Social media impact on consumer’s food choice · specifically, digging up on this area, what is...

EXPOSÉ

Social media impact on consumer’s food choice

Submitted by

Andres de Oliveira Cornejo

European Master in Business Studies

Universität Kassel

Kassel, Germany 23rd October

2017

S o c i a l m e d i a i m p a c t o n c o n s u m e r ’ s f o o d c h o i c e P a g e | 1

ABSTRACT

Title

Social media impact on consumer’s food choice.

Background

Studies about consumer behavior and the motivations behind it have been investigated for a

long time and are still a very debated topic (Ajzen, 1991, 2002; Armitage & Conner, 2001;

Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988) . When it concerns food, and more specifically, food

choice, there are many sides and aspects which can be debated. Psychologic, biologic,

sociologic, business and management contexts are only few within many other possibilities

(Quevedo-Silva et al., 2016; van der Laan, Ridder, Viergever, & Smeets, 2011; van

Huylenbroek, Aertsens, Verbeke, Mondelaers, & van Huylenbroeck, 2009). The role and

definition of social media has been presented in different studies (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010;

Xiang & Gretzel, 2010) and even if some definitions are not exactly the same, one thing is

common and validated, that the use of this tool on consumers life’s changed in somehow not

only the way of choosing products, services, but also looking for food (Abbar, Mejova, &

Weber, 2015; Russo & Simeone, 2017).

Purpose and Contribution

The aim of this study is to correlate the use of social media with consumer’s food choice, and

by doing so provide managerial implications to the restaurant and food industry. More

specifically, digging up on this area, what is the impact that user generated content (UCG) or

consumer generated images (CGI) have on consumers decisions before decide either or not

going to a restaurant. To the best of the author’s knowledge this is a very recent topic and there

are only few studies which analyzed this phenomenon and provided managerial implications.

Indeed, this topic is very important and some researches confirmed the importance of social

network (perhaps the biggest platform where social media can be shared), being the second

most cited topic in the management, business and food study field between 2000 and 2015

(Lamberton & Stephen, 2016). The relevance of User Generated Content (UGC) is also

presented and analyzed by other authors (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016; Luca, 2015; O’Hern &

Kahle, 2013). Hence it enables companies and why not consumers to understand the relation

and implications of the use of technology, by assessing causes and consequences in these

topics.


Method

Independent variables related with consumer’s food choice would be utilized, for instance

quality, tastiness perception, type of occasion, trendiness, healthy or unhealthy associations,

price. Those and other variables will be supported by the Theory of Planned Behaviour which

consider beliefs, subjective norms and perceived control factors. Those variables will be

correlated with the dependent variable which is food choice (final affected behavior).

Therefore, online questionnaires, designed with Sphynx IQ2 will be addressed to men and

women who utilize social media as a tool of food choice. Approach used is of quantitative

deductive type. Data will be analyzed using regression analysis.

Keywords: social media, user generated content, images, consumer behavior, food choice.


List of Figures

Figure 1: The Theory of Planned Behavior……………………………………………………9

List of abbreviations

DSMM - Digital, Social Media and Mobile

H - Hypothesis

RQ - Research Question

TPB - Theory of Planned Behavior

TRA - Theory of Reasoned Action

UGC - User Generated Content


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Mobile marketing ............................................................................................................................ 6

User Generated Content .................................................................................................................. 6

Social media .................................................................................................................................... 7

Problem statement ............................................................................................................................... 7

Structure .............................................................................................................................................. 9

Theoretical Background .......................................................................................................................... 9

Theory of Planned Behavior ............................................................................................................... 9

Literature Review .................................................................................................................................. 10

Research Gap, Questions and Hypotheses ........................................................................................ 11

Research Gap ................................................................................................................................ 11

Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 12

Hypotheses .................................................................................................................................... 13

Limitations of the research ................................................................................................................ 13

Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 13

Work Plan ............................................................................................................................................. 15

References ............................................................................................................................................. 16


Introduction

Background

The last decade and a half was marked by important transformations of marketing.

Technological innovation is a constant phenomenon and present in the development of digital,

social media, and mobile (DSMM) marketing. Among the innovations the advance and access

to Internet came as one of the main important benefits, either to the consumer and even before,

during the 70’s to companies. Speed of connection, social media websites and apps like

Messenger, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and the combination of those platforms were the

final and current results of the globalization and spread of information around the world.

