De Bourdeaudhuij, Ilse

De Pelsmaeker, Sara

De Steur, Hans

Gellynck, Xavier

Lagast, Sofie

Schouteten, Joachim

English

Ghent University Academic Bibliography

Materials & methods PRODUCTS: • Strawberry flavoured yogurts • 5 samples: • 2 premium brands    • 3 private label brands     Methods:  EmoSensory® Wheel (RATA scaling)          CONSUMER TEST • Between-subjects design • 3 Sessions (one session/week): • 1st: blind condition (tasting) • 2nd: expected condition (brand logo) • 3th: informed condition (brand logo + tasting) • 18 emotional conceptualisations  • 14 sensory terms • Terms generated following Schouteten et al. 2015 • EyeQuestion v3.15.10 (Logic 8BV, Netherlands) • Samples: enough for 2-3 tablespoons  PARTICIPANTS • 99 adults (45 male / 54 female) • Mean age 29 years old • 54.5% living in countryside / 45.5% in city • Only product-users eligible • CLT = 53, HUT = 46   STATISTICAL  ANALYSIS • IBM® SPSS 22 (USA)       *Joachim.Schouteten@UGent.be;     The effect of the location context on the EmoSensory® evaluation of yogurt products under blind, expected and informed conditions    Joachim J. Schouteten1*, Hans De Steur1, Sofie Lagast1, Sara De Pelsmaeker1,  Xavier Gellynck1, Ilse De Bourdeaudhuij2   1Department of Agricultural Economics, Ghent University, Coupure Links 653, Gent, Belgium 2Department of Movement and Sport Sciences, Ghent University, Watersportlaan 2, Gent 9000, Belgium                                                                Objectives Scientific studies involving the sensory evaluation mostly occurs in a controlled laboratory environment while this is not a realistic evaluation for consumers Given that this could impact the results, the question arises to which extent a real difference in testing location influences the sensory and emotional profiling of consumers.   The objective of this study was to examine the influence of brand information on the overall acceptance, sensory and emotional profiling of yogurt during two different context situations:  (i) Laboratory context (CLT);  (ii) Home-Use-Test (HUT).   Testing took place under three conditions (blind, expected and informed) with brand information. Results Effect of context                        Emotional profiling     Sensory profiling       RATA: indicates that the data were used based upon the frequency of selection; RATA-S: indicates that the data were analyzed by creating a summed index of the scores provided by all participants for each of the terms a,b Term usage percentages with a different letter differ significantly between the scaling methods (P ≤ 0.05)  Effect of brand Overall acceptance Blind (B), expected (E) and informed (I) mean (S.D) liking scores of products evaluated under blind, expected (brand logo) and informed conditions by consumers (on a 9-point scale) at the CLT test (n = 53) and HUT (n = 46), together with differences between mean ratings for each sample I–B denotes informed minus blind liking scores; E–B denotes expected minus blind liking scores; I–E denotes informed minus expected liking scores       a,b,c Products with the same letter code, within a column, are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) during the condition (blind / expected / informed). *,**,***depicts significant differences between the liking scores at respectively P ≤ 0.05, P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.001.  