Bio -based and A ppl ied Economics BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 Copyright: © 2021 I. Dolgopolova, B. Li, H. Pirhonen, J. Roosen. Open access, article published by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Citation: I. Dolgopolova, B. Li, H. Pirhonen, J. Roosen (2021). The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ atti- tudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis. Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264. doi: 10.36253/ bae-11511 Received: July 21, 2021 Accepted: December 22, 2021 Published: March 31, 2022 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Donato Romano. Discussant: Leonardo Boncinelli, Donato Romano ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7194-1236 BL: 0000-0001-7774-6095 JR: 0000-0002-3032-399X BAE 10th Anniversary paper The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta- analysis Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen* Chair of Marketing and Consumer Research, TUM School of Management, Technical University of Munich, Germany *Corresponding author. E-mail: jroosen@tum.de Abstract. This paper analyzes the existing literature on the effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions with regard to food products. Attribute fram- ing includes a broader interpretation of gains and losses when a product attribute is presented in a dichotomous way, such as fat vs. lean or harm vs. benefit. Meta-analy- sis results for the whole sample indicate that product attributes framed as gains have a higher effect on attitudes and intentions than product attributes framed as losses. Grouping studies by outcome variables, the meta-analysis demonstrates a larger effect size for studies that assess consumer attitude while for studies dealing with consumer intention, the effect size is close to zero and insignificant. We observe from the meta- regression results that the gain frame, the use of interaction terms, a specific product, and a student sample significantly influence consumers’ attitudes and intentions. Keywords: attribute framing, food products, meta-analysis. JEL codes: D91, I12. INTRODUCTION The framing effect shows that decisions depend on the way in which outcomes are presented. In their seminal contribution, Kahneman & Tver- sky (1979) developed the prospect theory that serves the analysis of decisions under risk. According to the evidence they accumulated, choices depend on the gains and losses compared to the current situation rather than to abso- lute outcomes and the theory postulates that people dislike negative char- acteristics associated with a choice more than they value positive aspects. That is, the value function in prospect theory is S-shaped and steeper for losses than for gains, meaning that displeasure from a loss is stronger than the pleasure from an equivalent gain (see Figure 1) (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). Thus, people choose differently depending on which characteristic of the choice is emphasized – gains or losses. This discrepancy creates a fram- ing effect initially introduced in Kahneman and Tversky’s 1981 paper with an example of an Asian disease (Kahneman & Tversky, 1981). In the exam- http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 254 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen ple, participants of the experiment are confronted with the following problem: “Imagine that the U.S. is prepar- ing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the program is as follows”. Then, participants in one group are presented with choices A and B: “If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If Program B is adopted, there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved”. And participants in another group are presented with the choices C and D: “If Program C is adopted 400 peo- ple will die. If Program D is adopted there is a 1/3 prob- ability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die”. The choices in the original experiment were distributed as follows: Program A – 72%, program B – 28%, program C – 22%, program D – 78%. Results of the experiment demonstrated that the choice of the program depends on how the outcome is described, in terms of losses (deaths) or gains (survivals), and that people prefer risky outcomes when it comes to losses and certain outcomes when it comes to gains – an effect called loss aversion. The framing effect serves as a means to describe decision anomalies where people seem to deviate from consistent choice behavior because of various framings of outcome, context and goal. Presenting or communi- cating attributes of products in diverse ways came to be referred to as attribute framing, and presenting the goal of behavior in diverse ways – as goal framing (Levin et al., 1998). In this study we are particularly interested in attribute framing and thus goal framing is not discussed any further. Although the framing effect was initially applied to explain decisions under risk, its meaning extended since then to broader interpretations, for example, when meat is presented as lean or fat (Figure 1) (Levin et al., 1998). The concept has, according to some, subsequently come to embody a widely understood, generic definition that stands for the conflicting reactions to information