British Food Journal

Attitudes and Food Choice Behaviour

Keith E. Thompson Nikolaos Haziris Panagiotis J. Alekos
Article information:
To cite this document:
Keith E. Thompson Nikolaos Haziris Panagiotis J. Alekos, (1994),"Attitudes and Food Choice Behaviour", British Food
Journal, Vol. 96 Iss 11 pp. 9 - 13
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070709410074632
Downloaded on: 25 April 2015, At: 23:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 34 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 7805 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Marino Bonaiuto, Pierluigi Caddeo, Giuseppe Carrus, Stefano De Dominicis, Barbara Maroni, Mirilia Bonnes, (2012),"Food
reputation impacts on consumer's food choice", Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp.
462-482 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13563281211274158
Anne Keane, Anna Willetts, (1994),"Factors that Affect Food Choice", Nutrition & Food Science, Vol. 94 Iss 4 pp. 15-17
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 23:23 25 April 2015 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00346659310060142
Mark T. Conner, (1993),"Understanding Determinants of Food Choice: Contributions from Attitude Research", British Food
Journal, Vol. 95 Iss 9 pp. 27-31 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070709310045059

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 161304 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


A study of consumers’ attitudes on the
consumption of olive oil in the UK.
Attitudes and
Food Choice
Behaviour
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 23:23 25 April 2015 (PT)
Keith E. Thompson, Nikolaos Haziris and
Panagiotis J. Alekos
British Food Journal, Vol. 96 No. 11, 1994, pp. 9-13
© MCB University Press Limited, 0007-070X
Introduction
In 1970 the well known “seven countries” study
showed that cardiovascular mortality was lower in
Mediterranean countries than in northern Europe and the
USA and established the correlation between diet,
cholesterol levels and the incidence of cardiovascular
disease [1]. In Britain the COMA Report on diet and
health recommended that consumption of both saturated
and polyunsaturated fats should be reduced and olive oil,
with its high monounsaturates content, was increasingly
recognized as part of a healthy diet [2]. During the same
period of time rapid growth in tourism resulted in
increased exposure to Mediterranean food, and the
combination of these factors lent impetus to the growth of
olive oil consumption in the UK and other northern
countries. Consequently, UK sales of olive oil increased by
72 per cent in volume and 158 per cent in real value terms
between 1986 and 1992[3].
Despite this rapid growth in consumption the culinary
use of olive oil is still relatively new to British consumers
and very little research has been published on either the
consumer or the supply side of the market. This article,
part of a wider programme of research into diffusion of
the Mediterranean diet in the UK, addresses the former.
Received 15 October 1994
Accepted 22 October 1994
ATTITUDES AND FOOD CHOICE BEHAVIOUR 9
The objectives of this study were first to assess the
efficacy of the theory of reasoned action as a predictor of
olive oil usage, second to establish the salient attitudinal
and normative factors associated with olive oil usage and
third to demonstrate the applicability of the method to
the problems of product positioning and message
construction.
The Theory of Reasoned Action
Ajzen and Fishbein’s[4] theory of reasoned action, has
been applied extensively to food studies and has been
shown to have good predictive power[5-16]. The theory,
an extension of Fishbein and Ajzen’s[17] earlier work on
expectancy value models of attitude, is concerned with
rational, volitional behaviour – that is to say behaviours
over which the individual has control. Yet positive
attitudes towards an object, say a Rolls Royce, may well
not be translated into the action of purchase, because of,
for example, cost. Therefore, a model which evaluates
attitudes towards a behaviour rather than towards the
object itself (in this case the act of using olive oil) is
particularly useful in a marketing context.
A schematic representation of the theory of the reasoned
action model is shown in Figure 1. The model predicts
behaviour by intention to perform the behaviour. This is
decomposed into two components: attitude towards the
behaviour and subjective norm, which are in turn
decomposed into their component parts. Attitude
towards the behaviour is predicted by salient beliefs
about the outcome of a behaviour, weighted by the
subjects’ estimation of the likelihood that performing that
behaviour will result in a given outcome. Subjective norm
is predicted by normative beliefs about what salient
referents would advise, modified by respondents’
motivation to comply with the advice of those referents.
All components of the model are measurable on bi-polar
scales administered by questionnaire.
In proposing the theory of reasoned action, Ajzen and
Fishbein[4] argued that it provided a complete
explanation of volitional control, and that the addition of
other variables would not significantly enhance the
prediction of behavioural intention. Nevertheless, a
number of additional components have been proposed,
such as perceived moral obligation[18], past behaviour[19],
habit[20] and self identity[21]. Perhaps the most
significant of these proposed additions involves the
influence of perceived behavioural control initially
proposed by Ajzen[22] in his theory of planned
behaviour. However, this approach has been criticized
by Fishbein and Stasson[23] and Ajzen[24], who
acknowledged that problems associated with this
extension to the model have yet to be extensively
investigated. In the context of food-choice behaviour
Sparks et al.[25] conclude that perceived control is likely
 10 BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL 96,11

