Exploring Consumer Acceptance of Novel Food
Technologies using Qualitative Methods
Gráinne Greehy
g.greehy@ucc.ie
Department of Food Business and Development, UCC
Teagasc Walsh Fellow, Ashtown
30th January 2013
Research Project
An In-depth Investigation of Consumer/Citizen
Acceptance of Novel Food Technologies
Research Objectives:
• to understand how attitudes form/change with the
provision of information about NFTs.
• to understand the types of deliberations and influences
that underpin these formation processes (how individuals
construct meaning around/interpret information).
• to identify the determinants of attitudes and acceptance.
2
Research Project
Broad definition of NFTs adopted: “scientific and technological developments that
enhance food production and processing”.
8 Technologies Selected:
Functional Foods
Thermal and Non-Thermal Technologies
GM Foods
Irradiated Foods
Nutrigenomics/ Personalised Nutrition
In Vitro Meat
Nano Foods
3
Qualitative Methodological Approach
Deliberative discourse: interactive conversation during which an issue is examined in detail.
The deliberative discourse involved a one-to-one dialogue between
food scientists (n = 8) and citizens (n = 47) about one of the
technologies.
This methodology enabled an understanding of the:
 evolving perspectives of individuals as information was presented.
 flexibility and framing of their attitudes.
This approach provided depth rather than breadth in terms of examining
citizens’ attitudes.
Citizens discussing each NFT displayed similar characteristics to those
discussing other NFTs, to allow for comparative analysis.
4
What the Deliberative Discourse Involved…
Multi-method approach: pre and post discourse interviews also completed.
The discourse: two-way communication process involved:

the scientist describing the technology and its food applications.

the citizen questioning the scientist about the technology.

