4.7 Article

Halo Effect and Source Credibility in the Evaluation of Food Products Identified by Third-Party Certified Eco-Labels: Can Information Prevent Biased Inferences?

期刊

FOODS
卷 10, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10112512

关键词

organic food; third-party certified eco-labels; halo effect; source credibility; quality inferences; price inferences; information

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined the impact of organic food cognition and third-party certified labels on product evaluation. The findings showed that consumers tend to infer higher environmental sustainability, quality, and price in products with certified labels.
Despite the growing awareness of the need to promote the consumption of organic food, consumers have difficulties in correctly identifying it in the market, making frequent cognitive mistakes in the evaluation of products identified by sustainability labels and claims. This work analyzes the halo effect and the source credibility bias in the interpretation of product attributes based on third-party certified labels. It is hypothesized that, regardless of their specific meaning, official labels lead consumers to infer higher environmental sustainability, quality and price of the product, due to the credibility attributed to the certifying entity. It also examines the extent to which providing the consumer with accurate labeling information helps prevent biased heuristic thinking. An experimental between-subject study was performed with a sample of 412 Spanish business students and data were analyzed using partial least squares. Findings revealed that consumers tend to infer environmental superiority and, consequently, higher quality in products identified by both organic and non-organic certified labels, due to their credibility. Label credibility was also associated with price inferences, to a greater extent than the meaning attributed to the label. Interestingly, providing accurate information did not avoid biased heuristic thinking in product evaluation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据