Consumer acceptance of meals and meal components

Food Quality and Preference Food Quality and Preference1988I(I) 21-24 ~ Longman Group UK Ltd 19880950-3293/88/011030211503.50 Received3 May 1988 Accepted27 May 1988

Margaret Turner and Roger Collison Hotel and Catering Research Centre, Huddcrsfield Polytechnic, Queensgatc, Huddcrsficld HD1 3OH, UK

Consumer acceptance of meals and meal components

Abstract Two hundred and eighty-five hedonic acceptance evaluations of whole meals and their components were carried out in a student training restaurant. A multiple regression analysis of the results produced the following equation linking the total meal acceptance to the component acceptance ratings: Whole Meal = 0.57 + 0.43 (entrde) + 0.21 (sweet) + 0.14 (starter) + 0.14 (potato). This showed that the entree had a dominating effect in determining the overall meal acceptance. Menu item scores were partly dependent upon the customers and varied according to the age, occupation, and the frequency of visits to the restaurant. A preference survey carried out prior to the acceptance survey showed that anticipated preference scores were lower than the acceptance scores for 34 out of 36 menu

items. Keywords: meals; catering; consumer; sensory; acceptability; preference; menu items

Introduction

Catering customer carry out sumption

managers who wish to evaluate satisfaction with a product may preference, acceptance or constudies or any combination of

these techniques. Food preferencesurveys evaluate the degree of liking or disliking when obtained in response to the food name and may be used to obtain information for menu planning. Acceptance studies evaluate the degree of liking or disliking expressed in response to sampling the actual food. Consumption studies evaluate the quantities of food items actually eaten, and can be used to compare the numbers and proportions of servings of specific menu items eaten, and the quantity of food wasted by customers. Techniques for this type of work were pioneered in the U S A and were originally used among servicemen. Preference surveys of customers in institutional catering operations have been carried out by Einstein and Hornstein (1970), Meiselman and Waterman (1978), Cash and Khan (1983), Balintfy (1980) and others, though there is little recorded information from the UK. In this country preference data for residents have been investigated by Harper (1963) and Piggott (1979). The majority of this work relates to single menu items but the caterer serves meals which are a combination of items. Moskowitz (1980) examined the relationship between the preference scores for complete meals and the preference scores for the meal components. Food acceptance surveys have frequently been carried out in institutional catering operations to assess the customers' acceptance of meals or menu items (Glew 1970; Mailer et al. 1980). Some work has been carried out by Collison (1984) to investigate the relationship between the acceptance of whole meals and the relative acceptance of the meal components which make up the whole meal.

22

Turner and Collison

O t h e r studies have examined the relationship between preference scores and consumption measures (Pilgrim 1961) but there has been little work which examines the relationship between preference and acceptance scores. Cardelio and Mailer (1982) collected preference and acceptance data to determine whether or not a person's expressed preference for a food item could affect his j u d g e m e n t of the acceptability of a test sample of that food, as this could be relevant to consumer surveys. The present study was concerned with complete meals and meal c o m p o n e n t acceptance. It also examined the relationship between menu item acceptance and menu item preference scores.

Table l Equations showing the relationship between customer acceptance of the meal and meal components of nine meals

Meal 1 Meal = -0.48 + 0.51 entrfe + 0.47 vegetable

36 customers

Meal 2 Meal = 1.86 + 0.43 sweet + 0.29 entree

35 customers

Meal 3 Meal = 5.24 + 0.48 cntrfe + 0.21 sweet -0.36 potato

23 customers

Meal 4 Meal = 1.15 + 0.64 entree + 0.22 starter

31 customers

Meal 5 Meal = 1.46 + 0.21 sweet + 0.47 entree + 0.12 starter

36 customers

Meal 6 Meal = 0.46 + 0.22 potato + 0.32 entree + 0.17 starter + 0.28 sweet

34 customers

Meal 7 Meal = 1.8 + 0.51 potato + 0.27 vegetable

32 customers

Methods

Meal 8 Meal = 0.27 + 0.39 entree + 0.37 potato + 0.21 starter

32 customers

The survey was carried out in the training restaurant of the D e p a r t m e n t of Catering Studies, Huddersfield Polytechnic. The preference study took place at least one week prior to the start of the food acceptance study, which in turn took place at nine lunchtime meals during nine consecutive weeks. The 'preference questionnaire', which was a modified version of the type used by Wyant et al. (1979), was designed to evaluate peoples' preference ratings for selected meal components. Menu items were listed and an unstructured scale, with 'dislike extremely' (Score 1) and 'like extremely' (Score 9) at the ends, was used to estimate the preference score for each item. Respondents were also asked to indicate if they had never tried the item, or the number of times per month they would like to eat the item. O t h e r information such as name, sex, age range, and type of customer was obtained, The 'acceptance questionnaire' was designed for completion by restaurant customers, after they had eaten. The respondents were asked to give an acceptance rating for the whole meal and for the individual meal components. As before, an unstructured hedonic scale (80 mm long) with 'dislike extremely' and 'like extremely' at either end was used. During each meal occasion selected judges, who had experience both in catering and sensory analysis, also assessed the food that was eaten by the customers, in a quiet room adjoining the food production and service area. Separate samples (approximately a quarter of a portion of each food item) were presented to judges with a score sheet. An unstructured scale with "very bad' and 'very good' at extremes was used for the following attributes: appearance, colour, odour, temperature, texture, consistency, flavour, and overall acceptability.

Meal 9 Meal = 1.74 + 0.76 entree

26 customers

Food Quality and Preference (1988) 1 (1)

Values of R 2 lot all equations arc significant ( P < 0.01) Table 2 Correlation coefficients between acceptance scores for meal and menu items in all nine meals Meal Starter EntrEe Potato Vegetable Sweet

Starter

EntrEe

Potato

Vegetable

0.22** 0.25"* 0.23** 0.27**

0.44"** 0.47*** 0.36***

0.48*** 0.32***

0.46**

0.41"**

0.74*** 0.53"** 0.54*** 0.64***

No. customers = 285 ***P < 0.001 **P < 0.01

Results and discussion The food acceptance survey yielded scores for meals and also for starter, entree, potato, vegetable and sweet items for between 23 and 26 customers for each of the nine meal occasions. Multiple regression equations were developed which linked the acceptance rating of the whole rfieal to menu item scores: Whole Meal = k + kl (starter) + k2 (entrEe) + k3 (potato) + k4 (vegetable) + k5 (sweet) Resultant equations for the nine meals (Table 1) showed that the entree had the highest weighting relative to other menu item components in seven of the meals. Combination of data from all nine meals and for 285 questionnaires gave the following relationship:

Whole Meal = 0.57 + 0.43 (entrEe) + 0.21 (sweet) + 0.14 (starter) + 0.14 (potato). R-' = 0.70 This reinforces the importance of the entree in meal acceptance. O t h e r factors apart from the food components, for example, service and general atmosphere, also contribute to the total meal experience (McKenzie 1980) but are not included in this analysis. Table 2, showing the correlation coefficients between meal and menu item scores, again shows that the entree had the highest correlation with the overall meal score. Rogozenski and Moskowitz (1982) found this same dominant effect of the entree on the overall meal preference. Table 2 also shows that the meal score was very highly correlated ( P < 0.001) to

Meals acceptance

23

Table 3 Mean acceptance scores for meal and menu items of all nine meals, for all customers, for different categories of customers and for the regular customers Item Customer category

Meal

Starter

Entr6e

Potato

Vegetable

Sweet

n

~

SD

ti

SD

~

SD

a

SD

t~

SD

t~

SD

All customer occasions

285

7.1

1.3

7.0

1.6

7.0

1.5

6.8 a

1.6

6.9

1.4

7.3 a

1.8

Male Female

168 117

7.1 7.0

1.2 1.4

7.0 7. I

1.7 1.5

7.1 7.0

1.6 1.5

6.9 6.8

1.6 1.6

7.0 6.9

1.4 .1.5

7.4 7.2

1.6 2.0

Visitors Staff Students

29 103 153

5.9 xz 7.6xY 7.0Yz

1.5 1.1 1.2

6.1 xy 7.3 xb 7. I Y

1.6 1.7 1.5

6.1 xy 7.5 x 6.9r

1.3 1.4 1.6

6.1 x 7.2 x~ 6.7

1.3 1.5 1.6

6.0 xz 7.4xY 6.8Yz

1.7 1.3 1.3

5.7 xz 8.0xY~b 7.1 r~

2.7 1.4 1.6

Age 18-25 Age 26--45 Age 46-65

181 71 30

6.9 x 7.6 x 7.5

1.3 1.1 1.1

7.0 7.1 7.3

1.5 1.7 1.8

6.9 7.5 7.3

1.6 1.3 1.6

6.7 7.2 7.2 a

1.6 1.5 1.6

6.9 7.2 7.1 b

1.3 1.6 1.7

7.0 X 7.7 8.3 xab

1.8 1.8 0.8

Catering Non-catering

45 240

6.2 x 7.3 x

1.3 1.2

6.9 7.0

1.6 1.6

6.0 x 7.2 x

1.7 1.4

6.3 x 6.9 xa

1.5 1.6

6.3 x 7.1 x

1.4 1.4

6.6 x 7.4 xa

1.8 1.8

85

7.6

1.1

7.4 a

1.4

7.6

1.3

7.4 b

1.2

7.6

1.2

8. Iab

1.2

Regular customers

n = no. of customers. (Note that 3 customers fell below the age range given here) a = mean score SD = standard deviation Superscripts indicate scores which are statistically different (P < 0.05); a, b apply to columns; x, Yand z apply to rows within sub-categories Table 4 Two-way analysis of variance Source of variation Degree of freedom

Sum of squares

Mean square

F value

Menu item Customer Residual Total

30 2005 2020 4055

6.07 7.06 1.42

4.27*** 4.97"**

5 284 1420 1709

*** P < 0.001 all m e n u items a n d t h a t all m e n u items were i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . This reflects the cust o m e r s ' j u d g e m e n t r a t h e r t h a n the food; m a n y people were f o u n d to give c o n s i s t e n t scores to a variety of food items. M e a n scores for meals a n d m e n u items for all nine meals (285 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s ) are s h o w n in T a b l e 3. T h e m e a n score for the sweet is highest (7.3) and is statistically h i g h e r t h a n the p o t a t o m e a n score (6.8) but all o t h e r m e n u items have similar m e a n scores in the range of 6.9 to 7.1. D a t a were s k e w e d towards the t o p of the scale, indicating that c u s t o m e r s on the whole liked the food served in the r e s t a u r a n t . C u s t o m e r s were categorised into subgroups and the following results o b s e r v e d (Table 3). N o difference was f o u n d in the scoring of male a n d female customers. Visiting c u s t o m e r s w h o r e p r e s e n t e d only 10% of the s a m p l e scored lower t h a n s t u d e n t c u s t o m e r s who, in t u r n , scored lower than Polytechnic staff customers. C u s t o m e r s u n d e r 26 years of age (visitors and s t u d e n t s were usually in this age

range), scored lower than o l d e r customers. C u s t o m e r s w h o were e i t h e r c a t e r i n g staff or catering s t u d e n t s scored lower t h a n o t h e r customers. O n two out of nine meal ocassions t h e r e was e v i d e n c e t h a t c u s t o m e r s seated at the s a m e table gave similar food item scores, which differed from the scores at o t h e r tables. This may have arisen because a s u b g r o u p g a t h e r e d at a particular table; or different food items m a y have b e e n e a t e n at different tables; or food items may have b e e n served at different times which resulted in quality differences; or i n t e r a c t i o n may have o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n c u s t o m e r s d u r i n g the c o m p l e t i o n of the q u e s t i o n naire. This variability within c u s t o m e r scores o b s e r v e d in T a b l e 3 could t h e r e f o r e be d u e to b o t h m e n u c o m p o n e n t a n d c u s t o m e r variability, a n d this is illustrated in T a b l e 4, which shows that F values are statistically significant ( P < 0 . 0 0 1 ) for b o t h sources of variability. A n u m b e r of c u s t o m e r s came r e p e a t e d l y

