The effects of context on liking: Implications for hedonic measurements in new product development

Consumer-Driven Innovation in Food and Personal Care Products

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 175-218

  Delarue, J ^a   Boutrolle, I ^b  

^a AGROPARISTECH   (France)

^b DANONE RESEARCH   (France)

Author keywords

CLT; Context; HUT; Liking; Preferences; Situational tests; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84902389124     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1533/9781845699970.2.175     Document Type: Chapter

References (125)

1. AFNOR Analyse sensorielle - Méthodologie - Directives générales pour la réalisation d'épreuves hédoniques effectuées avec des consommateurs dans un espace contrôlé 2009, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, XP V09-500.
2. Astruc C., Sieffermann J.M., Delarue J., Danzart M., Blumenthal D. The influence of assessment context on the consumer responses in a driving situation 2007.
3. Bell R. Some unresolved issues of control in consumer tests: the effects of expected monetary reward and hunger. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:329-340.
4. Bellisle F., Giachetti I., Tournier A. Determining the preferred level of saltiness in a food product: a comparison between sensory evaluation and actual consumption tests. Science des Aliments 1988, 8:557-564.
5. Berlyne D.E. Conflict, arousal and curiosity 1960, McGraw-Hill, New York.
6. Berry S.L., Beatty W.W., Klesges R.C. Sensory and social influences on ice cream consumption by males and females in a laboratory setting. Appetite 1985, 6:41-45.
7. Birch L.L., Billman J.B., Richards S.S. Time of day influences food acceptability. Appetite 1984, 5:109-116.
8. Bitner M.J. Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. Journal of Marketing 1990, 54:69-82.
9. Bleibaum R.N., Willis S. Men's running shirts. Understanding the relationship between functionality and marketing benefits with consumer expectations and sensory performance 2007.
10. Bonin D., Chambres P., Bernard P. Influence du contexte sur la perception des produits alimentaires. Traité devaluation sensorielle 2001, 223-232. Dunos, Paris. I. Urdapilleta, C. Ton Nu, C. Saint Denis (Eds.).
11. Boulze D., Montastruc P., Cabanac M. Water intake, pleasure and water temperature in humans. Physiology & Behavior 1983, 30:97-102.
12. Boutrolle I. Measurement of consumers' liking for food. Current practices and methodological developments 2007, AgroParisTech, Massy, France, PhD Thesis.
13. Boutrolle I., Delarue J. Studying meals in the home and in the laboratory. Meals in science and practice: Interdisciplinary research and business applications 2009, Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge. H.L. Meiselman (Ed.).
14. Boutrolle I., Delarue J., Arranz D., Rogeaux M., Koster E.P. Central location test vs. home use test: Contrasting results depending on product type. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:490-499.
15. Boutrolle I., Köster E.P., Arranz D., Danzart M., Delarue J. Some attempts to improve realism in central location tests. Mesure de l'appréciation des aliments par les consommateurs. Thèse de Doctorat 2007, AgroParisTech, Massy. I. Boutrolle (Ed.).
16. Boutrolle I., Delarue J., Köster E.P., Arranz D., Danzart M. Use of a test of perceived authenticity to trigger affective responses when testing food. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:418-426.
17. Bower G.H. Mood and memory. The American Psychologist 1981, 36:129-148.
18. Brinberg D., McGrath J.E. Validity and the research process 1985, Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA.
19. Brunstrom J.M., MacRae A.W. Mouth state: A nuisance variable in preference tests?. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:349-352.
20. Cabanac M., Minaire Y., Adair E. Influence of internal factors on the pleasantness of a gustative sweet sensation. Behavioral Biology 1968, 1:77-82.
21. Calvin L.D., Sather L.A. A comparison of student preference panels with a household consumer panel. Food Technology 1959, 13:469-472.
22. Cardello A.V., Maller O. Acceptability of water, selected beverages and foods as a function of serving temperature. Journal of Food Science 1982, 47:1549-1552.
23. Cardello A.V., Sawyer F.M. Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies 1992, 7:253-277.
24. 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.
25. Cardello A.V., Schutz H.G., Snow C., Lesher L.L. Predictors of food acceptance, consumption and satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:201-216.
26. Chiva M. Les aspects psychologiques des conduites alimentaires. Alimentation et nutrition humaine 1992, 417-442. ESF, Paris. H. Dupin, J.L. Cup, M.I. Malewiak (Eds.).
27. Clendenen V.I., Herman C.P., Polivy J. Social facilitation of eating among friends and strangers. Appetite 1994, 23:1-13.