pre- sented in disparate ways (Braun et al., 1997). Several authors stretched the definition and study concepts to merely positive versus negative, strengths versus risks, or even more versus less information framing (Levin et al., 1998). The framing effect has been studied in various fields, including medical decisions, auditing evaluations, public health, environmental valuation, marketing, and consumer choice (Levin et al., 1998; Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Jin & Han, 2014; Kragt & Bennett, 2012; Svenning- sen & Thorsen, 2021). When applied in a marketing context, attributes are often not presented in bipolar, dichotomous ways and emphasize certain aspects to make them salient. For example, the benefits of meat substitutes that are framed in terms of “societal benefits”, “high tech”, and “same meat” in persuasive appeals are considered as attrib- ute framing (Bryant & Dillard, 2019). Different from risk framing or goal framing which represents loss and gain associated to an expected outcome, attribute fram- ing selects an attribute of a product and describes it in a dichotomous way, such as fat vs. lean, tax vs. offset, and harm vs. benefit. Attribute framing, which is usually delivered in the forms of labels, advertisement, and com- munications, has considerably influenced people’s choice preferences. For example, people are willing to pay more for a burger described as 75% lean than one described as 25% fat (Levin & Gaeth, 1988). They show a higher pref- erence for 80% fat-free chocolate compared to 20% fat chocolate (Braun et al., 1997). In the area of health-related decisions, framing of the choice outcomes provided some controversial results. Rothman & Salovey (1997) examined a number of fram- ing studies related to the public’s health-related decision- making and found evidence of framing effects in hypo- thetical choice situations. They concluded that the effec- tiveness of choice frames depends on the illness-detect- ing or health-affirming function of a message. Gallagher & Updegraff (2012) in their study of message framing in health communication, found that gain-framed mes- sages are more effective in encouraging prevention behaviors than loss-framed messages. Two subsequent meta-analyses of messages regarding disease prevention behaviors also demonstrated conflicting results. O’Keefe & Jensen (2007) reported that the persuasiveness in disease-prevention communication is higher for gain- framed messages than for loss-framed messages. Howev- er, their behavior-specific meta-analysis in 2009 reported Figure 1. Lean-fat framing of meat products with regard to gain- loss framing. 255The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 that loss-framed messages are slightly but significantly more persuasive than gain-framed messages (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2009). Food choices can be associated with potentially neg- ative consequences for health including the development of obesity and other non-communicable diseases. Public policy interventions that attempt to influence consumer choices in the food domain use different communication methods to inform consumers about potentially damag- ing consequences of consuming certain kinds of foods. Communicating the nutritional properties of foods can take the form of attribute framing. In this case, prod- uct attributes are described in two different ways: a) by emphasizing positive characteristics (e.g., dietary fibers and vitamins), or b) by presenting negative characteris- tics of foods (e.g., sugar and fat). The effectiveness of dif- ferent communication strategies is typically measured in the form of consumer behaviors, intentions, or attitudes (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012). This paper aims to provide a systematic review of the use of gain-loss attribute framing on food products. We want to investigate and quantify the extent to which other external factors affect the overall framing effect on people’s food choices across different countries. We are specifically interested in what kind of framing results in more positive consumer attitudes and increased inten- tion to purchase healthy and environmentally friendly food products. Although our initial approach sug- gested the inclusion of studies with actual behavior as an outcome, no such studies were identified through our search. We perform a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of a gain vs. loss framing and then use a meta-regression to explore study heterogeneity. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. It starts with a detailed walkthrough of how the literature for the systematic meta-analysis is collected and selected. The next part presents the methods employed to code the data and build the final data frame for analysis. The result section includes the meta and regression analysis results. The major findings and noteworthy points are discussed in the following discussion section and the paper concludes. METHOD A systematic screening of existing literature was first performed to collect and analyze published articles in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings via four academic search engines (ScienceDirect, Web of Science, EBSCO host, and AgEcon Search), followed by additional random searches on Google Scholar, resulting in a final set of 25 articles published between 1987 and May 2021. The procedure of publication collection and selection is shown in Figure 2. Given the broad coverage and the various terms associated with the topic, we used a long Boolean search query with an intersection set of “framing”, “food”, and a union set of “consumer behavior”, “consumer decision making”, “consumer choice”, “consumer preference”, “consumer perception”, “consumer willingness to buy”, “consumer willingness to accept”, “consumer willing- ness to pay”, “consumer buying behavior”, “consumer purchase intention”, and “consumer buying intention”. Then, the abstract of each article was first examined in order to include only those articles that cover attribute framing in the food domain. We also set conceptual boundaries to only incorporate dichotomous framings (i.e., promotion vs. prevention, harm vs. benefit) on food choices. In other words, framing effects on other con- sumer behaviors related to food, such as food-wasting, recycling, and so on, were not considered relevant. Fur- thermore, to systematically analyze the effect sizes of the main intervention (bipolar framing) and other explana- tory factors, we needed the mean and standard devia- tion of each data point. Hence, we excluded studies that did not report the means of the dependent variables and whose standard deviations of dependent variables are not computable from the information being reported. The final collection of studies included in this review is listed in Table 1. In preparation of the data, besides extracting means and standard deviations, we also target variables that have been reported to influence consumers’ behaviors in the existing systematic reviews in the food realm. The lit- erature review on vegetable consumption by Nørnberg et al. (2016) revealed that an overall main effect might not display. The domain- and individual-specificities of the Figure 2. Flowchart of publication gathering and selection process for the meta-analysis 256 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen persuasive effect of loss vs. gain framing are often con- sidered, especially in the food domain (Britwum & Yian- naka, 2016). Due to the lack of evidence of the general effectiveness of the framing effect on consumers’ food choices, we decided to also look into other covariates. Frewer et al.’s (2013) systematic review and meta-analysis on genetically modified (GM) food choices suggests that the food type and consumers’ geographic region affect the acceptance and prevalence of GM food. In Lusk et al. ‘s (2005) and Dannenberg’s (2009) meta-analysis studies Table 1. Products and attributes of the studies included in the analysis (by year of publication) N Author(s) (year) Product Attribute Interaction 1 Levin, I. (1987) Ground beef Lean/fat N/A 2 Levin, I., Gaeth, G. (1988) Ground beef Lean/fat N/A 3 Loke, W.H., Lau, S. (1992) Hamburger patty Non-fat/fat N/A 4 Braun, K. et al. (1997) Milk chocolate bar Fat-free/fat Gender: female vs. male 5 Van Assema, P. et al. (2001) Low-fat diet/fruits and vegetables Positive/negative consequences Dietary behavior: fat vs. fruit & vegetables 6 Levin, I. et al. (2002) Ground beef Lean/fat N/A 7 Orth, U. et al. (2007) Apples, bottled water Positively/negatively framed advertisements Nation 8 Kees, J. (2011) Healthy/unhealthy food Advantages/disadvantages of healthy/unhealthy foods Regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention; Time orientation: present vs. future 9 Van’t Riet, J. et al. (2013) Fast food Nutrition information N/A 10 Jin, H.J., Han, D.H. (2014) Beef tallow/cow milk Food safety Prior knowledge: low vs. high 11 Abrams, K. (2015) Chicken products Environmental benefits, animal welfare N/A 12 Bosone, L. et al. (2015) Healthy diet Vitamin and nutrient content Regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention 13 Chang, M.-C., Wu, C.-C. (2015) Organic food Environmental benefits Environmental motivation: low vs. high 14 de Bruijn, G.-J. et al. (2015) Fruit Fruit intake benefits Descriptive majority norm: low intake vs. high intake 15 Yan, C. (2015) Junk food Advantages/disadvantages of junk food Attitudinal ambivalence: univalent vs. ambivalent 16 Britwum, K., Yiannaka, A. (2016) Beef products E.coli vaccination Media story: included vs. not included 17 Chen, M.-Y. (2016) High-fiber oat milk Health benefits Self-construal: independent vs. interdependent; Temporal construal: proximal vs. distant 18 Koenigstorfer, J., Baumgartner, H. (2016) Trail mix Dietary permitted or dietary forbidden Fitness label: included vs. not included; Dietary restraint: with vs. without; Gender: female vs. male 19 Tran, V. et al. (2016) Food products Benefits/risks of nanotechnology N/A 20 Hilverda, F. et al. (2017) Organic food Advantages/disadvantages of organic foods Interaction partner: expert vs. peer vs. anonymous 21 Lundeberg, P. et al. (2018) Variety of food products Healthfulness N/A 22 Kuo, K. et al. (2019) Fat-free yoghurt, ice cream Advantages/disadvantages of yoghurt/ice cream Food categorization: virtue vs. vice; Regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention 23 Vidal, G. et al. (2019) Snack food Nutrition information N/A 24 Cui, H.J. et al. (2020) Ethnic foods Advantages/disadvantages of ethnic