Abstract:Most scientists claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods are safe for human consumption and offer societal benefits such as better nutritional content. In contrast, many consumers remain skeptical about their safety. Against this backdrop of diverging views, the authors investigate the impact of different GMO labeling policy regimes on products consumers choose. Guided by the literature on negativity bias, structural alignment theory, and message presentation, and based on findings from four e… Show more
“…Such a progress bar may display how healthy a food shopping cart is or how unhealthy a virtual food cart is. As indicated elsewhere [ 43 ], such framing may influence food purchases. However, few articles have investigated the effects of digitalized technology-enabled FOP food labels on healthy food-related behavior.…”
Front-of-package (FOP) food labels may impact healthy food-related behavior. However, such labels may be presented using new technology and they may impact behavior differently than physical labels. This systematic review investigated the effects of physical and digitalized labels on healthy food-related behavior. This review used four search engines to collect articles that investigated the effects of food labels on the purchase, consumption, hypothetical choice, and self-reports of healthy foods. General findings, types of labels, or whether the articles used physical versus digitalized static, interactive, or technology-enabled labels were synthesized. The dependent variables were categorized according to whether they were under full, partial, or no control of the independent variables. The risk of bias was measured by the RoB 2 tool and adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist. The search strategy identified 285 records and 30 articles were included. While digitalized static and physical labels did not differ in their effects on healthy food-related behavior, technology-enabled labels were more predictive of healthy food-related behavior than interactive labels.
“…Such a progress bar may display how healthy a food shopping cart is or how unhealthy a virtual food cart is. As indicated elsewhere [ 43 ], such framing may influence food purchases. However, few articles have investigated the effects of digitalized technology-enabled FOP food labels on healthy food-related behavior.…”
Front-of-package (FOP) food labels may impact healthy food-related behavior. However, such labels may be presented using new technology and they may impact behavior differently than physical labels. This systematic review investigated the effects of physical and digitalized labels on healthy food-related behavior. This review used four search engines to collect articles that investigated the effects of food labels on the purchase, consumption, hypothetical choice, and self-reports of healthy foods. General findings, types of labels, or whether the articles used physical versus digitalized static, interactive, or technology-enabled labels were synthesized. The dependent variables were categorized according to whether they were under full, partial, or no control of the independent variables. The risk of bias was measured by the RoB 2 tool and adapted Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist. The search strategy identified 285 records and 30 articles were included. While digitalized static and physical labels did not differ in their effects on healthy food-related behavior, technology-enabled labels were more predictive of healthy food-related behavior than interactive labels.
“…One approach is to identify a marketing angle in the pressing problems facing society. For example, resistance to food technologies such as genetic modification that can alleviate health problems, hunger, and environmental harm is ultimately a question of consumer behavior (Kim, Kim, and Arora 2022). Insights that reduce such resistance speak to managerial and public policy, as would insights regarding the efficacy of interventions to discourage smoking (Wang, Lewis, and Singh 2021) or improve financial literacy (Fernandes, Lynch, and Netemeyer 2014).…”
A “theory-first” paradigm tends to be the dominant approach in much academic marketing research. In this approach, a theory is borrowed, refined, or developed and then tested empirically. In this challenging-the-boundaries article, we make a case for an “empirics-first” approach. Empirics-first refers to research that (i) is grounded in (originates from) a real-world marketing phenomenon, problem, or observation, (ii) involves obtaining and analyzing data, and (iii) produces valid marketing-relevant insights without necessarily developing or testing theory. The empirics-first approach is not antagonistic to theory but rather can serve as a stepping-stone to theory. The approach lends itself well to today’s data-rich environment, which can surface novel research questions untethered to theory. The present paper describes the underlying principles of an empirics-first approach, which consists of exploring a domain purposefully without preconceptions. Using a rich set of published examples, the present paper offers guidance on how to implement empirics-first research and how it can lead to valuable knowledge development. Advice is also offered to authors on how to report EF research and to reviewers and to editorial teams on how to evaluate it. Our ultimate objective is to pave a way for empirics-first to enter the mainstream of academic marketing research.
“…As quoted in Golder et al (2022), Nobel Prize Laureate Paul Krugman (2002) famously shared the following advice from his advisor: “Don’t reread the literature. Your head is already stuffed full of that material, and you’ll end up doing a small twiddle on someone else's model.” JM examples of such real-world-inspired topics include the use and misuse of genetic data in marketing (Daviet, Nave, and Wind 2022) and how GMO labeling policy affects consumer choice and willingness to pay (Kim, Kim, and Arora 2022). Other relevant topics point to underexplored theoretical domains such as company use of temporary marketing organizational structures (Ghazimatin, Mooi, and Heide 2021; Hadida, Heide, and Bell 2019) or the onboarding of salespeople through different socialization strategies (Wiseman et al 2022).…”
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.