2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Physiological responses of food neophobics and food neophilics to food and non-food stimuli

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
39
0
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
2
39
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Subsequently for each participant, a FNS sum score was obtained by summing the raw scores according to the procedure described by Pliner and Hobden (1992). Based on these scores, the participants were classified as neophobics and non-neophobics (e.g., see Henriques, King, & Meiselman, 2009;Meiselman et al, 2010) according to the group median score (used as the cut-off; see Raudenbush & Capiola, 2012). It is worth noting that despite the increasing number of studies performed on food neophobia, a shared methodology to categorise people as a function of their degree of neophobia is still missing (for examples of alternative methods, see Meiselman et al, 2010;Tuorila & Mustonen, 2010;Tuorila et al, 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsequently for each participant, a FNS sum score was obtained by summing the raw scores according to the procedure described by Pliner and Hobden (1992). Based on these scores, the participants were classified as neophobics and non-neophobics (e.g., see Henriques, King, & Meiselman, 2009;Meiselman et al, 2010) according to the group median score (used as the cut-off; see Raudenbush & Capiola, 2012). It is worth noting that despite the increasing number of studies performed on food neophobia, a shared methodology to categorise people as a function of their degree of neophobia is still missing (for examples of alternative methods, see Meiselman et al, 2010;Tuorila & Mustonen, 2010;Tuorila et al, 2001).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, past research does show that the presentation of novel foods elicits an aroused physiological response. Food neophobics have significantly increased pulse, Galvanic skin response, and respirations when presented with novel food items as compared with food neophilics, or individuals with an overt willingness to consume novel foods [3]. Other rationale behind food neophobic behavior may be supported by the research related to phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) sensitivity, where said individuals have a gene that allows them to detect the bitter taste of PTC [4].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Evidence for consuming fewer nutrients may also support cephalic response inhibiting perceived appetite [5]. With several nutrients being lower in intake across food neophobics, presence of a physiological difference in reactions to several novel foods containing a variety of nutrients can be viewed as intuitive and the possibility of a genetic difference in these individuals may be viewed as more likely [3,4].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, Raudenbush and colleagues have provided evidence for physiological responses to food neophobia, such as decreased pre-ingestive salivation (40) and increased galvanic skin response (27) , and speculated that a physiological component may contribute to individual differences in nutrition and weight. Other potential factors that could mediate effects of food neophobia on diet and weight include chemosensory exploration and perceptions (41) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No standardized or widely followed diagnostic cut-off values exist for classifying individuals as 'food neophobics' and 'food neophilics' based on their FNS score (12) . Often the sample mean (or median) FNS score (18,24,(27)(28)(29) , or the score 35 (30) , has been used as the cut-off value to categorize study participants into two groups. Another common practice is to use the mean plus/minus one standard deviation as cut-off values (11,14,31,32) to form three groups.…”
Section: Food Neophobiamentioning
confidence: 99%