Minimal effect of evoked contexts in product testing with consumers: Case studies using typical consumption situations

Food Research International 132 (2020) 109059

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Research International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres

Minimal effect of evoked contexts in product testing with consumers: Case studies using typical consumption situations

T

Sara R. Jaegera, , Marianne Swaney-Stueveb, Christina M. Roigarda, David Jina, Marie Le Blonda, Gastón Aresc ⁎

a

The New Zealand Institute for Plant & Food Research Ltd., 120 Mt Albert Road, Private Bag 92169, Auckland, New Zealand Sensory & Consumer Research Center, Kansas State University, 22201 W Innovation Drive, Olathe KS 66061, KS, USA c Sensometrics & Consumer Science, Facultad de Química, Universidad de la República, By Pass de Rutas 8 y 101 s/n, CP 91000. Pando, Canelones, Uruguay b

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Consumer research Research methods Evoked context Consumption context Product research Central location test Home-use test Liking

Consumer studies conducted under central location test (CLT) conditions continue to be dominant in product research and context evocation have been suggested as an avenue to partly mitigate the lack of real consumption settings. In this research the influence of evoked context on product acceptability was investigated in eight diverse consumer studies (138–268 participants per study) through the use of between-subjects designs that allowed the comparison of hedonic scores obtained with and without evoked context. In a departure from previous research, consumers mentally evoked their typical consumption contexts for the focal product categories and content analysis of descriptions of these situations showed them to often be idiosyncratic. Results were partly product- and situation-specific, and in this regard replicated past research. The evoked context only significantly modified hedonic scores in two of the eight studies, whereas it increased sample discrimination in three studies. Thus, accumulating evidence now supports the conclusion that evoked context is less rather than more likely to impact hedonic responses. Nonetheless, a benefit of context evocation is to give products a more complete meaning, and this may motivate their continued use in CLT settings. For researchers who wish to continue their use, key considerations in implementation are discussed, including relevance in home-use testing (HUT). By asking consumers to describe a typical eating occasion for the tested products, useful understanding of product use and pairings is gained. Such data can be easily elicited from consumers and obtained independently of context evocation.

1. Introduction

discriminative. This has indeed been reported by some authors (e.g., Giménez, Gagliardi, & Ares, 2015; Hein, Hamid, Jaeger, & Delahunty, 2012), although more often sustained evidence of greater product differentiation has been lacking (e.g., Dorado, Chaya, Tarrega, & Hort, 2016; Jaeger, Fiszman, et al., 2017; Lusk, Hamid, Delahunty, & Jaeger, 2015; Nijman et al., 2019). Researcher-defined contexts have dominated previous research on evoked contexts (e.g., Dorado et al., 2016; Jaeger, Fiszman, et al., 2017; Lusk et al., 2015; Nijman et al., 2019), and typically participants have been told what situation to imagine, albeit often with room to personalise somewhat (e.g., ‘having dinner with friends’ which could mean a casual get together with two people to one person and a larger and more formal affair to another person). By specifying the context in greater detail, less “noise” is introduced, but there is also an increased risk that the context is not relevant to all participants, which, in turn, could hinder their ability to vividly imagine the context and mentally

Despite widespread agreement that the specific contexts of food and beverage consumption underpin food choices, central location tests (CLT) remain common in product research (e.g., Jaeger & Porcherot, 2017). They are higher in internal validity but lower in external validity compared to real-life settings (Cardello & Meiselman, 2018), and a desire to lessen this gap is a key reason for using evoked contexts in CLT tests. There are different ways to evoke contexts (Hersleth, 2018), but a representative example is where participants are asked to imagine or describe a specific consumption situation (e.g., eating breakfast, having dinner with friends) and keep this in mind while evaluating the focal products. When evoking a consumption context during consumer testing, products obtain a more complete meaning (Hersleth, 2018), and this may alter elicited responses and allow consumers to be more

⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.R. Jaeger).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109059 Received 22 December 2019; Received in revised form 31 January 2020; Accepted 2 February 2020 Available online 04 February 2020 0963-9969/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Food Research International 132 (2020) 109059

S.R. Jaeger, et al.

transport themselves to that time and place (Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger, 2019). By instead asking participants to imagine a typical consumption situation for a focal product or category, this problem is negated, and may allow for more benefits of context evocation in CLT tests to be observed. On this basis, the present research asked if evocation of “typical” consumption context influences hedonic responses and sample discrimination? Drawing on past evidence, this was expected to occur in some instances but not others, and when established to manifest as smaller rather than larger effects. Replicability is fundamental to the validity of knowledge (e.g., Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984), and the present research fitted into the paradigm of replication and extension (e.g., Hubbard & Armstrong, 1994), where replication of past findings regarding evoked context was expected and extension sought with regard to the evoked context. Specifically, eight consumer studies (Table 1) were conducted, which used between-subjects experimental designs with two experimental conditions – hedonic scores obtained with or without evoked context, with the former as participants’ self-defined typical consumption context. Consumers were allocated to one of the two experimental conditions, and by comparing these with respect to hedonic responses and sample discrimination the research aim was addressed. The eight studies spanned product categories, stimuli formats, number of participants, consumer populations and/or empirical protocols that were representative of common applications in food-related consumer research. Considering that past studies on evoked context have been conducted with different products, in different CLT settings, with different consumers populations, etc., it was a deliberate strategy to construct the research around a diverse set of studies. The intent was to approximate the existing diversity across studies, and in itself research based on diverse studies increase the robustness and applied relevance of the findings in the sense of these being more likely to generalise.

