Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

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

Food Reputation Map (FRM): Italian long and short versions’

psychometric features
Marino Bonaiuto a,b,⇑, Stefano De Dominicis a,b, Ferdinando Fornara b,c, Uberta Ganucci Cancellieri d,
Irene Petruccelli e, Flavia Bonaiuto f
a
Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy
b
CIRPA – Centro Interuniversitario di Ricerca in Psicologia Ambientale, Rome, Italy
c
Dipartimento di Pedagogia, Psicologia, Filosofia, Università degli Studi di Cagliari, Cagliari, Italy
d
Dipartimento di Scienze della Società e della Formazione d’Area Mediterranea, Università per Stranieri ‘‘Dante Alighieri” di Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy
e
Facoltà di Scienze dell’Uomo e della Società, Università di Enna ‘‘Kore”, Enna, Italy
f
Dipartimento di Medicina Sperimentale, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome, Italy

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

Article history: Reputation is a social-psychological variable influencing behavioural choices in general. Drawing from
Received 20 October 2016 current literature on persons and organizations, the concept of reputation is applied to food conceived
Received in revised form 1 February 2017 as a social agent: Food reputation pertains to all the beliefs about a food object, its antecedents (i.e.,
Accepted 1 February 2017
its production effects) and its consequences (i.e., its consumption effects). Food Reputation Map (FRM)
Available online 9 February 2017
is a theoretical framework and a methodological tool encompassing six main areas (synthetic indicators)
of food reputation, further articulated into 23 markers (specific indicators): they gauge people evaluative
Keywords:
perception of a food’s intrinsic characteristics, its effects on the context (e.g., during its production phase),
Reputation
Food
and its effects on the individual (e.g., during its consumption phase). Two studies were conducted at the
Food Reputation Map (FRM) Italian national level on over three thousands participants (N1 = 2693; N2 = 585–out of 1308 total partic-
Consumer choice ipants). Multivariate statistical analyses are used to build FRM as a psychometric tool for measuring food
Measurement reputation. In each of the two studies (first long, and then short FRM version), results of exploratory fac-
Reputational profile tor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha allow to select the best items for each synthetic and specific indicator,
on the basis of its factorial structure and internal consistency. Both theoretical and practical implications
are discussed.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction (1990) defines reputation as a collective phenomenon through

Reputation has been defined in many ways, such as ‘‘the distri-
bution of opinions (the overt expressions of a collective image)
about a person or other entity, in a stakeholder or interest group”
(Bromley, 2001, p. 154). Reputation orients knowledge mediated
by others and is used by an individual in all aspects of the life
(e.g., Asch, 1946; Palmonari & Rubini., 2002): it shapes trust,
knowledge, attitude, and behaviour of a person toward a specific
object. On the whole, it can be considered both a social process
and the result of such a process (Bromley, 1993).
Interestingly, the process of reputation may be referred to any
entity, for example individuals or organizations. In fact, Emler
⇑ Corresponding author at: CIRPA and Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di
Sviluppo e Socializzazione, Sapienza University of Rome, Via dei Marsi 78, 00185
Roma, Italy.
E-mail address: marino.bonaiuto@uniroma1.it (M. Bonaiuto).
which a community makes a set of judgments about the personal
qualities of one of its members (an individual). At another social
level, van Riel and Fombrun (2006) define corporate reputation
as the stakeholders’ total evaluation of a company. Hence, the con-
cept of reputation has connections with classical social-
psychological constructs: being based on a collectively shared
judgement about the self of a given entity, reputation may in fact
correspond to the social representation of that self (Moscovici,
1984). Moreover, reputation can play a heuristic role (Tversky &
Kahneman, 1974, 1981), such that people rely on the perceived
reputation of an entity (rather than on a closer inspection) as a reli-
able and effective source of information and judgement (Metzger,
Flanagin, & Medders, 2010); reputation can also be addressed in
terms of stereotypes and/or prototypical characteristics or virtues
of an individual, as well as it can be linked to relevant social iden-
tities (Bromley, 2001, 2002; Goffman, 1959; Nagashima, 1977;
Tajfel & Turner, 1986; van Riel & Fombrun, 2006).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.004
0950-3293/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167
So far, food has not been considered as a reputational object.
However, food and drink (henceforth, food) present a reputation
object’s typical characteristics. On the one side, food’s production
and supply chain affect environment, local and global economies,
social and financial stability of a country, and much more (let’s just
think that coffee is the second worldwide traded commodity, after
oil). On the other side, food’s consumption affects the individual’s
wellbeing. Moreover, people get any food ‘‘knowledge” either by
their own personal experience (e.g., directly by tasting, viewing,
etc.) or by means of others’ experience (e.g., via other persons,
media, etc.; i.e., indirectly as Emler, 1990, and Grauman & Kruse,
1990, would argue). Finally, individuals develop such food’s per-
ceptions and evaluations, which in turn affect their own beha-
viours (purchasing, consumption).
On these bases, food can be defined as a social agent because it is
a social product and because it has social effects: food is affected by
and affects people, communities, places and the environment (EEA,
2012, 2010; FAO, 2013; Petrini, 2005, 2010). Similarly to other social
agents, or reputational objects–see Emler, 1990, for the person; van
Riel & Fombrun, 2006, for the company; Anholt, 2006, 2010, for geo-
graphical entities–any certain food possesses its own features from
the point of view of its stakeholders. Such features represent its cru-
cial assets: they need to be understood in reputational terms
(Bonaiuto, Bonnes et al., 2012; Bonaiuto, Caddeo et al., 2012;
Bonaiuto, De Dominicis, Caddeo, & Troffa, 2012).
1.1. Food features as reputation’s dimensions
Within food literature, most studies on food features are related
to people habitual food choices (Magnusson, Arvola, Koivisto
Hursti, Aberg, & Sjöden, 2001, 2003). For example, the Reasons
for Eating Scale (RES; Harmatz & Kerr, 1981; Williams, Spencer,
& Edelman, 1987) defined six factors relevant to understand food
choices (e.g., sensorial attractiveness, habits, pleasantness in
preparation). The Food Choice Questionnaire (FCQ) by Steptoe,
Pollard, and Wardle (1995) defined nine underlying dimensions
for food choices: Health, Mood, Convenience, Sensory Appeal, Nat-
ural Content, Price, Weight Control, Familiarity, Ethical Concern.
More recently Renner, Sproesser, Strohbach, and Schupp (2012)
proposed The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS), in order to mea-
sure 15 main dimensions (from 1. Liking to 15. Social image) con-
ceived as possible motivations to eat one’s own usual food.
This kind of existing tools shares a number of characteristics,
such as: they focus on reasons or motivations to eat food that indi-
viduals usually eat; they focus on food in general rather than on
specific food items; they list a number of dimensions all together,
within a single undifferentiated list. Consequently, these charac-
teristics imply that those tools are not addressing the evaluation
of food irrespectively to one’s own consumption habits (since they
only ask about the food usually eaten, without any specific refer-
ent); they do not differentiate among the different food items
(since they ask only about food in general, not about a specific food
category or item or brand etc.); and they do not theoretically or
empirically organize the relevant dimensions within a broader
framework which encompasses overarching concepts grouping
the identified dimensions (e.g., clusters, or second order dimen-
sions, or generative criteria).
A broader conceptual framework about food features, which
comes closer to a comprehensive concept of food reputation, is the
one developed by Conner and Armitage (2002; see also Olivero &
Russo, 2008): these authors conceive food features as specific char-
acteristics that explicitly integrate individual and collective levels
and processes. This model also explicitly tries to conceptually orga-
nize all food features within broader and more general concepts,
such as: features linked to food, features linked to the environment,
and features linked to the effects on the individual.
157
Starting from this model, a specific food reputation model has
been proposed by Bonaiuto, Bonnes et al. (2012), Bonaiuto,
Caddeo et al. (2012) and Bonaiuto, De Dominicis et al. (2012).
Within this theoretical framework, and considering food as a social
agent, food reputation is defined (Bonaiuto, Caddeo et al., 2012, p.
466) as the ‘‘representation of food’s present features, which deter-
mines its overall attractiveness based on past direct and indirect
experiences about food and on future expectations of it. Thus, food
reputation corresponds to all the beliefs (representations, atti-
tudes, etc.) about food, including those about its antecedents and
its consequences (i.e., its production and its effects)”. Accordingly,
a Food Reputation Map (FRM) is proposed here as a comprehensive
model integrating: the intrinsic characteristics of food (labelled as
macro area 0); its effects on the environment (macro area 1); and
its effects on the individual (macro area 2). All together they cover
the various facets of food reputation’s concept and definition. As
shown in Table 1, the FRM framework encompasses six main areas
(i.e., synthetic indicators) of food reputation, which are further
articulated into 23 dimensions (i.e., specific indicators) on the basis
of two preliminary studies (a qualitative one and a correlation sur-
vey; see Bonaiuto, Bonnes et al., 2012; Bonaiuto, Caddeo et al.,
2012; Bonaiuto, De Dominicis et al., 2012).
On this basis, a tool to measure food reputation—and to describe
and also to graphically plot each food item’s reputation profile
(hence the ‘‘Map” term in the label FRM)—is developed. Such a stan-
dard tool does not exist yet and it would be different from already
existing tools measuring eating reasons and motivations:
1. it would focus on any kind of food (not only on the usual one);
2. it could address different food items (within the same respon-
dent too);
3. it would describe a wider range of dimensions than usual;
4. it would hierarchically organize these dimensions into a broader
meaningful framework with overarching dimensions’ categories.
Such a tool could then allow, for example: to compare reputa-
tional profiles of different food items within the same person or
kind of person; or to compare the reputation profile of a specific
food product or category across different respondents’ categories
and/or across time; or to quantify the influence of each reputa-
tional indicator on overall reputation and to plan and predict rep-
utational outcomes. These are examples of many possible
applications for which the already existing food relevant scales
and questionnaires are unsuited. Thus, such a new tool could also
allow to understand which specific aspects may represent an asset
or a shortcoming for a given food category or item, for any given
stakeholder and/or within a certain context, framework, condition.
1.2. The present research
The present research aims at building, refining and testing a
tool for measuring food reputation, according to the FRM model
(i.e., encompassing the six main areas of food reputation—syn
thetic indicators—articulated into 23 dimensions—specific indica-
tors). It also aims at reaching a final and stable FRM tool version,
based on wide and representative samples and on a range of food
categories. The main contribution is to establish the best item-
markers to measure each one of the FRM indicators.
Two studies are presented here: they were conducted by testing
the FRM tool in order to reach a final structure possessing satisfy-
ing psychometric features. The first study started from a general
and broader instrument measuring food reputation, i.e., the FRM-
version 1 (FRM-1), encompassing 154 items; then, thanks to study
2 where a shortened FRM-version 2 (FRM-2) encompassing 103
item was considered, a final version of the Italian instrument is
presented (the FRM-IT), encompassing 92 items.
158 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167

