Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption

Hely Tuorila (Corresponding Author), Anna Huotilainen, Liisa Lähteenmäki, Sari Ollila, Sirpa Tuomi-Nurmi, Nina Urala

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

54 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A consumer panel (n = 669) rated ten familiar and unfamiliar (ethnic, nutritionally modified, functional) foods, with food names as stimuli, using 7 categories for pleasantness (“very unpleasant”–“very pleasant”) and liking (”not at all”–“very much”), reported use frequencies (“never”–“2–4 times a day”) and likelihood of buying (“very unlikely”–“very likely”). On average, pleasantness was rated 0.48 units higher than liking. For well-liked and familiar foods, liking was linearly correlated with pleasantness while, at low levels of affection for unfamiliar foods, the relationship was curvilinear. Gender, education or food orientations (food neophobia, general health interest) did not interact with scale usage. However, older respondents (>55 years) rated pleasantness, on average, similarly to the young, but tended to rate liking lower. For most foods, frequency of use and likelihood of buying were curvilinearly related to affective ratings, the former mainly described by exponential and the latter by cubic equations. On average, linear predictive equations explained 27.8% (pleasantness) or 28.1% (liking) of use frequency, and 29.8% (pleasantness) or 45.2% (liking) of likelihood of buying. Addition of the most appropriate curvilinearity term(s) improved the average prediction 5.9%, 4.3%, 2.3%, and 2.0%, respectively. In conclusion, careful consideration of the instruments is required in the interpretation of affective ratings and their relationship to consumption.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)51 - 61
Number of pages11
JournalFood Quality and Preference
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

rating scales
purchasing
food consumption
Food
functional foods
education
Functional Food
prediction
gender
Names
Education
Health

Keywords

  • affection
  • hedonic ratings
  • verbal anchors
  • predictive value
  • frequency of use
  • likelihood of buying

Cite this

Tuorila, H., Huotilainen, A., Lähteenmäki, L., Ollila, S., Tuomi-Nurmi, S., & Urala, N. (2008). Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 19(1), 51 - 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.007
Tuorila, Hely ; Huotilainen, Anna ; Lähteenmäki, Liisa ; Ollila, Sari ; Tuomi-Nurmi, Sirpa ; Urala, Nina. / Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption. In: Food Quality and Preference. 2008 ; Vol. 19, No. 1. pp. 51 - 61.
@article{9a3d1a07f95e4a13a83288efdf2712f2,
title = "Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption",
abstract = "A consumer panel (n = 669) rated ten familiar and unfamiliar (ethnic, nutritionally modified, functional) foods, with food names as stimuli, using 7 categories for pleasantness (“very unpleasant”–“very pleasant”) and liking (”not at all”–“very much”), reported use frequencies (“never”–“2–4 times a day”) and likelihood of buying (“very unlikely”–“very likely”). On average, pleasantness was rated 0.48 units higher than liking. For well-liked and familiar foods, liking was linearly correlated with pleasantness while, at low levels of affection for unfamiliar foods, the relationship was curvilinear. Gender, education or food orientations (food neophobia, general health interest) did not interact with scale usage. However, older respondents (>55 years) rated pleasantness, on average, similarly to the young, but tended to rate liking lower. For most foods, frequency of use and likelihood of buying were curvilinearly related to affective ratings, the former mainly described by exponential and the latter by cubic equations. On average, linear predictive equations explained 27.8{\%} (pleasantness) or 28.1{\%} (liking) of use frequency, and 29.8{\%} (pleasantness) or 45.2{\%} (liking) of likelihood of buying. Addition of the most appropriate curvilinearity term(s) improved the average prediction 5.9{\%}, 4.3{\%}, 2.3{\%}, and 2.0{\%}, respectively. In conclusion, careful consideration of the instruments is required in the interpretation of affective ratings and their relationship to consumption.",
keywords = "affection, hedonic ratings, verbal anchors, predictive value, frequency of use, likelihood of buying",
author = "Hely Tuorila and Anna Huotilainen and Liisa L{\"a}hteenm{\"a}ki and Sari Ollila and Sirpa Tuomi-Nurmi and Nina Urala",
year = "2008",
doi = "10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.007",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "51 -- 61",
journal = "Food Quality and Preference",
issn = "0950-3293",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",

