Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

Attitudes behind consumers’ willingness to use functional foods

Nina Urala *, Liisa L€
ahteenm€
aki
VTT Biotechnology, P.O. Box 1500, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland
Received 17 September 2003; received in revised form 2 February 2004; accepted 23 February 2004
Available online 24 March 2004

Abstract
So-called functional foods are a new category of products that promise consumers improvements in targeted physiological
functions. The objective of this study was to quantify the attitudes behind consumers’ (n ¼ 1158) willingness to use these products.
Functional food-related statements formed seven factors describing consumers’ attitudes towards functional foods. These factors
were as follows: perceived reward from using functional foods, confidence in functional foods, necessity for functional foods,
functional foods as medicines, absence of nutritional risks in functional foods, functional foods as part of a healthy diet and the
health effects of functional foods vs. their taste. These attitude subscales differentiated between consumers (n ¼ 1158) in their re-
ported willingness to use functional foods. The best predictor for willingness to use functional foods was the perceived reward.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Functional foods; Consumer; Attitudes; Willingness to use; Perceived reward

1. Introduction manufacturers develop specific, functional products.

Functional products are a new variety of foods that
promise targeted improvement in physiological func-
tions in the body (Diplock et al., 1999). The market of
functional food products is growing constantly and the
future of functional foods looks quite optimistic (Gray,
Armstrong, & Farley, 2003). The development and
marketing the functional foods can be, however, very
challenging compared to the foods that conventionally
have a high health image.
Functional foods differ from conventional foods in
several ways. Firstly, conventional ‘healthy’ foods are
typically presented as types of foods contributing to a
healthy diet, e.g. low-fat products, high-fibre products,
or vegetables, without emphasising the role of any single
product. In functional foods, particular components are
directly connected with well-defined physiological effects
and the health benefit is linked to a single product
(L€ahteenm€aki, 2003). Usually scientifically proved sub-
stantiation about the health effect is required when
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +358-9-456-5216; fax: +358-9-455-
2103.
E-mail address: nina.urala@vtt.fi (N. Urala).
0950-3293/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.02.008
This is one reason why the development and marketing
of functional foods is expensive and exceptionally risky.
Secondly, functionality creates a novelty aspect on the
food without necessarily changing the sensory quality of
the product. Consumers have to trust the information
concerning the functional effect as the functional and
conventional product can appear to be identical when
used. The base product in which the health effect is added
can affect the credibility, too (Poulsen, 1999). Manufac-
turer has to offer the right information in a credible way
to the right consumers. On the other hand, the infor-
mation concerning health effects is regulated by the
authorities and these regulations vary between EU-
countries (Diplock et al., 1999). The role of the infor-
mation is crucial because consumers cannot perceive the
benefit directly from the product, unlike for instance
taste and other sensory characteristics.
Thirdly, the manufacture of functional foods often
requires modern food technology since a constituent
needs to be added, removed or modified. This means
that there is a risk that functional products are perceived
as being less natural than conventional products and are
thus avoided by those who value naturalness in food
choices (Frewer, Scholderer, & Lambert, 2003).
794 N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803
1.1. Previous research
In general, Finnish consumers tend to be rather posi-
tive towards functional foods. In one study, participants
(n ¼ 958) rated all health-related claims as advantages
when attached to a product used daily (Urala, Arvola, &
L€ahteenm€aki, 2003). Respondents were very confident
with the health-related information coming from the
authorities and quite confident with the information
coming from newspapers, retailers, work cafeterias and
even food manufacturers. Attitudes towards functional
foods were more positive in Finnish consumers compared
to consumers in Denmark or the United States (Bech-
Larsen & Grunert, 2003). Although the overall attitude in
Finland is positive, buyers of functional foods generate
impressions of being more innovative but not as nice as
buyers of conventionally healthy foods (Saher, Arvola,
Lindeman, & L€ ahteenm€aki, 2004).
1.2. Underlying attitudes
Functional foods differ from conventional foods but
they are also viewed as being members of the particular
food category to which they belong, rather than being
considered as a specific, homogenous group of products.
When consumers made choices between conventional
and functional food products, their reasons behind
functional food choices were different within the differ-
ent food categories (Urala & L€ ahteenm€aki, 2003). This
is supported by Poulsen (1999), who discovered that
both the enrichment substance and the type of product
enriched strongly affect consumers’ attitudes to func-
tional products among Danish consumers. Therefore,
functional foods should be studied not as one homoge-
nous group but as separate products within the various
food categories.
Factors affecting food choice can be divided into three
central elements: the food, the consumers, and the envi-
ronmental and economic issues. According to Shepherd
(1990), both an individual’s personal attitudes and envi-
ronmental factors affect the food choice. Attitude can be
defined as ‘‘a psychological tendency that is expressed by
evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour
or disfavour’’ (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Because attitudes
strongly affect food choice behaviour, they can be used to
explain consumers’ food choices (Tuorila, 1997).
For predicting choices of functional foods, attitudes
related to health (Urala & L€ ahteenm€aki, 2003), natu-
ralness (Frewer et al., 2003) and novelty are likely to be
central. Roininen, L€ ahteenm€ aki, and Tuorila (1999)
developed an attitude scale to measure general health
interest (GHI) in food choices. As functional foods differ
from conventionally healthy foods, this scale is expected
to correlate positively, but only moderately, with atti-
tudes towards functional foods. The same authors also
developed a scale for measuring natural product interest
(NPI) which should have a negative correlation with
functional food attitudes if functional foods are re-
garded as less natural than conventional products. The
general attitude towards novelty in food was measured
by the food neophobia scale (FNS, Pliner & Hobden,
1992) which measures willingness to taste novel foods
and has successfully predicted the choices of novel eth-
nic foods. However, as functional foods do not differ
from conventional products in their sensory character-
istics this scale may not be correlated with attitudes
towards functional foods.
1.3. Aim of the study
Thus, consumers’ functional food choices may be
difficult to predict using existing attitude scales due to
the limitations described above. To better understand
what drives consumers to choose or not to choose
functional foods, their attitudes behind choices need to
be explored. Revealing and quantifying the underlying
attitudinal dimensions gives us a chance to identify what
are the factors that promote or obstruct willingness to
use functional foods. Furthermore, it provides a tool to
identify those who are the most, and the least, potential
users of functional foods. This enables more targeted
marketing and distribution of product information.
The aim of this study was to quantify consumers’
attitudes towards so-called functional foods and to find
the underlying dimensions that can predict respondents’
willingness to use functional food products.
2. Materials and methods
In this study, the term ‘‘functional food’’ is used in a
broad sense and includes products that are marketed
with health-related arguments, except nutritionally
modified products (e.g. low-fat and low-salt products)
that are regarded as part of a healthy diet as defined by
nutrition experts.
2.1. Attitude items
The functional food-related statements were formu-
lated based on the results of a laddering study (Urala &
L€ahteenm€aki, 2003) in which five central means-end
chains described the product attributes, consequences
and values behind respondents’ food choices (healthi-
ness, taste and pleasure, security and familiarity, con-
venience and price). For a pilot study, 42, both
positively and negatively worded statements, were for-
mulated. These statements were tested using 33 students
and staff members (23 males and 10 females, mean age
33 years) from the Technical University, Otaniemi.
Based on the pre-test results, one statement was dis-
carded because of its high correlation with another
 N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803 795

