A discussion of recent methodologies for combining sensory and extrinsic product properties in consumer studies

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 56, Issue , 2017, Pages 266-273

  Asioli, Daniele ^a,d   Varela, Paula ^a   Hersleth, Margrethe ^a   Almli, Valerie Lengard ^a   Olsen, Nina Veflen ^a,b   Næs, Tormod ^a,c  

^a NOFIMA   (Norway)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH EASTERN NORWAY   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

^d NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Norway)

Author keywords

Consumer; Interaction; Methodologies; New food product development; Sensory and extrinsic attributes

Indexed keywords

EID: 84961964773     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.015     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Almli, V.L., Hersleth, M., Salt replacement and injection salting in smoked salmon evaluated from descriptive and hedonic sensory perspectives. Aquaculture International, 2012, 1–18.
2. Almli, V.L., Øvrum, A., Hersleth, M., Almøy, T., Næs, T., Investigating individual preferences in rating and ranking conjoint experiments. A case study on semi-hard cheese. Food Quality and Preference 39 (2015), 28–39.
3. Alonso, Gallego, Mangin, Testing a model of perceived food quality determinants. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing 17:1 (2005), 9–33.
4. Ares, G., Dauber, C., Fernández, E., Giménez, A., Varela, P., Penalty analysis based on CATA questions to identify drivers of liking and directions for product reformulation. Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014), 65–76.
5. Ares, G., Deliza, R., Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 21:8 (2010), 930–937.
6. Ares, G., Deliza, R., Barreiro, C., Giménez, A., Gámbaro, A., Comparison of two sensory profiling techniques based on consumer perception. Food Quality and Preference 21:4 (2010), 417–426.
7. Ares, G., Varela, P., Rado, G., Giménez, A., Identifying ideal products using three different consumer profiling methodologies. Comparison with external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 22:6 (2011), 581–591.
8. Asioli, D., Næs, T., Granli, B.S., Lengard Almli, V., Consumer preferences for iced coffee determined by conjoint analysis: An exploratory study with Norwegian consumers. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 49:6 (2014), 1565–1571.
9. Bernués, A., Olaizola, A., Corcoran, K., Extrinsic attributes of red meat as indicators of quality in Europe: An application for market segmentation. Food Quality and Preference 14:4 (2003), 265–276.
10. Carrillo, E., Varela, P., Fiszman, S., Effects of food package information and sensory characteristics on the perception of healthiness and the acceptability of enriched biscuits. Food Research International 48:1 (2012), 209–216.
11. Carrillo, E., Varela, P., Fiszman, S., Packaging information as a modulator of consumers’ perception of enriched and reduced-calorie biscuits in tasting and non-tasting tests. Food Quality and Preference 25:2 (2012), 105–115.
12. Claret, A., Guerrero, L., Aguirre, E., Rincón, L., Hernández, M.D., Martínez, I., et al. Consumer preferences for sea fish using conjoint analysis: Exploratory study of the importance of country of origin, obtaining method, storage conditions and purchasing price. Food Quality and Preference 26:2 (2012), 259–266.
13. 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 20:8 (2009), 550–557.
14. Costa, A.I.A., Jongen, W.M.F., New insights into consumer-led food product development. Trends in Food Science Technology 17:8 (2006), 457–465.
15. De Pelsmaeker, S., Dewettinck, K., Gellynck, X., The possibility of using tasting as a presentation method for sensory stimuli in conjoint analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology 29:2 (2013), 108–115.
16. Delarue, J., Flash profile. Varela, P., Ares, G., (eds.) Novel techniques in sensory characterization and 559 consumer profiling, 2014, CRC Press – Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
17. Deliza, R., MacFie, H.J.H., Hedderley, D., Information affects consumer assessment of sweet and bitter solutions. Journal of Food Science 61:5 (1996), 1080–1084.
18. Di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Di Marzo, S., Masi, P., The effect of expectations generated by brand name on the acceptability of dried semolina pasta. Food Quality and Preference 15:5 (2004), 429–437.
19. Dijksterhuis, G., New product failure: Five potential sources discussed. Trends in Food Science & Technology 50 (2016), 243–248.
20. Dooley, L., Lee, Y., Meullenet, J.-F., The application of check-all-that-apply (CATA) consumer profiling to preference mapping of vanilla ice cream and its comparison to classical external preference mapping. Food Quality and Preference 21:4 (2010), 394–401.
21. Endrizzi, I., Menichelli, E., Johansen, S.B., Olsen, N.V., Næs, T., Handling of individual differences in rating-based conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 22:3 (2011), 241–254.
22. Endrizzi, I., Torri, L., Corollaro, M.L., Demattè, M.L., Aprea, E., Charles, M., et al. A conjoint study on apple acceptability: Sensory characteristics and nutritional information. Food Quality and Preference 40 (2015), 39–48.
