on the halo effect, the authors propose that food products with
biofortification claims are inferred to taste better than regular foods. Due to this inference, biofortification
claims subsequently improve purchase intention.
Design/methodology/approach –To examine these predictions, the authors conducted three between-
subject design lab experiments featuring three staplefoods: corn soup (β-carotene biofortification claimpresent or
not), cookedrice (zinc biofortification claimpresent or not) and uncookedrice (zinc biofortification claim present or
not). Participants wererandomly assignedto one of two bioproductionclaim conditions(present vs absent).Then,
taste inference, purchase intention, consumer characteristics and confounding variables were measured.
Findings –In Experiment 1, the results showed that biofortification claims indeed appeared to evoke a
heuristic halo effect, inwhich foods with biofortification claims were inferredto taste better than regular food. In
Experiment 2, the results showed that participants had more intention to purchase foods with biofortification
claims than regular food. The mediation effect of taste inference between biofortification claims and purchase
intention was examined. In Experiment 3, the data further showed that this halo effect was more pronounced
when consumers held a higher preference (vs lower preference) for the enriched nutritional element.
Originality/value –Biofortification claims have commonly been viewed solely as information about nutrition
value for consumers. However, little is known about how biofortification claims impact hedonic consumer
expectations. In this paper, the authors find that biofortification claims alone can impact consumer food taste
inference, as nutritional information is not related to actual food taste. These findings extend the authors’
understanding of the psychological mechanism behind consumer attitudes towards biofortification.
Keywords Biofortification claims, Halo effect, Taste inference, Purchase intention
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Biofortification refers to a crop breeding technology that improves the micronutrient content
of crops through genetic engineering or convenient breeding methods (Saltzman et al., 2013).
Over two billion people around the world live under micronutrient malnutrition, which is
described as a hidden hunger (Harvestplus, 2017). Although the human body can obtain
vitamin A from animal meat or synthesize vitamin A from vegetables or fruits, low-income
households in developing countries cannot afford vitamin A (Stevens and Winter-Nelson,
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers
71902066, 71561147001] and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [grant numbers
2662019QD029].
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0007-070X.htm
Received 15 July 2020
Revised 3 November 2020
21 January 2021
Accepted 24 January 2021
British Food Journal
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-07-2020-0614
2008). Biofortification, especially biofortification of staple crops, is a more cost-effective
strategy than pharmaceutical supplementation or dietary pattern modification (Bouis and
Welch, 2010;De Steur et al., 2017). Biofortification is viewed as the key strategy for reducing
hidden hunger for people in developing countries (Talsma et al., 2017).
A body of studies indicates that consumers are likely to accept biofortification across
various crops and techniques (Oparinde et al., 2016;Banerji et al., 2016;De Steur et al., 2014;
Wortmann et al., 2018). The health benefit needs behind consumer acceptance have been
widely documented by prior studies (Banerji et al., 2016;De Steur et al., 2017;Kikulwe et al.,
2011). For example, folic acid rice is well accepted among women of childbearing age
(De Steur et al., 2014). However, taste may play a more prominent role than health concerns in
consumers’food consumption (Bublitz et al., 2010;Maimaran and Fishbach, 2014;Tepper and
Trail, 1998). Previous studies indicated that nutrition claims on food products could influence
consumers’evaluation of other unrelated attributes, such as taste (Wansink and Chandon,
2006). This view raises the widely ignored question of whether biofortification claims
influence how consumers infer food taste.
A few scholars started testing the impact of biofortification on taste expectations or
inference (e.g. Lagerkvist et al., 2016;Banerji et al., 2016). However, the results of these studies
are mainly based on specific biofortified crops and fail to rule out context-related confounding
factors, such as crop colour change, consumers’prior experience and the interaction effect of
biofortification information. Therefore, research on the mere informational influence of
biofortification claims on taste inference is still necessary. In this study, we aim to investigate
the causal relationship between biofortification claims, consumer taste inference and
subsequent purchase behaviour through lab experiments. In addition, we will examine
whether these influences are moderated by consumer characteristics.
In this paper, we propose that biofortification claims on food products might evoke a
positive halo effect. Even though biofortification claims cannot change the actual taste offood,
presenting(vs excluding) biofortification information might result in consumers’inference that
the food might taste better.In our study, wepredict that food products with biofortified claims
will be inferred to taste better than regular food, thus facilitating a greater willingness to
purchase them. In addition, we predict that consumers’preference for enriched nutritional
elements (e.g. zinc in zinc-biofortified rice) has a moderating role. Namely, for those who have a
high (or low) preference for zinc, the halo effect of zinc biofortification claims is more (or less)
pronounced when they make taste inferences. We present the theoretical background of our
hypothesis, empirical studies and general discussion in the following sections.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development
2.1 Biofortified food and consumer acceptance
A body of economic studies indicates consumers’positive attitude and likelihood to pay a
premium for certain crops and techniques of biofortified food (Oparinde et al., 2016;Banerji
et al., 2016;De Steur et al., 2014;Wortmann et al., 2018). Gonz
alez et al. (2009) found that, on
average, Brazilian consumers are willing to pay 60–70% more for biofortified cassava
(including genetic modification [GM]-biofortified cassava) than regular cassava. Scholars
argue that consumer acceptance and willingness to pay (WTP) premiums are mainly driven
by an awareness of salient health benefits (De Steur et al., 2017;Banerji et al., 2016;Kikulwe
et al., 2011). Perceived fear and severity of malnutrition stimulate consumers to adopt
biofortified foods (De Steur et al., 2015). Moreover, previous works show that biofortified
foods serve as a self-targeting nutritional intervention for consumers (De Steur et al., 2014;
Stevens and Winter-Nelson, 2008). Biofortified food is preferred by consumers who have
specific instrumental goals. For example, Mozambique people who suffer from a lack of
vitamin A are more likely to accept orange maize (Stevens and Winter-Nelson, 2008).
BFJ
Biofortification information may alter the actual sensory attributes of crops along with
nutrition enrichment. For example, high levels of β-carotene change rice from white to golden.
