Jurnal IB

The Effects of Food-Related Personality Traits on
Tourist Food Consumption Motivations *
Athena H.N. Mak, National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan

Margaret Lumbers, University of Surrey, UK
Anita Eves, University of Surrey, UK
Richard C.Y. Chang, National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan
* This is a draft version of the paper. For the full published version, please visit
the Asia Pacific Journal of Journal of Tourism Research website:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2016.1175488
Abstract
This study explores the motivational dimensions underlying food consumption in

tourism, and to examine the effects of two food-related personality traits, namely food
neophobia and variety-seeking, on these motivational dimensions. A tourist food consumption
motivational scale was developed and seven motivational dimensions were identified: novelty
and variety, authentic experience and prestige, interpersonal and culture, price/value and
assurance, health concern, familiarity and eating habit, and sensory and contextual pleasure.
Both food neophobia and variety-seeking were found to have significant effects on various
motivational dimensions. The implications of the findings for practice and future research are
discussed.
Keywords: Tourist food consumption; food-related personality traits; food neophobia; variety-
seeking, tourist’s paradox, sensory-specific satiety.
1. Introduction
Food consumption in the context of international tourism can be seen as the “tourist’s
paradox”, an oscillation between fulfilling the “obligatory” and the “symbolic” facets in the
encounter of food in foreign destinations (Mak, Lumbers, & Eves, 2012a). The “obligatory”
facet reflects the essentiality of food consumption in tourism, and the “symbolic” facet
signifies the symbolic meanings of food consumption to tourists, such as acquiring cultural
capital, exploring local culture and seeking authentic experience. Tourists’ food consumption
experience can also be distinguished into a “contrast” dimension that denotes the motivation to
seek contrast from the tourists’ daily routine, and an “extension” dimension which refers to the
1
motivation to seek food experiences that extend the tourists’ daily routine (Quan & Wang,
2004). Furthermore, eating is a unique form of tourist activity that gratifies all five senses,
offering a “pleasure” aspect that can fulfil the experiential part of the tourist experience (Mak
et al., 2013).
Due to its idiosyncrasies, tourist food consumption is well recognised as an indispensable

component of the overall tourist experience (Hjalager & Richards, 2002; Torres, 2002).
Besides, tourist food consumption entails significant implications on destinations. Evidence
from a number of studies suggests that tourists’ interests in and preferences for food in a
destination can play a pivotal role in affecting destination choice (Bessiere, 1998; Cohen &
Avieli, 2004; Hall & Mitchell, 2001; Hall & Sharples, 2003; Long, 2004). Tourist food
consumption expenditure can constitute up to one-third of their total expenditure (Hall &
Sharples, 2003; Telfer & Wall, 2000), representing a considerable proportion of a destination’s
tourism revenue.
Despite its importance, relatively little research effort has been devoted to understanding
the motivational aspects of tourist food consumption. This neglect is largely due to the
conventional view of its role as a “supporting consumer experience” (Quan & Wang, 2004).
However, with the recent escalation in utilising food and gastronomy as a key differentiator in
many destinations, there is a heightened interest in exploring the motivations for food
consumption in tourism. A number of recent studies have explored the motivations underlying
the consumption of local food (e.g., Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2009) and participation in specific
food festivals (e.g., Chang & Yuan, 2011; Kim, Goh, & Yuan, 2010). While these studies have
recognised the importance of motivations in understanding tourist food consumption
behaviour, their focus was restricted to a particular type of food or festival. Such a restricted
focus may result in the failure to capture the complexity and heterogeneity of food
consumption in tourism, thereby leaving a gap in the holistic understanding of the motivations
underpinning tourist food consumption.
More recent studies have raised that food-related personality traits (FRPTs) may play a
significant role in affecting tourists’ food consumption motivations and behaviours (e.g.,
Chang, Kivela, & Mak, 2010; Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Mak et al., 2012b). FRPTs can be defined
as individual characteristics that exert pervasive influence on a broad range of food choice and
consumption behaviours. Two of the most influential FRPTs that can affect tourist food
consumption are food neophobia and variety-seeking. Food neophobia refers to the
2
unwillingness to try unfamiliar foods (Pliner & Salvy, 2006). It may deter tourists from
consuming certain local or indigenous cuisines in a destination (Cohen & Avieli, 2004).
Variety-seeking describes the enduring tendency of individuals to seek diversity in their
choices of services or goods (Kahn, 1995). The trait may also significantly correlate with food
consumption in tourism, as tourism per se is a form of change from the daily routine, and thus,
the quest for various foods is one of appealing experiences in tourism. Although the effects of
these two traits on food consumption behaviour in the context of tourism have begun to attract
research attention in the tourism and hospitality literature, empirical evidence is still scarce,
and thus, existing knowledge in this regard remains sketchy.
To fill these research gaps, this study aims to identify the motivational dimensions
underlying food consumption in the context of international tourism and to examine the effects
of two FRPTs, namely food neophobia and variety-seeking, on the motivational dimensions.
To achieve these objectives, Hong Kong was chosen as the site of this investigation. The
selection was based on the following considerations: Hong Kong has long been hailed as a
“Gourmet Paradise” (Yau & Lee, 1996), and the “culinary capital of Asia” (HKTB, 2015b).
There were more than 12,000 restaurants in Hong Kong, providing tourists with a wide range
of cuisine choices from Cantonese, Regional Chinese, Japanese, Southeast Asian, to Western
(HKTB, 2015a). In addition, Kivela and Crotts (2006) found that around 21% of their
respondents indicated food as the main reason for them to travel to Hong Kong. The diversity
of the gastronomic products and tourists’ interest in the food offered by Hong Kong render it a
suitable destination for this study.
The focus of this study includes the consumption of both local and non-local
foods/cuisines, in an attempt to generate a more holistic understanding of the tourist food
consumption phenomenon. In the light of the new global food culture and changing tourism
dining landscape brought about by intensifying globalisation (Mak et al., 2012a), the
motivations underlying the consumption of local and non-local food are both considered
important (Cohen & Avieli, 2004; McKercher, Okumus, & Okumus, 2008). Accordingly, in
this study, food is defined as food/drink that is eaten as a meal purchased from commercial
settings in Hong Kong. It includes dishes, meals and dining experiences of local and non-local
cuisine/food.
2. Literature Review
3
2.1. Motivations underlying food consumption in tourism
Motivation has been recognised as a multi-dimensional construct exerting significant

influence on tourist food consumption behaviour (Mak et al., 2012b). A number of studies have
attempted to shed light on the specific motivational factors underlying tourist food
consumption. For example, Fields (2002) adopted the typology of tourist motivators to
elaborate on the interplay between food consumption and tourism. He proposes four
motivational factors of food consumption in tourism: physical, cultural, interpersonal, and
status and prestige. First, food can be a physical motivator as the act of eating is predominately
physical in nature involving sensory perceptions to appreciate the food or tourists’ need for
sustenance. Second, food can also be a cultural motivator because when tourists are
experiencing new local cuisines, they are simultaneously experiencing a new culture. Third,
food might serve as an interpersonal motivator as meals taken on a holiday have a social
function including building new social relations and strengthening social bonds. Finally, local
delicacies can also be a status and prestige motivator, as tourists can build their knowledge of
the local cuisine by eating as the locals do, and exploring new cuisines and food that they or
their friends are not likely to encounter at home. Although Fields’ (2002) proposition is
conceptual and requires further empirical validation, it is valuable in establishing a theoretical
linkage between tourist motivations and tourist food consumption motivations.
More recently, studies are aware of the idiosyncratic nature of food consumption in
tourism, and have started to adopt an interpretivist approach to investigation the motivations
underlying tourist food consumption. For example, Kim et al. (2009) adopted a grounded
theory approach to explore the motivational factors behind local food consumption in tourist
destinations. Nine motivational factors were identified, namely, exciting experience, escape
from routine, health concern, learning knowledge, authentic experience, togetherness, prestige,
sensory appeal, and physical environment. Kim et al.’s findings offered important insights into
the motivations and factors influencing the consumption of local food. Nonetheless, since their
focus was restricted to local food, they have largely adopted a general tourist motivation
framework in explaining tourists’ local food consumption behaviour. This may lead to
overlooking of the “obligatory” and “extension” nature of food consumption in tourism (Mak
et al., 2012a; Quan & Wang, 2004; Richards, 2002).
Another study by Chang, Kivela and Mak (2010) has adopted an ethnographic approach
in exploring tourist food motivations. The participant observation technique was combined
4
with on-site focus group interviews to examine and compare different Chinese tourists’
(including Mainland Chinese, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese tourists) food consumption
experiences while they were holidaying in Australia. Chinese tourists’ food preferences were
classified into three distinct categories: familiar food (Chinese food), local food (Australian
food), and non-fastidiousness of food selection. The motivational factors for favouring each
preference are illustrated in Figure 1.
* Please insert Figure 1 about here
Chang et al.’s study was a first attempt to generate an in-depth understanding and
comparison of Chinese tourists’ food preferences in a Western context. Their ethnographic
approach allows a revealing juxtaposition of two culturally-distant food cultures, and provides
a model of motivational factors underlying the Chinese tourists’ food preferences from a
comprehensive perspective. Their study uncovered a number of important motivations
underlying preference for local food, for example, the desires to explore local culture, to seek
authentic travel experience, to pursue learning/education opportunity, and to acquire prestige
and status. Another critical aspect of their findings is that other than the prevalent motivations
for seeking local food, there was an abiding need for participants to seek familiar food. As they
state, many of the participants were eager to try local food, however, they also explicitly stated
local food did not match up to the criteria of a “proper meal” in their dietary habits, and thus it
was impossible for them to consume local food at every meal. This suggests that the
participants perceived partaking of local food was perceived as a “peak touristic experience”,
one that could satisfy their symbolic and experiential needs, but not enough to satiate their
physiological needs.
The above-discussed studies have presented the view that motivations underpinning
tourist food consumption can be highly related to tourist motivation, and yet, they also
encompass more generic food choice motivations, such as seeking familiar flavour, core eating
behaviour as identified in Chang et al.’s study (2010). Tourists in general welcome novelty,
however, they concomitantly seek a certain level of familiarity in their food consumption
experiences (Mak et al., 2012a). Thus, an over-reliance of a tourism motivation framework
risks the chances of ignoring the “obligatory” and “extension” aspects of food consumption in
tourism (Mak et al., 2012b).
5
Following this, Mak et al. (2013) has adopted an interdisciplinary approach that
incorporates both tourist motivations and food choice motivations to understand the
idiosyncratic nature of tourist food consumption. Drawing on a combined repertory grid
method and generalised Procrustes analysis approach, they proposed a framework with five
conceptual dimensions to reflect the complex and heterogeneous nature of tourism food
consumption, namely, symbolic, obligatory, contrast, extension and pleasure (Figure 2).
The “symbolic” dimension signifies the symbolic meanings of food consumption to

