Health innovation in patty products. The role of food Neophobia in consumers’ non-hypothetical willingness to pay, purchase intention and hedonic evaluation

Nutrients

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2019, Pages

  Kallas, Zein ^a   Vitale, Mauro ^b   Gil, José Maria ^a  

^a Edifici ESAB   (Spain)

^b IRTA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Food innovations; Food neophobia; Hedonic evaluation; Non hypothetical discrete choice experiment; Patty; Untapped pig

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ANIMAL PRODUCT; ARTICLE; BLUEBERRY; COGNITION; CONSUMER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISEASE ASSESSMENT; FEMALE; FOOD INTAKE; FOOD NEOPHOBIA; FOOD NEOPHOBIA SCALE; FOOD QUALITY; HEDONIC EVALUATION TEST; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MEAT; MIDDLE AGED; MOTIVATION; NEOPHOBIA; PATTY PRODUCT; PREVALENCE; PURCHASE INTENTION; PURCHASING; QUESTIONNAIRE; SENSORY EVALUATION; TRADITIONAL PORK PRODUCT; WILLINGNESS TO PAY; ANIMAL; BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; DECISION MAKING; FOOD PREFERENCE; PHILOSOPHY; PHOBIA; PIG; PSYCHOLOGY; SPAIN;

ANIMALS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FOOD PREFERENCES; HUMANS; INTENTION; MALE; MEAT PRODUCTS; PHILOSOPHY; PHOBIC DISORDERS; SPAIN; SWINE;

