Predictors of Liking Pineapple on Pizza: Implications for Food Choices

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 1

Predictors of Liking Pineapple on Pizza:

Implications for Food Choices

Lynne N. Kennette, Clayton Rhodes, and Cara Coulson

Durham College, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

The following investigation explores the reasons for individual food choices. Specifically, we investigate the

perceptions of adults regarding pineapple as a pizza topping. Study 1 analysed interview transcripts of

faculty’s and staff’s responses to whether they like pineapple on pizza and identified themes in their

responses, including social relationships, Canadian identity, and creativity. These themes were then used to

create a questionnaire to look into this food choice more granularly in the same population (Study 2). Results

showed that gender and age were the two primary predictors for the pizza on pineapple choice in

questionnaire responses, with a tendency for younger females to prefer pineapple on pizza and older males to

dislike it (though the relationship with age was not linear). These findings are interpreted in relation to the

mechanisms involved in food-related decisions and health behaviours.

Keywords: food choice, personality, preference, pineapple, creativity

Anecdotally, few people appear to be neutral about whether pineapple is an acceptable topping for pizza.

Even Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and Iceland’s president Gudni Thorlacius Johannesson weighed in

on the issue, with polarized views (Johannesson, 2017; Trudeau, 2017). Divisive topics such as pineapple on pizza

can be used by political groups to plant the seeds of discord and unrest in the United States, and the Cybersecurity

and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) even used this very topic to illustrate how this can be done (U. S.

Department of Homeland Security, 2019). So, we wondered, can this divisive food choice be used to better

understand how people make food-related decisions?

Some scholars have argued that food availability (cultural, geographic, economic, etc.) is the single most

important factor in determining the foods we eat; after all, you cannot eat it if it’s not available (Rozin, 2006).

However, there are many other factors (some of which are related to availability) that influence our selection of

food. Researchers have identified a plethora of determinants of food choices: practical reasons such as price and

convenience, temporary reasons such as current mood, sensory preferences such as taste and texture, and other

personal reasons such as health, weight concerns, social factors, media and advertising, pleasure, ideological

reasons, and ethical concerns such as for the environment, animal welfare, or free-trade, etc. (Bell & Meiselman,

1995; Eertmans et al., 2001; Eertmans et al., 2005; Furst et al., 1996; Letarte et al., 1997; Lindeman & Stark, 1999;

Parraga, 1990; Rozin, 1996; Rozin & Tuorila, 1993; Steptoe et al., 1995; Wardle, 1993). After price consideration,

physical characteristics of the food are the most influential in determining food choice (Costell et al., 2010;

Drewnowski, 1997; Scheibehenne et al., 2007; Steptoe et al.,1995).

Humans have a fairly consistent process for sensing food flavours, combining gustatory and olfactory

input, however there is variability in individuals’ sensitivity to the taste and smell molecules they ingest (Tuorila,

2007), including the individual’s detection threshold for sweetness (Garcia-Bailo et al., 2009). Additionally,

individuals vary so that not all people perceive the same taste in the same way. Although this appears to be

somewhat genetically determined (such as our innate preference for sweet tastes over bitter ones (Drewnowski,

1997) and for foods high in sugar and fat (Capaldi, 1996; Cooke & Wardle, 2005; Drewnowski, 1997)), it is also

influenced by maturation, such that this preference declines with age (Vabø & Hansen, 2014). Twin studies

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Lynne Kennette at Durham College, B-

wing #297C. Email: lynne.ke[email protected]

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 2

comparing the food preferences of monozygotic and dizygotic twins have shown that preferences for different types

of foods (meats, desserts, fruits, and vegetables) are all at least moderately heritable (Breen et al., 2006).

Additionally, an understanding of food choices cannot be understood without considering social and other contexts

(Rozin 1996; Rozin, 2006). For example, when nutrition information is available during the ordering process when

eating outside the home, people tend to make healthier food choices (Hochradel, 2007).

Other researchers (e.g., Birch, 1999; Yeomans, 2006; Yeomans, 2007) have argued that many food

preferences (and resulting food choices) develop as a result of various forms of learning. For example, mere

exposure (i.e., familiarity) is a type of learning that occurs through repeated exposure to a food, resulting in an

increased liking for that food (Hausner et al., 2012; Mela, 1999; Yeomans, 2006). Additionally, foods that are

associated with the recovery of an illness and those paired with a flavour which is already liked (evaluative

conditioning) are both more likely to become preferred (Birch, 1999; Capaldi, 1996; Vabø & Hansen, 2014;

Yeomans, 2007).

Because most of our eating occurs with others (Vabø & Hansen, 2014), social contexts such as family and

other social environments greatly affect which foods we like (Tuorila, 2007). Therefore, a type of learning known as

modelling also affects our perception of various foods, especially eaten by our friends and parents, which we often

consider to be models (Ludy & Mattes, 2012; Mela, 1999).

In some cases, people may not be aware of their internal motives for making particular food choices, while

other times they may be able (and willing) to state them explicitly. However, it seems likely that, given the divisive

nature of the particular food of interest here (pineapple on pizza), most people have previously been in a position

where they needed to articulate their position on this food, or at the very least give some thought to it. As such, they

may be in a better position to explain their rationale for the inclusion or exclusion of pineapple on pizza.

The Present Study

In the present paper, we explore food choice using a very specific food item: pineapple on pizza. In Study

1, we investigated what participants reported influenced their decisions about this food. We did this using interviews

which had already been conducted for a different purpose (as a social initiative by one of the authors so that

colleagues could keep in touch with each other during the pandemic) and analysed responses using a content

analysis to identify themes. In Study 2, we used these themes to guide the construction of a questionnaire where we

explicitly asked participants about their preference for pineapple on pizza as well as other variables as identified in

Study 1. Understanding the factors that contribute to the appeal of certain food combinations in greater detail and

how they relate to individual food choices will help to better understand food-related behaviour. This, in turn, might

help to better support individuals who struggle with making good food choices and/or struggle with their weight

(e.g., obesity, anorexia, binging, stress eating, etc.).

Study 1

In this study, we explored the themes related to the endorsement or rejection of pineapple as an appropriate

topping for pizza using a content analysis (conducted on secondary interview data). We wondered whether there

were any common themes in participants’ responses and whether that could help us to better understand food

choices. To this end, we undertook this content analysis with the goal of preparing for a more focused investigation

of the factors affecting participants’ feelings towards pineapple on pizza (Study 2).

Methods

Participants

Faculty and staff in the School of Interdisciplinary Studies participated in a voluntary team-building video

chat with one of the authors, their colleague. This was intended to bring the department closer together and allow us

to “catch up” as we returned from our summer holidays to a fully online work environment. Questions in the semi-

structured interview asked about what colleagues missed and didn’t miss about coming to campus for work (i.e.,

what has been good about the COVID-19 pandemic), celebrity crushes, and what they had been up to more

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 3

generally. The question of interest to us, however, was whether they considered pineapple to be an appropriate pizza

topping. The exact question asked during the interview was: “Pineapple on pizza. Yes or no?”.

Of the 47 interviewees, 41 (87.23%) consented to their responses being used in this research project. No

demographic data were collected about the participants as these variables were unrelated to any predictions we had,

however the sample included both men and women, younger and older employees, and included a good

representation of various roles within the department (staff, administrators, full-time, and contract faculty).

Materials and Procedure

After obtaining approval from the Research Ethics Board to use these data for this secondary analysis

research project, participants’ answers to the question about whether they liked pineapple on pizza were transcribed

verbatim by the 3 researchers. Because two of the researchers also participated in the interviews, and following the

recommendations of Neuendorf (2002), the other researcher transcribed and coded those interviews.

Results and Discussion

The transcriptions produced a total of 7,259 words, which were based on 67 minutes of video (3998

seconds), for an average of 97.51 seconds per participant (Median = 86 seconds). While transcribing the videos, the

three researchers were able to identify many codes individually, and then collaborated to form a comprehensive list

of codes before undertaking the coding of the transcripts. Each transcript was manually coded by one of the three

researchers using a common set of codes. These included family, culture, contamination, and others’ feelings (see

Table 1 for a comprehensive list of codes and themes used). The number of responses which included that theme as

well as the corresponding percentage are also in Table 1.

To assess inter-rater reliability, 6 participants’ transcripts (selected at random using an online number

generator) were coded by a second researcher (14.6% of the transcripts). In this case, because there were 3 coders,

each coder re-coded two other transcripts (one from each of the other coders). This is in excess of the minimum

required coding overlap of 10% suggested by Riffe et al. (1998). By examining the percent agreement for these

overlapping transcripts, we determined an overall inter-rater reliability of 84.61% which supports that our coding is

reliable, exceeding the minimum recommended threshold of 70-80% (Frey et al., 2000; Watt & van den Burg,

1995). Inter-rater reliability for each pair of coders also exceeded this threshold as the agreement for each pair were

88.89% 77.78%, and 87.50%. As a more unbiased measure of inter-rater reliability, we also calculated Cohen’s

(1960) Kappa for each pair of raters. Even our lowest value (k = .793) still showed substantial inter-rater reliability

agreement (Cohen, 1960; Fleiss, 1971; Landis & Koch, 1977; McHugh, 2012).

Examining the data, slightly more people liked pineapple as a pizza topping compared to disliked it, with

slightly fewer being neutral. Although our respondents were split almost equally between liking and disliking

pineapple on pizza, this question was polarizing and resulted in some light-hearted but somewhat divisive

discussions.

We also identified a number of frequently endorsed codes. Many respondents pointed to dietary restriction

(e.g., an allergy) or preference for their choice or family. Although nearly a quarter of respondents reported that they

would never order it themselves, many followed up that statement with the idea that, even with pineapple, pizza is

still pizza and they would still eat it and enjoy pizza with any topping.

