Consumer context-specific sensory acceptance tests: Effects of a cognitive warm-up on affective product discrimination

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 41, Issue , 2015, Pages 163-171

  Kim, Min A ^a   Dessirier, Jean Marc ^b   van Hout, Danielle ^c,d   Lee, Hye Seong ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b UNILEVER RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNILEVER RESEARCH VLAARDINGEN   (Netherlands)

^d Erasmus University Rotterdam   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Affective product discrimination; Cognitive Reflection Test; Cognitive warm up; Contextualized sensory acceptance test; Range effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920277699     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.019     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ares G., Mawad F., Giménez A., Maiche A. Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 31:28-37.
2. Astrom, A., Gilbert, C., Mojet, J., Köster, E. P., & Wendin, K. (2011). Simulating specific eating and drinking situations in a consumer testing context. In 9th Pangborn sensory science symposium (P1.8.42). Sep 4-7.
3. Bi J. Sensory discrimination tests and measurements: Statistical principles, procedures and tables 2006, Blackwell Publishing, Iowa.
4. Boutrolle I., Arranz D., Rogeaux M., Delarue J. Comparing central location test and home use test results: Application of a new criterion. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:704-713.
5. Cordelle S., Piper D., Schlich P. On the consistency of liking scores: A validation study run in France and Germany. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:493-503.
6. Delarue J., Boutrolle I. The effects of context on liking: Implications for hedonic measurements in new product development. Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care products 2010, 175-218. Woodhead Publishing Limited, Cambridge. S.R. Jaeger, H.J.H. MacFie (Eds.).
7. Fernbach P., Sloman S., St.Louis R., Shube J.N. Explanation fiends and foes: How mechanistic detail determines understanding and preference. Journal of Consumer Research 2013, 39:1115-1131.
8. Frederick S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2005, 19:25-42.
9. Hautus, M. J. (2012). SDT Assistant [Computer software]. Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved December 3, 2013. Available from http://www.hautus.org/sdt-assistant.php.
10. 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.
11. Hein K.A., Hamid N., Jaeger S.R., Delahunty C.M. Effects of evoked consumption contexts on hedonic ratings: A case study with two fruit beverages. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:35-44.
12. Hein K.A., Jaeger S.R., Carr B.T., Delahunty C.M. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:651-661.
13. Hottenstein A.W., Taylor R., Carr B.T. Preference segments: A deeper understanding of consumer acceptance or a serving order effect?. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:711-718.
14. Jaeger S.R., Cardello A.V. Direct and indirect hedonic scaling methods: A comparison of the labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale and best-worst scaling. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:249-258.
15. Kahneman D. Thinking fast and slow 2011, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Köster E.P. The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:359-373.
19. Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R.H.B. (2013). lmerTest: Tests for random and fixed effects for linear mixed effect models (lmer objects of lme4 package). R-Version:1.1-0. http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lmerTest/index.html.
20. Lawless H.T., Sinopoli D., Chapman K.W. A comparison of the labeled affective magnitude scale and the 9-point hedonic scale and examination of categorical behavior. Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:54-66.
21. Lim J. Hedonic scaling: A review of methods and theory. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:733-747.
22. Lutz R.J., Kakker P. The psychological situation as a determinant of consumer behaviour. Advances in consumer research 1975, Vol. 2:439-453. ACR, Chicago.
23. Lyman B. Food meanings. A psychology of food 1989, 125-138. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
24. Marchisano C., Lim J., Cho H.S., Suh D.S., Jeon S.Y., Kim K.O., et al. Consumers report preferences when they should not: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18:487-516.
25. Meiselman H.L. The effect of context or environment on choice and acceptance: Is context more important than product?. Appetite 2002, 39:249. (abstract).
26. Meiselman H.L. The future in sensory/consumer research:...evolving to a better science. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 27:208-214.
27. Nichols A.L., Maner J.K. The good-subject effect: Investigating participant demand characteristics. J. Gen. Psychol. 2008, 135:151-165.
28. O'Mahony M. Sensory evaluation of food 1986, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York.
29. Parducci A. Contextual effects: A range-frequency analysis. Handbook of perception 1974, 127-141. Academic Press Inc, New York. E.C. Carterette, M.P. Friedman (Eds.).
30. Peryam D.R., Pilgrim F.J. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology 1957, 11:9-14.
31. 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.
32. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2011, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria,
33. Riskey D.R., Parducci A., Beauchamp G.K. Effects of context in judgment of sweetness and pleasantness. Perception & Psychophysics 1979, 26:171-176.
34. Rozin P. The socio-cultural context of eating and food choice. Food choice acceptance and consumption 1996, 83-104. Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow. H.L. Meiselman, H.J.H. Macfie (Eds.).
35. Rozin P., Tuorila H. Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference 1993, 4:11-20.
36. Schifferstein H.N.J. Contextual shifts in hedonic judgments. Journal of Sensory Studies 1995, 10:381-392.
37. Schifferstein H.N.J. Labeled magnitude scales: A critical review. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:151-158.
38. Sester C., Deroy O., Sutan A., Galia F., Desmarchelier J.F., Valentin D., et al. "Having a drink in a bar": An immersive approach to explore the effects of context on drink choice. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:23-31.
39. Warnock A.R., Shumaker A.N., Delwiche J.F. Consideration of Thurstonian scaling of ratings data. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17:556-561.