If an individual holds a strong attitude about a particular event or activity, the attitude is more likely remain to stable over time, and will be less susceptible to influence by persuasive information.82 It is very difficult to change such a strongly held attitude though provision of counter-attitudinal information, although there is some evidence that, after repeated persuasion efforts, the attitude valence (i.e. whether the attitude is positive or negative) does not change, but the strength of the attitude may (slowly) decrease.83For example, at the time of writing, there is evidence to suggest that people hold a very weak attitude towards nanotechnology applied to food production, which is more amenable to influence by information persuasive of either the associated risks or benefits. In contrast, attitudes towards genetically modified foods are very negative and established, and relatively immune to the influence of additional information.84However, consumers may also be ambivalent about a particular technology and its products; in other words, they perceive both good and bad 29 The Evolution of Food Technology, Novel Foods
properties to be associated with the technology and its applications. In general, very positive, or very negative attitudes will be low in ambivalence, whereas more neutral attitudes may be either high or low in terms of ambivalence. The provision of balanced information about an issue, where people are already ambivalent, may actually result in a reduction of ambivalence and establish- ment of ‘stronger’ attitudes, perhaps because the provision of information enables more concrete attitude formation. This has indeed been demonstrated for the application of nanotechnology to food production,84 leading to the conclusion that consumers currently are likely to be influenced by information as it becomes available, but that, once these attitudes are established, they will be less amenable to influence by new information.
In summary, consumer risk/benefit perceptions and consumer responses to persuasive information about the merits or otherwise of the novel products of nanotechnology will be one of the most important factors influencing the commercialisation of nanotechnology in the agri-food (and potentially other) consumer sectors.
While (bio)nanotechnology applied within the agri-food sector is still a technology ‘under development’, there has already been an extensive compar- ison with other recent technological developments, in particular the introduc- tion of genetically modified foods (see Chapter 3). The example of genetic modification has demonstrated the consequences of failing to take into account potential reactions to the development and commercialisation of new tech- nologies. Although some lessons may have been learned from research into the societal responses to genetically modified foods,85consumer attitudes towards nanotechnology in general, and applied to food production in particular, may be influenced by the way in which the technology is introduced into society, as well as the effectiveness of the associated communication strategies. Research is urgently needed to further our understanding of the fundamental psychological mechanisms which determine individual responses to existing and emerging food issues, particularly where habit, emotion and information-processing heuristics may have an effect on consumer decision-making. Indeed, the tra- ditional emphasis on risk communication (or communication about the absence of risk) may be less relevant to consumer decision-making, as it has become increasingly evident that consumers are making decisions about the acceptability or otherwise of specific foods and production technologies based on a complex interaction of perceptions of risk and benefit associated with specific food choices.
Recent theoretical advances in the area of social psychology are relevant to the development of effective risk/benefit communication strategies. Although trust has been extensively evaluated in this context,21,69,70,85,86 we have reviewed some evidence to suggest that other heuristics may also be potentially influential determinants of consumer behaviour. These may include habit71,87,88 and affect (or emotion).89 Furthermore, the role of implicit memory may generate attitudinal associations which determine whether or not information results in attitude change,91and the differential impact of balanced information in cases of weak and strong attitudes needs to be better understood to predict
attitude changes.84,90In some situations, attitude activation (through inclusion of relevant cues in information) may be a more influential determinant of risk- related behaviour than providing additional formal knowledge about risk and safety.91 The relative importance of these different factors in determining attitude change and their potential for interaction are not well understood and may vary across potential hazard type, indicating the need for development of case studies focusing on agri-food nanotechnology. In any case, it is inap- propriate to assume that all consumers are homogenous with respect to their perceptions (whether related to trust or information needs), necessitating exploration of individual differences in this context. In particular, consumers may be differently motivated to search for information regarding risks and indeed benefits of emerging technologies.87,92Demographic and psychological factors may account for profound differences between different consumers regarding their responses to emerging technologies and their applications, as well as other risk issues. In particular, targeted information provision needs to be developed which meets the needs of different groups of consumers, as peoples’ responses to risk/benefit information may also vary according to predictable individual differences.93
2.10
Conclusions
Food technology has evolved from being focused on the issues associated with food availability, to include, more latterly, additional foci on food safety, sustainability and functionality. Despite the intuitive appeal of all of these beneficial factors in providing the basis for consumer acceptance of emerging technologies applied to food production, consumer acceptance of the benefits of agri-food nanotechnology will not be ‘automatic’. Understanding consumer psychology is essential if we are to understand and predict peoples’ responses to (bio)nanotechnology in the agri-food sector. Developing a societally inclusive and theoretically based understanding of consumer responses to (bio)nano- technology and its applications in the agri-food sector and beyond, represents an essential part of developing an effective research and development strategy, which will simultaneously address emerging societal needs and societal pre- ferences for novel foods and production processes.
