Is unnatural unhealthy? Think about it: Overcoming negative halo effects from food labels

Consumer advocates and regulators champion the view that transparent labeling practices will help consumers make better decisions. However, it is unclear how unnatural nutritional claims (e.g., artificial ingredients, food additives, genetically modified organisms) affect perceptions of packaged food. Many researchers have cautioned that such labels can be commonly misinterpreted and can further stigmatize food produced by conventional processes. Building on the selective accessibility model, we propose that unnatural nutritional claims on front-of-package food labeling may induce a negative health halo effect. Accessibility of information consistent with a target concept (e.g., a claim on a food label) shapes consumer inferences and evaluations of an associated product (e.g., the packaged food) in the same direction. We propose that such nutritional claims can lead to higher calorie estimates and therefore biased food decisions. Furthermore, we examine the moderating effect of dispositional critical thinking, priming opposing beliefs, and activating causal reasoning to help mitigate on the negative health halo. We test these predictions across five experiments. Together, these findings advance our understanding of the halo effect, inference, and persuasion, and they suggest strategies for helping consumers make more informed health-related judgments and decisions.

Automated summary

This study examines how unnatural nutritional claims affect perceptions of packaged food, proposing a negative health halo effect. It introduces the selective accessibility model and tests its predictions across five experiments. The findings contribute to understanding the halo effect, inference, and persuasion, offering strategies to help consumers make more informed health-related judgments and decisions.