tourists, such as seeking authentic experience and prestige. The “obligatory” dimension reflects
the essentiality of food consumption in tourism, and includes factors such as health concern
and the need to seek assurance in price and value. The “contrast” dimension denotes the need
to quest for food experience that contrast from the tourists’ daily routine, whereas the
“extension” dimension refers to the motivation to seek food experience that extend the daily
routine (Quan & Wang, 2004). Finally, the “pleasure” dimension captures the need to seek
sensory, social and contextual pleasures from the food consumption experience (Mak et al.,
2013).
One merit of this framework is its ability to facilitate perceptual mapping of gastronomic
products into supporting consumer experience, peak touristic experience (contrast), peak
touristic experience (symbolic) and “attractionised” experience (Figure 2). Another advantage
of this framework is that the five conceptual dimensions provide a useful structure for
comparison of previous findings. The motivational factors of the studies reviewed are
categorised according to the five dimensions (Table 1).
* Please insert Table 1 about here
As can be seen from Table 1, the five conceptual dimensions capture the motivations
from previous findings well except for Chang et al.’s (2010) study. That is because their study
focused on group tourists and some unique factors were revealed, such as reference group
influence (e.g., the influence of motivation by tour group members), subjective perception
(e.g., the subjective assumption that one type of food is better than the other) and prejudiced
advocacy (e.g., the influence of motivation by tour leader).
6
While Mak et al.’s (2013) framework provides useful insight to capture the motivations
underlying tourist food consumption, its development is based on a relatively small scale
sample and further studies are required to examine the motivational dimensions and
substantiate the framework. Accordingly, this study attempts to quantitatively explore the
motivational dimensions by using a large-scale sample.
2.2. Food-related personality traits
Food-related personality traits (FRPTs) have begun to be recognised as important

psychological constructs affecting tourist food consumption (Mak et al., 2012b). FRPTs refer
to individual characteristics that exert pervasive influence on a broad range of food-related
behaviours. Two main traits can be identified from the tourism literature, namely, food
neophobia and variety-seeking.
Food neophobia, or the reluctance to ingest novel foods (Pliner & Salvy, 2006), is at the
heart of the mechanism dictating human food consumption behaviour. Humans, as omnivorous
foragers, have a propensity to try various food sources (neophilic), yet at the same time, are
cautious not to ingest toxic or harmful substances (neophobic). Food neophobia, therefore, is
described as a “natural biological correlate of omnivorous exploratory behaviour” (Köster &
Mojet, 2007, p. 99). According to Pliner and Salvy (2006), food neophobia can be
conceptualised as a personality trait involving a relative preference for familiar over novel
foods. This condition is stable over time and consistent across situations. However, there are
large individual differences in the extent of food neophobia. Pliner and Hobden (1992)
developed the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS), a ten-item instrument, to measure individual
differences in food neophobia. Research shows that when measured with the scale, people who
are more neophobic tend to expect various novel foods to taste worse than the less neophobic,
and thus are generally less willing to taste or choose novel foods (e.g., Pliner & Hobden, 1992;
Tuorila et al., 1998; Tuorila et al., 1994).
In the tourism literature, the food neophobia concept has been adopted to explain the
difference in tourists’ food consumption behaviour. For example, Cohen and Avieli (2004)
contend that local or indigenous cuisines in foreign destinations can be an “impediment” rather
than an “attraction” to many tourists. That is, although tourists may typically be eager or
7
willing to engage in “novel” or “unusual” experiences, eating involves the ingestion of
unfamiliar food items, and thus, neophobic tendency might become more prominent. Likewise,
Torres (2002) cited that many studies suggest that tourists in general prefer foods to which they
are accustomed and resist trying local varieties. Kim et al. (2009) suggest that food neophobia
may reduce tourists’ inclination to consume exotic local food on holiday. They found that
tourists who had a predisposition to be neophobic tended to be reluctant to eat exotic food. In
contrast, Chang et al. (2011) observed that the neophilic tendency may prompt some tourists to
seek novel dining experiences when on holiday.
Another FRPT that may affect tourist food consumption is variety-seeking. Variety-
seeking can be defined as the propensity of “individuals to seek diversity in their choices of
services and goods” (Kahn, 1995, p. 139). The food consumption literature suggested that
individuals with a higher variety-seeking (HVS) tendency are more inclined to seek different
kind of foods across various situations (e.g., van Trijp & Steenkamp, 1992). van Trijp and
Steenkamp (1992) have developed an 8-item instrument, the VARSEEK scale, to measure this
trait. HVS individuals tend to get bored more quickly with food than lower variety-seeking
(LVS) individuals do, owing to their higher level of “composite need”.
The optimal stimulation level theory provides a basis for understanding the “composite
need” behind the variety-seeking behaviour. As van Trijp (1995) states, individuals tend to
seek additional stimulation by adding variety or novel stimuli when the level of stimulation
falls below the optimum. In contrast, they tend to avoid novel stimuli or variety if the level of
stimulation is above the optimal point. Therefore, customers tend to veer away from an item
consumed during the last occasion. By selecting alternatives that have not been chosen
recently, individuals may achieve optimum stimulation level, as well as prevent boredom and
alleviate attribute satiation (Ratner, Kahn, & Kahneman, 1999; van Trijp, 1995).
Another potential explanation for variety-seeking in foods is “sensory-specific satiety”

