Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual
a,*
Department of Food Technology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 66, 00014 Helsinki, FIN-00014, Finland
Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 54, 00014 Helsinki, FIN-00014, Finland
Received 24 June 2004; received in revised form 11 April 2005; accepted 12 April 2005
Available online 13 June 2005
Abstract
The relationship between domain specic innovativeness scale (DSI) and social representation (SR) components of new foods
(suspicion of new foods; adherence to natural food; adherence to technology; eating as an enjoyment; eating as a necessity) was
explored in a survey with Finnish consumers (N = 1156). Both DSI and SR were used to predict willingness to try/use new foods,
categorized into six subgroups of which three were functional (cereal-based and otherwise functional foods; functional drinks), and
the remaining three categories were modied dairy products, organic products, and energy drinks. Enjoyment and low suspicion
predicted 27% of variation in DSI, which, in turn, predicted up to 6% of willingness to try categories of new foods, excluding organic
products. When added to the predictive model, SR components increased the prediction of all food categories, particularly functional cereal-based and organic products (up to 20.4%). Thus, DSI predicted willingness to try new foods to some extent, but
SR components, most of all low suspicion of new foods and adherence to natural food, signicantly improved the prediction.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: New foods; Innovators; Social representations
1. Introduction
Inspired by both theoretical and marketing interests,
diusion of innovations has been extensively studied in
the past forty years (e.g., Saaksjarvi, 2003). Innovative
consumers represent a key market segment, playing an
essential role in the success of a new product, as they
legitimize the novel product to other consumers (Goldsmith & Flynn, 1992). As innovations are essentially
novelty bound, connection between innovation research
and theory of social representations (e.g., Moscovici,
q
Parts of this article were presented at a sense of identityEuropean
conference on sensory science of food and beverages, Florence,
September 2629, 2004, as an oral presentation.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 191 58293; fax: +358 9 191
58460.
E-mail address: anna.huotilainen@helsinki. (A. Huotilainen).
0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.04.005
1981) is apparent. In encountering the novel, social representations have a key role, as these socially shared
everyday theories of novelty enable people to come
to terms with the new and the unknown (Moscovici,
1981).
The outlines of innovation diusion theory are well
established. Following Rogers inuential work from
the 1960s, innovation literature has largely relied on
adoption timing measurement, which denes innovativeness as the degree to which an individual is relatively
prior in adopting an innovation than others (Rogers,
1983). Based on the dierences in adoption timing, Rogers developed the frequently mentioned adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, and late
majority. A great deal of research has been devoted to
exploring personal characteristics related to these adopter categories, but results have been rather consistent in
showing that personal characteristics aect adoption
354
only weakly (e.g., Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991). Adoption timing method has received also theoretical criticism of equaling adoption timing and innovativeness
(Midgley & Dowling, 1978).
Even though consumer innovativeness has proven
dicult to measure, a consensus exists that there are different kinds of innovativeness (Saaksjarvi, 2003). Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) distinguish between innate
and domain specic innovativeness. Kirtons (1976)
concept of adaptioninnovation as a cognitive style
represents innate innovativeness, in that some characteristically adapt while some innovate, depending on basic
dimensions of personality. The Domain specic innovativeness scale (DSI), developed by Goldsmith and
Hofacker (1991), measures consumer innovativeness
for a specic product category, thus reecting the tendency to adopt innovations within a specic domain of
interest. The DSI has been employed to measure innovation in rock music (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991),
fashionable clothing (Goldsmith & Flynn, 1992), delicatessen ham (McCarthy, OSullivan, & OReilly, 1999),
and wine (Goldsmith, dHauteville, & Flynn, 1998),
among others. Thus, domain specicity highlights dierences between innovativeness within various product
elds. Moreover, one could speculate that there may
be dierent domains within elds, for instance within
the broad eld of new foods, such that a person may
be innovative in one new food category but not another.
The past decade has been intense in the development
and research of various kinds of new foods in many food
companies, and globalization has enabled foods from
various countries to cross the borders of traditional food
cultures. In spite of more and more frequent encounters,
relating to dierent types of new foods in everyday life is
ambiguous (e.g., Grunert et al., 2001; Jonas & Beckmann, 1998). New food technologies are controversial,
even anxiety-arousing topics (Beardsworth & Keil,
1997), and compared to many other product areas, food
is considered highly personal, a way of expressing ones
identity (Karisto, Prattala, & Berg, 1993; Murcott,
1984). Thus, it is not surprising that there are dierences
between food innovators and innovators in other product areas (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991; Goldsmith &
Flynn, 1992; Goldsmith et al., 1998), in that food innovators are not likely to become early adopters in another
product category.
