food neophobia and sensation seeking

707V.R. Preedy et al. (eds.), Handbook of Behavior, Food and Nutrition, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-92271-3_47, © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abbreviations

AISS Arnett Inventory of Sensation SeekingCDC Centers for Disease Control and PreventionFAS Food Attitude SurveyFNS Food Neophobia ScaleFNSC Food Neophobia Scale for ChildrenFSQ Food Situations QuestionnaireSS Sensation SeekingSSS Sensation Seeking ScaleUFST Unknown Flavor Sampling TestVARSEEK Variety Seeking Tendency ScaleWTNF Willingness to Taste Novel Food test

Food neophobia, a reluctance to eat unfamiliar foods, is a common trait that has been widely studied in birds and mammals. Humans are among the many species that display food neophobia, and despite the relative safety and availability of most food items in modern society, uncertainty about unfamiliar foods continues to have an important impact on dietary intake. Research on humans has revealed sizable and, to some extent, predictable individual differences in the prevalence and severity of food neophobia. One particularly notable predictor is the personality trait of sensation seeking (SS), simply defined as a person’s willingness to take risks in order seek out novel or intense stimuli. This chapter presents a review of food neophobia as it influences food choice and diet, and examines the role of sensation seek-ing as well as several other factors that have an effect on food neophobia, such as age and sex.

47.1 The Omnivore’s Dilemma and Food Choice

The koala bear doesn’t worry about what’s for dinner: If it looks and smells and tastes like a eucalyptus leaf, it must be dinner. The koala’s culinary preferences are hardwired in its genes. But for omnivores like us… a vast amount of brain space and time must be devoted to figuring out which of all the many potential dishes nature lays on are safe to eat. We

Chapter 47Food Neophobia and Sensation Seeking

Thomas R. Alley and Kathleen A. Potter

T.R. Alley (*) Department of Psychology, 418 Brackett Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-1355, USA e-mail: [email protected]

ALLEY

Sticky Note

Alley, T. R., & Potter, K. A. (2011). Food neophobia and sensation seeking. Pp. 707- 724 in V. R. Preedy, R. R. Watson & C. R. Martin (eds.), Handbook of Behavior, Food and Nutrition. Springer.

708 T.R. Alley and K.A. Potter

rely on our prodigious powers of recognition and memory to guide us away from poisons (Isn’t that the mushroom that made me sick last week?) and toward nutritious plants (The red berries are the juicier, sweeter ones).

(Pollan 2006, p 3–4)

Being omnivores, humans eat a wide variety of foods. Such diversity has a number of benefits, most notably including (1) a greater likelihood of consuming our required nutrients and (2) less chance of going without something to eat despite changes in seasons, climate (e.g., droughts), prey density, etc. However, a willingness to eat a wide variety of foods also has potential costs. Each time we are presented a food item with which we have little or no familiarity, we must weigh the risk of not consuming the item (and possibly missing out on a good food source) with the risk of ingesting something potentially dangerous (e.g., allergens or poisons), or that will produce an unpleasant sen-sory experience. This approach/avoidance conflict when facing unfamiliar potential foods was discussed in a landmark 1976 paper by Paul Rozin and is termed the “omnivore’s dilemma”. The above quote from Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma (2006), highlights this risk.

It has been demonstrated that humans show interest in unfamiliar foods; however, deciding to eat novel foods is often coupled with fear and anxiety (Rozin 1976), and laboratory research shows that people do tend to see novel foods as a bit more dangerous than familiar ones (Pliner et al. 1993). In modern society, where foods are generally safe, the continued presence of food neophobia (a psycho-logical trait characterized by a general reluctance to eat new/unusual foods) actually has an adverse effect on diet/food choice. The evolutionary adaptation to avoid potential dangers associated with novel foods results in a human tendency to reject unfamiliar foods (Rozin 1976; Domjan 1977), thus limiting our diet to the familiar even though our diet could, and often should, be far more varied. In addition, food neophobia must not stop infants from acquiring preferences for new foods during weaning.

47.2 Neophobia: Measurement Tools and Psychometrics

A number of methods have been used to measure neophobia, most using questionnaires. The most commonly used scale to measure food neophobia in adults is the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) devel-oped by Pliner and Hobden (1992; Table 47.1). This 10-item scale has acceptable test-retest reliability and internal consistency (Pliner and Hobden 1992; Knaapila et al. 2007), and has been translated into several languages including French (Ton Nu 1996 – Unpublished, as reported in Reverdy et al. 2008), Swedish (Koivisto and Sjoden 1996), and Finnish (Pliner et al. 1998). FNS scores are not significantly

Table 47.1 The ten-item Food Neophobia Scale (FNS)

1. I am constantly sampling new and different foodsa

2. I don’t trust new foods 3. If I don’t know what a food is, I won’t try it 4. I like foods from different culturesa

5. Ethnic food looks too weird to eat 6. At dinner parties, I will try new foodsa

7. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before 8. I am very particular about the foods I eat 9. I will eat almost anythinga

10. I like to try new ethnic restaurantsa

Each item requires a rating on a 7-point Likert scale: disagree strongly, disagree moderately, disagree slightly, neither disagree nor agree, agree slightly, agree moderately, and agree stronglya Five items on this scale are reverse scored (Pliner and Hobden 1992)

70947 Food Neophobia and Sensation Seeking

related to pickiness (Pliner and Hobden 1992), which will be briefly discussed later. The scores are related to responses to novel, but not familiar foods (Pliner et al. 1998). Confirmatory factor analysis and other techniques have shown an acceptable or better fit of cross-cultural data from the USA, Finland, and Sweden for the FNS, although suggesting that a smaller number of items may work bet-ter (Ritchey et al. 2003). There is ample evidence of validity for the FNS in the form of correlations with food selection and diet, as discussed in the following section.

For young children, Pliner (1994) has developed the Food Neophobia Scale for Children (FNSC). This 10-item scale is completed by mothers and includes items such as “My child will eat almost anything”. A self-report scale for children has been developed and tested in France (Rubio et al. 2008). Both scales have been validated with behavioral tests of food neophobia. Older children, between the ages of 7 and 12, may complete the Food Situation Questionnaire (FSQ) developed by Loewen and Pliner (2000; see Table 47.2). In so far as they have been examined, all of these scales have good psychometric properties.

Other survey instruments have been used to measure food neophobia or similar traits such as “food adventurousness”. Ullrich et al. (2004), measured “food adventurousness” with a single question: “How often do you try unfamiliar foods?” Even this simple measure produced significant predictions of liking for spicy foods and bitter fruits and vegetables. Van Trijp and Steenkamp (1992) developed the more sophisticated Variety Seeking Tendency Scale (VARSEEK) scale to measure the tendency of consumers to seek variety in food choices. The 8-item VARSEEK-scale has high internal consistency and has been used successfully to predict some of the variation in reported cheese consumption and in the exploration of varieties of cheeses, among Finnish adults (Van Trijp et al. 1992). VARSEEK scores are significantly correlated with those on the FNS (Meiselman et al. 1999). Finally, Frank and van der Klaauw (1994) developed the Food Attitude Survey (FAS) to assess food preference patterns. Subjects were asked to evaluate an extensive list of food items and indicate their opinion of each food item

Table 47.2 The Food Situations Questionnaire (FSQ)

LO-STIM subscale

1. “If your Mom or Dad made something for dinner that you had never tasted before, how would you feel about eating that?”

