Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting

Accepted Manuscript Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting S.R. Jaeger, J. Hort, C. Porcherot, G. Ares, S. Pecore, H.J.H. MacFie PII: DOI: Reference:

S0950-3293(16)30050-7 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.006 FQAP 3110

To appear in:

Food Quality and Preference

Received Date: Revised Date: Accepted Date:

14 October 2015 20 February 2016 20 March 2016

Please cite this article as: Jaeger, S.R., Hort, J., Porcherot, C., Ares, G., Pecore, S., MacFie, H.J.H., Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting, Food Quality and Preference (2016), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.006

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Paper for submission to: Food Quality and Preference

Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four perspectives and audience voting

S.R. Jaeger 1a*, J. Hort 2a, C. Porcherot 3a, G. Ares 4a, S. Pecore 5a, & H.J.H. MacFie 6a

1. The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Ltd., 120 Mt Albert Road, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, New Zealand 2. School of Biosciences, The University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Sutton Bonington, Leicestershire LE12 5RD, U.K. 3. Firmenich, SA, route des Jeunes 1, 1227 Geneva, Switzerland 4. Sensometrics & Consumer Science, Instituto Polo Tecnológico de Pando, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República. By Pass de Rutas 8 y 101 s/n. C.P. 91000. Pando, Canelones, Uruguay 5. Retired, General Mills, Inc., and P & D Consulting LLC, 331 Fillmore Street, Pasadena, CA 91106, USA 6. Hal MacFie Sensory Training Ltd., 43 Manor Road, Keynsham, Bristol BS31 1RB, U.K.

a

SRJ, JH, CP, GA, SP and HJHM have shared first authorship.

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract The 11th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, which took place in Gothenburg (Sweden), in August 2015 ended with a plenary session where areas of direction for future research in sensory and consumer science were suggested by four speakers. Within their chosen topic the speakers presented three statements which the audience voted on (ranking task) in terms of importance for the future of the field. On the topic of understanding individual variation in sensory perception, the statement endorsed as most important was: “We must engage with other specialists, e.g., geneticists and neuroscientists, to understand the mechanism behind individual variation in perception”. With regard to the role of context and situation in future research and the top ranked statement for this topic was: “We must increase the number of real-life consumer studies for more ecological validity”. With regard to consumers’ decision making processes, the statement endorsed as most important was: “We must develop new methodological approaches to understand the heuristics that influence food choice”. Finally, on the topic of future sensory and consumer research in industry, the top ranked statement was: “We must better capture consumer responses in context (at the moment, in the environment, etc.).” Three broad themes emerged: increasing the ecological validity of sensory and consumer research, doing inter-disciplinary research and accounting for individual differences (perception and decision making). These coincide with the trend from past decades towards a broadening of this science domain.

Key words: sensory, consumer, research, Pangborn 2015 conference

Research Highlights •

Some key directions for the future of sensory and consumer science were identified.

•

The inter-disciplinary aspects of sensory and consumer science should continue to strengthen.

•

Individual differences in perception and decision making needs to be better understood.

•

The ecological validity of sensory and consumer science should continue to increase.

•

Efforts to measure consumer responses in context should continue to increase.

1. Introduction From time to time at conferences, speakers present their perspectives on “the future”, “where to next?” etc. This may cover the field of sensory and consumer science as a whole or in specific areas (e.g., Martens, 1999; Jaeger, 2006; Tuorila & Monteleone, 2009; Meiselman, 2013; Jaeger, 2014; Tuorila, 2015). The current paper contributes to this ongoing discourse by reporting on a plenary panel debate held at the 11th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium in August 2015 in Gothenburg (Sweden). An innovation at this event was participation by the audience who voted electronically for the future directions they considered to be most important for the field. It is hoped that suggestions for future research emerging from this session will contribute to shaping research focus in years to come. The coverage of the session was not exhaustive in terms of the field as a whole, but captured four topics chosen by the speakers as those they considered to have particular merit. Due to its specialised coverage, this paper does not follow the structure of a traditional research report. Instead we first describe how the plenary session and the voting process took place. Then, the four topics are presented in turn. The voting results are described and discussed before drawing conclusions.

2. The plenary session and the voting process The plenary session, which took place immediately before the closing of the 11th Pangborn conference was titled: Panel debate with audience voting. It was moderated by Sara Jaeger and Hal MacFie, who presented the four speakers and oversaw the voting process. The speakers and topics were: •

Topic 1 – presented by Joanne Hort – was: understanding individual differences in sensory perception.

•

Topic 2 – presented by Christelle Porcherot – was: the role of context and situation in future research.

•

Topic 3 – presented by Gastón Ares – was: consumers’ decision making processes.

•

Topic 4 – presented by Suzanne Pecore – was: future sensory and consumer research in industry.

Each speaker had 5 min. to present their chosen topic and three voting statements. These statements captured intentions for the future. It was beyond the scope of a 45 min. session to broadly cover aspects of future research. Instead, the speakers selected their own topic. This reflected their personal areas of interest/expertise. Since the speakers independently decided what topic to address and what statements to put forward for voting, a small degree of overlap between some statements occurred. Using smart phones, tablets, or laptop computers, conference delegates who attended the plenary session accessed the voting platform (hosted by EyeQuestion®) to perform a ranking task.

Within each topic, the statement they considered to be most

important for the future was given rank 1, with rank 2 and rank 3 being given to the second and third most important statements regarding future developments for the field of sensory and consumer science. The statement orders were those listed in sections 3 to 6. Despite the risk of bias, fixed presentation order of statements was used to minimise network demands and a possible slowdown of the voting process. However, this may have resulted in bias, which needs to be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Participation in the voting was voluntary and anonymous. The number of votes for each topic ranged from 305 to 324. Although ~900 delegates attended the conference, many were not present at the closing session and/or chose to not take part in the voting. The lowest number of votes was obtained for Topic 1, probably due to lack of familiarity with the voting interface. To keep to the time schedule for the session it was necessary to close voting for each topic after a few minutes. No information about participants was collected to minimise demand on the network when responses from hundreds of people were to be collated in a few minutes. The voting results for a speaker were shown before the next speaker presented their topic. The panel session concluded with a display of the one statement from each speaker that was rated as most important.

3. Topic 1: Understanding individual differences in sensory perception Although it can be somewhat infuriating for statisticians, it is fascinating to observe the variation in perception of the same stimulus across the human population whether selfreported on an intensity scale or recorded as intensity of brain response. From a fundamental perspective it is of great interest, but in an applied context, it also confirms that

