Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate / foodqual

Consumers’ acceptance of recycled water in meat products: Theinfluence of tasting, attitudes and values on hedonic and emotionalreactions

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.04.0020950-3293/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 8303 8811; fax: +61 8 8303 8899.E-mail address: David.Cox@csiro.au (D.N. Cox).

H.J. Lease a, D. Hatton MacDonald b, D.N. Cox a,⇑a CSIRO Animal, Food and Health Sciences, PO Box 10041, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australiab CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, PO Box 350, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 5 November 2013Received in revised form 2 April 2014Accepted 3 April 2014Available online 13 April 2014

Keywords:Recycled waterMeatConsumerRiskEmotionsHedonics

Community opposition to potable recycled water may extend to recycled water in food production. Pastresearch on recycled potable water indicates that the closer the risk of personal contact or ingestion, theless acceptable it is. Despite purification and expert assurances, emotional responses, including disgust,may present as major psychological barriers to the environmental and commercial benefit of recycledwater use in food production. Consumers (n = 101) were presented with meat products purported tobe processed or containing recycled water (3 levels of proximity to ingestion) along with a control prod-uct (containing tap water). Hedonic and 18 emotional responses were elicited. Validated survey instru-ments were used to measure world views (values), beliefs supportive of environmental actions andfood technology neophobia seeking to explain variation in hedonic and emotional responses. Surpris-ingly, consumers were found to be generally accepting and willing to try foods containing or in closeproximity to recycled water when that water was collected, treated and returned to drinking water stan-dards within the factory. All hypotheses pertaining to associated values, beliefs and neophobia wererejected. The study suggests that recycling water within a food factory, when supported by a credibleand trustworthy source of information, is likely to be met with positive emotional and affectiveresponses. Using a broad range of affective and emotional responses was useful in understanding accep-tance of foods that may be associated with perceived risk.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Affective responses to food experiences

Affective and emotional responses exert powerful influences onfood choice (Mellers, Schwartz, Ho, & Ritov, 1997). Affect, as an ini-tial reaction to stimuli, represents unconscious hedonics or fears(Zajonc, 1980) and refers to the ‘specific quality of ‘‘goodness’’ or‘‘badness’’ experienced as a feeling state’ (Slovic, Finucane, Peters,& MacGregor, 2004). Affective reactions are the first, automaticreactions that guide emotional reactions and judgement. Labelledthe ‘Affect Heuristic’ (Finucane, Alhakami, Slovic, & Johnson,2000), this ‘mental shortcut’ or impression is cognitively easierand more efficient to act upon than weighing the pros and consor retrieving relevant memories.

Factors determining the affective and emotional responses tofood experiences can be a direct cause (amazement at the coloursin a dish) or an indirect cause (experiencing fear in response to eat-ing something genetically modified) (Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008;Ferrarini et al., 2010). Emotions (e.g. anger, joy) effect motivationto eat, food choice (Gibson, 2006; Macht & Simons, 2000), chewingand eating speed, amount consumed and digestion (Blair, Wing, &Wald, 1991; Greeno & Wing, 1994; Krebs, Macht, Weyers, Weijers,& Janke, 1996; Macht, 1998, 2008). Thus, emotional responses to afood experience not only represent the hedonic rating of the fooditself but also the social and situational surroundings, or ‘‘appetitegestalten’’ (Macht, Meininger, & Roth, 2005), of which the fooditself is but one component (Ferrarini et al., 2010). Measuring arange of emotions in order to fully understand the experience(Cardello et al., 2012; Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008; Rousmans,Robin, Dittmar, & Vernet-Maury, 2000) is particularly importantin cases where a food evokes safety and risk concerns. Previously,the influence of affect on acceptance of ‘risky foods’ hasoften focused on biotechnology (e.g. genetic modification or

36 H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44

nanotechnology), finding that feelings of dread were a major deter-minant of public rejection (Finucane & Holup, 2005; Townsend,2006; Townsend & Campbell, 2004). Early work by Fischhoff,Slovic, and Lichtenstein (1978) and Slovic (1987) found ‘dread risk’to be the most important factor in risk perceptions, referring to thedegree to which a perceived ‘risky’ technology or behaviour is con-sidered ‘dreaded, uncontrollable, fatal, not equitable, high risk tofuture generations, not easily reduced, involuntary, and potentiallycatastrophic’ (Finucane & Holup, 2005).

Perceptions of risk are initiated by one’s affective reactions andare represented as a feeling or instinct to indicate quickly whethersomething is good or bad, safe or unsafe (Siegrist, Cousin,Kastenholz, & Wiek, 2007; Slovic et al., 2004). In this way judge-ment and risk perceptions are based less on what one ‘thinks’about a hazard and more on how one feels about it (affective reac-tions) (Finucane et al., 2000). As Alhakami and Slovic (1994) found,an inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived ben-efit existed, but was dependent on affect. Thus, items associatedwith positive affect (e.g., pleasant taste) were viewed as high ben-efit, low risk, whereas, items associated with negative affect (e.g.,repulsive taste) were viewed as low benefit and high risk. In thisway, affect directly influences judgement and risk perceptions.

Affective and emotional reactions to consuming potable recycled water

Globally and particularly in Australia, where extended periodsof drought occur, the water supply is critical and supplementationof traditional water supplies is needed for potable and non-potablepurposes (Hurlimann, Hemphill, McKay, & Geursen, 2008; Marks,2006). Government initiatives have introduced strict water restric-tions, new building regulations (compulsory installation of rainwa-ter tanks), the construction of desalination plants, ManagedAquifer Recharge schemes and wider use of non-potable waterfor crop and public space irrigation. The types of water undergoingrecycling treatment include sewage effluent, stormwater runoff,domestic greywater and industrial wastewater, with the intendedreuse (potable or non-potable) dictating the level of treatmentneeded to obtain the minimum safety standard. As a consequence,recycling wastewater for factory and industry reuse has far-reachingbenefits, both environmentally, by eliminating pollution risks,and industrially, by reducing wastewater disposal and freshwaterusage costs. Public apprehension about any particular recycledwater scheme is thought to depend upon the waters’ originalsource, its proposed usage and personal proximity risk level(Toze, 2006). Ranked preferences for sources of recycled waterreveal treated storm water to be preferred (for drinking and horti-culture irrigation), followed by treated greywater and treatedwastewater (Po et al., 2005). Studies show the closer the risk ofpersonal contact or ingestion, the less the acceptance. Studingacceptability of different uses of treated wastewater, Po et al.(2005) found dramatic differences with �98% and 99% of partici-pants accepting such water for watering public parks and hometoilet flushing, 88% acceptance for crop irrigation, 78% acceptancefor clothes washing, 52% acceptance for public swimming pools,44% acceptance for cooking and 32% acceptance for drinking. Dif-ferences in acceptance of horticulture produce using treatedwastewater were also consistent with perceived level of personalcontact, with lettuce least preferred compared to grapes andoranges, which were perceived as being a more removed from con-tact (Po et al., 2005). Thus, despite potable recycled water systemsbeing successfully introduced internationally and assurances beinggiven from water experts that it would be ‘‘cleaned to dialysis stan-dard, six star purification’’ (Clark, 2006; Hurlimann & Dolnicar,2010; Price, Fielding, & Leviston, 2012), the closer the proximityof recycled water use to the consumer, the lower its acceptance(Hurlimann, 2007; Marks, 2006; Marks, Martin, & Zadoroznyj,

2006; Nancarrow, Leviston, Po, Porter, & Tucker, 2008; Toze,2006). However in spite of this, previous research shows Austra-lians accept the ‘concept’ of water reuse and support it as reason-able and necessary (Leviston, Nancarrow, Tucker, & Porter, 2006;Po et al., 2005; Roseth, 2008). Yet, community opposition to pro-posed potable water schemes is often contradictory and emotion-ally driven (Po et al., 2005), with responses of disgust and/or the‘yuck’ factor presenting as major psychological barriers preventingimplementation (Po, Kaercher, & Nancarrow, 2003; Po et al., 2005).