Table 1
The Food Reputation Map theoretical framework (FRM).

Reputation Specific Indicators Reputation Synthetic Indicators Reputational areas

1 Composition 1 Essence AREA 0 – FOOD INTRINSIC FEATURES
2 Genuineness
3 Life time
4 Recognition
5 Territorial identity 2 Cultural Effects AREA 1 –FOOD-CONTEXT EFFECTS OR RELATIONS
6 Tradition
7 Familiarity
8 Innovativeness
9 Context 3 Economical Effects
10 Price
11 Preparation
12 Social and environmental responsibility 4 Environmental Effects
13 Traceability
14 Proximity
15 Safety
16 Ability to satisfy 5 Physical Effects AREA 2 –FOOD-INDIVIDUAL EFFECTS OR RELATIONS
17 Digestibiliy
18 Lightness
19 Organoleptic perception 6 Psychological Effects
20 Personal memories
21 Psycho-physical wellbeing
22 Conviviality
23 Group belongingness

An applied measure of food reputation: the Food Reputation Map

Moreover, given its broad applicability (e.g., on food in general, 2. Study 1

food categories, product categories, product specificity, specific
good, different stakeholders, etc.), FRM can be tested with refer-
ence to different goods, from general food categories (e.g., fruit)
to specific produces (e.g., citrus fruits), up to specific products
(e.g., milk chocolate). For the present contribution, some food cat-
egories and items were selected in order to target general issues
within the food domain: in the first study this choice was done
on the basis of a general nutrition criterion; in the second study
it was done on the basis of a general national economy criterion.
Specifically, study 1 focused on the reputation of eight general food
categories and two specific products, selected according to the
‘‘Food Guide Pyramid” (USDA, 1992; see also: Kennedy, Ohls,
Carlson, & Fleming, 1995) as revisited for the Italian market. Study
2 focused on the reputation of three specific food categories given
their fundamental and leading role in the Italian agricultural mar-
ket and economy (on the basis of publicly reported evidences, such
as in Castiglione, Borriello, Napoletano, & Pittiglio, 2007; Zaccarini
Bonelli, 2012): vegetables, peeled tomatoes, and citrus fruits.
Tables 2 and 3 synthetize respectively the theoretical and method-
ological processes used both in Study 1 and 2.
2.1. Aims and hypotheses
The principal aim of study 1 is to test the first version of the
Food Reputation Map (FRM-1). We developed this long version of
the tool to select those items that best measure each of the 23
specific indicators of food reputation, which are based on the
FRM model and derive from previous research (Bonaiuto, Bonnes
et al., 2012). The two principal hypotheses are that the FRM-1 tool,
tested on a wide Italian quota-sample, will confirm: H1) a psycho-
metric selection of the best markers within each one of the 23
single-factor specific indicators of food reputation; H2) an accept-
able reliability in terms of internal consistency for each single-
factor specific indicator of food reputation. In order to test this
FRM model’s structure on a wider set of targets (in comparison
to the FRM initial exploratory studies), and referring to the ‘‘Food
Guide Pyramid” (USDA, 1992; see also: Kennedy et al., 1995;
USDA & USHHS, 2010) revisited for the Italian market, we admin-
istrated a survey measuring peoples’ reputation about ten specific
food targets: 8 general food categories (I = Meat, fish, egg; II = Cere-

Table 2
Theoretical processes of Study 1 and 2.

Study 1 Study 2
Description General instrument measuring food reputation on nutrition- General instrument measuring food reputation on national economy criterion
based food categories
Reputation of 8 general food categories and 2 specific Reputation of 3 specific food categories given their role in the Italian agriculture market
products from Food Guide Pyramid
FMR-version 1 FMR-version 2
154 items 103 items
Aims  Test the first version of the FMR-1  Test the psychometric structure of the FMR-2
 This is used to select the best markers for each of the 23  Get a reduced version of the FRM tool having 4 items structure in each sub-scale
sub-scales of FRM  define the validated FRM-IT and its non-validated English version
Hypothesis H1: It will confirm a psychometric selection of the best H3: the shorten version of each FRM tool scale will present a single-factor structure
markers within each of the 23 single-factor sub-scales
H2: it will confirm an acceptable reliability in terms of H4: each 4-items subscale will show acceptable reliability
internal consistency
H5: the 23 specific indicator of food reputation will be organized into the 6 synthetic
indicators
H6: to explore its construct validity the measure of FRM emerging from the FMR tool is
expected to be convergent with other two measures of food reputation
H7 it is expected that the three objects of analysis used here will present a different
reputation along the FMR dimension
 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167 159

Table 3
Methodological processes of Study 1 and 2.

