Consumer acceptance of cheese,influence of different testing conditions

Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different testing conditions

Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different

testing conditions

Margrethe Hersleth a,b,*, Øydis Ueland a, H
el ene Allain a, Tormod Næs a,c

a Matforsk, Norwegian Food Research Institute, Osloveien 1, N-1430  As, Norway

b Agricultural University of Norway, Department of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Box 5003, N-1432  As, Norway

c University of Oslo, Box 1072, Blindern, No-0316 Oslo, Norway Received 29 September 2003; received in revised form 24 February 2004

Available online 8 April 2004

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of various test situations on hedonic responses to food The experimental sample set consisted of six different cheeses selected on the basis of a sensory descriptive test of a total of 15 cheeses performed by a trained panel A panel of 87 consumers evaluated the cheese samples for overall liking in three different testing conditions, at a laboratory, at a central location and at home The consumer panel was divided into three groups, each with different order of the testing conditions The main results showed that changing the environments and the degree of social interaction in the consumer tests had no significant effect on hedonic ratings for the products Lack of a natural meal context during testing, similar expectations in the three testing situations and high familiarity of the product category may explain the high degree of consistency in hedonic ratings

2004 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

Keywords: Context; Liking; Consumer; Cheese; Familiarity; Expectation

1 Introduction

There is an increasing demand for new products and

line extensions in the food market Hedonic scales and

preference tests are common instruments used when

decisions on market introductions are made The

prac-tical benefits of such tests are, however, strongly

dependent on the validity of the test, as well as the

sensitivity and the reliability (K€oster, Couronne, L
eon,

L
evy, & Marcelino, 2002; Lawless & Heymann, 1999;

Meiselman, 1993) According to Schutz (1999) internal

validity of a test means that the data collected apply to

the people, products and situations in that particular

test External validity, on the other hand, means that the

data can be used to make more general conclusions

about other people, products and situations The

validity of hedonic tests is therefore closely associated

with the uniformity and the consistency of the consumer

sample (K€oster, 2003; K€oster et al., 2002), but is also

closely connected to the area of context research (Bell & Meiselman, 1995; Meiselman, 1996; Rozin & Tuorila, 1993) In the present paper we will focus on a particular aspect of validity of hedonic ratings; namely how con-sistent consumers are when rating food products on a hedonic scale in different testing conditions

Most hedonic food testing is conducted in laborato-ries, at central locations or at home A laboratory rep-resents the most controlled environment for testing In the testing area, one can usually control most environ-mental variables, stimulus variables and to a certain degree social interaction The arguments in favour of using a laboratory test are to allow for focusing on the sensory characteristics of the products without being influenced by external variables related to the eating environment or social settings However, a sensory testing booth is very different from a real eating envi-ronment and the realism of the test can be questioned Simple laboratory food preference measures have in some projects shown to be poor predictors of con-sumption (Cardello, Schutz, Snow, & Lesher, 2000; Kozlowska et al., 2003) Meiselman (1992) has pointed out these aspects in his call for ‘‘real foods to be tested

by real people in a real dining situation’’

*

Corresponding author Address: Matforsk, Norwegian Food

Research Institute, Osloveien 1, N-1430  As, Norway Tel.:

+47-6497-0100; fax: +47-6497-0333.

E-mail address: margrethe.hersleth@matforsk.no (M Hersleth).