2. “If your Mom made a new and different kind of sandwich for your lunch box, how would you feel about eating the sandwich?”

3. “If you went on a picnic with your friend’s family, and they brought a food that you had never seen before, how would you feel about having some of their food?”

4. “If your family went on a trip to a new place and all the food there was stuff you’d never had before, how would you feel about eating the food ?”

5. “If your Mom served a new kind of vegetable for dinner, how would you feel about eating that?”

HI-STIM subscale

6. “If dessert at your friend’s house was cannoli with chocolate sauce, how would you feel about eating that kind of dessert?”

7. “If you went to a friend’s birthday party and they had cassava chips there for you to try, how you feel about trying some of those?”

8. “If your favorite aunt or uncle took you out for lunch and bought you kirschenkeks, how would you feel about eating that?”

9. “If you went on a school trip with your class and for dessert you got chocolate cake with frangelico icing, how would you feel about eating that kind of cake?”

10. “If there was a Halloween party at school and the teacher brought some chayote for the children, how would you feel about trying some of that?”

Each item describes hypothetical situations in which novel foods might be encountered. Subjects (children) must report how they would feel about tasting or eating each item. The two subscales represent willingness to try novel foods in nonstimulating (LO-STIM) and highly stimulating (HI-STIM) circumstances (Loewen and Pliner 2000)


based upon its familiarity and their willingness to consume it using a 5-point scale. The scale ranged from “I really like this food. I think it tastes good” to “I’ve never tried this food, and never intend to try it.” Using the original 1994 scale as well as a shortened version (Raudenbush et al. 1995), Frank et al. were able to identify individual differences in responses or attitudes toward foods, similarly to the FNS, and grouped people into categories similar to neophobic (“won’t tryers”) and neophilic (“lik-ers”), with an additional intermediate group of “dislikers”. The FAS has good reliability (Frank and van der Klaauw 1994). Meiselman et al. (1999) found high stability over a period of 1–2 years in a longitudinal study of college students using both the FNS and VARSEEK scales.

One potential shortcoming of survey instruments such as the FNS is that they present food selec-tion in a hypothetical manner. While survey methods have, on the whole, been well supported by examination of the actual food choices of respondents (see below), the method is indirect in that the questions ask what a person would do in a given scenario rather than presenting the situation itself and then assessing how the person actually responds. Moreover, some exceptions have been reported, such as the finding that variety-seeking tendency (VARSEEK) does not always predict food choice behavior (Lähteenmäki and Van Trijp 1995). For such reasons, a number of studies have used tests of actual (i.e., “behavioral”) neophobia. That is, various methods have been developed to determine actual behavioral responses (selection or avoidance) of unfamiliar foods. For example, Reverdy et al. (2008) used both the FNS (French adaptation) and an assessment of the actual willingness to taste novel food (WTNF), testing 180 French children (8–10 years old). WTNF was evaluated by present-ing eight unknown/uncommon food items to the participants. Each child would then have to separate the food items into two groups based on whether or not they would be willing to sample the item. Further, all subjects were told that after they had sorted all of the items, they would have to actually taste one of the items they selected as “willing to eat”. Scores from the adapted FNS were positively correlated with the WTNF test (r = 0.421, p = 0.000).

Another behavioral test of food neophobia is the Unknown Flavor Sampling Test (UFST) (Potter and Alley 2009). For this test, participants (college students) were presented with eight small containers with distinctly and unusually colored jellybeans (small candies) in each. They were then given the instructions to “evaluate each container, but not yet eat the items” and indicate (1) if they thought they knew what the flavor was (“yes” or “no”) and (2) if they would be willing to try it. It is important to note that while the participants did not actually eat the jellybeans, they were given the impression that they might have to eat them. Because many participants believed that they knew the flavor of the jellybeans, which were supposed to be unknown, the UFST score was calculated as the ratio of the number of unknown, rejected beans to the total number of unknown beans (M = 0.31, SD = 0.32). FNS scores of these students were highly correlated with scores from the UFST (r = 0.634, p = 0.000; see Fig. 47.1).

In the next section, we review some of the group and individual differences in food neophobia. Before proceeding, it is important to make a distinction between food neophobia and pickiness: people with food neophobia are reluctant to eat novel foods, whereas picky (or “finicky”) eaters resist eating many familiar foods (Galloway et al. 2003). Food neophobia is specifically a reluctance to consume a food item that is unfamiliar, while pickiness may be influenced by a number of other variables (e.g., texture). In essence, one can exhibit pickiness and food neophobia, but pickiness is not necessarily a part of neophobia (for a review see Dovey et al. 2008). Psychometric analysis has repeatedly found that pickiness and neophobia are distinct traits (cf. Pliner and Salvy 2006). Parents commonly complain about the “pickiness” of their children, with one study finding that 50% of mothers of 19–24-month-old infants judged them to be “picky” (Carruth et al. 2004), but the prob-lem may often be neophobia. Education may prove useful, leading parents to see the importance of early eating experiences and learning about foods. Better parenting should follow if parents realize that children like familiar foods but can learn to accept new foods if they are provided repeatedly and without threat of punishment or enticement of rewards.


47.3 Food Neophobia and Diet: A Dual Relationship

47.3.1 Food Neophobia Influences Diet

Certainly a reluctance to eat unfamiliar foods can have an impact on diet. Validity studies of the FNS bear this out: Overall, scores on the FNS and other measures of neophobia appear to have good predic-tive validity. For instance, a French study of 603 children (Rubio et al. 2008) found that the children’s choices and their willingness to try new types of food were significantly correlated with scores on the authors’ neophobia questionnaire, and Pliner, Lähteenmäki, and Tuorila (1998) found FNS scores to be related to willingness to eat and anticipated liking for novel foods. Likewise, FSQ scores have predicted actual willingness to taste novel foods in a laboratory setting and, in fact, predict such will-ingness better than parents’ reports of their own children’s neophobia (Loewen and Pliner 2000). Also, as mentioned previously, FNS scores are significantly correlated with behavioral expression of food neophobia (WTNF: Reverdy et al. 2008 and UFST: Potter and Alley 2009). Perhaps most impres-sive are results from a longitudinal study showing that food neophobia scores predict later food prefer-ences and variety. Specifically, Skinner et al. (2002) found the best predictor of the number of foods liked at age 8 to be the food neophobia scores at age 4 (as well as the number liked at that age).

