Better safe than sorry: discriminability and response bias in adult food neophobia

Food neophobia, the reluctance to try novel or unfamiliar foods, is thought to involve both uncertainty-related processes and avoidance tendencies under perceived risk. These components have largely been studied separately. This study integrates both using the Signal Detection Theory framework to examine how adults decide whether a food item is edible or inedible under conditions of uncertainty and risk. 57 young French adults (32 females; M = 20.9 years, SD = 4.23) completed validated measures of food neophobia and food disgust sensitivity, and performed a Go/no-Go task in which familiar and unfamiliar foods, presented with or without visual cues of spoilage. Results showed that higher levels of food neophobia were associated with poorer discriminability in distinguishing safe from unsafe food. Individuals with higher food neophobia also exhibited a cautious response bias, favoring “inedible” responses even at the cost of missing edible items, particularly unfamiliar foods. These findings extend previous research in children, highlighting the importance of considering both components to fully understand food neophobia in adults. Interventions aiming to increase acceptance of healthier or more sustainable foods, perceived as new by consumers, should address both reduced discriminability and cautious response tendencies.