food acceptance: understanding food choices of asian...

Food Acceptance:Understanding food choices of Asian consumersand some examples of quantitative tools

David N CoxResearch ScientistJuly 2007

CSIRO Understanding food choices of Asian Consumers

Scope

• Reference: • Cox DN (2007). Understanding Asian consumers of food products

(book chapter) in Frewer LJ & van Trijp HCM (eds) Understanding consumers of food products, Cambridge / Boca Raton: WoodheadPublishing Limited / CRC

• Food choice• Scope• Are ‘Western’ consumer science tools and approaches

appropriate for Asia?• Culture • Values• Genetics • Cross-cultural sensory perception and preference• Hedonic response scales• Diet-health beliefs • Psycho-social models of (food) behaviour• Conjoint analysis• Segmentation


Food choice

• Primary: Availability • For many (but not all) life can be “a continuous feast”• For many (but not all) energy dense foods are cheap• Preference – choice over alternatives• Volition • Individual located within a culture / society


Psychological factors

Food

Physical /chemical properties

Nutrient content

Physiological effects

Perception of sensory attributes

Person Economic SocialSocio-cultural

Price Availability

Brand

Attitudes

Food choice model (Shepherd & Sparks, 1994, 1999)


Eurocentric approaches to understanding consumers’ food choice / behaviour

• The science of food choice is mostly described almost exclusively in terms of western (European origin) cultures

• for example, Frewer & van Trijp, 2007; Shepherd & Raats, 2006; Cox & Anderson, 2004; Meisleman & MacFie, 1996; MacFie & Thomson, 1999; Frewer et al, 2001; Marshall, 1995

• Social psychology • “Almost all the theories and data of contemporary psychology

come from western populations (e.g. Europeans, North Americans, Australians, etc)” (Triandis, 1996 p 407)

• Cross-cultural validity• Theories and tools need to be tested in Asian cultures


Scope

• Size: • 50% of the world’s population is Asian

• Dynamics: • Asia is the fastest growing continent in terms of population and

economy (Newman, 1999)• Diversity

• Poorest (Laos) to the richest (Japan)• Published (English) literature focus:

• East & South East Asia• Units of analysis:

• inaccurate and dangerous to make generalisations about geographic, national or cultural “units of analysis” (Douglas & Craig, 1997).

• care should be taken to account for segmentation and/or define homogenous groups of consumers


Globalisation of the food supply

• Increasing choice through greater availability • Global “food systems” (Rozin, 2007)• global products are often the result of producer “push”

for greater efficiency not necessarily based upon consumer demand.

• Much of the interests in food choice and acceptance are based upon a western global food industry wishing to design products for other markets

• However specific cultural values are considered most strong in respect for non-durable consumer goods such as foods (Schutte & Ciarlante, 1998).


Are ‘Western’ consumer science tools and approaches appropriate for Asia?

• Cross-cultural psychology• Cultural issues of bias and equivalence • Recognition of the difference between universal

behaviours and culturally specific behaviours (Triandis, 1994, 1996; Berry 1989).

• Borrowing from linguistics • phonetics meaning universal sounds - etic describes universal

behaviours • phonemics meaning sounds unique to one language - emic

culturally specific. • Triandis (1996) asserts that science seeks to

understand generalizations, • e.g. common elements in food choice (etics)

• however these may manifest as culturally specific emicelements.


Etic and emic (Berry, 1989)

• a classic example of emic is Japanese perception • 5th basic “taste” umami (O’Mahony & Ishii, 1986).• often translated as “savoury”

• Koreans identify an important flavour construct pertaining to noodles as “kusu” (Prescott, 1998)

• a composite flavour also lacking English translation

• Qualitative work (e.g. focus groups) may be necessary to identify which particular issues are salient to a particular culture

• hence avoiding “pseudo-etic” approaches that mistakenly assume universality (Triandis, 1994).


Culture as a major determinant of human food choice

• traditions, beliefs, and values are amongst the main factors influencing preference, mode of food preparation, serving and nutritional status.

• “If one wanted to know about an individual’s food preference, the best question to ask would be, ‘What is your culture or ethnic group?’” (Rozin, 1990)

• A psychological definition of culture:• “shared cognitions, standard operating procedures and

unexamined assumptions”. (Triandis 1994; 1996)• Applied to food behaviour:

• Most Australians do not question the addition of salt to fries (hot chips)

• Do Vietnamese question the high salt content of fish sauce?


Culture’s 7 constructs (Triandis 1994; 1996)

• Tightness • cultural and domain variation in the strength of social norms, rules and regulations. • Japanese culture is thought to be “tighter” (than the USA) generally across mainly domains.

• Cultural complexity • the multiplicity of religious, economic, political, educational, social and aesthetic standards. • Driven by population density

• Active – passive • Obeying elders, • Confucian

• Honour• Respect for elders; • food as gifts

• Collectivism • In many Asian cultures “the self” is defined as an aspect of the collective (e.g. family). • Personal behaviours are subordinated to the collective.

• Individualism • The self is defined as independent and autonomous from collectives. • Personal goals are primary and social behaviour is shaped by attitudes, hedonics and

judgements of utility. • dominates Western behaviour.

• Vertical and Horizontal relationships • Hierarchy contrasts with egalitarian social behaviour. • Many Asian societies are characterised by vertical or hierarchical relationships.


Collectivism and individualism

4 important attributes 1. self

• unit of social space is the individual or group 2. goal structures

• individualists give priority to individual goals 3. behaviour as a function of norms and attitudes

• individualists are driven by attitudes, • collectivists driven more by social norms

4. focus on needs • in-group (collectivists) • social exchange or contractual relationships (individualists).

• + 60 other attributes of collectivist culture (relative to individualists), some relevant to food choice e.g. • lower self esteem; • lower self efficacy; • lower use of affect in decision making; • greater group decision making.

The influence of ‘important others” and motivation to comply


What does Culture mean in terms of food choice?

• Shared food processes and cultural favours (E. Rozin, 2000; 1982),

• exposure and familiarity• Attitudes, social norms

• – extensive application of Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985) to food behaviours (Armitage & Conner, 2001; Baranowski et al, 1999)

• self esteem (Teixeira et al 2004)• predictor of weight control?

• self efficacy (Bandura’s Social cognitive theory; protection motivation theory),

• predictor of • Intentions to consume

• functional foods• Selenium enriched foods• Omega-3

• Weight control • use of affect in decision making

• Use of heuristics; short cuts• Hedonics – liking - disliking


Beyond collectivism – individualism: Values

• Motivating beliefs or values (Schwartz, 1994, 1992; Hofstede, 1984; Rokeach, 1973)

• Schwartz’s (1992) study of 20 countries (n ~ 200/sample) included:

• PR China (5 samples); • Hong Kong (2); • Japan (3) • Taiwan (1).

• Searching for universality• Most of the Chinese samples (Shanghai teachers, students

and factory workers) deviated from the theoretical universal structure (emic).

• most important reported motivational goals or values:• “societal harmony” (Taoism)• “virtuous interpersonal behaviour” (Confucianism) • “personal and interpersonal harmony” (Buddhism)

• Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan and Guangzhou (PRC) did fit the universal structure of values (etic)


Philosophy & beliefs

• Underpinning values are Confucian philosophy and a multiplicity of religions

• Religion has a direct influence upon food choice (Fieldhouse, 1995; Cox & Anderson, 2004)

• Confucianism• Stability achieved by the management of interpersonal

relationships (particularly the importance of family) • relationship between individuals and society. • Self-regulation of desires, relationships, politeness, respect,

hierarchy, and social harmony • Resilient, pervasive: China (Chinese communities), Japan,

Korea, Vietnam, etc • Social norms


Use of motivating values

• Origins in marketing and advertising (Reynolds & Olson, 2001)

• Means-end-chain (laddering) studies (Reynolds & Olson, 2001; Leppard, Cox & Russell, 2004)

• Applications to choice of foods, functional food and genetically modified foods

• Addition to Theory of Planned Behaviour (Le Page, Cox, Russell, Leppard, 2005) –

• questions the importance of values in everyday food choice• Does not add much to predictive theory based models • but could be important in terms of novel foods


Do genetics account for differences in food acceptance?

• Genetically moderated differences in physiology may account for individual differences in sensory perception (Drewnowski & Rock,1995)

• 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP): bitter• Marker for genetic / physiological / perception differences • Taste receptors (fungiform papillae density)• Super-tasters; medium-tasters; non-tasters• Some evidence that “Asians” are more likely to be “super-tasters”

(Parr, 1934; Drewnowski, Kristal & Cohen, 2001)• Malaysians were found to rate PROP more bitter than European-

Australians (Holt, Cobiac, Beaumont-Smith, Easton & Best, 2000) • however unrelated to perceptions of sweetness intensity or liking for sweetness.