28. Combris P., Bazoche P., Giraud-Héraud E., Issanchou S. Food choices: What do we learn from combining sensory and economic experiments?. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:550-557.
29. Craignou F., Bezault M.L. Identifying drivers of liking for fine fragrances with Bayesian networks 2009.
30. Daillant B., Issanchou S. Most preferred level of sugar: rapid measure and consumption test. Journal of Sensory Studies 1991, 6:131-144.
31. De Castro J.M., Brewer E.M., Elmore D.K., Orozco S. Social facilitation of the spontaneous meal size of humans occurs regardless of time, place, alcohol or snacks. Appetite 1990, 15:89-101.
32. 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.
33. Delarue J., Rason J., Venturin C., Sieffermann J.M. Influence of the product presentation procedure on the outcome of hedonic tests: Is simultaneous presentation an interesting alternative to monadic sequential? 2001.
34. Deldin P.J., Levin I.P. The effect of mood induction in a risky decisionmaking task. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 1986, 24:4-6.
35. 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, 11:103-128.
36. Drifford V., Lemmet J., Bernard P., Laporte V., Chambres P. Acceptance tests and memory of the context of consumption: analysis and experimentation. Viandes et Produits Carnés 1995, 16:107-111.
37. Earthy P.J., MacFie H.J.H., Hedderley D. Effect of question order on sensory perception and preference in central location trials. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12:215-237.
38. 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.
39. Eindhoven J., Peryam D.R. Measurement of preferences for food combinations. Food Technology 1959, 13:379-382.
40. Feunekes G.I., De Graaf C., Van Staveren W.A. Social facilitation of food intake is mediated by meal duration. Physiology & Behavior 1995, 58:551-558.
41. Finch J. The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 1987, 21:105-114.
42. Folkes V.S. Consumer reactions to product failure: an attributional approach. Journal of Consumer Research 1984, 14:398-409.
43. Green D.M., Butts J.S. Factors affecting acceptability of meals served in the air. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1945, 21:398-409.
44. Hansen T. Understanding consumer perception of food quality: the cases of shrimps and cheese. British Food Journal 2005, 107:500-525.
45. Hedderley D.I., Meiselman H.L. Modelling meal acceptability in a free choice environment. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6:15-26.
46. 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, 21:410-416.
47. Hellemann U.A., Tuorila H.M. Pleasantness ratings and consumption of open sandwiches with varying NaCl and acid contents. Appetite 1991, 17:229-238.
48. Hellemann U.A., Mela D.J., Aaron J.I., Evans R.E. Role of fat in meal acceptance. Food Quality and Preference 1993, 4:90.
49. 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.
50. 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.
51. Hill S.W. Eating responses of humans during dinner meals. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 1974, 86:652-657.
52. Hoyer S., Simchen U., Zunft H.J.F. A vending machine to measure choice and consumption by different age groups in a real life situation 2003.
53. Isen A.M., Shalker T.E., Clark M., Karp L. Affect, accessibility of material in memory, and behavior: a cognitive loop?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1978, 36:1-12.
54. Jaeger S.R., Meiselman H.L. Perceptions of meal convenience: the case of at-home evening meals. Appetite 2004, 42:317-325.
55. Jaeger S.R., Rose J.M. Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: A case study. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:539-564.
56. Jaeger S.R., Lusk J.L., House L.O., Walli C., Moore M., Morrow B., Traill W.B. The use of non-hypothetical experimental markets for measuring the acceptance of genetically modified foods. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:701-714.
57. Choices, values and frames 2000, Cambridge University Press and the Russell Sage Foundation, New York. D. Kahneman, A. Tversky (Eds.).
58. Kanarek R.B., Orthen-Gambill N. Complex interactions affecting nutrition-behavior research. Nutrition Reviews 1986, 44:172-175.
59. 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, 15:645-653.
60. King S.C., Meiselman H.L., Hottenstein 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.
61. Köster E.P. Time and frequency analysis: a new approach to the measurement of some less-well-known aspects of food preferences. Criteria of food acceptance 1981, 240-252. Forster Verlag AG, Zurich. J. Solms, R.L. Hall (Eds.).
62. Köster E.P. Les épreuves hédoniques. Evaluation sensorielle, manuel méthodologique 1998, 182-203. Lavoisier, Paris. SSHA & ISHA (Ed.).
63. Köster E.P. The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:359-373.
