Attentional capture and understanding of nutrition labelling: a study based on response times

References

• Ares G, Giménez A, Gámbaro A. 2008. Influence of nutritional knowledge on perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional foods. Appetite. 51:663–668.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ares G, Piqueras-Fiszman B, Varela P, Morant Marco R, López AM, Fiszman S. 2010. Food labels: do consumers perceive what semiotics want to convey?. Food Qual Prefer. 21:689–698.
   Google Scholar
• Bialkova S, van Trijp H. 2010. What determines consumer attention to nutrition labels?. Food Qual Prefer. 21:1042–1051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black A, Rayner M. 1992. Just read the label: understanding nutrition information in numeric verbal and graphic communication. London: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Caraher M, Dixon P, Lang T, Carr-Hill R. 1999. The state of cooking in England: the relationship of cooking skills to food choice. Br Food J. 101:590–609.
   Google Scholar
• Carrillo E, Varela P, Fiszman S. Influence of nutritional knowledge on the use and interpretation of food labels. J Food Sci. 2011 doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02479.x (in press).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowburn G, Stockley L. 2005. Consumer understanding and use of nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr. 8:21–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection. 2005. The European consumers' attitudes regarding product labelling – qualitative study in 28 European countries. Versailles: Optem.
   Google Scholar
• Food Standards Agency 2005. Quantitative evaluation of alternative food signposting concepts, www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/signpostquanresearch.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Food Standards Agency 2007. Front-of-pack traffic light signpost labelling. Technical guidance, Issue 2. http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/frontofpackguidance2.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman DH. 1987. Logistic regressionApplied categorical data analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker237–274.
   Google Scholar
• Grunert KG, Wills JM. 2007. A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J Public Health. 15:385–399.
   Google Scholar
• Jarvis BG. 2004. DirectRT research software, version 2004 [Computer Program]. New York: Emprisoft.
   Google Scholar
• Hollingworth A, Henderson JM. 1998. Does consistent scene context facilitate object perception?. J Exp Psychol Gen. 127:398–415.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollingworth A, Henderson JM. 1999. Object identification is isolated from scene semantic constraint: evidence from object type and token discrimination. Acta Psychol. 102:319–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurt E. 2002. Nutritional labelling: European Union and United Kingdom perspectives. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 11:S77–S79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janiszewski C. 1998. The influence of display characteristics on visual exploratory search behavior. J Consum Res. 25:290–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones G, Richardson M. 2007. An objective examination of consumer perception of nutrition information based on healthiness ratings and eye movements. Public Health Nutr. 10:238–244.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackison D, Wrieden WL, Anderson AS. 2010. Validity and reliability testing of a short questionnaire to assess consumers' use, understanding and perception of food labels. Eur J Clin Nutr. 64:210–217.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Microsoft at work 2011. 12 tips for creating better documents, http://www.microsoft.com/atwork/skills/documents.aspx. Accessed on 23 October 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Ministerio de Salud Pública. 2006. Decreto 117/06. Montevideo, Uruguay: Ministerio de Salud Pública.
   Google Scholar
• Opperud A. 2004. Semiotic product analysis. In: McDonagh D, Hekkert P, Van Erp J, Gyim D. editors. Design and emotion. London: Taylor and Francis137–141.
   Google Scholar
• Pieters R, Wedel M. 2004. Attention capture and transfer in advertising. Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. J Mark. 68:36–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. 2003. Common method biases in behavioural research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 88:879–903.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Development Core Team. 2007. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing ISBN 3-900051-07-0.
   Google Scholar
• Smith V, Mogelvang-Hansen P, Hyldig G. 2010. Spin versus fair speak in food labelling: a matter of taste?. Food Qual Prefer. 21:1016–1025.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Solomon M, Bamossy G, Askegaard S. 2002. Consumer behaviour: a European perspective. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education Ltd36–49.
   Google Scholar
• van Herpen E, van Trijp HCM. 2011. Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite. 57:148–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolfe JM. 1998. Visual search. In: Pashler H. editors. Attention. East Sussex: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar