This article was downloaded by: [Washington State University Libraries ]On: 10 November 2014, At: 23:48Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bfsn20

Variables Influencing Food Perception Reviewed forConsumer-Oriented Product DevelopmentSiet Sijtsema a , Anita Linnemann b , Ton van Gaasbeek a , Hans Dagevos a & Wim Jongen ba LEI Agricultural Economics Research Institute, P.O. Box 29703, 2502 LS The Hague, TheNetherlandsb Product Design and Quality Management Group, Department of Agrotechnology and FoodSciences, Wageningen UniversityPublished online: 03 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Siet Sijtsema , Anita Linnemann , Ton van Gaasbeek , Hans Dagevos & Wim Jongen (2002) VariablesInfluencing Food Perception Reviewed for Consumer-Oriented Product Development, Critical Reviews in Food Science andNutrition, 42:6, 565-581, DOI: 10.1080/20024091054256

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20024091054256

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

565

1040-8398/02/$.50© 2002 by CRC Press LLC

Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42(6):565–581 (2002)

Variables Influencing Food Perception Reviewedfor Consumer-Oriented Product Development

Siet Sijtsema,1 Anita Linnemann,2 Ton van Gaasbeek,1 Hans Dagevos,1

and Wim Jongen2

1LEI Agricultural Economics Research Institute, P.O. Box 29703, 2502 LS The Hague, The Netherlands;2Product Design and Quality Management Group, Department of Agrotechnology and Food Sciences,Wageningen University

Referee: Professor Ben Senauer, Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, 317 Classroon Office Building, 1994

Buford Avenue St. Paul, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108-6040

ABSTRACT: Consumer wishes have to be translated into product characteristics to implement consumer-orientedproduct development. Before this step can be made, insight in food-related behavior and perception of consumersis necessary to make the right, useful, and successful translation. Food choice behavior and consumers’ perceptionare studied in many disciplines. Models of food behavior and preferences therefore were studied from amultidisciplinary perspective. Nearly all models structure the determinants related to the person, the food, and theenvironment.

Consequently, the overview of models was used as a basis to structure the variables influencing foodperception into a model for consumer-oriented product development. To this new model, referred to as foodperception model, other variables like time and place as part of consumption moment were added. These areimportant variables influencing consumers’ perception, and therefore of increasing importance to consumer-oriented product development nowadays. In further research, the presented food perception model is used as a toolto implement successful consumer-oriented product development.

KEY WORDS: food perception model, multidisciplinary, product development.

I. FOOD AND CONSUMERS’PERCEPTION

During the last century important developmentsin the position of food in daily life of consumers*

and producers took place. In earlier times consum-ers were self-sufficient, but during the last centurythis changed into an industrialization of the foodproduction process. At the beginning of the 20th

century there still was scarcity of food, while at theend of this century the amount of food was abun-dant in the industrialized countries. In times ofscarcity the main focus of consumers is on gettingenough nutrition, whereas farmers and producerstry to maximize the amount of production. In those

times new product development was mainly tech-nology driven. Nowadays, however fundamentalchanges in demographics, labor force participa-tion, and income distribution, dictate changes inthe food system (Kinsey and Senauer, 1996). Pro-ducers realize that the food supply chain has tobecome a food demand chain driven by consum-ers’ priorities. This has impact on the food productdevelopment process. In times of abundance, con-sumers are getting more power. So, if producerswant to be successful, they have to make the prod-uct development process more consumer oriented.Thus, market orientation in the food industry helpsto build a better competitive position for future(Grunert et al., 1996).

* A consumer is the person who buys, prepares, or eats the product. Consumption is defined as the use of a product (Peter and Olson,1996). Food consumption refers to a behavioral act involving the acquisition of food.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

566

Moreover, the above-mentioned developmentsdo not only have big influence on the food pro-duction chain, they also have great impact onattitudes and beliefs of the way consumers seetheir food. Many disciplines study this area inwhich food, choice, behavior, perception, andproduct development are researched in their ownperspective. For being a successful producer anintegrative approach is necessary; therefore, inthis study a multidisciplinary approach is used.Food perception is discussed from consumers’perspective with focus on the relevance for prod-uct developers in the food industry. The foodindustry requires insight in food perception todevelop new products successfully. In this studya multidisciplinary approach is used as an integra-tive approach is necessary for being a successfulproducer. This approach can be seen as a first steptoward Quality Function Deployment (QFD),which is a planning tool to support the process ofproduct development. QFD is a systematic meansof ensuring that customer or market requirementsare accurately translated into relevant technicalrequirements and actions through each stage ofproduct development (Fortuna, 1988). Dekker andLinnemann (1998) describe an application of theQFD method. The voice of the customer is thestarting point of the QFD method, every next stepis based on this information. So, for successfulimplementation of QFD, it is important to selectthe most relevant product attributes and moreoverhave insight in consumers’ perception of the prod-uct attributes. Therefore, this study can be seen asan approach to gather the right input for the QFDmethod. Food perception is discussed from con-sumers’ perspective with the focus on the rel-evance for product developers in the food indus-try. Product developers require insight in foodperception to develop new products successfully.In this study a multidisciplinary approach is usedto structure the variables influencing food percep-tion to gather the most relevant input for a con-sumer-oriented product development process. Thisis the first step to reach consumer-oriented prod-uct development as part of a food demand chain.

Many interrelating factors or determinants,such as demographic variables, and factors likepreference and aversion, attitudes, habits, and sta-tus influence consumers’ perception of a particu-

lar food product. A literature overview of theseaspects is presented, as well as an evaluation ofmodels used to describe food-related behavior. Atfirst different functions of food will be describedto put the topic of food in the right perspective.

