An investigation of flavor complexity and food neophobia Ammar Olabi a,⇑ , Thomas Neuhaus b , Ruby Bustos b , Marion Cook-Camacho b , Tiffany Corvi b , Lina Abdouni a a Nutrition and Food Science Department, 315 FAFS, American University of Beirut, Riad El Solh 1107 2020, Beirut, Lebanon b Food Science and Nutrition Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, United States article info Article history: Received 10 June 2014 Received in revised form 22 December 2014 Accepted 5 January 2015 Available online 28 January 2015 Keywords: Neophobia Expectation Frame of reference Novel food Familiarity Flavor complexity abstract The Food Neophobia Scale (FNS) measures reluctance to try novel foods. In describing foods, the term complexity is not well defined. The objective of this work was to assess the acceptability of familiar and novel foods, with varying levels of flavor complexity in both salty and sweet foods, by food neoph- obics and neophilics and to assess the effect of expectation (frame-of-reference effect) and familiarity on the acceptability of foods. FNS was administered to 864 subjects, who were classified to neophobic, or neophilic based on their FNS scores. Experiment 1, which was replicated twice, focused on four familiar foods, prepared in two versions, an original version and a more flavorful version. Subjects rated foods on complexity, acceptability and expectation. Neophilics gave significantly higher acceptability ratings to complex foods than bland foods and vice versa for neophobics. The different versions of foods did not always meet panelists’ flavor expectations. Experiment 2 included eight commercial foods, four salty and four sweet, with two novel and two familiar foods used within each taste category/quality. One of the foods within the familiar or novel pairs was expected to be flavorful (e.g. chili is typically served as spicy) and the other expected to be bland. Subjects rated foods on complexity, acceptability, familiarity and expectation. Six out of the eight flavorful versions of foods were chosen by subjects as more complex. Significant factors were taste quality, novelty, expectation, and familiarity (p < 0.05). Overall, neophilics were more accepting of novel foods than neophobics. The significant interaction between expectation and neophobia suggests that neophobics and neophilics may have different expectations of foods. Although neophobia  complexity was not significant, the neophobics’ acceptability ratings for bland versions were higher than for the flavorful versions. Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Food neophobia has been repeatedly measured using the Food Neophobia Scale (FNS), developed by Pliner and Hobden (1992) and validated by the former authors and Ritchey, Robert, Ulla-Kaisa, and Tuorila (2003). FNS measures reluctance or a resis- tance to try novel foods. Gender (Johns, Edwards, & Hartwell, 2011; Nordin, Broman, Garvill, & Nyroos, 2004), cultural influences such as place of upbringing in rural vs. urban or country of origin (Flight, Lepard, & Cox, 2003; Johns et al., 2011; Olabi, Najm, Baghdadi, & Morton, 2009; Ritchey et al., 2003), and age (Meiselman, King, & Gillette, 2010) also seem to play a part in food neophobia. Food neophobia could also affect the quality of diets (Cooke, Carnell, & Wardle, 2006; Knaapila et al., 2011). An assessment of the acceptability of novel and familiar foods among food neophobics and neophilics promotes an understanding of the food choices and preferences of these two groups. Neopho- bics were less willing to try novel foods but neophilics had higher familiarity and willingness to try novel foods (Olabi et al., 2009). Moreover, willingness to try a novel or familiar food was signifi- cantly enhanced by an earlier contact with the food (Marples & Kelly, 1999; Olabi et al., 2009). In the visual arts, Berlyne (1971) hypothesized how complexity can denote a higher level of visual sophistication. Successful attempts have been made to define visual complexity using descriptive analysis (Mielby, Jensen, Edelenbos, & Thybo, 2013). In describing foods, the term complexity is not well defined although it is commonly used in the wine industry albeit histori- cally in a weakly defined manner (Meillon et al., 2010; Parr, Mouret, Blackmore, Pelquest-Hunt, & Urdapilleta, 2011. In flavor, stimulus complexity has been previously referred to as the number of odorants present (Jackson, 2002; Laska & Hudson, 1991, 1992) and the subject’s ability to define the odor in a meaningful manner (Sulmont, Issanchou, & Koster, 2002). Flavor/odor complexity has been also described as a construct that is opposite to ‘‘easy to assign to a familiar category’’ (Jellinek, 1990). Flavor enhancers http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.004 0950-3293/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +961 1 374374x4500 (work); fax: +961 1 744460. E-mail address: ammar.olabi@aub.edu.lb (A. Olabi). Food Quality and Preference 42 (2015) 123–129 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Food Quality and Preference journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual