CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 232Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing

Are Some Comparative Nutrition Claims Misleading? The Role of Nutrition Knowledge, Ad Claim Type and Disclosure Conditions

Open access
Andrews, J. Craig, Burton, Scot, Netemeyer, Richard G.·2000·Journal of Advertising
DOI 10.1080/00913367.2000.10673615
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

As the regulator of all national food advertising, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has expressed concern that consumers may be misled by certain comparative nutrient content claims in advertising. To help examine this issue, primary food shoppers were recruited and interviewed in three U.S. markets according to generally accepted procedures for advertising copy tests. The study employs a 2 (ad claim type) x 2 (nutrition knowledge) x 4 (disclosure type) between-subjects design using manipulated print advertisements. Misleading generalizations for absolute levels of sodium content beyond that of control ads are found for both specific and general nutrient content claims from experimentally manipulated soup advertisements. Effects of certain ad disclosure types are found to be dependent on ad claim type and on nutrition knowledge levels. Conclusions from the study and implications for advertising practice and public policy are offered.

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 · 10.1080/00913367.2000.10673615

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Issue-related knowledge is a crucial moderator of advertising effects and an important factor in assessing the credibility of advertising claims, particularly when such claims are ambiguous.

    “Research from different fields of advertising has generally found issue-related knowledge to be a crucial moderator of advertising effects and an important factor in assessing the credibility of advertising claims, particularly when such claims are ambiguous (Andrews, Burton, and Netemeyer 2000; Hoch and Ha 1986).”

    From Misleading Consumers with Green Advertising? An Affect–Reason–Involvement Account of Greenwashing Effects in Environmental Advertising (2018) · cites this paper as Andrews, Burton, and Netemeyer 2000