References
1. Anon, Africa Res. Bull., 2008, 44(11), 17622–17623. 2. Anon, The Lancet, 2008, 371(9622), 1389.
3. S. H. Katz, Anthropol. Today, 2008, 24(1), 1–3.
4. B. M. Popkin and S. Du, J. Nutr., 2003, 133 (11), Suppl. 2.
5. K. H. Yoon, J. H. Lee, J. W. Kim, J. H. Cho, Y. H. Choi and S. H. Ko, et al., The Lancet, 2006, 368(9548), 1681–1688.
6. J. Diamond, Nature, 2002, 418(6898), 700–707.
7. G. C. Hillman and M. S. Davies, J. World Prehistory, 1990, 4(2), 157–222. 31 The Evolution of Food Technology, Novel Foods
8. J. Gimpel, The Medieval Machine: The Industrial Revolution of the Middle Ages,Pimlico, London, 1992.
9. K. Sale, Rebels Against the Future: The Luddites and their War on the Industrial Revolution, Lessons for the Computer Age, Perseus, New York, 1996.
10. R. E. Evenson and D. Gollin, Science, 2003, 300(5620), 758–762. 11. R. Carson, The Silent Spring, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA, 1962. 12. J. H. Behrens, M. N. Barcellos, L. J. Frewer, T. P. Nunes and M. Landgraf,
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 2009, 10(3), 383–389. 13. C. M. Bruhn, J. Food Protect., 1995, 58, 175–181.
14. L. J. Frewer, J. Lassen, B. Kettlitz, J. Scholderer, V. Beekman and K. G. Berdal, Food Chem. Toxicol., 2004, 42(7), 1181–1193.
15. R. Flynn and P. Bellaby, (Eds.), Risk and the Public Acceptability of New Technologies,Pelgrave, Hampshire, 2007.
16. D. A. Kessler, Annu. Rev. Nutr., 1995, 15, xiii–xxvi.
17. P. Rozin, in Understanding Consumers of Food Products, ed. L. J. Frewer and H. Van Trijp, Woodhead, Cambridge, 2007, pp. 3–29.
18. D. A. Kesseler, Annu. Rev. Nutr., 1995, 15, xiii.
19. W. Van Rijswijk, L. J. Frewer, D. Menozzi and G. Faioli, Food Qual. Prefer., 2008, 19(5), 452.
20. L. J. Frewer, C. Howard and R. Shepherd, Sci. Technol. Human Values, 1997, 22(1), 98–124.
21. G. Hofstede and G. -J. Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations, McGraw- Hill, New York, 2005.
22. L. J. Frewer, J. Scholderer and L. Bredahl, Risk Anal., 2003, 23(6), 1117– 1133.
23. M. F. Schenk, A. R. H. Fischer, L. J. Frewer, L. J. W. J. Gilissen, E. Jacobsen and M. J. M. Smulders, Health Risk Soc., 2008, 10(3), 263–282. 24. W. Verbeke, I. Sioen, Z. Pieniak, J. Van Camp and S. De Henauw, Public
Health Nutr., 2005, 8(4), 422–429.
25. T. Bech-Larsen and K. G. Grunert, Appetite, 2003, 40(1), 9–14.
26. B. Fischhoff, P. Slovic and S. Lichtenstein, Policy Sci., 1978, 9, 127–152. 27. P. Slovic, Science, 1987, 236(4799), 280–285.
28. P. Slovic, Risk Anal., 1993, 13(6), 675–682.
29. P. Slovic, in Theories of Risk, ed. D. Goldring and S. Krimsky, Praeger, New York, USA, 1992, pp. 117–152.
30. P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff and S. Lichtenstein, Risk Anal., 1982, 2(2), 83–93. 31. L. Bredahl, J. Consumer Policy, 2001, 24(1), 23.
