Appetite,

1992, 19, 105-120

Development of a Scale to Measure Neophobia in Humans

PATRICIA PLINER and KAREN HOBDEN
Erindale College, University of Toronto

the Trait of Food

Using standard test construction techniques, we developed a paper and pencil measure of the trait of food neophobia, which was defined as a reluctance to eat and/or avoidance of novel foods. The resulting lo-item test was found to have satisfactory test-retest reliability and internal consistency. Three behavioral validation studies demonstrated that test scores predicted behavior in laboratory food selection situations. Scores on the measure were found to be correlated with trait anxiety, age, the Experience Seeking subscale of the Sensation Seeking Scale, general neophobia, and general familiarity and experience with unusual foods. Scores were not related to gender or to finickiness.

INTRODUCTION

Humans, along with other omnivorous animals, have been characterized as being neophobic with respect to food. This reluctance to eat and/or avoidance of novel foods is assumed to have adaptive value, serving a protective function in a potentially hostile food environment (Pliner Note 1). At the same time, in order to capitalize on the advantages of omnivory, the omnivore must also be willing to try novel foods. Thus, the omnivores dilemma (Rozin, 1977) is that it must both approach and avoid novel foods. Presumably, a whole host of factors determines whether the conflict will be resolved in favor of approach or avoidance at any particular time and in the presence of any particular food. As Rozin & Rozin (1981) have noted, [a] person may both seek and withdraw from exotic foods, and the balance may shift . . . in different circumstances (p. 12). Much of the existing research on food neophobia can be characterized as being aimed at understanding the situational influences on it. In that context, a number of manipulations have been shown to affect degree of food neophobia in humans and other animals. For example, it has been shown that increasing the total amount of novelty in an eating situation increases reluctance to approach and eat an unfamiliar food. Rats offered a novel saccharin solution in the presence of 2 or 3 novel exteroceptive cues drank less than those who received the same solution in the presence of 0 or 1 such cues (Archer & Sjoden, 1979). Similarly, Pelchat (Note 2) presented college students with an unfamiliar food and asked them to imagine that it had been offered to them by: a stranger in the subway, a psychologist in the laboratory, or a friend in the friends home. Subjects reported significantly less willingness to taste the food in the former condition than in the
Address correspondence to: Patricia Pliner, Erindale College, University of Toronto, 3359 Mississauga Road, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, LSL lC6 019S6663/92/050105 + 16 %08.00/O 0 1992 Academic Press Limited

106

P. PLINER AND K. HOBDEN

latter two. Harper & Sanders (1975) found that preschool children were less likely to consume a novel food when it was offered to them by an unfamiliar experimenter than when it was offered by their mothers. Finally, in an interesting conceptual analysis of flavor principles [the characteristic seasonings used in various cuisines; see Rozin (1983) for a description and discussion], Rozin & Rozin (1981) have suggested that one of their functions is to encourage the admittance of novel foods into a cusine by adding familiarity to otherwise unfamiliar substances. Thus, adding familiarity is proposed to decrease neophobia. Another manipulation which affects level of neophobia is pre-exposure to novel foods. Pliner et al. (Note 1) had college students eat either a set of seven novel foods or a matched set of seven familiar foods and then looked at their willingness to eat new novel foods. The manipulation had a clear effect, subjects in the former condition choosing significantly more novel foods than those in the latter. Using preexposure of longer duration, Capretta et al. (1975) fed some groups of young rats a varied diet while feeding others only a single food. The former were subsequently more likely than the latter to eat previously untasted novel foods. Braveman & Jarvis (1978) and Siegel (1974) using adult rats, found that pre-exposure to even a single novel food increased animals consumption of a second novel food. Exposure to novelty effects were also obtained by Kuo (1967) with puppies as subjects. A number of researchers have found that a poisoning experience not only induces avoidance of novel flavors paired with the toxicosis but also increases avoidance of novel foods not paired with the poisoning agent (Richter, 1953; Rozin, 1968; Rzoska, 1953). Although more recent work has demonstrated that some portion of this effect can be attributed to stimulus generalization of conditioned taste aversions (Domjan, 1975) there remains a small but significant poisoninduced neophobia. Perhaps this effect corresponds to the anecdotally noted preference for familiar foods during and immediately after illness and in times of stress in humans. The research described above was intended to illustrate manipulated situational factors which produce temporary changes in neophobic behavior (although the preexposure to novelty manipulations of Braveman & Jarvis (1978), Capretta et al. (1975), Kuo (1967), and Siegel (1974) may have produced relatively permanent changes). It is also true that there seem to be fairly stable group differences in level of neophobia. A number of studies with human subjects have shown younger subjects to be more neophobic than older ones. For example, Birch (1979) found that a familiarity dimension accounted for more variance in the preference judgments of 3-year-old than 4-year-old children. Otis (1984) testing a group of students ranging in age from 17 to 50, found that the older ones were willing to try more of a set of unfamiliar foods than the younger ones. Poorly adjusted individuals seem, as a group, to be more neophobic than those who are relatively better adjusted. In a study of 2-6 year-old children, based on mothers reports of their behavior, Pelchat & Pliner (1986) found that those with more psychological and behavioral problems were also more likely to refuse to try novel foods. In at least two studies, individuals who tend to seek out new and/or exciting experiences have been shown to be generally less neophobic than their less adventurous counterparts (Otis, 1984; Teraski & Imada, 1988). Other group differences include that observed by many researchers between wild rats and laboratory strains (Barnett, 1958; Mitchell, 1976; Rozin, 1968) and the litter differences noted by others (Ferrell, 1984; Wyrwicka, 1981).

