The relative influence of packaging, labelling, branding and sensory attributes on liking and purchase intent: Consumers differ in their responsiveness

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 774-783

  Mueller, Simone ^a   Szolnoki, Gergely ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^b Forschungsanstalt Geisenheim   (Germany)

Author keywords

Consumer heterogeneity; Extrinsic vs. intrinsic cues; Informed sensory testing; Latent class regression; Wine

Indexed keywords

VITACEAE;

EID: 77956409168     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.011     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Alba J.W., Hutchinson J.W. Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 1987, 13(4):411-454.
2. Barreiro-Hurlé J., Colombo S., Cantos-Villar E. Is there a market for functional wines? Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for resveratrol-enriched red wine. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(4):360-371.
3. Carbonell L., Izquierdo L., Carbonell I., Costell E. Segmentation of food consumers according to their correlations with sensory attributes projected on preference spaces. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(1):71-78.
4. Chang C.C. The interplay of product class knowledge and trial experience in attitude formation. Journal of Advertising 2004, 33(1):83-92.
5. Chocarro R., Cortinas M., Elorz M. The impact of product category knowledge on consumer use of extrinsic cues - A study involving agrifood products. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(3):176-186.
6. Combris P., Bazoche P., Giraud-Héraud E., Issanchou S. Food choices: What do we learn from combining sensory and economic experiments?. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(8):550-557.
7. Cordelle S., Lange C., Schlich P. On the consistency of liking scores: Insights from a study including 917 consumers from 10 to 80 years old. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:831-841.
8. Cordelle S., Piper D., Schlich P. On the consistency of liking scores: A validation study run in France and Germany. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:493-503.
9. Courcoux P. Preference mapping using a latent class vector model. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12(5-7):369-372.
10. Deliza R., MacFie H.J.H. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 11(2):103-128.
11. Deliza R., MacFie H., Hedderley D. Use of computer-generated images and conjoint analysis to investigate sensory expectations. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18(6):465-486.
12. Di Monaco R., Cavella S., Di Marzo S., Masi P. The effect of expectations generated by brand name on the acceptability of dried semolina pasta. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(5):429-437.
13. Earthy P.J., Macfie H., Wakeling I. Effect of presentation orders on the internal preference mapping of 12 fragrances. Appetite 1995, 24:300.
14. Enneking U., Neumann C., Henneberg S. How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18(1):133-138.
15. Frøst M.B. Liking and exposure: First, second and tenth time around. Physiology and Behavior 2006, 89:47-52.
16. Gracia A., Loureiro M.L., Nayga R.M. Consumers' valuation of nutritional information: A choice experiment study. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(7):463-471.
17. Guinard J.-X., Uotani B., Schlich P. Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: Comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12(4):243-255.
18. Heimbach A.E., Johansson J.K., MacLachlan D.L. Product familiarity, information processing, and country-of-origin cues. Advances in Consumer Research 1989, 16(1):460-467.
19. Hoffmann D., Mueller S., Szolnoki G., Nöll A., Schanowski B. Repräsentative Verbraucheruntersuchung: Zielgruppen and Präferenzen 2006, Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und Weinbau Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz.
20. Hottenstein A.W., Taylor R., Carr B.T. Preference segments: A deeper understanding of consumer acceptance or a serving order effect?. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(8):711-718.
21. Islam T., Louviere J.J., Burke P.F. Modeling the effects of including/excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components. International Journal of Research in Marketing 2007, 24(4):289-300.
22. Jaeger S.R., Rose J.M. Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: A case study. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(6):539-564.
23. Köster E.P. Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(2):70-82.
24. Köster E.P., Couronne T., Leon F., Levy C., Marcelino A.S. Repeatability in hedonic sensory measurement: A conceptual exploration. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:165-176.
25. Lähteenmaki L., Tuorila H. Attitudes towards sweetness as predictors of liking and use of various sweet foods. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 1994, 31:161-170.
26. Lähteenmaki L., Tuorila H. Consistency of liking and appropriateness ratings and relation to consumption in a product test of ice-cream. Appetite 1995, 25:189-197.
27. Lange, C. (2000). Etude de l'effet des caracteristiques sensorielles, des attentes induites par l'information et du prix sur l'acceptabilite et le comportement d'achat du consommateur. Universite de Bourgogne.
28. Lange C., Issanchou S., Combris P. Expected versus experienced quality: Trade-off with price. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11(4):289-297.
29. Lange C., Martin C., Chabanet C., Combris P., Issanchou S. Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for champagne: Comparison with hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13(7-8):597-608.
30. Lange C., Rousseau F., Issanchou S. Expectation, liking and purchase behaviour under economical constraint. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10(1):31-39.
