![Results of the moderated parallel mediation analysis Direct effect of Indirect effect via Indirect effect via Indirect effect via Label [X] Perceived healthiness [M1] Expected taste [M2] Perceived sustainability [M3] X → Y X → M1 → Y X → M2 → Y X → M3 → Y](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gesa-Stremmel/publication/359970081/figure/tbl1/AS:1153443502800897@1652013769386/Results-of-the-moderated-parallel-mediation-analysis-Direct-effect-of-Indirect-effect-via_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Gesa Stremmel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gesa Stremmel on Jan 14, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Ossama Elshiewy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ossama Elshiewy on May 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Vegan labeling for what is already vegan:
1
Product perceptions and consumption intentions
2
3
4
Gesa Stremmel*+, Ossama Elshiewy*, Yasemin Boztug*, & Fernanda Carneiro-Otto*
5
6
*Department of Business Administration, University of Goettingen,
7
37073 Goettingen, Germany
8
+Corresponding author: gesa.stremmel@uni-goettingen.de
9
10
11
Published in Appetite: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.106048
12
Please cite as: Stremmel et al. (2022).
13
Reference (APA): Stremmel, G., Elshiewy, O., Boztug, Y., & Carneiro-Otto, F. (2022).
14
Vegan labeling for what is already vegan: Product perceptions and
15
consumption intentions. Appetite, 176, 106048.
16
2
Vegan labeling for what is already vegan:
17
Product perceptions and consumption intentions
18
19
20
Abstract
21
Given the increasing popularity of vegan labels, our study examines the effect of vegan labeling
22
on product perceptions and consumption intentions. We focus on randomly-vegan products
23
which are products that have neither undergone any special reformulation to be vegan nor
24
explicitly aim to serve the market segment of vegans and vegetarians. Food marketers are often
25
tempted to add a vegan label to their randomly-vegan products to capitalize on the growing
26
popularity of vegan food. Our results show that labeling randomly-vegan products biases the
27
perceived healthiness, expected taste, and perceived sustainability, but only if consumers do
28
not expect such randomly-vegan products to be vegan by default. This translates into altered
29
consumption intentions for these unexpected-vegan products with a vegan label (vs. no label).
30
Importantly, this applies to both utilitarian and hedonic products. No effects attributed to the
31
vegan label (vs. no label) were found for randomly-vegan products that consumers expected to
32
be vegan by default.
33
34
Keywords: Vegan, food labeling, halo effect
35
3
1. Introduction
36
The demand for vegan-labeled products is on the rise, especially in Western countries (EMR,
37
2021; Euromonitor, 2021). Consequently, the availability and sales of vegan-labeled products
38
increased substantially. In the United States, the plant-based food market was totaling $7 billion
39
and has grown twice as fast as the animal-based food market in 2020 (Gaan, 2021).
40
Nevertheless, the share of people who call themselves vegan is still relatively low in Western
41
countries (ranging from 1% to 4% depending on the country; Statista, 2021a, 2020a, 2020b).
42
Looking at the German market, the production value of vegan and vegetarian food has increased
43
by 37% to €374.9 million from 2019 to 2020, while the number of vegans and vegetarians only
44
slightly increased (Statista, 2021b; Destatis, 2021). This indicates that vegan products are no
45
longer consumed only by vegans and vegetarians, but are gaining popularity among the broader
46
meat-eating population (gfi, 2021; NielsenIQ, 2019). For this reason, vegan labeling is
47
becoming increasingly attractive for food marketers as a mere communication tool.
48
Consequently, it is crucial to take a closer look at the benefits and potential risks of such a
49
labeling practice.
50
In the European Union, the term vegan is currently not regulated. However, the
51
recommended definition of vegan products to carry a vegan label is that the ingredients must
52
not be derived from animals and that the product must not be produced using any animal-related
53
components (VSMK, 2016). Thereby, all production and processing steps must be taken into
54
account. The two most widespread labels in the European Union that meet these requirements
55
are the V-Label (European Vegetarian Union, 2019) and the Vegan Trademark (The Vegan
56
Society, 2022). The former label is the most common vegan label for food, while the latter is
57
also often found on non-food products.
58
Vegan-labeled products can then be divided into two categories. First, there are products
59
mimicking foods of animal origin. These products include, for example, meat substitutes as
60
well as vegan variants of cheese and milk. All of these products are produced “intentionally-
61
vegan” and typically address market segments who consciously try to avoid the consumption
62
of products with animal ingredients (e.g., vegans and vegetarians). We do not study this
63
category of vegan products and refer interested readers to Onwezen et al. (2021).
64
Second, there are products that do not purposely substitute animal products, but of which
65
there can be vegan versions. These products include, for example, cookies, gummy bears, baked
66
goods, beverages, and spreads. We refer to vegan versions of these products as “randomly-
67
vegan,” signifying that they are not produced intentionally-vegan but are vegan by default. This
68
means that the products have neither undergone any special reformulation to be vegan nor
69
4
explicitly aim to serve the market segment of vegans and vegetarians. Yet, given the increasing
70
popularity of vegan products, manufacturers are tempted to add a vegan label to their randomly-
71
vegan products. No previous study has taken a closer look at this labeling practice. Hence, our
72
study will focus on vegan labeling for randomly-vegan products to understand how this impacts
73
product perceptions and consumption intentions.
74
The main advantage of explicitly labeling randomly-vegan products as vegan is
75
transparency (European Vegetarian Union, 2019). Whether a product is vegan often cannot be
76
clearly determined from the list of ingredients. Relevant examples are various beverages, such
77
as apple juice and wine, which are often clarified with gelatin to remove the cloudiness. This
78
gelatin is an animal-based product but is not included in the list of ingredients since it is
79
subsequently filtered out. However, its involvement in the production process may contradict
80
individuals’ ideas of vegan food. Consumers who are explicitly looking for vegan products may
81
want to avoid foods that use animal-based production aids and additives. Appropriate labeling
82
can therefore provide important and easily accessible information for consumers following a
83
respective diet.
84
However, little is known about whether vegan labeling can also have adverse effects for
85
food marketers and consumer intentions toward the product. The present research aims to
86
explore various consequences of such labeling practice in more detail. Prior research has
87
primarily focused on general perceptions and attitudes toward veganism and vegetarianism
88
(e.g., Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019; Povey et al., 2001; Radnitz et al., 2015; Rosenfeld &
89
Tomiyama, 2020). Other research has only assessed socio-psychological predictors of meat-
90
free diets (Cherry, 2006; Graça et al., 2015; Rosenfeld, 2020; Rosenfeld & Burrow, 2017).
91
Considering consumer preferences for vegan foods, most studies have placed emphasis on the
92
category of intentionally-vegan products (especially meat substitutes) (e.g., Hoek et al., 2011;
93
Siegrist & Hartmann, 2019; Weinrich & Elshiewy, 2019). The present research complements
94
the existing findings by examining the effects of vegan labeling within the largely unconsidered
95
category of randomly-vegan products. We will not only investigate how vegan labeling affects
96
product perceptions and consumption intentions but also consider important moderators. These
97
are consumers’ expectations of the product being vegan (expected-vegan vs. unexpected-vegan)
98
and the food type (utilitarian vs. hedonic). By doing so, we contribute to the existing literature
99
which examines the various outcomes of packaging elements like claims and labels. To the best
100
of our knowledge, our study is the first to study the vegan label in this regard. As vegan labeling
101
gains popularity, it is important to develop an understanding of this labeling practice.
102
5
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we review
103
determinants of consumption intentions that may be relevant in the context of vegan-labeled
104
products. Based on this, we derive our conceptual model. In Section 3, we first introduce the
105
stimuli used in our main study and present a pretest for their suitability. Then, the methodology
106
of our main study is also described. In Sections 4 and 5, we summarize and discuss the results
107
of our study. In Sections 6 and 7, we also discuss the limitations of our research and offer
108
recommendations for future research as well as a conclusion.
