Consumer acceptance and appropriateness of meat substitutes in a meal context

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 233-240

  Elzerman, Johanna E ^a   Hoek, Annet C ^a   van Boekel, Martinus A J S ^a   Luning, Pieternel A ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Acceptance; Appropriateness; Central location test; Liking; Meal context; Meat substitutes

Indexed keywords

EID: 78751582282     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.10.006     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Aiking H., de Boer J. Background, aims and scope. Sustainable protein production and consumption: Pigs or peas? 2006, 1-21. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. H. Aiking, J. de Boer, J. Vereijken (Eds.).
2. Sustainable protein production and consumption: Pigs or peas? 2006, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. H. Aiking, J. de Boer, J. Vereijken (Eds.).
3. Bredahl L., Grunert K.G., Fertin C. Relating consumer perceptions of pork quality to physical product characteristics. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:273-281.
4. Cardello A.V., Schutz H.G. Food appropriateness measures as an adjunct to consumer preference/acceptability evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7:239-249.
5. Cardello A.V., Schutz H., Snow C., Lesher L. Predictors of food acceptance, consumption and satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:201-216.
6. de Boer J. Socio-cultural potential. Sustainable protein production and consumption: Pigs or peas? 2006, 103-110. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. H. Aiking, J. de Boer, J. Vereijken (Eds.).
7. Eindhoven J., Peryam D.R. Measurement of preferences for food combinations. Food Technology 1959, 13:379-382.
8. Elzerman H. Substitution of meat by NPFs: Sensory properties and contextual factors. Sustainable protein production and consumption: Pigs or peas? 2006, 116-122. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. H. Aiking, J. de Boer, T.J. Vereijken (Eds.).
9. Elzerman, Johanna E., Luning, Pieternel A., & van Boekel, Martinus A. J. S. (submitted for publication). Exploring meat substitutes: Consumer experiences and contextual factors.
10. FAO. (2004). Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, FAOSTAT online-statistical service (FAO Rome). http://apps.fao.org.
11. Grunert K.G. What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality perception of beef. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:167-174.
12. Hoek A.C., Luning P.A., Stafleu A., de Graaf C. Food-related lifestyle and health attitudes of Dutch vegetarians, non-vegetarian consumers of meat substitutes, and meat consumers. Appetite 2004, 42(3):265-272.
13. Hoek, A. C., Elzerman, H., Hageman, R., Kok, F. J., Luning, P. A., & de Graaf, C. (submitted for publication). Are meat substitutes liked better over time? A repeated in-home use test with meat substitutes or meat in meals.
14. King S.C., Weber A.J., Meiselman H.L., Lv N. The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:645-653.
15. King S.C., Meiselman H.L., Hottenstein A.W., Work T.M., Cronk V. The effects of contextual variables on food acceptability: A confirmatory study. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:58-65.
16. Klosse P.R., Riga J., Cramwickel A.B., Saris W.H.M. The formulation and evaluation of culinary success factors (CSFs) that determine the palatability of food. Food Service Technology 2004, 4(3):107-115.
17. Lawless H.T. Sensory combinations in the meal. Dimensions of the meal. The science, culture, business, and art of eating 2000, 92-106. Aspen Publishers Inc., Gaithersburg. H.L. Meiselman (Ed.).
18. Meiselman H.L. The contextual basis for food acceptance, food choice and food intake: The food, the situation and the individual. Food choice, acceptance and consumption 1996, 239-263. Blackie Academic and Professional, London. H.L. Meiselman, H.J.H. MacFie (Eds.).
19. Meiselman H.L. Dimensions of the meal 2000, Aspen Publishers Inc., Maryland.
20. Meiselman H.L., Johnson J.L., Reeve W., Crouch J.E. Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 2000, 35:231-237.
21. Pimentel D., Pimentel M. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2003, 78:660S-663S.
22. Pliner P., Stallberg-White C. 'Pass the ketchup, please': Familiar flavors increase children's willingness to taste novel foods. Appetite 2000, 34:95-103.
23. Prescott J., Young O., Zhang S., Cummings T. Effects of added 'flavour principles' on liking and familiarity of a sheepmeat product: A comparison of Singaporean and New Zealand consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:187-194.
24. Puumalainen T., Nykopp H., Tuorila H. Old product in a new context: Importance of the type of dish for the acceptance of Grünkern, a spelt-based traditional cereal. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie 2002, 35(6):549-553.
25. Roedder John D. Consumer socialization in children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research 1999, 26:183-213.
26. Rozin P., Fallon A., Augustoni-Ziskind M. The Child's conception of food: The development of contamination sensitivity to 'disgusting' substances. Developmental Psychology 1985, 21(6):1075-1079.
27. Rozin P. Development in the food domain. Developmental Psychology 1990, 26(4):555-562.
28. Rozin E. The role of flavor in the meal and the culture. Dimensions of the meal. The science, culture, business, and art of eating 2000, 134-142. Aspen Publishers, Gaitersburg, MD. H.L. Meiselman (Ed.).
29. Rozin P., Tuorila H. Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference 1993, 4:11-20.
30. Schutz H.G. Appropriateness as a measure of the cognitive-contextual aspects of food acceptance. Measurement of food preferences 1994, 25-50. Blackie Academic and Professional, London. H.J.H. Mac Fie, D.M.H. Thomson (Eds.).
31. Stallberg-White C., Pliner P. The effect of flavor principles on willingness to taste novel foods. Appetite 1999, 33:209-221.
32. 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 unfamiliar foods. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:421-430.
33. Turner M., Collison R. Consumer acceptance of meals and meal components. Food Quality and Preference 1988, 1:21-24.
34. Verbeke W., Van Wezemael L., de Barcellos M.D., Kügler J.O., Hocquette J., Ueland Ø., et al. European beef consumers' interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee. Insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries. Appetite 2010, 54:289-296.
35. Vetter K. Chefs designing flavor for meals. Meals in science and practice. Interdisciplinary research and business applications 2009, 509-526. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge, UK. H.L. Meiselman (Ed.).
36. Weaver P., Jansen L., van Grootveld G., van Spiegel E., Vergragt P. Sustainable Technology Development 2000, Greenleaf Publishing Ltd., Sheffield (UK).
37. Yeomans M.R., Chambers L., Blumenthal H., Blake A. The role of expectancy in sensory and hedonic evaluation: The case of smoked salmon ice-cream. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:565-573.