The possibility of using tasting as a presentation method for sensory stimuli in conjoint analysis

Trends in Food Science and Technology

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 108-115

  De Pelsmaeker, Sara ^a   Dewettinck, Koen ^a   Gellynck, Xavier ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTRIBUTE LEVELS; CONJOINT ANALYSIS; CONSUMER RESEARCH; EXTRINSIC ATTRIBUTES; FOOD INDUSTRIES; KEY FACTORS; PURCHASE DECISION; SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS; SENSORY STIMULUS;

FOOD PRODUCTS; RESEARCH;

STATISTICAL METHODS;

EID: 84874316680     PISSN: 09242244     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2012.10.001     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Alriksson S., Oberg T. Conjoint analysis for environmental evaluation a review of methods and applications. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 2008, 15(3):244-257.
2. Ares G., Gimenez A., Deliza R. Influence of three non-sensory factors on consumer choice of functional yogurts over regular ones. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 21(4):361-367.
3. Ares G., Gimenez A., Gambaro A. Consumer perceived healthiness and willingness to try functional milk desserts. Influence of ingredient, ingredient name and health claim. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(1):50-56.
4. Baker G.A. Strategic implications of consumer food safety preferences. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 1998, 1(4):451-463.
5. Carneiro J.D., Minim V.P.R., Deliza R., Silva C.H.O., Carneiro J.C.S., Leao F.P. Labelling effects on consumer intention to purchase for soybean oil. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16(3):275-282.
6. Carroll J.D., Green P.E. Psychometric methods in marketing-research 1. Conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 1995, 32(4):385-391.
7. Cerjak M., Haas R., Kovacic D. Brand familiarity and tasting in conjoint analysis an experimental study with Croatian beer consumers. British Food Journal 2010, 112(6-7):561-579.
8. Di Monaco R., Cavella S., Torrieri E., Masi P. Consumer acceptability of vegetable soups. Journal of Sensory Studies 2007, 22(1):81-98.
9. 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.
10. Frewer L.J., Howard C., Hedderley D., Shepherd R. Consumer attitudes towards different food-processing technologies used in cheese production - the influence of consumer benefit. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8(4):271-280.
11. Gil J.M., Sanchez M. Consumer preferences for wine attributes: a conjoint approach. British Food Journal 1997, 99(1):3-11.
12. Green P.E. Hybrid models for conjoint analysis - an expository review. Journal of Marketing Research 1984, 21(2):155-169.
13. Green P.E., Krieger A.M. A hybrid conjoint model for price demand estimation. European Journal of Operational Research 1990, 44(1):28-38.
14. Green P.E., Krieger A.M., Agarwal M.K. Adaptive conjoint analysis - some caveats and suggestions. Journal of Marketing Research 1991, 28(2):215-222.
15. Green P.E., Krieger A.M., Wind Y. Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 2001, 31(3):S56-S73.
16. Green P.E., Rao V.R. Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing Research 1971, 8(3):355-363.
17. Green P.E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint analysis in consumer research - issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 1978, 5(2):103-123.
18. Green P.E., Srinivasan V. Conjoint-analysis in marketing - new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of Marketing 1990, 54(4):3-19.
19. Green P.E., Wind Y. New way to measure consumers judgments. Harvard Business Review 1975, 53(4):107-117.
20. Grossmann H., Holling H., Schwabe R. Advances in optimum experimental design for conjoint analysis and discrete choice models. Econometric Models in Marketing 2002, 16:93-117.
21. Grunert K.G. What's in a steak? A cross-cultural study on the quality perception of beef. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8(3):157-174.
22. Grunert K.G. Purchase and consumption: the interdisciplinary nature of analysing food choice. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14(1):39-40.
23. Gustafsson A., Ekdahl F., Bergman B. Conjoint analysis: a useful tool in the design process. Total Quality Management 1999, 10(3):327-343.
24. Gustafsson A., Herrmann A., Huber F. Conjoint analysis as an instrument of market research practice. Conjoint measurement 2007, Springer, Berlin Heidelberg.
25. Haddad Y., Haddad J., Olabi A., Shuayto N., Haddad T., Toufeili I. Mapping determinants of purchase intent of concentrated yogurt (Labneh) by conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18(5):795-802.
