Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354

Research report

Consumer-driven definition of traditional food products and innovationin traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study

Luis Guerrero a,*, Maria Dolors Guardia a, Joan Xicola a, Wim Verbeke b, Filiep Vanhonacker b,Sylwia Zakowska-Biemans c, Marta Sajdakowska c, Claire Sulmont-Rosse d, Sylvie Issanchou d,Michele Contel e, M. Luisa Scalvedi e, Britt Signe Granli f, Margrethe Hersleth f

a IRTA – Monells, Finca Camps i Armet, E-17121 Monells, Spainb Ghent University, Department of Agricultural Economics, Coupure links 653, B-9000 Gent, Belgiumc Warsaw University of Life Sciences -SGGW (WULS-SGGW), Department of Organization and Consumption Economics, Nowoursynowska Street 166, 02-787 Warsaw, Polandd INRA, UMR 1129 FLAVIC, F-21000 Dijon, Francee PEGroup, Viale Gorizia 25/C, 00198 Rome, Italyf Nofima Mat AS, Osloveien 1, 1430 As, Norway

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 23 June 2008

Received in revised form 13 November 2008

Accepted 14 November 2008

Keywords:

Traditional food products

Innovation in traditional food products

Cross-cultural comparison

Focus group

Textual statistical analysis

A B S T R A C T

Traditional food products (TFP) are an important part of European culture, identity, and heritage. In order

to maintain and expand the market share of TFP, further improvement in safety, health, or convenience is

needed by means of different innovations. The aim of this study was to obtain a consumer-driven

definition for the concept of TFP and innovation and to compare these across six European countries

(Belgium, France, Italy, Norway, Poland and Spain) by means of semantic and textual statistical analyses.

Twelve focus groups were performed, two per country, under similar conditions. The transcriptions

obtained were submitted to an ordinary semantic analysis and to a textual statistical analysis using the

software ALCESTE. Four main dimensions were identified for the concept of TFP: habit-natural, origin-

locality, processing-elaboration and sensory properties. Five dimensions emerged around the concept of

innovation: novelty-change, variety, processing-technology, origin-ethnicity and convenience. TFP were

similarly perceived in the countries analysed, while some differences were detected for the concept of

innovation. Semantic and statistical analyses of the focus groups led to similar results for both concepts.

In some cases and according to the consumers’ point of view the application of innovations may damage

the traditional character of TFP.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /appet

Introduction

Traditional food products (TFP) constitute an importantelement of European culture, identity, and heritage (Committeeof the Regions, 1996; Ilbery & Kneafsey, 1999) contributing to thedevelopment and sustainability of rural areas, protecting themfrom depopulation, entailing substantial product differentiationpotential for producers and processors (Avermaete et al., 2004) andproviding ample variety in food choice for consumers. TFP are oftenrecognised by consumers with characteristics linked to regionalidentity and sensory quality. An important part of TFP is sold underdifferent collective trademarks such as quality labels and, ingeneral, consumers show a favourable attitude towards suchproducts (Guerrero, 2001). However, producers of TFP still face the

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: lluis.guerrero@irta.es (L. Guerrero).

0195-6663/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.appet.2008.11.008

challenge to further improve the safety, healthiness, and con-venience of their products by means of different innovations,which will enable them to maintain and expand their market sharein a highly competitive and increasingly global food market. It is,however, important to get an insight into consumers’ perceptions,expectations, and attitudes towards traditional food products andconsumers’ attitudes to innovations related to TFP. A basis forexploring these dimensions is a need for definition of the conceptof traditional products and innovation related to TFP.

There are a few definitions in the literature of the concept oftraditional foods. According to Bertozzi (1998) a traditional foodproduct is a ‘‘representation of a group, it belongs to a defined space,and it is part of a culture that implies the cooperation of the individuals

operating in that territory’’. Jordana (2000) derived from thissociological definition the following: ‘‘In order to be traditional, a

product must be linked to a territory and it must also be part of a set of

traditions, which will necessarily ensure its continuity over time’’. In2006, the European Commission gave the following definition of

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354346

‘‘traditional’’ related to foods: ‘‘Traditional means proven usage in

the community market for a time period showing transmission

between generations; this time period should be the one generally

ascribed as one human generation, at least 25 years’’ (EU, 2006).Recently a definition of traditional food has been developedthrough the work of the EuroFIR FP6 Network of Excellence. This isan elaborative definition, which includes statements abouttraditional ingredients, traditional composition, and traditionaltype of production and/or processing (EuroFIR, 2007; Trichopou-lou, Soukara, & Vasilopoulou, 2007). In Europe, the only formaldefinition found for traditional food products comes from theItalian Ministry of Agriculture, that defines TFP as ‘‘Agrifood

products whose methods of processing, storage and ripening are

consolidated with time according to uniform and constant local use’’(Ministero Agricoltura, 1999). Although these definitions try tocapture the different dimensions of the concept of traditional foodproducts, there is still one perspective that is missing, namely adefinition of this concept seen from the consumers’ point of view.

Fagerberg (2004) stated that the concept of innovation dependson the context, thus requiring a wide range of different definitions.However, a common meaning may be identified according to thisauthor: innovation is typically understood as the successful

introduction of something new and useful. Moskowitz, Reisner, Itty,Katz, and Krieger (2006) add the idea of ‘‘recombination of

components into new blends’’ to the definition of innovation infood and drinks. For Carayannis, Gonzalez, and Wetter (2003)innovations are ‘‘the new products and services that emerge from

technology’’. It is, however, important to note that once again, theconsumer perspective is missing in the case of the concept ofinnovation.

Proper understanding of consumers’ feelings and needs isdependent upon clear communication through a commonlanguage (Sokolow, 1988). Therefore, definitions for TFP andinnovation in TFP derived from the consumers’ perspective areneeded in order to understand consumers’ attitudes to innovationsin TFP. Normally, these feelings and needs are related to socio-cultural aspects, which in turn may be influenced by the country orplace of origin of consumers. In the food domain, culture may beone of the most powerful determinants of attitudes and behaviours(Rozin, 1990). In general, cross-cultural studies show importantdifferences in food-related aspects even in relatively homogenouscountries such as those belonging to the EU (Boer, Helms, & Aiking,2006; Olsen, Scholderer, Brunso, & Verbeke, 2007). Thesedifferences are expressed both in terms of food choice andconsumption patterns, as well as in beliefs, attitudes or lifestyles.According to Askegaard and Madsen (1998) Europe cannot beregarded as a homogeneous food culture, because noticeabledifferences exist not only at a national level but also at a moreregional/local level in terms of food preferences, habits, food-related behaviour, and attitudes. The existence of cultural variationin food choices throughout Europe has been demonstrated atdifferent levels: the composition of protein diets (Boer, Helms, &Aiking, 2006), importance of food risk communication strategies(van Dijk et al., 2008), attitudes to food, nutrition and health(Lappalainen, Kearney, & Gibney, 1998) or food behaviour andattitudes (Askegaard & Madsen, 1998). This variability is evengreater when dealing with traditional food products and tradi-tional cuisine that are based mainly on the natural resourcesavailable in the area.

