Volume 24 Issue 2 Article 3 
June 2022 
Consumer Confusion Caused by Nutrition Apps in Product 
Healthiness Evaluation 
Mila Zečević 
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia, mila.zecevic@ef.uni-lj.si 
Petar Gidaković 
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia 
Vesna Žabkar 
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia 
Mateja Kos Koklič 
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia 
Follow this and additional works at: https://www.ebrjournal.net/home 
 Part of the Marketing Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Zečević, M., Gidaković, P., Žabkar, V., & Kos Koklič, M. (2022). Consumer Confusion Caused by Nutrition 
Apps in Product Healthiness Evaluation. Economic and Business Review, 24(2), 101-110. https://doi.org/
10.15458/2335-4216.1300 
This Original Article is brought to you for free and open access by Economic and Business Review. It has been 
accepted for inclusion in Economic and Business Review by an authorized editor of Economic and Business 
Review. 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Consumer Confusion Caused by Nutrition Apps in
Product Healthiness Evaluation
Mila Ze
cevic*, Petar Gidakovic, Vesna 
Zabkar, Mateja Kos Kokli
c
University of Ljubljana, School of Economics and Business, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract
Rapid developments in technology and connectedness are influencing how consumers access and use nutrition in-
formation. However, this information is not always clear and consistent. The inconsistencies in the information provided
to consumers can lead them to uncertainty about which data to use (i.e. consider as correct), especially when different
sources of information appear similarly qualified and accurate. This paper aims to highlight the impact of inconsistent
information on consumer attitudes. The results of an experiment conducted on a sample of 237 consumers indicate that
the inconsistent information, when presented to consumers, influences their attitude in a way that it increases feelings of
confusion, leading to lower attitude certainty about the product healthiness.
Keywords: Consumer confusion, Perceived healthiness, Attitude certainty, Inconsistent information, Nutrition apps
JEL classification: M31, P46
Introduction
N utrition issues have been important to con-sumers for decades, ever since they realized
the relevance of proper nutrition in order to ensure
the quality of life and healthy body functioning.
Recently, it has been shown that consumers pay
increasing attention to nutrition and its effect on
their overall health and well-being. Moreover, cur-
rent trends show that healthier and better-quality
food options are becoming preferred among con-
sumers (Roman et al., 2017). The issue of healthy
diet and recommendations on how to achieve it are
growing in importance for the media and official
institutions as well. In ensuring adequate nutrition,
consumers rely on different advice, which is not
always coming from the most trained and profes-
sional sources (Jacobs et al., 2017; Viviani & Pasi,
2017). Lately, the development of the Internet and
digital technologies has expanded and the conve-
nience of this information source turned it into one
of most commonly used for many issues, including
the nutrition (Zhang et al., 2017).
Apart from being informed, consumers are also
interested in being able to track and measure the
results of their nutrition needs and consumption.
Food diaries are a popular way of structuring the
information about food intake, and through the
years, this habit has also become digitalized. Apps
on mobile devices are becoming an increasingly
important part of peoples’ lives in all aspects, and
their easiness of use and convenience are making
them a powerful tool for providing consumers with
the information they need, as well as motivating
consumer behavior and their process of behavioral
change (DiFilippo et al., 2015). According to Krebs
and Duncan (2015), many consumers download
health and nutrition apps on their mobile devices
(over 58% of consumers possessing mobile devices
in the US), and the app users have the impression
that using apps improves their health. Moreover,
users of health and nutrition apps show a higher
Received 2 September 2020; accepted 26 February 2021.
Available online 1 June 2022.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mila.zecevic@ef.uni-lj.si (M. Ze
cevic), petar.gidakovic@ef.uni-lj.si (P. Gidakovic), vesna.zabkar@ef.uni-lj.si (V. 
Zabkar),
mateja.kos@ef.uni-lj.si (M. Kos Kokli
c).
https://doi.org/10.15458/2335-4216.1300
2335-4216/© 2022 School of Economics and Business University of Ljubljana. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
level of trust in the apps and the accuracy of the data
they provide.
Research also implies that the effect of food and
nutrition apps consumers use on their behavior is
real and measurable. Apart from effectiveness in the
weight management process (Carter et al., 2013;
DiFilippo et al., 2015), diet and nutrition apps are
reported to have an influence on the frequency and
consistency of consumers’ healthy eating, as well as
on their motivation, desire, knowledge, and ability
to pursue a healthy diet and set their goals (West
et al., 2017).
