Consumer attitudes to food innovation and technology

Consumer-Led Food Product Development

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 122-138

  Siegrist, M ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951977143     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1533/9781845693381.1.122     Document Type: Chapter

References (81)

1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1991, 50:179-211.
2. Ajzen I. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 2001, 52:27-58.
3. Axelson M.L. The impact of culture on food-related behavior. Annual Review of Nutrition 1986, 6:345-363.
4. Backstrom A., Pirttila-Backman A.M., Tuorila H. Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales. Appetite 2004, 43(1):75-83.
5. Bord R.J., O'connor R.E. Risk communication, knowledge, and attitudes: explaining reactions to a technology perceived as risky. Risk Analysis 1990, 10:499-506.
6. Brown J.L., Ping Y.C. Consumer perception of risk associated with eating genetically engineered soybeans is less in the presence of a perceived consumer benefit. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 2003, 103(2):208-214.
7. Bruhn C.M. Consumer acceptance of irradiated food: theory and reality. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 1998, 52(1-6):129-133.
8. Caporale G., Monteleone E. Influence of information about manufacturing process on beer acceptability. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(3):271-278.
9. Childs N.M., Poryzees G.H. Foods that help prevent disease: consumer attitudes and public policy implications. Journal of Consumer Marketing 1997, 14:433-447.
10. Cook A.J., Kerr G.N., Moore K. Attitudes and intentions towards purchasing GM food. Journal of Economic Psychology 2002, 23(5):557-572.
11. Cox D.N., Koster A., Russell C.G. Predicting intentions to consume functional foods and supplements to offset memory loss using an adaptation of protection motivation theory. Appetite 2004, 43:55-64.
12. Deliza R., Rosenthal A., Silva A.L.S. Consumer attitude towards information on non conventional technology. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2003, 14(1):43-49.
13. Deliza R., Rosenthal A., Abadio F.B.D., Silva C.H.O., Castillo C. Application of high pressure technology in the fruit juice processing: benefits perceived by consumers. Journal of Food Engineering 2005, 67(1-2):241-246.
14. Diplock A.T., Aggett P.J., Ashwell M., Bornet F., Fern E.B., Roberfroid M.B. Scientific concepts of functional foods in Europe: consensus document. British Journal of Nutrition 1999, 81(4):S1-S27.
15. Dreezens E., Martijn C., Tenbult P., Kok G., De Vries N.K. Food and values: an examination of values underlying attitudes toward genetically modified- and organically grown food products. Appetite 2005, 44(1):115-122.
16. Biotechnology in the Public Sphere 1998, Science Museum, London. J. Durant, M.W. Bauer, G. Gaskell (Eds.).
17. Earle T.C., Cvetkovich G.T. Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society 1995, Praeger, Westport, CT.
18. Earle T.C., Siegrist M. Morality information, performance information, and the distinction between trust and confidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2006, 36:383-416.
19. Eiser J.R., Reicher S.D., Podpadec T.J. Global changes and local accidents: consistency in attributions for environmental effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1995, 25:1518-1529.
20. Fife-Schaw C., Rowe G. Extending the application of the psychometric approach for assessing public perceptions of food risks: some methodological considerations. Journal of Risk Research 2000, 3:167-179.
21. Finucane M.L., Alhakami A., Slovic P., Johnson S.M. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2000, 13:1-17.
22. Fischhoff B., Slovic P., Lichtenstein S., Read S., Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sciences 1978, 9:127-152.
23. Fishbein M., Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior 1975, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
24. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. The influence of realistic product exposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7(1):61-67.
25. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - the influence of consumer benefit. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8(4):271-280.
26. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Shepherd R. Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology, &Human Values 1997, 22:98-124.
27. Frewer L., Scholderer J., Lambert N. Consumer acceptance of functional foods: issues for the future. British Food Journal 2003, 105:714-731.
28. Frewer L., Lassen J., Kettlitz B., Scholderer J., Beekman V., Berdal K.G. Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2004, 42(7):1181-1193.
29. Gaskell G., Bauer M.W., Durant J., Allum N.C. Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the US. Science 1999, 285:384-387.
30. Gaskell G., Allum N., Bauer M., Durant J., Allansdottir A., Bonfadelli H., et al. Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology 2000, 18:935-938.
31. Gaskell G., Ten Eyck T., Jackson J., Veltri G. Public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nature Materials 2004, 3:496.
32. Greenwald A.G., Mcghee D.E., Schwartz J.L.K. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998, 74:1464-1480.
33. Grunert K.G., Valli C. Designer-made meat and dairy products: consumerled product development. Livestock Production Science 2001, 72:83-98.
34. Henson S. Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technologies - the case of food irradiation. Food Policy 1995, 20(2):111-127.
35. Huotilainen A., Tuorila H. Social representation of new foods has a stable structure based on suspicion and trust. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:565-572.
36. Kaiser H., Tang X. Nanotechnology 2015 and Converging Markets 2004, HKC22.com, Tübingen.
37. Kajanne A., Pirttilä-Backman A.M. Toward an understanding of Laypeople's notions about additives in food: clear-cut viewpoints about additives decrease with education. Appetite 1996, 27(3):207-222.
38. Kasperson J.X., Kasperson R.E., Pidgeon N., Slovic P. The Social Amplification of Risk. The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory 2003, 13-46. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. N. Pidgeon, R.E. Kasperson, P. Slovic (Eds.).
39. Kirk S.F.L., Greenwood D., Cade J.E., Pearman A.D. Public perception of a range of potential food risks in the United Kingdom. Appetite 2002, 38:189-197.