Emotional profiling Mean emotional ratings per product under the three conditions (B = blind, E = expected and I = informed) in the CLT (n = 53) and HUT (n = 46). Directions of significant main effects are indicated by arrows (P ≤ 0.05).               ab Intensities with the same letter code, within a row for a specific setting (CLT / HUT), are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)  Sensory profiling Mean sensory intensity ratings per product under the three conditions (B = blind, E = expected and I = informed) at the CLT (n = 53) and HUT (n = 46). Directions of significant main effects are indicated by arrows.                                                       abc Intensities with the same letter code, within a row for a specific setting (CLT / HUT), are not significantly different (P ≤ 0.05)                    (iii) Cross-cultural application     EuroSense 2016, 7th European Conference on Sensory and Consumer research, 11 – 14 September 2016, Dijon (France)    Conclusions  While emotional profiles of the products differed depending on the context, this was less the case for the sensory profiles  Brand information clearly affected the sensory perception of certain attributes but had less influence on the overall liking and emotional profiling  These results suggest that both scientists and food companies should consider the impact of the chosen methodology (context and presentation of the stimuli) on the ecological validity when conducting sensory research with consumers. Sample B E I E-B I-B I-E CLT             P1 5.1c(1.9) 6.5b(1.7) 5.9(1.5) 1.3*** 0.8** -0.5* P2 5.8b(1.6) 7.2a(0.9) 6.0(1.4) 1.4*** 0.2 -1.2*** PL1 5.5bc(1.7) 5.6c(1.1) 5.7(1.8) 0.1 0.2 0.1 PL2 6.5a(1.4) 5.8c(1.3) 6.1(1.5) -0.7** -0.3 0.4 PL3 5.8b(1.5) 5.5c(1.0) 5.8(1.5) -0.3 0.0 0.3 HUT             P1 5.7(1.6) 6.5b(1.4) 5.2c(1.7) 0.7* -0.5 -1.2*** P2 6.0(1.5) 7.0a(0.9) 6.3a(1.4) 1.0*** 0.3 -0.7** PL1 5.4(2.1) 5.7c(1.2) 6.0ab(1.6) 0.2 0.6 0.4 PL2 5.9(1.7) 5.8c(1.0) 5.5bc(1.8) -0.1 -0.4 -0.3 PL3 5.8(1.8) 5.6c(1.0) 5.3bc(1.5) -0.2 -0.5 -0.03       CLT             HUT         B E-B E I-E I I-B   B E-B E I-E I I-B P1             P1             Disappointed 1.21a ↓ 0.38b   0.66ab   Disappointed 0.37ab   0.07b ↑ 0.98a   Discontented 1.06a ↓ 0.04b ↑ 0.51a   Dissatisfied 0.43a ↓ 0.00b ↑ 0.74a   Disgust 0.58a ↓ 0.00b   0.26ab   Pleasant              Friendly 0.19b ↑ 1.09a   0.70ab   surprised 0.35ab   0.07b ↑ 0.61a   Steady 0.57b ↑ 1.26a   0.93ab                 Unpleasant surprised 0.81a ↓ 0.06b ↑ 0.53a                 P2             P2             Disappointed 0.70a ↓ 0.09b ↑ 0.58a   Disappointed 0.33ab   0.07b ↑ 0.61a   Good 0.85b ↑ 2.08a ↓ 0.87b                 Unpleasant surprised 0.40ab   0.04b ↑ 0.66a                 PL1             PL1             Bored 0.09ab   0.53a ↓ 0.04b   Disappointed 1.02a ↓ 0.22b   0.39ab   Disappointed 0.89a ↓ 0.23b   0.68ab   Disgust 0.52a ↓ 0.00b   0.13ab   Disgust 0.23ab   0.00b ↑ 0.32a                 Unpleasant surprised 0.81a ↓ 0.21b   0.43ab                 PL2             PL2             Interested 0.70a ↓ 0.17b   0.64ab   Dissatisfied 0.33ab   0.07b ↑ 0.63a   Pleasant 1.26a ↓ 0.53b ↑ 1.15a   Disappointed 0.74a ↓ 0.15b ↑ 0.91a   Pleasant surprised 0.87a ↓ 0.32b ↑ 1.00a   Pleasant surprised 0.87a ↓ 0.11b   0.37ab   PL3             PL3             Pleasant 0.92a   0.47ab   0.34b ↓ Interested 0.80a ↓ 0.15b   0.24ab   Pleasant surprised 0.43b   0.11b ↑ 0.96a ↑ Pleasant 1.13a   0.41ab   0.30b ↓               