This article examines the relationship between food technology acceptance and the public’s food literacy, defined in terms of consumers’ scientific understanding of food technology. The research investigates four food technologies—food irradiation, genetic modification, biofabrication, and bug-based food—that have immense implications for consumer and societal well-being. The findings reveal complex relationships between consumer understanding of these technologies and acceptance that arise from the multidimensional nature of resistance. Using these results, the authors develop a framework for predicting and addressing consumer resistance to food technology. In addition, they explore the effectiveness of knowledge-based interventions that illustrate how marketing can enhance food literacy, reduce technology resistance, and enhance well-being. Finally, they describe how their findings also speak to the food policy, food marketing, food socialization, and food availability dimensions of the “food = well-being” paradigm.
AlbaJoseph W.Wesley HutchinsonJ. (1987), “Dimensions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (4), 411–54.
2.
AllumNickSturgisPatrickTabouraziDimitraBrunton-SmithIan (2008), “Science Knowledge and Attitudes Across Cultures: A Meta-Analysis,” Public Understanding of Science, 17 (1), 35–54.
3.
BhatZuhaibBhatHina (2011), “Animal-Free Meat Biofabrication,” American Journal of Food Technology, 6 (6), 441–59.
4.
BlockLauren G.GrierSonya A.ChildersTerry L.DavisBrennanEbertJane E.J.KumanyikaShiriki. (2011), “From Nutrients to Nurturance: A Conceptual Introduction to Food Well-Being,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30 (1), 5–13.
FrewerLynn J.HowardChayaShepherdRichard (1995), “Genetic Engineering and Food: What Determines Consumer Acceptance?” British Food Journal, 97 (8), 31–36.
11.
GentnerDedreGentnerDonald R. (1983), “Flowing Waters or Teeming Crowds: Mental Models of Electricity,” in Mental ModelsGentnerDedreStevensAlbert L., eds. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 99–129.
12.
GrunertKlaus G.BoltonLisa E.RaatsMonique M. (2011), “Processing and Acting upon Nutrition Labeling on Food: The State of Knowledge and New Directions for Transformative Consumer Research,” in Transformative Consumer Research for Personal and Collective Well Being: Reviews and Frontiers, MickDavidPettigrewSimonePechmannConnieOzanneJulie, eds. New York: Routledge, 333–52.
13.
HarmonAmy (2013), “A Race to Save the Orange by Altering Its DNA,” The New York Times (July 27).
14.
KahanDan M. (2012), “Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk,” in Epistemology, Decision Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of RiskRoeserSabineHillerbrandRafaelaSandinPerPetersonMartin, eds. London: Springer-Verlag, 725–59.
15.
LeiserDavid (2001), “Scattered Naïve Theories: Why the Human Mind Is Isomorphic to the Internet Web,” New Ideas in Psychology, 19 (3), 175–202.
16.
LooyHeatherDunkelFlorence V.WoodJohn R. (2014), “How Then Shall We Eat? Insect-Eating Attitudes and Sustainable Foodways,” Agriculture and Human Values, 31 (1), 131–41.
MillerJon D. (2004), “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes Toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” Public Understanding of Science, 13 (3), 273–94.
19.
MironovVasiliyTruskThomas C.LittleS.SwajaR.MarkwaldRicardo (2009), “Biofabrication: A 21st Century Manufacturing Paradigm,” Biofabrication, 1 (2), 1–16.
20.
MooreGeoffrey A. (2014), Crossing the Chasm. New York: HarperBusiness.
21.
MoreauC. PageMarkmanArthur B.LehmannDonald R. (2001), “‘What Is It?’ Categorization Flexibility and Consumers’ Responses to Really New Products,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 489–98.
22.
NormanDonald A. (1983), “Some Observations on Mental Models,” in Mental Models, GentnerDedreStevensAlbert L., eds. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 7–14.
23.
PearsonYvette ELiu-ThompkinsYuping (2012), “Consuming Direct-to-Consumer Genetic Tests: The Role of Genetic Literacy and Knowledge Calibration,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 31 (1), 42–57.
RozinPaulFallonApril E. (1987), “A Perspective on Disgust,” Psychological Review, 94 (1), 23–41.
27.
RozinPaulHaidtJonathanMcCauleyClark R. (2008), “Disgust,” in Handbook of Emotions, LewisMichaelHaviland-JonesJeannette M., eds. New York: Guilford Press, 757–76.
28.
RozinPaulMarkwithMaureenStoessCaryn (1997), “Moralization and Becoming a Vegetarian: The Transformation of Preferences into Values and the Recruitment of Disgust,” Psychological Science, 8 (2), 67–73.
29.
RozinPaulSprancaMarkKriegerZeevNeuhausRuthSurilloDarleneSwerdlinAmyWoodKatherine (2004), “Preference for Natural: Instrumental and Ideational/Moral Motivations, and the Contrast Between Foods and Medicines,” Appetite, 43 (2), 147–54.
30.
ScholdererJoachimFrewerLynn J. (2003), “The Biotechnology Communication Paradox: Experimental Evidence and the Need for a New Strategy,” Journal of Consumer Policy, 26 (2), 125–57.
31.
ScottSydney E.InbarYoelRozinPaul (2016), “Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States,”Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11 (3), 315–24.
SilverLee M. (2006), Challenging Nature. New York: Ecco.
34.
SturgisPatrickAllumNick (2004), “Science in Society: Re-Evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science, 13 (1), 55–74.
35.
SturgisPatrickBrunton-SmithIanFife-SchawChris (2010), “Public Attitudes to Genetic Science: An Experiment in Information Provision,” Public Understanding of Science, 19 (2), 166–80.
36.
Van HuisArnold (2013), “Potential of Insects as Food and Feed in Assuring Food Security,” Annual Review of Entomology, 58, 563–83.
37.
WilcockAnnePunMariaKhanonaJosephAungMay (2004), “Consumer Attitudes, Knowledge and Behaviour: A Review of Food Safety Issues,” Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15 (2), 56–66.
38.
ZhaoMinHoefflerSteveDahlDarren W. (2009), “The Role of Imagination-Focused Visualization on New Product Evaluation,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 46–55.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
