Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

How innovativeness relates to social representation of new foods

and to the willingness to try and use such foods q
A. Huotilainen
a
b

a,*

, A.-M. Pirttila-backman b, H. Tuorila

Department of Food Technology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 66, 00014 Helsinki, FIN-00014, Finland
Department of Social Psychology, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 54, 00014 Helsinki, FIN-00014, Finland
Received 24 June 2004; received in revised form 11 April 2005; accepted 12 April 2005
Available online 13 June 2005

Abstract
The relationship between domain specic innovativeness scale (DSI) and social representation (SR) components of new foods
(suspicion of new foods; adherence to natural food; adherence to technology; eating as an enjoyment; eating as a necessity) was
explored in a survey with Finnish consumers (N = 1156). Both DSI and SR were used to predict willingness to try/use new foods,
categorized into six subgroups of which three were functional (cereal-based and otherwise functional foods; functional drinks), and
the remaining three categories were modied dairy products, organic products, and energy drinks. Enjoyment and low suspicion
predicted 27% of variation in DSI, which, in turn, predicted up to 6% of willingness to try categories of new foods, excluding organic
products. When added to the predictive model, SR components increased the prediction of all food categories, particularly functional cereal-based and organic products (up to 20.4%). Thus, DSI predicted willingness to try new foods to some extent, but
SR components, most of all low suspicion of new foods and adherence to natural food, signicantly improved the prediction.
2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: New foods; Innovators; Social representations

1. Introduction
Inspired by both theoretical and marketing interests,
diusion of innovations has been extensively studied in
the past forty years (e.g., Saaksjarvi, 2003). Innovative
consumers represent a key market segment, playing an
essential role in the success of a new product, as they
legitimize the novel product to other consumers (Goldsmith & Flynn, 1992). As innovations are essentially
novelty bound, connection between innovation research
and theory of social representations (e.g., Moscovici,

q
Parts of this article were presented at a sense of identityEuropean
conference on sensory science of food and beverages, Florence,
September 2629, 2004, as an oral presentation.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +358 9 191 58293; fax: +358 9 191
58460.
E-mail address: anna.huotilainen@helsinki. (A. Huotilainen).

0950-3293/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.04.005

1981) is apparent. In encountering the novel, social representations have a key role, as these socially shared
everyday theories of novelty enable people to come
to terms with the new and the unknown (Moscovici,
1981).
The outlines of innovation diusion theory are well
established. Following Rogers inuential work from
the 1960s, innovation literature has largely relied on
adoption timing measurement, which denes innovativeness as the degree to which an individual is relatively
prior in adopting an innovation than others (Rogers,
1983). Based on the dierences in adoption timing, Rogers developed the frequently mentioned adopter categories: innovators, early adopters, early majority, and late
majority. A great deal of research has been devoted to
exploring personal characteristics related to these adopter categories, but results have been rather consistent in
showing that personal characteristics aect adoption

354

A. Huotilainen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

only weakly (e.g., Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991). Adoption timing method has received also theoretical criticism of equaling adoption timing and innovativeness
(Midgley & Dowling, 1978).
Even though consumer innovativeness has proven
dicult to measure, a consensus exists that there are different kinds of innovativeness (Saaksjarvi, 2003). Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991) distinguish between innate
and domain specic innovativeness. Kirtons (1976)
concept of adaptioninnovation as a cognitive style
represents innate innovativeness, in that some characteristically adapt while some innovate, depending on basic
dimensions of personality. The Domain specic innovativeness scale (DSI), developed by Goldsmith and
Hofacker (1991), measures consumer innovativeness
for a specic product category, thus reecting the tendency to adopt innovations within a specic domain of
interest. The DSI has been employed to measure innovation in rock music (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991),
fashionable clothing (Goldsmith & Flynn, 1992), delicatessen ham (McCarthy, OSullivan, & OReilly, 1999),
and wine (Goldsmith, dHauteville, & Flynn, 1998),
among others. Thus, domain specicity highlights dierences between innovativeness within various product
elds. Moreover, one could speculate that there may
be dierent domains within elds, for instance within
the broad eld of new foods, such that a person may
be innovative in one new food category but not another.
The past decade has been intense in the development
and research of various kinds of new foods in many food
companies, and globalization has enabled foods from
various countries to cross the borders of traditional food
cultures. In spite of more and more frequent encounters,
relating to dierent types of new foods in everyday life is
ambiguous (e.g., Grunert et al., 2001; Jonas & Beckmann, 1998). New food technologies are controversial,
even anxiety-arousing topics (Beardsworth & Keil,
1997), and compared to many other product areas, food
is considered highly personal, a way of expressing ones
identity (Karisto, Prattala, & Berg, 1993; Murcott,
1984). Thus, it is not surprising that there are dierences
between food innovators and innovators in other product areas (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991; Goldsmith &
Flynn, 1992; Goldsmith et al., 1998), in that food innovators are not likely to become early adopters in another
product category.
In the world of accelerated changes, people form
shared common sense concepts, when they try to disentangle and become accustomed to things that are unfamiliar (Moscovici, 1981). These social representations,
seen as modern societies equivalents for the myths of
traditional societies, form systems of ideas and concepts
(Moscovici, 1981, 2001). Shaped in the daily talk and action of individuals, the purpose of social representations
is to turn the unfamiliar to the familiar, as they provide
a novel thing with a familiar reference point, thus func-