0950-3293/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.02.009

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodqual

An alternative to a laboratory test is a central

loca-tion test (Lawless & Heymann, 1999) organised in a

mall, at a school, in a canteen or as in this project at a

club house belonging to a soccer team (see description of

the facilities in Section 2.4) In a central location area

one can partly control environmental variables, stimulus

variables and the degree of social interaction It is

pos-sible to increase the realism of the test by making the test

area more natural and home-like The effect of social

interaction, physical environment and freedom with

re-spect to food choice was studied by King, Weber,

Meiselman, and Lv (in press) They found that

intro-duction of context effects in a central location test can

improve the ability to predict actual liking scores in a

real life environment

Food testing by consumers in their home is

consid-ered to be more optimal compared to laboratory testing

and central location testing with regard to realism

dur-ing tastdur-ing and eatdur-ing a product sample In such tests the

products can be tested under its normal conditions of

use (Meilgaard, Civille, & Carr, 1991) However, a home

test does introduce many practical challenges The

po-tential for product misuse is very high (Stone & Sidel,

1992) Other challenges are variability in preparation,

variability from the time of use and variability from

other foods or products used with the test product

(Meilgaard et al., 1991) Home tests are time consuming

to organise and it can be difficult to assess the testing

procedure and the validity of the resulting data

The main objective of the present study was to

compare and evaluate the effects of various commonly

used test situations on hedonic responses to a particular

food The same set of products was presented to a group

of consumers in three different locations; in a

labora-tory, at a central location and at home A selection of

semi-hard and hard cheeses from the Norwegian market

was chosen as products The cheeses are well-known

varieties in the market and typically used for breakfast,

lunch and supper

2 Materials and methods

The study consisted of two parts, a conventional

sensory profiling of fifteen cheese samples and a

con-sumer test with six cheese samples served in three

ses-sions

2.1 Products

This study was a part of a larger preference mapping

project on hard and semi-hard Norwegian cheeses For

sensory profiling 15 different cheeses commercially

available at the Norwegian market were selected The

consumer test was performed on six of the cheeses

se-lected from the total number as described below All the

presented cheese samples in the descriptive test and in the consumer test came from the same batches The samples were therefore treated as homogeneous in the statistical analysis

2.2 Descriptive sensory analysis All cheeses were evaluated by a panel using descrip-tive sensory profiling as described in ISO 6564:1985 The sensory panel consisted of 11 panellists selected and trained according to guidelines in ISO 8586-1:1993 and the laboratory was designed according to guidelines in ISO 8589:1988 The surface area of the cheese samples was removed and 50 g was served to each panellist The

The panellists developed a test vocabulary describing differences between samples and they agreed upon a consensus list of 22 attributes for profiling A continu-ous, non-structured scale was used for evaluation The left side of the scale corresponded to the lowest intensity

of each attribute (value 1.0) and the right side corres-ponded to the highest intensity (value 9.0) In a pre-test session, the panellists were trained in the use of the scale

by testing samples that were considered as extreme on selected attributes typical for the product Each panellist did a monadic evaluation of the samples at individual speed on a computerised system for direct recording of data (CSA Compusense, version 5.24, Canada) Two replicates were performed for each cheese variety All samples and replicates were served in a randomised order The average response over replicates and asses-sors for each significant attribute were used in the multivariate analyses

Based on the results from Principal Component Analysis (PCA), six of the cheese samples (marked in Fig 1) were selected and used for consumer testing The selection of samples had to meet the following two cri-teria (1) For the purpose of the preference mapping project some important market strategic elements had to

be met (2) For the purpose of the present paper the six cheese samples should be sufficiently different to create differences in hedonic liking The marked samples in Fig 1 represent a compromise between these two crite-ria

2.3 Experimental design for consumer study The experimental design for the consumer study is shown in Table 1 A panel consisting of 87 consumers evaluated six cheeses in three different testing condi-tions: In individual sensory booths at a laboratory, at a club house belonging to a soccer team and at home The quoted number of consumers participated in all three sessions The consumer panel was divided into three groups (A–C), each with a different order of tasting conditions (shown in Table 1)

2.4 Consumer testing

The consumers were recruited from a local soccer

club and were selected according to the following

cri-teria: Likers of hard/semi-hard cheese, 30–50 years old,

not employee at Matforsk (Norwegian Food Research

Institute) or the nearby Food Science Department at the

Agricultural University of Norway The consumers were

given the following information about the test during

recruiting: ‘‘We seek participants for a consumer test of

hard/semi-hard cheese The test implies evaluation of 18

cheese samples and the test is therefore composed of

three sessions Due to practical circumstances and

capacity we will arrange the test at three different

loca-tions’’

The three sessions were carried out within eight days

(Monday, Thursday and the following Monday) The

consumers arrived at the laboratory and at the central

location between 6–8 p.m The test was a blind test i.e

the detailed identity (brand) of the products was

un-known to the participants However, the Norwegian

market for cheeses is still dominated by one large cheese

producer (Tine BA) Thus, when eating cheeses, most

Norwegians associate this product category with the

‘‘Tine’’ brand The consumers were presented with six coded samples of 200 g semi-hard or hard cheese in each session The cheeses were evaluated for overall liking on

a nine-point hedonic scale anchored with ‘‘Like Ex-tremely’’ and ‘‘Dislike ExEx-tremely’’ and with a neutral centre point of ‘‘Neither Like nor Dislike’’ (Peryam & Pilgrim, 1957) The consumers could choose between the use of a cheese slicer or a knife and they were requested

to remove the surface area of the sample before tasting

No more information concerning the products or the experiment was given Serving order in the laboratory session and in the central location session was varied according to a cyclic design balanced for order and carry-over effects (MacFie, Bratchell, Greenhoff, & Vallis, 1989) Water was served as the beverage in the laboratory and at the central location test