(SSS) (i.e., the satiation for the sensory properties of a food grows while it is consumed)
(Lähteenmäki & van Trijp, 1995). HVS individuals may get SSS more quickly than LVS
individuals, thereby resulting in a higher propensity for them to seek variety on sensory
attributes in their food consumption. In a series of studies on consumer food choice, Inman
(2001) found that consumers switched more intensively between flavour than brand in 14 out
of the 15 categories of tortilla chips and cake mixes. Their findings imply that consumers are
more likely to seek variety on sensory attributes (e.g., flavour) than non-sensory attributes (e.g.,
brand).
8
Research further indicates that variety-seeking behaviour occurs frequently in the case
of hedonic consumption for which diversity among features is a significant consideration
(Ratner et al., 1999). Hedonic products can be referred to as products for which fun, pleasure,
or enjoyment is a primary benefit, and they tend to generate stronger emotional responses
(Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006). Tourism and gastronomy are often regarded as hedonic products,
and thus, can be subject to the influence of variety-seeking behaviour. For example, Quan and
Wang (2004) contend that variety-seeking behaviour can significantly affect food consumption
in tourism. Chang et al.’s (2011) study identified that variety is one of the key attributes
affecting tourist evaluation of their food experiences.
In sum, food neophobia is concerned with the fear of consuming unfamiliar food, and
thus, may influence tourists’ motivations to try new foods. Variety-seeking is concerned with
the tendency to actively search for variety, which may affect tourists’ motivations to seek
varieties in both familiar and unfamiliar food (Lähteenmäki & Arvola, 2001). Although both
traits are recognised as important constructs in explaining the variation in tourist food
consumption motivations, empirical investigation into their relationship is rare and results are
conflicting. For example, in the food consumption literature, Eertmans et al. (2005) explored
the relationship between food neophobia and food choice motives. Their results provide partial
support for the assumption that food neophobia exerts its influence on food choice through the
weighing of motives. However, a more recent study in the tourism literature found no
significant relationship between food neophobia and motivational factors for local food
consumption (Kim, Eves, & Scarles, 2013). The conflicting findings highlight the need for
further research into the precise nature of the links between FRPTs and tourist food
consumption motivations.
2.3. Cultural influence
Culture has long been recognised as a major determinant affecting food consumption.
Culture can be defined as a shared set of characteristics, attitudes, behaviours, and values that
helps groups of people decide what to do and how to go about it (Goodenough, 1971). Culture
“guides” the behaviour of a particular group in all affairs of life and designates the socially
standardised activities of people, including the human “foodways”. Accordingly, culture is a
major determinant affecting the types of substances that a person considers appropriate to eat
9
(Atkins & Bowler, 2001; Logue, 1991). It defines how food is coded into “acceptable” or
“unacceptable”, and “good” or “bad” within a particular social group (Mäkelä, 2000).
Due to cultural differences, what is considered as “good” food in one culture might be
considered as “bad” food in another. Furthermore, culture determines which foods and food
qualities are acceptable in terms of their sensory properties (Prescott et al., 2002). This process
is manifested in the existence of culturally specific “flavour principles”. According to Rozin
and Rozin (1981), basic foods, cooking techniques, and flavour principles are three major
factors that differentiate a cuisine, and flavour principles refer to the distinctive seasoning
combinations which characterise many cuisines.
The influences of culture on tourist food consumption have been recognised by a number
of tourism studies. For example, the study by Pizam and Sussmann (1995) revealed that
Japanese, French, and Italian tourists were observed as avoiding local food in the host
destination and always preferring to eat their own cuisine; whereas American tourists were
perceived to have a slight preference for local food in the host destination. Although their
findings were based on the perceptions of a group of British tour-guides instead of being
measured directly from the tourists, it provided preliminary evidence that culture may have a
significant effect on tourist food consumption. In Sheldon and Fox’s (1988) study concerning
the role of food service in vacation choice, Japanese tourists were also found to be less willing
to try new cuisines as compared with American and Canadian tourists visiting Hawaii. In a
study on the connection between tourism and agriculture in Yucatan, Torres (2002) concluded
that discernible differences in food consumption and preferences existed among tourists of
different nationalities and tourist-types. She found that while there was considerable demand
for Mexican food, tropical fruits, and organic foods among all tourists in the sample, demand
appeared to be greater among non-American and “off-beat” tourists.
Despite the preliminary evidence presented above, relatively little is known about to
what extent and in what specific aspects culture has impacted food consumption in tourism.
Until recently, a number of tourism studies have shed more light on the topic. For example, Tse
and Crotts (2005) proposed a link between tourist culinary choice and their national culture.
Their findings indicated that respondents from low “uncertainty avoidance index” countries
(i.e., where people are generally less risk averse) (Hofstede, 2001), had patronised a greater
number and diversity of culinary offerings in Hong Kong compared with respondents from
high “uncertainty avoidance index” countries. This presents an interesting proposition that
10
national culture, in particular the risk-aversion domain, may exert significant collective
influence on tourist food consumption.
On the other hand, Chang et al. (2010) found that tourists’ culturally-specific “core
eating behaviour” may be a crucial factor affecting their food preferences on holiday. Tourists
are generally more willing to accept changes in “secondary” foods (i.e., foods eaten widely and
often, but not daily, in a culture) and “peripheral” foods (i.e., foods eaten sporadically in a
culture) on holiday, yet tend to remain steadfast to “core” foods (i.e., staples that are consumed
almost daily in a culture). This supports the core and peripheral foods model in the food
consumption literature (Kittler & Sucher, 2004) which suggests that core foods are closely
associated with a culture and may face the biggest resistance to be changed or modified. In
addition, Chang et al. (2011) further found that tourists’ own food culture may exert a great
deal of influence on their perceptions and evaluation of foreign food, particularly in terms of
flavour and cooking method. Their findings highlighted the importance of understanding the
“cultural distance” (McKercher & Chow, 2001) and culturally-specific “flavour principles”
(Rozin & Rozin, 1981) between tourists’ native food culture and the host food culture in
affecting tourist food consumption.
Since the main objective of this study was to examine the effects of FRPTs on tourists’
food consumption motivations, cultural influence was indirectly explored through the two
FRPTSs (i.e., food neophobia and variety-seeking). It was achieved by delimiting the sample to
British and Taiwanese tourists. The rationale is twofold: first, limiting to two nationalities in
the sample could significantly minimise the “problems of comparability” (Scheuch, 1993). For
example, response style bias such as “extreme response style” would be difficult to detect if the
sample is made up of too many cultural subgroups (Oberski, 2012). Second, British tourists
should have a larger “cultural distance” compared with Taiwanese tourists in terms of
experiencing the food culture in Hong Kong. Accordingly, the selection of these two culturally
dissimilar groups allowed the comparison of FRPTs among the sample.
3. Methodology
3.1. Questionnaire development
A questionnaire was developed which comprised of five sections. The first section
included screening questions to identify eligible respondents. The second section contained
11
questions about respondents’ trip characteristics. The third section consisted of Pliner and
Hobden (1992)’s ten-item Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) and van Trijp and Steenkamp (1992)’s
eight-item Variety-Seeking Tendency Scale (VARSEEK) to measure respondents’ food
neophobia and variety-seeking respectively. The fourth section contained the tourist food
consumption motivation scale (TFCMS). The final section inquired about respondents’ socio-
demographic characteristics.
Tourist Food Consumption Motivation Scale (TFCMS). A scale to measure the

motivations underlying tourist food consumption was developed based on the findings of the
study by Mak et al. (2013), which employed the repertory grid method (RGM) developed by
Kelly (1955). The sample consisted of 29 RGM participants, of whom 17 were female. The
largest age group was between 18 and 24 (31.0%), followed by 25–34 (27.6%). The largest
nationality group was Taiwanese (48.3%), followed by British (20.7%). Over half of the
participants (55.2%) were first time tourists to Hong Kong, and over a quarter (27.6%) had
visited Hong Kong 3–4 times. The majority of the participants were single (58.6%), followed
by nearly a quarter who were married and had children (24.1%).
A total of 50 motivational factors were elicited from the RGM. Content analysis was
carried out independently by two researchers to allocate the factors into appropriate categories.
The classification process was guided by the literature review. When disagreements occurred,
the classification was discussed until agreement was reached. The final classification was then
reviewed by another two independent researchers to ensure that the constructs were correctly
classified. The 50 motivational factors were eventually classified into 14 categories: authentic
experience, prestige, cultural knowledge, health concern, assurance, convenience, price/value,
novelty, variety, familiarity, eating habit, sensory pleasure, social pleasure, and contextual
pleasure. These categories formed the basis of the draft TFCMS in this study. The items were
randomly ordered to avoid order-effect bias (Perreault, 1975), and were assessed with a 7-point
Likert scale with response categories ranging from 1 = not important at all to 7 = extremely
important. The refinement of items in the draft scale will be described in the Pre-test and Pilot
Test section.
Food Neophobia Scale. Food neophobia was measured by the Food Neophobia Scale
(FNS) developed by Pliner and Hobden (1992). The FNS is a unidimensional psychometric
scale consisting of ten items (Table 2), with reliability ranging typically from 0.8 to 0.9
(Ritchey et al., 2003). The items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale with response
12
categories ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The FNS has five
negatively worded items to reduce the potential effects of response pattern bias. These
negatively worded items were recoded before analysis.
Variety-seeking Tendency Scale. Variety-seeking was measured by the Variety-

Seeking Tendency Scale (VARSEEK) developed by van Trijp and Steenkamp (1992). The
VARSEEK scale contains 8 items (Table 3), with a reported reliability coefficient of 0.90.
Following the original scale, the items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale with response
categories ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, as described by van Trijp
and Steenkamp (1992). The VARSEEK has one negatively-worded item to reduce the potential
effects of response pattern bias. The item was recoded before analysis.
Pre-test and Pilot Test. A pre-test was conducted with eight hospitality/tourism
professors and researchers with various nationalities to ensure content validity and clarity of
the questionnaire. Pre-test respondents were asked to complete the whole questionnaire, and
also to provide any comment they had with regard to the items, as well as the overall design,
content, wording, and response options of the questionnaire. Items in the TFCMS that were
perceived too similar were merged, which resulted in an abridged 34-item scale. After the pre-
test, a pilot test of the questionnaire was conducted with international tourists in Hong Kong.
Pilot respondents were recruited through random interception at major tourist attractions. A
total of 170 responses were collected, of which 163 were valid responses. The data collected
were analysed using the PASW Statistics (v.18). Factor analysis results of the pilot data
identified three cross-loading items: “to dine in restaurants that are recommended by my
friends”, “to enjoy meals that would not take up too much of my travel time”, and “to indulge
myself in tasty foods”. These cross-loading items were subsequently removed (Pallant, 2007)
and the final scale consisted of 31 items.
3.2. Data collection
A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit respondents. Tourists were

intercepted at random at major tourist attraction areas in Hong Kong, such as Tsim Sha Tsui,
13
Wan Chai, and Central District (HKTB, 2010). The following inclusion criteria were used to
identify eligible respondents: (1) above 18 years of age, (2) stayed a minimum of two nights in
Hong Kong at the time of the interception, (3) had food consumption experiences in
commercial settings during their stay. Criteria 2 and 3 ensured that the respondents had
adequate food consumption experience to reflect upon their motivations.
As previously explained, the sample was delimited to British and Taiwanese tourists.
About 1,000 British and Taiwanese tourists were approached, and a total of 456 responses were
obtained. The response rate was approximately 45%, which was high compared to studies
involving questionnaire survey in tourism settings (e.g., Gilbert & Wong, 2003; Sheldon &
Fox, 1988).
4. Findings and Discussions
4.1. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents
The socio-demographic characteristics of the 447 respondents are summarised in Table

