Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Determinants of Consumer Behavior Related to Organic Foods

Author(s): Richard Shepherd, Maria Magnusson and Per-Olow Sjdn
Source: Ambio, Vol. 34, No. 4/5, MAT 21 / Food 21 -- A Sustainable Food Chain (Jun., 2005), pp.
352-359
Published by: Springer on behalf of Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315614
Accessed: 05-04-2015 09:35 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4315614?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Springer and Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Ambio.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Richard Shepherd, Maria Magnusson and Per-Olow Sjoden

Consumer
Determinants of
Foods
Organic
to
Related
There have been many studies of what influences
consumers in their decisions to purchase or consume
organic foods, mainly concerned with fresh organic foods.
These show a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior with people being positive about organic foods but
often not purchasing them. This discrepancy seems to be
explained by the fact that consumers do not consider
"organically produced" to be an important purchase
criterion, that organic foods are not perceived to surpass
conventional foods regarding taste and shelf life (two
qualities rated to be of great importance), and because of
the perceived premium prices of organic foods. In two
Swedish studies, health benefits were demonstrated to
be more strongly related to attitudes and behavior toward
organic foods than were perceived environmental benefits. A new European Union (EU) project will investigate
the influences on both fresh and processed organic foods
and investigate the role of moral, ethical, and affective
influences on choice across eight EU countries.

INTRODUCTION
Factors Influencing Organic Food Choice
There have been many studies investigating the influences on
consumerpurchasingand consumption of organic foods. These
have often taken the form of asking consumers directly about
their reasons for purchase or nonpurchase of organic foods
rather than seeking which types of beliefs and attitudes are
actually related to purchase or consumption.
In severalstudies, a majorityof the consumersstate that they
have a preferencefor and an interest in organically produced
foods (1-3). Nevertheless,the proportion of regularpurchasers
of organic foods is low (2, 4-7). Thus, there is a discrepancy
betweenpreferencesand behavior.This discrepancymay be due
to severalfactors. Premiumprice appearsto be one obstacle to
the purchase (6-11), as is consumer satisfaction with the
conventional food supply (1, 8, 9). Limited availability is
another obstacle (2, 7, 9, 10, 12), but the availability and the
offering of organic foods for sale has increased in several
European countries during recent years. However, in some
Europeancountries,for example, Greece and Spain, consumers
still perceive limited availabilityto be a major obstacle (8, 13).
There is evidence that consumers consider the sensory
characteristicsof food to be the most importantfactors in their
choice of food (e.g. 2, 14). However, it appearsthat nonsensory
attributes of foods are becoming increasingly important (14,
15), such as absence of food additives, preservatives and
residues (3, 15), nutritional value (2, 14), and how the food
was produced (14, 16). Examples of concerns about food
production are animal welfare and the specific production
system used (e.g. conventional vs. organic production).
Consumersalso expressinterestin issues relatingto food and
health (15, 17, 18). Healthiness is an important criterion for
purchaseand a parameterof qualityfor many consumers(2, 16).
Many consumersperceivethat organic foods are healthierthan
conventional foods (5, 19), and health-relatedreasons are the
352

Behavior

major motives for purchasingorganic foods (2, 4, 11, 20-22).

Positive environmental consequences are also a reason for
choosing organic foods (1, 4, 9, 20, 22). Thus, the two most
commonly statedmotives for purchasingorganicfoods are, first,
concernsfor one's personalhealth, followed by concernsfor the
environment.However, previousresearchindicatesthat in food
choice, environmentalfriendlinessis not a criterionconsidered
to be highly important for most consumers (2, 5, 14). Ethical
motives, particularlyin relation to animal welfare, is another
motive for some consumersfor buying organic foods (23).
Although the most common reason for choosing organic
foods is health related, there is no unambiguousevidence that
organic foods are healthierthan conventionallyproducedfoods
(19). It is difficult to establish that a certain cultivation
technique would give products with a different nutritional
content solely because of the technique (24). In her review
concerning the nutritional quality of organic foods, Williams
(25) concluded that some studies show a somewhat improved
level of micronutrientsin organic foods but that these small
differences are unlikely to have health implications for
consumers.
Findings indicate that there are differencesbetweenfrequent
and less frequentbuyersof organicfoods regardingtheir motive
for purchasing such foods. Torjusen et al. (14) found that
frequent buyers were the most concerned with characteristics
that demandreflectionon the part of the consumer(e.g. "fewest
possible additives," "environmentally sound production,"
"ethical and political considerations," "animal welfare").
Further, consumers who found it important to support local
business and to buy locally producedfoods were more likely to
purchase organic foods than were those who did not consider
local production important (14). Wier and Calverly (26)
concluded that product-specificcharacteristicsthat benefit the
consumer appear to be the major motivation to purchase
organic foods but that the motivation varies between different
consumersegments.The "idealistic"consumerswho are buying
organic foods most frequently are driven by environmental
concerns and political motives (26). However, this consumer
segmentis not very large. In a study of Dutch consumers(22), it
was concludedthat health is a more importantpurchasemotive
for incidental than for heavy buyers, whereas heavy buyers
bought organic foods for health as well as environmental
reasons (22).
Consumer Attitudes to Processed Organic Foods
Most of the earlier literaturereviewed previously has concentrated on fresh organic foods, mainly in the form of fruits and
vegetables and to a lesser extent on fresh meat and milk.
Although this reflects the market for organic foods in its early
stages, with most of the consumption of organic foods
concentrated on fresh produce (27), the markets have begun
to extend to processed staple foods, such as bread, and also to
more clearly processed and convenience foods (27). If organic
production is to have a significant impact, then it will be
necessaryto make an impact in the processedfood marketsince
this representsthe majorityof sales of food productsin parts of
Europe, representshigher "addedvalue," and in many parts of

? Royal SwedishAcademyof Sciences2005

http://www.ambio.kva.se

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005

Europe is where there is real scope for expansion of the organic

market (28).