Study 1 Study 2
Sample Sample
 N = 2693  N = 585 (out of 1308 participants)
Object under investigation Object under investigation
 Participants are allocated to one out of 10 food cate-  Participants are allocated to one out of 3 food categories (top three in Italian agricultural market)
gories (food pyramid)
Tool: Tool:
 They respond to a 7-points likert scale for FRM-1 (164  They respond to a 7-points likert scale for FRM-2 (113 items)
items)
Data analysis Data analysis
 Exploratory Factor Analysis (PCA) for the selection of  Factor Analysis on each Specific Indicator of food reputation for the selection of best markers of food
best markers of food reputation (H1) reputation (H3)
 Cronbach’s Alpha for the internal consistency of each  Cronbach’s Alpha for the internal consistency of each sub-scale (H4)
sub-scale (H2)  Second order Factor Analysis (PCA) for Synthetic Indicators of food reputation (H5)
Results  Convergent Construct Validity for the general FRM score (H6): definition of the FRM score representing
 A shorter version of FRM-1 with best markers to test the overall food reputation across the six synthetic indicators; the FRM score is correlated with other
food reputation. See table B.1. measures of food reputation
 One-way ANOVAs for the identification and differentiation of different food reputation profiles (H7): a
specific food reputation map can be identified for each food product or category
Results
 The finalized Food Reputation Map (92 items–shorter than FRM-2) to identify and test food reputation.
See table 5

als and potatoes; III = Milk and diaries; IV = Legumes; V = Vegeta-
bles; VI = Fruit; VII = Non-alcoholic beverages; VIII = Alcoholic bev-
erages) and 2 specific food products (IX = Natural mineral water;
X = Milk chocolate). Across those ten conditions (from I to X), we
created a separate scale on the basis of the qualitative and quanti-
tative analyses previously run within the exploratory studies
(Bonaiuto, Bonnes et al., 2012) for each of the 23 specific indicators
of food reputation.
2.2. Method
2.2.1. Participants and procedure
The paper-and-pencil survey was administrated to a total
amount of about 3000 participants, from October 2011 to February
2013. After a preliminary data screening (incomplete survey,
response set, missing data), a finalized sample of N = 2693 was
used for data analysis. Randomly, each participant was allocated
to one of the ten possible conditions (from I to X), as shown in
Appendix A, Table A.1. Using a stratified sampling procedure, par-
ticipants were recruited in public areas across Italy where were
asked to fill-in a 15-minutes-long survey about food for research
purpose: the sample was paired by geographical area of residence
(30% Northern Italy; 33% Central Italy; 37% Southern Italy and
Islands), gender (51% women) and age (18–29 years: 26%; 30–
39 years: 19%; 40–49 years: 19%; 50–59 years: 18%; over-60 years:
17%). Importantly, self-reported participants’ Body Mass Index
(BMI underweight: 3.7%; healthy weight: 61.2%; overweight:
28.0%; obese: 7.1%) was comparable with official data from Italian
population (ISTAT, 2015), meaning that our sample is not biased
about BMI food related perceptions.
2.2.2. Measures
The FRM-1 survey consists of 164 items measured on a 7-points
Likert-type scale (from ‘‘Completely disagree” to ‘‘Completely agree”);
it was administrated in Italian. The FRM-1 tool also includes ten ‘‘Gen-
eral Food Reputation” items: one item on the general reputation of the
evaluated good; nine items on product and process reputation
(adapted from: Petrini, 2005; van Riel & Fombrun, 2006); then, FRM-
1 includes an array of 154 items devoted to measure the 23 specific
indicators of food reputation in terms of separate scales (Bonaiuto,
Bonnes et al, 2012; Bonaiuto, Caddeo et al., 2012; Bonaiuto, De
Dominicis et al., 2012), as specified in Appendix A, Table A.2. In the
food reputation section, participants rated each item according to
the following instruction (where, for each given questionnaire, X was
substituted by the specific food item label to be assessed with FRM-
1): ‘‘For each of the following statements, please indicate to what
extent the reported characteristic describes X. If you think you do
not have enough information about X, it is enough to express your
opinion on the basis of what you know about X according to whatever
you have read, seen and heard about it.” Therefore, this instruction
aims at triggering a target entity reputational judgment as based on
both an individual’s direct and indirect experience of such an entity.
The final section of the self-report questionnaire included 17
items measuring standard socio-demographic indices, sport and
eating habits, as well as a few anthropometric parameters e.g., per-
sonal data to estimate BMI). For the purpose of this manuscript,
these items will not be considered.
2.2.3. Data analyses
Reverse items were recoded, in order to work on a coherent set
of items holding a uniform relationship between connotation and
response scale scores (higher scores always meaning a content
positive connotation). Then, each measurement scale data had
been processed via a two-phase procedure: exploratory factor
analyses (Principal Component Analyses, PCA) in a first phase
(H1), and Cronbach’s alpha in a second phase (H2)1. All statistics
had been carried out using the SPSS version 21 software.
2.3. Results and discussion
2.3.1. Phase 1: Factor analysis
Following the FRM model’s conceptual framework, the most
representative items for each FRM scale specific indicator have
1
Specifically, a PCA was run on each specific pool of items developed for measuring
each expected indicator of food reputation, in order to test the expected FRM model
single-factor structure of each scale and in order to keep those items that better
represent each expected indicator across the ten different food produces (i.e.,
conditions I-X): Cattell’s scree plot method and item-component saturation (lambda
values) had been used to decide about items loading in each extracted component
(and consequently about items dropping, when relevant). Statistical indices (fre-
quency distribution, inter-item correlation and average factor loading across condi-
tions I-X) were considered in order to select those items that were most
representative in each one of the 23 specific FRM scales (i.e., indicators). Then, on
the basis of the results of each PCA, an internal consistency analysis had been
calculated (with Cronbach’s Alpha value, which, only for very few cases, had been
substituted by Pearson’s r when a scale had only two retained items). This analyses
had been applied on each pool of items measuring each one of the 23 FRM specific
scales (i.e., indicators) in the ten different conditions (I-X).
160 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167