statement and three statements were reformulated be-
cause their distributions were strongly skewed. Also, 12
new statements were reformulated. Altogether there
were 53 functional food-related statements in the final
questionnaire.
2.2. Data collection and respondents
A Finnish marketing research company TOY-Re-
search, Helsinki, recruited the participants in connection
with two large interviewing studies. Respondents for
these two studies were selected randomly from the
phonebook and after the interview they were asked if
they would like to answer to a questionnaire related to
food. The questionnaire was sent to the voluntary
respondents to be completed over a weekend. A total of
1158 respondents from all over Finland returned the
completed questionnaires (response rate 60.2%). A slight
majority (58%) of the respondents were females and 42%
of respondents were males. Respondents represented
well different age groups. Mean age of respondents was
44 years with a range of 15–74 years. In five age groups
(29 years or under, 30–39 years, 40–49 years, 50–59 years
and 60 years or over) there were 21%, 19%, 23%, 18%
and 20% of the respondents, respectively. Most of the
respondents (78%) had a minimum vocational or college-
level education and over half (62% of the respondents)
bought at least three quarters of the food supplies used in
their household. Compared with the average population
in Finland, there were more females in the sample than in
the population in general and the respondents had a
slightly higher level of formal education.
Three validated attitude scales were used as reference
scales: the general health interest (GHI) scale (Roininen
et al., 1999), the natural product interest (NPI) scale
(Roininen et al., 1999) and the food neophobia scale
(FNS; Pliner & Hobden, 1992). The means of the GHI,
NPI and the sum of FNS were computed after reversing
the negative statements. On both general health interest
(GHI) scale and natural product interest (NPI) scale the
respondents scored in the middle of the scale (mean 4.7,
standard deviation 1.1 and mean 4.2, standard deviation
1.1, respectively). On the food neophobia scale (FNS),
the respondents scored also in the middle (sum 36,
standard deviation 10) of the scale.
The respondents’ willingness to use eight functional
foods and four reference products with positive health
images (Table 1) were determined on a 7-point scale
(1 ¼ not at all willing, 7 ¼ extremely willing) and used as
the main target variables. This measurement was chosen
because it can be related both to new and familiar foods,
and even to product concepts. We also assumed that for
consumers it would be easier to answer questions related
to the consumers’ own motivations for using the prod-
uct instead of evaluating the intention to buy as the
availability of functional foods is not geographically
evenly distributed in Finland. The range of so-called
functional products is wide and in this study we used
generic product names complemented with one or sev-
eral brand names that belonged to the category. In this
way we would give similar stimuli that consumers meet
when doing their shopping. As most health-related
claims are not allowed, consumers have to rely on the
information coming from other sources than packages.

