Taking a point of departure in the idea that technology features can act as cues for sensemaking, we explore how the public makes sense of new active packaging technologies; technologies that absorb or release substances from or into the packaging atmosphere, preserving the freshness and safety of food products. Based on data from ten focus groups across five countries (Ireland, Denmark, Italy, Spain and China), we show that sensemaking occurs at two feature-proximity levels. At the first level, we observe the production of proximal representations, where salient technology features drive the sensemaking process and how the individuals come to understand the essence of the technology. At the second level, we observe the production of distal representations, where distinct technology features become less salient, and the holistic understanding of the technology takes over in how individuals come to understand the locus of the technology in broader contexts. Our insights contribute to theory regarding public sensemaking of novel technologies and have practical implications for stakeholders who aim to increase their adoption prospects.
AdayMSYenerU (2015) Assessing consumers’ adoption of active and intelligent packaging. British Food Journal117: 157–177.
2.
AnnapoornimaMSSohPH (2004) October) Determinants of technological frames: A study of E-learning technology. In: 2004 IEEE international engineering management conference, Vol. 2, Singapore, 18–21 October, pp. 834–838. New York: IEEE.
3.
BäckströmAPirttilä-BackmanA-MTuorilaH (2003) Dimensions of novelty: A social representation approach to new foods. Appetite40: 299–307.
4.
BearthASiegristM (2019) As long as it is not irradiated: Influencing factors of US consumers’ acceptance of food irradiation. Food Quality and Preference71: 141–148.
5.
BerenteNHansenSPikeJSBatemanPJ (2011) Arguing the value of virtual worlds: Patterns of discursive sensemaking of an innovative technology. MIS Quarterly: 685–709.
6.
CampbellCS (2003) Biotechnology and the fear of frankenstein. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics12: 342–352.
7.
ChrysochouP (2017) Consumer behavior research methods. In: EmilienGWeitkunatRLüdickeF (eds) Consumer Perception of Product Risks and Benefits. Cham: Springer, pp. 409–428.
8.
de RondMHolemanIHoward-GrenvilleJ (2019) Sensemaking from the body: An enactive ethnography of rowing the Amazon. Academy of Management Journal62(6): 1961–1988.
9.
DobleJ (1995) Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science4: 95–118.
10.
DragojlovicNEinsiedelE (2013) Playing god or just unnatural? Religious beliefs and approval of synthetic biology. Public Understanding of Science22: 869–885.
11.
DuRYHuYDamangirS (2015) Leveraging trends in online searches for product features in market response modeling. Journal of Marketing79: 29–43.
12.
ElsbachKDBarrPSHargadonAB (2005) Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science16: 422–433.
13.
FarajSKwonDWattsS (2004) Contested artifact: Technology sensemaking, actor networks, and the shaping of the Web browser. Information Technology & People17: 186–209.
14.
FeindtPHPoortvlietPM (2019) Consumer reactions to unfamiliar technologies: Mental and social formation of perceptions and attitudes toward nano and GM products. Journal of Risk Research23: 475–489.
15.
FrewerLJBergmannKBrennanMLionRMeertensRRoweG, et al. (2011) Consumer response to novel agri-food technologies: Implications for predicting consumer acceptance of emerging food technologies. Trends in Food Science & Technology22: 442–456.
16.
GhaaniMCozzolinoCACastelliGFarrisS (2016) An overview of the intelligent packaging technologies in the food sector. Trends in Food Science & Technology51: 1–11.
17.
GriffithTL (1999) Technology features as triggers for sensemaking. Academy of Management Review24: 472–488.
18.
HandyRDShawBJ (2007) Toxic effects of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: Implications for public health, risk assessment and the public perception of nanotechnology. Health, Risk & Society9: 125–144.
19.
HensonS (1995) Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technologies: The case of food irradiation. Food Policy20: 111–127.
20.
HolbrookMB (1986) Aims, concepts, and methods for the representation of individual differences in esthetic responses to design features. Journal of Consumer Research13: 337–347.
21.
JasanoffSKimSH (2015) Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
22.
KahanDMBramanDSlovicP, et al (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology4: 87.
23.
KardesFRPosavacSSCronleyML (2004) Consumer inference: A review of processes, bases, and judgment contexts. Journal of Consumer Psychology14: 230–256.
24.
KimHJManninoMNieschwietzRJ (2009) Information technology acceptance in the internal audit profession: Impact of technology features and complexity. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems10(4): 214–228.
25.
KruegerRACaseyMA (2014) Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
KruijfNDBeestMVRijkRSipiläinen-MalmTPaseiroLPDe MeulenaerB (2002) Active and intelligent packaging: Applications and regulatory aspects. Food Additives and Contaminants19: 144–162.
27.
LuptonD (2017) Download to delicious’: Promissory themes and sociotechnical imaginaries in coverage of 3D printed food in online news sources. Futures93: 44–53.
28.
MaitlisS (2005) The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal48: 21–49.
29.
MaitlisSChristiansonM (2014) Sensemaking in organizations: Taking stock and moving forward. The Academy of Management Annals8: 57–125.
30.
MarcuAGasparRRutsaertP, et al (2015) Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science24: 547–562.
31.
MeyerRJZhaoSHanJK (2008) Biases in valuation vs. usage of innovative product features. Marketing Science27: 1083–1096.
32.
MezianiNCabantousL (2020) Acting intuition into sense: How film crews make sense with embodied ways of knowing. Journal of Management Studies57(7): 1384–1419.
33.
MilesMBHubermanAMSaldanaJ (2014) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
34.
O’CallaghanKAKerryJP (2016) Consumer attitudes towards the application of smart packaging technologies to cheese products. Food Packaging and Shelf Life9: 1–9.
35.
O’RiordanKFotopoulouAStephensN (2017) The first bite: Imaginaries, promotional publics and the laboratory grown burger. Public Understanding of Science26: 148–163.
36.
OzdemirMFlorosJD (2004) Active food packaging technologies. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition44: 185–193.
37.
PalinkasLAHorwitzSMGreenCAWisdomJPDuanNHoagwoodK. (2015) Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research42: 533–544.
38.
SchnurrBScholl GrissemannU (2015) Beauty or function? How different mass customization toolkits affect customers’ process enjoyment. Journal of Consumer Behaviour14: 335–343.
39.
ThompsonDVHamiltonRWRustRT (2005) Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research42: 431–442.
40.
van BirgelenMSemeijnJKeicherM (2009) Packaging and proenvironmental consumption behavior: Investigating purchase and disposal decisions for beverages. Environment and Behavior41: 125–146.
41.
van WezemaelLUeland VerbekeØW (2011) European consumer response to packaging technologies for improved beef safety. Meat Science89: 45–51.
42.
WagnerWKronbergerN (2001) Killer tomatoes! Collective symbolic coping with biotechnology. In: DeauxKPhilogeneG (eds) Representations of the Social: Bridging Theoretical Traditions. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 147–164.
43.
WilsonCTHarteJAlmenarE (2018) Effects of sachet presence on consumer product perception and active packaging acceptability: A study of fresh-cut cantaloupe. LWT92: 531–539.
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.