In the world of accelerated changes, people form
shared common sense concepts, when they try to disentangle and become accustomed to things that are unfamiliar (Moscovici, 1981). These social representations,
seen as modern societies equivalents for the myths of
traditional societies, form systems of ideas and concepts
(Moscovici, 1981, 2001). Shaped in the daily talk and action of individuals, the purpose of social representations
is to turn the unfamiliar to the familiar, as they provide
a novel thing with a familiar reference point, thus func-
2. Method
2.1. Respondents
A total of 1156 subjects living in dierent parts of
Finland participated in the study conducted as a postal
survey. The data were collected via a nationwide market
research agency (Taloustutkimus Oy, Helsinki, Finland)
in December 2002. Altogether 1913 randomly selected
respondents were telephoned, and their willingness to
participate in a food-related survey was inquired. The
questionnaire was mailed to consenting respondents,
resulting in a response rate of 60%. There were some
missing data in respondents demographic background
and in a few ratings, but this was not signicant.
The age of the respondents ranged from 15 to 78
years, with a mean age of 45 years (SD = 15). Of the
respondents, 56% were women and 44% were men.
The highest levels of education of the respondents included primary school (20%), high school (11%), college
level or vocational school (54%), and academic level
(15%). Of the respondents, 88% were meat-eaters, 7%
avoided red meat, 2.6% avoided all meat (sh allowed),
1.6% were vegetarians (milk and eggs allowed), and four
out of 1156 respondents were vegans (avoiding all products derived from animals).
355
Table 1
Domain specic innovativeness scale (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991), mean values (after reversals of the negatively worded items 46), standard
deviations, and loadings of items
Item
Statement
Mean
SD
Component loading
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
3.1
2.9
3.3
4.2
4.3
4.3
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7
0.78
0.77
0.70
0.58
0.55
0.41
N = 1156.
2.2. Measures
7
Laggards
Moderate
Innovators
1
SUSPICION TECHNOLOGY
NATURAL
ENJOYMENT NECESSITY
Fig. 1. Mean values and standard errors of the social representation components by the DSI scale split as innovators (n = 382), moderates (n = 365),
and laggards (n = 409).
356
Table 2
Principal component analysis for 22 food namesa on willingness to try/use scale, mean values, and standard deviations of items and loadings of items
on components
Item
SD
Component loading
Comp. 1 Functional (cholesterol and blood pressure lowering) foods (40.9%, a = 0.85): FFOOD
1.
Cholesterol-lowering spreads (Benecol, pro-aktiv)
3.9
2.
Cholesterol-lowering yogurt (Evolus)
3.6
3.
Cholesterol-lowering potato salad (Atria Benecol)
3.0
4.
Blood pressure lowering milk drink (Evolus)
3.1
5.
Fiber-rich sausage (Linobene)
3.1
6.
Fiber-rich microwave meal (Linobene)
2.2
Name of item
Mean
2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.5
0.72
0.71
0.64
0.62
0.38
0.37
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.1
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
0.78
0.77
0.69
0.34
2.9
3.2
4.6
3.8
3.3
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9
0.68
0.56
0.48
0.48
0.34
4.2
5.0
3.3
3.7
3.7
2.1
2.2
1.9
2.2
2.0
0.79
0.60
0.48
0.31
0.30
2.6
2.6
1.8
1.7
0.82
0.77
Explanation rates and Cronbachs alphas are shown in brackets, and those brand names given to respondents (in Finnish), in their exact form, are
shown in brackets after each item.
a
Organic products (organically produced bread and organically produced pork) were treated as one separate component. Three new foods (snails,
herbal drink, sauerkraut) were omitted from this nal PCA (see text).
3. Results
3.1. The DSI and SR components
One principal component was extracted from the DSI
scale with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and it accounted for 51 percent of the variance, suggesting that
the items formed a one-dimensional scale. Table 1 presents the items and the component loadings of the
DSI. The DSI scores ranged from 6 to 42, which is also
the theoretical range of the scale, with a mean of 21.9
(SD = 6.7), and Cronbachs alpha of the scale was
0.80. The SR questionnaire items loaded on ve components: (1) suspicion, (2) adherence to natural food, (3)
adherence to technology, (4) eating as an enjoyment,
and (5) eating as a necessity, explaining 50% of the variance (Appendix A). Cronbachs alphas for each component were 0.76, 0.81, 0.76, 0.74, and 0.64, respectively.