(Lamberton & Stephen, 2016, p. 159).

A content platform, Olapic, made a research together with Censuswide with the objective to

provide insights, based on an online survey, into why, what and how users (consumers) of

platforms (Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat) create, find and enlist with user-generated content

(Olapic, 216, p.3). Results showed that around 45% of the 4,578 interviewees look at user-

generated images for inspiration once a day or more. Also, seventy-four percent of them have

uploaded images followed by hashtags about a brand. When it comes to awareness and brand

advocacy it was found that consumers trust more on images published on social media by other

consumers than any other advertisement. This data is of extremely importance when someone

considers that one of the most shared “products” on the social network is food. The options for

doing so increase every year and set competition between companies which are mentioned on

those platforms and also companies who are still not mentioned but who want to get its own

part on this niche.

Technology has facilitated novel market behaviors, interactions and experiences. Apps like

Instagram enabled people to communicate, share moments, feelings, experiences, but also

created possibility to companies to understand more what consumers are thinking, how they

behave, where they buy, what do they prefer (Gallegos, 2016; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010). At

the same time, consumers gained more power, on the decision process, on the variability of

choices, on their preferences, and on the purchase and choice intentions. Images, texts, reviews,

videos, all those types of data are of extremely importance and can be used by the consumers

to determine their behaviors but on the other hand it also shape their actions (Spence, Okajima,

Cheok, Petit, & Michel, 2016). Social networks count for the second most mentioned topic

between 2000 and 2015. Citations correlated to this overpass more than 1,100 and other topics


are also correlated, for instance consumer-focused and user generated content. The former

describes and investigates buyer and consumer behaviour, and the last also important for this

study assess content inserted by consumers in online platforms, most of them are online reviews

but it can be also considered images (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016). Still in the beginning of

this century the Internet was considered a very important element, in fact Lamberton & Stephen

described it: “Internet could help individuals by providing access to other consumers, either as

audience members or as information sources. Qualitative researchers drew attention to the fact

that consumers sought self-definition through expression in both personal portals and online

communities” (Lamberton & Stephen, 2016, p. 152).

Mobile marketing

There are many types of mobile marketing applications which can be used for different

purposes, depending on the goal of the company or business. For instance, one of the most

famous types is mobile social media (Yadav, Joshi, & Rahman, 2015, p. 336) which is a strong

and powerful tool mechanism of communication. Said that, communication do not only involve

the exchange of information among users but also enable a third element, for instance a

company, to establish any kind of relation with the consumer (Yadav, Joshi, & Rahman, 2015).

This relation implies offer of one service or product in exchange of money, what is known as

purchase. The phenomenon seems quite easy to understand, however the explanation of how

this relation between consumer and company became fast, direct and auto regulated is not so

simple

Communication is the basis for this whole process and to describe the role of the user of a

mobile cell phone nowadays it is necessary to comprehend through which channel it occurs.

This relation would not be possible without the existence of the internet, more precisely the

network. Login in any social platform can be made by the use of wireless local area network

or phone carrier signal for example. Yadav, Joshi, & Rahman defined the omnipresent network

as the platform where mobile marketing is done and where any person who possess a

dispositive (computer, netbook or mobile phone) can be part of the system and exercise

different activities within this virtual space (Yadav et. Al, 2015).

User Generated Content

UGC is totally different nowadays from what existed during the 80’s. 2017’s user-generated

content encompasses technological drivers (extremely fast connection and powerful devices),

economic drivers and social drivers, the millennials or “digitally born” are an example of the


last driver. Moreover, UGC presents a new relation of who creates and who sees what has being

created, thus this is characterized by a shift of power from the enterprise to the consumer

(O’Hern & Kahle, 2013).

This shift of power enable gives the possibility to consumers to express their opinions,

perceptions, evaluations, experiences and also a more subjective type of information which is

feelings. One may argue that consumers had this power before, indeed they had, however

before the emergence, boom and expansion of social media websites like Facebook or Twitter

or Instagram, the speed and range of people who were getting in contact with any type of

information was not that huge (O’Hern & Kahle, 2013).

Social media

The term social media belongs to another previous important event which was the creation of

“Open Diary” by Bruce and Susan Abelson, this was an old version of what we know as social

networking site which allowed users to publish texts into one community. The advent of the

concept of blog came right after and the participation of people as users on the internet were

just increasing at the same time that the access and advance of technology was happening as

well (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 60). More and nowadays well-known social networking

sites started to appear in the beginning of 2000’s, for instance, MySpace and Facebook. With

those platforms the term Social Media aroused and became stronger.

