Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Quality and Preference

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

Consumers associations with wellbeing in a food-related context:

A cross-cultural study
Gastn Ares a,, Luis de Saldamando a, Ana Gimnez a, Anna Claret b, Lus M. Cunha c, Luis Guerrero b,
Ana Pinto de Moura d, Denize C.R. Oliveira e, Ronan Symoneaux f, Rosires Deliza g
a

Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnologa de Alimentos, Facultad de Qumica, Universidad de la Repblica, Uruguay

IRTA-Food Technology, XaRTA, Finca Camps i Armet, E-17121 Monells, Spain
REQUIMTE/DGAOT, Faculdade de Cincias da Universidade do Porto, Rua do Campo Alegre 687, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal
d
REQUIMTE/DCeT, Universidade Aberta, Rua do Ameal 752, 4200-055 Porto, Portugal
e
Instituto de Qumica, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos 149, Cidade Universitria 21949-909, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
f
SFR QUASAV 4207, Groupe ESA, UPSP GRAPPE, 55 rue Rabelais, Angers, France
g
Embrapa Food Technology, Av. das Amricas, 29501, CEP 23.020-470, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
b
c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 8 October 2013
Received in revised form 31 May 2014
Accepted 1 June 2014
Available online 9 June 2014
Keywords:
Wellness
Consumer studies
Free listing
Word association
Qualitative studies

a b s t r a c t
Consumers perception of wellbeing in a food context can affect food choices and might provide a more
holistic evaluation of products than overall liking or healthfulness scores. However, considering that
wellbeing is a broad concept which lacks of a unique denition, it is necessary to explore how consumers
perceive wellbeing in a food-related context. The present work aims at exploring consumers associations
with wellbeing in a food-related context, taking into account the views of consumers from ve countries:
Brazil, France, Portugal, Spain and Uruguay. A total of 755 consumers were asked to complete a questionnaire comprising ve open-ended questions about foods and wellbeing. The elicited terms were translated into English, coded and grouped into categories. The frequency of mention of the categories was
determined and differences among countries were evaluated. In the ve countries wellbeing was mainly
associated with calmness, health, happiness, food products, positive emotions and satisfaction with specic aspects of life. The effects of foods on wellbeing were strongly related to physical health, pleasure
and emotional aspects. Meanwhile, consumers regarded sensory characteristics, manufacturing processes, nutritional composition and context of food consumption as the main factors underlying foodrelated wellbeing. Vegetables, fruits, sh and seafood, meat products, grains and cereals, and dairy products were the main foods recognized as positive for wellbeing, whereas foods high in fat, salt and sugar,
meat products, junk food and fried food were perceived as harmful. Signicant differences among countries were identied in the frequency of mention of the categories elicited in the ve questions, suggesting that culture affected consumers associations with wellbeing.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction
The construct of wellbeing has been gaining relevance in public
health and health promotion in order to provide a more holistic
view of life than most illness-oriented medical models (Cronin de
Chavez, Backett-Milburn, Parry, & Platt, 2005; Diener, Oishi, &
Lucas, 2003; Keyes, Shmotkin, & Ryff, 2002; McMahon, Williams,
& Tapsell, 2010). According to Diener and Ryan (2009) a better
understanding of how wellbeing is shaped and how it can be
increased offers opportunities for improving quality of life and
developing more successful public policies in different areas.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +598 29248003; fax: +598 292419906.
E-mail address: gares@fq.edu.uy (G. Ares).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.06.001
0950-3293/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

However, theory-based formulations of wellbeing are still lacking,

which have led to the development of a wide range of proposals of
what wellbeing means (Dodge, Daly, Huyton, & Sanders, 2012;
Forgeard, Jayawickreme, Kern, & Seligman, 2011; Ryff & Keyes,
1995).
Despite the fact that wellbeing lacks of a unique denition several authors have stressed that it is a broad and multidimensional
concept that is related to a multi dimensional evaluation of peoples
life (Diener, Oishi et al., 2003; Dodge et al., 2012; McGillivray &
Clarke, 2006). The work of Diener has stressed the subjective nature of wellbeing and has suggested that the term refers to a subjective evaluation of how people perceive their own lives from
different perspectives (Diener & Ryan, 2009). According to
Diener, Oishi et al. (2003) and Diener, Scollon, and Lucas (2003)

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

subjective wellbeing has a hierarchical structure that includes four

main components: pleasant emotions, negative emotions, global
life judgments and satisfaction with specic domains. Affective
evaluations include pleasant and unpleasant moods and emotions,
while satisfaction refers to a cognitive evaluation of a persons life
considering both a holistic perspective -global life judgement- and
specic domains or aspects of life -e.g. work, marriage, money(Diener & Suh, 1997).
The multidimensional nature of wellbeing has been also proposed by other authors. According to Hettler (1984) wellbeing
can be dened by six interdependent dimensions: physical, intellectual, social, emotional, occupational and spiritual. Meanwhile,
Veenhoven (2000) identied four dimensions of wellbeing:
liveability of the environment (good living conditions), utility of
life (extent to which higher values are achieved), life ability of
the person (how well a person is prepared to cope with life) and
appreciation of life (related to subjective wellbeing).
Due to its multidimensional nature, perceived wellbeing can be
strongly affected by food in different ways. In rst place, foods have
been extensively reported to affect physical health, by affecting
body functioning, and psychologically, through their inuence on
behavior and cognitive functioning (Bellisle et al., 1998; Dye &
Blundell, 2002; Gibson & Green, 2002; Shimizu, 2003). In this sense,
strategies aiming at encourage people to engage in healthier eating
habits have been identied as one of the priorities for reducing the
burden of non-communicable diseases and improving public health
(Beaglehole et al., 2011; Strong, Mathers, Epping-Jordan, &
Beaglehole, 2006). However, foods contribute to several functions
in our lives other than providing the necessary nutrients. Foods
have symbolic, aesthetic, social and moral signicance and affect
consumers appreciation of life through their inuence on mood
and emotions, as well as global life judgment and social relationships (Canetti, Bachar, & Berry, 2002; Macht, 2008; Rozin, 2005).
Considering that the lack of consensus on how wellbeing is
dened, measured and achieved has been reported in several areas
of research (McMahon et al., 2010), it is necessary to understand
how consumers perceive the inuence of foods on their wellbeing.
This approach can provide a more holistic evaluation of consumer
perception of food products than overall liking or healthfulness
scores, which might contribute to a better prediction of long-term
consumption (Boelsma, Brink, Staeu, & Hendricks, 2010). According to Meiselman (2013) a consumer-based approach for measuring the inuence of food products on consumer perceived
wellbeing and wellness is among the most todays relevant topics
in sensory and consumer science.
The effect of foods on wellbeing has been recently measured
using different strategies. Reeves, Halsey, McMeel, and Huber
(2013) asked participants to evaluate a wellbeing index and concluded that weekly breakfast frequency was signicantly correlated with perceived wellbeing. Boelsma et al. (2010) used scales
to evaluate physiological (satiation and satiety) and subjective
aspects (satisfaction, pleasantness, relaxation, physical energy,
alertness, sleepiness) of consumers perceived wellbeing when eating protein-carbohydrate meals. Similarly, King et al. (2012)
designed a questionnaire, which included ve dimensions (physical, emotional, intellectual, social and spiritual) for measuring consumer perception of the inuence of foods on wellbeing. These
approaches have been based on a literature review on wellbeing
but have not considered consumer perception of the relationship
between food and wellbeing. As the interest in measuring the
inuence of foods on wellbeing grows there is an increasing need
to accurately dene the term in a food-related context from a consumer perspective, particularly considering its subjective nature
(Diener & Ryan, 2009).
People in different cultures are exposed to different socioeconomic contexts and have different values, which make them likely