23. Enneking, U., Neumann, C., Henneberg, S., How important intrinsic and extrinsic product attributes affect purchase decision. Food Quality and Preference 18:1 (2007), 133–138.
24. Fernqvist, F., Ekelund, L., Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food – A review. Food Quality and Preference 32 (2014), 340–353.
25. Font i Furnols, M., Realini, C., Montossi, F., Sañudo, C., Campo, M.M., Oliver, M.A., et al. Consumer's purchasing intention for lamb meat affected by country of origin, feeding system and meat price: A conjoint study in Spain, France and United Kingdom. Food Quality and Preference 22:5 (2011), 443–451.
26. Gower, J.C., Generalized procrustes analysis. Psychometrika 40:1 (1975), 33–51.
27. Green, P.E., Srinivasan, V., Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. Journal of Consumer Research 5:2 (1978), 103–123.
28. Grunert, K.G., Current issues in the understanding of consumer food choice. Trends in Food Science & Technology 13:8 (2002), 275–285.
29. Grunert, Food quality and safety: Consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32:3 (2005), 369–391.
30. Grunert, K.G., Understanding consumers of food products. 2007, Elsevier.
31. Grunert, K.G., The common ground between sensory and consumer science. Current Opinion in Food Science 3 (2015), 19–22.
32. Grunert, K.G., Jensen, B.B., Sonne, A.-M., Brunsø, K., Scholderer, J., Byrne, D.V., et al. Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care products. 2010, Elsevier.
33. Grunert, K.G., Loose, S.M., Zhou, Y., Tinggaard, S., Extrinsic and intrinsic quality cues in Chinese consumers’ purchase of pork ribs. Food Quality and Preference 42 (2015), 37–47.
34. Guerrero, L., Claret, A., Verbeke, W., Enderli, G., Zakowska-Biemans, S., Vanhonacker, F., et al. Perception of traditional food products in six European regions using free word association. Food Quality and Preference 21:2 (2010), 225–233.
35. Guinard, J.-X., Uotani, B., Schlich, P., Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: Comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Quality and Preference 12:4 (2001), 243–255.
36. Gustafsson, A., Herrmann, A., Huber, F., Conjoint measurement: Methods and applications. 2003, Springer, Berlin.
37. Helgesen, H., Solheim, R., Næs, T., Consumer purchase probability of dry fermented lamb sausages. Food Quality and Preference 9:5 (1998), 295–301.
38. Hersleth, M., Almli, V.L., Verbeke, W., Guerrero, L., Næs, T., Consumers’ acceptance of innovations in dry-cured ham: Impact of reduced salt content, prolonged aging time and new origin. Food Quality and Preference 22:1 (2011), 31–41.
39. Hoppert, K., Mai, R., Zahn, S., Hoffmann, S., Rohm, H., Integrating sensory evaluation in adaptive conjoint analysis to elaborate the conflicting influence of intrinsic and extrinsic attributes on food choice. Appetite 59:3 (2012), 949–955.
40. Jacobsen, L.F., Grunert, K.G., Søndergaard, H.A., Steenbekkers, B., Dekker, M., Lähteenmäki, L., Improving internal communication between marketing and technology functions for successful new food product development. Trends in Food Science & Technology 37:2 (2014), 106–114.
41. Jaeger, S., Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality and Preference 17:1–2 (2006), 132–144.
42. Jaeger, S.R., Wakeling, I.N., MacFie, H.J.H., Behavioural extensions to preference mapping: The role of synthesis. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 2000, 349.
43. Johansen, S.B., Næs, T., Øyaas, J., Hersleth, M., Acceptance of calorie-reduced yoghurt: Effects of sensory characteristics and product information. Food Quality and Preference 21:1 (2010), 13–21.
44. Kaplan, D., Structural equations modeling. Foundations and extensions. 2000, Sage Publications Ltd, US.
45. Kemp, S.E., Open innovation in the food and beverage industry. 2013, Elsevier.
46. King, M.C., Cliff, M.A., Hall, J.W., Comparison of projective mapping and sorting data collection and multivariate methodologies for identification of similarity-of-use of snack bars. Journal of Sensory Studies 13:3 (1998), 347–358.
47. Köster, E.P., Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference 20:2 (2009), 70–82.
48. Lado, J., Vicente, E., Manzzioni, A., Ares, G., Application of a check-all-that-apply question for the evaluation of strawberry cultivars from a breeding program. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90:13 (2010), 2268–2275.
49. Lähteenmäki, L., Claiming health in food products. Food Quality and Preference 27:2 (2013), 196–201.
50. Lesschaeve, I., Bruwer, J., Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care products. 2010, Elsevier.
51. Loebnitz, N., Schuitema, G., Grunert, K.G., Who buys oddly shaped food and why? Impacts of food shape abnormality and organic labeling on purchase intentions. Psychology & Marketing 32:4 (2015), 408–421.
52. Lusk, J.L., Shogren, J.F., Experimental auctions. Methods and applications in economic and marketing research. 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
53. MacFie, H.J.H., Deliza, R., The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. Journal of Sensory Studies 11:2 (1996), 103–128.
