Measuring children's food preferences: Using pictures in a computerized conjoint analysis

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 264-276

  Olsen, A ^a   Kildegaard, H ^b   Gabrielsen, G ^c   Thybo, A K ^b   Moller P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^b AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^c Department of International Economics and Management   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER SCREENS; CONJOINT ANALYSIS; COPENHAGEN; FOOD PREFERENCE; PRODUCT CHOICE; REPRODUCIBILITIES; TANGIBLE PRODUCT; TWO-PRODUCT;

NUTRITION;

EID: 84864800669     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00391.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. BAKKE, A. and VICKERS, Z. 2007. Consumer liking of refined and whole wheat breads. J. Food Sci. 72, S473-S480.
2. BIRCH, L.L. 1979. Dimensions of preschool childrens food preferences. J. Nutr. Educ. 11, 77-80.
3. BIRCH, L.L. 1999. Development of food preferences. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 19, 41-62.
4. BRUNSØ, K., BREDAHL, L., GRUNERT, K.G. and SCHOLDERER, J. 2005. Consumer perception of the quality of beef resulting from various fattening regimes. Livest. Prod. Sci. 94, 83-93.
5. CALFAS, K.J., SALLIS, J.F. and NADER, P.R. 1991. The development of scales to measure knowledge and preference for diet and physical-activity behavior in 4-year-old to 8-year-old children. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 12, 185-190.
6. CHAMBERS, E. 2005. Commentary: Conducting sensory research with children. J. Sensory Studies 20, 90-92.
7. CHEN, A.W., RESURRECCION, A.V.A. and PAGUIO, L.P. 1996. Age appropriate hedonic scales to measure food preferences of young children. J. Sensory Studies 11, 141-163.
8. CHEN, M.K. 2008. Rationalization and cognitive dissonance: Do choices affect or reflect preferences? Cowles Foundation Discussion Paper 1669. Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics at Yale University.
9. DELIZA, R., MACFIE, H. and HEDDERLEY, D. 2003. Use of computer-generated images and conjoint analysis to investigate sensory expectations. J. Sensory Studies 18, 465-486.
10. DELK, J. and VICKERS, Z. 2007. Determining a series of whole wheat difference thresholds for use in a gradual adjustment intervention to improve children's liking of whole-wheat bread rolls. J. Sensory Studies 22, 639-652.
11. GAMBLE, J., JAEGER, S.R. and HARKER, F.R. 2006. Preferences in pear appearance and response to novelty among Australian and New Zealand consumers. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 41, 38-47.
12. GUINARD, J.X. 2000. Sensory and consumer testing with children. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 11, 273-283.
13. GUTHRIE, C.A., RAPOPORT, L. and WARDLE, J. 2000. Young children's food preferences: A comparison of three modalities of food stimuli. Appetite 35, 73-77.
14. HARNACK, L., WALTERS, S.A.H. and JACOBS, D.R. 2003. Dietary intake and food sources of whole grains among US children and adolescents: Data from the 1994-1996 continuing survey of food intakes by individuals. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 103, 1015-1019.
15. JAEGER, S.R., HEDDERLEY, D. and MACFIE, H.J.H. 2000. Methodological issues in conjoint analysis: A case study. Eur. J. Mark. 35, 1217-1237.
16. JARAMILLO, S.J., YANG, S.J., HUGHES, S.O., FISHER, J.O., MORALES, M. and NICKLAS, T.A. 2006. Interactive computerized fruit and vegetable preference measure for African-American and Hispanic preschoolers. J. Nutr. Edu. Behav. 38, 352-359.
17. KILDEGAARD, H., OLSEN, A., GABRIELSEN, G., MØLLER, P. and THYBO, A.K. 2011. A method to measure the effect of food appearance factors on children's visual preferences. Food Qual. Pref. 22, 763-771.
18. LAWLESS, H.T. 2000. Sensory combinations in the meal. In Dimensions of the Meal - The Science, Culture, Business, and Art of Eating, (H.L. Meiselman, ed.) pp. 92-106, Aspen Publishers, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD.
19. LEON, F., COURONNE, T., MARCUZ, M.C. and KÖSTER, E.P. 1999. Measuring food liking in children: A comparison of non verbal methods. Food Qual. Pref. 10, 93-100.
20. LOOSSCHILDER, G.H., ROSBERGEN, E. and WITTINK, D.R. 1995. Pictorial stimuli in conjoint-analysis to support product styling decisions. J. Mark. Res. Soc. 37, 17-34.
21. MACFIE, H.J., BRATCHELL, N., GREENHOFF, K. and VALLIS, L.V. 1989. Designs to balance the effects of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects of hall tests. J. Sensory Studies 4, 129-148.
22. MAHANNA, K. and LEE, S.Y. 2010. Consumer acceptance of food bars. J. Sensory Studies 25, 153-170.
23. MAHANNA, K., MOSKOWITZ, H.R. and LEE, S.Y. 2009. Assessing consumer expectations for food bars by conjoint analysis. J. Sensory Studies 24, 851-870.
24. MARKUSSEN, B. 2008. Multivariate analysis of food preferences from partial and best-worst rankings. In Symposium in Applied Statistics, (P. Linde, ed.) pp. 136-145, Copenhagen Business School, Danmarks Statistik, Jønsson Grafisk, Denmark.
25. MOSKOWITZ, H.R. 1994. Children Versus Adults. Food Concepts and Products - Just-in-Time Development, pp. 293-331, Food and Nutrition Press Inc., Trumbull, CT.
26. MOSKOWITZ, H.R. and SILCHER, M. 2006. The applications of conjoint analysis and their possible uses in Sensometrics. Food Qual. Pref. 17, 145-165.
27. POPPER, R. and KROLL, J.J. 2005. Issues and viewpoints - conducting sensory research with children. J. Sensory Studies 20, 75-87.
28. RAZ, C., PIPER, D., HALLER, R., DUSART, N. and GIBOREAU, A. 2008. From sensory marketing to sensory design: How to drive formulation using consumer's input? Food Qual. Pref. 19, 719-726.
29. REISFELT, H.H., GABRIELSEN, G., AASLYNG, M.D., BJERRE, M.S. and MØLLER, P. 2009. Consumer preferences for visually presented meals. J. Sensory Studies 24, 182-203.
30. VEREECKEN, C.A., VANDERVORST, S., NICKLAS, T., COVENTS, M. and MAES, L. 2010. Test-retest reliability and comparison of children's reports with parents' reports of young children's fruit and vegetable preferences. Appetite 55, 574-581.
31. VRIENS, M., LOOSSCHILDER, G.H., ROSBERGEN, E. and WITTINK, D.R. 1998. Verbal versus realistic pictorial representations in conjoint analysis with design attributes. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 15, 455-467.
32. WILSON, T.D. and SCHOOLER, J.W. 1991. Thinking too much - introspection can reduce the quality of preferences and decisions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 181-192.
33. WILSON, T.D., LAFLEUR, S.J. and ANDERSON, D.E. 1996. The validity and consequences of verbal reports about attitudes. In Answering Questions: Methodology for Determining Cognitive and Communicative Processes in Survey Research, (N. Schwarz and S. Sudman, eds.) pp. 91-114, Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco, CA.