You are on page 1of 9

Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391


www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Consumer segmentation based on food neophobia and its application


to product development
Ami S. Henriques *, Silvia C. King, Herbert L. Meiselman
McCormick and Company, Inc., Sensory, 204 Wight Avenue, Hunt Valley, MD 21231, USA
Herb Meiselman Services, Rockport MA, USA

Received 30 November 2006; received in revised form 24 January 2008; accepted 30 January 2008
Available online 6 February 2008

Abstract

When evaluating the acceptability of food products, companies often focus on specic demographics for recruiting and screening con-
sumers. However, this information may not necessarily explain the variability in the test results. Other elements, such as consumer psy-
chographic proles, may help better understand test participants responses. The objective of this study was to investigate the eect of
food neophobia (reluctance to/avoidance of novel foods) on acceptability of novel food items. Six salad dressings with novel avor com-
binations were chosen for evaluation in a central location test. Consumers were screened using the food neophobia scale (Pliner & Hob-
den, 1992) as well as liking of salad dressings. Each subject evaluated three of six dressings for hedonic and diagnostic attributes.
Neophobic subjects rated the salad dressings signicantly lower (p < 0.05) than neophilics for all hedonic attributes with the exception
of appearance. These results were consistent for all dressings. However, when looking at the hedonic mean scores from both groups, the
products were ranked in similar order in that the best liked and least liked dressing for the neophilic group was the same as those for the
neophobic group. For diagnostic attributes, while the mean scores were signicantly dierent for neophobics and neophilics, the percent-
age of just-about-right scores did not dier. These results suggest that food neophobia may impact the degree with which a product is
liked or disliked by consumers, but it may not aect how products are ranked based on hedonic mean scores. Therefore, while under-
standing the psychographic composition of a consumer test respondent base may help explain why some products score higher or lower
in acceptability, it may not alter the sensory guidance provided to product development regarding the specic avor and texture attri-
butes that were tested.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Psychographic; Neophobia; Food neophobia scale (FNS); Product development; Consumer segmentation; Acceptability

1. Introduction consumer research and marketing have paid special atten-


tion to those interested in new products with concepts such
Food neophobia is the fear of new foods, and has been a as lead user (von Hippel, 1986), relatively little attention
subject of study for some time. Most of the research has has been paid to the neophobic consumer and the potential
focused on food neophobia in children, its growth in early impact on the guidance provided from consumer testing to
years, its implications for childrens diet, and possible ways developers during the new product development process.
of dealing with it (Birch & Marlin, 1982). For some people Research on food neophobia was greatly aided by the
food neophobia persists into adulthood, and thus forms development of the food neophobia scale or FNS (Pliner
one dimension of the overall consumer population. While & Hobden, 1992). This 10-item questionnaire uses ve pos-
itively worded and ve negatively worded statements,
which are measured on a 7-point scale from disagree
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 410 527 8974; fax: +1 410 527 8924. strongly to agree strongly. The positive items are reversed,
E-mail address: ami_henriques@mccormick.com (A.S. Henriques). so that higher FNS scores reect greater reluctance to try

0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.01.003
84 A.S. Henriques et al. / Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391