Nevertheless, the increase in available informa-
tion and the speed of its transfer by the media and
digital sources often offers recommendations that
are inconsistent, leading to the increase in the
overall consumer confusion regarding healthy
nutrition. Apart from the confusion, such in-
consistencies can result in doubt in the product's
genuine nutritive value and healthiness, as well as
lower trust in recommendations and information
sources in general (Carpenter et al., 2015; Nagler,
2014; Ward et al., 2011). The impact of mobile apps
on consumer behavior has been neglected in con-
sumer research so far, including nutrition-related
consumer research. However, health and food sci-
ences have investigated mobile nutrition apps and
their influence on consumers' habits recently (De
Cock et al., 2017; Flaherty et al., 2018; Maringer et al.,
2018). Nevertheless, most of this research focuses on
apps that monitor consumers' food intake as a
means of weight management, and very little is
known about apps that provide nutrition scores for
food products, and their potential influence on
consumer perception, attitudes, and intentions.
Consumer researchers devote significant efforts to
examination of food-related consumer habits and
attitudes. Previous studies show a devotion of con-
sumer psychology studies to better understand
nutrition labels and the effect of misunderstanding
nutrition claims on consumer behavior (Suher et al.,
2016; Wansink & Chandon, 2006). Consumer
confusion has also been researched along with its
causes and consequences in food and nutrition
aspect; confusion's effects on nutrition literacy and
consumer behavior have been of special interest to
researchers (Hall-Phillips & Shah, 2017; Spiteri
Cornish & Moraes, 2015). Psychologists have paid
much attention to the phenomenon of attitude cer-
tainty (Rucker et al., 2014; Tormala & Rucker, 2007),
while its relationship with consumer confusion and
the presence of nutrition apps has not yet been
investigated. Attitude certainty has been shown to
influence the strength of consumers' attitudes, the
ease of attitude change, and their behavior (Tormala
& Rucker, 2018; Visser at al., 2003). These properties
of attitude certainty make it a relevant factor for the
study of decision-making processes, including in
food and nutrition contexts, particularly for under-
standing consumers' responses to information they
receive and their resulting behavior. However, to
our knowledge, no previous research has attempted
to identify the relationship between consumer
confusion and attitude certainty in the online food
and nutrition context.
In our research, we intend to draw attention to the
information content of the app as an important
element influencing consumer attitudes toward the
perceived healthiness of the product. We build on
the findings of previous research and aim to inves-
tigate the relationship between the product health-
iness evaluation provided in an app and consumers'
perceptions of product healthiness, and their cer-
tainty about these attitudes. In addition, we aim to
explore the elements of consumer confusion with
the information available in nutrition apps, and
their impact on consumers’ subsequent attitude
certainty.
1 Literature overview and hypotheses
Consumers’ perceptions are one of the crucial
determinants of the food-related choice-making
process (Furst et al., 1996). In this respect, perceived
healthiness of food products has been found to
motivate and impact consumer attitudes, intentions
and actions (Ares & Gambaro, 2007; Johansen et al.,
2011), for example, purchase intention (Shan et al.,
2017; Wang et al., 2016) and actual food intake
(Provencher et al., 2009).
Consumers inform themselves about product
healthiness from various sources. In general, con-
sumers declare the highest trust to information from
the official and scientific institutions. Nevertheless,
the wide presence and accessibility of the mass
media information (online information sources
included) make this source very much used, despite
the fact that consumers often notice inconsistent and
confusing information coming from it (Johansen
et al., 2011; Zhang et al., 2017).
As a concept, consumer confusionhas beendefined
as “consumer failure to develop a correct interpretation of
various facets of a product or service during the informa-
tion processing procedure” (Turnbull et al., 2000, p. 145).
In addition to this, previous research has considered
consumer confusion as an intellectual emotion with
102 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110
cognitive and affective (emotional) elements (Fitz-
gerald et al., 2019). Literature clearly identifies in-
formation ambiguity as one of the main sources of
consumer confusion. Confusion caused by ambiguity
is expected to emergewhen information available to a
consumer are inconsistent, and consumer cannot
decide which one is more credible and relevant for
decision-making (Mitchell et al., 2005). Consumer
confusion is usually considered at a conceptual level,
and tends to be observed exclusively in a long-term
aspect (Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1999), or as an in-
dividual's characteristic through consumer confusion
proneness (Chen & Chang, 2013; Walsh et al., 2007).
When it comes to food and nutrition, confusion has
been assessed mainly from the point of view of too
much and too inconsistent information presence in
the media (Nagler, 2014), official recommendations
and guidelines (Spiteri Cornish & Moraes, 2015) and
product labels (Chan et al., 2004; Henryks& Pearson,
2010). A more in-depth investigation of confounders
and specifics in food and nutrition is still pending
(Spiteri Cornish & Moraes, 2015).