According to Jordana (2000) southern European countries havea more traditional food character due to a greater market share ofsmall companies and a better climate, which supports a morewidespread availability of traditional food products. Therefore, itseems reasonable to observe and compare the definition for bothTFP and innovation across countries that differ in culturalbackground. Thus, the meanings of both TFP and TFP-related

innovation may diverge depending on the place of residence of theconsumers. Urban consumers might be more prone to reconnectwith rural roots (Montanari, 1994), while according to Weatherell,Tregear, and Allinson (2003), rural-based consumers tend to give ahigher priority to ‘‘civic’’ issues in food choice, exhibit higher levelsof concern over food provisioning issues, and show greater interestin local foods.

One of the most efficient ways to get preliminary insights intothe concept underlying traditional food products, as well asinnovation from a consumer’s point of view is by means ofqualitative research techniques, especially by using focus groupdiscussions (Krueger, 1988). Focus group discussion is a methodby which a small number of individuals are selected in order toobtain information about their reaction to products and/orconcepts (Resurreccion, 1998). However, one of the maindisadvantages of this qualitative technique is the subjectiveinterpretation of the results obtained. This caveat requires acareful interpretation made by an expert analyst (Chambers &Smith, 1991; Krueger, 1988). It is not always easy to avoid thetendency of the analyst to only see or hear those comments that fitin with his/her personal expectations and ideas (Dransfield,Morrot, Martin, & Ngapo, 2004). Several alternatives to theanalyst’s subjective interpretation have been proposed in order tomake the analysis of qualitative information more objective.Guerrero, Colomer, Guardia, Xicola, and Clotet (2000) analysedthe frequency of use of different key words by each participant bymeans of correspondence analysis. However, this approach onlytakes into account a reduced number of words previously selectedby the analyst. Reiner (1986) developed a software called ALCESTEin order to overcome some of the aforementioned limits. ALCESTEpermits the detection of relationships between lexical worlds,through the analysis of word associations that repeat withinsentences, given that it relies upon co-occurrence analysis, whichwould be difficult to find using other methods of content analysis(Alba, 2004), such as contingency tables and correspondenceanalysis. More simply, it could be described as a combination oftextual and statistical analysis. In ALCESTE the different wordcategories are generated automatically by the software, not by theresearcher, thus increasing the objectivity of the process andavoiding human influence.

The main objective of present research is to obtain a consumer-driven definition for the concept of ‘‘traditional food products’’(TFP) and ‘‘innovations in TFP’’ and to compare these across sixdifferent European countries: Belgium, France, Italy, Norway,Poland and Spain. In order to make this qualitative approach moreobjective, textual statistical analysis, using the software ALCESTE,was applied, allowing comparison of the results obtained withthose derived from the usual semantic analysis of focus groupdiscussions. The research was carried out within the EuropeanSixth Framework Programme, Integrated Project TRUEFOOD.

Methods

Focus groups

Twelve focus groups (7 � 2 consumers in each) were carried out,two in each of the six selected countries, namely Belgium, France,Italy, Norway, Poland and Spain. In each country, one groupdiscussion was held with rural consumers and the other with urbanconsumers (living in places with a number of inhabitants lower orhigher than 10,000, respectively, as defined by the British CountrysideAgency (BCA, 2006)). All selected participants were involved indeciding what food to buy and its preparation at home. In each focusgroup, both women and men were recruited in order to avoid genderdominance (Ibanez, 1979). All the participants were between 29 and55 years old so as to avoid age extremes. Overall, 95 consumers were

Table 1Characteristics of the participants in the twelve focus groups performed.

Country Number of consumers Place of residence Gender Age range Education levela Number of children range

Belgium 18 9 rural 7 males 30–53 11 medium 0–4

9 urban 11 females 7 superior

France 15 7 rural 6 males 32–50 1 elementary 0–2

8 urban 9 females 8 medium

6 superior

Italy 16 8 rural 7 males 30–50 2 elementary 0–2

8 urban 9 females 10 medium

4 superior

Norway 14 9 rural 5 males 30–49 7 medium 0–3

5 urban 9 females 7 superior

Poland 16 8 rural 6 males 30–49 11 medium 0–7

8 urban 10 females 5 superior

Spain 16 8 rural 6 males 29–55 3 elementary 0–3

8 urban 10 females 8 medium

5 superior

Total 95 49 rural 37 males 29–55 6 elementary 0–7

46 urban 58 females 55 medium

34 superior

a Education level: elementary or primary school; medium or secondary school; superior or university.

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354 347

involved. Table 1 shows their key characteristics by country. All thefocus groups were carried out between June and September 2006.

A common and agreed topic guide for the focus groupdiscussions was developed according to Krueger (1988), andChambers and Smith (1991). This guide included the recruitmentcriteria, the moderator’s guide, and some instructions about how totranscribe, prepare and present the results for analysis. Each focusgroup was led by a moderator. The moderator directed the flow ofthe discussion and ensured that all of the important issues werediscussed. The moderator’s guide included a background sectioncontaining the purpose of the study, the expected outcomes, andtechnical definitions of TFP and innovation, a methodologicalsection where the recruitment of the participants was detailed, anda description of the steps to follow for carrying out the focusgroups. Each focus group consisted of the following four main partseach of about 20–30 min duration:

(a) G

eneric part about traditional products in general (not limitedto food).

(b) S

pecific part focussed on traditional food products. (c) S pecific part oriented towards innovations in foods. (d) R elationships between tradition and innovation in the food

context.

Before starting the discussion a short introduction about thesubject of the meeting was given by the moderator and a self-introduction of the participants took place. In line with Krueger(1988) and Ibanez (1979) consumers were always asked about theirpersonal experiences in order to avoid stereotypes. In addition, themoderators tried to avoid this effect when directing the flow of thediscussions. All the focus groups were audio- and, in some cases,video-recorded. The sessions lasted between 90 and 120 min.