tioning also as a code for public communication

(Moscovici, 1973, 1981, 2001). The social representation
theory has been applied in the study of everyday thinking of modern biotechnology (Wagner & Kronberger,
2001) and genetic engineering of foods (Bauer & Gaskell, 1999), among others.
Our previous research has shown that the social representation of new foods has ve dimensions: suspicion
of novelties; adherence to technology; adherence to natural food; eating as an enjoyment; and eating as a necessity (Backstrom, Pirttila-Backman, & Tuorila, 2004).
We also know that innovativeness, measured by DSI
(Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991), correlates positively
with eating as an enjoyment and negatively with suspicion of novelties (Backstrom et al., 2004).
There are dierences in viewpoints between social
representation and innovation approach. Social representation approach concentrates on how novelty is
understood and made familiar, whereas the innovation
approach concentrates on who will adopt novelties.
Drawing on both social representation and innovation
literature, the present research explored (1) how DSI
(Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991) is related to the components of social representation of new foods (Backstrom
et al., 2004); and (2) to what extent DSI alone and, together with social representation components, predicts
the willingness to try and use dierent types of new
and, for comparison, also familiar foods.

2. Method
2.1. Respondents
A total of 1156 subjects living in dierent parts of
Finland participated in the study conducted as a postal
survey. The data were collected via a nationwide market
research agency (Taloustutkimus Oy, Helsinki, Finland)
in December 2002. Altogether 1913 randomly selected
respondents were telephoned, and their willingness to
participate in a food-related survey was inquired. The
questionnaire was mailed to consenting respondents,
resulting in a response rate of 60%. There were some
missing data in respondents demographic background
and in a few ratings, but this was not signicant.
The age of the respondents ranged from 15 to 78
years, with a mean age of 45 years (SD = 15). Of the
respondents, 56% were women and 44% were men.
The highest levels of education of the respondents included primary school (20%), high school (11%), college
level or vocational school (54%), and academic level
(15%). Of the respondents, 88% were meat-eaters, 7%
avoided red meat, 2.6% avoided all meat (sh allowed),
1.6% were vegetarians (milk and eggs allowed), and four
out of 1156 respondents were vegans (avoiding all products derived from animals).

A. Huotilainen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

355

Table 1
Domain specic innovativeness scale (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991), mean values (after reversals of the negatively worded items 46), standard
deviations, and loadings of items
Item

Statement

Mean

SD

Component loading

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

I buy new foods before other people do

In general, I am among the rst in my circle of friends to buy new foods
Compared to my friends I buy more new foods
Even though new foods are available in the store, I do not buy them
In general, I am the last in my circle of friends to know the trademarks of new foods
I will not buy new foods, if I have not tasted them yet

3.1
2.9
3.3
4.2
4.3
4.3

1.6
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.7

0.78
0.77
0.70
0.58
0.55
0.41

N = 1156.