Women [F(1, 1154) = 5.6, p = 0.02]; the youngest age
group [F(2, 1153) = 29.4, p < 0.001]; and the most educated group [F(2, 1150) = 18.6, p < 0.001] had highest
scores on the DSI. Post hoc Tukeys tests indicated these
357
31
Ranking order
26
21
16
11
6
ho
Fi
b
re
m
ic
l.l
ow B- cro
er c o w.
in at m
g
e
p cr a
O ota ac l
Fi me to ker
br ga sa
e
ric -3 b lad
h re
s
Pr
a
ob He aus d
St iot rba ag
re ic l d e
ng ice ri
ht -c nk
en re
in am
Bl
g
oo G
dr
d
pr ree S ink
es n n
su tea ail
s
r
O e lo drin
m w k
e .
C Fi ga drin
ho br -3 k
l.l e -dr
ow ric in
h k
Fi erin dr
br g in
e yo k
ric g
Ca
B
u
C lciu -c h s rt
al
n
ci m- oat ac
um fo fl k
a
-fo rtif ke
rti ied s
f
En ied milk
er dri
g n
O y d ks
rg r
Ch
a in
ol
.lo S nic ks
w au po
er e rk
in r
Lo g s k ra
w pr u t
Lo
O sal ead
r
t
w
-la Pr gan bre s
o
ct bi ic ad
os ot b
e ic rea
m yo d
i
Fa lk p ghu
t-f rod rt
Xy ree uct
lit yo s
C ol c g u r
ho an t
c d
Sm ola ies
Lo ok te b
w e d ar
-fa p
t c or
k
R h ee
ye s
br e
ea
d
Fig. 2. Comparison of rated familiarity and willingness to try/use the 32 stimulus products by innovators (n = 382). Ranking order: 1 = the least
familiar/least willing to try/use, 32 = the most familiar/the most willing to try/use.
358
5
Laggards
Moderate
Innovators
ENERGY
DRINKS
ORGANIC
Fig. 3. Mean values and standard errors of six willingness to try/use categories by the DSI scale split as innovators (n = 382), moderates (n = 365),
and laggards (n = 409).
p < 0.001) predicted 27% of DSI in the regression analysis, whereas necessity, adherence to technology, and
adherence to natural were not signicant predictors.
Table 3
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting willingness to try/use new foods in six categories
Predictor variable
Step1: DSI
R2 (%)
R2 (%)
Step 2: SR + DSI
Suspicion Natural Technol. Enjoym. Necess. DSI
Functional foods
Functional drinks
Functional cereal
Modied dairy
Energy drinks
Organic
0.19
0.25c
0.25c
0.25c
0.18c
0.12c
3.5
6.2
6.1
6.4
3.1
0.1
0.11c
0.12c
0.16c
0.07a
0.09b
0.15c
0.11c
0.28c
0.19c
0.43c
0.19c
0.13c
0.14c
0.08b
0.10b
0.17c
0.20c
0.18c
0.18c
0.14c
0.07a
7.3
8.3
20.0
11.7
7.4
20.4
Note: the best SR predictors were rst selected on the basis of stepwise regression analyses, and then entered to the nal model, hence the dierent
combinations of predictors in each analysis.
Each row presents standardized beta-values for separate regression analyses.
a
p < 0.05.
b
p < 0.01.
c
p < 0.001.
predictors were most notable regarding organically produced products, functional cereal-based products, and
modied dairy products.
DSI did not have any predictive power in predicting
the willingness to use the familiar foods: rye bread,
low-fat cheese, and smoked pork, whereas SR components of adherence to natural food and eating as an
enjoyment were signicant predictors; however, these
explanation rates were modest, 5.4% at the highest.