Data analyses

A transcription, word by word, of the tape recordings of eachfocus group was made in the original language first and thentranslated into English. In addition, each country’s research teamwrote a report following the recommendations made by Krueger(1988). The final cross-cultural report was developed by means ofopen discussion between the researchers. From this final report a

common agreed definition for TFP and for innovation wasobtained.

Each transcription obtained from the 12 group discussionsperformed was split into three different text files: one for theconcept of traditional (parts a and b), one for the concept ofinnovation (part c) and one for the application of innovations in TFP(part d). In all cases, the questions and comments of the moderatorswere removed. Then, the text files were coded for each participantand identified by the country of origin, the gender, the place ofresidence (rural or urban), and the education level as a sampling unit(‘‘Initial Context Unit’’ or ICU), and appended producing a single textfile for each concept or idea (traditional and traditional foodproducts, innovation and innovation in TFP). In these files all thecontributions made by the same individual (ICU) were put togetheras a simple paragraph. The resulting coded file was submitted to astatistical analysis by means of ALCESTE software (ALCESTE, V.4.8,Image, Toulouse, France) (Reiner, 1986). The analyses wereperformed in five stages as described by Dransfield et al. (2004),Alba (2004) and Bailey and Schonhardt-Bailey (2006):

(1) T

ext segmentation and word coding: segmentation of each ICUusing the punctuation marks contained in the text as groups ofsentences or Elementary Context Units (ECUs). The differentwords were then classified using an internal dictionary asadjectives, nouns, adverbs and others.

(2) L

emmatisation: reduction of words to their root forms andtheir classification as ‘‘analysable’’ (nouns, verbs, . . .) and‘‘supplementary’’ (prepositions, conjunctions, . . .).

(3) C

ontingency table of ‘‘analysable’’ reduced forms by ECUs. (4) T op-down hierarchical cluster analysis to obtain stable classes

and their significant words (tested by Chi-square).

(5) D escription of the classes applying correspondence analysis

and hierarchical cluster analysis.

Results and discussion

Semantic analysis of the focus groups

Tradition in general

Most consumers found it difficult to define ‘‘traditional’’. Theyfound the concept ambiguous and confusing. According to Prabhu

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354348

(1987), working with concepts is more difficult than working withthe names of objects or actions, suggesting that the degree ofabstractness can make activities more difficult.

The product that emerged most spontaneously, hence being themost suitable for explaining the concept of tradition was food orsomething related to food (cooking, cuisine, eating. . .). Food hasbeen described as an important contributor to physical well being,a major source of pleasure, worry and stress, a major occupant ofwaking time and, across the world, the single greatest category ofexpenditure (Rozin, Fishler, Imada, Sarubin, & Wrzesniewski,1999). For this reason, it is not surprising that food emerged soeasily when asking participants about the general and abstractconcept of ‘traditional’.

In general, consumers thought that the usage of traditionalproducts, especially non-food products, is diminishing because ofthe modern way of living. As expected, different perceptions for theconcept of traditional were detected. Tradition was well acceptedin cultural and gastronomic-related contexts, where it wasperceived as something to keep and protect for subsequentgenerations as suggested by Trichopoulou, Vasilopoulou, Georga,Soukara, and Dilis (2006). In science and technology and even inpolitics, it was rejected as it was perceived as a barrier to progressand development.

Tradition in foods

Surprisingly, and despite the obvious cultural differencesbetween the countries, the results were very similar. The relativelyhigh level of similarity may partly be explained by the use of ahighly detailed and structured moderator’s guide that preventedthe group’s focus from moving away from the issues to discuss.

Generally speaking, four main dimensions were detected for theconcept of traditional and TFP:

Habits and natural. Traditional food products were perceived asfood products that are eaten every day or quite frequently, that area part of daily life, and commonly used. It seems that mostconsumers associate TFP with habit. Habit is a strong determinantof food-related behaviour. Consumers repeated habitual behavioureven if they reported intentions to do otherwise, given thatintentions only guide behaviour in the absence of strong habits (Ji& Wood, 2007). This repeated behaviour may constitute the basisfor building up the concept of ‘‘Traditional’’ in consumers’ minds.Some traditional food products were also defined as stronglyseasonal, consumed at special occasions such as Christmas andEaster. Traditional was associated with something anchored in thepast to the present, transmitted from one generation to another,that has been consumed and is consumed from the past, hasexisted for a long time, that has always been part of the consumers’life. The TFP concept included aspects related to health, tonaturalness, to homemade, artisan, made on the farm, withoutindustrial handling, and without additives. All of these conceptsare strongly related. Natural foods are perceived as being bothnutritious and safe and frequently associated with a positiveimpact on human health and a low degree of processing. The term‘natural’, with its emotive appeal, is often associated with otheremotive terms such as traditional and home-made (Bender, 1989).According to Trichopoulou et al. (2007) habit and health may beregarded as one single dimension, since habit and tradition arerarely based on foods, which are not palatable and healthy.

Origin and locality. Traditional was linked to food origin as well andin this sense all the countries agreed that traditions cannot beexported. This idea confirms the view of Giraud (1998), whosuggested that a traditional product per se cannot be exported. Localproducts outside their area of influence, outside their locality, regionor country, will simply be perceived as regular products, thus losing

all or an important part of the additional values and feelings thatmay be conferred on consumers in their original place ofmanufacturing and/or distribution. However, some consumersparticipating in focus groups stated that in certain cases traditionsmay be created or taken over from other regions or countries(couscous in France, Santa Claus in Spain, . . .), because information(Internet, TV, newspapers, . . .), fashions or globalisation may spreadsome traditions and traditional food products all over the world andmay convert even a non traditional product into traditional.

Processing and elaboration. There was general agreement acrosscountries regarding the importance of the elaboration of food. Itseems more appropriate to talk about traditional cuisine than totalk about traditional food products. Normally, it is the elaborationthat makes the difference between a traditional and a non-traditional food product. In this context, the gastronomic heritageand artisan character of the elaboration method acquire greatimportance. The word traditional comes from the Latin verb‘‘tradere’’ which means to hand down, to transfer doctrines,customs, etc., from generation to generation. When dealing withfood, the transfer of this ‘‘know-how’’ or culinary arts acrossgenerations constitutes the gastronomic heritage. Some ingredi-ents and systems of food preparation represent an intrinsic part ofthe identity of regional foods and by association with the peoplewho consume them (Fajans, 2006). To be traditional, a foodproduct not only has to contain traditional ingredients, but also hasto be processed in a traditional way, according to the traditionalrecipes. Traditional food products were perceived, in general, assimple products, with low complexity. Traditional food productstend to be basic, natural, and pure, often in the sense that little orno processing or manipulation has occurred after the primaryproduction.