to the r e s t a u r a n t a n d a t t e n d e d six or m o r e of the nine meals. T h e scores of these regular diners ( T a b l e 3) were overall higher on average t h a n those of the o t h e r customers, a n d statistically h i g h e r on five of the meal occasions. P r e s u m a b l y , t h e i r regular a t t e n d a n c e reflects t h e i r high degree of satisfaction. T h e results of these regular c u s t o m e r s were e x a m i n e d for consistency, a n d s h o w e d no e v i d e n c e of any drift or any t r e n d which could indicate b o r e d o m with the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . T h e t h r e e selected j u d g e s were employed to p r o v i d e s t a n d a r d i s e d i n f o r m a tion a b o u t the food served. T a b l e 5 shows that c u s t o m e r and j u d g e m e a n scores for these 45 m e n u items were similar a n d were very highly c o r r e l a t e d ( P < 0.001). P r e f e r e n c e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were completed by 22 c u s t o m e r s , prior to the acceptance survey. T a b l e 6 shows t h a t m e a n acceptance scores were h i g h e r t h a n m e a n p r e f e r e n c e scores for 34 out of 36 m e n u items. C u s t o m e r s liked the food in the r e s t a u r a n t m o r e t h a n they a n t i c i p a t e d they would like it. This was particularly e v i d e n t in u n p o p u l a r items such as leek s o u p which, w h e n p r e s e n t e d as a good quality product, was e n j o y e d e v e n by c u s t o m e r s who do not n o r m a l l y rate it highly. It a p p e a r s that p r e f e r e n c e surveys m a y u n d e r e s t i m a t e the a c c e p t a n c e of good quality food. C o n v e r s e l y , the two items ( b a k e d p o t a t o a n d roast p o t a t o ) , which received lower a c c e p t a n c e scores t h a n preference scores, had a relatively high prefer-

Food Quality and Preference (19881 ! (11

24

Turner and Collison

Table 5 Customer and selected judge mean acceptance scores for menu items during nine meals

Entree Potatol Potato2 Vegetablel Vegetable2

Meal 1

Meal 2

ca

ja

ca

5.5 5.9 7.3 6.1 6.5

5.2 6.0 6.5 7.0 5.9

7.0 6.1 5.8 6.2 7.3

Meal 3

Meal 4

Meal 5

Meal 6

Meal 7

Meal 8

ja

ca

ja

ca

ja

ca

ja

ca

ja

ca

7.0 6.7 2.1 3.8 6.8

7.6 7.7 7.3 7.2 7.5

7.4 7.0 6.9 6.8 7.3

7.6 7.4 7.5 7.7 7.5

7.1 6.8 6.3 7.8 6.8

6.7 7.1 6.7 7.0 7.5

4.9 8.2 6.3 7.3 6.9

6.7 6.0 7.1 7.1 6.4

5.9 6.5 8.0 8.1 6.3

7.3 6.0 7.3 4.3 . . . 7.2 7.8 7.5 8.1

ja

Meal 9

ca

ja

ca

ja

7.3 7.1

6.6 6.2

6.3 6.7

6.9 4.5

7.2 6.6 6.9 7.0 7.1

6.9 6.6 7.0 8.1 7.2

.

ca = customer mean acceptance score. Number of customers range from 8 to36. jd = selected judge mean acceptance score. Number of selected judges = 3. Correlation coefficient between customer and selected judge scores is 0.53 (P < 0.001) Table 6 Comparison of customer mean acceptance and preference scores for 36 menu items

Starter

Entrde

Potato

Vegetable

Item

a-/~

n

Item

d-/~

n

Item

d-p

Pasta Milanese Florida cocktail Melon Grapefruit Stuffed tomato Tomato soup Leek soup Stuffed eggs

1.6 1.3 0.3 2.8 2.8 1.8 5.1 3.3

13 3 14 1 2 9 8 7

Roast beef Roast pork Roast lamb BeefCarbonnade Chilicon Came Fish in sauce Fried fish Fried chicken