‘average responses’ to a product are not going to be representative of the wider population. Moreover, if industry is to produce products that match consumer needs, a better understanding of the factors affecting individual variation in perception is needed. For the purpose of the debate two traits were highlighted as examples but, as stressed in the discussion section, there are many others that require consideration. The discovery of variation in taste response to compounds such as to thiourea containing compounds such as phenyl-thio-carbamide (PTC) and 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) (Blakeslee, 1932) highlighted this phenomenon. Much research has focused on this genetically driven trait and we now know that the perceived bitterness of such compounds varies to a large extent in line with polymorphisms in the TAS2r38 gene (Duffy et al., 2004). However, a connection was also observed that an increased number of fungiform papillae also leads to an increased sensitivity to all tastes (Miller & Reedy, 1990; Zuniga et al., 1993) and somatosensation (Essick, Chopra, Guest, & McGlone, 2003; Hayes & Duffy, 2007). Fungiform papillae density has been found to be significantly higher in PROP super-tasters and women (Bartoshuk, Duffy, & Miller, 1994; Blakeslee, 1932; Driscoll, Perez, Cukrowicz, Butler, & Joiner, 2006; Duffy & Bartoshuk, 2000; Duffy et al., 2004; Glanvill & Kaplan, 1965; Hayes, Bartoshuk, Kidd, & Duffy, 2008; Lanier, Hayes, & Duffy, 2005) suggesting that this could be one source of increased sensitivity to PROP/PTC as well as overall oral sensitivity (Bajec & Pickering, 2008; Duffy, 2007). More recently it has been proposed that polymorphisms associated with Gustin genotype (gustin is a protein found in saliva) may contribute to variations in oral sensation as gustin has been suggested to be a trophic factor linked to papillae growth (Calo et al., 2011; Feeney & Hayes, 2014; Melis et al., 2013; Padiglia et al., 2010). A more recently discovered phenotype is Thermal Taster Status whereby individuals who perceive a ‘phantom’ taste when the tongue is rapidly cooled or warmed are categorised as thermal tasters (as opposed to thermal non-tasters) (Cruz & Green, 2000). Thermal tasters have been shown to have a heightened response to oral sensations (Bajec & Pickering, 2008; Green & George, 2004; Pickering, Moyes, Bajec, & Decourville, 2010), be more sensitive to temperature and show differences in some food choice behaviours (Yang, 2015), all independent of Prop Taster Status. Interestingly prop medium-tasters have been observed to show increased sensitivity equivalent to prop supertasters if they are Thermal Tasters (Yang, Hollowood, & Hort, 2014) demonstrating the complexity of factors that are likely to affect individual variation in perception. Many other pheno- and genotypes exist that influence perception and potentially food choice behaviour. Companies are already starting to consider the impact that variations will

have in terms of product development. Coca-Cola acknowledged this back in Nov 2013 when their Chief Technology Officer was quoted as saying “personalized drinks are the future” (Bouckley, 2013). In the UK a consortium reporting to Government also highlighted the need to understand ‘how to personalise healthy low cost food’ as one of the ten most important pre-competitive areas for research across the food and drink industries (Biosciences KTN/TSB/FDF, 2013). One discipline, in combination with sensory science, that is making a large contribution to understanding individual variation and the mechanism behind it is neuroscience and brain imaging. For example, links between PROP taster status and activation in the somatosensory cortex and other areas of the brain have already been demonstrated where supertasters show much greater activation to the same fatty stimulus than non-tasters, supporting the link between increased papillae and PROP taster status (Eldeghaidy et al., 2011). Differences in brain response in the taste cortex and anterior cingulate cortex have been observed between thermal and thermal non-tasters using sweetened carbonated samples suggesting differences in neural processing between these two groups (Clark, 2011). In terms of understanding individual differences in sensory perception, what is most important? •

To work with product developers to design products tailored to individual variation in perception in order to meet consumer needs?

•

To further understand the full range of pheno- and genotypic variation impacting perception?

•

To engage with other specialists, e.g. geneticists and neuroscientists, to understand the mechanisms behind individual variation in perception?

4. Topic 2: The rule of context and situation in future research Odors and food products can be perceived differently by the same individual, depending on the context and situation. A single molecule, such as isovaleric acid, can be associated with pleasant experiences and feelings when it is smelled in association with a nice cheese, but it can also be associated with uncomforting and unpleasant feelings when it is smelled during public transport in association with dirty feet. With context being so crucial, how can it be defined? Which contextual factors influence eating, drinking, and food choice behaviors? Are those factors external or internal? How can the role of context be studied? Many authors have investigated the effect of changing external factors on food choices and

behaviors, such as the effect of location (e.g., Hersleth, Ueland, Allain, & Næs, 2005; Edwards, Meiselman, Edwards, & Lesher, 2003), lighting (e.g., Quartier, Vanrie, & Van Cleempoel, 2014), and music intensity (e.g., McCarron & Tierney, 1989; Stroebele & De Castro, 2006). Others have studied the effect of changing the size, weight, and color of food containers (e.g., Piqueras-Fiszman, Alcaide, Roura, & Spence, 2012; Piqueras-Fiszman, Harrar, Alcaide, & Spence, 2011; Libotte, Siegrist, & Bucher, 2014; Wansink, Van Ittersum, & Painter, 2006), or changing elements of the packaging, such as the product name, claim, nutritional information, or origin (e.g., Piqueras-Fiszman & Spence, 2015; Guéguen & Jacob, 2012; Saenz-Navajas, Ballester, Peyron, & Valentin, 2014). For other authors, individuals are part of the context, and internal variables should be considered even if they are more difficult to measure. These variables include emotion (e.g., Canetti, Bachar, & Berry, 2002; Macht, 1999; Macht & Simons, 2000), cultural background (e.g., Pagès, Bertrand, Ali, Husson, & Lê, 2007), social interaction (e.g., de Castro, 1994; Herman, 2015; Pliner, Bell, Hirsch, & Kinchla, 2006; Bellisle & Dalix, 2001), activity, physiological state, experience, cultural differences (e.g., Ares, Mawad, Giménez, & Maiche, 2014; Son et al., 2014), and attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Canetti, Bachar, & Berry, 2002; Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger, 2014). The influence of these factors has mostly been studied independently, which may be relevant if these factors interact in an additive way. However, as highlighted by Köster (2009), they may not be independent and may interact in an integrative way. Therefore, research methods that by their very nature take account of multiple context factors is necessary to progress the field of sensory and consumer science. Three such approaches are considered here. The first approach is where consumer tests are conducted in a real or natural situation in order to increase ecological validity (e.g., Meiselman, Johnson, Reeve, & Crouch, 2000; Pouyet, Cuvelier, Benattar, & Giboreau, 2015; Porcherot, Petit, Giboreau, Gaudreau, & Cayeux, 2015). This approach may be difficult to implement, however, because of the complexity of real-life situations and the lack of controlled conditions. In addition, it requires abandoning questionnaires and verbal measures and considering new testing measures such as behavior observation. To progress further in this direction, partnerships with psychologists, anthropologists, and other professionals will help us to rethink the methods used in sensory and consumer research. The second approach is based on immersion, whereby a context and moment of consumption is evoked when conducting consumer tests in sensory laboratories. This has been implemented by, for example, Köster (2003); Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger (2014) and Hein, Hamid, Jaeger, & Delahunty (2012), who found that the results were accurate and discriminating. However, further studies are needed to validate the use of the evoked context in a laboratory setting as compared to a real-life situation (King, Weber, Meiselman, & Lv,

2004). Sester et al. (2013) implemented the immersion approach in bars created for the purpose of consumer research and used colour, music and video to change the overall warmth of the ambience. In general, however, the disadvantage of approaches that simulate physical context is that they may not be similar enough to real life or relevant enough for consumers and their personal experiences (Petit & Sieffermann, 2007). The third approach consists of conducting studies in immersive virtual reality (IVR). IVR is computer simulation that immerses people in almost real environments by controlling specific parameters (i.e., duration, frequency of stimulation). According to some authors, IVR involves sensory modalities that bombard all five senses, improves the sense of presence, and elicits vivid emotional experiences (Dinh, Walker, Hodges, Chang, & Kobayashi, 1999). During this conference, some presenters showed that the added value of IVR is that it allows a better understanding of consumer feelings and preferences (Guttman et al., 2015; Porcherot, Delplanque, Ischer, De Marles, & Cayeux, 2015). The IVR approach still seems futuristic, but could soon become the most adapted approach to changing consumers and behaviours. Today, everyone is “connected” and the new generation cannot live without electronic devices and connected tools. Although expensive and complex equipment in 3D laboratories were necessary in the past, progress in this field has made equipment affordable equipment (e.g., glasses from Oculus; www.oculus.com). For this approach, like the approach in real conditions, partnerships with psychologists, anthropologists, and other professionals is suggested to reassess research methods used in sensory and consumer research. In terms of understanding the role of context and situation in sensory and consumer science, what is most important? •

To increase the number of real-life consumer studies for more ecological validity?

