Labeling and Information Effects on Sensory Acceptance
Consumers’ sensory acceptance of food products is complex and interdisciplinary, encompassing all aspects of food science, marketing, nutrition, psychology and hospitality1. Acceptance depends on many things: sensory attributes, consumer physiological, behavioral and cognitive factors23 and the ability to understand these variables is important.
Research shows that cues: intrinsic and extrinsic, help to study sensory acceptance. Intrinsic characteristics, including taste, aroma and color often cannot be altered without changing the nature of the product and these characteristics are usually specific to the product. Extrinsic characteristics include brand name, price, advertisement, labeling and country of origin4. The U.S. has become interested in also knowing about quality attributes such as food safety, animal welfare and organic production5.
No matter which cues are being tested, in order to collect as much information as possible from consumers, it is necessary to consider the amount of information provided in the study. Blind testing is defined by Moskowitz6 as evaluating products without the benefit of product identification. Branded testing is evaluating products with some product knowledge given to the consumer. Moskowitz6 said that when a consumer assigns an attribute rating to a product without knowledge of product identification, ratings may dramatically change when they are given the identification.
According to Siret and Issanchou7, labeling usually is considered to have a positive effect on overall acceptability. Bower, Saadat and Whitten8 evaluated 70 consumers and looked at the effect of liking, information, and consumer characteristics on purchase intent and willingness to pay more for two fat spreads with proven health benefits. Unlabeled testing showed significant differences in overall liking of the spreads and purchase intent. Labeled testing also showed a significant difference in overall liking when information was provided. Results showed that purchase intent was significantly affected by label information, such as price and nutritional benefit. The significant difference in liking between the two spreads contributed to the intention to buy, with higher purchase intent for the product which was liked more. This study indicates that consumers are aware of the label information on products.
Other times labeling could have a negative effect on consumer acceptability. Cues often are communicated by the media to influence consumers’ liking of different products8. Berger and Mitchell9 showed that advertising can influence more than just the evaluation dimensions of attitudes. It can influence how easily an evaluation is accessed from memory, how confidently it is held and how likely it is to influence subsequent behavior. For example, Siret and Issanchou7 found that non-traditional information provided on ground pâtés from France created low expectations and had a negative effect on visual evaluations. Levis and Chambers10 showed that labeling products as low salt reduced scores for low salt potato chips, which they associated with negative perceptions about more healthful products at the time. When consumers have a negative acceptance of a product it can lead them not purchasing the product. Deliza and MacFie11 stated that how advertisements are presented, as well as the price and appearance, can appeal to consumers differently.
If testing of consumer acceptance is the study objective, then considering the effect of labeling will be important to successful results. It is widely known that sensory properties are important to determine consumer liking of products and paying attention to the effect of different types of labeling could enhance knowledge in the product category. Incorporating label information and not manipulate the data being collected leads to a successful learning experience of the product.
1 Imram, N. (1999) The role of visual cues in consumer perception and acceptance of a food product. Nutrition and Food Science, 5 (September/October), 224-228.
2 Monaco, R. D., Cavella, S., Di Marzo, S. and Masi, P. (2004) The effect of expectations generated by brand name on the acceptability of dried semolina pasta. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 429-437.
3 Nasser, A., Dine, El. and Olabi, A. 2009. Effect of Reference Foods in Repeated Acceptability Tests: Testing Familiar and Novel Foods Using 2 Acceptability Scales. J of Food Science, 74, 2, p 97-106.
4 Jover, A. J.V., Montes, F. J. L., & Fuentes, M. d. M. F. (2004) Measuring perceptions of quality in food products: the case of red wine. Food Quality and Preference, 15(5), 453-469.
5 Beriain, M. J., Sanchez, M. and Carr, T. R. (2009) A comparison of consumer sensory acceptance, purchase intention, and willingness to pay for high quality United States and Spanish beef under different information scenarios. J Animal Science, 87, 3392-3402.
6 Moskowitz, H. R. (1985) New Directions for Product Testing and Sensory Analysis of Foods, Westport, Connecticut: Food & Nutrition Press, Inc pg 53.