Some findings indicate a decline in consumer preferences for biofortified food if its flavour,
appearance and texture are changed as a result of biofortification. For example, consumers in
Nairobi, Kenya prefer whitemaize (regularmaize) to yellow maize (biofortified), and theWTP for
yellow maize is 37% lower than that for white maize (De Groote and Kimenju, 2008). However,
after reviewing 1,669 literature records, Talsma et al. (2017) found that sensory changes were not
the reason why consumers liked biofortified crops less. Thus, there has been little research focus
on how general biofortification claims causally influence the perceived taste of food.
Consumers have different adoption intentions towards two biofortification strategies: genetic
modification (GM) (e.g. golden rice) and conventional breeding (e.g. orange maize). Consumers
indicate low acceptance of biofortified food when they are concerned about health risks (Gaskell
et al., 2004;Costa-Font et al., 2008). For example, Gonz
alez et al. (2009) found that consumers from
northern Brazil indicated a higher preference for provitamin A biofortified cassava through
conventional breeding techniques over GM techniques. To rule out the confounding effect of
safety concerns, we will not focus on GM biofortification claims in our experiments.
2.2 Halo effect of biofortification claims
The halo effect refers to the tendency to base the overall evaluation of a person, company,
brand or product on one attribute, allowing the evaluation of one attribute to influence the
evaluation of other attributes (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977;Beckwith and Lehmann, 1975). This
is a heuristic bias based on a common type of inferential reasoning strategy (also named
evaluative consistency inference) (Chernev, 2007). Psychological studies have indicated that
individuals who use evaluative consistency inference tend to think of objects as consistent
among attributes (Beckwith and Lehmann, 1975;Chernev, 2007). Individuals may build their
overall evaluation of a certain product based on the information of observable attributes and
use these evaluations to infer unobservable attributes (Beckwith and Lehmann, 1975).
Specifically, if the observable attributes are superior, the consumer will infer that the
unobservable attributes are also superior. The halo effect has a powerful impact on
individuals’expectations, judgement and behaviour. For example, in Chernev and Blair’s
(2015) wine testing experiment, consumers were randomly assigned to high corporate social
responsibility (CSR) conditions or low CSR conditions. Due to the benevolent halo of CSR
activity, wine from high-CSR companies was inferred to taste better than wine from low-CSR
companies (Chernev and Blair, 2015) even though CSR activity is not always related to the
company’s core business practices.
The halo effect has been widely applied to explain food perceptions as well. Recent studies
have examined how foodpackaging and claims bias consumers’inference and evaluation. For
example, organic food is perceived as having fewer calories being while more nutritious than
regular food (Lee et al.,2013;Schuldt and Schwarz, 2010). Additionally, foods with a better
appearance are perceived as having a better flavour (Imram, 1999). These findings suggest an
association between consumers’perception ofnutrition attributes and sensory characteristics.
However, previous studies have paid little attention to the halo effect of biofortification.
The halo effect is an implicit process that consumers hardly notice (Nisbett and Wilson,
1977). Thus, consumers are unlikely to be aware of the effect of biofortification claims on taste
inference. The halo effect becomes dominant when consumers lack information or related
knowledge (Broniarczyk and Alba, 1994;Feldman and Lynch, 1988). Furthermore, the halo
effect is more pronounced among consumers who do not engage in deliberative processing
(Lee et al., 2013). Since biofortification is a relatively new technology to most consumers, they
lack enough knowledge or prior experience to deliberately process information about
biofortified food. We believe that food taste inference might also be shaped by the halo effect
of biofortification claims.
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
According to the nature of the halo effect, biofortification claims may evoke a halo effect
by priming a positive overall consumer evaluation. Given its specific nutritional value,
previous studies documented that consumers have a significant positive preference for
biofortified food (De Groote and Kimenju, 2008;De Steur et al., 2014;Oparinde et al., 2016;
Stevens and Winter-Nelson, 2008). Additionally, scholars view the halo effect as an
evaluative-consistency inference strategy (e.g. positive global evaluation leads to positive
taste evaluation) (Beckwith and Lehmann, 1975). Thus, we hypothesize that the halo effect
evoked by biofortification claims can influence the perceived taste of food products even
though a claim cannot influence the actual taste of food. Specifically, we argue that foods with
biofortification claims are inferred to have a better taste than regular foods. Accordingly,
consumers believe biofortified foods provide not only utilitarian value but also sensory value.
Thus, we predict inferred taste works as an important motivational factor independent of
nutritional benefits that drive consumers to purchase biofortified food.
H1. Consumers infer that food with biofortification claims tastes better than regular food.
H2. Consumers will be more likely to purchase food with biofortification claims (vs
regular food) due to inferred better taste.
2.3 Moderating effect
The nature of the halo effect suggests that the specific evaluation of ambiguous attributes is
influenced by the overall evaluation of known attributes (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977;Beckwith
and Lehmann, 1975). In our study, we focus on the halo effect evoked by biofortification claims.
Since consumers’preferences for biofortified foods are examined as self-targeting, individuals
show different preferences for specific nutritional elements according to their own knowledge
and health conditions (De Steur et al., 2014). For instance, orange maize is more acceptable among
people who suffer from a lack of vitamin A (Stevens and Winter-Nelson, 2008). Lee et al. (2013)
found that the halo effects of the organic label on caloric estimations were less pronounced
among people who often engaged in pro-environmental activities. Therefore, the global
evaluation of biofortified food relies on consumers’preferences for enriched nutritional elements.
Accordingly, we predict that the halo effect of biofortification claims is moderated by
consumers’preferences for the enriched nutritional element. Specifically, if consumers show a
high preference for enriched nutritional elements such as zinc, the overall evaluation of rice
with zinc-biofortified claims will be nutritional and positive as will be the inference of taste. In
contrast, if consumers show a low preference or lack of knowledge about zinc, they will not
generate either a positive overall evaluation of rice with zinc-biofortified claims or any
specific taste evaluation. For example, if consumers do not believe zinc benefits their health,
they will not infer that rice with zinc biofortification claims tastes better. For these reasons,
we predict that the halo effect of biofortification claims might be moderated by consumers’
preference for the enriched nutritional element.