Social media comprises two directly related concepts which are User Generated Content and

Web 2.0. The Web 2.0 basically implies the utilization of the World Wide Web with the

additional tool of modifying content previously created and published. So, for example, Adobe

Flash is considered one of the outcomes of the Web 2.0 enabling users to add animations and

audios to web pages (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61). Following this line of reasoning Kaplan

& Haenlein define Social media as: “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the

ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange

of User Generated Content” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p. 61)

Problem statement

Satisfaction of food and appreciation can be assessed through sensorial perceptions tests. Most

of the studies did it showing real food to respondents and applying Fixed-point scales (FPS) or

visual analogue scales (VAS), which are examples of rating methods (Andersen & Hyldig,


2015, p. 9). Through social media websites, platforms and applications, only two basically

sensorial perceptions can be played: vision and hearing. Therefore, suggesting and determining

which factors impact consumer’s food choice when using a mobile and having access to user

generated content seems easy because only two sensorial perceptions are involved. Conversely

it is not, due to the high complexity of possible associations which come to a person’s mind

when a picture or video of food is showed to him or her.

Furthermore, visual presentation can change also taste, odor and even flavor perceptions

(Delwiche, 2012; van der Laan et al., 2011). Thus, as also presented by another author, “the

way in which a food is plated (i.e., presented visually) exerts an impact on people’s flavour

perception, and can modify people’s subsequent food choices” (Spence et al., 2016, p. 55) or

as suggested by a restaurant consultant and publisher of the CODE Bulleting: “I’m sure some

restaurants are preparing food now that is going to look good on Instagram” (Saner, 2015).

That said, the number of possibilities, restaurants, types of foods, reviews are way higher in

numbers on the internet than the variables that a consumer who is walking on the streets has.

What also leverages another phenomenon which is the exacerbation of physiological hunger

due to the enormous and frequent exhibition of virtual foods (images and videos), which

directly or indirectly affect consumer decisions (Spence et al., 2016, p. 54). By considering all

the information mentioned above, it is evident that the food industry and business relies quite

a lot on what consumers “post, upload, share” on different social networking platforms. The

content comes in the form of images, videos, and also texts, which can be considered as reviews

for example. For this study images are the most important factor, and all the possible subjective,

objective, cognitive and other type of relations are extremely considered for delineating the

final consumer behavior.

The sight of images (food) is the problem and solution at the same time for understanding the

reasoning and justification of consumers decision’s. Any behavior, according to the Theory of

Planned Behavior can me motivated by beliefs, subjective normal and perceived control. More

about this theory will be presented in the section Theoretical Background. For now, it is

important to understand that emotional, situational and objective factors are outcomes and

interpretations of what a person sees on her or his Instagram story or another Instagram profile

for example. Those above-mentioned factors will shape the intentions of the consumer and

therefore his final behavior which can be going to eat restaurant A, not going to eat or for

example choosing another restaurant with the same type of food or even changing completely

the type of food and restaurant.


Structure

After explaining terms and concepts of Social Media, Social Networking and User Generated

Content, the research questions and hypotheses will be elaborated and tested. The methodology

of this study will be designed based and in function of the theoretical background of the Theory

of Planned Behavior. The study will be conducted in Germany, but also other countries may

be target of questionnaire and analysis. The final conclusion will possibly, based on the TPB

explain the main reasons for determined type of food choice (behavior) and it is assumed that

from the data analysis, managerial suggestions to specific or maybe in an overall, companies

will be made.

Theoretical Background

Theory of Planned Behavior will be used as the theoretical background of this study.

Theory of Planned Behavior

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) is an extension and continued model of the Theory of

Reasoned Action (Ajzen 1985, 1991; Ajzen and Madden, 1986). This research model has been

used by many authors when trying to predict behavioral intentions, therefore it is present either

in social psychologic studies or in marketing and management, which is the case of this Master

Thesis. Some previous researches (Armitage and Conner, 2001; Collins and Carey, 2007;

Hansen et. Al, 2004) have been made and also different experiments which in somehow tested

the valence and applicability of this theory (Coary & Poor, 2016; Collins & Carey, 2007;

Hansen, Møller Jensen, & Stubbe Solgaard, 2004; Thompson, Haziris, & Alekos, 1994;

Thompson & Vourvachis, 1995; Yazdanpanah & Forouzani, 2015; Zanoli & Naspetti, 2002)

The theory, as mentioned by other author “is one of the most widely researched models for

predicting behavioral intentions by social psychologists (Armitage and Conner, 2001; Collins

and Carey, 2007; Fielding et al., 2008; Norman et al., 2007)” (Chen & Tung, 2014).