109
110
2. Determinants of the consumption intentions of vegan-labeled food
111
Vegan labeling aims to inform consumers about the involvement of animals in the production
112
process. However, previous research has shown that packaging elements, like claims and labels,
113
tempt consumers to draw conclusions about product characteristics that are not subject of the
114
claim or label (e.g., Andrews et al., 1998; Kozup et al., 2003; Wansink & Chandon, 2006). In
115
the food literature, this phenomenon is often referred to as halo and horn effect (Burton et al.,
116
2015). Essentially, a halo (horn) effect is a form of cognitive bias where one attribute of an
117
object or person leads to a positive (negative) evaluation of other attributes of the same object
118
or person (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Thorndike, 1920). The occurrence of halo and horn effects
119
is fostered by low-involvement situations, like weekly grocery shopping (Lee et al., 2013). The
120
effects arise, for example, in the context of health, taste, or sustainability assessments of
121
products (e.g., Raghunathan et al., 2006; Schuldt & Hannahan, 2013; van Doorn & Verhoef,
122
2011). In the following, we discuss these forms of perceptual biases as a potential consequence
123
of vegan labeling
124
125
2.1. Perceived healthiness
126
Numerous studies have shown that claims and labels lead to biased perceptions of product
127
healthiness, which in turn can influence consumer behavior. For example, nutrition and health
128
claims, such as “low fat” or “heart healthy,” distort calorie and nutrient evaluations, resulting
129
in an increased calorie intake (Wansink & Chandon, 2006) and a decreased perceived risk of
130
cardiovascular disease (Kozup et al., 2003). The “high calcium” claim misleads consumers to
131
rate the product as healthier and more interesting to purchase (Roe et al., 1999). Moreover, a
132
“gluten-free” claim makes products appear less caloric and healthier (Prada et al., 2019). Even
133
claims and labels that do not address the healthiness or nutritional content of a product can lead
134
to biased expectations toward the product. For example, adding a “natural” claim to a product
135
evokes various false inferences leading to an increase in perceived healthiness and purchase
136
6
intention (Berry et al., 2017). Schuldt and Hannahan (2013) found that an “organic” label results
137
in higher health ratings for labeled products. Moreover, the label lowers calorie perceptions of
138
unhealthy foods while increasing the frequency of consumption perceived as appropriate
139
(Schuldt & Schwarz, 2010). The same holds for a “fair trade” label, which as an ethical label
140
has no objective relation to the nutritional value of food (Schuldt et al., 2012).
141
Based on these findings, it is reasonable to assume that other ethical labels, like
142
“vegetarian” or “vegan” labels, also have an influence on healthiness perceptions and
143
consumption intentions of food products (see, e.g., Besson et al., 2020). This assumption is
144
supported by the fact that vegetarian and vegan diets are generally considered to have some
145
beneficial health outcomes (Appleby & Key, 2016; Barnard et al., 2009; Craig, 2009; Dinu et
146
al., 2017). These may transfer to the assessment of vegan-labeled products via the halo effect.
147
First evidence in this regard is provided by Besson et al. (2020), who demonstrated that
148
vegetarian burgers are considered to be lower in calories compared to meat burgers.
149
Additionally, Bullock et al. (2020) found that consumers perceive vegan ice cream to be
150
healthier than super-premium ice cream. Accordingly, we formulate our first hypothesis:
151
152
H1: A vegan label (vs. no label) increases perceived healthiness which leads to higher
153
consumption intentions.
154
155
2.2. Expected taste
156
Expected taste is another important attribute that can be affected by the presence of claims and
157
labels. Expected taste often correlates with healthiness perception (e.g., Bialkova et al., 2016;
158
Garaus & Lalicic, 2021). Previous research has shown that a higher health perception is often
159
accompanied by lower taste expectations, which is also referred to as the “unhealthy = tasty
160
intuition” (Raghunathan et al., 2006). Consumers believe that healthy eating and making
161
products healthier comes at the expense of the taste experience, suggesting a health-pleasure
162
trade-off (Kearney & McElhone, 1999; Nørgaard & Brunsø, 2009; Raghunathan et al., 2006).
163
For example, an identical product labeled “low fat” receives worse taste ratings than when
164
labeled “full fat” (Wardle & Solomons, 1994). A “reduced in salt” claim and the “healthy
165
choices” logo on soup lower expected liking compared to the control condition (Liem et al.,
166
2012). Moreover, claims indicating sugar reduction lead to an increase in perceived healthiness
167
but also to a decrease in expected taste (Prada et al., 2021). Similarly, Schuldt and Hannahan
168
(2013) found that some consumers expect organic foods to be healthier and less tasty compared
169
to non-organic products. Garaus and Lalicic (2021) tested the “unhealthy = tasty intuition” in
170
7
the context of online recipes. Healthy recipes are expected to be less tasty and consumers are
171
less likely to cook them.
172
However, research on the relationship between health and taste inferences is yielding
173
mixed results, especially when considering countries other than the United States. For French
174
consumers, Werle et al. (2013) showed that unhealthy foods are associated with a bad taste,
175
while the opposite is true for healthy foods. Haasova and Florack (2019) confirmed the
176
association between healthiness and tastiness within the context of supermarket-listed food
177
products for German-Austrian consumers.
178
Taken together, we nevertheless assume that a vegan label has a negative influence on
179
taste expectations for randomly-vegan products. Animal fats, such as those found in butter,
180
milk, or lard, are considered to be flavor enhancers (e.g., Jallinoja et al., 2016). Moreover,
181
reduced taste is cited as the main barrier for consumers to adopt vegetarian or vegan diets
182
(Povey et al., 2001; Rosenfeld & Tomiyama, 2020). Despite the potential health benefits of a
183
vegan diet, individuals are often not willing to give up the taste of animal products (Bryant,
184
2019). It is therefore likely that the negative taste image of a vegan diet translates to negative
185
taste expectations of vegan-labeled products, which in turn influences consumption intentions.
186
Accordingly, we formulate our second hypothesis:
187
188
H2: A vegan label (vs. no label) decreases perceived tastiness which leads to lower
189
consumption intentions.
190
191
2.3. Perceived sustainability
192
Sustainability information on packaging is an increasingly important factor influencing
193
consumers’ product choices (Bublitz et al., 2010; Rousseau, 2015). For example, consumers
194
are willing to pay a price premium for products carrying a free-range or carbon-footprint label
195
(van Loo et al., 2014).
196
In the literature, sustainability is recognized as a two-dimensional construct (Grunert et
197
al., 2014). The first dimension is the so-called temporal dimension, which primarily entails
198
environmental aspects and calls for meeting present needs without compromising the ability to
199
meet the needs of future generations (Rees, 1989; WCED, 1987). The second dimension is
200
referred to as the social dimension, which includes ethical aspects (Grunert et al., 2014). It aims
201
at creating a secure and satisfying material future for all as well as ensuring that basic human
202
needs are met (Rees, 1989).
203
8
Previous research has shown that ethical labels influence the evaluation of non-ethical
204
product attributes, such as health and taste (e.g., Lotz et al., 2013; Schuldt et al., 2012).
205
Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that an ethic-related label, such as the vegan label, also
206
affects other ethical attributes, like the fair trade perception, which relates to the social
207
dimension of sustainability. Considering the temporal dimension of sustainability, vegan
208
labeling might influence product perceptions via the positive image of meat-free diets. Meat
209
consumption is often discussed to contribute to the enhanced greenhouse effect and research
210
has indicated that reducing meat consumption helps to protect the environment and to mitigate
211
global warming (Aleksandrowicz et al., 2016; Scarborough et al., 2014; Springmann et al.,
212
2016). Therefore, it is likely that the environmental-friendly image of meat-free diets, like the
213
vegan diet, is transferred to correspondingly labeled products. This suggests that a randomly-
214
vegan product with a label will be perceived as more sustainable than the identical product
215
without a label. Accordingly, our third hypothesis reads as:
216
217
H3: A vegan label (vs. no label) increases perceived sustainability which leads to higher
218
consumption intentions.
219
220
Our hypothesized relationships may also be moderated by product-specific characteristics
221
outlined in the next subsections.
222
223
2.4. The moderating role of expectations (expected-vegan vs. unexpected-vegan)
224
Considering the range of randomly-vegan products defined in Section 1, it is probable that there
225
are different degrees to which consumers would expect an unlabeled randomly-vegan product
226
to actually be vegan. If consumers are more likely to rate a randomly-vegan product as vegan,
227
we refer to the product as “expected-vegan.” If they are more likely to rate a randomly-vegan
228
product as non-vegan, we refer to the product as “unexpected-vegan.” Whether a product is
229
expected-vegan or unexpected-vegan differs based on whether non-vegan versions of the
230
product are a result from additives and production aids or their main ingredients.
231
Examples of expected-vegan products are glazed products as well as various alcoholic
232
and non-alcoholic beverages. The non-vegan counterparts of these products use additives, like
233
E 904 (shellac) and E 901 (beeswax) as glazing agents, or they use production aids in their
234
production process, such as animal charcoal as decolorizer, or gelatin and fish bladders as
235
filters. Consumers are usually unaware that these products are not vegan because of a lack of
236
knowledge regarding additives and production processes. Consequently, the entire product
237
9
category (e.g., juice) is assessed to be vegan. If consumers already expect food to hold specific
238
characteristics, an additional label confirming these expectations does not necessarily change
239
prior inferences (see, e.g., Wansink et al., 2004; Burton et al. 2015). Therefore, labeling an
240
expected-vegan product as vegan is less likely to affect the perceived healthiness, expected
241
taste, and perceived sustainability of the product.
