Abstract
A food or beverage, depending on the situation, may be judged in a different way, even by the same individual. The impacts of these context effects on food judgments and decision making, and how to take them into account in the collection and interpretation of consumer data, are key topics in sensory and consumer sciences. This chapter aims to provide an overview of the debate and current scientific advances on context effects in the case of research related to the perception, the selection, and the consumption of food. We discuss the empirical evidence of these effects, and present a theoretical framework to explain them. Then, we draw implications, questions, and current directions from the angles of research methodologies. Finally, we discuss the context issues from the angle of policy-making and new product design.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Antonides, G., & Cramer, L. (2013). Impact of limited cognitive capacity and feelings of guilt and excuse on the endowment effects for hedonic and utilitarian types of foods. Appetite, 68, 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.04.020.
Bangcuyo, R. G., Smith, K. J., Zumach, J. L., Pierce, A. M., Guttman, G. A., & Simons, C. T. (2015). The use of immersive technologies to improve consumer testing: The role of ecological validity, context and engagement in evaluating coffee. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2014.11.017.
Bergeron, S., Doyon, M., Saulais, L., & Labrecque, J. A. (2019). Using insights from behavioral economics to nudge individuals towards healthier choices when eating out: A restaurant experiment. Food Quality and Preference, 73(December 2017), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.12.001.
Bernard, J. C., & Liu, Y. (2017). Are beliefs stronger than taste? A field experiment on organic and local apples. Food Quality and Preference, 61(October 2016), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.05.005.
Bernard, J. C., Duke, J. M., & Albrecht, S. E. (2019). Do labels that convey minimal, redundant, or no information affect consumer perceptions and willingness to pay? Food Quality and Preference, 71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.06.012.
Blumenthal-Barby, J. S., & Burroughs, H. (2012). Seeking better health care outcomes: The ethics of using the “nudge.”. The American Journal of Bioethics, 12, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2011.634481.
Bougherara, D., Brunette, M., Heinzel, C., Ibanez, L., Muller, L., & Teyssier, S. (2017). Expériences économiques en économie agricole : état des lieux et dynamiques de recherche TT – Experimental economics applied to agricultural issues: taking stock and research perspectives. Economie Rurale, 362, 31–50. https://doi.org/10.4000/economierurale.5341.
Boutrolle, I., Arranz, D., Rogeaux, M., & Delarue, J. (2005). Comparing central location test and home use test results: Application of a new criterion. Food Quality and Preference, 16(8), 704–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.015.
Bucher, T., Collins, C., Rollo, M. E., McCaffrey, T. A., De Vlieger, N., Van Der Bend, D., … Perez-Cueto, F. J. A. (2016). Nudging consumers towards healthier choices: A systematic review of positional influences on food choice. British Journal of Nutrition, 115(12), 2252–2263. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516001653.
Camerer, C. F. (2015). The promise and success of lab-field generalizability in experimental economics: A critical reply to Levitt and List. In G. R. Frechette & A. Schotter (Eds.), Handbook of experimental economic methodology (pp. 249–295). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1977749.
Cho, S., Han, A., Taylor, M. H., Huck, A. C., Mishler, A. M., Mattal, K. L., … Seo, H. (2015). Blue lighting decreases the amount of food consumed in men, but not in women ☆. Appetite, 85, 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2014.11.020
Cramer, L., & Antonides, G. (2011). Endowment effects for hedonic and utilitarian food products. Food Quality and Preference, 22(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.020.
Crosetto, P., Muller, L., & Ruffieux, B. (2016) Helping consumers with a front-of-pack label: Numbers or colors?. Journal of Economic Psychology 55:30–50.
Di Monaco, R., Giacalone, D., Pepe, O., Masi, P., & Cavella, S. (2014). Effect of social interaction and meal accompaniments on acceptability of sourdough prepared croissants: An exploratory study. Food Research International, 66, 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.10.001.
Diliberti, N., Bordi, P. L., Conklin, M. T., Roe, L. S., & Rolls, B. J. (2004). Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obesity Research, 12(3), 562–568. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2004.64.
Dougkas, A., Saulais, L., Giboreau, A. (2019). Studying natural meals: What are the benefits of the living lab approach? In Meiselman, H. (Ed.), Context: The effects of the environment on product design and evaluation (1st ed). Woodhead Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814495-4.00012-X.
Earthy, P. J., MacFie, H. J. H., & Hedderley, D. (1996). Effect of question order on sensory perception. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12(1997), 215–237.
Edwards, J. S. A., Meiselman, H. L., Edwards, A., & Lesher, L. (2003). The influence of eating location on the acceptability of identically prepared foods. Food Quality and Preference, 14(8), 647–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00189-1.
