Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Consumer attitudes and purchase intentions in relation to organic

foods in Taiwan: Moderating effects of food-related personality traits
Mei-Fang Chen *
Department of Business Management, Tatung University, No. 40, Chung-Shan North Road, Section 3, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 30 August 2006; received in revised form 8 April 2007; accepted 9 April 2007
Available online 21 April 2007

Abstract

There is an increasing emphasis on understanding the consumer’s motives for the choice of food types. Meanwhile, an individual’s
food-related personal traits are suspected of playing a moderating role in influencing personal food choice. This study aims to understand
what motives determine the consumer’s attitude to organic foods in Taiwan, which in turn influence the subsequent purchase intentions.
Moderated regression analysis (MRA) is used to ascertain the personality traits of food neophobia and food involvement separately in
the behavioral intentions model. The results vindicate the use of Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in explaining the consumer’s
organic foods choice behavior. Moreover, the findings suggest that the food-related personality traits of food neophobia and food
involvement exert moderating effects on the relationships between some of the food choice motives and the consumer’s attitude to
organic foods. However, only food involvement exerts moderating effects on the relationships between the consumer’s intentions to pur-
chase organic foods and the antecedents of the TPB except for the subjective norm in this case. Based on the empirical results and find-
ings, some suggestions are provided to the institutions concerned so as to facilitate this organic sector’s on-going expansion in Taiwan’s
food industry.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Food choice motives; Organic foods; Food neophobia; Food involvement; Theory of planned behavior (TPB)

1. Introduction reflected in an increasing demand for organic produce,

Over the last few years, numerous food supply crises
such as mad cow disease, foot-and-mouth epidemic, and
the Belgian dioxin scandal have caused widespread anxiety
among consumers about the quality of food they eat (Miles
& Frewer, 2001). Moreover, growing environmental aware-
ness in combination with concerns about safer foods has
led people to question modern agricultural practices. The
perceived potential hazards of modern agricultural prac-
tices, such as the use of pesticides and their residues in
food, are perceived to be associated with long-term and
unknown effects on health (Miles & Frewer, 2001; Wilkins
& Hillers, 1994; Williams & Hammit, 2001). This has been
*
Tel.: +886 2 25925252x2435.
E-mail address: mfchen@ttu.edu.tw
which is perceived as less damaging to the environment
and healthier than conventionally grown foods (Schiffer-
stein & Oude Ophuis, 1998; Williams & Hammit, 2001).
Organic foods are produced without the use of synthetic
chemicals, such as pesticides and fertilizers, and are by def-
inition not genetically modified.
The organic foods market has become one of the rapidly
growing sectors of most developed agricultural economies
around the world, especially in the European Union.
Despite there being no unambiguous evidence that organic
foods are healthier than conventional foods, organic foods
contain less harmful additives but more primary (e.g., vita-
min C, dry matter, minerals) and secondary nutrients (i.e.,
phyto-nutrients) than conventional foods. In other words,
organic foods at least carry no additional risk of food poi-
soning (Heaton, 2001). On the basis of the precautionary
principle alone, choosing organic foods appears to be an

0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.004
 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021
entirely rational decision. Consumers then perceive foods
labeled as organic to be healthier than conventional foods
(Grankvist & Biel, 2001; Magnusson, Arvola, Koivisto
Hursti, Aberg, & Sjoden, 2001).
Human food choice is a complex function of a multitude
of influences (Furst, Connors, Bisogni, Sobal, & Falk,
1996). These determinants include sensory aspects of food
(e.g., taste, odor, texture characteristics), combined with
the influence of non-food effects (e.g., cognitive informa-
tion, the physical environment, social factors) (e.g., Bell &
Meiselman, 1995; Eertmans, Baeyens, & Van den Bergh,
2001; Rozin & Tuorila, 1993). Although various food
choice models reflect the complexity of understanding food
choice behavior (Caplan, Keane, Willetts, & Williams,
1998; Conner, 1993; Furst et al., 1996; Nestle’ et al., 1998;
Parraga, 1990; Shepherd, 1989), few studies have investi-
gated the potential influences of the food-related personal-
ity traits (Eertmans, Victoir, Vansant, & Van den Bergh,
2005), specifically those associated with the organic foods
choice. Unlike previous studies, this research investigates
that there exist potential moderating effects of the food-
related personality traits of food neophobia and food
involvement on various relationships between food choice
motives and the consumer’s behavioral intentions to pur-
chase organic foods.
Social psychologists and marketing researchers have
found great success in using Ajzen’s (1991) behavioral
intention model, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB),
to explain the consumer’s food choice behavior (e.g., Bre-
dahl, 2001; Conner, 1993; Dreezens, Martijn, Tenbult,
Kok, & de Vries, 2005; Grunert, Sørensen, Bredahl, & Niel-
sen, 1995; Thompson & Thompson, 1996; Verdurme &
Viaene, 2003). Therefore, the first aim of this study is to
understand what motives determine the consumer’s attitude
to organic foods, which in turn influence the subsequent
purchase intentions based on Ajzen’s (1991) TPB. Secondly,
this study attempts to ascertain whether the consumer’s atti-
tude to organic foods and purchase intentions are influ-
enced by different degrees of food neophobia or involve
people personality traits. Moderated regression analysis
(MRA) is used to test each potential moderating construct
separately rather than the possible interactive effects of the
food neophobia and food involvement personality traits
together under this behavioral intentions model. Thirdly,
based on the empirical results and findings from this study,
efforts are made to provide such institutions and individuals
as government, organic foods farmers, and marketers with
practical suggestions to facilitate this organic sector’s on-
going expansion in Taiwan’s food industry.
2. Theoretical background and hypothesis development
Understanding the fundamental determinants of behav-
ior has been a paramount goal for many theorists in the
social and decision making sciences. The underlying psy-
chological assumption driving the linkage between inten-
tions and behavior is that most human behavior is under
1009
volitional control (Ryan, 1970). Fishbein and Ajzen
(1975, p. 288) have defined intention as a ‘‘. . .person’s loca-
tion on a subjective probability dimension involving a rela-
tion between himself and some action”. Intentions are the
single best predictor of planned behavior and intentions
are also an unbiased predictor of action (Bagozzi, Baum-
gartner, & Yi, 1989). The behavioral intention models have
received robust support in numerous behavioral domains
(Ajzen, 2001; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and are considered
to be some of the most widely applied theories in social
psychology (Greve, 2001). As mentioned earlier in intro-
duction, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) proposed
by Ajzen (1991) explains the consumers’ food choice
behavior convincingly. Therefore, the TPB approach is
adopted in this study to predict the consumer’s purchase
intentions regarding organic foods.
The behavioral intention (i.e., purchase intention),
based on the TPB (Ajzen, 1991), is basically determined
by three factors: the attitude that the person holds toward
engaging in the behavior (i.e., purchasing attitude), the
degree of social pressure felt by the person with regard to
the behavior (i.e., subjective norm), and the degree of con-
trol that the person feels he or she has over performing the
behavior (i.e., perceived behavioral control). The first two
factors reflect the perceived desirability of performing the
behavior, while the third reflects perceptions of whether
the behavior is personally controllable or not. These three
factors predict intention and the ensuing predicts behavior.
Recent research by Sparks, Guthrie, and Shepherd
(1997) dealing with applications of the TPB to consumer
food choice indicates that perceived behavioral control
may actually be composed of two separate constructs, per-
ceived difficulty and perceived control. Perceived behavioral
control means that the consumers’ perceptions of personal
control over what they buy and eat influence their intentions
to purchase organic foods. Perceived behavioral control
covers the effects of external factors, such as time, availabil-
ity, and recognition (labeling), which the consumers believe
influence the judgment of risks and benefits of organic foods
in a purchase situation. Perceived difficulty means the skills
and abilities that consumers own and are believed by them
to influence the degree of personal control over the behavior
in question (Bredahl, Grunert, & Frewer, 1998).
Coming back to behavioral intention, personality traits
are noticed to play an important role in predicting and
explaining human behavior (Ajzen, 1988). An individual’s
personal interests or traits act a part in establishing per-
sonal food choice criteria through the values held by the
individual. These values comprise sensory perceptions,
monetary considerations, health and nutrition beliefs,
weight control concerns, convenience, and so on (Furst
et al., 1996). For example, people appear to have different
food-styles and often express themselves as having food
adventurousness or pickiness (Furst et al., 1996) and chil-
dren’s low vegetable and fruit intake has been predicted
by their level of food neophobia (Cooke et al., 2004; Gal-
loway, Lee, & Birch, 2003). Bell and Marshall (2003) also
1010 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021

