Food Reputation and Food Preferences: Application of the Food Reputation Map (FRM) in Italy, USA, and China

Abstract

Given the food challenges that society is facing, we draw upon recent developments in the study of how food reputation affects food preferences and food choices, providing here a starting standard point for measuring every aspect of food reputation in different cultural contexts across the world. Specifically, while previous attempts focused either on specific aspects of food or on measures of food features validated in one language only, the present research validates the Food Reputation Map (FRM) in Italian, English and Chinese over 2,250 participants worldwide. Here we successfully measure food reputation across 23 specific indicators, further grouped into six synthetic indicators of food reputation. Critically, results show that: (a) the specific measurement tool of food reputation can vary across cultural contexts, and that (b) people's reputation of food products or categories changes significantly across different cultural contexts. Therefore, in order to understand people's food preferences and consumption, it is important to take into account the repertoire of cultural differences that underlies the contexts of analysis: the three context-specific versions of the FRM presented here effectively deal with this issue and provide reliable context-specific insights on stakeholders' interests, perspectives, attitudes and behaviors related to food perceptions, assessment, and consumption, which can be effectively leveraged to foster food sustainability.

Italian Food? Sounds Good! Made in Italy and Italian Sounding Effects on Food Products' Assessment by Consumers

“…The PDO product was not included for the first sample, as PDO, being an EU labeling system, is estimated to be meaningful in the EU rather than in Asia (therefore for the second sample only in Study 2); the PDO product is however included in the second sample as expatriates may have a better knowledge of the difference among PDO and non-PDO products that belong from the same country of origin (and also to further test the specific result previously obtained in Study 1, now with a non-Italian sample abroad). Study 2 also deepens the general knowledge acquired with Study 1's findings by measuring more detailed reputation profiles of the products via a list of items reproducing the main 23 features emerged in the Food Reputation Map (FRM, Bonaiuto et al, 2017;De Dominicis et al, 2020).…”

“…The second study was performed to measure the effects of the product label on perception, attitude, reputation, and WTP for a product (typically associated to Italy), by using three or four different product forms (PDO Made in Italy, Made in Italy, IS, and Generic Foreign) and by assessing more detailed reputational profiles by means of a standard tool (Bonaiuto et al, 2017;De Dominicis et al, 2020) in China considering two different sub-samples (Chinese and non-Chinese), which are relevant for their different cultural background in that national market (Huliyeti et al, 2008;Vianelli and Pegan, 2014). The third study was performed to measure the effects of the product label on perception, attitude, reputation, and WTP for a product (typically associated to Italy), by using three different product forms (Made in Italy, IS, and Generic Foreign) and by assessing detailed reputational profiles by means of a standard tool (Bonaiuto et al, 2017;De Dominicis et al, 2020) in the USA (Cembalo et al, 2008).…”

“…To measure the product's general reputation, the same one-item seven-point Likert-type scale as Study 1 was used. Reputation profiles of each product were investigated via a new 23-item set on a seven-point Likert-type scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”), created ad hoc by adapting the 23 indicators of the FRM (Bonaiuto et al, 2017 ; De Dominicis et al, 2020 ). Four items measured Essence ; four items measured Cultural Effects ; three items measured Economic Effects ; four items measured Environmental Effects ; three items measured Physiological Effects ; five items measured Psychological Effects (see Appendix C ).…”

“…Within the social–psychological literature, food features have been traditionally investigated according to some relevant dimensions affecting consumers' choices (Magnusson et al, 2003 ) and via measuring scales such as the Reasons for Eating Scale (Harmatz and Kerr, 1981 ), the Food Choice Questionnaire (Steptoe et al, 1995 ), and broader conceptual frames on food features (Conner and Armitage, 2002 ; Olivero and Russo, 2008 ). The Food Reputation Map (FRM) is probably the first validated set of scales which specifically and explicitly targets the reputation of food products by encompassing the wider array of their features: in fact, FRM includes six main areas of food reputation, articulated into 23 dimensions determining food attractiveness, based on past experiences and future expectations; moreover, such a paradigm has also been already deployed in terms of geographical and cultural differences, by testing it with consumers from both a Western and an Eastern area (Bonaiuto et al, 2012 , 2017 ; De Dominicis et al, 2020 ). It is therefore the most updated and complete paradigm to tackle the issue of a food product's features, and it can easily be adopted to study and test issues related to the COO effect paradigm, such as the IS phenomenon seems (partly, at least) to be, considering different consumer cultural sub-samples within the same geographical area.…”

Food Marketing as a Special Ingredient in Consumer Choices: The Main Insights from Existing Literature

“…However, there are new tendencies, and some segments currently privilege healthy [ 1 ] and sustainable characteristics [ 2 ]. Food consumption has several dimensions, including that of a social and cultural magnitude, and this sometimes compromises policies to change unadjusted behaviours [ 3 ] and influence food perceptions [ 4 ]. The sociodemographic and behavioural factors also have their implications [ 5 ] on consumer behaviour.…”