EID: 85061970530     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20726643     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/nu11020444     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Verbeke, W. Consumer acceptance of functional foods: Sociodemographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants. Food Qual. Preference 2005, 16, 45-57.
2. Franchi, M. Food choice: Beyond the chemical content. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2012, 63, 17-28.
3. Nezlek, J.B.; Forestell, C.A. Food neophobia and the Five Factor Model of personality. Food Qual. Preference 2019, 73, 210-214.
4. Pliner, P.; Hobden, K. Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite 1992, 19, 105-120.
5. Spinelli, S.; De Toffoli, A.; Dinnella, C.; Laureati, M.; Pagliarini, E.; Bendini, A.; Braghieri, A.; Toschi, T.G.; Sinesio, F.; Torri, L.; et al. Personality traits and gender influence liking and choice of food pungency. Food Qual. Preference 2018, 66, 113-126.
6. Knaapila, A.; Tuorila, H.; Silventoinen, K.; Keskitalo, K.; Kallela, M.; Wessman, M.; Peltonen, L.; Cherkas, L.F.; Spector, T.D.; Perola, M. Food neophobia shows heritable variation in humans. Physiol. Behav. 2007, 91, 573-578.
7. La Barbera, F.; Verneau, F.; Amato, M.; Grunert, K. Understanding Westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Qual. Preference 2018, 64, 120-125.
8. Lenglet, F. FNS or the Varseek-scale? Proposals for a valid operationalization of neophilia. Food Qual. Preference 2018, 66, 76-84.
9. Jaeger, S.R.; Rasmussen, M.A.; Prescott, J. Relationships between food neophobia and food intake and preferences: Findings from a sample of New Zealand adults. Appetite 2017, 116, 410-422.
10. Loomis, J.B. Strategies for overcoming hypothetical bias in stated preference surveys. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2014, 39, 34-46.
11. Chen, M.F. Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic foods in Taiwan:Moderating effects of food-related personality traits. Food Qual. Preference 2007, 18, 1008-1021.
12. Hwang, J.; Lee, K.; Lin, T.N. Ingredient labeling and health claims influencing consumer perceptions, purchase intentions, and willingness to pay. J. Food Serv. Bus. Res. 2016, 19, 352-367.
13. Monteleone, E.; Spinelli, S.; Dinnella, C.; Endrizzi, I.; Laureati, M.; Pagliarini, E.; Sinesio, F.; Gasperi, F.; Torri, L.; Aprea, E.; et al. Exploring influences on food choice in a large population sample: The Italian Taste project. Food Qual. Preference 2017, 59, 123-140.
14. Sanjuán-López, A.I.; Philippidis, G.; Resano-Ezcaray, H. How useful is acceptability to explain economic value? An application on the introduction of innovative saffron products into commercial markets. Food Qual. Preference 2011, 22, 255-263.
15. Stefani, G.; Cavicchi, A.; Romano, D. Blissed ignorance? The role of process information on consumer evaluation of a typical Italian salami. Nutr. Food Sci. 2014, 44, 345-362.
16. Laureati, M.; Spinelli, S.; Monteleone, E.; Dinnella, C.; Prescott, J.; Cattaneo, C.; Proserpio, C.; De Toffoli, A.; Gasperi, F.; Endrizzi, I.; et al. Associations between food neophobia and responsiveness to “warning” chemosensory sensations in food products in a large population sample. Food Qual. Preference 2018, 68, 113-124.
17. Lombardi, A.; Vecchio, R.; Borrello, M.; Caracciolo, F.; Cembalo, L. Willingness to pay for insect-based food: The role of information and carrier. Food Qual. Preference 2019, 72, 177-187.
18. EC European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament-Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture /COM/2001/0162 final/. 2017. Available online:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52001DC0162(03):en:HTML (accessed on 24 April 2018).
19. Szajdek, A.; Borowska, E.J. Bioactive compounds and health-promoting properties of berry fruits: A review. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2008, 63, 147-156.
20. Tsai, S.Y.; Tsai, H.L.; Mau, J.L. Antioxidant properties of Agaricus blazei, Agrocybe cylindracea, and Boletus edulis. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 40, 1392-1402.
21. Sari, M.; Prange, A.; Lelley, J.I.; Hambitzer, R. Screening of beta-glucan contents in commercially cultivated and wild growing mushrooms. Food Chem. 2017, 216, 45-51.
22. Kallas, Z.; Martínez, B.; Panella, N.; Gil, J.M. The effect of sensory experience on expected preferences toward a masking strategy for boar-tainted frankfurter sausages. Food Qual. Preference 2016, 54, 1-12.
23. Damsbo-Svendsen, M.; Frøst, M.B.; Olsen, A. A review of instruments developed to measure food neophobia. Appetite 2017, 113, 358-367.
24. Oliver, R. L. A cognitive model of the antecedents of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 1980, 17, 46-49.
25. Grunert, K.G.; Larsen, H.H.; Madsen, T.K.; Baadsgaard, A. Market Orientation in Food and Agriculture; Kluwer: Norwell, MA, USA, 1996.
