Mark Lett

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9453-x

The 101 calorie mini pack: the interaction between

numerical and verbal marketing cues

Elizabeth A. Minton 1 & Richie L. Liu 2 &

Christopher T. Lee 3

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract Research has yet to adequately explore how numerical (e.g., calorie infor-
mation) and verbal (e.g., size descriptors) food portion cues on product packaging
interact to influence consumer evaluations. Thus, this research examines such cues in
three studies. Study 1 showed that distinctive numerical cues (99 or 101 rather than
100) were more positively evaluated. Study 2 examined interactions between numerical
and verbal cues (bite vs. king size) to show that matching magnitude cues (100 with
bite size or 101 with king size) led to higher product evaluations. Study 3 examined the
moderating effect of health interest and revealed that inclusion of a verbal cue (vs.
none) only mattered when presented in conjunction with a non-distinctive numeric cue
(100 calorie) for high health interest consumers. These findings provide insight for
marketers and policy makers because, currently, caloric amounts above 50 calories are
required to be rounded to the nearest 10 caloric unit (e.g., 100 calorie), but allowing
caloric amounts to be exact (99 or 101 calorie) may influence healthier consumption
outcomes.

Keywords Marketing cues . Information leakage . Markedness . Nutrition labels

* Elizabeth A. Minton
eminton@uwyo.edu

Richie L. Liu
richie.liu@okstate.edu

Christopher T. Lee
clee@asu.edu

1
College of Business, University of Wyoming, 1000 E. University Ave., Dept. 3275, Laramie,
WY 82071, USA
2
Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, 240 Business Building, Stillwater,
OK 74078, USA
3
W.P. Carey School of Business, Arizona State University, 400 E Lemon Street, Tempe,
AZ 85287, USA
 Mark Lett

Grocery stores are full of packaged goods, from cereal to pretzels, and soup to popcorn.
The labeling on the package provides information for consumers, which may include
portion information, calories, item size, number of items, and the nutrition label, among
other things. Although a fair amount of research has looked at FDA-guided nutrition
labels (c.f., Block and Peracchio 2006; Roberto et al. 2012), recent research in framing
and linguistics (Holleman and Maat 2009; Sher and McKenzie 2006) suggests that the
numerical and verbal information on product packaging may influence behavior in
unique ways. Prior research has also examined how consumers perceive calorie
information in the nutrition facts panel (c.f., Balasubramanian and Cole 2002; Keller
et al. 1997), but little research has examined how consumers perceive calorie informa-
tion and size descriptors for single-serve packs displayed on package fronts.
Marketers frequently design such single-serve packs to contain 100 calories. What
would happen if policy makers allowed marketers to follow the common practice in
pricing (Coulter and Coulter 2007; Schindler 2006) to make the number seem perceptually
smaller by having a 99 ending instead? In other words, what would happen if marketers
created 99 calorie packs? Or 101 calorie packs? In one sense, 1 calorie should make no
difference. In another sense, and fitting with the research on pricing, one penny (pricing) or
1 calorie (food) could make a large difference. Size descriptors might influence consumer
judgments, such that mega or huge packs might be more acceptable with distinctive
101 calorie bags and mini or small packs might be more acceptable with non-distinctive
100 calorie bags. For example, Oreo has created both mini and mega sandwich cookies,
which may have more influence on consumer perceptions than previously realized. See
Appendix 1 for several examples of size descriptors currently used on 100 calorie packs.
Research on verbal descriptors is particularly important because it is generally unregulat-
ed, giving marketers the power to harness these descriptors in ways that are most
beneficial to them. Additionally, the studies herein explore verbal descriptors rather than
other mandatory food package information (e.g., weight in ounces, description of
contents; FTC 2017) because marketers have more control and flexibility with voluntary
verbal descriptors. However, research has yet to explore these relationships.
Therefore, the research herein seeks to add to this limited research by exploring how
numerical cues (i.e., calorie information) interact with verbal cues (i.e., size descriptors)
to influence product evaluations. More specifically, this research has three main
purposes: (1) explore how numerical and verbal cues on product packaging interact,
(2) identify how slight changes in calorie information (e.g., 99 vs. 100 vs. 101)
influence product evaluations, and (3) examine health interest as a moderator to explain
response to numerical and verbal food package cues.

