Summary
Complete samenvatting tentamen Consumer, Technology and Innovation (YSS31806)
- Course
- Institution
All necessary information for the exam (including articles)!
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
JeskeKnol
Reviews received
Content preview
Lecture 1: IntroductionThe ‘grand challenges’
Grand challenges Global warming; tightening supplies of energy, water and food; ageing societies; public health;
pandemics (e.g. COVID-19); security.
Ask for sustainable, interdisciplinary (different disciplines working together on similar
problem) solutions.
Suggested to be “main driver for innovation (= development of novel technologies)” in
contemporary Europe (e.g. solutions as wind turbines, solutions towards climate change/
the nitrogen crisis).
Examples consumer Technologies that can be used by consumers intended to alter consumption practices in some way
technologies (e.g. by making them healthier and/or more sustainable) or to encourage radically new ways of
consuming.
E.g. app for COVID-19, To Good To Go, cultured meat, robots bringing food in hospitals, smart
applications to control energy use in home, home-workouts, wearables to count steps.
Different perspectives
1) Psychological Focus on individuals; understanding human mind and behavior – processes that underlie actions
we take.
2) Sociological Understanding groups, societies and social processes – understand social processes in groups and
society.
3) Economic Behavioral economics and complexity economics (or complex systems science) – behavioral
economics uses principals from psychology and economics to understand human decision-making
(e.g. by using incentivized games); complexity economics uses a system approach (e.g. how price
structures in NL influence adoption of new technologies).
4) Communication Focus on communication and interaction between people – communication channels and senders
(people who communicate the message) are more central.
5) User Human interaction with material factors (e.g. a door handle) and technologies – receiver (user of
technology) is more central.
Multi-disciplinarity versus interdisciplinarity
Multi-disciplinarity Draws on knowledge from different disciplines but stays within their boundaries. Goal ≠ achieve
integration of insights – Look which discipline has the best solution rather than merging
everything into one solution.
Interdisciplinarity Analyzes, synthesizes and harmonizes links between disciplines into a coordinated and coherent
= this course whole. Goes beyond a simple sum of its parts – Different disciplines synthesize knowledge and
look how to merge it into one solution.
Sociological perspective (individual is central)
Technology (1) Everything that we use, create, and invent to achieve a certain purpose.
Technology key word in our society, yet rather confused.
Humans have had technologies since the stone age (e.g. catapults for hunting).
Animals have been identified as tool users too (e.g. when building their nest).
Yet the word technology is rather recent (common word mid 20th century).
Technology (2) The application of knowledge, techniques, and tools to adapt and control physical environments
and material resources to satisfy wants and needs.
Broad concept → everything we use and invent to achieve something.
Technology as a driver of change could mean anything from applied science to
broad industrial arts (e.g. computer, how to build a fire, potato peeler).
Technology is contextual; what we do to achieve a certain goal differs per context.
E.g. eating with chopsticks vs cutlery (invented to achieve same goal (eat food in a proper
way) but use of different technologies (chopsticks vs cutlery) to achieve it).
Thus, technologies are also embracing cultural and social components.
Technology can be caught in two perspectives:
Technological determinism Technology determines social change – technology changes society.
Developments in technology are the moments bringing new phases in human history; so
determining our future (e.g. invention of wheel revolutionized human mobility, allowing
people to travel larger distances).
Social constructivism of Society changes technology.
,technology E.g. unlock phone with code → face ID. Companies did research on human-technology interaction
and improved themselves.
Technology does not determine human action but human action shapes technology.
So technology is embedded in a social context.
Overt vs covert behaviour
Overt behaviour Behavior that is easily and directly observable (incl. physical actions, facial expressions and
gestures). E.g. running, smiling, eating.
Covert behaviour Behavior that is not directly observable or measurable.
= focus psychological persp. Focus on psychological processes. E.g. thinking, processing information, retrieving
memories, social norm perceptions, resistance.
Three generations of research questions:
Is there an effect? Does X affect or relate to Y? E.g. does trust affect consumer acceptance of a novel food
technology?
When is there a relation Under what conditions does the effect occur? E.g. under what conditions (e.g. young age) does
between X and Y? trust affect consumer acceptance of a novel food technology? Explains when relationship between
X and Y happens; focuses on moderators explaining what interacts between the effect of X and Y.
How can we characterize What explains the effect? E.g. what psychological processes (e.g. heuristics) underlie the effect of
the psychological trust on the acceptance of novel food technologies?
process(es) which
mediate(s) the effect?
Example: How is constant cognitive connectedness (in the form of online vigilance) related to individual well-being?
Online vigilance A state of alertness to respond to devices (e.g. smartphones).
