Food neophobia: a key barrier to consumer acceptance of seafood in Sweden Elena Costa Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science University of Gothenburg 2025 To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Science of the University of Gothenburg, for public examination at 13:00 on Friday the 21st of November 2025 at the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Natrium (room Stenbrottet), Medicinaregatan 7B, Gothenburg, Sweden. Main supervisor: Dr. Elizabeth S. Collier 4, 1 Co-supervisors: Dr. Jun Niimi 1 Dr. John Armbrecht 3 Dr. Anders Ho gberg 5 Dr. Henrik Sundh 2 Examiner: Prof. Dr. Kristina Sundell 2 1RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Division of Bioeconomy & Health, Sweden 2University of Gothenburg, Department of Biological & Environmental Sciences, Gothenburg, Sweden 3University of Gothenburg, Department of Business Administration, Gothenburg, Sweden 4Linko ping University, Department of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences, Linko ping, Sweden 5Orkla Foods Sverige Opponent: Prof. Dr. Michael Siegrist Department of Health Sciences and Technology ETH Zu rich ii FOOD NEOPHOBIA: A KEY BARRIER TO CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE OF SEAFOOD IN SWEDEN Elena Costa Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences University of Gothenburg Box 463, SE-405-30 Gothenburg SWEDEN E-mail: elena.costa@ri.se Copyright © Elena Costa 2025 Published papers and respective figures in this thesis are reprinted with permission from the publishers. ISBN: 978-91-8115-513-6 (Print) ISBN: 978-91-8115-514-3 (PDF) Illustrations: Elena Costa NENMÄRK VA E Printed by: Stema Specialtryck AB, Bora s, Sweden 2025 Trycksak 3041 0234 iii S T Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. vi Sammanfattning på svenska ........................................................................................................ vii List of publications ......................................................................................................................... viii Contribution of the authors........................................................................................................... ix Keywords.............................................................................................................................................. ix Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................................. x Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................... xi 1. Background. To eat, or not to eat? .................................................................................. 1 2. Theoretical and conceptual framework ....................................................................... 2 2.1. Learning to accept (or reject) foods 2 2.2. Consumer acceptance 5 2.3. Emotions and consumer acceptance 9 2.4. The origins and implications of food neophobia 10 2.4.1. An evolutionary perspective ..................................................................................... 11 2.4.2. A developmental perspective ................................................................................... 12 2.4.3. Understanding food neophobia in adults............................................................ 14 2.4.4. Implications of food neophobia on consumer acceptance .......................... 16 2.4.5. The arousal hypothesis ............................................................................................... 17 2.5. Food neophobia and consumer acceptance of seafood 18 3. Knowledge gaps and aims ............................................................................................... 21 3.1. Knowledge gaps 21 3.2. Aims and research questions 22 4. Methodological considerations..................................................................................... 24 4.1. Food neophobia as a continuous consumer trait 24 4.1.1. Tools to measure food neophobia .......................................................................... 25 4.1.2. Food neophobia: trait or state? ............................................................................... 27 4.1.3. The challenge of recruiting participants with higher FN ............................ 27 4.2. Measuring consumer acceptance 28 4.3. Measuring sensory perception 29 4.4. Measuring expectations 30 4.5. Measuring food familiarity 31 4.6. Measuring emotions 32 4.7. Context matters 34 iv 4.8. Data analysis 35 4.9. Ethical considerations 37 5. Results and discussion ..................................................................................................... 38 5.1. Results 38 5.2. Discussion 42 5.2.1. FN: a key barrier to consumer acceptance of seafood .................................. 42 5.2.2. Emotional experiences and the decision to try foods .................................... 44 5.2.3. Negative expectations are exacerbated by FN ................................................. 46 5.2.4. Tackling FN to increase and diversify seafood acceptance......................... 47 5.3. Implications 50 5.3.1. Theoretical contributions .......................................................................................... 50 5.3.2. Implications for the food industry ......................................................................... 52 5.3.3. Implications for consumers....................................................................................... 54 5.3.4. Societal implications: diversity on the plate ...................................................... 56 5.4. Limitations 58 6. Concluding remarks .......................................................................................................... 61 Funding ................................................................................................................................................ 62 Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 63 About the author .............................................................................................................................. 65 References .......................................................................................................................................... 66 v Abstract Food neophobia (FN), the reluctance to eat novel foods, serves an evolutionary protective function against the consumption of potentially harmful substances. Despite high modern food safety standards, FN remains a barrier to consumer acceptance, dietary variety, and the adoption of novel foods, including meat substitutes, insects and cultured meat. FN can also limit acceptance of familiar foods such as seafood, which has often been overlooked in efforts to support more nutritious and sustainable diets. This thesis investigated the relationship between FN and consumer acceptance of seafood, in order to better understand FN as a barrier to increasing and diversifying seafood consumption among Swedish adults. Paper I explores the factors shaping seafood choices at the point of purchase and shows that current consumers limit their choices to familiar species. Paper II provides evidence that preparing oysters in formats beyond the traditional presentation could increase acceptance and attenuate the negative impact of FN. Paper III investigates the mechanisms underlying the relationship between FN and liking after tasting a novel surimi-based product and identifies emotional arousal as a mediator. Paper IV examines consumers’ own descriptions of their expectations towards different types of seafood, revealing that texture is a commonly disliked sensory modality and that FN amplifies negative expectations. Lastly, Manuscript V demonstrates that modifying the texture of mussels and oysters into a pate reduces negative expectations and increases consumer acceptance. The findings highlight the negative impact of FN on consumer acceptance of various seafood species across different evaluation settings and reveal emotional arousal as a key underlying mechanism. In addition, they also contribute to and challenge the conceptualization of FN. Both short- and long-term practical strategies are proposed to tackle neophobic tendencies, supporting the transition to healthier, more sustainable and diversified diets in Sweden. vi Sammanfattning på svenska Matneofobi, det vill sa ga motviljan att prova ny mat, a r en evolutiona r skyddsmekanism vars syfte a r att fo rhindra konsumtion av potentiellt farliga livsmedel. Trots dagens ho ga livsmedelssa kerhet utgo r matneofobi fortfarande ett hinder fo r konsumentacceptans, kostvariation och vid lansering och etablering av nya livsmedel sa som ko ttersa ttningsprodukter, insekter eller odlat ko tt. Matneofobi kan a ven fo rekomma i relation till va lka nda livsmedel som sjo mat – en kategori som ofta fo rbises i omsta llningen mot mer na ringsrika och ha llbara kostvanor. Denna avhandling underso ker sambandet mellan matneofobi och konsumenters acceptans av sjo mat, i syfte att fo rdjupa fo rsta elsen fo r hur matneofobi kan utgo ra ett hinder fo r svenska vuxna att o ka ba de konsumtionen och ma ngfalden av sjo mat i sin kost. I Artikel I analyseras de bakomliggande faktorer som pa verkar konsumenters val av sjo mat i matbutiker. Studien visar att valet ofta begra nsades till arter som konsumenterna redan var bekanta med. I Artikel II studeras hur alternativa tillagningsmetoder fo r ra a ostron pa verkar konsumenters uppfattningar och beteenden. Resultaten visade att tillagning o kade acceptansen och minskade de negativa effekterna av matneofobi. Artikel III fokuserar pa sambandet mellan matneofobi och tycke av en ny surimibaserad produkt vid provsmakning, och visade att emotionell arousal var en medierande faktor. I Artikel IV analyseras konsumenters egna beskrivningar av sina fo rva ntningar pa olika typer av sjo mat. Studien visade att konsistens ofta upplevs som en negativ sensorisk egenskap, och att matneofobi fo rsta rkte dessa negativa fo rva ntningar. I Manuskript V visas att na r musslor och ostron serverades som pastej, i sta llet fo r hela, minskades konsumenternas negativa fo rva ntningar pa produkten och acceptansen o kade. Sammantaget visar resultaten att matneofobi har en negativ pa verkan pa konsumenters acceptans av olika typer av sjo mat i flera olika sammanhang och att emotionell arousal a r en viktig bakomliggande mekanism. Dessutom bidrar resultaten till, och utmanar, konceptualiseringen av matneofobi. I avhandlingen fo resla s ba de kort- och la ngsiktiga praktiska strategier fo r att hantera neofobiska tendenser fo r att sto dja o verga ngen till mer ha lsosamma, ha llbara och diversifierade kostvanor hos svenskar. vii List of publications Paper I. Costa, E., Bergman, P., Niimi, J. and Collier, E.S. (2024). Exploring seafood choices at the point of purchase among a sample of Swedish consumers, British Food Journal, Vol. 126 No. 13, pp. 269-285. Paper II. Costa, E., Wrange, A. L., Collier, E. S., Niimi, J., & Strand, A . (2023). Beyond raw: Investigating alternative preparation methods as a tool to increase acceptance of oysters in Sweden. Future Foods, 7, 100217. Paper III. Costa, E., Niimi, J., & Collier, E. S. (2023). The relationship between food neophobia and hedonic ratings of novel foods may be mediated by emotional arousal. Food Quality and Preference, 109, 104931. Paper IV. Costa, E., Niimi, J., & Collier, E. S. (2025). The negative association between food neophobia and sensory expectations revealed through analysis of consumers’ open-ended descriptions of seafood. Food Quality and Preference, 123, 105332. Manuscript V. Costa, E., Niimi, J., & Collier, E. S. (submitted). From first sight to first bite: how texture influences expectations and actual consumption of bivalves in two different evaluation contexts. Publications not included in this thesis: Collier, E.S., Costa, E., Harris, K.L., Bendtsen, M., Niimi, J., 2024. Still just a matter of taste? Sensorial appreciation of seafood is associated with more frequent and diverse consumption. Appetite 198, 107369. Costa, E., Collier, E. S., & Niimi, J. Methodologies in sensory and consumer sciences for the evaluation of seafood products, In: “Handbook of Seafood and Seafood Products Analysis”, 2nd edition, for CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA. viii Contribution of the authors Across Papers I-V, Elena Costa conceptualized and designed the studies, conducted data collection, and analyzed and interpreted the results. She was responsible for drafting and editing all manuscripts; and was corresponding author. Dr. Elizabeth S. Collier had a leading supervisory role throughout, contributing to the conceptualization and design, data analysis, results validation, and overseeing the project administration. She also contributed to data visualization and reviewed/edited all manuscripts. Dr. Jun Niimi contributed to the conceptualization and methodology of Papers II-V, assisted with data collection and analysis in Papers III and V, provided additional supervision, and reviewed/edited all manuscripts. Papers I and II involved the collaboration of other authors. In Paper I, Dr. Penny Bergman contributed to the conceptualization, provided supervision, facilitated access to resources (i.e., eye tracking equipment), and secured funding. For Paper II, Dr. Åsa Strand contributed to the conceptualization, data collection, and reviewed/edited the manuscript. In the same paper, Dr. Anna-Lisa Wrange contributed to the conceptualization, data collection, project funding and administration, and reviewed/edited the manuscript. The work presented in this thesis has been carried out at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden in collaboration with University of Gothenburg, between 2021 and 2025. The project was part of and funded by the Blue Food Centre for future seafood. Keywords Consumer acceptance, sensory evaluation, food neophobia, seafood, novel foods, sensory expectations, hedonic response, arousal, familiarity, behavior, eye tracking, open-ended responses, mixed methods, context, food choice. ix Glossary of terms Consumer acceptance: domain of study that investigates the factors that influence consumers’ food-related behaviors, including liking, food choice and consumption (Cardello & Schutz, 2006). Food-related behaviors: includes observable external actions (e.g., food choice and consumption) as well as internal processes (e.g., sensory, emotional and cognitive) when consumers interact with a given food within their environment. Food neophobia: consumer trait defined as a general reluctance to eat and/or avoidance of novel foods (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). Liking or hedonic response: affective evaluation captured either before (i.e., hedonic expectations, sometimes referred to as expected liking) or after tasting (i.e., liking) a given food or when presented in other ways, for example as food names or images (Cardello et al., 2000). Emotions: brief affective responses focused on a referent, i.e., food (King & Meiselman, 2010), resulting from a complex interplay of physiological, experiential, cognitive and motivational components (Cardello & Jaeger, 2021). Arousal: state of experienced activation (Smith et al., 2025), linked to changes in the autonomic nervous system, e.g., increasing heart rate, skin conductance, and respiration (Prescott & Spinelli, 2024). Food preference: the selection of a food item from a set of alternatives, shaped by factors such as liking (Birch, 1999). A certain item might be chosen (preferred) but not necessarily liked and vice versa (Mela 2001). Novel foods: although defined by the European Commission as ”food that has not been consumed to a significant degree by humans in the European Union before 15 May 1997” (European Commission, 2025), it also refers to foods rarely found or eaten in the countries in which they were evaluated (Martins & Pliner, 2005). In this thesis, “novel foods” refers to foods not commercially available in Sweden. Food familiarity: evaluation made by an individual regarding their past experience with foods, ranging from not recognized and not tasted x (unfamiliar) to tasted and frequently consumed (familiar). Thus, familiarity is “in the eye of the beholder” (Havermans, 2025) and not limited to tasting experiences; instead it includes visual, contextual or categorical knowledge regarding a food (Aldridge et al., 2009). Evolution: process by which changes in physical or behavioral characteristics occur over multiple generations, as a result of genetic variation, interaction with the environment, and natural selection (Domjan & Delamater, 2023b). Sensory and consumer science: interdisciplinary field focused on understanding how products are experienced through the senses and consumer behavior more generally, evaluating food and non-food items among humans and/or animals (Jaeger et al., 2025). Abbreviations FN – Food Neophobia FNS – Food Neophobia Scale FDS – Food Disgust Scale CATA – Check-all-that-apply ANOVA – Analysis of variance OR – Odds ratio BWS – Best-Worst Scaling VAS – Visual Analogue Scale xi xii “Try a thing you haven’t done three times. Once, to get over the fear of doing it. Twice, to learn how to do it. And a third time, to figure out whether you like it or not.” ― Virgil Garnett Thomson xiii 1. Background. To eat, or not to eat? Eating is a complex behavior, often taken for granted. Although humans must eat to survive, foods fulfill other functions beyond nutrition. Foods provide pleasure, play a key role in social interactions, and shape individual and cultural identity (Gracia Arnaiz, 2000). At the same time, foods are a source of anxiety and concern. Eating is a uniquely intimate behavior that involves incorporating an external substance into the body, an experience that is rarely neutral (Rozin, 1999). Novel foods present both an opportunity and a threat, a paradox known as the omnivore’s dilemma (Rozin, 1977). As an omnivorous species, humans must strike a balance between the need to explore a variety of foods and the need to avoid potential adverse consequences. Consequently, individuals tend to approach novel foods with caution, favoring familiar options whenever possible. The tendency to avoid novel foods is known as food neophobia (FN), which is defined as the “reluctance to eat and/or avoidance of novel foods” (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). FN likely served an evolutionary protective function, keeping consumption “locked in on a safe track” (Schulze & Watson, 1995). In modern times, FN is still a major barrier to the acceptance of novel foods that are safe and beneficial (Tuorila & Hartmann, 2020). This is critical in a world facing mounting environmental and societal challenges, where access to food may be at risk. Broadening consumer acceptance to a wider range of foods can reduce the vulnerability of current food systems and enhance their resilience (IPES-Food, 2016). In addition, adequately feeding a growing world population requires a shift towards healthier foods with lower environmental impact (Poore & Nemecek, 2018). Dietary diversity is also essential to meet nutritional needs while reducing over-reliance on a limited number of species (Aschemann- Witzel et al., 2019). Therefore, addressing FN is crucial in the transition towards healthier, more sustainable, and diversified diets. 1 2. Theoretical and conceptual framework This section provides an overview of the processes underlying consumer acceptance, conceptualized here as food-related behaviors, and highlights the role of emotions in shaping these behaviors. It then examines the origins and implications of food neophobia, lastly focusing on seafood acceptance. 2.1. Learning to accept (or reject) foods As with many other human behaviors, eating is a learned behavior. Individuals need to navigate their environment, identifying which foods are safe, when to eat them, and how to prepare and consume them. This takes place from direct and indirect experience (e.g., in-store availability, conversations), through the filter of culture and social interaction (Blake, 2008). While there are biological predispositions that guide food preferences, such as a bias to prefer sweet and avoid bitter substances (Birch, 1999), these predispositions are not fixed and can be modified as a result of learning. An individual’s ability to adjust food preferences is particularly advantageous in a changeable environment (Modlinska & Pisula, 2018). Repeated exposure is fundamental to transforming initial food rejection into acceptance. Through the process of habituation, an individual’s negative response to a novel stimulus tends to diminish with repeated encounters (Domjan & Delamater, 2023c). As few as nine exposures can attenuate the initial neophobic response (Hausner et al., 2012). Exposure has been linked to increased liking of novel foods (“mere exposure”, Zajonc, 1968), in both children (Birch & Marlin, 1982) and adults (Pliner, 1982). Exposure begins even before birth, as flavors from the mothers’ diet are transferred through the amniotic fluid (Ustun et al., 2022), and continues afterwards through breastfeeding and early childhood experiences (Cooke & Fildes, 2011). In addition, the presence of other individuals consuming a given food can increase acceptance (“exposure by proxy”, Hobden & Pliner, 1995). 2 Food acceptance is shaped by classical or Pavlovian conditioning (Pavlov, 1927), a learning process in which an initially neutral stimulus is associated with a biologically relevant unconditioned stimulus (US, e.g., food) that elicits an unconditioned response (UR, e.g., salivation). Through repeated pairings, the CS alone evokes a conditioned response (CR, e.g., salivation) similar to the UR. Importantly, Pavlovian conditioning enables individuals to detect relationships between events in the environment, to effectively anticipate and prepare for the US (Domjan, 2005). For example, visual food cues become signals that elicit anticipatory responses and prepare the individual for eating (Urcelay & Domjan, 2022). Learning to anticipate is essential and, in some cases, it can be life-saving. This is most evident in flavor-consequence learning, a form of classical conditioning in which a flavor (CS) is paired with the effects following its consumption (US). When the flavor is paired with negative effects following consumption, such as illness, this is known as “taste aversion” or the “Garcia effect” (Garcia & Koelling, 1966). Taste aversions typically lead to food avoidance and are rapidly acquired (Rozin & Todd, 2015). They can occur even with a single trial, and after long delays between consumption and the adverse effect (e.g., 24 hours later), indicating a biological predisposition (Gradowski, 2024). Although nausea was initially identified as the main unconditioned stimulus in the development of taste aversions (Parker, 2003), evidence has shown that other aversive internal effects (e.g., internal pain, drugs of abuse) can also induce them (Lin et al., 2017). When consuming an unfamiliar food, arousal increases to maintain vigilance for any internal deviations (Reilly, 2018). If no aversive effects follow consumption, the flavor becomes associated with safety, and both intake and palatability increase through repeated exposure (“learnt safety”, Kalat and Rozin, 1973). Conversely, if aversive effects follow consumption, taste aversion occurs and it tends to be long-lasting (Lin et al., 2017). The decision to consume an unknown or uncertain substance involves a high risk of adverse consequences. In addition, negative outcomes tend to be more salient than positive ones, a phenomenon known as generalized negativity bias (Rozin & Royzman, 2001). Memories of illness can trigger avoidance of foods sharing common features, through a generalization 3 process (Domjan, 2018). It has been suggested that FN and taste aversion are related protective mechanisms that are activated when suspicious substances are consumed (Lin et al., 2017). Interestingly, taste aversions are relatively common, in particular for food categories such as meat and seafood (Mattes, 1991). Pavlovian conditioning is involved in the development of emotions towards food. Through evaluative conditioning, changes in liking occur when an emotionally neutral flavor (CS) is paired with a flavor that already has positive or negative emotional valence (US). This has been used to promote food acceptance, for instance by pairing vegetables with a sweet flavor (Havermans & Jansen, 2007). A related strategy involves the use of “flavor principles”, which are combinations of spices and flavors characteristic within a cuisine (Rozin, 1973). The association of unfamiliar flavors with familiar ones facilitates the adoption of new ingredients and food products (Pliner & Stallberg-White, 2000). Lastly, another fundamental learning process that shapes how individuals interact with their environment and is relevant to food-related behaviors is instrumental or operant conditioning. In operant conditioning, the occurrence of a stimulus depends on an individual’s behavior, and learning takes place through the consequences of that behavior. The outcome (i.e., either reward or punishment) increases or decreases the likelihood of that behavior occurring in the future. Reinforcers strengthen behavioral responses and are differentiated into positive reinforcement, when providing a positive stimulus; and negative reinforcement, when removing a negative one (Skinner, 1953). Pavlovian and operant conditioning processes often interact, and the two- factor theory of avoidance proposes that avoidance behaviors result from such interaction (Domjan & Delamater, 2023a). As shown in Figure 1, warning cues signal an aversive stimulus and elicit a conditioned emotional response (e.g., fear, disgust). Once established, the individual either prevents or escapes the aversive stimuli through avoidance behaviors, for example by refusing to consume the food or by restricting intake. These behaviors are negatively reinforced through fear and/or disgust reduction, acting as a loop and increasing the likelihood of future avoidance behaviors. Although this theory has not yet been explicitly 4 applied in the context of FN, it provides a relevant theoretical framework for understanding avoidance behaviors and potential intervention strategies. Figure 1. Generalized behavioral model for avoidance behaviors This section has provided an overview of the learning processes underlying consumer acceptance, which contribute to understanding FN. These processes enable individuals to adapt to their environment and learn how to interact with the foods around them. The following section is focused on consumer acceptance and the factors that influence food- related behaviors. 