Hedonic ratings and perceived healthiness in experimental functional food choices

Nina Urala (Corresponding Author), Liisa Lähteenmäki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

38 Citations (Scopus)


The associations of liking and perceived healthiness ratings between repeated food choiceswere studied in two experiments. Participants’ snack bar (n=41, Experiment I) and beverage (n=60, Experiment II) choices among six product alternatives were monitored for 4 and 3 weeks, respectively. In Experiment I, participants were allowed to familiarise themselves with snack bar alternatives (“familiar assortment”) prior to making choices. In Experiment II, the participants started making their beverage choices without familiarising themselves (“unfamiliar assortment”). In both experiments, the participants were divided into three groups according to their choice behaviour for each alternative: non-interested (0 choices), experimenters (1 choice) and potential frequent users (2 or more choices). In Experiment I, the overall difference between non-interested and potential frequent users of a product was 1.3 points in expected liking and 2.6 points in actual liking on a 7-point scale (ANOVA, p<0.001). In Experiment II, the overall differences in blind hedonic ratings between non-interested participants and potential frequent users of a product were within a range of 0.9 points (p<0.001). The difference was wider for expected liking ratings, 1.3 points (p<0.001). Neither the perceived healthiness of the samples nor the background attitudes could be consistently associated with the choices (Pearson's correlation coefficient).
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)302-314
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 2006
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed


  • Choice
  • consumers
  • Liking
  • Healthiness
  • Ratings
  • Snack bar
  • Beverage


Dive into the research topics of 'Hedonic ratings and perceived healthiness in experimental functional food choices'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this