Consumer Attitudes Toward Texture and Other Food Attributes

Luckett, Curtis R.; Seo, Han‐Seok

doi:10.1111/jtxs.12110

Cited by 22 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study clearly shows that depending on the food, a texture may be accepted or rejected. For instance, crunchy and crispy, for a US population, are among the most liked textures (Luckett & Seo, 2015). However, they are also leading causes of rejection when present in certain foods like onions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aversive textures and their role in food rejection

Pellegrino

Luckett

2020

Journal of Texture Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Texture is a prominent feature in foods and consequently can be the reason a food is accepted or rejected. However, other sensory attributes, such as flavor/taste, aroma, sound, and appearance may also lead to the rejection of food and motivations other than unpleasantness exist in unacceptance. To date, these motivations for food rejection have been studied in isolation and their relationships with psychological factors have not been tested. This study measured reasons people reject a food and probed into the specifics of texture rejection. A large U.S. sample (N = 473) was asked to rate their motivations for rejecting a food, list foods that were disliked due to unpleasant sensory attributes, specify the unpleasant sensory attribute(s), and complete an assessment of general touch sensitivity. Results showed 94% of individuals reject a food due to its texture, a rate comparable to flavor-based rejection. Looking at the number of foods being rejected, flavor was the most common food attribute, followed by texture and then aroma. From a linguistic standpoint, aversive textures encompass a large vocabulary, larger than liked textures, and the same food may be rejected due to a single or combination of texture terms. Viscosity (e.g., slimy) and hardness (e.g., mushy) are the most common aversive texture types, but through cluster analysis subsets of individuals were identified that are more aversive to other textures. This study emphasizes the role of aversive textures in food rejection and provides many avenues for future investigations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aversive textures and their role in food rejection

Pellegrino

Luckett

2020

Journal of Texture Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Szczesniak () found that texture is taken for granted and consumers do not comment on it unless texture is off or inappropriate (Szczesniak, ). Food texture is a discernible attribute, and in some foods (meat, apples, and potato), it may be more important than flavor (Hogenkamp, Stafleu, Mars, Brunstrom, & de Graaf, ; Luckett & Seo, ; Nicklaus, Demonteil, & Tournier, ; Szczesniak, ). Previous research indicated overall consumer acceptability of pork was first related to tenderness, followed by flavor intensity and then by juiciness (Moeller et al, ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Szczesniak (2002) found that texture is taken for granted and consumers do not comment on it unless texture is off or inappropriate (Szczesniak, 2002). Food texture is a discernible attribute, and in some foods (meat, apples, and potato), it may be more important than flavor (Hogenkamp, Stafleu, Mars, Brunstrom, & de Graaf, 2011;Luckett & Seo, 2015;Nicklaus, Demonteil, & Tournier, 2015;Szczesniak, 1971).…”

Section: Understanding Consumer Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Using correspondence analysis to evaluate consumer terminology and understand the effects of smoking method and type of wood on the sensory perception of smoked meat

Sharma

Swaney‐Stueve

Severns

et al. 2019

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been established that consumers are capable of hedonic judgments, but their role beyond hedonics continues to be debated. Many novel methodologies, such as sorting, word association, napping, flash profiling, and so forth, have been extensively developed and used in the past few decades to describe, differentiate, and classify products while gathering consumer terminology, using untrained or semi‐trained assessors to meet cost and time commitments. This study was designed to provide another way to document consumer perceptions using their own terminology and explore analysis options by assessing “open‐ended” responses. A total of 149 consumers from the Kansas City area evaluated smoked pork prepared using electric and offset smokers and four wood types (apple, oak, hickory, and mesquite). The prompted terms provided information about the attributes that drive consumers' likes and dislikes using their own language. Correspondence analysis was used to obtain a plot of the samples based on consumers' descriptions. Open‐ended questions highlighted textural attributes as a chief modality, driving consumers' “tasty” perception, backed by 9‐point liking data. Offset smoked pork was liked more by consumers than pork smoked using an electric smoker. Practical Applications Findings from this study contribute to methodology understanding, applicability, and further developments when collecting consumer terminology to assess sensory differentiation among products. The use of open‐ended questions as a stand‐alone method for terminology generation has been highlighted in this experiment. Additionally, consumer terminology was generated to uncover the key attributes of a product. In this case, we used the famous Kansas City‐style barbeque as an example that could help pit masters, food developers, chefs, and others working in the hospitality/culinary or restaurant industry perfect their classic recipes using consumer friendly terms.

show abstract

“…Healthy individuals have a predominantly positive disposition toward eating foods and commercial food products were likely to evoke pleasant emotions (Desmet & Schifferstein, ). Luckett and Seo () stated that most respondents chose the “like” subcategory to indicate personal preference for the food sample. These might lead to a hedonic asymmetry tendency for some products.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Korean consumers’ acceptability of commercial food products and usage of the 9‐point hedonic scale

Jun

Lee

2018

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, 32 food samples evaluated previously with the 9-point hedonic scale were examined to determine: (a) Korean consumers' acceptability of commercial food products;(b) differences in liking score and its distribution among the samples; and (c) the use of the 9-point hedonic scale by Korean consumers. The results show the existence of hedonic asymmetry and central tendency, but not much evidence of avoiding extreme categories. Cluster analysis was utilized to group food products based on consumers' 9-point hedonic scale distribution and four clusters were found to show positive asymmetry, negative asymmetry, central tendency, or consumers' opinion showing no trend. Practical applicationsMany consumer testing methods are used to evaluate consumer acceptability of food products and the 9-point hedonic scale is the most frequently used scale. Many studies refer to the limitations of 9-point hedonic scale and this problem can appear to be more severe in the case of Asian consumers. Because of the lack of consumer studies about scale usage, it is important to study how consumers use the 9-point hedonic scale. This research is beneficial because we analyzed how Korean consumers use the 9-point hedonic scale. Through this study, some previously reported tendencies, such as hedonic asymmetry and central tendency, were confirmed but the limitations regarding avoidance of extreme categories and negative responses by Asian consumers were not found for urban Korean consumers using the 9-point hedonic scale. In the future, comparison with other groups in Korea and a cross-cultural consumer study about scale usage to compare Korean consumers and those from other Asian countries would be helpful.

show abstract

Consumer Attitudes Toward Texture and Other Food Attributes

Cited by 22 publications

References 31 publications

Aversive textures and their role in food rejection

Aversive textures and their role in food rejection

Using correspondence analysis to evaluate consumer terminology and understand the effects of smoking method and type of wood on the sensory perception of smoked meat

Korean consumers’ acceptability of commercial food products and usage of the 9‐point hedonic scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About