2.2. Consumer acceptance Consumer acceptance of foods is influenced by an individual’s unique learning history as well as the broader eating context. Culture acts as a filter and limits food exposure, for example by restricting access if its consumption is considered dangerous (Pliner & Salvy, 2006). Through this filter, culture plays a crucial role in shaping which foods are perceived as edible, appropriate, or disgusting (Rozin, 2006). The main focus when investigating consumer acceptance is to understand food-related behaviors from the intended end users (Cardello & Schutz, 2006). As illustrated in Figure 2, acceptance reflects individuals’ experience and can only be measured indirectly through food-related behaviors (Cardello, 1994). Such food-related behaviors are, for instance, hedonic ratings (i.e., liking) and preferences (i.e., food choices). Although liking is often used as a proxy for preference, and considered to be 5 relatively stable, there are other factors that influence actual food choices. Depending on the evaluation context, a food may be liked but not chosen, or chosen despite not being liked (Mela 2001). Figure 2. Model of food-related behaviors, adapted from Cardello (1994) Consumers make several food choices every day. Yet, these decisions are mostly effortless, automatic, and occur within seconds (Hamlin, 2010). Food choice is influenced by a variety of factors and has been examined across different disciplines (Ko ster & Mojet, 2007a). Several descriptive models have identified the main factors predicting food choice. From a broad perspective, food choices can be understood as the result of a complex interplay of biological, cultural and psychological factors, within a specific historical context (Rozin, 2006). Alternatively, food choice is commonly conceptualized as the interaction between the characteristics of the food (e.g., intrinsic sensory properties), the consumer (e.g., demographics, individual differences), and the surrounding environment (e.g., availability, social context) (Shepherd & Raats, 1996). One of the most widely used frameworks for understanding food choices and other food-related behaviors is the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991). According to the TPB, behavior is directly influenced by intentions, which are guided by three factors: attitudes, social norms and perceived behavioral control. The TPB has been extensively applied within sensory and consumer science to understand the conscious and controlled aspects of decision making and predict behavioral intentions, though there are limitations to this theory (Ko ster, 2009; Rozenkowska, 2023; Viglia et al., 2024). An important limitation is that the TPB 6 considers emotions as background factors with an “indirect effect on behavior” (Ajzen, 2011). Consumers may not always be aware or able to verbalize the reasons for their automatic behaviors (Carlucci et al., 2015), and most everyday food choices are guided by habits, previous experience, and emotions (Ko ster, 2009). These behaviors often rely on heuristics, namely shortcuts that simplify decision making by reducing the amount of relevant information (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011). Emotional factors (e.g., affect heuristic) play an important role in consumer choices, particularly under conditions of uncertainty (Slovic et al., 2007). For example, a recent study on insect acceptance showed that emotional factors had an explanatory power beyond the variables included in the TPB (Onwezen et al., 2019). Another limitation of the TPB is related to its predictive validity. The model assumes that intentions are the strongest predictor of behavior; and therefore has focused on intentions as a proxy for behavior. However, intentions do not necessarily translate into behavior, a phenomenon known as the intention-behavior gap (Sheeran, 2002). The discrepancy between intentions and behavior highlight that other factors influence food choices, and this is crucial when investigating consumer acceptance. For example, in a study examining a novel insect-based food, the TBP model demonstrated lower predictive ability for actual behaviors compared to behavioral intentions (Menozzi et al., 2017). In the context of FN, this limitation is particularly problematic since measures of actual behavior are rarely included. A more comprehensive model of food-related behaviors was proposed by Mojet (Figure 3, cited in Ko ster, 2009). This model acknowledges the important role of psychological factors, including emotions, previous experiences and individual differences. By integrating these with other biological, sociocultural, and situational factors, it captures the complex nature of food-related behaviors and underscores the need for interdisciplinary research. 7 Figure 3. Main factors that influence food-related behaviors (adapted from Köster 2009, initially proposed by Mojet) Individuals continuously generate predictions about future events and prepare to interact with their environment (Barsalou, 2011). This requires anticipating potential outcomes, and taking action to avoid or mitigate negative consequences (Grupe & Nitschke, 2013). Expectations result from the interaction between the context, the product and consumer-related factors such as previous experience and personality traits (Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015). In the context of foods, expectations refer to the prediction of sensory attributes as well as the consequences of consumption (Cardello, 2007). These expectations are formed before consumption, when distal senses (i.e., vision, olfaction and audition) detect relevant exteroceptive cues (Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015). Consumers are able to detect deviations based on previous experience, even when these are not verbally accessible (Ko ster & Mojet, 2015). Large discrepancies between expectations and experience can lead to strong contrast effects, resulting in food rejection (Yeomans et al., 2008). To reduce uncertainty when encountering unfamiliar dishes, consumers rely on visual cues, e.g., food images in restaurant menus (Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015) or, in Japan, hyper-realistic wax models of food known as “sampuru”. Since prior experience and expectations influence consumer acceptance, understanding these factors is crucial. 8 2.3. Emotions and consumer acceptance Emotions are integral to consumer acceptance and food-related behaviors (Cardello and Schutz, 2006). However, it was only recently that they began to receive attention within sensory and consumer science (King & Meiselman, 2010; Meiselman et al., 2022). Arousal, a key construct ingrained across many theories of emotion (Smith et al., 2025), refers to the state of experienced activation linked to changes in the autonomic nervous system such as increasing heart rate, skin conductance, and respiration (Prescott & Spinelli, 2024). The importance of arousal was already emphasized by William James (1890) who proposed that emotions arise from the perception of bodily changes. James positioned arousal as a precursor of emotional experiences, and also suggested that individuals vary in how they perceive bodily changes, leading to differences in their emotional experiences (Lacasse, 2017). In other words, “variability is the norm” across individuals and situations (Barrett et al., 2004). Contemporary theories consider emotions as inherently individual; emerging from the interplay of physiological, experiential, cognitive, and motivational factors (Cardello & Jaeger, 2021). Rather than discrete states (e.g., fear, disgust) with corresponding distinct physiological responses, emotions are considered constructed experiences resulting from an ongoing process of perception and prediction of cues (Barrett et al., 2004). As proposed by the theory of constructed emotion (Barrett, 2016), these predictions rely on exteroceptive cues (from the external environment, e.g., visual and auditory) as well as interoceptive cues (from the internal organism, e.g., heart rate), which are shaped by previous experiences. In the context of foods, past interactions activate representations that help anticipate sensory input and categorize emotions (Papies et al., 2020). Importantly, it has been observed that individuals differ in terms of interoceptive awareness, namely the perception of internal events (Barrett & Simmons, 2015). For example, Barrett et al., (2004) found that individuals with greater interoceptive ability (i.e., more sensitive to their heartbeats) emphasized the arousal-based properties of their emotional experiences. Individual differences in perception and prediction of such 9 cues may influence decision making (Lacasse, 2017), and by extension consumer acceptance and food choice. Emotional experiences allow individuals to respond effectively to their environment by orienting resources in preparation for action (Lang & Bradley, 2013). Although diverse, emotional experiences activate two opposed motivational systems corresponding to approach and avoidance tendencies (Elliot, 2014). The appetitive system drives approach behaviors toward positive stimuli, while the defensive system guides avoidance behaviors away from negative stimuli (Bradley, 2009). Both systems involve heightened attention and arousal (Lang & Bradley, 2013). At low levels of arousal, no action is required; however, as arousal increases, these systems guide behavior towards or away from relevant stimuli, such as foods. The circumplex model conceptualizes emotional experiences along the two main dimensions of “core affect”: valence and arousal (Russell, 1980). Valence ranges from pleasure to displeasure, and arousal from high to low activation (Larsen & Diener, 1992). Often visualized as a compass, with independent horizontal (valence) and vertical axes (arousal), the space can be further divided into quadrants, leading to eight affective states (e.g., activated pleasant, unactivated pleasant, activated unpleasant, unactivated unpleasant). This model provides a useful framework to examine how emotional experiences influence consumer acceptance and is therefore relevant to this thesis. 2.4. The origins and implications of food neophobia Throughout history, choosing what, when, and how to eat has been a crucial challenge for humans and other animals (Airington et al., 2025). Even a single mistake, for instance consuming the “wrong” food or eating it the “wrong” way (e.g., raw instead of cooked), could have fatal consequences. Given these high risks, FN evolved as a protective mechanism to detect and avoid the consumption of harmful substances. 10 2.4.1. An evolutionary perspective “All fungi are edible. Some are only edible once.” ― Sir Terry Pratchett Similar to other omnivorous animal species, humans are capable of consuming a wide variety of foods. This dietary flexibility has been a key evolutionary advantage, enabling adaptation to diverse ecosystems (Armelagos, 2014). Human diets gradually expanded from being predominantly plant-based to incorporating more animal foods, a transition supported by domestication (Breslin, 2013; Rozin, 1976). Dietary flexibility offers benefits, but it also carries notable risks. Consuming unfamiliar foods increases the likelihood of ingesting harmful substances (Cashdan, 1998), and the costs of such errors are typically more severe than missing out on a safe food opportunity (Havermans, 2025). To minimize such risks, the tendency is to err on the side of caution by carefully assessing safety before consumption (Modlinska & Pisula, 2018), often adopting conservative strategies such as consuming small quantities (Bradley, 2009). However, in the absence of negative effects and with repeated consumption, the food is deemed safe and palatability tends to increase (Lin et al., 2012). FN reflects the challenge known as “omnivore’s dilemma” (Rozin, 1977): the need to broaden the eating repertoire to meet nutritional needs while simultaneously avoiding harmful consequences (Rozin & Todd, 2015). Natural selection likely favored FN and related mechanisms (e.g., taste aversion, Section 2.1), serving as a first line of defense within the behavioral immune system (Schaller & Park, 2011). In other words, individuals that remained cautious towards unfamiliar foods were more likely to survive and reproduce, and those who consumed them indiscriminately were less likely to do so. Indeed, humans tend to show reluctance to eat foods that have not been tried before or that the culture has categorized as “not food” (Cashdan, 1998), keeping consumption “locked in on a safe track” (Schulze & Watson, 1995). Although FN is a biological predisposition, there are large variations between individuals. These differences can be conceptualized as the interplay of three levels: phylogenetic, cultural, and ontogenetic selection 11 (Catania, 2013). Phylogenetic selection operates at the evolutionary level, by shaping innate behavioral predispositions that contributed to species survival over multiple generations. Cultural selection arises within the social environment, reinforcing or extinguishing certain eating behaviors (e.g., through observational learning and verbal behavior). At the individual level, ontogenetic selection involves the selection of behaviors over the course of a lifetime and results in a unique learning history (through the processes described in Section 2.1). Together, these three levels of selection shape how FN is expressed in individuals (Bishop et al., 2020). 2.4.2. A developmental perspective From a developmental perspective, FN is considered an adaptive phase that protects young children in a period of vulnerability (Cashdan, 1994). Children primarily learn to differentiate foods early in life, often displaying neophobic behaviors such as mouth closure or spitting when exposed to novel or unusual tastes (e.g., bitter, sour). These behaviors become even more pronounced around 20 months, when foods are rejected on sight (Harris, 2018). Foods perceived as “different” from those previously experienced are typically rejected (Birch & Marlin, 1982), highlighting the importance of visual cues in FN (Brown & Harris, 2012; De Kock et al., 2022). Early food rejection has been linked to an attentional bias towards potentially threatening stimuli, including unfamiliar foods (Brown & Harris, 2012; Maratos & Staples, 2015). It may also reflect categorization difficulties, as children rely on visual features rather than global representations to recognize foods (Harris, 2018). For example, children with higher FN distinguish foods from non-foods less accurately (Foinant et al., 2022) and tend to adopt more conservative strategies, categorizing more food items as non-foods compared to children with lower FN (Foinant et al., 2022). Evidence also suggests that increased visual exposure could improve food categorization over time (Rioux et al., 2018). Pliner (2008) applied the schema framework to explain individual differences in FN. Food schemas are cognitive representations that 12 organize food-related knowledge and guide categorization (Blake, 2008). These schemas comprise characteristic features associated with different food categories (e.g., vegetables or fruits) and once formed, are relatively resistant to change (Pliner, 2008). Aversive experiences with a food, such as being pressured to eat, contribute to the formation of negative schemas towards similar foods. Research shows that individuals tend to prefer moderately incongruent products, as these can be assimilated into existing schemas, whereas extremely incongruent products are often perceived as aversive as they require the development of new schemas (Noseworthy et al., 2014). Complementary to this perspective, it has been suggested that FN is perceptually driven, and that rejection occurs when a given food is not visually recognized or does not match previous expectations (Brown & Harris, 2012). Thus, foods with visual characteristics that largely differ from the “prototype” are perceived as aversive and rejected on sight (Brown & Harris, 2012). FN tends to increase as children begin to explore their environment more independently (Cashdan, 1994). FN typically peaks between the ages of two and six, and attenuates thereafter (Figure 4), stabilizing in adulthood (Dovey et al., 2008). Some evidence suggests that FN increases again in older adults, possibly due to heightened safety concerns (Hazley et al., 2022; Siegrist et al., 2013). However, the FN trajectory over the lifespan remains poorly understood due to a lack of longitudinal data. Figure 4. Changes in food neophobia over the lifespan (adapted from Dovey, 2008) 13 FN research has primarily focused on early childhood, a critical period for establishing long-term dietary habits and often a major concern for parents (Ko ster & Mojet, 2007a). Children with higher FN tend to consume fewer vegetables, fruits, meat, and fish (Cooke et al., 2003; Helland et al., 2017). One of the most effective strategies to mitigate the impact of FN and promote food acceptance is repeated and positive exposure to a variety of foods during childhood (Dovey et al., 2008). This approach gradually reduces anxiety and broadens food acceptance, increasing both intake and palatability (Maier et al., 2007; Pliner, 2008). In addition to early and frequent exposure, other factors including mealtime distractions and parental modeling also play an important role in children’s food acceptance (Liu et al., 2024). At home, parents act as gatekeepers by selecting, purchasing, preparing, and serving foods (Owen et al., 2018; Wansink, 2002). Their own avoidance tendencies can influence their children’s long-term dietary habits (Pellegrino & Luckett, 2020b). Thus, while addressing FN in children remains crucial, targeting adults is equally important as they shape the dietary preferences of future generations. 2.4.3. Understanding food neophobia in adults FN is not merely a transient developmental phase, as food preferences established during childhood often persist into adulthood. Estimates suggest that 30-40% of adults report high levels of FN (Jaeger et al., 2017; Meiselman et al., 2010). Beyond age, demographic factors such as higher education and urbanization have been associated with lower FN (Rabada n & Bernabe u, 2021). As introduced in Section 2.4.1, individual differences in FN result from interactions between genetic predispositions (Knaapila et al., 2011) and environmental factors, which can either amplify or attenuate these predispositions (Cooke, 2018). The first instrument to assess FN in adults was the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS), a self-report measure developed by Pliner & Hobden (1992). Conceptualized as a trait, it was formally defined as the “reluctance to eat and/or avoidance of novel foods” (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). In this sense, FN reflects a general tendency to avoid novel foods, which remains 14 relatively stable across contexts and over time. Although research has traditionally focused on children, a growing body of literature has begun to examine FN in adults as well. Recently, Coulthard et al., (2022) proposed the SEA model (Sensory, Emotional, cognitive Association), indicating that adults’ decisions to try novel foods are influenced by a combination of sensory, emotional and cognitive factors. The term “phobia” is central to the construct of FN, though its use has been increasingly questioned. FN was originally considered an inappropriate fear response to foods that pose no real threat in modern societies (Pliner et al., 1993). From this perspective, rejecting culturally safe and beneficial foods is maladaptive, potentially leading to nutritional deficiencies and social difficulties. However, labeling FN as a “phobia” implies a diagnostic framework, suggesting that it should be evaluated according to clinical criteria similar to those outlined in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This dichotomous approach assumes clear-cut boundaries between individuals that “have” FN and those who do not. For instance, Nezlek et al. (2021) argue that the term “phobia” fails to capture the continuum of approach-avoidance behaviors and it carries a strong negative connotation. It also overlooks the evolutionary function of FN, since avoidance behaviors are individual adaptations to the environment. This evolutionary perspective (Section 2.4.1) remains relevant, even in modern food contexts with high safety standards. This becomes evident when considering that indiscriminate consumption of certain foods or ingredients (e.g., large quantities of nutmeg or raw cassava) can still be harmful if not consumed, prepared, and stored appropriately. FN has been closely linked with picky eating (Cooke et al., 2006). The two constructs appear to be highly correlated (Taylor et al., 2015) and share a common etiology (Smith et al., 2017). This overlap has prompted debate as to whether FN constitutes a distinct construct or is a component of picky eating (Dovey et al., 2008). Picky eating lacks a consistent definition, measurement, and terminology (Taylor et al., 2015), a common issue in the literature known as the “jingle-jangle” (Elson et al., 2023). Conceptually, these constructs have been differentiated by defining FN as the reluctance to try novel foods and picky eating as a broader reluctance to accept both familiar and novel foods (Dovey et al., 2008). Although the 15 boundaries remain blurred, the present thesis focuses specifically on FN and, therefore, picky eating was not assessed. Another related construct is Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID), an eating disorder recognized in the DSM-5. ARFID is characterized by restrictions in food intake that interfere with nutritional and/or psychosocial functioning, and is differentiated from other eating disorders (e.g., anorexia or bulimia) which typically involve body image concerns. Some researchers have suggested that ARFID may belong to the same continuum as FN (Dovey, 2018), with differences in the frequency and intensity of food rejection. It is worth noting that the studies in this thesis were conducted with non-clinical adults and therefore did not involve individuals diagnosed with ARFID. 2.4.4. Implications of food neophobia on consumer acceptance Despite its definition, FN has broader implications that extend beyond reluctance towards novel foods. Individuals with higher FN consume a narrower range of nutrients (Capiola & Raudenbush, 2012; Hazley et al., 2022), and are less likely to adhere to recommended dietary patterns including the Mediterranean diet (Predieri et al., 2020). Moreover, their intake of key components such as vegetables and fish is typically lower (Hazley et al., 2022; Knaapila et al., 2011; Siegrist et al., 2013). Overall, evidence indicates that FN is an important barrier to adopting a balanced and diverse diet (for a review see Rabada n & Bernabe u, 2021). FN reduces acceptance across a wide range of foods, also familiar ones (Jaeger et al., 2017; Laureati et al., 2018; Tuorila et al., 2001). Individuals with higher FN are more responsive to foods with “warning” sensory characteristics, including bitterness, astringency or sourness (Laureati et al., 2018). Such food cues tend to elicit heightened arousal, indicating uncertainty and “unknown costs” (Çınar et al., 2021). Thus, researchers have proposed that arousal constitutes a key mechanism underlying FN. 16 2.4.5. The arousal hypothesis The arousal hypothesis posits that individuals higher in FN experience heightened emotional activation when confronted with foods (Jaeger, Chheang, & Prescott, 2021). Early evidence by Pliner et al. (1995) demonstrated that inducing higher arousal, by informing participants that they would give an impromptu speech, resulted in a reduced likelihood of selecting novel foods. This also explains the phenomenon of “context safety”, where neophobia is higher in unfamiliar contexts compared to familiar ones, thereby reducing novel food consumption (De la Casa, 2018). Moreover, individuals with higher FN tend to experience heightened arousal when confronted with novel foods (Pliner & Melo, 1997). Physiological measures support this, as individuals high in FN display increased heart rate, galvanic skin response, and respiration in response to food-related stimuli (Raudenbush & Capiola, 2012). Importantly, heightened arousal among individuals with higher FN may not be limited to novel foods. It has been observed that these individuals sniff food odors more cautiously (Raudenbush et al., 1998), and produce less salivation when anticipating the consumption of both familiar and novel foods (Raudenbush et al., 2003). Even after tasting novel foods, they are less willing to consume these again (Raudenbush & Frank, 1999). As previously noted, individuals with higher FN are more responsive towards certain “warning” food characteristics (Laureati et al., 2018). In addition to food novelty, other characteristics that induce heightened arousal include high intensity, complexity, perceived danger, and foods from other cultures (Jaeger, Chheang, & Prescott, 2021). It has been observed that individuals with higher FN experience unpleasantly high levels of arousal in particular to foods with these characteristics, leading to lower acceptance (Jaeger et al., 2023). Such arousal-inducing characteristics closely align with Berlyne's (1960) concept of “collative properties”, namely novelty, complexity, conflict, surprise, and uncertainty. These properties arise from comparing a given stimulus with other stimuli or with prior experience (Berlyne, 1960). According to arousal theories, individuals seek to maintain an optimal level of arousal for effective functioning (Hebb, 1949). Berlyne (1970) further proposed that hedonic responses vary with arousal level, 17 following an inverted U-shaped relationship: as arousal increases, hedonic value rises to an optimal point and then declines when arousal is excessive. When arousal deviates from the optimal, it elicits an aversive state and individuals engage in avoidance behaviors that allow to regulate arousal levels (Pliner & Melo, 1997). This explains why, under conditions of high arousal, consumers evaluate incongruent products (i.e., that disconfirm their expectations) less favorably (Noseworthy et al., 2014). However, an individual’s optimal level can shift with increasing exposure to stimuli with high arousing properties (Dember & Earl, 1957), reinforcing the importance of repeated exposure to normalize food consumption. Within this framework, food rejection can be explained by the interaction between an individual’s optimal arousal level, the arousing properties of the food, and the arousing properties of the context (Pliner & Loewen, 2002). According to the Uncertainty and Anticipation Model of Anxiety (Grupe & Nitschke, 2013), anticipatory responses to the uncertainty of threats are central to anxiety and shape how individuals perceive and respond to events. Indeed, individuals with higher FN are more attentive towards foods perceived as a potential threat (i.e., warning sensory cues, Laureati et al., 2018) and anticipate more negative outcomes. These, in turn, further contribute to increased reactivity and avoidance behaviors (Grupe & Nitschke, 2013). Heightened anticipatory anxiety, i.e., unpleasantly high levels of arousal, thus provides a plausible mechanism to explain avoidance behaviors towards both novel and familiar foods. 