A. Functions of Food

Food carries symbolic meanings and has psy-chological significance beyond its nutritive value,which becomes secondary for many consumers(Kahn, 1981). So people have a physiologicalneed for food, and besides that they have a socialand psychological need. The physiological needfor food, that is, alleviating one’s hunger, con-tains functions like growth, maintenance, repro-duction, and activity. This need for food was forages in times of scarcity the decisive element offood consumption. Nowadays the physiologicalneed is more and more optimized in terms ofcontent of nutrients like carbohydrates, fat andvitamins, and minerals. Moreover, in the industri-alized countries many people eat too much or donot have the right eating habits, which results inthe increasing of the average weight, whichreached an unhealthy level for a quarter part ofthe Dutch society.

During the period of scarcity, the social andpsychological need for food developed. The so-cial need of food concerns the rules and habitsassociated with which products can and cannot beeaten in a particular way on a specific occasion,and are considered as culture and traditions. Thesocial and psychological need consists of the fol-lowing functions (Toors and Veen, 1985):

• The gastronomic function. People eat becauseof the pleasant taste of food, the hedonistic partof eating. A combination of different spicesand herbs or a combination of different dishesand drinks makes people enjoy food. More-over, atmosphere, entourage, and a nicelydressed table influence the hedonistic part offood. Taste is based on an observation ofsensorical characteristics of the food, influ-enced by the environment. Taste preferencesare partly innate and partly influenced by cul-ture and its traditions. This gastronomic func-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

567

tion is studied by disciplines related tosensorical analysis, but also some of the workof nutritionists, anthropologists, sociologists,and marketers deals with this topic. The impactof this function changed drastically becauseconsumers of industrialized countries live inan environment of abundance.

• The communication function. Eating togetheris usually considered more pleasant than eatingalone. During the meal the members of thegroup can talk about daily experiences. It canstrengthen the solidarity within the group. Thisis, for example, an essential part of a businessdinner. Anthropologists as well as sociologistsstudy these social aspects of food in society.

• The status function. With certain food habitspeople are able to discern themselves fromothers and themselves. Serving an exclusivedinner to guests can be a way to show a certainstatus. This means that some people buy prod-ucts from a certain brand only when servingthem to guests. This example shows that thistopic is of interest to marketers, but it is alsostudied in economics, sociology, and psychol-ogy.

• The power function. Ways to enforce some-thing by food can be a hunger strike or a boy-cott for food products from a certain factory orcountry, which, for instance, annoys humanrights. Even in a parent-child relation the childcan refuse to eat to get to know its power.Sociology and psychology study the positionof power in families or societies.

• The safety and security function. The satis-faction of needs by the use of food is influ-enced by the culture in which someone is liv-ing. While eating together people get to knowcertain habits about what to eat and what not toeat. People get to know rules about how tobelong to the group. So people living in acertain country or region, get used to certainhabits about when and what should be eaten.People try to maintain these habits in case ofemigration. Even during holidays people pre-fer their own type of food. An example is theDutch restaurants in Spain. This function hasobtained an additional meaning when takingthe BSE crisis in consideration. Trust of con-sumers in the food production system is de-

creasing, especially in those countries wherethe role of the government toward this topic issubject of discussion. Disciplines like anthro-pology, sociology, and economics study thisfunction.

• The magic function. Some foodstuffs are con-sidered to have a special meaning that can notbe physiologically explained. These productsare expected to have a positive influence onhealthy or sick people. In the Netherlands, forinstance, many people think that eggs have aninfluence on potency. Such specific character-istics that consumers relate to food are studiedby anthropology.

• The religious function. In religion food oftenhas a symbolic meaning. Jewish people willnot eat pork and have their own way of slaugh-tering. Not only certain products have a differ-ent symbolic meaning for different religions,also the amount and the time of consumptioncan have a meaning, for example a period offasting. Theology and anthropology study theseaspects of food.

The above description of the functions of foodshould not suggest that each function is linked tospecific products or consumers. Moreover, thecontent of a function varies over time and is influ-enced by the context or consumption moment anddiffers per consumer. For example, during recentdecades in industrialized countries consumerschoose from many products, which might indi-cate that the social and psychological need forfood obtained a different meaning. The socialneed for food changed, because of increasing la-bor participation of women. The increased laborforce participation of women is one of the majorsocial and economic phenomena of our time withfar-reaching implications, such as a rising de-mand for convenience (Kinsey and Senauer, 1996).Like the changes in the social and psychologicalneed for food, the physiological need for food isoptimized in these times for abundance. It be-comes more related to optimisation of nutritionalcomponents and healthy aspects of food, that is,the development of functional foods.

In the aforementioned paragraph already somedisciplines are mentioned studying the area ofconsumers, food, and topics related to it. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

568

basis of food intake, namely, a physiological need,is a topic for biologists and nutritionists. Thesescientists began studying relations between theamount of macro-nutrients and illnesses. Nowa-days the focus is on optimization of macro- aswell as micro-nutrients, and on so-callednonnutrients related to well-being and the preven-tion of illnesses.

The need for food in relation to its function ingroups of people is studied by anthropologists,psychologists, sociologists, marketers, and econo-mists who place food in a societal perspective. Inpsychology, most literature about food that dealswith eating concerns quantity: regulation of foodintake, and disorders related to food intake, suchas obesity, anorexia nervosa, and bulimia (Rozin,1996), while economists translate food consump-tion into elasticity curves of price and income.The cultural aspects of food and the function offood in a group were first studied by anthropolo-gists. Recently, also sociologists started to studythe differences of food use and choice in differentcountries (Menell et al., 1992).

B. Multidisciplinary Topic

The above description about food and its func-tions shows that food and consumers are studied bymany disciplines. In 1982 Barker edited a bookabout food selection in biological, psychological,and socio-cultural perspective. Another example isMacBeth (1997), who also edited a book withchapters written by specialists from different disci-plines. That food is a multidisciplinary researchfield is also described by Fieldhouse (1995):“Whereas it is easily seen that the direct conse-quences of food intake are biological — food meetsthe energy and nutrient needs of the body — it isalso apparent that nature of food intake is shapedby a wide variety of geographical, social, psycho-logical, religious, economic and political factors.”Shepherd (1990) underlined this: “In order to ar-rive at an overall understanding of reasons for foodchoice it will be necessary to adopt an interdiscipli-nary approach taking into account inputs from thesevarious sources”. Rozin (1996) stressed that inparticular the social context is important: “The actof eating is usually overtly social, and the context

of eating is invariably social, in many ways” Thisis further described in an earlier paragraph.