Table 1
Descriptions of the product categories, respondents’ evaluations of willingness to use them, their evaluated healthiness and share (%) of respondents
who recognized ( ¼ at least 2 on the five-point scalea ), and used functional and reference products occasionally or frequently ( ¼ at least 4 on the five-
point scalea )
Category or product description Willingness to useb Evaluated healthinessc At least Users
recognized
Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev. % of respon- % of respon-
dents dents
FF Probiotic/gut-friendly juice 3.9 1.9 4.8 1.4 88 33
FF Juice with added calcium 4.0 1.9 4.8 1.4 85 27
FF Milk with added calcium 4.1 2.1 5.2 1.5 81 28
FF Cholesterol-lowering spread 3.9 2.0 5.3 1.5 98 21
FF Blood pressure lowering milk drink 3.3 2.0 4.6 1.6 65 7
FF Meat products with added fibre 2.9 1.7 4.1 1.5 35 4
FF Sweets and chewing gums with xylitol 5.5 1.9 5.4 1.6 98 80
FF Energy drinks 2.6 1.8 2.4 1.5 91 19
PH Low-salted food products 4.8 1.9 5.8 1.3 91 53
PH Low-fat cheese 5.5 1.8 5.8 1.3 99 78
PH Organic bread 5.0 1.9 5.6 1.5 95 50
PH Rye bread 6.6 1.1 6.6 0.8 100 97
FF ¼ functional food, PH ¼ product with positive health image ( ¼ reference product).
a
1 ¼ I do not recognize this product (or this kind of product), 2 ¼ I recognize this product, but I have not tasted it, 3 ¼ I have tasted this product,
but I do not use it, 4 ¼ I use this product occasionally and 5 ¼ I use this product frequently.
b
Evaluated on the 7-point scale (1 ¼ not at all willing, 7 ¼ extremely willing).
c
Evaluated on the 7-point scale (1 ¼ not at all healthy, 7 ¼ extremely healthy).
 796
Table 2
Description of the attitude scales describing consumers’ willingness to use functional foods (FF)
Scale abbreviation, name and items in English Mean St. dev. Factor Original Original Alpha Variance
loading factor loading explained %
1. FF REW
Reward from using FF (scale mean ¼ 3.4, scale sd ¼ 1.2) 0.89 10.4
I get pleasure from eating functional foods 3.4 1.5 0.81 1
The idea that I can take care of my health by eating functional foods gives me pleasure 3.7 1.6 0.73 1
Functional foods make me feel more energetic 3.3 1.4 0.68 1
Functional foods help to improve my mood 3.4 1.6 0.68 1

N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803

My performance improves when I eat functional foods 3.4 1.5 0.60 1
I actively seek out information about functional foods 3.7 1.7 0.38 7 (0.41)
I willingly try even unfamiliar products if they are functional 2.9 1.7 0.38 1
2. FF CON
Confidence in FF (scale mean ¼ 4.0, scale sd ¼ 1.0) 0.87 9.7
The safety of functional foods has been very thoroughly studied 4.2 1.5 0.74 2
One can get reliable information about the health effects of functional foods 4.2 1.5 0.72 2
I trust the information given about health effects 4.3 1.5 0.64 2
Using functional foods is completely safe 4.5 1.5 0.57 2
Functional foods are science-based top products 3.7 1.5 0.54 2
R I do not believe that the stated health effects are based on thorough study 4.0 1.5 0.54 2
I believe that functional foods fulfil their promises 3.9 1.4 0.43 2
R In my opinion, nutrition experts do not know the health effects of functional foods 4.1 1.3 0.41 2
R Exaggerated information is given about health effects 3.4 1.4 0.36 2
3. FF NEC
Necessity for FF (scale mean ¼ 4.5, scale sd ¼ 1.2) 0.86 7.4
I can promote my health by consuming functional foods 4.4 1.5 0.59 3
It is great that modern technology allows the development of functional foods 4.9 1.4 0.58 3
R Functional foods are completely unnecessary 5.0 1.4 0.57 3
R Functional foods are a total sham 4.8 1.6 0.53 3
Functional foods promote my well-being 4.2 1.6 0.44 1 (0.47)
R For me functional foods are useless 4.2 1.6 0.43 3
Functional foods make it easier to follow a healthy lifestyle 4.8 1.6 0.42 3
R For a healthy person it is worthless to use functional foods 3.7 1.7 0.36 4 (0.36)
4. FF MED
FF as medicine (scale mean ¼ 3.6, scale sd ¼ 1.1) 0.68 6.2
R I only want to eat foods that do not have any medicine-like effects 3.5 1.8 0.49 4
R Medicines and foods should be kept strictly separate 3.0 1.6 0.43 4
R Functional foods are needed by people who have specific health problems 3.5 1.8 0.38 4
R The growing number of functional foods on the market is a bad trend for the future 4.5 1.6 0.37 3 (0.47)
R Health effects are not appropriate in delicacies 4.2 1.7 0.36 4
R It is pointless to add health effects to otherwise unhealthy foods 3.0 1.8 0.36 4
 N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803 797

The exception was cholesterol lowering margarine and

R ¼ negative statement. These statements were recoded with reversed values before final data analysis. The loading on the factor is the loading on that scale where the item is now. Within parentheses
blood pressure lowering milk drink as they were mar-
keted with these statements in their packages.
3.9

4.1

2.8
Perceived healthiness and familiarity of the products
were also assessed. Healthiness was evaluated on a 7-
point scale (1 ¼ not at all healthy, 7 ¼ extremely heal-
thy). Familiarity with the products was measured on a
0.75

0.73

0.58
5-point scale in which 1 ¼ I do not recognize this prod-
uct (or this kind of product), 2 ¼ I recognize this prod-
uct, but I have not tasted it, 3 ¼ I have tasted this
product, but I do not use it, 4 ¼ I use this product
(0.43)

(0.42)

(0.36)
occasionally, and 5 ¼ I use this product frequently. The
scale was planned in such a way that unfamiliar and
familiar products, or products with different use fre-
quencies can be rated using the same scale. For instance,
spread is usually used several times per day but meat
5
5
5
1
5

6
6
4
6

7
7
4

products might only be used a few times per month.