• Conflicting US data on whether such sensitivity determines avoidance of, for example, bitter foods (vegetables):

• not in adults (Yackinous & Guinard, 2002) • in children (Bell & Tepper, 2006)

• Over-ridden by • Culinary practices? • paired conditioning (bitter coffee consumed by supertasters)?• PROP as only a marker – not a predictor


Do Asian consumers have unique sensory perception and preference?

• Perceptions • Measured by threshold, sensitivity or discrimination tests.

• Taste• no differences in perceptions of the 4 basic tastes between

“westerners” vs. Koreans, or Japanese, or Malaysians • (Druz and Baldwin,1982; Yamaguchi, Kimura & Ishii ,1988; Laing et

al., 1993; Prescott & Bell, 1993; Holt et al, 2000)• 5th taste: Umami?

• Odour• perceptual similarity of “westerners” and Japanese or

Vietnamese (Ayabe-Kanamura et al, 1998; Distel et al, 1999; Chrea et al, 2004)

• Recognition related to experience• Colour

• Universality in naming colours (Kay & Regier, 2003)• Colours have differing cultural meanings


Preference

• Taste intensity liking varies between cultures depending on the context or food studied,

• no consistency in direction or magnitude across products

• (Druz & Baldwin, 1982; Bertino, Beauchamp & Jen, 1983; Prescott et al., 1997; Prescott et al., 1998; Holt et al., 2000).

• product dependent differences are related to familiarity and exposure

• (Laing et al, 1994; Prescott & Bell, 1995; Prescott, 1998). • Control for familiarity and exposure

• A cross-cultural study of Chinese-origin Australians vs. European-origin Australians (Murray, Easton & Best, 2000)

• novel extruded cereal snack products. • In contrast to culture, age was found to be a factor in

discriminating between preferences for textures.


Factors influencing food acceptance

Social, economic, agronomic, cultural and attitudinal factors

Food selection

Food consumption

Outcome / reinforcement:Physiological

Pharmacological

Psychological

Social

Mere exposure (?)

Genetic predisposition

Sensory preferences

(Adapted from

Mela, 1995)


Perception and preference: conclusion

• Perception: no• Preference: yes• The evidence available to date suggests that

chemosensory abilities appear generally similar across cultures.

• Therefore, as for individual differences (Rozin, 1990), very little of the cross-cultural variation in food preferences appears to be genetically based, seemingly rather to arise from experience, dietary habits, and attitude to food (Rozin, Fisher, Imada, Sarubin & Wrzesniewski, 1999).

• “shared” processes and cultural favours introduces the concept of exposure and familiarity – cultural flavour principles


Exposure: cultural flavour principles (Elizabeth Rozin 2000; 1982)

• “flavour principles” characterise particular cultures food preferences. • Chinese cuisine: soy sauce, rice wine and gingerroot• regional differences

• Basic foodstuffs • types of rice by variety, grain size and shape, glutinous versus non-

glutinous types (Luh in Ang et al, 1999). • Manipulative techniques;

• manipulation, particulation, incorporation, separation or extraction, marinating, fermentation, heat

• Flavour• oils, liquid sauces; aromatics; pungency

• Dynamic; Cultural integrity, changes with time • Malay Malaysians (in contrast to Chinese) consumers more open to

western influences? (Murray et al, 2001; Cox, Clark & Mialon, 2001; Meudic & Cox, 2001)

• Western influences on Japanese cuisine post 1950 (Cweirtka, 1998)


Can we use liking as a predictor of Asian food choice?

• Affect• Hedonics; disliking - liking• Tuorila et al, (in press, Food Quality and Preference)• The best predictor of Europeans

• consumption • Likelihood to buy• Willingness to try


Labelled 9-point hedonic scale (Peryam & Pilgrim, 1957)

1) How much do you like this food?(Please tick one response only)

Like extremelyLike very much

Like moderatelyLike slightly

Neither like nor dislike

Dislike slightly

Dislike moderately

Dislike very much

Dislike extremely

□□□□□□□□□


Asian use of hedonic response scales

• Is Asian “politeness” or “positive bias”(Christopher, 1983; Triandis, 1994, Shutte & Ciarlante, 1998) a problem when assessing liking / disliking (hedonics)?