Studies 1–3 and 7–8 involved product tasting. All samples were commercially available in New Zealand and the USA, respectively, and were purchased at local shops. The product categories were: salted potato chips (Study 1), white rice (Study 2), plain yoghurt (Study 3), salted popcorn (Study 7) and orange-flavoured sparkling water (Study 8). For each study, samples were selected following benchtop testing with 3–5 consumer research professionals, and this step also served to guard against products expected to generally have low hedonic consumer appeal (and hence less commercial relevance). In the studies involving product tasting, samples were served blind in volumes sufficient for 2–3 bites/sips. Transparent and odour-less plastic cups were used, labelled with random numeric codes. Potato chips and salted popcorn were served at room temperature, rice was served warm (~40 °C), yoghurt was served chilled (~10 °C) and sparkling orange water was served cold (~2 °C). The sparkling water samples were poured immediately prior to serving to preserve carbonation. In Studies 4–6, images were used as stimuli. The product categories were fresh fruit (apples in Studies 4–5 and pears in Study 6) and images were used to minimise the burden of ensuring consistent sample quality which can be very challenging when working with natural produce. The apple images (Studies 4–5) were selected among those used by Jaeger et al. (2018) and varied with respect to no or some external defects (blemishes and odd shapes). The pear images for Study 6 were from Gamble, Jaeger, and Harker (2006), and showed different types of red skinned pears (against a black background to enhance variations in red colour nuances between samples). 2.3. Context evocation The evoked context used in all studies of the present research was the typical situation for product consumption which participants were asked to self-define. This deliberately differed from the common reliance on more specific and researcher-defined contexts (e.g., de Andrade et al., 2016; Hein, Hamid, Jaeger, & Delahunty, 2010; Hein et al., 2012; Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger, 2014). Under the assumption that it helps participants to vividly evoke and retain focus on the focal situation during sample evaluation, some authors ask participants to write down a description of their evoked context (e.g., Jaeger, Fiszman, et al., 2017; Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger, 2019), but potentially this is detrimental to sample discrimination (Jaeger, Fiszman, et al., 2017), and, hence, was not implemented in the present research. Rather, descriptions of typical consumption situations for the tested product categories were obtained immediately after the taste tests were completed (see below). This information was expected to provide useful insight regarding product use and product pairings with relevance, for example, to product developers.

2. Materials and methods1 2.1. Participants Participants lived in Auckland (New Zealand) or Kansas (USA), and were registered on databases maintained by commercial research providers (Studies 1–6) or Kansas State University (Studies 7–8). In Studies 1–2, participants were Indian, and had immigrated to New Zealand within the last 5 years. Table 1 shows the number of consumers taking part in each study. Age and gender profiles varied according to the criteria for individual studies (18–67 years old, 47–83% female), and to be eligible for participation, willingness to eat the focal product categories was required. In all studies it was required that participants possess a high level of English and be free of major dietary restrictions and allergies (e.g., nut, lactose, gluten). See Table 2 for study-specific participant characteristics. The research was covered by a general approval for sensory and consumer research from the Human Ethics Committee at the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research (PFR) (Studies 1–6) and the Kansas State University IRB committee (Studies 7–8). As part hereof, participants gave informed written consent and were compensated in cash.

2.4. Data collection The empirical procedures were similar for all studies, employing between-subjects designs. Participants were assigned to one of two experimental conditions (EC1 or EC2) (Table 1), and these two groups were similarly composed in terms of gender (p > 0.19) and age (p > 0.13), as well as stated product liking (p > 0.07) and frequency of consumption (p > 0.25). The non-significance of these comparisons suggested that differences could be attributed to the experimental conditions and not differences in the two consumer groups. In EC1 (no evoked context/control condition), participants rated samples for liking and afterwards provided a brief written description of an occasion where they would typically eat that type of product, with the exception of Studies 7–8 where participants provided liking scores without providing a written statement. In EC2 (with evoked context) participants thought of situation where they would typically eat that type of product, and kept this in mind while rating samples for liking. Once the sample evaluations were completed, participants wrote down

2.2. Samples The product categories and number of samples used in each study are shown in Table 1. The samples and images used can be found in Fig. 1 (Study 1) and the Supplementary Figure (all studies). 1 For more detail about individual studies, interested readers should contact the corresponding author.

2

Food Research International 132 (2020) 109059

S.R. Jaeger, et al.