novel foods. In their extensive review, Ritchey, Frank, The Finnish collaborators in the Ritchey et al. paper
Hursti, and Tuorila (2003) concluded that FNS accurately independently published their data from a representative
predicts responses to novel foods, and that the FNS is sample of 1083 Finns (Tuorila, Lahteenmaki, Phohjalai-
unidimensional. Pliner and Hobden showed that food neo- nen, & Lotti, 2001). Men (FNS: 35.4, SD 11.9) were
phobia correlated positively with other fear and anxiety slightly more neophobic than women (32.5, SD 10.7).
measures, and negatively with foreign food familiarity, n- Older people (ages 6680) were more neophobic (40.2) than
ickiness, and sensation seeking. They found no gender younger (32.334.9), diering from Pliner and Hobden
eect, but found a negative correlation with age. While results. Neophobia also decreased with education and
food neophobia appeared dierent from nickiness, the urbanization.
authors noted that subjects expectations of how much Arvola et al. (1999) studied female purchase intent for
they would like the taste of novel foods were highly related both familiar and unfamiliar cheeses. As expected, neopho-
to FNS scores. Pliner and Hobden present food neopho- bic subjects rated expected and actual taste pleasantness
bia as a personality trait, an enduring part of personality, lower than neophilics for the unfamiliar cheeses but not
and something which is not expected to vary from time for the most familiar. They concluded that neophobics
to time. both avoid and dislike novel foods. This is dierent from
In developing the FNS, Pliner and Hobden reported a Pliner and Hobdens conclusion about neophobic behavior
scale range with their largely student population of 10 in that lower hedonic ratings were observed, but consistent
68, and an average scale value of 34.51 (SD 11.86). An with Pliner, Lahteenmaki, and Tuorila (1998).
extreme groups design was used where neophilics were The development of the food neophobia scale encour-
dened as those scoring <25 and neophobics as >35. Some aged an increase in research into neophobia but very little
researchers have reported the use of dierent designations of the published research has been aimed at product devel-
for neophilics and neophobics (Arvola, Lahteenmaki, & opment. Tuorila et al. (1994) reported an early attempt to
Tuorila, 1999; Tuorila, Meiselman, Bell, Cardello, & John- use food neophobia in a product development setting. US
son, 1994) and others have used the total sample with a cut- participants evaluated two unfamiliar Finnish products
o score to designate respondents as neophilic or neopho- and two relatively unfamiliar American products. Neophil-
bic (Tuorila et al., 1994). ic respondents rated all foods more favorably than neoph-
Ritchey et al. (2003) reported a validation and cross- obics. The authors also reported that product information,
national comparison of the FNS. As noted above, they resemblance to more familiar foods, and product exposure
concluded that the FNS is unidimensional, except for items reduced the initially negative neophobic response.
5 (Ethnic food looks too weird to eat) and 9 (I will eat The purpose of this paper is to apply the measurement
almost anything) based on data from the US and Sweden, of neophobia to a sample case of product development
but not Finland. Further, they found that a 6-item scale and explore the issues posed by dealing with neophobia
(items 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10) applied in all three countries (see in the product development laboratory.
Table 1). These 6-items include 4 positive and 2 negative
items. Interestingly, in one national sample, the investiga-
tors collected their FNS data by telephone. 2. Material and methods

2.1. Samples

Table 1
Internal product development expertise along with trend
Ten-item FNS Questionnaire with some word exchanges data were used to create and select six salad dressings with
How well do you agree or disagree with this statement
novel avors and/or novel avor combinations (Table 2)
specically for this study by McCormick and Co. The
1. I am constantly sampling new and dierent foods (R)
2. I dont trust new foods
samples included ingredients that were not considered
3. If I dont know what is in a food, I wont try it mainstream among salad dressings at the time (e.g. pome-
4. I like foods from dierent countries (R)
5. Ethnic foods look too weird to eat
Table 2
6. At dinner parties, I will try a new food (R)
Salad dressing names and descriptions as presented to consumers
7. I am afraid to try things I know I have never had before (I am afraid
to eat things I have never had before)  Pomegranate balsamic vinaigrette: A blend of fruity pomegranate,
8. I am particular about the foods I will eat (I am very particular about basil and balsamic vinegar
the foods I will eat)  Vanilla black pepper dressing: A sweet and creamy blend of natural
9. I will eat almost anything (R) vanilla and cracked black pepper
10. I will new ethnic restaurants (R) (I like to try new ethnic restaurants)  Chipotle pepper parmesan dressing: A blend of smoky chipotle
peppers and aged Parmesan cheese
The wording of the original FNS Questionnaire (Pliner & Hobden, 1992)
 Wasabi ginger dressing: A blend of wasabi, ginger and soy sauce
is included in parentheses for items where it diered. Italicized items were
 Guacamole ranch dressing: A blend of creamy ranch and avocados
included in the 4-item modied FNS Questionnaire used for phone
 Guava honey vinaigrette: A blend of fruit guava, honey and sweet
screening when recruiting consumers for the study. Items followed by (R)
spices
indicate that are reversed when scoring.
A.S. Henriques et al. / Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391 85