305

to consider different criteria when evaluating their subjective wellbeing (Diener & Suh, 2000). Average income level and the degree to
which people rate themselves as relatively better than others have
been reported to be the strongest predictors of differences in perceived wellbeing among societies (Cummins, 2000; Diener, Diener,
& Diener, 1995; Diener, Scollon et al., 2003). For these reasons, culture is also expected to have a large impact on consumer conceptualizations of wellbeing in a food-related context.
Moreover, food consumption has a strong cultural component,
as foods can be regarded as social vehicles that have moral significance and can also allow people to make social distinctions and
establish social relationships (Rozin, 2005). They are a cultural
mode of expression and a central part of many social rituals, which
are passed from one generation to another (Douglas, 1982).
Besides, cultural factors have been reported to be one of the main
factors underlying our food choices (Rozin & Vollmecke, 1986) due
to differences in both chemosensory perception and preference
(Prescott & Bell, 1995). Therefore, it can be hypothesized that consumers in different cultures also differ in how they perceive the
impact of food on wellbeing, and specically in the tradeoffs they
make between costs and benets associated to food when evaluating their degree of wellbeing.
The present work aims at exploring consumers associations
with wellbeing in a food-related context, taking into account the
views of consumers from ve countries: Brazil, France, Portugal,
Spain and Uruguay.

Materials and methods

Consumers
The study was carried out in ve cities from ve countries: Rio
de Janeiro (Brazil), Angers (France), Porto (Portugal), Barcelona
(Spain) and Montevideo (Uruguay). Approximately 150 people
from each country (total n = 755) participated in the study. In each
country, participants were recruited from consumer databases of
market research agencies or sensory evaluation laboratories, using
a convenient, intentional and reasoned sampling with predetermined quotas for age and gender (Kinnear & Taylor, 1993). Table 1
shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the participants. At
recruitment stage, no information about the specic aim of the
study was provided. Data were collected between October and
December 2012.

Data collection
Consumers associations with wellbeing in a food-related context were explored using a direct and an indirect qualitative
approach through ve open-ended questions (Table 2). The indirect approach comprised two word association tasks (Questions 1
and 2) aimed at identifying consumers spontaneous associations
with wellbeing in both a general and a food-related context. These
associations are not usually gathered using more structured tasks
(Steinmann, 2009). Word association has been previously used to
study consumer perception of different concepts and products,
including local foods (Roininen, Arvola, & Lhteenmki, 2006),
functional yogurts (Ares, Gimnez, & Gmbaro, 2008), ready-toeat salads (Vidal, Ares, & Gimnez, 2013), and traditional foods
(Guerrero et al., 2010). The direct approach comprised three questions (3, 4 and 5, c.f. Table 2) and aimed at exploring specic
aspects of wellbeing: the foods consumers associate with wellbeing and the ways in which they think foods affect their wellbeing.
Wellbeing was translated as bem estar in Brazil and Portugal,
bien-tre in France, and bienestar in Spain and Uruguay.

306

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

Table 1
Demographic characteristics of participants in the ve countries (n = 755).
Brazil

France

Portugal

Spain

Uruguay

150

150

150

155

150

Gender
Female
Male

50%
50%

50%
50%

50%
50%

58%
42%

50%
50%

Age (years)
1829
3054
55 and older

33%
34%
33%

33%
34%
33%

32%
35%
33%

18%
54%
27%

33%
34%
33%

Education
Incomplete primary school
Complete primary school
Incomplete secondary school
Complete secondary school
University

4%
2%
5%
17%
72%

0%
24%
19%
23%
34%

14%
11%
35%
7%
33%

3%
8%
6%
51%
32%

0%
10%
22%
30%
38%

Occupation
Student
Worker
Retired
Without working activity

18%
66%
14%
2%

19%
51%
25%
5%

10%
52%
21%
17%

9%
49%
17%
25%

24%
60%
15%
2%

Table 2
Wording of the ve questions used for exploring consumers perception of the relationship between food and wellbeing, and where results are presented.
Question

Wording

Results

1
2
3
4
5

Write down the rst 4 words that come to your mind when thinking about wellbeing
Write down the rst 4 words that come to your mind when thinking about foods and wellbeing
If you had to recommend to a friend foods good for wellbeing, what 4 foods would you mention?
If you had to recommend to a friend foods NOT good for wellbeing, what 4 foods would you mention?
Indicate 4 ways in which you think that food affect your wellbeing

Fig. 1, Table 3
Figs. 2 and 3, Table 4
Table 6
Table 7
Figs. 4 and 5, Table 5

The questionnaires were printed and handed to participants. In

Brazil and Uruguay the questions were presented on separate
sheets and consumers were told to complete each question at a
time without browsing the entire questionnaire. A researcher
was present during the test to verify that consumers answered
the questions one at a time in the specied order. In Portugal
and Spain each question was handed to participants in the specied order and collected one by one after being answered. Participants signed an informed consent form before completing the
study. The duration of the test ranged between 10 and 20 min. In
France the questionnaire was implemented using web interface
(Google Doc). Questionnaires were sent to a large database of
consumers from Angers. Consumers were asked to answer all questions spontaneously. The software imposed consumers to answer
the questions one at a time in the specied order.
Data analyses
All valid words mentioned by participants were considered for
data analysis. First, raw data were translated into English, i.e. the
words mentioned in each country were translated into English by
the researchers involved in that country. A back-translation process (Brislin, 1970) was applied for the words that were difcult
to translate. This procedure was used to provide homogeneity in
the coding process, i.e. to assure that the same criteria were used
to code data elicited in the ve countries.
Frequency of mention of each word was calculated for each
country. Then, data were analyzed by grouping the responses into
exclusive and exhaustive categories (Krippendorff, 2004). The
phrases and words mentioned by participants were coded by triangulation (Modell, 2005). First, a search for recurrent terms within
each question was performed, and terms with similar meaning
were grouped into categories. The classication was performed
by triangulation (Guerrero et al., 2010). Accordingly, three different

researchers with a minimum of 2 years experience in consumer

research evaluated the data. The results presented in the current
paper were obtained by a consensus between the three researchers
to balance out the subjective inuences of individuals (Denzin,
1978; Guerrero et al., 2009).
Categories were merged into different dimensions using the
same procedure. Categories and dimensions mentioned by at least
5% of the consumers were considered for further analysis. Considering the exploratory nature of the study, 5% was selected as a cut-off
point to avoid losing a large amount of information (Guerrero et al.,
2010; Vidal et al., 2013). Frequencies of mention of words, categories and dimensions in each country were calculated without considering if words were provided by the same participant or by
different participants (Guerrero et al., 2010; Schmitt, 1998). For this
reason, relative frequencies of mention of categories/dimensions
can be higher than 100%.
The existence of statistical differences among countries in the
frequency of mention of the categories and dimensions was evaluated using chi-square test. Then, a chi-square per cell test was used
to identify the source of variation of the Global chi-square
(Symoneaux, Galmarini, & Mehinagic, 2012). Besides, correspondence analysis was performed on the frequency table from questions 2 and 5 to get a clearer visualization of the relationship
between the categories and the countries.
Statistical analyses were performed using R (R Development
Core Team, 2007).
Results
Associations with wellbeing
A total of 569 different terms were mentioned when consumers
were asked to write down the rst 4 words that came to their
minds when thinking of wellbeing. The most frequently mentioned