242
Examples of unexpected-vegan products are products made of dough or containing
243
chocolate (cocoa). These are often associated with animal-based ingredients, such as eggs,
244
butter, or milk in the case of chocolate. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that consumers will
245
assess the entire product category (e.g., cookies) as non-vegan, which is also transferred to
246
corresponding randomly-vegan products within the category. Vegan labeling on such
247
unexpected-vegan products does not meet consumer expectations. Hence, existing beliefs about
248
the product are disconfirmed (see, e.g., Oliver, 1977). As a result, consumers are more likely to
249
reevaluate their perceptions of product attributes based on the label, making them more prone
250
to perceptional biases (see, e.g., Wansink et al., 2004). Accordingly, we formulate the following
251
hypothesis:
252
253
H4: The effects of a vegan label (vs. no label) on consumption intentions via (a) perceived
254
healthiness, (b) expected taste, and (c) perceived sustainability described in H1, H2, and
255
H3 are more pronounced for unexpected-vegan (vs. expected-vegan) products.
256
257
2.5. The moderating role of food type (hedonic vs. utilitarian)
258
Whether a product is hedonic or utilitarian is another factor that is often considered in the
259
context of food evaluation. Hedonic mainly refers to unhealthy food whose consumption is
260
linked to short-term goals like pleasure and immediate gratification (Antonides & Cramer,
261
2013; Wertenbroch, 1998). Utilitarian mainly refers to food that serves a functional purpose,
262
such as satisfying hunger or providing essential nutrients, or to food that contributes to long-
263
term goals, like staying healthy (Batra & Ahtola, 1991; Cramer & Antonides, 2011; Dhar &
264
Wertenbroch, 2000). Hedonic and utilitarian foods often coincide with so-called vices and
265
virtues, which primarily relate to products’ health evaluations (Alba & Williams, 2013;
266
Antonides & Cramer, 2013; Okada, 2005). Prior research has shown that the effect of claims
267
and labels on product perceptions can differ depending on whether the product is hedonic or
268
utilitarian (e.g., perceived healthiness, expected taste, and perceived sustainability).
269
With regard to perceived healthiness, previous research yields ambiguous results.
270
Steinhauser and Hamm (2018) argued that claims and labels that increase a product’s
271
10
healthiness perception match up with healthy but not with unhealthy products. Based on
272
congruency theory, these health-related cues complement each other and lead to a larger
273
interaction in terms of health evaluation and preference for utilitarian (vs. hedonic) products
274
(Huang & Lu, 2016). As mentioned in Section 2.1 consumers may also buy vegan-labeled foods
275
for reasons of perceived healthiness, implying that a vegan label may be a better match with
276
utilitarian (vs. hedonic) products. Nonetheless, there is also empirical evidence that hedonic
277
products have a higher potential for an increase in perceived healthiness compared to utilitarian
278
products, which are already perceived to be considerably healthy (Song & Im, 2018; Wansink
279
et al., 2004). Therefore, health-related claims and labels lead to a stronger increase in purchase
280
intentions for hedonic (vs. utilitarian) products (Kim et al., 2009). This may be driven by a
281
reduction in consumer guilt for eating unhealthy foods (see, e.g., Okada, 2005). From this
282
background, we hypothesize that adding a vegan label to a randomly-vegan product will have
283
a more positive effect on perceived healthiness and consumption intentions for hedonic (vs.
284
utilitarian) foods.
285
For expected taste, we follow Raghunathan et al. (2006) and assume that people will
286
value taste more in hedonic than in utilitarian food. Therefore, a label that increases a product’s
287
healthiness perception might be more detrimental to taste expectations of a hedonic (vs.
288
utilitarian) product (Wansink et al., 2004). Consistently, previous research also found that
289
claims and labels that positively affect perceived healthiness have a positive impact on taste
290
expectations of utilitarian food (Nadricka et al., 2020), while they have no or even negative
291
effects on expected taste and expected liking of hedonic food (Kähkönen & Tuorila, 1998;
292
Nadricka et al., 2020; Norton et al., 2013).
293
Lastly, regarding perceived sustainability, we assume that a motive for buying vegan-
294
labeled food is the sustainability features associated with vegan diets. Van Doorn and Verhoef
295
(2011) showed that the effect of an organic claim on perceived sustainability differs between
296
vice and virtue foods. Hedonic consumption is usually associated with feelings of guilt (Okada,
297
2005). Consumers might use claims and labels associated with sustainability characteristics to
298
justify pleasurable consumption, implying a stronger effect of corresponding claims and labels
299
for hedonic (vs. utilitarian) food products (van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011). In line with the
300
considerations made above, we formulate the following hypothesis:
301
302
H5: The effects of a vegan label (vs. no label) on consumption intentions via (a) perceived
303
healthiness, (b) expected taste, and (c) perceived sustainability described in H1, H2, and
304
H3 are more pronounced for hedonic (vs. utilitarian) products.
305
11
3. Method
306
To determine the stimuli for our main study, we first conducted a pre-study (Section 3.1). Our
307
methodological approach for the main study is described in Section 3.2. Both studies were
308
approved by the independent ethical review board of the authors’ university.
309
310
3.1. Pre-study
311
While selecting the set of stimuli, we aimed to choose similar products to ensure good
312
comparability and meaningful interpretation. Considering the range of randomly-vegan
313
products defined in Section 1, we chose spreads as the overarching product category. Their
314
wide variety seemed suitable to meet all our experimental conditions.
315
Our independent variable label [X] was represented by the levels no label [X = 0] and
316
vegan label [X = 1]. As vegan label, we used the V-Label since this is the most common label
317
for food products in the European Union.
318
Our first moderator, expectations [W], captured the levels expected-vegan [W = 0]
319
versus unexpected-vegan [W = 1]. For expected-vegan spreads, we chose hummus and jam
320
because their main ingredients, chickpeas (hummus) as well as fruits and sugar (jam), are
321
typically considered vegan. Nut-nougat chocolate spread (hereafter referred to as chocolate
322
spread) and spread with herbs served as unexpected-vegan products. Both are associated with
323
milk as an ingredient: chocolate spread due to its name (chocolate often contains milk) and
324
spread with herbs due to its white color (see Figure 1). However, nut-nougat-based chocolate
325
spreads do not necessarily contain milk by default and the white color of the spread with herbs
326
stems from vegetable ingredients, like zucchinis and vegetable fats.
327
Our second moderator, food type [Z], was represented by the levels utilitarian [Z = 0]
328
versus hedonic [Z = 1]. For hedonic products, we took advantage of the common association
329
between the sweetness of a food and its hedonic nature. Accordingly, we chose our two sweet
330
spreads (jam and chocolate spread) as products representing hedonic randomly-vegan products.
331
Consequently, we selected the heartier spreads (hummus and spread with herbs) as products
332
representing the utilitarian alternatives.
333
To ensure an appropriate fit of our selection, we empirically tested the four stimuli in
334
regard to consumers’ expectations of the product being vegan [W] and the perceived food type
335
[Z] in a within-subjects design. For product evaluation, we surveyed 68 people online.
336
Excluding participants who failed the attention test, 57 valid responses remained for analysis.
337
After participants gave their informed consent to participate in our study, they were
338
given the following information to elicit their judgment about the type of food [Z]: Food can
339
12
be hedonic or utilitarian. Utilitarian foods are usually consumed for long-term goals (e.g.,
340
staying healthy) or because they serve a functional purpose (maintaining performance,
341
satisfying hunger/thirst). Hedonic foods are usually consumed because of short-term goals
342
(enjoyment and pleasure). Consumption of these foods tends to be rather unhealthy.
343
Subsequently, the product stimuli (see Figure 1: products without label) were presented in
344
random order to the participants who were then asked for each stimulus to indicate which food
345
type they would assign the product to (7-point rating scale, 1 = very utilitarian to 7 = very
346
hedonic). Afterwards, the products were presented in random order a second time and
347
participants rated the likelihood that the respective product is vegan (7-point rating scale, 1 =
348
very unlikely to 7 = very likely).
349
We compared the mean values of the consumers’ expectations that the product is vegan
350
and of the perceived food type using the scale midpoint of 4 as the cutoff value for
351
categorization. Participants classified hummus as an expected-vegan (M = 6.3, SD = .9, t =
352
18.694, p < .001) utilitarian product (M = 3.1, SD = 1.4, t = −4.995, p < .001). Jam was rated
353
as expected-vegan (M = 5.6, SD = 1.6, t = 7.455, p < .001) and hedonic (M = 5.0, SD = 1.5, t =
354
5.046, p < .001), spread with herbs as unexpected-vegan (M = 3.3, SD = 1.5, t = −3.321, p =
355
.002) and utilitarian (M = 3.5, SD = 1.6, t = −2.633, p = .011), and chocolate spread as
356
unexpected-vegan (M = 2.4, SD = 1.4, t = −8.772, p < .001) and hedonic (M = 6.1, SD = 1.3, t
357
= 12.827, p < .001). Based on these results, the product selection was considered suitable to
358
cover our experimental conditions of expected-vegan versus unexpected-vegan as well as
359
utilitarian versus hedonic.