This move into processed organic foods opens a series of

crucial questions concerning consumer attitudes and motivations in addition to the key importancefor the development of
the market. When organic produce is sold fresh, people can
identify with these foods as being "organic" even if they are
slightly unsure of the definition of organic. However, if
ingredientsare combined and processed,people's understanding
of organic might be very different. Consumer beliefs and
attitudes on this have not previously been studied. Also,
consumers' beliefs about organic foods include the idea that
they are "natural" and therefore not processed to any great
degree. When organic ingredients are processed, do people
think of them as less organic? Alternatively, are processed
organic foods viewed very positively because they are both
convenient and do not offend the consciences of environmentally concernedconsumers?
It is very difficult to anticipate how consumers will respond
to processed organic foods without thorough scientific consumer research.There are reasons to expect acceptance as well
as rejection of processed organic foods. Some of the earlier
studies on organic food users suggest that they are a special
segment of people with environmentallyfriendly and altruistic
values (22, 29). In addition, health, food safety, and environmental friendlinessare usually mentioned as the most important
motives for organic food purchases by the consumer. Third,
consumersstrongly associate organic foods with "naturalness,"
"cleanliness,"and the absence of any chemicals or additives
(30). Since processed organic foods would not be as natural as
the freshones, these could be rejectedby at least one segmentof
organic food consumers.
On the other hand, interest in organic foods is rapidly
spreadingto mainstreamconsumers (31). In comparison to the
first users of organic foods, the mainstreamconsumersmay not
be so willing to make sacrificesregardingconvenience, money,
or food quality. Thus, it seems that one prerequisitefor wider
adoption is that organic foods correspond to conventional
foods as regard their quality and convenience. Purchase of
convenient organic food may be a welcome solution for the
consumer dilemma between personal and collective benefits,
which may be one of the most difficult obstacles preventing
people from realizing their positive attitudes toward environmental protection and sustainable development in their
everydaybehaviors (e.g. 32, 33).
In the following sections, we present findings from two
surveys of attitudes of Swedish consumers followed by a description of work and preliminary findings from a European
study of consumerattitudes to both fresh and processedorganic
foods.
CONSUMER PERCEPTION OF ORGANIC FOODS
AMONG SWEDISH CONSUMERS
In the mid-1990s, researchrelated to consumer preferenceand
demand for organic foods was sparse (3, 20, 34), and there
were few scientific studies investigating Swedish consumers.
This led us (Magnusson and Sjoddn) to carry out a survey
regarding perceptions of organic foods among Swedish
consumers in 1998. This was followed by a replication in
2001 to examine whether there had been any substantial
changes in the way that Swedish consumers thought about
organic foods.
The overallaim of these studies was to gain knowledgeabout
Swedish consumers' perceptions of organic foods. Further, we
were interested in investigating if the choice of organic foods
was most strongly related to environmentalor health concerns.
Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5. June 2005

Many of the studies in the literaturehave reliedon direct ratings

by consumers of the importance of issues such as health or the
environment.This presupposesthat consumersare aware of the
influenceson their own behavior and can report the strengthof
such influences accurately. A strong test of the importance of
such factors is to assess the beliefs of consumersand to test how
such beliefs predict behavior. This was done in the current
studies.
In both studies, a total of 2000 persons, aged 18 to 65 y
(representingapproximately 60% of the Swedish population),
were recruited by random selection from the national
population register. Questionnaires were mailed to two
separately selected groups during the springs of 1998 and
2001, and those not responding were sent two reminders.
Details about the sample, its characteristics, and response
rates are presented in Table 1. The demographic characteristics correspond rather well with those of the Swedish
population (35, 36; Table 1), but there was an overrepresentation of respondentswith 2 or 3 y of upper-secondary-school
education (Table 1).
The questions were focused on four target foods: milk,
meat, potatoes, and bread. These were chosen because they
represent staple foods in the Swedish diet and because, at the
time of the study, their availability and price varied. Most
questions were focused on the organic varieties of the four
foods and concerned purchase rather than consumption. The
questionnaire comprised two sections. The first section (37)
concerned the perceived importance of purchase criteria
dependent on whether the foods are conventionally or
organically produced (healthy, good taste, shelf life, cheap,
organically produced, and some product-specific criteria).
Respondents were also asked about general attitudes toward
buying the four target foods and intentions to purchaseorganic
milk, meat, potatoes, and bread. Questions concerned the
purchase frequency of the four target organic foods and
perceived availability of these products. Further, beliefs about
their characteristics as compared to their conventionally
produced counterparts (healthier, tastier, longer shelf life,
more expensive, and some product-specific characteristics)
were investigated in this section. There were two versions of
this first part of the questionnaire. In one, respondents were
asked about milk and meat and in the other potatoes and

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the subjects in the two

surveys (%,unless otherwise indicated).
Surveyl,
1998a

SurveylI, Swedish
2001
population

1100
Numberof respondents(n)
1154
Totalresponserate
58 :
55
51
52
Milk/meat,
responserate
48
49
Potatoes/bread,
responserate
Gender
54
53
Female
47
46
Male
Age (years)
Mean
40.6
41.9
15
18-25
15
23
20
26-35
21
22
36-45
23
23
46-55
17
20
56-65
Education
20
Elementarye
:
:210000;
Uppersecondaryb
50
::: :d52g;DV0::
Universityc
30
:0 0:27 :0:X:

51
49
40.7
15
21
22
21
20
26

45
28

V:0

a Elementary
school or 9-y compulsoryeducation.300:0;

Two or 3 y of uppersecondaryschool.

0; :

Universityor universitycollege education.The information

is obtainedfrom.Statistics
Sweden (35, 36).

? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005

http:/'www.ambio.kva.se

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

353

Table 2. Perceived likelihood that organic food purchases will

result In positive environmental, health, and animal welfare
consequences in 1998 and 2001. Mean scores and standard
deviation (SD).
1998

Improvethe general state

of the environment
Improvecircumstances and health
of the farm animals
Improvemy own or my family'shealth
Give myself a good conscience
Avoid risks that may be associated
with eating nonorganicfoods
Reduce the use of artificialfertilizers
in agriculture
Reduce the eutrophicationof lakes
and watercourses
Reduce the pollutionof the soil
Reduce the transportationof foods
Reduce the use of petrol and other
nonrenewablesources of energy
Reduce the amount of waste
Reduce the ozone hole in the atmosphere
Preserve biodiversityin nature
Reduce the use of herbicides
and pesticides in agriculture
Reduce the medicationof farm animals
Give my childrenbetter food
Reduce the riskfor illness in my family

2001

Mean

SD

Mean

SD

4.0

1.0

3.9

1.0

4.0

1.0

4.0

1.1

3.6
3.6
3.7

1.1
1.3
1.1

3.5
3.6
3.6

1.1
1.2
1.1

4.1

1.0

4.1

1.0

4.1

1.0

4.0

1.0

3.9
3.1
3.0

1.0
1.2
1.2

3.9
3.1
3.0

1.0
1.3
1.2

3.1
3.0
3.6
4.1

1.2
1.2
1.1
1.0

3.0
3.0
3.5
4.1

1.2
1.2
1.2
1.0

3.9
3.9
3.4

1.1
1.1
1.2

3.8
3.8
3.3

1.1
1.1
1.2

Five-pointunipolarscales rangingfrom"notat all likely"(1) to "verylikely"(5).

