Construction and validation of a psychometric scale to measure consumers' fears of novel food technologies: The food technology neophobia scale

By D. Cox, G. Evans. 2008

363 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Food Science, Nutrition and Dietetics, Sensory Systems

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/61969611d41ec6eda4e406b0deab191490ee2d76

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Food Science

1. J. Boersema
2. Hanna Schösler
3. Johannes de Boer
4. Wim Verbeke
5. Y. Kim
6. A. Kim
7. S. Jang
8. K. Grunert

In Nutrition and Dietetics

1. Johannes de Boer
2. Wim Verbeke
3. Y. Kim
4. J. Boersema
5. A. Kim
6. S. Jang
7. Hanna Schösler

In Sensory Systems

1. Johannes de Boer
2. Wim Verbeke
3. Y. Kim
4. J. Boersema
5. A. Kim
6. S. Jang
7. Hanna Schösler

Citations in the corpus

• Profiling consumers who are ready to adopt insects as a meat substitute in a Western society (2015, methodology): “Both attitudes are personal traits that relate to the extent to which consumers accept new of unusual products (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) or products produced using unfamiliar or unknown technologies (Cox & Evans, 2008), which is clearly the case for insects in Western societies.”
• Consumers’ attitude towards food by‐products: the influence of food technology neophobia, education and information (2018, methodology): “Indeed, comparing the results of the present analysis with those carried out by Cox & Evans (2008) very close conceptual results were observed, although they reported the existence of four factors associated with thirteen items.”
• Application of the theory of planned behavior to genetically modified foods: Moderating effects of food technology neophobia (2014, methodology): “Consumer acceptance of food technology tends to be influenced by consumers' personality traits rather than by objective personal experience, so Cox and Evans (2008) identified a need to develop a new psychometric tool that taps into food technology neophobia.”
• Motivational differences in food orientation and the choice of snacks made from lentils, locusts, seaweed or “hybrid” meat (2013, methodology): “Using the FCM questionnaire among a sample from the general population in the Netherlands, de Boer et al. (2007) show that consumers’ level of involvement in food can be separated into distinct motivational goals, which agree with Higgins’ (2000) distinction between prevention and promotion focus.”