40. Lähteenmäki L., Grunert K., Ueland O., Aström A., Arvola A., Bech-Larsen T. Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as real product alternative. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:523-533.
41. Lamote S., Hermans D., Baeyens F., Eelen P. An exploration of affective priming as an indirect measure of food attitudes. Appetite 2004, 42:279-286.
42. Magnusson M.K., Hursti U.K.K. Consumer attitudes towards genetically modified foods. Appetite 2002, 39(1):9-24.
43. Magnusson M.K., Arvola A., Hursti U.K.K., Aberg L., Sjöden P.O. Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite 2003, 40(2):109-117.
44. Maison D., Greenwald A.G., Bruin R.H. Predictive validity of the implicit association test in studies of brands, consumer attitudes, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2004, 14:405-415.
45. Oliveira I.B., Sabato S.F. Dissemination of the food irradiation process on different opportunities in Brazil. Radiation Physics and Chemistry 2004, 71(1-2):495-499.
46. Ozen B.F., Floros J.D. Effects of emerging food processing techniques on the packaging materials. Trends in Food Science and Technology 2001, 12:60-67.
47. Prislin R., Wood W., Pool G.J. Structural consistency and the deduction of novel from existing attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1998, 34:66-89.
48. Raudenbush B., Frank R.A. Assessing food neophobia: the role of stimulus familiarity. Appetite 1999, 32:261-271.
49. Roininen K., Lähteenmäki L., Tuorila H. Quantification of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of foods. Appetite 1999, 33(1):71-88.
50. Rozin P., Spranca M., Krieger Z., Neuhaus R., Surillo D., Swerdlin A., et al. Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between foods and medicines. Appetite 2004, 43:147-154.
51. Saba A., Vassallo M. Consumer attitudes toward the use of gene technology in tomato production. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13(1):13-21.
52. Scholderer J., Frewer L.J. The biotechnology communication paradox: experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy 2003, 26:125-157.
53. Scholderer J., Grunert K.G. Consumers, food and convenience: the long way from resource constraints to actual consumption patterns. Journal of Economic Psychology 2005, 26(1):105-128.
54. Shiu E.C.C., Dawson J.A., Marshall D.W. Segmenting the convenience and health trends in the British food market. British Food Journal 2004, 106:106-127.
55. Siegrist M. Belief in gene technology: the influence of environmental attitudes and gender. Personality and Individual Differences 1998, 24:861-866.
56. Siegrist M. A causal model explaining the perception and acceptance of gene technology. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1999, 29:2093-2106.
57. Siegrist M. The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:195-203.
58. Siegrist M. Perception of gene technology, and food risks: result of a survey in Switzerland. Journal of Risk Research 2003, 6:45-60.
59. Siegrist M., Bühlmann R. Die Wahrnehmung verschiedener gentechnischer Anwendungen: Ergebnisse einer MDS-Analyse. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 1999, 30:32-39.
60. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:713-719.
61. Siegrist M., Cvetkovich G., Roth C. Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis 2000, 20:353-362.
62. Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science 1987, 236:280-285.
63. Slovic P., Flynn J.H., Layman M. Perceived risk, trust, and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 1991, 254:1603-1607.
64. Slovic P., Finucane M., Peters E., Macgregor D.G. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. The affect heuristic 2002, 397-420. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (Eds.).
65. Slovic P., Finucane M.L., Peters E., Macgregor D.G. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis 2004, 24:311-322.
66. Smith E.R., Decoster J. Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2000, 4:108-131.
67. Sparks P., Shepherd R. Public perceptions of the potential hazards associated with food production and food consumption: an empirical study. Risk Analysis 1994, 14:799-806.
68. Sparks P., Shepherd R., Frewer L.J. Assessing and structuring attitudes toward the use of gene technology in food production: the role of perceived ethical obligation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1995, 16:267-285.
69. Steptoe A., Pollard T.M., Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite 1995, 25:267-284.
70. Tenbült P., De Vries N.K., Dreezens E., Martijn C. Perceived naturalness and acceptance of genetically modified food. Appetite 2005, 45:47-50.
71. Townsend E., Campbell S. Psychological determinants of willingness to taste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Analysis 2004, 24:1385-1393.
72. Tuorila H., Cardello A.V. Consumer responses to an off-flavor in juice in the presence of specific health claims. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:561-569.
73. Tuorila H., Andersson A., Martikainen A., Salovaara H. Effect of product formula, information and consumer characteristics on the acceptance of a new snack food. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:313-320.
74. Tuorila H., Lähteenmäki L., Pohjalainen L., Lotti L. Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:29-37.
75. Urala N., Lähteenmäki L. Reasons behind consumers' functional food choices. Nutrition and Food Science 2003, 33:148-158.
76. Urala N., Lähteenmäki L. Attitudes behind consumers' willingness to use functional foods. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(7-8):793-803.
77. Van Kleef E., Van Trijp H.C.M., Luning P. Functional foods: health claimfood product compatibility and the impact of health claim framing on consumer evaluation. Appetite 2005, 44:299-308.
78. Verbeke W. Consumer acceptance of functional foods: socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16(1):45-57.
79. Verbeke W. Functional foods: consumer willingness to compromise on taste for health. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:126-131.
80. Verlegh P.W.J., Candel M.J.J.M. The consumption of convenience foods: reference groups and eating situations. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10(6):457-464.
81. Ye X., Al-Babili S., Klöti A., Zhang J., Lucca P., Beyer P., et al. Engineering the provitamin A (β-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 2000, 287:303-305.