{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033261026753434564, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005784526391901663, 'mean_word_length': 5.0701754385964914, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Basing a claim on “negatives free”: when does it serve as a quality cue?


Purpose
Individuals concerned about safety comprise a significant share of the consumer market today. This paper aims to provide the results of a study on when a front-of-package (FOP) claim about “no added negatives” can serve as a quality cue.


Design/methodology/approach
Four between-subjects experiments examine consumers’ quality perceptions in responses to the absence-focused claims and also identifies brand parity (Studies 1a and 1b) and the associated launch of inconsistent alternatives as moderators (Study 2) and investigate the extent to which the quality signaling value of absence-focused claims varies as a function of message regulatory focus (Study 3).


Findings
Research shows that a unique absence-focused claim indicates product quality (Studies 1a and 1b). However, there could be a cost in terms of reduced perceived quality when adding an inconsistent alternative to a brand (Study 2). Furthermore, consumers associate greater product quality with absence-focused FOP claims if an appeal is framed as prevention-focused rather than promotion-focused benefits (Study 3).


Originality/value
This study advances knowledge on the effects of front-of-package claims on consumer behavior and benefits marketers in determining effective front-of-package messages for product promotion.