1 Framing and numerical package cues

Research on information leakage (Sher and McKenzie 2006) as well as pricing (Coulter
and Coulter 2007; Schindler 2006) suggests that one unit differences in numerical
calorie cues should have a large effect on consumer judgments. Specifically, informa-
tion leakage suggests that a listener (or in the context of health, a consumer) gains
information from the speaker’s choice of frame, and thus, the information in frames are
not equivalent. Consider the example of single-serve packages. These packages are
often found with 100 calories. How would numerically similar quantity cues, such as
Mark Lett

packages with 99 or 101 calories, influence product evaluations? From a caloric

perspective, one could argue that the information is equivalent because 101 or 99 cal-
ories is essentially the same as 100 calories. This logic also fits with the Front-of-
Package Labeling Initiative where marketers are required to round calorie amounts to
the nearest 10 calorie unit for food products with more than 50 calories per serving
(FDA 2014). However, could 1 calorie differences actually have a positive effect on
consumer judgments, suggesting that policy might want to be open to allowing calories
displayed in such one unit increments?
Based on information leakage, a marketer may intentionally choose a particular
calorie count which fits the conclusion they want the consumer to draw. Despite nearly
equivalent calorie information, a marketer’s choice of 99 or 101 calories may Bleak^
information that influences health outcomes. For example, Bizer and Schindler (2005)
showed that consumers wanted to buy more products when prices had 99 endings
rather than 00 endings, which illustrates the potential for incidental, and distinctive (i.e.,
unique, not standard, unrounded), numerical information to alter responses. Addition-
ally, recent research has shown that more precise numbers (e.g., 101) have a stronger
influence on estimates and also consumer judgments (Zhang and Schwarz 2013). Thus:

H1: Distinctive calorie information (e.g., 99 or 101 calories) leads to more positive
product evaluations than non-distinctive calorie information (e.g., 100 calories).

2 Interactions with verbal package cues

Markedness is a linguistics-based theory that deals with various aspects of language

and, for the purposes of this research, an asymmetry in adjectives (Battistella 1996).
Marked terms represent words that are less natural and normal, while unmarked terms
represent words that are usual, normal, and common (Hume 2011). Following this
logic, a question such as BHow many calories…^ is a common and relatively normal
way to ask about the number of calories in a product. However, asking BHow few
calories…^ is not as common and implies that the product has a small number of
calories. In both questions, the number of calories is the expected response, but how the
question is asked influences the interpretation.
Furthermore, very little research has explored how consumers perceive language
cues (as described in the markedness literature) and numerical cues (as described in the
framing literature) in combination. From a processing standpoint, fuzzy-trace theory, a
dual-processing theory that argues people store both verbatim (i.e., numerical) and gist
(i.e., verbal) information in parallel (Reyna 2012), suggests that consumers should give
preference to verbal representations due to their simplicity. Furthermore, a verbal cue,
such as jumbo or tiny, or a calorie cue, such as 99 or 101, potentially alters the
consumer’s reference point (Kahneman 1992). In other words, jumbo may suggest a
high number of calories, but, in combination with a smaller calorie reference (e.g., 99),
jumbo may confuse consumers, thereby lowering product evaluations. Having the
numerical cue and verbal cue align (i.e., the same reference point) may ease processing
and result in a more favorable response than incongruent reference points. Thus:
 Mark Lett

H2: Verbal cues interact with numerical cues, such that large (small) verbal cues
partnered with large (small) numerical cues produce higher product evaluations in
comparison to large (small) verbal cues partnered with small (large) numerical
cues.