2.5. Food neophobia and consumer acceptance of seafood “He was a bold man that first ate an oyster!” ― Jonathan Swift Understanding FN as a barrier to consumer acceptance is particularly relevant given the need to transition away from land-based animal foods (e.g., beef and pork) towards more sustainable options, such as plant- based meat alternatives (Tuorila & Hartmann, 2020). FN consistently limits acceptance across a wide range of alternative proteins (Onwezen et al., 2021), including meat substitutes (Hoek et al., 2011), insects 18 (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016; La Barbera et al., 2018), and cultured meat (Siegrist & Hartmann, 2020). Beyond reducing willingness to try unfamiliar foods (Tuorila et al., 2001), FN also predicts lower willingness to try healthier alternatives of familiar foods (Schickenberg et al., 2008). Interestingly, individuals tend to be more reluctant to try novel animal- based foods than novel plant-based foods (Çınar et al., 2021; Pliner & Salvy, 2006). Most research to date has focused on the “green shift” strategy, aiming to reduce consumption of land-based animal foods by promoting consumer acceptance of plant-based foods. In contrast, seafood has received comparatively less attention, despite being a highly diverse category that includes freshwater and marine organisms, e.g., fish, crustaceans, mollusks, and algae. Shifting consumption towards both plant-based and aquatic foods is a promising strategy to mitigate climate change (Hoegh- Guldberg et al., 2023). Seafood can broaden food diversity to strengthen food system resilience (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2019), as well as enhance global food security (Costello et al., 2020). Notably, most seafood groups outperform land-based animal foods in terms of nutritional and environmental impact (Bianchi et al., 2022). Thus, a complementary “blue-green shift” strategy that incorporates seafood alongside plant- based foods provides an opportunity to diversify diets while obtaining multiple nutritional benefits (Bernhardt & O'Connor, 2021). This approach could be particularly appealing to consumers seeking to reduce their meat consumption but hesitant to adopt exclusively plant-based diets. In addition to being a valuable source of protein, seafood contains micronutrients (e.g., vitamin D, B12), minerals (e.g., iron, zinc), and omega-3 fatty acids (Bernhardt & O'Connor, 2021). In particular, low- trophic aquaculture species such as farmed mussels should be promoted since they provide high nutritional value with relatively low environmental impact (Bianchi et al., 2022; Hallstro m et al., 2019). Notably, their production requires no feed, freshwater, or land use (Willer et al., 2021). Despite its potential, seafood consumption in Sweden has declined since 2019 (from 1.9 portions per week to 1.6 portions per week), moving 19 further away from the National Food Agency recommendation of 2−3 portions per week (Axelsson & Hornborg, 2025). An additional concern is that consumption remains limited to very few species, mostly salmon, herring, cod, and shrimp (Axelsson & Hornborg, 2025; Collier et al., 2024). On the other hand, the consumption of bivalves (e.g., mussels and oysters) has declined by −37% and −47%, respectively, since 2019 (Axelsson & Hornborg, 2025), although they provide a nutritious and sustainable alternative to land-based animal foods (Willer et al., 2021). Previous studies have linked FN to lower consumption of fish (Siegrist et al., 2013) and seaweed (Birch et al., 2019). Some evidence also suggests that individuals with higher FN show lower preference for seafood, which has been identified as one of the most disliked food categories (Jaeger et al., 2017). These findings indicate that FN may be an important barrier to consumer acceptance of seafood, with emotional arousal potentially explaining this relationship (Figure 5). Nevertheless, research has yet to examine this association across a diverse range of seafood species and to elucidate its underlying mechanisms. Figure 5. Conceptual model illustrating the hypothesized relationship between FN and acceptance of seafood (i.e., food-related behaviors such as hedonic ratings and decision to try) A short-term strategy that could support the dietary transition, while mitigating the potential negative impact of FN, is the development of novel seafood products. Given that 50-75% of food products fail shortly after launch (Dijksterhuis, 2016), early assessment of consumer acceptance is critical to market success. By identifying consumption barriers at an early stage, this thesis provides guidance for the design and development of future seafood products. 20 3. Knowledge gaps and aims 3.1. Knowledge gaps Consumer acceptance is crucial in the transition towards healthier, more sustainable, and diverse diets. Identifying and reducing barriers to consumption is an essential first step to facilitate dietary change (Wansink, 2002). FN has been consistently identified as a key barrier to consumer acceptance, although research focusing on adult populations remains limited (Laureati et al., 2018; Soucier et al., 2019). Furthermore, the underlying mechanisms are not yet fully understood and behavioral measures are lacking. This thesis investigates FN in relation to consumer acceptance among adults and examines how it relates to sensory and hedonic expectations, emotional arousal, and actual eating behavior. The findings provide guidance to mitigate neophobic tendencies and diversify consumption towards more nutritious alternatives with lower environmental impact. Research in sensory and consumer science has largely focused on promoting acceptance of plant-based foods, while seafood has been relatively overlooked (Bianchi et al., 2022). In line with the complementary “blue-green shift” strategy, this thesis specifically focuses on the seafood category. In Sweden, seafood consumption remains below dietary recommendations and is limited to few species (Axelsson & Hornborg, 2025; Collier et al., 2024; Hornborg et al., 2021). It is therefore needed to increase and diversify demand, promoting seafood groups with high nutritional value and low environmental impact (Bianchi et al., 2022; Hallstro m et al., 2019). However, it is unclear how FN influences consumer acceptance across a wider range of seafood types with different levels of familiarity. Given that seafood may be particularly challenging for individuals with higher FN (Jaeger et al., 2017), this thesis examines its impact on consumer acceptance of seafood. 21 3.2. Aims and research questions The overarching aim of this thesis is to gain a deeper understanding of FN as a barrier to increasing and diversifying seafood consumption in Sweden. To achieve this aim, the thesis examines the following research questions across five studies (see Figure 6 and Table 1): - RQ1: What are the main factors shaping seafood choices at the point of purchase, among current seafood consumers in Sweden? (Paper I) - RQ2: Could alternative preparation formats (i.e., beyond raw) increase consumer acceptance of oysters, and how does FN relate to hedonic expectations? (Paper II) - RQ3: What mechanisms underlie the relationship between FN and hedonic ratings, both prior to and after tasting? (Papers III-V) - RQ4: How does FN relate to consumer sensory expectations of different types of seafood? (Papers IV and V) - RQ5: Could modifying the texture of bivalves (i.e., mussels and oysters) into a pate reduce negative sensory expectations and increase consumer acceptance? (Manuscript V, Study 1 and 2) The samples used in Papers III and V are commercially available products that have not yet entered the Swedish market. Thus, the findings can support the development of seafood products in Sweden and serve as a reference for increasing acceptance of other categories beyond seafood. Figure 6. Overview of the main research themes examined in this thesis 22 Table 1. Overview of studies included in this thesis Title Authors Methodology Published (I) Exploring seafood Mixed methods, choices at the point of Costa, E., Bergman, P., combining purchase among a Niimi, J. and Collier, qualitative and eye British Food sample of Swedish E.S. tracking data, in a Journal, 2024 consumers naturalistic setting (II) Beyond raw: Investigating alternative Quantitative survey preparation methods as Costa, E., Wrange, A. L., with consumer Collier, E. S., Niimi, J., & tasting of actual Future Foods, a tool to increase 2023 acceptance of oysters in Strand, A . samples, in a Sweden naturalistic setting (III) The relationship Quantitative survey between food neophobia with consumer Food Quality and hedonic ratings of Costa, E., Niimi, J., & tasting of actual and novel foods may be Collier, E. S. samples, in a Preference, mediated by emotional controlled 2023 arousal laboratory setting (IV) The negative association between food neophobia and Quantitative online Food Quality sensory expectations Costa, E., Niimi, J., & survey with open- and revealed through Collier, E. S. ended descriptions Preference, analysis of consumers’ and sample images 2025 open-ended descriptions of seafood (V) From first sight to Quantitative survey first bite: how texture online with sample influences expectations Costa, E., Niimi, J., & images (Study 1) and and actual consumption Collier, E. S. consumer tasting of Manuscript of bivalves in two actual samples, in a submitted different evaluation controlled laboratory contexts setting (Study 2) 23 4. Methodological considerations Sensory and consumer science is an interdisciplinary field focused on investigating human responses to specific products as well as consumer behavior more generally (Jaeger et al., 2025). Over the past century, the field has undergone several paradigm shifts. The methodological approach used in this thesis reflects these changes by integrating both sensory and consumer experiences, providing a more complete understanding of eating behavior. 4.1. Food neophobia as a continuous consumer trait Human experiences are inherently diverse, yet research has historically viewed variability as “noise” to be minimized whenever possible. For instance, aggregated measures of liking have masked consumer heterogeneity and individual differences (Ares & Vidal, 2024). Nowadays, researchers recognize the importance of embracing variability to gain a deeper understanding of consumer perception (Cardello, 2024). Rather than minimizing it, identifying and measuring sources of variability is considered fundamental. In particular, there has been growing interest in individual differences (such as FN) and their influence on consumer acceptance of foods (Meiselman et al., 2022). Although FN is a continuous variable assessed along a unipolar scale (spanning from low to high), researchers have often dichotomized consumers into groups assumed to be homogeneous. Typically, individuals are categorized in groups, for example as either “neophobic” or “neophilic” based on a cut-off point that usually corresponds to the mean or median score of the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS). Alternatively, some studies classify individuals into three FN groups (i.e., “high”, “medium” and “low”). The use of extreme groups has recently been discouraged, as it fails to capture the full continuum of FN and does not allow a nuanced understanding of the construct (Jaeger et al., 2021). Accordingly, this thesis considers FN as a continuous variable, moving beyond an extreme groups approach. 24 4.1.1. Tools to measure food neophobia The first scale to measure individual differences in FN among adults is the FNS (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), which still remains the most widely used. The original FNS consists of ten balanced statements, rated on a 7-point Likert scale (from “disagree strongly” to “agree strongly”), with total scores theoretically ranging from 10 to 70. This scale has demonstrated high reliability and it is the only instrument that included food choices as a behavioral validation (Damsbo-Svendsen et al., 2017). Initially developed in English, the FNS has been translated into numerous languages and undergone other substantial modifications. Researchers have proposed versions of this scale using fewer items (e.g., eight instead of ten), different Likert scale formats (e.g., five-point or nine-point scales), and semantic adjustments to replace unclear terms (e.g., “ethnic”). Furthermore, FN scales have been developed to target specific foods, such as wine (Ristic et al., 2016). These different methodological approaches across studies reflect a lack of consensus, which has somewhat limited a broader understanding of FN (Rabada n & Bernabe u, 2021). FN was initially conceptualized as a single bipolar dimension that captured the avoidance to eat novel foods. However, researchers have questioned its unidimensionality, proposing that FN incorporates two distinct motives: approach and avoidance towards novel foods (Nezlek & Forestell, 2019; Ritchey et al., 2003). Indeed, half of the items in the FNS measure approach tendencies and the rest measure avoidance tendencies (see Table 2). These can be considered independent and negatively correlated constructs, rather than opposite ends of a single continuum (Nezlek & Forestell, 2019). For instance, two individuals could display reluctance towards a novel food for different reasons: one due to lack of approach and the other due to avoidance. Although the debate on dimensionality continues (Nezlek & Forestell, 2019), treating FN as a single continuous construct is still valuable across research settings (De Kock et al., 2022). In addition to the FNS there are more recent instruments used to measure FN. For instance, the Motivation to Eat New Foods scale (Nezlek et al., 2021) measures separately motivations to approach and avoid new foods, refining the terminology by removing references to ethnic foods and 25 specific eating contexts. Another contemporary instrument is the FNS_A or alternative Food Neophobia Scale (De Kock et al., 2022), which was developed to replace the FNS. As shown in Table 2, the FNS_A scale is shorter (i.e., eight items instead of ten) and was validated in a South African sample using food names. By also adjusting the terminology used in the FNS (e.g., “ethnic” or “dinner party”), the FNS_A better captures the perception of modern consumers. It is worth noting that two of the FNS_A items relate to avoidance due to the appearance of foods, highlighting the importance of the visual modality (De Kock et al., 2022) and consumer expectations prior to tasting. In this thesis, Papers II and III use the original FNS (Pliner & Hobden, 1992), Paper III complements the FNS with the FNS_A (De Kock et al., 2022), and Papers IV and V exclusively use the FNS_A. Table 2. The original 10-item Food Neophobia Scale from Pliner & Hobden (1992) and the alternative 8-item scale from De Kock et al., (2022). Items are rated on a seven-point scale labeled as: 1- disagree strongly, 2- disagree moderately, 3- disagree slightly, 4- neither disagree nor agree, 5- agree slightly, 6- agree moderately, 7- agree strongly Original Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) Alternative Food Neophobia Scale (Pliner & Hobden, 1992) (FNS_A) (De Kock et al., 2022) I don’t trust new foods I don’t trust new foods If I don’t know what is in a food, I will not Foods from other cultures look too weird try it to eat Ethnic food looks weird to eat Foods that look strange scare me I am afraid to eat things I have never had I am afraid to eat things I have never had before before I am very particular about the foods I will eat. I will eat almost anything (R) New foods mean an adventure to me (R) I like food from different cultures (R) It is exciting to try new foods when travelling (R) I am constantly sampling new and I like to challenge myself by trying new different foods (R) foods (R) At dinner parties, I will try a new food (R) New food eating experiences are important for me (R) I like to try new ethnic restaurants (R) 26 4.1.2. Food neophobia: trait or state? Traditionally conceptualized as a personality trait, the construct of FN refers to an individual’s propensity to avoid novel foods (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). As a trait, it is regarded as relatively stable across contexts and throughout the lifespan and is to some extent resistant to change. FN has been related to broader personality dimensions within the Five Factor Model, showing negative associations with extraversion (i.e., seeking social interaction) and openness (i.e., seeking new experiences and ideas) (Knaapila et al., 2011; Nezlek & Forestell, 2019). Most studies assess trait FN using self-reported questionnaires, such as the FNS. These measures are, however, subject to memory and social desirability biases, as participants may struggle to accurately evaluate their own food-related tendencies or respond in a manner that will be viewed favorably by others. A complementary approach involves presenting individuals with actual food choices, a perspective that considers FN as a state or a transitory negative emotion elicited in a specific situation (Alley, 2024). Although behavioral measures provide a more direct assessment of FN, they are often challenging to implement and interpret due to the complex interplay of factors that influence food choices. Given the strengths and limitations of both methodological approaches, combining them whenever possible provides a more comprehensive understanding of FN (Alley, 2024). Papers II-V in this thesis use self-reported measures to assess FN, and Manuscript V (Study 2) further complements these with behavioral measures. In addition, Manuscript V (Study 2) is the first to capture actual consumption behavior across a range of FN levels, which is a novel contribution to the literature. It provides an opportunity to evaluate the validity of the FNS_A as, prior to this study, the scale had not been validated with a behavioral task. 4.1.3. The challenge of recruiting participants with higher FN An important consideration is that individuals with higher FN tend to be reluctant to volunteer in studies involving the presentation and consumption of foods (Henriques et al., 2009). As a result, such studies 27 typically consist of participants with relatively low levels of FN. This challenge is evident in online studies but is particularly pronounced in central location tests (e.g., sensory laboratory). To mitigate this challenge, researchers have suggested strategies such as pre-screening participants for FN alongside other criteria (Henriques et al., 2009) or providing vague information during recruitment (Alley, 2024). Nonetheless, the underrepresentation of participants with high FN remains a notable research limitation. Different recruitment strategies are used across Papers I-V. As the exploratory study (Paper I) is not focused on FN, consumers planning to purchase seafood were recruited at the point of purchase. Thus, it is likely that individuals with generally lower FN took part. In contrast, Papers II- V intend to capture participants with a broader range of FN levels by using vague recruitment descriptions. For example, Paper II advertised the tasting study as the “food of the future”, although this phrasing could have discouraged individuals with higher FN due to uncertainty. Paper III was instead advertised as a “pasta evaluation”, involving a highly familiar food in Sweden. Paper IV, carried out online, framed the study as a survey on “food expectations”, an approach replicated in Manuscript V (Study 1) which also benefited from a nationwide recruitment in collaboration with an agency. As expected, Manuscript V shows that FN scores are lower in the laboratory (Study 2) than an online setting (Study 1). This pattern underscores the recruitment bias commonly observed in FN research and demonstrates that actual tasting scenarios can be challenging even for individuals with relatively low levels of FN. 4.2. Measuring consumer acceptance Acceptance refers to how individuals perceive a stimulus within a context and how they emotionally respond to it (Cardello, 1994). Different approaches exist to measure consumer acceptance, however, the nine- point hedonic or liking scale (Peryam and Pilgrim, 1957) is the most widely used instrument within sensory and consumer science. The scale consists of verbally labeled categories ranging from “dislike extremely” to “like extremely”, with a neutral midpoint labeled “neither like nor dislike”. As introspective judgements, hedonic ratings require participants to 28 reflect on their experience. In addition, scale labels are not equidistant and a central tendency bias leads participants’ to underuse extreme categories (Lim, 2011). Despite these known limitations, hedonic ratings remains an essential tool for identifying differences between products and predicting consumer acceptance (De Graaf 2007). The hedonic scale is used in this thesis from Papers II-V, both before tasting as hedonic expectations (Papers II, IV, and V) and after tasting (Papers II, III, and V), depending on the aims of each study. An alternative to hedonic ratings is Best-Worst Scaling (BWS), which captures relative preferences among a set of samples (Louviere et al., 2013). Participants complete a discrete choice-based task by consecutively selecting the most and least preferred option from several sets. Scores are calculated as the difference between the number of times an option is selected as best (+1) and worst (−1). Compared to hedonic ratings, BWS scores have interval properties and the task captures more automatic processes. This methodology has gained popularity as the field transitions toward more observational measures (Ko ster, 2009). In this thesis, Manuscript V incorporates BWS (Study 1) and behavioral measures (Study 2) to complement hedonic scales. In the latter, acceptance is quantified as actual consumption, calculated from the difference in sample weight (in grams) before and after tasting. 4.3. Measuring sensory perception Historically, sensory evaluation has relied on trained panels to “objectively” assess the sensory properties of products. These panels consist of a small group of experts who are rigorously trained to reliably identify, discriminate, and evaluate sensory attributes. The use of a common terminology, established through consensus, minimizes inter- assessor variability to consistently quantify sensory attributes. On the other hand, consumers have been limited to assessing hedonic aspects and deemed not capable of evaluating sensory characteristics (Moskowitz & Meiselman, 2020). Importantly, while sensory panels are costly to develop and maintain, they neither represent the end users for whom products are designed nor capture the inherent variability of consumer experiences (Cardello, 2024). 29 There is growing recognition that consumers are capable of evaluating sensory characteristics, increasingly blurring the distinction between consumers and trained panels (Ares & Varela, 2017). This has encouraged the adoption of more flexible and convenient methods with consumers, although traditional sensory panels continue to play a crucial role (e.g., in quality control, shelf-life assessment, and certain stages of product development). Rapid sensory methods provide lower resolution results than traditional approaches, but are easier to implement and better suited for capturing consumer perceptions (Meiselman et al., 2022). Among these rapid methods, check-all-that-apply (CATA) is widely used. In CATA, consumers select from a predefined list of attributes those that best describe the products. These attribute lists are typically generated by a trained panel or by a separate cohort of consumers, as exemplified in Collier et al., (2024). CATA is a well-established and flexible method for sensory characterization (Dooley et al., 2010) which has also been applied to measure sensory expectations, emotions, and situational appropriateness. This thesis incorporates CATA in Manuscript V to evaluate consumer sensory expectations, using a list of attributes previously developed by a trained panel of twelve assessors. Papers III and IV instead use consumers’ open-ended descriptions as an alternative method to assess sensory perception in their own words. The analysis of open-ended responses aims to capture consumer expectations more naturally (Spinelli et al., 2017), providing richer contextual information than a predefined attribute list. Although labor-intensive, this approach reflects more closely how individuals spontaneously describe sensory properties. 