Table 1 Overview of Studies 1–8 and their contribution to addressing the question of whether “typical” consumption situation evocation influences hedonic responses and sample discrimination obtained in CLT settings. There were two experimental conditions per study (EC1: no context evocation (control condition) and EC2: under evoked context), and the table entries show the number of consumers completing each. Written descriptions of “typical” consumption situation were obtained after all hedonic evaluations were completed. In EC2, participants described the situation they had mentally evoked prior to sample evaluation. At the stage of hedonic evaluations, participants did not know they would be asked to later provide a written context description. Study

Number of samples

Experimental condition

EC1: Hedonic evaluation without evoked context

EC2: Hedonic evaluation under evoked context (imagined)

Study 1* Salted potato chips Study 2* White rice Study 3 Plain yoghurt Study 4** Apple Study 5** Apple Study 6** Pear Study 7*** Salted popcorn Study 8*** Orange-flavoured sparkling water

4

Tasted

69

69

4

Tasted

69

68

4

Tasted

70

69

4

Images

134

134

4

Images

134

134

4

Images

119

134

6

Tasted

70

70

5

Tasted

70

70

Note. CLT = central location test. * The same participants completed Studies 1 and 2, in counter-balanced order. ** The same participants completed Studies 4 and 5, always in this order. When participants completed more than one study, they were consistently assigned to the same experimental condition. *** Descriptions of a typical consumption situations were not obtained in EC1.

variation. The significance level was 5% and Fisher’s test was used for post-hoc pairwise comparisons of means. The descriptions of the typical eating situation were analysed using content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004), following an inductive process where semantic categories were determined by the researchers as they read the raw data. In all of the studies, the descriptions of the typical eating situation included details on the setting, the time of the day, the specific activities people do when eating the target product, and/or with whom they eat it. The coding was performed by author MLB and revised following discussion with author SRJ until consensus. As required, multiple categories were used for each context description.

the “typical” situation they had in mind while evaluating the samples. None of the participants were aware at the time of hedonic evaluations that they would later be asked to describe their evoked context in writing. In all studies, sample presentation was monadic according to a Williams design that was balanced for presentation order and first-order carry-over, and a fully labelled 9-pt hedonic scale was used (1 = ‘dislike extremely’, 9 = ‘like extremely’). The same group of participants took part in Studies 1–2, approximately 45 min. apart, with the study order counterbalanced. Further, the same group of participants took part in Studies 4–6 and completed Studies 4–5 immediately after another, and Study 6 one week later when returning to the research facility to take part in a second test session. Where participants took part in multiple studies, they were always only assigned to a single experimental group. In Studies 4–5, a single open-ended description was obtained immediately after evaluation of the second set of apple images was completed. Data collection took place while participants were seated in standard sensory testing booths (white lighting, positive air flow, 20–22 °C). Water and plain crackers were freely available for palate cleaning (not enforced). The participants completed the studies as part of CLTs that investigated consumers’ responses to a range of foods and beverages. At the end of these research sessions, a background questionnaire was administered where, in addition to participant characteristics, stated liking for the product category (1 = ‘dislike extremely’ and 9 = ‘like extremely’) and frequency of consumption were measured. The latter question had 4 to 8 eight response categories depending on the product category, spanning from “everyday” to “never”.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Findings from the present research To start, an overview of participants’ descriptions of the typical eating situations obtained in each study is presented. This contributes general insights about consumers’ use of the different product categories, and establishes background information against which to interpret the influence of the experimental conditions on hedonic sample evaluation and discrimination. Table 3 shows the frequency of use of the categories identified, and with the exceptions of Studies 3 and 7, consumers described a wide variety of eating situations. In the case of Study 3 (plain yoghurt), the descriptions were mainly related to eating yogurt with other food, such as fruit and muesli/cereal/porridge, while they mainly related to watching TV in Study 7 (salted popcorn). Conversely in Study 8, there appeared to be low commonality among participants with regard to the situation where orange-flavoured sparkling beverages were typically consumed, and descriptions ranged from ‘home’ through ‘work’ to ‘outside’ and references to hot weather and wanting to be refreshed. Table 4 (left-hand side) shows the results from ANOVA using experimental condition (EC) and samples as factors. While differences between samples were always highly significant (p < 0.001), the average hedonic scores were not influenced by EC in the majority of the studies (6 of 8). The latter suggests that evoking a context by asking

2.5. Data analysis For each study, the hedonic data were analysed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) considering experimental condition (EC1 vs. EC2), sample and their interaction as fixed sources of variance. Data were also analysed separately for each experimental condition using a 2-way ANOVA considering sample and consumer as fixed sources of 3

Food Research International 132 (2020) 109059

S.R. Jaeger, et al.

Table 2 Summary of demographic information for participants# from Studies 1–8, shown as percentages (unless otherwise indicated). Study 1 Potato chips N = 138

Study 2 White rice N = 137

Study 3 Yoghurt N = 139

Studies 4 & 5 Apple N = 268

Study 6 Pear N = 253

Study 7 Popcorn N = 210

Study 8 Sparkling water N = 210

Gender Male Female

52 48

53 47

43 57

46 54

48 52

17 83

27 73

Age (years old) Average Min to Max

28.5 ± 5.8 19–45

28.5 ± 5.8 19–45

44.4 ± 13.4 21–67

42.3 ± 13.6 18–66

42.1 ± 13.8 18–66

44.6 ± 9.8 24–64

44.1 ± 9.8 25–64

Household composition* No-one, I live alone Spouse/partner Child/ren aged under 18 Child/ren aged over 18 Parents Flatmate/s Other