Figure 1. A Schematic Representation of the Theory of Subjects

Reasoned Action Following the interviews a questionnaire was
constructed, pre-tested and sent with a covering letter to
400 households in randomly selected streets in London
Beliefs (St Johns Wood) and in Bedfordshire. Of these, 151 (38 per
cent) were returned in pre-paid envelopes. The sample
Attitude
was weighted towards women (61 per cent), in the
Evaluation
heaviest user group of 25-44 year olds[3], who made up 60
per cent of respondents compared to 29 per cent
Intention Behaviour
nationally. The over-65 group (lightest user group[3])
Normative
beliefs were under-represented. The rest of the age distribution
Subjective approximated closely to that of the UK as a whole. Most
norm of the respondents (76 per cent) were users of olive oil in
Motivation
to comply
the home; however, as the sample is skewed towards the
heavier user group this figure cannot be generalized to
the population as a whole (Table I). In the event the
sample was adequate for the purpose of this study.
However, use of a stratified quota sample would reinforce
to prove applicable to those classes of action where
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 23:23 25 April 2015 (PT)

the rigour of future studies.

volitional choice is significantly impeded. Since the initial
stages of this study indicated that volitional choice of Questionnaire
olive oil usage was not “significantly impeded”, perceived The questionnaire included demographic questions on
behavioural control was not measured. A healthy debate age, sex, income and education. The main body of the
about additions and modifications to the theory of questionnaire consisted of the following measures:
reasoned action continues; other criticisms include
limited applicability[26] and conceptual problems[27]. ● Five “belief” items (e.g. Would you say that using
Meanwhile, the basic proposals of the model have olive oil improves the taste of salads?) which were
received widespread empirical corroboration (for accompanied by a seven-point rating scale ranging
example[4,25]). from “totally agree” to “totally disagree”.
● Five corresponding outcome evaluations (e.g.
Improving the taste of salads is…) which were
accompanied by a seven-point rating scale ranging
Method from “extremely good” to “extremely bad”.
Elicitation of Salient Beliefs and Referents
Semi-structured interviews with 15 consumers were
conducted in accordance with the procedures suggested
by Ajzen and Fishbein[4]. From these, five salient beliefs
and three referents were selected for inclusion in the main Table I. Percentage of Subjects by Age, Sex and User Status
questionnaire:
(1) Beliefs: Percentage
● Using olive oil improves the taste of salads. Sex
● Using olive oil improves the taste of cooked Male 39
meals. Female 61
● Using olive oil is more healthy for me and/or
my family. Age
18-24 15
● Using olive oil is expensive for what it offers.
25-34 27
● Using olive oil is for special occasions.
35-44 33
(2) Referents: 45-54 13
● Family and relatives. 55-64 10
● Friends. over 65 2
● Guests. User status
The interviews revealed confusion among respondents Users 76
about the terms polyunsaturated and monounsaturated, Non-users 23
and how these related to olive oil. Consequently, these n = 151
terms were avoided in the questionnaire.
 ATTITUDES AND FOOD CHOICE BEHAVIOUR 11