In summary, previous research highlights the central role thataffect plays in shaping both the perceived risks and the perceivedbenefits of potable recycled water (Nancarrow et al., 2007; Poet al., 2005). However, affect has typically been equated to the‘yuck factor’ or disgust, the visceral reaction to ingesting or comingin contact with effluent and the fear of personal contamination(Ferrarini et al., 2010; Leviston et al., 2006; Macht & Dettmer,2006; Marks et al., 2006; Nancarrow, Leviston, & Tucker, 2009;Nancarrow et al., 2007; Po et al., 2003; Po et al., 2005; Russell &Hampton, 2006), a concept parallel to ‘dread risk’ (see Section 1.1).With a single measure of disgust, past literature has claimed toexplain the emotional rejection of potable recycled water(Russell & Lux, 2009). This approach contradicts much of Rozinand Fallon’s (1987) research, where food rejection is consideredmulti-faceted, comprised of four dimensions: (a) distaste – result-ing from sensory factors, (b) danger – anticipation of harm follow-ing ingestion, (c) inappropriateness – item is inedible or notconsidered food (d) disgust – because of origin or contamination.No research has sought to unpack the full positive and negativeemotional reactions (beyond the ‘yuck factor’) to ‘controversial’foods, such as those containing recycled water or, more specifi-cally, the use of recycled water in food production plants. Whileuses within food production can range from those that pose onlya distant ingestion risk (cleaning floors), to those that pose inter-mediate risk (cleaning equipment), to those that pose high risk(added to foods as an ingredient), it is unknown whether consum-ers would oppose the use of recycled water for all aspects of foodproduction or if differing risk levels for ingestion provoke differingdegrees of opposition, acceptance and emotions.

Measuring emotional responses to a food experience

Several scales have been designed to measure the intensity ofemotions including the EsSense™ Profile (King & Meiselman,2010), which measures 39 emotions, and the Geneva Emotion Scale(Chrea et al., 2009), which measures 36 emotions. While thesescales provide additional affective information beyond simpleacceptance measures, the emotions they measure are mostly posi-tive in nature. Desmet and Schifferstein (2008), on the other hand,give credence to the use of an equal portion of positive to negativeemotions, finding that 11 positive and 11 negative emotions wereexperienced at least once during food tastings. Reporting on avariety of eliciting conditions that are influential to the emotionalexperience, their work highlights the multidimensional nature ofpost-consumption emotions with different emotions (positive ornegative) felt simultaneously, to a greater or lesser degree. This alsosupports previous research suggesting more, rather than less,emotions are needed to fully express one’s emotional reaction tofood (Cardello et al., 2012). Given this, the current study usedDesmet and Schifferstein’s (2008) ‘Emotions in food experiencescale’ to unpack the full emotional response after consumingproducts purported to be made with or containing recycled water.

Environmental attitudes

Emotions experienced in response to ingesting recycled watermay be tempered by environmental attitudes and the perceived

H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44 37

advantage of reducing the usage of environmental resources andpollution. For example, Po et al. (2005) found that if an individualfelt obliged to protect the environment, they felt more positivepurchasing vegetables irrigated with recycled wastewater. Yet, itis unknown whether positive beliefs about environmental actions(environmental obligation) are associated with such behavioursas consuming foods containing recycled water. Recent work(Ryan & Spash, 2011) created a robust scale ‘Beliefs Supportive ofEnvironmental Action (BSEA) Attitude Scale’ (Ryan & Spash,2012) that measures environmental attitudes and how these atti-tudes relate to fundamental values and behavioural actions(Hawcroft & Milfont, 2010; Ryan & Spash, 2012). This scale wasused in the current study.

Control stimulus and avoidance of tap water

Anecdotal evidence suggests that a portion of the population inthe geographical location in which this study was conducted mayperceive potable tap water to be of poor quality. Therefore, usingtap water as the control stimulus for comparison with recycledwater may result in both types of water being reported as dislikedand evoking negative emotions (no differences found). No scientificdata or validated attitude scales could be found on perceptions ofthe tap water supply or preference for an alternative (e.g. rainwa-ter). The issue was tested by measuring consumers rainwater con-sumption as a marker or proxy for their dislike of current tap waterin order to negate a possible confounder to responses to the controlstimulus.

Cultural values and risk perception

Opinions on contentious political, moral and environmentalissues reflect inner values and form the basis of many attitudesand beliefs (Rozin, 1996). Risk perceptions can be understood asan expression of these values and a reflection of the wider culturalcontext in which the individual belongs. (Douglas, 1985; Marks,Martin, & Zadoroznyj, 2008). Underpinning a strong body of evi-dence (Kahan, 2010; Kahan, Braman, Gastil, Slovic, & Metz, 2007;Kahan, Braman, Slovic, Gastil, & Cohen, 2009), Kahan’s ‘Theory ofcultural cognition’ may assist in explaining the predisposing char-acteristics that influence perceptions of risk/benefits associatedwith hazards, such as consuming recycled water. The cultural the-ory of risk refers to people’s predisposition to base their percep-tions of risky behaviours on their ‘cultural appraisals’ (values) ofthese activities (Kahan et al., 2009). Assessed across the dimen-sions of ‘individualistic – communitarian’ and ‘egalitarian – hierar-chical’, hierarchical individualists tend to reject environmental riskclaims as interfering with the free market and the power of socialelites, while egalitarian communitarians tend to be sensitive toenvironmental risk, demanding regulation and action. Evidencesupports this theory, with people of opposing cultural worldviewspolarised on issues such as climate change (Kahan et al., 2011),nanotechnology (Kahan et al., 2009), vaccines (Kahan, Braman,Cohen, Gastil, & Slovic, 2010) and gun control (Kahan & Braman,2003). The current study sought to measure values using the vali-dated Cultural Worldview Scale (Kahan et al., 2007) to determine ifone’s values are associated with emotional and hedonic responsesto recycled water.

Neophobia

The technology used to recycle water may also pose personalperceived risks that override societal benefits. Ingestion proximitycould prompt fear as perceptions of ‘natural’ and ‘contamination’have been shown to play a role in this domain (Cox & Evans,2010; Evans, Kermarrec, Sable, & Cox, 2010; Po et al., 2005). No

study to date has isolated opposition to recycled water within aframework of technology neophobia (fear of the new). The currentstudy used the food technology neophobia scale (FTNS) to charac-terise individual’s reactions.

Evidence also shows trust to be an important predictor of recy-cled water acceptance; however, this variable was held constantand not tested in the current study as it is already well establishedin the literature. Another issue, safety, was incorporated into thedefinition of recycled water by specifying that the recycled waterwas purified to potable drinking standards. The term ‘recycledwater’ was used throughout the study to refer to the treatmentof wastewater generated only from within the factory. Priorresearch indicates that the expression ‘recycled water’ is one ofthe most preferred, compared to reused water, reclaimed water,repurified wastewater, recycled wastewater and repurified water(Po et al., 2005).

Study aims and hypotheses

This study sought to measure consumers hedonic and emo-tional responses to the use of recycled water in food productionwhile varying proximity to ingestion from distant (but still withpotential for food contact) to direct ingestion, as compared to acontrol stimulus, tap water. The research paradigm used taste testsof actual foods (meatballs), as these are considered to be the mostvalid predictors of real life choice by international food/beverageindustries. Furthermore, evidence shows that hedonic responsesare the best affective predictors of food consumption (Tuorilaet al., 2008). This approach differs from much of the risk perceptionliterature and from social psychological models of attitudes towardpotable recycled water, in which consumers make top down (highlevel) decisions when presented hypothetical concepts in question-naires. More positive reactions are often encountered when partic-ipants are treated as consumers, actually experiencing (ingesting)the food products, as observed in the food technology risk domain(Frewer, Howard, & Shepherd, 1996; Grunert, Bech-Larsen,Lahteenmaki, Ueland, & Astrom, 2004; Lahteenmaki et al., 2002).