32. S. Henson and J. Northen, J. Agric. Econ., 2000, 51(1), 90–105. 33. S. Miles and L. J. Frewer, Food Qual. Prefer., 2001, 12(1), 47–61. 34. R. Pardo, C. Midden and J. D. Miller, J. Biotechnol., 2002, 98(1), 9–24. 35. J. M. E. Pennings, B. Wansink and M. T. G. Meulenberg, Int. J. Res.
Market., 2002, 29, 91–100.
36. M. Siegrist, Risk Anal., 2000, 20(2), 195–204.
37. P. Sparks and R. Shepherd, Food Qual. Prefer., 1994, 5(3), 185–194. 38. W. Verbeke, Food Qual. Prefer., 2001, 12(8), 489–498.
39. P. Pliner and K. Hobden, Appetite, 1992, 19(2), 105.
40. H. Tuorila, L. La¨hteenma¨ki, L. Pohjalainen and L. Lotti, Food Qual. Prefer., 2001, 12, 29–37.
41. P. Rozin and T. A. Vollmecke, Annu. Rev. Nutr., 1986, 6, 433–456. 42. P. Rozin, J. Haidt and C. R. McCauley, in Handbook of Emotions, ed. M.
Lewis and J. M. Haviland-Jones, Guilford, New York, , 2000, pp. 637–653. 43. K. Oatley and P. N. Johnson-Laird, Cognition Emotion, 1987, 1(1), 29–50. 44. K. R. Scherer, J. Personality Social Psychol., 1997, 73(5), 902–922. 45. L. J. Frewer and B. Salter, Appl. Biotechnol. Food Sci. Policy, 2003, 1(4),
199–211.
46. C. F. Kreijl and A. G. A. C. Knaap, Measuring Dutch Meals; Healthy Diet and Safe Food in the Netherlands, RIVM, Bilthoven, 2004, No. RIVM- 270555008.
47. H. A. Kuiper, H. P. J. M. Noteborn, E. J. Kok and G. A. Kleter, Food Res. Int., 2002, 35, 267–271.
48. M. C. Van Putten, L. J. Frewer, L. J. W. Gilissen, B. Gremmen, A. A. C. M. Peijnenburg and H. J. Wichers, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2006, 17(6), 289–299.
49. K. F. Mulder, Int. J. Environ. Sustainable Develop., 2005, 4(1), 88–103. 50. M. H. P. Marvin, G. A. Kleter, L. J. Frewer, S. Cope, M. T. A. Wentholt
and G. Rowe, Food Control, 2009, 20(4), 345–356.
51. W. van den Hoogen, A. L. Meijnders and C. J. H. Midden, in Jaarboek Sociale Psychologie, ed. R. Holland, J. Ouwerkerk, C. van Laar, R. Ruiter and J. Ham, ASPO pers, Groningen, Nl, 2005, pp. 207–214 (in Dutch). 52. C. Fife-Schaw and G. Rowe, J. Risk Res., 2000, 3(2), 167–179.
53. S. Miles, O. Ueland and L. J. Frewer, Br. Food J., 2004, 107(4), 246–262. 54. N. D. Weinstein, Science, 1989, 246(4935), 1232–1233.
55. L. J. Frewer, J. Scholderer and N. Lambert, Br. Food J., 2003, 105(10), 714–731.
56. A. R. H. Fischer and P. W. De Vries, Health Risk Soc., 2008, 10(4), 385–397. 57. S. M. Parry, S. Miles, A. Tridente and S. R. Palmer, Risk Anal., 2004,
24(1), 289–299.
58. J. Hansen, L. Holm, L. J. Frewer, P. Robinson and P. Sandoe, Appetite, 2003, 41(2), 111–121.
59. R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo, Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1986.
60. J. T. Cacioppo and R. E. Petty, J. Personality Social Psychol., 1982, 42(1), 116–131.
61. J. T. Cacioppo, R. E. Petty, J. A. Feinstein and W. B. G. Jarvis, Psychol. Bull., 1996, 119 (2), 197–253.
62. R. E. Petty and D. T. Wegener, in Dual Process Theories in Social Psy- chology, ed. S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, Guilford Press, New York, 1999, pp. 37–72.
63. S. Chen and S. Chaiken, in Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, ed. S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, Guilford Press, New York, 1999, pp. 73–96. 33 The Evolution of Food Technology, Novel Foods
64. R. H. Fazio and T. Towles-Schwein, in Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology, ed. S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, Guilford Press, New York, 1999, pp. 97–116.