Although the respondents were quite familiar with
functional food examples, the example products were
not used very frequently. Table 1 shows the mean scores
0.58
0.49
0.42
0.40
0.35

0.66
0.65
0.40
0.33

0.54
0.40
0.25

of respondents’ willingness to use, the perceived

healthiness ratings and the familiarity for both func-
tional and reference food products.
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6

1.6
1.5
1.3
4.4

1.6
1.6
1.7

2.3. Data analysis

The rating scales of the negatively worded items were

3.3
3.5
3.7
3.9
2.8

3.6
3.9
3.6
4.5

3.4
3.1
3.6

reversed and the items with clearly skewed distributions

were rejected. After this procedure, 47 statements were
entered into final data analysis. Factor analysis (maxi-
I am prepared to compromise on the taste of a food if the product is functional
I do not believe that functional foods will ensure a long and healthy life for me

mum likelihood, varimax rotation) was used for

Functional foods are consumed mostly by people who have no need for them

For me, good taste is more important than health effects in a food product

grouping the statements into independent subsets

(Beardsworth, Haslam, Keil, Goode, & Sherrat, 1999).
Functional foods can repair the damage caused by an unhealthy diet

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Bartlett’s tests were used for

are the loadings of the original factor that they have a highest loading on.
In some cases, functional foods may be harmful for healthy people
Absence of nutritional risk in FF (scale mean ¼ 3.9, scale sd ¼ 0.8)

testing the suitability of the correlation matrix for factor

A functional food can counteract an otherwise unhealthy diet

The new properties of functional foods carry unforeseen risks

analysis. According to the factor analysis (maximum

People would be healthier if they used more functional foods
FF as part of a healthy diet (scale mean ¼ 3.4, scale sd ¼ 1.2)

I do not buy functional foods unless I know how they taste

If used in excess, functional foods can be harmful to health

likelihood, varimax rotation), eight dimensions (eigen-

I can prevent disease by eating functional foods regularly

value greater than 1.0) were found. One of these

dimensions was discarded because there were no state-
ments strongly loaded on it. After this, the data were
Taste of FF (scale mean ¼ 3.3, scale sd ¼ 1.2)

analysed again and the number of factors was forced

into seven. These seven dimensions explained 44% of the
total variance (Table 2).
Factor scores were saved and used in repeated-mea-
sures ANOVA as between-subject covariates. In addi-
tion to the factor scores of FF-statements, three
reference scales were also used as between-subjects co-
variates. Within-subjects factor was formed from the
respondents’ scores of willingness to use 8 functional
and 4 conventionally healthy food products. The pur-
5. FF PART

7. FF TAST
6. FF RISK

pose of this analysis was to test how the factor scores

and reference scales (e.g. respondents’ attitudes) affect
the respondents’ willingness to use functional foods (8
example products) and conventional products (4 refer-
R

