International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition,

September 2012; 63(6): 679–688

Attentional capture and understanding of nutrition labelling: a study

based on response times

GASTÓN ARES1,2, ANA GIMÉNEZ1,2, FERNANDA BRUZZONE1,2, LUCÍA ANTÚNEZ1,

ALEJANDRA SAPOLINSKI1, LETICIA VIDAL1, & ALEJANDRO MAICHE2
1
Sección Evaluación Sensorial, Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a de Alimentos, Facultad de Quı́mica, Universidad de la
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15

República (UdelaR), Gral Flores 2124, CP 11800, Montevideo, Uruguay, and 2Facultad de Psicologı́a, Centro de Investigación
Básica en Psicologı́a (CIBPsi), Universidad de la República (UdelaR), Tristán Narvaja 1674, Montevideo, Uruguay

Abstract
The aim of the present work was to assess the influence of nutrition information format on attentional capture and consumers’
understanding. Sixteen labels of two products (yoghurt and pan bread) were designed following a four 2-level factors full
factorial design with the following variables: label background design, type of product, nutrition information format and traffic
light system. The labels were presented to 178 consumers, who were asked to decide whether the fat/sodium content of each
yoghurt/pan bread label was medium or low. Participant responses and reaction times were recorded. Results showed that type of
product, nutrition information format and traffic light system significantly affected the time needed by consumers to find the
For personal use only.

nutrition information and to classify the labels according to their content of a given nutrient. Meanwhile, consumers’
understanding of the labels was mostly affected by the content of the nutrient and the presence of the traffic light system.

Keywords: nutrition labelling, consumers’ research, reaction times, traffic light system

Introduction
Different strategies have been implemented worldwide
to encourage people to make healthier choices,
nutrition labelling being one of them. Considering
the increase in the consumption of pre-packaged foods
(Caraher et al. 1999), nutritional information on food
labels aims to provide information about the nutrient
content of products to help consumers make healthier
choices (Cowburn and Stockley 2005).
The success of nutrition labelling depends on the
ability of consumers to detect, read and understand
nutritional information (Mackison et al. 2010).
Despite the growing inclusion of nutrition information
on food labels some authors have reported that many
people do not often use nutrition information, or that,
despite consumers report reading nutrition labelling,
their actual use is considerably lower (Grunert and
Wills 2007).
According to the results from a qualitative study
carried out in the European Union, the major
criticisms to nutrition labelling were related to the
difficulty in finding key information on the label
(Directorate General for Health and Consumer
Protection 2005). Therefore, one of the major
challenges is to design nutrition labels which could
be easily read and understood and which rapidly catch
consumers’ attention. For this reason, studying
attentional capture is a key step for the development
of effective ways of communicating nutrition infor-
mation. In this context, the present work aims to study
how nutrition labelling format affects attentional
capture.
Solomon et al. (2002) defined attention as the
degree to which consumers focus on a stimuli within
their range of exposure. According to Pieters and

Correspondence: G. Ares, Sección Evaluación Sensorial, Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnologı́a de Alimentos, Facultad de Quı́mica,
Universidad de la República (UdelaR), Gral Flores 2124, CP 11800 Montevideo, Uruguay. Tel: þ 598 2 9245735. Fax: þ 598 2 9241906.
E-mail: gares@fq.edu.uy

ISSN 0963-7486 print/ISSN 1465-3478 online q 2012 Informa UK, Ltd.