bread. Half the sample (n = 1000) received the milk and meat
version and the other half (n = 1000) the potatoes and bread
version (response rates; see Table 1). Descriptive data and
demographiccomparisons for the questions of the first section
(1998) have been reported earlier (37). This paper contains
a summary of the descriptive data (1998) and reports differences in the results of the two surveys.
The second section concerned respondents' perceptions of
the likelihood and importance of occurrence of 17 possible
consequencesof purchasingorganic foods in general (Table 2).
They were also asked about the frequencyof their performance
of recycling glass, paper/metal/plastic packages, newspaper/
paper and batteries, and about eight environmentallyfriendly
Table 3. Self-reported environmentally friendly behavior and
recycling. Mean scores and standard deviation (SD).
1998

2001

Mean SD

Mean SD

Avoid purchasingproducts
in environmentallynonfriendlypackages
Purchase environmentallyfriendly
labeled products
Save electricity
Donate money to environmental
organizations
Discuss environmentalproblems
with my friends or family
Refrainfrom car drivingto spare
the environment
Avoid purchasingnew productsto spare
the environment
Compost or leave domestic refuse
for composting

2.9

Recycleglass
Recyclepaper-packages
Recyclenewspaperandpaper
Recyclebatteries
Recycleplasticpackages
Recyclemetalpackages

4.7
4.0
4.6
4.6

1.0

2.9

3.5 0.9

3.4 0.9

3.5 1.0
2.0 0.9

3.4 1.1
2.1 1.0

3.0

1.0

2.9

1.0

2.5

1.2

2.5

1.3

2.4 0.9

2.3

1.0

2.9

2.9

1.6

1.6

0.7
1.2
0.9
0.9
3.3 1.4
3.4 1.5

4.8 0.7
4.1 1.2
4.5 1.0
4.6 0.9
3.6 1.4
3.8 1.4

Five-pointunipolarscales rangingfrom"never"(1) to "always/veryoften"(5).

354

1.1

behaviors (e.g. refrain from car driving to spare the environment); see Table 3.
Attitudes Toward Organic Foods
Findings from the first survey demonstrated that the majority
of consumers have positive attitudes toward buying organic
milk, meat, potatoes, and bread. However, their positive
attitudes were mirrored neither in their intention to purchase
or in actual purchase behavior. Only between 4% and 10%
declared that it is very likely that they will choose the organic
alternativethe next time, and between 8%and 16%stated that
they often or always buy the four investigated target foods.
Thus, there is a discrepancybetween attitudes and self-reported
behavior. One factor that may help explain the attitudebehavior discrepancyis the relative importance of the criterion
"organically produced" in comparison to other purchase
criteria. In general, the most important purchase criterion for
all studied foods was that they should taste good, and the least
important was that they were organicallyproduced. Long shelf
life and healthiness were also rated to be important or very
important by the majority of the respondents. Another
candidate for explaining the discrepancyis that consumers did
not perceive organic foods to be any better than conventional
foods. The most common beliefs about organic foods were that
they were "more expensive"and "healthier"than conventional
foods. Respondentsdid not think that the organic counterparts
would taste better or have a longer shelf life. A third influential
factor that may help account for the attitude-behavior
discrepancy is the fact that around half (49%) of the
respondents stated that they often or always refrain from
buying organic foods because they perceive them to be too
expensive. Further, a majority (63%) reported that it is
important or very important that organic foods do not cost
more than conventional foods.
There were no substantial differences between the results
from the first (1998) and the second survey (2001), but
a somewhat larger proportion rated the perceived availability
of the four organic target foods to be better in 2001 than 1998
(statistically significant only for organic bread). Also, fewer
consumers thought that the organic varieties are healthierthan
their conventional counterparts in 2001 than in 1998 (statistically significant only for organic milk).
Factors Related to Choice of Organic Foods
The responses to the 17 environmental, human health, and
animal welfare consequences (1998; Table 2) were subjected to
principal components analysis (PCA, varimax rotation). The
PCA resulted in three interpretable factors with eigenvalues
greater than 1 (Table 4). The first factor (Environment)
reflected environmental pollution, the second (Health) perceived health aspects, and the third (Transportation/Waste)
mirrored transportation and waste handling. Cronbach occoefficients varied between 0.88 and 0.90, which indicates good
homogeneity of these factors. The PCA on the 2001 data
resultedin essentiallythe same factor structure.However, there
were some differences.The items "reducethe ozone hole in the
atmosphere"and "preservebiodiversity in nature," which did
not load highly on any of the factors in 1998, loaded on the
Transportation/Wastefactor in 2001. Further, the item "give
myself a good conscience," which loaded highly on the Health
factor in 1998, did not in 2001. The order of the Health and
Transportation/Wastefactors, according to explained variance,
was also reversedin 2001. Since the PCAs were principallythe
same for both years, it was decided to apply the same factor
structureon the data from 2001.

? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005

http: www.ambio.kva.sc

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ambio Vol. 34. No. 4-5. June 2005

Table 4.t Principal components analysis of the rated likelihood of: per;cee

:a

Factr rname

consquences

t;.:510St:)

I:S>Afmprove
st;aern the ate of the environm6
Reduce. the
ause of atfcafertilizers inagricultur
n wtrore
Redlucetheetohctonoiae

:. 0.90

the
Reducethe plutiono sild7an
ueoherbicde
Reduceth~e.

2. Health

Loading

ntm

1. Environment0fXt;X; <Q4Vtt$t:00

10

etcds

:3.Transporaio
C : dE f

.f

Te; L

0.88

V fLS;0 f

(:

AuT f

fi 0:Si00aAY
.7-D i

.85
8

inagriutue.63
.70
nonorgaifod.7

Reduc
the se ofpetrolndote
:
ds
. ..
.tt fX -o tit
Reduc
theaon of wasdte

:.....

.71
67
.88

Reduce
ris for
in my family,
Reduce.the transpxtation of foods

k,

0;t000000t;fiillness

.76h
Improvemy own or my familys health

0.89

conscience
Gv myselfla:g
AVOidrssta maybasocitdwthetn
G&iv
MYchide better.foo
the040

(19)

purche

of organicpfo

sore
nonenwable
ff

of.energy.8

.. ....
..

.58

Percentage of explained variance.

Table 5. Results of principal component analysis of self-reported environmentally friendly behaviors and recycling (1998).