0.7 1.7 0.3 0.2 0.5 2.1 3.4 0.7

10 11 7 4 7 10 9 8

Roast Baked Creamed Croquette Duchesse Savoury

- 0 . 6 11 - 0 . 5 15 0.7 8 1.0 6 1.7 8 0.3 8

Rice

0.7

n

Sweet

Item

a-/~

n

Item

a-/~

n

Brussels sprouts Sweetcorn Broccoli Carrot Courgette Green beans Peas

1.7 1.1 2.0 1.4 2.6 1.9 0.3

17 17 12 16 11 17 13

Fruit pie Fruit flan Fruit slice Chocolate gateau Fudge cake Creme caramel

0.5 2.4 2.4 2.0 4.1 2.5

6 11 6 12 3 1I

7

d = mean acceptance score

/0 = mean preference score n = number of customers

ence score. C a t e r e r s may have difficulty fulfilling c u s t o m e r e x p e c t a t i o n for some highly p r e f e r r e d food items, due p e r h a p s to the c o n s t r a i n t s of food service. For example, p o t a t o e s are k n o w n to deteriorate during w a r m h o l d i n g .

Acknowledgem ents

Advances in Caterhlg Technology (ed. G

W e a c k n o w l e d g e the help of the c u s t o m e r s w h o participated in the surveys and the selected j u d g e s w h o c o n t r i b u t e d to the assessments.

Glew), p. 474. Applied Science Publishers: London

References Conclusion T h e s e results bring out a n u m b e r of important points. 1 Overall the e n t r 6 e had a d o m i n a t i n g effect on the a c c e p t a n c e rating for the meal, and t h e r e f o r e caterers should pay particular a t t e n t i o n to this c o m p o n e n t . 2 C u s t o m e r a c c e p t a n c e scores were higher t h a n p r e f e r e n c e scores for all but two of the m e n u items, showing that in general c u s t o m e r anticipations were exceeded. N o c o m p a r a b l e data were f o u n d in the literature, and f u r t h e r work will reveal w h e t h e r or not this is a general trend. 3 T h e good correlations b e t w e e n c u s t o m e r acceptance scores a n d assessment by a p a n e l of t h r e e i n d e p e n d e n t j u d g e s o p e n s up the possibility of using such a panel as part of the quality control system in large-scale catering situations.

Food Quality and Preference (1988) 1 (1)

BALINTFY, J L (1980) Catering to consumers' food preferences. In Advances hi Catering Technology (ed. G Glew). Applied Science Publishers: London CARDELLO, A V & MALLER, O (1982) Relationships between food preferences and food acceptance ratings, Journal of Food Science, 47, 1553-9 CASH, E M & KHAN, M (1983) Food preferefices and selection of entree items by hospital patients, Journal of Foodservice Systems, 2, 229-35 COLUSON, R (1984) Sensory evaluation of foods, J. Sci. Food Agricuhure, 35, 1274-5 EINSTEIN, M A & HORNS'rEIN, I (1970) Food preferences of college students and nutritional implications, Journal of Food Science, 35,429 GLEW, G (1970) Food preferences of hospital patients, Proc. Nutr. Soc. , 29,339--43 HARPER, R (1963) Some attitudes to vegetables, and their implications, Nature, 200, 14-18 MCKENZIE, J (1980) The eating environment. In

MALLER, O, DUBROSE, C N & CARDELLO, A V

(1980) Consumer opinions of hospital food and foodservice: demographic and environmental factors, Journal of American Dietetic Association, 76,236--42 MEISELIvIAN, H L & WATERMAN, O (1978) Food preferences of enlisted personnel in the Armed Forces, Journal of American Dietetic Association, 73,621-9 MOSKOWITZ, H R (1980) Psychometric evaluation of food preferences, Journal of Foodservice Systems, 1,149-67 PIGGorr, J R (1979) Food preferences of some United Kingdom residents, Journal of Human Nutrition, 33,197-205 PILGRIM, F J (1961) What foods do people accept or reject?, Journal of American Dietetic Association, 39,439 ROGOZENSKI, J G & MOSKOWITZ, F I R (1982) A system for the preference evaluation of cyclic menus, Journal of Foodservice Systems, 2, 139-61 WYANT, K W, MEISELMAN, H L & WATERMAN, D

(1979) Air Force food habits study. Part 1: method and overview, Technical Report No TR-79-041, US Army Natiek Research and Development Command, Natick, Massachussetts, USA