determinants of consumer behavior

8/18/2019 Determinants of Consumer Behavior

1/9

Springer and Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmbio.

http://www.jstor.org

Royal Swedish cademy of Sciences

Determinants of Consumer Behavior Related to Organic FoodsAuthor(s): Richard Shepherd, Maria Magnusson and Per-Olow SjödénSource: Ambio, Vol. 34, No. 4/5, MAT 21 / Food 21 -- A Sustainable Food Chain (Jun., 2005), pp.

352-359Published by: on behalf ofSpringer Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315614Accessed: 05-04-2015 09:35 UTC

EFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315614?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 103. 231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 20 15 09:35:44 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsashttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4315614http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315614?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4315614?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4315614http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsashttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/


2/9

Richard Shepherd, Maria Magnusson and Per-Olow Sjoden

eterminants onsumer ehaviorRelated to Organic o o d s

There have been many studies of what influencesconsumers in their decisions to purchase or consumeorganic foods, mainly concerned with fresh organic foods.These show a discrepancy between attitudes and be-havior with people being positive about organic foods butoften not purchasing them. This discrepancy seems to beexplained by the fact that consumers do not consider

organically produced to be an important purchasecriterion, that organic foods are not perceived to surpassconventional foods regarding taste and shelf life (twoqualities rated to be of great importance), and because ofthe perceived premium prices of organic foods. In twoSwedish studies, health benefits were demonstrated tobe more strongly related to attitudes and behavior towardorganic foods than were perceived environmental bene-fits. A new European Union (EU) project will investigatethe influences on both fresh and processed organic foodsand investigate the role of moral, ethical, and affectiveinfluences on choice across eight EU countries.

INTRODUCTION

Factors Influencing Organic Food Choice

There have been many studies investigating the influences onconsumer purchasing and consumption of organic foods. Thesehave often taken the form of asking consumers directly abouttheir reasons for purchase or nonpurchase of organic foodsrather than seeking which types of beliefs and attitudes areactually related to purchase or consumption.

In several studies, a majority of the consumers state that theyhave a preference for and an interest in organically producedfoods (1-3). Nevertheless, the proportion of regular purchasersof organic foods is low (2, 4-7). Thus, there is a discrepancybetween preferences and behavior. This discrepancy may be dueto several factors. Premium price appears to be one obstacle tothe purchase (6-11), as is consumer satisfaction with theconventional food supply (1, 8, 9). Limited availability isanother obstacle (2, 7, 9, 10, 12), but the availability and theoffering of organic foods for sale has increased in severalEuropean countries during recent years. However, in someEuropean countries, for example, Greece and Spain, consumersstill perceive imited availability to be a major obstacle (8, 13).

There is evidence that consumers consider the sensorycharacteristics f food to be the most important factors in theirchoice of food (e.g. 2, 14). However, it appears that nonsensoryattributes of foods are becoming increasingly important (14,15), such as absence of food additives, preservatives andresidues (3, 15), nutritional value (2, 14), and how the foodwas produced (14, 16). Examples of concerns about foodproduction are animal welfare and the specific productionsystem used (e.g. conventional vs. organic production).

Consumers also express nterest n issues relating o food and

health (15, 17, 18). Healthiness is an important criterion forpurchase and a parameter of quality for many consumers 2, 16).Many consumers perceive that organic foods are healthier hanconventional foods (5, 19), and health-related reasons are the

major motives for purchasing organic foods (2, 4, 11, 20-22).Positive environmental consequences are also a reason forchoosing organic foods (1, 4, 9, 20, 22). Thus, the two mostcommonly stated motives for purchasing organic oods are, first,concerns for one's personal health, followed by concerns for theenvironment. However, previous research ndicates that in foodchoice, environmental riendliness s not a criterion consideredto be highly important for most consumers (2, 5, 14). Ethicalmotives, particularly n relation to animal welfare, is anothermotive for some consumers or buying organic foods (23).

Although the most common reason for choosing organicfoods is health related, there is no unambiguous evidence thatorganic foods are healthier han conventionally produced foods(19). It is difficult to establish that a certain cultivation

technique would give products with a different nutritionalcontent solely because of the technique (24). In her reviewconcerning the nutritional quality of organic foods, Williams(25) concluded that some studies show a somewhat improvedlevel of micronutrients n organic foods but that these smalldifferences are unlikely to have health implications forconsumers.

Findings indicate that there are differences between frequentand less frequent buyers of organic foods regarding heir motivefor purchasing such foods. Torjusen et al. (14) found thatfrequent buyers were the most concerned with characteristicsthat demand reflection on the part of the consumer e.g. fewestpossible additives, environmentally sound production,

ethical and political considerations, animal welfare ).Further, consumers who found it important to support localbusiness and to buy locally produced foods were more likely topurchase organic foods than were those who did not considerlocal production important (14). Wier and Calverly (26)concluded that product-specific characteristics hat benefit theconsumer appear to be the major motivation to purchaseorganic foods but that the motivation varies between differentconsumer segments. The idealistic onsumers who are buyingorganic foods most frequently are driven by environmentalconcerns and political motives (26). However, this consumersegment s not very large. In a study of Dutch consumers 22), itwas concluded that health is a more important purchase motivefor incidental than for heavy buyers, whereas heavy buyersbought organic foods for health as well as environmentalreasons (22).

Consumer Attitudes to Processed Organic Foods

Most of the earlier literature reviewed previously has concen-trated on fresh organic foods, mainly in the form of fruits andvegetables and to a lesser extent on fresh meat and milk.Although this reflects the market for organic foods in its earlystages, with most of the consumption of organic foodsconcentrated on fresh produce (27), the markets have begunto extend to processed staple foods, such as bread, and also tomore clearly processed and convenience foods (27). If organic

production is to have a significant impact, then it will benecessary o make an impact in the processed ood market sincethis represents he majority of sales of food products n parts ofEurope, represents higher added value, and in many parts of

352 ? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005http://www.ambio.kva.se


http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

Europe s where there is real scope for expansion of the organicmarket (28).

