Impact of terminology on consumer acceptance of emerging technologies through the example of PEF technology

Jaeger, Henry; Knorr, Dietrich; Szabó, Erzsébet; Hámori, Judit; Bánáti, Diána

doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2014.12.004

Cited by 49 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Food neophobiaconsumers' fear of trying new foods is a concern (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) and may prevent consumers from eating 3D printed foods. Furthermore, consumers are afraid of new technologies (Jaeger et al, 2015;Brunner et al, 2018) and are concerned about the safety of printed food (Lupton & Turner, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumers’ attitudes towards and acceptance of 3D printed foods in comparison with conventional food products

Manstan

McSweeney

2019

Int J of Food Sci Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little research currently exists in the literature on consumers' perceptions of 3D printed foods; thus, present research aimed to investigate this topic. Two focus groups (n = 8 and 12) were conducted to identify what consumers believe about 3D food printing. Responses from the focus groups were used to create an online survey investigating consumer attitudes towards 3D printed foods in comparison with conventional foods, as well as consumer beliefs about 3D food printing. Based on the results of the survey, three clusters were identified: the markedly interested cluster (n = 140), moderately interested cluster (n = 98) and the not interested cluster (n = 91). The markedly interested cluster wanted to know more about 3D printed food, and believed it could reduce the cost of food and benefit people in the future. The moderately interested cluster was excited to try printed food. Conversely, the third cluster believed 3D printed foods were unacceptable and not safe to consume.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumers’ attitudes towards and acceptance of 3D printed foods in comparison with conventional food products

Manstan

McSweeney

2019

Int J of Food Sci Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mostly, the respondents' attitudes toward 3DFP were good ( M = 8.03, SD = 1.8), important ( M = 7.36, SD = 2.0), positive ( M = 8.13, SD = 1.7), and the respondents also indicated that the new technology should be supported ( M = 7.96, SD = 1.9). The visual representation of 3D printed products has been reported as creating a good experience among respondents (Jaeger, Knorr, Szabo, Hamori, & Banati, ). Therefore, we postulate that the actual representation of 3D printed chocolate may well have contributed to the familiarization of the technology to consumer; thus, this could have positively affected their attitudes (Lyndhurst, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, and the respondents also indicated that the new technology should be supported (M = 7.96, SD = 1.9). The visual representation of 3D printed products has been reported as creating a good experience among respondents (Jaeger, Knorr, Szabo, Hamori, & Banati, 2015). Therefore, we postulate that the actual representation of 3D printed chocolate may well have contributed to the familiarization of the technology to consumer; thus, this could have positively affected their attitudes (Lyndhurst, 2009 Overall, the outcomes of the survey provided a valuable insight into perceptions about the technology and about 3D printed chocolate products.…”

Section: Measure Of Attitude Toward 3d Printed Foodmentioning

confidence: 93%

Texture‐modified 3D printed dark chocolate: Sensory evaluation and consumer perception study

Mantihal

Prakash

Bhandari

2019

Journal of Texture Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to assess the preferences and perceptions of texture‐modified three‐dimensional (3D) printed chocolate through three measures: two tasting tests and one survey. In the first test, 30 semitrained panelists ranked their overall preference from among the three samples of chocolate printed in a honeycomb pattern with infill percentages (IPs) of 25, 50, and 100%. The panelists ranked the samples based on appearance and hardness. In the second test, the same panelists nominated one preference between a 3D printed sample (100% IP) and a cast commercial chocolate sample. Friedman test indicated that there was no significant difference in overall preferences for hardness although the panelists significantly preferred the appearance of samples with 25 and 50% over the 100% infill. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in preference between the cast and 100% infill samples. The texture data of the chocolate samples showed that a higher force was required to break the chocolate samples as the IP increased from 25% (20.4 ± 1.1 N) to 100% (54.4 ± 1.5 N). Also, the 3D printed chocolate (printed in 100% IP) was found to be less hard than that of casted chocolate. In the survey of consumer perceptions, a total of 244 participated and assessed the samples for their intricate design and novel technology concept through a questionnaire. While there was a general awareness of 3D printing technology among these participants, many were impressed with the application of 3D printing to chocolate, as this was the first time they had seen this. The results obtained from the sensory tests and consumer survey provided a useful insight into consumers' perception of 3D food printing and the 3D products design. This awareness will be beneficial to promote this technology in the food industry.

show abstract

“…Efficient marketability of an emerging technology needs unambiguous benefits for consumers. Consumer attitude determines the level of acceptance of a novel food product and this attitude depends on the method of introduction of a new product and technology [38].…”

Section: Consumer Acceptance Of Pef Treated Productsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Untitled

2017

JNHFE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Thermal inputs for food preservation generally dominate the food processing industry. However such treatments may lead to several undesirable changes in quality attributes and nutritional value of food. On the contrary, non-thermal preservation methods have a minimal impact on the sensory quality and nutritional status of food. Several non-thermal techniques have been involved in food preservation with an objective to maintain the nutritional properties and physic-chemical characteristics of food products. In this regard, pulsed electric field provides an alternative choice for various food products, particularly for liquid foods, for better preservation and maintenance of fresh-like quality aspects of food. Correspondingly, this memoir highlights the potential of pulsed electric field technology as an effective tool to preserve various foods with special reference to microbial inactivation. Additionally, principles, associated mechanistic approaches, effect of this treatment on food quality and problems linked with the consumer acceptance are also discussed in this script.

show abstract

Impact of terminology on consumer acceptance of emerging technologies through the example of PEF technology

Cited by 49 publications

References 34 publications

Consumers’ attitudes towards and acceptance of 3D printed foods in comparison with conventional food products

Consumers’ attitudes towards and acceptance of 3D printed foods in comparison with conventional food products

Texture‐modified 3D printed dark chocolate: Sensory evaluation and consumer perception study

Untitled

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About