3 Health interest as a moderator

Naturally, consumers involved in a product category should spend more time and
invest more resources in that product category. In the context of health, consumers
high in health interest (i.e., healthy consumers) should have a natural inclination to
attend to health information, which is important information for marketers of
health-oriented products. Gallicano et al. (2012) found just this when showing
that consumers high in health interest were more likely to reference nutritional
information provided on restaurant menus. Andrews et al. (Andrews et al. 2009)
also found a generally positive relationship between health interest and motivation
to search for more product information.
Assuming that health information is accurate, consumers high in health interest
should have more positive product evaluations when numerical or verbal cues are
present that match their search for a healthy product. In other words, consumers
high in health interest should prefer a 99 calorie pack over a 100 or 101 calorie
pack given that it is a healthier option. Similarly, consumers high in health interest
should prefer packaging with larger verbal cues (e.g., mega) rather than smaller
verbal cues (e.g., mini) when such verbal cues are partnered with healthy calorie
estimates (e.g., 99 calories instead of 101 calories). This expectation follows the
literature on malleable mental accounting (c.f., Cheema and Soman 2006) where
consumers seek ways to justify their decision, such that a consumer may justify
eating a less desirable healthy food (e.g., the 99 calorie pack) by seeing the
contents as large and filling (e.g., with the word mega). Thus:

H3: Health interest moderates the relationship between food package cues and
product evaluations, such that consumers high in health interest have the highest
(lowest) product evaluations for numerical cues of 99 (101) calories and for verbal
cues of mega (mini).

To test this and our previously developed hypotheses, study 1 examines the
main effect of numerical cues (H1) and study 2 investigates the interaction
between numerical and verbal cues (H2). For our experimental work in studies 1
and 2, we focus on the effect of numerical and verbal cues on managerially
relevant outcomes (i.e., product attitude, purchase intentions, and perceptions of
flavor) to provide marketers insight on approaching such cues in the marketplace.
Lastly, study 3 considers the moderating effect of health interest in conjunction
with numerical and verbal cues (H3). Due to the inclusion of a policy relevant
moderator in study 3, we elect to further examine the influence of numerical and
verbal cues on a measure (i.e., perceptions of nutritiousness) that will draw
regulators’ attention.
Mark Lett

4 Study 1: cookies and evaluations of distinctive calorie information

4.1 Method

Participants and design One hundred and thirty-four adults (Mage = 37.16, SD =
11.59; 49.6% female) from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mturk) participated in this
study in exchange for a small cash incentive. This study featured a three-level,
between-subject design where each participant was randomly assigned to one of three
caloric conditions (99, 100, 101).

Procedure and measures Participants were presented with a realistic packaging front
for a new fictional brand of chocolate chip cookies. On the packaging front, calorie
conditions were manipulated by presenting either a distinctive (i.e., 99 or 101) or a non-
distinctive (i.e., 100) number of calories per cookie bag. To assess the influence of
conditions on consumer responses, two different measures of evaluations were used:
overall attitude and purchase intentions. Overall attitude (α = .962) and purchase
intentions (α = .976) were each measured with three nine-point bipolar scales (overall
attitude: unfavorable/favorable, bad/good, dislike/like; purchase intentions: unlikely/
likely, definitely would not/definitely would, not probable/probable). Participants were
then asked how many calories were in each bag of cookies to assess the calorie content
manipulation and general awareness of the packaging front. Lastly, participants com-
pleted demographic questions.

4.2 Results

Twenty-one participants failed to answer the calorie manipulation check correctly and
were removed from the dataset, leaving the data with 113 participants for further
analysis.1
We first examined the effect of distinctive (vs. non-distinctive) calorie information
on overall product attitude. A one-way ANOVA was performed on overall attitude.
Results indicated that participants evaluated the product differently depending on the
calorie information presented, F(2, 110) = 3.182, p = .045. Follow-up contrasts revealed
that participants’ overall attitude towards the cookies in the 99 calorie condition (M =
6.98, SD = 1.92) was more favorable than the 100 calorie condition (M = 5.87, SD =
2.12; p = .041), but no differences emerged when compared to the 101 calorie condition
(M = 6.52, SD = 1.63; p = .878). However, participants did not report any differences in
overall attitude between the 100 and 101 calorie conditions (p = .420). For purchase
intentions, a significant one-way ANOVA emerged, F(2, 110) = 4.64, p = .012. Results
demonstrated that participants reported greater purchase intentions for the cookies in
the 99 calorie condition (M = 6.51, SD = 2.37) compared to the 100 calorie condition
(M = 4.99, SD = 2.57; p = .020). Similar to the overall attitude measure, no differences
emerged for purchase intentions for the cookies between the 99 and 101 (M = 6.34,

1
Inclusion of all eliminated participants in one-way ANOVA analyses—overall attitude: F(2, 131) = 2.861,
p = .061; purchase intentions: F(2, 131) = 5.244, p = .006. Eliminated participants were evenly distributed
across the experimental conditions.
 Mark Lett

SD = 2.14) calorie conditions (p = .990). Additionally, participants were more likely to

purchase the cookies in the 101 calorie condition when compared to the 100 calorie
condition (p = .042).

