Alcoholic beverages in context

Alcoholic beverages in context Susan E.P. Bastian, Lukas Danner, Jun Niimi, Renata Ristic, Trent E. Johnson School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Waite Research Institute, The University of Adelaide (UA), Glen Osmond, SA, Australia

29.1

29

Introduction

Consumers purchase alcoholic beverages based on the consumption occasion including celebrations, milestones, enjoyment, socializing, relaxation, and dining. Importantly, they buy and re-purchase beverages based on sensory properties. Although product aroma and flavor are essential sensory elements underpinning consumer purchase, preference and re-purchase (King et al., 2010; Lattey, Bramley, & Francis, 2010), consumer perceptions, and decision-making are highly likely to be influenced by product-evoked emotions and the context of consumption (Desmet & Schifferstein, 2008; King, Meiselman, Hottenstein, Work, & Cronk, 2007). Context takes into account the product, social, and environmental factors of the consumption moment. In an attempt to understand the connections between the intrinsic sensory properties of complex alcoholic beverages, and consumer liking and behavior, one finds a lack of understanding of the intricate interplay between the characteristics of the product, the consumers’ themselves, including their product-evoked emotions, and the features of the context. Further, the evaluation context will likely influence expert opinion. This chapter will explore the literature covering different contextual testing environments for alcoholic beverages, excluding ready-to-drink products and cocktails, but with a particular focus on wine. It will examine consumer perception, choice, hedonics, behavior, emotions and alcoholic beverages under different contexts; the practical issues involved with alcoholic beverage testing in different environments; and the potential research need around beverage expert reviews and context.

29.1.1 The unique case of alcoholic beverages Alcoholic beverages categorized as beers, wines, and spirits contain ethanol, often referred to by the layperson as alcohol. The economically important global alcoholic beverage market is vast and in 2017 was valued at $1.4 trillion US dollars and is forecast to reach $1.7 trillion US dollars by 2025 (Prasannan, 2018). Access to alcoholic beverage consumer insights, particularly the cultural and situational drivers of beverage usage and liking, is imperative for market growth and meeting consumers’ expectations. Since “alcoholic beverages” is a very broad product category, it contains a multitude of drinks, which vary widely from a sensory standpoint and also from a consumer use perspective. There are countless consumption setting possibilities for Context. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814495-4.00029-5 Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

606

Context

alcoholic beverages and it is likely that consumer and social interaction with beverages would vary depending on the consumption environment, alcoholic product and culture. Even within a more specific alcoholic beverage product category for e.g. wine or beer, there exist many styles, all with unique sensory profiles, and consequently one style may be more suited to a certain consumption occasion relative to another. For consumer testing of alcoholic beverages, it is crucial not to limit research to just the product and/or consumer, but to focus on the connection between product, consumer, and environment. Context was defined in thoughtful detail earlier in this book (see Chapter 1 by Meiselman). The variables involved with context include those from the physical environment, which are countless, and probably the most challenging to control. Secondly, context encompasses product variables, which may be controlled and highly defined chemically and by sensory means. Context also includes social variables such as the consumer and their characteristics (Bisogni et al., 2007; Meiselman, Johnson, Reeve, & Crouch, 2000; Weber, King, & Meiselman, 2004). Consumer characteristics can be specified in advance via consumer testing inclusion criteria or defined post-hoc using segmentation bases ( Johnson, Danner, & Bastian, 2017). A crucial aspect of social context, and especially important for alcoholic beverage consumption, is company e.g. work colleagues, family, or friends. Other people that may be present in context such as co-diners, waiting staff, or retailers also come under social variables. Whether out of social appropriateness or due to the product’s intrinsic characteristics of tastes, flavors, and perhaps alcohol level, some beverages are more suited to a given time of day or form part of a ritual (e.g. after dinner fortified wine, grappa, or brandy nightcap versus lower alcohol dry table wines with a lunchtime meal). In a similar vein, the beverage might be associated with the type of occasion such as a celebration (e.g., Champagne) or the meal (e.g., sweet wines with dessert). More recently, a between-nation study with 3000 regular wine consumers from Australia, the UK, and USA using an online survey was conducted (Ristic et al., 2019). “Lemon” wine aroma was associated with energetic feelings and this aroma was preferred in wines consumed at parties and barbeques in summer. “Chocolate” was preferred in wines for winter and which together with “rose” would suit dining in a restaurant providing happy and romantic emotions. Further realistic testing of wines comprised of these profiles during these seasons and in these settings are required to confirm these self-reported consumer opinions. Other factors make a drink suitable for specific occasions, aside from sensory properties. Qualitative research examining how UK wine consumers interact with wine in varied social situations showed wine would usually be the drink of choice with meals at home, at friends’ houses, or in restaurants, but not in either hotels that do not focus on serving meals or in nightclubs (Ritchie, 2007). Older consumers believed wine in these types of hotels would be horrible and expensive; thinking instead, beer would be better quality and the drink of choice in this setting. Bottled wine or glasses of wine in nightclubs were thought to be risky, as they presented personal security problems of either stealing or spiking of their drinks. When in a positive mood, the social, moderate consumers would drink a nice wine, but they would not consider the wine’s quality when in a more negative frame of mind. In a study of generation Y consumers from

Alcoholic beverages in context

607

Tuscany (Marinelli et al., 2014), wine is mostly bought in restaurants/pizzerias and supermarkets; beer is mainly purchased in bars/pubs/beer houses, supermarkets, and restaurants/pizzerias; and spirits are commonly bought in discos and dance clubs. This study also revealed that wine is consumed mostly during meals, yet beer and spirits are mostly consumed outdoors, in the evening, and during the weekend. Hall and Lockshin (1999) found that wine is purchased for different reasons and situations, including social status, cellaring, immediate consumption, gifting, a barbeque, dinner at home with family or friends, dinner out, celebrations, wakes, weddings, achievements, and milestone events. This all makes the examination of context effects on alcoholic beverages particularly intriguing, but also challenging. An additional complexity is added as different products interact in different ways with environmental variables, e.g., strong context effects were observed on liking of Chardonnay wines (Hersleth, Mevik, Næs, & Guinard, 2003), but not for cheese (Hersleth, Ueland, Allain, & Næs, 2005) or Shiraz wines (Danner et al., 2016). Alcoholic beverages, such as wine, are considered to be hedonic, experiential, and sensational products as opposed to being a utilitarian product (e.g., orange juice, milk) (Mort & Rose, 2004). Motivations to consume hedonic drinks such as wine, beer, and spirits should differ from utilitarian beverages, which are considered practical and useful and might solve a functional problem (e.g., for vitamin and mineral content). Utilitarian drinks are purchased with very different motivators, including quality, health, price, and number of and age of household children (Kurajdova & Ta´borecka-Petrovicova, 2015). It has been suggested wine is mainly consumed for hedonic reasons and the only functional motivation appears to be lubrication of the palate, i.e., as an accompaniment to food (Charters & Pettigrew, 2008). Silva et al. (2016) showed Dutch and Portuguese consumers have different conceptualizations for beer, wine, and nonalcoholic beer (NAB). Wine was associated with positive low arousal emotional responses, whereas beer was associated with positive high arousal emotional responses. NAB, on the other hand, had a limited conceptual content, mostly functional, evoking neutral and negative emotional responses. Charters and Pettigrew (2008) in a preliminary qualitative study of Australian consumers’ relationship with wine, showed wine consumption is for both symbolic and experiential purposes and the emphasis on either category depends on the precise consumption situation. Enjoyment (of wine taste and mood enhancement from drinking it) was the fundamental purpose for people to consume wine. However, the experiential and symbolic motivational factors can interact. For example, the experience of relaxation was linked to the symbolic ritual of having a drink to demarcate the end of a working day. It’s important to note that alcoholic beverage consumption can move from the social and hedonic to unsocial and harmful consumption (Ritchie, 2007); however, this topic is beyond the scope of the chapter and will not be covered further. The fact that results of studies on alcoholic beverages in one country do not necessarily apply to others must be considered. Even within countries, cultural practices around and opinions of alcoholic beverages varies between states and provinces (Bruwer, Fong, & Saliba, 2013; Hall & Lockshin, 1999). Consumer interaction with alcoholic beverages in a given nation is subject to that country’s culture, alcohol licensing regulations (Lockshin, Quester, & Spawton, 2001), climate, and differing

608

Context

retail channels. For example, unlike Germany or France, wine in Australia is generally (there are some exceptions) not sold in the supermarket environment. Differences in purchasing habits have been demonstrated depending on the intended usage and/or consumption situation. The purchase decision is influenced by whether intended usage is to be private or public. Low involvement wine drinkers see wine products as a symbol of family and good parties; whilst higher involvement consumers look for particular wines to mark important rites of passage (births, graduations, wakes) or identify significant stages in the development of social relationships (Ritchie, 2007). From examination of research on context and alcoholic beverages, what has become very apparent is firstly that the type of context effects observed are alcoholic beverage specific. Secondly, there is a significant gap in the literature on the topic of consumer perception and behavior under specific drinking occasions (e.g., wedding, horse races, different restaurants). Thirdly, the nuances that may exist between different cultures within these contexts and the culture by alcoholic beverage type interaction are unknown. What follows is a discussion of context effects and alcoholic beverages using different context methods.

