IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i4p1860-d499327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Differential Effects of Physical Activity Calorie Equivalent Labeling on Consumer Preferences for Healthy and Unhealthy Food Products: Evidence from a Choice Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Xiaoke Yang

    (College of Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China
    Both authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Yuanhao Huang

    (School of Business, Renmin University of China, Beijing 100089, China
    Both authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Mengzhu Han

    (College of Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Xiaoting Wen

    (College of Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Qiuqin Zheng

    (College of Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Qian Chen

    (College of Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

  • Qiuhua Chen

    (College of Management, Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, Fuzhou 350002, China)

Abstract

Background : Since numerical calorie labels have limited effects on less-calorie food ordering, an alternative called physical activity calorie equivalent (PACE) labels, which exhibit calories using visible symbols and the minutes of exercise to burn off the calories, may be more effective in reducing calories ordered. Methods : By using a choice experiment (CE) approach, the aims of this study were to estimate the effects of PACE labels on consumer preferences for healthy and unhealth food. Red date walnuts and potato chips were used as the representatives of healthy and unhealthy foods respectively in this study. Moreover, future time perspective (FTP) is an individual trait variable of consumers, which has been recognized as a significant driver of healthy behaviors. We also included FTP into the interaction with PACE labels. Results : Firstly, the results were opposite between the healthy and unhealthy food groups. Respondents showed significantly more positive attitudes toward red date walnuts (i.e., healthy food) with PACE labels, while they showed significantly more negative preferences for chips (i.e., unhealthy food) with PACE labels. Secondly, people with higher FTP are preferred red date walnuts with PACE labels, while PACE labels on chips could undermine the preferences of respondents with higher FTP. Thirdly, we found that women (vs. men) were less inclined to choose healthy food with standard calorie labels and labels showing the minutes of running to burn off the calories, as well as that the elderly (vs. younger) people in the healthy food group preferred the labels showing the minutes of running to burn off the calories. People with a higher body mass index (BMI) were reluctant to purchase walnuts with the information about the minutes of walking. Conclusions : Results from this study showed that PACE labels have significant effects on consumers’ preferences for food products.