360
361
[INSERT FIGURE 1 – STIMULI BY EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION]
362
363
3.2. Main Study
364
To test our hypotheses presented in Section 2, we employed a 2 (label [X]: no label vs. vegan
365
label) × 2 (expectations [W]: expected-vegan vs. unexpected-vegan) × 2 (food type [Z]:
366
utilitarian vs. hedonic) between-subjects design (see Figure 2 for a visualization of our
367
conceptual model). We specified our model as moderated parallel mediation with three
368
mediators and two moderators (see Model 10 in Hayes, 2018, p. 589). All data analyses were
369
performed using the statistical programming language R.
370
371
[INSERT FIGURE 2: CONCEPTUAL MODEL]
372
373
13
With eight between-subjects conditions, we aimed for 50 participants for each group to ensure
374
sufficient statistical power even with small effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). Hence, we recruited N
375
= 432 German-speaking participants via the commercial online platform Prolific (see, e.g.,
376
Palan & Schitter, 2018; Peer et al., 2017), with 428 participants from Germany. After excluding
377
all responses from subjects who participated more than once, who did not complete the
378
questionnaire, or who failed at least one attention check, 398 valid responses remained and were
379
used for data analysis. The sample was 54.5% female, 44% male, and 1.5% non-binary. The
380
average age was 27.3 years (SD = 9.3). In terms of the highest level of education, 8% reported
381
having no high school degree, 39% reported having a high school degree, 20% a bachelor’s
382
degree, 18% master’s degree, 2% a Ph.D., and 14% reported having some other educational
383
qualification. We also observed that 53% of the participants reported being omnivorous, 22%
384
flexitarian, 4% pescetarian, 12% vegetarian, 6% vegan, and 2% indicated another diet.
385
Within the survey, participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight experimental
386
conditions that differed only in product stimuli as determined by our experimental variables
387
(see Figure 1). After the participants gave informed consent to participate in the study, they
388
were asked to rate the product presented in terms of the three mediators, perceived healthiness
389
[M1], expected taste [M2], perceived sustainability [M3], as well as on the dependent variable
390
consumption intentions [Y].
391
To focus on the influence of the vegan label and its interaction effects with the two
392
moderators, we formulated our items as a comparison to the respective product category (sweet)
393
spreads (see, e.g., Besson et al., 2020; Schuldt et al., 2012; Schuldt & Hannahan, 2013; Schuldt
394
& Schwarz, 2010; Sundar & Kardes, 2015). We operationalized all items as statements which
395
the participants answered on 7-point rating scales. We asked the participants to state their
396
perceived healthiness [M1] of the product using the following item: Compared to other (sweet)
397
spreads, I think the (sweet) spread pictured above is… 1 = unhealthier / 7 = healthier. Expected
398
taste [M2] was queried in the same way: Compared to other (sweet) spreads, I think the (sweet)
399
spread pictured above is… 1 = worse tasting / 7 = better tasting. Perceived sustainability [M3]
400
was operationalized using three items that address both dimensions of sustainability as well as
401
the overall construct: (1) Compared to other (sweet) spreads, I think the (sweet) spread pictured
402
above is… 1 = not environmentally friendly / 7 = environmentally friendly, (2) Compared to
403
other (sweet) spreads, I think the (sweet) spread pictured above is… 1 = not traded fairly / 7 =
404
traded fairly, (3) Compared to other (sweet) spreads, I think the (sweet) spread pictured above
405
is… 1 = not sustainable / 7 = sustainable. The Cronbach’s alpha of our three sustainability items
406
is .82. The dependent variable consumption intentions [Y] is an aggregation of the general
407
14
purchase intention and the perceived appropriate consumption quantity (e.g., Schuldt
408
& Schwarz, 2010). By doing so, we capture consumers’ considerations of product choice in
409
general and consumption amounts. It was measured with two items: (1) Compared to other
410
(sweet) spreads, I would… 1 = rather buy / 7 = rather not buy… the (sweet) spread pictured
411
above, (2) Compared to other (sweet) spreads, the sweet spread pictured above should be
412
eaten… 1 = less often / 7 = more often (Cronbach’s alpha = .69). Importantly, all upcoming
413
results are virtually identical if purchase intention and perceived appropriate consumption
414
quantity are considered separately.
415
416
4. Results
417
To test for moderation, we first performed three-way ANOVA for each mediator and the
418
dependent variable (see Figure 3 and Table 2 for complete results). As seen in the summary
419
statistics (Table 1) and in the interaction plots (Figure 3), products with a vegan label generally
420
showed higher average values regarding perceived healthiness [M1], perceived sustainability
421
[M3], and consumption intentions [Y] as well as lower average values for expected taste [M2].
422
This resulted in significant main effects of the label for all three mediators and the dependent
423
variable (see Table 2). Moreover, the mean difference between no label and the vegan label was
424
more pronounced in the case of unexpected-vegan (vs. expected-vegan) products (see Figure
425
3). This particular pattern resulted in significant interaction effects of label [X] × expectations
426
[W] for the two mediator variables perceived healthiness and perceived sustainability as well
427
as for our dependent variable consumption intentions (see Table 2). However, for the mediator
428
expected taste the interaction effect was not significant. Regarding our second moderator food
429
type [Z], the interaction effects of label [X] × food type [Z] were not significant for any
430
variables. The same applied to all three-way interactions label [X] × expectations [W] × food
431
type [Z] (see Table 2 for all results discussed above).
432
433
[INSERT TABLE 1 – MEANS (M) AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS (SD) BY
434
EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION]
435
[INSERT FIGURE 3 – MEAN PLOTS (WITH INTERACTION)]
436
[INSERT TABLE 2 – THREE-WAY ANOVA]
437
438
We tested our conceptual model (see Figure 4) using a moderated parallel mediation analysis
439
with 5000 bootstrap samples (see Model 10 in Hayes 2018, p. 589).
440
441
15
[INSERT FIGURE 4 – PARAMETER ESTIMATES]
442
443
We found no significant mediation effects for expected-vegan [W = 0] products (see Table 3),
444
while the opposite was true for unexpected-vegan [W = 1] products. For unexpected-vegan [W
445
= 1] products, our analysis confirmed hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 for both levels of the moderator
446
food type [Z]. Vegan labeling [X] increased perceived healthiness [M1] leading to higher
447
consumption intentions [Y] in the case of unexpected-vegan utilitarian food [W = 1 & Z = 0]
448
(spread with herbs: EST = .356, SE = .100, 95% CI: [.170, .561]) and unexpected-vegan hedonic
449
food [W = 1 & Z = 1] (chocolate spread: EST = .343, SE = .102, 95% CI: [.146, .553]).
450
Moreover, vegan labeling [X] decreased expected taste [M2] leading to lower consumption
451
intentions [Y] in respect of unexpected-vegan utilitarian food [W = 1 & Z = 0] (spread with
452
herbs: EST = −.213, SE = .102, 95% CI: [−.428, −.031]) and unexpected-vegan hedonic food
453
[W = 1 & Z = 1] (chocolate spread: EST = −.202, SE = .100, 95% CI: [−.415, −.018]). Again,
454
the same pattern applied to our third hypothesis. Vegan labeling [X] increased perceived
455
sustainability [M3] leading to higher consumption intentions [Y] concerning unexpected-vegan
456
utilitarian food [W = 1 & Z = 0] (spread with herbs: EST = .111, SE = .048, 95% CI: [.029,
457
.217]) and unexpected-vegan hedonic food [W = 1 & Z = 1] (chocolate spread: EST = .101, SE
458
= .047, 95% CI: [.023, .207]).
459
Importantly, we found non-significant effects of the vegan label [X] on perceived
460
healthiness [M1], expected taste [M2], and perceived sustainability [M3] for expected-vegan
461
products [W = 0] (see Figure 4). This suggests that, in addition to the absence of mediating
462
effects, there were no biased inferences by the vegan label for expected-vegan products.
463
Considering the direct effect from the vegan label [X] on consumption intentions [Y],
464
the established pattern repeated itself. Again, there was an effect for unexpected-vegan
465
utilitarian food [W = 1 & Z = 0] (spread with herbs: EST = .482, SE = .153, 95% CI: [.189,
466
.783]) and unexpected-vegan hedonic food [W = 1 & Z = 1] (chocolate spread: EST = .619, SE
467
= .148, 95% CI: [.334, .911]), while no effect was detected for expected-vegan food [W = 0]
468
(for both food types [Z], see Table 3).