It is recognized that an integrative approachis necessary to reach consumer-oriented productdevelopment.

II. CONSUMERS’ TERMINOLOGYCONCERNING FOOD (PERCEPTION)AND FOOD PRODUCTS

The process of food perception always con-sists of an actor, the consumer or purchaser, andan object, the food product, which are inextrica-bly related to each other. To fully understand thecomplexities in the models describing consumersand their food in the next paragraphs, the term‘perception’ is explained and supplemented withdifferent variables and characteristics describingconsumers, food products, and the relationshipbetween these.

A. Perception

The Oxford dictionary defines perception as‘to take in or apprehend with the mind or senses’.‘Apprehend with the mind’ means ‘to become awareor conscious of, to observe, understand’. This ex-planation of perception shows the cognitive as wellas the affective part of perception. So, besidesratio, emotions also play a role when the worldaround us is perceived. Each consumer perceivesthe environment in his or her own way. Peoplediffer in their perception of reality depending ontheir own experiences, life histories, and personalsituations (Antonides and Van Raaij, 1996). Con-sumers perceive the product while they buy, pre-pare, and consume it. Perception is based onsensorical observations of individual (perceptor)and product characteristics (stimuli). So, productcharacteristics like package, appearance, taste, andsmell are part of what has influence on perceptionby the consumer. Besides these characteristics, otheraspects influence the perception, such as experi-ences, atmosphere while perceiving the productand indirect product characteristics like environ-ment-friendly breeding and production methods.Perception is a complex process of the senses and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

569

the brain that is influenced by many variables thatare hard to disentangle.

Perception is based on the way consumersinterpret reality. Antonides and Van Raaij (1996)distinguish four types of reality (see Figure 1),which are in this study linked to aspects related tofood in daily life:

• The objective reality of people, products, andbrands. This kind of reality is based on thescientific knowledge of food. The objectivereality of products is, for example, describedby its physical characteristics. In the Nether-lands the Voedingscentrum is an organizationthat gives consumers guidelines for a healthydiet, based on scientific research. Its aim is tobe an independent organization to inform theDutch consumer. Consumers can consult thisorganization with questions about the quantityor frequency of specific food products in theireating pattern.

• The reality as constructed and represented inadvertisements, usage instructions, and infor-mation given by consumer-organizations andinformation from other sources. This type ofinformation is given to the consumer in manydifferent ways more or less with or without anobjective character. The difference between theaforementioned type of reality and this one isnot always clear to the consumer. Examples oftransfers of this type of information are recipes

and claims of ingredients on the package or inthe shop, or the information consumers getfrom interest groups, for example, theConsumentenbond in the Netherlands, orGreenpeace.

• The reality of other consumers, their experi-ences and judgements. Information of this typeof reality is closest to the consumers, as theirdaily environment includes relations with fam-ily and friends.

• The subjective reality (perception) of con-sumers. This subjective reality is influenced byall three aforementioned viewpoints of reality.Depending on characteristics of the consumer,for example, education level, the individualwill be more or less influenced by the othertypes of reality.

The starting point of perception is the afore-mentioned objective reality, but it might be dis-puted whether there really exists such an objec-tive reality, because reality is always perceivedand interpreted by a person with his or her ownframework of thinking. This division is used inthis study, although the author is aware of thisproblem. It is useful because this division enablesus to group the different sources of informationthat influence the consumer.

Reality is the starting point of the individual’sperception. Every individual will observe andinterpret this reality in his or her own way de-

FIGURE 1. Three levels and four types of reality.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

570

pending on the context. This perception of realitycan be divided in different types. These will bedescribed in combination with health-related as-pects of food in the next paragraph.

1. Four Mechanisms of Perception(Antonides and Van Raaij, 1996)

a. Completing Perception

People are inclined to complete their obser-vations. If a product is good on three productattributes, consumers tend to assume that the prod-uct will be good on a fourth attribute as well. Aconsequence of this attitude could be that if aproduct has one characteristic related to health,consumers assume that it is a healthy product. Animportant question for product development is onwhich level consumers complete their observa-tion? Is it only based on ingredient level or moregenerally based on price, taste, and health, or, forexample, related to biologically grown and pro-duced under animal friendly conditions?

b. Selective Perception

This implies that people observe certain as-pects of reality and do not note other aspects. Forexample, if consumers get an overload of infor-mation about healthy food, they might continue todrink coffee for its good taste, although they areaware that this is unhealthy. Especially for health-related topics, this is an interesting aspect of per-ception, because in a next step of this study istried to establish what people observe if they lookfor healthy food.

c. Biased Perception

Because of different life histories, circum-stances, moods, tasks, and goals, reality is per-ceived differently by each consumer. Moods andfeelings can strongly influence what we observe.The integration of moods in the process of prod-uct development might be hard because it is re-lated to aspects, which are hard to control in a

study. In product development is it a specific jobregularly done by marketing departments. Themarketers try to give a product an image that suitsto a specific mood of the consumer.

d. Perceptual Differentiation

Differentiation in perception implies thatmore aspects are included in the judgement andthat more categories are formed to classify phe-nomena. When a person is more knowledgeableabout food and health, he or she can identifymore healthy aspects and will probably arrive ata more differentiated image of reality. Whentalking about health, this is an important issue toconsider.

Different intermediaries are important to getinsight in the aforementioned types of perception.The most useful intermediaries for product devel-opment will be described and, if possible, an ex-ample of perception in relation to food is given.For a more detailed description see Antonidesand Van Raaij (1996).