Galiñanes Plaza, A., Delarue, J., & Saulais, L. (2019). The pursuit of ecological validity through contextual methodologies. Food Quality and Preference, 73(July), 226–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.004.
Galiñanes Plaza, A., Saulais, L., Blumenthal, D., & Delarue, J. (2019). Eating location as a reference point: Differences in hedonic evaluation of dishes according to consumption situation. Food Quality and Preference 78:103738
Giacalone, D., Frøst, M. B., Bredie, W. L. P., Pineau, B., Hunter, D. C., Paisley, A. G., … Jaeger, S. R. (2015). Situational appropriateness of beer is influenced by product familiarity. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2014.06.012.
Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Hertwig, R. (2016). Nudge versus boost: How coherent are policy and theory? Minds and Machines, 26(1–2), 149–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9.
Guala, F. (2003). Experimental localism and external validity. Philosophy of Science, 70(December), 1195–1205. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/377400
Guala, F. (2008). Experimentation in economics ∗, (June 2005), 1–48.
Guala, F., & Mittone, L. (2015). A political justification of nudging. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 6(3), 385–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-015-0241-8.
Harrison, G. W., & List, J. A. (2004). Field experiments. Journal of Economic Literature, 42, 1009–1055.
Hathaway, D., & Simons, C. T. (2017). The impact of multiple immersion levels on data quality and panelist engagement for the evaluation of cookies under a preparation-based scenario. Food Quality and Preference, 57, 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2016.12.009.
Hollands, G. J., Shemilt, I., Marteau, T. M., Jebb, S. A, Kelly, M. P., Nakamura, R., … Ogilvie, D. (2013). Altering micro-environments to change population health behaviour: Towards an evidence base for choice architecture interventions. BMC Public Health, 13, 1218. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1218
Jaeger, S. R., & Porcherot, C. (2017). Consumption context in consumer research: Methodological perspectives. Current Opinion in Food Science, 15, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2017.05.001.
Jaeger, S. R., Lund, C. M., Lau, K., & Harker, F. R. (2003). In search of the “ideal” pear (pyrus spp.): Results of a multidisciplinary exploration. Journal of Food Science, 68, 1108–1117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb08296.x.
Jaeger, S. R., Hort, J., Porcherot, C., Ares, G., Pecore, S., & MacFie, H. J. H. (2016). Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting. Food Quality and Preference. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.006.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A psychological perspective on economics. American Economic Review, 93, 162–168.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47, 263–291.
King, S. C., Weber, A. J., Meiselman, H. L., & Lv, N. (2004). The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7–8), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.010.
Kral, T. V. E., & Rolls, B. J. (2004). Energy density and portion size: Their independent and combined effects on energy intake. Physiology and Behavior, 82(1), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.04.063.
Levitt, S., & List, J. (2006). What do laboratory experiments tell us about the real world. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9. Retrieved from http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/jeprevisionLevitt&List.pdf
Liu, P. J., Wisdom, J., Roberto, C. a., Liu, L. J., & Ubel, P. a. (2014). Using behavioral economics to design more effective food policies to address obesity. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, 36(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/aepp/ppt027.
Loewenstein, G. F., & Chater, N. (2017). Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public Policy, 1(01), 26–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2016.7.
Mankins, John C (1995). Technology readiness levels. White Paper, 6, p. 1995.
Meiselman, H. (1992). Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019566639290235X
Meiselman, H. L. (2006). The role of context in food choice, food acceptance and food consumption. In M. Shepherd & R. Raats (Eds.), The psychology of food choice (pp. 179–199). Wallingford: CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990323.0179.
Michel, C., Velasco, C., Gatti, E., & Spence, C. (2014). A taste of Kandinsky: Assessing the influence of the artistic visual presentation of food on the dining experience. Flavour, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2044-7248-3-7.
Piqueras-fiszman, B., Alcaide, J., Roura, E., & Spence, C. (2012). Is it the plate or is it the food ? Assessing the influence of the color ( black or white ) and shape of the plate on the perception of the food placed on it. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 205–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.08.011.
Platte, P., Herbert, C., Pauli, P., & Breslin, P. A. S. (2013). Oral perceptions of fat and taste stimuli are modulated by affect and mood induction. PLoS One, 8(6), e65006. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0065006.
Poelman, A. A. M., & Delahunty, C. M. (2011). The effect of preparation method and typicality of colour on children ’ s acceptance for vegetables. Food Quality and Preference, 22(4), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.01.001.
Polonioli, A. (2013). Re-assessing the heuristics debate. Mind & Society, 12(2), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-013-0131-7.