26. Hough, G.; Wakeling, I.; Mucci, A.; Chambers, E., IV; Gallardo, I.M.; Alves, L.R. Number of consumers necessary for sensory acceptability tests. Food Qual. Preference 2006, 17, 522-526.
27. Moser, R.; Raffaelli, R.; Notaro, S. Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents’ own money. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2013, 41, 25-46.
28. Knekt, P.; Järvinen, R.; Dich, J.; Hakulinen, T. Risk of colorectal and other gastro-intestinal cancers after exposure to nitrate, nitrite and N-nitroso compounds: A follow-up study. Int. J. Cancer 1999, 80, 852-856.
29. Mørbak, M.; Christensen, T.; Gyrd-Hansen, D. Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2010, 45, 537-551.
30. Lusk, J.L.; Schroeder, T.C. Are choice experiments incentive compatible? A test with quality differentiated beef steaks. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2004, 86, 467-482.
31. ChoiceMetrics. Ngene 1.1.2 User Manual & Reference Guide, Australia; ChoiceMetrics: Sydney, Australia, 2016.
32. Lancaster, K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 1966, 74, 132-157.
33. Thurstone, L. A law of comparative judgement. Psychol. Rev. 1927, 34, 273-286.
34. Ritchey, P.N.; Frank, R.A.; Hursti, U.; Tuorila, H. Validation and cross national comparison of the Food Neophobia Scale using confirmatory factor analysis. Appetite 2003, 40, 163-173.
35. Fernández-Ruiz, V.; Claret, A.; Chaya, C. Testing a Spanish-version of the food neophobia scale. Food Qual. Preference 2013, 28, 222-225.
36. Lusk, J.L.; Schroeder, T.C.; Tonsor, G.T. Distinguishing beliefs from preferences in food choice. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2014, 41, 627-655.
37. Martínez, B.; Miranda, J.M.; Vázquez, B.I.; Fente, C.A.; Franco, C.M.; Rodríguez, J.L.; Cepeda, A. Development of a hamburger patty with healthier lipid formulation and study of its nutritional, sensory, and stability properties. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2012, 5, 200-208.
38. Realini, C.E.; Kallas, Z.; Pérez-Juan, M.; Gómez, I.; Olleta, J.L.; Beriain, M.J.; Albertí, P.; Sañudo, C. Relative importance of cues underlying Spanish consumers’ beef choice and segmentation, and consumer liking of beef enriched with n-3 and CLA fatty acids. Food Qual. Preference 2014, 33, 74-85.
39. Poe, G.L.; Giraud, K.L.; Loomis, J.B. Computational methods for measuring the difference of empirical distributions. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 2005, 87, 353-365.
40. Olabi, A.; Najm, N.E.O.; Baghdadi, O.K.; Morton, J.M. Food neophobia levels of Lebanese and American college students. Food Qual. Preference 2009, 20, 353-362.
41. Alemu, M.H.; Olsen, S.B.; Vedel, S.E.; Pambo, K.O.; Owino, V.O. Consumer Acceptance and Willingness to Pay for Edible Insects as Food in Kenya: The Case of White Winged Termites. IFRO Working Paper 2015/10. Department of Food and Resource Economics (IFRO), University of Copenhagen. 2016. Available online:http://okonomi.foi.dk/workingpapers/WPpdf/WP2015/IFRO_WP_2015_10.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2018).
42. Bredahl, L. Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods-Results of a cross-national survey. J. Consum. Policy 2001, 24, 23-61.
43. Van Wezemael, L.; Verbeke, W.; Kügler, J.O.; De Barcellos, M.D.; Grunert, K.G. European consumers and beef safety: Perceptions, expectations and uncertainty reduction strategies. Food Control 2010, 21, 835-844.
44. Raciti, M.M. Food Neophobia, Pro-Social Consumption Motivations and the Willingness to Pay Price Premiums for Food from a Developing Economy. In Proceedings of the International Social Marketing Conference, Societal Wellbeing 2016, Wollongong, Australia, 26-27 September 2016; p. 13.
45. Schnettler, B.; Crisóstomo, G.; Sepúlveda, J.; Mora, M.; Lobos, G.; Miranda, H.; Grunert, K.G. Food neophobia, nanotechnology and satisfaction with life. Appetite 2013, 69, 71-79.
46. Birch, L.L.; McPhee, L.; Shoba, B.C.; Pirok, E.; Steinberg, L. What kind of exposure reduces children’s food neophobia?: Looking vs. tasting. Appetite 1987, 9, 171-178.
47. Baba, Y.; Kallas, Z.; Costa, M.; Gil, J.M.; Realini, E.C. impact of hedonic evaluation on consumers’ preferences for beef enriched with omega 3: A generalized multinomial logit model approach. Meat Sci. 2016, 111, 9-17.
48. Mustonen, S.; Tuorila, H. Sensory education decreases food neophobia score and encourages trying unfamiliar foods in 8-12-year-old children. Food Qual. Preference 2010, 21, 353-360.
49. Park, B.K.; Cho, M.S. Taste education reduces food neophobia and increases willingness to try novel foods in school children. Nutr. Res. Pract. 2016, 10, 221-228.
50. Kallas, Z.; Escobar, C.; Gil, J.M. Analysis of consumers’ preferences for a special-occasion red wine: A dual response choice experiment approach. Food Qual. Preference 2013, 30, 156-168.