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

words were Health (n = 416), Comfort (n = 133), Happiness (n = 130),

Calm (n = 113), Peace (n = 94) and Family (n = 90). Differences
among countries were identied in the frequency of mention of
individual words, suggesting differences in participants associations with wellbeing. As shown in Fig. 1, Health was clearly the
most salient word in all countries except for France. Compared to
the rest of the countries, French participants gave more relevance
to the word Relaxation, while Brazilian participants stressed Leisure
and Feeding.
Individual terms were grouped into 56 categories, which were
then merged into 10 dimensions, nine of which were mentioned
by more than 5% of participants at the aggregate level. As shown in
Table 3, in the ve countries the Psychological dimension was the
most salient when participants thought of wellbeing. The most
relevant categories within this dimension were Calm, Happiness,
Comfort, and Pleasure. All the words elicited within the Psychological
dimension were positive; participants did not refer to the absence of
negative emotions or moods when thinking of wellbeing.
The second most salient dimension in the ve countries was
Physical health, which was mainly related to Health, Exercise and
Rest. The remaining dimensions were clearly less frequently mentioned (Table 3). It is interesting to highlight that some participants
in the ve countries mentioned words related to Foods when thinking of wellbeing.
Highly signicant differences among countries were identied
in the frequency of mention of the dimensions. As shown in Table 3,
the dimensions Physical health, Social and Foods were more salient
in Brazil compared to the rest of the countries, while the categories
Environment and Psychological were less salient. Frequency of mention of the dimension Psychological was higher in France than in the
rest of the countries, while frequency of mention of the category
Physical health was lower, suggesting that French participants
stressed psychological aspects of wellbeing. Furthermore, participants in Spain stressed Occupational and Economical dimensions

307

as more important than the rest, while participants in Uruguay

stressed the dimensions Physical health and Intellectual as the most
important. Portuguese participants were in between the other
countries for the nine dimensions.
Associations with foods and wellbeing
When participants were asked to complete a word association
task about food and wellbeing a total of 873 different individual
associations were elicited. At the aggregate level, the words Fruits
(n = 179), Healthy (n = 163), Health (n = 118), Vegetables (n = 110)
and Quality (n = 65) were the most frequently mentioned. As
shown in Fig. 2, differences among countries in the most frequently
mentioned words were identied. The word Natural was among
the most frequently mentioned in Spain, while Organic was the
fourth most frequently mentioned word in France. Similarly, the
words Fish and Taste were highly salient in Portugal and France,
respectively.
Individual associations were merged into 66 categories. The
most frequently mentioned categories were Health (n = 337),
Fruits (n = 228), Vegetables (n = 225), Pleasure (n = 142), Flavor
(n = 130), Meat (n = 84) and Quality (n = 77). Signicant differences among countries were found in the frequency of mention
of the categories. Results from correspondence analysis performed on the frequency of mention of the categories that were
mentioned by more than 5% of the participants are shown in
Fig. 3. Spanish participants were located closer to the categories
Money, Price and Additives, while French participants were associated with the categories Equilibrium, Organic, Origin, Sharing,
Freshness, Variety and Balance, as well as to categories related to
sensory characteristics (Appearance, Texture, and Flavor). Besides,
Portuguese participants were associated with specic food products (Milk, Soups, Yogurt, Bread, Beverages, Water, Fruits,
Vegetables) and Satiety; whereas Brazilians were associated with

Fig. 1. Frequency of mention of the 25 most frequently mentioned individual words when participants were asked to write down the rst four words that came to their mind
when thinking of wellbeing in Brazil, France, Portugal, Spain and Uruguay.

308

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

Table 3
Frequency of mention of the dimensions identied when participants were asked to write down the rst four words that came to their minds when thinking of wellbeing in the
ve countries, and results from chi-square per cell test.
Dimension

Psychological
Physical health
Social
Foods
Environment
Economical
Global evaluation
Occupational
Intellectual

Example of the most relevant categories

Calm, Happiness, Comfort, Pleasure

Health, Exercise, Rest
Family, Friendship, Sharing
Specic foods, Dieting, Eating
Nature, Environment, Warmth
Money, Economic stability
Quality of life, Personal fullment
Work, Professional success
Mental performance, Intellectual development

Number of mentions
Brazil

France

Portugal

Spain

Uruguay

194 ( )
187 (+)
58 (+)
63 (+)
24 ( )
27
19
10
14

362 (+)
72 ( )
29 ( )
39
61 (+)
3 ( )
6 ( )
1 ( )
6

281
143
52
32
42
21
7
12
8

287
127
53
30
25 ( )
40 (+)
16
20 (+)
5

259
138 (+)
26 ( )
29
27
6 ( )
15
7
16(+)

Effect of the chi square per cell. (+) or ( ) indicate that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value: p < 0.05;



p < 0.01;



p < 0.001.

Fig. 2. Frequency of mention of the 25 most frequently mentioned individual words when participants were asked to write down the rst four words that came to their mind
when thinking of foods and wellbeing in Brazil, France, Portugal, Spain and Uruguay.

other specic food products (Dairy products, Cereals, Juices,

Legumes, Pasta), specic nutrients (Salt, Fibre), Nourishment and
Access to food. Uruguayans were associated with specic psychological aspects (Happiness, Hedonic, Vitality) and Diet.
Categories were merged into seven main dimensions. As shown
in Table 4, Specic foods and Characteristics of foods were by far the
most frequently mentioned in the ve countries. The most salient
food products were Fruits, Vegetables, Meat, Fish and seafood and
Water. The dimensions Physical health and Psychological aspects
were also salient (Table 4), suggesting that participants considered
that foods affected specic aspects of their wellbeing. The most relevant characteristics of foods mentioned by participants were
Flavor, Quality, Natural, Organic, Freshness, Safety, Calories, Price and
Fat content. Within the dimension Psychological aspects participants
mainly mentioned terms related to Pleasure and positive moods
and emotions such as Relax, Equilibrium, Happiness and Vitality.
Signicant differences among countries were identied in the
frequency of mention of the dimensions, as shown in Table 4.

Specic foods was the most frequently mentioned dimension, being

signicantly more relevant for Portuguese and Brazilians, with a
clear lower frequency of mention for Spanish and French participants. This relationship was clearly inverted for Characteristics of
foods, with this dimension being the most mentioned for Spanish
and French participants. Physical health was signicantly more relevant for Spanish and Uruguayan participants than for those in the
other three countries, whereas Psychological aspects were signicantly more relevant for Spanish participants. Meanwhile, the
dimensions Context and Eating patterns were more relevant for
French participants compared to those in the other 4 countries.
Ways in which foods affect wellbeing
When asked to indicate four ways in which foods affect their
wellbeing, participants mentioned 998 different individual terms.
The elicited terms were highly heterogeneous and most of
them were mentioned by a small number of participants. At the

309

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

Fig. 3. Representation of the categories and countries in the rst and second dimensions of the correspondence analysis performed on the frequency table of the categories
mentioned by more than 5% of the participants when they were asked to write down the rst four words that came to their mind when thinking of foods and wellbeing.