Popper, R., Rosenstock, W., Schraidt, M., & Kroll, B. J. (2004). The effect of attribute questions on overall liking ratings. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7–8), 853–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.2003.12.004.
Prescott, J., Lee, S. M., & Kim, K. O. (2011). Analytic approaches to evaluation modify hedonic responses. Food Quality and Preference, 22(4), 391–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.01.007.
Reisch, L. A., Sunstein, C. R., & Gwozdz, W. (2017). Beyond carrots and sticks: Europeans support health nudges. Food Policy, 69, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.01.007.
Roth, A. E. (1988). Laboratory experimentation in economics: A methodological overview. Economic Journal, 98, 974–1031.
Rozin, P., & Tuorila, H. (1993). Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences on food acceptance. Food Quality and Preference, 4(1–2), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(93)90309-T.
Saulais, L., Muller, L., Lesgards, V. (2017). Murmurer à l’oreille … de l’industriel ? L’économie expérimentale comme outil d’aide à la décision en entreprise. Revue Economique, 68.
Saulais, L. (2015). Foodservice, Health and Nutrition: Responsibility, strategies and perspectives. In Sloan, Philip, Willy Legrand and Clare Hindley, “The Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Food and Gastronomy” (Abingdon: Routledge, 26 mai 2015 ). Routledge Handbooks Online.
Saulais, L., Massey, C., Perez-Cueto, F. J. A., Appleton, K. M., Dinnella, C., Monteleone, E., Depezay, L., Hartwell, H., Giboreau, A. (2019). When are “Dish of the Day” nudges most effective to increase vegetable selection?. Food Policy 85:15–27.
Scheibehenne, B., Miesler, L., & Todd, P. M. (2007). Fast and frugal food choices: Uncovering individual decision heuristics. Appetite, 49(3), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.224.
Schifferstein, H. N. J., Wehrle, T., & Carbon, C. (2019). Consumer expectations for vegetables with typical and atypical colors : The case of carrots. Food Quality and Preference, 72(October 2018), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.10.002.
Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Sohn, M., De Bellis, E., Martin, N., & Hertwig, R. (2013). A lack of appetite for information and computation. Simple heuristics in food choice. Appetite, 71, 242–251.
Sester, C., Deroy, O., Sutan, A., Galia, F., Desmarchelier, J.-F., Valentin, D., & Dacremont, C. (2013). “Having a drink in a bar”: An immersive approach to explore the effects of context on drink choice. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.07.006.
Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. American Economic Review, 72, 923–955.
Spinelli, S., Dinnella, C., Ares, G., Abbà, S., Zoboli, G. P., & Monteleone, E. (2019). Global profile: Going beyond liking to better understand product experience. Food Research International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.013.
Stroebele, N., & De Castro, J. M. (2004). Effect of ambience on food intake and food choice. Nutrition (Burbank, Los Angeles County, Calif.), 20(9), 821–838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2004.05.012.
Stroebele, N., & de Castro, J. M. (2006). Listening to music while eating is related to increases in people’s food intake and meal duration. Appetite, 47(3), 285–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2006.04.001.
Szaszi, B., Palinkas, A., Palfi, B., Szollosi, A., & Aczel, B. (2018). A systematic scoping review of the choice architecture movement: Toward understanding when and why nudges work. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 31(3), 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2035.
Thaler, R. H. (2018). From cashews to nudges: The evolution of behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 108(6), 1265–1287. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.108.6.1265.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Tversky, A., & Simonson, I. (1993). Context-dependent preferences. Management Science, 39(10), 1179–1189. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1179.
Velasco, C., Wan, X., Salgado-montejo, A., Woods, A., Andrés, G., Mu, B., & Spence, C. (2014). The context of colour – Flavour associations in crisps packaging : A cross-cultural study comparing Chinese, Colombian, and British consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 38, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.05.011.
