Central location test vs. home use test: Contrasting results depending on product type

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 490-499

  Boutrolle, Isabelle ^a,b   Delarue, Julien ^b   Arranz, Delphine ^a   Rogeaux, Michel ^a   Köster, Egon Peter ^c  

^a Danone Vitapole ^*  (France)

^b Université Paris Saclay   (France)

^c WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

CLT; Consuming habits; Context; Hedonic test; HUT; Monadic sequential; Product category; Pure monadic

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845330247     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.06.003     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bayton J.A., and Thomas C.M. Comparative single stimulus methods determining taste preferences. Journal of Applied Psychology 38 (1954) 443-445
2. Bell J.A. The relationship of hedonics to behavior. Limitations and future of acceptance testing. Activities Report of the RED Associates 44 (1992) 138-150
3. Berry S.L., Beatty W.W., and Klesges R.C. Sensory and social influences on ice cream consumption by males and females in a laboratory setting. Appetite 6 (1985) 41-45
4. Birch L.L., Billman J.B., and Richards S.S. Time of day influences food acceptability. Appetite 5 (1984) 109-116
5. Bonin D., Chambres P., and Bernard P. Influence du contexte sur la perception des produits alimentaires. In: Urdapilleta I., Ton Nu C., and Saint Denis C. (Eds). Traité d'évaluation sensorielle (2001), Dunos, Paris 223-232
6. Boutrolle I., Arranz D., Rogeaux M., and Delarue J. Comparing central location test and home use test results: Application of a new criterion. Food Quality and Preference 16 8 (2005) 704-713
7. Brunstrom J.M., and MacRae A.W. Mouth state: A nuisance variable in preference tests?. Food Quality and Preference 8 5-6 (1997) 349-352
8. Calvin L.D., and Sather L.A. A comparison of student preference panels with a household consumer panel. Food Technology 13 (1959) 469-472
9. Cardello A.V., and Schutz H.G. Food appropriateness measures as an adjunct to consumer preference/acceptability evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 7 3-4 (1996) 239-249
10. Clendenen V.I., Herman C.P., and Polivy J. Social facilitation of eating among friends and strangers. Appetite 23 1 (1994) 1-13
11. Daillant-Spinnler B., and Issanchou S. Influence of label and location of testing on acceptability of cream cheese varying in fat content. Appetite 24 2 (1995) 101-105
12. De Castro J.M., Brewer E.M., Elmore D.K., and Orozco S. Social facilitation of the spontaneous meal size of humans occurs regardless of time, place, alcohol or snacks. Appetite 15 2 (1990) 89-101
13. de Graaf C., Cardello A.V., Matthew Kramer F., Lesher L.L., Meiselman H.L., and Schutz H.G. A comparison between liking ratings obtained under laboratory and field conditions: The role of choice. Appetite 44 1 (2005) 15-22
14. Edwards J.S.A., Meiselman H.L., Edwards A., and Lesher L. The influence of eating location on the acceptability of identically prepared foods. Food Quality and Preference 14 8 (2003) 647-652
15. Forde C.G., and Delahunty C.M. Understanding the role cross-modal sensory interactions play in food acceptability in younger and older consumers. Food Quality and Preference 15 7-8 (2004) 715-727
16. Hellemann U.A., Mela D.J., Aaron J.I., and Eleri Evans R. Role of fat in meal acceptance. Food Quality and Preference 4 1-2 (1993) 90
17. Hersleth M., Mevik B.H., Naes T., and Guinard J.X. Effect of contextual factors on liking for wine - use of robust design methodology. Food Quality and Preference 14 7 (2003) 615-622
18. Hersleth M., Ueland O., Allain H., and Naes T. Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different testing conditions. Food Quality and Preference 16 2 (2005) 103-110
19. Issanchou S., and Hossenlopp J. Les mesures hédoniques: méthodes, portées et limites. In: Giachetti I. (Ed). Plaisirs et Préférences Alimentaires (1992), Polytechnica, Paris 49-75
20. Izard C.E., Dougherty F.E., Bloxom B.M., and Kotsch W.E. The differential emotions scale: A method of measuring the subjective experience of discrete emotions. Department of Psychology (1974), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
21. Jaeger S.R., Andani Z., Wakeling I.N., and MacFie H.J.H. Consumer preferences for fresh and aged apples: A cross-cultural comparison. Food Quality and Preference 9 5 (1998) 355-366
22. King S.C., Weber A.J., Meiselman H.L., and Lv N. The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Quality and Preference 15 7-8 (2004) 645-653
23. Kozlowska K., Jeruszka M., Matuszewska I., Roszkowski W., Barylko-Pikielna N., and Brzozowska A. Hedonic tests in different locations as predictors of apple juice consumption at home in elderly and young subjects. Food Quality and Preference 14 8 (2003) 653-661
24. Lähteenmäki L., and Tuorila H. Liking for ice cream measured with three procedures: Side-by-side, after consumption and single samples. Journal of Sensory Studies 9 (1994) 455-465
25. Lévy, C. (1998). Elaboration de méthodologies adaptées à l'étude de la dynamique des préférences. (Methodological contribution to the study of the dynamics of preference). Doctoral thesis, Université de Bourgogne, Dijon, France.
26. Matuszewska I., Barylko-Pikielna N., Szczecinska A., and Radzanowska J. Comparison of three procedures for consumer assessment of fat spreads: Short report. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 6 (1997) 139-142
27. McBride R.L. Range bias in sensory evaluation. Journal of Food Technology 17 (1982) 405-410
28. McDaniel M.R., and Sawyer F.M. Preference testing of whiskey sour formulations: Magnitude estimation versus the 9-point hedonic. Journal of Food Science 46 (1981) 182-185
29. McEwan J.A. A comparative study of three product acceptability trials. Food Quality and Preference 8 3 (1997) 183-190
30. Meiselman H.L. Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite 19 1 (1992) 49-55
31. Meiselman H.L., deGraaf C., and Lesher L.L. The effects of variety and monotony on food acceptance and intake at a midday meal. Physiology and Behavior 70 1-2 (2000) 119-125
32. Meiselman H.L., Hirsch E.S., and Popper R.D. Sensory, hedonic and situational factors in food acceptance consumption. In: Thomson D.M.H. (Ed). Food acceptability (1988), Elsevier, London 77-87
33. Meiselman H.L., Johnson J.L., Reeve W., and Crouch J.E. Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 35 3 (2000) 231-237
34. Miller P.G., Nair J.H., and Harriman A.J. A household and a laboratory type of panel for testing consumer preference. Food Technology 9 (1955) 445-449
35. Murphy E.F., Clark B.S., and Berglund R.M. A consumer survey versus panel testing for acceptance evaluation of Marine sardines. Food Technology 12 (1958) 222-226
36. Posri, W., MacFie, H., & Henson, S. (2001). Improving the predictability of consumerliking from central location test in tea. In Fourth R.M. Pangborn memorial symposium: A sense odyssey, Dijon, France, 22-26 July.
37. Pound C., Duizer L., and McDowell K. Improved consumer product development. Part one: Is a laboratory necessary to assess consumer opinion?. British Food Journal 102 (2000) 810-820
38. Shepherd R., and Griffiths N.M. Preferences for eggs produced under different systems assessed by consumer and laboratory panels. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie 20 (1987) 128-132
39. Stone H., and Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices. 2d ed. (1993), Academic Press Inc., San Diego, California
40. Stroebele N., and De Castro J.M. Effect of ambience on food intake and food choice. Nutrition 20 (2004) 821-838
41. Zajonc R.B. Attudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 2, PT. 2 (1968) 1-27
42. Zandstra E.H., de Graaf C., van Trijp H.C.M., and van Staveren W.A. Laboratory hedonic ratings as predictors of consumption. Food Quality and Preference 10 4-5 (1999) 411-418