granate, chipotle, guava and wasabi) or novel combina- 2.3.2. Neophobia classication
tions of familiar ingredients (e.g. vanilla and black pepper). For ease of phone recruitment, a 5-point scale was used,
instead of the 7-point scale traditionally used with the
2.2. Internet study FNS. This also t in with company usage of 5-point scales
for anything other than hedonic scaling where a 9-point
A nation-wide internet survey (n = 325) was distributed scale is used. Thus the range of possible scores in this 5-
via Zoomerang (MarketTools, Inc., San Francisco, CA) to point FNS is 1050. Actual scores ranged from 10 to 39
validate the novelty of the salad dressings. Participants with the exception of 2 people who obtained a score of
were self-screened using an invitation email that asked 47. Food neophobics were identied by FNS scores of
for individuals who liked and ate salads with salad dress- >20 out of 50-points and food neophilics by scores of 620.
ings. Dressing names and descriptions were presented. Sur- Using the post evaluation questionnaire responses, 96 of
vey questions assessed familiarity with individual the 389 consumers obtained a score >20 and were classied
ingredients (5-points scale; 1 = not at all familiar, 5 = very as neophobic; 273 were classied as neophilic, and 20 were
familiar), uniqueness of the dressings (5-points scale; removed from the dataset due to incomplete data. Accord-
1 = not at all unique/unusual, 5 = very unique/unusual), ing to the partial 4-item FNS that was used to screen par-
and expected acceptability (9-points scale; 1 = dislike extre- ticipants by the telephone, 197 were classied as neophobic
mely, 5 = neither like nor dislike, 9 = like extremely) for and 172 as neophilic indicating that the partial FNS was
each of the six salad dressings. The survey ended with a not predictive of the full FNS. The partial 4-item FNS clas-
10-item FNS questionnaire (Table 1) to measure food neo- sied participants using an extreme groups design where
phobia. Compared to the original FNS questionnaire (Pli- those who scored 48 out of 20 possible points were consid-
ner & Hobden, 1992), this survey included three single ered neophilic and those scoring 1620 were considered
word exchanges which produced the same neophobia cate- neophobic. Those who scored in the middle with 915-
gorization as the original. This was conrmed in a separate points were not included in the study.
internet study that compared the two questionnaires; Gender distribution was similar within FNS groups,
results of that conrmatory study are not included in this with approximately 25% male, 75% female for both groups.
publication. Age distribution was not consistent within groups; the neo-
Of the 325 respondents, 171 were classied as neophobic phobic group skewed higher in the over 55 age category
and 154 as neophilic. Those scoring less than 21 out of 50 than the neophilic group (52% and 39%, respectively) and
possible points were classied as neophilic, while those was slightly lower in all other age categories.
scoring 21 and higher were classied as neophobic. The
average score from total sample was 21.6; the average 2.3.3. Test parameters
female score was 22.3 while the average male score was Prior to evaluating each individual dressing, the subjects
19.5. Age categories diered among neophobics and neo- were provided with a name and a brief description of the
philics as well. There were more neophobics than neophi- salad dressings (Table 2), and each subject evaluated three
lics in the over 55 age category. The 3544 age group of the six salad dressings. Half of the participants were
skewed slightly lower for neophobics vs. neophilics. allowed to choose the three dressings they wished to evaluate
from the list of six sample names and descriptions presented.
2.3. Central location test The other half of the participants were not allowed a choice
and were only provided with the names and descriptions of
2.3.1. Consumer recruitment the three dressings for which they were randomly assigned.
Consumers (n = 389) were recruited for a central loca- Samples were presented in a sequential monadic order.
tion test at McCormick and Co., Inc. in Baltimore, MD. The choice data will not be addressed in this paper.
Because an automated telephone recruitment system Approximately 40 g of dressing were presented in a 2 oz
(ARCS) was used, the length of the 10-item FNS (Table plastic soue cup with a salad. The salad included 20 g of
1) questionnaire proved to be impractical for recruiting mixed eld greens, 7 g of shredded carrots, and 3 croutons
purposes as evidenced by a lower than average incidence served in a 13 cm diameter glass bowl. Participants were
of calls per hour and a greater number of respondents ter- asked to apply as much of the dressing as desired and eat
minating the phone call prior to completing the recruitment as much or as little as wanted. The ballot contained accep-
survey. Therefore, using the 4 questions that received the tance questions for overall salad, overall dressing, avor
greatest neophobic response initially (items 1, 3, 8, 9), a and appearance acceptability using the 9-points hedonic
modied 4-item FNS questionnaire (Table 1) was used to scale ranging from dislike extremely to like extremely with
complete recruitment. Of these 4-items, 2 are items which a neutral central point, as well as diagnostic questions for
needed to be reversed in scoring (items 1 and 9). The full avor and texture using the 5-points just-about-right scale
FNS questionnaire similar to the questionnaire used in ranging from not enough to too much with a just-about-
the internet survey (Table 1) was completed by subjects right central point, and expectation rating on a 5-points
on site after product evaluation, and was used to classify scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree with
subjects as neophilic or neophobic in the analyses. a neutral central point.
86 A.S. Henriques et al. / Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391