Combining these codes into themes, elements of liking pineapple on pizza (i.e., explicitly stating they like

it, acknowledging that all pizza was delicious, evoking the sweet and salty combination or a balance of flavours)

was included by more than half of respondents, while elements of disliking it, and being neutral or indifferent were

also identified, which may point to individual traits related to personality variables. Other common themes were

related to social relationships, dietary patterns/restrictions, Canadian identity, and creativity.

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 4

Table 1

Summary of themes, codes and examples for each as well as the raw number of respondents whose statement related to that theme and the corresponding

percentage.

THEMES

CODES INCLUDED

EXAMPLES (quotes)

Personal dietary

patterns

Allergy

Vegan/vegetarian

Dietary preference

Other restrictions (e.g., GF)

I get a little bit of allergy with that.

I don't eat piggies anymore and I don't eat cheese.

…absolutely no cheese. That's what matters on pizza.

Due to dietary restrictions.

46.34

Relationships

Family

Social (party, meetings)

Interviewer's feelings

Fight

Other colleagues' feelings

Everybody else in my house loves pineapple on pizza.

If I'm at a party or something and there's a Hawaiian

pizza….

I know how important that 'no' category is to you

(interviewer).

So it starts a fight in our family on a regular basis.

I can't say anything against our colleagues who voted yes.

58.54

Canadian

identity/values

Canadian inventor

Polite

Sorry

Hawaiian

Food waste/environment

Inclusive

Multicultural

The whole concept of a Hawaiian pizza is Canadian.

Yeah, I want to be polite.

I'm sorry, it's a definite no.

I'm really craving Hawaiian

...if there was pineapple on pizza and it was going to go

into the garbage I would, I would eat it.

Why discriminate against pineapple?

Put 12 fried eggs on it and make an Australian pizza.

43.90

Yes (I like it)

Any pizza is delicious

Balance

Salty/sweet (good)

And absolutely, absolutely, I’m a pineapple on pizza.

…because it's still pizza, at the end of the day, I love pizza.

I think for me it's a balance of flavours.

...you’ve got like the savory flavours of the sauce and the

cheese and then you mate that with the sweet of the

pineapple and it’s just a perfect, a perfect match.

58.54

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 5

Dislike

No (I don't like it)

Unnatural

Contaminate

Gross

Doesn't belong

Salty/sweet (bad)

Hard pass.

It's just so unnatural.

...if you try to pick pineapple off a pizza, it still tastes like

pineapple.

Yeah, it's so gross.

I absolutely think it doesn’t belong to pizza.

It’s sweet and savory at the same time, you don’t do that

46.34

Neutral

Neutral/unsure

It has changed

Would never order it

I went with Switzerland on this.

And now, due to dietary restrictions, my pizza is really

sad.

I would never order it on my own.

43.90

Creativity in response

New/novelty

Story-telling element

I may have a small slice for the novelty.

Where we live we have a lot of wineries and they have

wood fire ovens and you go for a glass of wine and a pizza

and what not. So, when COVID hit we knew that we

weren’t going to be able to do that, so we actually went

and bought our own fire oven. So, we have a pizza oven

for our backyard and every pizza that goes, every time we

cook a pizza or two, there’s always pineapple on there

36.59

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 6

Figure 1 shows the clusters and proposed relationships between the codes and themes we identified.

Specifically, neutral participants tended to identify elements from both the liking and disliking themes, which may

be related to differing personality traits. Responses with dietary restrictions tended to elaborate and explain with a

story (as did those you liked pineapple on pizza). Finally, maintaining social relationships is in line with Canadian

values and appears to support the idea of being a multicultural and inclusive society.

We also examined some of these data quantitatively (frequency of yes and no words in participants’

responses; number of words in each response). When coding, we observed that participants who did not like

pineapple on their pizza appeared to use the word “no” (or its derivatives like nope) much more frequently than their

counterparts used the word “yes” (and its derivatives like yup). Similarly, it seemed as though participants who

enjoyed pineapple on their pizza engaged in much more story-telling or included more creative elements in their

response than those who did not appreciate pineapple on their pizza. We counted the number of uses of “yes” and

“no” (and their derivatives) for participants who liked and disliked pineapple on their pizza (respectively). Our

observation was confirmed: those who did not like pineapple on their pizza used “no” significantly more times (M =

3.60, SD = 2.26) than those who did enjoy pineapple on their pizza (M = 1.88, SD = 1.69; t(26) = 2.41, p <.05). This

is in spite of the “no” respondents having shorter answers both in terms of time (68 seconds vs. 132 seconds) and

number of words (154.94 words vs 200.60 words), though this difference in length did not reach significance (t(28)

= 1.50, p = .07). We then examined whether more of the “yes” participants had creative or story-telling responses

and found that many more “yes” respondents told stories (47.06%) compared to the “no” respondents (13.33%).

This difference was significant (X2 (1, N = 32) = 4.22, p < .05).

The differences identified in terms of creativity, length of response and the various common themes point

to a real difference in some potentially important ways between those who do and those who do not like pineapple

on pizza. Our primary focus in Study 1 was to identify themes related to whether people like pineapple on pizza.

The major themes we identified, and which were used to develop a more detailed questionnaire to investigate in

Study 2, were related to personal preferences and personality, relationships, Canadian identity, and creativity.

Study 2

Based on the themes identified in Study 1, our goal was to better understand food choices (and specifically

pineapple on pizza) by exploring the extent to which the following factors (identified in Study 1) related to it:

personality, creativity, Canadian identity, and social relationships. Although primarily exploratory in nature (since,

to our knowledge, no descriptive study of this sort has been conducted in the past), we hypothesized that people who

endorse the inclusion of pineapple on pizza might be different in some important ways on these variables.

Additionally, another goal of the study was to explore whether, as is the case with young children’s preference for

sweets and avoidance of bitter-tasting foods (Desor et al., 1975; Desor et al., 1977; Mennella et al., 2003), there

could be an evolutionary basis for this food choice, such that underweight or younger individuals might be more

likely to seek out the sweet taste of pineapples. These questions guided this second study. In order to provide some

additional empirical background on the areas identified in Study 1, the possible influence of personality,

relationships, identity, and creativity on food choice will be outlined.

Personality

The way someone consistently thinks, acts, feels, and perceives the world is their personality (Jordan, 2011;

Shiner & Caspi, 2003). It includes their mood, opinion, motivation, as well as the way they think, speak, and act

(DeYoung, 2010). The Big Five is the most common trait taxonomy of personality (Larsen & Buss, 2010) and has

been shown to be consistent in over 50 cultures, rendering it a universal classification of personality traits (McCrae

et al., 2005). It includes five dimensions (or factors) which have been only slightly modified since their initial

inception in the 1980s (Costa & McCrae, 1985; McCrae & Costa 2008; McCrea & John, 1992). The five dimensions

are: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Openness (to Experience), Emotional Stability (formerly Neuroticism), and

Conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The Big Five personality traits are typically described with common

adjectives. Someone scoring high on the dimension of Extraversion (E) is enthusiastic, outgoing, and talkative; a

high score on Agreeableness (A) indicates the traits of forgiving, trusting, appreciative; for Conscientiousness (C)

the defining traits are being reliable, responsible, and planning; scoring low on Emotional Stability means a high

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 7

Table 2

Summary of survey responses, showing the percent of respondents selecting that response, rounded to the nearest whole number

(Not at all)

(Very much)

Yes

Unsure

Do you ever eat pineapple on pizza?

73%

22%

Do you like pineapple on your pizza?

22%

17%

24%

37%

If you were purchasing a slice a pizza

for yourself, would you ever order a

slice with pineapple on it?

44%

51%

How appropriate of a topping is

pineapple on a pizza?

14%

15%

12%

14%

46%

How strongly do you feel about your

opinion of whether pineapple is an

appropriate pizza topping?

20%

12%

61%

I liked it at some

point, but no

longer do

I used to

not like

it, but

now I do

I didn’t like it in

the past and still

don’t

I have

liked it in

the past

and still

Other

Which of the following is most accurate

about your like or dislike of pineapple

on pizza during your lifetime?

34%

56%

How appealing are pineapples to you as

a fruit alone?

12%

20%

56%

How appealing are pineapples to you in

other sweet dishes (like pineapple upside

down cake or a fruit salad?

14%

22%

46%

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 8

How appealing are pineapples to you in

savoury dishes like sweet and sour

chicken or stirfry ?

17%

24%

14%

37%

How much do you approve of other

sweet/savoury combinations such as a

donut burger (hamburger with donuts

instead of hamburger buns)?

37%

27%

19%

12%

Would you ever be willing to ever try

peaches or another sweet fruit on your

pizza if it was a local specialty (e.g.,

while travelling to a new country)?

59%

22%

19%

1 (Alone)

5 (with a group

of people)

When eating pizza, do you prefer to eat

it:

71%

20%

Does your family have an influence on

whether pineapple is added to the pizza

you order (e.g., it’s a topic of family

discussion)?

40%

10%

14%

22%

Do your friends influence the toppings

on your pizza?

42%

20%

22%

12%

Do your colleagues have an influence on

whether you eat pineapple on pizza?

69%

15%

80%

If multiple options of pizza were

available (e.g., at a meeting or party),

how likely are you to consume a slice of

pizza with pineapple on it (e.g.,

Hawaiian)?

36%

14%

10%

34%

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 9

It's disgusting and they

should keep it away from me

Neutral: their food, their choice

It's great and I wish they

would share some with

How do you feel about OTHER people

eating pineapples on their pizza?

76%

24%

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-9

10-11

12-13

Agreeableness

31%

24%

32%

12%

Conscientiousness

17%

15%

31%

36%

Emotional Stability

12%

24%

34%

17%

10%

Extraversion

10%

22%

19%

22%

20%

Openness to Experience

25%

34%

31%

Did you know that Hawaiian pizza was

a Canadian invention?