2.2. Measures

2.3. Data analyses

The statements of Domain specic innovativeness

scale (DSI; six items, Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991,
worded for new foods by the authors of the present
paper, see Table 1) and a questionnaire quantifying social representations of new foods (SR; 27 items; Backstrom et al., 2004) were rated on a 7-point scale from
strongly disagree to strongly agree (see Appendix A
for the items). Thirty-two food names, including both
new (27) and familiar (5) examples (see Fig. 1 for all
food names; see Table 2 for 22 new food names used
in further analyses, and their brand names), were rated
on two scales. The familiarity scale consisted of ve options, labeled (1) = I do not recognize the product,
(2) = I recognize the product, but I have not tasted
it, (3) = I have tasted, but I do not use the product,
(4) = I occasionally eat the product, and (5) = I regularly eat the product. Willingness to try and use was
rated on a 7-point scale anchored at (1) = Not at all
willing and (7) = Extremely willing.

Principal component analyses with varimax rotation

were used for DSI and SR questionnaires. Individual
DSI and SR component values were computed as the
mean of ratings given to the statements, after the ratings
of negative items had been reversed. Internal consistency
of DSI and the SR components was measured by Cronbachs alpha. Based on the distribution of the scores on
DSI, a conventional split into three parts was made, using
33rd and 66th percentile points as cut-os. These groups
were designated laggards, moderate, and innovators, respectively, and were used in the analyses of
familiarity, willingness to try/use, and SR components.
Principal component analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for willingness to try/use the 32 foods.
Individual willingness to try/use values were computed
as the mean of willingness to try/use ratings over the
PCA-based categories of foods (six categories of new
foods and three separate familiar foods). The mean
scores of familiarity; willingness to try/use; and the SR

7
Laggards
Moderate

Innovators

1
SUSPICION TECHNOLOGY

NATURAL

ENJOYMENT NECESSITY

Fig. 1. Mean values and standard errors of the social representation components by the DSI scale split as innovators (n = 382), moderates (n = 365),
and laggards (n = 409).

356

A. Huotilainen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

Table 2
Principal component analysis for 22 food namesa on willingness to try/use scale, mean values, and standard deviations of items and loadings of items
on components
Item

SD

Component loading

Comp. 1 Functional (cholesterol and blood pressure lowering) foods (40.9%, a = 0.85): FFOOD
1.
Cholesterol-lowering spreads (Benecol, pro-aktiv)
3.9
2.
Cholesterol-lowering yogurt (Evolus)
3.6
3.
Cholesterol-lowering potato salad (Atria Benecol)
3.0
4.
Blood pressure lowering milk drink (Evolus)
3.1
5.
Fiber-rich sausage (Linobene)
3.1
6.
Fiber-rich microwave meal (Linobene)
2.2

Name of item

Mean

2.2
2.1
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.5

0.72
0.71
0.64
0.62
0.38
0.37

Comp. 2 Functional drinks (8.0%, a = 0.87): FDRINK

7.
Calcium-fortied drink (Vital, Hyvaa Paivaa)
8.
Omega-3-drink (Hyvaa Paivaa)
9.
Fiber-rich drink (Hyvaa Paivaa)
10.
Green tea drink (Vital)

3.3
3.1
3.2
3.1

1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0

0.78
0.77
0.69
0.34

Comp. 3 Functional cereal-based products (6.2%, a = .78): FCEREAL

11.
Beta-glucan-oat cracker (iLove)
12.
Omega-3-bread (iLove)
13.
Low-salt bread
14.
Beta-glucan-oat ake (Elovena Plus)
15.
Fiber snack bar (iLove)

2.9
3.2
4.6
3.8
3.3

1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.9

0.68
0.56
0.48
0.48
0.34

Comp. 4 Modied dairy products (4.8%, a = 0.76): MODDAIRY

16.
Probiotic yogurt (Gelus, Rela)
17.
Fat-free yogurt
18.
Probiotic ice-cream (Rela)
19.
Low-lactose milk products (HYLA, Into)
20.
Calcium-fortied milk

4.2
5.0
3.3
3.7
3.7

2.1
2.2
1.9
2.2
2.0

0.79
0.60
0.48
0.31
0.30

Comp. 5 Energy drinks (4.2%, a = 0.84): ENERGY

21.
Energy drink (Red Bull, Battery)
22.
Strengthening drink (Fenix)

2.6
2.6

1.8
1.7

0.82
0.77

Explanation rates and Cronbachs alphas are shown in brackets, and those brand names given to respondents (in Finnish), in their exact form, are
shown in brackets after each item.
a
Organic products (organically produced bread and organically produced pork) were treated as one separate component. Three new foods (snails,
herbal drink, sauerkraut) were omitted from this nal PCA (see text).