469
Regarding our moderator expectations [W], the 95% confidence interval of the index of
470
moderated mediation (IoMM) did not cover zero for perceived healthiness (IoMM: EST = .237,
471
SE = .106, 95% CI: [.035, .457]) and for perceived sustainability (IoMM: EST = .079, SE =
472
.044, 95% CI: [.010, .182]) confirming our moderation hypotheses H4(a) and H4(c). A vegan
473
label (vs. no label) led to higher consumption intentions for unexpected-vegan (vs. expected-
474
vegan) products via perceived healthiness (H4(a)) and via perceived sustainability (H4(c)). As
475
16
already expected from the ANOVA results, a difference in the effect size of unexpected-vegan
476
[W = 1] versus expected-vegan [W = 0] products for expected taste [M2] could not be
477
confirmed. The index of moderated mediation was IoMM: EST = −.090, SE = .109, 95% CI:
478
[−.317, .114]. Therefore, H4(b) was not supported, even though we found a mediation effect via
479
expected taste for unexpected-vegan products [W = 1] and no mediation effect for expected-
480
vegan products [W = 0].
481
As previously indicated by the ANOVA results, we did not detect any moderating
482
effects with regard to the second moderator food type [Z] for perceived healthiness [M1],
483
expected taste [M2], or perceived sustainability [M3] (see Table 3). Thus, our moderation
484
hypotheses H5(a), H5(b), and H5(c) were not supported. Whether a product is hedonic (vs.
485
utilitarian) did not alter the effects of the vegan label (vs. no label) on consumption intentions
486
via the considered mediators.
487
488
[INSERT TABLE 3: RESULTS OF THE MODERATED PARALLEL MEDIATION
489
ANALYSIS]
490
491
5. Discussion
492
Our results show that labeling randomly-vegan products as vegan influences consumption
493
intentions via biased perceptions if consumers do not expect the product to be vegan by default
494
(unexpected vegan). Importantly, this holds for both utilitarian and hedonic products. In the
495
following, we discuss our findings and the resulting implications.
496
497
5.1. Vegan labeling on expected-vegan products
498
We did not find that vegan labeling on expected-vegan products leads to biased consumer
499
inferences for perceived healthiness, expected taste, or perceived sustainability. Therefore,
500
labeling these products as vegan can be considered beneficial, especially to consumers who
501
follow a respective diet. It can provide important additional information that often cannot be
502
inferred from the ingredient list (e.g., gelatin as a production aid) without having unwanted side
503
effects on individuals’ consumption intentions. This applies to both utilitarian and hedonic food.
504
Contrary to other claims and labels (Kähkönen & Tuorila, 1998; Liem et al., 2012; Norton et
505
al., 2013; Tuorila et al., 1994) marketers do not need to fear that vegan labeling has detrimental
506
effects on taste expectations for utilitarian or even hedonic products as long as they belong to
507
the group of expected-vegan products. Simultaneously, consumers are not misled into
508
overconsuming these foods based on biased healthiness perceptions. Furthermore, neither did
509
17
we find a significant increase in the perceived sustainability nor a difference in consumption
510
intentions of products with a vegan label (vs. no label) for the expected-vegan products. This
511
result corroborates labeling literature that found that a confirmation of expected and actual
512
information will lead to no or smaller changes in consumer behavior compared to disconfirmed
513
expectations, which typically result in pronounced changes in consumer behavior (Burton et
514
al., 2009; Burton et al., 2015; Howlett et al., 2009; Wansink et al., 2004). In addition, related
515
literature found that this also holds for taste-related claims (Kim et al., 2009) and health-related
516
claims (Kähkönen et al., 1997). Following our hypothesis, we therefore infer the following from
517
our results: If an additional vegan label confirms previous expectations in terms of being vegan,
518
then consumers do not evaluate food differently with the vegan label compared to without the
519
label in terms of perceived health, perceived taste or perceived sustainability.
520
However, labeling expected-vegan products as vegan is not obsolete. It is likely that
521
informed consumers who follow a vegan lifestyle will be aware that non-vegan ingredients and
522
additives may be used in the production of expected-vegan products. For the sake of
523
transparency, we therefore encourage food marketers to label this kind of randomly-vegan
524
products as vegan in order to provide easily accessible information that is highly relevant for
525
this particular segment of consumers.
526
527
5.2. Vegan labeling on unexpected-vegan products
528
The assessment of labeling randomly-vegan products as vegan must be more differentiated with
529
regard to unexpected-vegan food. Although transparency reasons are an important argument
530
for vegan labeling in this case, further aspects have to be considered.
531
We found that a vegan label on an unexpected-vegan product makes consumers
532
susceptible to perceptual biases. Most consumers did not expect these products to be vegan by
533
default. Labeling such products as vegan, therefore, disconfirms prior expectations about the
534
product prompting individuals to reevaluate the product attributes based on the label. The
535
results of our study imply that for unexpected-vegan products the vegan label (vs. no label)
536
decreases consumers’ taste expectations leading to lower consumption intentions. Opposed to
537
other labels (e.g., Nadricka et al., 2020), this applies to utilitarian and hedonic food indicating
538
that consumers value the taste of animal ingredients regardless of the food type and
539
consumption goal. Food manufacturers catering highly taste-conscious consumer segments,
540
like luxury food manufacturers, would therefore be well advised to refrain from explicitly
541
labeling their randomly-vegan products as vegan if these products are unexpected-vegan.
542
18
Besides the negative effect of the vegan label on consumption intentions via taste
543
expectations, we found that a vegan label (vs. no label) increased consumption intentions
544
overall for unexpected-vegan (vs. expected-vegan) food. This positive effect is partially
545
mediated via perceived healthiness and perceived sustainability, which is in line with previous
546
research that also found effects on healthiness and sustainability perceptions induced by labels
547
and claims (e.g., Berry et al., 2017; Roe et al., 1999; Rousseau, 2015). As with other claims and
548
labels (e.g., organic, fair trade, and all natural), consumers are more likely to purchase vegan-
549
labeled (vs. unlabeled) foods and also think that consuming higher quantities of these foods is
550
appropriate (see, e.g., Berry et al., 2017; Schuldt et al., 2012; Schuldt & Schwarz, 2010).
551
Importantly, this applies to both utilitarian and hedonic food. Food marketers can therefore
552
benefit from explicitly labeling their randomly-vegan products as vegan, especially if they aim
553
to target consumers who place increased emphasis on food healthiness and sustainability.
554
However, based on our findings we recognize the risk that consumers will be misled into
555
unhealthy overconsumption of respective products due to biased healthiness and sustainability
556
inferences caused by the vegan label. This is particularly detrimental in the case of randomly-
557
vegan hedonic foods. From a public policy perspective, we therefore cannot encourage food
558
marketers to conduct such labeling practice. We call attention to the potential misuse of vegan
559
labeling as a low-cost alternative to other labels (e.g., organic labels), which have similar
560
positive effects on consumer perceptions and consumption intentions but are highly regulated
561
in terms of sustainability criteria (van Doorn & Verhoef, 2011; van Loo et al., 2014).
562
Nevertheless, we would like to emphasize the importance of vegan labeling for
563
individuals who follow a vegan diet. We therefore suggest future research to investigate how
564
the transparency function of vegan labeling can be maintained while reducing the halo and horn
565
effects found in our study. Due to limitations of this study, there is further potential for future
566
research discussed in the next section.
567
568
6. Limitations and future research
569
We studied the consumption intentions of vegan-labeled food in only one product category
570
(spreads) of randomly-vegan food for a German-speaking sample. Future research should
571
consider additional product categories as well as different countries and food cultures. In our
572
study, we did not examine the influence of dietary habits and gender on consumption intentions.
573
The reason is that the proportion of some dietary groups was very small (e.g., vegans), and that
574
the different dietary habits were not evenly distributed across genders which would have carried
575
the potential for confounding effects. However, both factors might be relevant in examining the
576
19
consequences of a dietary-related label and should be explored more explicitly in future
577
research. Another important factor not considered in our study is the influence of price on
578
purchase intention. We do not believe that price-quality perceptions will moderate our effects
579
and we ensured via a between-subjects experiment that general price sensitivity is equally
580
distributed across groups. However, to increase external validity in studies using purchase
581
intention (or hypothetical choice) of vegan products, future studies are encouraged to include
582
or control for price in their experimental set-up. In addition, the analyzed sample was
583
considerably young with an average age of 27.3 years. It is possible that the results cannot be
584
applied to the population as a whole without restrictions. Moreover, we applied a parametric
585
model to rating data that are intrinsically ordinal-scale measurements (see Michell, 1986 for a
586
discussion on this topic). In this regard, we only considered behavioral intentions; future
587
research is therefore welcome to replicate our results in studies and experiments that examine
588
actual choice behavior.
