bs_bs_banner International Journal of Consumer Studies ISSN 1470-6423 Why do not you read the label? – an integrated framework of consumer label information search € rnyei and Tama s Gyulava ri Krisztina R. Do } v r 8 1093, Budapest Hungary Institute of Marketing and Media, Corvinus University of Budapest, Fo am te Keywords Food label, packaging, information search, netnography, framework. Correspondence €rnyei, Institute of Marketing and Krisztina R. Do Media, Corvinus University of Budapest, }vam te r 8, 1093, Budapest, Hungary, Fo E-mail: krisztina.dornyei@uni-corvinus.hu doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12218 Abstract This article facilitates deeper insight into label-related consumer information acquisition behaviour. An integrated framework of label information search (LIS) has been developed based on a synthesis of related literature and explorative research conducted by analysing online discussions among customers (netnography). The framework focuses on three main groups of personal factors that serve as antecedents of LIS: general personal factors (e.g. health consciousness and socio-demographics), label-related personal factors (e.g. label-related self-efficacy, trust in labels and the perceived usefulness of labels) and product category-related personal factors (trust in food products, enduring involvement, experience and perceived quality differences). Important characteristics of the framework are its process-oriented nature and the dynamically changing relationships among its concepts. LIS is an antecedent to and a consequence of influencing factors. This article offers managerial implications and serves to incite future inquiry in this field. Introduction During the past two hundred years, major changes have taken place in food production practices. As a consequence of mass food production accompanied by growing urbanization and settlement, regular face-to-face contact between buyers and sellers has declined (Coff et al., 2008). These trends have resulted in changes in consumers’ food purchase decision patterns and information search patterns (Case, 2002; Kristensen et al., 2013). Consumers read labels to obtain information about a product (what it contains, how it was manufactured, etc.) and to maximize the benefits of the food. Consumers also read labels to compare different brands or when purchasing new products and expecting reinforcement of previously learned information. Due to food safety scandals and the increasing popularity of health-conscious diets and environmentally conscious consumption patterns, consumers orient themselves to make more informed decisions and healthy food choices by reading the information content on product packaging (e.g. nutrition labels, environmental labels, warning labels, health claims and so forth. (Juhl and Poulsen, 2000; Baltas, 2001; Cheftel, 2005; Van Trijp and Van der Lans, 2007; Grunert et al., 2010; Hall and Osses, 2013; Beruchashvili et al., 2014). Consequently, food labelling and consumers’ label information search (LIS) have emerged as important aspects of the consumer behaviour literature (Drichoutis et al., 2006). Many consumer research studies have attempted to understand how consumers read and understand labels and how they make use of them in their purchasing decisions (Grunert and International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V Wills, 2007). Many of these studies have focused on exploring the determinants of LIS (Drichoutis et al., 2006), whereas few studies have created frameworks to explain LIS as part of the decision-making process [e.g. see (Moorman, 1990; Szykman et al., 1997; Drichoutis et al., 2006; Drichoutis et al., 2007; Grunert and Wills, 2007; Hall and Osses, 2013)]. This study contributes to filling this gap. This article creates a processoriented integrated framework of LIS and describes LIS as part of a dynamic process in which it is an antecedent to and a consequence of influencing factors. Our contribution to the field is that the LIS process is a nonstatic factor that dynamically influences and is influenced by general, product category-related and product label-related personal factors. Additionally, we propose interactive effects between individual elements of the framework. The article’s specific objectives are as follows: (1) to gain deeper insight into label-related consumer information acquisition behaviour and to elaborate on the factors that play a dominant role in them; (2) to review LIS frameworks and the empirical research related to LIS; (3) to create an integrated framework that is partially based on the existing literature and partially based on the results of exploratory research (netnography) and (4) to suggest additional research to test portions of the framework. The organization of this article is as follows. Introduction section comprises the introduction. Background section contains a brief review of the informative function of packaging and summarizes the antecedents and consequences relevant to food 1 €rnyei and T. Gyulav K.R. Do ari An integrated framework of consumer label information search information search frameworks. Research method section discusses the research objectives and methodology used. An integrated framework of LIS is proposed in Integrated framework of LIS section. Discussion section includes a summary of the findings, conclusions and future research directions. Background Defining packaging labels and LIS Because consumers obtain information about products before and after purchasing them, product packaging serves not only as a communication tool but also as a prominent external source of information (Caswell and Mojduszka, 1996). Marketing researchers agree that the informative role of packaging is becoming increasingly important (Underwood et al., 2001; Underwood, 2003; Ampuero and Vila, 2006) because it reaches every consumer, is present at the critical moments of consumer purchase and usage experiences and is frequently the first and only marketing tool a consumer encounters before purchasing a product (Behaeghel, 1991). The informative function of packaging is called a packaging label, which we define as a communicative and informative tool between a producer/distributor and the consumer, including all compulsory and voluntary information content on or adjacent to product packaging, amongst which a brand name and sign as well as descriptive or grade information can be distinguished. The information displayed is governed by legislation and includes information about ingredients, nutritional and energy values, certifications, organization logos, environmentaland health-related statements, country of origin, etc. The informative elements of packaging are searched and acquired during the lifetime of the product. Price information may be used prior to making a purchase, usage conditions may be vitally important when the consumer begins to consume the product, and disposal signs are necessary after consumption (Schmidt and Spreng, 1996). The informative function of packaging is a decisive source of consumer decision-making (D’Souza, 2004), and a wide range of research has studied the role of labels during information acquisition and the impact they have on consumers (Caswell, 1992). However, because a thorough definition of labels was not found, we define LIS as the process during which consumers search for specific information about a product using the information content on packaging, also known as a label. General frameworks explaining search behaviour In the past several decades, streams of research have studied consumer behaviour (including LIS) using diverse theoretical approaches. The main purpose of this article is to integrate some of these approaches to further elaborate the theories explaining factors related to LIS. Social psychological theories play a dominant role in predicting behavioural intention. Two different approaches suggested by these theories are significant to our research topic. The first is the stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) paradigm introduced by Woodworth (1926), which assumes that stimulus triggers response intention and that this relationship can be moderated 2 or mediated by personal factors. Different situations can also be viewed as stimuli to the behaviour if they are related to different mental states. Based on Helson’s (1964) adaptation-level theory, Belk (1975) revised the S-O-R paradigm and identified ‘situation’ as a distinct concept that serves as antecedent of behaviour. Based on this approach, both label format and different shopping situations (such as out-of-stock status and time pressure) may be regarded as stimuli or as activating factors. The proposed framework mostly focuses on the stable mental state of individuals, such as their enduring involvement, trust in label information, etc., representing the concept of organism in the formula. The Theory of Planned Behaviour [TPB; (Atkinson, 1982)] and research stream behind TPB, such as the Theory of Reasoned Action and Expectancy Theory, focuses on factors that are proximal determinants of behaviour intention initiated by internal motives, such as attitude toward behaviours, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. In the case of food products, the perceived benefit of LIS is mainly associated with avoiding health-related risk, forming consumers’ attitude towards LIS. Rogers’ (1975) Protection Motivation Theory elaborates the risk concept, distinguishing the severity and the probability of occurrence of a negative event. Based on TPB, the intention of LIS is also determined by the perceived behavioural control that originates from Bandura’s (1977) selfefficacy concept, which refers to ‘people’s perceptions of their ability to perform a given behaviour’ (Ajzen, 1991). The relevance of the self-efficacy concept to the LIS literature appears in (the lack of) consumers’ self-confidence in their capabilities to select healthier products, as they confront complex and timeconsuming tasks in evaluating all the information regarding all the stock keeping unit (SKUs which refers to a separate product variant) they buy in one purchase occasion. In addition to elaborating social psychological approaches, behavioural economic theories provide related frames to investigate consumers’ LIS behaviour, which is a fusion of cognitive psychology and economics. Prospect Theory was introduced by Kahneman and Tversky (1979) to describe and explain the differences between the observed irrational behaviour of individuals from the behaviour assumed in economic theory of consumers. According to Prospect Theory, consumers make decisions based on the evaluations of losses and gains, and they tend to regard the former as more important. The LIS behaviour of consumers also focuses on the potential negative health consequences of making wrong decisions when buying food products to a greater extent than the positive consequences of making good choices. Behavioural economics also draws attention to another aspect of consumer information processing that may influence choice decisions. As a result of cognitive limitations, individuals use heuristics and rely on aggregated levels of information such as price or brand names as summary (halo) constructs instead of becoming lost in the details (Han, 1989). Price as a signal of quality can distract attention from label information. Frameworks in LIS literature There are several comprehensive conceptual models and frameworks regarding LIS. Moorman’s (1990) nutrition information utilization process incorporates two different social International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V €rnyei and T. Gyulav K.R. Do ari Figure 1 Proposed framework (Source: edited by the authors). An integrated framework of consumer label information search of LIS psychological approaches that identify stimuli and consumer characteristics as initiators of information search. In accordance with TPB, consumers’ interest in and attitude towards search can be the original determinant of processing information. Another dimension of TPB appears in the model, as