7.2 34.8 12.3 0.7 4.3 57.2 7.2

7.3 35.0 11.7 0.7 4.4 56.9 7.3

11.5 66.2 38.1 18.0 10.1 15.8 6.5

5.6 64.6 40.3 23.9 13.4 16.4 7.5

5.5 64.8 40.7 24.9 14.6 14.6 7.1

8.6 81.9 59.5 17.6 0.5 0.5 0.5

7.1 82.9 60.5 16.2 3.3 1.4 0.0

Household size (number of people) 1–2 3–4 5+

26.1 52.9 21.0

26.3 53.3 20.4

37.4 47.5 15.1

24.3 57.5 18.2

24.5 57.7 17.8

31.4 50.5 18.1

32.4 47.6 19.5

Income** Less than $30,000 $30,000–$49,999 $50,000–$79,999 $80,000–$99,999 $100,000–$119,999 $120,000 or more I’d prefer not to say

33.3 14.5 12.3 8.0 2.2 4.3 25.4

33.6 14.6 11.7 8.0 2.2 4.4 25.5

2.9 4.3 17.3 18.0 18.7 28.7 10.1

0.4 3.7 16.4 17.2 12.7 41.4 8.2

0.4 3.2 16.2 17.4 12.6 42.3 7.9

1.4 8.1 20.0 17.6 15.2 30.1 7.6

2.4 8.1 15.2 17.6 16.7 34.8 5.2

Consumption frequency of product category Everyday or almost everyday 2–3 times a week Once a week or less

10.2 34.8 55.0

44.9 40.6 14.5

2.9 33.8 63.3

30.2 37.7 32.1

4.7 19.0 76.3

40.9 49.1 10.0

20.9 50.5 28.6

Mean liking of product category****

7.9 ± 1.1

7.6 ± 1.1

7.7 ± 1.3

8.0 ± 1.1

7.6 ± 1.2

8.3 ± 0.8

7.8 ± 0.9

Notes: # Participants from studies 1 and 2 were recent Indian immigrants living in New Zealand. Participants from Studies 3 to 6 were New Zealand consumers. Participants from studies 7 and 8 were US consumers. * Total responses are > 100% as consumers may select multiple options. ** For studies in New Zealand, income given in NZ$, and for studies in the USA, income given in US$. **** Stated liking was obtained using a 9-pt Hedonic scale from 1 = ‘dislike extremely’ to 9 = ‘like extremely’.

descriptions of typical consumption situations offered some insights. Table 3 showed that plain yoghurt is not eaten alone, but together with other foods, leading to the suggestion that when consumers provided liking scores under evoked context they thought of consuming yoghurt with their usual other products (e.g., muesli, fruit) rather than on its own, which could have positively contributed to liking. Conversely, highly dispersed descriptions of typical consumption situations were found in Study 8 (orange-flavoured sparkling water) which hindered ability to establish a plausible explanation for the reduced liking score in EC2 (with evoked context). The dominant result that context evocation was unlikely to influence hedonic scores overall matched expectations and was in agreement with Jaeger et al. (2017). It was also in agreement with past research that the relative liking of samples was unchanged when hedonic responses were obtained with and without evoked context (Hersleth, 2018; Jaeger, Fiszman, et al., 2017). Table 4 (left-hand side) shows that the EC × sample interaction was non-significant in all eight studies, which meant that that sample ranking in terms of liking were unaffected by context evocation (EC2) relative to the control condition (EC1). When the data were analysed separately for each experimental condition (Table 4, right-hand side), an increase in the F-value and the number of significant pairwise comparisons was observed for EC2 (with evoked context) in 3 of 8 studies: Study 2 (white rice), Study 6 (pears), and Study 8 (orange-flavoured sparkling water). In Studies 4 (apples)

Fig. 1. Salted potato chip samples used in Study 1.

consumers to imagine their typical eating situation before eliciting hedonic scores is unlikely to modify said scores. There were two exceptions. In Study 3 (plain yoghurt) the average liking score across samples in the control condition (EC1, no evoked context/control condition) was significantly lower than under evoked context (EC2) (5.2 vs. 6.0). For Study 8 (orange-flavoured sparkling water) the opposite result to Study 3 was found: the average liking score across samples in the control condition was significantly higher than under evoked context (6.0 vs. 5.4). It is not clear why the results for these two studies showed opposite directions regarding the overall effect of evoked context, but study-specific influences is likely at play and the 4

Food Research International 132 (2020) 109059

S.R. Jaeger, et al.

and 7 (popcorn), an increase in the F-value was observed under evoked context (EC2), but there was no corresponding increase in the number of significant pairwise sample comparisons.

