Executive Summary
Marketers of food products have recently introduced a variety of “functional foods” that promise consumers improvements in targeted physiological functions. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have a formal definition or a specific regulatory rubric for functional foods, it appears to accept a definition offered by the Institute of Food Technologists, which defines functional foods as “foods and food components that provide a health benefit beyond basic nutrition (for the intended population).” The authors define functional foods as any product that carries a functional food health claim (e.g., “Dannon’s Activia Yogurt with bifidus begularis is scientifically proven to help with slow intestinal transit”; www.activia.com).
Despite the proliferation of functional food health claims that promise more than basic nutrition, little is known about consumer responses to these claims, particularly in an information environment in which inconsistent information may be present about the efficacy of a particular functional ingredient. In other words, consumers may be unsure whether to believe a functional food health claim that a specific ingredient will truly deliver the promised health benefit. Although most of the ingredients used in functional foods are unlikely to prove harmful, conflicting reports about the efficacy of these ingredients may call into question a consumer’s belief in the claim.
Across two studies, the authors demonstrate that consumers with lower health consciousness are particularly sensitive to conflicting information about the validity of a functional food health claim; the presentation of conflicting (versus complementary) information significantly lowers their likelihood of choosing a functional over a nonfunctional food. However, consumers with higher health consciousness do not reduce their likelihood of choosing a functional food when confronted with conflicting information. The authors demonstrate that this effect is driven by a confirmatory bias to believe the functional food health claim on the part of consumers with higher health consciousness. In other words, more health conscious consumers may be more willing to choose foods that make a functional food health claim (in the hopes that they gain the purported health benefit), even when conflicting information is present and it is not clear that the claim is fully valid. In contrast, less health conscious consumers seem to use a rule that if any conflicting information exists, a health claim is less valid.
The results of both studies point out that though marketers do not have control over all of the information available to the consumer regarding their functional food products and ingredients, it is critical that they monitor and respond to this information. The high receptivity of study participants to trying foods marketed using functional food health claims (across all conditions and both studies, consumers chose the functional food option 50% or more of the time) suggests that foods making functional food health claims can appeal to a wide target audience. In addition, in situations in which conflicting information about the benefits of consuming foods that make functional food health claims is available to consumers, these products are more likely to be perceived favorably by highly health conscious consumers.
Biography
Rebecca Walker Naylor received her PhD in Marketing from the University of Texas at Austin in May 2006. She is currently an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Fisher College of Business at the Ohio State University. Dr. Naylor’s research focuses on the area of consumer behavior. Specifically, her research has explored consumer intuitions, consumer responses to ethical products, food and health decision making, and consumer disposal practices. Her current projects continue to explore these topics, as well as social influence and inference making. Dr. Naylor’s research has appeared in or is forthcoming in Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer Psychology, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, and Marketing Letters.
Courtney M. Droms received her PhD in Marketing from the University of South Carolina in 2009 and is currently an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the Langdale College of Business at Valdosta State University. Dr. Droms researches topics in transformative consumer research and health marketing. Specifically, she is interested in how people can change health behaviors that they have repeatedly tried to change in the past and how consumers perceive and respond to nutrition information and health claims. Current research projects focus on how consumers transform their lives through weight loss surgery. Prior research by Dr. Droms has been presented at the Association for Consumer Research, Society for Consumer Psychology, and the Marketing and Public Policy conferences.
Kelly L. Haws received a PhD in Marketing from the University of South Carolina in 2007 and is currently an Assistant Professor of Marketing at the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University. Dr. Haws’ research is in the area of consumer behavior, with particular interest in topics of relevance to transformative consumer research and understanding and enhancing consumer welfare. Specifically, she is interested in self-control as it applies to the regulation of financial resources and the ability to make appropriate food consumption decisions. In addition, she is interested in consumer responses to various marketing tactics, including pricing policies, green marketing efforts, use of various nutritional claims, and external suggestions about how and when consumers should constrain their behavior. Multiple articles by Dr. Haws on these topics have appeared or are forthcoming in Journal of Consumer Research and Journal of Marketing Research.
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Volume 28, Number 2, Fall 2009
View Table of Contents