2.4. Data analysis Table 3


Internet study: Mean scores for expected acceptabilitya and uniquenessb
One-way analysis of variance procedures using general Neophilic Neophobic D
linear models were used to analyze data. Data were ana- Expected Chipotle pepper 6.9 5.1 1.8
lyzed for variability in sample and psychographics. Duncan acceptability Parmesan*
means separation test was used to dierentiate samples. Guacamole ranch* 6.6 5.1 1.5
Guava honey* 5.8 4.6 1.2
Pomegranate 6.5 5.1 1.4
3. Results balsamic*
Vanilla black 5.4 4.6 0.8
3.1. Internet study pepper*
Wasabi ginger* 5.8 4 1.8
Uniqueness Chipotle pepper 3.8 3.7 0.1
3.1.1. Familiarity of ingredients Parmesan
Overall familiarity scores ranged from 3.0 to 4.8 on a 5- Guacamole ranch 3.6 3.7 0.1
points scale (1 = not at all familiar to 5 = very familiar). Guava honey 4.2 4 0.2
Guava, pomegranate, and wasabi were the least familiar Pomegranate 4.2 4.1 0.1
balsamic
ingredients, all receiving scores 63.5. Black pepper, parme-
Vanilla black pepper 4.3 4.2 0.1
san, ranch, vinaigrette, honey and vanilla were the most Wasabi ginger 3.6 3.8 0.2
familiar, all receiving scores P4.5. Neophilics, ranging *
Indicates signicant dierence; p < 0.05.
from 3.3 to 4.9, rated all ingredients signicantly higher a
Nine-points scale where 1 = extremely dislike, 5 = neither like nor
in familiarity (p < 0.05) than neophobics, ranging from dislike, 9 = extremely like.
b
2.7 to 4.7 (Fig. 1). Five-points scale where 1 = not at all unique/unusual, 5 = very
unique/unusual.
3.1.2. Uniqueness ratings
The results for uniqueness mean scores ranged from 3.6 dierent (p < 0.05) for all salad dressings. Neophobics rated
to 4.2 (Table 3) on a 5-points scale (1 = not at all unique to 3 dressings (guava honey vinaigrette, vanilla black pepper
5 = very unique) conrming that consumers considered the dressing, and wasabi ginger dressing) unacceptable with
avor combinations of the salad dressings to be novel. mean scores below 5.0; the other 3 salad dressings received
Neophobics and neophilics rated the uniqueness of each scores in the neither like nor dislike range. While neophilic
dressing similarly as seen in Table 3. scores were higher, they were still relatively low overall
falling in the neither like nor dislike to like slightly range.
3.1.3. Expected acceptance
The expected acceptance scores were relatively low, rang- 3.2. Central location test
ing from 4.0 to 5.1 for neophobics and 5.46.9 for neophi-
lics on a 9-points hedonic scale (Table 3). Neophobics and All salads and all dressing with the exception of wasabi
neophilics rated the expected acceptability signicantly ginger were acceptable, scoring >6 for overall salad accep-

5. 0 (10.2) (7.4) (8.3) (17.5)


(15.2) (8.5)
Ingredient familiarity mean score

(17.3) (39.7)
4. 5 (22.2)
(40.7)
4. 0 (48.8)
(27.6)
3. 5 (18.9)

3. 0

2. 5

2. 0

1. 5

1. 0
va
te
er
r
y
h

i
tte
an

B a le
ll a
er

ic

ge

ab
ne
nc

na
pp
m
o

ua
pp

ni
re
es

as
m

in
Ra

Ho

lsa

ra
Va

Pe

G
ig
Pe

G
ca
rm

eg
na

ua
Pa

le
k

m
Vi
ac

ot
G

Po
ip
Bl

Ch

Neophilic (n=154) Neophobic (n=171)

Fig. 1. Internet study: Ingredient familiarity mean scores with SEM. F-values are indicated in parentheses at the top of the bars for each ingredient; the
degrees of freedom for all ingredients are 1, 323. All ingredient scores between psychographic groups are signicantly dierent (p < 0.05). A ve-points
familiarity scale was used where 1 = not at all familiar and 5 = very familiar. N = 325.
A.S. Henriques et al. / Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391 87

Table 4
CLT: Mean scores for acceptance and attribute diagnostic and just-about-right percentages by sample
Attributes Chipotle pepper Guacamole Guava honey Pomegranate Vanilla black Wasabi
parmesean ranch vinaigrette balsamic pepper ginger
dressing dressing vinaigrette dressing dressing
n 221 203 181 208 178 173
Overall salad acceptancea 7.0 a 6.5 b 7.4 a 6.4 b 6.6 b 4.8 c
(SEM) (0.12) (0.15) (0.12) (0.15) (0.16) (0.21)
Overall dressing acceptancea 6.9 ab 6.3 c 7.3 a 6.4 c 6.5 bc 4.7 d
(SEM) (0.13) (0.15) (0.13) (0.15) (0.16) (0.21)
Appearance acceptancea 7.5 a 6.7 c 7.0 a 7.3 ab 7.1 b 6.5 c
(SEM) (0.09) (0.14) (0.10) (0.11) (0.11) (0.14)
Flavour acceptancea 6.8 b 6.2 c 7.2 a 6.3 c 6.4 bc 4.6 d
(SEM) (0.14) (0.16) (0.14) (0.16) (0.18) (0.21)
Amount of avorb 3.8 b 3.4 c 3.3 c 3.6 b 3.4 c 4.4 a
(SEM) (0.06) (0.07) (0.05) (0.06) (0.06) (0.06)
% just-about-right 36 c 43 c 64 a 43 c 58 b 11 a
Amount of textureb 3.3 b 3.7 a 3.0 c 2.8 d 3.3 b 3.0 d
(SEM) (0.04) (0.05) (0.02) (0.03) (0.04) (0.04)
% just-about-right 72 c 47 d 89 a 79 b 73 c 85 ab
Meets expectationsc 3.9 a 3.3 b 3.9 a 3.5 b 3.6 b 2.8 c
(SEM) (0.08) (0.10) (0.09) (0.10) (0.10) (0.12)
Scores within the same attribute followed by dierent letters are signicantly dierent (i.e. a is dierent from b but not ab) based on Duncans Test
following ANOVA.
a
Nine-points scale where 1 = dislike extremely, 5 = neither like nor dislike, 9 = like extremely.
b
Five-points scale where 1 = much too low/thin, 3 = just-about-right, 5 = much too high/thick.
c
Five-points scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = strongly agree.