Table 3 (continued) Study

Category of use situation

%

Study 6 Pear (images)

at work/school break-time at home afternoon break hot/summer day savoury dish: cheese/wine/salad with cereal or sweet foods with family as dessert/replace dessert morning break lunch morning /breakfast want fresh/healthy/juicy after dinner outside/picnic/beach after lunch in fruit salad evening snack

19 15 14 14 14 12 12 11 11 11 11 9 9 7 7 5 5 5

Study 7 Salted popcorn

watching TV at home evening snack with family at work/school cinema/fair/circus break-time afternoon break weekend misc. activities: reading/games

75 46 33 28 16 16 16 11 8 5

Study 8 Orange-flavoured sparkling water

at work summer/hot weather at home beach/pool after work refreshing/want to be refreshed lunch instead of soda/coffee on the deck/garden/patio with a meal in cocktails afternoon break evening with family outside/picnic/camping with friends after workout event/birthday/wedding watching TV relaxing/calming as a treat

26 19 19 13 12 12 11 10 9 9 9 8 8 8 7 6 6 6 6 6 6

Table 3 The frequency (%) of use situations identified in the participants’ descriptions of the typical eating situation for the tested product categories, shown for each of Studies 1 to 8 (Studies 5–6 presented as single study since the same product category was used and the same participants completed both studies). For parsimony, only use situations mentioned by 5% or more of the participants are shown for each study. Study

Category of use situation

%

Study 1 Salted potato chips

watching TV event/party/bar with drinks with friends get together/gathering with family break-time at home travelling/driving at work/school evening snack with food picnic

34 29 29 29 26 26 15 13 11 9 9 8 6

Study 2 White rice

lunch every day/regular/daily with dishes special occasion/wedding dinner at home restaurant/workplace/temple with family with friends get together/gathering as main

44 32 31 30 20 13 13 12 8 6 5

Study 3 Plain yoghurt

with food morning/breakfast muesli/cereal/porridge with fruits at home lunch dessert sauce/spicy dishes evening snack at work dinner break-time smoothie by its own morning break afternoon break nice relax treat

70 58 40 32 13 10 10 10 8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 5

afternoon break at work/at school break-time lunch at home summer/hot/sunny morning break morning/breakfast park/outside/picnic/camping with family driving/travelling evening snack after lunch with food want to be healthy as dessert/replace dessert daily easy to eat/convenient

20 19 16 15 13 12 12 10 10 9 9 7 7 7 6 6 5 5

Study 4 and 5 Apples (images)

3.2. Implications for applications of evoked context in CLT settings Taken together the results of the present research suggest that a positive effect on hedonic scores and sample discrimination of evoked context is unlikely to be observed. However, they may manifest, although it remains unknown “when” or “why,” and product- and situation-specific influences seem to be at play. In instances where effects occur, it is unlikely that evoked context will lead to diminished sample differentiation on the basis of liking scores. With regard to the low probability of evoked context positively contributing to sample discrimination the present results are in agreement with past research (Hersleth, 2018; Jaeger, Fiszman, et al., 2017). They also extend them in several ways, and herein lies a primary contribution of the present research. It can now be reasonably concluded that the (lack of) effect of evoked contexts on hedonic scores and product discrimination seems not to strongly depend on what the evoked context is (more or less specific, researcher- or consumer defined) and how it is elicited (in writing or not). Considering also that the 5

Food Research International 132 (2020) 109059

S.R. Jaeger, et al.

Table 4 Summary of results of the ANOVA used to evaluate the influence of experimental condition (EC) on hedonic scores (1=‘dislike extremely’; 9=‘like extremely’), and F-values for the sample effect in each experimental condition (EC1: no context evocation (control condition) or EC2: under evoked context). Significant pairwise comparisons and sample means (arranged from highest to lowest by EC1) are shown for each experimental condition, together with results of Tukey’s post-hoc test. The order experimental conditions are listed in corresponds to the order of columns used to report the sample means. Study

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

ANOVA results

Study ECs (means)

F-value for sample effect

Significant pairwise comparisons

Means

EC1

EC2

EC1

EC2

7.7a 7.7a 7.5a 6.7b 6.3a 6.3a 6.0a 4.8b 7.1a 5.0b 4.8b 3.9c 7.7a 5.9b 5.2c 3.9d 7.4a 5.8b 5.6b 5.0c 6.1a 6.1a 5.8a,b 5.4b 6.7a 6.4a 6.4a 6.3a 5.7b 6.4a 6.1a 5.9a,b 5.9a,b 5.5b

7.7a 7.5a 7.5a 6.5b 6.9a 6.3b 6.1b 4.7c 7.6ª 6.1b 5.8b 4.6c 7.7a 5.9b 5.4c 3.8d 7.5a 5.9b 5.9b 5.1c 5.7a 5.8a 6.0a 5.1b 6.4a 6.3a 6.7a 6.4a 5.7b 6.1a 5.6a,b 5.4a,b 5.2b 4.6c

Potato chips

FEC = 0.36 ns FSample = 19.41*** FEC*Sample = 0.94ns

EC1 EC2

10.54*** 12.08***

3/6

3/6

White rice

FEC = 0.39 ns FSample = 28.46*** FEC*Sample = 0.41ns

EC1 EC2

12.04*** 28.96***

3/6

5/6

Yoghurt

FEC = 22.40 *** FSample = 58.37*** FEC*Sample = 0.57ns

EC1 (5.2b) EC2 (6.0a)

42.30*** 35.14***

5/6

5/6

Apple images

FEC = 0.00 ns FSample = 245.17 *** FEC*Sample = 0.50ns

EC1 EC2

115.5*** 130.8***

6/6

6/6

Apple images

FEC = 0.12 ns FSample = 96.30 ns FEC*Sample = 0.95ns

EC1 EC2

47.4*** 49.1***

5/6

5/6

Pear images

FEC = 0.11 ns FSample = 6.69 *** FEC.*Sample = 0.22ns

EC1 EC2

5.10** 9.31***

2/6

3/6

Salted popcorn

FEC = 0.35 ns FSample = 8.48 *** FEC*Sample = 0.90ns

EC1 EC2

4.25*** 7.78***

4/10

4/10

Sparkling water

FEC = 7.19 *** FSample = 7.00 *** FEC*Sample = 0.81ns

EC1 (6.0ª) EC2 (5.4b)

2.50* 5.94***

2/10

4/10

Note. Significance levels indicated as follows: ‘ns’ if p > 0.05. * If p < 0.05. ** If p < 0.01. *** If p < 0.001.

present set of studies extended the investigation of the effects of evoked consumption context in CLT settings to a larger number of product categories and additional consumer populations, it can reasonably be concluded that evoked context should not be implemented solely in search of increased product differentiation. Their continued use, however, has some merit because they give a more complete meaning to products evaluated under CLT settings, and this, even if intangible may be enough to warrant their use, especially considering that they as implemented in the present research were not associated with adverse effects on hedonic scores and sample discrimination. A new insight made possible by the written descriptions was that evoked contexts can influence hedonic responses in the case of products that are not consumed alone. This has not been uncovered by past research, and researchers who wish to use context evocation should be mindful hereof. Plain yoghurt (Study 3) was a primary example, but the same emerged for rice (Study 2). Although it was less obvious from Table 3, rice was eaten as part of meals and rarely alone (e.g., Coming from South India, rice is a staple food at my household. For lunch each day, rice with some form of curry is prepared. Occasionally for dinner rice is consumed as Briyani or Pulav; and I eat white rice with other curries. If I just have to eat white rice alone, it is when I have nothing in home to cook and I run out of money at the same time). Thus, it appears that when an evoked context was considered, consumers thought of consuming the product together with other products which increased their degree of liking for

all samples or differentiation between them. This possible influence of the product within a broader eating occasion warrants further investigation since Boutrolle, Delarue, Arranz, Rogeaux, and Köster (2007) made a similar observation regarding influences from co-consumed products and the occasion itself (e.g., sit-down meal vs. snack). Building on the present results, additional testing with other product categories that are rarely eaten on their own (e.g., muesli, steak, bread) would illuminate the explanations suggested for Study 3 (yoghurt) and indicate whether they are likely to replicate or not. Alternatively, fruit yoghurts or other related products (e.g., drinking yoghurt) could be tested to determine how widespread the effect for yoghurt is. In the case of orange-flavoured sparkling water (Study 8), other products that are likely to have highly dispersed consumption testing could be tested for additional insight and generalisation, for example, bread, coffee, and apples. Researchers who wish to continue with context evocation in CLTbased product testing can also draw on the present research to inform their decisions about what types of contexts to evoke. The written descriptions of typical consumption situations revealed large study-tostudy differences. In addition to expected product category influences (e.g., apples and rice are consumed in different situations), there was more heterogeneity in the descriptions for some product categories (Studies 3 and 8) than others (Study 7) (Table 3). When using researcher-defined contexts this is a challenge, as a specific context may 6

Food Research International 132 (2020) 109059

S.R. Jaeger, et al.

not be relevant for a large proportion of consumers. An alternative to individual contexts is seen in Dorado et al. (2016), and indicates that it may be possible to accommodate a degree of customisation where participants self-compose a context based on a limited number of allowable options. This idea also resonates with Piqueras-Fiszman and Jaeger (2015) who used a combinational approach to construct consumption situations and showed that some aspects of these were more important in determining affective responses to products than others. The same could apply to sample liking/disliking, and a starting point for addressing this question could be to compare hedonic responses for different of the typical use situations described by participants, providing sufficient sample sizes. In the present research this was not possible due to low N within experimental conditions of individual studies. The heterogeneity in the written descriptions of consumption situations exposed by the present research challenges not only the notion that a single context is relevant to all participants, but also the assumption that it is applicable to all of the tested products. For example, different properties (e.g., flavour, health, affordability) of white rice, brown rice and black rice could underpin perceptions that brown rice is less acceptable to accompany Indian dishes, black rice mixed with white rice adds to novelty and meal sophistication, brown rice sushi have a lower glycaemic index, etc. The typical consumption situation therefore may be different for these three types of rice, which would mean testing them under multiple contexts or evoking a unique context for each product variant. The latter would represent a departure from current applications and complicate direct comparisons of results. However, it may also be more representative of real life. Alternatively, if multiple situational uses need to be considered, situational appropriateness methods like item-by-use (IBU) can be used (Giacalone, 2019; Schutz, 1994). New knowledge with regard to sample set composition when using evoked contexts also emerges from the present research. Notably, it seemed that instances where sample differentiation in terms of liking was clearly observed, evoked context did not have an effect. For example, in Study 4, the apple with the most blemishes was rejected by consumers (Table 4; Supplementary Figure), and this strong negative response was independent of how hedonic scores were collected (i.e., independent of EC). Similarly, in Study 1, one sample of potato chips was less liked than the others (6.5–6.7 vs. 7.5–7.7), possibly due to a more burnt appearance (Supplementary Figure), and this response was observed both with and without evoked context. On the other hand, when increased differentiation was observed it was for two or more samples that had similar average liking scores, such as Study 2 where the three most liked samples of rice were differentiated with evoked context (EC2) but not without (EC1) (Table 4). Potentially this means that evoked contexts are extremely unlikely to lead to increased discrimination when clear differences in consumers’ hedonic reaction to the samples are observed. On the contrary, evoked context may be more likely to have an effect among similarly liked samples, and this is in line with previous studies showing slight improvements in sample discrimination with context compared to without (e.g., Petit & Sieffermann, 2007).

strategy to the approach with diverse case studies used here. Betweenstudies differences must be controlled and systematically varied such that the effect of individual factors can be clearly determined. It would also be pertinent to increase sample sizes so that the number of participants in each experimental condition allows for exploration of whether heterogeneity in evoked contexts, hedonic responses and/or participant characteristics influence the result of the methodological comparison. Looking to other possible explanations for why evoked sometimes, but rarely, influence hedonic scores, duration of evocation vividness could be a culprit. Possibly by asking participants to evoke a context (EC2) it is only fleetingly held in their minds, which would explain why the results were mostly so similar to the control condition of no evoked context (EC1). Although others have found effects of evoked contexts when participants were instructed to imagine these (vs. describe in writing) (de Andrade et al., 2016), the notion that an evoked context is not vividly held for the duration of repeated sample evaluation could be tested in a study that uses fixed sample presentation order. Then it could be determined if context effects on liking scores were seen for samples evaluated first compared to last. There is also the possibility that some people are more affected by context than others, which was recently found by Nijman et al. (2019). Within-subjects designs may be preferable to between-subjects designs when seeking to test if factors such as age, gender, stated product liking, and frequency of consumption exert an influence on liking scores obtained with and without evoked context. But within-subjects designs should be used with caution in context research due to bias and order effects. An evoked context cannot be “unforgotten” when consumers have to evaluate the same set of samples in the control condition (i.e., without evoked context), and if the control condition is always completed first, then order effects could occur. A different lead to pursue in the quest to understand why context evocation effects appears to be “random” emerges from the descriptions of typical consumption situations. Table 3 shows these to be different, but does not capture that some were positive (e.g., After a nice dinner, with a cheeseboard (Study 6, pears), Thinking of enjoying with some chicken curry! (Study 2, rice), and others purely descriptive (e.g., Breakfast time (Study 3, yoghurt), with need states sometimes being conveyed (e.g., I eat potato crisps when am stressed or need to relax destress after giving an exam :) (Study 1, potato chips), When I want a snack, usually in the evening. It is my go to snack (Study 7, popcorn). These types of differences were also found within individual studies, as Study 8 (orange-flavoured sparkling water) illustrates: Relaxing at my family's cottage with my relatives. We were all enjoying a sunny day with cool breeze. Telling stories and enjoying each other’s company vs. I drink it in substitute of soda. Usually as an afternoon pick me up. I rotate orange with other flavors. Ability to identify sentiment or needs at the individual level would allow data analysis on the basis hereof, which could illuminate if consumers who evoked a positive context, say, differed in their hedonic sample responses relative to those that described an emotionally neutral consumption situation. Similarly, if the focal product was consumed as a substitute for another and possibly better liked alternative, it is conceivable that context evocation could have a negative impact on hedonic responses. A degree of support for this notion comes from Piqueras-Fiszman and Jaeger (2015) who showed that inappropriate contexts negatively influence affective product associations relative to appropriate contexts. An increase in the number of participating consumers compared to the present research would be required to pursue such analyses, but they may be worthwhile considering the strong link between emotions and eating and drinking (Meiselman, 2016), and increasing awareness regarding the role played by context in this relationship (Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger, 2019). The written descriptions of typical consumption situations had

3.3. Limitations and suggestions for future research Credible explanations are lacking for why evoked context is unlikely to moderate product liking, and this limitation extends from the present to past research. Why are effects of evoked contexts only sometimes observed? A first step in answering this question would be to understand the roles played by product category, consumer population, number of participants and degree of product differences. This requires a different

7

Food Research International 132 (2020) 109059

S.R. Jaeger, et al.

considerable value and even if the use of evoked contexts in CLT settings diminishes, obtaining such descriptions has merit and should possibly be regularly done. They are directly valuable for innovation and marketing purposes, but they may also serve a different purpose. There are regular calls for less reliance on CLT testing and increased use of natural settings (Meiselman, 2013; Jaeger, Hort, et al., 2017). Homeuse tests (HUT), which are popular in industry, fall into the latter category and some guidance to participants on expected consumption situations could be developed based on these “typical” descriptions. For example, HUT participants would be asked to consume the test products at mealtimes, or when alone, but not in the bedroom, etc. In this manner, some variability is removed without compromising external validity. Further, it is possible to imagine that participants in HUT be recruited, not only on the basis of product liking and frequency of consumption, but also on criteria related to consumption situations and product use. For example, people who predominantly use plain yoghurt in cooking may be excluded if R&D interests are more focused on breakfast or snacking occasions.

Appendix A. Supplementary material Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109059. References Boutrolle, I., Delarue, J., Arranz, D., Rogeaux, M., & Köster, E. P. (2007). Central location test vs. home use test: Contrasting results depending on product type. Food Quality and Preference, 18(3), 490–499. Cardello, A. V., & Meiselman, H. L. (2018). Contextual influences on consumer responses to food products. In G. Ares, & P. Varela (Vol. Eds.), Methods in consumer research: Vol. 2, (pp. 3–54). UK: Woodhead Publishing. de Andrade, J. C., Nalério, É. S., Giongo, C., de Barcellos, M. D., Ares, G., & Deliza, R. (2016). Influence of evoked contexts on rating-based conjoint analysis: Case study with lamb meat. Food Quality and Preference, 53, 168–175. 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. Gamble, J., Jaeger, S. R., & Harker, F. R. (2006). Preferences in pear appearance and response to novelty among Australian and New Zealand consumers. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 41(1), 38–47. Giacalone, D. (2019). Situational appropriateness in food-oriented consumer research: Concept, method, and applications. In H. Meiselman (Ed.). Context: The effects of environment on product design and evaluation (pp. 111–140). Amsterdam: Elsevier Chapter 6. Giménez, A., Gagliardi, A., & Ares, G. (2015). Influence of evoked contexts on consumers' rejection of two products: Implications for shelf life estimation. Food Research International, 76, 527–531. 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. 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(1), 35–44. Hersleth, M. (2018). Evoked Contexts. In G. Ares, & P. Varela (Vol. Eds.), Methods in consumer research: Vol. 2, (pp. 55–67). UK: Woodhead Publishing. Hubbard, R., & Armstrong, J. S. (1994). Replications and extensions in marketing: Rarely published but quite contrary. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 11, 233–248. Jaeger, S. R., Antúnez, L., Ares, G., Swaney-Stueve, M., Jin, D., & Harker, F. R. (2018). Quality perceptions regarding external appearance of apples: Insights from experts and consumers in four countries. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 146, 99–107. Jaeger, S. R., Fiszman, S., Reis, F., Chheang, S. L., Kam, K., Pineau, B., ... Ares, G. (2017). Influence of evoked contexts on hedonic product discrimination and sensory characterizations using CATA questions. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 138–148. 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. Jaeger, S. R., & Porcherot, C. (2017). Consumption context in consumer research: Methodological perspectives. Current Opinion in Food Science, 15, 30–37. Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Lusk, K. A., Hamid, N., Delahunty, C. M., & Jaeger, S. R. (2015). Effects of an evoked refreshing consumption context on hedonic responses to apple juice measured using best-worst scaling and the 9-pt hedonic category scale. Food Quality and Preference, 43, 21–25. Meiselman, H. L. (2016). Emotion measurement. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing. Meiselman, H. L. (2013). The future in sensory/consumer research: Evolving to a better science. Food Quality and Preference, 27(2), 208–214. Nijman, M., James, S., Dehrmann, F., Smart, K., Ford, R., & Hort, J. (2019). The effect of consumption context on consumer hedonics, emotional response and beer choice. Food Quality and Preference, 74, 59–71. 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. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S. R. (2014). The impact of the means of context evocation on consumers’ emotion associations towards eating occasions. Food Quality and Preference, 37, 61–70. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S. R. (2015). The effect of product–context appropriateness on emotion associations in evoked eating occasions. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 49–60. Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S. R. (2019). Evoked consumption context matters in food-related consumer affective research. In H. L. Meiselman (Ed.). Context. The effects of environment on product design and evaluation (pp. 545–563). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing. Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and meta analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Schutz, H. G. (1994). Appropriateness as a measure of the cognitive-contextual aspects of food acceptance. In H. J. H. MacFie, & D. M. H. Thomson (Eds.). Measurement of food preferences (pp. 25–50). London, UK: Blackie Academic.

4. Conclusions In this paper, we replicated and extended past research with regard to the use of context evocation in CLT settings as a means to modify hedonic scores. Extensive evidence now exists to indicate that effects can be observed but are unlikely to be, and if so with small and unsystematic consequences. It remains to be understood “when” and “why” effects occur, and our suggestions for future research point to multiple influences. While the results do not support the use of evoked contexts for increasing sample discrimination, there seems to be no reason to abandon their use either, especially considering that they help to give products a more complete meaning. For researchers who wish to continue with their use, the present research contributes “guidelines” on aspects of implementation such as what type of contexts to evoke and sample set composition. The present research also suggests that descriptions of typical consumption situations should be more routinely obtained to provide insights for product developers, and possibly also to guide home-use tests, which, as part of the desire for increased testing in natural settings may continue to gain popularity in the years ahead and diminish reliance on CLTs. Funding Financial support was received from two sources: (1) The New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation & Employment, and (2) The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd. CRediT authorship contribution statement Sara R. Jaeger: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Marianne Swaney-Stueve: Investigation, Writing - review & editing. Christina M. Roigard: Methodology, Investigation. David Jin: Investigation. Marie Le Blond: Investigation. Gastón Ares: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no conflicts of interest. Acknowledgements Staff at the Sensory & Consumer Science Team at Plant and Food Research are thanked for help in data collection.

8