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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
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
Bains, K., DeMarco, N., Brauer, P., & Yi, S. (2021). Post-secondary food service manager perspectives on fruit and vegetable nudging strategies: Qualitative study. Current Developments in Nutrition, 5(9), nzab109.
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
Bermúdez, A., Claret, A., & Guerrero, L. (2023). Harmonisation of context based emerging research approaches in food consumer science. 15th Pangborn sensory science symposium – Meeting new challenges in a changing world.
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.
Cadario, R., & Chandon, P. (2020). Which healthy eating nudges work best? A meta-analysis of field experiments. Marketing Science, 39(3), 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2018.1128
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). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1977749
Cardello, A. V. (2017). Hedonic scaling: Assumptions, contexts and frames of reference. Current Opinion in Food Science, 15, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2017.05.002
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
Cliceri, D., Petit, E., Garrel, C., Monteleone, E., & Giboreau, A. (2018). Effect of glass shape on subjective and behavioral consumer responses in a real-life context of drinking consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 64(July 2017), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.09.008
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
Dinnella, C., Pierguidi, L., Spinelli, S., Borgogno, M., Gallina Toschi, T., Predieri, S., Lavezzi, G., Trapani, F., Tura, M., Magli, M., Bendini, A., & Monteleone, E. (2022). Remote testing: Sensory test during Covid-19 pandemic and beyond. Food Quality and Preference, 96(September 2021), 104437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104437
Dougkas, A., Saulais, L., & Giboreau, A. (2019). Studying natural meals: What are the benefits of the living lab approach? In H. Meiselman (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
Filimonau, V., & Krivcova, M. (2017). Restaurant menu design and more responsible consumer food choice: An exploratory study of managerial perceptions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 516–527.
Galiñanes Plaza, A. (2019). Methodological insights to understand the effects of context on consumer hedonic evaluation of food products [Université Paris Saclay]. http://www.theses.fr/2019SACLA015/document
Galiñanes Plaza, A., Delarue, J., & Saulais, L. (2019a). 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. (2019b). Eating location as a reference point: Differences in hedonic evaluation of dishes according to consumption situation. Food Quality and Preference, 78, 103738.
Galiñanes Plaza, A., Saulais, L., & Delarue, J. (2022). Hedonic response sensitivity to variations in the evaluation task and culinary preparation in a natural consumption context. Frontiers in Nutrition, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.1008577
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.
Giezenaar, C., & Hort, J. (2021). A narrative review of the impact of digital immersive technology on affective and sensory responses during product testing in digital eating contexts. Food Research International, 150(PB), 110804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110804
Gordon-Wilson, S. (2022). Consumption practices during the COVID-19 crisis. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 46(2), 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12701
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.
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., Hunter, D. C., Kam, K., Beresford, M. K., Jin, D., Paisley, A. G., Chheang, S. L., Roigard, C. M., & Ares, G. (2015). The concurrent use of JAR and CATA questions in hedonic scaling is unlikely to cause hedonic bias, but may increase product discrimination. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 70–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.04.001
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
Low, J. Y. Q., Diako, C., Lin, V. H. F., Yeon, L. J., & Hort, J. (2021). Investigating the relative merits of using a mixed reality context for measuring affective response and predicting tea break snack choice. Food Research International, 150(PA), 110718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110718
Man, K., Patterson, J. A., & Simons, C. T. (2023). The impact of personally relevant consumption contexts during product evaluations in virtual reality [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Food Quality and Preference, 109(June), 104912. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.104912
Mankins, J. C. (1995). Technology readiness levels. White Paper, 6, p. 1995.
Marty, L., de Lauzon-Guillain, B., Labesse, M., & Nicklaus, S. (2021). Food choice motives and the nutritional quality of diet during the COVID-19 lockdown in France. Appetite, 157, 105005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2020.105005
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). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851990323.0179
Meiselman, H. L. (Ed.). (2019). Context. The effects of environment on product design and evaluation. Woohead Publishing.
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., & Jaeger, S. R. (2019). Evoked consumption context matters in food-related consumer affective research. In Context. The effects of environment on product design and evaluation (pp. 545–564). Woodhead Publishing.
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. (2015). Foodservice, health and nutrition: Responsibility, strategies and perspectives. In P. Sloan, W. Legrand, & C. Hindley (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of sustainable food and gastronomy. Routledge. Routledge Handbooks Online.
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, 925–939.
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
Schmidt, A. T., & Engelen, B. (2020). The ethics of nudging: An overview. Philosophy Compass, 15(4), e12658.
Schöniger, M. K. (2022). The role of immersive environments in the assessment of consumer perceptions and product acceptance: A systematic literature review. Food Quality and Preference, 99(November 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104490
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
Sinesio, F., Moneta, E., Porcherot, C., Abbà, S., Dreyfuss, L., Guillamet, K., Bruyninckx, S., Laporte, C., Henneberg, S., & McEwan, J. A. (2019). Do immersive techniques help to capture consumer reality? Food Quality and Preference, 77, 123–134.
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. Yale University Press.
Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Nudge: The final edition. 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
van Bergen, G., Zandstra, E. H., Kaneko, D., Dijksterhuis, G. B., & de Wijk, R. A. (2021). Sushi at the beach: Effects of congruent and incongruent immersive contexts on food evaluations. Food Quality and Preference, 91(January), 104193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104193
van Trijp, H. C. M. (2023). Higher level data integration: A new reality for sensory and consumer research? Science Talks, 5(February), 100156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sctalk.2023.100156
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
White, T. L., Thomas-Danguin, T., Olofsson, J. K., Zucco, G. M., & Prescott, J. (2020). Thought for food: Cognitive influences on chemosensory perceptions and preferences. Food Quality and Preference, 79(April 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103776
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
Ytreberg, N. S., Alfnes, F., & van Oort, B. (2023). Mapping of the digital climate nudges in Nordic online grocery stores. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 37, 202–212.
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) | Context: 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 |
Sinesio et al. (2019) | Liking and repeatability | Context: immersive scenarios, evoked context, controlled conditions and real pub | Beers | No significant differences in liking; good repeatability of the results in real pub and immersive scenario |
van Bergen et al. (2021) | Liking over time | Context: congruent and incongruent immersive contexts | Popsicle and sushi | Expected liking and desire to eat were higher for congruent product-context combinations as well as consistency of ratings over time |
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 task | ||||
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
© 2024 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Galiñanes-Plaza, A., Saulais, L. (2024). Contextual Considerations in Experimental Food Research and Policy: An Update. In: Meiselman, H.L. (eds) Handbook of Eating and Drinking. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75388-1_79-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75388-1_79-2
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