The negative influence of food neophobia on food and beverage liking: Time to look beyond extreme groups analysis?

• Extreme groups analysis is common in food neophobia (FN) research but has limitations. • These are identified and illustrated empirically in the context of how FN impacts F&B liking. • Three FN group comparisons performed: M ± 0.5 × SD, M ± 1.0 × SD and M ± 1.5 × SD. • Full-data analysis enhances understanding of the impact of FN on F&B liking. • Full-data analysis has a stronger role to play in FN research and should be used more. The negative impact of food neophobia (FN) on food and beverage (F&B) liking/disliking is well documented. Against this backdrop, the present research sought to raise awareness of data analysis strategy in FN research. Extreme groups analysis currently dominates as evidenced from the many studies that compare groups of neophobic and neophilic consumers. However, when a variable, like FN, is naturally continuous, full-data analysis has been recommended. We present both approaches using data from online surveys in three Western countries where consumers rated degree of liking/disliking for F&B names (USA, UK and Australia, n = 3454). The first objective was to explore how results from extreme groups analysis were influenced by group extremity (more/less neophobic vs. more/less neophilic). In the case of seafood and ethnic food items, the average difference in liking score between neophobic and neophilic groups ranged from 2 to 4.5 points on the 9-pt hedonic scale depending on FN group definition (less extreme vs. more extreme). To acknowledge this influence contextualisation of degree of FN group extremity is encouraged. For example, FN groups defined by M ± 0.5 × SD and M ± 1.5 × SD should be differently named to convey greater FN extremity in the latter. In the second objective, full-data analysis was performed, treating FN as a continuous variable. Additional knowledge about the impact of FN on F&B liking/disliking beyond that from extreme groups analysis was gained. Linearity in the relationship between FN and degree of F&B liking/disliking was generally observed. Moderating factors were included in additional analyses and illustrated the possibility of accounting for participants' country of living or differences between consumer populations in overall level of FN (central location vs. online). We suggest that it may be time to rely less on extreme groups analysis in FN research, and if used that adequate justification be given and care taken to describe the FN groups to facilitate more robust interpretations and between-study comparisons. The insights and recommendations have relevance for other continuous psychological traits relating to food liking food-related consumer behaviour in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]