foods Regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention 25 Shan, L. (2020) Organic food Benefits/losses of buying organic food Price anchor: low vs. high; Product knowledge: low vs. high 257The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 on the valuation of GM food, it was found that geograph- ic location of study and food product characteristics sig- nificantly influence the percentage premium that partici- pants are willing to pay for non-GM foods. In addition, a meta-analysis on consumer’s willingness to pay for farm animal welfare indicated a significant effect of socio-eco- nomic characteristics of participants (Lagerkvist & Hess, 2011). Therefore, our study considers covariates including sample characteristics, geographic location, product char- acteristics, means of presentation, and control for types of dependent measures The following final list of variables were extracted from the studies: authors and year of publication, prod- uct and attribute in question, sample size, treatment type, means and standard deviations of the dependent vari- able, if the study included interaction terms, the type of attribute communication, if the study was conducted on a student sample, and if it was conducted online. Table 2 provides an overview of the variability of products and attributes included in the analysis for the whole sample and for the studies on attitudes and intentions. Broadly, the studies discussed attributes related to different health and sustainability issues. Health aspects framed in terms of gains and losses included nutritional information and food safety. Sustainability aspects included environ- mental benefits, animal welfare, and organic and ethnic foods. The sample sizes of studies included in the analysis differed between 25 and 433, with 32% of studies having a sample size of less than 100 participants. We observed an almost equal distribution of studies on variables such as the use of frames, outcome variables, interaction terms, specific products, and student samples. Thirty-two percent of studies were conducted in the USA, 13% used product labels as means of attribute communication; and 30% of the studies were conducted online. To determine the overall effect of gain vs. loss attrib- ute framing, we performed meta-analysis, using means and standard deviations obtained from the studies. Missing standard deviations are a common problem in meta-analysis. We employed the computational method recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for System- atic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins & Green, 2011), which enables the calculation of missing standard devia- tion from the reported t-value and difference in means according to the following formula: σ = Difference in Means (DM) (1) t To explore between-study heterogeneity, we used mean values of attitudes and intentions as a dependent variable (Table 2). Attitudes and intentions measured on a 7-point Likert scale are included directly. When the outcome variable in a study was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, the values were rescaled to the 7-point scale. We use the following random-effects model: Table 2. Definitions and means and standard deviations of variables included in the analysis. Variable Definition Mean (standard deviation) Whole sample N=76 Attitude N=40 Intention N=36 Mean (dependent variable) Mean values of attitudes and intentions on a 7-point Likert scale 4.40 (0.86) 4.64 (0.64) 4.12 (0.99) Frame 1 - gain frame, 0 - loss frame 0.50 (0.50) 0.50 (0.51) 0.50 (0.51) USA 1 - if the study is conducted in the USA, 0 - otherwise 0.32 (0.47) 0.50 (0.51) 0.11 (0.32) Outcome 1 - attitude, 0 - intention 0.53 (0.50) Interaction 1 - interaction term, 0 - no interaction 0.51 (0.50) 0.48 (0.51) 0.56 (0.50) Product 1 - specific product, 0 - product category 0.53 (0.50) 0.75 (0.44) 0.28 (0.45) Label 1 - label is used, 0 - other communication forms 0.13 (0.34) 0.25 (0.44) 0.00 (0.00) Student 1 - student sample, 0 - other 0.50 (0.50) 0.45 (0.50) 0.56 (0.50) Online 1 - online study, 0 - other 0.30 (0.46) 0.33 (0.47) 0.28 (0.45) 258 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen Meani = β0 + β1 Framei + β2 USAi + β3 Outcomei + β4 Interactioni + β5 Producti + β6 Labeli + β7 Studenti + β8 Onlinei + ui + εi (2) where Meani is the mean value of attitudes and inten- tions elicited from the studies. The two error terms are ui~N(0,τ2), where τ2 is the between-study variance, and a normally distributed εi~N(0,τ2). RESULTS We used the random-effects model to analyze the effect sizes due to the high heterogeneity across par- ticipants’ characteristics and methodologies in selected studies. The user-written package “metan” in Stata 13 was employed. The forest plot resulting from meta-anal- ysis is presented in Figure 3. The overall effect indicated by the standardized mean difference (SMD) is positive and significant, indicating that the gain frame results Figure 3. Meta-analysis results (whole sample). 