4.3 Discussion

Our main objective in this study was to determine whether the distinctiveness in calorie
information can differentially affect consumers’ responses on important marketing
outcomes, namely overall product attitude and purchase intentions. For the most part,
we found that participants responded more favorably to the product (i.e., overall
attitude and purchase intentions) when presented with distinctive calorie information
(i.e., 99 and 101) with the exception of overall attitude between the 101 and 100 caloric
conditions. Importantly, participants had higher purchase intentions when the calorie
information was distinctive (vs. non-distinctive). Moreover, participants did not eval-
uate the product differently between the distinctive conditions. When considering the
results of study 1, we find general support for hypothesis 1 that distinctive (vs. non-
distinctive) calorie information leads to more favorable product evaluations.
Results from study 1 extend our understanding of information leakage to incremen-
tal numerical differences, such that varying calorie information, even in the slightest
degree, can differentially influence consumer judgments. These findings suggest to
marketers the importance of numerical cues and that defaulting to the nearest whole
number should not be automatic. In study 2, we extend the findings from this study by
examining the moderating effect of verbal cues.

5 Studies 2A and 2B: brownies and evaluations of numerical and verbal

cues

Similar to study 1, participants in studies 2A and 2B were shown a realistic packaging

front using the same fictitious brand, but with a different type of food product (i.e.,
brownie bites). Once again, calorie conditions were manipulated on the packaging by
presenting either a distinctive (i.e., 99 and 101) or a non-distinctive (i.e., 100) number
of calories per bag of brownies. In studies 2A and 2B, we opted to focus on one
distinctive numerical cue for each study since both the 99 and 101 caloric conditions in
the previous study did not produce significantly different consumer evaluations. On the
packaging front, we also manipulated a different verbal cue for each of the studies by
displaying beneath the caloric condition either Btiny^ or Bjumbo^ size in study 2A and
Bbite^ or Bking^ size in study 2B.

5.1 Study 2A

Participants, design, and procedure One hundred undergraduates (Mage = 21.31,

SD = 2.42; 57.9% female) from a Midwestern university participated in this laboratory
study in exchange for class credit. Each participant was randomly assigned to a 2
(numerical cue: 99 vs. 100 calories) × 2 (verbal cue: tiny vs. jumbo size) between-
subject design.
Mark Lett

After presenting the packaging front, participants were asked to report their purchase
intentions for the brownie bites using the same scale from study 1 (α = .972). Next,
participants reported the number of calories and the verbal cue presented on the
packaging front to assess the success of the manipulations and their general awareness
during the study. Lastly, participants completed demographic questions.

Results Five participants failed the numerical and verbal condition checks and were
removed from the study, leaving the data with 95 participants for further analysis.2
Participants’ purchase intentions for the brownie bites were tested with a 2 (numer-
ical calorie cue 99 vs. 100) × 2 (verbal size cue: tiny vs. jumbo) ANOVA. No main
effects emerged for the numerical (F(1, 93) = 1.21, p = .274) and verbal cue (F(1, 93) =
0.001, p = .989) conditions. However, a significant numerical by verbal cue interaction
emerged (F(1, 93) = 8.07, p = .006; see Fig. 1).
We conducted contrast analyses to better understand the nature of the interaction.
For the non-distinctive and larger numerical cue (i.e., 100 calories), purchase intentions
were significantly higher for the verbal cue indicating a larger size (i.e., jumbo; M =
7.50, SD = 1.53) compared to smaller-sized verbal cue (i.e., tiny; M = 6.31, SD = 2.09;
F(1, 93) = 4.90, p = .029). Additionally, under the distinctive and smaller numerical cue
(i.e., 99 calories), purchase intentions were marginally higher for the verbal cue
representing the smaller size (M = 7.04, SD = 1.40) compared to larger-sized verbal
cue (M = 5.86, SD = 2.98; F(1, 93) = 3.42, p = .068). Generally, preference for the
caloric condition was greater when aligned with a representative verbal cue.

