International Journal of Advertising

The Review of Marketing Communications

ISSN: 0265-0487 (Print) 1759-3948 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rina20

Taste and nutrition: the uses and effectiveness of

different advertising claims in women's magazine
food advertisements

Yang Feng & Jiwoo Park

To cite this article: Yang Feng & Jiwoo Park (2016): Taste and nutrition: the uses and
effectiveness of different advertising claims in women's magazine food advertisements,
International Journal of Advertising

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1247489

Published online: 07 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 55

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rina20

Download by: [University of Newcastle, Australia] Date: 17 February 2017, At: 13:24
International Journal of Advertising, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1247489

Taste and nutrition: the uses and effectiveness of different advertising

claims in women’s magazine food advertisements
Yang Fenga* and Jiwoo Parkb
a
School of Journalism and Media Studies, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA;
b
Department of Advertising and Marketing, Northwood University, Midland, MI, USA

(Received 8 April 2015; accepted 6 October 2016)

A multi-method study was conducted to examine different advertising claims in

current food advertising and to determine the effectiveness of different advertising
claims on females’ evaluative judgments of food advertisements. Content analysis
results of 678 women’s magazine food ads indicated functional food ads appeared to
adopt nutrition appeals without taste claims and a combined use of nutrition appeals
and taste claims, whereas hedonic food ads tended to use taste claims without
nutrition appeals. Nevertheless, these food advertising practices were called into
question by the results of two experiments, showing the combined use of nutrition
appeals and taste claims was the most effective strategy for both hedonic and
functional foods. However, for hedonic foods, advertisers need to include more
congruent than extremely incongruent claims. Implications for food advertisers and
policy-makers were discussed.
Keywords: food advertising; functional; hedonic; female consumers; taste; nutrition

Introduction
The world’s 10 largest food and beverage companies own numerous food and beverage
brands and spend a huge amount of money on advertising and marketing. For instance,
Kraft Foods expended $27.2 million to advertise Lunchables across all forms of media in
2012 (Yale Rudd Center 2014). With the proliferation of food advertising, several studies
have been conducted to examine diverse advertising claims for disparate types of food
(Cheong and Kim 2011; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009; Choi, Paek, and Whitehill King
2012; Choi e al. 2013). For instance, Kim, Cheong, and Zheng (2009) compared the effec-
tiveness of taste claims with that of health and nutrition-related (HNR) claims for hedonic
and functional foods. However, their study did not differentiate two types of specific
nutrition appeals used in HNR claims: benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals. Choi
and colleagues (2013) contrasted the performance of risk-avoidance appeals, benefit-
seeking appeals, and taste claims for healthy and unhealthy foods. Nevertheless, this
study did not explore the effectiveness of the combined use of benefit-seeking appeals,
risk-avoidance appeals, and taste claims for different types of food.
In previous food advertising literature, one assumption was held: nutrition and taste
are negatively correlated, and a single food advertisement can use either nutrition appeals
or taste claims (Choi and Springston 2014; Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer 2006). Based
on this assumption, some studies supported expectancy-value theory and noted that HNR
(vs. taste) claims need to be adopted in functional (vs. hedonic) food ads (Cheong and

*Corresponding author. Email: yfeng@sdsu.edu

Ó 2016 Advertising Association

2 Y. Feng and J. Park

Kim 2011; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009), whereas other studies upheld schema congru-
ity theory and generated opposite findings (Choi et al. 2012; Raghunathan, Naylor, and
Hoyer 2006). With the prevalence of the combined use of taste and HNR claims in food
advertising, it is not necessary for a food advertisement to be created with either taste or
HNR claims. Therefore, this study aims to solve the contradictory findings from existing
literature through investigating the effects of the combined use of dominant food advertis-
ing claims on consumers’ evaluations of food ads.
In this study, we present a multi-method investigation of the presence and effects of
HNR and taste claims across functional and hedonic foods. We focus on women consum-
ers, who are the primary household food shoppers, primary targets of food advertising,
and susceptible to eating-related social pressures (Choi et al. 2013; Neuhaus 2013).
Studying women as a separate consumer segment is necessary because nutrition label use
differs between men and women and women are more likely to read nutrition labels than
men (Su et al. 2015). Moreover, women’s magazines are more likely than men’s maga-
zines to include food advertisements with HNR claims, demonstrating women’s greater
interest in healthy eating (Nan et al. 2013). Therefore, we dwell on food advertising in
women-oriented media such as women’s magazines. In particular, through content analy-
sis, we unveil the food advertisers’ latest practices and challenge the existing assumption
that food advertisers can use either HNR or taste claims in a single ad. Through two
experiments, we further explore the effectiveness of the combined use of HNR and taste
claims. The multiattribute approach, which emphasizes the inclusion of various attributes
of products in advertising, serves as a theoretical framework to fulfill the research pur-
pose. Thus, our findings provide theoretical and practical implications for food advertisers
and policy-makers in three specific ways. First, our results reveal how the adoption of the
multiattribute approach helps solve contradictory findings from previous literature on
food advertising. Second, our results confirm it is promising to adopt a combined use of
HNR and taste claims and provide practitioners with knowledge on how to adopt the com-
bined use of nutrition appeals and taste claims in an appropriate way for both functional
and hedonic foods. Last, our results call for stricter regulation on using nutrition appeals
in food advertising.

Literature review
Food advertising claims
Food advertisers have adopted various claims to convey product information. Previous
studies noted that more than half of the food advertisements contained claims about deli-
cious taste (Ippolito and Pappalardo, 2003; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009). Due to accel-
erated living pace, food advertising started emphasizing the availability of convenience
foods (Chandon and Wansink 2012; Ippolito and Pappalardo 2003; Kim, Cheong, and
Zheng 2009) or a new food product (Ippolito and Pappalardo 2003). Some common food
advertising claims highlighted the relative economy of the food product such as providing
coupon information (Ippolito and Pappalardo 2003; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009) and
the idea of enjoying food with family (Cheong, Kim, and Zheng 2010).Moreover, with
increasing food safety concerns, food brands endeavored to create a high-quality image
for their products (Burkitt 2012).
As people’s awareness of health benefits of food increased, food advertisers began to
include three types of HNR claims in advertising: (1) health, (2) nutrient content, and (3)
structure/function claims (Choi et al. 2013; Ippolito and Pappalardo 2003; Nan et al.
 International Journal of Advertising 3