The similarities and differences between the experi-mental conditions are shown in Table 2 Laboratory evaluations took place in individual booths and social interaction was discouraged The serving temperature of

loca-tion test took place at a club house belonging to the local soccer club from which the consumers were re-cruited This environment may therefore have given the

-1.0 -0.5 0 0.5 1.0

1

2

3

4 5 6

7

8

9

10

11 12

13

14

15

Whiteness

Colorhue Saturation

Porosity

Brightness Elasticity

Int.odour

Acid odour

F.acid odour Int.flavour

Salty flavour

Bitter flavour F.acid flavour

Acid flavour

Nutty flavour

Sharp flavour Hardness

Solubility

Fattyness Juiciness

Stickiness Graininess

PC1 PC2

Fig 1 PCA bi-plot of significant sensory attributes (p < 0:05) and sensory data for the 15 cheese samples PC1 account for 55% and PC2 for 26% Cheese chosen for consumer study are marked.

Table 1

Experimental design for consumer study

Group Number of consumers Session (Monday week 1) Session (Thursday week 1) Session (Monday week 2)

C 30 Central location Laboratory Home

consumers a more familiar sensation than the laboratory

did The club house is normally used for various social

arrangements in the soccer club such as meetings,

serv-ing food, celebrations etc The testserv-ing took place in a

meeting room furnished with dining tables with chairs

and sofas with armchairs A kitchen is connected to the

meeting room with a service hatch The consumers

ar-rived between 6 and 8 p.m and were seated around the

same dining table, up to a maximum of eight persons at

the same time They were allowed to talk with each

other, but not to discuss the samples The home test was

arranged as a one time trial, i.e the consumers did not

use the product over a period of time At home the

consumers were allowed to taste the cheeses together

with family and/or friends, but they were instructed to

report their personal liking only The consumers were

allowed to taste the cheese sample with bread,

crisp-bread or biscuits and self-elected beverages

In addition to a standard score sheet used in all three

sessions the consumers were asked to provide the

fol-lowing information from the home test: (1) Were you

alone or together with family/friends when you tasted

the cheese? (2) Did you consume bread, crisp-bread or

biscuits with the cheese? (3) Did you consume water or

other beverages with the cheese? If the consumers had

any cheese left after tasting they were requested not to

consume the left over until the last tasting session was

finished

2.5 Statistical analysis

2.5.1 Analysis of sensory data

Analyses of Variance (ANOVA, two-way model with

interactions and with assessor effects and interactions

considered random) was performed on the descriptive

sensory analysis data in order to identify the sensory

attributes that differentiated between samples

To study the main sources of variation between the

average sensory descriptive data, a PCA of the panel

averages (significant attributes, p < 0:05) was performed

(mean centred data, no standardisation) (Mardia, Kent,

& Bibby, 1980) A PCA of the consumer scores of the

cheese samples in each contextual situation was also

performed in order to study the main tendencies in

variation between products and situations Full

cross-validation (Martens & Næs, 1989) was used for valida-tion of the components

2.5.2 Analysis of consumer data The statistical analysis of the consumer data was performed using Minitab version 13.3 We used the ANOVA model with main effects for consumer, product and context plus all the two-factor interactions The main effects of the consumers and their interactions with other effects are considered random, the remaining ef-fects are fixed

A separate ANOVA was conducted for the first ses-sion only for each of the three groups (without any possible bias from previous sessions), group A in labo-ratory, group B in home and group C in central loca-tion The model used was one with main effects for consumer and product (interaction was confounded with error) This model was also used to determine significantly different samples with respect to hedonic liking in each of the three testing situations Three sep-arate ANOVA analyses were performed, one data set (87 consumers) for each of the testing locations Tukey’s method for pairwise comparisons was used