Factorname

%a

Items

Loading

1. Environmentallyfriendlybehavior

31

0.75

2. Easy recycling

12

0.69

0.72

Avoid purchasingproducts in nonenvironmentallyfriendlypackages

Purchase environmentallyfriendlylabeled products
Save electricity
Donate money to environmentorganizations
Discuss environmentalproblems with my friends or family
Refrainfrom car drivingto spare the environment
Avoid purchasingnew productsto spare the environment
Recycle glass
Recycle paper-packages
Recycle newspapers and paper
Recycle batteries
Recycle plastic packages
Recycle metal packages
Compost or leave domestic refuse for composting

.67
.67
.47
.56
.64
.63
.68
.74
.68
.81
.55
.86
.86
.56

3. Advanced recycling

Percentage of explained variance.

Table 6. Results of multiple regression analysis (standardized beta coefficients, unless otherwise indicated) of data, 1998 and 2001. Significant
contributions by the factors Environment, Transportation/Waste, and Health to the prediction of attitudes, perceived importance of the
criterion organically produced (Organic), purchase intentions (intention), and purchase frequency (Purchase). Figures in parentheses are
results of 2001.
Milk
Attitude
n = 564 (480)

Organic
n = 516 (451)

Meat

Intention
n = 570 (506)

Purchase
n = 543 (479)

Attitude
n = 569 (493)

Organic
n = 515 (469)

Intention
n = 565 (504)

Purchase
n = 522 (469)

.17 (.15)
.17 (.19)
.11 (.10)
.32 (.23)
.23 (.24)
R2
.23 (.26)
.16 (.19)
.28 (.32)
F (d.f.) 1998
58.5 (3, 560) 32.7 (3, 512) 39.4 (3, 566) 22.2 (3, 539) 74.5 (3, 565) 81.5 (3, 511) 57.2 (3, 561) 36.3 (3, 518)
57.8 (3, 476) 35.1 (3, 447) 39.4 (3, 502)
18.6 (3, 475) 79.4 (3, 489) 46.7 (3, 465) 52.7 (3, 500) 28.8 (3, 465)
F (d.f.) 2001
- (_)
- (.17*)
.14* (.14*)
Environment
()
.22***(.30***)
-()
-()
.15* (-)
- (-)
-(-)
-(-)
-(-)
- (-)
- (-)
Transportation/Waste -14* (-)
7** (-)
Health
.39***(.27***) .40***(.27***) .37***(.33***) .25***(.21*)
.49***(.44***) .55***(.47***) .43***(.49***) .28*** (.36***)
p < 0.01,.

p < 0.0001, - not significant.

Table 7. Results of multiple regression analysis (standardized beta coefficients, unless otherwise indicated) of data, 1998 and 2001. Significant
contributions by self-reported behavior and perceived consequences to the prediction of attitudes, perceived importance of the criterion
organically produced (Organic), purchase intentions (Intention), and purchase frequency (Purchase). Figures in parentheses are results of
2001.
Milk
Attitude
n=J530(467)
nA
R2
F (d.f.) 1998
F (d.f.) 2001
Environment

(.28)
~~~~.26
32.1 (6, 523)
30.5 (6, 460)
.18* (.31***)

Meat

Intention
Organic
= 483 (438)
n1=A5368(490)
.20 (.24)
21.0 (6, 476)
24.4 (6, 431)
- (.18*)
- (-)

.24 (.22)
28.9 (6, 529)
23.6 (6, 483)
- (.16*)

Purchase
n = 510 (464)
nA
.17 (.14)
18.7 (6, 503)
13.4 (6, 458)
- (.16*)

Health

.32***(.22***) .35***(.22***)

-.14* (-)
.33***(.26***) .21***(-)

EFB
Easy recycling
Advanced recycling

.21***(.17***) .22***(.27***)

.27***(.23***) .28***(.24***)

TransportationJWvaste -.16* (-)

- (-)
- (-)

*p < 0.01, * p < 0.0001, -not

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005

- (-)
- (-)

-.7*

(-)

- (-)
- (-)

- (-)
- (-)

Attitude
= 535 (480)
nA

Organic
= 485
nA=(456)

Intention
nA
530 (489)

Purchase
= 491 (455)

.30 (.32)
39.2 (6, 528)
38.9 (6, 473)

.36 (.31)
47.3 (6, 478)
35.5 (6, 449)

.27 (.27)
34.1 (6, 523)
31.7 (6, 482)

.22 (.20)
24.1 (6, 484)
19.8 (6, 448)

-(-)
-.14* (-)

- (-)
-(-)

- (-)
-(-)

- (-)
- (-)

.46***(.42***) .5** (.41***) .40***(.44***) .24***(.30***)

.15* (-)
.22***(.29***) .21***(.23***) .23***(.27***)
- (-)
- (-)

(_)
- (-)

_ (-)
- (-)

(-)

- (-)

significant.

? Royal SwedishAcademyof Sciences2005

http://www.ambio.kva.se

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

355

and 2001, except that Environmentwas an important predictor

of attitudes toward buying organic milk in 2001. Thus, positive
health benefits appear to be a stronger motive for purchasing
organic foods than are environmentalbenefits.
Multiple regression analyses were performed with all six
factors (Environment, Transportation/Waste, Health, EFB,
Easy Recycling, Advanced Recycling) for each of the four
organic foods separately. The aim was to investigate the
predictabilityof the variables attitude, "organicallyproduced,"
purchase intention, and purchase frequency. Health was the
most important predictor of attitudes, "organicallyproduced,"
and purchase intention for the four foods (1998; Table 7). The
health factor was also the most important predictor of the
purchase frequency of organic potatoes and an important
predictorof the purchase frequencyof organic milk, meat, and
bread. However, regardingthe purchase frequency prediction,
EFB was almost equally predictivelike Health for organic meat
and potatoes. Also, EFB was the most important predictor of
purchase frequencyfor organic milk and bread. There were no
differencesbetween the results from 1998 and 2001 for organic
meat and only minor differencesfor organic potatoes (EFB was
the most important predictorof purchasefrequency)and bread
(Health was the most important predictor of purchase
frequency). However, for organic milk, there were greater
differences in the second survey. Health was only the most
important predictor of intention to purchase and was not
a significantpredictorof the purchasefrequencyof organicmilk
in 2001. Also, Environmentwas the most important predictor
of attitudes and EFB the most important predictor of
"organically produced" and purchase frequency for organic
milk in 2001.

The data on the eight self-reported environmentally friendly

behaviors and recycling (Table 3) were also subjected to PCA
(oblique rotation) and resulted in three factors (all had
eigenvalues >1; Table 5). The first, Environmentally Friendly
Behavior (EFB), included performance of environmentally
friendly behaviors (e.g. refrain from car driving to spare the
environment, save electricity). The Easy Recycling factor
included recycling of items disposable at easily available
collection points (e.g. glass and batteries). Advanced Recycling
was based on recycling of items that require more effort on the
part of the consumer (e.g. fewer collection points, metal
packages, and composting/leaving domestic refuse for composting). Cronbach's oct-coefficientsfor these factors varied between
0.69 and 0.75, indicating good homogeneity. The PCA showed
the same factor structure on the data from both years. However,
the order of the factors Easy Recycling and Advanced
Recycling, according to explained variance, was reversed in
2001
The factor-analytically derived factors based on the likelihood ratings of positive health and environmental outcomes as
a result of organic food purchase (Environment, Transportation/
Waste, Health) were used as independent variables in a multiple
regression analysis. This was done to investigate the predictability of the dependent variables: attitudes to purchase,
the importance of the criterion "organically produced," purchase
intention, and purchase frequency. Each of the four organic
foods was analyzed separately. For all of these, Health was the
most important factor for predicting attitudes to purchase, the
importance of the purchase criterion "organically produced,"
purchase intention, and purchase frequency (1998; Table 6).
There were no differences between the results obtained in 1998

Table 6. Extended.
Bread

Potatoes
Attitude
n=518 (481)

Organic
435 (424)

Intention
n =517 (503)

Purchase
459 (449)

Attitude
n =512 (492)

Organic
n =494 (466)

Intention
n-518(507)

Purchase
n=497(474)

.16 (.18)
.31 (.31)
.33 (.33)
.24 (.25)
.18 (.15)
.25 (.27)
.23 (.26)
.33 (.30)
R2
F (d.f.) 1998
84.0 (3, 514) 49.3 (3, 431) 52.3 (3, 513) 34.2 (3, 455) 83.9 (3, 508) 74.7 (3, 490) 55.6 (3, 514) 33.2 (3, 493)
F (d.f.) 2001
60.3 (3, 499) 28.2 (3, 445) 82.3 (3, 488) 69.1 (3, 462) 58.6 (3, 503) 34.5 (3, 470)
70.0 (3, 477) 53.7 (3, 420)
()
- ()
-()
-(-)
.15* (.17*)
-(-)
Environment
-(-)
-(-)
.2
- (-)
- (
-(-)
(-)
(-)
-(-)
-(-)
Transportation/Waste
.47***(.43***) .50***(.47***) .47***(.47***) .45***(.35***) .43***(.50***) .49***(.56**) .45***(.52***) .28***(.36***)
Health

Table 7. Extended.
Bread

Potatoes
Attitude
n=496 (464)
R
F(d.f.)1998
F(d.f. 2001
Environment

(.34)
~~~~~.35
45.8 (5, 489)
413(6
57)
.16* (1 4*1)