components broken down by DSI groups (laggards,

moderate, and innovators) were compared with
univariate variance analyses followed by observed
power analyses and Tukeys post hoc tests (at level
p < 0.05). The mean scores of DSI by gender, education
level (three levels), and age (three groups) were compared with univariate variance analyses followed by observed power analysis and Tukeys post hoc tests.
Observed power reached an acceptable level (between
0.80 and 1.0) in each variance analysis. Within the laggard group, two paired t-tests on willingness to try/use
were computed, with a familiar food against a new food
category (rye bread vs. functional cereal-based products;
low-fat cheese vs. modied dairy products).
The relationship between DSI and SR components
was explored with a regression analysis with enter method, using the SR components for the prediction of DSI.
The DSI and SR components were used to predict the
willingness to try/use the PCA-based categories of new
and familiar foods with hierarchical regression modeling, where DSI was entered at step 1, and DSI and the
SR components at step 2.

3. Results
3.1. The DSI and SR components
One principal component was extracted from the DSI
scale with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and it accounted for 51 percent of the variance, suggesting that
the items formed a one-dimensional scale. Table 1 presents the items and the component loadings of the
DSI. The DSI scores ranged from 6 to 42, which is also
the theoretical range of the scale, with a mean of 21.9
(SD = 6.7), and Cronbachs alpha of the scale was
0.80. The SR questionnaire items loaded on ve components: (1) suspicion, (2) adherence to natural food, (3)
adherence to technology, (4) eating as an enjoyment,
and (5) eating as a necessity, explaining 50% of the variance (Appendix A). Cronbachs alphas for each component were 0.76, 0.81, 0.76, 0.74, and 0.64, respectively.
Women [F(1, 1154) = 5.6, p = 0.02]; the youngest age
group [F(2, 1153) = 29.4, p < 0.001]; and the most educated group [F(2, 1150) = 18.6, p < 0.001] had highest
scores on the DSI. Post hoc Tukeys tests indicated these

A. Huotilainen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

dierences between women and men, the youngest and

the oldest age group, and the least and most educated
group as signicant (all p-values <0.05). As to SR components, innovators were lower on suspicion towards
new foods [F(2, 1153) = 130.4, p < 0.001]; more adhered
to technology [F(2, 1153) = 6.2, p = 0.002]; higher on
regarding eating as an enjoyment [F(2, 1153) = 8.3,
p < 0.001]; and lower on regarding eating as a necessity
[F(2, 1153) = 12.1, p < 0.001] (Fig. 1). Post hoc Tukeys
tests indicated signicant dierences between laggards
and innovators (all p-values <0.05).
3.2. Familiarity and willingness to try/use
Modal values of the familiarity ratings varied from 1
(ber-rich microwave meal, mean 1.4) to 5 (rye bread,
mean 4.7). The mean willingness to try and use varied
from 2.1 (snails) to 6.6 (rye bread). The ratings of familiarity and willingness to try and use diered such that
the more familiar the food, the more congruent were
these two ratings, but this relationship was not consistent over all foods (Fig. 2).
PCA was rst run on willingness to try and use ratings of 27 new and 5 familiar foods (altogether 32
foods). Of these, ve items (2 new: organic bread, organic pork, and 3 familiar: rye bread, low-fat cheese,
smoked pork) were treated separately, as their ratings
did not load on any component, or they considerably
weakened the reliability of a component, measured by
Cronbachs alpha. In addition, ve items (3 new: herbal
drink, sauerkraut, snails, and 2 familiar: chocolate bar,
xylitol candies) were omitted, due to low communalities
and loadings below 0.30 on any component. After this,
PCA was again run on willingness to try and use ratings
of 22 new foods. These ratings loaded on ve compoFamiliarity

