Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 28

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Exploring the roles of motivation and cognition in label-usage using a combined eye-tracking and retrospective think aloud approach

Tanner, Sean A., McCarthy, Mary B., O'Reilly, Seamus J.·2019·Appetite
DOI 10.1016/j.appet.2018.11.015
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2018.11.015

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Anderson, 2004, Eye movements do not reflect retrieval processes, Psychological Science, 15, 225, 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00656.x · DOI
  2. Antúnez, 2013, How do design features influence consumer attention when looking for nutritional information on food labels? Results from an eye-tracking study on Pan bread labels, International Journal of Food Sciences & Nutrition, 64, 515, 10.3109/09637486.2012.759187 · DOI
  3. Ares, 2013, Consumer visual processing of food labels: Results from an eye-tracking study, Journal of Sensory Studies, 28, 138, 10.1111/joss.12031 · DOI
  4. Ares, 2014, Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels, Food Quality and Preference, 31, 28, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.07.005 · DOI
  5. Aschemann-Witzel, 2013, Effects of nutrition label format and product assortment on the healthfulness of food choice, Appetite, 71, 63, 10.1016/j.appet.2013.07.004 · DOI
  6. Bialkova, 2014, Attention mediates the effect of nutrition label information on consumers' choice. Evidence from a choice experiment involving eye-tracking, Appetite, 76, 66, 10.1016/j.appet.2013.11.021 · DOI
  7. Bialkova, 2013, Standing out in the crowd: The effect of information clutter on consumer attention for front-of-pack nutrition labels, Food Policy, 41, 65, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.04.010 · DOI
  8. Bialkova, 2011, An efficient methodology for assessing attention to and effect of nutrition information displayed front-of-pack, Food Quality and Preference, 22, 592, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.03.010 · DOI
  9. Brach, 2017, Sustainable consumption and third-party certification labels: Consumers' perceptions and reactions, European Management Journal, 36, 254, 10.1016/j.emj.2017.03.005 · DOI
  10. Bredahl, 2004, Cue utilisation and quality perception with regard to branded beef, Food Quality and Preference, 15, 65, 10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00024-7 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Brunel, 2004, Food-related risk-reduction strategies: Purchasing and consumption processes, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3, 360, 10.1002/cb.148 · DOI
  12. Brunsø, 2005, Consumer perception of the quality of beef resulting from various fattening regimes, Livestock Production Science, 94, 83, 10.1016/j.livprodsci.2004.11.037 · DOI
  13. Chrysochou, 2014, Health-related ad information and health motivation effects on product evaluations, Journal of Business Research, 67, 1209, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.05.001 · DOI
  14. Clement, 2007, Visual influence on in-store buying decisions: An eye-track experiment on the visual influence of packaging design, Journal of Marketing Management, 23, 917, 10.1362/026725707X250395 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Crogan, 2012, Paying attention: Towards a critique of the attention economy, Culture Machine, 13, 1
  16. Duerrschmid, 2018, Eye tracking in consumer research, Vol. 2
  17. Evans, 2008, Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition, Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255, 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Graham, 2011, Location, location, location: Eye-tracking evidence that consumers preferentially view prominently positioned nutrition information, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 111, 1704, 10.1016/j.jada.2011.08.005 · DOI
  19. Graham, 2012, Predictors of nutrition label viewing during food purchase decision making: An eye tracking investigation, Public Health Nutrition, 15, 189, 10.1017/S1368980011001303 · DOI
  20. Graham, 2012, Eye tracking and nutrition label use: A review of the literature and recommendations for label enhancement, Food Policy, 37, 378, 10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.03.004 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Gregori, 2014, Evaluating food front-of-pack labelling: A pan-european survey on consumers' attitudes toward food labelling, International Journal of Food Sciences & Nutrition, 65, 177, 10.3109/09637486.2013.854743 · DOI
  22. Grunert, 2016, Consumer reactions to the use of Eu quality labels on food products: A review of the literature, Food Control, 59, 178, 10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.05.021 · DOI
  23. Grunert, 2007, A review of european research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels, Journal of Public Health, 15, 385, 10.1007/s10389-007-0101-9 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Grunert, 2010, Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK, Appetite, 55, 177, 10.1016/j.appet.2010.05.045 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Gruszka, 2017, Limitations of working memory capacity: The cognitive and social consequences, European Management Journal, 35, 776, 10.1016/j.emj.2017.07.001 · DOI
