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 language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 51-61 |
Journal | Food Quality and Preference |
Volume | 19 |
Issue number | 1 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2008 |
MoE publication type | A1 Journal article-refereed |
Keywords
- affection
- hedonic ratings
- verbal anchors
- predictive value
- frequency of use
- likelihood of buying