Prior knowledge and experience result inspecific or different expectations and lead to in-volvement. People with certain knowledge aboutfood have a different perception than people with-out this knowledge. In the description of Antonidesand Van Raaij (1996) is not clear whether thisknowledge is already part of the consumer (i.e.,knowledge about healthy diet) or given to theperson at the right moment (i.e., health claim onthe food product).

The orientation of the consumer leads to amore selective observation of the environment. Ifthe consumer is convenience oriented, he or shewill note more advertisements about this topic.An orientation is a direction, a purpose, or goal ofthe behavior of the consumer. This means thatconsumers can be divided in groups based onorientations. An example is the division of differ-ent types of consumers by Meulenberg (1996).He divides food orientation of consumers in,among others, price, health, variation, and conve-nience. This orientation is probably connected toattitudes or lifestyles of consumers. For food arelation is expected between prior knowledge andorientation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

571

Perceptions can be colored or biased by thecircumstances of a situation. Especially for foodperception this is an important point. When timeis limited, people choose products with other char-acteristics than when time is not a constraint.Selective and biased perception, and perceptualdifferentiation take place.

Expectations deal with the fact that we largelysee what we expect to see. What we know andfeel influences each observation. Coloring theobservation is mainly affective or emotional.

B. Preferences

In sensory evaluation food preference is de-fined as the degree of like or dislike for a food(Pilgrim, 1957). Preference is often used to referto affective ratings (liking/disliking) of foodnames. This agrees with a definition of Randalland Sanjur (1981) that, more generally, food pref-erence is a phenomenon that rests predominantlyin the affective domain and can exist indepen-dently of consumption. Another way of describ-ing preference is integrating a behavioral compo-nent in it. Cardello et al. (2000), for example,describes preference to be a behavioral measure,that is, “choice of one sample over another”. Thecomplexity of preference is explained by Rozin(1996): “ Liking is one reason for preferring A to B,but not the only reason. One might like B more,but think it is unhealthy or impolite to eat it”.Food preferences have been used as predictors ofbehavior in a wide variety of situations. There isevidence that food preference constitutes one ofthe strongest single predictors of food choicesand food acceptance (Meiselman, 1986). Hence,it should not be expected that food preferencescan predict product acceptance or intake in spe-cific situations (Meiselmann, 1996). The abovedescription of preference is in accordance withthe different definitions of preferences discussedby Axelson and Brinberg (1989).

C. Acceptability

Food acceptability denotes the consumptionaccompanied by pleasure (Pilgrim, 1957). This

definition emphasizes that, unlike consumption,acceptance is comprised of both a behavioral andan attitudinal component, the pleasure inherent init. Nowadays, food acceptance is treated as aperceptual/evaluative construct (Cardello, 1996).It is a phenomenological experience, best catego-rized as a feeling, emotion, or mood with a defin-ing pleasant or unpleasant character. As it is asubjective construct, measurement of food accep-tance relies on the use of psychometric, psycho-physical, and/or behavioral methods. In commonpractice, those investigators who are more inter-ested in the consequences of food acceptance willuse behavioral measures, for example, choice andconsumption, as a primary index. In contrast topreference, acceptance is reserved for affectiveratings of foods that are actually tasted (Cardelloet al., 2000).

D. Wishes and Demands

Consumer wishes are defined as food char-acteristics formulated in a general way, not spe-cifically related to a certain product, with along-term component and partly based on ide-ology. Food ideology is a combination of atti-tudes, beliefs, customs, and taboos affectingthe diet of a given group (Fieldhouse, 1995).The consumer is rarely aware of the influenceof this ideology on his or her behavior. Con-sumer wishes can be described by general terms,like, for example, healthy, quality, and taste.American consumers say that health, price, taste,convenience, appearance of the food, caloriecontent and brand are variables that influencetheir food choice (Sterwart and Tinsley, 1995).European consumers give the next five vari-ables influencing their food choice: quality andfreshness, price, taste, try to eat healthy andfamily preferences (Lennernäs et al., 1997). Sen-sory appeal, health, convenience, and price areimportant factors for food choice (Steptoe etal., 1995). These variables influence food choicebehavior, but they do not say anything aboutthe choice for a single product as part of theconsumption behavior.

Next to consumer wishes there are consumerdemands defined as product attributes that the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

572

product at least should have; otherwise, the con-sumer will not choose the product.

E. Attitudes and Lifestyle

Attitudes of consumers toward food are stud-ied in many different ways. A few relevant ex-amples are given in this paragraph. Roininen et al.(1999) gave a short overview of different instru-ments to measure food-related attitudes. Theseattitudes deal with motives, ideas, and intentionsof consumers towards food. An attitude refers toa person’s feelings toward and evaluation of someobject, person, issue, or event (Fishbein and Ajzen,1975). Based on this definition, it is said that anattitude has an affective or evaluative component.On the other hand, the cognitive part is repre-sented by the term beliefs, which is defined as theinformation that a person has about an object(Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).

In a cross-cultural study of Rozin et al. (1999),attitudes are put on a concrete level, to be morespecific they put the attitudes towards food alongthe pleasure (one extreme) to stress/worry (theopposite) “axis”.

Attitudes of consumers are closely related tolifestyle. Lifestyle is described as a certain type ofbehavior, or preference for a certain type of be-havior, in which consumption plays an importantrole. Recent literature discusses the relation be-tween lifestyles and preferences for certain foodcharacteristics, that is, types of cultivation, prepa-ration, healthy, fast, or easy. For example,Schifferstein and OudeOphuis (1998) discusshealth-related determinants of organic food con-sumption.

F. Context and Product-RelatedVariables

1. Context

In recent years there has been increased atten-tion to the eating environment or context(Meiselman, 1996). As already described in anearlier paragraph, the social-psychological func-tions of food became more important. These are

closely related to the contextual aspects of con-sumption. Rozin and Tuorila (1993) state thatcontextual factors are recognized as absolutelycentral in the psychology of perception and cog-nition. They suggest three potential organizingprinciples for contextual variables (Rozin andTuorila, 1993).