In addition to creating confusion, the in-
consistencies in information might influence con-
sumers' attitudes and the information's certainty as
well (Tormala & Rucker, 2018). In social psychology
literature, attitude certainty is referred to as ‘the
subjective sense of conviction one has about one's atti-
tude’, or ‘the extent to which one believes one's attitude
is correct or valid’ (Rucker et al., 2014, p. 121). Atti-
tude clarity and attitude correctness are two inde-
pendent dimensions of attitude certainty, which are
shown as significant and helpful for further un-
derstanding of attitude certainty (Petrocelli et al.,
2007). The certainty with which an attitude is held
and its influence on the attitude strength has been
emphasized in the existing literature (Bizer et al.,
2011; Petty et al., 1995). Certainty in one's attitude is
usually enhanced when the individual is presented
with both positive and negative characteristics of
the attitude object (Bizer et al., 2011; Rucker et al.,
2008), as well as in cases when some resistance to
persuasion should be shown by consumers (Tor-
mala & Petty, 2004a, 2004b).
Although trusted by their users (Krebs & Duncan,
2015), nutrition apps and the information they pro-
vide are not to be taken without any caution.
Namely, differences in the healthiness evaluation
systems used by different nutrition apps can lead to
confusion when using the apps. We refer to this type
of inconsistent information about the same product
provided by different apps as “Confusing Nutrition
App Scores” e CNAS. CNAS reflects the conflicting
health scores provided by two comparable apps.
Similar healthiness grades have been used on food
labels for decades, and have been shown to influ-
ence consumers’ perceptions of food healthiness,
purchase intentions, and purchase behavior (De
Temmerman et al., 2021; Neal et al., 2017).
A study has emphasized that most health apps,
including the ones focusing on food and nutrition,
are not necessarily designed with input from pro-
fessionals in the area of health care and behavior
change (Krebs & Duncan, 2015). The lack of pro-
fessional advice and input, along with the inexistent
uniform standards for healthiness evaluation are
currently allowing different apps to use different
methodologies to evaluate food healthiness and its
nutritive value. Subsequently, search results in
different apps may vary in accuracy, information
provided or presentation format (Maringer et al.,
2018). This can trigger the state of confusion aroused
when apps show inconsistent healthiness and
nutrition scores for the same product. We predict
that inconsistent information captured by CNAS
creates ambiguity, which is known for making
consumers more cautious (Mitchell & Papavassiliou,
1999), and it leads to a decrease in the perceived
healthiness of a product.
H1. CNAS negatively influences perceived
healthiness.
As a construct, attitude certainty is shown to be
affected by conditions in which the attitude is being
formed. Some research showed that consumers
prefer getting two-sided information (i.e. being
presented with both positive and negative charac-
teristics of the object) when making a decision
(Bizer et al., 2011; Rucker et al., 2008). Nevertheless,
when it comes to the consistency and perceived
accuracy of information, their effect on attitudes
and their formation can be crucial (Rucker et al.,
2014), as conflicting and ambiguous information
can cause consumers to doubt their attitudes, and
be less certain of them (Petrocelli et al., 2007). In
our research, we expect to find a similar effect of
CNAS.
H2. CNAS negatively influences attitude certainty
of perceived healthiness.
When consumers are faced with inconsistent infor-
mation, it is not surprising if they experience the
feeling of confusion. This state of confusion can
relate to inconsistent information from different
nutrition apps (CNAS), since such an environment
provides an individual with ambiguous and con-
flicting information about the unique product.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110 103
Confusion can also be expected to have an effect on
consumer perceptions and attitudes in general
(Walsh & Mitchell, 2010). In addition to its effect on
attitude shaping, we expect to find the influence of
confusion feeling on consumers’ certainty (which is
one of the attitude characteristics) (Fig. 1).
H3. The influence of CNAS on attitude certainty of
perceived healthiness is mediated by confusion.
2 Methodology
In order to test our hypotheses and investigate the
influence of inconsistent information on consumer
perception of product healthiness, their feeling of
confusion and attitude certainty, we conducted an
experimental study. In a between-subjects research
design, we used screenshots from two existing
nutrition apps (Environmental Working Group,
2014; Fooducate, 2010) to manipulate healthiness
score of the chosen products (a muesli bar of a
brand with limited presence in the respondents'
market (the Carman's in the U.S.)). The difference in
the methodologies that are used by apps when
evaluating the healthiness of a product creates a
situation in which consumers are confronted with
inconsistent healthiness information for the same
product in different apps.
For the purpose of the experiment, the real app
screenshots were used e adjustments were done to
the product picture only to make sure the product
presented to both groups was the same. Our pretest
resulted in adjusting the information presentation
for respondents using mobile phone screens. A
single factor between-subject experiment consisted
of a control and one treatment group. In both con-
ditions, the respondents were shown two app
screenshots (see Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix).