hint at specific motivators possibly underlying high food
involved in an individual’s food choice (Bell & Marshall,
2003; Marshall & Bell, 2004). Eertmans et al. (2005) further
detect that the effect of food choice motives on food intake
and dietary healthfulness varies with the level of food
involvement or food neophobia.
Since certain food choice motives may have more salient
impacts on the consumer’s attitude to organic foods than
others, the food choice motives will be discussed first.
The consumer’s attitude to organic foods, which in turn
influences the subsequent purchase intentions based on
Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, will be discussed next. The moderating
effects of the food-related personality traits, food neopho-
bia and food involvement, will be discussed last. Fig. 1 pre-
sents the conceptual research framework of this study.
2.1. Food choice motives
Sensory aspects of foods have been proven to be the most
important factor in food choice in several studies (e.g.,
Magnusson et al., 2001; Torjusen, Lieblein, Wandel, &
Francis, 2001; Wandel & Bugge, 1997). The absence of food
additives, preservatives, and residues (Wilkins & Hillers,
1994), price (Vickers, 1993), and mood (positive or negative
emotions) (Furst et al., 1996; Rogers, 1996; Steptoe, Pol-
lard, & Wardle, 1995; Wardle, 1987) also influence an indi-
vidual’s decision making in food choice. The increasing
importance of health and the impact the food production
has on the environment in food consumption trends indi-
cate that consumers today require not only healthy but also
environmentally sustainable food products (e.g., Baker &
Crosbie, 1993; Grunert & Juhl, 1995; Magnusson et al.,
2001; Rozin, Fischler, Imada, Sarubin, & Wrzesniewski,
1999; Torjusen et al., 2001; Wandel & Bugge, 1997). It is
believed that when the consumers have more concern about
their health and environmental protection they will be more
likely to have a positive attitude to organic foods. There-
fore, the following hypothesis is offered.
Hypothesis 1. Relative to other food choice motives, health
and environmental protection motives are the main
positive contributors to the consumer’s positive attitude
to organic foods.

H1: (+)
Food Choice Attitude to
Motives Organic H2: (+)
Foods Attitude to
Organic
Foods
Purchase

Health Subjective
Norm H3: (+)
Mood H4: (+)

Convenience
Sensory Appeal
Perceived Intentions to
Natural Content Behavioral
H5: (+) Purchase
Control Organic
Price Foods
Weight Control
H6: (-)
Familiarity
Political Values Perceived
Difficulty
Religion
Environmental Protection
Animal Welfare

Food neophobia/
Food involvement

Fig. 1. Research framework for organic food purchase intentions.

 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021
2.2. Attitude to organic foods and attitude to organic foods
purchase
The construct of attitude to the purchase of one product
is akin to the perceptions of the personal desirability of per-
forming a particular behavior. This attitude depends on
expectations of and beliefs in the personal impacts on the
outcomes resulting from that behavior. In other words, it
focuses on the perceived consequences of a purchase.
Knowing how someone feels about buying or using an
object turns out to be more valid than merely knowing
the consumer’s evaluation of the object itself (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980). Thus, the expectations of the critical out-
comes resulting from that behavior are an important ante-
cedent to a behavioral intention. Organic foods are
perceived as much more healthy, natural, nutritious, and
sustainable than conventional foods. Thus, the consumer’s
attitude to organic foods purchase is naturally believed to
be positively related to the attitude to organic foods. More-
over, according to the TPB (Ajzen, 1991), when a person’s
attitude towards engaging in a behavior is positive, then he
or she is more likely to engage in that behavior. In other
words, when the consumer’s attitude to organic foods is
positive, the consumer’s attitude to organic foods purchase
will be more likely to be positive. In turn, the consumer is
more likely to have the intention of purchasing organic
foods in the markets. Therefore, the following hypotheses
are offered.
Hypothesis 2. When the consumer’s attitude to organic
foods is positive, the consumer’s attitude to organic foods
purchase will be more likely to be positive.
Hypothesis 3. When the consumer’s attitude to organic
foods purchase is positive, the consumer’s intentions to
purchase organic foods will be more likely to be positive.
2.3. Subjective norm
Subjective norm deals with a consumer’s motivation to
perform a behavior which is constructed to incorporate
the expectations of what the important people in his or
her life (e.g., family, friends, and significant others) (Eagly
& Chaiken, 1993; Mowen, 1993) think about performing
that particular behavior. If consumers believe that those
people important to them think organic foods are good,
then they will have more intention of purchasing organic
foods. On the contrary, if consumers believe that those
people important to them think organic foods are bad, then
they will have lower intention of purchasing organic foods.
Since organic foods are perceived as healthier and environ-
mentally friendly, it is therefore hypothesized that when
consumers perceive that the important people surrounding
them think organic foods are better than conventional
foods, they will have more intention of purchasing organic
foods.
1011
Hypothesis 4. When a consumer has a positive subjective
norm to purchase organic foods, he or she will be more
likely to have the intention of purchasing organic foods.
2.4. Perceived behavioral control and perceived difficulty
One may have a positive attitude towards performing a
behavior, but may not intend to perform it when faced with
a perceived impediment. Perceived behavioral control
refers to the consumer’s perceptions of personal control
over what to buy and eat, which he or she believes to influ-
ence the judgment of risks and benefits of organic foods in
a purchase situation. Perceived difficulty implies a con-
sumer’s skills and abilities which are believed to influence
the degree of personal control over the behavior in ques-
tion (Bredahl et al., 1998). For example, the consumer
may not have the capability to readily identify organic
foods labels, thus influencing perceived behavioral control.
Given this fact, a distinction between the presence and
absence of such capability should be explicitly included in
this model.
In keeping with Ajzen (1991), it is expected that those
who perceive more behavior control have more intention
of performing that behavior. Therefore, it is hypothesized
that if a consumer perceives more behavior control of
purchasing organic foods, then the intention to purchase
organic foods is higher. By contrast, if a consumer
perceives more difficulty in identifying organic foods
labels, then the intention to purchase organic foods is
lower.
Hypothesis 5. When a consumer perceives more behavioral
control over the purchasing of organic foods, the consumer
will be more likely to have the intention of purchasing
organic foods.
Hypothesis 6. When a consumer perceives more difficulty
in purchasing organic foods, the consumer will be less
likely to have the intention of purchasing organic foods.
2.5. Food-related personality traits as moderators: food
neophobia and food involvement
Food neophobia, both a behavior and a personality
style, is defined as the extent to which consumers are reluc-
tant to try novel foods (e.g., food products, dishes, cui-
sines) (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), something specifically
related to food choice. This reluctance is found to be neg-
atively associated with experience seeking (Pliner & Hob-
den, 1992; Zuckerman, 1979). A similar negative relation
between food neophobia and self-reported everyday food
choice has also been observed (Koivisto-Hursti & Sjoden,
1997). Food neophobia has been extensively used to predict
the willingness to try ‘‘unfamiliar” and also some ‘‘famil-
iar” foods (Tuorila, Lahteenmaki, Pohjalainen, & Lotti,
2001).
1012 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021
Closely connected with food neophobia in regard to
food-related personality traits is food involvement, which
has recently received ample attention in the food intake lit-
erature (Bell & Marshall, 2003; Candel, 2001; Juhl & Poul-
sen, 2000; Olsen, 2001; Rozin et al., 1999). Food
involvement is defined as the level of importance of food
in a person’s life and operationalized as the extent to which
people enjoy talking about food, entertain thoughts about
food during the day, and engage in food-related activities
all along the five phases of the life cycle of food (including
acquisition, preparation, cooking, eating, and disposal;
Goody, 1982).
With food involvement being defined as the level of
importance of food in a person’s life, the degree of food
involvement will likely vary among individuals. It is then
not difficult to imagine that more highly food involved
individuals might pay greater attention to foods themselves
during all phases of interactions with them, possibly
including their procurement, preparation, and cooking.
Moreover, people with a higher level of food involvement
have been found to be able to make finer discriminations
between food items in their sensory (taste) evaluations
and hedonic ratings (Bell & Marshall, 2003), and they exhi-
bit what might be described as being more ‘healthy behav-
iour’ (e.g., a higher energy intake from fruit and vegetables,
and a lower intake from fat and snacks) (Marshall & Bell,
2004).
Organic foods are produced differently from those
grown by conventional farming and are perceived as
healthier to consumers and sustainable good to the envi-
ronment. However, consumers with higher food neophobia
personality traits may not be familiar with the organic
foods and will be more reluctant to try than their counter-
parts lower in these personality traits. Based on Ajzen’s
(1991) TPB, consumers higher in such personality traits
will hold a less positive attitude to organic foods, which
in turn influences their attitudes to organic foods purchase.
Moreover, they are more likely to have a less positive sub-
jective norm for organic foods, perceive less behavioral
control, and have more difficulty in engaging in purchasing
organic foods. By contrast, consumers with higher food
involvement personality traits will hold a more positive
attitude to organic foods, which in turn influences their
attitudes to organic foods purchase than those consumers
with lower food involvement personality traits. In addition,
they are more likely to have a more positive subjective
norm for organic foods, perceive more behavioral control,
and have less difficulty in engaging in purchasing organic
foods.
Therefore, based on the TPB (Ajzen, 1991), all the posi-
tive hypothetical relationships associated with the con-
structs depicted in the Fig. 1 are expected to be weakened
after introducing the moderator of the consumer’s food
neophobia personality traits. On the contrary, all such rela-
tionships are expected to be strengthened after introducing
the moderator of the consumer’s food involvement person-
ality traits.
3. Methods
3.1. Data collections and sample
Data are collected in Taiwan by means of a national
self-administered consumer questionnaire survey. The
questionnaire is prefaced with a brief description of
‘organic foods’, which is kept as neutral as possible. To
establish the representativeness of the surveyed sample,
demographic information from the questionnaire is com-
pared with census information of the population in Tai-
wan. Those who are above 20 years old in Taiwan are
included in the target population. A stratified sampling
based on the area classification (there are four regions
and 22 counties (cities) in Taiwan) and demographic vari-
ables (e.g., gender and age) is conducted according to the
data from standard statistical area classification from the
Ministry of the Interior (2004). There are 470 valid
responses used for this empirical analysis.
3.2. Measures
For the present study, the measurement scales and the
indicators related to the three main determinants of the
TPB, perceived difficulty, and the behavioral intentions
adopted herein are validated in Bredahl’s (2001) GM foods
research, but the GM food type statements are reworded
into organic foods statements. Food choice motives, atti-
tude to organic foods, and the two potential moderators,
food neophobia and food involvement, are also validated
in other existing studies.
A total of 12 scales of the revised Food Choice Ques-
tionnaire (FCQ) derived from Steptoe et al. (1995) 36-item
original FCQ and Lindeman and Vaananen’s (2000)
adapted FCQ are used to discover what food choice
motives determine the consumer’s attitude to organic foods
in this study. A 9-item measurement scale that describes the
general public’s concerns about the attributes of the
organic product is used to measure the consumer’s attitude
to organic foods (Gil, Gracia, & Sanchez, 2000). Only five
items included in Pliner and Hobden’s (1992) food neopho-
bia scale (FNS) are used to measure a person’s distrust and
avoidance of novel foods, dishes, or cuisines to quantify
this food-related personality trait after deleting those exotic
food-related items. This revised FNS is consistent with Bre-
dahl’s research of 2001. Based on Bell and Marshall’s
(2003) food involvement scale (FIS), seven items including
the five phases of the life cycle of food (acquisition, prepa-
ration, cooking, eating, and disposal) (Goody, 1982) are
kept to measure the consumer’s food involvement level in
this study. Except for the food choice motive statements
asking the subjects to choose their relative importance
placed on each of the statements, the remaining questions
ask the subjects to indicate agreement or disagreement with
the statements provided. All of the questions use seven-
point Likert scales where 1 indicates strong disagreement
(very unimportant) and 7 indicates strong agreement (very
 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021 1013