2013). Health claims emphasize how added healthy nutrients or removed unhealthy ingre-
dients protect consumers from certain diseases (Choi et al. 2013; Ippolito and Pappalardo
2003; Nan et al. 2013). Nutrient content claims focus on the specific enhancement of
healthy nutrients or reduction of unhealthy ingredients in food (Choi et al. 2013; Ippolito
and Pappalardo 2003), or are exemplified by a general inclusion of words, such as
‘healthy’, ‘wholesome’, or ‘nutritious’ (Nan et al. 2013). Structure/function claims
emphasize how added healthy nutrients or removed unhealthy ingredients affect normal
structure or functions in humans (Choi et al. 2013; Ippolito and Pappalardo 2003; Nan
et al. 2013).
Noticeably, two types of specific nutrition appeals are used in all three types of
HNR claims: 1) benefit-seeking appeals, focusing on the enhancement of healthy
nutrients to increase consumers’ perceived benefit of the advertised food product; and
2) risk-avoidance appeals, emphasizing the reduction of unhealthy ingredients to reduce
consumers’ perceived risk of the advertised food product (Choi et al. 2013). Choi and
co-authors (2013) noted the approach-avoidance motivation distinction proposed by
Elliot (2008) provides a conceptual lens for using benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance
appeals in food advertising. According to them, using benefit-seeking appeals is based
on the approach motivation that drives consumers to approach to benefits, while using
risk-avoidance appeals is built upon the avoidance motivation that propels consumers to
avoid risk. Additionally, regulatory focus theory, suggesting individuals tend to be
either promotion-oriented (pursuing positive outcomes) or prevention-oriented (avoiding
negative outcomes) (Aaker and Lee, 2001; Kareklas, Carlson, and Muehling 2012), may
provide theoretical basis for using benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals. For
instance, food advertisers using benefit-seeking appeals may target promotion-oriented
consumers while those adopting risk-avoidance appeals may target prevention-oriented
consumers. Even though these two appeals stand on different motivations, they fulfill to
improve consumers’ perceived healthiness of the advertised food product (Choi et al.
2013).
Previous studies that investigated using different food advertising claims in women’s
magazine examined product information and HNR claims separately (Choi et al. 2012;
Choi et al. 2013; Cheong and Kim 2011; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009). However, a
food advertisement can utilize both product information and HNR claims. Therefore, we
raised the following research question:

RQ1: How do food advertisements in recent women’s magazines use product infor-
mation and HNR claims?

Hedonic and functional foods

Marketing scholars (Johar and Sirgy 1991; Tomaseti and Ruiz 2009) noted that prod-
uct type, indicating the hedonic or functional nature of a product, might be a factor
affecting how ads are presented. Most previous studies (Dhar and Wertenbroch
2000; Johar and Sirgy 1991; Tomaseti and Ruiz 2009) divided products into hedonic
and functional products. While hedonic foods (i.e. potato chips, cookies, cake) pro-
vide consumers with immediate sensory pleasure such as great taste, functional foods
(i.e. main meals, cereals, granola) yield functional solutions to a current consump-
tion-related problem (Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009). Kim, Cheong, and Zheng
(2009) noted that although individuals can differ in terms of their perceptions of
4 Y. Feng and J. Park

hedonic or functional foods, it is possible to focus on the aggregate perception of a

food as either hedonic or functional.
Regarding different food types, we developed the following research question:

RQ2: How do the use of product information and HNR claims in food advertise-
ments in recent women’s magazines differ across food type?

Effectiveness of advertising claims on consumer preference by food type

The split between hedonic and functional foods is useful in providing marketers with
implications on using advertising claims for different food types, but not being too spe-
cific as to going into detailed food categories. Since different types of advertising claims
have distinct impact on consumers’ perceptions of food products (Cheong and Kim 2011;
Choi et al. 2013; Choi and Springston 2014), the key issue rests on what types of advertis-
ing claims are preferred by female consumers under what circumstances. Generally, there
are two theories that shed light on how to select advertising claims for hedonic and func-
tional foods: expectancy-value theory, and schema congruity theory.
According to expectancy-value theory (Festinger 1957), an individual’s personal atti-
tude toward an object is a function of anticipated beliefs that the person associates with
the object as well as favorability of those anticipated beliefs. In food advertising contexts,
food type can influence one’s anticipated beliefs of food consumption (Kim, Cheong, and
Zheng 2009). For instance, sensory feelings such as ‘great taste’, may be anticipated
attributes that consumers associate with hedonic foods, whereas utilitarian attributes such
as ‘health benefits’, may be expected qualities that consumers associate with functional
foods (Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009; Choi et al. 2012; Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer
2006). Therefore, congruent ad claims that match with consumers’ anticipated product
attributes will be most persuasive.
In contrast to expectancy-value theory, schema congruity theory predicts when there
is a mismatch between advertising claims and product type, consumers are highly moti-
vated to process the ad information (Cheong and Kim 2011; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng
2009; Mandler 1982). As previous research noted, when there is a match-up between ad
claims and consumers’ anticipated product attributes, consumers are not motivated to pro-
cess the ad stimulus, which results in mild positive responses (Mandler 1982). A moder-
ately incongruent ad claim enhances consumers’ processing of the ad stimulus to resolve
the incongruity between the claim and their activated product expectations, and the suc-
cessful resolution of the incongruity results in positive consumer responses (Kim,
Cheong, and Zheng 2009; Meyers-Levy, Louie, and Curren 1994). Meanwhile, if there is
an extreme incongruity between an ad claim and consumers’ anticipated product attrib-
utes, consumers are unlikely to resolve the incongruity and thus may generate negative
responses (Cheong and Kim 2011; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009). For instance, using
claims for ‘great taste’ in a functional food advertisement may lead to the perceptions of
moderate schema incongruity, which, in turn, results in positive consumer responses
(Cheong and Kim 2011; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009). Therefore, moderately incon-
gruent advertising claims will be most persuasive (Cheong and Kim 2011; Kim, Cheong,
and Zheng 2009).
A close examination of prior food advertising studies that used either expectancy-
value theory or schema congruity theory as the theoretical basis indicates that they
assumed a single food advertisement can adopt either taste or HNR claims. However, this
assumption may not stand still. For instance, the multiattribute approach, a variation of
 International Journal of Advertising 5

expectancy-value theory, emphasizes that an advertisement needs to include multiple

congruent ad claims consistent to consumers’ anticipated product attributes (Johar and
Sirgy 1991; Mateo 2012). This is because consumers will evaluate a product’s different
attributes and the importance of each attribute before making a rational purchase decision
(Belton 1986; et al. 1995). Therefore, if a consumer believes a food product needs to pos-
sess both delicious taste and health benefits, then an advertisement that adopts both taste
and HNR claims may be more persuasive than one that uses solely taste or HNR claims.
Given that previous studies adopted the assumption that a single food advertisement
can adopt either taste or HNR claims and provided mixed predictions regarding the rela-
tionship between advertising claim and food type, we aim to explain the effectiveness of
food advertising by adopting the multiattribute approach. Therefore, we raised the follow-
ing question:

RQ3: What is the relationship between the effectiveness of the use of taste and HNR
claims and the food type in terms of female consumers’ evaluative judgments of
food ads?

Study 1
Study 1 examined food advertisers’ current practices. To answer RQ1 and RQ2, we con-
ducted content analysis to present an overview of food advertising claims in recent women’s
magazine. Also, through the content analysis, we explored which one of the aforementioned
theories provides the best explanation for food advertisers’ current practices.

Methods
Sampling and unit of analysis
Using MRIC circulation data, we first selected representative monthly women’s magazines
with circulations of more than a million in 2013. We excluded several highly circulated
fashion and beauty women’s magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Glamour, and Vogue
because of very limited number of food advertisements in each issue. Eventually, we
selected Better Home and Gardens (7,648,600), Good Housekeeping (4,652,904), Woman’s
Day (3,966,414), which have been adopted by previous studies on similar topics (Choi
et al. 2013; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009; Nan et al. 2013), and we added Fitness
(1,514,677), and Health (1,391,627), which are female-oriented health magazines with wide
circulation and above average level of food advertisements in each issue, as our sample.
We analyzed every issue of these women’s magazines published within a 12-month
period, between February 2014 and January 2015. The unit of analysis was a full-page
food or beverage advertisement in the sample magazines. Ads that focused on alcohol,
medicinal supplements, and pets’ foods were excluded. Two-page advertisements were
counted as one. All advertisements that match the selection criteria were included in final
analysis. The final sample included a total number of 678 food advertisements.