By restricting intake of unfamiliar foods, food neophobia can increase the safety of one’s diet. However, by reducing the number and variety of attractive foods, neophobia also can be expected to have an adverse impact on diet. Research supports this expectation. For instance, children who exhibit higher food neophobia consume lesser amounts of vegetables (Galloway et al. 2003) and, compared to neophilic individuals, have significantly less variety in their diets (Carruth et al. 1998; Falciglia et al. 2000). Another study demonstrated that Finns with high food neophobia were less likely to have tasted or eaten a sample of 20 foods than were those with low food neophobia, and their FNS scores significantly predicted the willingness to try unfamiliar foods and even some familiar

Fig. 47.1 Students’ showed similar responses when asked about their neophobic tendencies using the more hypo-thetical FNS as well as during an actual behavioral assessment (UFST). FNS and UFST scores were highly correlated (r = 0.634, p = 0.000) (Potter and Alley 2009)


foods (Tuorila et al. 2001). Similarly, greater food neophobia was correlated with a higher frequency of untried foods (Russell and Worsley 2008) and with less frequent visitation to ethnic restaurants (Olabi et al. 2009). Lähteenmäki and Van Trijp (1995) found similar results with the VARSEEK scale: variety-seeking tendency was positively correlated with the self-reported number of well-liked alter-natives on a list of 38 sandwich fillings (r = 0.35) and with the number of fillings that were reported to be eaten at least once or twice per month (r = 0.37).

Food neophobia appears to have differential effects on diet, affecting some food groups more than others. Russell and Worsley (2008) found the strongest effects of food neophobia for vegeta-bles, followed by meats and fruit. The same three food groups were associated with neophobia in a study by Cooke et al. (2003), who suggest that these three food groups are particularly dangerous (i.e., prone to cause illness or initiate allergic reaction). They surmise that this pattern for stronger neophobia for such items is evolutionarily adaptive, and thus has been retained. Given the toxins in many plants, and the bacteria in meats, the argument seems sound for vegetables and meat. Fruits, however, are not particularly dangerous, but Cooke et al. argue that many children consider fruits and vegetables to be similar, and, consequently, extend their rejection to these as well. Moreover, both fruits and vegetables can have a strong bitter taste component, and our innate negative response to bitter taste is believed to be an adaptive trait useful for avoiding toxins. Rejection of bitter taste can be overcome with experience, but it appears this may be less likely in people with food neopho-bia, resulting in more rejection of bitter fruits and vegetables (see Ullrich et al. 2004).

47.3.2 Diet Influences Food Neophobia

Just as neophobia can affect diet, diet can affect neophobia. If the cause of food neophobia is avoid-ance of dangerous or unpleasant foods, then sampling new foods, as long as they are safe and palat-able, should allow for learning that will reduce neophobia. Research clearly demonstrates that repeated exposure to a food can increase one’s willingness to consume it. For example, Sullivan and Birch (1994) demonstrated that repeated exposure to a novel food increased acceptance of that food item by infants. This reflects, at least in part, the mere-exposure effect (Zajonc 1968, 2001) whereby repeated exposure to a particular pattern of sensory input increases liking for that pattern.

Even a single sampling of a novel food can be sufficient to reveal pleasant sensory effects and to suggest its safety. Hence, it would not be surprising if a single exposure could overcome the neopho-bia, as some research indicates (Pliner and Hobden 1992), but other research finds multiple expo-sures to be necessary. Based on two studies (Birch and Marlin 1982; Pliner 1982) that used multiple exposures to previously novel foods (up to 20), it appears that as many as ten exposures may be required to overcome avoidance of an unfamiliar food. This estimate is based on the average result, so one may expect fewer exposures to be needed for individuals who are less neophobic than aver-age. Furthermore, when persuaded to try an unfamiliar food, people who are more neophobic (higher FNS scores) tend to rate the foods as less pleasant (Arvola et al. 1999; Raudenbush and Frank 1999). Thus, even after sensory information about an unfamiliar food is obtained by direct experience, the neophobic’s negative response toward the food may be reduced but not eliminated. A more positive perspective on overcoming food neophobia is provided by a recent study that expanded the range of novel foods available to participants (Williams et al. 2008). This study demonstrated that the number of exposures required for voluntary consumption of novel foods decreases as more foods are added to the diet. That is, fewer exposures are needed to render unfamiliar foods acceptable as the number of acceptable foods increases. This result is based on a small clinical sample and should be repli-cated, but it may reveal a pathway to reduced food neophobia that could make interventions by par-ents and dietitians easier and more effective.


A similar finding is that food neophobia is negatively associated with “expected pleasantness” of a novel food item (Tuorila et al. 1994; Raudenbush and Frank 1999), and that once a novel food is actually tasted, the phobia can be overcome (Pliner and Hobden 1992). The fact that neophobia tends to decrease with age from early childhood well into adulthood (see next section) provides additional, albeit indirect, evidence for this claim in that more food experiences come with increasing age. Additional indirect evidence is the finding that food professionals have low food neophobia scores compared to non-specialists or to students enrolled in food service training courses (Frank and Kalisewicz 2000), and that neophobia is lower in adults with more international travel experience (Olabi et al. 2009).

The specificity of the effects of experience on neophobia remains unclear. That is, does repeated exposure to novel foods promote a general reduction in food neophobia, or does it only affect those specific foods to which one is exposed? The mere-exposure effect is typically capable of producing more positive responses not only to the specific exposed stimuli, but also to similar stimuli (Zajonc 2001). A generalized mere-exposure effect can explain the data of Pliner, Pelchat, and Grabski (1993) that indicate a general reduction in neophobia following “forced” exposure to tasty novel foods.

The results of at least one study, however, indicate that generalization does not always occur. Sullivan and Birch (1994) investigated the effects of repeated exposure to one of three variants (sweetened, salted, or plain) of a novel food (tofu) on children’s preferences. After 15 tasting ses-sions, the children showed increased preference only for the particular flavor/food combination they had repeatedly tasted, with a decreased preference for the other versions. These results indicate that it is not just particular foods themselves that become more acceptable with experience, but the spe-cific flavors associated with them. This much more specific effect of exposure than typically expected for a mere-exposure effect (see above) may be age related. Pliner et al. (1993) tested adults, whereas Sullivan and Birch (1994) tested infants. Moreover, a more recent study (Loewen and Pliner 1999) tested both older (10–12-year-old) and younger (7–9-year old) children, finding that exposure to unfa-miliar foods increased willingness to try a different group of novel foods only for older children.

More research is needed. Whether food-specific, flavor-specific or general, it also remains unclear whether the reduction in food neophobia is temporary, and whether occasional exposure to unpleasant or harmful novel foods might counter this effect. We do know that consuming novel foods or flavors that are followed by an adverse physiological reaction typically produces an immediate (single expo-sure), strong, and long-lasting aversion in humans and many other species. Learning to avoid an item following even a single negative encounter is beneficial from an evolutionary perspective, since an immediate and long-lasting aversion to toxic foods is highly adaptive. FNS scores have been found to be higher in adults with a history of getting sick after eating a new food (Olabi et al. 2009), although they are not correlated with the tendency to suffer from motion sickness (Alley et al. 2006). An adverse sensory experience may produce a relatively strong and long-lasting effect as well, particularly if a bit-ter taste component is involved since, in our evolutionary past, bitter tastes often signaled toxins.

