Relating the food involvement scale to demographic variables, food choice and other constructs
By D. Marshall, R. Bell. 2004
144 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Food Science, Marketing
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8c4b145c90fc36f8ba15b24899b40b4e3318ce0d
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Clinical Psychology
In Food Science
In Marketing
Citations in the corpus
- Health-related attitudes as a basis for segmenting European fish consumers (2010, background): “In consumer behaviour literature, involvement has been shown to have robust effects on explaining consumers’ purchase and eating decisions (Marshall and Bell, 2004), including fish consumption (Olsen, 2001; Pieniak et al.”
- Festivals as agents for behaviour change: A study of food festival engagement and subsequent food choices (2015, background): “Stemming from the psychological roots of Ajzen’s (1991) Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), a wide range of literature has supported the relationship between consumers’ prior involvement and behavioural outcomes (e.g., Bloemer & de Ruyter, 1999; Marshall & Bell, 2004).”
- The mindful consumer: Balancing egoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local food (2018, background): “Health involvement or interest in eating healthy foods has been found to be closely correlated with food consumption (Marshall and Bell, 2004; Pieniak et al., 2008), and in particular, for fruit and vegetables and organic and free range products (Brunsø and Scholderer, 2001; Michaelidou and Hassan, ”
- Responses to extra virgin olive oils in consumers with varying commitment to oils (2012, methodology): “Individual involvement with EVOOs was quantified using fifteen items based on scales of Marshall and Bell (2004); Zaichkowsky (1985) (Table 1).”
- The effects of food-related personality traits on tourist food consumption motivations (2017, result): “…the sample as compared with those reported in other studies, for example, Lähteenmäki and van Trijp (1995) (Finnish student sample, mean = 29.2), Meiselman et al. (1999) (UK undergraduate student sample, mean = 29.45), and Marshall and Bell (2004) (UK undergraduate student sample, mean = 29.33).”