Coding scheme
Based on previous research (Choi et al. 2013; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009; Nan et al.
2013), we developed a coding scheme (see Appendix 1). We divided advertising claims
into product information and HNR claims. While product information claims included
6 Y. Feng and J. Park

seven categories (Ippolito and Pappalardo 2003; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009), HNR
claims included three categories (Choi et al. 2013; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009; Nan
et al. 2013). For every single food ad, each type of the aforementioned 10 advertising
claims was coded as either ‘present’ (1) or ‘absent’ (0). If a food advertisement used
HNR claims, we coded the ad as using (1) benefit-seeking appeals, (2) risk-avoidance
appeals, (3) both, or (4) none. Finally, we coded the food type in each ad as either hedonic
or functional food.

Coding procedure
During an initial training, two coders used the coding scheme to code 20 food ads not
included in the final sample. Then, two coders compared their coding results and resolved
the disagreements through discussions. Next, they viewed 10.18% of the sample food
advertisements independently to check inter-coder reliability (Wimmer and Dominick
2007). Once the inter-coder reliability for the above variables reached acceptable level
and disagreements were reconciled by discussions between them, the main coder coded
the rest of the sample ads.
Inter-coder reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa, which is suitable for cate-
gorical variables (Wimmer and Dominick 2007). Reliabilities for all coding variables
were acceptable: taste (.91), promotion (.94), convenience (.75), novel/new (.84), quality
(.86), satisfaction (.66), family (1.00), health (.82), nutrient-content (.97), structure/func-
tion claims (.89), benefit-seeking/risk-avoidance appeals (.86), and food type (.91).

Results
Across all sample food ads, taste (56.05%) and nutrient-content claims (51.77%) were the
two most dominant (see Table 1). Noticeably, almost all food ads adopting nutrient-con-
tent claims contained specific nutrition appeals (96.58%) (benefit-seeking appeals:
36.47%; risk-avoidance appeals: 30.20%; both appeals: 29.91%). Next, we looked at
hedonic and functional food ads separately. Results from Table 1 indicated 44.10% of all
ads were for hedonic foods, and that percentage increased to 55.90% for functional foods.
Across both hedonic and functional food ads, taste (hedonic: 63.55%; functional:
50.13%) and nutrient-content claims (hedonic: 34.78%; functional: 65.17%) were the
most dominant. T-test results showed functional food ads were more likely than hedonic
food ads to include convenience (t(df D 676) D 2.38, p < .05), family (t(df D 676) D
3.51, p < .01), nutrient-content (t(df D 676) D 7.86, p < .001), and structure/function
claims (t (df D 676) D 2.48, p < .05), whereas hedonic food ads were more likely to con-
tain taste claims (t(df D 676) D 3.50, p < .01) than functional food ads (see Table 1).
Given that taste claims were the dominant type of product information claims and spe-
cific nutrition appeals were widely used in the most popular type of HNR claims (nutri-
ent-content), we focused on the use of specific nutrition appeals and taste claims across
functional and hedonic food ads. T-test results indicated functional food ads were more
likely to use specific nutrition appeals without taste claims (29.55%) than hedonic food
ads (14.55%) (t (df D 676) D 4.61, p < .001). Moreover, functional food ads were more
likely to adopt specific nutrition appeals with taste claims (34.22%) than hedonic food
ads (19.07%) (t (df D 676) D 4.39, p < .001). On the other hand, hedonic food ads were
more likely to adopt taste claims without specific nutrition appeals (44.15%) than func-
tional food ads (15.30%) (t (df D 676) D 7.66, p < .001) (see Figure 1, Table 1).
 International Journal of Advertising 7

Table 1. Distribution of food advertising claims and specific nutrition appeals in food
advertisements.

Frequency Frequency Frequency T-test

Type of claims (all foods) (hedonic foods) (functional foods) result a

Taste 380 (56.05%) 190 (63.55%) 190 (50.13%) 3.50

Promotion 29 (4.28%) 15 (5.02%) 14 (3.69%) .85
Convenience 50 (7.37%) 14 (4.68%) 36 (9.50%) 2.38
Novel/new 59 (8.70%) 28 (9.36%) 31 (8.18%) .54
Quality 46 (6.78%) 18 (6.02%) 28 (7.39%) .70
Satisfaction 11 (1.62%) 8 (2.68%) 3 (0.79%) 1.93
Family 67 (9.88%) 16 (5.35%) 51 (13.46%) 3.51
Health 29 (4.28%) 11 (3.68%) 18 (4.75%) .68
Nutrient-content 351 (51.77%) 104 (34.78%) 247 (65.17%) 7.86
Structure/function 93 (13.72%) 30 (10.03%) 63 (16.62%) 2.48
Specific nutrition 155 (22.86%) 43 (14.55%) 112 (29.55%) 4.61
appeals without taste
claims
Benefit-seeking appeals 59 (8.70%) 19 (6.53%) 40 (10.55%) 1.84
without taste claims
Risk-avoidance appeals 37 (5.46%) 14 (4.68%) 23 (6.07%) .79
without taste claims
Both benefit-seeking 59 (8.70%) 10 (3.34%) 49 (12.93%) 4.40
appeals and risk-
avoidance appeals
without taste claims
Taste claims without 190 (28.02%) 132 (44.15%) 58 (15.30%) 8.31
specific nutrition
appeals
Taste claims without 190 (28.02%) 132 (44.15%) 58 (15.30%) 8.31
benefit-seeking appeals
and risk-avoidance
appeals
Specific nutrition 184 (27.76%) 57 (19.07%) 127 (34.22%) 4.39
appeals with taste
claims
Benefit-seeking appeals 69 (10.18%) 11 (3.68%) 58 (15.30%) 4.97
with taste claims
Risk-avoidance appeals 69 (10.18%) 42 (14.05%) 27 (7.12%) 2.96
with taste claims
Benefit-seeking appeals, 46 (6.78%) 4 (1.34%) 42 (11.08%) 5.01
risk-avoidance appeals,
and taste claims
Total (N) 678 299 379

Note: a. refers to the t-test results for the comparison of hedonic and functional food ads

p < .05  p < .01 p < .001
8 Y. Feng and J. Park

Figure 1. The use of ad claims and claim preference by food type.