357

nents, explaining 64% of the variance: (1) functional

(cholesterol and blood pressure lowering) foods
(FFOOD), (2) functional drinks (FDRINK), (3) modied dairy products (MODDAIRY), (4) functional cereal-based products (FCEREAL), and (5) energy drinks
(ENERGY) (Table 2). The components were named
after the strongest loaded items. In addition, a component of organically produced products (ORGANIC,
a = 0.65) and three separate variables of familiar foods
(RYE, CHEESE, and PORK), were used in further
analyses, as explained above. The familiar products were
included in the analyses as we wanted to compare new
and familiar foods vis-a`-vis the DSI and the SR
components.
Compared to laggards and moderates, innovators
had signicantly higher scores on all categories of willingness to try and use new foods: FFOOD [F(2,
1153) = 20.4, p < 0.001]; FDRINK [F(2, 1153) = 34.1,
p < 0.001]; FCEREAL [F(2, 1153) = 34.0, p < 0.001];
MODDAIRY [F(2, 1153) = 31.9, p < 0.001]; ENERGY
[F(2, 1153) = 17.2, p < 0.001]; and ORGANIC [F(2,
1153) = 8.2, p = 0.001] (Fig. 3). Post hoc Tukeys tests
indicated signicant dierences between laggards and
innovators (all p-values <0.05). For familiar products
(RYE, CHEESE, and PORK), there were no other differences between the ratings of laggards, moderates, and
innovators, than that innovators had higher scores on
willingness to try and use low-fat cheese (CHEESE
[F(2, 1153) = 8.3, p < 0.001]), where Tukeys test indicated signicant dierences between laggards and innovators (p < 0.05). Furthermore, laggards rated
willingness to try and use familiar foods higher than
they rated the mean willingness to try and use the corresponding category of new foods (rye bread vs. functional cereal-based products, t = 43.5, p < 0.001);
Willingness to use

31

Ranking order

26
21
16
11
6

ho

Fi
b

re
m
ic
l.l
ow B- cro
er c o w.
in at m
g
e
p cr a
O ota ac l
Fi me to ker
br ga sa
e
ric -3 b lad
h re
s
Pr
a
ob He aus d
St iot rba ag
re ic l d e
ng ice ri
ht -c nk
en re
in am
Bl
g
oo G
dr
d
pr ree S ink
es n n
su tea ail
s
r
O e lo drin
m w k
e .
C Fi ga drin
ho br -3 k
l.l e -dr
ow ric in
h k
Fi erin dr
br g in
e yo k
ric g
Ca
B
u
C lciu -c h s rt
al
n
ci m- oat ac
um fo fl k
a
-fo rtif ke
rti ied s
f
En ied milk
er dri
g n
O y d ks
rg r
Ch
a in
ol
.lo S nic ks
w au po
er e rk
in r
Lo g s k ra
w pr u t
Lo
O sal ead
r
t
w
-la Pr gan bre s
o
ct bi ic ad
os ot b
e ic rea
m yo d
i
Fa lk p ghu
t-f rod rt
Xy ree uct
lit yo s
C ol c g u r
ho an t
c d
Sm ola ies
Lo ok te b
w e d ar
-fa p
t c or
k
R h ee
ye s
br e
ea
d

Fig. 2. Comparison of rated familiarity and willingness to try/use the 32 stimulus products by innovators (n = 382). Ranking order: 1 = the least
familiar/least willing to try/use, 32 = the most familiar/the most willing to try/use.

358

A. Huotilainen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

7

Mean willingness to use

5
Laggards
Moderate

Innovators

FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL MODIFIED

FOODS
DRINKS
CEREAL
DAIRY

ENERGY
DRINKS

ORGANIC

Fig. 3. Mean values and standard errors of six willingness to try/use categories by the DSI scale split as innovators (n = 382), moderates (n = 365),
and laggards (n = 409).

p < 0.001) predicted 27% of DSI in the regression analysis, whereas necessity, adherence to technology, and
adherence to natural were not signicant predictors.

(low-fat cheese vs. modied dairy products, t = 12.0, p <

0.001).
Compared to men, women were higher on willingness
to try and use functional drinks, modied dairy products, and functional cereal-based products (FDRINK
[F(1, 1154) = 7.8, p < 0.001; MODDAIRY [F(1, 1154) =
102.0, p < 0.001]; FCEREAL [F(1, 1154) = 33.5, p <
0.001]). Men were higher on willingness to try and use
energy drinks (ENERGY [F(1, 1154) = 17.7, p < 0.001]).
Compared to laggards and moderates, innovators
were signicantly more familiar with 25 new foods
(p < 0.01); the results were non-signicant for two new
foods: cholesterol-lowering potato salad (p = 0.30) and
beta-glucan-oat akes (p = 0.11). Post hoc Tukeys tests
indicated signicant dierences between laggards and
innovators (all p-values <0.05).