26. Hailu G., Boecker A., Henson S., Cranfield J. Consumer valuation of functional foods and nutraceuticals in Canada. A conjoint study using probiotics. Appetite 2009, 52(2):257-265.
27. Helgesen H., Solheim R., Naes T. Consumer purchase probability of dry fermented lamb sausages. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9(5):295-301.
28. Jaeger S.R. Uncovering cultural differences in choice behaviour between Samoan and New Zealand consumers: a case study with apples. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11(5):405-417.
29. Jaeger S.R., Hedderley D., MacFie H. Methodological issues in conjoint analysis: a case study. European Journal of Marketing 2001, 35(11/12):1217-1237.
30. Johansen S.B., Naes T., Oyaas J., Hersleth M. Acceptance of calorie-reduced yoghurt: effects of sensory characteristics and product information. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(1):13-21.
31. Kessels R., Goos P., Vandebroek M. Optimal designs for conjoint experiments. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 2008, 52(5):2369-2387.
32. Lee C.M., Moskowitz H.R., Lee S.Y. Expectations, needs and segmentation of healthy breakfast cereal consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies 2007, 22(5):587-607.
33. Lenk P.J., DeSarbo W.S., Green P.E., Young M.R. Hierarchical bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Marketing Science 1996, 15(2):173-191.
34. Luce R.D., Tukey J.W. Simultaneous conjoint-measurement - a new type of fundamental research. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1964, 1(1):1-27.
35. Nelson R.G., Jolly C.M., Hinds M.J., Donis Y., Prophete E. Conjoint analysis of consumer preferences for roasted peanut products in Haiti. International Journal of Consumer Studies 2005, 29(3):208-215.
36. Orme B. Chapter 1: managerial overview of conjoint analysis. Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research 2010, R. P. LCC.
37. Orme B. Chapter 3: understanding the value conjoint analysis. Getting started with conjoint analysis: Strategies for product design and pricing research 2010, R. P. LCC.
38. Poelman A., Mojet J., Lyon D., Sefa-Dedeh S. The influence of information about organic production and fair trade on preferences for and perception of pineapple. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:114-121.
39. Saba A., Vassallo M., Shepherd R., Lampila P., Arvola A., Dean M., et al. Country-wise differences in perception of health-related messages in cereal-based food products. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:385-393.
40. Sammer K., Wüstenhagen R. The influence of eco-labelling on consumer behaviour - results of a discrete choice analysis for washing machines. Business Strategy and the Environment 2006, 15(3):185-199.
41. Schnettler B., Vidal R., Silva R., Vallejos L., Sepulveda N. Consumer willingness to pay for beef meat in a developing country: the effect of information regarding country of origin, price and animal handling prior to slaughter. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(2):156-165.
42. Solheim R., Lawless H.T. Consumer purchase probability affected by attitude towards low-fat foods, liking, private body consciousness and information on fat and price. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7(2):137-143.
43. Strebinger A., Hoffman S., Schweiger G., Otter T. Verbal versus pictorial stimuli in conjoint analysis: the moderating effect of involvement and hemisphericity. Enhancing knowledge development in marketing, 2000 AMA educators' proceedings 2000, American Marketing Association, Chicago. G.T. Gundlach, P.E. Murphy (Eds.).
44. Tuorila H., Monteleone E. Sensory food science in the changing society: opportunities, needs, and challenges. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2009, 20(2):54-62.
45. Vickers Z.M. Incorporating tasting into a conjoint analysis of taste, health claim, price and brand for purchasing strawberry yoghurt. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:341-352.
46. Vriens M., Loosschilder G.H., Rosbergen E., Wittink D.R. Verbal versus realistic pictorial representations in conjoint analysis with design attributes. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1998, 15(5):455-467.
47. Wittink D.R., Cattin P. Commercial use of conjoint analysis - an update. Journal of Marketing 1989, 53(3):91-96.
48. Wittink D.R., Vriens M., Burhenne W. Commercial use of conjoint analysis in Europe: Results and critical reflections 1992, Sawtooth Software: Research Paper Series.