Source: Author

Summary
RQ1 was concerned with using different product information and HNR claims in recent
women’s magazine food advertisements. Content analysis results showed taste and nutri-
ent-content claims were the two dominant claims, regardless of food type. These findings
indicated food advertisers still favor to establish the mouth-watering image of the prod-
ucts to maximize the attractiveness. Moreover, previous studies (Heller 2001; Nestle
2007) noted it is relatively easy to obtain authorization to adopt nutrient-content claims
compared to the more restrictive health and structure/function claims, which may shed
light on the prevalent use of nutrient-content claims in food advertising. Regarding that
almost all nutrient-content claims contained specific nutrition appeals, it seems that this
practice may correspond to the increasing consumer demand for more detailed food label-
ing (AGWEEK 2015; Andrews, Burton, and Netemeyer 2000).
 International Journal of Advertising 9

RQ2 was concerned with using product information and HNR claims across different
food types. Content analysis results revealed functional food ads were more likely than
hedonic food ads to include convenience claims, family claims, HNR claims (nutrient-
content claims and structure/function claims), and specific nutrition appeals, whereas
hedonic food ads were more likely to contain taste claims. With respect to convenience
and family claims, it seems food advertisers tend to provide consumers with instant
main meals and to create a picture of family enjoying main meals together. Regarding
taste claims and nutrition appeals, there was a match-up between food and claim type.
Especially, functional food ads favored HNR claims paired with specific nutrition
appeals, whereas hedonic food ads preferred taste claims, which is parallel with the
notion of the expectancy-value theory. Moreover, results from study 1 supported par-
tially the assumption that a single food ad needs to choose between nutrition appeals
and taste claims. For instance, the majority of hedonic food ads used only taste claims
without nutrition appeals, while a high percentage of functional food ads adopted a
combined use of both of them.

Study 2
Study 2 extended the findings of study 1. First, we conducted an experiment in study 2 to
investigate using taste claims and nutrition appeals in terms of female consumers’ ad pref-
erences for different food types and to explore whether there is a gap between food
advertisers’ current practices and consumers’ preferences. Second, we further tested the
validity of the assumption that a single food ad can use either nutrition appeals or taste
claims.

Methods
Given that hedonic and functional food ads differed in terms of using specific nutrition
appeals and taste claims, we explored the interaction between advertising claim type
(nutrition appeals without taste claims, short for ‘nutrition appeals’ in the following sec-
tion vs. taste claims without nutrition appeals, abbreviated for ‘taste claims’ in the follow-
ing section vs. nutrition appeals with taste claims) and food type on female consumers’
judgments of food ads.

Design
We adopted a 3 (nutrition appeals vs. taste claims vs. nutrition appeals with taste claims)
£ 2 (hedonic vs. functional food) mixed-factorial experiment to explore the aforemen-
tioned interaction effect. While claim type was a within-subject variable, food type was a
between-subject variable. Regarding the adoption of specific nutrition appeals without
taste claims, results from study 1 revealed the only significant difference between hedonic
and functional food ads lied on using benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals without
taste claims (t (df D 676) D 4.40, p < .001, see Table 1). Therefore, we decided to include
both benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals without taste claims to represent the
‘nutrition appeals’ condition. To match the ‘nutrition appeals with taste claims’ condition
with the ‘nutrition appeals’ condition, we included both benefit-seeking and risk-avoid-
ance appeals together with taste claims to exemplify the ‘nutrition appeals with taste
claims’ condition.
10 Y. Feng and J. Park

Pre-tests: selection of food products

Prior to experiment, two pre-tests were conducted to select foods perceived as either
‘hedonic’ or ‘functional.’ In the first pre-test (N D 20 female students in a Midwest uni-
versity), we adopted an initial list of nine food categories (cracker chips, chocolate, lem-
onade drink, mayonnaise, egg, almond milk, pasta, cereal, and spaghetti) based on the
premise that they would be distinctively perceived as either hedonic or functional foods.
To measure the perceived hedonism and functionalism for each food, we adopted four
statements (perceived hedonism: ‘XX products are tasty/enjoyable’; perceived functional-
ism: ‘XX products are healthy/beneficial’) modified from previous studies (Choi et al.
2013; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009). Results showed a significant mean difference in
perceived hedonism between products classified as hedonic foods (chocolate and lemon-
ade) and those classified as functional foods (egg and almond milk) (Mhedonic D 6.40,
Mfunctional D 5.78, t (df D 17) D 2.65, p < .05). Similarly, the mean difference in per-
ceived functionalism between products classified as hedonic foods (chocolate and lemon-
ade) and those classified as functional foods (egg and almond milk) was significant
(Mhedonic D 3.65, Mfunctional D 6.33, t (df D 18) D 9.22, p < .001).
In the second pre-test (N D 208 female Amazon Mechanical Turk workers, Mage D
31.80, SDage D 11.97; age range: 18 to 66 years old), we further narrowed down the
selected foods. We recruited Amazon Mechanic Turk workers because they are more rep-
resentative of the U.S. population than student sample due to different occupations, ages,
and geographical locations (Behrend et al. 2011; Berinsky, Huber, and Lenz 2011). We
gauged the perceived hedonism and functionalism for the four selected products. We also
measured each participant’s involvement with the four foods on two items (The product
is important/of concern to me) (Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009). For hedonic products, t-
test results from the second pre-test in study 2 showed that participants had higher
involvement with chocolate (M D 4.34, SD D 1.32) than with lemonade (M D 3.45, SD D
1.34) (t (df D 210) D 4.85, p < .001). For functional products, t-test results showed that
participants had higher involvement with egg (M D 4.20, SD D 1.27) than with almond
milk (M D 3.69, SD D 1.53) (t (df D 202) D 4.59, p < .05). Moreover, t-test results
revealed that the mean difference in perceived hedonism between chocolate (Mchocolate D
6.39, SDchocolate D .85) and egg (Megg D 5.82, SDegg D 1.02) was significant (t (df D 161)
D 3.39, p < .01). Similarly, the mean difference in perceived functionalism between
chocolate (Mchocolate D 4.22, SD chocolate D 1.24) and egg (Megg D 6.00, SDegg D .79) was
significant (t (df D 179) D 12.35, p < .001). Therefore, we selected ‘chocolate’ and ‘egg’
to represent hedonic and functional foods, respectively.

Experimental stimuli
Three different advertising claims were created for chocolate and egg, respectively.
To create a total of six stimulus ads, we manipulated real magazine food advertise-
ment claims identified from the content analysis without changing layout and back-
ground features. To avoid pre-dispositional bias, we adopted fictitious brand names
(see Appendix 2).

Subjects and procedure

A total of 126 female Amazon Mechanic Turk workers (Mage D 30.82, SDage D 12.32, age
range: 18 to 64 years) voluntarily participated in the study (Cohen’s ƒ2 D .34, power D .8).
 International Journal of Advertising 11

Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions. While 63
participants viewed three egg ads, and 63 participants viewed three chocolate ads. Then,
each subject answered some questions.

Measures
To measure participants’ ad preferences for different food types, we modified four ques-
tions used by Brunel and Nelson (2000) and Choi and colleagues (2013). In our study,
we provided three options for these four questions: ‘Ad 1 that focuses on the specific
nutrition of the product’; ‘Ad 2 that focuses on the taste of the product’; ‘Ad 3 that
focuses on both the specific nutrition and taste of the product.’ Thus, the measure of ad
preference consisted of four forced-choices ad comparison questions and was appropri-
ated to use to unveil consumers’ comparative judgments of the tested ads (Brunel and
Nelson 2000). We also measured perceived healthiness and taste of the food in each ad
on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’ (see
Appendix 3).

