Can consumer segmentation in projective mapping contribute to a better understanding of consumer perception?

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 47, Issue , 2016, Pages 64-72

  Vidal, Leticia ^a   Antúnez, Lucía ^a   Giménez, Ana ^a   Varela, Paula ^b   Deliza, Rosires ^c   Ares, Gastón ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD DE LA REPÚBLICA   (Uruguay)

^b NOFIMA   (Norway)

^c EMBRAPA AGROINDÚSTRIA DE ALIMENTOS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Consumer profiling; Consumer research; MFA; Napping; Sensory characterization

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940791081     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.008     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Albert A., Varela P., Salvador A., Hough G., Fiszman S. Overcoming the issues in the sensory description of hot served food with a complex texture. Application of QDA®, flash profiling and projective mapping using panels with different degrees of training. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:463-473.
2. Allport G.W. Personality: A psychological interpretation 1937, Holt & Co, New York.
3. Ares G., Bruzzone F., Giménez A. Is a consumer panel able to reliably evaluate the texture of dairy desserts using unstructured intensity scales? Evaluation of global and individual performance. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:363-370.
4. Ares G., Varela P. Comparison of novel methodologies for sensory characterization. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, 365-389. CRC Press, Boca Raton. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
5. Bárcenas P., Pérez Elortondo F.J., Albisu M. Projective mapping in sensory analysis of ewes milk cheeses: A study on consumers and trained panel performance. Food Research International 2004, 37:723-729.
6. Cadena R.S., Caimi D., Jaunarena I., Lorenzo I., Vidal L., Ares G., et al. Comparison of rapid sensory characterization methodologies for the development of functional yogurts. Food Research International. 2014, 64:446-455.
7. Carroll J.D. Individual differences and multidimensional scaling. Multidimensional scaling: Theory and application in the behavioural sciences 1972, Vol. 1:105-155. Seminar Press, New York, NY.
8. Charrad, M., Ghazzali, N., Boiteau, V., & Niknafs, A. (2013). NbClust: An examination of indices for determining the number of clusters. R package version 1.4. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=NbClust.
9. Courcoux Ph., Faye P., Qannari E.M. Determination of the consensus partition and cluster analysis of subjects in a free sorting task experiment. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:107-112.
10. Dehlholm C., Brockhoff P.B., Bredie W.L.P. Confidence ellipses: A variation based on parametric bootstrapping applicable on multiple factor analysis results for rapid graphical evaluation. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:278-280.
11. Dehlholm C. Projective mapping and Napping. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
12. Harwood M.L., Ziegler G.R., Hayes J.E. Rejection thresholds in chocolate milk: Evidence for segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 26:128-133.
13. Hopfer H., Heymann H. A summary of projective mapping observations - The effect of replicates and shape, and individual performance measurements. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 28:164-181.
14. Husson F., Le Dien S., Pagès J. Which value can be granted to sensory profiles given by consumers? Methodology and results. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:291-296.
15. Jaeger S.R., Wakeling I.N., MacFie H.J.H. Behavioural extensions to preference mapping: The role of synthesis. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:349-359.
16. Josse J., Pagés J., Husson F. Testing the significance of the RV coefficient. Computational and Statistical Data Analysis 2008, 53:82-91.
17. Lê S., Josse J., Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 2008, 25:1-18.
18. Lê S. Introduction to multivariate statistical techniques for sensory characterization. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, CRC Press, Boca Ratón. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
19. Love J. Product acceptability evaluation. Quality attributes and their measurement in meat, poultry and fish products 1994, Blackie Academic & Professional, Glasgow. A.M. Pearson, T.R. Dutson (Eds.).
20. Malhotra N.K., Pinson C., Jain A.K. Consumer cognitive complexity and the dimensionality of multidimensional scaling configurations. Review of Marketing Research 2010, 7:199-254.
21. Milligan G.W., Cooper M.C. An examination of procedures for determining the number of clusters in a data set. Psychometrika 1985, 50(2):159-179.
22. Moskowitz H.R. Experts versus consumers: A comparison. Journal of Sensory Studies 1996, 11:19-37.
23. Moskowitz H.R., Krieger B. The contribution of sensory liking to overall liking: an analysis of six food categories. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6(2):83-90.
24. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H.T. Perceptual mapping of citrus juices using projective mapping and profiling data from culinary professionals and consumers. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:431-438.
25. Nestrud M.A., Lawless H.T. Recovery of subsampled dimensions and configurations derived from napping data by MFA and MDS. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2011, 73:1266-1278.
26. Pagès J. Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire valley. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:642-649.
27. Pagès J., Husson F. Multiple factor analysis: Presentation of the method using sensory data. Mathematical and statistical methods in food science and technology 2014, 187-200. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. D. Granato, G. Ares (Eds.).
28. Peterson E.R., Deary I.J. Examining wholistic-analytic style using preferences in early information processing. Personality and Individual Differences 2006, 41:3-14.
29. Prutkin J., Duffy V.B., Etter L., Fast K., Gardner E., Lucchina L.A., et al. Genetic variation and inferences about perceived taste intensity in mice and men. Physiology and Behavior 2000, 69:161-173.
30. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2013, R Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
31. Risvik E., McEwan J.A., Colwill J.S., Rogers R., Lyon D.H. Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5:263-269.
32. Robert P., Escoufier Y. A unifying tool for linear multivariate statistical methods: The RV coefficient. Applied Statistics 1976, 25:257-265.
33. Summers J.O., McKay D.B. On the validity and reliability of direct-similarity judgments. Journal of Marketing Research 1976, 13:289-295.
34. Symoneaux R., Galmarini M.V., Mehinagic E. Comment analysis of consumer's likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:59-66.
35. Symoneaux R., Galmarini M.V. Open-ended questions. Novel techniques in sensory characterization and consumer profiling 2014, CRC Press, Boca Ratón. P. Varela, G. Ares (Eds.).
36. Torri L., Dinnella C., Recchia A., Naes T., Tuorila H., Monteleone E. Projective mapping for interpreting wine aroma differences as perceived by naïve and experienced assessors. Food Quality and Preference 2013, 29:6-15.
37. Valentin D., Chollet S., Lelievre M., Abdi H. Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2012, 47:1563-1578.
38. Varela P., Ares G. Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Research International 2012, 48:893-908.
39. Vidal L., Cadena R.S., Antúnez L., Giménez A., Varela P., Ares G. Stability of sample configurations from projective mapping: How many consumers are necessary?. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 34:79-87.
40. Vidal L., Cadena R.S., Correa S., Ábalos R.A., Gómez B., Giménez A., et al. Assessment of global and individual reproducibility of projective mapping with consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies 2014, 29:74-87.
41. Worch T., Lê S., Punter P. How reliable are the consumers? Comparison of sensory profiles from consumers and experts. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:309-318.