Transportationt/Waste

Health
EFB
Easy recycling
Advanced recycling

356

Organic
n=420 (409)
.30 (.36)
30.7 (6, 413)
3.9.2 (,42
-()

Intention
n=495 (486)
.26 (.30)
30.4 (6, 488)
3566,79
-(-()

-4()1()

Purchase
n=441 (435)

(-)

(-)

Intenton
n=-493 (489)

--------

(
-()

(-)

Organic
n=473 (450)

~~~~~~
~~.35
~~~(~.37)
~~~~~~~~~~~
.27 ~
.26 (.23) --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.34 (.39)
(.31)~
.26.2 (6, 434) 42.3 (6, 483) 42.5 (6, 466) 30.7 (6, 486)
50.7 (6, 467) 44.0 (6, 443), 37. (6, 482)
2.06,428)

(-)

37***(47**
38***(.43.***) .39***(.8**)
1*(9*).0
(.28***)- 17*(27*).21
-

Purchase
n=474 (458)
.22 (24)~
233(,4672)

251(,4)

)-(-

.2**)-()-

3**(.42***
.32* (2**)
.41** (.36***) .38***-(.38**
.15* (.27*.**) .7*** (.35***) .22***,(.24***) 2**(3**
-

Attitude
n=490 (474)

(-)

(-)

(-)

1* 3*
***(2*)
-

-(--(--(--(--(--(--(--()

? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005

http:;//www.ambio.kva.se

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4--5, June 2005

EUROPEANUNION-FUNDEDPROJECT
ON CONSUMERATTITUDES
The previously mentioned results provide a detailed picture of
the attitudesof Swedishconsumersto organicfoods at two time
points and how these attitudes link to intention and behavior.
We now turn to the issue of attitudes toward processed organic
foods and also consideration of variations across European
countries.
"ConsumerDecision Making on Organic Products (CONDOR)" is a major new European Union (EU)-funded project
that examines the attitudes of consumers to both fresh and
processed organic foods (http://www.condor-organic.org).The
project has partners from eight EU countries: the United
Kingdom, Finland, Italy, Greece, Spain, Denmark, Germany,
and Sweden.This includescountrieswith relativelyhigh levels of
organic production and consumption (e.g. Denmark, Sweden)
and those with relativelylow levels (Greece, Spain) (38).
The project aims to develop several concerns not addressed
well in the existing literature.The first is to examine consumer
attitudes toward processedas well as fresh organic foods across
a range of European countries. The second is to model the
influencesof attitudes and beliefs on intention and behavior, as
in the previouslymentioned Swedishstudies, ratherthan relying
on consumers' own statements of what are the important
influenceson their behavior. The third is to find ways in which
to incorporate more effectively the moral and ethical dimensions in consumers'decisions.
The CONDOR project takes as its starting point two key
approachesfrom the consumer behavior literature,the Theory
of Planned Behavior (TPB) (39, 40) and Means-End Chain
analysis (MEC) (41). The TPB is a rational model of human
behavior that argues that behaviorssuch as the choice of a type
of food is predictedby intentions,which in turn are predictedby
attitudes, perceived social pressure,and how much control the
person feels he or she has over the behavior. This has been
widely applied in consumerstudies, including several successful
applications on the choice of foods (40). This model offers an
excellent starting point for the examination of organic food
purchasingand consumption.
An alternative, although complementary, approach to
uncovering the motivations behind consumer decisions is
provided by MEC theory (41). Within this approach, the links
from attributesof products to perceivedbenefits are uncovered
and then further linked to the underlying values held by
consumers. It is argued that behavior is influencedby how the
attributes of products and their perceived benefits meet the
needs of consumersin terms of their underlyingvalues. Again,
this method has been successfully applied to understanding
consumer choice of foods (41). Using the MEC approach, it is
possible to develop segmentation of consumers based on the
values they hold. Such segments tend to be stable, but the
relationships between these segments and particular foodrelated behavior tends to be limited (42).
The concept of Food Related Lifestyle (FRL), developed
and validated through studies in several countries and at
differenttimes (43, 44, 45), is a quantitativeapproach based on
MEC theory and provides an understandingof the relations
between consumers'choices in the market and their underlying
values. By applying a segmentation approach to this problem,
consumer heterogeneity is taken into consideration in an
instrumental way, pointing to different ways of addressing
these segments. The FRL segmentation has been validated
across European countries, and one implication may be that
differencesacross segmentsare more importantthan differences
across countries, opening the way for common strategies
directedto each specific segment.While this approachhas been
Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005

developed for general views on foods, there are specific aspects

of organic food choice that need to be addressedand those are
targetedin the CONDOR project.
Both the approaches based on the TPB and MEC fail to
effectively incorporate some key features that are likely to be
important in the choice of organic foods. These are affective
responsesto foods and moral concernsabout the ways in which
foods are produced. There have been previous attempts to
integrate these nonrational influences into the essentially
rational model formulation of the TPB for other types of
choices of foods (46-48) but not for the consumptionof organic
foods. Affective associationsand moral concernsalso need to be
incorporated into the MEC/FRL framework and included in
the segmentationmodel.
The overall objectivesof the projectare i) to provide a basic
understandingof the processes involved in consumer decision
making on the purchase and consumption of processed and
fresh organic foods and ii) to model consumerchoice of organic
foods based on attitudes, values, and affective and moral
concerns over eight EU countries.
The project is organized as a series of work packages. The
first of these seeks to develop new methods for the elicitation of
affective and moral concerns from consumers.This part of the
work was conductedin the United Kingdom, Finland, and Italy
and involved testing focus groups, word association, and an