Control group respondents saw two screenshots
that showed consistent results about Carman's
muesli bar healthiness (both grading the product as
a relatively healthy one). In the treatment condition,
one of the apps' healthiness scores implied that the
muesli bar was healthy, while the other app indi-
cated the product as unhealthy. The position of each
app screenshot was randomized among re-
spondents to avoid potential biases. The apps were
not differentiated on the basis of credibility, and the
experiment instruction stated that ‘Both apps are from
non-profit, non-partisan organizations that provide food
scores for more than 80,000 products’.
After seeing the two screenshots, respondents
were asked to rate the product perceived healthi-
ness (a ¼ .95) and certainty of their attitude about
the product's healthiness (a ¼ .91). In addition to
this, respondents also evaluated the emotions they
experienced while evaluating screenshots. Mea-
sures used for perceived healthiness were adapted
from Provencher et al. (2009), where respondents
provided their assessments of the three items
measured on a 7-point scale: (1) In your opinion, how
healthy is Carman's muesli bar?, (2) In your opinion,
how appropriate is Carman's muesli bar for a healthy
menu?, and (3) In your opinion, how appropriate is
Carman's muesli bar for a healthy diet?
In order to measure consumer confusion, a set of
items was used to assess the consumers' immediate
feelings and reactions after being exposed to
inconsistent information. This measure was adapted
from D'Mello et al. (2014). Respondents were asked
to assess to which extent they felt anxious, confused,
curious, surprised, engaged, overwhelmed and frustrated
during screenshots' evaluation (measured on a 7-
point scale). We conducted a factor analysis for the
confusion scale and it indicated the existence of two
emotion factors e one consisting of anxious,
confused, frustrated and overwhelmed, and the
other where engaged and surprised loaded the
Fig. 1. Conceptual model. Source: Own work.
104 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110
most. In our analysis, we have used the mean value
of the first factor as a measure of confusion variable.
The attitude certainty scale represents the adapta-
tion of the three-item scale by Tormala et al. (2006):
(1) How certain are you of your attitude about this
product's healthiness?, (2) How convinced are you of
your opinion about this product's healthiness?, and (3)
How much confidence do you have in your attitude about
this product's healthiness? (using 7-point scale).
We collected data using the online platform Pro-
lific, and compensated the respondents for their
participation with an equivalent of $ 6/h1. In total,
248 US-based respondents completed the study, out
of which 11 were excluded as outliers (Aguinis et al.,
2013). In terms of the structure, 53% of the re-
spondents were female, while the average re-
spondent's age was 32.8 (ranging from 18 to 69). Out
of 237 respondents, 48% (114 respondents) were
randomly assigned to the control group and were
presented with two app screenshots with similar
healthiness level shown in the nutrition app score
(abb. NAS) muesli bar condition The remaining 52%
(123 respondents) saw two screenshots showing
CNAS (confusing nutrition app scores).
3 Results
In order to conduct a manipulation check, we
asked the respondents to indicate their agreement
with two statements: ‘After reading the information
provided in the two app screenshots, I felt puzzled’
(Mt ¼ 3.70, Mc ¼ 2.79), and ‘The information provided
in the two app screenshots gave contradictory informa-
tion about muesli bar's healthiness' (Mt ¼ 4.41, (1.64),
Mc ¼ 3.11, (1.66). The difference in means is statis-
tically significant (at p < .001 for both claims),
showing that the respondents perceived the
manipulation as expected, i.e. the participants in the
treatment group reported higher level of inconsis-
tent information in the screenshots.
For statistical analysis in this study, SPSS software
(version 25.0) was used (IBM Corp. Released, 2017).
A one-way ANOVA was used for testing the first
hypothesis. In support of hypothesis 1, the main
negative effect of CNAS on perceived healthiness is
highly significant (p < .001; F ¼ 53.94). Therefore, we
were able to confirm that inconsistent information
about the product's healthiness presented to re-
spondents in form of nutrition apps' scores did have
an influence on respondents' evaluation of muesli
bar's healthiness. When testing our second hy-
pothesis, using ANOVA, once again, we were able
to identify a strong significant effect (p ¼ .001;
F ¼ 10.71). That is, the presence of CNAS did have
an impact on respondents' attitude certainty of
perceived muesli bar healthiness. In order to check
the third hypothesis, we used PROCESS (Hayes,
2017; model 4) to estimate a mediation model.
Supporting hypothesis 3, a strong indirect negative
effect (bM ¼ .1477) of CNAS on attitude certainty is
significant (LLCI ¼ .28; ULCI ¼ .05), as well as
the direct effect (p ¼ .0185), which implies comple-
mentary mediation (Zhao et al., 2010) of consumer
confusion feeling. The overview of the study results
is available in Tables 1e3.