The study hypotheses:

� (H1a) Products containing recycled water or that have ahigher proximity to ingestion of recycled water will be asso-ciated with lower hedonic ratings.

� (H1b) Products containing recycled water or that have ahigher proximity to ingestion of recycled water will be asso-ciated with lower positive emotional reactions and highernegative emotional reactions.

� (H2a) Communitarian/egalitarian values will be associatedwith higher hedonic ratings of products containing recycledwater or with a higher proximity to ingestion of recycledwater compared to individualistic hierarchs.

� (H2b) Communitarian/egalitarian values will be associatedwith higher positive emotional reactions and lower negativeemotional reactions to products containing recycled water orwith a higher proximity to ingestion of recycled water com-pared to individualistic hierarchs.

� (H3a) Neophobia will be associated with lower hedonic rat-ings to products containing recycled water or that have ahigher proximity to ingestion of recycled water.

� (H3b) Food Neophobia will be associated with lower positiveemotional reactions and higher negative reactions to prod-ucts containing recycled water or that have a higher proxim-ity to ingestion of recycled water.

� (H4a) Pro-environmental attitudes will be associated withhigher hedonic ratings of products containing recycled wateror that have a higher proximity to ingestion of recycledwater.

38 H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44

� (H4b) Pro-environmental attitudes will be associated withhigher positive emotional reactions and lower negative emo-tional reactions to products containing recycled water orthat have a higher proximity to ingestion of recycled water.

Methods

Participants

A sample of 101 participants was recruited in Adelaide (SouthAustralia) by market research company, McGregor Tan. Partici-pants were aged 25–65, primary household shoppers, regular con-sumers of beef mince products, Australian residents for 3+ yearsand were the only family/household members participating. Par-ticipants attended a single session at the CSIRO Animal, Food andHealth laboratory (Adelaide, SA) for approximately one hour andreceived a $40 honorium giftcard.

Procedures

Initially, participants were briefed on (1) the meatball attri-butes; e.g., made of Australian beef, hormone and antibiotic free,sold in 400 g packets, all ingredients and the reason water isadded: ‘‘Common amongst all prepared meat products, water isadded to all meatballs for structure, to compensate for water lossesduring cooking, and to make them juicy and easily chewable’’, (2)description of the types of beef mince used, (3) definitions of thedifferent fat levels e.g., regular, lean, extra lean (4) descriptionsof the types of water used: recycled water and tap water. Thisstudy focused on a specific type of recycled water, that is water col-lected after being used within the factory, and was defined as‘water that has been previously used within the food factory andthen treated to drinking water standards before being used again’.Tap water, which was used as the control stimulus, was defined as‘drinking water which comes mainly from two sources: surfacewater (rainfall and runoff into streams and rivers) and groundwa-ter (water collected in underground stores or aquifers). Water sup-pliers access this water, treat it and distribute it.’

The current study was conducted within a larger choice exper-iment (n = 202) (Hatton MacDonald, Rose, Lease, & Cox, 2013). Theconsumer sample reported upon here (n = 101) were randomlyassigned this task from the larger sample used for the choiceexperiment. Participants were asked to taste 4 meatballs and com-plete hedonic and emotion ratings before completing question-naires measuring rain water usage, ‘beliefs supportive ofenvironmental action’ (BSEA), cultural world views, food technol-ogy neophobia and socio-demographics.

The tasting experiment

Participants were seated in individual booths and each meatballwas presented with a description of its attributes. Participantswere instructed (1) to read the meatball description (2) taste as lit-tle or as much of the meatball as they liked and (3) complete hedo-nic and emotion measures after each tasting. Participants had theoption of refusing to taste and were asked to record their reasonswhy. For each of the 4 tastings (20 g meatball), participants weretold that they were consuming meatballs made from Angus beef,lean in fat, $5.00 cost per 400 g. These attributes were held con-stant while proximity to ingestion was varied in order to assessthe perceived risk. Sample A was a beef meatball made with recy-cled water as an ingredient (ingested [A-Ingested]); sample B was abeef meatball made in a factory where recycled water was used toclean equipment (intermediate proximity to ingestion [B-Mid-proximity]); sample C was a beef meatball made in a factory whererecycled water was used to clean floors (distant proximity to

ingestion, [C-Distant-proximity]); and sample D was a beef meat-ball made in a factory where tap water was used as an ingredientand for all purposes throughout the factory (no proximity to inges-tion, [D-Control]. Order of meatball presentation was completelyrandomised to minimise first-order and cross-over effects. In real-ity, no recycled water was used in the manufacture of these com-mercially available meatballs. All meatballs were identical insource (from a single butcher; prepared according to an agreedand standardised recipe), size (20 g), cooking time (10 min) toreach a consistent internal temperature (70 �C) and presentationfor tasting. Deliberate deception (with Ethics Committee approval)was employed in order to test participants’ reactions to thepossibility of the manipulations. Participants were debriefed atthe sessions’ end.

Measures

HedonicsHedonic (liking) ratings of each meatball were measured on a 9-

point labelled hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely to 9 = like extre-mely) where participants were asked to indicate how much theyliked or disliked that product (Peryam & Girardot, 1952).

EmotionsEmotional responses to each tasting were measured on a short-

ened version of the ‘emotions in food experience’ scale (Desmet &Schifferstein, 2008). Only emotions deemed relevant to the tastingexperience were presented, resulting in 18 of the original 22 items.To assess item relevancy, a pre-test was completed in which 48volunteers tasted two meatballs (one made with tap water andone purported to be made with recycled water) and were askedto indicate how much they felt each emotion (from 1 = not at allto 5 = strongly). A 93% cut off was used, whereby any emotionfor which 93% or more of participants’ scored ‘not at all’ was dis-carded. This resulted in ‘shame,’ ‘sadness,’ ‘anger’ and ‘jealousy’being removed from the original scale as they were consideredirrelevant to the consumption of meatballs. In the main study, par-ticipants were instructed, after completing their hedonic rating, toindicate how much they felt each emotion.

Rainwater consumption and tank usageRainwater consumption amongst our sample was measured as

an indicator of dislike of the current tap water supply. Participantswere asked: (1) if they currently have a rainwater tank or not or ifthey are considering installing one and (2) for those having a tank,to tick the purpose/s that the water is used, including drinking,cooking, washing dishes, bathroom/shower, clothes washing,flushing toilet, cleaning inside house, outdoor uses/gardening, fill-ing swimming pool, car washing, and other.

Beliefs supportive of environmental action (BSEA)Participants completed the BSEA, a scale measuring partici-

pants’ beliefs about whether the ‘‘environment is being seriouslyharmed’’ and whether ‘‘environmental action has positive conse-quences’’ (Ryan & Spash, 2012). The BSEA is a 9-item scale withquestions answered on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = Strongly dis-agree to 7 = Strongly agree. The Cronbach’s alpha of .87 indicated ahigh degree of internal consistency.

Cultural WorldviewsParticipants’ cultural worldviews were measured using Kahan’s

two Cultural Worldview Scales: Individualism-CommunitarianismScale (16 items) and Hierarchy-Egalitarianism Scale (13 items).Questions were answered on a 6-point labelled scale from1 = Strongly disagree to 6 = Strongly agree. Both scales were foundto have high internal consistency with Cronbach’s Alpha’s of .84

Fig. 1. Percentage of participants belonging to each cultural group based on their scores on the cultural worldviews scales.

H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44 39

and .83, respectively. Based on the group-grid framework devisedby Douglas (1982), each participant was assigned a ‘cultural group’(see Fig. 1) based on their scores on the worldviews scales relativeto the median score derived from each scale (Kahan, Braman,Monahan, Callahan, & Peters, 2010). To test the hypothesesdescribed in section 1.8, analyses focused upon Egalitarian/Com-munitarians versus Hierarchical/Individualists only.