Sensory properties. Taste was an important dimension of thetraditional food products: ‘‘tradition is tasteful’’. Distinct tasteappeared as one of the strongest characteristics of traditional foodproducts. The importance of sensory characteristics as a qualityfactor in determining consumers’ acceptance or rejection has beenpointed out in a number of studies. Sensory parameters are one ofthe simplest and easiest ways to recognize and identify theauthenticity of a food product.

To sum up a traditional food product from the consumers’perspective may be defined as ‘‘a product frequently consumed or

associated with specific celebrations and/or seasons, normally

transmitted from one generation to another, made accurately in a

specific way according to the gastronomic heritage, with little or no

processing/manipulation, distinguished and known because of its

sensory properties and associated with a certain local area, region or

country’’.

Innovation in foods

Contrary to the concept of tradition in food, differences in theperception of the word ‘innovation’ were found between countries.This may be explained by the existence of noticeable differencesbetween European countries regarding their propensity to acceptand adopt innovations (Singh, 2006). Generally speaking, con-sumer attitudes towards innovation diverge from one country toanother. French and Belgian consumers seemed to be more open toinnovation in foods than Polish consumers, where tradition(especially in rural areas) plays an important role in the life andpersonal relations of people (Bukraba-Rylska, 2004). Norwegianconsumers tended to be closer to the Polish point of view than tothe French and Belgians, being quite critical of the idea ofinnovation. For Italian consumers innovations emerged as some-thing they have to live with and accept because of the modern way

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354 349

of living. French consumers also admitted that innovations areunavoidable due to the modern way of life. Spanish consumers hada propensity to be more neutral, keeping in mind both theadvantages and disadvantages that food innovations mightintroduce.

According to the results obtained from the twelve focus groupsthe concept of innovation in foods seems to come under five mainheadings:

Novelty and change. For all six countries innovation was related tosomething new and/or to modifications in the ingredients, in thepreparation of food, and in its size or packaging. Food is innovativeif it is prepared in a different way, when adding unknown or newingredients or when adding foreign and unusual ingredients. Thisidea of ‘‘novelty’’ related to the concept of innovation in food issimilar to that found in the scientific literature (Carayannis et al.,2003; Fagerberg, 2004 or Moskowitz et al., 2006). Someparticipants stated that originally everything was an innovation,even the most ancestral traditions, since innovations have atemporary validity: ‘‘nothing is new for ever’’. Once innovationsbecome widely adopted they lose their innovative character and insome cases, start ‘‘the long road’’ to becoming a tradition. From thisconsumers’ perspective it seems unlikely that we can combinetradition and innovation in the same food product.

Variety. Innovation implies an important and evident benefit forconsumers because it increases the variety of available options:variations in taste, in combinations of food ingredients, in productshapes, and sizes. Generally speaking, this is perceived as a positiveoutcome and a potential benefit derived from food innovations,given that most consumers appreciate diversity and the possibilityof choice (Filser, 1994). Variety-seeking is a normal part of choicebehaviour influenced by extrinsic motives such as consumers’need to have different choices for different purposes, occasions,and people (McAlister & Pessemier, 1982). Personality traits suchas boredom, satiation and curiosity (Lahteenmaki & Arvola, 2001),also contribute to the satisfaction of individual variety-seekingbehaviour.

Processing and technology. Innovation in food was related totechnological aspects and industrial food processing. An innova-tive food may be created by applying new technologies or furtherprocessing it. In general, consumers pointed out a certain apparentincompatibility between tradition and innovation, and in somecases these two concepts were perceived as contradictory.

Origin and ethnicity. Innovation was related to ethnic food and toimported products as well. The foreign (non-national or non-regional) image of the product tends to play an important role indetermining its innovative character. In any case, it is important tonote that the degree of innovativeness perceived in importedproducts and their acceptance may differ depending on theproduct properties and on intrinsic consumer factors such asinterest in foreign cultures (Juric & Worsley, 1998) and culturalopenness or consumer ethnocentrism (Chambers, Lobb, Butler,Harvey, & Traill, 2007; Shankarmahesh, 2006; Verbeke & Lopez,2005).

Convenience. Corresponding with changing lifestyles, conveni-ence was also an important parameter related to innovations.Almost all participants pointed out the practical advantages thatconvenience-oriented innovations could provide in making aconsumer’s life easier. The following examples were given: pre-cooked or ready-to-eat foods, frozen foods, microwavableproducts, or new packages. Food convenience enables theconsumer to save time and effort in different food activities,

shopping, meal preparation and cooking, consumption and evenin post-meal activities. In a study performed in the UK, Buckley,Cowan, and McCarthy (2007) identified and defined twoconvenience-oriented segments of consumers, the ‘‘kitchenevaders’’ (16%) and the ‘‘convenience-seeking grazers’’ (33%).These segments of consumers could be of great interest as a targetfor producers and manufacturers of innovative TFP. Marketingrelated parameters such as retailing formats and branding, as asource of food innovations, were also perceived as a noticeableincrease in convenience. In fact, all the stages involved in the foodprovisioning process influence consumers’ perceived conveni-ence (Jaeger & Meiselman, 2004).

To sum up, the word innovation associated with food could bedefined as ‘‘the addition of new or unusual ingredient; new

combinations of product; different processing systems or elaboration

procedures including packaging; coming from different origin or

cultures; being presented and/or supplied in new ways; and always

having temporary validity’’.