● Five items designed to assess attitude via seven Figure 2. Correlation between Components of the Theory of
point semantic differential scales (using olive oil Reasoned Action
is… e.g. “good-bad”, “useful-useless”).
● A measure of subjective norm (most people who Beliefs r = 0.63**
are important to me think I should use olive oil)
Attitude r = 0.71**
accompanied by a seven-point rating scale. B = 0.71
● A measure of normative beliefs for each of three Evaluation
salient referents (e.g. My family think I should use R = 0.71**
Intention Behaviour
olive oil) accompanied by a seven-point rating Normative
beliefs r = 0.13
scale. B = 0.02
Subjective
● A measure of motivation to comply with salient norm
referents for each of three salient referents ( e.g. To Motivation r = 0.24*
to comply
what extent do you wish to fit in with what the
following people think you should do?) (**;p < 0.001 *;p < 0.01; n = 151)
accompanied by a seven-point rating scale.
● A measure of current behaviour (Do you use olive
oil?). Discussion
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 23:23 25 April 2015 (PT)

● A self report measure of behavioural intention (all
things being considered, what are the chances of
your using olive oil in the next month?)
accompanied by a seven-point rating scale.
Results
Responses measured on seven-point, bi-polar scales were
scored +3 to –3 as advocated by Ajzen and Fishbein[4].
However, the motivation to comply measures were scored
0-6 as Fishbein and Ajzen[17] later argued that these
measures are unipolar rather than bi-polar constructs
(see Ajzen and Fishbein[4] and, for a fuller discussion of
scaling issues, East[28], and Evans[29]). Statistical
analysis was carried out using SPSS PC software (SPSS
Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) on an Elonex PC-425X computer.
Data were combined using the formula from Ajzen and
Fishbein[4]. Each belief response (b) was multiplied by
the appropriate evaluation score (e) and the products were
summed (∑be). The attitude components were summed to
give a total attitude score (Aact). Normative belief
responses (NB) were multiplied by the corresponding
motivation to comply responses (Mc) and the products
summed (NBMc). Simple correlation (Pearson correlation
coefficients) and multiple regressions were used to assess
the degree of association between the components
(Figure 2).
The model showed good prediction of reported intention
to use olive oil. The outcome of R = 0.71 (p = < 0.001)
indicates a very strong correlation which compares
favourably with the estimate of an overall result of R =
0.66 from two meta analyses conducted by Sheppard et
al.[30] involving 87 studies and over 12,000 subjects.
The rapid growth of olive oil consumption in the UK is
often attributed to healthy eating and avoidance of
saturated fats. However, this does not seem to be the
main determinant of usage. The attributes most
strongly correlated with the intention to use olive oil
were those regarding improvement to the taste of both
salads and cooked meals. For users, health
considerations were a secondary factor, while usage for
special occasions yielded a just satisfactory, but
negative, correlation. The only belief-evaluation
attribute which fell below an acceptable level of
correlation was “is expensive” (Table II).
Although the inclusion of all subjects (users and non-
users) in the analysis generally improved the correlation
of the key belief-evaluation attributes the data for non-
Table II. Correlation Coefficients, Sum of Beliefs-Evaluation
v. Behavioural Intent