R
R
R
R

ence products).
798 N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803
2.4. Scale construction
In principle, attitude scales were formulated accord-
ing to the factor loadings that were extracted from the
factor analysis. However, if an item did not fit into the
main content of the factor, it was either discarded or
shifted to a more suitable scale in which the item had a
moderate, although not the highest, loading. If an item
was moderately loaded on several dimensions, the con-
tent of the statement and the scale were compared and
the item was included in the topically most appropriate
scale or discarded. When the subscales were formulated,
they were analysed one by one with factor analysis to see
if the scales separately load to one dimension. Cron-
bach’s alpha was used in testing the reliability of the
scales.
After the scales were constructed, one scale (perceived
reward form using FF) was used as an example to show
the practical implication of the FF-scales. The respon-
dents were divided into three groups according to their
scale mean in this scale (lowest 25%, middle 50% and
upper 25%). The respondents in the lowest quartile
experienced less reward from using functional foods
compared to those respondents in the middle and upper
groups, i.e. the remaining 75% of the respondents. On
the other hand, respondents in the upper quartile per-
ceived the greatest reward from using functional food
compared to the remaining 75% of the respondents.
These three attitude groups were used in predicting
consumers’ willingness to use functional foods and thus
showing the effect of this attitude in a practical point of
view.
The effects of gender, age and education on func-
tional food attitudes were studied by 3-way ANOVA, in
which the respondents’ scale values were explained by
gender (men or women), age group (29 years or under,
30–39 years, 40–49 years, 50–59 years or 60 years or
over) and educational group (basic nine years, voca-
tional school or college and university).
3. Results
3.1. Attitudes towards functional foods
On the first dimension there were seven, only posi-
tively worded statements and it explained 10% of the
variance after varimax rotation (Table 2). This scale
comprised items that describe the rewarding aspect
coming from the use of functional foods. It included
statements that reflected especially the feelings derived
from the individual’s own, personal consumption of
functional foods. The main focus of this dimension is
that using functional foods improves one’s health and
performance and thus gives a tool to take care of one-
self. This dimension was termed perceived reward from
using functional foods (FF REW). It is noteworthy that
there were no taste-related statements on this factor.
Consumers who rate high on this scale perceive the use
of functional foods to be more rewarding than the
consumers’ who rate lower.
The second factor was termed confidence in functional
foods (FF CON) and it contains items that describe
consumers’ attitude towards the claims and information
about functional foods or their health effects. In other
words, this factor describes how individuals trust the
information and how strongly they believe in the sci-
entific basis of promised health effects. Also, some
statements referred to consumers’ concerns of possible
overdose of functional components. Statements were on
a more general level than the statements on the first
factor and did not relate to one’s own behaviour as such.
Consumers who rate high on this scale trust the infor-
mation about functional food compared to the con-
sumers who rate lower.
The third factor was termed necessity for functional
foods (FF NEC) and it describes how essential con-
sumers think that functional foods are for oneself or
people in general. Respondents who score high on this
scale think that by using functional foods they can
promote a healthy lifestyle. This dimension describes
only the general necessity of functional products and
does not refer to any disease.
The fourth factor was termed functional foods as
medicines (FF MED) and consisted of items that de-
scribe consumers’ attitude towards medicine-like effects
in functional foods. All the statements loaded on this
factor were negatively worded. Respondents who rated
high on this scale have a more positive attitude towards
functional food products that could be used for the same
purposes as medicines, for instance for lowering cho-
lesterol.
The fifth factor was termed functional foods as part of
a healthy diet (FF PART) and it describes the use of
functional foods as part of a normal, healthy diet.
Consumers who rate high on this scale perceive that the
use of functional food may counteract otherwise un-
healthy food choices.
The sixth factor describes the absence of nutritional
risks of functional foods (FF RISK). This dimension
describes respondents’ suspiciousness towards possible
harmful effects of functional foods. All the items on this
factor were negatively worded stating a possible threat
or side-effects of functional foods.
The seventh factor contains items concerning health
effects vs. taste of functional foods (FF TAST). This taste
factor describes the possible conflict between a pleasant
taste and the health benefit when consumers’ choose
functional foods. Consumers who score high on this
scale are more ready to compromise on pleasant taste if
the product is functional compared to the consumers
who score lower.
 N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803
3.2. Consumers’ willingness to use functional foods
Factor scores of FF-dimensions, e.g. consumers’
attitudes explained their willingness to use functional
and conventionally healthy foods differently (repeated
measures ANOVA) (Table 3).
The clearest effects on the willingness to use func-
tional foods were found between respondents who had
different attitude towards the perceived reward from
using functional foods (FF REW). Respondents who
obtained reward from using functional foods were those
most willing to use all the functional food examples
except sweets with xylitol sweetened sweets. Among the
reference products FF REW affected positively the
willingness to use low-fat cheese and organic bread, but
the effect was lower than in functional foods.
In addition to the perceived reward, the necessity for
functional foods (FF NEC) affected positively the will-
ingness to use functional food products. Particularly
strongly it predicted the willingness to use functional