5.2 Study 2B

Participants, design, and procedure One hundred and fifty adults (Mage = 32.83,
SD = 10.90; 53.2% female) from mturk participated in this study in exchange for a
small cash incentive. Our study comprised of a 2 (numerical cue: 100 vs. 101 calories)
× 2 (verbal cue: bite vs. king size) between-subject design.
Our procedure for study 2B followed that of 2A, with the exception of the main
dependent variable used to increase generalizability of findings and provide practical
implications for marketers. Specifically, we asked participants to report their percep-
tions of the degree of flavor in the brownie bites with a nine-point bipolar scale
anchored by Bbland/flavorful.^

Results Eleven participants failed the numerical and verbal condition checks and were
removed from the study, leaving the dataset with 139 participants.3
Participants’ flavor evaluations for the brownie bites were tested with a 2 (numerical
cue) × 2 (verbal cue) ANOVA. There was a significant main effect of the numerical
calorie cue on perceptions of flavor (F(1, 137) = 4.34, p = .039), such that participants
exposed to the 101 calorie condition perceived a higher degree of flavor for the brownie

2
Inclusion of all eliminated participants in ANOVA analysis—purchase intentions: F(1, 98) = 5.068, p = .027.
Eliminated participants were evenly distributed across the experimental conditions.
3
Inclusion of all eliminated participants in ANOVA analysis—flavorful: F(1, 148) = 4.273, p = .040.
Eliminated participants were evenly distributed across the experimental conditions.
 Mark Lett

Study 2A
Tiny Size Jumbo Size

9.00

8.00 7.50
7.04
7.00
6.31
Purchase Intentions

5.86
6.00

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00
99 Calories 100 Calories

Study 2B
Bite Size King Size

9.00

8.00

7.00
6.34
6.00 5.80 5.70
Flavorful

5.12
5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00
100 Calories 101 Calories
Fig. 1 Effect of numerical and verbal cues on purchase intentions and perceptions of flavor
Mark Lett

bites (M = 6.02, SD = 1.27) in comparison to those in the 100 caloric condition (M =

5.50, SD = 1.83). No main effect emerged for the verbal size cue (F(1, 137) = 0.01,
p = .945), although a significant numerical by verbal cue interaction emerged (F(1,
137) = 6.19, p = .014; see Fig. 1).
As in study 2A, contrast analyses were performed. Under the distinctive and larger
numerical cue (101 calories), perceptions of flavor were marginally higher for the
verbal cue indicating a larger size (i.e., king; M = 6.34, SD = 0.86) compared to smaller-
sized verbal cue (i.e., bite; M = 5.70, SD = 1.51; F(1, 137) = 2.76, p = .090). Moreover,
under the non-distinctive and smaller numerical cue (100 calories), perceptions of
flavor were marginally higher for the verbal cue representing the smaller size (M =
5.80, SD = 1.66) compared to larger-sized verbal cue (M = 5.12, SD = 1.98; F(1, 137) =
3.47, p = .065). Similar to our results in study 2A, we found that participants evaluated
the caloric condition more favorably when numerical and verbal cues aligned.

5.3 Discussion

Findings reveal that participants generally responded more favorably to the product
when presented with caloric information that was consistent with the verbal cue. For
example, participants had greater purchase intentions when the higher caloric condition
was paired with a larger (jumbo) vs. smaller (tiny) verbal cue. Additionally, a similar
pattern of results emerged when the lower calorie condition was paired with the smaller
(vs. larger) verbal cue, supporting hypothesis 2. Importantly, we find such results on
another managerially important outcome, perceptions of flavor, and demonstrate the
robustness of our findings with different caloric comparisons (99 vs. 100 in study 2A;
100 vs. 101 in study 2B).
Another takeaway from study 2 is the importance of distinctive (vs. non-distinctive)
cues (e.g., 101 vs. 100 calories) diminishing when presented in conjunction with verbal
cues. Due to both distinctive and non-distinctive cues demonstrating more favorable
evaluations when presented with aligning verbal cues, results from study 2 suggest that
marketers can improve consumer responses to not only distinctive but also non-
distinctive cues by further presenting other types of cues that have the same reference
point, thus providing consumers opportunities for easier processing in the marketplace.