open-ended method of eliciting emotions and beliefs as
alternativesto the normal method of eliciting advantages and
disadvantagesof behaviors usually used in the TPB (39).
The data from the focus groups in each country were really
quite different from those from the other methods and were
therefore analyzed separately. The UK results are described
here briefly. The UK data showed five main themes. The first
main theme was on aspects of food production, including
subthemes related to foods being homegrown or for home
cooking, local, or from intensive farming. The second theme
was on access to food with subthemes of local, supermarkets,
and imported food. The third theme was control, which again
linked to imported food but also to food regulationsand trust.
The fourth theme was health issues. The fifth theme was moral
issues, which linked to considerationsof profit, environmental
impact, animal welfare, and advantages and disadvantagesof
organic foods. There were also some issues that were raised
that did not fit within these themes, including, for example,
names of particularorganic foods or images or the definition
of organic foods.
The responses from the conventional method, word association, open-ended beliefs, and open-ended emotions were
categorizedin order to examine whether there were differences
in the frequency of responses from the different methods.
Although there were small differencesin the resultsbetweenthe
countries,on the whole, the differentmethods all elicitedsimilar
types of beliefs with comparable frequencies. The most
frequentlyelicited types of beliefs are shown in Table 8.
There were some differencesin the way fresh and processed
organic foods were evaluated. The fresh organic foods were
considered to be more natural, and the participantsexpressed
more positive feelingstoward them and also mentionedthe shelf
life of these foods. Processed foods brought out more negative
views and issues of trust and in some cases no feelings at all.
Quality, health issues, expense, and chemicals in foods were
mentioned for both fresh and processed foods. The word
association task brought out more imagery and names of
specific foods. The traditionaltask and the open-ended beliefs
task elicited similarcategories of responsesin similarnumbers.
However, by explicitly asking about emotions and feelings, the
open-ended emotions sections generated additional categories
that were purely emotional and not expressed in any of the

? Royal SwedishAcademyof Sciences2005

http://www.ambio.kva.se

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

357

Table~
8. Mo.foq

...ue.ctgrisfr.ep..efo

Traditional

Froesh efoods ,

mtos.neicttonsuy

odascainOe-ne

Qualt

QualityQultQait

E"shllie
Expense

foods
S~~~~~pecific.

Trust

Exes

There have been a number of studies of the influences on

consumer purchasing and consumption of organic foods, and
there are some consistent findings across these studies. Health
appears to be a more important influence on purchasing than
the environment,but this differs between heavy and light users.
The Swedishsurveysshowed a discrepancybetweenattitudes
and behavior regardingorganic foods. This discrepancyseems
to be explained by the fact that consumers do not consider
"organicallyproduced" to be an important purchase criterion.
Also, organic foods are not perceived to surpass conventional
ones regardingtaste and shelf life (two qualities rated to be of
great importance)and because of the perceivedpremiumprices
of organic foods. Health benefits were demonstratedto be more
strongly relatedto attitudes and behavior toward organic foods
than were perceived environmental benefits. However, the
frequency of performing environmentally friendly behaviors
also contributed to the prediction of the purchase of organic
foods. Thus, behavior-behaviorcorrelationsseem to be stronger
than "belieft"-behavior
correlations in this context of environmental concerns.
The relationship between beliefs related to health and
environmental benefits on the one hand and intention and
behavior on the other will be furtherexplored across European
countries in the CONDOR project. This project also extends

(Negtivefeelinssvnh
oiie,feig

earlier work by examining attitudes to processed as well as

fresh organic foods and more explicitly attempting to model
the roles of affective and moral influences on choice. Early
results from this project show that, as in previous studies,
stated reasons for choice of organic foods are related mainly
to health, quality (including taste), and expense, and this was
true for processed as well as for fresh organic foods. The
processed organic foods led to more negative responses than
the fresh foods, including issues of trust. The open-ended
emotions method yielded more responses related to feelings
and emotions than the conventional method and therefore
offers a means for examining these influences in more detail.
Future work will examine how well these affective responses
relate to intention and behavior and how they vary across
both countries and consumer segments.
There is a future need to test more rigorouslythe impacts of
variables on behavior rather than relying on consumers' own
ratings of what influences their behavior. The impacts of
attitudesand beliefs and also other potential types of influences,
such as values and affective responses and also behaviorbehavior relationships, need to be more systematically tested.
There is also a need to investigatehow consumersview different
forms of organic food, including processed foods.
References and Notes
1.
2.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Open-ende emotions

No eeing

Notknown
at
~0trut

other methods. Moral categories were elicited by both the

traditional task and open-ended beliefs in equal measure.
The second work package is designedto use these methods to
elicit beliefs from consumers in the same three countries and to
develop and test a model of consumer behavior following the
basic structureof the TPB. This was conducted on the choice of
organic apples and organic pizza, and the results are currently
being analyzed.
Work on FRL has identifieda numberof segments (between
five and seven) across European countries, some of which are