Food technology neophobia scale (FTNS)The FTNS (Cox & Evans, 2010) is composed of 13 items, each on

a 7-point Likert scale from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = Totally agreewith a labelled midpoint 3 = neither agree nor disagree. The Cron-bach’s alpha of .81 indicated a high level of internal consistency forthis scale within the current sample. The FTNS was deliberatelypresented last so not to prime interest in food technology.

Demographic characteristicsDemographic information collected included gender, age, num-

ber of people in household and number of children under 16 inhousehold, education and household income, in order to test forpotential differences and to identify confounders or co-variablesthat may need post hoc control. Collection of these characteristicswas warranted by an established body of research showing thatwomen perceive a higher degree of risk from any given hazard thanmen (Berg, 2004; Frewer, 2000; Wandel & Fagerli, 2000), includingfor the consumption of recycled water (Nancarrow et al., 2008; Poet al., 2005), with education also having a significant effect forincreasingly personal uses of recycled water (Hurlimann, 2007).

Statistical methods

Data were double entered into a SIR (2002) relational databasewith variable values specified and corrections undertaken whendisparity was found. Results were analysed using SPSS Statistics20. Standard preliminary analyses included emotion frequenciesand means across samples, correlation coefficients for emotions,world views and environmental attitudes, and t-tests and one-way ANOVA’s with post hoc Tukey tests on demographic dataand emotions. Repeated Measures ANOVA and Bonferroni post

hoc tests with adjustment of multiple comparisons were used toassess relative differences in emotions across samples.

Results

Tastings

With each sample presentation, participants were given theoption of refusing to taste. All participants were willing to tasteall 4 samples.

Legitimacy of control stimulus (tap water)

Of the sample, 53.5% reported having a rainwater tank at home,of which 35.2% (19% of total sample) reported using rainwater fordrinking. An independent samples T-test of hedonic and emotionratings between rainwater consumers and non-consumers wasundertaken. Rainwater consumption failed to have any meaningfulimpact on hedonic and emotion ratings across all samples regard-less of proximity to ingestion. This suggests that our use of tapwater as a control stimulus was legitimate.

Sample demographics

The sample’s demographic characteristics are detailed inTable 1. Representative of the broader Australian population interms of gender (v2(1, n = 101) = 2.87, p > .05) and age (v2(4,n = 101) = 1.70, p > .05; M = 42.12 years, SD = 13.0), our samplewas more educated compared to the Australian population (v2(3,n = 101) = 15.39, p < .05), with significantly fewer participants notcompleting high school than expected and higher numbers com-pleting certificates or diplomas. Additionally, there was an underrepresentation of the lowest household income categories (up to$33,799) and the highest ($156,000+) compared to the Australianpopulation and an over representation in the middle categories($33,800–62,399, $62,400–103,99 and $104,000–155,999) (v2(4,n = 101) = 85.58, p < .05). For further analyses, household incomewas recoded into 3 categories to compare low, middle and high

Table 1Sample demographics.

N (%)(n = 101)

GenderMale 58 (57.4)Female 43 (42.6)

Age (years)20–30 23 (22.8)31–40 20 (19.8)41–50 29 (28.7)51–60 20 (19.8)61 and older 9 (8.9)

EducationDid not complete high school 10 (9.9)Completed high school 24 (23.8)Certificate or Diploma 41 (40.6)Bachelor degree or higher 26 (25.7)

Household income$1–33,799 23 (22.8)$33,800–62,399 28 (27.7)$62,400–103,999 28 (27.7)$104,000–155,999 16 (15.8)$156,000+ 5 (5)

Number of people in household1 Person 8 (7.9)2 People 26 (25.7)3–4 People 55 (54.5)5 or More people 12 (11.9)

Number of children under 16 in household0 Children 61 (60.4)1 Child 14 (13.9)2 or More children 26 (25.7)

40 H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44

incomes. Low household incomes were defined as $1–62,399, mid-dle household incomes were defined as $62,400–103,999 and highhousehold incomes were defined as $104,000+.

Overall hedonic and emotional responses to each tasting

Mean hedonic ratings of each meatball sample, detailed inTable 2, indicate a moderate degree of liking regardless of

Table 2Repeated measures ANOVA and Bonferroni corrected pairwise comparisons on hedonicsmanufactured or containing differing uses recycled water and tap water.

Associated emotions Sample (A): recycled waterused as an ingredient

Sample (B): recycled waterto clean equipment

M SD M SD

Hedonics 7.01a 1.35 6.95a 1.24Satisfaction 3.30a .88 3.31a .86Enjoyment 3.17a 1.03 3.00a 1.02Pleasant surprise 2.51a 1.23 2.27a 1.20Desire 2.27a 1.12 2.03a 1.07Stimulation 1.88a .95 1.80a .90Love 1.78a 1.10 1.72a 1.06Admiration 1.65a 1.02 1.60a 1.00Amusement 1.53a .87 1.46a .83Relief 1.51a .93 1.55a 1.01Hope 1.46a .91 1.41a .89Pride 1.39a .82 1.39a .87Disappointment 1.64a 1.03 1.26b .67Dissatisfaction 1.54a .98 1.28b .67Boredom 1.51a .89 1.29b .65Contempt 1.33a .73 1.28ab .66Unpleasant surprise 1.31a .71 1.17a .55Disgust 1.18a .58 1.15a .58Fear 1.11a .45 1.05a .26

Note: Means that share the same superscripts abc do not differ significantly from each o⁄⁄⁄p < .001.* p < .05.** p < .01.

proximity to ingestion, with ratings ranging from 6.95 to 7.25 ona 1–9 scale. Mean emotion ratings (Table 2) indicate that all emo-tions were experienced at least once in response to tasting themeatballs. Regardless of proximity to ingestion, positive emotionswere much more commonly reported than negative, with ‘satisfac-tion,’ ‘enjoyment,’ ‘pleasant surprise’ and ‘desire’ being the mostcommon emotional responses reported across the 4 samples. Con-trary to expectation, proximity to ingestion failed to elicit strongnegative emotions such as ‘disgust’ or ‘fear’. Of the unpleasantemotions, ‘boredom,’ ‘disappointment’ and ‘dissatisfaction’ wereexperienced more commonly, however they failed to elicit a strongresponse on the 1–5 scale, with mean scores slightly higher than‘Not at all’ and impacting very little on overall emotionalresponses. Of all emotions, ‘disgust’ and ‘fear’ were experiencedthe least, regardless of the proximity to ingestion level.

Further analyses were conducted to see if demographic differ-ences were associated with hedonic and emotional responses toproximity to ingestion of recycled water.

Gender, age and education

Gender differences failed to have any meaningful impact oneither hedonic or emotion ratings across the 4 samples (p < .05).

Conversely, across each meatball sample with a degree of inges-tion proximity (samples A-Ingested, B-Mid-proximity and C-Dis-tant-proximity), ‘fear’ was the emotion consistently affected byage. For sample A-Ingested F(4, 94) = 4.51, p 6 .01, post hoc com-parisons indicated those aged 61 and over reported significantlyhigher levels of ‘fear’ than all other age groups: sample B-Mid-proximity (F(4, 94) = 3.28, p 6 .05), and sample C-Distant-proxim-ity (F(4, 94) = 5.14, p = .001). However despite statistical differ-ences, ‘fear’ levels reported across all samples and age groupswere extremely low, failing to even reach the level defined onthe scale as ‘slightly’ and, thus, failing to have any meaningfulimpact.