The findings support the basic structure of the theory of Beliefs about All Users Non-users
reasoned action. Multiple regression analysis of the full olive oil use subjects* only* only
model yielded R = 0.71 (p= < 0.001), and adjusted R2 =
Improves taste of salads 0.6167 0.4000 0.1457
0.50. The sum of belief-evaluation products (∑be)
correlated significantly with the attitude measure (Aact) Improves taste of cooking 0.5845 0.4444 0.1682
(r = 0.63, p = < 0.01) and the attitude measure (Aact) in Is healthier 0.5033 0.3518 0.1683
turn correlated significantly with the intention to use Is expensive –0.1075 –0.1486 0.0852
olive oil (r = 0.71, p = < 0.001 ). However, inclusion of the Is for special occasions –0.2990 –0.3498 0.0463
measure of attitude of others (subjective norm) did not *p = < 0.001
add significantly to the prediction of intentions.
 12 BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL 96,11
users only was seen to be weak across all salient beliefs
(Table II). When the same belief list is applied to all
respondents it is inevitable that some of the items will be
non-salient for some respondents. Higher correlations
with the global measure of attitude have been reported in
studies using the belief items of greatest salience to each
subject. This approach is complex and impractical for
widespread application, but it could be applied to sub-
groups; for example, Kristiansen[31] found that smokers
and non-smokers had different salient beliefs. In the
current study non-users were found to represent only a
quarter of the respondents, and it is possible that at the
elicitation stage the beliefs of this small group were
discounted. Therefore, although over-extended belief lists
are generally to be avoided as results are often improved
by reducing the number of salient beliefs, it is possible
that non-users have a different set of salient beliefs, the
inclusion of which would further improve the predictive
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 23:23 25 April 2015 (PT)
power of the model.
Intercorrelation between belief-evaluation variables was
tested and generally found to be of a low order, an
indication of their independence from each other. The
exceptions to this were the two beliefs regarding flavour
enhancement which were, not unexpectedly, shown to be
measuring much the same thing (Table III).
In common with several other food choice applications of
the theory, subjective norm was not found to be a good
predictor of behavioural intention[13,25,32-34]. This
outcome may be due to a low level of involvement with
the act. Rutter and Bunce[12] postulate that habitual
behaviour such as eating and drinking may be of such
low involvement that little normative pressure occurs.
Ajzen[24] also feels that involvement is a strong influence
on the likelihood of people acting on their attitudes, and
inclusion of a measure of involvement in future studies
may yield some interesting results.
Table III. Intercorrelation (r) between Belief-Evaluation
Variables
Special Taste Taste
Belief occasions salads cooking Healthier Expensive
Taste
salads 0.27** 1.00 0.61** 0.13 0.22*
Taste
cooking 0.17 0.61** 1.00 0.25* 0.18
Healthier 0.14 0.13 0.28* 1.00 0.23*
Expensive 0.29** 0.22* 0.18 0.23* 1.00
Special
occasions 1.00 0.27** 0.17 0.14 0.29**
One-tailed significance * = < 0.01; ** = < 0.001
Conclusions
This study reaffirmed the efficacy of the theory of
reasoned action as a means of identifying the major
factors influencing discretionary behaviour such as food
choice. Analysis of the aggregated data revealed a strong
correlation between attitude-evaluation of attributes and
behavioural intention. The disaggregated data provided
evidence of attitudinal-behavioural consistency with use
or non-use being strongly related to attitudes, especially
those concerning the flavour-enhancing attributes of olive
oil. Health attributes were also found to be an important,
but lesser, predictor of usage, which calls into question
some of the assumptions about reasons for growth in
olive oil consumption. Price considerations and special
occasion usage were found not to be important
determinants of the decision to use olive oil. These
findings can usefully be applied to product positioning
and message construction.
In common with other studies of food choice, normative
social factors were not found to be a good indicator of
olive oil usage. This may be because food choice is a
relatively low involvement decision. Inclusion of a
measure of involvement, and discrimination between the
salient beliefs of users and non-users may further
enhance the efficacy of the model in future food choice
studies.
References
1. Keys, A., “Coronary Heart Disease in Seven Countries”,
Circulation, Vol. 41 No. 1, 1970.
2. Department of Health, “Diet and Cardiovascular
Disease”, Report on Health and Social Subjects No. 28,
HMSO, London, 1984.
3. Mintel, “Edible Oils”, Market Intelligence, Economist
Intelligence Unit, London, 1992.
4. Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M., Understanding Attitudes and
Predicting Social Behaviour, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 1980.
5. Saegert, J. and Young, E.A., “Nutrition, Knowledge and
Health Food Consumption”, Nutrition and Behaviour,
Vol. 1, 1983, pp. 103-13.
6. Shepherd, R. and Stockley, L., “Fat Consumption and
Attitudes Towards Food with High Fat Content”, Human
Nutrition: Applied Nutrition, Vol. 39A, 1985, pp. 431-42.
7. Tourila-Ollikainen, H., Lahteenmahki, L. and Salovaara,
H., “Attitudes, Norms, Intentions and Hedonistic
Responses in the Selection of Low Salt Bread in a
Longitudinal Choice Experiment”, Appetite, Vol. 7, 1986,
pp. 127-39.
8. Matheny, R.J., Picciano, M.F. and Birch, L., “Attitudinal
and Social Influences on Infant Feeding Preferences”,
Journal of Nutrition Education, Vol. 19, 1987, pp. 21-31.
9. Shepherd, R. and Stockley, L., “Nutrition Knowledge,
Attitudes, and Fat Consumption”, Journal of the
American Dietetic Association, Vol. 87, 1987, pp. 615-19.
10. Tourila, H. and Pangborne, R.M., “Behavioural Models in
the Prediction of Consumption of Selected Sweet, Salty

