Configural Displays Can Improve Nutrition-Related Decisions: An Application of the Proximity Compatibility Principle

Abstract

The nutrition label format currently used by consumers to make dietary-related decisions presents significant information-processing demands for integrationbased decisions; however, those demands were not considered as primary factors when the format was adopted. Labels designed in accordance with known principles of cognitive psychology might enhance the kind of decision making that food labeling was intended to facilitate. Three experiments were designed on the basis of the proximity compatibility principle (PCP) to investigate the relationship between nutrition label format and decision making; the experiments involved two types of integration decisions and one type of filtering decision. Based on the PCP, decision performance was measured to test the overall hypothesis that matched task-display tandems would result in better decision performance than would mismatched tandems. In each experiment, a statistically significant increase in mean decision performance was found when the display design was cognitively matched to the demands of the task. Combined, the results from all three experiments support the general hypothesis that task-display matching is a design principle that may enhance the utility of nutrition labeling in nutrition-related decision making. Actual or potential applications of this research include developing robust display solutions that aid in less effortful assimilation of nutrition-related information for consumers.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett, K. B. , & Flach, J. M. (1992). Graphical displays: Implications for divided attention, focused attention, and problem solving. Human Factors, 34, 513–533.

Boles, D. B. , & Wickens, C. D. (1987). Display formatting in information integration and nonintegration tasks. Human Factors, 29, 395–406.

Carswell, C. M. , & Wickens, C. D. (1987). Information integration and the object display: An integration of task demands and display superiority. Ergonomics, 30, 511–527.

Carswell, C. M. , & Wickens, C. D. (1996). Mixing and matching lower-level codes for object displays: Evidence for two sources of proximity compatibility. Human Factors, 38, 1–22.

Cooksey, R. W. (1996). Judgment analysis: Theory, methods, and applications. San Diego: Academic.

Garner, W. R. , & Felfoldy, G. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cognitive Psychology, 1, 225–241.

Hursch, C. J. , Hammond, K. R. , & Hursch, J. L. (1964). Some methodological considerations in multiple-cue probability studies. Psychological Review, 71, 42–60.

Institute of Medicine. (1990). Nutrition labeling: Issues and directions for the 1990s. Washington, DC: National Academy.

James, L. R. , Demaree, R. G. , & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating withingroup interrater reliability with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.

10.

Levy, A. S. , Fein, S. B. , & Schucker, R. E. (1992). More effective nutrition label formats are not necessarily preferred. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 92, 1230–1234.

11.

Levy, A. S. , Fein, S. B. , & Schucker, R. E. (1996). Performance characteristics of seven nutrition label formats. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 15, 1–15.

12.

Mohr, K. G. , Wyse, B. W. , & Hansen, R. G. (1980). Aiding consumer nutrition decisions: Comparison of a graphical nutrient density labeling format with the current food label system. Home Economic Research Journal, 8, 162–172.

13.

Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990. Public Law No. 101--535, 104 Statute 2353 (1990).

14.

Pomerantz, J. R. , & Pristach, E. A. (1989). Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 635–649.

15.

Tucker, L. R. (1964). A suggested alternative formulation in the developments by Hursch, Hammond, and Hursch and by Hammond, Hursch, and Todd. Psychological Review, 71, 528–530.

16.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. (1995). Nutrition and your health: Dietary guidelines for Americans. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

17.

Wickens, C. D. , & Andre, A. D. (1990). Proximity compatibility and information display: Effects of color, space, and objectness on information integration. Human Factors, 32, 61–77.

18.

Wickens, C. D. , & Carswell, C. M. (1995). The proximity compatibility principle: Its psychological foundation and relevance to display design. Human Factors, 37, 473–494.