Applying innovations in traditional food products

A crucial aspect concerning consumers’ attitudes to innovationin traditional food products was the type of innovation applied. Ingeneral, innovations that increase safety or provide the productwith important tangible benefits were welcomed when theseinnovations did not harm the fundamental characteristics of theproduct. According to Henson (1995), consumers’ acceptance orrejection of new technologies is the result of a complex decision-making process that involves an assessment of the perceived risks/benefits associated with the new technology and with the existingalternatives. However, complex or extensive decision-making isonly one potential way of dealing with food choice decisions. Invery complex situations, in situations of high uncertainty or lowissue involvement, consumers’ motivation to process informationmight be rather low (Chen & Chaiken, 1999; Tversky & Kahneman,1974). In these cases, heuristics or easy decision rules, such aslabeling information (e.g. information about the traditionalcharacter of a food product in this specific case), may act as aconvenient guide for consumers to make fast decisions in line withtheir preferences (Verbeke, 2005). Normally, if the changesintroduced are small, the innovation is more likely to be accepted.However, acceptance of the technology is not sufficient, but morelikely a necessary condition for acceptance of the product.Generally, highly complex technological processes make consu-mers more critical of the products. It is important to mention thatuncertainty may play an important role in consumers’ propensityto adopt and accept food innovations. Thus, it is commonlyrecognized that cultures with weaker uncertainty avoidance aremore likely to participate in innovative behaviour (Singh, 2006).The results obtained from the cross-cultural comparisons showthat for each food, each innovation and their combination, differentacceptance levels are observed depending on the country orculture, on top of individual consumer’s personal interests. Forinstance, French and Polish consumers are not keen on nutritionalinnovations, while these kinds of food modifications, generallyspeaking, are apparently well accepted in Spain (Guardia,Guerrero, Gelabert, Gou, & Arnau, 2006). Importantly, consumersshould be properly informed about the innovation applied. Honest,informative, and reassuring communication is essential whenintroducing innovations in traditional food products. It should benoted though that strategies for reducing information asymmetrythrough the simple provision of more information to consumershave a limited chance of success if this information fails to addressa particular need of an interested market segment. The implica-tions for information provision are that the recipient populationneeds to be well understood (Verbeke, 2005).

Table 2Summary of the overall results obtained from the three different analyses performed with ALCESTE software (double classification).

Concept Total number

of words

ICUsa Number

of ECUsb

HCAc Analysable

items

Number

of ECUs

Words/ECU Cases of the

contingency table

Occurrences in

contingency table

ECUs

classified

Number of

clusters

Traditional 46719 95 1107 1 634 817 14 517980 13705 (2.6%) 866 (78.2%) 7

2 633 738 16 467150 13508 (2.9%)

Innovation 19773 94 527 1 336 428 11 143808 5642 (3.9%) 346 (65.7%) 4

2 332 380 13 126160 5549 (4.4%)

Innovation in

traditional food

14886 92 402 1 245 323 11 79135 3992 (5.0%) 249 (61.9%) 5

2 245 290 13 71050 3922 (5.5%)

a ICU, Initial Context Unit.b ECU, Elementary Context Unit.c HCA, Top-down Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354350

Statistical analysis of the transcriptions (ALCESTE software)

Table 2 shows the summary of the descriptive results obtainedfor each concept (transcription) after applying the ALCESTEsoftware. The total number of words for each transcription rangedbetween 46,719 words for traditional to 14,886 words forinnovation in TFP, thus indicating that consumers spent longerdiscussing the former than the latter. There are two possibleexplanations for these findings, the complexity of the topic underdiscussion or the progressive fatigue of the participants. In eachtranscription the two different top-down hierarchical clusteranalyses performed with a different number of words per ECU ledto the same number of clusters or stable classes. In all cases, anacceptable percentage of classified ECUs was obtained, rangingfrom 61.9% to 78.2%. These figures represent the percentages ofECUs that were similarly classified in the two analyses performedby transcription.

Fig. 1. Correspondence analysis for the concept of tra

Traditional and traditional food products (TFP)

The analysis performed with ALCESTE provided seven differentclusters for the concept of traditional and TFP. The total number ofsignificant words (x2 � 2.89) in each cluster ranged from 110 incluster 5 to 175 in cluster 4. The different nationalities wereindividually located in the different clusters obtained (Fig. 1) withthe exception of Belgians and Polish, both classified in cluster 4.This indicates an apparent discrepancy in the development of thediscussion in each country, contrary to what was interpreted anddescribed for the semantic discussion of the focus groups’ results.However, although different groups or clusters were obtained, themain ideas within each of these groups were probably similar, butexpressed using different words. For example, food origin wasimportant for all the countries involved. However, this importancewas expressed with different words in each country: ‘‘Belgian’’ inBelgium, ‘‘French’’ and ‘‘Burgundy’’ in France or ‘‘Catalonia’’ inSpain. ALCESTE software is sensitive to the different words used.

ditional. Values 1–7 indicate the cluster centroid.

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354 351

For this reason, the same idea expressed with different foodproducts, nationalities or other words may provide differentclusters.

Fig. 1 shows the overall map obtained with ALCESTE for theconcept of traditional. In this map both the significant classifica-tion variables and the most significant words obtained wereincluded. The focus will be on the definition of TFP and itssimilarity to the semantic analysis reported previously. Four maindimensions were detected in the semantic analysis related to theconcept of TPF: habit and natural, origin and locality, processingand elaboration and sensory properties. The same four dimensionscan also be found in the analysis performed with ALCESTE (Fig. 1).

Words such as ‘‘usual’’ (closer to Spanish and Italian con-sumers), ‘‘habit’’ (close to French consumers) and ‘‘daily’’ (close toBelgians, Norwegians and Poles) illustrate the association betweenTFP and what people normally eat. In fact food products such as‘‘bean’’ and ‘‘rice’’ close to Spanish, ‘‘pasta’’ close to Italians or‘‘bread’’ close to Poles, Norwegians and Belgians confirm this idea.Similar to the semantic analysis some words point to theimportance of the transmission of traditions from one generationto another: ‘‘grandmother’’, ‘‘typical’’, ‘‘parents’’ or ‘‘generation’’.‘‘Health’’ was close to Belgians, Norwegians and Polish, but otherwords such as ‘‘home-made’’, ‘‘natural’’ or ‘‘fresh’’, which werelocated in different places, could also contribute to this habit/natural dimension of the TFP previously defined. The onlynationality that seems to be apart from the health dimension isFrance. However, French consumers have a significant contribu-tion to cluster 2 (x2 � 298), which also contains the word ‘‘fresh’’(x2 = 17). It is important to mention here that correspondenceanalysis (Fig. 1) mainly accounts for those characteristics thatdescribe each column or row (profiles) better, even when theirfrequency is relatively low (Greenacre, 1984).

With respect to food origin, words such as ‘‘French’’, ‘‘Italian’’,‘‘local’’ or ‘‘foreign’’, clearly point out the importance of this aspectin TFP. All these words were among those that exhibit the highestx2 values within the different clusters, thus having an importanteffect on the differentiation between countries.