• little empirical evidence that such cultural bias exists • such assertions are often based upon ‘understandings’ of cultural

values • Use of the nine-point labelled category scale (Yeh et al,1998)

• Koreans, Chinese and Thai consumers, regardless of residency (USA or country of origin) versus US consumers,

• systematically used a narrower range• avoided “dislike” categories, • suggesting a possible cultural bias.

• Chinese-Malaysians vs European-Australians (Cox et al, 2001) • between-groups design, • labelled nine-point category scale vs. unstructured-anchored line scale, • both using computerised responses (anonymity), • no systematic cultural bias.• However non-parametric analysis suggested that the unstructured line

scale encouraged greater use of a range of possible responses • line scales may be a preferred option


Asian use of hedonic response scales

• Yao et al, (2003) compared structured, unstructured and labelled hedonic scales across US, Japanese and Koreans consumers.

• The unstructured scale elicited a wider range of scores for US and Japanese respondents

• however Koreans gave very narrow responses regardless of the scale used.

• only partial support for the “politeness” hypothesis • many unanswered questions remain. • a definite need for “culture free” scales, • ranking might be an alternative to scoring (O’Mahony et al,

2004).


Diet - health beliefs (food as medicine) : the old

• Traditional Chinese medicine (Huang & Huang, 1999) • emphasis on prevention and health promotion, • maintenance of health by prioritising the use of diet above

herbal medicines, above pharmaceuticals• Beliefs are resilient (Wheeler & Tan, 1983) • Interrelated taste and energy/properties to “balance” health.

• Yin• negative, cooling, feminine

• Yang• positive, male, heating

• Dominant “taste” of foods • sweet, sour, salt, bitter, pungent

• 5 “energies” or “properties”• hot, warm, neutral, cool and cold

• Is there evidence to support such diet-health relationships?• Is there conflict with western concepts of health behaviours?


and the new: Functional foods

• Origins in Japan • “foods for specified health uses” FoSHU (Arai, 1996;

2002)• regulated

• potential for greater use of functional foods • Japan, • China • Korea• + Other Asian countries• (Tee, Chen & Ong, 2004; Kojima, 1996; Milo Ohr, 2003).

• Japanese market = US$16 billion (and growing) (http://www.functionalfoodsjapan.com/pages/3/).



Food


Nutrient content




Price Availability

Brand

Attitudes



Motives for food choice: attitudes and beliefs across cultures 1)

• Belgian, French, US and Japanese beliefs (Rozin et al, 1999) about

• diet-health link, • worry about food, • the degree of consumption of food modified to be healthier, • the importance of food as a positive force in life, • the tendency to associate foods with nutritional vs. culinary

contexts, • satisfaction with the healthiness of one’s own diet

• beliefs about the importance of diet for health = same• However for all other items there were substantial

country (and usually gender) differences. • Japanese:

• the most diet-health conscious • least anxious about their diet. • rated culinary associations with food most highly.



Food


Nutrient content




Price Availability

Brand

Attitudes



Recent examples

• A PERSON approach • Behavioural theory and predictive analysis

• Protection motivation theory • example

• A FOOD approach• Which attributes of a product drive acceptance

• How (non-chemosensory) extrinsic attributes of foods can drive preference;– using conjoint analysis

• example

• recognising different segments in populations • segmentation - cluster analysis


1) Person approach

• 2 examples of validated behavioural theory based tools• Australian• Plans to work ‘somewhere’ in Asia

• Psycho-social predictors of dietary intake • Quantitative models• Common variables across theories• Models are modified by additional variables• Baranowski, Cullen & Baranowski, Ann. Rev. Nutr 19, 17-40,

1999• Typical R2 = 0.3 i.e. 30% of the variance in intention to behave

or behaviour explained• Improving variance explained

• Additional variables • Specific behaviours (specific foods)


Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985)

•Frequently used model

•Modified and augmented by additional variables e.g. self identity; perceived need; habit

•Additional?

•Mediators?

•Moderators?