Similarly, a one-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc tests showedthat regardless of proximity to ingestion level, education did notaffect hedonic ratings, (p P .05) nor did it have any meaningfulimpact upon emotional responses.

and emotions (n = 101) responses to tasting samples of meatballs purported to be

used Sample (C): recycled water usedto clean the floors

Sample (D): tap water usedfor all purposes

F

M SD M SD

7.13a 1.27 7.25a 1.05 1.523.36a .94 3.49a .91 1.433.12a 1.00 3.15a 1.04 1.742.26a 1.14 2.45a 1.28 3.352.14a 1.14 2.21a 1.16 2.951.73a .86 1.91a 1.03 2.781.75a 1.02 1.84a 1.1 .871.60a .91 1.63a 1.02 .421.47a .77 1.61a .97 2.081.54a .96 1.47a .83 .621.38a .89 1.42a .92 .501.32a .77 1.48a .99 2.431.30b .70 1.32b .86 4.40**

1.20b .58 1.24b .73 4.92**

1.41ab .68 1.33ab .58 3.11*

1.16b .49 1.18b .49 2.98*

1.21a .59 1.24a .81 3.091.12a .54 1.15a .68 .521.06a .37 1.11a .45 1.82

ther at p < .05.

Table 3Correlation coefficients (R) for hedonic and emotional responses and food neophobiafor samples a, b, c, and d.

Sample (A):recycledwater usedas aningredient

Sample (B):recycledwater usedto cleanequipment

Sample (C):recycledwater usedto clean thefloors

Sample(D): tapwater usedfor allpurposes

Foodneophobia

Foodneophobia

Foodneophobia

Foodneophobia

Hedonics �.11 �.20 �.13 �.14

Positive emotionsSatisfaction .02 �.21* �.08 �.11Enjoyment �.01 �.20* �.05 �.19Pleasant

surprise�.01 �.01 .03 �.00

Desire .11 �.07 .11 �.00Stimulation .10 �.03 .09 .19Love .05 .10 .03 .07Admiration .02 �.08 �.02 �.12Amusement .06 .03 .10 .13Relief .15 .07 �.15 �.12Hope .04 .01 �.09 �.04Pride .18 .06 .02 .02

Negative emotionsDisappointment .08 .04 .02 .17Dissatisfaction .01 .07 .03 .10Boredom .15 .24* �.00 .09Contempt .15 .20* .13 .13Unpleasant

surprise.12 .09 .11 .18

Disgust .15 .09 .06 .11Fear .05 .03 �.12 �.17

Note: ⁄⁄p < .01, ⁄⁄⁄p < .001.* p < .05.

H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44 41

Household income

For meatball samples A-Ingested (F(2, 87) = 3.21, p 6 .05) and B-Mid-proximity (F(2, 86) = 4.59, p 6 .05), income impacted hedonic(liking) ratings. For sample A post hoc comparisons showed lowesthousehold income earners (M = 6.73, SD = 1.48) liked Sample A-Ingested significantly less than middle income earners (M = 7.56,SD = .77) but were no different from the highest income earners(M = 7.00, SD = 1.50). A medium effect size of .06 was calculatedusing eta squared. Identically for sample B-Mid-proximity, lowerhousehold income earners (M = 6.65, SD = 1.16) liked SampleB-Mid-proximity significantly less than middle income earners(M = 7.46, SD = .72) but were no different from the highest incomeearners (M = 7.24, SD = 1.52). A medium effect size of .09 was cal-culated using eta squared. As proximity to ingestion receded insamples C-Distant-proximity (F(2, 84) = .76, p P .05) and D-control(F(2, 83) = 1.07, p P .05), income failed to impact hedonic scores.

Analysis of the effect of income across the emotions showed noimpacts for any food samples.

Hypothesis 1a: Higher ingestion proximity will be associated withlower hedonic ratings

Hedonic ratings (See Table 2) indicated a high degree of likingfor each meatball sample regardless of proximity to ingestion level.A one-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoctests indicated that hedonic differences between the samples werenot statistically significant (Wilks’ Lambda = .95 F(3, 84) = 1.52,p = .22). Thus, contrary to our hypothesis, proximity to ingestionof recycled water failed to impact upon hedonic ratings of anymeatball products.

Hypothesis 1b: Higher ingestion proximity will be associated withlower positive and higher negative emotion reactions

Partial support was found for hypothesis 1b. For each emotionrating, a one-way repeated measures ANOVA with Bonferroni posthoc tests was performed to see if proximity to ingestion impactedemotion ratings (see Table 2). Support was found for proximity toingestion of recycled water and the negative emotional responses‘disappointment’ (Wilks’ Lambda = .88, F(3, 93) = 4.40, p < .01),‘dissatisfaction’ (Wilks’ Lambda = .86, F(3, 94) = 4.92, p < .01),‘boredom’ (Wilks’ Lambda = .91, F(3, 94) = 3.11, p < .05), and ‘con-tempt’ (Wilks’ Lambda = .91, F(3, 94) = 2.98, p < .05), but not for‘unpleasant surprise’, ‘disgust’ or ‘fear’. Post hoc comparisons indi-cated that Sample A-Ingested elicited significantly higher ‘disap-pointment’ and ‘dissatisfaction’ compared to samples B-Midproximity, C-Distant proximity and D-control. While higher prox-imity to ingestion appears to be associated with increased disap-pointment and dissatisfaction, it should be noted that theresponse elicited was weak, 1.64 and 1.54, respectively on a 1–5scale. Despite statistical differences, these negative emotions werescarcely experienced, even at the highest proximity to ingestionlevel, while the positive emotions, satisfaction, enjoyment and,pleasant surprise, were the strongest and most common emotionsexperienced when consuming beef products containing recycledwater. Thus, contrary to our hypothesis, samples with higher prox-imity to ingestion of recycled water were not associated withlower positive emotional reactions when compared with samplesof lower ingestion proximity.

Hypothesis 2a: Communitarian/egalitarian values associated withhigher hedonic ratings of products with higher proximity to ingestion

A one-way ANOVA with Tukey post hoc tests was conducted toexplore the impact that worldviews had on hedonic responses.

Findings failed to support hypothesis 2a, with communitarian/egalitarian values not associated with higher hedonic scores com-pared to hierarchical/individualists.

Hypothesis 2b: Communitarian/egalitarian values will be associatedwith higher positive and lower negative emotional reactions toproducts with higher proximity to ingestion

A series of one way ANOVA’s with Tukey post hoc tests wereperformed exploring the relationship between communitarian/egalitarian values and emotional reactions to foods containing orwithin proximity to recycled water. Negligible support was foundfor hypothesis H2b. For Sample C-Distant proximity, those classi-fied as egalitarian/communitarians (M = 1.81, SD = 1.09) had signif-icantly lower pleasant surprise (F(3, 89) = 4.36, p 6 .05) than thoseclassified as hierarchical/individualists (M = 2.68, SD = .98). Noother significant emotional differences between cultural world-view groups were found, suggesting that cultural worldviews haveonly a very weak impact in this sample.

Hypotheses 3a & 3b: Neophobia will be associated with lower hedonicratings, and lower positive and higher negative emotional reactions toproducts with higher proximity to ingestion

Pearson’s correlations were used to explore relationshipsbetween neophobia and hedonic and emotional reactions acrosseach sample (see Table 3). With a mean of 54.65 (SD = 10.82) outof a possible 91, the sample was slightly negatively skewed, indi-cating a slight degree of neophobia and a likelihood to exhibit adegree of caution over new food technologies. Given this, it mightbe expected that stronger negative and lower positive emotionalresponses and lower hedonic scores in response to tasting thosesamples with higher proximity to ingestion of recycled water

42 H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44

would be observed in those with higher neophobic tendencies.However, hypotheses 3a and 3b were not supported. For samplesA-Ingested, C-Distant proximity and D-control, neophobia wascompletely unrelated to emotional or hedonic ratings. For sampleB-Mid-proximity, ‘satisfaction’ (r = �.21, p < .05) and ‘enjoyment’(r = �.20, p < .05) were weakly negatively correlated with neopho-bia, while ‘boredom’ (r = .24, p < .05) and ‘contempt’ (r = .20,p < .05) were weakly positively correlated with neophobia.Whilst these correlations are directionally correct, they are veryweak, and given that a higher level of proximity to ingestionyielded no significant correlations, these findings are likely to beinconsequential.