Results
Manipulation check
MANOVA test indicated a significant main effect of claim type (F (4,121) D 24.15, p <.
001) and food type (F (4,123) D 3.83, p <. 05) on perceived healthiness and taste; there
was no interaction between claim and food type on perceived healthiness and taste (F
(4,121) D .92, p > .05). Univariate ANOVAs showed food product in ad 1 that focused
on nutrition (M D 5.52, SD D .10) and food product in ad 3 that emphasized both nutrition
and taste (M D 5.64, SD D .11) were perceived healthier than food product in ad 2 that
dwelled on the taste (M D 4.64, SD D .12) (ad 1 vs. ad 2: p < .001; ad 2 vs. ad 3: p <
.001; ad 1 vs. ad 3: p > .05). Moreover, univariate ANOVAs revealed food product in ad
2 that emphasized taste (M D 5.44, SD D .11) and food product in ad 3 that focused on
both nutrition and taste (M D 5.60, SD D .11) were perceived tastier than food product in
ad 1 that dwelled on nutrition (M D 5.14, SD D .12) (ad 1 vs. ad 2: p < .01; ad 1 vs. ad 3:
p < .001; ad 2 vs. ad 3: p > .05). The above results revealed the experimental manipula-
tions were successful.

Research question 3
To answer RQ3, we first tested the internal reliability of the four ad preference questions.
Although these questions seem to have high internal reliability for two ad options (Brunel
and Nelson 2000; Choi et al. 2013), our study showed these four questions had low inter-
nal reliability for three ad options (Krippendorff’s alpha D .52). Additionally, the level of
measurement for all four questions is nominal; therefore, we decided to examine these
questions separately.
Chi-square results showed no significant differences in ad preference across food type
(Q1: x2 D .68, df D 2, p > .05; Q2: x2 D 5.87, df D 2, p > .05; Q3: x2 D 3.01, df D 2, p
> .05; Q4: x2 D 2.82, df D 2, p > .05). For both chocolate and egg, the majority of partic-
ipants selected ad 3 that emphasized both the specific nutrition and taste as the best (Q1),
the most appealing (Q2), the most persuasive (Q3), and the most favorable ad (Q4)
(see Table 2, Figure 1).
12 Y. Feng and J. Park

Summary
For both egg and chocolate, the majority of female consumers selected the ad that
emphasized both the specific nutrition and taste as the best, the most appealing, the
most persuasive, and the most favorable ad, which is consistent with the notion of
multiattribute approach. While results from study 1 indicated predominant hedonic
food ads included only taste claims without nutrition appeals (44.15%, Table 1) and
a large number of functional food ads used only nutrition appeals without taste
claims (29.55%, Table 1), results from study 2 challenged the assumption that a sin-
gle food ad can use either nutrition appeals or taste claims. According to the multiat-
tribute approach, if both nutrition and taste are important food attributes for
consumers, food advertisers need to emphasize both nutrition and taste for products,
regardless of food type.

Study 3
Results from study 2 indicated the ad emphasizing both nutrition and taste was preferred
most, regardless of food type. However, in study 2, we did not differentiate the different
combinations of nutrition and taste in food advertising. Noticeably, content analysis from
study 1 suggested some food ads included both benefit-seeking appeals and taste claims
(10.18%, Table 1), some food ads used both risk-avoidance appeals and taste claims
(10.18%, Table 1), and some food ads adopted benefit-seeking appeals, risk-avoidance
appeals, and taste claims (6.78%, Table 1). Therefore, in study 3, we filled the gap
between study 1 and 2, and identified the best combination of nutrition and taste for

Table 2. Experiment results for the ad preference.

Chocolate Egg

Study 2 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Ad 1 13 (21%) 18 (29%) 12 (19%) 20 (32%) 11 (17%) 8 (13%) 15 (24%) 13 (21%)

Ad 2 7 (11%) 12 (19%) 10 (16%) 7 (11%) 5 (8%) 10 (16%) 4 (6%) 5 (8%)
Ad 3 43 (68%) 33 (52%) 41 (65%) 36 (57%) 47 (75%) 45 (71%) 44 (70%) 45 (71%)
Total 63 63

Study 3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Ad 1 25 (49%) 26 (51%) 27 (53%) 24 (47%) 11 (22%) 12 (25%) 9 (18%) 7 (14%)

Ad 2 3 (6%) 6 (12%) 9 (18%) 3 (6%) 14 (29%) 15 (31%) 14 (29%) 12 (25%)
Ad 3 23 (45%) 19 (37%) 15 (29%) 26 (47%) 24 (49%) 22 (45%) 26 (53%) 30 (61%)
Total 51 49

Note: In study 2: ad 1 D nutrition appeals without taste claims

ad 2 D taste claims without nutrition appeals
ad 3 D nutrition appeals with taste claims
In study 3: ad 1 D benefit-seeking appeals with taste claims
ad 2 D risk-avoidance appeals with taste claims
ad 3 D benefit-seeking appeals, risk-avoidance appeals, and taste claims
Q1 D Overall, which ad do you think is the best?
Q2 D Which one appeals to you most?
Q3 D Which ad would be most likely to convince to your purchase?
Q4 D Which ad do you think would create the most favorable image of the company?
 International Journal of Advertising 13

hedonic and functional food ads, respectively. Specifically, we extended the findings of
study 2 and conducted another experiment to further investigate the effectiveness of three
types of ads that emphasize both nutrition and taste: ads focusing on benefit-seeking
appeals with taste claims (benefit C taste), ads emphasizing risk-avoidance appeals with
taste claims (risk C taste), and ads containing benefit-seeking appeals, risk-avoidance
appeals, and taste claims (benefit C risk C taste).

Methods
Design
We adopted a 3 ad claim type (benefit C taste vs. risk C taste vs. benefit C risk C taste) £
2 food type (hedonic vs. functional food) mixed-factorial experiment to explore the inter-
action between claim and food type on female consumers’ evaluative judgments of food
ads. While ad claim type was a within-subject variable, food type was a between-subject
variable.

Experimental stimuli
Based on study 2, we selected chocolate and egg to represent hedonic and functional food,
respectively. We created three advertisements with different claims for chocolate and
egg. We utilized the same layout and background features as well as brand names for egg
and chocolate from study 2 (see Appendix 4).

Subjects and procedure

A total of 100 female Amazon Mechanical Turk workers (Mage D 37.01, SDage D 12.29,
age range: 18–68 years) voluntarily participated in the study (Cohen’s ƒ2 D .40, power D
.8). The experimental procedure was exactly the same as the one in study 2. While 51 par-
ticipants viewed three chocolate ads, 49 participants viewed three egg ads. Then, each
subject answered some questions.