Suggested Citation

  • Xiaoke Yang & Yuanhao Huang & Mengzhu Han & Xiaoting Wen & Qiuqin Zheng & Qian Chen & Qiuhua Chen, 2021. "The Differential Effects of Physical Activity Calorie Equivalent Labeling on Consumer Preferences for Healthy and Unhealthy Food Products: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1860-:d:499327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1860/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1860/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R.K. Blamey & J.W. Bennett & J.J. Louviere & M.D. Morrison & J.C. Rolfe, 2002. "Attribute Causality in Environmental Choice Modelling," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(2), pages 167-186, October.
    2. Pat Auger & Timothy Devinney, 2007. "Do What Consumers Say Matter? The Misalignment of Preferences with Unconstrained Ethical Intentions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 76(4), pages 361-383, December.
    3. Bublitz, Melissa G. & Peracchio, Laura A., 2015. "Applying industry practices to promote healthy foods: An exploration of positive marketing outcomes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 68(12), pages 2484-2493.
    4. Erpeng Wang & Zhifeng Gao, 2017. "Chinese Consumer Quality Perception and Preference of Traditional Sustainable Rice Produced by the Integrated Rice–Fish System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-13, December.
    5. Hoefkens, Christine & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Camp, John & Verbeke, Wim, 2012. "What nutrition label to use in a catering environment? A discrete choice experiment," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 741-750.
    6. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D., 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, September.
    7. Loureiro, Maria L. & Rahmani, Djamel, 2016. "The incidence of calorie labeling on fast food choices: A comparison between stated preferences and actual choices," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 82-93.
    8. Gadema, Zaina & Oglethorpe, David, 2011. "The use and usefulness of carbon labelling food: A policy perspective from a survey of UK supermarket shoppers," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 815-822.
    9. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    10. Shiwen Quan & Yinchu Zeng & Xiaohua Yu & Te Bao, 2018. "WTP for baby milk formula in China: Using attribute nonattendance as a priori information to select attributes in choice experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 300-320, March.
    11. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2007. "Willingness to Pay among Swedish Households to Avoid Power Outages: A Random Parameter Tobit Model Approach," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 75-90.
    12. Huizhen Jin & Yi‐a Li & Dongjin Li & Jun Zheng, 2020. "The effects of physical activity calorie equivalent labeling on dieters' food consumption and post‐consumption physical activity," Journal of Consumer Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 723-741, June.
    13. Yann Cornil & Pierrick Gomez & Dimitri Vasiljevic & Vicki G Morwitz & Amna Kirmani & Chris Janiszewski, 2020. "Food as Fuel: Performance Goals Increase the Consumption of High-Calorie Foods at the Expense of Good Nutrition [Joint Position Statement: Nutrition and Athletic Performance. American College of Sp," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 47(2), pages 147-166.
    14. Grebitus, Carola & Lusk, Jayson L. & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2013. "Explaining differences in real and hypothetical experimental auctions and choice experiments with personality," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 11-26.
    15. Roberto, C.A. & Larsen, P.D. & Agnew, H. & Baik, J. & Brownell, K.D., 2010. "Evaluating the impact of menu labeling on food choices and intake," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(2), pages 312-318.
    16. Rojas-Méndez, José I. & Davies, Gary, 2005. "Avoiding Television Advertising: Some Explanations from Time Allocation Theory," Journal of Advertising Research, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(1), pages 34-48, March.
    17. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    18. Andreas C. Drichoutis & Panagiotis Lazaridis & Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr, 2009. "On Consumers' Valuation Of Nutrition Information," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 223-247, July.
    19. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2020. "Which Healthy Eating Nudges Work Best? A Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 465-486, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yuanhao Huang & Xiaoke Yang & Qian Chen, 2022. "The Negative Effects of Long Time Physical Activity Calorie Equivalent Labeling on Purchase Intention for Unhealthy Food," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-26, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yang, Xiaoke & Chen, Qiuhua & Lin, Nenmei & Han, Mengzhu & Chen, Qian & Zheng, Qiuqin & Gao, Bin & Liu, Fengbo & Xu, Zhongyue, 2021. "Chinese consumer preferences for organic labels on Oolong tea: evidence from a choice experiment," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), February.
    2. Jeanloz, Sarah & Lizin, Sebastien & Beenaerts, Natalie & Brouwer, Roy & Van Passel, Steven & Witters, Nele, 2016. "Towards a more structured selection process for attributes and levels in choice experiments: A study in a Belgian protected area," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 45-57.
    3. Sardaro, Ruggiero & La Sala, Piermichele & De Pascale, Gianluigi & Faccilongo, Nicola, 2021. "The conservation of cultural heritage in rural areas: Stakeholder preferences regarding historical rural buildings in Apulia, southern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    5. Ana I. Sanjuán‐López & Helena Resano‐Ezcaray, 2020. "Labels for a Local Food Speciality Product: The Case of Saffron," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 778-797, September.
    6. Veronika Andorfer & Ulf Liebe, 2012. "Research on Fair Trade Consumption—A Review," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 106(4), pages 415-435, April.
    7. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Lehmann, Nico & Sloot, Daniel & Ardone, Armin & Fichtner, Wolf, 2021. "The limited potential of regional electricity marketing – Results from two discrete choice experiments in Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    9. Faical Akaichi & Klaus Glenk & Cesar Revoredo‐Giha, 2022. "Bundling food labels: What role could the labels “Organic,” “Local” and “Low Fat” play in fostering the demand for animal‐friendly meat," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(2), pages 349-370, April.
    10. Danny Campbell & W. Hutchinson & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(3), pages 401-417, November.
    11. Sardaro, Ruggiero & Faccilongo, Nicola & Roselli, Luigi, 2019. "Wind farms, farmland occupation and compensation: Evidences from landowners’ preferences through a stated choice survey in Italy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    12. Ruggiero Sardaro & Nicola Faccilongo & Francesco Contò & Piermichele La Sala, 2021. "Adaption Actions to Cope with Climate Change: Evidence from Farmers’ Preferences on an Agrobiodiversity Conservation Programme in the Mediterranean Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Wenjing Nie & David Abler & Liqun Zhu & Taiping Li & Guanghua Lin, 2018. "Consumer Preferences and Welfare Evaluation under Current Food Inspection Measures in China: Evidence from Real Experiment Choice of Rice Labels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, November.
    14. Will, Christian & Lehmann, Nico & Baumgartner, Nora & Feurer, Sven & Jochem, Patrick & Fichtner, Wolf, 2022. "Consumer understanding and evaluation of carbon-neutral electric vehicle charging services," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    15. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    16. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    18. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    19. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    20. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:4:p:1860-:d:499327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.