3.4. Prediction of willingness to try/use by the DSI and

SR components
The predictive ability of DSI vs. SR components in
predicting willingness to try and use new food categories
is presented in Table 3. At step 1, where SR components
were not taken into account, DSI was a signicant predictor of willingness to try and use all categories of new
foods. The explanation rates were modest: 6.4% at the
highest. At step 2, where DSI and the SR components
were included in the model at the same time, the DSI
lost some of its predictive ability, and the explanation
rates of the models rose, now ranging between 7.4%
and 20.4%. Coecients at step 2 demonstrated that
SR components of low suspicion, adherence to natural
food, and adherence to technology were the strongest
predictors. The benets from using SR components as

3.3. Prediction of DSI by the SR components

Of the ve social representation components, low suspicion (b = 0.49, p < 0.001) and enjoyment (b = 0.11,

Table 3
Hierarchical regression analyses predicting willingness to try/use new foods in six categories
Predictor variable

Step1: DSI

R2 (%)

R2 (%)

Step 2: SR + DSI
Suspicion Natural Technol. Enjoym. Necess. DSI

Functional foods
Functional drinks
Functional cereal
Modied dairy
Energy drinks
Organic

0.19
0.25c
0.25c
0.25c
0.18c
0.12c

3.5
6.2
6.1
6.4
3.1
0.1

0.11c
0.12c
0.16c
0.07a
0.09b

0.15c
0.11c
0.28c
0.19c

0.43c

0.19c

0.13c

0.14c

0.08b

0.10b

0.17c
0.20c
0.18c
0.18c
0.14c
0.07a

7.3
8.3
20.0
11.7
7.4
20.4

Note: the best SR predictors were rst selected on the basis of stepwise regression analyses, and then entered to the nal model, hence the dierent
combinations of predictors in each analysis.
Each row presents standardized beta-values for separate regression analyses.
a
p < 0.05.
b
p < 0.01.
c
p < 0.001.

A. Huotilainen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

predictors were most notable regarding organically produced products, functional cereal-based products, and
modied dairy products.
DSI did not have any predictive power in predicting
the willingness to use the familiar foods: rye bread,
low-fat cheese, and smoked pork, whereas SR components of adherence to natural food and eating as an
enjoyment were signicant predictors; however, these
explanation rates were modest, 5.4% at the highest.

4. Discussion
In encountering innovations, be it in foods or in other
product areas, social representations as everyday, shared
theories of novelty have a key role, functioning as a
means of enabling people to come to terms with and
understand the novel (Moscovici, 1981). Encountering
new foods brings forth several social representation
components: suspicion of novelties; adherence to technology; adherence to natural food; eating as an enjoyment; and eating as a necessity (Backstrom et al.,
2004). The innovativeness construct (DSI, Goldsmith
& Hofacker, 1991) examined in this study, approaches
novelties from a dierent, marketing-oriented angle,
but the results suggest that there were relevant connections. The most important connection appeared to be
that innovativeness could be predicted by the social representation components. Central characteristics of a
food innovator were a low level of suspicion towards
new foods and regarding eating as an enjoyment; thus,
novelty optimism and food-related hedonism were vital,
and food innovators seemed to conceive new foods from
a hedonism-oriented angle. However, equally important
is to notice that the remaining three SR components
(adherence to technology, adherence to natural food,
and eating as a necessity) were unrelated to the DSI.
In that sense, these two approaches complement each
other. Still other viewpoints to new foods could include
concern of ones health and moral issues, among others
(e.g., Steptoe, Pollard, & Wardle, 1995; Rozin, 1997),
but such issues were not brought up in the focus group
discussions (Backstrom, Pirttila-Backman, & Tuorila,
2003) that were the basis for the social representation
questionnaire (Backstrom et al., 2004).
Innovativeness has been dicult to predict by means
of personal characteristics, but positioning an innovative person on the social representation components
turned out to be successful. We suggest that innovativeness should be considered as a way of doing, as a
higher-level phenomenon, whereas social representations depict the baseline of understanding and prerequisite for doing. The results suggested that these concepts
are interrelated.
The results suggested that rated familiarity and willingness to try and use new foods distinguish food inno-