and Fatty Foods”, in Thomson, D.M.H. (Ed.), Food
Acceptability, Elsevier Applied Science, London, 1988.
11. Wurtele, S.K., “Increasing Womens’ Calcium Intake: The
Role of Health Beliefs, Intentions, and Health Value”,
Journal of Appl ied Social Psychology, Vol. 18, 1988,
pp. 627-39.
12. Rutter, D.R. and Bunce, D.J., “The Theory of Reasoned
Action of Fishbein and Ajzen: A Test of Towriss’s
Amended Procedure for Measuring Beliefs”, British
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 28, 1989, pp. 39-46.
13. Sapp, S.G. and Harrod, W.J., “Social Acceptability and
Intentions to Eat Beef: an Extension of Fishbein-Ajzen
Model Using Reference Group Theory”, Rural Sociology,
Vol. 54, 1989, pp. 138-44.
14. Saunders, R.P. and Rahilly, S.A., “Influences on Intention
to Reduce Dietary Intake of Fat and Sugar”, Journal of
Nutrition Education, Vol. 22, 1990, pp. 169-76.
15. Sapp, S.G., “Impact of Nutritional Knowledge within an
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 23:23 25 April 2015 (PT)
Expanded Rational Expectations Model of Beef
Consumption”, Journal of Nutrition Education, Vol. 23,
1991, pp. 214-22.
16. Towler, G. and Shepherd, R., “Modification of Fishbein
and Ajzens’ Theory of Reasoned Action to Predict Chip
Consumption”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 3, 1992,
pp. 37-45.
17. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I., Belief, Attitude, Intention and
Behavior, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
18. Beck, L. and Ajzen, I., “Predicting Dishonest Actions
Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour”, Journal of
Research in Personality, Vol. 25, 1991, pp. 285-301.
19. Bentler, P.M. and Speckart, G., “Models of Attitude-
Behavior Relations”, Psychological Review, Vol. 86, 1979,
pp. 452-64.
20. Tourila, H., Pangborne, R.M., “Prediction of Reported
Consumption of Selected Fat-containing Foods”, Appetite,
Vol. 11, 1988, pp. 81-95.
21. Biddle, B.J., Bank, B.J. and Slavings, R.L., “Norms,
Preferences, Identities and Retention Decisions”, Social
Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 50, 1987, pp. 322-37.
22. Ajzen, I., “From Intentions to Actions; A Theory of
Planned Behavior”, in Kuhl, J. and Beckmann, J. (Eds),
Action-Control; From Commitment to Behaviour,
Springer, Heidelberg, 1985.
Keith E. Thompson, Nikolaos Haziris and Panagiotis J. Alekos are at the Silsoe College, Cranfield University, Bedford.
ATTITUDES AND FOOD CHOICE BEHAVIOUR 13
23. Fishbein, M. and Stasson, M., “The Role of Desires, Self-
predictions and Perceived Control in the Prediction of
Training Session Attendance”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 20, 1990, pp. 173-98.
24. Ajzen, I., Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour, Open
University Press, Milton Keynes, 1988.
25. Sparks, P., Hedderley, D. and Shepherd, R., “An
Investigation into the Relationship between Perceived
Control Attitude Variability and the Consumption of Two
Common Foods”, European Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 22, pp. 55-71.
26. Sarver, V.T. Jr, “Ajzen and Fishbeins’ ‘Theory of Reasoned
Action’: A Critical Assessment”, Journal for the Theory
of Social Behaviour, Vol. 13, 1983, pp. 155-63.
27. Lalljee, M., Brown, L.B. and Ginsburg, G.P., “Attitudes:
Disposition, Behavior or Evaluation?”, British Journal of
Social Psychology, Vol. 23, 1984, pp. 233-44.
28. East, R., “Investment Decisions and the Theory of