This move into processed organic foods opens a series ofcrucial questions concerning consumer attitudes and motiva-tions in addition to the key importance for the development ofthe market. When organic produce is sold fresh, people canidentify with these foods as being organic even if they areslightly unsure of the definition of organic. However, ifingredients are combined and processed, people's understanding

of organic might be very different. Consumer beliefs andattitudes on this have not previously been studied. Also,consumers' beliefs about organic foods include the idea thatthey are natural and therefore not processed to any greatdegree. When organic ingredients are processed, do peoplethink of them as less organic? Alternatively, are processedorganic foods viewed very positively because they are bothconvenient and do not offend the consciences of environmen-tally concerned consumers?

It is very difficult to anticipate how consumers will respondto processed organic foods without thorough scientific con-sumer research. There are reasons to expect acceptance as wellas rejection of processed organic foods. Some of the earlierstudies on organic food users suggest that they are a specialsegment of people with environmentally riendly and altruisticvalues (22, 29). In addition, health, food safety, and environ-mental friendliness are usually mentioned as the most importantmotives for organic food purchases by the consumer. Third,consumers strongly associate organic foods with naturalness,

cleanliness, and the absence of any chemicals or additives(30). Since processed organic foods would not be as natural asthe fresh ones, these could be rejected by at least one segment oforganic food consumers.

On the other hand, interest in organic foods is rapidlyspreading o mainstream consumers (31). In comparison to thefirst users of organic foods, the mainstream consumers may notbe so willing to make sacrifices regarding convenience, money,

or food quality. Thus, it seems that one prerequisite or wideradoption is that organic foods correspond to conventionalfoods as regard their quality and convenience. Purchase ofconvenient organic food may be a welcome solution for theconsumer dilemma between personal and collective benefits,which may be one of the most difficult obstacles preventingpeople from realizing their positive attitudes toward environ-mental protection and sustainable development in theireveryday behaviors (e.g. 32, 33).

In the following sections, we present findings from twosurveys of attitudes of Swedish consumers followed by a de-scription of work and preliminary findings from a Europeanstudy of consumer attitudes to both fresh and processed organicfoods.

CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF ORGANIC FOODSAMONG SWEDISH CONSUMERS

In the mid-1990s, research related to consumer preference anddemand for organic foods was sparse (3, 20, 34), and therewere few scientific studies investigating Swedish consumers.This led us (Magnusson and Sjoddn) to carry out a surveyregarding perceptions of organic foods among Swedishconsumers in 1998. This was followed by a replication in2001 to examine whether there had been any substantialchanges in the way that Swedish consumers thought aboutorganic foods.

The overall aim of these studies was to gain knowledge aboutSwedish consumers' perceptions of organic foods. Further, wewere interested in investigating if the choice of organic foodswas most strongly related to environmental or health concerns.

Many of the studies in the literature have relied on direct ratingsby consumers of the importance of issues such as health or theenvironment. This presupposes hat consumers are aware of theinfluences on their own behavior and can report the strength ofsuch influences accurately. A strong test of the importance ofsuch factors is to assess the beliefs of consumers and to test howsuch beliefs predict behavior. This was done in the currentstudies.

In both studies, a total of 2000 persons, aged 18 to 65 y

(representing approximately 60% of the Swedish population),were recruited by random selection from the nationalpopulation register. Questionnaires were mailed to twoseparately selected groups during the springs of 1998 and2001, and those not responding were sent two reminders.Details about the sample, its characteristics, and responserates are presented in Table 1. The demographic characteris-tics correspond rather well with those of the Swedishpopulation (35, 36; Table 1), but there was an overrepresen-tation of respondents with 2 or 3 y of upper-secondary-schooleducation (Table 1).

The questions were focused on four target foods: milk,meat, potatoes, and bread. These were chosen because theyrepresent staple foods in the Swedish diet and because, at thetime of the study, their availability and price varied. Mostquestions were focused on the organic varieties of the fourfoods and concerned purchase rather than consumption. Thequestionnaire comprised two sections. The first section (37)concerned the perceived importance of purchase criteriadependent on whether the foods are conventionally ororganically produced (healthy, good taste, shelf life, cheap,organically produced, and some product-specific criteria).Respondents were also asked about general attitudes towardbuying the four target foods and intentions to purchase organicmilk, meat, potatoes, and bread. Questions concerned thepurchase frequency of the four target organic foods andperceived availability of these products. Further, beliefs abouttheir characteristics as compared to their conventionallyproduced counterparts (healthier, tastier, longer shelf life,more expensive, and some product-specific characteristics)were investigated in this section. There were two versions ofthis first part of the questionnaire. In one, respondents wereasked about milk and meat and in the other potatoes and

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the subjects in the twosurveys (%, unless otherwise indicated).

Survey , Survey I, Swedish1998a 2001 population

Number f respondents n) 1154 1100Total esponse rate 58 : 55

Milk/meat, esponse rate 52 51Potatoes/bread, esponse rate 48 49Gender

Female 54 53 51Male 46 47 49

Age (years)Mean 40.6 41.9 40.718-25 15 15 1526-35 23 20 2136-45 22 21 2246-55 23 23 2156-65 17 20 20

EducationElementarye : :210000; 20 26 V:0Upper econdaryb ::: :d52g;DV :: 50 45 0Universityc :0 0:27 :0:X: 30 28 :

a Elementary chool or 9-y compulsory ducation.300:0;Two or 3 y of upper econdary chool. 0; :

University r university ollege education. The information s obtained from. tatisticsSweden (35, 36).

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5. June 2005 ? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 353http:/ www.ambio.kva.se




4/9

Table 2. Perceived likelihood that organic food purchases willresult In positive environmental, health, and animal welfareconsequences in 1998 and 2001. Mean scores and standarddeviation (SD).