Table 4
Frequency of mention of the dimensions identied when participants were asked to write down the rst four words that came to their minds when thinking of foods and
wellbeing in the ve countries, and results from chi-square per cell test.
Dimension

Example of the most relevant categories

Number of mentions
Brazil

Specic foods
Characteristics of foods
Physical health
Psychological aspects
Eating patterns
Context
Food preparation

Fruits, Vegetables, Meat, Fish and seafood, Water

Flavor, Quality, Natural, Organic, Freshness, Safety, Calories, Price, Fat content
Health, Nourishment, Digestion
Pleasure, Relax, Equilibrium, Happiness, Vitality
Diet, Balanced diet, Variety, Quantity
Environment, Sharing, Context
Cooking, Home-made food, Cooking methods

France
***

258 (+)
126 ( )**
87
42 ( )***
37
25
4 ( )*

Portugal
***

119 ( )
189 (+)***
45 ( )***
69
59 (+)***
49 (+)***
12

317 (+)
89 ( )***
46 ( )***
56
34
28
13

Effect of the chi square per cell. (+) or ( ) indicate that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value: *p < 0.05;

aggregate level Cholesterol (n = 85), Health (n = 76), Obesity (n = 50),

Diabetes (n = 33), Mood (n = 30) and Energy (n = 29) were the most
frequently elicited words. As shown in Fig. 4, differences among
countries were identied in the saliency of individual terms. The
highest agreement among participants was observed in Spain
and Uruguay, while responses in the other three countries were
clearly more heterogeneous. French participants showed a different pattern of response. The most frequently mentioned terms
for these participants were Eating too fast, Sleep, Health and
Diabetes.
A total of 140 categories were created by merging individual
terms, 15 of which were mentioned by at least 5% of the participants at the aggregate level. The most frequent categories were
Gastrointestinal problems, Health, Cholesterol, Weight management,
Diseases, Nourishment and Pleasure. Highly signicant differences
were identied among countries in the frequency of mention of
the categories. Fig. 5 shows results from correspondence analysis
performed on the frequency of mention of the categories mentioned by more than 5% of the participants. France was closer to
the category Pleasure, while Uruguay was located close to the category Obesity and Spain to the categories Weight management,

***

**

Spain

Uruguay
***

79 ( )
211 (+)***
123 (+)***
90 (+)***
37
37
9

p < 0.01;

147
125
90 (+)**
69
41
5 ( )***
9

***

p < 0.001.

Cardiovascular problems and Fitness. Portugal was closer to Diabetes,

Energy, Health and Mood. Categories were merged into three main
dimensions: Physical health, Psychological and Social, being the rst
one the most frequently mentioned in the 5 countries (Table 5).
Highly signicant differences were found among countries in the
frequency of mention of the different dimensions. Compared to
the rest of the countries Brazilian participants gave more relevance
to the Physical health dimension, while the Psychological and Social
dimensions were more salient for French participants. Regarding
the Social dimension, it was not salient in Uruguay, where only
one participant mentioned a term related to this aspect of wellbeing (Table 5).
Foods positive and negative for wellbeing
Participants listed a total of 516 different foods good for their
wellbeing, being Fruits (n = 418), Vegetables (n = 407), and Fish
(n = 270) the most frequently mentioned. These three food categories were among the most frequently mentioned in the ve countries. However, some differences among countries can be
highlighted. Meat was among the most frequently mentioned

310

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

Fig. 4. Frequency of mention of the 25 most frequently mentioned individual terms when participants were asked to list four ways in which foods affect their wellbeing in
Brazil, France, Portugal, Spain and Uruguay.

Fig. 5. Representation of the categories and countries in the rst and second dimensions of the correspondence analysis performed on the frequency table of the categories
mentioned by more than 5% of the participants when they were asked to list 4 ways in which foods affect their wellbeing.

words in Spain, Chocolate was one of the most frequently mentioned word in France, while Milk was the fth most frequently
word in Portugal and Uruguay.

Foods regarded as good for wellbeing were grouped into 52 categories and 11 dimensions. As shown in Table 6, the most relevant
dimensions were related to foods recognized as necessary for a

311

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

Table 5
Frequency of mention of the dimensions identied when participants were asked to list four ways in which foods affect their wellbeing in the ve countries, and results from chisquare per cell test.
Dimension

Physical health
Psychological
Social

Example of the most relevant categories and individual words

Number of mentions

Gastrointestinal problems, Health, Cholesterol, Weight management, Diseases,

Nourishment, Obesity, Blood pleasure
Pleasure, Mood, Satisfaction, Happiness, Vitality, Humour, Joy, Anxiety
Socialization, Sharing, Relationships

Brazil

France

Portugal

Spain

Uruguay

271 (+)**

192 ( )***

302

316

273

89
7

82
5

72
1 ( )**

**

53 ( )
5

***

103 (+)
19 (+)***

p < 0.05. Effect of the chi square per cell. (+) or ( ) indicate that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value:

healthy diet (Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services, 2010) such as Fruits, Vegetables, Fish
and seafood, Grains and cereals. However, it is interesting to highlight that at the aggregate level Sweet products were among the
most relevant dimensions, particularly for France.
Signicant differences in the frequency of mention of the
dimensions among countries were identied. As shown in Table 6,
Brazilians gave more relevance to the dimensions Vegetables,
Legumes, and Grains and Cereals than participants in the other 4
countries. Spaniards attributed more relevance to the dimensions
Fish and seafood, whereas participants in France were characterized
by the high frequency of mention of Sweet products and the low frequency of mention of the dimensions Meat and Legumes. Meanwhile, Uruguayan participants gave more importance than the
average to the dimensions Vegetables and Meat than the rest of
the participants.
A total of 707 different terms were mentioned when participants were asked to list foods harmful for their wellbeing. The
most frequently mentioned terms were Alcoholic drinks (n = 102),
Salt (n = 78), Fried foods (n = 68), Fats (n = 73) and Sugar (n = 65).
Some differences in the frequency of mention of individual words
were identied among countries. Brazilian participants stressed
the negative inuence of Soft drinks and Candies on wellbeing,
while French and Portuguese participants included Sausages (fresh
or cured) among the most frequently mentioned words. Spanish
participants stressed the negative inuence of Baked goods and
Confectionery on wellbeing, whereas for Uruguayan participants
Salt was one of the ve most frequently mentioned words.
Foods harmful for wellbeing were grouped into 68 categories
rst and then into 13 dimensions, being Specic nutritional characteristics the most frequently elicited (Table 7). Within this dimension, Fat (n = 325), Salt (n = 118) and Sugar (n = 103) were the
most relevant categories. Regarding specic food products considered harmful for wellbeing, Meat products, Sweet products, Junk

**

p < 0.01;

***

p < 0.001.

foods, Fried foods and Alcoholic drinks were the most frequently
mentioned products (Table 7), in agreement with dietary recommendations. Characteristics of food production was the third most
relevant dimension mentioned by participants when thinking of
foods harmful for their wellbeing. Within this dimension the most
relevant categories were Processed foods (n = 175), Production
method (n = 53) and Additives (n = 46).
As shown in Table 7, signicant differences among countries
were identied in the relevance of the different dimensions. Foods
with specic nutritional characteristics and Soft drinks were more
frequently mentioned in Brazil than in the other four countries,
while the dimension Meat products was particularly relevant for
Portuguese participants. Consumers in France and Spain mentioned more frequently issues related to Food production than the
rest of the participants. When thinking of foods harmful for wellbeing, French people also referred to the dimensions Dairy products,
Vegetables and Oils more frequently than the rest of the participants. Meanwhile, Spanish participants stressed the negative inuence of Alcoholic drinks on wellbeing, while Uruguayan participants
stressed Fried foods and Grains and cereals as more important
(Table 7). The latter was also stressed by Brazilian consumers.

Discussion
When asked to write down the rst four words that came to
their mind when thinking of wellbeing, participants in the ve
countries mentioned a wide range of associations, which indicates
that consumers do not have a standard denition of wellbeing, and
that different interpretations of what wellbeing is do exist. This
result is in agreement with the fact that wellbeing is a complex
and multidimensional construct (Diener & Ryan, 2009; Dodge
et al., 2012; Hettler, 1984; McGillivray & Clarke, 2006;
Veenhoven, 2000).

Table 6
Frequency of mention of the dimensions identied when participants were asked to indicate four foods good for wellbeing in the ve countries, and results from chi-square per
cell test.
Dimension

Example of the most relevant categories

and individual words

Number of mentions
Brazil

France

Portugal

Spain

Uruguay

Vegetables

Vegetables (Salads, Carrots,

Green vegetables, Lettuce, Tomato)
Fruits (Apple, Orange, Banana)
Fish and seafood
Meat, Red meat, White meat
Cereals, Grains, Bread, Pasta, Rice
Dairy products, Milk, Cheese, Yogurt
Water, Juices
Desserts, Confectionery
Legumes (Legumes, Bean, Soybean, Lentils)
Nutritional characteristics (Rich in proteins,
Rich in bre, Starchy)

159 (+)**

123

118

115 ( )**

139 (+)*

138
41 ( )***
45 ( )*
70 (+)**
37 ( )*
22
2 ( )***
29 (+)***
17

130
54
36 ( )**
46
50
20
53 (+)***
4 ( )**
9

130
75
59
53
51
28
21
5 ( )**
8

106 ( )**
111 (+)***
66
46
53
31
12 ( )*
29 (+)***
17

110
52
78 (+)***
32 ( )*
45
17
8 ( )*
1 ( )***
15

Fruits
Fish and seafood
Meat products
Grains and cereals
Dairy products
Beverages
Sweet products
Legumes
Foods with specic nutritional characteristics

Effect of the chi square per cell. (+) or ( ) indicate that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value: *p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01;

***

p < 0.001.

312

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

Table 7
Frequency of mention of the dimensions identied when participants were asked to indicate four foods harmful for wellbeing in the ve countries, and results from chi-square per
cell test.
Dimension

Foods with specic

nutritional characteristics
Meat products
Sweet products
Junk food
Fried food
Food production

Alcoholic drinks
Seasonings and spices
Soft drinks
Dairy products
Vegetables
Grains and cereals
Oils

Example of the most relevant categories and individual words

Fat, Salt, Sugar

Sausages, Meat
Confectionery (Candies, Chocolate), Pastry (Pastry, Cakes)
Junk food (Hamburger, Fast food, Pizza)
Fried products (Fried food, Frying, Potato chips, French fries)
Processed foods (Ready to eat products, Industrial products),
Production method (Smoked, Marinated, Battered products)
Additives, Genetically modied organisms
Alcoholic drinks (Alcohol, Alcoholic drinks, Wine, Beer)
Sauces, Spices (Hot spices, Pepper, Garlic)
Soft drinks (Soda, Soft drink, Carbonated beverages)
Dairy products (Milk, Ice-cream, Cream)
Vegetables (Spinach, Cabbage, Potato)
Grains and cereals (Flour, Pasta, Rice)
Oils (Oil, Palm oil)

Number of mentions
Brazil

France

Portugal

Spain

Uruguay

139 (+)*

85 ( )**

115

116

108

***

72
52
28
71
65

69
52
37
26 ( )***
74 (+)*

117 (+)
74 (+)*
40
68
15 ( )***

78
56
34
37 ( )***
111 (+)***

50 ( )*
40
38
95 (+)***
40

26 ( )*
7 ( )**
55 (+)***
6 ( )*
4 ( )*
31 (+)***
3 ( )*

43
18
35
29 (+)***
24 (+)***
9
15 (+)**

37
24
25 ( )
13
16
11
15 (+)*

66 (+)***
19
36
8
7
6 ( )**
4

10 ( )***
14
14 ( )**
7
2 ( )*
22 (+)**
4

Effect of the chi square per cell. (+) or ( ) indicate that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value: *p < 0.05;

Psychological aspects were the most relevant associations when

consumers thought of wellbeing (Table 3), in agreement with
Stratham and Chase (2010), who stated that the concept of wellbeing within the promotion of quality of life has been used to demedicalise the concept of health and also include non-physical aspects.
In particular, positive moods and emotions, such as calm, happiness, comfort and pleasure, were the most relevant psychological
aspects mentioned by consumers. Similar results have been
reported by Diener, Oishi et al. (2003), Diener, Scollon et al.
(2003) and Diener and Ryan (2009), who reported that the extent
to which people feel pleasant emotions, and do not feel unpleasant
emotions are key determinants of subjective wellbeing. In the
present work participants did not refer to the absence of negative
moods or emotions.
Consumers also related wellbeing with physical health, suggesting that it may be one of the determinants of consumers perceived
wellbeing (Table 3). According to McMahon et al. (2010) the medical model approach to wellbeing, which stresses physical health
and absence of disease, has been predominant and persistent for
decades. Besides, as shown in Table 3, wellbeing was also associated with specic aspects of life (social, economical, occupational,
intellectual), as well as with a global evaluation of life, in agreement with Diener, Oishi et al. (2003) and Diener, Scollon et al.
(2003), who stated that wellbeing is also strongly related with
satisfaction with specic domains of life.
Signicant differences in consumers associations with wellbeing were found among countries (Table 3), suggesting that participants in the ve countries differed in the criteria they used when
evaluating their subjective wellbeing, in agreement with Diener
and Suh (2000). Despite data collection procedures were not identical in the ve countries, it was not expected that they would have
had a large inuence on the results. Thus, differences in the associations mentioned by participants from the different countries
can be attributed to differences in consumers relevant values
and socioeconomic contexts, as previously reported for perceived
general wellbeing (Diener, Oishi et al., 2003; Diener, Scollon
et al., 2003; Diener et al. 1995). For example, results from the present work showed that French participants gave more relevance to
psychological aspects and environmental issues and less importance to physical health when thinking of wellbeing than the rest
of the countries. This difference can be attributed to differences
in values among consumers in different countries due to cultural
differences, in agreement with published data. French people have
been reported to attach more relative importance to positive

**

p < 0.01;

***

p < 0.001.