products that have an impact of risk factors of cardio-
vascular diseases, merely cholesterol lowering spread
and blood pressure lowering milk drink, and gut friendly
yoghurt. FF NEC affected positively also the willingness
to use reference products.
Also the taste of functional foods (FF TAST) pre-
dicted strongly the willingness to use products with
cardiovascular disease related health effects. The reli-
ability of is scale was, however, weak and we do not
discuss these results further.
Confidence in information about functional foods
(FF CON) increased willingness to use probiotic juice
and products with added fibre and calcium, but not
cholesterol-lowering spread or blood pressure lowering
milk drink.
Functional foods as part of a healthy diet (FF PART)
and the absence of nutritional risks (FF RISK) seem to
be less important when respondents rated their willing-
ness to use functional foods. Although risk may be
perceived, they did not influence willingness to use
functional foods. Respondents’ attitude towards func-
tional products as part of a healthy diet and perceived
risks affected only the willingness to use xylitol sweet-
ened sweets. People who saw functional foods as part of
a healthy diet and did not perceive risks connected to
functional foods were less willing to use xylitol sweet-
ened sweets.
General health interest (GHI) did not predict the
willingness to use any of the functional food products,
but predicted strongly the willingness to use low-salted
food products and low-fat cheese (conventionally heal-
thy products). Among the functional food products NPI
affected slightly negatively only the willingness to use
energy drinks, but among conventionally healthy prod-
ucts natural product interest (NPI) affected strongly
positively the willingness to use organic bread. Food
799
neophobia scale (FNS) affected slightly negatively the
willingness to use all functional food examples, low-
salted food products and organic bread. FNS was not
the strongest determinant in predicting the willingness to
use these products, but had consistently negative impact
on the willingness to use all product examples regardless
of their nature (Table 3).
3.3. Building the scales
Seven subscales were formed according to the highest
loadings on the seven factors described above. With the
exception of the health vs. taste factor (FF TAST), all
the subscales had good, or at least moderate, reliabilities
when measured with the Cronbach alpha (Table 2).
High, statistically significant intercorrelations between
FF-scales were found. The strongest factor, perceived
reward, correlated highly with taste (FF TAST), neces-
sity (FF NEC) and compensating dietary (FF PART)
factors and moderately with trust on information about
functional foods (FF CON) (Table 4). Attitudes towards
functional foods having medicinal effects (FF MED)
and lack of perceived risks (FF RISK) seemed to be
more independent subscales.
General health interest (GHI) correlated positively
but mildly with attitudes towards functional foods
(Table 4). The strongest correlation was between GHI
and placing health effects before taste, whereas GHI
showed very weak correlation with medicine-like effects
or risk. Natural product interest (NPI) had very low
correlations with functional food attitudes and they
were both positive and negative (Table 4). The food
neophobia scale (FNS) had low, both positive and
negative, correlations with functional food scales, hence
negative attitudes towards functional foods were not
strongly related to food neophobia (Table 4).
Perceived reward was used to show the implications
of FF scales (Fig. 1) on willingness ratings. In particular,
those with the most positive attitudes towards reward
from using functional foods rated their willingness
higher that the middle or low attitude groups (Fig. 1).
3.4. Effects of gender, age and education on respondents’
functional food attitudes
There were two subscales in which females and males
scored differently. Females scored slightly lower on both
the FF PART [F ð1; 1092Þ ¼ 6:0, p < 0:05] and FF
TAST [F ð1; 1092Þ ¼ 4:4, p < 0:05] scales. Females ten-
ded to think that they cannot counteract an otherwise
unhealthy diet by using functional foods and they did
not perceive functional foods to be as much a part of a
healthy diet as did males. Females were also not as ready
as males to compromise on taste for a health benefit
from functional foods. Age affected the attitude scores
on the four subscales. Younger respondents scored
 800
N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803
Table 3
The effect (standardised parameter estimate: Beta) of the FF- and reference scales on the willingness to use functional and reference (conventionally healthy) products
Factor FF-scale Functional food examples Reference product examples
name Probi- Juice Milk with Cholesterol Blood pres- Meat prod- Energy Sweets and Low-salted Low-fat Organic Rye bread
otic/gut with added lowering sure lower- ucts with drinks chewing food prod- cheese bread
friendly added calcium spread ing milk added fibre gums with ucts
juice calcium drink xylitol
Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta Beta
Factor 1 scores FF REW 0.47 0.39 0.38 0.47 0.55 0.45 0.31 0.01 0.11 0.23 0.22 )0.07
Factor 2 scores FF CON 0.25 0.27 0.22 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.03
Factor 3 scores FF NEC 0.38 0.28 0.31 0.40 0.40 0.23 )0.03 0.23 0.28 0.20 0.24 0.20
Factor 4 scores FF MED 0.23 0.17 0.00 0.13 )0.04 0.16 0.10 0.20 0.06 0.08 0.09 )0.07
Factor 5 scores FF PART )0.09 )0.10 0.10 0.15 0.17 0.10 0.04 )0.26 )0.10 )0.11 )0.16 )0.06
Factor 6 scores FF RISK )0.04 )0.01 0.06 0.10 0.06 )0.03 0.04 )0.21 )0.16 0.01 )0.04 0.01
Factor 7 scores FF TAST 0.21 0.15 0.20 0.42 0.43 0.22 )0.02 )0.15 0.27 0.10 0.09 )0.05
GHI 0.13 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.11 )0.02 )0.10 0.02 0.54 0.55 )0.12 0.05
NPI 0.08 0.04 )0.01 )0.09 )0.14 )0.06 )0.17 0.04 )0.05 )0.13 0.69 0.07
FNS )0.14 )0.23 )0.16 )0.16 )0.18 )0.20 )0.19 )0.16 )0.20 )0.12 )0.36 )0.06
FF REW ¼ reward from using FF, FF CON ¼ confidence in FF, FF NEC ¼ necessity for FF, FF MED ¼ FF as medicine, FF PART ¼ FF as part of a healthy diet, FF RISK ¼ absence of
nutritional risk in FF, FF TAST ¼ taste of FF, GHI ¼ general health interest, NPI ¼ natural product interest, FNS ¼ food neophobia scale; statistically significant (p < 0:01) betas are written in bold.
 N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803 801

