| Literature DB >> 35458109 |
Cristian Adasme-Berríos1, Luís Aliaga-Ortega1, Berta Schnettler2,3, Manuel Parada4, Yocelin Andaur4, Constanza Carreño4, Germán Lobos5, Roberto Jara-Rojas6, Rodrigo Valdes7.
Abstract
Nutritional warnings (NWs) as a front-of-package label were implemented as a public policy aiding consumers with recognizing processed foods with high levels of critical nutrients (sodium, saturated fats, carbohydrates, and calories). However, in spite of this tool being well positioned in consumer decision making, there is little extant knowledge about the relationship between the message sent by NW, nutritional knowledge, consumer motivation, and the intention to avoid consuming processed foods. To understand these dimensions' relations, a theoretical model was created and subsequently tested through structural equations. We applied a survey to 807 home food purchasing decision makers. The results show that the direct effect of NW messages raises the intention to avoid processed foods, while eating motivation is negative in its direct effect on the same avoidance intention. However, the message sent by NWs had a mediating effect between the intentions to avoid processed food and eating motivation but showed no such effect on nutritional knowledge. This suggests that the message sent by NWs was able to turn negative eating motivation into positive eating motivation to avoid processed foods. In conclusion, NWs help mitigate eating motivations, as well as boost the intention to avoid processed foods.Entities:
Keywords: eating motivation; food choice; front-of-package; message; nutritional warning labels; processed foods
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35458109 PMCID: PMC9029137 DOI: 10.3390/nu14081547
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 6.706
Figure 1Conceptual Model.
Mean, standard deviation, and Pearson’s correlation between determinants and intention to discard (n = 807).
| Correlations | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Sd. | CN | MSN | DI | Liking | Habits | Need and Hunger | Health | Convenience | Pleasure | Traditional Eating | Natural Concerns | Sociability | Price | Visual Appeal | Weight Control | Affect Regulations | Social Norms | Social Image | |
| 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. | 8. | 9. | 10. | 11. | 12. | 13. | 14. | 15. | 16. | 17. | 18. | |||
| CN | 12.67 | 3.33 | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
| MSN | 5.35 | 1.52 | −0.01 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
| DI | 5.00 | 1.68 | 0.07 ** | 0.46 *** | 1 | |||||||||||||||
| Liking | 5.04 | 1.81 | −0.15 *** | 0.06 | −0.09 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| Habits | 4.22 | 1.91 | −0.27 *** | 0.04 | −0.13 *** | 0.63 *** | 1 | |||||||||||||
| Need and hunger | 4.09 | 1.71 | −0.25 *** | 0.10 *** | −0.11 *** | 0.65 *** | 0.69 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Health | 1.97 | 1.37 | −0.17 *** | 0.05 | −0.06 | 0.09 ** | 0.28 *** | 0.31 *** | 1 | |||||||||||
| Convenience | 4.60 | 1.73 | −0.14 *** | 0.03 | −0.09 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.46 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.12*** | 1 | ||||||||||
| Pleasure | 4.48 | 1.83 | −0.18 *** | 0.08 ** | −0.06 * | 0.67 *** | 0.52 *** | 0.62 *** | 0.14 *** | 0.52 *** | 1 | |||||||||
| Traditional eating | 3.59 | 1.61 | −0.17 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.06 * | 0.46 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.47 *** | 0.60 *** | 1 | ||||||||
| Natural concerns | 2.25 | 1.53 | −0.16 *** | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.09 *** | 0.17 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.48 *** | 0.08 ** | 0.13 *** | 0.22 *** | 1 | |||||||
| Sociability | 3.74 | 1.76 | −0.24 *** | 0.06 * | 0.01 | 0.47 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.17 *** | 0.41 *** | 0.53 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.31 *** | 1 | ||||||
| Price | 3.84 | 1.91 | −0.21 *** | 0.05 | −0.04 | 0.47 *** | 0.51 *** | 0.50 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.50 *** | 0.47 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.52 *** | 1 | |||||
| Visual appeal | 3.06 | 1.76 | −0.14 *** | 0.08 ** | 0.01 | 0.31 *** | 0.35 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.26 *** | 0.33 *** | 0.42 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.29 *** | 0.49 *** | 0.47 *** | 1 | ||||
| Weight control | 2.36 | 1.47 | −0.13 *** | 0.10 *** | 0.02 | 0.08 ** | 0.15 *** | 0.19 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.08 ** | 0.09 ** | 0.20 *** | 0.54 *** | 0.25 *** | 0.26 *** | 0.34 *** | 1 | |||
| Affect regulations | 2.48 | 1.68 | −0.14 *** | 0.12 *** | 0.00 | 0.23 *** | 0.24 *** | 0.31 *** | 0.23 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.42 *** | 0.21 *** | 0.33 *** | 0.27 *** | 0.41 *** | 0.22 *** | |||
| Social norms | 2.29 | 1.5 | −0.14 *** | 0.09 ** | 0.06 | 0.20 *** | 0.22 *** | 0.20 *** | 0.28 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.26 *** | 0.45 *** | 0.30 *** | 0.37 *** | 0.30 *** | 0.44 *** | 0.38 *** | 0.45 *** | 1 | |
| Social image | 1.95 | 1.27 | −0.11 *** | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.12 *** | 0.17 *** | 0.34 *** | 0.12 *** | 0.11 *** | 0.31 *** | 0.33 *** | 0.26 *** | 0.26 *** | 0.42 *** | 0.40 *** | 0.39 *** | 0.56 *** | 1 |
Note: *,**,*** significant at levels 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01, respectively.