1. A distinction between variables that are si-multaneous to eating and variables that areseparated in time, which they call temporal.This distinction depends on the unit of analy-sis: bite, dish, meal, or dietary pattern. Rozinand Tuorila recognize that this fundamentaldistinction is not quite unambiguous. Forexample, hunger as a temporal variable isthere before, during, and after the momentof consumption/reference event.

2. A distinction by reference unit could beused, distinguishing a single food exposure(e.g., bite) from a meal and a pattern ofeating.

3. Distinguish between food and non-food.Especially nowadays the non-food compo-nent is of increasing importance, becausethe social-psychological function of food ismore important.

Another division, by Bell and Meiselman(1995), is into those influences that are anteced-ent to food choice, and those influences that arepresent at the food choice situation. Thus, theyalso emphasize the temporal dimension.

2. Product-Related Variables

Characteristics, attributes, and ingredients areterms to describe the properties of food products.In the context of food choice a food product hasspecific characteristics that suit in the food pat-tern or diet of a consumer. Consumers take differ-ent characteristics of the food in considerationwhen perceiving, choosing, or consuming, in re-lation to the different functions of food. Not onlythe attributes that are recognized by the consumerhave to be taken into consideration, also techno-logical characteristics that are related to the pro-duction process of the product are relevant.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

573

During the choice process-quality indicatorsare of significance. Intrinsic and extrinsic signalsare noticed just before the buying decision andinfluence the choice process. The intrinsic fac-tors, like color and texture, are part of the physicalproduct. They cannot be changed without chang-ing the physical product itself (Van Trijp andSteenkamp, 1998). Extrinsic factors are related tothe product, but are physically no part of it, likeprice, brand name, country of origin, and storename (Van Trijp and Steenkamp, 1998).

Another possible distinction is based on threegroups of characteristics, namely, instrumental,rational, and emotional (Leeflang, 1986). The in-strumental characteristics have a physical andtechnical identity, which is measurable, like thepercentage of fat in margarine. The rational com-ponent can be described with the rational mean-ing of the consumer, for instance, given a certainfat percentage a consumer thinks that it is not acause of concern for coronary artery. Finally, thereare the emotional characteristics, for example,consumers are eating the product because theythink that it is healthy for him or her.

G. Comparison of Terminology

In the aforementioned paragraphs many dif-ferent terms are reviewed as part of the food-related issues concerning food and consumers.How are these terms related to each other? Thefollowing argument is based on Kahn (1981),who takes food habits as the starting point forhis study. He states that food acceptance leadsto food preferences, which are based on selec-tion of food items from choices available amongacceptable foods. Food preferences can be clas-sified further on appropriateness. In the presentstudy wishes and demands are seen as a moredetailed completion of preferences in whichcontext plays an important role. The position ofattitudes and lifestyle is on a higher more ab-stract level. Perception is not mentioned in thisdescription until now, although it is an essen-tial element. In the present study perception isseen as a variable influencing the observationrelated to the consumers’ acceptance as well astheir preferences or selection. So perception

comprehends all the elements of these food-related items.

III. MODELS OF FOOD-RELATED ITEMS

In the next part an evaluation is given ofmodels, frameworks, or schemes that considerfactors influencing food choice, acceptance, orpreferences. It is based on Shepherd (1990), whogave an overview of models about factors influ-encing food choice from the nutrition literature.Three models with relevant variables for con-sumer-oriented product development are selectedfor discussion, viz. Pilgrim (1957), Kahn (1981),and Randall and Sanjur (1981). In addition, mod-els from Tolksdorf (1974) and Gains (1996) arediscussed. These models describe other variablesinfluencing food choice or related aspects, whichseem to be interesting to integrate in the con-sumer-oriented product development process. Inliterature also models with a focus on the productare found, for example, quality guidance(Steenkamp and Van Trijp, 1998). Here we startwith the combination of models with a consumer-oriented perspective, because of their larger ap-plicability to consumer-oriented product develop-ment. At a later stage the product perspectiveprobably has to be integrated.

As mentioned in the introduction, manychanges in the position of food in society oc-curred over time, and therefore the description ofthe models will be in a chronological order.

A. Model of Food Acceptance-Pilgrim(1957)

Pilgrim developed a model in 1957 in whichperception is the main aspect influencing foodacceptance (see Figure 2a). He describes percep-tion as being influenced by three components: thephysiology of the person, the sensation as a resultof the combination of the food, and the personand the attitudes of the individual. Already in1957 he concluded that discovery and integrationof the mechanisms by which sensations, attitudes,and physiologic phenomena lead to the develop-ment of preferences for and behavior toward foods

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

574

stands as a challenge to research ingenuity (Pil-grim, 1957).

The way perception is integrated in the modelis more general than merely perception of thesensory attributes of the food but is also seen asincluding both internal physiological signals re-lated to hunger and appetite, and external envi-ronmental and learning influences on attitudes(Shepherd, 1990). The position of perception inthis model is interesting because it is a separateelement between the three components and theacceptance of food. It supports the idea that per-ception is a central element when taking consum-ers and food acceptance into consideration.

Pilgrim constructed the model to systematizethe research work in the area of different disci-plines, in particular nutrition and sensorical analy-sis. This might be the reason that the individualperspective is central in this model.

Compared with the models of Kahn (1981)and Randall and Sanjur (1981), it is striking thatonly two components related to the individual,namely, physiology and attitudes, are mentioned.This is probably due to the traditional way ofconsumer segmentation during that time. Nowa-days additional segmentation criteria are used todescribe consumer behavior.

In 1957 the optimization of production wasthe main reason for product development, whichwas technology driven. Therefore, it is surprisingthat the product or stimulus is so summarily de-fined in this model.