The two components which affect the Behavioral Intention, attitude and subjective norm can

be independently measured. Attitudes towards the behavior is composed by beliefs about the

results of a certain behavior, which in this case considers the likelihood of the consumer to

perform a behavior. On the other hand, subjective norm is predicted by normative beliefs about

what relevant other people (salient referents) say or commend, measured by motivation to

comply with what has been said by them.

The model is defined according to this figure:


Figure 1: The Theory of Planned Behavior (Armitage & Conner, 2001).

Literature Review

Topic Author (Year), Title, Journal Content

Social

Media

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users

of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of Social Media. Business

Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Clarification on what is

social media and

differentiate it from Web 2.0

and User Generated Content.

Classification of Social

Media and managerial

advices for business which

utilize SM.

Social

Media

Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A

Thematic Exploration of Digital, Social

Media, and Mobile Marketing: Research

Evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an Agenda

for Future Inquiry. Journal of Marketing,

80(6), 146–172.

https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0415

Resume and extent research

of the most important articles

between 2000 and 2015

related with the topic

DSMM.

Behavioral

Beliefs

Normative

Beliefs

Control

Beliefs PBC

Subjetcive

Norm

Attitude

Intention Behavior


User

Generated

Content

O’Hern, M. S., & Kahle, L. R. (2013). The

Empowered Customer: User-Generated

Content and the Future of Marketing. Global

Economics and Management Review, 18(1),

22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2340-

1540(13)70004-5

Presentation of UGC concept

and the relation with shift of

power from firms to

consumers.

User

Generated

Content

Luca, M. (2015). User-Generated Content and

Social Media. In Handbook of Media

Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 563–592). Elsevier.

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63685-

0.00012-7

Economical definition of

what is User Generated

Content, Social Media and

the impacts on market.

Food

selection &

Sensorial

perceptions

Quevedo-Silva, F., Freire, O., Lima-Filho, D.

d. O., Brandão, M. M., Isabella, G., &

Moreira, L. B. (2016). Intentions to purchase

food through the internet: Developing and

testing a model. British Food Journal, 118(3),

572–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-

2015-0305

Describes and explain the

main important factors

affecting intention to

purchase food by using the

internet.

Theory of

Planned

Behavior

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned

behavior. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-

T

Revision and discussion of

the TPB. Inclusion of past

behavior is also made.

Research Gap, Questions and Hypotheses

Research Gap

After the overview of the above-mentioned literature and other many articles, a research gap

was founded and it concerns, as mentioned before, the impact of social media (more

specifically user generated content) on consumers’ food choice. A recent study published in

the Journal of Consumer Marketing has analyzed how consumer-generated images shape

consumption of products and services on the food domain (Coary & Poor, 2016). However, the

author analyzed the choice for healthy versus indulgent food and how the delay caused by the

CGI impacted consumers’ savoring.


The research gap which this study tries to answer was also suggested by Coary & Poor. Social

media, consumer’s food choice and consumer behavior are not definitely new topics. As

mentioned before they were already discussed, debated and explained in different literatures

and fields. The topic of this study and the research gap emerge from the combination of those

three terms wrote before. Understand the impacts that the internet has caused in consumers life

is one of the first steps, afterwards it is also important to associate this with the advent of the

use of mobile devices and the so-called social media in this last century. Moreover, the creation

of networking platforms made possible that people started sharing what they like, what they

do, how they do, when they do and so on. Said that, food as a topic of discussion between

friends, families and groups just came naturally. The possibility of sharing it gave consumers

more power and “weakened” the food industry. This comes with brackets because the right use

of social media as a tool to target consumers’ needs is what will delineate the success or not of

a company. And within this tangled scenario, understanding the role of social media on

consumer’s behavior is more than a company’s choice, it is a must.

Therefore, this research will try to find the possible reasons, motivations, norms and other

possible determinants (which may appear in the short future with the study) associated with

consumer-food-choice in social media.