DEVELOPMENT OF A

FOOD NEOPHOBIASCALE

107

In summary, most previous research has focused on the situational determinants of neophobic behavior, although there is some evidence for the existence of group differences. In humans, even within age and other groups, common experience suggests that there are large individual differences in extent of neophobia. Almost everyone knows (or, with bad luck, is the mother of) some person who is devoted to avoiding novel foods. These are the people who provided the title for an article by Birch & Marlin (1982). I dont like it-Ive never tried it. In contrast, there are people who might be describd as neophilic-they seek out novel foods. Thus, situational differences aside, given these individual differences, it might be useful to conceptualize neophobia as a personality trait, a continuum along which people can be located in terms of their stable propensity to approach or avoid novel foods. The general purpose of this paper is to examine this neophobia-neophilia continuum in humans. Our more specific goals are: to develop and validate a paper-and-pencil measure of food neophobia and to examine some of the correlates of neophobia as assessed by this measure.

CONSTRUCTIONOF THE FOOD NEOPHOBIA SCALE

Subjects Several samples of subjects were used in the construction of the scale. All were undergraduate students enroled in lower level psychology courses. Males and females ranging in age from 18 to 74 participated (M=20*67); however, the vast majority of subjects were between the ages of 19 and 25.

Test Items The original set of items for the food neophobia measure was generated by a group of 27 subjects to whom the construct of food neophobia was described informally. Basically, they were told to imagine a continuum along which individuals could be placed according to their liking for and/or willingness to try unfamiliar foods. They were given several examples of items and encouraged to think of both positively and negatively worded items (i.e., items for which agreement and disagreement, respectively, were indicative of neophobia). These items were supplemented by others devised by the researchers. The resulting large set of items was administered to a group of 55 subjects, who were instructed to indicate on a 7-point bipolar rating scale the extent of their agreement with each item (endpoints: disagree strongly, agree strongly). Total scores were calculated, for which the scoring of individual items was reversed where appropriate, and uncorrected item-whole correlations were computed. In addition, the items were rated by the two experimenters and two research assistants for face validity (7-point scale; endpoints: extremely low, extremely high), and these ratings were averaged across raters. Items with low item-whole correlations and/or low mean face validity ratings were eliminated, leaving 18 items. The same procedures were followed to produce a set of 12 items intended to measure a more general neophobia-a preference for familiar situations and people vs. a willingness to experience new situations and people.

108

P. PLINER AND K. HOBDEN

Psychometric

Analyses

The two sets of items were administered to two samples of subjects (Ns = 135 and 75). Uncorrected item-whole correlations were computed for each set for each sample. We then examined the correlations for the food neophobia items for the larger of the samples, selecting the five positively worded items with the highest correlations and the five negatively worded items with the highest correlations. The average item-whole correlation for this set of 10 items was 0.70. We then examined the correlations for the smaller of the samples, ascertaining that it was the same 10 items which had the highest item-whole correlations (M=0*70). It was this set of items which became the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS). With two exceptions, we adopted the same set of procedures for the general neophobia items. First, we did not attempt to balance the scale for the direction of the wording of the items, since only one of the 12 was worded in the negative direction. Second, we selected only eight items in total-the eight with the highest item-whole correlations (MS = 0.63 and 0.74 in the two samples, respectively). These items became the General Neophobia Scale (GNS). The two sets of items can be seen in Table 1 along with item means and standard deviations, corrected item-whole correlations, and highest correlation with the other items, for the two samples combined. The alpha coefficients for the Food Neophobia Scale in the two samples were both 0.88; those for the General Neophobia Scale were O-78 in the larger sample and 0.88 in the other. In theory, scores on the FNS could range from 10 to 70; in fact, they ranged (combining the two samples) from 10 to 68 with a mean of 34.51 and a SD of 11.86. Scores on the GNS could range from 8 to 56; they actually ranged from 8 to 55 with a mean of 25.61 and a SD of 8.95. Inspection of frequency distributions of scores on the two scales revealed them to be unimodal and to appear normal. Test-retest reliability of the FNS was measured in three different samples. For two of the samples the mean interval between the two administrations of the scale was 3 weeks, with a range of 2 to 4 weeks. The test-retest correlations in these two samples were r(38) = 0.91 and r(3 1) = O-87,ps < 0.01. Forthe third sample the interval between administrations was exactly 15 weeks for all subjects, and the correlation was r(59)=0.82, ~~0.01.
BEHAVIORALVALIDATION OF THE Foot NEOPHOBIA SCALE

In order to validate the Food Neophobia Scale, correlations between it and laboratory food choice were obtained for three samples of subjects (Ns = 41, 35, and 80), all university students and ranging in age from 18 to 49 yrs (A4= 22.6). In the first two samples, subjects completed the FNS approximately 3 weeks prior to participating in the laboratory procedure; in the third, FNS scores were obtained approximately 4 months prior to the laboratory procedure.
SAMPLE 1

Method Overview and rationale

Subjects were led to believe that at a later date they would be helping the experimenter by pretesting some foods that were being considered for use in

DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD NEOPHOBIA SCALE

109

psychology experiments during the coming academic year. They were informed that there were many more foods to be pretested than any individual subjects could taste in one session and that, therefore, they would each be tasting only a limited sample of the available foods. They were then shown an array of foods supposedly consisting of all the foods to be pretested and asked about their willingness to try each with the understanding that their responses would determine which foods they would actually taste during the future tasting session. In fact, there was no future tasting session, it was threatened only in an attempt to capture subjects real willingness to taste the various foods rather some more hypothetical state of mind.
Foods

There were six different foods, three novel and three familiar, from each of five categories: salads; dips; vegetables; cereal products and snacks. The list of foods used appears in Table 2, arranged by food category. Foods were defined a priori as

TABLE 1

Items used in final versions of the Food Neophobia Neophobia Scale (GNS)

Scale

(FNS)

and General

Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) I am constantly sampling new and different foods. (R) 2. I dont trust new foods. 3. If I dont know what is in a food, I wont try it. 4. I like foods from different countries. (R) 5. Ethnic food looks too weird to eat. 6. At dinner parties, I will try a new food. (R) 7. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before. 8. I am very particular about the foods I will eat. 9. I will eat almost anything. (R) 10. I like to try new ethnic restaurants. (R) General Neophobia 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Scale (GNS) 1.

Mean 3.84 2.98 3.61 3.61 2.57 3.68 2.79 3.74 4.00 3.69

SD

Item/ whole 0.41 0.54 0.42 0.51 0.45 044 0.50 0.45 0.38 0.56

Highest correlation (item) 0.51 (10) 0.59 (8) 0.52 (8) 0.74 0.56 0.74 0.54 (6) (2) (4) (2)

1.75 I.64 1.97 2.00 1.60 1.94 1.57 1.90 2.03 1.70

0.59 (2) 0.38 (10) 0.68 (4)

I feel uncomfortable when I find myself in novel situations. Whenever Im away, I want to get home to my familiar surroundings I am afraid of the unknown. I am very uncomfortable in new situations. Whenever I am on vacation, I cant wait to get home. I avoid speaking to people I do not know when I go to a party. I feel uneasy in unfamiliar surroundings. I dont like sitting next to someone I dont know.
is reversed are marked

3.45 3.33 3.12 3.24 2.51 3.13 3.76 3.07

1.61 1.69 1.70 1.66 1.66 1.69 1.63 1.66

0.53 0.53 0.61 0.69 o-47 0.48 0.63 0.47

0.62 (4) 0.55 (5) 0.53 (4) O-62 (1) 0.55 (2) 0.50 (8) O-61 (4) 0.50 (6)

Items for which scoring

(R).

110

P. PLINER AND K. HOBDEN

TABLE 2 Foods used in the first validation study Food category Salads Food Bean salad Baba ganouj (N) Coleslaw Guacamole (N) Potato salad Ratatouille (N) Cheese dip Hummus (N) Onion dip Pickle dip Tapenade (N) Taramasalata (N) Papadums (N) Ritz crackers Saltines Shrimp chips (N) Corn chips Japanese rice crackers (N) Chicken nugget Dolmatha (N) Egg roll Knish (N) Pizza Samosa (N) Carrot Celery Drumstick (N) Parval (N) Kohlrabi (N) Peas

Dips

Crackers

Snacks

Vegetables

The novel foods are marked (IV).

and data collected during the study confirmed this categorization. Means of subjects ratings of the familiarity of the foods (on a 6-point bipolar scale; endpoints: extremely unfamiliar, extremely familiar), averaged across foods, were 2.05 for the 15 novel foods and 5.58 for the 15 familiar foods. These means were significantly different, t(39)= 20.78, p<O.OOl. Subjects were also asked to indicate the frequency with which they ate each of the foods (on a scale scored from 0 to 7 with the points labelled as follows: never, once, a few times, once a month, once a week, once a day, more than once a day). The means, collapsed over foods, were 0.31 for the novel foods and 3.62 for the familiar foods. These two means differ significantly, t(39)= 31.36, p <O.OOl. The foods were presented separately by category on five long laboratory tables, arranged randomly within a category. They were displayed in open containers, and each was accompanied by a printed label with its name. novel or familiar,

DEVELOPMENTOF Procedure

A FOOD NEOPHOBIA SCALE

111

Subjects received questionnaires containing a separate page for each of the food categories (located, it will be recalled on separate tables). The pages were ordered differently for .different subjects, and subjects were instructed to approach the tables in the order indicated by their questionnaires and to complete a food category before moving to the next table. Their main task was to rank order the six foods in each category in terms of their willingness to taste small amounts of them (in the fictitious subsequent tasting session). In addition, they rated their familiarity with and frequency of eating each as indicated above.

REWLTS AND DISCUSSION

The degree to which subjects behaved in a food neophobic manner was calculated by averaging the ranks for the 15 unfamiliar foods. Thus, a higher score is indicative of greater neophobia since a subject who behaved as neophobically as possible would have ranked the novel foods in each category as 4, 5, and 6. To determine the predictive validity of the Food Neophobia Scale, we correlated subjects scores on the paper-and-pencil measure with their behavioral (ranking) data. It was found that subjects FNS scores were highly predictive of their behavioral responses to the novel foods used in this experiment, r(39) = 0.61, p<O.OOl. Further examination of the data revealed that FNS scores were also correlated with two other variables. Specifically, more highly neophobic subjects reported being less familiar with and having eaten fewer times the unfamiliar foods presented in the behavioral ranking task (rs -0.54 and -0.55, respectively; ps < 0.01). However, the familiarity and times eaten ratings for the familiar foods were not significantly correlated with FNS scores. Thus, not surprisingly, more highly neophobic subjects appear to have less experience with and/or less exposure to novel foods than do their less neophobic peers. It is possible that it is because the novel foods are more novel to them that the more highly neophobic subjects are less willing to taste them. In order to test this hypothesis, we computed two partial correlations. Both were between the FNS scores and the willingness ratings-in one we partialled out familiarity ratings for the unfamiliar foods and in the other we partialled out times eaten ratings for the unfamiliar foods. In neither case was there a change from the original correlation (between FNS and willingness ratings of 0.61) of more than 0.02. Thus, although more highly neophobic subjects were less familiar with the novel foods, when this greater unfamiliarity was controlled for statistically, they were still less willing to taste novel foods than subjects lower in neophobia.