54. Marreiros, C., Ness, M., A conceptual framework of consumer food choice behaviour. 2009, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE, Portugal.
55. Martínez-Carrasco, L., Brugarolas, M., Martínez-Poveda, A., Ruiz, J.J., García-Martínez, S., Modelling perceived quality of tomato by structural equation analysis null. British Food Journal 114:10 (2012), 1414–1431.
56. Menichelli, E., Olsen, N.V., Meyer, C., Næs, T., Combining extrinsic and intrinsic information in consumer acceptance studies. Food Quality and Preference 23:2 (2012), 148–159.
57. Meulenberg, M., Grunert, K.G., Baadsgaard, A., Larsen, H.H., Madsen, T.K., (eds.) Market orientation in food and agriculture, 1997, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht and London 1995. ISBN: 0 7923 9649 9, 283 pp., Price: NLG180/$105/£71.50. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 24 (1), 150–151.
58. Meyners, M., Castura, J.C., Carr, B.T., Existing and new approaches for the analysis of CATA data. Food Quality and Preference 30:2 (2013), 309–319.
59. Moskowitz, H., R&D-driven product evaluation in the early stage of development. 2000, CRC Press Inc.
60. Mueller, S., Szolnoki, G., The relative influence of packaging, labelling, branding and sensory attributes on liking and purchase intent: Consumers differ in their responsiveness. Food Quality and Preference 21:7 (2010), 774–783.
61. Næs, T., Brockhoff, P., Tomic, O., Statistics for sensory and consumer science. 2010, Wiley, Chichester, UK.
62. Næs, T., Kubberød, E., Sivertsen, H., Identifying and interpreting market segments using conjoint analysis. Food Quality and Preference 12:2 (2001), 133–143.
63. Næs, T., Nyvold, T.E., Creative design—an efficient tool for product development. Food Quality and Preference 15:2 (2004), 97–104.
64. Northen, J.R., Quality attributes and quality cues Effective communication in the UK meat supply chainnull. British Food Journal 102:3 (2000), 230–245.
65. Olsen, N.V., Design thinking and food innovation. Trends in Food Science & Technology 41:2 (2015), 182–187.
66. Olson, J.C., Jacoby, J., Cue utilization in the quality perception process. Venkatesan, M., (eds.) SV – proceedings of the third annual conference of the association for consumer research, 1972, Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, 167–179.
67. 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 16:7 (2005), 642–649.
68. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., More than meets of the mouth: Assessing the impact of the extrinsic factors on the multisensory perception of food products, 2012, Universitat Politecnica de Valencia.
69. Plaehn, D., CATA penalty/reward. Food Quality and Preference 24:1 (2012), 141–152.
70. Rasinski, K.A., Mingay, D., Bradburn, N.M., Do respondents really “mark all that apply” on self-administered questions?. Public Opinion Quarterly 58:3 (1994), 400–408.
71. 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 5:4 (1994), 263–269.
72. Simeone, M., Marotta, G., Towards an integration of sensory research and marketing in new food products development: A theoretical and methodological review. African Journal of Business Management 4:19 (2010), 4207–4216.
73. Steenkamp, J.-B., Van Trijp, H.C.M., Quality guidance: A consumer-based approach to food quality improvement using partial least squares. European Review of Agricultural Economics 23:2 (1996), 195–215.
74. Teichert, T., Auswirkungen von Verfahrensalternativen bei der Erhebung von wahlbasierten Conjoint-Daten, Befunde einer empirischen Anwendung. Marketing Zeitschrift FüR Forschung Und Praxis 2 (2000), 145–159.
75. Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.-M., Lauro, C., PLS path modeling. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 48:1 (2005), 159–205.
76. 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 29:1 (2013), 6–15.
77. Tuorila, H., Pangborn, R.M., Prediction of reported consumption of selected fat containing foods. Appetite 11:2 (1988), 81–95.
78. Valentin, D., Chollet, S., Lelièvre, M., Abdi, H., Quick and dirty but still pretty good: A review of new descriptive methods in food science. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 47:8 (2012), 1563–1578.
79. Van Kleef, E., Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: Issues and applications in the food domain. 2006, Wageningen Press, Wageningen, NL.
80. Van Kleef, E., Van Trijp, H.C.M., Luning, P., Consumer research in the early stages of new product development: A critical review of methods and techniques. Food Quality and Preference 16:3 (2005), 181–201.
81. Van Kleef, E., van Trijp, H.C.M., Opportunity identification in new product development and innovation in food product development. MacFie, H., (eds.) Consumer-led food product development, 2007, Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, 321–341.
82. 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 48:2 (2012), 893–908.
83. Varela, P., Ares, G., Giménez, A., Gámbaro, A., Influence of brand information on consumers’ expectations and liking of powdered drinks in central location tests. Food Quality and Preference 21:7 (2010), 873–880.
84. Winger, R., Wall, G., Food product innovation A background paper. 2006, Agricultural and food engineering working document, Rome, Italy.