Influence of Information on Consumers' Evaluations Using Check-All-That-Apply Questions and Sorting: A Case Study with Milk Desserts

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 125-137

  Vidal, Leticia ^a   Barreiro, Cecilia ^a   Gómez, Beatriz ^b   Ares, Gastón ^a   Giménez, Ana ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE ENTRE RÍOS   (Argentina)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONSUMER PERCEPTION; PRODUCT CHARACTERIZATIONS; SENSORY CHARACTERISTICS;

CHARACTERIZATION;

FOOD PRODUCTS;

EID: 84875811169     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/joss.12030     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Adams, J., Williams, A., Lancaster, B. and 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, August 12-16, Minneapolis, MN.
2. Allison, A.A., Gualtieri, T. and Craig-Petsinger, D. 2004. Are young teens influenced by increased product description detail and branding during consumer testing? Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 819-829.
3. Ampuero, O. and Vila, N. 2006. Consumer perceptions of product packaging. J. Consum. Mark. 23, 100-112.
4. Ares, G., Giménez, A. and Gámbaro, A. 2008. Understanding consumers' perception of conventional and functional yogurts using word association and hard laddering. Food Qual. Prefer. 19, 636-643.
5. Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Deliza, R., Giménez, A. and Gámbaro, A. 2010a. Application of a check-all-that-apply question to the development of chocolate milk desserts. J. Sensory Studies 25, 67-86.
6. Ares, G., Barreiro, C., Giménez, A. and Gámbaro, A. 2010b. Use of an open-ended question to identify drivers of liking of milk desserts. Comparison with preference mapping techniques. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 286-294.
7. Ares, G., Besio, M., Giménez, A. and Deliza, R. 2010c. Relationship between involvement and functional milk desserts intention to purchase. Influence on attitude towards packaging characteristics. Appetite 55, 298-304.
8. Ares, G., Giménez, A. and Deliza, R. 2010d. Influence of three non-sensory factors on consumer choice of functional yogurts over regular ones. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 361-367.
9. Ares, G., Giménez, A. and Bruzzone, F. 2011a. Identifying consumers' texture vocabulary of milk desserts. Application of a check-all-that-apply question and free listing. Braz. J. Food Technol. 12, 98-105.
10. Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G. and Gimenez, A. 2011b. Are consumer profiling techniques equivalent for some product categories? The case of orange-flavoured powdered drinks. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 46, 1600-1608.
11. Barcenas, P., Pérez Elortondo, F.J. and Albisu, M. 2004. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Res. Int. 37, 723-729.
12. Bello Acebrón, L. and Calvo Dopico, D. 2000. The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: An empirical application for beef. Food Qual. Prefer. 11, 229-238.
13. Cadoret, M., Lê, S. and Pagès, J. 2009. A factorial approach for sorting task data (FAST). Food Qual. Prefer. 20, 410-417.
14. Carneiro, J.D.S., Minim, V.P.R., Deliza, R., Silva, C.H.O., Carneiro, J.C.S. and Leão, F.P. 2005. Labelling effects on consumer intention to purchase for soybean oil. Food Qual. Prefer. 16, 275-282.
15. Carrillo, E., Varela, P. and Fiszman, S. 2012a. Effects of food package information and sensory characteristics on the perception of healthiness and the acceptability of enriched biscuits. Food Res. Int. 48, 209-216.
16. Carrillo, E., Varela, P. and Fiszman, S. 2012b. Packaging information as a modulator of consumers' perception of enriched and reduced-calorie biscuits in tasting and non-tasting tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 25, 105-115.
17. Cartier, R., Rytz, A., Lecomte, A., Poblete, F., Krystlik, J., Belin, E. and Martin, N. 2006. Sorting procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food Qual. Prefer. 17, 562-571.
18. Delarue, J. and Sieffermann, J.-M. 2004. Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products. Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 383-392.
19. Deliza, R. and MacFie, H.J.H. 1996. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. J. Sensory Studies 11, 103-128.
20. 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.
21. Di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Di Marzo, S. and Masi, P. 2004. The effect of expectations generated by brand name on the acceptability of dried semolina pasta. Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 429-437.
