消费者是否仍然搞错了(棕榈)树?洞察人们对棕榈油相关标签和声明的看法

IF 4.9 1区 农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Sophie-Dorothe Lieke , Achim Spiller , Gesa Busch
{"title":"消费者是否仍然搞错了(棕榈)树?洞察人们对棕榈油相关标签和声明的看法","authors":"Sophie-Dorothe Lieke ,&nbsp;Achim Spiller ,&nbsp;Gesa Busch","doi":"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105258","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Labels and claims representing inherent health- or environment-related attributes contribute to shaping consumer product preferences and perceptions. Palm oil-related labels and claims foster assumptions about individual, social and planetary health. Although consumers in palm oil-importing countries view this commodity with scepticism, a consumer-endorsed trend towards its elimination may cause unintended shifts in environmental impacts. Instead of eliminating palm oil from industries, scientists often acknowledge the benefits of sustainably produced palm oil as a better alternative. A research gap exists to better explain consumer acceptance or rejection of products containing palm oil. To understand how palm oil-related labels and claims influence the perceived sustainability and healthiness of products, an online study was conducted with German consumers (n = 411). Predictors influencing sustainability perceptions were integrated into a Structural Equation Model to explore how these leverage positive or negative perspectives towards the absence of palm oil or the presence of certified sustainable palm oil. This study reveals that products containing no palm oil are perceived to be healthier and more sustainable. We find that sentiments towards palm oil do not necessarily follow traditional trajectories, but are underpinned by disjoint relationships and previously established judgments. Label heuristics are more influential in shaping these perceptions, making them prone to misinterpretation. A proliferation of ‘free from’ claims haloed with sustainability assumptions compromises the progress achieved within the certified sector. This calls for more sensitivity towards products containing certified palm oil, so that assumptions align with reality and consumer perceptions are not barking up the wrong tree.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":322,"journal":{"name":"Food Quality and Preference","volume":"120 ","pages":"Article 105258"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324001605/pdfft?md5=838fc058cb7eafa4c6a19d2464cc41ce&pid=1-s2.0-S0950329324001605-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are consumers still barking up the wrong (palm) tree? Insights into perceptions towards palm oil-related labels and claims\",\"authors\":\"Sophie-Dorothe Lieke ,&nbsp;Achim Spiller ,&nbsp;Gesa Busch\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105258\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Labels and claims representing inherent health- or environment-related attributes contribute to shaping consumer product preferences and perceptions. Palm oil-related labels and claims foster assumptions about individual, social and planetary health. Although consumers in palm oil-importing countries view this commodity with scepticism, a consumer-endorsed trend towards its elimination may cause unintended shifts in environmental impacts. Instead of eliminating palm oil from industries, scientists often acknowledge the benefits of sustainably produced palm oil as a better alternative. A research gap exists to better explain consumer acceptance or rejection of products containing palm oil. To understand how palm oil-related labels and claims influence the perceived sustainability and healthiness of products, an online study was conducted with German consumers (n = 411). Predictors influencing sustainability perceptions were integrated into a Structural Equation Model to explore how these leverage positive or negative perspectives towards the absence of palm oil or the presence of certified sustainable palm oil. This study reveals that products containing no palm oil are perceived to be healthier and more sustainable. We find that sentiments towards palm oil do not necessarily follow traditional trajectories, but are underpinned by disjoint relationships and previously established judgments. Label heuristics are more influential in shaping these perceptions, making them prone to misinterpretation. A proliferation of ‘free from’ claims haloed with sustainability assumptions compromises the progress achieved within the certified sector. This calls for more sensitivity towards products containing certified palm oil, so that assumptions align with reality and consumer perceptions are not barking up the wrong tree.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Food Quality and Preference\",\"volume\":\"120 \",\"pages\":\"Article 105258\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324001605/pdfft?md5=838fc058cb7eafa4c6a19d2464cc41ce&pid=1-s2.0-S0950329324001605-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Food Quality and Preference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324001605\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Quality and Preference","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0950329324001605","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

代表固有的健康或环境相关属性的标签和声明有助于形成消费者对产品的偏好和看法。与棕榈油有关的标签和声明促进了对个人、社会和地球健康的假设。尽管棕榈油进口国的消费者对这种商品持怀疑态度,但消费者认可的消除棕榈油的趋势可能会对环境影响造成意想不到的改变。科学家们通常承认可持续生产的棕榈油是更好的替代品,而不是从工业中淘汰棕榈油。在更好地解释消费者接受或拒绝含有棕榈油的产品方面存在研究空白。为了了解与棕榈油相关的标签和声明如何影响消费者对产品可持续性和健康性的认知,我们对德国消费者(n = 411)进行了在线研究。影响可持续性认知的预测因素被整合到一个结构方程模型中,以探讨这些预测因素如何影响消费者对不含棕榈油或含有经认证的可持续棕榈油的积极或消极看法。这项研究表明,不含棕榈油的产品被认为更健康、更可持续。我们发现,人们对棕榈油的看法并不一定遵循传统的轨迹,而是以不相关的关系和先前建立的判断为基础。标签启发法在形成这些认知方面更有影响力,使其容易被误读。不含 "标签的泛滥,加上可持续发展的假设,损害了认证行业所取得的进步。这就要求我们对含有认证棕榈油的产品保持更高的敏感度,从而使假设与现实保持一致,避免消费者的认知出现偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are consumers still barking up the wrong (palm) tree? Insights into perceptions towards palm oil-related labels and claims

Labels and claims representing inherent health- or environment-related attributes contribute to shaping consumer product preferences and perceptions. Palm oil-related labels and claims foster assumptions about individual, social and planetary health. Although consumers in palm oil-importing countries view this commodity with scepticism, a consumer-endorsed trend towards its elimination may cause unintended shifts in environmental impacts. Instead of eliminating palm oil from industries, scientists often acknowledge the benefits of sustainably produced palm oil as a better alternative. A research gap exists to better explain consumer acceptance or rejection of products containing palm oil. To understand how palm oil-related labels and claims influence the perceived sustainability and healthiness of products, an online study was conducted with German consumers (n = 411). Predictors influencing sustainability perceptions were integrated into a Structural Equation Model to explore how these leverage positive or negative perspectives towards the absence of palm oil or the presence of certified sustainable palm oil. This study reveals that products containing no palm oil are perceived to be healthier and more sustainable. We find that sentiments towards palm oil do not necessarily follow traditional trajectories, but are underpinned by disjoint relationships and previously established judgments. Label heuristics are more influential in shaping these perceptions, making them prone to misinterpretation. A proliferation of ‘free from’ claims haloed with sustainability assumptions compromises the progress achieved within the certified sector. This calls for more sensitivity towards products containing certified palm oil, so that assumptions align with reality and consumer perceptions are not barking up the wrong tree.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Food Quality and Preference
Food Quality and Preference 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
15.10%
发文量
263
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Food Quality and Preference is a journal devoted to sensory, consumer and behavioural research in food and non-food products. It publishes original research, critical reviews, and short communications in sensory and consumer science, and sensometrics. In addition, the journal publishes special invited issues on important timely topics and from relevant conferences. These are aimed at bridging the gap between research and application, bringing together authors and readers in consumer and market research, sensory science, sensometrics and sensory evaluation, nutrition and food choice, as well as food research, product development and sensory quality assurance. Submissions to Food Quality and Preference are limited to papers that include some form of human measurement; papers that are limited to physical/chemical measures or the routine application of sensory, consumer or econometric analysis will not be considered unless they specifically make a novel scientific contribution in line with the journal''s coverage as outlined below.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信