DOI: 10.3109/09637486.2011.652598
 680 G. Ares et al.
Wedel (2004), consumers’ attention towards a
stimulus depends on the characteristics of the stimulus
itself (bottom-up factors) and also on the expectations
about the product and consumers previous experi-
ences (top-down factors). The characteristics of the
stimulus may determine rapid and automatic atten-
tional capture even when the consumer is not
searching for it (Wolfe 1998). This type of attentional
capture depends on the size, colour and the pop-
up characteristics of the element from the background
in which it is included (Pieters and Wedel 2004). In the
case of nutrition labelling, the format under which
the information is displayed could have a large
influence on consumers’ attention.
From experimental studies on attentional capture,
it is known that attentional processes driven by
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15
bottom-up factors, such as size and shape, determine
perceptual salience in advertisements (Janiszewski
1998). From this, it could be expected that
organization of the information plays a crucial factor
in consumers’ attentional capture. Tables are usually
considered the best organizers of information and
usually they simplify even the most complex layouts,
being one of the most recommended features in
documents when information needs to be clearly
presented (Microsoft at work 2011). Usually, subjects
For personal use only.
can understand the meaning of a scene in a few glances
(Hollingworth and Henderson 1998, 1999), whereas
text requires more eye fixations to be comprehended.
Thus, it could be assumed that more attention per unit
surface is required for text (linear format) than for
scene perception (panel format). So, if panel and
linear formats are compared, it could be expected that
panel format might enable consumers to more easily
find nutrition information.
In an attempt to increase consumers’ attention to
nutrition labelling, the provision of front-of-pack
nutrition labelling, in addition to complete nutrition
information, is being used progressively more (Cow-
burn and Stockley 2005). The traffic light system is an
example of this trend. The nutritional signpost
proposed by the Food Standards Agency summarizes
key information by rating four nutrients (sugars, fat,
saturated fat and salt) as high, medium or low, using
the traffic light scheme (red amber and green) (Food
Standards Agency 2007). The use of this simpler
front-of-pack information could increase consumers’
attention towards nutrition information and make
the access to information easier, which could
lead consumers to further incorporate nutrition
information in their decision process (Jones and
Richardson 2007). Consumers might need to look at
the front-of-pack information for a shorter period of
time compared to detailed nutrition labelling in order
to get the information provided and be able to
compare products. According to van Herpen and van
Trijp (2011), nutrition tables receive less attention
than traffic light labels, particularly when consumers
face time constraints.
The fact that nutrition information receives atten-
tion does not necessarily imply that consumers process
the information (van Herpen and van Trijp 2011).
After consumers perceive nutrition information, they
must understand it in order to make inferences about
the content of a certain nutrient or the healthiness of
the product as a whole. In this sense, some authors
have stated that consumers do not usually know which
nutrients are important (Hurt 2002) or find it difficult
to determine if the concentration of a specific nutrient
is low, medium or high (Black and Rayner 1992).
Carrillo et al. (2011) reported that nutritional knowl-
edge has a great influence on consumers’ perception
and understanding of food labelling. Consumers with
low nutritional knowledge considered the usual
nutritional labels too technical and reported to rarely
take them into account when deciding their food
purchases.
According to several studies, the use of coloured
systems such as the traffic light system or Guideline
Daily Amounts (GDA)-based systems makes the
interpretation of nutrition information easier due to
a decrease in information processing (Grunert and
Wills 2007). In line with this, van Herpen and van
Trijp (2011) reported that the use of traffic light
system enhances healthy product choice, which
suggests that this system helps consumers to interpret
the provided information.
When evaluating the healthiness of a food product
consumers might not only take into account the
nutrition information, since food labels communicate
information using different types of signs which
help consumers to identify and categorize the product
(Opperud 2004; Smith et al. 2010). In particular, the
images used in the graphic design of the labels have a
great impact on consumers’ expectations and percep-
tion of food products (Ares et al. 2010), which could
even override the effect of nutrition information.
Furthermore, the graphic design of the labels could
also affect the ability of nutrition information to catch
consumers’ attention by affecting its pop-up from the
background.
Thus, consumers’ attention and understanding of
nutrition labelling determine, together with other
personal characteristics, whether the consumer will
take into account nutritional information when buying
the product or not. Thus, reducing the difficulty of
information search and understanding for consumers
could make it more likely that the information
provided will be actually seen and used by the
consumers when making their everyday food
purchases.
Most studies are based on self-reported retro-
spective behaviour, which can lead to considerable
over-reporting with regard to behaviours that are
considered to be socially desirable (Podsakoff et al.
2003). In this context, Bialkova and van Trijp (2010)
used a visual search procedure to evaluate the
attentional capture of front-of-pack nutritional
 Attentional capture and understanding of nutrition labelling: a study based on response times
information. These authors asked participants to
detect whether a nutrition label was present or not
and reported that attentional capture was faster and
more accurate when front-of-pack labels were mono-
chromatic rather than polychromatic. The main
advantage of this approach is that it provides more
reliable information than other commonly used
methodologies such as self-report measures. However,
it only focuses on consumers’ attention but it tells
nothing about the access to information by the
consumers. Considering that efforts in interpreting
nutrition information might also determine consu-
mers’ willingness to search for it in real-life situations,
the second part of the process also deserves to be
studied.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15
influence of the format of nutrition labels on
consumers’ attention and processing of nutrition
information, and to study whether this influence
depends on the graphic design of the labels, using a
methodological approach based on response times
(RTs).
Materials and methods
Participants
For personal use only.
One-hundred and seventy-eight people participated in
the study. Participants were 58% females and 42%
males and ranged in age from 18 to 70. In order to
work with a consumer sample balanced in age, two
Figure 1. Examples of two labels used in the study: (a) Backgrounds A and B for yoghurt, (b) Backgrounds A and B for pan bread.
681
groups of similar size were considered: 54% of the
participants between 18 and 34 years old and 46%
older than 35 years. All consumers had normal or
corrected-to-normal vision and full colour vision.
Consumers were recruited from public places, based
on their interest and availability to participate in the
study and their frequency consumption of yoghurt and
pan bread (at least once a week).
Stimuli
Two target products were considered: yoghurt and pan
bread. These products were selected considering that
they are frequently consumed in Uruguay and that
they differ in their perceived healthiness (Ares et al.
2008). For each product, consumers’ attention and
understanding were focussed on the content of a
specific nutrient: fat for yoghurt and sodium for pan
bread.
For each product, 16 labels were designed following
a four 2-level factors full factorial experimental design.
Examples of two labels for each product are shown in
Figure 1.
In order to study the influence of nutrition
information format on consumers’ attention and
understanding, the following independent variables
were considered: label background (Background A vs.
Background B), type of product (regular vs. low fat
for yoghurt and regular vs. low salt for pan bread),
 682 G. Ares et al.

