Search

This data set consists of a large cross-country survey conducted for the EU funded project Food4Me in 2013. It contains determinants for consumer acceptance and intention to use of personalized nutrition advices based on different levels of specificity and personality of data –self-reported intake, blood analysis and DNA based analysis of optimal nutrition patterns. Data are provided in SPSS and interoperable .CSV format. Surveys and metainformation are added in interoperable .RTF format. The underlying survey is present in 8 languages English, German, Spanish, Norwegian, Dutch, Portuguese, Greek and Polish. Used scales are sourced to the originals in the description file.

Objectives: This study identifies how the interaction between temporal distance, regulatory focus, and framing of health outcomes affects individuals' intention to adopt a personalized nutrition service. Design: A 2 (temporal distance: immediate health outcomes vs. delayed health outcomes) × 2 (regulatory focus: prevention vs. promotion) × 2 (health outcome framing: illness prevention vs. health promotion) full-factorial between-subjects design. Methods: In two experiments with samples of 236 and 242 students, regulatory focus was manipulated by asking participants to describe which academic outcomes they want to either achieve or prevent and how they aim to do this. Temporal distance and health outcome framing were manipulated by modifying descriptions of personalized nutrition services. To study the process through which temporal distance, regulatory focus, and health outcome framing affect adoption intention, measures of perceived privacy risk and perceived personalization benefit were included as mediators. Results: The interaction between temporal distance and regulatory focus had a significant effect on adoption intention, perceived privacy risk, and perceived personalization benefit. For prevention-focused individuals' adoption intention was higher, perceived personalization benefit was higher, and perceived privacy risk was lower when health outcomes were immediate instead of delayed. These effects were not significant for promotion-focused individuals. Health outcome framing affected the interaction between temporal distance and regulatory focus, but only in Study 1. Only perceived personalization benefit served as a mediator. Conclusion: Tailoring temporal distance to individuals' regulatory focus increases adoption intention for personalized nutrition advice. Statement of contribution: What is already known on this subject? Intention to adopt dietary recommendations results from a cognitive decision-making process. Regulatory focus and temporal distance a

Background: Personalised nutrition (PN) may promote public health. PN involves dietary advice based on individual characteristics of end users and can for example be based on lifestyle, blood and/or DNA profiling. Currently, PN is not refunded by most health insurance or health care plans. Improved public health is contingent on individual consumers being willing to pay for the service. Methods: A survey with a representative sample from the general population was conducted in eight European countries (N = 8233). Participants reported their willingness to pay (WTP) for PN based on lifestyle information, lifestyle and blood information, and lifestyle and DNA information. WTP was elicited by contingent valuation with the price of a standard, non-PN advice used as reference. Results: About 30% of participants reported being willing to pay more for PN than for non-PN advice. They were on average prepared to pay about 150% of the reference price of a standard, non-personalised advice, with some differences related to socio-demographic factors. Conclusion: There is a potential market for PN compared to non-PN advice, particularly among men on higher incomes. These findings raise questions to what extent personalized nutrition can be left to the market or should be incorporated into public health programs.