359

vators from laggards (e.g., Goldsmith & Hofacker,

1991). Compared to laggards, innovators were more
familiar with and more willing to try and use new foods.
The innovativeness scale was predictive of self-reported,
anticipated willingness to try, and use various types of
new foods: cholesterol and blood pressure lowering
functional foods, functional drinks, functional cerealbased products, modied dairy products, organically
produced products, and energy drinks. Not surprisingly,
innovators were willing to use familiar foods as well. By
contrast, laggards were more willing to try and use
familiar than new foods. Thus, the basic distinction
was that foods preferred by laggards were familiar,
whereas innovators were willing to try and use novelties
in addition to essential familiar foods.
Innovativeness predicted a modest amount of the
willingness to try new foods. It did not predict the willingness to try organically produced (or familiar) products. Organic foods may not be conceived as new
foods, but rather as traditional and, thus, perhaps even
familiar, as they revert to the traditional and safe
modes of food production (e.g., Rozin et al., 2004).
SR components of adherence to natural food, enjoyment, and low suspicion had predictive power regarding
the willingness to try and use all categories of new (and
familiar) foods. This concurs with previous results,
where the predictive ability of SR components was compared with that of attitude/trait scales (Backstrom et al.,
2004). However, the categories of new foods in the
Backstrom et al. (2004) and the present study were
partly dierent, and the focus of the present study was
on the performance of the DSI.
Limitations of the innovativeness scale concern the
comparative fashion of the statements, as four out of
six items include comparison of ones own behavior
to the behavior of ones circle of friends, or others.
Originally, comparison seems to stem from adoption
timing measurement, as comparing to others in ones
social group is evident in Rogers (1983) early classication, as well. It follows that the information obtained
from using this or other scales of similar fashion is
essentially context-bound, as there is no certainty
whether the respondent uses up- or downward social
comparisons (on the dierence of these, see Brown,
2000); how much the respondent identies with the
circle of friends; or whether the circle of friends includes two or twenty people. These problems may
aect the predictive ability of the innovativeness scale,
which, in the present study was surprisingly modest.
Moreover, every adopter category is likely to interpret
the benets of innovations dierently, drawing on
existing knowledge and comparisons of the innovation
with personal values, past experiences, and needs
(Saaksjarvi, 2003).
In conclusion, innovativeness was shown to predict a modest amount of reported willingness to

360

A. Huotilainen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

try and use new foods, and SR components could,

in some cases, considerably improve the prediction.
Thus, the social representation approach and innovativeness appeared to give complementary viewpoints to studies of consumer responses to new
foods.

Acknowledgement
This study was funded by ELITE research program
of Finnish National Technology Agency (TEKES), as
part of the project Innovation in foods: Consumer-oriented product development.

Appendix A
Social representation (SR) questionnaire and component loadings above the value of 0.30 of items
Comp.

Item

Resistance to and
1. There are too many new kinds of food
suspicion of novelties
available nowadays
2. New foods are just a silly trenda
3. I prefer familiar and safe foods
4. There are some doubts about novelties
5. Traditionally made food is the best in the world
6. Functional food is like a nuclear power plant:
ecient but dangerous
7. Contemporary food is articial compared
with the food that people ate when I was a childa
8. Zeal about health causes unnecessary stressa
Adherence to
technology

Adherence to
natural food

9. New food technology is trustworthy

10. I believe in the potential of new food technology
11. Resisting genetic food is just longing for the past
12. Gene technology can provide solutions to
global food problems
13. Genetic modication in food production
is nothing more than aiding nature
14. People are afraid of genetically modied
food because they are not familiara
15. I value things being in accordance with naturea
16. I trust in organically grown food
17. In my opinion, organically grown products
are no better than conventionally grown
18. I feel good when I eat clean and natural food
19. I would like to eat only food with no additives

Food as an
enjoyment

20.
21.
22.
23.