SAMPLES 2 AND

Information pertaining to the second and third samples will be presented together as their procedures were very similar but quite different in some respects from that for the first sample. Where the second and third samples diverge, the differences will be noted.

112

P. PLINER AND K. HOBDEN Method

Procedure

The basic rationale presented to the subjects in the second and third samples prior to their doing the laboratory food choice task was the same as above-namely, that we were planning to pretest some foods to be used in future experiments. However, the task differed from that used for the first sample in two important ways. First, the fictitious tasting session for which they were supposedly choosing foods to taste was specifically scheduled instead of being described vaguely as occurring sometime in the near future as had been the case for the first sample. For the second sample, the tasting was scheduled for the next day; for the third, for later in the same session. Second, subjects were presented with ten pairs of foods and required to choose one member of each pair as the foods which you will be tasting . . . instead of ranking their willingness to taste members of sets of foods.
Foods

There were 20 foods, arranged into ten pairs, each consisting of one novel and one familiar food in the same general category. So, for example, one pair consisted of carrot and lotus root; another consisted of lychee and pear. The ten pairs of foods used are listed in Table 3, arranged in the order in which subjects encountered them with the (left-right) positions of the foods as they were presented. Again, foods were defined a priori as novel or familiar, and data collected from subjects in the second sample confirmed this categorization. Means of subjects ratings of the familiarity of the foods (on a 7-point bipolar scale; endpoints: not at all familiar, extremely familiar), averaged across foods, were 2.55 for the ten novel foods and 6.87 for the ten familiar foods. These means were significantly different, t(34) = 24.14, p<O.OOl. Subjects were also asked to estimate the number of times they had eaten each of the foods. The means were 9.88 for the novel foods and 85.34 for the familiar foods. The latter is probably an underestimate since answers indicating ingestion of the food 100 times or more were coded as 99. Nevertheless, the two means differ significantly, t(33) = 25.75, p < O-001.
Results The degree to which an individual behaved in a neophobic manner was defined as the number of pairs for which he/she chose the familiar (vs. novel) food for later

TABLE 3

Pairs of foods used in the second validation study Carrot Rice Drumsticks (N) Tuna fish Goat cheese (N) Papads (N) Pineapple Cows milk Lychee (N) Debrecener (N) Lotus root (N) Kasha (N) Green beans Octopus (N) Cheddar cheese Ritz crackers Boysenberry (N) Sheeps milk (N) Pear Hot dog

The novel foods are marked (NY.

DEVELOPMENT

OF A FOOD NEOPHOBIA

SCALE

113

tasting. For the second sample, the Pearson product moment correlation between scores on the FNS and the behavioral measure was 0.43 (df=29, ~~0.01). FNS scores were also marginally correlated with familiarity for the unfamiliar foods, r(29) = 0.34, 0.05 <p < 0.10, but not with times eaten for the unfamiliar foods or with either measure for the familiar foods. Subjects in the third sample were required to taste seven good- or bad-tasting novel or familiar foods before doing the behavioral choice task. Separate correlations were computed between FNS scores and number of familiar (vs. novel) foods chosen for each of the four pre-treatment cells. The four correlations, each with 18 degrees-of-freedom, were: 0.57,. O-66, 0.59, and 0.65, all ps c 0.05; the mean is 0.62. If the data are analysed using multiple regression, the increase in R2 produced by FNS score after the pre-treatment effects have been forced into the equation is highly significant (R2 change = 0.34, F = 44.2 1, p < 0.0001).

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL ITEMSAND THE BEHAVIORAL MEASURES

Once the validation studies had been completed, providing evidence for the predictive validity of the FNS, we examined correlations between each of the individual items and the behavioral measures for the first two samples. The purpose of this procedure was to determine what the best item or items were. For the first sample, the best item was Item 1, correlating with the behavioral measure at r = 0.56. The correlation between the whole scale and the behavioral measure was only slightly higher at r=0=61. For the second validation study, Item 9 correlated more highly with the behavioral measure than did the scale as a whole (0.52 vs. 0.43). However, compared to the total scale, Item 9 did not do particularly well for the first sample (r=O44), and Item 1 did not do particularly well for the second sample (r = O-22). In fact, Item 10 was the second best for both samples (rs = 0.55 and 0.32, for the first and second samples, respectively). Whether the same items could maintain their relative status as predictors of behavior in other situations remains to be seen. However, in the two samples for which the data are available, no single item consistently provides maximum predictive validity.