Hypothesis 4a & 4b: Pro-environmental attitudes will be associatedwith higher hedonic ratings, higher positive and lower negativeemotion reactions to products with higher proximity to ingestion

No support was found for hypothesis 4. Pearson correlationswere used to explore the relationship between pro-environmentalattitudes and hedonic and emotional reactions across each sample.With a mean BSEA score of 50.89 (SD = 8.18) out of a possible 63,the sample was largely negatively skewed, indicating strong pro-environmental attitudes and beliefs that environmental actionshave positive consequences. Surprisingly, no significant relation-ships (p > 0.05) between the hedonic or emotions ratings and theBSEA were found.

Discussion

This research has sought to understand the full spectrum ofhedonic and emotional reactions to foods made with (or in closeproximity to) recycled water. With every emotion experienced atleast once during each tasting, our results support previousresearch suggesting food experiences are multidimensional in nat-ure, with positive and negative emotions felt simultaneously to agreater or lesser degree. It supports the notion that more, ratherthan less, emotions are required to fully understand a person’sreaction to food products (Cardello et al., 2012; Desmet &Schifferstein, 2008; Rousmans et al., 2000). With the aim to furtherunpack the concept of ‘the yuck factor’ and extend our understand-ing of the role that positive and negative emotions play in accept-ing recycled water use in food production, the surprising resultssuggest that, regardless of proximity to ingestion of recycled water,pleasant emotions, particularly ‘satisfaction,’ ‘enjoyment,’ ‘pleasantsurprise’ and ‘desire’ were the most strongly experienced. Insofaras ‘disgust’ and ‘fear’ were experienced the least across each sam-ple, our findings are at odds with much of the past research in thisarea in which consumers have shown considerable negativity, par-ticularly when close personal contact or ingestion are involved.

There was little evidence of segmentation. Socio-demographiccharacteristics appeared to only have minor impact on hedonicresponses, with lower income being the only demographic charac-teristic found to be associated with lower hedonic scores for thetwo highest levels of proximity to ingestion. Of the emotionalresponses, age appeared to influence ‘fear,’ however, though statis-tically significant, actual levels of ‘fear’ were minute and do notwarrant serious consideration.

The rejection of many tested hypotheses provides importantsupport for the acceptability of recycled water usage in and aroundfood production. There was even a suggestion that cultural worldviews were changed through product experience with ‘pleasantsurprise’ being scored significantly higher by individualistic-hierachs than communitarian-egalitarians.

It was expected that those displaying stronger neophobic ten-dencies would be more likely to see risks associated with using

recycled water within food production and would be uncertainabout the safety, benefits and quality of the food. Yet, even at thehighest proximity to ingestion, neophobia was unrelated to hedo-nic and emotional reactions. These findings suggest two possibili-ties, firstly that neophobia does not influence the acceptance orrejection of recycled water use in food production, and secondly,that perceived risk, fear and uncertainty associated with ingestionof water recycled within the factory, is not great enough to evokestrong neophobic responses that distort hedonic or emotionalresponses. Given the strong positive responses to each sample,regardless of proximity to ingestion, the latter is a strongpossibility.

The rejection of most study hypotheses is an important findingbut should be considered in the context of the product and studysetting. First, the definition of recycled water and its source is fun-damentally important. As Po et al. (2005) found, the percentage ofpeople willing to taste and swallow ‘treated wastewater’ was lowerthan those willing to taste treated greywater which again waslower than those willing to taste treated stormwater. Connotationssurrounding differing terms such as ‘wastewater’ negatively influ-ence consumer acceptance. The overwhelming positive hedonicand emotional responses found in our study may have been influ-enced by our use of the term ‘recycled water’ which is not associ-ated with strong negative connotations, as may terms like ‘treatedwastewater’. Similarly, because the source of the used water wassolely from within the factory, there was no association with sew-age. A closed system within a factory maybe more appealing forconsumers and provides a potential option for industries consider-ing such schemes.

Secondly, the product itself may have influenced responses. Acooked meat product was chosen as a test food because water isan intrinsic ingredient of meatballs (allowing us to test proximityto ingestion), its application to industry (the meat processingindustry has interest), and because meatballs are usually soldunbranded (hence avoiding branding and commercial sensitivi-ties). However, being a cooked product may have evoked percep-tions of safety, as any hazards associated with recycled watermay have been perceived to be negated by the cooking process.Clearly wider product testing is needed.

Thirdly, trust is likely to have been important, with research(Hurlimann, 2008; Marks et al., 2008; Nancarrow et al., 2009) high-lighting trust as a significant factor in the acceptance of recycledwater for more personal uses. When confronted with unfamiliartechnologies, a common coping strategy is to employ social trustwhen assessing the risk and benefits (Siegrist & Cvetovich, 2000).As previous research (Cox, Evans, & Lease, 2008; Mohr, Harrison,Wilson, Baghurst, & Syrette, 2007) has shown, CSIRO, a govern-ment science agency, evokes perceptions of trust and credibilityand is one of the few sources most trusted by Australians for infor-mation about science and technology (Bruce & Critchley, 2012).Evidence from the food technology risk domain (Cox & Evans,2008; Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1996; Hunt &Frewer, 2001) suggests that communication of recycled waterwould benefit from an ‘independent’, credible and trustworthysource such as a government entity (e.g. food regulator) or scienceagency (e.g. CSIRO). These findings show that increased trust inwater management authorities is associated with decreased con-cern over perceived health risks. Thus, the fact that this studywas conducted on-site at CSIRO, may have had an influence onthe results.

Fourthly, taste judgements, made by consumers, in contrast toabstract judgements to survey questions, are likely to be impor-tant, with positive results often reported with actual tasting ofproducts (Frewer, Howard, Hedderley, & Shepherd, 1997;Lahteenmaki et al., 2002). This issue addresses a basic questionin consumer research: which testing method best reflects a

H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44 43

consumers’ true response? Whilst there have been reviews (VanKleef, Van Tripp, & Luning, 2005) on methods for exploringconsumers reactions to new products, there is no consensus onwhat constitutes the best method for predicting future consump-tion. Increasing evidence suggests participants should be testedin the same way that the product would be encountered as aconsumer. This study confirms that exposure is a necessary driverof acceptance and should be, along with tasting, an element intesting and securing new product acceptance. These findingssupport Alhakami and Slovic’s (1994) theoretical approach to riskperception whereby items associated with positive affect, i.e.pleasant taste, are likely to be viewed as high benefit, low risk.

Limitations include experimental circumstances, location andsize of sample. Taste tests are widely used to predict performancein the market place; however, we acknowledge that there may bedemand effects and that laboratory tests may not be a true reflec-tion of real life scenarios. However, our study sought to predictwhat may happen in the market place in the future, and there isevidence that hedonic responses are the best affective measuresof food consumption (Tuorila et al., 2008). As a result of beingundertaken in one metropolitan location in one Australian state(Adelaide, SA), the findings may not represent regional and statedifferences across Australia or internationally. For while some Aus-tralian states have greater sensitivities to water (e.g. Toowoomba,Queensland, where a recycled water scheme was thwarted by pub-lic opposition), in Western Australia, recent community support(Moscovis, 2013) has resulted in approvals to begin Australia’s firstfull-scale groundwater replenishment scheme (Water Corporation,2013). However a single snapshot of community acceptance maynot be consistent nor robust in the long term (Russell &Hampton, 2006). Altered circumstances and concerns over highlypublicised accidents or health scares, nationally and internation-ally, can result in negative changes in local community viewsand, particularly, in the trust placed in health authorities and reg-ulatory bodies. However equally influential are events and con-cerns like drought and depletion of environmental resources,which may be associated with positive attitude changes. Indeed,this factor may have contributed to our overwhelmingly positiveresult, because South Australia is currently experiencing extensiveperiods of drought and water shortages resulting in the implemen-tation of water restrictions and widespread promotion and public-ity of Water Wise Measures (Marks, 2006; SA Health, 2007). Largercross-regional and cross cultural studies are required.