The ‘‘recipe’’, the ‘‘ingredients’’, the ‘‘cooking’’ procedure andthe way of ‘‘preparation’’ of the different food products also seemsto be an important dimension in the concept of a traditional foodproduct. Again, this finding corresponds with that from thesemantic analysis. Clearly, not only are the ingredients themselvescrucial for obtaining a TFP, but also the preparation and theprocessing.

Words connected to sensory dimension in food were frequentlymentioned by consumers in the focus groups. They appear in Fig. 1as ‘‘taste’’ and ‘‘quality’’ (referred to taste). Other significant wordsthat were not included in the graph are ‘‘delicious’’ (x2 = 6) and‘‘sour’’ (x2 = 4). All these words emerged spontaneously during thediscussion and although they may have a different meaning for thedifferent consumers (Koster, 2003), they reveal the importance ofsensory properties in traditional food products. Sensory char-acteristics represent the fourth dimension of the concept of TFPand again confirm the findings of the semantic approach.

Some differences were observed with respect to gender andplace of residence. Female and urban consumers were moreconcerned about the preparation and recipes of TFP, while men andrural consumers focussed more on their family units and believedthat some changes have occurred regarding TFP. Gender differ-ences may be explained by the different activities and roles thatmen and women still have with respect to food choice andpreparation (Sayer, 2007). Urban consumers were influenced by allthe aspects that define TFP, probably because of their willingnessto reconnect with their rural roots (Montanari, 1994). Ruralconsumers seem to be more concerned about the changes that theybelieve are taking place and the possible consequences.

Innovation in foods

Four different clusters were obtained for the concept ofinnovation. The total number of significant words (x2 � 2) percluster ranged from 83 in cluster 1 to 132 in cluster 3.

The same five dimensions were obtained in the analysis withALCESTE with some differences between countries similar to theresults in the semantic analysis.

Fig. 2 shows the overall map for the concept ‘innovation’. Wordssuch as ‘‘new’’, ‘‘create’’, ‘‘added’’ ‘‘modified’’ or ‘‘mix’’ amongothers, confirm the importance of the idea of something new ormodified. Innovation is mainly perceived as novelty, but also asmodifications or mixtures of already existing food products oringredients. In general, these words appear for all nationalities,thus indicating that this dimension was similarly perceived in allcases. The word ‘‘new’’ was significant (x2 � 2) for the fourdifferent clusters obtained.

Diversity and possibility of choice were expressed by the words‘‘choose’’, ‘‘variety’’, ‘‘range’’ or ‘‘offer’’. All of these words wereclose to Belgians compared to the other nationalities. The word‘‘variety’’ was also significant in cluster 3 (x2 = 9) where Italiansand Polish were located. This aspect seems to be less important forSpanish consumers, probably because they perceive their diet asdiverse enough. Although dietary habits are evolving towards aprogressive abandoning of the diverse traditional Mediterraneandiet in Spain (Lairon, Vincent, & Defoort, 2006), it seems thatSpanish consumers involved in this study did not perceive anincrease in variety as an important outcome of food innovations.

Processing and technology elicited words such as ‘‘packaging’’,‘‘process’’ or ‘‘production’’, highlight the importance of this thirddimension in the concept of innovation. These words and similarwords (not included in the graph) such as ‘‘technology’’ or ‘‘tin’’were located all over the different clusters and countries indicatingan overall agreement about the impact of technology in foodinnovations.

The origin and ethnicity of a food as a source of innovation wasespecially highlighted by Spanish consumers, shown by theproximity of the word ‘‘place’’ to Spanish (Fig. 2). For the remainingnationalities some words were related to origin, but in most cases,except for Italians, they were not significant or only had low x2-values. The Spanish may be more susceptible to this aspect becauseof the relatively recent and rapid growth of immigration and ethnicrestaurants.

Convenience is clearly represented in Fig. 2 and corroboratesthe results obtained in the semantic interpretation of the focusgroups. Words such as ‘‘quick’’, ‘‘easy’’, ‘‘fast’’ or ‘‘ready’’ indicatethe importance of the convenience dimension. Remarkably, mostof these words are located in cluster 4, close to Belgians. In anycase, in all the clusters obtained and for all the countries, it ispossible to find statistically significant words that point out theeffect of convenience in the concept of innovation (‘‘lifestyle’’,‘‘time’’, and ‘‘work’’).

The importance of ‘‘new cuisine’’ as a source of innovation alsoemerges in Fig. 2. This aspect was especially important for Frenchand Spanish consumers and was expressed by words such as‘‘restaurant’’, ‘‘cook’’, ‘‘delicious’’ or ‘‘recipe’’. France has a longtradition of well-known and innovative chefs. In Spain, althoughmore recently, innovative cuisine is also present in the consumersmind because of some famous local chefs and restaurants such as‘‘El Bulli’’.

It is also interesting to point out that food innovation wasrelated to nutritional improvements (‘‘salt’’ reduction or additionof ‘‘omega-3’’). These words were mainly located close to Spanishconsumers, although ‘‘health’’ was also close to Belgians. Sensoryproperties (‘‘taste’’, ‘‘sensory quality’’, ‘‘colour’’, ‘‘fresh’’) alsoappeared during the discussion as important factors to keep inmind when innovating food products.

Fig. 2. Correspondence analysis for the concept of innovation. Values 1–4 indicate the cluster centroid.

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354352

In general, when compared with the semantic analysis of thefocus groups, similar results were obtained with the ALCESTEsoftware. As it was assessed semantically, Belgian consumers seemto be more open to accept food innovations, while Polish seems to

Fig. 3. Correspondence analysis for the concept of innovation applied to

be the most reluctant to accept innovation in food. In fact the word‘‘negative’’ clearly differentiated Poles from all but Italians.Norwegians were closer to the point of view of Poles than Belgiansor French, and Spanish had an intermediate position. Italians,

traditional food products. Values 1–5 indicate the cluster centroid.

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354 353

although close to Poles, were also close to the word ‘‘positive’’, thusindicating a lack of consensus among Italian consumers.

Innovations in traditional food products

Fig. 3 shows results from correspondence analysis for theconcept of innovation applied to TFP. Five different clusters wereobtained with a number of significant words (x2 � 2) ranging from51 in cluster 4 to 98 in cluster 1.

