Hedonic ratings and consumption of school lunch among preschool children

Research challenges and methods to study food preferences in school-aged children: A review of the last 15years

“…This is achieved by manipulating the fat content in food formulations (Kildegaard, Løkke, & Thybo, 2011;Olsen, van Belle, Meyermann, & Keller, 2011) or by studying the sensory aspects that best correlate with children's acceptance of fruits (Kühn & Thybo, 2001;Thybo, Kühn, & Martens, 2003;Torrieri, Di Monaco, Cavella, & Masi, 2008), vegetables (Brueckner, Schonhof, Schroedter, & Kornelson, 2007), and whole-grain bakery products (Delk & Vickers, 2007). In the context of food product development, several studies have focused on optimization of school meals (Caporale, Policastro, Tuorila, & Monteleone, 2009;Donadini, Fumi, & Porretta, 2013;Donadini, Fumi, Vanoni, & Porretta, 2012;Hausner, Hartvig, Reinbach, Wendin, & Bredie, 2012;Lakkakula, Geaghan, Zanovec, Pierce, & Tuuri, 2010;Pagliarini, Gabbiadini, & Ratti, 2005;Pagliarini, Ratti, Balzaretti, & Dragoni, 2003), indicating a certain interest in consumer testing with children in a real eating context. Other investigations have assessed specific sensory aspects (e.g.…”

“…Pagliarini et al (2005) speculated that the difference was not related to misunderstanding of the scale but rather to the development of preference due to the acquisition of a more critical attitude towards food as a consequence of exposure to a more varied diet rather than to different use of the scale. Interestingly, Caporale et al (2009) reported that the 7-point hedonic facial scale may also be successfully administered to very young children (i.e. 4-5 years old) as they showed that hedonic ratings predicted subsequent food intake, thus demonstrating the predictive validity of the measurement.…”

School meal acceptance depends on the dish, student, and context

“…Attention has also been paid to waste (Cohen, Richardson, Parker, Catalano, & Rimm, 2014;Marlette, Templeton, & Panemangalore, 2005), indicating that the acceptance of school lunch is an issue. Indeed, the weighted leftovers were highly predicted by hedonic ratings of daily school lunch among pre-school children (r = À0.96) (Caporale, Policastro, Tuorila, & Monteleone, 2009).…”

“…Some have relied on memorized responses (e.g., Pagliarini, Gabbiadini, & Ratti, 2005), others have presented photographs of foods served at school (e.g., Noble, Corney, Eves, Kipps, & Lumbers, 2000). Hedonic responses to actual dishes have been rarely collected, an exception being the study by Caporale et al (2009) in which the children rated samples of the school meal before attending the lunch; after each lunch their leftovers were recorded. Evaluation of actual dishes should be useful for caterers and help to understand and predict children's perception of meals in a real eating context.…”

A comparison of two new take-away strategies and their relation to rating and ranking of extrinsic properties of dry cured ham

“…The most wellknown tests are probably the various types of experimental auctions (Lange, Martin, Chabanet, Combris, & Issanchou, 2002) and studies based on monitoring real choices made by the consumer in restaurants and canteens (see for instance Caporale, Policastro, Tuorila, & Monteleone, 2009;King, Weber, Meiselman, & Lv, 2004;Rosas-Nexticapa, Angulu, & O'Mahony, 2005). Other approaches based on for instance various take-away strategies (Mustonen, Hissa, Huotilainen, Miettinen, & Tuorila, 2007;Weiss, O'Mahony, & Wichchukit, 2010;Wichchukit & O'Mahony, 2011) have also been suggested.…”