4. The sample consisted of a slightly higher proportion of Taiwanese respondents (55.3%) than
British respondents (44.7%). This was partly attributed to Taiwanese tourists being the second
largest inbound market in Hong Kong. According to the latest statistics by Hong Kong Tourism
Board (HKTB, 2011), Hong Kong received a total of 724,600 Taiwanese overnight (in contrast
to same-day-in-town) visitors as compared to 421,600 British in 2010.
Over half of the respondents were female (58.2%). The largest age group was 25-34
(29.1%), followed by a fairly equal distribution of respondents in age groups 18-24 (22.6%),
35-44 (19.0%) and 45-54 (18.6%). Nearly half of the respondents were married or in a
partnership and had children (46.1%), followed by 38.3% who were single. The results were
largely in line with the characteristics of an average overnight visitor to Hong Kong in 2009
who was female (55% of the total share), aged between 26-35 (29%) and married (68%)
(HKTB, 2010). The average length of stay was 4.69 nights (SD=2.26), which was higher than
the average length of stay (3.6 nights) recorded for all overnight visitors in 2010 (HKTB,
2011).
4.2. Exploratory factor analysis results
14
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to explore the underlying dimensions
of the motivational items. The motivational items were factor analysed using principal
component analysis with orthogonal varimax rotation. Based on Kaiser’s criterion, or the
eigenvalue rule, only factors with an eigenvalue of 1.0 or more were retained for further
analysis (Pallant, 2007). A cut-off point for factor loadings was set at 0.40 in the interpretation
of the final rotated factor pattern (Stevens, 2002). Seven factors generated from the EFA were
named: (1) Novelty and Variety, (2) Authentic Experience and Prestige, (3) Interpersonal and
Culture, (4) Price/value and Assurance, (5) Health Concern, (6) Familiarity and Eating Habit,
and (7) Sensory and Contextual Pleasure. The seven factors altogether accounted for 71.38%
of the cumulative variance (Table 5).
Factor 1 Novelty and Variety contained six items, such as “to try out foods I have never
tried before” and “to sample a wide variety of foods/cuisines in HK.” The factor had a grand
mean of 5.01, which corroborates previous findings that the desire to seek novelty and variety
is a significant motivator in food consumption experiences when travelling (Chang et al.,
2011). Factor 2 Authentic Experience and Prestige included six items, such as: “to sample
authentic local foods” and “to dine in famous restaurants in HK.” The factor had a grand mean
of 5.21, which is the third highest among the seven factors. The desire to seek “authentic
experience” has been recognised as an important motivator guiding tourist food consumption
(Chang et al., 2010). Fields (2002, p.40) also pointed out that experiencing famous and
distinctive food in a destination can satisfy prestige-related motivations, for the subsequent
sharing of the experience impresses people back home. The present finding corroborates that
authentic experience and prestige are crucial factors in influencing food consumption in
tourism. The result further suggests that the motivation to seek authentic experience can be
closely related to prestige among those sampled.
Factor 3 Interpersonal and Culture contained four items, including “to have an enjoyable
meal with my travel companions” and “to increase my knowledge about the local culture
through my dining experiences.” It had a grand mean of 5.01. Food consumption in tourism is
recognised to be influenced by interpersonal/social (e.g., building social relations) and cultural
motivators (e.g., explore local culture) (Chang et al., 2010; Fields, 2002). The present finding
substantiates the importance of interpersonal and cultural motivations, and provides
preliminary evidence that the two aspects may be highly correlated. Factor 4 Price/value and
15
Assurance had six items, such as: “to dine in restaurants that are reasonably priced”, “to dine in
restaurants that provide good service” and “To dine in restaurants with high hygiene
standards.” The factor had a grand mean of 5.56, which was the second highest among all
factors. This suggests that the motivation to seek good value, as well as a sense of assurance (in
terms of service quality and hygiene standard) was particularly important to the respondents.
Factor 5 Health Concern consisted of three items, such as “to have foods that help me to
maintain a healthy weight” and “to enjoy foods that are good for my health.” The factor had a
grand mean of 5.00. A few studies have identified health as one of the significant motivators in
food consumption in tourism (Chang, 2014; Kim et al., 2009). The present finding indicates
that respondents’ health concern included aspects related to health improvement, weight
maintenance, and apprehension about harmful or “inappropriate” food ingredients. Factor 6
Familiarity and Eating Habit contained three items, including “to dine in chain restaurants that
I have been to” and “to have foods that match with my usual eating habit.” Although this factor
had the lowest grand mean of 4.68, it was of more than average importance for the respondents.
This lends support to the “tourist’s paradox” concept which suggests that while novelty is
welcomed, tourists generally seek a certain level of familiarity in their food consumption
experiences (Chang et al., 2010; Chang, 2014; Mak et al., 2012a).
Factor 7 Sensory and Contextual Pleasure consisted of three items, such as “to try out
foods that are presented attractively” and “to dine in restaurants with a pleasant atmosphere.”
This factor represented the desire to seek sensory and contextual pleasure in food consumption
experiences in tourism and it had the highest grand mean of 5.67. While sensory pleasure
associated with food consumption experiences in tourism has largely been overlooked
(Valentine, 1999), its significance has been increasingly recognised in recent years (Fields,
2002; Kim et al., 2009; Kivela & Crotts, 2006). The present finding validates the importance of
sensory pleasure, and further suggests that contextual pleasure (e.g., pleasant atmosphere) can
be another crucial motivating factor affecting tourist food consumption.
The seven motivational dimensions identified corroborate the five conceptual dimensions
proposed by Mak et al. (2013). The Authentic Experience and Prestige, Interpersonal and
Culture factors denote the respondents’ desire to seek “symbolic” meanings in their food
consumption. The Health Concern and Price/Value and Assurance factors reflect the
“obligatory” needs of the respondents. The Novelty and Variety factor reveals respondents’
quest for “contrast”, whereas the Familiarity and Eating Habit factor connote their needs for
16
“extension” in their food experience. The Sensory and Contextual Pleasure factor confirms
respondents’ needs to seek “pleasures” associated with food consumption.
4.3. Reliability and validity
The reliability of the scale was evaluated by Cronbach’s alpha, which reflects the level of
mean inter-item correlations weighted by variance (Field, 2005). The alpha values of the seven
motivational factors were all higher than 0.7 (Table 5). The high alpha values suggest a good
level of internal scale consistency in all factors (Hair et al., 2002). Fornell and Larcker (1981)
suggest that convergent validity is demonstrated when each of the item associated with one
construct has a factor loading exceeding 0.50. The factor loadings of the items in each of the
seven factors all exceeded 0.50 (Table 5), thus supporting convergent validity. In order to
assess discriminant validity, correlation coefficients among the seven factors were examined by
Pearson correlation analysis (Table 6). Although there were significant correlations between
some factors, their correlations were only moderate and were considered acceptable according
to Hair et al. (2002). Thus, discriminant validity was established.
4.4. FNS and VARSEEK results
Respondents’ level of food neophobia was obtained by summing the scores of the 10-
item FNS (Pliner & Hobden, 1992). The mean score for the sample was 37.33 (ranged from 15
to 63, SD 8.37). This suggests a relatively higher level of food neophobia among the sample as
compared with those reported in other studies, for example, Hobden and Pliner (1995) (two
separate Canadian student samples, means=32.4 & 31.4), Koivisto and Sjödén (1996) (Swedish
sample, mean=29.25), Arvola et al. (1999) (Finnish sample, mean=25.5), Meiselman et al.
(1999) (UK undergraduate student sample, mean=29.51), Eertmans et al. (2005) (Belgian
undergraduate student sample, mean=32.64). So far, no studies were found to have adopted the
10-item FNS on Asian samples. The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.826,
suggesting a good level of internal consistency of the items in the FNS (Hair et al., 2002).
17
Respondents’ variety-seeking was obtained by summing the scores of the 8-item
VARSEEK Tendency Scale (van Trijp & Steenkamp, 1992). The mean score for the sample
was 25.59 (ranged from 10 to 39, SD 5.92). This suggests a relatively lower level of variety-
seeking among the sample as compared with those reported in other studies, for example,
Lahteenmaki and van Trijp (1995) (Finnish student sample, mean=29.2), Meiselman et al.
(1999) (UK undergraduate student sample, mean=29.45), and Marshell and Bell (2004) (UK
undergraduate student sample, mean=29.33). Similarly, no studies were found to have adopted
the VARSEEK on Asian samples so far. The reliability coefficient was 0.87, indicating a good
level of internal consistency of the items in the VARSEEK (Hair et al., 2002).
4.5. Analysis of response style between nationalities
In order to check if there were any differences in response style between the British and
Taiwanese samples in the FNS, the steps described by Harzing (2006) were followed. First, the
proportion of extreme response style (ERS) was computed. This was calculated by dividing the
number of items in the FNS that received an extreme response (i.e., 1 or 7 for the 7-point FNS)
by the total number of items in the scale (i.e., 10). Then, the proportion of middle response
style (MRS) was calculated by dividing the number of items in the FNS that received a middle
response (i.e., 4 for the 7-point FNS) by the total number of items in the scale. The proportions
of ERS and MRS between the British and Taiwanese samples were then compared by means of
independent t-tests. No significant difference was observed between the British and the
Taiwanese samples in ERS (t = -0.62, p = 0.54) and MRS (t = 0.21, p = 0.83).
Similar procedures were performed on the VARSEEK to check response style. The
proportion of ERS was calculated by dividing the number of items in the VARSEEK that
received an extreme response (i.e., 1 or 5 for the 5-point VARSEEK) by the total number of
items in the scale (i.e., 8). MRS was computed by dividing the number of items in the scale that
received a middle response (i.e., 3 for the 5-point VARSEEK) by the total number of items in
the VARSEEK. No significant difference was found between the two samples in MRS (t = -
1.37, p = 0.17). However, the British sample has a higher proportion of ERS than the
Taiwanese sample (t = 2.59, p = 0.01). Further t-test analysis revealed that this differential
pattern was due to a higher proportion of ERS by the British sample in three items – item 2
“when preparing foods or snacks, I like to try out new recipes” (t = 2.41, p = 0.02), item 3 “I
think it is fun to try out food items one is not familiar with” (t = 2.54, p = 0.01), and item 6
“items on the menu that I am unfamiliar with make me curious” (t = 2.70, p = 0.01). Taking
18
into consideration that a higher ERS by the British sample was found in 3 out of 8 items in the
VARSEEK, and not in the FNS, the response style difference was not considered systematic.
Accordingly, there was no indication that the two nationality groups had the tendency to rate
items as consistently higher or lower than the other group did.
4.6. Comparison of FNS and VARSEEK between British and Taiwanese Respondents
Based on Pliner and Hobden (1992), respondents were divided into three groups using
the 33rd and 66th percentile FNS points as cut-off points. The 33rd and the 66th percentile
points were 33 and 40 respectively. Accordingly, respondents who scored between 15 and 33
were classified as “neophilics”, those between 34 and 39 as “average”, and those between 40
and 63 as “neophobics”. Table 7 presents the frequency and percentage of respondents in each
category.
Similarly, respondents were also classified into three groups based on their VARSEEK
scores using the 33rd and 66th percentile as cut-off points, as described by van Trijp and
Steenkamp (1992). The 33rd and the 66th percentile scores were 24 and 29 respectively.
Hence, respondents with VARSEEK score between 10 and 24 were classified as “low” variety
seekers, those scored between 25 and 28 as “medium” variety seekers, and those scored
between 29 and 39 as “high” variety seekers.
The chi-square test was used to further compare the British and Taiwanese samples in
terms of the FNS and VARSEEK categories. Test results (Table 7) indicate that there was a
higher percentage of “neophobics” in the British sample (n=85, 42.5%), whereas there was a
relatively higher proportion of “neophilics” in the Taiwanese sample (n=90, 36.4%). There
were also a higher number of British respondents being classified as “low variety-seeking”
(LVS) (n=93, 46.5%), and a higher percentage of Taiwanese respondents who were categorised
as “high variety-seeking” (HVS) (n=89, 36.0%).
4.7. Multiple regression analysis results
Standard multiple regression was used to test the relationship among food neophobia and
variety-seeking and the motivational factors. Standard multiple regression can be used to assess
19
the relationship between one dependent variable and multiple independent variables by
entering all the independent variables into the model at the same time (Pallant, 2007). It also
enables the calculation of how much unique variance in the dependent variable each of the
independent variable explained. Considering that no studies have yet investigated the effects of
food neophobia and variety-seeking on tourist food consumption motivations, it is more
appropriate to use multiple regression analysis instead of confirmatory methods, such as
structural equation modelling. The results of the regression analysis are summarised in Table 8.
Figure 3 provides a visualization of the regression results.
Based on the results, FNS was found to have significantly explained variance for four
factors: Novelty and Variety, Interpersonal and Culture, Health Concern and Familiarity and
Eating Habit. Although the potential influence of the food neophobia trait has been recognised
in the tourism literature (Chang et al., 2010; Cohen & Avieli, 2004; Kim et al., 2009),
empirical evidence is relatively scarce. The findings of this study add further evidence that
food neophobia can be a significant trait influencing various motivational dimensions of
tourists’ food consumption.
FNS was found to have a negative influence over the Novelty and Variety factor. The
results were in line with expectations from the food consumption literature that individuals who
are more neophobic tend to expect various novel foods to taste worse, and are generally less
willing to taste or choose novel foods (Pliner & Hobden, 1992; Tuorila et al., 1998). In
contrast, FNS exerted positive influence over the Health Concern and Familiarity and Eating
Habit factors. A rather surprising result is that respondents who were more neophobic would
still be motivated by the Interpersonal and Culture factor. This suggests that the “symbolic”
significance (Mak et al., 2012a) of the Interpersonal and Culture factor may outweigh the
effect of food neophobia.
The other trait, VARSEEK, was found to have significantly explained variance for four
factors: Novelty and Variety, Authentic Experience and Prestige, Interpersonal and Culture
and Sensory and Contextual Pleasure. Similar to food neophobia, variety-seeking has been
largely overlooked in the tourism literature. The current findings confirmed its influence over
20
the “contrast” (e.g., Novelty and Variety), “symbolic” (e.g., Authentic Experience and Prestige,
Interpersonal and Culture), and “pleasure” (e.g., Sensory and Contextual Pleasure) facets of
tourist food consumption.
The results were consistent with the expectations from the food consumption literature
that high variety-seeking (HVS) individuals tend to seek different kind of foods across various
situations (van Trijp & Steenkamp, 1992). This is because HVS individuals tend to get bored
more quickly with food than do low variety-seeking (LVS) individuals. HVS individuals have
a so-called “composite need”, which can best be satisfied by means of consumption of a
portfolio of food products (van Trijp & Steenkamp, 1992). Such propensity may explain the
positive influence of HVS on the Novelty and Variety and Authentic Experience and Prestige
factors. Furthermore, given that “sensory-specific satiety” (SSS) may trigger a higher level of
variety-seeking (Lähteenmäki & van Trijp, 1995), HVS tourists may get SSS more quickly
than LVS tourists. As such, HVS tourists are more likely to be motivated by the Sensory and
Contextual Pleasure factor.
5. Implications and Conclusion
This exploratory study has attempted to contribute to a more expansive understanding of

the underlying dimensions of tourist food consumption motivations and the effects of FRPTs
on these dimensions. Seven motivational dimensions were identified: novelty and variety,
authentic experience and prestige, interpersonal and culture, price/value and assurance, health
concern, familiarity and eating habit, and sensory and contextual pleasure. Both food
neophobia and variety-seeking were found to have significant effects on various motivational
dimensions, suggesting that specific FRPTs are critical in understanding a variety of tourist
food consumption motivations.
A number of practical implications for hospitality businesses and destination marketers

can be drawn from the findings. First, taking into account that Sensory and Contextual
Pleasure was regarded as the most important motivational dimension by the sample (grand
mean = 5.67), the “pleasure” aspect of tourist food consumption should be adequately
emphasised and communicated to the target market. Most significantly, tourists are not just
motivated by the sensory attributes of food; they are also motivated by the pleasure derived
from the dining context. In this light, tourism and hospitality marketers may devote efforts to
21
highlighting or enhancing the sensory pleasure of the food consumption experience (e.g., taste
and presentation), as well as the contextual pleasure (e.g., dining atmosphere) of the
gastronomic experience in their promotion mix. Evidence from the food consumption literature
suggests that contextual pleasure can also be derived from social facilitation and physical
variables (e.g., table settings) of the consumption situation (García-Segovia, Harrington, &
Seo, 2015; Meiselman, 1996).
Second, the results show that Price/value and Assurance was the second most important
motivational dimension (grand mean = 5.56). This reveals tourists’ need to seek “assurance” in
their dining experience, particularly in terms of price, food taste and quality of restaurant.
Tourism and hospitality marketers may need to ensure that a quality assurance mechanism is in
place to address this “assurance” need. For example, the Hong Kong Tourism Board has
introduced a quality assurance system called “Quality Tourism Services” (QTS). Restaurants
have to pass the QTS accreditation scheme before they can be listed in the QTS directory
(Okumus, Okumus, & McKercher, 2007). Similarly, Visit Scotland, Scotland’s National
Tourism Organisation, has implemented “Taste Our Best” quality assurance scheme to ensure
that tourists can enjoy quality ingredients of Scottish provenance and the freshest seasonal
produce (Visit Scotland, 2015).
Third, the desire to seek Authentic Experience was found to be closely associated with
Prestige motives, and they formed the third most important Authentic Experience and Prestige
dimension (grand mean = 5.21). While respondents were motivated to sample authentic local
food, they also desired to dine in famous restaurants and to try out well-known food/dishes in
the destination. In this sense, the desire to seek authentic as well as famous/well-known dining
experiences is analogous to visiting a famous “attraction” in a destination, an “attractionised
experience” as proposed by Mak et al. (2013). Tourism and hospitality marketers may
capitalise on this association and “attractionise” their gastronomic offerings by combining the
authentic elements of gastronomic products with prestigious or famous settings. For example,
the 58 Tour Eiffel Restaurant combines authentic Parisian cuisine with the iconic landmark of
Paris – the Eiffel Tower (Paris Info, 2015a). Similarly, the Sky Dining on the Singapore Flyer
combines fine dining and magnificent skyline views in a spacious capsule atop Asia’s largest
giant observation wheel (Singapore Flyer, 2015).
Fourth, although food neophobic tourists may be reluctant in trying out local
gastronomic products, they would be motivated by the Health Concern and Familiarity and
22
Eating Habit factors. Tourism and hospitality marketers may provide specialist dietary and
nutrition information as well as highlight the health benefits of their gastronomic products
(Chang, 2014). Interestingly, neophobic tourists would also be motivated by the Interpersonal
and Culture factor, implying implies that the “symbolic” significance (Mak et al., 2012a) of the
Interpersonal and Culture factor may attenuate the effect of food neophobia. Accordingly,
efforts can be directed to accentuate the culinary heritage and interpersonal aspects of the
gastronomic experience to appeal to neophobic tourists’ needs. For example, Hong Kong
Tourism Board has devoted a special web page to explain the culinary heritage of the “walled-
village food”, a cuisine listed as part of the city’s intangible cultural heritage (HKTB, 2015c).
Walled-village food is a unique type of cuisine eaten by Hong Kong’s early inhabitants who
lived in walled-villages. The most notable walled-village dish is called “poon choi”, (literally
“big bowl feast”). “Poon choi” usually include a huge amount of ingredients, including pork,
beef, chicken, lamb, duck, abalone and seafood, etc., which are layered in a large bowl and
eaten communally. This unique gastronomic experience thus has the potential to fulfil to
tourists’ Interpersonal and Culture needs.
Finally, high variety-seeking respondents were found to have significantly higher