4 Discussion and conclusions
The current research investigated the potential
impact of nutrition apps and their food healthiness
evaluation scores on consumer attitudes and cer-
tainty. We observed how inconsistent health score
and consumer confusion affect product evaluation.
In situations where consumers receive conflicting,
inconsistent product healthiness information across
different nutrition apps, they tend to be less positive
about product healthiness (i.e. muesli bar was
perceived as less healthy in this condition). In
addition, the results suggest that there is an effect of
CNAS on consumer confusion, as well as on their
attitude certainty. Respondents who saw app
healthiness scores with conflicting, inconsistent
scores for product healthiness in the experiment
showed higher levels of confusion. This effect of
inconsistent media health and nutrition information
was already mentioned in the literature (Nagler,
2014; Ward et al., 2011), and we managed to identify
its presence in the case of inconsistent information
provided by nutrition apps. Additionally, the con-
flicting healthiness scores in the apps had a negative
Table 1. Results analysis e H1 and H2 ANOVA.
Hypothesis Means F P
(H1) CNAS / Perceived
healthiness
Mt ¼ 4.0298 (1.56)
Mc ¼ 5.5041 (1.13)
F ¼ 53.943 .000
(H2) CNAS / Attitude
certainty
Mt ¼ 4.6233 (1.36)
Mc ¼ 5.1550 (1.12)
F ¼ 10.711 .001
Note: Means e t (inconsistent information), c (control group).
Table 2. Direct effect of CNAS on attitude certainty.
Effect se t p LLCI ULCI
-.3839 .1619 2.3715 .0185 -.7029 -.0650
Table 3. Indirect effect of CNAS on attitude certainty.
Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI
Confusion -.1477 .0597 -.2818 -.0501
Note: Confidence level interval (LLCI e lower confidence level
interval, UCLI e upper confidence level interval).
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110 105
effect on the product's perceived healthiness. Pre-
vious literature conceptually connected consumer's
general state of confusion with choice uncertainty
and frustration (Mitchell & Papavassiliou, 1999),
while our research extends the knowledge about the
relationship between confusion feeling and the
certainty with which consumers hold their attitudes.
The findings of this study offer useful implications
for marketing managers as well as app developers
and official health institutions. As inconsistent in-
formation might result in reduced perceived
healthiness and reduced attitude certainty, food
brands should be very motivated to diminish such
state and dispatch unified information about their
product in all media and channels where they are
present. It is therefore of high importance for com-
panies to undertake activities that would educate
consumers, help them make informed decisions
about the purchase, and lower their susceptibility to
confusion, due to the inability to differentiate
truthfulness and credibility of different sources of
information they are surrounded with on a daily
basis. Since consumers often spend their free time
on social media, this channel for educating con-
sumers about nutrition and properly extracting food
information can be an effective way to increase
nutrition literacy and reduce confusion (Gill et al.,
2013). Practices such as gamification and more
intuitive app design have also been shown to be
effective in reducing confusion and motivating
healthier food choices (Haven et al., 2006; €Ogel
Aydõn & Argan, 2021). Brand managers might find
it beneficial to collaborate with app developers in
order to assure that the information about their
products and brand available to consumers in the
apps are valid and consistent. Mobile apps, which
are now a very present marketing communication
channel for many companies, also need to be
developed very carefully and expertly. Managers
and marketers should increase their efforts to
reduce confusion to ensure that their products and
services are well understood and not affected by the
inconsistent information that every consumer is
confronted with. Therefore, a clear strategy is
needed at the product launch stage, followed by the
choice of an appropriate and unambiguous way to
promote and position the product from the outset.
Developers of globally available nutrition apps
could benefit from closer cooperation with official
institutions (health authorities, official media chan-
nels) in order to create unique standards or mutu-
ally agree on using the existing ones (European
guidelines, American USDA regulations, etc.) for
product healthiness evaluation, and therefore avoid
giving opposing information to users. As electronic
devices and apps become a very common way of
searching for health and nutrition information
(Krebs & Duncan, 2015), official institutions could
achieve the best results for their campaigns by
incorporating such means of delivering messages to
educate and motivate citizens. In doing so, in-
stitutions should keep in mind that it is crucial to
convey the right amount of information. Indeed, an
abundance of information does not necessarily lead
to a correct understanding of nutrition on the part of
consumers (Spiteri Cornish & Moraes, 2015).
Certainly, gentle monitoring and guidance of exist-
ing apps and the organizations behind them could
help to provide clearer information to consumers.
5 Limitations of the study and future research
This study has attempted to provide an additional
insight into consumer confusion research related to
attitude certainty in the nutrition context. While we
have aimed at conducting a rigorous research, this
study is not without limitations. The data were
collected using the US sample. In order to achieve
generalizability, future research might incorporate
or compare results from different parts of the world.