Standardized factorial CFA loadings in the first and second order, composite reliability estimates, and average variance extracted (n = 807).
| Constructs | Standardized Factor | Composite | Average Variance | Cronbach’s | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | MSN | 0.60–0.84 | 0.89 | 0.52 | 0.90 |
| 2. | DI | 0.69–0.84 | 0.85 | 0.59 | 0.85 |
| 3. | Liking | 0.78–0.93 | 0.91 | 0.77 | 0.90 |
| 4. | Habits | 0.88–0.91 | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.92 |
| 5. | Need and hunger | 0.64–0.83 | 0.80 | 0.58 | 0.79 |
| 6. | Health | 0.80–0.90 | 0.89 | 0.73 | 0.88 |
| 7. | Convenience | 0.66–0.92 | 0.86 | 0.69 | 0.85 |
| 8. | Pleasure | 0.78–0.90 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 0.86 |
| 9. | Traditional eating | 0.58–0.74 | 0.70 | 0.44 | 0.70 |
| 10. | Natural concerns | 0.82–0.87 | 0.89 | 0.73 | 0.89 |
| 11. | Sociability | 0.67–0.90 | 0.86 | 0.67 | 0.84 |
| 12. | Price | 0.85–0.88 | 0.90 | 0.76 | 0.90 |
| 13. | Visual appeal | 0.77–0.86 | 0.87 | 0.69 | 0.87 |
| 14. | Weight control | 0.55–0.88 | 0.80 | 0.58 | 0.71 |
| 15. | Affect regulations | 0.86–0.93 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 0.91 |
| 16. | Social norms | 0.69–0.85 | 0.84 | 0.64 | 0.83 |
| 17. | Social image | 0.68–0.87 | 0.81 | 0.59 | 0.81 |
| 18. | NK | _ | _ | _ | 0.82 |
| 19. | Motivation (2d order CFA) | ||||
| Liking | 0.808 | ||||
| Habits | 0.694 | ||||
| Need and hunger | 0.809 | ||||
| Convenience | 0.645 | ||||
| Pleasure | 0.837 | ||||
| Traditional eating | 0.841 | ||||
| Sociability | 0.698 | ||||
| Price | 0.700 | ||||
| Visual appeal | 0.656 | ||||
| Affect regulations | 0.441 | ||||
| Social norms | 0.421 |
Adjustments for measuring structural and reduced models (n = 807).
| Acceptable Fit | Measuring | Structural | Reduced Model | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X2 (df) | - | 4005.685 | 4180.992 | 2541.846 |
| (1564) | (1566) | (967) | ||
| X2/df | <3.00–5.00 | 2.561 | 2.669 | 2.628 |
| RMSEA | <0.05–0.08 | 0.044 | 0.049 | 0.045 |
| CFI | >0.90 | 0.904 | 0.898 | 0.922 |
| TLI | >0.90 | 0.899 | 0.892 | 0.916 |
Indirect, direct, and total standardized effects of determinants on intention to discard.
| Dimensions | Indirect Effects | Direct Effects | Total Effects | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent | Mediator | Dependent variable | |||
| NK | MSN | DI | 0.023 | 0.038 | 0.061 * |
| EM | MSN | DI | 0.061 *** | −0.099 *** | −0.038 |
Note: *,*** significant at levels 0.10 and 0.01, respectively.
Figure 2Results of testing the reduced model: standardized path coefficients (β). Note: *** significant at level 0.01.