6 Study 3: cookies, health interest, and evaluation of numerical and verbal

cues

6.1 Method

Participants and design Three hundred and seventy-five adults (Mage = 35.06, SD =
10.64; 42.1% female) from mturk participated in this study exchange for a small cash
incentive. This study featured a 3 (numeric cue: 99, 100, 101 calories) × 3 (verbal cue:
none, mini, mega) between-subject design where each participant was randomly
assigned to one condition.
 Mark Lett

Procedure and measures As in our prior studies, experimental conditions were

manipulated by presentation of a packaging front that utilized the same stimuli and
fictional brand, but with different verbal cues and food type (sugar cookie). Next,
participants were asked to assess their perceptions of nutritiousness based on the
information presented in the packaging front with a one-item, seven-point scale
ranging from not nutritious at all to very nutritious. We chose to measure the level
of perceived nutritiousness as the main dependent variable to examine whether
numerical and verbal cues have any health implications. Along with the health-
related outcome measure, health interest was assessed as a potential moderator for
the influence of numeric and verbal cues on consumers’ evaluations. Participants
completed Chandon and Wansink’s (2007) five-item, seven-point Likert health
interest scale (e.g., BI pay close attention to nutrition information,^ α = .863).
Lastly, participants completed the same manipulation checks and demographic
questions as in our previous studies. Notably, no participants failed our manipu-
lation checks for their assigned conditions.

6.2 Results

To test hypothesis 3, we conducted a three-step hierarchical regression analysis to

examine the influence of numeric and verbal cues as well as the moderating effect of
health interest on perceptions of nutritiousness. Our initial analysis revealed no signif-
icant differences between the 99 vs. 101 caloric conditions or mega vs. mini verbal
cues; thus, these experimental conditions were collapsed to create three main effects:
(1) 99/101 (distinctive cue) vs. 100 (non-distinctive cue), (2) mega/mini vs. none, and
(3) health interest (mean deviated). We used dummy coding for the numeric cue
(distinctive = 0; non-distinctive = 1) and verbal cue (none = 0; mega/mini = 1) condi-
tions. Three two-way interaction effects were then created: (1) numeric cue × verbal
cue, (2) numeric cue × health interest, and (3) verbal cue × health interest, and a three-
way interaction among our variables. For our regression analysis, we entered the main
effects in step 1, the two-way interactions in step 2, and the three-way interaction in
step 3. As shown in Table 1 (step 3), the hypothesized three-way interaction was
significant on perceptions of nutritiousness. No other significant effects emerged from
our analysis.
To further explore the three-way interaction, we tested the numeric × verbal cue
interaction within low levels of mean deviated health interest (− 1SD) and high levels
of mean deviated health interest (+ 1SD). Our spotlight analyses revealed only a
marginal significant effect when presenting a verbal cue (vs. not) for consumers with
higher health interest if shown a non-distinctive numeric cue, thereby supporting
hypothesis 3.
As shown in Fig. 2, the three-way interaction was consistent with hypothesis 3,
which proposed that consumers with lower levels of health interest perceived little
difference in product evaluations regardless of cue conditions. However, those con-
sumers with higher levels of health interest did in fact perceive more nutritiousness
when presented a verbal cue (vs. not) in conjunction with a non-distinctive numeric cue
(i.e., 100 calories). No such effect emerged for those who consume with higher health
interest when shown a distinctive numeric cue (i.e., 99 or 101 calories).
Mark Lett

Table 1 Hierarchical regression analysis testing interactive effects and spotlight contrasts (study 3)

Predictor Nutritiousness

Step 1 β p
Numeric cue (NC) .029 .578
Verbal cue (VC) .011 .834
Health interest (HI) − .043 .408
Step 2
NC × VC .010 .922
NC × HI .036 .598
VC × HI .357 .002
Spotlight analyses
Low health interest (− 1SD)
Distinctive numeric cue .138 .137
Non-distinctive numeric cue − .171 .134
High health interest (+ 1SD)
Distinctive numeric cue − .127 .178
Non-distinctive numeric cue − .215 .064