•

To increase the number of immersive virtual reality studies to adapt to the changing environment and consumers?

•

To increase partnerships with psychologists to rethink the methods used in sensory and consumer research?

5. Topic 3: Consumers’ decision making processes Consumer decisions are determined by two modes of thinking: System 1, characterized by fast, intuitive, effortless, automatic and associative responses, and System 2, which is responsible for serial, effortful and rational decisions (Kahneman, 2003). System 1 relies on heuristics. That is, simplified strategies for decision making that minimize the

cognitive effort needed for making decisions (Kahneman, 2011). Considering that human beings have a limited capacity to process information, the majority of our everyday choices are made without much deliberation and are mainly determined by System 1, or intuitive thinking (Kahneman, 2003). This is also the case for eating and food choice, which have been reported to be largely influenced by intuitive and automatic behaviours (Cohen & Farley, 2008). People spend little time and rarely engage in deep cognitive processing to inspect all the available information on food products when making their food choices (van’t Riet, Sijtsema, Dagevos, & de Bruijin, 2011). However, this aspect of decision making has largely been neglected in studies aimed at studying consumers’ choices of food (and non-food) products. To date, in most experimental research consumers are asked to select from a limited number of products and to engage in deep cognitive processing to evaluate these. This testing context encourages consumers to base their responses on System 2 thinking and to invest a lot of time in making their choices, which may decrease the ecological validity of the results. For this reason, it seems necessary to better take into account the mechanisms of consumers’ decision making process in the design of consumer studies. One way to achieve this is by developing new methods for studying the heuristics that influence food choice. Recent applications of the Information-Display-Matrix exemplify progress in this respect (Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Sohn, de Bellis, Martin, & Hertwig, 2013). With this methodology time and cognitive constraints can be placed on research participants making food choices decisions and help to identify the simplified strategies consumers use to acquire information when selecting between limited options. For example, SchulteMecklenbeck et al. (2013) reported that most participants performed limited information search to choose between two lunch dishes, relying on only one characteristic for making their choices. The use of simplified cognitive strategies has implications for studying the sensory characteristics that drive consumers’ preferences. Consumers may rely only on a few sensory attributes rather than on all the sensory characteristics of the products, as previously reported by Jaeger, Wakeling, & MacFie (2000). According to these authors, the accuracy of preference mapping approaches can be improved by taking into account how sensory information is processed by consumers for deciding how much they like a product. An alternative to developing new methodological approaches is to modify existing methods in a way that encourages consumers to give more intuitive responses and make more intuitive decisions (i.e., System 1 vs. System 2 thinking). An example hereof is the work by van Herpen and van Trijp (2011) in a study of consumers’ perception of nutritional

labels. Intuitive responses can also be encouraged by using question wordings that trigger the use of heuristic approaches for decision making. For example, following the ideas proposed by Kahneman (2011) changing the wording of a typical liking question from “How much do you like this product?” to “How successful do you think that this product would be when launched in the marketplace?” may trigger intuitive responses from consumers. Finally, it should be more fully explored how people differ in their relative share of System 1 and System 2 thinking, which leads to differences in the way in which they make their decisions (Epstein, 2003). People who predominantly use System 1 thinking have been claimed to take more intuitive decisions and engage in less thoughtful information search than those who tend to mostly rely on System 2 thinking. In turn, these people tend to base their decisions on detailed and logical evaluations (Epstein, 1997). Studying how individual differences in information processing affect food choice can contribute better understanding of how the interplay between System 1 and System 2 thinking shape eating patterns. Several tests, such as the rational experiential inventory (REI: Epstein, Pacini, Denes-Raj, & Heiser, 1996), embedded figures test (Witkin, Oltman, Raskin, & Karp, 1971) and the cognitive reflection test (Frederick, 2005), have been recently used to study how individual differences in information processing affect consumers’ perception of labels and food products (Ares, Mawad, Giménez, & Maiche, 2014; Kim, Dessirier, van Hout, & Lee, 2015; Mawad, Trías, Giménez, Maiche, & Ares, 2015). Individual differences in decision making are also expected to influence assessors’ performance in sensory descriptive tasks, as it has been recently reported for projective mapping (Antúnez, Oliveira, Vidal, Ares, Næs, & Varela, 2015). In terms of understanding consumers’ decision making processes, what is most important? •

To develop new methodological approaches to understand the heuristics that influence food choice?

•

To encourage intuitive decisions in our usual methodologies?

•

To study how individual differences in decision making influence food choice?

6. Topic 4: Future sensory and consumer research in industry The sensory scientist plays a unique role in the consumer-packaged-goods industry, one not filled by other disciplines such as product development, analytical chemistry, or marketing research. The sensory professional is defined by her focus on product research, and is well-versed in how best to design and interpret the appropriate research to

understand product characteristics. Because of this unique position, the role of the sensory scientist in the future is predicted to remain the same, i.e., measuring human responses to sensory properties of products and using that data to guide our developers in creating successful products. But in soliciting opinions from colleagues across a variety of companies (see footnote for participants in this “mini survey” of industry practitioners), it quickly became clear that the major change expected in the future is in how sensory scientists fulfil that role. Three trends were noted. First, technology is going to allow for better capture of consumer responses in context (for some recent examples see Bangcuyo, Smith, Zumach, Pierce, Guttman, & Simons, 2015; Bourguet et al. 2016; Sester et al. 2013; and Vidal, Ares, Machín & Jaeger, 2015). Context in its broadest sense refers to “at the moment” – at the moment of purchase or at the moment of consumption or use. Context also encompasses “the environment” – under different situations, e.g., social occasions, with family, at different times of the day, or even under specific health conditions (see Bell, Meiselman, Pierson, & Reeve, 1994; Giacalone & Jaeger, in press; Jaeger, & Rose, 2008; King, Meiselman, Hottenstein, Work, & Cronk, 2007 for exemplar studies / approaches). But perhaps most importantly, testing will not be in isolation without reference to other products (as also previously suggested by Köster (2009) as a necessary change in practise). Blind taste testing in a Central Location Test (CLT) will no longer be the norm, as consumers are able to bring their demands directly to companies via technology. Consumers will feel empowered to demand the products that best fit their needs, and it will be important that we develop the means to use that feedback in conjunction with any direct testing to influence our product development efforts. Secondly, when we do collect consumer responses, our segmentation techniques will be much more developed and sophisticated, and ultimately more relevant to sensory perception than current approaches based on marketing-driven criteria such as demographics, concept response, or shopping traits. Recruiting consumers based on standard criteria such as age, family status, and shopping habits will no longer be relevant to testing and interpreting responses to the sensory properties of products. Broadly, this approach could be described as “sensitivity segmentation” and could be based on genetics (Hayes, Feeney, & Allen, 2013), hedonic sensitivities (Bobowski, Rendhal, & Vickers, 2015), or context (need state or situation). Köster and Mojet (2015) have highlighted the latter stating: “segmentation of the experimental subjects on the basis of age, sex, education and economic status and on traits like food neophobia has sometimes been taken into account, but situational factors such as eating alone in the kitchen or in front of the TV or with family and friends, which are of prime importance in both the effects of mood on food and of food on mood are almost never considered” (p. 181). Another development is exemplified by

Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger (accepted), who segmented consumers based on their emotional associations to meals.