29.2

Contextual effects on alcoholic beverages

The importance of occasion to consumers’ purchase of alcoholic beverage and consumption behavior is clear. As consumer perceptions towards food and beverage stimuli are highly influenced by the consumption moment, the purpose of including consumption context in consumer tests is to provide more meaning to the product of interest, making test results more ecologically valid. Furthermore, translation of findings about alcoholic products and consumers from data garnered in the sensory laboratory cannot always be extrapolated to consumer responses from the same products in real life (Danner et al., 2016). For alcoholic beverages, the diversity of products available, the countless possible consumption moments, impact of situation, and intended use, and the likely differences between and within culture impacts, make this product category particularly interesting but challenging to study. The context can influence beverage sensory perception, consumer hedonics, behavior, and emotions. Context is not only limited to external physical and social environment variables, but also includes internal variables such as emotions (Canetti, Bachar, & Berry, 2002; Macht, 1999; Macht & Simons, 2000), cultural background (Kurajdova & Ta´borecka-Petrovicova, 2015), and importantly the consumers’ traits, all of which require consideration. Studies have shown that the influence of consumption context on consumer responses can differ depending upon the product category and type, meaning that the combinations of product and context can give unique effects (Hein, Hamid, Jaeger, & Delahunty, 2010; Hersleth et al., 2005). Further research is necessary to uncover any general rules across categories. Consequently, the effect of environmental context on flavor perception and hedonics of alcoholic beverages should focus on a specific product type (e.g., wine, beer, or spirit) and even style (e.g., Cabernet Sauvignon versus Grenache; Ale versus Lager).

Alcoholic beverages in context

609

Multiple studies demonstrate that emotion measurement may provide deeper insight into the total consumer experience of food products (Danner, Haindl, Joechl, & Duerrschmid, 2014; Danner, Sidorkina, Joechl, & Duerrschmid, 2014; Ferrarini et al., 2010; Jaeger et al., 2017; Mojet et al., 2015; Ng, Chaya, & Hort, 2013a; Porcherot et al., 2010; Thomson, Crocker, & Marketo, 2010) and thus, worthy of inclusion in context research. Emotions may be defined as short-term, intense physiological, and mental reactions focused on a referent stimuli (e.g., wine flavor), and also connected to daily life experiences (Ferrarini et al., 2010). Wines can evoke the pleasant emotion, according to the wine consumption experience of Italian wine consumers who generated a 16 emotion term lexicon (Ferrarini et al., 2010). Usually food and beverages evoke positive emotions, but negative emotions have been associated with disliking (Cardello et al., 2012). Despite this, there are instances where variations in products can lead to more negative emotions, such as that seen with high alcohol beers (Chaya, Pacoud, Ng, Fenton, & Hort, 2015), green flavors in Cabernet Sauvignon ( Jiang, Niimi, Ristic, & Bastian, 2017), and overt astringency in wine (Niimi, Danner, Li, Bossan, & Bastian, 2017). Contextual influences on food behavior are studied using different approaches. However, beverage consumer tests have tended to occur in somewhat sterile, white, individual sensory booths where the influence of environmental attributes are highly controlled. These bland environments serve us very well under certain circumstances. It permits panelists to focus upon a beverage’s sensory attributes in the glass, which is useful if the study aims to determine for example, the impact of an ingredient change. Nevertheless, these laboratory conditions remove any meaningful contextual inputs important for forming consumer perceptions, emotions, preference, and behaviors. Furthermore, in these unstimulating environs, a lack of consumer engagement in the testing can result in disingenuous consumer data (Bisogni et al., 2007) with some respondents not succeeding to discriminate between samples through inattentiveness to the test (K€ oster, 2009). Recent food and beverage consumer research conducts tests under various context conditions, but the condition is realized in different ways. Evoked contexts verbally conjure particular settings through the consumers own imagination to study context, beverage consumption, and affective behavior. A second way to study context is to use the immersive context where the consumer is physically placed in a controlled laboratory that contains carefully selected elements that reflect the rich contextual situations provided by real settings. Taking this immersion one step further, consumers can be embedded in a virtual setting with footage that reflects a real or natural environment. Real settings are thought to be the ultimate contextual condition and are those that already exist in nature. To date, no definitive study has recommended best practice methods. The following sections will examine contextual effects on alcoholic beverage consumer perception, behavior, and hedonics examined using different context methods.

29.2.1 Contextual effects in laboratory-based research Under some circumstances, laboratory settings can be particularly useful to study context (Hetherington, Anderson, Norton, & Newson, 2006; King, Weber, Meiselman, & Lv, 2004; Weber et al., 2004; Chapter 10). These methods align with the additive

610

Context

model and allow the researcher to control the environment and manipulate one external contextual variable at a time. Further, there is no need for the researcher to travel nor consider a multitude of other factors in the set-up of the experiment. A potential limitation of this approach, however, is what K€ oster (2003) referred to as “situational fallacy” or the belief that situations are characterized by objectively measurable context variables that can be afterwards recombined. We do not know whether the impact one external contextual variable has in a given set of variables, will be the same in the company of a different set of variables.

29.2.1.1 Product information An extrinsic contextual factor that exists external to the product itself is associated with product information. Much research has indicated textual information that accompanies foods can alter perception, liking, choice, and consumption of the food. Information and packaging cues can influence expectations and therefore also affect emotional responses (Ng et al., 2013a; Spinelli, Masi, Dinnella, Zoboli, & Monteleone, 2014). The influence of extrinsic cues including: labelling (Dransfield, Zamora, & Bayle, 1998; Gallina Toschi et al., 2012; Norton, Fryer, & Parkinson, 2013); price (Guinard, Uotani, & Schlich, 2001); country of origin (Verdonk, Culbert, & Wilkinson, 2015); brand and/or the package itself (Mizutani et al., 2010); and verbal or written information (Cardello & Sawyer, 1992; Tuorila, Meiselman, Bell, Cardello, & Johnson, 1994) on sensory expectations and sensory perception of products has been widely studied (for an extensive review see Piqueras-Fiszman and Spence (2015)). This influence of information on hedonics, perception, and choice are variable, a fact that is predictable given the known complexity and number of variables that interact with one another in the processing of information prior to it having an impact on hedonics and behavior (Cardello & Meiselman, 2018). With labelling laws as they are to date, wine information in the Australian and New Zealand industries is limited to the mention of production % v/v alcohol, processing aids, and preservatives. However, the marketing element of the information about the wine is highly variable and can include producer, grape variety, vineyard, regional information, or more descriptive information about the wine’s sensory characteristics of aromas and flavors. The importance of wine labels and label information has been widely studied (Barber, Ismail, & Taylor, 2007; Chaney, 2000; Sherman & Tuten, 2011; Tang, Tchetchik, & Cohen, 2015; Thomas & Pickering, 2005) and for back labels in particular (Barber, Almanza, & Donovan, 2006; Kelly & Hyde, 2015; Mueller, Lockshin, Saltman, & Blanford, 2010), showing they play an important role for consumer choice. However, only a few studies have investigated the interplay of information presented on wine labels and intrinsic product characteristics in combination with preference tasting (Charters, Lockshin, & Unwin, 1999; Mueller, Osidacz, Francis, & Lockshin, 2010). Gmuer, Siegrist, and Dohle (2015) showed that wine label readability, but not the suggested consumption setting (everyday versus special occasion) influenced the hedonic rating of the wine. D’Alessandro and Pecotich (2013) found that experts and novices are both influenced by extrinsic cues when