H3. The relationship described in H1 and H2 is moderated by consumers’preference for
the enriched nutritional element. Specifically, when consumers have a high
preference for an enriched nutritional element, consumers infer that food with
biofortification claims tastes better than regular food. At the same time, when
consumers have a low preference for the enriched element, the positive relationship
between biofortification claims and taste inference is weakened.
3. Overview of experiments
We examined the impact of biofortification claims on consumers’taste inference, purchase
intention and WTP in a series of three lab experiments (Table 1). Experiment 1 aims to test the
first hypothesis that consumers infer that food with biofortification claims tastes better than
BFJ
the regular food. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1 and further examined
the mediating role of taste inference between biofortification claims and purchase intention.
Experiment 3 replicated the findings of prior experiments and further examined the
moderating role of preference for the enriched nutritional element. In addition, we test
whether biofortification impacts consumers’WTP. To ensure high external validity, three
different kinds of biofortified food were used as stimuli, and robust results were observed. We
also ruled out several alternative explanations to increase internal validity.
We tested our predictions using Chinese consumer samples across three experiments.
Biofortification was first introduced in China in 2004. Various biofortified crops have been
approved for field dissemination and marketing, such as sweet potatoes (β-carotene), rice
(Fe and Zn) and maize (β-carotene) (Harvestplus, 2014). However, the market share of
biofortified food is still very low. Most Chinese consumers still know little about biofortified
food due to its relatively small market sales. Scholars, through experimental methods
including surveys, found that Chinese consumers feel favourably towards biofortified food.
For example, Chinese women of childbearing age show a higher preference for folic acid-
biofortified rice (De Steur et al., 2014). Thus, Chinese consumers are suitable participants for
our research.
4. Experiment 1
4.1 Participants, stimuli and procedure
The objective of Experiment 1 was to explore the relationship between biofortification claims
and consumer taste inference (H1). In this experiment, β-carotene biofortified corn soup was
selected as the stimulus. Specifically, we examined whether β-carotene biofortified corn soup
was inferred to taste better than regular corn soup.
In total, 211participants (M
age
533.60 and SD 58.28; 127 women) were recruited via
China’s leading online survey platform wjx (2018) for this experiment and would receive five
Chinese yuans (CNY) (US$ 0.77 [1]) as a reward. The geographic distribution of participants
covers 25 out of 34 provinces of China, excluding the most remote provinces, such as Xinjiang
and Tibet.
Experiment
design
Independent
variable Mediator Moderator
Dependent
variable
Hypothesis
testing
Experiment 1 Two
biofortification
claim (present
vs absent)
between-
subject design
Corn soup
(present
β-carotene
biofortification
claim or not)
Taste
inference
(measured)
N/A N/A H1
Experiment 2 Two
biofortification
claims(present
vs absent)
between-
subject design
Cooked rice
(present zinc-
biofortification
claim or not)
Taste
inference
(measured)
N/A Purchase
intention
(measured)
H1,H2
Experiment 3 Two
biofortification
claims (present
vs absent)
between-
subject design
Uncooked rice
(present zinc-
biofortification
claim or not)
Taste
inference
(measured)
Preference
for the
enriched
element
(measured)
Purchase
intention:
Willingness
to pay
(measured)
H1,H2,H3
Note(s): N/A 5not applicable
Table 1.
Summary of
experiments
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
In a between-subject design, participants were randomly assigned to one of two
conditions (biofortification claims: present vs absent). All participants were told that the
purpose of the experiment was to evaluate consumers’preferences for corn soup. Hungry
individuals might show higher appetite and purchase intention towards food. At the
beginning, participants were asked to rate their perceived hunger at the time to rule out
alternative explanations (1 5not at all hungry, 5 5average and 9 5extremely hungry).
Participants in two groups were then presented with a choice set of two bowls of corn
soups (focal soup and reference soup). We wanted to examine whether the
biofortification claim could improve the relative preference for focal soup over
reference soup.
In the present condition, participants were told that focal soup was made of β-carotene
biofortified corn, which agricultural scientists improved through non-genetically modified
organism (GMO) techniques. In the absent condition, participants were told that the focal soup
was made of regular corn. In both conditions, a bowl of identical reference soup was presented.
Since we only focused on the effect of the biofortification claims to avoid confounding
changes in the actual appearance, we kept the picture of the same across the present
conditions and absent conditions (although β-carotene biofortification normally changes the
colour of food). They were also told that corn with biofortification is just as safe as the regular
corn in the present condition.
After being shown pictures and biofortification information, each participant was asked
to answer the question “Which soup do you perceive as tastier out of the two groups?”
Participants were also asked to rate their dislike of the flavour of carrots: “how much do you
dislike eating carrots?”(1 5extremely like, 5 5average and 9 5extremely dislike).
Consumers’dislike of carrot flavour was tested as a potential confounding factor since
consumers may make an association between β-carotene and carrots. At the end of the
experiment, all participants were presented with manipulation checks and demographic
information.
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Manipulation check. We first assessed whether our biofortification claim manipulation
worked as intended. For the manipulation check, we asked participants to recall which soup
was enriched with β-carotene (1 5reference soup and 2 5focal soup). The results showed
that most participants chose the correct answer. However, 12 out of 211 participants did not
pass the manipulation check and were dropped from subsequent analysis. A total of 190
samples were used in subsequent analysis, 101 in the absent condition and 98 in the
biofortification group.
4.2.2 Perceived hunger. The results show that there is no significant difference in perceived
hunger between the two conditions (Mabsent55.23 and SD 52.400; Mpresent 55.32 and
SD 52.218; t(198) 52.70 and p50.787).
4.2.3 Taste inferences. While 39 out of 101 (38.6%) participants thought the focal soup
tasted better than the reference soup in the absent condition, 74 out of 98 (75.5%) participants
thought the focal soup tasted better than the reference soup in the present condition. The
chi-square test showed that this difference was significant (Δ
χ
2
527.529, p< 0.001), which
was consistent with our predictions that participants in the present condition inferred the
focal soup to taste better (vs absent condition).
4.2.4 Confounding variables. We coded the reference soup taste chosen as tasting better as
“1”(vs focal soup) and entered it in a logistic regression. The logistic regression included the
absent condition as “0”(vs present condition 51), dislike of carrot flavour (1 5extremely like,
55average and 9 5extremely dislike), their interaction and other confounding variables (i.e.
gender and age). The empirical equation was as follows:
BFJ
Taste inference ¼β1biofortification claims þβ2dislike of carrot flavour
þβ3biofortification claims 3dislike of carrot flavour þβ4gender
þβ5age þ
ε
Logistic regression results showed that both the direct impact of dislike for carrot flavour
(b50.052, se 50.213, Wals 50.059 and p50.808) and the interaction impact (b50.068,
se 50.145, Wals 50.222 and p50.637) on the soup taste inference were not significant. The
effect of biofortification claims was still significant (b51.989, se 50.656, Wals 59.196 and
p50.002) after controlling for these confounding variables.
5. Experiment 2
There were two objectives in Experiment 2. The first objective was to test the generalizability
of our findings in Experiment 1 in different contexts and using different biofortified food. We
asked participants to rate the inferred taste of cooked zinc-biofortified rice served by the
dining hall on their campus. The second objective was to examine the mediating effect of taste
inference between biofortification claims and purchase intention. According to our
hypothesis, we predicted that biofortified cooked rice would generate stronger purchase
intentions than regular cooked rice. In addition, the mediation effect of taste perception exists
when we control for the mediation of perceived health benefits.
5.1 Participants, stimuli and procedure
In this experiment, all the participants we recruited were college students. College student
participants are good for improving the internal validity of the experiment by ruling out the
confounding effect of consumer heterogeneity. In total, 165 students from a university in China
were recruited (M
age
522.27 and SD 52.174; 104 women)for this experiment. The experiment
was conducted in a behavioural science lab at the university. They were asked to complete “a
food consumption survey”. Each student was paid CNY two (US$ 0.3) as a reward.
In a between-subject design, participants were also randomly assigned to one of two
biofortification claim conditions (present vs absent). To make the story more credible,
participants were told that the dining hall manager wanted to introduce a new kind of rice and
wanted to perform market research to evaluate students’preference for the rice. At the
beginning, participants were asked to rate their perceived hunger at the present time as in
Experiment 1. Then, participants were asked to imagine a scenario of choosing cooked rice in
a specific dining hall (a dining hall that is famous for a cooked rice eatery among participants).
Participants were presented information about the new kind of rice according to six
attributes: origin (Jilin province), variety (japonica rice), shape (round), cropping system (one
harvest a year),price (0.3 yuan/50 g) and biofortification claims (rice B iszinc-biofortified through
a non-GMO approach (zinc content is approximately 34.1 mg/kg) vs absent). Attributes except
biofortification claims were described identically. The only difference was that the rice was made
of zinc-biofortified rice under the present condition. In the absent conditions, the rice was
mentioned to be made of regular rice. After being exposed to the main information on the two
kinds of cooked rice, participants were asked to rate the inferred tastiness of each type of cooked
rice (e.g. How tasty do you think the rice would be? 1 5notatalltasty,55average tastiness and
95very much tasty). Participants also evaluated their intent to purchase each rice.
To rule out the confounding factor of participants’willingness to try something new, we
measured a long-term purchase intention (e.g. How likely would you be to buy the new rice
to eat in the coming one week (1 5definitely would not buy, 5 5average and 9 5definitely
wound buy)? At the end of the experiment, all participants were exposed to manipulation
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
checks, measurements of perceived food safety risk, perceived health benefits and
demographic information.
5.2 Results
5.2.1 Manipulation check. We first assessed whether our biofortification claim manipulation
was effective as intended. Biofortification claim manipulation was checked by asking
participants which element was enriched in the rice (1 5zinc, 2 5iron, 3 5not mentioned and
45do not remember). In the present condition, most (95.1%) participants chose “zinc”as the
enriched element. However, in the absent condition, most (91.3%) participants chose “not
mentioned”, and only 3.8% participants chose “zinc biofortified”. Thus, the manipulation of
the biofortification claim worked as intended.
5.2.2 Perceived hunger. The results showed that there was no significant difference in
perceived hunger between the two conditions (Mabsent 54.94 and SD 52.124; Mpresent 55.10
and SD 52.339; F(1,159) 50.194 and p50.661).
5.2.3 Taste inference. The results showed that the taste inference of the rice significantly
differed between the two conditions. Participants inferred rice presenting biofortification
claims to taste better than regular rice. (Mabsent55.41 and SD 51.429; Mpresent 56.47 and
SD 51.195; F(1,159) 525.929 and p< 0.001).
5.2.4 Perceived health benefits. The results showed that participants perceived more health
benefits in the present condition than in the absent condition (M
absent
55.80, SD 51.316;
M
present
57.35 and SD 51.174; F(159) 561.869 and p< 0.001).
5.2.5 Purchase intention. As predicted, the results revealed a significant difference
between the two conditions. Specifically, participants in the present condition showed higher
purchase intention than those in the absent condition (Mabsent 55.39 and SD 51.782;
Mpresent 56.72 and SD 51.485; F(1,159) 526.425 and p< 0.001) (Table 2).
5.2.6 Multiple mediation analysis. We proposed that perceived taste could work as a novel
motivation to purchase food with biofortification claims. We argue that taste inference
mediates the relationship between biofortification claims and purchase intention independent
of the mediating role of perceived health benefits. To test the proposed mechanism, we
entered both perception of health benefits and taste inference into a dual-path mediation
model predicting purchase intention. We coded those two conditions as 0 5absent and
15present. A bootstrapping analysis (model 4) with 5,000 samples (see Hayes 2013) showed
that the mediating role of perceived health benefits is significant (indirect effect 50.6254,
SE 50.1800 and 95% CI is 0.3021–1.0086). More importantly, the results also showed that the
mediating role of taste inference was significant (indirect effect 50.4525, SE 50.1800 and
95% CI is 0.1874–0.7743); see Figure 1.