65. W. J. McGuire, in The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. G. Lindzey and E. Aronson, Random House, New York, 1985, vol. 2, pp. 233–346. 66. L. J. Frewer, C. Howard, D. Hedderley and R. Shepherd, Risk Anal., 1996,
16(4), 473–486.
67. E. Van Kleef, J. R. Houghton, A. Krystallis, U. Pfenning, G. Rowe and H. Van Dijk, et al., Risk Anal., 2007, 27(6), 1565–1580.
68. L. J. Frewer, C. Howard, D. Hedderley and R. Shepherd, Food Qual. Prefer., 1997, 8(4), 271–280.
69. J. R. Eiser, S. Miles and L. J. Frewer, J. Appl. Social Psychol., 2002, 32(11), 2423–2433.
70. L. J. Frewer, C. Howard and R. Shepherd, Agric. Human Values, 1998, 15(1), 15–30.
71. P. Slovic, M. L. Finucane, E. Peters and D. G. MacGregor, Risk Anal., 2004, 24(2), 311–322.
72. A. S. Alhakami and P. Slovic, Risk Anal., 1994, 14(6), 1085–1096. 73. M. L. Finucane, A. S. Alhakami, P. Slovic and S. M. Johnson, J. Behav.
Decision Making, 2000, 13(1), 1–17.
74. K. Witte and M. Allen, Health Educ. Behav., 2000, 27(5), 591–615. 75. R. A. C. Ruiter, C. Abraham and G. Kok, Psychol. Health, 2001, 16(6),
613–630.
76. A. L. Meijnders, C. J. H. Midden and H. A. M. Wilke, Risk Anal., 2001, 21(5), 955–966.
77. J. S. Lerner and D. Keltner, Cognition Emotion, 2000, 14(4), 473–493. 78. D. Evans, Emotion: The Science of Sentiment, Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 2002.
79. M. J. Nauta, A. R. H. Fischer, E. D. Van Asselt, A. E. I. De Jong, L. J. Frewer and R. De Jonge, Risk Anal., 2008, 28(1), 179–192.
80. J. R. Houghton, G. Rowe, E. Van Kleef, L. J. Frewer, G. Chryssochoidis, O. Kehagaia et al., J. Food Policy, 33(1), 13–26.
81. L. J. Frewer and B. Salter, Sci. Public Policy, 2002, 29, 137–145.
82. E. M. Pomerantz, S. Chaiken and R. S. Tordesillas, J. Personality Social Psychol., 1995, 69(3), 408–419.
83. Z. L. Tormala, J. J. Clarkson and R. E. Petty, J. Personality Social Psy- chol., 2006, 91(3), 423–435.
84. H. van Dijk, A. R. H. Fischer, J. De Jonge, G. Rowe and L. J. Frewer, The impact of balanced risk-benefit information and initial attitudes on post- information attitudes, submitted.
85. D. Parr, Trends Biotechnol., 2005, 23(8), 395–398.
86. G. Cvetkovich, M. Siegrist, R. Murray and S. Tragesser, Risk Anal., 2002, 22(2), 359–367.
87. W. Poortinga and N. F. Pidgeon, Risk Anal., 2005, 25(1), 199–209. 88. A. R. H. Fischer, L. J. Frewer and M. J. Nauta, Risk Anal., 2006, 26(5),
1323–1338.
89. B. Verplanken and S. Orbell, J. Appl. Social Psychol., 2003, 33(6), 1313– 1330.
90. A. Spence and E. Townsend, Appetite, 2006, 46(1), 67–74.
91. A. R. H. Fischer and L. J. Frewer, Food Qual. Prefer., 2009, 20(8), 576– 585.
92. A. R. H. Fischer, A. E. I. De Jong, E. D. Van Asselt, R. De Jonge, L. J. Frewer and M. J. Nauta, Risk Anal., 2007, 27(4), 1065–1082.
93. M. Kornelis, J. De Jonge, L. J. Frewer and H. Dagevos, Risk Anal., 2007, 27(2), 327–335.
94. A. R. H. Fischer and L. J. Frewer, J. Appl. Social Psychol., 2008, 38(11), 2859–2884.
35 The Evolution of Food Technology, Novel Foods