important). Some items are measured using seven-point
semantic differential scales as anchored with corresponding
statements. The detailed items of these constructs associ-
ated with this study are provided in the Appendix.
4. Data analysis
To achieve the objectives of this study, moderated
regression analysis (MRA) is used to detect the moderating
effects of the food-related personality traits, food neopho-
bia and food involvement, on the associated constructs
depicted in this proposed behavioral intention model (See
Fig. 1). Before the MRA is conducted, the reliability of
the scales for the constructs in this study are tested. The
reliability of each construct in this study achieves an
acceptable Cronbach alpha of over 0.7 (Nunnally, 1967).
Hence from here, the indicators used to measure a common
underlying construct are summed up and divided by the
number of the items. The results will be used for the con-
structs data input in MRA. In addition, the mean and stan-
dard deviation of each item are included in the Appendix.
4.1. Testing for the main effects of the proposed model
Table 1 summarizes the results of the estimations of the
main effects of the proposed model. R2 stands for the per-
centage of the variance in the dependent variable that can
be explained by all of the independent variables taken
together. However, R2 tends to overestimate the strength
of the association, especially if the model has more than
one independent variable. Therefore, adjusted R2, which
has been adjusted for the number of predictors in the
model, is reported in this study. The adjusted R2 values
for the main effect equations are 0.47 for the consumer’s
attitude to organic foods, 0.37 for the consumer’s attitude
to organic foods purchase, and 0.77 for the consumer’s
intentions to purchase organic foods. The statistics provide
satisfactory explanation for the dependent variables’
variances.
Regression analysis results in Table 1 reveal that among
these twelve food choice motives, seven choice motives con-
tribute to the consumer’s attitude to organic foods. These
seven food choice motives include: mood, convenience, nat-
ural content, animal welfare, environmental protection,
political values, and religion. Those standardized regression
coefficients of these seven food choice motives are signifi-
cantly greater than zero except for that of the convenience
motive, which is significantly smaller than zero. This means
that when the consumers are more concerned about mood,
natural content, animal welfare, environmental protection,
political values, and religion, they will be more likely to
have a positive attitude to organic foods. However, when
the consumers are more concerned about convenience, they
will be more likely to have a negative attitude to organic
foods. Surprisingly, the health food choice motive does
not contribute to the consumer’s attitude to organic foods,
but environmental protection is indeed a positive contribu-
tor to the consumer’s positive attitude to organic foods as
expected in this case. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is partially
supported in this empirical study.
The test results as shown in Table 1 bear out Hypothesis
2 to Hypothesis 5; namely, the consumer’s positive attitude
toward organic foods, positive attitude to organic foods
purchase, positive subjective norm, and more behavioral
control perception all significantly enhance the consumer’s
intention to purchase organic foods. Therefore, these four
hypotheses are supported. Although the standardized cor-
responding regression coefficient of perceived difficulty is

Table 1
The results of the main effects in the proposed model
Attitude to organic foods Attitude to organic foods purchase Intentions to purchase organic foods
b p b p b p
Health 0.05 0.36
Mood 0.16 <.01***
Convenience 0.16 <.01***
Sensory appeal 0.04 0.36
Natural content 0.22 <.01***
Price 0.04 0.50
Weight control 0.10 0.07
Familiarity 0.01 0.81
Animal welfare 0.12 <.01***
Environmental protection 0.13 0.03**
Political values 0.28 <.01***
Religion 0.14 <.01***
Attitude to organic foods 0.61 <.01***
Attitude to organic foods purchase 0.58 <.01***
Subjective norm 0.21 <.01***
Perceived behavioral control 0.22 <.01***
Perceived difficulty 0.04 0.04**
Adjusted R2 0.47 0.37 0.77
**
P < 0.05.
***
P < 0.01.
1014 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021

significantly different from zero, the direction of this regres-
sion coefficient is obviously contrary to that of Hypothesis
6. Therefore, Hypothesis 6 is not supported here.
4.2. Testing for the moderating effects of food neophobia
Three MRAs are conducted to test whether the moder-
ating effects of food neophobia personality traits exist in
the proposed research model. Table 2 shows the standard-
ized regression coefficients for each independent variable in
each MRA. The adjusted R2 values for the food neophobia
moderating effect equations are 0.55 for the consumer’s
attitude to organic foods, 0.39 for the consumer’s attitude
to organic foods purchase, and 0.78 for the consumer’s
intentions to purchase organic foods. The statistics provide
satisfactory explanation for the dependent variables’ vari-
ances. Moreover, the incremental F test used with R2
change is used to assess the significance of a set of interac-
tion terms in each MRA. This allows us to determine
whether adding further interaction terms in each MRA
improves on each OLS linear regression model. As shown
in Table 2, all the incremental F values are significant.
The first MRA reveals that two interaction terms of
food choice motives and food neophobia are significant:
Natural Content  Food Neophobia (b = 0.92, p =
0.03 < 0.05) and Political Values  Food Neophobia
(b = 1.54, p < 0.01). This means that the consumers with
higher food neophobia personality traits are more likely
to hold a negative attitude to organic foods for the natural
content food choice motive, which is reasonable since these
consumers with higher food neophobia personality traits
do not like to try ‘‘unfamiliar” food categories, not to men-
tion that they may suspect that organic foods could bring
them natural contents. However, the consumers with

Table 2
The results of the moderating effects for food neophobia
Attitude to organic Attitude to organic foods Intentions to purchase organic
foods purchase foods
b p b p b p
Health 0.48 0.08
Mood 0.32 0.26
Convenience 0.30 0.24
Sensory appeal 0.07 0.72
Natural content 0.66 <.01***
Price 0.01 0.95
Weight control 0.32 0.21
Familiarity 0.23 0.20
Animal welfare 0.26 0.23
Environmental protection 0.23 0.35
Political values 0.43 <.05**
Religion 0.21 0.23
Attitude to organic foods 0.51 <.01***
Attitude to organic foods purchase 0.51 <.01***
Subjective norm 0.01 0.93
Perceived behavioral control 0.33 <.01***
Perceived difficulty 0.08 0.47
Food neophobia 0.42 0.09 0.16 0.55 0.07 0.66
Health  food neophobia 1.07 0.06
Mood  food neophobia 1.03 0.10
Convenience  food neophobia 0.23 0.65
Sensory appeal  food neophobia 0.11 0.75
Natural content  food neophobia 0.92 0.03**
Price  food neophobia 0.01 0.98
Weight control  food neophobia 0.59 0.24
Familiarity  food neophobia 0.34 0.28
Animal welfare  food neophobia 0.30 0.43
Environmental protection  food neophobia 0.86 0.10
Political values  food neophobia 1.54 <.01***
Religion  food neophobia 0.17 0.52
Attitude to organic foods  food neophobia 0.03 0.93
Attitude to organic foods purchase  food neophobia 0.10 0.66
Subjective norm  food neophobia 0.30 0.20
Perceived behavioral control  food neophobia 0.19 0.44
Perceived difficulty  food neophobia 0.14 0.31
Adjusted R2 0.55 0.39 0.78
Incremental F 5.69 <.01*** 9.07 <.01*** 2.56 <.05**
**
P < 0.05.
***
P < 0.01.
 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021 1015

higher food neophobia personality traits are more likely to
hold a positive attitude to organic foods for political values
motive. In other words, if the organic foods have been pro-
ven safe with certificates and labeled clearly by the govern-
ment and the related institutions, then the consumers with
higher food neophobia personality traits are more likely to
hold a positive attitude to organic foods.
The second MRA reveals that the interaction term of
food neophobia and the consumer’s attitude to organic
foods is not statistically significant. This means that the
relationship between the consumer’s attitude to organic
foods and organic foods purchase is not moderated by
his or her food neophobia personality traits. The third
MRA also reveals that none of the interaction terms in this
MRA are significant. On the whole, food neophobia has no
moderating effects between the relationships of the ante-
cedents of the TPB and the consumer’s intention to pur-
chase organic foods except for the relationship between
natural content food choice motive and the consumer’s
attitude to organic foods as well as the relationship
between political values food choice motive and the con-
sumer’s attitude to organic foods.
4.3. Testing for the moderating effects of food involvement
The test results of the moderating effect of the food
involvement personality traits are shown in Table 3. The
adjusted R2 values for the food involvement moderating
effect equations are 0.50 for the consumer’s attitude to
organic foods, 0.44 for the consumer’s attitude to organic