•Specific discrete behaviours (e.g. increasing fruit & veg) easier to predict than complex behaviour (low fat diets)

•See Armitage & Conner, 2001; extensive application by R. Shepherd et al; Brug


The Theory of Planned Behaviour, (TPB, Ajzen 1985) and Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA, Fishbein & Ajzen 1980)

• Lee (1990) modified TRA for a Korean “Confucian”culture

• included emic constructs “face-saving” and “group conformity pressure” as TRA’s “social (subjective) norms”

• regressed attitudes upon those constructs • Lee & Green, (1991) tested cross-culturally (Korea vs.

USA) the conventional design of TPB, using structural equation modeling (LISREL) for “goodness of fit”.

• The model was found to fit the Korean culture • purchase intentions were predicted by

• subjective norm (others influence) for Koreans (β 0.87) • attitudes in the USA (β 0.90). • consistent with cultural differences in values

• models appear to fit one Asian culture • limited evidence


Recent Korean application of TPB (Chen, 2007)

• Attitudes towards organic foods (n = 440), • moderating effects of food related personality traits

• Food Choice questionnaire (Steptoe et al, 1995) • Food Neophobia scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992); • Food Involvement scale (Marshall & Bell, 2004)

• RESULTS: • TPB variables moderated by Food involvement. • Main effects • Adjusted R2 0.77. • Intention to purchase organic foods predicted by

• Attitude (β 0.58, p <0.01); • Subjective norm (β 0.21, p <0.01); • Perceived behavioural control (β 0.22, p <0.01); • Perceived difficulty (β -0.04, p = 0.04);

• Attitudes predicted by Food Choice questionnaire items (Steptoe et al, 1995)

• mood, convenience (-), natural content, animal welfare, environment; political values, religion


Protection motivation theory (Maddux & Rogers, 1983)

• Originally applied to health education messages• Also applied to perceptions of health-enhancing foods

and supplements• Omega-3

• Cox, Evans, Lease, in press• Selenium enriched foods

• Cox & Bastiaans, 2007 • Functional foods

• Cox, Koster & Russell, 2004; • Heart healthy foods / exercise

• Plotnikoff & Higginbotham, 1998; Plotnikoff & Higginbotham, 1995 • Osteoporosis, Calcium

• Smith Klohn & Rogers, 1991; Wurtele, 1988


Protection motivation theory

THREAT APPRAISAL:

Perceived vulnerability

Perceived severity

COPING APPRAISAL:

Behaviour efficacy

Self efficacy

Intentions Behaviourr = 0.4

Barriers / costs


Objectives (Cox, Evans, Lease, Public Health Nutrition, in press)

• To elicit predictors of variation in intentions to consume novel and conventional foods rich in Long chain fatty acids (LCO3FA), EPA and DHA,

• LCO3FA• protective against coronary heart disease (and other chronic

diseases); • enhances cognitive function (?)

• Intakes low in Australia, USA, China etc (Vietnam?)• To understand potential demand for novel sources of

LCO3FA.• “functional foods”• Hypothesis

• Perceived vulnerability to CHD would drive likelihood to consume LCO3FA rich foods


Methods

• Design • Responses from a consumer sample (n = 220) were elicited. • Independent variables included • protection motivation theory, risk/benefit, CHD risk factors and

socio-demographics.

• Stimuli (Food concepts)• Descriptions of model products representing options for

possible (future) consumption were presented • Dependent variables

• scores for “likelihood to consume”.


Multivariate analysis of results

• RM-ANOVA, post hoc Bonferroni tests• Backward elimination multiple regression

• standardised β values• For every 1 unit change in the independent variables, the

dependent variable changes by β values• R2 amount of variance explained


Likelihood to purchase scores (7 point scale, n = 220)

Figure 1: 'Likelihood to purchase' long chain omega-3 rich product concepts

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Milk with GMoilseed

Milk with fishoil

GM oilseedsupplements

Bread with GMoilseed

Farmed fish(fed GMoilseed)

Bread with fishoil

Fish oilsupplements

Farmed fish(fed fishmeal)

Mea

n lik

elih

ood

to p

urch

ase

ratin

gs

c c c

b b b

a

*Values not sharing a common subscript are significantly different from each other (p<0.01, Bonferroni p< 0.0035

c


Predictors (standardised β) of likelihood to purchase

Self Efficacy

(Farmed fish fed fishmeal)

Belief thatfishmeal is unnatural

Behaviour

(product) Efficacy

Farmed Fish

(fed fishmeal)