the ability to process can influence information acquisition and comprehension. The difference between Moorman’s concept and selfefficacy in TPB is that the latter concept refers to subjective perception by individuals. However, the model integrates Belk’s (1975) revisited S-O-R paradigm, where the organism plays a mediating role between stimulus and response. Similar to Moorman (1990), Grunert and Wills’ (2007) theoretical framework of food label usage elaborates consumer responses to label stimuli. The less-articulated antecedents of information processing include interest, knowledge demographics and label formats as stimuli. Among these, interest and label formats can trigger LIS. These two concepts also represent TPB and the S-O-R paradigm respectively. Consumer demographics are considered as correlates rather than direct antecedents of information search. Drichoutis et al. (2006) summarized the antecedents and consequences of significant correlated factors of LIS in one conceptual model. Antecedents consists of situational, behavioural, attitudinal and consumer characteristics, such as demographics, product involvement and knowledge. In the model, some situational factors are considered direct determinants of LIS, reflecting Belk’s (1975) revised S-O-R paradigm. Investigating the role of involvement in food purchasing behaviour, Drichoutis et al. (2007) described label use as an antecedent of the product class involvement factor. Therefore, involvement is both an antecedent and a consequence, which indicates its cyclical nature. In addition to the abovementioned factors (knowledge, health status, and perceived diet effectiveness), Szykman et al. (1997) included scepticism about claims, which is described as a general tendency to disbelieve nutrition information, as an antecedent of LIS. International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V One of the most comprehensive models of LIS was developed by Hall and Osses (2013) on the basis of several empirical studies related to safety information about food products. It incorporates both stimuli (labels and product placement), which are considered extrinsic factors, and ‘organism’-related. For the proposed model of LIS based on the relevant theoretical literature related to LIS see Fig. 1. Research method Method In addition to identifying and integrating the relevant theoretical literature related to LIS, this article tries to identify additional elements using a qualitative research methodology (Kempen et al., 2011). Because consumers use online communities and outlets such as social networks, blogs and forums to discuss their food purchasing experiences and food choice preferences, netnography has been utilized as a research method (Liang and Scammon, 2011; Park and Cho, 2012). For more than a decade, researchers have used data from online forums for a variety of research purposes (Elliott et al., 2005; Pehlivan et al., 2011; Felix, 2012). This method adapts ethnographic research techniques to the examination of the culture of online communities (Kozinets, 1999, 2002, 2006; Maclaran and Catterall, 2002). Netnography involves a researcher joining an online forum, e-tribe or other form of open-source social media to observe and record discussions for subsequent analysis (O’Reilly et al., 2012). Netnography is unsolicited, realistic and unobtrusive. It is less time-consuming and expensive than other research methods and allows the researcher to gain deeper insights into consumers’ opinions, motives, worries and concerns in an inconspicuous manner (Elliott et al., 2005; Kozinets, 2006). 3 €rnyei and T. Gyulav K.R. Do ari An integrated framework of consumer label information search Data collection Integrated framework of LIS Data collection and analysis followed the established netnographic research protocol developed by Kozinets (2002) and proceeded in four steps: (1) planning and entree; (2) data collection, (3) analysis and (4) reporting. 1. Our research goal was to gain deeper insight into labelrelated consumer information acquisition, food choice preferences and food purchasing experiences. Therefore, we aimed to identify online communities and collect relevant insights in the form of comments available online. The nature of our participation in online participant observation was passive; the researchers did not participate in the forum discussion, but rather observed and recorded relevant online discussions. Permissions from community members to use direct quotations were not requested because postings in an Internet community forum are intentionally public postings, and it would be highly unusual to seek permission to use direct quotations in this context (Elliott et al., 2005). Our main purpose is to synthesize the relationships determined by previous studies in this field and to elaborate them with our own empirical findings. Based on a review of the literature, there are many antecedents to and consequences of LIS (Baltas, 2001; Drichoutis et al., 2005; Drichoutis et al., 2006; Grunert and Wills, 2007). Taking advantage of existing frameworks and the empirical data analysis, personal factors affecting LIS are classified into three main categories: (1) general personal factors; (2) product category-related personal factors and (3) product label-related personal factors. In addition, several situational factors are identified. The factors are integrated into an integrated framework (see Fig. 2), relationships and moderating/mediating effects between factors are explained, and the mechanism of each group of factors is analysed. 