Further research needs to be undertaken on the primary use ofrecycled water and whether consumers may react differentlydepending upon the original use. This would test the contamina-tion hypothesis (Rozin, Millman, & Nemeroff, 1986; Rozin,Nemeroff, Wane, & Sherrod, 1989) that states that even brief con-tact imparts a lasting belief that an entity has been contaminated.None of our participants volunteered such beliefs in the currentstudy; however, this was not formally tested.

Conclusion

Consumers were found to be accepting and willing to try foodscontaining or in close proximity to recycled water, when thatwater was collected, treated and returned to drinking water stan-dards within the factory. A number of hypotheses pertaining toenvironmental attitudes, neophobia, cultural worldviews andbeliefs were rejected. At present, there is insufficient evidence tosay if food companies would gain greater brand strength or risktarnishing their brand by using recycled water, but the currentstudy suggests that consumers would not reject such products, ifsupported by a credible and trustworthy source of information.

Lastly, an extensive range of emotional responses was useful inunderstanding this acceptance.

Acknowledgements

The project was funded by the Australian Water Recycling Cen-tre of Excellence under the Commonwealth’s Water for the FutureProgram and the CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country Research Flag-ship. The assistance of Julie Syrette, Eva Calvaresi, Myrtille Rouerand Chloe Devauze is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Alhakami, A. S., & Slovic, P. (1994). A psychological study of the inverserelationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Analysis,14(6), 1085–1096.

Berg, L. (2004). Trust in food in the age of mad cow disease: A comparative study ofconsumers’ evaluation of food safety in Belgium, Britain and Norway. Appetite,42, 21–32.

Blair, E. H., Wing, R. R., & Wald, A. (1991). The effect of laboratory stressors onglycemic control and gastrointestinal transit time. Psychosomatic Medicine, 53,133–143.

Bruce, G., & Critchley, C. (2012). Swinburne national technology and society monitor2012. Available at: http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lss/spru/monitor/Monitor2012.pdf Accessed 18.10.13.

Cardello, A. V., Meiselman, H. L., Schutz, H. G., Craig, C., Given, Z., Lesher, L. L., et al.(2012). Measuring emotional responses to foods and food names usingquestionnaires. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 243–250.

Chrea, C., Grandjean, D., Delplanque, S., Cayeux, I., Le Calve, B., Aymard, L., et al.(2009). Mapping the semantic space for the subjective experience of emotionalresponse to odors. Chemical Senses, 34, 49–62.

Clark, D. (2006). Recycling debate – transcript. Stateline. Australia. Available at:http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/qld/content/2006/s1632022.htm Accessed23.01.13.

Cox, D. N., & Evans, G. (2008). Construction and validation of a psychometric scale tomeasure consumers’ fears of novel food technologies: The Food TechnologyNeophobia Scale. Food Quality & Preference, 19, 704–710.

Cox, D. N., & Evans, G. (2010). Consumers’ perceptions of the natural qualities offoods. Food Engineering and Ingredients, 35, 20–23.

Cox, D. N., Evans, G., & Lease, H. J. (2008). Australian consumers’ preferences forconventional and novel sources of long chain omega-3 fatty acids: A conjointstudy. Food Quality & Preference, 19, 306–314.

Desmet, P. M. A., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2008). Sources of positive and negativeemotions in food experience. Appetite, 50, 290–301.

Douglas, M. (1982). Cultural bias. In In the active voice. London/Boston: Routledge &Kegan Paul.

Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London/Boston:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Evans, G., Kermarrec, C., Sable, T., & Cox, D. N. (2010). Reliability and predictivevalidity of the Food Technology Neophobia Scale. Appetite, 54(2), 390–393.

Ferrarini, R., Carbognin, C., Casarotti, E. M., Nicolis, E., Nencini, A., & Meneghini, A. M.(2010). The emotional response to wine consumption. Food Quality andPreference, 21, 720–725.

Finucane, M. L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. M. (2000). The affect heuristicin judgements of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 13,1–17.

Finucane, M. L., & Holup, J. L. (2005). Psychosocial and cultural factors affecting theperceived risk of genetically modified food: An overview of the literature. SocialScience & Medicine, 60, 1603–1612.

Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1978). How safe is safe enough? Apsychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. PolicySciences, 9, 127–152.

Frewer, L. (2000). Risk perception and risk communication about food safety issues.Nutrition Bulletin, 25, 31–33.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1996). What determinestrust in information about food related risks? Underlying psychologicalconstructs. Risk Analysis, 16, 473–486.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., Hedderley, D., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Consumer attitudestowards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production – Theinfluence of consumer benefit. Food Quality and Preference, 8(4), 271–280.

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1996). The influence of realistic productexposure on attitudes towards genetic engineering of food. Food Quality andPreference, 7(1), 61–67.

Gibson, E. L. (2006). Emotional influences on food choice. Sensory, physiological andpsychological pathways. Physiology & Behaviour, 89, 53–61.

Greeno, C. G., & Wing, R. R. (1994). Stress-induced eating. Psychological Bulletin,115(3), 444–464.

Grunert, K. G., Bech-Larsen, T., Lahteenmaki, L., Ueland, O., & Astrom, A. (2004).Attitudes towards the use of GMOs in food production and their impact uponbuying intention: The role of positive sensory experience. Agribusiness, 20,95–107.

44 H.J. Lease et al. / Food Quality and Preference 37 (2014) 35–44

Hatton MacDonald, D., Rose, J. M., Lease, H. J., & Cox, D. N. (2013). If you have to eatit, will you tell me the truth? International Choice Modelling Conference, Sydney,3–5 July.

Hawcroft, L. J., & Milfont, T. L. (2010). The use (and abuse) of the new environmentalparadigm scale over the last 30 years: A meta-analysis. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 30(2), 143–158.

Hunt, S., & Frewer, L. J. (2001). Trust in sources of information about geneticallymodified food risks in the UK. British Food Journal, 103, 46–62.

Hurlimann, A. C. (2007). Is recycled water use risky? An urban Australiancommunity’s perspective. Environmentalist, 27, 83–94.

Hurlimann, A. C. (2008). Urban versus regional – How public attitudes to recycledwater differ in these contexts. Water Science & Technology, 57(6), 891–899.

Hurlimann, A., & Dolnicar, S. (2010). Acceptance of water alternatives in Australia –2009. Water Science & Technology, 61(8), 2137–2142.

Hurlimann, A., Hemphill, E., McKay, J., & Geursen, G. (2008). Establishingcomponents of community satisfaction with recycled water use throughstructural equation model. Journal of Environmental Management, 88,1221–1232.

Kahan, D. (2010). Fixing the communications failure. Nature, 463(21), 296–297.Kahan, D. M., & Braman, D. (2003). More statistics, less persuasion: A cultural theory

of gun-risk perceptions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(4),1291–1327.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Cohen, G. L., Gastil, J., & Slovic, P. (2010). Who fears theHPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanismsof cultural cognition. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 501–516.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Metz, C. K. (2007). Culture andidentity-protective cognition: Explaining the white-male effect in riskperception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 465–505.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Monahan, J., Callahan, L., & Peters, E. (2010). Culturalcognition and public policy: The case of outpatient commitment laws. Law andHuman Behavior, 34, 118–140.

Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognitionof the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–89.

Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Wittlin, M., Ouellette, L. L., et al.(2011). The tragedy of the risk-perception commons: Culture conflict,rationality conflict, and climate change. Cultural Cognition Project WorkingPaper No. 89, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstrct=1871503 Accessed 30.01.13.