shared across borders, while some are idiosyncratic. Work
package 3 will develop and apply methods for segmenting
consumersbased on FRL and MEC theory. Work is currently
underway on this in Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany,
and Spain.
The insights, theories, and methods developed in the first
threework packageswill be brought togetherin the fourth work
package and tested in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland,
Italy, Greece, Denmark, Germany, and Spain in order to
provide knowledge on differences and commonalties across
member states. The member states included represent a geographic spread across the EU and in particular include both
northern and southern European states and also states varying
greatlyin marketpenetrationof organic foods, from the highest
EU per capita expenditureon organic produce in Denmark to
the lowest in Greece.

358

eif

3.

4.

5.
6.

7.
8.

9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.

15.
16.

17.

Ekelund. L. 1989.Vegetable consumption and consumcri attitudes towards organlically

grown vegetables-the
case of Sweden. Acta Hortic 259. 163-172.
Wandel. M. and Bugge, A. 1997. Environmental concern in consumer evaluation of food
quality. Food Qutl/its Pre/ 8. 19 26.
Wilkins, J.L. and Hillers. V.N. 1994. Influences of pesticide residue and environmental
concerns on organic food preference among food cooperative members anld nonmembers in Washington State. J. Nutr. Educ. 26, 26--33.
von Alvensleben, R. 1998. Ecological aspects of food demand: the case of organic food
in Germany. AIR-CAT 4th Pleniary Meeting: Health. Ecological and Safety Aspects in
Food Choice 4, AIR-CAT. MATFORSK.. As. Norway. pp. 68--79.
Grankvist. G. and Biel, A. 2001. The importance of beliefs anld purchase criteria in the
choice of eco-labelled food products. J. Enriron. Ps r'chol. 21. 405-410.
Grunert, S.C. and Kristenseni, K. 1995. Den1Dan.ske For1brugerog 0kologi.ske Fgderurer.
Working Papers in Marketing. No. 1, February. Department of Marketing. Odense
University, Denmark.
Roddy. G.. Cowan, C.A. and Hutchinson, G. 1996. Consumer attitudes and behaviour
to organic foods in Ireland. J. I)7t. Consumer Mac-ket 9. 41-63.
Fotopoulos. C. and Krystallis A. 2002. Organic product avoidance: reasons for
rejection aind potential buyers' identification in a counitrywide survey. Br. Foo(d J. 104.
233-260.
Mathisson. K. and Schollin. A. 1994. Konsunentta.spekter pcd Ekologi.skt Odlade
Grn.nsaker-- en jdnifiYrandestu(die (Consumer aspects on organic vegetables-a
comparative study). Report No. 18, Department of Crop Production Sciences. Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.
Tregear, A., Dent, J.B. and McGregor. M.J. 1994. The demand for organically grown
produce. Br. Food J. 96, 21-25.
Zanoli. R. and Naspetti. S. 2002. Consumer motivations in the putrchase of organic food:
a means-end approach. Br. Food J. 104. 643-653.
Jolly. D. 1991. Differences between buyers and nonbuyers of organic produce and
willingness to pay organic price premiums. J. Agrihusine.s.s 9. 97-11 1.
Soler, F.. Gil, J.M. and Sanchez. M. 2002. Consumers' acceptability of organic food in
Spain: results from an experimental auctioni market. Br. Foodl J. 104, 670-687.
Torjuseni, H., Lieblein, G., Wandel, M. and Francis. C.A. 2001. Food system orientation
and quality perception among consumers and producer-s of organic food in Hedmark
Cotunty. Norway. Food Qualiti Pref1 12, 207-216.
Wandel, M. 1994. Consumer concern and behaviour regarding food and health in
Norway. J. Cottnsumter
Studie.s Home Econ. 18. 203-215.
Land, B. 1998. Consuiners' Dietarr Pattterns Ciid Desirs.sf/r Change. Working paper no.
31 'March 1998. Centre for Market Surveillance. Research and Strategy for the Food
Sector, Aarhus School of Business. Aarhus, Denmark.
Fagerli. R.A. and Wandel, M. 1999. Gender differenices in opinions and practices with
regard to a "healthy diet." Appetite 32. 171-190.

? Royal Swedish Academy of Scicnces 2005

http: ',www.ambio.kva.se

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ambio Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005

18. Rozin, P., Fischler,C., Imada, S., Sarubin,A. and Wrzesniewski,A. 1999.Attitudesto
food and the role of food in life in the USA, Japan, Flemish Belgium and France:
possible implicationsfor the diet-healthdebate. Appetite 33, 163-180.
19. Torjusen,H., Nyberg,A. and Wandel,M. 1999.0kologisk Produsert Mat: Forbrukernes
Vurderinger og Bruksm0nster (Organic Food: Consumers' Perception and Dietary
Choices). SIFO Report 5, 1999. Statens Institutt for Forbruksforskning,Lysaker,
Norway. ISNB 82-7063-354-2.
20. Hutchins, R.K. and Greenhalgh,L.A. 1997. Organicconfusion:sustainingcompetitive
advantage.Br. Food J. 99, 336-338.
21. Makatouni, A. 2002. What motivates consumersto buy organic food in the UK? Br.
Food J. 104, 345-352.

22. Schifferstein,H.N.J. and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. 1998. Health-relateddeterminantsof

organicfood consumptionin the Netherlands.Food Quality Pref. 9, 119-133.
23. Harper, G.C. and Makatouni, A. 2002. Consumer perception of organic food
productionand farm animalwelfare.Br. Food J. 104, 287-299.
24. Bruce, A. and Lindeskog,P. 2003. Livsmedelskvalitet-ar det nagon skillnad?In: Ar
Eko Reko? Om Ekologiskt Lantbruk i Sverige. Johansson,B. (ed.). Formas, Stockholm,
Sweden,pp. 89-101. (In Swedish).
25. Williams,C.M. 2002. Nutritionalquality of organicfoods: shades or grey or shades of
green. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 61, 19-24.
26. Wier,M. and Calverly,C. 2002. Marketpotentialfor organicfoods in Europe.Br. Food
J. 104, 45-62.
27. Klont, R. 1999. Growing organicfoods. World Ingredients (May/June), 40-44.
28. Shepherd,R. 2001. Consumerattitudestowardsorganic foods in relationto perceived
food risks. Paper presented at Risk Perception, Risk Management and Risk
Communication:The Interfaceorganizedby ILSI Europe, Brussels,21 February2001.
29. Grunert, S.C. and Juhl, H. J. 1995. Values, environmentalattitudes, and buying of
organic foods. J. Econ. Psychol. 16, 39-62.
30. Von Alvensleben, R. and Altmann, M. 1986. Die Nachfrage nach alternativen
Nahrungsmitteln.Agarvirtschaft 35, 289-295. (In German).
31. Latacz-Lohmann,U. and Foster, C. 1997. From "niche"to 'mainstream"-strategies