In brief, it appears that the trait of food neophobia presents a tendency to both avoid and to dislike novel foods, and to see more unfamiliar foods as disgusting. In combination, these tendencies should substantially increase the resistance of dietary change in neophobic individuals as compared to neophilics.

47.4 Factors that Influence Food Neophobia

Factors affecting reactions to novel foods are of constant interest to nutritionists, health educators, and food marketers, all of whom try to influence people to incorporate novel foods into their diets. The preceding section showed that gaining familiarity with a food can remove the neophobic


rejection, but neophobia may block consumption in the first place, and exposure (consumption), particularly if not repeated, may not change preferences enough to alter diet or preferences. Other factors are known to influence food neophobia. Unfortunately, many such factors are not ame-nable to manipulation: that is, one cannot change the age, sex or genetics of a neophobic individual.

47.4.1 Age Differences and Developmental Trends

In general, food neophobia tends to decline as a person ages (cf. Pliner and Salvy 2006). For exam-ple, a study of Swedish families found that younger children had higher food (and general) neopho-bia than older children, and also that those children were more neophobic than their parents (Koivisto-Hursti and Sjoden 1997). Likewise, McFarlane and Pliner (1997) tested people 10–79 years old, finding that older subjects were generally more willing to try novel foods than younger ones (but with no change in willingness between the age group of 23–39 years old and that of 40 years and older).

There appears to be two significant exceptions to this developmental trend. First, there is a period of relatively low food neophobia in infancy up to around the age of 2 years whereupon it rises rapidly peaking sometime around age 4. Second, there is an increase in neophobia seen in many elderly individuals. From the perspective of influence on lifelong behavior, the most important exception includes the period in infancy when children normally are making the transition to solid foods. While humans begin life consuming a single food that provides all nutrients, they must eventually shift to a much more complex diet in which a variety of foods must be consumed in order to fulfill our nutri-tional requirements. Food neophobia could pose a serious hurdle for this important developmental transition but, fortunately, there is little neophobia during this period (Birch 1998). Cashdan has argued that there may be a sensitive period for learning about food that coincides with lower food neophobia (Cashdan 1994, 1998). The rapid rise in food neophobia beginning around age 2 should have a protective function since the older child becomes increasingly independent and able to exert more control over what does, and does not, get consumed. Additional research is needed to deter-mine if age at weaning has an effect (e.g., potentially delaying) on the onset of this rapid rise in food neophobia.

Another factor mitigating the potential impact of food neophobia in infancy is the prior expo-sure to flavors in utero and in breast milk. Some flavors from a pregnant woman’s diet can be car-ried in the amniotic fluid and swallowed by her fetus (Mennella 1995; Mennella et al. 1995). Human milk also transmits flavors from the maternal diet to the breast fed infant; in contrast, the formula fed infant has a less varied exposure to flavors from food. This exposure via breast milk is believed to lead to better acceptance of novel foods offered during weaning (see Maier et al. 2008; and below). However, the effects may be temporary: a study of food neophobia in 2–5-year old children (Russell and Worsley 2008) found no difference between breast-fed and formula-fed children.

Neophobia may increase again with old age, as reported in a Finnish study (Tuorila et al. 2001). Likewise, Knaapila et al. (2007) found a slight but significant positive correlation between age and FNS scores in both Finnish (r = 0.23) and British (r = 0.21) samples of adults aged 18–78 and 17–82 years, respectively. The dietary constriction that can result from such increases in neopho-bia may contribute to the increased incidence of nutritional deficits in the elderly. In addition, there appears to be an interaction of age with type of food, such that people become more willing to try ethnic foods as they age, but less willing to try other kinds of novel foods (cf. Pliner and Salvy 2006).


47.4.2 Sex Differences

Studies of sex differences in food neophobia have reported inconsistent results. Some have described finding greater food neophobia in males and others in females, and others have failed to find a signifi-cant difference. Among the studies that have found higher food neophobia in males, Koivisto-Hursti and Sjoden (1997) found that 9-year-old boys were more neophobic than 9-year-old girls, and that fathers had more food neophobia than mothers. Finnish men were also found to be more neophobic than women (Tuorila et al. 2001).

In contrast, Frank and van der Klaauw (1994) found more “won’t try” responses by women than by men on the FAS. Additional reports that men have a greater tendency than women to seek unusual and new foods (Logue and Smith 1986; Alley and Burroughs 1991; see section on Gender and Age Correlates below) support the prediction that men are less neophobic.

Reviewing survey and behavioral studies of neophobia separately, Pliner and Salvy (2006) con-clude that both types of research usually fail to find gender differences. Some additional research not covered in their review finds no differences, supporting their conclusion. Specifically, Russell and Worsley (2008) found no sex difference in a sample of 2–5-year old Australian children, and Cooke et al. (2003) found no sex difference in a large sample of 2–6-year-old British children. Likewise, Alley et al. (2006) found no sex difference in FNS scores in a sample of 308 university students.

47.4.3 Genetics

Koivisto-Hursti and Sjoden (1997) reported finding some evidence of familial resemblance with respect to both food and general neophobia. While such similarities can result from experience rather than genetic inheritance, there is good evidence for a large genetic component. Recent research (largely based on adult women) examining both family and twin samples indicates that about two thirds of the variation in food neophobia is genetically determined (Knaapila et al. 2007). [Interestingly, this value is very close to the estimates of about 0.54–0.64 for the heritability of sensation seeking (see Zuckerman 2007, pp. 32ff.), which is related to food neophobia, as reviewed below]. A large-scale study (Cooke et al. 2007) of 5,390 twin pairs, aged 8–11 years, gave an even higher estimate of heritability: 0.78 (95% CI = 0.76–0.79).

47.4.4 Information and Social Influences

Pliner, Pelchat, and Grabski (1993) found that both fear of dangerous foods and expectations of unpleasant sensory experiences are significant determinants of the resistance to novel foods. Conversely, healthiness and sensory pleasantness are the motives most often cited when people are asked why they eat the foods they do (e.g., Rappaport et al. 1992). If we are averse to trying new foods in large part because of fear of dangerous or unpleasant substances, then it seems that informa-tion that promotes opposite expectations – good taste and safety – should reduce neophobia. In short, the results of pertinent studies (briefly reviewed below) show that such information is sometimes effective. Martins and Pliner (2005) found that resistance to trying new foods is also associated with beliefs about the disgusting properties of these foods. Similarly, Pliner (reported in Pliner et al. 2006) reports finding a strong positive correlation between the FNS and a measure of disgust. Disgust is a powerful block to consumption (Rozin and Fallon 1987) and may prove difficult to overcome so that “disgusting” novel foods will be consumed and, eventually, preferred. In general, foods of animal origin are most likely to provoke disgust.