Can be measured by different dimensions. E.g. ‘state salience’: “In the last half an hour,
how much were you thinking about mediated interactions (e.g. phone calls, WhatsApp
messages) on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a lot)?”
State affective well-being Can be measured by asking participants to indicate how they currently feel on a mood scale: e.g.
“At this moment, I feel”, followed by six mood dichotomies (e.g. “tired-awake”).
Results Effect of state salience on state affective well-being was non-significant.
Question relates to 1st generation of research questions; it’s about the relationship
between two variables (cognitive connectedness and well-being).
Example: “We predicted that the valence of thoughts moderates the relationship between salience and affective well-being.”
Valence of thoughts (I.e. positivity of thoughts) can be measured as pleasantness of thoughts: “How pleasant
were those thoughts about mediated/face-to-face interactions on a scale from 1
(unpleasant) to 7 (pleasant)?”
Results Lack of an interaction effect between salience and valence of thoughts on affective
wellbeing – could reflect a lack of power.
Question relates to 2nd generation of research questions; it looks into the conditions
(valence of thoughts) under which the effect occurs.
Readings
Psychological perspective Sociological perspective
‘Consumer acceptance of novel food technologies.’ ‘No protein transition without societal acceptance: Two
reasons why the protein transition has not accelerated
yet.’
Consumer acceptance: how an individual accepts and Societal acceptance
rejects novel food technologies.
Focus on individual Focus on society
Consumer acceptance Consumers often hesitant to accept novel food technologies.
Heuristics and individual differences among consumers influence consumer acceptance
of agri-food technologies.
, Lack of knowledge + familiarity with food technologies → reliance on heuristics to evaluate them.
Experiential system more important than analytical system in how novel food
technologies are perceived.
Generally, consumers’ reliance on natural-is-better and affect heuristics is one reason for
their lack of acceptance of some novel food technologies.
Both technology’s aspects and person’s characteristics further influence perception.
Technology viewed as unnatural, dreadful, uncontrollable, not voluntarily
exposed to it → low acceptance.
Person-related factors (food technology neophobia, disgust sensitivity and cultural
values) further influence perception of a technology.
Heuristics Mental shortcuts that enable us to substitute information that is unavailable, or too hard to
access, for a piece of readily available information that is likely to yield accurate judgement.
Affect heuristic Affective meaning that people associate with an object or the associations elicited by an object –
ranging from positive to negative feelings.
Associated with willingness to purchase a novel food technology.
Laypeople and experts may differ in their acceptance of the same technology because of
this heuristic.
Experts not influenced as they have technological knowledge; they do not have to react
on whether their feelings are positive or negative. Consumers often lack technological
knowledge so have to use other cues (does it give a positive or negative feeling). Based
on that feeling, they will accept or reject a technology.
Trust heuristic People who rely on trust to evaluate a food technology use cues that indicate trust in the source
of information.
E.g. consumers who buy organic cannot tell how these items are produced and whether their price
is justified so they need to trust that the agents in the food chain honestly label the products to
purchase.
Two types of trust:
Social trust (based on perceived value similarities) E.g. trust a company because the
values health and sustainability are very important to them and for you → you have
social trust and buy the product.
You do not know why certain Confidence (based on past experience) E.g. you bought a product multiple times and did
food products receive an A but
not get sick → you have confidence in the company and buy the product.
you rely on the ones who label
the Nutri-Score that the right
label is given. Social trust is more important with the acceptance of novel food technologies; we can have
confidence in a company with lots of experience in creating products but we might not trust them
based on the values they have (e.g. turnover > sustainability values).
Natural-is-better Natural evokes positive emotions in Western countries.
heuristic Naturalness in foods is of high importance; perceived as healthier, tastier and more
sustainable.
Absence of human processing is a key feature of perceived naturalness.
Added ingredients (e.g. vitamin C) perceived as less natural = harm to purity. E.g. cultured meat is
perceived as less natural than minced meat.
Individual differences People differ in their preferences and values, resulting in differences in consumer acceptance of
among people agri-food technologies.
Food technology A personality trait influencing consumers’ willingness to accept new food technologies.
neophobia More knowledge about food → more knowledge about new food technologies.
More concerned about sustainable aspects of foods → higher food technology neophobia.
Disgust sensitivity Can be predicted by people’s tendency to experience feelings of disgust when the food has cues
(higher vs lower) that might indicate pathogen presence or contamination (e.g. touched by another person).
State disgust (experienced in a situation) and trait disgust (personality factor) are linked
to the rejection of artificial meat and milk and GM foods.
State: e.g. when you receive food from someone in a familiar environment (NL), you may
accept it more easily than when in another country.
Trait: e.g. some people are more sensitive to experience disgust sensitivity than other
people. It is a personality factor.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller JeskeKnol. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
64438 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now