589
Furthermore, consumer personality traits and values, such as the importance of animal
590
welfare, environmental awareness, and health consciousness, should be considered as potential
591
moderators in future studies. Previous research revealed that individuals with strong ethical or
592
pro-environmental values are even more prone to halo effects induced by respective labels
593
(Schuldt et al., 2012; Schuldt & Schwarz, 2010). Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that one
594
might observe a more negative product evaluation based on the label if consumers’ personal
595
values are incongruent with associations evoked by the label (see, e.g., Schuldt & Hannahan,
596
2013). In the case of a vegan label, these associations may reflect the broader (often stigmatized)
597
image attached to veganism as a lifestyle in general (see, e.g., Markowski & Roxburgh, 2019).
598
599
7. Conclusion
600
The results of our study extend previous findings regarding the various perceptual biases
601
induced by claims and labels. By examining the vegan label, we focused on a label that has
602
received little attention to date and is currently gaining considerable popularity among food
603
marketers and consumers. Instead of addressing the frequently studied category of vegan
604
substitutes (e.g., meat substitutes), we focused on the largely unconsidered category of
605
randomly-vegan products. Within this category there is an increasing trend for companies to
606
explicitly label products that are vegan by default as vegan to capitalize on the growing
607
popularity of vegan foods. The present research aimed to investigate such labeling practices in
608
terms of biased consumer inferences and the resulting consequences.
609
20
Our study shows that labeling randomly-vegan products as vegan is only desirable from
610
a policy perspective if consumers consider the labeled product to be vegan by default based on
611
its main ingredients. If this is not the case, vegan labeling biases consumer perceptions of the
612
product. This applies equally to utilitarian and hedonic products. As a result, consumers are not
613
only more likely to purchase the product but also consider it appropriate to increase their
614
consumption quantity. This is especially harmful in the case of hedonic products, as it can result
615
in unhealthy overconsumption.
616
617
Acknowledgements
618
The authors thank Lili Sophie Fechteler and Helena Schirmacher for their helpful comments on
619
earlier versions of this paper. We also thank Lukas Brosi, Angela Huynh, Nora Lea Richter,
620
Luisa Sander, Katrin Waltenta, Linda Jil Weiss, and Ying Zhu for their research assistance.
621
622
Author contributions
623
GS conducted the literature review. GS, OE, and FC were responsible for developing the design
624
of the study. GS performed the analyses (with support from OE). GS, OE, and YB were
625
involved in interpreting results. GS drafted the manuscript (with support from OE). YB, OE,
626
and FC critically reviewed the manuscript. GS, OE, YB, FC report no conflict of interest.
627
628
Ethical statement
629
Informed consent was obtained from all survey participants and all studies were reviewed and
630
approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Goettingen
631
632
Declaration of competing interests
633
None.
634
635
Funding
636
No funding to declare.
637
21
References
638
Alba, J. W., & Williams, E. F. (2013). Pleasure principles: A review of research on hedonic
639
consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(1), 2-18.
640
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2012.07.003
641
Aleksandrowicz, L., Green, R., Joy, E. J. M., Smith, P., & Haines, A. (2016). The Impacts of
642
Dietary Change on Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use, Water Use, and Health: A
643
Systematic Review. PloS one, 11(11), e0165797.
644
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165797
645
Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1998). Consumer Generalization of Nutrient
646
Content Claims in Advertising. Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 62–75.
647
https://doi.org/10.2307/1252287
648
Antonides, G., & Cramer, L. (2013). Impact of limited cognitive capacity and feelings of guilt
649
and excuse on the endowment effects for hedonic and utilitarian types of foods. Appetite,
650
68, 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.04.020
651
Appleby, P. N., & Key, T. J. (2016). The long-term health of vegetarians and vegans. The
652
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 75(3), 287–293.
653
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665115004334
654
Barnard, N. D., Katcher, H. I., Jenkins, D. J. A., Cohen, J., & Turner-McGrievy, G. (2009).
655
Vegetarian and vegan diets in type 2 diabetes management. Nutrition Reviews, 67(5), 255–
656
263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00198.x
657
Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer
658
attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00436035
659
Berry, C., Burton, S., & Howlett, E. (2017). It’s only natural: the mediating impact of
660
consumers’ attribute inferences on the relationships between product claims, perceived
661
product healthfulness, and purchase intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
662
Science, 45(5), 698–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-016-0511-8
663
Besson, T., Bouxom, H., & Jaubert, T. (2020). Halo It’s Meat! the Effect of the Vegetarian
664
Label on Calorie Perception and Food Choices. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 59(1), 3–
665
20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03670244.2019.1652820
666
Bialkova, S., Sasse, L., & Fenko, A. (2016). The role of nutrition labels and advertising
667
claims in altering consumers’ evaluation and choice. Appetite, 96, 38–46.
668
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.08.030
669
Bryant, C. J. (2019). We Can’t Keep Meating Like This: Attitudes towards Vegetarian and
670
Vegan Diets in the United Kingdom. Sustainability, 11(23), 6844.
671
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236844
672
Bublitz, M. G., Peracchio, L. A., & Block, L. G. (2010). Why did I eat that? Perspectives on
673
food decision making and dietary restraint. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 20(3), 239–
674
258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.06.008
675
Bullock, K., Lahne, J., & Pope, L. (2020). Investigating the role of health halos and reactance
676
in ice cream choice. Food Quality and Preference, 80, 103826.
677
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103826
678
Burton, S., Cook, L. A., Howlett, E., & Newman, C. L. (2015). Broken halos and shattered
679
horns: overcoming the biasing effects of prior expectations through objective information
680
disclosure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(2), 240–256.
681
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0378-5
682
Burton, S., Howlett, E., & Tangari, A. H. (2009). Food for Thought: How Will the Nutrition
683
Labeling of Quick Service Restaurant Menu Items Influence Consumers’ Product
684
22
Evaluations, Purchase Intentions, and Choices? Journal of Retailing, 85(3), 258–273.
685
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2009.04.007
686
Cherry, E. (2006). Veganism as a Cultural Movement: A Relational Approach. Social
687
Movement Studies, 5(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742830600807543
688
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
689
Erlbaum. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
690
Craig, W. J. (2009). Health effects of vegan diets. The American Journal of Clinical
691
Nutrition, 89(5), 1627S-1633S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736N
692
Cramer, L., & Antonides, G. (2011). Endowment effects for hedonic and utilitarian food
693
products. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 3–10.
694
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.020
695
Destatis (2021). Vegetarische und vegane Lebensmittel: Produktion 2020. Retrieved from
696
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/05/PD21_N033_42.html
697
Accessed 20 August 2021
698
Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer Choice between Hedonic and Utilitarian
699
Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.
700
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.37.1.60.18718
701
Dinu, M., Abbate, R., Gensini, G. F., Casini, A., & Sofi, F. (2017). Vegetarian, vegan diets
702
and multiple health outcomes: A systematic review with meta-analysis of observational
703
studies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57(17), 3640–3649.
704
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1138447
705
EMR (2021). Global Vegan Food Market Report and Forecast 2022-2027. Sheridan,
706
Wyoming. Retrieved from https://www.expertmarketresearch.com/reports/vegan-food-
707
market Accessed 22 Oktober 2021
708
Euromonitor (2021). The Rise of Vegan and Vegetarian Food. London. Retrieved from:
709
https://www.euromonitor.com/the-rise-of-vegan-and-vegetarian-food/report Accessed 22
710
Oktober 2021
711
European Vegetarian Union (2019). V-Label: Das Qualitätssiegel für vegane und
712
vegetarische Produkte. Retrieved from https://www.v-label.eu/de/das-v-label Accessed 13
713
June 2021
714
Gaan, K. (2021). 2020 State of the Industry Report: Plant-Based Meat, Eggs, and Dairy.
715
Retrieved from https://gfi.org/resource/plant-based-meat-eggs-and-dairy-state-of-the-
716
industry-report/ Accessed 12 September 2021
717
Garaus, M., & Lalicic, L. (2021). The unhealthy-tasty intuition for online recipes - When
718
healthiness perceptions backfire. Appetite, 159, 105066.
719
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105066
720
Gfi (2021). Consumer insights & research reports: Alternative proteins. Retrieved from
721
https://gfi.org/resource/consumer-insights/ Accessed 10 October 2021
722
Graça, J., Calheiros, M. M., & Oliveira, A. (2015). Attached to meat? (Un)Willingness and
723
intentions to adopt a more plant-based diet. Appetite, 95, 113–125.
724
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.06.024
725
Grunert, K. G., Hieke, S., & Wills, J. (2014). Sustainability labels on food products:
726
Consumer motivation, understanding and use. Food Policy, 44, 177–189.
727
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.001
728
Haasova, S., & Florack, A. (2019). Practicing the (un)healthy = tasty intuition: Toward an
729
ecological view of the relationship between health and taste in consumer judgments. Food
730
Quality and Preference, 75, 39–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.01.024
731
23
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
732
analysis: A regression-based approach (Second edition). Methodology in the social
733
sciences. New York, London: Guilford Press.
734
Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & Graaf, C. de (2011).
735
Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors
736
in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56(3), 662–673.
737
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001
738
Howlett, E. A., Burton, S., Bates, K., & Huggins, K. (2009). Coming to a Restaurant Near
739
You? Potential Consumer Responses to Nutrition Information Disclosure on Menus.
740
Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.1086/598799
741
Huang, L., & Lu, J. (2016). The Impact of Package Color and the Nutrition Content Labels on
742
the Perception of Food Healthiness and Purchase Intention. Journal of Food Products
743
Marketing, 22(2), 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2014.1000434
744
Jallinoja, P., Jauho, M., & Mäkelä, J. (2016). Newspaper debates on milk fats and vegetable
745
oils in Finland, 1978-2013: An analysis of conflicts over risks, expertise, evidence and
746
pleasure. Appetite, 105, 274–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.035
747
Kähkönen, P., & Tuorila, H. (1998). Effect of reduced-fat information on expected and actual
748
hedonic and sensory ratings of sausage. Appetite, 30(1), 13–23.
749
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1997.0104
750
Kähkönen, P., Tuorila, H., & Lawless, H. (1997). Lack of effect of taste and nutrition claims
751
on sensory and hedonic responses to a fat-free yogurt. Food Quality and Preference, 8(2),
752
125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-3293(96)00032-8
753
Kearney, J. M., & McElhone, S. (1999). Perceived barriers in trying to eat healthier—results
754
of a pan-EU consumer attitudinal survey. The British Journal of Nutrition, 81 Suppl 2,
755
S133-S137. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114599000987
756
Kim, K., Cheong, Y., & Zheng, L. (2009). The current practices in food advertising.
757
International Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 527–553.
758
https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048709200722
759
Kozup, J. C., Creyer, E. H., & Burton, S. (2003). Making Healthful Food Choices: The
760
Influence of Health Claims and Nutrition Information on Consumers’ Evaluations of
761
Packaged Food Products and Restaurant Menu Items. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 19–34.
762
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.19.18608
763
Lee, W. J., Shimizu, M., Kniffin, K. M., & Wansink, B. (2013). You taste what you see: Do
764
organic labels bias taste perceptions? Food Quality and Preference, 29(1), 33–39.
765
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.010
766
Liem, D. G., Toraman Aydin, N., & Zandstra, E. H. (2012). Effects of health labels on
767
expected and actual taste perception of soup. Food Quality and Preference, 25(2), 192–
768
197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.015
769
Lotz, S., Christandl, F., & Fetchenhauer, D. (2013). What is fair is good: Evidence of
770
consumers’ taste for fairness. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 139–144.
771
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.05.010
772
Markowski, K. L., & Roxburgh, S. (2019). “If I became a vegan, my family and friends
773
would hate me:” Anticipating vegan stigma as a barrier to plant-based diets. Appetite, 135,
774
1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.12.040
775
Michell, J. (1986). Measurement scales and statistics: A clash of paradigms. Psychological
776
bulletin, 100(3), 398-407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.398
777
24
Nadricka, K., Millet, K., & Verlegh, P. W. (2020). When organic products are tasty: Taste
778
inferences from an Organic = Healthy Association. Food Quality and Preference, 83,
779
103896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103896
780
NielsenIQ (2019). The F word: Flexitarian is not a curse to the meat industry. Retrieved from
781
https://nielseniq.com/global/en/insights/analysis/2019/the-f-word-flexitarian-is-not-a-
782
curse-to-the-meat-industry/ Accessed 20 October 2021
783
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration
784
of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(4), 250–256.
785
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.4.250
786
Nørgaard, M. K., & Brunsø, K. (2009). Families’ use of nutritional information on food
787
labels. Food Quality and Preference, 20(8), 597–606.
788
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.005
789
Norton, J. E., Fryer, P. J., & Parkinson, J. A. (2013). The effect of reduced-fat labelling on
790
chocolate expectations. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 101–105.
791
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.08.004
792
Okada, E. M. (2005). Justification Effects on Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian
793
Goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(1), 43–53.
794
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.1.43.56889
795
Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effect of expectation and disconfirmation on postexposure product
796
evaluations: An alternative interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(4), 480–486.
797
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.4.480
798
Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021). A systematic
799
review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant-based
800
meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite, 159, 105058.
801
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058
802
Palan, S., & Schitter, C. (2018). Prolific.Ac—A subject pool for online experiments. Journal
803
of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17, 22–27.
804
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2017.12.004
805
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative
806
platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social
807
Psychology, 70, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
808
Povey, R., Wellens, B., & Conner, M. (2001). Attitudes towards following meat, vegetarian
809
and vegan diets: An examination of the role of ambivalence. Appetite, 37(1), 15–26.
810
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2001.0406
811
Prada, M., Godinho, C., Rodrigues, D. L., Lopes, C., & Garrido, M. V. (2019). The impact of
812
a gluten-free claim on the perceived healthfulness, calories, level of processing and
813
expected taste of food products. Food Quality and Preference, 73, 284–287.
814
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.013
815
Prada, M., Saraiva, M., Sério, A., Coelho, S., Godinho, C. A., & Garrido, M. V. (2021). The
816
impact of sugar-related claims on perceived healthfulness, caloric value and expected taste
817
of food products. Food Quality and Preference, 94, 104331.
818
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104331
819
Radnitz, C., Beezhold, B., & DiMatteo, J. (2015). Investigation of lifestyle choices of
820
individuals following a vegan diet for health and ethical reasons. Appetite, 90, 31–36.
821
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.02.026
822
25
Raghunathan, R., Naylor, R. W., & Hoyer, W. D. (2006). The Unhealthy = Tasty Intuition
823
and Its Effects on Taste Inferences, Enjoyment, and Choice of Food Products. Journal of
824
Marketing, 70(4), 170–184. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.170
825
Rees, W. E. (1989). Defining" sustainable Development". Centre for Human Settlements
826
Research Bulletin. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia.
827
Roe, B., Levy, A. S., & Derby, B. M. (1999). The Impact of Health Claims on Consumer
828
Search and Product Evaluation Outcomes: Results from FDA Experimental Data. Journal
829
of Public Policy & Marketing, 18(1), 89–105.
830
https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569901800110
831
Rosenfeld, D. L. (2020). Gender differences in vegetarian identity: How men and women
832
construe meatless dieting. Food Quality and Preference, 81, 103859.
833
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103859
834
Rosenfeld, D. L., & Burrow, A. L. (2017). Vegetarian on purpose: Understanding the
835
motivations of plant-based dieters. Appetite, 116, 456–463.
836
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.039
837
Rosenfeld, D. L., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2020). Taste and health concerns trump anticipated
838
stigma as barriers to vegetarianism. Appetite, 144, 104469.
839
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104469
840
Rousseau, S. (2015). The role of organic and fair trade labels when choosing chocolate. Food
841
Quality and Preference, 44, 92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.002
842
Scarborough, P., Appleby, P. N., Mizdrak, A., Briggs, A. D. M., Travis, R. C.,
843
Bradbury, K. E., & Key, T. J. (2014). Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters,
844
fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK. Climatic Change, 125(2), 179–192.
845
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1169-1
846
Schuldt, J. P., & Hannahan, M. (2013). When good deeds leave a bad taste. Negative
847
inferences from ethical food claims. Appetite, 62, 76–83.
848
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.11.004
849
Schuldt, J. P., Muller, D., & Schwarz, N. (2012). The “Fair Trade” Effect: Health Halos From
850
Social Ethics Claims. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 581–589.
851
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611431643
852
Schuldt, J. P., & Schwarz, N. (2010). The “organic” path to obesity? Organic claims influence
853
calorie judgments and exercise recommendations. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(3),
854
144–150.
855
Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2019). Impact of sustainability perception on consumption of
856
organic meat and meat substitutes. Appetite, 132, 196–202.
857
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.09.016
858
Song, M. R., & Im, M. (2018). Moderating effects of food type and consumers’ attitude on the
859
evaluation of food items labeled “additive-free”. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 17(1),
860
e1-e12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1671
861
Springmann, M., Godfray, H. C. J., Rayner, M., & Scarborough, P. (2016). Analysis and
862
valuation of the health and climate change co-benefits of dietary change. Proceedings of
863
the National Academy of Sciences, 113(15), 4146–4151.
864
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523119113
865
Statista (2021a). Share of vegans in selected European countries in 2021. Retrieved from
866
https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1256518/share-of-vegans-in-european-countries/
867
Accessed 13 October 2021
868
26
Statista (2021b). Umfrage in Deutschland zur Anzahl der Veganer bis 2020. Retrieved from
869
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/445155/umfrage/umfrage-in-deutschland-zur-
870
anzahl-der-veganer/ Accessed 10 October 2021
871
Statista (2020a). Ernährungsweisen in den USA 2020. Retrieved from
872
https://de.statista.com/prognosen/1000398/usa-verbreitete-ernaehrungsweisen/ Accessed
873
12 October 2021
874
Statista (2020b). Ernährungsweisen in Kanada 2020. Retrieved from
875
https://de.statista.com/prognosen/1001939/kanada-verbreitete-ernaehrungsweisen/
876
Accessed 12 October 2021
877
Steinhauser, J., & Hamm, U. (2018). Consumer and product-specific characteristics
878
influencing the effect of nutrition, health and risk reduction claims on preferences and
879
purchase behavior - A systematic review. Appetite, 127, 303–323.
880
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.05.012
881
Sundar, A., & Kardes, F. R. (2015). The Role of Perceived Variability and the Health Halo
882
Effect in Nutritional Inference and Consumption. Psychology & Marketing, 32(5), 512–
883
521. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20796
884
The Vegan Society (2022). The Vegan Trademark. Retrieved from
885
https://www.vegansociety.com/the-vegan-trademark Accessed 22 March 2022
886
Thorndike, E. L. (1920). A constant error in psychological ratings. Journal of Applied
887
Psychology, 4(1), 25–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071663
888
Tuorila, H., Cardello, A. V., & Lesher, L. L. (1994). Antecedents and consequences of
889
expectations related to fat-free and regular-fat foods. Appetite, 23(3), 247–263.
890
https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1994.1057
891
Van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2011). Willingness to pay for organic products: Differences
892
between virtue and vice foods. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(3),
893
167–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2011.02.005
894
Van Loo, E. J., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., & Verbeke, W. (2014). Consumers’ valuation of
895
sustainability labels on meat. Food Policy, 49, 137–150.
896
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.002
897
VSMK (2016). Ergebnisprotokoll der 12. Verbraucherschutzministerkonferenz am 22. April
898
2016 in Düsseldorf. Düsseldorf. Retrieved from
899
https://www.verbraucherschutzministerkonferenz.de/documents/endgueltiges_protokoll_vs
900
mk_2016_1510317519.pdf Accessed 14 June 2021
901
Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can “Low-Fat” Nutrition Labels Lead to Obesity?
902
Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 605–617. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.605
903
Wansink, B., Ittersum, K., & Painter, J. E. (2004). How Diet and Health Labels Influence
904
Taste and Satiation. Journal of Food Science, 69(9), S340-S346.
905
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2004.tb09946.x
906
Wardle, J., & Solomons, W. (1994). Naughty but nice: A laboratory study of health
907
information and food preferences in a community sample. Health Psychology, 13(2), 180–
908
183. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.13.2.180
909
WCED (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and
910
Development. Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/139811 Accessed 12
911
August 2021
912
Weinrich, R., & Elshiewy, O. (2019). Preference and willingness to pay for meat substitutes
913
based on micro-algae. Appetite, 142, 104353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2019.104353
914
27
Werle, C. O., Trendel, O., & Ardito, G. (2013). Unhealthy food is not tastier for everybody:
915
The “healthy=tasty” French intuition. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 116–121.
916
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.07.007
917
Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption Self-Control by Rationing Purchase Quantities of
918
Virtue and Vice. Marketing Science, 17(4), 317–337.
919
https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.17.4.317
920
28
Figure 1: Stimuli by experimental condition
29
Figure 2: Conceptual model
30
Figure 3: Mean plots (with interaction)
31
Figure 4: Parameter estimates
32
Table 1: Means (M) and standard deviations (SD) by experimental condition
Hummus spread
Spread with herbs
Jam
Chocolate spread
W = 0 (Expected-vegan),
W = 1 (Unexpected-vegan),
W = 0 (Expected-vegan),
W = 1 (Unexpected-vegan),
Z = 0 (Utilitarian)
Z = 0 (Utilitarian)
Z = 1 (Hedonic)
Z = 1 (Hedonic)
No label
Vegan label
No label
Vegan label
No label
Vegan label
No label
Vegan label
N
52
52
49
52
49
50
51
43
Perceived
healthiness [M1]
M = 5.0
M = 5.3
M = 3.9
M = 4.8
M = 4.5
M = 4.8
M = 4.0
M = 4.7
SD = 1.3
SD = 1.1
SD = 1.2
SD = 1.4
SD = 1.2
SD = 1.0
SD = 1.6
SD = 1.1
Expected
taste [M2]
M = 4.4
M = 4.1
M = 4.6
M = 4.1
M = 4.6
M = 4.4
M = 4.3
M = 3.8
SD = 1.2
SD = 1.0
SD = 1.0
SD = 1.4
SD = 1.1
SD = 1.1
SD = 1.3
SD = 1.0
Perceived
sustainability [M3]
M = 4.5
M = 4.8
M = 4.2
M = 5.0
M = 4.6
M = 4.8
M = 3.9
M = 4.7
SD = 1.1
SD = 1.0
SD = 1.3
SD = .9
SD = 1.3
SD = 1.0
SD = 1.6
SD = 1.3
Consumption
intentions [Y]
M = 4.3
M = 4.3
M = 3.8
M = 4.6
M = 4.2
M = 4.4
M = 3.8
M = 4.6
SD = 1.1
SD = 1.2
SD = 1.3
SD = 1.5
SD = 1.1
SD = 1.1
SD = 1.4
SD = 1.1
Table 2: Three-way ANOVA results
Perceived
Expected
Perceived
sustainability [M3]
Consumption
intentions [Y]
healthiness [M1]
taste [M2]
F(1, 390)
p
F(1, 390)
p
F(1, 390)
p
F(1, 390)
p
Label [X]
20.005
.000
9.869
.002
18.091
.000
13.498
.000
Food type [Z]
4.534
.034
.023
.879
.859
.355
.052
.820
Expectations [W]
18.557
.000
3.448
.064
3.229
.073
.766
.382
Label [X] × Food type [Z]
.010
.919
.004
.952
.128
.721
.249
.618
Label [X] × Expectations [W]
5.286
.022
.851
.357
6.330
.012
7.842
.005
Expectations [W] × Food type [Z]
4.474
.035
6.288
.013
2.300
.130
.042
.838
Label [X] × Expectations [W] × Food type [Z]
.336
.562
.010
.919
.041
.839
.048
.828
33
Table 3: Results of the moderated parallel mediation analysis
Direct effect of
Indirect effect via
Indirect effect via
Indirect effect via
Label [X]
Perceived healthiness [M1]
Expected taste [M2]
Perceived sustainability [M3]
X → Y
X → M1 → Y
X → M2 → Y
X → M3 → Y
EST
SE
CI
lower
CI
upper
EST
SE
CI
lower
CI
upper
EST
SE
CI
lower
CI
upper
EST
SE
CI
lower
CI
upper
W = 0 & Z = 0
.016
.135
-.252
.283
.119
.088
-.047
.299
-.123
.091
-.312
.052
.032
.028
-.016
.095
W = 0 & Z = 1
.153
.135
-.111
.417
.106
.084
-.056
.274
-.112
.090
-.293
.061
.022
.028
-.034
.082
W = 1 & Z = 0
.482
.153
.189
.783
.356
.100
.170
.561
-.213
.102
-.428
-.031
.111
.048
.029
.217
W = 1 & Z = 1
.619
.148
.334
.911
.343
.102
.146
.553
-.202
.100
-.415
-.018
.101
.047
.023
.207
Index of moderated mediation Expectations [W]
.237
.106
.035
.457
-.090
.109
-.317
.114
.079
.044
.010
.182
Index of moderated mediation Food type [Z]
-.013
.104
-.216
.189
.011
.106
-.196
.227
-.010
.033
-.081
.050
EST = Mediation effect, SE = Bootstrapped standard error, the CIs are the bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. The independent variable Label [X] was coded as 0 = No label and 1 = Vegan
label. The moderator Expectations [W] was coded as 0 = Expected-vegan and 1 = Unexpected-vegan. The moderator Food type [Z] was coded as 0 = Utilitarian and 1 = Hedonic.
M1 = Perceived healthiness, M2 = Expected taste, M3 = Perceived sustainability, Y = Consumption intentions
Our model (see Model 10 in Hayes, 2018, p. 589) calculates the indices of the moderated mediation by subtracting the mediation effect of the respective moderator at level 0 from the
corresponding mediation effect at level 1. In doing so, the other moderator is fixed at level 0.