6. Experiment 3
Previous experiments supported the halo effect claims such that consumers inferred food
with biofortification tasted better, and this subsequently facilitated purchase intention.
Experiment 3 had three main goals. First, we used uncooked rice with zinc biofortification as
Mean (SD)
p-valueAbsent condition Present condition
Mediators Taste inference 5.41 (1.429) 6.47 (1.195) p< 0.001
Perceived health benefit 5.80 (1.316) 7.35 (1.174) p< 0.001
Dependent variable Purchase intention 5.39 (1.782) 6.72 (1.485) p< 0.001
Table 2.
Means (standard
deviation) of dependent
variables and
mediators across two
conditions in
Experiment 2
BFJ
the focal product and recruited participants who had rice shopping experience to further test
the generalizability of our hypotheses. Second, we tested the moderating role of preference
for the enriched nutritional element. If our hypothesis is correct, the halo effect of zinc
biofortification claims would be stronger for consumers who have a high preference for zinc
than for consumers who have a low preference for zinc, which leads to higher taste inference
and facilitates higher purchase intention.
6.1 Participants, stimuli and procedure
In total, 131 participants with rice shopping experience were recruited through the wjx (2018)
platform (M
age
534.12; 74 women). Each participant was paid CNY five as a reward.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (biofortification claims: present
vs absent). Of participants, 66 were in the present condition, and 65 participants were in the
absent condition. The geographic distribution of participants covered 25 out of 34 provinces
in China, excluding the most remote provinces, such as Xinjiang and Tibet.
At the beginning, participants were also asked to rate their perceived hunger at the
present time, as in the previous experiments. Then, participants were asked to imagine a
scenario of buying uncooked rice in the supermarket. Participants were presented with a
picture of uncooked packaged rice with a brief introduction (see Figure A1). In a between-
subject design, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (biofortification
claims: present vs absent). In the present condition, the package was labelled “high in zinc”.
Additionally, participants were informed that rice high in zinc was a result of biofortification.
In the absent condition, the package was neither labelled “high in zinc”nor was any
information related to zinc content relayed.
After being exposed to the stimulus material, every participant was asked to indicate taste
inference, purchase intention, WTP and preference for zinc. To measure participants’WTP,
they were asked to indicate WTP for both rice options. WTP was measured with a 15-point
scale, where the middle of the scale was CNY 40, which represented the average market price.
At the low end of the scale (1), the price was 70% below the average market price (CNY 12),
and at the high end of the scale (15), the price was 70% above the market price (CNY 68). Each
scale point represented a change of CNY ±4. Preference for zinc was measured by a single
question: “How important do you think zinc supplementation is to your body?”(1 5not at all
important, 5 5neutral and 9 5extremely important).
At the end of the experiment, all participants were exposed to manipulation checks,
measures of perceived food safety risk, perceived benefits of the zinc rice buying experience
and demographic information. Except for WTP and preference for zinc, all other constructs
were measured using the same method as in prior experiments.
6.2 Results
6.2.1 Manipulation check. At the end of the experiment, we asked participants to recall which
nutritional element was enriched in the rice (1 5β-carotene, 2 5zinc, 3 5iron, 4 5vitamin A
Note(s): **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Purchase
intention
Tas te
inference
Perceived
health benefit
Biofortification
claims
0.2135
0.3325
**
0.6207
***
1.2147
***
1.7801
***
Figure 1.
Mediation analysis
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
and 5 5not mentioned). In addition, we asked participants to recall “how is the rice enriched
in the nutritional element if it is indeed enriched in a certain nutritional element?”
(1 5biofortification, 2 5naturally rich and 3 5not mentioned).
6.2.2 Packaging attractiveness. We also asked participants to assess “how attractive the
packaging is”on a nine-point scale (1 5not at all, 5 5average and 9 5extremely attractive).
The results revealed no significant difference between the two conditions (t(129) 51.740
and p50.084). The results showed that the manipulation of biofortification claims did not
impact consumers’assessment of packaging attractiveness.
6.2.3 Perceived hunger. The results showed that there was no significant difference in
perceived hunger between the two conditions (M
absent
54.11 and SD 51.921; M
absent
54.71
and SD 52.258; t(129) 51.647 and p50.102).
6.2.4 Taste inference. As predicted, taste inference in the present condition was higher
than that in the absent condition (M
absent
56.74 and SD 50.940; M
absent
57.12 and
SD 51.045). The results showed that the taste inference edge differed significantly between
the two conditions (t(129) 52.202 and p50.029).
6.2.5 Purchase intention. The results showed that purchase intention differed significantly
between the two conditions (t(129) 52.683 and p50.008). Purchase intention in the present
condition was significantly higher than that in the absent condition (M
absent
56.83 and
SD 51.232; Mpresent 57.44 and SD 51.360).
6.2.6 WTP. The results showed that WTP significantly differed between the two
conditions (F(129) 52.701 and p50.008). As predicted, participants were willing to pay
more for rice with zinc biofortification claims than regular rice (M
absent
5CNY 41.11 and
SD 5CNY 10.642; M
absent
5CNY 46.30 and SD 5CNY 11.358) (Table 3).
6.2.7 Moderation effect of preference for zinc. We performed a two-way ANOVA model to
analyse the interaction between biofortification claims (present vs absent) and preference for
zinc. Since all the ratings of preference for zinc were above or equal to 5, we chose 6 as a cut-
off. Specifically, ratings less than or equal to 6 were defined as a low preference for zinc (coded
as 0); ratings greater than 6 were defined as a high preference for zinc (coded as 1). The results
showed that the interaction effect on taste inference was significant (F59.045 and p50.003).
