Open-Ended Emotive Projection Test: A Nondeterministic Method for Understanding Consumers’ Emotional Reactions to Innovative Food Processing Technologies

Figures & data

Table 1. Information given to participants in each of the experimental conditions.

Experimental condition	Information given to the participants
Control	Food product processed as usual
Innovative Processing Technology (IPT)	Food product processed using innovative processing technologies
IPT + benefit
Convenience	Food product processed using innovative processing technologies for increasing convenience in your daily life
Health	Food product processed using innovative processing technologies for improving the effect food has on your health
Sustainability	Food product processed using innovative processing technologies for improving environmental sustainability
Quality	Food product processed using innovative processing technologies for improving the quality

Figure 1. The four pictures shown to participants based on Adams et al. (2016).

Table 2. Social and demographic characteristics of the representative Norwegian sample population (n = 1206).

Characteristic	Option	%	Characteristic	Option	%
Region	Oslo/Akershus	23.9	Mean age		48.66
	Rest Østland	19.2	Gender	Female	49.2
	Sørlandet	13.6		Male	50.8
	Vestlandet	26	Personal yearly income (NOK)	< 100,000	5.6
	Trøndelag/Nord-Norge	17.2		100,000–99,999	5.6
Lifecycle situation	Pre-family	25.7		200,000–299,999	11.4
	Young family	10.9		300,000–399,999	13.6
	Adult family	18.5		400,000–499,999	18
	Active Empty Nesters	25.8		500,000–599,999	11.5
	Senior Citizens	19.2		600,000–699,999	6.6
Family situation	Living with parent(s)	4.1		700,000–799,999	4.5
	Single parent	4.6		800,000–899,999	2.2
	Single	31.3		900,000–999,999	1.2
	Couple with child(ren)	24		> 1,000,000	2
	Couple without child(ren)	32		Prefer not to report	13.8
	Other with child(ren)	0.8		Don’t know	3.9
	Other without child(ren)	3.2	Household yearly income	< 100,000	3
Marital status	Divorced	7.3		100,000–199,999	2.9
	Registered couple	0.7		200,000–299,999	6.8
	In relationship, living alone	7.5		300,000–399,999	8
	Cohabiting	19.5		400,000–499,999	9.3
	Married	37.6		500,000–599,999	8.3
	Separated	1.9		600,000–699,999	6.6
	Single	23.5		700,000–799,999	9
	Widow(er)	2.2		800,000–899,999	7
Number of children in household	0	74.5		900,000–999,999	6.6
	1	11.4		> 1,000,000	12.9
	2	10		Prefer not to report	14.5
	3	3.2		Don’t know	5.1
	4	0.6	Household size	1	29.9
	5 or more	0.3		2	38.8
Education	Primary	7.5		3	12.9
	High school	36.8		4	12.7
	University etc. (1–3 years)	29.9		5	3.5
	University etc. (≥ 4 years)	25.2		6	1.3
	Prefer not to report	0.7		7	0.6
Occupation	Retired	20.7		8 or more	0.2
	Unemployed	11.9	Residential area size (number of residents)	Capital area	16.2
	Homemaker	3.2		> 50,000	30.1
	Student	9.3		5000–49,999	29.9
	Employed (Office)	23.2		< 5000	23.1
	Employed (Skilled)	23.8		Don’t know	0.7
	Self-employed	4.6
	Other	3.3

Figure 2. Open-Ended Emotive Projection Test results; dimension 1 (30.0%), dimension 2 (21.4%).

Table 3. Mean Emotive Projection Test responses per experimental condition.

	Experimental condition
	Control	IPT	Convenience	Health	Sustainability	Quality	Total	F	p
Open	3.7	3.6	3.5	3.7	3.7	3.8	3.7	1.6	0.17
Suspicious	3.8	3.8	3.8	3.9	3.88	3.8	3.8	0.2	0.95
Happy	3.6	3.6	3.5	3.6	3.6	3.6	3.6	0.5	0.76
Stressed	3.0	3.1	3.1	3.0	3.0	3.1	3.1	0.2	0.96

Figure 3. Consumers’ impressions of information regarding food processed using IPT; dimension 1 (51.8%), dimension 2 (22.1%).