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN THE FNS AND OTHER MEASURES

In order to assess the convergent and discriminant validity of the FNS, we examined the correlations between it and a number of other measures. The results are described in the text below and in Table 4, where we provide details of the subject samples for the various correlations.
Fear/Anxiety in Other Domains

Trait anxiety (Spielberger et al., 1970) is clearly related to scores on the FNS. In three samples the correlations were: r(28) = 0.39, p < 0.05; r(38) = 0.46, p < 0.01; and r(34) = 0.30, 0.05 <p < 0.10. In addition, measures of state anxiety (Spielberger et al. 1970) were taken in the course of two of these experiments. Again, correlations were positive: r(28) = O-20, ns, and r(38) = 0.45, p < 0.01. In two studies subjects completed a questionnaire on which they rated themselves on 7-point scales (not at all to

114

P. PLINER AND K. HOBDEN

TABLE 4 Correlations between FNS and other variables Variable Fear/anxiety measures Trait Anx Trait Anx Trait Anx State Anxb State Anx Anx Mood Anx Moodd Anx Mood GNS GNS Foreign food familiarity Composite- 18* Composite- 18 Composite-9h Age Age Age Age Age Finickiness Like shake Like shake Like shake Like shake Novel foods Fam foods Exp like Sensation seeking Exp seekingP Correlation n Sample

0.39 0.46 0.30 0.20 0.45 0.26 0.18 0.30 0.54 0.62 -0.43 - 0.25 - 0.47 -0.27 -0.19 -0.27 -0.21 -0.18 -0.21 0.09 0.03 -0.14 -0.12 -0.56 - 0.46

30 40 36 30 40 30 24 25 130 73 105 61 30 129 71 33 112 53 53 53 53 20 20 51 36

Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner Mass Mass

& Craig, 1990 et al., 1991 & Hobden, 1987 & Craig, 1990 ef al., 1990 & Craig, 1990 & Eng, 1990 & Eng, 1990 testing, Sample 1 testing, Sample 2

Mass testing, Sample 1 Mass testing, Sample 2 Pliner & Craig, 1990 Mass testing, Sample 1 Mass testing, Sample 2 Pliner, 1990 Pliner, 1989 Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner Pliner, & Eng, 1990 & Eng, 1990 & Eng, 1990 & Eng, 1990 et al., 1991 et al., 1991 1991

Pliner & Hobden, 1987

The samples used in the various correlations are described below:

Pliner & Craig, Note 4: Thirty introductory psychology students, participating in an experiment for course credit, run during the academic year, and tested individually. Pliner & Hobden, Note 7: Forty-five high school students, participating in an experiment for pay, run during the summer, and tested individually. Pliner et al. Note 1: Forty introductory psychology students, participating in an experiment of course credit, run during the academic year, and tested individually. Pliner & Eng, Note 3: Fifty-three introductory psychology students, participating in an experiment for course credit, run during the academic year, and tested individually. Mass Testing, Sample 1: One hundred and thirty introductory psychology students, filling out questionnaires in the classroom in a large group. Students received no course credit for filling out questionnaires, which were used for subject selection for experiments. Mass Testing, Sample 2: Seventy-three introductory psychology students tested under same circumstances as those described above. Pliner, 1989: One hundred and fourteen social psychology students, filling out questionnaires voluntarily, run during the academic year, and tested in a group. Pliner, Note 5: Thirtythree social psychology students, participating voluntarily in an experiment, run during a summer course, and tested in a group. Pliner, Note 5: Fifty-two students, participating voluntarily in an experiment, and tested individually.

DEVELOPMENT

OF A FOOD NEOPHOBIA

SCALE

115

extremely) on the following mood states: anxious, nervous, calm, relaxed. We computed a composite anxiety score by reversing the scoring on the appropriate items, summing, and taking the mean. The correlation between scores on this measure and FNS scores for the first experiment was: r(28) = O-26, ns. In the second study, there was a fear manipulation, and correlations between the composite anxiety scores and FNS scores are reported separately for the low and high fear conditions, respectively: ~(24) = 0.18 and r(25) = -0.03, both ns. Finally, correlations between our Food Neophobia Scale and the General Neophobia Scale for the two samples on which the scales were developed were r(128) = O-54, p ~0.01 and r(71)=0.62, p<O*Ol. Although the small ns which occur in some cases make interpretation of this pattern of data tentative, it appears that trait food neophobia is significantly and positively related to other trait-like measures of anxiety such as trait anxiety and general neophobia but may be less strongly related to such temporary anxiety states as state anxiety or anxious mood. Familiarity with Foreign Cuisines and Novel Foods In several studies we assessed the extent to which individuals were familiar with and/or had been exposed to a variety of cuisines. In two studies, we simply asked subjects to rate on 7-point scales (1 = never, 7 = frequently) the frequency with which they had eaten 18 such cuisines. The most commonly eaten on the list were Chinese and Italian while the least commonly eaten were Thai and Moroccan. We computed a composite score for each subject by averaging the 18 separate scores. This composite was significantly related to FNS scores in two samples, r( 103) = -0.43, p x0-01, and r(59)= -0.25, p<O*O5. In a later study, ratings for nine of these

The specific measures correlated with the FNS are described below: Trait Anxiety (Spielberger et al., 1970) State Anxiety (Spielberger et af. 1970) Mean of self-ratings on anxious, nervous, calm, and relaxed (7-point scales) %ame as above, low fear condition in experiment with fear manipulation Same as above, high fear condition in experiment with fear manipulation General Neophobia Scale-fear of new situations, described in text Mean frequency of eating the cuisines of the following countries: Thailand, India, Mexico, Japan, China, Indonesia, Hungary, Spain, Italy, France, Vietnam, Morocco, Philippines, Peru, Greece, Afghanistan, Egypt, Ethiopia hMean frequency of eating the following cuisines: Indian, Thai, Korean, Japanese, Mexican, French, Italian, Sxechwan Chinese, spicy food in general Liking rating (7-point scale) for unadulterated commercially available chocolate milkshake (Presidents Choice brand) jLiking rating for Presidents Choice milkshake adulterated with 0.01 M quinine hydrochloride solution (7:l v:v) Liking rating for Presidents Choice milkshake adulterated with 0.01 M quinine hydrochloride solution (5:I v:v) Liking rating for Presidents Choice milkshake adulterated with 0.01 M quinine hydrochloride solution (3:l v:v) Mean liking for the taste of the following novel foods: Peruvian potato salad, caponata, papads, cassava chips, Brio, guanabana juice, passion fruit ice cream Mean liking for the taste of the following familiar foods: potato salad, bean salad, corn chips, potato chips, cola drink, apple juice, strawberry ice cream Mean expected liking for the taste of the following novel foods: lotus root, longan, heart of palm, jackfruit PExperience Seeking subscale of the Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1979).

116

P. PLINER AND K. HOBDEN

cuisines formed the basis for a composite which was also significantly correlated with the FNS, r(28) = -0.47, p<O*Ol. It will also be recalled that FNS scores were negatively correlated with the familiarity of the novel foods used in the two behavioral validation studies, r(39) = -0.54, p c 0.01, and r(29) = - 0.34, 0*05<p<0~10.
Age and Gender

In no study were there gender differences in FNS scores. For five samples in which the range of ages exceeded 10 years we computed the correlation between age and FNS scores, and in every case the correlation was negative: r( 127) = -0.27, ~~0.05, r(69)= -0.19, O.lO>p>O.O5; r(39)= -0.21, ns; r(31)= -0.27, ns; r(l12) = -0.21, p c 0.05. The correlations were similar and modest, ranging from - 0.19 to -0.27, and statistical significance depended on sample size.
FinickinesslExpected Liking

In several studies subjects actually tasted foods, good- and bad-tasting and novel and familiar, and we were interested to determine whether FNS scores were correlated with finickiness. We use finickiness here to refer to a tendency to dislike the taste of foods (Pelchat & Pliner, 1986). In one study (Pliner & Eng, Note 3) subjects tasted four milkshakes, one unadulterated and the remaining three adulterated with increasing amounts of quinine sulfate. None of the correlations between FNS scores and ratings of the palatability of the four milkshakes was significant: rs(53)= -0.18, -0.21, +0.09, +0.03, all ns. In another study (Pliner et al., Note l), subjects tasted either seven familiar or seven novel foods and rated their degree of liking for each. All foods had been previously determined to have mean palatabilities above the midpoint on 5- or 7-point scales. The mean of the correlations between liking for each of the novel foods and FNS scores was r(18)= -0.14, ns, and the analogous mean for the correlations for familiar foods was r( 18) = -0.12, ns. If, instead of computing a FNS-palatability correlation separately for each food, one produces for each subject a mean palatability rating across the seven foods and correlates these with FNS scores, the resulting correlations (one for novel and one for familiar foods) are not significant either. In a third study (Pliner & Craig, Note 4), subjects were pre-selected on the basis of their FNS scores to produce groups of subjects high and low in food neophobia (FNS scores > 35 and < 25, respectively). During an experimental session they tasted the seven good-tasting, novel or familiar foods described above or a set of seven bad-tasting, novel foods. Each subjects liking ratings for the seven foods he/she tasted were averaged to produce an overall liking score; these scores were analysed in a 2 (level of food neophobia: high vs low) x 3 (type of food: good-tasting, novel vs bad-tasting, novel vs good-tasting, familiar) between subjects analysis of variance. While the effect of type of food was highly significant, neither the main effect of level of neophobia nor its interaction with type of food approached significance. Thus, subjects high and low in neophobia did not differ in terms of their liking for the foods they tasted. In contrast to these three studies in which subjects actually tasted and then rated their liking for foods, in a final study (Pliner, Note 5) subjects rated their expected liking for four novel and four familiar foods without tasting them. The correlation

DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD NEOPHOBIA SCALE

117

between expected liking and FNS scores was low and non-significant for the familiar foods; however, for the novel foods, the correlation was highly significant [r(49)= -0.56, p<O.Ol]. Sensation Seeking In one means of correlation Experience sample (Pliner & Hobden, Note 5) we measured sensation seeking by the Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1979), finding a significant [r(34) = - 0.46, p< 0.011 between FNS scores and one SSS subscale, Seeking.