propensity to be motivated by Novelty and Variety, Authentic Experience and Prestige,
Interpersonal and Culture and Sensory and Contextual Pleasure factors. Tourism and
hospitality marketers may highlight these motivational factors in their gastronomic offerings to
appeal to high VS tourists. A prominent example is the promotional effort by Paris Convention
and Visitors Bureau in their official website (Paris Info, 2015b). A vast array of local and
international cuisines is portrayed, ranging from gastronomic restaurants, foreign specialities,
tea rooms and ice-cream sellers, to cooking schools, appealing to high VS tourists’ needs for
Novelty and Variety and Authentic Experience and Prestige. Specially, they promote “a meal in
an unusual setting,” which features meals “at a communal table.” Communal table (also known
as communal dining) refers to diners sharing a table, and sometimes, food and drinks, and
conversation with other unknown diners. Communal dining offers an opportunity for tourists to
socialise with locals or other tourists. In other words, it provides an authentic and convivial
dining experience to high VS tourists, fulfilling their Authentic Experience and Prestige as well
as Interpersonal and Culture needs.
The findings of this study may be used to guide future research endeavours in several
ways. First, the TFCMS and the seven motivational dimensions identified provide an important
foundation for future research in this area. However, the study sample was obtained through a
23
purposive sampling method, primarily focused on British and Taiwanese tourists, which may
limit the generalisability of findings to other populations. Future research may consider using
confirmatory methods (e.g., structural equation modelling) to validate the TFCMS with other
cultures.
Second, the results indicate that Sensory and Contextual Pleasure was the most
important motivational factor. The pleasures associated with food consumption are rarely
explored in the tourism and hospitality literature (Mak et al., 2013). Valentine (1999) points out
that much of the tourism literature has ignored the “bodily pleasure” to be derived from eating,
the present findings provide evidence to support the significance of “sensory pleasure” in food
consumption in tourism. Most significantly, the findings suggest that “contextual pleasure” can
be equally important. This corroborates previous evidence in the food consumption literature
about the importance of contextual elements in food consumption. Future research efforts
towards understanding the significance of sensory and context pleasure would be worthwhile.
Third, this study is believed to be the first to provide empirical evidence on the effects of
two FRPTs (i.e., food neophobia and variety-seeking) on tourist food consumption
motivations. The findings indicate that FRPTs can be useful predictors of tourist food
consumption motivations. Further research may consider examining other FRPTs (e.g., food
involvement) to expand our understanding on their effects on tourist food consumption
behaviour. The findings reveal that more neophobic respondents would still be motivated by
the Interpersonal and Culture factor. This indicates that the “symbolic” significance (Mak et
al., 2012a) of the Interpersonal and Culture factor may outweigh the effect of food neophobia.
As such, future research efforts can be directed toward understanding the symbolic values of
tourist food consumption.
Last but not least, food consumption in tourism ought to be understood as a complex and
heterogeneous phenomenon. To fully capture the idiosyncratic nature of tourist food
consumption behaviour, it is necessary to transcend the tourist motivation framework and
incorporate perspectives from other disciplines, such as the food consumption literature. Future
research efforts in the field may be enhanced by adopting such an interdisciplinary approach.
References
24
Arvola, A., Lähteenmäki, L., & Tuorila, H. (1999). Predicting the Intent to Purchase
Unfamiliar and Familiar Cheeses: The Effects of Attitudes, Expected Liking and Food
Neophobia. Appetite, 32(1), 113-126.
Atkins, P., & Bowler, I. (2001). Food in Society. London: Arnold.
Bessiere, J. (1998). Local Development and Heritage: Traditional Food and Cuisine as Tourist
Attractions in Rural Areas. Sociologia Ruralis, 38(1), 21-34.
Carroll, B.A., & Ahuvia, A.C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love.
Marketing Letter, 17, 79-89.
Chang, R.C.Y., Kivela, J., & Mak, A.H.N. (2010). Food preferences of Chinese tourists.
Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4), 989-1011.
Chang, R.C.Y., Kivela, J., & Mak, A.H.N. (2011). Attributes that Influence the Evaluation of
Travel Dining Experience: When East meets West. Tourism Management, 32(2), 307-
316.
Chang, Richard C. Y. (2014). The influence of attitudes towards healthy eating on food
consumption when travelling. Current Issues in Tourism, 1-22. doi:
10.1080/13683500.2014.890579
Chang, W., & Yuan, J. J. (2011). A taste of tourism: Visitors' motivations to attend a food
festival. Event Management, 15(1), 13-23.
Cohen, E., & Avieli, N. (2004). Food in Tourism: Attraction and Impediment. Annals of
Tourism Research, 31(4), 755-778.
Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Vansant, G., & Van den Bergh, O. (2005). Food-related personality
traits, food choice motives and food intake: Mediator and moderator relationships. Food
Quality and Preference, 16, 714-726.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Fields, K. (2002). Demand for the Gastronomy Tourism Product: Motivational Factors. In A.
M. Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy (pp. 37-50). London:
Routledge.
Fornell, Claes, & Larcker, David F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),
39-50.
García-Segovia, Purificación, Harrington, Robert J., & Seo, Han-Seok. (2015). Influences of
table setting and eating location on food acceptance and intake. Food Quality and
Preference, 39(0), 1-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.004
Gilbert, David, & Wong, Robin K. C. (2003). Passenger expectations and airline services: a
Hong Kong based study. Tourism Management, 24(5), 519-532.
Goodenough, W. H. (1971). Culture, Language, and Society. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA:
Modular Publication.
Hair, J.F.Jr., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (2002). Multivariate data analysis
(6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hall, C. M., & Mitchell, R. (2001). Wine and Food Tourism. In N. Douglas & R. Derrett
(Eds.), Special Interest Tourism: context and cases (pp. 307-329). Brisbane: John
Wiley.
Hall, C. M., & Sharples, L. (2003). The consumption of experiences or the experiences of
consumption? An introduction to the tourism of taste. In C. M. Hall, E. Sharples, R.
Mitchell, N. Macionis & B. Cambourne (Eds.), Food Tourism Around the World:
development, management and markets (pp. 1-24). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann,.
Harzing, Anne-Wil. (2006). Response Styles in Cross-national Survey Research. International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 6(2), 243-266. doi:
10.1177/1470595806066332
Hjalager, A.M., & Richards, G. (Eds.). (2002). Tourism and Gastronomy. London: Routledge.
HKTB. (2010). A statistical review of Hong Kong tourism 2009. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Tourism Board.
25
HKTB. (2011). A statistical review of Hong Kong tourism 2010. Hong Kong: Hong Kong
Tourism Board.
HKTB. (2015a). Dine & Drink - Where to Eat. Retrieved Jun 18, 2015, from
http://www.discoverhongkong.com/us/dine-drink/where-to-eat/index.jsp
HKTB. (2015b). Must Eat - Fusion. Retrieved June, 18, 2015, from
http://www.discoverhongkong.com/eng/dine-drink/what-to-eat/must-eat/fusion.jsp
HKTB. (2015c). Walled-village Food. Retrieved Jun 18, 2015, from
http://www.discoverhongkong.com/us/dine-drink/what-to-eat/local-flavours/walled-
village-food.jsp
Hobden, K., & Pliner, P. (1995). Effects of a model on food neophobia in humans. Appetite,
25(2), 101-113.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and
organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Inman, J.J. (2001). The Role of SensorySpecific Satiety in AttributeLevel Variety Seeking.
Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 105-120.
Köster, E.P., & Mojet, J. (2007). Boredom and the reasons why some new products fail. In H.
J. H. MacFie (Ed.), Consumer-led food product development (pp. 262-280). Abbington,
Cambridge: Wooodhead Publishing.
Kahn, B.E. (1995). Consumer variety-seeking among goods and services. Journal of Retailing
and Consumer Services, 2, 139-148.
Kelly, G.A. (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.
Kim, Y. G., Eves, A., & Scarles, C. (2009). Building a Model of Local Food Consumption on
Trips and Holidays: A Grounded Theory Approach. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 28, 423-431.
Kim, Y.H., Goh, B.K., & Yuan, J. (2010). Development of a Multi-Dimensional Scale for
Measuring Food Tourist Motivations. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality &
Tourism, 11(1), 56 - 71.
Kim, Yeong Gug, Eves, Anita, & Scarles, Caroline. (2013). Empirical verification of a
conceptual model of local food consumption at a tourist destination. International
Journal of Hospitality Management, 33, 484-489.
Kittler, P. G., & Sucher, K. P. (2004). Accent on Taste: An Applied Approach to Multicultural
Competency. Diabetes Spectrum, 17(4), 200-204.
Kivela, J., & Crotts, J.C. (2006). Tourism and Gastronomy: Gastronomy's Influence on How
Tourists Experience a Destination. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 30(3),
354-377.
Koivisto, U.-K., & Sjödén, P.-O. (1996). Food and general neophobia in Swedish families:
parent-child comparison and relationships with serving specific foods. Appetite, 26,
107-118.
Lähteenmäki, L., & van Trijp, H.C.M. (1995). Hedonic responses, variety-seeking tendency
and expressed variety in sandwich choices. Appetite, 24(2), 139-151.
Lähteenmäki, Liisa, & Arvola, Anne. (2001). Food neophobia and variety seeking—consumer
fear or demand for new food products Food, People and Society (pp. 161-175):
Springer.
Logue, A.W. (1991). The psychology of eating and drinking: an introduction (2nd ed.). New
York: WH Freeman.
Long, L.M. (2004). Culinary Tourism: A Folkloristic Perspective on Eating and Otherness. In
L. M. Long (Ed.), Culinary Tourism (pp. 20-50). Kentucky: The University Press of
Kentucky.
Mäkelä, J. (2000). Cultural Definitions of the Meal. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Dimensions of
the Meal: The Science, Culture, Business, and Art of Eating (pp. 7-18). Gaithersburg,
M.L.: Aspen Publication.
26
Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers, M., & Eves, A. . (2012a). Globalisation and Food Consumption in
Tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 39(1), 171-196.
Mak, A.H.N., Lumbers, Margaret, Eves, Anita, & Chang, R.C.Y. (2012b). Factors influencing
tourist food consumption. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31(3), 928-
936. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.10.012
Mak, Athena H. N., Lumbers, Margaret, Eves, Anita, & Chang, Richard C. Y. (2013). An
application of the repertory grid method and generalised Procrustes analysis to
investigate the motivational factors of tourist food consumption. International Journal
of Hospitality Management, 35, 327-338. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.07.007
Marshall, David, & Bell, Rick. (2004). Relating the food involvement scale to demographic
variables, food choice and other constructs. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7-8), 871-
879.
McKercher, B., & Chow, S.M.B. (2001). Cultural Distance and Participation in Cultural
Tourism. Pacific Tourism Review, 5(1), 23-32.
McKercher, Bob, Okumus, Fevzi, & Okumus, Bendegul. (2008). Food Tourism as a Viable
Market Segment: It's All How You Cook the Numbers! Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 25(2), 137-148.
Meiselman, Herbert L. (1996). The contextual basis for food acceptance, food choice and food
intake: the food, the situation and the individual: Springer.
Oberski, Daniel L. (2012). Comparability of Survey Measurements. In L. Gideon (Ed.),
Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences (pp. 477-498): Springer New
York.
Okumus, B., Okumus, F., & McKercher, B. (2007). Incorporating Local and International
Cuisines in the Marketing of Tourism Destinations: The cases of Hong Kong and
Turkey. Tourism Management, 28(1), 253-261.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for
Windows (3rd ed.). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Paris Info. (2015a). Traditional French Cuisine - 58 Tour Eiffel. Retrieved July, 8, 2015,
from http://en.parisinfo.com/paris-restaurant/70565/58-Tour-Eiffel
Paris Info. (2015b). Where to Eat in Paris? Retrieved July, 8, 2015, from
http://en.parisinfo.com/where-to-eat-in-paris
Perreault, William D. (1975). Controlling order-effect bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 544-
551.
Pizam, A., & Sussmann, S. (1995). Does Nationality Affect Tourist Behavior? Annals of
Tourism Research, 22(4), 901-917.
Pliner, P., & Hobden, K. (1992). Development of a scale to measure the trait of food neophobia
in humans. Appetite, 19(2), 105-120.
Pliner, P., & Salvy, S.J. (2006). Food Neophobia in Humans. In R. Shepherd & M. Raats
(Eds.), The Psychology of Food Choice. (pp. 75-92). Oxfordshire: CABI.
Prescott, J., Young, O., O'Neill, L., Yau, N.J.N. , & Stevens, R. (2002). Motives for food
choice: a comparison of consumers from Japan, Taiwan, Malaysia and New Zealand.
Food Quality and Preference, 13, 489-495.
Quan, S., & Wang, N. (2004). Towards a Structural Model of the Tourist Experience: An
Illustration from Food Experience in Tourism. Tourism Management, 25(3), 297-305.
Ratner, R.K., Kahn, B.E., & Kahneman, D. (1999). Choosing less-preferred experiences for the
sake of variety. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(1), 1-15.
Richards, G. (2002). Gastronomy: An Essential Ingredient in Tourism Production and
Consumption? In A. M. Hjalager & G. Richards (Eds.), Tourism and Gastronomy (pp.
3-20). London: Routledge.
27
Ritchey, Phillip N., Frank, Robert A., Hursti, Ulla-Kaisa, & Tuorila, Hely. (2003). Validation
and cross-national comparison of the food neophobia scale (FNS) using confirmatory
factor analysis. Appetite, 40(2), 163-173.
Rozin, E., & Rozin, P. (1981). Culinary themes and variations. Natural History, 90, 6-14.
Scheuch, Erwin K. (1993). The cross-cultural use of sample surveys: problems of
comparability. Historical Social Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 18(2), 104-138.
Sheldon, P., & Fox, M. (1988). The Role of Foodservice in Vacation Choice and Experience: A
Cross-Cultural Analysis. Journal of Travel Research, 27(3), 9-15.
Singapore Flyer. (2015). World's First Full Butler Sky Dining. Retrieved July, 6, 2015, from
http://www.singaporeflyer.com/unique-experiences/full-butler-sky-dining/
Stevens, J.P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Telfer, D. J., & Wall, G. (2000). Strengthening backward economic linkages: local food
purchasing by three Indonesian hotels. Tourism Geographies, 2(4), 421-447.
Torres, R. (2002). Toward a better understanding of tourism and agriculture linkages in the
Yucatan: tourist food consumption and preferences. Tourism Geographies, 4(3), 282-
306.
Tse, P., & Crotts, J.C. (2005). Antecedents of novelty seeking: international visitors' propensity
to experiment across Hong Kong's culinary traditions. Tourism Management, 26, 965-
968.
Tuorila, H., Andersson, A., Martikainen, A. , & Salovaara, H. (1998). Effects of product
formula, information and consumer characteristics on the acceptance of a new snack
food. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 313-320.
Tuorila, H., Meiselman, H.L., Bell, R., Cardello, A.V., & Johnson, W. (1994). Role of sensory
and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and
familiar foods. Appetite, 23, 231-246.
Valentine, G. (1999). Consuming pleasures: food, leisure and the negotiation of sexual
relations. In D. Crouch (Ed.), Leisure/Tourism Geographies: practices and
geographical knowledge (pp. 164-180). London: Routledge.
van Trijp, H. (1995). Variety-seeking in product choice behavior: Theory with applications in
the food domain. The Netherlands: Wageningen.
van Trijp, Hans C. M., & Steenkamp, Jan-Benedict E. M. (1992). Consumers' variety seeking
tendency with respect to foods: Measurement and managerial implications. Eur Rev
Agric Econ, 19(2), 181-195. doi: 10.1093/erae/19.2.181
Visit Scotland. (2015). Taste Our Best - Quality Assurance Scheme. Retrieved July, 4,
2015, from http://www.visitscotland.com/about/food-drink/taste-our-best
Yau, O.H.M., & Lee, E. (1996). Restaurant Industry in Hong Kong, A Conceptual Model.
Journal of Restaurant and Foodservice Marketing, 1(3/4), 85-106.
28
Food Preference
Familiar Food Local Food Non-fastidiousness of