Specifically, participants who had a high preference for zinc inferred rice with zinc
biofortification claims to taste significantly better than regular rice (M
absent
56.849 and
SD 50.907; M
present
57.258 and SD 50.904; F55.786 and p50.018). Conversely,
participants who had a low preference for zinc inferred rice with biofortification claims to
taste significantly worse than regular rice (M
absent
56.250 and SD 50.965; M
present
55.000
and SD 50.816; F55.674 and p50.019), see Figure 2.
The results also showed that the interaction effect on purchase intention was significant
(F55.279 and p50.023). Specifically, participants who had a high preference for zinc were
significantly more willing to purchase rice with biofortification claims than regular rice
(M
absent
56.943, SD 51.262; M
present
57.581 and SD 51.262; F57.622 and p50.007).
However, there was no significant difference between the two conditions when participants
had a low preference for zinc (M
absent
56.333 and SD 50.985; M
present
55.250, SD 50.957;
F52.313 and p50.131) (see Figure 3).
Mean (SD)
p-valueAbsent condition Present condition
Mediator Taste inference 6.74 (0.940) 7.12 (1.045) p50.029
Dependent variables Purchase intention 6.83 (1.232) 7.44 (1.360) p50.008
WTP(CNY) 41.108 (10.642) 46.303 (11.358) p50.008
Table 3.
Means (standard
deviation) of dependent
variables and
mediators across two
conditions in
Experiment 3
BFJ
The interaction effect on WTP was also significant (F54.114 and p50.045). Specifically,
participants who had a high preference for zinc were significantly willing to pay more for rice
with biofortification claims than for regular rice (M
absent
541.057 and SD 510.931;
M
present
547.097 and SD 510.481; F58.833 and p50.004). However, there was no
significant difference between the two conditions when participants had a low preference for
zinc (M
absent
541.333 and SD 59.698; M
present
534.000 and SD 518.619; F51.367 and
p50.245) (see Figure 4).
5.00
7.26
6.25 6.85
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Low preference for zinc high preference for zinc
Taste inference
Present Absent
5.25
7.58
6.33 6.94
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
Low preference for zinc high preference for zinc
Purchase intention
Present Absent
34.00
47.10
41.33 41.06
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
Low preference for zinc high preference for zinc
Willingness to pay (CNY)
Present Absent
Figure 2.
Means for taste
inference
(Experiment 3)
Figure 3.
Means for purchase
intention
(Experiment 3)
Figure 4.
Means for willingness
to pay (Experiment 3)
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
6.2.8 Moderated mediation model. A bootstrapping analysis (model 7) was used to test the
moderated mediation effect. Using bootstrapping procedures (Preacher and Hayes, 2008), we
examined whether the indirect effect of taste inference was moderated by the preference for
zinc. We coded those two biofortification claim conditions as 0 5absent and 1 5present. The
two levels of preference for zinc were coded as 1 5low preference and 2 5high preference. A
bootstrapping analysis with 5,000 samples showed that the moderated mediation effect was
significant (indirect effect 51.4773, SE 50.4696 and 95% CI is 0.5534–2.4360). When the
preference for zinc was high, the indirect effect of biofortification claims was 0.3642
(SE 50.1481 and 95% CI was 0.0569–0.6425).
However, when the preference for zinc was low, the indirect effect of biofortification claims
was 1.1131 (SE 50.4452 and 95% CI is 2.0327 to 0.2379). These results are consistent
with our predictions that taste inference mediates the relationship between biofortification
claims and purchase intention. When consumers’preference for zinc is high, biofortification
claims increase purchase intention by evoking a better taste inference. However, when
consumers’preference for zinc is low, the positive relationship fades because consumers do
not infer food with biofortification food to taste better.
7. General discussion
7.1 Conclusion
In this research, we showed that biofortification claims could improve consumers’inference
of food taste such that foods with biofortification claims were inferred to taste better than
regular foods (Experiments 1, 2 and 3). In addition, consumers showed a higher purchase
intention (Experiment 2) and WTP (Experiments 2 and 3) for food with biofortification claims.
We further examined whether taste inference mediated the relationship between
biofortification claims and purchase intention (Experiment 2). These findings revealed a
novel motivation for accepting biofortified foods: taste. We also documented that this halo
effect depended on consumers’preference for the enriched nutritional element such that the
halo effect was stronger when preferences were high compared to low preferences
(Experiment 3). The halo effect of biofortification claims was significant across different
foods with biofortification claims.
7.2 Theoretical implications
Our findings expand our understanding of the underlying motivation for the adoption of
biofortified food among Chinese people. We found that consumers’adoption intention for
biofortified food was driven by both instrumental and hedonic motivation. We demonstrated
that the perceived value of biofortification is not only limited to improved health benefits but
also improved taste inferences. In Experiment 2, the mediation effect of taste inference was
still significant when controlling for the mediation effect of perceived health benefits.
However, we also found that the mediating role of perceived taste was influenced by
consumers’perception of health benefits. The results showed that the positive halo effect of
biofortification claims was weakened when consumers did not show a preference for
nutritional benefits.
Our research contributes to the literature on the effect of biofortification claims on sensory
perception. While sensory changes, including colour, taste and texture traits, can be
perceived by consumers (Stevens and Winter-Nelson, 2008) and can further influence
consumer adoption (Talsma et al., 2017), this research demonstrates how the mere signal
effect of biofortification claims shapes consumers’taste inference before they actually taste it.
Our research also contributes to the literature on taste perception shaped by unrelated
food attributes. Prior studies have widely documented that organic labels can influence
BFJ
consumers’judgement of other attributes, such as calories and taste (Raghunathan et al.,
2006;Schuldt and Schwarz, 2010). However, limited attention has been devoted to the effect of
biofortification claims. We documented a positive halo effect of biofortification claims.
Moreover, we showed that this halo effect was robust across different foods and could
subsequently promote purchase intention and WTP.