3 Results

A PCA-plot (bi-plot) obtained from the significant sensory attributes for the 15 cheese samples is presented

in Fig 1 Principal component 1 (PC1) and principal component 2 (PC2) respectively accounted for 55% and 26% of the total variance The cross-validation (results not shown) confirmed that interpretation of the first two components is valid On the basis of the results from the descriptive test and the two mentioned criteria (Section 2.2) we selected the following cheeses for the consumer tests: 1, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14 We considered the chosen cheese samples to be sufficiently different in consistency and flavour attributes to be perceived as different by the consumers

The results from the ANOVA with all the three testing situations and all consumers included are shown

in Table 3 As can be seen, there is a significant main effect for consumers (p¼ 0:01) and a significant inter-action effect between consumer and product (p¼ 0:01)

Table 2

Similarities and differences among the three experimental conditions in the consumer study

Laboratory Central location Home Controlled serving order a Yes Yes No

Instructions about cutting Yes Yes Yes

Temperature of cheese samples 12–14 C ? ?

Social interaction No Yes (limited) Yes

Bread, crisp bread, biscuits Nothing Nothing Freedom of choice

Beverages Water Water Freedom of choice

a

Balanced for order and carry-over effects.

The effect of product is also significant (p¼ 0:01), which

means that type of cheese significantly influenced the

rating of liking Neither the effect of context nor its

interaction with consumer are significant at the 5% level

The interaction between product and context is

signifi-cant (p¼ 0:01) The interaction plot is given in Fig 2

As can be seen, the interaction effect is mainly due to

cheese number 4 and cheese number 9 Both samples

show a larger variation in average rating between test

situations than the other samples For cheese number 4,

the laboratory environment gave the highest rating and

for cheese number 9, the in-home situation gave the

highest rating

The same type of ANOVA was also run for each of

the three consumer groups (group A, B and C, results

not shown) separately Likewise, three separate

ANO-VAs were run for each of the first testing situations The

results gave the same overall conclusion as for the full

analysis, indicating no effect of the order of the testing

situation

Table 4 shows data from the in-home testing The

majority of the consumers (80%) tasted the cheese

samples without any kind of bread, while 20% had

bread, crisp bread or biscuits together with the cheese

More than half of the consumers were drinking water

while testing the cheese samples and 16% used other

beverages About 50% of the consumers did the testing

alone

Fig 3 shows the average scores and the ranking of the cheese samples Samples which are not significantly different at 5% level (Tukey’s method) are marked with lines As can be seen, the ranking of the cheese samples was similar in the three testing situations Samples 11 and 8 were the most preferred samples in all three sit-uations and sample 9 the least preferred However, the clustering of samples in the three situations is different For the central location test the overlap is the strongest, while for the in-home test the overlap is the weakest For the laboratory testing, the mid group overlaps with both the high and low groups of samples

Detailed information about average ratings of cheese samples and the standard deviations together with the total averages of the standard deviation per cheese sample and per testing situation are shown in Table 5 The table shows fairly equal average standard deviations

in liking for the three testing situations and more vari-ation in average standard devivari-ations for cheese samples Samples 1 and 11 have the smallest standard deviations while sample 9 has the largest

Table 3

Results from ANOVA of the experimental design shown in Table 1

Variable Degrees of

freedom

F -value P -value a

Consumer 86 1.88 0.01

Product 5 8.93 0.01

Context 2 0.40 0.67

Consumer· Product 430 3.98 0.01

Consumer· Context 10 0.92 0.52

Product· Context 172 1.47 0.01

a P-value of 0.01 means equal to or less than 0.01.

Fig 2 Illustration of interaction effects between product and testing

location Average rating for each product in each testing location.

H ¼ in home testing, CL ¼ central location, L ¼ laboratory.

Table 4 Reported testing conditions from in-home testing Bread, crisp-bread or biscuits N ¼ 80 Without 80%

With 20% Beverages N ¼ 79 Without 28%

Water 56% Other 16% Social interaction N ¼ 74 Alone 49%

Social group

51%

Reported percent is calculated as a percent of N ¼ consumers who answered this particular question.

Fig 3 Average hedonic ratings and ranking of the cheese samples in the three testing situations Different letters means different ratings at the 5% level of significance, calculated on the three different data sets separately.