Pleasant surprised 0.98a ↓ 0.20b   0.52ab                 Satisfied 1.80a ↓ 0.89b   0.76b ↓       CLT             HUT         B E-B E I-E I I-B   B E-B E I-E I I-B P1             P1             Liquid 0.98a ↓ 0.36b   0.81ab   Firm 0.69ab   0.85a ↓ 0.15b   Sweet 1.68a ↓ 1.00b   1.13ab   Liquid 1.35a ↓ 0.52b   0.76ab                 Off-flavor 0.72a ↓ 0.11b   0.50ab                 Sour 0.65b   0.70b ↑ 2.1a ↑ P2             P2             Aftertaste 0.81a ↓ 0.13b ↑ 0.58a   Aftertaste 1.00a ↓ 0.04b   0.37ab   Creamy 0.87b ↑ 1.64a   1.40ab   Homogeneous 2.33a ↓ 0.54b ↑ 1.67a   Homogeneous 1.87ab   1.21b ↑ 2.25a   Off-flavor 1.07a ↓ 0.00b   0.30b ↓ Fruity flavor 2.13b ↑ 3.21a ↓ 2.06b   Smooth 1.65a ↓ 0.59b ↑ 1.67a   Liquid 1.23a ↓ 0.45b   0.64ab   Sour 0.63a ↓ 0.11b   0.30ab   Milky flavor 0.64ab   0.21b ↑ 1.11a   Sweet 1.74a   0.93ab   0.52b ↓ Smooth 1.58ab   0.79b ↑ 1.75a                 Sour 0.60a ↓ 0.15b ↑ 0.62a                 PL1             PL1             Aftertaste 0.85a ↓ 0.28b   0.74ab   Creamy 1.67a ↓ 0.39b ↑ 1.61a   Creamy 1.51a ↓ 0.58b   1.28ab   Smooth 1.37a ↓ 0.43b   0.72ab   Fruity flavor 2.64a ↓ 1.43b ↑ 2.41a   Sweet 2.78a ↓ 1.59b ↑ 2.70a   Liquid 0.83ab   1.19a ↓ 0.34b   Thick 0.96a ↓ 0.17b   0.54ab   PL2             PL2             Creamy 2.04a ↓ 0.34b ↑ 1.19a   Creamy 1.85a ↓ 0.59b   1.26ab   Dark color 0.06b   0.30ab   0.57a ↑ Firm 1.65a ↓ 0.52b   0.46b ↓ Firm 1.36a ↓ 0.51b   0.92ab   Homogeneous 1.02a   0.70ab   0.27b ↓ Liquid 0.23b ↑ 1.34a ↓ 0.34b   Liquid 0.22b ↓ 1.11a   0.54ab   Thick 1.55a ↓ 0.30b ↑ 0.96a   Sweet 2.91a ↓ 1.30b ↑ 2.33a                 Thick 1.63a ↓ 0.04b ↑ 0.61c ↓ PL3             PL3             Creamy 1.89a ↓ 0.43b ↑ 1.75a   Aftertaste 1.09a ↓ 0.28b   0.67ab   Firm 1.04ab   0.43b ↑ 1.79a   Creamy 1.59a ↓ 0.59b   1.11ab   Liquid 0.55ab   1.19a ↓ 0.26b   Firm 1.57a ↓ 0.35b ↑ 1.28a   Sour 0.51a ↓ 0.11b   0.51ab   Fruity aroma 1.65a   1.46ab   0.72b ↓ Thick 0.77b   0.53b ↑ 1.66a ↑ Liquid 0.61ab   0.89a ↓ 0.13b                 Milky flavor 0.80a   0.22b ↑ 1.37a                 Thick 1.20a ↓ 0.07b ↑ 1.41a     Condition   Blind Expected Informed Term usage Average percentage of emotional terms used to describe samples CLT: 17.2 HUT: 16.9 CLT: 14.4a HUT: 11.0b CLT:17.4a HUT:14.1b Sample differences Number of emotional terms with significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05) CLT – RATA: 3 CLT – RATA-S: 5 HUT - RATA: 0 HUT – RATA-S: 1 CLT - RATA: 9 CLT – RATA-S: 10 HUT - RATA: 1 HUT – RATA-S: 4 CLT - RATA: 2 CLT – RATA-S: 2 HUT - RATA: 0 HUT – RATA-S: 0   Condition   Blind Expected Informed Term usage Average percentage of sensory terms used to describe samples CLT: 33.9b HUT: 35.7a CLT: 27.4a HUT: 21.0b CLT: 34.8a HUT: 28.9b Sample differences       Number of sensory terms with significant differences among samples (p ≤ 0.05) CLT - RATA: 6 CLT – RATA-S: 8 HUT - RATA: 5 HUT – RATA-S: 4 CLT - RATA: 7 CLT – RATA-S: 8 HUT - RATA: 4 HUT – RATA-S: 5 CLT - RATA: 7 CLT – RATA-S: 9 HUT - RATA: 9 HUT – RATA-S: 10 

The effect of the location context on the EmoSensory® evaluation of yogurt products under blind, expected and informed conditions

https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8079299/file/8079315.pdf

The effect of the location context on the EmoSensory® evaluation of yogurt products under blind, expected and informed conditions

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Ghent University Academic Bibliography