However, our research demonstrates a positive effect of biofortification, which is
inconsistent with existing research showing the negative effect of nutritional or healthy
claims on taste. Previous studies have widely documented healthy claims that often cause
consumers to intuit a worse flavour (Raghunathan et al., 2006). For example, higher fat cheese
is rated as tasting better (Westcombe and Wardle, 1997). Organically labelled food is
perceived as healthier but less tasty than regular food (Lee et al., 2013;Schuldt and Hannahan,
2013). According to previous studies, those findings were often explained by the
compensatory reasoning process.
Under the compensatory reasoning process, consumers believe they have to choose either
nutrition or flavour when making food choices (Binkley and Golub, 2011;Ramanathan and
Menon, 2006). This negative impact of nutritional claims has been tested under element-
reduced scenarios such as salt reduction or fat reduction in prior studies (Liem et al., 2012;
Raghunathan et al., 2006). Consumers easily build a direct association between salt or calorie
reduction and taste change from their personal experience (Ross and Nisbett, 2011). However,
under biofortification conditions, the healthiness of food is not a result of reducing any
flavourful element but rather a kind of nutritional enhancement. Biofortification does not take
away any flavour-related element. In addition, biofortified foods are relatively new and
unfamiliar to most consumers (Chowdhury et al., 2011). Thus, we believe that it is difficult for
consumers to build a direct negative relationship between biofortification and food taste.
Compensatory inferences are less likely to occur, leaving the door open for a positive halo
effect.
7.3 Practical implications
Our research also has significant practical implications. Our findings help to foster
investments in biofortification marketing by documenting that biofortification claims or
labels can indeed promote purchases by improving taste inference. Contrary to the popular
views that biofortification is only a nutritional intervention for consumers, our findings
suggest that in addition to benefiting health, biofortification claims can also trigger
consumers’hedonic desires by improving taste inference.
Our research provides evidence that marketing biofortified food might be easier than what
most managers or scholars think, especially for consumers who have a high preference for
nutrition benefits. Given that biofortified food is perceived as tasting better, our findings
further suggest that biofortified food might be a good choice for certain eating contexts, such
as eating in restaurants or at a party where consumers mainly have food for heuristic goals.
Our findings also highlight the importance of improving consumers’nutrition knowledge and
emphasize the nutritional value of biofortified foods in marketing communication. This is
important because if consumers do not recognize the benefit of the enriched nutritional
element, the halo effect on taste will also be weakened.
7.4 Limitation and future research
This research has several limitations which might provide some implications for future
research. First, participants across the three experiments we conducted were all recruited
from China. The external validity is limited because our findings are not tested in the
Western context. Eastern people have different processing styles from Western people.
Specifically, Eastern people tend to use holistic processing, whereas Western people are
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
more analytical (Nisbett et al., 2001). Holistic processing facilitates generalizations based on
some attributes to other attributes, thus strengthening halo effects. In contrast, analytical
processing diminishes halo effects (Hendrick and Costantini, 1970). Thus, it is an
interesting idea for future studies to investigate how cultural differences moderate the halo
effect of biofortification claims. Second, there are two biofortification methods: genetic
engineering and conventional breeding. To avoid the confounding effect of perceived safety
risk by the genetic engineering strategy, we didnotframebiofortifiedfoodasgenetic
engineering in our experiments. It is still unclear whether consumers respond differently
between the two methods. It might also be possible that the halo effect of biofortification on
taste inference is moderated by the difference in biofortification methods. Thus, we suggest
future research to compare the strength of the halo effect of these two biofortification
strategies. Third, since we did not measure income in the questionnaires, we failed to test
the effect of consumers’income levels across the three experiments. Consumers with
different income levels may show different sensitivities to biofortification information. This
limitation could be solved in future studies. Third, the sample size was small in each
experiment. A larger-scale experimental design could be conducted in future studies for a
better generation of results.
This research is the first study to investigate a widely ignored relationship between
biofortification claims and sensory inference. Through three experiments, we found that
biofortification claims had a halo effect on consumers’taste inference of the food. Biofortified
food was perceived as tasting better than regular food and enriched consumers’purchase
intention and WTP. In addition, this halo effect was enriched by consumers’preference for
the enriched nutritional element. Since our results indicated a heuristic motivation for
biofortified food purchasing, this research provides significant implications for policy
designers and firms to develop biofortified food promotion strategies.
Note
1. At the time of the study, CNY 1 5US$ 0.15
References
Banerji, A., Birol, E., Karandikar, B. and Rampal, J. (2016), “Information, branding, certification, and
consumer willingness to pay for high-iron pearl millet: evidence from experimental auctions in
Maharashtra, India”,Food Policy, Vol. 62, pp. 133-141.
Beckwith, N.E. and Lehmann, D.R. (1975), “The importance of halo effects in multi-attribute attitude
models”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 265-275.
Binkley, J.K. and Golub, A. (2011), “Consumer demand for nutrition versus taste in four major food
categories”,Agricultural Economics, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 65-74.
Bouis, H.E. and Welch, R.M. (2010), “Biofortification-a sustainable agricultural strategy for reducing
micronutrient malnutrition in the global south”,Crop Science, Vol. 50, pp. S-20-S-32.
Broniarczyk, S.M. and Alba, J.W. (1994), “The role of consumers’intuitions in inference making”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 393-407.
Bublitz, M.G., Peracchio, L.A. and Block, L.G. (2010), “Why did I eat that? Perspectives on food
decision making and dietary restraint”,Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 239-258.
Chernev, A. (2007), “Jack of all trades or master of one? Product differentiation and compensatory
reasoning in consumer choice”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 430-444.
Chernev, A. and Blair, S. (2015), “Doing well by doing good: the benevolent halo of corporate social
responsibility”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 1412-1425.
BFJ
Chowdhury, S., Meenakshi, J., Tomlins, K.I. and Owori, C. (2011), “Are consumers in developing
countries willing to pay more for micronutrient-dense biofortified foods? Evidence from a field
experiment in Uganda”,American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 83-97.
Costa-Font, M., Gil, J.M. and Traill, W.B. (2008), “Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes
towards genetically modified food: review and implications for food policy”,Food Policy, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 99-111.