been selected by means of each of the PCA run on each scale. In the the factorial structure and reliability of each one of the 23 revised
Supplementary Information file, Tables A.3–A.8, synthesizes all the and shortened pools of items measuring the FRM tool’s specific
single-factor structures emerged for each specific scale in each indicators. In particular, the goal is to get a reduced version of
condition (I-X), grouped for each theoretical synthetic indicator the FRM tool having a 4-item structure in each scale (i.e., its best
of food reputation. markers) for measuring each FRM model specific indicator.
Thus, the twofold main hypothesis here is that the shortened
version of each FRM tool scale—each one based on a 4-item revised
2.3.2. Phase 2: Reliability analysis
set as resulted after study 1’s results—will present (H3) a single-
The same tables synthesize how, in general, most of the scales,
factor structure and (H4) acceptable reliability (internal consis-
after the above reported item selection, showed good or optimal
tency index) across different target foods.
reliability (tested either by Cronbach’s alpha or Person’s r, accord-
Moreover, (H5) it is expected that the 23 specific indicators of
ing to the cases) across the ten different conditions (I-X).
food reputation will be organized into the 6 synthetic indicators
Although the adopted procedure allows to confirm the two
of food reputation on the basis of the FRM model, as summarized
main hypotheses of study 1—namely, a psychometric selection of
in Table 1. Then, in order to explore its construct validity, (H6)
the best markers within each one of the 23 single-factor specific
the measure of food reputation emerging from the FRM tool is
indicators of food reputation, and an acceptable reliability in terms
expected to be convergent with other two measures of food repu-
of internal consistency for each single-factor specific indicator of
tation, namely those derived from general food reputation items
food reputation—results also point out some critical issues which
(see the next method section for details). Finally, in order to
could be addressed and solved in order to improve some of the
explore possible applications of the tool, (H7) it is expected that
scales’ psychometric features and to reach a more satisfactory final
the three objects of analysis used here (see details below), will pre-
form of the FRM tool Italian version (FRM-1). Specifically (see Sup-
sent a different reputation profile along the FRM-2 dimensions.
plementary Information, Tables A.3–A.8), only two items were
In order to test these hypotheses, a survey had been carried out
retained in the Composition scale (all r > 0.188; all p < 0.01; adapted
on the reputation of three specific food categories (conditions I-III):
from Bonaiuto, Bonnes et al, 2012; Bonaiuto, Caddeo et al., 2012;
citrus fruits, vegetables, and peeled tomatoes (i.e., the three most
Bonaiuto, De Dominicis et al., 2012): the two high-loading items
relevant produces in the Italian market and economy; Castiglione
that theoretically best represent the Composition dimension (i.e.,
et al., 2007; Zaccarini Bonelli, 2012).
‘‘it has scarce nutritional value”, ‘‘it contains important nutritious
properties”) were kept, with the aim to subsequently create three
3.2. Method
new items in order to complete and improve the measurement of
this dimension, to be tested in the next study. The Recognition and
3.2.1. Participants
Tradition scales do not show optimal psychometric characteristics
The survey reached a total of 1308 participants, during May/
too. For a single-factor structure, the PCA analyses showed an
June 2013. FRM-2 was administrated via both paper-and-pencil
explained variance respectively of 31.75% and 37.07% (average
(n = 430) and online (gross n = 878; response rate = 24.83%; com-
value across conditions I-X). Their overall reliabilities across condi-
pletion rate = 21.30%), with no significant differences between
tions were respectively 0.33 < a < 0.70 and 0.11 < a < 0.74. Thus, in
the two versions. Thus, the two sub-samples had been collapsed.
view of the next step of the research in Study 2, all problematic
After a preliminary data screening, a final sample of N = 585 was
items within such scales are identified in order to be subsequently
used for data analysis (paper-and-pencil: n = 427; online:
modified, particularly in order to simplify their Italian lexical for-
n = 158). Randomly, each participant was assigned to one of the
mulation and to clarify their meanings. Finally, while retaining
three possible conditions I or II or III (vegetables: 31.8%; citrus
all the rest of the items selected by the reliability analysis, two
fruits: 33.3%; peeled tomatoes: 34.9%). Participants were recruited
items (one in the Proximity scale, and one in the Conviviality scale)
using a stratified sampling procedure for the paper and pencil ver-
are identified in order to be subsequently modified in the next
sion and a snowball sampling procedure for the online version. The
study because they did not show a clear positive or negative corre-
final sample included residents in cities representing all the geo-
lation with the general factor and they eventually reduced the reli-
graphical areas of Italy, i.e. 30% Northern Italy; 41% Central Italy;
ability of the scale in someone of the specific ten conditions.
29% Southern Italy and Italian two main islands. The majority of
In summary, the set of results emerged in study 1 allowed to
this sample were women (68%); sample’s age was distributed as
screen the FRM-1 tool and to select on psychometric bases all those
follows: 18–29 years = 43%; 30–39 years = 19%; 40–
items that are the best markers for each specific indicator of food
49 years = 16%; 50–59 years = 15%; over-60 years = 7%. Similarly
reputation across ten different food targets. Specifically, test of the
to study 1, participants’ BMI (underweight: 6.5%; healthy weight:
psychometric structure (factorial dimensions—H1) and reliability
68.8%; overweight: 18.1%; obese: 6.2%) was comparable with offi-
(internal consistency—H2) on the scales measuring the 23 indicators
cial data from Italian population (ISTAT, 2015), meaning that our
led to a shortened version of each of the 23 FRM scales. The best
sample is not BMI biased about food related perceptions.
solution for most of such scales consisted of a 4-item structure; nev-
ertheless a few items (about 9%) will need changes in order to
3.2.2. Measures
improve their understanding and their overall correlation with the
The Italian FRM-2 tool consisted of 113 items. The question-
theoretically expected FRM factors. Accordingly, the tool need fur-
naire includes 10 ‘‘General Food Reputation” items (as in study
ther modifications in order to incorporate the improvement summa-
1); then, it features the FRM-2’s 103 items measuring the 23
rized in the discussion above, and to finally set up a shortened
FRM specific indicators via separate scales, as specified in Appen-
version of it. This had been then tested in study 2.
dix B, Table B.1. The final section of the self-report questionnaire
included 18 items measuring socio-demographic indices, sport
3. Study 2 and eating habits, as well as a few anthropometric parameters
(as in Study 1).
3.1. Aims and hypotheses
3.2.3. Data analyses
The principal aim of study 2 is to test the psychometric struc- H3 and H4 had been tested adopting the same analyses and
ture of the Food Reputation Map – version 2 (FRM-2) tool: i.e., software as in study 1, via data analyses’ phases 1 and 2. H5 had
 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167
been tested in data analyses’ phase 3 using six second-order facto-
rial analyses, one for each of the synthetic indicators of food repu-
tation theoretically assumed by the FRM model: criteria,
techniques and software matched those already adopted in the
first-order factorial analyses, as described in study 1, but in this
case they were applied on the FRM 23 specific indicators scores
to test their relation to the 6 synthetic indicators, according to
the FRM model. Finally, H6 and H7 had been tested respectively
in data analyses’ phase 4 and 5 with a series of correlations and
ANOVAs.
3.3. Results and discussion
3.3.1. Phase 1: Factor analysis for specific indicators
Following the FRM model’s conceptual framework, the most
representative four items for each one of the 23 FRM-2 scales
specific indicators has been selected by means of each of the PCA
run on each scale: in the Supplementary Information, Tables B.2–
B.7 synthesize the single-factor structures emerged for each speci-
fic scale in each of the three conditions (I-III), grouped for each
theoretical synthetic indicator of food reputation.
3.3.2. Phase 2: Reliability analysis for specific indicators
The same tables synthesize how, in general, most of the 23
scales, after the above reported item selection, showed good or
optimal reliability (all tested by Cronbach’s alpha) across the dif-
ferent conditions.
The first two phases of the adopted procedure confirms study
2’s first two main hypotheses—namely (H3) a single-factor struc-
ture and (H4) acceptable reliability (internal consistency index)
across different target foods for each of the 23 FRM scales. Results’
details however point out some issues to be solved. In very few
cases,2 some items reveal non-satisfying results when looking at
the single item performance within a specific scale applied to a cer-
tain condition (see Supplementary Information, Tables B.2–B.7 for
details). Where needed, the non-satisfying items were not consid-
ered when computing the aggregate score for each sub-scale. Then,
the creation of each aggregate score representing each specific
FRM indicator allowed to proceed to the next phases.
3.3.3. Phase 3: Factorial analysis for synthetic indicators
In this phase, six second-order factorial analyses—one for each
of the synthetic indicators of food reputation theoretically
assumed by the FRM model—allowed to explore the FRM synthetic
indicators’ structure underlying the 23 FRM specific indicators.
Specifically (Appendix B, Table B.8), Composition, Genuineness, Life
time and Recognition explained 55% of variance for Essence; Territo-
rial identity, Tradition, Familiarity and Innovativeness explained
53.4% of variance for Cultural Effects; Context, Price and Preparation
explained 46.1% of variance for Economic Effects; Social and envi-
ronmental responsibility, Traceability, Proximity and Safety explained
53.4% of variance for Environmental Effects; Ability to satisfy,
Digestibility and Lightness explained 57.7% of variance for Physio-
logical Effects; finally, Organoleptic perception, Personal memories,
Psycho-physical wellbeing, Conviviality and Group belongingness
explained 49.3% of variance for Psychological Effects. Each of the
exploratory second-order factor analyses presents thus a good
amount of percentage of the relevant synthetic indicator’s vari-
2
Specifically, in four cases, one item was not included in the aggregate scoring. In
the Tradition scale (0.55 < a < 0.63), the ‘‘Tradiz2” item showed the lowest item-factor
average correlation (.49). The Context scale dropped its reliability specifically in
condition II: item ‘‘Cont1” could be reformulated in order to clarify its meaning. The
Ability to satisfy scale showed slightly low alphas too (across conditions:
0.49 < a < 0.56). For the same reason, the item ‘‘PesoCorp3” appears to be non-
optimal in the Lightness scale, whose reliability drops to a = 0.58.
161
ance, which can be explained by the specific indicators expected on
the basis of the FRM model.
3.3.4. Phase 4: Convergent construct validity
First, a general ‘‘FRM score”, representing the overall food repu-
tation across the 6 synthetic indicators, is computed (M = 4.83;
SD = 0.59; N = 585; 55.21% of total explained variance; Appendix
B, Table B.9). Then, in order to test the convergent construct valid-
ity of the FRM score, this is correlated with the other two measures
of food reputation gathered in the questionnaire: the 1-item gen-
eral measure of food reputation (M = 5.57; SD = 1.05; N = 559)
and the 9-item process-product reputation scale (M = 5.49;
SD = 0.99; N = 585). A PCA conducted on this last scale showed a
1-factor structure of the scale (variance explained = 54.41%), with
all factor loadings higher than 0.60, a = 0.89. The correlation
matrix of these three measures of general food reputation is pre-
sented in Table 4. All correlations are significant and show that
the three measures converge, thus demonstrating a good conver-
gent validity of the FRM-2 score emerged from this operationaliza-
tion with the other two global measures of food reputation, across
the three conditions defined by the considered three food items.
3.3.5. Phase 5: Differences in reputation
Finally, a one-way ANOVA is conducted to test whether or not
there is any significant difference in the food reputation level
across the three considered produces: vegetables (I), peeled toma-
toes (II), citrus fruits (III). Relevant statistical assumptions were
met. Specifically, Levene’s test shows that homogeneity of vari-
ances is assumed, with p > 0.05. Normality of distributions is
assumed in conditions I and II, but not in condition III: Shapiro-
Wilk’s test results showed p = 0.45, p = 0.01, p = 0.80, respectively.
Thus, given that observations are independent to each other too,
assumptions for one-way ANOVA are respected in most of the
cases. One-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect of food
category on food reputation: F(2, 582) = 36.01, p < 0.001,
g2 = 0.11. A series of post hoc tests showed that people perceive
citrus fruits to have a greater reputation (M = 5.06; SD = 0.55;
N = 195) than vegetables (M = 4.88; SD = 0.57; N = 186), with
p = 0.002; and peeled tomatoes (M = 4.59; SD = 0.56; N = 204), with
p < 0.001; the difference in reputation between vegetables and
peeled tomatoes was significant too (p < 0.001). Therefore, the
emerged significant differences demonstrate that FRM-2 is sensi-
tive to different reputation levels across different food items. This
result allows to assume that FRM-2 can be used to detect specific
reputation profiles according to the 23 attributes characterizing
different investigated food objects.
Summarizing, study 2 provided a first verification of the
methodological properties of the FRM-2. Such a test concerned
respectively the factorial structure, the reliability, the convergent
validity and the applicability power of the FRM-2. The 23 specific
indicators of food reputation, each one measured by 4 items, are
then summarized by 6 synthetic indicators, consistently with the
FRM model (Bonaiuto, Bonnes et al, 2012; Bonaiuto, Caddeo
et al., 2012; Bonaiuto, De Dominicis et al., 2012). Thus, this study
allowed the setting up and refinement of the main FRM tool (the
FRM-IT version; Table 3), through the provision of a final set of
items (92), presenting acceptable psychometric properties, and
covering all the different facets of the food reputation construct.
Thus, each of these 23 scales comprises a set of four items repre-
senting the markers of food reputation.
4. General discussion
The two reported studies succeeded in testing the first two
hypotheses which originated them (H1 and H2 in study 1; H3
162 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167
Table 4
Study 2 correlation matrix of the three different measures of food reputation.
Measure
1 2
1. FRM score – 4.83
2. General reputation .387*
3. Process/Product reputation .537*
*
Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
and H4 in study 2), thus accomplishing the aim of building an Ital-
ian version of the Food Reputation Map tool (starting with FRM-1,
via FRM-2, arriving to FMR-IT) on the basis of the Food Reputation
Map model (Bonaiuto, Bonnes et al, 2012; Bonaiuto, Caddeo et al.,
2012; Bonaiuto, De Dominicis et al., 2012; as developed on the
basis of Conner & Armitage, 2002 too). The model, built on the
basis of previous literature, envisages 23 specific indicators
describing a food product’s or category’s reputational features.
Each specific indicator is measured by a 4-item marker-pool. Also,
all specific indicators can be organized into six synthetic indicators,
clustering specific indicators into synthetic indicators. The first
tool, FRM-1, is longer and encompasses a total of 154 items mea-
suring the 23 specific indicators. The second tool, FRM-2, consists
of 103 items and it solves the psychometric problems emerged in
study 1 for FRM-1. Study 2 results offer a revised FRM-IT tool hav-
ing 4 items measuring each specific indicator, with a total of 92
items. These items can be considered the markers for measuring
the various features of a food item’s reputation.
Getting a closer look, FRM-IT tool still presents a tiny minority
of items still lowering the internal consistency of their specific
indicators, i.e.: item #22 (Tradition), #33 (Context), #62 (Ability
to satisfy), and #71 (Lightness). While, for the time being, FRM-IT
tool can be used providing that those few items are not considered
when computing their specific indicator score (in order to increase
the indicator’s internal consistency), future research shall reformu-
late those few items. This is important in order both to improve
psychometric features referring to their relation with all other
items measuring the same indicator; and, in doing so, to improve
the psychometric features of the specific indicator they contribute
to.
Getting a broader look, confirming H5 in study 2, the FRM-IT 23
specific indicators can be organized into six synthetic indicators
(which in turn can be used to extract a general FRM score). There-
fore, the final structure of the model underlying the FRM-IT tool
can be summarized as in Table 5. Moreover, the empirical evidence
here reported shows that the whole set of FRM indicators (the gen-
eral FRM factor) converge with other general measures of food rep-
utation (H6). Finally, the FRM-IT and its 23 specific indicators (or
its 6 synthetic indicators) can measure food reputation differently
for the different objects of analysis (H7) thus allowing to track dif-
ferent reputational score profiles for specific food targets.
It should be noted how the FRM model and tool reported above
emerged from a testing involving wide samples (N1 = 2693;
N2 = 585–out of 1308 total participants), which had been gathered
by quota sampling in the Italian population across genders, ages,
and main geographical areas. Moreover, those results had been
achieved using both paper-and-pencil and on-line version, and
preliminary analyses showed no differences between these two
different administration forms (traditional vs. electronic). Finally,
the FRM tool has been developed using different kinds of food
objects, ranging from general food categories covering the main
food classes according to traditional nutritional classifications
(study 1), to specific food products (study 1), up to selected cultur-
ally relevant food produces (study 2). All these three methodolog-
ical features therefore speak in favour of the generalizability of
FRM tool’s structure and reliability.
M SD N
3
0.59 585
– 5.57 1.05 559
.537* – 5.49 0.99 585
Moreover, although the 23 specific indicators measured by the
FRM tool in some cases tackle issues which are also under the focus
of already existing tools dealing with people’s food choices—such
as RES (Harmatz & Kerr, 1981; Williams et al., 1987), FCQ
(Steptoe et al., 1995), or TEMS (Renner et al., 2012)—the FRM here
presented is different and novel if compared to these existing tools
at least in three important aspects:
1. existing tools focus on reasons or motivations to eat the food
that the person usually eats, only; while FRM focuses on the
evaluation of any food target irrespectively of its relations with
one’s own consumption habits (which can be however mea-
sured and then related to the specific FRM resulted profile);
2. existing tools focus on food in general rather than on specific
food items; while FRM can be applied to, and differentiate
among, all kinds of food items (from food categories, to specific
produces, products, brands, etc.);
3. existing tools list a number of dimensions all together, within a
single undifferentiated list; while FRM is organized with a the-
oretical and empirical framework which articulates all the rep-
utation features in a hierarchically meaningful order
encompassing a wider array of features and their grouping
clusters.
The new and promising results of this research should however
be considered in light of some limitations, which can guide future
FRM tool research developments. First, even though both studies
used a large and geographically representative sample of the Ital-
ian population, it is widely acknowledged that food is a fundamen-
tal feature in the Italian culture (Parasecoli, 2004). Therefore, the
outcomes emerged in the Italian sample might be culture-
specific, thus a FRM test in other cultures is needed, in order to
generalize the FRM validity across different cultural and linguistic
contexts. Particularly, the need to prepare and validate a FRM tool
English version would represent an important step toward a wider
availability of the FRM tool. Some research steps have been already
accomplished into such a direction and this will be the object of
further studies. Second, the exploratory nature of this research
allowed to use only explorative first and second order factorial
analyses for investigating FRM structure according to the concept
of food reputation. Future studies may test FRM structure using
confirmatory logic.
4.1. Practical implications
Synthesising, among possible important alternatives, there are
at least five fundamental domains suitable for FRM applications,
which can be highlighted here in view of future developments.
1) Within social sciences, the domain of food choices and
human behaviour (individuals’ perception, assessment, pref-
erences related to food related behaviours, etc.) can be stud-
ied with a proper tool specifically conceived for measuring
food reputation and possessing the above mentioned three
advantages when compared to previously existing tools
measuring people’s food choices and their food’s features
 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167 163