Wilson, A. L., Buckley, E., Buckley, J. D., & Bogomolova, S. (2016). Nudging healthier food and beverage choices through salience and priming. Evidence from a systematic review. Food Quality and Preference, 51(February 2016), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
Study | Studied variables | Studied factor | Studied product | Results |
---|---|---|---|---|
Contextual variables describing the situation | ||||
Edwards et al. (2003) | Liking | Context: army training camp, university staff refectory, private boarding school, freshman’s buffet, private party, residential home (elderly), student refectory, day care center (elderly), university 4-star restaurant, hotel 4-star restaurant | Chicken à la King and Rice | Different results were obtained among the different contexts regarding product sensory attributes (appearance, taste and texture, as well as satiety) |
King et al. (2004) | Liking | Context and social environment: 5 CLT (plain room and recreated restaurant context and a regular restaurant) | Side salad with dressing, small pizza, and an iced tea | Context and social environment had a different effect of meal components evaluation |
Boutrolle et al. (2005) | Liking | Context: central location test (CLT) vs home use test (HUT) | Fermented milk with two different degrees of fat content | Same results were obtained in both contexts but higher scores were obtained in the HUT |
>Robustness at CLT | ||||
Sester et al. (2013) | Drink choice | Context: immersive scenario with differences in furniture (wood and blue furniture) | Different drink options | Drink choices differed depending on the ambiance set |
Di Monaco et al. (2014) | Liking | Context: social environment in a controlled setting | Croissants | Social environment negatively affected liking scores |
Cho et al. (2015) | Food intake and sensory perception (flavor) | Light color: white, yellow, and blue | Omelet and mini-pancakes | Blue light had an effect on food appearance impression and decreased men food intake. Food flavor perception was not affected |
Contextual variables describing the product | ||||
Poelman and Delahunty (2011) | Liking and preference | Product: food preparation (different methods: baked, boiled, mashed, stir fried) and color | Sweet potato, cauliflower, and beans | Differences in the preparation method differently affected participants liking and preferences. Moreover, differences among the products and the type of preparation were observed. Atypical colors influenced participants preferences but not liking |
Piqueras-Fiszman et al. (2012) | Food perception | Product: shape and color of the plate | Mousse | The color of the plate influenced the perception of the product, whereas the shape did not affect |
Michel et al. (2014) | Liking, food perception, and willingness to pay (WTP) | Product: three different meal presentations | Dish | The most artistic presentation obtained higher liking results and was perceived as tastier, and participants were willing to pay more for it |
Velasco et al. (2014) | Food matches between color and flavor (cross-cultural study) | Product: different packing colors | Crisps packaging | Specific food flavors are related to specific colors (red = tomato; green = cucumber). Complex and unspecified flavors are related to different colors depending on the country |
Bernard et al. (2019) | Food perception and WTP | Product: different label information (origin) | Watermelon | Product with information increased participants perception about the product (tastiness) and were more willing to pay for it |
Contextual variables describing the consumer | ||||
Platte et al. (2013) | Fat and taste perception | Consumer: psychological status (mood) | Five different sensory stimuli (sweet, sour, bitter, fatty, and umami) | Sweetness and bitterness perception was positively correlated to depression and anxious moods |
Giacalone et al. (2015) | Situational appropriateness | Consumers: product familiarity | Beers: more or less familiar to consumers | Product familiarity determines the situational appropriateness of beers. Less familiar beers were more context-dependent than familiar ones |
Bernard and Liu (2017) | Taste perception | Consumers: beliefs about local and organic ingredients | Different apples: organic, local, and conventional | Labeled apples were higher rated than unlabeled one. Moreover, participants with stronger beliefs in organic and local ingredients rated the taste of those apples higher than the conventional ones |
Schifferstein et al. (2019) | Familiarity, purchase intention, and intended preparation method | Consumer: expectations related to color | Carrots | Carrots’ color showed to have an impact on consumers’ expectations related to sensory attributes like freshness and nutritional value |
Spinelli et al. (2019) | Product experience | Consumer: emotions related to ingredients and preparations | Different dishes | Different emotions were associated with different ingredients and concepts (fresh tomato flavor with cheerfulness and light-heartedness; surprise and curiosity with the idea of naturalness, appeals to the imagination in cooking, and fancifulness) |
Contextual variables describing the consumer | ||||
Earthy et al. (1996) | Sensory preferences | Task: order of questions | Different samples with different milk chocolate powder and sugar context | Participants tend to be less critical when a global hedonic question came prior to the attribute questions, especially for the most disliked samples |
Popper et al. (2004) | Liking and sensory attributes perception | Task: questions formulation (different scales: overall liking, intensity scales, just about right (JAR), attributes liking) | Four variations of a dairy dessert | Differences in questions formulation leaded to different liking results: JAR had a stronger effect on the modulation of the results |
Prescott et al. (2011) | Liking | Task: number or questions (synthetic versus analytical) | Tea drink | Higher liking results were obtained in the synthetic task compared to the analytical evaluation task |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Saulais, L., Galiñanes-Plaza, A. (2020). Contextual Considerations in Experimental Food Research and Policy. In: Meiselman, H. (eds) Handbook of Eating and Drinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75388-1_79-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75388-1_79-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75388-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-75388-1
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Contextual Considerations in Experimental Food Research and Policy: An Update- Published:
- 07 June 2024
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75388-1_79-2
-
Original
Contextual Considerations in Experimental Food Research and Policy- Published:
- 10 December 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75388-1_79-1