53%

46%

Makes it MORE appealing

Makes it LESS appealing

DOES NOT CHANGE its

appeal

Does knowing that Hawaiian pizza is

Canadian change its appeal?

17%

83%

How strongly do you hold being

Canadian as part of your identity?

12%

27%

54%

In general, do you consider yourself to

be a polite person

15%

80%

Would you eat a piece of pizza that

included toppings you didn’t

particularly like in order to be polite?

10%

15%

19%

32%

24%

Would you eat a slice of pizza that

included toppings you didn’t

particularly like in order to prevent it

from being wasted/thrown in the

garbage?

19%

14%

20%

24%

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 10

Do you consider yourself to be creative

person in general?

10%

20%

41%

27%

How creative are you feeling right now?

10%

37%

27%

17%

Do you consider adding pineapple to

pizza to be a novel/creative topping

choice?

36%

25%

24%

15%

Do you like to try new and/or novel food

combinations (e.g., deep fried peanut

butter-stuffed pickles)

12%

25%

29%

22%

12%

(Continued on next page.)

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 11

Figure 1. A visual representation of the themes and codes from our participants’ transcripts.

score on the formerly named Neuroticism dimension (N), which is described as anxious, self pitying, unstable;

finally, a high score on Openness (O) describes people who are curious, imaginative, and original (McCrea & John,

1992).

Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, a French gastronome of the 19th Century, once said: “Dis-moi ce que tu

manges, je te dirai ce que tu es.” (Translation: “Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are.”) (Brillat-

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 12

Savarin, 1825, p.13). Who you are (i.e., your personality) is not independent from your food choices. Because food

choices reflect one’s personality, personality may be able to help predict the food we are likely to eat (Shipman et

al., 2016) and personality has been shown to be related to a number of health and food behaviours.

Social Relationships

Social psychologists have reported that the decisions we make are affected by the (physical or

psychological) presence of others, including family, friends, and colleagues and strangers (Brandstetter et al., 2014;

Seitchik et al., 2017; Zajonc, 1965). Family cultural celebrations include special dishes prepared by loved ones with

common group memories attached to certain recipes offered. When meeting friends socially, gentle pressure for less

healthy options or multiple beverage intake can occur. Within group settings, the influence of the group can

determine choices that would not normally be made by an individual alone (e.g., risk-taking behaviours (Chou &

Nordgren, 2016; Previte et al., 2015)).

Meetings with colleagues may involve food being ordered by the employer to share within the group and

consequently, these food choices may be outside of an individual’s control. In group settings, it is possible for

people to choose certain foods to signal their social identity to others (perhaps encouraging social relationships) or

simply to follow the culturally prescribed social norms of their social group (Hackel et al., 2018; Weber & Morris,

2010). Social-facilitation research has demonstrated that people tend to eat more in larger groups than when eating

alone (de Castro & Brewer, 1992; Herman, 2015), whereas the impression-management literature indicates that

people can use their eating behaviour to convey a particular impression of themselves to others (Vartanian et.al.,

2015).

Perhaps one of the most powerful social influences on food choice and food intake is modeling, which has

shown that people adjust their food intake to that of their eating companions (Vartanian et al., 2015). According to

Higgs & Thomas (2016), when participants saw themselves belonging to the same social group as a prevalent

model, and strongly identified with the group they were eating with, modelling was enhanced. When the prevalent

model was seen enjoying a food choice, the rest of the group were more likely to choose as well. Thus, while eating

in a group situation, during an office meeting for example, it is possible one may choose to eat a pizza with

pineapple in that context when they would not make that topping choice had they been dining alone.

Creativity

Creativity has been defined as “the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities

that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others”

(Franken, 1993, p.393). Creative thinking is one of the competitive advantages the human species has over machines

and other animal species. Humans are not as big, strong, or fast as other animals but humans can employ

imagination in ways that lead to mental flexibility that, through trial and error, can lead to novel solutions (Roth &

Dicke, 2005). Puccio et al. (2018) gives two reasons that novelty is so important in creativity. The first is that

individuals discover and grow by continuously experimenting with novel ideas. The second is that novel experiences

can serve to stimulate breakthrough ideas.

In 1962, Satellite Diner owner Sotirios “Sam” Panopoulos placed ham and pineapple on a standard cheese

pizza in Chatham, Ontario Canada, and the “Hawaiian” pizza was born (Carman, 2019). At the time, the addition of

ham and pineapple to a standard cheese pizza was an example of ‘little c’ creativity. Puccio describes ‘little c’

creativity as everyday creativity. Specifically, he proposes that ‘little c’ refers to the small ways that individuals

demonstrate creativity on a daily basis during problem-solving tasks at work, home, or play. In this way, every

human has the innate capacity to be creative (Puccio et al., 2018).

The Hawaiian pizza is certainly a breakthrough idea that has become quite popular on its journey in

becoming mainstream in North American culture (Neustaeter, 2020). Gvion and Trostler (2008) found that, in the

1960s and 1970s, many ethnic restaurants took a similar ‘little c’ creative approach to generate meal ideas in much

the same way as Panopoulos did with his pineapple and ham on pizza creation. Restaurants with “strange” ethnic

foods adapted their menus to make their dishes more familiar (and thus more appealing) to their American patrons

(Gvion & Trostler, 2008).

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 13

Personal Identity

Various types of identity play important roles in many of our daily choices. For example, cultural identity

and clothing choice (Chattalas & Harper, 2016); ethnic identity and language use (Hazen, 2002); religious identity

and purchasing behaviours (Benjamin et al., 2016); and both personal (Nezlek & Forestell, 2020) and social

(Rosenfeld et al., 2020) identities and vegetarianism.

Hawaiian pizza is a Canadian creation (Scoble, 2016). Recent figures show that Canadians’ acceptance of

pineapple on their pizza is on the rise, now at 73%, demonstrating a 7% increase from 2019 to 2021 (Research Co.,

2021).

Hackel et al. (2018) have shown that those who identified as Southerners expected traditional Southern

food to taste better (Study 1) and that when primed with their Southern identity (but not their personal identity), they

also expected Southern food to taste better (Study 2). Additionally, when Canadians were primed with their

Canadian identity (but not their personal identity), they reported maple syrup as tasting better than honey in a taste

test. Therefore, the fact that adding pineapple to pizza originated in Canada means that it may now be part of

participants’ Canadian identity and predict this food choice.

Hypotheses

Although this work is primarily explorative (since nothing of this sort has been previously undertaken), we

expect to find differences among those who like pineapple on pizza and those who do not in several areas. First, we

hypothesized that those with stronger Canadian identity would have more positive perception of pineapple on pizza

as it is a Canadian creation. Second, we expected social groups to be related to someone’s choice of topping so that

those who eat pizza with others and/or whose toppings are more easily influenced by others would be more likely to

include pineapple on their pizza. Third, more creative people may be less traditional in their thinking and may

therefore be more likely to endorse pineapple as a (novel and/or creative) pizza topping. Fourth, in terms of the

predictor variable of personality, one might expect that individuals scoring high on openness to experience to be

more likely to try new things, including pineapple on pizza, and may therefore be more likely to enjoy it. On the

other side, one might expect more conscientious individuals to be more rule-driven and traditional and therefore be

less likely to enjoy pineapple on pizza. Finally, we expect to find evidence to support some biological underpinnings

of this food choice, where underweight participants might prefer pineapple on pizza because their biological

programming would motivate them seek out sweeter tastes in order to increase their chances of survival.

Methods

Participants

Faculty, staff, and administrative personnel were invited to participate. Of the 60 respondents, 63.8% were

female, and 62.67% were between the ages of 30 and 49. When asked about their weight, 68.33% reported being of

average weight and 26.67% reported being overweight, though none reported being underweight. Most (78.3%)

reported having a healthy diet in general.

Materials and Procedure

Participants were recruited by sending an invitation through the department email group. Participants were

fully informed prior to completing the survey. The information displayed explained that we were interested in

examining a number of variables in relation to their choice to include or not include pineapple on their pizza. If they

consented to participating in the research project, they were asked to answer questions in an anonymous online

survey which took less than 10 minutes to complete. It asked participants about their liking of pizza, pineapple,

various combinations of food (sweet, salty, savory) as well as the themes we identified in Study 1, notably

personality, social relationships, Canadian identity, and creativity. These questions are included in Appendix A. We

also asked about personality characteristics using the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI), a very brief measure

which has been shown to have adequate validity and test-retest reliability (r = .72) to measure the Big Five domains

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 14

(Gosling et al., 2003). Interested readers can refer to Gosling et al. (2003) for detailed psychometric properties of the

TIPI. Due to our small sample size relative to the numerous sections of the questionnaire and our evaluation that any

potential effects which could occur as a result of not counter-balancing the questions (practice effects, respondent

fatigue, order effects) would be unlikely to affect the quality of the respondents’ data, the presentation order of the

survey questions were presented in the same order for all participants. The order of presentation is reflected in

Appendix A.

Results and Discussion

For 89.93% of respondents, whether they liked pineapple on their pizza has remained stable; they have

either always liked it and still do or have never liked it and still don’t. Approximately half knew that Hawaiian pizza

was invented in Canada, a fact which made it more appealing to a small portion of the sample but did not change its

appeal for the majority of respondents.

On a 5-point scale, all 60 respondents said that they liked pizza (M = 4.80), but one person identified that

they had never tried pineapple on their pizza, so they were removed prior to data analyses (N = 59). We asked

respondents to list their favourite pizza toppings. The most frequently reported pizza toppings were pepperoni (listed

by 45% of respondents), mushrooms (43%), peppers (39%), pineapples (32%), and bacon (29%). Only 5% of

respondents left this question blank. Frequencies for the survey responses are shown in Table 2.

