IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iefi11/122005.html

Validation of a Psychometric Scale to Measure Consumers’ Fears of Modern Food Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Caracciolo, Francesco
  • Coppola, Adele
  • Verneau, Fabio

Abstract

The main consumer trends in food sector are two: on the one hand there is a growing demand for modernity (functional foods, convenience foods, healthy foods such as low calories and low-sodium foods), on the other hand there is a increasing demands for naturalness (organic foods, natural foods, local products and typical products). Moreover, in recent years consumers’ fears of novel food technologies are well documented and several psychometric scales were tested for the analysis of consumer’s attitude towards new technology. Therefore the ability to identify population segments that have greater or lesser neophobia/neophilia, thus enabling identification of early adopters of innovative products, would be more and more useful. A survey which bore such considerations in mind was conducted on a representative sample of 355 people interviewed shortly after their shopping trip to super- and hyper-markets in Campania region. A questionnaire was submitted to sample in spring 2010. The questionnaire collected information about the perception of new food technologies, the perception of naturalness and their roles in determining consumer preferences for different food products. To collect information about consumers perceptions we adopted the FTNS scale (Food Technology Neophobia Scale) which represents a useful tool for assessing receptivity to foods produced by novel technologies. A specific section of the questionnaire covered a case study and gathered information about the willingness to buy food products that consumers can associate to a greater or lesser use of modern technologies and belonging to a specific set of six food categories: functional foods, low calories foods, convenience foods (ready to eat) typical foods, organic foods, short chain products. First findings confirm that FTNS scale is a good instrument for predicting individuals’ willingness to try foods produced using modern technologies Moreover first results are consistent across the different types of products and technologies tested and thus provide consistent evidence of predictive validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Caracciolo, Francesco & Coppola, Adele & Verneau, Fabio, 2011. "Validation of a Psychometric Scale to Measure Consumers’ Fears of Modern Food Technologies," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122005, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iefi11:122005
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.122005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/122005/files/13-Verneau%20et%20al..pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.122005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hwang, Yun Jae & Roe, Brian E. & Teisl, Mario F., 2005. "An Empirical Analysis of United States Consumers' Concerns about Eight Food Production and Processing Technologies," 2005 Annual meeting, July 24-27, Providence, RI 19128, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Paul Rozin, 2006. "Naturalness judgments by lay Americans: Process dominates content in judgments of food or water acceptability and naturalness," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 91-97, November.
    3. Paul Sparks & Richard Shepherd, 1994. "Public Perceptions of the Potential Hazards Associated with Food Production and Food Consumption: An Empirical Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(5), pages 799-806, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lizbeth Salgado-Beltrán & Luis F. Beltrán-Morales & Alma T. Velarde-Mendivil & María E. Robles-Baldenegro, 2018. "Attitudes and Sensory Perceptions of Food Consumers towards Technological Innovation in Mexico: A Case-Study on Rice-Based Dessert," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Aisha Egolf & Christina Hartmann & Michael Siegrist, 2019. "When Evolution Works Against the Future: Disgust's Contributions to the Acceptance of New Food Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(7), pages 1546-1559, July.
    2. Monique M. Raats & Richard Shepherd, 1996. "Developing a Subject‐Derived Terminology to Describe Perceptions of Chemicals in Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(2), pages 133-146, April.
    3. Angela Bearth & Marie‐Eve Cousin & Michael Siegrist, 2016. "“The Dose Makes the Poison”: Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(1), pages 130-144, January.
    4. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2017. "Towards a better understanding of eating behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk," Post-Print halshs-02923251, HAL.
    5. Lynn Frewer & Chaya Howard & Richard Shepherd, 1998. "The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 15(1), pages 15-30, March.
    6. Marie-Eve Laporte & Géraldine Michel & Sophie Rieunier, 2015. "Toward a better understanding of eating-behaviour through the concept of Perception of Nutritional Risk [Mieux comprendre les comportements alimentaires grâce au concept de perception du risque nutritionnel]," Post-Print hal-02054434, HAL.
    7. Qiang Liu & Lin Wang & Mengyu Luo, 2025. "When seeing is not believing: self-efficacy and cynicism in the era of intelligent media," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-13, December.
    8. Ian H. Langford, 2002. "An Existential Approach to Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(1), pages 101-120, February.
    9. repec:jdm:journl:v:17:y:2022:i:6:p:1334-1352 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Riccardo Vecchio & Eva Parga-Dans & Pablo Alonso González & Azzurra Annunziata, 2021. "Why consumers drink natural wine? Consumer perception and information about natural wine," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, December.
    11. Houghton, J.R. & Rowe, G. & Frewer, L.J. & Van Kleef, E. & Chryssochoidis, G. & Kehagia, O. & Korzen-Bohr, S. & Lassen, J. & Pfenning, U. & Strada, A., 2008. "The quality of food risk management in Europe: Perspectives and priorities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 13-26, February.
    12. Andrew Knight, 2007. "Intervening Effects of Knowledge, Morality, Trust, and Benefits on Support for Animal and Plant Biotechnology Applications," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(6), pages 1553-1563, December.
    13. Hugh Campbell & Anne Murcott & Angela MacKenzie, 2011. "Kosher in New York City, halal in Aquitaine: challenging the relationship between neoliberalism and food auditing," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(1), pages 67-79, February.
    14. Melkonyan, Tigran A., 2011. "The Effect of Communicating Ambiguous Risk Information on Choice," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 1-21, August.
    15. Joanna Burger & Melanie Hughes McDermott & Caron Chess & Eleanor Bochenek & Marla Perez‐Lugo & Kerry Kirk Pflugh, 2003. "Evaluating Risk Communication about Fish Consumption Advisories: Efficacy of a Brochure versus a Classroom Lesson in Spanish and English," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(4), pages 791-803, August.
    16. Deana Grobe & Robin Douthitt & Lydia Zepeda, 1999. "A Model of Consumers' Risk Perceptions Toward Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rbGH): The Impact of Risk Characteristics," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 661-673, August.
    17. Springer, A. & Mattas, Konstadinos & Papastefanou, G. & Tsioumanis, Asterios, 2002. "Comparing Consumer Attitudes towards Genetically Modified Food in Europe," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24858, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Courtney Szocs & Sara Williamson & Adam Mills, 2022. "Contained: why it’s better to display some products without a package," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 131-146, January.
    19. Michael Siegrist & Joseph Árvai, 2020. "Risk Perception: Reflections on 40 Years of Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2191-2206, November.
    20. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    21. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:iefi11:122005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ilbonde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.