Table 5
The structure of the Food Reputation Map in its validated Italian form with a non-validated English translation (items in italics represent reverse score item). Note: items here
reported are written in third-person plural because the object under investigation has been proposed in plural form (e.g., vegetables).

Synthetic Indicator Specific Indicator ENG (Indicatore Item ITA (validated Italian survey) Item ENG (non-validated English version) Item
ENG (Indicatore specifico ITA) #
sintetico ITA)
ESSENCE (Essenza) Composition (Composizione) Contengono proprietà nutritive importanti They contain important nutritious 1
properties
Sono nutrienti They are nutritious 2
Apportano componenti di scarsa qualità They provide poor nutrient quality 3
Hanno una composizione sana They have an healthy composition 4
Genuineness (Genuinità) Sono genuini They are natural 5
Sono sani They are healthy 6
Contengono additivi chimici They contain chemical additives 7
Contengono ingredienti artificiali They contain artificial ingredients 8
Life time (Durata) Deperiscono rapidamente They quickly rot 9
Si conservano bene nel tempo They remain well preserved with time 10
Sono facilmente deteriorabili They easily decompose 11
Non vanno a male velocemente They do not rapidly deteriorate 12
Recognition (Riconoscibilità) Sono riconoscibili They are recognizable 13
Non si capisce cosa c’è dentro It’s hard to understand what They contain 14
Sono camuffati da altri sapori They are masked by other flavors 15
Sono di scarso valore They are products of low value 16
CULTURAL EFFECTS Territorial identity (Identità Sono legati an un territorio They are bound to a territory 17
(Effetti Culturali) territoriale) Non appartengono alla tradizione di un paese They are detached from a country’s traditions 18
Non fanno parte di storia e costumi di una They are unrelated to the history and habits of 19
comunità a community
Hanno una loro identità territoriale They have their own territorial identity 20
Tradition (Tradizione) Sono composti da ingredienti tradizionali They are made of traditional ingredients 21
Sono distanti dalla tradizione They are far-removed from the tradition 22
Sono preparati secondo canoni tradizionali They are prepared according to traditional 23
methods
Non rispecchiano usanze tradizionali They are unrelated to traditions 24
Familiarity (Familiarità) Sono familiari They are familiar 25
Non rientrano nelle abitudini personali They are unrelated to personal habits 26
Hanno un sapore familiare They have a familiar taste 27
Sono in contrasto con i gusti personali They conflict with personal well known taste 28
Innovativeness (Innovatività) Hanno un sapore nuovo They have a new taste 29
Hanno un sapore sempre diverso They always taste novel 30
Hanno un aspetto nuovo They have a new appearance 31
Hanno una consistenza diversa dal solito Their consistence is different from usual 32
ECONOMIC EFFECTS Context (Contesto) Vengono acquistati e/o consumati in un locale They are bought and/or consumed in a 33
(Effetti Economici) pulito clean place
Vengono acquistati e/o consumati in un locale di They are bought and/or consumed in a place 34
dubbia fama of uncertain reputation
Vengono acquistati e/o consumati in un ambiente They are bought and/or consumed in an 35
sgradevole unpleasant place
Vengono acquistati e/o consumati in un locale They are bought and/or consumed in a 36
con un’immagine positiva place with a positive image
Price (Prezzo) Costano molto They are expensive 37
Valgono i soldi spesi per acquistarli They are worth the price 38
Hanno un prezzo adeguato alla loro effettiva They have an appropriate price for the 39
qualità quality
Hanno un buon rapporto qualità/prezzo They have a good price/quality ratio 40
Preparation (Preparazione) Sono semplici da preparare They are easy to prepare 41
Richiedono una preparazione elaborata They require elaborate preparation 42
Sono veloci da preparare They are quick to prepare 43
Richiedono tempi lunghi di preparazione They take long time to be prepared 44
ENVIRONMENTAL Social and environmental Producono elevati costi ambientali They produce high environmental costs 45
EFFECTS (Effetti responsibility (Responsabilità Hanno ripercussioni negative sull’ambiente They have a negative impact on the 46
Ambientali) sociale e ambientale) environment
Sono prodotti con metodi che rispettano They are produced in a way that respects 47
l’ambiente the environment
Sono prodotti in modo equo e solidale They are produced in a fair-trade way 48
Traceability (Tracciabilità) Non si sa da dove provengono Their origin is unknown 49
Hanno una provenienza tracciabile They have a traceable origin 50
Hanno un’origine garantita They have an official origin 51
Sono certificati They are certified 52
Proximity (Prossimità) Sono della zona in cui si vive They come from and are consumed in a 53
specific place of residence
Sono ‘‘a chilometro zero” They are farm-to-fork (local) 54
Non sono un prodotto locale They are not a local product 55
Hanno origine in un luogo diverso da quello in cui They are from a place different from where 56
li si consuma they are consumed
Safety (Sicurezza) Vengono controllati per stabilirne la sicurezza They are checked in order to establish their 57
safety

(continued on next page)

164 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167

Table 5 (continued)

Synthetic Indicator Specific Indicator ENG (Indicatore Item ITA (validated Italian survey) Item ENG (non-validated English version) Item
ENG (Indicatore specifico ITA) #
sintetico ITA)
Sono sottoposti a controlli di sicurezza They are subjected to food safety inspection 58
alimentare
Non sono sicuri They are dangerous to consume 59
Non rispettano le normative sulla sicurezza They violate food safety’s regulations 60
alimentare
PHYSIOLOGICAL Ability to satisfy (Capacità di Sono una fonte efficace di sostentamento They are an effective source of food 61
EFFECTS (Effetti saziare) Sono poco utili all’organismo They leave people hungry 62
Fisiologici) Non saziano pienamente They do not fill people enough 63
Appagano sul piano della sazietà They satisfy in terms of satiation 64
Digestibility (Digeribilità) Sono facilmente digeribili They are easily digestible 65
Sono leggeri per lo stomaco They are light on the stomach 66
Lasciano postumi fisici negativi They leave negative physical consequences 67
Hanno ripercussioni negative sull’organismo They have a negative impact on the body 68
Lightness/ Fanno aumentare eccessivamente di peso They make people gain excessive weight 69
Healthiness (Leggerezza/ Fanno ingrassare They make people overweight 70
Salubrità) Contribuiscono alla salute fisica They contribute positively to physical 71
health
Contribuiscono a prevenire le malattie They contribute to the prevention of 72
diseases

PSYCHOLOGICAL Organoleptic perception Hanno un buon sapore They taste good 73

EFFECTS (Effetti (Percezione organolettica)
Psicologici)
Personal memories (Memorie
personali)
Psycho-physical wellbeing
(Benessere psico-fisiologico)
Conviviality (Convivialità)
Group belongingness
(Appartenenza di gruppo)
Sono gustosi They are appetizing 74
Hanno un sapore sgradevole They have an unpleasant taste 75
Non soddisfano il palato They do not satisfy taste 76
Ricordano il passato They remind people of the past 77
Non stimolano dei ricordi They are not connected with memories of the 78
past
Fanno ricordare di quando si era bambini They remind people of childhood 79
Ricordano sapori e immagini di un tempo They remind people of flavors and images 80
lontano of the distant past
Promuovono il benessere psicofisico They promote mental and physical 81
wellness
Incidono positivamente sull’umore They positively affect mood 82
Rigenerano dal punto di vista psicofisico They revitalize mental and physical 83
wellness
Provocano sentimenti ed emozioni positive They elicit positive feelings and emotions 84
Possono essere consumati insieme ad altre They can be consumed together with other 85
persone people
È difficile goderne in compagnia It is not suitable to enjoy them in company 86
Rendono difficile la comunicazione con le altre They make communication with other people 87
persone hard
Non si prestano a situazioni di socialità They are not very suitable with social 88
situations
Fanno sentire di appartenere alla propria They make people feel like they belong to 89
famiglia one’s own family
Permettono di identificarsi con il proprio They facilitate people’s identify with their 90
gruppo di riferimento own reference group
Costituiscono un comune denominatore con le They are a common denominator with 91
altre persone del proprio gruppo others from people’s own group
Permettono di sviluppare e/o mantenere senso They allow people to develop and/or to 92
di appartenenza nei confronti del proprio maintain a sense of belonging to their own
gruppo etnico ethnic group