259The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 in higher attitudes and intentions than the loss frame. Along with the effect sizes, the meta-analysis reports a measure of study heterogeneity which is attributed to variability in the treatment effect rather than to vari- ation in sample sizes (Higgins & Thompson, 2004). Results demonstrated I2 = 98.2%, which calls for further investigation into the studies’ heterogeneity via a meta- regression and a sub-group analysis (Higgins & Green, 2011). The results of a sub-group meta-analysis showed a larger effect size for studies that assess consumer atti- tude (Figure 4) than for studies dealing with consumer intention where the effect size is close to zero and insig- nificant (Figure 5). Also, the variation of the effect sizes for studies that measure consumer intention is consider- ably bigger than those that measure consumer attitudes. Whereas a majority of the data points from the attitude subgroup lie on the side favoring the gain framing, the data points from the intention subgroup tend to spread out more evenly. We used a meta-regression specifically designed for meta-analyses (Harbord & Higgins, 2008), which estimates the between-study variance and coefficients using weight- ed least squares. Stata 13 package “metareg” was used for the estimation. We analyzed the whole sample and then split it into separate estimations for attitudes and inten- tions. The list of explanatory variables together with coef- ficients and standard errors is provided in Table 3. For the whole sample estimation, residual variation due to heterogeneity equaled 17.84%, while the included covariates explained 72.32% of the between-study vari- ance. The I2 value of 17.84% can be considered as a low level of heterogeneity, according to the classification in Higgins et al. (2003). We observed from the results of this regression that the gain frame, the use of interaction terms, a specific product, and a student sample signifi- cantly influence consumers’ attitudes and intentions. A gain frame increases consumer attitudes and intentions towards food products with health and environmental Figure 4. Sub-group meta-analysis results for attitude. 260 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen benefits. When we split our sample into two sub-groups, depending on whether the papers included investigating attitudes or intentions, we observed that the gain frame is significant for attitudes but not for intentions. Inter- estingly, the location of the study in the USA has a dif- ferent effect depending on the outcome variable. When it comes to consumer intentions, the use of an US sam- ple increases the mean value. On the contrary, attitudes decrease when the study is not conducted in the US. The use of interaction terms positively influences the out- come variable; however, this effect is mainly attributed to the studies about consumer intentions. Unlike more general product categories, specific products negative- ly affect the attitudes to purchase food products with health and environmental benefits. The use of a student sample is marginally significant in the regression for the whole sample; however, this result does not replicate when the sample is split. The use of labels to communi- cate health and environmental benefits to the consumers is positively associated with consumer attitudes. Studies conducted online increase consumer intention to pur- chase food products; however, the strength of the asso- ciation is marginal. DISCUSSION Our results demonstrate that when it comes to food products, the use of gain frames elicits stronger respons- es from consumers than the use of loss frames. Previous research has already indicated that encouraging positive behaviors by evoking loss aversion is not necessarily a guiding principle when it comes to health and environ- mental benefits (Gallagher & Upbegraff, 2012), especially in the domain of attribute framing. Loss-framed mes- sages are mainly effective when it comes to decisions involving significant risk. Food choices usually serve an illness/environmental harm prevention function and are Figure 5. Sub-group meta-analysis results for intention. 261The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 not associated with an immediate high level of risk (Gal- lagher & Upbegraff, 2012). As expected and congruent with existing literature, both types of framing (gain vs. loss) and interaction fac- tors significantly influence the effectiveness of framing overall. Interestingly, the effect of interaction variables is only demonstrated in intentional but not attitudi- nal measures, whereas it is the opposite for the effect of types of framing. In other words, there is a main over- all effect from the framing intervention on people’s atti- tudes toward food choices, but the main effect of the intervention on people’s intention does not manifest. The significant change in people’s intention of food choices is determined by various moderators, such as individual food product knowledge, regulatory focus, temporal con- strual, and so on. One possible explanation, according to both the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and the The- ory of Planned Behavior (TPB), is that all potential exter- nal influential factors on intentions and behaviors are thought to be mediated by the attitudes and subjective norms, plus perceived behavioral control for TPB (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Therefore, it is sensible that, as an antecedent factor of intentions, attitudes are more mal- leable and directly influenced by external