Measures
We adopted the same four questions from study 2 to measure consumers’ ad prefer-
ences and provided three options for the four questions: ‘Ad 1 that focuses on the
enhanced health benefit and taste of the product’; ‘Ad 2 that focuses on the reduced
risk and taste of the product’; ‘Ad 3 that focuses on the enhanced health benefit,
reduced risk, and taste of the product.’ We also used the same questions from study
2 to measure perceived healthiness and taste of the product. To measure credibility
of ad claims in each ad, we adopted five items from previous studies (Cheong and
Kim 2011; Choi et al. 2012) (a for all six ads reached 0.8; chocolate: MbenefitCtaste
D 4.79, MriskCtaste D 4.32, MbenefitCriskCtaste D 4.49; egg: MbenefitCtaste D 4.49,
MriskCtaste D 4.51, MbenefitCriskCtaste D 4.37). Moreover, we measured each partic-
ipant’s health consciousness as a covariate via three items (a D .86) (M D 4.67, SD
D 1.31) (Cheong and Kim 2011) (see Appendix 3).
14 Y. Feng and J. Park

Results
Manipulation check
MANCOVA test indicated that after controlling for health consciousness, there was nei-
ther significant main effect of claim type (F (4, 94) D 2.01, p > .05) nor that of food type
(F (4, 94) D 2.60, p > .05) on perceived healthiness and taste; there was no interaction
between claim and food type on perceived healthiness and taste (F (4, 94) D .18, p >
.05). The results confirmed all three types of ads had no difference in perceived healthi-
ness and taste, for all of them emphasized both nutrition and taste.

Research question 3
The reliability level for the four ad presence questions was acceptable (Krippendorff’s
alpha D .66). However, due to their nominal nature, we examined these questions sepa-
rately. Chi-square results indicated significant difference in ad preference across food
type (Q1: x2 D 12.55, df D 2, p < .01; Q2: x2 D 9.20, df D 2, p < .05; Q3: x2 D 13.00,
df D 2, p < .01; Q4: x2 D 15.36, df D 2, p < .001). For chocolate, both ad 1 (benefit C
taste) and ad 3 (benefit C risk C taste) were selected as the best (Q1), the most appealing
(Q2), the most persuasive (Q3), and the most favorable ad (Q4) (there was no difference
between ad 1 and ad 3 in terms of these four items: Q1: t (df D 50) D .30, p > .05; Q2: t
(df D 50) D 1.08, p > .05; Q3: t (df D 50) D 1.96, p > .05; Q4: t (df D 50) D .43, p >
.05). In other words, for chocolate, both ad 1 and ad 3 were selected as the best (Q1), the
most appealing (Q2), the most persuasive (Q3), and the most favorable ad (Q4). For egg,
ad 3 (benefit C risk C taste) was selected as the best (49%), the most persuasive (53%),
and the most favorable ad (61%). Moreover, for egg, there was no difference among three
ads in terms of being the most appealing ad (Q2) (x2 D 3.22, df D 2, p > .05).

Additional results on perceived credibility

MANCOVA results indicated that after controlling for health consciousness, there was a
significant interaction between claim and food type on perceived credibility (F (2, 96) D
3.15, p < .01). For chocolate, ad 1 (benefit C taste) (Mad1 D 4.79) was perceived more
credible than ad 2 (risk C taste) (Mad2 D 4.32) (p < .01); however, there was neither sig-
nificant difference between ad 2 and 3 (benefit C risk C taste, Mad3 D 4.49) nor signifi-
cant difference between ad 1 (benefit C taste) and 3 (benefit Crisk C taste). For egg,
there was no difference among three ads in terms of perceived credibility.

Summary
For chocolate, both ad 1 (benefit C taste) and 3 (benefit C risk C taste) were preferred.
However, for egg, the majority of participants preferred ad 3 (benefit C risk C taste).
Interestingly, for chocolate, ad 1 (benefit C taste) was perceived more credible than ad 2
(risk C taste), which may partially explain why ad 2 (risk C taste) was not preferred. For
chocolate, the relative low perceived credibility score of ad 2 (risk C taste) may indicate
that female consumers disbelieve that chocolate with low fat (risk-avoidance appeal) can
have great taste (the anticipated product attribute). Thus, there may be an extreme incon-
gruity between the risk-avoidance appeal and consumers’ anticipated product attribute,
which can prevent consumers from solving the incongruity and result in negative con-
sumer responses based on schema congruity theory. Despite the dominant presence of the
 International Journal of Advertising 15

combined use of risk-avoidance appeals and taste claims for hedonic foods from study 1
(14.05%, Table 1), results from study 3 showed this combination may not work for female
consumers. In contrast, for chocolate, the relative high perceived credibility score of ad 1
(benefit C taste) may indicate the benefit-seeking appeal (high protein) is consistent with
consumers’ anticipated product attribute (great taste).
Also, the result that ad 3 (benefit C risk C taste) was most preferred for choco-
late may suggest two congruent ad claims (great taste, high protein) may offset the
negative impact of an extremely incongruent ad claim (low fat) or may transform an
extremely incongruent ad claim (low fat) into a moderately incongruent ad claim
that is acceptable. For instance, Cheong and Kim (2011) noted that according to
schema congruity theory, ‘People may find an appropriate schema for assimilating
the new information, or they may accommodate the new information by either devel-
oping a new schema or accepting the new information as an exception to the rule’
(56). For egg, ad 3 (benefit C risk C taste) was most preferred and this may indicate
that female consumers prefer to see more nutrition and taste information listed out
for functional food, echoing Johar and Sirgy’s (1991) notion that an ad for a func-
tional product needs to convey various key benefits that are perceived to be impor-
tant to target consumers. Therefore, results from study 3 indicated that for functional
food, it is necessary to include all the congruent or necessary claims to help consum-
ers examine the benefits of a product, supporting the multiattribute approach. In
addition, results from study 3 extended the multiattribute approach by integrating
perspectives from schema congruity theory into it, and discovered that a hedonic
food ad can include incongruent claims if there are more congruent claims than
extremely incongruent claims in a single ad.

General discussion
Gap between current food advertising practices and consumer preferences
One content analysis and two experiments were performed to explore the current food
advertising practices and the effectiveness of using different advertising claims across
hedonic and functional foods. Resonant with past research (Kim, Cheong, and Zheng
2009), content analysis indicated food advertisers tend to use nutrition (vs. taste) claims
for functional (vs. hedonic) foods, supporting the expectancy-value theory (study 1).
However, two experiments called into question the current food advertising practices.
First, regardless of food type, it was found the ad including both nutrition and taste claims
was most favored by female consumers (study 2), indicating a good fit for the multiattri-
bute approach. Although food advertisers utilize the expectancy-value theory to design
advertising messages (study 1), the multiattribute approach is more consistent with
female consumers’ ad preferences (study 2). Second, although advertisers tend to include
both risk-avoidance appeals and taste claims for hedonic foods to emphasize both nutri-
tion and taste (study 1), female consumers might perceive an extreme incongruity
between risk-avoidance appeals and anticipated hedonic food attribute (great taste), and
generate negative responses (study 3).

Theoretical implications
Our findings may suggest exiting literature overlooked the effectiveness of the combined
use of nutrition and taste in food advertising. While some research buttressed up the
16 Y. Feng and J. Park

expectancy-value theory and advocated using congruent ad claims (Choi et al. 2012; Choi
and Springston 2014; Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer 2006), other studies supported
schema congruity theory and recommended using moderately incongruent ad claims
(Cheong and Kim 2011; Kim, Cheong, and Zheng 2009). The current findings filled the
gap by challenging the assumption that a single food advertisement can use either nutri-
tion or taste claims (Choi and Springston 2014; Raghunathan, Naylor, and Hoyer 2006).
Our findings indicated nutrition and taste can coexist, and the combined use of nutrition
and taste is most favored by female consumers for both types of food, supporting the mul-
tiattribute approach as a promising framework that helps explain the effectiveness of food
advertising.
Moreover, the current findings expanded on the multiattribute approach. While
the multiattribute approach encourages food advertisers to include various ad claims
consistent to consumers’ beliefs of product attributes (Mateo 2012), our research
demonstrated a hedonic food ad can include extremely incongruent claims if it con-
tains congruent claims that may neutralize the negative influence of extremely incon-
gruent claims.