Table 4. Appropriateness of IPT, IPT with benefits and control for different product categories.

	Experimental condition
	Control	IPT	IPT + health	IPT + convenience	IPT + quality	IPT + sustainability	F		p
Ready-to-eat salad mix	4.68a	4.10b	4.33ab	4.79a	4.37ab	3.92b	7.57		0.000
Ready-to-eat dressings, soup, vegetables and potatoes	4.25bc	4.74ab	4.28bc	4.90a	4.59ab	3.93c	9.56		0.000
Salads	4.88a	3.61c	4.14bc	4.34ab	4.07bc	4.02bc	12.46		0.000
Vegetables	5.14a	3.53c	4.00bc	4.03bc	4.05bc	4.21b	19.06		0.000
Frozen vegetables	4.79a	4.11b	4.44ab	4.69a	4.49ab	4.36ab	4.09		0.001
Milk	5.21a	3.60c	3.87bc	3.77bc	4.20b	3.89bc	22.06		0.000
Milk-based products	4.79a	4.26ab	4.21b	4.20b	4.52ab	3.99b	6.05		0.000
Juice or Smoothies	4.64a	4.50ab	4.39ab	4.52ab	4.48ab	3.98b	3.65		0.003
Potatoes	4.91a	3.03c	3.41bc	3.49bc	3.62bc	3.85b	24.63		0.000

Different letters within the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 5. Differences in consumer willingness to try, eat and pay between experimental condition groups.

	Experimental condition
	Control	IPT	IPT + health	IPT + convenience	IPT + quality	IPT + sustainability	F	p
Willingness to try	4.16a	3.47b	3.39b	3.43b	3.38b	3.52b	21.28	0.000
Willingness to eat	4.00a	3.53b	3.51b	3.48b	3.51b	3.62b	9.55	0.000
Willingness to pay	3.08a	2.71b	2.92ab	2.83ab	2.86ab	2.98a	5.41	0.000

Different letters within the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 6. Differences in consumer attitudes between experimental condition groups.

	Experimental condition
	Control	IPT	IPT + health	IPT + convenience	IPT + quality	IPT + sustainability	F	p
Attitude	5.32a	4.35b	4.47b	4.29b	4.56b	4.80b	12.98	0.000

Different letters within the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

Table 7. Differences in consumer-reported appropriateness of communication between experimental condition groups.

	Experimental condition
	Control	IPT	IPT + health	IPT + convenience	IPT + quality	IPT + sustainability	F	p
Keeps fresh for longer time	4.79b	5.27ab	5.21ab	5.27ab	5.37a	4.98ab	4.33	0.001
Easy to plan	5.00ab	4.96ab	4.79ab	5.15a	4.85ab	4.64b	2.94	0.012
Avoids food waste	5.00	4.96	4.96	5.09	5.24	5.24	1.37	0.231
Better taste	4.93	4.58	4.87	4.47	4.96	4.67	3.22	0.007
Healthier	5.01	4.81	5.12	4.77	4.87	4.99	1.29	0.268
More vitamins	4.86	4.84	4.92	4.78	4.78	4.88	0.22	0.955
Less sugar	4.92	5.14	5.34	4.92	5.10	5.09	1.92	0.089
Sustainable	4.97	4.84	4.97	4.84	4.95	5.25	1.74	0.123

Different letters within the same row indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

Adams, R. B., Jr., Garrido, C. O., Albohn, D. N., Hess, U., & Kleck, R. E. (2016). What facial appearance reveals over time: When perceived expressions in neutral faces reveal stable emotion dispositions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 986. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00986

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar