As good as fresh nutritionally but not perceived that way: Implicit and explicit biases towards canned and frozen fruits and vegetables

Globally, fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption is lower than recommended, with inadequate consumption linked to many non-communicable diseases. Inadequate F&V consumption can, in part, result from the cost and access barriers to fresh F&V that are present in certain parts of the world. While use of canned and frozen F&Vs may provide a solution, their consumption/acceptability tends to be lower than fresh F&V. This study explored the explicit and implicit biases that may exist towards canned and frozen F&V in comparison to fresh equivalents. In Study 1, participants were administered self-report scales that measured their beliefs towards canned, frozen and fresh F&V across health, convenience, and appeal, including the impact of Australia's health star rating system. In Study 2, Implicit Association Tests were administered for canned and frozen F&V, versus fresh. In Study 1, explicit ratings confirmed a strong preference for fresh F&V, particularly regarding health, even when participants were informed about the equivalent health star ratings. The study also highlighted a convenience advantage for canned and frozen foods, although these benefits did not outweigh the bias towards fresh produce. In Study 2, an implicit bias against canned and frozen F&V was evident, with significantly slower categorization times for positive associations, compared to fresh F&V. These findings indicate the existence of an attitudinal bias against frozen and canned F&V. To increase intake of F&V, especially when fresh F&V is not accessible/affordable, future research needs to understand how to target the identified biases that limit consumption of canned and frozen alternatives. • Relative to canned and frozen, fresh food has more appeal and perceived benefits. • Exposure to health and nutritional information does not alter these preferences. • Automatic, and unconscious biases favouring fresh food are present. • Explicit and implicit negative biases for canned and frozen food are also present.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Food Quality and Preference
Published
2025-03-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2025.105517
Citations
8
Primary Topic
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
15.03
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

As good as fresh nutritionally but not perceived that way: Implicit and explicit biases towards canned and frozen fruits and vegetables

Leah S. Dudley, Heather Francis, Richard J. Stevenson, Supreet Saluja et al.
8 citations
Food Quality and Preference
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
15.03
article

As good as fresh nutritionally but not perceived that way: Implicit and explicit biases towards canned and frozen fruits and vegetables

Leah S. Dudley, Heather Francis, Richard J. Stevenson, Supreet Saluja, Trevor I. Case
article en
8 citations

Abstract

Globally, fruit and vegetable (F&V) consumption is lower than recommended, with inadequate consumption linked to many non-communicable diseases. Inadequate F&V consumption can, in part, result from the cost and access barriers to fresh F&V that are present in certain parts of the world. While use of canned and frozen F&Vs may provide a solution, their consumption/acceptability tends to be lower than fresh F&V. This study explored the explicit and implicit biases that may exist towards canned and frozen F&V in comparison to fresh equivalents. In Study 1, participants were administered self-report scales that measured their beliefs towards canned, frozen and fresh F&V across health, convenience, and appeal, including the impact of Australia's health star rating system. In Study 2, Implicit Association Tests were administered for canned and frozen F&V, versus fresh. In Study 1, explicit ratings confirmed a strong preference for fresh F&V, particularly regarding health, even when participants were informed about the equivalent health star ratings. The study also highlighted a convenience advantage for canned and frozen foods, although these benefits did not outweigh the bias towards fresh produce. In Study 2, an implicit bias against canned and frozen F&V was evident, with significantly slower categorization times for positive associations, compared to fresh F&V. These findings indicate the existence of an attitudinal bias against frozen and canned F&V. To increase intake of F&V, especially when fresh F&V is not accessible/affordable, future research needs to understand how to target the identified biases that limit consumption of canned and frozen alternatives. • Relative to canned and frozen, fresh food has more appeal and perceived benefits. • Exposure to health and nutritional information does not alter these preferences. • Automatic, and unconscious biases favouring fresh food are present. • Explicit and implicit negative biases for canned and frozen food are also present.

Food Quality and PreferenceVol. 129
Macquarie University (AU)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Consumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
15.03
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.