Table 3
The results of the moderating effects for food involvement
Attitude to organic foods Attitude to organic foods purchase Intentions to purchase organic
foods
b p b p b p
Health 0.57 0.16
Mood 0.29 0.48
Convenience 0.45 0.18
Sensory appeal 0.08 0.78
Natural content 0.07 0.84
Price 0.26 0.41
Weight control 0.41 0.29
Familiarity 0.95 <.01***
Animal welfare 0.12 0.68
Environmental protection 0.31 0.37
Political values 0.31 0.36
Religion 0.08 0.72
Attitude to organic foods 0.63 <.01***
Attitude to organic foods purchase 1.32 <.01***
Subjective norm 0.34 0.02**
Perceived behavioral control 0.76 <.01***
Perceived difficulty 0.40 <.01***
Food involvement 0.33 0.19 0.47 0.03** 0.33 0.02**
Health  food involvement 1.23 0.11
Mood  food involvement 0.83 0.29
Convenience  food involvement 1.13 0.06
Sensory appeal  food involvement 0.10 0.82
Natural content  food involvement 0.26 0.66
Price  food involvement 0.37 0.49
Weight control  food involvement 0.52 0.44
Familiarity  food involvement 1.41 <.01***
Animal welfare  food involvement 0.01 0.97
Environmental protection  food 0.28 0.65
involvement
Political values  food involvement 1.06 0.08
Religion  food involvement 0.26 0.43
Attitude to organic foods  food involvement 0.28 0.39
Attitude to organic foods purchase  food 1.21 <.01***
involvement
Subjective norm  food involvement 0.25 0.30
Perceived behavioral control  food 1.62 <.01***
involvement
Perceived difficulty  food involvement 0.52 <.01***
Adjusted R2 0.50 0.44 0.80
Incremental F 2.66 <.01*** 24.93 <.01*** 11.50 <.01***
**
P < 0.05.
***
P < 0.01.
1016 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021
foods purchase, and 0.80 for the consumer’s intentions to
purchase organic foods. The statistics provide satisfactory
explanation for the dependent variables’ variances. More-
over, all the incremental F values are significant.
The first MRA reveals that only one interaction term,
Familiarity  Food Involvement (b = 1.41, p < 0.01), is sig-
nificant. This means that the consumers with higher food
involvement personality traits are more likely to hold a
positive attitude to organic foods if they are more familiar
with them. The second MRA reveals that the interaction
term of food involvement and consumers’ attitude to
organic foods is not statistically significant. This means that
the relationship between the consumers’ attitude to organic
foods and their attitude to organic foods purchase is not
moderated by their food involvement personality traits.
The third MRA reveals that three interaction terms are
significant: Attitude to Organic Foods Purchase  Food
Involvement (b = 1.21, p < 0.01), Perceived Behavioral
Control  Food Involvement (b = 1.62, p < 0.01), and Per-
ceived Difficulty  Food Involvement (b = 0.52, p < 0.01).
Unexpectedly, a negative moderated regression coefficient
of the interaction term of consumers’ attitude to organic
foods purchase and food involvement personality traits is
observed here. Moreover, the positive relationship between
consumers’ perceived difficulty and their intentions to pur-
chase organic foods becomes stronger for those with higher
food involvement personality traits. On the whole, food
involvement has a moderating effect not only on the rela-
tionship between familiarity food choice motives and con-
sumers’ attitude to organic foods, but also on the
relationships between consumers’ intention to purchase
organic foods and the antecedents of the TPB except for
the subjective norm.
5. General discussions
The results of the OLS linear regression models are quite
consistent with Ajzen’s (1991) TPB. In Taiwan, consumers’
intention to purchase organic foods is determined by their
attitude to organic foods purchase, subjective norm, per-
ceived behavioral control, and perceived difficulty. Con-
sumers’ attitude to organic foods purchase is in turn
positively determined by their attitude to organic foods.
There are six food choice motives found to have positive
impacts on consumers’ attitude to organic foods, including:
mood, natural content, animal welfare, environmental pro-
tection, political values, and religion, but the convenience
food choice motive has a negative impact on consumers’
attitude to organic foods. Convenience for consumers’
preparation and purchase for daily food is usually an
important factor. The growth area and the distribution
channels of organic foods are still limited in Taiwan at
the present stage, greatly inconveniencing consumers in
their purchase of organic foods. There is no wonder that
those consumers who are more concerned about conve-
nience food choice motive are more likely to have a nega-
tive attitude to organic foods.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the health food choice
motive does not contribute to the consumer’s attitude to
organic foods, though environmental protection is a positive
contributor to the consumer’s positive attitude to organic
foods as expected in Taiwan. The results are obviously differ-
ent from those of previous studies, which assert that concern
for one’s health and for the environment are the two most
commonly-stated motives for purchasing organic foods,
with the former exceeding the latter in importance (Magnus-
son, Arvola, Koivisto Hursti, Aberg, & Sjoden, 2003; Tre-
gear, Dent, & McGregor, 1994; Wandel & Bugge, 1997).
One of the possible explanations is that health-conscious
consumers in Taiwan have the habit of relying on medicines
and/or ‘‘health food” as dietary supplements, such as vita-
min, to maintain or enhance their health. Health food, as
defined by Taiwan’s Department of Health, should contain
a chemical entity with a definite health care effect supported
by scientific evidence and should be approved by the health
authorities to qualify for dietary supplements.
Although their health food choice motive is not condu-
cive to their attitude to organic foods, consumers in Tai-
wan are concerned about the environmental protection
food choice motive in their daily food intake and have a
more positive attitude to organic foods. Economic progress
in Taiwan has led to greater public awareness of environ-
mental protection affairs. The Environmental Protection
Administration of Taiwan’s government and each local
government’s Environmental Protection Department take
several solid measures to promote environmental protec-
tion, such as garbage categorization, kitchen waste collec-
tion, and so on. These measures in turn raise Taiwanese’s
consciousness of environmental protection. Thus, consum-
ers in Taiwan are concerned about the environmental pro-
tection problem more often in their daily food intake and
have a more positive attitude to organic foods. This is
because organic produce is perceived as less damaging to
the environment than conventionally grown foods (Schif-
ferstein & Oude Ophuis, 1998; Williams & Hammit, 2001).
Consumers in Taiwan have difficulty in identifying
organic foods certificates and labels, with more than 14 dif-
ferent kinds of certificates in the markets right now. How-
ever, they still have the intention of purchasing organic
foods, especially those characterized by higher food
involvement personality traits. There are two possible
explanations for this phenomenon. One is that despite their
initial difficulty in identifying organic foods certificates or
labels in the markets and ensuing confusion, the consumers
treat this shopping task as a challenge and are proud of
their capabilities. The other is that these consumers are
highly involved in this organic foods shopping task and
therefore do not care about the difficulty such as identify-
ing organic foods certificates or labels they encounter. This
is consistent with Marshall and Bell’s (2004) finding that
people with a higher level of food involvement have capa-
bilities to make finer discriminations among foods, includ-
ing what kind of food is healthier. However, the best policy
for the institutions concerned is to lower the difficulty of
 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021
identifying the certificates of organic foods so as to facili-
tate their purchasing intentions of organic foods.
The test results show that food neophobia exerts moder-
ating effects only on the relationships between two food
choice motives and the consumer’s attitude to organic
foods in the proposed model – natural content and political
values. Generally speaking, when a consumer has higher
food neophobia personality traits, he or she has the ten-
dency to avoid novel and ‘‘unfamiliar” foods (Tuorila
et al., 2001). Organic foods in Taiwan are still in the intro-
duction stage and not widely prevalent, thus resulting in
low familiarity with them among the general public. Under
this situation, how to convince consumers, especially those
with higher food neophobia personality traits, that organic
foods indeed have more natural content and are safe to eat
is an important task to the institutions concerned. Another
possible explanation for this phenomenon is that organic
foods are produced without the use of synthetic chemicals
(e.g., pesticides and fertilizers) and new technologies (e.g.,
genetically modification); therefore, organic foods are trea-
ted as traditional foods. If such is the case, food neophobia
will perhaps not exert any moderating effect on the rela-
tionships between the antecedents of the TPB and the con-
sumer’s intention to purchase organic foods.
The test results further disclose that food involvement
does also have a moderating effect on the relationship
between the familiarity food choice motive and the con-
sumer’s attitude to organic foods. In other words, if those
consumers with higher food involvement personality traits
are more familiar with those organic foods then they are
more likely to hold a positive attitude to organic foods.
Moreover, food involvement does have moderating effects
on the relationships between the consumer’s intentions to
purchase organic foods and the following antecedents in
the TPB: the consumer’s attitude to organic foods pur-
chase, perceived behavioral control, and perceived diffi-
culty. It is noticeable that there arises an unexpected
negative sign of the interaction term of consumers’ attitude
to organic foods purchase and food involvement personal-
ity traits. There are two possible explanations for this phe-
nomenon. One is that the consumers with higher food
involvement would have less intention of purchasing
organic foods when encountering inconvenience or having
bad experiences despite their positive attitude to organic
foods purchase. The other is that it could be caused by a
ceiling effect. If consumers’ intentions to purchase organic
foods already have reached the maximum scale score but
the interaction term of consumers’ attitude to organic
foods purchase and food involvement personality traits is
still well below the maximum, then the interaction effect
will become negative. If such is the case, an increasing score
for this interaction term will no longer influence consum-
ers’ intentions to purchase organic foods. Furthermore, it
is not surprising that if the consumers with higher food
involvement personality traits feel more behavioral control,
then they are more likely to have the intention of purchas-
ing organic foods. Finally, the perceived difficulty seems
1017
not to deter the consumers with higher food involvement
personality traits from having the intention of purchasing
organic foods, because they often have more capabilities
than the average persons to make finer discriminations
among foods (Marshall & Bell, 2004) as mentioned earlier.
6. Conclusions
This study investigates what motives determine the con-
sumer’s attitude to organic foods and cherish his or her
intention to purchase them. The potential moderating
effects of food-related personality traits, food neophobia
and food involvement, are further examined separately
based on Ajzen’s (1991) TPB research model. Data col-
lected from Taiwan’s consumer survey are used to pursue
this research. In doing so, Ajzen’s (1991) TPB is adopted
and found to explain well for the results of the main effects
in the proposed research model. Moreover, the findings
suggest that two food-related personality traits, food neo-
phobia and food involvement, exert moderating effects on
the relationships between certain food choice motives and
the consumer’s attitude to organic foods. However, only
food involvement exercises moderating effects on the rela-
tionships between the consumer’s intentions to purchase
organic foods and the antecedents of the TPB except for
the subjective norm in the proposed research model.
The six food choice motives (mood, natural content, ani-
mal welfare, environmental protection, political values, and
religion) determine the consumer’s positive attitude to
organic foods. As a consequence, they can serve as useful
promotion appeals for the consumers to be better familiar
with organic foods and for them to enhance their perceptions
of benefits of organic foods. By doing so, not only may those
consumers with higher food neophobia personality traits
reduce their suspicions of the natural content of organic
foods but also those with higher food involvement personal-
ity traits can cultivate a more positive attitude to organic
foods.
Convenience is an important food choice motive to the
consumer’s everyday food shopping decision making. The
inconvenience to purchase organic foods ends up with a neg-
ative attitude to organic foods purchase. The government
and the institutions concerned should manage to reduce
the inconvenience to consumers in purchasing organic foods
by helping the farmers to extend their growing areas and
productivity and aid the marketers in widening their distri-
bution channels and undertaking their sales promotions.
Political values are an important food choice motive for
consumers to form a positive attitude to organic foods,
which is especially important for those food-related person-
ality traits characterized by higher food neophobia. Actu-
ally, the political values food choice motive emerges as a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for consumers to
include organic foods in their food choices. Therefore, the
first important task for the government and related institu-
tions to take up is to serve as monitoring mechanisms and to
provide safety assurance for organic foods so as to mitigate
1018 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021

the consumer’s suspicions and to help the consumer to hold
a positive attitude to organic foods. A food traceability sys-
tem may help food processors comply with government
food safety regulations and meet customer assurance
requirements on one hand, and may provide certificates as
well as build brand value on the other. Thus, a food trace-
ability system proves to be an effective means for boosting
the consumer’s perception of a food’s safety and quality
(Moe, 1998). It is suggested that a food traceability system
seems to be a good method of dispelling the consumer’s sus-
picion and removing the consumer’s difficulty in identifying
organic foods certificates or labels, thereby helping the con-
sumers take a more positive attitude to organic foods.
To the best knowledge of this researcher, this study rep-
resents one of the first attempts to examine the moderating
effects of food neophobia and food involvement on organic
foods using the TPB model. The empirical results and find-
ings from this study are helpful for the continued develop-
ment of the organic sector in the food industry and to make
contribution to further research in facilitating on-going
industry expansion. The main limitation of this study is
that the measures of the independent and dependent vari-
ables in the present study are based on self-report methods.
It is likely that the relationships among some of the vari-
ables may be somewhat inflated, and a common method
variance (Spector, 1987) must be considered.
Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by a grant from the
National Science Council, Republic of China (NSC 95-
2416-H-036-001).

Appendix

Constructs Items Mean Standard Sources

(Cronbach’s value) deviation
Motives Is it important to me for the food I eat on a typical
day
Health Contains a lot of vitamins and minerals 5.93 1.05 Steptoe et al.
Keeps me healthy 5.99 1.14 (1995)
(0.88) Is nutritious 5.93 1.19
Is high in protein 5.53 1.14
Is good for my skin/teeth/hair/nails, etc. 5.87 1.01
Is high in fibre and roughage 5.64 1.34
Mood Helps me cope with stress 5.76 1.06
Helps me to cope with life 5.84 1.04
(0.91) Helps me relax 5.74 1.05
Keeps me awake/alert 5.82 1.03
Cheers me up 5.72 1.04
Makes me feel good 5.76 1.03
Convenience Is easy to prepare 5.78 1.08
Can be cooked very simply 5.79 1.11
(0.87) Takes no time to prepare 5.83 1.18
Can be bought in shops close to where I live or work 5.97 0.94
Is easily available in shops and supermarkets 5.79 1.05
Sensory appeal Smells nice 5.52 1.16
Looks nice 5.62 1.12
(0.87) Has a pleasant texture 5.30 1.33
Tastes good 5.66 1.07
Natural content Contains no additives 5.84 1.29
Contains natural ingredients 5.98 1.01
(0.81) Contains no artificial ingredients 5.80 1.37
Price Is not expensive 5.80 1.16
Is cheap 5.26 1.58
(0.71) Is good value for money 5.92 1.04
Weight control Is low in calories 5.80 1.11
 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021 1019

Appendix (continued)
Constructs Items Mean Standard Sources
(Cronbach’s value) deviation
Helps me control my weight 5.89 1.07
(0.90) Is low in fat 5.77 1.12
Familiarity Is what I usually eat 5.29 1.27
Is familiar 5.24 1.31
(0.87) Is like the food I ate when I was a child 4.84 1.37
Animal welfare Has been produced in a way that animals have not experienced 5.36 1.32 Lindeman
pain and
(0.89) Has been produced in a way that animals’ rights have been 5.27 1.33 Vaananen
respected (2000)
Environmental Has been prepared in an environmentally friendly way 5.81 1.10
Protection Has been produced in a way which has not shaken the balance 5.77 1.11
of nature
(0.88) Is packaged in an environmentally friendly way 5.98 0.99
Political values Comes from a country I approve of politically 5.90 1.09
Comes from a country in which human rights are not violated 5.63 1.13
(0.85) Has the country of origin clearly marked 6.04 1.09
Has been prepared in a way that does not conflict with my 5.80 1.27
political values
Religion Is not forbidden by my religion 5.14 1.45
(0.93) Is in harmony with my religious views 5.07 1.50
Attitude to organic Organic products are healthier 5.58 1.14 Gil et al.
Foods Organic products have superior quality 5.45 1.20 (2000)
Organic products are a fraud (R) 4.52 1.63
(0.75) Organic products are more tasty 4.50 1.44
Organic products are worse than the conventional ones (R) 4.16 1.66
Organic products are more expensive 2.79 1.44
Organic products are more attractive 5.33 1.20
Organic products have no harmful effects 5.44 1.26
Organic products are in fashion 5.66 1.08
Attitude to organic Attitude to purchase organic foods is extremely bad–extremely 5.35 1.13 Adapted from
good Bredahl
Foods purchase Attitude to purchase organic foods is extremely unpleasant– 5.16 1.36 (2001)
extremely pleasant
(0.88) I am strongly for–strongly againstbuying organic foods 5.01 1.31
Subjective norm Most people who are important to me think that I should 5.22 1.27
definitely avoid–definitely buy organic foods
(0.74) Most people who influence what I do think that I should 4.94 1.15
definitely avoid–definitely buy organic foods
Perceived Whether I will eventually buy organic foods is entirely up to me 5.17 1.58
behavioral
Control If organic foods were available in the shops, nothing would 4.84 1.52
prevent me from buying it
(0.79) How much control do you have over whether you will 5.36 1.40
eventually buy organic foods? (absolutely no control–completely
control)
(continued on next page)
1020 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021

Appendix (continued)
Constructs Items Mean Standard Sources
(Cronbach’s value) deviation

Perceived difficulty Even if I should want to buy organic foods, I do not 2.99 1.43
think I would ever be able to do so
(0.80) If organic foods were available in the shops, I 3.73 1.67
could easily buy it if I wanted to. (R)
How difficult would it be for you to buy organic 4.13 1.74
foods? (extremely difficult–extremely easy)
Purchase If organic foods were available in the shops, I 5.10 1.38
intention would intend to definitely avoid it–definitely buy it
Food I am constantly sampling new and different foods. 3.08 1.27 Bredahl (2001) (adapted
neophobia (R) from Pliner and Hobden,
I do not trust new foods 4.79 1.40 1992)
(0.77) If I do not know what is in a food, I won’t try it. 5.29 1.28
I am afraid to eat things I have never had before. 4.83 1.39
I will eat almost anything. (R) 3.28 1.55
Food Cooking or barbequing is not much fun. (R) 3.35 1.46 Adapted from Bell and
involvement Talking about what I ate or am going to eat is 4.87 1.25 Marshall (2003)
something
(0.79) I like to do 5.23 1.29
When I travel, one of the things I anticipate most
is eating the food there
I do most or all of the clean up after eating 5.55 1.08
I enjoy cooking for others and myself 5.04 1.38
I do most or all of my own food shopping 5.03 1.36
I care whether or not a table is nicely set 5.47 1.18
Note: (R) denotes items requiring reverse scoring.

References A review of the literature and a presentation of models for future

Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 27–58.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behaviour. Englewood Hills: Prentice-Hall.
Bagozzi, R., Baumgartner, H., & Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation into the
role of intentions as mediators of the attitude–behavior relationship.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 10, 35–62.
Baker, A., & Crosbie, P. (1993). Measuring food safety preferences:
Identifying consumer segments. Journal of Agricultural and Resource
Economics, 18, 277–287.
Bell, R., & Marshall, D. W. (2003). The construct of food involvement in
behavioral research: Scale development and validation. Appetite, 40,
235–244.
Bell, R., & Meiselman, H. (1995). The role of eating environments in
determining food choice. In D. W. Marshall (Ed.), Food choice and the
consumer (pp. 292–310). London: Chapman and Hall.
Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase
intentions with regard to genetically modified foods – Results of a
cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23–61.
Bredahl, L., Grunert, G., & Frewer, L. J. (1998). Consumer attitudes and
decision making with regard to genetically engineered food products–
research. Journal of Consumer Policy, 21, 251–277.
Candel, M. J. M. (2001). Consumers’ convenience orientation towards
meal preparation: Conceptualization and measurement. Appetite, 36,
15–28.
Caplan, P., Keane, A., Willetts, A., & Williams, J. (1998). Studying food
choice in its social and cultural contexts: Approaches from a social
anthropological perspective. In A. Murcott (Ed.), The Nation’s diet:
The social science of food choice (pp. 168–182). London/New York:
Longman.
Conner, M. T. (1993). Understanding determinants of food choice:
Contributions from attitude research. British Food Journal, 95, 27–
31.
Cooke, L. J., Wardle, J., Gibson, E. L., Sapochnik, M., Sheiham, A., &
Lawson, M. (2004). Demographic, familial and trait predictors of fruit
and vegetable consumption by pre-school children. Public Health
Nutrition, 7, 295–302.
Dreezens, E., Martijn, C., Tenbult, P., Kok, G., & de Vries, N. K. (2005).
Food and the relation between values and attitude characteristics.
Appetite, 45, 40–46.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort
Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Eertmans, A., Baeyens, F., & Van den Bergh, O. (2001). Food likes and
their relative importance in human eating behavior: Review and
preliminary suggestions for health promotion. Health Education
Research, 16, 443–456.
 M.-F. Chen / Food Quality and Preference 18 (2007) 1008–1021
Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Vansant, G., & Van den Bergh, O. (2005).
Food-related personality traits, food choice motives and food intake:
Mediator and moderator relationships. Food Quality and Preference,
16, 714–726.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior:
An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J., & Falk, L. W. (1996).
Food choice: A conceptual model of the process. Appetite, 26,
247–265.
Galloway, A. T., Lee, Y., & Birch, L. L. (2003). Predictors and
consequences of food neophobia and pickiness in young girls. Journal
of the American Dietetic Association, 103, 692–698.
Gil, J. M., Gracia, A., & Sanchez, M. (2000). Market segmentation and
willingness to pay for organic products in Spain. International Food
and Agribusiness Management Review, 3, 207–226.
Goody, J. (1982). Cooking, cuisine and class: A study in comparative
sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grankvist, G., & Biel, A. (2001). The importance of beliefs and purchase
criteria in the choice of eco-labeled food products. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 21, 405–410.
Greve, W. (2001). Traps and gaps in action explanation: Theoretical
problems of a psychology of human action. Psychological Review, 108,
435–451.
Grunert, S., & Juhl, J. H. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and
buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 62–69.
Grunert, K. G., Sørensen, E., Bredahl, L., & Nielsen, N. A. (1995).
Analysing food choice from a means-end perspective. In F. Hansen
(Ed.). European advances in consumer research (Vol. 2, pp. 366–371).
Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
Heaton, S. (2001). Organic farming, food quality and human health: A
review of the evidence. Bristol: Soil Association.
Juhl, H. J., & Poulsen, C. S. (2000). Antecedents and effects of consumer
involvement in fish as a product group. Appetite, 34, 261–267.
Koivisto-Hursti, U. K., & Sjoden, P. O. (1997). Food and general
neophobia and their relationship with self-reported food choice:
Familial resemblance in Swedish families with children of ages 7–17
years. Appetite, 29, 89–103.
Lindeman, M., & Vaananen, M. (2000). Measurement of ethical food
choice motives. Appetite, 34, 55–59.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K., Aberg, L., &
Sjoden, P.-O. (2001). Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish
consumers. British Food Journal, 103, 209–226.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K., Aberg, L., &
Sjoden, P.-O. (2003). Choice of organic foods is related to perceived
consequences for human health and to environmentally friendly
behavior. Appetite, 40, 109–117.
Marshall, D. W., & Bell, R. (2004). Relating the food involvement scale to
demographic variables, food choice and other constructs. Food Quality
and Preference, 15, 971–979.
Miles, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2001). Investigating specific concerns about
different food hazards. Food Quality & Preference, 12, 47–61.
Moe, T. (1998). Perspectives on food manufacture. Trends in Food Science
and Technology, 9, 211–214.
Mowen, J. (1993). Consumer behaviour. New York: Macmillan Publishing.
Nestle’, M., Wing, R., Birch, L., DiSogra, L., Drewnowski, A., Middle-
ton, S., et al. (1998). Behavioural and social influences on food choice.
Nutrition Reviews, 56, S50–S74.
Nunnally, J. (1967). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Olsen, S. O. (2001). Consumer involvement in seafood as family meals in
Norway: An application of the expectancy-value approach. Appetite,
36, 173–186.
Parraga, I. M. (1990). Determinants of food consumption. Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, 90, 661–663.
1021
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the
trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19, 105–120.
Rogers, P. J. (1996). Food choice, mood and mental performance: Some
examples and some mechanisms. In H. Meiselman & H. J. H. MacFie
(Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 319–345). Lon-
don: Blackie.
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (1999).
Attitudes to food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan,
Flemish Belgium and France: Possible implications for the diet-health
debate. Appetite, 33, 163–180.
Rozin, P., & Tuorila, H. (1993). Simultaneous and temporal contextual
influences on food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 4, 11–20.
Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional behavior: An approach to human motivation.
New York: Ronald.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., & Oude Ophuis, P. A. M. (1998). Health-related
determinants of organic foods consumption in the Netherlands. Food
Quality and Preference, 9, 119–133.
Shepherd, R. (1989). Factors influencing food preferences and choice. In
R. Shepherd (Ed.), Handbook of the psychophysiology of human eating
(pp. 3–24). Chichester: Wiley.
Sparks, P., Guthrie, C. A., & Shepherd, R. (1997). The dimension
structure of the ‘‘perceived behavioral control” construct. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 27, 418–440.
Spector, P. E. (1987). Method variance as an artifact in self-reported affect
and perceptions at work: Myth or significant problem. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 72, 438–443.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a
measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The Food
Choice Questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267–284.
Taiwan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs (2004). http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/
the website of Taiwan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs, Executive Yuan.
Thompson, N. J., & Thompson, K. E. (1996). Reasoned action theory: An
application to alcohol-free beer. Journal of Marketing Practice, 2,
35–48.
Torjusen, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M., & Francis, C. A. (2001). Food
system orientation and quality perception among consumers and
producers of organic foods in Hedmark County, Norway. Food
Quality and Preference, 12, 207–216.
Tregear, A., Dent, J. B., & McGregor, M. J. (1994). The demand for
organically grown produce. British Food Journal, 96, 21–25.
Tuorila, H., Lahteenmaki, L., Pohjalainen, L., & Lotti, L. (2001). Food
neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and
unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 29–37.
Verdurme, A., & Viaene, J. (2003). Consumer beliefs and attitude towards
genetically modified food: Basis for segmentation and implication for
communication. Agribusiness, 19, 91–113.
Vickers, Z. M. (1993). Incorporating tasting into a conjoint analysis of
taste, health claim, price and brand for purchasing strawberry yogurt.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 8, 341–352.
Wandel, M., & Bugge, A. (1997). Environmental concern in consumer
evalutation of food quality. Food Quality and Preference, 8, 19–26.
Wardle, J. (1987). Compulsive eating and dietary restraint. British Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 26, 47–55.
Wilkins, J. L., & Hillers, V. N. (1994). Influences of pesticide residue and
environmental concerns on organic foods preference among food
cooperative members and non-members in Washington State. Journal
of Nutrition Education, 26, 26–33.
Williams, P. R. D., & Hammit, J. K. (2001). Perceived risks of
conventional and organic produce: Pesticides, pathogens, and natural
toxins. Risk Analysis, 21, 319–330.
Zuckerman, I. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of
arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.