nutrition information format (panel vs. linear) and Procedure

traffic light system (with vs. without).
Participants completed two tasks: one for yoghurt and
Two products were considered in the present study
the other for pan bread. Half of the subjects completed
to investigate whether consumers were able to under-
the task for pan bread first, whereas the other half
stand when the fat/sodium content could be con-
performed the task for yoghurt first. Both tasks were
sidered low, particularly considering the increasing
separated by a 5-min break.
number of low-fat and low-salt products commercia-
On each task consumers were asked to classify the
lized in Uruguay. In order to avoid repetition of the
nutrient content of the label in ‘medium’ or ‘low’.
same nutrition information on the labels, small
They evaluated a total of 18 labels, the 16 labels of the
modifications were introduced for labels correspond-
experimental design plus 2 dummy labels. These latter
ing to the same type of product (regular vs. low fat).
labels were presented at the beginning of the task in
The sodium content of the pan bread labels ranged
order to familiarize participants with the methodology
from 23 to 76 mg per portion for low sodium products
and to show them the two ranges of each nutrient.
and from 195 to 276 mg per portion for regular
Thus, although consumers were not specifically
products. Meanwhile, the fat content of the yoghurt
explained what the terms ‘medium’ and ‘low’ meant,
labels ranged from 0.9 to 1.5 g per portion for low fat
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15

when completing the trials they were aware of the

products and from 7.5 to 8.4 g per portion for regular
categories. This procedure avoided the increase in
yoghurts. These concentrations were selected accord-
correct responses by the familiarization with the
ing to the technical guidance proposed by the Food
categories during the trials.
Standards Agency (2007).
The labels were presented on a PC screen following
The levels of the variable nutrition information
complete block experimental design (William’s Latin
format were selected considering that in Uruguay
Square) using DirectRT software (Jarvis 2004). After
compulsory nutrition information (energy, total
seeing the labels consumers were asked to decide
carbohydrates, proteins, total fat, saturated fat, trans
whether the fat content of each yoghurt (or the sodium
fat, total fibre and sodium) could be displayed on food
content of each pan bread) was medium or low, by
labels under two formats: panel (a table) or linear (a
pressing the M (for ‘medio’, medium in Spanish) or B
For personal use only.

paragraph) (Ministerio de Salud Pública 2006). An

(for ‘bajo’, low in Spanish) key, respectively. Partici-
example of these formats is shown in the yoghurt labels
pants’ responses and RT were recorded using the
of Figure 1a. Moreover, considering that the front-of-
software. Participants were asked to respond as fast
pack information is not being used by food companies
and accurately as possible. For all trials, feedback
yet in Uruguay, it was interesting to study whether the
asking for faster responding was given if participants
inclusion of the traffic light system enhances con-
did not respond within 60 s, whereas consumers were
sumers’ attention and understanding of nutrition
shown a message on the screen asking them to take
information.
more time if they responded in less than 0.5 s. This last
Finally, in order to study whether consumers’
message was used to discourage participants to
attention and understanding of nutrition information
complete the task without taking enough time to find
depend on the graphic design of the label, two
the information on the label. It can be assumed that
backgrounds were considered for each product. The
the arrival of sensory information and motor answer
backgrounds were selected based on the results of
takes at least 0.2 s; therefore, if subjects take less than
previous qualitative consumer studies in order to have
0.5 s to answer, they are probably answering without
one background associated with a healthy product
processing the information.
(Background A) and one associated with different
sensory characteristics but not with health (Back-
ground B). The name of the brands on each label was Data analysis
selected to match consumers’ associations with the
Response times. The following analysis of variance
graphic design of the labels. The brand Vitalize was
(ANOVA) model was used to evaluate the influence of
used for the healthy yoghurt, whereas Láctico (lactic in
the experimental variables on consumers’ RTs for each
English) was selected for the yoghurt associated with
type of product:
sensory characteristics such as acidity.
Labels were designed using GIMP 2.6. The labels
included all the information that is compulsory for Response time ðRTÞ ¼ mean þ main effect for the
food labels in Uruguay. The influence of consumers’
knowledge of the nutrient content of their usual consumer ðset as randomÞ þ main effect for the
products was avoided by designing labels that were not
similar to products currently available in the Urugua- conjoint variables ðset as fixedÞ þ interaction effects
yan market. Moreover, the location of nutrition
information format and traffic light system was among the conjoint variables ðset as fixedÞ
different for each type of label to avoid consumers’
familiarization. þ random error:
 Attentional capture and understanding of nutrition labelling: a study based on response times
When the effects were significant, honestly significant
differences were calculated using Tukey’s test at a
significance level of 5%.
Percentage of correct answers. A logistic regression
analysis was used to analyse and interpret the
percentage of correct answers of consumers’
classification of the evaluated food labels. This
analysis enables evaluating the influence of many
different independent variables on dependent
variables that are binary (Freeman 1987). In this
case, logistic regression was used to study the influence
of the experimental variables (label background, type
of product, nutrition labelling format, traffic light
system and their interaction) on the probability of
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15
consumers’ correctly classifying the evaluated labels as
medium or low in a given nutrient.
Consumers’ responses were classified using a binary
coding system; true if the participant correctly
classified the label, and false otherwise.
The model was specified as follows:
Probability of giving a correct answer
¼ a0 þ a1 label background
For personal use only.
þ a2 type of product
þ a3 nutrition information format
þ a4 traffic light system þ a5 label background
£ type of product þ a6 label background
£ nutrition information format
þ a7 label background £ traffic light system
þ a8 nutrition information format
£ traffic light system
þ a9 nutrition information format
£ type of product þ a10 type of product
£ traffic light system:
The statistical significance of the independent vari-
ables was confirmed using the Chi-square statistic.
A significance level of 5% was used as the criterion for
statistical significance.
Linear regression. A linear regression was carried out
between average RTs and the percentage of correct
responses for all the evaluated labels.
All statistical analyses were carried out using
R language (R Development Core Team 2007).
683
Results
Response times
Consumers’ ability to find and interpret nutrition
information was evaluated through the use of RTs. As
given in Table I, the time needed by consumers to find
nutrition information and classify yoghurt labels
according to their fat content significantly depended
on the type of product, the format under which
nutrition information was displayed and the presence
of the traffic light system. Meanwhile, in the case of
pan bread labels RTs depended on the type of product,
nutrition information format, traffic light system and
the interaction between these two latter variables. It is
interesting to highlight that the label background did
not significantly affect consumers’ speed to find the
information and to classify the labels for any of the
products considered (Table I).
As shown in Figure 2, RTs were shorter when
consumers had to classify the salt content of pan bread
labels than when they had to classify the fat content of
yoghurt labels.
Furthermore, for both yoghurt and pan bread, the
classification of low fat/sodium products resulted in
higher RTs than regular products, as shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 3 shows the influence of nutrition infor-
mation and traffic light system on RTs. RTs were
shorter when nutrition information was displayed
using panel format and when the traffic light system
was used. For yoghurt labels these variables did not
show a significant interaction, as given in Table I,
which indicates that the influence of traffic light system
on consumers’ attentional capture and information
processing did not depend on the format under which
the information was displayed. When the traffic light
system was incorporated to the labels, consumers
needed approximately 4 s less time to classify the fat
content of yoghurt labels than when it was not present.
As for yoghurt labels, RTs for the classification of
pan bread labels were shorter when nutrition
information was displayed under panel format and
when the traffic light system was used. However, there
was a significant interaction between these two
variables (Table I). As shown in Figure 3, the influence
of the traffic light system was considerably larger when
nutrition information was displayed under linear
format than when panel format was used. RTs were
reduced by 5 s approximately when the traffic light
system was included on pan bread labels that had the
nutrition information displayed under linear format,
whereas the reduction in RTs was only some
milliseconds more than 1.5 s when panel format was
considered.
Percentage of correct responses
Consumers showed a relatively high understanding of
the information presented on the labels. They were
 684 G. Ares et al.

Table I. Results of the ANOVA carried out on RTs for yoghurt and pan bread labels.

