Searching a specific bottle for Tannat wine using a check-all-that apply question and conjoint analysis

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 21, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 684-691

  Puyares, Victoria ^a   Ares, Gastón ^a   Carrau, Francisco ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

Author keywords

Check all that apply; Conjoint analysis; Consumer studies; Packaging; Tannat; Wine

Indexed keywords

VITACEAE; VITIS VINIFERA;

EID: 77956414628     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.008     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Adams, J., Williams, A., Lancaster, B., & Foley, M. (2007). Advantages and uses of check-all-that-apply response compared to traditional scaling of attributes for salty snacks. 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 12-16 August 2007. Minneapolis, USA.
2. Alcalde-Eon C., Boido E., Carrau F., Dellacassa E., Rivas-Gonzalo J.C. Pigment profiles in monovarietal wines produced in Uruguay. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 2006, 57:449-459.
3. Ares G., Deliza R., Barreiro C., Giménez A., Gámbaro A. Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:417-426.
4. Bécue-Bertaut M., Álvarez-Esteban R., Pagès J. Ratings of products through scores and free-text assertions: Comparing and combining both. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:122-134.
5. Bécue-Bertaut M., Pagès J. Multiple factor analysis and clustering of a mixture of quantitative, categorical and frequency data. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2008, 52:3255-3268.
6. Britton P. Packaging: graphic examples of consumer seduction. Beverage Industry 1992, 83:21.
7. Carrau F. The emergence of a new Uruguayan wine industry. Journal of Wine Research 1997, 8:179-185.
8. Cattin P., Wittink D.R. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey. Journal of Marketing 1982, 46:44-53.
9. 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, 11:103-128.
10. Deliza R., MacFie H., Hedderley D. Use of computer-generated images and conjoint analysis to investigate sensory expectations. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18:465-486.
11. Driesener C., Romaniuk J. Comparing methods of brand image measurement. International Journal of Market Research 2006, 48:681-698.
12. Guerrero L., Claret A., Verbeke W., Enderli G., Zakowska-Biemans S., Vanhonacker F., et al. Perception of traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21. 255-233.
13. Husson, F., Josse, J., Lê, S., & Mazet, J. (2007). FactoMineR: Factor Analysis and Data Mining with R. R package version 1.04, URL http://cran.R-project.org/package=FactoMineR.
14. Jaeger S.R. Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:132-144.
15. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Análisis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25(1).
16. 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, 17:166-178.
17. MacFie H.J.H., Bratchell N., Greenhoff K., Vallis L.V. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1989, 4:129-148.
18. Meullenet, J. F., Lee, Y., & Dooley, L. (2008). The application of check-all-that-apply consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. The 9th Sensometric Meeting. The Sensometrics Society, St. Catherines, Canada.
19. Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca (1993). Decreto 283/993. Vinos, se reglamentan las condiciones de elaboración, presentación de los de calidad (VCP) " Vinos de Calidad Preferente" Montevideo: Ministerio de Ganadería, Agricultura y Pesca.
20. Moskowitz H.R., Silcher M. The applications of conjoint analysis and their possible uses in sensometrics. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:145-165.
21. Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., & Louviere, J. (2009). What your see may not be what you get: Asking consumers what matters may not reflect what they choose. Marketing Letters, Published online, doi: doi:10.1007/s11002-009-9098-x.
22. Naes T., Kubberod E., Sivertsen H. Identifying and interpreting market segments using conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:133-143.
23. R Development Core Team. (2007). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
24. Rocchi B., Stefani G. Consumers' perception of wine packaging: A case study. International Journal of Wine Marketing 2005, 18:33-44.
25. Rodríguez Tarango, J. A. (2003). Introducción a la Ingeniería en Envase y Embalaje. In J. A. Rodríguez Tarango (Ed.), Manual de ingeniería y diseño en envase y embalaje para la industia de los alimentos, farmaceútica, química y de cosméticos (pp. 1:1-1:6). México: Instituto Mexicano de Profesionales en Envase y Envalaje S.C.
26. Saverglass Inc. (2006). Le Catalogue Saverglass. Feuquières, France: Saverglass Inc.
27. Tuorila H.M., Meiselman H.L., Cardello A.V., Lesher L.L. Effect of expectations and the definition of product category on the acceptance of familiar foods. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:421-430.
28. Varela P., Gámbaro A. Sensory descriptive analysis of Uruguayan Tannat wine: Correlation to quality assessment. Journal of Sensory Studies 2006, 21:203-217.