feelings when evaluating their wellbeing, compared to other European countries (New Economics Foundation, 2009, Rozin, Fischler,
Imada, Sarubin, & Wrzesniewski, 1999). Furthermore, economic
issues and occupational aspects of wellbeing were more salient
for Spanish participants than for the others. This difference can
be explained considering that the recent European economic crisis
has been recognized as one of the most serious after the Second
World War. Particularly, in Spain it has led to the highest unemployment rate within the EU-27 member states, reaching an
unprecedented 25% in 2012 (EUROSTAT, 2014; Gallo & GenBadia, 2013; Mursa, 2012). Average income level has been reported
to strongly inuence perceived wellbeing in different cultures
(Diener et al., 1995). Although Portugal has been also affected by
a strong economic crisis, economic and occupational aspects were
not stressed by Portuguese participants (Gallo & Gen-Badia,
2013). Finally, it is important to mention that small differences
in the sociodemographic characteristics of the consumer samples
in the 5 countries, particularly education level (c.f. Table 1), could
have been partly responsible for some of the identied differences
among countries in the identied associations with wellbeing in a
food-related context.
In the ve countries more than 19% of the participants mentioned terms related to foods when thinking of wellbeing (Table 3),
which emphasizes the importance of investigating the impact of
food on perceived wellbeing. Results from the present work suggested that consumers in the ve countries considered that foods
affected several aspects of their perceived wellbeing, in particular
their physical health, their psychological status, and also their
social relationships (Table 5). According to the results from the
present work consumers perceived wellbeing in a food-related
context was perceived as a multidimensional construct, related
to a positive condition of physical health, body functioning and
emotional state. This conceptualization is in agreement with the
denition of wellbeing related to food proposed by Block et al.
(2011): a positive psychological, physical, emotional, and social relationship with food at both the individual and societal levels.
As shown in Tables 4 and 5, consumers considered that foods
mainly affect their wellbeing through their inuence on their physical health. These results are in agreement with King et al. (2012),
who reported that the physical dimension was the most closely
associated with wellness. It can be argued that consumers stressed
the health component of wellbeing due to the fact that this term is
not commonly used in the ve countries in their everyday conversations and might be strongly related to medical vocabulary. This

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

suggests that it may be advisable to use terms and expressions commonly used by consumers, such as feeling well or feeling good,
when exploring the relationship between foods and wellbeing.
Within the physical health dimension, the most salient ways in
which consumers thought that foods affect their wellbeing were
related to body functioning and non-communicable diseases, such
as diabetes and obesity. These aspects are related to objective
health measurements, suggesting that consumers subjective perception of health and wellbeing is not only related to how they feel
but is also inuenced by objective medical criteria.
Psychological aspects were the second most salient dimension
when consumers were asked to list the ways in which foods affect
their wellbeing (Table 5). In particular, consumers stressed pleasure, satisfaction and positive moods, and emotions. This result is
in agreement with the fact that hedonic aspects of food consumption has long being recognized as key determinants of consumer
food choice (Lawless & Heymann, 2010; Lim, 2011) and that
food-elicited emotions have been reported to be highly relevant
for shaping preference patterns (Canetti et al., 2002; Macht,
2008). According to King et al. (2012), emotional aspects were
the greatest contributor to the perceived wellness associated with
foods. When looking at the elicited emotions, participants mainly
stressed pleasure, mood, satisfaction, happiness, calm, quietness,
energy, equilibrium, and joy. The number of emotional terms elicited in the present study was much lower than that included in the
EsSense prole (King & Meiselman, 2010). This difference can be
related to the fact that the term wellbeing was strongly associated
with health and also to the fact that many emotions are unconscious and that consumers frequently nd it difcult to rate or talk
about food-elicited emotions (Jaeger, Cardello, & Schutz, 2013). In
this sense, further research aiming at identifying how emotions
shape consumers food-related wellbeing or to feeling well
seems necessary in order to better understand the inuence of
emotional aspects on food choice.
Social aspects were also salient, although they were mentioned
in a much lower frequency than physical or psychological aspects
(Table 5), in agreement with the inuence of context on eating
habits (King, Weber, Meiselman, & Lv, 2004; Meiselman, 2006;
Rozin & Tuorila, 1993). Finally, the spiritual dimension was not
salient in the present study, although it has been used by King
et al. (2012) when developing scales for measuring the perceived
wellness of food products.
As shown in Table 4, when consumers thought of foods and
wellbeing their associations were related to both intrinsic product
characteristics (such as sensory characteristic, nutritional composition, production method and freshness) and extrinsic characteristics (mainly quality and price). Further research is necessary to
understand how the interplay between product characteristics,
personal characteristics and context determine consumers perceived wellbeing when consuming different food products.
The frequency of mention of participants associations when
thinking of food and wellbeing (Table 4) as well as when listing ways
in which foods affect wellbeing (Table 5) signicantly varied among
countries. This result indicates differences in the relative importance that they give to the different aspects of wellbeing in a foodrelated context. In general, the most relevant aspects in which foods
inuenced wellbeing coincided with the relative importance of specic domains to general wellbeing, suggesting that consumers conceptualization of wellbeing shaped their perception of how foods
affect their wellbeing. For example, Spanish participants mentioned
the categories Price and Money more frequently than the rest of the
participants (Fig. 3) due to the fact that they stressed economical
aspects when conceptualizing wellbeing. Besides, when listing the
ways in which foods affect wellbeing, French consumers gave more
importance to psychological and social aspects of food consumption,
in agreement with the fact that they stressed psychological aspects

313

when thinking about wellbeing (Table 3). French consumers have

already been reported to experience less stress and more pleasure
in relation to food consumption compared to other consumers in
other countries, for example the USA (Rozin, 2005). This trend can
also be clearly appreciated in Fig. 3 since France was located close
to sensory characteristics of foods (appearance, aroma, avor, texture), as well as to the category Social. Portuguese consumers
showed a particularly high association between specic foods and
wellbeing, which may be a result of intensive campaigns to promote
healthy eating (Melo, de Moura, Aires, & Cunha, 2013) based on the
food categories from the food wheel (Rodrigues, Franchini, Graca, &
de Almeida, 2006). It is interesting to highlight that European countries did not show a unique concept of wellbeing, in agreement with
results reported by Askegaard and Madsen (1998) and Guerrero
et al. (2010) who stressed the heterogeneity in food culture within
Europe.
As shown in Table 6, in the ve countries the most relevant
foods that consumers regarded as positive for their wellbeing were
related to health associations and general dietary guidelines (U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2010; World Health Organization, 2009), in
agreement with the fact that consumers strongly related wellbeing
to their physical health (Tables 4 and 5). Meat products and sweet
products were also regarded as positive for wellbeing, although
they have not been recommended for a healthy diet (U.S.
Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2010). This result is in agreement with the high
relevance of hedonic aspects of wellbeing (Tables 4 and 5), and
remarks the importance of hedonic/pleasure perception when consumers evaluate the impact of foods on their wellbeing, particularly the pleasure associated with sweet foods. In this sense,
several studies have shown that consumers are not willing to compromise the sensory characteristics of food products for potential
benets to their health, suggesting that wellbeing can be a relevant
construct for the development of functional foods and other
healthy products (Ares, Barreiro, Deliza, Gimnez, & Gmbaro,
2010; Tuorila & Cardello, 2002; Verbeke, 2006).
When listing foods harmful for their wellbeing participants in the
ve countries mainly referred to foods with specic nutritional characteristics (particularly foods high in fat, salt and sugar), as well as
meat, sweet products, junk food and fried food (Table 7), in agreement with health associations and nutritional recommendations
(U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2010; World Health Organization, 2009). This
result can be related to the fact that participants stressed health
aspects when thinking of the term wellbeing (Table 4).
European participants also referred to several issues related to
food production. In particular, they mentioned processed and
ready-to-eat products as harmful for their wellbeing, in agreement
with recent studies reporting an association between consumption
of ultra processed product, obesity and other health problems
(Monteiro, 2009; Monteiro, Levy, Claro, de Castro, & Cannon,
2011). Additives and genetically modied products were also salient categories, which can be linked to consumers interest in natural products with low content of additives (Dickson-Spillmann,
Siegrist, & Keller, 2011; Evans, de Challemaison, & Cox, 2010).
As expected, signicant differences among countries were found
in the frequency of mention of foods positive and negative for wellbeing. Differences among countries were in agreement with consumers associations with wellbeing, as well as their eating habits.
As shown in Table 6, when listing foods positive for wellbeing French
participants mentioned with a larger frequency foods within the
dimension Sweet products than participants in the other four countries, which could be explained by the higher relevance that they
attributed to psychological aspects of wellbeing and particularly
foods on their wellbeing (Table 5 and Fig. 5). Meanwhile, Uruguayan