Yoghurt Pan bread

Variable F p-Value F p-Value

Label background 2.76 0.0967ns 0.04 0.8346ns

Type of product 4.49 0.0342* 10.75 0.0011**
Nutrition information format 46.9 ,0.0001*** 168.1 ,0.0001***
Traffic light system 112.9 ,0.0001*** 201.7 ,0.0001***
Label background £ type of product 0.48 0.4889ns 0.07 0.4650ns
Label background £ nutrition information format 0.52 0.4692ns 0.53 0.4650ns
Label background £ traffic light system 0.72 0.3964ns 0.04 0.8463ns
Type of product £ nutrition information format 1.15 0.2834ns 0.04 0.8485ns
Type of product £ traffic light system 0.0008 0.9771ns 1.03 0.3092ns
Nutrition information format £ traffic light system 1.06 0.3043ns 43.75 ,0.0001***

Note: Whereas ns indicates no significant effect for a confidence level of 95%; * Indicates significant effect for a confidence level of 95%;
** Indicates significant effect for a confidence level of 99%; *** Indicates significant effect for a confidence level of 99.9%
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15

able to correctly classify 78.1% of the yoghurt labels
according to their fat content, whereas they correctly
classified 80.0% of the pan bread labels according to
their sodium content. Although the percentage of
correct answers was similar for both the products, the
influence of the evaluated variables on the labels
clearly differed (Table II).
In the case of yoghurt labels, the percentage of
correct responses was significantly affected by the label
background and the interaction between the label
For personal use only.
content when the information was displayed under
linear format than when panel format was used.
Regarding the influence of the traffic light system on
consumers’ understanding of sodium content, as
shown in Figure 5b it clearly depended on whether
nutrition information was presented under panel or
linear format. The traffic light system significantly
increased the percentage of correct classifications
regardless of how nutrition information was displayed.
However, the increase in the percentage of correct

background and the type of product and between the
type of product and the traffic light system (Table II).
As shown in Figure 4a, the percentage of correct
responses was higher for Background B when regular
yoghurts were considered, whereas it was lower for
low-fat yoghurts.
The influence of the traffic light system clearly
depended on the type of product considered. For low-
fat yoghurts, the percentage of correct responses
almost did not change when the traffic light system was
used, whereas this signpost had a clear influence for
regular yoghurts. As shown in Figure 4b, the
percentage of correct classifications for regular
yoghurts increased from 77.3% to 85.0% when the
traffic light system was used. In the case of pan bread
labels, results were markedly different from those of
yoghurt labels. As given in Table II, the percentage of
correct classifications of pan bread labels was
significantly affected by the type of product, nutrition
information format, the presence of traffic light system
answers depended on the nutrition information
format, being higher for the linear format.
Relationship between RTs and percentage of correct
responses
RTs were significantly ( p ¼ 0.0198) negatively corre-
lated with the percentage of correct answers for the
classification of yoghurt and pan bread labels accord-
ing to their nutrient content. Longer RTs tended to
correspond to a lower percentage of correct answers.
However, the correlation between these dependent
variables was low (2 0.41) and explained only 17% of
the variance of the experimental data.
Coincidentally, when consumers incorrectly classi-
fied the labels their RT was longer than when they
15000
12153.7 a 12942.8 b
Response time (ms)

and the interactions between the type of product and

the nutrition information format and between the Yogurt
10000
nutrition information format and the traffic light Pan bread
system. As shown in Figure 5a, the percentage of 8110.7 b
consumers who correctly classified the sodium content 7213.9 a
of the pan bread labels was lower when it was low with
respect to the regular products. Meanwhile, nutrition 5000
Regular Low
information format only affected the percentage of
Type of product
correct responses when low sodium products were
considered. In this case, consumers correctly classified Figure 2. RT for the classification of yoghurt and pan bread labels
a larger number of labels according to their sodium as a function of their fat/salt content.
 Attentional capture and understanding of nutrition labelling: a study based on response times 685

(a) 20000
on RTs was the same for correct and incorrect
responses.
Response time (ms) Linear
Panel 15994.2 d
15000
13060.3 c Discussion and conclusions
11653.5 b
10000 Methodological issues
9485.0 a
Nutrition labelling is one commonly used approach
that aims to help people to make healthier food choices
5000
With Without (Cowburn and Stockley 2005). In order to success-
Traffic light system fully convey nutrition information it is necessary to
design nutrition labelling in a way that is easy for
(b) 14000 consumers to detect, read, interpret and understand it
Linear 12283.6 c (Mackison et al. 2010). Considering that consumers
Response time (ms)

Panel invest limited time when making their food purchase

Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15

decisions, they may not rely on detailed complex

9000 nutrition information but take into account simple
and easily accessible information (van Herpen and
6588.4 b 6926.6 b van Trijp 2011). Therefore, one of the key issues for
the success of nutrition labelling is its ability to catch
4850.6 a consumers’ attention and to provide information that
4000
With Without is easily found and interpreted.
Traffic light system In the present work, the time needed by consumers
to find nutrition information and to classify labels was
Figure 3. RT for the classification of labels with different used to estimate how easy it was for consumers to find
nutritions’ information format and with/without traffic light system and interpret information about the content of a
For personal use only.

for: (a) yoghurt and (b) pan bread.

correctly classified them. For yoghurt labels the
difference between the RTs of correct and incorrect
answers was 2329 ms, whereas for pan bread it was
2644 ms. However, it is interesting to highlight that the
influence of the independent variables on RT was not
affected by the type of response, i.e. the conclusions
regarding the influence of the independent variables
specific nutrient (fat or sodium) in food labels. Thus,
longer RTs were related to more difficulty in finding
nutrition information and to a deeper processing once
the information was found in order to reach a decision.
Meanwhile, consumers’ understanding of nutrition
information displayed on food labels was assessed by
asking them to indicate whether the fat content of
yoghurts and the sodium content of pan bread were
medium or low.

Table II. Results of the logistic regression performed on the percentage of correct answers for yoghurt and pan bread labels.

Product Variable Parameter estimate Standard deviation p-Value

Yoghurt Label background (label B vs. label A) 20.477 0.175 0.0064*

Type of product (regular vs. low) 20.051 0.179 0.7774ns
Nutrition information format (panel vs. linear) 0.245 0.183 0.1810ns
Traffic light system (with vs. without) 0.049 0.181 0.7853ns
Label background £ type of product 0.603 0.185 0.0011*
Label background £ nutrition information format 0.207 0.207 0.2613ns
Label background £ traffic light system 0.070 0.185 0.5465ns
Type of product £ nutrition information format 20.155 0.186 0.4058ns
Type of product £ traffic light system 0.380 0.186 0.0413**
Nutrition information format £ traffic light system 0.112 0.186 0.5465ns
Pan bread Label background (label 2 vs. label 1) 0.072 0.176 0.6819ns
Type of product (regular vs. low) 0.571 0.186 0.0021*
Nutrition information format (panel vs. linear) 0.417 0.183 0.0225**
Traffic light system (with vs. without) 0.902 0.191 ,0.0001***
Label background £ type of product 0.109 0.200 0.5865ns
Label background £ nutrition information format 20.373 0.197 0.0580ns
Label background £ traffic light system 0.030 0.197 0.8803ns
Type of product £ nutrition information format 0.419 0.204 0.0400**
Type of product £ traffic light system 0.087 0.205 0.6721ns
Nutrition information format £ traffic light system 21.248 0.198 ,0.0001***

Note: Whereas ns indicates no significant effect for a confidence level of 95%; * Indicates significant effect for a confidence level of 99%;
** Indicates significant effect for a confidence level of 95%; *** Indicates significant effect for a confidence level of 99.9%.
 686 G. Ares et al.

(a) 90
the fat content of yoghurt labels was low or medium
Percentage of correct answers (%) Low fat 83
was more difficult than the decision on the sodium
79.2 Regular content of pan bread labels. A possible explanation for
80 78.4
this behaviour is that consumers needed more time to
71.9 classify the labels according to their fat content
70 because information was presented using three
different values (saturated, trans and total), whereas
for sodium only one value was presented on the labels.
60
Besides, it was clearly more difficult to decide that
the fat content of yoghurts and the sodium content of
50 pan bread were low than that to decide that it was
Background A Background B
medium (Figure 2). This suggests that the cognitive
Label background process needed to classify a product as low in a certain
(b) 90 nutrient was more difficult than that needed to classify
85 a regular product. According to these results, it
Percentage of correct answers (%)

Low fat
seemed that consumers did not have a clear
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15

Regular
80 77.3
76.4 predetermined criterion to decide whether a product
73.9
was low or high in a certain nutrient. Instead, each
70 time consumers faced a label they had to select a limit
for classifying the product as low or medium in a
specific nutrient. Thus, consumers needed more time
60
to select the limit when the product was low. It might
be interesting to study whether these differences in the
50 time required for the classification depend on the
With Without
number and name of categories. Moreover, in the case
Traffic light system
of pan bread, consumers were clearly more accurate
For personal use only.

Figure 4. Percentage of correct answers for consumers’

when classifying medium than low sodium labels
classification of the fat content of yoghurt for: (a) labels with
different fat contents and backgrounds, (b) labels with different fat
(a)
contents and with/without traffic light system.
Percentage of correct answers (%)

