LAUSR

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the underlying mechanisms of how consumers respond to health-claim framing via experimental design. Design/methodology/approach Across the two experiments conducted for this research, the authors examine the moderating effects of self-perceived health status and individuals’ need for cognition on health-claim framing. Findings The results indicate that personal differences moderate the effects of health-claim framing on consumers’ food-product evaluation. Consumers with poor health status evaluate food product more favorably when the reduced-disease-risk claims are offered. However, consumers with good health status evaluate food product similarly between the two health claims. Moreover, consumers with a high need for cognition evaluate food product more favorably when the reduced-disease-risk claims are used, whereas consumers with a low need for cognition evaluate food product more favorably when the enhance function claims are used. Practical implications This research provides that reduced-disease-risk claims may be the better communication message used to persuade consumers no matter they rate themselves as poor health status or good health status. Moreover, the results of the present research also indicate the importance of market segmentation. Marketers could design proper advertisements and select the appropriate media vehicles for low need for cognition readers and high need for cognition readers separately. Originality/value There has been few studies addressed consumers’ product choice with respect to different health-claim framing. Further, this research presents a new concept of the effects between individual differences and health-claim framing on consumers’ food-product evaluation.