The effectiveness of experience in increasing preferences for specific foods (see above) is a good, but indirect, indication of the effect of sensory information on responses to foods. Repeated exposure to the sensory properties of a once novel food provides direct specification of these key properties of foods. Likewise, a lack of adverse physiological consequences can provide direct specification of food safety. Nonetheless, the results of a study on 121 adults, Tuorila et al. (1994) showed that sen-sory information could decrease liking for novel foods, even though it increased liking for familiar ones, and a recent study of “sensory education” found only limited and temporary effects on neophobia (Reverdy et al. 2008). Can indirect evidence about foods in the form of verbal information or social influence be more effective?

The results for verbal information are inconsistent and reveal a need for further research. McFarlane and Pliner (1997) tested the willingness to taste six familiar and six unfamiliar foods in 401 volunteers ranging from 10 to 79 years old. Each received no information, taste likeability infor-mation, or nutrition information. Their results indicated that nutrition information could be effective for young adults, at least for those for whom nutrition is important. Pelchat and Pliner (1995) found that taste information increased willingness to try novel foods at young ages (10–14 years); a result McFarlane and Pliner (1997) failed to confirm.

Social influence can have powerful effects on diet. It is even capable of countering the strong learned aversions of poisoned rats to food previously containing the poison (Galef 1986). Studies on humans also show significant, if less impressive, effects of social influence on acceptance of, and preferences for, foods (cf. Birch 1990). For instance, Birch (1980) showed that children tend to like and select the same foods as peers. Research on social influence via modeling has found positive, but limited and qualified results: under some circumstances, mothers, teachers, and peers have all been shown to be effective models for consumption of a novel food (cf. Pliner and Salvy 2006). Addessi et al. (2005) demonstrated a reduction in food neophobia in young children for the same type of food as was seen being consumed by others.

Flight, Leppard, and Cox (2003) reasoned that both higher socioeconomic status and dwelling in urban (versus rural) environments may increase exposure to diverse cultures and expand knowl-edge of foods. Consequently, they expected these to be negatively associated with food neopho-bia, but found only weak support for this in their sample of over 900 Australian high school students. Nonetheless, other research has supported this perspective: Food neophobia scores col-lected from 1083 Finns decreased with increasing education and with the degree of urbanization (Tuorila et al. 2001).

47.5 Sensation Seeking and Food Neophobia

Given that food neophobia reflects, in good part, risk avoidance, it should be expected that FN would be correlated with a personality trait associated with risk-taking. Sensation seeking (SS) is a person-ality trait defined by a person’s willingness to seek out novel, complex, and intense stimuli while being willing to take risks (physical or social) in order to have such experiences (Zuckerman, 1979, 1994). SS has also been described as “not only a potential for taking risks, but… more generally a quality of seeking intensity and novelty in sensory experience” (Arnett 1994). SS has been fairly well studied for several decades, and it has been repeatedly demonstrated that SS can be influential in determining an individual’s behavioral choices. Scholarly considerations of the biological and psychological correlates of this trait are summarized in three books by the pioneer and leading scholar of SS research and theory, Marvin Zuckerman (Zuckerman, 1979, 1994, 2007). Some of the key attributes are highlighted in Table 47.3.


47.5.1 Neophobia and Sensation Seeking

The primary tool for measuring SS is Zuckerman’s sensation seeking scale (SSS). Zuckerman has created at least six different scales over the years in an attempt to accurately measure one’s sensation seeking tendencies (Zuckerman et al. 1964; Zuckerman and Link 1968). Many of these scales are widely accepted and have even been translated and/or adapted by other researchers. SS is associated with risk taking in a wide variety of arenas including driving, sports, drug use, and sexual behavior. As noted above, trying unfamiliar foods is inherently risky, so it would be surprising if there were no discernable effects on food choice.

Zuckerman has recognized that food selection should be related to sensation seeking tendencies. He hypothesized that sensation seekers prefer those foods that are “less bland and more stimulating” (Zuckerman 1994). Therefore, he includes a food choice item on his SSS (Zuckerman et al. 1964; Zuckerman, 1979, 1994) that asks participants to choose between “I order the dishes with which I am familiar, so as to avoid disappointment and unpleasantness” or “I like to try new foods that I have never tasted before.”

As predicted, scores on the FNS are correlated with the Experience Seeking subscale of the SSS (Pliner and Hobden 1992). This and other research (e.g., Frank and van der Klaauw 1994; Pliner and Melo 1997; Potts and Wardle 1998; Loewen and Pliner 2000) seem to indicate a definite relationship between neophobia and sensation seeking. Likewise, a Japanese study (Terasaki and Imada 1988) reported a modest correlation between experience eating very unusual foods and the Thrill and Adventure Seeking subscales of the SSS.

While the Zuckerman scales are commonly used, some researchers have attempted to shorten and adapt them or, in several cases, create their own scales (e.g., Hoyle et al. 2002; Madsen et al. 1987; Michel et al. 1999). Arnett (1994) created what is probably the best known alternative scale, the Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS). Arnett felt that when measuring sensation seeking, one should use novelty and intensity of stimulation as the subscales rather than Zuckerman’s novelty and complexity of stimulation. His reasoning was that the subscale of complexity was difficult to define clearly and, in most cases, was actually a better measure of intensity than complexity. Finally,

Table 47.3 Sensation seeking summary points

Definition A personality trait reflecting a person’s willingness to seek out novel, complex, and intense stimuli while being willing to take risks (e.g., physical and social) in order to have such experiences

Common measurement instruments 1. Sensation seeking scales (Zuckerman)2. Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS)

Selected correlates (cf. Zuckerman 1994, 2007) Risky behaviors• Risky sex (e.g., multiple partners; sex with strangers)• High risk sports (e.g., skydiving, hang gliding, mountain

climbing)• Risky driving (e.g., speeding; driving under the influence)Illegal drug useTobacco and alcohol useGamblingRisky vocationsEating habits and food preferences (attraction to unusual,

novel and/or stimulating foods)Social attitudes (liberal and permissive)

Summarized information about key personality trait Sensation Seeking


and perhaps most importantly, the AISS gave more emphasis to the idea of socialization effects on SS behavior rather than purely biological motivation. Hence, Arnett’s scale takes into account such external influences as peer pressure and societal practices. The AISS includes 20 statements that are ranked on a 4-point Likert scale (Table 47.4). Like Zuckerman’s SSS, the AISS includes an item (ordering “something familiar when eating in a restaurant”) that can be seen as assessing food neophobia, and another (about “hot and spicy foods”) that may be related to food neophobia. Arnett (1994) has found high internal reliability (0.83–0.86).