31. Levy C.M., Köster E.P. The relevance of initial hedonic judgements in the prediction of subtle food choices. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:185-200.
32. Lockshin L., Jarvis W., d'Hauteville F., Perrouty J.-P. Using simulations from discrete choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity to brand, region, price, and awards in wine choice. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(3-4):166-178.
33. Lockshin L., Mueller S., Louviere J., Francis L., Osidacz P. Development of a new method to measure how consumers choose wine. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal 2009, 24(2):35-40.
34. Maheswaran D. Country of origin as stereotype: Effects of consumer expertise and attribute strength on product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research 1994, 21:354-365.
35. Marin A.B., Jorgensen E.M., Kennedy J.A., Ferrier J. Effects of bottle closure type on consumer perceptions of wine quality. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 2007, 58(2):182-191.
36. Mitchell A.A., Dacin P.F. The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research 1996, 23:219-240.
37. Mtimet N., Albisu L.M. Spanish wine consumer behavior: A choice experiment approach. Agribusiness 2006, 22(3):343-362.
38. Mueller, S., & Szolnoki, G. (2009). Conjoint analysis: Modelling consumer heterogeneity with latent class regression. Poster eighth Pangborn sensory science symposium. Florence.
39. Mueller, S., Francis, L., & Lockshin, L. (2008). The relationship between wine liking, subjective and objective wine knowledge: Does it matter who is in your 'consumer' sample? In Proceedings of fourth international conference of the academy of wine business research, Siena, 17-19 July, 2008.
40. Mueller S., Lockshin L., Saltman Y., Blanford J. Message on a bottle: The relative influence of back label information on wine choice. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(1):22-32.
41. Mueller S., Osidacz P., Francis I.L., Lockshin L. Combining discrete choice and informed sensory testing to determine consumer response to extrinsic and intrinsic wine attributes. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(7):741-754.
42. Mueller S., Francis I.L., Lockshin L. Comparison of best-worst and hedonic scaling for the measurement of consumer wine preferences. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2009, 15(3):205-215.
43. Orth U.R., Malkewitz K. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. Journal of Marketing 2008, 72(3):64-81.
44. Park C.W., Lessig V.P. Familiarity and its impact on consumer decision biases and heuristics. Journal of Consumer Research 1981, 8(2):223.
45. Park J.Y., O'Mahony M., Kim K.O. 'Different-stimulus' scaling errors; effects of scale length. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:362-368.
46. Perrouty J.P., d'Hauteville F., Lockshin L. The influence of wine attributes on region of origin equity: An analysis of the moderating effect of consumer's perceived expertise. Agribusiness 2006, 22:323-341.
47. Pieniak Z., Aertsens J., Verbeke W. Subjective and objective knowledge as determinants of organic vegetable consumption. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(7):581-588.
48. Plassmann H., O'Doherty J., Shiv B., Rangel A. Marketing actions can modulate neural representations of experienced pleasantness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2008, 105(3):1050-1054.
49. Poulsen C.S. Heterogeneity in consumer preference data - A combined approach. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8(5-6):409-417.
50. Preston C.C., Colman A.M. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica 2000, 104:1-15.
51. Priilaid D.A. Wine's placebo effect: How the extrinsic cues of visual assessments mask the intrinsic quality of South African red wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing 2006, 18(1):17-32.
52. Rao A.R., Monroe K.B. The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research 1988, 15(2):253-264.
53. Raz C., Piper D., Haller R., Nicod H., Dusart N., Giboreau A. From sensory marketing to sensory design: How to drive formulation using consumers' input?. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(8):719-726.
54. Semenou M. Preference study using a latent class approach. Analysis of European preferences for smoked salmon. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:720-728.
55. Siegrist M., Cousin M.E. Expectations influence sensory experience in a wine tasting. Appetite 2009, 52(3):762-765.
56. Stefani G., Donato R., Cavicchi A. Consumer expectations, liking and willingness to pay for specialty foods: Do sensory characteristics tell the whole story?. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(1-2):53-62.
57. Sulmont-Rosse C., Chabanet C., Issanchou S., Köster E.P. Impact of the arousal potential of uncommon drinks on the repeated exposure effect. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:412-420.
58. Szolnoki, G. (2007). Die Messung des Einflussed der aeusseren Produktgestaltung auf die Kaufbereitschaft: Dargestellt am Beispiel Weisswein. Geisenheim.
59. Teagle, J., Mueller, S., & Lockshin, L. (2010). How do Millennials' wine attitudes and behaviour differ from other generations? In Proceedings of fifth international academy of wine business research conference 8-10 February 2010, Auckland (NZ).
60. Tuorila H., Huotilainen A., Lähteenmaki L., Ollila S., Tuomi-Nurmi S., Urala N. Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:51-61.
61. Vermunt J.K., Magidson J. Technical guide for latent GOLD 4.0: Basic and advanced 2005, Statistical Innovations Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts.
62. Wedel M., DeSarbo W.J.A. A review of recent developments in latent class regression models. Advanced methods of marketing research 1994, 352-388. Wiley. R. Bagozzi (Ed.).
63. Wedel M., Kamakura W.A. Market segmentation: Conceptual and methodological foundations 1999, Kluwer Academic, Boston.
64. Zellner A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1962, 57:348-368.