The NuVal Nutritional Scoring System: An Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action to Explain Purchasing Behaviors of Health-Promoting Products

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis: The link between nutrition and health is substantiated (WHO, 1990; U.S. DHHS, 2000).  Sound diet may improve health, and nutrition labeling and health claims on food packaging assists consumers in making better choices (Williams, 2005).  Consumers must be able to interpret information from the label to determine healthfulness.  Inadequate nutrition literacy hampers interpreting labels (Rothman et al., 2006).  Consumers prefer ease of interpretation (Williams, 2005).  A movement now focuses on the front of food packaging (Latortue & Weber, 2010; Gerrior, 2010).  Utilizing the theory of reasoned action to explain consumer purchasing behaviors with respect to the NuVal nutritional scoring system, the present study hypothesizes: H1: The higher NuVal score will result in more favorable attitudes toward the product than the lower NuVal score.   H2: More favorable attitudes toward the product will result in increased intention to purchase. H3: The higher NuVal score will result in more favorable normative perceptions toward the product than the lower NuVal score. H4: More favorable normative perceptions toward the product will result in increased intention to purchase.

Methods: Respondents (N=395, age 17 to 25) enrolled at a university were directed to an online survey.  Respondents received a NuVal description.  Then they were randomized to one of three conditions and provided a cereal-aisle scenario. Each condition represented a different situation regarding nutrition labeling (e.g., cereal NuVal score (30), one with (90), and a control condition with a non-NuVal symbol). Respondents were asked about attitudes, perceptions of subjective norms and intentions regarding purchasing cereal.

Results: An independent samples t-test showed no significant difference for attitudes toward the cereal at high and low NuVal scores. Regression analyses revealed respondents in both high and low NuVal conditions expressed greater intent to purchase as attitudes became more favorable. This did not hold for the control condition.  There was not a significant difference between the two groups. The mean perception of norms among peers toward the high NuVal score was not significantly higher than the low NuVal score.  Participants in both low and high NuVal score conditions who perceived more favorable normative perceptions toward the product among peers would have greater intention to purchase.

Conclusions:  The symbol does not appear to have a strong influence on purchasing decision, perhaps due to the nature of the scenario presented or to lack of consumer understanding of NuVal.

Implications for research and/or practice: Nutrition symbols are poised to ease consumer burden; however, we need to further study how consumers use symbols and incorporate these findings into future educational campaigns.  We are unable to generalize our results to other age groups or populations.   Furthermore, the survey presented a scenario for evaluation and our findings do not necessarily apply to real-world shopping environments, such as grocery stores.  This study is a first to measure college student attitudes toward NuVal.  Future work should examine the role of front-of-package nutrition symbols, especially if information presented in this manner helps simplify choosing healthier foods.