Food as a
necessity

24. I do not care what I eat, as long as I am not hungry

25. I do not care how my food is produced
26. It makes no dierence to me what kind of
food is served at parties
27. I do not really need information about new foods

F1

F2

F3

F4

F5

0.67
0.68
0.53
0.47
0.43
0.45
0.47
0.40
0.58
0.64
0.61
0.63
0.55
0.46
0.80
0.72
0.59
0.57
0.54

Eating is very important to me

For me, delicious food is an essential part of weekends
Eating is a highlight of the day
I treat myself to something really delicious

0.72
0.69
0.66
0.50

0.47

0.61
0.43
0.44
0.46

Item 17 was used in the analysis in reversed form.

a
Item in its english form is a result of back-translation, and diers slightly from its rst appearance in Backstrom
et al., 2004.

A. Huotilainen et al. / Food Quality and Preference 17 (2006) 353361

References
Backstrom, A., Pirttila-Backman, A.-M., & Tuorila, H. (2003).
Dimensions of novelty: a social representation approach to new
foods. Appetite, 40, 299307.
Backstrom, A., Pirttila-Backman, A.-M., & Tuorila, H. (2004).
Willingness to try new foods as predicted by social representations
and attitude and trait scales. Appetite, 43, 7583.
Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (1999). Towards a paradigm for research
on social representations. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior,
29, 163186.
Beardsworth, A., & Keil, T. (1997). Sociology on the menu: an
invitation to the study of food and society. London: Routledge.
Brown, R. (2000). Group processes: dynamics within and between
groups. Oxford, Mass: Blackwell.
Goldsmith, R., & Flynn, L. (1992). Identifying innovators in consumer
product markets. European Journal of Marketing, 26, 4255.
Goldsmith, R., & Hofacker, C. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209221.
Goldsmith, R., dHauteville, F., & Flynn, L. (1998). Theory and
measurement of consumer innovativeness. European Journal of
Marketing, 32, 340353.
Grunert, K. G., Lahteenmaki, L., Nielsen, N. A., Poulsen, J. B.,
strom, A. (2001). Consumer perceptions of food
Ueland, O., & A
products involving genetic modicationresults from a qualitative
study in four Nordic countries. Food Quality and Preference, 12,
527542.
Jonas, M.S., & Beckmann, S.C. (1998). Functional foods: consumer
perceptions in Denmark and England. MAPP Working paper, 55.
rhus: Center for market surveillance, research and strategy for the
A
food sector.
Karisto, A., Prattala, R., & Berg, M.-A. (1993). The good, the
bad, and the ugly. Dierences and changes in health-related
lifestyles. In U. Kjaernes et al. (Eds.), Regulating markets, regulating people. On food and nutrition policy (pp. 185204). Oslo:
Novus.

361

Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: a description and

measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 622629.
McCarthy, M., OSullivan, C., & OReilly, S. (1999). Pre-identication
of rst buyers of a new food product. British Food Journal, 11,
842856.
Midgley, D., & Dowling, G. (1978). Innovativeness: the concept
and its measurement. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 229
242.
Moscovici, S. (1973). Foreword. In C. Herzlich (Ed.), Health and
illness: a social psychological analysis (pp. ixxiv). London:
Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (1981). On social representations. In J. P. Forgas
(Ed.), Social cognition. Perspectives on everyday understanding
(pp. 181209). London: Academic Press.
Moscovici, S. (2001). Why a theory of social representations? In K.
Deaux & G. Philogene (Eds.), Representations of the social:
bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 835). Oxford: Blackwell.
Murcott, A. (1984). The sociology of food and eating: essays on the
sociological signicance of food. Aldershot: Gower.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free
Press.
Rozin, P. (1997). Moralization. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.),
Morality and health (pp. 379402). London: Routledge.
Rozin, P., Spranca, M., Krieger, Z., Neuhaus, R., Surillo, D.,
Swerdlin, A., & Wood, K. (2004). Preference for natural: instrumental and ideational/moral motivations, and the contrast between
foods and medicines. Appetite, 43, 147153.
Saaksjarvi, M. (2003). Consumer adoption of technological innovations. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6, 90100.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a
measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food
choice questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267284.
Wagner, W., & Kronberger, N. (2001). Killer tomatoes! Collective
symbolic coping with biotechnology. In K. Deaux & G. Philogene
(Eds.), Representations of the social: bridging theoretical traditions
(pp. 147164). Oxford: Blackwell.