IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v29y2018i2d10.1007_s11002-018-9453-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The 101 calorie mini pack: the interaction between numerical and verbal marketing cues

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth A. Minton

    (University of Wyoming)

  • Richie L. Liu

    (Oklahoma State University)

  • Christopher T. Lee

    (Arizona State University)

Abstract

Research has yet to adequately explore how numerical (e.g., calorie information) and verbal (e.g., size descriptors) food portion cues on product packaging interact to influence consumer evaluations. Thus, this research examines such cues in three studies. Study 1 showed that distinctive numerical cues (99 or 101 rather than 100) were more positively evaluated. Study 2 examined interactions between numerical and verbal cues (bite vs. king size) to show that matching magnitude cues (100 with bite size or 101 with king size) led to higher product evaluations. Study 3 examined the moderating effect of health interest and revealed that inclusion of a verbal cue (vs. none) only mattered when presented in conjunction with a non-distinctive numeric cue (100 calorie) for high health interest consumers. These findings provide insight for marketers and policy makers because, currently, caloric amounts above 50 calories are required to be rounded to the nearest 10 caloric unit (e.g., 100 calorie), but allowing caloric amounts to be exact (99 or 101 calorie) may influence healthier consumption outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth A. Minton & Richie L. Liu & Christopher T. Lee, 2018. "The 101 calorie mini pack: the interaction between numerical and verbal marketing cues," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 225-239, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:29:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11002-018-9453-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-018-9453-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-018-9453-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-018-9453-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keith S. Coulter & Robin A. Coulter, 2007. "Distortion of Price Discount Perceptions: The Right Digit Effect," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(2), pages 162-173, June.
    2. Pierre Chandon & Brian Wansink, 2007. "The Biasing Health Halos of Fast-Food Restaurant Health Claims: Lower Calorie Estimates and Higher Side-Dish Consumption Intentions," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 34(3), pages 301-314, June.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:7:y:2012:i:3:p:332-359 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 296-312, March.
    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. Visentin, Marco & Tuan, Annamaria, 2021. "Book belly band as a visual cue: Assessing its impact on consumers’ in-store responses," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).

    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. Feng, Shan & Suri, Rajneesh & Chao, Mike Chen-Ho & Koc, Umit, 2017. "Presenting comparative price promotions vertically or horizontally: Does it matter?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 209-218.
    2. Shalvi, Shaul & Dana, Jason & Handgraaf, Michel J.J. & De Dreu, Carsten K.W., 2011. "Justified ethicality: Observing desired counterfactuals modifies ethical perceptions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 181-190, July.
    3. Mariya Burdina & Scott Hiller, 2021. "When Falling Just Short is a Good Thing: The Effect of Past Performance on Improvement," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 22(7), pages 777-798, October.
    4. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    5. Kee, Jennifer Y. & Segovia, Michelle S. & Palma, Marco A., 2023. "Slim or Plus-Size Burrito? A natural experiment of consumers’ restaurant choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Birnbaum, Michael H. & Zimmermann, Jacqueline M., 1998. "Buying and Selling Prices of Investments: Configural Weight Model of Interactions Predicts Violations of Joint Independence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 145-187, May.
    7. Sickar, Michael J. & Highhouse, Scott, 1998. "Looking Closer at the Effects of Framing on Risky Choice: An Item Response Theory Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 75-91, July.
    8. Arnold, Markus C. & Gillenkirch, Robert M., 2015. "Using negotiated budgets for planning and performance evaluation: An experimental study," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 1-16.
    9. Orquin, Jacob L. & Scholderer, Joachim, 2015. "Consumer judgments of explicit and implied health claims on foods: Misguided but not misled," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 144-157.
    10. Choi, Pilsik & Coulter, Keith S., 2012. "It's Not All Relative: The Effects of Mental and Physical Positioning of Comparative Prices on Absolute versus Relative Discount Assessment," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(4), pages 512-527.
    11. Nagpal, Anish & Lei, Jing & Khare, Adwait, 2015. "To Choose or to Reject: The Effect of Decision Frame on Food Customization Decisions," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 422-435.
    12. Bottom, William P., 1998. "Negotiator Risk: Sources of Uncertainty and the Impact of Reference Points on Negotiated Agreements," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 89-112, November.
    13. Nagel, Christian & Heidenreich, Sven & Schumann, Jan H., 2024. "Enhancing Adoption of Sustainable Product Innovations: Addressing Reduced Performance with Risk-Reducing Product Modifications," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    14. Clemens Puppe & Stephanie Rosenkranz, 2011. "Why Suggest Non‐Binding Retail Prices?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 78(310), pages 317-329, April.
    15. Steinel, Wolfgang & De Dreu, Carsten K.W. & Ouwehand, Elsje & Ramírez-Marín, Jimena Y., 2009. "When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 67-78, May.
    16. Rothman, Naomi B., 2011. "Steering sheep: How expressed emotional ambivalence elicits dominance in interdependent decision making contexts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 66-82, September.
    17. Henrik Kristensen & Tommy Gärling, 2000. "Anchor Points, Reference Points, and Counteroffers in Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(6), pages 493-505, November.
    18. Emmanuel Flachaire & Guillaume Hollard, 2006. "Controlling Starting-Point Bias in Double-Bounded Contingent Valuation Surveys," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 103-111.
    19. Hu Xie & Elizabeth A. Minton & Lynn R. Kahle, 2016. "Cake or fruit? Influencing healthy food choice through the interaction of automatic and instructed mental simulation," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 627-644, December.
    20. Jonathan Shalev, 2000. "Loss aversion equilibrium," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 29(2), pages 269-287.

    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:kap:mktlet:v:29:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s11002-018-9453-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.