4.4. Measuring expectations In sensory and consumer science, expectations refer to the cognitive process of anticipating that a particular event will occur (e.g., a sensory attribute or outcome) when perceiving a stimulus such as food (Piqueras- Fiszman & Spence, 2015). Expectations are measured through the presentation of food names, images, or prior to tasting actual foods. Research on expectations often seeks to understand how extrinsic factors 30 (e.g., processing method, brand or information about product origin), influence anticipated sensory experience and hedonics. Expectations are often classified into either sensory expectations, when related to the perception of sensory attributes, and hedonic expectations, when assessing their expected liking (Cardello, 1994). This thesis measures hedonic expectations in Papers II, IV, and V, and sensory expectations in Papers IV and V. Hedonic expectations are assessed using rating scales that mirror hedonic ratings, whereas sensory expectations are assessed through CATA (Manuscript V) as well as open-ended descriptions (Paper IV). 4.5. Measuring food familiarity Food familiarity refers to an individual’s accumulated experience with a given food throughout their lifetime (e.g., is this rotten?). It includes both direct and indirect experiences, such as recognition and knowledge about a food (Aldridge et al., 2009). Familiarity is “in the eye of the beholder” (Havermans, 2025; Tuorila et al., 2001) and therefore is not a cultural, but an individual experience that should be assessed at the individual level (Tuorila et al., 2001). Importantly, familiarity is not limited to direct tasting experiences but also includes visual, contextual, and categorical knowledge (Aldridge et al., 2009). The degree of familiarity plays an important role in shaping expectations. Higher familiarity enables individuals to effortlessly retrieve relevant past consumption experiences and generate more accurate predictions, refining these in case of errors (Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015). Food familiarity has also been linked to higher situational appropriateness, meaning that more experience relates to a wider range of usage contexts (Giacalone et al., 2015). To operationalize perceived familiarity, Tuorila et al., (2001) introduced a 5-point scale incorporating both recognition and frequency of consumption: 1- “I do not recognize it”, 2- “I recognize it, but I have never tasted it”, 3- “I have tasted it, but I don’t eat it”, 4- “I occasionally eat it, and 5- “I regularly eat it”. In this thesis, Paper II incorporates a measure of familiarity specifically related to individuals’ previous experience consuming oysters, using the 31 following scale: 1- “Never tried”, 2- “Tried once before”, 3- “Tried a few times”, 4- “Tried many times”. Papers IV and V instead use the familiarity scale (Tuorila et al., 2001) to capture both consumption frequency and recognition aspects, providing a more comprehensive assessment. 4.6. Measuring emotions Beyond traditional liking and sensory measures, the assessment of emotions has gained increasing interest within sensory and consumer science over the past decades (Meiselman, 2021). Although emotional measures are useful predictors of food choice (Giacalone et al., 2022), there are large disagreements in how to measure emotions which are likely due to different theoretical perspectives. According to the theory of constructed emotion, emotional experiences are inherently individual and cannot be accessed directly (Barrett, 2016). These can, however, be measured through explicit or implicit methods. Explicit approaches involve self-reported questionnaires, while implicit methods use specialized equipment to detect changes in the autonomic nervous system (e.g., galvanic skin response, heart rate, pupil dilation) or behavioral changes (e.g., facial expressions). To date, explicit methods remain predominant in studies investigating consumer emotional responses to food (Meiselman, 2020). This is partly due to practical considerations, such as ease of use and versatility, and has also been motivated by the adoption of the constructed emotion theory (Barrett, 2016). Self-reports often provide greater discrimination and are easier to interpret than physiological or behavioral measures (Cardello & Jaeger, 2021). Whenever possible, it is recommended to use a combination of explicit and implicit methods for a more comprehensive approach (Meiselman, 2024). As introduced in Section 2.3, the circumplex model provides a useful framework for understanding emotional experiences. This model characterizes emotions along two main dimensions: valence, ranging from pleasure to displeasure, and arousal, from high activation to low activation. These two underlying dimensions jointly explain most of the variance in emotional experiences, yet the lack of independence between 32 valence and arousal remains a limitation of the model (Smith et al., 2025). Nevertheless, the circumplex model has been widely adopted in emotion research. The Swedish translation of the lexicon has shown reasonable consistency (Knez & Hygge, 2001). For example, the English terms “anxious” and “relaxed”, correspond to the Swedish terms “orolig” and “avslappnad”, respectively. These represent the affective dimension ranging from “unpleasantly activated” (AUP) to “pleasantly unactivated” (UAP) within the circumplex model (Knez & Hygge, 2001). When using explicit methods, consumers are typically presented with a list of emotion lexicons that can vary in length. An important consideration is that these lexicons tend to focus on the valence dimension, while arousal is underrepresented even though it plays a critical role in shaping hedonic responses (Prescott, 2017). Moreover, emotion research on food products generally includes more positive than negative terms, despite the existence of a greater number of negative emotions ("hedonic asymmetry", Meiselman, 2024). In this thesis, emotions are measured through explicit methods focused on the negative arousal dimension, also referred to as “hedonically- negative anxiety” as in Jaeger et al., (2023). While these are labeled as “arousal”, they are a combination of arousal and valence dimensions and do not constitute an independent measure of arousal. The endpoints of the scale capture the bipolar emotion adjectives from two of the octants of the circumplex model, ranging from “unpleasantly activated” to “pleasantly unactivated” (Knez & Hygge, 2001). Following this approach, Papers II and IV include a single measure of arousal, based on participants’ ratings of their emotional experiences in response to foods. The food samples were presented either as images (Paper IV) or before/after tasting (e.g., in Manuscript V, “Imagine eating (sample), and indicate how this makes you feel” measured on a scale from 1- “Relaxed” to 7- “Anxious”). In addition, Manuscript V includes a visual analogue scale (VAS) instead of a categorical scale to assess arousal as a continuous dimension between these endpoints (i.e., from 0- “Relaxed” to 100- “Anxious”). Manuscript V also incorporates disgust, a negative arousal emotion closely related to FN (Al-Shawaf et al., 2015). 33 In this thesis, disgust is conceptualized as an emotional experience, primarily related to food, and defined as the revulsion at the prospect of eating substances that are potentially contaminating (Rozin & Fallon, 1987). Disgust likely served an evolutionary function to protect against health threats such as infections, triggering avoidance to cues that signal the presence of a potential pathogen (Curtis et al., 2004). However, there are individual differences in the extent of experiencing disgust towards these cues, a tendency known as trait food disgust sensitivity which is assessed through the Food Disgust Scale (FDS) (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2018). Manuscript V (Study 2) includes both the FDS to measure individual differences and a VAS to capture state disgust responses to each of the food samples (VAS from 0- “Not disgusted at all” to 100- “Very disgusted”). 4.7. Context matters In an effort to reduce variability, sensory and consumer science has traditionally conducted research in sterile lab environments that control for contextual factors influencing behavior. In recent years, the field has increasingly recognized the need to enhance ecological and external validity (Cardello, 2024). Since the goal is to predict real-world behavior, it is crucial to simulate the conditions in which it normally occurs. Consequently, there has been a shift from highly controlled lab studies towards more naturalistic settings, involving “real people eating real foods in real eating situations” (Meiselman, 1992). This transition was further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, which required researchers to replace central location tests with other alternatives, for instance home use tests (Niimi et al., 2022). Recent technological developments, such as virtual reality (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2019) and eye tracking (Motoki et al., 2021), provide new opportunities to account for the importance of context (Meiselman et al., 2022). As illustrated by the phrase “you eat with your eyes first”, vision is a dominant sense in humans and serves as the first point of contact with food, shaping expectations and acceptance (Delwiche, 2012). This is fundamental given that FN may be predominantly related to the visual domain (Brown & Harris, 2012; Maratos & Staples, 2015). Eye tracking 34 allows to measure visual attention and behavior within the natural environment, and can be used while consumers interact with food products in a relatively unobtrusive way (Du rrschmid & Danner, 2018). Because of its relevance for studying visual attention and behavior, Paper I and Manuscript V (Study 2) incorporate wearable eye tracking. Most FN research presents foods in abstract form, such as food names, although some studies use images to better approximate real-life contexts (Giacalone et al., 2015). This thesis implements a range of contexts to strengthen ecological validity. For instance, Paper I combines eye tracking with qualitative interviews conducted at the point of purchase, while Paper II investigates consumer acceptance of oyster-based products in a food-truck setting during an outdoor event. In contrast, Papers III and V (Study 2) are carried out in the sensory lab under controlled experimental conditions. Manuscript V (Study 2) also incorporates eye tracking and behavioral measures as participants are confronted with the possibility to try actual food samples. On the other hand, the online studies Paper IV and Manuscript V (Study 1) use labeled food images to simulate eating experiences. 4.8. Data analysis Since this thesis implements a within-subjects design, repeated measures ANOVAs are used to assess differences across samples (e.g., hedonic ratings, arousal, familiarity). In Paper III, a mixed design ANOVA is incorporated to examine differences both within-subjects (across samples) and between-subjects (across experimental conditions). In addition, multiple linear regression is used to investigate the relative contribution of relevant predictors (e.g., demographic variables, FN and arousal) in explaining the total variance in the outcome variable (e.g., hedonic ratings). Mediation analyses in Papers III-V are used to directly evaluate the arousal hypothesis. Mediation occurs when the relationship between a predictor and an outcome variable is explained by a third variable (i.e., mediator). As shown in the path diagrams (Figure 7), path c represents the strength of the relationship before including the mediator in the model, while path 35 c’ includes the effect after accounting for the mediator. A reduction in the strength of this relationship (i.e., when the regression coefficient for c’ is smaller than for c) indicates mediation, which may be partial or complete. Figure 7. Mediation model used in Papers III-V This thesis incorporates a mixed-methods approach (Papers I-V). For instance, in Paper IV quantitative and qualitative data are integrated for a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of FN on sensory expectations. Participants were presented with images of five types of seafood and provided spontaneous open-ended descriptions of their sensory expectations, specifying the sensory aspects they expected to like and dislike. These responses were then qualitatively categorized into four sensory modalities (appearance, aroma, taste and texture) which provided data for further quantitative analysis. Several outcome variables in this thesis are dichotomous (e.g., selected vs unselected CATA attribute, consumed vs not consumed), making logistic regression a suitable approach. This analysis is applied in Papers IV and V to investigate the likelihood of specific outcomes. For example, in Paper IV, odds ratios (OR) greater than 1 indicate higher likelihood of spontaneously mentioning a sensory modality whereas values below 1 indicate lower likelihood. Logistic regression is also used to evaluate the impact of FN on sensory expectations, where OR>1 indicate that a one- point increase in FN scores increases the likelihood of mentioning a sensory modality, and OR<1 indicate decreases in likelihood. Although this thesis mainly uses a traditional approach of null-hypothesis testing (NHST), a Bayesian inference approach is applied in Paper IV. 36 Researchers increasingly emphasize the need to gradually transition to alternatives that avoid a dichotomous interpretation of results (i.e., into significant or non-significant) (Bendtsen, 2018; Choi, 2023; Collier et al., 2023). A key distinction between these approaches lies in how the research question is addressed. NHST provides the probability of obtaining the same (or more extreme) data given that the null hypothesis is true, whereas Bayesian inference answers a more direct question: what is the probability of the hypothesis given the data? Importantly, a significant p-value in NHST does not indicate supportive evidence for a given hypothesis, while the Bayesian approach estimates its likelihood. Therefore, instead of relying on p-values, Bayesian inference requires researchers to interpret the results and continuously update their estimations as new data becomes available (Choi, 2023). 4.9. Ethical considerations The studies comprised in this thesis were assessed for compliance with national ethical standards through an internal process at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden and were approved at the Department of Material and Surface Design. All participants took part voluntarily and provided informed consent prior to data collection. In addition, they were made aware that their participation could be stopped at any time, and that their data was collected anonymously (Papers II, IV, and Manuscript V, Study 1) or pseudo-anonymously when using separate identifiers (Papers I, III, and Manuscript V, Study 2). Papers III and V involve the tasting of samples that were commercially available, although not in Sweden, and therefore safe for consumption. In addition, a screening phase excluded participants with any known or suspected food allergies or intolerances, specifically to seafood and other ingredients present in the samples. Not providing specific information in relation to the seafood content of the samples was considered fundamental to the studies given the aim of recruiting consumers with a wide range of FN (Papers II-V) and the interest in capturing their spontaneous responses. 37 5. Results and discussion This section provides a summary of the main results from each paper and how these address the research questions previously outlined in Section 3.2. The findings are later discussed in 5.2. 5.1. Results Paper I. This exploratory study addressed RQ1 by examining the factors shaping seafood choices among a sample of Swedish consumers at the point of purchase (n=39). This study provided a baseline understanding of the main drivers and barriers, with thematic analysis revealing four overarching themes: “ambivalence”, “nice and necessary”, “proficiency with seafood” and “external influences”. Perceived familiarity and sensory expectations emerged as main barriers, and most seafood purchases were limited to a narrow range of well-known species, such as salmon and shrimp. Consumers relied on their previous experience to form sensory expectations and estimate the ease of preparation, perceiving familiar species (e.g., salmon) as more versatile and appropriate across multiple usage contexts. In contrast, unfamiliar species were not chosen due to sensory uncertainty and perceived cooking difficulties, particularly for consumers who reported low cooking proficiency. These findings highlight the need to address perceived familiarity as a barrier to diversifying seafood choices at the point of purchase. Paper II. This study investigated consumer acceptance of oysters when presented in alternative preparation formats (i.e., beyond raw), addressing RQ2. Consumers (n=102) were offered four oyster-based samples (raw, burger, crepe and soup) for optional tasting, distributed from a food truck to simulate a realistic consumption context. The study also examined the relationship between FN and hedonic ratings. Oyster-based samples designed to resemble familiar foods were tasted by more participants (burger, crepe, and soup at 99%, 98%, and 96.1%, respectively) compared to raw oysters (87.3%). FN was negatively correlated with expected liking for the traditional raw oyster sample, although not with expected liking for the other oyster-based samples. 38 Conversely, higher familiarity with oysters was positively associated with expected liking for the raw sample. Participants’ open-ended responses revealed that consistency and texture were the most frequently cited reasons for disliking raw oysters. Overall, these findings suggest that incorporating alternative preparations, beyond the traditional raw format, could increase consumer acceptance of oysters and mitigate the negative impact of FN among Swedish consumers. Paper III. This study aimed to understand the relationship between FN and consumer acceptance of a novel surimi-based product shaped to resemble pasta. The study addressed RQ3, exploring the mechanisms underlying the relationship between FN and hedonic ratings and the mediating role of emotional arousal. In addition to the original FNS, the study included an alternative scale (FNS_A, De Kock et al., 2022). Three variants (containing pollock, cod, and salmon) were provided for tasting under two conditions: an informed condition (n=104, participants were informed that samples contained seafood) and a blind condition (n=107, participants were not informed of their content). The results showed negative associations between FN and consumer acceptance, measured through both hedonic ratings and purchase intention. In line with the arousal hypothesis, mediation analysis revealed that the negative relationship between FN and hedonic ratings was indirectly explained by higher unpleasant emotional activation experienced during sample evaluation. This was observed for all variants except salmon, likely due to higher familiarity and regular consumption of this specie in Sweden. Baseline arousal was higher in the informed condition, yet the information provided had limited impact on hedonic scores. Significant differences between conditions were observed only for the cod sample, which received higher hedonic ratings in the informed condition possibly due to an adjustment in consumer expectations. Consumers generally described all samples as “fishy”, though differences were found in terms of hedonics and sensory characterization. The pollock sample received the highest hedonic scores and was less often described with fish-related attributes, instead being characterized as “sweet” and flavored with “herbs/spices”, which likely contributed to its higher acceptance. Some 39 consumers described the salmon sample using “salmon” as an attribute, further emphasizing high familiarity with this type of seafood. This study advances understanding of the mechanisms underpinning FN and supports the arousal hypothesis in relation to hedonic ratings of a novel surimi-based product. The findings also highlight the relevance of measuring arousal and capturing sensory characteristics through consumers’ open-ended descriptions. Lastly, it demonstrates that the alternative FNS_A provides results comparable to the original FNS in a Swedish sample. Paper IV. This study addressed RQ4 by investigating how FN influences sensory and hedonic expectations towards different types of seafood (salmon, herring, oysters, octopus, and seaweed). Consumers (n=946) were presented with labeled images in an online survey and they provided open-ended descriptions, which were analyzed across four sensory modalities: appearance, aroma, taste, and texture. The results revealed that texture was frequently mentioned by consumers as a disliked modality for several species, notably oysters, octopus and herring. In addition, FN had a small but consistent impact on sensory expectations across all sensory modalities, exacerbating the salience of aversive textural properties while diminishing anticipated enjoyment. In other words, individuals with higher FN were more likely to use negative sensory descriptors and less likely to use positive sensory descriptors. Importantly, it demonstrated that even small increases in FN were associated with higher likelihood of mentioning negative sensory expectations for certain types of seafood (e.g., oysters). In line with the results in Paper III, this study provided further evidence for the arousal hypothesis. Across all samples, arousal indirectly explained hedonic expectations with the exception of salmon, which was rated most familiar. Paper IV emphasized the importance of expectations prior to consumption and reinforced that FN is a key barrier not only at its extreme end. With increases in FN, individuals experienced higher arousal and appeared to be more responsive to negative sensory cues. Thus, one strategy to mitigate FN and increase seafood acceptance could be to disconfirm negative sensory characteristics while enhancing positive sensory aspects. 40 Manuscript V. Building on the findings from Paper IV, which showed that negative expectations towards texture were generally challenging for seafood, especially for certain types such as oysters, this study further investigated the role of texture in consumer acceptance of bivalves (i.e., oysters and mussels). Addressing RQ5, Manuscript V consisted of two complementary studies to evaluate whether changing the texture of bivalves into a pate form could increase acceptance. This was carried out online (Study 1, n=530) and in the lab (Study 2, n=120), using three seafood types (with salmon as control, mussel, and oyster) presented in two textures (whole and pate ). Study 1 used labeled images to examine expectations and relative preferences through BWS, while Study 2 measured expectations and actual consumption when participants were given the opportunity to try the samples. Both studies also measured FN to examine its impact on expectations and acceptance. Online participants showed a relative preference for whole samples over their pate counterparts. Interestingly, this pattern reversed in the lab, where pate samples were more likely to be consumed than whole samples. This suggests that confronting consumers with the actual samples heightened the saliency of aversive sensory cues. In both studies, FN was negatively related to consumer acceptance, measured by expected liking as well as actual consumption. Study 1 revealed that individuals with higher FN had lower sensory expectations and perceived the samples more negatively (e.g., describing bivalve pate s as more “stale”). However, FN was not associated with differences in sensory expectations in the lab. Study 2 found that increasing FN decreased the likelihood of trying bivalves in both whole and pate forms. Importantly, higher levels of FN were linked to increased arousal, which predicted lower expected liking (Study 1 and 2) and actual consumption (Study 2). FN was also associated with higher food disgust sensitivity and higher state disgust towards the samples. These findings reinforce that tasting foods can be challenging even among individuals with relatively low levels of FN and highlight the critical role of evaluation context. From a practical standpoint, they suggest that changing texture could be a short-term strategy to facilitate consumer acceptance of bivalves. 41 5.2. Discussion The findings presented above address the aims of this thesis by contributing to a deeper understanding of FN in adults and identifying its role as a barrier to seafood acceptance. Theoretical and practical implications are later discussed in Section 5.3. 5.2.1. FN: a key barrier to consumer acceptance of seafood Taken together, the findings from Papers II-V indicate that FN is a key barrier to increasing and diversifying seafood consumption in Sweden. Seafood, compared to other food categories, consists of a wide range of species with complex and heterogeneous sensory characteristics, which may be more likely to elicit FN. Its high perishability and potential for foodborne illnesses (Rodrıg uez-La zaro et al., 2024) further contribute to consumer risk perception (Pieniak et al., 2008). Nevertheless, the benefits of seafood consumption generally outweigh the risks (Bernhardt & O’Connor, 2021), and also provide advantages from a sustainability perspective (Bianchi et al., 2022). Broadening seafood consumption offers complementary nutritional benefits (Bernhardt & O’Connor, 2021) while reducing pressure on a few familiar species (Hornborg et al., 2021). Serving as a first line of defense, FN prevents individuals from ingesting potentially harmful substances, alongside other protective mechanisms within the behavioral immune system (Schaller & Park, 2011). The findings from this thesis reinforce that FN acts as a broader barrier, extending beyond the acceptance of novel foods. FN is linked to how individuals perceive and emotionally experience sensory food cues that signal a potential threat (Prescott & Spinelli, 2024). Anticipating the consumption of such uncertain foods heightens arousal, shaping expectations and limiting intake. Increased arousal may maintain vigilance for internal deviations following consumption, e.g., nausea or illness (Reilly, 2018). In this thesis, the negative impact of FN was observed for seafood types with different levels of familiarity and across a variety of evaluation settings (online, in the lab, and in naturalistic settings, i.e., food truck). 