The impact of physiology and attitudes canbe relatively stable or variable over short periodswith the ingestion of food. There are also externalinfluences of the environment, which can be de-scribed as a learning effect. It means that indi-viduals are able to establish ideas and attitudesbased on earlier experiences. An advantage ofthis model is the incorporation of the variablesinfluenced by time like satiety and learning ef-fects. The division in this model of physiologyand attitudes is comparable with the division ofthe physiological and social psychological func-tions of food. A disadvantage is that there is nostructure for individual-related and product-re-lated components. Moreover, the variables re-lated to the individual are divided, but in practicethe influence of physiology on attitudes cannot be

split up, which makes the model hard tooperationalize.

In conclusion, the model of Pilgrim givesinteresting starting points about perception andthe time aspect. However, additional characteris-tics of product and consumers have to be inte-grated to have useful input for consumer-orientedproduct development.

B. Model of Dinner — Tolksdorf (1975)

In ethnology dinner is object for study todescribe the complexity of food-related behavior(Jobse van Putten, 1995). A dinner is appreciatedas a representation of the complex term food.Based on the structural vision of dinner byTolksdorf (1975), a dinner exists of two parts, themeal and the situation (see Figure 2b). This divi-sion is in accordance with the food and non-foodorganizing principles for contextual variables ofRozin and Tuorila (1993). The meal, in turn, canbe divided in a food product and the preparation.The situation refers to the circumstances in whichdinner is eaten; it can be divided in time andplace. Time means weekday, weekend, or holi-day. Place is considered as at home, a restaurant,or somewhere else. The food product, prepara-tion, time, and place have their own cultural valueand are connected with each other. Each societyhas its own norms and values concerning a din-ner. As discussed in the introduction, the positionof food in terms of a dinner has changed over thelast century, and this also influenced norms andvalues toward specific products, preparation time,consumption during the week, and the place wherepeople consume their food. In conclusion, nowa-days all different aspects are much more variable,there are more products to choose from, morepreparation techniques available, and increasinglymore possibilities for places where food is con-sumed.

Although the model is quite simple, the com-ponents are not described and defined very well.The merit of the model is the fact that situation interms of time and place is taken into account.These components are more and more importantfor consumption, because consumers make or haveless time to prepare the meal. Moreover, the meal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

575

and the preparation obtained a different positionin the society during recent decades.

The simplicity of the model is an advantageas well as a disadvantage. The position of theindividual is not worked out in this model. So, forconsumer-oriented product development, thismodel should be integrated with others, such asthe model of Pilgrim (1957), Randall and Sanjur(1981).

C. Factors Influencing Food Preferences— Randall and Sanjur (1981)

In the model of factors influencing food pref-erences of Randall and Sanjur (1981), a cleardivision in three groups of characteristics: indi-vidual, food, and environment is made (see Fig-ure 2c). This model is developed to ascertain therelative importance of characteristics of the food,the individual, and the environment on the rela-tionship between food preference and consump-tion (Randall and Sanjur, 1981).

The independent variables were selected onthe criteria of the frequency with which they wereisolated in past studies and/or the strength of theproposed association with food preference. Thearrows joining the types of variables indicate in-terrelations.

In the 1980s, when this model was devel-oped, demographic variables were generally usedto describe consumption behavior of people.Therefore, it is logical that mainly demographicvariables are mentioned in this model, but nowa-days these are not sufficient to describe consum-ers, as mentioned before. Moreover, it is surpris-ing that no physiological characteristics of theconsumer are mentioned as in the model of Pil-grim (1957).

Other striking features of this model are,firstly, the allocation of the variables into thethree groups of characteristics. For example, thevariable “stage of family” is classified in the en-vironment characteristics, whereas it could alsobe part of the individual characteristics, and thevariable “the method of preparation” is also influ-enced by culture, which is a characteristic of theenvironment. Secondly, if this model is comparedto the model of Pilgrim, one misses a link tochanges over time. It is expected that the vari-ables in this model are fairly easy operationalized

D. Factors Influencing Food Preferences— Kahn (1981)

Kahn (1981) made a model with seven groupsof factors that influence food preferences (see

FIGURE 2a. Model of food acceptance (Pilgrim, 1957).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

576

FIGURE 2b. Model of dinner (Tolksdorf, 1975).

FIGURE 2c. Factors influencing food preferences (Randall and Sanjur, 1981).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

577

Figure 2c). The selection of the different types ofvariables is mainly based on research results froma nutritional perspective, but also results of otherdisciplines are integrated. Although an effort ismade to classify various factors, the list is notexhaustive (Kahn, 1981). Compared with the afore-mentioned model of Randal and Sanjur (1981), theseven groups of factors are connectable to the di-vision of terms related to food, the person, and theenvironment. Moreover, this model also shows theinteraction between the groups of factors. Withincertain groups of factors variables are mentionedon different levels, for example, related to the in-dividual, the family, or the society. Further, con-stant variables are mixed up with varying vari-ables. Although this model includes many variablesabout consumers and their preferences, it is hard tooperationalize them all together in a study.

E. Factors Influencing Food Choice—Gains (1994)

The schematic representation of the factorsinfluencing food choice of Gains (1996) shows

that any form of food-related behavior is the re-sult of the interaction between three things,namely, the food itself, the consumer and thecontext or situation within which this interactiontakes place (see Figure 2e). Food, consumer, andcontext are themselves bundles of various factorsand phenomena (Gains, 1996). Compared withthe above-mentioned models, this model does notgive additional information about the consumeror food component. However, the contextual partis of interest as already mentioned in an earlierparagraph, where the importance of the context asviewed by many authors has been discussed. Theposition of context is defined by Gains (1996) asa product of time, place, circumstance, manner,and who and what the food is consumed with.Gains (1996) mentioned that it is important tofood manufacturers to understand who might buytheir product, what the potential buyers perceivethe product to be like, and where and when theymight consume it. This model is of particularinterest because it defines context as a separatevariable influencing food choice. Moreover, itshows that all the variables are related to eachother. If this model is going to be used for product

FIGURE 2d. Factors influencing food preferences (Kahn).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

578

development, the variables have to be dividedmore clearly.