Table 4
Correlation coefficients (Pearson) between FF and reference scales
FF REW FF CON FF NEC FF MED FF PART FF RISK FF TAST GHI NPI FNS
FF REW 1.00 0.34 0.19 0.11
FF CON 0.56 1.00 0.23 )0.01 0.00
FF NEC 0.68 0.72 1.00 0.28 0.09 0.01
FF MED 0.33 0.42 0.58 1.00 0.04 )0.05 )0.16
FF PART 0.68 0.56 0.60 0.29 1.00 0.22 0.10 0.16
FF RISK 0.27 0.45 0.38 0.31 0.21 1.00 0.08 )0.11 )0.04
FF TAST 0.75 0.43 0.55 0.28 0.55 0.19 1.00 0.46 0.31 0.11
FF REW ¼ reward from using FF, FF CON ¼ confidence in FF, FF NEC ¼ necessity for FF, FF MED ¼ FF as medicine, FF PART ¼ FF as part of
a healthy diet, FF RISK ¼ absence of nutritional risk in FF, FF TAST ¼ taste of FF, GHI ¼ general health interest, NPI ¼ natural product interest,
FNS ¼ food neophobia scale; statistically significant (p < 0:01) correlation coefficients are written in bold.

lowest 25% middle group upper 25%

extremely willing 7

2
Functional food examples Reference product examples
not at all willing
1
m

d
e

re

ks

ol
ad

ts

e
m

d
ic

es
in

ea

ea
iu

lit

uc
iu

fib

in
re
ju

dr

he

br
lc

br
xy
lc

dr

od
sp

d
ly

ca

ca

ilk

tc

ic

ye
de

ith
gy

pr
nd

an
m
d

-fa
d

R
in

ad

w
er

od
de
ie

de

rg
g
er

w
En
fr

s
in

ith
ad

fo
ad

O
m
w

Lo
ut

er
lo

gu

d
ith

ith
/g

te
s
ol

lo
tic

g
w

ct

al
er

in

-s
du
re
io

ilk

st

ew
ic

w
ob

su

ro
M

le
Ju

Lo
ch
ho

es
Pr

tp
pr

d
C

ea

an
od

ts
lo

ee
B

Sw

Fig. 1. Effect of consumers’ perceived reward from using FF (FF REW) on the willingness to use functional foods.