This is especially relevant since the food and
nutrition play different role in different cultures and
the information might be perceived differently
(Rodríguez-Arauz et al., 2016).
Several additional limitations of this study should
be noted. First, our sample does not allow for
generalizing findings to all consumer segments.
Namely, while the sample did include respondents
from different age categories, the average age of
32.8 years shows that the sample is relatively
young. Our younger sample is justified by the app
and mobile devices usage. Nevertheless, while
young consumers are considered to be the heaviest
users of technological devices (apps included),
older consumers are also increasingly showing
their interest in the apps, especially in the health-
related domains (Wildenbos et al., 2018). Further
research would be needed to understand whether
different age groups experience confusion with
nutrition apps differently.
Second, as consumer confusion was found to have
an impact on consumers' perceived healthiness and
attitudes, the inclusions of further assessments of
consumers’ emotions and attitude strength (i.e.
different dimensions of attitude strength e extrem-
ity, perceived knowledge, etc.) could offer new
interesting insights for consumer psychology
research and a better understanding of the rela-
tionship between confusion and attitudes. In this
research, our operationalization of consumer
106 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110
confusion relied mainly on the affective part of this
construct (feelings dominated the pool of attributes
listed in the measurement scale used). To better
understand the cognitive elements of consumer
confusion and their relationship to attitudes, future
research might consider additional ways to include
this component as well.
Third, this study did not assess any behavioral
responses to confusing nutrition information,
although previous research demonstrates that con-
sumer attitudes based on inconsistent information
have an influence on subsequent behavioral in-
tentions (Walsh & Mitchell, 2010). While the study
results clearly show the effects of inconsistent in-
formation on the consumer attitudes, further
research that would include measurement of the
actual behavior and decision making in such situa-
tions would be highly beneficial.
Next, while both app manipulations use visual
and grade parameters, the presentation of product
healthiness differs, which could influence re-
spondents’ perceptions. Visual parameters are rep-
resented using colors in both apps, while grading
was done using different symbols (numbers in the
EWG and letters in the Fooducate app). Further
research is needed to better understand if and how
such differences in the presentation of healthiness
grade influence consumer perceptions.
Finally, we have aimed at examining consumer
confusion in situations where consumers are faced
with information and sources of same credibility.
Research area might benefit from better under-
standing of confusion emerging in the situations
where consumers are faced with multiple inconsis-
tent information (some even contradictory) from
sources they differentiate as more or less credible.
Funding statement
The authors acknowledge financial support from
the Slovenian Research Agency (Research program
P5-0128 and research project N5-0084).
References
Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice
recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling
outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270e301.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112470848
Ares, G., & Gambaro, A. (2007). Influence of gender, age and
motives underlying food choice on perceived healthiness and
willingness to try functional foods. Appetite, 49(1), 148e158.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.01.006
Bizer, G. Y., Larsen, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Exploring the
valence-framing effect: Negative framing enhances attitude
strength. Political Psychology, 32(1), 59e80. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00795.x
Carpenter, D. M., Geryk, L. L., Chen, A. T., Nagler, R. H.,
Dieckmann, N. F., & Han, P. K. J. (2015). Conflicting health
information: A critical research need. Health Expectations, 19(6),
1173e1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12438
Carter, M. C., Burley, V. J., Nykjaer, C., & Cade, J. E. (2013).
Adherence to a smartphone application for weight loss
compared to website and paper diary: Pilot randomized
controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4), e32.
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.2283
Chan, C., Patch, C., & Williams, P. (2004). Australian consumers
are sceptical about but influenced by claims about fat on food
labels. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59(1), 148e151.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602038
Chen, Y. S., & Chang, C. H. (2013). Greenwash and green trust:
The mediation effects of green consumer confusion and green
perceived risk. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 489e500.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1360-0
De Cock, N., Vangeel, J., Lachat, C., Beullens, K., Vervoort, L.,
Goossens, L., & Eggermont, S. (2017). Use of fitness and
nutrition apps: Associations with body mass index, snacking,
and drinking habits in adolescents. JMIR mHealth and uHealth,
5(4), e58. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.6005
De Temmerman, J., Heeremans, E., Slabbinck, H., & Vermeir, I..
The impact of the Nutri-Score nutrition label on perceived
healthiness and purchase intentions. Appetite, 157, 104995.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104995
DiFilippo, K. N., Huang, W.-H., Andrade, J. E., & Chapman-
Novakofski, K. M. (2015). The use of mobile apps to improve
nutrition outcomes: A systematic literature review. Journal of
Telemedicine and Telecare, 21(5), 243e253. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1357633x15572203
D'Mello, S., Lehman, B., Pekrun, R.,&Graesser, A. (2014). Confusion
can be beneficial for learning. Learning and Instruction, 29,
153e170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.003
Environmental Working Group. (2014). EWG Food Scores (2.4.15).