Practical implications
For advertising practitioners, the present study provided initial insights into the combined
use of nutrition and taste claims that would improve advertising effectiveness. Given the
discrepancy between the content analysis and experiment studies, we consider it worth-
while for food advertisers to highlight both nutrition and taste attributes of their food
products. For hedonic food products, advertisers need to avoid using extremely incongru-
ent nutrition appeals. However, if an extremely incongruent nutrition appeal needs to be
included, more congruent claims must be included in the same advertisement to reduce
the negative impact of the extremely incongruent appeal. For functional food products,
advertisers need to include various nutrition information as well as taste appeal to inform
consumers.
From a standpoint of public health policy-making, our findings should be
received with caution because this research suggested that nutrient-content claims
with specific nutrition appeals are widely used in food advertising (study 1) and that
pairing taste claims with nutrient-content claims can enhance food ad persuasiveness
(study 2). Previous studies noted it is relatively easy to obtain authorization to use
nutrient-content claims (Nan et al. 2013; Choi and Springston 2014; Nestle 2007;
Wansink and Chandon 2006). In particular, using nutrition appeals in hedonic food
advertising can mislead consumers because food advertisers can enhance the per-
ceived healthiness of hedonic foods by including nutrition appeals without mention-
ing the foods’ poor nutritional quality (Choi et al. 2013; Choi and Springston 2014).
Therefore, more detailed guidance for using specific nutrition appeals in hedonic
food advertising is in need.
In sum, our results contribute not only to public policy considerations about the possi-
ble effects of food advertising on women, but also to food marketers’ decision-making
regarding gender-specific nutrition claim strategies because the areas in need of improve-
ment in terms of eating habits and nutrient intake are different between men and women
(Su et al. 2015). Since recent advertising has paid attention to the ‘empowered’ women
called femvertizing (Grau and Zotos 2016, 769), highlighting gender-specific nutrition
claims will help food advertisers gain attention and increase sales among women consum-
ers who pay attention to nutrition labels.
 International Journal of Advertising 17

Limitations and future research direction

As an empirical study, the present research bears limitations. First, we only used one
product to represent all the hedonic and functional food, respectively, which may reduce
the external validity of our results. Future studies can adopt more food categories to repli-
cate our findings. Second, this study utilized ‘egg’ to represent functional food, which
may not embody the foods with long-term health benefit but short-term cost. Future stud-
ies can replicate this study and divide food into three types: foods with long-term health
benefit and short-term cost (e.g. soymilk, healthy but not tasty), foods with long-term
health benefit without short-term cost (e.g. egg, healthy and tasty), and foods with long-
term health cost and short-term benefit (e.g. chocolate, unhealthy but tasty). For instance,
does the combined use of taste and nutrition work for foods with long-term health benefit
and short-term cost (e.g. soymilk)? Third, although this research discovered each hedonic
food ad needs to include more congruent claims than extremely incongruent claims, we
did not explore the condition under which there may be information overload. For
instance, what is the maximum number of claims that can be included in a single adver-
tisement for hedonic and functional food, respectively? Fourth, to discover consumers’
comparative judgements for the tested ads, we adopted nominal measures for ad prefer-
ence. Future research can replicate this study by adopting interval measures of consumer
attitude and purchase intention. Finally, while we focused on female consumers, who are
the primary targets of food advertising (Choi et al. 2013; Neuhaus 2013), Grau and Zotos
(2016) noted that ‘the changing role structure in the family has created significant varia-
tions in the female role and more recently the male role’ (762). Given that women and
men may take a shared role of primary food shopper within households, future studies
can include both female and male subjects to explore whether there is any gender differ-
ence in consumer response to food advertising. For instance, is it possible that one ad
claim that is congruent in female consumers’ eyes can become extremely incongruent in
male consumers’ eyes?

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Aaker, J.L., and A.Y. Lee. 2001. “I” seek pleasures and “we” avoid pains: The role of self-regula-
tory goals in information processing and persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research 28 (June):
33–49.
AGWEEK (May 22, 2015). Opinion: Consumers want to make informed food choices. http://www.
agweek.com/crops/3795395-opinion-consumers-want-make-informed-food-choices.
Andrews, J.C., S. Burton, and R.G. Netemeyer. 2000. Are some comparative nutrition claims mis-
leading? The role of nutrition knowledge, ad claim type and disclose conditions. Journal of
Advertising 29, no. 3: 29–42.
Behrend, T.S., D.J. Sharek, A.W. Meade, and E.N. Wiebe. 2011. The viability of crowdsourcing for
survey research. Behavioral Research Methods 43: 800–13. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0
Belton, V. 1986. A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and simple multiattribute value
function. European Journal of Operational Research 26, no. 1: 7–21.
Berinsky, A.J., G.A. Huber, and G. Lenz. 2011. Using Mechanical Turk as a subject recruitment
tool for experimental research. http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/files/MT.pdf.
Brunel, F.F. and M.R. Nelson. 2000. Explaining gendered responses to ‘help-self’ and ‘help-others’
charity ad appeals: The mediating role of world views. Journal of Advertising 29: 15–27.
18 Y. Feng and J. Park