Finally, analytical sensory testing will still be quite active in industry laboratories, as this provides reliable and cost-effective means to thoroughly understand sensory properties. Many of the new methods under development today are being embraced by industry and will likely be implemented. Examples include: temporal approaches (e.g., TDS, TCATA) (for method references see, for example, Ares et al., 2015; Di Monaco, Su, Masi, & Cavella, 2014; Labbe, Schlich, Pineau, Gilbert, & Martin, 2009; Thomas, Visalli, Cordelle & Schlich, 2015), complexity measures (e.g., balance, blend, harmony) (see, for example, Meillon, Viala, Medel, Urbano, Buillot, & Schlich, 2010; Pecore, Hooge, & Uy, 2014), and discrimination methods (e.g., tetrad, degree of difference/deviation from control) (for method references, see, for example Ennis, 2012; Ennis & Jesionka, 2011; Ishii, O’Mahony, & Rousseau, 2014; Pecore, Stoer, Hooge, Holschuh, Hulting, & Case, 2006; Young, Pecore, Stoer, Hulting, Holschuh, & Case, 2008). But given time and resource constraints, it is not feasible that all products under development or manufacture can be assessed using all of these tools. We need some means to determine which methods are most appropriate within a project. Nor can we solely depend on post-hoc correlations and mapping to hypothesize the drivers of liking. We need to answer the “so what?” question posed by product developers when we share our research results. Thus, our approach to modelling needs to evolve, so that we can better understand the relative importance of specific sensory aspects to match consumer needs/wants for each product category. These models will go beyond correlating specific sensory attributes with overall liking, to the identification of key interrelationships among those attributes, e.g., how they blend together or their temporal interaction, that are critical to product success, and for targeted consumer populations. This will allow us to be most efficient in our testing plans, selectively measuring only those aspects known to drive acceptance among specific consumer segments or need states for each product. In terms of the future of sensory and consumer science in industry, what is most important? •

To better capture consumer responses in context (at the moment, in the environment)?

•

To be able to segment consumers by sensitivity (genetics, hedonic, contextual)?

•

To develop models to selectively measure product differences targeted to consumer segments/wants?

7. Results Table 1 shows the topics, statements and voting results. The average rank indicates the importance of a statement and within topics the statement with the lowest rank was identified as “winning”. The average rank was calculated, for each statement, by multiplying the number of votes placed as rank 1, rank 2 and rank 3 with the corresponding rank value (1, 2 or 3). The sum was divided by the total number of votes. Take in Table 1. For Topic 1 (understanding individual differences in sensory perception), engaging with other specialists was viewed as the most important of the three statements (average rank = 1.79). This result not only highlights a need to work with professionals outside the field, but also acknowledges a real need to understand more about individual variation in perception. With such understanding it would then be possible to develop products better tailored to variations in perception. Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the statement “we must work with product developers to design products tailored to individual variation in perception in order to meet consumer needs” had the second lowest average rank value (1.91). With better knowledge concerning variation in perception there will still be the challenge of translation into practical advice for product developers. Funding for crossdisciplinary studies of perception and food choice behaviour to facilitate this is needed from business, Government-based organisations and charities to bring researchers together from both industry and academia. For Topic 2 (role of context and situation in sensory and consumer research), increasing the number of real-life consumer research for more ecological validity was viewed as the most important of the three statements (average rank = 1.65). The lack of control in natural settings does was seemingly not considered to be a big issue by voters, and it was recognized that it is better to observe consumers in their own context of choices and consumption. The immersive virtual reality (IVR) approach received the lowest score (average rank = 2.44), perhaps because of the technical and cost constraints and because the field is not ready for these technical advances. However, it might become the preferred way of putting consumer into researcher-defined contexts and even make them feel

natural/life-like. Connected tools might soon become our future and it may be a mistake to not prepare for this “near future.” For Topic 3 (consumers’ decision making processes) between 31% and 36% of the voters considered each of the three statements as the most important (rank 1), suggesting that they were all thought to be relevant for the future of sensory and consumer science. However, the statement “we must develop new methodological approaches to understand the heuristics that influence food choice” had the lowest average rank value (1.65), which indicated that it was perceived as the most important. Overall, the voting results from Topic 3 suggest that we should more fully consider the way in which consumers make decisions in their daily life when designing consumer studies. This can contribute to increasing the validity and predictive ability of experimental data. For Topic 4 (the future of sensory and consumer science in industry), the statement “we must better capture consumer responses in context (at the moment, in the environment)” had the lowest average rank value (1.66). Therefore, it was considered to be the most important of the 3 statements in this topic by voters. “In context” can be broadly interpreted, from the consumer’s real environment to a staged environment in a central setting, but the overall implication is that we need to move away from testing exclusively under very controlled conditions. Consumers live in a multi-sensory world, and we need to understand how products perform in the context of that world.

8. Discussion and conclusions The four statements voted as having highest importance for the future (i.e., lowest average rank values) were, within topic: “We must engage with other specialists, e.g. geneticists and neuroscientists, to understand the mechanisms behind individual variation in perception” (Topic 1), “We must increase the number of real-life consumer studies for more ecological validity” (Topic 2), “We must develop new methodological approaches to understand the heuristics that influence food choice” (Topic 3) and “We must better capture consumer responses in context (at the moment, in the environment)” (Topic 4). Collectively, they highlight the need to: i) increase the ecological validity of sensory and consumer research, ii) increase the inter-disciplinary nature of the field, and iii) study individual differences in perception and decision making in greater detail. Some of these points have previously been identified as future challenges for the field (e.g., Meiselman, 1996; 2013; 2015; Köster, 2003; 2009). Using the 11th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium as a proxy, it would seem that we as a field have become aware of the need for these developments and are working somewhat towards making them happen.

The need for future research to be more ecologically valid emerged as one of the main challenges. Conducting research in context and using different methods were proposed as two ways of achieving this. Although sensory and consumer research has traditionally been conducted in laboratory settings (Lawless & Heymann, 2010), accounting for influence of context and increasing our willingness obtain consumer responses in environments that are partially/fully uncontrolled is becoming more urgent. Technological developments, such as mobile phone applications, immersive environments, and virtual reality and are poised to progress the field in this direction. So will an increase in research that uses indirect and implicit methods, for example eye tracking, pupillometry and implicit association testing. The technological developments and research methods mentioned above were all presented at the 11th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, indicating that change is underway. More thoroughly accounting for individual differences was another topic deemed to be important for the future of sensory and consumer research. The diversity and, by consequence, complexity of individual differences has become very evident in the literature in recent years. Investigations into PROP Taster Status have been manifold and often contradict each other in terms of the effects this trait has on food choice behaviour. It is not surprising that such studies yield conflicting data since any one trait cannot explain food choice behaviour. It is already well established that several other traits known to affect sensory perception and in some instances genetic components underpinning the differences between people have been identified. Examples include sweet taste (Keskitalo et al., 2007), saltiness (Dias & El-Sohemy, 2012), acidity (Tornwall, Silventoinen, Keskitalo-Vuokko, Perola, Kaprio, & Tuorila, 2012), astringency (Tornwall et al., 2011), and pungency (Tornwall, Silventoinen, Kaprio, & Tuorila, 2012). Examples also exist for olfactory perception (e.g., Knaapila et al., 2008; McRae et al., 2012; Jaeger et al., 2013). Perceived pleasantness can be directly linked to gene polymorphism in sensory perception, demonstrating direct implications for food choice behaviours (see, for example, Keskitalo et al. (2007) on sweet taste, Newman, Haryono, & Keast (2013) on fatty acid perception and Knaapila et al. (2008) on aroma perception). Nevertheless what several of these studies also show is that variation in intensity and pleasantness perception is not wholly controlled by the genetics. Twin studies are able to highlight the differential effects of genetic and environmental factors and it is clear that the latter have a key role (Keskitalo et al., 2008; Knaapila, Hwang et al., 2012; Knaapila et al., 2008; Knaapila, Zhu, et al., 2012). Knaapila et al. (2008), in particular, highlighted that nonshared environmental factors had more impact on intensity and pleasantness rating of odours than the genetic components. Overall, the array of individual differences that affect sensory perception and potentially food choice behaviour are manifold, and perhaps the key