22. Dooley, L., Lee, Y.S. and Meullenet, J.F. 2010. The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 394-401.
23. Enneking, U., Neumann, C. and Henneberg, S. 2007. How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 133-138.
24. Fisher, R.A. 1954. Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, U.K.
25. Guinard, J.X., Uotani, B. and Schlich, P. 2001. Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: Comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Qual. Prefer. 12, 243-255.
26. ISO. 2007. Sensory Analysis: General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms, ISO 8589, International Organization for Standardization, Geneve.
27. Jaeger, S.R. 2006. Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Qual. Prefer. 17, 132-144.
28. Köster, E.P. 2003. The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 359-373.
29. Köster, E.P. 2009. Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Qual. Prefer. 20, 70-82.
30. Lange, C., Issanchou, S. and Combris, P. 2000. Expected versus experienced quality: Trade-off with price. Food Qual. Prefer. 11, 289-297.
31. Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food. Principles and Practices, 2nd Ed., Chap. 10, pp. 227-253, Springer, New York, NY.
32. Lawless, H.T., Sheng, N. and Knoops, S.S.C.P. 1995. Multidimensional scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 91-98.
33. Manoukian, E.B. 1986. Mathematical Nonparametric Statistics, Gordon & Breach, New York, NY.
34. Meilgaard, M.C., Civille, G.V. and Carr, B.T. 1999. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 2nd Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
35. Mueller, S. and Szolnoki, G. 2010. The relative influence of packaging, labelling, branding and sensory attributes on liking and purchase intent: Consumers differ in their responsiveness. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 774-783.
36. Olsen, N.V., Menichelli, E., Meyer, C. and NÆs, T. 2011. Consumers liking of private labels. An evaluation of intrinsic and extrinsic orange juice cues. Appetite 56, 770-777.
37. Parente, M.E., Manzoni, A.V. and Ares, G. 2011. External preference mapping of commercial antiaging creams based on consumers' responses to a check-all-that-apply question. J. Sensory Studies 26, 158-166.
38. Perrin, L., Symoneaux, R., Maître, I., Asselin, C., Jourjon, F. and Pagès, J. 2008. Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: Case of ten wines from Loire valley. Food Qual. Prefer. 19, 1-11.
39. Plaehn, D. 2012. CATA penalty/reward. Food Qual. Prefer. 24, 141-152.
40. Resano, H., Sanjuán, A.I. and Albisu, L.M. 2007. Consumers' acceptability of cured ham in Spain and the influence of information. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 1064-1076.
41. Risvik, E., McEwan, J.A., Colwill, J.S., Rogers, R. and Lyon, D. 1994. Projectlve mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Qual. Prefer. 5, 263-269.
42. Steptoe, A., Pollard, T. and Wardle, J. 1995. Development of a measure of the motives underlying the selection of food: The food choice questionnaire. Appetite 25, 267-284.
43. Stone, H. and Sidel, J.L. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices, Elsevier Academic Press, London, U.K.
44. Stubenitsky, K., Aaron, J.I., Catt, S.L. and Mela, D.J. 1999. Effect of information and extended use on the acceptance of reduced-fat products. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 367-376.
45. Torres-Moreno, M., Tarrega, A., Torrescasana, E. and Blanch, C. 2012. Influence of label information on dark chocolate acceptability. Appetite 58, 665-671.
46. Valentin, D., Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M. and Abdi, H. 2012. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 47, 1563-1578.
47. Van Kleef, E., Van Trijp, H.C.M. and Luning, P. 2006. Internal versus external preference analysis: An exploratory study on end-user evaluation. Food Qual. Prefer. 17, 387-399.
48. Varela, P. and Ares, G. 2012. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Res. Int. 48, 893-908.
49. Varela, P., Ares, G., Giménez, A. and Gámbaro, A. 2010. Influence of brand information on consumers' expectations and liking of powdered drinks in central location tests. Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 873-880.
50. Vázquez, M.B., Curia, A. and Hough, G. 2009. Sensory descriptive analysis, sensory acceptability and expectation studies on biscuits with reduced added salt and increased fiber. J. Sensory Studies 24, 498-511.