1998 2001

Mean SD Mean SD

Improve he general state 4.0 1.0 3.9 1.0of the environmentImprove circumstances and health 4.0 1.0 4.0 1.1of the farm animalsImprove my own or my family's health 3.6 1.1 3.5 1.1Give myself a good conscience 3.6 1.3 3.6 1.2Avoid risks that may be associated 3.7 1.1 3.6 1.1with eating nonorganic oodsReduce the use of artificial ertilizers 4.1 1.0 4.1 1.0in agriculture

Reduce the eutrophication f lakes 4.1 1.0 4.0 1.0and watercoursesReduce the pollution of the soil 3.9 1.0 3.9 1.0Reduce the transportation f foods 3.1 1.2 3.1 1.3Reduce the use of petrol and other 3.0 1.2 3.0 1.2nonrenewable sources of energyReduce the amount of waste 3.1 1.2 3.0 1.2Reduce the ozone hole in the atmosphere 3.0 1.2 3.0 1.2Preserve biodiversity n nature 3.6 1.1 3.5 1.2Reduce the use of herbicides 4.1 1.0 4.1 1.0and pesticides in agricultureReduce the medication of farm animals 3.9 1.1 3.8 1.1Give my children better food 3.9 1.1 3.8 1.1Reduce the risk for illness in my family 3.4 1.2 3.3 1.2

Five-point nipolar cales ranging rom notat all likely 1) to very ikely 5).

bread. Half the sample (n = 1000) received the milk and meatversion and the other half (n = 1000) the potatoes and breadversion (response rates; see Table 1). Descriptive data anddemographic comparisons for the questions of the first section(1998) have been reported earlier (37). This paper containsa summary of the descriptive data (1998) and reports differ-ences in the results of the two surveys.

The secondsection concerned

respondents' perceptions ofthe likelihood and importance of occurrence of 17 possibleconsequences of purchasing organic foods in general (Table 2).They were also asked about the frequency of their performanceof recycling glass, paper/metal/plastic packages, newspaper/paper and batteries, and about eight environmentally friendly

Table 3. Self-reported environmentally friendly behavior andrecycling. Mean scores and standard deviation (SD).

1998 2001

Mean SD Mean SD

Avoid purchasing products 2.9 1.0 2.9 1.1in environmentally onfriendly packages

Purchase environmentally riendly 3.5 0.9 3.4 0.9labeled productsSave electricity 3.5 1.0 3.4 1.1Donate money to environmental 2.0 0.9 2.1 1.0organizationsDiscuss environmental problems 3.0 1.0 2.9 1.0with my friends or familyRefrain rom car driving o spare 2.5 1.2 2.5 1.3the environmentAvoid purchasing new products to spare 2.4 0.9 2.3 1.0the environmentCompost or leave domestic refuse 2.9 1.6 2.9 1.6for compostingRecycleglass 4.7 0.7 4.8 0.7Recyclepaper-packages 4.0 1.2 4.1 1.2Recyclenewspaper nd paper 4.6 0.9 4.5 1.0Recyclebatteries 4.6 0.9 4.6 0.9Recycleplasticpackages 3.3 1.4 3.6 1.4Recyclemetalpackages 3.4 1.5 3.8 1.4Five-point nipolar cales ranging rom never 1) to always/very ften 5).

behaviors (e.g. refrain from car driving to spare the environ-ment); see Table 3.

Attitudes Toward Organic Foods

Findings from the first survey demonstrated that the majorityof consumers have positive attitudes toward buying organicmilk, meat, potatoes, and bread. However, their positiveattitudes were mirrored neither in their intention to purchase

or in actual purchase behavior. Only between 4% and 10%declared that it is very likely that they will choose the organicalternative the next time, and between 8% and 16% stated thatthey often or always buy the four investigated target foods.Thus, there is a discrepancy between attitudes and self-reportedbehavior. One factor that may help explain the attitude-behavior discrepancy s the relative importance of the criterion

organically produced in comparison to other purchasecriteria. In general, the most important purchase criterion forall studied foods was that they should taste good, and the leastimportant was that they were organically produced. Long shelflife and healthiness were also rated to be important or veryimportant by the majority of the respondents. Anothercandidate for explaining the discrepancy s that consumers didnot perceive organic foods to be any better than conventionalfoods. The most common beliefs about organic foods were thatthey were more expensive and healthier han conventionalfoods. Respondents did not think that the organic counterpartswould taste better or have a longer shelf life. A third influentialfactor that may help account for the attitude-behaviordiscrepancy is the fact that around half (49%) of therespondents stated that they often or always refrain frombuying organic foods because they perceive them to be tooexpensive. Further, a majority (63%) reported that it isimportant or very important that organic foods do not costmore than conventional foods.

There were no substantial differences between the results

from the first (1998) and the second survey (2001), buta somewhat larger proportion rated the perceived availabilityof the four organic target foods to be better in 2001 than 1998(statistically significant only for organic bread). Also, fewerconsumers thought that the organic varieties are healthier thantheir conventional counterparts n 2001 than in 1998 (statisti-cally significant only for organic milk).

Factors Related to Choice of Organic Foods

The responses to the 17 environmental, human health, andanimal welfare consequences (1998; Table 2) were subjected toprincipal components analysis (PCA, varimax rotation). ThePCA resulted in three interpretable factors with eigenvalues

greater than 1 (Table 4). The first factor (Environment)reflected environmental pollution, the second (Health) per-ceived health aspects, and the third (Transportation/Waste)mirrored transportation and waste handling. Cronbach oc-coefficients varied between 0.88 and 0.90, which indicates goodhomogeneity of these factors. The PCA on the 2001 dataresulted n essentially the same factor structure. However, therewere some differences. The items reduce the ozone hole in theatmosphere and preserve biodiversity in nature, which didnot load highly on any of the factors in 1998, loaded on theTransportation/Waste actor in 2001. Further, the item givemyself a good conscience, which loaded highly on the Healthfactor in 1998, did not in 2001. The order of the Health andTransportation/Waste actors, according to explained variance,was also reversed n 2001. Since the PCAs were principally thesame for both years, it was decided to apply the same factorstructure on the data from 2001.

354 ? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 Ambio Vol. 34. No. 4-5. June 2005http: www.ambio.kva.sc




5/9

Table 4.t Principal components analysis of the rated likelihood of: per;cee consquences of organicp o p u rche (19)

Factr rname %a ntm Loading

1. Environment0fX ;X; Afmprove thet;aern fte of the environm6Reduce. theuse of atfcafertilizers inagricultur .85Redluce theetohctonoiae n wtrore 8Reduce he plutiono thesild7Reduceth~e.eoherbicde an etcds inagriutue.63

2. Health 10 0.89 Improve my own or my familys health76hGv myselfl :g conscience .70AVOidrssta may basocitdwthetn nonorgaifod.7G&iv Y hide better.foo .71Reducehe040 ris for;t000000t;fiillness in my family 67, ,

:3.Transporaio e 7 0.88 Reduce. he transp xtation of foods .88C : dE f .f Te; L V fLS; 0 f (: AuT f fi 0:Si00 AY i7 . .:..... -o d s . .....tt fX tit t ff

eduche se ofpetrolndote nonenwable ore of.energy.8Reducheaon of wasdte .58

a Percentage of explained variance.