Alcoholic beverages in context

611

choosing, judging quality, and pricing wine. Whereas in their study, country of origin information had a significant effect on experts and novices, experts additionally use physical (sensory) quality as a guide for quality and price evaluations. Novices on the other hand relied more on brand name. More recently, studies have investigated the influence of extrinsic attributes including; packaging/branding (Chaya et al., 2015; Ng, Chaya, & Hort, 2013b; Schifferstein, Fenko, Desmet, Labbe, & Martin, 2013; Spinelli, Masi, Zoboli, Prescott, & Monteleone, 2015), health labels (Lagerkvist, Okello, Muoki, Heck, & Prain, 2016; Schouteten et al., 2015), or congruent versus incongruent information (Silva et al., 2017) on product-evoked emotions and its relationships with product intrinsic sensory characters. Chaya et al. (2015) measured the emotional responses of regular, lager beer consumers to a broad range of commercial lager beers under three conditions; blind tasting, packaging only, and informed tasting (tasting together with packaging) and found that although sensory attributes and packaging influenced emotional responses, packaging cues alone were more influential compared to sensory attributes alone. This highlights the importance of collecting emotional responses in blind and informed conditions to gain better insights on consumers’ product perception for informed product optimization. Silva et al. (2017) were interested as to how prior consumption experience with beer and nonalcoholic beers (NAB) and the conceptual information this generates within a consumer, can impact their response to its consumption in an appropriate bar setting. The labeling of a sample as beer or NAB either correctly or incorrectly was employed as a prompt to study the effects on liking and emotions provoked, when drinking a beer or a NAB in a bar. Questionnaires were used to rate the liking and emotions prior to and after consumption. Labeling NAB as beer significantly increased the liking and changed one emotion towards a positive direction, namely participants felt more fulfilled. When beer was presented as NAB, liking remained unchanged, while the intensity of positive emotions (comforted, exuberant, good, happy, joyful, and loving) decreased. This study showed that labeling and the conceptual information generated in consumers might influence their response after consumption of these beverages. Buying, cellaring, and/or drinking wine is a known emotional experience. An Australian study investigated how information, typically presented on wine producer web sites, wine back-labels, or wine menus, influences consumers’ perceptions of Australian white wines (Danner, Johnson, Ristic, Meiselman, & Bastian, 2017). Regular white wine consumers evaluated the same set of three commercially available white wines under three information conditions: blind (no information provided), basic (sensory description of the wines based on descriptive analysis profiles), and elaborate (wine descriptions with more vivid sensory characteristics and incorporating the high quality of the wines and favorable information about the winery). The consumer tasting took place in a sensory laboratory over two sessions, which were at least one week apart. Consumers rated expected wine liking after reading the information and before tasting; and liking, wine-evoked emotions (measured with a 19-item wine-specific AWEEL emotion lexicon (Danner et al., 2016)) and willingness to pay after tasting each sample. In the first session, consumers evaluated the wines

612

Context

under blind conditions. In the second session, the same wines were presented together with the basic or elaborate descriptions. Consumers were told they were involved in two studies examining different wines. Consumers liked the Riesling and Sauvignon Blanc more than the Chardonnay, under all 3 information conditions (Fig. 29.1). Presenting the wines with basic sensory information significantly increased consumers’ liking and positive emotion responses compared to blind tasting (Figs. 29.1 and 29.2). More elaborate wine descriptions resulted in even higher liking ratings, and more intense positive emotions compared to the blind and the basic information condition. At an individual level, if expectations caused by the wine descriptions were not met by the intrinsic characteristics of the wine, the positive effects of information decreased or even resulted in a more negative perception of the wine. Furthermore, the information condition significantly influenced consumers’ familiarity with the wine, willingness to pay for a bottle of wine in a shop, and wine quality Blind Informed basic Informed elaborate

9

Expected basic Expected elaborate

8 D, ns

E, ns B, b

D, ns

7

C, a

B, ns

B, b

A, b A, b

B, a

6 Liking rating

C, ns C, b

C, b

B, ns

A, a

5

4

3

2

1

Chardonnay

Riesling

Sauvignon blanc

Fig. 29.1 Mean expected liking and informed liking ratings for the three wines in the information levels; blind tasting, basic, and elaborate information level (n ¼ 126; 1 ¼ dislike extremely to 9 ¼ like extremely). Capital letters indicate significant differences in liking ratings within one wine variety based on post-hoc comparisons using Fisher’s LSD P < .05. Lower case letters indicate significant differences in liking ratings across wine variety based on post-hoc comparisons using Fisher’s LSD P < .05. Error bars indicate standard error. Reprinted from Food Research International, Danner et al., “I like the sound of that!” Wine descriptions influence consumers’ expectations, liking, emotions, and willingness to pay for Australian white wines, Copyright (2017), with permission from Elsevier.

Alcoholic beverages in context

613

rating of the tasted wine, parameters which all increased from blind tasting through to elaborate tasting conditions, with the basic descriptions ranging in between. It is also worth noting that willingness to pay for a bottle of wine in a shop increased substantially (21% for the Sauvignon Blanc, 29% for Riesling, and 37% for the Chardonnay), but remains to be tested in real life sales conditions. In summary, the information supplied to consumers in consumer taste tests should be considered carefully. Although more elaborate information could positively influence consumers’ perception of the wine, it is important that the consumers’ expectations evoked by the descriptions are confirmed by the actual intrinsic characteristics (taste and flavor) of the product. This shows that it would be wise for producers to involve consumers in the final stages of the written content describing the wines for labels or online web shops.

29.2.1.2 Evoked context Studies have utilized verbally evoked settings to study context, beverage consumption, and affective behavior. This may be achieved in different ways but for example, people are either told to imagine a particular scenario or shown a brief text or pictures providing a meaningful description of a situation before performing a test (K€oster, 2003; Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger, 2014). This method allows participants to personalize the evoked context according to their own unique experiences. K€oster (2003) reported some effects of scenarios on liking scores for several food items contrasted to laboratory measured scores. Going forward, collecting richer data from the participants about their imagined scenario may help elucidate findings, as may also segmentation of said participants on hedonic and/or psychographic measures to better define who they are. One study (Dorado, Chaya, Tarrega, & Hort, 2016) aimed to evaluate the effect of a freely elicited scenario on consumer response to commercial beers. Consumers had to “Think about an occasion when you were having a beer.” Next, they were requested to write a detailed description of what they imagined and then keep this in mind when they evaluated the beer samples. Their findings showed that some emotions were more discriminating in the scenario condition than the nonscenario condition, which indicates that certain emotions may be more relevant to one context over another. Of note, liking was not affected in this study. Interestingly, the average consumer’s beerevoked emotions profile assimilated towards the consumer declared expected emotion profile when using a scenario for liked products. Having even an evoked scenario in a central location test allows consumers to indicate their full emotional response to a product relevant to real-life consumption moments.

29.2.1.3 Immersive context The immersive context retains the idea of a controlled set-up from the laboratory methodology, but builds on the importance of rich contextual situations advocated by the realistic methodology (examples of immersive contexts in other product categories can be found in Chapters 16 and 23). This makes immersive environments

614

Fig. 29.2 See figure legend on opposite page.