We first examined whether there were difference in self-reported purchasing behaviour (“If purchasing a

piece of pizza for yourself, would it have pineapple on it?”) and comparing those categorical responses to

participants’ ratings of how appropriate pineapple is as a topping for pizza showed a significant difference (F(2,56)

= 29.949, p < .05, η2 = 0.517) with Tukey’s post-hoc analyses showing that those who would not purchase

pineapple on their pizza rated the appropriateness of pineapple on pizza significantly differently (lower) from the

other two groups of respondents (yes p < .05, unsure, p < .05). Stated differently, compared to those who would not

order pineapple on pizza (M = 2.57, SD = 1.38), ratings were higher for both the unsure (M = 4.33, SD = 1.16) and

those who would order it (M = 4.77, SD = .51), where higher scores indicate more liking of pineapple.

More than half of respondents indicated that they would be willing to try another sweet fruit (e.g., peaches)

on their pizza. Breaking this down for those who liked pineapple on their pizza versus those who did not, those who

liked pineapple were more likely to also respond that they would try peaches (65.22%; 19.59 were unsure if they

would try peaches, and 15.22% would not try peaches). In the group of respondents who indicated that they did not

like pineapple on their pizza, the results were more equally split across the yes (38.46%) and no (40.00%) responses,

with the remainder (15.22%) being unsure. The pattern of responses for the “yes” and “no” groups differed

significantly (X2 (2, N = 58) = 15.24, p < .05). It could be that those who are more likely to approve of pineapple on

their pizza are also more likely to be adventurous with their food choices. Although this was not found to be the case

when comparing the pro-pineapple and anti-pineapple on pizza groups on openness to experience (X2 (1, N = 59) =

0.0003, p = .985), participants self-reported how adventurous they were in their food choices more generally (“Do

you like to try new and/or novel food combinations (e.g., deep fried peanut butter-stuffed pickles)?”) and this also

did not point to a difference between the groups: people who liked pineapple on their pizza were no more likely to

report that they liked to try new food combinations than those who did not like pineapple on their pizza (X2 (4, N =

59) = 7.22, p = .125).

The questions related to social relationships were uninteresting as social aspects did not appear to have any

impact on this food choice. Participants had no preference for eating pizza alone or with others (most responded

neutrally), and family, friends, and colleagues don’t appear to have an impact on participants’ choice of toppings:

many participants responded that they were “not at all” influenced by family, slightly more were “not at all”

influenced by friends, and nearly three-quarters were “not at all” influenced by colleagues. It is intuitive that

colleagues would have the least influence and that family would be the most influential in food choices given the

psychological closeness of each group. This could indicate that adult food choices have a very weak relationship

with these social aspects, or at the very least, it could indicate that individuals’ perceptions of the relationships that

may exist between their own food choices and their relationship with others are minimal.

Similarly, we thought that Canadian identity (or, the degree to which people held being Canadian as part of their

identity) might be related to their food choice of Hawaiian pizza since it is a Canadian creation. Previous research

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 15

has shown that when food is congruent with one’s identity, it is expected to taste better and rated as better tasting in

a taste test (Hackel et al., 2018). But this expectation was not found in the data. For example, participants were no

more or less likely to like pineapple on their pizza based on their self-rated Canadian identity scores (X2 (1, N = 59)

= 0.039, p = .843).

There were both sex and age differences in whether participants endorsed pineapple on their pizza. For sex

specifically, whether a participant liked pineapple on pizza differed by sex (X2 (3, N = 58) = 8.025, p < .05), with a

higher proportion of females indicating that they “very much” like pineapple on their pizza (n = 19 vs males n = 2),

whereas for those who did not like pineapple on their pizza (those responding “not at all”), it was more evenly split

by sex (n = 6 for female; n = 7 male). This result was mirrored in participants’ intent to purchase, with a higher

proportion of males indicating that they would not purchase pizza with pineapple on it (12 no, 2 unsure, 3 yes)

compared to females (17 no, 23 yes, 1 unsure), which was significant (X2 (2, N = 58) = 8.023, p < .05). Finally,

when rating on a scale how appropriate of a topping pineapple is, an ANOVA showed that responses differed by sex

(F(1,56) = 9.64, p < .05, η2 = 0.147), with females rating pineapples as a more appropriate topping. Previous

research has shown that young adult (17-25 years) women are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables than young

men of the same age (Conner et al., 2017), so this may contribute to this difference.

Whether a participant eats pineapple on pizza also differed by age (X2 (3, N = 59) = 15.06, p < .05), with

30-39 year-olds (n = 21, vs no n = 2) and 50-59 year-olds (n = 13 vs no n = 0) being more likely to eat pineapple on

their pizza it, while 40-49 (n = 7) were equally likely and 60-69 year-olds were almost equally likely (n = 5 for yes;

n = 4 for no). A similar pattern was seen when looking at whether participants reported liking pineapple on their

pizza, with 30-39 and 50-59 year-olds showing a greater propensity to liking pineapple on their pizza (X2 (9, N =

59) = 22.00, p = .009). Finally, examining participants’ ratings of how appropriate of a pizza topping they consider

pineapple to be, a significant omnibus difference was found (F(3,55) = 4.12, p < .05, η2 = 0.18). Two Tukey’s post-

hoc tests were marginally significant: for 30-39 compared to 40-49 year-olds (p = .068) and for 30-39 compared to

60-69 year-olds (p = .051), suggesting that younger participants are driving this effect. However, because the effect

of age was not linear it may also speak to generational differences (e.g., age when “exotic” food choices became

common in Canada, for example), or younger people may be more likely to seek out sweet foods (as discussed

earlier), pointing to an evolutionary basis for liking pineapple on pizza. Specifically, because both biological sex and

maturation rates (as measured by age) are genetically determined, there could be an evolutionary advantage to, for

example, young, fertile, females preferring sweet foods (more on this in the General Discussion). Since none of our

participants reported being underweight, we were unable to fully examine whether this factor was related to this

food choice as we had hypothesized. However, the relationships of both age and sex with this food choice could

point to a more biological influence, with women preferring the sweetness of pineapple more than men.

When examining whether personality variables affect participants’ preference for pineapple on pizza, we

found that conscientiousness was related to their purchasing decision where those high on conscientiousness were

less likely to purchase pineapple on their pizza, and those who did purchase pineapple on pizza were more divided

between high and low conscientiousness scores (X2 (1, N = 59) = 6.04, p < .05). When asked about whether they eat

pineapple on their pizza the difference in responses for those high and low on conscientiousness was marginal (X2

(1, N = 59) = 3.57, p = .059). One might have expected that participants who scored high on openness to experience

would have been more likely to include pineapple on their pizza because they are more likely to want to try new

things (DeYoung, 2010). The fact that the more diligent, self-disciplined, and efficient (i.e., conscientious)

respondents were less likely to purchase pizza with pineapple on it is not directly supported by any literature.

However, conscientiousness has previously been reported as being the single most important personality trait in

predicting young adults’ health behaviours such as smoking and alcohol use (Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Raynor &

Levine, 2009; Turiano et al., 2015). Additionally, conscientiousness has previously been shown to affect food

choices and eating styles (Heaven et al., 2001; Keller & Siegrist, 2015). Specifically, higher conscientiousness

scores related to increased fruit consumption (Conner et al., 2017; Keller & Siegrist, 2015) and reduced the

consumption of sweet-savory food combinations (Keller & Siegrist, 2015), so this could help to explain the patterns

seen here.

We were particularly interested in whether individuals who consider themselves ‘creative’ are more likely

to choose pineapple as a pizza topping than people who do not view themselves as ‘creative’. Creativity did not have

any relationship with the choice of pineapple on pizza, with participants’ ratings of the appropriateness of pineapple

as a topping being no different regardless of self-reported general creativity rating (F(1,57) = .039, p = 0.844).

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 16

Similarly, participants’ creativity at the time of answering the survey did not show any differences in whether they

liked pineapple on their pizza or not (X2 (1, N = 59) = 1.318, p = .251). Finally, examining whether high- and low-

creativity participants differed in their liking of pineapple on pizza, no significant differences were found (X2 (1, N

= 59) = 0.65, p = .422). People scoring higher on the openness to experience measure did rate themselves as more

creative (r = .624), but these variables were unrelated to their endorsement of pineapple on pizza. Together, these

findings seem to suggest that this food choice is not related to self-reported creativity, whether rating overall

creativity or how creative they feel at the time of responding to the questionnaire. Since the idea of pineapple on

pizza has existed for over 50 years in Canada (Scoble, 2016), pineapple may no longer be considered a novel or

creative pizza topping among Canadians (in fact, more than 50% of our respondents indicated that it was not a very

novel or creative pizza topping choice). Pineapple as a pizza topping might be viewed by respondents as a standard

topping choice in the same regard as pepperoni or mushrooms.

Finally, we used a binary logistic regression to examine the endorsement of pineapple as a pizza topping

(yes/no) using the predictor variables of age, sex, openness to experience, and self-rated creativity. Although

conscientiousness was associated with food preference in an earlier analysis, it was not the prediction we made. The

model was significant (Χ²(6) = 12.79, p < .05, Nagelkerke R2 = .198) and correctly predicted 69% of cases. One

predictor, age 40-49, was significant (Wald = 5.46, p = .019) and two others were marginally significant (age 60-69

Wald = 3.57, p = .059; creativity Wald = 2.963, p = .07). These results (see Table 3) indicate that the odds were

slightly higher that 40-49 year-olds say “no” to pineapple on their pizza compared to the group of 30-39 year-olds.

Further, compared to those who liked pineapple on their pizza (the yes group), the no group rated themselves as

marginally more creative. Looking at group means, this trend was only present for the 40-49 and 60-69 year old

groups. We present these marginal predictors as a point of discussion, which we find relevant especially given our

small sample size (Long (1997) and Bujang et al. (2018) both suggest a sample size of 500, while advising that

small sample sizes (under 100) such as ours is not ideal.

General Discussion

The present study is unique because it examines food choices in depth using the very particular (and

seemingly controversial) food combination of pineapple on pizza in two separate studies: one using a content

analysis and the other employing an anonymous survey. In Study 1, we interviewed participants about their feelings

towards pineapple on pizza and analyzed their responses. From these, we identified a number of recurring themes

including Canadian identity, social influences, creativity, and personality variables. In Study 2, we used these

themes to create a questionnaire asking more specific questions about participants’ views of pineapple on pizza and

assessing their self-reported characteristics related to the themes identified in Study 1. Results showed that most

variables had little impact on pineapple preference and that the strongest predictors for this food choice were

participant age and sex, with younger women being the most likely to include pineapple on their pizza. Thus, the

themes identified during the content analysis of the interviews did not manifest in the survey results when

participants were explicitly asked about their food choices. It appears that what was verbalized during a friendly

conversation about including pineapple on pizza may be slightly different from their self-reported motivators. The

driving force for the food choice reported here appears to be gender and age, and these results were not explicitly

predicted. However, digging into the literature further provides some insights and possible explanations.

Women have been reported to eat more fruit compared to men (Beardsworth et al., 2002). Also, individuals

under stress are more likely to consume sweet foods (Oliver & Wardle, 1999) and many studies report that women

experience more stress than men (American Psychological Association, 2010; Matud, 2004; McDonough & Walters,

2001). However, these facts may not provide a fulsome and satisfactory explanation here. To further probe the sex

difference reported for pineapple preference, we expanded our literature search to include non-human research. A

study conducted on rats suggests that the female hormone estradiol may bolster a craving for sweet food (Eckel et

al., 2004). While human social and environmental factors make it challenging to connect to the results from the rats,

Eckel points out that, “Animal studies suggest that the higher rates of obesity in women are related to sex

differences in taste preference that could promote overeating. In short-term intake tests, female rats display a greater

preference for sweet solutions than male rats” (2004). In addition, Krishnan (2016) found that, “In normal weight

healthy women, higher estradiol in the luteal phase is associated with increased craving for sweet-tasting and

carbohydrate rich foods. We believe the estradiol-leptin relationship is a defining quality in whether or not women

crave sweet-tasting and carbohydrate rich foods” (p. 311). This suggests that the results from the rat study could be

extended to human females. Indeed, there is a genetic preference for sweet foods in humans, which is heritable and

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 17

Table 3

Binary regression results predicting response to liking pineapple on pizza (yes/no)

Wald Test

95% CI

Estimate

Standardized

Wald’s Z

Lower

Upper

Intercept

-0.202

1.093

1.492

0.817

-0.185

0.034

.853

-2.346

1.941

Creativity

0.509

0.296

0.599

1.664

1.721

2.963

.085

-0.071

1.089

Openness to

Experience

(Low)

0.765

0.705

0.765

2.150

1.086

1.179

.278

-0.616

2.147

Sex (Male)

-1.031

0.719

-1.031

0.357

-1.434

2.057

.152

-2.439

0.378

Age (40-49)

-1.922

0.823

-1.922

0.146

-2.337

5.461

.019

-3.534

-0.310

Age (50-59)

-0.965

0.906

-0.965

0.381

-1.066

1.136

.287

-2.740

0.810

Age (60-69)

-1.782

0.943

-1.782

0.168

-1.890

3.571

.059

-3.630

0.066

Note. “Do you like pineapple on your pizza? Level ‘yes’ coded as class 1. Standardized estimates represent

estimates where the continuous predictors are standardized.

the individual variation in sweet food preference is linked to chromosome 16p11.2 (Keskitalo et al. 2007). Women

may also make different food choices than men, choosing to focus on health, weight, pleasure, and ideology

(Lindeman & Stark, 1999). Since we did not code for the sex of the interviewees in Study 1, it’s possible that the

themes which emerged were more applicable to women (e.g., if the respondents were primarily women) and that

some more general or male-dominated themes were obscured.

Sugar kept our ancestors alive during times of famine as it helped them gain the necessary fat to survive

(Johnson & Andrews, 2015), but in modern times, the human desire for sweetness is due to its relationship with

happiness (its consumption releases dopamine in a similar way that many other habit-forming drugs do;

DiNicolantonio et al., 2018) and its stress-reducing effects (its consumption has been shown to reduce the stress

hormone cortisol; Tyron, et al., 2015). Because women experience higher levels of stress (e.g., American

Psychological Association, 2010; Matud, 2004; McDonough & Walters, 2001), the higher appeal of the sweet

pineapple as a pizza topping for women over men could reflect these higher stress levels. Further, the combination

of sweet and savory being mixed on the pizza could have particular appeal to women: in terms of its chemical

properties, salt enhances the sweet taste of food and reduces its bitterness (Breslin & Beauchamp, 1997), so it makes

sense that humans (and possibly especially women) have a greater desire for sweet-salty food combinations as these

would be perceived as being even more pleasantly sweet than a sweet taste without the accompanying saltiness.

For age differences, one interesting study (Shipman & Durmus, 2016) examined how personality traits

affected the intention of Generation X and Generation Y to try new tastes. Using the dates proposed by Gibson et al.

(2009), members of Generation X were 41-56 years old at the time of our data collection, and Generation Y were

21-40 years old at the time of data collection. Shipman and Durmus (2016) found that, while Agreeableness was a

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 18

strong predictor for both groups (i.e., logical and familiar foods), for Generation X, Openness to Experience was

also a strong predictor, while for Generation Y it was Extraversion. That is, these age groups differed in some

respect in terms of their food choices. Specifically, Generation X preferred foods that were more varied and creative,

but for members of Generation Y, they are more motivated to like foods in a social environment, especially when

others identify that the food is good. These generational differences may contribute to explaining the strange pattern

we observed in this study, with 30-39 (Generation Y) and 50-59 (Generation X) year-olds being more in favour of

pineapple and 40-49 (Generation X) and 60-69 year-olds being more evenly split. Specifically, the 30-39 year-olds

(Generation Y) may have social motives for enjoying pineapple on pizza while for the 50-59 year-olds (Generation

X) they might have been drawn in by the novelty of pineapple as a topping. However, given that our age ranges do

not map onto these generational cut-offs exactly, this is speculative at best. But it is important to consider that there

are a variety of both physical and social/contextual changes that happen with age which may affect food-related

decisions (Brown, 2006; Lumbers & Raats, 2006).

The fact that the two studies reported here appear disconnected also requires further explanation. It does not

appear that the variables identified by participants in the Study 1 interviews have any relationship with their choice

to have pineapple on their pizza. Although there were only a few months between data collection in Study 1 and

Study 2, it may be the case that, over time, participants’ feelings and responses could have become polarized; or

respondents could have been more motivated by seeing the interviews in Study 1 to respond to the surveys if they

were pro-pineapple on pizza. Psychologists have been aware of attitude polarization for decades (Lord, 1979). The

more you think about the subject, the more polarized your attitude becomes (Tesser & Conlee, 1975). Similarly, the

more you express your opinion on the subject, the more extreme that opinion becomes (Brauer et al., 1995;

Strandberg et al., 2019).

Because this « pineapple on pizza » question had been brought up a few times at various departmental

meetings, it could also be the case that people changed their opinion on the survey in order to conform and/or

produce more socially desirable effects (more on this possibility in a moment), thus concealing some true

differences in the data. But these departmental conversations might also have affected their perception of the

dominant opinion of the group to be more pro-pineapple than it is in reality. In a study examining opinions around

alcohol use, Miller and Morrison (2009) showed that college students who were more comfortable with their own

drinking behavior were more likely to express their opinion on the topic, and especially if they thought their opinion

(pro-alcohol) was the dominant one. Because those opinions would be the ones more likely to be expressed publicly,

they are the opinion heard by others, making people perceive them as more common than they actually are, which

can cause others to erroneously perceive it as the dominant view of the group (Miller & Morrison, 2009).

Publicly shared opinions (Study 1) are not always the same as those privately held by individuals (Study 2)

and this discrepancy could have also muddied the waters in the present study (Manfredi et al., 2020). Specifically,

when someone expresses their opinion on a topic Manfredi et al. (2020) proposed that they have one of two motives:

either to promote group harmony or to affect their own reputation in a positive way. Therefore, these different goals

might have obscured some of the themes which should have been present in the interview data, and consequently

resulted in an incomplete questionnaire in our subsequent study.

Participants may hold private food motives that differ from the ones they wish to express publicly. Previous

research has demonstrated a social desirability bias in self-reported behaviours, both in general as well as

specifically related to food intake (Hebert et al., 1995; King et al., 2018; Mensch & Kandel, 1988; Nielsen et al.,

2021; Praxedes et al., 2021). In the present study, participants knew their responses would be viewed by their

colleagues (Study 1), so they may have identified acceptable or socially desirable themes, while in Study 2 their

private responses could have tapped into different, more personal themes, which may not have been asked about by

the researchers (because they were not identified by participants in the Study 1 interview). As such, some of the

findings here may point to a social desirability effect which came into play during the interview component of the

project (Study 1). Additionally, without knowing the opinion of their direct supervisor(s), participants might feel

exposed and that they are taking a risk in expressing their true opinion in the video interview (which their

supervisor(s) could view) but their responses on the survey were anonymous, so they might have felt more

comfortable providing truthful answers there.

Finally, participants might have self-censored in one or both of the studies. Hayes, Glynn and Shanahan

(2005) proposed that self-censorship occurs when people withhold their opinion when they are in the presence of

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 19

others whom they think hold a different opinion. This could have been the case where participants censored

themselves during the interview (because they knew others would listen to it, thus making it public), which led to

some themes emerging in Study 1 which did not accurately reflect participants’ underlying perceived causes of their

choice of pineapple on pizza, but instead reflected their self-censored or socially-desirable responses. As a

consequence, these themes did not show the expected relationships in Study 2. We should also consider that only a

small portion of the department completed this survey, so electing not to participate in the survey could also be a

form of self-censorship, and this could have obscured some true relationships among the variables. This non-

participation self-censorship has been previously reported in political research when opinions are polarized (Hayes

et al., 2006).

Future Research

As discussed earlier, many food choice motives exist (Bell & Meiselman, 1995; Eertmans et al., 2001;

Eertmans et al., 2005; Furst et al., 1996; Letarte et al., 1997; Lindeman & Stark (1999); Parraga, 1990; Rozin, 1996;

Rozin & Tuorila, 1993; Steptoe et al., 1995; Wardle, 1993). In the case of the present study, it is possible that,

having not measured all of these as they relate to pineapple on pizza, the survey developed missed an important

predictor which would have allowed a more fulsome explanation of the results. Future research should include more

of these predictor variables in their design.

Future studies should also address some of the limitations of this investigation such as using a larger and

broader sample. Previous studies have shown that participants who are more likely to respond to online surveys are

conscientious (Rogelberg et al., 2003), agreeable (Marcus & Schutz, 2005; Rogelberg et al., 2003; Tuten & Bosnjak,

2001), and open to experience (Marcus & Schutz, 2005; Tuten & Bosnjak, 2001), so a larger and more

heterogeneous sample could help shed some light on the findings reported here, including the pattern of responses

found by age. Expanding the study to include younger age groups as well as increasing the granularity of the age

data (e.g., asking for birth year or exact age) might clarify some of the proposed explanations discussed herein.

As it relates to creativity, our rationale for using self-reported perceived creativity as a proctor for creativity

level (instead of a more robust and psychometrically valid measure of creativity) was to limit the length of the

survey and because we were primarily interested in other variables in predicting food choices. One of the most

popular measures of creative thinking is the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) (Puccio et al., 2018). The

predominant skills measured by the TTCT are fluency, originality, and elaboration (Puccio et al., 2018). The TTCT

is considered a better predictor of adult creativity than the standard IQ test (Puccio et al., 2018). The Torrence Tests

of Creativity Thinking (TTCT) have existed since the late 1950s. These tests appear to be reliable in predicting

overall lifetime creativity even if assessed as a child (Puccio et al., 2012). Future studies examining food choice

could include a validated measure of creativity. Huh et al. (2018) found that, although participants predict that sweet

foods will enhance creativity performance, sour foods actually produce an enhancement on a creative (idea-

generating) task. So, it might be interesting for future studies to examine whether people would predict that a sweet-

and-sour fruit such as pineapple would enhance or hinder performance, and also whether consuming a Hawaiian

pizza would actually affect creative behaviour in the predicted direction.

Conclusions

It has been nearly 60 years since pineapple was first placed on a pizza and the controversy of whether the

tropical fruit is an appropriate pizza topping. Given the longevity and popularity of the “Hawaiian” pizza, it

provides a unique opportunity to study the motives related to this food choice. Combining foods to form new ones

and varying our diets also stimulates our appetite and keeps us seeking out more different foods (with varying

flavours, tastes, textures, nutrients, and vitamins) which had been beneficial to our survival in the past. In a classic

study, Rolls et al. (2015) showed that we get gastronomically bored if we eat too much of the same food and our

enjoyment of and desire to consume that food is reduced (but not the desire to consume other foods or the perceived

pleasantness of other foods which were not consumed). In this way, seeking out new food combinations are an

important part of our evolution, and an enjoyment of pineapple on pizza may simply be one manifestation of that.

The results presented here show that there are several themes which motivate peoples’ choices about

whether to include pineapple on their pizza (Study 1) but that these themes do not necessarily differentiate or predict

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 20

participants’ choices, beyond gender and sex (Study 2). The literature on food-related choices is rich and may also

provide important information about the mechanisms of choice in general. This information can help inform practice

in applied settings as they relate to eating disorders or following health directives, for example. In this way, this

research adds to what we know about food choices, including the potentially important role of sex and age, and

might nuance the mechanisms at play when examining food motives.

References

American Psychological Association. (2010). Gender and stress. Stress in America.

https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2010/gender-stress

Beardsworth, A., Bryman, A., Keil, T., Goode, J., Haslam, C. & Lancashire, E. (2002). Women, men and food: The

significance of gender for nutritional attitudes and choices. British Food Journal, 104(7), 470-491.

https://doi.org/10.1108/00070700210418767

Bell, R., & Meiselman, H. (1995). The role of eating environments in determining food choice. In D. W. Marshall

(Ed.), Food Choice and the Consumer (pp. 292–310). Chapman and Hall. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-

4615-2153-2_12

Benjamin, D. J., Choi, J. J., & Fisher, G. (2016). Religious identity and economic behavior. Review of Economics

and Statistics, 98(4), 617-637. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00586

Birch, L. L. (1999). Development of Food Preferences. Annual Review of Nutrition, 19, 41-62.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.19.1.41

Bogg, T., and Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: a meta-analysis of the leading

behavioral contributors to mortality. Psychology Bulletin, 130, 887–919. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.130.6.887

Brandstetter, J., Rácz, P., Beckner, C., Sandoval, E. B., Hay, J., & Bartneck, C. (2014, September). A peer pressure

experiment: Recreation of the Asch conformity experiment with robots. In 2014 IEEE/RSJ International

Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (pp. 1335-1340). IEEE International Conference on

Intelligent Robots and Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/iros.2014.6942730

Brauer, M., Judd, C. M., & Gliner, M. D. (1995). The Effects of Repeated Expressions on Attitude Polarization

During Group Discussions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1014-1029.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.6.1014

Breen, F. M., Plomin, R., & Wardle, J. (2006). Heritability of food preferences in young children. Physiology &

Behavior, 88(4–5), 443-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.04.016

Breslin P. A. S., & Beauchamp G. K. (1997). Salt enhances flavour by suppressing bitterness. Nature,

387(6633):563 https://doi.org/10.1038/42388

Brown, J. L. (2006). Intra-family influences on food choice at mid-life. In R. Shepherd & M. Raats (Eds) Frontiers

in nutritional science no. 3: The psychology of food choice (pp.263-288). The Nutrition Society.

https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990323.0263

Brillat-Savarin, J. A. (1825). Physiologie du goût [The Physiology of Taste]. Retrieved from

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/22741

Bujang, M. A., Sa'at, N., Sidik, T., & Joo, L. C. (2018). Sample Size Guidelines for Logistic Regression from

Observational Studies with Large Population: Emphasis on the Accuracy Between Statistics and

Parameters Based on Real Life Clinical Data. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 25(4), 122–130.

https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2018.25.4.12

Capaldi, E. D. (1996). Conditioned Food Preferences. In E. D. Capaldi (Ed.): Why we eat what we eat: The

psychology of eating. The American Psychological Association.

Carman, T. (2019, April 23). Pineapple on pizza is easy to hate — at least in theory. Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/voraciously/wp/2019/04/23/pineapple-on-pizza-is-easy-to-hate-at-

least-in-theory

Chattalas, M., & Harper, H. (2007). Navigating a hybrid cultural identity: Hispanic teenagers' fashion consumption

influences. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 24(6), 351-357. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760710822936

Chou, E. Y., & Nordgren, L. F. (2017). Safety in numbers: Why the mere physical presence of others affects risk‐

taking behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 30(3), 671-682.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1959

Cohen J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1),

37-46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 21

Conner, T. S., Thompson, L. M., Knight, R. L., Flett, J. A. M., Richardson, A. C., & Brookie, K. L. (2017). The role

of personality traits in young adult fruit and vegetable consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(119), 1-11.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00119

Cooke, L. and Wardle, J. (2005). Age and gender differences in children’s food preferences. British Journal of

Nutrition, 93, 741-746. https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn20051389

Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Psychological Assessment

Resources, Odessa, FL.

Costell, E., Tárrega, A., & Bayarri, S. (2010). Food Acceptance: The Role of Consumer Perception and Attitudes.

Chemosensory Perception, 3(1), 42-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-009-9057-1

De Castro, J. M. and Brewer, E. (1992) The amount eaten in meals by humans is a power function of the number of

people present. Physiology and Behavior 51, 121–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(92)90212-K

Desor, J.A., Maller, O., & Andrews, K. (1975). Ingestive responses of human newborns to salty, sour, and bitter

stimuli. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 89(8), 966–970.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0077171

Desor, J.A., Maller, O., & Turner, R.E. (1977). Preference for sweet in humans: infants, children and adults. In J. M.

Weiffenbach (ed.) Taste and Development: The Genesis of Sweet Preference. US Government Printing

Office.

DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 4(12) 1165–1180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00327.x

DiNicolantonio, J. J., O’Keefe, J. H., & Wilson, W. L. (2018). Sugar addiction: Is it real? A narrative review. British

Journal of Sports Medicine, 52(14), 910-913. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097971

Drewnowski, A. (1997). Taste preferences and food intake. Annual Review of Nutrition, 17, 237-253.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.17.1.237

Eckel, L. A., Moore, S. R., Yang, T. Y., Boersma, G. J., Judge, M. K., & Cupples, W. A. (2004). Diet-induced

hyperphagia in the rat is influenced by sex and exercise. American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory,

Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 287(5), R1080-R10805

https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpregu.00424.2004

Eertmans, A., Baeyens, F., & Van den Bergh, O. (2001). Food likes and their relative importance in human eating

behavior: Review and preliminary suggestions for health promotion. Health and Education Research, 16(4),

443-456. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/16.4.443

Eertmans, A., Victoir, A., Vansant, G., & Van den Bergh, O., (2005). Food-related personality traits, food choice

motives and food intake: Mediator and moderator relationships. Food Quality and Preferences, 16, 714-

726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.04.007

Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 378-382.

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0031619

Franken, R. E. (1993). Human motivation (3rd ed.). Brooks/Cole. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.43.8.1635-a

Frey, L. R., Botan, C. H., & Kreps, G. L. (2000). Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research

Methods. Allyn and Bacon.

Furst, T., Connors, M., Bisogni, C. A., Sobal, J. & Falk, L. A. (1996). Food choice: A conceptual model of the

process. Appetite, 26, 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0019

Garcia-Bailo, B., Toguri, C., Eny, K.M., and El-Sohemy, A. (2009). Genetic variation in taste and its influence on

food selection. A Journal of Integrative Biology, 13(1), 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2008.0031

Gibson, J. W., Greenwood, R. A., & Murphy Jr, E. F. (2009). Generational differences in the workplace: Personal

values, behaviors, and popular beliefs. Journal of Diversity Management, 4(3), 1-8.

https://doi.org/10.19030/jdm.v4i3.4959

Gosling, S.D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains.

Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0092-6566(03)00046-1

Gvion, L., & Trostler, N. (2008). From Spaghetti and Meatballs through Hawaiian Pizza to Sushi: The Changing

Nature of Ethnicity in American Restaurants. The Journal of Popular Culture, 41(6), 950–974.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5931.2008.00559.x

Hackel, L. M., Coppin, G., Wohl, M. J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2018). From groups to grits: Social identity shapes

evaluations of food pleasantness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 270-280.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.09.007

Hausner, H., Hartvig, D. L., Reinbach, H. C., Wendin, K., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2012). Effects of repeated exposure

on acceptance of initially disliked and liked Nordic snack bars in 9–11 year-old children. Clinical Nutrition,

31(1), 137-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2011.08.003

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 22

Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement tool for

public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(4), 443-455.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edh073

Hayes, A. F., Scheufele, D. A., & Huge, M. E. (2006). Nonparticipation as self-censorship: Publicly observable

political activity in a polarized opinion climate. Political Behavior, 28(3), 259-283.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-006-9008-3

Hazen, K. (2002). Identity and language variation in a rural community. Language, 78(2), 240-257.

https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2002.0089

Heaven, P. C., Mulligan, K., Merrilees, R., Woods, T., & Fairooz, Y. (2001). Neuroticism and conscientiousness as

predictors of emotional, external, and restrained eating behaviors. The International Journal of Eating

Disorders, 30(2), 161-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.1068

Hebert, J. R., Clemow, L., Pbert, L., Ockene, I. S., & Ockene, J. K. (1995). Social desirability bias in dietary self-

report may compromise the validity of dietary intake measures. International Journal of Epidemiology,

24(2), 389-398. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/24.2.389

Herman, C. P. (2015). The social facilitation of eating. A review. Appetite, 86, 61-73.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.09.016

Higgs, S., & Thomas, J. (2016). Social influences on eating. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1-6.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.10.005

Hochradel, R. F. (2007). The effect of nutrition information on menu selection when eating food away from home.

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), dissertation, Old Dominion University. https://doi.org/10.25777/4xj6-sp44

Huh, Y. E., Hong, Y. & Youn, N. (2018). Taste Perception and Creativity: An Abstract. In P. Rossi, N. Krey (eds.),

Marketing transformation: Marketing practice in an ever changing world. Developments in Marketing

Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68750-

6_70

Johannesson, G. T. (2017, February 21). I like pineapples, just not on pizza. I do not have the power to make laws

[Status update]. Facebook. https://www.facebook.com/embaettiforseta/posts/764995766984279

Johnson, R. J. & Andrews, P. (2015). Ancient mutation in apes may explain human obesity and diabetes. Scientific

American, 313(4), 64-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1015-64

Jordan, M. E. (2011). Personality traits: Theory, testing and influences. Nova Science Publishers Inc.

Keller, C., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Research report: Does personality influence eating styles and food choices? Direct

and indirect effects. Appetite, 84, 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.10.003

Keskitalo, K., Knaapila, A., Kallela, M., Palotie, A., Wessman, M., Sammalisto, S., Peltonen, L., Tuorila, H., &

Perola, M. (2007). Sweet taste preferences are partly genetically determined: Identification of a trait locus

on chromosome 16, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86(1), 55–63.

https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/86.1.55

King, B. M., Cespedes, V. M., Burden, G. K., Brady, S. K., Clement, L. R., Abbott, E. M., Baughman, S. E. Joyner,

M. M. Clark & Pury, C. L. S. (2018). Extreme under‐reporting of body weight by young adults with

obesity: relation to social desirability. Obesity Science & Practice, 4(2), 129-133.

https://doi.org/10.1002/osp4.153

Krishnan, S., Keim, N. L., Welch, L., Horn, W. F., Tryon, R. R. (2016). Estradiol, SHBG and leptin interplay with

food craving and intake across the menstrual cycle. Physiology & Behavior, 165, 304-312.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.08.010

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33,

159-174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310

Larsen, R. J. and Buss, D. M. (2010). Personality psychology: Domain of knowledge about human nature. McGraw

Hill Higher Education.

Letarte, A., Dube´, l. & Troche, V. (1997). Similarities and differences in affective and cognitive origins of food

likings and dislikes. Appetite, 28, 115–129. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1996.0069

Lindeman, M., & Stark, K. (1999). Pleasure, pursuit of health or negotiation of identity? Personality correlates of

food choice motives among young and middle-aged women. Appetite, 33(1), 141-161.

https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0241

Long, S. J. (1997). Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. Advanced Quantitative

Techniques in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications.

Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior

theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098–

2109. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 23

Ludy, M. & Mattes, R. D. (2012). Comparison of sensory, physiological, personality, and cultural attributes in

regular spicy food users and non-users. Appetite, 58, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.09.018

Lumbers, M. & Raats, M. (2006). Food choices later in life. In R. Shepherd & M. Raats (Eds) Frontiers in

nutritional science no. 3: The psychology of food choice (pp.289-310). The Nutrition Society.

https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990323.0289

Manfredi, R., Guazzini, A., Roos, C. A., Postmes, T., & Koudenburg, N. (2020). Private-public opinion discrepancy.

PloS one, 15(11), e0242148. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242148

Marcus, B., & Schütz, A. (2005). Who are the people reluctant to participate in research? Personality correlates of

four different types of nonresponse as inferred from self‐and observer ratings. Journal of personality, 73(4),

959-984. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00335.x

Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37,

1401–1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.010

McCrae R. R. & Costa P. T. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A.

Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality. Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 159–181). New York: The

Guilford Press

McCrae, R. R., Terracciano, A., and Members of the Personality Profiles of Cultures Project. (2005). Universal

features of personality traits from the observer's perspective: Data from 50 different cultures. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547-561. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.547

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five‐factor model and its applications. Journal of

Personality, 60(2), 175-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x

McDonough, P., & Walters, W. (2001). Gender and health: Reassessing patterns and explanations. Social Science &

Medicine, 52, 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00159-3

McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 267-282.

https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2012.031

Mela, D. (1999) Food choice and intake: The human factor. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 58, 513-521.

https://doi.org/10.1017/s0029665199000683

Mennella, J.A., Pepino, M.Y., & Beauchamp, G.K. (2003). Modification of bitter taste in children. Developmental

Psychobiology, 43(2), 120-127. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fdev.10127

Mensch, B. S., & Kandel, D. B. (1988). Underreporting of substance use in a national longitudinal youth cohort.

Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 100-124. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1086/269084

Miller, D. T. & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Expressing deviant opinions: Believing you are in the majority helps.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 740-747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.008

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Sage.

Neustaeter, B. (2020, December 6). Canadian-invented pizza deemed most popular in the U.S. this year. CTVNews.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/canadian-invented-pizza-deemed-most-popular-in-the-u-s-this-year-

1.5219266

Nezlek, J. B., & Forestell, C. A. (2020). Vegetarianism as a social identity. Current Opinion in Food Science, 33,

45-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2019.12.005

Nielsen, D. G., Andersen, K., Nielsen, A. S., Juhl, C., & Mellentin, A. (2021). Consistency between self-reported

alcohol consumption and biological markers among patients with alcohol use disorder–A systematic

review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 124, 370-385.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.02.006

Oliver, G. & Wardle, J. (1999). Perceived effects of stress on food choice. Physiology & Behavior, 66, 511–515.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9384(98)00322-9

Parraga, I. M. (1990). Determinants of food consumption. Journal of American Dietetic Association, 90, 661–663.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(21)01599-6

Praxedes, D. R. S., Pureza, I. R. O. M., Vasconcelos, L. G. L., da Silva Júnior, A. E., Macena, M. D. L., Florêncio,

T. M. D. M. T., de Melo, I. S. V. & Bueno, N. B. (2021). Association between energy intake under‐

reporting and previous professional nutritional counselling in low‐income women with obesity: A cross‐

sectional study. Nutrition Bulletin, 46(3), 310-320. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12513

Previte, J., Fry, M. L., Drennan, J., & Hasan, S. F. E. (2015). Friends or foes: Group influence effects on moderate

drinking behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 68(10), 2146-2154.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.03.014

Puccio, G. J., Cabra, J. F., Schwagler, N. (2018). Organizational creativity a practical guide for innovators &

entrepreneurs. Sage.

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 24

Puccio, G., Mance, M., Switalski, L. B., & Reali, P. (2012). Creativity rising: Creative thinking and creative

problem solving in the 21st Century. International Centre for Studies in Education Press.

Raynor, D. A., and Levine, H. (2009). Associations between the Five-Factor Model of personality and health

behaviors among college students. Journal of the American College of Health, 58, 73–81.

https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.58.1.73-82

Riffe, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. G. (1998). Analyzing Media Messages: Using Quantitative Content Analysis in

Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Research Co. (2021). Pineapple on Pizza is OK for Most Canadians, But Pepperoni is Tops.

https://researchco.ca/2021/10/29/food-canada/

Rogelberg, S. G., Conway, J. M., Sederburg, M. E., Spitzmüller, C., Aziz, S., & Knight, W. E. (2003). Profiling

Active and Passive Nonrespondents to an Organizational Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6),

1104–1114. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1104

Rolls, B., Rolls, E., Rowe, E., & Sweeney, K. (1981). Sensory specific satiety in man. Physiology & Behavior,

27(1), 137–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(81)90310-3

Rosenfeld, D. L., Rothgerber, H., & Tomiyama, A. J. (2020). From mostly vegetarian to fully vegetarian: Meat

avoidance and the expression of social identity. Food Quality and Preference, 85, 103963.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.103963

Roth, G., & Dicke, U. (2005). Evolution of the brain and intelligence. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 250-257.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.03.005

Rozin, P. (1996). Sociocultural Influences on Human Food Selection. In E.D. Capaldi, (Ed.): Why we eat what we

eat: The psychology of eating. American Psychological Association.

Rozin, P. (2006). The integration of biological, social, cultural and psychological influence on food choice. In R.

Shepherd & M. Raats (Eds) Frontiers in Nutritional Science No. 3: The psychology of food choice (pp.19-

39). The Nutrition Society. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990323.0019

Rozin, P., & Tuorila, H. (1993). Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance. Food Quality

and Preference, 4, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(93)90309-t

Scheibehenne, B., Miesler, L. and Todd, P. M. (2007). Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision

heuristics. Appetite, 49. 578-589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.09.054

Scoble, D. (2016, April 5). The History of Hawaiian Pizza. Food Network Canada. The History of Hawaiian Pizza.

Retrieved from https://www.foodnetwork.ca/shows/great-canadian-cookbook/blog/the-history-of-hawaiian-

pizza/

Seitchik, A. E., Brown, A. J., & Harkins, S. G. (2017). Social facilitation: Using the molecular to inform the molar.

In S. G. Harkins, K. D. Williams, & J. Burger (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence (pp. 183–

220). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199859870.013.8

Shiner, R., & Caspi, A. (2003). Personality differences in childhood and adolescence: measurement, development,

and consequences. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 44(1), 2-32.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00101

Shipman, Z. D., & Durmus, B., (2016). The impact of personality traits on intention to try new tastes: Food related

behaviours of Generation X and Y due to personality traits. European Journal of Business and

Management, 8(23), 164-170.

Strandberg, K., Himmelroos, S., & Grönlund, K. (2019). Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to

more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization. International Political Science

Review, 40(1), 41-57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512117692136

Steptoe, A., Pollard, T.M. and Wardle, J. (1995). Development of a Measure of the Motives Underlying the

Selection of Food: The Food Choice Questionnaire. Appetite, 25, 267- 284.

https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1995.0061

Tesser, A., & Conlee, M. C. (1975). Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 31(2), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076292

Trudeau, J. [@JustinTrudeau]. (2017, February 24). I have a pineapple. I have a pizza. And I stand behind this

delicious Southwestern Ontario creation #TeamPineapple [Tweet]. Twitter.

https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/835225645932216324

Tuorila, H. (2007). Sensory perception as a basis for food acceptance and consumption. In H. MacFie (Ed.)

Consumer led food product development. Woodhead Publishing.

Turiano, N. A., Chapman, B. P., Gruenewald, T. L., and Mroczek, D. K. (2015). Personality and the leading

behavioral contributors of mortality. Health Psychology, 34, 51–60.

https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000038.supp

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 25

Tuten, T. L., & Bosnjak, M. (2001). Understanding differences in web usage: The role of need for cognition and the

five factor model of personality. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 29(4), 391-398.

https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2001.29.4.391

Tryon, M. S., Stanhope, K. L., Epel, E. S., Mason, A. E., Brown, R., Medici, V., Havel, P. J. & Laugero, K. D.

(2015). Excessive sugar consumption may be a difficult habit to break: a view from the brain and body.

The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 100(6), 2239-2247. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2014-

4353

U. S. Department of Homeland Security- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (2019). The war on

pineapple: Understanding foreign interference in 5 steps.

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_0717_cisa_the-war-on-pineapple-understanding-

foreign-interference-in-5-steps.pdf

Vabø, M., & Hansen, H. (2014). The relationship between food preferences and food choice: A theoretical

discussion. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(7), 145-157.

Vartanian, L. R., Spanos, S., Herman, C. P., & Polivy, J. (2015). Modeling of food intake: A meta-analytic review.

Social Influence, 10, 119–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2015.1008037.

Wardle, J. (1993). Food choices and health evaluation. Psychology and Health, 8, 65–75.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449308403167

Watt J. & van den Burg, S. (1995), Research Methods for Communication Science. Allyn and Bacon.

Weber, E. U., & Morris, M. W. (2010). Culture and judgment and decision making: The constructivist turn.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 410–419. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691610375556

Yeomans, M. R. (2006). The role of learning in development of food preferences. In R. Shepherd & M. Raats (Eds)

Frontiers in Nutritional Science No. 3: The psychology of food choice (pp.93-112). The Nutrition Society.

https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990323.0093

Yeomans, M. R. (2007). Psychobiological mechanisms in food choice. In H. MacFie (Ed.): Consumer-led food

product development. Woodhead Publishing Limited.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/e505132009-001

Appendix

Thank you for agreeing to participate. Please answer the questions below as accurately as possible.

PIZZA SECTION

Have you ever eaten pizza? (Yes/No/Unsure)

(If they answer “No” or “Unsure”, they are brought to the thank you message at the end of the survey)

Have you ever tried pineapple on your pizza? (Yes/No/Unsure)

(If they answer “No” or “Unsure”, they are brought to the thank you message at the end of the survey)

Do you enjoy the taste of pizza? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

If so, what are your favourite pizza toppings? If not, why not? (textbox)

Do you ever eat pineapple on pizza (whether by choosing to order it yourself or you have eaten it because it just

happened to be available)? (Yes/No/Unsure)

Do you like pineapple on your pizza? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much) + other (textbox))

If you were purchasing a slice a pizza for yourself, would you ever order a slice with pineapple on it?

Yes/No/Unsure

How appropriate of a topping is pineapple on a pizza? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

How strongly do you feel about the opinion you gave in the previous question (whether pineapple is an appropriate

pizza topping)? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

Which of the following is most accurate about your like or dislike of pineapple on pizza during your lifetime? (I

liked it at some point, but no longer do; I used to not like it, but now I do; I didn’t like it in the past and still

don’t; I have liked it in the past and still do; unsure; other (please explain))

SWEET

How appealing are pineapples to you as a fruit alone (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

How appealing are pineapples to you in other sweet dishes (like pineapple upside down cake or a fruit salad) (Likert

1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

January 2020 ● Journal of Scientific Psychology. 26

How appealing are pineapples to you in savoury dishes like sweet and sour chicken or stirfry (Likert 1(not at all) – 5

(very much))

How much do you approve of other sweet/savoury combinations such as a donut burger (hamburger with donuts

instead of hamburger buns) (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

Would you ever be willing to ever try peaches or another sweet fruit on your pizza if it was a local specialty (e.g.,

while travelling to a new country)? (Yes/No/Unsure)

SOCIAL

When eating pizza, do you prefer to eat it: (Likert 1(alone) – 5 (with a group of people))

Does your family have an influence on whether pineapple is added to the pizza you order (e.g., it’s a topic of family

discussion)? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

Do your friends influence the toppings on your pizza? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

Do your colleagues have an influence on whether you eat pineapple on pizza? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

If multiple options of pizza were available (e.g., at a meeting or party), how likely are you to consume a slice of

pizza with pineapple on it (e.g., Hawaiian)? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

How do you feel about OTHER people eating pineapples on their pizza? (Likert (1) It's disgusting and they should

keep it away from me - (3) Neutral (their food, their choice) - (5) It's great and I wish they would share

some with me)

PERSONALITY (TIPI- see Gosling et al., 2003 for questions and scoring)

CANADIAN IDENTITY

Did you know that Hawaiian pizza was a Canadian invention? Yes/No

Does knowing that Hawaiian pizza is Canadian change its appeal? (Knowing that Hawaiian pizza is Canadian makes

it MORE appealing/Knowing that Hawaiian pizza is Canadian makes it LESS appealing/Knowing that

Hawaiian pizza is Canadian DOES NOT CHANGE its appeal)

How strongly do you hold being Canadian as part of your identity ((Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much) + “I am not

Canadian”)

In general, do you consider yourself to be a polite person (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

Would you eat a piece of pizza that included toppings you didn’t particularly like in order to be polite? ((Likert

1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

Would you eat a slice of pizza that included toppings you didn’t particularly like in order to prevent it from being

wasted/thrown in the garbage? ((Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

CREATIVITY

Do you consider yourself to be creative person in general (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

How creative are you feeling right now? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))

Do you consider adding pineapple to pizza to be a novel/creative topping choice? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very

much))

Do you like to try new and/or novel food combinations (e.g., deep fried peanut butter-stuffed pickles) (Likert 1(not

at all) – 5 (very much))

DEMOGRAPHICS

Sex (male, female, prefer not to answer)

Age range (20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+, prefer not to answer)

Weight (underweight, average, overweight, prefer not to answer)

Do you consider self to have healthy diet, generally-speaking? (Likert 1(not at all) – 5 (very much))