Identification of Drivers of Liking for Bar-Type Snacks Based on Individual Consumer Preference

Journal of Food Science

Volumn 81, Issue 1, 2016, Pages S174-S181

  Kim, Mina K ^a   Greve, Patrick ^b   Lee, Youngseung ^c  

^a Dongguk University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^c Dankook University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Consumer acceptance; Descriptive analysis; Food bars; Partial least squares regression; Sensory analysis

Indexed keywords

CACAO; CEREAL; CONSUMER; DRIVER; FLAVOR; FRUIT; HUMAN; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; ADULT; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; DIET; FAST FOOD; FEMALE; FOOD GRAIN; FOOD PREFERENCE; MALE; TASTE; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; CACAO; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; DIET; EDIBLE GRAIN; FEMALE; FOOD PREFERENCES; FRUIT; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; MALE; SNACKS; TASTE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84953721021     PISSN: 00221147     EISSN: 17503841     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.13154     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Agbaje R, Hassan CZ, Arifin N, Rahman AA. 2014. Sensory preference and mineral contents of cereal bars made from glutinous rice flakes and Sunnah foods. J Environ Sci Tox Food Technol 8(12):26-31.
2. Azaïs JM, Druilhet P. 1997. Optimality of neighbour balanced designs when neighbour effects are neglected. J Stat Plan Infer 64:353-67.
3. Boustani P, Mitchell VW. 1990. Cereal bars: a perceptual, chemical and sensory analysis. Br Food J 92:17-22.
4. Bower JA, Whitten R. 2000. Sensory characteristics and consumer liking for cereal bar snack foods. J Sens Stud 15:327-45.
5. Danzart M, Sieffermann J-M, Delarue M. 2004. New developments in preference mapping techniques: finding out a consumer optimal product, its sensory profile and the key sensory attributes. Proceedings of 7th Sensometrics Conference. Jul 29; Davis, Calif.: The Sensometric Society.
6. Dialego AG Market Research Online. Geschmack zählt mehr als Kalorien. Available from: http://de.statista.com/berichte/57/geschmack-zaehlt-mehr-als-kalorien/dialego-ag-market-research-online/pq/. Accessed 2010 Jan 7.
7. DIN 10961. 1996. Training of assessors for sensory analysis. Berlin: Beuth Publishers.
8. DIN 10967-1. 1999. Sensory analysis-investigation of profiles-Part 1: conventional profiling. Berlin: Beuth Publishers.
9. DIN 10967-4. 2002. Sensory analysis-investigation of profiles-Part 4: testing plans. Berlin: Beuth Publishers.
10. DIN 10974. 2008. Sensory analysis-consumer sensory evaluation. Berlin: Beuth Publishers.
11. Drewnowski A. 1997. Taste preferences and food intake. Annu Rev Nutr 17:237-53.
12. Dutcosky SD, Grossmann MVE, Silva RSSF, WElsch AK. 2006. Combined sensory optimization of a prebiotic creal product using multicomponent mixture experiments. Food Chem 98:630-8.
13. Lee CM, Moskowitz HR, Lee SY. 2007. Expectations, needs and segmentation of healthy breakfast cereal consumers. J Sens Stud 22:587-607.
14. Helgesen H, Solheim R, Næs T. 1997. Consumer preference mapping of dry fermented lamb sausages. Food Qual Prefer 8:97-109.
15. Information Resources GmbH. Süßwarenmonitor-sales and turnover for confectionary in Germany, January - April 2008 vs. 2009. Available from: http://www.bdsi.de/de/zahlen_fakten/iri_suesswarenmonitor.html. Accessed 2009 Jul 1.
16. Izzo M, Niness K. 2001. Formulating nutrition bars with inulin and oligofructose. Cereal Foods World 46:102-6.
17. Jack FR, ONeill J, Piacentini MG, Schroder MJA. 1997. Perception of fruit as a snack: a comparison with manufactured snack foods. Food Qual Prefer 8:175-82.
18. Jaeger SR. 2001. Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Qual Prefer 17:132-44.
19. Katz F. 1999. "How nutritious?" meets "how convenient?" Food Technol 53:44-50.
20. Kim MK, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA. 2013. Influence of packaging information on consumer liking of chocolate milk. J Dairy Sci 96:4843-56.
21. Kim MK, Kwak HS. 2015. Influence of functional information on consumer liking and consumer perception related to health claims for blueberry functional beverages. Intl J Food Sci Technol 50:70-6.
22. Lill F, Köhn E. 2004. Sensorik und Marktforschung. In: Busch-Stockfisch M, editor. Praxishandbuch Sensorik in der Produktentwicklung und Qualitätssicherung. Behr's Verlag, Hamburg, Germany, p 19-21.
23. MacFie HJH, Bratchell N. 1989. Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests. J Sens Stud 4:129-48.
24. Meullenet JF, Xiong R, Monsoor MA, Bellman-Homer T, Dias P, Zivanovic S, Fromm H, Liu Z. 2002. Preference mapping of commercial toasted white corn tortilla chips. J Food Sci 67:1950-7.
25. Meullenet JF, Xiong R, Findlay CJ. 2008. Multivariate and probabilistic analyses of sensory science problems. Iowa: Blackwell Publishing. p 49-72.
26. Moskowitz HR, Krieger B. 1995. The contribution of sensory liking to overall liking: an analysis of six food categories. Food Qual Prefer 6:83-90.
27. Pfluger K. 2002. Handbuch Produktentwicklung Lebensmittelinnovationen. Behr's Verlag, Hamburg, Germany.
28. Rummel C. 2003. Deskriptive Prüfungen. In: M Busch-Stockfisch, editor. Praxishandbuch Sensorik in der Produktentwicklung und Qualitätssicherung. Behr's Verlag, Hamburg, Germany, p 21-3.
29. Stewart-Knox B, Mitchell P. 2003. What separates the winners from the losers in new food product development? Trends Food Sci Technol 14:58-64.
30. Tang C, Heymann H, Hsieh F. 2004. Alternatives to data averaging of consumer preference data. Food Qual Prefer 11:99-104.
31. Thompson JL, Drake MA, Lopetcharat K, Yates MD. 2004. Preference mapping of commercial chocolate milks. J Food Sci 69:406-13.
32. Tenenhaus M, Pagès J, Ambroisine L, Guinot C. 2005. PLS methodology to study relationships between hedonic judgements and product characteristics. Food Qual Prefer 16:315-25.