Context

Alcoholic beverages in context

615

useful to investigate the influence of specific environmental variables, e.g., sound, light, pictures, and odor (Oberfeld, Hecht, Allendorf, & Wickelmaier, 2009; Sester et al., 2013; Velasco, Jones, King, & Spence, 2013). For alcoholic drinks, visual, audio, and olfactory cues in the tasting room in some studies have been shown to impact flavor perception. German Riesling wines tasted fruitier under green and white light, but bitter under blue light (Oberfeld et al., 2009); whilst whisky tasted greener in the “green” room, woody in the “woody room” and more sweet in the “sweet room” (Velasco et al., 2013). These authors however scented each room with perfume as part of creating a multisensory stimulus, which may have confounded the study. The effect of context on wine consumers’ flavor perception, wine liking, and emotions elicited was examined for flavor-manipulated Cabernet Sauvignon ( Jiang et al., 2017). Two flavors, “green” and “floral” were spiked into Cabernet Sauvignon wines, chosen as they are known to be disliked and liked, respectively (Lattey et al., 2010). The two contexts tested were a floral and a green room, decorated with plants, flowers, and projected visual clips of fields of flowers or green forests. Consumers were required to smell a floral and a green aroma before testing so there was no ambiguity about what these sensory descriptive terms meant. Red wine consumers tasted three Cabernet Sauvignon wines: an unaltered control wine (CW), green wine (GW; control wine spiked with 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine, bell pepper/capsicum-like aroma), and floral wine (FW; control wine spiked with rose water), in both the rooms. The FW rated consistently higher in floral flavor and GW higher in green flavor. The immersive floral and green rooms did not significantly change floral or green wine flavor intensity ratings, liking, or productevoked emotions, similar to Petit and Sieffermann (2007). Unlike other studies that demonstrated immersive context effects (Oberfeld et al., 2009; Velasco et al., 2013), the lack of effect may be due to the level of cognitive engagement with the immersed environments by the consumers, i.e., priming; and/or the number of sensory modalities stimulated. Thus, the combination of both cognitive engagement and multiple sensory cues may be necessary for immersive context to affect consumer responses. Research comparing immersive situations where context is cognitively acknowledged or not, is required to better understand the influence of the immersive contextual methodology.

Fig. 29.2 Wine-evoked emotion profiles for (A) Chardonnay, (B) Riesling, and (C) Sauvignon Blanc for the three different information levels: blind, basic, and elaborate description. Intensities of the perceived emotions were measured on a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ not at all to 9 ¼ extremely. Only emotion terms which discriminate between wine style and/or information (P < .05) condition are presented. *indicates significant differences between information level within one wine variety (P < .05). Reprinted from Food Research International, Danner et al., “I like the sound of that!” Wine descriptions influence consumers’ expectations, liking, emotions, and willingness to pay for Australian white wines, Copyright (2017), with permission from Elsevier.

616

Context

Sester et al. (2013) aimed to evaluate the effect of bar ambience (warm versus cold interior) using an immersive approach on self-reported drink choices from a range of drinks. These researchers generated two bar-like environments using physical means; one with wood furniture and one with blue furniture. In both bars, clips with visual and music stimuli were projected on a wall to change the overall warmth of the ambience. The authors showed that the different elements influenced the choice of drink, where different beverage types were selected according to perceptual, semantic, or cognitive associations between the drink and the clips. In a second experiment, Sester et al. (2013) evaluated the robustness of the immersive method but within a product category. Participants had to choose between five beers. Results showed that beer choices were different according to the ambience, suggesting the immersive approach might be a good tool to explore the integrated influence of contextual variables on drink choices. More studies are required to examine whether these findings are relevant for consumers’ real-world drink and style choices.

29.2.1.4 Digital reality context Other research incorporates immersive technologies, which transports the consumer to an engaging (relative to the sensory laboratory) virtual reality (VR, with either real or computer-generated naturalistic images). This technology creates a consistent environment for each consumer with controlled external validity. It provides researchers with a very specific context of interest in which the relationships of context with foodrelated hedonics and behaviors and evaluation of a product’s intrinsic sensory components, can be examined (Bangcuyo et al., 2015; Bordnick et al., 2008). Thus, VR technologies may allow for the collection of more meaningful consumer data. The virtual restaurant, cellar door, or alcoholic beverage retail outlet can be an alternative solution to overcome the limitations and constraints of the sensory laboratory or evoked setting by generating commonplace life experiences, but in an experimentally controlled, realistic, yet appealing, context for the consumer. VR testing is covered in detail in Chapters 16 and 23. Although VR is a suggested tool to enrich contexts in consumer product evaluations, very little work has been published for alcoholic beverages. Bordnick et al. (2008) found that alcohol related stimuli in a VR environment (e.g., party, bar) significantly increased participants’ craving for alcohol compared to neutral stimuli (living room without evidence of alcohol). Andersen, Kraus, Ritz, and Bredie (2019) investigated whether immersive VR or a photo-enhanced imaginative (PIC, evoked environment using pictures) condition could induce desire for hot or cold beverages in a beach context. During each beach exposure, a significantly stronger desire for cold beverages (e.g., beer, juice, or soda) compared to hot beverages (e.g., coffee, tea) was induced. The desire for cold versus hot beverages was, however, significantly larger in the VR simulation compared to the PIC context. Results from the noncontext condition provided no significant difference in the desires for hot versus cold beverages. With rapid advances in human-virtual environment technology, designs of contextual consumer studies in the future would be expected to incorporate the use of

Alcoholic beverages in context

617

instruments designed for augmented reality (AR), as an alternative means for virtual reality. Currently the technology is in development and therefore the research space remains to be explored; however, the prospect for improved ecological validity is potentially large. This would particularly be important should a researcher aim to use real life settings augmented with virtual elements using AR. Tasting rooms or cellar doors are perfect examples for this type of contextual study.

29.2.2 Contextual effects in real-life settings A notion strongly promoted for some time now, is that real-life settings be used for consumer research ( Jaeger et al., 2017; Meiselman, 1992). Real-life settings are those that already exist in nature and are not imagined or purposely constructed to reflect a real setting for research (see Chapter 1 by Meiselman for definitions). Therefore, the responses obtained from real-life settings are arguably the most relevant in understanding what actually occurs during real consumption. Some authors have used real-life eating situations to study contextual influences on consumers’ behaviors and showed acceptability ratings for the foods can increase when consumed in a restaurant compared to a cafeteria (Meiselman et al., 2000). Several studies have utilized real-life settings to understand consumer behavior with alcoholic products including a cafe in Wageningen (Silva et al., 2017); an experimental restaurant that was open to the public (Porcherot, Petit, Giboreau, Gaudreau, & Cayeux, 2015), and a restaurant bar in Mexico City (Go´mez-Corona, Chollet, Escalona-Buendı´a, & Valentin, 2017) but very few have looked at physical environment contextual effects. In the one study that did so, higher music volumes in two well-known bars targeted at young people in France increased consumption rate and volume of beer consumed (Gueguen, Jacob, Le Guellec, Morineau, & Lourel, 2008). Despite the promise of real-life settings, there are practical considerations that researchers must consider, this will be covered later in Section 29.3.1.

29.2.2.1 Studies comparing laboratory and real-life settings The effects of both contextual (consumption situation) variables and intrinsic (production processes e.g., oak, sugar, malolactic fermentation) variables on reported consumer liking for Chardonnay white wine was reported by Hersleth et al. (2003). In this study, the context variables included laboratory versus “reception”, along with availability of food to taste with the wine, and whether socializing was allowed. The study showed that serving of food and a social atmosphere had a positive effect on liking for wine. The size of the effects induced by these context variables were similar to those induced by different sensory attributes in the wine. This shows that information about effects of context factors is important when determining acceptance of food and beverages and that this is a critical issue to consider for future studies. A more recent study investigated the effect of the different consumption situations on consumers’ mood, product-evoked emotions, liking, and willingness to pay for wine, using a within subject design (Danner et al., 2016). Australian commercial

618

Context

Shiraz wines of four quality levels as designated by an expert panel were evaluated by 349 regular wine consumers in three different consumption contexts; sensory laboratory, real restaurant, and at-home. Interestingly no significant context effects on liking, nor context by liking interactions were observed. However, highly significant context effects were observed on product-evoked emotions (Fig. 29.3). Participants expressed more intense positive emotions in the restaurant context, where social interaction, talking, and additional food consumption were allowed, compared to the sterile sensory laboratory setting with only limited social interaction. At home, where the participants were free to taste and consume the wines in combination with food, alone or in company, the emotional responses were in a range between laboratory and restaurant setting. These results are in accordance with the discussion by Giboreau and Meiselman (2018), who measured emotions in a French dining environment and Dorado et al. (2016), who investigated the effects of freely-elicited consumption context on liking and emotional responses of commercial beers. Similarly, significant context effects on seven out of ten measured emotional terms, but not on consumers’

Fig. 29.3 Emotion profiles of the three contexts (pooled for the four quality levels). Intensity of the emotions perceived was measured on a 9-point scale, ranging from 1 ¼ not at all to 9. The results of the Bonferroni corrected post-hoc comparisons are presented as letters (left to right ¼ order of legend; means with different letters are significantly different at P < .05). Reprinted from Food Research International, Vol. 89, Danner et al., Context and wine quality effects on consumers’ mood, emotions, liking, and willingness to pay for Australian Shiraz wines, 254–265, Copyright (2016), with permission from Elsevier.