lower on the FF REW [F ð1; 1089Þ ¼ 10:4, p < 0:001], FF TAST between female and male were only 0.2 and
FF PART [F ð1; 1089Þ ¼ 10:2, p < 0:001] and FF TAST 0.3 point, respectively, on the 7-point scale and the scale
[F ð1; 1089Þ ¼ 20:8, p < 0:001] scales but slightly higher means between five age and four educational groups
on the FF MED [F ð1; 1089Þ ¼ 3:7, p < 0:01] scale than were within one point.
the older respondents. Thus, younger consumers seemed
to get less reward from using functional foods, they did
not think that they could repair an unhealthy diet by 4. Discussion
using functional foods and they were not as ready to
compromise on the taste of functional foods for the We found seven dimensions that describe consumers’
ensuing health effects. Younger respondents are also attitudes towards functional foods. These attitudes be-
more positive towards adding medicine-like health ef- hind functional food related dimensions reflect the as-
fects in food products. On two subscales, there were pects found in previous functional food studies:
differences between educational groups. Respondents healthiness, taste, pleasure, security and familiarity
who had university degree education rated higher on the (Poulsen, 1999; Urala & L€ahteenm€aki, 2003). Func-
FF MED [F ð1; 1090Þ ¼ 6:2, p < 0:001] and lower on the tional food related attitudes affected the willingness to
FF PART [F ð1; 1090Þ ¼ 5:2, p < 0:01] than the less- use functional food products in different ways depending
educated respondents. on the type of functional product. This result confirms
It is noteworthy that even there were statistically our earlier findings that consumers do not perceive
significant differences between females and males, age functional foods as one homogenous group.
and educational groups, the differences in the scale Among the functional foods there are, however,
means of these groups were quite small. For instance the product based subgroups in which consumers’ reported
differences between the scale means of FF PART and willingness to use seem to be affected by same attitudes.
802 N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803
Reported willingness to use all functional foods could be
predicted by rewarding feeling and necessity for func-
tional foods. Besides these two attitudes, among the
products that promise clear lowering of well-established
and commonly recognized disease related risks (prod-
ucts with cardiovascular disease related claim) taste can
be compromised and willingness to use products that
promote general well-being (probiotic/gut friendly juice,
drinks with added calcium and meat products with
added fibre) need confidence in functional foods.
Consumers’ willingness to use functional foods was
best predicted by their attitude that describes their per-
ceived reward from using functional foods. This feeling
of reward from consuming functional products may re-
flect the generally accepted disposition in western coun-
tries in which individuals are increasingly considered as
being responsible for their own health and well-being. In
particular, the roles of diet and eating behaviour have
been raised as one of the most important factors affecting
an individual’s well-being and state of health. Rozin
(1997) argued strongly that eating is a moral issue
nowadays. Our earlier laddering interviews also showed
that consumers connect functional foods with control
over life and health, being a better person and feelings
of well-being (Urala & L€ ahteenm€ aki, 2003). The use of
functional foods may offer a new, less-demanding way of
gaining an ethical reward through food choices: con-
sumers feel that they take care of themselves and make
the ‘right’ choices that are socially acceptable.
This rewarding feeling may be connected not only to
control over one’s own health but also to the positive
impressions that an individual perhaps wants to evoke
among other people. Saher et al. (2004) found that
subjects who had functional foods on their shopping list
were regarded as more innovative but less friendly
compared to consumers whose shopping list contained
conventional products. By choosing and using func-
tional foods consumers may achieve a modern and
positive impression of themselves. Functional foods
provide consumers a modern way to follow a healthy
lifestyle, which differs from the conventionally healthy
diet defined by nutrition experts. One way of making
functional foods more attractive to the sceptical con-
sumers is to emphasise the good feeling that is derived
from using functional foods.
Necessity for functional foods was not specific for
functional foods. This attitude affected also the will-
ingness to use reference products to some extent. Espe-
cially the necessity for functional foods predicted
significantly the respondents’ reported willingness to use
all, both functional and reference products, except en-
ergy drinks. Necessity did not, however, correlate with
the general health interest. Perceived necessity may re-
flect some other aspect of more general health interest
than the general health interest scale measuring nutri-
tionally related healthiness.
In some earlier functional food studies, a question of
the medicine-like effects of functional foods has been
raised (Bech-Larsen & Grunert, 2003; Frewer et al.,
2003; Poulsen, 1999; Urala & L€ahteenm€aki, 2003).
Consumers may connect medicine-like effects with
functional foods in general, but in our study consumers’
attitude towards medicine-like effect did not affect will-
ingness to use functional foods when the willingness to
use existing product samples was evaluated.
Risk issues concerning functional foods are consid-
ered, but according to our results they are not seen as
highly relevant when evaluating product examples. Fre-
wer et al. (2003) present that from the consumers’ point
of view the perceived risks of functional foods would be
one barrier not to consume functional products. In our
study the perceived nutritional risks did not, however,
affect the reported willingness to use functional foods.
Taste is one of the most important choice factors
when choosing functional foods (Urala & L€ahteenm€ aki,
2003). In a study of Tuorila and Cardello (2002), bitter
and salty off-flavours decreased the liking and likelihood
of consumption of juice samples with associated health
claims. In the present study, the dimension describing
consumers’ attitudes to the taste was strongly dependent
on the dimension describing the reward from using
functional products (FF REW). Interestingly the atti-
tude towards taste affected strongly the willingness to
use both cholesterol lowering spread and blood pressure
milk drink. These products may have such a strong
health related message that those who are motivated in
using these products are even ready to compromise the
taste. The taste dimension has, however, quite weak
reliability and few items. Due these limitations the re-
sults should be interpreted with caution.
Some of the dimensions were formed from positively
worded items and other from solely negatively formu-
lated statements. This finding may suggest that respon-
dents had not formed definite pro or con opinions about
the items, but responded according to the verbal for-
mulation of the item.
We found, that developed functional food attitude
scales are distinct from general health interest and pro-
vide a new tool for measuring consumer attitudes to-
wards health-based reasons in food choices. Because
food neophobia had slightly negative effect on the will-
ingness to use functional products the functional foods
may be, to some extent, perceived as new products;
however the effect was not specific to the functional
foods and was similar to other modified products such
as low salted food products and organic bread. Func-
tional foods were not perceived unnatural: natural
product interest did not affect respondents’ willingness
to use functional foods. Our study does not support the
earlier assumptions (Frewer et al., 2003) that the per-
ceived unnaturalness would reduce consumers’ willing-
ness to use functional foods.
 N. Urala, L. L€ahteenm€aki / Food Quality and Preference 15 (2004) 793–803
5. Conclusions
For both consumers and researchers, it is difficult to
follow and predict the progress in the functional food
market (Frewer et al., 2003; Gray et al., 2003; Menrad,
2003). Functional food scales offer a new tool for
monitoring consumers’ attitudes and predict the success
of functional food products even on the concept level.
The perceived reward from using functional food and
the confidence in functional foods seem to be the most
crucial factors in consumers’ willingness to use func-
tional foods. Consumers may perceive risks coming
from the use of functional foods in general, but the
perceived risks do not affect ratings describing con-
sumers’ willingness to use functional products. The
functional food scales will be developed further into
more precise and shorter form to provide a feasible tool
to measure attitudes toward functional foods.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge TEKES
(National Technology Agency of Finland), which partly
funded this research. This study is part of a joint project:
entitled ‘Tools for consumer-oriented product develop-
ment’, and belongs to the Tailored Technologies for
Future Foods programme at VTT Biotechnology.
References
Beardsworth, C., Haslam, C., Keil, T., Goode, J., & Sherrat, E. (1999).
Contemporary nutritional attitudes and practices: a factor analysis
approach. Appetite, 32, 127–143.
Bech-Larsen, T., & Grunert, K. G. (2003). The perceived healthiness of
functional foods: a conjoint study of Danish, Finnish and
803
American consumers’ perception of functional foods. Appetite,
49, 9–14.
Diplock, A. T., Agget, P. J., Ashwell, M., Bornet, F., Fern, E. B., &
Roberfroid, M. B. (1999). Scientific concepts of functional foods
in Europe: consensus document. British Journal of Nutrition, 81,
127.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes.
Orlando: Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publisher.
Frewer, L., Scholderer, J., & Lambert, N. (2003). Consumer accep-
tance of functional foods: issues for the future. British Food
Journal, 10, 714–731.
Gray, J., Armstrong, G., & Farley, H. (2003). Opportunities and
constrains in the functional food market. Nutrition & Food Science,
33, 213–218.
L€ahteenm€aki, L. (2003). Consumers and functional foods. In T.
Mattila-Sandholm & M. Saarela (Eds.), Functional dairy products.
Cambridge: Woodhead Publication Ltd.
Menrad, K. (2003). Market and marketing of functional food in
Europe. Journal of Food Engineering, 56, 181–188.
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure
the trait of food neophobia for edible substances. Appetite, 19, 105–
120.
Poulsen, J. B. (1999). Danish consumers’ attitudes towards functional
foods, Working paper no. 62, MAPP, Arhus,
Denmark.
Roininen, K., L€ahteenm€aki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Quantification
of consumer attitudes to health and hedonic characteristics of
foods. Appetite, 33, 7188.
Rozin, P. (1997). Moralization. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.),
Morality and health. London: Routledge.
Saher, M., Arvola, A., Lindeman, M., & L€ahteenm€aki, L. (2004).
Impressions of functional food consumers. Appetite, 42, 79–89.
Shepherd, R. (1990). Attitudes and beliefs as determinants of food
choice. In R. L. McBride & H. J. H. MacFie (Eds.), Psychological
basis of sensory evaluation. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
Tuorila, H. (1997). Attitudes as determinants of food consumption.
Encyclopedia of Human Biology (2nd ed.) (Vol. 1), pp. 559–606.
Tuorila, H., & Cardello, A. V. (2002). Consumer responses to an off-
flavor in juice in the presence of specific health claims. Food Quality
and Preference, 13, 561–569.
Urala, N., & L€ahteenm€aki, L. (2003). Reasons behind consumers’
functional food choices. Nutrition & Food Science, 33, 148–158.
Urala, N., Arvola, A., & L€ahteenm€aki, L. (2003). Strength of health-
related claims and their perceived advantage. International Journal
of Food Science and Technology, 38, 815–826.