To further study the effect of testing condition, a PCA

on the consumers scores of the six cheese samples (1, 4,

8, 9, 11, 14) in each location was performed (87

con-sumers as rows and 3 testing locations· 6 cheeses ¼ 18

samples as columns in the data matrix) The PCA score

plot of the analysis is presented in Fig 4 The two first

principal components described 45% of the variation in

the data Fig 4 shows that the principal components are

more related to products than to testing conditions

Hedonic ratings for the same product in the three

dif-ferent locations are relatively similar This supports the

findings above; the preference pattern among the

con-sumers was independent of testing location

4 Discussion

The main finding of this study was that testing

loca-tion had no significant effect on hedonic liking for a

selection of semi-hard and hard cheeses (shown in

Ta-bles 3, 5 and Figs 2–4) In the following we will discuss

similarities and differences between our findings and

previous published results from related studies

Meiselman (1996) has pointed out the situation in

which food is consumed as an important context factor

An example of a study where location was important for

the hedonic ratings is the one conducted by Meiselman, Johnson, Reeve, and Crouch (2000) The main finding in this paper was the consistently higher ratings of res-taurant food over cafeteria food, when the food was identical A study by Edwards, Meiselman, Edwards, and Lesher (2003) gave similar results However, in these studies effects of contextual variables were studied

in natural eating environments Our study has another approach as we have investigated the effect of environ-ments and social interaction in consumer testing The relationship between food or beverage intake on one side and social influence or facilitation on the other, has previously been established by for instance de Cas-tro, Brewer, Elmore, and Orozco (1990) and de Castro and de Castro (1989) Consistent with those findings Hersleth, Mevik, Næs, and Guinard (2003) found that hedonic ratings for Chardonney wines were higher in a reception room where some degree of socialising oc-curred, than in individual booths in a laboratory The present study also focuses on differences in social interaction In the laboratory no social interaction was possible, but the two other settings allowed for social influence (Table 2) It was observed that most consum-ers had standard small talk about everyday subjects during the central location test and, as shown in Table 4, more than 50 percent of the consumers performed the cheese testing at home together with family and/or friends However, the increased element of social atmosphere did not contribute to change the hedonic ratings of the cheese samples One reason could be a lack of natural meal context The consumers knew, from the information given during recruiting, that they were participating in consumer testing A consequence could

be that they felt the cheese tasting as an arranged event

in all three situations Moreover, in the central location test the consumers were served plain cheese samples with water as beverages and in the home test only 20% stated that they had bread, crisp bread or biscuits together with the cheese and 56% chose to drink water One possible explanation for the contrary effect of social interaction

in the wine study (Hersleth et al., 2003) compared with the results from the present cheese study, could therefore

Table 5

Average hedonic ratings with standard deviations from the three testing situations

Product Average rating Standard deviation Average a

Laboratory CL Home Lab CL Home

CL¼ central location.

a

Total averages of the standard deviation per product and per testing situation.

Fig 4 PCA loading-plot on the consumers rating of six cheeses in the

three testing L ¼ laboratory, CL ¼ central location, H ¼ in home.

be that the arranged wine tasting sessions in the

recep-tion room were experienced as more natural than the

corresponding cheese testing sessions Wine tasting for

the consumers recruited in California was probably a

more ‘‘natural activity’’ than cheese tasting for the

consumers recruited in Norway

Another study of the effects of social interaction,

physical environment and food choice freedom on

consumption in a meal-testing environment was recently

published by Weber, King, and Meiselman (2004) They

found that social interaction alone had no detectable

impact on food consumption In this case, the reason

possibly was that the meal duration was too short to

increase consumption Findings by Feunekes, de Graaf,

and Staveren (1995) suggest that increased meal

dura-tion is responsible for the increase in consumpdura-tion

ob-served with social interaction Additionally, the subjects

may not have felt comfortable enough with other

par-ticipates to socialise freely de Castro (1994) found in

their study that family and friends had a larger impact

on food intake than other companions

In the wine study (Hersleth et al., 2003) the wines

were rated higher when served with food than without

However, since most consumers in the home situation

chose to test the cheese as a single food item, we were

not able to test the effect of eating other foods and

beverages in this study

Expectations have been thoroughly investigated by

Cardello (1992, 1995) When customers are served

identical food in different locations, the customers’

