Mandatory Calorie Disclosure: A Comprehensive Analysis of Its Effect on Consumers and Retailers

In 2018 restaurants in the United States will need to provide calorie information on their menus as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. In the present research, we examine the efficacy of this legislation in reducing restaurant based food calorie consumption. Specifically, we explore the likely effect of the new policy on both the supply and demand side, that is, consumer and retailer behaviors. To achieve this, two studies are included in this research: a meta-analysis of 186 studies investigating the effect of calorie disclosure on calories selected, and a meta-analysis of 41 studies examining the effect of calorie disclosure on calories offered by retailers. Across these two studies we reveal a significant and unequivocal calorie disclosure effect for menu labels; disclosure results in both fewer calories selected (?27 Calories) and fewer calories offered by retailers (?15 Calories).     

Do Violent Social Cause Advertisements Promote Social Change? An Examination of Implicit Associations

Violent content is used in social cause advertising campaigns as a means of discouraging antisocial attitudes and behaviors, despite the fact that findings regarding the effectiveness of including violence in advertisements are equivocal. The present research explores the efficacy of violent advertisements by investigating how such ads affect implicit associations with violent words/acts. The importance of implicit associations is that they can affect judgments and behaviors long after explicit memory for the advertisement has decayed. The findings of the research point to the prevalence of individual differences in response to violent ads. Specifically, social cause advertisements are effective in weakening implicit associations with violence for nonaggressive individuals, as would be desired. However, these campaigns strengthen implicit associations for aggressive individuals. Ameliorating their aggressive associations would be advantageous both to the individual and society; however, the results suggest such advertisements make matters worse. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Facts-up-front: should food companies follow the FDA or industry label format? The effects of combining virtue and vice information on consumer evaluations

This research examines consumers’ processing of Facts-up-front food labels as implemented by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA). Facts-up-front labels include both positive (virtues) and negative (vices) nutritional icons. The processing and relative efficacy of Facts-up-front labels are compared to the original FDA proposal of front-of-pack labels which only included vices. The results suggest heuristic processing of these labels, whereby consumers consider the nutritional icons on the front-of-pack labels similar to affective stimuli. The addition of virtues alongside vices on the label has a compensatory effect, i.e., the food item is evaluated as healthier when there are both virtues and vices on the label compared to when there are only vices. Such heuristic processing of Facts-up-front labels that allows nutritional virtues to compensate for nutritional vices has the potential for consumers evaluating harmful foods as relatively “healthy” thus compromising consumer well-being. These findings illustrate the importance of empirically testing changes to nutritional labels before large scale implementation. Since consumers process front-of-pack labels heuristically and not cognitively, it is not surprising that nutritional literacy does not moderate the effects of label design on healthiness evaluations. Furthermore, the order of the negative and positive information on Facts-up-front labels also has no effect.