Burkitt, L. (2012, February 29). McDonald’s to tout quality in China: Coming ad campaign taps into
consumers’ concerns about food safety. The Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/
SB10001424052970203833004577250832595756206.
Chandon, P., and B. Wansink. 2012. Does food advertising need to make us fat? A review and solu-
tions. Nutrition Reviews 70, no. 10: 571–693.
Cheong, Y., K. Kim, and L. Zheng. 2010. Advertising appeals as a reflection of culture: A cross-cul-
tural analysis of food advertising appeals in China and the US. Asian Journal of Advertising 20,
no. 1: 1–16.
Cheong, Y., and L. Kim. 2011. The Interplay between advertising claims and product categories in
food advertising: A schema congruity perspective. Journal of Applied Communication
Research 39, no. 1: 55–74.
Choi, H., H.J. Paek, and K. Whitehill King. 2012. Match-up effects between product type and claim
type in food advertising. International Journal of Advertising 31, no. 2: 421–43.
Choi, H., and J.K. Springston. 2014. How to use health and nutrition-related claims correctly on
food advertising: Comparison of benefit-seeking, risk-avoidance, and taste appeals on different
food categories. Journal of Health Communication 19, no. 9: 1047–63.
Choi, H., K. Yoo, T.H. Baek, L.N. Reid, and W. Macias. 2013. Presence and effects of health and
nutrition-related (HNR) claims with benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals in female-ori-
entated magazine food advertisements. International Journal of Advertising 32, no. 4: 587–616.
Dhar, R., and K. Wertenbroch. 2000. Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Jour-
nal of Marketing Research 37, no. 1: 60–71.
Elliot, A. 2008. Approach and avoidance motivation. In Handbook of approach and avoidance
motivation, ed A.J. Elliot, 3–16. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Grau, S.L. and Y.C. Zotos. 2016. Gender stereotypes in advertising: A review of current research.
International Journal of Advertising 35, no. 5: 761–70.
Heller, I.R. 2001. Functional foods: Regulatory and marketing developments. Food and Drug Law
Journal 56: 197–225.
Ippolito, P.M., and J.K. Pappalardo. 2003. Nutrition and health advertising: Evidence from food
advertising, 1977-1997. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Johar, J.S., and M.J. Sirgy. 1991. Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: When and
why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising 20, no. 3: 23–33.
Kareklas, I., J.R. Carlson, and D.D. Muehling. 2012. The role of regulatory focus and self-view in
“green” advertising message framing. Journal of Advertising 41, no. 4: 25–40.
Kim, K., Y. Cheong, and L. Zheng. 2009. The current practices in food advertising: The usage and
effectiveness of different advertising claims. International Journal of Advertising 28, no. 3:
527–53.
Mandler, G. 1982. The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In Affect and cognition: The 17th
annual Carnegie symposium, ed. M.S. Clark and S.T. Fisk, 3–36. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Mateo, J. R. S. C. 2012. Multi criteria analysis in the renewable energy industry. London: Springer.
Meyers-Levy, J., T.A. Louie, and M.T. Curren. 1994. How does the congruity of brand name affect
evaluations of brand name extensions? Journal of Applied Psychology 79, no. 1: 46–53.
Nan, X., R. Briones, H. Shen, H. Jiang, and A. Zhang. 2013. A current appraisal of health-and nutri-
tion-related claims in magazine food advertisements. Journal of Health Communication 18:
263–77.
Nestle, M. 2007. Food politics: How the food industry influences nutrition and health. 2nd ed.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Neuhaus, J. 2013. Housework and housewives in American advertising: Married to the mop.
New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Olsen, D., H. Moshkovish, R Schellenberger, and A. Mechitov. 1995. Consistency and
accuracy in decision aids: Experiments with four multiattribute systems. Decision Sciences
26, no. 6: 726–48.
Raghunathan, R., R.W. Naylor, and W.D. Hoyer. 2006. The unhealthy D taste tuition and its effects
on taste inferences, enjoyment, and choice of food products. Journal of Marketing 70: 170–84.
Tomaseti, E., and S. Ruiz. 2009. The evaluation of new utilitarian and symbolic products: The effect
of attribute type and product knowledge. Advances in Consumer Research 36: 919–21.
 International Journal of Advertising 19

Su, D., J. Zhou, H.L. Jackson, G.A. Soliman, T.T. Huang, and A.L. Yaroch. 2015. A sex-specific
analysis of nutrition label use and health, Douglas county, Nebraska, 2013. Preventing Chronic
Disease 12. Doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd12.150167.
Wansink, B., and P. Chandon. 2006. Can “low-fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity? Journal of Mar-
keting Research 43: 605–17.
Wimmer, R.D., and J.R. Dominick. 2007. Mass media research: An introduction. 8th ed. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Yale Rudd Center. 2014. Food marketing facts in focus: Kraft Lunchables. http://www.yaleruddcen
ter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/reports/RuddReport_Lunchables_4.14.pdf.

Appendix 1. Coding scheme and operational definitions.

Product information clams
___ (0 or 1) Taste claims: focusing on delicious taste.
___ (0 or 1) Promotion clams: presenting an opportunity to get money-off deal.
___ (0 or 1) Convenience claims: communicating the easy consumption of the product.
___ (0 or 1) Novel/new claims: introducing a new product or a newly improved product.
___ (0 or 1) Quality claims: conveying the quality information.
___ (0 or 1) Satisfaction claims: mentioning the product is satisfactory.
___ (0 or 1) Family claims: portraying the role of food in family life.
HNR claims
___ (0 or 1) Health clams (e.g. eating the advertised brand of cereal could reduce the risk of heart
diseases)
___ (0 or 1) Nutrient content claims (e.g. added vitamin, less fat, healthy, wholesome)
___ (0 or 1) Structure/function claims (e.g. calcium builds strong bones)

Specific nutrition appeals

1. Benefit-seeking appeals
2. Risk-avoidance appeals
3. Both (both benefit-seeking and risk-avoidance appeals are used)
4. None (neither benefit-seeking nor risk-avoidance appeals are used)

Food type
1. Hedonic foods: foods that provide consumers with immediate sensory pleasure such as great taste
and feelings .
2. Functional foods: foods that yield functional solutions to a current consumption-related problem
such as serving a healthy or a convenient meal.
20 Y. Feng and J. Park

Appendix 2. Stimulus advertisements in study 2.

Ad condition Brand Headline and body copy

Functional C nutrition
appeals
Egg (ad 1) Sun Daily Hungry for the best in nutrition? 25% less saturated fat…
10 times more vitamin D…
Functional C taste claims
Egg (ad 2) Sun Daily Hungry for the best in taste? SDs deliver more of the farm-
fresh, delicious flavor everyone loves.
Functional C nutrition
appeals with taste
claims
Egg (ad 3) Sun Daily Hungry for the best in nutrition and taste? 25% less
saturated fat…10 times more vitamin D…Along with
superior nutrition comes with superior taste…
Hedonic C nutrition
appeals
Chocolate (ad 1) MIJI High protein and low fat dark chocolate.
Hedonic C taste claims
Chocolate (ad 2) MIJI Dark chocolate with huge taste.
Hedonic C nutrition
appeals with taste
claims
Chocolate (ad 3) MIJI High protein and low fat dark chocolate. New flavors. Huge
taste.

Appendix 3. Measures in study 2 and study 3.

Name of scale Items

Ad preference Q1: Overall, which ad do you think is the best?

Q2: Which one appeals to you most?
Q3: Which ad would be most likely to convince you to purchase?
Q4: Which ad do you think would create the most favorable image of the
company?
Perceived healthiness The product is healthy.
Perceived taste The product is tasty.
Ad claim credibility convincing/unconvincing
believable/unbelievable
unbiased/biased
trustworthy/untrustworthy
credible/not credible
Health consciousness I avoid eating anything that seems bad for my health.
I like to eat right and stay fit.
I am very health-conscious.
 International Journal of Advertising 21

Appendix 4. Stimulus advertisements in study 3.

Ad condition Brand Headline and body copy

Functional (benefit C taste)

Egg (ad 1) Sun Daily Hungry for the best in nutrition and taste?
10 times more vitamin D… Along with
superior nutrition comes with superior taste.
Functional (risk C taste)
Egg (ad 2) Sun Daily Hungry for the best in nutrition and state? 25%
less saturated fat… Along with superior
nutrition comes with superior taste.
Functional (benefit C risk C taste)
Egg (ad 3) Sun Daily Hungry for the best in nutrition and taste?
10 times more vitamin D…25% less saturated
fat…Along with superior nutrition comes with
superior taste.
Hedonic (benefit C taste)
Chocolate (ad 1) MIJI High protein dark chocolate. New flavors. Huge
taste.
Hedonic (risk C taste)
Chocolate (ad 2) MIJI Low fat dark chocolate. New flavors. Huge taste.
Hedonic (benefit C risk C taste)
Chocolate (ad 3) MIJI High protein and low-fat dark chocolate. New
flavors. Huge taste.