existing expectations lead them to rate the food in a

non-institutional setting higher than the food in an

institu-tional setting (Cardello, 1995; Edwards et al., 2003) In

these studies the expectations were both sensory-based

and based (Cardello, 1992) and the

hedonic-based expectations were probably different in each

location It is likely that the expectations in our study

primarily were sensory-based as we did blind testing of a

single food item in a testing situation as opposed to

branded testing, meal testing and/or testing under more

natural eating conditions These sensory-based

expec-tations were probably quite equal in all the three testing

situations and accordingly resulted in stable hedonic

ratings of the cheeses

Another possible reason for the stability of the

he-donic ratings in our study could be the consumers’

de-gree of familiarity with the presented products A study

by Pound and Duizer (2000) supports this assumption

Pound and Duizer (2000) measured consumer responses

for overall liking of commercial chocolate in four types

of testing situations (central location, in-home, teaching

laboratory and formal sensory laboratory) and found

that testing in all four locations gave similar results All

identifying features were removed from the chocolate

prior to testing, so the panellists were not influenced by

the brand of the chocolate However, products tested in

the experiment were well-known milk chocolates

project were also well-known products used in Norway

in various meal contexts from early childhood The consumers may consequently have developed a quite stable preference pattern for these cheeses

The consumers in our study rated the same set of cheeses three times A possible reason for no effect of the testing situation could therefore be that the consumers suspected the purpose of the study and scored accord-ingly This would, however, require that the consumers remembered the scores given in the previous sessions Statements from the consumers during the testing and results from the ANOVA of the acceptance ratings of the cheese samples in the first testing session only, without any possible bias from previous sessions, indi-cate that this was probably not the case

The aspect of product familiarity may also be rele-vant for a discussion of consumer’s consistency If we do not assume any effect of testing situation, we may con-sider our experiment as repeated hedonic measurements

in three separate occasions K€oster et al (2002) claim that ‘‘one may not expect that the same population will say the same thing when offered the same set of samples

on two separate occasions’’ In our study the consumers showed a clear consistency in ratings between sessions This result may also be explained by the consumers familiarity with the presented product category, this in contrast to hedonic testing of products with a higher degree of novelty (K€oster, 2003; K€oster et al., 2002; L
evy & K€oster, 1999)

Although we have demonstrated a relatively clear consistency in hedonic ratings between sessions, some variation between cheese samples was present as shown

in Table 5 Samples 1 and 11 provided the most con-sistent judgements (least standard deviation) and were the most liked samples (in addition to sample 8) in all three testing situations Sample 9 provided the least consistent judgements (largest standard deviation) and was the least liked sample in all three testing situations McEwan (1997) published a study about consistency in results over test methods, considering also repeatability

of individual consumer judgements McEwan pointed out, in good correspondence with our results, that the sample that provided the most consistent judgements was one of the most liked samples Moreover, in our experiment, the consumers were probably least familiar with cheese number 9 as this cheese has the lowest sales figures in the market Consequently, the relatively large standard deviation across testing situation for sample number 9 and the observed interaction between product and context mainly due to the same sample (Fig 2), indicate that effects of contextual factors in consumer testing both are dependent on the declared liking for the tested products and the degree of familiarity with the presented product category

5 Conclusion

Changing the environments and the degree of social

interaction during a consumer test had no significant

effect on hedonic ratings for a selection of semi-hard and

hard cheeses in this study Lack of a natural meal

con-text during testing, similar expectations in the three

testing situations and high familiarity of the product

category may explain the high degree of consistency in

hedonic ratings between sessions The differences

be-tween our results and results from related studies should

encourage more studies of contextual variables in

ar-ranged testing environments and natural eating

envi-ronments with product categories of different levels of

familiarity

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Tine BA,

Norway, who contributed with products in this project

In particular we want to express our gratefulness to

Mari Austvoll Ilseng for good advice and

recommen-dations during the project In addition, we want to

thank the referees for valuable comments during the

preparation of the paper

References

Bell, R., & Meiselman, H L (1995) The role of eating environments

in determining food choice In D Marshall (Ed.), Food choice and

the consumer (pp 292–310) Glasgow: Blackie Academic &

Professional.

Cardello, A V (1992) Consumer expectations and their role in food

acceptance In H J H MacFie & D M H Thomson (Eds.),

Measurement of food preferences (pp 253–297) Glasgow: Blackie

Academic and Professional.