tance and overall dressing acceptance (Table 4). The salad dressing was too thick; most diagnostic mean ratings
dressing ratings exhibited dierences in all acceptability were between 3 and 4 on a 5-point scale. Wasabi was rated
attributes. The guava honey vinaigrette scored highest with as the least liked and the strongest in avor, the only prod-
wasabi ginger dressing consistently scoring the lowest. uct rating over 4 on the 5-point JAR scale. Guava was
Samples also exhibited a wide spread in diagnostic attri- rated as the most liked and just-about-right for avor
bute results with the percent just-about-right scores rang- strength by the highest percentage of respondents.
ing from 11% to 64% in avor and 47% to 89% in texture Chipotle ranch dressing and guava honey dressing best
(Table 4). All products except guava honey vinaigrette, met consumer expectation, both scoring 3.9 on a 5-points
vanilla black pepper vinaigrette and guacamole ranch were scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
perceived as too strong in avor and guacamole ranch Wasabi ginger scored signicantly lower (2.8) than all other

9
Ingredient familiarity mean score

8. 5

7. 5 ns

7 p=0.04 p=0.06
p=0.06
6. 5

5. 5

5
Overall salad Overall dressing Flavor acceptability Appearance

Neophilic (n=273) Neophobic (n=96)

Fig. 2. CLT: Mean acceptability scores by psychographic. A 9-points scale was used where 1 = dislike extremely, 5 = neither like nor dislike, 9 = like
extremely.
88 A.S. Henriques et al. / Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391

samples. The remaining three samples, guacamole ranch, cantly (p > 0.10) in the attribute diagnostic mean scores
pomegranate, and vanilla black pepper, scored 3.3, 3.5 (Figs. 3 and 4).
and 3.6, respectively.
3.2.1.3. Meets expectation. Because neophilics comprised
3.2.1. Results by food neophobia scale score
the majority of the respondents, they scored similarly to
3.2.1.1. Acceptability scores. Neophobics rated the salad
the total sample for Meets Expectations. Neophobics
dressings signicantly lower than neophilics for Flavor
were less discriminating and only scored wasabi ginger sig-
Acceptability (p = 0.04; f-value = 4.4; df = 1,1159), Overall
nicantly lower (2.7) than all the rest. The other ve dress-
Salad (p = 0.06; f-value = 3.5; df = 1, 1159) and Overall
ings ranged in score from 3.4 to 3.9 with no signicant
Dressing (p = 0.06; f-value = 3.6; df = 1, 1159) but not
dierences.
appearance (Fig. 2). The acceptability between groups ran-
ged 0.5 units on the 9-point scale. Although the acceptabil-
ity scores were dierent, the order of acceptability scores 3.2.1.4. Expected acceptability from internet vs. actual
for neophilics was similar to neophobics. For example, acceptability from CLT. Neophilics from the internet study
both groups rated guava honey dressing the highest and rated expected acceptability similarly to neophilics in the
wasabi ginger the lowest for overall salad dressing accept- CLT for acceptability after tasting the product, with the
ability (Table 5). exception of vanilla black pepper and guava honey which
were rated 1.1 and 1.5 scale points higher by the CLT neo-
3.2.1.2. Attribute diagnostics. Unlike the mean acceptability philics (see Tables 3 and 4). Neophobics scores increased
scores, neophobics and neophilics did not dier signi- more from expected (internet survey) to actual acceptabil-