Food Selection
Core Eating Explore Local Group

Behavior Culture Harmony
Familiar Authentic Travel Compromise in

Flavor Experience Supporting
Experience
Appetizing Learning/
Assurance Education Prejudiced
Opportunity Advocacy
Prestige and
Status
Reference
Group Influence
Subjective
Perception
Figure 1. Motivational Factors of Food in Tourism

(Source: Chang, Kivela and Mak, 2010)
29
Figure 2. A Conceptual Framework for Food Consumption in Tourism
(Source: Mak et al., 2013)
30
Figure 3. Influence of FNS and VARSEEK on Tourist Food Consumption Motivations
(n=447, *p < .05, **p < .01, showing only the significant regression results)
31
Table 1. Classification of Motivational Factors Underlying Tourist Food Consumption
Author(s) 1. Symbolic 2. Obligatory 3. Contrast 4. Extension 5. Pleasure 6. Others

Fields (2002) - Cultural - Physical - Interpersonal
(Conceptual study) - Status &
prestige
Kim et al. (2009) - Learning - Health - Exciting - Sensory
(Qualitative, grounded theory knowledge concern experience appeal
approach, motivations for - Authentic - Escape from - Physical
consuming local food) experience routine environment
- Prestige - Togetherness
Chang et al. (2010) - Explore - Compromise - Core eating - Group - Reference
(Qualitative, ethnographic local culture in supporting behaviour harmony group
approach, motivations for - Authentic experience - Familiar influence (by
consuming local and non- travel flavour tour group
local food)
experience - Appetizing members)
- Learning/ assurance - Subjective
education perception
opportunity - Prejudiced
- Prestige & advocacy
status (by tour
leader)
Mak et al. (2013) - Authentic - Health - Novelty - Familiarity - Sensory
(Qualitative & quantitative, experience concern - Variety - Eating habit pleasure
repertory grid method & - Prestige - Assurance - Social
generalised Procrustes - Cultural - Convenience pleasure
analysis approach,
knowledge - Price & - Contextual
motivations for consuming
local and non-local food) value pleasure
32
Table 2. Items in the Food Neophobia Scale
Food Neophobia Scale
1. I am constantly sampling new and different foods. (R)
2. I don’t trust new foods.
3. If I don’t know what is in a food, I won’t try it.
4. I like food from different countries. (R)
5. Ethnic food looks too weird to eat.
6. At dinner parties, I will try a new food. (R)
7. I am afraid to eat things I have never had before.
8. I am very particular about the foods I will eat.
9. I will eat almost anything. (R)
10. I like to try new ethnic restaurants. (R)
(R) = negatively-worded items
(Source: Pliner and Hobden, 1992)
Table 3. Items in the VARSEEK Scale

VARSEEK Scale
1. When I eat out, I like to try the most unusual items, even if I am not sure I would like them.
2. When preparing foods or snacks, I like to try out new recipes.
3. I think it is fun to try out food items one is not familiar with.
4. I am eager to know what kind of foods people from other countries eat.
5. I like to eat exotic foods.
6. Items on the menu that I am unfamiliar with make me curious.
7. I prefer to eat food products I am used to. (R)
8. I am curious about food products that I am not familiar with.
(R) = negatively-worded item
(Source: van Trijp and Steenkamp, 1992)
33
Table 4. Socio-demographic Profile of the Survey Respondents
Total
Socio-demographic British Taiwanese
Frequency Percentage
Characteristics (n=200) (n=247)
(n=447)
Gender
Male 187 41.8% 95 (47.5%) 92 (37.2%)
Female 260 58.2% 105 (52.5%) 155 (62.8%)
Age
18-24 101 22.6% 24 (12.0%) 77 (31.2%)
25-34 130 29.1% 57 (28.5%) 73 (29.6%)
35-44 85 19.0% 42 (21.0%) 43 (17.4%)
45-54 83 18.6% 50 (25.0%) 33 (13.4%)
55-64 36 8.1% 17 (8.5%) 19 (7.7%)
65 or above 12 2.7% 10 (5.0%) 2 (0.8%)
Marital Status
Single 171 38.3% 46 (23.0%) 125 (50.6%)
Single with children 7 1.6% 2 (1.0%) 5 (2.0%)
Married/partnership without
63 14.1% 34 (17.0%) 29 (11.7%)
children
Married/partnership with
206 46.1% 118 (59.0%) 88 (35.6%)
children
Educational level
Elementary/secondary 38 8.5% 19 (9.5%) 19 (7.7%)
High school 89 19.9% 37 (18.5%) 52 (21.1%)
Vocational/college 94 21.0% 47 (23.5%) 47 (19.0%)
Undergraduate degree 187 41.8% 88 (44.0%) 99 (40.1%)
Postgraduate degree 39 8.7% 9 (4.5%) 30 (12.1%)
Personal Monthly Income *
£500 or below 100 22.4% 42 (21.0%) 58 (23.5%)
£501-1,000 40 8.9% 6 (3.0%) 34 (13.8%)
£1,001-2,000 118 26.4% 62 (31.0%) 56 (22.7%)
£2,001-3,000 94 21.0% 45 (22.5%) 49 (19.8%)
£3,001-4,000 44 9.8% 21 (10.5%) 23 (9.3%)
£4,001-5,000 38 8.5% 20 (10.0%) 18 (7.3%)
£5,001 or above 13 2.9% 4 (2.0%) 9 (3.6%)
First time/repeat visit
First time visitor 279 62.4% 159 (79.5%) 120 (48.6%)
Repeat visitor 168 37.6% 41 (20.5%) 127 (51.4%)
* Note: Income categories for Taiwanese respondents have been converted to British pound for
further comparison.
34
Table 5. Results of the Exploratory Factor Analysis