Table 5. Results of principal component analysis of self-reported environmentally friendly behaviors and recycling (1998).

Factor name %a a Items Loading

1. Environmentally riendly behavior 31 0.75 Avoid purchasing products in nonenvironmentally riendly packages .67Purchase environmentally riendly abeled products .67Save electricity .47Donate money to environment organizations .56Discuss environmental problems with my friends or family .64Refrain rom car driving o spare the environment .63Avoid purchasing new products to spare the environment .68

2. Easy recycling 12 0.69 Recycle glass .74Recycle paper-packages .68Recycle newspapers and paper .81Recycle batteries .55

3. Advanced recycling 8 0.72 Recycle plastic packages .86Recycle metal packages .86Compost or leave domestic refuse for composting .56

a Percentage of explained variance.

Table 6. Results of multiple regression analysis (standardized beta coefficients, unless otherwise indicated) of data, 1998 and 2001. Significantcontributions by the factors Environment, Transportation/Waste, and Health to the prediction of attitudes, perceived importance of thecriterion organically produced (Organic), purchase intentions (intention), and purchase frequency (Purchase). Figures in parentheses areresults of 2001.

Milk Meat

Attitude Organic Intention Purchase Attitude Organic Intention Purchasen = 564 (480) n = 516 (451) n = 570 (506) n = 543 (479) n = 569 (493) n = 515 (469) n = 565 (504) n = 522 (469)

R2 .23 (.26) .16 (.19) .17 (.19) .11 (.10) .28 (.32) .32 (.23) .23 (.24) .17 (.15)F (d.f.) 1998 58.5 (3, 560) 32.7 (3, 512) 39.4 (3, 566) 22.2 (3, 539) 74.5 (3, 565) 81.5 (3, 511) 57.2 (3, 561) 36.3 (3, 518)F (d.f.) 2001 57.8 (3, 476) 35.1 (3, 447) 39.4 (3, 502) 18.6 (3, 475) 79.4 (3, 489) 46.7 (3, 465) 52.7 (3, 500) 28.8 (3, 465)Environment .22*** .30***) - (.17*) - (_) .15* (-) .14* (.14*) () -() -()Transportation/Waste -14* (-) - (-) -(-) -(-) -(-) - (-) - (-) 7** (-)Health .39*** .27***) .40*** .27***) .37*** .33***) .25*** .21*) .49*** .44***) .55*** .47***) .43*** .49***) .28*** (.36***)

p < 0.01,. p < 0.0001, - not significant.

Table 7. Results of multiple regression analysis (standardized beta coefficients, unless otherwise indicated) of data, 1998 and 2001. Significantcontributions by self-reported behavior and perceived consequences to the prediction of attitudes, perceived importance of the criterionorganically produced (Organic), purchase intentions (Intention), and purchase frequency (Purchase). Figures in parentheses are results of2001.

Milk Meat

Attitude Organic Intention Purchase Attitude Organic Intention Purchasen=J530(467)A = 483 (438)1=A5368(490) n = 510 (464)A = 535 (480)A = 485 (456)A= 530 (489)A = 491 (455)

R2 ~~~~.26.28) .20 (.24) .24 (.22) .17 (.14) .30 (.32) .36 (.31) .27 (.27) .22 (.20)F (d.f.) 1998 32.1 (6, 523) 21.0 (6, 476) 28.9 (6, 529) 18.7 (6, 503) 39.2 (6, 528) 47.3 (6, 478) 34.1 (6, 523) 24.1 (6, 484)F (d.f.) 2001 30.5 (6, 460) 24.4 (6, 431) 23.6 (6, 483) 13.4 (6, 458) 38.9 (6, 473) 35.5 (6, 449) 31.7 (6, 482) 19.8 (6, 448)Environment .18* (.31***) - (.18*) - (.16*) - (.16*) -(-) - (-) - (-) - (-)TransportationJWvaste -.16* (-) - (-) -.7* (-) -.14* (-) -.14* (-) -(-) -(-) - (-)Health .32***.22***) .35*** .22***) .33*** .26***) .21*** -) .46*** .42***) .5** (.41***) .40*** .44***) .24*** .30***)EFB .21*** .17***) .22*** .27***) .27*** .23***) .28*** .24***) .15* (-) .22*** .29***) .21*** .23***) .23*** .27***)Easy recycling - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-) - (_) _ (-) - (-)Advanced recycling - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-)

*p < 0.01, * p < 0.0001, -not significant.

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005 ? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 355http://www.ambio.kva.se




6/9

The data on the eight self-reported environmentally friendlybehaviors and recycling (Table 3) were also subjected to PCA(oblique rotation) and resulted in three factors (all hadeigenvalues >1; Table 5). The first, Environmentally FriendlyBehavior (EFB), included performance of environmentallyfriendly behaviors (e.g. refrain from car driving to spare theenvironment, save electricity). The Easy Recycling factorincluded recycling of items disposable at easily availablecollection points (e.g. glass and batteries). Advanced Recycling

was based on recycling of items that requiremore effort on the

part of the consumer (e.g. fewer collection points, metalpackages, and composting/leaving domestic refuse for compost-ing). Cronbach's oct-coefficients or these factors varied between0.69 and 0.75, indicating good homogeneity. The PCA showedthe same factor structure on the data from both years. However,the order of the factors Easy Recycling and AdvancedRecycling, according to explained variance, was reversed in2001

The factor-analytically derived factors based on the likeli-hood ratings of positive health and environmental outcomes asa result of organic food purchase (Environment, Transportation/Waste, Health) were used as independent variables in a multipleregression analysis. This was done to investigate the pre-

dictability of the dependent variables: attitudes to purchase,the importance of the criterion organically produced, purchaseintention, and purchase frequency. Each of the four organicfoods was analyzed separately. For all of these, Health was themost important factor for predicting attitudes to purchase, theimportance of the purchase criterion organically produced,purchase intention, and purchase frequency (1998; Table 6).There were no differences between the results obtained in 1998

and 2001, except that Environment was an important predictorof attitudes toward buying organic milk in 2001. Thus, positivehealth benefits appear to be a stronger motive for purchasingorganic foods than are environmental benefits.