Table 5
CLT: Sample mean acceptability and attribute diagnostic scores by psychographic
Chipotle Guacamole Guava Pomegranate Vanilla black Wasabi
ranch ranch honey balsamic pepper ginger
Neophobic n 51 50 52 56 49 43
Overall salad acceptancea 6.9 a 6.4 ab 7.3 a 6.2 b 6.4 ab 4.3 c
(SEM) (0.22) (0.30) (0.25) (0.31) (0.35) (0.40)
Overall dressing acceptancea 6.6 ab 6.2 ab 7.1 a 6.1 b 6.3 ab 4.2 c
(SEM) (0.25) (0.32) (0.27) (0.31) (0.35) (0.40)
Appearance acceptancea 7.5 a 6.6 bc 7.5 a 7.1 ab 7.0 ab 6.3 c
(SEM) (0.19) (0.29) (0.16) (0.26) (0.21) (0.29)
Flavor acceptancea 6.5 ab 6.0 b 7.1 a 6.0 b 6.3 ab 4.0 c
(SEM) (0.28) (0.33) (0.28) (0.33) (0.37) (0.39)
Amount of avorb 4.0 b 3.6 cd 3.3 c 3.7 c 3.4 cd 4.5 a
(SEM) (0.11) (0.13) (0.08) (0.13) (0.11) (0.10)
Amount of textureb 3.1 bc 3.6 a 3.0 cd 2.8 d 3.2 b 3.0 cd
(SEM) (0.07) (0.10) (0.05) (0.07) (0.07) (0.08)
Meets expectationsc 3.6 ab 3.4 a 3.9 a 3.4 a 3.4 a 2.7 a
(SEM) (0.17) (0.18) (0.16) (0.19) (0.19) (0.23)
Neophilic n 170 154 130 152 129 132
Overall salad acceptancea 7.0 ab 6.5 b 7.4 a 6.5 b 6.6 b 5.0 c
(SEM) (0.14) (0.17) (0.14) (0.17) (0.18) (0.25)
Overall dressing acceptancea 7.0 ab 6.3 c 7.4 a 6.5 bc 6.5 bc 4.8 d
(SEM) (0.15) (0.18) (0.15) (0.18) (0.18) (0.25)
Appearance acceptancea 7.5 a 6.8 bc 7.5 a 7.3 a 7.1 ab 6.6 c
(SEM) (0.11) (0.15) (0.12) (0.13) (0.14) (0.16)
Flavor acceptancea 6.9 ab 6.3 c 7.3 a 6.4 bc 6.5 bc 7.8 d
(SEM) (0.16) (0.18) (0.16) (0.19) (0.20) (0.25)
Amount of avorb 3.7 b 3.4 c 3.3 c 3.6 bc 3.3 c 4.4 a
(SEM) (0.06) (0.08) (0.06) (0.06) (0.07) (0.07)
Amount of textureb 3.3 b 3.7 a 3.0 c 2.8 d 3.3 b 2.9 cd
(SEM) (0.04) (0.06) (0.03) (0.04) (0.05) (0.04)
Meets expectationsc 3.9 a 3.3 c 3.9 a 3.5 bc 3.6 ab 2.8 d
(SEM) (0.09) (0.11) (0.16) (0.11) (0.11) (0.14)
Scores within the same attribute and psychographic group followed by dierent letters are signicantly dierent (i.e. a is dierent from b but not ab)
based on Duncans Test followed by ANOVA.
a
Nine-points scale where 1 = dislike extremely, 5 = neither like nor dislike, 9 = like extremely.
b
Five-points scale where 1 = much too low/thin, 3 = just-about-right, 5 = much too high/thick.
c
Five-points scale where 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 5 = strongly.
A.S. Henriques et al. / Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391 89

Neophobics Neophilics
100% 100%
Percent Respondents

Percent Respondents
80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0%

ll a
va

ll a
va
tle

tle
i

e
te

i
te
ab

ab
ol

ol
na

na
ni

ni
ua

ua
po

po

as
as
m

Va
Va

ra
ra

G
G

hi
hi

ca
ca

W
W

eg
eg

C
C

ua
ua

m
m

G
G

Po
Po

Not Enough Just Right Too Much Not Enough Just Right Too Much

Fig. 3. CLT: Flavor strength frequency distributions.

Neophobics Neophilics
100% 100%
Percent Respondents
Percent Respondents

80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0% te

lla
va
e
tle

i
ab
ll a
va
tle

i
te

ol

na
ab

ni
ua
ol

po
na

as
ni
ua
po

Va
as

ra
m

G
Va

hi

ca

W
ra
G
hi

ca

eg
W

ua
eg
C

ua

om
G
m
G

P
Po

Not Enough Just Right Too Much Not Enough Just Right Too Much

Fig. 4. CLT: Texture strength frequency distributions.