the scientist presenting pre-defined hypothetical scenarios
to establish citizen reactions.
5
Thematic Analysis Undertaken….
6
Data Analysis
Detailed thematic analysis was undertaken on the discourse and
interview transcripts with the support of NVivo9.
• Thematic analysis involves identifying, coding,
analysing and reporting themes within the data
and interpreting these emerging themes in the
context of the research questions.
7
Data Analysis
Approach of Braun and Clarke (2006) followed.
• Specific examination for content pertaining to the RQs.
• Transcripts checked for accuracy against audio recordings.
• Preliminary codes identified using an inductive approach, where the codes/emerging
themes identified were strongly linked to the data (approach was “data-driven”).
• Several transcripts were independently coded by other members of the team to ensure
no relevant codes/themes were overlooked.
• Codes and themes were grouped together and reviewed for consistency, variability and
emergent patterns and overarching themes within and across technologies.
• Emerging overarching themes were reviewed and discussed.
• Finally, the transcripts were reread until no additional codes or themes emerged.
• Following inductive phase of analysis; emerging themes were deductively compared
and contrasted to those reported in previous literature (Spiggle, 1994).
8
Data Analysis: Initial Codes used for Discourse Transcripts
Condition of Acceptance
Consumers Reaction towards Technology (Positive)
Assessment of Attributes of the Technology or Application or Product
Animal Welfare Issues
Authenticity Issues - CoOrigin or Indigenous Foods or Traceability Issues or Exporting Food
Commentary on Application being Logical or Rational or Reasonable
Comparison to Another Tech or Process (and Associated Risks and Benefits)
Comparison with Fresh Produce or Traditional Methods
Concerns about Overuse of Technology
Conflicting Personal and Societal (Other Individuals) Perspectives
Discussion re Organic Foods
Emotive Intuitive Gut Reaction
Environmental Issues
Ethical Issues
Food (and Packaging) Wastage Issues (and Recycling Issues)
Food Safety Issues
Health Issues (or risk to Health from Tech)
Impact on Children or Family (or Attitude Framed by Family Status)
Impact on Diet
Impact on Efficiency or Production
Impact on Employees
Impact on Farmers or Local Produce
Impact on Food Industry or Producers or Retailers
Impact on Society and Specific Consumer Groups
Labelling Issues
Length of Time Tech has been Applied
Negative Word Association
Not Believing or Questioning Information Presented
Perceptions of (Un)Naturalness Products and Processes
Personal Choice and (or) Control
Pricing - Cost Issues or Implications
Quality Attributes
Questioning Necessity of Technology or Application or Product
Real Life Purchase Situation or Presence of Products in Supermarket
Regulation - Standardisation - Monitoring
Relevance of Product or Application (to Consumers or Others)
Shelf-life Issues
Similarities or Comparisons to Products on Market at Present
Taste Attributes
9
Undecided in Opinion
Data Analysis: Initial Codes used for Discourse Transcripts (Cont’d)
Potential Tipping Points in Acceptance
Risk-Benefit Trade-offs - Balancing Pros and Cons
Consumers' Attributes - Behaviours
Consumers' Demands from Food and Attitudes towards Food Attributes
Consumers' Previous Knowledge (or lack of) and Preconceptions about the
Technology
Consumers' Scientific Knowledge Base
Information - Sources Seeking Provision and
Validation
Acceptance-Rejection Need (or lack of need) for Information and (or) education
Acceptance-Rejection Validation of Benefits-Risks or Pros and Cons
Consumer Active (Not Active) Information Seeker
Impact of New Information (or referring to risks previously mentioned or pre-empting
associated risks)
Information Sources and (or) Trust in Stakeholders
Other Factors Framing Acceptance-Rejection
Acceptance-Reject Impact of Media Framing
Acceptance-Rejection Attitude framed by Health Status
Acceptance-Rejection Attitude framed by knowledge (or lack of knowledge)
Acceptance-Rejection Attitude and understanding framed by occupation or
background
Risk Perception Related Codes
Attitude towards Technological Progress - Risk Sensitivity
Control Over or Fatalistic View about Risks
Neg Attitude or Risk Assessment by Consumer
Positive Risk Assessment
Discourse transcripts coded over 4,000 times to date.
The pre and post-discourse interview transcripts have also been coded based on the questions posed.
Overarching Themes deriving from Codes Outlined
Factors Influencing Citizens’ Attitudes towards Novel Food Technologies
General
attitudes &
values
Construction of
interpretative
schemas
Making sense
of the
technology
Emerging
attitudes
towards
technologies
Perceived
relevance &
necessity within
contexts
Perceived
relevance
Trade-offs
Individuals’
perceived
power/
control
Uncertainty &
need for
information
Trust,
regulation &
assurances of
safety
11
Overarching Themes
“Making sense of the technology”
General attitudes/values and interpretative schemas (e.g. life
experiences) individuals draw on to guide their contextualisation of
information about the technologies.
• Occurs through reflective and shallow processes, depending on
personal characteristics (e.g. need for cognition) and the technology.
General risk sensitivity: “I think that extreme caution
has to be exercised” (Nano3, Post Interview)
Attitude towards science/tech and progress/change: “…the
proper way is the way we do it at the minute. (…) It’s what I
know” (In Vitro Meat4)
Attitude towards nature: “I think sometimes…you fiddle
about too much with food and it’s just not a good thing.
Food ceases to be just food” (Functional Foods3)
Lack of familiarity (precautionary stance): “Anything that you
don’t know about would be a concern” (In Vitro Meat4)
Reasoned thinking - existing
knowledge “In this day and
age when something is out
there, it’s kind of relatively
safe isn’t it” (Irradiation2)
Affective responses/emotive
reactions: “I have no scientific
basis. But…just an intuitive sort
of suspicion and fear…” (GM2)
Overarching Themes
“Individuals’ perceived power/control”
The importance of personal control when forming evaluations and
the reliance on heuristics (specifically trust in other stakeholders)
when knowledge and perceptions of such control are lacking.
Trust and regulation: “It would never get onto the shelf…I
would presume…if it wasn’t up to you know kind of
standards and regulations” (Thermal3, Post Discourse)
Assurances of Safety: “I would need 100%
proof that everything is OK” (In Vitro Meat4)
Uncertainty: “I suppose that’s the reason why the whole world
is half afraid of those two words, genetically modified…that
we don’t know what it’s going to bring about” (GM3)
Uncertainty and need for
Information: “I don’t think I
would have a problem in
eating it [irradiated food]. But
I suppose I am a bit ignorant
to it in that I don’t understand
it. (…) How it could be harmful
in some way?” (Irradiation1)
13
Overarching Themes
“Perceived relevance”
Importance of the perceived relevance and necessity of the
technologies and associated products and trade-offs to the individual,
their family, society, the environment and other stakeholders.
Societal Implications: “If it [a health promoting nanofood]
will improve people’s lives, well and good” (Nano3)
Environmental Implications: “If it did have negative
effects on the surrounding environment (…) it would
put me off it…I would see that as dangerous” (GM1)
Trade-offs: “If a pro is a rasher [from a GM pig] that tastes a little bit
better (…) And the con is something really disastrous that we don’t
know about yet (…) It’s hard to measure up the two things” (GM2)
Perceived Necessity: “I
haven’t heard of anybody
who is dying or in serious
trouble because of the way
that they are producing
food at the moment”
(Irradiation3)
14
Thematic Analysis is an Iterative Process…
Need to continually review and
explore codes and “move up
levels of abstraction” to
establish the overarching
emerging themes.
Ensured the overarching
themes are internally
coherent, consistent and
distinctive.
15
Acknowledgements
I wish to sincerely acknowledge the significant contribution of my colleagues in
the undertaking of this research; Dr. Mary McCarthy from UCC and Dr. Maeve
Henchion, Dr. Sinead McCarthy and Dr. Emma Dillon from Teagasc Ashtown.
I also wish to thank the research advisory committee and the participants for
their contributions to this work.
This FIRM (Food Institutional Research Measure) project is funded through the
Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Ireland) under the National
Development Plan 2007-2013.