Low sodium 87.4

90 86.1
The correlation between these two dependent Regular
variables might indicate whether RTs were more
80 76.7
related to the search for nutrition information or to
information processing. In the present work, RTs were 69.9
significantly negatively correlated with the percentage 70
of correct responses, which suggests that RTs were
related to processing time since consumers found 60
more difficult to interpret those labels for which they
required more time to find and process the infor- 50
mation. However, the correlation between RTs and Linear Panel
the percentage of correct responses was low and the Nutrition information format
influence of the evaluated independent variables did
(b)
not differ for consumers when considering correct and
Percentage of correct answers (%)

incorrect responses. This suggests that RTs were more 90 88.2 Linear
related to the difficulty in finding nutrition infor- Panel
81
mation than to information processing. 80 76.3
74.6
Therefore, in the present study RTs were related to
consumers’ search and interpretation of nutrition 70
information, whereas the percentage of correct
responses corresponded to a measure of their 60
understanding.
50
With Without
Influence of nutrition information format on consumers’ Traffic light system
attention and understanding
Figure 5. Percentage of correct answers when classifying the
Results showed that the type of product, nutrition sodium content of pan bread for: (a) labels with different nutritions’
information format and traffic light system signifi- information format and sodium content, (b) labels with different
cantly affected RTs (Table I). The decision of whether nutritions’ information format and with/without traffic light system.
 Attentional capture and understanding of nutrition labelling: a study based on response times
(Figure 5), which could be related to the lack of
nutritional knowledge. This is in agreement with the
results from previous studies. Ares et al. (2008)
reported that nutritional knowledge of Uruguayan
consumers was low, particularly in what refers to the
nutritional content of different food products. Besides,
Carrillo et al. (2011) reported that Spanish consumers
had a scarce knowledge of the nutritional effect of
individual food components and that despite the fact
that in general Spanish consumers were able to
understand food labels in a simple task, nutritional
knowledge had a large influence on the importance
given to nutritional information. Thus, informative
strategies seem necessary to increase consumers’
knowledge about the nutrient content of foods and
particularly of how to evaluate a food product based on
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15
a given nutrient.
An interesting finding of the present study is that
both yoghurt and pan bread label design did not affect
consumers’ ability to find and interpret nutrition
information. This suggests that the graphic design of
the labels did not affect consumers’ ability to find and
interpret nutrition information. However, for yoghurt
the percentage of correct classifications was signifi-
cantly affected by the graphic design and non-
nutritional information of the labels (Table II).
For personal use only.
According to the results, consumers seemed to
associate labels designed with Background B with
a regular product and not with a low-fat yoghurt and
therefore they tended to classify its fat content as
medium. Apart from graphic design it is important to
take into account that flavour information and product
name did also vary between Background A and
Background B, which could have also influenced
consumers’ responses. This result indicates that
consumers’ perception of the graphic design and
non-nutritional information of the labels significantly
affected their perception of the fat content of yoghurts.
This is in agreement with previous research that shows
that the images used on labels have a great impact on
consumers’ expectations and perception of food
products (Ares et al. 2010), which might even override
the effect of nutrition information. This area of
research has not received much attention yet and
should be further explored since consumers’ percep-
tion of the healthiness of food products might be
clearly affected by the graphic or non-verbal signs of
food labels.
Furthermore, nutrition information format signifi-
cantly affected the time required by consumers to
classify the evaluated labels according to their content
of a given nutrient (Table I). It was clearly easier for
consumers to find, read and interpret nutrition
information when it was presented using panel format
(Figures 2 and 3). Despite the fact that both formats
are allowed by Uruguayan legislation, differences in
their ability to capture consumers’ attention and
their ease of interpretation should be considered.
Nowadays, the use of linear or panel format by food
687
companies depends on the size of the label and the
space available for nutrition information. However,
considering that when making their choices consumers
might rely on information that is easily accessible, they
might be more prone to read information presented
under panel form than when it is displayed under
linear format.
Regarding the use of the traffic light system, it
clearly provided an improvement in attentional
capture and consumers’ understanding of nutrition
information for both products. The only difference in
the results of both the products was that in the case of
yoghurt labels, the influence of the traffic light system
was independent of nutrition information format,
whereas in the case of pan bread labels it was not. As
shown in Figure 3, the influence of the traffic light
system was larger when nutrition information was
displayed under linear format than when panel format
was used. This could be explained considering that
when the traffic light system was used consumers
might have not read all the information displayed in
linear format, requiring less time for the classification.
As shown in Figures 3 – 5, the use of traffic light
system caused a large reduction in RTs and a slight
increase in the percentage of correct classifications.
These results sum up to the published studies that
report that multiple traffic light systems facilitate
processing (van Herpen and van Trijp 2011). These
authors reported that despite the fact that consumers
from various European countries evaluated nutrition
table format positively, this format received little
attention and did not stimulate healthy choices.
According to a study carried out by the Food
Standards Agency (2005), among different formats,
traffic light systems yield the highest consumers’