0.56***

0.19***

-0.14**

R2 = 0.44

*** p < 0.001** p < 0.01


Self Efficacy(fish fed GM

oilseed)

BMI

Perceived Severity of CHD

Farmed Fish

(fed GM oilseed)

0.65***

-0.13*

0.11*

R2 = 0.49

Belief thatGM oilseed is

unnatural

Significant other had/has arthritis

0.15**

0.11*

Predictors (standardised β) of likelihood to purchase

*** p < 0.001** p < 0.01* p < 0.05


Conjoint & cluster analysis

• A useful tool for assessing which attributes of (novel) products may drive acceptance (van Kleef et al, 2005)

• Extrinsic (non-chemosensory) attributes• Base product• price

• Credence attributes • health claims, • sources of information

• Product concept profiles • Product attributes as drivers of acceptance

• relative importance of attributes, • utility-disutility of “levels” of attributes,• Utility = worth or value• Part-worths


Product profile example (Cox, Evans, Lease, Food Quality and Preference, in press)

“Good source of long-chain omega-3 oils.”LABEL

National Heart FoundationSOURCE OF INFORMATION ON PRODUCT

$2.50 extra per weekADDITIONAL COST PER WEEK(Additional cost per week to attain the recommended daily

intake of omega-3 with this product)

2 servings per weekREQUIRED INTAKE(Amount of the product required in order to attain the

recommended daily intake of omega-3 )

Farmed tuna or salmon (fresh or canned) that has been fed omega-3 rich food made from genetically modified plants

PRODUCT(The product in which the long-chain omega-3 oil is contained

and the source from which the omega-3 oil originated)


Importance & utilities : whole sample n = 220

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4

relative utility

+ Cost (8.8%)

Label (22.1%)

Information source (17%)

Source of LCO3FA (20.3%)

Base product (31.9%)

$3.50$3.00$2.50$2.00none

RR CHD (health claim)

ManufacturerFSANZ

CSIROGM oilseed

Fish (oil)

Good source LC omega-3Good source omega-3

Rich in omega-3National Heart Foundation

SupplementsMilkBread

Fish

+-


Distinguishing characteristics of clusters: attitudes

Segmentation (clusters) based upon psycho-social –attitudinal not demographic - differences.

• K-means clustering (k = 3)• Cluster 1(28%) “conservatives”

• significantly less positive about the benefits and safety of thetechnologies (than C2)

• Perceived lowest risk of heart disease. • less confident (than C2) that they would consume novel foods

containing LCO3FA, although they rated GM oilseed higher than C3• Cluster group 2 (51%) “confidant protectors”

• positive about technologies • High perceived risk of heart disease • important to choose a protective diet. • ‘unnaturalness’ of fishmeal and GM oilseed rated low• confident that they could consume foods containing LCO3FA, including

GM• Cluster 3 (20%) “anti-GM”

• Lowest perceived benefits and safety of both sources of LCO3FA • risk of heart disease similar to C2


Distinguishing characteristics of clusters: attitudes

Cluster 2 “confident protectors” n = 113, 51%

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

relative utility

Base product (33%)

Source of LCO3FA (16.4%)

Information source (18.1%)

Label (23.8%)

+ Cost (8.8%)

GM oilseed

+-


Summary & conclusions

• Food choice measurement is ‘western’ in origin • a paucity of published empirical Asian studies. • differences in physiology and genetics are unlikely to

be major contributors towards differences in perceptions or preferences for foods

• Culture (belief systems, values and experiences) are likely to be central to consumer preferences

• wealth of information on culture• few published studies that link culture and consumer

behaviour• Need to build on diet-health beliefs • Some application of behavioural theories. • Importance of extrinsic attributes


Summary & conclusions

• Food choice is complex and multivariate• At the individual level there is evidence that acceptance

is moderated by attitudes• Drivers of acceptance of “health enhanced” foods • a PERSON perspective using psycho-social predictive

theories - protection motivation theory • And from a FOOD perspective - conjoint analysis• Segments of consumers can be identified using cluster

analysis (attitudes)• Links to sensory• Need for multi-disciplinary approaches

Thank you

Human NutritionDavid N CoxResearch Scientist

Phone: +61 8 8303 8811Email: [email protected]: www.csiro.au

food acceptance: understanding food choices of asian...

Documents