[Mobile application software]. https://www.ewg.org/foodscores/
Fitzgerald, M. P., Russo Donovan, K., Kees, J., & Kozup, J. (2019).
How confusion impacts product labeling perceptions. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 36(2), 306e316. https://doi.org/10.1108/
jcm-08-2017-2307
Flaherty, S. J., McCarthy,M., Collins, A., &McAuliffe, F. (2018). Can
existing mobile apps support healthier food purchasing behav-
iour? Content analysis of nutrition content, behaviour change
theory and user quality integration. Public Health Nutrition, 21(2),
288e298. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1368980017002889
Fooducate, L. T. D. (2010). Fooducate (2.60). [Mobile application
software]. https://www.fooducate.com/
Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., & Falk, L. W.
(1996). Food choice: A conceptual model of the process.
Appetite, 26(3), 247e266. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0019
Gill, H. K., Gill, N., & Young, S. D. (2013). Online technologies for
health information and education: A literature review. Journal
of Consumer Health on the Internet, 17(2), 139e150. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15398285.2013.780542
Hall-Phillips, A., & Shah, P. (2017). Unclarity confusion and
expiration date labels in the United States: A consumer
perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 35,
118e126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.12.007
Haven, J., Burns, A., Britten, P., & Davis, C. (2006). Developing the
consumer interface for the MyPyramid food guidance system.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38(6), 124e135.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2006.08.002
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con-
ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford
Publications.
Henryks, J., & Pearson, D. (2010). Misreading between the lines:
Consumer confusion over organic food labelling. Australian
Journal of Communication, 37(3), 73e86.
IBM Corp. Released. (2017). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows.
Version 25.0. IBM Corp.
Jacobs, W., Amuta, A. O., & Jeon, K. C. (2017). Health information
seeking in the digital age: An analysis of health information
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110 107
seeking behavior among US adults. Cogent Social Sciences, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2017.1302785
Johansen, S. B., Næs, T., & Hersleth, M. (2011). Motivation for
choice and healthiness perception of calorie-reduced dairy
products. A cross-cultural study. Appetite, 56(1), 15e24. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.11.137
Krebs, P., & Duncan, D. T. (2015). Health app use among US
mobile phone owners: A national survey. JMIR mHealth and
uHealth, 3(4), e101. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4924
Maringer, M., Wisse-Voorwinden, N., van’t Veer, P., & Geelen, A.
(2018). Food identification by barcode scanning in The
Netherlands: A quality assessment of labelled food product da-
tabases underlying popular nutrition applications. Public Health
Nutrition, 1e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/s136898001800157x
Mitchell, V. W., & Papavassiliou, V. (1999). Marketing causes and
implications of consumer confusion. The Journal of Product and
Brand Management, 8, 319e342. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610
429910284300
Mitchell, V. W., Walsh, G., & Yamin, M. (2005). Towards a con-
ceptual model of consumer confusion. In G. Menon, &
A. R. Rao (Eds.), NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 32
(pp. 143e150). Association for Consumer Research.
Nagler, R. H. (2014). Adverse outcomes associated with media
exposure to contradictory nutrition messages. Journal of Health
Communication, 19(1), 24e40. https://doi.org/10.1080/1081073
0.2013.798384
Neal, B., Crino, M., Dunford, E., Gao, A., Greenland, R., Li, N.,
Ngai, J., Ni Mhurchu, C., Pettigrew, S., Sacks, G., Webster, J.,
& Wu, J. H. (2017). Effects of different types of front-of-pack
labelling information on the healthiness of food purchases-A
randomised controlled trial. Nutrients, 9(12), 1284. https://
doi.org/10.3390/nu9121284
€Ogel Aydõn, S., & Argan, M. (2021). Understanding how gami-
fication influences consumers' dietary preferences. Journal of
Social Marketing, 11(2), 82e123. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JSOCM-09-2019-0137
Petrocelli, J. V., Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Unpacking
attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 30e41. https://
doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.30
Petty, R. E., Haugtvedt, C. P., & Smith, S. M. (1995). Elaboration as
a determinant of attitude strength: Creating attitudes that are
persistent, resistant, and predictive of behavior. In R. E. Petty,
& J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and con-
sequences (pp. 93e130). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Provencher, V., Polivy, J., & Herman, C. P. (2009). Perceived
healthiness of food. If it's healthy, you can eat more. Appetite,
52(2), 340e344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.005
Rodríguez-Arauz, G., Ramírez-Esparza, N., & Smith-Castro, V.