needs moving forward are to understand which particular traits are relevant to which food choice behaviours for which particular population groups, and the relative contribution of genetic and environmental factors. Consumer segmentation has become standard practice, and more research into the determinants of differences in consumer preferences and behaviour will further advance our ability to understand and explain heterogeneity among people. In this sense, understanding individual differences in perception and decision making better were identified as being of particular relevance. It seems likely that such advances will deepen existing knowledge (e.g., for taste, and flavour) and also progress into less well explored areas. An example of the latter is mouth behaviour, a topic discussed in a workshop at the 11th Pangborn Sensory Symposium. The voting results for Topic 1 and Topic 4 pointed to differences in perceived importance of segmentation based on sensitivity for basic research vs. industry applications. For industry (Topic 4) the importance of segmentation was considered to have less importance than advancements related to better understanding the role of context, while in relation to basic research (Topic 1), sensitivity segmentation was voted as being most important. Considering that ranking of statements by importance only occurred within topics and not across the different topics, it was perhaps not unexpected that some discrepancy in results emerged. In light of the different focus of these two streams within our discipline, this outcome face validity. Sensory and consumer science is an inter-disciplinary field. It has been so since its early days (Amerine, Pangborn, & Roessler, 1965). The complexity of sensory perception and consumer behaviour means that we must draw on the knowledge and capabilities of other disciplines to advance our science. This need was endorsed in the debate. Topic 1 highlighted the collaboration with geneticists and neuroscientists to better understand heterogeneity in human perception. In the case of better understanding individual differences with regard to consumer decision making (Topic 3), psychology and economics were indicated as disciplines to collaborate more closely with. Psychologists were also identified as contributing needed skills to advancing our understanding of the role of context and situation (Topic 2), as were skills of other social scientists including anthropologists. The important contributions by psychologists in advancing the field to its current state was previously noted by Schutz & Jaeger (2010). In a future that is more inter-disciplinary than today, graduates, which often train in food science departments may need broader skills than those currently gained. This perspective was brought to attention in the plenary discussion and while some advanced courses already include very diverse material, others may benefit from changes to their curricula.

As noted at the outset, the plenary debate was not intended to be comprehensive in the sense of identifying all important future research directions in sensory and consumer science. Hence, there are many developments within the field which are not covered here and which would probably be considered as important if put to a vote. We acknowledge this limitation and encourage others to join this discourse by reflecting on how far we have come and where to go next. Additional limitations also need to be acknowledged. During the voting process statements were presented in fixed order and this appeared to have caused first-order bias. The decision to present statements in the same order for all voters was made deliberately knowing the risk that bias may occur, but considered necessary in light of anticipated demands on the network connection that could have slowed down the voting process. It was also a deliberate decision to not obtain background information from voters as this would have lengthened the voting/data collection process and reduced time for plenary discussion. Future similar events could be longer to allow for such information to be obtained and enable segmentation of participants by, for example, main occupation (industry vs. academia), length of professional experience and main areas of personal interest in sensory and consumer science. It would also be of interest to enable comparison of statement across topics, for example by asking participants to vote on the top ranked statements from each topics to determine their relative importance.

Acknowledgements Thanks to Annika Åström and Liisa Lähteenmäki for help in planning and developing the panel debate format. Thanks to Gerben Ernst and Rignald Span from EyeQuestion for enabling the interactive voting platform.

References Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M., & Roessler, E. B. (1965). Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. New York: Academic Press. Antúnez, L., Oliveira, D., Vidal, L., Ares, G., Næs, T., & Varela, P. (2015). Influence of wholistic/analytic cognitive style on results from projective mapping. Poster presentation at the 11th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 23-27 August 2015, Gothenburg, Sweden. Ares, G., Jaeger, S.R., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., Coste, B., Picallo, A., & Castura, J.C. (2015). Comparison of TCATA and TDS for dynamic sensory characterization of food products. Food Research International, 78, 148-158. Ares, G., Mawad, F., Giménez, A., & Maiche, A. (2014). Influence of rational and intuitive thinking styles on food choice: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study with yogurt labels. Food Quality and Preference, 31, 28-37. Bajec, M. R., & Pickering, G. J. (2008). Thermal taste, PROP responsiveness, and perception of oral sensations. Physiology & Behavior, 95(4), 581-590. 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. Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., & Miller, I. J. (1994). PTC/PROP tasting: anatomy psychophysics and sex effects. Physiology & Behavior, 56, 1165-1171. Bell, R., Meiselman, H. L., Pierson, B. J., & Reeve, W. G. (1994). Effects of adding an Italian theme to a restaurant on the perceived ethnicity, acceptability, and selection of foods. Appetite, 22, 11–24. Bellisle, F., & Dalix, A. M. (2001). Cognitive restraint can be offset by distraction, leading to increased meal intake in women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 74(2), 197-200. Biosciences KTN/TSB/FDF. (2013). A pre-competitive vision for the UK's food and drink industries. Top 10 pre-competitive areas where research is needed. https://www.fdf.org.uk/events/Pre-Comp-Food-Booklet-Final.pdf /Accessed 18.02.16. Blakeslee, A. F. (1932). Genetics of sensory thresholds taste for phenylthiocarbamide. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 18, 120130. Bobowski, N., Rendahl, A., Vickers, Z. (2015). Preference for salt in a food may be alterable without a low sodium diet. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 40-45. Bouckley, B. (2013). Gene genie: Coke CEO predicts personalised beverages using genomics http://www.beveragedaily.com/Markets/Gene-genie-Coke-CTO-predictspersonalized-beverages-using-genomics / Accessed 18.02.16. Bourguet, C., Pêcher, C., Bardel, M., Navarro, S., Mougin, D. (2016). The use of an ethological approach to evaluate consumers’ appreciation of luxury facial skincare and discriminate between products: A preliminary study. Food Quality and Preference, 50, 7-14. Calo, C., Padiglia, A., Zonza, A., Corrias, L., Contu, P., Tepper, B. J., & Barbarossa, I. T. (2011). Polymorphisrns in TAS2R38 and the taste bud trophic factor, gustin gene co-operate in modulating PROP taste phenotype. Physiology & Behavior, 104(5), 1065-1071.