In general most of the innovations that emerged in thediscussion, and that had a significant weight, were those relatedto packaging (‘‘vacuum package’’, ‘‘bag’’, ‘‘carton’’, and ‘‘shape’’).These innovations in TFP are innovations that do not modify thefundamental intrinsic characteristics of the product. Nutrition-related innovations were also mentioned (‘‘light’’, ‘‘fat’’, ‘‘omega-3’’, and ‘‘vitamin’’). This suggests that health improvementinnovations may be accepted, but probably only when providingpronounced tangible benefits for consumers. Convenienceoriented innovations also emerged in the discussion and wereexpressed as ‘‘fast’’, ‘‘precooked’’, ‘‘ready’’ or ‘‘preparation’’. Itseems that convenience-oriented innovations also have somepossibilities of success when remarkable changes in the product(‘‘keep’’, ‘‘remain’’, ‘‘same’’ . . .) do not take place. It is worthmentioning that sensory innovations in TFP tend to be rejected.Consumers highlight the importance of having the same ‘‘flavour’’(close to Spanish) and keeping the original ‘‘taste’’ (between Frenchand Norwegians).

Men tended to hold a more conservative position towardsinnovations in food than women. They were mainly differentiatedby words such as ‘‘keep’’, ‘‘same’’ or ‘‘same flavour’’. On the otherhand, and not surprisingly, women seem to be more open topackaging, convenience and health oriented innovations, althoughin some cases these innovations could convert a TFP to a non-traditional product (‘‘become non-traditional’’). Rural consumersheld similar ideas to men, they were more conservative, whileurban consumers were more prone to accept innovations in TFP.

Conclusions

It is challenging to communicate with consumers aboutconcepts like traditional and innovation because they are abstractconcepts. Four main different dimensions were identified thatseem to express what European consumers perceive whenthinking of TFP: habit and natural, origin and locality, processingand elaboration, and sensory properties. Five main dimensionsappear to explain the concept of innovation in the consumers’mind: novelty/change, variety, processing and technology, originand ethnicity, and convenience. When innovations are applied toTFP their degree of acceptance is strongly dependent on theproduct and on the type of innovation. In general, innovations thatprovide consumers with tangible and relevant benefits withoutproducing substantial changes in the product are well accepted inTFP (packaging, nutritional, and convenience oriented innova-tions). However, and although they may be accepted, in some casesthese innovations may damage the traditional character of thefood.

This study, although qualitative in nature, provides a new anduseful perspective on consumer’s definition of traditional foodproducts and innovation and touches on some of the possibilities inapplying different generic innovations in TFP. It should be notedthat we did not concentrate on specific food categories. It remainsto be determined to what extent the obtained insights apply tospecific foods. Nevertheless, the information obtained from thisstudy may support small-to-medium enterprises in certaindecisions regarding communication about TFP and when to adoptof food innovations in their TFP. Further validation of thequalitative exploratory insights as presented in this study, e.g.

through quantitative research, involving larger and more repre-sentative consumer samples, is recommended. Such studies shouldtake into account the diversity among consumers, both withrespect to their cultural and regional background, as well as interms of personal characteristics such as food-related perceptions,attitudes and lifestyles, and individual difference variables, such asethnocentrism and openness to innovation.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the TRUEFOOD – ‘‘TraditionalUnited Europe Food’’ – an Integrated Project financed by theEuropean Commission under the 6th Framework Programme(Contract no. FOOD-CT-2006-016264).

The information in this document reflects only the authors’views and the European Commission is not liable for any use thatmay be made of the information contained therein.

References

Alba, M. (2004). El metodo ALCESTE y su aplicacion al studio de las representacionessociales del espacio urbano: el caso de la ciudad de Mexico. Papers on SocialRepresentations, 13, 1.1–1.20.

Askegaard, S., & Madsen, T. K. (1998). The local and the global: exploring traits ofhomogeneity and heterogeneity in European food cultures. International BusinessReview, 7, 549–568.

Avermaete, T., Viaene, J., Morgan, E. J., Pitts, E., Crawford, N., & Mahon, D. (2004).Determinants of product and process innovation in small food manufacturingfirms. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 15, 474–483.

Bailey, A., & Schonhardt-Bailey, C. (2006). Is the Fed Held Accountable? An empiricalinvestigation of congressional oversight of monetary policy. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Phila-delphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA.

BCA. (2006). Countryside Agency Archive. Website: <http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Publications/articles/Publication_tcm2-20870.asp>. Visited June 2007.

Bender, A. E. (1989). What is natural? Food Chemistry, 33(1), 43–51.Bertozzi, L. (1998). Tipicidad alimentaria y dieta mediterranea. In A. Medina, F. Medina,

& G. Colesanti (Eds.), El color de la alimentacion mediterranea. Elementos sensoriales yculturales de la nutricion (pp. 15–41). Barcelona: Icaria.

Boer, J., Helms, M., & Aiking, H. (2006). Protein consumption and sustainability: dietdiversity in EU-15. Ecological Economics, 59, 267–274.

Buckley, M., Cowan, C., & McCarthy, M. (2007). The convenience food market in GreatBritain: convenience food lifestyle (CFL) segments. Appetite, 49(3), 600–617.

Bukraba-Rylska, I. (2004). Dziedzictwo kulturowe polskiej wsi - społeczna swiado-mosc, społeczne dyskursy (Cultural heritage of Polish rural areas–social conscious-ness, social discourses) w: I. Bukraba-Rylska (red.), Polska wies w społecznejswiadomosci (pp. 135–192), IRWiR PAN Warszawa.

Carayannis, E. G., Gonzalez, E., & Wetter, J. (2003). The nature and dynamics ofdiscontinuous and disruptive innovations from a learning and knowledge manage-ments perspective. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.), The international handbook of innovation.Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Chambers, S., Lobb, A., Butler, L., Harvey, K., & Traill, W. B. (2007). Local, national andimported foods: a qualitative study. Appetite, 49(1), 208–213.

Chambers, E., & Smith, E.A. (1991). The uses of qualitative research in product researchand development. In Lawless, H.T & Klein, B.P (Eds.), Sensory Science Theory andApplications in Foods (pp. 395–413). IFT Basic Symposium Series, Marcel Dekker,Inc., New York.

Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. InS. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96).New York: Guilford Press.

Committee of the Regions. (1996). Promoting and protecting local products: a trumpcardfor the regions. Brussels: Committee of the Regions.

Dransfield, E., Morrot, G., Martin, J. F., & Ngapo, T. M. (2004). The application of a textclustering statistical analysis to aid the interpretation of focus groups interviews.Food Quality and Preference, 15(5), 477–488.

EU. (2006). Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 of 20 March 2006 on agriculturalproducts and foodstuffs as traditional specialities guaranteed. Official Journal of theEuropean Union L 93/1.