King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measureconsumer emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21(8),168–177.

Krebs, H., Macht, M., Weyers, P., Weijers, H.-G., & Janke, W. (1996). Effects ofstressful noise on eating and non-eating behaviour in rats. Appetite, 26,193–202.

Lahteenmaki, L., Grunert, K., Ueland, O., Astrom, A., Arvola, A., & Bech-Larsen, T.(2002). Acceptability of genetically modified cheese presented as a real productalternative. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 523–533.

Leviston, Z., Nancarrow, B. E., Tucker, D. I., & Porter, N. B. (2006). Predictingcommunity behaviour: Indirect potable reuse of wastewater through managedaquifer recharge. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 29/06. http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/science/2006/sr29-06.pdf Accessed 11.07.12.

Macht, M. (1998). Effects of noise-induced arousal on chewing of sweet food andthe subjective motivation to eat. Nutritional Neuroscience, 1, 213–222.

Macht, M. (2008). How emotions affect eating: A five-way model. Appetite, 50, 1–11.Macht, M., & Dettmer, D. (2006). Everyday mood and emotions after eating a

chocolate bar or an apple. Appetite, 46, 332–336.Macht, M., Meininger, J., & Roth, J. (2005). The pleasures of eating: A qualitative

analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 137–160.Macht, M., & Simons, G. (2000). Emotions and eating in everyday life. Appetite, 35,

65–71.Marks, J. S. (2006). Taking the public seriously: The case of potable and non potable

reuse. Desalination, 187, 137–147.Marks, J. S., Martin, B., & Zadoroznyj, M. (2006). Acceptance of water recycling in

Australia: National baseline data, community consultation, available at: http://dspace.flinders.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2328/13153/1/2006002361.pdfAccessed 11.07.12.

Marks, J. S., Martin, B., & Zadoroznyj, M. (2008). How Australians order acceptanceof recycled water – National baseline data. Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 83–99.

Mellers, B. A., Schwartz, A., Ho, K., & Ritov, I. (1997). Decision affect theory:Emotional reactions to the outcomes of risky options. Psychological Science, 8(6),423–429.

Mohr, P., Harrison, A., Wilson, C., Baghurst, K., & Syrette, J. (2007). Attitudes, valuesand socio-demographic characteristics that predict acceptance of geneticengineering and applications of new technology in Australia. BiotechnologyJournal, 2, 1169–1178.

Moscovis, V. (2013). Groundwater Replenishment Trial: Final Report May 2013.Retrieved from water corporation of WA website; http://www.watercorporation.com.au/-/media/files/residential/water%20supply%20and%20services/gwrt/gwrt-final-report.pdf.

Nancarrow, B. E., Leviston, Z., Tucker, D., Po Greenhill, M., Price, J., & Dzidic, P.(2007). Community acceptability of the indirect potable use of purified recycledwater in south east Queensland and preferences for alternative water sources: Abaseline measure. Urban Water Security Research Alliance Technical Report No.

1. Available at: http://www.urbanwateralliance.org.au/publications/UWSRA-tr1.pdf Accessed 11.07.12.

Nancarrow, B. E., Leviston, Z., Po, M., Porter, N. B., & Tucker, D. I. (2008). What drivescommunities’ decisions and behaviours in the reuse of wastewater. WaterScience & Technology, 54(4), 485–491.

Nancarrow, B. E., Leviston, Z., & Tucker, D. I. (2009). Measuring the predictors ofcommunities’ behavioural decisions for potable reuse of wastewater. WaterScience & Technology, 60(12), 3199–3209.

Peryam, D. R., & Girardot, N. F. (1952). Advanced taste-test method. FoodEngineering, 24, 58–61.

Po, M., Kaercher, J. D., & Nancarrow, B. E. (2003). Literature review of factorsinfluencing public perceptions of water reuse. CSIRO Land and Water, TechnicalReport 54/03. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.197.423&rep=rep1&type=pdf Accessed 13.07.12.

Po, M., Nancarrow, B. E., Leviston, Z., Porter, N. B., Syme, G. J., & Kaercher, J. D.(2005). Predicting community behaviour in relation to wastewater reuse: Whatdrives decisions to accept or reject? Water for a healthy country national researchflagship. Perth: CSIRO Land and Water.

Price, J., Fielding, K., & Leviston, Z. (2012). Supports and opponents of potablerecycled water: culture and cognition in the Toowoomba referendum. Society &Natural Resources, 25(10), 980–995.

Roseth, N. (2008). Community views on recycled water – The impact of information.Research Report 48, the cooperative research for water quality and treatment.Available at: www.wqra.com.au/publications/document-search/?download=82Accessed 11.07.12.

Rousmans, S., Robin, O., Dittmar, A., & Vernet-Maury, E. (2000). Autonomic nervoussystem responses associated with primary tastes. Chemical Senses, 25, 709–718.

Rozin, P. (1996). The socio-cultural context of eating and food choice. In H. L.Meiselman, & H. J. H., MacFie (Eds.), Food choice acceptance and consumption (pp.83–101). London: Blackie Academic & professional.

Rozin, P., & Fallon, A. E. (1987). A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review, 94(1),23–41.

Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympatheticmagic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,50, 703–712.

Rozin, P., Nemeroff, C., Wane, M., & Sherrod, A. (1989). Operation of the sympatheticmagical law of contagion in interpersonal attitudes among Americans. Bulletinof the Psychonomic Society, 27, 367–370.

Russell, S., & Hampton, G. (2006). Challenges in understanding public responses andproviding effective public consultation on water reuse. Desalination, 187,215–227.

Russell, S., & Lux, C. (2009). Getting over yuck: Moving from psychological tocultural and sociotechnical analyses of responses to water recycling. WaterPolicy, 11, 21–35.

Ryan, A., & Spash, C. L. (2011). Is WTP an attitudinal measure? Empirical analysis ofthe psychological explanation for contingent values? Journal of EconomicPsychology, 32, 674–687.

Ryan, A., & Spash, C. L. (2012). The awareness of consequences scale: An exploration,empirical analysis and reinterpretation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,42(10), 2505–2540.

SA Health. (2007). Water restrictions and health considerations. In water qualityfact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/PDF-files/ph-factsheet-water-restr-health.pdf.

Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance ofnanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust.Appetite, 49, 459–466.

Siegrist, M., & Cvetovich, G. (2000). Perception of hazards: The role of social trustand knowledge. Risk Analysis, 20. 713–713.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of Risk. Science, 236, 280–285.Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as analysis and

risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. RiskAnalysis, 24(2), 311–322.

Townsend, E. (2006). Affective influences on risk perceptions of, and attitudestoward genetically modified food. Journal of Risk Research, 9(2), 125–139.

Townsend, E., & Campbell, S. (2004). Psychological determinants of willingness totaste and purchase genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24(5), 1385–1393.

Toze, S. (2006). Reuse of effluent water – Benefits and risks. Agricultural WaterManagement, 80, 147–159.

Tuorila, H., Huotilainen, A., Lahteenmaki, L., Ollila, S., Tuomi-Nurmi, S., & Urala, N.(2008). Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variablesreflecting food consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 51–61.

Van Kleef, E., Van Tripp, H. C. M., & Luning, P. (2005). Consumers research in theearly stages of new product development: A critical review of methods andtechniques. Food Quality and preference, 16, 181–201.

Wandel, M., & Fagerli, R. Aa. (2000). Consumer concern about food related healthrisks and their trust in experts. Ecology of Food and Nutrition, 40(3), 253–283.

Water Corporation. (2013). Perth’s Groundwater System. Retrieved from Watercorporation of WA website; http://www.watercorporation.com.au/water-supply-and-services/solutions-to-perths-water-supply/groundwater-replenishment.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. AmericanPsychologist, 35, 151–175.