Food choice. The battle between package, taste and consumption situation

Appetite

Volumn 80, Issue , 2014, Pages 109-113

  Gutjar, Swetlana ^a,b   Graaf, Cees de ^a,b   Palascha, Aikaterini ^b   Jager, Gerry ^b  

^a TOP INSTITUTE FOOD AND NUTRITION   (Netherlands)

^b WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Appropriateness; Consumption situation; Extrinsic properties; Food choice; Intrinsic properties

Indexed keywords

YOGHURT;

ADULT; APRICOT; ARTICLE; BANANA; CRANBERRY; FEMALE; FOOD INTAKE; FOOD PACKAGING; FOOD PREFERENCE; FRUIT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MEAL; NORMAL HUMAN; PEACH; RASPBERRY; STRAWBERRY; SWEETNESS; TASTE; ADOLESCENT; BODY MASS; DECISION MAKING; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BODY MASS INDEX; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FOOD PACKAGING; FOOD PREFERENCES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; TASTE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84901590305     PISSN: 01956663     EISSN: 10958304     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2014.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Anderson R.E. Consumer dissatisfaction. The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research 1973, 10(1):38-44. 10.2307/3149407.
2. Ares G., Besio M., Giménez A., Deliza R. Relationship between involvement and functional milk desserts intention to purchase. Influence on attitude towards packaging characteristics. Appetite 2010, 55(2):298-304. 10.1016/j.appet.2010.06.016.
3. Birch L.L., Billman J., Richards S.S. Time of day influences food acceptability. Appetite 1984, 5(2):109-116.
4. Cardello A.V., Schutz H.G. Food appropriateness measures as an adjunct to consumer preference/acceptability evaluation. [Second Rose Marie Pangborn Memorial Symposium]. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7(3-4):239-249. 10.1016/S0950-3293(96)00012-2.
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(3):201-216. 10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00055-5.
6. 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(1):15-22. 10.1016/j.appet.2003.06.002.
7. Deliza R., MacFie H.J.H. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings. A review. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 11(2):103-128. 10.1111/j.1745-459X.1996.tb00036.x.
8. Garcia-Bailo B., Toguri C., Eny K.M., El-Sohemy A. Genetic variation in taste and its influence on food selection. Omics: A Journal of Integrative Biology 2009, 13(1):69-80. 10.1089/omi.2008.0031.
9. Hasselbalch A.L., Heitmann B.L., Kyvik K.O., Sorensen T.I.A. Studies of twins indicate that genetics influence dietary intake. The Journal of Nutrition 2008, 138(12):2406-2412. 10.3945/jn.108.087668.
10. Hogenkamp P.S., Stafleu A., Mars M., Brunstrom J.M., de Graaf C. Texture, not flavor, determines expected satiation of dairy products. [Feeding infants and young children. Guidelines, research and practice]. Appetite 2011, 57(3):635-641. 10.1016/j.appet.2011.08.008.
11. Hoppert K., Mai R., Zahn S., Hoffmann S., Rohm H. Integrating sensory evaluation in adaptive conjoint analysis to elaborate the conflicting influence of intrinsic and extrinsic attributes on food choice. Appetite 2012, 59(3):949-955. 10.1016/j.appet.2012.09.005.
12. Köster E.P. Diversity in the determinants of food choice. A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(2):70-82. 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.002.
13. Kramer F.M., Rock K., Engell D. Effects of time of day and appropriateness on food intake and hedonic ratings at morning and midday. Appetite 1992, 18(1):1-13. 10.1016/0195-6663(92)90206-L.
14. Lange C., Rousseau F., Issanchou S. Expectation, liking and purchase behaviour under economical constraint. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 10(1):31-39. 10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00035-4.
15. Markman A.B., Brendl C.M., Kim K. Preference and the specificity of goals. Emotion (Washington, D.C.) 2007, 7(3):680-684. 10.1037/1528-3542.7.3.680.
16. Mars M., Hogenkamp P.S., Gosses A.M., Stafleu A., De Graaf C. Effect of viscosity on learned satiation. Physiology & Behavior 2009, 98(1-2):60-66. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.04.018.
17. 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. Springer US, New York. H.L. Meiselman, H.J.H. MacFie (Eds.).
18. Wardle J., Haase A., Steptoe A., Nillapun M., Jonwutiwes K., Bellisie F. Gender differences in food choice. The contribution of health beliefs and dieting. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 2004, 27(2):107-116. 10.1207/s15324796abm2702_5.
19. Westbrook R.A. Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase processes. Journal of Marketing Research 1987, 24(3):258-270. 10.2307/3151636.
20. Westenhoefer J. Age and gender dependent profile of food choice. Forum of Nutrition 2005, 57:44-51.