As mentioned previously, scores on Zuckerman’s SSS were found to be negatively correlated with one’s neophobic tendencies (Pliner and Hobden 1992), so it is not surprising that AISS scores also have been shown to be correlated with FNS scores. Alley et al. (2006) found a significant cor-relation between participants’ scores on the FNS and the AISS (r = –0.42, p = 0.0001) (Fig. 47.2). While such negative correlations indicate that higher sensation seeking is correlated with lower neophobia, one might well take issue with the significance of these correlations because both measures of SS (SSS or AISS) include one or two items that explicitly assess food neophobia. Alley et al. (2006), however, removed these items from the computation of their participants’ AISS scores, finding that even without the two food-related items, FNS scores remained correlated with sensation seeking (r = –0.35, p < 0.001).

47.5.2 Sensation Seeking and Other Food Constructs

In addition to familiarity, SS logically should be associated with some other sensory aspects of food, with high SS associated with more attraction to, and consumption of, foods that are hot (spicy), highly flavored, or unusually textured. However, such tendencies may be masked by other factors that can have a pronounced effect on food choice, particularly genetic differences in taste sensitivity

Table 47.4 Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking (AISS)

1. I can see how it would be interesting to marry someone from a foreign country 2. When the water is very cold, I prefer not to swim even if it is a hot daya

3. If I have to wait a long time, I’m usually patient about ita

4. When I listen to music, I like it to be loud 5. When making a trip, I think it is best to make as few plans as possible and just take it as it comes 6. I stay away from movies that are said to be frightening or highly suspensefula

7. I think its fun and exciting to perform or speak before a group 8. If I were to go to an amusement park, I would prefer to ride the roller coaster or other fast rides 9. I would like to travel to places that are strange and far away10. I would never like to gamble with money, even if I could afford ita

11. I would have enjoyed being one of the first explorers of an unknown land12. I like a movie where there are a lot of explosions and car chases13. I don’t like extremely hot and spicy foodsa

14. In general, I work better when I’m under pressure15. I often like to have the TV on while I’m doing something else, such as reading or cleaning up16. It would be interesting to see a car accident happen17. I think it’s best to order something familiar when eating in a restauranta

18. I like the feeling of standing next to the edge on a high place and looking down19. If it were possible to visit another planet or the moon for free, I would be among the first to sign up20. I can see how it must be exciting to be in a battle during a war

Each item requires a rating on a 4-point Likert scale: 1 = Does not describe me at all, 2 = Does not describe me very well, 3 = Describes me somewhat, and 4 = Describes me very wella Six items on this scale are reverse scored (Arnett 1994)


and cultural differences in the use of spices and condiments. So, for instance, a person who is a “supertaster” and thereby more sensitive to bitter (among other) tasting substances, may be more adverse to bitter tastes than normal (unless they also are high in the “food adventurousness” aspect of sensation seeking; cf. Ullrich et al. 2004). Nonetheless, research supports these conjectured ties of food preferences and sensation seeking. Studies show that a preference for spicy hot foods is related to sensation seeking or thrill seeking (Rozin and Schiller 1980). This preference may even be driven by sensation seeking, but there is insufficient research to establish this causal connection. Likewise, high sensation seekers, both male and female, apparently have stronger preferences for foods with unusual spices (Logue and Smith 1986) or for foods that are spicy, sour or crunchy (Kish and Donnenwerth 1972; Zuckerman 1979; Terasaki and Imada 1988).

Researchers have also found that a person’s arousal level is important when considering the ten-dency to seek out a new or stimulating situation, as Zuckerman has argued. Pliner and Melo (1997) found a significant interaction between sensation seeking and arousal level that influenced the number of new foods participants ate. This leads to the inference that one’s arousal level before being presented with new foods could impact his/her willingness to try them. Several studies show that arousal level can affect the foods that one chooses to eat (Pliner and Melo 1997; Loewen and Pliner 2000; Pliner and Stallberg-White 2000). Similarly, Stallberg-White and Pliner (1999) found that when a food choice is only hypothetical (a nonarousing situation), high sensation seekers make more neophilic choices.

47.5.3 Sensation Seeking: Gender and Age Correlates

Previous research has shown that men tend to have stronger sensation seeking tendencies than women. This sex difference has been seen in American, Canadian, and Australian subjects (Zuckerman 1978; Ridgeway and Russell 1980; Ball et al. 1984). Given that higher sensation seek-ing is associated with lower food neophobia, the sex difference in sensation seeking suggests that men are more attracted by and willing to try new and unusual foods, whereas women are more likely to seek familiar foods. Researchers, however, have sometimes found no sex differences or even a

Fig. 47.2 FNS and AISS correlation College students (N = 305) were administered the FNS (M = 29.12, SD = 11.24) and AISS (M = 54.81, SD = 7.41). A significant negative correlation was found between FNS and AISS scores (r = –0.611, p = 0.000), suggesting that higher SS scores (greater AISS scores) were associated with lower levels of neo-phobia (i.e., lower FNS score) (Potter and Alley 2009)


reversal of the pattern expected based on greater SS in men (see previous discussion). Such incon-sistency demands further research and analysis.

The results from two studies indicate that men tend to have stronger preferences for spicy foods than women (Logue and Smith 1986; Alley and Burroughs 1991). The more recent study had 148 people between 17 and 32 years old complete questionnaires concerning past and current food use and preferences, as well as food and condiment use in one actual meal. Their responses clearly support the prediction that men tend to have a stronger preference for hot foods (e.g., hot peppers) than women. Moreover, men reported a greater previous consumption of unusual foods, and a higher current preference for them. Logue and Smith (1986) reported that their female subjects expressed lower preferences for spicy foods than their male counterparts.

In addition to gender differences, it has also been shown that age can impact one’s sensation seeking tendencies. Typically, SS is higher in younger individuals and declines as a person ages. This has been seen in a number of populations, including Australian, German, and English individuals (Zuckerman 1978; Ball et al. 1984; Roth et al. 2005). This trend is largely opposite from that for FN, at least for the period from adolescence to mid-life, showing that SS and FN, while correlated, are separate traits.