ity (CLT), from 1.1 to 2.7 scale points, with the exception 4.1. The role of product familiarity
of wasabi ginger.
Food familiarity or the lack thereof, has a key role in
4. Discussion neophobic behavior. Pliner and Hobden (1992) showed
that unfamiliar foods were the trigger for neophobic behav-
The present study is a demonstration of the utilization ior, and further that neophobics were less familiar with
of food neophobia for segmentation of a recruited con- novel foods. In fact Pliner et al. (1998) showed that food
sumer panel in a commercial setting. Recruited consumer neophobia is related to novel foods but not familiar foods.
panelists were pre-screened with a partial FNS by tele- In the present study we conrmed through the internet
phone, then tested with novel salad dressings, and then study that the salad dressings were indeed unfamiliar.
screened again with the entire FNS scale. Moderate neoph- Tuorila et al. (1994) used imported foods from other coun-
obics responded to ads for standard commercial recruit- tries to insure unfamiliarity in their study of neophobia.
ment, but very limited response from extreme Raudenbush and Frank (1999) found that neophobics sig-
neophobics. The number of neophilics (70%) responding nicantly lower acceptability for both familiar and unfa-
to the CLT screener was greater than the number of neoph- miliar foods, but especially for the unfamiliar. The
obics, compared to the internet study where there was a present study also found lower acceptability by both neo-
slighter greater response from neophobics (52%) than philics and neophobics, with the neophobics showing a
neophilics. more pronounced eect. The present study conrms the
90 A.S. Henriques et al. / Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391

studies of Tuorila et al. and Raudenbush and Frank that ate the sensory properties of the products. Novelty can be
showed the cognitive eect of unfamiliarity on expected an entirely new product unlike any other in the market
acceptability for neophobics. Raudenbush and Frank place, or it may be a familiar application (i.e. salad dress-
found that neophobics were more pessimistic than neophi- ing) using radically new ingredients or vice versa, a familiar
lics regarding how much they anticipated liking unfamiliar avor in an entirely new application. Novelty may also be
foods based on lower expected-liking ratings and have familiar ingredients used in an unexpected way or in unex-
noted that this might be characteristic of neophobic pected combinations as was the case in the current study.
behavior. Whether each type of novelty elicits the same response in
neophobics or whether neophobics exhibit a stronger or
4.2. Implications for new product development weaker response depending on the degree of novelty needs
to be further explored. Additional questions include assess-
Understanding the psychographic composition of a con- ing if neophobics are more adverse to combinations of a-
sumer test respondent base may help explain why some vors vs. single avors, or whether combinations add to the
products score higher or lower in acceptability. This study probability of increased anxiety. Answers to these ques-
demonstrates that food neophobia impacts the degree with tions may help companies determine how important it is
which a product is liked or disliked by consumers, conrm- to understand the relationship of novelty and neophobia,
ing Tuorila et al. (1994), Pliner et al. (1998) and Arvola or the bigger questions of whether or not they should pur-
et al. (1999). Therefore, whether it is a concept study or a sue or exclude neophobics when testing new products.
taste evaluation, the presence of psychographic segments
within a consumer respondent base may inuence which 4.4. Impact of inclusion or exclusion of neophobics in
products are considered for further development, particu- consumer testing
larly for companies that require a product to meet a specic
hurdle in acceptability scores in order to progress through The current study conrms earlier results that extreme
the development cycle. neophobics do not typically volunteer for product develop-
Psychographic segments do not necessarily impact prod- ment tests. Tuorila et al. (1994) and Arvola et al. (1999)
uct rankings based on hedonic mean scores. In this case of found no extreme neophobics, that is those scoring >54/
products with novel avor combinations, food neophobia 70 on the FNS. If neophobics are not specically recruited,
also did not aect the directional information provided it is likely they will not be well represented in the respon-
by consumers through diagnostic attributes, suggesting dent base of a consumer test. As seen with this study, a
that neophobics and neophilics perceive sensory character- small number of neophobics do respond to commercial
istics of products similarly, but show a dierent degree of solicitation for testing food for payment. However, the
liking or anity for products. Should a product advance majority of participants in most consumer studies testing
to the next stage of development, psychographic segmenta- novel food items are probably not neophobic. Companies
tion will not necessarily impact how a novel product is interested in pursuing this need to address how to dene
modied based on directional information obtained and recruit food neophobics. Some recommendations are
through diagnostic attributes such as just-about-right ques- provided in the next sections of this discussion.
tions. This lack of an order eect and lack of a JAR eect
with food neophobia need to be conrmed with other cat- 4.5. Considerations for testing in a commercial setting
egories of products.
4.5.1. Prescreening and post-tests
4.3. Familiarity and uniqueness Researchers have used 4 or 5-items from the FNS to pre-
screen subjects. In the present study, we prescreened the
As expected, the results of the internet study showed consumers with 4-items and then conrmed their categori-
that neophilics are more familiar with the individual ingre- zation with a post full 10-item FNS. A number of panelists
dients used in the test salad dressings. For consumer stud- changed categories from neophobic to neophilic or vice
ies where food neophobics may be included, avoidance of versa when comparing pre and post psychographic testing.
product names and descriptions that specically call out Prescreening yielded 197 neophobics and 169 of them
a novel ingredient may help minimize potential anxiety. tested neophobic on the same 4 screening items in the post
These results suggest that companies testing novel food test. However, of these, only half that number (96) tested
products should identify the psychographic proles of their neophobic with the full FNS post-test. The discrepancies
consumer base to help explain potential variability in the in the results may be due to poor selection of questionnaire
test results. However, understanding the meaning of nov- items for prescreening, and/or the eect that the CLT test
elty in a commercial setting may help determine how much had on consumers own perception after tasting novel
consideration should be given to food neophobia segmen- products. We do not recommend prescreening on small
tation. When assessing novelty of food items, it is recom- numbers of FNS questions without further verication.
mended that a group of consumers be used to rate Those wishing to use fewer questions for pre-testing may
uniqueness of the products and a separate group to evalu- consider the 6 unidimensional items identied by Ritchey
A.S. Henriques et al. / Food Quality and Preference 20 (2009) 8391 91

