Effects of evoked consumption contexts on hedonic ratings: A case study with two fruit beverages

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 35-44

  Hein, Karen A ^a   Hamid, Nazimah ^b   Jaeger, Sara R ^c   Delahunty, Conor M ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

^c THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

^d CSIRO   (Australia)

Author keywords

Consumer; Context; Hedonic rating; Written scenario

Indexed keywords

MALUS X DOMESTICA; RIBES HUDSONIANUM;

EID: 84859481687     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.014     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bell R., Meiselman H.L. Effects of adding an Italian theme to a restaurant on the perceived ethnicity, acceptability and selection of foods. Appetite 1994, 22:11-24.
2. Beucler J., Drake M.A., Foegeding E.A. Design of a beverage from whey permeate. Journal of Food Science 2005, 70:277-285.
3. Bisogni C., Falk L.W., Madore E., Blake C., Jastran M., Sobal J., et al. Dimensions of everyday eating and drinking episodes. Appetite 2007, 48:218-231.
4. Boutrolle, I., & Delarue, J. (2009). Studying meals in the home and in the laboratory. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.), Meals in science and practice. Interdisciplinary research and business applications (pp. 128-165): Woodhead Publishing Ltd.
5. Boutrolle I., Delarue J., Arranz D., Rogeaux M., Köster E. Central location test vs. home use test: Contrasting results depending on product type. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:490-499.
6. Cardello A.V., Sawyer F.M. Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies 1992, 7:253-277.
7. 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.
8. de Graaf C., Cardello A.V., Kramer F.M., Lesher L.L., Meiselman H.L., Schutz H.G. A comparison between liking ratings obtained under laboratory and field conditions: The role of choice. Appetite 2005, 44:15-22.
9. Edwards J.S.A., Meiselman H.L., Edwards A., Lesher L.L. The influence of eating location on the acceptability of identically prepared foods. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:647-652.
10. Havermans R.C., Janssen T., Giesen J.C.A.H., Roefs A., Jansen A. Food liking, food wanting, and sensory-specific satiety. Appetite 2009, 52:222-225.
11. Hein K.A., Hamid N., Jaeger S.R., Delahunty C.M. Application of a written scenario to evoke a consumption context in a laboratory setting: Effects on hedonic ratings. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 410-416.
12. Hersleth M., Mevik B.H., Naes T., Guinard J.X. Effect of contextual factors on liking for wine - Use of robust design methodology. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:615-622.
13. Hersleth M., Ueland O., Allain H., Naes T. Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different testing conditions. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:103-110.
14. King S.C., Meiselman H.L., Hollenstein 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.
15. 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(7-8):645-653.
16. Köster E.P. The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:359-373.
17. Kozlowska K., Jeruszka M., Matuszewska I., Roszkowski W., Barylko-Pikielna N., Brzozowska A. Hedonic tests in different locations as predictors of apple juice consumption at home in elderly and young subjects. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:653-661.
18. Land D.G. Negative influences on acceptability. Food acceptability 1988, 475-483. Elsevier, London. D.M.H. Thomson (Ed.).
19. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices 1999, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Gaithersburg.
20. MacFie H.J.H., Bratchell N., Greenhoff K., Vallis L. 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.
21. McEwan J.A. A comparative study of three product acceptability trials. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:183-190.
22. 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. Chapman & Hall, London. H.L. Meiselman, H.J.H. MacFie (Eds.).
23. Meiselman H.L. Experiencing food products within a physical and social context. Product experience 2008, 559-580. Elsevier Ltd, San Diego, CA. H.N.J. Schifferstein, P. Hekkert (Eds.).
24. Meiselman H.L., Johnson J.L., Reeve W., Crouch J.E. Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 2000, 35:311-327.
25. Meiselman H.L., King S., Hottenstein A.W. Laboratory product testing produces an underestimation of true product acceptability 2004, Paper presented at the A Sense of Identity, Florence, Italy.
26. Peryam D.R., Pilgrim F.J. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology 1957, 11:9-14.
27. Petit C., Sieffermann J.M. Testing consumer preference for iced-coffee: Does the drinking environment have any influence?. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:161-172.
28. Premavalli K.S., Wadikar D.D., Nanjappa C. Comparison of the acceptability ratings of appetizers under laboratory, base level and high altitude field conditions. Appetite 2009, 53:127-130.
29. Sverkén, A., Wendin, K., & Aström, A. (2009). Comparison of home use test and central location test by the use of preference mapping. Paper presented at the 8th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 26-30th of July in Florence, Italy.