6.3 Discussion

Distinctive and non-distinctive calorie information as well as the inclusion of a

verbal cue (vs. none) did not result in any perceived nutritional benefits for
consumers with less interest in health. In contrast, for consumers high in health
interest, perceived health benefits were greater for the packaging front that com-
prised of both a non-distinctive numeric cue (i.e., 100 calories) and a verbal cue
(vs. none). Interestingly, participants reporting higher health interest did not feel
that there were additional nutritional benefits when provided a verbal cue when
partnered with a distinctive numeric cue (i.e., 99 or 101 calories), thereby contra-
dicting expectations in hypothesis 3, perhaps due to cognitive overload. This
particular finding suggests that marketers and regulators can focus on presenting
only a distinctive cue on packaging for consumers. Inclusion of a verbal cue with
distinctive numeric cues does not seem to provide any helpful additional infor-
mation when consumers have a disposition to be concerned with their health.

7 General discussion

Through three studies, this research fulfilled the three purposes set forth in the
introduction. First, the interaction between numerical and verbal cues was ex-
plored to find that these cues did interact to directly influence product evaluations.
Generally, consumers had the highest product evaluations when supplied with a
numerical and verbal cue that align (e.g., large numerical and large verbal cue vs.
large numerical and small verbal cue). Second, one unit changes in caloric
 Mark Lett

Low Health Interest (-1SD)

No Verbal Cue Verbal Cue

7.00

6.00

5.00
Nutritiousness

4.00

3.06 3.19
3.00 2.65 2.68

2.00

1.00
Distinctive Cue Non-Distinctive Cue

High Health Interest (+1SD)

No Verbal Cue Verbal Cue

7.00

6.00

5.00
Nutritiousness

4.00

2.97 3.07
3.00
2.60
2.44

2.00

1.00
Distinctive Cue Non-Distinctive Cue
Fig. 2 Effect of numerical and verbal cues and health interest on perceptions of nutritiousness (study 3)
Mark Lett

information were explored to identify no significant differences between distinc-

tive cues (99 vs. 101 calories), but significant differences between the distinctive
cues and the non-distinctive cue (99/101 vs. 100 calories). This research builds on
the literature on information leakage/framing (Holleman and Maat 2009; Sher and
McKenzie 2006) and pricing (Schindler 2006) by further highlighting how subtle
numerical and verbal cues influence behavior. Additionally, the moderator of
health interest was explored. Numerical and verbal cues were most influential
for consumers higher in health interest, but only when provided a verbal cue (vs.
none) in conjunction with a non-distinctive numeric cue (i.e., 100 calories).
Marketing practitioners and policy makers can benefit from the findings of this
research. As described earlier, FDA regulation describes that food containing less
than 5 calories should be expressed as containing zero calories, food containing
less than 50 calories should be expressed in five caloric increments, and food
containing more than 50 calories should be expressed to the nearest 10 caloric
increment (FDA 2013). The findings from our studies herein show that rounding
calories to the nearest 5 or 10 unit increment may not be the best practice. Thus,
marketers may be able to use distinctive numerical cues (i.e., calorie information)
to help reduce over-inflated product evaluations and encourage consumers to make
healthier choices, although further research is needed to verify such a relationship
with actual food choice. Alternatively, marketers and policy makers could com-
promise, keeping caloric units rounded to the nearest 5 or 10 unit on the nutrition
facts panel, but allow the marketer to have an asterisk on the packaging outside of
the nutrition facts panel to indicate the actual calorie count in the package.
Future research should expand beyond the contexts of this research and with
packaging other than single-serve packages. Research exploring the effect of other
numerical or verbal cues (e.g., positive nutrients of protein or fiber vs. negative
nutrients of sugar or fat) and how each influences food product evaluations would
also be worthy of further study. Additionally, future research should address the
limitation of this research that includes participants failing manipulation checks
and the use of self-report measures.