understanding, measured in terms of their ability to
classify a product as high, medium or low in two given
nutrients. Besides, traffic light labels and logos have
been reported to enhance healthy food choices (van
Herpen and van Trijp 2011).
Considering that in the present study all the
information on the label was presented on a single
plane, the influence of traffic light system when used
on the front of a package on consumers’ attention
could be even larger in a real-life setting. Therefore,
displaying nutrition information in the front of the
package could be an interesting alternative to increase
consumers’ awareness of nutrition information by
significantly reducing the effort needed for finding and
interpreting this information on a food label.
Limitations and implications for further research
The major limitation of the present work is that RT
was related to both attention and cognitive processing.
Further research is needed to overcome this limitation
and to independently measure attention to and
processing of nutrition information. The application
of eye-tracking techniques could help to fill this
 688 G. Ares et al.
gap since they could provide information on whether
consumers take more time because they deeply process
the information or because they cannot find the right
information or have trouble in understanding the
information presented to them.
Another limitation of the present work is that some
information, such as flavour and product name, was
not controlled in the labels. This information could
have also influenced consumers’ perception of the fat
and salt content of the yoghurts and pan breads,
respectively. Further research should be carried out to
specifically address this issue, studying how graphic
design, flavour, product name and other non-
nutritional information influence consumers’ percep-
tion of the nutrient content and healthiness of food
products.
Int J Food Sci Nutr Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by University of Nebraska on 04/07/15
As stated by Bialkova and van Trijp (2010), display
size, colour, location and familiarity of front-of-pack
information impact consumers’ attention. However, in
the present study these variables were not considered
and should be included as independent variables in
further research. Besides, other formats of front-of-
pack nutrition information should be studied since
consumer liking and perception of these signposts
might play a key role in their use of nutrition
information in their everyday life (Grunert and Wills
For personal use only.
2007).
Research is also needed to compare results from the
present work from those performed under real-life
settings using observational studies. Moreover, con-
sidering that the influence of nutrition information
format depends on the product and the nutrient
considered, it is necessary to consider a wider range of
products and nutrients, in particular considering that
the type of nutrient and product had a large influence
on the results. Furthermore, consumers’ behaviour
when comparing labels instead of evaluating products
in monadic sequence could provide interesting
complementary information on the cognitive process
involved in their evaluations.
Declaration of interest: The authors report no
conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible
for the content and writing of the paper.
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.
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.
Bialkova S, van Trijp H. 2010. What determines consumer attention
to nutrition labels? Food Qual Prefer 21:1042–1051.
Black A, Rayner M. 1992. Just read the label: understanding
nutrition information in numeric verbal and graphic communi-
cation. London: HMSO.
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.
Carrillo E, Varela P, Fiszman S. 2011. Influence of nutritional
knowledge on the use and interpretation of food labels. J Food
Sci, doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02479.x (in press).
Cowburn G, Stockley L. 2005. Consumer understanding and use of
nutrition labelling: a systematic review. Public Health Nutr 8:
21–28.
Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection 2005.
The European consumers’ attitudes regarding product labelling
– qualitative study in 28 European countries. Versailles: Optem.
Food Standards Agency 2005. Quantitative evaluation of alternative
food signposting concepts, www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/
signpostquanresearch.pdf. Accessed 28 June 2011.
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.
Freeman DH. 1987. Logistic regression Applied categorical data
analysis. New York: Marcel Dekker. p 237–274.
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.
Jarvis BG. 2004. DirectRT research software, version 2004
[Computer Program]. New York: Emprisoft.
Hollingworth A, Henderson JM. 1998. Does consistent scene
context facilitate object perception? J Exp Psychol Gen 127:
398 –415.
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.
Hurt E. 2002. Nutritional labelling: European Union and United
Kingdom perspectives. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 11:S77–S79.
Janiszewski C. 1998. The influence of display characteristics on
visual exploratory search behavior. J Consum Res 25:290–301.
Jones G, Richardson M. 2007. An objective examination of
consumer perception of nutrition information based on healthi-
ness ratings and eye movements. Public Health Nutr 10:
238 –244.
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.
Microsoft at work 2011. 12 tips for creating better docume-
nts, http://www.microsoft.com/atwork/skills/documents.aspx.
Accessed on 23 October 2011.
Ministerio de Salud Pública 2006. Decreto 117/06. Montevideo,
Uruguay: Ministerio de Salud Pública.
Opperud A. 2004. Semiotic product analysis. In: McDonagh D,
Hekkert P, Van Erp J, Gyim D, editors. Design and emotion.
London: Taylor and Francis. p 137–141.
Pieters R, Wedel M. 2004. Attention capture and transfer in
advertising. Brand, pictorial, and text-size effects. J Mark 68:
36–50.
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.
R Development Core Team 2007. R: A language and environment
for statistical computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0 Vienna, Austria:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
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.
Solomon M, Bamossy G, Askegaard S. 2002. Consumer behaviour:
a European perspective. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education
Ltd. p 36–49.
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.
Wolfe JM. 1998. Visual search. In: Pashler H, editor. Attention. East
Sussex: Psychology Press.