2. The research into label usage began with an extensive online search using the Google search engine. Given the large number of online discussion forums related to food purchasing, Internet keyword searches that included ‘consumer complaints’, ‘labelling’, ‘nutrition information’ and ‘food and packaging’ were conducted. To keep the amount of data limited to a manageable level, three large, independent forum portals were identified according to their numerous and highly active commenters; in other words, they contained the most data. Based on the search results using the above-mentioned keywords, nineteen relevant discussion topics were downloaded from the three selected portals. Our starting dataset included a total of 2 430 unique comments. After reading the entire text, comments were preclassified into topics either relevant or not relevant to the research topic of interest. Off-topic text and posts with suspected commercial purposes were also excluded from the analysis; 199 relevant comments remained (consisting of 40 828 characters and having an average length of 30 words per comment). 3. The comments were reviewed and analysed independently by two researchers using the QSR NVivo 9 qualitative software. The analysis process involved the open coding of themes by each researcher after they had reviewed the entirety of the posts and noted each theme when it appeared. Each comment was coded as belonging to one or more categories, which later formed more general themes associated with LIS, as previously identified in the literature. Then, the material was structured and summarized multiple times before subsequent explanation and interpretation. 4. The results are presented qualitatively through the use of quotations. Examples are provided for illustrative purposes only because it was impossible to determine to which type of consumer each statement belonged due to the nature of the method, i.e. comments from anonymous individuals. Therefore, only broad patterns can be observed in the results. 4 General personal factors Health consciousness is one of the most important drivers of LIS, and healthy food choices are often attributed by the existing literature to individual or health (egoistic) motives (Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008). The desire to consume healthy products is common among consumers, but consumers vary in their beliefs regarding how effectively they can eat healthfully in their day-to-day lives. For instance, information hunger may be a consequence of fear generated by food scandals. it’d be so great if u didn’t have to go around scared of what shitty additives they put in your food Based on the S-O-R paradigm, health consciousness may moderate the stimulus-response relationship. For instance, in the case of out-of-stock items, less health conscious consumers can determine the appropriate substitute brand based on price and ignore comparisons of quality using label information. However, from TPB’s perspective, health consciousness is an internal motivation for the positive attitude towards LIS, and therefore, it affects LIS directly without the presence of any stimulus. Health consciousness as a stable mental state has many antecedents, but two of them seem to be especially significant, namely, the number of children in the household and existing and/or expected illness. Parents with children tend to behave more carefully with respect to food consumption and to search for information about product content. Thus, such parents are eager to read labels: If you know for a fact that your child could get ill from it, why don’t you make the time to read the label? Both of my kids have allergies to some food additives, I try to avoid these. Existing or potential illness can strengthen the demand for healthy products, which leads to more intense LIS. Other consumers are afraid of the exact negative effects that can occur when consuming food products with harmful ingredients. I observed that some additives are related to the condition of my eczema. Why can we call these plastic ones “food” after all? Because a chemist proved that a microscopic piece of them is not harmful? And after years you can have liver cancer or leukaemia if you are neglectful. . . International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V €rnyei and T. Gyulav K.R. Do ari An integrated framework of consumer label information search Figure 2 Extended framework of LIS (Source: edited by the authors). Socio-demographic factors (e.g. age, gender, education etc.) exert a substantial influence on LIS, which is mediated by health consciousness. Most studies agree that labels are viewed more often by women, who read them carefully and several times (Govindasamy and Italia, 1999). In line with theories about women’s higher health consciousness based on different cultural norms, socialising processes, different female-male identities and attitudes towards the body (Becker et al., 1977; Bourdieu, 1984), women generally more willingly modify their eating habits in accordance with dietary recommendations and therefore may also learn more about health than men through their choice of information sources (Fagerli and Wandel, 1999). Primary grocery shoppers and meal planners – who tend to be more often women – are also more likely to read information content on packaging because they are responsible for others in the household and they have greater incentives to believe the stated benefits when a product is purchased for others (Drichoutis et al., 2005). Gender and age are widely used as factors explaining the adoption of risk-reducing strategies (Drichoutis et al., 2005). Socio-demographic factors also have an indirect effect on LIS, which is mediated by self-efficacy, that is, the consumers’ perceived ability to process and comprehend label information. Elderly individuals may find labels difficult to understand and interpret, and they are less capable of processing large amounts of information; therefore, they read labels less often (Kim et al., 2000). Education is consistently found to be correlated with LIS: consumers with higher qualifications are more likely to read labels because they perceive that reading labels makes it easier to choose foods and because they possess the ability to process information more easily (Drichoutis et al., 2005). International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V Product category-related personal factors The intensity and content of LIS may vary between products or product classes, and consumers are more interested in