Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T23:59:06.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Food choice motives and intention to adopt personalised nutrition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2014

A. Rankin ,
L. J. Frewer  and
B. Stewart-Knox
A. Rankin
Affiliation:
Northern Ireland Centre for Food & Health (NICHE), University of Ulster, Coleraine, BT52 1SA
L. J. Frewer
Affiliation:
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU
B. Stewart-Knox
Affiliation:
University of Bradford, Bradford, BD7 1DP
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Abstract
Information
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society , Volume 73 , Issue OCE2: Irish Section Meeting, 18–20 June 2014, Changing Dietary Behaviour: Physiology Through to Practice , 2014 , E56
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2014 

Nutrigenomics is defined as the study of gene expression in relation to food and nutrition( Reference Muller and Kersten 1 ). Personalised nutrition, however, encompasses dietary advice based on dietary, lifestyle, phenotypic and genotypic data( Reference Gibney and Walsh 2 ). Motives underlying the selection of food are hypothesised to serve as barriers to, and facilitators of, adoption of personalised nutrition( Reference Verplanken and Wood 3 ). The research presented here aimed to, therefore, explore food choice motives in relation to the intended uptake of personalised nutrition by the general public.

Findings from a previous qualitative study( Reference Stewart-Knox, Kuznesof and Robinson 4 ) have been used to develop a questionnaire with which to probe consumer acceptance of personalised nutrition. Questionnaire items included the food choice questionnaire (FCQ)( Reference Steptoe, Pollard and Wardle 5 ) and intention to adopt personalised nutrition in the future( Reference Ajzen 6 ). A representative sample from the UK (n = 1061) and Ireland (n = 1020),quota sampled based on age, sex, education level and region were surveyed on-line. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that the original 36-items from the 9-factor FCQ-model( Reference Steptoe, Pollard and Wardle 5 ) converged into the same 9-factors as the original scale. Food choice motives were then entered into multiple regression analysis as predictors of intention controlling for country, age, gender, and education level.

Multiple regression analysis predicting intention to adopt personalised nutrition from food choice motives (N = 2081).

Significance at P < 0·05; Adjusted R 2 = 0·26.

Results indicated that food choicemotivesexplained 21·9% of the variance in intention to adopt personalised nutrition, after country, age, gender, and education level had been controlled (R squared change = 0·219, F change (9, 2064) = 68·78, p < 0·001). The model shows that 8 of the 9 food choice motives significantly predicted intention to adopt personalised nutrition. Individuals motivated by health, mood, convenience, natural content, weight control, ethical concern, or scoring lower on sensory appeal and price may be more likely to adopt personalised nutrition. Personalised nutrition providers, therefore, may benefit from taking into consideration the underlying food choice determinants of potential consumers.

This work is supported by the EU funded 7th Framework Food 4 Me Project and the Department of Education and Learning (DEL).

References

1. Muller, M, Kersten, S (2003) Nat Rev Genet 4, 315–322.Google Scholar
2. Gibney, G, Walsh, M (2013) P Nutr Soc 72, 219–225.Google Scholar
3. Verplanken, B, Wood, W (2006) J Public Policy Mark 25, 90–103.Google Scholar
4. Stewart-Knox, B, Kuznesof, S, Robinson, J, et al. (2013) Appetite 66, 67–74.Google Scholar
5. Steptoe, A, Pollard, TM, Wardle, J, et al. (1995) Appetite 25, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Ajzen, I (1991) Organ Behav Hum Dec 50, 179–211.Google Scholar