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Alba, Joseph W. and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimensions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 411-454.
  2. Andrews, J. Craig and Thomas J. Maronick (1995), "Advertising Research Issues From FTC Versus Stouffer Foods Corporation," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 14 (Fall), 301-309.
  3. -----, Richard G. Netemeyer and Scot Burton (1998), "Consumer Generalization of Nutrient Content Claims in Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 62-75.
  4. Brucks, Merrie, Andrew A. Mitchell and Richard Staelin (1984), "The Effect of Nutritional Information Disclosure in Advertising: An Information Processing Approach," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 3, 1-25.
  5. Burton, Scot, Abe Biswas and Richard G. Netemeyer (1994), "Effects of Alternative Nutrition Label Formats and Nutrition Reference Information on Consumer Perceptions, Comprehension, and Product Evaluations," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 13 (Spring), 36-47.
  6. Collins, Allan M. and Elizabeth F. Loftus (1975), "A Spreading Activation Theory of Semantic Processing," Psychological Review, 82 (6), 407-428.
  7. Daly, Patricia A. (1976), "The Response of Consumers to Nutrition Labeling," The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 10 (Winter), 170-178.
  8. Feldman, Jak M. and John Lynch (1988), "Self-Generated Validity and Other Effects of Measurement on Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior," Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,421-435.
  9. Foxman, Ellen R., Darrel D. Muehling and Patrick A. Moore (1988), "Disclaimer Footnotes in Ads: Discrepancies Between Purpose and Performance," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 7, 127-137.
  10. "FTC Consumer Information Remedies" (1979), Policy Review Session, Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission, June 1, 1-319.
  11. Hoch, Stephen J. and Young-Won Ha (1986), "Consumer Learning: Advertising and the Ambiguity of Product Experience," Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 221-233.
  12. Hoy, Maria Grubbs and Michael J. Stankey (1993), "Structural Characteristics of Televised Advertising Disclosures: A Comparison with the FTC Clear and Conspicuous Standard," Journal of Advertising, 22 (June), 47-59.
  13. Jacoby, Jacob, Robert W. Chestnut and William Silberman (1977), "Consumer Use and Comprehension of Nutrition Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 4 (September), 119-128.
  14. Johar, Gita Venkataramani (1995), "Consumer Involvement and Deception from Implied Advertising Claims," Journal of Marketing Research, 32 (August), 267-279.
  15. Keller, Scott B., Mike Landry, Jeanne Olson, Anne M. Velliquette, Scot Burton and J. Craig Andrews (1997), "The Effects of Nutrition Package Claims, Nutrition Facts Panels, and Motivation to Process Nutrition Information on Consumer Product Evaluations," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16 (Fall), 256-269.
  16. -----, Sara B. Fein and Raymond E. Schucker (1996), "Performance Characteristics of Seven Nutrition Label Formats," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (Spring), 1-15.
  17. -----, -----and Marilyn Stephenson (1993), "Nutrition Knowledge Levels About Dietary Fats and Cholesterol: 1983-1988," Journal of Nutrition Education, 25 (3), 60-66.
  18. Lewis, Christine J. and Elizabeth A. Yetley (1992), "Focus Group Sessions on Formats of Nutrition Labeis," Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 92 (January), 62-66.
  19. Maronick, Thomas J. (1991), "Copy Tests in FTC Deception Cases: Guidelines for Researchers," Journal of Advertising Research, (December), 9-17.
  20. Mitra, Anusree, Manoj Hastak, Gary T. Ford and Debra Jones Ringold (1999), "Can the Educationally Disadvantaged Interpret the FDA-Mandated Nutrition Facts Panel in the Presence of An Implied Health Claim?" Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18 (Spring), 106-117.
  21. Moorman, Christine (1990), "The Effects of Stimulus and Consumer Characteristics on the Utilization of Nutrition Information," Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (December), 362-374.
  22. Muehling, Darrel D. (1987), "Comparative Advertising: The Influence of Attitude-Toward-The-Ad on Brand Evaluation," Journal of Advertising, 14 (4), 43-49.
  23. -----and Richard H. Kolbe (1998), "A Comparison of Children's and Prime-Time Fine-Print Advertising Disclosure Practices," Journal of Advertising, 27 (Fall), 37-48.
  24. Nelson, Phillip (1974), "Advertising as Information," Journal of Political Economy, 78 (March-April), 729-754.
  25. Pechmann, Cornelia (1996), "Do Consumers Overgeneralize OneSided Comparative Price Claims, and Are More Stringent Regulations Needed?" Journal of Marketing Research, 33 (May), 150-162.
  26. Petruccelli, Paul J. (1996), "Consumer and Marketing Implications of Information Provision: The Case of the Nutrition and Labeling Education Act of 1990," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 15 (Spring), 150- 153.
  27. Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo (1986), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, New York: Springer-Verlag.
  28. Putrevu, Sanjay and Kenneth R. Lord (1994), "Comparative and Noncomparative Advertising: Attitudinal Effects under Cognitive and Affective Involvement Conditions," Journal of Advertising, 23 (June), 77-91.
  29. Reece, Bonnie B., Mary Jane Sheffet and Nora J. Rifon (1997), "The Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990: Have Food Advertisements Changed Too?" Marketing and Public Policy Conference Proceedings, Easwar Iyer and George R. Milne, eds., Chicago: American Marketing Association, 97-98.
  30. Resnick, Marc L. (1997), "An Evaluation of Nutrition Label Quantifier Terms: Consumer Perceptions vs. FDA Definitions," Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting, V.1, Santa Monica, CA. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 395-399.
  31. Roe, Brian, Alan S. Levy and Brenda M. Derby (1999), "The Impact of Health Claims on Consumer Search and Product Evaluation Outcomes: Results from FDA Experimental Data," Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 18 (Spring), 89-105.
  32. Russo, J. Edward, Barbara L. Metcalf and Debra Stephens (1981), "Identifying Misleading Advertising," Journal of Consumer Research, 8 (September), 119-131.
  33. Shimp, Terence A. (1978), "Do Incomplete Comparisons Mislead?" Journal of Advertising Research, 18, 21-27.
  34. -----(1983), "Evaluative Verbal Content and Deception in Advertising A Review and Critical Analysis," in Information Processing Research in Advertising, Richard J. Harris, ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 195-216.
  35. Smith, Darlene Brannigan (1990), "The Economics of Information: An Empirical Approach to Nelson's Search- Experience Framework," Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 9, 111-128.
  36. Starek, Roscoe B., III (1993), "Ross Starek's Wish List or, A Call for Extrinsic Evidence," prepared remarks of Rescoe B. Starek, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, before the 1993 Marketing and Public Policy Conference, East Lansing, MI, June 4,1-19.
  37. Wilkie, William L., Dennis L. McNeil and Michael B. Mazis (1984), "Marketing's 'Scarlet Letter': The Theory and Practice of Corrective Advertising," Journal of Marketing, 48 (Spring), 11-31.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andrews, J. C., Burton, S., & Netemeyer, R. G.
Affiliations
Marquette University (US)
ORCID
Netemeyer, Richard G.
Venue
Journal of Advertising
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2000-10
Volume
29
Issue
3
Pages
29-42
ISSN
  • 0091-3367 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7805
DOI
10.1080/00913367.2000.10673615
OpenAlex
W2037133547
Cited by
232
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 15
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Advertising (publishedVersion)
  • e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Louisiana State University
  • University of South Carolina
  • Marketing Science Institute
  • Marquette University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Keywords
misleading advertising, nutrition knowledge, food advertising, Federal Trade Commission, sodium content, consumer deception, advertising regulation

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