47.5.4 Applications to Other Areas of Health and Disease

Understanding the impact of sensation seeking and neophobia on food choice, as well as their poten-tial interactions, is critical to many aspects of human health. Reducing food neophobia may be an effective means of improving dietary quality by increasing the variety of foods consumed. A good example of this has been seen in breast fed versus formula fed infants. Formula fed infants are bound to have less varied exposure early in life to flavors from foods compared to similar breast fed infants. Research suggests that an infant’s early experience with flavors in human milk has a positive effect on the transition to, and acceptance of, solid foods. Sullivan and Birch (1994) found that breast-fed infants consumed greater amounts of a novel food (their first vegetable) than formula-fed infants. Human milk-fed infants have been noted to have a faster acceptance of the first transition foods offered. Thus, educating parents about this additional benefit of breast feeding could ultimately increase the quality and variety of diets seen in their children, and might serve to help lessen the prevalence of other medical disorders such as obesity.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in the years 2003–2006, 12.4% of children ages 2–5, 17% of children ages 6–11, and 17.6% ages 12–19 were considered obese (CDC.gov 2009). The CDC suggests that parents should work hard to reduce a child’s risk of becoming obese, as childhood obesity increases the likelihood of that child staying obese into adult-hood, which in turn increases the risk for many other health issues such as high blood pressure and diabetes. Parents who are knowledgeable about food neophobia in children and the advantages of providing a wide variety of healthy foods during childhood should be more likely to promote healthy diets (cf. Skinner et al. 2002; Nicklaus 2009). As discussed above, food neophobia in children is associated with lower variety in diets in general and with particularly low intake of three important food groups: fruits, vegetables, and protein foods. Indeed, Falciglia et al. (2000) found evidence of less healthy eating in neophobic children than for average and neophilic children. A similar finding was reported by Russell and Worsley (2008). Significant contributors to this pattern were less dietary variety and higher consumption of saturated fat in the neophobic children (Falciglia et al. 2000). If, due to exposure or any other reason, high calorie foods have more predictable sensory qualities than lower caloric foods, then high calorie foods may be especially preferred by neophobic eaters.


Given the prevalence of food neophobia in children, particularly for the aforementioned food groups, having a better understanding of the role of food neophobia in the development of eating habits and food preferences is imperative. The design of effective interventions to improve children’s diets should incorporate our understanding of neophobia. Furthermore, the impact of food neophobia on long-term food consumption should be considered when attempting to prevent obesity as well as poor nutrition. As Cooke et al. (2003) suggest, “guiding parents in the technique of regular and repeated taste exposure (particularly to vegetables, fruit, meat, and eggs) has the potential to improve the diets of young children at what may be a sensitive period for developing lifelong healthy eating patterns” (p. 206).

Summary Points

Humans have a wide range of food items available for consumption. Humans and other omni-•vores must evaluate new foods and decide between rejecting the novel food (and potentially miss-ing out on a good food source) or trying the item (and possibly ingesting something harmful or disagreeable). This choice is referred to as the “omnivore’s dilemma”.Food neophobia is a reluctance/fear of eating food items with which one is unfamiliar. •Evolutionarily speaking, this trait is advantageous since being cautious when deciding to eat an unknown item could prevent ingesting dangerous toxins or allergens. However, in modern society (when most foods are safe), this trait can have adverse effects on one’s diet when people restrict their diet to familiar items only.The most commonly used measure for assessing neophobia is the FNS, developed in 1992 by •Pliner and Hobden. Other tools used to measure neophobia include the FNSC and, for older children, the Food Situation Questionnaire (FSQ) developed by Loewen and Pliner (2000). To determine actual neophobic behavioral responses, the willingness to taste novel food (WTNF) and UFST can be used.Food neophobia can have a significant impact on an individual’s diet, and vice versa. Individuals •with higher levels of food neophobia tend to consume less varied diets and consume lesser amounts of vegetables, fruits, and meats. Repeated exposure to novel food items can increase one’s propensity to accept (i.e., consume) the item.Both the age and sex of an individual can influence food neophobia. In general, food neophobia •tends to decline with age, with younger children being more neophobic than older children and children in general being more neophobic than their parents. There are two exceptions to this general trend: (1) there is a period of low neophobia in infants when they are transitioning to solid food, and (2) there is an increase in food neophobia in the elderly. Research on sex differences in food neophobia is inconsistent and may be insignificant, but more research is needed to elucidate the effect of gender on food neophobia.Sensation seeking (SS) is a personality trait defined by a person’s willingness to seek out novel, •complex, and intense stimuli while being willing to take risks (e.g., physical and social) in order to have such experiences. Food selection is related to SS tendencies and scales commonly used to measure SS include at least one food choice question. Higher SS is correlated with lower food neophobia.As with food neophobia, the age and sex of an individual can influence SS. Typically, SS is higher •in younger individuals and declines as a person ages. Men typically have stronger SS tendencies than women, and given that higher SS is associated with lower food neophobia, it is possible that men are more attracted by and willing to eat new and unusual foods.


References

Addessi E, Galloway AT, Visalberghi E, Birch LL., 2005; Appetite. 45:264–71.Alley TR, Burroughs WJ., 1991; J Gen Psychol. 118:201–14.Alley TR, Willet KA, Muth ER., 2006; Percept Motor Skill. 102:683–90.Arnett J., 1994; Pers Indiv Differ. 16:289–96.Arvola A, Lahteenmaki L, Tuorila H., 1999; Appetite. 32:113–26.Ball IL, Farnill D, Wangeman JF., 1984; Brit J Psychol. 75:257–65.Birch LL., 1980; Child Dev. 51:489–96.Birch LL. In: Capaldi ED, Powley TL, editors. Taste, experience, and feeding. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Asssociation; 1990. p. 116–35.Birch LL., 1998; P Nutr Soc. 57:617–24.Birch LL, Marlin DW., 1982; Appetite. 3:353–60.Carruth BR, Skinner J, Houck K, Moran J 3rd, Coletta F, Ott D., 1998; J Am Coll Nutr 17:180–6.Carruth BR, Ziegler PJ, Gordon A, Barr SI., 2004; J Am Diet Assoc. 104:s57–64.Cashdan E., 1994; Hum Nature. 5:279–91.Cashdan E., 1998; Soc Sc Inform. 37:613–32.CDC.gov. (2009); Online. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.htmlCooke L, Wardle J, Gibson EL., 2003; Appetite. 41:205–6.Cooke LJ, Haworth CM, Wardle J., 2007; Am J Clin Nutr. 86:428–33.Domjan M. In: Baker LM, Best MR, Domjan M, editors. Learning mechanisms in food selection. Texas: Baylor

University Press; 1977. p. 151–79.Dovey TM, Staples PA, Gibson EL, Halford JC., 2008; Appetite. 50:181–93.Falciglia GA, Couch SC, Gribble LS, Pabst SM, Frank R., 2000; J Am Diet Assoc. 100:1474–81.Flight I, Leppard P, Cox DN., 2003; Appetite. 41:51–9.Frank RA, Kalisewicz S., 2000; Appetite. 34:335.Frank RA, van der Klaauw NJ., 1994; Appetite. 22:101–23.Galef BG Jr. J Comp Psychol. 1986;100:432–9.Galloway AT, Lee Y, Birch LL., 2003; J Am Diet Assoc. 103:692–8.Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT, Palmgreen P, Pugzles Lorch E, Donohew RL., 2002; Pers Indiv Differ. 32:401–14.Kish GB, Donnenwerth GV., 1972; J Consult Clin Psych. 38:42–9.