314

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

participants stressed the positive inuence of meat products, Spaniards stressed sh and seafood and legumes, while Brazilians
stressed grains, cereals and legumes (Table 6). Besides, French and
Spanish participants gave more relevance to organic and natural
products than participants in the rest of the countries (Fig. 3). It is
relevant to note that although Portuguese participants did not signicantly stress the relationship between fruits, vegetables, sh
and seafood with wellbeing, they emerge as the major per capita consumers of all the cited food categories, according to FAOs Food Balance Sheets from the last decade 1999 to 2009 (Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2013). Differences
among countries in consumers conceptualization of the inuence
of food on their wellbeing also led to differences in the frequency
of mention of foods harmful for their wellbeing that were also relevant (Table 7).
Conclusions
The present exploratory work provided an insight on consumers associations with wellbeing in a general and food-related wellbeing in ve countries. Although some differences were identied
among countries, agreement was identied in the basic structure
of the construct in consumers mind. Wellbeing was associated
with a complex and multidimensional construct, related to psychological aspects (particularly positive moods and emotions) physical
health, global evaluation of life and satisfaction with specic
aspects, in agreement with previous work by Hettler (1984),
Veenhoven (2000) and Diener, Oishi et al. (2003) and Diener,
Scollon et al. (2003).
Consumers associations with food-related wellbeing was
strongly related to physical health, while foods positive and negative for wellbeing were strongly related to health associations and
dietary recommendations. This association between health and
wellbeing in a food-related context suggests that it might be better
to explore the concept using terms or expressions commonly used
by consumers in their everyday lives, such as feeling well or
feeling good. Further research on this topic is being carried out.
Results from the present work could contribute to the development of scales to measure perceived wellbeing when consuming
food products. It is advisable that this type of scales uses terms
and expressions familiar to consumers when evaluating perceived
wellbeing, and includes the dimensions frequently elicited in the
present work (physical health, psychological aspects and social
interaction). Measuring consumer perceived wellbeing could be
an interesting approach for understanding how this construct
affects eating patterns, and also for the development of successful
healthy food products with high consumers acceptance. Although
this approach has already been suggested by Boelsma et al. (2010)
and King et al. (2012), results from the present work provide valuable information about the most relevant dimensions that contribute to wellbeing in a food-related context, considering the views of
consumers in ve countries. Cross-cultural research on the relative
importance of different dimensions to food-related wellbeing can
contribute to a better conceptualization of the construct and to
understand how foods shape perceived wellbeing.
Further research is necessary to study the inuence of socio
demographic differences on consumer conceptualization of wellbeing. Besides, measuring consumers perceived wellbeing when
thinking of different products can contribute to a better understanding of the trade-offs that mediate consumers perceived wellbeing in a food-related context.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to Espacio Interdisciplinario (Universidad de la Repblica) and CAPESUdelaR project for nancial

support. Authors L.M. Cunha and A. P. de Moura acknowledge support from Sense Test, Lda. for gathering the Portuguese participants
from their consumers database.
References
Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Gimnez, A., & Gmbaro, A. (2010). Consumer
expectations and perception of chocolate milk desserts enriched with
antioxidants. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 243250.
Ares, G., Gimnez, A., & Gmbaro, A. (2008). Understanding consumers perception
of conventional and functional yogurts using word association and hard
laddering. Food Quality and Preference, 19(7), 636643.
Askegaard, S., & Madsen, T. K. (1998). The local and the global: Exploring traits of
homogeneity and heterogeneity in European food cultures. International
Business Review, 7, 549568.
Beaglehole, R., Bonita, R., Horton, R., Adams, C., Alleyne, G., Asaria, P., et al. (2011).
Priority actions for the non-communicable disease crisis. Lancet, 377,
14381447.
Bellisle, F., Blundell, J. E., Dye, L., Fantino, M., Fern, E., Fletcher, R. J., et al. (1998).
Functional food science and behaviour and psychological functions. British
Journal of Nutrition, 80, S173S193.
Block, L. G., Grier, S. A., Childers, T. L., Davis, B., Ebert, J. E. J., Kumanyika, S., et al.
(2011). From nutrients to nurturance: A conceptual introduction to food wellbeing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 30, 513.
Boelsma, E., Brink, E. J., Staeu, A., & Hendricks, H. J. J. (2010). Measures of
postprandial wellness after single intake of two proteincarbohydrate meals.
Appetite, 54, 456464.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 1, 185216.
Canetti, L., Bachar, E., & Berry, E. M. (2002). Food and emotion. Behavioural Processes,
60, 157164.
Cronin de Chavez, A., Backett-Milburn, K., Parry, O., & Platt, S. (2005). Understanding
and researching wellbeing: Its usage in different disciplines and potential for
health research and health promotion. Health Education Journal, 64, 7087.
Cummins, R. A. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being: A review.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 133158.
Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological
methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Inc.
Dickson-Spillmann, M., Siegrist, M., & Keller, C. (2011). Attitudes toward chemicals
are associated with preference for natural food. Food Quality and Preference, 22,
149156.
Diener, E., Diener, M., & Diener, C. (1995). Factors predicting the subjective wellbeing of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 851864.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective wellbeing: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Reviews of Psychology,
54, 403425.
Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective well-being: A general overview. South
African Journal of Psychology, 39, 391406.
Diener, E., Scollon, C. N., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). The evolving concept of subjective
well-being: The multifaceted nature of happiness. Advances in Cell Aging and
Gerontology, 15, 187219.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and
subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189216.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Dodge, R., Daly, A. P., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. D. (2012). The challenge of dening
wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2, 222235.
Douglas, M. (1982). Food as a system of communication. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Dye, L., & Blundell, J. (2002). Functional foods: Psychological and behavioural
functions. British Journal of Nutrition, 88, S1S28.
EUROSTAT (2014). Unemployment rate by sex and age groups annual average,%.
<http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=une_rt_a&lang=en>
(last accessed February, 2014).
Evans, G., de Challemaison, B., & Cox, D. N. (2010). Consumers ratings of the natural
and unnatural qualities of foods. Appetite, 54, 557563.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2013). FAOSTAT
food balance sheets: Food supply quantity for Fruits-excluding wine, vegetables, sh
and seafood, 19992009. FAO, Rome. <http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/
go/to/compare/Q/QC/E> (last accessed September 2013).
Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Doing the
right thing: Measuring wellbeing for public policy. International Journal of
Wellbeing, 1, 79106.
Gallo, P., & Gen-Badia, J. (2013). Cuts drive health system reforms in Spain. Health
Policy, 113(12), 17.
Gibson, E. L., & Green, M. W. (2002). Nutritional inuences on cognitive function:
Mechanisms of susceptibility. Nutrition Research Reviews, 15, 169206.
Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Verbeke, W., Enderli, G., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Vanhonacker,
F., et al. (2010). Perception of traditional food products in six European regions
using free word association. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 225233.
Guerrero, L., Guardia, M. D., Xicola, J., Verbeke, W., Vanhonacker, F., ZakowskaBiemans, S., et al. (2009). Consumer-driven denition of traditional food
products and innovation in traditional foods. A qualitative cross-cultural study.
Appetite, 52, 345354.