}

Tuorila, H, Huotilainen, A, Lähteenmäki, L, Ollila, S, Tuomi-Nurmi, S & Urala, N 2008, 'Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption', Food Quality and Preference, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 51 - 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.007

Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption. / Tuorila, Hely (Corresponding Author); Huotilainen, Anna; Lähteenmäki, Liisa; Ollila, Sari; Tuomi-Nurmi, Sirpa; Urala, Nina.

In: Food Quality and Preference, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2008, p. 51 - 61.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of affective rating scales and their relationship to variables reflecting food consumption

AU - Tuorila, Hely

AU - Huotilainen, Anna

AU - Lähteenmäki, Liisa

AU - Ollila, Sari

AU - Tuomi-Nurmi, Sirpa

AU - Urala, Nina

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - A consumer panel (n = 669) rated ten familiar and unfamiliar (ethnic, nutritionally modified, functional) foods, with food names as stimuli, using 7 categories for pleasantness (“very unpleasant”–“very pleasant”) and liking (”not at all”–“very much”), reported use frequencies (“never”–“2–4 times a day”) and likelihood of buying (“very unlikely”–“very likely”). On average, pleasantness was rated 0.48 units higher than liking. For well-liked and familiar foods, liking was linearly correlated with pleasantness while, at low levels of affection for unfamiliar foods, the relationship was curvilinear. Gender, education or food orientations (food neophobia, general health interest) did not interact with scale usage. However, older respondents (>55 years) rated pleasantness, on average, similarly to the young, but tended to rate liking lower. For most foods, frequency of use and likelihood of buying were curvilinearly related to affective ratings, the former mainly described by exponential and the latter by cubic equations. On average, linear predictive equations explained 27.8% (pleasantness) or 28.1% (liking) of use frequency, and 29.8% (pleasantness) or 45.2% (liking) of likelihood of buying. Addition of the most appropriate curvilinearity term(s) improved the average prediction 5.9%, 4.3%, 2.3%, and 2.0%, respectively. In conclusion, careful consideration of the instruments is required in the interpretation of affective ratings and their relationship to consumption.

AB - A consumer panel (n = 669) rated ten familiar and unfamiliar (ethnic, nutritionally modified, functional) foods, with food names as stimuli, using 7 categories for pleasantness (“very unpleasant”–“very pleasant”) and liking (”not at all”–“very much”), reported use frequencies (“never”–“2–4 times a day”) and likelihood of buying (“very unlikely”–“very likely”). On average, pleasantness was rated 0.48 units higher than liking. For well-liked and familiar foods, liking was linearly correlated with pleasantness while, at low levels of affection for unfamiliar foods, the relationship was curvilinear. Gender, education or food orientations (food neophobia, general health interest) did not interact with scale usage. However, older respondents (>55 years) rated pleasantness, on average, similarly to the young, but tended to rate liking lower. For most foods, frequency of use and likelihood of buying were curvilinearly related to affective ratings, the former mainly described by exponential and the latter by cubic equations. On average, linear predictive equations explained 27.8% (pleasantness) or 28.1% (liking) of use frequency, and 29.8% (pleasantness) or 45.2% (liking) of likelihood of buying. Addition of the most appropriate curvilinearity term(s) improved the average prediction 5.9%, 4.3%, 2.3%, and 2.0%, respectively. In conclusion, careful consideration of the instruments is required in the interpretation of affective ratings and their relationship to consumption.

KW - affection

KW - hedonic ratings

KW - verbal anchors

KW - predictive value

KW - frequency of use

KW - likelihood of buying

U2 - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.007

DO - 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.007

M3 - Article

VL - 19

SP - 51

EP - 61

JO - Food Quality and Preference

JF - Food Quality and Preference

SN - 0950-3293

IS - 1

ER -