Canetti, L., Bachar, E., & Berry, E. M. (2002). Food and emotion. Behavioural Processes, 60 (2), 157-164. Clark, R. A. (2011). Multimodal flavour perception: The impact of sweetness, bitterness, alcohol content and carbonation on flavour perception. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Cohen, D. A., & Farley, T. A. (2008). Eating as an automatic behavior. Preventing Chronic Disease, 5(1). http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2008/jan/07_0046.htm /Accessed 18.02.16. Cruz, A., & Green, B. G. (2000). Thermal stimulation of taste. Nature, 403(6772), 889-892. de Castro, J., M. (1994). Family and friends produce greater social facilitation of food intake than other companions. Physiology & Behavior, 56(3), 445-455. Di Monaco, R., Su, C., Masi, P., & Cavella, S. (2014). Temporal Dominance of Sensations: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 38, 104-112. Dias, A. G., &A. El-Sohemy (2012). Genetic variation in the epithelial sodium channel (ENaC) and salt taste perception in humans. Faseb Journal, 26 Dinh, H. Q., Walker, N., Hodges, L. F., Chang, S., & Kobayashi, A. (1999). Evaluating the importance of multi-sensory input on memory and the sense of presence in virtual environments. IEEE Virtual Reality Conference, 13-17 March 1999, Houston, Texas, USA. Driscoll, K. A., Perez, M., Cukrowicz, K. C., Butler, M., & Joiner, T. E. (2006). Associations of phenylthiocarbamide tasting to alcohol problems and family history of alcoholism differ by gender. Psychiatry Research, 143(1), 21-27. Duffy, V. B. (2007). Variation in oral sensation: implications for diet and health. Current Opinion in Gastroenterology, 23(2), 171-177. Duffy, V. B., & Bartoshuk, L. M. (2000). Food acceptance and genetic variation in taste. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 100(6), 647-655. Duffy, V. B., Davidson, A. C., Kidd, J. R., Kidd, K. K., Speed, W. C., Pakstis, A. J., Reed, D. R., Snyder, D. J., & Bartoshuk, L. M. (2004). Bitter receptor gene (TAS2R38), 6-npropylthiouracil (PROP) bitterness and alcohol intake. Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research, 28(11), 1629-1637. Edwards, J., S., A., Meiselman, H., L., Edwards, A., & Lesher, L. (2003). The influence of eating location on the acceptability of identically prepared foods. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 647–652. Eldeghaidy, S., Marciani, L., McGlone, F., Hollowood, T., Hort, J., Head, K., Taylor, A. J., Busch, J., Spiller, R. C., Gowland, P. A., & Francis, S. T. (2011). The cortical response to the oral perception of fat emulsions and the effect of taster status. Journal of Neurophysiology, 105(5), 2572-2581. Ennis, J. M. (2012). Guiding the switch from triangle testing to tetrad testing. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27, 223-231. Ennis, J. M., & Jesionka, V. (2011). The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. Journal of Sensory Studies, 26, 371–382. Epstein, S. (1997). This I have learned from over 40 years of personality research. Journal of Personality, 65, 3–32.

Epstein, S. (2003). Cognitive-experiential self-theory of personality. In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology, vol. 5: Personality and social psychology (pp. 159–184). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V., & Heiser, H. (1996). Individual differences in intuitive – Experiential and analytical – Rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 390–405. Essick, G. K., Chopra, A., Guest, S., & McGlone, F. (2003). Lingual tactile acuity, taste perception, and the density and diameter of fungiform papillae in female subjects. Physiology & Behavior, 80(2-3), 289-302. EyeQuestion® software: https://eyequestion.nl Feeney, E. L., & Hayes, J. E. (2014). Exploring associations between taste perception, oral anatomy and polymorphisms in the carbonic anhydrase (gustin) gene CA6. Physiology & Behavior, 128, 148-154. Frederick, S. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42. Giacalone, D., & Jaeger, S. R. (in press). Better the devil you know? How product familiarity affects usage versatility of foods and beverages. Journal of Economic Psychology. Glanvill, E. V., & Kaplan, A. R. (1965). Food preference and sensitivity of taste for bitter compounds. Nature, 205(4974), 851-853. Green, B. G., & George, P. (2004). 'Thermal taste' predicts higher responsiveness to chemical taste and flavor. Chemical Senses, 29(7), 617-628. Guéguen, N., & Jacob, C. (2012). The effect of menu labels associated with affect, tradition and patriotism on sales. Food Quality and Preference, 23(1), 86-88. Guttman G., A., Bangcuyo, R., G., Zumach, J., L., Smith, K., J., Pierce, A., M., & Simons, C., T. (2015). Perplexed by context: The use of immersive technologies to study the impact of extrinsic contextual cues on the perception and liking of foods. Oral presentation at the 11th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, 23-27 August 2015, Gothenburg, Sweden. Hayes, J. E., Bartoshuk, L. M., Kidd, J. R., & Duffy, V. B. (2008). Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene. Chemical Senses, 33(3), 255-265. Hayes, J. E., & Duffy, V. B. (2007). Revisiting sugar-fat mixtures: Sweetness and creaminess vary with phenotypic markers of oral sensation. Chemical Senses, 32(3), 225236. Hayes, J. E., Feeney, E. L., Allen, A. L. (2013). Do polymorphisms in chemosensory genes matter for human ingestive behavior? Food Quality and Preference, 30(2), 202–216. Hein, K., A., Hamid, N., Jaeger, S. R., & Delahunty, C. M. (2012) Effects of evoked consumption contexts on hedonic ratings: A case study with two fruit beverages. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 35-44. Herman, C. P. (2015). The social facilitation of eating: A review. Appetite, 86, 61-73. Hersleth, M., Ueland, O., Allain, H., & Næs, T. (2005). Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different testing conditions. Food Quality and Preference, 16, 103–110. Ishii, R., O’Mahony, M., Rousseau, B. (2014) Triangle and tetrad protocols: Small sensory differences, resampling and consumer relevance. Food Quality and Preference, 31, 49-55.

Jaeger, S. R. (2006). Non-sensory factors in sensory science research. Food Quality and Preference, 17(1-2), 132-144. Jaeger, S. R. (2014). Sensory and consumer science anno 2014. What’s next? Keynote presentation at 6th EuroSense conference, 7-10 September 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. Jaeger, S. R., McRae, J. F., Bava, C. M., Beresford, M. K., Hunter, D., Jia, Y., Chheang, S. L., Jin, D., Peng, M., Gamble, J. C., Atkinson, K. R., Axten, L. G., Paisley, A. G., Tooman, L., Pineau, B., Rouse, S. A., & Newcomb, R. D. (2013). A Mendelian Trait for Olfactory Sensitivity Affects Odor Experience and Food Selection. Current Biology 23(16), 1601-1605. Jaeger, S. R., & Rose, J. M. (2008). Stated choice experimentation, contextual influences and food choice: A case study. Food Quality and Preference, 19(6), 539-564. Jaeger, S. R., Wakeling, I. N., & MacFie, H. J. H. (2000). Behavioural extensions to preference mapping: The role of synthesis. Food Quality and Preference, 11, 349–359. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounder rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 1449–1475. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Keskitalo, K., Knaapila, A., Kallela, M., Palotie, A., Wessman, M., Sammalisto, S., Peltonen, L., Tuorila H., & Perola, M. (2007). Sweet taste preferences are partly genetically determined: identification of a trait locus on chromosome 16. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86(1), 55-63. Keskitalo, K., Silventoinen, K., Tuorila, H., Perola, M., Pietilaeinen, K. H., Rissanen, A,. & Kaprio, J. (2008). Genetic and environmental contributions to food use patterns of young adult twins. Physiology & Behavior, 93(1-2), 235-242. Kim, M.A., Dessirier, J.M., van Hout, D., & Lee, H.S. (2015). Consumer context-specific sensory acceptance tests: Effects of a cognitive warm-up on affective product discrimination. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 163–171. 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, 58–65. 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, 645-653. Knaapila, A., Hwang, L. D., Lysenko, A., Duke, F. F., Fesi, B., Khoshnevisan, A., James, R. S., Wysocki, C. J., Rhyu, M., Tordoff, M. G., Bachmanov, A. A., Mura, E., Nagai, H., & Reed, D. R. (2012). Genetic Analysis of Chemosensory Traits in Human Twins. Chemical Senses 37(9), 869-881. Knaapila, A., Tuorila, H., Silventoinen, K., Wright, M. J., Kyvik, K. O., Keskitalo, K., Hansen, J., Kaprio, J., & Perola, M. (2008). Environmental effects exceed genetic effects on perceived intensity and pleasantness of several odors: A three-population twin study. Behavior Genetics 38(5), 484-492. Knaapila, A., Zhu, G., Medland, S. E., Wysocki, C. J., Montgomery, G. W., Martin, N. G., Wright, M. J., & Reed, D. R. (2012). A Genome-Wide Study on the Perception of the Odorants Androstenone and Galaxolide. Chemical Senses, 37(6), 541-552.