Planned Behaviour”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 14 No. 2, 1993, pp. 337-75.
29. Evans, M.G., “The Problem of Analysing Multiplicative
Composites: Interactions Revisited”, American
Psychologist, Vol. 1, 1991, pp. 6-15.
30. Sheppard, B.H., Hartwick, J. and Warshaw, P.R., “The
Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-analysis of Past
Research with Recommendations for Modifications and
Future Research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15,
1988, pp. 325-43.
31. Kristiansen, C.M., “Salient Beliefs Regarding Smoking:
Consistency across Samples and Smoking Status”,
Journal of the Institute of Health Education, Vol. 25, 1987,
pp. 73-6.
32. Shepherd, R. and Stockley, L., “Attitudes and Food
Choice: Use of an Expectancy-Value Model”, in Frijters,
J.E.R. (Ed.), Consumer Behaviour Research and
Marketing of Agricultural Products, National Council for
Agricultural Research, The Hague, 1985, pp. 111-22.
33. Tourila, H., “Selection of Milks with Varying Fat Contents
and Related Overall Liking, Attitudes, Norms and
Intentions”, Appetite, Vol. 18, 1987, pp. 1-14.
34. Shepherd, R., “Factors Influencing Food Preference and
Choice”, in Handbook of the Physchophysiology of Human
Eating, Wiley, Chichester, 1989.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Maria Lisa Clodoveo, Salvatore Camposeo, Bernardo De Gennaro, Simone Pascuzzi, Luigi Roselli. 2014. In the ancient world,
virgin olive oil was called “liquid gold” by Homer and “the great healer” by Hippocrates. Why has this mythic image been
forgotten?. Food Research International 62, 1062-1068. [CrossRef]
2. Zafar U. Ahmed, Osama Sam Al-Kwifi, Buerhan Saiti, Nor Bin Othman. 2014. Consumer behavior dynamics of Chinese
minorities. Journal of Technology Management in China 9:1, 6-23. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Aiedah Abdul Khalek. 2014. Young Consumers’ Attitude towards Halal Food Outlets and JAKIM's Halal Certification in
Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 121, 26-34. [CrossRef]
4. Yong Joong Kim, David Njite, Murat Hancer. 2013. Anticipated emotion in consumers’ intentions to select eco-friendly
restaurants: Augmenting the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management 34, 255-262.
[CrossRef]
5. Fabrice Larceneux, Florence Benoit-Moreau, Valérie Renaudin. 2012. Why Might Organic Labels Fail to Influence Consumer
Choices? Marginal Labelling and Brand Equity Effects. Journal of Consumer Policy 35, 85-104. [CrossRef]
6. Melissa St James, Natasa Christodoulidou. 2011. Factors influencing wine consumption in Southern California consumers.
International Journal of Wine Business Research 23:1, 36-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Syed Shah Alam, Nazura Mohamed Sayuti. 2011. Applying the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) in halal food purchasing.
International Journal of Commerce and Management 21:1, 8-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Ioannis E. Chaniotakis, Constantine Lymperopoulos, Magdalini Soureli. 2010. Consumers' intentions of buying own‐label
premium food products. Journal of Product & Brand Management 19:5, 327-334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Robert P. Hamlin. 2010. Cue-Based Decision Making. A new framework for understanding the uninvolved food consumer.
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 23:23 25 April 2015 (PT)