EuroFIR. (2007). FOOD-CT-2005-513944, EU6th Framework Food Quality and SafetyProgramme. Website: <http://www.eurofir.net>. Visited June 2007.

Fagerberg, J. (2004). Innovation: a guide to the literature. In J. Fagerberg, D. C. Mowery,& R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovations (pp. 1–26). Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press.

Fajans, J. (2006). Regional food and the tourist imagination in Brazil. Appetite, 47(3),389.

Filser, M. (1994). Le comportement du consomateur. Paris: Dalloz.Giraud, G. (1998). Is there any place for typicality beside globalization? A marketing

approach for Europe. Paper presented at IV Symposium of International Association ofFood and Agro-industrial Economy, Caracas, Venezuela, 15–17 July, paper no. 25, 15 p.

L. Guerrero et al. / Appetite 52 (2009) 345–354354

Greenacre, M. J. (1984). Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. New York:Academic Press.

Guardia, M. D., Guerrero, L., Gelabert, J., Gou, P., & Arnau, J. (2006). Consumer attitudetowards sodium reduction in meat products and acceptability of fermentedsausages with reduced sodium content. Meat Science, 73(3), 484–490.

Guerrero, L. (2001). Marketing PDO (Products with Denominations of Origin) and PGI(Products with Geographical Identities). In L. Frewer, E. Risvik, & H. Shifferstein(Eds.), Food, people and society. An European perspective of consumers’ food choices(pp. 281–296). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Guerrero, L., Colomer, Y., Guardia, M. D., Xicola, J., & Clotet, R. (2000). Consumer attitudetowards store brands. Food Quality and Preference, 11(5), 387–395.

Henson, S. (1995). Demand-side constraints on the introduction of new food technol-ogies: the case of food irradiation. Food Policy, 20(2), 111–127.

Ibanez, J. (1979). Mas alla de la sociologıa. El grupo de discusion: tecnica y crıtica, Madrid:Siglo XXI.

Ilbery, B., & Kneafsey, M. (1999). Niche markets and regional speciality food products inEurope: towards a research agenda. Environment and Planning A, 31, 2207–2222.

Jaeger, S. R., & Meiselman, H. L. (2004). Perceptions of meal convenience: the case of at-home evening meals. Appetite, 42(3), 317–325.

Ji, M. F., & Wood, W. (2007). Purchase and consumption habits: not necessarily whatyou intend. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(4), 261–276.

Jordana, J. (2000). Traditional foods: challenges facing the European food industry. FoodResearch International, 33(3–4), 147–152.

Juric, B., & Worsley, A. (1998). Consumers’ attitudes towards imported food products.Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), 431–441.

Koster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies.Food Quality and Preference, 14(5–6), 359–373.

Krueger, R. A. (1988). Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.

Lairon, D., Vincent, S., & Defoort, C. (2006). Alimentation mediterraneenne et maladiescardiovasculaires: analyse des etudes d’intervention. Cahiers de Nutrition et deDietetique, 41(6), 335–340.

Lahteenmaki, L., & Arvola, A. (2001). Food neophobia and variety seeking–consumerfear or demand for new food products. In L. Frewer, E. Risvik, & H. Shifferstein(Eds.), Food, people and society. An European perspective of consumers’ food choices(pp. 161–173). Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Lappalainen, R., Kearney, J., & Gibney, M. (1998). A pan EU survey of consumer attitudesto food. Nutrition and health: an overview. Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), 467–478.

McAlister, L., & Pessemier, E. (1982). Variety seeking behaviour: an interdisciplinaryreview. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(12), 311–322.

Ministero Agricoltura. (1999). Decreto Legislativo 30 Aprile 1998 n. 173. DecretoMinistero Agricoltura 8 settembre 1999 n. 350.

Montanari, M. (1994). The culture of food. Oxford: Blackwell.Moskowitz, H., Reisner, M., Itty, B., Katz, R., & Krieger, B. (2006). Steps towards a

consumer-driven ‘‘concept innovation machine’’ for food and drink. Food Qualityand Preference, 17(7–8), 536–551.

Olsen, S. O., Scholderer, J., Brunso, K., & Verbeke, W. (2007). Exploring the relationshipbetween convenience and fish consumption: a cross-cultural study. Appetite, 49(1),84–91.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Resurreccion, A. V. A. (1998). Consumer sensory testing for product development.

Gaitherburg, MD: Aspen Publishers Inc.Reiner, M. (1986). Un logiciel d’analyse lexicale: ALCESTE. Les cahiers de l’Analyse des

Donnees, 4, 471–484.Rozin, P. (1990). The importance of social factors in understanding the acquisition of

food habits. In E. D. Capaldi & T. L. Powley (Eds.), Taste, experience, and feeding (pp.255–269). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Rozin, P., Fishler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (1999). Attitudes to foodand the role of food in life in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium and France: possibleimplications for the diet–health debate. Appetite, 33(2), 163–180.

Sayer, L. (2007). Gender differences in the relationship between long employee hoursand multitasking. Research in the Sociology of Work, 17, 403–435.

Shankarmahesh, M. (2006). Consumer ethnocentrism: an integrative review of itsantecendents and consequences. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 146–172.

Singh, S. (2006). Cultural differences in, and influences on, consumers’ propensity toadopt innovations. International Marketing Review, 23(2), 173–191.

Sokolow, H. (1988). Qualitative methods for language development. Applied sensoryanalysis of foods (vol. 1). Florida: Boca Raton, CRC Press.

Trichopoulou, A., Soukara, S., & Vasilopoulou, E. (2007). Traditional foods: a science andsociety perspective. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 18(8), 420–427.

Trichopoulou, A., Vasilopoulou, E., Georga, K., Soukara, S., & Dilis, V. (2006). Traditionalfoods: why and how to sustain them. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 17(9),498–504.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases.Science, 185, 1124–1131.

van Dijk, H., Houghton, J., van Kleef, E., van der Lans, I., Rowe, G., & Frewer, L. (2008).Consumer responses to communication about food risk management. Appetite,50(2–3), 340–352.

Verbeke, W. (2005). Agriculture and the food industry in the information age. EuropeanReview of Agricultural Economics, 32(3), 347–368.

Verbeke, W., & Lopez, G. P. (2005). Ethnic food attitudes and behaviour among Belgiansand Hispanics living in Belgium. British Food Journal, 107(10–11), 823–840.

Weatherell, C., Tregear, A., & Allinson, J. (2003). In search of the concerned consumer:UK public perceptions of food, farming and buying local. Journal of Rural Studies,19(2), 233–244.