Multiple regression analyses were performed with all sixfactors (Environment, Transportation/Waste, Health, EFB,Easy Recycling, Advanced Recycling) for each of the fourorganic foods separately. The aim was to investigate thepredictability of the variables attitude, organically produced,

purchase intention,and purchase frequency. Health was the

most important predictor of attitudes, organically produced,and purchase ntention for the four foods (1998; Table 7). Thehealth factor was also the most important predictor of thepurchase frequency of organic potatoes and an importantpredictor of the purchase frequency of organic milk, meat, andbread. However, regarding the purchase frequency prediction,EFB was almost equally predictive ike Health for organic meatand potatoes. Also, EFB was the most important predictor ofpurchase frequency for organic milk and bread. There were nodifferences between the results from 1998 and 2001 for organicmeat and only minor differences or organic potatoes (EFB wasthe most important predictor of purchase frequency) and bread(Health was the most important predictor of purchase

frequency). However, for organic milk, there were greaterdifferences in the second survey. Health was only the mostimportant predictor of intention to purchase and was nota significant predictor of the purchase requency of organic milkin 2001. Also, Environment was the most important predictorof attitudes and EFB the most important predictor of

organically produced and purchase frequency for organicmilk in 2001.

Table 6. Extended.Potatoes Bread

Attitude Organic Intention Purchase Attitude Organic Intention Purchasen=518 (481) n 435 (424) n =517 (503) n 459 (449) n =512 (492) n =494 (466) n-518(507) n=497(474)

R2 .33 (.30) .25 (.27) .23 (.26) .18 (.15) .33 (.33) .31 (.31) .24 (.25) .16 (.18)F (d.f.) 1998 84.0 (3, 514) 49.3 (3, 431) 52.3 (3, 513) 34.2 (3, 455) 83.9 (3, 508) 74.7 (3, 490) 55.6 (3, 514) 33.2 (3, 493)F (d.f.) 2001 70.0 (3, 477) 53.7 (3, 420) 60.3 (3, 499) 28.2 (3, 445) 82.3 (3, 488) 69.1 (3, 462) 58.6 (3, 503) 34.5 (3, 470)Environment .15* (.17*) -(-) -(-) -(-) .2 () - () -() -(-) -Transportation/Waste -(-) -(-) -(-) - (-) - ( - (-) - (-)Health .47*** .43***) .50*** .47***) .47*** .47***) .45*** .35***) .43*** .50***) .49*** .56**) .45*** .52***) .28*** .36***)

Table 7. Extended.

Potatoes Bread

Attitude Organic Intention Purchase Attitude Organic Intenton Purchase

n=496 (464) n=420 (409) n=495 (486) n=441 (435) n=490 (474) n=473 (450) n=-493 (489) n=474 (458)

R ~~~~~.35.34) .30 (.36) .26 (.30) .26 (.23) .34 (.39) .35 (~.37) .27 (.31)~ .22 (24)~F(d.f.) 1998 45.8 (5, 489) 30.7 (6, 413) 30.4 (6, 488) .26.2 (6, 434) 42.3 (6, 483) 42.5 (6, 466) 30.7 (6, 486) 233(,4672)F(d.f. 2001 413(6 57) 3.9.2 (,42 3566,79 2.06,428) 50.7 (6, 467) 44.0 (6, 443), 37. (6, 482) 251(,4)

Environment .16* (1 4*1) -() -(- ( .2**)-()- )-(-Transportationt/Waste -4()1() -() -() - - - -

-

Health .41** (.36***) .38*** (.38** 3**(.42*** .32* (2**) 38*** .43.***) .39*** .8**) 37*** 47** 1* 3*EFB .15* (.27*.**) .7*** (.35***) .22***,(.24***) 2**(3** 1*(9*).0 (.28***)- 17*(27*).21 ***(2*)Easy recycling - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-) - (-) (-) - (-) -Advanced recycling -(--(--(--(--(--(--(--()

--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~-------

356 ? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4--5, June 2005http:;//www.ambio.kva.se




7/9

EUROPEAN UNION-FUNDED ROJECTON CONSUMER ATTITUDES

The previously mentioned results provide a detailed picture ofthe attitudes of Swedish consumers o organic foods at two timepoints and how these attitudes link to intention and behavior.We now turn to the issue of attitudes toward processed organicfoods and also consideration of variations across Europeancountries.

Consumer Decision Making on Organic Products (CON-

DOR) is a major new European Union (EU)-funded projectthat examines the attitudes of consumers to both fresh andprocessed organic foods (http://www.condor-organic.org). heproject has partners from eight EU countries: the UnitedKingdom, Finland, Italy, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Germany,and Sweden. This includes countries with relatively high levels oforganic production and consumption (e.g. Denmark, Sweden)and those with relatively ow levels (Greece, Spain) (38).

The project aims to develop several concerns not addressedwell in the existing literature. The first is to examine consumerattitudes toward processed as well as fresh organic foods acrossa range of European countries. The second is to model theinfluences of attitudes and beliefs on intention and behavior, as

in the previously mentioned Swedish studies, rather han relyingon consumers' own statements of what are the importantinfluences on their behavior. The third is to find ways in whichto incorporate more effectively the moral and ethical dimen-sions in consumers' decisions.

The CONDOR project takes as its starting point two keyapproaches from the consumer behavior literature, he Theoryof Planned Behavior (TPB) (39, 40) and Means-End Chainanalysis (MEC) (41). The TPB is a rational model of humanbehavior that argues that behaviors such as the choice of a typeof food is predicted by intentions, which in turn are predicted byattitudes, perceived social pressure, and how much control theperson feels he or she has over the behavior. This has beenwidely applied in consumer studies, including several successfulapplications on the choice of foods (40). This model offers anexcellent starting point for the examination of organic foodpurchasing and consumption.