42 The findings indicate that FN is associated with several food-related behaviors (Figure 8), including increased arousal (Papers III, IV, and V), more negative sensory expectations (Papers IV and V), lower hedonic ratings (Papers II-V), as well as reduced likelihood of consumption and intake (Manuscript V, Study 2). These findings align with animal studies showing that FN suppresses palatability and intake (Lin et al., 2012). However, repeated exposure attenuates FN (Kalat & Rozin, 1973; Pliner, 1982) and, in the absence of negative outcomes, foods gradually become associated with safety and increase in palatability (Reilly, 2018). Such pattern is evident for salmon in Papers III-V, where its high familiarity appears to override neophobic tendencies, highlighting the potential of repeated exposure as a long-term strategy to mitigate FN. Future research should examine the amount and type of exposure needed to lower the “warning threshold” (Fontana et al., 2025) in adults. Figure 8. Overview of food-related behaviors that were related to FN in this thesis In this thesis, FN was found to be negatively related to perceived familiarity and cooking ability. Individuals with higher FN had less prior experience consuming oysters (Paper II) and reported lower familiarity with all seafood types except for salmon (Papers IV and V). In addition, FN was negatively related to cooking ability (Paper III), a finding consistent with previous research (Collier et al., 2024; Niimi et al., 2022). This relationship may be explained by reduced exposure to a variety of sensory properties and lower engagement with foods (Prescott et al., 2022). 43 Individuals with higher FN tend to consume seafood less frequently and anticipate lower sensory enjoyment, also for traditional meals such as herring (Collier et al., 2024). The negative impact of FN appears to extend across a wide variety of seafood species, including novel ones like jellyfish (Torri et al., 2024). Even in Portugal, which has among the highest seafood consumption rates in Europe, FN has been found to be inversely associated with liking of seafood dishes (Costa et al., 2020). Although future research should include more cross-cultural studies, the consistent findings across different contexts underscore that FN may be a widespread barrier to seafood acceptance. 5.2.2. Emotional experiences and the decision to try foods The findings (Papers III-V) provide additional evidence for the arousal hypothesis, indicating that arousal plays a critical role in FN (Jaeger, Chheang, & Prescott, 2021; Jaeger et al., 2023). In line with existing literature, characteristics beyond novelty tend to heighten arousal, such as complexity, intensity, and foods perceived as potentially dangerous (i.e., seafood, Jaeger et al., 2017). In this thesis, individuals with higher FN experienced unpleasantly high levels of emotional activation when anticipating the consumption of seafood (Papers IV and V) as well as during consumption (Paper III). The mediating role of arousal was consistent across seafood types and evaluation settings (Papers III-V) and observed in both low-risk scenarios online and high-risk when confronted with actual foods in-lab (Manuscript V, Study 1 vs 2). These results indicate that the negative relationship between FN and hedonic ratings is driven by consumers’ emotional experience. Individuals with higher FN are more responsive towards “warning” sensory food cues (Laureati et al., 2018), which are perceived as a potential threat and elicit heightened “arousability” (Prescott & Spinelli, 2024). This is supported by physiological measurements showing that higher FN individuals exhibit heightened attentional processing and increased electrodermal activity towards foods, both familiar and unfamiliar (Stuldreher et al., 2023). In particular for seafood, distal cues act as early warning indicators that elicit increased arousal and facilitate avoidance behaviors. Papers IV and V found that seafood with certain 44 sensory characteristics (e.g., sliminess) were less likely to be tried (Manuscript V, Study 2) and elicited higher arousal, particularly among individuals with higher FN. This higher responsiveness extends to other food categories such as vegetables, where bitterness and astringency act as warning cues and contribute to lower acceptance (Pierguidi et al., 2023). In a large cross-country study, researchers manipulated food names into “high-arousal” variants, highlighting arousing characteristics (e.g., more intense flavors), and found that arousal increased as liking decreased (Jaeger et al., 2023). In addition, these effects were more pronounced for the manipulated samples and as a function of FN (Jaeger et al., 2023). All in all, these findings suggest that foods with arousing sensory characteristics hinder acceptance, particularly among individuals with higher FN (Prescott et al., 2022). Food cues trigger idiosyncratic representations that allow individuals to prepare for behavior and predict how the food interaction will be (Papies et al., 2020). These representations are partial recreations of previous eating experiences, as opposed to accurate records (Papies et al., 2022). Importantly, prior experience shapes how individuals perceive and emotionally respond to both external (e.g., appearance, texture) and internal cues (e.g., increased heart rate) (Barrett, 2016). As seen in Manuscript V, providing participants with an actual tasting opportunity (Study 2) elicits richer sensory expectations than an online setting (Study 1) likely because these cues become more salient. In the absence of strong representations that reliably predict how the interaction will be (Papies et al., 2022), foods may be rejected due to heightened arousal and uncertainty (Grupe & Nitschke, 2013). Indeed, when research includes only food names, the lack of external cues increases uncertainty, which elicits stronger emotional experiences than when actual foods are presented (Jaeger et al., 2022). This could explain the higher baseline arousal ratings obtained for the informed condition in Paper III, as well as the discrepancies in consumer acceptance found in Manuscript V, between online (Study 1) and in-lab settings (Study 2). While food images provide more sensory cues than food names alone, confronting participants with an actual tasting scenario further heighten the saliency of arousing sensory characteristics (e.g., slimy). This indicates that actual tasting scenarios introduce an additional level of risk, which 45 can be challenging even for consumers with lower FN, and that online assessments may not always be reflective of real-life behavioral outcomes. Understanding individual differences in emotional experiences is fundamental for future research on food-related behaviors. Individuals vary in their ability to perceive internal bodily cues (Barrett et al., 2004), also known as interoception, which ultimately shapes how emotions are experienced (Barrett, 2016). For example, individual differences in awareness and perception of internal bodily sensations have been related to arousal (Barrett et al., 2004; Jaeger et al., 2022). A recent meta-analysis found that higher anxiety is associated with greater attention to bodily signals, as well as negative evaluations and difficulties describing these sensations (Clemente et al., 2024). In addition, higher food disgust sensitivity has been linked to certain aspects of interoceptive awareness (Niimi et al., 2025), and findings indicate they tend to experience higher state disgust and arousal when confronted with foods (Manuscript V, Study 2). Thus, future research should investigate how individuals differ in their perception of emotional experiences as this may influence food decisions. 5.2.3. Negative expectations are exacerbated by FN The findings from this thesis demonstrate the negative impact of FN on consumers’ hedonic and sensory expectations. This pattern was identified for raw oysters (Paper II), where FN was inversely related to hedonic expectations, and later observed for other seafood types (Papers IV and V). Paper IV revealed that expectations varied depending on seafood type, although texture was spontaneously mentioned as the most challenging sensory modality, particularly for oysters and octopus. FN further amplified negative expectations across all sensory modalities, including appearance, aroma, taste, and texture. Conversely, participants with higher FN were less likely to mention positive sensory expectations. The findings indicate that individuals with higher FN tend to anticipate more negative sensory properties when confronted with foods perceived as potentially dangerous, focusing less on sensory enjoyment. In line with this, Dibbets et al., (2021) found that young adults confronted with novel 46 fruits tend to seek out information that reinforces their negative expectations. Previous experience facilitates the perception of sensory cues and guides decision-making by generating more accurate predictions of what is to be encountered (Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015). As seen in Papers IV and V, consumers anticipated higher liking and had more distinctive sensory expectations for highly familiar seafood (salmon) than for less familiar ones (e.g., mussels and oysters). Lower familiarity increases uncertainty and arousal, and seafood that deviates from the representation of previously accepted foods (“different” from what is known as safe) are perceived as threatening and more likely to be rejected (Harris, 2018). When anticipating the hedonic consequences of an event, predictions are often not accurate. Individuals tend to ignore the influence of contextual factors and overestimate the duration and intensity of future emotions (Gilbert & Wilson, 2007). As seen in Manuscript V (Study 2), anticipating the consumption of bivalves elicited arousal, decreasing the likelihood of trying the samples and suppressing both intake and hedonic expectations. Interestingly, this was found even for participants with relatively low levels of FN, indicating that neophobic tendencies are present to some degree in all individuals. This may be in part due to uncertainty about the post-ingestive effects, which suppresses intake and palatability (Lin et al., 2012). Ironically, these avoidance behaviors are negatively reinforced through a feedback loop that prevents further exposure (Figure 8). 5.2.4. Tackling FN to increase and diversify seafood acceptance From a practical perspective, the findings suggest short-term strategies to tackle FN and diversify consumer acceptance, which should be combined with long-term interventions that gradually increase exposure to a broader range of seafood. A short-term strategy to address neophobic tendencies is food processing, which can reduce the saliency of aversive sensory characteristics and facilitate consumption. Similar approaches have been recommended to increase consumer familiarity with insects as food and overcome initial reluctance, such as incorporating processed cricket flour into a tortilla- 47 shaped form (Hartmann et al., 2015; Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016). In this thesis, alternative oyster preparation formats were found to increase acceptance among individuals with higher levels of FN (Papers II and III). Reducing negative expectations is fundamental to prevent product rejection at first sight (Papers IV and V). Targeting these predictions by disconfirming negative expectations prior to tasting, and ensuring repeated positive experiences upon tasting, can further increase acceptance (Hartmann & Siegrist, 2016; Grupe & Nitschke, 2013). In addition, other related barriers including perceived appropriateness should also be addressed (Gumussoy & Rogers, 2023). Texture is a fundamental yet often neglected sensory modality (Cardello, 1996; Laureati et al., 2020). Aversive textural properties, e.g., sliminess, are common disgust elicitors that signal the presence of potential pathogens (Laureati et al., 2020; Martins & Pliner, 2006). This thesis demonstrated that texture is a particularly challenging sensory modality for certain types of seafood, such as oysters (Papers II and IV). Thus, Manuscript V (Study 2) provided experimental evidence that changing the textural properties could reduce the visual saliency of aversive cues, increasing the likelihood of tasting bivalves. In terms of product development, it is important to consider that food experiences are multisensory and that texture influences other sensory modalities, including flavor perception (Collier et al., 2025; Spence, 2015). Moving forward, research should place greater emphasis on understanding the relationship between texture perception and consumer acceptance. Other potential short-term strategies that could offset the impact of FN are, for example, the introduction of familiar flavors (Pliner & Stallberg- White, 2000) or providing positive sensory information (e.g., “it tastes like…”) to reduce sensory uncertainty and increase willingness to try (Pelchat & Pliner, 1995; Tuorila et al., 1998). However, this could potentially backfire if there are large discrepancies between expectations and actual experience upon tasting (Yeomans et al., 2008). While processing could help overcome initial barriers to acceptance, it simultaneously limits exposure to a wider range of sensory characteristics. Long-term interventions are therefore essential to gradually reduce FN through repeated exposure. Such interventions have 48 shown potential to diversify food consumption in children (for a review see Kokkorou et al., 2024). For example, sensory play can increase acceptance of fruits (Coulthard et al., 2018), and tactile exposure without tasting has shown to increase acceptance of foods with similar texture (Nederkoorn et al., 2018). Another strategy that provides an opportunity for exposure is cooking activities, since they naturally involve tactile interaction. Although it should be noted that, at least in children, engaging in cooking activities with challenging foods that elicit disgust (e.g., insects) seems to require longer interventions (Chow et al., 2021). The negative relationship between FN and food agency is interesting, and may reinforce a limited exposure to a variety of foods (Costa et al., 2023; Niimi et al., 2022). Involving adults in cooking-related activities could be a promising way forward (Karaag aç & Bellikci Koyu, 2022) to reduce arousal (Noseworthy et al., 2014) and encourage positive food experiences. Future research should investigate the impact of these types of interventions in adult consumers, including adolescents and older populations (Soucier et al., 2019). Nevertheless, the effects of such interventions are expected to be more limited in adults than children (Liem & de Graaf, 2004). Some studies have identified that higher FN is associated with lower dietary quality and increased risk of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes (Sarin et al., 2019). At the same time, FN was not found to be related to macronutrient or energy intake (Costa et al., 2020), and it remains unclear whether FN is linked to food-related health issues. A recent study focused on adolescents pointed out that FN reduces dietary variety rather than dietary quality, as FN did not influence preference for unhealthy foods over healthy options when these were highly familiar and low in arousal (Fontana et al., 2025). Future studies should investigate the health implications of FN among adults, prioritizing longitudinal studies within ecologically valid settings (e.g., workplace canteens). 49 5.3. Implications The findings from the studies in this thesis have several implications at multiple levels, which can be differentiated into: theoretical contributions, practical implications for the food industry, consumers, and society as a whole. “Food has no nutritional value until it is chosen, accepted and consumed” ― Forde & Delahunty, 2004 5.3.1. Theoretical contributions Although FN is a widely acknowledged barrier to the acceptance of novel foods, it remains a relatively recent construct. This thesis contributes to the development of a more integrated framework, in line with recent calls for a stronger theoretical foundation in sensory and consumer science (Varela, 2025). The findings underscore the importance of expectations, emotions, and past eating experiences in the decision to try foods, as proposed by the SEA model (Sensory, Emotional, cognitive Association, Coulthard et al., 2022). Importantly, it extends this preliminary model by examining how individuals emotionally experience foods (i.e., arousal and disgust, Papers III-V) and how they perceive sensory properties (i.e., sensory expectations, Papers IV and V). Following the recommendations of Coulthard et al., (2022), these factors were investigated with real foods in actual tasting environments (Papers II, III, and V), which enabled the collection of behavioral measures of the decision to try foods (Manuscript V, Study 2). In contrast to the SEA model, this thesis provides additional evidence that the impact of FN extends beyond novel foods. Besides novelty, FN encompasses other arousal-inducing food characteristics such as foreignness, complexity, intensity, and danger (e.g., seafood, Jaeger et al., 2023). Thus, individuals with higher FN not only show exacerbated arousal when confronted with novel foods but also foods perceived as a potential risk due to limited exposure. The findings provide additional evidence that arousal plays a mechanistic role in FN 50 (Papers III-V), reducing the likelihood to try and limiting the amount consumed (Manuscript V, Study 2). Importantly, the negative impact of FN was evident not only at its extreme levels but observed at relatively lower levels (Manuscript V, Study 2), underscoring the importance of FN as a ubiquitous consumer characteristic. In other words, given the right (or wrong) food product and eating context, everyone displays neophobic tendencies (Figure 9). Figure 9. Conceptual model explaining the relationship between FN and the decision to try food, based on the work conducted in this thesis A number of studies have shown that FN extends to a broader range of arousal-inducing characteristics, beyond mere novelty (Jaeger, Chheang, & Prescott, 2021; Jaeger et al., 2023; Prescott & Spinelli, 2024). This raises the question of whether the term “food neophobia” remains an adequate theoretical construct. Literally meaning “fear of novel food”, FN is still defined primarily in terms of food novelty. Most items in the FNS and FNS_A, for instance, explicitly refer to novelty (e.g., “I don’t trust new foods”). While intuitive, this operationalization may be overly simplistic in terms of construct validity. It is possible that existing scales fail to capture individuals’ emotional experience of discomfort and uncertainty that are more likely to characterize the neophobic response. This challenges the adequacy of defining FN solely in terms of novelty and underscores the need for a revised conceptualization that more accurately captures its underlying mechanisms. Certain food characteristics (Jaeger et al., 2023) tend to elicit high arousal and even disgust, facilitating food rejection (Manuscript V, Study 2). Indeed, it has been suggested that arousal and disgust are closely 51 intertwined emotional experiences (Coulthard et al., 2022; Havermans, 2025). Given insufficient exposure, such food characteristics are experienced as uncertain and potentially not safe to consume (Prescott & Spinelli, 2024). Uncertainty is the main theme within the Uncertainty and Anticipation Model of Anxiety framework and has been identified as a central contributor to anxiety (Grupe & Nitschke, 2013). The findings from this thesis support that individuals with higher FN experience heightened negative arousal when anticipating consumption of seafood (Papers III-V). This is likely due to low exposure to the wide range of species within this food category, which heightens focus on sensory disliking and lowers anticipated enjoyment (Paper IV). In addition, individuals with higher FN are more vigilant of “warning” cues that signal potential risk (e.g., sliminess, Papers IV and V), thereby limiting consumption to mitigate adverse effects (Manuscript V, Study 2). Interestingly, the exception consistently found for salmon (Papers III-V) suggests that increasing familiarity reduces arousal and in turn enhance acceptance. Encouraging repeated and positive experiences can successfully attenuate FN and shift the optimal level of arousal below the “warning threshold”. This supports that, although resistant to change, FN is not an immutable personality trait and can be effectively modified through learning. 5.3.2. Implications for the food industry The high failure rate of new food products shortly after launch (estimated at up to 75%, Dijksterhuis, 2016), could be partly attributed to how sensory and consumer science is conducted. Most commercial studies are carried out with trained sensory and consumer panels, consisting of individuals interested in trying novel foods and with lower levels of FN than the general population (Jaeger et al., 2022). In addition, consumer research is often carried out in abstract forms, using for example food names instead of real prototypes (Giacalone et al., 2015). As seen in Manuscript V, acceptance of hypothetical foods (Study 1) does not necessarily translate into actual consumption when presented with real samples (Study 2), highlighting a critical gap in current product evaluation methods. Notably, individuals with higher FN may offer a more 52 realistic representation of consumer acceptance than trained sensory or consumer panels. This raises an important question: are research participants, and by extension the derived findings, inherently biased? Incorporating consumers’ perspective during the early stages of product development is critical to market success (van Kleef et al., 2005). Yet, as Geertsen et al., (2016) pointed out, food innovation often proceeds with limited early-phase research and weak theoretical knowledge of consumer acceptance. Traditionally, the industry has prioritized the intrinsic properties of food while underestimating consumer-related variables and the way consumers interact with products (Rozin, 2020). This narrow focus, coupled with a limited understanding of the barriers that limit product acceptance, could help explain the high rate of product failure. Ko ster (2003), for instance, warned against assuming that consumers behave rationally and consistently, ignoring contextual factors and individual variability. This thesis (Papers II-V) highlights that consumer-related factors, namely FN, perceived familiarity, and arousal hinder acceptance of seafood. These findings underscore the need to move beyond demographic profiling and towards a richer understanding of consumers, taking into account their individual differences and prior experience. Integrating such factors into product development is crucial to increasing the likelihood of market success. From an applied industry perspective, identifying distinct consumer segments is essential to guide targeted product development and communication strategies (Riverso et al., 2023). Early adopters, such as consumers with lower FN and familiar with a wide range of seafood products, can provide a valuable entry point to encourage broader acceptance among other consumer groups (Collier et al., 2024). Social influence (e.g., word of mouth or modelling), could further facilitate initial consumption (Alley, 2024). Segment-specific insights into sensory drivers and barriers allow product optimization and prevent rejection upon first trial (Collier et al., 2024). For example, by incorporating “flavor principles” within a culture to mask negative expectations and/or unappealing experiences (Pliner & Stallberg-White, 2000). Importantly, product expectations should be realistically met upon consumption (Tuorila et al., 1998), as large deviations could lead to rejection (Yeomans et al., 2008). 53 As noted in Paper I, the retail environment presents both challenges and opportunities for guiding consumer choices. In-store product sampling and demonstrations could improve perceived appropriateness (Giacalone & Jaeger, 2016). Free sampling provides sensory exposure in small quantities within a safe and social context, which could also contribute to reducing arousal (De la Casa, 2018). Sampling simultaneously addresses other barriers, such as cost and lack of knowledge regarding preparation. On the other hand, the retail environment is visually competitive (Costa et al., 2024), and interventions aimed to change behavior should consider the difficulties of disrupting habits in such settings (Lindahl & Linder, 2024). Moreover, relying solely on familiarity claims is unlikely to address individuals with high FN (Fenko et al., 2015). Instead, claims should emphasize relevant product properties that disconfirm initial negative expectations (Collier et al., 2024). Successfully introducing new products therefore requires targeted sensory marketing and communication strategies that efficiently convey key product claims amidst a competitive environment. Long-term acceptance, alongside first impressions, is crucial for product success. Product developers should balance familiarity and novelty to achieve an optimal level of arousal: eliciting consumers’ interest while avoiding unpleasantly high arousal (Ko ster & Mojet, 2007b). An effective strategy for increasing acceptance of foods with highly arousing characteristics is to modify their presentation (Aldridge et al., 2009; Kerckhove et al., 2023). Such changes have been shown to influence consumer acceptance even for novel seafoods, e.g., jellyfish (Nervo et al., 2024). This thesis demonstrates how this can be achieved in practice (Paper II and Manuscript V), providing guidance for the development of future seafood products. 