Köster, E. P. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14, 359–373. Köster, E. P. (2009). Diversity in the determinants of food choice. A psychological perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 70–82. Köster, E. P., & Mojet, J. (2015). From mood to food and from food to mood: A psychological perspective on the measurement of food-related emotions in consumer research. Food Research International, 76, 180-191. Labbe, D., Schlich, P., Pineau, N., Gilbert, F., Martin N. (2009). Temporal dominance of sensations and sensory profiling: A comparative study. Food Quality and Preference, 20(3), 216-221. Lanier, S. A., Hayes, J. E., & Duffy, V. B. (2005). Sweet and bitter tastes of alcoholic beverages mediate alcohol intake in of-age undergraduates. Physiology & Behavior, 83(5), 821-831. Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food. Principles and practices, 2nd edition. New York: Springer. Libotte, E., Siegrist, M., & Bucher, T. (2014). The influence of plate size on meal composition. Literature review and experiment. Appetite, 82, 91-96. McCarron, A., & Tierney, K., J. (1989). The effect of auditory stimulation on the consumption of soft drinks. Appetite, 13(2), 155-159. McRae, J. F., Mainland, J. D., Jaeger, S. R., Adipietro, K. A., Matsunami, H., &. Newcomb, R. D (2012). Genetic Variation in the Odorant Receptor OR2J3 Is Associated with the Ability to Detect the "Grassy" Smelling Odor, cis-3-hexen-1-ol. Chemical Senses 37(7), 585-593. Macht, M. (1999). Characteristics of Eating in Anger, Fear, Sadness and Joy. Appetite, 33(1), 129-139. Macht, M., & Simons, G. (2000). Emotions and eating in everyday life, Appetite, 35(1), 6571. Martens, M. (1999). A philosophy for sensory science. Food Quality and Preference, 10(4– 5), 233-244. Mawad, F., Trías, M., Giménez, A., Maiche, A., & Ares, G. (2015). Influence of cognitive style on information processing and selection of yogurt labels: Insights from an eye-tracking study. Food Research international, 74, 1-9. Meillon, S., Viala, D., Medel, M., Urbano C., Guillot, G., & Schlich, P. (2010). Impact of partial alcohol reduction in Syrah wine on perceived complexity and temporality of sensations and link with preference. Food Quality and Preference, 21, 732–740. Meiselman, H. (1996). The contextual basis of food acceptance, food choice and food intake: the food, the situation and the individual. In H.L. Meiselman, & H.J.H. MacFie (Eds.), Food choice, acceptance and consumption (pp. 239-263). London: Blackie Academic & Professional. Meiselman, H. L. (2013). The future in sensory/consumer research: ……evolving to a better science. Food Quality and Preference, 27, 208–214. Meiselman, H. L. (2015). A review of the current state of emotion research in product development. Food Research International, 76(2), 192-199.

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. Melis, M., Atzori, E., Cabras, S., Zonza, A., Calo, C., Muroni, P., Nieddu, M., Padiglia, A., Sogos, V., Tepper, B. J., & Barbarossa, I. T. (2013). The gustin (CA6) gene polymorphism, rs2274333 (A/G), as a mechanistic link between PROP tasting and fungiform taste papilla density and maintenance. PLoS One, 8(9), e74151. Miller, I. J., & Reedy, F. E. (1990). Variations in human taste bud density and taste intensity perception. Physiology & Behavior, 47(6), 1213-1219. Newman, L., Haryono, R., & Keast, R. (2013). Functionality of Fatty Acid Chemoreception: A Potential Factor in the Development of Obesity? Nutrients 5(4), 1287-1300. Padiglia, A., Zonza, A., Atzori, E., Chillotti, C., Calo, C., Tepper, B. J., & Barbarossa, I. T. (2010). Sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil is associated with gustin (carbonic anhydrase VI) gene polymorphism, salivary zinc, and body mass index in humans. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 92(3), 539-545. Pagès, J., Bertrand, C., Ali, Husson, F., & Lê, S. (2007). Sensory Analysis Comparison of Eight Biscuit by French and Pakistani Panels. Journal of Sensory Studies, 22(6), 665-686. Pecore, S., Hooge, S., & Uy, C. (2014). Flavor complexity: relevance to consumer acceptability. Poster presentation, 6th European Conference on Sensory and Consumer Research, 7-10 September 2014, Copenhagen, Denmark. Pecore, S., Stoer, N., Hooge, S., Holschuh, N., Hulting, F., Case, F. (2006). Degree of difference testing: A new approach incorporating control lot variability. Food Quality and Preference, 17, 552-555. Petit, C., & Sieffermann, J. M. (2007). Testing consumer preferences for iced-coffee: Does the drinking environment have any influence? Food Quality and Preference, 18, 161-172. Pickering, G. J., Moyes, A., Bajec, M. R., & Decourville, N. (2010). Thermal taster status associates with oral sensations elicited by wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16(2), 361-367. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Alcaide, J., Roura, E., & Spence, C. (2012). Is it the plate or is it the food? Assessing the influence of the color (black or white) and shape of the plate on the perception of the food placed on it. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1), 205-208. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., Harrar, V., Alcaide, J., & Spence, C. (2011). Does the weight of the dish influence our perception of food? Food Quality and Preference, 22(8), 753-756. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S., R. (2014). The impact of the means of context evocation on consumers’ emotion associations towards eating occasion. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 61-70. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S. R. (accepted pending revision). Consumer segmentation as a means to investigate emotional associations to meals. Appetite. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Spence, C. (2015). Sensory expectations based on productextrinsic food cues: An interdisciplinary review of the empirical evidence and theoretical accounts. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 165-179. Pliner, P., Bell, R., Hirsch, E. S., & Kinchla, M. (2006). Meal duration mediates the effect of “social facilitation” on eating in humans. Appetite, 46(2), 189-198.

Porcherot, C., Petit, E., Giboreau, A., Gaudreau, N., & Cayeux, I. (2015). Measurement of self-reported affective feelings when an aperitif is consumed in an ecological setting. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 277-284. Porcherot, C., Delplanque, S., Ischer, M., De Marles, A., & Cayeux, I. (2015). Applying immersive virtual reality to the study of emotions elicited by scents. What is the value of a virtual experimental setting? 11th Pangborn sensory science symposium, 23-27 August 2015, Gothenburg, Sweden. Pouyet, V., Cuvelier, G., Benattar, L., & Giboreau, A. (2015). Influence of flavour enhancement on food liking and consumption in older adults with poor, moderate or high cognitive status. Food Quality and Preference, 44, 119-129. Quartier, K., Vanrie, J., & van Cleempoel, K. (2014). As real as it gets: What role does lighting have on consumer's perception of atmosphere, emotions and behaviour? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 39, 32–39. Sáenz-Navajas, M., P., Ballester, J., Peyron, D., & Valentin, D. (2014). Extrinsic attributes responsible for red wine quality perception: A cross-cultural study between France and Spain. Food Quality and Preference, 35, 70-85. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, M., Sohn, M., de Bellis, E., Martin, N., & Hertwig, R. (2013). A lack of appetite for information and computation. Simple heuristics in food choice. Appetite, 71, 242251. Schutz, H. G., & Jaeger, S. R. (2010). Innovation in sensory practice and education: an interview with Howard Schutz. In S. R. Jaeger & H. MacFie (Eds.), Consumer-driven innovation in food and personal care products (pp. 120-132). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing. Sester, C., Deroy, O., Sutan, A., Galia, F., Desmarchelier, J. F., Valentin, D., & Dacremont, C. (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. Son, J.-S., Do, V. D., Kim, K.O., Cho, M. S., Suwonsichon, T., & Valentin, D. (2014). Understanding the effect of culture on food representations using word associations: The case of “rice” and “good rice.” Food Quality and Preference, 31, 38-48. Stroebele, N., & De Castro, J. M. D. (2006). Listening to music while eating is related to increases in people’s food intake and meal duration. Methods, 47, 285–289. Thomas, A., Visalli, M., Cordelle, S., & Schlich, P. (2015). Temporal drivers of liking. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 365–375. Tornwall, O., Dinnella, C., Keskitalo-Vuokko, K., Silventoinen, K., Perola, M., Monteleone, E., Kaprio, J., & Tuorila, H. (2011). Astringency Perception and Heritability Among Young Finnish Twins. Chemosensory Perception, 4(4): 134-144. Tornwall, O., Silventoinen, K., Kaprio, J., & Tuorila, H. (2012). Why do some like it hot? Genetic and environmental contributions to the pleasantness of oral pungency. Physiology & Behavior, 107(3), 381-389. Tornwall, O., Silventoinen, K., Keskitalo-Vuokko, K., Perola, M., Kaprio, J., & Tuorila, H. (2012). Genetic contribution to sour taste preference. Appetite, 58(2), 687-694. Tuorila, H. (2015). From sensory evaluation to sensory and consumer research of food: An autobiographical perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 40(Part B), 255-262.

Tuorila, H., & Monteleone, E. (2009). Sensory food science in the changing society: Opportunities, needs, and challenges. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 20(2), 54-62. van Herpen, E., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (2011). Front-of-pack nutrition labels. Their effect on attention and choices when consumers have varying goals and time constraints. Appetite, 557, 148-160. van’t Riet, J., Sijtsema, S. J., Dagevos, H., & de Bruijin, G. J. (2011). The importance of habits in eating behaviour. An overview and recommendations for future research. Appetite, 57, 585-596. Vidal, L., Ares G., Machín, L., Jaeger, S. R. (2015). Using Twitter data for food-related consumer research: A case study on “what people say when tweeting about different eating situations”. Food Quality and Preference, 45, 58-69. Wansink, B., Van Ittersum, K., & Painter, J. E. (2006). Ice Cream Illusions: Bowls, Spoons, and Self-Served Portion Sizes. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 240–243. Witkin, H. A., Oltman, P. K., Raskin, E., & Karp, S. A. (1971). A manual for the embedded figures tests. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Yang, Q. (2015). Individual variation across prop and thermal taste phenotypes. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. Yang, Q., Hollowood, T., & Hort, J. (2014). Phenotypic variation in oronasal perception and the relative effects of PROP and Thermal Taster Status. Food Quality and Preference, 38, 83-91. Young, T. A., Pecore, S., Stoer, N., Hulting, F., Holschuh, N., & Case, F. (2008) Incorporating test and control product variability in degree of difference tests. Food Quality and Preference, 19, 734-736. Zuniga, J. R., Davis, S. H., Englehardt, R. A., Miller, I. J., Schiffman, S. S., & Phillips, C. (1993). Taste performance on the anterior human tongue varies with fungiform taste bud density. Chemical Senses, 18(5), 449-460.

Footnote The following people contributed industry perspectives: Gruenig, L. (Beam Suntory), King, S. (retired, McCormick and Silvia C King Consulting LLC), Kirkmeyer, S. (Givaudan), Lyon, D. (Firmenich), Margoshes, B. (retired, Procter & Gamble and Sensory Consultant), McEvoy, S. (Clif Bar), Rothman, L. (Kraft Foods), Stoer, N. (General Mills).

Table 1. Statements and voting results by topic shown as average rank and percentage of votes placed as rank 1, rank 2 and rank 3, where rank 1 is most important. The lower the average rank value, the higher the importance of the statement. For each topic the winning statement (i.e., lowest average rank) is shown in italic font. Within a statement, the percentages of votes sum to 100 (rounding errors aside). Average rank

% of votes as Rank 1

% of votes as Rank 2

% of votes as Rank 3

1.79

40.3

40.0

19.7

1.91

42.0

24.9

33.1

2.30

17.7

35.1

47.2

1.65

50.0

34.9

15.1

1.91

33.6

41.7

24.7

2.44

16.4

23.5

60.2

1. We must develop new methodological approaches to understand the heuristics that influence food choice

1.87

36.8

39.3

23.8

2. We must encourage intuitive decisions in our usual methodologies

2.06

31.9

30.3

37.8

3. We must study how individual differences in decision making influence food choice

2.07

31.3

30.4

38.4

1.66

51.7

30.8

17.5

2.15

25.9

33.0

41.1

2.19

22.4

36.1

41.4

Topics and statements Topic 1: Understanding individual variation in perception 1. We must engage with other specialists, e.g. geneticists and neuroscientists, to understand the mechanisms behind individual variation in perception 2. We must work with product developers to design products tailored to individual variation in perception in order to meet consumer needs 3. We need to further understand the full range of pheno- and genotypic variation impacting perception Topic 2: Context and situation in sensory and consumer research 1. We must increase the number of real-life consumer studies for more ecological validity 2. We must increase partnerships with psychologists to rethink the methods used in sensory and consumer research 3. We must increase the number of immersive virtual reality research to adapt to the changing environment and consumers Topic 3: The almost forgotten side of consumers’ decision making process

Topic 4: The future of sensory and consumer science in industry 1. We must better capture consumer responses in context (at the moment, in the environment) 2. We must develop models to selectively measure product differences targeted to consumer segments/wants 3. We must be able to segment consumers by sensitivity (genetics, hedonic, contextual)

Notes. The total number of registered votes were: Topic 1 (305), Topic 2 (324), Topic 3 (323) and Topic 4 (321). To improve clarity, a few minor grammatical changes have been made to some statements, relative to the wordings used during the debate.