De Groote, H. and Kimenju, S.C. (2008), “Comparing consumer preferences for color and nutritional
quality in maize: application of a semi-double-bound logistic model on urban consumers in
Kenya”,Food Policy, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 362-370.
De Steur, H., Feng, S., Xiaoping, S. and Gellynck, X. (2014), “Consumer preferences for micronutrient
strategies in China. A comparison between folic acid supplementation and folate
biofortification”,Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 1410-1420.
De Steur, H., Mogendi, J.B., Wesana, J., Makokha, A. and Gellynck, X. (2015), “Stakeholder reactions
toward iodine biofortified foods. An application of protection motivation theory”,Appetite,
Vol. 92, pp. 295-302.
De Steur, H., Demont, M., Gellynck, X. and Stein, A.J. (2017), “The social and economic impact of
biofortification through genetic modification”,Current Opinion in Biotechnology, Vol. 44,
pp. 161-168.
Feldman, J.M. and Lynch, J.G. (1988), “Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on
belief, attitude, intention, and behavior”,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3, p. 421.
Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J. and Bardes, J. (2004),
“GM foods and the misperception of risk perception”,Risk Analysis: An International Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 185-194.
Gonz
alez, C., Johnson, N. and Qaim, M. (2009), “Consumer acceptance of second-generation GM Foods:
the case of biofortified cassava in the North-east of Brazil”,Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol. 60 No. 3, pp. 604-624.
Harvestplus (2014), “Biofortification progress briefs”, available at: http://www.harvestplus.org/sites/
default/files/Biofortification_Progress_Briefs_August2014_WEB_0.pdf (accessed 6
September 2018).
Harvestplus (2017), “Biofortification: the nutrition revolution is now”, available at: http://www.
harvestplus.org/biofortification-nutrition-revolution-now (accessed 6 September 2018).
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York.
Hendrick, C. and Costantini, A.F. (1970), “Effects of varying trait inconsistency and response
requirements on the primacy effect in impression formation”,Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 2, p. 158.
Imram, N. (1999), “The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food product”,
Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 99 No. 5, pp. 224-230.
Kikulwe, E.M., Wesseler, J. and Falck-Zepeda, J. (2011), “Attitudes, perceptions, and trust. Insights
from a consumer survey regarding genetically modified banana in Uganda”,Appetite, Vol. 57
No. 2, pp. 401-413.
Lagerkvist, C.J., Okello, J., Muoki, P., Heck, S. and Prain, G. (2016), “Nutrition promotion messages: the
effect of information on consumer sensory expectations, experiences and emotions of vitamin
A-biofortified sweet potato”,Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 52, pp. 143-152.
Lee, W.C.J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K.M. and Wansink, B. (2013), “You taste what you see: do organic
labels bias taste perceptions?”,Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-39.
Liem, D.G., Miremadi, F., Zandstra, E.H. and Keast, R.S. (2012), “Health labelling can influence taste
perception and use of table salt for reduced-sodium products”,Public Health Nutrition, Vol. 15
No. 12, pp. 2340-2347.
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
Maimaran, M. and Fishbach, A. (2014), “If it’s useful and you know it, do you eat? Preschoolers refrain
from instrumental food”,Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 642-655.
Nisbett, R.E. and Wilson, T.D. (1977), “The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of
judgments”,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 4, p. 250.
Nisbett, R.E., Peng, K., Choi, I. and Norenzayan, A. (2001), “Culture and systems of thought: holistic
versus analytic cognition”,Psychological Review, Vol. 108 No. 2, p. 291.
Oparinde, A., Banerji, A., Birol, E. and Ilona, P. (2016), “Information and consumer willingness to pay
for biofortified yellow cassava: evidence from experimental auctions in Nigeria”,Agricultural
Economics, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 215-233.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”,Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R.W. and Hoyer, W.D. (2006), “The unhealthy tasty intuition and its effects
on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4,
pp. 170-184.
Ramanathan, S. and Menon, G. (2006), “Time-varying effects of chronic hedonic goals on impulsive
behavior”,Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 628-641.
Ross, L. and Nisbett, R.E. (2011), The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology, Pinter
& Martin Publishers.
Saltzman, A., Birol, E., Bouis, H.E., Boy, E., De Moura, F.F., Islam, Y. and Pfeiffer, W.H. (2013),
“Biofortification: progress toward a more nourishing future”,Global Food Security, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Schuldt, J.P. and Hannahan, M. (2013), “When good deeds leave a bad taste. Negative inferences from
ethical food claimss”,Appetite, Vol. 62, pp. 76-83.
Schuldt, J.P. and Schwarz, N. (2010), “The ‘organic’path to obesity? Organic claimss influence calorie
judgments and exercise recommendations”,Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 5 No. 3, p. 144.
Stevens, R. and Winter-Nelson, A. (2008), “Consumer acceptance of provitamin A-biofortified maize in
Maputo, Mozambique”,Food Policy, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 341-351.
Talsma, E.F., Melse-Boonstra, A. and Brouwer, I.D. (2017), “Acceptance and adoption of biofortified
crops in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review”,Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 75
No. 10, pp. 798-829.
Tepper, B.J. and Trail, A.C. (1998), “Taste or health: a study on consumer acceptance of corn chips”,
Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 267-272.
Wansink, B. and Chandon, P. (2006), “Can ‘low-fat’nutrition labels lead to obesity?”,Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 605-617.
Westcombe, A. and Wardle, J. (1997), “Influence of relative fat content information on responses to
three foods”,Appetite, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 49-62.
Wjx (2018), available at: https://www.wjx.cn/.
Wortmann, L., Enneking, U. and Daum, D. (2018), “German consumers’attitude towards Selenium-
biofortified apples and acceptance of related nutrition and health claimss”,Nutrients, Vol. 10,
p. 190.
BFJ
Appendix
Corresponding author
Ping Qing can be contacted at: qingping@mail.hzau.edu.cn
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
High in zinc
Figure A1.
Stimulus material
Experiment 3
The halo effect
of
biofortification
claims