Alcoholic beverages in context

619

liking ratings were observed. Furthermore, it needs to be mentioned that no wine quality by context interactions, except for embarrassed emotion, were observed. Context impacted emotions, but not liking, indicating that although emotions and liking are often correlated, the measurement of product-evoked emotions can deliver additional information. Another research question that the study tried to answer was the correlations between context, moods, liking, and product-evoked emotions. Relative to emotions, moods are slower forming, but more enduring feelings that are not focused on a specific object or event (King & Meiselman, 2010). The results showed that wine consumers were in a significantly more “anxious” and less “happy” and “loving” mood in a laboratory setting compared to being in a restaurant or at home before tasting the samples (Table 29.1). Most participants had not been in a sensory laboratory before, so these results were not so surprising, as the unfamiliarity of being in a laboratory could have made them feel anxious. However, the differences between contexts were rather small, and only ranged around 0.5 points on a 9-point scale, so how this mood state alteration would have any ramifications is not clear and requires further examination. The relationship between context, mood, and product-evoked emotions suggests the necessity for further research into this possibly important phenomenon and underlines the importance of within-subject measurements when investigating context, mood, and product-evoked emotions. However, the relative resilience of hedonic ratings to moods, in comparison to product-evoked emotions, could be a possible explanation for the observed context effect on product-evoked emotions, but not on liking in the current study. This argument is strengthened by the absence of product by context interactions on product-evoked emotions (except for embarrassed); instead productevoked emotions with a positive valence were rated generally higher in the restaurant context where participants felt more energetic, happy, and loving, compared to the sensory laboratory setting. Recently, a study examined two beers, a Lager and an India Pale Ale (IPA) that were visually identical, but tasted different (personal communication, Joanne Hort). One hundred consumers tasted the beers in a university bar, sensory laboratory, and under evoked context. The cluster that preferred the IPA liked this beer in all contexts, although significantly less so in the sensory laboratory. The cluster with no preference for either the IPA or Lager beer liked the Lager in the bar and evoked setting, but preferred the IPA in the sensory laboratory. Interestingly, the emotional profiles generated by the beers in each context matched liking. In other words, this latter cluster had the same emotional profile for the IPA in the sensory laboratory and the Lager in the bar and evoked setting, whilst the IPA liking cluster had a similar emotional profile for IPA in all contexts. Further studies are required to tease out the intricacies of how different product types, within the larger alcoholic beverage category, and context interact with special focus on different consumer segments and individuals. Knowledge of the interaction between food, consumer, and consumption environment may for example, permit the tailoring of a consumption setting better suited to the food and drinks served at that locale or the suggestion of the perfect product for the specific setting.

620

Table 29.1 Wine consumers moods in the 3 consumption situations Home

Laboratory

Restaurant

Moods

Mean

SE

Sig. diff.

Mean

SE

Sig. diff.

Mean

SE

Sig. diff.

Angry Calm Energetic Fearful/Anxious Happy Loving Sad Tired

1.266 6.175 4.882 1.585 6.268 5.602 1.361 3.464

0.042 0.091 0.100 0.062 0.074 0.098 0.046 0.101

ns ns a a b b ns ns

1.248 6.193 5.084 1.952 6.080 5.197 1.430 3.443

0.041 0.090 0.102 0.075 0.077 0.103 0.051 0.097

ns ns ab c a a ns ns

1.205 6.288 5.165 1.758 6.536 5.544 1.378 3.412

0.036 0.084 0.096 0.069 0.071 0.099 0.054 0.103

ns ns b b c b ns ns

Results were obtained by a Mixed-model ANOVA, mean values, SE, and Bonferroni corrected post-hoc comparisons. Mean values for contexts within a given mood (row) not sharing the same letter are significantly different at P < .05. Modified from Danner, L., Ristic, R., Johnson, T. E., Meiselman, H. L., Hoek, A. C., Jeffery, D. W. et al. (2016). Context and wine quality effects on consumers’ mood, emotions, liking and willingness to pay for Australian shiraz wines. Food Research International, 89, 254–265. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2016.08.006.

Context

Alcoholic beverages in context

29.3

621

Research and industry practical perspectives

What follows is in part a personal recount of practical matters to be aware of in evaluating wines in different contexts based on our years of wine, beer, and food pairing research in Australia and overseas plus international wine judging experience with input from wine writers and producers. This section contemplates some of the ethical considerations required in alcoholic beverage research, and the impact of context on beverage reviews by critiques and judges in industry.

29.3.1 Practical issues of alcoholic beverage consumer testing in different contexts Research involving humans requires ethical considerations. In Australia, institutions who value integrity in research consult the national statement on research involving human subjects, as stipulated by the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines (https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72). The conduct of human research under the auspices of an institution’s human research ethics committee may raise a number of issues for alcoholic beverage testing. Alcoholic beverage testing requires inclusion only of panelists who meet the legal drinking age requirement of the country under study (e.g., 18 years old (yo) in Australia and China, 21 yo in the USA, 16 to 17 yo in numerous European countries) (https://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID¼004294). Alcohol impairs one’s ability to drive a vehicle, and research suggests that at a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05%, the risk of being involved in a traffic accident is significantly higher than with a 0% BAC (Fell & Voas, 2014). It is imperative that researchers are aware of the relevant BAC laws in the country/state in which the study is undertaken. In Australia, it is an offense to drive while your BAC is 0.05% or above, in the USA this value is 0.08% but this also varies between states (http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/drunken-impaired-driving.aspx). In our experience with conducting studies in universities in the USA, 120 mL of wine is permissible in a normal consumer testing session of about 40 min; in Australia, our ethics committee accepts 200 mL. However, we always have breathalyzers on hand for our participants as a guide regarding their BAC and they are welcome to remain behind after testing to ensure they are within legal limits to drive. In our studies to date, participants weren’t forced to complete the breathalyzer test after tasting. In fact, most were comfortable and even keen/excited about analyzing their BAC without the risk of a fine. Moderate alcoholic beverage consumers are likely to have more than one drink in a real consumption moment. Do we need to think more deeply about this fact when we conduct alcoholic beverage research to reflect the real setting? Pregnant women should not be involved in testing and this needs stipulation as part of the exclusion criteria for any country. Researchers undertaking alcoholic beverage testing should exclude persons taking medications contraindicated with alcohol. The danger of mixing alcohol with certain medications (even over-the-counter and herbal

622

Context

remedies) can cause numerous side effects and may make certain medications less effective. We recommend this information be contained in the participant information sheet and if the consumer has any concerns, they are encouraged to contact their pharmacist or medical health professional for advice about their participation within the trial before committing. Although consumer testing of alcoholic beverages in real environments, such as in a restaurant, wine cellar door, or at home is more realistic and the most ecologically valid method, it may prove to be problematic and a logistical challenge. It requires the restaurateur’s or retailer’s cooperation; extrinsic conditions can be very difficult to control such as unpredictable co-consumers, diverse wait staff style and skills, and environmental characteristics changing on a minute-by-minute basis plus may be more expensive. The time of day for the consumer context test could have a profound influence on consumers’ hedonic and emotional responses, which adds to the required coordination with the restaurants. Significant forward planning and strong interpersonal and organizational skills are needed along with consideration of many factors e.g., transport to and storage of the required test samples and equipment at the setting of interest; scheduling (and often re-scheduling) consumers for testing; mode of data collection and the testing locations’ capacity for this (e.g., online internet access); insurance liability; the human ethics requirements; and local liquor licensing laws. A trial conducted in a restaurant did not require a local limited alcohol license, yet a limited liquor license was needed when an alcoholic beverage consumer study was held in a food market in a major capital city in Australia. These factors become increasingly complicated with betweencountry studies particularly around international travel, transport of samples, import taxes and volume limitations on alcoholic beverages, cultural differences, and country liquor laws as mentioned above. To avoid delays in commencing the trials, it pays to determine this well in advance as the documentation signing and completion can be time consuming. It’s hoped the above information is useful for practitioners who are interested in undertaking their own alcoholic beverage testing, either during in-house sensory evaluations or in natural or realistic settings outside of the laboratory environment.