Cardello, A V (1995) Food Quality: Relativity, context and

consumer expectations Food Quality and Preference, 6, 163–170.

Cardello, A V., Schutz, H G., Snow, C., & Lesher, L (2000).

Predictors of food acceptance, consumption and satisfaction in

specific eating situations Food Quality and Preference, 11, 201–216.

de Castro, J M (1994) Family and friends produce greater social

facilitation of food intake than other companions Physiology &

Behavior, 56, 445–455.

de Castro, J M., Brewer, E M., Elmore, D K., & Orozco, S (1990).

Social facilitation of the spontaneous meal size of humans occurs

regardless of time, place, alcohol or snacks Appetite, 15, 89–101.

de Castro, J M., & de Castro, E S (1989) Spontaneous meal patterns

of humans: influence of the presence of other people American

Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 50, 237–247.

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, 647–652.

Feunekes, G I J., de Graaf, C., & Staveren, W A (1995) Social facilitation of food intake is mediated by meal duration Physiology

& Behavior, 58, 551–558.

Hersleth, M., Mevik, B.-H., Næs, R., & Guinard, J.-X (2003) Effect

of contextual factors on liking for wine––use of robust design methodology Food Quality and Preference, 14, 615–622 King, S., Weber, A., Meiselman, H.L., & Lv, N (in press) The effect

of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability Food Quality and Preference Kozlowska, K., Jeruszka, M., Matuszewska, I., Roszkowski, W., Barylko-Pikielna, N., & Brzozowska, A (2003) Hedonic tests in different locations as predictors of apple juice consumption at home in elderly and young subjects Food Quality and Preference,

14, 653–661.

K€ oster, E P (2003) The psychology of food choice: some often encountered fallacies Food Quality and Preference, 14, 359–373 K€ oster, E P., Couronne, T., L
eon, F., L
evy, C., & Marcelino, A S (2002) Repeatability in hedonic sensory measurement: a concep-tual exploration Food Quality and Preference, 14, 165–176 Lawless, H T., & Heymann, H (1999) Sensory evaluation of food Principles and practices New York: Chapman & Hall.

L
evy, C M., & K€ oster, E P (1999) The relevance of initial hedonic judgements in the prediction of subtle food choices Food Quality and Preference, 10, 185–200.

MacFie, H J H., Bratchell, N., Greenhoff, K., & Vallis, L V (1989) Designs to balance the effect of order of presentation and first-order carry-over effects in hall tests Journal of Sensory Studies, 4, 129–148 Mardia, K V., Kent, J T., & Bibby, J M (1980) Multivariate analysis London: Academic Press.

Martens, H., & Næs, T (1989) Multivariate calibration Chichester, UK.

McEwan, J A (1997) A comparative study of three product acceptability trials Food Quality and Preference, 8(3), 183–190 Meilgaard, M C., Civille, G V., & Carr, B T (1991) Sensory evaluation techniques Boca Raton: CRC Press, Inc.

Meiselman, H L (1992) Methodology and theory in human eating research Appetite, 19, 49–55.

Meiselman, H L (1993) Critical evaluation of sensory techniques Food Quality and Preference, 4, 33–40.

Meiselman, H L (1996) The contextual basis for food acceptance, food choice and food intake: the food, the situation and the individual In H L Meiselman & H J H MacFie (Eds.), Food choice acceptance and consumption (pp 139–263) Glasgow: Blackie Academic and Professional.

Meiselman, H L., Johnson, J L., Reeve, W., & Crouch, J E (2000) Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance Appetite, 35, 231–237.

Peryam, D R., & Pilgrim, F J (1957) Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences Food Technology, 11, 9–14.

Pound, C., & Duizer, L (2000) Improved consumer product devel-opment Part one Is a laboratory necessary to assess consumer opinion? British Food Journal, 102(11), 810–820.

Rozin, P., & Tuorila, H (1993) Simultaneous and temporal contextual influences in food acceptance Food Quality and Preference, 4, 11–20 Schutz, H G (1999) Consumer data––sense and nonsense Food Quality and Preference, 10, 245–251.

Stone, H., & Sidel, J L (1992) Sensory evaluation practices San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Weber, A J., King, S., & Meiselman, H L (2004) Effects of social interaction, physical environment and food choice freedom on consumption in a meal-testing environment Appetite, 42, 115–118.