Cited by 234Consumer Attitudes and Food LabelingRisk Perception and ManagementGenetically Modified Organisms Research

Predicting intentions to consume functional foods and supplements to offset memory loss using an adaptation of protection motivation theory

Open access
Cox, D.N, Koster, A, Russell, C.G·2004·Appetite

Abstract

The widespread use of dietary supplements and so-called 'functional foods' is thought to be partially motivated by self-control of health. However, whilst consumers want foods associated with well-being or disease prevention, they are unlikely to be willing to compromise on taste or technology. This presents a dilemma for promoters of functional foods. Middle-aged consumers' intentions to consume functional foods or supplements that may improve memory were tested within an adaptation of Protection Motivation theory (PMT). Participants evaluated text descriptions of four products described as: having an unpleasant bitter taste (Natural-FF); having 'additives' to reduce bitterness (Sweetened-FF); being genetically modified to enhance function (GM-FF) and Supplements. Participants were recruited as being of high and low perceived vulnerability to memory failure. In total, 290 middle-aged consumers (aged 40-60 years) participated in the study. Motivations to consume the GM-FF were the lowest. There were gender differences between intention to consume the supplements, Natural-FF and Sweetened-FF and product differences within genders. Women were less favourable than men in their attitudes towards genetic modification in general. Regression analyses indicated that PM predictors of intention to consume functional foods or supplements explained 59-63% of the variance (R2). Overall, perceived 'efficacy' (of the behaviour) and self-efficacy were the most important predictors of intentions to consume.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.appet.2004.02.003

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 61 · Cited by 234

Authors
Cox, D. N., Koster, A., & Russell, C. G.
Affiliations
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Cox, D.N
Venue
Appetite
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-08
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
55-64
ISSN
0195-6663 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2112999017
Cited by
234
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
8.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Appetite (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
Keywords
functional foods, dietary supplements, memory loss, protection motivation theory, consumer intention, perceived susceptibility, perceived efficacy, self-efficacy, genetic modification, bitterness, middle-aged consumers, gender differences, health self-control
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Attitude to Health, Female, Humans, Internal-External Control, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Memory, Middle Aged, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Regression Analysis, Sex Factors, Dietary Supplements, Food, Organic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review