et al. (2003). While in the present study prescreening was needed to determine the need for the input of neophobic
conducted via telephone, future internet studies will assist consumers during the product development process of
in easier prescreening using all test items. new foods; specically, what degree of novelty elicits the
observed response from this study and others where neoph-
4.6. Internet vs. CLT obics rate hedonic attributes lower than neophilics as well as
a better understanding of what the implications may be to
Using the same classication criteria as in the CLT (10- new products in the pd process when neophobic responses
item questionnaire), more neophobics were obtained than are not included in consumer testing as seems to be the case
neophilics for the internet study, 53% and 48%, respec- in standard CLT practices. Additionally, if the input of neo-
tively. The internet may allow for easier access to food phobic consumers is desired, a better approach to recruiting
neophobics than recruiting for CLTs as the internet may them for testing needs to be explored.
be perceived as less threatening. When using a large pool
of consumers, one can pre-test with a number of psycho- References
logical tests including food neophobia when relevant to
the research question. Other possible tests include food Arvola, A., Lahteenmaki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Predicting the intent to
purchase unfamiliar and familiar cheeses: The eects of attitudes,
involvement (Bell & Marshall, 2003), and restrained eating
expected liking and food neophobia. Appetite, 32, 113126.
(Westenhoefer, Stunkard, & Pudel, 1999). Pre-testing is Bell, R., & Marshall, D. W. (2003). The construct of food involvement in
best done via the internet, although this may not encom- behavioral research: Scale development and validation. Appetite, 40,
pass all demographic groups. Then consumers can be 235244.
recruited for specic tests. If desired, specic tests can be Birch, L. L., & Marlin, D. W. (1982). I dont like it: I never tried it: Eects
of exposure on two-year-old childrens food neophobia. Appetite, 3,
re-administered following product tests. Or, consumers
353360.
can be tested on psychographic scales post test only. This Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the
runs the risk that not enough neophobics will participate. trait of food neophobia. Appetite, 19, 105120.
Additionally, post-testing for neophobia after a novel Pliner, P., Lahteenmaki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1998). Correlates of human
product test might inuence the results on the Food Neo- food neophobia. Appetite, 30, 93.
Raudenbush, B., & Frank, R. A. (1999). Assessing food neophobia: The
phobia Scale. Immediate exposure to novel foods might
role of stimulus familiarity. Appetite, 32, 261271.
further sensitize neophilic and neophobic responses. Ritchey, P. N., Frank, R. A., Hursti, U.-K., & Tuorila, H. (2003).
In conclusion, this study demonstrates that neophobia Validation and cross-national comparison of the food neophobia scale
can inuence scores in product evaluations, especially those (FNS) using conrmatory factor analysis. Appetite, 40, 163173.
of novel products. As noted, neophobics are probably Tuorila, H., Lahteenmaki, L., Phohjalainen, L., & Lotti, L. (2001). Food
neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and
underrepresented in the traditional CLT. This is likely not
unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 2938.
a problem when evaluating existing products which are Tuorila, H., Meiselman, H. L., Bell, R., Cardello, A. V., & Johnson, W.
being incrementally changed, but this does pose a challenge (1994). Role of sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement
for very new products. The current test approach may pro- of certainty and liking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite, 23,
vide misleading information regarding consumer accep- 231246.
von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: A source of novel product concepts.
tance of new products as it does not typically include a
Management Science, 32, 791805.
potential segment of consumers. Additionally, it is less Westenhoefer, J., Stunkard, A. J., & Pudel, V. (1999). Validation of the
likely that new products will appeal to neophobics because exible and rigid control dimensions of dietary restraint. International
they have not been represented in testing. More research is Journal of Eating Disorders, 26(1), 5364.

You might also like