Advertisement

Non-sensory Factors Which Influence Choice Behavior of Foods That Have a Positive Effect on Health

  • Gastón Ares
Chapter

Abstract

Functional foods can be defined as foods that have a positive effect on health, beyond satisfying basic nutritional needs. These products have been developed in an attempt to improve the health status of the population and to reduce the global impact of chronic diseases. Despite the fact that it could be argued that consumers would undoubtedly accept this type of product, it has not been the case. Consumers’ choice behavior of functional foods is a complex process that involves many different factors, including sensory and nonsensory factors. Since consumers will only consider substituting conventional with functional foods if the latter are perceived as healthier, consumers’ attitudes toward health-related issues have been identified as central in determining choice behavior of functional foods. Besides, consumers’ perceived risk and concerns associated with processing technologies and scientific innovations also affect their perception of this type of food product. However, consumers’ attitudes toward functional foods do not depend only on their perceived healthiness and their trust in functional foods, but also on the same characteristics, including sensory quality, price, and convenience, as any conventional product. Consumers are not willing to negotiate those characteristics for eventual long-term health benefits. Therefore, when deciding to buy a certain functional food, consumers have to trade health, sensory, and other nonsensory factors, such as brand, price, and packaging. In this context, the aim of the present chapter is to review nonsensory factors which influence consumers’ choice behavior of functional foods.

Keywords

Functional Food Food Choice Choice Behavior Purchase Intention Sensory Characteristic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anttolainen M, Luoto R, Uutela A, Boice JD, Blot WJ, McLaughlin JK, et al. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001; 101:1365–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ares G, Giménez A, Gámbaro A. J Sens Stud. 2008a; 23:614–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ares G, Giménez A, Gámbaro A. Appetite. 2008b; 50:663–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ares G, Giménez A, Gámbaro A. J Sci Food Agric. 2008c; 88:2061–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ares G, Deliza R, Giménez A. Food Qual Pref. 2010; 21:361–7.Google Scholar
  6. Beardsworth A, Bryman A, Keil T, Goode J, Haslam C, Lancashire E. Br Food J. 2002; 107:470–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bech-Larsen T, Grunert KG, Poulsen JB. The acceptance of functional foods in Denmark, Finland and the United States. A study of consumers’ conjoint evaluations of the qualities of functional food and perceptions of general health factors and cultural values. Working paper no 73. MAAP, Århus; 2001.Google Scholar
  8. Bogue J, Ryan M. Market-oriented new product development: Functional foods and the Irish consumer. Agribusiness Discussion Paper No. 27. National University of Ireland, Cork; 2000.Google Scholar
  9. Childs NM. J Consum Market. 1997; 14:433–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Childs NM, Poryzees GH. Brit Food J. 1998; 9:419–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cox DN, Koster A, Russell CG. Appetite. 2004; 33:55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crites SL, Jr., Aikman SN. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005; 59:1191–200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dagevos H. Appetite. 2005; 45:32–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Jong N, Ocké MC, Branderhorst HAC, Friele R. Brit J Nutr. 2003; 89:273–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. de Jong N, Simojoki M, Laatikainen T, Tapanainen H, Valsta L, Lahtikoski M, et al. Preventive Med. 2004; 39:849–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dodds WB, Monroe KB, Grewal D. Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers product evaluations. J Market Res. 1991; 28:307–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Herath D, Cranfield J, Henson S. Appetite. 2008; 51:256–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hilliam M. Nutr Rev. 1996; 54:S189–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hilliam M. Aust J Dairy Tech. 2003; 58:98–103.Google Scholar
  20. ILSI Europe Brit J Nutr. 1999; 81:S1–S27.Google Scholar
  21. Jaeger SR. Food Qual Pref. 2006; 17:132–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jonas MS, Beckman SC. Functional foods: consumer perceptions in Denmark and England. MAAP Working Paper No. 55. MAPP, Århus; 1998.Google Scholar
  23. Keller KL. Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1998.Google Scholar
  24. Krishnamurthy P, Carter P, Blair E. Org Behav Human Dec Proc. 2001; 85:382–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krystallis A, Maglaras G, Mamalis S. Food Qual Pref. 2008; 19:525–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Labrecque JA, Doyon M, Bellavance F, Kolodinsky J. Can J Agric Econ. 2006; 54:647–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lähteenmäki L. In: Mattila-Sandholm T, Saarela M, editors. Functional dairy products. Cambridge: Woodhead Publication; 2003. p. 346–57.Google Scholar
  28. Lähteenmäki L, Lyly M, Urala N. In: Frewer L, van Trijp H, editors. Understanding consumers of food products. Cambridge: Woodhead Publication; 2007. p. 412–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Margaret A. Concepts of functional foods. ILSI Europe Concise Monograph Series. ILSI Europe, Belgium; 2002.Google Scholar
  30. Mazis MB, Raymond MA. J Consum Affairs. 1997; 31:10–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Menrad K. J Food Eng. 2003; 56:181–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niva M, Mäkelä J, Piiroinen S. Domestic berries and plant stanols. Acceptability of functional foods in Finland.Helsinski: National Consumer Research Centre; 2003.Google Scholar
  33. O’Connor EL, White KM. Food Qual Pref. 2010; 21:75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Patterson R, Kristal A, Lynch J, White E. J Nutr Educ. 1995; 27:86–92.Google Scholar
  35. Poulsen JB. Danish consumers’ attitudes towards functional foods. Working paper no 62. MAPP, Århus; 1999.Google Scholar
  36. Räsänen M, Niinikoski H, Keskinen S, Helenius H, Talvia S, Rönnemaa T. Appetite. 2003; 41:69–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Roininen K, Lähteenmäki L, Tuorila H. Appetite. 1999; 33:71–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Shepherd R, Sparks P. In: MacFie HJH, Thomson DMH, editors. Measurement of food preferences. London: Blackie Academic & Professional; 1994. p. 202–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Siegrist M, Stampfli N, Kastenholz H. Appetite. 2008; 51:526–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Siró I, Kápolna E, Kápolna B, Lugasi S. Appetite. 2008; 51:456–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tuorila H, Cardello AV. Food Qual Pref. 2002; 13:561–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Urala N, Lähteenmäki L. Nutr Food Sci. 2003; 33:148–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Urala N, Lähteenmäki L. Food Qual Pref. 2007; 18:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P. Appetite. 2005; 44:299–308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Kleef E, van Trijp HCM, Luning P, Jongen WMF. Trends Food Sci Tech. 2002; 13:93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. van Trijp HCM, van der Lans IA. Appetite. 2007; 48:305–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verbeke W. Food Qual Pref. 2005; 16:45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Verbeke W. Food Qual Pref. 2006; 17:126–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wansink B, Westgren RE, Cheney MM. Nutr. 2005; 21:264–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wardle J, Parmenter K, Waller J. Appetite. 2000; 34:269–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. World Health Organization. Diet, physical activity and health.Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.Google Scholar
  52. World Health Organization. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic disease.Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sección Evaluación Sensorial, Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, Facultad de QuímicaUniversidad de la República (UdelaR)MontevideoUruguay

Personalised recommendations