29.3.2 Context and alcoholic beverage experts Numerous studies have indicated significant effects of context on consumer perception, choice, liking, and emotions. Less research has examined context involving beverage experts (D’Alessandro & Pecotich, 2013). Wine opinions of wine writers, critics, and judges wield an important influence on the wine market, which is especially true for basic wine consumers’ perception and purchase ( Johnson & Bastian, 2015). The relevance of understanding wine quality perception by the wine industry is well recognized. For the beverage producers, knowing the context in which influential wine writers and opinion makers evaluate their wines would provide

Alcoholic beverages in context

623

understanding of how their product might be perceived by critics. This may empower producers to submit wines that they know will perform best under these conditions and understand why a sample received a certain review. Sa´enz-Navajas et al. (2016) examined the effect of evaluation condition on perceived quality of red wines by experts. Conditions included visual stimulation only; orthonasal-olfaction alone; global tasting with visual, olfactory, taste, and trigeminal stimuli; and the presence of in-mouth sensations only i.e., by the wearing of a nose clip. Worth noting is that visual and in-mouth sensory cues differed depending on the information that experts had access to when judging wine. Red color of wines was a significant parameter taken into account when evaluating the quality of wines globally. However, when judges had access to visual cues only, the sensory drivers of their judgements differed and related to the appearance attributes of yellow nuances and wine lightness. Under the in-mouth condition, no strong relationships between wine quality and astringency existed, but when they had access to all stimuli, astringency appeared to drive quality assessments. D’Alessandro and Pecotich (2013) found experts are influenced by extrinsic cues when choosing, judging quality, and pricing wine. Country of origin information had a significant effect on experts, but experts additionally use sensory attributes as a guide for quality and price evaluations. This means experts who judge the wines in the glass under blind conditions are likely to provide a different review if extrinsic information is provided. The question arises as to whether wine reviews are better for consumers if the wine has been critiqued as an entire product with all extrinsic cues rather than a wine in a glass out of context. Further, should wine review evaluations by experts reflect the likely consumer consumption scenario, i.e., with others, with meals, maybe music? This aligns with findings by researchers who have investigated the effect of ambient music on product perception. A great deal of this has been conducted on wine but it could translate to other alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages and foods. Initial studies with wine have shown that specific pieces of music can enhance the overall consumption experience, alter taste perception, and consumer behavior (Spence et al., 2015; Spence, Velasco, & Kn€ oferle, 2014; Wang & Spence, 2015). There is now preliminary evidence that amateurs and professionals have their perception of wine influenced by music in the same way (Wang & Spence, 2018). Ritchie (2007) found UK consumers usually drink wine with a meal at home and Generation Y alcoholic beverage consumers mostly consumed during meals; but in contrast, beer and spirits are mostly consumed outdoors, in the evening, and during the weekend (Marinelli et al., 2014). It seems logical for wine, beer, and spirits critics to evaluate beverages under conditions similar to the consumer. In a unique example, the Sydney International Wine Competition has international judges who assess wines with meals in a home dining room setting. This independent wine show offers wine lovers a free web-based “wines for food” information service making it easier for consumers to find a food friendly wine at a price point they prefer. There are significant research gaps in the understanding of physical, social, and product context variables as they relate to wine experts and wine judgements, offering researchers many interesting and applicable research project opportunities.

624

29.4

Context

Conclusions and future directions

Context undoubtedly plays a crucial role in the measurement of consumer responses towards alcoholic beverages and advancing market insights. Underestimating the influence of context on responses should be avoided, as the resulting subtle differences in liking or emotions could be the difference that makes a product successful or not. We strongly assert that real-life settings should become the rule for consumer alcoholic beverage research. Yet it is necessary to consider the unique practical issues carefully when planning alcoholic beverage context tests, particularly in real settings or in other countries. To exploit the full potential of real-life settings, studies using newer technologies including less invasive data collection methods, smartphones, global positioning systems, nonconvenience samples, temporal evaluations, observational methods, e.g., facial expressions, are required. Alternatively, a space to watch in future alcoholic beverage research is the less explored use of digital platforms—VR, AR. The future holds exciting avenues for testing, as there are endless combinations of building contexts for alcoholic products by consumers for testing e.g., different beverages for specific events such as sporting venues or weddings across cultures. Furthermore, context should be integrated in current research focus areas (e.g., beverage intake, beverage and food pairings, health and wellbeing, different cultures, extrinsic product factors, emotions). Finally, the role of context in industry expert evaluations, particularly for reviews targeted at consumers, is an understudied area.

References Andersen, I. N. S. K., Kraus, A. A., Ritz, C., & Bredie, W. L. P. (2019). Desires for beverages and liking of skin care product odors in imaginative and immersive virtual reality beach contexts. Food Research International, 117, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.01.027. Bangcuyo, R. G., Smith, K. J., Zumach, J. L., Pierce, A. M., Guttman, G. A., & Simons, C. T. (2015). The use of immersive technologies to improve consumer testing: The role of ecological validity, context and engagement in evaluating coffee. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.11.017. Barber, N., Almanza, B. A., & Donovan, J. R. (2006). Motivational factors of gender, income and age on selecting a bottle of wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 18(3), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1108/09547540610704774. Barber, N., Ismail, J., & Taylor, D. C. (2007). Label fluency and consumer self-confidence. Journal of Wine Research, 18(2), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571260701660847. Bisogni, C. A., Falk, L. W., Madore, E., Blake, C. E., Jastran, M., Sobal, J., et al. (2007). Dimensions of everyday eating and drinking episodes. Appetite, 48(2), 218–231. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.appet.2006.09.004. Bordnick, P. S., Traylor, A., Copp, H. L., Graap, K. M., Carter, B., Ferrer, M., et al. (2008). Assessing reactivity to virtual reality alcohol based cues. Addictive Behaviors, 33(6), 743–756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.12.010. Bruwer, J., Fong, M., & Saliba, A. (2013). Perceived risk, risk-reduction strategies (RRS) and consumption occasions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(3), 369–390. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-06-2012-0048.