specific label information for certain products. In the literature, product category-related personal factors have received little attention in investigations of LIS; therefore, those factors are worth investigating. For example, nutrition information is less relevant for fresh products such as meat but it is more relevant for processed products with a low degree of transparency such as ready-to-eat meals (Grunert and Wills, 2007). There are product categories (for example, junk food) that are considered unhealthy; in such cases, the selection of this type of category implicitly involves a decision concerning the lack of healthrelated information acquisition. It has ‘epsilon’ importance to know whether the given junk food contains brown or yellow unnatural additives. . . However, there are categories (for example, dairy products) that are consumed daily, search is indispensable in selecting appropriate product information in these categories. Those foodstuffs we eat very often I try to buy without any additives. We eat hot dogs three times a year, and there is no hot dog without additives and preservatives, so we just accept it. Those foods we put every day on the table, like bread and dairy products, should be additive free. The previous literature states that product category affects involvement, prior knowledge (experience), trust, and perceived quality differences, which have been identified as determinants of LIS (Wang et al., 1995; Zaichkowsky, 1985; Drichoutis et al., 2007). The concept of involvement plays an important role in our framework. This concept is itself very closely related to LIS because it originated from the observation that individuals are willing to devote different amounts of effort to 5 An integrated framework of consumer label information search €rnyei and T. Gyulav K.R. Do ari collect information in different situations and for different product categories. The literature distinguishes between situational and enduring involvement (Mittal, 1989; Richins et al., 1992), and in the case of enduring involvement, customers have a natural curiosity about the product, including the information on the label. The seminal work of Houston and Rothschild, who adapted the S-O-R paradigm to the field of consumer involvement, considers enduring involvement as a moderating factor of the relationship between the stimuli and search as the consumer response (Houston and Rothschild, 1977). Traditional views hold that as a consequence of enduring involvement, consumers use multiple product attributes; therefore they search for more label information (Laurent and Kapferer, 1985). Involved consumers have realized that food producers often manipulate label information that has summary effects, such as brand, price, and country-of-origin cues, and therefore search for different types of information on the label. Consumers who are sophisticated enough to perceive such differences are eager to control their decisions with the aid of more in-depth information on the label. Bar codes are not useful anymore. You can find Polish and Slovak products with code 599. . . And, once upon a time we had made-in labels. Now we have just ‘made in EU’. . . I have heard that some E number refer to natural, healthy additives not only artificial ones, but I am not sure that I will be aware of all of them in this life. Trust in labels is affected by the perceived relevance, credibility and depth of information (details) on the label as well as the perceived consistency of the information provided. Many consumers believe they cannot win the battle against producers, who are always one step ahead, and they have a negative attitude towards producers, believing that they want to consistently mislead consumers by abusing the technological and information asymmetry in the market: There are well-paid experts, psychologists, etc. working 24/7 to figure out how to manipulate you and sell all that stuff you normally wouldn’t pay a penny for. . . (. . .) so what, marketing is a profession and gradually, shopping is also becoming one. When I buy something at Tesco, the first thing I check is the languages on the package. If I cannot find an English description, I don’t trust it anymore, and I am always upset thinking they sell products in Eastern-Europe that are not good enough at home. Therefore, enduring involvement and its interactive relationship with LIS often lead to higher-level experience with and/or knowledge about the product and product category. This relationship can further generate trust or mistrust in the food products in that category and leads to higher/lower levels of LIS. Therefore, as mediating concepts, enduring involvement through trust in food products in a category and perceived quality differences play a moderating role in the case of both stimuli and internal motives that drive LIS. Last time I wanted to buy bacon, I saw our flag on the product. I almost bought that one trusting in its quality when I noticed the small letters: made in Slovakia. . . Consumers often feel that labels do not provide sufficient information to make decisions. A ‘Made in EU’ label, as mentioned above, for instance, is considered to be too general, and further relevant details are expected on the label. Others mention that the most valuable information cannot be found on the package. Reading labels is just waste of time, I give up! You can read that your margarine doesn’t contain trans fats. All right but don’t know what makes it solid? What is the substitute? No info about that. . . Similarly, the label tells you that your margarine is good for your heart due to its Omega-3 content. Bravo “sweetheart”, that cheers me up! Oh, wait. . . no exact info about the amount required to achieve this result. I’ve recently calculated that you should eat at least a half package of it a day to have some effect. . . Consistency in this context has two dimensions. Internal consistency refers to a lack of contradictory information on the package, whereas external consistency denotes coherence between the packaging and other