Development and cross-cultural validation of a shortened social representations scale of new foods

Abstract The original 27-item social representations scale, developed by Backstrom et al. (2004) , consists of five dimensions: suspicion, adherence to technology, adherence to natural food, eating as an enjoyment, and eating as a necessity. The aim of the present study is twofold. First, in study 1, we assessed the psychometric properties of the original social representations scale in the United Kingdom ( n  = 1010), the United States ( n  = 1001) and Germany ( n  = 1000) and compared the results with a shortened 15-item scale. Second, in study 2, we tested a shortened 15-item revised version of the social representations scale in the Netherlands ( n  = 494), Poland ( n  = 502) and Spain ( n  = 500). We conducted reliability analyses and first-order confirmatory factor analyses to test the reliability and validity of the scales in both studies. Results from study 1 showed that the original scale had poor fit statistics, and the shortened scale had adequate to good fit statistics in the three countries. However, this shortened scale still showed some limitations in terms of internal reliability. Results from study 2 showed that the revised shortened scale had adequate to good fit statistics and reliabilities in all three countries. Thus, in spite of the substantial reduction of the social representations scale, the short form shows cross-culturally much better psychometric properties than the original version. Implications and directions for future research are described.

[1]  Lynn J. Frewer,et al.  Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production—The influence of consumer benefit , 1997 .

[2]  Rick Bell,et al.  The construct of food involvement in behavioral research: scale development and validation☆ , 2003, Appetite.

[3]  H. Tuorila,et al.  Social representation of new foods has a stable structure based on suspicion and trust , 2005 .

[4]  H. V. Trijp,et al.  Newness, value and new product performance , 2008 .

[5]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  Measuring Consumer Innovativeness , 1991 .

[6]  J. Zaichkowsky.  Measuring the Involvement Construct , 1985 .

[7]  R. Goldsmith,et al.  Market mavens: Psychological influences , 2005 .

[8]  Hely Tuorila,et al.  How innovativeness relates to social representation of new foods and to the willingness to try and use such foods , 2006 .

[9]  E. F. Larkin.  Telecommunications in the Information Age. Singleton, Loy A. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1983, 239 pp. $19.95 , 1984 .

[10]  L. J. Frewer,et al.  Consumer acceptance of technology-based food innovations: Lessons for the future of nutrigenomics , 2007, Appetite.

[11]  J. Paul Peter,et al.  Construct Validity: A Review of Basic Issues and Marketing Practices , 1981 .

[12]  E. Rogers,et al.  LIVING RESEARCH METHODS OF MEASURING OPINION LEADERSHIP , 1962 .

[13]  D. Campbell,et al.  Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. , 1959, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  Peter M. Bentler,et al.  EQS : structural equations program manual , 1989 .

[15]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Consumer acceptance of functional foods: socio-demographic, cognitive and attitudinal determinants , 2005 .

[16]  J. S. Tanaka,et al.  A fit index for covariance structure models under arbitrary GLS estimation , 1985 .

[17]  H. Tuorila,et al.  Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations and attitude and trait scales , 2004, Appetite.

[18]  M. Browne,et al.  Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit , 1992 .

[19]  A. Cardello,et al.  Effect of expectations and the definition of product category on the acceptance of unfamiliar foods , 1998 .

[20]  Klaus G. Grunert,et al.  Consumer perceptions of food products involving genetic modification : results from a qualitative study in four Nordic countries , 2001 .

[21]  P. Pliner,et al.  Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans , 1992, Appetite.

[22]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self‐esteem , 1994 .

[23]  Machiel J. Reinders,et al.  Social identification, social representations, and consumer innovativeness in an organic food context: A cross-national comparison , 2010 .

[24]  Martin W. Bauer,et al.  Towards a Paradigm for Research on Social Representations , 1999 .

[25]  L. Frewer,et al.  Consumer Perceptions and Novel Food Acceptance , 1998 .

[26]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[27]  J. Steenkamp,et al.  Assessing Measurement Invariance in Cross-National Consumer Research , 1998 .

[28]  R. L. Holbert,et al.  Structural Equation Modeling in the Communication Sciences, 1995–2000 , 2002 .

[29]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[30]  J.C.M. van Trijp,et al.  Consumer-oriented new product development: principles and practice , 1998 .

[31]  Richard G. Netemeyer,et al.  Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research , 1993 .

[32]  J. Zaichkowsky.  The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision, and Application to Advertising , 1994 .

[33]  Barbara J. Stewart-Knox,et al.  What separates the winners from the losers in new food product development , 2003 .

[34]  A. Cardello.  Consumer concerns and expectations about novel food processing technologies: effects on product liking☆ , 2003, Appetite.

[35]  H. Tuorila,et al.  Dimensions of novelty: a social representation approach to new foods , 2003, Appetite.