Alcoholic beverages in context

625

Canetti, L., Bachar, E., & Berry, E. M. (2002). Food and emotion. Behavioural Processes, 60(2), 157–164. Cardello, A. V., & Meiselman, H. L. (2018). Contextual influences on consumer responses to food products. In: G. Ares & P. Varela (Eds.), vol. 2. Methods in consumer research (pp. 3–54). Duxford: Woodhead Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08101743-2.00001-7. Cardello, A. V., Meiselman, H. L., Schutz, H. G., Craig, C., Given, Z., Lesher, L. L., et al. (2012). Measuring emotional responses to foods and food names using questionnaires. Food Quality and Preference, 24(2), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.12.002. Cardello, A. V., & Sawyer, F. M. (1992). Effects of disconfirmed consumer expectations on food acceptability. Journal of Sensory Studies, 7(4), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1745-459X.1992.tb00194.x. Chaney, I. (2000). External search effort for wine. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 12 (2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb008711. Charters, S., Lockshin, L., & Unwin, T. (1999). Consumer responses to wine bottle back labels. Journal of Wine Research, 10(3), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571269908718177. Charters, S., & Pettigrew, S. (2008). Why do people drink wine? A consumer-focused exploration. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 14(3), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10454440801985894. Chaya, C., Pacoud, J., Ng, M., Fenton, A., & Hort, J. (2015). Measuring the emotional response to beer and the relative impact of sensory and packaging cues. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists, 73(1), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1094/ASBCJ-2015-011401. D’Alessandro, S., & Pecotich, A. (2013). Evaluation of wine by expert and novice consumers in the presence of variations in quality, brand and country of origin cues. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.002. Danner, L., Haindl, S., Joechl, M., & Duerrschmid, K. (2014). Facial expressions and autonomous nervous system responses elicited by tasting different juices. Food Research International, 64, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.06.003. Danner, L., Johnson, T. E., Ristic, R., Meiselman, H. L., & Bastian, S. E. P. (2017). “I like the sound of that!” wine descriptions influence consumers’ expectations, liking, emotions and willingness to pay for Australian white wines. Food Research International, 99, 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.05.019. Danner, L., Ristic, R., Johnson, T. E., Meiselman, H. L., Hoek, A. C., Jeffery, D. W., et al. (2016). Context and wine quality effects on consumers’ mood, emotions, liking and willingness to pay for Australian shiraz wines. Food Research International, 89, 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.08.006. Danner, L., Sidorkina, L., Joechl, M., & Duerrschmid, K. (2014). Make a face! Implicit and explicit measurement of facial expressions elicited by orange juices using face reading technology. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2013.01.004. Desmet, P. M. A., & Schifferstein, H. N. J. (2008). Sources of positive and negative emotions in food experience. Appetite, 50(2–3), 290–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2007.08.003. Dorado, R., Chaya, C., Tarrega, A., & Hort, J. (2016). The impact of using a written scenario when measuring emotional response to beer. Food Quality and Preference, 50, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.01.004. Dransfield, E., Zamora, F., & Bayle, M.-C. (1998). Consumer selection of steaks as influenced by information and price index. Food Quality and Preference, 9(5), 321–326. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00017-2.

626

Context

Dwivedi, D. (2017). Alcoholic beverages market by type (beer, distilled spirits, wine) and by distribution channel (convenience stores, on premises, retailers, and supermarkets). Fell, J. C., & Voas, R. B. (2014). The effectiveness of a 0.05 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) limit for driving in the United States. Addiction, 106(6), 869–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/ add.12365. Ferrarini, R., Carbognin, C., Casarotti, E. M., Nicolis, E., Nencini, A., & Meneghini, A. M. (2010). The emotional response to wine consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 21 (7), 720–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.06.004. Gallina Toschi, T., Bendini, A., Barbieri, S., Valli, E., Cezanne, M. L., Buchecker, K., et al. (2012). Organic and conventional nonflavored yogurts from the Italian market: Study on sensory profiles and consumer acceptability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 92(14), 2788–2795. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.5666. Giboreau, A., & Meiselman, H. L. (2018). Emotions before and after a meal in a natural eating situation. Food Quality and Preference, 65, 191–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual. 2017.10.016. Gmuer, A., Siegrist, M., & Dohle, S. (2015). Does wine label processing fluency influence wine hedonics? Food Quality and Preference, 44, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2015.03.007. Go´mez-Corona, C., Chollet, S., Escalona-Buendı´a, H. B., & Valentin, D. (2017). Measuring the drinking experience of beer in real context situations. The impact of affects, senses, and cognition. Food Quality and Preference, 60, 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual. 2017.04.002. Gueguen, N., Jacob, C., Le Guellec, H., Morineau, T., & Lourel, M. (2008). Sound level of environmental music and drinking behavior: A field experiment with beer drinkers. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 32(10), 1795–1798. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1530-0277.2008.00764.x. Guinard, J. X., Uotani, B., & Schlich, P. (2001). Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: Comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Quality and Preference, 12(4), 243–255. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0950-3293(01)00011-8. Hall, J., & Lockshin, L. (1999). It’s not the consumer, it’s the occasion. Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 14, 69–78. Hein, K. A., Hamid, N., Jaeger, S. R., & Delahunty, C. M. (2010). Application of a written scenario to evoke a consumption context in a laboratory setting: Effects on hedonic ratings. Food Quality and Preference, 21(4), 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2009.10.003. Hersleth, M., Mevik, B. H., Næs, T., & Guinard, J. X. (2003). Effect of contextual factors on liking for wine – Use of robust design methodology. Food Quality and Preference, 14(7), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00190-8. Hersleth, M., Ueland, Ø., Allain, H., & Næs, T. (2005). Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different testing conditions. Food Quality and Preference, 16(2), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.02.009. Hetherington, M. M., Anderson, A. S., Norton, G. N. M., & Newson, L. (2006). Situational effects on meal intake: A comparison of eating alone and eating with others. Physiology and Behavior, 88(4–5), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.04.025. Jaeger, S. R., Hort, J., Porcherot, C., Ares, G., Pecore, S., & MacFie, H. J. H. (2017). Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.006.

Alcoholic beverages in context

627

Jiang, W., Niimi, J., Ristic, R., & Bastian, S. E. P. (2017). The effects of immersive context and wine flavor on consumer wine flavor perception and elicited emotions. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 68(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2016.16056. Johnson, T. E., & Bastian, S. E. P. (2015). A fine wine instrument – An alternative for segmenting the Australian wine market. International Journal of Wine Business Research, 27(3), 182–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWBR-04-2014-0020. Johnson, T. E., Danner, L., & Bastian, S. E. P. (2017). Consumer segmentation methods for the wine market. In Reference module in food science (pp. 1–6). Elsevier. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.21419-4. Kelly, K., & Hyde, J. (2015). U.S. wine consumer preferences for bottle characteristics, back label extrinsic cues and wine composition. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 27(4), 516–534. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-07-2014-0077. King, E. S., Kievit, R. L., Curtin, C., Swiegers, J. H., Pretorius, I. S., Bastian, S. E. P., et al. (2010). The effect of multiple yeasts co-inoculations on sauvignon blanc wine aroma composition, sensory properties and consumer preference. Food Chemistry, 122(3), 618–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.03.021. King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2010). Development of a method to measure consumer emotions associated with foods. Food Quality and Preference, 21(2), 168–177. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.02.005. King, S. C., Meiselman, H. L., Hottenstein, A. W., Work, T. M., & Cronk, V. (2007). The effects of contextual variables on food acceptability: A confirmatory study. Food Quality and Preference, 18(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.07.014. King, S. C., Weber, A. J., Meiselman, H. L., & Lv, N. (2004). The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Quality and Preference, 15(7–8), 645–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.010. K€ oster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14(5–6), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03) 00017-X. K€ oster, E. P. (2009). Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.002. Kurajdova, K., & Ta´borecka-Petrovicova, J. (2015). Literature review on factors influencing milk purchase behaviour. International Review of Management and Marketing, 5(1), 9–25. Retrieved from http://www.econjournals.com/index.php/irmm/article/view/1029. Lagerkvist, C. J., Okello, J., Muoki, P., Heck, S., & Prain, G. (2016). Nutrition promotion messages: The effect of information on consumer sensory expectations, experiences and emotions of vitamin A-biofortified sweet potato. Food Quality and Preference, 52, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.04.009. Lattey, K. A., Bramley, B. R., & Francis, I. L. (2010). Consumer acceptability, sensory properties and expert quality judgements of Australian cabernet sauvignon and shiraz wines. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16(1), 189–202. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2009.00069.x. Lockshin, L., Quester, P., & Spawton, T. (2001). Segmentation by involvement or nationality for global retailing: A cross-national comparative study of wine shopping behaviours. Journal of Wine Research, 12(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571260120106848. Macht, M. (1999). Characteristics of eating in anger, fear, sadness and joy. Appetite, 33(1), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1999.0236. Macht, M., & Simons, G. (2000). Emotions and eating in everyday life. Appetite, 35(1), 65–71. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0325.