Key Terms

Arnett Inventory of Sensation Seeking: Developed by Arnett in 1994 as an alternative to the sensation seeking scale. This scale includes 20 statements that are ranked on a 4-point Likert scale (see Table 47.3).Food Neophobia: A psychological trait defined by a person’s fear (phobia) or unwillingness to consume new (neo) or unknown food items.Food Neophobia Scale: Developed by Pliner and Hobden in 1992, this is the most commonly used scale to measure food neophobia in adults (see Table 47.1).Omnivore’s Dilemma: Each time a potential but unfamiliar food item is encountered, one must decide to avoid it, and, possibly, miss out on a good food source, or eat it, and, perhaps, ingest something dangerous. This choice is known as the “omnivore’s dilemma”.Pickiness: Picky (or “finicky”) eaters resist eating many familiar foods (Galloway et al. 2003). Food neophobia is specifically a reluctance to consume a food item that is unfamiliar, while picki-ness may be influenced by other variables (e.g., texture).Sensation Seeking: A personality trait defined by a person’s willingness to seek out “novel, com-plex, and intense” stimuli while being willing to take risks in order to have such experiences (Zuckerman 1994).Sensation Seeking Scale: Developed and refined by Zuckerman, this is a commonly used scale to measure sensation seeking in adults.

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/index.html


Knaapila A, Tuorila H, Silventoinen K, Keskitalo K, Kallela M, Wessman M, Peltonen L, Cherkas LF, Spector TD, Perola M., 2007; Physiol Behav. 91:573–8.

Koivisto UK, Sjoden PO., 1996; Appetite. 26:89–103.Koivisto-Hursti UK, Sjoden P., 1997; Appetite. 29:89–103.Lähteenmäki L, Van Trijp H., 1995; Appetite. 24:139–51.Loewen R, Pliner P., 1999; Appetite. 32:351–66.Loewen R, Pliner P., 2000; Appetite. 35:239–50.Logue AW, Smith ME., 1986; Appetite. 7:109–25.Madsen DB, Das AK, Bogen I, Grossman EE., 1987; Psychol Rep. 60:1179–84.Maier AS, Chabanet C, Schaal B, Leathwood PD, Issanchou SN., 2008; Clin Nutr. 27:849–57.Martin Y, Pliner P. Appetite. 2005;45:214–224.McFarlane T, Pliner P., 1997; Appetite. 28:227–38.Meiselman HL, Mastroianni G, Buller M, Edwards J., 1999; Food Qual Prefer. 10:1–8.Mennella JA., 1995; J Hum Lact. 11:39–45.Mennella JA, Johnson A, Beauchamp GK., 1995; Chem Senses. 20:207–9.Michel G, Mouren-Siméoni MC, Perez-Diaz F, Falissard B, Carton S, Jouvent R., 1999; Pers Indiv Differ. 26:

159–74.Nicklaus S., 2009; Appetite. 52:253–5.Olabi A, Najm NEO, Baghdadi OK, Morton JM., 2009; Food Qual Prefer. 20:353–62.Pelchat ML, Pliner P., 1995; Appetite. 24:153–65.Pliner P., 1982; Appetite. 3:283–90.Pliner P., 1994; Appetite. 23:147–63.Pliner P, Hobden K., 1992; Appetite. 19:105–20.Pliner P, Melo N., 1997; Physiol Behav. 61:331–5.Pliner P, Salvy SJ. In: Shepard R, Raats M, editors. The psychology of food choice. Cambridge, MA: CABI; 2006.

p. 75–92.Pliner P, Stallberg-White C., 2000; Appetite. 34:95–103.Pliner P, Pelchat M, Grabski M., 1993; Appetite. 20:111–23.Pliner P, Lahteenmaki L, Tuorila H., 1998; Appetite. 30:93.Pollan M., The omnivore’s dilemma: a natural history of four meals. New York: Penguin.Potter KA, Alley TR. In Preparation.Potts HW, Wardle J., 1998; Appetite. 30:79–92.Rappaport L, Peters G, Huff-Corzine L, Downey R., 1992; Ecol Food Nutr. 28:171–89.Raudenbush B, Frank RA., 1999; Appetite. 32:261–71.Raudenbush B, van der Klaauw NJ, Frank RA., 1995; Appetite. 25:1–15.Reverdy C, Chesnel F, Schlich P, Koster EP, Lange C., 2008; Appetite. 51:156–65.Ridgeway D, Russell JA., 1980; J Consult Clin Psych. 48:662–4.Ritchey PN, Frank RA, Hursti UK, Tuorila H., 2003; Appetite. 40:163–73.Roth M, Schumacher J, Brähler E., 2005; Pers Indiv Differ. 39:1261–71.Rozin P. In:Rosenblatt J, Hinde RA, Shaw E, 1976; editors. Advances in the study of behavior. New York:Academic;

p. 21–76.Rozin P, Fallon AE., 1987; Psychol Rev. 94:23–41.Rozin P, Schiller D., 1980; Motiv Emotion. 4:77–101.Rubio B, Rigal N, Boireau-Ducept N, Mallet P, Meyer T., 2008; Appetite. 50:408–14.Russell CG, Worsley A., 2008; J Nutr Educ Behav.40:11–9.Skinner JD, Carruth, BR, Bounds, W, Ziegler PJ., 2002; J Am Diet Assoc. 102:1638–47.Stallberg-White C, Pliner P., 1999; Appetite. 33:209–21.Sullivan SA, Birch LL., 1994; Pediatrics. 93:271–7.Terasaki M, Imada S., 1988; Pers Indiv Differ. 9:87–93.Ton Nu C., 1996; Préférences et néophobie alimentaires à l’adolescence Doctoral Thesis (Thèse de Doctorat). Paris:

ENGREF; – Unpublished.Tuorila H, Meiselman HL, Bell R, Cardello AV, Johnson W., 1994; Appetite. 23:231–46.Tuorila H, Lahteenmaki L, Pohjalainen L, Lotti L., 2001; Food Qual Prefer. 12:29–37.Ullrich NV, Touger-Decker R, O’sullivan-Maillet J, Tepper BJ., 2004; J Am Diet Assoc. 104:543–9.Van Trijp HCM, Steenkamp J-BEM., 1992; Eur Rev Agric Econ.19:181–95.Van Trijp HCM, Lahteenmaki L, Tuorila H., 1992; Appetite. 18:155–64.Williams KE, Paul C, Pizzo B, Riegel K., 2008; Appetite. 51:739–742.Zajonc RB., 1968; J Pers Soc Psychol. 9:1–27.Zajonc RB., 2001; Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 10:224–8.Zuckerman M. In: London H, Exner J, 1978. editors. Dimensions of personality. New York: Wiley Interscience


Zuckerman M., 1979; Sensation seeking: beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1979.Zuckerman M., 1994; Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge

University Press; 1994.Zuckerman M., 2007; Sensation seeking and risky behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2007.Zuckerman M, Link K., 1968; J Consult Clin Psychol. 32:420–6.Zuckerman M, Kolin EA, Price L, Zoob I., 1964; J Consult Psychol. 28:477–82.

food neophobia and sensation seeking

Documents