64. Köster E.P., Mojet J. Boredom and the reason why some new food products fail. Consumer-led food product development 2007, 262-280. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge. H. MacFie (Ed.).
65. 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.
66. Kramer F.M., Rock K., Engell D. Effect of time of day and appropriateness on food intake and hedonic ratings at morning and midday. Appetite 1992, 18:1-13.
67. Kramer F.M., Lesher L.L., Meiselman H.L. Monotony and choice: repeated serving of the same item to soldiers under field conditions. Appetite 2001, 36:239-240.
68. Laeng B., Berridge-Kent C., Butter C.M. Pleasantness of a sweet taste during hunger and satiety: effects of gender and 'sweet tooth'. Appetite 1993, 21:247-254.
69. Lähteenmäki L., Tuorila H. Liking for ice cream measured with three procedures: side-by-side, after consumption and single samples. Journal of Sensory Studies 1994, 9:455-465.
70. Lähteenmäki L., Tuorila H. Consistency of liking and appropriateness ratings and their relation to consumption in a product test of ice cream. Appetite 1995, 25:189-198.
71. Lähteenmäki L., Tuorila H. Item-by-use appropriateness of drinks varying in sweetener and fat content. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:85-90.
72. Lange C., Martin C., Chabanet C., Combris P., Issanchou S. Impact of the information provided to consumers on their willingness to pay for Champagne: Comparison with hedonic scores. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:597-608.
73. Lawless H., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices 1999, Aspen Publishers, Inc, Gaithersburg, MD.
74. Leon F., Couronne T., Marcuz M.C., Koster E.P. Measuring food liking in children: a comparison of non verbal methods. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:93-100.
75. Lucas F., Bellisle F. The measurement of food preferences in humans: Do taste-and-spit tests predict consumption?. Physiology & Behavior 1987, 39:739-743.
76. MacFie H.J., Bratchell N., Greenhoff K., Vallis L.V. 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.
77. Maller O., Dubose C.N., Cardello A.V. Consumer opinions of hospital food and foodservice. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 1980, 76:236-242.
78. Matuszewska I., Barylko-Pikielna N., Szczecinska A., Radzanowska J. Comparison of three procedures for consumer assessment of fat spreads: short report. Polish Journal of Food and Nutrition Sciences 1997, 6:139-142.
79. McDaniel M.R., Sawyer F.M. Preference testing of whiskey sour formulations: magnitude estimation versus the 9-point hedonic. Journal of Food Science 1981, 46:182-185.
80. McEwan J.A. A comparative study of three product acceptability trials. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8:183-190.
81. Meilgaard M., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques. Sensory Evaluation Techniques 1999, 37-41. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 3rd. M. Meilgaard, G.V. Civille, B.T. Carr (Eds.).
82. Meiselman H.L. Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite 1992, 19:49-55.
83. Meiselman H.L. The contextual basis for food acceptance, food choice and food intake. Food choice, acceptance and consumption 1996, 139-263. Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow. H.L. Meiselman, H. MacFie (Eds.).
84. Meiselman H.L., Hirsch E.S., Popper R.D. Sensory, hedonic and situational factors in food acceptance consumption. Food acceptability 1988, 77-87. Elsevier, London. D.M.H. Thomson (Ed.).
85. Meiselman H.L., Johnson J.L., Reeve W., Crouch J.E. Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 2000, 35:231-237.
86. Mela D.J., Rogers P.J., Shepherd R., MacFie H. Real people, real foods, real eating situations: real problems and real advantages. Appetite 1992, 19:69-73.
87. Miller P.G., Nair J.H., Harriman A.J. A household and a laboratory type of panel for testing consumer preference. Food Technology 1955, 9:445-449.
88. Monneuse M.O., Bellisle F., Louis-Sylvestre J. Responses to an intense sweetener in humans: Immediate preference and delayed effects on intake. Physiology & Behavior 1991, 49:325-330.
89. Nossanchuck T.A. The vignette as an experimental approach to the study of social status; an exploratory study. Social Science Research 1972, 1:107-120.
90. Perez C., Dalix A.-M., Guy-Grand B., Bellisle F. Human responses to five concentrations of sucrose in a dairy product: Immediate and delayed palatability effects. Appetite 1994, 23:165-178.
91. Petit C., Sieffermann J.M. Testing consumer preferences for iced-coffee: Does the drinking environment have any influence?. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:161-172.
92. Pieron H. La sensation 1974, Presses Universitaire de France, Paris.
93. Pliner P. Let's not throw out the barley with the dishwater: comments on Meiselman's: 'Methodology and theory in human eating research'. Appetite 1992, 19:74-75.
94. Pliner P., Bell R., Kinchla M., Hirsch E.S. Time to eat: the impact of time and social facilitation on food intake 2003.