perceptions and assessments. Upon this basis lies a wide
range of possible applied uses. In fact, the accurate knowl-
edge of the most positive (together with that of the less pos-
itive or most negative) features of a target food item’s
reputation can allow to make informed decisions and there-
fore to improve several aspects and/or processes related to a
specific product, whether regarding its production phase,
the supply chain, up to the marketing and final consumption
phase and/or its discard processes. The following points rep-
resent main developments of such a basic approach.
2) Regarding the consumers, the domain of individuals’ and
groups’ decision-making (promotion of healthy consumers’
awareness, knowledge, choices, etc.) can be addressed and
a possible application involves the focus on the consumer’s
decisions, given that consumer behaviour about food is dri-
ven, among other variables, by food reputation: that is, an
individual’s choices are determined, to a certain extent, by
some reputational aspects within the food domain too. Pre-
liminary evidences tested the significant effect that FRM fea-
tures can have when they are manipulated in terms of
information made available on a food or drink product’s
label (Bonaiuto, Caddeo et al., 2012; Bonaiuto, De
Dominicis et al., 2012). But other realms of application can
be envisaged, such as, for example, studying obese persons
food categories’ reputational features: an intervention on
the consumption or on the production phase could be
planned on the basis of their reputational profile. Here,
therefore, providing consumers and other stakeholders with
tools for improving their knowledge but also their aware-
ness of food reputational features, it is a fundamental step
for improving decision making and eventually for planning
focused and informed interventions in order to change cer-
 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167
tain food habits (e.g., Levin, Huneke, & Jasper, 2000; Levin,
Jasper, & Forbes, 1998; Levin, Prosansky, Heller, & Brunick,
2001).
3) Regarding the producers, the domain of business and man-
agement (consumer-to-business value creation, investments
on product features, etc.) could be addressed using FRM. For
example, from such a stakeholder perspective, by knowing
that one specific product lacks reputation on some specific
indicators, or that it is strong on other aspects, it would be
possible to better focus investments, for example in order
to orient productions, or in terms of marketing, distribution
and communication efforts (e.g., by correcting the specific
food item, or for example intervening on the way it is
prepared/cooked or communicated). As a concrete example,
it has been shown that consumers’ knowledge of social and
environmental responsibility differently impact on con-
sumer food choice, where knowledge of environmental
responsibility induces a higher marginal willingness to pay
(Mueller Loose & Remaud, 2013). This means that, if a pro-
ducer knows about, for example, its customers’ perceptions
of the environmental effects of a given product (e.g., via
one of the synthetic and specific FRM indicators), it could
plan future actions in order to counteract or increase its out-
comes in terms of customers’ choices.
4) The domain of marketing (products’ reputation manage-
ment, advertisement of product features, etc.) is of course
a target for FRM applications too. By drawing reputational
longitudinal data on a specific food product, it would be pos-
sible to monitor its trends and therefore to inform both
short- and long-term production and/or marketing strate-
gies, allowing producers to improve and monitor their prod-
ucts in the long run, in terms of temporal and competitors’
benchmark too: in fact, it is well known in marketing litera-
ture that brand (or product) reputation is one of the stronger
predictor of long term customer loyalty (e.g., Selnes, 1993), a
fundamental asset in contemporary markets.
5) Finally, from the perspective of stakeholders such as policy
makers, opinion-leaders, and the like, the domain of policy
and communication is another area where FRM data could
be relevant too. In fact, from a broader perspective, following
the reasoning of the long-term monitoring over specific
products, or classes of products, thanks to FRM’s flexibility
it would be possible to monitor the long-term reputational
variability of specific products, classes of products, and also
of broader food categories. In these cases, for example, it
could be useful to understand reputational strengths and
weaknesses of a class of products in order to drive agricul-
tural policies and media communication campaigns. Also,
many social-psychological relevant factors such as, for
example, social networks and group identity (which, in
FRM terms, are relevant for conviviality and group belong-
ingness indicators) explain many markets dynamics
(Janssen & Wander, 2001): therefore, the possibility of
acquiring some specific knowledge over the relevant FRM
indicators, for a target food, carries practical implications
for such a realm and stakeholders too.
Of course, all such applications could be referred to the same
produce, category or product over time; as well as to different
items compared among them; or to the same item compared once
it is presented within, or associated to, a certain framework.
4.2. Conclusion
In the near future, coping with the challenge of food would be
one of the most important global issues to be addressed (FAO,
165
2013; UN, 2015). From the behavioural sciences perspective, an
understanding of the processes driving food market and political
decision-making, as well as consumers’ behaviours, is a fundamen-
tal asset to be developed. In this respect, the crucial importance of
food reputation lies in its theoretical implications for understand-
ing consumers behaviour: various aspect of food reputation (and of
reputation in general) can be related, by its definition, to the joint
function of reflective and impulsive mechanisms of human con-
sumer behaviour (e.g., Strack & Deutsch, 2004; Strack, Werth, &
Deutsch, 2006). Indeed, the definition of food reputation can shed
a light on these processes’ results, for a greater understanding of
why people choose a certain food. Food reputation is therefore a
powerful variable that affect consumers’ choices regarding food
and drink (Bonaiuto, Caddeo et al., 2012; Bonaiuto, De Dominicis
et al., 2012); and it can eventually be relevant in driving producers,
marketers and policy makers too. In fact, food features as caught by
the FRM tool shed a light on how a person view any assessed food
item in terms of a social agent: any food’s FRM profile can help in
understanding how a person view a specific target food’s features,
its contextual impacts (over the culture, the mundane situations,
the environment), and its health and wellbeing impacts (in terms
of the individual and of its social relations). A FRM profile allows
to know – from the perspective of the specific stakeholder consid-
ered, and for any given food item considered – how certain features
can be considered an asset and certain other features a weakness
(either relatively to the same food across time, or across different
food items, or across different stakeholders’ groups). Starting from
this detailed and specific knowledge capital, a number of action
plans could be then informed, whether for example in the realm
of the production, or marketing, or political, or clinical intervention
over food and drink matters.
Acknowledgements
This research was made possible thanks to Nestlé Italiana S.p.A.
(Grant ‘‘Food Reputation Map: Sviluppo per il Progetto Axía 2013”)
awarded to the first author as a development of a previous grant.
Its contents are the responsibility of this article’s authors and do
not necessarily represent the position of the funding body and ini-
tiative. Special thanks to Manuela Kron (Corporate Affairs Director
at Nestlé Italiana S.p.A.) and Alessandra Medolago Albani (Partner
and CEO at Cantiere di Comunicazione – TakeGroup) for their sup-
port, feedback and discussion across several meetings. A further
partial support was made possible thanks to Sapienza Università
di Roma (Grant ‘‘Food Reputation Map: sviluppo dello strumento”,
Year 2014 - prot. C26A1482K4) awarded to the first author.
Authors are grateful to two anonymous reviewers who provided
precious and constructive suggestions to improve both text and
tables in the final version.
Appendix A
See Tables A.1 and A.2.
Appendix B
See Tables B.1, B.8 and B.9.
Appendix C. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.
004.
166 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167

Table A.1 Table B.8

Finalized sample size in study 1 for each of the 10 conditions. PCA 1-factor structures for each synthetic indicator of food reputation in study 2 and
the specific indicators’ factor loadings.
Condition N %
Synthetic and Specific indicators Factor loadings
1 Meat, Fish, Egg 295 11.0
2 Cereals and Potatoes 368 13.7 Essence
3 Milk and diaries 273 10.1 Composition 0.869
4 Legumes 239 8.9 Genuineness 0.861
5 Vegetables 294 10.9 Life time 0.256
6 Fruit 269 10.0 Recognition 0.799
7 Non-alcoholic beverages 271 10.1 Variance explained 55.00%
8 Alcoholic beverages 234 8.7
Cultural Effects
9 Mineral water 227 8.4
Territorial identity 0.758
10 Chocolate milk 223 8.3
Tradition 0.804
Total 2693 100.0 Familiarity 0.8
Innovativeness 0.526
Variance explained 53.40%

Table A.2 Economic Effects

Number of items in study 1 (FRM-1) for each of the 23 specific indicators of food Context 0.701
reputation. Price 0.614
Preparation 0.718
Specific Indicator # of items Variance explained 46.13%
1. Composition 8 Environmental Effects
2. Genuineness 11 Social and environmental responsibility 0.759
3. Life time 4 Traceability 0.777
4. Recognition 8 Proximity 0.619
5. Territorial identity 7 Safety 0.756
6. Tradition 6 Variance explained 53.40%
7. Familiarity 5
8. Innovativeness 11 Physiological Effects
9. Context 10 Ability to satisfy 0.616
10. Price 6 Digestibiliy 0.815
11. Preparation 4 Lightness 0.83
12. Social and environmental responsibility 8 Variance explained 57.73%
13. Traceability 6 Psychological Effects
14. Proximity 5 Organoleptic perception 0.696
15. Safety 4 Personal memories 0.755
16. Ability to satisfy 4 Psycho-physical wellbeing 0.832
17. Digestibiliy 8 Conviviality 0.472
18. Lightness 5 Group belongingness 0.705
19. Organoleptic perception 10 Variance explained 49.30%
20. Personal memories 4
21. Psycho-physical wellbeing 8
22. Conviviality 6
23. Group belongingness 6
Table B.9
Total 154
PCA 1-factor structure of the general measure of food reputation in study 2 and the
synthetic indicators’ factor loadings.