information sources, such as independent tests, expert opinions or the producer’s own communication channels. In cases where a producer’s brand communication refers to high quality but the label indicates that the product is unhealthy, trust in labels is often questioned. Being conscious shoppers, we were very happy to discover the “No additives” on the front label. However, while eating, we found an interesting contradiction on the back label: the last ingredient was a preservative. Label-related personal factors In addition to health-related attitudes, label format can be the main cause of LIS. From the consumer’s perspective, the ideal presentation form and content of a label are simple and familiar, may use adjectives or images, and do not use technical terms or specific vocabulary (Eves et al., 1994; Miller et al., 1997). As long as information content is understandable, easy to use and helps consumers make good food choices labels facilitate LIS (Byrd-Bredbenner et al., 2000; Wandel, 1997). Ignoring labels may be a consequence of inadequate label formatting. Three main label format-related personal factors can explain LIS behaviour: label-related self-efficacy, trust in labels and the perceived usefulness of labels. As an attitude towards processing label information, labelrelated self-efficacy is influenced by the long-term experience of label formats. Consumers’ previous failures in reading labels and comprehending information due to unfamiliar terms and foreign languages can decrease their confidence, and they neglect labels as a result. 6 you have to be like a detective if you want to find food that may be authentic. And there are less and less of those. Bread is plastic, milk is plastic, meat is plastic. Even ham isn’t real, although it sometimes appears to be. The larger portion of all food is plastic. And they even explain to you that they put all that shit in so it’s better. Bullshit. Hey, I used to be confused about the terms E-numbers, too, but I have heard that not all of them are negative or unnatural. I checked it on the web, and, yeah, it took time to memorise and be able to make distinctions between them, International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V €rnyei and T. Gyulav K.R. Do ari but now, I read the labels in quite a different way, and I find it very useful.’ Relevancy mainly affects perceived usefulness, but too much irrelevant information can also reduce the trustworthiness of labels. For me non plus ultra is the text on the package of a chocolate nut bar: ‘May contain traces of nuts’. The perceived usefulness of labels is affected by the same factors as trust in labels, but via different mechanisms or via the concept of trust itself. The direct effects of the depth and relevance of information on the perceived usefulness of labels can be easily detected. Situational factors However, in accordance with Belk’s (1975) revised S-O-R paradigm, situations as well as objects can be stimuli. In our framework, situational factors have a direct effect on LIS, and they also moderate consumers’ planned behaviour. For example, when an item is out of stock or when the preferred brands are not available shoppers are forced to find alternatives to the products to which they have been loyal. Such situations can act as stimuli to drive consumers to seek information before making a decision. I always check the ingredients when trying something new, so I’m not surprised at home.;) It’s not that demanding to read when you buy something new. 30 seconds of your life. These types of relatively unexpected situations increase risk perceptions and can intensify information search. Sometimes, sheer luck stimulates LIS: I often read something while having my sandwich, if nothing else, then the boxes of products lying in front of me. However, situational factors can also play a moderating role. Despite a customer’s habit of reading label information due to health consciousness, factors such as time pressure can decrease the amount of information consumers feel must be collected (Moore and Lehmann, 1980; Nayga et al., 1998; Sharon and Smith, 1987). When you are under tension to work late and in a hurry to collect the children, not sure you have time to be lost in the miraculous world of tricky symbols, terms, signs, etc., even if you normally want to. . . Discussion LIS behaviour is affected by several personal and situational factors, and the wide array of moderating and mediating effects renders integration a challenging task. This article establishes an integrated framework based on a literature review and the use of an explorative technique (netnography). The framework mainly focuses on personal factors, that is, on how consumers perceive and process information, the antecedents of that information and how they create a tendency to search for additional label information. These personal factors have been organized into three major groups: general personal factors (e.g. health consciousness and socio-demographics), label-related personal International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V An integrated framework of consumer label information search factors (e.g. label-related self-efficacy, trust in labels and the perceived usefulness of labels) and product category-related personal factors (trust in food products, enduring involvement, experience and perceived quality differences). Both relevant factors and the relationships between them have been identified. An important characteristic of this framework is its processoriented, dynamic nature, as the relationships within it are not static, and because of the interaction between effects, such dynamic relationships can strengthen or weaken each other. Perceived quality differences, for instance, can intensify LIS, but after reading label information, customers can observe greater differences between brands. A similar mechanism can be detected between LIS and label-related personal factors. In this case, the expertise of customers regarding label information plays a mediating role. Another obstacle