Social Desirability: Consumer Aspects

  • Joop de Boer
  • Annet Hoek
  • Hanneke Elzerman
Part of the Environment & Policy book series (ENPO, volume 45)


Focus Group Discussion Meat Product Food Choice Sustainable Production Heavy User 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aurelia! (2002), Market of meat substitutes in the Netherlands (Vleesvervangers in Nederland 2002, in Dutch), Aurelia!, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Beardsworth, A., and Keil, T. (1997), Sociology on the menu: An invitation to the study of food and society, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  3. Blundell, J.E., and Rogers, P.J. (1991), “Satiating power of food”, Encyclopedia of Human Biology, Vol. 6, pp. 723–733.Google Scholar
  4. Cardello, A.V., and Schutz, H.G. (1996), “Food appropriateness measures as an adjunct to consumer preference/acceptability evaluation”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 7, pp. 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carroll-Burke, P. (2001), “Tools, instruments and engines: Getting a handle on the specificity of engine science”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, pp. 593–625.Google Scholar
  6. Costa, A.I.A., Dekker, M., and Jongen, W.M.F. (2001), “Quality function deployment in the food industry: A review”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Vol. 11, pp. 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies, J., and Lightowler, H. (1998), “Plant-based alternatives to meat”, Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 2/3, pp. 90–94.Google Scholar
  8. De Boer, J. (2004), “A psychological view on industrial transformation and behaviour”, in Olsthoorn, A.A., and Wieczorek, A.J. (Eds.), Sciences for industrial transformation: Views from different disciplines, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 27–45.Google Scholar
  9. Elias, N. (1978), The civilizing process. I. The history of manners, Basil Blackwell, London.Google Scholar
  10. Flandrin, J.L. (1999), “Dietary choices and culinary technique, 1500–1800”, in Flandrin, J.L., Montanari, M., and Sonnenfeld, A. (Eds.), Food: A culinary history from antiquity to the present, Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 403–417.Google Scholar
  11. Goldstone, J.A. (2005), “Efflorescences and economic growth in world history: Rethinking the “Rise of the West” and the Industrial Revolution”, Journal of World History, Vol. 13, pp. 323–389.Google Scholar
  12. Greenbaum, T.L. (1998), The practical handbook and guide to focus group research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Grunert, K.G., Brunsø, K., and Bisp, S. (1997), “Food-related life-style: Development of a cross-culturally valid instrument for market surveillance”, in Kahle, L., and Chiagouris, C. (Eds.), Values, lifestyles and psychographics, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 337–354.Google Scholar
  14. Hoek, A.C., Luning, P.A., Stafleu, A., and De Graaf, C. (2004), “Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers”, Appetite, Vol. 42, pp. 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hoogland, C.T., De Boer, J., and Boersema, J.J. (2005), “Transparency of the meat chain in the light of food culture and history”, Appetite, Vol. 45, pp. 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Knapp, V.J. (1997), “The democratization of meat and protein in late eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Europe”, Historian, pp. 541–551.Google Scholar
  17. Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., and Wong, V. (1999), Principles of marketing, second European edition, Prentice Hall Europe, London.Google Scholar
  18. Krueger, R.A., and Casey, M.A. (1988), Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  19. Levine, D. (2001), At the dawn of modernity: Biology, culture, and material life in Europe after the year 1000, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Lindeman, M., and Väänänen, M. (2000), “Measurement of ethical food choice motives”, Appetite, Vol. 34, pp. 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McIlveen, H., Abraham, C., and Armstrong, G. (1999), “Meat avoidance and the role of replacers”, Nutrition and Food Science, Vol. 99, pp. 29–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Meiselman, H.L., Johnson, J.L., Reeve, W., and Crouch, J.E. (2000), “Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance”, Appetite, Vol. 35, pp. 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pliner, P., and Hobden, K. (1992), “Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans”, Appetite, Vol. 19, pp. 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. PVE (2003), Market research 2002: Meat, figures and trends (Marktverkenning 2002: Vlees, cijfers en trends, in Dutch), Product Boards for Livestock, Meat and Eggs, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  25. Rosch, E., and Mervis, C.B. (1975), “Family resemblances: Studies on the internal structure of categories”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 14, pp. 573–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rosenthal, A.J. (1999), Food texture: Measurement and perception, Aspen Publishers, Gaithersburg, ML.Google Scholar
  27. Rozin, P., and Tuorila, H. (1993), “Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 4, pp. 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schifferstein, H.N.J., and Oude Ophuis, P.A.M. (1998), “Health-related determinants of organic food consumption in the Netherlands”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 9, pp. 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schutz, H.G. (1994), “Appropriateness as a measure of the cognitive-contextual aspects of food acceptance”, in MacFie, H.J.H., and Thomson, D.M.H. (Eds.), Chapman & Hall, Glasgow, UK, pp. 25–50.Google Scholar
  30. Schutz, H.G., and Pilgrim, F.J. (1958), “A field study of monotony”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 47, pp. 559–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shepherd, R. (1989), “Factors influencing food preferences and choice”, in Shepherd, R. (Ed.), Handbook of the psychophysiology of human eating, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  32. Siegel, P.S., and Pilgrim, F.J. (1958), “The effect of monotony on the acceptance of food”, American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 756–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sijtsma, L., Rabenberg, M., Janssens, R., and Linnemann, A.R. (1996), Sensory aspects of Novel Protein Foods (Sensorische aspecten van Novel Protein Foods, in Dutch), DTO werkdocument VN13, Delft, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  34. Stallberg-White, C., and Pliner, P. (1999), “The effect of flavor principles on willingness to taste novel foods”, Appetite, Vol. 33, pp. 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stearns, P.N. (2001), Consumerism in world history: The global transformation of desire, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  36. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T., and Wardle, J. (1995), “Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The food choice questionnaire”, Appetite, Vol. 25, pp. 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stone, H., Sidel, J., Oliver, S., Woolsey, A., and Singleton, R.C. (1974), “Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis”, Food Technology, Vol. 28, pp. 24–34.Google Scholar
  38. Thomas, K. (1983), Man and the natural world, changing attitudes in England (1500–1800), Allan Lane/Penguin Books, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  39. Turner, M., and Collison, R. (1988), “Consumer acceptance of meals and meal components”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 1, pp. 21–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Trijp, J.C.M., and Steenkamp, J.E.B.M. (1998), “Consumer-oriented new product development: Principles and practice”, in Jongen, W.M.F., and Meulenberg, M.T.G. (Eds.), Innovation of food production systems: Product quality and consumer acceptance, Wageningen Pers, Wageningen, pp. 37–66.Google Scholar
  41. Vialles, N. (1994), Animal to edible, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Warde, A. (1997), Consumption, food and taste: Culinary antinomies and commodity culture, SAGE, London, UK.Google Scholar
  43. Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  44. Zandstra, E.H., Weegels, M.F., Van Spronsen, A.A., and Klerk, M. (2004), “Scoring or boring? Predicting boredom through repeated in-home consumption”, Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 15, pp. 549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joop de Boer
    • 1
  • Annet Hoek
    • 2
  • Hanneke Elzerman
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute for Environmental StudiesVrije UniversiteitAmsterdam
  2. 2.Division of Human NutritionWageningen UniversityWageningen
  3. 3.Product Design and Quality Management GroupWageningen UniversityWageningen

Personalised recommendations