Research Questions

Based on the research gap explained above, the possible research questions emerge from the

most cited and famous terms associated with hunger, savoring, tasting and food (Jacobsen,

Tudoran, & Lähteenmäki, 2017; Köster & Mojet, 2015; Quevedo-Silva et al., 2016; van der

Laan et al., 2011; van Huylenbroek et al., 2009). The research questions are:

RQ1: Does the level of food involvement make consumers decide what they eat, by using the

social media as a source?

RQ2: Does consumer decision directly impacts on another consumer’s behavior? If yes, how

this relation occurs when deciding what to eat by using user generated content?

RQ3: Did consumers start being more critical or demanding or strict towards food quality and

taste after the emergence of social networking applications?

RQ4: Do emotions play an important role before the food choice?


Hypotheses

Below-presented hypotheses try to address possible answers associated with the four main

research questions made before.

H1: Food involvement is highly related with consumers food choice. However, it does not

determine the use of social media as a tool for searching options. Consumers’ use of social

media for food choice may occur independently of the level of food involvement. One example

can be a child of 15 years old which is highly involved with social media, not with food,

nevertheless appealing images of food are capable of catching his attention.

H2: Consumers’ decisions directly impact others, and on the internet, this can be determined

by number of shared images, likes or posts. User-generated content is also a determinant on

food choice.

H3: Social networking platforms opened fruitful discussions but do not made consumers more

critic or demanding when the subject is food.

H4: Positive emotions play an important positive role before deciding what to eat. However,

negative emotions do not affect consumers decisions on social media because when sad or mad

they do not use social media as a source of research. Therefore, only positive emotions are

associated (imply) with the use of social media and food choice, combined.

Limitations of the research

Limitations of this research will be probably associated with the frame, volume and type of

respondents. This study relies a lot on consumers which in specific utilize social networking

platforms and social media as a tool of food choice. Moreover, the involvement of those

consumers with food can dramatically impact the final results, for example some respondents

may not consider price as a determinant factor because they already have a good economic life

condition. Therefore, the study will try to select the maximum numbers of respondents, in the

beginning focusing on consumers with an age between 15 and 50 years old.

Methodology

This last part is dedicated to the elaboration of the methodological part which will be applied

in the study. In order to get answers to this research, a quantitative deductive approach you will

used. Theory of Planned Behavior will be used as a support of already determinants of


consumers’ behavior. However, the possible associations with this behavior which in this case

is the decision of what and where to eat, come from different studies and possible assumptions

that may appear during the development of this Master Thesis. A quantitative research will be

elaborated by using a software called SphinxIQ2 and afterwards through google platforms and

other networking websites an online survey will be launched. The initial target is composed by

residents in Germany and Brazil, age between 15 and 50 years old, both genders and who are

users of social networking platforms, therefore have access to social media.

Food involvement

For this topic, first of all it will be interesting to define the consumers type, between food

involved or not. The assess the level of social network activity of this consumer, therefore if

he or she access social media once a day, tree times during the week or once a month for

example. By doing those two steps, the third would be assess the answer for the main questions

and see how those two factors correlate together.

Consumers’ decision

First question might be useful to start this second topic, because if consumers do not frequently

make food choice on internet, probably the impact on others consumers’ decision will be lower.

Still there must or not be an impact and this is probably related with the frequency of access to

user generated content.

Social Networking

That social networking platforms revolutionized the way people communicate everyone

knows, however is it true that the more access to information, data and shared content made

consumers more critical? Does this affect their food decisions? Being demanding and critical

can be also a determinant of the second question, this relation will be studied.

Emotions

The last part of the study is dedicated to emotions. Not towards food, emotions before the sight

of food. There’s a slight but very important difference here. Because the study does not want

to investigate which emotions are related with food, and neither which emotions are created

when people see food. This is an important topic, but which would be addressed in another

research. Said that, it is important to understand if people emotions impact their food choice,

which indirectly and before, implies login into social networking applications and start looking

for food.


Work Plan

Period Task

Now – 23.10.17 Exposé

Now – 15.11.17 Formulate Research Questions and Hypotheses. Delineate the

methodology and Work on Questionnaire design & pretest.

16.11.17 – 05.12.17 Field Research, Launch online survey

06.12.17 – 23.12.17 Data Analysis

24.12.17 – Deadline Finalizing the M.A Thesis: write results and conclusion.