G. Ares et al. / Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015) 304315

Hettler, B. (1984). Wellness. Encouraging a lifetime pursuit of excellence. Health
Values, 8, 1317.
Jaeger, S. R., Cardello, A. V., & Schutz, H. G. (2013). Emotion questionnaires: A
consumer-centric perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20, 229241.
Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. (2002). Optimizing well-being: The
empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 10071022.
King, S. C., Sainsbury, J., Meiselman, H. L., Snow, J., Gillette, M., McCafferty, D. (2012).
Measuring the wellness in health and wellness. In 5th European conference on
sensory and consumer research, 912 September 2012. Bern, Switzerland.
King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measure
consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21,
168177.
King, S. C., Weber, A. J., Meiselman, H. L., & Lv, N. (2004). The effect of meal situation,
social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food
Quality and Preference, 15, 645653.
Kinnear, T. C., & Taylor, J. R. (1993). Investigacin de Mercados. Un enfoque aplicado
(pp. 361371). Colombia: McGraw-Hill Interamericana S.A.
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and
practices (2nd). New York: Springer.
Lim, J. (2011). Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Quality and
Preference, 22. 733347.
Macht, M. (2008). How emotions affect eating: A ve-way model. Appetite, 50, 111.
McGillivray, M., & Clarke, M. (2006). Human well-being: Concepts and measures. In
M. McGillivray & M. Clarke (Eds.), Understanding human well-being. Basingstoke:
Palgrave MacMillan.
McMahon, A., Williams, P., & Tapsell, L. C. (2010). Reviewing the meanings of
wellbeing and wellness and their implications for food choice. Perspectives in
Public Health, 130, 282286.
Meiselman, H. L. (2006). The role of context in food choice, food acceptance and
food consumption. In R. Shepherd & M. Raats (Eds.), The Psychology of food choice
(pp. 179199). Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Meiselman, H. L. (2013). The future in sensory/consumer research: . . . evolving to a
better science. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 208214.
Melo, H., de Moura, A. P., Aires, L. L., & Cunha, L. M. (2013). Barriers and facilitators
to the promotion of healthy eating lifestyles among adolescents at school: The
views of school health coordinators. Health Education Research, 28, 979992.
Modell, S. (2005). Triangulation between case study and survey methods in
management accounting research: An assessment of validity implications.
Management accounting research, 16, 231254.
Monteiro, C. A. (2009). Nutrition and health. The issue is not food, nor nutrients, so
much as processing. Public Health Nutrition, 12, 729731.
Monteiro, C. A., Levy, R. B., Claro, R. M., de Castro, I. R., & Cannon, G. (2011).
Increasing consumption of ultra-processed foods and likely impact on human
health: Evidence from Brazil. Public Health Nutrition, 14, 513.
Mursa, G. C. (2012). The World economic crisis. A non-conventional approach.
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 11101114.
New Economics Foundation (2009). National accounts of well-being: Bringing real
wealth onto the balance sheet. London, UK: New Economics Foundation.
Prescott, J., & Bell, G. (1995). Cross-cultural determinants of food acceptability:
Recent research on sensory perceptions and preferences. Trends in Food Science
and Technology, 6. 201205.

315

R Development Core Team (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical

computing, ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing.
Reeves, S., Halsey, L. G., McMeel, Y., & Huber, J. W. (2013). Breakfast habits, beliefs
and measures of health and wellbeing in a nationally representative UK sample.
Appetite, 60, 5157.
Rodrigues, S. S., Franchini, B., Graca, P., & de Almeida, M. D. (2006). A new food guide
for the Portuguese population: Development and technical considerations.
Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 38, 189195.
Roininen, K., Arvola, A., & Lhteenmki, L. (2006). Exploring consumers perceptions
of local food with two different qualitative techniques: Laddering and
wordassociation. Food Quality and Preference, 17(12), 2030.
Rozin, P. (2005). The meaning of food in our lives: A cross-cultural perspective on
eating and well-being. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 27,
S107S112.
Rozin, P., Fischler, C., Imada, S., Sarubin, A., & Wrzesniewski, A. (1999). Attitudes to
food and the role of food in life in the U.S.A., Japan, Flemish Belgium and France:
Possible implications for the diet-health debate. Appetite, 33, 163180.
Rozin, P., & Tuorila, H. (1993). Simultaneous and temporal contextual inuences on
food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 4, 1120.
Rozin, P., & Vollmecke, T. A. (1986). Food likes and dislikes. Annual Review of
Nutrition, 6, 433456.
Ryff, C., & Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 719727.
Schmitt, N. (1998). Quantifying word association responses: What is native-like?
System, 26, 389401.
Shimizu, T. (2003). Health claims and scientic substantiation of functional foods
Japanese system aiming the global standard. Current Topics in Nutraceutical
Research, 1, 112.
Steinmann, R. B. (2009). Projective techniques in consumer research. International
Bulletin of Business Administration, 5, 3745.
Stratham, J., & Chase, E. (2010). Childhood wellbeing A brief overview.
Loughborough: Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre.
Strong, K., Mathers, C., Epping-Jordan, J., & Beaglehole, R. (2006). Preventing chronic
disease: A priority for global health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 35,
492494.
Symoneaux, R., Galmarini, M. V., & Mehinagic, E. (2012). Comment analysis of
consumers likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A
case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference, 24, 5966.
Tuorila, H., & Cardello, A. V. (2002). Consumer responses to an off-avor in juice in
the presence of specic health claims. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 561569.
U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
(2010). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 (7th ed.). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Ofce.
Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Ordering concepts and measures of
good life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 139.
Verbeke, W. (2006). Functional foods: Consumer willingness to compromise on
taste for health? Food Quality and Preference, 17, 126131.
Vidal, L., Ares, G., & Gimnez, A. (2013). Projective techniques to uncover consumer
perception: Application of three methodologies to ready-to-eat salads. Food
Quality and Preference, 28, 17.
World Health Organization (2009). Global health risks: mortality and burden of
disease attributable to selected major risks. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.