to modelling this area of consumer behaviour is the changing role of concepts. Situational factors, for instance, have moderating effects, but they can also be the primary stimuli that initiate the process. The insights explored herein indicate that there is room for manufacturers to manipulate consumers. Therefore, external regulation cannot be overlooked. However, too many compulsory elements can impede efficient information searching by consumers. Both manufacturers and regulatory authorities should recognize the customer value created by the appropriate use of this communication channel via a balanced and relevant information supply and the possibility of more efficient operation at the system level. Our research helped reveal related mechanisms for understanding potential ways to design the structure and nature of the information provided to the public. Increasing consumer interest in label information suggests a need for further study in this field. Our research presents a more integrated and elaborate framework that can serve as a starting point for further, more focused research on LIS. Thus, a cross-sectional research technique hardly measures valid associations and for a deeper understanding of these processes, other methods must be applied. Quantitative methods would provide useful information about the distribution of diverse consumer patterns and the strengths of relationships. One of the consequences of the dynamic nature of this framework is that the best way to investigate these complex mechanisms is through longitudinal research designs or experiments. In consumer research, longitudinal methods are relatively rare because they require substantial effort and produce results slowly. However, this method would contribute to our understanding of the complex dynamic mechanism of information processing and its effects on further search intentions. Another exciting direction of this research flow would be to investigate consumers’ reactions to negative experiences during the process addressed by the proposed framework. Acknowledgements The authors would also like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the article. 7 An integrated framework of consumer label information search Funding source This research is partly supported by the European Union through the TAMOP project (TAMOP-4.2.2/B-10/1-2010-0023). References Ajzen, I. (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Ampuero, O. & Vila, N. (2006) Consumer perceptions of product packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23, 100–112. Atkinson, J.W. (1982) Old and new conceptions of how expected consequences influence actions. In Expectations and Actions: Expectancy-Value Models in Psychology (ed. by N. T. Feather) pp. 17–52. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Baltas, G. (2001) Nutrition labelling: issues and policies. European Journal of Marketing, 35, 708–721. Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191. Becker, M.H., Maiman, L.A., Kirscht, J.P., Haefner, D.P. & Drachman, R.H. (1977) The Health Belief Model and prediction of dietary compliance: a field experiment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 18, 348–366. Behaeghel, J. (1991) Brand Packaging: The Permanent Medium. Architecture Design and Technology Press, London. Belk, R.W. (1975) Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 2, 157–164. Beruchashvili, M., Moisio, R. & Heisley, D.D. (2014) What are you dieting for? The role of lay theories in dieters’ goal setting. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13, 50–59. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Byrd-Bredbenner, C., Wong, A. & Cottee, P. (2000) Consumer understanding of US and EU nutrition labels. British Food Journal, 102, 615–629. Case, D.O. (2002) Looking for Information: A Survey of Research on Information Seeking, Needs and Behavior. Emerald Group Pub., Bingley, UK. Caswell, J.A. (1992) Current information levels on food labels. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 1196–1201. Caswell, J.A. & Mojduszka, E.M. (1996) Using informational labeling to influence the market for quality in food products. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 78, 1248–1253. Cheftel, J.C. (2005) Food and nutrition labelling in the European Union. Food Chemistry, 93, 531–550. Coff, C., Barling, D., Korthals, M. & Nielsen, T. (2008) Ethical Traceability and Communicating Food, 15, 1–18. Springer, Netherlands. D’Souza, C. (2004) Ecolabel programmes: a stakeholder (consumer) perspective. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 9, 179–188. Drichoutis, A., Lazaridis, P. & Nayga, Jr, R.M. (2006) Consumers’ use of nutritional labels: a review of research studies and issues. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10, 1–22. Drichoutis, A.C., Lazaridis, P. & Nayga, R.M. (2005) Nutrition knowledge and consumer use of nutritional food labels. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32, 93–118. Drichoutis, A.C., Lazaridis, P. & Nayga Jr, R.M. (2007) An assessment of product class involvement in food-purchasing behavior. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 888–914. Elliott, R., Shankar, A., Langer, R. & Beckman, S.C. (2005) Sensitive research topics: netnography revisited. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 8, 189–203. Eves, A., Gibson, S., Kilcast, D. & Rose, D. (1994) Influence of nutrition information on the attitudes and knowledge of dieters. Nutrition & Food Science, 94, 17–21. 8 €rnyei and T. Gyulav K.R. Do ari Fagerli, R.A. & Wandel, M. (1999) Gender differences in opinions and practices with regard to a “healthy diet”. Appetite, 32, 171–190. Felix, R. (2012) Brand communities for mainstream brands: the example of the Yamaha R1 brand community. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 225–232. Govindasamy, R. & Italia, J. (1999) Evaluating Consumer Usage of Nutritional Labeling: The Influence of Socio-Economic Characteristics. Rutgers University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/36734/2/ pa990199.pdf Grunert, K. & Wills, J. (2007) A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. Journal of Public Health, 15, 385–399. Grunert, K.G., Wills, J.M. & Fernandez-Celemın, L. (2010) Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite, 55, 177–189. Hall, C. & Osses, F. (2013) A review to inform understanding of the use of food safety messages on food labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37, 422–432. Han, C.M. (1989) Country image: Halo or summary construct. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 222–229. Helson, H. (1964) Current trends and issues in adaptation-level theory. American Psychologist, 19, 26. Houston, M.J. & Rothschild, M.L. (1977) A paradigm for Research on Consumer Involvement, Working Paper (11-77-46), University of Wisconsin, Madison. Juhl, H.J. & Poulsen, C.S. (2000) Antecedents and effects of consumer involvement in fish as a product group. Appetite, 34, 261–267. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291. Kempen, E., Bosman, M., Bouwer, C., Klein, R. & van der Merwe, D. (2011) An exploration of the influence of food labels on South African consumers’ purchasing behaviour. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 69–78. Kim, S.-Y., Nayga Jr, R.M. & Capps Jr, O. (2000) The effect of food label use on nutrient intakes: an endogenous switching regression analysis. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 25, 215–231. Kozinets, R.V. (1999) E-tribalized marketing?: the strategic implications of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal, 17, 252–264. Kozinets, R.V. (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of Marketing Research, 39, 61–72. Kozinets, R.V. (2006) Netnography 2.0. In Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing (ed. by R.W. Belk), pp. 129–142. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Kristensen, D.B., Askegaard, S. & Jeppesen, L.H. (2013) ‘If it makes you feel good it must be right’: embodiment strategies for healthy eating and risk management. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 12, 243–252. Laurent, G. & Kapferer, J.-N. (1985) Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22, 41–53. Liang, B. & Scammon, D.L. (2011) E-Word-of-Mouth on health social networking sites: an opportunity for tailored health communication. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 322–331. Maclaran, P. & Catterall, M. (2002) Researching the social Web: marketing information from virtual communities. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 20, 319–326. Michaelidou, N. & Hassan, L.M. (2008) The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 32, 163–170. Miller, C.K. Probart, C.K. & Achterberg, C.L. (1997) Knowledge and misconceptions about the food label among women with non-insulin- International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V €rnyei and T. Gyulav K.R. Do ari dependent diabetes mellitus. The Diabetes Educator, 23, 425–432. Mittal, B. (1989) Measuring purchase-decision involvement. Psychology & Marketing, 6, 147–162. Moore, W.L. & Lehmann, D.R. (1980) Individual differences in search behavior for a nondurable. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 296–307. Moorman, C. (1990) The effects of stimulus and consumer characteristics on the utilization of nutrition information. Journal of Consumer Research,17, 362–374. Nayga, R.M., Lipinski, D. & Savur, N. (1998) Consumers’ use of nutritional labels while food shopping and at home. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32, 106–120. O’Reilly, N., Berger, I.E., Hernandez, T., Parent, M.M. & Seguin, B. (2012) Understanding adolescent sport participation through online social media. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, 2, 69–81. Park, H. & Cho, H. (2012) Social network online communities: information sources for apparel shopping. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29, 400–411. Pehlivan, E., Sarican, F. & Berthon, P. (2011) Mining messages: exploring consumer response to consumer- vs. firm-generated ads. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10, 313–321. Richins, M.L., Bloch, P.H. & McQuarrie, E.F. (1992) How enduring and situational involvement combine to create involvement responses. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1, 143–153. Rogers, R.W. (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change1. The Journal of Psychology, 91, 93–114. International Journal of Consumer Studies 00 (2015) 00–00 C 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. V An integrated framework of consumer label information search Schmidt, J. & Spreng, R. (1996) A proposed model of external consumer information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24, 246–256. Sharon, E.B. & Smith, S.M. (1987) External search effort: an investigation across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 83–95. Szykman, L.R., Bloom, P.N. & Levy, A.S. (1997) A proposed model of the use of package claims and nutrition labels. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 16, 228–241. Underwood, R.L. (2003) The communicative power of product packaging: creating brand identity via lived and mediated experience. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11, 62–76. Underwood, R.L., Klein, N.M. & Burke, R.R. (2001) Packaging communication: attentional effects of product imagery. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 10, 403–422. Van Trijp, H.C. & Van der Lans, I.A. (2007) Consumer perceptions of nutrition and health claims. Appetite, 48, 305–324. Wandel, M. (1997)Food labelling from a consumer perspective. British Food Journal, 99, 212–219. Wang, G., Fletcher, S.M. & Carley, D.H. (1995) Consumer utilization of food labeling as a source of nutrition information. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 29, 368–380. Woodworth, R.S. (1926) Dynamic psychology. In Psychologies of 1925 (ed. by C. Murchison), pp. 111–126. Clark University Press, Worcester, MA. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 341–352. 9