IV. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

A. Demands and Possibilities

From a previous paragraph, it is deduced thatusually three main determinants, namely, indi-vidual, environment, and product, are used to struc-ture variables related to food-related behavior orperception. Before a comprehensive model canbe made, additional criteria have to be defined toconstruct a model for consumer-oriented productdevelopment. Therefore, we started with the po-sitioning of the food-related terms based on Kahn(1981). Perception comprehends all aspects of

food acceptance as well as food preferences orselection of consumers. So each model describedgives its own useful input to create a model forfood perception to support consumer-orientedproduct development.

Another interesting aspect to consider dealswith the multidisciplinary character of the re-search field. Product development is a process inwhich different departments of different compa-nies are involved to link technology to consumerknowledge and the quality of a product. Becauseof the interrelating character of the field, therewill always be discussion about the division ofsome variables in a specific group. In our study istried to fill it in from a consumer-oriented per-spective for new product development. This meansthat on one side specific characteristics of con-sumers are incorporated that cannot be manipu-

FIGURE 2e. Factors influencing food choice (Gains, 1994).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

579

lated. On the other hand, the characteristics of theproduct that is to be optimized or adapted bytechnologists or marketers are included.

The variables can be organised on differentkinds of levels. Variables related to food consum-ing people can be linked to the individual, family,or society. Product variables can be related to a biteor, on a higher level, to a meal or dietary pattern.An earlier aragraph already gives some possibledivisions to make for contextual variables.

Because consumers have more and more prod-ucts to choose from, it becomes increasingly im-portant to relate the conceptual product to themoment the product will be consumed. In thatsense contextual variables are very important,particularly mentioned in the models of Tolksdorf(1975) and Gains (1996). Therefore, a descriptionof the context has to be given. Moreover, ele-ments like moment, time, place, and mood haveto be clear. If possible, also the time aspects likesatiety and learning effects have to be integrated.

The different schemes about determinants forfood choice behavior show that there are manyvariables discerned on different levels and de-scribed with different terms. In the model by Pil-grim (1957) there are two aspects, food and or-ganism, which influence food perception. Thisdivision is also made in the schemes of Randaland Sanjur (1981), Kahn (1981), and Gains (1996).Next to these variables with an individual or aproduct character there are variables opted withenvironmental or economic and social aspects.The subdivision in three categories, individual,product, and environment, are present in nearlyall the models mentioned in this section (Kahn,1981; Randall and Sanjur, 1981; Gains, 1996). Ingeneral, these schemes have not attempted to quan-tify the relative importance of the factors or havethey elucidated the likely mechanisms of actionor how the factors might interact (Shepherd, 1990).These models give a qualitative picture of deter-minants of food choice and the mutual relations.Often these models are used to relate one productcharacteristic to a certain food habit (e.g., Saba etal., 1998).

Many of the environmental aspects that arementioned, such as cultural, social, and economicvariables, are of a different level, on one siderelated to the individual and on the other siderelated to the product. To structure these vari-

ables, the model of dinner of Tolksdorf (1975) isused. In former times the consumer prepared foodfor a certain situation, nowadays the industry istaking over this task. So, for industry, the situa-tion with a time and place aspect is importantduring the product development process.

The time aspect, mentioned in the model byPilgrim, is important for the perception of food. Itseems that it is not included in the food choicebehavior model in this study, because it wouldmake the model too complicated. However, whenpsychological factors, like mood, and contextualaspects, like the situation, time, and place in whichthe consumption takes place, are defined veryspecific and clear, it seems possible to integratethis in the model for a specific moment of con-sumption.

At this stage the main aim is to get a clearoverview of all determinants of food choice be-havior, and to put the different levels of the vari-ables central.

When the time aspect hunger and appetitewould be incorporated, it would possibly be partof the sensorical evaluation of the product. Thetime aspect related to attitudes and learning ef-fects of the environment will be included in themodel as preferences and attitudes of the indi-vidual.

B. Modelling Food Perception forConsumer-Oriented ProductDevelopment

A comprehensive conceptual model was cre-ated for determinants influencing food percep-tion, based on the determinants and variables in-fluencing food perception see (Figure 3).

The purpose of distinguishing four determi-nants of food perception on a general level was toemphasize the fact that it is not only complex butalso highly variable. The variables mentioned fordifferent determinants inter- as well as intrarelate.

C. Discussion

Nowadays the social-psychological need offood is getting very important for product devel-opment as a result of the optimization of the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

580

physiological need of food. Especially the gastro-nomic status and communication functions of foodare of increasing importance when analyzing foodchoice in an industrial society. This society can bedescribed as multicultural; consumers are gettinginto contact with many different cultures and hab-its in their own countries or while on holidays.Consumers are able to spend more money onfood. Family size is smaller than before and thecommunication function changes as people moreoften go out for lunch or dinner.

This article presents an overview of termsand variables related to food perception as well asmodels of food choice and related behavior froma social-psychological perspective. Additionalstructuring of the variables as part of the determi-

nants is on individual, family, and societal levels.Variables such as moment and situation need tobe emphasized because these are the importantvariables influencing the consumers’ perception,and thus are of increasing importance to productdevelopment. The result is a schematic overviewof determinants and variables influencing foodperception useful as a guide to give insight in thecomplex area of food perception to support con-sumer-oriented product development. Further re-search needs to be done to get insight in the vari-ables that can be influenced in the process of newproduct development. Moreover, insight is neededin the variables which can not be influenced buthave to be taken in consideration during the prod-uct development process.

FIGURE 3. Food perception model for product development.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14

581

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This research has been carried out with finan-cial support of the Foundation for Agri ChainCompetence in the Netherlands.