(2016). Foodattitudesandwell-being:Theroleofculture.Appetite,
105, 180e188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.019
Roman, S., Sanchez-Siles, L. M., & Siegrist, M. (2017). The
importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a
systematic review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 67,
44e57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.06.010
Rucker, D. D., Petty, R. E., & Bri~nol, P. (2008). What's in a frame
anyway?: A meta-cognitive analysis of the impact of one
versus two sided message framing on attitude certainty.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 18(2), 137e149. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jcps.2008.01.008
Rucker, D. D., Tormala, Z. L., Petty, R. E., & Bri~nol, P. (2014).
Consumer conviction and commitment: An appraisal-based
framework for attitude certainty. Journal of Consumer Psychol-
ogy, 24(1), 119e136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.07.001
Shan, L. C., Henchion, M., De Brún, A., Murrin, C., Wall, P. G., &
Monahan, F. J. (2017). Factors that predict consumer accep-
tance of enriched processed meats. Meat Science, 133, 185e193.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.07.006
Spiteri Cornish, L., & Moraes, C. (2015). The impact of consumer
confusion on nutrition literacy and subsequent dietary
behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 32(5), 558e574. https://
doi.org/10.1002/mar.20800
Suher, J., Raghunathan, R., & Hoyer, W. D. (2016). Eating healthy
or feeling empty? How the “healthy = less filling” intuition
influences satiety. Journal of the Association for Consumer
Research, 1(1), 26e40. https://doi.org/10.1086/684393
Tormala, Z. L., Clarkson, J. J., & Petty, R. E. (2006). Resisting persua-
sion by the skin of one's teeth: The hidden success of resisted
persuasive messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91(3), 423e435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.423
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004a). Resistance to persuasion and
attitude certainty: The moderating role of elaboration. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1446e1457.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264251
Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2004b). Source credibility and
attitude certainty: A metacognitive analysis of resistance to
persuasion. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 427e442.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_11
Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2007). Attitude certainty: A re-
view of past findings and emerging perspectives. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 469e492. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00025.x
Tormala, Z. L., & Rucker, D. D. (2018). Attitude certainty: Ante-
cedents, consequences, and new directions. Consumer Psy-
chology Review, 1(1), 72e89. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1004
Turnbull, P. W., Leek, S., & Ying, G. (2000). Customer confusion:
The mobile phone market. Journal of Marketing Management,
16(1e3), 143e163. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725700785100523
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Simmons, J. P. (2003). Distinguishing
the cognitive and behavioral consequences of attitude impor-
tance and certainty: A new approach to testing the common-
factor hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(2),
118e141. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(02)00522-x
Viviani, M., & Pasi, G. (2017). Credibility in social media: Opin-
ions, news, and health informationda survey. WIREs Data
Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 7(5), e1209. https://doi.org/
10.1002/widm.1209
Walsh, G., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Mitchell, V. W. (2007). Con-
sumer confusion proneness: Scale development, validation,
and application. Journal of Marketing Management, 23(7e8),
697e721. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725707x230009
Walsh, G., & Mitchell, V. W. (2010). The effect of consumer
confusion proneness on word of mouth, trust, and customer
satisfaction. European Journal of Marketing, 44, 838e859. https://
doi.org/10.1108/03090561011032739
Wang, Q., Oostindjer, M., Amdam, G. V., & Egelandsdal, B.
(2016). Snacks with nutrition labels: Tastiness perception,
healthiness perception, and willingness to pay by Norwegian
adolescents. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 48(2),
104e111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2015.09.003
Wansink, B., & Chandon, P. (2006). Can “low-fat” nutrition labels
lead to obesity? Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 605e617.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.4.605
Ward, P. R., Henderson, J., Coveney, J., & Meyer, S. (2011). How do
South Australian consumers negotiate and respond to infor-
mation in the media about food and nutrition? Journal of Soci-
ology, 48(1), 23e41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783311407947
West, J. H., Belvedere, L. M., Andreasen, R., Frandsen, C.,
Hall, P. C., & Crookston, B. T. (2017). Controlling your “app”
etite: How diet and nutrition-related mobile apps lead to
behavior change. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 5(7), e95. https://
doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.7410
Wildenbos, G. A., Peute, L., & Jaspers, M. (2018). Aging barriers influ-
encing mobile health usability for older adults: A literature based
framework (MOLD-US). International Journal of Medical Informatics,
114, 66e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2018.03.012
Zhang, Y., Sun, Y., & Kim, Y. (2017). The influence of individual
differences on consumer's selection of online sources for
health information. Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 303e312.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.008
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron
and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197e206. https://doi.org/
10.1086/651257
108 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110
Appendix e Experimental manipulations
Fig. A1. Treatment group (CNAS) e EWG app on the left and Fooducate app on the right.
ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110 109
Fig. A2. Control group e EWG app on the left and Fooducate app on the right.
110 ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS REVIEW 2022;24:101e110