8 Conclusion

One is a big difference. Whether that one is expressed as a numeric difference or a

small change in verbal information, consumers are influenced by seemingly
unperceivable changes in information. Specifically, the results from three studies
herein show that while consumers perceive a package with 99 or 101 calories the
same (i.e., distinctive numerical cues), perceptions of a package with 100 calories
are much different (i.e., non-distinctive numerical cue). In essence, equivalent
marketing cues (i.e., 99, 100, 101 calories) do not result in equivalent health
perceptions. Thus, marketers and policy makers involved with food products need
to exercise care.

Acknowledgements The first and second authors contributed equally to this manuscript.
 Mark Lett

Appendix 1 Calorie pack examples

Mini

Mega/Jumbo

References

Andrews, J. C., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (2009). The nutrition elite: do only the highest levels of caloric
knowledge, obesity knowledge, and motivation matter in processing nutrition ad claims and disclosures?
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 28(1), 41–55.
Balasubramanian, S. K., & Cole, C. (2002). Consumers’ search and use of nutrition information: the challenge
and promise of the nutrition labeling and education act. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 112–127.
Battistella, E. L. (1996). The logic of markedness. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bizer, G. Y., & Schindler, R. M. (2005). Direct evidence of ending-digit drop-off in price information
processing. Psychology and Marketing, 22(10), 771–783.
Block, L. G., & Peracchio, L. A. (2006). The calcium quandary: how consumers use nutrition labels. Journal
of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(2), 188–196.
Chandon, P., & Wansink, B. (2007). The biasing health halos of fast-food restaurant health claims: lower
calorie estimates and higher side-dish consumption intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3),
301–314.
Cheema, A., & Soman, D. (2006). Malleable mental accounting: the effect of flexibility on the justification of
attractive spending and consumption decisions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 33–44.
Coulter, K. S., & Coulter, R. A. (2007). Distortion of price discount perceptions: the right digit effect. Journal
of Consumer Research, 34(2), 162–173.
FDA. (2013). Food labeling guide. Retrieved July 15, 2015, from www.fda.gov/FoodLabelingGuide.
FDA. (2014). Front-of-package labeling initiative. Retrieved July 13, 2015, from http://www.fda.
gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/ucm202726.htm.
FTC. (2017). Fair packaging and labeling act. Retrieved January 16, 2017, from https://www.ftc.
gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/fair-packaging-labeling-act.
Mark Lett

Gallicano, R., Blomme, R. J., & van Rheede, A. (2012). Consumer response to nutrition information menu
labeling in full-service restaurants: making the healthy choice. In J. Chen (Ed.), Advances in leisure and
hospitality (Vol. 8, pp. 109–125). Cambridge: Emerald Group Publishing.
Holleman, B. C., & Maat, H. L. W. P. (2009). The pragmatics of profiling: framing effects in text interpretation
and text production. Journal of Pragmatics, 41(11), 2204–2221.
Hume, E. (2011). Markedness. In M. van Oostendorp, C. J. Ewen, E. Hume, & K. Rice (Eds.), The Blackwell
companion to phonology: suprasegmental and prosodic phonology (Vol. 2, pp. 79–106). Malden: John
Wiley & Sons.
Kahneman, D. (1992). Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 51(2), 296–312.
Keller, S. B., Landry, M., Olson, J., Velliquette, A. M., Burton, S., & Andrews, J. C. (1997). The effects of
nutrition package claims, nutrition facts panels, and motivation to process nutrition information on
consumer product evaluations. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16(2), 256–269.
Reyna, V. F. (2012). A new intuitionism: meaning, memory, and development in fuzzy-trace theory. Judgment
and Decision making, 7(3), 332–359.
Roberto, C. A., Shivaram, M., Martinez, O., Boles, C., Harris, J. L., & Brownell, K. D. (2012). The smart
choices front-of-package nutrition label. Influence on perceptions and intake of cereal. Appetite, 58(2),
651–657.
Schindler, R. M. (2006). The 99 price ending as a signal of a low-price appeal. Journal of Retailing, 82(1), 71–
77.
Sher, S., & McKenzie, C. R. M. (2006). Information leakage from logically equivalent frames. Cognition,
101(3), 467–494.
Zhang, Y. C., & Schwarz, N. (2013). The power of precise numbers: a conversational logic analysis. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 944–946.