Comparing the Meanings of Food in Different Chinese Societies: The Cases of Taiwan and Malaysia

Abstract

Existing literature sheds little light on how Chinese consumers in any two societies perceive and consume food. In this study, the food perceptions of Taiwanese and Malaysian Chinese consumers are compared using a projective technique. Using images collected by respondents, both conscious and tacit interpretations of food were obtained. Findings reveal that Taiwanese and Malaysian Chinese share similar, but not identical, food perceptions. In this study, food is interpreted from a triadic framework: utilitarian (health, sustenance); hedonic (freedom, happiness, excitement, enjoyment, knowledge acquisition, love); and symbolic (sharing, warm relationships with others). Based on the emerged findings, the theoretical contributions of the study are highlighted, a number of managerial implications are proposed, and future research opportunities are recommended.

Solo dining in Chinese restaurants: A mixed-method study in Macao

“…Prior researchers proposed a triadic framework, encompassing the utilitarian, hedonic, and social motives to food and eating ( Khoo-Lattimore et al, 2016 ). Eating alone is commonly associated with utilitarian motives as opposed to the social motives of communal eating ( Takeda and Melby, 2017 ).…”

“…The emphasis on sharing and communal eating is also found in Chinese communities outside of mainland China ( Yang et al, 2014 ). Prior research has revealed the underlying meanings of group dining and food sharing in a collectivist Chinese culture, which include a way to maintain and develop interpersonal relationship and to represent social status ( Khoo-Lattimore et al, 2016 ; Ma, 2015 ). Eating together also plays an important role in rituals, celebrations, and remembrances in Chinese culture ( Yang et al, 2014 ).…”

Developing a Theory of Surprise from Travelers’ Extraordinary Food Experiences

“…Tourists can enjoy new food at any time of the year, and revenue from food spending can provide alternatives to those seasonal tourism activities that depend on temperature and climate (Kivela and Crotts 2006). To understand this market, research has been carried out on such areas as travelers’ food preferences (e.g., Chang, Kivela, and Mak 2010; Khoo-Lattimore, Yang, and Lai, 2016; Ramkissoon and Nunkoo 2010; Sánchez-Cañizares and Castillo-Canalejo 2015), tourists’ satisfaction with culinary events and restaurants (Bowden and Dagger 2011; Bowden-Everson, Dagger, and Elliott 2013), and their motivation to consume local foods (Sánchez-Cañizares and Lopez-Guzman 2012; Chang, Kivela, and Mak 2010; Frash, DiPietro, and Smith 2015; Jacob, Boulbry, and Guéguen, 2017; Kim and Eves 2012; Lu and Gursoy, forthcoming). With the rise of the experience economy, researchers have also endeavored to understand consumption of local foods as an experience (Walls et al 2011).…”

The State of Qualitative Research in Hospitality: A 5-Year Review 2014 to 2019

“…In recognition of the significance of addressing the transparency of data collection and data analysis, the authors provided a detailed account of the hotels analyzed based on theoretical sampling, and further described in sufficient detail both the research method and the analysis methods (i.e., the structural qualitative content analysis and detailed structure analysis). For another example, Khoo-Lattimore et al (2016) compared the food perceptions of Taiwanese and Malaysian Chinese consumers using a projective technique, where respondents were instructed to collect images and then participate in a 90-min in-depth interview. The authors presented a thick description of the unique research technique they employed (a psychoanalytical tool called the Zaltman metaphor elicitation technique), respondents’ recruitment, a nine-step data collection method, as well as data analysis of the transcribed interview data.…”