Appetite 55, 89-98. [CrossRef]

10. Dan A. Petrovici, Stanley J. Paliwoda. 2008. Reasoned Action and Food Choice in a Transitional Economy. Journal of East-
West Business 14, 249-270. [CrossRef]
11. Evangelia Blery, Eugenia Sfetsiou. 2008. Marketing olive oil in Greece. British Food Journal 110:11, 1150-1162. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
12. Marie Carpenter, Fabrice Larceneux. 2008. Label equity and the effectiveness of values-based labels: an experiment with
two French Protected Geographic Indication labels. International Journal of Consumer Studies 32:10.1111/ijc.2008.32.issue-5,
499-507. [CrossRef]
13. Torben Hansen. 2008. Consumer values, the theory of planned behaviour and online grocery shopping. International Journal
of Consumer Studies 32:10.1111/ijc.2008.32.issue-2, 128-137. [CrossRef]
14. Raewyn Bassett, Brenda Beagan, Gwen E. Chapman. 2008. Grocery lists: connecting family, household and grocery store.
British Food Journal 110:2, 206-217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Hyuhn-Suhck Bae, Seok Kang. 2008. The Influence of Viewing an Entertainment–Education Program on Cornea Donation
Intention: A Test of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Health Communication 23, 87-95. [CrossRef]
16. Evangelia Blery, Konstantina Kapsopoulou. 2007. Marketing Olive Oil. Journal of Food Products Marketing 13, 39-55.
[CrossRef]
17. Karijn Bonne, Iris Vermeir, Florence Bergeaud‐Blackler, Wim Verbeke. 2007. Determinants of halal meat consumption in
France. British Food Journal 109:5, 367-386. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
18. Denise Mahon, Cathal Cowan, Mary McCarthy. 2006. The role of attitudes, subjective norm, perceived control and habit in
the consumption of ready meals and takeaways in Great Britain. Food Quality and Preference 17, 474-481. [CrossRef]
19. Laura Martínez-Carrasco Martínez, Margarita Brugarolas Mollá-Bauzá, Francisco José Del Campo Gomis, África Martínez
Poveda. 2006. Influence of purchase place and consumption frequency over quality wine preferences. Food Quality and
Preference 17, 315-327. [CrossRef]
20. Rob van Zanten. 2005. Drink Choice: Factors Influencing the Intention to Drink Wine. International Journal of Wine
Marketing 17:2, 49-61. [Abstract] [PDF]
21. Torben Hansen. 2005. Consumer adoption of online grocery buying: a discriminant analysis. International Journal of Retail
& Distribution Management 33:2, 101-121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. Torben Hansen, Jan Møller Jensen, Hans Stubbe Solgaard. 2004. Predicting online grocery buying intention: a comparison
of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior. International Journal of Information Management 24,
539-550. [CrossRef]
23. Marion DemossierContemporary lifestyles: the case of wine 93-107. [CrossRef]
24. María José Sanzo, Ana Belén del Río, Víctor Iglesias, Rodolfo Vázquez. 2003. Attitude and satisfaction in a traditional food
product. British Food Journal 105:11, 771-790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 25. A. Saba, R. Di Natale. 1998. Attitudes, intention and habit: their role in predicting actual consumption of fats and oils.
Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics 11, 21-32. [CrossRef]
26. Nicholas J. Thompson, Keith E. Thompson. 1996. Reasoned action theory: an application to alcohol‐free beer. Journal of
Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science 2:2, 35-48. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Salim Al-Hajri, Arthur TatnallFactors Relating to the Adoption of Internet Technology by the Omani Banking Industry
264-282. [CrossRef]
28. E-Service Customization 19-46. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by ECU Libraries At 23:23 25 April 2015 (PT)