4. Discussion
In encountering innovations, be it in foods or in other
product areas, social representations as everyday, shared
theories of novelty have a key role, functioning as a
means of enabling people to come to terms with and
understand the novel (Moscovici, 1981). Encountering
new foods brings forth several social representation
components: suspicion of novelties; adherence to technology; adherence to natural food; eating as an enjoyment; and eating as a necessity (Backstrom et al.,
2004). The innovativeness construct (DSI, Goldsmith
& Hofacker, 1991) examined in this study, approaches
novelties from a dierent, marketing-oriented angle,
but the results suggest that there were relevant connections. The most important connection appeared to be
that innovativeness could be predicted by the social representation components. Central characteristics of a
food innovator were a low level of suspicion towards
new foods and regarding eating as an enjoyment; thus,
novelty optimism and food-related hedonism were vital,
and food innovators seemed to conceive new foods from
a hedonism-oriented angle. However, equally important
is to notice that the remaining three SR components
(adherence to technology, adherence to natural food,
and eating as a necessity) were unrelated to the DSI.
In that sense, these two approaches complement each
other. Still other viewpoints to new foods could include
concern of ones health and moral issues, among others
(e.g., Steptoe, Pollard, & Wardle, 1995; Rozin, 1997),
but such issues were not brought up in the focus group
discussions (Backstrom, Pirttila-Backman, & Tuorila,
2003) that were the basis for the social representation
questionnaire (Backstrom et al., 2004).
Innovativeness has been dicult to predict by means
of personal characteristics, but positioning an innovative person on the social representation components
turned out to be successful. We suggest that innovativeness should be considered as a way of doing, as a
higher-level phenomenon, whereas social representations depict the baseline of understanding and prerequisite for doing. The results suggested that these concepts
are interrelated.
The results suggested that rated familiarity and willingness to try and use new foods distinguish food inno-
359
360
Acknowledgement
This study was funded by ELITE research program
of Finnish National Technology Agency (TEKES), as
part of the project Innovation in foods: Consumer-oriented product development.
Appendix A
Social representation (SR) questionnaire and component loadings above the value of 0.30 of items
Comp.
Item
Resistance to and
1. There are too many new kinds of food
suspicion of novelties
available nowadays
2. New foods are just a silly trenda
3. I prefer familiar and safe foods
4. There are some doubts about novelties
5. Traditionally made food is the best in the world
6. Functional food is like a nuclear power plant:
ecient but dangerous
7. Contemporary food is articial compared
with the food that people ate when I was a childa
8. Zeal about health causes unnecessary stressa
Adherence to
technology
Adherence to
natural food
Food as an
enjoyment
20.
21.
22.
23.
Food as a
necessity
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
0.67
0.68
0.53
0.47
0.43
0.45
0.47
0.40
0.58
0.64
0.61
0.63
0.55
0.46
0.80
0.72
0.59
0.57
0.54
0.72
0.69
0.66
0.50
0.47
0.61
0.43
0.44
0.46
References
Backstrom, A., Pirttila-Backman, A.-M., & Tuorila, H. (2003).
Dimensions of novelty: a social representation approach to new
foods. Appetite, 40, 299307.
Backstrom, A., Pirttila-Backman, A.-M., & Tuorila, H. (2004).
Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations
and attitude and trait scales. Appetite, 43, 7583.
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm for research
on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior,
29, 163186.
Beardsworth, A., & Keil, T. (1997). Sociology on the menu: an
invitation to the study of food and society. London: Routledge.
Brown, R. (2000). Group processes: dynamics within and between
groups. Oxford, Mass: Blackwell.
Goldsmith, R., & Flynn, L. (1992). Identifying innovators in consumer
product markets. European Journal of Marketing, 26, 4255.
Goldsmith, R., & Hofacker, C. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209221.
Goldsmith, R., dHauteville, F., & Flynn, L. (1998). Theory and
measurement of consumer innovativeness. European Journal of
Marketing, 32, 340353.
Grunert, K. G., Lahteenmaki, L., Nielsen, N. A., Poulsen, J. B.,
strom, A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of food
Ueland, O., & A
products involving genetic modicationresults from a qualitative
study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference, 12,
527542.
Jonas, M.S., & Beckmann, S.C. (1998). Functional foods: consumer
perceptions in Denmark and England. MAPP Working paper, 55.
rhus: Center for market surveillance, research and strategy for the
A
food sector.
Karisto, A., Prattala, R., & Berg, M.-A. (1993). The good, the
bad, and the ugly. Dierences and changes in health-related
lifestyles. In U. Kjaernes et al. (Eds.), Regulating markets, regulating people. On food and nutrition policy (pp. 185204). Oslo:
Novus.
361