DISCUSSION

We feel that we have been successful in at least approaching our goal of developing and validating a paper and pencil measure of the trait of food neophobia. The FNS appears to be psychometrically sound, and the results of three validation studies indicate that scores on the scale predict behavior in relevant situations. The correlations between the FNS and other measures are also of interest and help us to define the construct more sharply. First, it seems quite clear that neophobia is distinct from finickiness, a tendency to dislike the taste of foods. More highly neophobic subjects did not rate foods, novel or familiar, as less palatable than did less neophobic subjects. Even with foods that were unpalatable, there were no correlations between neophobia and liking. These findings are consistent with data from a study mentioned earlier (Pelchat & Pliner, 1986), in which it was found that neophobia and finickiness emerged as separate factors in an analysis of mothers reports of their childrens eating behavior. Interestingly, subjects expectations of how much they would like the taste of novel foods not yet tasted was highly related to FNS scores. Thus, although individuals who differ in level of trait neophobia do not differ in terms of their actual hedonic response to novel foods, they do differ in terms of their anticipated hedonic response. We also found that trait neophobia correlated negatively with familiarity with foreign cuisines and novel foods. The picture that emerges of the neophobic individual is of one who avoids novel foods out of the (mistaken) belief that they will be unpalatable and who, because of the avoidance, never has this belief corrected. An obvious intervention would involve forced exposure to novel foods in order to disconfirm the expectation of unpalatability. In other words, the neophobic individual could be taught by experience that novel foods do not taste bad; perhaps such experience would result in reduced neophobia. Such an intervention has been shown to be effective in the short term (Pliner et al., Note 1); whether chronic levels of neophobia could be reduced by such means remains to be seen. Although we found our measure of trait neophobia to be negatively correlated with age, we prefer to reserve judgment on the question of the real relation between the two. We feel that in the present data, the effect could result from a subject selection bias-that is, among older adults it is likely that it is the relatively more adventurous who take university courses. Thus, our older subjects may be much less representative of their age cohort than our younger ones. However, lest we dismiss prematurely the possibility of age differences, we should mention that in a series of studies examining neophobia in junior and senior high school and college

118

P. PLINER AND K. HOBDEN

students in field settings, Pelchat (Note 6) consistently found that older subjects were less neophobic. The relatively high correlation between scores on the FNS and the Experience Seeking subscale of the Sensation Seeking Scale raises the possibility that the FNS simply measures the flip side of ES. Closer examination of Zuckermans (1979) construct suggests that this is not so. According to Zuckerman, the SSS purports to measure the propensity to seek varied, changing, and novel sensations in order to maintain an optimal level of arousal (p. 138). Thus, although novelty is one means of accomplishing this goal, it is not the only one. Examination of the items on the ES reveals that many do not tap preference for novelty (e.g., I dislike all body odors vs. I like some of the earthy body smells; I often find beauty in the clashing colors and irregular forms of modern paintings vs. The essence of good art is in its clarity, symmetry of form and harmony of colors). Furthermore, the ES subscale has only modest correlations with other personality scales [such as the Novelty Experiencing Scales (Pearson, 1970)] designed specifically to assess reactions to novelty (Zuckerman, 1979). The relation between FNS scores and the various measures of anxiety is of interest, and some research from the animal literature suggests that there may even be a link between anxiety and the pre-exposure to novelty effects that were described in the Introduction. Many studies (out of the context of eating behavior) have demonstrated that early pre-exposure to novel environmental stimuli (including handling) increases the willingness of adult rats to explore or investigate novel environments (e.g., Levine et al., 1967; Weinberg et al., 1978). The food pre-exposure data already described indicate that early exposure to novel flavors increases the willingness of adult animals to approach different novel foods (Braveman & Jarvis, 1978; Capretta et al., 1975; Kuo, 1967; Siegel, 1974). Interestingly, there also seem to be cross-modality effects. Weinberg et al. (1978) found that early handling increases consumption of a novel food by adults, and Braveman (1978) found that preexposure to novel flavors increases exploration of a novel environment by adults. Braveman (1978) suggests that these non-specific effects of pre-exposure on neophobia may be mediated by reduced emotional responsivity. Thus, pre-exposure to varied stimuli, including food stimuli, produces animals which are less emotionally responsive, and these animals are less neophobic in many domains, including the food domain. The importance of anxiety as a mediator of food neophobia can also be seen in the results of studies which involve acute manipulations of anxiety and assess state (as opposed to trait) neophobia. In a study with human subjects, Pliner & Eng (Note 3) found that increasing anxiety, by means conceptually unrelated to eating or food, increased food neophobic behavior. Also consistent with a general anxietymediation notion is the common finding that anxiolytic drugs, such as chlordiazepoxide, reduce food neophobia in rats (Cooper et al., 1981; Hodges, et al., 1981). Indeed, degree of food neophobia is often used as a screen to assess the effects of benzodiazepine-like drugs (Poschel, 1971). The general picture which emerges from the research described in this paper suggests that a trait of food neophobia exists and that it is adequately measured by the present scale. Obviously, much more research is indicated. First, additional validation studies must be conducted to verify that scores on the scale actually do predict behavior in relevant situations. It is of particular importance to examine food selection behavior in settings which are more ecologically appropriate than the

DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD NBOPHOBIA SCALE

119

laboratory settings used in the present studies. Second, once the validity of the test has been more firmly established, it will be important to understand the antecedents of the trait. Although intuition would suggest that early experience related to food would be of great importance, the discussion above of the cross-modal nature of preexposure effects (in animals) as well as the FNS-trait anxiety relationship implies that a broader view may be useful. Finally, it will be of interest to determine whether trait neophobia interacts with other variables to inf3uence behavior. One such finding has already emerged. Pliner & Hobden (Note 7) exposed subjects high and low in trait neophobia to a peer who modelled neophobic behavior, a peer who modelled neophilic behavior, or no model, and measured the subjects own food selection behavior. The models behavior affected the food choices of subjects low in trait neophobia-those exposed to the neophilic model chose significantly more novel foods than did those in either of the other two conditions. However, highly neophobic subjects were unaffected by the modelling manipulation. These results suggest that practical attempts to increase the acceptance of unfamiliar foods may be differentially successful depending on individuals own levels of trait neophobia. Additional research may uncover other variables with which trait neophobia interacts.