  26. van Herpen, 2011, Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints, Appetite, 57, 148, 10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.011 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Higginson, 2002, How do consumers use nutrition label information?, Nutrition & Food Science, 32, 145, 10.1108/00346650210436253 · DOI
  28. Higgs, 2016, Cognitive processing of food rewards, Appetite, 104, 10, 10.1016/j.appet.2015.10.003 · DOI
  29. Hodgkins, 2012, Understanding how consumers categorise nutritional labels: A consumer derived typology for front-of-pack nutrition labelling, Appetite, 59, 806, 10.1016/j.appet.2012.08.014 · DOI
  30. Hung, 2017, Motivation outweighs ability in explaining european consumers' use of health claims, Food Quality and Preference, 58, 34, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.01.001 · DOI
  31. Inman, 2009, The interplay among category characteristics, customer characteristics, and customer activities on in-store decision making, Journal of Marketing, 73, 19, 10.1509/jmkg.73.5.19 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Jayanti, 2010, Pragmatic learning theory: An inquiry-action framework for distributed consumer learning in online communities, Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 1058, 10.1086/648689 · DOI
  33. Jiang, 2016, Eye-tracking social preferences, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 157, 10.1002/bdm.1899 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Kruglanski, 2015, The architecture of goal systems: Multifinality, equifinality, and counterfinality in means-end relations, 10.1016/bs.adms.2015.04.001 · DOI
  35. Leathwood, 2007, Consumer understanding of nutrition and health claims: Sources of evidence, British Journal of Nutrition, 98, 474, 10.1017/S000711450778697X · DOI
  36. Liu, 2015, Chinese consumers' understanding and use of a food nutrition label and their determinants, Food Quality and Preference, 41, 103, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.007 · DOI
  37. Locke, 2006, New directions in goal-setting theory, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265, 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x · DOI · Paper page
  38. Loken, 2006, Consumer psychology: Categorization, inferences, affect, and persuasion, Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 453, 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190136 · DOI
  39. Mawad, 2015, Influence of cognitive style on information processing and selection of yogurt labels: Insights from an eye-tracking study, Food Research International, 74, 1, 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.04.023 · DOI
  40. Miller, 2012, Making healthy food choice using nutrition fact panel. The roles of knowledge, motivation, dietary modification goals, and age, Appetite, 59, 129, 10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.009 · DOI
  41. Miller, 2015, Relationships among food label use, motivation, and dietary quality, Nutrients, 7, 1068, 10.3390/nu7021068 · DOI
  42. Mitchell, 1996, Consumer's risk-reduction strategies: A review and synthesis. The international review of retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 6, 1, 10.1080/09593969600000001 · DOI
  43. Neal, 2012, How do habits guide behavior? Perceived and actual triggers of habits in daily life, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 492, 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.10.011 · DOI · Paper page
  44. Ni Mhurchu, 2018, Do nutrition labels influence healthier food choices? Analysis of label viewing behaviour and subsequent food purchases in a labelling intervention trial, Appetite, 121, 360, 10.1016/j.appet.2017.11.105 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Oliveira, 2016, Consumers' attention to functional food labels: Insights from eye-tracking and change detection in a case study with probiotic milk, Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und -Technologie- Food Science and Technology, 68, 160, 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.11.066 · DOI
  46. Orquin, 2016, Areas of interest as a signal detection problem in behavioral eye-tracking research, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 29, 103, 10.1002/bdm.1867 · DOI
  47. Piqueras-Fiszman, 2013, Using combined eye tracking and word association in order to assess novel packaging solutions: A case study involving jam jars, Food Quality and Preference, 28, 328, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.006 · DOI
  48. Sanjari, 2017, Dual-process theory and consumer response to front-of-package nutrition label formats, Nutrition Reviews, 75, 871, 10.1093/nutrit/nux043 · DOI
  49. Siegrist, 2015, Which front-of-pack nutrition label is the most efficient one? The results of an eye-tracker study, Food Quality and Preference, 39, 183, 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.010 · DOI
  50. Visschers, 2010, Health motivation and product design determine consumers' visual attention to nutrition information on food products, Public Health Nutrition, 13, 1099, 10.1017/S1368980009993235 · DOI
  51. Wąsowicz, 2015, The meaning of colours in nutrition labelling in the context of expert and consumer criteria of evaluating food product healthfulness, Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 907, 10.1177/1359105315580251 · DOI

Cited by

See all 28

Metadata

Authors
Tanner, S. A., McCarthy, M. B., & O'Reilly, S. J.
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
135
Pages
146-158
ISSN
0195-6663
DOI
10.1016/j.appet.2018.11.015
Cited by
28
References
8
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.