An alternative, although complementary, approach touncovering the motivations behind consumer decisions isprovided by MEC theory (41). Within this approach, the linksfrom attributes of products to perceived benefits are uncoveredand then further linked to the underlying values held byconsumers. It is argued that behavior is influenced by how theattributes of products and their perceived benefits meet theneeds of consumers n terms of their underlying values. Again,this method has been successfully applied to understandingconsumer choice of foods (41). Using the MEC approach, it is

possible to develop segmentation of consumers based on thevalues they hold. Such segments tend to be stable, but therelationships between these segments and particular food-related behavior tends to be limited (42).

The concept of Food Related Lifestyle (FRL), developedand validated through studies in several countries and atdifferent times (43, 44, 45), is a quantitative approach based onMEC theory and provides an understanding of the relationsbetween consumers' choices in the market and their underlyingvalues. By applying a segmentation approach to this problem,consumer heterogeneity is taken into consideration in aninstrumental way, pointing to different ways of addressingthese segments. The FRL segmentation has been validated

across European countries, and one implication may be thatdifferences across segments are more important han differencesacross countries, opening the way for common strategiesdirected to each specific segment. While this approach has been

developed for general views on foods, there are specific aspectsof organic food choice that need to be addressed and those aretargeted n the CONDOR project.

Both the approaches based on the TPB and MEC fail toeffectively incorporate some key features that are likely to beimportant in the choice of organic foods. These are affectiveresponses to foods and moral concerns about the ways in whichfoods are produced. There have been previous attempts tointegrate these nonrational influences into the essentiallyrational model formulation of the TPB for other types ofchoices of foods (46-48) but not for the consumption of organicfoods. Affective associations and moral concerns also need to beincorporated into the MEC/FRL framework and included inthe segmentation model.

The overall objectives of the project are i) to provide a basicunderstanding of the processes involved in consumer decisionmaking on the purchase and consumption of processed andfresh organic foods and ii) to model consumer choice of organicfoods based on attitudes, values, and affective and moralconcerns over eight EU countries.

The project is organized as a series of work packages. Thefirst of these seeks to develop new methods for the elicitation ofaffective and moral concerns from consumers. This part of the

work was conducted n the United Kingdom, Finland, and Italyand involved testing focus groups, word association, and anopen-ended method of eliciting emotions and beliefs asalternatives to the normal method of eliciting advantages anddisadvantages of behaviors usually used in the TPB (39).

The data from the focus groups in each country were reallyquite different from those from the other methods and weretherefore analyzed separately. The UK results are describedhere briefly. The UK data showed five main themes. The firstmain theme was on aspects of food production, includingsubthemes related to foods being homegrown or for homecooking, local, or from intensive farming. The second themewas on access to food with subthemes of local, supermarkets,and imported food. The third theme was control, which againlinked to imported food but also to food regulations and trust.The fourth theme was health issues. The fifth theme was moralissues, which linked to considerations of profit, environmentalimpact, animal welfare, and advantages and disadvantages oforganic foods. There were also some issues that were raisedthat did not fit within these themes, including, for example,names of particular organic foods or images or the definitionof organic foods.

The responses from the conventional method, word associ-ation, open-ended beliefs, and open-ended emotions werecategorized n order to examine whether there were differencesin the frequency of responses from the different methods.Although there were small differences n the results between thecountries, on the whole, the different methods all elicited similartypes of beliefs with comparable frequencies. The mostfrequently elicited types of beliefs are shown in Table 8.

There were some differences n the way fresh and processedorganic foods were evaluated. The fresh organic foods wereconsidered to be more natural, and the participants expressedmore positive feelings toward them and also mentioned he shelflife of these foods. Processed foods brought out more negativeviews and issues of trust and in some cases no feelings at all.Quality, health issues, expense, and chemicals in foods werementioned for both fresh and processed foods. The wordassociation task brought out more imagery and names ofspecific foods. The traditional task and the open-ended beliefs

task elicited similar categories of responses n similar numbers.However, by explicitly asking about emotions and feelings, theopen-ended emotions sections generated additional categoriesthat were purely emotional and not expressed in any of the

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005 ? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 357http://www.ambio.kva.se




8/9

Table~. Mo.foq ...ue.ctgrisfr.ep..efo mtos.neicttonsuy

Traditional odascainOe-ne eif Open-ende emotions

Froesh e oods , Qualt QualityQultQait

E shllie (Negtive eelinssvnhExpense S~~~~~pecific.oods Exes oiie,feigTrust Not known0trut at No eeing

other methods. Moral categories were elicited by both thetraditional task and open-ended beliefs in equal measure.

The second work package is designed to use these methods toelicit beliefs from consumers in the same three countries and todevelop and test a model of consumer behavior following thebasic structure of the TPB. This was conducted on the choice oforganic apples and organic pizza, and the results are currentlybeing analyzed.

Work on FRL has identified a number of segments (betweenfive and seven) across European countries, some of which areshared across borders, while some are idiosyncratic. Workpackage 3 will develop and apply methods for segmentingconsumers based on FRL and MEC theory. Work is currentlyunder way on this in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany,and Spain.

The insights, theories, and methods developed in the firstthree work packages will be brought together n the fourth workpackage and tested in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland,Italy, Greece, Denmark, Germany, and Spain in order toprovide knowledge on differences and commonalties acrossmember states. The member states included represent a geo-graphic spread across the EU and in particular include bothnorthern and southern European states and also states varyinggreatly n market penetration of organic foods, from the highestEU per capita expenditure on organic produce in Denmark tothe lowest in Greece.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

There have been a number of studies of the influences onconsumer purchasing and consumption of organic foods, andthere are some consistent findings across these studies. Healthappears to be a more important influence on purchasing thanthe environment, but this differs between heavy and light users.

The Swedish surveys showed a discrepancy between attitudesand behavior regarding organic foods. This discrepancy seemsto be explained by the fact that consumers do not consider

organically produced to be an important purchase criterion.Also, organic foods are not perceived to surpass conventionalones regarding aste and shelf life (two qualities rated to be ofgreat importance) and because of the perceived premium pricesof organic foods. Health benefits were demonstrated o be morestrongly related to attitudes and behavior toward organic foodsthan were perceived environmental benefits. However, thefrequency of performing environmentally friendly behaviorsalso contributed to the prediction of the purchase of organicfoods. Thus, behavior-behavior orrelations seem to be strongerthan belieft -behavior orrelations in this context of environ-mental concerns.

