Predicting intentions to consume functional foods and supplements to offset memory loss using an adaptation of protection motivation theory
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- ORCID
- 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
- green
- research.wur.nl
- 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