REFERENCE NOTES

1. Pliner, P., Pelchat, M. & Grabski, M. (1991) Reduction of neophobia in humans by exposure to novel foods. Unpublished manuscript. 2. Pelchat, M. (1990) The effect of context on neophobia in college students. Unpublished manuscript. 3. Pliner, P. & Eng, A. (1990) Effects of anxiety and hunger on food neophobia in humans. Unpublished manuscript. 4. Pliner, P. & Craig, P. (1990) The effects of exposure to good- and bad-tasting novel foods on food neophobia in humans. Unpublished manuscript. 5. Pliner, P. (1991) The effect of food texture on food neophobia. Unpublished manuscript. 6. Pelchat, M. (1987) The effect of information on the acceptance of unfamiliar foods by junior and senior high school and college students. Unpublished manuscript. 7. Pliner, P. & Hobden, K. (1987) The effect of a models behavior on food neophobia in humans. Unpublished manuscript.

RETERENCES

Archer, T. & Sjoden, P. 0. (1979) Neophobia in taste-aversion

conditioning: Individual differences and effects of contextual changes. Physiological Psychology, 7, 364369. Barnett, S. A. (1958) Experiments in neophobia in wild and laboratory rats. British Journal
of Psychology, 49, 195-201. Birch, L. L. (1979) Dimensions of preschool childrens food preferences. Journal of Nutrition Education, II, 77-80.

Birch, L. L. & Marlin, D. W. (1982) I dont like it-Ive never tried it: Effects of exposure on two-year-old childrens food preferences. Appetite, 3, 353-360.
Braveman, N. S. (1978) Preexposure to feeding-related stimuli reduces neophobia. Animal Learning and Behavior, 6, 417-422. Braveman, N. S. & Jarvis, P. J. (1978) Independence of neophobia and taste aversion learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 6, 406-412.

120

P. PLINER AND K. HOBDEN

Capretta, P. J., Petersik, T. T. & Stewart, D. J. (1975) Acceptance of novel flavors is increased after early experience with diverse taste. Nature, 254, 689-694. Cooper, S. J., Burnett, G. & Brown, K. (1981) Food preference following acute or chronic chlordiazepoxide administration: Tolerance to an antineophobic action. Psychopharmacology (Berlin), 73, 7&74.

Domjan, M. (1975) Poison-induced neophobia in rats: Role of stimulus generalization of conditioned taste aversions. Animal Learning and Behavior, 3, 205-211. Ferrell, F. (1984) Effects of restricted dietary flavor experience before weaning on postweaning food preference in puppies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 8, 191-198. Harper, L. V. & Sanders, K. M. (1975) The effect of adults eating on young childrens acceptance of unfamiliar foods. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 206-214. Hodges, H. M., Green, S. E., Crewes, H. & Mathers, I. (1981) Effects of chronic chlordiazepoxide treatment on novel and familiar food preference in rats. Psychopharmacology, 75,
311-314.

Kuo, Z. Y. (1967) The dynamics of behavior development: An epigenetic view. New York, NY: Random House. Levine, S., Haltmeyer, G. C., Karas, G. & Denenberg, V. (1967) Physiological and behavioral effects of infantile stimulation. Physiology and Behavior, 2, 55-59. Mitchell, D. (1976) Experiments on neophobia in wild and laboratory rats: A reevaluation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 90, 190-197. Otis, L. (1984) Factors influencing the willingness to taste unusual foods. Psychological
Reports, 54, 739-745.

Pearson, P. H. (1970) Relationships between global and specified measures of novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 199-204. Pelchat, M. & Pliner, P. (1986) Antecedents and correlates of feeding problems in young children. Journal of Nutrition Education, 18, 23-29. Poschel, B. P. H. (1971) A simple and specific screen for benzodiazepine-like drugs. Psychopharmacologia, 19, 193-198. Richter, C. P. (1953) Experimentally produced behavior reactions to food poisoning in wild and domesticated rats. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 56, 225-239. Rozin, E. & Rozin, P. (1981) Culinary themes and variations. Natural History, 90, 6-14. Rozin, E. (1983) Ethnic cuisine: TheJEavor principle cookbook. Lexington, MA: The Stephen Greene Press. Rozin, P. (1968) Specific aversions and neophobia resulting from vitamin deficiency or poisoning in half-wild and domesticated rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological
Psychology, 66, 82-88.

Rozin, P. (1977) The use of characteristic flavorings in human culinary practice. In C. M. Apt (Ed.), Flavor: Its chemical, behavioral, and commercial aspects. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rzoska, J. B. (1953) Bait shyness, a study in rat behavior. British Journal of Animal Behaviour,
1, 128-135.

and learned safety. Journal of Comparative and Psychology, 87, 1078- 1082. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L. & Lushene, R. E. (1970) Mznual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Teraski, M. & Imada, S. (1988) Sensation seeking and food preferences. Personality and Individual Dijferences, 9, 87-93. Siegel, L. (1974) Flavor pre-exposure
Physiological

Weinberg, J., Smotherman, W. S. & Levine, S. (1978) Early handling effects on neophobia and conditioned taste aversions. Physiology and Behavior, 20, 589-596. Weinberg, J., Krahn, E. & Levine, S. (1978) Differential effects of handling on exploration in male and female rats. Developmental Psychobiology, Il. Wyrwicka, W. (1981) The development of foodpreferences: Parental influences and the primacy effect. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Zuckerman, I. (1979) Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Received I May 1991, revision 3 February 1992