7 Siret, F. and S. Issancho (2000) Traditional process: influence on sensory properties and on consumers’ expectation and liking Application to pate de campagne. Food Quality and Preference 11 p 217-228.
8 Bower, J. A., Saadat, M. A. and Whitten, C. (2003) Effect of liking, information and consumer characteristics on purchase intention and willingness to pay for a fat spread with a proven health benefit. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 65-74.
9 Berger, I. E. and Mitchell, A. A. (1989) The effect of advertising on attitude accessibility, attitude confidence, and the attitude-behavior relationship. J Consumer Research, 16 (3), 269-279.
10 Levis, P.A. and Chambers, E. IV. (1996) Influence of health concepts and product acceptance: a study with plain potato chips. J. Food Prod. Marketing 3(4): 45-63.
11 Deliza, R. and MacFie H. J. H. (1996) The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. J Sensory Studies, 11, 103-128.
Bibliography: Some Examples of Relevant Studies
12 Allison, R. I. and Uhl, K. P. (1964) Influence of beer brand identification on taste perception. J. Marketing Research, 1 (3), 36-39.
13 Bengston, R. and Brenner, H. (1964) Product test results using three different methodologies. J. Marketing Research, 1 (4), 49-52.
14 Bilkey, Warren J. and Erik Nes, (1982) Country of origin effects on product evaluations. J. International Business Studies 13:1 p 89-99.
15 Cardello, A. V. (1994) Consumer Expectations and Their Role in Food Acceptance. Measurement of Food Preferences, New York: Blackie Academic & Professional, 253-297.
16 Dichter, Ernest (1962) The world customer. Harvard Business Review, 40 p 113-122.
17 Feltzenstein, C., & Dinnie, K. (2005) The effects of country of origin on UK consumers’ perceptions of imported wines. J. Food Products Marketing, 11(4), 119-127.
18 Gimenez, A., Ares, G. and Gambaro, A. (2008) Consumer attitude towards shelf-life labeling: does it influence acceptance? J. Sensory Studies, 23, P871-883.
19 Guinard, J. X., Uotani, B. and Schlich P. (2001) Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: comparison of hedonic ratings by consumer blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Quality and Preference, 12, 243-255.
20 Issanchou, S. (1996) Consumer expectations and perceptions of meat and meat product quality. Meat Science, 43, S5-S19.
21 Jover, A. J. Verdu, Montes, F. J. L. and Maria del Mar Fuentes (2004) Measuring perceptions of quality in food products: The case of red wine. Food Quality and Preference, 15, 453-469.
22 Moskowitz, H. R., Benzaquen, I. and Ritacco, G. (1981) What do consumers really think about your product? Food Engineering, 1 (Nov), 80-82.
23 Peterson, Robert A. and Alain J. P. Joliber (1995) A meta-analysis of country of origin effects. J. International Business Studies 26:4 p 883-900.
24 Quagrainie, K. K., Unterschultz, J. and Veeman, M. (1998) Effects of product origin and selected demographics on consumer choice of red meats. Canadian J. Agricultural Economics, 46, 201-219.
25 Roosen, J., Marette, S., Blanchemanche, S. and Verger, P. (2007). The effect of product health information on liking and choice. Food Quality and Preference 18, 759–770
26 Sosa, M. and Sidel, J.L. (2006) Sensory expectations of children from different household incomes for branded confectionery product. J. Sensory Studies, 21(2), 155-164.
27 Steenkamp, (1990) Conceptual model of the quality perception process. J. Business Research, 21, p 309-333.
28 Tuorila, H., Andersson, A., Martikainen, A. and Salovaara, H. (1998). Effect of product formula, information and consumer characteristics on the acceptance of a new snack food. Food Quality and Preference 9, p313–320
29 Verlegh, Peeter W. J. and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, (1999) A review and meta-analysis of country of origin research. J. of Economic Psychology 20, p 521-546.
30 Vázquez, M.B., Curia, A. and Hough, G. 2009. Sensory descriptive analysis, sensory acceptability and expectation studies on biscuits with reduced added salt and increased fiber. J. Sensory Studies, 24, p 498-511.