Factor Grand Eigen- Cronbach’s Variance
Factors and Items Mean S.D.
Loading Mean Value Explained
Factor 1 – Novelty & Variety 5.01 7.67 0.931 24.74%
To sample a wide variety of foods/cuisines in 0.860 5.02 1.523
HK.
To try out foods I have never tried before. 0.857 4.94 1.526
To be adventurous in trying out various foods 0.853 4.92 1.524
in HK.
To try foods that are novel to me. 0.843 4.99 1.407
To enjoy a good selection of both local and 0.831 5.11 1.474
international foods in HK.
To tell friends about my dining experiences in 0.636 5.09 1.433
HK.
Factor 2 – Authentic Experience & Prestige 5.21 6.52 0.904 21.03%
To sample authentic local foods. 0.840 5.28 1.245
To try foods that are only available in HK. 0.819 5.34 1.328
To dine in famous restaurants in HK. 0.815 5.19 1.325
To dine in restaurants with an authentic local 0.775 5.19 1.144
ambience.
To dine in restaurants that are recommended by 0.741 5.09 1.307
the media (e.g., travel guidebooks, Internet,
TV).
To try the well-known foods/dishes in HK. 0.680 5.17 1.084
Factor 3 – Interpersonal & Culture 5.01 2.58 0.842 8.30%
To have an enjoyable meal with my travel 0.868 5.45 1.244
companions.
To have foods that my travel companions like. 0.855 5.38 1.207
To increase my knowledge about the local 0.501 4.66 1.505
culture through my dining experiences.
To learn about local food traditions and culture. 0.500 4.53 1.570
Factor 4 – Price/value & Assurance 5.56 1.74 0.782 5.62%
To dine in restaurants that are reasonably 0.737 5.48 1.186
priced.
To dine in restaurants that offer good value of 0.720 5.55 1.178
money.
To dine in restaurants that provide good 0.682 5.60 1.008
service.
To dine in restaurants that are tourist-friendly 0.614 5.44 0.911
(e.g., with English menu, English-speaking
staff).
To dine in restaurants with high hygiene 0.542 5.69 0.886
standards.
To have foods that are prepared hygienically. 0.542 5.59 0.913
Factor 5 – Health Concern 5.00 1.37 0.712 4.41%
To have foods that help me to maintain a 0.878 5.31 1.067
healthy weight.
To enjoy foods that are good for my health. 0.817 5.22 1.024
To enquire about the ingredients in local foods 0.502 4.47 1.495
before trying them.
Factor 6 – Familiarity & Eating Habit 4.68 1.16 0.798 3.74%
To dine in chain restaurants that I have been to. 0.814 4.44 1.356
To enjoy foods that I am familiar with. 0.788 4.67 1.140
To have foods that match with my usual eating 0.669 4.92 1.198
habit.
Factor 7 – Sensory & Contextual Pleasure 5.67 1.10 0.803 3.55%
To try out foods that are presented attractively. 0.867 5.58 1.127
To dine in restaurants with a pleasant 0.863 5.64 1.169
atmosphere.
To enjoy foods that are delicious. 0.535 5.78 0.919
Total variance explained 71.38%
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.869
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi –Square 10581.78 (df =561, Sig.=0.000)
35
Table 6. Inter-correlations among the Seven Motivational Factors
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7
Factor 1 Novelty & Variety 1

Factor 2 Authentic Exp. & Prestige 0.443** 1
Factor 3 Interpersonal & Culture -0.211** 0.324** 1
Factor 4 Price/value & Assurance 0.322** 0.315** 0.145** 1
Factor 5 Health Concern -0.231** 0.165** 0.473** 0.303** 1
Factor 6 Familiarity & Eating Habit -0.341** 0.067 0.473** 0.197** 0.420** 1
Factor 7 Sensory & Contextual Pleasure 0.405** 0.431** 0.255** 0.366** 0.134** 0.074 1
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 7. FNS and VARSEEK Categories between British and Taiwanese Respondents
Total British Taiwanese 2

FNS Category
(n=447) (n=200) (n=247) (Sig.)
2= 7.68
Neophilics (score 15-33) 152 (34.0%) 62 (31.0%) 90 (36.4%)
Average (score 34-39) 136 (30.4%) 53 (26.5%) 83 (33.6%)
(p=0.021*)
Neophobics (score 40-63) 159 (35.6%) 85 (42.5%) 74 (30.0%)
Total British Taiwanese 2
VARSEEK Category
(n=447) (n=200) (n=247) (Sig.)
2= 10.25
Low VS (score 10-24) 172 (38.5%) 93 (46.5%) 79 (32.0%)
Medium VS (score 25-28) 125 (28.0%) 46 (23.0%) 79 (32.0%)
(p=0.006*)
High VS (score 29-39) 150 (33.6%) 61 (30.5%) 89 (36.0%)
* VS = variety-seeking
Table 8. Summary of Regression Analysis Results
Unstandardised Standard Standardised

Factor Variable Regression Error Regression t Sig.
Coefficient (B) Coefficient (ß)
Factor 1 – Novelty & Variety FNS -0.397 0.045 -0.426** -8.830 0.000
2 VARSEEK
R = 0.583, F(2,444) = 309.95**, p<0.001 0.507 0.064 0.385** 7.974 0.000
Factor 2 – Authentic Exp. & Prestige FNS -0.043 0.050 -0.058 -0.858 0.391
2 VARSEEK
R = 0.171, F(2,444) = 45.76**, p<0.001 0.380 0.070 0.367** 5.392 0.000
Factor 3 – Interpersonal & Culture FNS 0.167 0.040 0.304** 4.169 0.000
R2 = 0.043, F(2,444) = 10.07**, p<0.001 VARSEEK 0.122 0.057 0.158* 2.162 0.031
Factor 4 – Price/value & Assurance FNS -0.027 0.037 -0.052 -0.712 0.477
R2 = 0.027, F(2,444) = 6.16**, p=0.002 VARSEEK 0.086 0.053 0.120 1.634 0.103
Factor 5 – Health Concern FNS 0.092 0.025 0.266** 3.702 0.000
R2 = 0.075, F(2,444) = 18.08**, p<0.001 VARSEEK -0.005 0.035 -0.011 -0.154 0.921
Factor 6 – Familiarity & Eating Habit FNS 0.139 0.026 0.373** 5.447 0.000
R2 = 1.57, F(2,444) = 41.47**, p<0.001 VARSEEK -0.016 0.036 -0.030 -0.432 0.666
Factor 7 – Sensory & Contextual Pleasure FNS -0.015 0.023 -0.046 -0.649 0.517
R2 = 0.101, F(2,444) = 24.99**, p<0.001 VARSEEK 0.130 0.033 0.281** 3.973 0.000
n=447; *p < .05, **p < .01.
36

Jurnal IB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jurnal IB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Effects of Food-Related Personality Traits on

Tourist Food Consumption Motivations *

Athena H.N. Mak, National Dong Hwa University, Taiwan

This study explores the motivational dimensions underlying food consumption in

Due to its idiosyncrasies, tourist food consumption is well recognised as an indispensable

Motivation has been recognised as a multi-dimensional construct exerting significant

* Please insert Figure 1 about here

* Please insert Figure 2 about here

The “symbolic” dimension signifies the symbolic meanings of food consumption to

* Please insert Table 1 about here

2.2. Food-related personality traits

Food-related personality traits (FRPTs) have begun to be recognised as important

Another potential explanation for variety-seeking in foods is “sensory-specific satiety”

2.3. Cultural influence

3.1. Questionnaire development

Tourist Food Consumption Motivation Scale (TFCMS). A scale to measure the

* Please insert Table 2 about here

Variety-seeking Tendency Scale. Variety-seeking was measured by the Variety-

* Please insert Table 3 about here

3.2. Data collection

A purposive sampling technique was used to recruit respondents. Tourists were

4. Findings and Discussions

4.1. Socio-demographic profile of the respondents

The socio-demographic characteristics of the 447 respondents are summarised in Table

* Please insert Table 4 about here

4.2. Exploratory factor analysis results

* Please insert Table 5 about here

4.3. Reliability and validity

* Please insert Table 6 about here

4.4. FNS and VARSEEK results

4.5. Analysis of response style between nationalities

* Please insert Table 7 about here

4.7. Multiple regression analysis results

* Please insert Table 8 about here

* Please insert Figure 3 about here

5. Implications and Conclusion

This exploratory study has attempted to contribute to a more expansive understanding of

A number of practical implications for hospitality businesses and destination marketers

Finally, high variety-seeking respondents were found to have significantly higher

Familiar Food Local Food Non-fastidiousness of

Core Eating Explore Local Group

Familiar Authentic Travel Compromise in

Figure 1. Motivational Factors of Food in Tourism

Author(s) 1. Symbolic 2. Obligatory 3. Contrast 4. Extension 5. Pleasure 6. Others

Table 3. Items in the VARSEEK Scale

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6 Factor 7

Factor 1 Novelty & Variety 1

Total British Taiwanese 2

Table 8. Summary of Regression Analysis Results

Unstandardised Standard Standardised

You might also like