628

Context

Marinelli, N., Fabbrizzi, S., Alampi Sottini, V., Sacchelli, S., Bernetti, I., & Menghini, S. (2014). Generation Y, wine and alcohol. A semantic differential approach to consumption analysis in Tuscany. Appetite, 75, 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. appet. 2013.12.013. Meiselman, H. L. (1992). Methodology and theory in human eating research. Appetite, 19(1), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0195-6663(92)90235-X. 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(3), 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.2000.0360. Mizutani, N., Okamoto, M., Yamaguchi, Y., Kusakabe, Y., Dan, I., & Yamanaka, T. (2010). Package images modulate flavor perception for orange juice. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.05.010. Mojet, J., D€urrschmid, K., Danner, L., J€ochl, M., Heini€o, R.-L., Holthuysen, N., et al. (2015). Are implicit emotion measurements evoked by food unrelated to liking? Food Research International, 76, 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.06.031. Mort, G. S., & Rose, T. (2004). The effect of product type on value linkages in the means-end chain: Implications for theory and method. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.136. Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., Saltman, Y., & Blanford, J. (2010). Message on a bottle: The relative influence of wine back label information on wine choice. Food Quality and Preference, 21 (1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.07.004. Mueller, S., Osidacz, P., Francis, I. L., & Lockshin, L. (2010). Combining discrete choice and informed sensory testing in a two-stage process: Can it predict wine market share? Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodqual.2010.06.008. Ng, M., Chaya, C., & Hort, J. (2013a). Beyond liking: Comparing the measurement of emotional response using EsSense profile and consumer defined check-all-that-apply methodologies. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual. 2012.08.012. Ng, M., Chaya, C., & Hort, J. (2013b). The influence of sensory and packaging cues on both liking and emotional, abstract and functional conceptualisations. Food Quality and Preference, 29(2), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.03.006. Niimi, J., Danner, L., Li, L., Bossan, H., & Bastian, S. E. P. (2017). Wine consumers’ subjective responses to wine mouthfeel and understanding of wine body. Food Research International, 99, 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.05.015. Norton, J. E., Fryer, P. J., & Parkinson, J. A. (2013). The effect of reduced-fat labelling on chocolate expectations. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 101–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2012.08.004. Oberfeld, D., Hecht, H., Allendorf, U., & Wickelmaier, F. (2009). Ambient lighting modifies the flavor of wine. Journal of Sensory Studies, 24(6), 797–832. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1745-459X.2009.00239.x. Petit, C., & Sieffermann, J. M. (2007). Testing consumer preferences for iced-coffee: Does the drinking environment have any influence? Food Quality and Preference, 18(1), 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-009-0181-3. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S. R. (2014). The impact of evoked consumption contexts and appropriateness on emotion responses. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 277–288. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.09.002. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on product-extrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts.

Alcoholic beverages in context

629

Food Quality and Preference, 40(PA), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual. 2014.09.013. Porcherot, C., Delplanque, S., Raviot-Derrien, S., Le Calve, B., Chrea, C., Gaudreau, N., et al. (2010). How do you feel when you smell this? Optimization of a verbal measurement of odor-elicited emotions. Food Quality and Preference, 21(8), 938–947. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.012. Porcherot, C., Petit, E., Giboreau, A., Gaudreau, N., & Cayeux, I. (2015). Measurement of selfreported affective feelings when an aperitif is consumed in an ecological setting. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.016. Prasannan, A. (2018). Alcoholic beverages market by type (beer, distilled spirits, wine, and others) and distribution channel (convenience stores, on premises, liquor stores, grocery shops, internet retailing, and supermarkets): Global opportunity analysis and industry forecast, 2018–2025. Retrieved from Allied Market Research Website https://www. alliedmarketresearch.com/alcoholic-beverages-market?utm_source¼sumit. Ristic, R., Danner, L., Johnson, T. E., Meiselman, H. L., Hoek, A. C., & Jiranek, V. (2019). Wine-related aromas for different seasons and occasions: Hedonic and emotional responses of wine consumers from Australia , UK and USA. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.07.011. Ritchie, C. (2007). Beyond drinking: The role of wine in the life of the UK consumer. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 31(5), 534–540. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14706431.2007.00610.x. Sa´enz-Navajas, M. P., Avizcuri, J. M., Echa´varri, J. F., Ferreira, V., Ferna´ndez-Zurbano, P., & Valentin, D. (2016). Understanding quality judgements of red wines by experts: Effect of evaluation condition. Food Quality and Preference, 48, 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2015.10.001. Schifferstein, H. N. J., Fenko, A., Desmet, P. M. A. A., Labbe, D., & Martin, N. (2013). Influence of package design on the dynamics of multisensory and emotional food experience. Food Quality and Preference, 27(1), 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.06.003. Schouteten, J. J., de Steur, H., de Pelsmaeker, S., Lagast, S., de Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Gellynck, X. (2015). Impact of health labels on flavor perception and emotional profiling: A consumer study on cheese. Nutrients, 7(12), 10251–10268. https://doi.org/10.3390/ nu7125533. Sester, C., Deroy, O., Sutan, A., Galia, F., Desmarchelier, J. F., Valentin, D., et al. (2013). “Having a drink in a bar”: An immersive approach to explore the effects of context on drink choice. Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.foodqual.2012.07.006. Sherman, S., & Tuten, T. (2011). Message on a bottle: The wine label’s influence. International Journal of Wine, 23(3), 221–234. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511061111163050. Silva, A. P., Jager, G., van Bommel, R., van Zyl, H., Voss, H.-P., Hogg, T., et al. (2016). Functional or emotional? How Dutch and Portuguese conceptualise beer, wine and nonalcoholic beer consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 49, 54–65. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.11.007. Silva, A. P., Jager, G., Voss, H.-P., van Zyl, H., Hogg, T., Pintado, M., et al. (2017). What’s in a name? The effect of congruent and incongruent product names on liking and emotions when consuming beer or non-alcoholic beer in a bar. Food Quality and Preference, 55, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.08.008. Spence, C., Velasco, C., & Kn€oferle, K. (2014). A large sample study on the influence of the multisensory environment on the wine drinking experience. Flavour, 3(1), 8. https://doi. org/10.1186/2044-7248-3-8.

630

Context

Spence, C., Wang, Q., Oberfeld, D., Hecht, H., Allendorf, U., Wickelmaier, F., et al. (2015). Wine and music (II): Can you taste the music? Modulating the experience of wine through music and sound. Flavour, 4(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13411-015-0043-z. Spinelli, S., Masi, C., Dinnella, C., Zoboli, G. P., & Monteleone, E. (2014). How does it make you feel? A new approach to measuring emotions in food product experience. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.11.009. Spinelli, S., Masi, C., Zoboli, G. P., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2015). Emotional responses to branded and unbranded foods. Food Quality and Preference, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.12.009. Tang, V. C. M., Tchetchik, A., & Cohen, E. (2015). Perception of wine labels by Hong Kong Chinese consumers. Wine Economics and Policy, 4(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.wep.2015.02.002. Thomas, A., & Pickering, G. (2005). X-it: Gen-X and older wine drinker comparisons in New Zealand. International Journal of Wine Marketing, 17(2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 17511061111142981. Thomson, D. M. H., Crocker, C., & Marketo, C. G. (2010). Linking sensory characteristics to emotions: An example using dark chocolate. Food Quality and Preference, 21(8), 1117–1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.04.011. Tuorila, H., Meiselman, H. L., Bell, R., Cardello, A. V., & Johnson, W. (1994). Role of sensory and cognitive information in the enhancement of certainty and liking for novel and familiar foods. Appetite, 23(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1006/appe.1994.1056. Velasco, C., Jones, R., King, S., & Spence, C. (2013). Assessing the influence of the multisensory environment on the whisky drinking experience. Flavour, 2(1), 23. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/2044-7248-2-23. Verdonk, N. R., Culbert, J. A., & Wilkinson, K. L. (2015). All that sparkles consumer perceptions of sparkling wine. Wine & Viticulture Journal, 1, 71–74. Wang, Q., & Spence, C. (2015). Assessing the effect of musical congruency on wine tasting in a live performance setting. I-Perception, 6(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2041669515593027. Wang, Q., & Spence, C. (2018). Assessing the influence of music on wine perception among wine professionals. Food Science and Nutrition, 6(2), 295–301. https://doi.org/10.1002/ fsn3.554. Weber, A. J., King, S. C., & Meiselman, H. L. (2004). Effects of social interaction, physical environment and food choice freedom on consumption in a meal-testing environment. Appetite, 42(1), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2003.10.001.