5.3.3. Implications for consumers Consumers are becoming increasingly disconnected from the food system (Bricas, 2019), which reinforces their reliance on heuristics that are neither accurate nor beneficial (Collier et al., 2024). An example is the tendency to dichotomize foods into either “healthy” or “unhealthy” (Rozin & Holtermann, 2021). This dichotomous narrative has become more 54 frequent in recent times, stigmatizing entire food categories and discouraging the consumption of specific food ingredients, technologies, and processing techniques, e.g., ultra processed foods (Forde et al., 2020). Such framing implies that some commercially available food products are inherently “poisonous” and pose a threat to human health, disregarding the core toxicological principle “the dose makes the poison”, meaning that any substance can be harmful depending on the quantity consumed. Humans are “intuitive toxicologists”, relying on their senses when evaluating food safety and perceiving these as either safe or dangerous without considering the amount of exposure (Neil et al., 1994). Unfortunately, a poor understanding of food risks encourages restrictive diets rather than promoting more sustainable eating habits focused on diversity and enjoyment. Dietary variety is crucial during childhood and also later in life. Adults’ eating patterns play an important role in shaping the food preferences of future generations. Unlike children, adults have broader experience and are less frequently challenged to try unknown foods. Nonetheless, individuals learn new eating behaviors throughout their lifetime, and certain transitions could represent an opportunity for change. Although FN tends to remain relatively stable over time (Rabada n & Bernabe u, 2021), it is not adequate to conceptualize it as an immutable personality trait (Karaag aç & Bellikci Koyu, 2022). Learning to (dis)like foods is a lifelong process, and emotional experiences with foods can change over time. In particular, during sensitive periods in life such as adolescence, when individuals gain independence in their dietary choices (Arcadu et al., 2025; Fontana et al., 2025). Other relevant life transitions include moving in with a partner or preparing to have children (Ko ster & Mojet, 2007a). Identifying strategies that can support long-term behavioral change is therefore fundamental. Exposure-based interventions effectively address problematic eating behaviors (Reilly et al., 2017). Approaches that involve in vivo exposure and relaxation techniques appear to be successful in adults with high FN (Marcontell et al., 2002), and adolescents (Rigal et al., 2006). Repeated and gradual exposure to foods that elicit arousal debilitates the negative association by pairing such foods with appetitive responses instead. Successive approximations are required to approach 55 increasingly challenging foods, transitioning from exposure to imagined foods to real foods. A critical aspect is to ensure that these positive experiences can support generalization to a wider range of foods. In addition, future interventions should consider individuals’ tolerance to uncertainty and associated arousal (Reilly et al., 2017). By measuring FN on a continuum rather than dichotomizing or grouping individuals, this thesis reveals that reluctance to eat foods occurs even among consumers with non-extreme levels of FN. Raising awareness about FN as a barrier to food acceptance, along with strategies to manage anxiety, first requires challenging consumers to recognize their own avoidance tendencies. Promoting awareness and reflection on one’s conservative eating tendencies, and long-term implications, can be beneficial in health-related interventions to initiate behavioral change (Collier et al., 2024). Ultimately, consumers should be guided to adopt more flexible eating patterns that prioritize dietary variety. 5.3.4. Societal implications: diversity on the plate The findings from this thesis have practical implications for society at large, as tackling FN could contribute to dietary diversification more generally. A growing world population requires an urgent transition towards foods that are nutritious, more sustainable (Poore & Nemecek, 2018), and more diverse (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2019). Overcoming the barriers that limit consumer acceptance of a wider range of foods is fundamental to building a more resilient food system (Kalmpourtzidou et al., 2025), and it should be considered a key preparedness strategy. Nowadays, most individuals live in an environment that is dramatically different from that of our ancestors. The recurring challenge of identifying edible foods has been mostly resolved, and high caloric foods that used to be scarce have become widely available (Rozin & Todd, 2015). Nutrient- dense foods, including fruits, vegetables and seafood have been displaced by others with less nutritional value, such as cereal grains and dairy (Cordain et al., 2005). Modern agriculture and livestock production have led to more homogenized diets and an overreliance on a limited number of species (Kalmpourtzidou et al., 2025), despite the vast diversity of 56 potentially edible plant and animal species available worldwide. For example, current societies are highly dependent on the production of a few crops; mainly rice, wheat, and maize (Khoury et al., 2014; Lachat et al., 2018). This is leading to a diversity paradox: despite global trade enabling access to a wider range of products, consumption patterns are becoming narrower and more homogeneous on a global level (Kalmpourtzidou et al., 2025; La hde et al., 2023). The current food system is an increasingly globalized and interconnected network that is highly vulnerable to environmental stresses (IPES-Food, 2016). Food production, in particular, is susceptible to extreme weather events such as heatwaves and heavy precipitation, which are expected to occur more frequently due to climate change (La hde et al., 2023). In such an unpredictable environment, expanding the range of foods that are considered acceptable for consumption is even more important. Dietary diversification provides greater flexibility and resilience against any future disruptions. In addition, learning to become more tolerant of uncertainty (Grupe & Nitschke, 2013) and reframing individuals’ perception - from a potential threat to an opportunity for safe and enjoyable eating experiences - may encourage acceptance of a wider range of foods (Davis et al., 2023). Being wary of foods not previously encountered keeps consumption “on a safe track” (Schulze & Watson, 1995). However, several researchers have argued that the protective function of FN is rather obsolete for modern consumers (Pliner & Salvy, 2006). In contemporary food environments, most choices take place at supermarkets or restaurants where food safety standards are high and cultural selection has already filtered out non- edible substances (Foinant et al., 2022; Pelchat & Pliner, 1995). Thus, conservative eating tendencies pose a barrier to dietary diversity since they limit the consumption of nutritionally and environmentally beneficial foods. Nevertheless, even in contemporary environments, caution remains adaptive as individuals must still learn to safely handle, prepare, and consume foods. Research in sensory and consumer science can contribute to addressing these societal challenges by promoting dietary diversity and shifting diets towards foods with higher nutritional and environmental performance 57 (Aschemann-Witzel et al., 2019). Identifying strategies that can reduce vulnerability to any potential disruptions in the food system, both in terms of production and consumption, should be prioritized. 5.4. Limitations While each paper outlines specific limitations, some general aspects warrant consideration. First, the majority of the studies implemented cross-sectional or within- subjects design, where each participant evaluated all samples at one point in time. Although common in sensory and consumer science, these designs are inherently limited in their ability to establish causality. Longitudinal studies, which measure the same individuals over time, could complement these findings by reducing ambiguity in terms of the direction of causality. In addition, longitudinal studies could provide further understanding of how FN develops over the lifespan, how it relates to dietary variety and health outcomes, and whether it is possible to change FN long-term. Most of the studies in this thesis (Papers II-V) included large sample sizes and were generally balanced for gender (except Paper IV, with a majority of females), however it was not possible to achieve a similar distribution for other variables such as age, education, and geographical location within Sweden, which may have interfered with external validity. It remains to be investigated whether the relationship between FN and consumer acceptance of seafood is consistent across different demographic segments and locations, within Sweden as well as in other countries. Given its exploratory approach, Paper I did not include measures of FN in relation to actual seafood choices at the point of purchase. Papers II-V used the FNS and FNS_A, assessing consumers’ general neophobic tendencies through self-reports. In addition, Manuscript V (Study 2) complemented these with behavioral data, which are more frequently measured in studies with children (Damsbo-Svendsen et al., 2017). Perceived familiarity per sample was operationalized through a scale that incorporates frequency of consumption and recognition (Tuorila et al., 58 2001), although familiarity measures were not included in Papers II and III. Instead, this was captured through individuals’ previous experience consuming oysters (Paper II) and seafood in general (Paper III). A more nuanced measurement of perceived familiarity was obtained in Papers IV and V. Whilst the findings suggest the role of arousal in FN, it is important to consider how arousal was measured. Inconsistencies in the definition and measurement of arousal as a construct have been pointed out (Smith et al., 2025). In Papers III-V, arousal was assessed as a perceived emotional activation and reported by participants on a single scale. However, participants may perceive arousal in different ways, and these measures could capture different emotional experiences (Barrett, 2016) that are not comparable between cohorts (e.g., Manuscript V, Study 1 and 2). A wider range of emotional experiences could have been captured using other instruments such as the circumplex emotion questionnaire (CEQ, as used by Jaeger et al., 2022), or by the development of a category-specific list of emotion words. For instance, combining a list defined by consumers and a predefined questionnaire such as EmoSemio (Spinelli et al., 2014). In addition, self-reported emotions could have been complemented by the use of physiological measures (e.g., galvanic skin response). Nevertheless, a one-to-one correspondence between self-reported emotions and physiological states should not be expected according to the theory of constructed emotion (Barrett, 2016). Given that arousal was found to be useful in explaining seafood acceptance (Papers III-V), future studies should further investigate how arousal guides and influences eating behaviors. Moreover, since individuals experience variations in arousal throughout the day (Bond et al., 2023), temporal aspects should be considered in future studies. An important strength of this thesis is that it complements existing FN research using food labels with actual samples, as recommended by several authors (Coulthard et al., 2022; Jaeger et al., 2023). An alternative to using food labels alone is the combination of food images with labels (e.g., Paper IV and V (Study 1), and Collier et al., 2024). Nonetheless, imagery is not representative of the wide variety of preparation formats that individuals associate with foods. Although images provide more detailed visual information, helping participants to verbally articulate 59 sensory expectations (e.g., Paper IV), the presentation of labeled images does not provide a real evaluation experience (Coulthard et al., 2022). To address this limitation, evaluating individuals’ actual tasting experiences is fundamental, as it allows the collection of behavioral measures within a more realistic environment. Accordingly, Papers II, III and V involved real tasting scenarios with real samples, with Papers III and V consisting of commercial seafood products available in Europe and the United States (but not in Sweden). This was meant to increase the likelihood that these samples would be perceived as novel by Swedish participants. An important consideration, however, is that commercially available products constrain the possibilities to manipulate raw ingredients and intrinsic sensory properties. For instance, in Manuscript V, several seafood products were selected and texture was experimentally manipulated (e.g., oyster vs oyster pate ), although fully controlling for such variables in detail was not possible. While product prototypes (e.g., samples used in Paper II) offer greater flexibility than commercial products, the latter demonstrate viability, real- world relevance, and provide feedback to industry actors. 60 6. Concluding remarks FN serves an evolutionary protective function against the ingestion of potentially harmful substances. Despite modern food safety standards, FN continues to shape current dietary patterns and remains a barrier to consumer acceptance of novel foods, as well as culturally available, safe, and beneficial foods such as seafood. This thesis provides a timely contribution to FN research by expanding and challenging its current conceptualization. The findings demonstrate that FN is a key barrier to increasing and diversifying seafood consumption among Swedish adults. Importantly, FN influences expectations, emotional experiences, and eating behavior not only at its extreme end but also in individuals with relatively lower levels. In line with the arousal hypothesis, the findings indicate that individuals with higher FN tend to experience unpleasantly high emotional activation towards certain food cues. Of particular relevance to seafood, textural characteristics (e.g., sliminess) are more likely to be perceived as a threat, eliciting heightened arousal in individuals with higher FN. Emotional arousal in turn reduces both expected and actual hedonic evaluations, decreasing the likelihood of trying a food and limiting consumption. Such avoidance behaviors are maintained by a negative feedback loop that prevents future exposure and the opportunity to disconfirm the perceived threat. This thesis offers a deeper theoretical understanding of the mechanisms underlying FN and proposes both short- and long-term strategies to tackle it. These strategies are broadly applicable to other food categories beyond seafood. Ultimately, recognizing and mitigating the negative impact of FN on consumer acceptance is crucial for an effective transition to healthier, more sustainable, and diversified diets in Sweden. 61 Funding The project was funded by Blue Food – Centre for Future Seafood, which is financed by Formas – a Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development (grant number 2020-02834) and Region Va stra Go taland (grant number RUN 2020-00352). 62 Acknowledgements These past four years have been quite a journey. Looking back, I feel deeply grateful to those who supported me along the way. First and foremost, I would like to thank my main supervisor Dr. Elizabeth S. Collier for the many hours invested in helping me grow. I cannot imagine completing this work without your guidance, expertise and meticulous feedback. From the very beginning, you believed in my ability to drive this research project, continuously encouraging me to push my boundaries even further and try new methods and analyses. I would also like to thank my co-supervisor Dr. Jun Niimi for his consistent support and motivation throughout these years, always finding the time to discuss ideas and provide guidance. Your trust made me feel capable of taking on new challenges, including writing a book chapter, which helped to develop my skills as a researcher. I would also like to extend a special thanks to Dr. Anders Ho gberg for his valuable contributions in bringing an industry perspective that ensured the practical relevance of this research. I am also very grateful to Dr. John Armbrecht for reviewing and providing critical feedback on the kappa, offering guidance that strengthened its theoretical foundation. And thank you, Dr. Henrik Sundh, for your assistance along the way. This thesis marks the end of a very special chapter, during which I have learned so much academically and personally. This journey would not have started without Dr. Martin Arvidsson, who saw in me the potential to take on this challenge. Thank you for unexpectedly changing the course of my life and making sure that I would not regret it. Also, thank you to my friends in Madrid, Copenhagen, Stockholm, and beyond. Founa, Alexandra, Natalie, and Mehdi, thank you for your kindness and emotional support. And thank you in particular, Jacqueline and Nick, for going the extra mile and even helping me with practical challenges, including moving to and within Gothenburg. Thank you, Sandra, for staying close despite being an ocean apart and for sharing with me your experience of completing a PhD. 63 It has been a pleasure to be part of the Bla Mat center. I feel incredibly lucky to have shared this journey with such special, hardworking, and talented people. Snuttan, the heart of the center, you have done everything possible to help me reach the finish line and I appreciate this immensely. Mica, we have been “swimming along” from the start and your constant support has meant so much, thank you for being always there in the good and bad times. I am also grateful to Kristina for her support and the many interesting discussions we had, and Mar, John, Eve, and Pontus for all these years together. Thank you to everyone at Bla Mat for sharing your knowledge and inspiration. I have been fortunate to meet brilliant researchers at RISE. I would like to especially thank Ana and Victoria for their support and help with many hours of data collection. Thank you Claudia, Astrid, Joshua, Diana, Greta, Anne, Mats, and Niklas, and many others, for the stimulating conversations and lunch/fika breaks. I would also like to thank everyone at the Product Design unit, the Sustainable Food Consumption unit, as well as the RISE Seafood team, in particular Friederike, Sara, and Markus for your expertise and involvement in this project. Thank you to the 1948 participants who voluntarily took part in these studies, and those who were screened out. To everyone that helped spread the word by inviting their friends, family, and colleagues to participate. Matej, there are no words to express the important role you have taken. You demonstrated endless patience, helped me rehearse presentations, and engaged in what may have been far too many conversations about this topic. You have been by my side in every way. Thank you. Y, por u ltimo, quiero agradecer a mis padres. Sois una fuente constante de inspiracio n y fuerza. Papa , gracias por abrirme el camino hacia la ciencia y por compartir tus conocimientos conmigo. Estoy segura de que esta tesis doctoral te llenara de orgullo. Y mama , todo lo que diga es poco. Gracias por ensen arme casi todo lo que se , por sorprenderme con cosas nuevas, por ayudarme a tener una buena relacio n con la comida, y por tu insaciable curiosidad. Me has animado a ir ma s alla , a comprender que siempre hay algo nuevo que aprender y que no todo esta en los libros. 64 About the author Elena Costa graduated from her bachelor’s degree in psychology from the Universidad Auto noma de Madrid and pursued a master’s degree in Market Research and Consumer Behavior at IE Business School in Madrid, Spain. Following her graduation in 2014, she relocated to Copenhagen, Denmark, to work as a researcher at EyeReply, a consultancy firm specializing in consumer behavior and usability. In 2017, she moved to Stockholm, Sweden, to take on a research advisor role at Tobii where she led several international research projects using eye tracking. Elena began her PhD studies in 2021 at RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, in collaboration with the University of Gothenburg. During her doctoral studies, she was part of Blue Food – Centre for future seafood, a multidisciplinary initiative aimed at promoting seafood production, value creation, and consumption in Sweden. She also had the opportunity to present her research at several international scientific conferences, including Pangborn and EuroSense. 65 References Airington, Z., Casteigne, M., Mitchell, J., Moran, J. B., Kerry, N., & Murray, D. R. (2025). Dinner (and Disease) is Served: Examining the Relationship Between Disease Avoidance Motivations and Food Neophobia. Adaptive Human Behavior and Physiology, 11(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40750-025-00259-4 Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749- 5978(91)90020-T Ajzen, I. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health, 26(9), 1113–1127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2011.613995 Aldridge, V., Dovey, T. M., & Halford, J. C. G. (2009). The role of familiarity in dietary development. Developmental Review, 29(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2008.11.001 Alley, T. R. (2024). Food Neophobia: Measurement, Variability and Consequences. In A. I. D. A. Costa, M. J. P. Monteiro, & E. Lamy (Eds.), Sensory Evaluation and Consumer Acceptance of New Food Products (pp. 236–259). Royal Society of Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1039/BK9781839166655-00236 Al-Shawaf, L., Lewis, D. M. G., Alley, T. R., & Buss, D. M. (2015). Mating strategy, disgust, and food neophobia. Appetite, 85, 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.029 Arcadu, M., Cataldo, R., & Migliorini, L. (2025). Eating away from home: A quantitative analysis of food neophobia (FNS) and satisfaction with food life (SWFLS) scales among university students. Food Quality and Preference, 131, 105573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105573 Ares, G., & Varela, P. (2017). Trained vs. consumer panels for analytical testing: Fueling a long lasting debate in the field. Food Quality and Preference, 61, 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.10.006 Ares, G., & Vidal, L. (2024). Measuring Liking for Food and Drink (pp. 1–26). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75388-1_26-2 Armelagos, G. J. (2014). Brain evolution, the determinates of food choice, and the Omnivore’s Dilemma. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 54(10), 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.635817 Aschemann-Witzel, J., Ares, G., Thøgersen, J., & Monteleone, E. (2019). A sense of sustainability? – How sensory consumer science can contribute to sustainable development of the food sector. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 90, 180– 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.02.021 Axelsson, A., & Hornborg, S. (2025). Svensk sjo matskonsumtion 2023. RISE Rapport 2025:42. Barrett, L. F. (2016). 2—Navigating the Science of Emotion. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Emotion Measurement (pp. 31–63). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100508-8.00002-3 Barrett, L. F., Quigley, K. S., Bliss-Moreau, E., & Aronson, K. R. (2004). Interoceptive Sensitivity and Self-Reports of Emotional Experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 684–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022- 3514.87.5.684 Barrett, L. F., & Simmons, W. K. (2015). Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(7), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3950 66 Barsalou, L. W. (2011). Integrating Bayesian analysis and mechanistic theories in grounded cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(4), 191–192. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11000197 Bendtsen, M. (2018). A Gentle Introduction to the Comparison Between Null Hypothesis Testing and Bayesian Analysis: Reanalysis of Two Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 20(10), e10873. https://doi.org/10.2196/10873 Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity (pp. xii, 350). McGraw-Hill Book Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11164-000 Berlyne, D. E. (1970). Novelty, complexity, and hedonic value. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(5), 279–286. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212593 Bernhardt, J. R., & O’Connor, M. I. (2021). Aquatic biodiversity enhances multiple nutritional benefits to humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15), e1917487118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1917487118 Bianchi, M., Hallstro m, E., Parker, R. W. R., Mifflin, K., Tyedmers, P., & Ziegler, F. (2022). Assessing seafood nutritional diversity together with climate impacts informs more comprehensive dietary advice. Communications Earth & Environment, 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00516-4 Birch, D., Skallerud, K., & Paul, N. (2019). Who Eats Seaweed? An Australian Perspective. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 31(4), 329–351. https://doi.org/10.1080/08974438.2018.1520182 Birch, L. L. (1999). Development of food preferences. Annual Review of Nutrition, 19(Volume 19, 1999), 41–62. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.19.1.41 Birch, L. L., & Marlin, D. W. (1982). I don’t like it; I never tried it: Effects of exposure on two- year-old children’s food preferences. Appetite, 3(4), 353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(82)80053-6 Blake, C. E. (2008). Individual differences in the conceptualization of food across eating contexts. Food Quality and Preference, 19(1), 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.009 Bond, I. G., Machida, K., & Johnson, K. A. (2023). Daily arousal variation has little effect on sustained attention performance. Current Psychology (New Brunswick, N.j.), 1– 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04473-9 Bradley, M. M. (2009). Natural selective attention: Orienting and emotion. Psychophysiology, 46(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469- 8986.2008.00702.x Breslin, P. A. S. (2013). An Evolutionary Perspective on Food and Human Taste. Current Biology, 23(9), R409–R418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.04.010 Bricas, N. (2019). Urbanization Issues Affecting Food System Sustainability. In Designing Urban Food Policies (pp. 1–25). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 030-13958-2_1 Brown, S. D., & Harris, G. (2012). A Theoretical Proposal for a Perceptually Driven, Food- Based Disgust that Can Influence Food Acceptance During Early Childhood. International Journal of Child Health and Nutrition, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.6000/1929-4247.2012.01.01.01 Capiola, A., & Raudenbush, B. (2012). The Effects of Food Neophobia and Food Neophilia on Diet and Metabolic Processing. Food and Nutrition Sciences, 3(10), Article 10. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2012.310183 Cardello, A., & Schutz, H. (2006). Sensory Science: Measuring Consumer Acceptance. In Handbook of Food Science, Technology, and Engineering—4 Volume Set (pp. 56–1 to 56). https://doi.org/10.1201/b15995-62 67 Cardello, A. V. (1994). Consumer expectations and their role in food acceptance. In Measurement of Food Preferences (pp. 253–297). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-2171-6_10 Cardello, A. V. (2007). 10—Measuring consumer expectations to improve food product development. In H. MacFie (Ed.), Consumer-Led Food Product Development (pp. 223–261). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845693381.2.223 Cardello, A. V. (2024). Measuring Eating and Drinking Experience: Paradigm Shifts in Methods and Metrics. In Handbook of Eating and Drinking (pp. 1–26). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75388-1_173-2 Cardello, A. V., & Jaeger, S. R. (2021). Chapter 10—Measurement of consumer product emotions using questionnaires. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Emotion Measurement (Second Edition) (pp. 273–321). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-821124-3.00010-7 Cardello, A. V., Schutz, H., Snow, C., & Lesher, L. (2000). Predictors of food acceptance, consumption and satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food Quality and Preference, 11(3), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00055-5 Carlucci, D., Nocella, G., De Devitiis, B., Viscecchia, R., Bimbo, F., & Nardone, G. (2015). Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite, 84, 212–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.008 Cashdan, E. (1994). A sensitive period for learning about food. Human Nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.), 5(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02692155 Cashdan, E. (1998). Adaptiveness of food learning and food aversions in children. Social Science Information, 37(4), 613–632. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901898037004003 Catania, A. C. (2013). A Natural Science of Behavior. Review of General Psychology, 17(2), 133–139. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033026 Choi, W.-S. (2023). Problems and alternatives of testing significance using null hypothesis and P-value in food research. Food Science and Biotechnology, 32(11), 1479– 1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-023-01348-4 Chow, C.-Y., Riantiningtyas, R. R., Sørensen, H., & Bom Frøst, M. (2021). School children cooking and eating insects as part of a teaching program – Effects of cooking, insect type, tasting order and food neophobia on hedonic response. Food Quality and Preference, 87, 104027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104027 Çınar, Ç., Karinen, A. K., & Tybur, J. M. (2021). The multidimensional nature of food neophobia. Appetite, 162, 105177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105177 Clemente, R., Murphy, A., & Murphy, J. (2024). The relationship between self-reported interoception and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 167, 105923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2024.105923 Collier, E. S., Blomqvist, J., & Bendtsen, M. (2024). Satisfaction with a digital support tool targeting alcohol consumption: Perspectives from participants in a randomized control trial. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 59(1), agad070. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agad070 Collier, E. S., Costa, E., Harris, K. L., Bendtsen, M., & Niimi, J. (2024). Still just a matter of taste? Sensorial appreciation of seafood is associated with more frequent and diverse consumption. Appetite, 198, 107369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107369 Collier, E. S., Harris, K. L., Bendtsen, M., Moshtaghian, H., Bryngelsson, S., & Niimi, J. (2024). Perceptions of processed foods as unhealthy: Heuristic strength, prevalence, and 68 potential implications for the protein shift. Future Foods, 10, 100445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2024.100445 Collier, E. S., Harris, K. L., Bendtsen, M., Norman, C., & Niimi, J. (2023). Just a matter of taste? Understanding rationalizations for dairy consumption and their associations with sensory expectations of plant-based milk alternatives. Food Quality and Preference, 104, 104745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104745 Collier, E. S., van Huyssteen, G., Krona, A., Harris, K. L., Ahlinder, A., Normann, A., Bendtsen, M., & Eckardt, J. (2025). “It’s not bad, but it’s not chicken”: Sensorial drivers of liking and their correlates for plant-based chicken analogues in Sweden. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, 41, 101229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2025.101229 Cooke, L. (2018). 12—Genetic and environmental influences on food neophobia. In S. Reilly (Ed.), Food Neophobia (pp. 237–254). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101931-3.00012-4 Cooke, L., Carnell, S., & Wardle, J. (2006). Food neophobia and mealtime food consumption in 4–5 year old children. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-3-14 Cooke, L., & Fildes, A. (2011). The impact of flavour exposure in utero and during milk feeding on food acceptance at weaning and beyond. Appetite, 57(3), 808–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.05.317 Cooke, L., Wardle, J., & Gibson, E. L. (2003). Relationship between parental report of food neophobia and everyday food consumption in 2-6-year-old children. Appetite, 41(2), 205–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00048-5 Cordain, L., Eaton, S. B., Sebastian, A., Mann, N., Lindeberg, S., Watkins, B. A., O’Keefe, J. H., & Brand-Miller, J. (2005). Origins and evolution of the Western diet: Health implications for the 21st century1,2. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 81(2), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn.81.2.341 Costa, A., Silva, C., & Oliveira, A. (2020). Food neophobia and its association with food preferences and dietary intake of adults. Nutrition & Dietetics, 77(5), 542–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/1747-0080.12587 Costa, E., Bergman, P., Niimi, J., & Collier, E. S. (2024). Exploring seafood choices at the point of purchase among a sample of Swedish consumers. British Food Journal, 126(13), 269–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-08-2023-0702 Costa, E., Niimi, J., & Collier, E. S. (2023). The relationship between food neophobia and hedonic ratings of novel foods may be mediated by emotional arousal. Food Quality and Preference, 104931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104931 Costello, C., Cao, L., Gelcich, S., Cisneros-Mata, M. A ., Free, C. M., Froehlich, H. E., Golden, C. D., Ishimura, G., Maier, J., Macadam-Somer, I., Mangin, T., Melnychuk, M. C., Miyahara, M., de Moor, C. L., Naylor, R., Nøstbakken, L., Ojea, E., O’Reilly, E., Parma, A. M., … Lubchenco, J. (2020). The future of food from the sea. Nature, 588(7836), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2616-y Coulthard, H., Aldridge, V., & Fox, G. (2022). Food neophobia and the evaluation of novel foods in adults; the sensory, emotional, association (SEA) model of the decision to taste a novel food. Appetite, 168, 105764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105764 Coulthard, H., Williamson, I., Palfreyman, Z., & Lyttle, S. (2018). Evaluation of a pilot sensory play intervention to increase fruit acceptance in preschool children. Appetite, 120, 609–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.10.011 Curtis, V., Aunger, R., & Rabie, T. (2004). Evidence that disgust evolved to protect from risk of disease. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271(suppl_4), S131–S133. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2003.0144 69 Damsbo-Svendsen, M., Frøst, M. B., & Olsen, A. (2017). A review of instruments developed to measure food neophobia. Appetite, 113, 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.032 De Kock, H. L., Nkhabutlane, P., Kobue-Lekalake, R. I., Kriek, J., Steyn, A., Clarissa, V. H., Purdon, L., Kruger, C., Kinnear, M., Taljaard-Swart, H., & Tuorila, H. (2022). An alternative food neophobia scale (FNS-A) to quantify responses to new foods. Food Quality and Preference, 101, 104626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104626 De la Casa, L. (2018). Context and taste neophobia. In Food Neophobia (pp. 59–75). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101931-3.00004-5 Delwiche, J. F. (2012). You eat with your eyes first. Physiology & Behavior, 107(4), 502–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.07.007 Dember, W. N., & Earl, R. W. (1957). Analysis of exploratory, manipulatory, and curiosity behaviors. Psychological Review, 64(2), 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046861 Dibbets, P., Borger, L., & Nederkoorn, C. (2021). Filthy fruit! Confirmation bias and novel food. Appetite, 167, 105607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105607 Dijksterhuis, G. (2016). New product failure: Five potential sources discussed. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 50, 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.016 Domjan, M. (2005). Pavlovian Conditioning: A Functional Perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 179–206. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141409 Domjan, M. (2018). Introduction to Food Neophobia: Historical and Conceptual Foundations. In Food Neophobia (pp. xv–xxx). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0- 08-101931-3.00022-7 Domjan, M., & Delamater, A. R. (2023a). Avoidance learning. In The essentials of conditioning and learning, 5th ed (pp. 189–205). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000363-012 Domjan, M., & Delamater, A. R. (2023b). Basic concepts and definitions. In The essentials of conditioning and learning, 5th ed (pp. 3–16). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000363-001 Domjan, M., & Delamater, A. R. (2023c). Habituation and sensitization. In The essentials of conditioning and learning, 5th ed (pp. 31–44). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000363-003 Dooley, L., Lee, Y., & Meullenet, J.-F. (2010). The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference, 21(4), 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.10.002 Dovey, T. M. (2018). 16 - Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: An eating disorder on a spectrum with food neophobia. In S. Reilly (Ed.), Food Neophobia (pp. 329– 349). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101931- 3.00016-1 Dovey, T. M., Staples, P. A., Gibson, E. L., & Halford, J. C. G. (2008). Food neophobia and ‘picky/fussy’ eating in children: A review. Appetite, 50(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.009 Du rrschmid, K., & Danner, L. (2018). Eye Tracking in Consumer Research. In Methods in Consumer Research, Volume 2: Alternative Approaches and Special Applications (pp. 279–318). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101743-2.00012-1 Elliot, A. J. (2014). Approach and Avoidance Motivation. In Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203888148.ch1 70 Elson, M., Hussey, I., Alsalti, T., & Arslan, R. C. (2023). Psychological measures aren’t toothbrushes. Communications Psychology, 1(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44271-023-00026-9 Fenko, A., Leufkens, J.-M., & van Hoof, J. J. (2015). New product, familiar taste: Effects of slogans on cognitive and affective responses to an unknown food product among food neophobics and neophilics. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 268–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.021 Foinant, D., Lafraire, J., & Thibaut, J.-P. (2022). Tears for pears: Influence of children’s neophobia on categorization performance and strategy in the food domain. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.951890 Fontana, L., Endrizzi, I., Menghi, L., Franchini, C., Innocenti, P. D., Bontempo, L., & Gasperi, F. (2025). Food Neophobia mediates the variety but not the quality of food choices among adolescents. Food Quality and Preference, 105646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105646 Forde, C. G., & Delahunty, C. M. (2004). Understanding the role cross-modal sensory interactions play in food acceptability in younger and older consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.12.008 Forde, C. G., Mars, M., & de Graaf, K. (2020). Ultra-Processing or Oral Processing? A Role for Energy Density and Eating Rate in Moderating Energy Intake from Processed Foods. Current Developments in Nutrition, 4(3), nzaa019. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdn/nzaa019 Garcia, J., & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomic Science, 4(1), 123–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03342209 Giacalone, D., Frøst, M. B., Bredie, W. L. P., Pineau, B., Hunter, D. C., Paisley, A. G., Beresford, M. K., & Jaeger, S. R. (2015). Situational appropriateness of beer is influenced by product familiarity. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.012 Giacalone, D., & Jaeger, S. R. (2016). Better the devil you know? How product familiarity affects usage versatility of foods and beverages. Journal of Economic Psychology, 55, 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2016.02.005 Giacalone, D., Llobell, F., & Jaeger, S. R. (2022). “Beyond liking” measures in food-related consumer research supplement hedonic responses and improve ability to predict consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 97, 104459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104459 Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62(1), 451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709- 145346 Gilbert, D. T., & Wilson, T. D. (2007). Prospection: Experiencing the future. Science, 317(5843), 1351–1354. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1144161 Gracia Arnaiz, M. (2000). La complejidad biosocial de la alimentacio n humana. Zainak. Cuadernos de Antropología-Etnografía, 20, 35–55. Gradowski, L. (2024). From fringe to mainstream: The Garcia effect. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 103, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2023.12.004 Grupe, D., & Nitschke, J. (2013). Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: An integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 14, 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3524 Gumussoy, M., & Rogers, P. J. (2023). It tastes OK, but I don’t want to eat it: New insights into food disgust. Appetite, 188, 106642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2023.106642 71 Hallstro m, E., Bergman, K., Mifflin, K., Parker, R., Tyedmers, P., Troell, M., & Ziegler, F. (2019). Combined climate and nutritional performance of seafoods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 230, 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.229 Hamlin, R. P. (2010). Cue-Based Decision Making. A new framework for understanding the uninvolved food consumer. Appetite, 55(1), 89–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2010.04.007 Harris, G. (2018). 10 - Food neophobia: Behavioral and biological influences: Neophobia at 20 months: A visual categorization problem? In S. Reilly (Ed.), Food Neophobia (pp. 193–217). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08- 101931-3.00010-0 Hartmann, C., Shi, J., Giusto, A., & Siegrist, M. (2015). The psychology of eating insects: A cross-cultural comparison between Germany and China. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.013 Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2016). Becoming an insectivore: Results of an experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 51, 118–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.003 Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2018). Development and validation of the Food Disgust Scale. Food Quality and Preference, 63, 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.07.013 Hartmann, C., & Siegrist, M. (2019). 16—Virtual reality and immersive approaches to contextual food testing. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Context (pp. 323–338). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814495-4.00016-7 Hausner, H., Hartvig, D. L., Reinbach, H. C., Wendin, K., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2012). Effects of repeated exposure on acceptance of initially disliked and liked Nordic snack bars in 9–11 year-old children. Clinical Nutrition, 31(1), 137–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2011.08.003 Havermans, R. C. (2025). Future foods refusal. How our behavioral immune system impedes the sustainable food transition. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 105179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2025.105179 Havermans, R. C., & Jansen, A. (2007). Increasing children’s liking of vegetables through flavour–flavour learning. Appetite, 48(2), 259–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.08.063 Hazley, D., McCarthy, S. N., Stack, M., Walton, J., McNulty, B. A., Flynn, A., & Kearney, J. M. (2022). Food neophobia and its relationship with dietary variety and quality in Irish adults: Findings from a national cross-sectional study. Appetite, 169, 105859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105859 Hazley, D., Stack, M., Walton, J., McNulty, B. A., & Kearney, J. M. (2022). Food neophobia across the life course: Pooling data from five national cross-sectional surveys in Ireland. Appetite, 171, 105941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2022.105941 Hebb, D. (1949). The Organization Of Behavior. http://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.226341 Helland, S. H., Bere, E., Bjørnara , H. B., & Øverby, N. C. (2017). Food neophobia and its association with intake of fish and other selected foods in a Norwegian sample of toddlers: A cross-sectional study. Appetite, 114, 110–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.03.025 Henriques, A. S., King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2009). Consumer segmentation based on food neophobia and its application to product development. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.01.003 Hobden, K., & Pliner, P. (1995). Effects of a Model on Food Neophobia in Humans. Appetite, 25(2), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1995.0046 Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Caldeira, K., Chopin, T., Gaines, S., Haugan, P., Hemer, M., Howard, J., Konar, M., Krause-Jensen, D., Lovelock, C. E., Lindstad, E., Michelin, M., Nielsen, F. 72 G., Northrop, E., Parker, R. W. R., Roy, J., Smith, T., Some, S., & Tyedmers, P. (2023). The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action. In The Blue Compendium (pp. 619–680). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-031-16277-0_17 Hoek, A. C., Luning, P. A., Weijzen, P., Engels, W., Kok, F. J., & de Graaf, C. (2011). Replacement of meat by meat substitutes. A survey on person- and product-related factors in consumer acceptance. Appetite, 56(3), 662–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.02.001 Hornborg, S., Bergman, K., & Ziegler, F. (2021). Bioekonomi och ha lsa ha llbar konsumption och produktion. RISE Rapport: 2023:57. IPES-Food. (2016). From uniformity to diversity: a paradigm shift from industrial agriculture to diversifed agroecological systems. International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food systems. Jaeger, S. R., Chheang, S. L., Jin, D., Ryan, G., & Worch, T. (2021). The negative influence of food neophobia on food and beverage liking: Time to look beyond extreme groups analysis? Food Quality and Preference, 92, 104217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104217 Jaeger, S. R., Chheang, S. L., & Prescott, J. (2021). Variations in the strength of association between Food Neophobia and food and beverage acceptability: A data-driven exploratory study of an arousal hypothesis. Nutrients, 13(10), 3657. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13103657 Jaeger, S. R., Chheang, S. L., Roigard, C. M., & Cardello, A. V. (2022). Individual differences in food neophobia and private body consciousness influence product-elicited emotional valence and arousal. Food Quality and Preference, 99, 104566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104566 Jaeger, S. R., Hedderley, D., & Prescott, J. (2023). High arousal as the source of food rejection in food neophobia. Food Research International, 168, 112795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2023.112795 Jaeger, S. R., Meiselman, H. L., & Giacalone, D. (2025). Sensory and consumer science: A complex, expanding, and interdisciplinary field of science. Food Quality and Preference, 122, 105298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105298 Jaeger, S. R., Rasmussen, M. A., & Prescott, J. (2017). Relationships between food neophobia and food intake and preferences: Findings from a sample of New Zealand adults. Appetite, 116, 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.05.030 James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology, Vol II (pp. vi, 704). Henry Holt and Company. https://doi.org/10.1037/11059-000 Kalat, J., & Rozin, P. (1973). “Learned safety” as a mechanism in long-delay taste-aversion learning in rats. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 83, 198– 207. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034424 Kalmpourtzidou, A., Boussetta, S., Al-Naqeb, G., De Giuseppe, R., & Cena, H. (2025). Novel foods, neglected and alien species to increase food biodiversity of diets in Europe. Future Foods, 11, 100596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100596 Karaag aç, Y., & Bellikci Koyu, E. (2022). A narrative review on food neophobia throughout the life span: Relationships with dietary behaviors and interventions to reduce it. British Journal of Nutrition, 130, 1–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114522003713 Kathleen Bishop, S., Dixon, M. R., Moore, J. W., & Lundy, M. P. (2020). Behavioral Perspectives on Personality. In Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences (pp. 421–431). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319- 24612-3_962 73 Kerckhove, A. V., Bondt, C. D., & Geuens, M. (2023). Products in disguise: Communicating product benefits with surface mimicry. Journal of Consumer Research, 49(5), 838– 860. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucac015 Khoury, C. K., Bjorkman, A. D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., Rieseberg, L. H., & Struik, P. C. (2014). Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(11), 4001–4006. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1313490111 King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measure consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.005 Knaapila, A., Silventoinen, K., Broms, U., Rose, R. J., Perola, M., Kaprio, J., & Tuorila, H. M. (2011). Food Neophobia in Young Adults: Genetic Architecture and Relation to Personality, Pleasantness and Use Frequency of Foods, and Body Mass Index—A Twin Study. Behavior Genetics, 41(4), 512–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-010-9403-8 Knez, I., & Hygge, S. (2001). The circumplex structure of affect: A Swedish version. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 42(5), 389–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9450.00251 Kokkorou, M., Spinelli, S., Dinnella, C., & Monteleone, E. (2024). Interventions based on sensory-hedonic strategies and on nudging to facilitate vegetable and pulses consumption in the school environment. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 23(2), e13312. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13312 Ko ster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14(5–6), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950- 3293(03)00017-X Ko ster, E. P. (2009). Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.002 Ko ster, E. P., & Mojet, J. (2007a). 4—Theories of food choice development. In L. Frewer & H. van Trijp (Eds.), Understanding Consumers of Food Products (pp. 93–124). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845692506.1.93 Ko ster, E. P., & Mojet, J. (2007b). Boredom and the reasons why some new food products fail. In Consumer-led food product development (pp. 262–282). https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845693381.2.262 Ko ster, E. P., & Mojet, J. (2015). From mood to food and from food to mood: A psychological perspective on the measurement of food-related emotions in consumer research. Food Research International, 76, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.04.006 La Barbera, F., Verneau, F., Amato, M., & Grunert, K. (2018). Understanding Westerners’ disgust for the eating of insects: The role of food neophobia and implicit associations. Food Quality and Preference, 64, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.10.002 Lacasse, K. (2017). Going with your gut: How William James’ theory of emotions brings insights to risk perception and decision making research. New Ideas in Psychology, 46, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.09.002 Lachat, C., Raneri, J. E., Smith, K. W., Kolsteren, P., Van Damme, P., Verzelen, K., Penafiel, D., Vanhove, W., Kennedy, G., Hunter, D., Odhiambo, F. O., Ntandou-Bouzitou, G., De Baets, B., Ratnasekera, D., Ky, H. T., Remans, R., & Termote, C. (2018). Dietary species richness as a measure of food biodiversity and nutritional quality of diets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(1), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1709194115 74 La hde, V., Vade n, T., Toivanen, T., Ja rvensivu, P., & Eronen, J. T. (2023). The crises inherent in the success of the global food system. Ecology and Society, 28(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14624-280416 Lang, P. J., & Bradley, M. M. (2013). Appetitive and Defensive Motivation: Goal-Directed or Goal-Determined? Emotion Review, 5(3), 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073913477511 Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of emotion. In Emotion (pp. 25–59). Sage Publications, Inc. Laureati, M., Sandvik, P., L. Almli, V., Sandell, M., Zeinstra, G. G., Methven, L., Wallner, M., Jilani, H., Alfaro, B., & Proserpio, C. (2020). Individual differences in texture preferences among European children: Development and validation of the Child Food Texture Preference Questionnaire (CFTPQ). Food Quality and Preference, 80, 103828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103828 Laureati, M., Spinelli, S., Monteleone, E., Dinnella, C., Prescott, J., Cattaneo, C., Proserpio, C., De Toffoli, A., Gasperi, F., Endrizzi, I., Torri, L., Peparaio, M., Arena, E., Bonello, F., Condelli, N., Di Monaco, R., Gatti, E., Piasentier, E., Tesini, F., & Pagliarini, E. (2018). Associations between food neophobia and responsiveness to “warning” chemosensory sensations in food products in a large population sample. Food Quality and Preference, 68, 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.02.007 Liem, D. G., & de Graaf, C. (2004). Sweet and sour preferences in young children and adults: Role of repeated exposure. Physiology & Behavior, 83(3), 421–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.08.028 Lim, J. (2011). Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Quality and Preference, 22(8), 733–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.05.008 Lin, J.-Y., Amodeo, L. R., Arthurs, J., & Reilly, S. (2012). Taste neophobia and palatability: The pleasure of drinking. Physiology & Behavior, 106(4), 515–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.03.029 Lin, J.-Y., Arthurs, J., & Reilly, S. (2017). Conditioned taste aversions: From poisons to pain to drugs of abuse. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(2), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1092-8 Lindahl, T., & Linder, N. (2024). What factors influence choosing fish over meat among grocery shoppers? Insights from an unsuccessful nudge intervention. Ecological Economics, 224, 108297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108297 Liu, E., Gerritsen, S., Lovell, A., Gontijo de Castro, T., & Wall, C. (2024). Food neophobia scores at 8 Years and associations with nutrition-related behaviors at home in early life: Findings from a New Zealand contemporary birth cohort. Appetite, 202, 107619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2024.107619 Louviere, J., Lings, I., Islam, T., Gudergan, S., & Flynn, T. (2013). An introduction to the application of (case 1) best–worst scaling in marketing research. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(3), 292–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2012.10.002 Maier, A., Chabanet, C., Schaal, B., Issanchou, S., & Leathwood, P. (2007). Effects of repeated exposure on acceptance of initially disliked vegetables in 7-month old infants. Food Quality and Preference, 18(8), 1023–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.04.005 Maratos, F. A., & Staples, P. (2015). Attentional biases towards familiar and unfamiliar foods in children. The role of food neophobia. Appetite, 91, 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.003 Marcontell, D. K., Laster, A. E., & Johnson, J. (2002). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of food neophobia in adults. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 16(3), 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00123-8 75 Martins, Y., & Pliner, P. (2005). Human food choices: An examination of the factors underlying acceptance/rejection of novel and familiar animal and nonanimal foods. Appetite, 45(3), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.08.002 Martins, Y., & Pliner, P. (2006). “Ugh! That’s disgusting!”: Identification of the characteristics of foods underlying rejections based on disgust. Appetite, 46(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2005.09.001 Mattes, R. D. (1991). Learned food aversions: A family study. Physiology & Behavior, 50(3), 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(91)90536-W Meiselman, H. L. (1992). Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite, 19(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(92)90235-x Meiselman, H. L. (2020). Emotions of Eating and Drinking. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Handbook of Eating and Drinking (pp. 349–370). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14504-0_180 Meiselman, H. L. (2021). The (gradual) development of emotion measurement for food. Current Opinion in Food Science, 40, 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2021.03.017 Meiselman, H. L. (2024). Assessment of Emotional Responses to Food Products. https://doi.org/10.1039/BK9781839166655-00219 Meiselman, H. L., Jaeger, S. R., Carr, B. T., & Churchill, A. (2022). Approaching 100 years of sensory and consumer science: Developments and ongoing issues. Food Quality and Preference, 100, 104614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104614 Meiselman, H. L., King, S. C., & Gillette, M. (2010). The demographics of neophobia in a large commercial US sample. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 893–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.009 Menozzi, D., Sogari, G., Veneziani, M., Simoni, E., & Mora, C. (2017). Eating novel foods: An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour to predict the consumption of an insect-based product. Food Quality and Preference, 59, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.001 Modlinska, K., & Pisula, W. (2018). 1—Social influences on food neophobia in nonhuman animals. In S. Reilly (Ed.), Food Neophobia (pp. 3–24). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101931-3.00001-X Moskowitz, H., & Meiselman, H. (2020). The Origin and Evolution of Human-Centered Food Product Research (pp. 3–27). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14504-0_161 Motoki, K., Saito, T., & Onuma, T. (2021). Eye-tracking research on sensory and consumer science: A review, pitfalls and future directions. Food Research International, 145, 110389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110389 Nederkoorn, C., Theiβen, J., Tummers, M., & Roefs, A. (2018). Taste the feeling or feel the tasting: Tactile exposure to food texture promotes food acceptance. Appetite, 120, 297–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.09.010 Neil, N., Malmfors, T., & Slovic, P. (1994). Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks. Toxicologic Pathology, 22(2), 198–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/019262339402200214 Nervo, C., Ragazzini, C., & Torri, L. (2024). Effect of Jellyfish Body Parts and Presentation Form on Consumers Liking, Sensory Perception, Emotions, and Food Pairings. Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 13(12), 1872. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13121872 Nezlek, J. B., & Forestell, C. A. (2019). Food neophobia and the Five Factor Model of personality. Food Quality and Preference, 73, 210–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.007 Nezlek, J. B., Forestell, C. A., & Cypryanska, M. (2021). Approach and avoidance motivation and interest in new foods: Introducing a measure of the motivation to eat new 76 foods. Food Quality and Preference, 88, 104111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104111 Niimi, J., Aubin, G. St., Adevi, M. K., van Huyssteen, G., & Collier, E. S. (2025). How food disgust sensitivity influences perceptions of insects as food and feed: Evidence from complementary quantitative and qualitative analysis. Future Foods, 11, 100656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fufo.2025.100656 Niimi, J., So rensen, V., Mihnea, M., Valentin, D., Bergman, P., & Collier, E. S. (2022). Does cooking ability affect consumer perception and appreciation of plant-based protein in Bolognese sauces? Food Quality and Preference, 99, 104563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104563 Noseworthy, T. J., Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2014). The Role of Arousal in Congruity- Based Product Evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 1108–1126. https://doi.org/10.1086/678301 Onwezen, M. C., Bouwman, E. P., Reinders, M. J., & Dagevos, H. (2021). A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: Pulses, algae, insects, plant- based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite, 159, 105058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105058 Onwezen, M. C., van den Puttelaar, J., Verain, M. C. D., & Veldkamp, T. (2019). Consumer acceptance of insects as food and feed: The relevance of affective factors. Food Quality and Preference, 77, 51–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.04.011 Owen, L. H., Kennedy, O. B., Hill, C., & Houston-Price, C. (2018). Peas, please! Food familiarization through picture books helps parents introduce vegetables into preschoolers’ diets. Appetite, 128, 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2018.05.140 Papies, E. K., Barsalou, L. W., Claassen, M. A., Davis, T., Farrar, S. T., Gauthier, E., Rodger, A., Tatar, B., Wehbe, L. H., & Werner, J. (2022). Chapter Three—Grounding motivation for behavior change. In B. Gawronski (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 66, pp. 107–189). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2022.04.002 Papies, E. K., Barsalou, L. W., & Rusz, D. (2020). Understanding desire for food and drink: A grounded-cognition approach. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(2), 193–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420904958 Parker, L. A. (2003). Taste avoidance and taste aversion: Evidence for two different processes. Animal Learning & Behavior, 31(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195979 Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex (pp. xv, 430). Oxford Univ. Press. Pelchat, M. L., & Pliner, P. (1995). “Try it. You’ll like it”. Effects of information on willingness to try novel foods. Appetite, 24(2), 153–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195- 6663(95)99373-8 Pieniak, Z., Verbeke, W., Scholderer, J., Brunsø, K., & Olsen, S. (2008). Impact of Consumers’ Health Beliefs, Health involvement and Risk Perception on Fish Consumption: A Study in Five European Countries. British Food Journal, 110. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700810900602 Pierguidi, L., Spinelli, S., Prescott, J., Monteleone, E., & Dinnella, C. (2023). Responsiveness to warning sensations and anxiety-related psychological traits modulate individual differences in preference for vegetable foods with varied sensory properties. Food Research International, 113342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113342 Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on product- extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and 77 theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.09.013 Pliner, P. (1982). The Effects of Mere Exposure on Liking for Edible Substances. Appetite, 3(3), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-6663(82)80026-3 Pliner, P. (2008). Cognitive schemas: How can we use them to improve children’s acceptance of diverse and unfamiliar foods? British Journal of Nutrition, 99(S1), S2–S6. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114508892446 Pliner, P., Eng, A., & Krishnan, K. (1995). The Effects of Fear and Hunger on Food Neophobia in Humans. Appetite, 25(1), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1995.0042 Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195- 6663(92)90014-W Pliner, P., & Loewen, R. (2002). The effects of manipulated arousal on children’s willingness to taste novel foods. Physiology & Behavior, 76(4), 551–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(02)00782-5 Pliner, P., & Melo, N. (1997). Food Neophobia in Humans: Effects of Manipulated Arousal and Individual Differences in Sensation Seeking. Physiology & Behavior, 61(2), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(96)00406-4 Pliner, P., Pelchat, M., & Grabski, M. (1993). Reduction of Neophobia in Humans by Exposure to Novel Foods. Appetite. Pliner, P., & Salvy, S. J. (2006). Food neophobia in humans. In The psychology of food choice (pp. 75–92). https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990323.0075 Pliner, P., & Stallberg-White, C. (2000). “Pass the ketchup, please”: Familiar flavors increase children’s willingness to taste novel foods. Appetite, 34(1), 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0290 Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science, 360(6392), 987–992. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0216 Predieri, S., Sinesio, F., Monteleone, E., Spinelli, S., Cianciabella, M., Daniele, G. M., Dinnella, C., Gasperi, F., Endrizzi, I., Torri, L., Gallina Toschi, T., Bendini, A., Pagliarini, E., Cattaneo, C., Di Monaco, R., Vitaglione, P., Condelli, N., & Laureati, M. (2020). Gender, Age, Geographical Area, Food Neophobia and Their Relationships with the Adherence to the Mediterranean Diet: New Insights from a Large Population Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients, 12(6), 1778. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12061778 Prescott, J. (2017). Some considerations in the measurement of emotions in sensory and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference, 62, 360–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.04.005 Prescott, J., Chheang, S. L., & Jaeger, S. R. (2022). Food neophobia: Higher responsiveness to sensory properties but low engagement with foods generally. Journal of Sensory Studies, 37(5), e12771. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12771 Prescott, J., & Spinelli, S. (2024). Arousal and the modulation of sensory experience: Evidence from food-related emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 379(1908), 20230255. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2023.0255 Rabada n, A., & Bernabe u, R. (2021). A systematic review of studies using the Food Neophobia Scale: Conclusions from thirty years of studies. Food Quality and Preference, 93, 104241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104241 Raudenbush, B., & Capiola, A. (2012). Physiological responses of food neophobics and food neophilics to food and non-food stimuli. Appetite, 58(3), 1106–1108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.02.042 78 Raudenbush, B., Corley, N., Flower, N. R., Kozlowski, A., & Meyer, B. (2003). Cephalic phase salivary response differences characterize level of food neophobia. Appetite, 41(2), 211–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0195-6663(03)00059-x Raudenbush, B., & Frank, R. A. (1999). Assessing Food Neophobia: The Role of Stimulus Familiarity. Appetite, 32(2), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0229 Raudenbush, B., Schroth, F., Reilley, S., & Frank, R. A. (1998). Food neophobia, odor evaluation and exploratory sniffing behavior. Appetite, 31(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1998.0161 Reilly, E. E., Anderson, L. M., Gorrell, S., Schaumberg, K., & Anderson, D. A. (2017). Expanding exposure-based interventions for eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(10), 1137–1141. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22761 Reilly, S. (2018). 5 - Taste neophobia: Neural substrates and palatability. In S. Reilly (Ed.), Food Neophobia (pp. 77–109). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101931-3.00005-7 Rigal, N., Frelut, M.-L., Monneuse, M.-O., Hladik, C.-M., Simmen, B., & Pasquet, P. (2006). Food neophobia in the context of a varied diet induced by a weight reduction program in massively obese adolescents. Appetite, 46(2), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.01.001 Rioux, C., Lafraire, J., & Picard, D. (2018). Visual exposure and categorization performance positively influence 3- to 6-year-old children’s willingness to taste unfamiliar vegetables. Appetite, 120, 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.08.016 Ristic, R., Johnson, T. E., Meiselman, H. L., Hoek, A. C., & Bastian, S. E. P. (2016). Towards development of a Wine Neophobia Scale (WNS): Measuring consumer wine neophobia using an adaptation of The Food Neophobia Scale (FNS). Food Quality and Preference, 49, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.12.005 Ritchey, P. N., Frank, R. A., Hursti, U.-K., & Tuorila, H. (2003). Validation and cross-national comparison of the food neophobia scale (FNS) using confirmatory factor analysis. Appetite, 40(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195- 6663(02)00134-4 Riverso, R., Amato, M., Verneau, F., & La Barbera, F. (2023). The Interaction between Message Sensation Value and Food Neophobia in Communication about Insect- Based Foods: An Experiment with Italian Consumers. Nutrients, 15(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15010191 Rodrı guez-La zaro, D., Yeramian, N., & Fongaro, G. (2024). Detection of the Principal Foodborne Pathogens in Seafood and Seafood-Related Environments. In Handbook of Seafood and Seafood Products Analysis (2nd ed.). CRC Press. Rozenkowska, K. (2023). Theory of planned behavior in consumer behavior research: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(6), 2670–2700. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12970 Rozin. (2006). The integration of biological, social, cultural and psychological influences on food choice. The Psychology of Food Choice, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990323.0019 Rozin, E. (1973). The flavor-principle cookbook. Hawthorn Books. Rozin, P. (1976). The Selection of Foods by Rats, Humans, and Other Animals. In J. S. Rosenblatt, R. A. Hinde, E. Shaw, & C. Beer (Eds.), Advances in the Study of Behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 21–76). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065- 3454(08)60081-9 Rozin, P. (1999). Food Is Fundamental, Fun, Frightening, and Far-Reaching. Social Research, 66(1), 9–30. Rozin, P. (2020). Why We Know So Little About the Psychology of Eating in Humans (pp. 1557–1576). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14504-0_127 79 Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1), 23– 41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.1.23 Rozin, P., & Holtermann, C. (2021). Binary categorizations of foods by American, French and Indian adults: Predominance of healthy-unhealthy and minimal emphasis on animal-plant. Appetite, 162, 105150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105150 Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. (2001). Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2 Rozin, P., & Todd, P. M. (2015). The Evolutionary Psychology of Food Intake and Choice. In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (pp. 1–23). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119125563.evpsych106 Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(6), 1161–1178. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077714 Sarin, H. V., Taba, N., Fischer, K., Esko, T., Kanerva, N., Moilanen, L., Saltevo, J., Joensuu, A., Borodulin, K., Ma nnisto , S., Kristiansson, K., & Perola, M. (2019). Food neophobia associates with poorer dietary quality, metabolic risk factors, and increased disease outcome risk in population-based cohorts in a metabolomics study. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 110(1), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqz100 Schaller, M., & Park, J. (2011). The Behavioral Immune System (and Why It Matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411402596 Schickenberg, B., Assema, P. van, Brug, J., & Vries, N. de. (2008). Are the Dutch acquainted with and willing to try healthful food products? The role of food neophobia. Public Health Nutrition, 11(5), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980007000778 Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003 Shepherd, R., & Raats, M. M. (1996). Attitudes and beliefs in food habits. In Food Choice, Acceptance and Consumption (pp. 346–364). Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-1221-5_10 Siegrist, M., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Perceived naturalness, disgust, trust and food neophobia as predictors of cultured meat acceptance in ten countries. Appetite, 155, 104814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.104814 Siegrist, M., Hartmann, C., & Keller, C. (2013). Antecedents of food neophobia and its association with eating behavior and food choices. Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.06.013 Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior (pp. x, 461). Macmillan. Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. (2007). The Affect Heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research, 177, 1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006 Smith, A. D., Herle, M., Fildes, A., Cooke, L., Steinsbekk, S., & Llewellyn, C. H. (2017). Food fussiness and food neophobia share a common etiology in early childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12647 Smith, K. E., Woodard, K., & Pollak, S. D. (2025). Arousal May Not Be Anything to Get Excited About. https://journals-sagepub- com.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/doi/10.1177/17540739241303499 80 Soucier, V. D., Doma, K. M., Farrell, E. L., Leith-Bailey, E. R., & Duncan, A. M. (2019). An examination of food neophobia in older adults. Food Quality and Preference, 72, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.010 Spence, C. (2015). Multisensory Flavor Perception. Cell, 161(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.007 Spinelli, S., Dinnella, C., Masi, C., Zoboli, G. P., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2017). Investigating preferred coffee consumption contexts using open-ended questions. Food Quality and Preference, 61, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.05.003 Spinelli, S., Masi, C., Dinnella, C., Zoboli, G. P., & Monteleone, E. (2014). How does it make you feel? A new approach to measuring emotions in food product experience. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.11.009 Stuldreher, I. V., Kaneko, D., Hiraguchi, H., B. F. van Erp, J., & Brouwer, A.-M. (2023). EEG measures of attention toward food-related stimuli vary with food neophobia. Food Quality and Preference, 106, 104805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104805 Taylor, C. M., Wernimont, S. M., Northstone, K., & Emmett, P. M. (2015). Picky/fussy eating in children: Review of definitions, assessment, prevalence and dietary intakes. Appetite, 95, 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2015.07.026 Torri, L., Tuccillo, F., Alejandro Puente-Tapia, F., Carrara Morandini, A., Segovia, J., Nevarez- Lo pez, C. A., Leoni, V., Failla-Siquier, G., Canepa-Oneto, A., Quin ones, J., Ceden o- Posso, C., Laaz, E., Preciado, M., & Schiariti, A. (2024). Jellyfish as sustainable food source: A cross-cultural study among Latin American countries. Food Quality and Preference, 117, 105166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105166 Tuorila, H., & Hartmann, C. (2020). Consumer responses to novel and unfamiliar foods. Current Opinion in Food Science, 33, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2019.09.004 Tuorila, H., La hteenma ki, L., Pohjalainen, L., & Lotti, L. (2001). Food neophobia among the Finns and related responses to familiar and unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference, 12(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00025-2 Tuorila, H. M., Meiselman, H. L., Cardello, A. V., & Lesher, L. L. (1998). Effect of expectations and the definition of product category on the acceptance of unfamiliar foods12. Food Quality and Preference, 9(6), 421–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950- 3293(98)00012-3 Urcelay, G., & Domjan, M. (2022). Urceley & Domjan Pavlovian Conditioning 2022 (pp. 109– 117). Ustun, B., Reissland, N., Covey, J., Schaal, B., & Blissett, J. (2022). Flavor Sensing in Utero and Emerging Discriminative Behaviors in the Human Fetus. Psychological Science, 33(10), 1651–1663. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976221105460 van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2005). Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference, 16(3), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.05.012 Varela, P. (2025). Is it the name, or is it the impact? A sensory and consumer science changing with the times. Food Quality and Preference, 129, 105408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105408 Viglia, G., Dolnicar, S., Acuti, D., & Nicolau, J. L. (2024). If you want to learn about real behaviour, measure real behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 32(11), 2245– 2257. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2024.2392837 Wansink, B. (2002). Changing Eating Habits on the Home Front: Lost Lessons from World War H Research. Journal of Public Policy. 81 Willer, D. F., Nicholls, R. J., & Aldridge, D. C. (2021). Opportunities and challenges for upscaled global bivalve seafood production. Nature Food, 2(12), Article 12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00423-5 Yeomans, M. R., Chambers, L., Blumenthal, H., & Blake, A. (2008). The role of expectancy in sensory and hedonic evaluation: The case of smoked salmon ice-cream. Food Quality and Preference, 19(6), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.02.009 Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848 82