Therelationship

betweenbeliefs related to health andenvironmental benefits on the one hand and intention and

behavior on the other will be further explored across Europeancountries in the CONDOR project. This project also extends

earlier work by examining attitudes to processed as well asfresh organic foods and more explicitly attempting to modelthe roles of affective and moral influences on choice. Earlyresults from this project show that, as in previous studies,stated reasons for choice of organic foods are related mainlyto health, quality (including taste), and expense, and this wastrue for processed as well as for fresh organic foods. Theprocessed organic foods led to more negative responses thanthe fresh foods, including issues of trust. The open-endedemotions method yielded more responses related to feelingsand emotions than the conventional method and thereforeoffers a means for examining these influences in more detail.Future work will examine how well these affective responsesrelate to intention and behavior and how they vary acrossboth countries and consumer segments.

There is a future need to test more rigorously the impacts ofvariables on behavior rather than relying on consumers' ownratings of what influences their behavior. The impacts ofattitudes and beliefs and also other potential types of influences,such as values and affective responses and also behavior-behavior relationships, need to be more systematically tested.There is also a need to investigate how consumers view differentforms of organic food, including processed foods.

References and Notes

1. Ekelund. L. 1989.Vegetable consumption and consumcri attitudes towards organlicallygrown vegetables-the case of Sweden. Acta Hortic 259. 163-172.

2. Wandel. M. and Bugge, A. 1997. Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of foodquality. Food Qutl/its Pre/ 8. 19 26.

3. Wilkins, J.L. and Hillers. V.N. 1994. Influences of pesticide residue and environmentalconcerns on organic food preference among food cooperative members anld non-members in Washington State. J. Nutr. Educ. 26, 26--33.

4. von Alvensleben, R. 1998. Ecological aspects of food demand: the case of organic foodin Germany. AIR-CAT 4th Pleniary Meeting: Health. Ecological and Safety Aspects inFood Choice 4, AIR-CAT. MATFORSK.. As. Norway. pp. 68--79.

5. Grankvist. G. and Biel, A. 2001. The importance of beliefs anld purchase criteria in thechoice of eco-labelled food products. J. Enriron. Ps r'chol. 21. 405-410.

6. Grunert, S.C. and Kristenseni, K. 1995. Den1 Dan.ske For1bruger g 0kologi.ske Fgderurer.Working Papers in Marketing. No. 1, February. Department of Marketing. OdenseUniversity, Denmark.

7. Roddy. G.. Cowan, C.A. and Hutchinson, G. 1996.Consumer attitudes and behaviourto organic foods in Ireland. J. I)7t. Consumer Mac-ket 9. 41-63.

8. Fotopoulos. C. and Krystallis A. 2002. Organic product avoidance: reasons forrejection aind potential buyers' identification in a counitrywide survey. Br. Foo(d J. 104.233-260.

9. Mathisson. K. and Schollin. A. 1994. Konsunentta.spekter pcd Ekologi.skt OdladeGrn.nsaker-- en jdnifiYrande tu(die (Consumer aspects on organic vegetables-a compar-ative study). Report No. 18, Department of Crop Production Sciences. SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.

10. Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor. M.J. 1994. The demand for organically grownproduce. Br. Food J. 96, 21-25.

11. Zanoli. R. and Naspetti. S. 2002. Consumer motivations in the putrchase of organic food:a means-end approach. Br. Food J. 104. 643-653.

12. Jolly. D. 1991. Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce andwillingness to pay organic price premiums. J. Agrihusine.s.s 9. 97-11 1.

13. Soler, F.. Gil, J.M. and Sanchez. M. 2002. Consumers' acceptability of organic food inSpain: results from an experimental auctioni market. Br. Foodl J. 104, 670-687.

14. Torjuseni, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M. and Francis. C.A. 2001. Food system orientationand quality perception among consumers and producer-s of organic food in HedmarkCotunty. Norway. Food Qualiti Pref1 12, 207-216.

15. Wandel, M. 1994. Consumer concern and behaviour regarding food and health inNorway. J. Cottnsumter tudie.s Home Econ. 18. 203-215.

16. Land, B. 1998. Consuiners' Dietarr Pattterns Ciid Desirs.sf r Change. Working paper no.31 'March 1998. Centre for Market Surveillance. Research and Strategy for the FoodSector, Aarhus School of Business. Aarhus, Denmark.

17. Fagerli. R.A. and Wandel, M. 1999. Gender differenices in opinions and practices withregard to a healthy diet. Appetite 32. 171-190.

358 ? Royal Swedish Academy of Scicnces 2005 Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005http: ',www.ambio.kva.se




9/9

18. Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A. and Wrzesniewski, A. 1999. Attitudes ofood and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France:possible mplications or the diet-health debate. Appetite 33, 163-180.

19. Torjusen, H., Nyberg, A. and Wandel, M. 1999. 0kologisk Produsert Mat: ForbrukernesVurderinger og Bruksm0nster (Organic Food: Consumers' Perception and DietaryChoices). SIFO Report 5, 1999. Statens Institutt for Forbruksforskning, Lysaker,Norway. ISNB 82-7063-354-2.

20. Hutchins, R.K. and Greenhalgh, L.A. 1997. Organic confusion: sustaining ompetitiveadvantage. Br. Food J. 99, 336-338.

21. Makatouni, A. 2002. What motivates consumers o buy organic food in the UK? Br.Food J. 104, 345-352.

22. Schifferstein, H.N.J. and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. 1998. Health-related determinants oforganic food consumption n the Netherlands. Food Quality Pref. 9, 119-133.

23. Harper, G.C. and Makatouni, A. 2002. Consumer perception of organic foodproduction and farm animal welfare. Br. Food J. 104, 287-299.

24. Bruce, A. and Lindeskog, P. 2003. Livsmedelskvalitet-ar det nagon skillnad? n: ArEko Reko? Om Ekologiskt Lantbruk i Sverige. Johansson, B. (ed.). Formas, Stockholm,Sweden, pp. 89-101. (In Swedish).

25. Williams, C.M. 2002. Nutritional quality of organic foods: shades or grey or shades ofgreen. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 61, 19-24.

26. Wier, M. and Calverly, C. 2002. Market potential or organic oods in Europe. Br. FoodJ. 104, 45-62.

27. Klont, R. 1999. Growing organic foods. World Ingredients (May/June), 40-44.28. Shepherd, R. 2001. Consumer attitudes towards organic foods in relation o perceived

food risks. Paper presented at Risk Perception, Risk Management and RiskCommunication: The Interface organized by ILSI Europe, Brussels, 21 February 2001.

29. Grunert, S.C. and Juhl, H. J. 1995. Values, environmental attitudes, and buying oforganic foods. J. Econ. Psychol. 16, 39-62.

30. Von Alvensleben, R. and Altmann, M. 1986. Die Nachfrage nach alternativenNahrungsmitteln. Agarvirtschaft 35, 289-295. (In German).

31. Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Foster, C. 1997. From niche o 'mainstream -strategiesfor marketing organic food in Germany and the UK. Br. Food J. 99, 275-282.

32. Gardner, G. and Stern, P.C. 1996. Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour. Allynand Bacon, Boston.

33. Uusitalo, L. 1990. Consumer preferences or environmental quality and other socialgoals. J. Conisumer Policy 13, 231-251.

34. Huang, C.L. 1996. Consumer preferences and attitudes towards organically grownproduce. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 23, 331-342.

35. Statistics Sweden. 2003. Befolkningens utbildning: efterfragade abeller och diagram(http://www.scb.se/templates/Product 9565.asp).

36. Statistics Sweden. 2004. Sveriges befolkning efter kon och alder 31/12/2003 (http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart 7831 5.asp).

37. Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K., Aberg, L. and Sjoddn, P.-O.2001. Attitudes owards organic oods among Swedish consumers. Br. Food J. 103, 209-226.

38. Commission of the European Communities. 2004. European Action Plan for OrganicFood and Farming. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels SEC(2004) 739.

39. Ajzen, 1. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav. Hum. Decision Processes50, 179-211.

40. Shepherd, R. and Raats, M.M. 1995. Attitudes and beliefs in food habits. In: FoodChoice, Acceptance and Consumption. Meiselman, H.L. and MacFie, H.J.H. (eds.).Blackie Academic and Professional, London, pp. 346-364.

41. Grunert, K.G. 1995. Food quality: a means-end hain perspective. ood Quality Pref. 6,171-176.

42. Steenkamp, J-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. 1999. A cross-nationalinvestigation into the individual and national-cultural antecedents of consumerinnovativeness. . Marketing 63, 55-69.

43. Askegaard, S. and Bruns0, K. 1999. Food-related ife styles in Singapore: preliminarytesting of a Western European esearch nstrument n Southeast Asia. J. Euromarketing7, 65-86.

44. Grunert, K. G., Brunso, K. and Bredahl, L. 1998. Food-related ifestyle n France andGermany. In: Ness Developments and Approaches in Consumer Behaviour Research.Balderjahn, 1., Mennicken, C. and Vernette, E. (eds.). Schaffer Poeschel/Macmillan,Stuttgart, pp. 1-15.

45. Brunso, K. and Grunert, K.G. 1998. Cross-cultural imilarities and differences inshopping for food. J. Business Res. 42, 145-150.

46. Raats, M.M., Shepherd, R. and Sparks, P. 1995. Including moral dimensions of choicewithin the structure f the Theory of Planned Behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 484-494.

47. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. and Frewer, L.J. 1995. Assessing and structuring attitudestoward the use of gene technology in food production: he role of perceived ethicalobligation. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16, 267-285.

48. Tuorila-Ollikainen, H., Lahteenmaki, L. and Salovaara, H. 1986. Attitudes, norms,intentions and hedonic responses n the selection of low salt bread in a longitudinalchoice experiment. Appetite 18, 99-106.

49. Acknowledgments: art of the work described n this paper has been carried out withfinancial support from the Commission of the European Communities, pecific RTDprogram Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources, Consumer DecisionMaking on Organic Products CONDOR). It does not necessarily eflect ts views andin no way anticipates the Commission's future policy in this area. Magnusson andSjoddn's tudies were supported by grants from the Swedish Foundation for StrategicEnvironmental Research o the program FOOD-21: Sustainable Agriculture.

Richard Shepherd is a professor of psychology and codirectorof the Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health ResearchCentre at the University of Surrey. He is a Fellow of theBritish Psychological Society and Chartered Health Psychol-ogist. His research has centered on two main themes relatedto factors influencing human food choice and risk perceptionand communication. The former has included he application ofpsychological models of attitude and attitude change to foodchoice and dietary change, while the latter has included workon trust, attitudes toward genetically modified foods, and riskcommunication, ncluding he role of uncertainty. He currentlyleads an EU project on consumer attitudes toward organic foodand UK projects on Attitudes to Genomics and oncommunicating uncertainty on food chain risks in addition toinvolvement in a range of projects on aspects of consumerbehavior. His address: Food, Consumer Behaviour and HealthResearch Centre, Department of Psychology, University ofSurrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK.r.shepherd @ urrey.ac. uk

Maria Magnusson is researcher at the Department of PublicHealth and Caring Sciences at the University of Uppsala. Herresearch has been focused on consumer perceptions oforganic and genetically modified foods. She is currentlyworking with the EU project CONDOR and a project concern-ing simplifying strategies among consumers in their under-standing of nutrition/health nformation. Her address: De-partment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Section ofCaring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala Science Park,SE-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden.maria. magnusson @pubcare. uu se

Per-Olow Sjod6n is professor at the Department of PublicHealth and Caring Sciences at the University of Uppsala. Hehas been active in research areas concerned with factorsinfluencing food preferences and choice for more thana decade. Professor Sj6d6n is head of the consumer researchsection of the large-scale research program Food 21: Sustain-able Agriculture, financed by the Foundation for StrategicEnvironmental Research. His research interests also encom-pass consumer responses to genetically modified foods and

consumer attitudes toward organic foods. His address: De-partment of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Section ofCaring Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala Science Park,SE-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden.per-olow.sjoden @pubcare.uu.se

Amblo Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005 ? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005 359http://www.ambio.kva.se
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

determinants of consumer behavior

Documents