Table B.1 Synthetic and Specific indicators Factor loadings

Number of items in study 2 (FRM-2) for each of the 23 specific indicators of food Essence 0.797
reputation. Cultural Effects 0.679
Economic Effects 0.706
Specific Indicator # of items
Environmental Effects 0.687
Composition 5 Physiological Effects 0.797
Genuineness 6 Psychological Effects 0.781
Life time 4
Variance explained 55.21%
Recognition 4
Territorial identity 4
Tradition 6
Familiarity 5
Innovativeness 4 References
Context 5
Price 4 Anholt, S. (2006). Competitive identity: The new brand management for nations, cities
Preparation 4 and regions. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Social and environmental responsibility 5 Anholt, S. (2010). Places: Identity, image and reputation. Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Traceability 4 Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Proximity 5 Asch, S. W. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Social
Safety 4 Psychology, 41, 258–290.
Bonaiuto, M., Bonnes, M., Carrus, G., Fornara, F., Bonaiuto, F., Caddeo, P., et al. (2012).
Ability to satisfy 4
La reputazione dei cibi nei processi di decisione di consumo alimentare. In A. A.
Digestibiliy 5
V. V. Axìa (Ed.), Imparare dalla diversità, creare valore per l’Italia (pp. 121–169).
Lightness 5
Palermo: Qanat.
Organoleptic perception 4 Bonaiuto, M., Caddeo, P., Carrus, G., De Dominicis, S., Maroni, B., & Bonnes, M.
Personal memories 4 (2012). Food reputation impacts on consumer’s food choice. Corporate
Psycho-physical wellbeing 4 Communications: An International Journal, 17(4), 462–482. http://dx.doi.org/
Conviviality 4 10.1108/13563281211274158.
Group belongingness 4 Bonaiuto, M., De Dominicis, S., Caddeo, P., & Troffa, R. (2012). A mixed method
approach to investigate food reputation in young consumers’ choice. In M.
Total 103
Bustreo & V. Russo (Eds.), Proceedings of the child and teen consumption 2012
 M. Bonaiuto et al. / Food Quality and Preference 59 (2017) 156–167
«food consumption, communication, life styles and fashion» (pp. 711–729).
Palermo: Qanat.
Bromley, D. E. (1993). Reputation, image, and impression management. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
Bromley, D. E. (2001). Relationships between personal and corporate reputation.
European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 316–334.
Bromley, D. E. (2002). Comparing corporate reputations: League, tables, quotients,
benchmarks, or case studies? Corporate Reputation Review, 5(1), 35–50.
Castiglione, E., Borriello, R., Napoletano, M. R., & Pittiglio, L. (2007). Gli acquisti
alimentari in Italia: tendenze recenti e nuovi profili di consumo. Roma: ISMEA.
Conner, M. & Armitage, C.J. (2002), The Social Psychology of Food, Buckingham-
Philadelphia: Open University Press. It. Trans., La psicologia a tavola, Il Mulino,
Bologna, 2008.
EEA (2010). The European environment — state and outlook 2010: Thematic assessment
d adapting to climate change. European Environment Agency.
EEA (2012). Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe — Challenges and
opportunities for cities together with supportive national and European policies,
EEA Report No 2/2012. European Environment Agency.
Emler, N. (1990). A social psychology of reputation. European Review of Social
Psychology, 1(1), 171–193.
FAO (2013). The state of food insecurity in the world, the multiple dimensions of food
security. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Grauman, K., & Kruse, L. (1990). The environment: Social construction and
psychological problems. In H. T. Himmelveit & G. Garkell (Eds.), Societal
psychology (pp. 212–229). London: Sage.
Harmatz, M. G., & Kerr, B. B. (1981). Over-eating behaviour: A multi-causal
approach. Obesity and Metabolism, 1, 134–139.
ISTAT (2015). Italy in figures 2015. Rome, Italy: Italian National Institute of Statistics.
Janssen, M. A., & Wander, J. (2001). Fashions, habits and changing preferences:
Simulation of psychological factors affecting market dynamics. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 22(6), 745–772.
Kennedy, E. T., Ohls, J., Carlson, S., & Fleming, K. (1995). The healthy eating index:
Design and applications. Journal of American Diet Association, 95, 1103–1108.
Levin, I. P., Jasper, J. D., & Forbes, W. S. (1998). Choosing versus rejecting options at
different stages of decision making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(3),
193–210.
Levin, I. P., Huneke, M. E., & Jasper, J. D. (2000). Information processing at successive
stages of decision making: Need for cognition and inclusion-exclusion effects.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(2), 171–193.
Levin, I. P., Prosansky, C. M., Heller, D., & Brunick, B. M. (2001). Prescreening of
choice options in ‘‘positive” and ‘‘negative” decision-making tasks. Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making, 14(4), 279–293.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-A., Aberg, L., & Sjöden, P. O. (2001).
Attitudes towards organic foods among Swedish consumers. British Food
Journal, 103(3), 209–226.
Magnusson, M. K., Arvola, A., Koivisto Hursti, U.-A., Aberg, L., & Sjöden, P. O. (2003).
Choice of organic foods is related to perceived consequences for human health
and to environmentally friendly behaviour. Appetite, 40(3), 109–117.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic
approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3),
413–439.
167
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. Farr & S.
Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mueller Loose, S., & Remaud, H. (2013). Impact of corporate social responsibility
claims on consumer food choice: A cross-cultural comparison. British Food
Journal, 115(1), 142–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070701311289920.
Nagashima, A. (1977). A comparative, ‘‘Made In” product image survey among
Japanese businessmen. Journal of Marketing, 41(3), 95–100.
Olivero, N., & Russo, V. (2008). Manuale di psicologia dei consumi [handbook of
consumption psychology]. Milano: McGraw-Hill.
Palmonari A., Cavazza N. & Rubini M. (2002). Psicologia sociale. Il Mulino: Bologna.
Parasecoli, F. (2004). Food culture in Italy. Greenwood Publishing Group.
Petrini, C. (2005). Buono, pulito e giusto. Principi di nuova gastronomia. Torino:
Einaudi.
Petrini, C. (2010). Terra madre. Come non farci mangiare dal cibo. Firenze: Giunti.
Renner, B., Sproesser, G., Strohbach, S., & Schupp, H. T. (2012). Why we eat what we
eat. The Eating Motivation Survey (TEMS). Appetite, 59, 117–128. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.04.004.
Selnes, F. (1993). An examination of the effect of product performance on brand
reputation, satisfaction and loyalty. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 2,
45–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000002981.
Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. M., & Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a measure of the
motives underlying the selection of food: The food choice questionnaire.
Appetite, 25, 267–284.
Strack, F., & Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(3), 220–247.
Strack, F., Werth, L., & Deutsch, R. (2006). Reflective and impulsive determinants of
consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(3), 205–216.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In S.
Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 2–24).
Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and
biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of
choice. Science, 211(4481), 458–543.
van Riel, C. B. M., & Fombrun, C. J. (2006). Essentials of corporate communication.
London: Routledge.
UN (2015). General Assembly, 17th session Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/ga/
search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E.
USDA (1992). The food guide pyramid. Home and Garden Bull. Washington, DC;
Report No.: 252.
USDA and USHHS – The U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human
Services (2010). Dietary guidelines for Americans, 2010 (7th ed.). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Williams, A., Spencer, C. P., & Edelman, R. J. (1987). Restraint theory, locus of control
and the situational analysis of binge eating. Personality and Individual
Differences, 8(1), 67–74.
Zaccarini Bonelli, C. et al. (2012). Valutazione della strategia nazionale in materia di
programmi operativi sostenibili nel settore ortofrutticolo 2012. Relazione
Finale. Roma, ISMEA – Istituto di Servizi per il Mercato Agricolo Alimentare.