Effects of an evoked refreshing consumption context on hedonic responses to apple juice measured using best-worst scaling and the 9-pt hedonic category scale

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 43, Issue , 2015, Pages 21-25

  Lusk, Karen A ^a   Hamid, Nazimah ^b   Delahunty, Conor M ^c   Jaeger, Sara R ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

^c SYMRISE AG   (Germany)

^d THE NEW ZEALAND INSTITUTE FOR PLANT AND FOOD RESEARCH LIMITED   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Acceptance testing; Best worst scaling; Consumer hedonic testing; Context effects; Scenario evoked context

Indexed keywords

MALUS X DOMESTICA;

EID: 84923250340     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.01.007     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Barylko-Pikielna N., Matuszewska I., Jeruszka M., Kozlowska K., Brzozowska A., Roszkowski W. Discriminability and appropriateness of category scaling versus ranking methods to study sensory preference in elderly. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:167-175.
2. Edwards J.S.A., Meiselman H.L., Edwards A., Lesher L. The influence of eating location on the acceptability of identically prepared foods. Food Quality and Preference 2003, 14:647-652.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Jaeger S.R., Jørgensen A.S., Aaslyng M.D., Bredie W.L.P. Best-worst scaling: An introduction and initial comparison with monadic rating for preference elicitation with food products. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:579-588.
8. Meiselman H.L. The future in sensory/consumer research: Evolving to a better science. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 27:208-214.
9. 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.
10. Mueller S., Francis I.L., Lockshin L. Comparison of best-worst and hedonic scaling for the measurement of consumer wine preferences. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 2009, 15:205-215.
11. Peryam D.R., Pilgrim F.J. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology 1957, 11:9-14.
12. Petit C., Sieffermann J.M. Testing consumer preference for iced-coffee: Does the drinking environment have any influence?. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:161-172.
13. Piqueras-Fiszman B., Jaeger S.R. The impact of evoked consumption contexts and appropriateness on emotion responses. Food Quality and Preference, Part C 2014, 32:277-288.
14. 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 food choice. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:23-31.
15. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., da Silva M.A.A.P. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:691-703.