J Nutr Health.  2018 Dec;51(6):590-598. 10.4163/jnh.2018.51.6.590.

Comparison of food involvement scale (FIS) and use intention for block type sauce between US and Japanese consumers

• Lee H
• Kim SJ
• Lee MA

• KMID: 2455846
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4163/jnh.2018.51.6.590

Abstract

PURPOSE
This study was conducted to compare the food involvement scale (FIS) of American and Japanese consumers. In addition, the effects of familiarity, likability, and expectations on willingness to use intentions for block type sauce by nationality were evaluated.
METHODS
A total of 149 and 112 American and Japanese consumers, respectively, completed the survey. Consumers were asked about familiarity, likability, expectation, willing to use intention, and usage frequency of block type sauce, food involvement scale (FIS), and demographic information.
RESULTS
There were differences in the using frequency of block type sauce according to nationality, with consumers in Japan showing significantly higher frequency of using block type sauce than those in the United States (US) (p < 0.001). According to the FIS, US consumers were more focused on how to provide food than food, such as cooking process, table setting, and food shopping, compared to Japanese consumers. In addition, "˜expectation' and "˜likability' among US consumers and "˜expectation' and "˜familiarity' among Japanese consumers were positive attributes for willing to use intention (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION
In the case of the US consumers, "˜familiarity' was not significant because the using frequency of the block type sauce was lower than that of Japanese consumers. In the case of the Japanese consumers, "˜likability' was not significant because they enjoy cooking itself according to the FIS. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize positive attributes as a key factor for block type sauce, as well as to search for ways to apply marketing strategies based on attributes by nationality.

Keyword

block type sauce; food involvement scale; use intentions

MeSH Terms

Asian Continental Ancestry Group*
Cooking
Ethnic Groups
Humans
Intention*
Japan
Marketing
Recognition (Psychology)
United States

Reference

1. Beharrell B, Denison TJ. Involvement in a routine food shopping context. Br Food J. 1995; 97(4):24–29.

2. Zaichkowsky JL. Measuring the involvement construct. J Consum Res. 1985; 12(3):341–352.

3. Bell R, Marshall DW. The construct of food involvement in behavioral research: scale development and validation. Appetite. 2003; 40(3):235–244.

4. Marshall D, Bell R. Relating the food involvement scale to demographic variables, food choice and other constructs. Food Qual Prefer. 2004; 15(7-8):871–879.

5. Kang JH, Jeong HJ. Measuring the moderating effect of food involvement in the relationship between food choice motives and fruit consumption. Korean J Food Cult. 2008; 23(4):448–454.

6. Barker M, Lawrence W, Woadden J, Crozier SR, Skinner TC. Women of lower educational attainment have lower food involvement and eat less fruit and vegetables. Appetite. 2008; 50(2-3):464–468.

7. Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA). Global market report - Japan food market trend and export guideline [Internet]. Seoul: KOTRA;2015. cited 2018 Oct 22. Available from: http://news.kotra.or.kr/user/reports/kotranews/20/usrReportsView.do?reportsIdx=6355.

8. Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation. 2017 processed food segment market status: HMR market [Internet]. Naju: Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation;2017. cited 2018 Nov 8. Available from: http://www.atfis.or.kr/article/M001050000/view.do?articleId=2736&page=2&searchKey=&searchString=&searchCategory=.

9. Lee SC, Song KO. Effect of food involvement, HMR selection attributes and repurchase intention - Focused on female consumers. J Tourism Leis Res. 2018; 30(3):157–175.

10. National Restaurant Association (US). National Restaurant Association releases annual chef predictions on “what's hot” for menu trends in 2018 [Internet]. Washington, D.C: National Restaurant Association;2017. cited 2018 Oct 13. Available from: https://www.restaurant.org/Pressroom/Press-Releases/Whats-Hot-in-2018.

11. Jang SH. Trend and future direction for domestic HMR products. Food Ind Nutr. 2017; 22(1):13–17.

12. Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation. 2015 processed food segment market status: sauce and dressing market [Internet]. Naju: Korea Agro-Fisheries & Food Trade Corporation;2015. cited 2018 Nov 8. Available from: https://www.atfis.or.kr/file/download.do?fileId=4412.

13. Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA). US sauce market trend [Internet]. Seoul: KOTRA;2014. cited 2018 Oct 22. Available from: http://news.kotra.or.kr/user/globalBbs/kotranews/25/globalBbsDataView.do?setIdx=254&dataIdx=129862.

14. Park SR, Choi YO, Youn KS, Kim SD. Preparation and characteristics of kimchi tablet. Korean J Posthaverst Sci Technol. 2001; 8(3):302–307.

15. Datamonitor (UK). Consumer and innovation trend in sauces, dressings, and condiments. London: Datamonitor;2012.

16. Steptoe A, Pollard TM, Wardle J. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: the food choice questionnaire. Appetite. 1995; 25(3):267–284.

17. de Barcellos MD, Aguiar LK, Ferreira GC, Vieira LM. Willingness to try innovative food products: as comparison between British and Brazilian consumers. Braz Admin Rev. 2009; 6(1):50–61.

18. Hoek AC, Luning PA, Weijzen P, Engels W, Kok FJ, de Graaf C. Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite. 2011; 56(3):662–673.

19. Fenko A, Backhaus BW, van Hoof JJ. The influence of product-and person-related factors on consumer hedonic responses to soy products. Food Qual Prefer. 2015; 41:30–40.

20. Pelchat ML, Pliner P. “Try it. You'll like it.” Effects of information on willingness to try novel foods. Appetite. 1995; 24(2):153–165.

21. Tuorila H, Andersson A, Martikainen A, Salovaara H. Effect of product formula, information and consumer characteristics on the acceptance of a new snack food. Food Qual Prefer. 1998; 9(5):313–320.

22. Yamada Y, Kawabe T, Ihaya K. Can you eat it? A link between categorization difficulty and food likability. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2012; 8(3):248–254.

23. Kremer S, Shimojo R, Holthuysen N, Koster EP, Mojet J. Consumer acceptance of salt-reduced “soy sauce” foods over rapidly repeated exposure. Food Qual Prefer. 2013; 27(2):179–190.

24. Stefani G, Romano D, Cavicchi A. Consumer expectations, liking and willingness to pay for specialty foods: do sensory characteristics tell the whole story? Food Qual Prefer. 2006; 17(1-2):53–62.

25. Mela DJ. Why do we like what we like? J Sci Food Agric. 2001; 81(1):10–16.

26. Tan HS, Fischer AR, van Trijp HC, Stieger M. Tasty but nasty? Exploring the role of sensory-liking and food appropriateness in the willingness to eat unusual novel foods like insects. Food Qual Prefer. 2016; 48:293–302.

27. Euromonitor International (UK). Sauces, dressings and condiments global. London: Euromonitor International;2018.

28. Euromonitor International (UK). Sauces, dressings and condiments in US. London: Euromonitor International;2017.

29. Euromonitor International (UK). Sauces, dressings and condiments in Japan. London: Euromonitor International;2017.

30. Jang HJ, Choi BR, Yi NY, Park BS, Kim HS. Preferences and product development opinions of Koreans and non-Koreans regarding commercialization of Korean foods. Korean J Food Cookery Sci. 2010; 26(4):458–468.