for marketingorganic food in Germanyand the UK. Br. Food J. 99, 275-282.
32. Gardner,G. and Stern,P.C. 1996.Environmental Problems and Human Behaviour. Allyn
and Bacon, Boston.
33. Uusitalo, L. 1990. Consumerpreferencesfor environmentalquality and other social
goals. J. Conisumer Policy 13, 231-251.
34. Huang, C.L. 1996. Consumer preferencesand attitudes towards organically grown
produce. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 23, 331-342.
35. Statistics Sweden. 2003. Befolkningensutbildning:efterfragadetabeller och diagram
(http://www.scb.se/templates/Product 9565.asp).
36. Statistics Sweden. 2004. Sverigesbefolkning efter kon och alder 31/12/2003 (http://
www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart 78315.asp).
37. Magnusson, M.K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-K., Aberg, L. and Sjoddn,P.-O.
2001. Attitudestowardsorganicfoods among Swedishconsumers.Br. Food J. 103, 209226.
38. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities.2004. European Action Plan for Organic
Food and Farming. Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities,BrusselsSEC(2004)739.
39. Ajzen, 1. 1991.The theory of plannedbehavior.Organ Behav. Hum. Decision Processes
50, 179-211.
40. Shepherd,R. and Raats, M.M. 1995. Attitudes and beliefs in food habits. In: Food
Choice, Acceptance and Consumption. Meiselman, H.L. and MacFie, H.J.H. (eds.).
BlackieAcademicand Professional,London, pp. 346-364.
41. Grunert,K.G. 1995.Food quality:a means-endchain perspective.Food Quality Pref. 6,
171-176.
42. Steenkamp, J-B.E.M., ter Hofstede, F. and Wedel, M. 1999. A cross-national
investigation into the individual and national-cultural antecedents of consumer
innovativeness.J. Marketing 63, 55-69.
43. Askegaard,S. and Bruns0, K. 1999. Food-relatedlife styles in Singapore:preliminary
testingof a WesternEuropeanresearchinstrumentin SoutheastAsia. J. Euromarketing
7, 65-86.
44. Grunert,K. G., Brunso,K. and Bredahl,L. 1998. Food-relatedlifestylein France and
Germany. In: Ness Developments and Approaches in Consumer Behaviour Research.
Balderjahn,1., Mennicken,C. and Vernette, E. (eds.). Schaffer Poeschel/Macmillan,
Stuttgart,pp. 1-15.
45. Brunso, K. and Grunert, K.G. 1998. Cross-culturalsimilaritiesand differences in
shoppingfor food. J. Business Res. 42, 145-150.
46. Raats, M.M., Shepherd,R. and Sparks,P. 1995. Includingmoral dimensionsof choice
within the structureof the Theory of PlannedBehavior.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25, 484494.
47. Sparks, P., Shepherd, R. and Frewer, L.J. 1995. Assessing and structuringattitudes
toward the use of gene technology in food production:the role of perceivedethical
obligation. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 16, 267-285.
48. Tuorila-Ollikainen,H., Lahteenmaki,L. and Salovaara, H. 1986. Attitudes, norms,
intentions and hedonic responsesin the selection of low salt bread in a longitudinal
choice experiment.Appetite 18, 99-106.
49. Acknowledgments:Part of the work describedin this paper has been carriedout with
financial support from the Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities,specific RTD
program"Qualityof Life and Managementof Living Resources,""ConsumerDecision
Makingon OrganicProducts(CONDOR)."It does not necessarilyreflectits views and
in no way anticipates the Commission'sfuture policy in this area. Magnusson and
Sjoddn'sstudies were supportedby grants from the Swedish Foundation for Strategic
EnvironmentalResearchto the programFOOD-21:SustainableAgriculture.

Amblo Vol. 34, No. 4-5, June 2005

RichardShepherd is a professor of psychology and codirector

of the Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research
Centre at the University of Surrey. He is a Fellow of the
British Psychological Society and Chartered Health Psychologist. His research has centered on two main themes related
to factors influencing human food choice and risk perception
and communication.The formerhas includedthe applicationof
psychological models of attitude and attitude change to food
choice and dietary change, while the latter has included work
on trust, attitudes toward genetically modifiedfoods, and risk
communication, includingthe role of uncertainty.He currently
leads an EU projecton consumer attitudestowardorganic food
and UK projects on "Attitudes to Genomics" and on
communicating uncertaintyon food chain risks in addition to
involvement in a range of projects on aspects of consumer
behavior. His address: Food, Consumer Behaviourand Health
Research Centre, Department of Psychology, University of
Surrey, Guildford,Surrey GU2 7XH, UK.
r.shepherd@surrey.ac.uk
Maria Magnusson is researcher at the Department of Public
Health and Caring Sciences at the Universityof Uppsala. Her
research has been focused on consumer perceptions of
organic and genetically modified foods. She is currently
workingwith the EU projectCONDORand a projectconcerning simplifying strategies among consumers in their understanding of nutrition/healthinformation. Her address: Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Section of
Caring Sciences, Uppsala University,Uppsala Science Park,
SE-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden.
maria.magnusson @pubcare.uu.se
Per-Olow Sjod6n is professor at the Department of Public
Health and Caring Sciences at the Universityof Uppsala. He
has been active in research areas concerned with factors
influencing food preferences and choice for more than
a decade. Professor Sj6d6n is head of the consumer research
section of the large-scale research programFood 21: Sustainable Agriculture, financed by the Foundation for Strategic
EnvironmentalResearch. His research interests also encompass consumer responses to genetically modified foods and
consumer attitudes toward organic foods. His address: Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Section of
Caring Sciences, Uppsala University,Uppsala Science Park,
SE-751 83 Uppsala, Sweden.
per-olow.sjoden@pubcare.uu.se

? Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2005

http://www.ambio.kva.se

This content downloaded from 103.231.241.233 on Sun, 05 Apr 2015 09:35:44 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

359