References

Abbar, S., Mejova, Y., & Weber, I. (2015). You Tweet What You Eat. In B. Begole, J. Kim,

K. Inkpen, & W. Woo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '15 (pp. 3197–3206). New York, New York, USA:

ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702153

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and the

Theory of Planned Behavior1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A meta-

analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.

https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939

Chen, M.-F., & Tung, P.-J. (2014). Developing an extended Theory of Planned Behavior model

to predict consumers’ intention to visit green hotels. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 36, 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.09.006

Coary, S., & Poor, M. (2016). How consumer-generated images shape important consumption

outcomes in the food domain. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(1), 1–8.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2015-1337

Collins, S. E., & Carey, K. B. (2007). The theory of planned behavior as a model of heavy

episodic drinking among college students. Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of

the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors, 21(4), 498–507.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.21.4.498

Hansen, T., Møller Jensen, J., & Stubbe Solgaard, H. (2004). Predicting online grocery buying

intention: A comparison of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior.

International Journal of Information Management, 24(6), 539–550.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2004.08.004

Jacobsen, L. F., Tudoran, A. A., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2017). Consumers’ motivation to interact

in virtual food communities – The importance of self-presentation and learning. Food

Quality and Preference, 62, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.06.015


Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of Social Media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003

Köster, E. P., & Mojet, J. (2015). From mood to food and from food to mood: A psychological

perspective on the measurement of food-related emotions in consumer research. Food

Research International, 76, 180–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.04.006

Lamberton, C., & Stephen, A. T. (2016). A Thematic Exploration of Digital, Social Media, and

Mobile Marketing: Research Evolution from 2000 to 2015 and an Agenda for Future

Inquiry. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 146–172. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0415

Luca, M. (2015). User-Generated Content and Social Media. In Handbook of Media Economics

(Vol. 1, pp. 563–592). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63685-0.00012-7

O’Hern, M. S., & Kahle, L. R. (2013). The Empowered Customer: User-Generated Content

and the Future of Marketing. Global Economics and Management Review, 18(1), 22–30.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S2340-1540(13)70004-5

Quevedo-Silva, F., Freire, O., Lima-Filho, D. d. O., Brandão, M. M., Isabella, G., & Moreira,

L. B. (2016). Intentions to purchase food through the internet: Developing and testing a

model. British Food Journal, 118(3), 572–587. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-09-2015-0305

Russo, C., & Simeone, M. (2017). The growing influence of social and digital media. British

Food Journal, 119(8), 1766–1780. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-05-2017-0283

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The Theory of Reasoned Action: A

Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommendations for Modifications and Future

Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325. https://doi.org/10.1086/209170

Spence, C., Okajima, K., Cheok, A. D., Petit, O., & Michel, C. (2016). Eating with our eyes:

From visual hunger to digital satiation. Brain and cognition, 110, 53–63.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2015.08.006

Thompson, K. E., Haziris, N., & Alekos, P. J. (1994). Attitudes and Food Choice Behaviour.

British Food Journal, 96(11), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070709410074632

Thompson, K. E., & Vourvachis, A. (1995). Social and Attitudinal Influences on the Intention

to Drink Wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 7(2), 35–45.

https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008643

van der Laan, L. N., Ridder, D. T. D. de, Viergever, M. A., & Smeets, P. A. M. (2011). The

first taste is always with the eyes: A meta-analysis on the neural correlates of processing


visual food cues. NeuroImage, 55(1), 296–303.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.055

van Huylenbroek, G., Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., & van Huylenbroeck, G.

(2009). Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A review. British Food

Journal, 111(10), 1140–1167. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700910992961

Xiang, Z., & Gretzel, U. (2010). Role of social media in online travel information search.

Tourism Management, 31(2), 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2009.02.016

Yadav, M., Joshi, Y., & Rahman, Z. (2015). Mobile Social Media: The New Hybrid Element

of Digital Marketing Communications. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189,

335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.229

Yazdanpanah, M., & Forouzani, M. (2015). Application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour

to predict Iranian students' intention to purchase organic food. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 107, 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.071

Zanoli, R., & Naspetti, S. (2002). Consumer motivations in the purchase of organic food.

British Food Journal, 104(8), 643–653. https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210425930

Social media impact on consumer’s food choice · specifically, digging up on this area, what is...

Documents

Transcript of Social media impact on consumer’s food choice · specifically, digging up on this area, what is...