95. Popper R.D., Maller O., Cardello A.V. Hedonic ratings and consumption as measures of preference for a salted entree. Chemical Senses 1989, 14:739.
96. Posri W., MacFie H., Henson S. Improving the predictability of consumer liking from central location test in tea 2001.
97. Pound C., Duizer L., McDowell K. Improved consumer product development. I. Is a laboratory necessary to assess consumer opinion?. British Food Journal 2000, 102:810-820.
98. Rolls B.J., Shide D.J. Both naturalistic and laboratory-based studies contribute to the understanding of human eating behavior. Appetite 1992, 19:76-77.
99. Rozin P., Tuorila H.M. Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference 1993, 4:11-20.
100. Ryynanen S., Tuorila H.M., Hyvonen L. Perceived temperature effects on microwave heated meals and meal components. Food Service Technology 2001, 1:141-148.
101. Schaefer E.E. Manual on consumer sensory evaluation. American Society for Testing and Materials 1979, ASTM, Philadelphia.
102. Schutz H.G., Moore S.M., Rucker M.H. Predicting food purchase and use by multivariate attitudinal analysis. Food Technology 1977, 29:50-64.
103. Shepherd R., Griffiths N.M. Preferences for eggs produced under different systems assessed by consumer and laboratory panels. Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie 1987, 20:128-132.
104. Shepherd R., Farleigh C.A., Wharf S.G. Effect of quantity consumed on measures of liking for salt concentrations in soup. Journal of Sensory Studies 1991, 6:227-238.
105. Shogren J.F., Fox J.A., Hayes D.J., Roosen J. Observed choices for food safety in retail, survey, and auction markets. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 1999, 81:1192-1199.
106. Siegel S.F., Risvik E. Cognitive set and food acceptance. Journal of Food Science 1987, 52:825-826.
107. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory evaluation practices 1993, Academic Press Inc, San Diego, California.
108. Stroebele N., De Castro J.M. Effect of ambience on food intake and food choice. Nutrition 2004, 20:821-838.
109. Subar A.F., Kipnis V., Troiano R.P., Midthune D., Schoeller D.A., Bingham S., Sharbaugh C.O., Trabulsi J., Runswick S., Ballard-Barbash R., Sunshine J., Schatzkin A. Using intake biomarkers to evaluate the extent of dietary misreporting in a large sample of adults: The OPEN study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003, 158:1-13.
110. Surprenant C.F., Solomon M.R. Predictability and personalization in the service encounter. Journal of Marketing 1987, 51:89-96.
111. Talbot L., Delarue J., Sieffermann J.-M. Taking context into account for the study of satiation and liking for biscuits 2009.
112. Tesser A. Self-generated attitude change. Advances in experimental social psychology 1978, 289-338. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. L. Berkowitz (Ed.).
113. Tourangeau R., Rasinski K.A., Bradburn N.M., Dandrade R. Belief accessibility and context effects in attitude measurement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1989, 25:401-421.
114. Tufano F. Are 'true' preferences revealed in repeated markets? An experimental demonstration of context-dependant valuations. Experimental Economics 2009, online. 10.1007/s10683-009-9226-8.
115. Tulving E. Precis of elements of episodic memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1984, 7:223-268.
116. Tuorila H.M., Lähteenmäki L. When is eating 'real'? Response to Meiselman. Appetite 1992, 19:80-83.
117. Tuorila H.M., Lehtovaraa A., Matuszewska I. Sandwiches and milk with varying fat and sodium contents: what is the best combination?. Food Quality and Preference 1990, 2:223-231.
118. Turner M., Collison R. Consumer acceptance of meals and meal components. Food Quality and Preference 1988, 1:21-24.
119. Tversky A., Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probabiliies. Cognitive Psychology 1973, 5:207-232.
120. Vickers Z., Mullan L., Holton E. Impact of differences in taste test ratings on the consumption of milk in both a laboratory and a foodservice setting. Journal of Sensory Studies 1999, 14:249-262.
121. Wansink B., Park S.-B. At the movies: how external cues and perceived taste impact consumption volume. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:69-74.
122. West P. Reproducing naturally occuring stories: vignettes in survey research 1982, MRC Medical Sociology Unit, Aberdeen, Working Paper.
123. Zandstra E.H., De Graaf C., Van Trijp H.C.M., Van Staveren W.A. Laboratory hedonic ratings as predictors of consumption. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:411-418.
124. Zandstra E.H., De Graaf C., Van Trijp H.C.M. Effects of variety and repeated in-home consumption on product acceptance. Appetite 2000, 35:113-119.
125. Zellner D.A., Stewart W.F., Rozin P., Brown J.M. Effect of temperature and expectations on liking for beverages. Physiology & Behavior 1988, 44:61-68.