REFERENCES

Antonides, G. and Raaij van W.F., 1998. Consumer Behav-ior — A European Perspective. Wiley, Chichester.

Axelson, M. L. and Brinberg, D. 1989. A Social-Psychologi-cal Perspective on Food-Related Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York.

Bell, R. and Meiselmann H.L. 1995. The role of eatingenvironments in determining food choice. In: MarshallD. Eds., Food Choice and the Consumer. BlackieA&P, Glasgow.

Cardello, A. V. and Schutz H., 2000. Predictors of foodacceptance, consumption and satisfaction in specificeating situations. Food Quality Pref. 11: 201–216.

Dekker, M. and Linnemann, A. R. 1998. Product developmentin the food industry In: Innovation of Food ProductionSystems — Product Quality and Consumer Acceptance.pp. 67–86. Jongen, W. M. F. and Meulenberg, M. T.G.,Eds. Wageningen, Wageningen Pers.

Fieldhouse, P. 1995. Food and Nutrition, Customs and Cul-ture. Chapman&Hall, London.

Fishbein, M. and Ajzen I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intentionand Behavior. An Introduction to Theory and Re-search, Addison-Wesley, Reading.

Fortuna, R.M., 1988. Beyond quality: taking SPC upstream.Quality Progress 21 6, pp. 23–28.

Gains, N., Ed. 1996. The Repertory Grid Approach. Mea-surement of Food Preferences. London, Blackie Aca-demic & Professional.

Grunert, K. G., Baadsgaard, A., et al. 1996. Market Orien-tation in Food and Agriculture, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Boston.

Kahn, M. A. 1981. Evaluation of food selection patterns andpreferences. CRC Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. October:129–153.

Kinsey, J., Senauer, B. et al. 1996. Changes in retail food delivery:signals for producers, processors and distributors. Minne-sota, The retail food industry centre. Department of Ap-plied Economics, University of Minnesota: 38.

Lennernäs, M., Fjellström C. et al. 1997. Influences on foodchoice perceived to be important by nationally-repre-sentative samples of adults in the European union.Eur. J. Clin. Nutrit. 51(suppl 2): S8–S15.

Macbeth, H., Ed. 1997. Food Preferences and Taste, Conti-nuity and Change. The Anthropology of Food andNutrition, Berghahn Books, Oxford.

Meiselmann, H. L. and Mac. Fie, H. J. H., Eds. 1996. Foodchoice, Acceptance and Consumption. London, BlackieAcademic & Professional.

Mennell, S., Murcot, A. et al. 1992. The Sociology of Food.London, Sage.

Meulenberg, M. T. G., Gaasbeek van A.F. et al. (1996).Markt en Consument 2010. Den Haag, Nationale Raadvoor Landbouwkundig Onderzoek: 35.

Otterloo, A. V. and Ogtrop, J. V. 1989. Het Regime van Veel,Vet, en Zoet. Praten met Moeders over Voeding enGezondheid. Amsterdam, VU uitgeverij.

Peter, J. P. and Olson J.C. 1996. Consumer Behavior and Mar-keting Strategy, Mc Graw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts.

Pilgrim, F. J. 1957. The components of food acceptance andtheir measurement. Am. J. Clin. Nutrit. 5: 171–175.

Randall, E. and Sanjur D. 1981. Food preferences — theirconceptualization and relationship to consumption.Ecol. Food Nutrit. (11): 151–161.

Roininen, K., Lahteenmaki, L. et al. 1999. Quantification ofconsumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteris-tics of foods. Appetite 33: 71–88.

Roininen, K. and Tuorila H. 1999. Health and taste attitudesin the prediction of use frequency and choice betweenless healthy and more healthy snacks. Food Qual.Pref. (10): 357–365.

Rozin, P. and Tuorila H. 1993. Simultaneous and temporalcontextual influences on food acceptance. Food Qual.Pref. 4: 11–20.

Rozin, P. 1996. The socio-cultural context of eating and foodchoice. In: Food Choice, Acceptance and Consump-tion. pp. 83–104 H. L. Meiselman and MacFie, H. J.H., Blackie Academic & Professional, London.

Rozin, P., Fischler C. et al. 1999. Attitudes to food and therole of food in life in the U.S.A., Japan, FlemishBelgium and France: Possible implication for the diet-health debate. Appetite 33: 163–180.

Saba, A. Moneta E., et al. 1998. Attitudes, habit, sensory andliking expectation as determinants of the consumptionof milk. Food Qual. Pref. (No. 1/2,): pp. 31–41.

Schifferstein, H. N. J. and Oude Ophuis, P. A. M. 1998.Health-related determinants of organic food consump-tion in the Netherlands. Food Qual. Pref. 9: 119–133.

Shepherd, R. 1990. Overview of factors influencing foodchoice. In: Why We Eat What We Eat. Ashwell, M.,The British Nutrition Foundation Nutrition Bulletin.15(Suppl.) 1: 12–30.

Steiner, J. E. 1979. Human facial expressions in response to tasteand smell stimulation. Adv. Child Dev. H. W., Reese andL. P., Lipsett. New York, Academic Press. 257–95.

Steptoe, A. and Pollard T. M. 1995. Development of a mea-sure of the motives underlying the seclection of food:the food choice questionnaire. Appetite (25): 267–284.

Stewart, B. and Tinsley A. 1995. From qualitative to quan-titative: development of an instrument to assess foodchoice influences of young adults. Ecology FoodNutrit. 34: 171-181.

Toors, H. and Veen J.M., 1985. Mens en Voeding. TheHague, Nijgh & Van Ditmar.

Van Trijp, J. C. M. and J. E. B. M. Steenkamp, 1998.Consumer-oriented new product development: prin-ciples and practice. In: Innovation of Food ProductionSystems — Product Quality and Consumer Accep-tance, pp. 37–66. Jongen, W. M. F. and Meulenberg,M. T. G., Eds., Wageningen, Wageningen Pers.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

3:48

10

Nov

embe

r 20

14