interventions than intentions. The effectiveness of framing in chang- ing people’s intentions is more scenario- and individual- specific, which is explained by different interaction terms. Consumer attitudes based on beliefs and values often surpass specific products (Purhoit, 2012). When it comes to product categories, like fast food or organ- ic food, consumers tend to express their attitudes more readily than when it comes to specific products and labels. As consumers often lack specific knowledge about health and environmental benefits (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006), it is easier for them to express their preferences in terms of general product categories. The use of labels as means of conveying the attrib- ute framing compared to other communicative vehicles, such as advertisement and text-based marketing mes- sages, shows a significant increment in people’s attitudes toward making wiser (be it healthier or more environ- mentally conscious) food choices. It demonstrates that labels employing few words and visuals that concisely communicate the benefits of healthier or more environ- mentally friendly food (or the harms of the opposite) are more effective in influencing people’s attitudes toward that food. One possible explanation is that consum- ers are used to obtaining information about food from labels. Therefore, they are more f luent in processing information presented with labels. Looking at the studies in the meta data by year reveals how the application of attribute framing to food consumption has been gaining research attention and interest. Before 2000, the literature on the framing effect related to food choices was, albeit influential, sparse. Studies in this domain increased considerably after 2010, in terms of both number and diversity. It was only until recently that researchers mostly focused on how framing could be utilized to influence people’s food choices for the purpose of nutrition and health. Three decades after the initial study of the framing effect on food choices, topics have been broadened to cover environmental impact, animal welfare, livestock vaccination, nano- technology, and so on. The origins of the studies also expanded from the United States to the rest of the world and changed from studies based on student samples to more demographically representative ones. The demo- graphical and topical variability enabled examining oth- er factors that influence the effect of attribute framing on food choices. The benefits and harms resulting from different food choices are not immediate and consequential compared to other decision-making tasks where decisive influences from attribute framing on people’s judgements and deci- sions have been described, e.g., in lottery and medical treatment decisions. According to temporal discounting theories, people are less sensitive to the losses and gains that manifest themselves later in time. Health-benefiting and pro-environmental decisions are typically inter- temporal decisions. The disutility that people perceive to experience in the future from eating unhealthy food Table 3. Results of the meta-regression1. Variables Coefficients (std. err.) Whole sample N=76 Attitude N=40 Intention N=36 Frame 0.27 (0.13)** 0.51 (0.09)*** -0.01 (0.09) USA 0.10 (0.20) -0.74 (0.20)*** 1.01 (0.34)*** Interaction 0.30 (0.14)** -0.18 (0.14) 0.33 (0.14)** Product -0.32 (0.18)* -0.93 (0.46)* -0.09 (0.44) Label 0.30 (0.20) 0.59 (0.12)*** --- Student -0.57 (0.31)* -0.02 (0.45) -0.71 (0.55) Online 0.28 (0.29) 0.83 (0.51) 0.88 (0.49)* Intercept 4.60 (0.30)*** 5.27 (0.41)*** 4.14 (0.51)*** Adj. R2 72.32% 100.00% 98.74% τ2 0.07 0.00 0.00 I2 17.84% 0.00% 0.00% *, **, *** denotes significance at 0.10, 0.05, and 0.01 level, respec- tively. 1 In meta-regression R2 indicates the percentage of between-study variance explained by the covariates. The value of 100% indicates that the effect size does not vary substantially across studies. 262 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen now does not outweigh the utility or gratification (sen- sory or hedonic pleasure) they gain in consuming indul- gent food (i.e., high fat and sugar). Similarly, the future negative consequences of consuming ecologically unsus- tainable foods are not perceived to be strong enough to counteract people’s predilection for easily accessible, affordable food, which might carry high environmental costs (e.g., greenhouse gas emission and water consump- tion). Therefore, people are not motivated to avoid those foods that are unfavorable in the long term from a utili- tarian perspective. When a time dimension is taken into consideration, people’s perception of gain versus loss might not accord with prospect theory. REFERENCES Abrams, K. M. (2015). Loss aversion and regulatory focus messages on food labels. Journal of Applied Commu- nications, 99(3), 21–36. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bosone, L., Martinez, F., & Kalampalikis, N. (2015). When the Model Fits the Frame: The Impact of Regulatory Fit on Efficacy Appraisal and Persuasion in Health Communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(4), 526–539. https://doi. org/10.1177/0146167215571089 Braun, K., Gaeth, G. J., & Levin, I. (1997). Framing Effects With Differential Impact: the Role of Attrib- ute Salience by Kathryn A. Braun, Gary J. Gaeth, and Irwin P. Levin. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 405–411. Britwum, K., & Yiannaka, A. (2016). Changing Food Safety Risk Perceptions: The Influence of Message Framings & Media Food Safety Information Kofi Britwum. Southern Agricultural Economics Associa- tion’s Annual Meeting. San Antonio, Texas. Bryant, C., & Dillard, C. (2019). The impact of fram- ing on acceptance of cultured meat. Frontiers in Nutrition, 6(July), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fnut.2019.00103 Chang, M. C., & Wu, C. C. (2015). The effect of message framing on pro-environmental behavior intentions: An information processing view. British Food Jour- nal, 117(1), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09- 2013-0247 Chen, M. Y. (2016). Consumer response to health prod- uct communication: The role of perceived product efficacy. Journal of Business Research, 69(9), 3251– 3260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.02.024 Cui, H. J., Fam, K. S., & Zhao, T. Y. (2020). Regulatory focus and message framing’s effects on intention to consume ethnic food in China. British Food Journal, 122(6), 1969–1982. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09- 2018-0637 Dannenberg, A. (2009). The dispersion and develop- ment of consumer preferences for genetically modi- fied food - A meta-analysis. Ecological Econom- ics, 68(8–9), 2182–2192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2009.03.008 de Bruijn, G. J., Visscher, I., & Mollen, S. (2015). Effects of previous fruit intake, descriptive majority norms, and message framing on fruit intake intentions and behaviors in Dutch adults across a 1-week period. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(3), 234–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneb.2015.02.001 Frewer, L. J., van der Lans, I. A., Fischer, A. R. H., Rein- ders, M. J., Menozzi, D., Zhang, X., … Zimmermann, K. L. (2013). Public perceptions of agri-food applica- tions of genetic modification - A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science and Tech- nology, 30(2), 142–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tifs.2013.01.003 Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Health mes- sage framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavio- ral Medicine, 43(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12160-011-9308-7 Harbord, R. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2008). Meta-regres- sion in Stata. Stata Journal, 8(4), 493–519. https://doi. org/10.1177/1536867x0800800403 Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane Hand- book for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Retrieved from www.handbook.cochrane.org. Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2004). Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression. Statistics in Medicine, 23(11), 1663–1682. https://doi. org/10.1002/sim.1752 Hilverda, F., Kuttschreuter, M., & Giebels, E. (2017). Social media mediated interaction with peers, experts and anonymous authors: Conversation part- ner and message framing effects on risk perception and sense-making of organic food. Food Quality and Preference, 56(May 2017), 107–118. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.09.003 Jin, H. J., & Han, D. H. (2014). Interaction between mes- sage framing and consumers’ prior subjective knowl- edge regarding food safety issues. Food Policy, 44, 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.10.007 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292. 263The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. Kees, J. (2011). Advertising Framing Effects and Consid- eration of Future Consequences. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45(1), 7–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 6606.2010.01190.x Koenigstorfer, J., & Baumgartner, H. (2016). The effect of fitness branding on restrained eaters’ food consump- tion and postconsumption physical activity. Journal of Marketing Research, 53(1), 124–138. https://doi. org/10.1509/jmr.12.0429 Kragt, M. E., & Bennett, J. W. (2012). Attribute framing in choice experiments: how do attribute level descriptions affect value estimates?. Environmental and Resource Economics, 51(1), 43-59. Kuo, K.-S., Chuang, S.-C., Huang, M. C., & Wu, P. (2019). Fit or not? Bringing regulatory fit into the frame on health food preferences. Asia Pacific Journal of Mar- keting and Logistics, 31(5), 1388–1404. https://doi. org/10.1108/APJML-10-2018-0434 Lagerkvist, C. J., & Hess, S. (2011). A meta-analysis of consumer willingness to pay for farm animal welfare. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 38(1), 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbq043 Levin, I. P. (1987). Associative effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25(2), 85–86. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03330291 Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product. Jour- nal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 374. https://doi. org/10.1086/209174 Levin, I. P., Gaeth, G. J., Schreiber, J., & Lauriola, M. (2002). A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independ- ence of types of effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(1), 411–429. https:// doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2983 Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149– 188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 Loke, W. H., & Lau, S. L. L. (1992). Effects of framing and mathematical experience on judgments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30(5), 393–395. https:// doi.org/10.3758/BF03334098 Lundeberg, P. J., Graham, D. J., & Mohr, G. S. (2018). Comparison of two front-of-package nutrition labe- ling schemes, and their explanation, on consumers’ perception of product healthfulness and food choice. Appetite, 125, 548–556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet.2018.02.027 Lusk, J. L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., & Taul- man, L. (2005). A meta-analysis of genetically modi- fied food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 30(1), 28–44. https://doi. org/10.2307/40987259 Nørnberg, T. R., Houlby, L., Skov, L. R., & Peréz-Cueto, F. J. A. (2016). Choice architecture interventions for increased vegetable intake and behaviour change in a school setting: A systematic review. Perspec- tives in Public Health, 136(3), 132–142. https://doi. org/10.1177/1757913915596017 O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative per- suasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed mes- sages for encouraging disease prevention behav- iors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623–644. https://doi. org/10.1080/10810730701615198 O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2009). The relative persua- siveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-ana- lytic review. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 296– 316. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x Orth, U. R., Koenig, H. F., & Firbasova, Z. (2007). Cross- national differences in consumer response to the framing of advertising messages: An exploratory comparison from Central Europe. European Jour- nal of Marketing, 41(3–4), 327–348. https://doi. org/10.1108/03090560710728363 Purhoit, H. C. (2012). Product Positioning And Con- sumer Attitude Towards Eco-Friendly Labeling and Advertisement. Journal of Management Research, 12(3), 153–162. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3 Shan, L., Diao, H., & Wu, L. (2020). Influence of the Framing Effect, Anchoring Effect, and Knowledge on Consumers’ Attitude and Purchase Intention of Organic Food. Frontiers in Psychology, 11 (August 2020), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02022 Svenningsen, L. S., & Thorsen, B. J. (2021). The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences. Ecological Economics, 185, 107009. Tran, V. T., Yiannaka, A., & Giannakas, K. (2016). Con- sumer perceptions and willingness to pay for nano- technology applications that enhance food safety. Agricultural & Applied Economics Association, Boston, MA, July 31-August 2. 264 Bio-based and Applied Economics 10(4): 253-264, 2021 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-11511 Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen Van’t Riet, J., Werrij, M. Q., Nieuwkamp, R., de Vries, H., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2013). Message frame and self-efficacy influence the persuasiveness of nutrition information in a fast-food restaurant. Food Quality and Preference, 29(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2013.01.007 Van Assema, P., Martens, M., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Brug, J. (2001). Framing of nutrition education messag- es in persuading consumers of the advantages of a healthy diet. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietet- ics, 14(6), 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365- 277X.2001.00315.x Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Impact of values, involvement and perceptions on consumer attitudes and intentions towards sustainable consumption. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 19(2), 169–194. Vidal, G., MacHín, L., Aschemann-Witzel, J., & Ares, G. (2019). Does message framing matter for promoting the use of nutritional warnings in decision making? Public Health Nutrition, 22(16), 3025–3034. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019002507 Yan, C. (2015). Persuading People to Eat Less Junk Food: A Cognitive Resource Match Between Attitudinal Ambivalence and Health Message Framing. Health Communication, 30(3), 251–260. https://doi.org/10.10 80/10410236.2013.842525 Volume 10, Issue 4 - 2021 Firenze University Press The effect of attribute framing on consumers’ attitudes and intentions toward food: A Meta-analysis Irina Dolgopolova, Bingqing Li, Helena Pirhonen, Jutta Roosen* Rural areas between locality and global networks. Local development mechanisms and the role of policies empowering rural actors Francesco Mantino Understanding the bioeconomy: a new sustainability economy in British and European public discourse Irene Sotiropoulou1, Pauline Deutz2 Sustainable water resources management under population growth and agricultural development in the Kheirabad river basin, Iran Ghasem Layani1,*, Mohammad Bakhshoodeh2, Mansour Zibaei2, Davide Viaggi3 The distributors’ view on US wine consumer preferences. A discrete choice experiment Lina Lourenço-Gomes, Tânia Gonçalves*, João Rebelo